Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Chief of British Intelligence and Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Sawers; Interview with Head of the Palestinian Mission to the U.K. Husam Zomlot; Interview with Homeland Security Department Former Deputy Assistant Secretary and Federalist Society Founder Member Paul Rosenzweig. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 22, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up. President Trump moves
quickly to reshape the U.S. government and its role in the world. Britain's former spy chief, John Sawers, joins us.
Then, as the Gaza ceasefire holds, Israel turns on the West Bank in a big way. We'll have the latest on that. Plus, the big picture. Will there be a
path to Palestinian statehood, as the Biden administration said? I speak to the Palestinian representative to the U.K., Husam Zomlot.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT AND FEDERALIST SOCIETY FOUNDER MEMBER: They are, in my
respectful opinion, or disrespectful opinion, the most shameful acts of pardon that any president has ever done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Michel Martin discusses President Trump's mass January 6th pardons with conservative lawyer and former official, Paul Rosenzweig.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
With a sweep of his pen, President Trump is issuing executive orders, changing the federal government, fulfilling campaign promises, and settling
scores. But how will all that affect the world? He proclaims, quote, "America will soon be greater, stronger, and far more exceptional than ever
before."
It's only been two days, and Trump has already withdrawn again from the Paris Climate Accord and from the World Health Organization. He's cracked
down hard on immigration, declaring a national emergency, and ordering thousands of troops to the southern border. And he's ordered all government
maps and documents to rename the Gulf of Mexico. He's threatened tariffs on Mexico, China, and now Russia.
So, where is it all leading? What is the plan? Our first guest tonight knows those security challenges and the inner workings of foreign policy.
Sir John Sawers once led Britain's spy agency, MI6, here in the U.K. and he was the U.K. ambassador to the U.N. So, welcome back to our program.
JOHN SAWERS, FORMER CHIEF OF BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Thank you, Christiane. Great to be back.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. Because I think you're the perfect person to ask right now, because you've seen all this and, you know, several times around
and been involved. So, to your mind, is there a Trump doctrine? Is there a plan?
SAWERS: I don't think there's a Trump doctrine yet. I think what we have is an approach to the rest of the world. Obviously, America First is the
starting point of that. I think he also has a sort of belief in spheres of influence. He likes and admires, to some extent, other powerful leaders.
And I think some of this stuff, which we were -- we've taken surprise by about perhaps on Greenland and Panama and so on, is about consolidating
America's sphere of influence over the Western Hemisphere. And we'll see what the approach is going to be on Europe, on the Ukraine, on the Middle
East, and on China.
It's step by step at this stage. I don't think there's an overall global plan, but there'll be a series of issues that they, he'll want to raise.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I'm going to dig down on some of them, but the Foreign Affairs latest headline says, Trump's America First is not realism. Don't
mistake bluster and cynicism for toughness and wisdom. Do you agree?
SAWERS: Well, there is some bluster in Trump's approach. The idea he was going to solve the Ukraine war in 24 hours was bluster. But I think we have
to take this seriously. The -- President Trump's been elected with a very strong mandate by the American people. He's not everybody's choice. I don't
think he'd be the choice of many Europeans as leader of the United States. But he is the man elected. And so, we will work with President Trump.
I think his -- there are some contradictions in his approach. For example, on tariffs I don't think tariffs is going to be the panacea, the cure all
that President Trump is hoping it's going to be. And he's keen to be a peacemaker, but there has to be some substance, there has to be some
effective American leadership on this. And leadership requires having followers as well, and it's not clear how he's going to achieve that.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, on that issue, before we get to Greenland some of the other -- you know, the strongest survive business. He has just tweeted
today a message to Russia and to Putin himself. And these are just a couple of the things we've pulled out.
[13:05:00]
I'm not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people and always had a very good relationship with President Putin. Then, if we don't make a deal,
and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of taxes, tariffs, and sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States and
various other participating countries.
So, they're already very heavy sanctions. They haven't really worked in the way that I think the west thought they would. And, according to experts,
Russia doesn't sell much to the U.S.
SAWERS: That's correct.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, what about this tweet?
SAWERS: Well, I think it's a statement of intent towards President Putin to take a tougher approach than perhaps some people have expected. As you
say, taxes and tariffs aren't going to make any difference to Putin because there's no U.S.-Russian trade of any substance.
Sanctions? Well, then you'd have to interrupt Russia's oil exports to countries like India and China. Now, that would take quite a heavy lifting
to do that. The Biden administration --
AMANPOUR: That basically won't happen.
SAWERS: The Biden administration avoided doing that because they didn't want to raise the global price of oil. Well, maybe there's a tradeoff here
between increased oil production in the United States and tighter sanctions on Russian oil.
But I don't think any of this is really going to be persuasive for President Putin. He launched this war in order to destroy the independence
of the Ukrainian State. The Ukrainians are resisting, fighting for their very existence. I think the answer, if President Putin is not prepared to
reach some form of fair deal or recognizing the -- what this -- no, freezing the conflict on the present border, if he's not prepared even to
do that, then the only real answer for the United States and the U.S. president is to reinforce the level of military support for Ukraine and
provide the weapons and wherewithal to enable Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion.
AMANPOUR: Which sounds like a 360 or a 180 from Trump and his acolytes because they don't want to do that. But they have sort of hinted that they
might make that threat if Putin doesn't come to the table and et cetera. So, I guess we'll have to see what happens.
But just to go back to your spheres of influence thing, that means essentially then that he's quite happy to hunker down behind this sort of,
whatever, wall of influence on the Western Hemisphere. But presumably, as some analysts have said, that would include then allowing Putin to have his
sphere of influence, which he wants and which he thinks Ukraine is part of.
SAWERS: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And potentially, China as well. So, it means that maybe Ukraine, bye-bye. Maybe Taiwan, bye-bye for the United States.
SAWERS: Well, George Orwell wrote a book, "Nineteen Eighty-Four," in which the world was dominated by three big states, Eurasia, which looks
remarkably like Russia, East Asia, which looks remarkably like China, and Oceania which is very much like, you know, the United States dominating the
Western Hemisphere.
So, I think there are some parallels there. I don't think it's exact. I think President Trump will be under pressure to stand up to China if they
pressure Taiwan, to stand up to Russia on Ukraine. So, it's not as if it's a replica of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," but I think there are --
there is a risk of moving in that direction, partly because the rules-based approach to world order, as Henry Kissinger would have called it, has been
undermined by this president, because he wants to make sure that he's not replace a rules-based approach with a power-based approach.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that brings me to -- and by the way, George Orwell, I mean, he was writing decades ago, nearly a century ago. This is all big
power politics or policy from the past. But the French foreign minister and other officials, when Trump started talking about, you know, buying
Greenland and, you know, taking the Panama Canal, essentially, it looks like the Americans have -- are going to go in for the survival of the
strongest, you know, the very Darwinian.
And I put this interaction to outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken two days before the end of the administration. Just take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What do you think then would be the consequence if President Trump pulled a Putin, so to speak, and annexed Greenland or invaded Canada
or Mexico or whatever?
ANTONY BLINKEN, THEN-U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: You know, this is not going to happen. And so, of course, not a good idea to begin with, but not much
point really spending time talking about it because it's not going to happen. We have a very strong relationship, of course, with Denmark, which
is, after all, a NATO ally. I've been to Greenland myself very early in my term. We have a military base there that's critical. We have important
economic relationships. And those can grow deeper and stronger. That would be a good thing. But not by taking the route that you just described.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I guess you agree, even though historically, you know, going back to Truman and before, they've talked about it. But again, it was a
completely different era with different challenges.
[13:10:00]
SAWERS: Look, Greenland is a strategically important landmass in the Arctic. The Danes have -- are administering it effectively, but it's a very
old arrangement and the Greenland people are not happy with it. They want to change. I'm not sure --
AMANPOUR: But they don't want to be part of America they said.
SAWERS: Well, we don't know what they want to be part of, but I'm not sure --
AMANPOUR: But they said they didn't.
SAWERS: -- a weak independent Greenland is necessarily in our collective interest. So, I think the right way forward is for the United States and
Canada, which obviously closely involved in this, and Denmark to find some form of agreement which strengthens the Greenland's anchoring in the west
and doesn't allow the Russians and the Chinese to manipulate the small and -- Greenland population and try and buy up influence in the way that the
Chinese have done very extensively in small island states in the Pacific, for example. Well, this is a big island territory, and it's strategically
important. And I don't think the status quo is actually sustainable.
So, as so often with President Trump he produces -- he puts forward a rather sort of grand aggressive and provocative approach. But there's a
seed of realism and importance in what he's saying underneath that.
AMANPOUR: How about the importance of what might happen in the Middle East? You wrote a piece for the FT in which you said, you know, the old war
horses of the Middle East are going to be challenged. And a couple of things you said, which stood out for me was, if we think that there's going
to be a Palestinian State or even movement towards one, I think you said, it'll be no closer in a year than it is today, number one.
And then, you said, the weakening of Iran after, you know, all of this has been going on, provides a certain opportunity opening or whatever. What
sort of opportunity do you think that provides? Is it one to get another negotiated arms control agreement with them? Is it one to go to war with
them, like Israel seems to want to do?
SAWERS: Look, Iran is in a much-weakened position. I mean, you have to recognize the success the Israelis have had from the disastrous position
they were in after the Hamas assault on the 7th of October 16 months ago to where they are now, where they've turned the tables, not just on Hamas, but
on Hezbollah and on Iran itself, and the Syrian regime has collapsed. So, there's been a big move in Israel's favor, and against Iran.
I think the Iranians have got a lot of thinking to do about, are they -- about how they continue through their present regime, their present system
in Iran. Their forward defense strategy through proxy militias has been swept aside.
Now, are they going to go for a more traditional defense approach of seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent? In which case, I think that will be
very provocative, and successive U.S. presidents have vowed that Iran will never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
AMANPOUR: Paradoxically, you wrote that the fact that Israel showed up, their, you know, paper tie conventional forces might lead them to decide
they need to go.
SAWERS: Well, the Iranians -- there'll be some in Iran who say, look we've said all along we want a nuclear weapon and need one, and this will may
strengthen their arm. Equally, there'll be other Iranians who will look forward 20 years and say, look, we can't just become a completely
beleaguered country. We've got to have some connectivity with the rest of the world.
And there are -- you know, there are other leaders who have been in charge of -- or come to power in stumbling autocracies. You had Mohammed bin
Salman in Saudi Arabia quite recently. Before that, you had Deng Xiaoping in China. You had Gorbachev in Russia, where they don't change the
political system, but they open up to the rest of the world.
Now, is that going to happen in Iran? I'm not sure. I would think it less likely --
AMANPOUR: Well, Iran is open to the world, but the world isn't open to it. Anyway, the sanctions and things.
SAWERS: Well, I think the -- I think President Trump has an opportunity to seek a better deal with the Iranians. Now, whether the Iranians will take
that up is their decision. And I've negotiated with the Iranians. They're difficult people to deal with. And they may well pursue both tracks at
once, pursuing nuclear weapons and a negotiated deal. Well, that's not going to be acceptable. They're going to have to make their decisions
fairly soon as to which route they want to go.
If they go down the nuclear weapons route, I think there will be a serious conflict and Netanyahu will probably get his wish to take decisive action
against -- through military means, through Iran's -- against Iran's nuclear facilities.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you then about the other fallout from September -- sorry, not September 11th, October 7th. As you know the whole new raft of
officials being nominated and confirmed. So, the new U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is a woman called Elise Stefanik, former congresswoman -- or current
congresswoman.
[13:15:00]
At her confirmation hearing, she says, you know, there's anti-Semitic rot at the U.N. And she also, when asked whether she agreed with the statement
that's been posited by some Trump officials, that Israel has, quote, "a biblical right to the West Bank," she said, yes.
Where do you -- what is your take on that, given where the International Community sees the best prospect of security for Israel?
SAWERS: Oh, the -- I think the International Community, as you'd call it, has been united, including the United States, that the long-term security
of Israel can only be underpinned by an independent Palestinian State living in peace alongside a secure Israel.
Now, increasingly, Israeli politicians and American politicians are moving away from that idea. And it's -- I don't think it's a question of anti-
Semitism. I think that's a wrong way of putting it.
AMANPOUR: That's about the U.N., she was --
SAWERS: Yes, but the -- and the U.N. is -- there are -- let's step back a little bit. There are two aspects to the United Nations. First of all,
there's a political and security U.N., which mainly operates through the Security Council, and that requires the agreement of the major powers. And
since the disputes and the great power rivalry between the United States, Russia, and China, the Security Council hasn't really functioned very
effectively for the last 15 years.
Then there's the operational side of the U.N. Now, they do really important work, whether it's the U.N. agencies, I think Elise Stefanik singled out
the World Food Programme and UNICEF, and they're two examples of well-run and well -- and successful agencies. But the United States has withdrawn
from the World Health Organization, which in my view has done actually a lot of very good work.
Yes, it's stumbled and got some things wrong early stage of the COVID pandemic, but I think in other areas it has been really helpful in dealing
with the -- and stopping the spread of viruses and diseases that could have become global pandemics.
And what happens when the United States withdraws from these agencies? Is it actually hands a gift to China? It just makes it much easier for China
to assert itself and become an influential player in these organizations. And the west has had a -- United States and Europe together have had a
leading position in most of these agencies.
The United States pinging away, it just -- it doesn't change the importance of these organizations, it just removes a lot of funding and a lot of
influence.
AMANPOUR: So, to that -- you know, to that idea of intelligence and what it does to China and all the rest of it, are you concerned -- or to the
U.S., are you concerned by all the facts surrounding the nominee for the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard? She's basically, you
know, has to answer for her pro-Russia, pro-Syria, you know, accusations.
SAWERS: Well, I've never bet Tulsi Gabbard. She does --
AMANPOUR: But what does it mean for the United States to have that? I mean, in the past, that person would never have been brought before the
Senate for confirmation.
SAWERS: You know, I think that's right, and I think senators have got a lot of responsibility to ensure that only people who are suited to top jobs
get through to them, especially those in the most sensitive areas. And we have a very close intelligence partnership with the with the United States
and with other five eyes allies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
The United States is the most powerful Intelligence Community in the world. And one of its biggest challenges is Russia. And another is the biggest
challenges is China. Well, to have someone who's a director of national intelligence, who basically takes a very pro-Russian approach, well that
strikes me as very difficult, and it makes it difficult for America's partners as well. How do you deal with an Intelligence Community where the
most senior figure in it, or the cabinet member in it is basically sympathetic to our biggest enemy?
AMANPOUR: We'll have to have you come back, hopefully, to talk about the relationship with the U.K., the special relationship. Because this
administration, certainly Elon Musk, is already casting aspersions. But we'll have that conversation.
SAWERS: That's another day.
AMANPOUR: That's another day.
SAWERS: And I wouldn't take it too seriously if I were you.
AMANPOUR: All right. Well, from your mouth, OK. Great. Sir John Sawers, thank you very much indeed.
SAWERS: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Now, as the precarious ceasefire in Gaza does hold for now, Israel is turning its sights to the occupied West Bank, where it's carrying
out a major military operation in the Jenin Refugee Camp. Israel says it's aimed at eliminating terrorists and the infrastructure. The Palestinian
Health Ministry says at least 10 people were killed on Tuesday there.
Meantime, the Israeli government expresses doubts about the current Gaza ceasefire, which could eventually lead to a permanent end to the war and a
two-state solution, as we were just discussing. Bianna Golodryga joins us from Tel Aviv with the latest.
So, Bianna on the ceasefire, which everybody is looking at, you've been talking to Israeli officials about that. What sense are you getting?
[13:20:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Christiane, I spoke exclusively with the minister of foreign affairs, Gideon Sa'ar, just
a few days ago, actually, the day that the ceasefire went into effect. He is somebody in this cabinet who actually voted for the ceasefire-hostage
deal, which had a majority approval, but he was honest and direct about the disagreements and the difficulty within the cabinet to get to this finish
line here, to cross the finish line, to get this deal through.
We've seen the resignation of the minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir. He did not support this deal, and the finance minister, Bezalel
Smotrich, has threatened that he would leave the government if phase two is implemented.
Now, the foreign affairs minister told me that he is committed to seeing that all of the hostages return. But as we know, that would only happen not
when just phase one ends, but when phase two and phase three are implemented. And I asked him how serious he was as a member of this
government and cabinet to see that through. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIDEON SA'AR, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: We are committed to the objectives, and it is not automatic to move from one phase to the other
phase. And also, the United States of America agree, it's not automatic. We will negotiate with good faith. We want the full deal to be successful, but
we will not abandon the objectives.
If we could achieve these objectives in another way, OK, war is not objective for itself, but we will meet our objectives. We will not leave
Hamas as the ruling power in Gaza Street, because it will be a strategy for Israel and the Palestinians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And, Christiane, it was those images, those well-orchestrated images by Hamas as they surrounded those three hostages that were released
on Sunday in droves to show a sign of force, a show of force to both the world and Israelis that their leadership may have been decimated and that
number, thousands of their fighters may be killed, but that was a message to send to Israel that they are still in charge of Gaza.
And as we know, both the United States and many other neighboring countries and western allies have been pressuring Israel to push for a specific day
after plan to see that somebody, an organization, perhaps the Palestinian Authority, anyone else but Hamas, would be governing in Gaza after the --
AMANPOUR: It's vital and I'm going to put that to my next guest who's the Palestinian representative here. But first, I -- just before letting you go
I want to ask you about what Haaretz reported earlier this week. And essentially, an op-ed titled basically, Trump Team Beware, Netanyahu is
Lying and Trying to Sabotage the Gaza Ceasefire Deal.
He basically said, Netanyahu has had to promise his -- you know, the extreme right, some of whom have resigned, that this ceasefire is only
temporary and that soon enough he'll order a renewal of the war. Even, according to this op-ed, sacrificing the lives of living hostages currently
in Gaza.
So, those words are coming from his own loyalists. What are you hearing about that? Is that making waves or news inside Israel?
GOLODRYGA: Well, the tables have turned here, Christiane. It's no coincidence that after 15 months of pressure from the Biden administration
to agree to a similar deal that Prime Minister Netanyahu finally did, it took President-Elect Donald Trump and his Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff's
arrival here in Israel, meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and though Gideon Sa'ar and other officials will say there was no pressuring involved,
you don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together just looking at the timing of when Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to this deal.
So, one former national security official that I spoke with said, now, the ball is in Donald Trump's court. It's just a matter of how much patience he
has with the prime minister, because he may be the one ultimately calling the shots here no matter what the prime minister is telling coalition
partners or those who are threatening to leave right now if they don't agree to go back into Gaza.
The president himself noted that he's not sure about the stability of the ceasefire, but from what I'm hearing now, at least in the early days,
people were putting a lot of weight on the power that Donald Trump has over the prime minister in ways that his predecessor may not have.
AMANPOUR: Really great to have you there. Thank you, Bianna, for joining us from Tel Aviv. Meantime, as Bianna just said, Trump is throwing fresh
doubt on the ceasefire deal that he's been claiming credit for. Now, he says, he's not confident that it'll hold.
All of this adds up to increasing uncertainty for Palestinians as well, pending another exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners this
weekend. My next guest is Husam Zomlot. He's the head of the Palestinian mission here in the U.K., and he held that position in the United States
until President Trump closed the mission during his first term.
[13:25:00]
So, welcome back to the program. I guess a couple of things. President Trump Has claimed credit for this ceasefire and even some Hamas political
officials in various forums have said that, yes, I mean, he concentrated people's minds. Now, he's saying that he's not so sure. His envoy, Steve
Witkoff, apparently plans to go to Gaza to make sure things are holding. What do you think?
HUSAM ZOMLOT, HEAD OF THE PALESTINIAN MISSION TO THE U.K.: I think it did show the last few days that when the U.S. has the leadership and the will
to change things it happened. It's as simple as that. And therefore, we want to continue seeing that leadership and that, well, because what we
have stopped was carnage, catastrophic in every sense, and we shall not see that again happening. So --
AMANPOUR: -- You're confident about that?
ZOMLOT: Yes, we need to help him and our international partners to make sure the last 15 months will never happen again, to make sure that we
attend to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis situation, catastrophe in Gaza. And you know, I sat on this chair on the 7th of October, Christiane,
on the 7th of October, and I came here to your show to warn the world that Israel will wage a war against the Palestinian people, and look at the
results.
Look at the last 15 months and how do we learn the lessons. I mean, I was reading a U.N. report today that Israel has literally left Gaza with 50
million tons of rubbles, more than a quarter of a million of housing units gone. 1.8 million people are homeless. And I'm not even mentioning that all
the numbers you hava heard about those who are murdered, mostly women and children, have been underreporting -- undercounting.
And therefore, moving straight from this point is where we learned the lesson and we, the Palestinian people, are done explaining our situation.
We're done explaining our situation. We need to move forward and we need to use the momentum now and turn this tragedy into an opportunity.
AMANPOUR: So, a few -- you know, even now, certainly amongst certain aspects of the Israeli coalition, they're casting doubts on the ability to
move forward as we just discussed. Including saying, because as you know, Saudi Arabia has said that without progress or pledge on a Palestinian
State, it won't normalize with Israel. And they're saying, well, we haven't promised that to the Saudis. It's not even in the offing, necessarily now.
ZOMLOT: And that's the heart of the matter, Christiane. The heart of the matter, all this that is happening is because Israel has no vision, has no
plan, has no horizon for the future. The only horizon they have is what they're doing in the West Bank as we speak right now, and I'm sure you're
following all the invasions and the murders --
AMANPOUR: Well, I was going to ask you about it.
ZOMLOT: -- because that's what this fanatical government is after. It's an ideological war, it's not a security war. And by the way, speaking of
security and ideology, the war on Gaza has nothing to do with security. It was an ideological war to protect their own occupation. And now, we need to
learn. We need to learn the lessons of the last few months.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just ask you, because, as you've heard, the Israeli officials have said they're going into -- around Jenin and other places, to
do what they did in Gaza. In other words, remove terrorism and its infrastructure. And there is a fact, and I think the P.A. has said it and,
you know, has said, Hamas is sending operatives to the West Bank with weapons and where it's losing in Gaza, it's reinforcing in the West Bank.
Is that a problem for the government there that you represent, the Palestinian Authority?
ZOMLOT: Of course, it's a problem. And Israel is set on one thing, to undermine the Palestinian government and to undermine with it any
possibility of a two-state solution. You have been following that the settlement expansion is mushrooming. You are seeing the settler terrorism,
only two nights ago, burning many villages around Ramallah. You are seeing the erection of new checkpoints all over the West Bank. Now, you have
almost 900 checkpoints and roadblocks all over the West Bank. This is unprecedented. They are suffocating any possibility.
AMANPOUR: And who do you think is going to be able to affect that? Because you just said when the U.S. wants to, it can. Obviously, Trump has, you
know, a big megaphone, a big, you know, voice and influence. Do you think that he has told the Israeli government that, you know, they need to, you
know, get serious, like the Biden administration did on the West Bank? I mean, he's removed sanctions on even the violent settlers that the Biden
administration had.
ZOMLOT: And I hope somebody told him that on the very same night that he was removing the sanctions, the settlers set fire on people's homes and
cars and properties and that these sanctions need to come back and be expanded.
[13:30:00]
But I've heard him also -- and you know, we have experience -- I met President Trump in the first time many times. I was the ambassador there.
And I tell you, as a person, he does always argue that he wants to be the peacemaker, the unifier, the one who really brought finally peace to the
Middle East, and we want the same.
But now, I think, after all that experience, we have a fresh start and a fresh beginning to take a new look into this situation. It needs heavy
lifting. It needs heavy lifting. And the heavy lifting, it has got to do with Netanyahu and this coalition in Israel. We need to build leverage.
AMANPOUR: And to an extent with Hamas obviously. Hamas put on a show of force during the exchange. It's freaked everybody out in Israel. They've
said, look, our war aims were not achieved. Hamas is still in charge. We wanted to make sure they're not in charge. And there they are with their
bandanas and balaclavas and I don't know, weapons, complete show of force there. What was the point of that do you think? And how helpful is that to
you?
ZOMLOT: That's a cause of reflection in the part of Israel, exactly. Because after 15 months of genocide, of mass murder and destruction, this
is what they get.
AMANPOUR: Right. And according to the U.S. they're recruiting as many new as they have lost. But my point is, how does it help the situation going
forward? How does it help you who are not a Hamas (ph)?
ZOMLOT: Well, this isn't about Hamas. We've said it from day one. This is about the root cause, Christiane. And so long as we think Hamas or all
other Palestinian political grouping are the cause of the conflict, we will never get anywhere. They are the product of the conflict. And short of
Israel, realizing that it'll keep creating and repeating the same situation as it has been doing for 76 years.
And look at the consequences now. By destroying most of Gaza, decimating Gaza, by having 70,000 families who have lost loved ones, having more than
17,000 Palestinian orphans, children. They have improved their security. They have really under undermined Hamas or anybody's -- any other party's
ability to recruit. To the contrary.
All what they did is that they have sent us many steps away from a resolution. And this is exactly why we need to go back to the future. We've
seen the past. The past is full of grievances. What happened to Gaza will have to be recorded in human conscious as the first ever live streamed
genocide.
And when I had President Biden only a couple of days ago, just before he left office, speaking about that conversation between him and Netanyahu,
when he warned Netanyahu not to carpet bomb Gaza. And Netanyahu told him that you did that with Germany and with Japan. And Biden responded, that's
why we had the U.N. And still President Biden failed to prevent, let alone stop the genocide is something that we need to think about.
And it's something that we need to see -- if Israel -- because Israel is going to repeat this. The only option Israel has right now is violence.
They have no other option.
AMANPOUR: Right. But the only option you will have also, if you want to plan as espoused by, you know, people who can support you, is to have a
reformed P.A. I mean, basically, I assume you admit that they're ossified. I mean, it's just a catastrophe. It's a catastrophe, your leadership.
And Hamas is busy telling the world in various forums that they -- you know, that they want a new election, that they will continue to run the
existing -- I think they said council. Will continue to run until -- in Hamas -- in Gaza until there are elections and a technocratic government
and all the rest of it. They don't want anything other than Palestinians policing any security in this post-ceasefire environment. Where do you
think the big Palestinian political program needs to start and end?
ZOMLOT: With the Palestinian people, start and end. It's the Palestinian people that have to decide and will decide on their own leaderships. The
Palestinian people have their national institutions. They have a state recognized by the International Community, that state is occupied. They
have a government of that state, that is the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization.
AMANPOUR: Is it effective?
ZOMLOT: And they have -- of course it is effective because it represents - - it has the legitimacy. You have to separate between performance, effectiveness, the need for reform, all legitimate.
AMANPOUR: And it's too deeply unpopular.
ZOMLOT: All legitimate. And democratization among our own institutions and between legitimacy. The only legitimate umbrella of the Palestinian people
representation is the PLO, and that is uncontested by any Palestinian.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ZOMLOT: These institutions exist. We need to make sure that they are empowered and there, and we need to make sure that the process of election
is convened and we need to remove Israel's veto over our democratic process.
AMANPOUR: And do you --
[13:35:00]
ZOMLOT: And there is a prerequisite for that, Christiane. We cannot convene perfect democracy under the boots of the occupation. We've tried
many times. We've tried in 2021 where the president issued an election decree and --
AMANPOUR: Do you think he would do another one? Is now a time to have elections? Well, I mean, not right now, but in this next period.
ZOMLOT: Now, we need to attend to the wounds of our people.
AMANPOUR: I understand.
ZOMLOT: Now, we have a catastrophe both in Gaza and the West Bank. But yes, we must convene elections in the earliest opportunity. And there was a
presidential decree only two months ago about the process that if anything happens, the head of the PNC, the Palestine National Council, will take
over for 90 days only, and the timeline is very important in these 90 days, he or she shall convene national elections.
So, there is no other formula for Palestinian leadership except via the ballot box and the Palestinian people electing. And many -- much of this
conversation about the Palestinian institutions reform is really -- some of it is genuine, but some of it is a diversion because nobody wants to look
at the root cause of all this.
For many years, we would have -- the discussion about Yasser Arafat, remember? And besieging Yasser Arafat, for many years. When we fail to
uproot the root cause, we go to the Palestinian situation and we start thinking, should we reform this, should we do -- our issue is not
technical, it's political. Israel has got to go. If not now, then I don't think --
AMANPOUR: You mean the occupation?
ZOMLOT: Yes, the Israeli occupation has got to be ended. This is the time to unify the West Bank and Gaza and let the Palestinians live their own
future.
AMANPOUR: Husam Zomlot, representative of the Palestinians to the mission here, thank you very much indeed.
Now, if it weren't Trump in any other situation, a mass pardon of January 6th insurrectionists tried, convicted, and sentenced would be unthinkable.
Some of them for severe acts of violence. Among them, Trump pardoned the founder of Silk Road, the dark web criminal marketplace. He was serving a
life sentence.
All of this leads to conservative lawyer and former government official, Paul Rosenzweig, calling it, quote, "one of the most shameful acts of a
U.S. president." And he explains to Michel Martin why Trump's actions, these pardons, are vastly different to Biden's 11th hour, preemptive ones.
Here's their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Paul Rosenzweig, thank you so much for talking with us once again.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT AND FEDERALIST SOCIETY FOUNDER MEMBER: Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: So, when we last spoke, you made a strong case for President Biden to use his pardon power liberally to pardon individuals who had been
threatened by now President Trump or who had been heavily criticized by now President Trump.
In the very closing minutes of his presidency, he pardoned figures like General Milley, Dr. Fauci, members of the January 6th Committee, the staff.
What's your reaction?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, one part of it is a little bit of surprise that anything I ever say has, on CNN, actually catches anybody's attention. But I think
the more dominant reaction, honestly, is one of sadness. Sadness that it has come to this, that that I thought it was an appropriate recommendation
to make and that President Biden thought it was an appropriate idea to implement. That reflects a grave and substantial degradation in our
expectations about presidential conduct. Not by President Biden, I might add, but by President Trump and our anticipations of what he might do. And
you know, that leaves me very dismayed at where we are right now.
MARTIN: You were co-founder of the Federalist Society. I mean, you consider yourself to be conservative and you consider yourself to be deeply
conservative when it comes to matters of constitutional law. So, having said that, why did you think that this was a necessary step?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, the constitution obviously permits a president to exercise a pardon power in this way. For 250 or 40 odd years, that has been
unnecessary because we have assumed correctly that presidents act with restraint, with humility, with a good appreciation for past practice, for
history, for propriety.
I became convinced of the necessity of this step of pardoning Trump's opponents by the reality of what Trump has said and has done in the first
48 hours of his presidency, which is transgressive of norms.
[13:40:00]
I mean, in a lot of ways, constitutional law is about restraint. We give huge amounts of power to presidents and to Congresses and to courts, but we
tell them not to misuse that. And we succeed, right? Whether you like them or dislike them, you know, this is not something that Ronald Reagan or
Jimmy Carter or George Bush or Barack Obama would have ever thought necessary because it's not something that any of them would have ever
thought that their successor would make appropriate. None of them would have contemplated Donald Trump as a successor.
And so, we come to this pass because of the truly aberrational nature of what Trump has said he wants to do with power.
MARTIN: You had previously described these potential pardons as both protective and symbolic. Do you think that they served those dual purposes?
ROSENZWEIG: Certainly, the ones that were issued to public figures who were at risk because of their opposition to Donald Trump served both those
purposes. People like General Mark Miley and Representative Cheney, Representative Bennie Thompson. Also, to those who were in Trump's
crosshairs, not because they opposed Trump, but simply because they disagreed with him, like Dr. Fauci, for example, who has become a bete
noire for the far-right blogosphere.
The pardons of his family, though completely understandable in light of Donald Trump's penchant for revenge, hold less symbolic nature, right?
These were not public figures until I read their names in the pardon papers.
MARTIN: Here's the thing, though, you know, his pardons didn't include people who, for example, testified before the January 6th Committee. People
who had been former, you know, White House aides, who had some very compelling, and it has to be said, damning testimony about the, you know,
former president, now current president's conduct around January 6th.
And I wonder -- I mean, I realize that you're not privy to any inside information about this. But what do you make of that? I mean, was that an
oversight?
ROSENZWEIG: I don't think it was an oversight because that suggests it was by accident. I mean, it -- the nature of the list seems to have been
clearly drawn around a group of people that the president perceived to be high-profile opponents at real risk. He included, for example, the Capitol
Hill officers who testified against President Trump before the January 6th Committee.
So, it was clearly a considered judgment. And, you know, as you said, I'm not privy to what the factors at play were. I have to think it was
partially an assessment of real risk and limitations on resources. It strikes me, for example, as quite unlikely that the Department of Justice
and the FBI will be able to bring hundreds of these prosecutions against political opponents. For myself, I might have gone a bit broader, but I
really can't, you know, gainsay what he chose to do.
MARTIN: In your piece, your previous piece, you've criticized Trump's critics, particularly Democrats, for treating him as an aberration rather
than as a phenomenon. And I think that, you know, you've seen that tension in this administration. You know, in the waning days of the Biden
administration, Former President Biden became very vocal about what he saw as the risks of a Trump return to office. Even after Trump's re-election he
talked about what he called, you know, his deep concern about a concentration of wealth and power, and people of extreme wealth having
access to the White House in ways that he considered dangerous, this concentration of wealth and power, as he said, He went so far as to call it
an oligarchy.
And I wonder whether -- how do you see this pardon power in that light? Do you see it as you know, the former president sort of coming to grips with
this tension all along? I mean, I also have to note that, you know, President Biden welcoming his successor to the White House said, welcome
home, greeted him very warmly and observed all the traditional niceties. That has to be said, Mr. Trump denied him when he returned to office.
[13:45:00]
ROSENZWEIG: Yes. You know, it's an amazingly difficult question, isn't it? I -- you know, I would characterize the last few months as President Biden
sort of trying to play catch up. As we discussed in -- the last time I was on, the Democrats didn't treat Trump as a phenomenon time that they held
power, the first two years of President Biden's presidency, they made no efforts to really strengthen electoral processes.
They thought of him as an aberration and they thought that doing politics as normal, you know, with the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Act, all those things that are kind of traditional democratic priorities would bring people home and bring people back to
reality.
The pardons, in their own small way, are a reflection of the realization that that's not happening. The treating President Trump as welcome and
welcoming him home is a reflection of the fact that that reality hasn't been fully grasped by President Biden or by anyone yet. And we're only now
starting to see what that will mean and we will be, you know, watching this story go forward for the next four years at least.
I mean, to cite just the most obvious example President Biden's pardons of General Milley and Liz Cheney are unusual, out of character, and not within
the norms, but they're far less destructive of norms than what President Trump did yesterday in pardoning every one of the January 6th
insurrections, including those who physically attacked and beat up Capitol Hill police officers.
MARTIN: He pardoned more than a thousand people who had been convicted of, you know, felonies. And, you know, including Enrique Tarrio, the former
head of the Proud Boys. He commuted a number of sentences. Stewart Rhodes, the former head of the -- head of the Oath Keepers. And so, some people
look at that and say, well, OK, it's all of a piece. Tell me why you say it's different.
ROSENZWEIG: It's not. Anybody who says it's all of a piece simply lacks the faculty to distinguish between, you know, things that are not alike.
The only similarity that they have is that they involve pardons. The Tarrio and Rhodes pardons, in particular, pardon planners of the violent overthrow
of Congress.
They are, in my respectful opinion, or disrespectful opinion, the most shameful acts of pardon that any president has ever done. They are
different in kind, not in degree, but in kind, from preventing Donald Trump from further transgressing norms by prosecuting Anthony Fauci for what? For
telling the truth about COVID when he didn't want to hear it. By prosecuting General Mark Miley, for what? For not letting him use the
military to overthrow the government. These are not alike in anything other than form.
And, you know, I hear you, that it offers a talking point, if you will, to those who want to defend Donald Trump. But it is a talking point that can
only be used by those who were already convinced of Trump's inability to do any wrong. It is a talking point that can only be used by those who have
checked their ability to distinguish good -- from right from wrong at the door. I'm sorry, I'm a little angry about this one.
MARTIN: I'm just curious why you think it is that more people don't see this distinction. I think most people, if a crime had been committed
against them, especially a violent crime, would be -- would take issue with someone who had been duly convicted of that crime in a court of law, under
the laws of the United States being pardoned summarily because somebody didn't agree with it, right? But I'm just curious why you think that that
hasn't evoked more of a reaction, because it doesn't seem to have?
ROSENZWEIG: It's difficult to say. First off, obviously those who are Trump troopers, right, they love this. This essentially has legalized
violence in support of Donald Trump's insurrection and efforts to maintain power.
[13:50:00]
What I do not understand is, you know, the middle who just seem to have wanted to move on, who are tired, exhausted by Trump, who are not convinced
that it will be as bad as all that. If the -- you know, it is, -- there's an excellent series of articles, you know, by Timothy Snyder and earlier by
Hannah Arendt about how the idea of authoritarians is to exhaust the opposition, is to tell lies, not because they will be believed, but that so
people won't be able to distinguish lies from the truth.
These are the tactics of ones who want to destroy the faculties of democratic analysis of democratic rationality. And I think that the answer
to your question is that it's succeeding to some degree, that Americans aren't as exceptional as we think we are and that we are succumbing to
this.
I mean, the flood of executive orders is designed to overwhelm you. You know, each and every one of them is objectionable, whether it's declaring
that there are only two genders, which is like declaring that pi equals three or declaring that the constitutional birthright is no longer
constitutional as if an executive order could overturn a constitutional rule. I mean, one could go on and on. They're designed to make it
impossible to fight back.
MARTIN: Some high-profile Republicans, including the former Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Lisa Murkowski, to some degree Speaker Mike
Johnson, criticized the move to pardon all the January 6th mob attackers, the insurrectionists.
Trump's own vice president, J. D. Vance, had said previously, if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned,
although, he didn't say that after it had already taken place. And I will say that Trump's nominee for attorney general said that she would want to
take a case-by-case look at these. And obviously, he didn't take any of their advice and did what he wanted to do. But I'm just curious what you
make of that reaction, does that mean anything?
ROSENZWEIG: Probably not. Talk is cheap, action is where it counts. You know, there are always small rumblings of opposition to Trump. It's only
whether or not they take action.
So, I'll give you the test case, right? The flip side of pardons for people who are on your side is weaponizing the Department of Justice to prosecute
people on the other side. Kash Patel, President Trump's nominee to be FBI director, has published a book in which, as an appendix, he listed people
who he considered enemies of Trump whom he should be investigating and the FBI should be prosecuting, including Milley, Fauci, Cheney, some of the
people who got President Biden's preemptive pardon.
If Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski are serious about their dismay with the misuse of executive authority, then they should be serious about not
confirming, as FBI director, somebody who has already announced his intention to misuse the FBI on behalf of President Trump.
MARTIN: And going forward, what would your message be to persons like yourself and others who fear that our democratic institutions really are
under threat? Because of not just what the president has said he may do, but what he has already done in pardoning people who staged this attack on
the Capitol in an effort to overthrow the government and the peaceful transfer of power. What would you say to people who remain deeply concerned
about the message that this sends?
ROSENZWEIG: Well, besides never give up, never surrender. One of my other kind of favorite quotes is from Patton and -- George Patton, he said, do
not take counsel from your fear. You know, you have to move ahead. And that means continuing to resist, not to be nihilistic about it, not to give up
and say, oh, it's all over. We can't -- you can't fight, which a number of people are. But to find your battles, whether they're large or small and
win them where you can, whether that's joining a local community group that protects gay and lesbian and transgendered people in your community, or if
you're a lawyer like me, articulating views about the rule of law, there's something that every human being can do.
And I'm no leader. You know, I don't have enough capacity to actually motivate people to do that, but perhaps somebody will.
MARTIN: Paul Rosenzweig, thank you so much for talking with us.
ROSENZWEIG: Thank you very much for having me. I wish all of us the very best of luck going forward.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Taking stock from a conservative perspective. And of course, remember, the Federalist Society did in fact play a great -- you know, a
great job in helping Trump be elected the first time. So, it's a particularly interesting perspective now.
And finally, dazzling lights to brighten up the gold grey British weather. The annual Winter Lights Festival is back with a dozen colorful
installations adorning the streets of London's Canary Wharf. Fixtures of all shapes and sizes from artists all across the globe, from a gigantic
bird in flight to glowing humans.
The organizers say this year's theme aims to explore, quote, "the transformative and otherworldly qualities of art and light." You can see
for yourselves here in London until the 1st of February.
That's it for now. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END