Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Former National Security Counsil Senior Director For Russian Affairs And Former Deputy Assistant To President Trump Fiona Hill; Interview With "Put Your Soul On Your Hand And Walk" Director Sepideh Farsi; Interview With Domestic Abuse Survivor And Advocate Lejla Dauti; Interview With Survivor And Advocate For Intimate Partner Violence April Hernandez-Castillo; Interview With Women's Right Attorney Gloria Allred; Interview With NCAA President Charlie Baker. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 30, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up,
Russia escalades, as Trump steps back. I ask former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill. Whether Putin will outplay him.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FATIMA HASSOUNA, "PUT YOUR SOUL ON YOUR HAND AND WALK": You have many options to die here in South Gaza.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk." The wrenching film a yearlong video chat with one young woman in Gaza. Director Sepideh Farsi
joins me on the tragic ending.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLORIA ALLRED, WOMEN'S RIGHT ATTORNEY: There's a lot of fear that victims have fear of going to the police, fear of law enforcement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: As the Sean Diddy Combs trial continues, we revisit my conversation with women's rights attorney Gloria Allred and two advocates
for victims of intimate partner crimes.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE BAKER, PRESIDENT, NCAA: The point and purpose of it is to provide as positive a student athlete experience.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Michel Martin asked the former Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker about the future of college sports and how to regulate it.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Russia ramps up its attacks on Ukraine in an air and land assault. The Kremlin claims it's ready with a peace plan for ceasefire talks in Turkey
next week, but President Zelenskyy says they've not seen any draft plan, calling it another Russian deception. Meantime, President Trump is said to
have given Putin a two-week window to show a genuine intention to end the war.
Perhaps actions though speak louder than words. Overnight, the Ukrainian Air Force says 90 drones and two ballistic missiles were launched by Moscow
striking less than three miles from a NATO member, Romania. So, will Trump actually do anything to stop Putin or is he backing away?
Fiona Hill was President Trump's most senior Russia adviser during his first term and has been in the room with President Putin himself. She's
joining me now from Maryland. Welcome back to the program, Fiona Hill.
FIONA HILL, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIAN AFFAIRS AND FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thanks, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: We keep talking about process. I just led into this not only with the facts of the attacks from Moscow, but this business of maybe ceasefire
talks and what one is saying about the other and all the rest of it, and then what Trump is saying. Now, the latest is allegedly a two-week window.
Are we missing the forest for the trees? Is there any process right now as far as you can see?
HILL: Well, there is a process by some of the people around Trump, clearly, people going backwards and forwards, you know, and engaging with their
counterparts. But ultimately, this is really about Trump and his own style of negotiation. It's about his relationship with Putin. He talks about this
all the time. He's constantly talking about having known Putin for a long time. Their friendship such as it is, and the fact that he has faith that
Putin is going to come through for him because Putin respects him.
And then, of course, you know, most recently, Trump has shown a little bit of concern that Putin isn't going in the direction that he thought he
would, even calling him, you know, crazy or at least, you know, doing crazy things, because he is finally realizing that perhaps Putin is doing things
for himself and not for Trump.
And you see that's the problem that we're facing here. This is very personalized. And the -- you know, the process is all about these
interactions on the personal level between Trump and Putin more than anything else.
AMANPOUR: Fiona Hill, though, it is personalized from one side, Putin clearly is not falling into this personalized trap. He may give the
impression that he is and sending out various words and praise at various times to President Trump, but explain a bit more about this personalized
foreign policy or any policy. Where does it actually lead and what could be the consequences?
HILL: Well, look, it's very risky. I mean, as you're saying, it's really more one sided than anything else because Putin actually does use the state
apparatus. He uses his advisers. He has a whole array of people who are extremely well versed in diplomacy and in international law, and, you know,
very skilled at what they do. They've been with him in extraordinary long time, 25, you know, years now of his presidency.
[13:05:00]
And it's really on Trump's side where Trump is kind of winging it. I mean, he's going by his own instincts. He is doing it because, you know, he
thinks he's the great deal maker. And you know, the real risk is when something happens that is contrary to what Trump's expectations are,
there's nowhere for this to go.
So, this is, again, exposing him and exposing that relationship. And when it doesn't turn out as he expects, he tries to kind of deflect the blame
and to step back. And that's the kind of thing that we're seeing now. If it doesn't work out, you know, he steps back, and then what? There's no one
really to pick up the pieces.
AMANPOUR: So, then what? Russia clearly believes that it is winning. Putin apparently even told Trump on the last phone call they had, and Trump
relayed that to the Europeans, you know, that's why Putin wasn't going for a ceasefire. It matches what a senior Russian official has told me in the
last several weeks that they believe they're winning and they believe they have, even now, the backing from home.
Because, you know, you know better than I, the system is to pay recruits, to pay them bonuses, to -- you know, to not enrich, but to, you know, pay
essentially their families. And there's much more incentive for the families at least not to complain and for those people to go to the front.
HILL: That's absolutely spot on. There is absolutely no incentive for Putin right now to basically back away from this war and every incentive, as
you've just laid out, to continue it. And there's nothing that President Trump can offer him. He can't basically give Putin on a silver platter, you
know, basically a capitulated surrender from Ukraine. He's not going to give him, you know, Volodymyr Zelenskyy's head, you know, for example.
So, I mean, this is the dilemma. I mean, Trump basically thought that by the force of his own personality, the basis of the relationship that he has
crafted for himself with Putin, I mean, I'm not sure Putin thinks about the relationship in the same way, he thought that this, you know, as we've all
heard, would be over in 24 hours, a hundred days, that this would be very easy.
And so, you know, what we're seeing is the realization setting in that Putin has other aims and that Putin's actually willing to shed an enormous
amount of blood to fight definitely to the last Ukrainian, and perhaps even to the second to last Russian, because he bets that he's got more manpower,
more staying power, and more willpower than the Ukrainians, the Europeans and certainly, than the United States and President Trump.
AMANPOUR: So, where do you think he's going to go? First, let me ask you, do you agree with Putin's assessment that they're winning? I mean, yes,
they're -- you can look at the battlefield at any given day, and there's maybe a foot here and a kilometer there, but. But in the big picture, how
do you assess the Russian war gains now?
HILL: Well, look, in the big picture, Putin isn't winning. And if we look at it from our perspective, of course not. I mean, enormous slaughter of
people, which is what makes President Trump so incredulous about all of this.
You know, we're approaching a million casualties on the Russian side. And despite the fact that they have a, you know, huge population, I mean, this
is going to have multi-generational effect. Of course, the casualties are not just people killed, the people seriously wounded and obviously
traumatized by this war.
He's made some gains in terms of territory, but he hasn't, you know, been able to affect the complete surrender of Ukraine. He thought it would be
much easier. He's created the largest war in Europe since World War II. He's completely transformed the Russian economy into a militarized war
economy. He's done an awful lot of damage.
But at the same time, from Putin's perspective, you know, he has, you know, achieved a great deal in terms of actually rattling Europe. And, you know,
basically having a kind of an impact in proving, you know, for him that he is the country to be reckoned with. But again, you know, if we go on the
other side of the ledger, we've seen Sweden and Finland join NATO. We're seeing Europe, you know, step up, you know, in response to what the
Russians have done.
And, you know, this is now beyond just any kind of engagement and reproachment negotiation that he's having with Trump. He's completely
transformed, I would say, not just European security, but global affairs by what he's done. And over the long-term, that may not be a win and is likely
not to be a win for Russia.
AMANPOUR: Let's just narrow the focus again, this process I started to ask you about then, these so-called ceasefire talks, which certainly the last
round didn't achieve anything except yet another prisoner released. And of course, that was great. You know, prisoner exchange.
Do you think that there's really any serious attempt to get a ceasefire? And I guess what I'm trying to say is, has -- have the Americans put enough
pressure on Putin and can the Europeans pick up the slack?
HILL: Well, look, I think what has to be done, and you know, the Ukrainians and, you know, everybody would certainly say this, is to make sure that
Putin can't move any further. And, you know, put up a very robust, you know, offensive defense of the line. I mean, that's what Ukraine's
obviously being -- you know, trying to do all the way along, but to basically deny Putin the ability to move forward.
[13:10:00]
I mean, they've already denied him the capitulation and complete surrender of Ukraine. So, we've got to keep that up. And I mean, really what you have
to do is restore deterrence, you know, to show that from Putin's perspective, you know, it's going to be very limited gains or no gains at
all moving forward. And that he's going to have a formidable response from Europe, not just from the United States.
So, look, there's a lot to do there, but it's really kind of signaling to Putin that he's not going to be able to get any further. Now, that doesn't
mean however that he's going to stop, but you have to be able to stop him, you know, prevent him from being able to move further. And that's going to
take a lot of hard work.
But, you know, that's where the rub is really from, you know, what we're seeing with the United States. If Trump himself has got so frustrated about
this because it's so personal for him and he steps back, well, of course, that's another win for Putin. Because, you know, psychologically that
really makes it much more difficult for the Europeans and for anybody else, you know, to be able to kind of stay, that they're withholding and denying
and, you know, withstanding, you know, from the Russian perspective.
So, look it's tough. It's not going to be easy. And, you know, to be honest, I mean, I think that Trump's made things a lot worse by hyper
personalizing all of this and making it all about him and Putin, or him and Zelenskyy and how he feels about, you know, both of them instead of this
being, you know, really serious about, you know, what the issues are, which is the future of European security and frankly, global security as well,
and the ability to deter aggressors at any state, not just Russia, that wants to take the territory of their neighbors.
AMANPOUR: Well, you were in the room with both Trump and Putin during Trump's first term, and now Trump, as you say, has personalized so much,
the whole relationship with Xi over these trade and tariffs, the whole thing, you know, with Netanyahu, he said the same thing, I will end this,
you know, in X amount of days and it's got to stop and all the rest of it.
And at the same time, he seems to be -- it's almost counterintuitive because he seems to be maybe raising the idea of laying the groundwork for
Russia to have its sphere of influence, for Xi to have his sphere of influence, for Trump himself to have his or America's sphere of influence.
Do you think these others, Netanyahu, Putin and that lot, and basically seeding the field to Netanyahu and his extremists in his government in the
Middle East, do you think they are realizing something about Trump and do you think, as some have suggested, that they're calling his bluff?
HILL: Look, absolutely they are. And you know, they are realizing that for him, you know, it's ultimately spheres of influence, rather the ultimate
real estate deal, right. You know, so -- you know, if they can kind of persuade him that this is yours, you know, be it Canada and Greenland and
you know, all the rest of these expansive ideas that he's kind of put out there and this is ours and then we can make all these kind of deals, you
know, be it on nuclear issues, because he does want to make a deal with all of these different players on nuclear and nuclear proliferation and arms
regulation or business deals and, you know, basically we can move forward on, on that basis. Well, of course that's a great thing for them.
But look, I do want to make some caution here because at the same time that they are calling his bluff on tariffs and, you know, they're seeing him
kind of pull back after the maximal pressure, because they realize that he doesn't want wars, he wants to end all of these conflicts. He's also
ultimately unpredictable. And so, there is a lot of risk in there for them personally.
And so, they have to be constantly managing him in that personal relationship. You know, they have to be vigilant about that as well. And I
think, you know, probably for the Chinese and for President Xi, that's the most difficult, because they have a -- you know, a larger system around
them. It's not just all about personal relationships. And you know, they're not going to be able to rely on him to make a deal or the kind of deal that
they want because, you know, he'll be constantly changing the terms and, you know, constantly, you know, going for something perhaps that they
weren't expecting.
So, there's, you know, degrees of danger for them in that as well. It's not always that straightforward. He's genuinely unpredictable because he is
really marching, you know, to his own tune and, you know, to his own ideas. And even the people around him, you know, they're interpreting him, but
they're not speaking for him. The only person who speaks for Trump is Trump.
AMANPOUR: And what about then the danger for Trump, the danger for America? There will be many people who support his policies, Americans, in other
words, who voted for him and who genuinely believe that what he's doing is to increase the security for America, whether it's the trade bid or
whatever it might be. Does this, in your estimation, do that? Does this whole way he's operating increase the security and prosperity of the United
States?
HILL: Well, look, I mean, there are some things that he's looking at from his definition of security that, you know, ultimately there could be some
increases. The talk obviously of this, you know, really high-level integrated air and ballistic missile defense system, the Golden Dome,
picking up from the Strategic Defense Initiative, you know, which has been an idea for decades now, but it still would take quite a bit of time to
develop.
[13:15:00]
He's talking about the security of the southern border and he is done a lot that really satisfies a lot the demands for the base, and for many other
people about immigration. I mean, we might not agree with the way that he's done it, but there's certainly a lot of support for some of this action
he's taken.
But look, overall security, the United States has prospered and been more secure because of its relationships with its allies. It's been, you know,
more secure because it's played a leadership role in global affairs. It's the country that shaped the international system, and Trump is stepping
back from all of that, a sphere of influence system in which, you know, you're basically making deals with counterparts in a, you know, hyper
competitive and personalized system is not a system in which you're likely to be more secure and which you're likely to be more prosperous.
And another thing that he's doing is reducing the capacity of the United States to be able to adapt to challenges that come. I mean, this is a
retrograde, a looking back into a past approach that he's adapting to all of this, the tariffs, you know, the security, trying to kind of take back
the United States through a period in which the United States was kind of a fortress, a kind of autarky idea that he's conceptualizing, closing the
place down.
The United States, again, has always been at its best when it's been out there and leading in, you know, diplomatically, not pulling back and
basically moving from a place of isolation. So, I worry greatly that the United States is squandering its leadership role and that ultimately, it
won't be prosperous, cutting off the possibility for people to study in the United States, attacking higher education, dismantling the U.S. government
without a clear plan, although some people have a plan of what they want to see.
But you're reducing capacity, your capacity to withstand future challenges. And I don't think that the United States is going to be resilient as it was
in the past, because we are moving away from, you know, all of those institutional arrangements that were meant to put the United States on a
more solid foundation.
This is a country of, you know, 330 plus million people, not just one person. And that should be moving to the whims of what that one person. I
mean, it's supposed to be, you know, a country that's there for the benefit of all the people who live here, not just one person and the team of people
around them.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you one, and I don't know whether you can answer this, you know, in a compact way, but you were in the room and you've
talked about it recently, you witnessed firsthand Trump's fear of nuclear war with Russia. And this is, you know -- Obama has worried about that.
Biden has worried about that. And that seems to have really sort of hem them in over Ukraine.
I mean, even not putting sanctions on in a way that some are suggesting they should ratchet up sanctions. Explain that and is it rational?
HILL: Well, of course it's rational. I mean, you know, for everybody to worry about this, particularly people of that generation. I mean, I'm part
of the end of that generation as you are as well. You know, people who, in the case of Biden and Trump, were shaped very much by the Cuban Missile
Crisis and our case, by the 1980s and the -- you know, the standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States, the height of the Cold War, you
know, there is a rational and well-founded fear of a nuclear exchange.
But what Putin has done very effectively is play with that idea of a tactical nuclear use in the case of Ukraine in 2022. I mean, we're all
aware of that. And also, that nuclear saber-rattling. He's the only person that's done that. There's been no strategic change other than Putin's
willingness to really kind of push that envelope.
I mean, and what we need to do is to make it very clear to Putin, which, you know, was being made in the wake of 2022 when he threatened to use
nuclear weapons in Ukraine that there'll be very serious consequences.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HILL: So, it's just, we need to think about this differently and be more robust in our approach to basically the importance of making it clear to
Putin that using a nuclear weapon just will not work.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Really, really interesting and fascinating perspective. Fiona Hill, thank you very much for all your experience. Thanks so much.
And later in the program, the tragic story of one young woman in Gaza who made it into the spotlight at Cannes. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: Next to Gaza, which the UN is now describing as, quote, "the hungriest region on earth." Starving and desperate residents have been
swarming these new controversial aid sites, which have been backed by Israel in the U.S. The health ministry there says 11 people have been
killed and dozens more injured just trying to reach that crucial aid this week. There is much that is totally unclear about current ceasefire plans
being floated.
Meantime, according to officials in Gaza, the number of Palestinians killed has reached more than 54,000, and Israel keeps up the bombing. One such
victim was 25-year-old Fatima Hassouna. She's the subject of the heart wrenching new documentary, "Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk." It's made
by the Iranian director, Sepideh Farsi. The film bears witness to the sadness and the horror of her daily life in Gaza.
One day after the movie was selected for screening at the Cannes Film Festival, Fatima, her pregnant sister and several family members were all
killed by an Israeli missile strike on their home. And filmmaker Sepideh Farsi is joining me now from Paris. Welcome to the program.
SEPIDEH FARSI, DIRECTOR, "PUT YOUR SOUL ON YOUR HAND AND WALK" DIRECTOR: Hi.
AMANPOUR: Hi. There's just so much there that is surrounding what essentially is a two-hour conversation between you and Fatima over a period
of about a year. You know, when we start this conversation, you say that you wish you'd been able to go into Gaza, you try to, but it was
impossible. As we all know, the Israeli government will not let independent journalists in. And so, you decided to talk in different ways.
At the beginning we see this optimistic, resilient young woman a whole year ago. Were you surprised about her demeanor even under bombardment, six or
seven months into the war?
FARSI: I was surprised at the beginning and then, gradually, I learned that part of this amazing smile she had day after day when we were talking,
despite all the hardships she was going through, was due to her resilience and another part was this dignity. You know, the face she wanted me to see
when we were together, because at other moments she would send me audio messages or text messages, which showed more despair. But when we were face
to face, somehow, I guess that helped also to be -- her to be up, but she was so amazingly radiant when we talked every time. And yes, I guess it was
part of the magic of the thing and her magic.
AMANPOUR: And, Sepideh, it's really extraordinary because I don't think I've ever seen a film which is basically a conversation, and not just any
conversation, it's you with an -- with your iPhone, her with her, I guess, iPhone, and it's just your two faces mostly. There's some images that she's
taken of Gaza.
Why did -- was it, you know, necessity being the mother of invention or did you just decide that was the way you were going to have this relationship?
FARSI: Well, part of it was the fact that I could not get into Gaza physically, personally, that started it. I wanted to be there. I needed to
go. I needed to understand because it was really -- it kept me from sleeping. I mean, the images I was seeing. And the narrative from the
Palestinian point of view missing in the, you know, media narrative. And I really needed that.
And when I couldn't, and when I met her, I immediately gathered -- it was instant that she was going to be the center of the film. And this set felt
like the most natural way to do it. You know, it was out of necessity, yes, but I could have done it in different ways. I could've done it with a more
sophisticated camera, with a computer, shots, you know. It just felt natural to be at the same level, just with the simplest way.
[13:25:00]
You know, I'm Iranian, you know, that I've made films with any possible means that I could priorly also with another mobile turn around without
permission. But I mean, this time it felt really right to really focus on her face and just to be as close. I don't know. It felt closer to her.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And incredibly compelling. I mean, you couldn't tear your eyes away, obviously. And therefore, it was really compelling. And we saw
in the progression of the film her increasing despair, including over hunger. And I do actually want to play, you know, a short excerpt about
that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FATIMA HASSOUNA, "PUT YOUR SOUL ON YOUR HAND AND WALK": You see my mind is very massive, and I have no focus because I have no healthy food or good
food even. So, I feel that I can't even stand up, you know? And I can't talk even.
Every day I told my mom, I want a chicken. I hope -- or I wish if we had just chicken. Because we didn't eat it for nine months.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, it's really awful. And we're seeing this play out on a big, big scale right now again, and there's a lot of denial by many in the
Israeli government. They say, no, there's no starvation, but you can see what's going on. And people are absolutely desperate.
FARSI: Absolutely. Yes.
AMANPOUR: What reaction have you had to that aspect of the film?
FARSI: And it's much worse than when I was talking to her now, you know, it's like -- what to say. I mean, we -- come on. We just get out of our
houses. We go to the supermarket. We buy anything we wish, you know, even with little money, we can get whatever we want. It's just unimaginable.
It's hard to integrate for us. I'm repeating it. It might seem redundant, but like somebody not eating, not out of choice of being vegetarian, but
not having access to chicken, to meat, to milk, to fruits. I mean, when her mother woke up after the injury, she's the only surviving person from the
family after the attack, she just asked for an apple after three days.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
FARSI: There were no apples in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FARSI: I mean, they couldn't find an apple. I said, shall I send money? They said, it's not a problem with money. There are no apples in Gaza. I
mean, this is -- I cannot eat an apple since it's like --
AMANPOUR: You know, that is very --
FARSI: How to describe this degree of, you know, this --
AMANPOUR: That is very poignant. I remember somebody in the siege of Sarajevo telling me the same, they risk their lives to get an apple. It's
extraordinary that you just mentioned the apple. But I want to ask you this. You know, for whatever reason, when I started to watch the film, I
did not know that Sepideh and much of her family -- sorry, that Fatima and much of her family had been killed, and I watched the whole thing on the
edge of my seat wondering what or if there was going to be a denouement. And it gave me a very interesting vision, you know, while I was actually
watching.
She was -- you wanted to try to get her out and take her to Cannes for the film festival, which had selected your film, as -- you know, as the
opening.
FARSI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What did you feel about that? I mean, that's a statement of putting, you know, the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the story of one
woman right front and center.
FARSI: I mean, you know, before as I was coming to the studio to be with you, to meet you, I was reading the names of the people who had died in
Gaza today, you know, and there's a list of names, one, a whole family. And I was reading one by one. And I can name you Fatima's family members, and I
knew them personally, though, through video, but I mean, it makes such a difference when you know them one by one. You know their ages. You know
what they do.
I know that his brother was a sleepwalker. He was 10, Yazan (ph), and he was killed, and the other one 15 and he would collect wood, and the other
one, 20, the one who was curious and wanted to see me, who was peeking, you know, and the pregnant sister, all of them, I knew them one by one. And it
makes such a tremendous difference when you know people and you lose them, you know. We were not family, but we'd, we were almost family.
It was like -- and I mean to -- I'm saying that to say that this indifference that the world is showing to these people to their death is
inhuman. It's not normal. It's -- I mean, it's going to stay in our humanity forever to watch this happening and not to do anything, you know,
pretending that it's not there.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: You know, we don't have a whole lot longer, but I'm just going to read one of the things that she said. If I die, I want a loud death. I
don't want to be just breaking news or a number in a group, I want a death that the world will hear, an impact that will remain through time, and a
timeless image that cannot be buried by time or place.
And I think really, you know, just to wrap up, I think your film gave her that loudness, that voice.
FARSI: When I watch the film now I have a feeling that all she has written and all she sent to me and said to me was in the way a kind of preliminary,
you know --
AMANPOUR: Premonition. Yes.
FARSI: -- unconsciously knowledge of her -- yes, premonition, exactly -- of her knowing that she was going to go. But yet, she had so much love for
life.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FARSI: And you know, she was engaged and was going to get married also. And she wanted to have children. She wanted to -- I mean, many things she
wanted to.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FARSI: But this has to stop. This really has to stop.
AMANPOUR: Well, the --
FARSI: That's all I can say.
AMANPOUR: Yes. You know --
FARSI: It needs to stop.
AMANPOUR: -- telling these human stories are vital and thank you very much indeed.
Now, the Sean Diddy Combs racketeering and sex trafficking trial is in its third week. The trial is drawing intense media scrutiny. At the very heart
of it are shocking allegations of violence against his intimate partners. Combs denies all the charges. Worldwide, one in three women have
experienced some form of physical or sexual violence. It's a subject we need to keep focusing on.
And so, I want to revisit my conversation with Gloria Allred, the renowned women's rights attorney, and survivors and advocates, Lejla Dauti and April
Hernandez-Castillo. We spoke last May when CNN obtained the 2016 video of the rapper attacking Cassie Ventura, who was then his girlfriend in a hotel
hallway, which is now being used as evidence in the Combs case.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: I would like to ask you, Lejla, if you don't mind, to maybe tell us what your experience was, what led you to become an advocate? Did you
get any, you know, sufficient help from either the law enforcement or, you know, therapy or the like.
LEJLA DAUTI, DOMESTIC ABUSE SURVIVOR AND ADVOCATE: So, actually what led me to doing my work, because very much, like Gloria says, a lot of times we
focus on the perpetrator. We become obsessed with the pathology of why they perpetrate, why do they do this? And we stop focusing on the victims and
survivors themselves. So, we become statistics and our identities are completely lost and we're anonymous.
What I found was after fleeing my perpetrator was once it was all said and done and the dust had settled, so to speak, and I was physically safe and I
wasn't at risk of the violence -- the immediate violence, I kind of looked around and I thought, well, what do I do now? Where do I go now? Who do I
turn to now? And there was just nothing.
And it wasn't even that the support was lacking in quality, it just didn't exist at all. And it was very much a moment where I thought I was desperate
to find women somewhere who were just like me, who had experience without experience, which is why I turned to social media and started sharing
stories on behalf of the women in the community.
And pretty much overnight, a community of survivors formed. And it was really indicative of that desperate need to have that safe space where
women could come forward and share their stories.
AMANPOUR: And as we call it -- I mean, it is called intimate -- what's it called intimate --
DAUTI: Intimate partner violence, yes.
AMANPOUR: Partner violence, right. What happened to you, if you don't mind saying?
DAUTI: So, what I experienced was non-fatal strangulation. It was -- I mean, it was a diverse amount of violence. It was from pushes and shoves,
to black eyes, to non-fatal strangulation, to being thrown through a glass door, which I still have scars on my arm today.
And then, on top of that, we've actually got the stuff that really enables the abuse even more, which is the emotional and the mental abuse, which is
the economical abuse, which is the gaslighting, the trauma bonding. So, there was a big, big array of abuse that I suffered.
AMANPOUR: Let me talk to you -- let me turn to you, Isabella -- April. What happened to you? And most specifically, the statistics as we've shown in
the United States show that women of color, black women and women of color, suffer disproportionately across the board, from the violence, from death,
and from even being believed and being able to prosecute cases and prosecute the alleged perpetrators?
APRIL HERNANDEZ-CASTILLO, SURVIVOR AND ADVOCATE FOR INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: I was abused from the age of 16 to about 19 and a half. I was
physically and emotionally abused to the point where my abuser nearly took my life. And then I began to have and suffer from suicidal ideations.
And it wasn't until that moment where I didn't want to wake up anymore because of the shame and pain that I felt where I realized at that moment,
I have to leave.
[13:35:00]
And I found the courage to finally say I'm done. It's enough. And so, I made a decision to leave and also to live my life and make the choice that
I would use it.
I was also in the movie "Freedom Riders" with Hilary Swank. And it really showed me the power of our stories. And that is when I began to understand
the power of a story of a survivor. So, for someone who is able to leave and be successful and find love, I've been married to my husband for 23
years. And truly that has been so powerful because as a victim not only do you struggle with loving yourself, but you ever -- you wonder am I able to
love, am I ever able to trust? And so, I've been on this journey of working and advocating, especially working with teenagers.
AMANPOUR: That's a really important point to make actually, because you don't want to -- I assume, want to think that the only story is the story
of a victim. Were you believed, April, when you started to try to get accountability?
HERNANDEZ-CASTILLO: Well, when I was being abused, I was a teenager. And so, I didn't dare share my story. No one knew about my abuse. Absolutely no
one, not even my parents. And so, it took me about 10 years to find the courage to finally share my story.
And once I started doing that, I was able to receive so much help really in understanding how I was able to fall into that kind of situation. So, the
support, I was able to become educated. Now, I'm a facilitator and I give workshops, and really working with powerful and amazing organizations in
New York City, because education was key. And education and awareness is -- and prevention, it really is a way to do our best to prevent from DV to
continue happening.
AMANPOUR: Gloria Allred, from the legal perspective, you know, it was making the legitimate point that it's an education awareness. You know,
take the victim seriously. We thought maybe that since MeToo, since Harvey Weinstein was convicted and, you know, sent to jail, since so many -- so
much accountability was had after MeToo, that somehow this playing field, if you like, had been leveled, at least starting to be leveled. Do you see
that in the court system in your practice?
GLORIA ALLRED, WOMEN'S RIGHT ATTORNEY: Well, I'm still dealing with many, many victims of violence against women. And one of the key questions is,
why don't women do something about it? Why do they continue to be victimized? Well, often they don't know their rights, Christiane.
And what they need to do is not be isolated, which is what almost every batterer wants, separate the victim from her family and friends, support
groups, and isolate them and make them dependent on the batterer. But, you know, reach out, for example, to an attorney in your area who helps victims
of violence and learn your rights. Because your rights are not just in the criminal justice system. There's a lot of fear that victims have. Fear of
going to the police. Fear of law enforcement. Fear that the batterer will retaliate against them if they do something.
But the criminal justice system is not the only system that can help. The civil justice system, going to a civil attorney, you know, doing, for
example, what Cassie Ventura did, which was file a lawsuit, and then get a result, sometimes right away, sometimes it takes a lot longer. Or to do a
confidential settlement with the batterer without a lawsuit. We do them all the time. I did one yesterday.
So, the point is, there are many options that victims are not aware of. And this can be a teaching moment for the batterer, that he literally has to
pay the consequences of his wrongdoing, of his criminal acts, and sometimes it's civil and criminal, sometimes it's just civil, sometimes it's just
criminal. But reach out, find out what you can do and become empowered in that journey.
And as some of your guests said, when they finally get support groups, that is a moment where they start to be empowered, to be stronger, and to want
to do something about it and to move on with their lives.
And I'm very proud of these victims that they are sharing their stories and reaching out and helping others who have been victimized as well.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back.
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, there's big money in U.S. college sports, as everyone knows. And in the era of name, image, and likeness, some of the top athletes can
earn millions of dollars every year. For the first time ever though, a new agreement called the House Settlement will allow for schools to pay players
directly. Charlie Baker, the former Massachusetts governor, now president of the NCAA, says it's a win for student athletes, and he's joining Michel
Martin to explain why and what this means for their future.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Charlie Baker, thank you so much for joining us.
CHARLIE BAKER, PRESIDENT, NCAA: It's nice to be with you.
MARTIN: So, of course everybody's heard of the NCAA, but just to kind of set the table for us, I don't think everybody knows what the NCAA is. So,
just briefly as you can, it was an organization that was founded, gosh, over a century ago. What's the purpose of it?
BAKER: The point and purpose of it is to provide as positive a student athlete experience as it possibly can on behalf of about 1,100 schools and
about 510,000 student athletes across three divisions. And the way to think about the divisions are Division 1 typically are the bigger schools.
Division 2 are schools that are a little smaller than Division 1. And Division 3 tend to be schools that we think of as sort of smaller schools,
don't typically do athletic scholarships, mostly do their scholarships based on financial or academic eligibility.
And honestly, you know, as the father of two D3 athletes and as a D1 athlete myself and somebody who knows a lot of people who played in D2,
they all have a role to play and they all make a difference for young people and they're spread across all 50 states.
MARTIN: So, you know, one of the things that you did when you first became president was go on a listening tour, you know, of all of the conferences.
BAKER: Yes.
MARTIN: Is there something you heard at these listening tours that really informs your thinking about the job now and is it different from what you
expected?
BAKER: So, I talked to all 97 conferences in my first six months or so. I wanted to do it in my first a hundred days. That was ridiculous. I think
the biggest thing I would say that came out of that was, believe it or not, the impact of social media on student athletes, just an incredible -- kids
would show me a lot of this stuff that was being directed at them.
And we actually have on many of our national championships a monitoring service to track traffic that's being directed at student athletes,
coaches, and umpires during those tournaments. And if we see people engaging in what I would describe as brutal activity, we notify the
platforms, you can get those people shut off.
MARTIN: You mean like threats or you mean like harassing them if they don't make a play that they want or like, give me an example?
BAKER: So, begin to believe. Threats -- you know, literally people saying things like -- and this is all tied up to some extent with sports betting,
which is another thing I kept hearing about, which we can talk more about if you want.
All this stuff about, I know where you live, I know what dorm you're in, I'm going to kill you, stuff like that.
MARTIN: What? Are you kidding me? You're threatening --
BAKER: Yes.
MARTIN: So, if a kid -- so sports betting, I guess it's a specific way you can bet -- where you can bet on a specific outcome, not the whole game
itself, not the score, which is what people might think, but like a specific -- what number of --
[13:45:00]
BAKER: You can bet on a student athlete. You can bet on whether they take the first shot, you can bet on whether they score more points than they're
supposed to, or they score less points. It's a significant issue. And you know, thankfully, about half the states in the country don't permit crop
betting at all, which is what that betting on an individual is called.
About half of the states don't permit those bets on college sports and on college student athletes, the other half do. And we've been pursuing a
variety of strategies to try to get them out of the business of prop bets. I mean, you can't really solve the issue about somebody betting on whether
a team wins or loses, but I would like to take as much of the individual attention being directed at young people and especially the challenges
associated with, quote, "underperformance" off the table.
I can tell you a lot of kids would come up to me and say but they are getting pressured by their classmates, their schoolmates, their friends,
you know, to not do well in a game or to not take the first shot or miss their first free throw or don't catch the first pass or whatever it might
be.
MARTIN: Wow.
BAKER: Because that's a way student athletes can help those -- their friends, in many cases, make money.
MARTIN: Money make. So, money. So, we're on the subject of money. That is one of the huge changes in college sports in a very recent period. So,
what's happened in recent years is that students can get paid for their name, image, and likeness. You support that. Say why?
BAKER: I do.
MARTIN: Yes. Say why.
BAKER: Because I think, look, if you're a -- there's a lot of different things you can do as a young person where you can get paid for your name,
image, and likeness, right? You can be a fashionista. You can be a musician. You can be a whole bunch of different things, and there will be
people out there who will pay you for the fact that you have 3 million followers on TikTok, or you have 5 million followers on Instagram.
I don't see any reason why student athletes whose name, image, and likeness has a lot to do with the success of a lot of college sports programs. And
this dates all the way back to the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit many, many years ago. They should be reimbursed for that.
And I was the -- you know, I was the first NCAA president to sort of put a proposal out there about how we might do that about six months after I got
the job.
MARTIN: One of the points that the students made like at O'Bannon and other athletes made is the institutions make a lot of money off their name,
image, and likeness, they sell their jerseys, sometimes they'll have spirit days where they'll sign the posters. They sell the posters, people sign
them. Coaches certainly made a lot of money. So, why do you think there was so much resistance to that idea?
BAKER: To be honest with you, I don't know. I don't have a problem with it, and I think the settlement we're trying to negotiate with a number of
plaintiffs around these issues, which would basically make it possible for many Division 1 schools, which is really where the action is on this.
MARTIN: Yes.
BAKER: Most people know the D2 and D3 schools don't make money on sports, and that sports is an investment that the schools make in the students. I
think the -- from my point of view, I do think it's appropriate for the kids -- the student athletes, the young people to benefit from their name,
image, and likeness. And I'm hoping we can get this settlement approved so that we can actually put it into practice in a legal -- under a legal
format that would be associated with the injunction that we're trying to seek.
MARTIN: So, it would allow them to pay -- it would allow these schools to pay their athletes directly?
BAKER: They would be able to purchase their student athlete's name, image, and likeness rights up to 22.5 percent of the athletic budgets of the top
60 schools, the power schools, so-called. And that's about $20 million per school per year. So, if you add it all up, it's probably about a billion
dollars in potential name, image, and likeness revenues going to student athletes.
MARTIN: Look, I saw an analysis of this past year's top NIL earners, right, of the top five. All but one are white, all but one are male, all but one
football and basketball. Is there anything about that that worries you?
BAKER: Well, the biggest problem I have with everything that's out there right now, Michel, is you can't believe any of it. OK. I mean, literally,
you can't believe any of it. Because --
MARTIN: Because we don't really know? We don't really know how much they're making?
BAKER: Oh, no one knows. I'm telling you -- and by the way, I don't believe anything anybody says about NIL, because everybody lies. OK? One of the
great things about --
MARTIN: And then they lie in which direction, how much they're getting or how well --
BAKER: -- in the upward direction.
MARTIN: It's always more? Really?
BAKER: So -- yes.
MARTIN: See, my instinct would be to go the other way, but that's just me. OK. I'd be like, no, I'm not only -- but anyway. I'll take your word for
it.
BAKER: So, one of the things about the settlement that's important here, for fans, I think, and for student athletes and families and schools and
everybody else is, we're actually going to have two reporting systems, right?
[13:50:00]
There's going to be one for the school-based NIL and one for third-party NIL. And every deal is going to have to get approved going through that
system. And one of the things we'll have for the first time is the ability to aggregate some of that data and say, this is what student athletes who
play these positions were getting in school-based NIL and this is what athletes who were playing these positions on the on the third-party NIL
were getting. And we'll finally have real answers to questions like what are the positions where people seem to get the most amount of money, and
what are the sports they're playing, and you know, how much of this is men and how much of it is women?
Because right now nobody really knows what's actually going be on there. I mean, I think the current -- I think that's one of the great tragedies of
the current system, the fact that there are no rules means student athletes literally don't know who to believe about much of anything, which is a
shame.
MARTIN: OK. So, I take your point on that. But another major shift here that we do know about is that the NCAA, it's been announced, would not
directly oversee these new payrolls. You know, the big D1 schools that are understood to be the -- where the most revenue is, they tend to be the
pipeline to the pros, they would take on enforcement through this new body called the College Sports Commission. Tell me about that. Like why do you
support this change? It would seem to diminish the role of the NCAA in setting rules. So, could you say more about that?
BAKER: Yes, yes. The -- keep in mind that this thing is part of a settlement, right? The NCAA, the power conferences, right, the five power
conferences, SEC, Pac-12, because it was still part of the drill then, the Big 10, the Big 12, and the ACC, and that's who the plaintiffs sued. OK?
So, they sued the NCAA and those schools because that's who they felt were responsible for what they considered to be this injustice that needed to be
righted. In the end, what they wanted was the NCAA to be accountable for back damages, right, which -- and our members, which we're going to pay
$2.86 billion to hundreds of thousands of former student athletes under this negotiation. $285 million a year for the next 10 years. And they
wanted the power schools to own the obligation and responsibility for setting up and running the new system so that they could keep an eye on it.
The plaintiffs could keep an eye on it and the special master from the court could keep an eye on it to make sure it was being implemented the way
it was supposed to be.
NCAA writes bylaws, OK, which the membership adopts. This is a law, law, a federal law, which if it gets approved is going to sit inside an
injunction. And under those sets of rules, the plaintiffs wanted the power schools to be fundamentally and directly accountable for the issues
associated with overseeing and managing and enforcing.
But generally speaking, the thing I like about this is I do believe, at the end of the day, and the courts did as well, and so did the plaintiffs, that
a lot of the activity associated with this NIL process is going to come from those schools. And therefore, those are the schools that the courts
believed and the plaintiffs believed needed to be fundamentally held most accountable to the highest level with respect to compliance.
MARTIN: But they'll be held accountable for money. So, what I'm asking you is, what about the other piece, their medical wellbeing, their emotional
wellbeing? Do you still have a role --
BAKER: Yes, yes. That stuff still belongs to the NCAA.
MARTIN: Right.
BAKER: The only thing -- the way I talk about this, the money piece, it's going to belong inside this court framework, overseen by the courts,
monitored by the plaintiffs, managed by the so-called power schools that we talked about. The other stuff, you know, sports betting, playing rules,
health and wellbeing, all that stuff, that's still going to belong to us, on the NCAA side, which I -- look, I don't have a problem with this
distribution because mostly I want to create a system that has some degree of accountability and process transparency for young people.
Because a lot of what's going on right now is just misrepresentation, false promises, and a whole bunch of not good things. I mean, because there is no
data, right, and because the schools really aren't in this spot and don't really have a role currently, about a third of the kids that go in the
transfer portal every year, most of them go there because some third-party told them there was an opportunity we can't find. You know, that's a big
number of kids.
MARTIN: The Washington Post crunched the numbers during March Madness, that's the NCAA sort of basketball tournament earlier this year that said,
you know, 53 percent of the men in the conference, you know, the top sort of conference players and 40 percent of the women had all played for more
than one school. And you know, people look at that in different ways, they say, hey, you know, coaches leave, you know, coaches quit jobs and go at
other jobs.
[13:55:00]
But for a student, I mean, any -- if you've ever transferred schools, you know, it can be hard to kind of put it all together, to find your people,
to actually have a quality college experience. What's your opinion of it? Do you think that this -- the level of sort of transfers that we're seeing
is healthy and productive or do you feel something needs to be different there?
BAKER: The number of college kids, according to federal data, who transfer at least once if they go to four-year institutions is like a third. So,
there -- I mean, when you and I were in school, no one transferred?
MARTIN: No.
BAKER: I think in part because we didn't have access to the information that a lot of these kids have now. Because they can learn anything they
want to know about any school in an hour just by getting on their phone.
I think the -- I mean your point about coaches, there were 50 men's basketball coaches who transferred, who changed jobs between the start of
March Madness and the end of March Madness last -- this past spring. So, when that many coaches are moving around, there's no question that's going
to have an impact on how many student athletes move around.
I do think putting this more directly between schools and student athletes where schools can talk about academic plans, development plans and athletic
plans probably means that kids will be a little stickier with respect to where they stay because they'll see a path forward that makes sense for
them.
But I also think the -- I do think the biggest challenge on this one is going to be some degree of transparency around what's real and what's not.
Because as I said, a third of those kids that we're talking about who ended up in the portal and that story in The Post we're not going to be able to
find them, having landed somewhere for next year. And that's a problem. That to me is like a crisis. And that's one of the things I'm hoping the
settlement can help us deal with.
MARTIN: Charlie Baker, thank you so much for speaking with us.
BAKER: It's nice to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And that is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
