04.24.2019

April 24, 2019

Christiane Amanpour speaks with Dimitri Simes in an exclusive interview; and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham about withdrawing all National Guard troops from her state’s border. Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Jamie Metzl about genetic engineering.

Read Full Transcript EXPAND

HELLO EVERYONE.

AND WELCOME TO AMANPOUR & COMPANY.

WITH THE MUELLER REPORT HEAVY IN VIEW, WE DIG IN.

THEY CALL HER A FIRE CRACKER, NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR, ON VOTERS PRIORITIES IN HER STATE AND WHAT THAT SAYS ABOUT DEMOCRATS VYING TO BE THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

> AND DNA MAY SOON BE AS EASY TO ALTER AS COMPUTER CODE.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE TINKER WITH DARWIN'S RULES?

> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM EVERYONE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HE WILL FIGHT CONGRESSAL SUBPOENAS TO HAVE TESTIFY ON THE HILL AS HOUSE DEMOCRATS PLEDGE TO CARRY THE MANTLE.

POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS AND INVESTIGATORS ARE STILL ALL PICKING OVER THIS REPORT, AND TODAY WE HAVE THE RARE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH A MAN WHO'S INTERACTIONS WITH DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN EARNED HIM A SPOT IN THAT TWO VOLUME.

THE DIM TREE SIGNS.

IN TRIL 2016, MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION, CANDIDATE GAVE HIS FIRST MAJOR FOREIGN POLICY ADDRESS AT EVENT AFFILIATED WITH SIGNS THINK TANK.

IT WAS AT THAT EVENT THAT KISLYAK MET JARED KUSHNER AND TOLD HIM WE LIKE WHAT YOUR CANDIDATE IS SAYING.

IT'S ONE OF MANY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SIGNS AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

I'M JOINED BY DME TREE SIGNS.

SO, LOOK, IT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO HAVE YOU TO TALK TO TONIGHT BECAUSE AS I'VE SAID, EVERYBODY'S STILL POURING OVER THIS AND WE ALL WANT TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS.

SO, HERE WE HAVE YOU.

TELL ME FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, JUST GIVE ME AN OVERVIEW, SHORT, OF THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF.

WELL, THIS WAS A VERY SERIOUS INVESTIGATION CLEARLY, QUITE DELIBERATE, WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED.

I THINK THAT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON ALONE WERE INTERVIEWED, SEVERAL DOZEN WERE SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.

NEITHER ME OR ANYONE ELSE FROM THE CENTER OF NATIONAL INTEREST WAS ONE OF THEM.

AND THIS INVESTIGATION CONCLUDED.

I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL'S PEOPLE, AND THEY WERE VERY NICE, THANKING ME AND MY COLLEAGUES FOR OUR EFFORT AND SAID THEY WERE SORRY WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS.

RIGHT.

AND THAT THEY HOPED THAT IF WE SEE EACH OTHER AGAIN IT WILL UNDER MORE PLEASANT CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND I TOLD THEM THAT WHILE IT WAS NOT MY FAVORITE FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT, I UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE DOING WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.

AND THEY WERE QUITE PROFESSIONAL AND RESPONSIBLE.

SO, YOU HAVE A GREAT WAY WITH WORDS AND A GREAT FLOURISH AND YOU'VE GIVEN US A VERY INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE.

WERE YOU INTERVIEWED -- YOU SAY NEITHER ME NOR ANYBODY FROM MY THINK TANK WAS, QUOTE, INTERVIEWED OR SUBPOENAED.

YOUR CONVERSATION, WAS THAT AN INTERVIEW, WAS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER THERE?

DID HE ASK YOU QUESTIONS?

LET ME VERY CLEAR.

I DID NOT SAY -- OR AT LEAST I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY I WAS NOT INTERVIEWED.

I OBVIOUSLY WAS INTERVIEWED.

I MEANT WE WERE NOT TAKEN TO THE GRAND JURY, TO THE NEXT STAGE.

WE WERE WITNESSES.

WE WERE NOT A FOCUS OF THE INVESTIGATION.

NO, I DID NOT MEET MR. MUELLER PERSONALLY.

I MET ONE OF HIS DEPUTIES AND SEVERAL ATTORNEYS AND FBI AGENTS WHO ASSIST HIM.

AND HOW EXTENSIVE WAS THE INTERVIEW?

HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SIT WITH THEM OR FOR HOW LONG?

HOW MUCH DID -- WE KNOW FROM THE REPORT THAT THEY ASKED YOU LOADS OF QUESTIONS.

BUT HOW LONG DID IT TAKE?

WELL, I WOULD RATHER NOT DISCUSS SPECIFICS BECAUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT NEITHER SIDE WOULD GO INTO ANY DETAILS.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE OTHER INVESTIGATIONS FOCUSING ON OTHERS.

WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO THINK THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL INTEREST IN US.

BUT ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT I THOUGHT THE INTERVIEWS WERE EXTENSIVE, DELIBERATE, CONDUCTED IN AN APPROPRIATELY TOUGH MANNER, BUT VERY PROFESSIONAL.

SO, LET'S GO THROUGH SORT OF BIT BY BIT SOME OF THE MAIN BUILDING BLOCKS.

YOU OBVIOUSLY HAD CONTACTS WITH JARED KUSHNER AND YOU CREATED A RELATIONSHIP OF SORTS ARE HIM.

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN, AND DESCRIBE TO ME THE NATURE OF THAT RELATIONSHIP.

WELL, I THINK THAT THE FIRST THING THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID, THAT THE MUELLER REPORT MAKES ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, THAT NEITHER ME NOR ANYBODY AT THE CENTER OF NATIONAL INTEREST EITHER RECEIVED MESSAGES FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT DIRECTED TOWARD THE CAMPAIGN OR BROUGHT ANY MESSAGES FROM THE CAMPAIGN TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE STATED VERY CLEARLY.

IT'S NOT MY IMPRESSION OF WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THOUGHT ABOUT.

IT WAS WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAID VERY CLEARLY AT THE OUTSET OF DISCUSSING THE INTERACTION WITH US.

AND IN TERMS OF MR. KUSHNER, YOU'RE ASKING HOW I MET HIM.

I'M ASKING YOU THE EXTENT AND THE NATURE OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP, HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION AND DURING THE CAMPAIGN?

I WENT TO TIME WARNER BUILDING.

YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS IN NEW YORK.

I ENTERED THE ROOM WHICH WAS A DINING ROOM, SAID HELLO TO JEFF ZUKER, PRESIDENT OF CNN, PART OF A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE INVITED BY TIME WARNER FOR A LUNCHEON WITH OUR CHAIRMAN, KISSINGER.

KISSINGER DELIVERED A SHORT TALK AND INDICATED HIS SUPPORT OF THE CENTER AND ENCOURAGED US AND PEOPLE ALSO TO BE INVOLVED WITH US.

WE DID NOT INVITE ANY GUESTS OURSELVES.

THEY WERE INVITED BY TIME WARNER.

MR. KUSHNER WAS ONE OF THEM.

HE WAS WELL-KNOWN TO THEM.

I WAS NOT AWARE OF HIM AT ALL.

HE INTRODUCED HIMSELF.

WE HAD A CONVERSATION.

IT WAS IN THE AFTER MATH OF KISSINGER'S PRESENTATION.

AND THEN WE DISCUSSED HOW AT A CERTAIN POINT IF I'M IN NEW YORK WE COULD GET TOGETHER.

AND THEN THERE WAS A FOLLOW UP ON MR. KUSHNER'S PART AND WE GOT TOGETHER.

OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE DESCRIBING A KIND OF EDITORIAL MEETING, EDITORI EDITORIAL BOARD MEETING WHICH IS QUITE COMMON AND IT'S REGULARLY DONE AT VARIOUS MEDIA CORPORATIONS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, 'THE WASHINGTON POST' DESCRIBES, FOR INSTANCE, YOU AS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN'S -- OR THE TRUMP TEAM'S -- RUSSIA WHISPERER.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WANTED FROM YOU?

WELL, I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT BY 'THE WASHINGTON POST.'

IT IS ENTIRELY FALSE.

AND OFFENSIVE BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, I WAS NOT WHISPERING ANYTHING TO THEM.

I WAS TALKING TO THEM QUITE OPENLY AND IN THE ROOM IN THE PRESENCE OF QUITE A FEW OTHERS INCLUDING A NUMBER OF FORMER SENIOR OFFICIALS.

SO, IT WAS -- MY INVOLVEMENT WAS VERY MUCH AN OPEN BOOK.

THE SECOND THING IS WHEN YOU ASK ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT OF ME, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO ASK THEM.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN YOUR SHOW IN THE PAST.

I WROTE FOR 'THE NEW YORK TIMES,' FOR THE 'WASHINGTON POST' ON MANY OCCASIONS.

AND I KIND OF THINK THAT PEOPLE WERE LOOKING FOR MY EXPERTISE, NOT ONLY ON RUSSIA BUT ON FOREIGN RELATIONS IN GENERAL.

I AM THE PUBLISHED CEO ONE THE NATIONAL INTEREST WHICH HAS THE GREATEST PRESENCE OF INTERNET IN TERMS OF ANY OTHER AMERICAN OR INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATION.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO IMPLY THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN BEING INTERESTED IN TALKING TO ME.

OKAY.

SO, LET'S JUST BREAK IT DOWN THEN BECAUSE THERE WAS CLEARLY SOMETHING, ENOUGH INTEREST THAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND THE MUELLER TEAM TALKED TO YOU AND MENTIONED YOU QUITE A LOT.

LET'S TAKE IT POINT BY POINT THEN.

AT ONE POINT IN THE REPORT IT SAYS THAT YOU PROVIDED BULLET POINTS ON RUSSIA FOR DONALD TRUMP TO USE.

IS THAT ACCURATE?

NO, I DO NOT REMEMBER THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE REPORT.

BUT I DID COMMUNICATE WITH THE CAMPAIGN.

SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, PEOPLE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTER AS WELL, PROVIDED MULTIPLE INPUT TO THE SPEECH.

IT WAS AGREED THAT HIS SPEECH ON FOREIGN POLICY WOULD BE DELIVERED UNDER THE CENTER, MORE SPECIFICALLY ON THE NATIONAL INTEREST AUSPICES AND THEY WERE INTERESTED IN OUR INPUT ON THE SPEECH IN PREPARATION OF THE SPEECH TOGETHER WITH MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN WASHINGTON.

SO, FROM THIS STANDPOINT, OUR INVOLVEMENT, MY PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT, WAS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE AND NOTABLE FOR WASHINGTON THINK TANKS.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE MUELLER REPORT IMPLIED ANYTHING ELSE.

ABOUT THE SPEECH AT THE MAYFLOWER WHICH ALL OF US COVERED BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST MAJOR TRUMP CANDIDATE FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH.

WE ALL WANTED KNOW WHAT HIS PRIORITIES AND WHAT HIS FOCUS WAS GOING TO BE.

WE KNOW NOW THAT RICHARD BURT, THE FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY, ALSO A DIRECTOR AT CNI, THE THINK TANK, YOURS, HELPED WRITE THE SPEECH.

THIS IS WHAT HE'S SAID ABOUT IT.

LET'S JUST PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT TRUMP SAID IN THE SPEECH.

I BELIEVE AN EASING OF TENSIONS, AN IMPROVED RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH ONLY IS POSSIBLE, ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE.

COMMON SENSE SAYS THIS CYCLE, THIS HORRIBLE CYCLE OF HOSTILITY MUST END AND IDEALLY WOULD END SOON.

GOOD FOR BOTH COUNTRIES.

OBVIOUSLY I ASSUME THAT YOU AGREE WITH THAT AND THAT WAS CLEARLY PART OF THE PERSPECTIVE HERE.

I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW ALL THIS CAME ABOUT BECAUSE AGAIN IT SAYS IN THE REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT DRAFT OUTLINES FROM STEPHEN MILLER WHO WAS A PROMINENT AND REMAIN ACE PROMINENT DONALD TRUMP ADD VISE AND PAUL SANDERS ALONG WITH RICHARD BURKE SPOKE BY PHONE ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE SPEECH.

HOW APREEP YAT WAS THAT AND WHY WAS THERE THAT DEGREE OF MICROMANAGING OF THE SPEECH?

FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS NO MICROING MANYING OF THE SPEECH TO THE EXTENT THAT I DID NOT EVEN SEE THE FINAL VERSION OF THE SPEECH.

SO, I DID NOT KNOW WHAT WOULD BE IN THE SPEECH BEFORE IT WAS DELIVERED BY MR. TRUMP.

AND I'M SURE THAT THE SAME WAS TRUE WITH MR. SANDERS, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, AND AMBASSADOR BURT.

WHEN YOU ASK APPROPRIATE, I WILL TELL YOU.

I THINK THAT YOU KNOW WASHINGTON AND YOU DO KNOW THAT WASHINGTON THINK TANKS ARE NOT ONLY ENTITLED BUT FULLY EXPECTED TO HELP EDUCATE THE CANDIDATES IN DEVELOPING THEIR PROGRAMS AND THEIR STATEMENTS.

IT IS A PROCESS WITH MANY PARTICIPANTS AND IT IS NEVER ASSUMED THAT IF YOU HELP IN THIS PROCESS THAT MEANS THAT THEY WENT ALONG WITH ALL YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPEECHES WHICH WE WILL NOT HAVE SEEN BEFORE THEY WERE ACTUALLY DELIVERED.

JUST A VERY QUICK ISSUE HERE.

SOME THINK TANKS ARE PARTISAN.

OTHERS ARE NOT.

YOURS CLAIMS TO BE NONPARTISAN.

I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY DID YOU FEEL THAT YOU WANTED TO REACH OUT AND HELP THIS CAMPAIGN?

AND WAS IT LIKE RUSSIA FELT, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT HILLARY DIDN'T WIN AND MAYBE THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENT POLICY FROM THE UNITED STATES TOWARDS RUSSIA?

WELL, LET ME SAY FIRST, YOU DESCRIBE ME AT THE BEGINNING AS A RUSSIA-AMERICAN.

WELL, I WAS BORN IN RUSSIA.

I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN SINCE 1980.

AND I THINK THAT BY FAR THE GREATER PART OF MY LIFE, PRACTICALLY ALL MY CAREER, TOOK PART IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT?

I THINK I'M ENTITLED TO BE CALLED AN AMERICAN WHO WAS BORN IN RUSSIA.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY HOW I FEEL.

WHEN I APPEAR ON RUSSIAN TV, THAT'S HOW I POSITION MYSELF AND HOW I AM INTRODUCED.

POINT NUMBER ONE.

POINT NUMBER TWO, IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE MUELLER REPORT, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT WE HELPED ARRANGE A COUPLE OF DINNERS WITH A NUMBER OF LEADING FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS.

THERE WERE CHAIRS KIND OF PRESIDED BY SENATOR SESSIONS WHO LATE OF COURSE BECAME ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS.

FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE DINNERS WHERE WE'RE PROVIDED OUR INPUT TO THE CAMPAIGN, FIRST, EVERYONE WHO ATTENDED THE DINNERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ME, WAS A FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL OR AT LEAST A THREE OR FOUR-STAR GENERAL.

THE DINNERS INCLUDED FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

SECOND, SOME OF PEOPLE WHO TOOK PART IN THE DINNER ACTUALLY WERE NOT TRUMP SUPPORTERS AT ALL.

THEY ENDED UP BEING HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS.

BUT WE INVITED THEM TO TAKE PART WITH A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD NOT BE CALLED ADVISERS TO CAMPAIGN, THAT PEOPLE WHO TAKE PART IN THIS WOULD NOT DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS ADVISERS TO THE CAMPAIGN BUT WOULD EDUCATE THE CAMPAIGN.

ONE FINAL POINT.

YOU ASKED ME WHY WOULDN'T YOU DO IT FOR HILLARY CLINTON?

WE INVITED HILLARY CLINTON ON A VERY SENIOR LEVEL.

UNFORTUNATELY SHE COULD NOT DO IT.

BUT A MONTH LATER, WE HAD TIM KAINE WHO CAME OF COURSE HILLARY CLINTON'S RUNNING MATE, NOT JUST SPEAKING AT THE CENTER, BEING HONORED AT THE CENTER, DELIVERING THE FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH.

AND BEFORE THAT, HE SPOKE TWICE AT THE CENTER.

SO, WE GENUINELY WERE NONPARTISAN.

OKAY.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'VE BEEN READING THINGS HERE TO YOU THAT POINT OUT THAT THE CENTER DID ADVISE THE CAMPAIGN, AND YOU ALSO OBVIOUSLY ARRANGED, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THAT SPEECH INTRODUCED DONALD TRUMP TO THE -- TO KISLYAK.

I DO ACTUALLY, TO YOUR POINTS RIGHT NOW, WANT TO ASK YOU THEN WHY -- I ASSUME HAVING BEEN ASKED A LOT BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, YOU SEEM TO HAVE SAID TO JARED KUSHNER THAT CERTAIN, TWO CLOSE CONTACTS WOULD BE BAD OPTICS.

LET ME READ YOU A PARAGRAPH FROM THE MUELLER REPORT.

SINE RAISED THE ISSUE OF CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA, ADVICED IT WAS BAD OPTICS FOR THE CAMPAIGN TO DEVELOP HIDDEN RUSSIAN CONTACTS AND TOLD KUSHNER THAT THE CAMPAIGN SHOULD NOT HIGHLIGHT RUSSIA AS AN ISSUE AND SHOULD HANDLE CONTACTS WITH RUSSIANS WITH CARE.

UNPACK THAT FOR US.

IT SEEMS TO BASICALLY BE YOUR ANSWER TO SOME OF THE ISSUES PEOPLE ARE ASKING YOU ABOUT RIGHT NOW, ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONALLY CLOSE CONTACTS WITH ONE CAMPAIGN WHICH IS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS DESCRIBED VERY FAIRLY MY INPUT TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND MY SUGGESTION THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY SECRET CONTACTS WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THEY SHOULD BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL ABOUT ANY CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

I, MYSELF, WAS NOT A SINGLE TIME IN RUSSIA SINCE TRUMP BECAME A CANDIDATE UNTIL 2017 WHEN HE ALREADY WAS PRESIDENT.

MY VIEW WAS THAT WHAT TRUMP SAID ABOUT A POSSIBILITY OF A BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA FROM THE POSITION OF STRENGTH THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

I DID NOT THINK THAT HE WAS ALWAYS DESCRIBING THE REASONS FOR THIS INTEREST IN THE BETTER RELATIONSHIP APPROPRIATELY.

WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT PRAISING PUTIN, I STARTED TOWARDS NOT WHAT THE U.S. INTEREST WAS ABOUT.

THE INTEREST WAS ABOUT HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER GREAT NUCLEAR POWER WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE A NORMAL DIALOGUE.

AND INCIDENTALLY TO THE EXTENT OF INPUT, I SUGGESTED THAT RUSSIA SHOULD BE DESCRIBED MORE AS AN ADVERSARY, THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON CONTINUATION OF AMERICAN ALLIANCES MADE IN EUROPE AND U.S. ALLIANCES IN ASIA.

SO, WHILE I THOUGHT WHAT TRUMP WAS SAYING IN MANY RESPECTS WAS REFRESHING AND CONSTRUCTIVE, BUT I CERTAINLY DID NOT AGREE ENTIRELY WITH HIS APPROACH, IN PARTICULAR WITH HIS RHETORIC.

GIVEN THE WAY EVERYTHING HAS UNFOLDED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE DONALD TRUMP HAS BECOME PRESIDENT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUALMS OR QUESTIONS -- AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RUSSIA BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUALMS ABOUT THAT?

DO YOU THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT STRATEGY THAT RUSSIA SOUGHT TO HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THIS ELECTION?

I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE ASKED ME.

I WAS ON RUSSIAN TV THIS MORNING AND I REMINDED THEM AGAIN ABOUT THEIR INTERFERENCE IN U.S.

ELECTIONS AND ABOUT THE COST OF THIS INTERFERENCE.

I SAID MANY TIMES ON THE RUSSIAN TV WHEN I WAS INVITED TO BE THERE THAT I THINK THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS SERIOUS, REAL, AND CAME AT A CONSIDERABLE COST.

I THINK THAT THE WAY THIS INTERFERENCE IS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT IS, AGAIN, OBJECTIVE AND WELL DOCUMENTED.

WHAT IS IN DISPUTE IS WHY THEY WERE DOING IT.

AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DESERVES CREDIT FOR SAYING THAT THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE CORRUPTION STARTED NOT IN 2016, NOT EVEN IN 2015, BUT IN 2014 WHEN RUSSIA CERTAINLY WAS NOT AWARE OF TRUMP RUNNING AND BECOMING PRESIDENT.

YOU COULD SEE FROM INTERACTIONS WITH TRUMP, WITH HIS BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, THEY WERE NOT DOING TRUMP ANY FAVORS UNTIL THE VERY LAST MOMENT THE ASSUMPTION IN MOSCOW WAS THAT HILLARY CLINTON WAS VERY LIKELY TO WIN.

SO, WHY WERE THE RUSSIANS INTERFERING?

I CANNOT QUOTE YOU A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT WHICH I CAN CITE AS A KIND OF EXPLAINING ALL OF THIS COMING FROM THE RUSSIAN SIDE.

BUT I HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS IN MOSCOW.

AND I THINK THAT THESE CONVERSATIONS, THE IMPRESSION WHICH I GOT, IS WIDELY SHARED BY THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

IMPRESSION NUMBER ONE.

THE RUSSIANS WANTED TO RESPOND TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT, AMERICAN INTERFERENCE IN THEIR ELECTIONS AND U.S. ROLE IN UKRAINE IN 2013.

THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A PAY BACK TIME AND THEY WERE DOING IN THEIR OWN CLANDESTINE AND NOT VERY EFFECTIVE METHOD.

SECOND, THEY REALLY DESPISED HILLARY CLINTON.

THEY WERE NOT SO MUCH THINKING ABOUT HELPING TRUMP.

BUT THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING TO THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN TO BE AGAINST HER TO SHOW SHE WAS PARTICULARLY HOSTILE TO THEM.

THAT WAS PART OF THEIR MOTIVATION.

SO, I'VE GOT ONE LAST QUESTION THAT I NEED TO ASK YOU ON THAT BECAUSE CLEARLY WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS SEEKING DIRT ON THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

IN THIS BIG VOLUME ONE ON THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION INVESTIGATION, IT SAYS IN THE REPORT THAT YOU OFFERED KUSHNER DETAILS OF, QUOTE, HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BILL CLINTON AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

BUT IN HERE, IT'S REDACTED.

SO, YOU WANT TO ENLIGHTEN US?

WELL, WHAT IS NOT REDACTED OF COURSE IS WHERE I GOT THIS INFORMATION.

CLEARLY, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WHEN THEY SAID THAT WE WERE NOT DELIVERING ANY AND I WAS NOT DELIVERING ANY MESSAGES FOR MOSCOW, THEY MADE VERY CLEAR THEY DID NOT THINK THAT I GOT ANY INFORMATION FROM THE RUSSIANS WHICH RELATE TO THE CAMPAIGN.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IN THAT PARAGRAPH, THEY MENTIONED WHO I ACKNOWLEDGED WAS MY SOURCE WHERE I MENTIONED FORMER VERY SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL WHO BEFORE THAT WAS SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL OFFICIAL.

IT SO HAPPENS THAT THIS OFFICIAL WHICH HAS JUST DONE AN EXTENSIVE INTERVIEW THE 'EXAMINER' IT COMPLETELY CONFIRMED HE WAS MY SOURCE, THAT HE WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE SITUATION TO MY ATTENTION.

IT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RUSSIA.

ALL RIGHT.

TALKING TO SOMEBODY WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

ALL RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN REALLY INTERESTING TALKING TO YOU.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

> NOW WE TURN TO ONE OF THE RISING DEMOCRATIC STARS.

MICHELLE GRISHAM BECAME THE FIRST LA TINA MAYOR IN AMERICA.

SHE ORDERED ALL NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS MOBILIZED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHDRAWN FROM THE BORDER IN HER STATE.

SHE SAID HER STATE WOULD NOT TAKE PART IN THE PRESIDENT'S CHARADE OF FEAR MONGERING.

SHE RELEASED THIS AD FROM HER POLICY AGENDA WITH HER OWN TAKE ON WHAT TO DO.

I'M MICHELLE GRISHAM, NEW MEXICO'S 49th IN EMPLOYMENT AND 50th IN SCHOOLS.

WE'VE GOT TO BUST THROUGH SCHOOLS TO MAKE CHANGES.

I'LL CREATE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO REBUILD OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE NEED MORE APPRENTICESHIPS AND SKILLED TRAINING, AND WE HAVE BILLIONS IN THE PERMANENT FUND TO INVEST IN SCHOOLS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.

AND HERE'S WHAT I THINK OF TRUMP'S WALL.

WELL, GOVERNOR GRISHAM, THAT IS ONE HECK OF AN ENTRANCE.

THANKS FOR JOINING US FROM SANTA FE.

LET ME JUST ASK YOU VERY QUICKLY --

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

YOU USED TO BE A CONGRESSWOMAN.

YOU KNOW THIS MUELLER REPORT IS BEING POURED OVER IN CONGRESS AND WHAT TO DO NEXT.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE, WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO, PARTICULARLY THE DEMOCRATS IN CHARGE OF THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND HOW SHOULD THEY RESPOND TO PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING HE DOESN'T WANT ANY OFFICIALS GOING EVEN IF THEY'RE CALLED?

I THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ARE ABSOLUTELY ON THE RIGHT TRACK BY FOCUSING ON ACCOUNTABILITY.

LOOK, IF NOTHING ELSE, MUELLER REPORT SHOWED A PRESIDENCY IN TOTAL DISARRAY WITH THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.

THESE ARE NOT STANDARDS THAT CAN HOLD IN A DEMOCRACY.

AND THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS HAVE GOT TO USE THEIR MAJORITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CONTINUE TO GET INFORMATION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HOLD THIS PRESIDENCY AND THIS ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE.

AND I THINK GOVERNORS AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS, BOTH PARTIES, HAVE ALSO GOT TO TAKE A CONSIDERABLE STAND TO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT.

LET ME ASK YOU THEN BECAUSE YOU BRING UP THE DEMOCRATS.

CLEARLY WE'RE NOW SEEING A FIELD OF SOME 22 DEMOCRATIC DECLARED CANDIDATES.

WE KNOW THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IS GOING TO ANNOUNCE TOMORROW.

JUST GIVE US YOUR IMPRESSION OF THE CANDIDATES, THE QUITE POLICY FOCUSES, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE WANT FROM A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN 2020?

WELL, I'M GOING TO THE LAST PART OF YOUR QUESTION FIRST.

I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE WANT FROM THESE CANDIDATES AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRIMARY PROCESS.

BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE SEEING CLEARLY THAT THERE IS A ROBUST SET OF EFFORTS TO SHOW THAT WE'VE GOT POLICY IDEAS, THE RIGHT KIND OF CREDENTIALS, INTEGRITY, ETHICAL BEHAVIOR, PROBLEM SOLVING WHILE MOST OF THEM HAVE SPECIFIC NUANCES THAT ARE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THEIR EDUCATIONAL PLATFORMS AND MAKING SURE WE'RE FULLY ENGAGED THE IN A DEMOCRACY BY VOTING, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, SAME DAY REGISTRATION LIKE WE'RE DOING IN NEW MEXICO, THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES.

THEY'RE ALL FOCUSING ON THE ECONOMY, COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY, DEALING WITH HEALTH CARE.

AND THAT, I THINK, IS GOING TO PLAY OUT PRODUCTIVELY BECAUSE AMERICANS WANT THESE ISSUES ADDRESSED.

AND THEY ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED.

IN FACT, THEY'RE BEING WORSENED IN EVERY WAY BY THIS PRESIDENT.

SO, BRING UP -- LET'S TALK NOW BECAUSE THAT BRINGS UP THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE.

OKAY.

AND THE BORDER ISSUE.

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A BORDER STATE.

YOU HAVE BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF THIS WALL IDEA AND OF ALL THAT'S GOING ON AND THE TRAGEDY OF TWO CHILDREN IN YOUR STATE WHO DIED BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, ALL SORTS OF ISSUES WITH DETENTION AND OTHER -- I MEAN, IT'S REALLY A REAL-LIVE ISSUE FOR YOU ALL IN NEW MEXICO.

AND YOU HAVE ORDERED THE REMOVAL AND WITHDRAWAL OF NATIONAL GUARD THAT HAVE BEEN SENT FROM OTHER STATES INTO YOUR AREA.

HOW BIG A PROBLEM IS IT FOR YOU?

WELL, I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CHALLENGES AT THE BORDER.

NEW MEXICO, IF YOU WILL, HAS BECOME A ELLIS ISLAND.

AND WE WANT TO TAKE THAT ISSUE SERIOUSLY.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHY AWAY.

IT PRESENTS SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES.

BUT HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE.

I'M LEADING THE STATE WITH GREAT SUPPORT FROM INCREDIBLE NEW MEXICANS WHO ARE RISING TO THIS CHALLENGE AND RESPONDING TO A CALL FOR ACTION, UNLIKE THE PRESIDENT WHO IS FEAR MONGERING, WHO IS CREATING TENSIONS AT THE BORDER, WHO WILL NOT NEGOTIATE, WILL NOT WORK WITH CONGRESS, WILL NOT INVEST IN THE ISSUES THAT WILL PREVENT THE KIND OF MASS MIGRATION WE'RE SEEING TODAY, WILL NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT DEALING WITH SERIOUS PROBLEMS LIKE HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND DRUGS COMES INTO THE UNITED STATES IN ANY NUMBER OF AREAS INCLUDING THE POST OFFICE.

INSTEAD, HE WANTS TO BUILD A WALL.

SO, HE DECLARED -- HE TRIED TO DECLARE -- A NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND TRIED TO USE OUR RESOURCES IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THAT POLITICAL RHETORIC.

INSTEAD, THE NATIONAL GUARD ISN'T NEEDED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

THAT IS AN UNLAWFUL ACT, SO I WAS REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

WHERE I AM ABSOLUTELY ON THE GROUND, UNLIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, I HAVE HOMELAND SECURITY ON THE GROUND DOING COMMUNICATIONS, SETTING UP LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT TO OUR STATE POLICE WHO ARE ALSO THERE BECAUSE HAVING AN INFLUX OF PEOPLE CREATES A PUBLIC SAFETY CHALLENGE.

WE HAVE NONPROFITS AND LOCAL LEADERS AND MAYORS PROVIDING HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION.

I'VE GOT MY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WHO'S PROVIDING NECESSARY MEDICAL SERVICES.

I MEAN, THESE ARE FOLKS WHO WERE DEHYDRATED.

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING.

WE ARE NOT PUTTING TODDLERS IN CAGES.

WE ARE WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE RESPONSING TO A VERY REAL, VERY REAL, HUMANITARIAN CRISIS, THAT THIS PRESIDENT IS PARTICIPATING IN AND HELPING TO CREATE BY REFUSING TO HIRE BORDER PATROL AGENTS, HAVING THEM ADEQUATELY TRAINED, KEEPING PORTS OF ENTRY OPEN, AND ALLOWING ASYLUM SEEKERS TO SEEK ASYLUM CORRECTLY AND APPROPRIATELY AND PROVIDING VISAS ON THE FRONT END AND INVESTING IN THE PROBLEMS IN THESE COUNTRIES WHO ARE FACING HORRIFIC VIOLENCE.

I EXPECT CONGRESS TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT, TO SECURE THE BORDER, TO INVEST IN SMART TECHNOLOGY, AND IN PERSONNEL THA THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE THERE.

AND MY STATE WILL PARTICIPATE AND COOPERATE FULLY WITH THOSE EVIDENCE-BASED SMART, REASONABLE NATIONAL SECURITY AND BORDER SECURITY ISSUES.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO TREAT CHILDREN AND THEIR MOTHERS AS A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT IN MY STATE.

YOU ALSO JUST MENTIONED GREEN ENERGY AND CLEAN ENERGY.

NEW MEXICO IS A FOSSIL FUEL-RICH STATE AND YOU'RE IN THE MIDST OF A BOOM THERE, AN OIL BOOM.

BUT YOU HAVE VOWED TO TAKE ON THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE VIDEOS YOU HAD DURING YOUR CAMPAIGN.

LET'S JUST PLAY IT.

YOU DON'T SEE A LOT CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR OUT HERE, MUCH LESS ONE WILLING TO CLIMB A 26 STORY LADDER.

BUT MICHELLE IS NO USUAL CANDIDATE.

AS GOVERNOR, SHE WOULD REQUIRE GET TO 53% CLEAN AND RENEWABLE POWER.

SHE'LL INVEST IN JOB TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIPS TO TEACH THE SKILLS TO MORE WORKERS.

NEW MEXICO SHOULD BE LEADING ON CLEAN ENERGY.

MICHELLE'S GOT THE GUTS TO BE A GREAT GOVERNOR.

THAT PUTS YOUR CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CREDENTIALS OUT THERE.

SINCE YOU'VE BECOME GOVERNOR, YOU CONTINUE TO TALK A LOT ABOUT IT AND YOU'RE ONE OF MORE THAN A DOZEN STATES THAT ARE STICKING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE DEMANDS FROM THE PARIS ACCORD.

BUT YOU HAVE ALSO GOT A WIND FALL FROM FOSSIL FUEL AND YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INVEST A HUGE AMOUNT IN EDUCATION WHICH IS A HUGE PRIORITY IN YOUR STATE.

HOW DO YOU BALANCE THE DESPERATE NEEDS OF YOUR STATE WHICH IS SOME OF THE POOREST RESULTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATION AND MONEY THAT YOU NEED AND YOU'RE NOW GETTING IT FROM FOSSIL FUELS RIGHT NOW.

WE ARE.

NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

THIS IS A STATE THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT ABOUT BALANCING INTEREST, MAKING SURE WE INVEST -- ALTHOUGH I INHERITED A PRETTY DESPERATE SITUATION, WE DIDN'T TRY TO MOVE THE NEEDLE IN ANY CONCEPT INCLUDING SUPPORTING IN ALL OF THE ABOVE ENERGY AGENDA WHICH ALLOWS US TO DO RESPONSIBLE AGGRESSIVE WORK TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO, WE ARE NOW LEADING THE NATION IN CARBON-FREE.

WE SAID BY 2045 OUR LARGEST UTILITY COMPANY SAYS THAT THEY CAN BEAT THAT BY FIVE YEARS.

IT'S THE MOST AGGRESSIVE AGENDA IN THE COUNTRY, PLUS RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS THAT ONLY CAN CAN BE MATCHED BY THREE OTHER STATES IN THE COUNTRY.

AND WE'RE MAKING THAT TRANSITION.

AND WE MAKE THAT TRANSITION BY MAKING SURE THAT OIL AND GAS IS AS CLEAN AS IT CAN BE, THAT THEY REDUCED OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT, THAT WE HAVE REAL TEETH IN THE OIL AND GAS EFFORTS, AND THAT WE'RE DOING METHANE MITIGATION WHICH CREATES JOBS AND MAKING SURE WE'RE REDUCING OUR GREENHOUSE GASES AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

WE ARE ALL WORKING TOGETHER.

WE ARE DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU CAN TAKE VERY, VERY DESPERATE AND SIGNIFICANTLY CHALLENGING ISSUES, MARRY THEM IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY THAT ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN YOUR STATE.

AND YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.

WE TOOK 446 BILLION -- BILLION, I WISH -- MILLION DOLLARS INTO PUBLIC EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

THE THIS IS THE STATE THAT IS READY TO MAKE THE KINDS OF CHANGES WHERE OTHER GOVERNORS ARE COMING HERE TO SEE HOW TO GET THINGS DONE.

AND I NOTICE IT'S BIPARTISAN GOVERNMENT.

I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

LEADING THE COUNTRY.

THAT'S GREAT.

CONGRATULATIONS.

THANK YOU.

BUT IT'S NOT A PARTISAN THING.

I KNOW THERE ARE REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS IN THIS MOVE AS WELL.

I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU A SOUND BITE BY THE INTERNATIONAL ACTIVIST NOW, THE 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL WHO'S JUST BEEN IN LONDON WITH THE CLIMATE PROTESTS.

LET'S PLAY THE SOUND BITE AND I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION NOW.

I KNOW MANY OF YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO US.

YOU SAY WE ARE JUST CHILDREN.

WE ARE ONLY REPEATING THE MESSAGE OF THE UNITED CLIMATE SCIENCE.

WE PROBABLY DON'T EVEN HAVE A FUTURE ANYMORE BECAUSE THAT FUTURE WAS SOLD SO A SMALL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE COULD MAKE UNIMAGINABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

IT WAS STOLEN FROM US EVERY TIME YOU SAID THE SKY WAS THE LIMIT AND YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE.

DID YOU HEAR ME?

YES.

IS MY ENGLISH OKAY?

YES.

BECAUSE I'M BEGINNING TO WONDER.

SHE'S SO IMPRESSIVE.

I KNOW KIDS IN NEW MEXICO ARE GETTING ON THIS BAND WAGON.

JUST IN THE SHORT TIME WE HAVE LEFT, YOUR REACTION TO THAT.

THIS IS A YOUNG WOMAN WITH INCREDIBLE COURAGE AND CHARISMA, EXACTLY THE KIND OF POSITIVE MESSAGING.

WE CAN ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE AND WE DON'T DO THAT BY IGNORING IT.

IT IS REAL.

EVERY STATE, EVERY COMMUNITY, EVERY PERSON, IRRESPECTIVE OF AGE MUST IMBRACE THE FACT THAT THE SCIENCE IS REAL AND WE MUST PIVOT.

AND THE BEST RESPONSE TO A FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IS TO IMMEDIATELY PIVOT TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JUST WATCH NEW MEXICO BECOME THE CLEAN ENERGY STATE AND A STATE THAT GETS THE STORAGE AND THE WIND ENERGY RIGHT.

AND THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY MAKES THE KIND OF IMPACT THAT ANYBODY ELSE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET CAN ALSO MAKE.

GOVERNOR --

YOUNG PEOPLE ARE HELPING US GET IT DONE.

THEY ARE.

THEY'RE LEADING THE CHARGE.

GOVERNOR MICHELLE GRISHAM, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US FROM SANTA FE TONIGHT.

> WHILE THE DEMOCRATS JOSTLE TO TRY TO SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THEIR PARTY, THE WORLD OF SCIENCE IS SHAKING UP SOMETHING EVEN BIGGER.

THAT IS THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY.

DNA IS K BEING A COMMODITY, ONE THAT CAN BE WRITTEN AND HACKED LIKE A PIECE OF I.T.

GENETIC ENGINEERING NOW THREATENS THE VERY THINGS THAT MAKE US HUMAN.

IN HIS NEW BOOK 'HACKING DARWIN' HE WARNS IT COULD BE HARN ESED FOR GOOD OR BECOME AN ARMS RACE.

RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU ARE PREGNANT, THERE ARE SCREENING TOOLS AVAILABLE TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A HORRIBLE DISEASE OR HARDSHIP THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO FACE.

YOU HAVE A TOOL IN THE BOOK WHERE YOU LOOK FORWARD INTO A FERTILITY CLINIC 25 YEARS FROM NOW AND YOU KIND OF LAY OUT THE SCENARIOS.

HELP OUR AUDIENCE EXPLAIN WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE.

RIGHT NOW MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE PREGNANT IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE NONINVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE EMBRYO THAT THEY ARE CARRYING.

AND IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS, THOSE PARENTS, THOSE MOTHERS, ARE OFTEN FACED WITH A VERY DIFFICULT CHOICE.

AND THE CHOICE IS TO CARRY THAT EMBRYO TO TERM OR TO ABORT.

AND WHATEVER ANYBODY'S VIEWS ARE ON THE POLITICS OF ABORTION, THAT'S AN EXTREMELY PAINFUL, EXCRUCIATING DECISION FOR PARENTS.

BUT WE ARE MOVING INCREASINGLY TOWARD USING A TECHNOLOGY THAT ALREADY EXISTS FOR PRE-IMPLANTATION GENETIC SCREENING.

SO, RATHER THAN HAVING TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION ONCE THE MOTHER IS PREGNANT, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE 15 FERTILIZED EGGS, ALSO CALLED ZYGOTES, AND YOU CAN SCREEN ALL OF THOSE AND YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHICH ARE THE ONES WHICH ARE PERHAPS CARRYING DEADLY DISEASES AND NOT IMPLANT THOSE?

AND THEN GOING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SO MUCH MORE INFORMATION, SO MUCH MORE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT OUR OWN COMPLEX GEE NOMICS, THE CHOICES WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IN THE CONTEXT OF DECISIONS MADE AT FERTILITY CLINICS IS NOT JUST ABOUT DISEASE STATES BUT ABOUT ALL KINDS OF TRAITS.

AND THEN BEYOND THAT, AND CERTAINLY WITHIN THAT 25-YEAR TIME FRAME, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY CAN DO BUT NOT WELL WHICH IS MAKE A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF GENE EDITS ON THESE PREIMPLANTED EMBRYOS EITHER TO ELIMINATE RISKS OR PROVIDE ENHANCEMENTS.

THERE'S THE ELIMINATE RISK QUOTIENT THAT I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEM WITH.

BUT THERE'S THE ENHANCEMENT IDEA WHERE PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

RIGHT.

YOU CAN START TO SELECTIVELY SAY I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND IF I HAD -- IF I HAD FIGURED OUT THE GENE COMBINATIONS OR LONGEVITY OR HEIGHT OR IQ, PERSONALITY --

YEAH.

-- WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO ENGINEER MY KID TO GIVE THEM AN EDGE OR AT LEAST MAKE THEM BASELINE IF THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING.

AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IF YOU ASK THEM HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING WILL SAY EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

THEY'LL SAY I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS, AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ENHANCEMENTS.

BUT WHEN YOU PUSH THEM, WHEN YOU SAY ALL RIGHT HELP ME DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN WHERE A THERAPY ENDS AND ENHANCEMENT BEGINS, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE THERE'S A GRAY AREA IN MANY, MANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

LET'S SAY SOMEBODY LOOKS LIKE A CHILD IS GOING TO BE THREE FEET TALL.

PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT'S REALLY SHORT.

IT'S HARD TO LIVE IF YOU'RE THREE FEET TALL.

THERE'S A LOT OF DISCRIMINATION.

THERE ARE HEALTH ISSUES.

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO USE SOME KIND OF GENETIC ENGINEERING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A CHILD THAT IS TALLER THAN THREE FEET TALL?

AND I THINK PEOPLE WOULD SAY MAYBE THAT SOUNDS RIGHT BECAUSE BEING THREE FEET TALL IS A DIFFICULT WAY TO LIVE.

YEAH, BUT NOT EVERYBODY WOULD SAY THAT.

AND THEN YOU SAY ALL RIGHT, FOUR FEET TALL?

OR ARE WE GOING TO DEFINE A SPECIFIC HEIGHT WHERE THAT'S BELOW THAT HEIGHT, THAT IS A THERAPEUTIC APPLICATION, AND BEYOND THAT HEIGHT IS ENHANCEMENT?

AND YOU CAN GO TO MANY, MANY TRAITS.

BUT DIFFERENT SOCIETIES WILL HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS.

SOME SOCIETIES WILL VERY LEGITIMATELY SAY WE ONLY WANT TO ADDRESS THE MOST DANGEROUS GENETIC DISEASES AND THAT WILL BE FINE.

BUT OTHER SOCIETIES SAY HEY, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE BENEFITS TO BE HAD, THAT WE THINK AS A SOCIETY THAT MAYBE IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A HIGHER AVERAGE IQ AMONG OUR POPULATION.

WE THINK THAT WILL MAKE US MORE COMPETITIVE.

WE THINK THAT WILL HELP US HAVE NEW INNOVATIONS THAT WILL MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY.

SO, THERE'S NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER, BUT THESE WILL BE REAL CHOICES.

ONCE YOU START DESCRIBING KIND OF THE AGGREGATE IMPACT OF WHAT THESE TINY GENETIC MODIFICATIONS CAN DO, I THINK THAT GETS VERY SCARY FOR PEOPLE TO SAY WELL, THIS IS WHAT I READ ABOUT IN COLLEGE.

THIS IS A WORLD LIKE DESCRIBED IN THE MOVIE 'GATICA,' ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE A SOCIETY OF HAVES AND HAVE NOTS BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE TECHNOLOGY.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED TO THE WHOLE WORLD AT THE SAME TIME.

SO, DO WE HAVE A CLASS OR COUNTRY OR COUNTY THAT HAVE ACCESS.

AND A GENERATION LATER YOU HAVE 6 FOOT TALL AND HIGHER IQ AND A WHOLE COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T HAVE IT.

I'M SENSITIVE ABOUT THERE ISSUE.

I COME FROM KANSAS CITY.

MY FATHER AND GRANDPARENTS WERE PLACED THERE AS SURVIVORS AS NAZIISM.

THE NAZIS SAW THEMSELVES APPLYING DARWIN'S PRINCIPLES.

AS A CHILD IN MANY WAYS OF THE HOLOCAUST AND VICTIMS OF THE HOL K COST, I'M MINDFUL THAT THIS COULD BE A FORM OF EUGENICS.

THAT'S A BIG DEAL.

THEN YOU TALK TO PEOPLE AND SAY WOULD YOU, IF YOU COULD CHOOSE FROM 15 OF YOUR PREIMPLANTED EMBRYOS AND YOU KNEW TWO OF THEM WAS GOING TO HAVE A GENETIC DISEASE THAT WAS GOING TO ENSURE THEY DIE BEFORE THEY'RE TEN YEARS OLD, WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO IMPLANT THOSE EMBRYOS.

MOST PEOPLE SAY NO.

AND THAT'S -- WHATEVER THE WORD IS, THAT'S A FORM OF EUGENICS.

SO, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES.

IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT GENETIC INEQUALITY IN THE FUTURE, THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO IS WORRY ABOUT INEQUALITY NOW.

BECAUSE IF THIS IS THE WE, THE WE WHO LIVES THE WAY WE DO, WHERE WE'RE PERFECTLY OKAY FOR PEOPLE TO BE BORN WITH VERY LITTLE OPPORTUNITY, PEOPLE BORN LIKE THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC WHO IN EFFECT HAVE BRAIN DAMAGE BECAUSE THEIR MOTHERS ARE MALNOURISHED, SO THEIR CHANCES AT SUCCESS AT LIFE ARE SO MUCH LOWER THAN OUR KIDS, IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT NOW, HOW CAN WE EXPECT THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE?

ARE GOVERNMENTS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO CREATING SOUND POLICY AROUND THIS GIVEN THAT NOT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE UNDERLYING SCIENCE?

YEAH, SO SOME GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING BETTER.

SOME GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING WORSE.

AND SOME GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING NOTHING.

WHEN I LOOK AROUND THE WORLD, I WOULD SAY THE UNITED KINGDOM IS PROBABLY THE BEST JURISDICTION IN THE WORLD WHERE THEY'RE ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES VERY THOUGHTFULLY.

THEY HAVE NATIONAL FORUMS ON THINGS LIKE MITOCHONDRIAL TRANSFER, THEY HAVE THE EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY THAT OVERSEES MANY OF THESE ISSUES, THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT HAVE O ES ISSUES LIK MITOCHONDRIAL TRANSFER.Y HAV AAH SERVICE WHICH A RATIONAL DECISIONS TO BE MADE ON A NATIONAL LEVEL.

HERE IN THE UNITED STAT THE AS CER AN EXCELLENT AND WORLD-CLASS AGENCY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE BUY IN, LET ALONE POPULATION-WIDE BUY IN.

WE DON'T HAVE AS INFORMED A PUBLIC ON THE ISSUE.

THAT CREATES A DANGER.

THERE ARE SOME COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NOTHING.

THE DANGER IS THAT CERTAINLY IN COUNTRIES LIKE OURS WE NEED TO DO A LOT MORE.

BUT AS THESE TECHNOLOGIES BECOME MORE WIDESPREAD AND COME TO BE SEEN AS MORE BENEFICIAL, EVEN IF THEY DON'T PROVE TO BE, PEOPLE WILL GO TO WHERE THEY CAN GET THESE BENEFITS IF THEY PERCEIVE THEM AS BENEFITS.

IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THERE'S THREE GROUPS THAT ARE LIKELY TO ABUSE THIS.

ONE IS DICTATORS WHO WANT TO CREATE AN ARMY OF SUPER-STRONG WHATEVER PEOPLE.

ANOTHER IS ROGUE SCIENTISTS WHO DON'T REALLY CARE FOR THE ETHICAL STANDARDS.

AND WE ARE STARTING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT NOW.

AND THREE IS PARENTS LOOKING FOR AN EDGE.

SO, LET ME QUICKLY DISPEL THE FIRST TWO AND FOCUS ON THE THIRD.

I HAVE ADVISED THE U.S. MILITARY ON THIS AND HAVE TALKED TO THEM.

THEY BROUGHT A GROUP OF FUTURIST THINKERS TOGETHER.

MY FEELING IS THE REAL COMPETITIVE EDGE ISN'T JUST SUPER-SOLDIERS.

MAYBE THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S KIND OF A WASTE.

IT'S COMPETITIVE SOCIETIES.

THAT'S -- WHICH LEADS TO YOUR SECOND POINT OF DICTATORS.

IF I WAS THINKING -- I'VE WRITTEN SCI-FI NOVEL ABOUT THIS, IF I WERE A COUNTRY AND LET'S CALL IT CHINA, AND MY GOAL WAS TO BE HIGHLY COMPETITIVE IN THE FUTURE AND I WANTED TO USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES, WHAT MIGHT I DO?

WHAT I WOULD DO IS FIRST HAVE A NATIONAL GENETIC ENGINEERING PROGRAM FOCUSING ON EMBRYO SELECTION MAYBE WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF GENE EDITING.

THEN I WOULD SORT PEOPLE INTO CATEGORIES BASED ON THEIR SUPER CAPABILITIES BASED ON THEIR GENETIC PROFILES, BUT NOT JUST MILITARY OR SPORTS.

IT COULD BE BUSINESS, ENGINEERING, MATH, ALL SORTS OF THINGS.

AND THEN PUT THEM INTO THE EQUIVALENT OF OLYMPIC SPORTS SCHOOLS BUT IN ALL THESE DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES AND SEE WHO DOES THE BEST AND HAVE A PYRAMID OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A GENETIC LIKELIHOOD OF BEING GREAT ATG SM.

THEN YOU GET A NUMBER OF SUPER STARS IN THOSE AREAS AND INVEST HUGE RESOURCES IN BUILDING NATIONAL CHAMPIONS.

SO, ROGUE SCIENTISTS, WE'VE SEEN THAT IN CHINA LAST YEAR, HO JONG QI WHO WAS A ROGUE SCIENTIST DOING EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE WORK IN MY VIEW OF GENETIC ENGINEERING, WHAT BECAME THESE TWO CHINESE GIRLS.

BUT THEY WON'T HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO DO, TO MAKE THESE KINDS OF CHANGES ON A POPULATION-WIDE SCALE.

SO, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED SOME KIND OF MECHANISM BEHIND THEM WHICH LEADS TO YOUR THIRD CATEGORY WHICH IS PARENTS.

AND EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE THAT THE KIND OF STATE-SPONSORED EUGENICS OF NAZIISM OR WHAT HAPPENED IN THE UNITED STATES IS WRONG.

BUT WHAT IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFERENT.

PARENTS ARE GOING TO DEMAND THESE SERVICES, PARTICULARLY ONCE THEY SEE -- IF AND WHEN THEY SEE -- THAT THERE ARE BENEFITS TO BE HAD AND THESE BENEFITS WOULD BE REDUCING THE ROUGHLY 3% RISK THAT PARENTS NOW HAVE THAT THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE SOME KIND OF HARMFUL GENETIC ABNORMALITY.

THAT WILL BE A BIG DRIVER.

BUT ALSO CONFERRING CERTAIN KINDS OF AT VANTAGES.

I HAVE A FRIEND IN KOREA.

HIS 11-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER HAS 12 TUTORS COMING TO THE HOUSE EVERY WEEK.

IN KOREA THEY HAD TO PASS A NATIONAL LAW CLOSING THEIR CRAM SCHOOLS AT 10:00 P.M. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE HAVING THEIR 7 AND 8-YEAR-OLD KIDS GOING TO THESE CRAM SCHOOLS 7 DAYS A WEEK PAST MIDNIGHT TO PREPARE FOR COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMS THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE A DECADE INTO THE FUTURE.

WHEN I ASKED THIS FRIEND, I SAID IF YOU COULD SELECT YOUR PREIMPLANTED EM BEE YOS TO GIVE ABOUT A 15% IQ BOOST TO YOUR KIDS, WOULD YOU DO IT?

HE LOOKED AT ME LIKE I WAS SOME KIND OF IDIOT.

I SAID HOW ABOUT EVERYBODY YOU KNOW, WOULD THEY DO IT?

AGAIN HE LOOKED AT ME LIKE -- IT WAS LIKE OBVIOUSLY WHO WOULDN'T DO THAT.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG.

I'M JUST SAYING SOME PEOPLE AND PARENTS ARE GOING TO WANT TO DO THIS, AND SOME PARENTS AND MAYBE COUNTRIES WON'T.

BUT THERE WILL BE REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE DECISIONS.

ONE OF THE THINGS YOU KEEP COMING BACK TO IS PRE-IMPLANTED EMBRYOS WHICH LEADS ME TO ASK WILL WE JUST BE HAVING SEX FOR PLEASURE AND NOT PROCREATION.

THERE ARE ARTICLES ON THE END OF PROCREATIVE SEX.

30 OR 40 YEARS FROM NOW, CONCEIVING A CHILD THROUGH SEX WILL SEEM AS DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE AS NOT VACCINATING YOUR CHILDREN IS TODAY.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, NOT VACCINATING YOUR CHILDREN, THAT'S VERY NATURAL.

NATURE DIDN'T INVENT VACCINES.

WE DEVELOPED THEM.

AND AGAIN, CONCEIVING OF A CHILD THROUGH GOOD OLE' FASHIONED SEX IS VERY NATURAL.

IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN A GREAT STRATEGY FOR OUR SPECIES AND ALL SEXUALLY REPRODUCING SPECIES.

BUT THERE ARE DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH SEXUAL REPRODUCTION.

AND WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE AND IN SOME CASES ELIMINATE MANY OF THOSE DANGERS.

AND THAT WILL BE A CHOICE.

AND SO RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE ARE CARRYING DISEASES THAT WON'T EXIST 20 YEARS FROM NOW OR 30 YEARS FROM NOW.

JUST LIKE WHEN YOU SEE SOMEBODY WITH POLIO, A CHILD WITH POLIO, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

YOU DON'T THINK WOW, THAT'S TERRIBLE FATE THAT THAT KID HAS POLIO.

YOU THINK SOMETHING WENT WRONG BECAUSE KIDS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE POLIO.

AND THERE WILL BE LOTS OF GENETIC DISEASES AND DISORDERS THAT IN THE FUTURE IF YOU SEE SOMEBODY WITH THAT THING YOU'RE GOING TO SAY WAIT, HOW DID -- WHERE DID THE SYSTEM BREAK DOWN?

BECAUSE HUMANS IN LARGE PART AREN'T GETTING THOSE DISEASES ANYMORE.

THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMEONE WHO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, LIVES WITH A FAMILY MEMBER WHO VZ DOWNS SYNDROME THAT'S GOING TO SAY LISTEN, THAT PERSON IS AN INCREDIBLE HUMAN BEING.

THEY'VE GROWN UP WITH THESE CHALLENGES.

AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE DESIGNING THESE SYSTEMS IN THE FUTURE, AREN'T WE VALUING THAT PERSON'S LIFE LESS THAN IN A WAY COMPARED TO A MUCH MORE PERSPECTIVE OR NORMALIZED PERSON WITHOUT ANY OF THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THAT, RIGHT?

IT'S SUCH A VALID AND IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH LOTS OF DOWNS FAMILIES IN PREPARATION OF THIS BOOK.

AND CERTAINLY FOR ANY CHILD THAT EXISTS WITH DOWN SYNDROME, THEY HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO THRIVE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

AND MANY PARENTS ARE DOWN SYNDROME FEEL THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE TRUE BLESSINGS, GREATER BLESSINGS, THAN OTHER CHILDREN.

AND THEY ARE -- THEY ARE RIGHT.

SO, I WOULD HATE FOR PEOPLE TO FEEL THAT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN THE BOOK AND ELSEWHERE IS ANY WAY DENIGRATING PEOPLE WITH DOWN SYNDROME OR OTHER DISORDERS.

WE HAVE TO FLIP THE QUESTION BECAUSE THE QUESTION THAT PARENTS ARE GOING TO BE ASKING IS YOU HAVE 15 PREIMPLANTED EMBRYOS AND YOU COULD PICK TO IMPLANT ANY ONE OF THEM.

YOU HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION.

AND YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY, THAT TWO OF THOSE EMBRYOS HAVE DOWN SYNDROME.

WOULD YOU -- IF IT WAS A CHOICE, WOULD YOU AFFIRMATIVELY CHOOSE TO IMPLANT THE EMBRYO WITH DOWN SYNDROME WHEN DOWN SYNDROME WE KNOW -- WE KNOW THESE HIGH-FUNCTIONING CHILDREN WITH DOWN SYNDROME.

THERE ARE LOTS OF HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH DOWN SYNDROME.

THE LIFE SPAN IS ON AVERAGE LESS THAN EVERYBODY ELSE.

WHEN I FRAME THE QUESTION THAT WAY TO DOWN PARENTS, IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONVERSATION.

BUT I'M REALLY MINDFUL THAT I -- BECAUSE IF I'M SAYING OR IF THE IMPLICATION WHAT I'M WRITING ABOUT IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE LESS INCIDENTS OF DOWN SYNDROME IN THE FUTURE WHICH IS JUST A FACT.

IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

WHAT'S THE MESSAGE TO PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE DOWN SYNDROME?

WE JUST REALLY NEED TO BE INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE ON THOSE ISSUES.

WHO OWNS OUR GENES?

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S UNDERLYING ALL OF THIS IS THAT WE ALL HAVE TO BE SCREENED.

WE HAVE TO HAVE IT IN A LAB, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

RIGHT.

WHO OWNS, I GUESS THE PARTS OF ME THAT MAKE ME WHO I AM?

YEAH, RIGHT.

AND HOW DO I HAVE SOME AUTONOMY IN GIVING THAT AWAY?

RIGHT.

SO, THE EASY ANSWER, BUT IT'S TOO EASY, IS OBVIOUSLY YOU OWN YOUR GENES AND NO ONE CAN TAKE THEM FROM YOU.

AND YET WE HAVE 10 MILLION PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THEIR CHEEK SWABS AND SIGNED A LITTLE FORM AND SENT THEIR GENETIC MATERIAL TO COMPANIES IN MANY CASES WITH NO PROTECTION AND THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE THEN SELLING YOUR GENETIC INFORMATION TO BIG PHARMA.

AND THAT'S A REAL ISSUE.

PEOPLE DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR GENETIC INFORMATION IS MORE VALUABLE TO YOU THAN YOUR BANK INFORMATION OR CREDIT CARD INFORMATION BECAUSE IN THE UNITED STATES WE HAVE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT WHICH PROTECTS YOU AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE BUT NOT IN YOUR LIFE INSURANCE.

SO, IMAGINE IF YOU SENT IN YOUR CHEEK SWAB AND YOUR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY BUYS IT AND THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU KNOW ABOUT WHEN YOU MAY DIE, WHETHER YOU'RE LIKELY TO HAVE A LONG LIFE OR A SHORT LIFE.

THAT'S REALLY VALUABLE INFORMATION.

SO, A COUNTRY LIKE CHINA THAT HAS POOR PRIVACY PROTECTION COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE A TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE IN ACCESSING THESE BIG DATA POOLS.

SO, THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PERSONAL NEED FOR PRIVACY AND THE SOCIETAL NEED FOR THIS INFORMATION TO BE SHARED.

THE REASON WHY I'VE WRITTEN THIS BOOK IS THAT WE NEED TO BEGIN IMAGINING WHERE WE'RE GOING BECAUSE WE HAVE HUGE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE NOW.

AND WE'RE REALLY GOING TO NEED TO THINK DEEPLY ABOUT WHO ARE WE, WHAT ARE OUR VALUES, HOW ARE THOSE VALUES EXPRESSED IN THE DECISIONS THAT WE ARE MAKING TODAY THAT WILL IN MANY WAYS TERM DETERMINE HOW THESE TECHNOLOGIES PLAY OUT IN THE FUTURE.

JAMIE, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

MY PLEASURE.

RALLYING CRY THERE FOR DEEP THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN.

THAT IS IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING 'AMANPOUR & COMPANY' ON PBS AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.

> UNIWORLD IS A PROUD SPONSOR OF 'AMANPOUR & COMPANY.'

WHEN BEA TOLLMAN'S 60 YEAR CULINARY CAREER BEGAN, SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE RECIPES FROM HER COOKBOOK WOULD MAKE HER WAY TO HER RIVER CRUISE LINE.

UNIWORLD.

BEA'S LOCALLY INSPIRED CUISINE IS SERVED WHILE CRUISING THROUGH EUROPE, ASIA, INDIA, AND EGYPT.

BECAUSE ACCORDING TO BEA, TO TRAVEL IS TO EAT.

BOOKINGS AVAILABLE THROUGH YOUR TRAVEL ADVISER.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT UNIWORLD.COM.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY -- ROSALIND P. WALTER.

BERNARD AND IRENE SCHWARTZ.

SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III.

THE CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY.

SETON MELVIN.

JUDY AND JOSH WESTON.

THE JPB FOUNDATION.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WATCHING PBS.