Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer David Frum; Interview with U.N. Climate Chief Simon Stiell; Interview with Governor Chris Sununu (R- NH); Interview with Daughter of President Lyndon Baines Johnson Luci Baines Johnson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 17, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIKKI HALEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump has my strong endorsement, period.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Republicans highlight unity as Donald Trump's primary opponent fall in line. I speak with former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum on
reckoning with Trump's radicalism in a violent time.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIMON STIELL, U.N. CLIMATE CHIEF: The clear message, clear message is not enough is being done and what is being done is not being done fast enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell describes the apocalyptic damage wreaked by Hurricane Beryl and how the most polluting nations need to clean
up their act fast.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. CHRIS SUNUNU (R-NH): Everyone had their shot. They voted for Trump. We're going to get behind Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Another former Trump critic jumps on the bandwagon. Walter Isaacson talks to New Hampshire governor, Chris Sununu.
Plus, a prayer for healing. LBJ's daughter, Luci Baines Johnson, on joining the children of presidents from both parties to respond after the Trump
assassination attempt.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
We thought we'd start this program tonight with a blast from the past, which, nonetheless, is a tradition that still signals the peaceful
transition of power. It's the British opening of Parliament, marked by ancient, some might say, anachronistic pageantry, where the constitutional
monarch reads a speech laying out his government's agenda. In this case, the new Labour government, which was elected three weeks ago, after 14
years of Tory rule.
A short campaign was full of the thrust and parry of politics, but none of the extreme verbal or actual violence that has rocked America. While in the
United States, at the Republican National Convention, the party is reckoning with a failed assassination attempt against Former President
Trump, and a bitterly divided nation looks with some trepidation to the rest of the campaign and November's election.
On day three of the convention in Milwaukee, one thing is crystal clear, Trump is king of the GOP. Even his former rivals for the nomination, Nikki
Haley and Ron DeSantis, despite attacking him throughout the primaries, now pledge their allegiance.
Unity is their theme, but our next guest says it risks erasing important context about this presidential race. In The Atlantic, writer David Frum
argues that while all decent people welcome Trump's life being saved, his own conduct leading up to that day should not be forgotten. David Frum
joins me now from Wellington, Ontario in Canada. David Frum, welcome back to the program.
DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask by you setting the scene, we had you on last week before this assassination attempt, and you were talking about, you know,
the political atmosphere right now. What do you make of the theme of unity and all the never Trumpers coming up and endorsing him? Is that kind of par
for the course or is it because of what happened?
FRUM: Well, if you endorse Donald Trump, you're not a never Trumper, are you? You're a sometime. Trumper. Never Trumpers don't endorse, they keep
going to the end and we have to go to the end.
The theme of unity that Donald Trump is proposing is not unity on behalf of American values, it's not unity in defense of the constitution. It's unity,
meaning nobody criticize him for his past actions. Nobody remember that he tried to overthrow an election. Nobody remember that he exulted and gloated
and joked about the near murder of Nancy Pelosi's husband. Nobody remember that he made light of the attempt to kidnap and maybe assassinate his own
vice president. Nobody remember that he made light of an attempt to kidnap and maybe assassinate the governor of Michigan.
Donald Trump has been the leading voice in favor of violence, enjoying violence, delighting in violence in American politics in this time. And
while everyone is grateful and relieved that the violence did not touch him and that his life was spared, and that this assassination attempt, this
heinous attempt was defeated, that's all a very blessed thing, that should not blind us to who he is and what he stands for and what he has done.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: So, devil's advocate obviously benefited the doubt. There are many, many people, including himself, who have said that this event last
Saturday has changed him. His son says it's changed him. People who've been around him say he looks changed. He says he's changing the content of his
acceptance speech, which will be on Thursday night.
Does he deserve the benefit of the doubt? And should one reserve judgment until he's actually spoken?
FRUM: At the age of 78 and after a half century of a career as one of America's leading commercial fraudsters, I think changes unlikely. And of
course, to this -- at this moment, he is exalting and delighting and gloating and using this event that ought to be a unifying event in an
improper way.
AMANPOUR: What do you mean by that?
FRUM: He should be -- I mean -- well, a different kind of person would not have allowed his surrogates immediately to pin the blame for this attempted
assassination on his rival. His own vice president has said this assassination attempt was Joe Biden's fault. He said that on Twitter or X,
as we now call it.
Now, there was no evidence for that. And indeed, as the evidence has come in, the shooter looks to be the very familiar American disturbed loner
seeking some kind of glory through crime and bloodshed. That looks to be the story.
A candidate for vice president of the United States should not be quick to accuse others of responsibility, culpability for such a heinous act. But
they were. They are unchanged. They are the same people. Donald Trump at 78 is not going to become a different human being.
AMANPOUR: David Frum, let me just ask you about Vance, because you actually know him. He actually used to write for an old website of yours.
So, can you tell me how you viewed him then and how you view him today? Is he still the same person that you knew then?
FRUM: Well, when I knew him, which was quite a while ago, I think it may have been his very first bylines were -- in the website that I ran. We
published him under a pseudonym. And for 15 years, I kept the secret of the pseudonym until he revealed it himself, in his own self opposition
research. I admired him. I thought he had a huge political future ahead of him.
His abilities are not in question. Unlike Donald Trump at the head of the ticket, there is nothing of the charlatan about J. D. Vance. He is a
formidable, formidable intellect, a formidable talent, a man of great self- discipline, and a man of great ambition, even more than usual for politician. But where he is different from most is he's a man of
extraordinary moral and intellectual flexibility, to put it mildly.
He has changed his mind on many issues. And the stories he tells about why he's changed his mind are not true, or at least they don't line up with the
dates. For example, that he says the reason he is so in favor of betraying Ukraine now is because of his disillusionment with the Iraq war. Well, he
was writing for me half a decade after he came back from military service. And he was then an advocate of traditional American global leadership. That
changed sometime after, and probably within the past two or three years as a result of other forces than the one he (INAUDIBLE).
AMANPOUR: From your piece you write, when he got the endorsement recently of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who notoriously floated a
conspiracy theory about California's wildfires being started by space lasers associated with Rothschild, Inc. He, being Vance, tweeted, honored
to have Marjorie's endorsement. We're going to win this thing and take the country back from the scumbags.
So, you know, take the country back. We own the country. That is also a very sort of chauvinistic way of looking at politics as if you're the only
ones who have the right to the country. So, what do you think a J. D. Vance today and a Trump today will do with the Republican Party and presumably
he's his heir. It's going to shape the Republican Party for years and decades?
FRUM: The Republican Party -- I became a Republican in the 1980s because I believed in American world leadership, because I believed in the workings
of a free market economy, because I believed in the impartial rule of law, and because I believed in the -- in collective security, and that all the
democracies are stronger when they stand together. Those are the causes that led 1970s at a time of Soviet adventurism to follow people like Gerald
Ford and Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and look to them as the leaders who stood for what I believed in.
[13:10:00]
Well, those things are all jettisoned. We now have a party that stands for narrow, selfish, particularism and nationalism that rejects trade, that
rejects collective leadership, wants to abandon Ukraine. Trump, just in the past two days, said that he was reconsidering the American guarantee to
Taiwan, would put them up for bid.
They assure us they are steadfast for Israel. But given their contemptuous attitude, all allies but Israel, I'm not sure how comfortable and confident
I would be if I were someone who cared about the security of Israel, which I am.
AMANPOUR: And what about -- again, I want to go back to some of the others of the party and some of the other things that you've said need to be put
into context. For instance, what happened on, you know, January 6th. We're going to hear later in the program an interview with the governor of New
Hampshire, Chris Sununu. And he has done an about-face as well. He basically came out early saying no Trump, only Nikki Haley, and now, he's
saying the opposite. But more than that, he said that January 6th is not a disqualifier for this particular high office. How do you react to that?
FRUM: If the attempt to seize power by violence in a democracy, the attempt to overturn an election first by fraud, then by violence, if those
aren't disqualifiers, it's hard to know what is a disqualifier. It's hard to -- you can't disqualify anybody. In fact, you would accept anything.
I think we are really in danger of losing sight of the enormity of the January 6th event, a serving president tried to organize a mob to sack
Congress, maybe kidnap the speaker of the house, maybe kidnap his own vice president, maybe kill them, all in order to stop a count that they had no
legal right to stop, that no one had a legal right to stop, that would prevent the winner of the election from take -- claiming the presidency and
install the loser of the election as president by violence.
You know, I used to do a lot of inauguration day TV and not a big fish in the Washington punditry pool. So, I would be on at the three hours before
anything happened. And there wasn't a lot of time to fill. And so, we'd all natter on about the unbroken American tradition of the peaceful transfer of
power as if Denmark doesn't transfer power peacefully, as if Britain, as you said, doesn't transfer power peacefully.
But the reason we talk so much about this allegedly, but not true, unique event is because actually, the transfer of power is a very fraught moment
in the United States, but -- year after year, administration after administration, decade after decade, century after century, with the
exception of the terrible events of the 1860s and the attempt to repeat them in the 1870s, the transfer of power was peaceful despite the danger in
the air. In 2020 and 2021, that did not happen. Donald trump broke that sacred tradition and the clock is reset. We don't have that tradition
anymore. We'll see what happens in 2024 whether he tries violence again.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about guardrails and they say, you know, that the first administration had experienced professionals, for the most part,
around President Trump and that they say that he is on the road to actually just using sort of a loyalty test to name either his cabinet or the closest
advisers.
So, I want to play this little mashup of the rhetoric already being shown at the convention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JIM JUSTICE (R-WV): We become totally unhinged if Donald Trump is not elected in November.
SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FL): We have to fight every day to stop the radical Democrats From absolutely destroyed our great country.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: They want to tear down those foundations and remold us into some sort of borderless, lawless, Marxist,
socialist utopia.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Americans are dying, murder, assaulted, raped by illegal immigrants that the Democrats have released.
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): The Democratic party lies in ruins. The woke mind virus is dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that was a series of senators, you know, congresspeople. It was Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis. CNN has done fact-checking about quite a lot of
the lies that have been talked about the Democrats at this convention. But does this sound, I mean, America becomes unhinged if Donald Trump is not
elected in November? That's Jim Justice. What does that portend to you, particularly at this time when they're talking about lowering the
temperature, showing unity?
FRUM: The important guardrails on Trump's first presidency where he's unfathomably lazy, he didn't know how the government worked, and he was
surrounded by people who weren't eager to go out of their way to help him. They would follow orders, but if the orders couldn't be executed, or if the
orders were illegal, they would just -- they would not suggest ways to achieve what he wanted to do in some other more legal way. Those guardrails
are truly down.
Because although he remains lazy, he now does have a list of things that he wants to do, which he didn't really then. Back then, his main goal was to
bask in adulation and direct taxpayer money to his own businesses. This time he has an agenda, and it's revenge.
[13:15:00]
Second, he did learn something over those four years. He does know how the government works a lot better than he did before. And over the interval,
the Republican Party has changed. And there now are people who will willingly help him and will either execute illegal orders, as J. D. Vance
said he would, he would defy the courts, or else they will show him ways to achieve what he wants to do that are more legal than the ways that he can't
do things.
So, it's going to be a very different four years or however long he lasts and however long he lasts before there's another impeachment crisis, which
I think is the thing we're on our way to.
AMANPOUR: David Frum, thank you so much indeed for joining us with all that context.
FRUM: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And later in the program, as we said, you will hear from New Hampshire's Republican Governor Chris Sununu, a never Trumper, although, as
David Trump said, sometimes you become a Trumper. He has turned full- throated defender.
Now, on the substance, let's examine what a second Trump term might mean for the environment, for instance. If he makes good on his promises, the
climate emergency will be pushed further down the agenda, at a time when its impact has never been more visible.
Over the last few weeks, torrential rains and flash floods have killed hundreds of people in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, and Nepal. And in
parts of the United States and the Caribbean, people are picking up the pieces after Hurricane Beryl. The earliest Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on
record. And as sea temperatures rise, stronger storms are all but certain.
One of the worst hit was Grenada in the Caribbean, which happens to be the home of the U.N. climate chief, Simon Stiell. He joined me from there to
talk about the devastating effects of the very crisis that he's trying to get the world to solve.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Simon Stiell, welcome back to the program.
SIMON STIELL, U.N. CLIMATE CHIEF: Hi Christiane. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share some of what I've just experienced in Carriacou.
AMANPOUR: Yes. You're in Grenada, which is basically home to you. What did Beryl do to that area?
STIELL: Carriacou is my home. This is where my family are. This is where my family lives and just returning to see the level of devastation is
absolutely heartbreaking, Christiane. Just to see the brutality, the violent devastation that Beryl imposed on this very, very tight knit
communities, just to see twisted mangled homes, infrastructure, vegetation, I mean, it was almost, almost apocalyptic.
AMANPOUR: I mean, even -- and here you are, the U.N. climate official, and you couldn't even speak to family, right? You were disconnected at the
height of Beryl because so much of the infrastructure and connections were wiped out.
STIELL: It took 24 hours before we actually received contact from those closest to us. I had an aunt, it was three days before they were able to
cut their way through the vegetation to find her alive in her home. But it was a period of great anguish waiting to hear from loved ones and knowing
they were safe. They were lives lost.
So far, the death count is six lives lost. But when you see the level of devastation, 98 percent of buildings, of property either destroyed or
damaged.
AMANPOUR: So, Simon, how do you think islands like Grenada, those who are worst hit -- I mean, you know, we're not talking about rich nations,
they're Caribbean islands, they're vulnerable. How do they -- how does your island there, how does it rebuild?
STIELL: Governments in these vulnerable developing countries can only do so much themselves. They have such limited fiscal space. They're heavily
debt burdened. They don't have the financial means to continue to borrow and -- borrow to rebuild just for what they've rebuilt to be destroyed
again by another climate related disaster.
So, the only way countries, islands, such as Carriacou, such as those others that have been impacted now, can get through this is through
international support, through international cooperation. These are the same voices of other vulnerable communities all around the world.
AMANPOUR: Precisely.
[13:20:00]
STIELL: We've just heard recently, we've heard in India, thousands of deaths due to extreme heat. 1,300 died recently in the Hajj to Mecca. We've
had -- in Kenya, they've gone from years of debilitating drought that's decimated its agricultural sector from drought to severe floods, again,
costing dozens of lives, hundreds of millions displaced. And just two years ago, a third of Pakistan was underwater, again, thousands lost their lives.
Millions displaced. And closer to your audience, North America, Canada, wildfires, again, decimating vast land masses. Southern Europe.
What we're seeing here are the devastating impacts of climate change affecting every region, every country, from the richest to the poorest.
AMANPOUR: The question is, are we moving forward to combat climate change, or is it one step forward, several steps back? I mean, put it into context
then, because it can't be just bailing out a country every time something like this happens. That's not sustainable.
STIELL: We are moving forward, and the global stock take that concluded in COP 28 in Dubai last year highlighted progress made, but the clear message,
clear message is, not enough is being done and what is being done is not being done fast enough.
AMANPOUR: Let's take the United States, which is one of those countries which is having its political season right now. And, as we know, the Trump
administration, or the Trump people, have indicated that they want further deregulation, that they're not interested in bolstering the climate change
mission of the EPA and they're much more friendly to fossil fuel companies.
You saw what happened during the first Trump administration. What do you think might happen if America is led by this, you know, group again?
STIELL: Well, it's not my role to provide political commentary on individual countries, but my message to all countries and especially those
within the G20 is that even the largest, most developed countries are being hammered by the impacts off climate change. No one is unaffected.
But also, there is a -- everyone benefits from bold climate action. And the inevitability off decarbonization is here. The transition to renewables is
gathering place, not yet at the tipping points that are necessary to get us to where we need to be. But there is exponential growth in the
transformation, and this transformation offers all countries the opportunity, the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.
AMANPOUR: So, I know you don't want to weigh in politically and I understand that. On the other hand, there must be models that you look at.
For instance, the Biden administration and the E.U. put climate -- combating climate change at the heart. In other words, green policies at
the heart of their post COVID economic revivals. Has that worked? Is that a model?
STIELL: Those models are working. If we see the transition that is taking place in the United States right now, to be specific, and the positive
impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, which is the center policy piece for the U.S.'s transition, it is working. There is clear evidence of the
acceleration and the speed of transition to renewables and the benefits.
The benefits, not only in terms of how that contributes directly to reducing emissions, but also in terms of creating new green jobs and
stimulating the economy. The same in Europe with their green deal. And seeing how -- again, whether it's through renewables, whether it's through
electric vehicles, whether it's through other technologies, we're seeing those positive impacts.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just point out because, we have to, countries such as the one I'm in, the U.K., even Germany, they have rolled back or at least
delayed some of their climate measures. Now, we have a new government, obviously, in the U.K., but nonetheless, the whole money issue is causing a
big problem.
[13:25:00]
You correctly point out a recent Gallup survey, it says 89 percent of people in 125 countries want stronger climate action by governments. Yet,
it seems low down as a political priority. And you've also said in your Chatham House address, two years to save the world.
So, put all that together and try to -- well, tell me, do we have two years? Is the political will there? Is the accelerated action there to do
what you say needs to be done?
STIELL: That is what is being tested right now. And we always speak -- and it's become a bit of a colloquialism political will, but it is that
political will that will drive through the necessary actions that are required, are expected over the course of this year.
We know that climate change is not as high up that agenda as it needs to be. And we seem to be in a world that can only go and deal with one crisis
at a time. And we're in a multi crisis situation where climate change impacts all aspects of our economy, all aspects of national security all
aspects of our society and our physical existence.
So, driving this up, the political agenda and listening to those voices of those advocating for greater climate action and being respectful of those
voices of the most vulnerable who are calling out for help and for relief from this climate crisis really, really need to be reflected in those
actions.
AMANPOUR: Very vividly and convincingly put. Simon Stiell, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
STIELL: Thank you, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And returning now to the politics of all of this, for years, Donald Trump was a force of unity amongst Democrats and division amongst
Republicans, but now the tables have turned. Few understand the GOP transformation better than our next guest. After serving as one of Nikki
Haley's most vocal advocates during the primaries, like her, the New Hampshire governor, Chris Sununu, is now backing Former President Trump,
and he joins Walter Isaacson to explain why.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Governor Chris Sununu, welcome back to the show.
GOV. CHRIS SUNUNU (R-NH): Well, thanks. Thanks for having me back.
ISAACSON: After the assassination attempt on Former President Donald Trump, President Biden called on everybody to tone down the rhetoric, to
cool things down. And Speaker Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker, said just about the same thing. How do we do that? How is that possible?
SUNUNU: Well, look, it was great to see within the kind of that first 48 hours both sides, everyone's saying, OK, the last few years has been
polarizing, it's been extreme. And obviously, with the assassination attempt, as awful as that was, maybe there was an opportunity to hit a
reset button there, get back to issues, get back to talking about things that really matter to the American people.
Now, the media can do that, elected officials can do that, but at the end of the day, it only happens when all of us do it, right? All 350 million
Americans, as parents, as co-workers, as friends and neighbors, that we tone down our rhetoric as a whole. It has to be a cultural change. So, it's
not easy to do. I think it's great that it starts with leadership.
I'm a little nervous, and just -- even in just some of the rhetoric I started seeing yesterday, the attacks on J.D. Vance and they're back to
saying that, you know, these guys are a threat to democracy and all of that sort of thing, that's the type of rhetoric that gets really polarizing,
that gets away from issues, that gets away from the election, right?
And I think a lot of folks say, look, you, we have our differences. Let's talk about those. We both want, you know, a great, solid America on both
sides of the aisle. We both have different pathways to get there. Let's talk about those pathways. Let's do an election the way elections are
supposed to be done and not talk about these existential threats to America, these existential threats to democracy, how evil these -- each
side is.
No one's evil here, right? They're just fighting a good fight to hopefully get their policies to get America into a better place. But again, I go back
to your -- to the heart of your question, it's incumbent upon all of us as individuals to kind of carry that responsibility, not for the next few
months, but really into perpetuity, really setting that example for that entire next generation that's watching us very closely.
ISAACSON: You talk about how politicians have said they want to lower the rhetoric, and already they're not doing so. Even on J.D. Vance, who used to
be somebody who was a great unifier when he wrote "Hillbilly Elegy," I think people from all walks of life said, OK, I get something interesting
in there. But now he's been saying things like, the central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist
who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination.
[13:30:00]
But he's somebody who also called Trump an American Hitler. He was much more of a non-Trumper than even you were. What do you think of him as a
choice?
SUNUNU: I think it's a great choice. I do. Look, let's start in the very beginning. His background is phenomenal and that he had a really tough
situation growing up. He dealt with a lot of real issues that a lot of Americans are dealing with, right? In his family, the challenges of drugs
and mental health and poverty and all of these things. They made a movie about his life even before he was a U.S. senator.
He's obviously a Marine. That's incredible. He's incredibly smart. He went to Yale. So, he's got the brains for the job. That's for darn sure. He's a
U.S. senator, but he's only been there about a year and a half. He's not an insider to Washington, right? So, there's an opportunity. He kind of brings
that disruption a little bit. He's not going to do it and hasn't done it like folks have been in Washington for decades and decades. So, he has that
outsider perspective, which is very refreshing, I think, to a lot of Americans.
And frankly, he's just a really nice guy. I mean, he's a very, very nice guy. He's had his differences with Trump in the past, as have I have, I
think most folks are -- have at some point. I mean, Kamala Harris has had some pretty amazing differences with Joe Biden in her past. I mean, if you
go back to that debate where she tore Joe Biden apart.
ISAACSON: Well, we're not talking about a rhetoric like America and Hitler.
SUNUNU: Well, she said he -- I mean, they -- she called them out on race. She called him out on busing. She called him out on being friends with
segregationists. And then she decided to be his running mate, right. And all of a sudden, they're buddies.
So, they're -- you know, you don't have to be a partnership for life going into the situation, but clearly, Trump and J.D. have found their
friendship, their partnership. I think they understand what that -- they each bring something a little different to the table. They each have
different skills they can bring to the table. And for that, I think it's a great ticket.
ISAACSON: Let me talk about J.D. Vance for a second, because I think he represents and solidifies the hold of a certain wing of the party, the more
populist, more nationalist wing, one that doesn't really support NATO that much, anti-corporate. There's another wing of the party, which I associate
you with, with Paul Ryan with and others, which I just call traditional conservatism. You can change -- correct my labels if you want.
Do you see the selection of Vance as moving the party and Trumpism down that road on towards populist nationalism rather than the more traditional
small government, small spending conservatism?
SUNUNU: No, no, no. Look, I -- both parties -- and I'll just speak to the Republican Party, we don't have moderates and conservatives. There's a
whole spectrum, right? There's a whole spectrum within our party of philosophies and platform positions and where they want to go both on
domestic issues, on governance, on kind of the civics that you want to see within government.
I'm a big believer in local government and limited government, localized control. And then there's obviously the aspects of what we're going to do
internationally and the role of America that we need to play internationally. And we can all have our differences there, even amongst
Republicans. So, no, I don't think he represents a -- the party going in one direction or not.
As we know, Former President Trump, I think he's doing very well. My guess is he's going -- if I was a betting man, he's going to be winning in
November and be the next president. He's the spokesperson for the party. J.D. is a part of that now. But that doesn't mean that their philosophies
and principles represent every single Republican across the board. And that's OK. Nothing wrong with that.
There can be a lot of different points of view. And at the end of the day, what you really want is to have a president and a vice president that
understand their roles, that can work as a team, work with states, work with Congress, hopefully find more efficiencies in government, keep America
strong throughout the world. You can have different strategies and how to do that, but I'm a firm believer that world peace comes through America's
strength.
And you have to support your allies and you have to put fear in your enemies. And I think, you know, there's an opportunity to kind of enhance
that a little bit. I think Former President Trump did it very well in his first term. There's no doubt about that on the international side. And
hopefully, we can get back to kind of, you know, bringing some of the peace that folks want to see worldwide, both in Ukraine and specifically in
Israel.
ISAACSON: I'm sure you remember you're on this show with me almost exactly a year ago. And you said, we've got to make sure Donald Trump in the
nominee because he can't win. Is that personal, meaning it wasn't personal between you and the president, he just can't mathematically win 2024? What
made you think and evolve?
[13:35:00]
SUNUNU: Yes. Oh, my goodness. I mean, I firmly believed it a year ago, but I was wrong. I was dead wrong on that. So, much has changed, right? I think
a lot of us assume that the trials would have some impact. It didn't. The trials of Donald Trump have been so mishandled by the Democrats, both in
terms of communication, the reality, you know, of each of the trials, Jack Smith screwing the Mar-a-Lago trial up, the Fani Willis and all the
shenanigans going on in Georgia, all the issues that happened with, you know, Trump's trial, it's not hurting his poll numbers at all because the
Democrats and -- is -- are being exposed for a lot of the politicization that they were driving on with a lot of those issues.
And it's not just Chris Sununu saying that. America saw it. I mean, his poll numbers went up every time he went into a courtroom. Nobody thought
that was going to happen, but that's the reality. The Democrats were that - - bungled those issues that badly.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, wait, wait. Do you think that it's simply the Democrats that made him popular? Do you think that had there not been these
things, he would have lost?
SUNUNU: Oh, no. The Democrats put all their eggs in the basket of those trials, thinking that was going to end Donald Trump. And it -- because --
and why? Because they didn't want to talk about inflation. They didn't want to talk about what's going on in the border. They didn't want to talk about
the struggles of the cost of living that every American has. So, they tried to make it about this bigger existential thing, and how Donald Trump is a
threat to America and a threat to democracy. And no one's buying it. No one's buying it up and down.
And the more we saw these trials get mishandled and all the other shenanigans that were going on with them, the more the liberal media
tripled down on that aspect, it blew up in their faces and just put more winds in the sails of Former President Trump.
The other issue, let's remember, Trump won the primaries, right? I tried really hard, you know, for Nikki Haley. I think, you know, we had a lot of
other really great candidates out there, obviously, but he -- unlike Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Nikki Haley went through states, went through the
primaries, went through the campaigns, and the voters had their say. And so, everyone said, OK, we fought it out the right way. Everyone had their
shot. They voted for Trump. We're going to get behind Trump. And everyone's getting behind him because that's what primaries are. You fight it out hard
and you galvanize.
The Democrats tried to coronate and they tried to consistently tell you that there was nothing wrong with Joe Biden, that everything was just fine,
we're going to try to skip the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire. We don't need to have real challengers here. And now, look at
where they are. It's come -- again, blown up in their faces and that's their doing. That's a hundred percent their doing. It's completely on them.
So, at the end of the day, all of their attempts to "thwart Donald Trump and the Republican Party" instead of talking about issues and finding
better solutions and doing elections the right way, they tried to do it this kind of different way, this existential way, as I like to say, and
it's blown up in their face.
And so, yes, there's no doubt that Donald Trump is in a much stronger position today than he has been in the last four years. He's got all the
wind at its sails. The Democrats are in complete disarray. Who knows what's going to happen at that convention. You never know what you're going to get
out of Joe Biden in any -- in every single interview, even all of his supporters are biting their fingernails, praying he can just answer a
question.
ISAACSON: You've just said that the Democrats misplayed this by making it seem like it was existential, like a threat to democracy. Donald Trump said
he would pardon people who were involved in the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. You called these people who did that attack domestic
terrorists. You said that Trump "absolutely contributed to this insurrection." And, you know, obviously, you know what Mike Pence said, and
Mike Pence said he couldn't in good conscience do it because of this threat to democracy.
Do you not see why people are worried about this threat to our orderly transfer of power that January 6th represented?
SUNUNU: Sure. So, look, I stick by -- I don't think any of those folks should be pardoned. I'm not going to be president. It's not going to be my
decision. And if that comes to be, I mean, that's -- that would be the president's decision to do that. I disagree with that. I think those folks
need to, you know, be punished because what happened on January 6th was absolutely terrible.
The difference is I -- you know, I don't see January 6th. I don't like it. I hate -- everyone hated what we saw that day. There was no doubt that I --
that, you know, Former President Trump, as I said before, his words definitely had impacted what happened on January 6th. Everybody saw that. I
don't like it, but it's not a disqualifier. And I think too many folks on the Democrat side say, but that has to be a disqualifier. It's not.
And what you have is kind of -- I'll call it this liberal elite, right, that's saying, but January 6th happened so we just can't vote for him. But
every American has the right to have a different set of priorities. Some Americans are getting crushed by inflation. Their credit card debt is
through the roof. They can barely pay the rent. And they have every right to say, I need a change out of Washington because I need more opportunity
for my family. And they shouldn't be judged on that.
[13:40:00]
And you have Democrats all over this country, the liberal elite as I call them, judging America because they have -- may have a different set of
priorities. And that's a fundamentally un-American, and it just ticks people off. We can disagree that's OK -
(CROSSTALK)
ISAACSON: Well, wait. You call it the liberal elite, but the strongest voice in it, to me, is Michael Pence
SUNUNU: Yes, absolutely. No, no. Pence is -- Pence -- look, Pence isn't out there every day with the liberal media telling folks that Trump is an
existential threat to America. He's saying, I'm not going to support him, I can't get behind him. And he has every right to do that, and that's fine.
God bless Mike Pence. He's earned the right to say and do whatever he wants, as has every single American in this country.
The problem I have with the liberal elite is they're judging people. They're judging people for the priority. Some people think the border is a
number one issue, that it's a huge domestic -- potential domestic and terrorist threat coming across the border. And I completely understand
that. And I agree with that. I think it's one of the top two issues in the country, but the Biden administration has done nothing. And so, folks are
saying, we demand a change. We don't like January 6th. We don't like an election denial, but I need a change with these other things.
And so, the problem is, going back to your original question, for two years, all we've heard out of the liberal media and the liberal elite are,
yes, but January 6th and these trials, January 6th and these trials, they're not talking about things that real Americans want to talk about.
And that's why Republicans are doing so well. They're talking about real issues. They're putting real ideas on the table. They're engaging in the
conversation in the right way as elections are supposed to be done.
And so, the Democrats, again, have put all their marbles and, you know, talking about trials and a threat to democracy. I mean, let's talk about
the threat to democracy here. Think of all the folks that voted for Joe Biden. They did so -- I didn't do it, but they did so thinking that he was
going to be making decisions for this country. Is he? Clearly not. Clearly, he's not making decisions on a day-to-day basis for this country. So,
everyone voted for someone, and I can't tell you who's actually making those decisions. That is very undemocratic, right? That's not the
democratic process.
Vote for someone, but don't worry, someone else is going to be in charge, and we're not going to tell you who it is. I mean, really, can you tell me
who's making all the day-to-day decisions out of the White House right now? No. At least with Trump, you might not agree with his positions, you might
-- you know, we don't like his tweets, we don't like his personality sometimes, but at least you know he's making real decisions for the country
and where things are going, and you can have a discussion about where that is.
But literally, the Democrats are trying to now get behind Joe Biden, and they don't even know what they got. None of us do. So, that that gets
people -- that's not even -- that's not a disagreement of ideas anymore, that's just, well, what are we voting for? Who's literally going to be in
charge if we vote for Joe Biden? But the Democrats are saying, don't worry, it's just not Trump. That's all you need to worry about. That's a failed
message. That's a failed strategy.
And then the reason is, because it's not showing any respect to the American voter. It's not showing any respect to the fact that voters care
about ideas and issues and policies and things that will impact their families. It's just saying trust us it's not Trump.
And so, I think this is -- it all plays in to a failed master plan on the Democrat side that we're just going to bash on Trump, tell people he's
scary, tell people he's going to bring America down, he's going to end America, the American process, the American experiment, a threat to
democracy. We use all these big, scary words and be so polarizing and so fearful of him that America will have no doubt but not vote for him. That's
not how it works, guys.
ISAACSON: One of the things that Former President Trump and J.D. Vance agree on is a need for higher tariffs, I think. Stronger tariffs, protect
manufacturing through tariffs, exit odds with the traditional Republican conservative thinking. Tell me, how would that affect people in New
Hampshire, people in the United States, and do you think that's a great idea?
SUNUNU: Well, look, it has its pros and cons. I don't -- fundamentally, I don't think I have a problem with it. I'm not an international financing
expert, per se. I'm a big believer in free trade. I mean, I love the concept of free trade. But again, seeing the free trade imbalance that we
have across the world is, I think, driving the opportunity to make some different decisions on tariffs to say, look, if you're going to tax our
goods at X, then we're going to tax your goods at Y, right, to create a more a more balanced and even playing field. Now, that can have its pros
and cons.
In a place like New Hampshire, we do a lot of international business. We're a big aerospace and defense industry and our manufacturing side. Tourism is
a big deal for. So, we deal a lot overseas, specifically Canada and Europe, Western Europe for the most part.
So, what happens in China obviously will affect America as a whole just because so many of our products are bought there. That can have a trickle
effect in a reverberation to Europe where, again, we want to make sure that there's a more balanced opportunity there. Anything I can do so our -- my
businesses can sell products a little easier out of Europe and be more competitive with the European products that are coming in here, that's a
win, right? That helps our economy, that creates jobs, that puts more money into the economy, allows them to invest in capital and higher wages, all
the whole nine yards.
[13:45:00]
So, anything we can do, but understand that what happens in China and what happens in Europe might be very different. And then you have to add India
into the mix, by the way. So, you have to look at each area of the world a little bit differently. But at the end of the day, it always has to come
back to the, what's the result? Is the net result better for the American worker? Is the net result better for the American business? That's all that
matters.
ISAACSON: Governor Chris Sununu, thank you for joining us again.
SUNUNU: Thank you, buddy. Appreciate it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And just a quick fact-check regarding inflation. While it did peak at 9.1 percent in June of 2022, since then, it's declined sharply. It
is around 3 percent June of this year. And indeed, the idea of putting tariffs of 10 percent on all goods, American economists say that is just a
tax on the American people.
Now, an attempted assassination, an aging president struggling in the polls, and widening political polarization. The parallels between the
America of 1968 and today are uncanny, complete with traumatic memories for those who lived through that turbulent time for Luci Baines Johnson,
daughter of the former President Lyndon B. Johnson, the assassination attempt on Saturday drew chilling parallels with the political violence
that surrounded her own father's presidency. And she's joining me now from the LBJ Library in Texas.
Luci Baines Johnson, welcome to the program. And we really are so pleased to have you because to of your experience and to put it into historical
context. First, let me ask you what motivated you to write that statement shortly after the assassination attempt and to also gather not only your
sister, but the daughter of Gerald Ford, against whom there was also an assassination conspiracy and attempt.
LUCI BAINES JOHNSON, DAUGHTER OF PRESIDENT LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON: Well, we all felt that it was an important thing to do. We are the children of
presidents from both political parties. We endured the agony of President Kennedy's assassination, President Ford's attempted assassinations, and the
assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Our parents are gone. But our families stand together calling for peace and healing in
these difficult days.
There simply is no place for violence in America. Susan, Lynda, and I all believe in this statement and wanted very much to share it with the world.
We thank you for giving us the chance to do so now.
AMANPOUR: Well, we thank you as well. And I just want to know what you feel in the intervening week or so since that horror that happened last
weekend. And whether you think, given the experience that you also had in 1968, with the violence of the -- at the Democratic Convention, with then
the assassinations of -- well, just before, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, and also of Martin Luther King, how you put that in context with
the risks to the nation today?
JOHNSON: Well, it was all very surreal to everybody, I think, who lived through those times. Lynda, Susan, and I had a very special prism in that
our parents were involved in public life at such a high level. But indeed, I think the 1960s grabbed at the heartstrings of everybody of age of
memory. And they date the events in their lives before and afterwards. I think in many ways we will do the same again.
But I think we've got to pull ourselves together as a country and say, how can we come together, united as Americans, regardless of our political
preferences, and treat each other with respect and with commitment to peace in our time?
AMANPOUR: When you look into your heart and soul and when you look around at what's happening, today, it's obviously a very different time. Yes,
there were political disagreements there, but all the historians and everybody tells us that despite the violence, the extreme violence in 1968,
you know, it wasn't as politically polarized on a daily and minute-by- minute basis.
So, do you think that the country can actually use this moment to come together or is that wishful thinking?
[13:50:00]
JOHNSON: I think we must come together. One of the things that I'm so grateful for is that my father used all of these chilling moments in
American's history during his time to serve the greater good. After the agony of Bloody Sunday came the hope of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Out of
the pain of the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King came the 1968 Fair Housing Act. We tried to use the assassination of President
Kennedy that tore our nation's heart asunder to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. An act that we celebrate 60 years of, this July 2nd.
And we hope to have President Biden come to the LBJ library so we can join hands together to look back over America's history and say this was a great
good. We literally were able to eradicate an American form of apartheid as a result of this act. We've got to take the horrors that happen in our time
and turn them towards the greater good for all time.
I have my -- with my husband 14 grandchildren. We care deeply about the future we are giving them. And we are committed to doing all we can for
peace in our time.
AMANPOUR: You are uniquely placed to talk like this, and you have so much history. The fact that your father assumed the presidency after the
assassination of President Kennedy, I mean, you, as young people must have been really, really shocked, as was, you know, the whole administration at
the beginning.
But I'm really interested, because you just brought up President Biden and you, of course, know that there's this clamor now rising. There's now a
very senior congressman, Adam Schiff, who's joined the call that Biden should step aside for somebody, you know, more likely to win. And I can't
help remembering, and everybody remembers, that the last time a candidate stepped aside was your father in 1968. And I want to play the snippet of
what President Johnson said to the nation when he decided that he was not going to run again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LYNDON B. JOHNSON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: With America's sons in the field far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with
our hopes and the world's hopes for peace and the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any
personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office, the presidency of your country.
Accordingly, I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, you obviously remember that, it was certainly a history shattering moment. And of course, it came in the context of the Vietnam War
and your father also had certain health issues What must you be thinking now as a similar movement is developing that President Biden should step
aside? Although he has not agreed unlike your father.
JOHNSON: Well, I have known, loved, and respected President Biden for decades. He has earned my support. His presidency has reflected the values
that my father felt so committed to. Those of social justice. And so, I believe that President Biden's decision is uniquely his own, just as my
father's was uniquely his own.
[13:55:00]
And so, for the moment, I honor President Biden's decision. I respect him and support him. But these are very trying times, and each president has to
make his own decision about what the right thing for him to do under the circumstances that are handed to him.
AMANPOUR: And what, in 20 seconds that we have left, do you see is the future of American right now? It really is a big question. 20 seconds.
JOHNSON: Well, my hope for America is my hope for the (INAUDIBLE) of all of the world, that somehow, we can come together to recognize the good that
is in each of us, to celebrate it, to work for it, and stay vigilant for it. If we don't, the consequences are simply too grave.
AMANPOUR: Luci Baines Johnson, thank you so much indeed for joining us with those words of wisdom and of history and of memory.
And that's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
