Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Former U.S. Special Representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker; Interview with Kyiv School of Economics President and Former Ukrainian Economy Minister Tymofiy Mylovanov; Interview with "Between the River and the Sea" Actor and Playwright Yousef Sweid; Interview with "Between the River and the Sea" Playwright and Director Isabella Sedlak Interview with "The Presidential Pardon" Author and University of Virginia School of Law Professor Saikrishna Prakash . Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 16, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think we're closer now than we have been ever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump offers Ukraine strong security guarantees, but it comes with a warning, accept now or risk losing them. With territory still
unresolved, are we really days away from an end to the war? I ask Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and a former member of Zelenskyy's
government, Tymofiy Mylovanov.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you mean you're an Arab, but you're Israeli?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am Israeli.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're also Palestinian. What?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Caught between two worlds, a new play explores the identity crisis of actor Yousef Sweid. I speak to him alongside his collaborator,
Isabella Sedlak.
Also, ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAIKRISHNA PRAKASH, AUTHOR, "THE PRESIDENTIAL PARDON" AND PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW: The pardon power is being used for
political purposes in ways that, you know, would have been unfathomable at the founding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "The Presidential Pardon." Is it entering a dangerous new phase? Professor Sai Prakash tells Walter Isaacson about his deep dive into
the troubled history of the constitutional clause.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in Washington, D.C., sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
So, are we one step closer to peace in Ukraine? After two days of negotiations between the U.S., Ukraine and Europe, there certainly seems to
be optimism in the air. U.S. officials say they've made significant progress on 90 percent of the disagreements between Kyiv and the Kremlin.
Most importantly, a strong NATO-like security guarantee against future Russian aggression. But with a caution that the offer won't be on the table
forever. And still, some of the most significant sticking points remain, like the dispute over the Donbas. Russia continues to demand the entire
territory which for Ukraine has been a red line.
Now, the new proposal goes back to the Kremlin. But is a steadfast President Putin, really ready to accept the terms? And just how prepared is
the U.S. to convince him? Kurt Volker is the former U.S. ambassador to NATO who served as special envoy to Ukraine during President Trump's first term.
And he joins me now also from Washington, D.C.
Kurt, it's good to see you. So, significant gains have been made thus far. It seems as if momentum is moving in the right direction. That is what
we're hearing from Ukrainian officials and Americans following this meeting over the weekend. President Zelenskyy even saying that Ukraine is willing
to forego NATO membership for now if it gets strong security guarantees from the United States, not willing to cede territory at this point that
Ukraine still controls.
From your perspective, is the United States right to say that they are 90 percent there in terms of reaching a deal?
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND FORMER U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO UKRAINE: Well, I don't see any basis for saying that, to
be honest, because we have never heard from Russia that they are prepared to end the war. And in fact, everything we hear from Russia is the
opposite, that they want all of the Donbas. They also want all of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. They want to roll back NATO to pre-1997
enlargement. They want to control the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant by themselves. So, there's been no give whatsoever from Putin or from Russia
that we have heard.
Now, maybe there are things happening in private channels between the White House and the Kremlin that we don't know, but everything we've heard
publicly stated by Russia indicates that they have not moved at all. What's good about these talks is it is getting the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe much
more closely aligned so that we have a common idea about what a peace should look like. But there's no reason that I can see to believe that
Russia is going to move.
GOLODRYGA: And at the same time, you have European officials, including the NATO Secretary General, warning just last week that Russia, that
Vladimir Putin, won't stop at Ukraine, especially if Ukraine is forced to accept a deal that is not fair to the country.
[13:05:00]
So, it does seem, on the one hand, you've got a couple of voices, being the United States and Ukraine, perhaps saying that they're moving closer to a
potential deal, whereas European officials seem increasingly alarmed.
VOLKER: Well, it depends on the contours of the deal, because if it is a deal that rewards aggression, that actually recognizes Russian conquests of
Ukrainian territory, that's something that is going to be a concern for European leaders, because it will whet the appetite for Putin to do it
again. And there are plenty of other countries in Europe, other than Ukraine, that also were part of a Russian empire at one point that feel
very, very vulnerable in a situation where Russia is being rewarded for aggression.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, we have Finland warning that even if a deal is struck now, that Russia will simply shift forces towards NATO's border. How big of a
risk do you think that is? Is Vladimir Putin really sensing weakness here in the United States, stepping up and honoring Article 5 of NATO, saying
that an attack on one is an attack on all?
VOLKER: Yes. Well, you know, he has never tested that before. Let's hope that he still believes that the United States is committed to defense
together with NATO allies of all NATO territory. But that includes, as you say, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland. These are all countries
with territories that Russia would love to take or to reclaim for Russia. And we have to demonstrate resolve.
Now, one of the things in these talks this week is the idea of U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine. This is a very good thing. I think it's
realistic of Zelenskyy to say not NATO now, perhaps later someday, but not now. But there have to be security guarantees that are equivalent to NATO
in terms of how serious they are, the commitments that they represent, so that Putin takes them seriously.
GOLODRYGA: Do you have a sense that we have any more details on what those security guarantees would entail and how long they would be on the table
for Ukraine?
VOLKER: Well, it's puzzling when you hear the U.S. position that they're on the table now and there are serious security guarantees, but they're not
there forever. Well, if the U.S. and Ukraine and our European allies are all on the same page here, and Putin is the one rejecting peace, why would
we be pulling those security guarantees off the table again? It's all -- they're there because we need to reestablish deterrence in Europe. That's
the whole point. So, I don't see the logic in that.
But that being said, what I've seen from news reports, you know, there's no one speaking directly about the contents. But the news reports indicate
that they are very serious and indeed that President Trump would submit them to the Senate for ratification to make them really binding as a U.S.
security commitment, which is a very good step if we get to that point.
GOLODRYGA: And are you getting the sense that this would happen simultaneously with the United States, at least under President Trump,
continuing to sell weapons to Europe for Ukraine?
VOLKER: Yes, that's my impression. Yes, I've not heard anyone suggest that the U.S. would not sell weapons and ammunition for use by Ukraine.
President Trump has obviously taken this away from a foreign military assistance framework. It's no longer charitable giving. It is selling. And
I think in that framework, this is good for U.S. defense industry. It's something that President Trump has supported until now. And I would think
that that would continue.
And indeed, if we get a ceasefire in Ukraine, which is, I think, the best that we can hope for is just a ceasefire, we would need to continue to
support Ukraine so that we do establish deterrence against future Russian attacks again.
GOLODRYGA: There is a sense among many European leaders, and I think that was confirmed from what many viewed as an alarming national security
strategy, one that we haven't seen in decades from the United States, that seems to chastise and criticize Europe more than view Russia as a strategic
threat. In fact, the language was that the goal was to reestablish strategic stability with Russia once the war in Ukraine ends.
From the perspective of Europeans and their agency here, having a seat at the table, talk about the significance of the decision that is expected to
be made this week, finally, about what to do with the $250 billion of frozen Russian assets and whether they will ultimately agree to use that as
a loan for Ukraine over the next couple of years.
VOLKER: Sure. Well, Europe has been inching toward this very, very slowly. They have frozen these assets for a long time, but they've not seized them,
and they have not been able to find a mechanism for providing them for Ukraine.
[13:10:00]
What they are now positing is that there will be reparations for Ukraine at some point based on Russia's aggression, and they would give Ukraine a loan
with these assets as collateral to advance that payment to Ukraine so that it can be used now, and then when reparations are paid, basically they
would be those assets that have already been used. So, it's a device that they are trying to get to.
The European Union is not in full agreement on this. There are a couple of countries in the E.U. that are not in favor, so they are still trying to do
the diplomatic work in the corridors to see if they can get a critical mass of countries that have the votes to do this through something called
qualified majority voting. If they can get enough votes there to push this through, then I think that can happen this week.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and another wrinkle here is the United States potentially wanting to utilize this money in a different venue than how the Europeans
had been hoping to, and that is offering a loan to Ukraine. We will continue to see an important week here in Europe for sure. Kurt Volker,
thank you so much.
VOLKER: Pleasure, Bianna. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, for the Ukrainian people, a deal couldn't feel further away. Russian drone and missile attacks have plunged large parts of the
country into frequent cold and darkness. Addressing the Dutch parliament earlier today, President Zelenskyy warned his allies not to forget that
winter can become one of Russia's most dangerous weapons.
Let's bring in Tymofiy Mylovanov, Ukraine's former Minister of Economic Development and the President of Kyiv School of Economics. It is good to
see you again, Tymofiy.
The last time we spoke, you were cautiously optimistic. You did not view Russia as being in a position, at least as of the last few weeks, of
sabotaging a potential deal. After this weekend's talks, and President Zelenskyy saying that at least for now we can remove Ukraine joining NATO
as a provision here, are you more optimistic or less?
TYMOFIY MYLOVANOV, PRESIDENT, KYIV SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND FORMER UKRAINIAN ECONOMY MINISTER: Yes, I'm more optimistic. I'm still cautious. But I
think that's what's happening is packaging, really. Ukraine is saying, listen, OK, no NATO, good, comma, but give us something equivalent to NATO.
In some sense, it doesn't really matter to Ukraine if it's NATO or not, as long as it has security guarantees. That's what it really needs.
And so, it's all about whether the United States and Europe can provide Ukraine and themselves with this structure, not just statements, but with
the funding allocated, operational infrastructure to guarantee and implement and execute those guarantees in case something happens.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, we've heard nothing from the Russians. You remain optimistic, but you know there are those that say Russia and the Kremlin
sense that the pressure is coming from President Trump, mostly directed at one party, and that is President Zelenskyy. So, why should Russia give in
on anything at this point? What is your response to that argument?
MYLOVANOV: Well, I absolutely agree. So, what we have seen that in the beginning, in fact, they argued quite strongly that the United States,
unfortunately for Ukraine, uses mostly leverage against Ukraine while it's trying to use both stick and carrot with respect to Russia. And it's very
deeply unfair and disturbing. But I think the situation is changing somewhat. The United States is now talking about security guarantees for
Ukraine, but also funding for reconstruction, and it's taking some much more specific role.
On the part of Russia, I think essentially their offer is take it or leave it offer. They might be willing to move a little bit in terms of packaging
of the deal, of perceptions of public appearance. But I think they are happy to be either way, unfortunately, you know, to continue to have this
meat grinder in Donbas or stop for a while, for several years, maybe five, six years, and then see what happens next.
GOLODRYGA: So, President Zelenskyy has said while he may be willing to concede NATO membership for now, what he can't concede is territory, at
least territory that Ukraine continues to hold. He says it's not a moral decision that he can make, and it's also not a legal one that he can make
as well. What is your view and what are most Ukrainians view on this? What would happen if President Zelenskyy agreed to give land that Ukraine
continues to control?
MYLOVANOV: He cannot. The constitution prohibits him from that. It's not up to the president, not even to the parliament. For the parliament to
change the constitution, it will have to be two sessions. Most likely there'll be election in between. That means it's going to take a year.
[13:15:00]
So, we have seen that in the past, in 2014, 2016, through Minsk agreements, there have been agreements to change something in constitution and that has
never worked. So, that essentially is the problem. Even if Ukraine agrees to something, to change something in the constitution, to give up territory
legally, I think it won't be able to deliver that. So, I think the only option is actual ceasefire, some kind of demilitarized territory,
observers, kill zones, what not. It still is possible to find a compromise, but it's really, really difficult.
GOLODRYGA: You've also warned against what had been a demand from Russia as well, and that was significant troop reduction from Ukraine. Zelenskyy
had pushed back against that as well. Ultimately, what is the number that you think most Ukrainians would feel comfortable with if they agreed to
some reduction, but not obviously to the extent that the Kremlin had been demanding?
MYLOVANOV: Well, there are two points here. One is basically sovereignty in the constitution. No agreement can supersede the constitution and put
limits on military forces on the ability to defend itself. So, we have a similar legal problem and in substance, the similar problem that this is
really an independence war and it's all about sovereignty of Ukraine.
But if we put that aside and speak pragmatically, what is the amount or number of troops? I think what I have heard from people, it's closer to the
million of active-duty people who are combat ready. Something on par with what Russia is now having at the borders of Ukraine, at the front line, so
that Ukraine can continue to defend itself.
GOLODRYGA: Given your focus and expertise on economic policy, I'm just wondering if there's any frustration or what your views are on the fact
that now for nearly four years, you still have debate and indecisiveness among European leaders about what to do with the $250 billion worth of
frozen Russian assets. Is it your view that that money should have gone or should go to Ukraine as a loan over the next couple of years and only be
repaid if Russia pays reparations or not? Because there are some conflicting views from how the Americans view that money should be spent.
MYLOVANOV: Well, so Americans, of course, want to control how this money is spent, but they don't have a choice. They don't have jurisdiction over
that. And there's some irony, which is not lost on anyone following the situation, Russians actually moved this funding, this money out of the
United States, fearing that the U.S. will be a little bit stricter and tougher on them than Europe. And it turned out that Europe is actually the
one who are putting their foot down. So, that's interesting.
And then, I am supporting the view that the money should go to Ukraine. They should have gone a long time ago. And in fact, this is an example of
weak leadership, indecisiveness and problems with coordination, which frankly, Russia exploits with respect to Europe. And until we get Europe to
be more coordinated and more decisive, we cannot talk about any strategic stability with respect to Russia and Europe.
GOLODRYGA: And are you optimistic that Europe will, in fact, become more coordinated and decisive?
MYLOVANOV: I think -- unfortunately not. I think something has to happen to Europe for Europe to truly wake up. You know, I think politicians are
awake, military, they are awake, intelligence services are awake. But the general public, you know, they -- at least in some countries, a substantive
part of Europe are simply in denial about the real threat Russia presents. And something much more significant, unfortunately, in my view, will happen
to Europe before Europe becomes serious about deterring Russia.
GOLODRYGA: We have two conflicting assessments here. Last week, the national security strategy released by the United States says that one of
their goals is to reestablish strategic stability with Russia while also focusing more on the Western Hemisphere. The U.K. threat assessment is that
Russia will continue to try to destabilize Europe.
So, my final question to you is, if it is security guarantees and at least a freeze in the conflict, how convinced and how confident are you that
those guarantees will be followed through if Russia does, in fact, re- invade Ukraine? We know what happened in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the U.K.
MYLOVANOV: I am not confident at all. It will all depend on the operational structure, you know, will there be command? Will there be
coordination? Will there be stockpiles? Will there be funded -- funding pre-allocated, you know, military trained, all kinds of things because
otherwise it's all theory. But I also think, you know, that the U.S. also will change their view over time back to more classic Reagan-ist policy,
unfortunately, and Russia will convince them to do so.
[13:20:00]
And finally, I think that, you know, even if the security guarantees are not going to be in place in the sense that they would be promised, the
reality of the next invasion of Russia, the response from Europe and from the United States will be so much stronger than this time then it'll be, in
many ways, sufficient to help Ukraine to survive and exist as a sovereign nation.
GOLODRYGA: Tymofiy Mylovanov, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you for the time. And do stay with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, our next guest is a Palestinian with an Israeli passport, at least that's how his father describes him, raised by Arab Christian
parents and now raising his own Jewish children in Berlin. It was straddling these multiple identities that inspired actor Yousef Sweid to
bring his life story to the stage and his provocatively titled one man play "Between the River and the Sea" was born.
It's already impressed audiences in Edinburgh and Berlin. And this week, will take on New York under a different title, "River and Sea." Yousef
joins me now alongside his longtime collaborator, the plays co-writer and director Isabella Sedlak. Welcome both of you.
I have to say, Yousef, I really enjoyed this play and I hope you don't take it wrong, watching it I didn't think I was actually in a play, it was as if
I was some companion alongside with you or perhaps a voyeur as you were with someone else, having coffee with you and learning about your life.
You opened the show by promising that you're not going to talk about politics or the war, you're just going to talk about your divorce, and the
audience laughs, and it's almost as if there was a collective sigh of relief about what was going to be in store for them. Just talk about
opening the idea for opening the play that way.
YOUSEF SWEID, ACTOR AND PLAYWRIGHT, "BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE SEA": Well, first of all, because we didn't want it to be so politic, like talk about
politics, mostly to invite the guests to see a private show, and especially because of the name, Between the River and the Sea," describing my life
between two narratives, two nations, two stories, two cultures.
So, we kind of -- in the beginning, we tell the audience, listen, you can say whatever you want. You can demonstrate. We are open to anything, but
just so you know, you don't even need to do that because we're -- I'm just going to talk about my life. And of course, in my life, there is this
complexity, there is the combination of all those stories altogether.
And the proof to that is just in the premier came so many people from different countries. We had Syrian people, Iranian, Israelis, Jews, Arabs,
Russians, Ukrainians from everywhere, and they all sat down, cried and laughed, and we felt that we are doing something special.
GOLODRYGA: Right. Because, of course, where you come from, your background, your story, you can't tell it without politics seeping in, but
you do it in a natural way that's not forced upon the audience, and that does present a level of comfort for them.
Isabella, the question of why now? What drew you to this play? What made you want to partner with Yousef and tell it the way you did?
ISABELLA SEDLAK, PLAYWRIGHT AND DIRECTOR, "BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE SEA": Oh, well, Yousef asked me if I would be up for developing a play about his
life story.
[13:25:00]
And I know that he's very -- he chooses very well when and how and under which circumstances he wants to say anything about his life story because
knowing that everything becomes a political issue, marrying a Jewish wife as a Palestinian-Israeli is not just a private choice, but suddenly. it's a
political issue.
And so, he asked me and I immediately said, yes. Because we've been collaborators for years and we love to work with each other. And only later
on I thought like, oof, what did I get myself into? This is a huge topic. And it could -- anything could happen. And also, the theater was very
nervous about also like the reactions of audiences or also in Berlin, the political situation.
But we were very happy to understand that we actually managed to create something that made people be able to sit together and to actually spend
those 60 minutes together in a space. And, yes. And listen, and listen to the complexities and listen also to the nuances and to the chaos that human
identities and biographies bring because nothing is so linear.
And Yousef's biography -- I mean, you call it your beautiful chaos also sometimes, it is -- it shows that many things don't go along the lines,
that some people might want to present us as normal. Not at all.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Marrying a Jewish woman, we should say, not once, but twice. And as the play opens --
SWEID: Two. Yes.
GOLODRYGA: As the play opens, Yousef, you are talking about an upcoming meeting with a therapist because your second, soon to be ex-wife would like
to take your daughter. You have two children, a boy and a girl, and your second wife would like to take your daughter back to Israel, and thus, you
are objecting. You would like to keep them in Germany with you.
It is interesting how names recur throughout the performance. You become Yossi to fit in. You went to a kindergarten, both a Jewish kindergarten and
an Arab kindergarten. Your father Sliman becomes Shlomo. You ease back and forth between Hebrew and Arabic. So, let me ask you, what is your dominant
language? Like what language do you think in?
I was born in the Soviet Union. I came to the U.S. as a small child. Russian was officially the first language I learned, but I for sure think
in English. It seems like you go back and forth so quickly. I can't figure out what it is you think in.
SWEID: Well, that's -- sometimes people ask me which language I dream in. And it's hard for me to answer. I don't remember, actually, I really don't
remember because I was -- in kindergarten Jewish schools, and then I moved to Arab schools and my parents spoke Arabic. My best friend spoke Hebrew.
And so, I really don't know. I'm very confused -- I'm not confused. I -- like, back then I used to consider myself confused on losing my identity,
but today, I understand that I didn't lost it. I actually gained many identities and by speaking also Hebrew fluently and also Arabic fluently in
today, English and German a little bit. So, I feel I got a gift.
And also, my children, you know, sometime people look at them, it's like, oh, this mixed identity. It's probably hard. No, it's -- for them, it's a
gift. Like my son says, I am everything and nothing at the same time. And for me it's like -- it touches my heart. I feel I did something right in a
way.
SEDLAK: And I don't know if you remember, there is a scene in the play also where he's talking to his sister in Arabic and his son in Hebrew and
his smaller daughter in English.
SWEID: In English.
SEDLAK: And this is actually like the home situation that I also know when I hang out with the family, that it switches all the time. And there is not
one language. There's multiple.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we have a clip from the play where your son is on the phone with a girl who has a crush on him back in Israel and asks him the
question that you just described for our viewers. You get asked all the time. Your kids get asked all the time. It seems to be very easy for you
and your son to know who you are, but maybe not so much for the other people in your life. Let's play a clip from the play.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SWEID: Hey, (INAUDIBLE). You know that they canceled school tomorrow because there's bombs alert. Do you have schools in Berlin? I don't know. I
think so. Yes. Yes. Wow, that's so scary. I hope you don't have Arabs at your school. I don't know. I don't know if we have Arabs socially.
(INAUDIBLE), you are an Arab. I am. I forgot. What do you mean, you're an Arab, but you're Israeli? Yes, yes. I am Israeli. And you are also
Palestinian?
[13:30:00]
What? What do you mean Palestinian? Are you Hamas? Abba, are we Hamas? Are you crazy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. First of all, I want to know what your son thinks of that. I mean, I think that's sort of the universal. I have almost a teenager, I
guess a teenager, and it's the same. The voice drops, like, I'm too cool to even speak more than one sentence at a time. So, you depict that perfectly.
But obviously, there's so much more nuance there. Just talk about the conversations that you've had with your son and your younger daughter about
their background, about who they are, and some of the questions that they're asked, the uncomfortable ones especially.
SWEID: Well, with my daughter, I don't speak yet. She's six. So, I'm not into the identity complexity yet because I had to face it when I was four,
and for me it was too early to be an Arab boy in a Jewish school. But for my son, actually, after October 7th and when the war started, he started
asking questions for the first time. He wanted to know not about his identity but more about what's going on, because in school they talk about
Ukraine and Russia, but they don't talk about Palestine and Israel because it's so sensitive. And I was angry at the beginning, but then I thought,
who will talk to them? Like, I don't trust anyone.
And then we started having conversations. And of course, being half Jewish, half Israeli, he has also Austrian passport. So, he asked me, so I told
him, you know, as a Jewish Israeli, you have to serve in the army at one point. And he said, like, wait, if I'll serve in the Israeli army, who
should I fight against? Against myself? And I was like looking at him, like, oh, my God. OK, let's talk about it.
And it was amazing. This answer was like, it blowed my mind how he understands the situation so well, better than anyone. And of course, we
felt we have something very powerful that we want to dig in. And Isabella was the first one to see it and told me, listen, instead of just talking to
your son, talk to everyone.
I felt humble. And it's like, what? Nobody will be interested in my story. But apparently, there is. There is interest. Because I feel like people --
GOLODRYGA: Yes, I just want to say, Isabella, speak to that. Speak to what you saw in maybe some of the hesitation or resistance that Yousef initially
may have had about going there, that you said, you know what, no, you need to and this is what the audience should be saying.
SEDLAK: Well, I think like the resistance was clearly, I'm going to be hated by everyone. Like that was -- like, nobody will like what I say,
either one side or the other side, or everybody will be unhappy with whatever I say was Yousef's position, because I'm basically alone with my
position, because it's so specific and I cannot choose a side. And this not choosing a side somehow started to create a third narrative beyond the two
narratives that we -- that like I heard, but also then we started to research and we found more people like Palestinian-Israelis who have
started to voice their perspectives or their narratives. And Yousef also said like, oh, that's the first time that I feel I'm not the only one kind
of in this situation.
And now, the experience with the show is that a lot of people are approaching us after the show sometimes who also come from completely
different backgrounds. I mean, basically, you can be in between at your Christmas family dinner because your family has such hardcore different
political positions. But there are also people, for example, from Jewish, Russian backgrounds who work in Egypt who approached me once and like
really different stories. And it's beautiful to feel that there is this kind of there is no position becomes somehow a new position where more
people can participate in a way. Yes. So, this is something that I'm very happy about whenever people come.
GOLODRYGA: But you're able to do is you're able to actually have an honest conversation where perhaps and I would imagine this is some of the feedback
that you're getting from audience members, that it feels more trustworthy, that you don't have a dog in this fight because you're invested on in all
sides. So, there does seem to be more of an independent, you know, a political view here from everybody in your life, whether it's your parents,
your ex-wives and obviously yourself and your children.
And you said you've never really cared much about identity until you were forced to choose a side and you go through your life in this play where
there were instances where you were choose to force or you were put in a position that you were very uncomfortable with, even with your own friends.
[13:35:00]
But all of that culminated on October 7th, where you had friends, both a Jewish friend that you grew up with and a Palestinian friend who were
essentially telling you, choose a side. And here's a clip from those powerful emotional exchanges for our viewers to see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SWEID: Yousef, why don't you say what you think? Are you afraid? No. Well, maybe I am. I know you're going through shit now, and I just want to be
there for you. But when you saw what those monsters did, how can anyone stand by their side?
Listen, I don't think it's a matter of science. I just wish I could see you and hug you. Yes, that's very sweet. You're always trying to be sweet,
Yousef.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Yousef, draw a through line from that exchange that we just saw to the provocative title of the play itself, "Between the River and the
Sea."
SWEID: The thing is, I'll tell you what, I think that that was the peak of my experience feeling really depressed in this moment -- these moments
where my friends started to leave me because I felt that it's happening to everyone around me, not just Palestinians and Israelis, but everyone, that
this political situation or this tragedy or this conflict concerned them around the world. And sometimes just a change in your mind or a different
perspective that you have could lead that your friend would leave you.
And people really left each other, like friends really separated just because of this conflict. I mean, just, I mean, it's a big conflict, but
still like from little things. And for me, it was really my best friends. The people that I love are starting just because I said, you know, I still
believe in peace. I still believe we should talk to each other. I still believe that there is a chance. And they couldn't stand it. It's like, how
could you look at the other side and see them as human beings?
You know, and for me, it was shocking. It was in the beginning very sad because I felt, you know, they went through tragedies that I never went
before and I can understand them, but at the same time, why are you pushing me away? I mean, it felt really, really weird.
Until today, I don't have an explanation for that. I accept it, but at the same time, for me, it's tragic. I mean, I don't know. That's one of the
reasons we did this play.
GOLODRYGA: And that comes across, your authenticity, the fact that you can tell both of them, I feel your pain and really mean it. You made me think.
You made me laugh. You made me get emotional. This is a play that I think a lot of people would view as something that everyone should see. It's very
provocative. It's very thoughtful. And it's very original. Yousef Sweid, Isabella Sedlak, thank you for joining us. Really appreciate the time.
SWEID: Thank you very much.
SEDLAK: Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, next to the use of executive power. The presidential pardon has long been a clause in the Constitution, but with 11 elected
American officials receiving clemency from Trump this year, is it being misused? Professor Sai Prakash speaks to Walter Isaacson about this,
detailed in his new book.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Professor Sai Prakash, welcome to the show.
SAIKRISHNA PRAKASH, AUTHOR, "THE PRESIDENTIAL PARDON" AND PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW: It's a pleasure to be with you here
today.
ISAACSON: You've got your new book, it's called "The Presidential Pardon: The Short Clause with a Long, Troubled History." Let's begin with the
history. How did it begin?
PRAKASH: Well, as you know, Walter, this pardon power, you know, exists in many different civilizations, but our pardon power mostly comes from the
Brits. As colonies, you know, we benefited from the pardon power. And then when they created a new -- you know, when they declared independence, the
states exercised some bit of pardon power, as did the Continental Congress.
When they got to the Philadelphia Convention, they decided that there needed to be a pardon power at the federal level, in part because many
criminal laws were too harsh, and they saw a need to reduce that harshness through the pardon power. And so, that's why we have a pardon power in the
federal Constitution.
ISAACSON: I think Alexander Hamilton defends it in the Federalist Papers and even gets into a bit of an argument with George Mason down in Virginia,
where they have it different on impeachment. Explain those arguments.
PRAKASH: So, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists is defending the Constitution. It actually turns out that at the convention, he did not want
to have the president have the power to pardon treason. But when he's talking about the Constitution, you know, as Publius, his job is to defend
the Constitution as it is. And his discussion in the Federalist is somewhat nuanced because he doesn't say that there aren't any potential issues with
the breadth of the pardon power. He admits that there are, but he says on balance, it's better to give the president an unfettered power because if
you fetter it, you're making it more difficult to give pardons, especially in cases of rebellion. He talks about that at great length.
So, he's -- you know, he sees the wisdom of giving the president a broad pardon power, but we don't really know what he thinks because what we're
seeing is a -- you know, a bit of advocacy on his part. The game is to try to get the Constitution ratified. And of course, he and others are
successful.
ISAACSON: So, you talk about rebellion and that they needed it in cases of rebellion to try to bring the country together. And so, George Washington
does that with the Whiskey Rebellion, a pretty wild, treasonous thing. Two people convicted for death. And then Alexander Hamilton is kind of shocked
that he does that, right?
PRAKASH: Well, as -- you're right, that there's people in western Pennsylvania that don't want to pay a tax on whiskey and they tar and
feather collectors and they obstruct the -- you know, the U.S. marshal from enforcing the law by ordinary means and Washington sends state militias.
And one of the tools he uses is lay down your arms, become peaceable again, and you'll get a pardon. And so, that's the first sort of mass pardon under
the Constitution.
And you're right that some federalists are dismayed because they want a crackdown to prevent rebellions going forward. And, you know, it turns out
that there is another rebellion in Pennsylvania several years later under the Addis administration. You know, was it a result of the mercy shown by
Washington? It's hard to say.
You know, we've had a number of rebellions. We had the Civil War and there was no rebellion after that. But certainly, Hamilton and I guess Washington
proved that a well-timed offer of pardon could lead to a pacification of the populace, because sometimes people start a rebellion and then they come
to their senses or they decide it's not such a good idea. And a pardon makes them -- you know, gives them confidence that if they lay down their
arms, they're not going to be executed for having taken them up in the first instance.
ISAACSON: Well, of course, that has echoes today with the January 6 insurrection and Trump giving a pardon all the way through. How is that
different?
PRAKASH: Well, it -- you know, I think what's going on today, Walter, is that the pardon power is being used for political purposes in ways that,
you know, would have been unfathomable at the founding. The book talks about how many different pardons by many different presidents were
perceived as partisan or political, meaning they were perceived as advancing the interests of the incumbent. And that's happened repeatedly.
But the kinds of pardons we're seeing now, both to prevent prosecutions, but also to undo prosecutions, I think is fairly unprecedented, right?
[13:45:00]
On January 19th, you have President Biden pardoning a bunch of folks who he thought might be prosecuted by President Trump. And then President Trump
comes into office and undoes, you know, the prosecutions related to January 6th.
And then on top of that, we have the -- you know, the prospect of candidates for -- the president promising pardons as a means of getting
elected, which we haven't seen before. I think the first time we saw it was Joe Biden and marijuana. And of course, Trump explicitly campaigned on a
promise of pardons to folks related to January 6th. And I think we're going to see this going forward where presidents or candidates run for office
saying, I will pardon some group and thereby hope to gather votes from people who are sympathetic to that group.
ISAACSON: One of the controversial pardons was when President Clinton pardoned the billionaire convicted financier Marc Rich. Is this part of
sort of a downward spiral or just ratcheting badly of the abuses of the pardon power?
PRAKASH: I very much think so, Walter. Marc Rich was pardoned by Clinton on the last day of his presidential term and there was a firestorm that
resulted in congressional investigations and a U.S. attorney investigation. And there was a bipartisan sense that this was wrong, that the people
should not get pardons if they contribute to the president's library or if their spouses or ex-spouses contribute to the president's library or
campaign.
This was such a powerful sense that when George W. Bush tried to pardon Isaac Toucey, they kind of revoked the pardon after the fact. But now I
think we've kind of, you know, gone off the deep end. President Trump is pardoning many, many contributors. And there are some voices criticizing
that. But I think they're rather muted. And I think they haven't really affected the president's incentives.
I've seen the president showing no hesitation to pardon those who have contributed to his campaign or his Super PAC. And I wonder whether that
taboo has been utterly broken by this president, meaning to say the next president might be willing to pardon contributors on the sense that, well,
why shouldn't contributors also be able to get a pardon? Why should they be disabled from getting the pardon? They should be able to get a pardon like
anybody else. And then you might suspect that people who contribute are more likely to get a pardon because they're more likely to get the
president's attention.
ISAACSON: Tell me about the Trump pardons to contributors and others, which one bothers which ones bother you the most?
PRAKASH: Well, I mean, I think they're all kind of troubling. What I would say is that there are lots of -- you know, what's going on now, Walter, is
people are facing millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of fines and they're getting a pardon, which not only absolves them of guilt, but also
erases those fines, which has a rather huge effect on the Treasury.
And if you are someone who's a billionaire or a multimillionaire, you can see why you would pay, you know, why you would donate to a campaign or pay
a lobbyist several million dollars thinking that you might avoid a hundred million or a 200 million or even a 500 million dollar fine. It makes
economic sense, right, from a purely cost benefit analysis to spend that money, to donate to the president's Super PAC or to hire an expensive
lobbyist because you're avoiding such a huge fine.
And so, I think we're going to see more people donating to the president's Super PAC or doing business with the president or, you know, donating to a
presidential campaign in the hopes of getting a pardon because, again, that taboo is broken. And from their point of view, if they can avoid two or
three years of jail time and or hundreds of million dollars of fine fines with $20 or $30 million, that's a very good investment.
ISAACSON: One of the things that President Biden did, former President Biden, besides giving a pardon to a son who had been charged with a crime,
he pardoned people preemptively, such as General Milley or Dr. Anthony Fauci, who had not been charged with anything. Members of the House
committee hadn't been charged. Was that a new move on the pardon?
PRAKASH: No, that's always been a possibility. Go back to the rebellion example. When you pardon rebels, you're not saying we're going to prosecute
you, convict you and then give you a pardon. You're saying, if you lay down your arms now, you won't be prosecuted. Here is a pardon, right?
So, you're often going to make a pardon before the before any prosecution in order to, you know, avoid that prosecution. And, you know, I think
President Biden thought these people were innocent, that they were likely to be targeted by President Trump. And so, he pardoned them preemptively.
[13:50:00]
And whether one thinks that's a good idea or not, turns on whether one thinks these folks committed crimes that ought to be prosecuted. Obviously,
President Trump and his allies did think that. But when President Trump leaves office, I suspect he's going to do something similar to his allies.
He's going to pardon them to prevent a Democratic administration from prosecuting them. And then a different set of people will feel rather
aggrieved by that because they will feel like the president is pardoning his allies, some of whom committed crimes. And it's wrong to give them this
blanket immunity upon leaving office because it sort of incentivizes them to do wrongful things while they're in office.
I mean, in other words, if President Trump's appointees know they're going to be pardoned at the end of his term, they might do all manner of things
that they ought not to do and that they wouldn't do but for this idea of a preemptive pardon at the end of his term.
ISAACSON: You talk about President Trump's pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists, and you say it's going to reverberate in extraordinary,
unprecedented and unforeseen ways. Tell me about that.
PRAKASH: Well, again, I think part of what's going on -- so the first thing we need to remember is that President Trump ran on giving them a
pardon. Now, he -- when he ran for president, you know, the third time, he said he wasn't going to pardon everybody because he said some of those
people were violent offenders. And so, he suggested he was only going to give a pardon to some.
And then when he got into office, I think he decided he didn't want to distinguish the violent offenders from the folks who just wandered into the
into the Capitol. And I think he just wanted to fulfill this promise as soon as possible. And he kind of realized that he would face continuing
pressure to pardon them, even if he didn't pardon them at the outset. So, he just sort of decided to cut the Gordian knot, so to speak, and pardon
them all.
But I think what -- you know, what you might suspect is that going forward, presidents are going to run for office promising to pardon their allies,
their political allies, their partisan allies, and hoping to secure their votes, hoping to secure their enthusiasm for their candidacy. And, you
know, it turns out that sometimes partisans are guilty of crimes, right? It's not as if every partisan is -- you know, is spotless and, you know,
innocent of crimes.
And so, I don't think we should be using the pardon power to reward our political allies and to secure votes, right, which is kind of what's going
on in the past two administrations. So, I -- but I do think this is what, you know, is going to come going -- this is what's going to happen going
forward, right?
Because unlike many of the promises the president makes, a candidate makes when running for president, this is a promise that the president can
actually fulfill, right? The president does not need to go to Congress to pardon people and there's no judicial review or very little judicial review
of these pardons, right? Meaning that the president has unfettered discretion to satisfy or to meet his campaign promises, which makes it a
very attractive promise to make and it makes it a very attractive promise to fulfill.
ISAACSON: Short of a constitutional amendment rewriting this famous clause, is there anything that can be done? Any guardrails that can be put
in?
PRAKASH: I think the American people can vote for candidates who promise to be more circumspect in granting pardons, who promise to follow a
practice of listening to people who have reviewed these applications in great detail.
Right now, and at the end of every administration for the last several administrations, presidents are acting at the behest of lobbyists to a
greater degree than they're acting at the request of experts who have reviewed these applications. And so, if presidents would sort of revert to
some sort of more normal process of having experts review these applications and then pledging to act upon only those applications that
experts have vetted, then I think people would have greater confidence in the pardon process.
If they perceive that pardons are being promised to get votes, and if they perceive that pardons are being given to contributors, then I can see very
little reason why you should feel very confident about this process, because it seems to favor the rich and the wealthy and the connected more
than the average person who might have committed a crime in the past, but has led an exemplary life in prison or out of prison and therefore might
merit a pardon.
ISAACSON: Professor Sai Prakash, thank you so much for joining us.
PRAKASH: It's been my honor and pleasure. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, one cannot have too large a party. That's a quote from Jane Austen's "Emma." And two, she was right there, especially when
celebrating the 18th century writer whose 250th birthday would have been today.
[13:55:00]
Thousands flocked to Bath where Austen had lived to mark the occasion earlier this year, dressing up for a Regency themed promenade. The author's
novels have provided comfort and inspiration to many across the globe and have been adapted into numerous films and TV shows, including the 1995 BBC
adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice," where Colin Firth, as Mr. Darcy, takes a plunge in the lake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It's a scene that was so iconic that his shirt was on display in Jane Austen's house in Chatham, England. Wow.
Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from Washington, D.C.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
