Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour.” Here’s what’s coming up.
Terror in the night as Russia strikes Ukraine cities. I asked a former NATO Deputy Secretary General if there’s any hope for a diplomatic solution.
And —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: As you know, it is not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — with 3 million Epstein documents released, what do we know about his interactions with the most powerful people? Journalist Julie K.
Brown weighs in on secrets revealed and questions unanswered.
Also —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, AUTHOR, “FIVE BULLETS”: It’s just more complicated than either noble vigilante or vicious victims.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — race, fear, and the legacy of subway shooter Bernie Goetz. Michel Martin talks to Elliot Williams, author of “Five Bullets.”
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin in Ukraine, where a major onslaught of Russian missiles and drones bombarded cities across the country, targeting energy facilities and
cutting heat to tens of thousands of people, even as overnight temperatures fell below zero degrees Fahrenheit. Russia attacking despite President
Trump’s claim last Thursday that Vladimir Putin agreed to a week-long pause in attacks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accuses Russia of choosing terror and escalation over diplomacy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): The Russians have once again disregarded the efforts of the American side. The
president of the United States requested that they refrain from attacking energy facilities and critical infrastructures during the meetings between
our negotiating teams. The American president said that they should refrain from attacks for a week. This was a very important and significant
decision. In fact, it began on Friday night, and tonight, in our opinion, the Russians broke their promise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Nonetheless, trilateral peace talks with Russia, Ukraine, and the United States are set to continue in Abu Dhabi this week. And while the
world focuses on diplomatic efforts there, New START, the only remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia,
expires this Thursday.
So, can diplomacy prevail on nuclear weapons and on Ukraine? Rose Gottemoeller, former deputy secretary general of NATO, was America’s chief
negotiator on New START. She comes to us from Capitol Hill, where she was briefing U.S. senators on the agreement. Thank you so much, Rose, for
joining us.
And we’ll get to that agreement expiring in just a moment, but I do want to get to the news of day. Russia resuming its strikes on nuclear — on
Ukraine’s energy facilities in the dead of winter, as President Trump said that President Putin promised him he would at least hold off a week on
doing as much. Russia is saying that they kept their commitment. Perhaps there’s some confusion about the actual term in the dates that they agreed
to.
But what does that tell you about Russia’s commitment to keeping any sort of agreements, as they are also now negotiating some sort of end,
hopefully, for this war?
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, FORMER NATO DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL, LECTURER, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND RESEARCH FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: It does seem very,
very cynical, from what I can tell, because I do believe that there was some difference of opinion as to how long this ceasefire should go on. But
honestly, to start up, just as these negotiations in Abu Dhabi are beginning, it’s a weird way to convey what direction of travel you’re on.
It seems that the Russians are still on the direction of travel, of not wanting to get to any agreement.
And also, I think there’s an element here of interaction between Putin and Zelenskyy, because Zelenskyy actually had a word — a positive word over
the weekend, saying that this ceasefire had lent momentum to the talks coming up in Abu Dhabi. Well, when Vladimir Putin hears anything good from
Zelenskyy, he wants to do his best to contradict it. So, I think in this case, there could be a little element of that dynamic going on as well.
GOLODRYGA: So, what, if any, hopes are we to have going into these trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi?
GOTTEMOELLER: It seems that there is some progress being made, just the fact that we have trilateral talks going on with Ukrainians and Russians
participating in it, along with the United States and the facilitation of the government in Abu Dhabi. That’s — I think that is an important step in
the right direction.
We seem to be inching along, but I am very concerned about the cynical behavior of the Kremlin, I have to say.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and President Trump said talks between Russia and Ukraine are, quote, “going very well,” but we’re also seeing a shift in the attacks
from Russia’s standpoint on transport for buses, railways, civilian routes. Is this a tactical shift from what we’re seeing on the battlefield, or do
you think that this is Russia just, again, trying to show its might and inflict as much pain as it can, both on the battlefield and to civilians in
major cities?
GOTTEMOELLER: Yes, it was very tragic that, again, Ukraine depends so much on coal mining, and 12 miners were killed on a bus, as well as civilians
killed on a train in the last week. So, it’s been a very, very difficult period.
I do think that there was a slight element of shift there just to be able to fulfill, apparently, Putin’s promise to President Trump not to attack
energy infrastructure, so they started going after transport links instead, with the clear message that they are keeping up the pressure. Also, again,
the message that they may not be on exactly the same route to a rapid conclusion to this war as President Trump has wanted to be and as President
Zelenskyy has wanted to be. They’re conveying once again that they are not ready to give up on their key demands to take over total control of the
Donbas in particular.
GOLODRYGA: And all of this happening, as there does seem to be progress made among Europeans and Ukraine in terms of what any sort of guarantees
for Ukraine would look like under an agreed-upon ceasefire between these two and an armistice between these two countries, if one does come to
fruition.
And according to new reporting, Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. have discussed a tiered enforcement plan that would be warnings within 24 hours
if Russia breaks the ceasefire and attacks Ukraine. European military involvement between 72 hours and potentially the U.S. backing if Russia
violates the ceasefire for a prolonged period after 72 hours.
How serious do you think this plan is, and can the Europeans, can Ukraine especially, rely on the United States stepping in after three days?
GOTTEMOELLER: I think it’s really important that the United States has committed up to this point, and it seems like something that the Trump
administration was not early on that enthusiastic about, but they have committed to U.S. involvement in a step-by-step approach. And I think
that’s very valuable.
If you juxtapose this evident plan against what was in existence during the early period after 2014 when there were attempts at a ceasefire and
resolution under the so-called Minsk process, there was nowhere near that level of detail. And with the Russians, believe me, I understand everything
has to be nailed down in detail, the procedures, the routines, who will do what when. And so, to my mind, at least what we know about this framework
has some promise to it because it does contain that level of detail about who will do what when.
GOLODRYGA: And we still know, given their track record, they’ll still violate terms that they agreed to themselves. And Russia, from day one of
this war, as we’re approaching, tragically, the four-year mark of the larger-scale invasion of Ukraine, has said that there will be no foreign
troops at all in Ukraine allowed. And that now, I guess, goes for during ceasefire as well.
So, how much do you think is this Russia moving the goalposts? And how concerned should the Europeans, should America be about this demand from
Russia?
GOTTEMOELLER: Well, those are the two big differences, the two big Russian red lines that are still out there. They want to take over all the
territory of the Donbas, and they are refusing the notion that NATO countries, including the United States, should be participating in
providing security guarantees for the Ukrainians. But for the Ukrainians, that is an absolute necessity for a fair outcome in these negotiations.
They have to see firm security guarantees from the United States and its allies.
So, I think that’s probably going to be the biggest set of sticking points over those two issues, trying to come to a resolution, and we will see
where it ends up. But I’ve been heartened that NATO, Ukraine, and NATO, including the United States, seem to be on the same wavelength with regard
to getting to yes over the security guarantees.
Now, there have been some concerning stories out there that the U.S. wants the Ukrainians to give up on the territorial issue in order to get the
security guarantees. There have been denials out of the White House. I can’t tell exactly where that stands, but that is something to watch as
well.
GOLODRYGA: Does that worry you? I mean, do you think that that is something that —
GOTTEMOELLER: Of course.
GOLODRYGA: But do you think that that’s something, ultimately, that President Zelenskyy — I know he says that he’s constitutionally bound to –
– he can’t just give up territory without a vote and a referendum from his constituents. But if that’s ultimately the demand from the United States,
what choice is he left with?
GOTTEMOELLER: Well, the choice may be just to fight on and fight on with the support of the Europeans, and that’s the kind of message we’ve been
seeing emerging, that the Ukrainians are not just going to give up on this, and certainly President Zelenskyy has been very, very firm in this regard.
So, it will, I think, come down to being able to balance out the Russian demand with regard to the security guarantees with a great firmness from
all the NATO allies and from Washington itself. The problem from very early on in these negotiations is Washington seems to have a tendency to want to
muscle Kyiv from time to time. And in this case, I think — and the role of the NATO alliance and Mark Rutte himself as the secretary general, I was
glad he was in Kyiv over the last 24 hours because he has been effective in working with President Trump. He worked with him on the Greenland question,
for example. So, I hope that this can contribute to getting to yes.
GOLODRYGA: And all of this is happening, as we noted, the expiration of New START in two days. As the treaty’s chief U.S. negotiator, how
historically dangerous, in your view, is this particular moment with, as we noted, the United States now in a position where they’re potentially going
to be negotiating with a country that’s illegally invaded its neighbor for nearly four years?
GOTTEMOELLER: Well, to be honest with you, there have been many periods in our history since the 1970s when we got the first Strategic Arms Limitation
Agreement, when we have not had legally binding treaty limits in place. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, for example, the Second SALT
Agreement was supposed to be ratified by the Senate, but President Carter pulled it back. So, we went through a number of years where we just had a
kind of handshake agreement not to move beyond the limits of the Second SALT Agreement. And that’s the kind of situation we are in now.
I don’t think we’re going to fall off a cliff when New START goes out of force, but it does concern me that with all the other negatives in the
U.S.-Russian relationship, we might not be able to get back to the table anytime soon. It’s an urgent issue, particularly because the Chinese are
also modernizing their nuclear forces, and President Trump has promised to talk to both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin about nuclear disarmament.
So, we need to urgently get to the table with both of those countries. And if we have so many other issues on the agenda, and particularly finding
peace in Ukraine, it might seem difficult to have enough attention span to also deal with nuclear weapons.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You mentioned China. China, I believe, their stockpiles as of 2024 was in about the 600s range of nuclear weapons. It’s projected to
grow by more than 1,000 by 2030. And so, as Vladimir Putin has offered to extend START II for a one-year voluntary extension, as he describes it,
Trump has called this a good idea, but would like to include China in the mix as well. What do you make of the president’s request that China also be
part of any sort of negotiations? And how realistic is that?
GOTTEMOELLER: My view is that it is realistic to start to talk to the Chinese about what their objectives and intentions are. They are clearly
modernizing. They’re building up rapidly. And our Department of Defense several years ago said that they would be at 1,500 warheads by 10 — I’m
sorry, by 2035. And so, I think it’s very important to get to the negotiating table and talk to them about their objectives.
But bear in mind we and the Russians still have so many more warheads than the Chinese. We have 4,000 total. The Russians have approximately 4,000
total. So, compare what they have today. The Chinese have 600. Yes, they’re building up, but that’s why I keep saying to people we have time to work
this problem. We don’t need to panic, but it is urgent to begin talks with the Chinese about their objectives, what are their intentions with this
modernization, talk about lowering nuclear risks.
And with the Russians, my view is we can continue to talk to them about limiting nuclear weapons and controlling the future in that way. So, it’s a
little bit different process. That’s why I think we should have two negotiations in parallel. And the president can have two great victories in
his negotiating process.
GOLODRYGA: How – you know the president well. He’d like to claim another victory here. You say that with a smile on your face. But how hollow is
this conversation and prospect without regular inspections and data exchanges, specifically between the United States and Russia? We know that
they were frozen during COVID and then after Russia’s full-scale invasion into Ukraine.
GOTTEMOELLER: Right. Let me make a difference there because both sides agreed during COVID that they didn’t want to endanger their inspectors by
sending them on on-site inspections. And then Vladimir Putin pulled the plug on all further implementation, all further inspections in February of
2023 after he invaded Ukraine.
He linked it all up, saying that the Ukrainian assistance that NATO was providing meant that he couldn’t talk to the U.S. about nuclear weapons
anymore. I disagree with that notion, but nevertheless, that’s the position he took.
So, now we’re at a point, I think, where it seems like Putin is ready to start talking about nuclear limits again and nuclear stability. And it’s
possible, I think, for the president to take advantage of that. But let me stress, it will have to be, any new treaty with the Russians will have to
involve very extensive and intensive on-site inspection, including of warhead facilities.
So, these are going to be very difficult to negotiate. We have good experience with on-site inspection over many, many years here. But it will
take some new technical work to be able to monitor and verify nuclear warheads, which is an important U.S. goal in the next negotiations.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And it’s important to remember that it was last year that the president raised eyebrows when he ordered the Pentagon to restart
nuclear testing on an equal basis with China and Russia. A bit unclear whether these were nuclear-capable devices that he was talking about or
not. But I remember that making headlines as well. Rose Gottemoeller, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for the time.
GOTTEMOELLER: My pleasure. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Now, to another diplomatic development. Iran has provisionally agreed to resume nuclear talks with the United States. This comes as
President Trump sent an armada to the region threatening to strike Iran if it fails to negotiate a deal. Trump also threatened military action in
response to the regime’s deadly crackdown on demonstrations. Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh spoke to a doctor inside Iran who witnessed the brutality
firsthand. He helped coordinate an underground network of medics to treat protesters, and now he fears arrest himself. Here’s her report, and please
be advised, some of the images are disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a night of horror. The gunfire, chaos, and fear captured in this video, a scene that
was replicated across Iran. Many of those who barely escaped the regime’s onslaught are still on the run. With security forces hunting down the
injured and those who aid them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What happened on January the 8th and 9th, the scenes at the hospitals were like those end-of-the-world
Hollywood movies.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): This doctor we’re not identifying for his safety is part of an underground network of medics treating injured protesters
inside Iran.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Government hospitals were controlled by security forces and monitored by cameras. If injured people
went there and were identified as protesters, staff on duty had to report them, and they would be arrested.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Never have the wounded needed their doctors more than they do right now. With activists reporting more than 11,000 injured
in the most violent regime crackdown in the history of the Islamic Republic with the widespread use of live ammunition and military-grade weapons. It’s
also extremely dangerous being a doctor in Iran right now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The doctors who didn’t cooperate were detained, or the next day security officers would summon them, or they
were thrown out.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Images like this have emerged showing injured protesters too scared to go to hospitals, being treated in secret. Some so
desperate have also been reaching out to Iranian doctors abroad for help. Hospitals are no sanctuary in the Islamic Republic.
Security forces have raided facilities like this one in the city of Elam, and that was even before the most vicious and bloody clampdown on the
protests began on January the 8th. Since then, the doctor and others say it was the feared revolutionary guards who took control of hospitals searching
for injured protesters. Reports of security forces detaining protesters from hospitals are widespread. The U.N. and rights groups have also raised
concerns about the arrest of doctors.
KARADSHEH: Speaking with us could mean prison for you or even worse. Why did you agree to speak with us?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I’ve locked the door with five different locks. I expect that at any moment as I give this interview, they
could break in and arrest me. I’ve chosen to put my own safety second and make sharing information about the injured and the war crimes that have
occurred my first priority.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): The risks he’s taking, he says, fighting back tears are nothing compared to the young protesters who paid the ultimate
price.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I promised myself to be a voice for the injured and for those who have been killed. I promised myself to
make sure the voices are heard by the world.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Voices like that of 16-year-old Arvin’s (ph) family. He was shot in the head. They killed him, this relative cries, as
they try to speak out at the hospital. They are silenced. These are the voices the regime doesn’t want the world to hear.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And voices that’s so important the world actually does get a chance to hear thanks to that really important report from Jomana
Karadsheh.
Up next, we take a deep dive into the Epstein document dump. More than 3 million pages along with videos, photos and emails of the rich, famous and
powerful. But while this vast record casts new shadows over the reputation of powerful elites, what does it all add up to? And will there ever be
accountability for Epstein’s victims?
Journalist Julie K. Brown is the author of “Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story.” It was her investigative reporting for the Miami
Herald, which won multiple awards and led to Epstein’s arrest in 2019.
Julie K. Brown, thank you so much for joining the show. We wouldn’t be here going through this reckoning as a country and learning about these
survivors, Julie, and seeing that the scope that this has globally without all of your important reporting. So, thank you so much for everything that
you’ve done that you continue to do.
And I know you continue to work because you’ve spent this weekend going through page by page of all of these newly published documents and release
documents. And it was years after your book, “Perversion of Justice,” was published. They appear to implicate even more politicians, even more elite,
even more powerful names. After reading all of this, everything you’ve already discovered in your reporting, does anything surprise you at this
point?
JULIE K. BROWN, AUTHOR, “PERVERSION OF JUSTICE”: Well, thank you first for having me. And I just want to point out, really, we wouldn’t be here
without the victims, because what made my work so powerful was them. And that’s what’s continuing to, I think, push this into the public, into a new
reckoning for what this story is about. So, I do think that it was the victims that are to be credited for this story still having the kind of
reach that it does.
No, nothing is surprising me. I expected it would be chaotic. I expected that it would be especially, you know, voluminous and to the point where
it’s almost impossible. It’s impossible to see anything. And what we are seeing, though, is confirmation that this was more than just Jeffrey
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, you know, doing sex trafficking just between themselves. This involved other people. And also, what’s not talked about a
lot, it also involved a lot of global money laundering.
So, you know, this is a huge crime network that involves an awful lot of people from all over the country and all over the world.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned that we wouldn’t be here without the bravery so many years later from these survivors. And even as the Department of
Justice had pledged that they would do everything they can to protect them, to shield their names and information, redact their photos, it seems that
that has not happened. And, in fact, a Manhattan federal judge will be holding a hearing tomorrow to consider shutting down the DOJ website after
victims’ names were improperly disclosed.
I’d like for you to listen and for our audience to listen to how one survivor, Haley Robinson, told CNN she believes that these disclosures were
intentional.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HALEY ROBSON, JEFFREY EPSTEIN SURVIVORS: It’s been heartbreaking. I have been on the phone with some of my survivor sisters. I’ve been up late-night
crying with them on the phone. They are devastated. They are heartbroken. Personal information has been leaked that had absolutely — there’s no
reason for it. But yet, the men and some of the defining evidence has still been redacted.
So, at this point, we’re feeling this is extremely intentional, and it’s very harmful, and this is not what we meant when we said we wanted
transparency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And apologies, her name is Haley Robson. Lawyers for survivors say that the failure to redact these names has once again turned their
lives upside down. You heard from Haley. She believes that this was intentional. The DOJ has responded by saying that it’s not intentional.
They are aware. They apologize for this. It is human error that caused this.
So, what do you think? Do you think that this was intentional, or do you think that this was just reckless incompetence?
BROWN: It’s hard to know because they certainly had enough time to really comb through these. I mean, look, they knew since Trump was elected that
this was his campaign motto, that he was going to be transparent and he was going to release these files. So, they’ve known for, you know, almost a
year now that this was something that the public was demanding and the victims wanted. So, they had plenty of time. We had heard reports that they
were going through them, you know, even, you know, over the summer. So, I don’t understand what their excuse is.
And also, by the way, these victims, the whole reason why I took up this story to begin with was the way that they treated these victims way back in
2005 and ‘6 and ‘7 when they knew Epstein was committing these crimes. Authorities, the FBI, the Justice Department all knew he was doing this.
They treated the victims horribly. And then they wonder why some of the victims didn’t want to cooperate.
I mean, it was so horrible the way they were treated from the very beginning. And so, could you imagine what kind of trauma they are now going
through two decades, almost two decades later for some of them? It’s just inexcusable.
GOLODRYGA: And to hear from these victims and survivors and as we’re showing when they were testifying, speaking there before cameras, before
speaking with members of Congress outside of Congress right there was in November of last year. You see how young they were at the time. I mean,
they still remain. They are still young. They were girls at the time, not even — you know, some of them in their upper teens. It is unimaginable
what they’ve experienced.
And still so many questions about why someone like Jeffrey Epstein was able to wield so much power, friendships from, as we said, cross-party lines
from the rich and powerful. They were international politicians as well, members of royal families. From all of your investigative reporting, have
you been able to understand why so many people were drawn separate from the sexual abuse? I’m just saying that the friendships that he generated and
maintained for so many years, despite the charges against him.
BROWN: Money. It was all about money. Greed. It really was, including to some degree, the crimes that he committed against children and young women
because he was using them as currency. He was using them to snare or to somehow connect with people that he wanted to do business with. And these
people just ate it up. They just didn’t understand or ignored or were ignorant of the ramifications.
But this involved a lot of money laundering, a lot of power that people wanted to gain connections. I mean, he was a maestro of helping people to
make connections in order for them to get money, whether it was new clients, whether it was whole countries that they wanted to court for one
reason or another.
This is a global network that he was trying to form here, and it really is all about greed and money. And even today, the idea that, you know, Todd
Blanche is saying there’s nothing to see here, that’s ridiculous. We know that he was laundering money. We know that there were other people
involved. So, if nothing else, this should be a financial crime story at the very least.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and you’ve argued that the FBI stopped digging once they had enough information, specifically as it relates to Epstein alone and no
one else. Why do you think that is?
BROWN: Because there’s so many big people involved. If you step on one of these people, you risk, you know, especially if you’re in government, you
know, a high in government level position. I mean, it’s the same thing that happened with Alex Acosta with the original plea deal. You know, Epstein
hired all these really high-powered lawyers who had influence in the Justice Department, and he didn’t want to, you know, get them mad at him.
He wanted to rise in his career. And this is exactly why this is happening just on a larger level. They know that they could hurt people’s careers,
they could make life miserable, or you can make a lot of money if you go along with us.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
BROWN: So, you know, it is really about money. And, you know, Senator Ron Wyden in Oregon has been investigating that. He’s hitting a lot of
roadblocks with the Treasury Department. And people should know that this is about money and that our, you know, our government is still hiding a lot
about this.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You mentioned Alex Acosta. We should note that he was the lawyer who was prosecuting and was accused of being overly lenient in the
prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and was President Trump’s first labor secretary before he stepped down following the fallout from this specific
story. And here we are so many years later on the week where now Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before Congress in their
investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, days before a vote to actually hold them in criminal contempt.
Do you think anything meaningful if they finally agree to the terms? I think they’re just the Republican here who is chairing the oversight is
suggesting that he’s not accepting the terms that Bill Clinton offered, which is to testify at home in New York and not in Washington. If they
ultimately agree, what, if anything, are you expecting to hear and come out of these hearings in his testimony?
BROWN: Well, we know that Bill Clinton has already publicly said, release everything. He’s been on the record with that. And that leads me to believe
that he doesn’t have any fear that there’s something in there that would have hurt him. But we honestly don’t know this.
This, you know, Epstein orbit was pretty big and involved a lot of people, including one time anyway, Clinton. I have never heard a story of him being
sexually involved with anybody connected to the Epstein case. And I’m saying that honestly, that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. It just
means, you know, sometimes people do things behind closed doors and are really more careful than other people. So, I just don’t think we know what
they’re going to say. My guess is if they agree, then they probably feel that they don’t have anything to hide.
GOLODRYGA: And he, we should note, has not been charged with any wrongdoing as it relates to Jeffrey Epstein, nor has President Trump. But
his name, I believe, appears over a thousand times in this latest tranche of documents. Where does he end up in all of this? I mean, you talk about
the fact that there are so many people implicated across party lines. Do you see this ultimately hurting Donald Trump?
BROWN: Well, to be honest with you, I think it’s already hurting him. I think the way he’s handled this rollout is, you know, has already had
ramifications, especially within the MAGA movement. I just think that the entire thing has been mishandled from the very beginning. And I think that
has hurt him because whether he had anything to do with it or not, and obviously we have no evidence that he did, it just — there’s a distrust of
the government when you’re saying one thing and doing another thing.
And I think there’s an implication there, especially now that the — these files are coming out and they’re going back in, you know, they’re
disappearing. We’ll see a document and we’ll look at it. And then when we go back to look at it again, it’s gone. And that shows distrust that
they’re what are they hiding?
GOLODRYGA: And the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said it is not illegal to have partied with Jeffrey Epstein. And that is indeed true. That
is the case. Maybe worth questioning someone’s judgment by spending time with a man like that. But it was not illegal. He also said that this will
be the last of this case and that as far as they’re concerned, there are no further investigations pending.
When it comes to the justice that these victims, that these survivors deserve. Does that sound just to you?
BROWN: No. I mean, look, good luck with that, because this — the public are not going to — they’re going to keep going on this story. This story
will outlive me. And these victims are not going to stop. And I just think that it’s very shortsighted to make a blanket statement like that. To me,
it would make more sense to say, look, we’re looking at this a little further. There are some I can’t talk about it, but there’s some threads
that we’re looking at.
But by saying, no, there’s nothing to see here. When people can go online and see that there are things to see there is it just doesn’t make any
sense.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I’m just wondering, you mentioned your outlive you, you also appear in these files. Epstein warned colleagues, quote, “She is going
to start trouble,” and then later tried to arrange an interview with you after your reporting exposed him. What was it like in the final seconds we
have here to see your name, to see yourself described that way?
BROWN: I don’t know. I try not to think about it because you have to wonder if they were doing that, what else were they doing, you know? I try
not to think of my own safety. I just keep putting one foot in front of the other. But look, I know that Epstein was digging through the trash of
everybody that was involved in this case from the very beginning. And he was hiring people to follow the victims and dig into everything they could
get. So, you know, it is in the back of my mind that — you know, that he was probably investigating me.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Julie K. Brown, we are all grateful for all of the investigative work that you have done on this story. Thank you so much for
joining us. We appreciate it.
BROWN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: It was a moment that shocked New York and divided a nation. In 1984, Bernie Goetz opened fire on four black teenagers who he claimed were
trying to rob him. At a time when fears of rising crime were rife, some saw him as a hometown hero, naming him the subway vigilante, while others
condemned him for what they saw as an act of racial violence.
Now, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams is reexamining this case in his new book, Five Bullets. And he speaks to Michel Martin about why this
story still resonates today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Elliot Williams, thank you so much for joining us.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, AUTHOR, “FIVE BULLETS”: Great to be here, Michel.
MARTIN: I think people know you as a legal analyst, former federal prosecutor. But in this book, you’re revisiting, I don’t know, one of the
most explosive, divisive cases in New York from the mid-’80s. I mean, I’m saying New York, but this became a national issue. So, remind people of
what happened.
WILLIAMS: OK. So, what’s not disputed is that Bernhard Goetz on a downtown Manhattan number two subway train shoots four unarmed black teenagers who
he claimed were trying to mug him. He ran to New Hampshire, was on the run for nine days, and then ultimately turned himself in. When he came back, he
was heralded as somewhat of a hero by a big segment of the population. And it really was an immensely polarizing case about self-defense in New York
in one of its roughest times in history with crime rates that were through the roof.
MARTIN: Who is Bernhard Goetz? I think most people haven’t heard of him in years. I think some people might be surprised he’s still alive.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
MARTIN: You actually had a lengthy conversation with him. We’ll get to that later. But who is Bernhard Goetz? And who was he then? And what did he
represent to people?
WILLIAMS: He was a — this quirky, odd loner, in effect, a man that lived in New York City. He was 37 at the time of the shooting. And just, just an
odd individual. His neighbors would say that he was immensely friendly one day and then odd and dismissive another day, quirky, hyperkinetic, clenched
fists walking through his building. But the one issue that really seemed to rile him up was public safety and crime. You could just say the words crime
or drugs or drunks on the stoop and he would just go off. And this goes back to even the 1980s.
He had been mugged quite violently a few years before this shooting and thereafter always walked the streets of New York, never left home without
an unlicensed firearm. He always had this handgun on him. And to some extent, it was always a matter of when, not if he would, he would use it on
somebody.
MARTIN: So, what happened on that subway car? Like what was going on? Like set the scene for us.
WILLIAMS: So, New York City was at its roughest, quite possibly ever, just to put it in perspective. Right back then, the homicide rate in New York
City was about 2000 homicides a year, 2000 murders a year. It’s about 300 now. It’s just rough in an incomprehensible way to most modern thinkers or
viewers or audiences, right? And that the subway wasn’t immune. It was rough. People were often assaulted or mugged or chain snatched or purses
grabbed on the subway. So, that’s the backdrop.
He got on the subway car and one of the four young men, Troy Canty is his name, either asked Bernhard Goetz for $5. Mister, can I have $5? Or
demanded, give me $5. That’s not clear and that was never quite established which of the two it was. Needless to say, Goetz thought he was being
mugged. The New York law at the time and as now allows someone who believes reasonably, that’s the word, that they are about to be the victim of a
robbery can use deadly force, believe it or not.
And so, he felt empowered to do so. Thought a mugging was imminent. Even said — even if the guy just says hi to you, sometimes, you know, even
those words, hello, might be an attempt for a mugging, pulled out his gun and then just opened fire on the four boys in rapid succession.
MARTIN: And you say boys, were they boys?
WILLIAMS: Well, they were they were 18 and 19 years old. That’s a fair question. And throughout time, you know, as you read coverage of it, it’s
this question of how to refer to them. Now, throughout the book, “Five Bullets,” I use the term teens or young men because they were in their teen
years, but they were still adults. And we should be fair in characterizing the good and the bad in all of this, right. But, you know, boys came out
there. Some people referred to them as kids. I did not in the book.
MARTIN: So, almost immediately, this case became more than a case. It became more than one incident. So, I want to ask about both of those
things. What happened? Like why did this thing sort of blow up into this almost kind of mythic thing? And what were some of the things that people
were saying?
WILLIAMS: Well, so let’s rewind 10 years before the movie Death — in 1974, the film “Death Wish” had come out. And within days of the shooting,
I think the next day, even before anybody knew who Bernhard Goetz was, the New York Post began running graphics, calling him the “Death Wish”
vigilante, the “Death Wish” shooter. And there’s the there’s a myth in American popular culture and history of the noble vigilante, the man who
steps in. It’s usually a white man who steps in and fills the void where police cannot. And that was an attractive fantasy to many people.
And just think about the kinds of things that happened at the time, Michel, the police set up a tip line for those nine days before they caught
Bernhard Goetz. It’s inundated with phone calls, but the phone calls were all in support or overwhelmingly in support of the shooter, suggesting that
he run for mayor, that he should run for office, that he’s a hero.
I would have done the same thing if I were in the same position. And something about him really touched a nerve. And it was such an easy
narrative to build. They were black teenagers. They were ostensibly mugging him, that’s the narrative that got built. He was an otherwise law abiding,
meek, white engineer —
END