Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in 2019 and "The News Agents" Podcast Co-Host Emily Maitlis; Interview with International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi; Interview with Archbishop of Newark Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin; Interview with Journalist and Biographer A'Leila Bundles. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 19, 2026 - 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.
Britain's former Prince Andrew arrested on, quote, "suspicion of misconduct" in public office amid questions about his dealings with Jeffrey
Epstein. What comes next? We speak to journalist Emily Maitlis, who interviewed the former prince in that infamous 2019 encounter.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, U.S. PRESS SECRETARY: The president has always been very clear, though, with respect to Iran or any country around the world,
diplomacy is always his first option, and Iran would be very wise to make a deal with President Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- war or peace in Iran? As negotiators agree to keep talking, the U.S. escalates its military buildup. I asked the head of the U.N.
Atomic Energy Agency if there's hope for a diplomatic resolution.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the Catholic Church in America takes a moral stand on immigration and world conflict. My conversation with Newark Cardinal Joseph
Tobin.
Also --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
A'LEILA BUNDLES, JOURNALIST AND BIOGRAPHER: He was stirring up that enthusiasm in a way that no one had really done before.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: -- Michel Martin chronicles the life of Jesse Jackson, the late civil rights leader, with author and journalist A'Lelia Bundles.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
It is a royal earthquake. For the first time since King Charles I in 1647, a senior member of the family has been arrested. Today, police took Andrew
Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, into custody on suspicion of misconduct in public office. A royal source tells CNN that Buckingham
Palace was not given prior warning.
The arrest comes amidst an investigation into claims that Andrew shared sensitive information with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while he
was serving as the U.K. trade envoy. And it follows allegations that a woman was trafficked to the U.K. by Epstein for sexual encounters with the
former Prince. Police have not charged Andrew with any sexual offenses. Andrew has previously denied all accusations against him and insists that
he never witnessed or suspected any of the behavior of which Epstein was accused.
Andrew's brother, the current King Charles, expressed his, quote, "wholehearted support for the investigations," saying the law must take its
course. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer says no one is above the law.
Andrew's fall from grace began in 2019 when journalist Emily Maitlis sat down with him inside Buckingham Palace for a notorious hour-long interview
about his relationship with Epstein. It was the first time he had spoken publicly about the allegations. He said then that he had no indication
Epstein was doing anything wrong.
And Emily is joining me now to discuss this latest development. So, welcome to the program.
EMILY MAITLIS, INTERVIEWED ANDREW MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR IN 2019 AND CO-HOST, "THE NEWS AGENTS" PODCAST: Thanks, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: You know, I said that this was a royal earthquake. Do you think it is a royal earthquake? Do you think it threatens the very monarchy?
MAITLIS: I'm absolutely stunned by what we're seeing today. As you said, the last time there was an arrest of a royal was 1647, that is 350 years
ago. And it ended up with the beheading of Charles I, and briefly the end of the monarchy. So, this is not something we see in this country. This is
not something that we are used to seeing.
And we have to remember that Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne. He still lives in a royal residence. It isn't in Windsor. It isn't Royal
Lodge, the place that he was moved out of. But it is on the royal estate. And I think the questions now for the royal family and particularly for the
monarch, his brother, will be how close that relationship is made to seem between the two of them and to the wider public.
AMANPOUR: So, the king, his brother, did appear in public today. Extraordinarily, he was going to London Fashion Week. We have pictures of
him walking in. And he refused to answer any journalist questions. He wasn't heckled by the public as far as we can see. But he wouldn't answer
questions. And he has, as I said, made that statement about supporting the course of law.
[13:05:00]
Given the seriousness of how you describe what's just happened, why do you think it's happened now? What is the trigger?
MAITLIS: There is no question in my mind that when King Charles removed that title from Andrew six months ago, last October, when he asked him to
leave Royal Lodge, the king was essentially paving the way for the law to take its course. He was essentially saying, I think, to the forces of
justice in this country, I don't want to tie your hands. He's my brother, but he is no longer untouchable.
I'm not saying that King Charles had any advance warning of what happened today. In fact, I think we know that he didn't. There was no tip off. There
was no communication between the police, the forces that arrested him and the monarch. But that statement was absolutely critical. When King Charles
said, let the law run its course, this has to be fair justice for all, essentially. But he also said this curious line, which was, I have the
deepest concern.
I thought that was a very strange combination of words because he didn't really explain who that concern was for. Was it for a brother that he feels
he no longer can call a brother formally? Was it for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein in whatever form or guise they are? It remains unexplained. But I
do think that that was a seminal moment because King Charles was indicating six months ago that no one is above the law.
AMANPOUR: Now, here's the tricky part of all of this. You just mentioned Epstein and the victims. So, we aren't allowed to talk about that in regard
to this case, according to the British legal restrictions on the press, because this apparently is not about those things that you talked to him
about in your interview. But this is about misconduct in public office. Say the police. That's the that's the suspicion.
He hasn't been charged. He's in custody. What does that mean? Where -- that stems from his position as trade envoy. What was he doing and what's at
stake here?
MAITLIS: Let's begin by repeating, as we always do, that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor denies all wrongdoing. When he was a trade envoy, it is
alleged that he passed information that was confidential to do with the state, to do with trade, to do with economics, to do with business from
himself, from the U.K. government essentially, to Jeffrey Epstein. Again, he has not been charged.
But misconduct in public office is a very, very difficult thing to pin down because it has to show willful wrongdoing. In other words, did he know that
he was doing wrong when he passed? If he passed trade secrets, if he passed market sensitive information, if he passed stuff that should have gone
through the government to an outside investor, was he aware that he was doing wrong?
So, it is a very serious offence. It can bring life imprisonment. I mean, in its extreme case, these kinds of accusations, allegations tend to be
considered a sort of four-to-seven-year custodial sentence. Still a lot. And obviously, he hasn't been charged with anything. But it is notoriously
difficult to prove.
And as you say, there is an irony to all of this because for the last 15 years, we've been talking about Prince Andrew in relation to allegations
made specifically by Virginia Giuffre, Epstein's victim who lost her life to suicide tragically last April. This has nothing to do with that. It is
not connected legally to that. And the only reason we know about the sharing of information, the alleged sharing of confidential information, is
because of the release of the Epstein files.
So, you know, to all those saying, oh, my gosh, there's so much stuff, there's three million bits of information. Are we ever going to understand
anything? You know, Thomas Massie, the Republican from Kentucky, who's really led the charge on the Transparency Act, on getting these files
released, is saying this is what it was all about. This is about seeing people having to face justice.
AMANPOUR: Except for, from his perspective, nothing really has happened to any of the Americans in terms of facing justice. The American men who've
been mentioned in the Epstein files. And there's a thought that so many, I mean, there's a former prime minister of Norway is under investigation.
And, and, and, it's going all over the place.
So, I wonder what you think about, because I think even Prime Minister Starmer has said, if called by Congress, Andrew should testify on this
other issue, not on the one that he's under investigation for right now.
MAITLIS: Look, what I would say is there are nine police forces investigating the former Prince Andrew right now. That is unheard of. It is
unprecedented. And they're not all looking at misconduct in public office, i.e., the emails question. There are police forces in Essex, in
Bedfordshire, looking to flight logs at Stansted, at Luton Airport, trying to see if there were questions of traffic king. There is --
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Using those airports here to bring traffic girls into the U.K.
MAITLIS: Exactly. So, there are lots of forces examining lots of different things concurrently. And what I would say is, yes, I do think we are
currently doing better in the U.K. We are doing better at letting the course of justice run its path than the US. I mean, Norway is also doing
that. France is also doing that. Europe, I think, is ahead on this.
But I don't think that means it won't happen in America. I mean, if, if now I was, I was one of those men who was named in depositions by Virginia
Giuffre, she named them all. She named 40 men who she said had trafficked or raped or abused her. I would not be sleeping very comfortably tonight.
AMANPOUR: Well, this is really an extraordinary development. I wonder how you assess former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was prime minister at
the time that Andrew was a trade envoy. He has submitted a five-page memorandum, according to him, to relevant police forces regarding the
Epstein files.
This is what he said after the arrest. The memorandum provides new and additional information to that which I submitted last week. I express my
concern that we secure justice for trafficked girls and women, said the former prime minister. And in a piece for The New Statesman last week, he
did call on the Metropolitan Police to urgently re-examine claims that Epstein's victims were trafficked to the U.K. on private flights in and out
of London's Stansted Airport.
That is quite an extraordinary intervention and a proactive from a British prime minister.
MAITLIS: Yes, it seems that Gordon Brown was a better journalist than all of us, actually. But what is interesting is that Gordon Brown would have
been prime minister when Andrew was the trade envoy. And the trade envoy is a very odd role because, as far as I understand, it's appointed by the
queen. Maybe it's sanctioned by the government, but it's actually appointed by the queen.
So, in terms of whether it is part of a public office, it sorts of slips between these constitutional lines quite delicately. But the fact that
Gordon Brown is not coming out today and talking about his role as trade envoy or any of the allegations surrounding that, but he is focusing on the
question of trafficked women and girls, I think is really important.
And I think it sends a really important signal because I was talking to Sky Roberts, Virginia Roberts' brother, who has been a very, very strong
advocate for the survivors and for his sister's memory since her death. And I asked him how he felt seeing all the focus suddenly on questions of what
we might call sort of white-collar crime, as opposed to the women, the children at the time.
And he said, well, actually, I've been thinking very hard about this. And I think whatever works, whatever brings justice, whatever brings justice
closer is the thing we want to see.
AMANPOUR: How interesting. Well, as I said, you started this and that interview was extraordinary. Again, not related to the current
investigation, but nonetheless, as you say, it's all potentially part of a part. Andrew still denies it all. But here we are. Emily Maitlis, thank you
very much indeed.
MAITLIS: Thanks.
AMANPOUR: And stay with us because we'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And now, American air and naval assets are building up in the Middle East. It's a massive buildup. As CNN reports that the Pentagon is
prepared to strike Iran as early as this weekend.
[13:15:00]
Meantime, President Trump convened his, quote, "Board of Peace" for the first time in Washington this morning. Where he addressed the current Iran
nuclear talks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region. And they must make a deal. Or if that
doesn't happen, I maybe can understand. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. But bad things will happen if it doesn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The first round of negotiations ended in Switzerland on Tuesday without resolution. But with a deadline for Iran to provide more details of
its nuclear program in the next two weeks.
Rafael Grossi is the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He met with Iran's foreign minister on Monday. And he's joining us
now from agency headquarters in Vienna. Welcome back, Director General. Welcome back to the program at this critical time.
RAFAEL GROSSI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: Thank you very much. Always a pleasure.
AMANPOUR: So, can I begin by asking you whether when you spoke -- well, you did speak to the Iranian foreign minister just before the U.S.-brokered
talks on Tuesday. What did you -- what sense did you get from him as to what they were willing to do when it comes to your file? And that is the
nuclear file.
GROSSI: Well, I should say, first of all, for precision, that I was also present on Tuesday. Which is very important. Because this indicates to me
that there is a sense of finality or more concreteness in this mediated by the foreign minister of Oman, of course, talks. Because for the first time,
the IAEA, myself, was involved and was present. So, we were able to talk about very concrete things, not general exchanges of what should or
shouldn't be do or what would be possible.
But to go back to your question, of course, I had a preparatory conversation, long conversation with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. And I
think there is clarity in everybody about what is needed for the agreement to happen. It is true at the same time that there are differences, perhaps
more on how far or how this can be done. But in terms of what is needed, what are the elements of a possible deal? I think there is absolute
clarity.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, let me then ask you to dig into that, please. Because Barak Ravid, he -- on Israeli TV said -- told him that talks were, quote,
"a nothing burger," i.e., they didn't achieve even the minimum, apparently, according to these sources. And then on the other hand, you have the
Iranians who briefed afterwards that it was good. They had, you know, sort of a, you know, sort of a roadmap. And now, we hear that there was meant to
be sort of two weeks for them to come back from capital and to talk again.
What do you know, since -- I'm so glad you told me you were at the Tuesday talks, how did they end? Were the U.S. encouraged? Was the Iranians --
well, tell me.
GROSSI: Well, I think, first of all, there are many opinions and people who were not there, of course, have very colorful views on what happened.
What actually happened is that we were looking into the different elements. What are these elements of the agreement? So, not to be mysterious about
it. The elements of this agreement, of this possible agreement, possible deal, have to do with the nuclear material. That is, in Iran in particular,
the highly enriched uranium, they have to do with the facilities that were targeted back in June.
What is going to happen with those facilities has to do also with future activities. What are these future activities in Iran look like? What do
they look like? What is possible and how to make sure that all of this happens under tight IAEA verification?
Of course, there is another chapter which has to do with more political things on which I am not involved. Sanctions lifting, economic cooperation
and incentives of this type, which is, of course, something which runs parallel and it's informing the whole thing, but it's not specifically
nuclear.
So, what has happened -- and I think even this clip from President Trump's statement today goes into that direction, there is an understanding that
after discussion on these general principles, Iran will be coming with a number of more concrete ideas. So, there is a process which is ongoing, and
we are also consulting technically to try to make it, you know, solid and viable. So, this is what is happening, yes.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: You talked about the highly enriched uranium, there's 400 kilos apparently of 60 percent enriched uranium. Where is it? Do you know where
it is? Because you still, even though IAEA is back in Iran, you have not been able to inspect it and satellite pictures have shown fortifications or
concrete over those suspected areas. What do you know about that?
GROSSI: Yes. Well, indeed, you are absolutely right. We have returned but not to those places and it is imperative that we do so. But in terms of
where the material is, I think there is a general consensus that the material is by and large where it was. There hasn't been any indication of
important movement of material and as you said, there is more on the opposite. There is fortification, there is covering movement of earth and
blocking of the accesses of the different tunnels, in particular in Isfahan, where most of the stockpile is deemed to be present.
So, we assume and I don't think, in general, I would say there is a widespread consensus in the different analysts and people looking at that
and even the Iranian government is agreeing on this. It is there, and of course, we have to go back there.
But as you can imagine, Christiane, all of this is in a certain sense part of what will happen if there is a deal. So, the existence or the coming to
being of a deal would be opening up all these activities that we need to do and indeed they would be a prerequisite, otherwise it would be impossible
to do anything with that material or to check whether it is there or not.
AMANPOUR: Yes. On the other issue which the United States is very keen on, obviously Israel as well, and which J.D. Vance and Rubio, the Secretary of
State, have spoken about, they say they're not getting enough in terms of what they want, which is no enrichment period, end of story. Not no
enrichment for a month or a year or three years or whatever. Can you tell us about the demands and where you think Iran is? You spoke even to the
Foreign Minister yesterday by phone.
GROSSI: Only in general terms. As you can imagine, there is a negotiation which is ongoing and so it would be very improper for me to start
describing in detail these things. But it is clear that there is this gap, which is obvious, between the position of the United States, which is
demanding, as you say, is demanding no enrichment at all and what Iran would like to continue to be doing.
So, as typically in diplomatic negotiations and in negotiations that want to be constructive, we have to see if we can strike a balance between what
may be legitimate and without any proliferation risk at all and what the United States could accept. So, it's walking this fine line where we are
going to be having an agreement, I hope.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, finally, the New York Times is reporting that sources are telling them that this massive military build-up is more about trying
to get concessions out of Iran than regime change. As you know, many people inside Iran and certainly diaspora outside Iran don't want negotiations.
Well, I don't know about inside, but outside they don't want negotiations. They want intervention and they want regime change.
Do you believe, given the fact that this time in June there were meant to be these talks going on and there was a bombing instead of the next round
of talks, what are you feeling? Is this really about concessions at the negotiating table or do you think there's also a regime change element to
it?
GROSSI: It's quite speculative, of course, what you are asking me. This is a logical question. I would say what I see around the table, what I see
when I talk to Special Envoy Ambassador Witkoff and Dr. Kushner, I see that they are there engaging seriously in a conversation aiming at having some
results. They do seem to have some timelines, which of course is for them to see and to decide.
I see on the Iranian side something interesting, which is a realization that this is a different process. You know, in the past, and you and I have
been discussing about this for many, many years, there has been this sort of tit for tat thing. I do something and then I get something in return. My
impression is that here we are looking at something that has to be comprehensive or not.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: OK. And that's very important, very important, because it's really the pedal hits the metal right now. Thank you very much indeed,
Rafael Grossi, and we will keep in touch with you. Thank you.
Now, President Trump claims his Board of Peace will be, quote, "the most consequential international body in history." But key American allies are
staying out, including Europeans, including the Vatican, which says it's the United Nations that should manage crises around the world.
Pope Leo is making the call for peace a central part of his papacy. Speaking on Ash Wednesday, in his reflections at the start of Lent, Pope
Leo lamented the ashes left behind by today's wars and conflicts. Take a listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POPE LEO XIV (through translator): The weight of a burning world, of entire cities destroyed by war, the ashes of international law and justice
among peoples, the ashes of entire ecosystems and harmony among people, the ashes of critical thinking and ancient local wisdom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: All of that, he says, needs to be rebuilt and reconstituted and protected. One of Leo's staunchest allies in the United States and in the
Church is Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey. Like the Pope, Cardinal Tobin urges people of faith to call out injustice by using
their voices to say no. And he's joining me now from Newark. Cardinal Tobin, welcome to the program.
CARDINAL JOSEPH W. TOBIN, ARCHBISHOP OF NEWARK: Well, thank you very much, Christiane. I'm honored to be here.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's great to talk to you because this Pope has really forged a very, very conscious path towards what I've just said, but also to
be just and kind and treat immigrants and others with dignity. Can I first ask you to describe what you think is meant by just be able to say no? No
to what?
TOBIN: Well, I think it demonstrates that we have the ability to make choices in life. And to some things we say yes to, the ones that are life-
giving, that really respect human dignity, that contribute to human flourishing. We say no to things that are short-sighted and actually would
harm.
I think the Holy Father has made it quite clear that from the moment he stepped out on the balcony on May 8th of last year at St. Peter's, he said,
peace be with you with such clear fervor and emphasis that peacemaking was going to be an important part of his program as the, as our Holy Father.
AMANPOUR: So, that's, you know, to an extent on the international stage. And we've literally just been talking about potential war in the Middle
East again, and we see all the wars and the Pope talked about that. But what about inside the United States from your perspective? Obviously, Pope
Leo is the first American Pope, and he really has made it a mission to speak out certainly for the immigrants in the United States, treat them
with dignity, treat them with due process. They don't have to be, you know, rounded up and all treated like criminals.
And you yourself, even on Ash Wednesday, I think you went into a, I believe it was an ICE facility to say mass and to bless your constituents or
rather, you know, your people there. Tell me about the tension between the Vatican, between, you know, the Newark Archdiocese and the administration
on this issue.
TOBIN: Well, you mentioned my perspective and my perspective was formed by, as you note, something that happened yesterday morning here in the
Eastern part of the United States and in the state of New Jersey. I was permitted to enter an ICE facility to conduct religious services for some
of the 1,300 inmates that were there for my service that day, yesterday, it was -- there were women from all over the Western Hemisphere, and we
conducted it in several different languages.
It was a moment of very somber and palpable suffering, because they were separated from their families, from the people they most wanted to be with.
But I saw incredible solidarity among these women, especially at a moment called the sign of peace where we exchange a handshake or an embrace to see
these women who were heartbroken, yet want to support each other.
[13:30:00]
And I -- that gives meaning to what I do is simply to recognize the dignity of each person and to work together in the community to make sure that that
dignity is recognized and respected.
AMANPOUR: I'm just going to ask you to explain, you said women, is that because their husbands had fled or they didn't dare come out or were
incarcerated? Tell me why just the women you're concentrating on?
TOBIN: Well, I presume, now there were other services during the day, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: I see. OK.
TOBIN: Where men were -- took part as well.
AMANPOUR: Got it.
TOBIN: I believe the conditions of their incarceration is that they're segregated. So, that was the reason that I was with women.
AMANPOUR: Got it. OK. I got it. Cardinal, you have really used your platform now and your pulpit, obviously, to take a stand. You're going
beyond preaching and the Christian, you know, theology and values. You've denounced ICE as a lawless organization. This obviously after the killing
in January of the nurse, Alex Pretti, and also before that, Renee Good in Minneapolis. And you've urged Catholics to oppose additional funding of
ICE.
What moves you to enter that fray? Because it is also political, it's religious, it's about values, it's about Christian charity, but it's also
political in today's world.
TOBIN: Well, you know, for me, the issue of immigration is personal as well as communal. I deal every day with situations in which there are
people who were here and now they no longer are. They've been separated from their families. They've been -- after many years, even decades in this
country, they're now in a process that is aimed at deporting them.
So, I didn't measure my words always, but I can say this is the important thing, that we're not going beyond Catholic principles. At least I'm not.
And that's what -- I have perfect confidence that what I think we all can agree on is the worth of each human being. And not because it's acquired or
achieved or bestowed on by an external power, it is an element, an essential element of being human as intended by our creator.
AMANPOUR: You've mentioned a lot of people who are targeted within your own diocese, and we hear from Cardinal Cupich of Chicago who he says
priests in his archdiocese have been stopped by federal agents, asked to prove their immigration status. This is what he said to a PBS station. I've
had some priests who are of different color being targeted and arrested stopped because of their color and asking them to prove that they're
citizens. That's not America.
Of course, DHS said allegations that ICE engages in racial profiling are categorically false. But what can you tell us about what that Cardinal
says?
TOBIN: Well, I have no reason to doubt what Cardinal Cupich said, but speaking from what I know here in Newark, I don't believe, at least I've
not heard of any of our priests that have been stopped. But I can tell you there is a great anxiety among the priests for their own status, even if
they have legal status in the United States. They worry about being stopped suddenly on the street and asked to produce documents. So, they carry their
identification documents with them.
But I think the pain of our priests is also sharing the pain of the people. One of the other services I had last evening, Christiane, was in a downtown
parish in Newark who has lost 25 people since Christmas. And you could feel the sorrow among the people. And there were a few empty places in the
church simply because it was too risky for people to be seen on the streets.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, because again, Pope Leo has made himself perfectly clear, and he's talked about, you know, the need to treat
immigrants with dignity no matter what. As you know, Tom Homan, he is Trump's border czar. And back in November, he basically criticized the pope
for -- you know, for making these public statements. Here's what he said. I want to play it for you. For making these public statements. Here's what he
said. I want to play it for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSE BORDER CZAR: I'm saying this a lifelong -- baptized Catholic, first communion as a Catholic, confirmation of Catholic. We all
(INAUDIBLE) Catholic (INAUDIBLE) on his work and we (INAUDIBLE). He wants to attack us from securing our border? He's got a wall around the Vatican,
does he not? So, he's got a wall around to protect his people and himself, but we can't wall around (ph) United States? So, I wish he stick to the
Catholic church and fix that and leave border enforcement with us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: I hope you could hear all that, but he said he was a lifelong Catholic. The Pope should basically stick to his -- you know, his pastoral
duties and et cetera. What do you make of that?
TOBIN: Well, I can certainly say that neither the Pope or myself or anybody else, other than those who are elected, make policy for the people
of the United States. Our legislators and our elected officials do that. But that does not keep us from viewing reality from the perspective of our
own faith. And I would suggest that if Mr. Homan really wanted to know what the Holy Father thinks, he should have a conversation with him.
AMANPOUR: All right.
TOBIN: I'm quite sure he would get a respectful listening from him, as well as a clear exposition of the Catholic Church's position on this
question.
AMANPOUR: Just a quick last one on the Board of Peace, because we said that the Vatican had declined to attend, declined the invitation to join.
You know, the Holy See is saying they're left perplexed by some points of the plan on critical issues which need to be resolved. In general, what is
the view and why are there reservations about the Board of Peace?
TOBIN: Well, I can't speak for the secretary of state, but I can recall what the secretary of state, Cardinal Parolin, said yesterday. And that was
basically to recognize that there were some perplexities or some open questions that prevented the Holy See, or the Vatican, if you want to say
that, from joining the Board of Peace.
But I think he also expressed a clear vote in favor of the United Nations as the arbiter of conflict within this country. And the Vatican has had a
positive, though not always uncritical, view of the United Nations since its very founding. And so, I think that that's the particular reason. The
Holy See doesn't have a government like a nation-state does, that can easily participate in boards like the president has proposed.
AMANPOUR: And just briefly, lastly, because we've got about 20 seconds, the Pope is also calling for more kindness and community in a world that
seems to be urging or facilitating contempt and, you know, quite a lot of violence between people, at least verbal and political. Do you think that -
- can you see that he could make headway? Do you think the message of kindness to each other is going to resonate?
TOBIN: Well, you know, we just began the season of Lent yesterday, and there are practices that not simply Catholics, but other Christians and
even other religions in their time, like Ramadan or moments of purification, employ, prayer and almsgiving, but also fasting. And the Holy
Father's view on fasting this year was, he was an invitation to the Catholic community to fast from violent language, from language that hurts
and wounds and really doesn't contribute to the common good. So, I think that that's -- this is something he's thinking about a lot, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: All right. Well, Cardinal Tobin, thank you very much for joining us from Newark. Thank you so much. And we'll be back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Tributes have been pouring in for the late Reverend Jesse Jackson, who died earlier this week at the age of 84. A life dedicated to
fighting for racial justice. Jackson's presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988 reshaped the Democratic Party and paved the way for black politicians
like Barack Obama. As journalist A'Leila Bundles explains now to Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. A'Leila Bundles, thank you so much for talking with us.
A'LEILA BUNDLES, JOURNALIST AND BIOGRAPHER: Absolutely.
MARTIN: One of the reasons I was glad to speak with you is that you are both a journalist and a biographer. I mean, you haven't written a biography
of Jesse Jackson, but you've written biographies of other notable figures who had an important role in American public life. So, I want to start with
your coverage of the Jackson campaign. What do you remember from that campaign?
BUNDLES: So, I actually covered the 1984 campaign. So, I was on the trail from January through the convention in San Francisco. It was an amazing
ride. It was both historical. It was sometimes a little chaotic, but we really did see an amazing change in the electorate.
MARTIN: Tell me about sort of what people say it was sort of chaotic and why is that? I mean, it wasn't a conventional campaign.
BUNDLES: Well, you know, it really it was as much a crusade, I think, as a campaign. And I remember having I was in the Atlanta Bureau for NBC. And
the summer of 1983, Reverend Jackson had been out encouraging people to register to vote.
I remember being in Mississippi. I don't remember which town, but it was the first time I'd heard people say run, Jesse, run. And he was getting
people out to vote. He was saying, you've got to register to ride. You've got to get on board to ride. And that was sort of the beginning. You could
see it was a crusade to just raise people's consciousness about the power they could have if they voted.
Then the campaign -- even before the primaries, Reverend Jackson had gone overseas and he had been able to get a prisoner released. And that was kind
of he was always cooking up something that got headlines. But it was, you know, instinct, but it was also strategy to get attention so that by the
time the primary started, by the time New Hampshire was happening, by the time Iowa was happening, he was already in the headlines.
MARTIN: Did he think that he could actually win?
BUNDLES: Well, you know, when you think -- when you read about, as I've been doing for the last day, reminding myself about his childhood and how
charismatic he was and really what a big ego he had, how much self- confidence he had, even from a young age, I think Reverend Jackson might have believed that he could win. And the reality is that he did much better
than many people predicted, that he really did connect with a wide range of people. He, I think, helped to build this coalition that we see now that's
part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But he was stirring up that enthusiasm in a way that no one had really done before.
MARTIN: Karen Tumulty, who's now with The Washington Post, was with The L.A. Times, wrote a piece in The Washington Post describing being on one of
those campaigns. And just she's white and talked about just the unbridled racism that she sometimes saw directed at him. And so, I just wondered if
you as a journalist, did you ever witness scenes like that?
BUNDLES: We certainly knew that it was going on. And I would say even for those of us who were working for major news organizations, you knew that
there was a skepticism about Jesse Jackson's campaign. And in some ways, the reporters who were assigned to the campaign, a lot of African-Americans
covered a presidential campaign for the first time.
[13:45:00]
I know I certainly covered something for the first time. And it was it was so much a part when I was at NBC, but I didn't at ABC, CBS, New York Times,
Wall Street Journal, Washington Post. Those slots, the boys on the bus were literally the boys on the bus. And there were very few African-Americans
who had covered political campaigns. But those political campaigns were, you know, what you used to say, you got your ticket punched. It was the
thing that helped you move to the next level.
So, while I can't tell you about a situation where someone who was a white racist poured their heart out to me with their honesty, I can tell you
about what it was like to be a reporter and to know that part of the reason that black reporters and producers were assigned to these campaigns is that
some of our news organizations didn't really take it seriously. And they thought maybe we might have some specific inroads or they could just give
us that assignment and somebody else would get the bigger, more important assignment. But something that you can't look away from. And so, we have to
cover it.
He was starting to get a lot of attention in Iowa and New Hampshire, so he couldn't be ignored. After he had helped get the release of Goodman, then
that meant that there was some international attention to what he was doing.
MARTIN: Just to clarify, Robert Goodman, a Navy flyer who was captured behind lines, I think he'd been on a reconnaissance mission. And
unfortunately, his plane went down in an area that was hostile to the United States. And Jesse Jackson went and negotiated his release, which he
went on to do a number of times. And so, after that, you think it kind of changed things a little bit?
BUNDLES: Yes, it did make a big difference because now you couldn't ignore him. He had actually had an achievement, a diplomatic achievement that the
U.S. government had not been able to do on its own. So, you couldn't ignore him.
MARTIN: And his showing was more than people thought it would be. What was he good at? I know people have been playing clips of his speeches, that
famous I am somebody chant. He actually appeared on Sesame Street, which is kind of the kind of a pinnacle of mainstream acceptance.
Certainly, he was a gifted speaker. But what else was he good at? Like, why do you think his campaign achieved what it did?
BUNDLES: Well, he was a gifted speaker. He was very charismatic. But -- and sometimes people might have made, you know, sort of light of the
rhyming that he did. But that rhyming and then the real analysis that he would make of whatever the political situation was, he could boil it down
in ways that everybody could understand. So, he could have these sort of big political thoughts, these big policy thoughts, but he brought it home
in a way that resonated with people. That made a huge difference.
But I think he also had from his own experience that authenticity of I have been the one who was down and out. And I'm going to give you a reason to
believe that you don't have to stay there. People understood that.
MARTIN: One of the things that is noteworthy is that a lot of political activists worked on his campaign and got organizing experience that they
later translated into their own campaigns. Can you sort of talk a little bit about just the political impact that he had kind of beyond his own
race?
BUNDLES: Well -- so, I would say there were many people who were Ernie Green, one of the Little Rock Nine, was always around as one of the
advisers. But I would say especially women. You know, Donna Brazile really who became the first black woman to lead a -- to be a campaign manager for
a major presidential campaign, the Gore campaign, the Al Gore campaign. So, she says he taught her everything. She was still a young person and he gave
her confidence that she could organize. And then she went on to an incredible career in politics.
Mignon Moore, who was the chair of the Democratic Convention in 2024. These are women who he brought to the table. He said, I believe in you. I trust
you. And those people were able to leverage that into political influence later on. He really did give a lot of people opportunities.
MARTIN: Some of the things that people may know about him, though, are some of the lower points, right? Like the episode where he used and what I
think he thought it was a private conversation. He used an anti-Semitic epithet to describe Jewish people. But talk about that. Like it just it's
hard for people to square. That person with a person who was working so hard to create kind of a multiracial coalition in a way that really had not
been achieved sort of politically.
[13:50:00]
BUNDLES: You know, that incident has many -- you know, many iterations and it's a little murky on exactly what happened. I was not in the room, so I
can't say exactly what happened. But it did -- you know, this use of a slur really did do tremendous harm to his campaign. I think he there he already
had some skepticism from some Jewish leaders even before this happened. And that just really threw the campaign into a tailspin.
I think over time he finally said, look. I did this. I'm sorry that I did this. I didn't mean it in this way that sometimes he was too casual with
people. You know, some of it was the guy who's born in 1941, who grew up in the segregated South, who sometimes used --
MARTIN: Colloquialisms --
BUNDLES: -- slang to describe people.
MARTIN: Colloquialisms are slang. But nevertheless, though, how do you understand that? You spent a lot of time together driving around in small
cars and in caravans and in buses and being tired together. So, how do you square the person who said that in private with a person who was working so
hard in public to do the opposite?
BUNDLES: You know, Reverend Jackson, you know, like all of us, is a really complicated person. There are flaws. There are things that people have
criticized and things in his personal life. There are flaws. And he had them, certainly. I think when I look at the overall assessment, I have to
say, yes, there were things that he did that, you know, made other people, made people uncomfortable, things that were not particularly flattering to
him.
But when you assess the whole person, he is someone who opened doors for other people. He's someone who gave people confidence. He changed the way
the Democratic Party counted delegates. That opened the door for Barack Obama. So, yes, on balance, he's a person who was a visionary, who made a
huge difference. But he definitely had flaws. You can't ignore that when you're looking at the whole man.
MARTIN: Interestingly enough, President Trump actually released the statement praising Jesse Jackson as a force of nature. He noted that he
provided office space to the Rainbow Coalition, worked with Reverend Jackson on criminal justice reform, which is true, long-term HBCU funding,
which is true, Opportunity Zones, that was in his first term, and also asserted that Jackson helped pave the way for Obama's election. Could you
just say more about how he paved the way for Obama's election?
BUNDLES: Well, I think, you know, we have to mention Ron Brown here. Ron Brown was a chair of the Democratic National Committee and was very much an
ally of Reverend Jackson's. And at that point, primaries were winner-take- all. And it was really through that sort of backroom policy change that primaries became proportional, your delegates became proportional to the
number of votes you had gotten in the primary. That was a huge change because it meant that if you had one candidate who, you know, might have
won by 51 percent of the vote, that person would have gotten all the delegates.
To be able to divide that up opened the door both for Reverend Jackson to get a certain number of primary wins, but it certainly opened the door for
Barack Obama when he was first running. And that when you look at the difference that would have been whether Barack Obama would have been the
nominee or Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee, I think that policy change made that difference.
MARTIN: We've talked about him as a civil rights activist. And, of course, we've kind of moved past the fact that he was actually with Reverend Martin
Luther King Jr. when he was killed. I mean, he was there in Memphis at that motel. He was one of the last people to see him alive.
But so, fast forward, how do you position Jesse Jackson as sort of a figure in the American story? What would you say if you were writing his
biography?
BUNDLES: You know, that he is a person who was born in the segregated Jim Crow South where black people had few rights. You were a laborer. You were
not even having the right to vote in most instances. He also was a person who, because he was born out of wedlock, was supposed to feel shame. And he
took that those personal experiences. He expanded them to look at ways to involve and to engage African-Americans and other people who were
disenfranchised to create this coalition.
[13:55:00]
And you could see that are born in 1941, that means before World War II, that he then went through the Jim Crow South through the opening of civil
rights legislation. He was able to tap into that, to take advantage of that, to be a part of what Reverend Martin Luther King was embodying. And
then to say, we are going to have a position on the American stage. We're going to be intricately involved in politics. We're going to be intricately
involved in corporate America, and we want to have our place and our share.
It was a coalition. It was diversifying. It was diversity and inclusion and equality. Those are things that he embodied. And even though we are seeing
a pushback on that, I think that people are going to think of him as a visionary.
And while some people are saying, is this the end of an era? I think it is a reminder that as we will see with the what the funeral services, the
memorial services, that we will see some of these new young people who are inspired by what he represented taking that mantle.
AMANPOUR: A'Leila Bundles, thank you so much for talking with us.
BUNDLES: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And that is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
