Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Member of Ukrainian Parliament and Ukraine's Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Oleksandr Merezhko; Interview with Sudanese Researcher and Political Analyst Kholood Khair; Interview with "Dark Money" Author and The New Yorker Staff Writer Jane Mayer; Interview with "The Dark Money Game" Director Alex Gibney; Interview with Pulitzer Prize-Winning Artist, Illustrator and Author Art Spiegelman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 15, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: When you start a war, you got to know that you can win the war, right? You don't start a war against somebody that's
20 times your size, and then hope that people give you some missiles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: As Russia continues to target civilians, President Trump again blames Ukraine for the war. We get the view from key from member of
Parliament Oleksandr Merezhko.
Then, after two years of brutal fighting, Sudan faces the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. I ask analysts Kholood Khair, is there
any hope for peace?
Also --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Citizens United said corporations can create a super PAC.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, corporations could fund elections with unlimited amounts of cash.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "The Dark Money Game." Filmmaker Alex Gibney and journalist Jane Mayer investigate the hidden world of campaign finance.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ART SPIEGELMAN, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING ARTIST, ILLUSTRATOR AND AUTHOR: I think it's part of the dangerous and perilous times that we're living in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: When the graphic novel "Maus" was banned from Tennessee schools in 2022, author Art Spiegelman spoke to Walter Isaacson about erasing
history.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Ukraine is still reeling from a massive Russian attack on civilians. Two ballistic missiles struck the heart of the City of Sumy killing almost
three dozen Ukrainians. The government in Kyiv reports the missiles were equipped with cluster munitions to maximize the casualties, a paramedic
describes walking in streams of blood to treat the victims.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I ran out of thermal blankets because we used them to cover dead. There were many dead and we had nothing
else to cover them. I used all blankets I had in my backpack and medical kit. My colleagues came and brought more thermal blankets, but it was still
not enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The attack prompted outrage across the world. Russia claimed that it was targeting a military command center. President Trump says,
quote, "he was told that Russia made a mistake" while blaming President Zelenskyy for the continuation of the war.
So, how does Ukraine navigate a fraught relationship with the White House amidst ongoing Russian attacks? Oleksandr Merezhko is chair of the Foreign
Affairs Committee and Parliament there, and he joins the program from Kyiv.
Oleksandr, thank you so much for taking the time. We also heard the president continue to criticize President Zelenskyy from the Oval Office
yesterday when he was asked. About this latest strike in Sumy. And he said that President Zelenskyy goes on to continue to want to purchase more
missiles and ask from the United States and said, listen, when you start a war, you got to know you can win the war. And as you heard from the
introduction there, clearly, he's speaking about President Zelenskyy when he's blaming Ukraine for starting a war because he goes on to say, you
don't start a war against somebody that's 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.
What do you make o of this continued stance by the president of the United States?
OLEKSANDR MEREZHKO, MEMBER OF UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT AND CHAIR, UKRAINE'S FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Well, of course we strongly disagree with such
statements because they don't correspond to the facts, to the truth. And the truth is that Russia had started the war of aggression against Ukraine
in the year 2014 under Obama administration. And later on, it was Mr. Trump's administration. And Mr. Trump doesn't say that he can be held
responsible for the continuation of Russian war against Ukraine.
And besides, the United States, our closest partner and friend, has always voted at the U.N. in support of resolutions by the general assembly of the
U.N. in support of Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity. And one of this resolution was specifically devoted to aggression against Ukraine. And
the United States was one of the sponsors of this resolution and strongly supported this. And I hope that the U.S., the government, the president,
will continue to follow these this trajectory.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: These comments from the president yesterday came about 24 hours less than President Zelenskyy appearing on "60 Minutes," a U.S. program
here where he continued to share his views that Russian views and Russian talking points have been prevalent in this administration in particular. He
said specifically, I believe Russian narratives are prevailing in the United States. Listen to what else he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): It is a shift in tone of shift in reality, really, yes. A shift in reality. And I
don't want to engage in the altered reality that is being presented to me. First and foremost, we did not launch an attack to start the war. It seems
to me that the vice president is somehow justifying Putin's actions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: He's walking a tight rope here I know, because similar comments that he made sparked the president at the time to erupt at him in that
disastrous Oval Office meeting between the president of the United States, President Zelenskyy, and we saw J. D. Vance there as well. And then,
ultimately, put a pause on military aid and intelligence that has since been lifted on Ukraine.
Are you worried at all, and I understand why he's trying to clear the record in state facts, but are you worried at all that by continuing to do
this that President Zelenskyy could end up doing more short-term harm to Ukraine?
MEREZHKO: Well, the truth is that we continue to be closest allies, I mean, the United States and Ukraine. But the truth is that even among
friends, there can be differences of opinion. But we should be very clear and honest about what we agree with and we might disagree. And I believe
that our president, in a very dignified way, bravely defends the interests of Ukrainian people. Because yes, we're dependent on the military aid
provided by the United States. Because for us, it's about saving lives, including not only soldiers, but also civilian lives.
When our president is talking about missiles, he also means air defense, which American air defense, and American missiles with which right now help
to save lives of Ukrainians in different cities. And I think that we should just be very sincere with each other. And I hope that the United States
will continue to support Ukraine because it's in the best national interest of the United States.
GOLODRYGA: What are the -- what's the state of relations between the Trump administration now and Ukraine and President Zelenskyy in terms of any
communication between top advisers?
MEREZHKO: Well, first of all, from my perspective, it's a crucial issue to have direct communication between both presidents. Because as our
experience demonstrates, when President Trump and President Zelenskyy have face-to-face meeting, they can clear the air and they can find a
compromise. It's crucially important.
Our president is trying to be respectful toward President Trump. He is trying to be constructive. And at the same time, he's trying to be
outspoken, sincere about our needs and about our position.
GOLODRYGA: You have been pretty outspoken about the criticism that you leveled towards Steve Witkoff, who is President Trump's envoy, and clearly,
one of his closest and most trusted advisers, not only as it relates to the war in Ukraine, but on other geopolitical foreign policy affairs, including
now the nuclear deal that he wants to reopen and start communications on potentially with Iran.
But as it relates to this war, Steve Witkoff just recently came back from yet another meeting with President Putin in Russia, and The New York Times
reports that memes proliferated on Ukrainian social media showed Mr. Witkoff shaking hands with Mr. Putin and the carnage and Sumy as a
backdrop. And that led you to write an op-ed stating that Trump's obvious haste to exit Ukraine is now encouraging the Russian dictator to pursue his
most maximalist war aims.
What do you think Putin's ultimate goal is here in terms of this rapport that he's developed with Steve Witkoff? Has he, do you think, turned him
more to be more sympathetic with Russia?
MEREZHKO: Well, the truth is that there are different people in the entourage of President Trump and some of them lack diplomatic experience,
maybe it explains the reason why they make statements, which are totally untrue and unacceptable for Ukraine.
As for Mr. Witkoff, with all due respect to him, at the same time he may be inadvertently is trying to push pro-Russian narratives. I think it's
important that because it's a matter of national security after all, because the president of the United States has taken decisions which are
based on the information received from including Mr. Witkoff.
[13:10:00]
But when he receives distorted information, it can influence in a negative way the quality of the decision taken by American president. That's why
it's very dangerous.
GOLODRYGA: I am wondering how you're interpreting the change in tone, perhaps reality setting in for President Trump who had campaigned on and
even in the early days of this second term, has said that he can finish this war and bring this war to an end on day one. Clearly that hasn't
happened. Then, obviously, he became very involved in the war in Gaza and said that that is something that he also wants to see come to an end. That
doesn't look like it's anytime soon to happen. And now, he's turned his attention to getting a deal with Iran, which I believe in the Oval Office.
He stated something about getting that resolved quickly.
Do you worry at all that the president is losing attention in focus on the war in Ukraine and perhaps that could benefit Vladimir Putin?
MEREZHKO: Well, if President Trump loses interest of focus on Ukraine, of course, it'll have negative consequences for Ukraine, for our security and
for lives of our people. It would be extremely dangerous. We understand this. But I hope it'll never happen.
Of course, Mr. Trump's promises or statements made on campaign trail with regard to finishing the war within 24 hours, we took it as a political
rhetoric, because all along we knew that it's absolutely not realistic. President Trump also promised to have ceasefire before the Easter, but the
Easter is like a week away. So, I don't believe that he will be able to do it.
But it's not his fault. The major obstacle is Putin. And I hope that very soon Mr. Trump will understand that Putin is not a person with whom he can
make a deal. It's absolutely out of the question. Putin is obsessed with destroying Ukraine. He's fixated on our destruction, and that's why it's
absolutely makes no sense to sit at the table of negotiations with war criminal and terrorist Putin.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we should note to this day, President Trump has not stated what you just did, that President Putin is the major obstacle to
achieving peace in this war. Oleksandr Merezhko, thank you so much for the time.
And we'll be right back after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: It's now two years since Civil War erupted in Sudan, causing what the United Nations calls the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
Tens of thousands are dead. More than 12 million are displaced with half the population facing extreme levels of hunger. It's an entirely manmade
crisis, a result of the brutal war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF militia.
Over the weekend, the RSF claimed that it seized control of a massive camp for displaced people in North Darfur. Humanitarian groups denounce the
attack as an assault on the most vulnerable civilians. Kholood Khair is a Sudanese political analyst and she joins the program live. Kholood, it is
good to see you again. I wish it was under better circumstances.
Two years now, give us a sense if we're any closer in your view to seeing a resolution to this horrific tragedy.
[13:15:00]
KHOLOOD KHAIR, SUDANESE RESEARCHER AND POLITICAL ANALYST: I think, unfortunately, the answer is no. What we have seen is that increasingly
regional powers, particularly in the Arab region, have become very comfortable at simply managing the conflict. And we haven't seen any new
ideas about putting the right leverage on the table, to get the principal belligerence to come to peace talks.
But the reality is that this is a war that started off between two factions of the military and the Sudanese security state, but has now metastasized
to different groups and different tribes and different areas of the country. And that makes it infinitely more harder to think of a resolution
that could hold.
GOLODRYGA: We saw the Sudanese army take control of the Capitol back in March. The RSF has control of the presidential palace and the airport right
now. What is the latest situation in Khartoum? What power does the RSF have and hold?
KHAIR: So, very little. The Sudanese Armed Forces managed to push out the RSF from Khartoum, that is a southern part of the Tri-City area, as well as
from large parts of Omdurman, which is to the west -- the western parts of the Tri-City area, which means that the Sudanese army now has control of
most of the capital and surrounding areas.
This has led to something of a complacency about going to sending troops and reinforcements to the capital of North Darfur and El Fasher, which is
to the west of the country where the RSF is currently raising IDP camps to the ground and committing vast atrocities. And really what we are seeing
with the Sudanese Armed Forces taking back the capital is a sort of a reconfiguration of the balance of power within the country.
Sudanese Armed Forces has the center and the Rapid Support Forces is rapidly trying to take control of the west -- the entirety of the western
parts of the country. The concern here is that, you know, people still won't be able to go back to Khartoum because Khartoum is massively unsafe.
There's no water, no electricity, no safety, and the army, and its allied militias, some of which are jihadi groups, are undertaking summary
executions and effectively killing off people they have suspected to have been working with the RSF.
Meanwhile, they let the RSF simply walk out of Khartoum, a move that has led them to now go and reinforce the rest of their RSF troops in El Fasher
causing massive problems for civilians in El Fasher and surrounding areas.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I was going to ask what are the consequences? What have we seen since the Sudanese army took back control of Khartoum back in March?
What has the impact been for civilians? I mean, you just laid out the struggle that's ensued since then. What does that mean for civilians on the
ground?
KHAIR: Well, people have been trying to get back to some semblance of normalcy, those who live in the capitol. The Sudanese Armed Forces have
been encouraging people to come back to the Capitol, but really without anything to offer them whatsoever. And people working at the community
level have tried to reinstall electricity, to get some of the water, you know, sort of stations pumping.
But the Rapid Support Forces is not just going to let the Khartoum go to the army. They have shown that they're willing to, you know, continue their
fight against many civilians in Sudan and they're using drones to attack power stations, to attack water stations, not just in Khartoum, but also
the different cities around the capital that feed into the infrastructure in the capital.
What this means is that it may not be safe or it may not be a viable place to live for many people for some time, which of course, is precisely the
point. Elsewhere in Sudan, we're also seeing civilians very much suffer the brunt of this war, whether they're being targeted by one side or the other
for appraisal or revenge attacks, or whether they are dealing with the vast humanitarian impact of this war.
I mean, Sudan has world's largest humanitarian crisis, was largest displacement crisis. The world's largest protection crisis and the world's
largest hunger crisis all rolled into one. And the International Community has been woefully inefficient at and insufficient in its response.
GOLODRYGA: And as we noted, the RSF seized control of a major displaced persons camp in North Darfur on Sunday. What more do we know about that?
KHAIR: So, the RSF has taken over the Zam-Zam Camp, which is the camp, if you remember, August of last year, the U.N. belatedly declared that famine
had been taking place. Famine has certainly taken route there since then and in other places in the North Darfur area as well.
The RSF have also said that they've taken Abushok. And what's interesting about, it's also another IDP camp. What's interesting about the framing of
the RSF is that it very much shows, I think, their genocidal intent. They have called these IDP camps well established, long established IDP camps,
military bases. They have said that effectively there are no innocence in these military bases, as they framed it, and that effectively everyone is
fair game.
[13:20:00]
And what this means is that we have seen vast numbers of people up to 400 declared dead today by local groups. We have seen you know, main sort of
really sort of main characters and main actors in the emergency response rooms and other mutual aid groups who have been, you know, holding --
bearing the flag, really, of the resistance to the RSF siege have lost their lives, et cetera.
And effectively, it's an extremely desperate situation that's taking place at a time when the world is looking elsewhere, when there isn't really the
requisite attention on what's happening in El Fasher.
GOLODRYGA: And we know that the RSF now has launched an attack on El Fasher. And El Fasher is the last major town in Darfur under Sudanese army
control. What would be the significance of the RSF, excuse me, if they were to eventually win over control of El Fasher?
KHAIR: So, the main sort of, you know, counter to the RSF in El Fasher is actually the joint forces. These are Darfuri militias and armed groups. The
Sudanese Armed Forces doesn't have much of a huge army presence there. And it's because of these joint forces that El Fasher has not so far fallen to
the RSF because, to these joint forces, you know, the fight is existential. It's not just about a military victory. They know that their ethnic groups,
their families, their communities will be targeted by the RSF, should the RSF take over El Fasher. So, we're looking at huge atrocity of risks at the
moment in El Fasher and surrounding areas.
For the RSF, it's very clear, having lost Khartoum in the central part of the country, they need to now take El Fasher and make -- you know, hold
that entire western border of Sudan, which has access to Libya, Chad, and Central African Republics, three countries which they deemed to be quite
friendly in terms of helping them get arms and supplies.
And so, this is really a tussle for the western border of Sudan. But again, one that is born by the civilians of this parts of the country. This war is
not only taking place at the nationals, at sort of the strategic level, but also at the local levels. And there are many malicious allies to the RSF
that are using this opportunity to settle scores with many communities in El Fasher and the surrounding areas. And this is why we will continue to
see ethnically targeted killings by the RSF in this area.
GOLODRYGA: And the sexual violence being committed as well, one would imagine largely under reported. What do we know about the scale of
atrocities regarding women in particular?
KHAIR: Well, we know the sexual violence has been -- the prevalence of sexual violence has been very high since the start of the war. The RSF in
particular have been accused of and there's lots of evidence and documentation of their crimes of sexual gender-based crimes and conflict
related sexual violence meted out against women and girls, and in some cases, men and boys as well. Some of the ages -- age ranges that we've seen
are very, very young children. Some as, you know, infants, under one years old and some are up to 80 years old as well.
So, it's -- there's very indiscriminate approach that is designed to humiliate, it's designed to subjugate not just these women but their
communities as well. And this has been a tactic that has been used by the Sudanese security state for decades, and the RSF is certainly using it now.
Local groups, national level women's rights groups like the Strategic Initiative for Women and the Horn of Africa, as well as Amnesty
International, have released several reports that have led for example, the U.N. repertoire on conflict race and sexual violence, to say that this war
is being waged on the bodies of women and children.
And because there is no consequence, indeed, there has been no consequence to any human rights abuses committed against anyone in Sudan for decades,
we will continue to see these acts being perpetrated, which is why justice mechanisms and, you know, sort of the end of impunity is going to be
central to stemming the tide of all sorts of violence including gender- based violence.
GOLODRYGA: And we know there have been multiple parties over the last two years trying to bring about some sort of peace negotiations and talks to no
avail. I have to ask you before we conclude, for you personally, I mean, you left Sudan in 2023. What has been watching this all unfold from afar?
Obviously, a country, an issue, so important and personal for you, what has that been like?
KHAIR: Well, deeply frustrating. Because it's quite clear that no one in the International Community is willing to put the political cache or
leverage on the table to get this war to stop. And this isn't, you know, a war that's just led by local actors, this is a war that is a global war,
really, that's taking place in Sudan.
We have so many different countries that are, in some way or other, very much in embroiled in this conflict. We have seen Gulf actors, particularly
the United Arab Emirates, very much, you know, at the forefront of providing arms to the RSF. And that has, you know, brought about a sort of
a humanitarian situation that also the International Community is unwilling to respond to sufficiently.
[13:25:00]
Currently, the humanitarian envelope, I believe is about 6 percent funded. And what this means is that, you know, the International Community is, in
many ways, responsible for what happens in Sudan, but not taking responsibility for what happens in Sudan at all. And that frustration, I
don't think is about to end. We are looking at a conflict here that, based on historical precedence, could last 20 years.
So, absolutely, we need, for example, the conference that's taking place in London today to focus international attention on ending the conflict, not
simply managing it, but also looking at the protection process and dealing with that.
GOLODRYGA: Two years a grim and mortifying milestone there to know to each day that goes by more and more are suffering. It is occurring in innocent
lives lost. Kholood Khair, thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.
Well, 50 years ago this week, America's Federal Election Commission opened its doors, a key part of an all of government response to corrupt political
spending exposed by the Watergate scandal. Well, since that time, the FEC has become largely toothless, victim of a systematic attack on campaign
finance reform.
Now, a two-part HBO film series documents the pernicious of effect of unlimited money in American politics. The films are inspired by the
investigative reporting of journalists and author Jane Mayer. Here's a look at the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One way you could look at it is that it's a fair fight. Another way is that both parties are corrupt.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When it comes to the power of a business, this fix seems to be in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A tiny group of people have bought an inordinate amount of influence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People with money will always have an advantage. Always.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Money is a way of changing the rules.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The film's director Alex Gibney and Jane Mayer both join me now from New York. Welcome to the program both of you. Jane, people will likely
say this name sounds familiar. Well, it's based on your book from 2016 "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the
Radical Right." You feature in both of these films, we should note. What led you in so many years of research to focus on dark money, this topic in
particular?
JANE MAYER, AUTHOR, "DARK MONEY" AND STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Well, first of all, thanks so much for having us on. I'm really glad to be with
you today. You know, I was a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. I covered politics and it took me a while to realize that the real story was
money. There -- people wondered out in the country, why is it that the government seems to be doing things that the public doesn't support? Why
don't they do something about climate change? Why don't they do something about gun control? All these issues that the public's on one side of and
Congress is on the other. And the answer I discovered was money. And a lot of it is secret money.
And so, I set out -- I think I spent five years on this book trying to follow the money. And there's just more now than ever.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I was going to say, nearly 10 years later, there's more and more stories that you could write about on this issue. Alex, you
decided to film this in a two-part documentary. And the first part is called "Ohio Confidential," and it's about corruption case involving the
former Ohio State speaker, Larry Householder, which is just a thriller to watch in and of itself. Really. I mean, riveting. I don't know if I want to
say I really enjoyed it. It's not that enjoyable, but it is fascinating to watch and you tell it in such a compelling way. And the second is "Wealth
of the Wicked," which is just tracing the history of campaign finance. Why did you decide to break it up into these two films?
ALEX GIBNEY, DIRECTOR, "THE DARK MONEY GAME": It became bigger than the original intent, where I started out to make one film, and we dug into
these two separate stories, the Ohio story, which is a story that most people don't know about, an incredible pay to pay -- pay to play scandal,
in which a $61 million slush fund results in a $1.3 billion payoff on the backs of Ohio's taxpayers.
It seemed like such an incredible story that we needed to devote a lot of time to it. And that to me was the story of what's going on right now. Then
we felt we really needed to tell the story of how we got there. And that is the story of "Wealth of the Wicked," which is all about the -- how over --
how money overcomes campaign finance, and also, how the Supreme Court gets corrupted and ends up endorsing a policy of almost legalized bribery.
GOLODRYGA: I believe the Ohio story itself was the largest corruption scandal in the state's history. We're talking about tens of billions of
dollars. And it's fascinating because, Alex, it's something that the FBI just happened to stumble upon. Can you give us more of a background here?
[13:30:00]
GIBNEY: I can. They were looking into a gambling matter. And as a result, they had pulled warrants so that they had -- they were running wiretaps and
body wires on informants on that gambling matter. And they stumbled into a lobbyist named Neil Clark on these tapes who was talking about a big kind
of pay to play thing with Larry Householder, who was on his way to becoming speaker of the house. So, they shifted gears and began to follow that.
And I think that became the interesting part of this story. It's very rare in this world of campaign finance that people get caught doing something
that's so explicitly quid pro quo. But in this instance, they felt they were able to get over. And one of the things that attracted me to the case,
in addition to the obvious corruption, was the fact that in the background, in bars and restaurants, they were all chuckling to each other, saying 10
years ago we wouldn't have been able to get away with this. But now, because of Citizens United, it's all legal.
GOLODRYGA: So, that brings me to my next question, Jane. Talk about how pivotal that the Supreme Court's decision was in 2010 at ruling in favor of
Citizens United, how that changed the game.
MAYER: I mean, it has really changed everything. It's just plain opened the floodgates to what in the past might have been considered bribery
basically. It's legalized almost every kind of spending on American politics. And the result is -- I mean, if you wonder why the richest man in
the world, Elon Musk, is at the side now of President Trump and how he managed to spend something like $250 million in the last election to get
Trump elected, that's all legal because of Citizens United.
It's changed the whole culture. It's given a green light to just in almost unimaginable amount of money and given just a tremendous advantage to the
richest people in the country to control the country's politics. So, you know, people ask, you know, why is it government doesn't work? It actually
works really well, but only for a handful of people who are the richest people in the world.
GIBNEY: Somebody pointed out to me that the three richest people in America are now worth more than the bottom 50 percent of the American
population.
GOLODRYGA: Wow. And that's something that catches people's attention. What makes people's eyes glaze over, Alex, are terms like 501(c)(4)s Super PACs,
gerrymandering. You know, they're like -- you've lost me there. I don't know what that means. How does it impact me? And what you are doing is
explaining through your film how even illegal attempts at passing one bill, one piece of legislation, that then dominoes into issues that impact not
only one community, but the state and the nation, abortion becomes an issue raised here that you cover as well. Just talk about framing it through that
lens.
GIBNEY: Well, as you say, the devil is in the details. And sometimes the details are difficult to understand. But I think, fundamentally, almost all
Americans hate the very idea of a bribe. The idea that somebody can, you know, toss a bunch of money to somebody under the table and get an unfair
advantage. And when that unfair advantage basically results in legislation that undermines our healthcare, our environment and essentially equal
justice under the law, you know, people start to get really upset.
So, what we need to focus on and the reason, you know, I joined forces with Jane to try to tell this story was to kind of deal with the details, but
also to make it explicit that what's happening here is something very basic, which is legalized bribery and it's got to stop.
GOLODRYGA: And these are tactics that you note, Jane, both Republicans and Democrats have now undertaken, but perhaps it was -- and we learned more of
this in "Wealth of the Wicked," the second film, that the journey to get here, decades in the making, was initially picked up on by conservatives
who realized that they had a friend, a powerful friend in big business. Can you go more into that aspect?
MAYER: Yes. I mean, basically, the backstory to this was that people who felt that they wanted to have more power in the democracy and they felt
locked out, religious extremists, anti-abortion activists and the sort of more extreme end of the business world that wanted to end all kinds of
regulations, they formed a pact.
[13:35:00]
They needed each other because there weren't enough votes for -- behind big -- what big business wanted to do. But -- and the anti-abortion activists
and the religious activists, they needed money. They had the votes, not the money. Business had the money, not the votes. So, they pretty much formed
an alliance, which worked step by step by step. They were very methodical and really quite smart, I have to say, very strategic in how they basically
undid all kinds of campaign finance laws that had been put in place, particularly after the Watergate scandal, to control corruption in America.
And they took them apart and they brought one case after the next. And they won with Citizens United. And we are now, these many years later, seeing
the results of what happens when you knock down all the reforms that were meant to control corruption in American politics.
And you're right, both parties play this game, because they both have to. Other -- you know, neither side, they both need the money now to win. And
that corrupts both parties in a way. And the thing that's sort of we're thinking about is, this is not an issue that only Democrats care about,
it's not a liberal issue. If you look at polls, overwhelmingly, Americans hate the Citizens United decision. It's like 90 percent of them are against
it, including tons of conservatives. People don't want democracy owned by a few very rich people.
GOLODRYGA: And --
GIBNEY: It's funny that --
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
GIBNEY: Sorry. It's funny that 90 percent, because that's -- 90 percent is the statistic also which shows that 90 percent of elections are won by
people who spend the most money.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, yes. So, connect the dots there, and you understand how they got to that point. And we only have a few seconds left. But, Jane, I
was going to ask both of you, in terms of solutions, I mean, one thing we've seen is this issue go from being dark money to really out in the open
public flaunted in front of the president's face money.
And I'm not sure, I mean, it's transparent from that perspective. But one has to wonder where this goes from here, if something that's for years was
investing -- there was investments made to hide all of this corruption, to see it out in the public, how is that going to sit with voters ultimately,
and what impact will that have?
MAYER: Bianna, you're so right. Dark money is now like daylight money.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MAYER: We're looking at it all over the place. You know, it's interesting, the voters in Wisconsin recently turned against the amount of spending that
Elon Musk tried to do in order to buy a Supreme Court seat that he wanted to influence there. I don't think that it plays well with the public.
And the history of America is of waves of corruption and then reform. And I'd say we're overdue for the reform. The public's just got to care. And
then, there's reform.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. We'll be waiting for that reform. I know you'll be covering it when it happens.
MAYER: I hope so.
GOLODRYGA: Alex Gibney, Jane Mayer, thank you so much for joining us. Really fascinating two-part series.
GIBNEY: Thanks, Bianna.
MAYER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And just a note, HBO is part of the Warner Brothers Discovery, CNN's parent company. And do stay with CNN, we'll be right back after the
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. Now to the crisis facing American schools and libraries. Right-wing groups are pushing for new limits on what books
remain on their shelves. This as book banning in the U.S. is already experiencing a surge.
Back in 2022, cartoonist Art Spigelman found himself at the center of controversy when his acclaimed graphic novel about the Holocaust, "Maus,"
was banned by a school board in Tennessee. Let's take a look back at his conversation with Walter Isaacson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Art Spiegelman, welcome to the show.
ART SPIEGELMAN, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING ARTIST, ILLUSTRATOR AND AUTHOR: Thanks for having me.
ISAACSON: A Tennessee board of education removed your book, "Maus," from the curricula a few weeks ago and it's caused great controversy, it's even
made "Maus" now number one on the Amazon bestseller list. Now, that you've had a week or so to reflect on it, what do you think are the lessons from
this?
SPIEGELMAN: I think it's part of the dangerous and perilous times that we're living in. A lot of it is directed at critical race theory in giant,
frightening quotes and part of it is directed against non-gender normative people's books.
It's amazing how often comics come up as a problem. It used to be that comics were burned back in 1954 when they were afraid they were causing
juvenile delinquency. Now, in part thanks to "Maus," it's an accepted part of most curricula, the graphic novels, as they're called, are within the
scope of what is taught, because it's effective. And the school board seems to be following an agenda, either consciously, or if I want to be generous,
unconsciously, of Moms for Freedom, for liberty or whatever, turning this into an issue of parent's rights rather than an issue of education and
making sure that children are prepared for the world that is kind of barreling at them.
ISAACSON: After the controversy erupted over the removal of your book from the curricula, the school board in Tennessee issued a statement. And I
would like to read it to you and get your reaction to it. They said, we do not diminish the value of "Maus" as an impactful and meaningful piece of
literature, nor do we dispute the importance of teaching our children the historical and moral lessons and realities of the Holocaust. To the
contrary, we've asked our administrators to find other works to accomplish the same educational goals in a more age-appropriate fashion. Tell me your
reaction to that.
SPIEGELMAN: Well, I've now come to realize that age-appropriate is a broad range that includes probably 40-year-old people on that school board as
well as 14-year-old students in their classes. When you talk about middle school, you're talking about some kids who can barely read and some kids
who are just taking advanced placement classes for their university education. And anything that helps that education happen is important.
ISAACSON: One of the school board members this week said, yes, but parents can read "Maus" at home to their kids, that's fine, we just don't want to
make it part of the curricula. Does that make any sense you and why would you say that?
SPIEGELMAN: Well, I think they would say that because it's part of localizing all politics at this point. School boards are much better
equipped than Congress to pass laws about how children might be educated, so they can be useful and good citizens of our country in peril. But also,
it's a bit disingenuous for them to keep focusing in "Maus" on a few rather mild bits of foul language and on something that I found really offensive.
They keep not talking about the real issues, which is the Holocaust, saying, we don't mind teaching the Holocaust, but basically, I feel they
want a kinder, gentler Holocaust to present to their children.
And what they really are upset about is there's one panel with what they describe as a nude woman, and then, they've described that as sexual. I
found that as offensive as anything they found in "Maus." It's one panel, not with mice, but with inset into the book about my mother's suicide and
how I responded when I found out about the day, she killed herself, that has her naked in a bathtub full of blood, without making anything
especially licentious about that image, it's just a person in a bathtub with blood. And usually, in the bathtub breasts are visible.
So, I think they were asking me to like put a bathrobe on my mom in the bathtub or something, because it doesn't make much sense as describing that
as sexual. For them to use the word nude woman rather than naked, which is about her vulnerability, is also either a conscious or unconscious choice
in how they presented this in order to deflect from the real issues in the book.
[13:45:00]
And in fact, why "Maus" is such a good teaching tool even though I have confessed that I never expected or wanted it to be a Y.A. novel. I've
learned my lessons over the years because kids have learned their lessons from "Maus" and they have done very well assimilating those lessons from
the children I've spoken to in schools, the young people.
And I think the very things they're objecting to, which is not -- one of them actually said, I love the Holocaust, in his school board meetings,
saying that, it's great for the part of the story that my father is telling. That's perfect. But why is there all of this other stuff that has
nothing to do with the Holocaust, which is not true. Because the way book comes forward and the way it was meant is it's through my eyes,
understanding and learning and thus, teaching myself as well as anybody wanted to share the book with me.
How the heck I ever got on to this planet? Both parents were supposed to be dead in Auschwitz. So, as an adult, I went back to my father and he was
willing to tell me in detail. And we finally found common ground where we could talk to each other without yelling at each other, like, ironically,
in his memories of his time in the death camps.
ISAACSON: Tell me what you think the underlying fear was that's causing people want to remove from the curricula books like yours?
SPIEGELMAN: Well, I think it's part of a general and widespread authoritarian influence. Like, when I tried to deconstruct what happened
with the school board, which I'm sure would be no happier with any of the books that are out on gender issues and grace issues, has to do with who's
in charge here. And they wanted to be the Moms for Liberty.
And the problem with that is they're not really equipped to give children a good education. In fact, the school board is probably made up of parents
who went to school in (INAUDIBLE) County and never got a good education that would allow them to deconstruct my book, for example, with any
intelligence. Therefore, even though I didn't make it for children, if it's going to be in schools for kids who are 14 years old, that's not a problem,
but it's better to be done under a curriculum that's giving supporting materials, that's actually helping one understand the issues more broadly.
And in fact, the people who are -- the teachers at this board meeting were adamant that they thought that it should be taught in their classes,
because it is part of a curriculum that can show newsreel footage, other films, other books, articles that put it in context, they say they don't
want to drop it, because I'm the third item on their curriculum. The fourth quarter is about Japanese internment camps.
So, better that -- I think that they're on the right track. I feel sad when I listen to the -- when I read the minutes of the school board meeting that
even they were trying to find ways to get past the school board by saying, well, we tried whiting out some of the bad words like damn and the word
bitch is there in the book when I'm talking about my anger at my mother for having abandoned me, in the heat of having to find out she had killed
herself. And they just they just left the B of bitch in place.
And I -- as a modest proposal, I would said, rather than leave the B, they could put in bagel or blintz because it brings up more wholesome parts of
Jewish heritage and maybe we could put some recipes in the back. It's just all deflection, which is the case for every one of these books that's being
banned across the country.
ISAACSON: Let me push back on something you just said, which is that the parents are not really well educated enough and that they don't really know
what would be good for their children? Isn't that a problem if we're not trying to balance the act that parents should have some say and that we're
seeming contemptuous, parents who want to say, I need some control over what's being taught to my kids?
SPIEGELMAN: Well, obviously, that's a very American attitude. But I believe the way it's done, for instance, in France, which is the other
culture I'm sort of exposed to regularly because of my wife and my friends in France, is public education is about educating people so that they could
participate in their great democracy experiment. And therefore, one has to learn to trust the teachers or hire teachers that are trustworthy.
It's not about trusting children. It's about trying to make sure they're not exposed to anything outside of the very narrow focus that's being
offered to them. And this includes people who are triggered by reading about the slave Jim in "Huckleberry Finn" and being exposed to a bad word.
This is better taught in a school than having them come across the word and think that Mark Twain is writing about it in 2021 and exposing them to the
N-word. It's in a context in which Jim is the most human and fully developed character, in some ways, in all of "Huckleberry Finn."
[13:50:00]
So, I'm just a First Amendment fundamentalist and believe it's best taught with more talk. That one exposes children to things. These things could be
taught, should be taught, all of it, including the ugliest parts, as well as the most beautiful, without trying to whitewash it and hide the actual
histories that children and young people and adults need to be exposed to.
ISAACSON: In "Maus," you portray the Jews as mice and the Nazis as cats and other groups as different animals. In some ways, that helps give an
emotional distance, in a way. These are not human characters.
SPIEGELMAN: Right, Walter, it does both. It both gives me enough distance to make these things by putting this mouse and cat and pig and dog masks on
the people, but their masks -- and it's made clear in the course of the story, I don't think of myself as a mouse, exactly, but that allows both
the distance for me to enter into the material, but also kind of intimacy.
Because if you have these mice all look sort of alike, you know, they're all triangles with two dots, little lumps for ears, that means that if you
identify with me, you're going to be as a character in the book, Artie talking to his dad, you'll also be identifying with the people who look
almost exactly like him, because they're all looking more or less alike, and there's a mean feat to try to make sure you always understood who you
were looking at, when I was telling the story of the destinies of many of these people.
I don't know how to resolve the dilemma you brought up a couple of minutes ago, the one about, well, parents have a right, what, dot, dot, dot. They
have a right to have input, but I think they -- all parents should have an advanced teaching degree before they take the ultimate authority for that
sort of thing. Because, hey, it's the same state that 35 miles away from the school board life was trying to keep evolution from being taught in
schools in Scopes Monkey Trial days. This is not a useful education. If they had succeeded in banning teaching Darwin in their schools.
Similarly, I don't think that stopping one's education with the New Testament is any better.
ISAACSON: You've said, we're living in really perilous times. But do you think that pulling a book like yours out of a curricula for eighth graders
is really a step on the way to a real book banning and book burning?
SPIEGELMAN: Absolutely. I don't know to what degree, the school board was working in collusion with Moms for Liberty, but that's a very overt
program, rather malevolent, completely malevolent, well financed to pull books out of libraries, out of schools, to only teach a very positive and
patriotic picture of America's past that isn't useful in understanding America's present. It's as perilous as you think it is.
These laws are being amped up. It's not just taking it out of a curriculum and leaving the kid to fend for himself if they can find the book, it's
also about trying to control everything that's being read, including in libraries. Fine libraries for having books that have been banned. I think
there was one case where I was reading that you could get a $10,000 a day fine if you were promoting a banned book in that area. And that's coming
closer to the genuine book banning.
The problem with banning books is, I was right that they're not Nazis, the school board, that's not what's happening. But, you know, it's not
effective to ban a book, as you can see by "Maus" shooting up on the bestseller list again. But you have to then go on and burn the books. And
then, after you have to burn the books, you have to burn the people that wrote them and read them. It's a trajectory. I would like to say
(INAUDIBLE) certain, but not exact.
ISAACSON: What role can "Maus" play in fighting anti-Semitism? And for that matter, in fighting racism?
SPIEGELMAN: Well, it gives one a model of what happened in a way that's clearly, from my experience, just understandable, kids younger than 14,
adults, I know that a copy was given by my friend J.R., the photographer, to a neo-Nazi who is in a prison in California and I got a fan letter from
him afterwards that helped him open his eyes to what he'd been part of. And I was trying to figure out how a get a Nazi tattoo off his body.
So, it's across the board that it's useful. I don't think I don't think neo-Nazis are out only to get Jews. I think there's the great fear that
Americans who aren't of the Mayflower might not be allowed to be part of the politics, be allowed to vote, things like that. And neo-Nazis are at
least unhappy with black citizens as they are with Jewish. It's all one pile of othering to make one's self feel stronger and better.
So, I think it plays into being useful by being in cats and mice for Nazis and Jews, because cats and mice allow it to become that self-destructing
metaphor I was mentioning. It's about all races and all fascists. And if you find them on your school board, if you find them messing with your
libraries, they need to be resisted because you can see the possible sequences.
[13:55:00]
ISAACSON: Art Spiegelman, thank you so much for joining with us.
SPIEGELMAN: Thank you. A pleasure to be with you, Walter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And Spiegelman's words are particularly pertinent today as the world marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen
concentration camp in Germany. Decades on from the horror of the Holocaust art and literature play a crucial role in telling survivor stories and
teaching us important lessons from history.
Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
