Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Norwegian Refugee Council Humanitarian Access Manager Gavin Kelleher; Interview with Brennan Center for Justice Elizabeth Goitein; Interview with Moderna Co-founder and Chairman and Flagship Pioneering Founder and CEO Noubar Afeyan; Interview with DOJ Former Acting Assistant Secretary General for National Security Mary McCord. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 17, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
With ceasefire talks in Gaza deadlocked, there's no end in sight for the desperate humanitarian crisis. I asked aid worker Gavin Kelleher what he's
seeing on the ground in Gaza City.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I swear we never fired a bullet. Our men have died. They killed them all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- allegations of ethnic cleansing in Syria. Our special investigation into sectarian violence in one seaside village.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: That's an invasion. They invaded our country. So, this isn't -- in that sense, this is war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- is the White House defying a judge's order? We look into the sudden deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants. And Hari
Sreenivasan takes a wider view with security law expert Mary McCord.
Also, a breakthrough in peace talks for Armenia and Azerbaijan. But still, Armenian leader Ruben Vardanyan remains in prison. His friend, Moderna
chair, Noubar Afeyan, calls for his release.
And a warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane "Amanpour."
The devastation in Gaza shows no sign of easing. At least nine people were killed and many more injured in an Israeli attack in the north this
weekend. Gaza's ministry of health calls it the deadliest incident since the Israel-Hamas ceasefire went into effect in January. The Israeli
military claims the IDF struck at a drone staging site that, quote, "posed a threat" to Israeli troops. The attack comes as progress in talks to
extend the ceasefire are now deadlocked.
U.S. negotiator Steve Witkoff laid out what he calls a bridge proposal to extend the deal, but calls the Hamas response a nonstarter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST: After waiting for two or three days from Hamas, which is their usual mode, we got an
unacceptable response. I'm not going to go into the specific details of what made it unacceptable, but it was totally unacceptable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Now, meantime, as peace talks drag on, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza just gets worse and worse. It's now two weeks since Israel shut off
electricity, food, fuel, and medical supplies in a bid to pressure Hamas to accept an extension of that preliminary ceasefire.
For now, we want to focus really on those conditions on the ground. Gavin Kelleher is the humanitarian access manager in Gaza for the Norwegian
Refugee Council. I spoke with him from Gaza City.
Gavin Kelleher, welcome to the program. Appreciate you being here, especially as you are there in Gaza. Could you really just give us an
insight into what it's like on the ground right now? Israel has clearly cut the flows of all kinds of aid, food, medicine, fuel. What are you seeing on
the ground?
GAVIN KELLEHER, HUMANITARIAN ACCESS MANAGER, NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL: Well, there's a mounting sense of fear here now as the complete siege of
Gaza enters its 15th day. We've been able to bring in no humanitarian supplies, no foods, no commercial supplies and no fuel are allowed into the
Gaza Strip.
And what's playing out in the marketplaces is the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables initially tripling in price, they've now started to disappear
altogether. The cost of basic goods and supplies is also rocketing, becoming unattainable for many people here.
The impact of having no fuel is particularly concerning for us because we've already got ambulances that have stopped running services because
they don't have access to the petrol that they need. And if we don't get a refill of diesel and of fuel in the coming weeks, we're going to see the
water processing plants collapsing. We're going to see telecoms cutting off, hospital generators cutting off. And that's not even to say about the
food distributions. We have empty warehouses as humanitarian organizations, some of the biggest food partners, we'll have to suspend distributions of
food in the next 10 days or so if Israel does not lift this siege immediately.
NEWTON: The picture you've just painted is absolutely terrifying, and this is given everything that people in Gaza have already been through.
[13:05:00]
The U.N. says we could be on the brink of yet another hunger crisis in Gaza. Do you agree? And how long do you believe it would take if this
blockade continues?
KELLEHER: Well, absolutely. The view from the ground here is that, yet again, Gaza is being pushed to the brink of total societal collapse. When
you deny the population access to food, you attack the water systems that have been decimated over the last 17 months. You attack people's homes.
More than 92 percent of people's homes are damaged or destroyed. The same for educational facilities. The whole infrastructure of the Gaza Strip has
been decimated.
Now, we're cutting off food, we're cutting off water supplies. Of course, society is going to struggle to function. In terms of food, we anticipate
that in the next 10 days, when the distribution stopped taking place altogether, that could be a trigger for a very serious collapse in terms of
access to food for the entire population.
But the same for water supplies as well. We might have slightly longer, given some accumulated slots stocks within Gaza. But the cutting of the
electricity line by Israel to the desalination plants in South Gaza is already having major implications. They had a direct electrical line that
allowed that water desalination plant that takes water from the sea and turns it into drinking water 600,000 people. And that line was cut by
Israel on the 9th of March.
So, now that plant is operating on generators, on this dwindling supply of fuel stock and just a fraction -- producing just a fraction of the water
than it was able to previously. And already, distributions of water being challenged right the way across Gaza in a situation where most people don't
have access to the basic amount of water that they need a day.
NEWTON: So, Gavin, what does that mean? If you're a family, you have four children and you are, first and foremost, trying to deal with getting them
water, not to mention some sustenance throughout each day, what does life look like for everyone right now?
KELLEHER: I was talking to a colleague shortly before I began speaking to you, and she was in Northern Gaza for the entirety of the last 17 months. I
asked her what the situation was like previously, and she recounted horrible stories of eating essentially grass and weeds, drinking directly
seawater when there was no provision of clean water available. The fear cannot be described that people have fear, not just for themselves, but for
their children, for the elderly, and for society at large.
The agency and the dignity of the Palestinian people is really being challenged yet again. And there is no assurances that we can give them, as
a humanitarian organization, that we'll be in any position to help them if this siege is not lifted.
NEWTON: And especially arduous, given the fact that they had this reprieve, they believed perhaps that things would go in a linear direction
in terms of getting better. You know, Gavin, as we speak to you, we can hear certainly that buzzing sound. Those are surveillance drones overhead,
but that speaks to the menacing atmosphere right now in Gaza. What kind of violence have you seen? Is there still fighting? We have seen reports of
even fishermen being targeted.
KELLEHER: Absolutely. So, in the initial weeks of the ceasefire, there was a major reduction in military violence across Gaza. We did continue to see,
however, attacks being perpetrated by Israeli forces towards Palestinians, particularly along the perimeter fence and close to the Rafah Crossing and
the Rafah border, the Navy continues to carry out attacks on fishermen throughout.
What we've seen more concerningly over the past couple of weeks is an escalation in the amount of military force being used across Gaza. We're
now in a situation where, yet again, we're seeing daily airstrikes taking place across the Gaza Strip, not just in buffer zones, but targeting
different individuals, in different locations and incurring Palestinian casualties back again on a daily basis.
So, while the ceasefire remains in effect at the political level, we are seeing an increase in military violence already, and that's escalated
notably in the last few days alone.
NEWTON: Yes, in the last few days, as we have had apparently reports of aid workers killed. We have really been a bit clinical in the last few
minutes in terms of articulating exactly what's going on. But this obviously is in a very traumatic context for people in Gaza.
For the better part of a year, you have been in and out of Gaza. Can you speak to people's mental health at this point in time? It seems
preposterous to even think that there would be any mental health at this point in time. But given the fact that they were so close to perhaps
things, as I said, getting better, and now they seem to be taking a step back, how are people coping?
KELLEHER: I think preposterous is probably a good word to use in this situation. There was a massive amount of hope as the ceasefire came into
effect. That is now dissipating as we reach this stalemate. And as we're seeing all of the challenges that have played out over the last 17 months
start to increase again.
[13:10:00]
Some people have disengaged altogether. They're not listening to the news. They're not reading media. They're seeing these ridiculous statements about
the total displacement of Gaza and the fact that they could be sent to Sudan or Somalia or Indonesia. Zero consultation happening with people here
in Gaza. They feel helpless.
And let's not forget that now for almost a year, none of them have been able to leave. Many Palestinians had already sent part of their families
abroad, out of Gaza, and they're separated from their husbands, wives, children's parents, and they have no opportunity to reconcile with them.
At the same time, there are many Palestinians who are steadfast that they will remain here in Gaza no matter what happens next. That they would die
rather than be displaced again out of Gaza City. And they lack any reassurance that they will have that right to remain. And we have these
cavalier statements coming out from political statements or the media globally the announcements we've seen in the last couple of weeks.
NEWTON: Now, in fact, to your point, a peer (ph) did report that the U.S. and Israel were considering resettling. I mean, you mentioned in the rare,
right? Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland. I remind our viewers that Sudan itself has been described as one of the gravest humanitarian situations in
the world right now. Clearly not encompassing the entire country, but most of it.
When, you know, people in Gaza hear these things, how helpless do they feel in terms of we have had Arab allies put on the table some type of plan for
reconstruction for rehabilitation. Where are they looking to for hope right now for guidance?
KELLEHER: I think the plans that have been tabled, Arab-led plans, around the reconstruction of Gaza is one of the last hopes that many Palestinians
have left. And that's what we're calling for support on from the wider International Community. Those plans need to be backed, resourced, and
funded.
But there's that helplessness that people are feeling here. This speaks to the complete disregard for Palestinian lives and Palestinian suffering that
we've seen every day for the last 17 months. And many people here have started to accept that, that there is no help coming. And that's a horrible
thing to deal with. It's a horrible thing to accept. And it becomes more difficult every day to look my colleagues in the eye and tell them that
there is nothing we can do for them except to try to continue to advocate and campaign for their rights to be respected.
NEWTON: And I bet you make it clear to them that you must be transparent and honest. You yourselves are helpless. I mean, do you feel that the level
of misery that you're seeing right now, that the world is seeing, is matched by the level of compassion and care around the world? There is so
much so few can keep up, but even if we talk about what is going on in Ukraine right now. Do you think that there's a problem with global fatigue
and global capacity to keep up with things like this and Gazans are caught in the middle?
KELLEHER: I think that's absolutely correct. And what we're in danger of is the normalization of this. And we've seen this because the attacks on
civilians and the violence in Gaza did not start on October 7th. It's become part of history that we expect a certain degree of violence, even in
the situation of a ceasefire when attacks were still being perpetrated from the perimeters, many Palestinians were saying, well, this is normal. This
is what was happening even before the escalation of hostilities.
The danger is that we accept this, that we accept that Palestinians in Gaza are supposed to suffer to a certain extent, which is, of course, absolutely
not the case. They have the same rights and entitlements as every other people in the world. And we need to make sure that support from the wider
International Community is maintained now especially as we're in a situation where we're under complete siege and there's no hope in sight,
and it's going to need to be the voice of the International Community that convinces Israel to lift this siege on Gaza and allow the rights of people
here to be respected and allow us to deliver assistance to them.
NEWTON: The Trump administration's Middle East envoy told CNN on the weekend that this was Hamas' problem, that the -- anything that they had
put on the table was, in his words, Mr. Witkoff's words, a nonstarter. Do people there in Gaza see it this way, that Hamas is part and parcel of the
problem?
KELLEHER: I think it's important to separate out what's happening in terms of humanitarian needs and the denial of humanitarian assistance, which is
completely not -- it can't be read as anything other than collective punishment, and the negotiations between parties to the conflict. Those two
things cannot be conflated. You cannot cut off water, cut off food to a population of 2.1 million people because the parties to the conflicts are
taking part in negotiations with each other. Those two things need to be separated out very clearly. And that is the expectation that we have. And
that is the expectation of international humanitarian law.
NEWTON: But why is there no shield with humanitarian law? We've seen lots of pronouncements and nothing has happened really.
KELLEHER: The lack of international humanitarian law translating into tangible changes on the ground here for Palestinians is something that has
major ramifications, not just on the context here in Gaza, but also on norms and standards globally.
[13:15:00]
We continue to advocate for accountability under international humanitarian law. We continue to advocate for the rights of Palestinians to be
respected. Is that what we're seeing? Are we seeing that translate into things getting better? Well, no. Look around the situation that's happening
around me in the Gaza Strip right now is terrible. But we continue to call for respect for IHL because that's the only opportunity available to us.
NEWTON: Gavin Kelleher, we will leave it there. We wish you safety and fortitude as you continue your work there in Gaza. Appreciate it.
KELLEHER: Thanks very much.
NEWTON: Now, the war in Gaza is one front in what's becoming an increasingly unstable region. In Yemen, dozens of people were killed when
President Donald Trump ordered military action against Houthi rebels this weekend. As for Syria, there are now serious questions about the leadership
of interim President Bashar al-Sharaa, after armed men, loyal to his government, attacked members of the minority Alawite community.
Now, in a special investigation, we look into evidence of violence in one coastal village. Tamara Qiblawi reports, but we do want to warn you, her
report contains graphic images that may be hard to watch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TAMARA QIBLAWI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's a sunny day in the Syrian coastal village named after its pine groves. A fighter sings, and it seems to be a
cheerful tune.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): With the taste of death we've come to you --
QIBLAWI (voice-over): But this is a song that celebrates death. Behind him, dead people are strewn along the sides of the street.
Hundreds of people were killed in scenes like this in coastal Syria this month. Loyalists of the recently-deposed dictator Bashar al-Assad had
ambushed the country's new security forces in what appeared to be a coordinated attack.
This triggered a killing spree against the Alawites, Assad's minority sect. Syria's new Sunni Islamist government blamed the mass killings on rogue
elements, calling the incidents violations.
According to rights groups, the carnage played out across 25 Alawite areas and in the village of Sanobar or the Pine Village. CNN found evidence of a
massacre.
Here, factions loyal to Syria's new government went house to house, dragging men out to be executed. Homes were torched, fighters screamed
sectarian slurs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The Shia dogs. The Alawites, the pigs of the regime.
QIBLAWI (voice-over): Survivors spoke to us about their still fresh memories.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): They entered the house and demanded that all the men step outside. My father and my two brothers. They
made them stand outside and they executed them.
They show my father in the head. They shot my brother in the heart. And my second brother, the bullet hit his right side.
QIBLAWI (through translator): Our visual investigation reveals the scale of the horror. We counted over 80 bodies and verified videos strewn along
the main street, lying in shallow graves wrapped in shrouds. Satellite images showed mounds of dirt and soil disturbances consistent with mass
graves in the area. Locals say they counted over 200 bodies. And armed men published evidence of the atrocities.
Like this video, filmed at the entrance of the Pine Village. Ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing. He cheers. We see him in the ransacked home of
the Khalil family. The corpse of an elderly relative splayed out on the sofa, father and son dead at the fighter's feet.
We traced the video back to this Facebook page. In this photograph, the apparent owner of the profile is wearing what appears to be the insignia of
HTS. That's the newly-dissolved Islamist militant group led until recently by Syria's interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa.
Whether individuals involved in the massacre have been held to account is unclear. The government has set up a committee to investigate the killings.
But across coastal Syria, people say they can't feel safe until justice is served.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I swear we never fired a bullet. Our men have died. They killed them all.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Tamara Qiblawi reporting there for us. And when we come back, is President Trump on the edge of a dramatic constitutional showdown with the
judiciary?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
NEWTON: In Washington, the White House denies that it violated a judge's order Saturday to halt the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members
to El Salvador. But given serious questions about administration actions in this case, a constitutional crisis may now be playing out. The
administration relied on a 200-year-old law entitled the Alien Enemies Act in expelling those migrants.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the deportations in order to review the government action. Then the administration announced Sunday that the
deportees are already out of the United States in Salvadorian custody.
Elizabeth Goitein is a nationally recognized expert on presidential powers at the Brennan Center for Justice. And I want to thank you for joining us.
You are joining from Washington as we continue to try and really figure out the timeline of these events.
The White House says they did not violate the judge's order because the migrants had already been removed. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in
fact, says that the administration did not refuse to comply with a court order. The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist
aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory. A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of
foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.
Those are the denials from the White House. Could you let us in on the fact that she may be wrong about the timeline but may also be wrong legally?
ELIZABETH GOITEIN, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE: Well, I think the main point here is that she's saying that the administration didn't refuse to
comply with the order, but then the way she describes it, they absolutely did refuse to comply, they just take the position that the order was
unlawful or that the judge didn't have the authority to issue that order. And those are two very, very different things.
If the president thinks that a judge's order was unlawful, for whatever reason, such as the court didn't have jurisdiction, the president's remedy
is to appeal, perhaps file an emergency appeal with the appellate court, but not to defy the order. That's what checks and balances mean. That means
that the president cannot sit as the judge of his own actions, which is what he seems to be trying to do in this case.
NEWTON: Not trying to do. He's actually apparently done it and it isn't just in this case.
GOITEIN: Exactly.
NEWTON: As mentioned, the act used to deport these migrants is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. It has only been invoked three times, all during
wartime and against enemy nations. Now, rights groups are arguing it is being inappropriately implemented. I want you to listen now to the
president and his take on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They invaded our country. So, this isn't -- in that sense, this is war. In many respects, it's more dangerous than war because, you know, in
war they have uniforms. You know who you're shooting at. You know who you're going after. These are people that came out, they're walking on
streets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: And we want to get to your point of view on all this, and you've written a piece entitled "Trump's Doubly Flawed Invasion Theory." Do you
want to talk us through that theory? And key here is the language that Trump uses in order to implement these laws.
GOITEIN: The Alien Enemies Act, as you pointed out, is an antiquated wartime authority that only applies during a declared war, declared by
Congress, or an invasion by a foreign government or nation. And in this case, it is an absolutely illegal power grab to try to use this wartime
authority for peacetime immigration enforcement.
[13:25:00]
We are not at war with Venezuela. Tren de Aragua is not the Venezuelan government. And we are not under armed attack, which is what the term
invasion means in the law. So, this is not a legal use of this authority.
NEWTON: And yet, they continue to use it. You write that the Trump administration using this invasion theory, and this was interesting, your
words here, were to lay claim to vast presidential power that, you know, just doesn't exist, you say, whether it's peacetime or wartime. Can you
explain?
GOITEIN: That's right. In addition to invoking the Alien Enemies Act, President Trump has issued an executive order under which he claims that
the existence of an invasion of the United States means that he can simply suspend asylum law or other legal protections that are afforded under
immigration law to migrants.
And again, that is simply not the case as a matter of law. Because even if we were in an invasion, in which we're not, the president would not get to
pick and choose which laws he follows. The Supreme Court has been very clear that the president may ignore a law passed by Congress only if
Congress acted outside of its own authority in passing that law. And there is simply no question that Congress has the authority to pass immigration
law. That means the President has to follow it, invasion or no invasion. And again, in this case, there's no innovation.
NEWTON: But I think an important question here is, it seems to many Americans now that the judicial branch is not currently up to the task with
dealing with this executive authority that seems to be exercised at every turn. What do you say to people about that?
GOITEIN: I wouldn't say that. I think the courts have been reviewing these cases quite diligently. They've issued many temporary restraining orders
and preliminary injunctions.
NEWTON: But the Trump administration isn't following them.
GOITEIN: Right, and that's an unprecedented situation. So, I think it is going to take the courts some time to work through the most effective way
to ensure that their orders are respected.
NEWTON: But what does that mean about remedy here? Because, you know, if we take any individual situation, it seems that the executive branch has
been successful even before any kind of judicial, you know, opportunity that anyone would have to try and counter it.
GOITEIN: That's the tragedy, because we now have hundreds of people who have been deported to El Salvador and Honduras, who it is going to be very,
very difficult to reverse that, and when you do away with hearings and due process, which is what the Alien Enemies Act on its face allows the
president to do, that virtually ensures that innocent people are going to be swept up in this net without ever having a chance to prove their
innocence.
And that could include U.S. citizens. They may find themselves in horrible conditions in a prison in El Salvador without any realistic foreseeable
chance of getting out.
NEWTON: And CNN has done reporting from that prison and certainly. they make no apologies for the conditions in which many of those prisoners are
kept. Again, I want to go back to your work on presidential power because perhaps people are missing the point. We hear many times that this is what
Americans voted for, this is what they want, and they do want to be tough on immigration. But do you feel there is a danger here of actually changing
the scope of presidential power? It is a Republican president now. Also, a Democratic president could try this again if it is not -- if they don't
fight it on those grounds.
GOITEIN: I don't think the people of this country voted to have a president who acted like a king. Now, if it's a question of deporting
people who are actually members of Tren de Aragua, the president has ample authority under immigration law to deport members of violent criminal
gangs. Instead, the president is abusing an inapplicable wartime power, and he's doing so in a way that ensures that people will be deported based
simply on the fact that they are Venezuelans and not based on any sort of gang affiliation or gang activity that could be proven in immigration
proceedings. And I don't think the American people voted for that.
NEWTON: And we will leave it there for now. Thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
GOITEIN: My pleasure. Thank you.
NEWTON: Now, Armenia and Azerbaijan are said to have reached a peace agreement which would end nearly four decades now of conflict. The
neighboring countries have long fought over Nagorno-Karabakh, a breakaway region considered part of Azerbaijan, but for years it was under the
control of Armenian separatists.
Nagorno-Karabakh's former leader, Ruben Vardanyan, remains in prison at this hour after Azerbaijan took control of the enclave in 2023. Vardanyan
is standing trial on dozens of charges, 15 others are on trial with him. Ruben Vardanyan's friend, Noubar Afeyan, is speaking out against his
detention. Noubar is also the chair of Moderna and he joins me now from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Welcome to the program again, it is good to see
you.
[13:30:00]
NOUBAR AFEYAN, CO-FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, MODERNA AND FOUNDER AND CEO, FLAGSHIP PIONEERING: Thanks for having me.
NEWTON: Now, the charges -- we do want to get to this peace agreement, but the charges are obviously serious. Your friend Ruben, who served as the
number two position in Karabakh, he was arrested, as we were saying, by forces in September 2023. He was attempting to cross into Armenia.
Azerbaijan 40 charges against him. He actually faces life in prison. What do you understand he is being accused of?
AFEYAN: Well, Paula, the situation -- I think it's important for your listeners to understand the context. This happened as part of a military
offensive by Azerbaijan into what had been previously for 30 years a republic consisting entirely of Armenians that have lived there on
historical land that's been in Armenian inhabitants for thousands of years.
And following a blockade of a year, they attacked and essentially drove out in what's been deemed ethnically cleansing by many scholars, ethnic
cleansing. They drove out 120,000 Armenians, including in them Ruben Vardanyan, my close friend and colleague, who was there carrying out
humanitarian projects. He was indeed for, a period of three months, the state minister of that republic. And the charges that have been thrown at
him after one year of delays and delays in detention are essentially anything and everything. In fact, there's 42 charges, many of which predate
his presence in Karabakh going back to the 1980s when he was a college student in Moscow.
So, this is kind of a comprehensive effort to conduct a sham trial and throw everything possible. I think that it's important to realize none of
these charges were presented to him. The documentation behind them is some 250,000 pages written in a language he doesn't speak with no translation.
So, essentially, he's being charged with things that he doesn't understand with evidence that is completely controlled by a (INAUDIBLE).
NEWTON: Now, in protest, he did go on a hunger strike, according to Armenian media, last week he ended that hunger strike. It began on February
19th. What do you know of his condition? Have you been able to communicate with him? Has anyone been able to visit him, including his family?
AFEYAN: Well, a couple of things. There have been limited access for brief phone calls that have been allowed during periods of his arbitrary
detention. And essentially, from those I've understood from his family, his condition.
In fact, the most recent hunger strike was the second time that he did that back in April, a year ago, he did the same for some 20 days. And
essentially, the most recent one was just (INAUDIBLE) was to bring the attention of people to this sham trial, because ultimately, if this was a
open judicial process I think he would be glad to participate and defend his case.
The reality is the only physical visits that have taken place have been with the ICRC, the Red Cross, which was essentially out of the country last
week. So, the ICRC was kicked out. The UNDP has been kicked out of Azerbaijan, as has the UNHCR.
So, essentially, you have a closed, opaque judicial process. And what I know about his condition is that he is -- he's withstanding the various
treatments that he's had at various times. He's been subject to torture, that's been reported by the people who visited. But essentially, this is a
very difficult process but one that, unfortunately, is not uncommon in states that are operated in this way.
NEWTON: I do want to get to this peace deal, which is far from finalized but Armenian and Azerbaijani officials said they -- both countries had
agreed to this peace agreement, which could end this conflict. But there are still obviously major sticking points here. It's unclear if it'll
actually ever be signed.
And I want to hear as well from you what you believe that means for the fate of your friend, Vardanyan, but I do want to quote Marco Rubio here,
the secretary of state in the United States. He says, the United States commends Armenia and Azerbaijan for concluding negotiations on a historic
peace treaty. This is an opportunity for both countries to turn the page on a decades old conflict in line with President Trump's vision for a more
peaceful world. Now, is the time to commit to peace, sign and ratify the treaty and usher in a new era of prosperity for the people of the South
Caucasus.
I mean, do you believe that this -- we'll see the finalization of this kind of a peace deal and what will it mean for the release of prisoners? Have
you heard anything from the Trump administration about this?
[13:35:00]
AFEYAN: Well, the Trump administration has made two official statements. One which was made last fall by President Trump himself on social media
which demanded the release of the Armenian Christian prisoners. And the second that occurred just yesterday by NSA head Mark Waltz who essentially
asked for the same thing. They asked for the peace agreement to be signed but importantly, either before or as part of the peace deal for the
Christian prisoners to be released, not to mention Ruben is just one of eight political prisoners and one of 23 prisoners that have been kept
illegally detained by Azerbaijan.
So, there have been very clear, direct messages from the Trump administration. And it's clear to me and to many that any peace agreement
that does not incorporate either before or during its execution, the release of these prisoners that that is in complete defiance of the
challenge the Trump administration has placed and has very directly communicated to the officials in Azerbaijan.
Look, there's a long history of forced peace agreements that follow a military aggression and ethnic cleansing. And those peace agreements,
unfortunately, don't last. As a diasporan army who was doing a lot of work for 25 years in helping Armenia develop and achieve a level of security and
prosperity, I must say, while I very much would like to see a peace agreement signed, it has to be a true peace agreement, and there are
questions that are raised about whether this will ever get signed because it's pretty clear that the State of Azerbaijan is using this war or this
conflict for domestic reasons, while suppressing a lot of free expression there.
The reality is that this agreement may not get signed, and if it does, if it excludes the release of the prisoners, I don't think it's worth the
paper it'll be signed on.
NEWTON: OK. Noubar, we only have less than a minute left, and it's going to be a hard turn here, but given your position at Moderna, I want to ask
you how you feel about the Trump administration and its attitude towards vaccines. Is it true that they are pulling some funding from Moderna
regarding perhaps even the bird flu vaccine that you have in development?
AFEYAN: You know, the Trump administration clearly is a totally new set of approaches and mindsets. And we, like many other companies, are very much
looking to work to understand what it is that everyone should do to be able to advance the public health of Americans and for that matter, the whole
world.
Moderna plays a very critical role with its vaccine technology. It certainly had a big role in saving millions of lives. And we plan to
continue to do that. And we're actually quite confident and optimistic that we'll be able to work through any changes that need to be made in terms of
the regulatory regime or other aspects. And I think we just need to get through it.
It's clear that there's a lot of things that are being questioned in all aspects of the economy and of regulation, and we, like other companies,
will work with them to do that. The conversations are ongoing, and I can't say anything specific and say we believe that this is something that will
work through.
NEWTON: Understood. Noubar, thank you so much for joining the program. We appreciate it.
AFEYAN: Thank you for having me.
NEWTON: After the break, more on the Trump administration's battles with the courts. Security law expert Mary McCord joins the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
NEWTON: Now, to another one of President Trump's executive orders, and it is under scrutiny, is termination of security clearances for two prominent
law firms, both of which have represented his opponents, such as the 2016 democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. And Jack Smith, the
special counsel appointed by the Biden administration that brought criminal charges against the current president.
Former acting assistant attorney general at the DOJ, Mary McCord, speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about the chilling effect of these attacks on the legal
system.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, Thanks, Mary McCord. Thanks so much for joining us. On Friday, the president went and
address the Department of Justice. He wanted to lay out his case for about an hour on law and order. But instead, there were a lot of times where he
spent an enormous amount of energy attacking his adversaries, his enemies perceived or real. But what did you make of that speech?
MARY MCCORD, FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, DOJ: Well, first of all, as someone who has sat through numerous
speeches in the Great Hall of Department of Justice, because I was, you know, in the department for almost 25 years, it was an extraordinary
speech. It was a political rally and it was a real promise of vengeance.
It was pretty clear, even though we couldn't see the audience, that that was not an audience made up of career and long-term Department of Justice
lawyers and staff. It seemed to have been a hand pick audience of political appointees and allies. And he spoke to them directly.
And, you know, normally, if the -- first of all, it's rare for the president to come speak to the Department of Justice at all. In part, that
is because that everyone usually in the White House and the department wants to maintain that sort of independence and that perception of
independence. But if a president does come, it's to, you know, talk about a new initiative. And I think the thought here was maybe he was going to be
talking specifically about the fentanyl crisis or something of that nature. But no, this was something that you might have seen during his campaign at
a rally, you know, anywhere across America, speaking to his supporters.
SREENIVASAN: What have you noticed in both the tenor tone and actually even the substance of what the Department of Justice lawyers are taking to
court just in these past two months?
MCCORD: Well, he tried to make -- I think he said at one point, we are going from the Department of Injustice to the Department of justice. And he
suggested that what the court -- what the men and women of the department were going to be doing was to hold accountable government attorneys and
others within government from the previous administration accountable for what remains to be seen. But, of course, part of his narrative is that the
department had been weaponized against him, had prosecuted him for political purposes.
And he made clear, and I think his words were something that we will, you know, root out the rogue actors within the government to hold them
accountable. And he specifically pointed to attorneys that he had put into the department leadership, which, remember, are basically his personal
criminal defense team. He has Todd Blanche, Emil Bove as his deputy attorney general and principal deputy attorney general. They were, of
course, his primary criminal defense counsel. Pam Bondi as the attorney general was his first impeachment defense counsel. And even John Sauer as
his solicitor general was his defense counsel in the January 6th case that argued in the U.S. Supreme Court resulting in the immunity decision. So, he
was speaking directly to them as well as to the new FBI director, Kash Patel, about what he expected them to do.
In terms of the other attorneys and staff in the department, I don't think he gave them really any credit for the good work the department over --
does over the years. Because if you were sitting there listening, you would think that everything, up until that moment when he's speaking to you and
saying, we're basically turning the page, that everything up to that moment had been corrupt when, of course, those who've worked there for decades
know that that's not the case.
SREENIVASAN: OK. Someone listening to you says, you know what, he is rewarding. The president is rewarding, people who have been loyal to him,
who he thinks understands his worldview and thinks that will carry out sort of his interest. Now, why is that different than what any other president
does?
MCCORD: So, as a matter of policy, that's absolutely correct. And as someone who worked in the department through multiple administrations,
Republican presidents, Democratic presidents I can say that the policies did change. So, for example, the focus on immigration as President Trump
and his attorney general and Department of Justice leadership want to do, that is something we've seen before, that it's something that career
department attorneys and AUSA's that is Assistant United States Attorneys at the different U.S. attorney's offices around the country, that's
something they're used to. We're going to prioritize one thing this administration over maybe something else.
[13:45:00]
That's a very different thing than using the mechanisms and tools of investigations and intelligence collection and prosecution to actually go
after enemies. There's nothing he was saying that suggested that those in the department previously or Jack Smith's team, Jack Smith being the
special counsel, of course, who investigated both the Mar-a-Lago matter and the January 6th matter involving Donald Trump as well as the prosecutors
who prosecuted the attackers, those who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, there's nothing he says other than just labeling with adjectives that
these are horrible people, nothing that supports that they did anything in violation of law, in violation of ethical codes, or anything other than
pursue justice.
And recall that during the last administration, it was not only Donald Trump who was investigated and prosecuted, but also Joe Biden himself while
a sitting president, not prosecuted, but investigated with respect to whether any classified documents or national defense information had been
mishandled. Hunter -- Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden investigated and prosecuted.
What the attorneys in the Department of Justice do is they follow the facts where they lead and they apply to the law to those facts. And what we're
hearing now is sort of the same alternate reality that Donald Trump was preaching really to his base throughout the campaign, which is that
something different than what all of us could see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears, something different happened on January 6th, and
that those who were prosecuted were political prisoners and hostages. And so, he continues, essentially, that false narrative and continued that in
the Great Hall of the Department of Justice on Friday.
SREENIVASAN: Last week, there was one law firm, Perkins Coie, which has a couple of thousand lawyers, is nationally known. It faced off against the
administration in court. They were fighting against an executive order written by the White House that said that, essentially, you know, this law
firm should no longer be able to deal with the government. And not only that, that really clients of the law firm that have any contracts with the
government should be scrutinized. What did you make of that mandate?
MCCORD: Well, this is a pretty extraordinary executive action, and clearly, the judge thought so as well. Judge Howell in the D.C. District
Court, the Federal District Court in District of Columbia, she did issue an injunction, a restraining order against provisions of that executive order.
This was really an outright attack on the legal profession, and it was followed on Friday by a similar executive order against another major
international law firm, Paul Weiss.
Very similarly, starting out talking about what a danger large law firms are to sort of the country and blacklisting Paul Weiss much in the same way
that the executive order about Perkins Coie blacklisted Perkins Coie, to your point, did things like say, strips the security clearances of
attorneys there. Restricted any type of -- or, you know, said all any type of government contracts with these law firms should be terminated, even
sought, in both of these orders, to limit access by the attorneys at these major firms into government buildings or to meeting with government
officials.
So, imagine a firm that does government contracts work that is involved in litigation before the federal government is involved in representing
regulated entities in -- you know, with their regulations that are administered by the departments and agencies. It means essentially, they
cannot do their work. And in these -- and that seems to me to be a very pointed effort, because the reason for -- the stated reason in the
executive orders in both cases, and I also mentioned a third one, which is directed at the lawyers at Covington & Burling who are representing Jack
Smith, it's directed purely out of personal vengeance.
In the case of Perkins Coie, it's because the firm -- and this is stated in the executive order, I'm just not speculating about this, it's because the
firm had represented Hillary Clinton's campaign back in 2016. It's because it had filed litigation on voting rights that the Trump administration
disfavors, and it's because they asserted that Perkins Coie engaged in different types of programs to increase the minority representation within
its lawyers and its staff.
And similarly, as directed at Paul Weiss, it's based on the actions of an attorney that used to be -- work there that President Trump doesn't like
and their own, you know, diversity, equity, inclusion policies.
[13:50:00]
So, these are targeted because of personal vengeances of this administration. But they're also a shot across the bow. They're meant to
intimidate other big law firms into not filing litigation against the government, into not coming to sort of the aid of those who might be
targeted to the government really to try to get the lawyers out of the way.
SREENIVASAN: You know, in the president's rationale in writing, as you say, he has gone out and said, look, I was the target of corrupt
politicians for four years and then four years after that. So, don't talk to me about targeting. He feels that these legal teams and these actions
against him were part of an attack. And he, in his mind and in writing, is saying that I am trying to right these wrongs. Is -- where is sort of his
logic not connecting?
MCCORD: Well, because you don't use the -- you know, the defense bar goes back historically to the founding of the country, right? In cases, whether
it's criminal prosecution, or even a civil case, people are entitled to attorneys to defend their position. And he has well taken advantage of this
throughout his whole career. Most recently, of course, in the prosecutions he's talking about, he's had a legal team working really 24/7 defending him
in criminal cases brought against him, not only federal criminal cases, but state criminal cases, civil cases brought against him the E. Jean Carroll
matter for example. The case brought by the New York attorney general regarding corporate business fraud. He's benefited throughout his life from
defense attorneys doing their jobs.
Similarly, he has used attorneys to bring cases, many, many, many cases over the course of his career, particularly in his business endeavors. So,
he well understands that these are the job of lawyers, not to break the law, and no one is accused his lawyers of breaking the law, but to provide
representation consistent with constitutional rights, including, particularly, in criminal cases, the right to due process of law and the
right to counsel.
And so, where he breaks here is he is in trying to punish those law firms who are doing the very thing that our entire system depends on, which is
lawyers, providing legal counsel to clients, whether in criminal matters or simple matters to ensure that they have that right of counsel, that they
have due process, and that any proceedings against them are done fairly and consistent with constitutional rights.
Again, it's the pointing fingers and suggesting criminal misfeasance, criminal malfeasance of anyone who has ever challenged him. That's where I
think he goes really awry. It is -- what's really ironic about this is from day one in his executive order about ending the weaponization of the
federal government and in subsequent statements he's made about ending the weaponization of the federal government.
He's his implementation plan seems to be weaponizing the federal government and particularly the Department of Justice, and I think that's a very
dangerous thing.
SREENIVASAN: Pam Bondi, the new attorney general, said recently, quote, "There are a lot of people in the FBI and also in the Department of Justice
who despise Donald Trump, despise us, don't want to be there. We will find them because you have to believe in transparency, you have to believe in
honesty, you have to do the right thing. And right now, we're going to root them out. We will find them. And they will no longer be employed."
And you work to the Department of Justice in the national security room. Tell us kind of your reaction to hearing the attorney general say that
about, well, technically, her colleagues.
MCCORD: So, notably, there was nothing there suggesting that attorneys or employees at the Department of Justice were not fulfilling their
responsibilities, their duties, their obligation, the oath that they took to the Constitution, that they were doing anything unethical or immoral or
illegal, not even that they were not furthering the policies and values and legal arguments of the Department of Justice. Simply her words were, they
despise Donald Trump and we will root them out and we will find them and they will not have a job.
This is -- I hate to overuse the word extraordinary, but it's extraordinary. It's basically saying, if you don't like the president
personally, or you don't agree with his views, you need to be rooted out and fired. And, you know, that's not what the department's built on. So, to
hear somebody say, if you don't like this president, I mean, she used a stronger word, despise, which I'm not sure what she bases that on. I mean,
this was a completely baseless statement. If you despise this, you need to be out. That's a loyalty test, Hari. That's just a loyalty test.
[13:55:00]
SREENIVASAN: Mary McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice, and now the executive
director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection under Georgetown Law, thanks so much for joining us.
MCCORD: My pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And finally, every March 17th, the world suddenly looks a bit greener, as people don the color to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Now, St.
Patrick is, of course, the patron saint of Ireland, where the earliest parade there happens 6:00 a. m. in the town of Dingle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Love the colors there. The Dingle Fife and Drum Band leads the parade. This pre-dawn tradition, as you can see there, dates back to the
Land War of the 1870s, when British authorities banned gatherings during the day.
And that's it for now. I want to thank you for watching. Goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
