Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with FBI Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; Interview with International Crisis Group President and CEO Comfort Ero; Interview with Hermitage Capital Management CEO and Co-Founder Bill Browder. Aired 1- 2p ET
Aired February 25, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
The FBI undergoes one of its most radical transformations in its 115-year history. Former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, joins the show.
Then, as Israeli tanks roll into the West Bank, will the Gaza ceasefire reach phase two? We'll get the latest on the ground.
Plus, thousands have been killed in fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo amid fears of a wider war. I'll discuss with Comfort Ero, president
and CEO of the International Crisis Group.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL BROWDER, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Let the Ukrainians fight back the Russians to the point where they have their boot
on Putin's throat instead of the other way around, and then they can negotiate a ceasefire.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Walter Isaacson interviews Bill Browder, who was once the largest foreign investor in Russia, about the Trump administration's
attempt to end the war in Ukraine.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The FBI is undergoing the most radical transformation of its leadership in its history. Its new director, Kash Patel, an ardent Trump supporter, was
narrowly confirmed by the Senate last week, and he will now be joined by Dan Bongino as deputy director. That position is usually run by -- has
always been run by a career FBI agent.
Bongino is a former Secret Service agent turned right-wing podcaster. The modern FBI is meant to be apolitical, so it can remain neutral with two
ideologues at the helm. That's the big question now. Brian Todd has more on this latest controversial appointment.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): President Trump now has two of his most loyal MAGA champions heading the FBI, Kash Patel as director and
now 50-year-old Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent turned right- wing podcaster as deputy director.
DAN BONGINO, NEWLY-NAMED FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: I got a call from the president, and he couldn't have been nicer. Folks, it's a lot to walk away
from.
TODD (voiceover): And a lot to walk into, according to former FBI officials who spoke to CNN who believe the hiring of Bongino will be
controversial.
STEVE MOORE, RETIRED FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT: And putting somebody in who has never been an FBI agent is potentially troublesome. I have no
problems with Dan Bongino's intelligence or his -- the fact that he had served with the Secret Service is a bonus. But this is -- this is going way
out of the line of what the FBI has done in the past.
TODD (voiceover): That's partly because Bongino has spent considerable time on the air slamming the FBI for its investigations of Donald Trump.
BONGINO: Folks, the FBI is lost. It's broken. Irredeemably corrupt at this point.
TODD (voiceover): Bongino, who served as a New York City police officer in the 1990s, later joined the Secret Service and served on President Barack
Obama's protective detail.
I interviewed Bongino when he left the Secret Service in 2011 to run for the Senate as a Republican from Maryland, asking him about his newly
revealed political loyalty on the opposite side from the president he had guarded with his life.
BONGINO: I want to say personally that I have enormous respect for him, but I just disagree with the ideology. It's a simple ideological play --
that's it. The country's going on the wrong path.
TODD (voiceover): Since that failed bid for the Senate, Bongino's media profile has skyrocketed, becoming a star and a regular on Fox News and
hosting his own hugely popular radio shows and podcasts.
While he did scold the January 6 rioters, he's also supported President Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
BONGINO: We had an election with unbelievably suspect behavior.
TODD (voiceover): All the while earning admiration from President Trump.
TRUMP: Bongino -- how about Dan Bongino?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Bongino has been promoting far- right views on his podcast promising retribution. Saying that Trump is going to get revenge against his enemies and saying that Trump should just
ignore court decisions that he doesn't like.
TODD (voiceover): Now, as the hands-on official handling the bureau's daily operations, Bongino has a unique challenge.
MOORE: The one thing you do not want to do day one is lose the loyalty of the FBI. When they see their own management appearing to go off the rail
you lost them.
[13:05:00]
TODD: As for how the FBI's rank-and-file feels about Dan Bongino, according to a mass e-mail obtained by CNN that was sent to its members
just before Donald Trump posted the Bongino had been selected as deputy director, the FBI Agents Association representing thousands of agents said
it had been told by Kash Patel that the new deputy director would come from within the ranks of the FBI. Contacted by CNN, the Agents Association
declined to comment on the appointment of Bongino.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: That was Brian Todd reporting there. My next guest served as deputy director of the FBI, the same position Bongino is now assuming.
Andrew McCabe was fired in March of 2018 after leading investigations into President Trump during his first administration. He joins a program from
Washington, D.C. Andrew, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today.
As we noted, you had the same position that Dan Bongino will now have. You'd call anyone having that position without previous FBI experience
dangerous. Explain why.
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, Bianna, it's an enormous job. You are singularly responsible for all of the FBI's intelligence
collection and investigative activity. That is the activity of 38,000 people, 12,000 of whom are FBI agents working around the globe. None of the
easy questions end up on your desk.
You have over 80 direct reports. 56 of those people run entire field offices. So, the entirety of the work of the FBI is eventually at your
desk. It's on your hands. You are expected to be able to make very quick, incredibly important decisions about very hard issues every single day.
When there is a crisis, it is the FBI deputy director who convenes the crisis coordination call, immediately dispatching assets and capabilities
from around the bureau to the crisis scene to help Americans, help investigators get to the bottom of what's going on.
There is no on-the-job training period for the FBI deputy director. And that is why over the FBI's 117-year history, it has always been an
experienced FBI agent who sits in that chair. Somebody who is deeply familiar with the capabilities of the FBI, with the problems and mistakes
of the FBI, and also with the legal guidelines within which we function. Without having a mastery of that on day one, I think it's -- you're in a
very tough spot.
GOLODRYGA: You not only have someone in this position as the FBI director as well, so the two top jobs without real FBI experience. Kash Patel had
served at the DOJ, but with Dan's job, Dan Bongino, in particular, as noted in Brian Todd's piece, he was a former NYPD officer. He was a former Secret
Service officer as well. And then he made a turn to a far-right conspiracy theorist and podcast host.
Another requirement, I would imagine, in your view, for this job is nonpartisanship. Given the evolution we've seen Dan Bongino take and Kash
Patel over the course of the last decade or so, do you have faith that these men can approach their new jobs in a nonpartisan manner?
MCCABE: That's really, really hard to imagine them doing that successfully. And I say that because, as you've noted, the selection of
both of these individuals, Patel, who by his own admission to the Senate was a surrogate for Donald Trump, appeared on campaign stops and rallies
for Donald Trump, has produced propaganda supporting him. And Dan Bongino who is a very, very outspoken -- first of all, a former wannabe politician
himself ran for political office three times and lost and has been, you know, extremely devoted to Donald Trump very publicly over the last couple
of years in his media work.
Now, to be clear, their own personal political preferences are not a problem. Dan Bongino is entitled to his to his political point of view,
just like any American is. Where it becomes a problem is that he is so overtly political in his speech and in his support for the president that
he creates the impression of being there at the president's discretion, being there to execute the president's will rather than to follow the facts
and the law across the course of very important investigations.
The -- those two jobs, director and deputy director, have always been held by career professionals in terms of the deputy director and a political
appointee who is -- may have come from one party or another, but in most respects in their life has been a lawyer, a judge, a DOJ executive leader
who's exhibited neutrality in their comments and in their conduct. And that is an incredibly important in the post-J. Edgar Hoover FBI.
[13:10:00]
The FBI, where we tried to reform from our initial upbringing as the political arm of the White House. I mean, that's been 50, 60 years ago in
our past. We spent a lot of time and effort establishing the independence that Americans expect from the FBI. And now, we seem to be at a precipice
where that very independence is being thrown over the cliff.
GOLODRYGA: Explain -- I'm so glad you brought that up. Explain why that should matter, the decades long history now of independence from the
presidents and the executive branch and why that should concern Americans now, to hear these words coming out of your mouth, both from a national
security perspective and also from their own civil liberties or perspective.
MCCABE: Yes, sure. So, let's remember where we come from. Not the first FBI director because they're technically were ones before him, but the most
significant early FBI director is J. Edgar Hoover. J. Edgar Hoover served for 40 years in that role. And during the course of that time, he conducted
-- he was the political intelligence arm of the White House. He used the massive investigative authority and power of the FBI to serve the political
goals of every president he served for, Democratic and Republican.
And by doing that, he violated the civil liberties and the rights of Americans repeatedly, went after people who were perceived as enemies to
those presidents. He used electronic surveillance to collect information on people like Dr. Martin -- Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and others,
people who were perceived as enemies of the White House.
And after Hoover the -- in the years and decades after Hoover, the FBI has spent a lot of effort distancing itself, reforming itself from that
regretful history. We had help, obviously in the form of Congress, so things like the Church Committee and the Pike Commission. Laws were passed
to ensure that we didn't do things like warrantless surveillance in the United States and violate Americans' rights in that way.
And it has been in that more recent period that people have become accustomed to an FBI that is independent of the White House, that follows
the law, that follows the facts, and reports those facts neutrally, without political advantage or influence back to the attorney general and pursues
politically neutral prosecutions in court. That's the way our criminal justice system is -- was set up to function.
And so, we have all those very crucial attributes of a free and fair democratic society in which the laws are neutrally and fairly enforced the
same way against all people. Those basic tenants of this country, I think, are now in jeopardy when you have institutions like the FBI that are poised
to function at the beck and call of the president.
GOLODRYGA: Given the high-profiles of both Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, there's an extensive record of comments that they've made about the type of
policies that they would like to see pursued by the FBI, and now that they have the top two jobs, the question is, will they actually act on them? I'd
like to play sound from Kash Patel on Steve Bannon's podcast in 2023.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the
people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you, whether it's
criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yes, we're putting you all on notice. And, Steve, this is why they hate us. This is why we're
tyrannical. This is why we're dictators.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And then there's this post on X from Dan Bongino in 2022 after the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in search of confidential documents that were
taken from then-President Trump as he left office, and here's what he wrote. Everyone involved in this DOJ/FBI abomination, from the management
down to the agents, must be immediately terminated when the tyrants are thrown out of office.
What are the risks here and the top concerns you have when you hear statements like that from both number one and number two now at the FBI?
MCCABE: Well, I mean, there's a lot of concerns that come up for me immediately, not the least of which is that on the first hand, you have
Kash Patel advocating doing things that are clearly illegal. The FBI doesn't target the media, come after members of the media. There is a First
Amendment in this country that protects media and news gathering functions. He seems to be blowing right past that.
[13:15:00]
He then makes a reference to pursuing them with criminal or civil ways. I'm not sure what that means since the FBI doesn't work in civil ways. It's a
criminal investigative organization. Dan Bongino, you know, we're going to throw out and fire all of the agents who were involved in the lawful
execution of a search warrant signed by a federal judge.
I mean, the blatant disregard for the law, for the rights and privileges of those valued employees who have been doing their job with their supervisors
and leaderships oversight and consistent with the law and FBI policy is just outrageous.
Bongino said in another post recently that that Donald Trump should just simply ignore the rulings of federal judges who are now ruling against some
of his issuing rulings against some of his executive orders. Like you're -- we're going to now have a deputy director of the FBI who is advocating
ignoring the lawful court orders of federal judges.
I mean, to me, that's an incredibly dangerous example to set for the 12,000 federal law enforcement officers that he is now responsible for. You don't
want to tell that workforce they should start ignoring the law and ignoring the orders of federal court judges. I mean, it's just -- it's so
fundamental, it's like we shouldn't even have to point this out, but here we are.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and it's important to point it all out and for our viewers to hear it firsthand. Another job of the FBI is one of its most critical
jobs is serving as the first line of defense for national security against terrorism threats to the United States.
I want to play sound for you from Chris Christie, who will remind our viewers back in 2016, Republican who'd been sitting on Trump's transition
team at that point, heading the transition team and advised Trump in 2016 to appoint Chris Wray to the position of FBI director. Chris Christie, not
only former governor of New Jersey, he was also a federal prosecutor. Chris Wray, we should note, though, there is a 10-year term given to FBI
directors knowing that Donald Trump would fire him, resigned before. That happened. I know that's something that you wished he hadn't done at the
time. But I'd like to play sound for you from Chris Christie addressing the issue of national security on a podcast with David Axelrod a short time --
about two months ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FMR. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (D-NJ): And I think that what Trump is once again, discounting is whether Patel winds up there or it's somebody else,
the firing of Wray is going to seriously damage the morale inside the FBI. And I just want to say this now and go on the record now.
DAVID AXELROD: Right. Well, let's turn the tape on.
CHRISTIE: Yes. If there's a terrorism attack in this country over the next four years and he's put someone who is judged to not be qualified in as the
director of the FBI, then that blood is going to be on his hands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: That blood is going to be on the hands of President Trump. Since then, we know Kash Patel was nominated and he is now the FBI director
after having been confirmed. Do you agree with those words from Chris Christie?
MCCABE: Chris Christie is dead right. Dead right. And I can tell you, Bianna, there will be another terrorist attack in this country, right? We
just had one on New Year's Eve, right, just a couple of weeks ago, when an ISIS inspired individual drove a truck through a crowd of tourists in New
Orleans.
Terrorism is on the rise. It never goes away. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino will have their moment. It'll be the call in the middle of the night, or
the bomb that goes off in the middle of the day. I've experienced all of these things personally. And when that moment happens, it'll be on them to
marshal the significant resources of the FBI, from across the globe where they live and are applied every single day and to use that capability in an
intelligent and lawful way immediately.
There is no time for either man to learn the job or take the time it would take them to understand the FBI people and the organization they work for
and how they work. There's just no time when that call goes off in the middle of the night and you have to perform to save lives and protect the
American people. They'll get that opportunity, and we'll see how it goes.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And a reminder, as we noted in Brian Todd's piece, that Kash Patel had written, according to multiple sources, promising that his
deputy would be somebody who had served in the FBI from their own ranks, that is not the case.
So, I'm curious what you were hearing from your former colleagues, from FBI agents there now, how they're responding to this change in leadership.
[13:20:00]
MCCABE: Yes. So, I'm hearing from a lot of people in the FBI, people who are there now, people who recently left. And it's clear to me that morale
is at an all-time low, which is understandable. The FBI people have long seen the bureau and their place in it as being fundamentally different from
every other government organization and primarily because we have directors who serve for 10 years, a 10-year term that's created specifically to
elevate them above politics, to protect them from some of the -- you know, the constantly shifting winds in the White House.
We've had a series of unbelievably qualified, capable, smart, dedicated, patriotic people who have served in those roles -- in that role. And I
think they are now waking up to the reality that the highest levels of leadership in the organization of the director and the deputy director,
both jobs are filled by people who have said numerous things in the last couple of years that indicate they don't trust FBI people or the way they
do their work. People who've said things that indicate they don't really understand how the FBI works and people who have demonstrated one
qualification, and that is slavish loyalty to Donald Trump.
That is a very different world for the men and women of the FBI, many of whom are now worried about getting fired simply for having worked on the
January 6th cases. All of these things conspire to create low morale and a terrible distraction from the important work that they have to do every
day. So, hopefully they'll get through this period into one of greater stability, but I think they've got a long way to go.
GOLODRYGA: Really laying out an ominous picture there from a man who knows this industry so well, this organization so well, impacts for every single
American. Andrew McCabe, thank you so much.
MCCABE: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now to Gaza, where the clock is ticking down to the end of the truce between Israel and Hamas, which is set to expire this weekend
unless there is a new agreement to extend it. The two sides were meant to begin talks on a permanent end to the war in early February.
Three weeks later, they still haven't started. Instead, Israel is preparing for a return to war and escalating operations in the occupied West Bank.
The IDF deploying tanks to the area for the first time in two decades, as Jeremy Diamond reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: As the Israeli military expands its military operation here in the occupied West Bank, we are
getting a firsthand look at some of the destruction that's been wrought in the Nur Shams refugee camp.
You can see all around me, really, this entire area has been dug up by those D9 bulldozers, and we're also seeing evidence of powerful blasts that
have ripped open, for example, the front of this residential building.
The Israeli military began its expanded operation in the West Bank over a month ago, but it expanded it here to Nur Shams about two weeks ago. And
you can see here, for example, this used to be a pharmacy, and this kind of destruction is happening increasingly frequently in the West Bank,
resembling the type of military operations that the IDF has been carrying out in Gaza.
You also don't hear any people around me. We haven't seen many civilians in the area, and that's because of the displacement that has been happening
here in the Nur Shams Refugee Camp and Tulkarem and the Jenin Refugee Camp as well, where overall, about 40,000 people have been forced to flee their
homes.
We spoke to some of those people earlier today who said that they really don't know when they're going to be able to return home. That's because the
Israeli defense minister, Israel Katz, has said this military operation could last for over a year and that until that operation is over, the
residents of camps like this one, they will not be allowed to return home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Jeremy Diamond reporting there from the West Bank. Well, next, we turn to a humanitarian disaster unfolding in the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The country's prime minister says some 7,000 people have been killed and nearly half a million don't have shelter. Since
the rebel group, M23, pushed deep into the country last month capturing the major cities of Goma and Bukavu.
On Monday, United Nations Chief Antonio Guterres addressed the conflict at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONIO GUTERRES, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we see a deadly whirlwind of violence and horrifying human
rights abuses amplified by the recent M23 offensive supported by the Rwandan Defense Forces. As more cities fall, the risk of a regional war
rises. It's time to silence the guns. It's time for diplomacy and dialogue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Rwanda rejects those allegations that it is supporting M23 with arms and troops, but this latest offensive is a hugely destabilizing
development in a decades long conflict and one that is provoking fears of a wider regional war.
Here to discuss what is behind the violence is Comfort Ero. She is the President and CEO of the International Crisis Group and joins me now from
London. Comfort, thank you so much for joining us.
Before we get into M23 and the geopolitics surrounding it all, if you can just paint a picture for our viewers as to the current reality on the
ground there in the Congo. The U.N. confirming cases of children actually being executed, recruited to fight, there is a lot of concern about what it
means for the general population and civilians there, some 450,000 people without shelter as they're fleeing. Tell us, what is happening?
COMFORT ERO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: Thank you for having me. I mean, you've painted the picture quite well. I mean, mass
displacement, a very sort of humanitarian dire, consequences, sexual violence, again, largely structural, but on the rise. Millions of people
have fled their homes in a large swoop, and you're seeing the most severe crisis on the continent after Sudan.
So, it's a quite a grim picture where both sort of the law enforcement, the army's capacity, the capacity of regional administration, but also
(INAUDIBLE) to be able to take grip of the situation or all colliding at the same time, as you've seen this regional proxy war take shape in Eastern
Congo.
GOLODRYGA: And Congo has been a hotspot for militias, we know for many, many years, largely attracted to the vast mineral wealth of the country and
the -- and national -- natural reserves there. But M23, in particular, has a history in the Congo dating back decades. Talk to us about the latest
resurgent -- resurgence and what you think is behind it.
ERO: Yes, you're quite right. I mean, this is an insurgent. You might want to call -- even call them a professional insurgent because they've been in
existence since the 1990s and they largely see themselves as a group that is fought on different periods throughout Congo's turbulent history for
making the case that they want Congolese refugees to return. A lot -- a number of them have been in and out of the army. They rebelled. They've
been seeking concessions, seeking amnesty.
And you'll recall back in 2012, 2013, there was an effort to beat them down. They remained dormant for a while, and then they came back in 2021.
And we're dealing with the fallout of 2021 right through to 2024.
And in a sense, what triggered this latest crisis was a fallout, the result of rivalry between Rwanda and Uganda with Rwanda using the M23 largely as a
proxy to consolidate and expand its own influence in Eastern Congo.
So, at one level, there's an internal dimension to this crisis, but overall, there's a large external dimension to the crisis largely driven by
Rwanda's own expansionist agenda, and Rwanda often invokes the horrors of the genocide of 1990, 1994 claiming that some of the forces that it's
trying to beat back are remnants from the Houthi genocide in 1994. So, it claims that it's self-defense, but that argument has sort of run its course
because there is that more expansionist territorial game that Rwanda is seeking at the same time.
GOLODRYGA: And Rwandan President Paul Kagame has been in office since 2000. Prior to that, he was a commander of the Rwandan Rebel Armed Forces
as well, and he received a lot of praise for the handling in the aftermath of that genocide that you just noted.
It is interesting and a bit baffling how he's responding to this current crisis now with M23. We heard from both the U.N. and the U.S. that Rwanda -
- and as you just laid out as well, that Rwanda is behind this current insurgency, and Rwanda is denying this. Our own Larry Madowo recently spoke
with the president and asked him directly if Rwanda had any troops in the Eastern DRC. Here's how he answered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL KAGAME, RWANDAN PRESIDENT: I don't know.
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You're the commander in chief.
KAGAME: Yes. There are many things I don't know. But if you want to ask me, is there a problem in Congo that concerns Rwanda and that Rwanda would
do anything to protect itself? I would say, 100 percent.
[13:30:00]
MADOWO: Does this risk a war in the region?
KAGAME: I don't know. I don't think anybody's interested in war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: This is a seasoned politician here and military expert. How do you respond to his answers there? Basically, I don't know.
ERO: I mean, I think it's also a sign that President Kagame knows that he can't hide behind certain facts. I mean, there's a lot of evidence that has
been gathered, my colleagues, for example, but the United Nations, the panel of experts, clear evidence that there is material support, logistical
support, weaponry, increasing deployment, even as far as the fact that today Rwanda -- the Rwandan Defense Army outnumbers the M23 as well. So,
there is -- there are more Rwandees fighting in this conflict as well.
Rwanda -- Paul Kagame has often tried to deny the role that Rwanda has played and is often battered it away, saying that this is largely a
Congolese affair. This is a an issue that has to be settled by Congolese. But at the same time, in that interview that you just aired, he also said
that, you know, Rwanda will always seek to defend its national interest when it needs to. The question today is that, what is that national
interest?
Because at the one level, as I said, he's often justified Rwanda's foothold in Eastern Congo as a matter of national security tied to the Rwandan
genocide of 1994. That argument has now run its course, because it's pretty clear from all the evidence that this is not just an issue of self-defense,
but this is about having a very clear claim, having another agenda, economic agenda, and wanting to stake its claim in a region and have an
upper hand in that part of Congo.
There are other factors. The M23 have their own set of demands, their own objectives. Some would even go as far as to say that there is a regime
change agenda that is driving some of this at one level, no stake or claim in the east of the country, but drive through, which makes this reminiscent
of the wars that we saw in, in the late 1990s.
GOLODRYGA: Well, if you go back to even 2012, it was international pressure, but particularly that from President Kagame in Rwanda that we
finally saw M23 finally lay down its arms and back down after capturing Goma. If we're not seeing Kagame step up to the plate right now, I mean,
who actually has the leverage over M23?
ERO: You're absolutely right. I mean, we -- you know, trying to -- if you go back to 2012, 2013, that was, you know, more sort of clear, coherent,
regional, concerted action coming through from all the different levels. Today, you have a divided continent, largely because also you're seeing a
tussle between Eastern African countries and then Southern Africa countries.
But for the first time -- and you played the video, the remarks of the secretary-general at the beginning, I think it's also important to realize
that just recently, the Security Council took a resolution and made a very distinct break from the past in terms of how the Security Council, has
often done, managed the DRC-Rwanda tussle.
So, it was very political. It went further than the African Union and the two regions that are at stake in this crisis. But also, for the first time,
it explicitly called out Rwanda, something that has never happened before, and also threatened sanctions alongside the sanctions that you've seen for
the United States.
So, there is now, despite some unproductive diplomacy, despite this kind of like tussle between the two regions, the Security Council to make this call
largely distinct. And on the top -- on the back of that, you've got the United Kingdom also warning that it's got sanctions coming down the
pipeline, whether that will change the calculations of Rwanda and President Kagame's response was, we've taken notes of that, you know, and
unprecedented intimidation of African voices, that also was a curious response, but let's see whether that will alter his own calculations.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the U.S. has sanctioned a Rwandan official and M23 spokesman as of now. And in the meantime, thousands have died, innocence --
innocent civilians there have been fleeing their home and being dispatched place and you mentioned sexual violence as well. There's been a significant
spike since Goma fell.
Here are some statistics. The U.N. says they recorded 572 rape cases, including 170 children. What protection do women and children in particular
have now?
[13:35:00]
ERO: I mean, that's a really good question. And one of the key issues that we're saying is that we've got to see some kind of humanitarian bridge,
particularly to keep access open in Goma. The M23 is saying that it will try to guarantee that, it's hard to see how that's going to happen when
largely we're seeing the administration -- you know, we've seen Rwanda and M23 trying to take control of the local administration, can make guarantee
that protect -- that kind of protection. I think that's going to be a very difficult upheaval for the people of Eastern Congo, and particularly, I
mean, Goma and Bukavu.
I mean, you said at the beginning, you talked about the displacement, there are at least 7.2 million according to OCHA's own statistics that are
displaced, and in the midst of that, the protection of children, a number of them being recruited, and that's just a horrific story that has come out
about these women who were burnt in the prison. It's quite a shocking state of affairs in the region.
GOLODRYGA: And this is a reminder of -- these are the official numbers that have been reported. I would imagine the actual numbers are far greater
and stories even more horrifying. Comfort Ero, thank you so much for joining us. Brilliant conversation.
ERO: Thank you so much. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And now, to the war in Ukraine, which this week marked its third grim anniversary. And as American support for Kyiv appears to be
uncertain, French President Macron met yesterday with President Trump and warned against any surrender of Ukraine.
To discuss the impact of the U.S. administration's recent moves to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, Walter Isaacson sat down with Hermitage
Capital Management CEO and co-founder Bill Browder.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Bill Browder, welcome back to the show.
BILL BROWDER, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Great to be here.
ISAACSON: Well, this week at the third anniversary of the invasion, and things have dramatically changed, not on the battlefield, but on the
political field, with Donald Trump being unwilling to continue support, it seems, for Ukraine. There were summits of European leaders this week. What
do you make of the situation now?
BROWDER: Well, I would say it's actually gone a little worse than being unwilling to support Ukraine. Based on statements that Donald Trump has
made, it looks like he's now thrown his lot in with Putin. And what do I mean by that? Donald Trump has blamed Ukraine for starting the war, which
of course, anyone who has two eyes knows that's not true. He has called Zelenskyy a dictator. And all of his people now on all the talk shows are
basically saying that Russia wasn't the aggressor.
And so, I think what we have happening is far worse than just sort of washing his hands of Ukraine, he's kind of thrown his lot in with Putin,
and that has unbelievably negative consequences not just for Ukraine but for a lot of issues around the world.
ISAACSON: But didn't we see it coming that he had an affinity for working with Vladimir Putin or who knows what it is, and that this was going to
come to pass?
BROWDER: Well, we all saw it, of course. Remember, there was the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion. There was all this -- the Helsinki
summit where Trump sided with Putin over the U.S. intelligence services, and, by the way, offered to hand me over to Putin when Putin asked him. We
-- we've seen it in many interviews.
But I think everybody was sort of hoping and praying that this wouldn't change -- that whatever his affinity was wouldn't change U.S. policy. And
for the most part, during his first term as president, it didn't. He was surrounded by a lot of people who kind of kept the guardrails in. But this
time around, he has literally come out of the gates swinging on behalf of Vladimir Putin and against Ukraine and against a lot of the rest of the
world and perhaps against the American people when it comes to this whole issue.
ISAACSON: A lot of the Trump administration officials have been going to Saudi Arabia trying to have direct negotiations with the Russians. And it
seems that President Trump wants to have direct negotiations with Putin, leaving out both the Ukrainians and the Europeans. What do you make of
that?
BROWDER: Well, I think that you can't have a negotiation between two warring parties and exclude one of the warring parties. You know, Russia is
--
ISAACSON: Well, wait a minute. I mean, that may happen. So, I mean, that may be what happens.
BROWDER: Well, then it's not a negotiation. I mean, I think that actually the purpose of these meetings in Saudi Arabia is not to resolve the war.
The purpose in Saudi Arabia is for Trump and Putin to reset relations between themselves.
[13:40:00]
There's been all this talk about lifting sanctions, about bringing Russia into the G7 for American businesses to show up in Russia. This doesn't look
like a peace negotiation, this looks like some type of reset of relations between Russia and the United States.
ISAACSON: What should Ukraine do?
BROWDER: Well, Ukraine, in my opinion, doesn't really have much of a choice. Ukraine should fight. They should fight the Russians. And to the
extent that the U.S. is cutting off military aid, then the Ukraine should look to the Europeans to increase military aid.
If the Europeans don't have enough money in their -- within their own resources, and I should point out that the Europeans have produced more
than half of the military aid before, but for them to double down may be difficult if they don't have the money to continue or to double down, the
Europeans should then draw on the $300 billion of Russian money, which has been frozen mostly in Europe and use that money to support the Ukrainians.
And in those circumstances, Trump doesn't really have the leverage to change the outcome of this war. He doesn't have the leverage to force
Ukraine into a surrender, which is effectively what he's trying to do right now.
ISAACSON: You've been talking about that $300 billion in frozen assets. You've been talking about it for three years saying that it should be
confiscated, it should be used to help Ukraine. It seems obvious to me, unless you want to correct me, that Trump's not going to go along with
that. To what extent can the Europeans do it on their own and why haven't they done it?
BROWDER: Well, the Europeans can absolutely do it on their own. Of the $300 billion, only $13 billion is in the United States. So, $287 billion is
in Europe. The Europeans could absolutely take that money. It's Putin's money. Putin should be paying for the Ukrainians, not anybody else. Why
haven't they done it? Because there hasn't been the political will to do it up until now.
Now, the Europeans are in a whole different world than they were living in two weeks -- from two weeks ago. The Europeans are now being told in no
uncertain terms by the president -- by the vice president, J. D. Vance that they're on their own. And so, the Europeans are waking up to a new reality.
And as they wake up to this new reality, I believe that there's quite a bit of political will to support Ukraine and I think there's quite a bit of
political will to have Putin pay for it before they have to tax the taxpayers that extra money.
ISAACSON: Yet, on these frozen assets that you think they should seize, have you talked to any European leaders in the past couple of weeks about
it?
BROWDER: I have. I was at the Munich Security Conference about a week ago and I met with seven European foreign ministers from both big and small
countries, and this was just at the moment when J. D. Vance was giving his famous speech criticizing or attacking Europe and not attacking Russia.
And every single one of these foreign ministers that I met with thought it was a no brainer. Of course, that money should be taken. Now, this was a
week before the Germans had their elections, and I don't think any big decision like that could be taken without a German chancellor. And so, now,
we have a German chancellor, I think that things will probably move forward quickly in that direction.
ISAACSON: As you look at the German elections and the new chancellor in which both the far-right AfD got defeated and you may have a coalition of a
conservative government there, how does that affect Ukraine and the relationships with Russia?
BROWDER: Well, in my opinion, the previous German chancellor was sort of half in, half out. It was sort of one step forward, one step back when it
came to Ukraine. He was really -- didn't have the appetite. The new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has the appetite. And his words are very clear,
very strong in supportive of Ukraine.
Now, in German politics, it's not like American politics where in order for him to form a government, he's got to do so in coalition with other
parties, including the party of the previous chancellor, Olaf Scholz, the social Democrats. And so, though some compromises will have to be made, but
I'm hoping, and I think the Ukrainians are hoping, and I'm predicting, that there'll be a much more robust policy in favor of Ukraine coming from
Germany with a new chancellor.
ISAACSON: The new incoming Chancellor Mertz has also talked about having to take some independence from the United States. They, in some ways, seem
to be generally supportive of conservative Republicans in the United States but has now reacted against some of what Trump has said. What do you think
his relationships with the U.S. will be and with Putin will be?
[13:45:00]
BROWDER: Well, I think that his relationships with Putin will be adversarial, as they should be. Putin is an adversary to Europe. And I
think his relationship with the United States will be the best that he can make of it, but understanding the new reality.
And I should point out that there's a difference between Republicans and the Trump administration. Republicans in Congress are all very
transatlantic. They're very much support Ukraine. They're very much against Putin, with the exception of a few crazies. Everybody that I know in
Congress is firmly on the side of Ukraine.
It's the new MAGA wing of the Republican Party, the current administration that has this strange and different view, which I wish I should also point
out is different than the average American. I think the vast majority of Americans support Ukraine think that Putin is a criminal and a dictator.
So, this is sort of -- I think Trump is trying to change the public opinion of America and trying to change the public or the opinion of members of
Congress, but I think that Germany is going to do the best they can to try to hold it all together. But, you know, the message is very clear, J. D.
Vance was very clear, that Europe was seen, in his words, as an adversary.
Trump has also been very clear that he's not a big fan of NATO. He doesn't believe that countries should be defended, which is what NATO is all about,
if they're not paying their way. And therefore, there's going to be a scenario, or there could be a scenario, where Europe has to go it go on its
own as far as defending itself. And I think that that's what Friedrich Merz, the new chancellor, was saying in his speech.
And it's probably important to do under any circumstances because I'm very much disagree with Trump on his treatment of Ukraine, but the one place I
agree with him is that Europe has been living in this cozy cocoon of being protected by America, it's time for Europe to pay for its own defense. And
now, the reality is very much that they're going to have to do that.
ISAACSON: President Trump and some in his administration have called for the use of Ukraine's rare earth minerals and mineral rights to be helping
fund or pay back to the United States. I think Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent walked it back a little bit in the Financial Times op-ed in which
he talked about creating a fund focused on long-term reconstruction, but what do you make of that whole idea?
BROWDER: It's outrageous. So, in -- so, the United States, in the form of a grant, a gift, has given Ukraine, over a period of time, a hundred
billion of military aid. Scott Bessent, the U.S. treasury secretary, shows up in Ukraine, and he says, that wasn't a grant, that was a loan, and we'd
like it back, but we don't want $100 billion back, we want $500 billion back. And in order to do that, we would require you to sign over all your
mineral wealth, 50 percent of it into perpetuity.
I mean, it's an indecent proposal on the most maximum scale for him to come in to do that on every possible level. First of all, you don't -- and by
the way, on top of the whole thing, in exchange for nothing. So, the United States wasn't going to say, OK, we will -- in exchange for that, we will
guarantee your security into perpetuity. No, this is to pay back this $100 billion that was spent in the form of a $500 billion payment.
Anybody who looks at this, even for two seconds, understands that it's a just crazy insane insult to Zelenskyy. And I read that FT op-ed by Scott
Bessent, and he puts a few fancy words on an indecent proposal, but Zelenskyy was right to reject it. I sincerely hope that he doesn't ever
feel any pressure to accept it because it doesn't do anything towards fixing the problem, which is Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
ISAACSON: How could this be resolved now with the U.S. not willing, it seems, to support Ukraine and Zelenskyy? Could there be a ceasefire in
place that would hold, or is there just no solution to this problem?
BROWDER: Well, the other problem that nobody seems to spend any time on is that Putin doesn't really want to resolve it. Putin wants to have sanctions
lifted. He wants to have better relations with America and other countries. He wants to sort of go back into the mainstream. He doesn't want any
justice to be done for what he's done before. But he doesn't want to stop fighting. And for a very simple reason, he doesn't want to stop fighting,
because he has -- he's now a war president. And he -- and for him to sort of stop halfway doesn't accomplish any of his objectives.
[13:50:00]
To be -- the reason he's doing this war, in my opinion, has nothing to do with NATO or even territory, it has to do with a man who's been around for
too long, a dictator has been around for too long, who's desperate to stay in power, because he understands that if he ever loses power, he ends up
going to jail, losing all of his money and dying.
And so, you've got this little dictator who's just desperate to stay alive and he's ready to throw hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to their
death, spend hundreds of billions of dollars. And he has no intention of backing down. The only thing that could happen is a short pause for him to
rearm and then carry on with his mission.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, I still don't understand. What solution would you suggest now for Ukraine?
BROWDER: Well, my solution is very simple, give the Ukrainians all the tools they need to fight --
ISAACSON: Well, wait, wait, wait. We've already established that's not going to happen.
BROWDER: Well, no, it could absolutely happen with the Europeans. There's $300 billion of money to spend on weapons and let them -- let the
Ukrainians fight back the Russians to the point where they have their boot on Putin's throat instead of the other way around, and then they can
negotiate a ceasefire. Putin is never going to negotiate from a position of strength. He's only going to negotiate from a position of weakness.
ISAACSON: Well, as you've said there's been talk that Putin wants to have sanctions lifted. This is his long-term goal, and I saw the secretary of
state, Marco Rubio, even gave a talk about how you could lift sanctions, bring Russia back into the world community. Is that a fantasy or could that
be a new opening to Russia?
BROWDER: Well, I mean, it's outrageous if they do it. I mean, put Putin has launched a war of aggression. He's taken a large part of a neighboring
country that did nothing to provoke the -- this conquest and then to lift sanctions and bring them back into the world community would be a terrible
thing to reward him for, and it would also send a terrible message to Xi of China that he could do the same thing in Taiwan and every other dictator
around the world. This is not the message that we want to send any of these people and it certainly would be the biggest slap in the face of the
Ukrainians if we were to do that.
ISAACSON: Secretary of State Rubio said, if the sanctions lifting then American companies, businesses could do business in Russia and it would be
huge. You were one of the biggest investors, maybe the biggest investor in Russia back in the day. What advice would you give to American corporations
or people thinking of doing business in Russia?
BROWDER: Stay away. I was the largest foreign investor in their country. They expelled me from the country. They raided my office. They seized our
documents. My lawyer discovered a fraud, a $230 million fraud connected with the seizure of our documents by the police. He exposed it. He was then
arrested by the same people who did the crime, tortured for 358 days, and murdered. His name was Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered on November 16,
2009.
And so, my message to American businessmen is, you don't only risk your money, you risk your life. And if that's what they did to the largest
foreign investor in the country, they'll do that to you too.
ISAACSON: We talked two years ago, which was then on the first anniversary of this latest invasion by Russia into Ukraine, and you said that you
thought Putin's idea, that his plan was he could just wait out the U.S., wait us out until the U.S. got tired of it all -- of supporting Ukraine.
Well, that seems to be a bit what happened, at least the U.S. president and his administration feel that. Should we have tried to settle this war a
year ago?
BROWDER: Well, I've got a lot of criticism of how it was handled by the U.S. government before Trump. Biden was running this war where he was
basically giving the Ukrainians enough equipment so they didn't lose, but he was very conscious and explicit in not giving them the equipment they
needed to win. And had he done that, we might be in a different place right now.
ISAACSON: Bill Browder, thank you very much for joining us again.
BROWDER: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, remembering a hero, former Secret Service agent Clint Hill died on Friday at the age of 93. Hill heroically jumped on the
back of President John F. Kennedy's limousine after the president was shot and shielded the first lady from gunfire on that fateful day in 1963. In
2013, Jake Tapper spoke with him about that day and the guilt that never left him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINT HILL, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: We had a responsibility to do that, to protect the president that day and we failed. There's no question
about that, because he was dead. And I felt a sense of guilt, because of all the agents on the -- working that day, I was the only one who had a
chance to do anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: In a statement Monday, the Secret Service said Hill's career exemplified the highest ideals of public service, and his bravery will not
be forgotten.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
