>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & CO. "

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

TRUMP'S TRADE WAR IS BACK.

THE PRESIDENT SLAPPING TARIFFS ON AMERICA'S ALLIES, DESPITE REPEATED COURT CHALLENGES.

THE HEAD OF THE BUDGET LAB AT YALE JOINS ME TO EXPLAIN WHY ORDINARY U. S. CONSUMERS COULD FOOT THE BILL.

> >> THEN CAN DIPLOMACY YIELD RESULTS AS WASHINGTON CAUSES STRIKES ON IRAN, A FORMER U. S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL WEIGHS IN ON WHAT'S NEXT.

> >> ALSO AHEAD -- >> THE ASSEMBLY HAS DECIDED BY A MATT TAURT OF --MATURITY CAROM KHAN HAS MISCONDUCT.

WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE ICC?

I ASK FORMER U. S. BAD DOOR AT LARGE FOR WAR CRIMES STEPHEN RAPP.

> >> PLUS -- >> THEY NEED TRUMP FOR THE PRIMARY, BUT HE IS A BURDEN ON THEM IN THE GENERAL.

>> THE COUNTDOWN FOR THE MIDTERMS IS TICKING.

HOW THE PRESIDENT COULD HURT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S CHANCES.

POLITICO'S POLITICS BUREAU CHIEF JOINS WALTER ISAACSON.

?

?

> >> "AMANPOUR & CO. "

IS MADE POSSIBLE BY --THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS CANDACE KING WEIR THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTISEMITISM THE STRAUS FAMILY FOUNDATION THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND CHARLES ROSENBLUM MONIQUE SCHOEN WARSHAW KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M BIANNA GOLODRYGA IN NEW YORK, SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.

RISING INFLATION, HISTORICALLY HIGH MORTGAGE RATES, AND EXPENSIVE GAS.

AMERICANS HAVE BEEN GRAPPLING WITH AN ONGOING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS MADE EVEN WORSE BY THE WAR WITH IRAN.

AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LATEST ACTION ON TARIFFS WON'T DO ANYTHING TO EASE THE FINANCIAL PAIN.

AS OF MIDNIGHT ON FRIDAY, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IMPOSED FRESH TARIFFS ON IMPORTS FROM OVER 80 TRADE PARTNERS.

THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS THE MOVE IS A RESPONSE TO DOZENS OF COUNTRIES FAILING TO ENFORCE BANS ON GOODS PRODUCED BY FORCED LABOR.

IT IS THE LATEST PUSH BY TRUMP TO USE TRADE TO OBTAIN CONCESSIONS FROM ALLIES, AND COMES AFTER THE LAPSE OF A 10% BLANKET TARIFF HE IMPOSED ON IMPORTS BACK IN FEBRUARY FOLLOWING THE U. S. SUPREME COURT RULING DEEMING HIS TARIFFS ILLEGAL.

FINANCIAL ANALYSTS ARE WARNING THAT THE MOVE RISKS HIGHER INFLATION AND MORE VOLATILITY FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, WHICH FOR U. S. CONSUMERS MEANS HIGHER COSTS.

ACCORDING TO THE YALE BUDGET LAB, THE REVISED TARIFFS WOULD COST AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS ABOUT $1100 ANNUALLY.

THE YALE BUDGET LAB PRESIDENT, NATASHA SARIN, JOINS ME NOW FOR MORE ON THIS.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

SO JUST FOR VIEWERS ONCE AGAIN TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THINGS STAND, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE PRESIDENT'S ORIGINAL TARIFFS, HIS REPLACEMENT TARIFFS THEN EXPIRED ON FRIDAY.

SO THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDED A NEW REASON, A NEW LEGAL REASON TO TAX IMPORTS, AND IT FOUND ONE VIA FORCED LABOR.

JUST EXPLAIN WHAT THAT ENTAILS.

>> YEAH, ESSENTIALLY, THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN IS THAT A VERY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S TRADE AGENDA WAS INITIALLY EFFECTUATED THROUGH A LAW KNOWN AS THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT THAT IT ACTUALLY NEVER IN ITS 50- YEAR HISTORY BEEN USED FOR BROAD-BASED TARIFFS OR TARIFFS OF ANY KIND.

AND SO THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK.

AND INDEED, IT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS OTHER TRADE AUTHORITIES THAT IT COULD TRY TO LEVY IN ORDER TO TRY TO EFFECTUATE TARIFFS, BUT THOSE HAVE LIMITS ON THEM.

AND WE HIT UP ON ONE OF THE LIMITS ON FRIDAY WITH RESPECT TO THE IDEA THAT THE TARIFFS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION WERE ONLY FOR 150 DAYS, UNLESS CONGRESS THEN AUTHORIZED THOSE NEW TRADE POLICIES.

CONGRESS DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THOSE NEW TRADE POLICIES, SO WE WERE LEFT LOOKING FOR YET ANOTHER WAY TO TRY TO EFFECTUATE TARIFFS.

AND NOW WE'VE LANDED ON A SERIES OF WHAT ARE CALLED SECTION 301 INVESTIGATIONS INTO COUNTRIES, ALLIES, AND ADVERSARIES ALIKE WHERE WE'RE CLAIMING THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ACTUALLY TARIFFING THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TAKING ENOUGH ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO ENDING THE USE OF FORCED LABOR IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS.

BUT IT'S KIND OF HARD TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE NEW TARIFFS ARE ANYTHING BUT A PRETEXT FOR THE OLD TARIFFS, WHICH WERE LEVIED WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXPLANATIONS.

>> YEAH.

AND JUST FOR OUR VIEWERS TO UNDERSTAND, THE GOVERNMENT THEN SUBSEQUENTLY INVESTIGATED 59 COUNTRIES, PLUS THE EU, AND FOUND REAL ABUSES IN A FEW OF THOSE, COTTON FROM CHINA, RICE FROM MYANMAR, AND USED THAT, THEN, TO TARIFF ALL OF THEM AS A JUSTIFICATION.

AS YOU JUST SAID, THIS IS LIKELY A PRETEXT AND IS SIMILAR TO THE TARIFFS THAT WERE IMPOSED THAT WERE ULTIMATELY STRUCK DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT.

SO DO YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL ALSO FAIL IN THE COURT?

>> YEAH.

IT'S SO INTERESTING BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE ARGUMENT FOR THIS IS A PRETEXT HAS TWO VERY CLEAR POINTS.

ONE IS THAT WE'RE BASICALLY WHERE WE WERE WITH RESPECT THE EFFECTIVE TARIFF RATE THAT EXISTED IN THE POST SUPREME COURT WORLD.

OUR EFFECTIVE TARIFF RATE IS NOW ABOUT 13%.

THAT'S BASICALLY CLOSE TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ORIGINAL TARIFFS, WHICH HAVE A VERY SIMILAR COMPOSITION.

IT'S ABOUT A 10% ACROSS-THE-BOARD RATE ON A WIDE RANGE OF TRADING PARTNERS, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEEN REPLICATED HERE WITH SOME SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS.

THE OTHER REASON THAT WE SHOULD SORT OF BE ALERT TO THE IDEA THAT THESE TARIFFS MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE ABOUT FORCED LABOR, DESPITE THAT BEING THE ARGUMENT FOR THEM IS THAT WE'RE EFFECTUATING TARIFFS ON COUNTRIES LIKE NORWAY, WHERE NORWAY'S RESPONSE TO THIS INVESTIGATION WAS TO POINT OUT, RIGHTFULLY, THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN A PIONEER WITH RESPECT TO IMPLEMENTING ITS OWN LAWS MEANT TO PREVENT FORCED LABOR IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS.

SO IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY DESERVE A TARIFFS A RESULT OF THIS TYPE OF APPROACH.

>> AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT.

AND YET CHINA, THE COUNTRY WITH THE MOST DOCUMENTED LABOR CONCERNS COMING OUT OF THIS AT ABOUT 12.

5% LABOR RATE WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY WHERE IT WAS BEFORE, AND THAT CAME OUT OF A HANDSHAKE TRUCE BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT XI.

SO DOESN'T THAT MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE DOING THIS TO ELIMINATE FORCED LABOR EVEN MORE OF AN UPHILL BATTLE, IF IT LANDS IN COURTS?

>> I THINK IT ULTIMATELY DOES.

BUT THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE SEEING AND WHY I THINK THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT SORT OF MOMENT FOR US TO REFLECT ON WHO CAN PUSH BACK ON THESE BROAD EXECUTIVE ACTIONS IS THAT THE COURTS INHERENTLY ARE TAKING TIME FOR THESE TYPES OF LEGAL QUESTIONS TO REALLY RISE AND BE SETTLED.

THE ADMINISTRATION'S 150-DAY TARIFFS, THE SECTION 122 TARIFFS THAT ACTUALLY EXPIRED FRIDAY WERE IN THE MIDST OF A LEGAL CHALLENGE WITH ONE COURT, THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THESE.

AND SO I SPECULATE WHAT'S GOING HAPPEN HERE AS WELL IS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE COURTS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THESE NEW TRADE APPROACHES.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME FOR THOSE TO PLAY OUT.

AND IN THE MEANTIME YOU HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION ESSENTIALLY OUTRUNNING THE JUDICIARY, WHICH IS MEANT TO CONSTRAIN IT.

I THINK WHAT THAT MEANS IS I THINK IT REHMLY IS CONGRESS' ROLE.

CONGRESS HAS THE TAXING POWER.

IT'S VERY CLEARLY DELEGATED IT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO ACTUALLY SAY THAT THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE TAX RATE IS ON IMPORTS IS OURS AND NOT THE EXECUTIVE'S.

>> YEAH, AND SO THAT BEGS THE QUESTION, WHERE IS CONGRESS IN ALL OF THIS?

IN YOUR PIECE FOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES," YOU WRITE THAT THE WHOLE GAME OF TARIFF WHAC-A-MOLE HAS THE FLAVOR OF MY REGULATION NEGOTIATIONS WITH MY TODDLERS.

WHEN I TELL MY TODDLER HE CAN'T HIT HIS BROTHER WITH A SHOVEL, HE PRODUCES A STICK INSTEAD.

I THINK MANY HOUSEHOLD DISEASE RELATE TO THAT ANALOGY.

YOU MENTIONED JUST TIME IS ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE HERE, NOT THE COURT'S, BECAUSE IT DOES TAKE A WHILE.

CONGRESS HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE YEAR.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO SOME OF OUR LONG- STANDING TRADING PARTNERS, THE CONFUSION THAT IT BRINGS UPON IT, AND EVEN EXISTING TRADE DEALS AND AGREEMENTS, LIKE THE USMCA ARE NOW AT RISK.

>> YEAH, AND ACTUALLY, THAT'S SUCH A GOOD EXAMPLE, BIANNA, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THESE NEW TARIFFS THAT WERE ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK AGAINST CANADIAN IMPORTS, ABOUT 5% OF THEM BUT EFFECTUATED AT A VERY HIGH RATE, AT A 50% RATE.

WITH THE ANNOUNCED IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF MID-AUGUST.

IF YOU'RE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT -- UNDER WHAT TRADING ENVIRONMENT, YOU'RE A BUSINESS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNDER WHAT TRADING ENVIRONMENT ARE GOING TO BE IMPORTING THINGS LIKE ALCOHOL OR HOCKEY STICKS FROM CANADA IN THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST.

YOU ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE YOU COULD VERY WELL SEE THE TRADING ENVIRONMENT CHANGE VERY DRAMATICALLY BETWEEN NOW AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THESE PARTICULAR AGREEMENTS.

AND SO I THINK --I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT THE TARIFF RATES AT THIS LEVEL, WHEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CAME IN FOR ITS SECOND TERM, EFFECTIVE TARIFF RATES WERE AROUND 2.

5%.

NOW THEY'RE AROUND 13%.

THAT'S A BIG SHIFT, BUT ALMOST MORE TROUBLING THAN THE RATE IS THE VOLATILITY.

THE FACT THAT WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE SEEN AN EFFECTIVE TARIFF RATES CHANGE ON AVERAGE ONCE EVERY 12 DAYS OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.

SO I THINK IT MAKES IT REALLY HARD FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BUSINESSES LOOKING TO TRY TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO OPTIMIZE THEIR IMPORTS.

BUT IT ALSO MAKES IT, FRANKLY, REALLY HARD FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE AMERICAN CONSUMER, WHO IS FACING PRICE INCREASES ESSENTIALLY ACROSS THE BOARD AS A RESULT OF THESE POLICIES.

>> AND IT ALSO MAKES IT HARD FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND KEVIN WARSH, WHO HAS BEEN TIGHT-LIPPED ABOUT WHERE HE ULTIMATELY WILL LAND.

THE FED WILL BE MEETING THIS WEEK.

BUT GIVEN ALL OF THIS BACK AND FORTH, AND INSTABILITY FROM THE PRESIDENT'S OWN POLICIES, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT'S HELPING THE FED WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR OWN --THEIR OWN TARGET RATES HERE.

LET ME END BY ASKING YOU FOR A BIGGER PICTURE ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF THE U. S. ECONOMY RIGHT NOW, HOW MUCH OF IT IN RESPECT TO INFLATION AND THE AFFORDABILITY PROBLEM AND CRISIS IS SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP INHERITED, AND HOW MUCH IT IS SOMETHING, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING NOW ABOUT MORTGAGE RATES OR BACK AT NEAR 6.

6%.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGHER GASOLINE PRICES AT THE PUMP, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE WAR IN IRAN.

HOW MUCH OF THE CURRENT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT IS BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OWN POLICIES?

>> YOU KNOW WHAT?

IT'S SO INTERESTING.

THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY POSITIVE SIGNALS IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE STOCK MARKET.

YOU LOOK AT THE FACT THAT WE ARE THE GLOBAL CENTER OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REVOLUTION, WHICH IS VERY LIKELY TO BRING MASSIVE PRODUCTIVITY GAINS OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT MANY MONTHS AND YEARS.

BUT THE THING THAT IS SORT OF --MAKES -- GIVES US SOME PAUSE WITH RESPECT TO DECLARING SUCCESS FROM AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE IS IF YOU ASK PEOPLE HOW THEY'RE FEELING ABOUT THE ECONOMY, THEY'RE REFLECTING EXACTLY THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.

THEY'RE REFLECTING CONCERNS ABOUT COST OF LIVING ISSUES, CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRICE OF GAS, CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRICE OF HOUSING.

THIS ADMINISTRATION IS ONE THAT KNOWS THAT.

THEY SORT OF WON THEIR SECOND TERM MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO WORK TO LOWER PRICES ON DAY ONE.

I THINK WHAT'S HARD IS THAT THE POLICIES THAT THEY'VE EFFECTUATED SINCE COMING INTO OFFICE, WHICH AREN'T JUST THE TRADE WAR, THEY'RE ALSO WITH RESPECT TO IMMIGRATION POLICIES.

THEY'RE ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE CONFLICT IN IRAN, THEY'RE ALL MOVING IN THE EXACTLY OPPOSITE DIRECTION FOR THOSE COST-OF-LIVING ISSUES.

SO I THINK SOMETHING THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH IN THE MONTHS LEADING UP TO NOVEMBER IS MIDTERM ELECTIONS AND EVEN BEYOND IS ACTUALLY WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE AND IN FACT DESIRABLE TO UNDO A LOT OF THOSE POLICY MISSTEPS IN THE NAME OF MAKING OUR ECONOMY STRONGER, NOT WEAKER.

>> IT WAS THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO PUSH OUT.

THEY ULTIMATELY FAILED ON WITH REGARDS TO THE ECONOMY.

AND YOU DON'T HEAR MANY AMERICANS SAYING YES, THE AI BOOM IS GREAT AND UNEMPLOYMENT STILL LOW.

SO THINGS ARE GREAT.

NO.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GAS PRICES.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CONFUSION WITH THESE TARIFFS.

SO A LOT OF ISSUES THAT ARE --THAT ARE FACING AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS TODAY, AND MANY OF THEM STEMMING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S OWN POLICIES.

NATASHA SARIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

> >> WELL, NOW A U. S. SOURCE SAYS THAT AMERICAN MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST IRAN ARE ON HOLD FOR THE MOMENT.

THE U. S. SAYS IT'S TO GIVE SPACE FOR TALKS WITH TEHRAN, BUT IT ALSO COMES AS THE U. S. DEATH TOLL HAS NOW REACHED 18.

AND OFFICIALS ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT AFTER FIVE MONTHS OF WAR, A LOT OF U. S. STOCKPILES ARE DEPLETED.

IRAN MEANTIME IS CALLING ING CALLING THE PAUSE ITS OWN VICTORY AND CALL IT A STRATEGIC MOVE AND CLAIMING TOTAL CONTROL OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ.

WHAT CARDS DOES THE U. S. HAVE LEFT TO PLAY?

NATE SWANSON SERVED AS THE DIRECTOR FOR IRAN AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN BEFORE SERVING ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NEGOTIATING TEAM.

HE JOINS ME LIVE FROM WASHINGTON.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

FROM WHERE YOU SIT, IS THIS PAUSE NOW AN OFFRAMP, OR IS THIS THE PRESIDENT CONCERNED PERHAPS AFTER BEING ADVISED BY HIS TOP OFFICIALS THAT THERE IS A STOCKPILE ISSUE, AND IF THIS TIT FOR TAT CONTINUES FOR WEEKS ON END, THIS COULD BE A BIGGER PROBLEM FOR THE UNITED STATES.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

I THINK IT'S A PARTIAL OFFRAMP.

I THINK IT'S A RECOGNITION THAT TIME IS NOT REALLY ON THE U. S. SIDE.

SO HE DOESN'T HAVE CLARITY ON HOW TO END THE WAR, BUT I THINK HE HAS LEARNED AGAIN THAT MORE PRESSURE ISN'T THE ANSWER HERE.

AND IN MANY WAYS, THE LONGER THE WAR GOES ON, THE WEAKER THE U. S. NEGOTIATING HAND IS.

SO I THINK IT'S A RECOGNITION OF DIMINISHING RETURNS AND HOPEFULLY A TURN TOWARDS A MORE PRODUCTIVE PATH.

>> WHAT WAS NOTABLE TO ME WAS IN A NUMBER OF THESE REPORTS, ONE FROM AXIOS, CENTCOM COMMANDER SAID THAT THEY'VE SORT OF LOST THEIR EFFECTIVENESS AT THIS POINT.

WHAT OTHER OPTIONS WOULD THE UNITED STATES HAVE AS THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT HE IS STILL WEIGHING THEM, AND THAT KINETIC ACTION AND STRIKES COULD VERY WELL CONTINUE IN THE HOURS OR DAYS AHEAD?

>> YEAH, I THINK MILITARILY, HE HAS MAYBE THREE OPTIONS, RIGHT.

ONE IS TO TRY THIS SAME TYPE OF THING AGAIN AND HOPE THAT IN COMBINATION WITH THE BLOCKADE THAT EVENTUALLY IRAN'S CALCULATION CHANGES, AND I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED, AND IT'S SOMETHING HE'S TRIED ON AND OFF AGAIN FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

THE OTHER ONE IS TO REALLY RAMP UP MILITARILY AND TRY TO, YOU KNOW, SEIZE TERRITORY POTENTIALLY AND MAYBE TAKE, YOU KNOW, IRANIAN OIL TERMINAL ISLAND.

THERE WOULD BE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT REPERCUSSIONS COME FROM THAT I THINK IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T CHANGE IRAN'S THINKING.

THE ONE THAT'S REALLY GOING CHANGE IRAN'S DECISION- MAKING IS MASSIVE U. S. TROOPS ON THE GROUND IN IRAN.

AND I DON'T SEE ANY APPETITE FOR THAT, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING DO IT.

AND THUS FAR IRAN HAS BEEN ABLE TO CALL OUR BLUFF.

>> SO WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO DANGLE THAT OPTION, BESIDES THE OBVIOUS.

HE DIDN'T WANT TO TELL THE IRANIANS THAT WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO SEND IN GROUND TROOPS.

BUT AT SOME POINT, TIME AND TIME AGAIN THREATENING TO DO JUST THAT WITHOUT DELIVERING, AND THEN HEARING AND READING REPORTS JUST LIKE THE IRANIANS I'M SURE HAVE READ IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" IN CONCERNS ABOUT STOCK PILES, WHAT LEVERAGE AT ALL DOES THAT GIVE THE PRESIDENT TO CONTINUE TO GIVE REPORTERS THIS PARTICULAR INFORMATION AND OPTIONALITY?

>> SURE.

TO BE FAIR, LOOK, A PROTRACTED, EXTENDED WAR IS NOT REALLY IN IRAN'S FAVOR EITHER.

I THINK THAT THEY HAVE MORE POLITICAL WILL THAN US IN THE SHORT-TERM.

BUT THIS IS A COUNTRY ON THE PRECIPICE OF REAL ECONOMIC CRISIS BEFORE THE WAR BEGAN, AND IT'S BEEN ABLE TO HIDE BEHIND BEING THE VICTIMS OF AMERICAN-ISRAELI AGGRESSION.

BUT AT SOME POINT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACTUALLY TURN TOWARDS GOVERNING THEIR COUNTRY, AND THAT MEANS ENDING THE WAR AND TRYING TO REBUILD.

SO AT SOME POINT, THIS DOES BECOME UNTENABLE FOR IRAN.

THE PROBLEM IS IT'S JUST NOT ON THE TIMELINE THE PRESIDENT WANTS.

AND SO I THINK THIS REALLY IS A REFLECTION OF HE DOESN'T HAVE GREAT OPTIONS.

I THINK HE EXPECTED, YOU KNOW, SURRENDER OR CAPITULATION EARLY ON IN THE WAR.

AND WHEN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, HE'S KIND OF BEEN USING THE SAME PLAYBOOK OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I JUST DON'T SEE THAT REALLY CHANGING IRANIAN CALCULUS FOR A LONG TIME.

MAYBE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN MONTHS FROM NOW LIKE THE BLOCKADE MAKES IT UNSUSTAINABLE FOR IRAN.

BUT THAT'S A LONG WAY OFF.

THERE IS A LOT OF PAIN FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY IF THAT WAS TO HAPPEN.

I THINK IRAN SEES THAT AND IS USING THAT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.

>> RIGHT.

AND WE KNOW THAT IN THESE SORT OF QUIET TIMES, DOWN TIMES DURING THE CEASEFIRE, THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN DAYS OF CONTINUED STRIKES, IRAN HAS BEEN USING THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUILD AND RESUPPLY.

I WANT TO GET YOU TO WEIGH IN TO CONTINUED REPORTS.

"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" JUST THE LATEST OVER THE WEEKEND THAT GULF COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN SECRETLY STRIKING WITHIN IRANIAN TERRITORY FOR WEEKS NOW, THAT THE UAE WAS THE FIRST TO HAVE THAT REPORT.

NOW BAHRAIN AND KUWAIT ALSO WITH INTELLIGENCE AND AIR COVER FROM THE EMIRATIS, THE SAUDI HAS JUST INTERCEPTED HOUTHI BALLISTIC MISSILES.

IT SEEMS LIKE THAT TENSION IS ONLY ESCALATING BETWEEN THOSE TWO ENTITIES.

DO YOU SEE AN ARAB COALITION WILLING TO TAKE ON A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH NOW, EVEN PERHAPS KINETICALLY AGAINST IRAN?

AND IS THAT SOMETHING THE UNITED STATES SHOULD SUPPORT?

>> I THINK IT'S VERY UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THE GULF IS LOOKING ATKIN NET TICK OPTIONS.

I THINK THEY'RE FRUSTRATED WITH THE SITUATION, ESPECIALLY BEING THE VICTIMS FOR NO REAL REASON OF IRANIAN AGGRESSION.

I THINK IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE AND NATURAL THAT THEY'RE LASHING BACK OUT AT IRAN.

THAT'S VERY FAIR.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY'RE ALSO QUIETLY PURSUING SUPPORT FOR TALKS, SUPPORT FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES, AND THE WAR.

I THINK THEY'RE REALLY JUST PREPARING FOR BOTH POSSIBILITIES.

WHETHER THE U. S. SHOULD SUPPORT THIS OR NOT, I MEAN, WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE SUPPORTING OUR GULF ALLIES.

THEY'RE THE UNFORTUNATE VICTIMS SOLVE SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT THEIR FAULT.

AND SO WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SUPPORT THEM POLITICALLY, ECONOMICALLY, THE DEFENSE, ET CETERA.

BUT LOOK, EVEN IF THERE WAS A MASSIVE AIR CAMPAIGN COALITION, IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING.

THIS ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE IRAN'S DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE.

SO REALLY UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE TO FINISH THIS.

AND WHETHER THAT'S US ON OUR OWN OR US WITH THE GULF, IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THAT FACT.

>> YEAH, THE DEADLINE IS AUGUST 16th, THREE WEEKS AWAY.

SECRETARY RUBIO SAYS IRAN ISN'T SERIOUS ABOUT TALKS RIGHT NOW.

I DO WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IRAN PERHAPS OVERPLAYING THEIR HAND.

THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FACTOR HERE.

THEY HAD ONE SHOT, THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ, AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL THEY HAVE IN ADDITION TO THEM THINKING THAT TIME SON THEIR SIDE.

SO OVER THE WEEKEND NOW YOU HAVE IRAN THREATENING UKRAINE AFTER KYIV INTERCEPTED AN IRANIAN SHIP IN THE CASPIAN SEA THAT WAS BOUND FOR RUSSIA.

THE IRONY ISN'T LOST HERE THAT IRAN ALL OF THE SUDDEN IS CRYING FOUL OVER UKRAINE ATTACKING ITS FLEET WHEN WE HAVE SEEN FOR YEARS THE IRANIAN SUPPLY DRONES FOR RUSSIA.

DOES IRAN HAVE THE CAPACITY TO OPEN ANOTHER FRONT?

ARE THEY A THREAT TO UKRAINE AT ALL?

OR IS THIS PERHAPS THE BARK BEING LOUDER THAN BITE?

>> I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE BARK BEING LOUDER THAN THE BITE.

I MEAN, IRAN HAS REALLY PLAYED A REALLY NEGATIVE ROLE IN UKRAINE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS BY 2022 BY SUPPLYING RUSSIA WITH DRONES.

SO IN SOME WAYS, THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING FOR UKRAINE TARGETING IRAN.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING AN EXPANDED WAR WITH UKRAINE PROBABLY ISN'T REALLY IN ANYONE'S INTEREST.

AND I THINK IT SHOULD JUST BE SEEN AS BEING RHETORICAL THREATS.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WON'T SHOOT STUFF AT UKRAINE, BUT TO NO REAL END AT THE END.

TO YOUR BIGGER POINT, I DO THINK IRAN IS ON THE VERGE OF OVERPLAYING THEIR HAND.

THEY'VE BEEN AT MAXIMUM LEVERAGE FOR A WHILE.

NOW AND TO SOME EXTENT, THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ IS A DIMINISHING ASSET OVER TIME.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO BUILD UP THESE ALTERNATE ROUTES.

BUT SHOULD IT BE IN IRAN'S INTERESTS TO END THIS NOW DIPLOMATICALLY.

THE LONG THEIR GOES ON, THEY LOWER THE COST OF FUTURE WAR WITH THEM.

SO I DO THINK IT WOULD BE IN THEIR INTERESTS TO END THIS WAR SOONER THAN LATER.

AND THAT'S REALLY THE HOPE FOR EVERYONE.

EVERYONE REALIZES THAT MORE WAR IS BAD FOR EVERYONE, AND THEY SHOULD REALLY HAMMER OUT A DETAIL NOW ON THE STRAIT.

>> WE'LL BE FOLLOWING IT ALL.

NATE SWANSON, THANK YOU AS ALWAYS.

APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> IN AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE, MEMBER STATES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT VOTED ON FRIDAY TO REMOVE ITS CHIEF PROSECUTOR KARIM KHAN AFTER A STAFF MEMBER MADE ALLEGATIONS OVER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, WHICH HE DENIES.

KHAN IS EXPECTED TO CHALLENGE THE LAWFULNESS OF THE DECISION AFTER HIS LAWYERS CRITICIZED THE INVESTIGATION'S AD HOC NATURE AND CLAIMED A LACK OF DUE PROCESS.

HIS DISMISSAL IS ADDING FUEL TO A FIRE OF CRITICISM OVER THE ICC'S CREDIBILITY.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS VOWED TO DISMANTLE THE COURT, QUOTE, BRICK BY BRICK, SANCTIONING SEVERAL JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS FOR WHAT IT CLAIMS IS THE UNJUST TARGETING OF ISRAEL.

ISRAELI OFFICIALS ARE ALSO ARGUING THAT FOLLOWING KHAN'S REMOVAL, THE ARREST WARRANTS THAT HE APPLIED FOR AGAINST BENJAMIN NETANYAHU AND FORMER DEFENSE MINISTER YOAV GALLANT SHOULD NOW BE WITHDRAWN.

THOSE WERE ISSUED IN 2024 OVER WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED DURING THE WAR IN GAZA FOLLOWING THE HAMAS OCTOBER 7th ATTACKS.

THE ICC ALSO ISSUED ARREST WARRANTS FOR HAMAS LEADERS.

TO DISCUSS WHERE THIS LEAVES THE FATE OF THE COURT, I'M JOINED NOW BY FORMER U. S. AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR WAR CRIMES STEPHEN RAPP.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU.

>> LET'S DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED ON FRIDAY.

28 OF 125 MEMBER STATES VOTED TO REMOVE KARIM KHAN, YET THE REVIEWING JUDGES UNANIMOUSLY FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE DIDN'T MEET THE CRIMINAL STANDARD.

SO WAS THIS PROCESS FAIR IN YOUR OPINION?

>> YEAH, I THINK IT WAS FAIR.

I THINK THE EVIDENCE WAS ABUNDANT, MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

THE JUDGES DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH THE CREDIBILITY OF THAT EVIDENCE.

THEY LOOKED AT IT ATDS S A HE SAID SHE SAID SITUATION.

WE RECENTLY SAW A SURVIVAL OF THE SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THIS DISMISSAL.

AND SHE WAS VERY BRAVE AND FRANKLY VERY CREDIBLE.

AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT THE STATE PARTIES MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T THINK KARIM KHAN HAS ANY REMEDY.

HE WAS ELECTED BY 70 OR SO MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES.

HE'S BEEN REMOVED BY 80 OR SO.

THIS IS NOT REVIEWABLE.

JUST LIKE THE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT.

SO THE COURT NEEDS TO MOVE ONWARD.

>> SO WE WILL PLAY SOUND IF THERE THAT INTERVIEW THAT LED TO ULTIMATELY KHAN'S REMOVAL WITH THE SURVIVOR SARAH AND CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN JUST A MOMENT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP.

SO WHEN KARIM KHAN SAYS THAT HE WILL CHALLENGE THE, QUOTE, LAWFULNESS AND FAIRNESS OF THIS DECISION THROUGH ALL AVAILABLE LEGAL MECHANISMS, DOES HE HAVE ANY LEGAL MECHANISMS TO CHALLENGE THEM THROUGH?

>> THERE ARE NONE IN THE ROME STATUTE.

THERE IS NO COURT THAT EXISTS WHERE HE COULD POSSIBLY TAKE A CLAIM.

HIS OPPORTUNITY WAS TO RESPOND TO THESE ALLEGATIONS AND BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES' PARTIES WHICH WAS DONE THROUGH HIS ATTORNEYS, AND THAT'S FRANKLY THE END OF IT.

>> AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE CRITICIZED THIS DECISION, INCLUDING JOSEPH BOREL, WHO WAS A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND A FRIEND OF THE COURT.

HE WROTE LAST WEEK THAT THE KHAN CASE WAS, QUOTE, SABOTAGED, DRESSED UP IN IN GOOD INQUIRY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

HE ARGUED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU SHARE THE SAME GOAL IN ENSURING NO INTERNATIONAL COURT CAN TOUCH THEIR SOLDIERS OR ALLIES.

BUT TO GO BACK TO WHAT THE SURVIVOR, SARAH TOLD CHRISTIANE ON THIS PROGRAM, SHE SAID MANY PARTIES CONFLATED HER COMPLAINT WITH THOSE ISRAEL WARRANTS FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDAS.

HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID.

>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY SPECIFIC STATE OR INDIVIDUAL, BUT I THINK MANY PARTIES HAVE FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA CONFLATED THE TWO THINGS.

THERE CAN BE MANY REASONS FOR IT.

BECAUSE IT SERVES AN INTEREST.

WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT MY COMPLAINT WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO ME.

NOT FOR ANY OTHER REASON.

AND SECOND, THAT CONFLATION HAS ONLY HELPED TO DISTRACT AND DEFLECT FROM THE VALIDITY OF THAT COMPLAINT.

THE TWO THINGS NEED TO BE SEPARATED.

>> AND TO THAT POINT, THE U. N. REPORT FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT SARAH ACTED FOR ANY STATE.

SO DOES THE SABOTAGE NARRATIVE AND ARGUMENT DO EXACTLY THE DAMAGE THAT SHE JUST DESCRIBED THERE WITH CHRISTIANE?

>> WELL, IT COULD HAVE.

BUT I THINK THE COURT HAS GONE BEYOND THAT I DON'T THINK THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PALESTINE OR GAZA CASE, OR WITH ANY OTHER CASE.

AND THOSE CASES WERE BROUGHT BY PERSONS IN THE OFFICE, PEOPLE LIKE MY FRIEND BRENDA HOLLIS.

A FORMER AIR FORCE JAG DEVELOPED THE PALESTINE INVESTIGATION, AND THE JUDGES APPROVED IT.

I DON'T EXPECT THAT WARRANT TO BE WITHDRAWN, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THERE WAS A CHANGE OF GOVERN IN ISRAEL AND THEY WERE TO BEGIN ACTUALLY A GENUINE INVESTIGATION IN WHICH CASE THE ICC HAS NO JURISDICTION.

BUT I EXPECT THE COURT TO GO FORWARD.

I THINK THE CHALLENGE NOW IS FROM THE UNITED STATES THAT'S TRYING AND TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND IN MY VIEW IN AN ILLEGAL WAY TO INFLUENCE A COURT WHEN ONE OF OUR ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH WE EVALUATE COUNTRIES AND THE RULE OF LAW IS THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES.

IN FACT, IT'S CRIMINAL IN OUR SYSTEM TO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE A JUDGE, TO ATTEMPT TO BEND A JUDGE BASED UPON --BASED UPON THEIR DECISIONS THROUGH POLITICAL PRESSURE, THROUGH ECONOMIC PRESSURE.

EVEN OUR AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS PROTECTION ACT IN WHICH WE GIVE OURSELVES A LOT OF POWERS TO DEAL WITH THE ICC SAYS YOU CAN'T TRY TO AFFECT A JUDGE ECONOMICALLY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE TO THESE JUDGES.

THREE OF THEM HAVE NOW FILED A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR JUDGE FUHRMAN.

I'VE JOINED THREE OF MY COLLEAGUES IN AN AMICUS BRIEF IN WHICH WE ARGUE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH U. S. VALUES, BUT ALSO LAW.

THE SANCTIONS ARE BASED UPON AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY ACT, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT FOUND WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO USE TO IMPLEMENT SANCTIONS AND ILLEGAL --EXCUSE ME, TARIFFS.

AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S SIMILAR TO THAT.

>> SO WITH JOINING THIS AMICUS BRIEF, WHAT POINT EXACTLY ARE YOU HOPING TO EXPRESS TO THE COURT THAT YOU DIDN'T JUST LAY OUT TO OUR AUDIENCE?

>> FUNDAMENTALLY, I WAS AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR SIX YEARS.

OTHERS IN MY OFFICE WHICH SERVED UNDER PRESIDENTS OF BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS, ENGAGED OVER TIME WITH THE ICC.

WE ENGAGED AS OUR LAW PERMITS ON A CASE- BY-CASE BASIS.

WE WERE ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE ICC IF THEY RAISED ISSUES ABOUT US, AS THEY DID IN AFGHANISTAN, EVIDENCE THAT WE WERE DOING ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR OWN SYSTEM.

AND IN THE END, THAT CASE WAS DEPRIORITIZED AND WON'T BE PROSECUTED.

ISRAEL COULD --WAS DOING THE SAME THING, FRANKLY, BACK IN 2014, 2015, WHEN THE ICC GAINED JURISDICTION OVER THE SITUATION.

SO THERE ARE WAYS TO DEAL WITH THIS THING, TO DEAL WITH IT AND ENSURE THAT THE COURT IS PURSUING THE MOST SERIOUS CASES IN THE WORLD.

BUT YOU DON'T DO THAT BY THREATENING THE JUDGES, BY ATTACKING A COURT THAT'S BEEN --IN WHICH ALMOST ALL OF OUR ALLIES, EVERY COUNTRY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, EVERY COUNTRY IN SOUTH AMERICA HAS RATIFIED THE STATUTE.

AND WE DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.

WE DO IT BY ENGAGEMENT DIPLOMATICALLY, AND WE DO IT THROUGH THE LAW.

AND THE ICC IS NOT THE THREAT THAT SECRETARY RUBIO THINKS IT IS.

IT HAS VERY LIMITED JURISDICTION.

AS I SAID, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE IN REGARD TO THE UNITED STATES WE SHOW THEM THAT WE'RE TAKING ACTION TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF WAR.

AND IF THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS, WE INVESTIGATE THEM GENUINELY.

>> YOU MENTIONED SECRETARY RUBIO AND WHAT HE SAID LAST WEEK IN THE PHILIPPINES ABOUT DISMANTLING THE ICC BRICK BY BRICK.

I WANT TO PLAY SOUND, MORE SOUND FROM WHAT HE SAID IN JUSTIFYING THAT.

>> WE'RE NOT MEMBERS OF THE ICC.

WE NEVER SIGNED THAT TREATY.

WE NEVER JOINED IT.

AND THEY SOMEHOW CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT, NONETHELESS, TO GO AFTER NONTREATY MEMBERS AND PUT HEADS OF STATE AND OTHERS IN JAIL.

WE'VE LONG HAD QUARRELS WITH THEM, AND WE HAVE LUNATICS AND CRAZIES INVOLVED IN THE ICC.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CHARGING MEMBERS OF THE U. S. MILITARY, MAYBE THE PRESIDENT OR FUTURE PRESIDENT WITH CRIMES.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THAT COURT.

WE NEVER SIGNED ON TO THAT TREATY.

THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO SIGN AND BE A PART OF THAT STUPID ORGANIZATION, THEY CAN.

BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE A PART OF IT, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO APPLY THEIR JURISDICTION TO AMERICANS.

WE'VE WARNED THEM ABOUT IT RECENTLY.

AND NOW THEY'RE GOING SEE THE CONSEQUENCES OF IGNORING US.

>> SO ON THE ONE HAND, ONE SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION AND MANY PRIOR TO IT WHO HAVE NOT SIGNED ON TO THE ROME STATUTE HAVE LONG SAID THAT WHEN IT COMES TO DECISIONS AND RULINGS THAT THEY LIKE, THAT THEY SUPPORT, LET'S SAY AGAINST VLADIMIR PUTIN, THEY WILL HAIL THAT.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU ONCE EXPLAINED THAT WASHINGTON NEVER RATIFIED THE ROME STATUTE FOR FEAR OF AN UNACCOUNTABLE PROSECUTOR PURSUING POLITICAL CASES.

SO NOW WE HAVE A PROSECUTOR WHO HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR MISCONDUCT AFTER ISSUING WARRANTS TO AMERICAN PRESIDENTS, BOTH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLED OUTRAGEOUS AND ILLEGITIMATE.

SO DOES THIS EPISODE VINDICATE WHAT WE HEARD FROM SECRETARY RUBIO, OR DOES THE FACT THAT KHAN HAS BEEN FIRED ESSENTIALLY FROM HIS JOB SUPPORT THE CASE FOR THE ICC?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, KHAN HASN'T BEEN FIRED FOR BEGINNING CASES IN UKRAINE OR IN PHILIPPINES OR IN AFGHANISTAN AGAINST THE MULLAHS THERE, OR PROCEEDING AGAINST THE MILITARY ORS WHO HAVE COMMITTED GENERAL SIGN IN MYANMAR.

IT'S NOT FOR HIS CONDUCT OF OFFICE.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO WORK IN HIS OFFICE, OR ALMOST A THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE COURT.

THEY ARE NOT LUNATICS.

THEY ARE NOT CRAZIES.

THEY ARE GREAT JUDGES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO I AM PROUD TO KNOW AND SERVE WITH.

AND THAT KIND OF INSULT TO OUR ALLIES AND TO DISTINGUISHED JURISTS IS THE WORST POSSIBLE KIND OF RHETORIC.

AND FRANKLY, NOBODY THERE IS TALKING ABOUT CHARGING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I DON'T SEE A CASE NOW.

IRAN IS NOT A STATE PARTY TO THE ICC.

THE OPERATION IN VENEZUELA ITSELF WAS A VERY LIMITED ONE.

I DON'T SEE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR A CASE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS BASED ON THE CONDUCT DURING THIS ADMINISTRATION TO BE FRANK.

AND THAT'S A CASE WE FRANKLY MAKE ON THE LAW.

AND TO THE EXTENT PEOPLE VIOLATE THE LAW, WE PURSUE THEM OURSELVES.

SO THAT'S THE SOLUTION THAT WE HAVE HERE.

IN TERMS OF THE ICC JURISDICTION, THEY HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

JUST AS WHAT HAPPENED IN UKRAINE.

UKRAINE ACCEPTS THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICC.

IF YOU COMMIT A WAR CRIME ON ITS TERRITORY, IT HAS JURISDICTION.

IT CAN PROSECUTE YOU IN KYIV.

IT CAN SEND YOU TO THE ICC IF THEY GET AHOLD YOU HAVE.

SAME WAY IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME IN CANADA.

IT'S UP TO CANADA TO DECIDE.

CLEARLY THE ICC HAS JURISDICTION, AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT, WHETHER A STATE PARTY OR NOT IF WE'RE GOING ACT WITHIN COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE PARTIES.

AND WE DO THAT BY FRANKLY, MAKING SURE WE COMPLY WITH THE LAW.

AND IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE SAFE AND WE NEED NOT VIOLATE OUR PRINCIPLES.

GO BACK ON A PROJECT IN WHICH WE FRANKLY INITIATED AT NURENBURG 80 YEARS AGO THIS FALL WE'LL HAVE THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NAZI WAR CRIMINALS.

WE STARTED THAT PROJECT.

WE SUPPORTED IT IN YUGOSLAVIA, SIERRA LEONE AND WE NEED TO STAY ON THE SIDE OF THE LAW AND THE SIDE OF THE VICTIMS AND THE SURVIVORS OF THESE HORRIBLE ACTS OF GENOCIDE, WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

>> LET'S END RIGHT THERE WHEN WE'RE TALKING IN THE LAST FEW SECONDS WHEN WE HAVE THE FUTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION, OBVIOUSLY BEGINNING ON A VERY JUST CAUSE, DOING VERY IMPORTANT WORK.

AND ITS CREDIBILITY BEING ON THE LINE NOW.

THE COURT PROSECUTES SEXUAL VIOLENCE AS WAR CRIME.

I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT.

HOWEVER, ITS INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN PROSECUTOR TOOK SOME 20 MONTHS AND BEGAN ONLY AFTER PRESS LEAKS AND THEN ENDED ONLY AFTER THIS BRAVE SURVIVOR WENT PUBLIC.

SO WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO VICTIMS IN SUDAN AND UKRAINE AND ALL OVER THE WORLD?

>> WELL, THAT EVENTUALLY YOU'RE HEARD AND THE CASES COME FORWARD.

I'VE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE ICC IN THE PAST IN ITEMS OF ITS SPEED AND THE EFFECTIVENESS.

IT'S CONVICTED MAYBE A DOZEN PEOPLE IN 24 YEARS.

I WAS INVOLVED IN COURTS THAT CONVICTED, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED BETWEEN YUGOSLAVIA AND RWANDA AND SIERRA LEONE.

SO I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS THAT THAT CAN BE DONE.

AND OF COURSE NOW IT NEEDS TO ELECT A PROSECUTOR, WHETHER FOR THREE-YEAR INTERIM TERM FOR THE PERIOD OF KARIM KHAN'S TERM, OR FOR A LONGER TERM THAT IS A PERSON OF INTERNATIONAL STATURE AND EXPERIENCE AND WHO IS ABSOLUTELY IN TERMS OF THEIR PERSONAL CHARACTER AND CONDUCT BEYOND QUESTION.

AND THAT WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO THE COURT MOVING ON AND GETTING THE SUPPORT THAT IT NEEDS.

TO THE REST, THE MANY PEOPLE LIKE THE MULLAHS IN AFGHANISTAN AND THE DICTATORS IN MYANMAR, AND BRING THOSE PEOPLE TO JUSTICE WHERE THEY WILL FACE THEIR VICTIMS AND A JUST PROCESS.

>> AND AS WE KNOW, AND AS YOU JUST LAID OUT, TIME ISN'T ALWAYS ON THE VICTIM'S SIDE HERE.

KHAN'S ELECTION TOOK 18 MONTHS.

THE NEW ICC PROSECUTOR IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE VOTED IN BEFORE NEXT YEAR.

STEPHEN RAPP, REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ANALYSIS, YOUR EXPERTISE AND THE TIME.

THANK YOU.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, BIANNA.

> >> NOW THE UNITED STATES IS LESS THAN 100 DAYS AWAY FROM THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS.

AND SO FAR THE PRIMARIES HAVE LAID BARE THE DEEP FAULT LINES RUNNING THROUGH AMERICAN POLITICS.

JONATHAN MARTIN JOINS WALTER ISAAC FROM WASHINGTON TO SHARE HIS ANALYSIS OF THE UPCOMING VOTE AND THE ISSUES ON THE BALLOT.

>> THANK YOU, BIANNA AND JONATHAN MARTIN, WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS, WALTER.

>> HEY, SO FAR THIS SEASON, THIS ELECTORAL SEASON, DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES IT SEEMED.

WILL THAT CARRY THROUGH OR WILL HE BE AN ALBATROSS WHEN IT COMES TO THE GENERAL ELECTIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES?

>> WELL, IT'S TWO AMERICAS.

HE CONTROLS HIS PARTY'S PRIMARY, DOES SO WITH AN IRON FIST, CONSOLIDATES POWER WITHIN HIS COALITION.

BUT THAT DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO BEING ABLE TO WIN GENERAL ELECTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN BLUE OR PURPLE AMERICA, WALTER.

SO IT'S THE DUALITY OF THIS ERA FOR REPUBLICANS.

THEY NEED TRUMP FOR THE PRIMARY, BUT HE IS A BURDEN ON THEM IN THE GENERAL IN A BIG CHUNK OF THE COUNTRY.

THE OLD SAYING IS YOU WIN THE PRIMARY TO LOSE THE GENERAL.

AND THAT'S PART OF THEIR CHALLENGE WITH TRUMP IS THEY SO DESPERATELY CRAVE HIS LAYING OF HANDS IN THE PRIMARY TO WIN, BUT THEN IT CAN BECOME A BURDEN IN THE FALL.

>> GOING TO THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, THE BIG ISSUE IT SEEMS TO ME THE RISE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST CANDIDATES, NOT ONLY IN NEW YORK, BUT IN COLORADO AND SOME OTHER PLACES.

AND THEN THE MAINSTREAM PARTY, OR THE CENTRIST PART OF THE PARTY TRYING TO PULL BACK.

>> YEAH.

>> TELL ME HOW THAT'S PLAYING OUT.

>> WELL, IT'S A REPLAY OF 2018.

AND FOR GOOD REASON.

2018 VERY SIMILAR TO THIS YEAR, TOOK PLACE IMMEDIATELY AFTER DONALD TRUMP WON THE PRESIDENCY, WHICH HORRIFIED DEMOCRATS, AND ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATIC ACTIVISTS, WHO WERE FURIOUS AT THEIR OWN PARTY FOR NOT STOPPING TRUMP AND BLAMED THE OLD GUARD OF THEIR PARTY.

AND ONCE AGAIN, TRUMP WINS, AND DEMOCRATS ARE TICKED AT THEIR OWN PARTY FOR NOT STOPPING HIM.

AND THAT CREATES THIS INTERNAL INSURGENCY.

ON THE ONE HAND, THEY HAD ENORMOUS ENERGY WHICH POWERS FUNDRAISING, ACTIVISM AND TURNOUT AND THEY'RE POISED TO HAVE A GOOD FALL.

BUT AS YOU KNOW THAT KIND OF INTERNAL ENERGY CAN CREATE CHURN WITHIN THE WATER IN GENERATIONAL AND IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN FACTIONS.

YES SAW IT IN 2018 WITH THE RISE OF AOC AND THE SQUAD WHO DEFEATED A HANDFUL OF INCUMBENT HOUSE DEMOCRATS.

AND WE'RE SEEING IT NOW.

THERE IS ONE OTHER SIMILARITY.

IT'S LARGELY TAKING PLACE IN BIG CITY, HIGHLY GENTRIFIED PRECINCTS.

THAT WAS THE CASE IN '18.

IT'S THE CASE NOW.

AND THE BIG QUESTION GOING TO '28 IS CAN THE LEFT REPLICATE THEIR SUCCESS OUTSIDE A KIND OF BARISTA CLASS IF YOU WILL IN THE GENTRIFIED PRECINCTS OF AMERICA'S BIG CITIES, IN SUBURBS, SMALL TOWNS, AND MEDIUM- SIZED CITIES.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN EVIDENCE YET.

>> WELL, IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT IN SUBURBS AND SMALL TOWNS, CAN THEY DO IT WITH A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST TYPE APPROACH?

>> WELL, THAT'S THE QUESTION.

IS THERE ANY APPEAL FOR THAT KIND OF A CANDIDATE, THAT KIND OF A PHILOSOPHY IN THOSE DISTRICTS.

AND SO FAR WE HAVEN'T SEEN EVIDENCE.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

IN PHOENIX, GREG STANTON, WHO IS A HOUSE MEMBER, A FORMER MAYOR OF PHOENIX, EASILY FEND OFF A CHALLENGER WHO IS A DSA ALIGNED CANDIDATE LAST WEEK.

WHY?

WELL, BECAUSE PHOENIX IS NOT QUEENS, RIGHT.

IT DOESN'T IS A THE KIND OF CRITICAL MASS OF POSTGRADUATE, YOU KNOW, INTENSELY LEFTIST TYPE VOTERS THERE TO SUPPORT THAT KIND OF A CANDIDACY.

SO, LOOK, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THERE IS A REAL INSURGENCY TAKING PLACE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

BUT SO FAR THEIR SUCCESS HAS BEEN CONFINED.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT INSURGE IT IS.

WHAT'S DRIVING IT?

THERE ARE MANY FACTORS.

ONE IS AFFORDABILITY.

ANOTHER IS ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE.

SOME IS SORT OF A RESENTMENT IN ESTABLISHMENT THAT'S A POPULISM WE SEE BOTH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

>> I THINK IT'S ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS, WALTER.

AND TOGETHER THEY FORM WHAT I WOULD CALL A KIND OF POLITICAL MOOD MUSIC IN WHICH A LOT OF VOTERS ARE JUST FURIOUS THAT THEIR LEADERS HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIMES, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO AFFORD LIFE.

AND THERE IS THIS SENSE THAT THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES IN THE CASE OF DEMOCRATS, THEIR LEADERS WERE NOT AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH IN TRYING TO TAKE STEPS TO, A, STOP TRUMP, BUT MORE BROADLY, TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THEM.

AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S DRIVING THIS IS PEOPLE WHO CANNOT GET AHEAD WHO ARE STRUGGLING ECONOMICALLY WANT, YOU KNOW, MORE RADICAL SOLUTIONS, WALTER.

THE OVERTON WINDOW IS BROADENING BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE TIMES.

BECAUSE OF THE INEQUALITY OF OUR TIMES.

>> THAT SEEMS TO BE A VERY UNDERSTANDABLE RESENTMENT.

>> SURE.

>> WHICH IS INDEED AFFORDABILITY HAS BECOME A CRISIS, THE DISPARITIES OF GREAT WEALTH, ALL OF THESE THINGS.

WHAT IS THAT --HOW IS THAT PLAYING OUT ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, IF AT ALL?

>> WELL, IT IS SOMEWHAT BEEN TAMED BY THE DENT OF TRUMP'S PERSONALITY.

TRUMP AND TRUMPISM IS SO DRIVEN BY WHATEVER TRUMP WANTS ON A GIVEN DAY OR A GIVEN HOUR.

BUT I THINK YOU HAVE PREVIEWED JUST NOW THE COMING DEBATE IN THE POST TRUMP REPUBLICAN PARTY.

I THINK 2028 WILL PLAY OUT WITH PEOPLE WHO WILL TRY TO CLAIM TRUMP'S LEGACY, BECAUSE HE IS STILL POPULAR WITH THE HARD-CORE PRIMARY VOTERS.

BUT THERE WILL BE A DEBATE AS TO WHAT OUR PARTY SHOULD BE.

AND WALTER, I THINK THAT RECKONING IS COMING.

WHETHER IT'S '28 OR '32 ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, ARE WE STILL A REAGANITE BUSH PARTY IN OUR DNA, FREE PEOPLE, FREE TRADE, FREE MARKETS TO BORROW "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" PHRASEOLOGY, OR NO, THE TIMES DEMAND SOMETHING ELSE AND MORE RADICAL.

WE ARE A LOOKING INWARD PARTY, RESTRICTIONIST, EVEN BLOOD AND SOIL TYPE EUROPEAN PARTY THAT'S NOR NATIONALIST ON IMMIGRATION, ON TRADE AND IDENTITY.

I THINK THAT DEBATE IS COMING ON THEIR SIDE.

AND I REALLY THINK THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE CERTAINLY IN '28, MAYBE BEYOND, WHETHER IT'S VANCE OR RUBIO IS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY ON THE FAR RIGHT, A KIND OF MODERN- DAY PAT BUCHANAN.

>> GETTING BACK TO AFFORDABILITY, ONE THING THAT COULD AFFECT IT IS RANDOM TARIFFS.

I MEAN, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LET'S HAVE A 5 OR 10% THUMB ON THE SCALE, BUT SUDDENLY DECIDING YOU CAN HIT CANADA AGAIN WITH 50%.

>> YEAH.

>> HOW IS THAT ESPECIALLY AMONG THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT BASE, HOW WILL THESE RANDOM TARIFFS PLAYING AND HOW ARE THEY GOING TO AFFECT THE AFFORDABILITY QUESTION?

>> OF ALL OF THE IMPULSIVE THING TRUMP DOES, NOTHING DRIVES THE TRADITIONAL REPUBLICANS ESPECIALLY IN THE SENATE CRAZIER THAN TARIFFS.

IT'S ANTITHETICAL TO THEIR PHILOSOPHY.

IT'S BAD FOR THEIR POLITICS.

THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT IT DOES ECONOMICALLY.

AND HE -- I MEAN, THE SUPREME COURT OBVIOUSLY RULED ON THIS.

HE'S NOT GOING TO STOP TRYING TO DO IT.

SO IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN THIS SUMMER, YOU'RE LOOKING AT RISING GAS PRICES AGAIN, BECAUSE THE IRAN CONFLICT HAS RESTARTED.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PRESIDENT WHO IS INTENT ON A TARIFF REGIME THAT IS OFTEN WILLY- NILLY IN NATURE.

AND WALTER, THE BIGGEST ACCOMPLISHMENT LEGISLATIVELY OF THE YEAR THAT YOU SENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESK, A HOUSING BILL, PASSED WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE OR BECAME LAW WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE BECAUSE HE IS SO TICKED AT CONGRESS FOR NOT PASSING THIS VOTER ID BILL.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT TO GO HOME WITH, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING THIS FALL IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN ON THE BALLOT.

YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE TAX CUT BILL FROM LAST YEAR.

AND OF COURSE THEY'LL TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATS AND THEIR DRIFT LEFT, BUT THERE IS JUST NOT A LOT OF AGENDA ITEMS THEY CAN POINT TO BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP ISN'T GIVING THEM A WHOLE LOT TO POINT TO.

ANDPERTINENTLY, THERE IS NOT A LOT TO LOOK FORWARD.

TO IF YOU WERE TO ASK 10 REPUBLICANS ON CAPITOL HILL WHAT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AGENDA FOR FINAL TWO YEARS, YOU GET TEN DIFFERENT ANSWERS BECAUSE IT'S WHAT TRUMP WANTS ON A GIVEN DAY.

SO THAT'S THE WORLD THEY'RE IN.

THAT'S THE BED THEY'VE MADE FOR THEMSELVES.

IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH SLEDDING BECAUSE OF IT.

>> ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THIS ANTI- ESTABLISHMENT SURGE IS AGE.

>> YEAH.

>> AND THE DEMOCRATS SEEM TO HAVE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM, AND THEY'RE RUNNING 80-YEAR-OLDS FOR THE SENATE OR SOMETHING.

IS THAT A PROBLEM?

AND IS THAT GOING TO BE --ARE WE GOING TO BE SURPRISED AT SOME OF THESE OLDER PEOPLE GET KNOCKED OUT?

>> WELL, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

YOU'VE SEEN THAT HAPPENING ALREADY IN A HANDFUL OF HOUSE PRIMARIES.

AND I THINK THIS IS THE HANGOVER FROM JOE BIDEN'S PRESIDENCY.

IT'S THE LONG --IT'S THE LONG SHADOW OF THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY.

THE FACT THAT HE REFUSED TO WITHDRAW.

HE INSISTED ON RUNNING FOR REELECTION, HAD A DISASTROUS DEBATE, AS WE ALL KNOW AND GOT FORCED OUT EFFECTIVELY BY HIS OWN PARTY.

IT WAS A PALACE COUP.

AND THAT HAS I THINK SHAPED THE '26 RACE BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ARE FURIOUS AT BIDEN FOR DOING THAT.

THEY BLAME HIM FOR TRUMP.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT HURT THE CANDIDACY OF JANET MILLS IN MAINE.

SHE IS SOMEBODY WHO IS IN HER LATE 70s, WAS RUNNING FOR SENATE.

KEN PLATTNER CAME ALONG AND SAID NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A REPEAT OF BIDEN.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ORDERS FROM THE SAME FOLKS THAT GAVE US TRUMP AGAIN.

AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT'S NOT IDEOLOGICAL.

THE DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM WANT YOUNGER BLOOD, WANT A NEWER GENERATION, AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT CONTINUE TO PLAY OUT THIS PRIMARY SEASON, AND CERTAINLY IN 2028 IN THE PRIMARY, AND WITH THIS, WALTER.

THE FIRST PRIMARY THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD A BIDEN, A CLINTON OR AN OBAMA RUNNING OR LOOMING OVER THE CAMPAIGN SINCE 1984.

>> ONE OF THE PERSISTENT ISSUES ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE HAS BEEN THE EPSTEIN FILES.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S SORT OF THIS PUSH PRETTY HARD.

AND IT'S REALLY IN SOME WAYS I THINK DIVIDED HIS COALITION.

HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT?

>> WELL, I THINK THE TWIN SCOURGES OF THE MODERN ERA ARE, A, THE QUESTION OF AFFORDABILITY AND EQUALITY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, BUT THE SECOND ONE IS A LACK OF FAITH IN INSTITUTIONS AND THIS SORT OF GREAT CYNICISM ABOUT EVERY INSTITUTION IN AMERICAN LIFE OUTSIDE THE MILITARY.

AND, WALTER, I THINK THAT'S WHY THE EPSTEIN CASE IS SO FERTILE AND WHY IT DOESN'T GO AWAY.

IT PLAYS INTO A DEEPER SENSE OF CONSPIRACY MONGERING THAT SOMEHOW THERE ARE LARGER FORCES THAT ARE CONTROLLING THE SYSTEM AND HURTING THE LITTLE GUY.

AND IT'S A VIVID ILLUSTRATION OF THAT PRETTY.

I THINK THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T GO AWAY.

ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, IT UNDERSCORES THE DRIFT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FROM A KIND OF COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS-FRIENDLY PARTY TO ONE THAT IS MORE SHAPED BY WORKING CLASS VOTERS, VOTERS WHO ARE MORE CONSPIRACY-MINDED, WHO ARE MORE PASSIONATE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THESE LARGE FORCES CONTROLLING SOCIETY THAT ACTUALLY TRY TO GIVE TAX BREAKS TO THE LARGE FORCE CONTROLLING SOCIETY.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT IS SO HOT.

AND THAT'S WHY VANCE HIMSELF IS SO SENSITIVE ON THIS ISSUE, WALTER, BECAUSE NOBODY IS MORE ONLINE THAN VANCE.

NOBODY IS MORE CONSTANTLY CONSCIOUS OF WHAT THE KIND OF FAR-RIGHT INTERNET FRINGE OF HIS PARTY IS CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND WHETHER IT'S ISRAEL OR WHETHER IT'S EPSTEIN OR ANYTHING ELSE, HE IS CONSTANTLY MINDFUL OF THAT CROWD BECAUSE HE VIEWS THAT CROWD AS THE DECIDING FACTOR IN HIS PARTY NOW.

>> LET ME DO A QUICK LIGHTNING ROUND ON RACES.

LET'S START WITH MAINE SENATE.

>> THE BEST DAY FOR DEMOCRATS COULD WIND UP BEING THE DAY THAT GRAHAM PLATTNER GOT OUT BECAUSE TROY JACKSON GIVES THEM A FRESH START AGAINST SUSAN COLLINS AND THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE RACE AGAINST TRUMP AND COLLINS RATHER THAN GRAHAM PLATNER.

>> WISCONSIN?

>> THE GOVERNOR'S RACE THERE IS THE CLASSIC MIDTERM ELECTION, POISED TO BE A GOOD YEAR FOR THE PARTY OUT OF POWER, BUT BECAUSE OF THE INTERNAL CHURN WITH THE OPPOSITION, IT COULD PRODUCE A CANDIDATE WHO REFLECTS THE PASSIONS OF THE GRASSROOTS, BUT PERHAPS IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION IN WISCONSIN.

SAW IT IN 2010 ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

THEY LOST WINNABLE RACES.

YOU COULD SEE IT AGAIN THIS YEAR WITH DEMOCRATS.

>> AND IN MICHIGAN, YOU GOT A PRIMARY FOR THE SENATE.

>> YES.

>> THAT REALLY SHOWS THE FRACTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

>> TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOTH THE WISCONSIN GOVERNOR'S RACE PREVIOUSLY.

IN MICHIGAN NEXT DOOR, THE SENATE RACE, ONE OF THE MORE KEY RACES OF THIS ELECTION.

GARY PETERS DEMOCRAT, RETIRING.

AND YOU GOT A REAL SORT OF CONTINUATION, WALTER, OF THE BERNIE VERSUS HILLARY DYNAMIC THAT HAS SHAPED DEMOCRATIC INTERNAL FRACTIONAL FIGHTS NOW FOR OVER A DECADE BETWEEN SAID AND STEVENS.

STEVENS A MORE MODERATE BACKED CANDIDATE, AIPAC BACKED CANDIDATE AND BERNIE AND AOC-SUPPORTED, MUCH MORE LEFT-WING.

AND THE QUESTION AGAIN LIKE WISCONSIN THERE IS DOES THE PRIMARY SHAPE OF THE GENERAL ELECTION AND COULD DEMOCRATS BLOW A WINNABLE RACE BY NOMINATING SOMEBODY WHO IS TOO FAR LEFT, NOR THE CASE OF STEVENS, SOMEBODY WHO WOULDN'T ENERGIZE THE LEFT WING GRASSROOTS AND GIVE THE REPUBLICANS A WINNABLE SENATE SEAT.

THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO NET FOUR SENATE SEATS TO TAKE BACK THE MAJORITY NEXT YEAR.

THEY GOT TO HOLD EVERYTHING THEY ALREADY HAVE.

SO IF THEY LOSE THE MICHIGAN RACE, WALTER, THAT JUST MAKES THEM HAVE TO WIN FIVE SEATS TO NET FOUR.

>> IMMIGRATION WAS A HUGE HEADWIND AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS OVER THE PAST EIGHT, TEN YEARS, WHICH I DON'T THINK THAT DEMOCRATIC PARTY QUITE REALIZED.

>> I AGREE.

>> THE STRENGTH OF IT.

ABOUT IMMIGRATION.

NOW YOU'RE SEEING ON THE OTHER SIDE A BACKLASH REVULSION AGAINST SOME OF WHAT I. C. E. IS DOING AND THE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS.

WHAT IS GOING TO BE STRONGER IN THESE RACE, THE CONTROVERSIAL OVER I. C. E. OR THE CONTROVERSY OVER HAVING TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS?

>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

IT WAS THE BEST ISSUE THAT TRUMP HAD IN 2024.

BEST ISSUE HE HAD I THINK LAST YEAR AS WELL.

HE LOST HIS ADVANTAGE AND HIS PARTY LOST THEIR ADVANTAGE ON THE ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE EXCESSES OF I. C. E. , BEGINNING IN JANUARY IN MINNEAPOLIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY NOW WITH MORE RECENT INCIDENTS IN MAINE AND TEXAS.

THIS HAS BEEN A BLOW FOR REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THEY'VE REALLY DINED OUT ON PORTRAYING DEMOCRATS AS TOO WEAK ON IMMIGRATION.

BUT THE POLLING NOW SHOWS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BASICALLY BROKEN EVEN OR EVEN HAVE A SLIGHT ADVANTAGE ON THE ISSUE BECAUSE OF HOW I. C. E. HAS ACTED.

FOX NEWS POLL CAME OUT LAST WEEK SHOWING JUST THAT FACT.

DEMOCRATS ARE NOW MORE TRUSTED, BARELY, ON IMMIGRATION THAN REPUBLICANS.

SO IT'S A HUGE TURNAROUND FROM '24.

AND IT JUST SHOWS, WALTER, AMERICANS HAVE A SPLIT MIND ON THIS ISSUE.

THEY WANT STRONG BORDERS.

THEY HATE IMAGES OF CHAOS AT THE BORDER.

BUT THEY ALSO RECOGNIZE WE'RE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS, AND THEY CANNOT STAND THE EXCESSES OF I. C. E. IN THE STREETS OF AMERICA.

>> LET ME READ YOU A QUOTE THAT WAS IN ONE OF YOUR RECENT COLUMNS ESPECIALLY, IT WAS LEADING UP TO THE ANNIVERSARY.

YOU CALLED UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO, QUOTE, SHOULDER THE BURDEN FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SO IT CAN PROSPER FOR ANOTHER 250 YEARS.

>> YEAH.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE?

>> AMERICANS SHOULD DEMAND BETTER FROM THEIR POLITICIANS.

WE CAN'T BE A COUNTRY THAT HAS THE BEST TECHNOLOGY, NECKS OF, SCIENCE, MILITARY, YOU NAME IT.

WE LEAD THE WORLD ON NEARLY EVERY SOCCER.

MAYBE NOT SOCCER, SPAIN, CONGRATULATIONS.

BUT WE LEAD THE WORLD IN EVERY FACET, BUT YET OUR POLITICS DOES NOT REFLECT THE GREATNESS, THE DOMINANCE OF EVERY OTHER ELEMENT OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

THAT CONTRADICTION CANNOT LAST FOREVER.

AT SOME POINT, AMERICANS WOULDN'T TOLERATE AN AIRLINE PILOT OR A HEART SURGEON THAT WAS A BUFFOON.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO DEMAND BETTER FROM THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND THEY NEED TO.

THEY SHOULD.

AND I THINK PART OF THAT'S ON US.

WE HAVE TO DEMAND BETTER FROM OUR POLITICIANS.

BUT WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK SO THE GOOD PEOPLE WANT TO GET IN POLITICS AND STAY IN POLITICS.

WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE TO GET PEOPLE.

IT'S GREAT TO WORK FOR McKENZIE OR JPMORGAN OR WHOEVER YOU WANT TO WORK FOR, MAKE SOME MONEY.

BUT WE ALSO NEED PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SERVE.

AND WE HAVE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO GET IN, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THE CULTURE MORE ENTICING.

SO I THINK IT'S A MIXTURE OF AMERICANS DOING OUR PART.

THE LATE SENATOR JOHN WARNER FROM VIRGINIA SAID DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT.

SO PEOPLE HAVE TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN THEMSELVES.

YOU WANT BETTER?

DEMAND BETTER.

YOU'RE IN CHARGE.

POLITICS DOESN'T RESPOND TO THE MARKETPLACE.

YOU THE VOTER ARE THE MARKETPLACE.

WE HAVE TO MAKE IT EASIER AND GET BETTER FOLKS INVOLVED BY MAKING IT MORE ATTRACTIVE.

>> JONATHAN MARTIN, THANK YOU AS ALWAYS FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU, WALTER.

>> SO MANY ISSUES DISCUSSED THERE, FROM THE ECONOMY, FROM WAR, IMMIGRATION.

LESS THAN 100 DAYS UNTIL AMERICANS TURN UP TO VOTE FOR THE CRUCIAL MIDTERM ELECTIONS.

> >> AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW EACH NIGHT.

>> SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT CNN.

COM/AMANPOUR.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING "AMANPOUR & CO. "

ON PBS.

JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.