Return to Transcripts main page


Venezuela is firing back after the United States imposed tough sanctions; Massive Humanitarian Crisis in Venezuela; Interview with Senator Bob Menendez; Interview with Venezuelan National Assembly Member, Francisco Sucre; Success of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Over Trump's Border Wall; Interview with Former Vice President of the Trump Organization, Barbara Res, and Former Republican Congresswoman, Mia Love. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired January 29, 2019 - 13:00   ET



[13:00:00] CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

Tension in Venezuela, waiting to see which way the army goes after the U.S. and allies recognize the interim president. Democratic Senator Bob

Menendez joins me, as well as a key ally of the new leader, Juan Guaido.

Then, Nancy Pelosi one, President Donald Trump zero, how the speaker of the House outplayed the president in this round. Former Republican

Congresswoman, Mia Love, and one-time Vice President of the Trump Organization, Barbara Res join me.

Plus, financial guru, Andrew Ross Sorkin, tells us we're overdue for a financial crisis.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

Venezuela is firing back after the United States imposed tough sanctions, $18 billion worth on the state oil company. Making the announcement,

National Security Advisor John Bolton spark talk of an even bigger threat because this yellow notepad there have the words 5,000 troops to Colombia

scrolled and exposed for all to see.

In an address, President Maduro lashed out at President Trump.


NICOLAS MADURO, VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I make Donald Trump responsible for any violence that might happen in Venezuela. You

will be the one responsible, Mr. President Donald Trump. Responsible for this policy of regime change in Venezuela and the blood that could flow in

Venezuela will be the blood that will be on your hands.


AMANPOUR: Well, Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, backs Maduro. He calls the U.S. sanctions illegal. While the U.S.-backed interim

president, Juan Guaido, praised them for protecting Venezuelan assets. Here's what he said.


JUAN GUAIDO, SELF-DECLARED INTERIM VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (through translator): For a very long time, Marudor's regime stole this money, an

estimated $4 billion which is four times Venezuela's GDP and losses. This would protect assets so that they can be used towards Venezuelans and to

attend to the humanitarian emergency that is at the center of our policies.


AMANPOUR: There is a massive humanitarian crisis in Venezuela right now. So, the United Nations says more than 40 Venezuelans have been killed in

the recent unrest and 850 have been arrested.

But what happens if there is a violent crackdown. Joining me now is Senator Bob Menendez, his the Democratic senator from New Jersey, the

ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator Menendez, welcome to the program.

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ, D-NJ: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So, let's start first with this -- the sanctions. You heard what President Maduro said and it is par for the course. The Venezuelans

from Chavez and even beyond have always used as they're calling card the threat that the United States is engineering, a coup and they're constantly

blaming the U.S. What do you make of the effect of these sanctions? What will they do?

MENENDEZ: Well, I think the sanctions, which I support, I wrote the first sanctions against the Maduro regime back in 2014, and we've seen a growing

bipartisan support for using diplomatic and economic and political efforts to try to bring democracy back to Venezuela. I think the world largely

recognizes that Maduro is not a legitimate president.

And so, the sanctions, at the end of the day, create a real challenge to the Maduro regime, particularly the ones that were just announced against

PDVSA, the state oil company. So, I think they are very significant.

And listen, as it relates to Maduro's comments about the -- I heard the clip that you ran about the blood is going to be on the hands of the United

States, the blood that has already been shed by Venezuelans peacefully trying to create change in their country has all been at Maduro's hands and

those of his leadership. So, I think that's a hollow statement to make.

AMANPOUR: So, let's switch now to this talk. I mean, I asked, leading into you, what happens if, what happens if the army turns against the

people. What do you know now? What sort of intelligence do you have? Do you have any confidence of where the army stands?

MENENDEZ: Well, I think it's very telling that Maduro has not had his army and security forces arrest Juan Guaido, the interim president of Venezuela,

under their constitution, which by the way, is a constitution created under former Venezuelan President Chavez. So, it's their own constitution that

they've invoked to claim the right to be an interim president as a result of false elections.

So, I think the fact that he has not called upon security forces to arrest Guaido, which he has done to others in the past is very telling, he doesn't

want to risk it. And the reality is, the generals may be living very well because they're part of the kleptomatic government that Maduro. But -- and

the corrupt government that he runs.

But the average soldier, they're suffering like the Venezuelan people are. And I think in that respect, I think it is highly unlikely they will turn

their guns against their brothers and sisters.

AMANPOUR: Well, let's just play a quick clip, one of our reporters talked to a couple of those lower rank soldiers who were defected to neighboring

Colombia. Here's what here's what they said.


CARLOS GUILLEN MARTINEZ, VENEZUELA ARMY DEFECTOR (through translator): As Venezuelan soldiers, we're making a request to the U.S., he says, to

support us, in logistical terms with communication, with weapons so we can realize Venezuelan freedom.

JOSUE HIDALGO AZUAJE, VENEZUELA ARMY DEFECTOR (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We're not saying we need only U.S. support but also from Brazil, Colombia, Peru,

all brother countries that are against this dictatorship.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They show me the WhatsApp groups plotting rebellion they hope to reach thousands of soldiers but they also rejected any

possible military intervention by U.S. forces themselves.

AZUAJE: We don't want a foreign government invading our country, he says. If we need an incursion, it has to be Venezuelan soldiers who really want

to free Venezuela. Now, we're unifying military groups working towards freedom to create a really big one that can be decisive.


AMANPOUR: Senator, I know you speak fluent Spanish, obviously, you could hear them in their own language and you could hear the translation, they

were very, very clear, no U.S. intervention but yes, please, U.S. military support and help and logistics.

Do you think that there -- well, where do you stand on this? Because as I said, also, you know, John Bolton, National Security Adviser, sparked a

whole load of questions with that yellow notepad and 5,000 troops to Colombia. What do you know about what's going on in that regard?

MENENDEZ: Well, I don't know anything specifically in that regard as it relates to any potential military movement. It would be a huge mistake and

I oppose military -- any form of military intervention in Venezuela. It would undermine the very effort of the democratic movement in Venezuela and

the credibility of that democratic movement. The freedom of Venezuela will come through the hands of Venezuelans not to the intervention of the United

States or any other nation.

But I think it's critically important that the 20 or so countries, including many from the Western Hemisphere who have traditionally shied

away from speaking about human rights and democracy, violations in their neighboring country, have risen their voice in this regard, and I think

that's a powerful message. And joined not only by their words but hopefully for their actions in terms of economic consequences, I think the

Venezuelan people can restore democracy in their nation.

AMANPOUR: So, let's just stay on this military intervention for a moment. You know, President Trump himself, at the very beginning of his

administration, raise sort of questions with various tweets about this. And in response to questions about the famous Bolton notepads, again, the

administration said all options are on the table. Are you concerned that there is some move afoot amongst, let's say, people in the White House to

potentially introduce U.S. military force to Venezuela?

MENENDEZ: Well, you know, it's interesting because that would be counter to everything else the president's inclinations are. You know, drawing

troops from Syria at a time that that's a challenge, supposedly he is paired to announce withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan to some degree.

So, his predilection seems to be to move American involvement abroad away and back at home, this would be totally counter to that.

Now, whether it is a bluff, although I don't think you have a bluff with our military, or whether it is just to keep all the options open to suggest

that all the options are open. But in reality, I cannot envision the United States and I strongly would oppose the United States seeking to

intervene militarily in Venezuela.

AMANPOUR: But you could imagine U.S. troops going to friendly countries like Colombia, next door, to support, could you? I mean, could that be

what's afoot potentially?

MENENDEZ: I don't think that the Colombians or any of Venezuela's neighbors will want to seek its military engagement in Venezuela. They

have been doing a tremendous service in dealing with the humanitarian crisis and the flows of Venezuelans fleeing Venezuela. I think that as we

ratchet up the sanctions, you know, sales to the United States from Venezuela about $28 million a day, those monies should be used to actually

help the humanitarian relief that is necessary to help the Venezuelan people as they seek to restore democracy in their country.

AMANPOUR: Why is it then -- you brought it up, that President Trump to, you know, tailback or rather scale back military interventions overseas.

What do you think it's -- it is why he has decided to get so active in this regard, I know it's in the hemisphere, but immediately recognizing, as we

know, almost sort of planning, you know, with Juan Guaido and with who is president of the National Assembly and immediately sort of recognizing and

getting other countries to do so as well? Why is that in in President Trump's interest?

MENENDEZ: Well, obviously, I'm sure that he has heard the voices of many, including many Venezuelan Americans who reside, for example, in Florida and

who have experienced firsthand the flight and the necessity to become refugees in the United States about what's happening under Chavez. I think

that there is a hemispheric recognition that Chavez is driving one of the nations in the Western Hemisphere that should have among the greatest

wealth into a humanitarian catastrophe. And I think as someone who worries about refugee flows, as we have seen, I think the last thing he wants to

see is another set of refugee flows this time from Venezuela.

AMANPOUR: I know you meant Chavez's successor Maduro. But let me let me ask you this, the United States, of course, ever since the late 1800 with

the invasion of Mexico, it has a record, you know, 10 arms long of intervention in Latin America. And, of course, all the people who oppose

this recognition in Venezuela keep pointing to that.

And what do you say to people like Russia or the others or people in the hemisphere itself who say, you know, "What business do the United States

have getting involved in here. Look at their record on our continent"?

MENENDEZ: Well, first of all, I never rely on the Russians to talk about our national interest or observance of international law or human rights

and democracy. Their record is dismal, they keep violating international law. So, they're certainly not the -- my litmus test.

As it relates to other countries in the hemisphere, I would say that the Democratic Charter of the OAS, which all countries of the hemisphere have

signed onto should be the guiding principle. And it is that Democratic Charter of the OAS that we are largely following in terms of the actions

that we are taking.

And so, what I do rejoice into someone who has spent a lot of time in Western Hemisphere foreign policy is that we now see a series of nations,

Western Hemisphere nations, Latin American nations, leading as well in calling for Maduro to step down and recognizing Juan Guaido as the actual

provisional president of Venezuela.

That's something that we would not have seen many years ago. It's a turn for the better in terms of promotion of democracy and human rights of the


AMANPOUR: Now, you mention all the oil and how much the Venezuelan sell to the United States. With these sanctions, do you think they will keep

selling and do you also believe, is it the generals or aid general who is in charge of the state oil company?

MENENDEZ: Well, certainly, I believe that they will need an outlet, you know, refineries in the United States are doing a lot of this work. So, I

think that they will continue to sale and they will have a need to do so. They will need time to try to divert their sales and to find other markets

and refineries to be able to do that. So, that that cannot be turned on a dime.

Now, one of the reasons that the general should start rethinking the reality is because their pathway to the type of money they have received

through Maduro is less likely to be realized now, and I think that may affect their thinking as well.

AMANPOUR: So, just to go back to the oil question and John Bolton, he was on "Fox Business" recently and he basically specifically cited the oil and

the economic benefit that it could bring to the United States. He basically said, "It'll make a big difference to the U.S. economically if we

could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. Also, it would be good for the people of


So, he said it would be a win-win situation. So, that might be. But do you -- have you heard from the administration whether there is a plan B if

things don't turn out the way you hope, if I do holds onto power, if he appoints somebody else who's equally unpalatable or in the worst-case

scenario, if there is a violent crackdown? What is the plan B as far as you know?

MENENDEZ: Well, I'm not sure what is the plan B. On the economic side, I believe the administration believes that both the production in the United

States of oil and global oil supplies would not be affected by the situation in Venezuela.

As it relates to if Maduro steps down and appoints someone who is not only unpalatable but illegal, you know, at the end of the day, if you follow the

constitution, the Venezuelan constitution, the only democratically elected person at this point in Venezuela is Juan Guaido as the president the

National Assembly and those members of the National Assembly. And so, outside of that, they would be violating their own constitution.

AMANPOUR: All right. Senator Bob Menendez, thank you so much for joining us from Capitol Hill.

MENENDEZ: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Thank you very much indeed.

And, of course, full disclosure, Senator Menendez's daughter, Alicia Menendez, is a contributer to this program.

Now, we get the Venezuelan side of the story. And I am joined by Francisco Sucre. He is a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly and a supporter

of the Assembly president, Juan Guaido. In fact, tomorrow, Mr. Sucre is off to Brussels to get the E.U. to formally recognized Guaido as interim

Venezuelan president.

Francisco Sucre, welcome from Madrid.

You heard --

FRANCISCO SUCRE, MEMBER, VENEZUELAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: Thank you. Thank you for this interview, the possibility.

AMANPOUR: Yes. No, it's OK. I interrupted you. But you heard Senator Bob Menendez, a very powerful member of the United States Senate, fully

backing your president, certainly, the president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido.

We were talking about, you know, you trying to get more recognition for him. What are you going to be doing in Brussels tomorrow?

SUCRE: Yes. At this point, already more than 25 countries has recognized Mr. Guaido as the president of Venezuela, the interim president. We hope

that the European Union who is going to do the same. Already, Germany, Spain, France, many countries of the European Union has said that Juan

Guaido is the president.

We have to remember the reading of this crisis. (INAUDIBLE) the election that we have last year, the presidential election, we had a fraudulent

presidential election. And out of that, Mr. Maduro wants to be in power for six more years.

When we had this legal election, the European Union, all the Latin American countries, the U.S., Canada, all the -- all of the democratic world said

that that election was a fraudulent election. So, at this point, we are conducting a very fierce struggle for recovering democracy, the

constitutional law, the constitutional rule in Venezuela.

AMANPOUR: Let me just ask you this then, because the constitutional point that you're following by taking this move says that now, the interim

president, Juan Guaido, has to call new elections within 30 days of making that move. Is that even possible? Will you be able to actually abide by

that part of the constitutional provision?

SUCRE: No, no. That seat, at this point, is not possible in Venezuela. They Article 333 of National Constitution of Venezuela clearly says that we

have to -- every citizen of Venezuela with authority or not has the responsibility of, you know, work to restore the constitutional rule.

At this point, we don't have institutions in Venezuela that can go ahead without election. First, we have to choose a new electoral council. The

one that we have right now is some electoral council that is full of political members of Maduro's party.

So, we have first to call elections, to have a very independent -- as the constitution says, independent body that can conduct those elections. So,

we have to bring back that constitutional rule in order to apply the Article 233 that says that in 30 days we have to convene elections. But at

this point, we can't do that because we don't have institutions to do that. So, that's why from the National Assembly we have a clear road for the next

on days.

First, we have to aim to bring an end to the false (ph) operation of Mr. Maduro. Second, we have to have transitional government. The transitional

government is that one that is going to conduct those elections once we have a new independent power in Venezuela. And then, we have to convey

those three elections. Three elections like --


SUCRE: -- Mexico have in the past, Brazil, et cetera.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you this then, a lot of this is going to depend on, I assume, cooperation from Maduro and the government. Right now

you have one country two presidents, and he's claiming that he's still president and that it will be on your head and on the U.S.'s head if there

is any violence or any trouble in the country.

What is the state of discussion between Juan Guaido and President Maduro or between Juan Guaido and the leader of the Venezuela Armed Forces?

SUCRE: So, first, in Venezuela, we don't have two presidents. We have one president and Maduro who is claiming to be a president.

And regarding the armed forces, at this point, Christiane, Maduro only has that support, that's the only support that Maduro has at this point. We

approve of the National Assembly a law, a new law, last week for -- to convey all the civilians and the military officers to turn away from the

dictatorship and hand -- give their hands to the democracy and the respect of the human rights.

So, that law is to guarantee immunity and to apply guaranties for those military officers that work with us in order to restore democracy. At this

point, Mr. Maduro has all the responsibility of what's going on in Venezuela.

I heard what Maduro last day (INAUDIBLE), I think, blaming the U.S. for any violent thing that can happen Venezuela. But the only responsibility of

the violence in Venezuela is going to be from Maduro.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, Senator Menendez said that he found it interesting and very indicative that Maduro has not ordered the arrest of Juan Guaido, as

you know better than I do, many opposition leaders have been arrested, but Juan Guaido remains free. There are -- he is calling Guaido for more

street protests tomorrow.

Again, are you concerned that the head of the armed forces who say they will die to protect their country, are you concerned that there might be a

military crackdown?

SUCRE: But they are minority. You know, the high-ranking officials, of course, they are supporting Maduro at this point because they are, you

know, involved in this crime economy that we have in Venezuela. But the -- maybe on the lower ranks of the armed force are with at the democracy. And

we are sure that in the next weeks, days, there is going to be a breakdown in the channel of -- inside the --

AMANPOUR: Chain of command?

SUCRE: -- military of Venezuela. They are going to have to choose, they have to choose between the constitution, democracy, the wellbeing of the

Venezuelan people. As you know, half of the world knows, we are facing the worst humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, more than 3.5 million Venezuelans

have left the country, you know, because of the economic devastation that we have in Venezuela. Our economy is in rings right now.

So, in order to have --


SUCRE: -- (INAUDIBLE) in the hemisphere, we have to restore democracy in Venezuela. That's why all the countries, Latin American countries, the

U.S., Canada, all the countries are working with us in order to restore democray in Venezuela.

AMANPOUR: OK. Mr. Sucre, the noise behind you is very, very loud. There's a taxi driver protest in Madrid but we're listening to very, very



AMANPOUR: But I want to answer me very, very quickly. If Maduro stays, what is your plan B if he does not give up power and do you favor a U.S.

military intervention?

SUCRE: Listen, our plan B is keep fighting. Keep fighting because we have a responsibility with Venezuelans, we as citizens of this country have this

responsibility and we are going to keep fighting.

And regarding the military intervention, you know, you said in the interview that the U.S. already said all options are under the table. When

you were talking about national security for every country, even my country, Venezuela, of course, all options always are under the table.

But if that happens, if this extreme situation happens, the only one responsible for that will be Mr. Maduro.

AMANPOUR: I see you're keeping all options on the table too. Francisco Sucre, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Now, amid the Venezuela showdown, at home, the showdown between the president and Congress ended in the government reopening without any money

for President Trump's border wall. A move many have hailed as a success for the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi early in her new leadership.

Now, she held the president's State of the Union address as her trump card, so to speak. It was supposed to be delivered tonight. Instead, Pelosi has

now invited him to address the nation next Tuesday.

To break down this tussle at the top in Washington, I'm joined by the former vice president of the Trump Organization, Barbara Res, and the

former Republican congresswoman, Mia Love.

Welcome to both of you. Thank you for joining us.

I think everybody took a look at what was going on in Washington. Unbelievable that it took more than 35 days for this to be resolved and

that it was, in the words of some observers, a 5-foot-2 liberal congresswoman from California who simply outplayed the president of the

United States.

Barbara Res, what did you think when you saw this power game happening and unfolding in Washington? You know President Trump very, very well.

BARBARA RES, FORMER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TRUMP ORGANIZATION: I thought probably was very angry at what happened. But I felt that he

totally underestimated Pelosi and he totally did not know how the how the system works. He did not know -- I don't think he's even convinced as of

yet that the power of the Congress is equal to the power of the president.

And because of that, I think he thought he could ride over Pelosi and the Congress and I thought -- I think he thought he could ride over her because

she was a woman. So, he made those two mistakes and they came back to haunt him.

AMANPOUR: Before I ask Congressman Mia Love, you know, you say because she was woman. But I mean, I'm talking to you, you were promoted to the top,

top ranks of this organization, you became vice president of the organization. He has been quoted as saying and you quote him as saying

that, "One good woman is better than 10 men." You know, what happened in the interim? How do we underestimate this strong woman?

RES: Well, because he basically believes that one good -- many good women are as good as men but overall, men are better than women, and that was a

promise of it, men are better than women but one good woman is better than 10 good men.

And in his mind, he is superior to all women and -- well, he superior to everyone but that sense, the fact that he promoted me and gave me a job and

everything, I always knew my place when it came to him. I fought with him and, you know, spoke back to him and everything, which is not what they do

now. But certainly, he always thought I'm smarter than Barbara (ph).

And I think that he did have a lot of strong women and prefer to have strong women because he did not feel there was a competition, that it was

basically known that he was superior to them by nature of his gender. And so, where he had more weak people on the male side, his women were very

strong and feisty and they stood up to everyone but not him.

AMANPOUR: It's really fascinating. Congresswoman Mia Love, I know that Nancy Pelosi is not a member of your party, she's not a house speaker. But

how did you -- you know, how did you take this sort of showdown?

MIA LOVE, FORMER U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: Well, I can tell you that both sides actually gained some pretty big mistakes. And I can tell you the

president, from the very beginning, when it comes to the campaign trail, saying that he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for

it, I mean, that was certainly not the approach that he should have taken. He should have just gone in and talked about the importance of border

security and started making his case for border security from that point on.

You can see there are a lot of even Democrats that are supportive of border security, determining of what kind, how that's done is completely

different. The other mistake that he made was to sit down with Chuck Schumer and say, "Well, I will own this shutdown if you do not give me

border security." All of a sudden, myself and all of my other colleagues were like, "Whoa, wait a minute, what's going on here? Nobody wants to own

a shutdown." So that was the other mistake he made.

The last mistake that he made was to betray a lot of the GOP members that stood strong and talked about the importance of border security, didn't

vote for a bill that didn't have anything that included the border wall or border security, and he still opened up government and allowed that to go

without any concessions. And he also, I would say, betrayed the 800,000 people that went without a paycheck for absolutely nothing.

Now, Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, Speaker Pelosi has a couple of things that she has to look out for also. She has to make sure that she keeps the

promises she made. She told the American people, "Open up government first and then I will negotiate border security." So that is something that she

has to look at.

The other thing -- the other mistake I think that she made which is a grave mistake is not getting immigration reform out of this. Now, people are

looking to her in terms of TPS, temporary protected status, people who are working who have families here.

They're actually due to leave the country. The president is saying you've got to go. So there are people that are waiting for her to help them.

They -- I mean they're here, they're helping, they're contributing, and there are people that are waiting for a pathway to citizenship.

There are people that are on -- that are DACA recipients, that life is unpredictable for them. So she has got some work to do. She is the

speaker of the House and you cannot just be a speaker of the House and completely resist and do nothing. You've got to be able to show that you

can get something done.

AMANPOUR: All right.

LOVE: I think that there are some issues there that she's going to have to come to grips with.

AMANPOUR: Yes. I'm going to come back to you on that in a moment. I want to ask Barbara, though, again, from knowing him and all of the stuff you

just told us. You know, the president calls himself the dealmaker of the century. This is one of the things that people looked at when they elected

him and people have looked at throughout the world in the two years of his presidency.

Can he make a deal with China? Can he make a better deal with Iran? Can he make a deal with North Korea?

I mean it's not that hopeful if he cannot make a deal with the speaker of the House and -- well, some people have said folds or caves with, as Mia

Love said, you know, not a penny or not a commitment for what he wanted most. What happened to the dealmaker?

RES: Well, I think that he can -- first of all, I don't think he admits that he caved. And I think that he is trying to promote this idea that he

is the person who came to the -- you know, rose to the occasion and got the shutdown finished. And, you know, that he understands that there will be a

de-own, he will make it.

And he is rattling the sword very mightily right now talking about shutting down again which he's not going to do and everyone knows he's not. And

then he's talking about doing the emergency declaration and taking funds away from the military.

So he is keeping that persona going which I think is forced on his part. But he's not really quite willing to admit that he is not the negotiator.

Well, he'll never admit it.

And to be honest with you, there's no history of that. There's no documentation that says Donald Trump is a great dealmaker. He's made good

deals. He's made bad deals. He's caved more often than I can tell you.

And Tony Schwartz created the name Art of the Deal and made that -- created that persona that Trump ran with. But it's not really true. He's not a

great dealmaker. He's a good dealmaker as other -- many other people are.

Pelosi is a better dealmaker. And by the way, I'm not worried about her committing to reforming the immigration. I think that that has been on the

table even with Trump's latest offer. She can fold that in. So Pelosi knows what she's doing and Trump doesn't in this stage.

AMANPOUR: It's really fascinating. Mia Love, I just want to ask you because, you know, you walked away. I mean again, you're Republican but

you walked away from the president over the "Access Hollywood" tape. And he then said this about you when you lost in these midterms. Listen.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mia Love gave me no love and she lost. Too bad. Sorry about that, Mia.


AMANPOUR: What did you learn from your president through that comment?

LOVE: Well, like I said, it's-- to me, I didn't know why he said it. But the only thing I can think of is the fact that, you know, these things are


To me, we were doing our job. I had a prisoner that was from my state, in my district, that was stuck in Venezuela. And you can see [13:35:00] all

of the issues that are happening. If he were in Venezuela right now, I don't think that he would be alive.

So, you know, I felt like the president was, in that form, was saying that he was doing it and he was expecting something in return. I said thank

you. I did whatever I could.

But on the main aspect of this, I just want to say that I don't follow a person with a letter behind their name. I follow a set of principles. I

follow a platform.

And I think that one of the things that we are -- we need to do, if the Republican Party is going to continue to survive, we need to make sure that

we're holding everyone accountable to that, including the president. And I can also say that I've been a Republican a lot longer than the president


So I just want him to know that that's not my job, is not to just walk into lockstep. The American people deserve Washington that works for them, not

Washington that works for the White House. And if we can return back to those principles and get back to the government for people, then I think

that this country will see some major differences in this country.

And one more thing I want to say is we've consolidated way too much power in the White House. And this is why we're dealing with all of this. They

should not be negotiating with the president.

People should get together in the House and in the Senate. The leader should get together, draft their own deal, and then let the president

either sign it or veto it. If he wants something different, people shouldn't be holding votes back in the Senate or in the House waiting for

the president -- waiting for the president's OK to sign it. They should just send it to him and stop giving him so much power because that's not

the way the government was set up.

AMANPOUR: You know I do want to just play this snippet that many people have seen. But it's about the issues and that is when Nancy Pelosi and

Chuck Schumer were in the White House around this shutdown. But particularly in light of what you're saying, about the need for a

bipartisan compromise, particularly on immigration, let's just play this soundbite.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE SPEAKER: I think the American people recognize that we must keep the government open, that a shutdown is not worth

anything, and that you should not have a Trump shutdown. You have a --

TRUMP: Did you say "Trump"?

PELOSI: You have the White House.

TRUMP: I also know that, you know, Nancy is in a situation where it's not easy for her to talk right now and I understand that and I fully understand

that. We're going to have a good discussion and we're going to see what happens.

PELOSI: Mr. President --

TRUMP: But we have to have border security.

PELOSI: Mr. President, please don't characterize the strength that I bring to this meeting as the leader of the House Democrats, who just won a big



AMANPOUR: So I mean she's laying her cards on the table there. She's saying "Look, I just won. Don't characterize me as being in hoc to

anything else." But Barbara, I mean you follow all this as well. Do you think that it is going to be possible to come to some kind of resolution on

what everybody wants? And that is a proper immigration reform bill. Do you think that this might lead to that with the strength of the House right

now, United House as you saw Nancy Pelosi commanded and with the necessity, I guess for the Republicans to see that the president didn't win in this


RES: I do think that there is a potential resolution out there. And I totally agree that the negotiation on these bills should be between the two

Houses with the president making his desires known, which is always what is -- what happens and that's proper.

But I think that Nancy Pelosi is not going to give him money for a wall. So he's going to have to decide and, you know, influence his people that he

will not accept anything and sign in a bill into law that does not include a wall.


RES: And I don't think that that will work. I think at the end of the day, he should backtrack, say, "All I ever wanted was border security,

that's what they're giving me. Maybe imply that there could be wall money in there or that the wall could come in, and make a graceful exit.


RES: That's what I hope will happen.

AMANPOUR: I have to give one word to Mia Love, just one. Do you think that, you know, there can be, after all of this, some kind of bipartisan

immigration reform put back on his desk?

LOVE: I hope so. I really do. I think there can be. I think that he could actually get the $5.7. We've already lost $3 billion just in the

shutdown. There is half the wall there.

AMANPOUR: All right.

LOVE: So I think that there is something that should. You know, we can come out of this. But out of that, like I said, there are some great

things. I'm a daughter of parents who immigrated to this country. Great - - immigration reform is long out due.

I think that there is something that both of them can get out of this. And mainly, the American people will win.

AMANPOUR: And on that note --

LOVE: But if they continue to do that, then no one will win.

[13:40:00] AMANPOUR: Yes, the American people to win, that would be a good thing.

Mia Love, Barbara Res, thank you so much for joining us.

And now we turn from Washington to Wall Street continuing our conversation with the bestselling author and "New York Times" financial columnist,

Andrew Ross Sorkin.

In part one of his discussion with our Walter Isaacson, among other things, Sorkin talked about how mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring

credit cards. Now, he's looking at the state of the financial food chain beginning with the backlash against globalization.

WALTER ISAACSON, CONTRIBUTOR: Were we wrong to think that free trade would benefit everybody?

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: I think we were -- I don't think that globalization in the whole is a bad idea. I think that we

misunderstood its benefits and misunderstood then the allocation of how those benefits would get allocated.

And therefore, then you have to rethink a little bit of the system. And then that goes to taxes and goes to where people are domicile. I mean

there are lots of ways to get at this, to "fix it". The scary part is I don't think there is a fix, a true fix that gets you back to this 1950,

'60s American Dream Leave it to Beaver idea anytime soon.

ISAACSON: But Trump then said tariffs and stricter trade deals will do it. Do you think there's some truth to that?

SORKIN: Look, I actually don't disagree that we have had an unfair trade practice with China, especially when it comes to IP and other things for a

very long time and that there's some interest in trying to fix that. The question, of course, is how do you fix it? What's the approach more than

just let's fix it? And it doesn't matter how we do it.

So I think there are real issues that you would like to solve to some degree. But the other piece of this is it's not that, you know, Nike or

Apple is going to somehow leave China immediately and somehow bring all their manufacturing back to the United States. You know, Brooks Sneakers

is now looking to Vietnam. They're going to go to -- still going to go to the lowest cost provider, it's just may not be China.

And so when -- and when you don't think about the world in a multilateral way, if you only think about it in a bilateral way, I think you miss the

other pieces of the puzzle. So it's not so clear to me that somehow we're going to bring all of these jobs back here. And I do think that the

transition cost and expense of this battle is real.

ISAACSON: What's happening with Apple in China? And do you think it's a symptom of something larger, either for Apple or for the tech industry


SORKIN: Well, I think Apple and Tim Cook made a bet, a real bet on China and a real bet on the relationship between the U.S. and China on a long-

term basis when they really effectively built their entire supply chain in China. And not only their supply chain there but an expectation that they

were going to able to sell their product there.

They clearly have now come out publicly and said that they're missing their earnings estimates in part because of sales problems in China. And Apple

product is a very -- it's as American as apple pie. I mean it's become an iconic American piece.

And it's unclear if you are Chinese today whether you -- whether that's a good thing. In the same way, by the way, then the United States, I'm not

so sure people would be running around buying Huawei phones here. So there's sort of distinction.

So there's that as a real issue. And then on top of that, Apple, I think has another conundrum which it faces which is just the great and top, you

know so much about, which is innovation. And what -- how do you innovate? And how many great ideas does any one company or individual really have?

You know, we're now at a point where instead of upgrading your phone every two years, it's going to push to three. Maybe it will ultimately push to

four. They've made a lot of money every time we upgrade. What do you do about that?

Is there the next iPad or the next -- you know, what's the next thing is this car, you know, all these things? And we haven't seen that sort of

step change innovation out of that company.

ISAACSON: What's the next --

SORKIN: So I think it's a combination of all of those issues.

ISAACSON: What's the next innovation you would want?

SORKIN: I think all of us probably relate to health and biotech ultimately. I think what they're doing with the watch, I have an Apple

watch, I wear it, with EKG I think is interesting. I actually think, by the way, that may actually turn out to be a big piece of all this.

But what do I want? What I -- I want Siri to understand me.

ISAACSON: Yes, voice recognition. That would be an amazing thing if it really worked.

SORKIN: What I can't figure out is why I can't say to a phone, "Hey, get in touch with Walter. We want to set up lunch", and then it just figures

it out it. It has your calendars, my calendar, it should just be able to do that.

It seems to me preposterous that we are in this day and age and -- of great technology and [13:45:00] that still requires a lot of handiwork.

ISAACSON: And I remember the old days covering voice recognition, 20, 30 years ago. They said it's just around the corner, it doesn't fully work.

Let me ask you about the disparity in compensation of CEOs versus workers. That seems to have grown and grown and grown. Why is that and is that part

of the problem our country is facing too?

SORKIN: I think it's a problem in so far as it creates a schism in this country. It creates a psychological schism among the haves and the have

nots in this idea that there's this greater sense of inequality than ever before. So that part is real.

You ask why? Part of it is that I would argue, when you -- when most companies hire an employee, it is a market-based idea, right? I'm going to

hire you. I'm thinking to myself, what is the least amount of money I can pay you to come to this job and be happy and stay here? But I probably

don't want to pay you much more than that if I could avoid it, right?

I'm not sure that that's actually the approach that boards take when they are hiring CEO or trying to keep a CEO. It is based on a remarkable sort

of netherworld of consultants and advisers and other people who keep comping or creating comparables of how much one person is being paid, and

comparing them to the other person. Well, this person is getting paid this and this other person, she gets paid this.

Should they? I mean these are real questions. And I hate to say it but I think there's an old boys' club. Hopefully, some more girls and women will

be a part of that club. By the way, I think in terms of pay, there's still a remarkable pay disparity.

Because one of the other problems is, yes, when an employer tries to hire a person and they say I want to pay them basically as much as the market will

bear but probably not much more. If women start a lower rate than men, how are they supposed to bring those wages up? How are they supposed to level

things out?

ISAACSON: You know our country seems to be being torn apart politically and in every other way. Is -- and you almost fear that capitalism itself

is in the crossfire--

SORKIN: Oh, absolutely.

ISAACSON: -- between left and far right.

SORKIN: A hundred percent.

ISAACSON: What can capitalism and capitalists do to totally reform that concept of capitalism to make sure it survives another hundred years?

SORKIN: Well, look, I do think that the idea of capitalism is under fire. But the issue to me is about what capitalism is. And you know, it's --

just the word capitalism has become almost religious for certain people.

On both sides of this aisle, capitalism, I would argue has done wonderful things on a global basis and brought so many people out of poverty. The

numbers are staggering.

And yet if somebody in China or Africa has been a great beneficiary of capitalism, it is arguable also that there are certain people in developing

countries who are not experiencing that in the same way. And so they look at that and they go, "That's not me."

I think that we have to redefine some of this a little bit. It goes back to these profits. It goes back to this idea of purpose. It goes back to

this idea of creating some kind of stability and less anxiety.

But I think that's about politics. I think it's about -- I think business has a role to play but I think it really requires leadership across the

board to get any of these things to happen.

ISAACSON: Does Elizabeth Warren or Casio-Cortez, are they on to something?

SORKIN: It's a great question. You know, I think that they -- there are ideas within what AOC is saying these days and ideas within what Elizabeth

Warren is saying that do make some sense. I think that for others, they're so extreme that they're not going to be taken seriously.

Look, anti-trust law in the United States has effectively been diminished over the last 30 or 40 years. There's less competition. You look at the

biggest companies in this country and they're bigger than they've ever been.

Talk about too big to fail. Too big to manage, by the way, is a whole other issue. So I think there are real things that you could do to solve

some of this. But I don't think anyone of them individually -- you know, I think a tax rate -- a marginal tax rate at 70 or 80 percent for the very

wealthy I think is a hard one to get past. So I think -- but I think there's a -- I think there's lots of different levers and it would have to

be holistic, holistic is tough.

ISAACSON: And you talk about anti-trust. With this big tech backlash, should we have let Facebook buy Instagram, take over WhatsApp and grow?

And is there an argument that Facebook, Google, Amazon have now spread [13:50:00] into so many different industries that they're suppressing

competition and there's got to be more anti-trust enforcement?

SORKIN: So here's the great conundrum. The great conundrum is that in this day and age of technology, scale matters. By the way, you can toast

Microsoft early on. Scale matters. You want integrated products. As a consumer, you enjoy products that all work together. I think that actually


And then in the age of AI and machine learning, data is the new oil, right? So the people who are going to have the most success with AI and innovation

on that front need lots of data running through to be able to test out their systems.

So there's an argument that you want three or four major players in the sort of Pepsi-Coke like battle. But there's also an argument to be made

that the kid in their garage who built some of the last great innovations in technologies doesn't stand a chance anymore. Because they won't have

the same type of access to that pipeline of data, that oil, anymore.

And so I'm very nixed about sort of where that lands and what kinds of controls you want to put on these companies. You know, if you said to me,

how do you break up Google tomorrow? It's not like you can just, you know, write it down in a piece of paper and say this goes over here and this goes

over here and this goes over here in this goes over here.

So it's -- unlike Apple -- I'm sorry unlike AT&T with the Baby Bells, you - - they were -- it was very breakupable. It was very --

ISAACSON: Well, the cloud (CROSSTALK) was Microsoft.

SORKIN: Right.

ISAACSON: You just mentioned Microsoft. But you also said it's really good when people bundles a project --

SORKIN: It is.

ISAACSON: -- products because they work together better. But what happened in the Microsoft case over the years, was they were barred from

bundling the browser into the operating system, barred from bundling search into the operation. And thus, Google gets to be born in the garage.

SORKIN: Born, yes.

ISAACSON: Are we losing that now?

SORKIN: I think there's probably an element that we are losing that now. And look, the question -- but again, the question is how do you do it. I

mean that's the -- that's where I come down is how do you do it?

Is Amazon too big? Amazon on an actual per business is very small. Whole Foods, everyone was worried about Whole Foods. Whole Foods is very small,

small relative to other supermarkets. Books, they have huge, huge -- I mean that's where they probably have the monopoly.

But everything else is actually tiny. But the collective, does that change it? And so these are the issues I think we're all grappling with.

ISAACSON: But one of the ways to address it is the notion that if you have dominance, you can't use that to leverage --

SORKIN: Exactly.

ISAACSON: -- into another feel.

SORKIN: Right.

ISAACSON: And that's what's been happening with say Facebook.

SORKIN: A hundred percent. But the question is, are you leveraging just the fact that you've made all of this money and therefore you have a lot of

money to go buy other things? Or you're actually leveraging -- for example, one of the things I worry about with Amazon is Amazon has so much

information about the shopper, that they are now starting to create their own products to compete with the products that are on their own platform.

You know, by the way, Walmart and Costco have done that forever. They've had white label. Approximate, this feels like it may be at a different

level. I don't know. But these are the issues that I think we need to focus on and talk about and debate. And one of the things I worry about is

that there's not enough conversation about it.

ISAACSON: Are we due for another financial crisis and are we ready for it?

SORKIN: So Jamie Diamond was called in 2000, in the middle of financial crisis, by his daughter I believe then was in high school and said, "Daddy,

what's a financial crisis?" And he said back to her, "Something that happens every seven or eight years."

ISAACSON: I'm looking at my watch.

SORKIN: Yes, look at your watch. If he's right, we're way overdue. Do I think we will have another crisis of some sort? Absolutely. Will it look

like what happened in 2008? In my mind, absolutely not.

It could be better but, by the way, it also could be worse. The one thing that I feel like was the lesson for me in the financial crisis and in

writing Too Big to Fail is that every financial crisis is really a function with one thing. It's debt. It's leverage in the system.

You can have all the bad actors you want doing all the bad things you could imagine, whether it's credit rating agencies being conflicted or bankers

being greedy regulators not minding the store or you name it. But in the west, there's leverage in the system. It doesn't matter.

And so you say to yourself, OK, where's the leverage now? Well, there's corporate leverage. That's real. I don't think we have it in the banking

system so much. But where is the real debt? Where's the real leverage?

When I wrote Too Big to Fail, we used to use that phrase in the context of banks. Today, we use it in the context of countries. And when you talk

about the relationships between countries, the fact that China, for example, owns so much of our debt, [13:55:00] that's where all of this gets

really interesting. Interesting in a bad way, I hate to say.

ISAACSON: And so what should we do?

SORKIN: To me, the long-term thing that we need to fix way beyond the corporate system, but the corporate system is obviously a huge piece of it

because it pays the taxes and creates real revenue for the country, is we need to somehow fix the larger debt problem in the United States at a

country level. But that's a hard one.

ISAACSON: Andrew, thank you for being with us.

SORKIN: Thank you, Walter. Appreciate it.

AMANPOUR: And on that note, that is it for now. Remember, you can always listen to our podcast and see us online at And you can

follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Thanks for watching and goodbye from London.