Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman; Interview with The New York Times Magazine Contributing Writer Ruth Margalit; Interview with Former Federal Prosecutor Brendan Ballew. Aired 1- 2p ET
Aired February 19, 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.
Trump's jaw dropping accusation as the president blames Ukraine for Russia's invasion. Have things ever been better for President Putin? I
speak to former negotiator Wendy Sherman, who led U.S. talks with Russia on the eve of its '22 invasion.
Then Israel prepares to receive the bodies of its dead hostages. With the next phase of ceasefire talks set to begin, what is the mood in the
country? The New York Times Ruth Margalit joins me.
And also, ahead, trying to uphold the rule of law in the United States, Michel Martin talks to Brendan Ballew, a former federal prosecutor who
resigned from the Justice Department last month. His concerns as the Trump administration pushes courts to the limit.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.
A gobsmacking shift in U.S.-Russia relations as Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy take each other on, and President Putin watches approvingly from
Russia, apparently returning to the fold after more than four years of high-level talks in Saudi Arabia. Four hours, rather.
The U.S. and Russia agrees to work through the end of the conflict in Ukraine and to, quote, "examine both the geopolitical and economic
cooperation that could result from restored diplomatic relations." Ukraine and Europe were not invited to the Saudi meeting. Afterwards, Donald Trump
falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war this morning calling President Zelenskyy a dictator without elections.
Earlier, the Ukrainian leader had accused Donald Trump of living in a Russian disinformation space. Here is all of this talk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have a situation where we haven't had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law, essentially martial law in
Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine, I mean, I hate to say it, but he's down at 4 percent approval rating, and where a country has been blown to
smithereens.
But today I heard, oh, well, we weren't invited. Well, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it three years. You should have
never started it. You could have made a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A reality check, according to polls, President Zelenskyy's popularity has never fallen below 50 percent since the start of the war.
Also, Russia started it.
Now, European leaders are trying to make sure they are included since Trump says they are responsible for upholding any ceasefire and for the
continent's ongoing security. Could U.S. troops be pulled out of Baltic countries drawn down from Europe, leaving Ukraine and beyond vulnerable to
Russian aggression?
Wendy Sherman was deputy secretary of state in the Biden administration, and she was among the last American diplomats to negotiate with Russian
officials on the eve of their 2022 invasion. And she's joining the program live from Washington. Wendy Sherman, welcome back to the program.
Can I start by asking you how you interpret what President Trump is now saying, and essentially lashing out verbally against President Zelenskyy,
calling him a dictator, saying that his polls are below, you know, 4 percent, saying that he started the war. Why do you think he's doing that?
WENDY SHERMAN, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, thank you for having me, Christiane. Some people believe he's doing this tactically, that
he's trying to get Zelenskyy in a position to negotiate away things that Donald Trump believes are necessary to end the war in Ukraine. But quite
frankly, it's outrageous. One doesn't do this to allies, to Zelenskyy, to Ukraine, who has fought so valiantly over these three years, to our
European allies.
The president seems to have a version of how one goes about things, and that is transactionally, not with allies and partners. And we're seeing
that play out here. So far, he's given Putin virtually everything. Putin wants he or his minions. His secretaries have given away territory to
Putin. Have said NATO won't be present nor any foreign countries that are part of NATO present after a ceasefire or a peace agreement.
[13:05:00]
He has said, we're going to have economic relations with Russia. We're going to re-establish all of the personnel in our agencies and our
embassies with Russia. He has flattered Putin, and he is trying to humiliate and undermine President Zelenskyy, who, as you said, has been an
extraordinary leader of Ukraine in a time where Putin invaded Ukraine. That is fact.
AMANPOUR: Wendy Sherman, you know this process so well. You know all the players and the actors as well. And you've probably heard President
Zelenskyy at some point in the last 24 hours, you know, countering one of Trump's statements by saying he lives in a disinformation space.
And so, I kind of want to ask you what you think Putin is thinking now, or even Lavrov and whoever was with him at the Saudi talks, because that
disinformation is clearly, as we know, being peddled by Russia. Those are the Russian talking points. It's what Russia has said publicly. It's what,
you know, Russian state media says. So, what do you think Putin is thinking now?
SHERMAN: I think Putin is ecstatic. He's basically gotten everything he wants at the beginning of a negotiation, and there is, pardon me, an NBC
News report that says that American intelligence shows that Putin truly doesn't want a deal. He wants all of Ukraine. And my own sense from having
sat with the Russians on January 10, 2022, a little over a month before the actual invasion, February 24, 2022, is that Putin sees Ukraine as part of
the Russian empire, so to speak.
He believes it ideologically. He believes it historically. And I don't think he will settle for anything other than a chance to ultimately take
all of Russia.
So, President Trump giving all of these gimme's to Russia, including saying American companies will come back, our oil and gas companies. He might
withdraw troops from the Baltics. All of these things are things that Putin has long wanted.
And, you know, Christiane, when I met with the Russians we discussed some of the things we could do to meet some of their concerns about how nuclear
weapons were poised in Europe, where European troops were, what exercises might take place. Even knowing that none of that would satisfy Vladimir
Putin, he was intent on taking Ukraine and I believe he still is.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to -- you mentioned your last, you know, negotiations. Of course, we all remember how the Biden administration
actually, you know, broke with precedent and put out classified information for weeks before the invasion, trying to gin up and, you know, some kind of
-- hoping, I guess that if Putin was called out, he wouldn't do it, but then he did do it.
You said about the 2022 talks. And here we were on the eve of what Putin had already decided, which was to invade a sovereign country, meeting with
the Russians to hear what their concerns were. But the decision had clearly already been made.
So, what can we learn from that experience as the current negotiators are sitting down with Putin? Because I remember that they kept just saying, no,
we're not going to invade, we're not going to invade, we're not going to invade. And then, of course, they did.
SHERMAN: Indeed. I think what we can learn is two things. We did that diplomacy because you have to try everything to stop another country for
illegally and horrifyingly invading a sovereign territory. So, we needed to try everything we possibly could.
Secondly, we wanted to bring the world together as one against what we knew was going to be a horrifying invasion. And indeed, after that January 10,
2022 meeting in Geneva with the Russians, I went to Brussels the next day for an extraordinary NATO meeting where the Russians came, presented their
case. And then 30 nations, even including some you would not expect, over four hours all said the same thing, the importance of sovereignty,
territorial integrity, and the right of countries to make their own political future and their own political decisions. So, it brought the
world together to, in fact, deal with Vladimir Putin.
[13:10:00]
Now, we've seen President Trump not only not appreciate who Vladimir Putin is and what he intends to do, what Senator Wicker, a Republican senator,
said yesterday, he called Putin a war criminal, someone that could never be trusted, who did not want to give this up. We heard Senator Rounds say, in
fact, Russia invaded Ukraine. So, we're beginning to see even Republican senators putting facts on the table. But we also need to bring the world
together to deal with this, and it is quite critical that the Europeans come together and put some ideas on the table.
If Trump is denigrating everyone in hopes that he will force them to come to the table with new ideas and shoulder the responsibility, Europeans have
shoulder responsibility. They have put more economic aid into Ukraine than the United States has. We have put more weapons into Ukraine, but that is
to the advantage of our military industrial complex because it's meant American jobs in the creation of those weapons.
So, Europe has come forward. We need them to continue to do so and I hope the ongoing meetings they're being held will create solidarity among the
Europeans to really act as one against Putin.
AMANPOUR: OK. Yes, I want to get into Europe in a moment. But first, I want to ask you about, you know, obviously Trump has always said, and he
ran on saying that he was going to bring peace, right, negotiate. So, we kind of knew that that was what was going to happen.
And Marco Rubio, Senator Marco Rubio, who's now the secretary of state, has said over the years, for instance, back in 2022 during the invasion that he
tweeted then, Putin was an expert liar, that if there was a ceasefire, it's because he sees some strategic or tactical belief.
So, my question to you is, not whether he's being duped now, but do you think he will realize given where he comes from on this issue and sitting
face-to-face with the Russians that, as you say, they don't want a deal, could he actually take that message back to Trump?
SHERMAN: Well, I would hope that Secretary Rubio, former Senator Rubio, will in fact, at least in private, be telling Trump what his own experience
is and what he knows. And I hope that whatever team they put together to do these negotiations is a team with experience in negotiating with the
Russians.
It is -- they are -- the Russians are very tough and very seasoned negotiators. The two gentlemen who came yesterday in Saudi Arabia, Ushakov,
a presidential adviser, former ambassador to the United States, many of us know him quite well. And Lavrov, who, as you know, Christiane, there is not
a deal that Sergey Lavrov has not been part of over decades. He knows the U.N. system very well. He knows Europe very well. He knows the world very
well. And although I don't think he has Putin's ear in the same way he once did, he certainly is a very seasoned negotiator and understands Americans
quite well, as does Ushakov.
So, I hope that whatever team the U.S. puts together is seasoned, has experience, speaks Russian, and actually knows how to negotiate with the
Russians. One has to be very tough.
AMANPOUR: President Putin has said at some kind of meeting with reporters today that, you know, everybody's being hysterical, Europe is being -- and
that was his word, hysterical, hysteria, over what's going on. The view that many people are saying that Trump seems to be in public, you know,
basically scolding and turning on his allies while cozying up and cuddling up with his adversary Putin.
Boris Johnson, former British prime minister and big, big Ukraine defender, said Europeans should stop being scandalized by what Trump said and that
his comments, Trump's, are not intended to be historically accurate, but to shock Europe into action.
Is that going to work? And what action do you think Europe absolutely needs to take? We've already laid out how that they have given even more
financial aid to Ukraine. What now does Europe need to do, including if there was to be a ceasefire?
SHERMAN: So, I think that we heard Prime Minister Starmer of the U.K. say that he would consider putting troops in to help keep a peace in Ukraine.
We need to know whether the rest of Europe will follow suit, even though Lavrov has said not only can't NATO have troops, but any country part of
NATO cannot have troops, but one presumes that is a negotiating position. So, I would hope that Europe would think very strongly about what it could
offer.
On the reconstruction of Ukraine, Europe has really had its hands on most of the Russian assets that have been seized. There had been agreement
during the Biden administration to, in fact, use the interest on those assets as part of the funds for reconstruction. So, Europe has a lot to
offer in that regard.
[13:15:00]
You know, you know better than I, Christiane, it is hard to wrangle 27 countries plus the U.K. together in any security agreement. And the days
when. Chancellor Merkel of Germany could really lead the European Union, those days are over. So, I think President Macron is trying to take that
role. Prime Minister Meloni clearly has very strong relations with the Trump administration. I would hope she would understand what's necessary
here. And we're going to see a German election and hopefully, come forward with a strong chancellor who will play a more traditional role in helping
to lead Europe.
So, there's a lot of work to be done here, but we also have a lot to go here. And I hope that Boris Johnson is right. This is a tactic. In my view,
it's a horrible tactic. It's bullying. It's humiliating. It's undermining allies and partners. But indeed, Trump has done this before. He's doing it
in the Middle East with Arab partners by putting out his Gaza idea and in essence shocking them and trying to get the Arab countries to come forward
with their own plan and to really back up the Palestinians.
So, it's not an unheard-of tactic by Donald Trump, but what he has done vis-a-vis Zelenskyy, Ukraine, and Europe is, in my view, outrageous,
appalling, and indeed, untrue.
AMANPOUR: And just to note, because you talked about the upcoming election, it's one of the most consequential in Germany's post-war history.
And there was a big pushback, including from Germany's defense minister, against the vice president, Vance, when he seemed to say, you need to have
these far-right parties, AfD, which as you know, has certain praise for certain Nazi ideas, and there was a big, big pushback certainly in Europe
at the Munich Security Conference.
And to that point as well, with a lot of what you say, you know, statistics and untruths being bandied around, I wonder what you would say to the
American people who are now watching on Truth Social and elsewhere President Trump write and say that they, Washington, has paid close to $300
billion dollars in support to Ukraine, and that $300 billion in U.S. assistance dwarfs contributions from other countries.
Zelenskyy hit back or countered with the facts and it's, as he said, yes, in total there's been that, but it's been from both you E.U. and the U.S.
And that U.S. has given around 60 billion plus an additional 31.5 billion in general.
So, when the president says that it must make Americans who don't know the numbers upset and angry. How damaging is it to play with those numbers in
that nonfactual way?
SHERMAN: Well, we have seen the president play with numbers nonfactually virtually every single day since he's become president on all manner of
things. And what I would say to Americans and to anybody listening to the program, the Europeans have really come forward. They have supported
Ukraine to be able to economically survive as an economy during three years of war.
The United States has provided the lion's share of the weapons, though other countries certainly have put in their share, as have 50 countries
around the world provided support for Ukraine. But as I pointed out earlier, a lot of lion's share, the weapon systems that we have put into
Ukraine have created American jobs and jobs for our military industrial complex, which have been critical for our economy and for our citizens.
The other thing I think people don't know and think about is European countries have taken in millions of Ukrainian migrants who have left for
safety and security for their children, for their grandparents. And all of the countries who have taken in those migrants are doing that at their own
expense and help them to get jobs, help them to get schooling and healthcare all at their own expense. And nobody thinks about the cost to
Europe in that regard either.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: And again, on costs, President Trump, as we know, is transactional. Some people say mercantilist, and he always does talk in
terms of dollars and cents and what he thinks he should be repaid. So, again, using this $300 billion figure, he says he wants to get that back
from Ukraine in their rare earth minerals. And we understand that, you know, his people went to Kyiv and essentially put down a piece of paper for
Zelenskyy to sign it or leave it, demanding a 50 percent equity in that or in perpetuity, according to various reports. And Zelenskyy said, no, he
can't sell his country and talked about, you know, it's a colonial era kind of style of doing business.
What's your reaction to that? Because I know the Biden administration also wanted to do some kind of deal with Ukraine on rare earth minerals, and
they saved that for when Trump comes in.
SHERMAN: I do think that something could get worked out, but 50 percent in perpetuity, if the reports are right, along with not only rare earth
minerals but other economic goods from Ukraine, was absurd. It was right in my view for Ukraine to say, no, that's not going to work, but they didn't
close the door on anything. It is a negotiation.
And we all know that Trump really approaches life transactionally as a businessman. He believes that, in many ways, foreign policy is like
building a building in New York. You're tough. You negotiate hard. You deal with the politics. You try to get something for as little as possible from
your side of the deal. And if the deal doesn't work, you go on to another building.
Here it's not so easy. Foreign policy, national security doesn't work in that way. I hope that President Trump has learned that from his first
presidency when he tried to deal with Kim Jong un in a transactional manner and got nothing in return except giving Kim Jong un, the leader of North
Korea, credibility on the world stage. Something that we did not need to give to that man who's a horrible dictator.
So, I think we've got a lot to see here to play out. I think it's right for Zelenskyy to push back. But Zelenskyy was very calm and said, no, this
won't work. He's living in disinformation. But Zelenskyy has not closed the door. He knows that the fate of his country is at stake here having fought,
lost so many lives, gone through so much tragedy in Ukraine. Ukrainians are extraordinarily resilient. Anyone who has visited there during the war, as
I have, understands the extraordinary courage, resiliency, stamina, and belief in freedom that Ukrainians have. So, I'm betting on Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Fascinating. It's great to get your perspective having been in the room, as they say. Wendy Sherman, thank you very much indeed.
And we turn now to Israel as it prepares for the difficulty of receiving the bodies of four hostages on Thursday. Hamas says amongst them will be
the young Bibas children who have become a tragic national symbol of the horrors of October 7th and the ensuing catastrophic war on Gaza.
The ceasefire still holds and Israeli officials say negotiations for the second phase of all of this will begin this week. In the occupied West Bank
though, Israel continues its raids and military operations, further displacing thousands. According to the U.N., at least 40,000 Palestinians
have been displaced there by the IDF since this January.
So, what is the mood amongst ordinary Israelis? Ruth Margalit is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, and she's joining me
from Tel Aviv. Welcome to the program, Ruth. Let me just start by asking you, everybody is preparing for this day, which is going to be tomorrow, to
receive the bodies this time of Israelis who've been held for 15 months in Hamas captivity. How are they going to be able to deal and react with what
they expect to be the two little children of the Bibas family?
RUTH MARGALIT, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: I expect that tomorrow will be a real day of mourning here in Israel. And it's quite
a shift from the beginning of this ceasefire agreement. It's actually exactly one month ago today that the agreement went into effect and we saw
the first release of hostages.
And at first, there was this kind of great sense of euphoria all over the country. You saw the female hostages coming out, reunited with their
families, you know, joyous occasions. There were watch parties all over the country. People flocked to this square in Tel Aviv that's been rebranded as
now known as Hostages Square. And kind of watching these reunions.
[13:25:00]
But this sense of euphoria gradually changed over the next, you know, several weeks as more hostages started coming out. And we saw the male
hostages beginning to come out and some of them came out and really sort of shocked their families and shocked Israelis who watched their releases the
state of, you know, they came out looking emaciated.
Reports started trickling out over the next few days that they had been chained, that they had been tortured, that they had undergone forced
starvation. These were things that were sort of known in Israel, that this was the state that some of the hostages were in. But I think still being
sort of faced with that reality, the euphoria started ebbing.
And now, it was replaced by a great sense of alarm and concern. And so, that's why you started seeing this push for an expedited release. And
actually, this weekend we'll see six hostages returning instead of three. This was -- this is because of this sense of sudden urgency.
And I think, you know, the -- so, euphoria replaced by a kind of alarm and concern, also to be replaced by a great sense of sadness tomorrow when
suddenly, for the first time since the release of the hostages, we'll see body bags, coffins coming home, and Kfir Bibal and Ariel Bibas, the two
children and their mother, Shiri Bibas, apparently coming home in body bags.
AMANPOUR: Israel itself, I don't believe, has confirmed the manner of their death, or maybe even their death, I'm not sure. But certainly, Hamas
says that the Bibas family was killed in an Israeli strike. Again, Israel hasn't talked about it, and I wonder whether they might do forensics and
post mortems afterwards.
But in the meantime, all of this personal horror is happening against a political move in terms of the ceasefire and the fact that there's going to
be a phase two. So, the question is, given everything you've just said, are Israelis ready for a phase two? Israel says that it will -- or the U.S.
Middle East envoy says, it'll absolutely happen, we won't leave any hostages behind. And apparently, polls in Israel show a majority want phase
two to happen. What do they view as phase two? What is phase two?
MARGALIT: Well, there is overwhelming support for phase two to happen. Over 70 percent of Israelis want to see this deal through, which means all
the hostages out and a complete ceasefire, permanent ceasefire in Gaza. This is something that Israelis are willing -- you know, willing to have
happen in order for the hostages to come home and for -- really for this nightmare to end.
And there is a great uncertainty as to whether the government, whether Netanyahu is committed to the second phase, which I think is also part of
why you saw this great sense of urgency to complete the first phase because it was unclear whether even that will happen.
So, now, there is this cloud of uncertainty. You know, the negotiations for the second phase were supposed to start already and they're sort of
dragging on. At first, Steve Witkoff, President Trump's Middle East envoy said that, you know, the second phase will absolutely happen. And you saw
this week Netanyahu releasing a statement at first saying, well, the cabinet will discuss the terms of the second the second phase. The cabinet
will convene, it will discuss it. And then, 40 minutes later, it released another statement, so another statement from Netanyahu, saying there is a
delegation that will be -- come out, go to Cairo to discuss this and to implement the second phase.
So, I think, you know, sort of the Americans perhaps gave this a push, but it's unclear whether Netanyahu wants to see the second phase because it
will mean a cessation of hostilities and a permanent ceasefire, which is something that, though Israelis overwhelmingly want, of course, his far-
right coalition partners are unwilling to see happen.
And so, right now, it's really a question of, you know, who does Netanyahu fear more? Does he fear Trump more or does he fear Smotrich more? And
Smotrich being this -- you know, one of the far-right coalition partners.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And, Ruth, it's suggested that actually his own Likud Party is doing a bit better. Do you think that he does have the political space to
continue with this, even if it means, you know, some of these extreme right, the far-right, might drop off or not?
MARGALIT: His Likud Party is doing slightly better. It's true. It's also telling that right now the person leading against Netanyahu in the polls is
someone who is completely out of the political system. That's Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister of Israel. And I think Netanyahu feels
as though he has a bit of a leeway now. He's -- you know, he's gained a bit in the polls sort of gradually since October 7th when he was really, really
in a poor state, and he's managed to gain some of that support back.
But at the same time, I think he came back from Washington with a great sense of kind of relief and triumph over, you know, Trump's plan for Gaza,
the sense that -- you know, that the administration, the U.S. administration was with Israel and perhaps not going to push this this
permanent ceasefire.
And several days after he came -- he returned to Israel from Washington, I think that he had an understanding, there was this sort of, you know,
sudden realization in Israel that Witkoff, that Trump, that they were serious about seeing this this deal through.
And I've spoken to many of the hostages' families whose loved ones are not included in the first phase of the deal, and they are just in agony over
whether the second phase will happen or not. So, this isn't just sort of semantics or logistics over -- you know, we tend to say first stage, second
stage, it sounds very bureaucratic, but really, it's a matter of life and death for these families.
And I think also for the Palestinians who, you know, the last thing they want is to see the IDF back in Gaza. There has been this, you know, gradual
withdrawal of IDF troops. They are waiting on the perimeter of Gaza. And the second phase is supposed to see them completely withdrawing also from
the Philadelphi Corridor, which is the Egypt-Gaza border.
And so, I think while Israel has security concerns about that, there is the public overwhelmingly supports this. And Netanyahu now is really in a bind
as to whether he listens to his public or whether he is still beholden to these extremist ministers whom he needs to -- you know, to preserve his
coalition. And he's very much concerned about his own sort of personal survival.
AMANPOUR: Ruth, I want to ask you, because it's all so horribly tangled up, the idea of the end of the war, and as you say, it's a matter of life
and death for people who are waiting for their loved ones to be released. In terms of the so-called Trump proposal for Gaza, which most analysts
don't believe has a chance in heck, including former Israeli prime minister, in other words, taking over Gaza, expelling Palestinians,
creating a Riviera there.
The right-wing obviously is euphoric, but the military analyst in Haaretz, Amos Harel has written, the bomb that Trump threw during Netanyahu's visit
by proposing that the Palestinians, quote, "voluntarily" emigrate from Gaza en masse made the governing coalition euphoric. To some army officers'
shock, politicians and government officials have repeatedly said in meetings that this is a one-time opportunity to enable historic moves like
ousting the Palestinians from Gaza. And that opportunity, they say, dwarfs the importance of saving every last hostage.
So, do you believe in all your conversations, Ruth, with Israelis, that they support this what's euphemistically called voluntary expulsion of
Palestinians, what others call ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza?
MARGALIT: Well, I'm sort of embarrassed to say that there is support for this plan. 70 percent of Israelis, according to a Channel 12 poll in
Israel, support Trump's plan for mass displacement of Gazans. But I should also note that, you know, half of the respondents also said that they don't
think it's practical.
So, I think there is the sense that, you know, Israelis kind of support the sentiment of it, but everyone knows that it's not going to be put into
practice. And when I spoke to several Israelis who -- you know who seem to support this plan, what I said to them was sort of, you know, they present
it as a kind of benevolent and a sort of goodwill gesture. You know, everyone who wants to leave will have a chance to leave Gaza and come back
and this sort of, you know, hazy plan.
[13:35:00]
But what I said is, you know, just replace the word Palestinian with Jews for a minute, and you'll see how problematic it is, when you have the
president of the United States calling for, you know, a population saying that Jews can -- let's say Jews can, you know, leave if they want and they
can come back and sort of calling for population transfers.
Once you start getting into this language of population transfer and mass displacement, it's a slippery slope and it sort of recalls, you know, dark
times in history. And I don't think that that was the intention, but still, we have to be very careful about that.
And even sort of putting the moral aspect aside here. You know, there is just a sense that this is totally impractical at a time when solutions are
urgently needed. You know, we have Israeli hostages who are underground in Gaza in sort of terrible conditions and really, apparently, you know,
wasting away and you have Palestinians who are coming back, you know, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are returning to homes that have
been demolished, that don't exist, who have lost loved ones, who are injured and exhausted and famished.
And so, you know what you're trying to sell them on this sort of real estate dream, well, now is not the time for dreams. Now, is the time for
solutions.
AMANPOUR: Ruth, very, very briefly, of course, given what we've just been discussing, as you know, the U.N. says that the most Palestinians since the
'67 war have fled or been expelled from the West Bank, some 40,000, according to the U. N., forcibly displaced since January. And I want to
know from you, as a journalist, journalist to journalist, what are the Israeli people really seeing about what's happening in Gaza and on the West
Bank? And if they are seeing, because of this trauma, do they care?
MARGALIT: Actually, they don't. They see very, very little about what's happening in the West Bank. When you open the news in Israel, it's all
about, you know, right now, it's the hostages, it's Gaza, the eyes are very much there. Before that, it was also in Lebanon. So, the northern border,
you know, the Gaza border. And the West Bank gets sort of relegated, really relegated to the sidelines, which is why I think Netanyahu's far-right
partners are really kind of feeling triumphant at the moment and want to see the war in Gaza continue because this kind of gives them a -- you know,
this gives them a sort of free pass in the West Bank.
And we've seen outrageous statements about, you know, annexation and things like that. And so, they're -- you know, they're very triumphant there.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And indeed, Trump says that he's going to pronounce on that in the next several weeks. In any event, Ruth Margalit, thank you so much
indeed for joining us on what's going to be a difficult day. Thank you very much.
MARGALIT: Thank you for having me. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Meantime, in the United States, a federal judge is asking the Department of Justice to explain why prosecutors have suddenly dismissed
the corruption indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Multiple prosecutors have resigned in protest amid concerns that the Trump
administration struck a deal in exchange for Adams' cooperation in enforcing immigration laws.
Brendan Ballew, who recently left the Justice Department, joins Michel Martin now to discuss this situation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Brendan Ballew, thank you so much for talking with us.
BRENDAN BALLEW, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
MARTIN: You're a former federal prosecutor and you prosecuted some of the January 6th cases of people who, you know, assaulted the Capitol in an
effort to interfere with the counting of the election results or the validating of the election results.
First of all, can I just ask you how you got those cases, or the cases that you worked on, how did they come to you?
BALLEW: Sure. Well, it was an accident. You know, I -- my practice primarily was in white collar crime, going after antitrust violators. But,
you know, the call went out within the Department of Justice that there was a desperate need for prosecutors to go after and prosecute these January
6th rioters. So, I raised my hand.
So, as much as I'd like to think that it was because of my prosecutorial genius, truly, it was just a massive need within the department.
MARTIN: So, do you remember how you found out that the president was pardoning these people en masse? I know that he talked about this during
the campaign, but when the day came that he actually did it, making no distinction between people who engaged in acts of violence and people who
engaged in misdemeanors, even though they were offenses against the law, do you remember what your reaction was?
BALLEW: Yes, it was enormous disappointment and fear for primarily the officers that were assaulted at the Capitol that day, who I believe are
going to be the targets of, you know, potential militia or vigilante violence.
[13:40:00]
You know, maybe this was naive of me, but I had assumed that even the president would have certain political restraints on pardoning people that
assaulted officers that were involved in, you know, staging weapons near the Capitol in anticipation of potential warfare. I thought that there
would be constraints even on the president for pardoning those folks or commuting their sentences, but obviously there wasn't.
MARTIN: We're about a month in to this administration. The latest incident involving the Justice Department is this effort to persuade the prosecutors
in New York to drop the corruption charges that had been leveled against New York City's Mayor Eric Adams. In response to this, at least seven
prosecutors have resigned so far. What concerns you about that?
BALLEW: You know, I think it's a unique concern. It's somewhat different from the concern around pardoning the January 6th rioters. I believe that
the purpose of the January 6th pardons was to empower vigilantes or militias that would be loyal to the president, but ultimately,
unaccountable to the law.
I think with the Eric Adams quid pro quo, the ambition here is to explicitly politicize criminal prosecutions and to waive the threat of
prosecutions in order to accomplish unrelated policy goals. And that is, I wouldn't say unprecedented, but certainly something that we haven't had to
experience for most of our lifetimes. But that seems to be the goal of this administration and it seems like it's going to be a part of our future.
MARTIN: Well, let me just say sort of for the record that Eric Adams, of course, has consistently denied that he took bribes in exchange for favors.
That's the original underlying charge. The subsequent issue at hand here is the allegation that there was a discussion with the Justice Department that
he would be accommodating of the president's policy goals, specifically around immigration in exchange for dropping these charges.
So, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove says that the decision to seek dismissal of the case had nothing to do with its strength. He argues that
the prosecution was politically motivated and that it was impeding Mr. Adams' ability to cooperate with President Trump's immigration policies.
So, as near as you can understand, I mean, is there any evidence that you are aware of that the prosecution of Eric Adams was politically motivated?
BALLEW: Absolutely none. And I believe that the lawyers who resigned in opposition to this order to drop the charges laid out the case for why it
wasn't exceptionally clearly. If anything, you know, the strongest evidence that this wasn't politically motivated is that Eric Adams' own lawyers
didn't bring a charge of selective prosecution. It suggests that this was not a politically motivated prosecution, but one rather guided by the facts
in the law, and that it is, in fact, Deputy Attorney General or acting Deputy Attorney General Bove, who is trying to politicize this process.
MARTIN: So, the motion that was filed by the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove. Now, the government requested that Adams' case be
dismissed without prejudice. What does that mean? Can you explain that for laypeople? Does that mean that it could be brought again in the future?
BALLEW: You're exactly right. Specifically, the case could be brought again in the future, and practically, it means that this administration
would have a means by which to extort the mayor in the future if he fails to comply with this administration's policy objectives.
MARTIN: Well, that's a strong word. I mean, extort is a strong word. I mean, do you think that essentially the purpose here is to hold the case
over his head to make sure that he's compliant with their objectives?
BALLEW: Tom Homan on Fox News the other day, who's an administration official, suggested exactly as much. So, I think this is -- this
administration has been pretty clear that that's what its objective is.
MARTIN: Have you ever seen anything like this? I mean, to see seven prosecutors resign, including the person who was named as the acting head
of the office, who is herself has clerked for a conservative Supreme Court justice. I mean, have you ever seen anything like this with this number of
prosecutors resigned over a case?
BALLEW: Yes, I certainly haven't. You know, the historical analogy that folks have pointed towards is the Saturday Night Massacre in the Nixon
administration when multiple senior Department of Justice officials resigned rather than fire Archibald Cox.
I think that this is different then and arguably much more serious than that situation. You know, the Saturday Night Massacre was about the
president trying to preserve his own political career. This is an attempt to drop a prosecution in order to advance a policy agenda and suggest a
fundamental rethinking about what the Department of Justice and what criminal prosecutions should even be for and to really question the very
nature of the rule of law in the United States. So, in that sense, I think that this is quite literally unprecedented.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: So, now judges overseeing the Adams case have asked the Department of Justice to explain its decision to drop the charges. How do you read
that? I mean, there's a signal that they're not just accepting the Justice Department's decision at face value. And the other question I would have
here is, what recourse do they have? They can ask.
BALLEW: Yes.
MARTIN: But --
BALLEW: So, when the department moves to dismiss a criminal charge, the court needs to accept that and must exercise independent judgment in doing
so. You know, one of the things that can be considered is whether there is essentially a corrupt quid pro quo happening in dropping that charge. You
know, acting U.S. Attorney Sassoon laid out exactly this issue in her memo to Attorney General Bondi describing the problems with doing so.
So, you know, this is now before Judge Dale Ho in the Southern District of New York, who I think is one of the most respected young judges in the
United States. So, I have little doubt that he's going to apply scrupulous attention to figuring out whether or not these charges can or should be
dropped.
MARTIN: But does the judge have authority to reinstate them is the question? I mean, there's generally a presumption that the prosecutors want
to withdraw charges. They're generally dropped. Isn't that the case? So, does that -- can the judge -- does the judge's judgment supersede that?
BALLEW: You know, generally the judges, of course, defer to prosecutors and these sorts of things. But once again, the judges are not powerless
here. And so, we're entering almost uncharted territory here, but there are -- you know, it is possible that he could reject the motion to dismiss the
charges without prejudice and potentially direct the Department of Justice to continue the prosecution.
I think there will be interesting legal questions, the answers to which I don't know, about whether he can appoint a special counsel or independent
party to proceed with the prosecution in the case that the Department of Justice is unwilling to do so.
MARTIN: I think it's important to point out that there are a lot of people who support what the president's doing, or who don't think about it very
much because they don't think it affects them. So, having said that, the people who don't agree with what he's doing, the people who find it, as you
do, violative of the rule of law, of standards that we have adhered to, et cetera, et cetera, have been looking to the courts, but what enforcement
mechanism does exist if the president decides he's not going to adhere to court orders? What happens then?
BALLEW: Yes. So, there's been interesting and helpful writing on this already. There's sort of an escalating series of actions that the courts
and institutions surrounding the courts can take. Each sort of decision by this administration to ignore a court order comes at something of a
reputational cost, a cost that may be born to the public, as well as to the lawyers that remain inside the government.
So, even just ignoring a court order isn't costless for this administration. But when they do, a court can hold government officials in
civil or even criminal contempt make bar referrals for the attorneys that represent the government. In extreme cases, could potentially order
government officials to be jailed.
Now, those sorts of steps may not particularly constrain the president or the world's richest man, but they may well constrain the individual line
level attorney that remains at some of these departments or agencies. It may well constrain the lower or mid-level government officials that are
necessary to implement so many of these policies.
And so, I think that there are practical tools that the judiciary has to constrain some of the worst impulses that this administration has been
showing thus far.
MARTIN: So, let's take a sort of step back here and just ask overall, what is your concern about when you take all of these actions together in just a
matter of a couple of weeks, a lot of people looking at that -- looking at this might think, well, these are just technicalities. You know, this is
above my head. I don't -- you know, I don't know what this is all about, and why does it matter? So, for somebody who has that perspective, who just
really isn't sure why all this matters, what would you say?
BALLEW: Yes. You know, for lawyers, the idea of the rule of law isn't just an expression, it's a very concrete idea. The idea that decisions are made
not because of the whims of an individual man or woman, but because of precedent, principles, statutes in the Constitution.
[13:50:00]
What these actions collectively suggest is a concerted effort by this administration to end the rule of law and to put the power of law in the
hand of one man -- in the hands of one man or just a handful of men, but that is going -- if they are successful in that, that will be a dramatic
change in how the law operates in the United States.
MARTIN: What's interesting is that the Trump administration is taking the position that these other actions are what they're calling the
weaponization of the Justice Department. They are the ones saying that their predecessors are the people who politicized the Justice Department.
I'm thinking here, like, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, defended the decision to drop the case. She says she was attending this Munich Security
Conference this past weekend, and she told Fox News, quote, "We have a right to protect against weaponization in New York and every state in this
country." So, I don't know. How do you respond to that?
BALLEW: I think this administration would very much like the narrative here to be a battle between them and career prosecutors. Essentially, he
said she said about who's right. I think, ultimately, that's a little bit of a distraction.
And for those who want to understand what's going on here, I would encourage them to read the initial charging materials in the Eric Adams
case, understand what the specific allegations were and notice that the attorney general and deputy acting deputy attorney general did not seem to
be contesting the underlying facts here, nor for that matter was Eric Adams challenging this as a politically motivated prosecution. These seem like
after the fact justifications for an attempt to, in essence, use criminal law to achieve policy objectives.
MARTIN: You resigned from the Justice Department I think a couple of weeks ago, if I recall. Why did you resign?
BALLEW: I believe that the part -- the president's parties, as I mentioned, were going to create a new wave of vigilante violence that the
United States really has not seen since the KKK. I believe that that was a fact that needed to get out and that there was little point in me staying
within the Justice Department to try to stop some of this administration's worst instincts. So, I decided to leave as noisily as I could and to try to
explain this problem as clearly as I could.
MARTIN: Did you have any concerns about your career or even your safety?
BALLEW: I'm not particularly concerned about my own safety or rather I should say, I think that many people are in far greater danger than folks
like myself are. I think that the 140 officers that were assaulted at the Capitol that day are under significant risk for their safety. I also think
that the communities that this administration demonized on the campaign trail, migrants, trans people, and so forth, these are the communities that
are most likely to be the initial victims of vigilante or militia violence. And I think those are the communities that we need to pay the most
attention to.
MARTIN: What's next for you?
BALLEW: I think, you know, there's sort of practical career things, but I think in -- you know, it wasn't what I necessarily intended, but I think a
lot of us now realize that there is a fight over the history of January 6th to be had. And that there are a number of people that really need that day
to be forgotten for their political careers to succeed. And I and a number of other people are absolutely committed to making sure that that day isn't
forgotten.
MARTIN: I'm just wondering if, as a person who chose, you know, you -- some people don't want to be prosecutors because they don't want to be
representative of the government, right? And it's a certain decision to choose that. And I wondered, is there any part of this experience that has
been a crisis for you? I mean, it's obviously a career disruption, but is there something that kind of had made you question some things that you
thought you knew?
BALLEW: No, absolutely not. I mean, obviously, this is -- the challenge to the rule of law is more serious than it has been in -- certainly, in my
lifetime in this moment, but I think it's also a reminder of just how important the rule of law is.
You know, the resignations that we've seen in the past few days and just talking to my friends and former colleagues who are still in government
give me enormous faith in the ability of prosecutors, lawyers, other folks in government who really do want to serve in the public interest, it gives
me faith in their power to do so. And it gives me faith that I believe they'll ultimately be successful.
[13:55:00]
MARTIN: Why do you believe that?
BALLEW: Well, the fundamental issue is that for an administration to accomplish anything they need to convince the rest of the government to
act. And the less popular a policy is the less likely it is that the government is going to implement it.
So, when you see sort of wave after wave of what I would argue are illegal, unprofessional, or unethical actions implemented in a ham-handed way or
proposed in a ham-handed way, I think it actually makes these policies vastly less popular within the government more broadly. And thus, much less
likely to ever happen.
MARTIN: Brendan Ballew, thank you so much for talking with us.
BALLEW: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can always see it right after it airs on our podcast. And of course, you can always catch
us online and all across social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
