Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.S. Central Command Former Director of Operations Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan (Ret.); Interview with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Karim Sadjadpour; Interview with "Mr. Nobody Against Putin" Co-Director David Borenstein; Interview with Georgetown University Law Center Professor of Law Stephen Vladeck. Aired 1- 2p ET
Aired January 29, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: There's another beautiful armada floating beautifully toward Iran right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump hands Tehran a choice, make a nuclear deal or face an attack far worse than the last. Retired Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan breaks
down America's military options.
And weeks after a deadly crackdown on citizens, has the regime crossed the point of no return? I ask Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'll use my camera to film the abyss this school is sinking into. It's the perfect cover.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a fearless peek at pro-war propaganda in Russian classrooms. I speak to co-director David Borenstein about his Oscar-nominated
documentary, "Mr. Nobody Against Putin."
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN VLADECK, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER: You want, you know, federal officers to have the sense that the Constitution is
a line they ought not to cross, that there are rules that bind them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- in the wake of the Minneapolis shootings, many Americans demand answers and accountability. Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck
tells Hari Sreenivasan about the possible paths to justice.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Is time running out for Iran? President Trump has sent a clear message, agree to a deal that results in no nuclear weapons, or America will carry
out an attack worse than the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities last summer.
And with the U.S. moving its military forces into the region, Trump appears to be setting the stage for another attack. In response, Iran says its
armed forces are ready with their fingers, quote, "on the trigger." While a key adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warns that Israel will be
targeted if an attack goes ahead.
Now, this comes at a pivotal moment for Iran. Thousands were killed in the latest government crackdown. The economy is in crisis. And the
Revolutionary Guard is now facing international sanctions. So, with sources saying he may be trying to inspire regime change, will Trump be tempted to
strike while the iron is hot, or will he heed Iran's warnings about the risks of provoking a regional war?
Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan is a veteran military planner who served as director of operations for U.S. Central Command, which includes the Middle
East. He joins me now to break down the options on Trump's table. Kevin, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate the time.
So, as we noted, the U.S. has amassed a significant military presence in the region. What the president has described as an armada is now in place.
They're currently consisting of roughly 10 warships, a surge of advanced aerial and missile defense assets. And the president, in addition to
demanding concessions on Iran's nuclear program, is now moving on to its proxy programs and ballistic missile programs as well. It appears that
talks are not going well with Iran on all three fronts.
So, I know you said there's no crystal ball in front of you in terms of what the U.S. will ultimately do. But given this massive presence, given
the president's rhetoric, given his past actions, do you think a kinetic strike is now likely?
VICE ADM. KEVIN DONEGAN (RET.), FORMER DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Well, Bianna, thanks for having me on. I think the real -- sorry,
I'm getting feedback here. I think --
GOLODRYGA: You know what, if we need to take a quick break so we can work on your technical issues there, no problem. We'll do that. We'll go to a
quick break right now and come back with you.
DONEGAN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Sorry about that. And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to the program. We're going to go back to Kevin Donegan. I believe we have fixed the technical issue there. You're
not getting that feedback. I know how frustrating that can be, Kevin.
But I think you heard my question. And so, in terms of everything that has happened in the last week and a half, we have a massive, as the president
said, armada now in the region. He's ratcheted up his demands against Iran, and we've seen him live up to those words and threats in the past. Do you
think that a kinetic strike is now likely?
DONEGAN: I think that it's likely if the Iranians don't heed the warnings that they've gotten to come to the table and negotiate in a way that will
appease what this administration wants from the Iranians, which, as you know, relates to not moving forward with their nuclear program in terms of
enrichment, but also in terms of not creating the havoc that they have with their other proxy forces in the region.
So, I believe that right now the hands of what happens next is maybe in the hands of the Iranians as opposed to the president, because he's made it
clear for them, come to the table or else. So, the question then is, what will the U.S. do with the military actions? And then what's the aftermath
of that? Those are the critical questions that will remain, because that's the part where there's really not a crystal ball on. What will that U.S.
military actions, what impact will that have on the regime?
GOLODRYGA: Well, these were some of the questions that Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio was asked yesterday when he
testified before the Senate on this very issue. Is a strike likely? And if so, what is the ultimate goal? What is the day after plan? Here's how he
responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it's wise and prudent to have a force posture within the region that could respond and potentially,
not necessarily what's going to happen, but if necessary, preemptively prevent the attack against thousands of American servicemen and other
facilities in the region and our allies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And he also made clear that he doesn't exactly know what the day after would look like and how it would unfold. So, judging by what we
just heard from him, and it was a lengthy testimony, is the U.S. presence there more defensively or is it there for a potential offensive measure and
just prepared perhaps if then Iran responds in kind?
DONEGAN: Yes. What's very clear is the force is postured for both of those. So, what's been put in the region is, you know, you've heard about
the aircraft carrier and you mentioned the other things that have been also put forward. And part of that was additional bolstering of the defense,
because this would be if the U.S. took a military action and expected response from the Iranians.
So, CENTCOM has clearly asked for and gotten the forces they need to both carry on a sustained operation, if that was the order they were given, but
also postured to defend our assets, regions and forces in the region, because both those kinds of forces have been brought forward and bolstered
to allow basically the president to have the option to use the forces and then if he did, to adequately defend our forces in the region. So, both of
those are true, if that makes sense.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And as we already noted, the Iranians have responded that any sort of strike from the United States would then be followed by an
Iranian strike against Israel, this after a 12-day war between Israel and Iran, where Israel did suffer some damage as well, but really degraded a
lot of Iran's not only air defense programs, but its ballistic missiles program.
[13:10:00]
That is also now a key demand from President Trump. It's not just their nuclear program, it's their proxies, which have been degraded over the last
few years after October 7th. And its ballistic missile program. And it seems that Iran does not want to comply with these demands.
So, then that leaves President Trump in a position to have to respond. You have laid out some possible military objectives here. You say it's likely
not regime change. So, is it the regime change? Is it then the IRGC? Is it the ballistic missiles program? What is the most feasible target for the
United States to achieve successfully?
DONEGAN: Well, certainly we don't know exactly what it would be, but what it could entail, of course, is that because a lot of the talk has been on
what the protesters have done. So, the intent would be to go after those that support the protesters -- I mean, that have oppressed the protesters
and spearheaded the operations against the protesters.
That includes the IRGC. It includes -- you know, one option would be to weaken, degrade and destroy as much as possible that internal security
apparatus, it's called the Basij. It's a portion of the IRGC that has carried out these attacks against the protesters, their facilities, their
leadership, their C2, their headquarters.
But paired with that, you know, we would obviously use cyber and psyops to sow confusion. So, their decision making, you know, is degraded. But at the
same time, we'd want to go after those ballistic missiles that can range our regional forces. When Israel took their actions, they did significant
damage to the longer-range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel. But we, as you know, have forces postured closer to Iran. And there are
thousands of missiles, drones, cruise missiles that Iran has that can range those forces.
So, when I said we're postured for defense, part of our offensive operations would likely also be to take out as much of that capability that
Iran has, to blunt their ability to counterattack and then also to have forces to defend against any element that was still able to counterattack.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I believe Israel also did significant damage to the ballistic missile launchers themselves, because without those launchers,
the missiles are Pretti much useless. We did get some pushback from any military operation from the United States, from some of its Gulf allies,
including Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They said that they would not back a U.S. strike and would not provide airspace for the United States to conduct
any sort of strike.
How much of a setback is this, both politically and militarily, for the United States in terms of what they ultimately do?
DONEGAN: Well, from a military standpoint, we certainly would have benefited from being able to use basing and facilities and certainly the
airspace of those countries. From a geopolitical standpoint, it's clear that the way those countries would look at the situation is, whatever the
U.S. would do, they're going to be proximate, close to the -- you know, to the ones in danger afterwards. They're going to be left in -- you know,
they don't get to leave the region when it's over. So, they're worried about longer -- you know, about stability.
But they also see, I think, you know, I'm not -- I can't speak for them, but they also see that the Iranian regime is rotting and not -- is -- you
know, is not able to provide for their people. And perhaps they're looking at it through the lens of that eventually something's going to have to
happen anyway. So, maybe they look at it through that lens in terms of using military force right now.
But from a military standpoint, we have enough options for basing overflight and things that CENTCOM would need to be able to carry out the
operations that the president would likely ask for or could likely ask for.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, thank you so much for the time. Appreciate it. Sorry again for the technical delay.
DONEGAN: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, as Trump considers choices that could determine their future, Iranian people are calling for international support. The
death toll from their government's violent crackdown on protest continues to rise, with one human rights agency estimating nearly 6,000 people have
been killed. Other groups estimate that figure is likely in the tens of thousands. And now, the E.U. has listed Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as
a terrorist group.
Yet from Trump, no mention of the people that he vowed to support, another seemingly broken promise to a nation that's processing one of its deadliest
chapters in decades.
So, has the Iranian regime shattered whatever trust or legitimacy it once had? Our next guest believes so and is the subject of his latest piece for
The Atlantic. Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He joins me now from Washington, D.C. Karim, good
to see you, as always.
[13:15:00]
So, in your piece for The Atlantic this week, you described the regime's contract with its people as predatory, not consensual. And after what may
be tens of thousands of protesters killed in just 48 hours, that framing now looks like a tragic understatement. Is this a historic turning point?
Is this the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime, whatever the United States may do in the hours and days to come?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: I do think, Bianna, that we are on the cusp of some kind of
transformation in Iran, because whatever the United States decides to do or not do, Iran still has an 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei,
who is not long for this world. And I believe that not only does the vast majority of Iranian society want to see change, but even within the very
unpopular regime, they realize that this current status quo is untenable.
So, I do believe that Iran is a country on the cusp of change because there's really probably no country in the world with a greater gap between
the aspirations of its people and the conduct of its regime than Iran.
GOLODRYGA: Well, President Trump has compared Iran to Venezuela and has signaled a possible military strike with speed and violence. In Tehran, is
that a threat that officials there in the regime take seriously, or does it bolster their argument that it's only ruthless internal pressure and
control that can ultimately keep outsiders from trying to attack?
SADJADPOUR: You know, this regime, Bianna, has faced so many crises over the years, including military entanglements with the United States, that I
think they're a little overconfident about what this coming conflict could bring. They've continued to issue major threats against U.S. troops in the
Middle East, against the United States-Arab partners, and they've continued to threaten Israel.
But I do believe that this time could be different for them for simply the fact that President Trump has rolled the dice in a big way against Iran on
at least three occasions. In 2018, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. In 2022, he assassinated Iran's top military commander. And, of course,
last year -- last June, he bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. And he believes that each of those decisions were vindicated.
Iran is militarily weaker than it's ever been because it doesn't control its own skies. So, if I were the Iranian regime, I would not be sleeping
lightly at night.
GOLODRYGA: I spoke earlier with Vice Admiral Donegan there about testimony from Secretary of State Rubio this week. He spoke on the force posture that
has amassed in the region. And he also spoke about when asked what the ultimate plan was for Iran if the United States were to attack, what does
the day after look like? And here's how he responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: I don't think anyone can give you a simple answer as to what happens next in Iran if the supreme leader and the regime were to fall,
other than the hope that there would be some ability to have somebody within their systems that you could work towards a similar transition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Is that a reasonable and acceptable plan from your perspective? I don't know if regime change is on the list of the president's options
here, how feasible and viable that would be. But is this something that would be acceptable? We just heard from the secretary of state for experts
like yourself and, more importantly, for Iranian people who have come out in mass to protest.
SADJADPOUR: As we've seen in the Middle East over the last two decades, Bianna, the United States can't control outcomes. Even when we've had
thousands of troops, a large military presence in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, we haven't been able to control, dictate outcomes. So, I think
that obviously applies to Iran as well.
I think what people in Iran are really hoping for is a transformation in the country's organizing principle. For the last almost five decades now,
the organizing principle of the state has been death to America and death to Israel. It hasn't prioritized the economic aspirations and security of
the Iranian people. And I think that is ultimately what people in Iran want. They want a government whose slogan is long live Iran, not death to
America.
This is a country, Bianna, which, in my view, should be a G20 nation. It has enormous natural resources, oil and gas, an enormous human capital. It
has one of the oldest continuously inhabited civilizations in the world. And it's punching way below its weight. You know, as many people have said,
this is a country which should be closer to South Korea rather than North Korea.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And has spent decades mismanaging its own economy, its own natural resources, et cetera.
[13:20:00]
I do want to ask you about your views on how the president has gone about addressing the protesters directly, because it was over a week ago where he
had been speaking directly to protesters, encouraging them to come out and march and to take over their own institutions, saying that help is on the
way. It does appear that something could very well happen imminently, but he hasn't addressed the protesters since then. And I'm wondering how you
interpret that.
SADJADPOUR: Well, the Iranian regime drove a giant truck through President Trump's red line because President Trump threatened on at least eight
occasions that if Iran kills protesters, they would have hell to bear and the United States would have their back. And since then, according to some
figures, even within the regime, they've killed as many as 30,000 people. And so, people now inside Iran, I think, are desperately waiting to see
what President Trump may do. And they're still hoping.
You know, I think obviously Iran is a large country, 90 million people. There's a great diversity of opinions. But among folks who have protested
in the streets, I haven't heard a single voice that doesn't want some kind of outside assistance.
GOLODRYGA: How significant was this move now from the E.U. to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization? It
really did seem to anger the regime.
SADJADPOUR: It was certainly -- it's both psychologically and legally and politically meaningful because now the Europeans, the European designation
of Iran's military, IRGC, as a terrorist entity, it essentially shifts the conversation. You're no longer dealing with a sovereign nation and the
military, a sovereign nation. You're dealing with a terrorist entity, as we were dealing, for example, with ISIS.
And so, the legal ability to take action against that entity, whether it's kinetic action or to seize assets, you have significantly more leeway to do
that. And so, I think for Europe, this was a big psychological shift in their longtime dealings with Iran.
GOLODRYGA: As we're trying to decipher how Iran will respond to these latest demands from President Trump, it's important to read your piece
where you emphasize the supreme leader's worldview as both theological and absolutist. So, in terms of any sort of compromise, it doesn't appear that
at least according to him and any decisions that he signs off on, that there is much room for it.
SADJADPOUR: You know, Bianna, he is the longest serving dictator in the world. He's been ruling for four decades now. And so, you don't get that
title if you're a reckless gambler. So, on one hand, he obviously has tremendous survival instincts. Ultimately, you know, he sends others out to
become martyred, but he wants to die as supreme leader.
So, he has survival instincts and then he has these resistance instincts. And he's long believed that whenever you're being pressured, whether it's
by your own citizens or outside powers like the United States, you should never give in to that pressure because that is not going to project
strength. It projects weakness and will invite even more pressure.
So, I think Ayatollah Khamenei right now is probably deep underground in a bunker. And his longtime instincts are intentional with one another,
because on one hand, he wants to survive. On the other hand, he wants to resist. And I think he's been put in a bind by U.S. President Donald Trump,
who's shown himself capable of doing deals and dropping bombs.
GOLODRYGA: Do you think the United States knows where that bunker is, Karim?
SADJADPOUR: I do think that the United States knows where a supreme leader is located. And I do think it is a question they're currently deliberating
about whether to take a strategy which is tantamount to a decapitation operation targeting the supreme leader himself.
GOLODRYGA: Very tense days ahead. We will be calling on you for sure again. Karim Sadjadpour, thank you so much.
SADJADPOUR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, "Mr. Nobody Against Putin." The Oscar-nominated documentary about how Russia's war propaganda machine
infiltrates schools. I'll speak to the filmmaker up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: 1.2 million, that's how many Russian soldiers are estimated to have been killed, wounded or lost since the invasion of Ukraine nearly four
years ago. The figure comes from a new report which calculates Russia's military losses as almost double Ukraine's. It's a rare glimpse into a war
shrouded in secrecy, spin and deceit and paints a far bleaker picture than the one that the Kremlin has been pushing.
And now, a new film documents one man's mission to lift the curtain and show the world the reality of living under Putin's pro-war propaganda
machine. It's called "Mr. Nobody Against Putin." Here's part of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I love my, but I don't want to be a pawn of the regime.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Do you want to go to prison?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What she will tell you, she is forces to say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): If you live in our country and don't love it, then you're a parasite. Leave.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'll use my camera to film the abyss this school is sinking into. It's the perfect cover.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, days after receiving an Oscar nomination, co-director David Borenstein is now joining me from Miami. David, I have to tell you, I
was blown away by this film. I watched it with my parents. I was born in the former Soviet Union. This was very hard and very painful to watch, but
so important. So, congratulations on your well-deserved nomination.
Your documentary takes us inside a Russian primary school during wartime. How did this project come about? How did you meet Pasha, who is an aerator
here?
DAVID BORENSTEIN, CO-DIRECTOR, "MR. NOBODY AGAINST PUTIN": Yes. So, Pasha originally responded to an ad on the Russian Internet that was published by
a Russian web content company. It said something along the lines of how has the, quote/unquote, "special military operation" in Ukraine changed your
job? And actually, that company was looking for positive stories from the Russian perspective.
So, stories about workplaces that were coming together to write letters to soldiers and things like that. But Pasha, the main character and my co-
director, he saw that ad and he responded by saying, let me tell you how my job has changed. He said that he was turned into a propagandist and that he
was turning, he was going to work every day filled with guilt and despair. And he wanted to show the world what was happening.
Now, the Russian web content company got that letter and they couldn't do it themselves. But through a twist of fate, it ended up in my hands and
Pasha and I started working together.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm so glad that the two of you connected. And Pasha, wow, what a brave individual. You know, heroes come in all shapes, forms, sizes,
backgrounds, personalities. And he definitely proves to be one here. He calls himself a nobody. He's not an activist. He works at a school in the
same city, in town where he grew up, the same school where he attended. He's a teacher trying to do his job.
But in terms of resistance, just talk about what his work, what his determination to get this video made says about him.
BORENSTEIN: Well, he was committed to showing the world what was happening in his school. He's the kind of teacher at that school that I think a lot
of us all know. He's the kind of guy that a lot of the students would hang out in his office. And that's because he made them feel comfortable. Kids
that didn't fit in were often hanging out in his office.
I had a teacher like this. And when I first saw footage from Pasha's classroom, I immediately saw what kind of person he is. But throughout the
next few years of changes that came as a result of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, his school was basically turned into a recruitment
center for the military.
[13:30:00]
All education and so much of what was happening in that school was transformed into something that was trying to encourage people to join the
military and even prepare them to fight within the school. So, he doesn't represent someone from Moscow or St. Petersburg. He's a very normal person.
And what he is driven by is a commitment to his students, wanting them to stay comfortable, wanting them to stay, like, keep on feeling like they
have a place to belong. And that drove him to do this.
Over two years of working together, he undertook a lot of risk to make this happen. And he just followed it all the way through. He never wavered. He
shot undercover. And at the end, he had to flee Russia in order to get this footage out and put the film out into the world.
GOLODRYGA: And that bravery is so admirable. The film shoots in this primary school in a city called Karabash. It is a small, poor, heavy-
polluted city. It's an industrial town in Russia in the Ural Mountains. And it's interesting, because throughout the war, President Putin has always
called this a special military operation and has tried, especially in the early days, to shield Muscovites, those residents in St. Petersburg.
And when it came to recruiting soldiers, they would reach out to these rural, poor cities like Karabash, where they would indeed recruit these
conscripts. And so, many of them came from Pasha's own school. There are clips in this film, not only is it stunning how quickly everything changed
once the war began, but the recruitment effort itself, including members from the notorious Wagner mercenary group. Let's play a clip from that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): As a teacher, I feel more and more useless. It's now time for the mercenaries to teach.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Don't film too much here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Wagner mercenaries, to be precise.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Wagner.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): (INAUDIBLE) you would never see it. It's (INAUDIBLE) or anywhere else. (INAUDIBLE) around it. (INAUDIBLE)
never come close to it or touch it. (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What does this tell you and scenes like this tell you and what do you want audiences to take away in terms of how expendable the Kremlin
and Vladimir Putin viewed these pupils in these faraway cities?
BORENSTEIN: I think that's very clear just from watching the footage and the film in general. My role on this film was something of an editor. Pasha
would send me footage from Karabash and I would edit together and I would watch so many clips of these kids.
He sent me a lot of footage of just the kids hanging out in his office and I developed my own relationship with them. And so, as I saw footage like
this, where they are being taught how to use landmines or how to do actual combat readiness, it was really hard for me to see. I had my own kind of
emotional connection with them and I really was able to understand it from Pasha's perspective. It's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking as a teacher to
see your kids go through this and to be treated as expendable.
I think there's one more thing that footage like this tells us. If you look at the propaganda classes that are being taught in schools right now in
Russia, you'll see that Putin has absolutely no intention of stopping with Ukraine. One of the common themes in every single one of these lessons that
you see is the preparation and the creation of a new generation of kids and future soldiers who are committed to empire and war.
GOLODRYGA: And Vladimir Putin, you show this in the film, I remember this in real time, he declared that wars are, quote, "not won by commanders, but
by schoolteachers." So, this was the policy. This was the planning to indoctrinate these kids as young as possible, almost on a daily basis. And
you really have two ends of the spectrum. On one extreme, you have someone like Pasha, who not only is just disgusted by this, but speaks out against
it and is recording it.
[13:35:00]
And on the other extreme is a teacher who really feels that he's supportive. And that's how he comes across and is able to echo and mimic
and repeat some of the Kremlin talking points very easily. That teacher, who is super awkward and it's obvious not well liked by the students, not
nearly as much as Pasha is, is then awarded teacher of the year and given a free apartment. My real focus are those teachers who are somewhere in the
middle, who may be more aligned with Pasha, but are too fearful to speak out. Let's play a clip of that one teacher who won the apartment and
teacher of the year first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The next point is the economy. The economic component of hybrid warfare. These are the sanctions against our
country. You already know that (INAUDIBLE) Russia is suffering (INAUDIBLE) sanctions now with (INAUDIBLE) and so on. In France, to fill the tank with
petro you need more than 150 euros. So, the French will son be like (INAUDIBLE) rest of Europe too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: This is the same teacher when asked who in terms of his historic figures he would love to meet most, he said Lavrentiy Beria, who
was, of course, Stalin's henchman. Your reaction to him? And then my earlier question about those teachers who fall somewhere in the middle.
BORENSTEIN: I think what the film is trying to do is trying to get viewers to think about themes of complicity and also imagine what they would do in
a similar situation. This school, Pasha's school, where he was a teacher, was changed so dramatically in a very short period of time. Teachers'
ability to teach freely was massively disrupted. And I think so many of the teachers knew that what was happening was wrong. The vast majority, in
fact, did.
GOLODRYGA: They couldn't even pronounce half of these words.
BORENSTEIN: Right, yes. So, many of the teachers just -- you know, they're literally reading from a script and you can see that they're doing it very
half-heartedly. I think that you're right to say there are a variety of reactions. You have Pasha, who gave up so much to show the world what was
happening. You have Pavel Abdulmanov, who we just saw, who performs the propaganda with gusto. But the vast majority just go along with it half-
heartedly.
It is a pretty interesting and potent example of the banality of evil, they're going along with it, but they don't believe in it. And I think that
actually is a nice and important characterization of the Russian system overall.
GOLODRYGA: How is Pasha doing now? I know he left the country. He was, as you noted, really the driving force here of this film. How is he doing? And
how is his mother back home? What has the reaction been since he's left, since the film's been made public?
BORENSTEIN: Yes, Pasha is doing well. In order to make the film and put it out into the world and not get arrested, he had to flee before we premiered
it last year. And so, he is in Europe right now. He has received asylum. He can travel and promote the film, and he is doing well. His mother is also
doing well. She's a character in the film, one of the -- she's the school librarian, and she still is the school librarian at Karabash Primary School
number one.
And beyond that, most people in Karabash have seen the film, and many people in Russia have seen the film. And we get messages every single day
from people. There's a wide variety of reactions from people calling Pasha a traitor to the motherland to people really supporting what Pasha is
doing.
In fact, one interesting reaction that Pasha got was from teachers from a neighboring school near Karabash. They said, you know what? Some teacher
had to do this. We're just really surprised it's from Karabash.
GOLODRYGA: Wow. Well, please give Pasha our best. Again, this was an incredible and it's such an important documentary to make. My parents'
first reaction, sadly, out of this was that nothing will change in that country as long as Vladimir Putin is in power. I would imagine Pasha does
agree with that sentiment as well. David Borenstein, thank you so much. Congratulations again on this very important film and the nomination for an
Oscar.
BORENSTEIN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And now, following the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by ICE agents in Minneapolis, President Trump sent Border Czar Tom Homan to
take control of the immigration operation there.
[13:40:00]
Earlier, Homan insisted that neither he nor the president wants to see anybody die, but emphasized that hostile rhetoric towards immigration
officers must stop.
Now, this comes as a pair of federal agents involved in Alex Pretti's death have been placed on administrative leave, but will they ultimately be held
accountable? Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck spoke to Hari Sreenivasan about the role state and local courts can play in pursuing
justice.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Stephen Vladeck, thanks so much for joining us. You have a recent essay in the New
York Times where you are arguing essentially, along with law professor Barry Friedman, that the Minneapolis shootings is, you know, a case where
we need a different path to accountability. You're asking for state and local prosecutors to kind of pick up the ball, but before we get to that
and why you're advocating for it, tell me what usually happens and what's not happening here.
STEPHEN VLADECK, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER: Sure. I mean, Hari, usually, or at least historically, when federal officers
cross the line, there were two different ways the federal government might hold them accountable. The first was, of course, the executive branch
itself might discipline officers who cross the line all the way up to criminal prosecutions.
As recently as 2019, Hari, the Trump administration told the Supreme Court that was the right solution when a border patrol agent had shot and killed
a 15-year-old Mexican national along the U.S.-Mexico border. Obviously, that's not going to work with an administration that won't even investigate
these shootings, let alone prosecute them.
Historically, the other remedy was damages, was a civil remedy where the victims or their families could seek damages in federal court under federal
law against perpetrators, U.S. officers who had violated their rights. Hari, the Supreme Court has really made those kinds of remedies elusive, if
not entirely illusory. I mean, the court in a series of cases from the 1980s through two years ago has all but closed the door on what are known
as these Bivens suits.
And so, that really leaves the states as the last line of defense. Hari, maybe for tort remedies, again, for damages, but especially for criminal
prosecutions, not because that's the ideal system, but because it really is all we have, until and unless Congress were to provide a more comprehensive
remedial regime at the federal level.
SREENIVASAN: So, what should the state of Minnesota do?
VLADECK: Well, so I think the first question is, you know, how much evidence is the state or even Hari, local prosecutors in Hennepin County,
how much evidence are they able to amass on their own? I mean, we've already had reports that the federal government has not been cooperating
with their attempts to provide their own investigation. That, of course, is also a new twist on what has been historically a very common sort of
symmetrical back and forth relationship.
How much evidence can they get on their own, right? We already had the city and the state go to federal court over the weekend to obtain a temporary
restraining order blocking the federal government from getting rid of any of the evidence it collected. But do they need what the federal government
has to pursue these cases? Can you go to a grand jury, for example, based solely on witness statements and these videotapes?
Even if you can go to a grand jury, Hari, at that point, presumably, even if there's an indictment, the defendant officers would remove the case to
federal court, and then they'd argue that they have immunity. At that point, we'd have to figure out, you know, what's the real test for
necessity and for reasonableness in this context? How are these officers trained? What did they think? What were they told to do when they were
confronting someone who they were trying to arrest?
These are all questions, Hari, that I think folks are jumping to conclusions about on social media for obvious reasons, but that would have
to be litigated if the state or if local prosecutors wanted to go that far.
SREENIVASAN: You know, back in October, when Governor Pritzker of Illinois suggested something like this, Stephen Miller responded to this on Fox
News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties, and anybody who
lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one,
no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist can prevent you from fulfilling your legal
obligations and duties.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: For the record, is Stephen Miller wrong about it? Do these people not have immunity?
VLADECK: So, there's a doctrine, Hari, called Supremacy Clause Immunity, and we'll talk about its contours in a second, but the critical point to
say at the top is this kind of immunity is not absolute. So, when Stephen Miller, when J.D. Vance, when Kristi Noem make these broad categorical
statements about immunity, they're leaving out the critical nuance, which is that immunity can be overcome.
This is a doctrine that has been developed by the Supreme Court, Hari, and especially by lower federal courts in a series of cases dating back to
1890. And the idea is that, yes, in general, federal officers who are carrying out their duties reasonably and responsibly are immune from state
prosecution. This is because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution elevates federal law over state law.
[13:45:00]
But the Supreme Court has said in every single case about this doctrine, going all the way back to 1890, it gives way, Hari, when the federal
officer's conduct was neither necessary to carrying out their federal duties nor a reasonable means of doing so. So, there are these two
different requirements that what the federal officer was doing when he or she broke state law has to have been a necessary part of their federal
duties, and the specific actions have to have been a reasonable means of carrying those duties into effect.
You know, Hari, I don't want to prejudge anything, but at least based on the video evidence out of Minneapolis, hard to see how you can meet that
standard in either the Renee Good or the Alex Pretti shootings. That's why I think it's a dramatic, really deeply misleading overstatement for Stephen
Miller, for J.D. Vance, for all these folks to just say, hey, you have immunity. In point of fact, you know, that's not necessarily true.
SREENIVASAN: You said in your piece that there's kind of two complications or two hurdles for what you're proposing. One was the Supremacy Clause
immunity, right? And one is that essentially the actions the individual might be taking in the course of performing their duties, that would
automatically mean it has to go to a federal court, right? And the likelihood or unlikelihood depends on, I guess, the winds of that
administration.
VLADECK: To a degree. I mean, so the case would likely go to federal court under what's known as the Federal Officer Removal Statute, and this is a
statute that says if you're being sued civilly or criminally for stuff you did while you were on the job as a federal officer, you can move that case
from state court to federal court.
But, Hari, even in federal court, it would still be local or state prosecutors. It would still be a jury from Minnesota, not, you know,
somewhere else in the country. And I think perhaps most importantly, given the current administration, any conviction would not be subject to the
president's pardon power. These would be convictions, even in federal court, for state offenses.
And so, you know, of course the governor would retain the pardon power, but I'm not sure Governor Walz would be in any hurry to exercise it. There are
reasons, Hari, why I'm still, you know, skeptical that this is the best answer in the long-term, that, you know, state prosecutions raise lots of
complexities. But I guess the question really reduces to if the choice is no remedy for what happened to Renee Good and Alex Preti and what else is
happening in Minneapolis versus the imperfections of state criminal prosecutions. Seems increasingly obvious to me that we should be preferring
the latter.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder if in the course of their investigation, right now, if there's a Minneapolis police investigation that's trying and federal
authorities are not being helpful, what are ways for them to get around that?
VLADECK: So, I think some of this comes down to stuff that we don't know, Hari, and probably won't know for some time, which is how much evidence do
the local and state officials already have in their possession? Have they been able to talk to the relevant witnesses? Have they been able to build a
comprehensive database of every single video that was taken of the scene? Do they have any access to any kind of forensics, including, for example,
how many shots were fired? Do they have access to an autopsy?
You know, I think there's a reason, Hari, why we're not hearing a lot publicly about these specific questions. But I would expect local and state
prosecutors to be making a lot of noise, at least behind the scenes, if they are being thwarted in their efforts to uncover these materials. We've
already seen them go to court once, you know, in the case that produced the TRO barring the executive branch from destroying any evidence. It wouldn't
surprise me if they have to go back again if there continues to be a lack of cooperation.
SREENIVASAN: I think on a very human level, most people wonder, look, one person took the life of another, and that person does not seem accountable.
And we seem to have created a system where they do not have to be accountable. And there doesn't right now seem to be a way for a citizen of
Minneapolis to just say, I am safe here because there is a group of people that can take my life, and they seem immune to any repercussions.
VLADECK: Well, and I think this goes so far beyond what's been happening in Minneapolis and even beyond the specific and tragic cases of the Good
and Pretti shootings. We've been trending in this direction for the better part of 25 or 30 years at this point, where over time it has become ever
harder and harder and harder to hold the federal government accountable when it violates our rights.
Now, there's one batch of cases where that's not been true, where the violation is ongoing, where we're challenging a policy, say, or a statute.
Courts have been perfectly willing to actually provide lots of relief in those cases through what we call injunctions, through forward-looking
relief.
But when it comes to backwards-looking relief for constitutional violations that have ended, for excessive force, Hari, for unreasonable searches and
seizures, I mean, we've seen videos of ICE and other immigration officers breaking down the doors of Americans' homes. That's where we really have
this remarkably alarming gap that has slowly but steadily expanded over the last three decades.
[13:50:00]
And that's why I think the real long-term solution here is not about Minneapolis or a Minnesota State prosecution of the officers responsible
for the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Preti, I think it's about Congress providing a meaningful, comprehensive framework for holding federal
officers accountable when they violate our rights.
We may not all agree on which cases would trigger such a regime, Hari. We may not agree whether rights were violated in this case versus that case,
but that should be up to the courts to decide. And that's what's really missing from our current remedial architecture. This has been, I think,
clear to the nerdy law professors like me for a while now, but I think events in Minneapolis are driving home to everybody what the consequences
of that gap really are.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there was a case outside Chicago where an ICE agent was charged with a misdemeanor for pushing someone down, throwing an
immigrant rights activist to the ground. And I wonder if these types of steps could work. Are there local violations that these individuals would
still be responsible for?
VLADECK: It's entirely possible. And I think this is the critical point of all of this. The reason why people like me, I think, are so invested in
some kind of recourse and some kind of redressability is actually sort of twofold. I mean, first, obviously, you want some measure of justice for
what happened to Renee Good, for what happened to Alex Preti.
But, Hari, just as important is you want deterrence. You want federal officers to have the sense that the Constitution is a line they ought not
to cross, that there are rules that bind them, and that they're going to think twice before they engage in conduct that so egregiously crosses the
line.
And I think there are lots of ways to accomplish the latter, to strive toward more deterrence when it comes to federal officers. You know, the
sort of the spitting on the sidewalk or the tax evasion approach, I think, raises messy questions about the former and about whether that's really
justice for the victims. I still think something is better than nothing. And, you know, it's unfortunate that that's where we are, Hari, but I think
we can have two conversations at once. What do we do in the short-term and what do we do in the long-term? The answers to both should be however much
accountability is possible under the circumstances.
SREENIVASAN: You know, a lot of your piece and what you're saying really requires action by Congress to try to clarify these rules. And right now,
you know, there are a few, but a growing number of Republicans that are trying to put some pressure on the administration. There's John Curtis of
Utah. He recently wrote on Monday, we must have a transparent, independent investigation into the Minnesota shooting and those responsible no matter
their title, they must be held accountable. Officials who rush to judgment before all the facts are known undermine public trust and the law-
enforcement mission. I disagree with Secretary Nome's premature DHS response, which came before all the facts were known and weakened
confidence.
And I wonder, is today's Congress capable of putting enough short-term pressure or long-term pressure to try to structurally clarify exactly what
a federal agent can be immune for and what they can't?
VLADECK: I think, Hari, two things are still true. One, even a little bit of political pressure can go a long way. I mean, we're already seeing, you
know, not just Senator Curtis' statements that you've read. Senator Tillis has expressed deep public disagreement and dissatisfaction with Secretary
Noem, has suggested that she should lose her position. You know, that's very mild, Hari, but that's a lot more than we'd seen over the last 13
months.
The other piece of this, though, is, you know, I think it's hard when we're stuck in the politics of the moment to envision Congress as meaningfully
changing anything. But if American history teaches us anything, it's that these political ties can shift Pretti quickly. And, you know, we have
midterm elections coming up this fall. We have a new Congress that will be sworn in next January.
If this keeps up, right, if we don't see a real about face from the Trump administration, it's not hard to imagine, Hari, that this kind of reform
becomes not just a huge issue in the midterms, but actually a point on which there might be at least a modicum of consensus come next January.
So, that's why I think it's important to break this conversation out into short-term solutions and long-term solutions, because I think we should not
give up the ghost that a future Congress, as soon as next year, might be more willing to restore a modicum of accountability that it's very hard to
imagine the current Congress pursuing.
SREENIVASAN: Stephen Vladeck, professor of law at Georgetown University. Thanks so much for your time.
VLADECK: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a momentous signal of change. Sarah Mullally has been confirmed as the first female leader of the Church of England. In a
ceremony laden with tradition, she took the oath of allegiance as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury.
[13:55:00]
Mullally has a long history outside the clergy. Prior to becoming a priest in 2006 and later serving as Bishop of London, she was a nurse for the U.K.
public health service, the NHS. Now, she is vowing to call out misogyny in her new role and advocate for more transparency within the church as she
becomes the spiritual leader for 85 million Christians across the global Anglican communion. That is a milestone indeed.
And that is it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
