hello, and welcome to amanpour. here's what's coming up. from firing his attorney general to bashing the press. what if president trump is heading this nation into a constitutional crisis and we don't even know it? i asked a constitutional expert, harvard law professor that question. also ahead, mexico gives shelter to the migrant caravan escaping bru brutality. plus, fighting for social justice in the trump era,

activist educators and writer, brittany packnett sits down with our alicia menendez. >> uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." when bee tollman founded a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams, and those dreams were on the water -- a river, specifically -- multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. bernard and irene schwartz. sue and edgar wachenheim iii. the cheryl and philip milstein family, seaton melvin.

judy and josh. and by contribution s your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. welcome to the program. serious constitutional question. many see it as an attempt to undermine the probe into russian meddling in the 2016 election and the president's own conduct. in a feisty post election conference, trump threatened to take a war like posture. the concerns don't stop there, however, whether it is president trump's claim that he can end birthright citizenship with a wave of executive order or as always, the second amount and the power of the gun war. the assault on the first

amendment, constantly trying to silent the press that he doesn't like. with me to discuss what is a constitutional crisis and whether the u.s. is close to them is laurence tribe. students included president obama and john roberts. the company author of a new book "to end the presidency the power of impeoplement" welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> thank you, glad to be here. >> with all that set up, where do you stand in are we close to or in a constitutional crisis? or are questions to that regard really legitimately being raised right now in.

>> i think the questions are not only legitimate, but urgent. even though we've been in kind of a slow-motion crisis for really quite some time. with a president who lies regularly, so that if there were and external crisis, people wouldn't know what to believe. with a president who attacks the constitution's basic first amendment right of freedom of speech and of the press, with a president who basically makes up an invasion and then uses our military as a political prop. with a president whose ascendency to the office is under legitimate doubt. because it really looks like he owed one, a big one, to putin and that putin helped him get there. with a president who mixes his business interests with his office in a way that makes it hard for us to know whether his policies towards iran or saudi arabia or turkey or russia are driven by self-interest or not. and with a president who is determined and obvious and often public ways to commit what really are technically

impeachable offenses in terms of obstructing inquiry by the justice system and by the congress. into what he did when he did it. so all of that is -- essentially makings of a crisis. the question is when will the pot come to a boil? and will the system hold? >> okay. so you've led me right into the current boiling pot that everybody is talking about. which is the firing of jeff sessions. this is what he said about this in his press conference. let's just listen. >> i could fire everybody right now. but i don't want to stop it. because politically, i don't like stopping it. it's a disgrace. it should have never been started. because there was no crime. it is everybody has conflicts, they all have conflicts over there. that are beyond anything that anybody has ever seen in terms of conflicts. >> so, of course he's talking about the mueller probe and the instinct to want to shut it down. but saying that that's not politically correct.

and he probably wouldn't do it. what do you think might happen? and particularly, he's within his rights to fire the attorney general, to have fired james comey, the fbi director. isn't that right? i mean was that an abuse of power? >> well, it certainly is an exercise of his presidential authority. but it was an abusive exercise. it's clear even from what he said it lester holt on national television, that he fired comey to shut down the mueller probe. that is the comey probe, which is now the mueller probe. he fired comey, in order to insure that someone who is loyal to him and who will agree not to go after someone like michael flynn, is not in charge. and so even though he had the naked authority to fire jim comey, it was the abuse of

power. likewise, he certainly has the power to fire the attorney general. the attorney general serves at his pleasure. but when he fires him because he would not violate the department of justice regulations that required him to recuse himself, he really engages in an abuse of power. it's ironic to hear this president talk about conflict of interest. the biggest conflict of all arises with his assertion that he is the final judge of whether there was conspiracy with russia, whether there was obstruction of justice, when he keeps saying it's all a hoax and a witch hunt, despite the indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, he's acting as though he is judge and jury. he is trying to become not just commander-in-chief of the military, but commander-in-chief of all he surveys, commander-in-chief of the united states of america. that's an authoritarian position.

and if he gets away with it. in hindsight, that will have been not only a crisis, but a catastrophe. and so the question is, will he get away with it, given there are millions of people, who seem to like his authoritarian style. who have no trouble with his racism, with his xenophobia. with the cruelty of what he says and what he does. if he gets away with it and if the relatively spineless republicans in the senate who will still control the senate become and continue to be enablers, rather than checking him, then what we have is only the house of representatives as a check. and it may need to rely on the federal judiciary to enforce its subpoenas. but the federal judiciary is being gradually trumpified to the point where the u.s. supreme court is composed of a 5-4 split in which the most recent appointment was that of someone hand-picked by the president,

because of his expressed views about the sweep of presidential power. so we are poised to see whether our system will hold this is kind of a stress test for the constitutional system. >> well that's obviously leads to the next urgent question. what will and how will it hold? you know you just talked about the difference between the senate and the current makeup of the house now. you remember that the senate majority leader, senator mitch mcconnell refused to bring legislation to the floor of the senate that would have protected the special prosecutor. the special investigation. that's still the case. how does one prevent if the president was inclined, how does one protect the special prosecutor? and can the house, with its subpoena power and other power now, and its chairmanship of all of these relevant committees, can it be a firewall against

that? >> i think the house can be a very effective, though not impermeable firewall. if the house seeks to get testimony for example from the president, and to use the subpoena power to get him, courts might interfere with that and it might well be that matt whittaker, who is now pretending to act as the attorney general, we can get to that later in our discussion if matt whitaker says to robert mueller, i'm in charge now, i will not authorize you to issue a subpoena to the president, we're at a rubicon of sorts. i think if the house of representatives uses its powers wisely, it doesn't prioritize investigation that impeachment over actually getting important measures, at least enacted by one of the two houses, so we can see where the problem is, if the house for example uses its

subpoena power to ask mueller who probably wouldn't need to be subpoenaed, he could simply be invited to reveal all of the nonclassified information that he's discovered. and to share with him the conclusions to share with the house the conclusions that he's reached. then the american people can suddenly become massively more informed than they are now. it's ultimately going to entail great popular pressure for members of the house and senate to take steps that will protect mueller. they will not succeed in passing a law that would protect him. partly because as you say, christiane, mcconnell wouldn't let it come to the floor. and if it came to the floor and were passed, this president would veto it. what they can do is lay before the american people, the full record of this arguably criminal

administration. a record that will show that this president achieved his power by improper deals in the dark, with a foreign adversary. now, that doesn't automatically lead to his removal, needless to say. and when millions of people support him, it may be that there is no effective way to remove him. but as we saw, in the mid-term elections, there is an effective way to make a difference, and that is through exercising the franchise, there was a sweep across the country. of new young diverse progressives elected to congress, more than 100 women, it's very unlikely even with the distortions of the electoral college that trump could survive beyond the year 2020. >> so let me -- let me ask you,

professor tribe, you talked about public pressure, because you outlined a lot of the problems with the congressional oversight. what do you make of this public pressure by a major ally of president trump? and that is the rupert murdoch-owned "new york post"? their editorial today basically said their editorial today said the fear is that this is a prelude to somehow shutting down mueller's investigation and possibly burying all its work. won't happen. the incoming democratic house of representatives will have full subpoena power, and mueller and his minions would surely cooperate rather than be silenced. trump would be begging for impeachment and risking conviction even in a republican senate. he would also pretty much guarantee defeat in 2020. so they say won't happen. do you agree i mean that's a pretty powerful check on the president. he relies a lot on the support of the post and fox and rupert murdoch.

>> i think the post is being a bit too panglossian. the idea that he has no chance of being elected in 2020, it is wishful thinking. he does have a chance. he is not very smart if a conventional sense, but he is wily, and he knows where to sink the fangs. he might well prevail in 2020 the idea -- >> professor, tribe, i think they were suggesting that if he fired mueller or shut down the investigation, that would sink his chances. >> can you imagine 67 senators, in the current senate voting to remove him from office? i think it would be very hard, even if he took the foolish step of firing mueller. the rather more frightening thing is he doesn't have to do that. it can be a slow-motion strangling of mueller. the guy he's put in place to supervise mueller, matt

whittaker, who cannot legally perform that role, because of the appointments clause of the constitution, which really in this circumstance requires a senate confirmed attorney general. the guy he put in charge is someone who has publicly said we don't have to fire him, we can just starve him out by -- >> can i -- >> can i just -- >> by approving his indictments? >> can i just play that sound so our audience can hear him say exactly what you just said? >> uh-huh. >> i can see a scenario where jeff sessions is replaced. with a recess appointment and that attorney general doesn't fire bob mueller, but he just reduces the budget so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt. >> well there you are. laying out a methodology that you just said. and we have reports that whitaker does not plan to recuse himself as sessions did.

>> he was actually in that clip that you ran. auditions for the very job the president gave him. from the beginning the president said despite all the rules that would require sessions to recuse himself, that he really wanted his own you know, roy cohn, his protector, to be the attorney general of the united states. so clearly by picking a guy who pleased him on television, by really volunteering the ways in which he would undermine the mueller probe birks picking that very guy, the way he basically picked kavanaugh as the one person in his short list -- who said he didn't think a sitting president should be investigated or indicted. the president is basically

rigging the game and stacking the deck and putting in place someone who has no intention of recusing himself. but the fact is that you know, i'm sorry i was just going to add a little bit about why, why matt whittaker has no legal right to be in the position that he was put in. but we can get to that whenever you want to. >> i mean i think you said he would have to be, he would have to be confirmed for that position. >> right. that's what article 2, the appointments clause suggests. and the favorite justice of donald trump, clarence thomas, last year wrote an opinion explaining all of that in detail. in addition to that, the administration is relying on the fiction that in this case, sessions resigned, creating a vacancy and making it possible to use what's called the federal vacancy reform act. but anyone can see through that it's clear that sessions was fired. he didn't really resign. and as a result, if it violates both the applicable statutes and the constitution's arrangement for appointing principle officers of the united states for him to occupy his position. >> i only have a little bit of

time left. and i want to get to one other issue because its relevant to the whole immigration debate. the president talking about ending birthright citizenship. this is what he said to a team at axios about his executive order ability to do that. then i want to get your thoughts on that. >> on immigration, some legal scholars believe you can get rid of the birthright citizenship without changing the constitution. >> with an executive order. >> exactly. >> right. >> have you thought about that? >> yes. it was always told to me that you need a constitutional amendment. guess what, you don't. >> so what are the facts? do you need a constitutional amendment? can an executive -- >> you certainly do. >> the supreme court hasn't ruled on it, right? >> that's not exactly right. the supreme court did rule in the won kim art case and in piler v. dough, that

fundamentally the 14th amendment guarantees, no matter where their parents came from, regardless of any circumstance, birthright -- >> even if the parents were not legal immigrants? >> absolutely. the whole point is you do not visit upon the child born here, the alleged sins or even proven sins of the parent. it's a very fundamental proposition. fugitive slaves who were violating the laws as they stood at the time of dred scott could have children and the whole point of the 14th amendment's opening language was that anyone either born or naturalized in the united states is automatically a citizen. and it's not only that you can't wipe that away by executive order, if you could, you could wipe out the first amendment by executive order. something that this president might want to do. but couldn't do. even with congress's support, you can't just wipe out part of

the constitution. especially as fundamental a part as this. >> well that's good to have that point on. because that interview left the impression that he could do that. and i'm glad we're sort of at least trying to clarify it. let me ask you quickly in our remaining couple of minutes about the second amendment which we all know was specifically written down by the constitution as a well-regulated militia, et cetera. i want to read you some of these stats, the mid term elections, about two dozen congressional candidates, who were backed by the nra, were defeated according to some gun safety advocates, but another 88 candidates won, backed by the nra did win. and in the wake of this yet another mass shooting in under two weeks. where do you see that going, in, in as we enter the post mid term world? >> it seems to me likely that

the continuing drumbeat of horrifying tragic slaughter with guns, most recently in ventura county, before that in the temple in pittsburgh, the litany is too painful and long to recite. that is moving the nation's pulse on this issue. more and more people are taking on the nra. it used to be regarded as the third rail. you can't favor sensible gun control without having the nra bury you with money to your opponent and basically kill your political chances. that's no longer true. and the second amendment, even as interpreted by a very conservative supreme court, leaves room for banning military-style weapons and doing a number of things that would reduce, though not eliminate the terrible pattern of gun death and gun injury in the united states. it seems to me that we have a president who is beholden, not only to saudi arabia and to

turkey and to russia, but to the nra. that is not something that will necessarily stand in the way of meaningful progress. >> thank you so much for walking us through the nuts and bolts, the black and white of the constitutional process and it's really helpful. professor tribe, thanks for joining us from boston. trade, travel and history have defined u.s./mexico relations for decades. $1 million are traded every minute between the two neighbors, touching the lives of more american citizens, more than ties with any other country. not to mention, that mutual investment between the u.s. and mexico surpasses $100 billion and there are more than a million legal border crossings between the two each day. as a campaign ploy, president trump focused on what he called a caravan invasion. complete with threats to deploy 15,000 troops and finally build

the whole length of that border wall. now that there's divided government in the united states, i got mexico's take in an exclusive interview with the foreign minister, luis videgaray. >> foreign minister, welcome to the program. >> thank you for having me. >> can i start by asking you, president trump, we understand now is going to be issuing the restrictions on asylum as he promised before the mid terms, reducing the numbers who can come into the united states, and restricting where those asylum requests can be processed. what do you expect to happen and how will that affect mexico? and particularly with the caravan coming up right now? >> well our position on immigration has always been very clear. very consistent. we think that the most important policy element should be treating migrants as human beings, regardless of their legal condition, they have human

rights and a dignity that has to be taken care of. of course we try to have a legal orderly migration process. in a region where migration flows have changed dramatically in the past ten years, mexico used to be a country of origin of migrants, now it's more of a transit country. and its a challenge for other countries. our approach has always been the key element to dealing with immigration has got to be development. and we need the u.s., we need mexico to invest more in creating development. creating job securities. particularly the northern triangle. so we understand that political dynamics in the u.s., we don't expect a significant change in president trump's priorities and policies. our approach remains consistent. we've got to face this issue as a humanitarian challenge. the caravans are a, a result of such a humanitarian challenge

and we need to first and foremost work together with the u.s. in investigating development of central america. >> i want to pick up on that, because we understand that you've been in discussions with the united states precisely on that, and have you got to any agreement, will there be a joint development plan? and you want to take into consideration there, the issues of security and the border et cetera. >> we've been working on development efforts with the u.s. since the beginning of the trump administration. we just had last month, a summit with the three presidents of central america, vice president pence, mike pompeo, was there. and it's very clear that we all understand that without investing in development. this is a problem that will remain. it is of course, enforcement of the law in a humane and proper way, part of the solution, but

the core, the core is the development challenge. so we have been working with the administration, with the trump administration since the beginning towards that and i look forward to the new mexican administration of president-elect to continue that strongly. >> i want to play to you what president trump said about border security. he first said they were going to send 15,000 troops to the border, this is what he said. >> we have about about 5,000, we'll go up to 10,000 to 15,000 military personnel on top of the border patrol, i.c.e. and everybody else at the border. nobody is coming in. we're not allowing people to come in. if you look at what happened in mexico two days ago with the roughness of these people in the second caravan that's performing and also frankly in the first caravan and now they have one forming in el salvador, we are thinking very seriously immediately stopping aid to those countries. because frankly they're doing nothing for the american people.

>> so that was in the run-up to the mid terms, mr. foreign minister. there's a lot to unpack. the concept of having thousands and thousands of troops on the border between you and the united states. and what he said was potentially cutting off aid to those central american countries where these migrants, these refugees are coming from. what is mexico's reaction to that? >> others have decided to enter into our country not through the proper procedure, they have not registered and we continue to tell them that they should come to us, that they are welcome

here, welcome to stay, but they cannot be breaking the law. and we don't believe that creating barriers and putting more boots on the ground on the border is going to be the solution of this. the solution again, this is a humanitarian cries csis and of course an asylum and refugee process that works better. and this is something that we want to do with the international community led by the u.n. and led by the u.s. >> let us move to nafta. where does the mexican government stand on this? we know that the united states is the biggest buyer of mexico's exports. are you satisfied, is mexico satisfied in the renegotiation

and the renaming of this nafta? >> yes we are we think it's a very good deal. it might not be perfect. as always when you have a successful negotiation. there's got to be some concessions from the three parties involved this is a win-win-win for mexico, the u.s. and canada. and we're looking forward for it to be signed on november 30th. it's been scheduled and then it will come a congressional approval process in mexico in the u.s. and canada. but we think this is a significant achievement. remember, when president trump was elected, exact two years ago from today. there was a lot of uncertainty in the world. but people were very concerned about mexico and particularly very concerned about nafta. exactly two years after that we have a deal, a deal that protects free trade within the region, that makes north america more competitive. and certainly will create a lot of opportunities for mexican jobs and mexican growth. so we are, we are, we are

certainly happy with the outcome and understand however that the process is not final. it still has to go through congressional approval. particularly in mexico. it's the senate that would have the last word. >> what do you make now of the sort of redistribution of power in the united states, between the house and the senate? i know you can't comment on the vote of the people, what does it mean for your bilateral relations and what might have to go through? as you mentioned, congressional approval of the new nafta deal and other such issues? >> we have a polarized nation, a divided government and it is unlikely that significant legislative changes will happen. so therefore, i think the challenge is that relationship will remain. as of the approval of the u.s.

mca. it new that we of a successful congressional approval of the new treaty. >> whether it is what he is doing with a sort of trade war against china as a major victory

for the united states. he also claimed that about the canadian piece of this renegotiated deal. is that how you see it, a major victory for the united states. did mexico give up a lot to have a new nafta deal? >> the beauty of trade, it is not a 0 sum game. this is a trade deal where the three parties win. growth, jobs will be created. we will be more competitive as a region and we think this is a big win for the u.s., but also for mexico and certainly for canada. this is a good opportunity and we look forward to seize the opportunity created by the new treaty. >> and how do you foresee relations between the united states and mexico. and frankly with central america and the rest of latin america

president trump. the wider latin american picture looks different. they are more populous coming up more notably recently with the new election in brazil. how do you see all of this playing out in terms of your relations with the part of the world. >> mexico is a strong democracy and our elections have consequences and it is to be expected some changes in policy including foreign policy. i am not a spokesperson for the new administration but i can tell you a couple of things. i am personally encouraged by the good relationship started established between president trump and president-elect. it is good to have a good relationship with the american government. and i think that is encouraging.

and second, i believe that my successor is a professional and mexican diplomacy will be in good hands. i cannot, as i say, i am not a spokesperson for the next administration but mexico will continue to be an active well-respected country in the international community. >> i want to ask you though, there is a lot of focus now with latin america with some of these new elections. and people have written, experts have written about democracy enduring despite the bumps in the world. they do look at brazil and they look to venezuela and they look around and see populous movements and eliberal so-called democracy and wonder which way is the continent going. where do you bet on the

continent going? >> i think for most parts of it, latin american democracy is healthy. and i have great respect for brazilian institutions and strength of the democracy. they have elected a new president with new ideas. and i have a lot of confidence in the strength of their institutions. i think my position is well-known about my concern about venezuela, where i have been very vocal in the past couple of years about a significant disruption of venezuela's democracy and we acted through organizations making very clear that there is a problem in venezuela. and that the democratic institutions of venezuela have been pretty much demolished by the regime.

but we also claimed that the solution for such problem needs to come from venezuela itself and it has got to be a peaceful solution and a political solution. and i spent a good number of days involved in the negotiations between the venezuelan government and the opposition. and unfortunately that was not successful. but other than that case and the concerns of nicaragua and the unrest going on there, it looks healthy including mexico. >> i talked about women, and the power of women in mexico is making huge strides now. the president-elect. i will call him by his am krcro.

he has picked a woman to be minister of the government which is an influential position in the administration. what do you think and how do you think that will affect the health of mexico going forward? >> well, i think mexico is at the forefront of gender party politics. if you look at the mexican congress, both the senate and the lower house, after a constitutional reform per formed by nieto, you have house. and this is something that is changing significantly. approximate we are excited about it. in the election in the u.s. we notice that 100 of the elected representatives are going to be women. well in mexico, we have 250. women at the lower house which is essentially half of our lower house and the same in the senate. we think that is only, that is not only correct in terms of its moral purpose, but it is a very

good thing. there is a lot of talent coming to our politics and our congress by having more women interested in being active. >> and i want to close by asking you about the famous meeting you arranged back in 2016 when you were finance minister between candidate trump and president pena nieto. do you regret that? >> if i could go back in time, in hindsight we were smarter. it was fundamentally a good idea but poorly executed. i would love to do things differently. i think the country was clearly angry and remains angry at what happened that day. but i think at the core, that opened a door for communication in what ended up being the new administration and the pluses of eventually getting nafta renege

gauche -- renegotiated and now the u.s. mca. having early communication and establishing a dialogue with the new government certainly was correct. >> on that note, foreign minister luis videgaray thank you so much indeed. >> thank you. it is always good to hear you. >> that meeting is when president trump first started talking about the war right in front of the mexican president. the fight for futility. pushing for police reform, she cofounded campaign 0 and was a key face in the black lives

matters movement. brittany spoke to alicia menendez the morning after the midterm. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> we knew there were going to be two different verdicts on the trump presidency delivered by two different americas. what is your take? >> my take is that there is energy out there. and energy in places where people least expected us to see it. i was in tallahassee, florida stumping for andrew gillum and pushing people to vote yes on amendment four. and we were at florida a and m university. and in a packed stadium, young people were exited abocited abog their voices heard and they were not looking for an instantaneous fix. they were excited to do their

part. whether races work out the way we want or not, we can't ignore the fact that there is energy everywhere. >> right. and as much as there is energy for both sides there is energy from the other side. and stepping back and looking at it through the lens of demographic change, do you feel inevitable. >> i would say. that i also believe the conversation is not just about who has power and who doesn't, but how do we re-define power. is power elected office or is power having most of did demographic or making sure that the right voices and the right people are showing up at the right times. i think the young people and marginalized people are trying to re-define power. we can have muslim women and congress and native american

women in congress and black women in congress. so yeah, people who have always had traditional power will always try to protect it but i am not interested in taking away somebody else's power, i am interested in re-defining power. power is not actually some kind of finite source. it is not like oil, right. it is more like the air. i am breathing, you are breathing but there is not less air if we both do it. if we share power, instead of hoarding power, we can create a space where we can live equally. >> for someone like you who put a lot of time and effort in these races particular the race in florida and in georgia. all members of marginalized communities at the top of the ticket, part of your ability to

see the win. and none of them have been able to claim victory in those races. >> not yet. but i do think there was a clear lesson to progressives across the country that we want to make sure that our party apparatus better represent our opportunities. when i think of people like mandela barns who is the new lieutenant governor in wi wisconsin. that matters greatly. and i think about the amazing victory of amendment 4:00 last night in florida. the fact that last night there. because they won with grass roots organizing and the voices of the marginalized community leading the fight. people got out there and said we are going to make sure that our

voices are never silenced again and hopefully that will start a trend across the country. >> let's stick with amendment four. we saw in michigan, independent commission for redistricting and on the other side of the ledger, we saw loss of voters in georgia complaining to challenges of being able to vote. advance of election day which seemed like systemic efforts to make sure that people were not able to vote. where does that heal us? >> we have to take on the systemic issues of our democracy, and that is why amendment four matters. it is the largest restoration of voting act. that is not miner. i am hoping it starts a trend.

but it is also a reason why on the morning after the election stacy abrams is still fighting saying i will not concede until every vote is counted. >> what does it mean to have someone like brian kemp run his on election. how do we correct for those things. there are so many ways that people try to suppress the votes of marginalized people and to me, that is an indicator not just of how important the vote is, but of just how powerful they know marginalized people to be. they know we are triumphant and victorious when we put our minds to it. we have to tackle that in a systemic way and also in a grass roots way. let's take care of georgia, f r florida and michigan.

>> does the democratic party need to do soul searching in what it takes to win? >> a lot of young organizers and political operators of color who have been pushing the party from the inside and the outside to make sure that soul searching results in something substantive, in a party that fully reflects not just our values but our communities. that we are not only putting up candidates that look like us, look like more of us, but chiefs of staffs and legislative directors are coming from those communities. it is one thing to have representative diversity, and another thing to pursue equity because we are being informed by the people. >> one of the big narratives coming out is about white women and more importantly white women in support of donald trump. are you interested in persuading

white women to vote for progressives? >> i am interested in white women persuading one another to vote for progressives. there is a conversation that we should be having. what it means to vote in our own interest. that doesn't mean we let white men off the hook. that doesn't mean that we expect them to behave in a certain way simply because they do not present a marginalize. creating an equitable society. that is all of our responsibility as citizens. what if i went to the ballot box and voted in the interest of children. and went to the ballot box and also voted in the interest of immigrants and of people who are incarcerated. what if i showed up for people who are not allowed to vote at the ballot box.

what would our country look like then? what if we stop too long tdoings that we know cause harm to other people. >> you said on positive america on hbo your whiteness will not save you from what the patriarchy has in store for you. what does that mean? >> we can look to christine blaze ford. what they knew to be to his characteristic. his habits of sexual harassment and beyond. how white men closed ranks around bret kavanaugh. and you will not interrupt that process. and still, we find that white

women are showing up for a party that does not value them and does not value their health care, does not value their well-being and their autonomy and independence and brilliance. we saw a lot of white women daringly and courageously speak their truth and were shut down quickly. >> what do you say to those that say they were simply allegations. >> we know that there was not a full investigation. and i personally don't want to live in a country where on the highest court in our land one-third of the men on the bench are accused of sexual assault or harassment. there should be some places like the supreme court of the united states where there is not even a

hint or a whiff of that kind of impr improprietiy. there were other folks that the gop could have put forward. this is something that believes two things, one that roe versus wade should be overturned. and two, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. i am convinced that there were lots of reasons that they wanted to see bret kavanaugh through the end. and dr. ford's whiteness didn't save her. >> one of the conversations that has long been had was this idea that black women consistently -- not invested in candidates themselves. there are those who believe the democrats should clear the field in certain places to allow black

women to run. i wonder if this election where black women played by their own set of rules and ran for seats that nobody thought they could win or came within striking distance, if that changes that piece of the narrative. >> well, i am hoping that it does. i am hoping that it at least continues to open the door. she said if they don't give you a seat at the table bring a folding chair. we will also work on being our own table and making sure that our table is a place for all people can sit and sup and design. and experience life as we deserve. i am excited about rachel rawlins. it matters that black women are looking at every seat as a possibility place to be sitting.

>> you come from a family that is political. you have been an activist basically since you were a child and you became known to the greater public during your time in ferguson. you now teach a class at harvard. what do you see as being the fingerprint of activism. >> this is what i mean by re-defining power, in a traditional sense we think about the power of the people always in kind of traditional political frameworks, are you running for office? how many people are showing up to vote. we have to recognize that if all politics are personal, then it is not just about when we show up at the voting booth that we make our politic suspects our values known. it is also about when we show up in the street, at city council hearing and when we hold our elected officials accountable. last night we were talking about

power. we invited the first african american woman to hold the seat in cook county in illinois. as someone who is trying to drive towards equity, even in a prosecutor seat what could the people be doing to equip you to do that. and she said, get organized make me accountable. make sure i am hearing about the inequities that i may not know about. so here is an elected official asking us to play our part. all that means is that you are ready to tell the truth out loud and in public and hold decision makers accountable. >> i want to ask you about saying the truth out loud in public for a lot of people that is a scarey thing to do and for me who has consumed a lot of your content online one of the things i am struck by is your

clarity and intentionality. is that innate or is that learned? >> probably a bit of both. i come from a faith background. both my parents are community leaders and activist and both ministers and community leaders in their own right. jesus not only loves everybody but wants everybody to be free. i don't get to give up hope because god didn't give up on me even when i was in my hopeless state. there has been a full color photograph of harriet tubman that has been circulating in the last few days. and it was striking. it was taken in 1911 at her home and here she is, this aged woman sitting in a chair hunched over, and you can look into her eyes and start to think about all of the people that she went back and rescued from their own

enslavement. she didn't go back one day or three days, she went back over and over again. she took every single chance she had to make sure everybody got free. and if she can keep doing trk then i don't have any excuse. i can't give up. that is our responsibility. that is the moral code that i was raised with. and i am hopeful that if people get anything from listening to me, they know that they have power within their own grasp and they can seize that power and influence the world if a good way. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> a much needed of hope to end our program and a reminder there that there can be room fno room moral come place sensy. thank you for watching and join us tomorrow night. >> uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co."

when bee tollman founded a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams, and those dreams were on the water -- a river, specifically -- multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. bernard and irene schwartz. sue and edgar wachenheim iii. the cheryl and philip milstein seaton melvin. judy and josh westson. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

business report with bill griffeth and sue herera. stocks slide. markets finish the week with losses as a further decline in oil prices spark concerns of a global economic slowdown. picking up steam. a key gauge of inflation rose at its fastest pace in six years and did not go unnoticed by investors or the fed. up for auction. the priceyest listing in the country will soon be owned by the highest bidder. those stories and more tonight on nightly business report for this friday, november the 9th. and we do bid you good evening, everybody. welcome. sue is off tonight. a fresh round of selling