♪♪
>> Hello, everyone,
and welcome to
"Amanpour & Company."
Here's what's coming up.
New allegations against
Saudi Crown Prince,
Mohammed bin Salman,
filed in a U.S. court.
Dr. Saad Aljabri,
former Saudi spy chief,
claims he could be the next
victim after journalist
Jamal Khashoggi.
Our exclusive with his son,
Khalid Aljabri.
Then, as the investigation
continuous into the catastrophic
Beirut explosion,
we examine the impact
of this latest crisis
on the people there.
And...
>> Everyone loves a good story.
And, unfortunately, I think
people liked this story so much
that they didn't really question
it.
>> The whistleblower who brought
down Theranos and its miracle
blood-test technology
and what that case says
about the current gold rush
for a coronavirus vaccine.
♪♪
>> "Amanpour & Company" is made
possible by...
Additional support provided by
these funders and by
contributions to your PBS
station from viewers like you.
Thank you.
>> Welcome to the program,
everyone.
I'm Christiane Amanpour
in London.
A suit filed in Washington, D.C.
raises stunning new allegations
against the Saudi Crown Prince,
Mohammed bin Salman.
Dr. Saad Aljabri, a former
top Saudi television official,
claims that bin Salman
sent an assassination squad
to kill him just two weeks after
the brutal murder of journalist,
Jamal Khashoggi.
Aljabri is a longtime veteran
of the Saudi government,
an intelligence official with
deep ties to the United States
and other Western nations.
He claims that bin Salman
dispatched a hit squad
to murder him at his new home
in Canada in October 2018
and that the government
kidnapped two of his children
in an attempt to lure him back
to Saudi Arabia.
Now, regarding this allegation,
a senior state department
official
says that the United States
condemns the unlawful Saudi
imprisonment of the children,
Sarah and Omar Aljabri,
and is working to secure
their release.
For their part,
Saudi officers have not yet
responded to the case.
But, according to
The Wall Street Journal,
the Kingdom accuses Aljabri
of corruption and mismanaging
billions of government funds.
Khalid Aljabri is the son of
Dr. Saad, and he is joining me
now from Toronto
for this exclusive interview.
Khalid Aljabri,
welcome to the program.
Now, this is an unprecedented
situation,
bringing such a public suit
against the Crown Prince de
factor leader of your country.
Can I start by asking you
to lay out briefly your father's
ties to the United States
and his record
as a senior government official
in Saudi Arabia?
>> First of all, thank you
for having me on your show.
I think I'm only going to repeat
what multiple U.S. officials
have spoken out,
you know, in print and public
about the value that Dr. Said
my father, brought to
the counterterrorism effort
both inside Saudi Arabia and
outside with its Western allies,
saving, you know, hundreds
if not thousands of lives
on Saudi soil
and equally on American soil.
He is highly regarded.
He served his country well.
A lot of people say
that the linchpin
of the post-9/11 relationship
between Saudi Arabia
and the United States
was based on the security
cooperation that was spearheaded
by my father
and the former Crown Prince,
Muhammad bin Nayef.
>> So, just to lay it out,
everybody remembers
that the majority of the 9/11
hijackers were Saudi.
But in the early 2000s,
Saudi Arabia decided
to go against Al-Qaeda
because it was threatening them,
as well.
Your father then became a very
prominent anti-terrorism
official in that regard.
He also was, at the time,
right-hand man
to Muhammad bin Nayef.
Now, for our viewers, he was,
at the time and has been,
the Saudi Crown Prince.
He was also minister of interior
and, as such,
an intelligence link --
the intelligence link
with the United States.
It's that relationship,
isn't it,
that put your father on the outs
with the current Crown Prince?
>> I think that's one of the
main reasons,
absolutely.
You're right.
That's one reason
behind the political targeting
of my father and my family,
him being perceived as a threat
because of his close loyalty to
MBS' main contender,
former Crown Prince
Muhammad bin Nayef.
>> So, we have heard from --
in various forums, like a former
CIA director, John Brennan,
has said in an interview
that he believes MBS,
as he is popularly known
practically all over world --
Mohammed bin Salman,
the Crown Prince --
went after your father because
he "though Saad was someone
he couldn't control."
Do you believe that the Saudi
authorities somehow
wanted to control your father,
and, if so, why?
>> I think that's a question
for them to answer.
What I'm here
to talk about is basically
the unlawful transnational
and global terror campaign
that my family has been
suffering for more than
three years right now.
It's a campaign that is seeking
the murder of my father,
and it's actively
taking my siblings
Sarah and Omar as hostages.
Over the past three years,
we've exhausted every possible
avenue for quiet diplomacy
and reconciliation, to no avail.
At the end, we were pushed into
pursuing accountability
and justice in a U.S.
federal court.
We hope that this current
lawsuit will help end
the torment, free Omar and
Sarah, and reunite them with us,
protect my dad, and end
this nightmare for my family.
>> Okay, so, let's go
through these issues.
You've just raised two major
elements of your suit
that you filed in
Washington, D.C.
Your youngest siblings,
Sarah and Omar,
tell me what happened to them.
You allege that dozens
of Saudi officials
essentially "disappeared" them,
came and got them from where
they were in Riyadh,
and they haven't been heard
or seen since.
What do you think happened?
>> So, the story with Omar
and Sarah
starts actually way before that.
It wasn't just in March of 2020.
Omar and Sarah --
you know, young, bright kids.
They were minors then in 2017,
looking forward
to their new life in Boston.
Sarah was going to
complete her high school
and Omar was going to go
to his freshman year.
We were ecstatic
when they received their U.S.
student visas.
They were in the airport,
heading to Boston on June 21st.
That happened to be the same day
that MBS became Crown Prince.
They were stopped at the airport
and banned from travel
with no logical explanation
or legal explanation,
for that sake.
During that time,
it was shocking
for every family member.
I actually remember Sarah
calling me and crying,
not understanding why she can't
board a plane to see her family
and start her school in the U.S.
And then, basically, they've
been hostage within the Kingdom.
They've been bargained with.
They've been used as pawns.
They've been used as collateral.
In direct communication
between the current Crown Prince
and my dad, he made it clear
that the kids will only
be allowed to travel to study
if my dad was, you know,
returned to the Kingdom.
And, you know,
we've stayed quiet.
We had to adapt.
It was extremely painful.
You know, you're a mother
yourself -- you can imagine
a 17-year-old girl
being away from her mom.
That's exactly when she needs
to be in her mom's arms
the most.
Omar, a bright guy,
he loved the Celtics.
He was looking forward
to getting a season ticket
and going to each game,
in and out.
And basically, you know,
our lives were changed forever.
At every lunch, every dinner,
every birthday,
there is a couple chairs empty.
There are a lot of voids
in our hearts.
I mean, last week,
my youngest brother who was six,
when Omar and Sarah
were kept as hostages in Saudi,
you know, turned nine years old,
and he started asking me,
"Where is Sarah?
I miss her,
I want to talk to her."
And, honestly,
I ran out of answers, and I
don't know what to tell him.
We've adapted.
They went back to school.
We were always concerned
about things escalating
because we know the reason --
they were only kept
as collateral
and as bargaining chips.
And, by the way,
the fact was raised
very high up even with the U.S.
government officials
back in 2017.
So this is not a new encounter.
Again, during these three years,
we basically explored
every single avenue
for quiet diplomacy, to no
avail.
The Saudi government
wasn't even interested.
They didn't give adequate
explanations to why Omar
and Sarah were being held.
Now, on March 6,
which was interesting,
it was Sarah's birthday,
and it was also the same day
that
Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef
was arrested, Omar and Sarah
were summoned to State Security,
and they were explicitly
told that,
"You need to convince your
family to return to the
Kingdom."
Sarah left crying.
She called, tormented.
She told my cousin that she felt
this was an ultimatum and that
they will be arrested soon.
And guess what. She was right.
A week later, at 6:00 a.m.,
50 officers showed up
to our house in Riyadh
and literally kidnapped them
from the comfort of their beds.
Since then,
we haven't heard from them.
We don't even know if they're
dead or alive, have they fallen
ill to COVID, what's the reason.
I've reached to every
single official
that I had a good rapport with,
including the head of
State Security, who have formed
a medical team to treat.
And, basically, he reads
messages, and he doesn't
respond.
And then, honestly,
I don't know what the status
of Sarah and Omar, yeah.
>> And I can read, obviously,
the despair in your voice,
and I understand
that this is probably
one of the biggest reasons
you have submitted this suit.
We have to keep saying
that we have reached out to the
Saudi embassy in Washington.
So far, we have received
absolutely no word from them
either, no reaction to this
suit, but we keep trying to get
that official's answer.
>> There is a tidbit that I want
to share with you.
>> Hold on a second.
Hold on a second. Hold on.
The Saudi officials have told
The Wall Street Journal --
at least a Saudi official --
that your siblings are
in so-called a VIP imprisonment
or prison situation there.
Do you know anything about that,
and then what is it you want to
add?
>> I don't know what they
really mean by a "VIP prison."
Is that supposed
to give us comfort?
And the same Wall Street
reporters should go back
to their reporting in 2017
when they reported one person
who died of torture
at the Ritz-Carlton,
which is supposed to be
a 7-star hotel.
So, that is -- I mean,
it's absolutely ridiculous.
There is no reason whatsoever
to keep Omar and Sarah
in the Kingdom
as hostages since 2017, and now,
unfortunately, disappeared for
about five months.
And, by the way, it's
a good point that you bring,
you know, the question
to the Saudi embassy.
Omar and Sarah
were colleagues and classmates
of the ambassador's children.
They know them.
They used to go to the same
British school in Riyadh.
So, and I know,
you know, Ambassador Reema
might not be able to answer,
but she should answer
the question
as the mother of the colleagues
of Omar and Sarah.
>> Mm-hmm.
Khalid, I just want to,
at this point,
read yet another reaction
from a United States official.
Michael Morell, as you all know,
former Acting Director
of the CIA, said this to us.
"I know Dr. Saad really well.
What he's doing is for his
safety and that of his children.
While I don't have firsthand
knowledge of what he alleges,
anyone knows that what MBS has
been up to is not surprised.
Dr. Saad, working with MBN --"
Muhammad bin Nayef,
the former Crown Prince,
the former interior minister --
"has been very helpful
in the past
to the United States government
and to help prevent attacks
to the homeland."
So, you and the suit
brings up a very,
very explosive allegation,
and let me read it so that
I get it absolutely correctly.
Essentially, the allegation
is that a hit squad
was dispatched to Canada,
where you are living in
self-imposed exile, to try to do
whatever -- you tell me what --
and that happened some 13 days
after we know what happened
to Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul.
The suit does not contain
evidence of that.
Can you tell me what basis
you allege that
and why is it in your suit?
>> We are confident of
our allegations, and this will
be litigated in court.
But what I want to allude
to, as well, that I know
that a lot of people are fixated
on a specific aspect of the suit
regarding the hit squad
coming into Canada,
but the campaign to neutralize
that and kill him has started
in 2017, keeping Omar
and Sarah as hostages,
renditioning some family members
and subjecting them to torture,
misuse of Interpol notices,
honestly, issuing direct threats
in text exchanges and saying,
you know, "We will use
legal means and other means
that will be harmful to you,"
so sending spies in Boston,
where the FBI is totally aware
of it.
it's an ongoing,
more-than-three-year manhunt,
and it's not just specific
to these allegations about
a hit squad coming in Toronto,
which we're more than confident
we will litigate in court.
>> So, again, just to say
what we've heard
from the Canadian authorities --
Bill Blair, who's Canada's
minister for public safety,
says, "While we cannot comment
on specific allegations
currently before the courts...
Khalid, can I ask you,
before I get to
what the Saudi government
is alleging about your father,
what are they --
You're also out here talking.
You are, you know,
in Toronto, as well.
How have you been affected --
I don't know -- drawn into
this specifically?
>> I am a father.
I am a brother.
I am a doctor who dedicated
his career to saving lives.
And now all I care about
is saving the lives of Sarah
and Omar and my family.
So, I think anybody in my
position will go to the extreme
to secure the safety of his dad
and to release his brother
and sister from this unjustified
imprisonment and disappearance.
It's been really tough to adapt.
We are dealing with
active threats as recent as a
couple of weeks ago.
And I have to say I'm grateful
for the vigilance of the
security agencies both in the
U.S. and Canada, who have been
forthcoming and engaging with us
in context of the duty to warn
as early as January 2018.
>> And you yourself, I
believe -- and I think it said
so in the suit --
you, in the United States,
were threatened in terms
of trying to --
I think your studies
were disrupted or something?
You were trying --
They were trying to get you to
persuade your father to go back,
trying to reach him through you.
>> Yes.
So, you know,
I've been subjected to acts
of spying, espionage in Boston.
That's adequately documented
with the -- you know,
with the agencies in Boston.
The government,
without any excuse, suspended
my scholarship.
They refused
to renew my passports.
They've tried to apply
every single possible collateral
constraint on the family,
basically leaving them no way
but to go back to the Kingdom.
Luckily, I was able to stay
in Boston, complete my studies,
and then emigrate to Canada.
>> Mm-hmm.
So, as you know,
the Saudi government
has not said anything formal.
There seems to be a story
that The Wall Street Journal
has written in the recent past
which quotes
a lot of Saudi officials.
They accused your father
of massive corruption.
Let me read a little bit,
specifically alleging
that a group of men
your father led while working
for the interior ministry
misspent some $11 billion
in government money,
paying your family
at least $1 billion.
What is your reaction to that?
And, I mean,
presumably you have --
I don't know, some --
this would probably come out
in court, as well.
>> Let me say something.
You know, baseless allegations
fall apart when viewed
by an impartial due process or
international government body.
And this is exactly
what happened with Interpol
more than two years ago.
Whatever showed up in
The Wall Street Journal
is recycled allegations
that were put to bed by Interpol
two years ago and deemed
as politically motivated.
But let me set the record
straight here.
Sarah and Omar were banned
from travel the same day
MBS became Crown Prince,
effectively his first order
of business.
That was five months
before his corruption campaign.
They're using this corruption
pretense exactly like
they're using Omar and Sarah
to force my father's return.
We have repeatedly, you know,
in private, asked
for the government
to send their lawyers.
There is nothing to hide.
And then we've asked for an
impartial due process in public.
That doesn't include
assassinations or extortion
through child-hostage taking.
Yesterday, we took the
initiative by going to court.
So, the Saudis are more
than welcome to come
and defend the allegations,
but bring their own allegations,
and let's settle this thing once
and for good.
>> Mm-hmm.
Just to say about Interpol,
obviously,
which was asked and called upon
by the Saudi government
to arrest your father
and bring him back --
they dismissed that,
having said that they deemed it
to be politically motivated
rather than strictly judicial.
So, finally, Khalid,
you've spoken a little bit
just now about what you hope --
in other words, this will all
come out in public,
that you have thrown down
the first, sort of, gauntlet,
and that everybody will have to
lawyer up, so to speak.
What do you hope to achieve
from the United States,
from the fact that you've taken
this public, in, as I said,
this unprecedented way?
>> Our main objective here is
family reunification and safety.
That is our sole agenda.
We love Saudi.
We don't have an agenda
against anybody personally.
We want to secure the safe
reunification of family.
And we want to solve all this
issue once and for all.
We are hopeful now
that the other party
would come to the table.
We are hopeful that they can
come and defend these
allegations and bring their own.
That's the way to settle
allegations in a civil way.
There is no need to kidnap
children or send death squads.
Let's come and solve it.
You know, let's deal
with it as men.
>> And on that note,
Khalid Aljabri, thank you
so much for joining us.
Now, again, just to reiterate,
we have reached out to the Saudi
embassy in Washington.
So far, we have not
received any response.
Meanwhile, The New York Times
investigative correspondent
Mark Mazzetti
is also running down
these latest allegations
against the Saudi leadership,
as well as new reports
that Saudi Arabia maybe moving
towards developing some kind of
nuclear weapon or device.
And he's joining me
now from Washington.
Mark Mazzetti, you've been
reporting on this, as well,
and you've heard now
our exclusive interview
with Khalid Aljabri.
What is your reaction
to what he's told us,
and how important is it
that this has been filed
in the United States?
And, as he said, let's come out
into the public
and resolve it like men.
>> Yeah, I think stepping
back a second
and realizing the significance
of the Aljabri family
coming forward publicly
with these allegations
and also filing them in court.
It's extraordinary that,
as we said in our story today,
it's really the first time,
in the name of Saad Aljabri,
you have a former top
Saudi official publicly
making these accusations
against Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman.
The fact that it was filed in an
American court seems to be --
the purpose seems to be
because there are some
statutes on the books
in the United States,
the Torture Victim
Protection Act,
the Alien Tort Statute,
that do give some degree
of standing for foreigners
to bring similar --
bring such charges.
Even though Dr. Aljabri is, of
course, Saudi,
and he's living in Canada,
they saw a reason to go to U.S.
federal court for this.
Let's be frank, also --
having a lawsuit
in American federal court
does come with it
the sort of promotional benefit
of having press
to air out these charges.
There's more of an impact if
you file in an American court.
As you can see, we and so many
others wrote about the charges.
So, as some legal experts
I spoke to said, you know,
it may be doubtful
that this case
might actually proceed in court,
but its intended effect might
also be just to raise awareness,
to get these issues --
to air out these issues
and these allegations.
>> So, before I get to the U.S.
point -- and we've obviously
read out so many responses from
U.S. officials testifying for,
you know, Saad Aljabri's
character, his relationship
with the United States --
before I get to that, how do you
think Mohammed bin Salman,
the de facto ruler of
Saudi Arabia --
under a huge amount
of international pressure --
how do you think
he is going to react?
Where do you see this leading?
>> Well, it'll be interesting
to see how the Saudi
government responds.
You know, obviously,
they were hoping to get past
the Jamal Khashoggi horror
and the role
of the Saudi government in it,
and Crown Prince Mohammed
clearly
has trying to move past it
and, you know,
go past this period of really
being an international pariah
because of that.
Having this now come up does
create this atmosphere again.
Now, we should say
that The Times
and others have reported that
the Jamal Khashoggi episode
was just one part
of a broader campaign
by Crown Prince Mohammed
to crack down on descent,
sometimes in a ruthless
and very violent way.
You have the episode
at the Ritz in Riyadh,
and my colleague
Ben Hubbard and I last year
reported about
extensive use of torture,
extensive use of rendition
that Jamal Khashoggi
was just one part of.
And as we learn more about
Dr. Saad Aljabri and his story,
we see that perhaps
this was all kind of going on
at the same time.
So, your question about
Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman,
it might be sometime before he
and the Saudi government
are able to move past this,
especially, of course,
if there is a change
of government in Washington
early next year.
If President Trump were to
lose and
Joe Biden were to be president,
you could be sure
that the new administration
would take a much tougher line
on the Saudis than the Trump
administration has.
>> I was going to ask you,
you've seen already that,
you know, they're a pretty --
they're putting a stake
in the ground.
But do you think
that President Trump, you know,
would want to shield the Saudis
from this kind
of lawsuit right now?
I mean, I guess, you know,
as you say, they brought it
in the United States
because they think perhaps
that's a big shield
and a big protection.
And it also looks like,
from what we've heard
and from the bulk of the case,
that the main objective --
I mean,
if you read through the lines --
is to get these two children out
and to get the family reunited.
Do you think there is
an out-of-court deal
to be done on that?
>> Well, so, there could be,
certainly, and you read
the State Department
statement about --
that was quite strong,
about the allegations.
So there might, in fact,
be quiet pressure going on
by the Trump administration
to make some kind of a deal.
I mean, they don't have to make
a -- when I say they,
the Saudi government
doesn't have to respond
to the court allegations
any time soon, according to
the legal experts I spoke to.
It's a fairly Byzantine process
where, in fact,
before anyone has to proceed,
Crown Prince Mohammed himself
would have to be physically
served with these allegations.
In other words, sort of like
you get served a subpoena,
you have to be done --
it has to be served in person.
And, you know,
that would only happen,
probably, if he comes
to the United States.
And even if he comes
to the United States,
then he can claim, "I'm part
of an official diplomatic party,
and therefore, I cannot be
served these allegations."
So, you know, it's unclear
how immediately this case
could proceed in court.
But, as you point out,
there is a broader PR problem
for the Crown Prince.
And so, separate
from what's going on in court,
there may be some reason for him
to quietly use back-channel
diplomacy to resolve it
and get it out of the news.
>> Can we just move off this
for a moment
and talk about another story
that you and your colleagues had
in the newspaper just recently,
and that is about
the United States government
looking very closely to try
to figure out what Saudi Arabia
might be doing with China
to process uranium,
to potentially move
that into some kind of
weapons-building capacity?
How serious is it?
What do you know about it
that we should know?
>> What we reported this week
was that the U.S. intelligence
community is actually doing a
very close examination now,
in the recent weeks and months,
about exactly the extent of
China's work with Saudi Arabia
on nuclear issues.
We don't --
nobody believes that, you know,
Saudi Arabia is close
to getting a nuclear weapon
or even has made a decision that
it wants to get one one day.
But there is a lot of early work
going on with uranium
between the Chinese and the
Saudis that can be done for a
very aboveboard purpose.
You can do this kind of
uranium work
with the ultimate aim of having
a civilian nuclear program.
But it's also work you can do
and necessary work
if you were to one day
want to enrich it to the quality
and to a higher grade in order
to make a nuclear weapon.
What we know is that
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
has said publicly,
"If Iran will continue
to do nuclear work,
then Saudi Arabia
will do the same work,"
that it will keep pace,
and if Iran is going
to get a weapon, Saudi Arabia
is going to get a weapon.
He said this on "60 minutes"
two years ago.
So he is on record
about his intentions
vis-à-vis his main enemy, Iran.
So, there is a lot
of scrutiny going on,
and it does raise this issue
potentially of a double standard
for the Trump administration,
which, as we know
and as you know, has been
so determined to sanction
and beat back any effort by Iran
because of its nuclear program.
If it sort of looks
the other way on Saudi Arabia
or doesn't hold their feet
to the fire,
then there is this question of,
"Why are they allowing
proliferation in the other
great power in the Middle East?"
>> And we'll certainly
keep following this.
Mark Mazzetti, thank you
for your reporting.
And just to say,
the Saudi Energy Ministry
says in a statement that it
"categorically denies
having built a uranium-ore
facility in the area
described by some of
the Western officials."
Thanks so much.
And now turning elsewhere
in the region, to Lebanon, where
16 employees of Beirut's port
have now been detained
as part of an investigation
into the catastrophic explosion
that took place on Tuesday.
More than 300,000 people
are displaced from their homes.
At least 154 are dead.
Thousands more are wounded.
Of course, all these numbers,
including the fatalities,
are expected to grow.
Mona Fawaz is professor
of urban studies
at the American University of
Beirut and an active critic
of the government in Lebanon.
She and her family
were in the city
at the time of the blast,
and she's joining me now
from the university there.
Mona Fawaz, thank you very much
for joining us again.
Tell me briefly
how it felt to you,
where you were when this massive
explosion took off.
>> Yeah, I was home,
working from home
because of the pandemic,
and it felt like it was
the Civil War or another Israeli
attack all over again.
We weren't sure what it was,
maybe an earthquake.
We ran,
and then it was the sequence
of events that we're used to
because we live in an area
that's subject to bombs,
and very much the memory
of the civil war, you know,
calling everyone you know,
trying to get through
with the lines,
making sure the kids are okay,
and then figuring
out what happened.
It's a sadly familiar sequence
of moments.
>> I mean, it is really sad,
because Beirut, Lebanon
has been under so much pressure
for so many decades.
It's taken in so many refugees
from the Syrian war.
It is on the brink
of economic collapse.
There's all sorts of
governmental mismanagement,
protests in the streets
over the last year or so.
And now the people seem really
angry, really fed up
in a way that we haven't seen
in a long, long time.
Is the government saying
anything about what it plans
to do in terms of investigations
that the people could take
any solace in?
>> No, not at all.
Actually, there's been
a few measures
that are taken, things like
what you just mentioned,
people being arrested.
But people are very, very angry,
because it's not just about
a port employee
who didn't do his job.
It's not about a judge
who didn't move fast enough.
It's six years of this
callous behavior.
And the real question
is not a port employee.
The real question is, who
appointed the port employee,
the judge, and the entire system
and structure
that has placed us where we are,
that we can live for six years
with this explosive material
in our port
and nothing happens?
This is who we want
to be accountable.
And it's not just me.
That's everyone I talk to.
That's people on the street.
That's academics.
That's friends. That's family.
That's articles in the
newspapers across
the political spectrum.
There's a recognition that
the real problem
is the political system
that's in place and the
political class is responsible,
and this is who we want
to be accountable.
>> And, indeed,
one of your lawmakers has said
that senior customs officials
and officials sought guidance
from the Lebanese courts
at least six times
over this period that this
ammonium nitrate was there,
on how to dispose of it,
and nothing came of it.
Do you trust --
I mean, you have spoken about
how they don't trust,
really,
the government to deal with it.
Is there any chance --
The president
has sort of already said no,
but is there any chance
there might be enough pressure
to bring
an international investigation?
Do you think that would help
at least?
>> Look, our experience with
international investigations
so far has been that they drag.
They're marred with
international --
with political interventions.
They take an event that's local,
and they turn it
into a regional problem.
So I'm not so comfortable
that the real solution is
an international investigation.
The point is to push towards an
independence of our judiciary.
There is a legal proposition
that's been dragging for years
to move
the judiciary system outside the
control of the political class.
That's our real hope.
It's this internal movement,
this mobilization that's
been happening for so long,
that we felt at some
point back in October
that it almost happened,
that we would get an independent
judiciary that represents
truly the interests
of the Lebanese people.
And, right now,
it feels that it's not
really close to happening.
We've sort of taken
several steps backwards
with the financial crisis,
with the COVID crisis,
and everything else
that's been happening,
and this explosion
to top it off.
>> Honestly, I mean,
the way you speak and the way
we have heard from others,
it's like, "How much worse
can it get in this city,
in this country that has borne
so much over so long?"
Here's a woman who's speaking
about whether she might
even be able to rebuild.
Let's just take a listen.
>> [ Speaking foreign language ]
>> [ Translating ] What are we
doing?
We come to pack some things
from our house
and take what we could take.
We can't go to the upper floor
because it might fall on us.
Like everyone else,
it is not just us.
Everything is out there
in front of the whole world.
Enough [bleep]
Enough lying, and enough.
If you want to cut my words,
I don't want to curse a lot.
They are liars.
And we wouldn't find people
who lie more than they do.
>> I mean, Mona,
no holds barred now.
They are just fed up
with the government.
And, again, talk to us
a little bit about the impact --
I mean, everything from
overflowing garbage
to poisoned tap water,
to electricity shortages.
And we have talked about
the economic virtual collapse.
I mean, you're a professor
there.
Put it in context for us.
>> Alright, so, for me, the real
context of what's happening now
is the order that was set
in place at the end of
the Lebanese Civil War in 1990,
when people who were wearing
military fatigues
and who were proven
warlords were taken to
what was called the Taif Accord,
which was a supposed peace
conference, where instead
of rendering them accountable
for the crimes they did,
they instead came back
with business suits
and declared that they will
rebuild the country.
Since then, many voices
have been saying that they need
to be rendered accountable
for the war crimes they did
and that someone who does
so many war crimes
cannot rebuild the country.
I think that,
over the last 30 years,
we have had ample proof
of what has happened.
They have set in place a system
that's not only criminal,
but they also have waged a war
against us,
the people of Lebanon.
And they have reached the point
where,
with this explosion, they're
basically killing populations.
I don't -- And there's all sorts
of talk about whether
it's triggered or not.
It's not really important.
What's important
is that Lebanese officials
at multiple levels
were capable of leaving so many
explosives and not caring.
This is where we are today.
And in their infighting,
bringing in
the international community
to push in this direction
or the other, they have
weakened the Lebanese society,
to the point that people today
are increasingly thinking
about their food,
their survival, how they will
get money to repair the glass.
And I think it's really
important to realize that
it's not just an internal issue.
Lebanon is marred with
regional forces but also
with international forces.
We have been under
increasing firewalls
put up to isolate sectors
of our political scene
from support.
Irrespective of what happens
to them, the real
collateral damage is us.
It's my university
that's struggling to survive,
one of the oldest universities
in the region
that's always produced some of
the best minds in the region
and beyond, that today
is wondering whether
it will be able to go on.
It's families that were
mobilizing to build businesses,
to build their livelihood
that today are wondering,
"Will I have enough food
to feed my children?"
And it's really important
to send this message out
that we need the international
community to change course.
We need to empower
the Lebanese society to be --
which is full of creative
energy, vibrant, budding minds,
and so much desire
to see things differently.
Had you been with me for the
last three days on the streets,
you would have seen how many
young students,
young women and men were just,
like, taking their brooms,
helping people
tape their windows,
finding any way
to make a difference,
to rebuild their cities,
and a sense of ownership
that they really want to do it.
We need to support these people.
>> Well, and just very
briefly --
we have got about, I guess,
30 seconds left --
you talk about the solidarity.
Do these people feel
that they might have to
come out onto the streets again
and try to protest to get
the kind of government reaction
and accountability
that you're talking about
and that needs to happen?
I mean, it's beyond just
the independent judiciary.
>> Absolutely.
There is a protest that's
planned for tomorrow afternoon.
And I'm hearing that many,
many people who were, until now,
really scared of the COVID
crisis being on the rise
and deciding not
to participate in protests,
saying that they were going
to die anyway, they were
going to be killed anyway,
so they might as well
put a mask on
and come out to the street
tomorrow afternoon.
>> It's so interesting
because you have got it there,
we've got it against racial
injustice in the
United States --
all these movements happening
under the pandemic, as well.
We will keep watching.
Mona Fawaz of the
American University of Beirut,
thank you so much indeed.
Now, remember the name Theranos,
touted as a revolutionary
blood-testing start-up,
until it came crashing down,
and its co-founder --
or, rather,
its founder -- Elizabeth Holmes
was charged with fraud in 2018?
Tyler Shultz worked
at that company,
before becoming a whistleblower
about the technology
which didn't actually work.
In his new podcast,
"Thicker Than Water,"
he tells his side of the story.
Here's our Hari Sreenivasan
talking to Tyler about that
and lessons learned
when it comes to the hunt
for a COVID-19 vaccine.
>> Christiane, thanks so much.
Tyler, thanks for joining us.
Now, for our overseas audience
who might not have kept up with
the story of what Theranos is,
I mean, a very thumbnail summary
right off the top here.
You wanted to build 200
different tests
that you would run off of
an incredibly very tiny sample
of blood.
What went wrong at the company?
>> Oh, well, where to start?
What went wrong
is that I think we...
I think the ambitions
were a little bit too big
and the technology wasn't
quite there to back it up.
But, really, it was just --
it's a story of vision
outpacing reality.
And the idea of doing anything
that a central laboratory
can do from a single drop
of blood in a Walgreens
or in an operating room
or in a medevac helicopter
or in a battlefield
is an amazing vision.
And Elizabeth was great
at selling that vision,
but not so great
at actually executing on it.
And, really, the technology
did not exist to enable it.
>> You're talking
about Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO.
And your story,
as you tell it in this podcast,
is also about how so many of us,
the press included,
society at large, investors,
wanted to believe that something
so grand was possible,
was here today, but we really
didn't look under the hood
until well after patients
were already affected.
>> Yeah, I mean,
it was a great story.
And everyone loves a good story.
And, unfortunately, I think
people liked this story so much
that they didn't
really question it.
There were a lot of systems
that had to fail in order
for Theranos
to become what it was.
The investors failed.
They didn't do
their due diligence.
It's actually pretty astounding
Elizabeth was able to raise
hundreds of millions of dollars
and not a single investor
ever saw an audited
financial statement,
which is pretty mind-boggling.
They had a partnership
with Walgreens,
and they actually hired
an expert in laboratory science
to go to Theranos and do due
diligence on their technology.
And they kind of -- they
wouldn't show him what it was.
So he went back to Walgreens
and said, "Don't do business
with these people."
And they ignored him and did
business with them anyway.
So there were red flags there,
but people were just blinded
by this good story.
>> And what did you do
at the company?
>> Mostly, at the company,
I was doing what was called
"assay validation,"
where my job was to make sure
that the tests were safe
and working correctly before
we tested actual patients.
>> And when did you figure out
something was off?
>> I learned that something
was off about four days
after I started
working there full time.
The biggest red flag
at that point was actually
seeing the technology.
And I was expecting some fancy
microfluidic technology and some
signal-transduction method
that I had never dreamed of.
But what it was just
a pipette inside of a box
on a robotic arm.
So it was very
rudimentary technology.
There was nothing in there
that I hadn't seen before.
So, that was the first moment
where I kind of went, "Uh-oh."
>> What are the consequences
of something like Theranos
not working when it comes
to actual patients' lives
who are basically looking
for information from this test?
If the test is wrong,
what's the consequence?
>> I mean, yeah, the
consequences can be pretty
wide-ranging.
When I started really raising
my concerns,
it was over a syphilis test
which I was convinced
did not actually work.
And we were starting to run
that test on real patients.
We had made the decision,
"We're going to push this
to production.
We're going to start running
patient samples."
And syphilis is a great example
of a test where, if you're told
you don't have it
when you actually do,
there are really serious
health consequences.
One, you can spread it
to other people.
And then, two, untreated
syphilis is no joke.
It's one of those diseases
where, if you catch it early
and get treatment, it's
really not that big of a deal.
But if you're told you
don't have it
and you go on and live your life
and let it grow, it's --
it can be really bad.
>> And there were actual
patients in Arizona
that were going to Walgreens
and giving their blood.
>> Yeah, there were actual
patients who were using this.
And we were running tests
for HIV, for hepatitis C.
I think we had
a fertility panel.
So, yes, maybe women were told
they maybe lost their baby
when they hadn't
or maybe they were pregnant
when they weren't.
[ Chuckles ] So, there are all
kinds of potential bad outcomes.
I know, particularly,
that our potassium test
did not work very well.
And I remember one instance
when I was at Theranos
where a patient got tested
for potassium and the result
was so far out of range
that that person
should have been dead.
So the technician
actually called the patient
and said, you have to go to
the emergency room immediately.
And upon retesting, there was
nothing wrong with her.
>> Listening to your podcast,
I wondered...
You're really describing
red flags almost from Day 1.
Obviously, you have the benefit
of hindsight now.
But there were so many
moments in this story
where I hear you saying,
"Well, that didn't sound right.
That doesn't sound right."
I wondered,
"What kept you going back?"
What is it that made you want
to go back to work,
knowing that you were
leaving a lab and you
were working with equipment
that was not performing anywhere
close to how it was being sold?
>> Yeah, so there were
a couple of things.
One, I was a huge believer
in Elizabeth,
and it was really hard for me
to reconcile the differences
between what I was seeing
and what Elizabeth was
telling me.
And it is really strange,
looking back, to see kind of
like the power she had
or the influence she had over
the way people thought,
including on myself.
You know, in this Audible,
I describe
Halloween at Theranos,
where, at that point, I had been
there about two months,
and I had seen tons
of red flags,
but I still dressed up as
a "nanotainer" for Halloween,
because I was still drinking
the Kool-Aid that badly.
I wanted it to work.
I wanted to be part
of the vision.
I wanted to be part
of this company.
And it's like, when I
listen back to that part
of the audio book --
or the Audible, I just kind of
like shake my head, like, "Man,
what was I doing?"
I was still kind of like
sucking up to Elizabeth.
>> Now, there were instances
about the culture and the
climate that you're working
under that
were a little scary at times.
What kind of surveillance,
for example, were you under
while you were working there?
What did the employees know
about who was watching
or how they were being watched?
>> Yes, so, most people actually
had kind of Post-it notes that
they would stick over
the camera on their computer
because they thought that
"Sunny,"
the president of the company,
was watching people
through the webcams
and seeing when people
were working or weren't working.
Every door was -- you know,
had video monitors,
but that's not all that unusual.
>> No.
>> But when I did --
So, there's one part where I
smuggle out a stack of e-mails.
And I didn't want the security
cameras to see me walking out
with a stack of papers.
So I just put them straight
under my shirt, put my head down
and walked out the door,
so the cameras wouldn't see me
taking papers
out of the building.
>> When did you decide
it was time to speak up?
And how did you do that?
>> So, I started speaking up
after I started seeing many,
many more red flags.
And that was probably five
to six months later
that I actually started
raising my concerns.
>> And then you really --
you went to the press.
I mean, you were not an
open source for quite some time.
But was that a more effective
route to get the government's
attention?
>> Yeah, it was absolutely
the most effective route.
I confronted the CEO,
the president, a board member.
I reached out to the government.
None of that did anything.
The only thing that worked
was talking to a
Wall Street Journal reporter.
And I think it just --
it comes down to
the government has just way
too much to look at,
and they may not really
be aware of what's happening
until it appears
in The Wall Street Journal,
and I also think
that our government responds
to the collective consciousness
of the people, as they should.
So, when people are outraged,
the government should act.
>> So, now you're talking
secretly to
The Wall Street Journal.
The Theranos lawyers
are after you because they think
you're giving up trade
secrets --
your lawyers, their lawyers
going back and forth.
You're concerned about
being taken to court and sued.
You can't talk to your friends
or your family about this,
because then
that implicates them.
During all this, in your story,
you say that your mental health
suffered,
to such a point
that you were contemplating
taking your own life.
Why?
>> Just -- it was --
it was just so tough, you know?
I -- every morning,
I woke up and just felt like it
was the worst day of my life.
And I was right.
Every morning I woke up,
and it was again
the worst day of my life,
just the worst day of your life
on "Groundhog Day."
And it was just unrelenting.
I would have a court date,
and I would be fighting
to stay out of court.
They would finally say, "We'll
give you more time to
negotiate."
Then they would
just set a new court date.
So there was constantly
just this kicking
the can just a little
bit further down the road
about when I'm going to have
to go to court.
And I knew that,
when I did go to court,
I would be spending a fortune.
I mean, we're talking
a good-case scenario
would be to spend $2 million,
possibly spend much more
than that.
And my dad's
a high-school biology teacher.
My mom's a nurse.
So they were going to sell their
house to pay for my legal fees.
>> You feeling
guilty about that?
>> Yeah.
Oh, yes, feeling totally guilty
about that,
because they were begging me
not to let that happen.
They just said, "Give Theranos
whatever it is they want."
And they didn't really know the
specifics of what was happening.
They just said, "Whatever it
is they want, give it to them.
Don't make us sell our house
so you can
keep fighting this fight.
It's not your fight.
This is not your
responsibility."
And I totally understood
where they were coming from.
But I made the decision.
And, actually, look, again,
listening back and looking back,
it's tough,
because I made the decision
that I was willing to bankrupt
my parents
to continue fighting this fight,
which is -- if things
had turned out differently,
it would look really stupid.
It would be very selfish.
And, in a lot of ways,
I just got lucky that things
turned out as well as they did.
And now people look back
and say, "Hey, what a hero."
But it easily could have gone
the other way.
>> Your grandfather,
George Shultz,
he played what role in this?
>> My grandfather was
on the Board of Directors.
I first met Elizabeth
in my grandfather's living room
when I was a junior at Stanford.
>> Your grandfather happens
to be somebody who served three
different Cabinet positions.
He's kind of esteemed
in the circles of diplomacy.
And you keep talking about
how George Shultz seemed to be
picking the version of reality
that Elizabeth Holmes
was presenting to him versus
you, his grandson,
who's saying, "Hey,
there's something wrong here."
>> Yeah, that's true.
I mean, over and over and over,
there were instances
where he could have taken
my side over Elizabeth.
And every single time, he chose
to defend Elizabeth over me.
And, eventually,
I got to a point
where I just thought, I just --
"I have to not worry about him
and just worry about myself.
I can't stop making decisions
with him in mind at all.
I just got to worry about me.
If he's chosen to stick with
Elizabeth, he can live with it.
I'm going to move on."
>> What is it about Elizabeth
that people seem to believe
or want to believe, especially
people like your grandfather?
>> Yeah, it's a tough question
to really answer.
It's kind of funny.
When the HBO documentary aired
or premiered at Sundance,
right afterwards,
I went and watched a documentary
about Harvey Weinstein.
And you hear people
describe Harvey as this
very charismatic person
who you were just drawn to
and you wanted to be around.
And you look at him now,
and you think, "How could anyone
ever think this person was
charming and charismatic?"
And that's kind of
the same feeling
that I have towards Elizabeth.
It's really hard to describe
exactly what it was.
But, in part, it was her big
blue eyes kind of locked you in.
She had a very deep voice
that almost lulled you
into some kind of hypnosis.
And at the time, I think both
of those attributes
were pretty charismatic.
But now, when people look back
on it, they say, "How could you
ever think she was charismatic?
She had that really weird voice
and psychopath eyes."
So it's weird
how interpretations of character
traits or of traits change
once you know the truth
about somebody.
>> Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes
and Sunny Balwani
are still facing
criminal charges.
Their court date could be
next year because of
the coronavirus delaying things.
What do you hope
for at the end of that process?
>> I just hope that it happens.
I hope that it happens
sooner rather than later.
I'm ready for this to be over.
As for, like, my hopes
of the outcomes, I -- you know,
I honestly don't really think
all that much about it.
And -- but, unfortunately,
I'm afraid that Elizabeth
is going to walk away from this
still being a multimillionaire.
And that's just kind of like --
I don't know.
That's just kind of a sad
realization to me.
Like, I feel like Elizabeth
deserves to have a conversation
with her parents
where her parents
have to sell their house
to pay for her legal fees.
That's not going to happen.
I feel like this is going
to end
and she will probably
walk away a multimillionaire
one way or another.
>> So, what's
the cautionary tale here?
What should we be able to learn
from what happened to Theranos
and apply towards
how we are looking at either
the diagnostic equipment
that's coming around for COVID
or for the tests
or even for the vaccine?
>> I think the key thing
is to do due diligence.
We have to verify that these
things actually work before
we pour hundreds of millions
of dollars into them.
And that's really
what it comes down to.
And Elizabeth was really good
at making sure people
didn't look too closely.
>> Where is government oversight
when it comes to the amounts
of money that we are investing
in lots of different companies
to try to help provide
a vaccine for the coronavirus
and to make sure that
that vaccine gets to everyone?
>> I do think that a lot
of the conditions
that allowed Theranos to thrive
are pretty prevalent today
in this pandemic.
There's a lot of stimulus money
out there,
a lot of just money from
investors or from the government
being poured into diagnostics
and into vaccines
and into therapies.
And there's really only so much
regulators can do.
So I do think that it is
a great time to commit fraud,
if it's something
you're looking to do.
And my expertise is really in
diagnostics, not into vaccines.
So, just on the
diagnostics side,
there were a lot of
stumbling blocks early on
with the diagnostics.
The FDA tried
to decrease regulations
to allow good products
to come into the market,
but then they realized that
there were a lot of bad products
out in the market.
So the FDA had to really
cracked down on the companies
that weren't offering
quality products.
And so I actually do have to
give a lot of credit to the FDA
for being
as flexible as they've been.
They started out
probably too lenient,
and now I think
we're in a much better place.
>> Alright, Tyler Shultz.
The Audible is called
"Thicker Than Water."
Thanks so much for joining us.
>> Yeah, thank you.
>> And it really is
an incredible story.
And what a valuable
whistleblower that was.
And, finally, it is
one of the hottest days
on record here in London,
but in the icy Antarctic,
British scientists have made
an exciting discovery.
They found this week
that 11 new colonies of emperor
penguins have been spotted
from space after researchers
captured bird droppings
on these satellite images,
which means there are nearly
20% more emperor colonies
on the continent
than previously thought.
It's great news,
but conservationists say
dangerous levels
of climate change
continue to affect the region.
That's it for our program
tonight.
Remember, you can follow me and
the show on Twitter.
Thanks for watching
"Amanpour & Company" on PBS, and
join us again next time.
>> "Amanpour & Company" is made
