FULL CONVERSATION: Hillary Clinton Discusses Trump, Biden's 2024 Decision, And More

[0:15] am so tired of getting standing ovations every time I walk in a room. It's really tiresome. Oh, hi. [0:25] Thank you for doing this. Oh, thank you so much, David. Secretary Clinton, in your book, [0:30] Something Lost, Something Gained, you write about your state of mind after the re-election [0:36] of Donald Trump. You describe yourself as someone who remains an optimist that worries a lot. [0:43] Now, we all worry, but I want to grasp the extent of your agony. And I want to begin with a big [0:54] question. Does Donald Trump and Trumpism represent a real and sustained era of authoritarianism [1:02] in this country? Well, first, David, thank you for doing this with me. And it's always great to be [1:08] here at the 92nd Street Y. So thanks, everybody, for gathering. And I really believe that he does [1:17] represent the threat of authoritarianism. And the people who enable him, who support him, [1:26] who follow him, have clearly decided that his kind of performance politics, his deliberate [1:37] cruelty and behavior that has never been seen by any of us in an American president before, [1:49] is exactly what they want to see for the country. Now, the good news is his favorability is in the mid-30s. [1:58] People who had supported him, not because he was a wannabe authoritarian, but because he promised to [2:07] lower prices and, you know, create a better future for people and their families. [2:13] They've seen the reality. It doesn't match the rhetoric. And so they have moved away from him. [2:20] But he is doubling down. He's doubling down on his impulsiveness. And it's very worrisome to me [2:30] because I'll end with this. You know, I teach at Columbia University now, of course, [2:34] with the dean there. She and I have been on this stage together. It's called Inside the Situation Room. [2:40] And we talk about the traits of leaders, their behavior, their psychology. And there is a view [2:51] that is rooted in how people make decisions, all of us, not just leaders, about what happens when [2:59] someone finds themselves in what's called the domain of loss. It's a psychological concept. And [3:09] almost counterintuitively, when people feel they are losing, they very frequently take greater risks. [3:17] They double down on their behavior. And that's what I'm now worried about because he's lashing out. [3:24] He's demanding that we accept his version of reality, which is unhinged from the actual [3:30] world that we live in and the actual consequences of his actions. So I think we have to be extremely [3:38] vigilant and just ready to push back every chance we get. You've been a New Yorker for a long time. [3:45] You were around when Donald Trump was not a politician. You would see him here and there [3:51] in New York City. At what point did you begin to see him as something other than a kind of figure [4:00] in the joker sphere, the spy magazine, uh, aspect of New York City and sense him as a political danger? [4:10] Probably when he began to lead a movement, uh, questioning, uh, Barack Obama's, uh, uh, birth, [4:20] uh, right citizenship. And before then, I was not aware. I hadn't read Art of the Deal. I hadn't [4:28] followed, uh, some of his, um, public utterances. You know, he allegedly, uh, told the, uh, man who [4:38] helped him or wrote the Art of the Deal. The only book he had on his bedside was Mein Kampf. I did not know [4:44] that. Big seller. That's right. And, and he also, um, he, he ran full page ads accusing Ronald Reagan [4:53] of weakness. So there had been a few eruptions that I was unaware of. I kind of viewed him as, [4:59] you know, exactly the sort of figure you described. But when he began to do the big lie about, uh, first [5:08] Senator Obama, then President Obama, that's when I began to pay attention and wondering what's really [5:14] behind this. Why is he doing this? And so relentlessly, it didn't matter. And I, you know, I remember [5:20] talking, uh, to President Obama about it and, you know, President Obama, like so many of us, it's like, [5:26] ah, who cares? You know, just, I'm not going to respond to that. And, and what we have learned [5:32] is how important it is to respond. It used to be, you could ignore that kind of, you know, outlandish [5:39] claim and it wouldn't, uh, you know, last for long, but with the internet, it lives forever. And so he [5:46] began to demonstrate his understanding of the new, uh, information ecosystem that we're in. How is your [5:55] understanding of his support evolved? You were criticized a lot. I probably rightly for using the [6:02] word deplorables for many of his followers. Um, but how do you view the, the evolution of his [6:09] followers and what it is that they want most of all from him? Well, first of all, I said only about [6:17] half, um, were, so to be fair, um, Well, are you doubling down on deplorables? Yeah, but you know, [6:28] I have to say, I was, you know, I gave a speech, for example, about something called the alt-right, [6:34] which, you know, the press had no idea what I was talking about. Certainly the public had no idea [6:38] what I was talking about. But, you know, I was beginning to see this really disturbing rhetoric, [6:45] uh, racist rhetoric, sexist rhetoric, you know, the kind of authoritarian demagogic, uh, claims about, [6:54] um, our politics. And it, it worried me. So, you know, I, I tried to kind of put that into the, [7:00] uh, political debate, but I also did try to, you know, draw a line between [7:06] those who were following him because of that. It wasn't, uh, a bug. It was the feature. They [7:12] wanted to follow someone who, uh, was, you know, demeaning President Obama, was, you know, making [7:18] claims about me, saying things like, you know, the Second Amendment people will take care of her. I mean, [7:25] terrible things that were in that campaign against me and people didn't take it seriously. People [7:31] were like, oh, that's just Donald. He's just spouting off. Don't worry about it. I saw something [7:36] darker, but, you know, I was in not the strongest position since I was running against him to make [7:41] that case. So I was trying to say, look, I understand there are people who believe that [7:46] kind of stuff, but most of the people, uh, at least half, uh, who are, um, you know, following him, [7:53] they want change. They are not satisfied with where we are in the country. They want, [7:58] you know, a different economic reality. He's promising all of this, you know, promising that [8:03] we're going to, you know, have an economy that is just going to be the greatest in the world. [8:07] And we're going to bring back, you know, jobs that were lost to globalization and all the rest of it. [8:13] So I really did understand the appeal to that. And as I campaigned, uh, throughout that, [8:20] uh, you know, year and a half or so against him, uh, it was something that, you know, I, I was aware [8:27] of and I respected because people were feeling that, you know, it's hard to succeed a two-term [8:33] president of your own party. I knew that going into it and, you know, people liked and respected [8:40] President Obama, but, you know, they wanted something that might be a little different. [8:44] A little different. What? A little different. Yeah, a little different, but they didn't know [8:48] how different at the time. And so I really think that his followers, the, the ones I would put into [8:55] the category of, you know, believing his promises, thinking he could, uh, number one, thinking he could [9:02] help them, but number two, that he cared about them. Uh, neither of which I think, uh, was really true, [9:08] but you know, people wanted to hang on to that. And I, I believe that that kind of continued, um, [9:17] into his first term. The way he handled COVID is the reason I believe he lost. I actually think if [9:24] he had done a better job handling COVID, because remember he got more votes the second time when [9:31] he was running against Joe Biden and Biden of course got the most votes anybody's ever gotten, [9:36] I think, uh, still for president, but the people who were following him, COVID scared them, put them [9:44] off. They might've, you know, thought, wait a minute, I don't, I can't vote for that. Um, you know, [9:50] Joe Biden in that first 2020 campaign ran on, uh, you know, restoring the soul of the nation and all. I [9:58] don't know how, how effective that was, but it had a theme that he, uh, you know, certainly, uh, used effectively. [10:07] And then when Trump ran again, there was such a set of circumstances that led to him being elected [10:12] in 2024 that were, you know, pretty unprecedented. But again, people voted for him believing that he [10:18] would get inflation down and believing that he would, you know, give them a, a better deal economically. [10:24] I, I don't want to jump too far ahead, but I, I think it's fair to say that so far JD Vance has not [10:29] covered himself in glory. And Marco Rubio probably doesn't appeal to the base with quite the same, [10:36] um, you know, stick-to-itiveness of, of, of Trump himself. And I, I wonder if you think it's possible, [10:47] and I think maybe this has run through your head, that the Trump family has dynastic ambitions, [10:54] whether it's Donald Jr. or someone in the family, um, who might pretend to succeed him. [11:01] Well, David, you and I think alike. I think number one, if he could figure out a way to stay, [11:15] he would. My husband likes to say, if he tries to stay, I'm running again. [11:30] But if that's unlikely, which we have to hope it is, I don't get the feeling he's all warm and fuzzy [11:38] about JD Vance. Um, I don't think he is warm and fuzzy about nearly anybody other than himself. [11:46] And who is closest enough to him? And that is possibly a son or a daughter. [11:51] A son or a daughter? A son or a daughter. [11:54] And the daughter is thought to be cleverer than the son. [12:02] Well, I, I'm not going to characterize them. It's the blood relationship that matters. [12:07] Understood. [12:08] So, look, I mean, we're speculating like, you know, we know something, which we don't. [12:14] I'm not hanging out Mar-a-Lago and sort of picking up the, you know, breadcrumbs of gossip. [12:19] But I think that. I think you'd like it. [12:21] Yeah. But given, given his psychology, given, you know, Trump's psychology, um, he definitely, [12:28] if he can't do it himself, he wants somebody he can control, uh, and preferably somebody related to him. [12:35] And that would be, uh, I, I think his, uh, you know, his hope. [12:39] You've watched Trump over a long period of time. Uh, you've debated him three times. Um, [12:48] you've observed him very carefully, obviously. Is he disintegrating? [12:53] I just turned 80. [12:56] I think he is, um, certainly, um, not, uh, what he was. He doesn't, uh, he doesn't come across, [13:06] at least in the way that he presents himself, uh, with as much energy, you know, falls asleep [13:12] in lots of public meetings. I mean, poor Joe Biden. I mean, shut his eyes, you know, once or twice, [13:17] but Donald Trump is like falling asleep all the time these days. Um, but part of that is he stays [13:23] up all night posting on true social. So he's, you know, he's not, he's not getting enough sleep, uh, [13:29] anyway, um, which is pretty disturbing because I don't think people who are sleep deprived make [13:36] good decisions on top of everything else. But I really think he has, um, a, a, a number of, um, [13:47] traits that have gotten, you know, more obvious. Um, he doesn't even try to hide them. You know, [13:55] his impulsivity, his immaturity, um, his lack of curiosity about anything going on, uh, around him, [14:05] uh, that, you know, like when, when, you know, he launched the war against Iran and then, you know, [14:11] out of the White House, you hear that nobody told me about the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, [14:17] nobody told me they could close the Strait of Hormuz. Where is the Strait of Hormuz? Um, [14:22] you know, you can't make it up. It's like, it's, it's like, you know, some movie that you walk out [14:31] of because it's so outlandish. Dr. Strangelove. Yeah, exactly. Um, we're talking on a day [14:38] where the United States and Iran seem to have signed an agreement to end, at least for now, this, [14:43] this, um, war. Did the United States lose this war? Yes. Yes. The United States has come out weaker. [14:53] Iran has come out stronger. It's not even an agreement. It's a memorandum of understanding, [15:00] which we haven't even seen the details of. The little bit we know is that the Strait, [15:07] which was open without either tolls or fees, um, was closed. And under this memorandum, [15:15] it will be reopened, although there may still be a desire by Iran to charge, quote, fees, [15:21] which will have to be, uh, dealt with. Uh, the ballistic missile, uh, system, uh, seems to be, [15:28] uh, at least, uh, if not totally intact because of a, a, a bombardment during the course of this, [15:36] uh, certainly still operative. Um, there is no nuclear deal. Um, there is no agreement on controlling [15:46] proxies. And what I've read is that there may be a huge transfer of, uh, money for reconstruction [15:57] to Iran. Now, I started the negotiations that led to the JCPOA, the agreement that President Obama, [16:05] uh, eventually signed. It was an intensive diplomatic effort. We started by getting the UN Security [16:14] Council to impose sanctions, global sanctions on Iran in June of 2010. We then, you know, [16:21] worked to get secret negotiations started through Oman. Um, and those began with several meetings [16:28] and with, uh, uh, you know, a plan about going forward and which I handed off to my successor, [16:35] uh, John Kerry. But these were serious negotiations with high level people. [16:41] So when we sat across a table from Iranians, we had our own nuclear physicists there, as did they. [16:48] We had experienced diplomats, people who had negotiated, uh, on many different, uh, fronts for [16:55] many years. That's not the way this administration does its business. And so I think we have come out [17:02] weaker. Um, we've caused a lot of both confusion and, uh, I think some distrust, uh, in the larger region [17:13] about what our goals were, uh, and what our staying power is. So I, I believe until we see the agreement, [17:21] which allegedly will be signed, uh, on Friday in Geneva, uh, we don't know what's in it and we don't [17:29] know what's left out of it and we don't know, you know, how it's going to be spun. But it doesn't seem to me [17:36] that it's going to, uh, be, uh, an effective maneuver by Trump to claim some kind of victory. [17:43] You know, the United States doesn't send bombers to Iran, uh, because anybody else commands it to. [17:49] But it's very clear that Bibi Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, pushed and pushed Donald Trump to do this. [17:58] We have an account by Maggie Haberman in the Times about meetings in the Situation Room in which, [18:06] I think quite unusual, a foreign head of state urged the President of the United States to go to war with it [18:13] against a third party, against Iran. Um, it's my understanding that when you were Secretary of State, um, [18:22] Bibi Netanyahu made the same case. Tell me about that. Well, you're absolutely right. When I was Secretary, [18:30] it was a constant, uh, you know, theme by, uh, Netanyahu and his then government, the then Defense [18:40] Minister Ehud Barak, the former prime minister. It was relentless. It was a constant push. [18:49] You know, I remember, um… What would he say to you? What? What would he say to you? [18:53] He would basically say, um, we need, we need to, uh, you need to support us in attacking Iran. And back [19:03] then, this was, you know, 2009 to the end of, uh, 2012, we had more capacity than Israel did on several [19:14] fronts, uh, to, uh, do that. Um, and so there was a, a constant argument, uh, that we would have. And, [19:21] and, you know, I remember one day, um, I was on the phone for hours with Ehud, with Bibi, with others, [19:30] you know, and they would say things like, you know, our planes are on the tarmac. And I'd say, [19:34] well, good luck. I mean, great. Um, why are you doing this? Where else would planes be other than in [19:41] the air? But on the tarmac, ready to take off. Yes. Um, although they'd be in the hangar, [19:46] but they were on the tarmac. Um, and you know, you would, you would say things. You're saying you [19:52] were, they were, you were, you were being played. All the time. All the time. I mean. By an ally [20:00] that receives an enormous amount of aid. Well, of course. And look, Bibi's been obsessed [20:08] as long as I've dealt with him, uh, with, with two things, Iran, as you know, and his desire to [20:16] normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. The first formal meeting I had with him in 2009, probably [20:24] March at the state department, it was absolutely, you know, how can we get normalization with Saudi [20:31] Arabia and how do we, uh, totally decapitate Iran? And he had this view, um, that I think has become [20:41] very clear, uh, in his, you know, dealings with, with Trump. Number one, decapitate the regime. It [20:49] will fall. Number two, uh, do enough bombing against enough critical infrastructure. Try to, you know, [21:01] disable, uh, the, uh, military in so far as possible. The people will rise up. And that was just never [21:12] our read about what was going to happen in part because this is a ruthless, theocratic regime [21:21] that at least at the top levels, the clerical level has a kind of apocalyptic view of their own, [21:31] uh, importance in the struggle against Israel, the United States, the West, their, uh, Sunni neighbors, [21:43] you know, the whole map that they look at. And they are also a regime that learned sadly a lesson [21:50] from the overthrow of the Shah. There's a lot of, you know, analysis about why the Shah was, uh, [21:58] finally deposed. But one of the arguments is at the end, he would not murder his people. He would not [22:06] order the mass murder of the demonstrators in the street. This regime has no such compunction. [22:13] Mm-hmm. So if you have a regime that has already proven as it did last year, they were willing to [22:20] kill 35, 40,000, uh, Iranians over the protests that were going on. If you have this alliance between [22:29] the clerics and the military, they have enough folks in their ranks to keep moving up and taking over. [22:35] Uh, our take on Iran was absent an effective armed opposition, which we've never seen, [22:42] and absent some kind of internal, uh, dissent, whether like a general who would say, [22:52] I'm not going to tolerate, you know, this any longer. [22:55] And not the Shah's son sitting in Virginia or Paris. [22:59] Well, you know, I give, I give him credit for being a voice, a voice for the aspirations of [23:05] some of the Iranian people. I do give him credit. He's, you know, he's tried to fill a role that [23:11] you cannot fill from sitting in Virginia or wherever. But he, he at least tried to voice the [23:17] legitimate discontent of the Iranian people. But this regime is not, you know, they're not going to be [23:25] toppled by, uh, you know, appeals to their humanity, uh, to their, uh, you know, better, [23:33] the angels of their, you know, better nature. No, I mean, they are there to stay in power and to [23:40] promote a, you know, very clear political, religious agenda. So if I hear what you're saying [23:46] correctly is number one, Bibi Netanyahu bamboozled Donald Trump. And number two, um, I don't, [23:56] I don't imagine the intelligence changed radically about the state of play in Iran, [24:01] that the president ignored not only the advice of his vice president and secretary of state, [24:09] but the intelligence community to telling him on the ground, this would be a terrible idea. [24:13] Well, I can't speak to that. I don't know what was presented to him. You know, I also think coming [24:20] off the attacks of last June, which I supported, I supported the very specific surgical attacks on [24:29] the known nuclear weapons sites. I believed that that was a clear mission with very, uh, achievable [24:40] goals. I didn't know whether you could eliminate the program, but I thought you could certainly set [24:45] it back. So I think coming off that, which was, you know, from their perspective, successful, [24:53] not at... Wouldn't it better, wouldn't it have been better to stick with the JCPOA [24:57] and renegotiate an extension? Well, a thousand percent, David. And, and if you, [25:02] suppose Trump had said the following, you know, because when you are negotiating, [25:08] you are your strongest threatening military action, not actually, uh, taking it. And suppose, [25:16] you know, Trump back in his first term had said, I'm not satisfied with this agreement. [25:22] There were, you know, it wasn't perfect. And, you know, I'm sure there are people in this audience [25:25] that didn't support it, but it was the best deal we could get to put a lid on the nuclear program. [25:32] It didn't deal with the ballistic missiles. It didn't deal with the proxies. So if Trump had said, [25:38] there are things about it I, I, I don't like, and I, I am going to walk away from it unless we open up, [25:44] uh, negotiations. And I believe that we need to open up negotiations because otherwise, you know, [25:51] I might be forced to take action. That then gives you the pressure and the room to try to do something. [25:56] That's not what he did. He said, you know, Barack Obama did it. I'm out. We're, we're withdrawing. [26:02] Let's stay in the same region for a moment. I know that you're for a two-state solution [26:06] and see it as the only outcome that any kind of peace can exist for, for the, but if I look at the [26:15] Israeli polity, they don't want a two-state solution, certainly not now. And if you look at [26:21] the Palestinian polity, which is, it is an even more complicated, um, set of geographies and, and, [26:28] and, and population. Two-state solution is not, uh, uh, anywhere near the offing there. So other than, [26:36] you know, some constituents now it's diminishing, uh, in the west and elsewhere, um, a two-state solution [26:45] which was fought for so hard, um, but began going out the window many years ago, um, seems impossible. [26:54] Am I wrong? You might be, but you might not be. And here's why. I'm going to say something positive [27:03] about Trump. So, so hold on. Okay. I've got a grip on my chair right now. Trump's 20-point plan [27:16] for Gaza is actually a pathway to security for Israel, reconstruction for Gaza, and the possibility [27:33] of self-determination, however defined, for the Palestinians. There are a lot of people who, [27:40] uh, you know, reject it because Trump did it, but it's the only game in town. There's nothing else. [27:49] And I've engaged in some, you know, kind of track two diplomacy with Israelis, not, not in the current [27:55] government, former governments, uh, military, intelligence, political officials, Palestinians, [28:03] Arabs. So it's a very, you know, it's a very painful discussion, uh, because, you know, [28:11] these are experienced people with lots of scars to show for, um, their efforts over many years, [28:20] not just on peace, but on security, particularly, uh, for Israel. But I really believe if we took this [28:31] 20-point plan, which starts with, you know, the disarmament of Hamas, a huge, important, uh, [28:39] step yet to be accomplished, um, but took all of the 20 points so that it wasn't just disarm Hamas and, [28:47] you know, maybe do some reconstruction and, you know, build some, you know, resorts on, on, uh, [28:53] the coast. But if it, you really took the whole approach that is embodied in that 20-point plan, [29:00] and I know there are people, uh, who are working to try to move forward on that, there is a glimmer [29:08] of a possible, uh, path forward. Now, having said that, you are dealing with, um, two peoples [29:19] that are even more traumatized than perhaps has happened in the past. Um, I, I think you had, uh, [29:28] uh, Rachel Goldberg-Pollin on your, uh, podcast, uh, last week. And, you know, I, I met her during the [29:35] time when I was trying to help and support, uh, families who were advocating to get the hostages [29:41] back. And it's, you know, she writes this very moving, uh, profoundly sad book about her son Hirsch. [29:49] And, and we've had Mohamed Mawish and Mossab Abutoh who lost multiple members of their family. [29:54] Multiple, and I've met with them as well. And, [29:56] And seven, did the Biden administration fail to push hard against the Netanyahu, uh, government? [30:06] Did, did, did it give too free a reign, um, to the Israeli government during that? [30:12] You know, I, I think it's a very, very hard question to answer for this reason. [30:19] As I, as I said, October 7th was a mass trauma event. Clearly, the people who were murdered, [30:28] the families who lost loved ones, the hostages, 250 plus were, who were taken, uh, into Gaza. [30:36] It was a long, terrible trauma. And what I said to my class, uh, at Columbia after October 7th is, [30:47] you have to keep competing thoughts in your head. [30:50] A hundred percent. But Biden came to Israel and the, the wisest thing it seems to me that he said was, [30:57] I feel your pain. I understand how horrible this is. Uh, we support you. But at the same time, do not [31:05] repeat our mistakes and act out of prolonged vengeance. He was obviously referring to Afghanistan, [31:13] and even more so to Iraq, the misadventures there to say the least and the damage they did and the [31:18] lives lost there. And it, I think a lot of people would say that it's exactly what Israel went ahead [31:24] and did by such a prolonged war and that the United States and the Biden administration and later the [31:31] Trump administration did very little to put a, put a pause to it. You know, I, I, I think that, [31:39] and I, again, I'm, I wasn't there. I don't know what the, um, internal discussions were. Um, but every [31:46] time I, what I would hear every time, um, especially while the hostages were still being held, every time [31:54] there was a push against Israel to change tactics, to avoid certain targets, you know, the response would [32:03] be, we, we know that there are tunnels. We know there are something like [32:10] 350 miles of tunnels. We know that they can be entered through a lot of these sites. [32:18] And, you know, it's very difficult to refute that because we know that there were tunnels and we know [32:24] that numbers of them entered into hospitals and schools and all kinds of, uh, civilian, uh, places. [32:33] Could and should the Israelis have been, uh, more careful with civilian casualties? Absolutely. There's no [32:40] doubt about that. But did they have a response to, you know, what they were trying to accomplish, [32:48] rescuing hostages, you know, getting access to, uh, Hamas leadership and fighters in these tunnels? [32:56] They did. And, and trying to walk that line in the middle of a war is very hard. So I try to imagine myself, [33:04] I'm sitting, you know, in CENTCOM, uh, and talking to the Israeli military, I'm sitting, uh, you know, [33:11] at the CIA and talking to Mossad and they are coming back, not with, you know, totally unbelievable [33:19] claims. They're coming back with, here's what our intelligence tells us. Here's, you know, we think if [33:23] we can get there, get there, uh, maybe we can, you know, get Senwar, maybe we can, you know, rescue [33:29] hostages. And the fog of war was like totally, uh, overwhelming. So in retrospect, could they, [33:37] should they have done more? You can always say yes, and you can always hope so. Um, but. [33:44] When you hear Ehud Olmer referred to war crimes committed by the United States, [33:48] when you hear a scholar like, an Israeli scholar like Omer Baratov referred to genocide, [33:53] or even David Grossman, a novelist, you know, well, do you agree with them? [33:58] Again, I am, I am looking at facts. I'm trying to figure out and I have not reached my own [34:05] conclusions because I don't have an, you know, oftentimes there's after action reports and the [34:11] thing I am most, uh, critical of is there has been no after action report about what happened [34:20] leading up to October 7th, on October 7th and post October 7th. So we don't have all the information [34:28] I personally would like to see and know about. So let me just say, let me just say for, you know, [34:34] because we, you know, it's something, you know, we teach these examples in this class. [34:38] So prior to the Yom Kippur war, intelligence went to Golda Meir and said, we have a source [34:48] inside Sadat's cabinet in his office. He is telling us that the Egyptians are going to attack. [34:58] And the response from, you know, Dayan and my, you know, obviously all of Golda Meir's [35:03] war cabinet was that's ridiculous. They can't do that. And look what they did. The original sin [35:11] is why did October 7th happen? What were the signals that were missed? What could have been [35:17] done differently? What did Bibi Netanyahu think he was doing having Qatar pay Hamas millions and [35:25] millions of dollars a month in order in his thinking to weaken the Palestinian Authority? [35:30] What did he think was going to happen? So I guess my point, David, is I want to know everything I [35:36] can know. I want to know everything I can about the intelligence failures, the military decisions [35:43] before I'm willing to say you could have done this or you should have done that, [35:47] or pass judgment. I received, I received a text today. I received a text today from [35:59] the best journalist I know in Israel, a very keen defense analyst. And he said, [36:04] this memo of understanding is the end of Bibi. In other words, that after the failures of October 7th, [36:13] he had decided that his political future would rest on his revival of Israeli strength, [36:20] the reassertion of Israeli strength. He never apologized for October 7th, never took responsibility [36:26] for it, but that this would be his path forward. And then he would keep at bay all comers, whether it's [36:33] Gadi Eisenkot or whoever it might be. But that this memo of understanding is understood in Israel [36:40] as a defeat, and a defeat of Bibi, and that this is the likely political end of him. I think a lot of people [36:48] have gone broke predicting the political end of Bibi Netanyahu. Are you willing to go broke? [36:53] You know, he has certainly more than nine lives politically. But I think this is a real [37:05] defeat for him. Because as you say, and I agree, he did push Trump into the war against Iran. Trump was [37:17] ill prepared. The strategy was incoherent. We didn't gain anything of real importance, and we may have [37:26] lost a lot. But that means Bibi also lost. Because to go into that kind of alliance and to push Trump [37:36] to do something that Trump, I'm not sure even understood the implications of, and then for Trump [37:42] wanting to get out of it, because what did he say a few weeks ago? I'm bored. This is boring. Trying to make [37:48] peace is boring. So Bibi's left out there by himself. And there are several really serious questions. [37:58] You know, what he's doing in Lebanon now is, to me, counterproductive. He has never had, Israel has [38:08] never had, in as long as I can remember, a government that started out more open to working with Israel to [38:18] try to disarm Hezbollah. Now, could the Lebanese army have done it on their own? No. But could the [38:24] Lebanese army, with support from Israeli intelligence and maybe even Israeli military support in some [38:32] forms, have gotten closer to it? The Lebanese people were turning against Hezbollah, turning against their [38:41] military activities, turning against their political project, which as you know, their political arm is [38:49] represented in the Lebanese government. And rather than trying to be, you know, in my view, kind of [38:55] smart about how to build up a Lebanese government for the purpose of disarming and neutering Hezbollah, [39:07] which is definitely in Israel's interest, Israel has been engaged in this bombardment of Lebanon. And, [39:15] you know, so they're fighting on that front. I think they're turning a blind eye to the settler [39:22] violence in the West Bank is extremely dangerous. You look at the training of the Palestinian defense [39:30] forces, which started under George W. Bush, continued under Obama, continued on probably to this [39:38] day, where Palestinians, under an agreement between Jordan and the United States, were trained in [39:47] Jordan to provide security. And they were a partner to the IDF. You know, when what happened in Gaza, [39:56] Hamas kept expecting to see uprisings in the West Bank, uprising by Hezbollah, you know, surrounding [40:02] Israel on all sides. That didn't happen at that time. Hezbollah started doing some rockets and other stuff, [40:08] but I think mostly under Iranian pressure to step up and do that. And so to be creating a [40:17] tinder box of potential uprising in the West Bank while you're fighting Hezbollah, while Hamas still [40:26] controls 40 percent of Gaza, and they control it militarily and civilly. And that has not been [40:34] uprooted yet. So I think, you know, Netanyahu believes that war is his friend because his political [40:45] standing is under attack from a lot of different directions. And he wants to contain the opposition [40:54] by creating conflict so that he tries to rally the country behind him. I think this Iran deal may be, [41:01] you know, the straw that finally breaks that and creates an opening for, you know, his departure in [41:11] the upcoming elections. And, you know, a government that is certainly going to be very concerned about [41:17] Israel's security, but might be somewhat more, you know, adept at dealing with these problems in a way [41:23] that enhances Israel's security. And, you know, there's a great line. Somebody said to me the other [41:29] day, you know, Israel was the startup nation. I mean, the amount of economic activity, technology, [41:36] obviously defense, businesses that sprang up. But I'm worried that if you don't see a government [41:46] that understands the importance of tending to Israel's economy and future, you're going to see [41:54] a big exit by particularly young Israelis. And there is some evidence of that. [41:59] An exit of young Israelis and an exit of many Democrats from from reflexive support of Israel [42:05] as well. Let's talk. Let's turn to some domestic concerns. A few weeks ago, the Democratic National [42:10] Committee released an autopsy report on the 2024 election. It satisfied nobody. Not one person [42:20] did it satisfy, except for maybe the Bidens, because it didn't mention Joe Biden's decision to run. [42:28] When you look back on this episode, and it's obviously we're not we don't have the distance [42:33] of historians, but some time has elapsed. How do you analyze it? I know you had a long political [42:41] alliance together, complicated relationship and so on and so forth. But when you look back on his [42:46] decision to run, did he make a terrible mistake? He made a terrible mistake. He made a terrible mistake [42:53] for himself, his legacy and for the country. He had said that he would not run again. And, you know, [43:01] counterfactual narratives are always a bit tricky. But I believe if he had kept to that plan and said [43:12] in, say, the late summer of 23 that he wasn't going to run, that he was going to pass, you know, [43:18] the torch to the next generation, we would have had a real contest. And very sadly, I believe whoever [43:27] emerged from that contest, whether it was the vice president or a governor or a senator or anybody else, [43:33] would have beaten Donald Trump. So I think it was a terrible miscalculation [43:41] on the part of President Biden. But once he didn't move and did not, you know, admit that [43:53] he had said he was going to step aside and then decided not to and held on for as long as he did, [44:00] we were in a terrible dilemma. Why didn't anybody say so? You're a powerful figure, still a powerful [44:06] voice and that and the Democratic Party. There are a lot of people that are powerful, not a lot of a [44:11] select group of people with powerful voices, whether Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, etc., etc. [44:18] Nobody said this. Everybody and I, you know, the press was was no more vocal about it in many corners [44:25] either. Why was it so difficult to speak about this? I think there were a lot of conversations going on [44:33] behind the scenes. I certainly am aware of that, participated in a number of them. But there was [44:41] there was no way to convince him by going public. And eventually what convinced him was, you know, [44:51] polling polling information. But after a horrendous public disaster. Well, but were there private [44:57] discussions? Were there people on your level of your eminence that went to Joe Biden and said, [45:01] Look, Joe, we love you. You did the service, a great service to this country after Trump for four [45:08] years. You there were a lot of great, dare I say, liberal initiatives put into place. A great deal [45:15] of healing in some ways. Other mistakes that we've just we are we just had a conversation about. But [45:22] it's time. You're not the guy you were 15 years ago. Enough already. I know of a few people who tried [45:31] that and they were met with total denial and not just from him, but from the people around him. [45:41] Joe Joe Biden or took here before the debate before what happened at the debate. There was a belief [45:50] and it was strongly held inside the White House that he would win again. And they and at that point [45:57] before the debate there was polling, there were endorsements, there was a glide path to winning. [46:07] After the debate, I think they were in a state of sort of disbelief about what happened [46:14] and kept trying to explain it, rationalize it, justify it. And there were a lot of people who publicly [46:22] and privately then said, You know, that's not recoverable. Initially, that was denied that they [46:28] thought it would be. And then eventually, you know, he made the decision. To such a degree [46:32] that that night, Jill Biden said, You did great. You answered all the questions. A weird thing to say. [46:40] And then after writing a book, said she thought that her husband had possibly had a stroke right there [46:48] on the stage. I wasn't there. I don't know. I have no I have no way of commenting on that. Where were [46:55] you when you watched that debate? Tell me how you how you experienced that debate. It was shocking. You're [47:01] sitting at home watching TV. Yeah. Well, I mean, it was a moment of disbelief. I thought, you know, [47:09] maybe he had taken, you know, medication for a cold or for, you know, some kind of virus or something [47:18] that it had affected his ability to respond in a, you know, quick and expected way. Because I'd seen Joe [47:28] Biden debate a lot. I was on the debate stage with him in 2008. Right. And so I thought there had to be [47:36] something that happened to him. I didn't think of a stroke. I didn't think it was that serious. [47:43] But, you know, look, it happened. It's it's over. It's behind us. I don't think it's useful to keep [47:51] beating that horse. One, one other retrospective question. Beat one more horse. Okay. No. Different [47:58] horse. Poor horse. A different horse. Poor horse. It's a donkey. I know that joke. It's a good joke. [48:09] And you come to the why they all know the joke. Did Kamala Harris lose solely because she only had [48:16] a hundred days to run? Oh, I think that was definitely a factor. Sure. I think she also [48:26] found herself really in a difficult position trying to run as the sitting vice president, [48:34] but separate herself from the sitting president. That's really hard. You know, when I ran, [48:40] I'd been secretary of state for President Obama. And, you know, there was part of the Democratic [48:48] Party and certainly Republicans, independents who, you know, were, you know, they were favorable toward [48:57] a lot that President Obama had done, but not everything. And yet I was part of that administration [49:03] trying to, you know, separate myself, trying to, you know, chart my own course. Well, she was doing it [49:09] in real time. I mean, it there was no gap between her service as there was with mine and, you know, [49:17] her campaign. So I think that was a real problem. She seemed terrified to speak her mind. [49:24] I think I don't I can't tell you. I think what she was worried about, first of all, there is still to [49:32] this day, but back then even more intensely, people who really were grateful to Joe Biden. He defeated [49:42] Donald Trump. He did do a lot in the legislative arena that we are benefiting from, whether it's [49:49] infrastructure, the chips filled to, you know, be competitive worldwide, etc. Some people, you know, [49:58] didn't want to hear anything from any candidate, especially somebody that he picked to be the vice [50:03] president, criticizing him. I mean, if it had been a governor or somebody else who had emerged from a [50:09] different process, you know, they could have done a lot more, you know, separating themselves from him. [50:14] And then there's the other thing. I can't tell you how many people, people on the left, people who [50:22] consider themselves good feminists, enlightened about identity in all senses, will say to me, [50:32] next time in 28, we cannot take the risk. We can't be a woman. It can't be African-American, [50:39] etc., etc., etc. And I find this shocking. It is now we're a quarter of the way through the 21st [50:46] century and we're still having this conversation. You've lifted the microphone and you're ready to go. [50:56] I don't need to continue. Well, first of all, there is a global pushback on women's rights. And part of [51:06] that is being led by this administration. The first person that Trump fired was the woman commandant of [51:16] the Coast Guard. The second person was the black combat veteran Air Force General, who is the chair [51:23] of the Joint Chiefs. And the third person was the first woman to be Chief of Naval Operations. And we've [51:30] seen what just happened last week with Hegseth, you know, removing women and, you know, black military [51:39] officers from promotion. We've seen them taking down pictures of the first woman who flew with the [51:45] Thunderbird, you know, formation. The first, the black general, Chaffee James, who was an incredibly [51:53] effective fighter pilot. There is an unabashed campaign to undermine both minority leadership and [52:06] women's leadership in public spaces. There's no doubt about that. And not only is it happening in so-called [52:14] IRL, real life, it's happening online to just an extraordinary extent where the threats against [52:23] women, the attacks on women. So this is a moment where we are seeing the firing of women, not men. [52:34] I mean, for heaven's sakes, I'm not going to make any brief for, you know, the women that he fired from [52:39] his cabinet. I didn't agree with any of them. But Hegseth is still there. And so you think about the [52:46] way that this man is treating women, the way he talks to women journalists, his whole behavior toward [52:54] women is so disdainful. So I think that's in the culture. It's not made up. When people say, well, [53:02] I don't know, I don't know if we could vote for a black candidate or a woman candidate. But my [53:08] ultimate answer to that is it depends upon the candidate. Well, let me ask you about one. The [53:13] candidate that's polling now the highest among women, certainly, is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. [53:20] How would you feel about her as a standard bearer for the Democratic Party nationally? Well, those are [53:27] not the same polls that I've seen. I think, look, she she is a very talented politician and she is [53:38] like in the top five. But so is Kamala Harris. And depending upon the polls, sometimes Gavin Newsom. [53:44] I mean, so it's I mean, among women, I'm talking Gavin Newsom is not that. I'm talking about what I [53:52] consider to be reliable polls of voter sentiment, which is both men and women, because you're not going [53:57] to win with just women. I wish that would be, you know, someday possible, but not. [54:06] So I don't know. It's way too soon. But here's what I really think. Number one, [54:11] stay focused on the midterm elections. We have to win the House and hopefully the Senate. [54:20] And we we have some, you know, really good chances of doing that in the House. And I think we have [54:28] a 50 50 chance, you know, in the Senate to win the Senate. One of the one of the one of the seats [54:33] that the Democrats have to win is in Maine. How do you feel about him? I feel about him the way I [54:40] feel about any candidate. I want to see what kind of candidate he actually turns out to be the bumps [54:45] on the road that he has experienced and some of the things he has said bumps on the road. Yeah. I mean, [54:53] clearly bumps on the road in terms of some of his prior behavior, some of his prior statements. [54:59] And I will tell you, I served with Susan Collins. She is going to be very hard to beat. [55:05] And it it's going to be a tough election. So I'm reserving. But if you were a Mainer, [55:12] would you pull the where would you pull the lever? But I'm not a Mainer. I'm a New Yorker. [55:20] No, but but seriously, I mean, you're going to let that pitch go by. Yeah. But David, look, [55:25] I think we can get actually to what we need in the majority in the House, which will give us a check [55:35] on him. I think this election has to be about affordability and accountability. And we need to [55:40] start holding the people around Trump accountable. And we're going to see whether we can, you know, [55:46] take the Senate. But I think the House has to be the primary objective. And then [55:51] once that election is behind us, you're going to have 10 or 12 pretty good candidates, in my view, [55:58] running in 2028. And I, you know, I don't know who's going to emerge because I don't know who's [56:03] going to catch the moment. I don't know, you know, who's going to be able to convince the various [56:10] factions of the Democratic Party to, you know, support him or her. But I wouldn't rule out any woman who [56:17] or any African-American or any Latino or anybody else. If they want to get into the arena, get in [56:23] the arena, show us what you can do and see whether people will vote for you. Do you think the Democratic [56:28] Party has an elites problem, has an elites problem? You know, I think some people believe it does. [56:38] And that I think is somewhat amusing because our elites are not stealing money from the Treasury to [56:50] pay off the insurrectionists to attack the Capitol. And our elites are not going around the world making [56:56] business deals for their children, at least so far as I know. And so when people say that, you know, [57:04] they're really saying, well, you know, you guys, you're in blue cities and blue states and you don't [57:10] relate to us. And so I think that's the problem. I think it's more of a political identification [57:17] problem. But then the Republicans have a problem because, you know, look, I mean, Donald Trump was [57:23] from New York City. I beat him. Biden beat him. Harris beat him. So you just have to take what people say [57:31] about your candidates and, you know, be ready to fight back. And the final thing I'd say about that is [57:38] it's really frustrating to me because literally, if a Democrat mispronounces a word, it's as big a deal [57:49] as a Republican, you know, who is supporting ICE agents on the street, you know, with masks. I mean, they're [57:57] just it's not equivalent. That's a false equivalence a lot of time. Secretary, [58:02] Secretary Clinton, I want to get to some questions from the audience. But I want to ask you the last [58:06] one of my own. I lived in Moscow for four years during the collapse of the Soviet Union and then [58:11] thereafter. And I would often think to myself, what would it be like to actually live in a society [58:18] like this where I loathe my government? And would I be someone who, in order to keep my family together [58:26] or to preserve my bank account? Would I collaborate? And I have to say, I hope not with a minimum of [58:34] righteousness, it has shocked me, shocked me to see the level of acquiescence in our society [58:42] among elites who have turned on a dime, on a dime in order to preserve their immense fortunes and to [58:50] make them greater. We saw this at the inauguration. We see it in my world of the press day after day in [58:58] ownership situations. We saw it, we see it with 60 Minutes and so much else. And I wonder if you [59:06] share this with me. Do you, we have such a sense of ourselves as Americans, as freedom-loving people, [59:12] and we would defend it to the last? I don't see that that's a universal. Well, I'm afraid you're right [59:21] in terms of the acquiescence. And, you know, I was in the Senate very proudly representing New York [59:30] for eight years. There are still people on the Republican side I served with there. I don't talk [59:36] to them, but my former Democratic colleagues report to me. They go into the cloakroom, they're in the [59:41] hallway. But aren't you sick about hearing about what they say in the cloakrooms? I am really sick of it. [59:46] I'm very sick of it because they are betraying the kind of weakness that is, you know, undermining [59:54] of a great country and our institutions because they won't stand up to them unless they're on their [59:59] way out. Why not? Are these jobs so great that you can't? For some people they are. So for some people [1:00:07] it's simply staying in power, being, you know, being able to, you know, feel like they are important. [1:00:14] For some people it's literal threats. You know, the only person I know who spoke publicly about this [1:00:22] was Lisa Murkowski. And basically, if you are threatened the way some of these people are [1:00:30] threatened and their families are threatened, and you think you can, you may be rationalizing, [1:00:36] but you think, well, I can try to rein in more if I stay on the inside so I can be against, but I can't [1:00:43] be against too much. That's one thing. But the people who are in positions of great economic power, [1:00:52] like the tech companies and other, you know, large businesses, have been so disappointing in the way [1:00:59] that they have, you know, basically aligned themselves with Trump, Trump policies. And in large [1:01:08] measure, I guess, because they think, quote, it's good for their business. And what I have said privately [1:01:15] and publicly is you are making a grave mistake because you may think it's good for your business [1:01:23] today, but somebody who offers a bigger bribe, because make no mistake, these transactional deals [1:01:29] they're making are nothing but bribes. You support me or you don't get this contract. You do support me, [1:01:35] you're going to get that contract. These are bribes. That is in the constitution as an impeachable [1:01:41] offense. And so part of what I see happening is men, and they're all men, basically convincing [1:01:49] themselves they have to do this for the business. But what they're not appreciating is that this kind [1:01:54] of unchecked, unaccountable power can turn and bite them just as easily. You saw it. You saw it in, [1:02:03] you know, in Russia. You saw the transition from the collapse of the Soviet Union. And you saw, you know, [1:02:10] the, you know, the oligarchs being, being formed, the privatization. But then when Putin came along, [1:02:17] it was, I want 5%. No, I now want 25%. I want 50%. And that's why people say he's the richest man in [1:02:26] the world, because he's basically. I must say he loves you. I have never seen somebody speak so [1:02:35] harshly of anyone as to watch Putin speaking about Hillary Clinton. Well, I wear it as a badge of [1:02:40] honor. But it did help. You know, contrary to what you hear from Donald Trump, he did help Donald [1:02:51] Trump win. And partly because he knew what kind of leader I would be compared to, you know, Donald, [1:02:57] whom he knew would not. You have a question from the audience. Would you still defend the [1:03:01] Democratic strategy, the Democratic Party strategy of trying to capture the center when it has failed [1:03:07] to repel Donald Trump two separate times? It feels as though the only thing Democrats agree on [1:03:12] is being anti-Trump. Well, I think this year anti-Trump may work. So I'm not sure this year is the right [1:03:21] time to try to answer that question. But also, if you look at where we have to win, the electoral [1:03:32] college is not our friend. And it certainly is not the Democratic Party's friend. And so when you are [1:03:42] planning a national campaign as opposed to a congressional or state by state Senate campaign, [1:03:50] you have to try to figure out how you're going to win those independent voters or you're not going to [1:03:55] win. You're not going to win the electoral college. You can run up your margins. Remember, I beat them [1:04:00] by nearly three million votes because I ran up my margin in New York and Illinois and California and all. [1:04:09] You know, it was great. So I won the popular vote and lost the election. And so when people say to me, [1:04:16] you know, just you don't need to try to appeal. Well, go to Wisconsin, go to Michigan, go to [1:04:23] Pennsylvania and try to look at how Josh Shapiro wins or Gretchen Whitmer wins. They win by appealing [1:04:31] broadly, not narrowly. And so it's frustrating. And I know it's frustrating because all of this [1:04:39] is so self-evident to us about what kind of government we should have, what kind of leaders [1:04:45] we should have, what kind of candidates we should elect. But it's a big country out there. [1:04:50] I want to ask you two quick questions about the law. And this is a beautifully crafted one. [1:04:55] On a scale of one to ten, how worried are you about being locked up? [1:04:59] Well, it's not for lack of trying that I'm not, that they, you know, they continue to, [1:05:16] you know, not only go after me, but go after all kinds of, you know, people that Trump considers [1:05:23] his quote enemies. You know, I'm not, I'm not worried about it if the law matters and if the facts [1:05:29] matter, I have nothing to worry about. And, and what I've been slightly reassured about in the last [1:05:36] couple of months is the way the courts are actually enforcing their orders. So the name is off the [1:05:42] Kennedy Center. The, you know, $1.776 billion fund is enjoined. And so there is finally the pushback. [1:06:00] Our big problem has been the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has enabled and approved [1:06:08] so much of what he's done on the so-called shadow docket. And that is what has given him the permission [1:06:16] to go forward with a lot of the things that he has pursued without there being yet any kind of final [1:06:21] adjudication. So when I think about the law, personally, you know, I'm not that worried for [1:06:29] myself, but I do see him continuing to unleash his private law firm, which used to be called the Justice [1:06:39] Department against people and forcing them to be, you know, investigated, spend money, everything to [1:06:47] just put them, you know, at risk. So yeah, I do think that he is going to continue to do that. And we [1:06:55] unfortunately are going to have to continue to fight back. [1:06:57] As John Roberts, in particular as Chief Justice, failed the law? [1:07:03] I voted against him as a senator. I met with him. I voted against Alito. And Alito was a much more [1:07:12] obvious movement conservative, a results oriented judge. And so I had no doubt about what he would [1:07:22] do. And I gave a speech on the floor. John Roberts, though, as I looked into his past, when he clerked [1:07:30] for Justice Rehnquist, he wrote a memo about reversing the Voting Rights Act back in the 1980s. [1:07:39] So he has been a known commodity to some of us who paid attention for some time. But he comes across as [1:07:47] more affable, you know, a kind of country club person that you would have a nice dinner with. [1:07:56] But make no mistake about it, he led the charge against the Voting Rights Act. He led the charge [1:08:03] against campaign finance reform. He has been on the side of the, you know, sort of federalist agenda [1:08:12] agenda since he was a young lawyer, a young law clerk. And this is his court. And I think they have [1:08:21] concluded led by him, you know, the majority certainly, that their job is to turn the clock back [1:08:29] as much as possible on the 20th century. You know, they believe in, you know, almost the height of [1:08:37] corporate power. They believe in, you know, the role that corporations should play in our our politics [1:08:47] and basically undisclosed, unlimited money. Plus then things like the Voting Rights Act, [1:08:56] which they view as in the way they describe it, unnecessary in a quote, colorblind society [1:09:04] that's gotten beyond race. I don't know where they live. I don't know who they talk to. I don't [1:09:09] understand it. But that is their stated view. But it's really, you know, I went to law school with [1:09:15] Clarence Thomas. And so did you know him? What? Did you know him? Of course I did. And what was he [1:09:22] like then? He was kind of a guy with a grudge. He had a grudge. Did you ever figure out what the grudge [1:09:31] was? I think he again, I can't tell you all the reasons why I think that because I don't haven't, [1:09:39] you know, I don't know enough about him. But I think he had a view that he was being treated unfairly [1:09:48] in life. And, you know, when he got out of law school, he couldn't really get a great job. [1:09:54] And I just feel like for some reason, you know, he began to think that life would have been better. [1:10:04] I don't know how he believes this without all of these laws and regulations. And so he is what he [1:10:12] is. And he just gave a speech about for the 250th commemoration, I think at Texas or somewhere. [1:10:20] He gave a speech basically saying that, you know, the progressive movement had destroyed America [1:10:25] and it needed to be reined in. Secretary Clinton, thank you so much. Thank you, David.