Return to Transcripts main page


Harvey Weinstein's Trial for Sexual Abuse Allegations; Jodi Kantor, New York Times Investigative Reporter, is Interviewed About Harvey Weinstein; Organization, Lift Our Voices, to End NDA Coverups; Gretchen Carlson, Former Fox News Anchor, is Interviewed About Roger Ailes; Cybersecurity Says Russia Infiltrated Burisma; Grappling With Post-Truth World; Interview With Area 1 Security CEO and Co-Founder Oren Falkowitz. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired January 14, 2020 - 13:00   ET




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

Harvey Weinstein goes to trial. Jodi Kantor who broke the #MeToo dam, explains what it took to get him into court.

And --


NICOLE KIDMAN, ACTRESS, "BOMBSHELL": You're sexy but you're too much. I have a whole list.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will other women come forward?


AMANPOUR: Portrayed in the new movie, "Bombshell," former Fox News anchor, Gretchen Carlson, joins us calling to end the conspiracy of silence and

nondisclosure agreements.

Plus, we talk to the cybersecurity expert who tracked another Russian hack, this time of Burisma, the Ukrainian firm at the center of Trump's

impeachment crisis.

Then --


LEE MCINTYRE, AUTHOR, "POST-TRUTH": It's the audacity of post-truth. It's the ability to lie with no accountability.


AMANPOUR: Are facts losing the war against fiction? Author, Lee McIntyre, talks to Michel Martin about his book and the dangers of living in a post-

truth world.

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

So, is #MeToo a movement or a moment? A pivotal trial in New York might very well determine that question. Jury selection is now under way in the

case against movie producer, Harvey Weinstein. He faces five criminal charges, including rape and sexual assault related to two accusers.

Weinstein denies them all.

He once was a titan of the movie industry, but it all came crashing down in October 2017 when "The New York Times" published a bombshell investigation,

exposing a of alleged abuse and intimidation that lasted decades.

Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey were the reporters who broke the story and later wrote the dramatic behind-the-scenes account in their book "She


Jodi Kantor, welcome become back to the program.


AMANPOUR: So, finally, the court case, it's getting under way. Right now, we're in jury selection process. Is that a smooth ride? Is it all going

according to plan?

KANTOR: Well, it's really not. You know, the quality of the story has always been that it has kind of this reckoning feel. And I think now the

Harvey Weinstein jury selection process is posing a lot of big questions about fairness, about what it's OK to know, what it's OK to have


You know, number one, how much knowledge and to what degree does a juror have about Harvey Weinstein and what degree do they have a point of view?

There are also some personal questions on this jury questionnaire. They asked potential jurors if they had ever experienced a sexual assault.

First of all, you can think about a juror in the courtroom and that -- whether they would be comfortable writing down the answer. And then I think

there's the question of how that figures in the jury selection process. On the one hand you don't want people who are so bound up in their own

personal experience that they can't look at this clearly, but then again, if you throw out every woman who has been sexually harassed or sexually

assaulted, how many women are you going to end up with anyway?

AMANPOUR: Well, that leads me into my next question, because it's a very, very important question where you just said, how many women are you going

to end up with? And I think people who are actually following this case are surprised to know that there were scores of women who made allegations

against Harvey Weinstein. And now, that it comes to the criminal part of this, there's only -- I don't know. You tell me how many, but, I mean,

maybe one or two actual women who are going to face this criminal process and bring these criminal charges to court.

KANTOR: So, here's the thing to remember as you watch the trial unfold. There is an ocean of allegations against Harvey Weinstein, right, more than

90 women have come forward about him. We've heard these stories again and again. But when you look at how many of those stories are about criminal

acts, sexual violence, not sexual harassment, which is illegal, but you can't go to jail for sexual harassment, it's not eligible for criminal

prosecution. So, how many of those stories are actually about assault? The ocean grows a little smaller.

How many of those assault allegations are within the statute of limitations? Smaller again. How many of them happened in New York City?

Because remember that this is constrained by geography, it gets smaller again. Within the much smaller pool, how many women are willing to come

forward, press charges, potentially lose their anonymity, be part of the trial? Smaller yet again.

So, what we have is a trial that is endowed with all of this sort of #MeToo historical importance. And yet, as you say, it is very narrow and the

prosecution rests on two women's stories. And yet, other women are going to be brought in as supporting witnesses.


AMANPOUR: What sort of precedent is there? I mean, these aren't people who are bringing charges. So, why are they allowed to come to court?

KANTOR: Well, so, let's rewind to Bill Cosby's prosecution and trial. There's this question in the law of how much context can you bring into the

courtroom. On the one hand, there's an argument that it's unfair to bring somebody's prior bad acts in.

On the other hand, especially with these kinds of sexual predation prosecutions, it's really relevant to hear the experiences of other women.

So, this was an issue in the Cosby trial. And in the first Cosby trial, these other women, these kinds of supporting witnesses who testified about

a pattern of predation, they were not allowed to testify and the trial ended in a mistrial.

The second Cosby trial, which was after #MeToo, went global. These women were allowed to testify and Cosby was convicted. So, they can be incredibly

convincing for a jury, because they can say, this was a pattern. I can testify that I didn't even know these other women, but I experienced

basically the same thing.

AMANPOUR: Give me a sense of the complications, even if a person's experience met all the criteria that could be brought to trial.

KANTOR: Well, these witnesses are going to have to face cross-examination by the defense. And so, probably one of the most dramatic moments to look

for in the trial are these women, alleged victims, both the ones at the center of the trial and witnesses, who are going to have to face cross-

examination from Weinstein's team. And as we know, these lawyers are experts in poking holes in people's stories.

Also, think about the fact that in the United States and in New York City, criminal conviction requires unanimity from the jury. This is a standard

of, you know, can you say with, you know, true confidence that you believe Harvey Weinstein did these things, and can you all agree about that?

And so, these matters are so contentious. #MeToo is so controversial. Weinstein's side is going to argue that some of these relationships were

consensual. So, the prosecution has to meet a very, very high bar. They've got to get these 12 people to agree on complicated matters of sex and power

and violence.

AMANPOUR: You know, I think some people might find that still, even today, extraordinary, given what a movement has been unleashed by your reporting

on Harvey Weinstein and Ronan's and all the others who have come forward over the last couple of years. But to be fair to their side, let us just

play this soundbite about the burden of proof from his lawyer.


DONNA ROTUNNO, HARVEY WEINSTEIN'S LAWYER: Our system of justice requires the government to prove Harvey Weinstein guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The system of justice does not require Mr. Weinstein to get up and prove himself innocent. We have a wealth of evidence in our arsenal to be able to

say that these cases don't rise to the level of rape.


AMANPOUR: So, there was one who you documented very closely, Lucia Evans. She was one of the first to agree to come. And then, her case was dropped.

And then, there's another couple, Mimi Haleyi and an unnamed woman, who talked about what he forced them to do allegedly. Tell us about even the

sensitivities with their cases and why was Lucia Evans dropped, just briefly?

KANTOR: Essentially, because of contradictory evidence. You know, she came on our podcast daily last week. She still reiterates, you know, her story.

But there was a friend of hers who gave a different -- who was there that night, who gave a sort of differing account and there were other -- there

were wrinkles in her story that caused her to be dropped. And I don't think people agree on whether that was fair or not. On the one hand, I think some

people think she was treated very unfairly and she wasn't listened to closely enough and people say there are no perfect victims. You're always

going to have sort of complexities to the story. But then other people say her story was not strong enough to stand up in court.

And when the defense tried to drop her story, prosecutors didn't fight it. And so, that's telling. They essentially said, we're going to let this one

go. So, two women remain at the very center of this trial. Mimi Haleyi, a former entertainment assistant, has a kind of classic tale of Weinstein

predation, it's a tale of assault. It has a really troubling, very explicit detail which as she said that he forced oral sex on her, that he performed

forced oral sex on her and that he even ripped out her tampon in the course of doing so.


The other woman who has the allegation of rape, really the most serious allegation in this trial, is actually anonymous to date. And we don't think

that journalists have even spoken to her. We know that she's alleging a 2013 rape in a Manhattan hotel room. But the truth is, we don't know

details of her story. And so, we are waiting for this to emerge in the course of the trial.

AMANPOUR: So, again, Weinstein's team obviously denies and he denies any wrongdoing. But his lawyer again has said, and I'll quote, "the prosecutors

are going to say Harvey Weinstein was this powerful guy that could get anything he wanted and went to any measure to get whatever he wanted. I

look at it the exact opposite way. I look at Harvey Weinstein and I say, Harvey Weinstein was the guy that held the keys to the castle that

everybody wanted to get into, and what people did was she used him. Used him and used him and used him." What do you make of that defense?

KANTOR: What I make of that is that I think of all of our years of reporting, Christiane. I think of the reporting we did for "The New York

Times" and also our book, "She Said," in which we sort of tell the behind- the-scenes story of the Weinstein investigation and we also focus on these women's wrenching decisions to come forward.

And I would say that our finding is that Weinstein's hallmark as an alleged predator and what draws all of these Weinstein accounts together, you know,

the 90 or so stories we've heard in public right now, is that they involve the use of work as a form of predation. These are stories about a very

powerful producer using the aspiring actresses or women who wanted to be assistance and wanted to grow up to become producers like him, using his

powerful position for sexual ends. That is the sort of most powerful common strand to the allegations.

So, what Donna Rotunno saying when she says that, is she's really taking this very powerful narrative about Weinstein that we've heard again and

again and that has been documented so thoroughly, not only by us but by other journalists, and she's saying, essentially, I'm going to tell the

story differently. This can be viewed in an entirely different way.

It certainly doesn't comport with the women's experiences, and the victims who we have talked to. But remember, that this criminal trial isn't a

verdict on the Harvey Weinstein stories at large. It's these two women's stories that are going to be tested in the courtroom.

AMANPOUR: To that point, just before Christmas in December, Harvey Weinstein gave an interview to the "New York Post." And he basically said,

I feel like the forgotten man. I made more movies directed by woman and about women than any filmmaker, and I'm talking about 30 years ago. I'm not

talking about now when it's vogue. I did it first. I pioneered it. It all got eviscerated because of what happened. My work has been forgotten.

So, you know, there he is being the victim. What is your experience with him? You know, he portrays himself as the victim. But in your book, you

come across a very rough and tumble Harvey Weinstein when you're trying to report this.

KANTOR: It's true. You know, part of the reason we wanted to write the book is that we wanted to bring the rest of you with us, you know, to

really see the behind the scenes, which involves, you know, sort of first- star chess match with Harvey Weinstein, and then the final series of confrontations with him before we published the initial news story that

broke the story of the allegations against him.

And Harvey Weinstein fought us very, very hard. Sometimes he did through intermediaries. It also happened face to face. He actually came to the

"Times" unexpectedly at one-point right before publication. There were these very dramatic phone calls with him, and he did play the victim

sometimes during those conversations.

I think part of what's so interesting to watch about the criminal trial is that in real life, the way we experienced Harvey Weinstein was that -- was

he was almost like a man at the end who couldn't decide what his line was. He swung back and forth moment to moment between apology and denial and

accusations against us, and then he would be joking a minute later.

And so, obviously, the trial sort of requires him to sort of, you know, decide what his stance will be as a defendant, what his lawyers wanted him

to do, what any lawyers in that position want a client to do, is to appear as sympathetic as possible. And then I think without their permission, he

gave this very sort of self-pitying interview, the one you're talking about to the "New York Post," talking about, you know, sort of his greatness and

how nobody recognizes it right now.


AMANPOUR: Jodi Kantor, we'll obviously be following this closely. Thank you so much.

KANTOR: Thank you. It's great to be with you.

AMANPOUR: Now, sexual harassment exists in all industries, including the news business. This year's Oscars and Golden Globes gave nods to

"Bombshell" and "The Loudest Voice". Both are about the disgraced for Fox News boss, Roger Ailes.

Gretchen Carlson was an anchor at the network and was the first to sue him for sexual harassment. And Nicole Kidman portrays her in "Bombshell." Take

a look at this clip.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You might be able to sue Ailes himself instead of Fox.

NICOLE KIDMAN, ACTRESS, "BOMBSHELL": And that is why I'm here, because Martin Hyman told me that over here in New Jersey I can avoid arbitration

by suing Roger personally. He says that you've managed to change the law and that we could call other women and show a pattern.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will other women come forward?

KIDMAN: Yes, they will.


AMANPOUR: Now, Roger Ailes died in 2017 and Carlson's case was eventually settled for $20 million. But it came with a mandatory nondisclosure

agreement or NDA. Together, with two other women who sued Fox, Carlson has launched Lift Our Voices to end that silence. And she tells me she's doing

it for all women and even men.

Gretchen Carlson, welcome back to our program.


AMANPOUR: So, I wanted just to get to the Harvey Weinstein trial very quickly. Given the fact that you broke this dam before even #MeToo, I guess

how do you feel that this is coming to trial? It's not your issue but it's relevant. And what do you think is the best that these plaintiffs can

expect to get for going to trial?

CARLSON: Yes. Well, listen, there wouldn't be a trial unless there was the bravery of all of these women coming forward. And so, that's the first

thing that I have to acknowledge and say how brave and courageous they are.

Unfortunately, when women go to trials like this and they have to testify, they're going to be torn down, and that's what I'm trying to continue to

change in our culture, is that we should approach this completely differently. We should be celebrating the women who come forward.

Now, I understand that, you know, he may go to prison for a long time, so his lawyers are going to try and tear them down. But culturally, we have to

change the way that we look at these women. We need to look at them as heroes and not as people who have done anything wrong.

AMANPOUR: So, let's flesh that out a bit, because you are really working hard on this. I mean, not only did you break the story and come forward in

your own company, and basically outed the top leadership of your company, but you've also now got this experience, Lift Our Voices, about the NDAs,

the non-disclosure agreements.

That's something you had to sign yourself when you settled. Given that a lot of people do get persuaded like you did to sign an NDA, why have you

decided this is not the way forward now and how are you trying to get out of your own NDA?

CARLSON: Yes. So, it's complicated. Listen, three and a half years ago when I sued Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, had I known that we

would be in this culture of revolution right now and that my jumping off the cliff would potentially lead to this latest, you know, state of affairs

that are so different than before, then I would have fought really, really hard not to sign my NDA.

But I look at this now as the latest phase of this revolution. We've come very far in the last three and a half years with regard to believing women.

Men facing consequences when they are the perpetrator. Men losing their jobs. Culture understanding that we haven't fixed this problem yet.

So, the next phase, as far as all the work that I've been doing in trying to change laws on Capitol Hill and otherwise, is to get rid now of

nondisclosures. We should look at this completely differently. We should no longer silence women and handcuff them. We should let them tell their


AMANPOUR: So, let me quote a little bit of what you wrote in an op ed for "The New York Times" on this issue in December. None of us expected or

wanted a workplace dispute. We were simply the ones who had the ability and courage to speak up, and for that we lost our jobs. We have a right to say

what is factually correct or incorrect about what happened. We have a right to our voices and our truths. I urge executives of Fox to do what's right

and take this step today for the sake of all women in every workplace.

Well, first and foremost, have they released you from your NDA?

CARLSON: No, we have not heard back from them, but we continue to reach out. And really this came on the heels of MBC deciding that they were going

to allow women who had signed NDAs with their company to purportedly be released from them.

And so, then that night when we heard that, several of us at Fox who had to sign these NDAs in order to get this -- you know, our resolution, we got

together and we said, well, we're going to demand that Fox also release us from our NDAs.


So, that was about two months ago. Since then, that was what organically flowed into us creating this new nonprofit, Lift Our Voices, on behalf of

all women and men across the world so that they will no longer be silenced.

AMANPOUR: And we, of course, reached out to Fox knowing that we're interviewing about this topic and they haven't gotten back to us either.

But I wonder what it feels like for you now to see a movie that's got an Oscar nod, this is "Bombshell." Nicole Kidman plays you. We saw clip in the

introduction to you. We've had the series called "The Loudest Voice," about Roger Ailes. You know, your experience which was #MeToo before #MeToo, has

had so much publicity, so much part of the mainstream, you know, cultural touchstones in terms of entertainment. And yet, because of your NDA you

weren't even allowed to consult with them on the films, you couldn't point out what was wrong or right.

I guess walk us through and our audience what it's like to be at the center of a storm and not even be able to describe what you went through?

CARLSON: Well, thank you for tying (ph) it up that way, Christiane, because, you know, that is my reality. The fact of the matter is that

that's incredibly frustrating because Hollywood, as you know and I know, you know, they take liberties with really-life stories. But to not be able

to even say, well, that didn't happen that way and, you know, well, that's not really how that played out, you know, that's frustrating.

But look, I have to take the high road, while I continue to do all of this advocacy work to make it a better world for other women moving forward, I

have to take the high road and say, these projects are continuing the discussion about harassment in the workplace. And three years ago, if you

and I would have been having a conversation, saying, hey, I think they're going to do a miniseries and a Hollywood movie about harassment in the

workplace, we would have laughed at each other because nobody was interested in talking about it.

So, big picture, this is continuing the dialogue, this encouraging more women to feel secure and confident in coming forward. And even if only one

or two more women go to these movies, watch the miniseries and they say, say, I'm also going to come forward, then it's worth it. And so, that's the

way that I look at these prongs.

It may be too late for me to get out of my NDA and actually make another movie or write another book or whatever the case is. But I'm doing this

effort with Lift Your Voices -- Lift Our Voices for other women. That's what this is really about. This is about the woman making $25,000 a year,

you know, working in a small town in Louisiana or in London or wherever the case may be, and they don't have the platform that I have to come forward

and to make a change and make a difference. I'm working on behalf of those women who have been silenced because they need every dime to simply make it

through the next week.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me just be cheeky then. Give me a nod if you think that Nicole Kidman did a great job portraying you in "Bombshell."

CARLSON: And here is -- you're proving my point, Christiane. I can't even tell you the accuracy of this project or not.

AMANPOUR: And you can't even nod?

CARLSON: I can't even nod.

AMANPOUR: So, you know, what do you say then to those women who are often the lawyers who say that they're really there to help the victims and the

plaintiffs in these cases, and who end up urging their clients to precisely do -- you know, sign NDAs, take the money and run?

CARLSON: Yes. I totally disagree with that. Listen, we need to approach the way in which we handle these stories and these cases completely

differently than we have in the past, 180 degrees differently.

So, for example, if you're being harassed in the workplace and you think you're doing the right thing by going to complain, what's the first

reaction? The first reaction is, oh, we've got to get rid of the woman who came forward and complained. And at all costs, we're going to protect the

predator or perpetrator. And so, we're going to get this woman out of here and then we'll be back to business as usual.

We need to say to the woman when she comes forward, we're going to look into this, we take this seriously, and if she's telling the truth and if

she has evidence and if they do an investigation, then they get rid of the perpetrator and they celebrate the woman. They don't make her sign an NDA

and have her shipped off to never work again in her chosen profession. This is the way we need to culturally look at this completely differently. And

in that scenario, you don't need a nondisclosure.

AMANPOUR: Well, tell me then about how NDAs and the reason for them has shifted over the years. Because apparently, originally, it was about, you

know, not disclosing confidential information, it was a very high bar required for an NDA to be proffered or to be legitimate. And now, you say

and we read that many companies use NDAs just to, I don't know, coverup, silence rather frequent allegations of misconduct, harassment and all sorts

of things like that. I mean, how prevalent is it, this notion of NDAs?

CARLSON: It's so -- oh, this is so prevalent.


Over the last two decades, we've gotten to the point where, at least in America, one-third of all Americans are forced to sign NDAs upon

employment. So, let's think about that for a moment. When you start a new job, you do not expect to get into any kind of a dispute at work. I know I

didn't. But I had already signed an NDA at that point in time just to be able to start that job.

So, on its face we have to change the way that we do that. And you're right, it used to be that NDAs were because, look, you're not going to give

away company secrets, and I totally understand why NDAs in those situations are appropriate.

But now, companies have figured out that they can just do a blanket NDA which covers discrimination, harassment, assault, abuse, all of the things

that are human rights violations that were never intended to be swept under the rug with these NDAs. And that's what we're trying to change.

As you know, I've been working on Capitol Hill here in America for the last three years to also get rid of arbitration clauses in employment contracts,

which is the other way that we silence women in these situations. So, now I'm working on both fronts. I'm going to get rid of arbitration. I'm very

confident that we're going to get a bill passed on this. And now, lift our voices also eradicating NDAs. If we can get rid of these two things,

Christiane, we will significantly change the way in which this world approaches harassment in the workplace and the way in which we solve this

issue once and for all.

AMANPOUR: And you're lifting it even higher because you're urging all the presidential candidates to get on board as well.

So, Gretchen Carlson, thank you so much for joining us and thanks for your work.

CARLSON: Thank you for having me.

AMANPOUR: Turning now to Russia and the 2020 presidential election, hackers are at it again. Cybersecurity experts say that Russians have

infiltrated Burisma, a name now familiar as the Ukrainian gas company that employed Joe Biden's son, Hunter. It is also at the heart of President

Trump's impeachment crisis.

According to the "New York Times," the hacking attempts began in November. Oren Falkowitz worked at the National Security Agency before he co-founded

Area 1, a cybersecurity firm to prevent these attacks. He tracked this latest Russian hack and he's joining me from Palo Alto, California.

Oren Falkowitz, welcome to the program.


AMANPOUR: OK. So, how did you know how -- what was going on? How did you discover this hack and how did they do it and why?

FALKOWITZ: Yes. Absolutely. So, you know, in Area 1 our focus is to stop what are own as phishing attacks. And 95 percent of the time when there are

damages in cybersecurity it's the result of phishing. And so, we have an expert team who spends all their time building new capabilities to stop

phishing attacks. And part of that work requires tracking what others are doing in evolving these campaigns.

And so, some of the folks who are doing that are nation states like Russia, some of them are financially driven criminal organizations, and some of

them are unknown. And so, part of our team has been following Russian cyber hackers for quite a long time. And they identified on New Year's Eve that a

new campaign had been launched. We were able to identify that the campaign started a little bit prior to when we discovered it in early November and

it matched all the patterns for Russia.

And then a few days later, we noticed that, you know, all of the companies that were being targeted in this campaign, they're all in Ukraine, they're

all oil and gas companies, and they all were subsidiaries of Burisma. And it was at that point that we recognized that this was different and pretty

significant and we put together a report which you referred to.

AMANPOUR: And what did you discover they were doing? What were they hacking or phishing for? I'm sure all our viewers know what phishing is

because everybody is on alert for, you know, people getting into their identity and impersonating them. But just give a quick, if you can, 10, 15-

second definition of phishing that you recognized. Phishing, what is it?

FALKOWITZ: Yes. Well, I'm glad your viewers know. But phishing is an attempt to get a person like you and me to take an action, whether it's

clicking on a link, downloading a file or exchanging your user name and password unwittingly.

And that's what happened in this case, like what happened to John Podesta in 2016 when Russian hackers sent him an e-mail. He clicked on a link. He

thought he was at a Google log-in page. He entered his username and password. Employees of Burisma and their subsidiaries received similar

phishing attacks where they clicked on links and they entered their usernames and passwords. It's a form of credential theft. It's very

successful and it opens up a lot of opportunities afterwards.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, you said you saw all the Russian patterns and you attributed it to the GRU, which to be exactly clear, is the main

intelligence directorate of the general staff of the Russian army.


Why them? I mean, why are they doing it? And, furthermore, is this something, according to your experience, that is directly ordered from the

very top, from Putin's office, from the Kremlin?

FALKOWITZ: Oh, I wouldn't know. You know, I'm not a political scientist.

We're focused on stopping the phishing attacks and making sure that our customer is protected from that.

What I can say is, from my experience working at the National Security Agency, it's very difficult to understand why cyber-actors -- or what the

goal of a cyber-campaign is.

And so what we can say is that we know that they use phishing attacks, which is the most common method to start a campaign, and that those

phishing campaigns were successful.


So, you -- I know you're not political, but you have worked in the national security, plus at the Pentagon in their Cyber Command. And just to point

out the obvious, as we try to...

FALKOWITZ: That's true.

AMANPOUR: ... Burisma is connected with Biden, who is President Trump's rival for the presidential campaign. And his son was formerly on the board


And this is what the Biden company has said: "Now" -- sorry -- Biden campaign.

"Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign interventions

of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections."

So, what do you expect to hear now? I mean, what -- and I'm not asking you to be political, but to push this back, to send a message to the hackers,

does the president need to come out and say, I'm aware of this, they better stop?

I mean, how do these things stop?

FALKOWITZ: Well, absolutely. It's a great question.

And what I would say is, two things need to happen. One, it is important for leaders in our government and governments around the world to say,

there's no place for hacking, particularly as it relates to elections. That's totally unacceptable.

But the second thing, and the thing that we can control and where myself comes into play more, is that people can take action, and they can focus on

investing in technologies and solutions that stop it.

What's interesting, I think, about our report is that, for the last four years, people have talked theoretically about what might happen in 2020 as

a result of 2016.

And, as you know, most of what we know about 2016 was a postmortem. It was analysis or data that was collected afterwards. And our report, I think, is

significant because it's more of an early warning, and it shows that we can be preemptive in this space and we can change the outcomes.

AMANPOUR: OK. I mean, that would be great, except for those who were meant to know about it, like the -- the Congress, people on the Intelligence

Committees and things like that didn't know about it, apparently, until "The New York Times" broke it.

And this is what Adam Schiff, who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC last night.

Just take a listen.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): We're going to start by finding out what our intel agencies know about this.

I have to say, Rachel, I'm a bit distressed to see this for the first time in a newspaper report. If the Intel Committee -- community is aware of

this, that should have been brought to our attention by now.

But I don't find it surprising. I do find it deeply disturbing. And I would hope that maybe both parties can get out ahead of this, even if the

president won't, and condemn any Russian effort to influence the next election.


AMANPOUR: To your knowledge, Oren, did the intelligence community know about it?

I mean, where do you step in? When you discover this, who do you tell first?

FALKOWITZ: Well, you know, we certainly practice what's known as responsible disclosure.

And prior to the report's release, we made a series of disclosures. I won't comment on to whom and when we did that. But we made a series of

disclosures to parties who would be interested or could be affected.

I think what Chairman Schiff is referring to is that the intelligence community has a very important responsibility to kind of address

geopolitical or what the kind of art of possible it is as it relates to hacking.

But the intelligence community does not inform Congress, nor does it keep track of every cyber-campaign that's going on in the world today. Every

company, whether it's a small- or medium-size business in Ohio or a multinational conglomerate, faces the risk of phishing attacks.

And the damages from that have been growing at an exorbitant rate. And so that's why companies like Area 1 and the unique technology they build are

so critical. And our report really shows that we have very unique capability here, and we can highlight that and also leverage it for...


AMANPOUR: Yes, but it's very important, if it is leveraged and it's used to be -- to stop, because this is a question of almost, here we go again.

We have had it in the 2016 election, this -- the implication -- and tell me if I'm wrong -- that this is to potentially affect the 2020 election.

You know, both the U.S. and the British intelligence...

FALKOWITZ: I think here we go again is a significant step forward to, oh, it -- it has happened again, right?



FALKOWITZ: And, you know, being able to provide an early warning that these types of attacks are coming and provide specific-use cases, like we

did, rather than talking about it abstractly, as it's been done for the last four years, is a very different tone for the cybersecurity community.


FALKOWITZ: And I think that's a -- it's a massive step forward.

AMANPOUR: So, very sort of briefly, if you can, what do you think they were looking for?

I mean, again, this is about a company that once had Hunter Biden on. And we know that at the center of the impeachment allegation is President

Trump's call, which has been described as trying to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on his rival, Joe Biden.

What do you think this phishing -- or what do you know that this phishing attempt was to get?

FALKOWITZ: Well, I will say two things.

One, it's impossible to know what the goals of someone else are. But what I can tell you is what this phishing could possibly do.

When you get the username and password for someone's e-mails, it gives you a number of opportunities. The first is to read all of their e-mails and

the documents contained within. You don't have to steal them to know things. That's basic espionage.

The second one would be to take the data and potentially release it publicly at a later time. The third might be to use that e-mail account to

send further e-mails to other people and to assume the authenticity or masquerade as that person.

So, there's a lot of potential. I don't know what the -- what the Russian actors were trying to do. We know that they sent phishing attacks. That's

what happens in nine in 10 cyberattacks. We know that they were successful.

And we know that Burisma is a company that's been entangled in foreign and domestic politics. And I think it has shown to have good early warning for

the 2020 elections.


Well, I will tell you what. Early warning is really heartening to hear, that it's possible for that to happen.

Oren Falkowitz, thank you very much, indeed.

Truth and lies, we have to wrestle with them all the time.

The Iranian government continues to grapple with its original lie about the crash of the Ukrainian passenger plane.

Today, President Hassan Rouhani pledged to punish those responsible for the downing of that flight. And the government has announced its first arrest.

For days, Iran had claimed the plane crashed due to mechanical failure. Ever since admitting that it was shot down, the street has erupted in anger

at the country's leadership. And while Iran may have been forced into coming clean, it is also engaged in a rare instance of accepting

responsibility and promising accountability.

This tragedy fits right into the global dilemma of how to live and navigate a post-truth world.

And our Michel Martin delves right into that with author Lee McIntyre, a fellow at Boston University.


MICHEL MARTIN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, I think that most reasonable people will agree that there's a problem.


MARTIN: I mean, when you have significant public figures saying things that are manifestly not true or something that is easily disproven, I think

most people would acknowledge that that's a problem, OK?


MARTIN: But one of the interesting things about your book is, you say, this is not a new problem...

MCINTYRE: That's right.

MARTIN: ... that you actually trace this phenomenon of what you call post- truth -- and we will talk about that in a minute -- to the tobacco industry...


MARTIN: ... in wanting to disprove the research around the negative health effects of tobacco.

Tell me about that.

MCINTYRE: Yes, so it's important for people to remember that disinformation has a purpose behind it.

It's to somebody's incentive to give you that disinformation. And, sometimes, it's a financial incentive. Sometimes, it's ideological,

political, different sorts of things.

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway wrote a book called "Merchants of Doubt," in which they talked about what's called the Tobacco Strategy, where, in the

1950s, the tobacco companies were sort of hair-on-fire worried about the fact that there was this new scientific study that was going to come out

which was going to show an all-but-causal link between cigarette smoking and cancer.

And they got together, rented a spot in a hotel, invited in a public relations expert, and talked about, what were they going to do as an

industry? They didn't want to keep fighting over whose cigarettes were healthier. They wanted to come up with a strategy.

And the public relations guy told them, you have to fight the science. You have to create doubt. You have to give the public another side to this

story, so that this isn't just something where the scientists are the authority figures, and everybody believes them.

And that really created the blueprint for the next 70 years of science denial.

MARTIN: So, what you're saying is, is that denial of science is closely related to the denial of political facts. Is that what you're saying?


MARTIN: That's really the root of it, in this country at least, you know, because people are familiar with other countries.

I remember, in the former Soviet Union, it was almost kind of a -- it was an article of faith that the citizens of the Soviet Union knew their

official outlets were lying.



MARTIN: They just didn't know what the truth was. But it was like everybody was in on the game.

What's different now, though? Is it that some people actually believe this stuff?

MCINTYRE: It's hard to say.

I mean, the -- there -- I think there are people who believe it. There's some people who create the disinformation cynically, but you can't just

assume that the person who's creating it doesn't also know that it's true, or doesn't think that it's true, because, in a way -- I remember reading a

terrific book one time called "The Folly of Fools" by Robert Trivers, who's an evolutionary biologist.

And he made the claim that the best way to fool somebody else is first to fool yourself.

And so the problem is, when you expose -- if you say a falsehood long enough, even to yourself, maybe you begin to believe it. And then it goes

on from there.

So, some of the people with science denial, yes, they had maybe an economic motive to start it, and very cynically covered that up. But you you're

absolutely right. I think that there is a straight line that you can draw from the science denial that started with the tobacco industry went

through, up to present day, through climate change, anti-vax, evolution, flat earth, all of that science denial, you can draw a straight line

between that strategy and today's post-truth in the political arena.

MARTIN: I was going to ask you about that.


MARTIN: You call your book "Post-Truth."


MARTIN: What is the difference between post-truth, alternative facts, and just lies?


MARTIN: What is the difference?

MCINTYRE: Yes, it's a great question, because people are always wanting to reduce post-truth to something else. How is this not just spin-doctoring?

How is this not just lying? Politicians have always lied.

And I think that the difference is this. When you're lying to somebody, you're -- you're doing a bad thing. You're intentionally saying something

that's false to try to get them to believe it.

But, in a way, if you -- if you think of it in the right way, you're also at least showing the person the respect of wanting to convince them to get

them -- to get their cognitive consent to believe what you think is true.

With post-truth, they're not doing that. It's the audacity of post-truth. It's the ability to lie with no accountability, because you really don't

care whether the person believes you or not, because you're so powerful that, just by using the lie, you're dominating their reality.

That's what's so insidious about post-truth and why I think it's new, because what's really happening here is, you remember, a politician used to

lie or they spin-doctor, they would get caught, and they would at least -- there would at least be some mea culpa.

Now there's just -- there's no shame in it. And I think that's what I define post-truth in the book, it's the political subordination of reality.

MARTIN: So is this really new? Or you think there's something particularly insidious about it in the current moment?

MCINTYRE: You bring up a great point.

I mean, it's not -- it's not new in that sense. I think that it's new in the way that the media and the American voting public are experiencing it

now in the 21st century, because maybe we haven't been aware, with the same social media, with the same attention that everybody's playing -- paying to


But, certainly, there have been instances in history where this has happened. And it's because, if you think about what post-truth -- if you

think about the point of post-truth, there was a -- there's a historian named Tim Snyder who wrote an important book called "On Tyranny."

And he's got a sentence in there that I really love. He says, post-truth is pre-fascism.

So, the point of post-truth is to get people ready to be dominated, to get them ready to be ruled.

MARTIN: But why are people disposed to believe things that are manifestly not true or that their own experiences might contradict?


It's because belief is about something more than facts and evidence.

Belief is often very tied up -- and there's some empirical work on this. Belief is often very tied up with identity, with values, with trust, even -

- and I'm talking here even about empirical truths.

I'm talking about things for which there are facts and evidence, not necessarily morality or other -- or values or other things that people

believe maybe that they got from their family. I'm talking about factual beliefs.

And our belief system these days, I mean, I'm certainly not the first one to say it, is very much based on which -- which team you're with, which

group you're with. And if somebody on your team says something that's false, maybe -- maybe, from the outside, it looks like, well, they're just

going along with that because they want to support the team.

But it might also be because they have been so besotted with this information, that they actually are kind of in that position that Arendt

talked about, where they really -- fact and fiction, true and false don't really have any meaning, so I'm going to trust the authority figure from my


MARTIN: Do you believe that this tendency to believe what you call post- truth, to believe facts that are convenient to one's existing point of view, when they're not facts -- again, it's going to -- it may make some

people uncomfortable, but do you believe that that behavior attaches to one side more than another in the current moment?


MCINTYRE: There's been some experimental work on this.

So, the analogy that I use when I look at -- when I look at science denial, you look at anti-evolution, you look at climate change, those are fairly

partisan. But you look at anti-vax, that seems more bipartisan.

You -- now I'm going to get myself in trouble here. You look at GMOs, that's even more bipartisan, if not swing left.

But there's been some empirical work on this by a cognitive scientist named Stephan Lewandowsky out of University of Bristol.

And he has a new paper out that I just heard him give in which he makes the argument that they all swing right, that all science denial, all conspiracy

theory tends to swing right.

MARTIN: But why?

MCINTYRE: I -- I don't know.

MARTIN: Well, I mean, I think -- I think that one of the reasons that many people find this so puzzling is that the certain positions that are now

under attack and certain professions that are now under attack...


MARTIN: ... are professions that have been highly prized by conservatives, law enforcement, the FBI, diplomats...


MARTIN: ... the military.

Many people look at them, and these are some of the people who have been offering testimony...


MARTIN: ... in the current political -- in the current impeachment drama. They're the ones who've been saying, something's wrong here.

So, I think it's a little disconcerting to say, well, how is it possible that, after people -- these decorated veterans, people who've dedicated

their lives to law enforcement are somehow -- now they're wrong?

How do you understand that?

MCINTYRE: I just wrote a piece in which I made the argument that -- this is based on some experimental work that other folks did, which found that

there were five main tropes of science denial, that all science denial was defined by belief in conspiracy theories, cherry-picking evidence, relying

on fake experts and denigrating true experts, illogical reasoning, and then insisting that science has to be perfect.

You can track -- you can map those five tropes exactly onto the strategy that Trump and his supporters are using now against impeachment.

MARTIN: What do you say to those who argue that points of view like yours are inherently elitist?

I mean, that is really one of the arguments that Republicans are making at the moment, is that the media is elitist. They think the academy is

elitist. And they say that you can -- you can keep making these arguments at your peril...


MARTIN: ... because you offend people, and that that -- and that offense then breeds even more...


MARTIN: ... even more solidarity of -- in belief systems.

MCINTYRE: Yes. I would...

MARTIN: What do you say to that?

MCINTYRE: I would say, to a certain extent, that they're right, that if we're going to fight back against post-truth, just in the same way that

we're going to fight back against science denial, the way to do it is not to call people names, not to tell them they're being illogical or stupid or

do those sorts of things.

The way that you change someone's mind is face to face, because that's how you build trust. That's how you get somebody to actually believe your


I will give you an example here. Jim Bridenstine was a kind of rock-ribbed Republican person in Congress. And he gave a speech a few years back

against climate change, that -- all the things that science deniers say about climate change.

And then so, of course, Trump appointed him as the head of NASA. Within months, Bridenstine changed his mind on climate change.

So, the evidence didn't change. The facts didn't change. What changed his mind is that he started on a daily basis to see in the hallway, to have

lunch with, to have conversations with the NASA scientists.

So, when those same facts and evidence were presented to him by people that he all of a sudden knew, then he began to change his mind.

And so I don't -- I don't mean push back against post-truth or science denial to be elitist. In fact, one of the things I'm doing in my work on

science denial, I'm trying to convince scientists to engage in conversation with science deniers.

You can't just say, well, you're being irrational and walk away, because then you just get two different silos and nobody's talking.

The way to convince somebody is to engage with them one on one, grow trust.

MARTIN: OK, but if you're talking about disinformation a massive scale...


MARTIN: ... how is that supposed to work?

MCINTYRE: I don't know.


MCINTYRE: I gave -- I gave a talk one time to a corporation. They wanted me to talk about post-truth.

First question, the CEO raised his hand, and he says, "Is your solution scalable?"


And, I mean, I kind of had to laugh at the jargon, but also then think, well, no, it's really not, because if I just created a YouTube video or a

TED Talk of, you know, what we're doing now, that's not necessarily going to convince anyone.

After I came back -- so I went to the Flat Earth Convention in Denver, Colorado, and I tried to do this one on one. I didn't get anybody to rip

off their lanyard and walk out with me.

But I took a guy to dinner, and we talked for two hours. And he was engaging me. I was -- I enjoyed our conversation.

What I -- what I discovered through that was that, over time, I thought that the strategy could work, but that it wasn't scalable.

And so I wrote a piece in "The American Journal of Physics" called "Calling All Physicists." I need physicists, I need other people out there doing it.

And when with -- to come back to post-truth, they always say to us, don't have -- don't bring up religion or politics at the Thanksgiving table.

I think that's exactly where you change people's minds. You change people's minds when they trust you. And who do you trust more, potentially, than

family and friends sitting around the Thanksgiving table?

If we just retreat into our silos and say, well, I'm right, and the other side says, no, I'm right, it's going to tear us apart. I think we have to

begin to talk again.

MARTIN: I feel like I'd be remiss if I didn't ask...


MARTIN: ... if the media has played a role in this.

MCINTYRE: I -- the sad answer is yes, because, merely by broadcasting a lie, there are some people who are going to believe it, if you don't put

any context in it.

The best example I can think of here is the split-screen debates that they used to have with a public health official and then an anti-vaxxer, or that

they would have with Jim Hansen, who is maybe the leading voice on doing something about climate change, with a climate change denier.

And in the media, one, people don't want to be accused of bias. And everybody understands that. And one of the easiest ways to show that you're

not bias is to let both sides talk.

But the halfway point between the truth and a lie is still a lie. So, if you have a split-screen debate, where you're creating in the viewer, the

reader, the listener's mind that there's -- there's a debate over the consensus on climate change, when there's really not, and the reason that

happened is because you gave voice, you gave a split-screen, you gave -- you gave equal time to the person on the other side.

That's what's called information bias. So, I think that the media has played a part in that. They're doing a better job now on anti-vax. They're

doing a better job on climate change.

MARTIN: But I want to go back to the political realm...


MARTIN: ... because this is something that came up over and over again during the 2016 campaign.


MARTIN: You have got a candidate who is saying things...


MARTIN: .... that are determinately not true or that can be demonstrated to be false.

And yet this is a candidate for high office...


MARTIN: ... who has the right to run, who has the right to make an argument.


MARTIN: What would you do? What would you do differently?

MCINTYRE: So, I'm well aware of where I am and what I'm about to say...


MCINTYRE: ... which is that, as I say in the book, major media outlets which ran Trump's rallies in the 2016 election unfiltered, uncut, with no

commentary, even when there were lies that were being spread, did -- played a role in creating disinformation, played a role in some of the post-truth

that we now live with.

I think that the important way to deal with that, the better way to deal with that is to report on the lie, but as a lie.

There's a brilliant psychologist named George Lakoff, who has something called the Truth Sandwich. If you're going to report on a lie, say the

truth, say the lie, and then put it in context, say -- the other bun, if you will. Say why the person was motivated to do that.

MARTIN: At the end of the day, it does seem to be that we are in a moment where some people want to believe what they want to believe just because

they want to believe it. They like how it makes them feel, right?


MARTIN: Do you feel optimistic or pessimistic? I mean, can this be fixed?

MCINTYRE: I don't know how to answer that question, except to say that I can't be pessimistic. I can't just stand back and let this happen.

I'm not optimistic that what I'm doing will be sufficient. I'm -- the reason I'm out here, the reason I'm writing, speaking, the reason -- I want

to get other people to realize that you can fight back.

Right now, it's kind of like the house is on fire, and I have got a cup of water in my hand. And I'm not going to put out the fire with that cup of

water, but I refuse to watch it burn.

And so what I'm trying to do is to get everybody else with their cups of water to come help me, and maybe we will get a fire hose, and maybe we will

put out the fire. That's what I want.

If we despair about post-truth, if we despair -- and we just all of a sudden let our politicians begin to lie, and there's no accountability,

then we're in real trouble.


I -- I'm going to throw my cup of water on the fire, whether it puts out the fire or not.

MARTIN: Lee McIntyre, thanks so much for talking to us.

MCINTYRE: Thank you.


AMANPOUR: And, finally, an amazing, life-affirming scientific success story for women. A woman who was born without a uterus has given birth to a

healthy baby boy.

Jennifer Gobrecht has become the second woman in the United States to undergo a successful uterus transplant from a deceased donor as part of a

Penn State University medical trial.

This is part of the video released by the researchers. Their aim is to help women like Jennifer achieve the otherwise impossible.

This was the moment the couple found out they were expecting a child.


JENNIFER GOBRECHT, MOTHER: All right, the pregnancy test is positive.



AMANPOUR: Baby Benjamin was born in November. And they hope their story inspires other couples to follow in their footsteps.

That is it for now. You can always catch us online, on our podcast, and across social media.

Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London