>> HELLO, EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY," HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

>> EVERYTHING I DO, EVERYWHERE I WALK, I CAN -- I CAN FEEL IT HERE SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW.

I FEEL LIKE I'M BEING CHOKED.

IT'S HARD.

>> 600 DAYS SINCE OCTOBER 7th.

600 DAYS DEFINED BY ATH AND SUFFERING FOR SO MANY.

OMER SHEM TOV, A FORMER HOSTAGE RELEASED IN FEBRUARY, TELLS ME ABOUT THE GUILT HE FEELS FOR THE OTHERS STILL HELD IN GAZA AND WHY TIME IS CRITICAL TO GET THEM OUT.

> >> THEN, THE STATE DEPARTMENT ORDERS U. S. EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD TO PAUSE NEW STUDENT VISA APPOINTMENTS.

WE DISCUSS WHAT IT MEANS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND FREE SPEECH.

> >> ALSO AHEAD -- >> I JUST THINK OF THAT MODEL OF A JUSTICE WHO DOESN'T ALWAYS VOTE WITH THEIR IDEOLOGICAL COUNTERPARTS IS SOMETHING OF A BYGONE ERA.

>> CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR LEAH LITMAN MAKES THE CASE IN HER NEW BOOK, AND SHE SPEAKS TO MICHEL MARTIN.

>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A. ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI- SEMITISM.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS.

MARK J. BLECHNER.

THE PHIL M. SCENE FOUNDATION.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANTZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN.

COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

> >> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, I'M BIANNA GOLODRYGA IN NEW YORK.

> >> PROTESTERS ARE BLOCKING HIGHWAYS AND RAISING THEIR VOICES IN ISRAEL TODAY, CALLING FOR THE RELEASE OF HOSTAGES AS THEY MARK 600 DAYS SINCE THE HORRORS OF THE HAMAS ATTACK ON OCTOBER 7th THAT KILLED 1,200 PEOPLE IN ISRAEL AND TOOK 251 HOSTAGE.

IN GAZA, IT HAS BEEN 600 DAYS OF ISRAEL'S DEVASTATING WAR.

MORE THAN 54,000 PEOPLE KILLED, ENTIRE FAMILIES WIPED OUT.

AND INCREASING SCENES OF HUNGER AND DESPERATION.

58 HOSTAGES REMAIN IN GAZA, THOUGH LESS THAN HALF OF THEM ARE THOUGHT TO BE ALIVE.

DESPITE INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE PILING ON THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO END ITS RENEWED OFFENSIVE, THE NOMINEE TO BE THE NEW HEAD OF ISRAEL'S SECURITY AGENCY HAS REPORTEDLY SAID THAT HE OPPOSES HOSTAGE DEALS.

THOSE DEALS ARE SOMETHING MY FIRST GUEST TONIGHT KNOWS THE VALUE OF MORE THAN ALMOST ANYONE ELSE.

OMER SHEM TOV WAS DEAD NAPPED BY HAMAS ON OCTOBER 7th BEFORE BEING TAKEN INTO GAZA WHERE HE WAS HELD FOR MORE THAN 500 DAYS.

IN FEBRUARY HE WAS RELEASED DURING THE TEMPORARY CEASE FIRE.

I SPOKE TO HIM HERE IN NEW YORK ABOUT WHAT HE WENT THROUGH AND WHAT HE IS FOCUSED ON NOW.

OMER SHEM TOV, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME.

IT'S SO GREAT TO FINALLY MEET YOU IN PERSON.

IT'S BEEN THREE MONTHS SINCE YOUR RELEASE.

IT HAS BEEN A WHIRLWIND.

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE.

YOU'VE TRAVELED THE WORLD.

YOU'VE BEEN MEETING WITH WORLD LEADERS.

YOU'VE BEEN SPEAKING.

YOU THREW OUT THE OPENING PITCH AT FENWAY PARK.

WHAT HAVE THESE THREE MONTHS BEEN LIKE FOR YOU?

>> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

IT'S BEEN A -- IT'S BEEN A CRAZY THREE MONTHS, YOU KNOW?

I --I JUST --I WAS JUST RELEASED.

I GOT BACK HOME.

AND I GOT RIGHT INTO, LIKE, THIS - - YOU KNOW, I'M GOING ALL AROUND THE PLACE AND SPEAKING, AND IT'S NONSTOP.

IT'S NONSTOP.

THERE IS THIS --THIS FEELING OF -- OF GUILT, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, THAT I'M HERE TODAY.

I'M HOME.

AND THE 58 REMAINING HOSTAGES ARE BACK THERE.

AND I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW.

THEY'RE GOING THROUGH HELL.

AND TIME IS CRITICAL.

SO --SO FOR ME, I -- I DO FEEL IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY, I DO FEEL I MUST DO IT.

THIS --THIS FEELING OF GUILT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GO.

YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME I --I EAT SOMETHING, I THINK ABOUT, MAYBE HE'S THERE EATING, NOT EATING SOMETHING.

MAYBE HE DOESN'T HAVE SOMETHING TO EAT.

EVERY TIME I TAKE A SHOWER, I THINK OF THEM THERE, THEY CANNOT TAKE A SHOWER.

EVERYTHING I DO, EVERYWHERE I WALK, I CAN --I CAN --I CAN FEEL IT HERE SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW.

I FEEL LIKE I'M BEING CHOKED.

IT'S HARD.

IT'S HARD.

I -- I --WE AS A SOCIETY, WE AS A --AS THE RELEASED HOSTAGES, WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO DO IT.

>> YOU SAY YOU KNOW WHAT THE HOSTAGES ARE EXPERIENCING AND GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW.

CAN YOU TAKE US BACK TO OCTOBER 7th FOR YOU, 2023?

YOU WERE KIDNAPPED ALONG WITH YOUR FRIEND S, A BROTHER AND SISTER.

YOU WERE BEATEN, THROWN INTO THE BACK SEAT OF A CAR, AND THROWN INTO A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IN GAZA, TO SAY THE LEAST.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE FIRST FEW DAYS WHEN YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM MAYA AT SOME POINT, SHE WAS INJURED AND YOU WERE ALONE IN A ROOM WITH ITAI FOR ABOUT 50 DAYS UNTIL HE WAS RELEASED?

>> AT THAT TIME, WE -- WE --IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US, YEAH.

BUT WE HAD EACH OTHER.

ME AND TAI, WE HAD EACH OTHER.

SO IT WAS REALLY, LIKE, COMFORTING THAT YOU HAVE SOMEONE WITH YOU, YEAH, AND ALSO IT'S ITAI.

I --I FELT LIKE HE'S MY BROTHER, YOU KNOW?

WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD BOND.

WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD CONNECTION.

SO, ALTHOUGH IT WAS -- IT WAS SCARY AND, YOU KNOW, EVERY --EVERY MOMENT COULD BE OUR LAST, WE WERE TOGETHER.

YOU KNOW, SO --I REALLY DID FEEL LIKE IN THOSE 53 DAYS, THAT I HAVE SOMETHING TO LAY ON.

I HAVE SOMETHING TO -- SOMEONE TO PUT MY --MY HEAD ON, YOU KNOW?

ALTHOUGH WE WERE --LIKE, WE HAD TO HELP EACH OTHER, YEAH?

SO --IT WAS --IT WAS DIFFICULT.

OF COURSE IT WAS.

VERY DIFFICULT.

THE --THE HUNGER, THE DARK.

THE --THE LONELINESS.

>> I SPENT SOME TIME WITH ITAI AND MAYA, AND HE SAID HE WOULDN'T HAVE SURVIVED WITHOUT YOU.

THAT YOU SAVED HIS LIFE, LITERALLY, AS AN OLDER BROTHER THERE WITH HIM THROUGH THOSE 53 DAYS.

EVEN MAINTAINING YOUR FAITH, TRYING TO CELEBRATE SHABBAT ANY WAY YOU COULD.

AND HE FELT IMMENSE GUILT LEAVING YOU BEHIND.

I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT, AND THAT'S THE SAME GUILT I WOULD IMAGINE YOU FEEL ABOUT THE 58 HOSTAGES THAT REMAIN IN GAZA.

AFTER THOSE 53 DAYS WHEN YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM ITAI, THINGS ONLY GOT WORSE FOR YOU.

THE REMAINDER OF YOUR TIME IN GAZA WAS IN AN UNDERGROUND TURN, ALL ALONE, BY YOURSELF.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE?

>> YEAH.

SO -- WHEN ITAI LEFT, HE WAS --HE WAS BROUGHT BACK HOME.

I WAS VERY HAPPY FOR HIM, YEAH, I WAS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, I WAS LEFT BEHIND, YEAH?

AND THAT FEELING OF --OF -- YOU KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE THEY'RE FORGETTING YOU.

IT WAS THE HARDEST THING FOR ME THERE.

SO I SPENT THREE MORE DAYS IN THE APARTMENT.

AND AFTER THOSE THREE DAYS, THEY TOOK ME DOWN TO A TUNNEL.

I WAS IN A --I WAS 40 METERS UNDER THE --UNDER THE GROUND.

I WAS IN A CELL.

THE WAY I COULD SPREAD MY ARMS WAS THIS.

AND I HAD TO CROUCH IF I WANTED TO STAND UP.

>> AND YOUED A ASTHMA, SO YOU HAD AN ASTHMA ATTACK WHEN YOU WENT DOWN THERE?

>> YEAH, SO THE FIRST TIME I WENT DOWN, I HAD A SERIOUS ASTHMA ATTACK.

IT WAS LIKE -- IT WAS VERY HARD, SO AFTER MAYBE - -MAYBE A COUPLE OF HOURS, THE TERRORISTS, THEY --THEY FIGURED I HAVE TO HAVE A --HAVE A INHALER.

AND THEY GAVE ME ONE.

BUT REALLY, THROUGHOUT THOSE 50 DAYS, I WAS SITTING IN A SMALL CELL IN THE DARK.

AND YOU KNOW, WHEN I SAY DARK, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE DARK.

YOU KNOW, FOR --FOR ANYONE THAT GOES IN A ROOM, CLOSES THE LIGHT, AND IT WILL LOOK AT HIS ARM, MOVE HIS ARM IN FRONT OF HIS HEAD IN FRONT OF HIS FACE.

YOU WILL SEE SHADOWS MOVING.

FOR ME, I DIDN'T HAVE THOSE SHADOWS.

YOU KNOW, SO THERE WERE TIMES I THOUGHT, I'M BLIND.

AT SOME POINT, I -- I TOOK ONE OF THE TERRORIST'S FLASHLIGHTS.

I HID IT.

AND EVERY NOW AND THEN, I USED TO TURN IT ON.

IT WAS LIKE A VERY SMALL ONE.

I DID NOT SHOWER FOR 80 DAYS NOW.

I WAS STARVING.

AND I USED TO -- TO SEE THE BONES ON MY --ON MY SHOULDER.

AND MY RIBCAGE.

AND I WAS VERY, VERY WEAK.

THEY USED TO COME IN FOR --TO GIVE ME FOOD FOR TWO MINUTES, THREE MINUTES, MAYBE.

THEY USED TO GIVE ME --FIRST IT STARTED WITH TWO PIECES OF PITA BREAD A DAY, YEAH, A BIT OF CHEESE, MAYBE.

AND SLOWLY WORSE AND WORSE.

AND BY THE LAST WEEK, I HAD A BISCUIT A DAY.

WITH A COUPLE OF SIPS OF SALTY WATER.

AND I REMEMBER ME WAKING UP IN THE MORNING IN WHAT I THOUGHT IS A MORNING, WAKING UP, AND I HAD TO CALCULATE THROUGHOUT THE DAY THE BISCUIT.

HOW AM I GOING TO EAT IT?

AND YEAH, IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME FOR ME THERE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, MY FAITH IN GOD BECAME VERY STRONG.

>> YOU DROPPED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WEIGHT.

I THINK GOING FROM 176 POUNDS TO 121 POUNDS.

TALK ABOUT THE STARVATION.

IN YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH THE TERRORISTS AND YOUR CAPTORS, DID YOU ASK THEM WHY THEY WERE STARVING YOU?

>> ONE TIME I DID ASK ONE TERRORIST ABOUT IT.

AND HE TOLD ME, BECAUSE OF THE ARMY, THERE IS NO FOOD.

BUT I USED TO SEE THEM EAT.

I KNEW THEY WEREN'T SKINNY AS ME, YOU KNOW.

ONE TIME I REMEMBER I -- I ASKED TO GO TO THE --TO THE RESTROOM, TO THE BATHROOM.

AND THEY TOOK ME OUT.

I USED TO GO EVERY THREE DAYS TO THE BATHROOM.

AND I REMEMBER ME WALKING BY ANOTHER ROOM IN THE TUNNEL, YEAH, AND SEEING, LIKE -- LIKE A BIG AMOUNT OF -- OF FOOD, OF, YOU KNOW, CHEESE AND BREAD.

LIKE HUGE AMOUNTS, YOU KNOW?

SO --I WAS BEING STARVED, YOU KNOW?

THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

THEY GAVE ME SMALL AMOUNT OF FOOD, THAT'S IT.

>> YOU MANAGED TO DEVELOP SOME SORT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CAPTORS.

YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE VERY PERSONABLE.

AND WERE QUICK TO REALIZE THAT TO STAY ALIVE, THE BEST THING FOR YOU WAS TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM AND COMMUNICATE.

YOU ALSO OFFERED TO DO ALL OF THE CHORES, INCLUDING THE CLEANING AND THE COOKING.

I MEAN, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT?

HOW LONG WAS THAT GOING ON?

>> YEAH, SO --AFTER THOSE 50 DAYS IN THE FIRST TUNNEL, I -- THEY MOVED ME TO ANOTHER TUNNEL.

AT THE FIRST ONE, I -- I USED TO ONLY SEE MAYBE TWO OR THREE PEOPLE.

BUT --BUT THEY WERE A LOT MORE IN THE SECOND ONE.

WHEN I GOT THERE, RE WERE AROUND NINE TERRORISTS.

THEY USED TO STAY WITH ME IN THE SAME ROOM.

THEY USED TO LOOK AT ME 24/7.

AT THE FIRST 27 DAYS FOR ME THERE, SO IT'S ABOUT 100 DAYS, AFTER 100 DAYS INTO CAPTIVITY, THE FIRST 27 DAYS FOR ME, THE SECOND TUNNEL, THE ARMY WAS IN MY AREA.

>> THE IDF?

>> THE IDF, YEAH.

I WAS 12 METERS DEEP NOW.

I COULD FEEL THE TANKS GOING ABOVE MY HEAD.

I COULD FEEL THE VIBRATION OF THE BOMBING, YEAH.

I COULD HEAR -- I HEARD ONE TIME SOLDIERS SPEAKING IN THE NIGHT WHEN I WAS - -LIKE EVERYONE WAS SLEEPING.

AND I STAYED AWAKE.

AND I HEARD FROM THE VENTILATION SOLDIERS SPEAKING.

AFTER THOSE 27 DAYS, THE TERRORISTS, THEY STARTED TO --TO GO TO OTHER PLACES, AND I STAYED WITH THREE --THREE TERRORISTS.

AND I CAME UP TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE LEADER.

AND I --I TOLD THEM, "LISTEN, I'LL DO EVERYTHING HERE.

I'LL COOK, AND I'LL CLEAN, AND I'LL DO EVERY CHORE YOU WANT ME TO DO, JUST, YOU KNOW, LET'S STAY IN THIS GOOD --" >> RAPPORT?

>> YEAH.

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

YOU KNOW, I COOKED, AND I CLEANED.

AND I USED TO DIG THE TUNNEL.

>> DIG?

>> YEAH, I USED TO DIG IN THE TUNNELS.

AND I USED TO DO ELECTRICAL JOB, I USED TO DO WATER JOB, I USED TO DO EVERYTHING THERE.

EVERYTHING.

EVERYTHING.

EVERYTHING.

JUST GOT TO THE POINT THAT BY THE END, WHEN I HAD TO GET OUT FROM THE TUNNEL, WHEN I --WHEN I WANTED TO LEAVE THE TERRORISTS, THEY CAME UP TO ME, THEY TOLD ME, "OMER, HOW DO YOU OPERATE THIS PLACE? "

BECAUSE I USED TO DO EVERYTHING.

THEY USED TO SIT DOWN, AND I DID EVERYTHING.

>> YOU WERE THE OPERATIONAL MANAGER.

>> YEAH.

>> IN THE TUNNEL.

>> EXACTLY, EXACTLY YEAH.

>> AS A CAPTIVE.

>> YEAH, UH-HUH.

>> ONE OF THE CONSTANTS I HEAR FROM A NUMBER OF RELEASED HOSTAGES -- NAM MAY LEVY BEING THE LATEST --IS THOSE WERE SOME OF THE SCARIEST MOMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CAPTIVITY, OF HEARING THE BOMBING, OF BEING FEARFUL THAT THEY WOULD BE KILLED INADVERTENTLY BECAUSE OF THE BOMBING.

THAT THEIR CAPTURES WOULD BECOME MORE AGGRESSIVE AND HOSTILE TO THEM.

IS THAT WHAT YOU EXPERIENCED AS WELL?

>> YEAH.

I MUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT --I BELIEVE THAT EVERY SOLDIER IS A HERO, YEAH?

I REALLY DO BELIEVE IT.

AND I THINK THE ARMY, THEY'RE DOING AN AMAZING JOB, YEAH.

BUT, FOR US AS HOSTAGES, WHEN I WAS THERE, THROUGHOUT THOSE --THOSE FIRST 27 DAYS IN THE TUNNEL, AND THE DAYS THAT WE --ME AND ITAI WERE ABOVE THE GROUND, YOU KNOW, FOR US, IT'S THE SCARIEST MOMENTS.

YOU KNOW, IF IT'S THE BOMBING, THAT YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR LIFE CAN BE TAKEN IN EVERY MOMENT, YEAH?

AND I WAS --THE THING -- THE THING IS, AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU ACCEPT THAT YOU CAN DIE, YEAH?

BUT I WAS SCARED OF DYING FROM THE AIR FORCE.

I WASN'T SCARED OF DYING FROM HAMAS.

I WAS SCARED FROM DYING FROM MY OWN PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, FROM MY OWN BROTHERS.

WHEN I WAS IN THE TUNNEL, I REMEMBER THE -- THOSE 27 DAYS.

THE TERRORISTS, THEY CAME UP TO ME, AND THEY TOLD ME, "OMER, AS SOON AS WE HEAR THEM COMING CLOSE TO US, LIKE IF THEY'RE ABOVE US, IF THEY'RE EXACTLY ABOVE US, WE'RE GOING TO SHOOT YOU. "

YOU KNOW?

SO --AS LONG AS THE ARMY IS AROUND HOSTAGES, THEY ARE IN DANGER.

THEY ARE IN CONSTANT FEAR.

>> AND YOU SAY THAT, AND THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT IT IS BECAUSE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS THAT HAS LED TO HOSTAGE DEALS AND RELEASES AND IS THAT MILITARY PRESSURE ON HAMAS THAT WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD TO A CEASE-FIRE HOSTAGE DEAL.

IS THAT NOT HOW YOU INTERPRET IT OR EXPERIENCED IT?

>> I DO THINK THAT ALL OF US WANT TO --TO END THIS --THIS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION BY THE NAME OF HAMAS.

WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THEM, YEAH.

BUT I THINK THERE --THERE MUST BE A PRIORITY, YOU KNOW, AND THE PRIORITY IS --IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE LIFE OF THE HOSTAGES.

YEAH THERE IS HUMAN LIVES ON THE LINE.

I DON'T WANT TO GET TO ANY POLITICS.

WHAT I DO THINK IS THAT THE HOSTAGES' LIVES ARE NOW MORE CRITICAL THAN ELIMINATING THE HAMAS.

>> YOU SAID IN CAPTIVITY THAT YOU WERE DISAPPOINTED WHEN YOU WERE ABLE TO WATCH AL JAZEERA OR LISTEN TO SOME NEWS HEADLINES, THAT WHEN YOU DID HEAR FROM PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU, YOU DIDN'T HEAR HIM PRIORITIZING THE RELEASE OF THE HOSTAGES, AND THAT WAS THE GUTTING FEELING FOR YOU.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT FEELING OF NOT FEELING AS IF YOU ARE PRIORITIZED?

>> AT THAT TIME, IT WAS ME AND ITAI TOGETHER.

AND I -- I OVERHEARD NETANYAHU SPEAKING.

IT WAS MAYBE TWO WEEKS AFTER THE WAR BEGAN.

AND HE SPOKE ABOUT ELIMINATING THE HAMAS.

BUT HE DIDN'T SPEAK ABOUT US, THE HOSTAGES.

HE DID SAY COMFORT, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO BRING THEM HOME.

FOR ME, IT WAS VERY HARD TO HEAR IT.

VERY, VERY HARD.

AND YEAH, THE --THE TIME I WAS ALONE, I DID NOT SEE MY PARENTS IN ANY WAY, BECAUSE IT WAS AL JAZEERA, AND THEY ONLY SHOWED THE SIDE OF THE PROTESTS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

AND I REMEMBER I USED TO HAVE DREAMS OF ME GOING HOME AND SHOUTING AT MY PARENTS.

"WHERE WERE YOU?

WHY DIDN'T YOU FIGHT FOR ME? "

I WAS --I WAS MAD.

I WAS ANGRY.

>> AND YOU KNOW NOW THAT YOUR PARENTS -- >> YEAH.

>> - -WERE AT THE CENTER OF THE FIGHT TO BRING ALL OF THE HOSTAGES HOME.

>> YEAH, YEAH.

>> DAY IN AND DAY OUT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY --I THINK YOUR MOTHER MUST HAVE --IT SURPRISED ME SHE DIDN'T RUN OUT OF TEARS AT A CERTAIN POINT.

AND YOU AND YOUR PARENTS HAVE BOTH SAID THAT YOU BELIEVE IT WAS DONALD TRUMP AND A MESSAGE FROM GOD, THAT HE LED TO YOUR RELEASE.

YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

YOU TOLD HIM AS MUCH.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID TO YOU?

>> HE SAID THAT I HAVE A GOOD FUTURE AHEAD OF ME.

>> YOU'VE GOT A GOOD FUTURE.

I'M TELLING YOU.

>> BUT I REALLY THINK THAT --THAT, YES --HE GOT ME OUT.

HE GOT THE HOSTAGES OUT.

BEFORE, WE FELT LIKE NOTHING IS HAPPENING, YOU KNOW?

AND I REMEMBER THERE, FOR ME THERE, EVER SINCE HE CAME INTO -- INTO THE ROLE, THEY WERE VERY SCARED OF HIM.

YEAH, THEY WANTED -- >> WHO?

>> TERRORISTS.

>> WERE AFRAID OF TRUMP?

>> YEAH.

THEY WANTED KAMALA TO BE CHOSEN.

>> YOU TALKED POLITICS WITH THEM?

>> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

THEY WANTED KAMALA TO BE ELECTED.

BUT AS SOON AS --AS DONALD TRUMP WAS ELECTED, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WANTS TO BRING THE HOSTAGES BACK HOME, YEAH.

SO IMMEDIATELY, THE WAY THEY TREATED ME CHANGED.

SO IF IT'S THE AMOUNT OF FOOD -- I CAN SAY --I CAN SAY THIS, THAT WHEN TRUMP CAME INTO - - BECAME PRESIDENT, YEAH, THE WAY THEY TREATED US CHANGED.

FOR ME PERSONALLY.

THIS IS WHAT I FELT.

>> YOU THINK BECAUSE THEY ANTICIPATED A DEAL WOULD COME SOON?

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S WHEN THEY STARTED GIVING YOU MORE FOOD?

>> EXACTLY.

MORE FOOD, TREATED ME BETTER, STOPPED CURSING ME, STOPPED SPITTING ME, SPITTING ON ME.

>> THEY WERE SPITTING AND CURSING?

>> YEAH.

>> WERE THEY BEATING YOU?

>> NO, NEVER.

I WAS NEVER --EXCEPT 7 OCTOBER, I WAS NEVER ABUSED PHYSICALLY.

BUT I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THE WAY I MANAGED AROUND.

>> THE RELATIONSHIP?

>> YEAH.

>> DO YOU THINK IT WILL ULTIMATELY TAKE MORE PRESSURE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BRING THE REMAINING HOSTAGES HOME?

>> I THINK SO, YEAH.

>> I DO HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I MET YOUR PARENTS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHOOK ME, THAT STAYED WITH ME FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AFTER MEETING THEM, WAS A NOTEBOOK THAT THEY SHOWED ME THAT THE IDF HAD FOUND I THINK EARLY ON INTO YOUR CAPTIVITY WHEN YOU WERE MOVED FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER.

AND YOU KEPT THE DAYS OF YOUR CAPTIVITY, AND YOU ALSO STARTED NOTING FOOD, WRITING "HAMBURGER," YOU WERE WRITING "MOM, DAD. "

AND PAGES AND PAGES OF ONE WORD, AND THAT IS "HUNGRY. "

WHEN YOU KNOW NOW THAT YOUR PARENTS HAD SEEN THAT AND HAD BEEN SO CONCERNED ABOUT YOU, FROM MONTHS ON END, HOW DOES THAT FEEL?

>> I --I COULDN'T IMAGINE MYSELF PUTTING ME IN THE ROLE OF MY PARENTS, YOU KNOW?

THIS IS -- THIS IS SOMETHING I USED TO THINK A LOT ABOUT AND I WAS THERE.

I -- I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THEY MANAGE, WHAT THEY'RE DOING, HOW --HOW THEY CAN DO IT.

BECAUSE FOR ME, YES, PHYSICALLY I'M GOING THROUGH SOMETHING THAT IT'S VERY HARD, IT'S A NIGHTMARE.

BUT FOR THEM, IT'S THIS FEELING OF --YOU KNOW, THAT THEIR CHILD WAS LOST.

AND THIS FEELING -- I JUST --I CAN'T IMAGINE MYSELF - -I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE.

AND THEY DID IT IN WHAT I THINK THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE.

THEY DID AN AMAZING JOB.

>> THE DAY THAT YOU WERE RELEASED, THE END OF FEBRUARY, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW EMOTIONAL THAT WAS FOR YOU, FINALLY, FREEDOM.

HAMAS PARADED YOU ON DISPLAY, AS THEY HAD DONE WITH OTHER RELEASED HOSTAGES.

BUT THEY ALSO DID SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS EVEN MORE CRUEL IS THEY RECORDED TWO OTHER HOSTAGES WHO WERE NOT PART OF THE RELEASE WATCHING YOUR RELEASE AND YOUR FREEDOM.

AND I WONDER HOW OFTEN YOU THINK ABOUT THEM.

THEY ARE AMONG THOSE WHO ARE STILL IN CAPTIVITY.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO YOUR GOVERNMENT, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE WORLD, TO THEIR FAMILIES, ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH?

>> YOU KNOW --EVERY TIME I GO TO ANY PLACE TO SPEAK, I MENTION --I MENTION GUY AND NATOV.

I MENTION THEM.

I REMEMBER THEM.

ME ON STAGE THEN, COMING.

THE DOOR OF THE VAN OPENS.

AND I SEE TWO --TWO PEOPLE THERE, YOU KNOW.

AT FIRST, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHO THEY ARE.

BUT THEN I -- BUT THEN I SEE HOW THIN THEY ARE.

AND I REALIZE THAT THEY'RE HOSTAGES.

AND I JUST -- JUST IMMEDIATELY TOOK ME BACK, YOU KNOW, TO WATCHING ITAI LEAVE, YEAH.

AND THEY WATCHED US LEAVE.

AND THEY REMAINED THERE.

AND THE DOOR CLOSED, AND THEY DROVE OFF.

AND EVEN THROUGHOUT THIS DAY, IT WAS A VERY HAPPY DAY FOR ME, YEAH?

AT NIGHT WHEN I WENT TO SLEEP, TO BED, I --I REMEMBERED THEM.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S --IT'S A NIGHTMARE FOR THEM.

IT'S A NIGHTMARE.

IT'S CONTINUING HELL THEY'RE GOING THROUGH.

AND WE JUST HAVE TO GET THEM OUT.

TIME IS CRITICAL.

WE HAVE TO GET THEM OUT.

>> OMER, I'M SO GLAD YOU'RE BACK HOME.

I'M SO GLAD I'M FINALLY SITTING DOWN WITH YOU.

>> THANKS.

>> IT'S TAKEN WAY TOO LONG, BUT I'M WISHING YOU ALL THE BEST, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> NOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS ORDERED AMERICAN EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD TO PAUSE NEW STUDENT VISA APPOINTMENTS AS IT SAYS IT PLANS TO EXPAND SOCIAL MEDIA VETTING FOR ALL APPLICANTS.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS MAKE UP A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF MANY AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES.

AT HARVARD, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY REPRESENT 27% OF THE STUDENT BODY.

SO WHAT'S BEHIND THIS DECISION?

JAMEEL JAFFER IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND HIMSELF STUDIED IN THE U. S. ON A STUDENT VISA.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

JAMEEL, FIRST OF ALL, JUST THE TIMING OF THIS.

BECAUSE LAWYERS WHO ARE OPPOSING THIS MOVE BY THE ADMINISTRATION ARE SAYING THE TIMING IS OF NO ACCIDENT THAT IT'S THIS TIME OF YEAR WHEN STUDENTS DO GO APPLY, AND THE INTERVIEW PROCESS BEGINS AS THEY APPLY FOR SCHOOLS AND VISAS TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE FOLLOWING SEMESTER.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TIMING OF THIS RIGHT NOW?

>> YEAH, THAT SEEMS RIGHT TO ME.

IF YOU'RE A FOREIGN STUDENT NOW, YOU'RE GIVING SOME THOUGHT TO --OR IF YOU'RE A STUDENT ABROAD RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE GIVING SOME THOUGHT TO, SHOULD YOU COME TO THE UNITED STATES TO STUDY HERE?

SHOULD YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE?

LET'S SAY THAT CANADA OR AUSTRALIA OR TO EUROPE.

NOW IS THE TIME WHEN STUDENTS ARE THINKING THROUGH ALL OF THAT.

THIS ALSO IS, AS YOU KNOW, PART OF A LARGER ASSAULT ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND THAT ASSAULT HAS BEEN GOING ON NOW FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ALL OF THIS IS INCREDIBLY DAMAGING TO NOT JUST HIGHER EDUCATION BUT TO THE UNITED STATES, TOO.

IT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW --IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN AMAZING AND WONDERFUL THING, THAT PEOPLE COME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD TO STUDY AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES.

YOU KNOW, THE MOST TALENTED AND BRILLIANT PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD COME TO STUDY HERE, TO TEACH HERE.

AND THAT IS A GREAT THING FOR THOSE PEOPLE, BUT IT IS ALSO A GREAT THING FOR THE UNITED STATES.

YOU KNOW, THOSE FOREIGN STUDENTS AND FOREIGN FACULTY CONTRIBUTE TO KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES.

THEY ENRICH THE EXPERIENCES OF AMERICAN STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITIES HERE.

OF COURSE, THEY PAY TUITION AS WELL.

SO ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY DAMAGING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND FOR THE UNITED STATES AS WELL, FOR THE ECONOMY HERE, FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, FOR AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE THIS POLICY GOES WELL BEYOND JUST THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL BATTLE WITH HARVARD UNIVERSITY, WHICH JUST LAST WEEK A JUDGE PUT ON PAUSE, THEM DENYING FOREIGN STUDENTS TO ATTEND THE SCHOOL.

THIS IS NOW IMPACTING ALL UNIVERSITIES, AND WE SHOULD NOTE 1.

1 MILLION INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS STUDIED AT U. S. HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS JUST IN THE LAST YEAR ALONE.

AS IT RELATES TO THIS SOCIAL MEDIA IDENTIFIER, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS REQUIRED VISA APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE THEIR INFORMATION TO SOCIAL MEDIA SITES UNDER THEIR NAMES SINCE 2019.

NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO EXPAND THOSE GUIDELINES.

WHAT DOES THAT SIGNAL TO YOU?

>> YEAH, WELL I GUESS FIRST, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT THIS SOCIAL MEDIA SURVEILLANCE, WHICH AS YOU SAY HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2019, IS EFFECTIVE AT ALL.

THE IDEA IS, WE'RE GOING TO IDENTIFY THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY BY LOOKING AT PEOPLE'S SOCIAL MEDIA.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT SINCE 2019, SO THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT EXPANDING THIS PROGRAM NOW IS GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE IN THAT RESPECT.

I THINK THAT THIS --THE RIGHT WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IS, AS YET ANOTHER EFFORT TO DETER FOREIGN NATIONALS FROM COMING TO THE UNITED STATES, AN EFFORT TO INTIMIDATE THE FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO WERE ALREADY HERE.

THAT, YOU KNOW --THAT'S HOW I SEE IT.

I THINK YOU'RE ALSO RIGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MISTAKE TO THINK OF THIS AS AN ATTACK ON HARVARD SPECIFICALLY.

IT IS AT THE VERY LEAST AN ATTACK ON HIGHER EDUCATION.

AND MANY OF THE IMPLICATIONS WILL BE FELT FAR BEYOND THE UNIVERSITIES.

YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WHAT TAKES PLACE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES HAS EFFECTS FOR ORDINARY AMERICANS.

YOU KNOW, THE RESEARCH THAT TAKES PLACE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES INCLUDES RESEARCH INTO CANCER OR INTO ALZHEIMER'S, YOU KNOW.

A LOT OF SCIENCE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES IS WHAT LAUNCHES BILLION-DOLLAR COMPANIES.

AND ALL OF THAT IS THREATENED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DETERS FOREIGN STUDENTS FROM COMING HERE.

>> YEAH, IT'S ONE THING TO PUSH AND TO ENCOURAGE AND MAYBE EVEN AT TIMES THREATEN UNIVERSITIES THAT THEY NEED TO DO MORE AS IT RELATES TO ANTI-SEMITISM OR SOME OF THEIR POLICIES FOR MINORITIES, MAKING SURE THEY FEEL SAFE ON CAMPUS.

BUT GOING TO THIS LENGTH.

IF YOU CAN JUST TALK TO US ABOUT THE LARGER IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF U. S. COMPETITIVENESS, THE FACT THAT WE'RE ALREADY STARTING TO SEE A DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS FROM ABROAD WHO ARE APPLYING TO U. S. UNIVERSITIES.

OTHER COUNTRIES ARE CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO TAKE THESE STUDENTS AND OFFER THEM SPOTS AT THEIR SCHOOLS, WHETHER IT'S IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, I ALSO SAW HONG KONG WEIGHING IN NOW.

WHAT DISADVANTAGE DOES THAT PUT THE UNITED STATES AT?

>> YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW FOREIGN STUDENTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES.

NOT JUST TO THE UNIVERSITIES THAT THEY'RE A PART OF FOR THEIR FOUR YEARS AS UNDERGRADUATES OR THEIR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AS POST GRADUATES.

OF THE FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO COME HERE TO STUDY, THEY EITHER GO BACK TO THEIR HOME COUNTRIES AND SERVE AS INFORMAL AMBASSADORS FOR THE NUMBERS THEIR COUNTRIES, OR THEY STAY HERE AND THEY FOUND COMPANIES, THEY PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS, THEY ENGAGE IN ALL SORTS OF SOCIALLY VALUABLE ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BENEFITS FOR ORDINARY AMERICANS.

THERE WAS A BRIEF THAT WAS FILED SO MY ORGANIZATION IS INVOLVED IN A CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DETENTION OF STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN POLITICAL PROTESTS IN CAMPUS LAST YEAR.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT CASE, AN ORGANIZATION CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S ALLIANCE --IT'S AN ALLIANCE OF UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY --FILED A BRIEF THAT EXPLAINS HOW SIGNIFICANT THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN STUDENTS HAVE BEEN TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

AT THE END OF THAT BRIEF, THERE IS A FOUR-PAGE CHART OF FOREIGN STUDENTS WHO WENT ON TO FOUND BILLION-DOLLAR COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

IF WE ARE DETERRING FOREIGN STUDENTS FROM COMING TO STUDY HERE, THEN WE ARE DEPRIVING OURSELVES OF THE BENEFITS THOSE NORTHERN NATIONALS WOULD BRING TO THE UNITED STATES AFTER THEY GRADUATE.

>> THIS HAS BEEN A UNIQUELY AMERICAN PHENOMENON SUCCESS STORY, TOO.

COUNTLESS STUDENTS COMING HERE BRINGING THEIR SKILLS, THEIR INTELLIGENCE, AND GIVING BACK AFTER THEY GRADUATED TO START BUSINESS HERE AND REALLY THRIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS IN A SUBJECTIVE MANNER HERE.

I'M SORRY, IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER HERE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK IN THESE LAST FEW SECONDS ABOUT HOW THIS PERSONALLY IMPACTS YOU.

YOU STUDIED ON A STUDENT VISA, FIRST AT WILLIAMS, THEN AT HARVARD LAW.

OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GIVING BACK IMMENSELY AS A PROFESSOR AT COLUMBIA.

THIS MUST BE SAD FOR YOU AS WELL.

>> IT IS VERY SAD FOR ME.

WHEN I WAS A STUDENT, YOU KNOW, I WAS EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY --FIRST, I WAS EXCITED ABOUT STUDYING HERE, HAVING THAT OPPORTUNITY.

THEN I WAS EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES I HAD FOR WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER I GRADUATED.

AND I, YOU KNOW, STAYED IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE I HAD ALL SORTS OF OPPORTUNITIES HERE.

ALSO BECAUSE I LOVED MANY THINGS ABOUT AMERICAN SOCIETY.

AND I SEE ALL THESE OTHER STUDENTS HERE NOW WHO ARE REALLY EAGER TO CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICAN SOCIETY THAT ARE BEING TURNED INTO --FOR REASONS I DON'T UNDERSTAND, TURNED INTO ENEMIES BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

>> WELL, WE AND YOUR STUDENTS HAVE INDEED BENEFITED FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR INSIGHTS, AND YOUR EXPERTISE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

JAMEEL JAFFER, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> THE U. S. SUPREME COURT HOLDS THE MOST POWER IN THE NATION'S FEDERAL JUDICIARY, BUT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, A SERIES OF DECISIONS HAS LED UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR LEAH LITMAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE COURT IS NO LONGER PRACTICING LAW, BUT RUNNING ON PERSONAL BIASES INSTEAD.

SHE DETAILS THIS IN HER NEW BOOK "LAWLESS" AND JOINS MICHEL MARTIN TO DISCUSS.

>> THANKS, BIANNA.

LEAH LITMAN, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> YOUR NEW BOOK, THE TITLE LAYS IT OUT THERE.

IT'S TITLED "LAWLESS: HOW THE SUPREME COURT RUNS ON CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE, FRINGE THEORIES, AND BAD VIBES. "

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT THESE THINGS ARE MORE RELEVANT THAN CONSTITUTIONAL REASONING.

SO THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO ASK YOU IS, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

>> HOW DO I KNOW THIS, A COMBINATION OF FACTORS.

ONE IS, I CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT IN 2011 TO 2012 WHEN THE COURT HEARD THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND CAME WITHIN ONE VOTE OF STRIKING DOWN THAT MAJOR LAW THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED AND DID PROVIDE SO MANY PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE.

SO, THAT DEFINITELY INFORMED MY THINKING.

BUT SECOND AND THIRD, I FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT CLOSELY, BOTH AS A LITIGATOR AND A PROFESSOR.

AND I ALSO COHOST A PODCAST ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT.

AND WE FOLLOW WHAT THE COURT IS UP TO DAY IN, DAY OUT, EVERY WEEK.

SO I HAVE BEEN READING THEIR OPINIONS EVERY DAY FOR OVER SIX YEARS NOW.

AND THEN I ALSO LISTEN TO THEIR ORAL ARGUMENTS.

AND SOMETIMES DURING THE ORAL ARGUMENTS WHEN IS THEY REALLY GIVE THEIRN VARNISHED TAKE ON WHAT IS MOVING THEM TO DECIDE THESE CASES IN THIS WAY.

>> SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT ANTHONY KENNEDY, FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY REMEMBER, WAS --WAS A CONSERVATIVE.

BUT HE WAS ALSO UNDERSTOOD TO BE A SWING VOTE.

COULD WE SURMISE FROM THAT THAT THAT IS IN PART YOUR --WHAT INFORMS YOUR THINKING ABOUT THE WAY CASES SHOULD BE DECIDED?

THAT YOU FELT THAT BECAUSE HE WAS A SWING VOTE, THAT HE WAS FAIRLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES?

>> I THINK JUSTICE KENNEDY WAS FAIRLY DEPICTED AS A SWING VOTE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ALWAYS VOTE WITH THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES, AND HE DIDN'T ALWAYS VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES.

THAT BEING SAID, HE HAD VERY FIRM VIEWS ON A RANGE OF TOPICS FROM CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO LGBT EQUALITY.

I DO THINK THAT MODEL OF A JUSTICE THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS VOTE WITH THEIR IDEOLOGICAL OR POLITICAL COUNTERPARTS IS SOMETHING OF A BYGONE ERA, BECAUSE IN AN ERA OF PARTISAN POLARIZATION, IT'S SO MUCH EASIER FOR THE PARTIES TO FIND PEOPLE WHOSE VIEWS WILL RELIABLY TRACK THOSE OF THE PARTY THAT APPOINTED THEM.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE COURT NOW WHO YOU THINK EVEN APROXIMATES THE ROLE JUSTICE KENNEDY PLAYED?

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYONE ON THE COURT LIKE JUSTICE KENNEDY.

THAT ISN'T TO SAY I THINK ALL THE JUSTICES ARE DOING SOMETHING UNTOWARD OR IMPROPERLY.

THE DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES, WHILE THEY VOTE TOGETHER IN HIGH-PROFILE CASES, ARE NOT IN THE HABIT OF REACHING DECISIONS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DEMOCRACY OR DISMANTLE A KEY PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTED ACT ON THE BASIS OF A MISLEADING ELLIPSIS AS THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES HAVE DONE.

>> WHY DO YOU SAY CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE, FRINGE THEORIES, AND BAD VIBES?

WHY DON'T WE START WITH BAD VIBES.

IN A CHAPTER ON LGBTQ EQUALITY, THE COURT'S REASONING IS OFTEN GRANTED IN INTUITION AND PARTISANSHIP THAN THE LAW.

SO COULD YOU JUST SAY MORE ABOUT WHY YOU SAY THAT?

>> SURE.

SO, VIBES, I JUST MEAN TO DRAW A POINTED CONTRAST WITH LAW, TO SUGGEST THEY ARE BASING THE LAW ON THEIR FEELINGS OR POLITICAL TALKING POINTS OR THE ZEITGEIST OF THE PARTY.

JUST TO GIVE ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT, IN THE OBERFELL VERSUS HODGES DECISION RECOGNIZE IS MARRIAGE EQUALITY, JUSTICE ALITO WROTE A DISSENT JOINED BY OTHER REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES IN WHICH HE DESCRIBED THE COURT'S DECISION RECOGNIZING MARRIAGE EQUALITY AS FACILITATING THE MARGINALIZATION OF RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES WHO HAVE TRADITIONAL VIEWS ABOUT MARRIAGE AND EQUATED THAT MARGINALIZATION, SAYING IT RECALLED THE HARSH TREATMENT OF GAYS AND LEASE BEANS IN THE PAST.

SO HE IS TREATING MARRIAGE EQUALITY AS BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE HARSH TREATMENT OF GAYS, LESBIANS, AND BISEXUALS THROUGHOUT THE 1900s AND EARLY 2000s.

THAT IS A FAIRLY WARPED WORLDVIEW THAT DEFINITELY REFLECTS FEELINGS RATHER THAN REALITY.

>> WHAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF FRINGE THEORIES YOU SAY HAVE INFORMED TOO MANY OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS?

>> I WOULD GIVE AS ONE EXAMPLE THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY.

THIS IDEA THAT WAS PUSHED BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, AND IT MAINTAINS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT ALONE POSSESSES ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER, AND SO MUCH POWER, HE HAS TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL AND SUPERVISE EVERYONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

BASED ON THAT IDEA, THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES RECENTLY ALLOWED DONALD TRUMP TO FIRE PEOPLE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

COMMISSIONERS ON THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND THE MERIT SERVICE PROTECTIONS BOARD.

SO IT'S THAT IDEA, I THINK THAT HAS EXPANDED PRESIDENTIAL POWER SO MUCH THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOW ABLE TO ACT IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAWS.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCES?

CONSERVATIVE, SMALL "C" CONSERVATIVE, HAS GENERALLY BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN, YOU KNOW, A PREFERENCE FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT OVER EXPANSIVE GOVERNMENT, A PREFERENCE FOR, SAY, MINIMAL INTRUSION INTO PERSONAL LIBERTIES AS OPPOSED TO SORT OF A MORE MAXIMALIST VIEW.

YOU USE THE WORD GRIEVANCES.

SO TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, SAY, A CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE AND CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY.

HOW DO YOU THINK THAT'S PLAYING OUT?

>> YEAH, SO I AGREE THAT SMALL "C" CONSERVATIVE GENERALLY REFERS TO LIMITED GOVERNMENT, NOT INTRUDING ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

I DON'T THINK THAT DESCRIBES THE MODERN COURT.

THEY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO MAKE RATHER RAPID AND SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE LAW IN WAYS THAT I DON'T THINK CAN BE DESCRIBED AS SMALL "C" CONSERVATIVE.

BY CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE, I MEAN THIS FIXATION ON THE IDEA THAT THE COURT CONSTITUENCY OF THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES, AS WELL AS REPUBLICAN POLITICAL ELITES, THAT THEY ARE THE VICTIMS, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE PUT UPON.

SO IT'S NOT THE TEENAGER IN TEXAS WHO IS VICTIMIZED BY THE ABORTION RESTRICTION THAT PREVENTS HER FROM OBTAINING HEALTH CARE.

IT IS, INSTEAD, THE RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE MAN WHO IS NOW FORCED TO OBEY AND ABIDE BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS THAT PREVENT HIM FROM DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, THAT HE IS THE ONE VICTIMIZED.

THAT'S THE IDEA OF CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE THAT I THINK ANIMATES SO MUCH OF THE LAW TODAY.

>> ONE OF THE MOST CLOSELY WATCHED CASES THIS TERM ENDED IN THIS SURPRISE.

THIS HAPPENED JUST LAST WEEK.

THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO ALLOW OKLAHOMA TO OPEN A PUBLICLY FUNDED GATH LICK CHARTER SCHOOL THAT HAD PLANNED TO --I GUESS INFUSE RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS OR USE RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS IN ALL ASPECTS OF ITS CURRICULUM.

THERE WAS A 4- 4 SPLIT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE --WELL, WE DON'T KNOW HOW JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT WOULD HAVE VOTED.

WE CAN SPECULATE, BUT SHE RECUSED HERSELF.

HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THAT DECISION?

>> I THINK THIS DECISION IS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING IN WHAT IT SUGGESTS FOR --AT LEAST FOR REPUBLICAN JUSTICES ARE WILLING TO DO.

HAD THEY SAID THE STATE HAS TO CREATE THIS RELIGIOUS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, WHAT THEY WOULD BE SAYING IS, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES STATES TO CREATE SOME RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

WE USED TO THINK THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITED STATES FROM OPERATING RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THIS IS SUCH A SHIFT AND MAJOR TRANSFORMATION IN THE LAW.

YOU KNOW THERE USED TO BE THIS PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

THERE IS AN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENTS FROM ESTABLISHING RELIGIONS, FROM TEACHING RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AS TRUTH.

YET FOUR REPUBLICAN JUSTICES WERE WILLING TO SAY THEY THOUGHT THAT, THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, WAS A KIND OF RANK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES WHO WANTED TO OPERATE A RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SCHOOL.

IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE MINDSET IS CANNIBALIZING THE LAW.

JUSTICE BARRETT THERE ARE MANY OTHER CASES THAT ARE PERCOLATING IN OTHER COURTS THAT RAISE THIS SAME QUESTION.

SO SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE IN ORDER TO EVENTUALLY DECIDE THIS QUESTION, WHICH I IMAGINE WILL RETURN TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WRITE IN YOUR BOOK IS THAT YOU WRITE ABOUT THE DANGER OF TREATING THE SUPREME COURT AS A NEUTRAL GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU WRITE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL, IT'S ALSO POORLY UNDERSTOOD, AND THE COMBINATION MAKES THE COURT DANGEROUS.

WHY DANGEROUS?

>> PEOPLE ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS DOING, AND SO THAT LEADS THEM TO MISUNDERSTAND WHO THEY SHOULD HOLD RESPONSIBLE FOR VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT MAKES ARE IF YOU LOOK AT RECENT POLLING, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME VOTERS ACTUALLY HELD JOE BIDEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERRULING OF ROE V. WADE.

BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION.

OTHER VOTERS DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN THE 2024 ELECTION BECAUSE JOE BIDEN HAD NOT DONE ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID HE WOULD DO, NAMELY, OFFER STUDENT DEBT RELIEF.

HE TRIED TO, BUT THE SUPREME COURT --SIX REPUBLICAN JUSTICES --PREVENTED HIM FROM DOING SO.

I THINK THE MORE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT, THE BETTER INFORMED THEY WILL BE ABOUT WHO TO HOLD RESPONSIBLE AND HOW THEY SHOULD VOTE IN DIFFERENT ELECTIONS.

>> I THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE MAYBE LISTENING TO OUR CONVERSATION MIGHT THINK, WAS IT EVER -- WAS IT EVER DIFFERENT?

WAS IT EVER DIFFERENT?

THAT THESE JUSTICES --THAT THESE FOLKS, THEY COME FROM --EVERYBODY COMES FROM A CERTAIN CONTEXT.

THEY HAVE BELIEFS THAT THEY GROW UP WITH THAT THEY ADOPT.

WAS IT REALLY EVER DIFFERENT?

>> SO I THINK THE COURT HAS ALWAYS BEEN POLITICAL IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE'S LIVED EXPERIENCES AND WORLDVIEW PROBABLY INFORMED THEIR JUDGING.

THE COURT HAS AFFECTED THE NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND HOW IT OPERATED.

BUT I THINK THE COURT HAS BECOME PARTISAN IN A WAY THAT IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN.

THAT IS, THE COURT'S JUSTICES PROBABLY ALWAYS REFLECTED SOME IDEOLOGY OR WORLDVIEW IN THEIR DECISIONS, BUT WHAT IS DIFFERENT IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE JUSTICES NOW DIVIDE ALONG PARTISAN LINES WITH THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES DOING ONE THING AND DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES DOING ANOTHER.

YOU ADD TO THAT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE JUSTICES ARE NOW REACHING DECISIONS THAT CATER TO AND ARE SUPPORTED BY AN INCREASINGLY NARROW SEGMENT OF SOCIETY.

I THINK THAT ALSO DIFFERENTIATES WHAT THE COURT IS DOING TODAY FROM WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.

>> SAY MORE ABOUT THAT, LIKE WHY YOU SAY THAT.

JUST IN TERMS OF PARTISANSHIP, COULD IT BE THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR LENS IS NOW?

THAT THE POLITICS OF THE COUNTRY ARE SO PARTISAN, COULD IT BE US THAT'S MORE PARTISAN AS OPPOSED TO THEM?

>> I THINK WE ARE ALL PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE PARTISAN.

BUT THE REASON WHY I THINK THEIR DECISIONS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARTISANSHIP IS THESE ARE VIEWS THAT ARE PUT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM.

THAT ARE CHAMPIONED BY REPUBLICAN POLITICAL ELITES.

SO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN 2016 RAN ON A PLATFORM IN WHICH THEY PROMISED TO APPOINT JUSTICES WHO WOULD OVERRULE ROE V. WADE.

AS WELL AS OBERG HALL VERSUS HODGES, MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

WHEN SOME REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN POLITICS, THEN REPUBLICAN MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL CHASTISED THEM, SAYING, LOOK, WE OWE A LOT OF OUR POWER AND OUR SEATS TO A LOT OF MONEY IN POLITICS.

I THINK THESE ARE VIEWS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT THE PARTY HAS COME TO EMBRACE, THAT THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES HAVE NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN DISCOVERED ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

>> WE ALSO SEE THAT MANY OF THESE DECISIONS ARE DEEPLIN POWER PLAY LAR FROM A PUBLIC OPINION STANDPOINT.

THE DOBBS DECISION OVERTURNING THE NATIONWIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ABORTION IS DEEPLY UNPOPULAR.

AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT EVEN IN CONSERVATIVE- LEANING STATES, WHEN VOTERS HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY VOTED TO EXPAND OR REMAIN OPEN OR CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO ABORTION RIGHTS, RIGHT?

SO, DO THEY CARE?

DO THEY CARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH THEM?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

THE CONSERVATIVE LEGAL MOVEMENT HAS CREATED THE SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES THEM AFFIRMATION FOR REACHING DECISIONS THAT ARE MORE BROADLY UNPOPULAR.

SO THEY STILL RECEIVE SOME POSITIVE AFFIRMATION.

BUT SECOND, I THINK THAT ALSO SPEAKS TO HOW FAR REMOVED THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME FROM THE PEOPLE AND OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

AS THE SENATE HAS BECOME LESS REPRESENTATIVE, AS IS POSSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY WITHOUT WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE, AS PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING HAS MADE THE HOUSE LESS REPRESENTATIVE.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS COME TO CARE HE IS ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION BECAUSE THE INSTITUTIONS THAT COULD PROVIDE SOME CHECK ON THE SUPREME COURT ARE THEMSELVES LESS RESPONSIVE TO PUBLIC OPINION.

>> IS THERE AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE HERE -- WELL, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT MITCH McCONNELL MADE, RIGHT?

WHO WAS THE LONGTIME SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER.

HIS ARGUMENT, I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE, IS ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

AND THAT IF THE REPUBLICANS SUCCESSFULLY MADE THE COURT A VOTING ISSUE, THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS AND THAT LIBERALS COULD HAVE DONE THAT AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, OR AT LEAST WEREN'T AS SUCCESSFUL AT IT.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> TWO THINGS.

ONE IS, I ACTUALLY DO THINK DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVES NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF INJECTING THE COURT INTO THEIR POLITICAL LIFE AND GETTING VOTERS TO CARE MORE ABOUT THE COURT ON THE LEFT AS VOTERS ON THE RIGHT DO.

BUT SECOND IS, IF ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, THEN I THINK ALL ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WHEN JUSTICE SCALIA PASSED AWAY IN 2016, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WAS STILL PRESIDENT.

SO AS PRESIDENT, HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE NOMINATIONS AND HAVE THOSE NOMINEES CONSIDERED.

AND SO IT WAS ONLY SOME ELECTIONS THAT MITCH McCONNELL SEEMED TO THINK HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

>> THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD ARGUE THAT THE REASON YOU'VE WRITTEN THIS DAMNING INDICTMENT OF THE WAY THE COURT OPERATES IS THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR DECISIONS AND THAT IF YOU DID AGREE WITH THEIR DECISIONS, THEN PERHAPS YOU'D SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> I THINK IN THE BOOK, I AM ABLE TO POINT TO SOME PRETTY OBJECTIVE SHENANIGANS THAT THE JUSTICES HAVE USED IN ORDER TO REACH THE DECISIONS THAT THEY DID.

JUST TO TAKE ONE EXAMPLE IN SHELBY COUNTY VERSUS HOLDER, THE PRETTY CATASTROPHIC DECISION TO END THE PRECLEARANCE PROCESS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, THAT WAS THE PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT THAT REQUIRED CERTAIN STATES WITH ESPECIALLY BAD HISTORIES OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEFORE CHANGING THEIR VOTING LAWS OR POLICIES.

JUSTICE ROBERTS' MAJORITY OPINION RELIED ON A PREVIOUS CASE THAT HAD SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID IT MEANT.

HE INSERTED A MISLEADING ELLIPSIS.

HE HE SAID THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT VIOLATES THIS DOCTRINE OF EQUAL SOVEREIGNTY WHICH DOESN'T PREVENT CONGRESS FROM TREATING THE STATES DIFFERENTLY ON THE BASIS OF NEWLY DEVELOPED OR LATER DEVELOPED CONDITIONS.

THE FULL QUOTE SAID THAT DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY BEYOND THE TERMS ON WHICH A STATE IS ADMITTED TO THE UNION.

SO HE TWISTED THIS DOCTRINE, WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD ONLY GOVERNED WHAT CONGRESS COULD OFFER AS CONDITIONS FOR A STATE'S ADMISSION TO THE UNION, AS SOMETHING THAT RESTRICTED CONGRESS WELL AFTER STATES HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO THE UNION.

>> WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT INCREASINGLY, WE FIND THAT CONSERVATIVE LEGAL JURISTS HAVE RAISED OBJECTIONS TO SOME OF THESE CASES, AND ALSO, SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUESTION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER --I MEAN, I THINK A LOT OF CONSERVATIVE JURISTS HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY VOCAL AROUND THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THE SUPREME COURT HAS EMBEDDED A MAXIMALIST VIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

AND I WONDER HOW YOU THINK THAT'S PLAYING OUT.

>> I JUST WORRY THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE BEING WRITTEN OFF AS RINOS, REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY.

THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CUT BACK ON THEIR IMMUNITY DECISION AND REIN IN THEIR EXPANSIVE VIEWS ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

WHEN DONALD TRUMP ASKED THE COURT FOR PERMISSION TO FIRE THE NLRB, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND ANOTHER COMMISSIONER IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT DO?

THEY DOUBLED DOWN ON THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY AND SAID, YES, DONALD TRUMP BASICALLY GETS TO PRE- EMPTIVELY OVERRULE OUR PRIOR CASE THAT HAD UPHELD THE EXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES.

SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE ANY BUYER'S REMORSE OR THAT THEY ARE BEING INFLUENCED BY WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING WITH THE EXPANSIVE VISION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER OR THE CRITICISM THEY HAVE FACED FOR ENABLING IT.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO ME OVER THE COURSE OF DONALD TRUMP'S RISE TO POLITICAL POWER HAS BEEN HOW HE HAS UPENDED, PARTICULARLY ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE, A NUMBER OF SORT OF --OF SORT OF PUBLIC- FACING INDIVIDUALS, THINKERS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO HAVE RESIGNED SAYING, LOOK, I CAN'T FUNCTION IN THIS PARTY WITH THIS PERSON AS THE HEAD OF IT.

THERE ARE, LIKE, SUBSTACKS AND NEWSLETTERS BEING WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO ARE LIFELONG CONSERVATIVES WHO JUST SAY, THEIR GOAL NOW IS TO CALL ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY SEE AS THE ABUSES OF THIS ECOSYSTEM, AS YOU PUT IT.

I JUST WAS WONDERING ABOUT YOU AS A PERSON WHO CLERKED FOR JUSTICE KENNEDY.

IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CURRENT ERA THAT HAS KIND OF CHANGED YOU IN SOME WAY OR CHANGED THE WAY YOU HINK ABOUT THINGS?

>> I THINK IT HAS CHANGED THE EXTENT TO WHICH I FEEL OBLIGATED TO MAKE MYSELF HEARD AND MAKE MY VOICE HEARD AND MY WILLINGNESS TO BE MORE OPENLY CRITICAL.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE THINGS I HAVE WRITTEN PROBABLY RENDER ME UNCONFIRMABLE FOR VARIOUS OFFICES, AND YET I STILL FEEL COMPELLED TO SHARE THEM.

I THINK IT HAS ALSO LED ME TO RETHINK THE WAY OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE STRUCTURED AND WHETHER WE SHOULD BE REVISITING BIGGER QUESTIONS, LIKE THE SUPREME COURT'S AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN CASES.

SEEING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COURT HAS GONE ASTRAY AND ACCUMULATED SO MUCH POWER OVER TIME HAS LED ME TO THINK MORE DEEPLY ABOUT THE WAY THINGS ARE AND WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE.

>> LEAH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPEAKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

> >> AND FINALLY, 53 YEARS AGO TODAY, A PRESIDENT CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION WON.

ON MAY 28th, 1972, BURGLARS WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE NIXON WHITE HOUSE BROKE INTO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE HEADQUARTERS IN THE WATERGATE OFFICE BUILDING TO INSTALL WIRETAPS ON THE TELEPHONES.

THE BUGS THEY LEFT BEHIND WERE DUDS, SO THREE WEEKS LATER, THEY BROKE IN AGAIN TO REPLACE THE FAULTY EQUIPMENT.

AND THIS TIME, THEY GOT CAUGHT.

EVENTUALLY, THAT SO- CALLED THIRD-RATE BURGLARY LED TO THIS SPEECH BY RICHARD NIXON.

>> I HAVE NEVER BEEN A QUITTER.

TO LEAVE OFFICE BEFORE MY TERM IS COMPLETED IS ABHORRENT TO EVERY INSTINCT IN MY BODY.

BUT AS PRESIDENT, I MUST PUT THE INTERESTS OF AMERICA FIRST.

>> AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW EACH NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.

ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY" ON PBS.

JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.

>