hello everyo well-won and well cancome to "amanpour and company." as paul manafort pleads guilty, we explore unchartered, unsettled legal questions about a sitting president the law. veteran professor and his former student hammer out their opposing views. then a forgotten story. the palestinian woman who led the first interfodder only eto be left out enough peace process by their leaders. a new film tells their story at last. also today our michelle martin tu

martin talks to an american legend on finding meaning in a creative life well lived.

welcome to the program, i'm crist onau amanpour in new york. a major development in the russian interference in the 2016 election. holding out thus far the former trump campaign chairman, paul manafort now pleads guilt tee two conspiracy charges and agrees to cooperate with the mueller team. they say the agreement has nothing to do with the president. manafort stands at the nexus of russian influence the trump campaign. has tensive contacts in russia and he was there for the trump tower meeting of 2016. we're going to discuss all of this with two legal minds. the veteran silver liberties lawyer and long-time harvard professor. question there should be a special counsel at all frrps the book is called the case against

impeaching trump and jeffrey tuben who served on the special prosecutor's investigation all those years ago and was a student at harvard. he says the investigation is the best way to fairt out the truth. allen dershowitz and jeffrey tuben, welcome to the program. >> i don't want to gush but i've been a fan of yours for years. it's a thrill to be on your show. >> is it a thrill to see him cooperate with the special counsel? >> i'm not a trump supporter, i'm not an advocate for trump. i'm an advocate to make sure there'se enough evidence to charge anybody with criminal actions and that we don't criminalize differences based on noncriminal conduct. i have no dog in this fight and if he am can up with evidence that's probative, it's a good thing and should be handed over to the southern district of new

york and let the chips fall where they may. >> do you think, as the president says, that this has nothing to do with the white house? >> that's preposterous. whether it leads to riminal behavior, impeachment is very much an open question and it does not. but the fact that paul manafort is a stranger and it's entirely unrelated to the trump campaign is just silly. >> i agree e. >> what about the fact that they know, because they say it that the trump and manafort legal team are talking to each other. so do they not know what is in the substance of what perhaps he's going to say? >> it's inevitable they would talk to each other. any good lawyer would want to make sure they know advance what is disclosed. whether manafort is tell thing trump team everything, whether eronot he is going to sing

voluminously or not only sing but perhaps compose because people know they get a better deal sometimes if they can elaborate on the story and make it a little bit better fit the narrative of the prosecutor. i'm not suggesting that's happening but there's always the risk of that. so of ors can you're going to have this kind of contact. >> there certainly was that kind of contact in the past but things have changed. manafort went to trial, his deputy rick gates testified against him. he has now confessed that rick gates was telling the truth. so manafort's position has changed. it may well be that what he told, what his lawyers told the trump lawyers is no longer operative. so the fact is it doesn't matter.

>> of course he should be feeling nervous. but remember too what's changed is manafort's credibility. he's now admitted that he has lied repeatedly and therefore he is not the most useful eye or ear witness. he is very useful in providing investigators with self-corroborating information. but putting him on the stand would be risky because he's obviously admitted to being a liar and he's now made a deal but he could perhaps provide information that's self pruchbing. >> we're all trying to figure out why he's decided to come to this. his lawyer says this is a sad day for mr. manafort and his family, however, he wants to make sure he and his family can can live safely. what does that say to you? do you think he's being

threatened or by whom? >> alan will know this as a former -- current, forgive me, criminal defense attorney. if you're going to plead guilty and cooperate, you should do it at the beginning. you shouldn't go to trial and then cooperate because you don't get as much benefit out of it. but they're human beings and they're people who have trouble coming to terms with what they've done, they lie to their lawyers, their families. but as a rational matter, he should have done this earlier if at all. >> but he spla been waiting to see whether or not he's being offered a pardon. so he was in the process of negotiating, putting his finger to the wind saying i'm for rent. who is going to be the highest bidder? >> in late august president trump said i feel very badly for paul manafort and his family. took a tax case and applied

tremendous pressure on him and unlike cohen, he refused to break. such respect for a brave man. so could he -- what is the process? he just pardon manafort at any time? >> of course he dood it today. >> to paraphrase, maybe the president waited too long. that is if he was going to pardoned, maybe he should have pardoned before he went to trial on the first case but now it's too late. first all of if he pardons him, then he doesn't have a fifth amendment and he can be called in front of of the grand jury and made to testify. >> he being? >> he being manafort. >> this is a point for most people who aren't lawyers don't understand. if you have pleaded guilty, you no longer have a fifth amendment privilege. so they can put him in a grand jury whether he gets a pardon or not. >> but there is a limitation on that.

because we have a system of federalism, he could still plead the fifth on the ground that it may tend to incriminate him in front of another federal district but it's a very limited fifth. >> in the case about collusion, we've said trump is at the famous trump tower meeting. he's had contalkts with all the others. so i would like to know whether you think it's if wing to focus on that issue. rudy jewel yawngiuliani who saie president's lawyer. once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with president trump or the trump campaign. the reason the president did nothing. and you have written that giuliani's main task is to spin whatever happened into positive news for the president. >> absolutely not. >> i agree with that.

>> it may not be disastrous presidency threatening news but the idea it's good news is preposterous. period. >> especially the meeting in the trump tower because that's where trump's son is vulnerable because of his testimony. for example canal, if he could -- this is a hypothetical. but if he could provide evidence that trump and his son knew about the purpose of the meeting before it happened, that would create certainly some vulnerability. >> mueller has charged that the russians in two separate criminal conspiracies, one involving social media, one involving the hacking made illegal efforts to help the trump campaign. we know also that the trump campaign was very solicits of russia, change thing republican platform the president speaking

very fondly of president putin. what we don't have is legal proof of a connection between the two. and that's a question that will certainly be asked of paul manafort. >> and to put the best picture on the from the trump point of view. trerm has to be a crime, in my view, committed while he was president. so mr. information about mr. trump, donald trump as a businessman might be useful to the southern district but not an impeachable offense. jeffrey, if we were teaching it today, would be whether or not a crime committed to help somebody get elected president before he was president is or isn't an impeachable ooffense. that is a question that framers never addressed. >> that's pretty interesting. >> it's a very interesting question. what we have to remember is impeachment is more of a political process than a legal process.

gerald ford, when he was a member of the house of representatives said something that has an element of truth. an impeachable offense is whatever the house of representative thinks it is. >> and maxine waters wrote after we get trump, we're going after pence. >> that is not what the framers had in mind. they set opfire wall. you have to first find a crime and then you get to the political issue. that was absolutely rejected by the framers. >> whatever maxine waters says, whether it's nancy pelosi or -- they have not said they are interested in impeachment and quite the opposite. >> they have learned the lesson from the bill clinton impeachment and it backfired. >> the fact is you do a lot on

television. >> i do defend the civil liberties of all americans and i don't stop at the oval office. about israel, no, no we've never had conversations in the oval office about this. >> you've tweeted about this particular investigation. to the president "don't fire, don't pardon, don't tweet and don't testify." >> absolutely. >> why is snat. >> because every time he tweets, he fills in blanks that a prosecutor may have not been able to fill in. he doesn't know what the prosecutor knows or doesn't know. that's why lawyers try to control their clients. he as the constitutional pardon but it would be a great, great sin of great dimension and in terms of pardoning, firing and testifying is a simple thing. you never, ever testify. if there's somebody who can contradict your testimony whether you believe you're telling the truth or not. if somebody can contradict your

testimony, that's the -- >> what does he do and i ask this out of genuine curiosity. i'm not agreeing to testify voluntarily. it goes through the courts and the courts say, perhaps, you have to testify >> then he testifies. i don't believe he takes the fifth. i predicted that he would not take the fifth. you said you thought he would take the fifth. i don't think it will get to that. >> and in bob woodward's book is about the president's former out oicide lawyer who quit because he couldn't convince the president not to do -- there might be written arguments that might avoid the obstruction of justice. quoting john dowd speaking to president trump as reported by bob woodward, it's either that or an orange jump suit. i mean i nearly fell off my chair. >> it's been denied but i would

have said the same thing to bill clinton. he should have not ever testified about his sex life. there are people who can testify about certain subjects. bill clinton about his sex life and donald trump about many issues involving his presidency and prepresidency. and these people should never have been allowed to testify because they just get themselves into much more trouble. >> and you seem to be agreeing on quite a lot -- >> too much. >> i'm absolutely fascinated by this because the legal stuff is what everybody's trying to get their head around. those that are in fact paying attention. and the rest -- >> they pick sides. >> or tune out. and you were, as i said on the iran contraspecial investigation. >> there is a reason that for the last four or five decades in american life there has always

been a structure in place whether it was the independent counsel law or currently the special prosecutor regulations for investigations that touch directly on the president to be taken out of the normal justice department chain of command. i think it's the right thing to do and a way to -- >> our framers made a terrible mistake. every other western democracy divides the attorney general's job into two. a policy advisor, and then a director of public proskugecuti completely eseparate. the way it is in england, israel. we create a schizophrenic job. attorney general supposed to be loyal to the president. regan appointed his personal lawyer. but then when it comes to who to prosecute they can't demand loyalty.

it's an impossible job. that's why we need special counsel. what i called for was an independent, nonpartisan commission like the 9/11 commission to look into trole o russia so we ecan look forward without necessarily pointing fingers, get all the evidence andope oen and transparent. but we have the special counsel and we have to deal with. >> i'm in favor of pointing fingers. if there was criminality. >> that's just the methodology. >> i think alan thinks twhat you set up an independent prosecutor it's like a hunting license and they engage in excessive prosecution. >> sometimes. >> certainly did with ken starr. >> there is a history of prosecutor cans outside the justice department bring too many cases, taking too long, spending too much money.

i certainly agree but i wouldn't abolish the process. >> if we could have a permanent, independent, not even special, kou counsel in charge of bringing prosecutions out std -- not under the influence of the president, wouldn't that be better? >> i don't know. james madison set up the and i'm not going to quarrel >> they have brought up the whole issue of presidential power and that is really important as we go to the con formation or the hearings on the vote of kavanaugh. >> can a sitting president be required to respond to subpoena? >> that's a hypothatical question about what would be an elaboration or a difference from

u.s. v nixon's precise holding and i think going with the justice ginsburg principal, which is not the justice ginsburg aprincipal, it's everyone's principal on the current supreme court and as a matter of canons of judicial independence i can't give you an answer in that hypothatical question. >> i don't think he can be asked why you pardoned somebody, why you fired somebody. >> you mean the president? >> the president. >> the president. and judges have immunity. the president has some but not complete immunity. no one's above the law. that is the law. >> this is a major difference between alan and me. i think you can look at the motives and of course this is a crucial part of this investigation, particularly as it effects -- that relates to the firing of james comey, the fbi director. it is my belief that it can be

obstruction of justice if the president firedo comey for improper purposes. >> then why wasn't president bush indicted for pardoning wineberinger and five other people for the explicit purpose of ending the investigation and that's not me. accusing president bush of parding these people to end the investigation it succeeded and nobody suggested obstruction. >> it was his last day of president aensz. >> he could have been indicted after he left. >> there is a letter that senator feinstein received from a lady who has accused brett kavanaugh and a friend of his of basically sexual abuse and assault when they were 17 years

old. so minors at high school and she has not wanted to am can forward. dianne feinstein has had this letter since july and only just now handed it over to the fbi. what do you think -- can this have an effect on the hearings and conformation process? >> you cannot allow anonymous reports to derail a nomination. the fbi's investigating it, that's the appropriate approach and let's see what the facts are. >> i agree. however, i think it's worth pointing out dianne feinstein handled this in a way that was unfair to everyone in the process. this was a thur incompetent handling. she should have turned it over the fbi. instead she sat on it based on her own conclusion it wasn't worth pursuing. but other people learned of it and persuaded her to reveal it now at the last minute.

meaning it will undoubtedly embarrass this woman even if she winds up not wanting to come forward. it's unfair to kavanaugh to have an accusation without -- >> mentor, teacher, student. and you know e, you sort of had leg legal -- >> we're not shuning each other. we're talking to each other. he's actually persuaded me on a few points. i think i actually persuade him on one or two points. >> at 8:30 in the morning on my first day as a student of harvard law school, he always held class early in the morning. which i appreciated. not all students do and i've been learning from him since and since i've been a journalist,

i've been covering alan. we've disagreed about a lot about this more than others and i covered the o.j. simpson case. >> because i'm a defense attorney. he's a prosecutor. one of the things i've always loved about alan is he's a loyal person and when elliott spitzer got in trouble, he was an assistant to alan. and when elliott got in trouble, alan was one of the few people who stuck up for him. whether he was right or wrong, i remember it was an act of loyalty. >> if i'm remembering correctly you sat down to a young woman named kagan. and i would call on tubin and i got the sense maybe alaina had given him some of the ideas. >> then and now she knew a lot more than i did. >> she's on the supreme court. >> yes.

>> so as the legal questions multiply in washington, american cans of both parties are impacting politics like never before. ordinary people take thing to street, looking to take power away from inside the beltway. back in the late 1980s a similar movement arose in the middle east. that was when the first interfaudau broke out. publylicly in madrid and secretly in auz low. now their story is being told is in the new story "nylah and the outsider. "the feminous revolution that flourished in protest. [ speaking foreign language]

>> film maker and a teen age activist in the first intifada joined me to discuss the hidden history of the palestinian women. i spoke to them just yesterday on the 25th anniversary of the oslo accord that was signed on the white house lawn. welcome, ladies. julia here in the studio and rula out there in jerusalem. it really brings up so men ey issues that go way beyond politics deserve being remembered at this time. first, let me ask you, julia. you chose to make this film through the eyes of a woman who had a small son, husband, family

at that time and her interviews now are with her son sitting beside her. why did you choose that vehicle? >> we wanted to tell the story of what happened during the first intifada late '80s as so often unfortunately happens in protest movements where women played leading roles be it the civil rights movement in the united states or oother places historically and when you tell the story of those movements, you actually celebrate the man and don't give the credit to the women who actually often paid the highest price in those movements. >> it's interesting you use the words celebrate. this is key to understanding the whole conflict. it's not necessarily celebrate thing man, although many are celebrated. but it's the narrative that gets focussed on the armed man, the militant. instead of on whoever, the women, the children, the unarmed men who actually have a human

story eand human resistance. how does that sound to you? >> most of the women and men that we interview and we met with even before the film, they were talking about how women were leading the community and were there on the front lines and they were do really amazing jobs in the first intifada and the stories that women were bringing and sharing and talking about. most of the men and women were talking about stories how they were alkictive inside the house with men in the street trying to be part of the struggle against the occupation and fighting to work together next to man and nobody really highlights these stories, even in my community. >> and your community of course is the palestinian community and i just want to describe what

some have said. this film and the resistance, the first intifada was almost like a double whammy. palestinians against israeli occupation and also women against male patriarchy and it looks from women and even the men you interviewed. they say it's kind of an opportunity for equality. let's play a clip. [ speaking foreign language]

it was really interesting. you saw all these instances of how you sewed the flag and what did you find out about their real political work on the streets? >> the organizing was hidden behind the traditional accepted behavior for women in a more patriarchal society and what they were able to do because of that was occupy space swz do activities and get to places that the man couldn't both because many of them have been arrested and deported and were killed and also because men were under higher scrutiny and the women came into the leadership of the first intifada and put in place strategies, very disciplined, nonviolent strategies that were focussed on creating the parallel structure cans that made it possible for an independent palestinian state to come into being. >> i know you were a teenager in

the first intifada. but the leadership wasn't even there. they were in exile. what was it like? how did you see this grassroots movement take off? >> i think most men and women were involved in the first intifada. we felt this is something we can be part of. because this is a nonviolence resistance movement and activity, wefelt as women we ca be part of it. it's no need to use weapons. women can do this, even inside their homes while they are with their kids taking care of their families and this is why most women at that time from different ages they were part of it. >> so let's talk about where this first intifada led. remember at that time rupeen was defense secretary and talked

about breaking bones of the resisters. but he also moved towards the political peace process and in the middle of this was the madrid peace process. they sensed an opportunity by then president bush and drew a lot of the leaders to madrid and again a lot of women around that table. tell me about that particular, julia, political inflection point. >> it's a fascinating historical moment. first intifada created a moment for someone like president bush, the first senior, bush senior to actually taken a action that he was the first president and the last to actually ever threaten to with hold loan guarantees from israel if settlement construction continued. this was made pausesable because of this grass roots movement. because the women of the intifada had created a

solidarity with the palestinians strugg struggle for freedom that we have not seen since then and initially in madrid and washington actually had a situation where both parties needed something from each other. where israel, as the sort of more powerful party in this actually needed something because it had lost credibility in the international stage. the really disappointing development as far as many of the women that we interviewred concerned is because that diplomatic process that was promising got interrupted through the secret back channel negotiations of oslo. >> so many people speak about oslo in the amazing thing. but in the issue of owomen rights, that was difficult can. it brought back yasser arafat and that sort of pushed women out of the way. here is a clip about that

instance. [ speaking foreign language] out there in jerusalem it's

impossible to not feel a sense of loss of what the moment could have finally produced. what do you remember about that moment when, after oslo, the authority came back the rights of not just activist particularly women had gained were suddenly pushed out of the way again? >> we really felt so sad and angry from deep inside that we left aside, nobody's thinking about us. men want to take everything. even the palestinian authority is supporting them, the palestinian leaders who came from different other countries, they just want to stay partf of the case and nobody, even among the women leadership, none of them were part of building the palestinian institutions. because we felt really sad, we attend different meetings and we were like writing different letters to president aeir fat ad

the palestinian authority. and this is why a lot -- like big numbers of them -- of the women ngos start because we want to take our rights from men, from the palestinian authority. we're here to present that 52 percentage of the palestinian population as women and we want to do something and we want to show them that we can lead. >> you have been really trying to get israeli women, israeli activists, palestinian women and activists and people together. how has this film been seen by the israelis that you have showed it to? >> we have been working the past 15 years with a team. and we wanted to document the struggle of palestinian led and israeli supported nonviolent resistance against the occupation and there is a lot happening underground in term oz

of identifying when rights of one people are tie would the rights of another. and a critical time when palestinians in gaza are also protesting and wanting to be clear about what is hamming. what is the relationship between that and what happens during the first intifada? so making connections to the president. >> what do you think this film will do? maybe open israeli minds and maybe open more palestinian minds about the needs wants and abilities of each side? >> i think this film is talking about the past but there's a lot of lesson learned from that period and that experience during the first intifada that women can do something. we worked with the israeli women and israeli ngos for a while as a palestinian journalist and as a palestinian activists and many

works i used to do different meetings but now it's really difficult since the siege around gaza, the situation in the west bank, about that -- the situation in israel with the new israeli government. it's really hard. within my community, the palestinian community, we're doing a lot of screening in the west bank, in jerusalem and the coming -- hopefully in the coming week we will be doing the first screening. this is so exciting for us. to take the film there. we want women in general in my community to see that -- empower them. >> that's important now where divisions could not be more deep and this, as you said has so much hope. in jerusalem and in new york, thank you very much for joining

us. revealing insights. and now we speak to an actor. many of you will know alan aldau as the classic hit tv show, "m.a.s.h." what you may not know is that alda, now in his 80s has spent the past decade channelling his creativity into the art of communication, teaching students at the alan alda sebter for sients. and we sat down to talk to him about his works. >> thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> gosh, you've done so many things in your life. i mean people of course know you for hawkeye pierce and appearing on "m.a.s.h." many people may not know that you wrote many of the episodes,

but you have this whole other life as a student of communication, a person actively trying to help people communicate better, particularly in the scientific realm but beyond that. how did understanding the roots of it start for you? >> it began in my roots as an actor because as an actor you have to relate to the other person. in the beginning it was performing. doing something to get them to pay attention to you and like you and then i began to realize it doesn't really happen. they don't really get engaged with what's going on unless you're engaged with the other performer. and you mentioned "m.a.s.h." we would sit in a circle and talk and laugh and make fun of each other and we got such a connection as regular people that when we went on the set a couple of minutes later, we still had that connection.

and so i helped start the center for communicating science at stony brook university. because i thought if we teach scientists to make this connection and whether they're talking to a live audience or writing with them, they'll be aware of the audience as the other player. to me that's the basis of communication is what's going on in your head, not in my head so much. >> what i found intriguing about your center is you use some of the techniques you learned as an actor to help scientists learn better. >> we teach them improvization exercises. a lot of people think it's comedy. but that's not what we teach. we teach exercises that were invented first maybe 70 years ago by ola who started second

city. became eventually comedy but that's not why we teach it. we teach it to establish a connection and all the exercises that we >> this is obviously a passion project for you. but was there something -- your hunger to help people communicate better? >> i don't know if there was. it was kind of a rolling disover canny. i never expected i'd be teaching communication, writing a book about it. there were 30 people at the senter for communication science who were teaching all over the united states and in five countries around the world. i never expected that. but realized i had something to offer. to me that's the best feeling.

>> you have a podcast called clear and vividthat you just started this summer. i understand it grew out of your work with the foundation, helping scientists to communicate better. what's the goal other than it's hip to have a podcast? >> there's a wonderful cartoon in the new yorker that says i'm thinking of stopping a podcast. it's about this whole subject we've been talking boit. it's about relating to other people and mune can kating. communicating and although it grew out of trying to teach scientists to communicate better, one of the things we found out from scientists is it was applying to everybody. one scientist said this training is saving my marriage. because if you listen better and communicate better things go a lot more smoothly. so we found there's almost an endless supply of people,

interesting people to talk to. some famous, some not so famous about relating and communicating in so many different ways. for instance the most striking example canal to me is talking on the program to a hostage negotiator who said these same techniques i use to get a hostage released is very good in a marriage between spouses. over over they talk about the impo important empathy. >> people don't want to talk to people who don't already agree with them. >> that's true. look, i talk with paul gruben, who has taken groups of women from israel groups of women together from palestinian and they have gone places together

and shared experiences and learned together. i talked to mitchell bhoo brought peace to northern ireland and they did by introducing people to other people that they hated. >> can we play a clip george mitchell. >> we're going to be here, these are long days and nights. we're going to eat our meals together and what i'm asking is during the meals no talk about business. i said talk about your wives, dogs, kids, vacations. what do hunl beings talk about when they're not involved in negotiations to end a war? it was awkward at first but then it kind of worked. >> the funny thing is it doesn't just work with people you hate, it works with people you love. >> okay. but let's talk about people you hate though. because i've been lissing to our

conversation so far and i can see easily where this works in your family circles or community. >> we're in a time of tremendous polarization and just as in george mitchell's clip, if all we do is stick to talking about the things that divide us, what he calls the when they sat down at dinner, they couldn't talk business. they had to talk about an every day human experience they could share as a fellow human. maybe rarlts cl maybe it's a clue for family members, members of congress. but to stop in the hallway and talk about something that has nothing to do with business but just who are we as people?

it actually will help us talk to one another regardless of the position we take. you don't have to change the world, you just have to respect the other person as a person. >> i want to play a clip you had with sarah silverman. she's got a program where she's trying to connect with people she doesn't necessarily agree ewith. an exchange she had with a troll. for people not familiar with that term. somebody who connects with you on social media for the purpose of being mean. >> i happen to see somebody -- he just called me the c-word. >> that was the whole tweet, just one word. >> simple. i saw his tweets and they were so filled with rage but not about anything in particular. just rage and then among them was a tweet about his severe

back pain and i saw that he was just in pain, which is a lot -- most of maybe all of rage comes from pain, physical ore motional. and so i just -- i tweeted a loving gesture towards him >> can you remember what you said? i remember something like you must have been terribly hurt at some point in your life. >> something like this is rage that is thinly, very thinly masked pain and my heart breaks for you. but he immediately opened up. i mean i think he didn't have people in his life that were concerned. >> that's a lot there, isn't there? >> you know what she wound up

doing? he said i can't show any love. that was ripped out me by an abuser when i was a child and she helped him find a place where you get therapy for free, therapy for people who had suffered that same kind of abuse and i interviewed her in her kitchen and she told me oh, just an hour ago i was communicating with this guy again. they're friends with this guy now i think she took a real risk. it shows real courage. but look what you can get if you're lucky and have that kind of courage. >> you've obviously chosen the people you spoke with from intention. and going back to charlottesville, virginia. mostly men with these torches

marching around saying jews will not replace us and you know you can see people looking at that and saying i'm afraid of these people. they don't want me to exist, or they only want me to exist in a subserveiant place in their lives. they don't want to understand me, they just want to rule me. and -- >> it doesn't seem possible. we're not going to meet each other halfway because they don't want us to exists. but just yesterday i interviewed christian, who was a skin head for about five years, beat people up mercilessly, believed in the philosophy of those people marching in charlottesville. had a flash of empathy and realized that the people he was beating up were fellow humans. and he didn't want to do it anymore and little by little he got himself out of the movement and then spent the rest of his

life -- has spent the rest of his life helping other people get out of the neo-nazi movement. he has helped 200 people get out. but you don't collect 200 people in the room and talk to them. it's a person to person exeperience. >> and wauthat's your message t the people like him? >> i think we have to be cautious about those people. that whole movement and it's in the hundreds of thousands when you look world wide. it's a very dangerous movement. but before we fight the war again people like christian can make a concerted effort. he has a whole organization that works on this. one by one, person to person. to find out and then introduced

them to the people they think they hate. >> what's your suggestion with how we should practice that? i walk out of here today what should i do? >> you have to do what you want to do but what i do is i try to find out what people are going through. i try to look -- i happen to have a brain problem called prosopagnosio, which is face blindness. so i don't remember faces. and i think the better able i am to know what they're going through and the more i know what they're going through, therefore the more empathy i have and therefore maybe if i really want to i can be more compassionate. but you have to want to. i don't think empathy makes you compassionate.

i found and i think i see eit in other people that when you are more empathic, you not only know more about the other person but more aware of your own emotions, your own creative thoughts so that i don't know why that should be but i find that i'm more in touch with myself and not just the other person. >> i notice that you share a lot about your life and have oerch the years. i know you shared about growing up with a mom who was struggling with mental illness and therefore the whole family was and i noticed you shared even now that parkinson's is what your living with and as a person so well known -- social media kind of allows us all to do what celebrities have had to do can which is be known in some way. on other hand it feels like a trap, like i don't necessarily

want people to know >> i think there's a stinction to be made between personal and private. i didn't mention to anyone i had parkinson's for three sw half years and i realized that people were going to notice that i had a tremor and when the first story came out about it i wanted to make sure it wasn't a sob story, because one of the problems i think that people who get diagnosed with it have is that there's the tendency on the part of the whole culture to think the world has come can to an end with that diagnoses but it hasn't. and as a matter of fact that fiej, that worry that the world has am can to an end and have to deep a secret even to yourself, you might post pone doing something that can help like an exercise program. and that can hold off worst symptoms for a long time.

i wanted to help get rid of the stigma but i don't want it to be my identity. >> you don't want to be the poster child. >> exactly. so i don't -- i mean i have to talk about it if somebody asks. >> i can't help but notice that you and your wife have been married long time. >> 61 years. >> and congratulations. and my admiration for that. because it is an achievement. >> it wasn't that hard, believe me . >> see that shows you've been married a long time. but i wonder if your study commune canication is something you attribute to the longevity of that? >> it gets better and easier the more i think i've learned about communication. she's always been great about that. that may be true for most male/female relationships. but i think the basis of this is

really that we really do love each other. so when people say what's the secret? i say we really love each other. have you tried that? but she has a whole other take on the long marriage. she says the secret to a long marriage is a short memory. so maybe that's -- i've benefitted from that. >> alan alda, thank you so much for talking. >> you didn't look at those pages once. that's so nice. >> thank you. >> luchb lovely to hear from alan alda and i can tell you even growing up overseas, he had such an impact on people everywhere with "m.a.s.h." that's it for "amanpour and company". watch next time.

this is "nightly business report" with bill griffeth and sue herera. trade fight. the president is widely expected to make good on his promise of more tariffs on imports of chinese goods and investors are getting nervous. getting back to business. commerce in the carolinas slows to a crawl as flood waters rise and infrastructure is put to the test. media baron. the ceo of salesforce buys "time magazine" becoming the latest tech billionaire to expand his reach far beyond silicon valley. those stories and much more tonight on "nightly business report" for this monday, september 17th. and we do bid you a good evening, everybody. the $200il