Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Head of Israeli Defense Intelligence and ELNET Forum of Strategic Dialogue Chief Amos Yadlin; Interview with "Disclaimer" Actress and Executive Producer Cate Blanchett; Interview with "Disclaimer" Director and Creator Alfonso Cuaron; Interview with Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 15, 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.
Israel keeps up attacks on Lebanon and Gaza. As the death toll climbs, Netanyahu weighs what to strike in Iran. I get analysis from former Israeli
defense intelligence chief Amos Yadlin.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The world needs to know who Catherine Ravenscroft really is. The world needs to know the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Disclaimer," a psychological thriller starring Cate Blanchett. I sit down with the legendary actress and the series director,
Alfonso Cuaron.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE VLADECK, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN LAW: The court depends upon public support, depends upon that very faith that is eroding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- a new term starts for SCOTUS. Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck tells Hari Sreenivasan why he thinks this Supreme Court is its own
worst enemy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
The Biden administration has sent a formal letter to the Israeli government demanding that it improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza within 30
days, or risk violating American laws over foreign military assistance. That diplomatic move comes, as the United Nations says, Israel is, quote,
"effectively sealing off the north of the enclave, leaving Palestinians with no access to food." The U.N. also is warning that Israel may be
carrying out, quote, "the large-scale force transfer of the civilian population."
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu says Israel will continue to hit Hezbollah targets across Lebanon, including the capital, Beirut. All this
as the world waits for an expected response to Iran. According to a source familiar with those discussions, Israeli officials have told the U.S. that
a counterstrike will target Iranian military rather than oil or nuclear sites.
Now, for people in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon, the ongoing, devastating human pain is hard to escape, as correspondent Jomana Karadsheh now reports
on the terrible suffering of the Israeli hostages and their families, as well as the Palestinian children and civilians killed and gruesomely
injured.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Trapped in the nightmare that is Gaza are the innocent who did not choose this war, and time is
running out to save their lives.
Oded Lifshitz turned 84 in Hamas captivity. The great grandfather was shot and injured on October 7th by militants who stormed his home in Kibbutz Nir
Oz, the site of one of the worst massacres of that day. He was separated from his wife of more than 60 years. 86-year-old Yocheved was also
abducted, thrown onto the back of a motorbike in her nightgown before being released days later by Hamas. For more than a year, Sharone hasn't stopped
fighting for the release of her father and the other hostages.
SHARONE LIFSHITZ, DAUGHTER OF HOSTAGE: We are so exhausted and so heartbroken again and again. We don't have the luxury of giving up.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Their hopes for a ceasefire deal that would secure the release of the hostages shattered over and over again by failed
negotiations. And now, with Israel's new war in Lebanon, the world's attention appears to be shifting. It is, for all involved, a race against
time.
LIFSHITZ: We are losing this race. Anybody who's interested in history see people that are caught in the tide of time, in political military fanatical
regimes that are putting their own survival or their own agenda above human lives. And I feel that we now know what it feels.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Human lives turned into political pawns with no escape in this hell on Earth, where life has become a slow death for those
who survived the devastating bombardment. An Israeli strike left 14-year- old Hamed (ph) with severe burns all over his body. An Israel siege left doctors with very little to save lives, but not enough supplies to
sterilize wounds.
[13:05:00]
When we filmed with him, his wounds were infested with maggots that fell to the floor every time his dressings are changed. A week after filming, Hamed
(ph) died. It was too late for him. But thousands of others in urgent need of medical evacuation could be saved. Yet only a fraction of them have been
allowed out by Israeli authorities in recent months.
Baby Shehad (ph) can barely breathe and feed. A growing tumor is compressing his tiny heart. His mother Tamara struggles to hold it together
as she tries to comfort her boy.
Today, he's going into surgery to try and save his life because he can't be evacuated, she says. I just want my son to get better.
There are no specialists available in Gaza, and they don't have the medical equipment they need. The doctors say they have no choice but to operate to
try and keep him alive.
These are children. They're not carrying weapons, Tamara says. Why can't he be evacuated?
Against all odds, the four-month-old made it through the surgery, but now lives on borrowed time. More than a month later, he's still suffering from
weight loss, diarrhea, vomiting, and fever. His mother is pleading the International Community for treatment abroad. Palestinian and Israeli lives
that could be saved with a deal, if only there were the political will.
More than a hundred hostages are still being held in Gaza. The Israeli military has admitted mistakenly killing three of them. It's also said it
is most likely responsible for the death of at least three others. And in recent weeks, Hamas executed six hostages as Israeli forces closed in.
LIFSHITZ: These were young people that had every chance of survival and have survived almost a year. It's heartbreaking. It's a failure. We have
been in the burning house since the 7th of October, and we have been screaming that the flames are rising, and that they're going to consume
more and more people. We have been saying that military pressure is killing the hostages.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Oded Lifshitz is a man who's long believed in peace that now seems like a more distant dream than ever.
LIFSHITZ: My father used to drive Palestinians regularly from the border in Gaza to hospitals in Israel and the West Bank. And I think that there's
a lesson in it. And the lesson is in how do we share in humanity.
KARADSHEH: If your father could hear you now, what would you say to him?
LIFSHITZ: Forgive us. Forgive us. We have tried so hard. We hear your voice in our hands. And as we try what we can, we try the way he tried all
his life. He tried for many years to avert this disaster and it's befalling us. I hear him now saying, work for peace, work for the possibility of
humans in this region to live together.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Please for peace, even a ceasefire seems to be falling on deaf ears right now amid questions about Israel's strategy and its endgame for
this expanding war. Amos Yadlin is the former head of Israeli Defense Intelligence and was a fighter pilot for more than three decades. He's
joining me now from -- well, near Tel Aviv.
Amos Yadlin, welcome to the program. Let me just start by asking you about what we just heard in that report, both Israeli hostage families and
Palestinian children and civilians are suffering desperately in Gaza. What do you make of the United States, your strongest ally, sending that letter
to your government, telling them they must send in humanitarian assistance?
AMOS YADLIN, FORMER HEAD OF ISRAELI DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AND CHIEF, ELNET FORUM OF STRATEGIC DIALOGUE: I will say the following. There are -- this
war have started by Sinwar, the leader of the terror organization Hamas in Gaza, and he could have stopped it six months ago when President Biden put
forward a proposal for ceasefire and exchange of the hostages for terrorists and other concessions from Israel.
[13:10:00]
And we have to remember also that Gaza is not the only war. Sinwar hoped very much that the rest of the axis of evil led by Iran will join. So,
Hezbollah joined on the 8th of October last year, then the Houthis, then the Shia militia in Iraq. And finally, Iran straight directed missiles
attacked Israel both in April and in October.
So, Gaza, with all due respect, it's a tragedy. Yes, it's a huge human tragedy, but we have to understand who caused it and who is not enabling
all of us to stop it.
AMANPOUR: OK.
YADLIN: We are now -- the focus is now on Iran because we all waiting for the retaliation of Israel trying to deter Iran from doing again what it
did, 200 ballistic missiles hit Israel on October 1st. This is something any country in the world will not tolerate, and it's never happened in the
history of military. So, Israel will have to react.
And now, there is a dialogue with the Biden administration about all the three fronts. And the most important, once again, is Iran. Because the
Biden administration wants very much that Israel will not attack the energy sector in Iran or the nuclear. So, Israel may react on a more limited
target. Most military that attacked Israel. So, tit for tat. And the U.S. will support Israel in more defense against missiles. We just saw the
THAAD, which is an army anti-ballistic missile system landing in Israel as we speak.
More important is Lebanon. This terror organization basically attacked Israel for 11 months. 60,000 people left their homes, without any
provocation. And the Israeli government decided finally to move from the north to -- from the south Gaza to the north. And in a very brilliant
intelligence and air force operation, destroy most of Hezbollah capability to inflict huge damage on Israel. Huge.
AMANPOUR: OK.
YADLIN: And Radwan Forces on the border wanted to do exactly what Hamas have done in the Western Negev, which is a terrorist organization attack,
not military. Terrorist. So, we are fighting now in three fronts, and the U.S. is asking Israel to -- not to attack Beirut because there is an issue
there of refugees and civilians, and Israel is listening.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you've just made that clear that Israel is listening when it comes to Beirut. I want to go point by point, because you've linked
them all and they obviously all do look linked, because your government have said that there's a ring of fire that they want to extinguish around
the country.
So, do you agree with the Biden administration and with what apparently the Israeli government has told the administration that they won't attack the
nuclear sites, particularly the one that's -- they probably couldn't get to anyway, in Fordo, and they won't attack the oil infrastructure, but they
will go after the military targets, like the ballistic missiles or whatever, that attacked your own country? Do you agree with that strategy?
YADLIN: I think you have to first look at the strategic endgame. What is the strategic endgame against Iran? Then when you understand it, you go
backward to your next move. And I think the strategic endgame vis-a-vis Iran is to go to the head of the octopus, because Iran is the source of all
the troubles in the Middle East, and they supported all their proxies from Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and the Shia militia in Iraq, and the Shia
militia in Syria.
So, if you want to make a different behavior of this evil regime, you should plan forward. It cannot be done in one attack. I think by now,
before the election, it is making sense to scale down the attack, but it should be calibrated to a level that Iran will think twice about their
retaliation, because then we are going to -- for a round after round, and it can come -- become a full-scale war.
AMANPOUR: OK.
[13:15:00]
YADLIN: In this case, I think Israel will need the support and the coordination with the U.S.
AMANPOUR: OK.
YADLIN: And before you see this coordination going all the way to the strategic goal, you better start low.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I think what I'm hearing you say, and I'm just going to say this because I said that you have been a fighter pilot for many decades
and you are probably one of the only people in the world who actually took action to destroy the Osirak reactor in Iraq, when Saddam Hussein was
trying to build a nuclear reactor. And then, there was a Syrian one that was trying to be built, and you also were involved in that.
So, the question is, do you believe that Israel, on its own, can disable and knock out, let's say, the Fordo enrichment site, which is deep into the
mountain there? Do you think that Israel can do that alone in Iran?
YADLIN: Christiane, we are not going to discuss the Israeli operational plan on CNN with all due respect. But I will tell you two things. First,
Israel proved in the past that they have done things that seems to be impossible. So, never underestimate the Israeli innovation, the Israeli
surprise moves, OK?
You have to think that Israel decided that Iran will not have a nuclear bomb. It's not necessarily a military attack. It could be achieved by
agreement. It could be achieved by maybe a soft power like cyber. It can be achieved by a different regime. Because we are sleeping very good at night.
Where in India, there is nuclear weapon. Not an Indian president ever said that Israel should be wiped off the map.
AMANPOUR: OK.
YADLIN: So, there are many strategies to deal with it, but Israel cannot tolerate an Iranian nuclear bomb.
AMANPOUR: OK. So --
YADLIN: And if I have to say in one word --
AMANPOUR: Yes, go ahead.
YADLIN: Yes, the answer to your question is yes.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, you're in the minority, General, because most people believe that only the United States has the weapons and the delivery
mechanism to do that. But you know a lot, I guess. But I want to ask you this, because you started by talking about strategy. And many of your
allies, including Ambassador Dennis Ross, including, obviously, your own former national security adviser, are questioning the strategy.
Here's what Dennis Ross said recently. Israel has destroyed Hamas military and much of its arms infrastructure. Hezbollah has lost its leadership,
command control, communications, and most of their missiles. But military achievements are not ends in themselves. They must produce political
outcomes. Israel needs that now.
And as I said, Eyal Hulata, your former national security adviser, tells The New York Times, the political echelon in Israel isn't doing enough work
on how we can conclude this issue. I fear that our successes could be undone. And he means the whole thing, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon.
YADLIN: I cannot agree more. I'm -- even though I spent 40 years in the military, in uniform, I think any -- every military move, As a political
end, and I'll give you example in the north. The north is the most bright example. Due to the fact that Hezbollah was attacked to a level that we
never dreamed before, and they never dreamed before.
All the leadership was decapitated. And all the long ballistic rockets, cruise missiles that they wanted to have, hundreds of them on Tel Aviv,
every night are gone. It is time to change and to reach a different political goals in the north.
And let me go to four pillars very quickly. Lebanon will come again to be a state not controlled by terror organization. Hezbollah very much like it
was done when the Syrians were removed from Lebanon in 2005. Second, U.N. forces 70 -- according to 1701, will be with different rules of engagement,
will be held to make sure that according to the U.N. Security Council, Hezbollah is not in the south. And if you want to go to 1559 resolution,
Hezbollah will be disarmed.
[13:20:00]
Then Israel will change its policy, because Israel let Hezbollah build a military, let Hamas build the military on its border. It's against our
doctrine, defense doctrine.
AMANPOUR: OK.
YADLIN: And then Israel and the U.S. should agree that if Hezbollah go down, Israel has the right to preemt. Then you solve the issue in the
north, and we can do it the same with Gaza.
I think Israel now has a very strong card. The card is the agreeing to stop the war, in the south, in the north, and vis a vis Iran, but on its terms.
And this is exactly what is lacking in my government, and I hope they will change their mind after the election.
AMANPOUR: A very, very quick last question. It's been more than a year since the horrendous attack on October 7th and Israel's counteroffensive in
Gaza. Now, as we've been talking about, they've expanded the war, but Gaza is not finished yet. And the death and destruction and the lack of hostages
continues. I mean, doesn't that worry you that even Gaza has not yet been accomplished what your government wanted to do, and now, there are all
these other fronts?
YADLIN: I think, and this is the advice I give my government, you should reach an agreement on the end of the war for all the hostages in one piece.
All of them. And then, you achieve your goals. And if Hamas will dare to rebuild their military force, you will agree with the U.S. again. It's a
side letter that Israel legitimacy to go back to Gaza. This is the right move. It's human moral obligation of us. And it's the right strategic way.
AMANPOUR: Amos Yadlin, thank you very much indeed. Now, the award-winning actress, Cate Blanchett is known for taking on a range of remarkable roles
with stunning success. Now, she's stepping into a psychological thriller starring in Alfonso Cuaron's new Apple TV Plus series "Disclaimer."
Blanchett plays a celebrated journalist whose past catches up with her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CATE BLANCHETT, ACTRESS AND EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "DISCLAIMER": You have concealed parts of yourself from the world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To a beacon of truth. Somebody who inspires me every day.
BLANCHETT: You keep everyone in the dark to maintain a balance. And you think you have succeeded. Until now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And a disclaimer of my own, I make a cameo appearance in the first episode, which we discussed when I sat down with them both here in
London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Cate Blanchett, Alfonso Cuaron, welcome to the program. This is an extraordinary movie. I'm going to say movie because that's, I think, how
you did it. Just tell me what it was like shooting what I think you've described as seven different movies. They're so long, so complex.
BLANCHETT: It was like the Mahabharata really divided into sections. But, Alfonso, you always spoke about it, you know, we talked about our favorite
pieces of, quote/unquote, "television, mine being the "Dekalog" and "Fanny and Alexander." And he was that you didn't really know how to structure
television, you know, with cliffhangers and being driven by narrative, really. And you were interested in the thing making rhythmic and tonal
sense as much as psychological sense.
AMANPOUR: So, you were kind of an old hand at television, but you had never done a TV series.
ALFONSO CUARON, DIRECTOR AND CREATOR, "DISCLAIMER": Never, never. Yes.
BLANCHETT: And never again? Is that --
AMANPOUR: Don't say that. Don't say that. And you didn't -- you decided not to call it a series, not to call it episodes. It is chapters of what
looks to me like a movie. It's like an Alfonso Cuaron movie.
CUARON: Well, I think it's up to the viewer to decide what -- how they want to call it. The fact is that I have never done television. I don't
know how to make -- do television. And I'm not saying it with pride. I think it's a skill that I don't have. You know, there's a certain skill to
shoot very fast and let go, you know, I don't think that that's in my DNA.
AMANPOUR: This took a long time.
CUARON: So, it took a long time.
AMANPOUR: A year, right, of shooting?
BLANCHETT: It felt like a year, should we just say that? Look, it was -- it's a very, very intense story as people who stay with it -- with the
film, if you want to call it that, to the very end. All seven parts or chapters of it will, you know, experience that intensity. But it's a very -
- it's -- yes, it's a very intense, long time.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: So, let's start almost at the beginning. The film opens with a - - essentially a sex scene, two young people at the beginning, and then seems to come the clue and the cue for the movie. And full disclosure, I'm
just going to say I was very proud to be playing myself. You asked me to do that.
BLANCHETT: Fellow Thespian.
AMANPOUR: Fellow Thespian. And this is what I say at the beginning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The recipient of this award tonight has cut through narratives and form that distract us from hidden truths to address some of the most
difficult contemporary issues, allowing us an unflinching look at her subjects as they really are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What are we, the viewers, meant to take from that speech? Because it's not obvious, it's not obvious, you know, until much later.
BLANCHETT: Well, the program is called "Disclaimer." And it is a disclaimer of sorts. And I think that we're living in -- you know, it's
almost a cliche, you know, post-truth world, and that we're very concerned with -- you know, there's many wars going on around the world right now,
many conflicts, but I think the conflict that's not discussed is the conflict over narrative, and who gets to control that narrative, and it's
this sort of, this quest all war to have a simple truth.
And it's saying, in your -- coming out of your mouth at the very beginning, that things are not what they seem, but it's -- and you're going to be told
a story in a way that perhaps you're not entirely in control of, when we do think and demand to be in control of our own narrative.
AMANPOUR: And yet, Alfonso, even with that clue at the beginning, certainly, I, as I watched the whole seven chapters, you don't really know.
And I mean, you're not giving us all these clues throughout, or if you are, they're very skillful and subtle because the end, which we're going to talk
about later, is a real -- you know, it's really incredible.
So, how did you decide to tell this story? And to you, what is the heart of this story?
CUARON: Well, in many ways, it's about narratives and about the effect that narratives have in our life, but also, more importantly, the
narratives that we create of ourselves, and again, how sometimes these narratives are hiding a deeper truth.
Now, there are many, many, many clues throughout the whole show that, in many ways, when you -- if you watch it for the second time, it has a
complete different reading.
AMANPOUR: So, let's now talk about just the story itself, up until the last episodes that are going to drop later. So, we think, we see a great
journalist who gets this another amazing award and you're known for exposing and holding, you know, powerful and others accountable. And you're
at this award ceremony with your husband played by Sacha Baron Cohen. And then, there are these constant flashbacks where you as a young person,
young woman on holiday with your child, basically have an affair with a much younger boy.
And then, you get this book given to you that then reveals a whole story about what happened and it's kind of like a revenge book. Tell us the
story.
BLANCHETT: Well at the heart of the series is a book called "The Perfect Stranger," a pulpy self-published book that is delivered to my character in
episode one. I mean, a lot of television allows you to build bridges of empathy and understanding with characters, but Alfonso has dropped us
straight into the drama from literally the first minutes of the first episode.
And that book is, seems to be about Catherine. And so, she tries to eradicate it and burn it, and then she can't escape that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SACHA BARON COHEN, ACTOR, "DISCLAIMER": Catherine. Not that. Catherine.
BLANCHETT: It describes an event from someone else's perspective of what went on initially. And what you witness is what you were referring to
before, it's my character doesn't really -- doesn't speak, can't unpack it by herself, but also is not given the chance to speak, which I think often
happens to women.
For me at the heart, I think there's two parallel families. One is shrouded by grief, and one is shrouded by emotional avoidance. And -- but they're
both united through this same moment of cataclysmic moment in Italy.
AMANPOUR: So, I'm telling you people are going to want to watch this because there's so much mystery. We can't even discuss it.
BLANCHETT: I know. I feel like I'm with the CIA.
AMANPOUR: Yes, really? I feel like I'm trying to interrogate a deep spy. Because, you know, so much reveal and you're not dropping them all at once.
So, people can't binge it on day one.
[13:30:00]
CUARON: Well, because it's -- I think it's -- it is as much as all of this is about the audience involvement. It's about because -- in the strength of
each narrative that is presented to you depends on your own judgment.
BLANCHETT: Yes.
CUARON: And then -- and that's how it builds.
AMANPOUR: It is, it's the judgment of the characters throughout. And then, a little bit, you know, you feel a little bit complicit as the person
watching or reading because then your ideas are thrown, you know, in a different direction afterwards.
CUARON: I would like to go back to something that just Cate mentioned, because I think that's, in many ways, sums the point of departure of --
it's pretty much the journey in which you go is this these two families. The one that is invaded by grief and the other one is invaded -- you'd call
it --
BLANCHETT: Emotional avoidance.
CUARON: By emotional avoidance. And --
AMANPOUR: That's your family?
BLANCHETT: That's -- yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
CUARON: And in many interesting ways, the two families project each other. They reflect each other in many different ways.
BLANCHETT: And they both have sons, single -- you know, only children that a lot of expectation and you know, desire to protect is projected onto
them.
CUARON: And also, the -- how there's a certain dysfunctional relationship between the parents and the children, each one in its own kind of way.
AMANPOUR: There's a lot of sex in the film, a lot of sex, and I just wondered -- we were talking a little bit about that, I just wondered, do
you think that's going to be accessible to most viewers? Do you think -- tell me about the amount of sex in the film.
BLANCHETT: When I first read the script, I threw it across the room and called Alfonso and I said, there's a lot of sex in this. Do we need that
much sex? But watching it and talking through it and the way you were so meticulous about how you plotted the many strands of the drama is that I
realized it was to place the audience in a very powerful, memorable relationship to that, to their own sense of what was enough, to what their
own sense of what was -- what desire was. And also, to really get locked into a very male point of view very early on in relationship to that sex.
And so, once I began to sense that I could see exactly why it was there. And it's not going to make everyone comfortable. Some people are going to
find it really uncomfortable. But I think where we get to in the series, that will be a memorable feeling for the audience to have.
AMANPOUR: And in the first half, essentially, you are well and truly canceled. Your career is practically crumbling because of this book that's
landed in everybody's lap. That is also a very today thing, right, the idea of instant judgment, and that's what this film is about as well.
BLANCHETT: I mean, it's all -- what I think is really interesting about the way you framed that, and on the day when we shot it, is what happens in
the office is almost like a nightmare. You know, it's a heightened state that it -- because suddenly, everyone in the office turns around. And so,
you've gone beyond naturalism because that whole experience of -- I mean, it sounds so old fashioned now, but cancel culture is a very unnatural
experience that people you don't know outside your framework who may not know all the details of things have happened to form quick and easy
judgments as a pack.
Now, I have a very clear moral compass, and I believe that there are certain things that you cannot transgress. But it's also, we don't need to
get all the facts together, or actually, we've lost faith in our judicial system. So, there's all these other structures that we could find a sense
of collective justice that we no longer have. So, we have pact justice.
And I think vengeance is -- and retribution, they're understandable, but they're very different things to actually what I think is what at the heart
of justice. And cancel culture has an energy of vengeance.
AMANPOUR: This film, this book, this story was based on "The Perfect Stranger," which is the book in the film that landed in Catherine's lap. It
was written by the mother of the deceased young man who drowned. How do we know? How does -- there's no -- how did she know this story? What was it
based on?
CUARON: She went to the place where it happened to retrieve her son's corpse. She knew the places and there was already the information that
Catherine Ravenscroft was the person who was there. When you're watching -- when you experience of that novel is the point of view of Nancy.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: The mother.
CUARON: And -- of the mother, Nancy.
AMANPOUR: Played by an excellent Lesley Manville.
BLANCHETT: Lesley Manville.
CUARON: By Lesley Manville.
AMANPOUR: I mean, phenomenal.
CUARON: That is incredible as always, but here she is incredible. Is either, she wrote that novel as an act of catharsis, as an act of anger, or
as a as an act of hoping for certain retribution, that in many ways is irrelevant. One more time, what matters is the judgment that everybody's
taking based upon that book. She's reconstructing a reality based upon just a few facts and some photographs.
BLANCHETT: The photographs. I mean, as a mother of three boys, it's a big moment.
AMANPOUR: You are a mother of three boys.
BLANCHETT: Yes, I am. Yes. I mean, it's a big moment when your son enters into a sexual relationship with someone else. And so, for her to find those
photographs, it's a very confronting moment for a son that she has -- she's very enmeshed with, and those photographs become a hand grenade that she
obviously hasn't processed herself or hasn't had -- has transposed her own layer of meaning onto those photographs.
I mean, we think we're so visually literate, but I often wonder that people can't read a photograph properly or take -- and now, with A.I., I mean,
photographs have been there -- there's been bastions of truth. It's been eroded even further. But the photographs are a real hand grenade. And they
keep coming back and being reframed in different ways. And of course, they mean an entirely different thing to Catherine than they do to Nancy.
AMANPOUR: This is such a complex story and such an amazing ensemble and such a reveal that we're just going to leave it there.
BLANCHETT: And thank you for kicking it off in the right way.
AMANPOUR: I just loved it.
BLANCHETT: You set the bar. You set the bar.
AMANPOUR: I was so proud to be part of that, especially saying the stuff.
CUARON: No, because we needed that voice. We needed a voice that was --
BLANCHETT: Sexy.
AMANPOUR: OK. I got a new career, everybody.
CUARON: Yes, it was because of that. No, it needed to be a voice of credibility. That from the get-go states. What you're doing is warning the
audience of what they're going to see.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and I don't even -- you don't realize it. But --
BLANCHETT: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- you do. It's really great. I was glad to be part of it. A little part of it. Alfonso Cuaron, Cate Blanchett, thank you so much.
BLANCHETT: Thank you.
CUARON: Thank you so much, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And "Disclaimer" with incredible twists at the end is rolling out weekly on Apple TV Plus. And we'll have more of our conversation after
that last hair-raising episode.
Now, to U.S. politics. The Supreme Court's new term has just started and the presidential election is just three weeks away. Stephen Vladek is a law
professor at Georgetown University and he joins Hari Sreenivasan now to discuss his concerns about the court's credibility and the role It could
play on Election Day.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks, Steve Vladeck, thanks so much for joining us.
So, here we are, a new Supreme Court session. We've started to hear some arguments in some of the big cases. I guess one last term that has these
significant consequences that we're still considering right now because, hello, we're just a month away from the election, is the presidential
immunity ruling. What are the kind of ripple effects that has had on this election today?
STEVE VLADECK, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN LAW: Yes. I mean, Hari, I think the ripple effects are continuing to be felt. I mean, we've seen how slowly
things have proceeded in really all four of the pending criminal prosecutions against Former President Trump, not just the case in D.C,
which was the basis of the Supreme Court's ruling, but also, you know, the case in Florida, which was thrown out by Judge Cannon in light of Justice
Thomas' concurrence in that case. Now, there's an appeal pending. And, of course, the cases in New York and Georgia.
So. You know, I think the continual effects in the short-term are that we're going to get to the election without really any resolution of those
cases. The long-term effects, I think, very much remain to be seen, not just for Former President Trump, who -- you know, if he's not elected come
November, I think it's still in pretty serious jeopardy, you know, at least some of those cases.
But also, for what it means for executive power more generally, that we have the Supreme Court decision recognizing a pretty significant for of
executive branch conduct that really can't be interfered with, investigated, looked into by anybody. So, really, a lot remains to be seen
both as applied to President Trump and in the broader constitutional space.
SREENIVASAN: I think that, you know, you raise an important point, because, obviously, the critics of Former President Trump really want to
point out, well, look, this gives him a -- but if it's President Harris or a future president, this applies equally to them.
[13:40:00]
VLADEK: That's right. And actually, I mean, I think the long-term effects of the Supreme Court's decision really are much less about criminal
prosecutions. We should be lucky enough, hopefully, that we don't have a number of additional examples in the coming years and really hard more
about the relationship between the executive branch and the other branches of government more generally.
I mean, I think, you know, we're going to see future presidents, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, trotting out the Trump immunity decision
not just in the criminal context, but to resist, for example, subpoenas from Congress, to resist aggressive oversight from Congress, you know,
perhaps even to resist you know, civil suits in the courts.
I think that's the really big interesting question that it's just too early to answer, which is how far and why beyond the very specific context of
these criminal prosecutions is that decision going to have an impact? You know, Harry, I think the answer is going to be, it's going to have an
impact, we just haven't quite seen it yet.
SREENIVASAN: Well, one of the cases that came up last week was about ghost guns. And for people that aren't familiar, I mean, this is the technology
now that has been out for several years, but you can essentially -- if you or I had a 3D printer at home, and there are people who can afford that and
have it at their homes, we could print -- take the plans off the internet and print a functioning weapon. And the case was about whether those guns
should have serial numbers or not.
I mean, what's at the heart of this year? I mean, that seems really kind of a -- you know, a sideways way to get at this.
VLADEK: Yes. I mean, I think for the second year in a row here, we have an important case that is nominally about guns where the actual legal question
for the court is really more about the power of administrative agencies in the context of statutes that aren't specific.
So, you know, Congress has given the federal government fairly broad power to regulate firearms, Hari, but of course, the question is, what's a
firearm? And so, the ghost guns issue, you know, here you have a context where everyone agrees that if you or I walked into a store, a licensed
firearm seller, and bought the same product, that Congress would have the power to regulate it, not to ban it, that would violate the Second
Amendment, but at least to impose some conditions on who can buy it on, as you say, serial numbers, on other registration requirements, background
checks.
And the question is whether that should also apply when you have companies that are selling kits, either for 3D printers or for, you know, other do it
yourself, you know, we'll send you a bunch of pieces of plastic and you put it together.
And, you know, where I was struck by, Hari, is I would have thought the answer there was obviously yes. I think the Supreme Court is going to end
up there, but we heard some dissenting voices from some of the more conservative justices, you know, which I think is really a powerful sign of
just where this Supreme Court is when it comes to even what I would have thought were pretty straightforward statutory questions.
SREENIVASAN: So, the court is also set to decide the constitutionality of gender affirming care. What are the arguments at the core there?
VLADEK: Yes. So, this is probably the biggest case the court has on its docket, at least to this point in the term. It's called Skrmetti. And, you
know, this is a challenge to a Tennessee law that basically bans, right, certain kinds of gender affirming medical procedures, especially for
adolescents.
And the question that the federal government, which is the adverse party has presented to the Supreme Court, is whether this kind of discrimination,
which singles out transgender individuals in ways that it does not apply to cisgender or folks of other gender identity, whether that kind of
discrimination actually is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the constitutional ideal that government has to have an especially good
justification before it treats similarly situated people differently.
And, you know, Hari, that's really a test for this court and whether it's going to treat transgender status discrimination the same way it has
treated, not just race and sex discrimination, but as we saw a couple of years ago in the context of employment discrimination, even sexual
orientation discrimination. I mean, that decision in a case called Bostock had both Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts in the
majority with the Democratic appointees.
So, you know, is the court going to take the step from sexual orientation to transgender status? Is the court going to affirmatively not take that
step, or are they going to find some narrower ground on which to not decide that question? I think that's why a lot of eyes are focused on this case.
SREENIVASAN: The Supreme Court often gets last-minute appeals, especially on death row cases in federal prison. And they took up a case that was kind
of interesting. This was 61-year-old Richard Glossip from Oklahoma, who was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering his employer, but he's
maintained his innocence. And there are allegations of prosecutorial misconduct over the last 30 years that this case has been going on. What's
at the center of that case?
VLADEK: Yes. I mean, what's really remarkable about the Glossip case is really 2 different things. First, it's not just that Richard Glossip is
protesting, the Oklahoma attorney general who was responsible for securing Glossip's conviction in the first place, now concedes, not that Glossip is
innocent, Hari, but that at least there was enough prosecutorial misconduct at his initial trial that Glossip should at least be retried so that there
could be a -- you know, an untainted verdict.
[13:45:00]
But meanwhile, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest criminal court in Oklahoma, refused to allow that to happen on the ground that, in
its view, there were some procedural boxes that Glossip had failed to check.
And so, you know, I would have thought that this would be a relatively straightforward case for the Supreme Court when you've got even the
attorney general agreeing with a prisoner on death row that there has to be a new trial, hard to imagine the justices saying otherwise. But the oral
argument last week, you know, we heard a lot of skepticism, not just from the usual suspects, like a justice, Clarence Thomas, or a justice Samuel
Alito, but even from Chief Justice John Roberts about whether it really was so obvious that Glossip is entitled to a new trial.
Really striking hard, these are the only capital cases the Supreme Court is still really taken up when you have this much agreement about what went
wrong in the trial court.
SREENIVASAN: You wrote recently in an op-ed in The Times, the Supreme Court is its own worst enemy. Explain.
VLADEK: Yes. I mean, I think the Glossip is a good example of this story, although, it's a bit of a broader point about where the court is. You know,
we have, for the first time in American history, at least in the last decade or so, a court where all nine of the justices are aligned
ideologically exactly with the presidents who appointed them.
And so, we have, for the first time in American history, a court that doesn't have any liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats where any
time the justices divide along their ideological lines, it at least looks like it's a partisan decision, like it's an exercise of partisan political
power and not judicial principle.
The best defense against that, the way for the court to try to persuade us that's not true is through its behavior, is through perhaps not deciding
all of its big cases in a way that splits the court six to three along those predictable lines, is to perhaps embrace some of the more modest
reforms that have been proposed by, you know, me and lots of other folks.
But, Hari, is also just like to try to avoid sending the message that in every big case, the best predictor of the outcome is the partisan balance
of the dispute. The more that the court can act in ways that makes it look like these are judges and not just politicians in robes, I think the more
it might be able to arrest some of the really alarming erosion in public faith in the court that we've seen over the last couple of years.
SREENIVASAN: Look, I mean, speaking of that erosion, we have a recent Pew survey found 51 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the court.
I mean, this was one of the institutions, at least a couple of decades ago, that we had bipartisan agreement was something that we had faith in. And
here we are 50/50. That's not good.
VLADEK: It's not good. And the reason why it's not good, Hari, has nothing to do with the results. I mean, I think it's commonplace for the course
defenders to blame the critics for just being unhappy about the results. But the reality is that the court depends upon public support. It depends
upon that very faith that is eroding in order to hand down unpopular decisions. Hari, for no other reason than because the court can't enforce
its decisions itself.
And so, the more that there is public discord around the court, the more that public faith in the court is eroding, even if it's only from one
particular block of the political spectrum, the harder it will be for the justices in the future cases where it really, really matters to push back
against the political branches when they do aggressive, unlawful, unconstitutional things, you know, especially with the possibility that
we'll be heading into a second term of a Former President Trump, I think that's a specter that we all, and especially the justices, should be pretty
worried about.
SREENIVASAN: I mean, how much of that trust erosion is because of really the actions of particular justices? Right now, Clarence Thomas, Justice
Alito have -- you know, there are several articles published about their connections to the MAGA movement and -- you know, and I wonder whether that
sinks into the general public as well, you know what, these guys are partisans anyway?
VLADEK: I think it doesn't help. I mean, it goes back to what we're talking about a few minutes ago, like the onus is really on the court to
disabuse us of that concern. And so, you know, when you have these stories about Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, you know, one reaction might be, oh,
gosh, you know, some of these are genuine concerns, let's talk about them. Let's talk about reforms.
Instead, what we've mostly gotten is entrenchment, is digging in, is suggestions that none of these stories are talking about anything
legitimate, that none of the justices' behavior is remotely problematic, even as Justice Thomas has had to go back and retroactively amend a number
of his financial disclosure forms.
[13:50:00]
And I think the problem, Hari, is that when the court, or at least some of the justices, are going to so visibly bury their heads in the sand, that's
when it reinforces the concern that this is not a court that's interested in accountability. And that's when I get worried that the court really is
setting itself up for a future situation where the court is trying to stand up to a president who is abusing power or a governor who is abusing power.
And, you know, they issue some fury, significant decision, and there's no one left to enforce it.
And, you know, this is not just a hypothetical. I mean, we saw as early -- as recently as January when the Supreme Court, by a five to four vote,
cleared the way for President Biden to continue to remove razor wire that Texas Governor Greg Abbott had placed along the U.S.-Mexico border. We saw
Republican congressmen like Chip Roy, going on national television and urging Governor Abbott to defy the Supreme Court.
That ought to set off alarm bells, not just in law schools, but inside the Supreme Court itself, because once we've gone down that slippery slope,
where you have elected politicians seriously talking about ignoring Supreme Court rulings they don't like, the court is in an awfully precarious
position, regardless of who the justices are, and regardless of how we feel about their individual rulings.
SREENIVASAN: Wasn't there supposed to be a code of conduct behavior that the Supreme Court adopted that was supposed to fix a lot of this?
VLADEK: Well, I mean, I think, you know, it was pretty remarkable that last November the court did, for the first time, adopt this internal code
of conduct. You know, I think those who thought that was a solution might have been somewhat getting ahead of the curve here.
Hari, the real question is not what the rules are, but who is going to police them and who's going to enforce them. And, you know, I think what
we've learned over the last couple of years is that we probably shouldn't and can't trust the justices to police themselves. Even Justice Elena Kagan
has now said publicly, multiple times in the last couple of months, it shouldn't be up to us. Justice Kagan has proposed a committee of lower
court judges who could oversee the court.
Hari, I'm a little skeptical about that as a solution, but I don't think it would be that bizarre or constitutionally problematic to have Congress
create an inspector general for the Article 3 courts, for the federal courts, not with the power to remove the justices, only Congress can do
that, but at least with the power to look into these reports to actually investigate them, to publish anytime there's some concern that a justice
has failed to comply with the disclosure requirements or the ethics rules or the recusal rules.
And I have to think that, you know, that would not be perfect, but at least then we would not be depending upon the media, you know, as principled as
it might be to do the work that the court and the court's institutions ought to be doing for us.
SREENIVASAN: You know, here we are a month away from the election, and we are, as a nation, poised for this election having court drama attached, and
that could be at the local level, and it could be at the national level. If there are situations where the Supreme Court has to be an arbiter, how is
it positioned to do that?
VLADEK: It's an alarming thought. It's one that I lose some sleep over and I really hope we don't get there. Part of the reason why, Hari, all of this
stuff matters beyond the individual cases and beyond the sort of the -- you know, the sound bites that we see in the media is because, you know, it's a
legitimate question.
If the election -- if we have a repeat of 2000, where the presidential election comes down to one state and where there's litigation in that one
state that is dispositive of which candidate is going to win, are we really confident that if the case gets in the Supreme Court, the court will give
it a fair hearing as opposed to, we'll find a way to rule for Former President Trump?
You know, I think we should hope to be confident, but the court's behavior over the last five, six, 10 years is exactly why a lot of Americans aren't
confident. And that's really, I think, a damning indictment of the court.
I hope, Hari, for our sake, that we don't get there, that this is more a repeat of 2020 than a 2000. In 2020, of course, you know, the election was
sufficiently not close in a sufficient number of cases that the Supreme Court stayed all the way out of it. But it's hard to imagine if we get a
repeat of 2000, if there's one tipping point state on which all the litigation focuses, either, one, that the Supreme Court would want to stay
out of that dispute or, two, that we would have a ton of faith that the court would handle that dispute based on legal principles as opposed to
political preferences.
And I'll just say, I mean, you know, the court was able to recover from Bush versus Gore and from how it intervened in 2000 to resolve the
election. But, Hari, this is a very different court than that one. I mean, as you mentioned, this is a court that has much less public credibility
going in. This is a court that has spent the better part of the last four or five years really in the middle of a ton of public controversy on
everything from abortion to affirmative action, to guns, to religion, to the administrative state.
[13:55:00]
And there just comes a point where, you know, the court runs out of capital to spend on these cases. And that's why, you know, for lots of reasons, I
really hope we don't find out in the next month to two months, if this is really going to be another 2000 all over again.
SREENIVASAN: Professor at Georgetown Law, Steve Vladek, thanks so much for joining us.
VLADEK: Thanks, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, remember you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
