Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Abdul El-Sayed Wins Michigan Democratic Senate Primary; Michigan Primary Turnout Signals Strong Democratic Enthusiasm"; Kansas Voters Reject GOP Proposal To Elect State Supreme Court Justices; Russian Missile Barrage Kills At Least 17 In Kyiv Region; Controversy Grows In Russia Over Alleged "Black Widow" Scams; Author Annie Jacobsen Discusses Biological Weapons In New Book. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 05, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:41]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. What American voters want. A look at the primary results
and what they could mean for November, with Political Analyst Ron Brownstein.
And what's the latest with Kansas? Former chief justice of the State Supreme Court joins me on Kansas saying no to electing judges and what we
can learn from it.
Plus, "Biological War" author Annie Jacobsen speaks with Walter Isaacson about what she says is the greatest overall threat we face.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Michigan Democrats have chosen their Senate candidate. After a tight race with moderate Haley Stevens, Progressive Abdul El-Sayed is now officially
the primary winner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABDUL EL-SAYED, U.S. DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE: What we showed is that the power of our many is greater than the power of their money. What we
showed is that if you're willing to build a movement brick by brick, if you're willing to go and travel your state and have the conversations in
rooms big and small, starting in moments when people aren't even paying attention to an election, but are paying attention to the price of gas and
the price of groceries and the price of housing and the price of health care, that you can build a conversation that builds into a movement that
defeats Goliath.
This is what you all showed. And my hope is that our democracy will never be the same.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The 41-year-old doctor will now go head-to-head against Trump- endorsed Republican Mike Rogers in November. The President feeling optimistic, saying El-Sayed's victory is great news for his party. The
Michigan contest has been an enormously expensive one, with the candidate's stances on Israel a central issue in the campaign. But while El-Sayed may
well score a win for progressives, it's a more mixed picture nationally.
Let's bring in Political Analyst Ron Brownstein for more on this. Ron, good to see you. So El-Sayed wins by less than --
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to be with you.
GOLODRYGA: -- 1 percentage point in a race that most polls said he'd win by double digits. Yes, a win is a win. This was a very bruising and heated
campaign, as you know, in the fight between the Democratic establishment and the progressive movement. So on that issue, between these two factions
of the party, who won?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes, this race, Bianna, I thought was a perfect encapsulation of what we've been watching all year, because we have seen in this primary
season more systematic conflict between left and center in Democratic primaries than at any point in modern history. Certainly in the 40 years
that I've been covering American politics.
And the bottom line is that neither side has really scored a knockout over the other. Each side has posted significant victories. The center has won
the governor race in California, the Senate nomination in Iowa, the Senate -- relatively centrist Senate nomination in Texas, a number of competitive
House races.
The left has posted big victories, too. Graham Platner originally in the main Senate race. Obviously, those New York candidates that Mayor Mamdani
backed. What's really significant about Michigan and why it is the biggest win for the left so far is that most of the left gains still have come, not
entirely, but mostly have come in safely blue areas where there really isn't much of a competition in November.
El-Sayed is going to be the most significant left victory, the nominee in a state or district that is going to be competitive in November. And so it is
both the biggest success so far for the left, but also the biggest test, because if he doesn't win in November, the party's interpretation of his
rise, I think, is going to look very different than it appears this morning.
GOLODRYGA: And he was anything but a flawed candidate. I mean, he's very charismatic, obviously focused on a lot of issues --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- domestically at least, that really resonated with voters. We'll get to the foreign policy angle of it in just a second. But few
expected --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- Stevens to get this close. Three of the four final polls had her down, as we noted, by double digits. She won working-class counties --
BROWNSTEIN: Right.
GOLODRYGA: -- lower-income areas, and ran strongest with black voters in Detroit. What did the polling miss --
BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely.
GOLODRYGA: -- about her coalition, and what is the work that El-Sayed has to do now to rectify that within the next two and a half months, three
months?
[13:05:22]
BROWNSTEIN: Yes, absolutely. You know, about 15 years ago, I described the history of Democratic presidential primaries as usually a contest between
the wine track and the beer track. And the wine track candidates were those who relied primarily on college-educated voters and young people, and the
beer track candidates were those, through the party's history, who relied on working-class whites, black voters, and seniors.
And those lines have gotten a little scrambled at the presidential level in the last few cycles, but this was a pure throwback to a wine track-beer
track race, with El-Sayed doing best among college-educated voters and young people. And Haley Stevens relying on that traditional blue-collar
Democratic coalition of working-class whites, black voters, and seniors.
The polling probably overestimated the number of young people who would vote, maybe overestimated the number of college graduates as well. I was in
Michigan over the final days, and, you know, it's pretty clear that there's a lot of skepticism about El-Sayed, his views, his kind of persona, among
those traditional Democratic constituencies that have been drifting away from the party.
And in the first public polling from an organization called EPIC-MRA toward the general election, that's exactly where he's struggling. I mean, he is
significantly underperforming not only Stevens in these tests, but also the governor candidate, Jocelyn Benson, among exactly those groups.
Older voters, people over 50, black voters, non-college white women, that's where he's going, that's where Republicans are going to put their focus,
and that's where he has the most work to do to knit together the traditional Democratic coalition.
GOLODRYGA: Well, as noted, this was a grueling and heated contest. In primary, Stevens vowed that she would support the winner, and she stands by
that support. El-Sayed said today that tomorrow we mend fences, that the party now needs to come together. Here's what else he said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EL-SAYED: To all of my sisters and brothers of the Jewish faith, or any faith at all or no faith at all, I want you to know that my commitment to
your safety, my commitment to Jewish safety, is the same commitment that I have to the safety of my own daughters. Because if there is one question of
a political philosophy that ought to animate us all is, what would we build, what would we do if we treated all of our kids like they were all of
our kids?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So that brings in the foreign policy concerns and his focus --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- on AIPAC spending, Israel support, funding Israel militarily, and also coupled with concerns of antisemitism that's risen not only in his
state but nationwide and around the world. He said that he is speaking out in support of the Jewish community, that he would support them and protect
them just as he would his own children.
But he -- there was also an antisemitic attack, a hate crime --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- at a synagogue, the largest synagogue there in the state. And he responded to that attack in March by saying, quote, "hurt people, hurt
people." And that is a phrase that he stood by today while also saying that he will fight against antisemitism. So what does he need to do as it
relates to appealing to Jewish Democratic voters?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes, and look, I think -- and the problem goes beyond -- way beyond Jewish Democratic voters. First of all, you know, support for Israel
in the U.S. has broadly collapsed in the last several years. The actions of the Netanyahu government in the region and the way they have participated
in American politics has basically incinerated generations of support in the Democratic Party for Israel.
Eighty percent of Democratic voters in a recent Pew poll said they have an unfavorable view of the Israeli government. Only five percent have a
favorable view of Netanyahu. So this is something that goes way beyond Michigan and ultimately, I think, is going to lead to a repositioning of
most Democratic leaders about the U.S. posture toward Israel.
But even within that, you know, El-Sayed has been almost monomaniacally focused on the role of AIPAC. Understandable, they spent a lot of money
against him. But again, even this morning in his kind of victory speech, he talked more about him prevailing over AIPAC than he did about what he would
do for the average Michigan voter, you know, who was feeling squeezed at the pump and the checkout line.
So he does have broadening to do. And it's not only among Jewish voters.
[13:10:04]
I mean, I was in the most striking thing I heard the whole few days I was in Michigan, was in a black church on Saturday afternoon in Detroit, where
the minister, who was the President of Al Sharpton's National Action Network for the state, called El-Sayed a one-hit wonder who cares more
about Palestine than he does about Detroit and cares more about Gaza than he does about the problems of the black community in Detroit.
I mean, there are -- his focus on Israel, though, you know, not out of the bounds of what we are hearing from other Democratic candidates. He
certainly emphasizes it more, seems more, you know, stuck on that issue. And it really isn't a concern to his broad and electorate, particularly
when you get to a general election.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And one of your pieces, you quoted Reverend Charles Williams, who doubted that he can energize black voters.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: And voters told pollsters that their top concerns were the economy, cost of living and health care. And Trump, Israel really barely
registered. And yet AIPAC is something that we continue to hear throughout these races, not just in Michigan. $32 million was spent against El-Sayed
there.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: He won, though it was much closer than many had expected. But AIPAC also spent $3 million for pro-Israel candidate Wesley Bell in
Missouri, and he won. So same night, opposite results.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: What is the lesson here about AIPAC's influence?
BROWNSTEIN: I think AIPAC has become a toxic brand in Democratic politics. And, you know, the money helped Stevens because it really, you know,
particularly their ads associating him with Barack Obama. But it also hurt. You know, I think for a lot of Democratic voters, it's become a symbol of
kind of politics as usual.
And, you know, the -- what is the message of Michigan, really? Is it that Democratic voters in the state have dramatically swerved to the left? It's
hard to take that interpretation. It's that they have lost faith in the leadership of their own party.
They don't believe the leaders who said that Stevens was more electable than El-Sayed after watching the disintegration of the Biden presidency,
the failure of the Democratic leadership to stop Trump from coming back, the lack of a more effective opposition to him in his first month. I mean,
the dilemma for Democrats is that in this case, the establishment is almost certainly right.
It's not that El-Sayed can't win, and we can talk about that in a moment. But his path is a lot more complicated for all of the reasons we are
discussing. He has a lot more vulnerabilities in a general election.
And while he has strengths as a candidate, he has pretty clear weaknesses. There's a lot of me and not quite enough you in the way that he presents
this, talking about his movement and that politics will never be the same because he won a primary where a lot of money was spent against him.
There's a certain grandiosity to it that I think that kind of centers him and puts the concerns of voters a little secondary, as we saw in that
speech this morning.
GOLODRYGA: And now he'll be facing Mike Rogers, who is a formidable candidate.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: He's more of an establishment, moderate Republican, Trump endorsed. And you reported a striking number that the Trump's net approval
is minus 20 now. He is not someone --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- who would be seen as a key ally normally in a state where, yes, he won in 2024, but he lost in 2020. With those votes that are up for
grabs right now, just walk us through what you expect to see from both campaigns, Mike Rogers and Republicans and Democrats --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- with El-Sayed in the next few months.
BROWNSTEIN: Boy, there are going to be a lot of what the, you know, political strategists call double haters in Michigan, I bet. People who
disapprove of Trump and are skeptical of El-Sayed. The backdrop for this is that in Trump's first term in 2018 and 2020, Susan Collins in Maine in 2020
was the only Republican Senate incumbent or challenger who won in a state where more voters disapproved and approved of Trump's job performance,
according to the exit polls.
And right now in the latest polling, 62 percent, 63 percent of voters disapprove of Trump's performance in Michigan. By those fundamentals, a
Democrat should be able to win the seat. I think there is no chance that El-Sayed runs up to those fundamentals. In effect, the question is, do they
give him enough cushion to survive anyway?
Here's another way of thinking about it. In 2024, when Mike Rogers narrowly lost to Elissa Slotkin in Michigan, 51 percent of the voters said they had
an unfavorable view of Donald Trump. And Mike Rogers won about 10 percent of them, which is what roughly every Republican Senate candidate in Trump's
first term, except Susan Collins, could win. He only won 10 percent of people who had an unfavorable view of Trump.
Well, you know, in this election, probably 60 percent of Michigan voters are going to have an unfavorable view of Trump. And Mike Rogers, therefore,
is back to win nearly twice as many. Almost 20 percent of them. That's the task that he faces.
[13:15:10]
Against El-Sayed, it is possible. But it is not guaranteed for Rogers, even against him. So you're going to have a lot of voters, I think, who
disapprove of Trump and are dubious of El-Sayed. And what do those double haters, as the political strategists call them, do? That will decide
Michigan in all likelihood.
GOLODRYGA: And a real focus then on what turnout will look like also for the midterm. So you're looking at --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- two other states --
BROWNSTEIN: Can I just jump in there real quick?
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: More than 500,000 more Democrats than Republicans voted last night in Michigan. And that is a reminder that while El-Sayed is a flawed
candidate, there are some fundamentals here that are working against Republicans. Michigan was just the latest evidence that Democratic voters
are a lot more energized than Republican voters heading into this midterm.
GOLODRYGA: And there are two more primaries that I know you're looking at in two different states. Wisconsin --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- where there's a Democratic Socialist that's gained a lot of attention for comments that she's made and really didn't disavow in an
interview with Kaitlan Collins this week about --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- past statements on canceling Thanksgiving. She has emerged as a front-runner for the August 11th primary and also in Minnesota, a high-
stakes primary as well. What are you looking for there?
BROWNSTEIN: Right. Well, look, I mean, the Wisconsin governor's race is the most significant of those two. You know, the clearest pathway back to the
White House for Democrats in 2028 is to recapture Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, the three states Trump dislodged from what I call the Blue Wall.
And, you know, we're going to have a test of what approach works best. You have a centrist Democratic nominee for governor in Michigan. You have this
very left candidate for Senate in Michigan. Who's going to run better?
In Wisconsin, the path for the senator is tougher, I mean, because there are fewer Black voters in Wisconsin than in Michigan, and the Black voters
were kind of a bulwark for moderation. Madison and the kind of the college- educated, young-left nexus is a powerful force in Wisconsin politics.
But Hong, I think, isn't even -- Francesca Hong, the socialist who might be nominated for governor, is an even weaker candidate in the general election
than E-Sayed. Her opponent, though, Tom Tiffany, is a more MAGA-identified Republican. It would be quite uphill, I think, though, for her to win if
she's nominated.
And that would give control of the electoral machinery in Wisconsin in 2028 to an election denier. That's a pretty serious issue for Democrats if it
happens. Minnesota, another left-center confrontation where Peggy Flanagan, the lieutenant governor, now I think pretty clearly leads Angie Craig, the
centrist, a member of Congress. Less risk of losing that seat with Flanagan than with Hong or El-Sayed.
But again, you know, it continues this fight. It's been a pretty close fight between left and center so far, but the left is finishing strong, and
that, you know, I think, carries through to 2028. Although I will say, as I said at the start, what happens in the general election for El-Sayed and
for Hong if she's nominated I think will have a big impact on whether the left comes out of '26 with a real burst of momentum or is significantly
deflated heading into the '28 presidential primaries.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll also have to see where we are in terms of the war with Iran, the economy, so many --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- other factors that could impact this race --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- between now and then. You wrote that the new DNC calendar makes Michigan the pivotal early showdown between left --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- and center in 2028. I'm fascinated by this debate, whether we can have a sort of big tent party or whether there is more turmoil that
meets the eye now. And if you look at those results from last night in Michigan, and you are Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris perhaps, Josh Shapiro,
Andy Beshear, AOC, all of these names that are thrown out as potential presidential candidates and those that may be seeking the Democratic
candidacy here in nomination for 2028, how do they interpret last night's result? What are they thinking?
BROWNSTEIN: You know, I think they're thinking what I wrote, which is that Michigan is the tipping point in that early calendar. Democrats anointed
six states to be the early tests before everybody else can vote starting on March 7, 2028. Three of those lean, I think, pretty clearly toward the left
candidates -- Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico. They're 2-3-4.
South Carolina, which leads off, I think is pretty clearly going to favor a more moderate candidate. But above all, someone who can generate support in
the black community. And then the last state on the front six is Virginia, which has a history of electing moderate Democrats like Abigail Spanberger
and Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. And that leaves, I think, Michigan as the kind of the genuine tipping point.
[13:20:01]
Bernie Sanders narrowly beat Hillary Clinton there in 2016 in the primary. Joe Biden beat Bernie there in 2020 in the primary. And what you saw last
night is that in a pretty fair fight, it was almost evenly divided. You know, obviously, if Gretchen Whitmer had won, it would have been a very
different result. I mean, she probably would have beaten, you know, Sayed by 10 or 12 points.
But I think what last night tells Gavin Newsom or AOC is that the left or center can win in Michigan. And I think it is really going to be. Last
night just underscored how critical it is going to be to selecting the next Democratic nominee.
GOLODRYGA: It's going to be fascinating for you, though, professionally to follow it all, as it will be for us --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- as journalists.
Ron Brownstein, always great to have you on. Thank you so much.
BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: In Kansas, voters did deliver one decisive result. They overwhelmingly rejected a Republican proposal to directly elect the state
Supreme Court justices. It's a power currently wielded by the governor, an office held by Democrats since 2019. But the GOP proposed making the
Supreme Court positions elected.
The attempt was particularly closely watched, given that the Kansas Supreme Court had ruled in 2019 that the state constitution protected the right to
abortion. Lawton Nuss served for years as chief justice at the Kansas Supreme Court and since stepping down, has spent much of his time promoting
judicial independence and the rule of law. And he joins us now from Topeka, Kansas.
Justice Nuss, thank you so much for taking the time. For our viewers who are not familiar with this amendment that was voted down. Talk about what
it actually would have meant if passed.
LAWTON NUSS, FMR. CHIEF JUSTICE, KANSAS SUPREME COURT: Well, Kansas, the last since 1958, has had a merit selection system for our Supreme Court
justices. And this amendment, as you indicated, would change that system. So it would be direct election of justices. And it would have been left up
to the Kansas legislature to later to determine whether those elections were partisan or nonpartisan.
So basically, anybody who wanted to try to be on the Supreme Court, as long as they were at least 30 years old and had at least 10 years of practice,
and they were also admitted to practice in Kansas, they could run for this office.
And that, of course, means that they would be out, perhaps among our 105 counties, trying to raise money, giving campaign speeches, perhaps making
campaign promises in hopes that they could then be elected to the Supreme Court for a six-year term. And it would have been up to the legislature to
decide whether those seven positions on the court would each be for a particular geographic district or whether the elections would have been
statewide. And fortunately for us, Kansans, by over 60 percent of those voting said, no, we don't want that system.
GOLODRYGA: And in addition to what would have ended the state's nearly 70- year merit system for picking Supreme Court justices, you also point to polling, which shows that the state Supreme Court is the most trusted
public institution in Kansas, more than the legislators that are actually pushing for this change. So which problem is the amendment for those who
are pushing, what problem did they think they were solving by doing this?
[13:25:22]
NUSS: Well, it's important that I give everybody a little bit of background to this. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court, when I was chief justice,
issued a decision called Hodes. And in there, we said there was a right to abortion found in the Kansas Constitution. And there are a number of
conservative legislators and other politicians who did not like that ruling.
And they decided that they wanted to get that changed, which, of course, is how things are done in a constitutional-based system. If you don't like a
ruling from the Supreme Court, you can get the amendment, excuse me, get the Constitution changed to comport with what you think it should be. As a
result, the legislature got a proposed amendment on the ballot in our primary election in August of 2022.
And the legislature decided not to put it on the ballot in the general November election, but chose to do it in the primary, when, of course,
there's usually a less of a voter turnout. That amendment, which would have modified our Hodes decision about abortion, failed by about a 60 percent to
40 percent margin.
And then about a month or two later, a very prominent Kansas politician was quoted in the newspaper as saying, well, we didn't get what we want, but
there's another way to do this, and we will change the present Kansas Constitution that provides for merit selection of justices. We'll change it
to elective positions.
And then I want to read what he had said. He said, "This would clear a path for the state to, quote, "slowly and quietly," unquote, place anti-abortion
judges on the state's high court, with the ultimate goal of overturning the Kansas Supreme Court's 2019 Hodes decision that found the state
constitution includes the right to an abortion."
So he admitted that's what he was up to. And there's been a similar admission by another prominent state politician. He's a leader in the
Kansas legislature. And last November, he said basically the same thing to yet another newspaper. And made it clear that this was an abortion issue.
Call it in disguise, because they were promoting in their campaign the last few months that this was all about democracy, restoring the right to vote
to Kansans.
But in effect, what their plan was, if the amendment had passed, they were going to slowly and quietly elect anti-abortion justices to the court. And
over time, those justices would then overturn Hodes.
GOLODRYGA: And not so quietly, given the statement that you just read, it appears that the quiet part has now been stated out loud and leading to the
question of, you know, do they stop here? This amendment failed. They're clearly not speaking for the majority of Kansans at this point. And yet
Attorney General Kobach didn't concede this argument.
He told supporters at the courts are, quote, "an uphill battle, but a battle that I love to fight." So how do you interpret that response?
NUSS: Well, I interpret that as meaning, yes, the battle is not over. Just like he said in September of 2022, after his efforts to amend the
Constitution failed. Once again, he is saying, well, we failed again, but there are other ways to do this.
I'm not sure what he has in mind other than possibly trying to find secretly, if you will, somebody to apply for the Kansas Supreme Court under
our merit selection system who shares his views on abortion. But tells that candidate, please don't tell anybody about this or else there's a chance
that, you know, you may not be recommended for appointment to the court.
And potentially, I suppose that person would keep quiet. And in Mr. Kobach's hopes, that person would be one of the three nominated by the
nominating commission having gone through that application process, and then hopefully would be appointed by the governor.
[13:30:13]
I can't think of any other way where his desires would be accomplished, but he has proven to be resourceful in the past, and I suspect he'll try to
come up with something else. Again, it is contrary to the will of Kansas voters twice now, so I'm not sure what he's going to do.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that argument is clear. I'm just wondering if you can explain to our viewers what is -- what's wrong in your view with an elected
Supreme Court, because we do have elected county judges in this country, for example. So where do you draw the line on that point?
NUSS: Well, a friend of mine explained their difference to me, and that is, in the possible event that one of our trial judges who was elected, ruled
in favor of a campaign donor, because they were a campaign donor, and that case then got appealed, then the Kansas Supreme Court could take care of
that problem.
But if a justice or justices on the court were elected and they decided to please their campaign donors and rule in favor of those donors, there is no
place else to go to get that corrected. So that would be one answer.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about just the amount of money that's gone in for this particular amendment from both sides, advocates and those who were
opposed to it, nearly $13 million. We had Leonard Leo, anti-abortion activist groups on one side, you have ACLU, Planned Parenthood, George
Soros on the other side. Do you think that's a good thing here?
NUSS: Well, that gets back to the point we discussed a few minutes ago, and that is, when you are electing justices, as was evidenced by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court race about a year ago, you have some of those same donors involved, and their plan is to get their justice on the court to follow
their personal agenda.
I talked with a former chief justice of a state. She was elected as chief justice. She opposes the election system because she says, even though I
never voted in favor of a campaign donor in any case, how am I going to persuade the voters of the state that justice is not for sale, that their
courts are not for sale?
And I would just say, Kansans, by voting down this amendment, basically said, we are not going to open the door to that room where we're going to
suspect what has been going on, whether favors were made, and we are not going to suspect what was going on, and we are not going to lose faith in
our justice system. So I think that's a big move on their party.
GOLODRYGA: Does that move last night from Kansas to -- Kansans, does that give you hope from other states, for other state Supreme Courts and justice
on that front?
NUSS: Well, I believe in Kansas voters. And when they are provided with the truth and not misrepresentations in campaigns, that they will make a good,
sound decision. I may not personally agree with the decision, but at least I will know that they considered things, thought about it, and then made
their decision.
And my understanding was that there were a lot of people around the country watching this vote in Kansas, because if it were successful, then that
would encourage some --
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
NUSS: -- politicians in other states to get their systems changed as well.
GOLODRYGA: Former Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, thank you for the time. Thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.
NUSS: Thank you. It was my pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: We turn now to Ukraine, where at least 17 people were killed and dozens wounded in Kyiv and its surrounding areas overnight as Russia fired
more than two dozen ballistic and anti-ship missiles, none of which were intercepted by Ukrainian defenses.
[13:35:04]
The deadly assault underlines the worsening danger for urban civilians far from the front lines, as Ukraine grapples with perilously low stocks of
missile interceptors. Meanwhile, inside Russia, controversy is growing around so-called black widow scams. These are women allegedly entering sham
marriages with soldiers to claim death benefits if they are killed.
Matthew Chance has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A mass wedding of Russian soldiers before they're packed off to the front lines.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translation): I want to shake your hand and thank you for not running away, for not being scared.
CHANCE (voice-over): But not all marriages offer love. Russian military wives get thousands of dollars compensation if their husbands are killed in
action. And officials say ruthless scammers dubbed black widows are now tricking vulnerable recruits into wedlock.
The father of Maria from St. Petersburg died after being shot in Ukraine last year. She told me she only found out her dad had joined the army after
he was killed and only then that he had a new wife.
CHANCE: How did you feel when you found out that your dad had got married just days before he went off to war?
MARIA, DAUGHTER OF RUSSIAN SOLDIER (through translation): It felt unreal. When I was being issued the death certificate, they asked if he was
married. I said no, but they told me he was. I never even managed to contact the woman.
I simply didn't know what to say to her because I suspected it was a scam.
CHANCE (voice-over): It's just one suspected case in a growing number scandalizing Russia. With the war in Ukraine now in its fifth year and
casualty rates at catastrophic highs, it's hard to imagine there are people out there marrying vulnerable men and encouraging them to join the military
just so they might financially benefit if they're killed on the front lines. No wonder there's outrage across Russia at the spread of these black
widow scams.
There are numerous allegations of recruits honey-trapped before dying on the front lines, even marrying on their deathbeds in hospital. This woman,
who married a soldier 10 days after meeting him, then posted images of herself with other men, was branded a black widow in the Russian media and
denied compensation when her husband was killed before their divorce went through. She denied any wrongdoing, saying the allegations had blackened
her name.
But there's growing public anger at how cynical some Russians have become about the war, which the Kremlin calls its special military operation.
"If I want an apartment, where am I supposed to get the money," the host of this podcast asks. "It's simple," the guest, who's a real estate agent,
responds. "Find a man serving in the special military operation and when he's killed, you get RUB 8 million," she laughs. The podcasters were
prosecuted and forced to apologize, a rare intervention by the Russian courts.
Back in St. Petersburg, Maria takes us to the block where her dad's old apartment has now been sold off, convinced he was also scammed out of his
home.
CHANCE: Do you know who the new owner is?
How long -- how many years did your dad live here?
MARIA: Five years.
CHANCE: Five years. This is it? It's open.
CHANCE (voice-over): Behind the broken door, the new occupants insist it was a legitimate sale and that they never even met the seller. It means the
money and the widow, just like Maria's dad, are now long gone.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Matthew Chance reporting from St. Petersburg, Russia.
We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:50]
GOLODRYGA: Now, debates around how the COVID-19 pandemic began have been reignited following Anthony Fauci's tense Senate hearing last week. The
speculation points to a bigger fear and what our next guest argues could be our greatest overall threat, biological weapons. It's the focus of
journalist Annie Jacobsen's new book, and she joins Walter Isaacson to discuss.
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR & COMPANY: Thank you, Bianna. And Annie Jacobsen, welcome to the show.
ANNIE JACOBSEN, AUTHOR, "BIOLOGICAL WAR: A SCENARIO": Thanks for having me.
ISAACSON: Your new book, "Biological War: A Scenario," is sort of like your previous book, "Nuclear War: A Scenario." Let me read you a sentence from
the book. I think it's from the epilogue of the book. You say, quote, "The release of a genetically modified biological weapon, including by accident,
could easily be the final failure of the human imagination." Explain that to me.
JACOBSEN: Well, that's a quote. I'm echoing Nick Bostrom, the sort of existential philosopher's idea about AI that he spoke of, I think it was
now 10 years ago. And I find that with bio, that is becoming or could become a reality a lot faster than any of us would want to even think.
You know, we know from the COVID pandemic that a biological catastrophe is no longer theoretical. And what's interesting in the planning that I
referenced, both at the Defense Department and at FEMA and at HHS, they talk about a biological catastrophe as not just being an attack with a
biological weapon, but a lab leak, an accident in one of these BSL-3 or BSL-4 facilities that, you know, populate the world right now.
ISAACSON: That possibility that COVID was a lab leak was so much in the news this past week when Dr. Anthony Fauci was called upon to testify, his
diaries were released. I know it's not part of your book, but what do you feel with your expertise? Was COVID a lab leak or was it a natural
occurrence?
JACOBSEN: Well, thank you for pointing out that in my book, I don't steer readers in one direction or the other. I want people to look at, you know,
the whole story about what could happen and they can decide for themselves. Certainly, we got a lot of evidence from the Senate about the reality that
many, many people understood that a lab leak was a far more plausible situation than a release from a wet market.
You know, I think the most important point of all of that, and of course, the circumstances, the timing is crazy, my book coming out now, but then
again, when nuclear war scenario came out, was right in the middle of Putin making threats that he was going to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
So, you know, you could say timing favors my books, or you could say, wow, this is the world in which we live today, where global catastrophic threats
are part and parcel to all of this. So, you know, yes, I write that very dystopian line, and that's kind of a spoiler alert.
But in the end of the book, I also say that the point is not panic, it's pressure. And I would hope that what has been revealed about the public
being misled about the science behind the lab leak would really make people want to better inform themselves, like go out and get information from
multiple sources and decide from -- for yourself.
ISAACSON: If it was a lab leak, it probably was not some intentional biological weapon like the ones you write about. But is that the more
plausible scenario that we'll be experimenting with this, that we'll be looking at possible biological weapons, and somehow, just like AI might get
out of its sandbox and get out of control, a biological weapon will?
[13:45:00]
JACOBSEN: Well, I think you've touched upon the real heart of the matter, or rather the dark heart of the matter, because this is called dark
biology. And, you know, reminder, biological weapons are illegal. Biological war is illegal, unlike nuclear weapons, which are not illegal to
those nations that hold them.
But there is -- and the reason they're illegal is because of a treaty that was signed by all the nations essentially in 1972. But there's a loophole
in that treaty that allows for scientific research for prophylactic use. It's a fancy word for like trying to make medical countermeasures to combat
dangerous pathogens.
And therein lies the paradox about gain of function, about genetic modifications that are going on in these labs. Like, what defines
biological weapons engineering and what defines research for medical countermeasures? And I certainly present to readers in the book the, you
know, what subject matter experts, what people who have been working to try to keep biological weapons out of the hands of bad guys for decades now.
The book points to what they think about all of this and how dangerous they actually think gain of function research is and needs to really be looked
at by all of us, because it does threaten all of us. COVID had a case fatality of 1 percent. You can give something a case fatality of, you know,
upwards of -- to 100 percent. And to defeat medical countermeasures.
Those are all things that can be done under -- and it's not even the guise of gain of function. That is actually what you do in gain of function. The
argument is, which actually Dr. Fauci himself said, I cite it in a paper back in 2012, that, you know, specifically he said that the risks, the
rewards outweigh the risks. Now, I think a lot of people are coming around to the idea that that concept needs to really be reconsidered.
ISAACSON: Well, you say that the U.S. now has banned gain of function research, but of course the Wuhan lab is in China, and even though there
may have been some American involvement, China was doing gain of function. Is there any way to stop them?
JACOBSEN: I mean, you're absolutely right. And that is the catch-22. That is the argument about why some scientists will tell you that gain of
function is absolutely necessary, genetic modification. I mean, what I learned in writing "Nuclear War: A Scenario," you know, Walter, I was
invited to come to the Vatican and talk to the cardinals so that the Pope could understand about nuclear war.
I was invited to the United Nations to talk to the diplomats about nuclear war, and the White House and the Senate. And what this was, was a real eye-
opening experience for me. And this answers your question about what can be done. Treaties, diplomats, this is part and parcel to the world in which we
live right now.
We're out of all nuclear treaties. Nuclear treaties allow transparency, they allow diplomacy, they allow conversation. Biological war has no treaty
for -- has a treaty, but there's no method for enforcement because it's illegal. And so I think this is a brilliant opportunity to enter into a new
treaty about biological engineering.
And then you maybe can get some movement between China and the United States, between Russia and the United States, movement between diplomats
and also between scientists. Because what I learned from subject matter experts in this field is that over the decades, it's always the scientists
working on like kind of what's known as Track 2 that are able to really help the diplomats get these treaties on the table and then ultimately
enforce them.
ISAACSON: But one major difference between biological weapons and nuclear weapons is a normal person couldn't create a nuclear weapon in their
basement. In fact, it's very difficult to create nuclear weapons and it's very hard to hide the fact that you're doing it as we see with Iran and
other places. But biological weapon, can't that be done totally in secret without huge facilities?
JACOBSEN: It's one of the reasons why the defense department, while it lists nuclear weapons as the most dangerous, it lists biological weapons as
the greatest overall threat for precisely the reason you're talking about. There is an incredibly low barrier to entry. Unlike nuclear weapons, not
only do you need, you know, fissile material, weapons grade uranium. I mean, look how hard it is with Iran, what we're going through now.
[13:50:05]
But you have to have a weapons delivery system. You have to have an ICBM or a submarine or a B2 bomber to deliver a nuclear weapon to a target. A
biological weapon is alive.
The weapons system, Walter, if it's airborne, which is what all officials are afraid of, are the human lungs. That should scare the bejesus out of
anybody and scare them into action.
ISAACSON: What about artificial intelligence? How much is AI making it much easier for people to say, here's how I'd modify this pathogen to make it a
weapon and show them, you know, even if they try to put guardrails on it to show a normal citizen or for that matter, a bad organization, AI can teach
you how to make a biological weapon?
JACOBSEN: I mean, that is the number one threat right now. And that threat is only getting bigger. Literally, by the time we get off the air, it will
be an even bigger threat than it was before we got on. And this is because computational science is moving at the speed of lightning.
And the systems that are in place to monitor them are moving at the old pace of, you know, analog democracy. From my conversations with both CEOs
of some of the AI companies and DARPA, that's the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, which is really trying to deal with this AI enabled bio
threat concept, this is the biggest threat, the immediately biggest threat in terms of AI right now. That's how it is being seen and positioned.
ISAACSON: What we've seen with Dr. Anthony Fauci testifying and all the once again, explosion of controversy around the COVID pandemic, was that
that pandemic caused people to lose faith, to trust what the government might say. How could that affect a response to a biological attack?
JACOBSEN: I think you're absolutely right. It fractured trust in science, certainly among Americans, but it also showed us despite billions and
billions and billions of dollars being spent on biodefense. In the book, I like take readers very quickly through the buildup of biodefense after 9/11
and where we are with it today.
So despite all of this money and effort, we were completely unprepared for COVID. So those two components together, fractured trust with lack of
preparedness, none of which is sort of impacted by the amount of money spent. Indicate that if you're going to spend a lot of money, let's spend
it in an area where the public benefits.
ISAACSON: Whenever we talk about nuclear scenarios, we also talk about the defense against them. Likewise, AI, we talk about what we could do to
prevent an AI attack. What ways are there to prevent the spread of a biological weapon? Are we developing? You talked about penicillin and
others back saving us from earlier plagues of infection. Can we invent a whole lot of things that will stop pathogens?
JACOBSEN: There's certainly a subset of people that have a very utopian idea about them. I referenced them in my acknowledgements. I interviewed a
lot of them because they are all working at medical countermeasures that use AI and biotechnology to come up with these ideas. But I didn't want to
present that utopian idea because to my eye as a national security reporter for decades, it's very new.
And I'm not clear that that actually is a solution. Or the other question is, is it part of the sort of biotechnological military industrial compass?
I don't know. There are certainly a lot of answers out there.
But what I can tell you is where we are right now is best summed up by a quote from Retired Colonel Tom Ehrhard who ran these catastrophic nuclear
and biological war games out of the Office of the Secretary of Defense under a very legendary and famous Andy Marshall in his Office of Net
Assessment.
And what Colonel Ehrhard told me was there is nothing you can do or there is very little you can do regarding homeland defense in the event of a
biological incident or attack, only things to mitigate extermination. Those are his words.
And when you really think about that, I believe the only solution is diplomacy. The only solution is treaties, is countries coming together and
realizing, thanks to the pandemic, we're all going to be impacted by the release of one of these nightmare germs. So therefore, why don't we all
begin to look at how to enforce guardrails to make sure that kind of thing never happens.
[13:55:27]
ISAACSON: Annie Jacobsen, thank you so much for joining us.
JACOBSEN: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And finally, Capybara is getting a say in state affairs. Well, in the central Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, the world's largest rodents
are making increasingly frequent visits to the legislative assembly building. Here you see them strolling in unbothered, approaching lawmakers
who'd been preparing for a vote.
This would scare me. I don't know how they continue to work there. The animals were escorted back to the park next door where they live. Perhaps
these social creatures were just popping by for a neighborly hello. Interested in local politics, maybe.
All right, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
