Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
French Prime Minister Loses Confidence Vote; French Government Collapses; Interview with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Michael Kofman; Interview with International Crisis Group Senior Director for Policy Ivan Briscoe; Interview with Georgia House of Representatives Former Democratic Leader Stacey Abrams. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 08, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
MELISSA BELL, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, and it's a fairly resounding defeat. Remember that this was a confidence vote that
Francois Bayrou himself had called. In the end, only 194 lawmakers gave him their confidence. It's 364 that voted against giving him their confidence,
and for a variety of reasons. And so, the question now, whether this absolute majority of 280 against him can now -- what happens next? How
Emmanuel Macron can appease a sufficient number of those very divided parliamentarians? Remember, some are on the far-right, some are on the far-
left. They have very differing views about what needs to happen next.
How he can appease enough of them to give them the confidence to back anyone, frankly, at this stage who's going to be responsible for making
extremely unpopular decisions. Remember, Francois Bayrou lost this vote on the back of that very unpopular announcement back in July that he was going
to slash 44 billion from next year's budget. That involved things like slashing two public holidays, a number of cuts that he believed were
necessary for France to try and redress its books.
The next prime minister who tries to do that, and inevitably someone will have to try to, is likely to face exactly the same amount of consequences
as we've seen here tonight. So, a very difficult circle for Emmanuel Macron to square, particularly, Bianna, when so much of the anger, both
parliamentarian and on the streets that we're likely to see on Wednesday is now directed immediately at him and his presidency and the shambles in
which it appears to be heading towards the conclusion in 2027. Bianna.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. And for those of you who are just joining us, that headline rings true that you're seeing right there on the
lower third of your banner, French government has collapsed officially as the prime minister has failed a no-confidence vote within parliament and
will have to tender his resignation.
The headline here also, if we're going to bring in one of our other contributors here, Anna Kubin, can talk about the significance of France
and President Macron having to appoint now what will be his fifth prime minister. That is one option for him. He could form another coalition. He
could form a -- or call for a snap election. That is something that some of the leaders of the far-right and left are basically daring him to do at
this point. Just give us a sense of where things stand right now following this decision.
ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Well, Macron will probably face the same issue that's currently tanked this government.
Fundamentally, France needs to control its budget, needs to get its spending under control. At the end of last year, its levels of debt were
around 113 percent of its GDP, which was one of the highest in the eurozone.
Now, Francois Bayrou, the prime minister that's just lost his confidence vote, he has, you know, made the point that France is in grave danger
financially. It needs to make some hard decisions. And he's tried to put forward this 44-billion-euro savings plan, which included removing a couple
of national holidays, freezing spending in many areas. Now, this was very unpalatable to both the right and the left. And it seems difficult to
imagine that any incoming prime minister is not going to face the exact same problem.
To give you a sense of the scale of this challenge that France currently faces, Francois Bayrou was saying in July that France risks getting crushed
by debt. And actually, the interest payments alone on France's ballooning debt would amount to about 100 billion euros in 2028. And that would be the
single largest government expense of France, bigger than the education budget.
So, that gives you a sense of the stakes here, the scale that the new incoming French government will have to face. And, you know, I just can't
see that there's going to be a huge amount of willingness in an even more divided parliament potentially to make these hard choices.
GOLODRYGA: Melissa, if I can go back to you and sort of zoom out. Obviously, this is a domestic crisis here, but it has implications far
beyond that of France as Macron over the last three years, and I would say even over the last few months, has really stepped up as the leader of
European allies there in terms of its defense and strong defense and support of Ukraine.
Does this distract him from that in any sense? And what are the ramifications if that does happen?
BELL: Well, I think on the contrary, what you've seen here in France, I was talking a moment ago that -- by that growing anger and that you're
likely to see spill out on the streets on Wednesday and then again on the 18th, there's a lot of anger here in France by what many people perceive to
be a French president who spent a lot of time dealing with foreign crises and shining on the world stage, even as the political situation and
arguably the question of finances and how to deal with the debt and how to manage his majority or losing his majority, how the president has dealt
with that. And I think that's also why there's a great deal of anger towards him.
But you're quite right, this is a French crisis, but it becomes also a European one, since it is according to Europe's own spending rules that
France has been being ticked off for years now and being trying to encourage to get things back in shape.
[13:05:00]
And it has implications also for the Eurozone. There's been a lot of talk these last few weeks about the fact that just like 15 years ago, Greece and
Italy, France is seeing rising borrowing costs, with political classes apparently unable to agree on the sort of austerity measures that might be
taken to help address that looming crisis.
There is a big difference here, which France is much too big to fail. It's Europe's second biggest economy. But the question of the ungovernability or
not of France over the next few months does pose itself at the Eurozone level going forward.
So, all lies very much on what Emmanuel Macron does now. We expect Francois Bayrou in the wake of that fairly resounding vote, majority of 280, against
giving him the confidence of MPs. He is now expected to tender his resignation to the president, who will expect to -- accept it. The question
is who he decides to hand what is likely to be a poison chalice to next. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Who will be the lucky person raising their hand to take on that job? I'm not sure. Anna Cooban, final question to you as far as the
consequences of this no-confidence vote for the economic future, at least in the short-term, for France. I know in the last hour you were talking to
us about your conversation on just that point with Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. What did he tell you?
COOBAN: Well, I asked him the question that Melissa has just alluded to there, which is, you know, is France in the same position that Greece was
in about 15 years ago? And his resounding answer was no. Things were much more serious back then. Greece had to have several IMF bailouts. There
isn't really an indication that France is in the same position.
France is a growing economy. The IMF predicts it's going to grow this year and next by about 1 percent next year. So, you know, there are many things
to rave about France's economy, but the debt is a huge issue. And I think we can see this with investors today. The yield on the 10-year French
government bond is rising. It's heading towards Italy. It's around 3.4 percent right now.
And what that basically means is that the higher the yield on the bond, the more investors basically see holding French debt as being a risk. They see
the risk of the government not being able to repay that debt as being higher. But what's interesting is that the yield on this debt is now higher
than Greece. And nobody would have thought that a few years ago.
GOLODRYGA: No. And the headline that we're getting now, Prime Minister Bayrou will be officially submitting his resignation to President Macron on
Tuesday morning after losing this no-confidence vote. Our thanks to Anna Cooban, Melissa Bell. That does it for this very busy hour of "One World."
I'm Bianna Golodryga. Don't go anywhere. I'll be right back with "Amanpour" after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Another devastating day of airstrikes in Ukraine, as calls grow for stronger action against Putin. I asked military analyst Michael Kofman how
this could shape things on the battlefield.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Billions of dollars of drugs are pouring into our country from Venezuela.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- could Trump's war on drugs turn into an actual war? I speak to senior director at the international crisis group, Ivan Briscoe, about
escalating tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela.
Also ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hundreds of people here are being arrested.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: British police take on protesters in London, as thousands stand against the banning of a pro-Palestinian group. Isobel Yeung's special
report on the cost of opposing the war in Gaza.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACEY ABRAMS, FORMER DEMOCRATIC LEADER, GEORGIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We are in the midst of an authoritarian regime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Democratic politician Stacey Abrams tells Michel Martin why she's sounding the alarm on what she says is the rise of autocracy in
America.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The largest Russian air attack of the war so far, a government building damaged for the first time, and more Ukrainian civilians killed in the
strikes, including Ukrainian media say a mother and her baby in Kyiv.
So, has President Putin blown his place at the negotiating table? It seems the days of diplomatic dialogue with President Trump could be numbered.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's such a horrible waste of humanity. So, no, I am not thrilled with what's happening there. I believe we're going to
get it settled, but I am not happy with that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: President Trump says he's now ready to move to a, quote, "second phase" of sanctions on Moscow and the stakes are high, as secretary
treasury, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made clear over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: We are in a race now between can - - how long can the Ukrainian military hold up versus how long can the Russian economy hold up?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And yet, the Kremlin claims sanctions could never force them to change the course in the war. But is that a position that they have the
privilege to hold at this point? Here to tell us where things stand on the battlefield is Michael Kofman, a senior fellow in the Russia Eurasia
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is joining us from London.
Mike, it is good to see you. So, as we noted, Russia just carried out its largest aerial attack of the war, striking even a government building in
Kyiv, which, according to President Zelenskyy, was hit with a ballistic missile. From a military standpoint, what does that tell you about Moscow's
current strategy here?
MICHAEL KOFMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: I think that beyond what's happening on the frontline, the Russian military
has been trying to bombard Ukrainian defense industrial production, Ukrainian energy infrastructure, it's been going after cities, it's been
going after civilians, trying to drive civilians out of cities as well. And as you see, in fact, the Russian strike effort is widening rather than
being contained or reflecting some kind of limitation on Moscow's part.
If anything, Russian drone production, missile production has increased over the past several years. And for those who have been to Ukraine, they
can see that year on year the amount of drones that Ukrainians have to deal with has increased maybe 10 times compared to last year. So, this is an
escalating problem, and very little about the Russian military effort suggests a willingness to negotiate.
GOLODRYGA: You were on the frontlines in Ukraine just a few weeks ago, and I know that you have communication and conversations regularly with
Ukrainian defense officials and those on the frontlines as well. What are they telling you about some of their major concerns right now? And if you
can just give us a sense of morale at this point, three years, over three years into this war?
KOFMAN: So, this war has been dragging on. It's a prolonged conventional war. And it's fair to describe that the situation at the front is
difficult. It's been difficult for some years. But on the other hand, Ukrainian forces are holding the Russian military to relatively incremental
gains. When you consider the overall material advantage and manpower advantage that Russia has, backed by countries like China, North Korea, and
others.
[13:15:00]
I would say that on the one hand, things are challenging. You see the Russian military adapts -- as the Ukrainian military adapts to the Russian
tactics and war fighting effort. But on the other hand, you also see that Ukraine has proven consistently resilient. If we assess the results of
Russian offensive efforts from the spring through the summer, they are likely, from my point of view, to be lackluster and probably from the
Russian point of view as well. As Russian military has continued to advance, but not very significantly. They've not captured major cities. And
there's still quite a bit of fighting ahead even this fall. And I increasingly think that the war is going to go into 2026.
GOLODRYGA: That is really sobering to hear. If the war continues at the same course that it is right now, how sustainable are the manpower issues
for Ukraine alone? I know Russia has their own concerns, but they are a larger country. They do have more of a fighting force.
KOFMAN: Yes. One of Ukraine's consistent challenges has been manpower. That's where Russia has an advantage, and a historic advantage, if I might
add. But one of the key offsets to manpower, traditionally war, has been capital and technology. Ukraine remains technologically a very innovative
country. It's trying to fight smarter. And one thing that the West has in abundance, at the end of the day, is capital.
Now, from what I've seen, I don't think that drones and drone units alone can stabilize the frontline. But they've done quite a bit to stymie the
Russian offensive effort. And if Ukraine can continue also working in innovative solutions to Russian drone strikes, which already have been
developed, they're just being scaled right now in terms of deployment, and its own offensive strike effort targeting Russian energy infrastructure,
targeting those facilities that generate resources, where they're essential for maintaining the Russian economy, the Ukrainian vision, at least as I
understand it, is to try to make the war effort as futile as possible for Russia, and to significantly increase the costs, which over time may force
Russia to the negotiating table.
Assuming the West, and also the United States, are willing to do their part in compelling Russia, and enacting some of the measures that have long been
talked about, but let's be frank, haven't really been seen.
GOLODRYGA: Which of those measures do you think at this point would have the greatest impact on setting Vladimir Putin back, or at least really
taking negotiations more seriously than he has thus far?
KOFMAN: So, I think one of the challenges that I've seen is that, certainly on the United States side, and this being somebody who lives in
greater Washington, D.C. area, much has been made of potential coercive economic measures, a host of ultimatums have been issued and deadlines, but
one after another have come and passed, and very little has been done on that front.
In fact, if anything, we've been struggling with maintaining maintenance sanctions, that is, the sanctions that have to be routinely reapplied on
new Russian companies, new Russian actors who work to get around sanctions, and export controls. And so, I think we've gone from one set of
negotiations to another, to a summit without much progress, as you can clearly see that the Russian objective is to stall for as long as possible
while they're continuing to fight on the ground and continuing to increase their strikes against Ukrainian critical infrastructure.
GOLODRYGA: And you made the point, and others have as well, how important it is for Ukraine to build its own defense industrial complex and how it's
going to need more assistance to do that from the West, particularly from the United States. But in terms of the weaponry that is needed most right
now on the battlefield that could be provided by key allies, what would you say are the most important right now that they need in terms of taking this
fight at least a few months forward and possibly even into their own, into a positive direction for them?
KOFMAN: Sure. Sure, Bianna. So, I would say, of course, outside of the basics, which every military needs, folks in conversation tend to focus on
big ticket items, right? But at the end of the day, on the ground, soldiers need basic equipment, communications, protected arm ability, all that.
I'd say what's critical for Ukraine is air defense batteries and air defense munitions. You can never have enough, and Ukraine has both coverage
issues, and it simply has issues in terms of the ammunition available to defend itself against sustained Russian long-range missile and drone
strikes.
Secondarily, precision strike that has those capabilities which can hit Russian forces in the rear, behind, beyond maybe 30 kilometers or so where
Ukraine struggles in terms of its reach. There's a significant fall-off in the capabilities that Ukrainian forces have to hit Russian military in the
rear and all the supporting elements behind that fight at the tactical level.
And lastly, long-range strike capabilities, which, of course. are a challenge both in terms of availability in the West, potential restrictions
imposed upon them, but Ukraine is working hard to develop its own. A number have been revealed most recently.
[13:20:00]
And there, as you can see that Ukraine's strike campaign this year against Russian energy infrastructure has been much better organized, better
resourced, and more concerted than the one seen last year.
GOLODRYGA: And the long-range weaponry, I know that you say it's a numbers issue as well, and it takes time to procure them even if they are green-
lit, but if it's just a stopgap measure to buy Ukraine more time to produce some of their own, is there enough in the pipeline now to get more to the
frontlines?
KOFMAN: So, the good news is that, at this point in the war, Ukraine does make a lot of what it needs in terms of day-to-day battlefield needs. So,
what the West is filling more are key munitions for its own capabilities, right, such as HIMARS, multiple launch rocket systems, or Patriot air
defense, missile defense batteries. And there, of course, is a host of things that only the West, in some cases only the United States, can
supply.
Is there enough in the pipeline? More or less it's hard to say what is enough. It depends on how much Russia intensifies its offensive efforts,
and most importantly, the strikes are being conducted. The honest answer is probably not. But is there a sufficient capacity there if funded by the
United States, more importantly by European partners and allies, which has increasingly been the direction of policy in Washington, D.C., to shift the
financial burden onto European allies? Then I think so.
I don't think Ukrainian air defense is going to collapse. I don't think Ukrainian frontlines are going to collapse in the near future. And I think
that the capacity is there. I wish it was greater, and of course, I wish that both we and European colleagues had gotten down the path of investing
in expanded defense industrial production much sooner in this war.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned that, in your view, you see this war going and continuing through 2026. There are conflicting and mixed signals coming
from not only the president himself, but also his own Pentagon officials, like Elbridge Colby, reports that he's pushing for cutting military aid to
some of the eastern countries, most at risk and susceptible to Russian attacks there along the border. Is there anything that could change that
timeline projection, in your view, that the U.S. or the West, but led by the U.S., could do imminently that could change the calculus that Putin has
laid for himself in terms of how far he can keep going?
KOFMAN: So, my own view on the war, especially a large-scale conventional war like this, which has gone on for years, is that there are few immediate
game changers, right, that can alter the dynamic on the battlefield so easily and quickly. Much of it is about numbers at the end of the day. It's
about making the right investments and making them at the right time. It is also about effectively resourcing and sustaining the capabilities you've
already deployed.
When I look at what the United States and Europe can do, of course, they can send a clear signal that the commitment to Ukraine remains not only
strong, but it's not just a near-term commitment, it's more of a medium and long-term commitment, right? And, of course, I think the Russian leadership
holds out this hope that either something is going to happen on the frontline, that maybe the Ukrainian frontlines will collapse, even though
we haven't seen that, and the Russian military is not fighting in a way that can really achieve an operationally significant breakthrough, or that
Western support will collapse, which, to be frank, I think early on this year was very much in question or perhaps in jeopardy. So, I think making a
sustained commitment is critical.
And the last point on this, with your question regarding the views of some folks in the Pentagon, that prioritization and the focus on the Indo-
Pacific and China means that we need to do a lot less in Europe, we need to cancel or sustain our programs in Europe, those are views that they have
long held, and they held those views before they came into the administration. But I think that some of what is being done very much sends
the wrong signal about our commitment to European security.
GOLODRYGA: And we should note, I don't believe those views have been espoused or at least publicly stated by the president himself. As you're
right to know, people like Elbridge Colby have long focused on China and moving away from Europe. I'm not sure President Trump has specifically
stated as much.
Michael Kofman, it is good to see you. Thank you so much for taking the time.
KOFMAN: Yes, always happy to join.
GOLODRYGA: All right. And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Next to spiraling tensions between the United States and Venezuela. Outrage continues to build over President Trump's strike on an
alleged drug vessel he says departed from Venezuela. Eleven people were killed in the attack. Officials say this was just the beginning of a much
larger anti-drug mission in the region. But it has rattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who says Trump is plotting to dislodge him from
power.
The U.S. has moved substantial military firepower into the Caribbean in recent weeks, even ordering 10 F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico on Friday.
So, is Trump gearing up for a full-blown military conflict?
Ivan Briscoe is the senior director for policy at the International Crisis Group, and he joins me now from London. Ivan, welcome to the program. So,
let's begin with what's just happened. In the last week, the U.S. military carried out the strike in the Southern Caribbean, sinking a vessel the
White House said belonged to Venezuela and the Venezuelan gang, particularly Tren de Aragua, killing 11 alleged traffickers. What stands
out to you in the episode that transpired over the last few days?
IVAN BRISCOE, SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: Well, I think there are two elements in particular which stand out. First
of all, it's the use of U.S. military force directly against suspected drug traffickers, which is something of a novelty. Now, this is not to say that
Latin American countries haven't used extreme force against criminal organizations for decades now, often with the backing of the United States.
But for the United States itself to attack a boat seemingly without giving warning beforehand, we don't know all the circumstances around the attack,
but we do know that there are certainly 11 casualties and there is a town on the coast of Venezuela which is mourning them at the moment. So, this
definitely took place, and it seems to have been carried out, as I said, without warning, without using the usual protocols of seizures and captures
of suspected drug traffickers at sea. So, it's a change in the model of the war on drugs as waged by the United States for one.
But at the same time, this is taking place as part of a large military deployment in the Caribbean, which seems to be focused on Venezuela,
accuses the Venezuelan government of being part of the head of a large drug trafficking organization and therefore, seems to be, as it were, trying to
separate Nicolas Maduro from the presidency, weaken his government and possibly bring about a change in government in the country. And we don't
precisely know at the moment what the dimensions of the military force being used to achieve that goal is going to be.
GOLODRYGA: Well, analysts are calling this the largest deployment in decades. Let's just go through what has been deployed. Guided missile
destroyers, intelligence planes, fighter jets, a nuclear-powered submarine, an amphibious ready group carrying more than 4,000 troops into the
Caribbean region.
And Bloomberg News is reporting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine also made a visit to Puerto Rico on Friday as well.
What do you think the Trump administration's ultimate goal here is in terms of the show of force?
BRISCOE: We don't know at the moment. Clearly, there is a desire to project strength and force in front of Venezuela and the Latin American
region as a whole. We know from what officials have said that there is a disdain and extreme dislike for what Trump's spokesperson called the narco-
terror cartel, which is supposedly running the government in Venezuela, referring, of course, to Nicolas Maduro in particular.
[13:30:00]
And so, there is a desire to, as it were, intimidate the Venezuelan government to make them understand that they run the risk of a military
strike, of some sort or possibly some form of landing or invasion, some form of missile strike, and therefore, to spread fear in those ranks and
therefore, possibly to encourage parts of the military to break away, turn against Maduro, and maybe deliver Maduro to the U.S. forces, remembering,
of course, that the bounty for the handing over of Maduro to U.S. law enforcement was doubled recently. So, it's reached $50 million. So, that
seems to be a little bit of what's going on.
Now, what we don't know at the moment is whether there is a serious commitment in Washington in the Trump administration to regime change.
Trump said explicitly on Friday he's not interested in regime change. Marco Rubio has been a little bit more equivocal on the subject. It seems to be
the case that they are identifying the Venezuelan government as a drug trafficking target and therefore, as a foreign terrorist organization,
according to their recent definitions, but they're not saying they're involved in the game of intervention aimed at achieving political change.
But once the military is engaged, if there is advertently or inadvertently a clash with Venezuelan forces, then the risk, of course, is that the
conflict will escalate and the U.S. forces might carry out more important attacks on Venezuelan soil.
GOLODRYGA: Well, how might this spiral? Because even if President Trump says this is not about regime change, if Nicolas Maduro, in fact, thinks
that it is and then responds accordingly, he's already warning of maximum rebellion if attacked, I mean, do you envision an actual war and fire
exchange between U.S. forces and Venezuelan forces?
BRISCOE: There is, of course, a very evident risk. The United States has shown it's perfectly willing to blow a go fast boat out of the sea last
week. There was supposedly, we don't have confirmation, an encounter between two Venezuelan fighter jets and an American warship. That was the
pretext on which those 10 F-35 fighter jets were dispatched to Puerto Rico. There is clearly a course of escalation. There is an increasing tide of
rhetoric. There may well be an attempt by the Venezuelan military to send out jets or send out ships again into the area where the U.S. are
patrolling. There is a risk of clashes as a result.
And also, there is the possibility, and this is what we don't know, that the U.S. might seek to be reaching an arrangement with parts of the
Venezuelan military or civilian leaders in an effort to ensure that the U.S. that -- rather Maduro or senior figures in the government are
delivered into their hands.
Now, at the moment, that would seem unlikely because the Venezuelan government traditionally has been -- has acted as a very united, coherent
and resistant structure in the face of U.S. pressure. But at the same time, we've never seen the sort of military deployment which is now in the
Caribbean as it were led by the United States before.
GOLODRYGA: Well, do you envision, in the final few seconds we have here, Congress actually preventing a hot war from ensuing between these two
countries? Because thus far, the U.S. is formally not at war with Venezuela. It would require approval from Congress to do as much. And there
is a real question of legality of all of these operations now. How far do you think the Trump administration is willing to go?
BRISCOE: There are many questions about legality. Obviously, the pretext for using a force, military force against drug trafficking operations is
the classification of eight or nine drug trafficking groups in Latin America as foreign terrorist organizations. And it's on the basis of the
classification, the designation that the United States, the Trump administration is claiming that it can use military force. And it's also
there's a secret directive, which has reportedly been signed by Trump, allowing the use of military force against Latin American criminal
organizations.
So, there is a legal case or claim which is being made by the U.S. government to make the rightful use of force. At the same time, there is a
denial by the senior U.S. officials that they are in the game of regime change and that there is a desire to strip Maduro of the presidency and to
remove him from the country.
[13:35:00]
But at the same time, they say that if this was one of the effects of the U.S. military buildup, then that would be perfectly desirable and that
would be welcome. So, we are in a very uncertain position where there is no war. There is supposedly the legitimate use of self-defense by the U.S.
authorities against criminal organizations. And where the political effects, the ramifications of what is being done haven't really been
calculated.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the largest amassing of U.S. troops in the Caribbean in a number of decades. You have to go back to George H.W. Bush to have
comparable figures. Ivan Briscoe, thank you so much. Appreciate your expertise.
Well, we turn now to Jerusalem, where at least six people have been killed in a shooting that left the city reeling. The attackers opened fire on a
crowded bus stop in northern outskirts of that city. It's according to Israeli police who have identified the attackers as West Bank residents.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the site and has deployed troops to the West Bank, vowing to carry out harsher measures in response.
Now, this comes just days after Israeli security officials warned the prime minister about a potential flare-up of violence in the West Bank.
For more, let's bring in Jeremy Diamond. So, Jeremy, we know at least six people have died from the shooting, more injured and in hospital right now.
Prime Minister Netanyahu vowing to retaliate. What more have we learned about this incident?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, to talk to you about the scene, I mean, we were there in the hours after this
attack took place, shards of glass still littering the floor, pools of blood drying on the sidewalk. Of course, cleanup crews then quickly came in
and got rid of it all, allowing Israelis to kind of try and get back to their sense of normalcy.
But, indeed, it was far from a normal morning today in Jerusalem, as at least six people were killed, more than a dozen people were injured after
two Palestinian gunmen opened fire indiscriminately on this crowd in what Israeli authorities are describing as a terrorist attack. The Israeli prime
minister, indeed, on the scene vowing a harsh response, and we've seen the opening moves, at least, of that response, as Israeli security forces were
spotted in the Palestinian villages just northwest of Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, from which these two attackers, aged 20 and 21,
reportedly hailed, according to Israeli authorities.
Now, we've also heard from Palestinian authorities, first of all, Hamas praising this attack but not taking responsibility for it, and so it's not
clear under whose auspices these two gunmen were acting, if they were acting under the agency of any Palestinian militant group. The Palestinian
Authority, for its part, condemned any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians following this very deadly shooting.
What they also said is that they believe that ultimately the creation of a Palestinian State with security and dignity for both Palestinians and
Israelis will be the only thing that ultimately ends this cycle of violence. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: In the meantime, the attacks in Gaza continue. Headlines just out that four Israeli soldiers were killed in Gaza, and the IDF and the
defense minister warning in terms of their Gaza City takeover operation that a massive hurricane will hit the skies of Gaza City. This as President
Trump once again issued a new ultimatum, a new proposal in terms of bringing this war to an end. Where does that proposal stand right now?
DIAMOND: Well, Bianna, we can very much see two paths that are kind of starting to make themselves clear in front of us. One of those paths is
exactly what the United States proposed just yesterday, a ceasefire and hostage release deal. One that would see the release of all of the Israeli
hostages on the first day of this agreement in exchange for several thousand Palestinian prisoners and a ceasefire agreement at the beginning
of negotiations to end the war, but with no real assurance from the Israelis that that war will end, which, you know, seems to make it
difficult to see Hamas accepting that proposal, at least as it stands right now.
But the alternative to that, and this is the way that the Israelis and the Americans are very much framing this to Hamas and to Palestinians on the
ground in Gaza, is this, you know, intensifying Israeli military assault on Gaza City, which the Israeli prime minister has said is only in its opening
stages, even as we have seen the widespread destruction and, you know, blowing up of some of these high-rise buildings in Gaza City.
We have seen at least 40 of those towers that have been destroyed. The Israeli military claiming that Hamas was using these towers. But it's also
important to put it in the context of what we've seen before in Gaza and of the language that we are seeing Israeli -- senior Israeli officials using
already. And that is the language of massive destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza City, with the Israeli defense minister, Israel
Katz, comparing it to what the Israeli military did in Rafah, for example.
[13:40:00]
And in Rafah, it's important to keep in mind there was not always a justification of Hamas using some of these buildings. It was also a clear
intentional policy of destroying civilian infrastructure to render that city unlivable, inadequate for Palestinian life in the future. And that
very much seems to be the path that the Israeli military is laying out going forward as well.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Prime Minister Netanyahu warning Palestinians to get out of Gaza City as Israel intensifies its aerial assault. That's a new CNN
reporting. Jeremy Diamond reporting to us live in Jerusalem. Thank you.
Well, Israel's war in Gaza continues to draw public outcry across the globe, with many speaking out in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. In
the U.K., nearly 900 people were arrested in the city over the weekend at a protest against the ban on the group, Palestine Action. The majority were
handcuffed under the U.K.'s Terrorism Act after the group was declared a terrorist organization this summer. The protest organizers described the
rally as peaceful. Correspondent Isobel Yeung has the details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The police might be about to arrest her.
YEUNG (voiceover): Why does the U.K. government think these seniors are terrorists?
YEUNG: Have you been arrested before?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no, never.
YEUNG: Never?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. Well, I don't do things like this.
YEUNG (voiceover): Their stories are at the heart of a debate roiling the U.K. How far is too far to oppose the war in Gaza? Millions of people
around the world have turned out on the streets, including in London. But almost two years on from Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel over 60,000
Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Mass starvation continues to spread. For some, protesting is just not enough.
Palestine Action is a U.K.-based group of hundreds of individuals. They accuse the U.K. arms industry of complicity in supporting Israel's
government. They've targeted Israeli weapons factories, destroyed British military equipment, and even vandalized U.S. President Donald Trump's golf
course.
This June, action on a British air base was seen as a step too far by the U.K. government who designated them a terrorist organization, meaning
anyone taking part in these actions could face terrorism charges.
Audrey Como, who just turned 23, studied dance and drama and she's been a member of the group. She's vandalized the U.K. Defense headquarters and
just a few months ago she occupied a factory she claimed was supplying military equipment to Israel. She spent two months in jail.
YEUNG: So, now, you are out on bail. You have an ankle tag that you have to wear. You've got a curfew. You're waiting for your court hearing.
AUDREY COMO, FORMER MEMBER, PALESTINE ACTION: Yes.
YEUNG: What are the maximum potential consequences to this?
COMO: The maximum term of 10 years imprisonment.
YEUNG: Would these actions have been worth it?
COMO: Yes, of course.
YEUNG: What would it have been worth it for?
COMO: It's everyone's responsibility to do everything in our power to stop a genocide from happening.
YEUNG: And there will obviously people watching this who will think, you know, you don't know enough about it. You haven't been to Israel or to
Gaza, have you?
COMO: No.
YEUNG: You don't know enough about the situation, and you are just jumping on the bandwagon. What would you say to them?
COMO: Well, this isn't a bandwagon. The more I learned about how deeply complicit Britain is in the supply of arms to Israel and in fueling this
genocide, the more I realized that the comfort that I enjoy living in London is soaked in Palestinian blood.
YEUNG (voiceover): Now the U.K. government has designated Palestine Action a terrorist group. Even holding a sign in support is illegal, sparking
fears that free speech itself is being stifled.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is a sign that says "action against genocide."
YEUNG: Anyone showing any support for this group, even holding up a sign, is currently being arrested, which means hundreds of people here are being
arrested.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just follow me, madam.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Clearly a terrorist in your hands there, yes?
YEUNG: Things are getting very rowdy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People who have committed offenses will be arrested.
YEUNG: Everyone will be arrested?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone that's committed offenses will be arrested.
YEUNG: So essentially, everyone holding a sign will be arrested?
[13:45:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If that sign falls within the remnants of --
YEUNG: Saying that they support Palestine Action?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
PROTESTERS: Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have to fight against things that are wrong, and this is wrong. Not being allowed to speak about it is wrong. Palestine
Action weren't a terrorist group. They didn't -- haven't harmed anybody. What Israel is doing, it is terrorism.
JOHN WOODCOCK, MEMBER, U.K. HOUSE OF LORDS: The essential case against Palestine Action --
YEUNG (voiceover): The politician John Woodcock, Lord Walney, was the U.K. government's independent adviser on political violence and disruption. The
300-page report he wrote last year as major factor in banning Palestine Action under antiterrorism laws.
WOODCOCK: I take real exception to that idea of this being a peaceful protest. The definition of terrorism absolutely encompasses the kind of
economic damage for political cause, which Palestine Action have systematically carried out.
YEUNG: You're putting them in the same category as ISIS and al Qaeda, and Hamas.
WOODCOCK: So, I think that there is a gap in the law which identified in my report that there is a category of criminal behavior that is politically
motivated, which can fall under the definition of terrorism. That at the moment there is not the sufficient tools to be able to stop and deter.
YEUNG: Half of the people that I saw at the protest were over 60. I spoke to a 70-something-year-old grandma literally holding up a sign --
WOODCOCK: Yes.
YEUNG: -- and getting arrested. I mean --
WOODCOCK: Yes.
YEUNG: -- they're not what people think of when they think of terrorists.
WOODCOCK: No, no, no, sure. But --
YEUNG: So, are they terrorists?
WOODCOCK: Well, that -- the criminal justice system will have to deal with them. And my --
YEUNG: But you are saying they are terrorists.
WOODCOCK: No. I'm saying that if you --
YEUNG: But you're not answering the question. Are they -- do you see them as terrorists?
WOODCOCK: If you --
YEUNG: Well, you're the one pushing this prescription. So, surely you think that --
WOODCOCK: Well, OK, let me --
YEUNG: -- they are terrorists.
WOODCOCK: If you break the law then you face having a criminal record.
YEUNG: A terrorist.
WOODCOCK: You face having a criminal record. And so -- and they know that.
YEUNG: Associated terrorist.
WOODCOCK: And they know that and that's why they are doing it.
YEUNG: Are you the right person to be advising -- to have been advising the U.K. government on this? I mean, you were the head of Labour Friends of
Israel.
WOODCOCK: Yes.
YEUNG: You have taken several all-expenses trips paid to Israel. And so, you can understand why people would question your motivations.
WOODCOCK: I could understand why they would want to because they don't want to account for their own actions. But people will make up their own
minds on me. The -- my interest in declarations have -- are out in the open and that's why you're able to talk about it. We ought to be able to say
it's not OK to break the law and to terrorize working people.
YEUNG (voiceover): In the meantime, other activists continue to take direct action --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're still locked on.
YEUNG (voiceover): -- against arms manufacturers they accuse of complicity in the bombing of Gaza. And protesters holding up signs continue to risk
arrest to support Palestine Action.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Isobel Yeung reporting there. In a note, the U.K. government says Palestine Action waged a campaign including weapons and violence
against people which would have been irresponsible to ignore. It did not provide evidence for those claims. We'll be right back after this short
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:50:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, autocracy is on the rise around the world, and our next guest argues it's now happening in the United States. Democratic politician
Stacey Abrams speaks with Michel Martin about what she says is happening right here in America, and what can be done to stop it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Stacey Abrams, thank you so much for talking with us once again.
STACEY ABRAMS, FORMER DEMOCRATIC LEADER, GEORGIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: So, we called you specifically for an essay, a pretty strongly worded essay, that you just published in Time. It's headlined, "We Can Stop
the Rise of American Autocracy." Why now? What is it that triggered this piece now?
ABRAMS: Because we are in the midst of an authoritarian regime. We keep talking about it as though it's something that's looming, and it's critical
that we understand it's already happening. But if we want to reclaim our country, we have to understand the moment we're in, and we've got to start
fighting back immediately.
MARTIN: Who's the we?
ABRAMS: The we is the American people. Anyone who actually believes that democracy should be the organizing principle for how we live together in
this country. Autocracy, authoritarianism is an alternative. Under the proposed regime of this current administration and its supporters in the
Republican Party, we have an authoritarian regime where we've seen an expansion of executive power, a sublimation of competing powers, both
Congress and the courts. But we've also seen attacks on the media, attacks on communities. We've seen the kidnappings of people in our country,
including citizens.
But we're also watching the military occupation of our cities. That's what happens in authoritarian regimes, and that is being led by the Republican
Party, spearheaded and helmed by Donald Trump.
MARTIN: The reason I ask who the we is, is one of the points that you make in your piece is that historically governments that have taken on an
authoritarian cast or have become, you know, true authoritarians are often voted in.
ABRAMS: Absolutely.
MARTIN: And it has to be said, the Republicans in Congress were voted in. The president was voted in. We could dispute what the margins are, but
those -- but that is the truth of it. So, does that suggest that there is a critical mass of people who agree with what he's doing and with what the
Republicans in Congress are supporting?
ABRAMS: Not at all. So, one of the features of modern-day authoritarianism, we are used to thinking about autocrats rising, dictators
rising through coup d'etats and through military overthrows. But the modern version is actually winning elections. Erdogan in Turkey, Modi in India,
Putin in Russia. We've forgotten that he was elected to be -- they've been elected into these positions, and they maintain elections in those nation-
states. Bolsonaro, Maduro. Maduro has elections. Venezuela has elections. But there is no question that it's an authoritarian regime, and it is a
naivete that we hold in America that it's only authoritarianism if we didn't vote those people into office.
The question isn't what do we vote them for? It's what are they doing with the power they have now? And the reason this is so important is that we are
not protected from authoritarianism because we have democracy, we ushered in authoritarianism using democracy, and now it is our responsibility to
protect democracy from those who would take it from us.
MARTIN: Your argument is -- well, you lay out what you call a 10-step process, and you say that we are at about step nine. Well, let me go
through the steps. You say you have a free and fair election, but it's the last time. Exceed the limits of their executive power. Numerous executive
orders claiming authority that the president doesn't actually hold. They take competing versions of power, Congress and the courts, and make them
complicit or neuter them. Go after the media -- obvious. Gut the government. Fire the people who know how to do stuff. Go after the people
who do the good work. You sue law firms and nonprofits. You have to have someone to blame. If they can push that forward, then we're fighting each
other instead of fighting for our country. They incentivize private violence.
Now, that's what you say we're at step nine. So, what do you mean by that, they incentivize private violence? And what do you mean by that, and how do
you see that?
ABRAMS: Well, we saw what happened in Minnesota to Speaker Werthmann. But let's broaden it out. One of the ways private violence takes hold as a
means of control is that people feel threatened. They feel a constant sense that their rights and their physical bodies are under duress. And what we
have seen happen is that we have a private police operating in the United States called ICE. They go around masked. They do not operate under the
rules that we understand in terms of due process. They do not have to reveal themselves. They have blatantly opposed actually complying with
existing law And now, we have the president of the United States summoning up National Guardsmen..
[13:55:00]
We have had a court in California say, no, you cannot use the threat of emergency or the declaration of a false emergency to justify this
occupation. And we are seeing it happen in Washington, D.C. The way private violence takes hold in a tyrannical, authoritarian, autocratic, you know,
in certain language here, the way it takes hold is because people start to believe they aren't physically safe. And they believe that it is OK to
respond to that lack of safety.
But you also see people thinking that violence is the way to respond to harm. And that is why we saw the assassination of a speaker, a state
speaker. We have seen political violence rise in this country. We have seen threats of political violence rise. And we can't see this as separate
pieces. They are of a piece and they work together. And that goes to your question about step nine.
When we were writing this piece, and I'm so proud to be working with Professor Kim Scheppel from Princeton University. But the point of this is,
these things can happen simultaneously. We are actually watching step 10 unfold as well. When Texas gerrymandered in the middle of the decade to
intentionally strip people of color of their voting power and to hand power to a political party, that was step 10. When Georgia purged 471,000 voters
with a very clear understanding of what effect it would have on minority voters, that was step 10.
We are watching this happen around the country. When you interfere with elections, the end of democracy doesn't mean the end of voting, it means
the end of voting actually making a difference. And that is what we're facing right now. So, I would actually say we've now hit all of the 10
steps. And the question is how much more will we see? Because these steps repeat, they amplify, and they can happen simultaneously.
MARTIN: Step 10 is you make sure no one ever votes again. Now, you have them captive. Now, you've got them scared. Now, you've got them poor. And
now, you have the power. This is a violent country. And there are a lot of guns. A lot of people have access to weapons. And I'm just sort of
wondering if not to quibble with your kind of steps here, but how do you identify that particular facet of American life with what you call this
authoritarian takeover, this authoritarian push?
ABRAMS: So, part of the responsibility, you asked me at the beginning who did I mean by we. We is the people, but they, the authoritarians, are the
state. And that's the place where we have to put responsibility. Violence is part of human nature. As you pointed out, political violence has always
attended any political system. If you're reading the bible, violence is rife throughout the bible. The difference is who is wielding violence as a
tool for the accrual of power. And that's why it's so important that we understand it and we identify it.
Incentivizing private violence is a step-in authoritarianism because it's when the state starts to co-opt the people into doing its will. Because
when you have us fighting each other, we are not fighting against those who are taking our power from us. I'm not diminishing how harmful it is and how
often we see political violence happening, but what I am saying is that when the state suborns that, when the state incentivizes that, when the
state mimics the kinds of behaviors that the people then start to believe are necessary to protect themselves, then that's when authoritarianism has
to be rooted out and has to be noted as the cause.
MARTIN: It's interesting because, speaking of violence, the U.S. attorney -- the newly named U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who, because of, you
know, the district's unique sort of legal framework and relationship to the federal government, also prosecutes local crimes in D.C., recently issued a
ruling that gun crimes, you know, carrying, conceal, et cetera, would not be prosecuted. But that she has brought felony charges against individuals
who were protesting.
Like there was an individual who threw a sandwich and was charged with a felony. The grand jury declined to indict. In fact, the grand juries in
D.C. have repeatedly refused to, you know, validate charges in some of these cases, especially noteworthy given that this president refused to
call in the National Guard for many hours when his supporters were violently attacking the Capitol, but yet, his appointed representatives
have, you know, issued felony charges or tried to charge people with felonies for throwing a sandwich at somebody.
ABRAMS: And that's an important distinction. The reason they went after the person throwing the sandwich was because that was someone who expressed
dissent. And in an authoritarian regime, you respond to dissent with overwhelming force. A man threw a sandwich and faced a federal grand jury.
The weight and heft of the federal government came after a man who, in a moment of panic and anger, threw a sandwich.
[14:00:00]
Authoritarianism amplifies the smallest behaviors of citizenship and turns them into crimes. That's important to understand because if you could go to
jail for a sandwich, then how dare you protest in the streets. How dare you take action against, how dare you sue. It's why they defunded public
television. You defund public broadcasting because public broadcasting dared to tell the truth. Instead of just being angry and fighting in the
court of public opinion, you stripped publican broadcasting of it's ability to do its job. And so it's critically important that we actually look at
these small moments and knit them together, and that's why the ten steps are so important, because we need people to see not these individual
distinct moments, but it's part of a pattern of behavior and a coordinated attempt to undermine the democracy of our country and make authoritarianism
seem normal. That is not normal.
MARTIN: If the situation is as dire as you described, why more people aren't willing to object or say no?
ABRAMS: So let's about the people in power, their - the question isn't are they voting against those - their self interests, it's what interests do
they hold? If you are Senator Dan Sullivan who watches his colleagues Senator Lisa Murkowski go to the floor of the Senate and play a recording
of your constituents who are facing a typhoon, a tsunami, and that tsunami warning only came about because of public broadcasting. Lisa Murkoski voted
no, Dan Sullivan said yes it's true that this will cause them harm, but I'll fix it later, because his best interest in that moment, his self
interest was power. His self interest was basically becoming complicit and not ascending the authoritarian leader, in this case Donald Trump. And so
we have to stop thinking that self interest is one thing. If the interest you have is power, then sublimating yourself to this current authoritarian
regime feels like not just survival but it gets you a ticket to the dance. And so we have we to understand that those who were elected represent us,
will not do so unless we hold them accountable and not just at the ballot box during midterms, but every single day. But here's the other piece,
holding them accountable does not mean they will be better. There have been protests in authoritarian nations since the moment those autocrats came to
power, and that is why the urgency is now.
We have not fully fallen. We are in an authoritarian moment but we are not so far in that we can't find our way out. We have to recognize where we
are, we then have to activate ourselves to do something about it, and that, to you point, about who's voting for this? Who's supporting it? There's a
reason that Republicans stopped having townhall meetings, because they didn't want to be held accountable because they know people aren't happy
and when we see the economy collapse because of rising inflation, rising unemployment, and slowing economic growth, the reason the preside of the
United States is trying to remove a member of the federal board of reserve governors, is because he needs to be able to manufacture and answer to why
the economy is not doing as it should.
So we have to recognize, we have to activate, and most fundamentally we have to reclaim our rights as citizens to a country that works for all of
us.
MARTIN: What about the Democrats in this moment? What's their role? And are they fulfilling it?
ABRAMS: We are in a moment where we are looking for leaders, but I actually believe what we need is leadership. Leaders anoint individual people to
make decisions for us. This is a moment where we all have to own for ourselves the role we can play. I am a very proud Democrat, and what that
means is I'm part of a very large party that has multiple roles and responsibilities. We are the minority party, which means we do not have the
normal levers of power, but Democrats have to still show that we can deliver. And that means that when authoritarian behaviors impact our people
we've got to do something about it. When people start going hungry, we've got to be there to provide access to food. When people can't get what they
need, we've got to help them find solutions. That doesn't mean we can solve every problem. But we can not bamome (sp?) our fates and hold our head in
our hands. We've got to do the work. And so what I would say to Democrats is no, we may not hold the majority, but we are watching across this
country as leadership is being shown. Washington, Oregon, California, have set a response to the decimation of the CDC, we're going to provide public
health to our people. But also down in small communities, they're doing community gardens because they know that the USDA food that they relied on
is no longer coming. We have to as Democrats at ever level of government, show that we understand the problem, that we see the pain and that we're
willing to do something to mitigate it. We can't solve it until we have power again, but we can use the power we do have, because before we had
power, before we had money, we had each other, and Democrats are best when we are doing the work for the people.
MARTIN: Stacey Abrams, thank you so much speaking with us.
ABRAMS: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And finally imagine breaking four Guinness World Records in a single day. That's what 65-year-old Paul Jameson did in the UK this
weekend, diagnosed with motor neuron disease he made the fasted mile while being pushed in a wheel chair, once by a woman, then by a man. And
conquered two other time and distance challenges while being pull along by dogs.
Paul described his journey as being from tragedy to triumph after being told in 2017 that he'd only have six months left to live. He has of course
defied those odds and is incredible inspiration, definitely the story of the day, congratulations to him. And that is it for now. Thank you so much
for watching, and goodbye from New York.
[14:05:55]
END
