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

>> IT'S A SHAME, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GONE ON.

IT'S A SHAME, BUT WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THEIR COMING TO THE TABLE.

>> TRUMP VERSUS BIG LAW.

AS SOME FIRMS MAKE A DEAL AND OTHERS FIGHT BACK, I TALKED TO FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALEZ ABOUT WHY THIS SHOULD MATTER TO EVERY AMERICAN.

>> AND A MOTHER'S PLEA.

SHE URGES THE WORLD NOT TO FORGET ABOUT HER SON ELAN STILL HELD BY HAMAS.

> >> THEN -- >> ON FEDERAL ELECTIONS, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE POWER.

>> JUSTIN LEAVITT JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO EXAMINE TRUMPS LATEST ATTEMPT TO OVERHAUL THE VOTING SYSTEM.

> >> PLUS, OPERATION MINCEMEAT GOES TO BROADWAY.

WE LOOK BACK AT THE INTERVIEW WITH BEN McENTIRE ABOUT THE RISKY CAPER THAT HELPED CHANGE THE COURSE OF WORLD WAR II.

> >> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT, JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS, CANDACE KING WE RISHGS, THE SYLVIA.

A AND SIMON B. POITA ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI SEMITISM, THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF STRAUSS, SETON J. MELVIN, THE PETER FUND, CHARLES ROSEN BLOOM, PATRICIA EWAN, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, JEFFREY KATZ, AND BETH ROGERS.

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

THANK YOU.

> >> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, I'M SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS TEAM CONTINUE TO TEST THE BOUNDARIES OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION FROM DETAINING STUDENTS ON VISAS DUE TO THEIR SPEECH TO REPEATEDLY FLOATING THE IDEA OF A THIRD TERM.

IT IS SO OFTEN THE COURTS THAT ARE IN THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE FOR THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS, BUT ARE BIG LAW FIRMS PREPARED TO TAKE THEM ON?

AMONGST HIS MANY EXECUTIVE ORDERS, TRUMP HAD TARGETED MAJOR PRACTICES AND HIS LAWYERS, WHO HE PERCEIVES HAS BEEN OPPOSED TO HIM IN THE PAST.

HE HAS AIMED TO TAKE AWAY SECURITY CLEARANCES AND ACCESS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS FOR MASSIVE FIRMS DUE TO THEIR HAVING WORKED WITH HIS POLITICAL RIVALS.

SO FAR IT APPEARS TO BE WORKING.

SOME OF THESE FIRMS ARE NOW CAVING, MOST PROMINENTLY PAUL WEISS, WHICH ENTERED -- TARGETING IT RESCINDED.

THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE DIRE WITH MANY FIRMS RELUCTANT TO CHALLENGE THE ADMINISTRATION AND EVEN CHANGING THE FOCUS OF THEIR PRO BONO WORK.

THE FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO WARNED IN SEPTEMBER HE VIEWED TRUMP AS PERHAPS THE MOST SERIOUS THREAT TO THE RULE OF LAW IN A GENERATION.

ALBERTO GONZALEZ, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING THE PROGRAM, AND IS IT THESE TIMES OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT LED YOU TO THAT BELIEF THAT HE IS, INDEED, A THREAT TO THE RULE OF LAW MANY THE UNITED STATES?

>> WELL, I THINK --I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY IS EVEN MORE THAN I HAD IMAGINED.

I THINK THAT --I WISH WE HAD A PRESIDENT, LIKE WITH EVERY PRESIDENT, WHO LOOKS FORWARD IN TERMS OF WHAT THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTRY ARE AND PROVIDING LEADERSHIP GOING FORWARD, THESE ACTIONS GOING AFTER LAW FIRMS THAT HE BELIEVES WERE AGAINST HIM PREVIOUSLY IS JUST HIM LOOKING BACKWARDS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.

I DON'T THINK THE ATTACKS ON LAW FIRMS IS GOOD FOR THE RULE OF LAW.

LAWYERS HAVE A SPECIAL OBLIGATION, A SPECIAL ROLE, IN PROTECTING AND PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW, AND WHEN THAT IS CHALLENGED, THEN IT CHANGES -- IT CHALLENGES ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PILLARS OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

IF WE DON'T HAVE THE RULE OF LAW, WE DON'T HAVE A DEMOCRACY.

WE DON'T HAVE AMERICA.

AND SO I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, AND I APPLAUD THE FIRMS THAT ARE STANDING UP AND BRINGING SUIT.

I'M NOT GOING TO --IT'S HARD FOR ME TO CRITICIZE PAUL WEISS AND THOSE FIRMS THAT HAVE TRIED TO REACH A SETTLEMENT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ALL THE TERMS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINANCIAL PRESSURES WERE ON THE FIRMS, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STAND UP FOR THE RULE OF LAW.

>> THOSE FIRMS YOU MENTIONED THAT ARE FIGHTING BACK THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS, PERKINS CUE WEE, GENERALER AND BLOCK, AND CUE WEE --MAYBE EVEN IF THEY DO, THERE'S STILL SOMETHING UNSETTLING ABOUT PERCEPTION AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE LAW FIRMS, EVEN IF THEY PREVAIL IN COURT WILL THINK TWICE ABOUT TAKING UP SOME OF THESE CASES THAT THE PRESIDENT DEEMS MAKE HIM LOOK BAD.

I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE SECOND GUESSING ABOUT TAKING UP SOME OF THESE CASES.

AND I THINK THAT WHAT THAT MEANS THE THAT YOU AND I, AMERICANS, AMERICAN COMPANIES, ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE OUR CHOICE OF REPRESENTATION.

AND I THINK THAT'S WRONG.

I THINK ALL OF US SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHO WE WANT TO REPRESENT US IN COURT.

I THINK THIS IS MORE THAN JUST LOOKING BACK, AS I SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER, I THINK IT'S ALSO, PERHAPS, LOOKING FORWARD.

AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT MAY, AND AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT BUT ONE TIME.

I DON'T KNOW HIM, I DON'T KNOW HIS MOTIVATIONS, BUT HE MAY BE LOOKING AT WHO IS GOING TO CHALLENGE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO GOING FORWARD.

ONE OF THE MAIN ADVANTAGES OR THE THINGS THAT WE --THAT MAKES THE RULE OF LAW SO IMPORTANT IS IT SERVES AS A CHECK ON ABUSES OF POWER.

AND I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT LAWYERS, THAT OUR COURT SYSTEMS, OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, ALL OF OUR CITIZENS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO ABUSES OF POWER COMING OUT OF THIS WHITE HOUSE.

>> THIS DOES HAVE AT LEAST THE PERCEPTION OF EXTORTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN SOME OF THESE FIRMS, THE TWO THAT YOU MENTIONED, PAUL WEISS AND SKADDON -- RESCINDED AGAINST -- $40 MILLION OR $100 MILLION OF PRO BONO WORK IN AREAS THAT THE PRESIDENT SUPPORTS, IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?

>> WELL, THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

WE'VE GOT CHALLENGES GOING ON IN THE COURT NOW, IN THE COURTS NOW, AND WE'LL SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LEGAL.

TO ME IT APPEARS OFFENSIVE AND IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT, QUITE FRANKLY.

AS I SAID, I'M DISAPPOINTED AT THE SETTLEMENTS.

AS I SAID ALSO, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE TERMS, I DON'T KNOW THE FINANCIAL PRESSURES INVOLVED HERE.

I DON'T KNOW THE DECISION MAKING AT THESE FIRMS, BUT IT DOESN'T SEND A VERY GOOD MESSAGE.

I APPLAUD THE ABA FOR STANDING UP AND OTHERS IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY STANDING UP AND TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS PROBLEMATIC AND WE DO NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE RESOLVED IN THE COURTS.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES IN THE COURTS TODAY, AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE BEST LEGAL TALENT AVAILABLE TO, AGAIN, ALL OF OUR CITIZENS, ALL COMPANIES TO ENSURE THAT THE RULE OF LAW IS BEING RESPECTED AND FOLLOWED.

>> DONALD TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.

>> YOU MEAN THE LAW FIRMS THAT WE'RE GOING AFTER THAT WENT AFTER ME FOR FOUR YEARS RUTHLESSLY, VIOLENTLY, ILLEGALLY, I MEAN, ARE THOSE THE LAW FIRMS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?

THEY'RE NOT BABIES, THEY'RE VERY SOPHISTICATED PEOPLE.

THOSE LAW FIRMS DID BAD THINGS, BAD THINGS.

THEY WENT AFTER ME FOR YEARS.

>> AGAIN, YOU WEREN'T CONNECTED PERSONALLY TO MANY OF THESE CASES, BUT YOUR REACTION TO THIS DESCRIPTION FROM THE PRESIDENT.

>> YEAH, CAN I JUST SAY, THE LAW FIRMS DIDN'T DECIDE ONE MORNING WE'RE GOING TO GO AFTER DONALD TRUMP.

THERE WERE CLIENTS THAT HIRED THE FIRMS TO INVESTIGATE, TO BRING A CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.

AND I UNDERSTAND HOW THE PRESIDENT, LIKE ANY ONE OF US WOULD BE ANGRY, TIRED OF THE NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS THAT HE'S HAD TO ENDURE THESE PAST FEW YEARS, AND IT DOES RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS POLITICAL OR PERSONAL.

BUT FOR THE FACT I LOOK AT THE RESULTS, THIS MAN IS A CONVICTED FELON.

HE ALSO IS SUBJECT TO A HUGE FINE FOR SEXUAL ABUSE TO JEAN CARROLL.

SO IT'S HIS CONDUCT, I BELIEVE, IT IS HIS CONDUCT THAT HAS RESULTED IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND THESE PROSECUTIONS.

AND IF HE'S TIRED OF IT, THEN PERHAPS HE NEEDS TO CHANGE HIS CONDUCT.

BUT THE NOTION THAT ALL THESE FIRMS HAVE TAKEN ACTION AGAINST HIM PERSONALLY, THESE FIRMS EXIST TO MAKE MONEY BUT ALSO TO ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IS MADE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY RESPONSE TO WHAT I JUST HEARD.

>> ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT YOU'RE NOT HEARING MORE PUSHBACK FROM REPUBLICANS, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THE IRONY IS NOT LOST THAT MANY OF THESE LAW FIRMS, ONE OF THEM JONES DAY, IS KNOWN TO HAVE TAKEN MANY CASES SUCCESSFULLY AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS, PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS ADMINISTRATION AS WELL GOING AFTER SOME OF THEIR POLICIES AND PRESIDENT OBAMA AS WELL HAD BEEN CHALLENGED FOR OBAMACARE AND OTHER POLICIES OF HIS.

SO WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICAN VOICES THAT MAY SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS COULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE MAY NOT LIKE ONCE DEMOCRATS ARE BACK IN OFFICE?

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

IT COULD SET A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

AND I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE NOT HEARING MORE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY ASSOCIATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN THESE BIG FIRMS WHO ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE FIRMS.

THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE HASN'T BEEN MORE OF A PUBLIC OUTCRY ABOUT THIS.

THIS IS THE LIVELIHOOD OF LAWYERS.

THIS IS WHAT WE DO IS REPRESENT EVEN THE MOST DISTASTEFUL OF DEFENDANTS.

AND SO SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE IN THE CASES THAT WE TAKE.

SOMETIMES WE DO BUT SOMETIMES WE DON'T.

AND SO TO PUNISH THESE FIRMS FOR THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS, TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRMS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT MORE FIRMS WILL COME TOGETHER AND I THINK THE MORE SUCCESS YOU SEE IN THE COURTS, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE MORE PEOPLE, MORE FIRMS, MORE LAWYERS STEP UP.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M A FORMER JUDGE, THE NOTION -- WATCHING THIS, TO ME, IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT THE JUDGES WHO HAVE AT LEAST RULED INITIALLY ON THESE KINDS OF CASES, THEY CALL IT --I'LL PARAPHRASE HERE, THEY VIEW IT AS APPALLING.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

>> ANOTHER STORY THAT IS GAINING A LOT OF ATTENTION TODAY, AND THIS HAS TO DEAL BE THE MASSIVE WAVE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION SWEEPING UP MIGRANTS, DEPORTING THEM WITH LITTLE OR NO DUE PROCESS, AND THE ADMINISTRATION COMING OUT UNUSUALLY TODAY AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT HAD DEPORTED A MARYLAND FATHER WHO WAS HERE LEGALLY, MISTAKENLY DEPORTING HIM TO EL SALVADOR BUT THEN SAYING THAT THEY LACK, THE U. S. COURTS LACK COMPLETE JURISDICTION TO BRING HIM BACK.

IS THAT TRUE IN YOUR VIEW?

THE UNITED STATES ADMITTING THAT SOMEBODY WHO WAS HERE LEGALLY WAS DEPORTED ILLEGALLY AND THERE'S NO RECOURSE THAT CAN BE TAKEN?

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW --PERHAPS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE AS A MATTER OF LAW TO REACH BACK AND TAKE THIS INDIVIDUAL FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND BRING THEM BACK HERE.

I DO THINK THEY CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE EL SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT AND WORK OUT SOMETHING SO THIS INDIVIDUAL COULD BE BROUGHT BACK.

BUT I DON'T THINK THEY COULD SIMPLY BREACH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ANOTHER COUNTRY TO BRING HIM BACK.

SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES THERE.

IT'S NOT SURPRISING.

THERE WAS AN ADMISSION THAT SOMEONE WAS DETAINED AND TRANSPORTED EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T PART OF THIS GANG.

AND SO A MISTAKE WAS MADE.

AND IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS WHOLE OPERATION PLAYED OUT.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THE JUDGE -- THIS IS WHAT --IN THE AREA OF IMMIGRATION, FOREIGN POLICY, NATIONAL SECURITY, THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF DISCRETION GIVEN TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN SECURING OUR COUNTRY.

I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND NOW AND WE ACCEPT THAT.

BUT NONETHELESS, THAT DISCRETION IS NOT WITHOUT SOME LIMITS.

ONE OF THOSE LIMITS IS ENSURING THAT WHO YOU THINK YOU'RE TRANSPORTING IS, IN FACT, A MEMBER OF A VERY DANGEROUS GANG AND NOT AN INNOCENT AMERICAN OR SOMEONE WHO'S INNOCENT AND HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY.

AND THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT --WAS SUFFICIENT PROCESS MADE AVAILABLE SO THAT WE ENSURE THAT PEOPLE THAT HAD A RIGHT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY AND WERE NOT DANGEROUS WERE, IN FACT, PROTECTED AND NOT DEPORTED.

>> ALBERTO GONZALEZ, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING THE PROGRAM.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> UP NEXT, ISRAEL, PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU CONTINUES TO FACE MAJOR PROTESTS OVER HIS CONDUCT OF THE WAR IN GAZA AND OVER ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION WITHIN HIS OWN OFFER.

THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF HOSTAGES AND EVEN FORMER HOSTAGES THEMSELVES ARE TAKING TO THE STREETS TO PROTEST THE GOVERNMENT ENDING THE CEASEFIRE AND RESUMING THE WAR IN GAZA.

THEY ARGUE THAT CONTINUING THE WAR ONLY ENDANGERS THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO ARE LEFT BEHIND.

THERE ARE THOUGHT TO BE 24 HOSTAGES STILL ALIVE IN GAZA, INCLUDING ELAN, WHO WAS TAKEN FROM THE NOVA MUSIC FESTIVAL ON OCTOBER 7th.

DURING THE RECENT CEASEFIRE, FELLOW HOSTAGES CAME WITH NEWS THAT ELAN IS STILL ALIVE BUT BADLY WOUNDED AND COULD GO BLIND.

AND HIS MOTHER EDID JOINS THE SHOW LIVE.

THE LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH YOU WAS ON OCTOBER 7, 2024, YOU HAD NO PROOF OF LIFE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOUR SON WAS STILL ALIVE, NO INFORMATION ABOUT HIM AT ALL.

AND NOW YOU DO.

AND THE NEWS THAT YOU DO HAVE IS THAT HE IS IN DIRE CONDITION.

HE IS BADLY INJURED AND IS BEING TREATED BRUTALLY.

TALK TO US ABOUT YOUR MESSAGE THAT YOU KEEP REPEATING BOTH IN ISRAEL AND TO THE WORLD ABOUT THE URGENT NEED TO BRING YOUR SON AND ALL OF THE REMAINING HOSTAGES BACK HOME.

>> MY SON IS INJURED, AS I SAID, BUT IT'S LIFE-THREATENING INJURY.

AND WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT HE WILL GET MEDICAL ATTENTION.

HE HAS NEVER SEEN ANY DOCTOR OR HAD NEVER GOTTEN ANY MEDICAL ATTENTION FROM THE 7th OF OCTOBER UNTIL TODAY.

I LEARNED HE'S BEEN HELD IN VERY HARSH CONDITION.

HE'S BEEN STARVED.

HE'S, YOU KNOW, HIS FEET AND HIS LEGS IS CHAINED IN SHACKLES AND HE MOSTLY CANNOT MOVE.

AND HIS INJURY IS GETTING WORSE EVERY DAY.

HE'S GETTING BLIND.

HOSTAGES THAT RETURNED SAY THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN WITH HIM.

ELAN HAS BEEN HELD 40 METERS UNDER THE GROUND IN A TUNNEL.

AND WHAT I WANT IS FOR HIM TO GET ANY MEDICAL, YOU KNOW, MEDICAL ATTENTION THAT HE SHOULD GET.

WHICH MEANS THAT HE SHOULD BE MOVED TO A PLACE WHERE THERE IS A HOSPITAL THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT HE'S GETTING THE TREATMENT THAT HE NEEDS.

AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE UP UNTIL NOW.

>> YOU KNOW THAT PROOF OF LIFE CAME FROM HOSTAGES RELEASED IN EARLY FEBRUARY TO JUST SHOCKING IMAGES OF HOW THEY HAD BEEN TREATED, EXTREMELY THIN, HAD BEEN ABUSED, HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN MUCH FOOD AT ALL AND CAME BACK TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY SAW YOUR SON AND WHILE, YES, HE HAD BEEN BADLY INJURED AND WAS TREATED TERRIBLY INHUMANELY IN SHACKLES, HE WAS STILL ALIVE.

DID YOU THINK FROM FEBRUARY 8th TO NOW WHERE WE ARE, APRIL 1st THAT IT WOULD STILL BE SO LONG BEFORE YOUR SON TOO WOULD BE RELEASED?

ESPECIALLY GIVEN DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES AND POOR HEALTH THAT HE IS IN.

>> YES, I DO.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

I WAS THINKING THIS IS --WILL BE CONTINUOUS, AND FROM PHASE ONE TO PHASE TWO, FOR ME PHASE ONE HAS NOT ENDED, BECAUSE PHASE ONE WAS WITH INJURED AND HUMANITARIAN ISSUES, AND ELAN IS DEFINITELY INJURED AND HUMANITARIAN.

SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY HE'S TAKING SO LONG.

THEY WERE WITH HIM THE WHOLE TIME, THE WHOLE 490 DAYS BEFORE THEY WENT OUT.

SO THEY'VE BEEN TOGETHER, THE FOUR OF THEM, THREE OF THEM HAVE RETURNED, AND ELAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO STAYED SO HE'S ALONE NOW.

IT'S CRUCIAL BECAUSE HE'S ALONE AND BECAUSE HE'S BEING TREATED THAT WAY TO GET AS FAST AS POSSIBLE HIM HOME.

IT IS NOT --IT'S HARD FOR US.

IT IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST IMAGINE, ANYONE IS OUT THERE, JUST IMAGINE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A SON BUT YOU CAN NOT TALK TO, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN FOR 500, TODAY, 543 DAYS TODAY, I HAVEN'T HEARD HIS VOICE.

I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM.

I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM.

AND I KNOW HE IS IN THESE CONDITIONS.

NOW, MY SON IS A FIGHTER, OKAY?

HE'S FIGHTING FOR 543 DAYS TODAY FOR HIS LIFE.

HE'S DOING EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT HE SURVIVES.

WHAT I'M ASKING IS FOR HIM TO BE RETURNED, FOR HIM TO GET ANY MEDICAL ATTENTION THAT HE NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT HE DOESN'T GO BLIND IN THE OTHER EYE AND THAT HE WILL SURVIVE THIS.

SO THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

AND I KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THE POWER AND HAS THE ABILITY TO HELP ELAN AND BRING HIM HOME AND BRING ALL THE HOSTAGES HOME.

>> YEAH, AND WE SHOULD NOTE THAT ELAN SUSTAINED THAT INJURY TO HIS EYE ON OCTOBER 7, 2023.

SINCE THEN HE'S HAD TWO BIRTHDAYS THAT HE TRAGICALLY HAS BEEN IN GAZA THERE TO AN SERVE AND HELD IN DUNGEONS AS HAD BEEN DETAILED IN TESTIMONY FROM THOSE RELEASED HOSTAGES.

YOU BLAME HAMAS BECAUSE, AS YOU SAID, WELL, OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE BLAMES HAMAS FOR THE ATROCITIES OF OCTOBER 7th, BUT SPECIFICALLY YOU SAY HAMAS LIED BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT FIRST PHASE OF HOSTAGES TO BE RELEASED EARLIER THIS YEAR GIVEN HIS INJURY.

WHEN YOU SAW THE OTHER HOSTAGES SPEAK OVER THE WEEKEND ABOUT HOW TERRIBLY TREATED THEY WERE AND THE LITTLE FOOD THAT THEY RECEIVED BUT AT THE SAME TIME KNOW THAT ALL OF THESE RETURNED HOSTAGES HAVE BEEN TAKING TO THE STREETS TO INTERVIEWS TO SHOUT TO THE WORLD, TO YOUR GOVERNMENT THAT THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL ALL HOSTAGES COME HOME, INCLUDING YOUR SON.

DOES THAT GIVE YOU A BIT OF ENCOURAGEMENT TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT FIGHTING ALONE?

>> OF COURSE.

OF COURSE.

THIS IS NOT JUST MY FIGHT.

YES, ELAN IS MY SON, BUT IT'S ALL OF US SON.

HE'S NOT JUST MY SON.

AND THE FACT THAT PEOPLE AND THE HOSTAGES HAVE RETURNED AND, YOU KNOW, THE WORLD, CIVILIANS, EVERYBODY IS FIGHTING FOR MY SON AND ALL THE OTHER HOSTAGES, OF COURSE, IT MAKES ME FEEL THAT I'M NOT ALONE.

I SHOULDN'T BE ALONE IN THIS.

THIS IS --ELAN IS AN INNOCENT CIVIL YAN.

--AND HE WAS KIDNAPPED.

THIS IS WRONG.

THIS IS NOT HUMANE.

THIS IS NOT HUMANE.

AND I DON'T --THE THING THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE THING IS THAT IF IN GAZA PEOPLE CAN GO INSIDE AND GIVE SOME MEDICAL ATTENTION TO THE --AND WHY IS MY SON WHO IS INJURED, OKAY, WHO IS INJURED IS NOT GETTING THE TREATMENT?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?

HOW DOES THE WORLD THINK THAT IS OKAY?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>> I KNOW THAT YOU ARE PLEADING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, ALL OF THE RETURNED HOSTAGES I HAVE SPENT A NUMBER OF WEEKS IN ISRAEL ON MULTIPLE TRIPS THERE SINCE OCTOBER 7th.

I JUST RETURNED A FEW WEEKS AGO.

AND YOU STILL TALK TO THESE HOSTAGES AND THEIR FAMILIES THAT ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN BUT ESPECIALLY PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN THIS LAST CEASEFIRE AND HOSTAGE DEAL CAME TOGETHER.

YOU WERE APPEALING TO HIM RIGHT NOW, I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT IS YOUR MESSAGE AND WHAT HAVE YOUR CONVERSATIONS BEEN LIKE WITH PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU?

AND YOU SPOKE WITH HIM RECENTLY, I KNOW YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND DID, DO YOU FEEL THAT HE IS PRIORITIZING THE RELEASE OF YOUR SON AND ALL OF THE OTHER HOSTAGES AS MUCH AS HE SHOULD?

>> IN HIS HEART, IN HIS EYES, HE IS.

OKAY?

HE IS TRYING WHAT HE THINKS IS BEST AS A PRIME MINISTER.

I HOPE THAT THIS IS TRUE.

I HOPE THAT THIS IS HOW HE SEES THINGS AND THINGS --THAT IS A WAY TO GET MY SON HOME.

AND ALL THE OTHER HOSTAGES.

I REALLY DO HOPE SO.

I ALWAYS SAY, YOU KNOW, UNTIL ELAN IS NOT WITH ME, I DON'T KNOW.

I WANT TO SEE ELAN WITH ME.

SO I HAVE NO IDEA.

YEAH.

>> DO YOU WORRY AS THE FIGHTING HAS BEEN RENEWED, THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING THIS ACTUALLY IS WHAT PUTS MORE PRESSURE ON HAMAS TO RELEASE THE HOSTAGES, THERE'S ALWAYS CONCERN YOU TALK TO HOSTAGES THAT HAVE COME BACK THAT SAY IT WAS VERY FRIGHTENING WHEN THEY WOULDER THAT BOMBINGS AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR OWN SAFETY, ARE THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE PRIME MINISTER?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WITH THE PRIME MINISTER, BUT I DO KNOW WHEN THERE'S FIGHTING THE HOSTAGES ARE IN MORE DANGER.

I DO KNOW THIS.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

I HAVE TOLD ANYONE THAT I CAN STICK WITH THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

BUT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT THIS IS A WAY FOR THEM TO GET PRESSURE ON HAMAS.

I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S LIKE A TWO-SIDED THING.

IT'S A PRESSURE AND ALSO I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S ALSO DANGEROUS FOR THE HOSTAGES, FOR THE LIVING HOSTAGES ESPECIALLY.

I AM VERY WORRIED.

I'M JUST A MOTHER.

AND I JUST WANT MY SON HOME.

AND I MISS THE LITTLE THINGS, THE LITTLE THINGS FOR HIM.

I MISS HIM, YOU KNOW, JUST HIS VOICE SAYING MOM.

I HAVEN'T HEARD HIS VOICE FOR 543 DAYS.

I MISS THAT.

IT'S THE LITTLE THINGS.

>> IT'S THE LITTLE THINGS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERY MOTHER, EVERY MOTHER, CAN RELATE TO IN KNOWING THOSE LITTLE THINGS MEAN THE WORLD TO THEM.

AND YOU SAY THAT MUSIC MEANS THE WORLD TO YOUR SON.

IT IS WHO HE IS.

AS I SAID, I JUST ACTUALLY RETURNED FROM ISRAEL WITH MY FAMILY.

WENT TO HOSTAGE SQUARE A NUMBER OF TIMES.

AND I WAS REALLY TOUCHED TO SEE THE PIANO THAT YOU DONATED THERE TO HOSTAGE SQUARE.

WE'RE SHOWING VIDEO OF IT THAT MY MOTHER TOOK.

THE YELLOW PIANO WITH HIS IMAGE ON IT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT COMES TO HOSTAGE SQUARE ABOUT YOUR SON, ABOUT HIS PASSION FOR MUSIC, ABOUT HIS PASSION FOR LIFE.

SO WE'RE SHOWING A BIT OF THIS VIDEO RIGHT NOW TO OUR VIEWERS.

AND I HAVE TO SAY, YOUR STRENGTH IS JUST --IT'S SOMETHING TO MARVEL AT.

I KNOW YOU SAID THAT DAY ON OCTOBER 7th WHEN YOU GOT THE PHONE CALL YOU HAD TWO OPTIONS, ONE WAS TO GO BACK INTO BED AND NEVER GET UP AGAIN, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS TO FIGHT.

AND YOU HAVE BEEN FIGHTING NOW EVERY SINGLE DAY SINCE.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WE ALSO ARE PRAYING FOR YOUR SON TO COME HOME ALIVE AND FOR ALL OF THE HOSTAGES TO BE REUNITED WITH THEIR FAMILIES AND FOR THIS WAR TO COME TO AN END.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, THANK YOU.

> >> NEXT TO ANOTHER ONE OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS AIMING TO EXERT CONTROL OVER THE AMERICAN ELECTION PROCESS, AN AREA THAT IS TRADITIONALLY REGULATED BY INDIVIDUAL STATES.

THE ORDER CALLS FOR MANDATING PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR REGISTERED VOTERS AND DISQUALIFYING BALLOTS ARRIVING POST-ELECTION DAY.

LOYOLA LAW PROFESSOR AND FORMER BIDEN ADMINISTRATION POLICY ADVISOR JUSTIN LEVITT EXPLAINS TO HARI SREENIVASAN WHY THE ORDER IS LARGELY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

>> THANKS FOR JOINING US.

LAST WEEK THE PRESIDENT SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, IN IT THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY TRYING TO RESHAPE WHO CAN GO TO THE POLLS.

WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST REACTION WHEN YOU SAW IT?

>> MY FIRST REACTION IS THAT'S NOT A POWER HE HAS.

I THINK WE'RE USED TO SEEING THIS PRESIDENT IN PARTICULAR TAKE VERY BIG SWINGS ON ISSUES WHERE HE'S GOT SOME BIG POWER.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE'S USING IT CORRECTLY.

SO ISSUES LIKE IMMIGRATION OR TARIFFS OR COMMERCE, THOSE ARE THINGS WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS A LOT OF POWER IN OUR SYSTEM.

THE QUESTION IS, IS HE DOING IT RIGHT?

ON FEDERAL ELECTIONS, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE POWER.

AND I SAY THAT AS SOMEBODY WHO USED TO WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE ADVISING THE PRESIDENT ON VOTING RIGHTS.

THE ELECTIONS ARE RUN BY THE STATES, CONGRESS GETS TO INTERVENE FROM TIME TO TIME.

THEY'VE DONE SO IN A FEW VERY SELECT AREAS.

BUT THEY HAVEN'T REALLY GIVEN THE PRESIDENT MUCH AUTHORITY.

AND SO MY FIRST REACTION WAS, THIS IS HIM WRITING, HONESTLY, THAT DOES NOT GRANT HIM THE AUTHORITY HE HAS.

>> THE CONCERN FOR MANY CONSERVATIVES FOR DECADES NOW, AND PROJECT 2025, WHICH REALLY KIND OF ARTICULATED WHAT THEIR INTEREST AND INTENT WAS WITH THESE SORTS OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS --SAFEGUARD AMERICAN ELECTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, YET THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT ADEQUATELY ENFORCED FEDERAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS, IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

THERE ARE SEVERAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS THAT FEDERAL LAW HAS PUT IN PLACE AND WHILE I ALSO SERVED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ENFORCING THOSE VERY LAWS, IT'S TRUE THAT ENFORCEMENT COULD ALWAYS BE INCREMENTALLY BETTER.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT FAILURE IN THAT REGARD.

THE LAST FEW ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN AMONG THE MOST HEAVILY SCRUTINIZED IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY, INCLUDING, I SHOULD ADD, THE ELECTIONS THAT THIS PRESIDENT WON, FAIRLY, TALLYING THE FACT HE GOT MORE VOTES IN MORE ELECTORAL COLLEGE STATES THAN HIS OPPONENT AND THAT THE FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS IN EACH OF THOSE LAST SEVERAL ELECTIONS HELPED ENSURE, ALONG WITH A LOT OF STATE REGULATION, THAT PEOPLE WHO WERE ELIGIBLE WERE VOTING AND PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ELIGIBLE WERE NOT.

>> FOR OUR AUDIENCE, ESPECIALLY THE OVERSEAS ONES, CAN YOU HELP BREAK DOWN KIND OF WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITIES LIE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTIONS AND THE STATES.

AND THERE'S THIS COMMISSION IN BETWEEN THAT MOST DON'T KNOW ABOUT.

>> YEAH, SO THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS THE POWER TO REGULATE ELECTIONS TO THE STATES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND MOST OF THE RULES THAT WE'RE USED TO, MOST OF THOSE RULES ARE SET BY THE STATES.

THE CONSTITUTION ALSO CLEARLY SAYS THAT CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE THOSE RULES FOR FEDERAL ELECTIONS, IF IT WISHES, AND IT HAS IN A FEW INSTANCES, INCLUDING, AGAIN, OF PARTICULAR NOTE FOR FOLKS OVERSEAS, A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE THE FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE IF YOU'RE AN OVERSEAS CITIZEN.

THERE ARE VERY FEW PIECES OF THAT PUZZLE WHERE CONGRESS HAS ASSIGNED A ROLE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BY DESIGN.

ONE OF THOSE IS THIS ELECTIONS ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.

IT'S A BIPARTISAN BODY PUT IN PLACE IN 2002 AND HAS VERY FEW REGULATORY PIECES OF AUTHORITY.

IT GIVES OUT GRANT MONEY WHEN CONGRESS GIVES GRANT MONEY.

CONGRESS HASN'T DONE THAT IN ABOUT 20 YEARS.

IT SETS THE STANDARDS FOR VOTING MACHINES, WHICH STATES CAN EITHER CHOOSE TO OBEY OR NOT.

THEY'RE VOLUNTARY AND BRANDED AS VOLUNTARY BY STATUTE.

AND PERHAPS OF MOST RELEVANCE HERE, THIS ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, THIS BIPARTISAN BODY SETS THE FEDERAL VOTER REGISTRATION FORM.

THE PRESIDENT IN THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER IS PURPORTING TO TELL THE COMMISSION WHAT TO DO WITH THAT FORM.

THERE ARE A COUPLE PROBLEMS WITH THAT, ONE, DOESN'T HAVE POWER TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, AND TWO, THE PARTICULAR THING IS SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN.

>> WHY HAS CONGRESS FORBIDDEN IT?

>> THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT IS THE PRIMARY STATUE, MOST KNOW IT AS MOTOR VOTER, GO TO THE DMV, GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE, THEN YOU'RE ASKED DO YOU WANT TO REGISTER TO VOTE?

IT DOES A FEW OTHER THINGS IN ADDITION TO, THAT INCLUDING LETTING PEOPLE GO TO PUBLIC ASSISTANCE OFFICES OR DISABILITY OFFERS, DO THE SAME ONE-STOP SHOPPING.

AND AMONG OTHER THINGS IT SETS ONE NATIONAL MAIL-IN VOTER REGISTRATION FORM, A POSTCARD.

WHEN CONGRESS WAS CONTEMPLATING THIS IN 1993, IT THOUGHT ABOUT, IT REACTED TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PEOPLE COULD BE ABLE ASKED TO SHOW DOCUMENTATION WITH THE FORM.

CONGRESS EXPLICITLY DECIDED NO.

THAT WOULD GET IN THE WAY OF THIS QUICK AND SIMPLE, EASY POSTCARD APPLICATION THAT THEY WERE SETTING UP.

SO THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER IS ASKING TO --ASKING THE ELECTION COMMISSION TO CHANGE THE FORM SO THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR CITIZENSHIP.

ON ITS FACE, THAT SEEMS LIKE AN INNOCUOUS IDEA.

CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE THE ONES VOTING IN THE ELECTIONS.

WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS?

AND WITH THAT IDEA THAT CITIZENS IN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE THE ONES VOTING IN ELECTIONS, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOT A PROBLEM.

YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT'S INNOCUOUS, THE RULE WE'VE HAD FOR A VERY LONG TIME IN FEDERAL, STATE, AND VAST MAJORITY OF LOCAL ELECTIONS.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHO GETS TO VOTE.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT HOW YOU PROVE IT.

AND THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER PURR POTS TO SAY, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT'S LAWFUL, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE EFFECT, BUT IT PURPORTS TO SAY WHEN YOU SUBMIT THIS FORM YOU HAVE TO ALSO SUBMIT VERY SPECIFIC DOCUMENTATION OF YOUR CITIZENSHIP.

A PASSPORT, A MILITARY ID WITH PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, I DON'T THINK MOST OF THEM HAVE THAT.

ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PHOTO ID WITH PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND MOST GOVERNMENT IDs DON'T HAVE THAT.

IT LEAVES OUT THE ONE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE, WHICH IS A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SOMETHING THAT'S VERY EXPLICITLY NOT ON THE LIST.

AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST OF US WALKING AROUND DON'T HAVE OUR CITIZENSHIP PAPERS IN HAND.

IT'S UNUSUAL IN THIS COUNTRY TO BE ASKED TO SHOW YOUR PAPERS, TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE A CITIZEN.

SO THERE ARE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS BOTH AT HOME IN AMERICA AND ALSO OVERSEAS WHO ARE CITIZENS, ARE ELIGIBLE BUT DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION READILY AVAILABLE, PAPERS IN HAND, TO PROVE IT.

>> SPEAKING OF DETECTING THE LEVELS OF FRAUD, I MEAN, ONE OF THE CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS BEHIND PROJECT 2025 IS ONE OF THE SITES THAT'S MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO WHEN IT COMES TO TRACKING HOW MANY CASES OF VOTER FRAUD THERE HAVE BEEN IN ELECTIONS.

PUT THE NUMBERS IN PERSPECTIVE FOR US.

>> SO THEY HAVE FOUND A HANDFUL OF INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE MOSTLY MISTAKENLY REGISTERED OR VOTED WITHOUT HAVING BEEN A CITIZEN AND WHEN I SAY A HANDFUL, I MEAN DOUBLE DIGITS OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL DECADES AND IN THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME MORE THAN A BILLION WITH A B BALLOTS HAVE BEEN CAST.

SO IT HAPPENS, AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, BUT IT HAPPENS AT INFINITELY SMALL NUMBERS.

THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT.

IF YOU'RE A NONCITIZEN AND YOU REGISTER AND VOTE AND KNOWINGLY SIGN FRAUDULENTLY A SWORN OATH SAYING YOU'RE A CITIZEN, THEN YOU GET TO CAST, AT MOST, ONE BALLOT.

BUT ALSO YOU'VE JUST LEFT AN INDELIBLE PAPER TRAIL TO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE COMMITTED A FEDERAL, AND IN MANY CASES, A STATE CRIME.

$10,000 IN FINES, MULTIPLE YEARS IN JAIL, AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY STANDARD PRACTICE FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS TO CHECK, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO CHECK THE VOTER ROLLS TO SEE IF YOU'VE REGISTERED OR VOTED.

THAT'LL GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR NATURALIZATION.

IT WILL GET IN THE WAY OF A CHANGE OF STATUS.

IT MIGHT ACTUALLY GET YOU DEPORTED.

SO FOR IN INDIVIDUAL NONCITIZEN IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER .

>> --WHICH TRACKS SOME OF THESE, THEY FOUND ONLY 77 INSTANCES OF NONCITIZENS VOTING BETWEEN 1999 AND 2023.

SO ALMOST IN A 25-YEAR SPAN, SO IF THE FRAUD NUMBERS ARE THIS SMALL, WHY IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOLLOWING THIS SO CLOSELY AND TRYING TO TAKE THESE STEPS?

>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I WISH I HAD A BETTER ANSWER FOR YOU.

I THINK THEY'VE BEEN CAPTURED BY A LITTLE BIT OF CONSPIRACY THEORY.

THAT'S THE BENIGN EXPLANATION IS THEY HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF.

AND THIS IS A CONSISTENT CLAIM, BY THE WAY, THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION WHICH HE WON CLAIMED WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT MILLIONS OF NONCITIZENS HAD VOTED.

HE'S KEPT UP THAT DRUM BEAT FOR THE LAST EIGHT, NINE YEARS.

THE FACT THAT HE KEEPS SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANYMORE TRUE BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS, DESPITE YEARS OF CALLING FOR THE EVIDENCE.

THE LESS BENIGN EXPLANATION IS THAT THE GOAL IS ACTUALLY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF SECURITY THEATER WHILE ACTUALLY MAKING IT HARDER TO REGISTER AND VOTE.

I THINK THE DANGER THERE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PARTY, IS THESE LAWS DON'T IMPACT ON A PARTISAN LEVEL, THEY IMPACT REAL AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY PLAN ON VOTING FOR.

AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP AN AWFUL LOT OF, AGAIN, IF THEY WERE TO GO INTO EFFECT, THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP AN AWFUL LOT OF BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE AWAY FROM THE POLLS UNNECESSARILY.

>> ANOTHER PORTION OF THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER REALLY FOCUSES ON MAIL-IN VOTING.

AND THE EO WANTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, PAM BONDI, TO ENSURE THAT ONLY BALLOTS MAILED IN AND RECEIVED BY ELECTION DAY ARE COUNTED.

IS THERE SOME LEGAL PRECEDENT FOR WHEN SOMEONE HAS TO STOP ACCEPTING BALLOTS ON ELECTION DAY OR WHETHER OR NOT, SAY, IT WAS OVER THE WEEKEND THAT IF THE MAIL TRICKLES IN, MAYBE THERE WAS A STORM THAT DELAYED WHATEVER THE TRANSIT WAS.

IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THAT?

>> THERE'S SOME, BUT IT'S NOT VERY GOOD PRECEDENT.

SO THERE'S ONE STATE WAS SUED IN THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE IN 2024 , MISSISSIPPI.

IT HAPPENS TO COME IN A FEW DAYS LATER, IT GETS COUNTED.

THERE ARE A BUNCH OF STATES THAT HAVE SIMILAR RULES.

MISSISSIPPI'S LAW WAS CHALLENGED, AND IN THE VERY CONSERVATIVE FIFTH CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT HANDLES CASES OUT OF TEXAS AND MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA, THEY SAID THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTE DECLARING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE ELECTION DAY MEANS THAT BALLOTS HAVE TO BE RECEIVED BY ELECTION DAY.

NO OTHER COURT IN THE COUNTRY, THAT I'M AWARE OF, HAS TAKEN UP THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE.

THERE ARE LOTS OF STATES THAT HAVE PURPORTED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL STATUTE FOR A VERY LONG TIME THAT SAYS, YEAH SURE, WE'VE GOT ONE ELECTION DAY.

IF YOU CAST AND POSTMARK YOUR BALLOT BY THAT DAY, THEN IF IT HAPPENS TO ARRIVE LATER, THAT'S FINE.

IT'S BEING CHALLENGED IN COURT RIGHT NOW.

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE LAW.

THAT'S UP TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.

I THINK THIS PORTION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS GOING TO SUPERCHARGE CONSIDERATION IN OTHER COURTS AROUND THE COUNTRY, BUT I'D BE VERY SURPRISED IF ANY OF THEM WENT THE WAY THAT THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS DID.

>> THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER GOT A LOT OF HEADLINES BECAUSE OF THE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP REQUEST IN THERE.

BUT THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER CLAUSE IN THERE THAT ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT DOGE, ELON MUSK'S DEPARTMENT ESSENTIALLY, WOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW STATE VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS.

MAYBE IT WAS AN EFFORT OR AT LEAST EXPLICITLY SAYS IT'S TRYING TO FIND DEFICIENCIES AND TRYING TO COMPARE DIFFERENT DATABASES, WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS WITH THAT?

>> SO THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY CONCERNS WITH THAT, AND YEAH, I NOTICED THAT PROVISION AS WELL.

THE FIRST PROVISION THERE HAS TO DO WITH THE PRIVACY ACT, HAS TO DO WITH LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO DOT Is AND CHECK Ts BEFORE IT COMBS THROUGH PERSONAL DATA.

THE PRIVACY ACT WAS SET UP IN THE '70s AFTER A NUMBER OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACCESSING PEOPLE'S DATA AND REQUIRES DOTTING Is AND CROSSING Ts BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY GET HOLD OF INDIVIDUAL'S DATA AND CROSS REFERENCE IT WITH OTHER SOURCES.

SO THE FIRST HURDLE IS LEGAL.

IT'S NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOGE HAS OR IS EVEN EQUIPPED TO DO THE HOMEWORK IT NEEDS TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SECURITY OF THAT DATA, WHICH INCLUDES, BY THE WAY, DATA ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WHOSE ADDRESSES ARE PRIVATE, THERE'S SECURITY CONCERNS WITH SOME OF THAT DATA.

IT'S NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT DOGE IS SET UP TO SATISFY THOSE CONCERNS.

BUT ALSO EVEN BIGGER THAN THAT, THERE'S A PRACTICAL PROBLEM.

THIS IS NOT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S FIRST ATTEMPT TO COMPILE WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY A NATIONAL VOTER FILE.

HE TRIED IN 2017 WITH WHAT WAS THEN CALLED THE PENCE COBECK COMMISSION.

AT THE TIME, REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE, TOLD THE ADMINISTRATION THEY COULD JUMP IN THE GULF OF MEXICO BEFORE HE'D GIVE THEM THE DATA.

AND THAT WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A WIDE RESISTANCE FROM STATE OFFICIALS SAYING WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO COOPERATE WITH THIS EFFORT.

THE PENCE COBECK COMMISSION I THINK WAS SPECTACULARLY MORE CAREFUL THAN DOGE HAS BEEN COMPARATIVELY.

DOGE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A BRAND OF ROAMING THROUGH THE DATA THAT IT ACQUIRES VERY CAREFULLY OR CONSIDERATELY.

IT MOVES FAST AND IT BREAKS THINGS.

AND I DON'T KNOW MANY STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS, DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN, WHO WANT SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING ROAMING THROUGH THE ROLLS TO CAST DISPERSIONS ON HOW THEY'VE BEEN ADMINISTERING THEIR STATE'S ELECTIONS.

TO POINT TO MILLIONS OF ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT VOTERS WHO AREN'T, WHO ARE PERFECTLY ELIGIBLE, AND ALONG THE WAY TO CAST DISPERSIONS ON THE JOB THAT THOSE SECRETARIES HAVE BEEN DOING.

SO I DON'T PREDICT THAT THERE'LL BE MUCH UPDATE.

>> WHAT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DO YOU THINK WILL HOLD UP IN COURT?

AND I GUESS --IF SEVERAL OF THESE THINGS ARE CHALLENGED AND FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED, IS THIS PART OF A LARGER PATTERN HERE WHERE THE EXECUTIVE JUST KEEPS BASICALLY TRYING TO PUT OUT THEIR INTERESTS IN THE FORM OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS?

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS.

>> THEY'RE WITHIN HIS POWER, THEY'RE JUST NOT WHAT MOST ARE FOCUSED ON.

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DIRECTS THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY TO MATCH DATA WITH STATE VOTER REGISTRATION ROLLS IN ORDER TO CONFIRM PEOPLE'S IDENTITY, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVEN'T PASSED AWAY.

THAT'S LAWFUL.

IT'S LAUCHL BECAUSE CONGRESS SAID IT WAS LAWFUL 20 YEARS AGO AND THE COMMISSIONER'S BEEN DOING EXACTLY THAT FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.

THE PRESIDENT'S INSTRUCTION DOESN'T DO MUCH.

IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T DO MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

THAT ALSO MAKES IT LAWFUL.

CONGRESS HAS SAID YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THIS.

THE PRESIDENT HAS ASKED DHS FOR A FEW REPORTS ON THE SECURITY OF VOTING SYSTEMS.

I THINK THAT'S A FINE IDEA.

IT'S ALSO CLEARLY WITHIN HIS POWER TO ASK HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE HIM REPORTS.

THE PRESIDENT IS --HAS SOUGHT TO SET THE PRIORITIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HIGH LEVEL PRIORITIES OF WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD FOCUS ON WITH RESPECT TO ELECTION STATUTES, AND THAT TOO IS STARN DARD ISSUE AND ENTIRELY WITHIN HIS POWER.

I DON'T THINK THE FACT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MAKES EVERYTHING IN IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT'S JUST THE BALANCE IS WAY, WAY, WAY OFF.

THE AMOUNT OF STUFF THAT'S LEGAL IS FAR SMALLER THAN THE AMOUNT OF STUFF THAT'S NOT.

WHY DO WE SEE THIS?

I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I THINK THIS PRESIDENT IN PARTICULAR FOCUSES ON MARKETING, ALMOST TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL ELSE.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF THIS IS PROJECTING POWER THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST EXECUTIVE ORDER TO HAVE DONE THAT.

I THINK ALSO THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO CONDITION US, CONDITION THE POPULATION TO EXPECTING THAT HE WILL WIELD POWER THAT'S NOT IN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL REALM.

IN SEVERAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOW, HE'S ASSERTED POWER HE DOESN'T HAVE AND BY CONTINUING TO ASSERT THAT POWER HE'S TRYING TO TRAIN US TO BELIEVING THAT HE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER HE DOES NOT HAVE.

I'LL SAY THAT'S ON US TO CONSIDER ON OUR END THAT ONLY HAS POWER IF WE LET IT HAVE POWER, AND I THINK THE COURTS ARE HELPING US UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES WHEN HE'S ASSERTING POWER HE'S NOT ASSERTING IT LAWFULLY.

>> PROFESSOR OF LAW AT LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, JUSTIN, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> MY PLEASURE.

> >> FROM THE WEST END TO BROADWAY, THE AWARD-WINNING PRODUCTION OF OPERATION MINCEMEAT HAS JUST LANDED STATESIDE.

IT'S BASE ON A WORLD WAR II SPY MISSION SUCCESS WHERE THE BRITISH DECEIVED THE GERMAN NAZIS, COVERING UP PLANS TO INVADE SICILY.

IT BECAME THE FOCUS OF HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR BEN McENTIRE'S 2010 BOOK AND LATER ADAPTED INTO A MOVIE STARRING COLIN FIRTH AS IT HIT CINEMAS IN 2022.

McENTIRE JOINED CHRISTIANE ON THE SET TO BREAK DOWN THE DETAILS OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY WARTIME BLUFF.

>> I MEAN, IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY.

IT'S 1943.

THE ALLIES ARE POISED IN NORTH AFRICA FOR THE HUGE INVASION OF EUROPE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS IS COMING, THE AMERICANS, THE BRITISH, THE CANADIANS, THEY'RE ALL READY TO GO.

AND THERE'S AN OBVIOUS TARGET, WHICH IS SICILY.

IF YOU CONTROL SICILY, YOU CONTROL THE CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN.

EVERYONE KNEW THE MOST LIKELY PLACE WAS SICILY.

THE JOB OF THE SPIES AND WAS TO TRY TO CONVINCE HITLER IT WASN'T GOING TO BE SICILY, ACTUALLY THIS HUGE ARMADA OF TROOPS WAS HEADING FOR GREECE.

AND IT WAS A HUGE OPERATION.

I MEAN, THE DECEPTION OPERATION WAS MASSIVE, QUITE RIGHTLY, AS YOU SAY, IT STILL IS IN MODERN WARFARE, BUT THE CENTERPIECE WAS CALLED OPERATION MINCEMEAT, WHICH WENT AS FOLLOWS.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE IDEA CAME FROM IAN FLEMING.

I LAUGH BECAUSE IT'S OUTLANDISH THAT THE FATHER OF JAMES BOND STORIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NAVAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER OPERATING INSIDE, DEEP INSIDE THE BRITISH SECRET WORLD, CAME UP WITH THE IDEA.

AND IT WAS THE IDEA WENT AS FOLLOWS.

LET'S GET A DEAD BODY.

LET'S GIVE IT A COMPLETELY FALSE IDENTITY.

WE WILL THEN FLOAT IT SOMEWHERE WITH FALSE PAPERS, INDICATING A LOOMING ATTACK ON GREECE.

AND WE'LL PUT IT SOMEWHERE WHERE THE GERMANS WILL FIND IT.

AND THEY CHOSE SPAIN BECAUSE THEY KNEW THERE WAS A PARTICULAR SPY NETWORK, A GERMAN SPY NETWORK OPERATING IN NEUTRAL SPAIN AT THE TIME.

>> SO IT DOES SOUND ABSURD, RIGHT?

FLOATING A BODY AND HOPING SOMEBODY'S GOING TO FIND IT?

>> IMAGINE WHAT HEALTH AND SAFETY WOULD SAY TODAY.

YOU WOULDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT.

IT WAS OUTLANDISH, BUT IT WAS ALSO INTENTIONAL.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CHURCHILL WAS BRILLIANT AT WAS IDENTIFYING THAT WHAT HE CALLED CORKSCREW MINDS COULD ACHIEVE THINGS THAT MUCH MORE LATERAL THINKING COULDN'T DO.

AND SO HE ENCOURAGED THESE PEOPLE.

AND THEY WERE NOT ORDINARY SPIES, THESE.

THEY WERE ECCENTRICS, ODD BALLS, PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T FIT INTO THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.

CHURCHILL THREW THEM TOGETHER AND SAW WHAT HAPPENED.

AND IT IN A WAY IT DOES SOUND MAD.

BUT IT WAS JUST UNBELIEVABLE ENOUGH TO BE BELIEVABLE.

THAT WAS THE ESSENCE OF IT.

>> SO THESE PARTICULAR CORKSCREW MINDS WERE QUIETLY KIND OF SORT OF GEEKY CHARACTERS, RIGHT?

DESCRIBE THEM, ONE IS TALL AND LANKY, THE OTHER ONE IS -- >> THE TWO PEOPLE AT THE CENTER OF IT WENT BY MONTAGUE AND CHUMMILY.

>> THOSE ARE THEIR REAL NAMES?

>> REAL NAMES.

ONE WAS TOO TALL TO FLY.

THEY COULDN'T FIT HIM IN THE COCKPIT.

THEY WANTED TO FIGHT A SECRET WAR.

THEY SET ABOUT CREATING THIS CHARACTER AS IF THEY WERE WRITING A NOVEL.

>> THIS CHARACTER IS THE DEAD BODY.

WERE DID THEY GET THE DEAD BODY?

>> THIS IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT'S NEVER BEEN TOLD UNTIL THE BRITISH ARCHIVES WERE RELEASED, HE WAS A WELSH HOMELESS MAN WHO HAD JUST DIED OF RAT POISON.

WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE'D COMMITTED SUICIDE, WHETHER IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, HE WAS SO HUNGRY HE'D EATEN BREAD LACED WITH RAT POISON, BUT HIS BODY TURNED UP IN A MORTUARY, AND THEY SAID, RIGHT, WE'LL HAVE HIM.

THEY KEPT HIM ON ICE, LITERALLY, WHILE THEY BUILT THIS FALSE IDENTITY FOR HIM.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE MORE EXTRAORDINARY ELEMENTS OF THE STORY, REALLY, IS THAT THEY REALLY INVENTED A CHARACTER AND THEY GAVE HIM A FALSE NAME AND THEY GAVE HIM A BACKGROUND AND THEY GAVE HIM WHAT'S CALLED WALLET LITTER IN SPY NOVELS.

>> I READ THAT IN THE RESEARCH, AND I'M THINKING, WOW, THE DETAILS HAD TO BE SO CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT.

WALLET LITTER.

EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS.

>> THE POINT WAS THAT WHEN THE GERMANS GOT HOLD OF THIS, AS THEY HOPED THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF HIS POCKETS AND THEY WOULD REALIZE OR BELIEVE, BE FOOLED INTO THINKING, THIS WAS A REAL PERSON.

SO HE HAD TICKET STUBS, AN UNWRAPPED MINT, A LETTER FROM THE BANK MANAGER, ONE FROM HIS FATHER, AND CRUCIALLY, AND THIS IS IN A WAY WHERE THE KIND OF NOVELISTIC ELEMENT OF THIS WENT OVER THE TOP, HE HAD A LOVE LETTER FROM AN INVENTED LOVE CALLED PAM, WONDERFULLY PLAYED BY PENELOPE WILTON IN THIS FILM, WHO WAS A REAL PERSON WHO PUT HER HEART INTO WRITING THIS FAKE LOVE LETTER.

THEY WERE ALL INVOLVED.

THEY WERE ALL WORKING LITERALLY UNDERGROUND IN A ROOM CALLED ROOM 13 UNDER THE ADMIRALTY, NOT FAR FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW.

AND SO --AND ALSO CRUCIALLY, A PHOTOGRAPH.

THEY THOUGHT THEY'D BETTER SEND A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE --THIS INVENTED LOVE, PAM.

SO ONE OF THE SECRETARIES IN THE MI5 OFFICE PROVIDED A COMELY PHOTOGRAPH OF HERSELF IN A BATHING SUIT WHICH WAS STUCK IN HIS POCKET.

AND THE WHOLE IDEA WAS TO SORT OF CREATE A FICTION THAT THE GERMANS WOULD BELIEVE WAS TRUE.

AND OF COURSE, THE KEY ELEMENT OF ALL OF THAT WERE THE FALSE DOCUMENTS IN A BRIEFCASE CHAINED TO HIS WRIST SO THAT WHEN THIS BODY FLOATED ASHORE FROM A SUBMARINE, SECRETLY TAKEN TO THE BAY, HE WOULD BE BRINGING WITH HIM THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD SEND THE GERMAN ARMY IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

SO INSTEAD OF REINFORCING SICILY, THEY WOULD TAKE TROOPS OUT OF SICILY AND MOVE THEM ELSEWHERE.

>> AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

>> ASTONISHINGLY, THAT IS WHAT THEY DID.

AND THE REASON WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IS BECAUSE THE BLECHLY PARK INTERCEPTS, WHICH YOUR VIEWERS WILL KNOW ABOUT, THE ENIGMA INTERCEPTS, ENABLED BRITISH INTELLIGENCE, PASSING IT ON TO THE AMERICANS, OBVIOUSLY, TO TRACK THIS LIE AS IT WAS SWALLOWED BY THE GERMANS AT EVERY STAGE.

SO THEY COULD WATCH IT GOING DOWN THE GULLET OF GERMAN INTELLIGENCE.

>> IT'S REALLY, REALLY INCREDIBLE.

AND YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S SOME, OKAY, WHY IS IT CALLED OPERATION MINCEMEAT?

>> IT'S A SORT OF REFLECTION OF HOW ODD THESE PEOPLE WERE.

THEY LIKED --IN BRITISH INTELLIGENCE YOU'RE PRESENTED WITH A SET OF NAMES.

THEY CHOSE OPERATION MINCEMEAT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY.

IT WAS A DEAD BODY, HENCE MINCEMEAT, AND THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE MINCEMEAT OF THE GERMANS.

IT WAS A SORT OF RATHER TASTELESS, MACABRE JOKE.

>> YOU KNOW, AT FIRST, BEFORE I READ INTO IT AND I HEARD THIS FILM WAS OUT AND YOU'D WRITTEN THE BOOK, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE DECEPTION FOR D-DAY, BECAUSE THAT WAS ALSO A VERY ELABORATE DECEPTION.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> I MEAN, WERE THEY THICK, THE GERMANS?

THEY GOT REALLY TRICKED ON TWO MAJOR OCCASIONS.

>> INTERESTINGLY, OF COURSE, MINCEMEAT WAS TO TRY TO SKROINS THEM THAT THE OBVIOUS THING THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WAS NOT GOING TO UP HAPPEN.

THE D-DAY OPERATION WAS THE OPPOSITE.

>> THEY STILL TRICKED THEM.

>> IT'S NOT THAT THEY WERE STUPID.

THEY WERE CAPABLE OF LAUNCHING THEIR OWN DECEPTION OPERATIONS, AND INDEED, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF OPERATION MINCEMEAT WAS THE FEAR THAT WHILE IT LOOKED LIKE THE GERMANS WERE SWALLOWING THIS, THEY MIGHT BE FEEDING BACK MISINFORMATION.

SO THE GERMANS WERE NOT STUPID.

THEY WERE ON THE WHOLE LATERAL, MORE LATERAL THINKERS, IF YOU'D LIKE.

IF YOU LIKE, THE BRITISH TENDED TO THINK IN CORKSCREW WAYS AND THE GERMANS TENDED TO THINK IN STRAIGHT LINES.

BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A --GERMAN INTELLIGENCE, THEY TENDED TO TELL THE BOSS WHAT THE BOSS WANTED TO HEAR.

>> WELL, I MEAN, LOOK, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID AT A MOMENT WHERE AMERICAN AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE HAS DETERMINED THAT THE BOSS IN THE CURRENT WAR, PUTIN, IS PERHAPS OR HAS BEEN, ANYWAY, GETTING NOT THE TRUTH BUT WHAT THE OTHERS THINK THE BOSS WANTS TO HEAR.

>> THAT'S THE BIG DANGER IN ALL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, ACTUALLY.

AND IT'S PARTICULARLY ACUTE IN DICTATORSHIPS.

WHICH IS THAT IF YOU ARE A SPY GATHERING INTELLIGENCE AND THE BOSS HAS MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR, IF YOU TELL HIM WHAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR, YOU'LL BE FIRED.

IF YOU TELL HIM WHAT HE DOES WANT TO HEAR, AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE WRONG, AS APPEARS TO HAVE HAPPENED IN UKRAINE, YOU'LL BE FIRED.

SO YOUR ONLY OPTION REALLY IS TO TELL HIM WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR AND PRAY THAT IT TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT.

SO THAT'S NO WAY TO RUN ANY KIND OF INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.

AND IN TRUTH, THAT IS ALSO WHAT REALLY UNDID THE NAZIS IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

THEY WERE SO DETERMINED TO PLEASE THE BOSSES THAT THEY NEVER REALLY QUESTIONED ANYTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE IT MIGHT CONTRADICT THAT.

> >> AND FINALLY, IN NORTHERN INDIA, BUDDHIST MONKS CAME TOGETHER TO OFFER CONDOLENCES TO THE VICTIMS OF THE DEVASTATING EARTHQUAKE ON FRIDAY.

FOREIGN AID AND RESCUE TEAMS HAVE STARTED ARRIVING IN THE WAR-TORN COUNTRY AFTER THE MILITARY JUNTA ISSUED A RARE PLEA FOR HELP.

AS THE DEATH TOLL SURPASSED 2,700, THESE MONKS LIT CANDLES AND SAID PRAYERS IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE MAJORITY BUDDHIST NEIGHBOR.

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.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.