Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former White House Adviser to President Carter Stuart Eizenstat; Interview with "Sing Sing" Actor Colman Domingo; Interview with "Sing Sing" Director Greg Kwedar; Interview with Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Bruce Hoffman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 07, 2025 - 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)
JIMMY CARTER, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We attest once again to the inner and spiritual strength of our nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Remembering Jimmy Carter. As funeral services begin in Washington, former adviser Stuart Eizenstat tells me what he thinks
everyone has got wrong about the 39th president.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am Gladiator Goliat (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am Gostortokos (ph).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "Sing Sing." Director Greg Kwedar and star Colman Domingo join me on their highly acclaimed film, the inspiring true story of
bringing the arts to prison.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRUCE HOFFMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: For ISIS, they are trying to figure out a way that they can elbow themselves back into the
limelight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- counterterrorism expert Bruce Hoffman speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about how to stay one step ahead of extremists.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, this week, the world bids farewell to President Jimmy Carter, who died on December 29th at the age of 100. Today, his casket is flown from
his home State of Georgia to Washington, D.C., where he will lie in state until Thursday's National Funeral Service.
As a one term president beset by crises, including high inflation and the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter's legacy for a long time seemed mixed at
best. But throughout his long post-presidency, he devoted himself to peacemaking, eradicating diseases and public service in a way that
gradually framed his earlier accomplishments.
Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat knew Carter well having served as his chief domestic policy adviser and argues he was our most accomplished one term
president. Stuart Eizenstat, welcome to the program. Appreciate you joining us today.
STUART EIZENSTAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER TO PRESIDENT CARTER: Thank you very much for having me.
GOLODRYGA: Stuart, you know, I was looking back at President Carter's inauguration speech from January 20, 1977, where we should note, a giant
peanut shaped balloon hovered over. And I want to quote something that he said in his speech, "There can be no nobler or ambitious task for America
to undertake on this day of a new beginning than to help shape a just and peaceful world that is truly humane. Our commitment to human rights must be
absolute, our laws fair, our natural -- our nature, beauty and preserved."
These weren't just aspirational words, Stuart, these were convictions that he, the man, the president held and pursued both in his presidency and in
the many years after.
EIZENSTAT: Yes, thank you. So, he had obviously a fantastic, absolutely unequaled post-presidency, but it's now time to redeem his presidency.
That's what I try to do in my book, "President Carter: The White House Years," and what other authors have done.
And the reason I say that is that he really had, I think, the most impactful one term presidency in modern American history. And I say that
for several reasons. First, if you take what he did abroad, he embedded -- as he suggested in his inaugural address, he embedded human rights into
American foreign policy. He was the first president to do that. And all succeeding presidents are measured by that standard. We still have human
rights reports that are issued every year in every Republican or Democratic administration from the State Department, looking at how countries have
done on human rights issues.
[13:05:00]
And this had practical application in two ways. The first was in Latin America. He said and meant that human rights was going to be a new
dimension in our relationship with the military dictators in Latin America. He actually reduced, and in some cases, cut off arms to Uruguay, to Brazil,
to Argentina, to Chile, because of their human rights records. And that released thousands of political prisoners and got all of Latin America,
including those countries, on the road to democracies, which they became in the 1980s.
Second, he applied it to the Soviet Union as well. What we would call, in Graham Allison's words, soft power. He championed the rights of Soviet Jews
to emigrate, doubled the amount of Jewish -- Soviet Jewish immigration. And, in addition, he championed democracy in Eastern Europe, in the -- what
was then, Communist East Bloc.
He went to Poland. We had a pope who was Polish. And the combination of the two created a whole different atmosphere. That was on the soft side with
human rights. What was unique about Jimmy Carter's foreign policy is that he combined in ways that are simply not understood that soft power of human
rights with the hard power of reversing the post-Vietnam decline in defense spending. Defense spending went up at a rate of 3 percent annually a year,
and 5 percent after Afghanistan.
Every single weapon system that President Reagan implemented, and for which he's given credit for ending the Cold War, and he deserves credit for
implementing them, for sure. Every single one, the MX mobile missile, the cruise missile, the stealth bomber, intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe,
every single one of those was begun by Jimmy Carter. And even his critics felt that he took a very tough stand against the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan.
So, in all of these ways, and plus, China normalization, the Panama Canal Treaty, all of these -- and Camp David we haven't even talked about, were
remarkable successes for his presidency.
GOLODRYGA: He also inherited and presided over a number of crises. Some were his own fault, one would argue others he inherited. And in general,
the malaise in the country overall still coming off the heels of the Vietnam War.
We had a big supply of oil concern here in the United States as well. And there was real pushback into how he initially dealt with some of the
domestic issues, particularly the oil issue and asking the American public to do their part to consume less, to take no unnecessary trips, to use
carpools, public transportation, obey the speed limit. And then, the one that's become most infamous, setting thermostats to save fuel. These were
very unpopular with American voters, and it ended up costing him in terms of his poll numbers in a way that he wasn't always able to redeem himself
from. How would you rate how he handled the energy crisis here in the U.S.?
EIZENSTAT: Well, the irony is that despite the long lines for gasoline that occurs after the Iranian Revolution, he laid the foundation for the
energy security we have today. When he came into office, we were importing 50 percent of our oil largely from OPEC. We'd already gone through one
embargo in 1973 under President Ray Nixon.
What he did with three energy bills over four years is make us what we are today, and that is energy secure. How? First, he deregulated the price of
oil and natural gas, took the caps off the price, and that increased production so much that we're now the number one producer of crude oil and
natural gas in the world.
Second, on conservation, and you mentioned some of the steps he took, but there were also other positive steps like tax incentives for insulation.
And third, he really inaugurated the whole new era of renewable clean energy, at the same time as we were increasing oil and gas production. And
he did that by tax credits for wind and for solar. And symbolically, and I was there when he did it, he put a solar panel on the White House roof to
show that this was the energy of the future.
So, as so much else in the Carter presidency, we remember the gas lines, we remember high prices because of the Iran revolution, he planted the seeds
that flowered and benefited the country later and future presidents later.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Few people knew and worked as closely with Jimmy Carter than you. You worked on him with his gubernatorial campaign in 1970. You had
more than a 50-year relationship with the man. So, you knew him as he sat as governor, as president of the United States, and his post-presidency as
well.
Can you share with us who he was to you as a friend, as a boss, and some personal anecdotes for our viewers?
EIZENSTAT: Yes, very much. He was a strict disciplinarian. He worked very, very hard. Came in early, left late. Expected us to do the same thing. He
would oftentimes actually circle misspellings, split infinitives, and bad grammar in our memos, because he wanted us to live up to the level of
excellence he expected.
But he also had a very warm heart. Let me give you a couple of examples. He's the first president, and I think still to today, the only president,
recognizing that working in the White House is a 24/7 job, keeps you away from your families. He allowed us to take our families to Camp David on
weekends.
We remember going into his cabin with he and Rosalynn to see movies and have popcorn with my young kids. He asked me, at that time, 10-year-old
son, Jay, took jog with him. We played tennis together, and even there it showed his determination. We played doubles. He was with his military aide,
and my team, we won the first set, he said, let's play two out of three. We won the second set, he said, let's play three out of five. The third set,
and it was only because of darkness that we stopped. So, in that way he showed his determination.
But these personal anecdotes meant so much to us. It kept our family together and allowing us to come into his cabin, allowing my son to jog
with him was really very special. And then coming back full circle for his 75th wedding anniversary in Plains, only really a little over two years
ago, was so remarkably moving.
And I'll be frank with you. He was in a wheelchair at that time. And I came up to see him and he said, Stu, I love you. I wouldn't be where I was
without you, and I said, Mr. President, for sure, I wouldn't be where I was without you, and I love you. And we really embraced and I kissed him on the
cheek. So, we had that kind of relationship going back 55 years to 1969, 1970. And it's something that enriched our lives.
Another interesting anecdote is coming back to hear him preach at the Maranatha Baptist Church. My wife had died, and I took my partner at that
time, Marion Ein Lewin, who's still my partner, and we heard him preach at the Maranatha Baptist Church.
Now, there were a number of interesting things about that. Number one, the big cross -- and I'm Jewish, but the big cross in the church was made by
him. He was an expert woodworker. Indeed, he was really a renaissance man, a painter, a poet, an author, an engineer, a farmer. But that church is
very much his church.
And what he did is that people came up starting at 3:00 in the morning from all over the world, there were people from Hong Kong, from California and
our country, to hear him preach and give a sermon at the Maranatha Baptist Church. And Marion and I were there that particular time.
And I'll never forget, he gave a, sermon on the Book of Ruth, that people will be my people. And he used it as a homily to talk about the need to
treat other people the way you would want to be treated, that we shouldn't look at them as the other, we were all part of humanity. And then he said,
please come back to the house and I'd like to have you back at the house with Marion, get in a motorcade. Well, the only disappointing part for
Marion at the motorcade is it -- Plains, Georgia, there are no traffic lights. There's no need for a beeping horns and joysticks to stop.
But the house he was in, it was the same house in 1961 that they first moved into. And that when he was running for governor and running for
president, we used to come back to. It hadn't changed at all. And Rosalynn apologized for not making lunch because she said, I'm sorry, but Jimmy and
I were out late last night and I didn't have time to shop. Now, imagine a first lady going shopping herself.
[13:15:00]
He decided to come back to Plains, he took no speaking fees, he served on no corporate boards.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. He flew commercial planes. I love hearing these personal stories and the fascinating unique relationship. Between Rosalynn and her
husband, Jimmy Carter, over the years. Quickly, before we go, you know, you spent a lot of time talking about both his accomplishments and some
failures in terms of foreign policy the Iran hostage crisis being the latter and obviously the Camp David Accords being the former.
I'm wondering if you ever thought the Panama Canal and his role in the 1977 treaty handing it over to Panama would resurface so many years later to
present day where you have a president-elect who just a few moments ago said that deal, in his view, was one of the reasons why Jimmy Carter was a
one term president.
EIZENSTAT: Well, the reason he was a one term president was because of inflation and the hostage crisis, not because of the Panama Canal. But, why
did he do the Panama Canal? For two reasons. One, typical Jimmy Carter took on controversial issues even with a political price. And Rosalynn, who is a
terrific politician as well, said to him, Jimmy, why don't you wait to do Panama in a second term? It's so electric, it's so controversial. And he
said, what is if there's no second term?
The second reason he did it was because there was significant conflict. The military, the defense department, wanted him to do it because we were
really at risk of having a real battle over Panama. They had grown restless at having the canal taken away from them, as they felt. And so, it was a
way of avoiding conflict but also sending a signal of a new era in Latin American-American relations. That together with human rights and promotion
of democracy really transformed our whole relationship with Latin America.
So, Panama was a part of it. And every president since has been very satisfied with the Panama Canal Treaty. We have the right in the second
Panama Canal Treaty, if anything interferes with our shipping, to use military force. So, we're already protected.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, well it's been in place for dozens of years as well.
EIZENSTAT: And let me give you one anecdote --
GOLODRYGA: I'm so sorry, Stuart, I hate to cut you off, we are just pressed for time.
EIZENSTAT: OK.
GOLODRYGA: But I really appreciate you joining us today and reflecting on your dear friend. Thank you so much.
Well, we turn next to the powerful prison drama that's bagging nominations left and right this awards season. "Sing Sing" follows the trials and
tribulations of a theater program within New York's maximum-security prison for men.
Based on a true story, it's led in an acclaimed turn by Colman Domingo. The film is getting major buzz as we charge through awards season. Oscar
nominated actor Colman Domingo and director Greg Kwedar joined me earlier to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Colman, Greg, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us about this beautiful, powerful film "Sing
Sing." Congratulations to you both.
Let's start with you, Colman, and talk about the fact that, A, this film came to you between two projects that you were working on. You were really
pressured in the moment to commit to this project. I'm sure you are grateful that you finally did. You had 18 days to film it.
COLMAN DOMINGO, Actor, "Sing Sing": Yes.
GOLODRYGA: And if you could just tell us the impact this film has had on you, and if you were to describe it to somebody in two sentences, what is
this film about? Because it's not your typical prison film.
DOMINGO: You know, it really isn't. It is actually just a film about these human beings who are incarcerated and finding ways and paths forward by
using art. Art has been this great, great gift to them as they've been able to process their feelings and work on past traumas and make new paths
forward in their lives.
So, this film, when it came to me -- I love the fact that you said pressured, because I did feel a pressure but it wasn't a pressure as if it
was a bad thing. It was a pressure as if like it was prescient, that it had to happen right now. And I didn't know if I had the time actually but when
my co-star Clarence Maclin saw me on a Zoom and he said, come on, man, we can do it. I thought, yes, I want that belief, that possibility that it can
be done as these teachers and people went in to give them these tools, these theater tools, they came in with this, the same sort of spirit. So, I
felt like I need to leave with that spirit.
[13:20:00]
So, I think this film, I can -- if I can say it in like two sentences is really about the possibility of what happens when you pour art and give
people another pathway forward to do some real work on healing. It's a film that is made with a lot of love and grace and hope. That's the way I would
say it.
GOLODRYGA: You portray Divine G.
DOMINGO: I portray John Divine G. Whitfield, who is based on a very real- life human being, of a man who was wrongfully accused of a crime and spent over 25 years in prison. And, basically, he was a founding member of the
Rehabilitation Through the Arts Program at Sing Sing Prison. And, also, he was what he calls himself a jailhouse lawyer. He was someone who advocated
for others while he was on the inside, whether it was about good food or whether it's about make sure they were -- he was advocating for them as
they were coming up for their parole board hearings.
But he's someone who's sort of hung on to his humanity and art, and I don't know, into a spirit. He's a really genuine human being that I really --
I've really been having the honor and privilege of my career to portray.
GOLODRYGA: And his humanity shines throughout this film until ultimately you see a bit of vulnerability as well towards the end and we'll get to
that moment in a few minutes.
But, Greg, this is -- kudos to you, by the way, for putting that incredible pressure on Colman for agreeing to take this film on. It's a pressing story
indeed. And it's a project that you'd been working on for many years. You've been working on a documentary about maximum security prisons, and
you came along this program, RTA, Rehabilitation Through the Arts, and there had been an article written about it, an Esquire magazine. Talk to us
about what this program is and why you thought that this could be a great inspiration for this film.
GREG KWEDAR, DIRECTOR, "SING SING": Well, Rehabilitation Through the Arts was founded in 1996 at Sing Sing Prison, as Colman mentioned, you know, one
of our most infamous prisons in America. I mean, the term, the big house came from Sing Sing going up the river to prison as is going up the Hudson
to Sing Sing.
And so, in a place that's so synonymous with prison, the fact that a theater program could exist inside of it, inside of those walls, inside of
that razor wire, it felt like almost sort of an act of rebellion, you know, in a way.
And I just remember, you know, we've been working on this now for over eight and a half years. And when I first came across the story, it was in
the middle of the night in Kansas, I was working on this short documentary inside of a prison, as you mentioned, which was also my first time ever
inside of a prison, was that day. And I was just desperate to find out, was there anyone else out there doing things differently inside prisons?
And I typed that into Google. And at the top of the search field was this program in New York. And that night I also discovered this Esquire magazine
article, which was about a 2005 production at Sing Sing of a time traveling musical comedy called "Breakin' the. Mummy's Code," which was written by a
volunteer there, Brent Buell. And in, you know, cooperation with many of the men inside.
And there was just this joy in the process of the piece. I mean, the play is wild, you know -- and you know, and we embellish nothing in the movie.
And yet, that playfulness, that joy in the process juxtaposed against the environment it was set within, it was like this beacon that was like
calling my name. I was just so drawn. I wanted to feel that joy in my own life.
And so, I reached out to the real-life Brent Buell, and we had this wonderful conversation. At the end of the conversation, he was just like,
if you want to understand this story you need to come to New York. You need to meet some of the men who really lived it.
And so, he set up a breakfast at his apartment in New York and my creative partner, Clint Bentley and I came and sat around that table and the real
Divine G. Whitfield, who Colman portrays, was there that morning. The real Clarence Divine Eye Maclin, who plays a version of himself in the film, was
there that morning.
And there was a special warmth and life and love. Everything that Colman's describing is in the net of the experience, we felt that first breakfast
and we were like, we could just translate that into a film. We have something really special here. And we're like, OK, like we'll make it later
this year. And, you know, eight and a half years later here we are now.
GOLODRYGA: And what's so fascinating about this Rehabilitation Through the Arts Program is just the statistics and how incredibly you see the
recidivism rate drop from those who participate. It's just 3 percent to 60 percent at nationwide.
And I was really struck, Greg, by an interview you gave when you were putting this idea into the format of a film. There was one name that came
to your mind, and that was Colman's. Why?
[13:25:00]
KWEDAR: You know, it was kind of intuition. You know, we had been working on the script for over six years at that point and tried a lot of roads up
the mountain and, you know, hadn't really clicked on that special needle hole, the way to really tell the story.
And I had this light bulb moment where I was sitting with my notebook and I had this vision of the tell the story through a friendship, this real-life
friendship between Divine G and Divine Eye who these men that we knew.
And in that moment, the story just kind of fell out in about 10 minutes in my notebook. And at the very bottom of the page, I just wrote Colman
Domingo is Divine G. And it's something that I can't quite explain. I think it's obvious, you know, that he's one of our greatest actors, but there's
something about him where -- I don't know the best way to describe it, I think it's just light. There's a light that sort of always emanates him no
matter what role he plays and he can play the phone book, you know, in terms of characters.
But there's always this unquenchable light source in him that just draws you to him, and that's spirit. And what a gift to have been able to
actually travel down the road and to actually work with him.
GOLODRYGA: That spirit, that voice, Colman. Man, oh, man. We talk about how this is not your run of the mill prison film for many reasons. There's
no riots, there's no fighting, there's no weapons, but also the casting here of formerly incarcerated members of this program is unique on its own.
We talk about Clarence Maclin and the relationship between your characters. This is a life he's lived as well. And I want to play for our viewers an
exchange between the two of you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLARENCE MACLIN, ACTOR, "SING SING": Some of the things the brother was saying in the book really resonated with me, man. I mean, the brother said
-- what the brother said? He said, when we are born, we cry because we're born to a stage of fools. And I said, yo, whoever wrote this, man, had to
do the bed before. You know?
DOMINGO: So, King Lear just fell off of a library cart and you just happened to pick it up and read a few pages?
MACLIN: Yes. It's -- funny, right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And that's Clarence Maclin playing Divine Eye. He's not a professional actor, as we noted. He is an alum of this program. Talk to us
about what happened between these two characters in this exchange.
DOMINGO: Well, the beautiful thing, and I love that moment so well, because I think as I've gotten to know them, just as individuals, they were
two people who probably didn't circle each other when they were on the inside. And then -- but there was this program and this need for another
performer and to -- and, you know, apparently, he had been on lists or people thought, oh, he has a quality about him, something that's probably
untapped, the fact that he's a reader, he's someone who's very interested in history, he's all the things that have the making of someone who would
be a theater practitioner, he just wasn't given the opportunity. And so, my character gives him this opportunity.
And, you know, it's an instinct and says, oh, I think there's something that he's using in the world or how he's been navigating all systems,
whether good or bad that is theatrical. And so, he invites him into it. And then you see, like, the way our film does, these two people who had no idea
that they needed each other, or they would learn from each other, form this bond and this brotherhood and this friendship of need on the inside.
And at the center of it, it becomes two guys who would never even imagine that they would ever be tender with one another and have a brotherhood and
a friendship and be responsible to each other's feelings and to craft work together. That's a beautiful journey that our film takes and that's
something that was taken from their true friendship. You know, which I think is really impactful and really shows a different way, a different
view into these human beings behind the walls, to show that, hey, there are people who actually are depending on each other to do this sort of work,
this soul work, to do some real rehabilitation and healing.
GOLODRYGA: And the interactions between these two characters that we see again in under a hundred minutes, you see complete opposite men really come
together and form a beautiful relationship and bond and just wait until the very end of the film. I don't want to give too much away, but it is quite a
touching moment.
Greg, what also is unique about this film is the financial model here and the pay structure. Everyone gets paid the same rate and everyone gets a cut
of the profits. Explain to us why this was an important model for you to take. And in your view, is it scalable in the industry?
[13:30:00]
KWEDAR: Well, you know, it wasn't something we ever thought we would be talking about a financial structure on an independent film on an outlet
such as this. You know, we just did it because it felt like it was what was necessary and the right thing to do.
I mean, independent film, there's a lot of scorched Earth. There's a lack of transparency. There's not much trust, and we felt like a model that
would essentially put us all on the same playing field that we would all work for the same rate from our star here, Colman Domingo, who made a great
sacrifice in order to enable this model to happen through us all the way through production, our production assistants, all the way through post,
our composers, editors, sound designers, we all worked for that same rate.
And what it says is that, you know, that we all have the same intrinsic value. The only variable of someone earning more or less is time. And what
starts to happen is you migrate someone from an employee mindset to a partner mindset. And within that it's -- it sort of generates a culture
where the best ideas can win and come forward because you act differently when something belongs to you, you know, when you truly own something, you
take better care of it.
And I think, yes, it enabled this movie to happen, you know, and was able - - we were able to make this for a cost, you know, far less than a lot of independent films so that we could tell a story such as this, that our
industry would not normally finance.
But within it, it also raised the quality of the work and made it a film that I think, you know, the results, you know, I think are showing, but
it's because we cared and took care of the process.
GOLODRYGA: Before we end, Colman, I do want to ask you because I talk about how your character really is holding everyone else up. You have just
this perennial sense of optimism, until also you reach a breaking point as well, and it's a really powerful moment in this film where your characters
at a clemency hearing.
And one would think that promoting all that you've done through this program would elevate you to finally getting parole and finally being
freed, but it, in fact, raises other questions among those who are interviewing you. Let's play that clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOMINGO: It's been a program that was established to help the population with management skills. And it's turned into something a bit more, I don't
know, wonderful because it helps people get more in touch with their feelings and able to process and actually move through and fully get some
rehabilitation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, are you acting at all during this interview?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It's such a crushing moment, and you can see it all in your face and in your reaction, Colman. And if you can connect that to something
very powerful that I heard you say, and that is that you were put on Earth to tell complex stories about black and brown men. Can you walk us through
that moment in the film?
DOMINGO: Wow. Yes, I can. I think -- I know that we live in a very cynical world. And where even the most sincere is questioned. Even when I met my
filmmakers, I thought, are people really that sincere? Here I am, I've gone through -- been in this industry for over 34 years. And to meet someone who
says, no, we want to make sure that everyone's well taken care of, and they follow up on that, is unique.
So, I know that even in the moment I thought, here's someone who's absolutely a product of this program and doing good work and holding on to
their humanity in such a dangerous space. And he's trying to be as sincere as possible. And yet, the systems and the containers they were in as black
and brown men, there's always a little -- there's a bit of a sheen or avail something already impressed upon us.
I know this just by walking through the world every single day of my life. I do. That people perceive me in whatever way, whatever vacuum, idea that
they have about me. And everything can fall away, whether it's where I am in my status or wealth, you name it, I'm just perceived a certain way. So,
I didn't have to go so far away from tapping into that feeling of being sincere with who I am in the world and trying to be as clear and honest.
[13:35:00]
But also, what Sharon Washington portrays, and she's one of my dearest friends, she portrays the systems in the world who are going to continue to
deconstruct it in different ways and challenge it. Are you really who you say you are and not just what I think of you?
So, for me, that is a very honest and touching, and I knew that I wanted to craft that in that moment where here's someone who's being absolutely
sincere and absolutely an open heart and met with this very cynical world, and that is the plight of many people that I know. And I do understand
that, deeply. And I'm advocating for that with most things that I do.
And my -- why I tell complex portraits of black and brown men, I think that's what I can do as an artist. I don't think I'm an activist per se,
but I know in my work and the way I show complexities with who we are. I don't -- I can play heroes, I can play villains. But I want to show them as
being human and having all sorts of feelings. That's very important to me.
GOLODRYGA: Well, you accomplished just that. It's a very poignant moment. I know that you said for this film in particular, you want it to be folded
into the ensemble and not to stand out, but as in all your work, you do stand out and what you allowed to happen is for that entire ensemble to
stand out with you. So, thank you so much for your work, for this film, both Greg and Colman. I hope our audience goes to see it because it is
extremely important and beautiful. Thank you.
DOMINGO: Thank you.
KWEDAR: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, up next, are we seeing a resurrection of ISIS? That's what our next guest believes after 2024 saw a boost in activities by the
terrorist group. And now, the FBI has confirmed that the suspect in the New Year's Day attack in New Orleans was inspired by ISIS.
Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the Council on Foreign Relations, Bruce Hoffman, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the
growing terror threat and what could be driving people towards extremist ideas.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Bruce Hoffman, thanks so much for joining us.
You know, when we look at the background of this former soldier who launched this attack in New Orleans. We see that he was given a medal for
serving in the global war on terrorism. And here we are just a couple of days ago, the FBI is calling him a terrorist. How does this happen? How
does this almost 180-degree switch happen?
BRUCE HOFFMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: What we know from Jabbar's background is he was experiencing, I think what might be
charitably called immense frustrations in his life. He had two failed marriages. He was estranged from his children. He appears to have entered
into and out of various financial ventures and difficulties. He was a convert to a different religion.
It may have been that he found an answer to his life and achieving more in his death than he could have had he lived. And that may be the simplest
explanation of what drove him to this particular heinous act of violence.
SREENIVASAN: How did the people around him miss this conversion or just this kind of change in attitude? I mean, now we're discovering that there
were social media posts before this happened.
HOFFMAN: Yes. I don't know how widely circulated or how widely known the social media posts were. Clearly members of his family had noticed changes,
that he had grown his beard long, for example, and seemed to become more devout than he had cut his beard. He started dressing a bit differently.
But there were -- there was nothing really that would have triggered any assumption that this relation of theirs was going to embark on a terrorist
operation that obviously required considerable surveillance because we know now he made two reconnaissance trips to New Orleans and including one last
October, where he drove around Bourbon Street wearing the kinds of glasses where you can surreptitiously record footage.
So, he obviously had been thinking about this for a long time, but no one seemed to notice that there was really anything out of the ordinary that
might have suggested a violent intent.
SREENIVASAN: You know, we've seen a number of ISIS attacks decrease over the kind of longer arc, maybe from 2016, 2017. But this last year, we saw
an uptick in different parts of the world. What do you think explains that?
HOFFMAN: No terrorist group willingly goes into irrelevance for them. Their stock and trade is violence because that's how they attract attention
to themselves and their causes. Obviously, ISIS was knocked off balance by the defeat of the caliphate, the elimination of its rule over Western Iraq
and Eastern Syria, and it's taken time to regroup and reorganize.
And unfortunately, in 2024, as you note, we saw a significant uptick in international ISIS terrorist activities, which was, in essence, a harbinger
of an escalation, even in the United States, because now we've had one attack and one very serious incident and that was back in October, when an
individual in Oklahoma City was apprehended by the FBI plotting to engage in a terrorist attack on the November Election Day.
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: What -- you know, when you think of this, it seems less as a central organization that is calling people to do specific things and it's
almost like it's enabling others to have their own inspirations.
HOFFMAN: It's both. And that was what makes ISIS so difficult to understand and for the authorities so difficult to track. On the one hand,
you have highly organized, even orchestrated terrorist attacks. The one last March at the Crocus Music Concert Hall in Moscow, where 130 persons
were killed is precisely a case of point.
But then, as you note, we have an incident such as occurred in New Orleans where at least as of this moment, there's no evidence that the perpetrator
had any contact with ISIS operatives or commanders. And therefore, what we see is ISIS pursuing a parallel track of orchestrating, organizing
terrorist attacks, but also encouraging, inspiring, motivating, and animating individuals completely on their own to carry out attacks on
behalf of ISIS.
SREENIVASAN: How strong do we think ISIS is today? I mean, I wonder also how kind of geopolitical instability in the Middle East factors into this.
HOFFMAN: Terrorism doesn't occur in a vacuum, it reflects the tensions in society, the conflicts and other corners of the world, the political
polarization in any entity. And in this sense, I think ISIS has been struggling in recent years to reassert itself. And unfortunately, in 2024,
there were at least a half dozen, if not attacks, then serious plots that were derailed. And then, of course, the upheaval in Syria and the chaos in
Syria.
ISIS's goal was to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad. They failed. Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham succeeded. So, now, for ISIS, they are trying to
figure out a way that they could elbow themselves back into the limelight, that they can steal some of that thunder that Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham has
acquired from having overthrown the regime. And once again, for ISIS to demonstrate its relevance. And tragically, its violent acts of terrorism
that they believe will re-establish its preeminence as the biggest terrorist threat in the globe.
SREENIVASAN: You know, you've written before that ISIS really pioneered kind of the use of social media. Explain what did they do and what are they
still doing well.
HOFFMAN: ISIS was, I think, the preeminent pioneer in the use of social media to radicalize and recruit terrorists. I mean, the proof is in the
fact that they recruited on a global basis, 40,000 foreign fighters from at least 120 different countries that came to the caliphate.
And back about a decade ago, they did that -- this by using these kinds of social media platforms that were just becoming in vogue. They were using
what was then called Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and so on. And they use these as very effective tools to reach a worldwide audience, very
immediately in real-time at very low cost. And they also engaged in what we might call narrowcasting. Broadcasting is when you put something on a
platform and you hope someone watches it.
Narrowcasting is they sculpted their messages on social media to appeal to specific demographics in particular countries. And that's why they
succeeded in creating the first truly global terrorist organization.
SREENIVASAN: Do you think that what's been happening on social media platforms, at least in terms of their own ability to police or their own
interest in policing content that is on the platform, that's been declining, at least in the past couple of years, certainly in the case of
Twitter? But I wonder does that accelerate what's happening here?
HOFFMAN: Oh, absolutely. I think that the uneven track record of social media companies in monitoring and policing the content on their platforms,
which at times has been better, at other times worse. Terrorists clearly take advantage of the lapses, clearly try to identify windows of
opportunity when they can propagate their messages on a wider scale.
And at a time when dollars and cents are the bottom line of what is after all profitable businesses, the tech companies just aren't willing to invest
the time and the personnel required to really tackle what is a very large problem. It's not a small problem, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be
more effectively addressed than it has been.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: We have another attack that happened on New Year's Day. This was a tragedy in Las Vegas with a Cybertruck that exploded. And what do we
know whether or not that there's a connection between these two individuals, between these two attacks happening really within hours of
each other, both using electric vehicles that were rented on the same car sharing platform? I mean, it seems like a lot of things to be a
coincidence.
HOFFMAN: No, absolutely. And the coincidences go further. Both these individuals served at the same time at Fort Liberty, which was then called
Fort Bragg, both deployed to Afghanistan at the same time. But of course, the U.S. Army is a huge enterprise. So, it's not at all likely that they
may have crossed paths.
I mean, one was in a special operations unit, was a highly decorated combat veteran. That's Sergeant Livelsberger from Las Vegas. Shamsud-Din Jabbar
was in I.T. and human resources in the Army. So, they may possibly have crossed paths casually. There does not appear to be any connection.
The only connection I can perhaps divine is that the Las Vegas attack was probably brought forward. That in other words, that attack was
precipitously staged to take advantage of all the attention being showered on the incidents in New Orleans. And it was the assumption of, I believe,
Sergeant Livelsberger is that he had to move his attack forward in order to get some of that attention. And that may explain why the gasoline, the
fireworks in the Cybertruck didn't create a larger explosion.
SREENIVASAN: What are some of the factors that we should be watching out for now? I mean, considering that there are this sort of public events and
opportunities that will be happening, whether it's a Super Bowl or the inauguration.
HOFFMAN: That's exactly right. What we've seen over the years is a terrorist group like ISIS in particular, but it's not only them,
deliberately targeting celebratory events. In other words, large gatherings of people coming out to celebrate a public or a national holiday, a
concert, a sporting event. We saw this in Nice almost a decade ago in 2016, when on Bastille Day, a truck ran down the promenade in Nice. We saw this
at the Bataclan in Paris in November 2015, when terrorists attacked, firstly, a concert by a heavy metal band, but then simultaneously attacked
a sports stadium where a major soccer match was going on.
We saw an attack on the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England in 2017. The Taylor Swift concert this past summer in August had to be
canceled in Vienna. And now, we have Bourbon Street, New Orleans, you know, after Times Square, probably one of the most iconic party going sites in
the United States. Las Vegas as well, certainly a place that tourists flock to.
So, what we can infer from this is that terrorists are deliberately targeting venues with large gatherings of persons to inflict the maximum
casualties. And of course, this is going to result in a reconsideration of the security measures at all big events and appropriate measures are going
to be taken to ensure those who attend that they will feel safe and not stay at home.
SREENIVASAN: Bruce, it seems that the Intelligence Community over the past few years has placed an emphasis on domestic or homegrown terrorism, right?
And I'm wondering, do we have the capacity to protect, you know, our citizens from both the enemies abroad and from within?
HOFFMAN: I think in recent years, especially given the defeat of ISIS's caliphate in the Levant and in Iraq, the killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, for
example, who was bin Laden's successor as commander of al Qaeda, the killing of al-Baghdadi, the founder and leader of ISIS and so on, has bred
a sense of complacency that terrorism was very much in our rearview mirror.
And if we had to focus on any aspect of terrorism, it was from homegrown, whether it was violent left-wing or violent right-wing extremists in the
United States, and we kind of forgot about the threat from overseas. But what we're learning now, especially in the aftermath of the tragedy in New
Orleans, is that we have to have security and intelligence establishment that cover the waterfront of threats coming from established nation states,
peer competitors like China and Russia, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, but also, against terrorist enemies, both foreign and domestic.
SREENIVASAN: So, how do we figure out? I mean, you know, look, this is one of those difficult conversations that members of Congress try to have,
right? I mean, where should we put which kinds of dollars? Should we be more concerned about attacks from outside or attacks from inside?
[13:50:00]
HOFFMAN: I think, unfortunately, we have to be concerned about attacks from both. I mean, don't forget, until September 11, 2001, the single most
lethal terrorist attack in the United States was perpetrated by an American killing fellow Americans, and that was the bombing of the Murrah Federal
Office Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 persons.
Very similar to the New Orleans attack, Timothy McVeigh was an Army veteran as well. Was operating with one or two other confederates who were former
Army buddies, but wasn't part of any terrorist organization, wasn't following anyone's orders, but took this upon himself. And I think we have
to be vigilant for the 00 to counter the entire range of threats that we face. And also have the physical measures in place to make it much more
difficult for terrorists to attack.
And as you know, there's been tremendous discussion about the bollards issue, for example, or the wedges that would have made it far more
difficult for that vehicle to jump up on the sidewalk and mow down the pedestrians there. I mean, that was clearly a lapse that there were police
cars blocking off Bourbon Street because the bollards didn't work, but no one imagined that an assailant would jump up on the curve with a vehicle
and then mow people down.
But that's exactly what happened in Barcelona on the famed Las Ramblas promenade in 2017. So, we have to learn from previous terrorist tragedies
and make sure that the physical measures in place are both state of the art, are in fact working, and indeed are anticipating a variety of kinds of
attacks.
SREENIVASAN: What other kinds of improvements have happened where we have, I guess, better resolution on a crime? Unfortunately, not before it's
happening or during the crime, but afterwards.
HOFFMAN: Certainly, developments like the advent of artificial intelligence are assisting the Intelligence Community in sifting through
material at a far faster rate using algorithms that they might have in the past. So, certainly there are tremendous advantages, firstly in processing
and analyzing data, in obtaining the data that would have been completely unimaginable five or six years ago.
But I still think, and I worry we're behind the curve. And for me, the biggest threat looking into the future, and one that I don't believe we
have an effective answer to is what are called UAS, unmanned aerial drones, in essence, unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, which have been used on
battlefields, which is we saw on October 7, 2023 in Israel were used to facilitate the attack from Gaza.
And which we've seen drones being used for surveillance purposes in the United States now on numerous occasions, including the unexplained
deployment of drones in New Jersey just last month. And I'm not entirely sure that our defenses against attacks using that type of weapon are as
robust as they need to be.
Unfortunately, the history of responding to terrorism is closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. But this is one example where
we can get ahead of the threat that I'm sure will materialize.
SREENIVASAN: Has the military been doing enough or have there been programs that the military has engaged in, given that we've had so many
incidents of veterans going through mental anguish of all sorts? How does such an enormous force wrap its hands around the people that are struggling
who might still be active or who might be retired? What do we do?
HOFFMAN: The Biden administration actually had a very aggressive program, a task force in the Pentagon that looked at precisely this issue and worked
very closely with the Departments of Veterans Affairs.
So, this problem and this proclivity amongst the small number, small percent of veterans to take to violence for whatever reason has been
recognized and has been understood. The question is, always, how much is enough and how much more needs to be done given that we are aware of this
problem to bring these kinds of services to our veterans?
Certainly, in the book that myself and my co-author Jacob Ware wrote, "God, Guns and Sedition," we found that there was a high percentage of former
veterans who were becoming increasingly politically alienated, felt disenfranchised from the political system and increasingly saw violence as
a solution.
And part of addressing that proclivity, I think, was recognized in the creation of this task force at the Pentagon, who worked with the Department
of Veterans Affairs to address this problem.
SREENIVASAN: Bruce Hoffman, fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the Council on Foreign Relations, thanks so much for joining
us.
HOFFMAN: You're very welcome.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, we want to give the last word to New Orleans, a city devastated by that New Year's Day attack. The president and first lady
visited Monday to pay their respects.
And while the city is showing its resilience with its own signature style, kicking off its carnival season with hundreds of fearless participants
taking to the streets of the French Quarter for the annual Joan of Arc Parade. A vibrant celebration of the life of the French saint and a vital
moment of hope for a city that is in mourning.
Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
