♪ >>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & CO." HERE IS WHAT IS COMING UP.

>> PEACE AT ANY COST IS NOT PEACE AT ALL.

IT IS APPEASEMENT.

>> WHY A TRUMP APPOINTEE RESIGNED OVER HIS FOREIGN POLICY.

FORMER U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE BRIDGET BRINK JOINS ME ON WHETHER KIEV CAN GET A FAIR PEACE DEAL.

>> WHY DID YOU APPROVE A PLAN THAT WAS CLEARLY ILLEGAL?

>> DAVID FROST VERSUS EVERYONE.

FROM RICHARD NIXON TO ELTON JOHN.

A NEW SERIES DELVES INTO HIS MOST ENTERTAINING AND EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEWS.

I SPEAK TO HIS SON AND SHOW PRODUCER, WILFRED FROST.

>>> I WANT TO SEE UNIVERSITIES REBUILD AS I SAY A RAPPORT AND TRUST WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

>> AS TRUMP TARGETS UNIVERSITIES, FORMER GOP GOVERNOR OF INDIANA TELLS WALTER ISAACSON COLLEGES MUST ATONE.

♪ ♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & CO" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT, JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS, CANDACE KING WEIR, THE PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI- SEMITISM.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS , MARK J. BLECHNER, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ 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 FROM CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> WELCOME, EVERYONE.

I AM CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

WE BEGIN IN UKRAINE.

RUSSIA CONTINUES TO POUND THE COUNTRY WITH DRONE ATTACKS OVERNIGHT.

THIS COMES JUST HOURS AFTER RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN SPOKE TO HIS AMERICAN COUNTERPART, DONALD TRUMP, CLEARLY DEMONSTRATING NO IMMEDIATE END IN SIGHT TO HOSTILITIES.

SO WHAT DID COME FROM THEIR CONVERSATION, THERE WAS NO NEW THREAT OF SANCTIONS FROM RUSSIA AND NO DEMAND FOR A CEASE-FIRE.

TODAY PUTIN MADE IT HIS FIRST VISIT SINCE MOSCOW RECAPTURED THE REGION FROM UKRAINIAN FORCES.

FROM ONE AMERICAN DIPLOMAT, THIS CURRENT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ANYMORE.

LAST MONTH RIGID BRINK RESIGNED HER POST IN PROTEST OF THE MARKED CHANGE OF POLICIES TOWARD RUSSIA AND UKRAINE.

SHE JOINED ME FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. TO EXPLAIN WHY IT MATTERS FOR AMERICA TO ENSURE THAT UKRAINE DOES NOT LOSE AND RUSSIA DOES NOT WIN THE WAR IT STARTED.

AMBASSADOR BRIDGET BRINK, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME ON.

>> THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE IS WHEN I WAS IN TRENTON.

YOU WERE IN KYIV AS AMBASSADOR.

HE RESIGNED AS AN AMBASSADOR FROM UKRAINE.

TELL ME WHY.

>> FIRST I WILL START WITH A LITTLE CONTEXT.

FOR THREE YEARS, I SERVED IN UKRAINE WHILE RUSSIA LAUNCHED THOUSANDS OF MISSILES AND DRONES THAT KILLED MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN IN THEIR HOMES AND APARTMENTS, ON PLAYGROUNDS, IN CHURCHES, TRIED TO TAKE THE LIGHT, HEAT, AND POWER OUT FROM A COUNTRY OF 40 MILLION PEOPLE OVER THREE UKRAINIAN WINTERS.

COMMITTED ATROCITIES AND WAR CRIMES LIKE WE HAVE NOT SEEN SINCE WORLD WAR II.

I FULLY AGREE THAT THE WAR NEEDS TO END , BUT THE POLICY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN TO PUT PRESSURE ON UKRAINE AS THE VICTIM RATHER THAN ON RUSSIA AS THE AGGRESSOR.

AND PEACE AT ANY COST IS NOT PEACE AT ALL.

IT IS APPEASEMENT.

AND WE ALL KNOW FROM HISTORY THAT APPEASING AGGRESSORS ONLY LEADS TO MORE WAR.

>> IT MUST HAVE TAKEN, THOUGH, MORE THAN JUST THAT TO HAVE A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE DIPLOMAT AS YOU ARE WHO HAS SERVED FIVE DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS OF ALL DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES TO THROW IN THE TOWEL.

TELL ME ABOUT -- PUT THAT IN CONTEXT IN TERMS OF THE MORALITY THAT YOU SUMMONED, THE INTEGRITY -- WHATEVER IT IS THAT CAUSED YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

>> WELL, I HAVE BEEN VERY PROUD TO SERVE FIVE PRESIDENTS AND FOR 28 YEARS AS A CAREER DIPLOMAT AND I TOOK A DECISION -- THIS DECISION TO RESIGN WAS NOT A QUICK, HASTY DECISION BUT ONE THAT I TOOK OVER THE COURSE OF THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

AND IT STARTED.

THE FIRST LINE WAS THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING, WHICH WAS HORRIFYING.

BUT THERE WERE OTHER SIGNS AS WELL, INCLUDING THE WITHDRAWAL OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INTELLIGENCE ASSISTANCE, WHICH WAS PUT BACK ON.

BUT THAT WAS A TEMPORARY WITHDRAWAL THAT I DID DISAGREE WITH.

IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN LANGUAGE IN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WAR.

INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT RUSSIA'S WAR OF AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE, IT WAS THE RUSSIA UKRAINE WAR.

I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PRESIDENT TO END THE WAR IS TO CALLOUT THE AGGRESSOR AND PUT PRESSURE ON THE AGGRESSOR, RUSSIA, TO COME TO THE TABLE TO END THE WAR THAT HE STARTED.

>> AND I ASK YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING?

THAT DEBACLE IN WHICH J.D.

VANCE AND OTHERS STARTED TO BASICALLY GANG UP AGAINST ZELENSKYY.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.

BUT ZELENSKYY HIMSELF COULD BE SAID NOT TO HAVE COMPORTED HIMSELF IN THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS WAY.

DID YOU ADVISE HIM HOW TO BEHAVE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?

DID ANYBODY SUGGEST THAT HE MIGHT GET PROVOKED AND FOR HIM TO STAY CALM AND MAYBE EVEN SPEAK IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE SO HE WAS IN FULL CONTROL OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

AT THAT TIME AS THE PRESIDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE, I DID OFFER ADVICE AS TO HOW TO ACHIEVE OUR MUTUAL GOALS.

FOR US, IT WAS TO END THE WAR.

FOR UKRAINIANS WAS TO KEEP US SUPPORTING UKRAINE.

BUT I THINK THE MAIN ISSUE AT PLAY RIGHT NOW IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATION THAT HAS HAPPENED, BUT I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE STICK WITH SUPPORTING UKRAINE IN WAYS THAT WILL HELP TO END THE WAR AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK ABOUT THOSE DETAILS.

NOW PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT AS A THEATRICAL ESSENTIAL QUANTIZATION OF TALKS THAT WERE HELD IN TURKEY OVER THE LAST WEEKEND.

BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU AFTER THE OVAL OFFICE.

YOU SENT OUT A TWEET BOTH IN ENGLISH AND IN UKRAINIAN, WHICH SAID, THANK YOU, POTUS, FOR STANDING UP FOR AMERICA IN A WAY THAT NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER HAD THE COURAGE TO DO BEFORE.

THANK YOU FOR PUTTING AMERICA FIRST.

AMERICA IS WITH YOU.

IT WAS A RETWEET, BUT NONETHELESS, WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

IT GOES COMPLETELY AGAINST YOUR VIEWS AND YOUR VIEWS OF HOW UKRAINE SHOULD BE TREATED.

>> AS AN AMERICAN DIPLOMAT AND CERTAINLY AS THE PRESIDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE, OUR JOB AND DUTY IS TO REFLECT THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT IS PART OF OUR PROFESSIONAL CODE.

IT IS WHAT WE SWEAR TO DO WHEN WE JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE.

I AM NOT ABLE TO HAVE MY OWN SEPARATE FOREIGN POLICY, BUT I CAN SAY THAT TIMES LIKE THAT WERE TIMES THAT WAS A STRONG SIGN TO ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TO RESIGN BECAUSE I COULD NOT COMPROMISE MY VALUES, AND I COULDN'T DO SOMETHING WHICH IS A COMPLETELY UNPROFESSIONAL THING, WHICH IS TO SPEAK OUT IN WAYS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION.

>> DID YOU EVER BEFORE YOU RESIGNED TRY TO HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH YOUR BOSSES?

I ASSUME IN THIS CASE SECRETARY OF STATE RUBIO.

HE IS THE ULTIMATE BOSS IN THE FOREIGN POLICY STRAND.

>> I MEAN, OF COURSE.

PART OF OUR JOB IS NOT JUST TO EXECUTE FOREIGN POLICY BUT TO PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE LEADERSHIP.

SO THAT IS PART OF OUR INTERNAL OPERATIONS AND DISCUSSION, AND THIS IS A CORE PART OF WHAT THE CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE DOES.

>> LET'S GO BACK TO WHAT WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT.

THAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN FROM NOW.

IN YOUR VIEW, THE TURKEY TALKS.

DID THEY ACHIEVE ANYTHING?

>> I THINK THAT PUTIN IS STRINGING US ALONG, AND I THINK WE HAVE SEEN THAT OVER A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MEETINGS AND EVENTS .

THIS IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF RUSSIA TO SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER.

I THINK THIS IS WHY IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE AND PUT MORE PRESSURE ON RUSSIA TOGETHER WITH PARTNERS AND ALLIES IN EUROPE.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT?

FOR INSTANCE, THE READOUT OF THE CALL WAS THAT IT WAS VERY PLEASANT.

PRESIDENT PUTIN OR FROM THE KREMLIN CAME THE DESCRIPTION THAT NEITHER PUTIN NOR TRUMP WANTED TO HANG UP AND SAY GOODBYE TO EACH OTHER.

THEY WERE HAVING SUCH A GOOD TIME.

NO MENTION OF A CEASE-FIRE APPARENTLY.

AND THERE WAS NO MOVE TOWARDS SANCTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE U.S. AND EUROPE HAD FLOATED BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.

CEASE-FIRE AND SANCTIONS IF PUTIN DID NOT AGREE.

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS STILL THE WHITE HOUSE?

AT LEAST ITS PUBLIC POSITION TOWARD RUSSIA?

>> I THINK PUTIN'S GOAL IS PRETTY CLEAR.

HE WANTS TO SUBJUGATE UKRAINE, DIVIDE EUROPE, AND WE CAN US.

AND HE WANTS TO KEEP US ON SIDE SO HE CLEARLY IS GOING TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND POTENTIALLY AGREE TO THINGS LIKE STARTING NEGOTIATIONS TO END THE WAR, BUT THEN TO SLOW ROLE THOSE NEGOTIATIONS OR TO CREATE DEMANDS THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE ON BASIC PRINCIPLES AND VALUES.

NOT JUST TO UKRAINE BUT TO THE UNITED STATES.

LIKE ALLOWING ORDERS TO BE CHANGED BY FORCE AND RECOGNIZING THOSE ACTIONS.

SO I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY EXACTLY WE ARE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I CAN JUST SAY THAT BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AND VERY LONG EXPERIENCE DEALING IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD WITH THE RUSSIANS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR REDLINES ARE .

YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T GIVE CONCESSIONS IN ADVANCE.

AND ONCE AGREEMENTS ARE MADE, THEY HAVE TO BE VERIFIED.

IT IS REALLY A TRUST BUT VERIFY SITUATION.

AND I THINK THAT IS MY ADVICE WHEN DEALING WITH THE RUSSIANS, ESPECIALLY ON ISSUES LIKE THIS.

>> BY VIRTUE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, CLEARLY THAT WASN'T THE CASE.

THERE WAS NO TRUST BUT VERIFY AND I THINK PEOPLE THINK THERE WERE TOO MANY CONCESSIONS GIVEN.

SECONDARY REVIEW ANNOUNCES THAT THREATENING TO IMPOSE MORE SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA COULD JUST CAUSE MOSCOW TO STOP TALKING ABOUT ENDING THE UKRAINE WAR.

>> I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK PULLING YOUR PUNCHES WITH RUSSIA IS EXACTLY WHAT ALLOWS PUTIN TO EXTEND THE WAR AND CREATE MORE DEMANDS.

SO I THINK A CLEAR, FIRM PRINCIPLED STAND IS THE BEST WAY TO COUNTER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

AND THAT DONE TOGETHER WITH PARTNERS AND ALLIES.

SO I DON'T AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BE PULLING OUR PUNCHES AND CALLING OUT WHO STARTED THIS WAR .

CALLING OUT THE FACT THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES TO THIS DAY TO SEND MISSILES AND DRONES TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CALL.

THERE WERE 273 DRONES LAUNCHED AT UKRAINE.

THAT IS THE LARGEST NUMBER SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR.

INCLUDING OVERNIGHT ANOTHER 73 DRONES WERE LAUNCHED AT UKRAINE.

I THINK TO GET TO THE POINT OF AN END OF THE WAR THAT IS IN OUR INTEREST, WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR AND PRINCIPLED.

>> WE HAVE WATCHED PRESIDENT TRUMP VACILLATE IN HIS PUBLIC DEMEANOR TOWARD PUTIN.

SOMETIMES HE APPEARS TO BE OFFERING CARROTS.

THEY SAY TO SWEETEN THE PIE, IN OTHER WAS TO BRING THEM INTO TALKS RATHER THAN JUST ALIENATING HIM FROM THE BEGINNING.

OTHERS SAY THAT HE REALLY DOES BELIEVE THE RUSSIAN NARRATIVE.

BUT WHAT HE HAS DONE HAS CHANGED HIS TONE.

THERE WAS THE OVAL OFFICE TONE.

THEN THERE WAS THE VATICAN TONE WHEN HE LOOKED TO BE MUCH MORE LISTENING TO ZELENSKYY.

THEN THERE WAS THE VLADIMIR STOP TONE WHEN PUTIN HAD SENT IN A WHOLE BARRAGE OF MISSILES AND DRONES THAT KILLED A LOAD OF CIVILIANS .

WHAT DO YOU -- AND NOW HE SAYS NOTHING WOULD CHANGE UNTIL I MEET PUTIN.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT?

>> WELL, I THINK TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF ENDING THE WAR, WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS AN ADMINISTRATION AND MY ADVICE WOULD BE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PUT MORE SANCTIONS ON IMMEDIATELY.

THE EUROPEANS HAVE JUST INCREASED SANCTIONS, ESPECIALLY ON AREAS OF THE ENERGY SECTOR.

IT IS THE OIL AND THE SALE OF OIL THAT IS A BIG PART OF FUELING THE WAR MACHINE.

WE HAVE DONE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT UNDER THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, BUT WE COULD DO MUCH MORE.

ALSO, THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF SANCTIONS IN THE BANKING SECTOR AND OTHER THINGS WE COULD DO THAT COULD PUT MORE PRESSURE ON RUSSIA TO BRING PUTIN SERIOUSLY TO THE TABLE.

I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO GET AT THE $300 BILLION, WHICH IS RUSSIAN SOVEREIGN ASSETS THAT ARE MOSTLY FROZEN IN EUROPE, AND USE THOSE TO HELP UKRAINE DEFEND ITSELF.

AND THAT CAN BE USED BY WEAPONS IN THE UNITED STATES THAT COULD REPLENISH OUR OWN DEFENSE BASE BUT ALSO HELP UKRAINE BE A STRONGER COUNTRY AGAINST RUSSIA.

>> DO YOU THINK THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION WHICH STARTED AND GATHERED ALL OF NATO AND KEPT A UNIFIED FRONT SHOULD HAVE USED IT'S TIME TO PROVIDE MORE WEAPONS IN A MORE TIMELY WAY?

>> WELCOME I LIVED THROUGH THAT PERIOD, AND I THINK HISTORY IS GOING TO REVIEW AND SHOW WHAT ALL OF US DID.

WHAT THE UNITED STATES DID, WHAT EUROPE DID, WITH THE UKRAINIAN STOOD AND THE RESULT OF THAT.

MY FOCUS IN THIS MOMENT IS TO LOOK FORWARD AND TRY TO MAKE THE CASE THAT HOW THIS WAR ENDS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES.

>> YOU ARE DEFINITELY DODGING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT HOW THIS WAR ENDS COULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE AMOUNT OF AID AND ASSISTANCE IN A MORE TIMELY MANNER.

SO YOU ARE OKAY WITH THE WAY THAT WENT?

>> I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE WILL HAVE TO REVIEW IN THE COURSE OF TIME.

AND I ALSO THINK IT IS WHAT WE DID.

IT IS ALSO WHAT OTHERS DID.

AND I THINK IT IS EASY TO MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK.

>> ACCEPTED IS NOT -- IS NOT JUST.

>> I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

>> MAYBE.

MAYBE NOT.

I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO RUSSIAN OFFICIAL WHO TOLD ME LIKE THEY DO PUBLICLY THAT THEY DO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE WINNING.

THEY BELIEVE THAT AND THEY KNOW, THEY SAY, DESPITE THE CASUALTIES, WHICH ARE HUGE, THAT THEY HAVE PRETTY MUCH AN ENDLESS PART OF RECRUITS BECAUSE THEY PAY THEM.

WE KNOW THAT.

THE FAMILIES.

THEY MAKE THEIR PEACE WITH THAT DEAL.

THEY GET MONEY EVERY TIME ONE OF THEIRS GOES TO THE FRONT.

AND THEY HAVE SAID PUBLICLY THEY HAVE GAINED SEVERAL KILOMETERS PER DAY FOR THE LAST IMPORTANT PERIOD OF TIME ON THE FRONT LINE INTO UKRAINE.

SO IT DOES ACTUALLY MATTER WHICH WEAPONS AND HOW THE UKRAINIANS WERE HELPED WHEN THEY COULD HAVE BEEN HELPED BECAUSE WE ALL KNEW THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE THIS HELP.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF YOUR LATEST INTELLIGENCE READINGS BEFORE YOU RESIGNED, I SUPPOSE, ON WHERE THE RUSSIANS ARE HEADED , AND CAN THEY WIN THIS WAR?

>> I THINK THE RUSSIANS OF COURSE ARE GOING TO TELL US THEY THINK THEY ARE WINNING.

I DO THINK PUTIN IS STRUGGLING.

THE ECONOMY IS STRUGGLING.

AND THAT IS WHY WE SHOULD DOUBLE DOWN ON EFFORTS TO MAKE IT HARDER TO WAGE THIS WAR ON EFFORTS THAT WILL UNDERCUT THE WAR MACHINE THAT PUTIN HAS.

HE DOES HAVE SOLDIERS, BUT HE IS PAYING A LOT OF MONEY FOR THE SOLDIERS AND A LOT OF DEATH BENEFITS FOR THESE SHOULDER HELP TO SOLDIERS, SO DOES A VERY EXTENSIVE PROPOSITION FOR HIM AND VERY HARD ON HIS ECONOMY.

BUT MAYBE WHAT I WOULD SAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST TO SAY WHY IT MATTERS WHAT WE DO FROM HERE AND WHY IT MATTERS TO AMERICA.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS -- FOREIGN-POLICY REASONS AND ECONOMIC REASONS.

BUT FIRST, PUTIN WON'T STOP THIS AGGRESSION.

AND IF HE THINKS AND IF HE DOES -- IF HE IS SUCCESSFUL IN CHANGING BORDERS BY FORCE AND BEING LEGITIMIZED FOR DOING THAT, HE WILL CONTINUE.

I'M SURE OF THAT BASED ON MY DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE REGION.

IT ALSO SENDS A TERRIBLE SIGNAL TO CHINA AND OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO COUNTERACT.

IT WILL HAVE GLOBAL REPERCUSSIONS IF WE SEE THIS AND IN A WAY WHERE PUTIN SUCCESSFUL.

AND THIRD , THE EU IS OUR LARGEST TRADING PARTNER.

$1.6 TRILLION OF TRADE, WHICH FUELS 60 MILLION JOBS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES.

AND PUTIN'S GOAL IS TO DISRUPT THIS RELATIONSHIP AND DIVIDE EUROPE.

AND TO DIVIDE EUROPE FROM US.

AND THEN I THINK THERE IS AN EVEN MORE IMPORTANT OR EQUALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE OF WHO WE ARE AS A NATION AND WHAT WE STAND FOR.

AND THROUGHOUT MY CAREER, I HAVE BEEN VERY PROUD TO SERVE AS A U.S.

DIPLOMAT UNDER FIVE PRESIDENTS WHERE WE PROMOTED FREEDOM AND WE SUPPORTED DEMOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD.

THIS IS WHO WE ARE.

IN AMERICA THAT LEADS IN THIS WAY IS A STRONG AMERICA WITH ALLIES AND PARTNERS.

AND THIS IS THE AMERICA WE NEED TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT.

>> YOU MENTIONED PUTIN TRYING TO DIVIDE EUROPE FROM USA.

HE IS DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB.

THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT RELATIONSHIP RIGHT NOW.

I WANT TO ASK YOU FINALLY, DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANYBODY IN TRUMP'S INNER CIRCLE OR CABINET THAT HAS UKRAINE'S BACK?

>> I MEAN, I CAN SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF AS A FORMER OFFICIAL.

WHAT WE CARE ABOUT IS AMERICAN INTERESTS.

WE SERVE AMERICAN INTERESTS.

IN THIS CASE, I THINK THEY ARE THE SAME AS UKRAINE'S INTEREST TO REMAIN A FREE COUNTRY.

TO DETER RUSSIA.

TO SEND A RIGHT SIGNAL TO CHINA.

THAT IS WHAT IS IN OUR INTEREST.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON.

I DO BELIEVE THAT ENDING THE WAR IS ALSO IN AMERICA'S INTEREST.

HOW IT ENDS IS IMPORTANT TO US.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO US ON A POLITICAL LEVEL, ECONOMIC LEVEL, AND ON A MORAL PRINCIPLE LEVEL.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO WHO WE ARE AS AMERICANS.

>> AMBASSADOR BRIDGET BRINK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED FOR JOINING US.

>>> NOW WE TURN TO THE MAN BEHIND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT INTERVIEWS IN HISTORY.

DAVID FROST, MARATHON INTERROGATION OF FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON FINALLY REVEALED THAT MAN IN HIS OWN WORDS AFTER THE WATERGATE CRISIS FORCED HIM TO RESIGN THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND.

IT WAS AN ENCOUNTER SO ELECTRIC AND PIVOTAL THAT IT HAS BEEN TURNED INTO PLAYS, FILMS, AND TV SHOWS, BUT FROST HAS HAD PLENTY OF OTHER LANDMARK INTERVIEWS WITH A HUGE ARRAY OF WORLD LEADERS AND CULTURAL FIGURES.

NOW A NEW DOCUMENTARY SERIES EXPLORES SOME OF THE MOST IMPACTFUL.

HERE IS A CLIP FROM THE TRAILER.

>> GOT PEOPLE TO TALK BECAUSE HE INSPIRED TRUST.

>> UNDERNEATH IS THAT STEEL.

>> DO YOU FEEL NOW OPTIMISTIC?

>> YOU HAVE TO TALK TO BOTH SIDES.

>> MAKING THE SITUATION WORSE, NOT BETTER.

>> THE SINGLE BEST INTERVIEW DAD EVER DID.

>> THEY WERE LOOKING FOR CONFESSION.

>> WHY DID YOU APPROVE A PLAN THAT WAS CLEARLY ILLEGAL?

>> THE SERIES IS PRODUCED BY FROST'S SON, WILFRED FROST, HIMSELF AN ANCHOR FOR SKY NEWS IN THE UK, AND HE IS JOINING ME HERE IN THE LONDON STUDIO.

WELCOME.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

>> SOME MIGHT HAVE NOTICED MY LITTLE FACE FLASHING BY BECAUSE YOU INTERVIEWED ME .

AND I WAS THRILLED BECAUSE IT IS UNBELIEVABLE, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

SO WHEN YOUR DAD DIED IN 2013 AND HE WAS GIVEN AN AMAZING SENDOFF AND I WAS THERE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY -- I MEAN, IT WAS INCREDIBLE.

ALL THE GREAT AND THE GOOD CAME.

IT WAS AMAZING.

THEN YOU NOTICED THAT HE HAD AN ARCHIVE.

>> IT HAD NOT COMPLETELY PASSED ME BY WHEN HE WAS ALIVE.

>> BUT DID YOU KNOW ALL THE STUFF WAS THERE?

>> NO.

I DIDN'T.

MY BROTHERS AND I REFLECTED ON THIS AFTERWARDS.

BECAUSE HE IS JUST DAD, WE DID NOT PRESS HIM ON HIS CAREER EVERY DAY AT HOME.

AND THIS PROCESS OF MAKING THIS SERIES IS SORT OF MY WAY OF MAKING UP FOR THAT A LITTLE BIT.

NO.

IN TERMS OF THE ARCHIVE ITSELF, HE HAD STORAGE DEPOTS -- TWO IN LONDON, ONE IN NEW JERSEY, ONE IN CLEVELAND, AND TWO IN L.A. YOU CAN IMAGINE THE TREASURE TROVE OF STUFF THERE.

>> THAT MUST HAVE BEEN AN INTENSE PROCESS.

10,000 INTERVIEWS.

>> OVER 10,000 INTERVIEWS DAD DID OVER THE COURSE OF 50 YEARS.

NOT JUST TRANSATLANTIC WE IN TWO COUNTRIES BUT REALLY AROUND THE WORLD.

THE PRESS CONFERENCE REMINDED OF HIS THREE INTERVIEWS WITH MANDELA AS WELL, WHICH DID NOT MAKE THE CUT OF THE SERIES, WHICH SHOWS WHAT WE HAD TO PLAY WITH.

>> THAT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE MANDELA IS A GIGANTIC FIGURATIVE HISTORY AND AS WE SPEAK, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN HOLDING MANDELA'S LIEUTENANT -- >> ARE YOU ALSO INTERVIEWED -- >> YES.

IN A TERRIBLE AMBUSH WITH ALL SORTS OF UNPROVEN ACCUSATIONS ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN SOUTH AFRICA.

HOW DID YOU CHOOSE WHICH ONES TO HIGHLIGHT?

BECAUSE THERE'S SIX EPISODES.

>> SIX EPISODES.

TWO THEMES OVERALL THAT WE WOULD SORT OF LEAD BY.

THE FIRST IS WHERE DAD HAD A PARTICULARLY UNIQUE FRONT ROW SEAT.

NIXON OBVIOUSLY.

THE BEATLES.

EPISODE ONE.

HE DID 16 INTERVIEWS WITH THE BEATLES.

THEY WERE BOTH PART OF THAT '60S BIRTH OF BRITISH INVASION AMERICA.

ELTON.

THE MIDDLE EAST.

FOR 50 YEARS HE COVERED THE CONFLICT IN QUITE A UNIQUE WAY AND TALKED TO BOTH SIDES.

THE SECOND THEME WAS AREAS WE THOUGHT WOULD RESONATE TODAY.

THIS IS NOT JUST A BORING ARCHIVE SHOW.

IT IS CONVERSATIONS WERE STILL HAVING TODAY.

THE MIDDLE EAST, FOR EXAMPLE.

THAT EPISODE WAS GOING TO BE THE COLD WAR REVISITED.

AND WE HAVE PIVOTED IT TO THE MIDDLE EAST.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE.

I THINK I'M GOING TO GO WITH NIXON FIRST.

LIKE THE QUEEN, NIXON, FROST HAS SPAWNED ALL SORTS OF AS I SAID TV SHOWS, THE FILM, THEATERS.

THIS AND THAT.

LET'S PLAY THIS BIT OF THE INTERVIEW FROM 1977.

>> THERE ARE SOME ACTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE COVERT.

BY COVERED -- LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY.

OR IN THIS CASE, ILLEGAL.

>> WELL, LET ME SAY THAT IT IS LEGAL.

IN MY VIEW.

>> SO WHAT IN ESSENCE YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND THE HOUSTON PLAN AND THAT PART OF IT WAS ONE OF THEM, WHERE THE PRESIDENT CAN DECIDE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION OR SOMETHING AND DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

>> WELL, WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

>> BY DEFINITION?

>> EXACTLY.

>> SERIOUSLY.

THAT PHRASE -- THAT SENTENCE.

THAT PIECE OF CONVICTION FROM RICHARD NIXON STANDS OUT IN HISTORY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE SAME THING.

THAT IS HOW HE MANAGED TO DODGE QUITE A LOT OF THE CRIMINAL CASES.

>> WE MENTIONED PICKING EPISODES .

I THINK WE WERE ALWAYS GOING TO DO A NIXON EPISODE.

ON THIS ONE, I COULD NOT QUITE BELIEVE OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR.

WE WERE POLISHING UP THE EPISODES.

HOW MUCH MODERN EVENTS CAME TOWARD THE EPISODE AND MADE IT EVEN MORE RELEVANT THAN I COULD HAVE IMAGINED.

OF COURSE WITH THAT EPISODE YOU WOULD SAY 80% OF IT FEELS VERY NOW.

BY THE END, THE LAST 20% HE ACKNOWLEDGES WRONGDOING.

I DON'T THINK I'M SPOILING THE PUNCHLINE OF THAT STORY.

ACKNOWLEDGES WRONGDOING AND APOLOGIZES SO PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHETHER THAT IS LIKELY TODAY OR NOT.

THE THING I SAY ABOUT THAT LINE IN PARTICULAR, IT WASN'T IN FACT RELATED TO WATERGATE.

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HOUSTON PLAN.

THE HOUSTON PLAN WAS A PLAN THAT NIXON PUT INTO ACTION AND ALLOWED BURGLARIES ESSENTIALLY.

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT AND PROVE EVEN IF THEY HAVEN'T GOT WARRANTS.

THAT IS THE SHORTHAND OF IT.

THE INTERESTING THING IN THE INTERVIEW IS THE FIRST THIRD OF THE INTERVIEW HAD NOT GONE THAT WELL FOR DAD.

>> IT WAS A MARATHON THING.

YOU DO SEE HIS PRODUCERS KIND OF THINKING, DUDE, YOU ARE JUST TOO FRIENDLY.

>> YEAH.

AND DAD ON TOP OF THAT HAD STAKED HIS ENTIRE CAREER ON THIS INTERVIEW.

HE MORTGAGED HIS WHOLE EXISTENCE TO FUND IT AND PAID NIXON $600,000.

>> CHECKBOOK JOURNALISM IS NOT REALLY ALLOWED.

>> ALL OF THE NETWORKS DID BID AS WELL, BUT DAD OUTBID THEM.

IT IS A BIT RICH IF THEY SAY THIS IS CHECKBOOK JOURNALISM.

WE LOOK BACK ON IT.

HAD HE NOT SECURED 28 HOURS, WE WOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN THAT MOMENT.

YOU KNOW, BOB WOODWARD IS IN THE EPISODE AS WELL.

TALKS VERY WARMLY ABOUT THE MOMENT THE APOLOGY CAME.

>> WOODWARD IS THE ONE WITH BERNSTEIN WHO UNCOVERED THE WATERGATE STORY.

I REMEMBER MEETING THE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER AT THE FIRST WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS DINNER WHEN TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT AND HE DID NOT SHOW UP AND THEY WERE THE KEYNOTES.

BOB SAID TO ME AFTERWARD, WHAT YOUR FATHER DID WITH THOSE INTERVIEWS WAS REMARKABLE.

AND I THINK SOMETIMES PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THOSE TWO TRY AND FRAME THIS AS THE REPORTERS BROKE THE STORY AND DAD CHARMED IT OUT OF HIM AND PAID FOR IT.

BUT THEY ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

THEY ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AS BOB IS CLEAR IN THE EPISODE.

AND I SEE THIS NOT AS ONE PART OF THE JOURNALISTIC IMMUNITY AGAINST THE OTHER THIS IS THE JOURNALISTIC COMMUNITY COMING TOGETHER TO FINISH THE JOB.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOODWARD OR BERNSTEIN OR WALLACE OR CRONKITE WOULD HAVE GOT THAT FINAL APOLOGY.

NOR, BY THE WAY, DID DAD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BREAKING THE WATERGATE STORY.

>> AND INTERESTINGLY HIS STYLE WAS NOT ONE OF A WHOLE.

HE WASN'T MIKE WALLACE.

CLINTON IN ONE OF YOUR EPISODES SAYS IT WAS LIKE GOING AND HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEBODY OVER COFFEE.

DID HE CULTIVATE THAT OR WAS THAT REALLY HIM?

>> I THINK THAT DAD DID NOT SEEK CONFRONTATION FOR THE SAKE OF IT.

IN THE NIXON EPISODE YOU DO YOU SEE DAVID FROST TO THE INTERROGATOR FOR A PORTION OF IT AND HE WOULD SWITCH WHEN HE NEEDED TO.

BUT I THINK THAT DAD TODAY IF YOU SEE PEOPLE KIND OF TO CREATE THAT 30-SECOND CLIP FOR TWITTER MAKING A CONFRONTATION TO SAY.

I THINK DAD WAS UNAPOLOGETICALLY HIMSELF.

ONE THING ABOVE ALL ELSE THAT MADE HIM SO GOOD AT WHAT HE DID.

HE JUST WAS FASCINATED BY PEOPLE.

ANYBODY.

MY FRIENDS.

PEOPLE ON THE STREET.

FAMOUS PEOPLE.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN FAKE THAT.

THAT INTEREST.

CLINTON KIND OF ALLUDED TO THAT AS WELL IN EPISODE SIX.

>> YOU SAY YOU DID NOT ASK HIM ENOUGH ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF.

YOU DID NOT INTERROGATE HIM.

DO YOU REGRET NOW THAT YOU HAVE THIS CAREER THAT MAYBE YOU MISSED SOME TRICKS?

MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE HAD A MASTER CLASS.

MAYBE YOU DID.

>> I THINK I PROBABLY DID.

I HAVE SOME INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES PERHAPS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO DAD, BUT IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF DAD.

I THINK IT IS JUST COINCIDENTAL.

I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO LIVE NEXT TO HIM AND AROUND HIM FOR 30 YEARS.

AND OF COURSE YOU PICK UP SOME TRAITS.

PARTICULARLY IF YOU LOOK UP TO HIM AS I DID.

BUT I THINK IT IS IN PORTON -- IMPORTANT IN OUR BUSINESS TO BE YOURSELF.

>> HE WAS HIMSELF.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE INTERVIEWEES ARE NOT QUITE SURE.

IS HE GOING TO GO THIS WAY?

IS GOING TO GO THAT WAY?

A LOT OF LAUGHTER IN HIS CONVERSATIONS.

HE TALKED ABOUT ELTON JOHN.

THE SECOND EPISODE FOCUSES ON HIS INTERVIEW IN 1991.

THAT IS THE SECOND EPISODE OF THE NEXT THREE THAT ARE COMING OUT BECAUSE THE FIRST THREE WERE A MONTH OR SO AGO.

HE HAD JUST COME OUT OF REHAB FOLLOWING YEARS OF ADDICTION.

LET'S WATCH THIS CLIP.

>> YOU HAVE KNOWN ME A LONG TIME.

YOU HAVE SEEN ME WHEN I HAVE BEEN HAPPY.

YOU HAVE SEEN ME WHEN I HAVE BEEN TROUBLED.

YOU HAVE SEEN ME WHEN I HAVE BEEN OBLIVIOUS AND ON ANOTHER PLANET.

BUT FIRST TIME I'VE HAD PEACE OF MIND.

IT SHOWS.

IT SHOWS.

I JUST FEEL IT.

>> EVERYBODY FEELS IT.

I SINCE YOU MORE AT PEACE THAN I HAVE EVER SEEN YOU BEFORE.

MORE AT PEACE.

>> YEAH.

THERE IS NO INWARD BATTLE GOING ON ANYMORE.

>> IT IS A SHORT CLIP, BUT YOU HAVE SAID THAT THAT INTERVIEW IS YOU THINK ONE OF THE BEST YOUR DAD EVER DID.

>> DAD DID 10 WITHOUT THEM.

THAT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 10.

1991.

JUST FRESH OUT OF COMING OUT OF REHAB.

ELTON TODAY TALKS BRAVELY ABOUT COMING OVER HIS ADDICTION, BUT THAT WAS REALLY RAW IN THE MOMENT, AND YOU WILL NEVER GET THAT AGAIN AS CENTRAL A MOMENT IN HIS LIFE THAT IT WAS.

AND IT IS AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES.

THAT RECORDING.

ONLY AN HOUR INITIALLY WENT OUT ON PBS AS IT HAPPENS.

PARTS OF IT HAVE NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE.

AND IT IS TWO FRIENDS REALLY OPENING UP.

SOMEBODY USED THIS ANALOGY, WHICH IS AT TIMES -- SOMETIMES AS IF PEOPLE CAME INTO DAD'S CONFESSIONAL BOOTH.

VERY RELIGIOUS.

HE WASN'T CATHOLIC.

HE WAS THE SON OF A METHODIST MINISTER AND PRAYED EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.

I THINK THERE IS THAT ELEMENT TO SOME OF THE INTERVIEWS HE DID, PARTICULARLY WITH BIG STARS.

NOT HOLDING AND A POLITICIAN TO ACCOUNT SO MUCH.

JUST CAME AND SPILLED THEIR SOUL BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE TALKING TO A FRIEND.

AND THE AMAZING THING ABOUT THE ELTON JOHN EPISODE AS WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE MOMENTS WHERE ELTON WAS AT HIS RAWEST OR HIS MOST SUCCESSFUL THAT YOU GET ALL OF THE ENERGY AND THE DEPTH THAT YOU WOULD WANT.

PLUS ELTON TODAY.

AND WE SAT DOWN WITH ELTON FOR 45 MINUTES.

HE IS ESSENTIALLY THE NARRATOR OF THAT EPISODE.

I THINK TOGETHER IT IS QUITE A POWERFUL ASPECT.

THE CONTRIBUTORS WE GOT THROUGHOUT WERE AMAZING.

OBVIOUSLY AS I SAID ALREADY, IT WAS SUCH A TREAT TO HAVE YOU IN THE MIDDLE EAST EPISODE.

BUT WITH TONY BLAIR AND BILL CLINTON.

AND I THINK THAT CALIBER THAT THAT TRIO CAPTURES ALLOWS US TO THEN CONTEXTUALIZE DIANE AND ARAFAT AND MAKE IT MUCH MORE POWERFUL.

>> WE ARE GOING TO GET TO THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS -- AND I THINK I SAID THAT IN THE THING BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT TOO.

A JOURNALIST HAS TO TALK TO ALL SIDES.

YOU CANNOT TAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S POLITICS ON BOARD AND SAY, OH, NO.

I'M ONLY GOING TO TALK TO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.

THAT IS NOT REALLY HAPPENING IN THIS CURRENT MIDDLE EAST WAR.

YOU DON'T SEE ANY OF THE PALESTINIANS AND HAMAS AND ALL THE REST OF IT.

BUT HE SPOKE AT A TIME WHEN IT WAS EQUALLY AWFUL TO TALK TO A PALESTINIAN.

HE GOT THE FIRST INTERVIEW I THINK WITH ARAFAT.

HE SPOKE TO MINISTER OF DEFENSE RIGHT AFTER THE WAR WHEN THEY TOOK BACK THE WEST BANK AND THEY BATTLED OFF AN ARAB INVASION.

HERE IS THAT SOUND BITE.

>> YOU THINK THINGS THE ARABS COULD TEACH?

TO THE ARABS OF QUALITIES YOU ADMIRE?

>> I DO BELIEVE WE CAN LIVE TOGETHER WITH THE ARABS AND THAT THEY CAN LIVE TOGETHER WITH US.

I THINK IT IS A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED.

THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT IN ISRAEL OR IN PALESTINE, A JEWISH STATE WAS BILLED HERE AND ESTABLISHED HERE.

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING BASIC PERSONALLY THAT WOULD DENY THEM LIVING TOGETHER WITH US IN CLOSE FRIENDSHIP.

>> IN ESSENCE DO YOU FEEL THE ARABS HAVE A CASE FOR FEELING THAT PERHAPS EVEN -- >> IF I WERE AN ARAB, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE SAME WAY.

>> AND I CANNOT REMEMBER, BUT I THINK HE ASKED IF YOU WOULD MEET WITH THE LEADER.

WITH ARAFAT.

HE ASKED ARAFAT.

I WONDER IF IT WAS IN RESPONSE.

HE WAS SAYING SOME THINGS WHERE THEY COULD LIVE TOGETHER.

AND ARAFAT SAID, NO, I WOULD NEVER MEET.

HE WOULD SHOOT ME.

>> I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THAT MOMENT.

BUT THE THING THAT IS STRIKING ABOUT THE DIANE INTERVIEW IS THAT REVELATION OF ALMOST CONCILIATORY FROM ISRAEL'S VICTORIOUS MILITARY LEADER AND BY THE WAY THAT WAS DIANE'S FIRST INTERVIEW AFTER THE WAR TO A MAN IN HIS 20s.

HOW DAD BOOKED THESE VIEWS, I DON'T KNOW.

UNBELIEVABLE.

>> IT IS EXTRAORDINARY.

20 YEARS LATER AFTER THE OSLO PEACE PROTESTS, HE OFFERED -- INTERVIEWED THEN PRIME MINISTER.

I JUST THINK IT IS SO INCREDIBLE BECAUSE TO YOUR DAD, HE SAID HE FIGURED THERE WAS A BIT OF A PARTNER FOR PEACE IN THE OSLO THINGS BUT THEN HE SAID IT ALSO BROUGHT ME THE REALIZATION SOME SAID TOO LATE THAT IF I WANT TO PARTNER, I HAVE TO TURN TO THE PLO.

IF I WAIT TWO YEARS, HAMAS WILL BE STRONGER .

THIS WAS IN 1993.

HOW PRESCIENT WAS THAT?

>> UNBELIEVABLE.

AND ON TOP OF THAT JUST TO SAY YOU GOT TO TALK TO BOTH SIDES.

BUT CAN YOU BRING THEM TOGETHER?

AND DAD HAD THEM ON THE SAME SHOW IN DECEMBER 1993 A COUPLE MONTHS AFTER THE OSLO ACCORDS.

THROUGHOUT DAD'S CAREER AND LIFE AT HOME I HEARD PEOPLE ASK HIM WHO HAD THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON HIM.

MORE OFTEN THAN NOT I HEARD HIM SAY RFK, WHO HE INTERVIEWED IN '68 JUST A MONTH OR SO BEFORE HE WAS ASSASSINATED.

IN AN INTERVIEW, HE ACTUALLY SAID TWO PEOPLE.

HE SAID RFK AND I HAD NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE.

BUT HEARING DAD TALK AS HE DID -- WE USED A LITTLE CLIP OF IT IN THE EPISODE -- IN SUCH HIGH REGARD FOR THIS MAN TRANSFORMED MY OWN THINKING.

TWO THINGS THAT REALLY COME OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST EPISODE.

ONE IS SOMEONE MY AGE -- 39 AND YOUNGER -- IT IS AMAZING TO BE STRUCK BY HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO PEACE IN THE '90S.

TODAY YOU THINK THAT MUST HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE, BUT WE REALLY WERE CLOSE.

IT SORT OF AS TO THE TRAGEDY.

THE SECOND THING IS THE HERO OF THE STORY THAT CLINTON CERTAINLY REFLECTS ON -- HE SAID HE CRIED THE DAY HE HEARD HE DIED.

AND CLINTON REFLECTS ON THAT.

ONE OF THE MOST REMARKABLE LINES I THINK I HAD EVER HEARD, WHICH HE SAID TO HIM, WHICH WAS, YOU DON'T MAKE PEACE WITH YOUR FRIENDS.

YOU MAKE PEACE AND THEN YOU MAKE FRIENDS.

IN THAT LINE, I THINK IS JUST REALLY STRIKING.

>> AND WE ARE OUT OF TIME, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU SAID HE WAS A RELIGIOUS MAN.

HE HAD THESE MORAL THINGS HE WOULD TALK ABOUT.

HE SAYS MORAL PERSUASION IS BETTER THAN FORCE.

YOU HAVE TO CREATE A CONTEXT IN WHICH PEOPLE FEEL LIKE TAKING THEIR COAT OFF.

AND IT IS REALLY REVEALED IN THE SERIES.

EXCELLENT.

HOW DO YOU FEEL NOW THAT IT IS ALL OUT THERE?

>> I'M SO PLEASED BECAUSE THE FEEDBACK HAS BEEN SO GREAT.

YOU MENTIONED HIS MEMORIAL SERVICE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY SIX MONTHS AFTER HE DIED.

I REMEMBER MY BROTHERS AND I AFTERWARD SAYING DAD WOULD HAVE LOVED THIS.

AND I THINK YOU LOVED THE SERIES.

JOB DONE.

>> YOU HAVE MADE HIM PROUD.

AND IT IS SO ENTERTAINING AS WELL AS HISTORICALLY AMAZING.

>>> IT IS GRADUATION SEASON IN THE UNITED STATES.

COLLEGE STUDENTS ACROSS THE NATION CELEBRATE THIS BIG MILESTONE, THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN UNIVERSITIES AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ARE TENSOR THAN EVER.

MITCH DANIELS IS PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY AND THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF INDIANA.

HE TELLS WALTER ISAACSON THAT HIGHER EDUCATION NEEDS URGENT REFORM.

>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.

MITCH DANIELS, WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> YOU HAD A PIECE IN THE WASHINGTON POST THAT UNIVERSITIES TRUMP'S ATTACKS.

HOW ABOUT DOING SOME ATONING TOO.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE ATONING?

>> I THINK THE DAMAGE HIGHER EDUCATION HAS SUFFERED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IS LARGELY SELF-INFLICTED, AND I'M ROOTING FOR THE SECTOR TO REPAIR ITS RELATIONSHIPS WITH STUDENTS, WITH THEIR FAMILIES AND WITH THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

SO I THINK ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SOME MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE OVER TIME IS A GREAT PLACE TO START.

>> LIKE WHAT?

>> THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TOO INATTENTIVE TO VALUE.

CHARGED MORE BECAUSE THEY COULD FOR SO VERY LONG.

THEY HAVE BEEN MORE AND MORE LAX ABOUT RIGOR AND STANDARDS AND QUALITY AND THEREFORE THE BASIC EQUATION OF LIFE, WHICH IS QUALITY OVER PRICE I THINK HAS GOTTEN VERY BADLY OUT OF WHACK FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS CAUGHT ON TO THAT.

I THINK ALSO WELL REPORTED DIFFICULTIES WITH REGARD TO FREE SPEECH, AND FORCED CONFORMITY OF THOUGHT, LACK OF ANYTHING RESEMBLING DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINT.

THESE ERRORS, REALLY, HAVE CAUGHT UP TO THE SECTOR.

AS A FAN OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION.

I BELIEVE IT IS ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS OUR COUNTRY HAS ALWAYS HAD.

I'M JUST EAGER TO SEE REMEDIAL ACTION.

>> IT IS NOT JUST VERBAL ATTACKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHERS.

IT IS CUTTING FUNDING FOR BASIC RESEARCH.

NOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND SAYING THAT MAYBE NOT FIGHTING ANTI- SEMITISM ENOUGH OR MAYBE SOME WAYS OF DOING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT WHY GO AFTER THE BASIC RESEARCH FOUNDATIONS THAT HAVE MADE FOR 80 YEARS THE UNITED STATES A FOUNT OF INNOVATION?

>> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

WITH MOST OF THOSE CUTS JUST AS I DON'T AGREE WITH THE NOTION OF STRIPPING TAX EXEMPTION FROM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS THAT WE HAVE.

I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THAT AMERICAN SCIENCE NOT LIMITED TO OUR ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS BUT BASICALLY CENTERED THEIR HAS SOME CORRECTIVE ACTION OF ITS OWN TO TAKE.

WE HAVE HAD THIS I THINK SHAMELESS NOTION OF CONSENSUS.

CONSENSUS IS THE VERY ENEMY OF SCIENCE AND THE IDEA THAT SHOULD BE SILENCED OR SUPPRESSED.

SOME OF THOSE TURNED OUT TO BE RIGHT.

I READ A GREAT BOOK THAT ALBERT EINSTEIN ONE TIME.

ONE OF OUR GREAT BIOGRAPHERS WROTE IT.

EINSTEIN SAYS IN THERE, I ENJOY CONTROVERSY.

HE WANTED PEOPLE TO TRY TO DISPROVE HIS THEORIES.

IF THEY COULD.

AND THAT IS THE WAY SCIENCE PROGRESSES.

SO, SURE.

THERE HAS BEEN SOME SCIENCE THAT REALLY DIDN'T DESERVE THE TAXPAYER SUPPORT AND THERE'S BEEN THE PROBLEMS OF NON- REPLICABILITY.

SOME APPARENTLY SHODDY WORK GOING ON THAT NOBODY CORRECTED.

BUT WE WANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO HAVE GREAT CONFIDENCE IN OUR SCIENCE JUST AS IN THESE INSTITUTIONS YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT.

THEY HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN RESTORING THAT CONFIDENCE.

>> BUT 99% OF THE FUNDING IN THE LIFE SCIENCES WAS NOT ABOUT DEBATING OR NOT DEBATING COVID MANDATES.

IT WAS THINGS LIKE USING GENE THERAPY.

I WAS UP THERE IN INDIANA WITH YOU AT ONE POINT.

PEOPLE USING GENE THERAPY IN A CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL THERE.

HOW IS THAT GOING TO HELP THE COUNTRY IF WE MAKE THAT THE TARGET RATHER THAN TRYING TO USE A BULLY PULPIT TO GET UNIVERSITIES TO BE MORE OPEN?

>> I'M AGAINST USING THAT AS THE TARGET.

WE HAVE A BABY AND BATHWATER RISK HERE.

THIS IS MAYBE THE MOST PRECIOUS BABY TO WHICH HIGHER EDUCATION GIVES BIRTH.

SO YES.

I WANT TO SEE UNIVERSITIES REBUILD AS I SAY A RAPPORT AND TRUST WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SPECIFICALLY SO WE DON'T MAKE MISTAKES LIKE THE CANCELLATION OF VITAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE HEALTH SCIENCES OR NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER THINGS, WHICH ARE PLAINLY IMPORTANT TO US ALL.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT INDOCTRINATION THAT MAY BE MANY UNIVERSITIES YOU SAY HAVE ENGAGED IN, BUT WE HAVE A PRETTY FREE-MARKET SYSTEM OF UNIVERSITIES.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE ONE, YOU CAN GO TO THE OTHER.

THEY ARE ALL INDEPENDENT.

WHY IS NOT THAT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT TO LET EACH UNIVERSITY DECIDE HOW IT IS GOING TO TEACH AND LET STUDENTS AND PARENTS FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE TO GO TO?

>> FIRST OF ALL, THE STUDENT DOESN'T ALWAYS KNOW ON THE WAY IN WHAT IS AWAITING THEM THERE.

THEY DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT VIRTUALLY 100% OF FACULTY AT MANY INSTITUTIONS HOLD EXACTLY THE SAME VIEWS.

YOU KNOW, THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE HOMOGENOUS NATURE IDEOLOGICALLY ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES IS THAT IT STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF THE ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE.

AS I WAS SAYING ABOUT SCIENCE AMENDED AGO, KNOWLEDGE ONLY ADVANCES THROUGH THE COLLISION OF IDEAS.

WHEN EVERYBODY THINKS EXACTLY THE SAME THING AND SPOUTS EXACTLY THE SAME LINE, IT IS NOT ADVANCING AND IT IS NOT BEING TRANSMITTED TO THE NEXT GENERATION IN A WAY THAT WILL ENCOURAGE THEM TO BE CRITICAL THINKERS.

>> WHAT DID YOU DO AS PRESIDENT OF PURDUE TO ENCOURAGE MORE CONFRONTATIONAL THINKING OR OPEN THINKING?

>> WE CERTAINLY FROM THE VERY OUTSET ESTABLISHED A FREE- SPEECH CODE THAT MADE IT VERY PLAIN THAT ALL VIEWPOINTS WERE WELCOME AND THAT WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE ANY ATTEMPT TO STIFLE.

VIEWPOINTS AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T CROSS THE LINE BETWEEN SPEECH AND ACTION.

SO WE HAD TO ENFORCE THAT A TIME OR TWO.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT WAS WELL- RECEIVED.

AT LEAST AMONG OUR FACULTY AND OUR STUDENT BODY, THEY QUICKLY, I THINK, AGREED THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY FOR AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION TO CONDUCT ITSELF.

>> AND WE TALK ABOUT FREE SPEECH AND HELP HER DO UNDER YOU MADE SURE THAT ALL DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS COULD BE MORE RESPECTFULLY HEARD.

BUT NOW DO YOU SEE OR FEAR THAT IT IS COMING FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION A BIT?

A STUDENT WHO GIVES A PRO-PALESTINIAN GRADUATION SPEECH GETS A DIPLOMA WITHHELD.

OR THERE'S WAYS TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH COMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

>> BOTH ARE INEXCUSABLE, OF COURSE.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK IN SOME OF THE MORE RECENT INCIDENTS, THE LINE BETWEEN SPEECH AND ACTION WAS CROSSED.

IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE THAT THIS TIME AROUND ONE OF OUR GREAT INSTITUTIONS HAS SUSPENDED AND APPARENTLY INTENDS TO SANCTION STUDENTS WHO TOOK OVER A LIBRARY , DISRUPTED THE STUDY OF OTHERS , DID DAMAGE WHILE THEY WERE THERE.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE TO KEEP THAT DISTINCTION IN MIND.

BUT, NO.

WHEN IT IS SIMPLY THE EXPRESSION OF A POINTED VIEW, OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES SHOULD BE LABORATORIES.

SHOULD BE TRAINING GROUNDS FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT.

INSTEAD IN TOO MANY CASES THEY HAVE BEEN AS I SAY MONOLITHIC IN THE VIEWPOINTS THAT WERE PERMITTED TO BE EXPRESSED.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT MONOLITHIC VIEWPOINTS, INDOCTRINATION, AND INDEED EVIDENCE THAT MANY UNIVERSITIES THERE IS A CONFORMITY TO POLITICAL THOUGHT ON ONE SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM.

BUT DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE TO TRY TO STOP THAT?

AND IS IT A PROBLEM HAVING GOVERNMENT TELL UNIVERSITIES WHAT THEY SHOULD BE TEACHING?

>> I THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES.

I THINK PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES -- WHATEVER THEIR ERRORS PROBABLY SHOULD BE LEFT AS YOU SUGGESTED TO THE MARKETPLACE TO BE DISCIPLINED IF THEY CAN BE.

A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THING WHEN THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS ARE BEING USED TO PROVIDE THAT EDUCATION.

SOME GUARDRAILS ARE NOT INAPPROPRIATE IN MY JUDGMENT.

BUT NO.

AS A GENERAL RULE, I MUCH PREFER THAT AS I SAY THE MARKETPLACE GOVERN THIS, AND YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE THIS.

THERE IS A SHAKEOUT.

IT TOOK LONGER THAN MANY PEOPLE PREDICTED, INCLUDING THE, TO START.

EVERY DAY NOW SOMEBODY IS CLOSING, SOMEBODY IS CONSOLIDATING.

SOMEBODY IS SHRINKING.

THAT IS TOO DARN BAD.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK MANY OF THE WOUNDS WERE SELF-INFLICTED.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK MIGHT BE SOME OF THE UPSIDES OF THE ATTACKS ON UNIVERSITIES?

WHAT DO YOU SEE HAPPENING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE VERSUS THE DOWNSIDE OF TRYING TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO?

>> WE ARE SEEING SOME FOXHOLE CONVERSIONS BY A LOT OF PLACES WHO SUDDENLY HAVE REDISCOVERED THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE SPEECH AND CLEAR RULES TO PROTECT IT AND PROMOTE IT.

WE ARE SEEING PEOPLE REDISCOVER THE ADVANTAGES AND PROPRIETY OF INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY.

AGAIN, OUR UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE ARENAS WHERE IDEAS CAN COMPETE, NOT PARTICIPANTS IN THE DEBATE THEMSELVES.

THEIR OWN INTERESTS AND BUSINESS IS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS BELATED, BUT I THINK IT IS COMING.

AND I GUESS THAT SOMEWHAT WHIMSICAL PIECE THAT I WROTE WAS JUST ENCOURAGING THE SECTOR TO REFORM ITSELF SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A GOVERNMENT AND ITS TYPICALLY CLUMSY AND SOMETIMES OVERSTATED WAY TRYING TO DO IT TO THEM.

>> ONE OF THE REAL PROBLEMS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION HAS BEEN THE COST.

I MEAN, I WROTE ABOUT SOMETHING WHERE 40 YEARS AGO SOMEBODY COULD GO TO A STATE COLLEGE FOR $38 MAY BE AS A SEMESTER OF TUITION.

NOW IN THE PAST 20 YEARS, EVEN STATE SCHOOLS HAVE GONE UP MORE THAN 140%.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

LET'S START WITH WHY.

WHY HAS THE COST INFLATED SO MUCH?

>> THEY RAISED THE PRICE OF EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY COULD, WALTER.

I HAVE SOMETIMES SAID TO PEOPLE, HERE IS A BUSINESS YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE IN.

YOU ARE SELLING WHICH WAS DEEMED A NECESSITY.

THERE'S QUESTIONS AROUND IT NOW, BUT THE BACHELOR'S DEGREE WAS SEEN AS AN ESSENTIAL PASSPORT TO A BETTER LIFE AND CAREER.

THERE HAS BEEN NO MEASUREMENT OF QUALITY.

NOBODY REALLY KNEW IF A SOCIOLOGY DEGREE FROM SCHOOL A WAS BETTER OR WORSE THAN ONE FROM SCHOOL B.

AND SO THEY RAISED PRICES BECAUSE THEY COULD.

AND IT WENT ON FOR LONGER THAN 20 YEARS.

I WOULD SAY AT LEAST TWICE THAT LONG.

SO I WAS WRONG AS I SAID.

I THOUGHT THE MARKETPLACE WOULD PUSH BACK MUCH SOONER THAN IT DID.

BUT FINALLY YOU ARE SEEING IT.

FORGIVE ME FOR INSERTING A COMMERCIAL, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.

AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY, TUITION AND FEES FOR ALL STUDENTS IS EXACTLY THE SAME NOW AS IT WAS IN 2012.

AND WILL BE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS.

SO IF YOU PRIORITIZE AFFORDABILITY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND THEREFORE THE QUALITY PER DOLLAR THAT A STUDENT'S FAMILY SPENDS, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.

>> AS YOU HAVE SAID, YOU FROZE TUITION WHEN YOU WERE PRESIDENT OF PURDUE.

AND NOW FOR THE PAST 13, 14 YEARS, IT HAS STAYED FROZEN.

WHAT DID YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET COSTS DOWN?

WHERE WAS THE WASTE IN THE BUDGET?

>> I WOULD LOVE TO TELL YOU IT WAS SOME STROKE OF MANAGERIAL BRILLIANCE.

I REALLY CANNOT MAKE THAT CLAIM.

I USED TO SAY, WELL, WE WILL FOLLOW THE EQUATION FOR ZERO INSTEAD OF ASKING AS HIGHER EDUCATION WAS ABLE TO DO FOR A VERY LONG TIME, HOW MUCH MONEY -- HOW MUCH MORE MONEY WOULD IT TAKE THIS YEAR TO KEEP EVERYBODY HAPPY?

BECAUSE IT WAS VERY EASY TO EXTRACT FOR SO VERY LONG.

WE ASKED THE QUESTION, WHAT WOULD WE HAVE TO DO TO AVOID RAISING PRICES ON OUR STUDENTS?

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SOME ELEMENTS.

WE HAD AN ANTIQUATED HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM, WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE MORE CONSUMER ORIENTED.

THAT SAVED A LOT OF MONEY.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.

IF YOU ARE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT THE WAY YOU BUILD THINGS AND HOW MANY THINGS YOU BUILD IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE SAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THAT AREA.

BUT IT REALLY WAS NOT VERY HARD.

AND HONESTLY MOST OF YOUR VIEWING AUDIENCE COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING.

>> AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR AND PRESIDENT OF PURDUE, PRESIDENT OF A UNIVERSITY, IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT NOW OF PURDUE OR ANOTHER UNIVERSITY AND YOU SAW TRUMP'S ATTACKS COMING AT YOU TELLING YOU YOU NEEDED TO HAVE MORE OVERSIGHT ON WHO GOT TO GET TENURE, WHAT WAS TAUGHT, WHAT TYPES OF COURSES TAUGHT, HOW WOULD YOU PUSH BACK?

>> I WOULD SAY THAT IS REALLY NOT AN APPROPRIATE ROLE.

CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

AGAIN, I MIGHT SEE SOME ROLE FOR STATES WHEN THEY ARE FUNDING STATE UNIVERSITIES.

BUT LEAVING THAT EXCEPTION ASIDE, I DON'T THINK IT IS.

THE ANSWER SHOULD BE, WE WILL REFORM OURSELVES.

WE HEAR THAT SOME, NOT ALL OF THESE CRITICISMS HAVE VALIDITY.

AND WE ARE MOVING.

WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

AND IT IS OUR JOB TO DO IT, NOT YOURS.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU SAY AND WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR FELLOW REPUBLICANS -- THOSE WHO ARE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF TRUMP'S ATTACKS OF UNIVERSITIES -- WOULD SAY IF IT WERE KAMALA HARRIS DOING THIS AND SAYING, HERE IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE TAUGHT MORE IN UNIVERSITIES?

>> IF YOU PERMIT ME, I HAVE NOT HAD ANY PARTISAN AFFILIATION SINCE THE DAY I ACCEPTED THE PURDUE JOB THAT IS NOW 13 YEARS AGO.

SO IF YOU WILL TAKE MY ANSWER AS COMING FROM A NONPARTISAN DIRECTION.

NO.

I THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LARGE-SCALE NEGATIVE REACTION TO THAT.

I AM, HOWEVER, MOVED TO SAY THAT HIGHER EDUCATION IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS BEING TAUGHT, THE WAY IT WAS BEING TAUGHT AND THE GENERAL RULES OF THE ROAD -- I'M NOT SURE THAT A PRESIDENT HARRIS WOULD HAVE HAD MUCH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

IT FIT I THINK HER WORLDVIEW AND THAT OF PEOPLE GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH HER.

THE WAY THINGS WERE WAS MORE OR LESS THE WAY THEY AND FOLKS LIKE THEM HAD WANTED THEM TO BE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU ONE BIG PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.

IN THE AGE OF AI AND IN AN AGE WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SAYING A COLLEGE DEGREE -- THAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T HELP ME GET AHEAD AS MUCH AS IT USED TO, WHAT IS THE VALUE OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND IN PARTICULAR HIGHER EDUCATION IN WHICH BOTH THE ARTS AND SCIENCES ARE TAUGHT?

>> I WISH I WAS TOTALLY CONFIDENT IN AN ANSWER HERE, WALTER.

I DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW WHERE AI.

THE PEOPLE CREATING IT DON'T SEEM TO KNOW EITHER.

BUT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT ASSUMING THAT THE MACHINES DON'T TAKE OVER AND KICK US TO THE CURB THAT THERE WILL BE A ROLE OF THIS MAYBE EVEN A BIGGER ROLE FOR PEOPLE WHO UNDERTAKE HIGHER EDUCATION AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT.

WHO LEARN THE WIDE VARIETY OF VIEWS AND PHILOSOPHIES THAT HUMANS HAVE DEVELOPED OVER TIME .

COMPARE AND CONTRAST THEMSELVES.

WHO CAN DISCUSS THEM INTELLIGENTLY WITH OTHERS AND WHO CAN THEREFORE CONTINUE TO GROW AS A I AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS CHANGE OUR WORLD DAILY.

>> MITCH DANIELS, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>>> AND FINALLY, SHE WAS THE TALK OF THE TOWN DURING MOVIE AWARD SEASON.

ACTRESS FERNANDA TORRES BECAME A SOURCE OF RESILIENT PRIDE AFTER WINNING A GOLDEN GLOBE FOR HER ROLE IN I'M STILL HERE.

SHE ALONG WITH DIRECTOR WALTER RECEIVED THE ORDER OF CULTURAL MERIT FROM PRESIDENT, WHO EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE IN DEFENDING DEMOCRACY.

WHEN I INTERVIEWED MacNEIL- LEHRER PRODUCTIONS AND WALTER, THEY TOLD ME WHY THEY THINK THEIR FILM ABOUT LIFE UNDER AUTHORITARIAN RULE RESONATED SO WIDELY.

>> ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE CAME TO THE MOVIE THEATERS.

SO YOU HAVE RIGHT-WINGS, LEFT WINGS, CENTER , PROGRESSIVES.

AND IT WAS LIKE AROUND THIS FAMILY -- THE PAIVA FAMILY, WE CAME TO THE SENSE THAT A DICTATORIAL REGIME WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

AND THAT WAS THE MIRACLE OF THIS MOVIE.

>> IT TO SEVEN YEARS BECAUSE IN FOUR YEARS THE COUNTRY STEERED TO THE EXTREME RIGHT AND WE WOULD HAVE NEVER HAD THE POSSIBILITY TO SHOOT THE FILM DURING THAT PERIOD.

THEREFORE, THE FILM IS THE PRODUCT OF THE RETURN OF DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

>> NOTING HIS COUNTRY'S LONGEST PERIOD OF DEMOCRACY, PRESIDENT ENDED THE AWARD CEREMONY INVOKING THE NAME OF THE FILM, WE ARE STILL HERE.

ALERT AND STRONGER THAN EVER.

AND THAT IS IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT IS COMING UP EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG AMANPOUR.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.