Hillary, I have to ask you a
question
that is--
been plaguing me for a while.
How did you kill
Jeffrey Epstein?
(laughs)
Because you-you...
-(applause)
-You're not in power,
but you have all the power.
(laughs)
I-I really need to understand
how you do what you do.
Because you seem to be behind
everything nefarious,
and yet you do not use it
to become president.
-What is the game plan?
-(laughs)
-Well, Trevor...
-(laughter)
What is-- What--
But, honestly, though,
what does it feel like being
the boogeyman of the right?
(stammers)
Well...
(stammers) It's-it's
a constant surprise to me,
um, because the things
they say--
and now, of course,
it's on steroids,
with, uh, being online--
uh, are so ridiculous,
uh, beyond any imagination
that I could have,
and yet they are so persistent
in putting forth these crazy,
uh, ideas and theories.
Honestly, I don't know what
I ever did to get them so upset.
Uh, but a lot of them live
to come up
with these conspiracy,
uh, theories, and, you know,
I've gotten kind of used to it.
It's been going on
for a number of years.
Have you-- have you ever thought
of just, like, meeting someone
who says, like,
"Hillary, you did this,"
and just looking at them
and being, like,
-"Yes, I did"?
-(laughs)
-I mean, there-there must be
a little... -At some point.
-Right, at some point.
-Yeah, at some point.
It-it becomes so ludicrous
and it becomes so extreme.
Well, I've had-- I've had--
I've had encounters like that,
-and-and many of my friends have
had because they've... -Wow.
Yeah. They've called up people
to urge them to,
like, vote for me
or they've knocked on a door,
and somebody will say, "Oh,
I couldn't do that because..."
And then they launch into one
of their big conspiracies.
And I had one friend,
one very dear friend,
who I literally have known
my entire life,
and she said she listened
to this ridiculous,
uh, conspiracy about me.
And she said,
"You know, I've known her
since we were in sixth grade,
and none of that is true."
And this man looked at her
and said,
"But I saw it on the Internet."
But I also think
it's because it is effective.
Like, I'll never forget
reading an article
after the 2016 election
where the reporter interviewed
someone who had been
an undecided voter.
And he said, you know,
he thought
my mom had won
all three debates.
She clearly had a greater
command of the subject matter.
And yet he just kept reading
that she had murdered
more than 50 people.
And he said,
somewhat nonchalantly, like,
"I don't think
that she murdered 50.
-But, like, what if
she murdered two?" -(laughs)
And so you just think-- it's
this, like, constant erosion
-of-of truth and sanity.
-Right.
But my favorite--
and the one that I do
secretly hope might be true--
is that my mother apparently
adopted an alien in 1993.
-(laughs) -And I've
always wanted a sibling.
-(laughs)
-So I hope, maybe,
-maybe, that one will prove out
at some point. -But, you--
but, you know, Trevor,
it-it's--
You have to laugh at it,
because it's so crazy.
But, on the other hand,
we face a serious problem
of a lot of these falsehoods
and these crazy stories,
uh, taking on lives
of their own.
Uh, not about me
but about everybody
-and particularly anybody
in the public arena. -Right.
And I have been, uh,
very outspoken
about the decision by Facebook
to allow truly false
political ads to be run.
I want to applaud Twitter
for announcing
they were not going to let that,
-uh, go forward. And I hope,
um... -(cheering and applause)
I really hope
Facebook changes their mind.
Because more than half
the people in America
get their news from Facebook.
-And you. I mean, that's
the combination. -Right. Right.
-Yeah. Yeah. -Well, but Fa--
No, but Facebook--
but Facebook is-is a real issue.
And we are living in a world
where people no longer know
what truth is
and don't even agree on it,
-which-which seems to be
a larger issue. -Mm-hmm.
You've witnessed
the change in politics
through many different times.
Uh, in fact, we're
in an interesting period now
where the country's gearing up
for impeachment.
-Mm-hmm. -And you are in
an interesting position, where,
in your life,
you have been literally a part
of every single impeachment
in some way, shape, or form.
You had
the Watergate investigations
-that you were a part of.
-Mm. Mm-hmm.
-You then had your husband,
who was impeached. -Mm.
-And now your political opponent
is getting impeached. -Mm-hmm.
Do you have
the impeachment touch?
-Is this, like, a thing?
-(laughs)
You know, um,
I wasn't part of Andrew Johnson.
-But, you know, other-other
than that, um... -Yes.
(stammers) It is a-a strange
perspective to have, um,
because I was a young lawyer,
uh, investigating Richard Nixon.
And I am very pleased
that the House today
is proceeding in such
a deliberative manner.
Uh, they had that vote,
uh, today about the procedures,
because that's what happened
in 1974.
-Mm-hmm. -At first,
the American people looked at,
uh, the idea that Nixon
would be impeached
-after he won a massive
landslide in 1972. -Right.
And they said, "Well, that-that
doesn't make any sense."
But as the evidence came out--
and we were literally working
18 hours a day,
compiling evidence,
making, you know,
the legal, uh, arguments,
the constitutional arguments--
and, finally,
people realized that,
yeah, obstruction of justice,
abuse of power,
contempt of Congress
are not what we want
to turn a blind eye to
in our country.
We need checks and balances.
It's one of the reasons
why the rule of law is
at the core of our democracy.
So, I know the difference, um,
-about how the House's power
is supposed to work... -Uh-huh.
'cause I was part
of seeing it work,
uh, I believe, in the right way.
One of the people
we profile is Barbara Jordan,
who, if you go to YouTube,
you can see her, uh, speech
when she voted on the articles
of impeachment in 1974,
with her defense
of the Constitution.
And so, I'm hoping that now
that this is going to move
toward public hearings,
where people can see
these witnesses in person,
they can be like a juror
themselves trying to decide...
-Right -...uh, that, uh,
the American people will,
you know, make a very,
uh, careful study
of what they're being told,
because the founders
put impeachment
in the Constitution
for a reason.
Uh, we have a elections,
but in between elections,
if there is behavior
that is undermining our country,
endangering
our national security,
as the allegations here are, uh,
it's an extraordinary remedy,
but one that has to be exercised
in a sober, careful way.
It's interesting,
because America's in a place
where it feels like this process
and procedure will be tested
more than ever before because of
how partisan America has become.
-Mm-hmm.
-Because of how, you know, toxic
politics in America has become.
And I-I was interested, Chelsea,
because I've noticed,
a lot of people have asked you
why you aren't running
for an open seat in Chappaqua.
You are a resident
of New York State.
There is a seat that is open,
and you have the ability
to take that seat,
in many people's opinion.
And you've often said, "No,
there's other young people
who could take it,"
and everyone said, "Yes."
But you would definitely,
you know, take that seat,
and you would run with it,
and you've said
you are interested
in changing people's lives.
Do you have a hes... hesitancy
to engage in politics
because of how your mom has been
treated in her life?
No, uh, because I see her get up
every day and still engage.
And so, for me, the decision
to not even think about
kind of running for the seat
that Congresswoman Nita Lowey
will leave,
uh, at the end of next year,
is more about an affirmation
of what I'm doing now.
Um, and I'm thrilled
that there are already
so many people
who have thrown their hats
into the ring.
And I hope that young people
don't kind of see the toxicity
in this moment
and turn away from it.
I hope they see it and say,
"I want to change that,
"and I want to get back
to a place
"of science
and evidence-based decisions
"and respect for our democracy
and respect
for the rule of law."
So I hope people take it, uh,
perversely, as an opportunity...
-Right. -...um,
for what must be different,
and then be part of the change
of doing that.
You know, because it hasn't...
You know,
it hasn't always been like that.
We've had partis... partisanship
from the very beginning.
But there's also been a lot
of effort to find common ground.
So, back
to the Nixon impeachment,
when the articles
of impeachment were voted on,
members of, uh,
the Republican party
in the Congress voted
for one, uh, or more of them.
So, there has been, uh,
many times...
We write about, uh,
Margaret Chase Smith,
a Republican woman Senator
from Maine,
who was the first member
of her party
to stand up to Joseph McCarthy
in the early 1950s.
So, we've had, not only people,
but a consensus around
-what it is we're trying
to protect and cherish. -Mm-hmm.
And so, I can hope that maybe
there'll be enough people
who make their decision,
not on, you know,
protecting the president,
but protecting the country,
uh, either way they end up.
It's interesting,
because many of the woman
you've written about in the book
also share one common trait,
and that is, the obstacles
they had to overcome
often included being accused
of things
or being scrutinized in a way
that was not similar
to the men around them,
to their male counterparts.
How would you respond
to a Trump supporter
if they took the time
to listen to you and said,
"Hillary,
I don't think it's fair
"that Trump is gonna be
impeached
"for getting information
from Ukraine
"when your team engaged
in Russian information
"through, uh, you know, the
co... the-the team that worked
on that side
on the Steele dossier"?
How do you respond
to that person when they say...
-Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. -..."You
engaged in foreign information
"on a political rival,
Trump did the same.
-What is the difference?"
-There's a huge difference.
Um, you know,
if you look at the power
that the president holds,
the president is in a position
to use American leverage
and credibility
to achieve the goals
of our nation.
So I could imagine. No,
I could imagine a conversation
where a president would say
to the president of Ukraine,
"You're new at the job.
"One of the things that has
held you back is corruption.
"We want to help you
fight corruption,
"but we want evidence
that you are really dedicated
-to fighting corruption."
-Right.
If that's all
that had been said,
there's nothing wrong with that.
As secretary of state, I used
to go and visit leaders and say,
"You know,
one of your biggest problems is
"you've got rampant corruption.
"It's in your family,
it's in your people around you.
You've got to deal with it."
But that's not what happened.
And we now have not only
the whistleblower
-and the alleged
incomplete transcript. -Mm-hmm.
We now have a lot of witnesses
who are all saying,
"This was about helping
the president himself."
He is acting as the president.
-He's not a political candidate.
-Right.
He is not a private citizen.
He's the president,
and he said...
Now works for the United States.
He works
for the United States,
and we don't want
to squander our credibility.
So, if other countries see this,
as they clearly are,
that this president really
could care less about Ukraine,
could care less whether
it becomes a stable country,
could care less
whether it's able
to defend itself
against Russia...
All he wants
is for them to manufacture
some kind
of damaging information
about the person he thinks is
his likely opponent, Joe Biden.
So, there's a huge difference.
I mean, people can gather,
you know, information
in, you know,
all kinds of different ways,
but when you combine it
with that quid pro quo
that existed, uh,
in that conversation,
which has now been verified
repeatedly
-Mm-hmm.
-by people who were in the room,
people who were under pressure
to deprive the Ukrainians
of military aid so they
could defend themselves...
(laughs): There's an active war
going on in Eastern Ukraine.
The Russians
and their proxies are...
still killing Ukrainians,
and so...
what this president
has basically done is say:
"I don't care,
I don't care about any of that,
I just need some dirt, and I
don't care if you make it up."
You know,
"In order to get military aid,
you've got to give me something
on Joe Biden and his son."
It really does seem like
Trump has taken, uh,
an unconventional approach,
to say the least,
in international affairs.
He's been very explicit
in saying,
"It's America first
and that's all I care about."
Syria has been
an interesting case,
and-and as a former secretary,
you have the ability
to speak to this
with an in-depth knowledge.
Trump said,
"I pulled the troops out
because it's time for America
to leave these endless wars."
Everyone spoke out against Trump
for doing this.
But it was one of your former
ambassadors, Robert Ford,
who said at one point that
the alliance with the Kurds
was never meant to be permanent,
it was just meant to be
a temporary coming together,
because both sides wanted
to beat ISIS,
and they weren't allies
of all time.
What do you think is
the more correct approach, then?
Look, I-I don't think his real
philosophy is "America first."
I think it's "Trump first."
And he judges everything
as to how it will help him.
And perhaps
he impulsively decided
that bringing our troops home,
uh, was good for him
politically,
-Mm-hmm. -and that seems to be
how he is justifying it.
But let's assume we had,
uh, a president
who, uh, was interested
in achieving that goal
in a defensible way.
Here's what could have happened.
He could very well have said
to the people who know something
about Syria, the Kurds,
the Turks and others,
and said, you know,
"We need to start a process,
uh, in order to figure out
how we can protect the Kurds"--
who have been our allies.
Maybe not for all time, but
they sure have been sacrificing
on behalf of our objective
to drive the Islamic State
out of Syria.
And we know they're holding
tens of thousands of prisoners,
-Right.
-uh, for us.
So let's not leave them,
uh, to their fates.
Let's figure out
how we work with the Turks,
who are worried
about their border.
Let's see how we work
with the Kurds.
Let's use the leverage we have,
because we still have troops
that are special forces who
are working alongside the Kurds,
and let's figure out how
we're gonna make this happen,
instead of just waking up
and walking to the South Lawn
of the White House and say,
"We're bringing
all our troops home,
and I've talked
to President Erdogan."
And since we don't know
what he says on these calls,
for all we know it could be,
"Hey, uh, you know,
"President Erdogan,
we're gonna take our troops out.
What do you have on Joe Biden?"
-We don't know.
-Right.
And that's what's so frightening
about what's happening,
-because he has an affinity
for dictators. -Mm-hmm.
Uh, he's clearly misjudged,
uh, the North Koreans.
Uh, Kim Jong-un
has been firing missiles
and obviously not behaving
the way that a meeting
with the president
should have led him to.
He clearly does Putin's bidding.
I mean, Putin could not be
happier to have the Ukrainians
-Right. -caught up in this
while he continues to, you know,
eat away at their country
and their sovereignty.
The Russians have
a huge amount of influence now
in the Middle East,
because...
they're right there in, uh,
Syria alongside the Iranians
and propping up
the Assad government.
So there's a lot
of moving pieces
on this complex chessboard,
and I've been
in a White House Situation Room
where the president
was demanding information,
not acting on impulse,
-Right. -where we were running
through different scenarios,
where we had to be
constantly testing our opinions
against others in order to give
the president the best advice.
That is not happening
in this White House.
It is, unfortunately, uh...
unpredictable
about what he will do next.
So therefore, other countries,
particularly ones
adversarial to us,
are going around the world
saying, "You can't...
-you can't count on America
anymore," you know? -Right.
"Count on us. We'll sell you
arms, not the Americans.
"We'll make deals with you,
not the Americans.
We'll have investments in your
country, not the Americans."
And it's a tragedy,
because, um,
I think we were
really well positioned
at the end
of the Obama administration
to keep building
on our leadership,
and I think that's been,
uh, squandered
under this president.
Let me ask you one question
before we wrap it up.
The Book of Gutsy Women
talks about women
who have done something amazing
throughout time.
One thing that we can't deny
has changed throughout time
has been politics
and the way we see the world.
I've always been fascinated
as to your relationship.
You know, you are... you are
your mother's daughter, yes,
but you are younger than her--
are there ever political ideas
or, you know,
conversations you have
where you don't agree or you've
changed how you see an idea
because of your age difference?
-Yes. (laughs)
-Yes. Absolutely.
I think, um,
most notably on gay marriage
and equal marriage rights,
uh, which is something
that we talked about...
-extensively...
-Wow.
um, throughout... years,
and I'm really grateful
and proud of my mom
for her shift to being
just a dogged, determined,
not only supporter but advocate
for equal marriage rights.
So you were, like, in the house,
and you were like, "Mom...
you got to get gay rights going.
Come on."
It's almost, like, a weird fight
to be having with your mom.
I'm not... 'Cause, like, I was
like, "I want to go to a party,"
and you were like, "Mom,
gay people need to get married!"
-"Go to your room, young lady!"
-(laughter)
That's pretty wild.
I mean...
-Well, Chelsea was...
-Yes, but hopefully,
in a nicer tone?
But Chelsea was, you know,
really one of the strong, uh...
voices on behalf of, uh,
gay marriage here in New York.
Um, she, you know,
gave lots of speeches.
She was part
of a group of leaders
-Mm-hmm.
-that were advocating for it.
And, you know, I really respect
and-and listen to her
about all kinds of things,
and this was something
that, uh,
made a lot of sense to me,
especially because she had
such passion about it.
Well, I'll tell you this,
it is a Book of Gutsy Women
written by two of the gutsiest.
-Thank you so much for being
on the show. -Thank you, Trevor.
-Thank you.
-Wonderful having you here.
-The Book of Gutsy Women
is available now. -(cheering)
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton
and Chelsea Clinton, everybody.
