Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with E.U. Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas; Interview with Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby; Interview with Senate Judiciary Committee Former Counsel and Society for the Rule of Law Executive Director Gregg Nunziata; Interview with Senate Judiciary Committee Former Counsel and CREW President and CEO Noah Bookbinder. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 10, 2024 - 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.
While Syrians celebrate, I speak to E.U. Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas about Assad's fall, the blow to Putin, and what could be next for Ukraine.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: It certainly seems like the world is going a little crazy right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the Trump Doctrine. Former Pentagon official Elbridge Colby lays out the president-elect's worldview just weeks before he returns to
the White House.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NOAH BOOKBINDER, FORMER COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND PRESIDENT AND CEO, CREW: There's a lot of, history and precedent that says this
process works.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the case for background checks Noah Bookbinder and Gregg Nunziata, former councils to the Senate Judiciary Committee, tell Hari
Sreenivasan Trump's cabinet picks must be vetted by the FBI.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. And a new era begins in Syria as rebels appoint a caretaker prime minister for
three months in order to oversee a transition of power. The reality of life without Assad is sinking in for the people there who are at once jubilant
and heartbroken as the atrocities of the regime are brought to the surface now.
Meanwhile, on the diplomatic level, Russia and Iran are trying to downplay the severity of this blow to them. Even as the U.S. and Israel take
advantage of this moment to bombard targets inside Syria. We'll examine the global fallout and consequences in a moment, but first rumors flew in the
first hours of the fall of secret prison cells locked by fleeing guards, depriving them of food, water, and even oxygen.
Today, the Association of Detainees and the Missing say the notorious Sednaya Prison is now empty, with the White Helmet rescuers confirming,
quote, "no evidence" of undiscovered secret cells or basements. But before that confirmation fueled by fear and desperation, thousands of relatives
went there in search of those who had been condemned to Assad's dungeons. Here's Correspondent Clarissa Ward.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The roads are choked with cars full of people looking for loved ones. As soon
as they see our camera, they approach, holding lists of names of those who vanished inside Assad's dungeons, never to be seen again.
You have to get them out before tomorrow, this man says. They don't have food. They don't have water.
WARD: Everybody's just started running. It's not clear if they have managed to get into this part of the prison.
WARD (voice-over): My God, my God, the woman prays. My God, as the crowd surges towards the prison.
WARD: So, it looks like they think that they have managed to get access. A lot of celebratory gunfire. People now just flooding in.
WARD (voice-over): After the initial jubilation, an agonizing wait for confirmation from the rescue workers. Many here have been waiting for
decades. Hope was something they didn't let themselves feel until now.
Rescue workers with Syria's white helmets break through the concrete looking for a way in. No one is certain where this red section is, or if it
even exists. Inside the prison, family members are searching too.
WARD: You could see people everywhere just combing through. All the papers and records they can find looking for names, seeing if maybe their loved
ones are there.
WARD (voice-over): Tens of thousands of Syrians were forcibly disappeared in Sednaya, lost in the abyss of a prison that was known as a
slaughterhouse. Industrial scale, arbitrary detention and torture, all to keep one man in power.
WARD: They call this the white area of the prison because they say the conditions here are much better than in other areas, but you can see it's
still miserable.
[13:05:00]
WARD (voice-over): In the center of the prison, another frantic rush. Someone thinks they have found a tunnel. They desperately try to get a look
inside. Others look on helpless, not knowing is agony. Assad may be gone, but the legacy of his cruelty remains.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: Clarissa Ward in Damascus. Now, Kaja Kallas is the E.U.'s foreign policy chief, having previously served as prime minister of
Estonia. And she is one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters. She joins the program live from Brussels for her first international TV interview in her
new role.
So, High Representative. Thank you very much. We talked to you a lot as prime minister. And I just want to actually ask you, given, you know, you -
- there must have been similar scenes to that, maybe in Estonia, you know, as it broke free from Soviet Communist Gulag system. Does that ring any
bells? What do people in Syria are looking at now?
KAJA KALLAS, E.U. FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF: Of course, when you have lived under oppression for so long time, then, of course, the freedom and the
feeling of hope looking to the future is immense. And also, I think Syria faces hopeful but uncertain future. People are definitely looking for, you
know, punishment for the crimes, looking for their loved ones who have been behind the prison cells. So, it's a lot of chaos going on. But I still want
to stress that Syria -- Syrian people are quite happy with the developments.
AMANPOUR: How do you think the E.U. is going to respond and interact with this new Syrian government or transitional body? As you know, the leader of
HTS, the rebel group that actually did liberate Syria, has been called a terrorist organization by the United States and others. How do you think
this is going to resolve, and is the E.U. looking to have -- you know, to start relations again with Syria?
KALLAS: Well, over the weekend, we have been in close contact with the regional actors. And I think, you know, for the international actors as
well as the regional actors, what is important is that there is stability in the country, that there is no revenge, no retaliation, no violence
against the minorities. And there are many, we know, also the religious freedom has to be respected and all this.
So, right now it is all very fresh. Of course, the new leadership has to be judged by their deeds, and this will -- you know, coming days and weeks
will show.
AMANPOUR: They've spoken the right words. They say that -- they use the word sect. They say that all sects have to be respected. So, you're right,
the coming days, weeks, and months will show.
But in terms of Europe now, as we all remember, certainly back in 2015, there were millions of Syrian refugees and others trying to -- you know,
trying to escape the horrors that they faced in their own country. Many European countries took many in, most notably Germany, but now many
European countries are pausing asylum applications from Syria. Germany, Austria, the U.K., Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Croatia,
Switzerland, and Greece. Apparently, Spain is standing firm and it's going to continue.
Can you explain why this would happen? Do you agree with it? What do you think is going to -- we're going to see?
KALLAS: First, it's a positive development when the refugees from a warring region want to go back. That is a positive development showing
that, you know, they want to go back to their homes and rebuild the country. And I think it's important that people who want to build a
democratic Syria also return and, you know, give their efforts to really reconstruct the country as it is, because that brings stability to the
region.
We already know from the neighboring countries that they see the refugees returning. And of course, we have to make sure with the local interlocutors
that it is a safe place to return. And it's also in our interest that, you know, Syria developed so that, you know, the investments pour in, people
have jobs, people can live there because for the stability of region, Syria is a very important actor.
AMANPOUR: So -- but what if people don't want to go back? Is there any security for them? I mean, for instance, the Austrian government is
considering deportations. The interior minister says, quote, "I've instructed the ministry to prepare an orderly repatriation and deportation
program to Syria." How does that look? I mean, we're hearing about mass deportations that President Trump says that he will undergo in terms of
illegal immigrants in the United States. Well, what is this going to look like, do you think, in Austria or in other parts of Europe?
[13:10:00]
KALLAS: Well, so far, it has been different member states, you know, really saying what they are going to do. I think, you know, refugee status,
if -- to look into details, is always connected with the warring region. You can't live where your home is because there's war going on and you are
a refugee from -- you know, running for your life from that region. If the war ends and it's possible to return, then, of course, the question is how
to do it better.
Because, of course, also, Europe is not made of rubber that everybody just -- you know, are fit here. But I think, you know, it's very early to tell
right now because we haven't discussed this with the foreign ministers in Europe. What is our approach? And we also need to discuss this on the
European level. But the asylum rules are there and asylum rules are in place. And we -- I mean, the member states also act by it.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And you mentioned the foreign ministers. You're going to be meeting them, I think, soon. You're going to have a meeting with all the
foreign ministers. There's, you know, a significant number of E.U. countries who are turning very anti-immigration. Again, America is as well,
as we know.
And there's a very, very white right-wing sentiment that is really big. I mean, if there's one big thing that unites a lot of people in the United
States and Europe is it's an anti-immigrant sentiment. But I want to put this to you because I spoke to Former Chancellor Angela Merkel when she
was, you know, doing her book tour in the United States. This is what she said about migration and about Europe's commitment to it and the dangers of
battening down the hedges.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANGELA MERKEL, FORMER GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): We need to solve this issue with the countries of origin. And of course, illegal
migration needs to be combat, needs to be fought against. These human traffickers need to be fought against. But the harsher we are in trying to
shut ourselves off against the rest of the world, the bigger this issue will become. I'm firmly convinced of this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What do you make of that?
KALLAS: Well, it is clear that in Europe -- in many countries, like you pointed out, we have a big issue in domestic politics about the migration.
And you can argue whether it's right or wrong, but it's the reality. This is the issue. And actually, looking back in the history, this is also what
our adversaries want to say about Europe, you know, that Europe is under a huge migration pressure.
So, they also create this theater of different wars in Africa, in the Middle East, in Ukraine, so that there is, you know, a flow of migrants
into Europe. refugees from those regions towards Europe. So, this narrative meets the reality. And that is of course the problem because our
adversaries also know that migration is a vulnerability. So, they are weaponizing this also against us. So, this is what we have to understand
also about Europe.
So, what do we do with this? I agree that, you know, we need to have legal roots for legal migration, and the rules have to be in place. But it's true
that we need to work with the countries of origin that, you know, also take their people back. We need to fight against the human smugglers that you
know, treat people badly and promise them something that. you know, can't be delivered. So, there are many aspects to this.
AMANPOUR: Just -- you mentioned Ukraine. And in fact, on your first day in your new role, you visited Ukraine. What should Ukrainian refugees who have
been given legal status, work permits, et cetera, since the Russian invasion of 2022, what should they be fearing right now? Are they -- will
they still be safe to stay?
KALLAS: Well, we have to understand that everybody wants to go back to their homes. I mean, people are not fleeing their homes or leaving their
homes behind because they just simply want to, but they have to because there's war going on or something.
So, if we are able to, you know, create the conditions that they can return because, you know, it's a safe country, then I think people are also happy
to return, to rebuild their country, their own home, where they have been used to living.
[13:15:00]
So, I think this is also the Ukrainians are telling us all the time, we want our children back, we want our people back, because they also need the
people to rebuild the country after the war is over.
AMANPOUR: I know, but they have a sort of a right to remain. Is that going to be renewed? The war is not over in Ukraine.
KALLAS: This is -- yes. This is interim. So, it is renewed every year. So, in February it's one year and then it's agreement between the member states
whether it's renewed for the next year, but I don't see the war being over in Ukraine. So, I mean, in February we will discuss this again.
AMANPOUR: So, let's talk a little bit about that because you were, you know, one of the biggest backers of the defense of Ukraine and one of the
clearest eyed of Russia and Putin's aims and ambitions, perhaps even beyond Ukraine.
So, first and foremost, the Russians, like the Iranians, are bending over backwards to try to portray what happened in Syria as anything but a major
blow for a major investment that they made backing Assad. And President Trump elect, others have said, actually, this shows that Russia is weak,
that its adventure in Ukraine and the terrible war has drained it of its ability to fight two wars at once, and who knows what might happen.
So, game plan this out from your perspective. What do you think this loss in Syria will mean for Putin in terms of, I don't know, what he does next
in Ukraine?
KALLAS: Well, this is definitely a big blow for Russia. It shows that, you know, Iran and Russia have been weakened and distracted by different wars.
So, they can't help their own friends, Assad for that matter. So, I think what it shows is that, you know, Russia is winnable. And they are not that
strong as everybody portrays Russia to be.
So, we shouldn't -- I mean, Europe and the western world shouldn't underestimate our own power and overestimate Russia's power. We clearly see
the weakness on their side. So, we need to give our act together.
AMANPOUR: So, I think you meant Russia is beatable. You said winnable, but I assume you mean beatable. And if that is the case, if you believe that,
how then? Because do you think that European countries are united in continuing to fund Ukraine? What happens when President Trump is in office
because he's -- you know, he's maybe not in terms of probably not supporting Ukraine as much, he said in a recent interview as the previous
administration has done? What difference will that make?
KALLAS: Well, first of all, aiding Ukraine is not you know, some kind of aid, it's a support to Ukrainian's defense. That also means investment to
our own defense and security, and that also applies to United States. We are in this world that is very interconnected. What happens in Europe also
has consequences for United States. And I mean, looking into the history, isolationism has never played out very well also for the United States. And
it's also in their interest, if they're looking towards China, to be very strong on Russia.
What do we have to do for this, we have to keep the unity, we have to support Ukraine with military aid as well as the financial aid so that they
are able to win this war. And then, on the other side, we also have to increase our pressure by sanctions. We have to increase the pressure on the
-- you know, the political isolation of Russia, which is, of course, not easy. But at the same time, we know that it's also not easy to keep up the
war machine for Russia.
So, if we concentrate our efforts, then we are able to bring this war to an end so that, you know, the peace is also sustainable and you know, lasts.
AMANPOUR: So, you've sent a few messages and I guess you'll have to deal with part of the fallout if Trump does make good on his pledge to impose
tariffs on Europe, and everybody expects, even Angela Merkel told me that she's sure that the idea of Europe's having to pay more into their NATO
commitment, in other words, more GDP into their defense, she's sure that's going to come up again.
Already -- I don't know, I think it may be your successor in Estonia said we should start the bar now at 2.5 percent. Do you think that this is what
you're going to be? I mean, you know this, you've been through this as Europeans over the last Trump administration. Are you prepared to deal with
these issues now?
[13:20:00]
KALLAS: Well, what Trump has said is that, you know, you Europeans have to invest more in defense. And I think now everybody also gets this. It is
true that we need to boost our defense expenditure, and many countries have already done that. And I think in general, Europe has stepped up in the
defense spending.
Is it enough? Well, I don't think it's enough. We all need to do more. And there -- I mean, everybody agrees with also the messages from the
president-elect, Trump, that Europe needs to do more for the defense. And I think, you know, people have gotten this message and are acting in
accordance with this.
AMANPOUR: And there's so much more to ask. We hope to have you back another time. High representative for foreign affairs at the E.U., Kaja
Kallas, former Estonian prime minister. Thank you so much for being with us.
Now, Donald Trump's second term will start in a very different world to the one that he left. But some things don't change, as we just were talking
about. He is doubling down on NATO members again, demanding they, quote, "pay their bills." Predictably, he says the U.S. should stay out of Syria
and let the current situation play out there.
So, let's go now to Elbridge Colby, who served in the Pentagon during Trump's first term, and whose name has been floated for a possible role in
the second administration. Welcome back, Elbridge Colby, to our program.
ELBRIDGE COLBY, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Great to be with you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, I don't know how much of Kaja Kallas that you heard, but she certainly, at the end of our interview, said that yes, we have to do more
on our defense. She didn't directly address the tariffs issue, but does that suggest that the Trump-Europe relationship would be smoother from the
get-go, do you think, in a 2.0?
COLBY: Well, yes, I did. I did hear it. And let me stress, I don't speak for President-Elect Trump or his transition team or incoming
administration, but I think there are some encouraging things that the high representative said.
But I think the last part has remained rhetorical. You know, she kind of gestured at that, but the results are far more meager than I think
Americans have a right to expect. And frankly, Europeans do with the exceptions of some countries like Poland.
You know, I noted the high representative's comments about punitive isolationism. I think, let me put this to our European friends. And again,
I don't speak for the president-elect, but I think this represents the kind of mindset that you see in America. I think we don't need lectures. I think
we need action by Europeans. Europeans know what they need to do. They need to not just spend more on defense, but deliver more combat capability for
NATO. And that's what President Trump has clearly said and take a much greater lead, including in military aid for Ukraine.
And as the high representative acknowledged there that has not really happened. Germany, for instance, has cut below the level that the
Bundeswehr was acting -- asking for. It's cut aid to Ukraine. France has cut aid to Ukraine. The U.K. is also in a parlous situation.
So, I think, look, we can talk about all of this stuff till the cows come home, but the right course for Europe is really to step up, maybe move away
from some of these green initiatives, move away from some of this over regulation on industry, build back up its own defense industry capability,
move back towards conscription. I don't know, those are decisions for Europe. You know, liberalize the ability of Europe to issue bonds for
greater defense spending.
To me, those are all things that Europe should put on the table. But right now, we see a lot of rhetoric and relatively little action.
AMANPOUR: Elbridge Colby, you wouldn't be lecturing Europe now, would you?
COLBY: Well, I think, look, I don't speak for anybody else, but the American people have been spending well over 3.5 percent of GDP for a long
time, and the Europeans have had a really good ride, certainly since the end of the Cold War, and even during the Cold War, it's disproportionate.
So, I don't think this is lecturing. I think this is a -- as President Trump rightly puts it, it's a dose of common-sense.
And here's the thing, Christiane, I talk to Europeans all the time. They know what they need to do. How does it make sense for Germans to have spent
between 1 and 2 percent of GDP on defense for decades and Americans to have spent a lot more? How does it make sense for the country that the current
secretary general of NATO for a very wealthy country to have spent well below 2 percent?
This is not equitable and it doesn't make sense for Europe and our military. Biden is leaving an overstretched, our weapons stockpiles have
depleted, and we have a bigger challenge in China, not to mention protecting our own homeland.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, on that point of China, and as you know, 22 members of NATO are above or at 2 percent, and they fully intend and expect that
they're going to have to go further up. But on the issue of what she said, and others have said it too, that on an issue that really does affect
President Trump and the Americans, that's China. You're trying to keep China at bay.
[13:25:00]
And there is a legitimate case to be made now that if China sees, you know, Ukraine being allowed to sort of go the way of Russia, then it'll take a
lesson if America doesn't stand up for Ukraine or the principles of international rules of the road.
COLBY: Well, let me address one thing you said, Christiane. First of all, as President Trump has rightly said, and the secretary -- SACEUR, General
Cavoli have indicated, the real level for NATO spending is more like this. Boris Pistorius, the minister of defense in Germany, has suggested Germany
might need to go to 3.5 percent or above to restore the many years of neglect that countries like Germany have gone through. So, let's -- and
there's a lot of accounting chicanery going on. Let's get real. What we need to see are results and not just accounting.
On the issue of China, candidly, I think that's a bit of a triple bank shot argument. Let's ask, the American Navy has fewer ships now than the Chinese
Navy. The Chinese are, even as we speak, mounting the largest exercises around Taiwan since 1996. There's no European military capability that can
matter in the first island chain. This is not 1937. And American forces are overstretched, including because of the stout support that the United
States has given to Ukraine. Really extraordinary levels of military support.
So, we need to make tough choices. And I think President Trump has made clear that he doesn't want a war really anywhere, and I think that's
absolutely right. But we need a peace through strength approach, especially with China. And that's going to require a senator -- Vice President-Elect
Vance has pointed out, concentrating our scarce military power.
The bottom line for Europe is that it needs to take more self-reliance, and we have allies that do that. Poland is a noble exception in Europe, South
Korea, India, and of course, Israel.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about Syria. President Trump -- President-Elect Trump said as this -- as everything was sort of going down over the
weekend, he said, Syria is a mess, it's not our friend, and the United States should not have -- or should have nothing to do with it. This is not
our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved.
So, look, OK, fine, but so what do you think that actually means when we peel that apart? For instance, there's several hundred U.S. forces that are
based there purely to fight and to make sure that ISIS doesn't raise its head again. And as you know, President Biden ordered B-52s, F -- you know,
fighter jets, et cetera, to bombard ISIS positions as the Assad regime was crumbling.
So, let's just take that little bit. What do you expect that a Trump administration will do about the small presence of American troops in Syria
right now?
COLBY: Well, first of all, let me say that I completely agree with President Trump about the need to avoid getting enmeshed in another
quagmire in the Middle East, and I think Mike Waltz put it very well on Twitter earlier today, X, just saying this is what President Trump was
elected on, not to get us into another Middle East war. So, that's very important.
It sounds kind of common-sense, but common-sense has been exceptionally uncommon over the last generation, and we've managed to fritter away our
enormous military advantages and the support of the American people, especially those who've served in uniform, as I think Pete Hegseth has
really spoken for them in a very eloquent way, as well as JD Vance and others, really eroded the willingness of the American people for these
kinds of conflicts.
And so, I think basically saying, hey, we're not going to get involved here is a really important starting point. That's the baseline. I always like to
point out, I mean, Christiane, during the Cold War, Syria was basically always in the Soviet sphere and yet, we won the Cold War. It's not
something that is strategically vital for us, and we really have to husband our resources.
On the issue of what U.S. forces in Syria is going to happen. I mean, I certainly supported President Trump when he was attempting to pull them out
last time. I think we're going to have to see. That's his decision. I think there's a sort of bizarro element to our posture in the Middle East, where
we're bombing multiple groups and possibly supporting, according to reporting, multiple groups on varying sides. I think the better course here
is to, as President Trump said, to stay out of it directly, to empower and back our allies like Israel that are taking matters more to their own
hands, and some kind of equilibrium will hopefully arise, and then, of course, keeping a weather eye on the possibility for transnational jihadis
to emerge from that, that's really a core, of course, American interest coming out of that area.
AMANPOUR: You know very well that successive American administrations have not wanted to get involved in Syria, neither Obama, as you said, Trump, et
cetera. I'm interested in why you supported Trump's desire to pull those forces out back then, and then, of course, they did keep a number of forces
because the Obama example in 2011 or whatever year it was to pull all the U.S. Forces out of Iraq. And then a few years later, ISIS was controlling
massive swaths of Syria, Iraq, et cetera. And then, the U.S. had to come and spend years bombing them back into irrelevance.
Aren't you concerned about that, about pulling out and then having to come back and spend years bombing these targets and being concerned about the
proliferation of ISIS again or a similar group?
[13:30:00]
COLBY: Well, look, let me be -- yes, of course. I'm very concerned about ISIS. I think President Trump and his administration made huge strides in
suppressing ISIS to a shadow of its former self. I don't want to get ahead of the president's decision making given the current situation, but I think
the idea of keeping sort of perpetual lily pads that often become sort of hostages to Iran or its proxies over the -- I mean, some of our servicemen
and women have been killed and wounded in the last kind of year or so because they're kind of just sitting out there without a real overriding
purpose. I think there's certainly a strong argument for consolidating our position.
And overall, Christiane, I think the point here is that we need to be much more disciplined and strategic. And I think President Trump is very
different than Obama or George W. Bush or Joe Biden. I think, candidly, these people were essentially hostage. I mean, Joe Biden said his favorite
show, with all respect, was "Morning Joe" and he read Tom Friedman every day. These were representatives of the conventional wisdom.
President Trump has already decided, I am running against the conventional wisdom. He's taken lawfare, all the kind of flack they can throw at him,
and he's been elected decisively on an agenda to put Americans first and to make changes that are uncomfortable to the established way of doing things.
But the way -- the thing I always stress is, how successful has the established way of doing things been over the last 25 years? I would say
it's been an utter failure.
And so, we need a much more common-sense America first approach that rationalizes -- in a sense like a business that rationalizes our
commitments with what, you know, we have available. And by the way, that we can work with a lot of countries that are willing and able to do more. And
that gets back to the high representative's comments.
Look, I think it's all fine and dandy to have highfalutin language, but we need to see real combat capability. When you look at a country like Israel,
when you look at a country like India, like South Korea, you say these air countries that take care of their own security that field serious forces.
The Germans are -- have -- just a few years ago, were training with broomsticks. So, when I hear the foreign minister of that country me giving
us lectures, I take it less seriously than when I hear from the external affairs minister of India, or the prime minister of Israel, for instance.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, look, Elbridge Colby, you know that Germany has had a historic disaster of monumental proportions that forbid it from doing too
much, and projecting it's military power.
COLBY: They had a very serious -- they had 12 active divisions and three in ready reserve in 1988, when they were West Germany, and by the way, much
of that military was reconstituted with elements of the Wehrmacht. When they were threatened, they had a very formidable military. It's well within
their capability, it's a matter of willpower.
AMANPOUR: So, look, you talked about the unconventional and the conventional. You just mentioned some of the cabinet appointees, nominees,
or whatever you want to call them right now. One of them, Pete Hegseth, I'm asking because you are a Pentagon official. He's being nominated or at
least, you know, appointed by President Trump to lead the Defense Ministry.
I don't understand why you support that, because you do support it, or why President-Elect Trump would support that. I do understand that his people,
his MAGA base, want -- and they love his appointments, because they see it as tearing down the House, completely, you know -- whatever they see that
they want him to do to the system, and the deep state, and all of that.
But the Pentagon is a massive, important world class leading institution. And the characteristics and the personal character and the qualifications
do not seem to be there. Why would the president waste political capital? Why would you support somebody who's credibly accused of sexual
impropriety, of drug and alcohol addiction? Why?
COLBY: Well, I don't agree with your assessment, which is why, and I don't think he's been credibly accused of that. He's rejected, and a lot of these
are from anonymous sources, so certainly. And you should invite him on. He's a very --
AMANPOUR: I would love to.
COLBY: -- articulate and compelling. OK. I can't speak for him --
AMANPOUR: Maybe you can help me, because, you know, he's a former Foxer.
COLBY: -- but you should invite him on.
AMANPOUR: So, I'm not sure. But I'd love to.
COLBY: Well, look, I think -- I actually think he's a fantastic pick. Why? Well, first of all, and foremost, he's got a great relationship with
President Trump, and he's committed to putting President Trump's America first agenda into action, which is so key.
I mean, this is the thing about all these cabinet picks is they are putting the agenda that President Trump ran on into effect. Secondly, Pete Hegseth
is a national, you know, sort of star. He speaks to the American people, especially the veteran's community with -- in a very compelling and
articulate way. He understands. He's worked -- he's led veterans' organizations on his show. He's always talking to veterans. He kind of
fronts them or platforms them, if you will.
He really understands the sort of fighting men and women. And his substantive focus is exactly the right one. He was just saying on X today,
we need to get back to the basics of focusing on lethality, readiness modernization, et cetera. And some of the things that you're gesturing at,
Christiane, I don't think you've had a good result.
[13:35:00]
Look at the people who filled the billet of secretary of defense over the last 25 years and, you know, many of the -- obviously, honorable people,
experienced people, but here we are. You know, the Pentagon -- we're in really bad shape. And that's acknowledged even by sort of, quote/unquote,
"establishment people."
So, I think Pete Hegseth would be an excellent secretary of defense. He's a change agent. He's aligned with President Trump. He's willing to take on
the establishment interest. Obviously, he's going to be surrounded by tons of people who are deep and expert on the issues.
AMANPOUR: I don't know how much more time -- I have only got 30 seconds. I'll come back to you. I just want to know why the most powerful country in
the world likes to portray itself as a victim that can never get anything right. I mean, you've just been telling me that, you know --
COLBY: Because we're reformed. You know, America's always reforming itself, right? We're saying we self-criticize, we're -- you know, and then
we're going to address our problems and we're going to come back ahead.
AMANPOUR: All right.
COLBY: I mean, that to me is the power of democracy that President Trump is demonstrating.
AMANPOUR: We will follow up with you. Elbridge Colbry, thank you so much for being on our program again.
Now, more than 75 Nobel laureates writing an open letter urging Trump to ditch RFK. Jr. as his choice for Health and Human Services Secretary. As
Trump's picks get more pushback, as we just were talking about, his team have signaled that they're willing to go it alone, bypassing the
traditional official vetting process.
Now, in conversation with Hari Sreenivasan, former Republican and Democratic counsels to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gregg Nunziata and
Noah Bookbinder, explain why the Senate confirmation process and FBI background checks are so crucial.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Noah Bookbinder, Greg Nunziata, thank you both for joining us.
You both have worked for your respective parties in a process that most Americans are unfamiliar with, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to help
do background checks on important nominees, right? And you both recently wrote an op-ed in The New York Times titled "FBI Checks on Trump Nominees
Are a Must." Gregg, explain why are these checks so critical?
GREGG NUNZIATA, FORMER COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR THE RULE OF LAW: I think everybody's familiar with
the public part of the confirmation process, the hearings and all the politics around it. But the part that we wrote about, or that we really
focused on in that op-ed is this background investigation, which is a part of the confirmation process that happens behind the scenes. It's usually
handled confidentially and discreetly, and it's all about the Senate examining the character and the fitness of nominees and making sure they're
the type of people who can be trusted with the immense power that some of these offices offer their incumbents.
And the -- one of the questions you're asking and a question that the Senate should be asking now of nominees is not just whether they agree with
their politics, but whether they are the type of men and women who will be faithful to their oath of office, put the law and the constitution above
their own whims or the whims of any political leader.
SREENIVASAN: So, Noah, let's take a step back for a second. Put me in the hot spot here. Let's say I am up for one of these important jobs. What are
you and Gregg and the staff in the committee doing to find out whatever you can about me on whether I'm qualified for the job?
NOAH BOOKBINDER, FORMER COUNSEL, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND PRESIDENT AND CEO, CREW: Well, the first thing is actually there's a process that
the FBI does, and they've done this for decades. And they talk to the nominee. They talk to people who have worked with that nominee every stage
in their lives, who have known them at different stages. They look into -- they do criminal background checks, that they look at educational records.
They really make sure that they get a sense of who these people are and have been at every stage.
They write up often a couple 100 pages, that comes to the committee. And usually, councils for the committee, Gregg and I, when we did it together,
we'll review all of that information. And honestly, usually it ends there, because most people don't have anything all that different from what the
rest of us have. And you just need to take a look and make sure it all looks OK.
Sometimes there are questions. There are -- there's something that may have happened. There's incomplete information. And so, the councils on the
committee will get together and figure out whether the FBI has to go back and talk to more people, do some more digging, or whether we can do -- we
being the councils on the committee, our own research, call people up, try to get more complete information.
And, you know, a key thing here is that the FBI is not making decisions about whether somebody should be confirmed. The FBI and then committee
staff and then the senators on committee are making sure they have the information so that can vote with a complete picture of who these people
are.
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: So, Gregg, you've worked on behalf of the Republican Party in this committee in that role. But why are you concerned about what's
happening now as this transition comes to bear?
NUNZIATA: Well, there's been a lot of rhetoric from the president-elect and from some of his allies in the Senate that maybe the FBI process is not
necessary and that it should be sidestepped. You know, you see these nominations, these names being floated without even preliminary diligence,
as far as I can tell, on the part of the president's team. And again, these are very important jobs in this process. Important and concerned that the
president-elect and that some Republican senators, and I should say just some, I think most Republican senators have been very clear that the normal
process is what should be followed here.
But so, there's been this talk about sidestepping the FBI and the background investigation and also musing from the president about using
things like the recess appointment power to sidestep confirmation entirely. And the confirmation process is just a critical check and balance in our
constitutional system, and it should not be minimized or pushed aside lightly. It's a very, very important process to ensure that people who
receive presidential appointments are fit to carry out the offices to which they've been nominated.
SREENIVASAN: And, Noah, let's take each one of those kind of one at a time here, right? On the one hand, first is the FBI exclusively qualified, or
why should they be trusted with the process versus, say, private companies that may be able to do similar or as deep a background check? What's the
difference?
BOOKBINDER: Well, there are a couple of key differences. One is that this is a process that has worked well for decades that the Senate knows how to
work with. You know, Gregg and I worked on Capitol Hill at a time of deep partisan division, where there was lots of fighting about what kinds of
nominees were qualified, how you should vote, whether what their policy preferences were, there was not fighting in this background review process.
We did it in a cooperative way. And we got the senators the information they needed. So, there's a lot of history and precedent that says this
process works. That's the first part.
Second part is that with a private company, we have no way of knowing that they're going to be consistent. that they're going to be thorough, that
they're going to be objective, particularly if they're hired by the president's team, rather than being people who have worked for the federal
government for years and years.
With the FBI -- not that the FBI is perfect in every way, but this -- with this process, you know that you're getting experienced people giving an
objective look, getting senators they need so that -- the information that they need so that they can decide about people taking important positions
that matter a lot to Americans. With a private company, you don't know what you're going to get and we don't necessarily have a lot of reason to trust
that who the president-elect brings in is going to give the type of searching analysis and investigation that is needed.
SREENIVASAN: Right now, we've already seen examples of some of the nominees that the president has put forth. Matt Gaetz, for example, in the
role of attorney general, and Pete Hegseth for defense secretary. Both of these men have come under public scrutiny for allegations of sexual
misconduct in the past. And I wonder, would an FBI background check, if that had been performed in the first place, what is that -- what is the
benefit there?
BOOKBINDER: So, I think a key thing about this process is that it is a confidential process, and it can happen before anything is announced
publicly. So, you can envision a situation where the FBI could do its check and maybe some of these nominations would never have been announced, and it
wouldn't have had to be in the newspaper. And you wouldn't have had to have had this sort of public back and forth about are these nominees fit? Are
they going to stay? Are they going to go? You -- the president's team has the information in advance and can make a quiet decision. So, that's one
benefit.
The other one is that I think the press is doing a great job in digging into some of these folks, but there are going to be all sorts of questions
about whether reporting from this outlet gets the full picture and reporting from that outlet, maybe find something different. With the FBI,
again, not that the way things have been done in the past is always a perfect way to go, but there is real precedent for the FBI doing a thorough
and objective job look.
[13:45:00]
And when Gregg and I did this, if we thought there were gaps, we either ask them to go back and do more research or we did it ourselves. And so, there
was a way for information to come in that senators would trust to be as close to the full picture as you could get.
SREENIVASAN: Gregg, the president for years now has already had problems with how he feels persecuted by the U.S. government, like the
investigations launched into him and his business dealings over time. So, there is kind of a general, I don't know, temperature of distrust there.
What do you do about that?
BOOKBINDER: Well, you know, again, I think I'd like to remind everybody that this is not an FBI check in the sense the FBI is not making a
decision. The FBI is gathering information for the Senate to review. It's done discreetly, confidentially, it's not public, and this has been a
system that has worked for at least 40 or 50 years.
So, I understand that a reformist president who has objections to how the current government and federal investigatory bodies have functioned. Even
if those are well placed, I really don't think there's a lot to fear here. Again, it's a very discreet confidential process and there's no judgment
being placed in the hands of the FBI or career government employees. The judgment is with -- is within the hands of the Senate and in particular, at
this point, the Senate controlled by a majority of the president's party.
SREENIVASAN: Noah, as we talk here, you know, one of your concerns is the number of people that the president has nominated who are billionaires. Why
is their sort of asset holdings automatically something that would be of concern during an FBI background check?
BOOKBINDER: Well, I think the wealth of nominees -- and first of all, it doesn't inherently disqualify anybody. You can have people who are
distinguished professionals who deserve a position based on the career that got them very wealthy, but there are certainly potential concerns that come
up. One is the potential for conflicts of interest, is that the potential for officials to be asked to make decisions on questions that specifically
affect their wealth, maybe affect companies that they own or that they work for, or that they invest in.
And so, you know, that's the first piece, is to really determine what somebody's financial interests are. So, you can see whether there might be
conflicts. A lot of those conflicts could be addressed by divesting or recusing. So, it doesn't necessarily mean that somebody's not fit to be in
office, it just may inform the kinds of questions that a Senate -- senator asks and the kinds of assurances they seek.
The other thing that comes with tremendous wealth is a question of whether, you know, cabinet figures filled with very wealthy people is going to be
looking out for the interests of regular Americans who aren't tremendously wealthy, rather than serving essentially in the interest of millionaires
and billionaires. That's not really a background investigation question, that's a question for the Senate and the American people to consider, you
know, in terms of what kind of government they want.
But so really, you know, in terms of the investigation, it's making sure that the Senate has the information it needs to get assurances that people
will take the steps they need to make decisions on behalf of the American people rather than their own bottom line.
SREENIVASAN: One question at the core of this is, is there a legal requirement that this background check has to happen? Going forward, can
the president say, I don't really care, I'm going to appoint this person to this role because it's within my right to do so? And let's say I have
influence enough over the Senate Republicans and the Senate at large to say, get my nominee through. Gregg?
NUNZIATA: Yes, I think the American Revolution was fought against the king, but particularly, in the colonial experience against the king's
appointees, right? And the grievances Americans had were over royal appointees who were often unqualified, owe their office to political
flattery of the monarch and acted as petty tyrants with the power that they were granted over Americans.
So, when the founders wrote the constitution, Senate confirmation was a core part of our -- of the protection of our liberties. And the idea was
that by involving the Senate in this process you would make sure that the president couldn't appoint people who are unqualified, merely political
flatterers of him or her and who understood their duties under the law. I mean, this is just -- it's a core feature of our constitution, and it
should not be taken lightly.
[13:50:00]
So, Senate confirmation is important and it is much less meaningful if it's not informed -- it's not an informed process. So, this FBI process is
what's developed to help the Senate. You know, now we process hundreds and hundreds of nominees in the Senate, many more than in the early days. And
there's just a lot of information out there, a lot to go through. And this process is built up to make sure that the Senate's consent to appointments
is informed consent. And tossing it aside would be a massive disruption in the balance of powers.
And I think Republican Senators, Democratic Senators, all Senators should insist that they will not process nominations blindly. They will not
process nominations without an adequate record on which to decide. When Noah and I were on the Senate Judiciary Committee, we simply didn't move
forward on nominations until this was done. Until we had the FBI file on hand, until we had reviewed it, and we had made any necessary follow up, so
that our bosses, the Senators, could make informed judgments on these nominations.
SREENIVASAN: Gregg and Noah, both of you, I hear you, in the background, still considering the FBI check as one of the gold standards, that it can
be trusted. It is a source of information that it is inherently kind of unbiased on what they bring up and how you present it. And I wonder if you
are concerned about how, let's say, a new FBI director gets into office, who has greater allegiance to the president, can that process itself be
tampered with, weaponized to change your opinion of whether or not that is still the gold standard?
NUNZIATA: I am worried over time the kind of impact that a president could have on the federal civil service, on the judiciary. Right now, I do have a
lot of faith in these institutions and I hope that they remain strong, not to say they're not without problems, and I think we can talk about reforms.
We're talking about reforms to this process. I don't want to suggest -- I don't think either Noah or I would suggest it's perfect. But it is -- it's
thorough and it's been handled with discretion in the past. And I hope that that will continue to be the case.
SREENIVASAN: Noah?
BOOKBINDER: I'm certainly deeply, deeply troubled by nominees who have voiced a desire to use government to settle political scores, to go after
perceived enemies. I don't think we should be thinking about presidents as having enemies. You have people who have different ideologies and different
goals, but this appears to be a president who believes he has enemies. It is very worrisome.
I do think that the many thousands of experienced professionals in a place like the FBI and throughout government are going to continue trying their
best to do their jobs in a professional and objective way. As Gregg said the FBI is not a perfect institution. The federal government sure as heck
is not perfect. There are things that could be done better.
I do believe that even if some of these people who have made these kinds of statements are confirmed and try to do their jobs in that way that the men
and women of the federal government will try to continue to be objective and do their jobs in fair ways.
If ultimately over time, there are firings and replacements of civil servants with loyalists and requirements that people do their jobs in
biased ways, then we're going to have to re-evaluate what we think about a process like this. I don't think that's where we are now. I hope that's not
where we go. It is certainly a source of concern.
SREENIVASAN: Noah Bookbinder, the president and CEO of CREW, and Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, thank you
both for joining us.
NUNZIATA: Thank you.
BOOKBINDER: Thanks so much for having us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Important notes there. And finally, we marked the passing of one of America's great poets, Nikki Giovanni, who has died aged 81. A
passionate and prolific writer. She wrote two dozen best-selling poetry collections and many children's books. A leading light amongst black
artists. Her work was partly inspired by her love of jazz and blues. She was also a guiding light for the next generation as a professor at Virginia
Tech.
After the brutal shootings there that left 32 people dead in 2007, it was Giovanni's words that closed the memorial to the victims. In one of her
poems, she grappled with facing her own death. And she wrote, I hope I die warmed by the life that I tried to live.
[13:55:00]
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
