Latest News from Wakala News
Wakala News
3 days ago
- Business
- Wakala News
Transcript: House Speaker Mike Johnson on 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,' May 25, 2025
MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin with the passage of what President Trump is calling his 'Big Beautiful Bill,' and the man who got it through the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, who joins us from Benton, Louisiana. Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker. SPEAKER JOHNSON: Hey, good morning, and I wish a blessed Memorial Day weekend to everybody. MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed. Well, you got this massive tax and border bill through, just barely, one vote margin. You pulled an all-nighter. Among other things, it will eliminate taxes on tips and overtime. Put about $50 billion towards the border wall and hiring Border Patrol agents, keep in place existing individual tax rates, create savings accounts for kids with a one-time deposit of $1,000, increase the child tax credit by about 500 bucks. The- the bill on this is estimated to be between four and $5 trillion over the next decade. How much do you think this is all going to cost? SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, that's about the right estimate. But at the same time, we have historic savings for the American people. Cuts to government to make it more efficient and effective and- and work better for the people. That was a big campaign promise of President Trump and a big promise of ours, and we're going to achieve that. So in the calculation here, there's more than $1.5 trillion in savings, Margaret, for the people. And that's- that's the largest amount- biggest cut in government, really, in at least 30 years and if you adjust for inflation, probably the largest in the history of government. So we're proud of what we produced here. We've checked all the boxes, where all the things that you mentioned in existence- in addition to American energy dominance, investing in our military industrial base, which is appropriate for us to talk about this weekend and so many other priorities and that's why we call it the 'One Big Beautiful Bill. I think arguably, it's the most consequential legislation that Congress will pass in many generations, and it's a long time coming. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just this morning, we did hear from some of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate, where this heads next, that they can't support the bill as it is written. I think you know this. Senator Rand Paul said the cuts are 'wimpy and anemic,' 'the math doesn't add up,' it will 'explode the debt.' In addition to that political criticism, you've already seen– SPEAKER JOHNSON: –Yeah, Senator Paul and I are– MARGARET BRENNAN: –Moody's credit rating agency downgrade American credit and Goldman Sachs says that this bill will not offset the damage from the President's tariffs. Isn't this an economic gamble? SPEAKER JOHNSON: No, it's not an economic gamble. It's a big investment. And look, this- what this bill is going to do is be jet fuel to the U.S. economy. It is going to foster a pro growth economy. What do we mean by that? Because we're reducing taxes, we're reducing regulations, we're going to increase and incentivize American manufacturing again. And what will- the effect this will have in the economy is that entrepreneurs and risk takers and job creators will have an easier time in doing that. They will allow for more jobs and more opportunity for more people, and wages will increase. Now, Margaret, this is not a theoretical exercise. We did this already in the first Trump administration. After just the first two years, we brought about the greatest economy in the history of the world, not just the U.S. because we did it- followed a very simple formula, we cut taxes and we cut regulations. This time– MARGARET BRENNAN: You didn't do it in the middle of a tariff war. SPEAKER JOHNSON: –we're doing that on steroids. MARGARET BRENNAN: In the first administration, there was sequencing– SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, no. MARGARET BRENNAN: You got tax reform- the Republicans got tax reform through and held off the tariff war. Goldman Sachs says, 'the hit to growth from tariffs will more than offset the boost to growth from the fiscal package.' That's Goldman Sachs. SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well- well, I know. I respect Goldman Sachs, but I think what they're discounting here is the growth that will be spurred on by this legislation, and the fact that the so-called tariff war is beginning to subside already. You've got over 75 countries that are negotiating new, more fair trade agreements for the U.S. right now because of the President's insistence that that be done and it was decades overdue. That is going to benefit every American, it's going to benefit the consumers. You know, they howled when the first tariffs- reciprocal tariffs policy was announced, and they said that prices would skyrocket. That simply hasn't happened. Many of those early estimates were far off, and that's being proven now. So what I think will happen is the tariffs, you know, contest will subside. This legislation will pass and get the economy going again and people will feel that. They'll see it in their own pocketbooks, in their own opportunity and every American household is going to benefit by these policies. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know Walmart has already said that it will have to raise prices. It's not theoretical. And the President on Friday was talking about even more tariffs, this time on Apple and others. But back- back to your end of the- of the deal here, for this tax relief, you talked about the cuts to pay for it all. You are eliminating subsidized federal student loans so the government will no longer cover the interest on debt while borrowers' in school. You're eliminating 500 billion in clean energy subsidies and you're terminating early tax breaks for electric vehicles. Alongside that, you're carrying out about a trillion in reductions to Medicaid and food stamps. We looked at your home state, and the projection is that nearly 200,000 Louisianans will lose their Medicaid coverage because of this. How do you defend that to your constituents? SPEAKER JOHNSON: We have not cut Medicaid, and we have not cut SNAP. What we're doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste and abuse, and everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that that's a responsibility of Congress. Just in- in Medicaid, for example, you've got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It's intended for vulnerable populations, for young, single, pregnant women and the elderly and the disabled and people who desperately need those resources. Right now, they're being drained by fraud, waste and abuse. You've got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You're cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that's right. So there's a- there's a moral component to what we're doing. And when you make young men work, it's good for them, it's good for their dignity, it's good for their self worth, and it's good for the community that they live in. MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, but in- first of all, just undocumented immigrants, you know, are not eligible for food stamps or Medicaid. Some– SPEAKER JOHNSON: And yet they're receiving them that's the problem– MARGARET BRENNAN: –lawfully present immigrants are. So the 190,000 Louisianans that are projected by KFF as losing their Medicaid. Your position is they were just lazy, not working? That they were undocumented? What about them? How do you defend that they will be losing their benefits? SPEAKER JOHNSON: No. What we're talking about again, is able-bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they're gaming the system. And when we make them work, it'll be better for everybody, a win-win-win for all. By the way, the work requirements, Margaret, is not some onerous, burdensome thing. It's a minimum of 20 hours a week. You could either be working or be in a job program, a job training program, or volunteering in your community. This is not some, some onerous thing ,this is common sense. And when the American people understand what we are doing here, they applaud it. This is a wildly popular thing, because we have to preserve the programs. What we're doing is strengthening Medicaid and SNAP so that they can exist, so that they'll be there for the people that desperately need it the most, and it's not being taken advantage of. And this is something that everybody in Congress, Republicans and Democrats should agree to. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, one of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate has been very vocal about his concern in regard to what you're doing to Medicaid. Josh Hawley has been arguing it is 'morally wrong and politically suicidal' to slash health insurance for the working poor. He said the cost sharing language will force people at or just over the federal poverty level to pay as much as $35 for a medical visit, which means working people will pay more. How do you defend that? Because you know, in the Senate, they are going to make changes to this. SPEAKER JOHNSON: My friend Josh Hawley is a fiscal conservative as I am. We don't want to slash benefits. And again, I make this very clear. We are not cutting Medicaid. We are not cutting SNAP. We're working in the elements of fraud, waste and abuse. SNAP, for example, listen to the statistics, in 2024 over $11 billion in SNAP payments were- were erroneous. I mean, that's- that's a number that everyone acknowledges is real. It may be much higher than that– (CROSSTALK) MARGARET BRENNAN: Louisiana is like– SPEAKER JOHNSON: But here's the problem, the states– MARGARET BRENNAN: — the second largest recipient of food stamps in the country, sir. SPEAKER JOHNSON: Let me explain it, Margaret. Let me explain it. The states- the states are not properly administering this because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we've done in the bill is add some- just a modest state sharing component, so that they'll pay attention to that, so that we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most. This is common sense, Margaret. It's good government, and everybody on both sides of the aisle should agree to that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Senator Hawley objects to that cost sharing language. He is the one leveraging that criticism. This is going to change, you know that, when it goes to the Senate. How do you- how do you put Republicans up to have to defend these things when they are facing an election in 17 months? SPEAKER JOHNSON: We got almost every vote in the House because we worked on it for more than a year in finding the exact balance of reforms to the program so that we can save them and secure them. I think- I think Senator Hawley will see that when he looks into the details of what we passed on Thursday. This is a big thing, it's an historic thing, once in a generation legislation. We call it the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it's going to do so much and the America first agenda will be delivered for the people just as we promised. And look, I had lunch with my Senate Republican colleagues on Tuesday, their weekly luncheon, and I encouraged them to remember that we are one team. It's the Senate and the House Republicans together that will deliver this- this ball over the goal line, so to speak. And I encouraged them to make as few modifications as possible, remembering that I have a very delicate balance on our very diverse Republican caucus over in the House. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, well, you- you have five to six Republicans from high tax states who are not going to want to see that change in the state and local tax deductions and there's not a commitment to that in the Senate. Can you still get this through the house without SALT? SPEAKER JOHNSON: Look, we- there's got to be a modification to SALT, and as I've explained to my Senate colleagues many times, you know, they don't have SALT caucus in the Senate because they're all from red states, but in the House, we do have a number of members who are elected in places like New York and California and New Jersey, and they have to provide some relief to their constituents. Those are what we call our majority makers. Those are the people who are elected in the toughest districts and help us have the numbers to keep the majority in the House, and so, this is political reality. We'd love to cut more costs. We'd love to do even more, but we have to deal within the realm of possibility. And I think this is a huge leap forward for fiscal responsibility, for a government that's effective and accountable to the people and real relief for hard working Americans, and they well deserve it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well before I let you go, I want to ask you about another provision that was tucked into this bill. Democrats say it is weakening separation of powers and punishing the courts. It's a specific provision that would restrict a federal court's power to enforce injunctions with contempt, unless there was a bond attached to it. Sounds really weedy, but it's causing a lot of outcry. If this might get stripped out in the Senate anyway, why did you bother to stick it in? SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, we bothered to stick it in because that's our responsibility in Congress. It is about separation of powers, and right now you have activist judges, a handful of them around the country, who are abusing that power. They're issuing these nationwide injunctions. They're- they're engaging in political acts from the bench, and that is not what our system is intended for. And people have lost their- their- their faith in our system of justice. We have to restore it and bringing about a simple reform like that is something that I think everybody should applaud.
Wakala News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Wakala News
Full transcript of 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,' May 25, 2025
On this 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan' broadcast, moderated by Ed O'Keefe: House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut Cindy McCain, World Food Programme executive director Navy veteran Jack McCain For Country Caucus members Reps. Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, Zach Nunn, Republican of Iowa, and Don Davis, Democrat of North Carolina Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.' MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington. And this week on Face the Nation: Memorial Day marks the unofficial start to summer. We will kick it off with a hat tip to the nation's military. (Begin VT) (CHEERING) (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump rallied West Point graduates on Saturday. (Begin VT) DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): The military's job is to dominate any foe and annihilate any threat to America anywhere, any time and any place. MAN: Hip, hip. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: But as these new members of the world's most powerful military go forward, are we doing enough to support them? We will talk with some veterans serving in Congress about the value of public service and we will honor those who protected us. On Capitol Hill, the president's big, beautiful bill squeaks through the House. What kind of impact will some of those tax-and-spend provisions have on Americans? And can they survive the Senate? We will ask House Speaker Mike Johnson and talk with the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes. Some humanitarian aid is returning to Gaza after a monthslong Israeli blockade, but will it be in time and enough to help those in desperate need of food? Plus, a new plan for American assistance in the region. We will talk to Cindy McCain, head of the U.N.'s World Food Program. All that and more is just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to in honor of our military today, but we begin with the passage of what President Trump is calling his big, beautiful bill, and the man who got it through the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, who joins us from Benton, Louisiana. Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON (R-Louisiana): Hey. Good morning. And I wish a blessed Memorial Day weekend to everybody. MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed. Well, you got this massive tax and border bill through, just barely, one vote margin. You pulled an all-nighter. Among other things, it will eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, put about $50 billion towards the border wall and hiring Border Patrol agents, keep in place existing individual tax rates, create savings accounts for kids with a one-time deposit of $1,000, increase the child tax credit by about 500 bucks. The – the bill on this is estimated to be between $4 trillion and $5 trillion over the next decade. How much do you think this is all going to cost? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Well, that's about the right estimate. But, at the same time, we have historic savings for the American people, cuts to government to make it more efficient and effective and – and work better for the people. That was a big campaign promise of President Trump and a big promise of ours, and we're going to achieve that. So, in the calculation here, there's more than $1.5 trillion in savings, Margaret, for the people. And that's – that's the largest amount – biggest cut in government really in at least 30 years and, if you adjust for inflation, probably the largest in the history of government. So we're proud of what we produced here. We've checked all the boxes, where all the things that you mentioned in existence – in addition to American energy dominance, investing in our military industrial base, which is appropriate for us to talk about this weekend, and so many other priorities. And that's why we call it the one, big beautiful bill. I think, arguably, it's the most consequential legislation that Congress will pass in many generations, and it's a long time coming. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just this morning, we did hear from some of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate, where this heads next, that they can't support the bill as it is written. I think you know this. Senator Rand Paul said the cuts are 'wimpy and anemic. The math doesn't add up. It will explode the debt.' In addition to that political criticism, you've already seen… REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Yes, look, Senator Paul and I are… MARGARET BRENNAN: … Moody's credit rating agency downgrade American credit. And Goldman Sachs says that this bill will not offset the damage from the president's tariffs. Isn't this an economic gamble? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: No, it's not an economic gamble. It's a big investment. And, look, this – what this bill is going to do is be jet fuel to the U.S. economy. It is going to foster a pro-growth economy. What do we mean by that? Because we're reducing taxes. We're reducing regulations. We're going to increase and incentivize American manufacturing again. And what will – the effect this will have in the economy is that entrepreneurs and risk-takers and job creators will have an easier time in doing that. They will allow for more jobs and more opportunity for more people, and wages will increase. Now, Margaret, this is not a theoretical exercise. We did this already in the first Trump administration. After just the first two years, we brought about the greatest economy in the history of the world, not just the U.S., because we did it, followed a very simple formula. We cut taxes and we cut regulations. MARGARET BRENNAN: You didn't do it in the middle of a tariff war. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: This time, we're doing that on steroids. MARGARET BRENNAN: In the first administration, there was sequencing. MARGARET BRENNAN: You got tax reform. The Republicans got tax reform through and held off the tariff war. Goldman Sachs says, the hit to growth from tariffs will more than offset the boost to growth from the fiscal package. That's Goldman Sachs. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Well – well, I know. I respect Goldman Sachs, but I think what they're discounting here is the growth that will be spurred on by this legislation and the fact that the so-called tariff war is beginning to subside already. You've got over 75 countries that are negotiating new, more fair trade agreements for the U.S. right now because of the president's insistence that that be done. And it was decades overdue. That is going to benefit every American. It's going to benefit the consumers. You know, they howled when the first tariffs – reciprocal tariffs policy was announced. And they said that prices would skyrocket. That simply hasn't happened. Many of those early estimates were far off, and that's being proven now. So what I think will happen is the tariffs, you know, contest will subside. This legislation will pass and get the economy going again. And people will feel that. They'll see it in their own pocketbooks, in their own opportunity. And every American household is going to benefit by these policies. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know Walmart has already said that it will have to raise prices. It's not theoretical. And the president on Friday was talking about even more tariffs, this time on Apple and others. But back – back to your end of the – of the deal here, for this tax relief, you talked about the cuts to pay for it all. You are eliminating subsidized federal student loans, so the government will no longer cover the interest on debt while borrowers are in school. You're eliminating $500 billion in clean energy subsidies and you're terminating early tax breaks for electric vehicles. Alongside that, you're carrying out about a trillion in reductions to Medicaid and food stamps. We looked at your home state, and the projection is that nearly 200,000 Louisianians will lose their Medicaid coverage because of this. How do you defend that to your constituents? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: We have not cut Medicaid, and we have not cut SNAP. What we're doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste and abuse. And everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that that's a responsibility of Congress. Just in – in Medicaid, for example, you've got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It's intended for vulnerable populations, for young, single, pregnant women and the elderly and the disabled and people who desperately need those resources. Right now, they're being drained by fraud, waste and abuse. You've got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You're cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that's right. MARGARET BRENNAN: So… REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: So there's a – there's a moral component to what we're doing. And when you make young men work, it's good for them, it's good for their dignity. MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: It's good for their self-worth, and it's good for the community that they live in. MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, but in – first of all, just undocumented immigrants, you know, are not eligible for food stamps or Medicaid. Some… REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: And yet they're receiving them. That's the problem. MARGARET BRENNAN: … lawfully present immigrants are. So the 190,000 Louisianians that are projected by KFF as losing their Medicaid, your position is, they were just lazy, not working, that they were undocumented? What – what about them? How do you defend that they will be losing their benefits? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: No, what we're talking about, again, is able- bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they're gaming the system. And when we make them work, it'll be better for everybody, a win-win-win for all. By the way, the work requirements, Margaret, is not some onerous, burdensome thing. It's a minimum of 20 hours a week. You could either be working or be in a job program, a job training program… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: … or – or volunteering in your community. This is not some – some onerous thing. This is common sense. And when the American people understand what we are doing here, they applaud it. This is a wildly popular thing, because we have to preserve the programs. What we're doing is strengthening Medicaid and SNAP so that they can exist, so that they'll be there for the people that desperately need it the most, and it's not being taken advantage of. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: And this is something that everybody in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, should agree to. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, one of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate has been very vocal about his concern in regard to what you're doing to Medicaid. Josh Hawley has been arguing: 'It is morally wrong and politically suicidal to slash health insurance for the working poor.' He said the cost-sharing language will force people at or just over the federal poverty level to pay as much as $35 for a medical visit, which means working people will pay more. How do you defend that? Because you know, in the Senate, they are going to make changes to this. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: My friend Josh Hawley is a fiscal conservative, as I am. We don't want to slash benefits. And, again, I make this very clear. We are not cutting Medicaid. We are not cutting SNAP. We're working in the elements of fraud, waste and abuse. SNAP, for example, listen to the statistics. In 2024, over $11 billion in SNAP payments were – were erroneous. I mean, that's – that's a number that everyone acknowledges is real. It may be much higher than that. But here's the problem. The states… MARGARET BRENNAN: Louisiana is like the second largest recipient of food stamps in the country, sir. So… (CROSSTALK) REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Let me explain it, Margaret. Let me explain it. The states – the states are not properly administering this, because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we've done in the bill is add some – just a modest state sharing component, so that they'll pay attention to that, so that we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most. This is common sense, Margaret. It's good government, and everybody on both sides of the aisle should agree to that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Senator Hawley objects to that cost-sharing language. He is the one leveraging that criticism. This is going to change, you know that, when it goes to the Senate. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Listen, right. So, I… MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you – how do you put Republicans up to have to defend these things, when they are facing an election in 17 months? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: We got almost every vote in the House because we worked on it for more than a year in finding the exact balance of reforms to the programs, so that we can save them and secure them. I think – I think Senator Hawley will see that when he looks into the details of what we passed on Thursday. This is a big thing. It's an historic thing, once-in-a-generation legislation. We call it the one big, beautiful bill because it's going to do so much and the America first agenda will be delivered for the people just as we promised. And, look, I had lunch with my Senate Republican colleagues on Tuesday, their weekly luncheon, and I encouraged them to remember that we are one team. It's the Senate and the House Republicans together that will deliver this – this ball over the goal line, so to speak. And I encouraged them to make as few modifications as possible, remembering that I have a very delicate balance on our very diverse Republican caucus over in the House. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Yes, well, you have – you have five to six Republicans from high tax states who are not going to want to see that change in the state and local tax deductions. And there's not a commitment to that in the Senate. Can you still get this through the House without SALT? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Look, we – there's got to be a modification to SALT. And, as I have explained to my Senate colleagues many times, you know, they don't have SALT Caucus in the Senate because they're all from red states, but in the House, we do have a number of members who are elected in places like New York and California and New Jersey, and they have to provide some relief to their constituents. Those are what we call our majority makers. Those are the people who are elected in the toughest districts and help us have the numbers to keep the majority in the House. And so this is political reality. We'd love to cut more costs. We'd love to do even more, but we have to deal within the realm of possibility. And I think this is a huge leap forward for fiscal responsibility, for a government that's effective and accountable to the people and real relief for hardworking Americans, and they well deserve it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Well, before I let you go, I want to ask you about another provision that was tucked into this bill. Democrats say it is weakening separation of powers and punishing the courts. It's a specific provision that would restrict a federal court's power to enforce injunctions with contempt, unless there was a bond attached to it. Sounds really weedy, but it's causing a lot of outcry. If this might get stripped out in the Senate anyway, why did you bother to stick it in? REPRESENTATIVE MIKE JOHNSON: Well, we bothered to stick it in because that's our responsibility in Congress. It is about separation of powers. And, right now, you have activist judges, a handful of them around the country, who are abusing that power. They're issuing these nationwide injunctions. They're – they're engaging in political acts from the bench. And that is not what our system is intended for. And people have lost their – their – their faith in our system of justice. We have to restore it. And bringing about a simple reform like that is something that I think everybody should applaud. MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, thank you for your time this morning. Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We're joined now by Congressman Jim Himes. He is the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, and he joins us today from Greenwich, Connecticut. Good morning to you. REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES (D-Connecticut): Good morning, Margaret. Thanks for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: You just heard the speaker. I know you did not vote for this bill. But, you know, Connecticut has one of the highest state and local tax burdens in the country. Do you at least like that one little portion of this bill? (LAUGHTER) REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: That one little portion is going to be good for my constituents. But, Margaret, I – I got to tell you, it was like listening to '1984' or something listening to the speaker. You know, anybody can look this up. The American people want basically three things out of their federal budget. Number one, at this point in time, when Americans – the wealthiest Americans, are doing better than ever before, Americans want the wealthiest of the – of Americans to pay more taxes and to give tax relief to the middle class and below. Number two, they want us to address the deficit, which is now spiraling out of control, to the point where we got a downgrade in one of the U.S. credit ratings. And, third, they want a simpler tax code. This bill fails spectacularly on all three counts. They're cutting Medicaid and nutritional assistance, food stamps, to tens of millions of Americans in order to preserve tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They're adding $3 trillion to the deficit with this bill. And, lastly, they're gumming up the tax code with, you don't have to pay taxes on tips. Now, what about the folks who don't earn tips, you know, auto lending? I mean, again, on the three things that Americans care most about, that they want the Congress to do, this bill fails spectacularly. Look, and that's going to show up in the polling pretty soon, as Americans come to realize what it is that the House of Representatives just did. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I want to ask you about your other role on the House Intelligence Committee. When it comes to what the president has vowed to do to Russia, he floated this idea two weeks ago of possible sanctions if Russia doesn't stop its war in Ukraine. But then he spoke to Vladimir Putin on Monday, and we heard nothing about sanctions. We did hear from the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency that this war is trending in favor of Russia. What changes need to be made, if anything, to how the U.S. provides support? REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Well, Margaret, look, we're at a fork in the road with respect to the Russia-Ukraine war. And, you know, Donald Trump and his acolytes in the Congress will go along with one of these two choices. Either we will continue the trajectory that started when the president and the vice president humiliated Vladimir – humiliated President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office and paused aid, and Vladimir Putin will learn from that experience that he can count on the U.S. to support his murderous incursions into neighboring countries. Or we can take another path, which I hope the president will take, which is to say, what we need to do right now is generate maximum leverage against Vladimir Putin, and I see the president getting a little frustrated by him. But that maximum leverage comes because we really uptick the sanctions, we stop the export of oil, we pressure India to stop buying Russian oil, and, of course, we keep arming the Ukrainians. Again, for this guy who considers himself the master of the deal, maximize the leverage of the West so that we can bring this war not just to a conclusion, but to a fair and just conclusion that will keep the Russians from invading countries in the future. MARGARET BRENNAN: In your role on the Intelligence Committee, you get to see things the public does not. With that in mind, the president has designated this Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, TDA, as a foreign terrorist organization. He says they're invading the country. He's using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members without a day in court. Part of the legal justification of all of this rests on the claim that the Venezuelan government is controlling what TDA is doing. The National Intelligence Council assessed the Maduro government does not control the gang. But, on this program last Sunday, the secretary of state rejected that. He says he favors the FBI's finding, which is that some members of the Venezuelan government do influence the gang. Why does all of this matter? REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Well, it matters, Margaret, because I will remind you that, in the George W. Bush administration, exactly what is happening right now happened. It was a different topic. Right now, despite the conclusions of the intelligence community, the president, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of state are saying that Venezuela directs Tren de Aragua. Now, they're saying that because they need this no due process mechanism of deporting people, the Alien Enemies Act, which, by the way, the courts are now laughing at. But the reason it matters, Margaret, is because the last time the White House did this, when they were determined that the intelligence community be forced to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which there turned out not to be, 4,400 American servicemen perished in a war that was fought on false pretenses, not to mention, by the way, the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who perished in that war, which was a catastrophic strategic mistake driven by the politicization, the – the notion that George W. Bush had that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's why intelligence matters. There's 4,400 families in this country who lost people because the White House decided they would override the conclusion of their $90 billion-a-year intelligence community. That's what Marco Rubio is doing, that's what the president is doing, and that's what Director Gabbard are doing when they contradict what their own organization is telling them. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, on that point, this is also becoming an issue for Joe Kent, who is the president's nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center. He's under scrutiny because e-mails show that, while acting as chief of staff to DNI Gabbard, he pressed analysts to amend an assessment of links between the government and TDA. According to redacted e-mails that my network has obtained, he wrote: 'We need to do some rewriting, a little more analysis so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS,' the president of the United States. He says: 'We need to incorporate the FBI's assessment.' You have now read these declassified e-mails as well. Do you believe that Joe Kent was just asking for more context? REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: No, he absolutely was not. And I have seen the redacted e-mails. He was pressuring the National Intelligence Council to alter their conclusions. And, look, he gave away the game. You just read the line. He told us why he did that, so that this report would not be used against the president or the director of national intelligence. Think about that. The chief of staff of the – of the Office of the Director National Intelligence wasn't saying, we need the very best intelligence here. We need you to go back and make sure you're 100 percent true. He was saying, we need to make sure that your product is not used to embarrass the president and the director of national intelligence. That is the very definition, the very definition of politicizing intelligence. This is not about embarrassing or not embarrassing anybody. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: So, no, Joe Kent must never be confirmed for any Senate-confirmed… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Look, it's all out there for the Senate to see. So, no, he may – he must never be confirmed for any Senate-confirmed position because of what he did. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. OK. And those e-mails are available for the public to read as well. Congressman Himes, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: In our next half-hour, we will be talking to not one, but two members of the McCain family, Cindy McCain and her son Jack. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: One congressional tradition that brings out both Republicans and Democrats is the Memorial Day weekend cleaning of the Vietnam Wall. We ran into former Trump National Security Adviser Mike Waltz on Thursday when we visited. He's no longer in Congress, but he explained why he started encouraging his fellow veterans in the House to pitch in. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, Cindy McCain. She joins us this morning from Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Good morning to you. CINDY MCCAIN (Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme): Good morning. MARGARET BRENNAN: In Gaza we have this manmade catastrophe with Israeli authorities blocking the entry of all aid from March until about May 18th. The Trump administration said Israel needs to let in food. So, are your deliveries consistently now getting through? CINDY MCCAIN: Well, let's start with the fact that this is a catastrophe. And you're absolutely correct, and I'm very grateful that you are covering this issue. They have let a few trucks in. This is a drop in the bucket as to what's needed. Right now we have 500,000 people inside of Gaza that are – that are extremely food insecure and could be on the verge of famine if we don't help bring them back from that. We need to get in and we need to get in at scale, not just a few dribble of the trucks. Right now it's, as I said, it's a drop in the bucket. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, how many trucks need to be getting in daily to address the scale of the need you see? And – and can they get into northern Gaza? CINDY MCCAIN: Well, prior to the – you know, during the ceasefire, I should say, we were getting in 600 trucks a day. Right now we're getting in maybe 100. Something like that. So, it – it's not nearly enough. And it needs to be going to the correct places. So, the various gates. It's inconsistent as to how the gates are open. It's inconsistent as to the roads we can use. The roads that are the better roads. The ones that can get us further along aren't open at all much. It's complicated right now. And – and again, I will tell anybody who will listen, we need to get in and get in at scale and be allowed to feed these people before further catastrophe occurs. MARGARET BRENNAN: Your organization announced at least 15 of your trucks were looted when they entered southern Gaza on route to – to bakeries. Israel has consistently said that the looting is being carried out by Hamas. Have you seen evidence that it is Hamas stealing the food? CINDY MCCAIN: No, not at all. Not – not in this round. Listen, these people are desperate. And they see a World Food Programme truck coming in and they run for it. This – this doesn't have anything to do with Hamas or any kind of organized crime or anything. It has simply to do with the fact these people are starving to death. And so, we will continue to go in. We will continue to go in with food and the kinds of supplies that we need to help the bakeries operate and make sure that we can continue to do that and – and hopefully be able to do more of it. But, again, we can't do this unless the world community puts pressure on this. We can't be allowed to sit back and watch these people starve to death with no outside diplomatic influence to help us. These – these – these poor souls are really, really, really desperate. And, you know, having been in – in a food riot myself some years ago, I understand the desperation very well. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, five days ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to take control of all of Gaza, which seems to be a shift from going in, carrying out raids and then withdrawing. We've seen the pope speak out. We've seen the leaders of France, of Canada, of the U.K. calling the cutting of aid egregious. Netanyahu said criticism like that is feeding Hamas and really feeding anti-Semitism. What do you make of that pushback from him, that criticisms of the state are feeding hate? CINDY MCCAIN: What I do know is they're not feeding people. And the most important part of this is that's what we're supposed to be doing. I'm very grateful for anyone, the pope, any of the folks that did – did shout out and say, listen, we need to get more in. But I can't tell you as to what – exactly what Netanyahu's thinking or anything else. What I do know for a fact is that we need food to get into Gaza to avoid an utter catastrophe. MARGARET BRENNAN: The Israeli army had announced aid will be distributed under what they described as an American plan. Prime Minister Netanyahu said it will be American companies giving food directly to Palestinian families in safe zones secured by the Israeli military. There's reporting in 'The Washington Post' that these are armed private contractors doing logistics. Palestinians will have to submit to identity checks to be fed. And that would replace the U.N. coordinated networks, presumably also the World Food Programme. Do you know how much longer you will be allowed to operate in Gaza? CINDY MCCAIN: I have not seen a plan from anybody. We continue to operate doing what we do best. And we are the largest and the best at what we do, I might add. I – we've never been – a plan has never been proposed to us. MARGARET BRENNAN: We haven't heard in – in the press at least from the administration any of the details either. But we do know that the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, announced back on May 9th that this is going to be a U.S. initiative involving only Israeli security. The Israelis are not distributing food. Secretary Rubio was just in Rome. He said he did meet with you. Did you share with him any of your concerns? CINDY MCCAIN: Well, we had a very frank discussion about exactly what was going on and what we could do to help alleviate a lot of this. Some of it, I'm not sure that they were completely clear on how we operate and the size that we are and the logistics ability that we have to be able to do this. So – so, we had a – a very nice discussion. As you know, the Rubio family and – and the McCain family have been friends for a very long time. And so I was grateful that he would take the time to listen to what – what we had to say and let us discuss exactly how we feel we should be able to operate. MARGARET BRENNAN: Did he assure you that the U.S. supports the U.N. and the World Food Programme continuing to supply food in Gaza? CINDY MCCAIN: We didn't really discuss the U.S. participation in any of this. He was really – really concerned with and really trying to understand how we operate and – and the need for what exactly what we do. We will work with anybody as long as it feeds people, and feeds people safely, I might add, on the ground and keeps our people and people from other agencies safe as well. MARGARET BRENNAN: Executive director of the World Food Programme, Cindy McCain. Thank you for your time this morning. CINDY MCCAIN: Thank you very much for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're back with another McCain. Jack McCain is the son of Cindy and the late Senator John McCain. He's a Navy veteran who served in the Afghanistan War. And he joins us now from Kyoto, Japan. Good to have you here. JACK MCCAIN (Afghanistan War Combat Veteran): Thank you. I'm incredibly glad to be here. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, we know, when you were in Afghanistan, you flew alongside and helped to train some of the Afghan Black Hawk pilots. Why is it important to you now to speak out on their behalf? Are any of your personal contacts there at risk? JACK MCCAIN: Yes. Basically everyone that we were unable to get out is at risk. These pilots and crew members fought the Taliban toe to toe. And because of that, the Taliban is trying to seek them out for reprisal. Something that they distinctly promised that they would not do. So, not only are they – are they in danger, but we owe them a debt. I believe that I'm vertical and still on this earth because of the efforts of my Afghan pilots and crews. And not only do I owe them personally, but the nation owes them a debt of honor. One that we have yet to repay. Everyone, interpreters, ground troops, pilots, that worked and fought alongside the United States at our behest should be able to be evacuated here to the United States and should be taken care of. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you were active duty at the time of the very chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I know you helped to get Afghans out during that period of time. There were a lot of Afghans airlifted out. Who was left behind and – and what promises were made? JACK MCCAIN: Yes, the problem is everyone was left behind. Whether it was family members, including family members of U.S. servicemen, whether it was pilots, crews, the people that I worked with, special forces, we did everything we could to get as many as we could out. But due to the chaos of the withdrawal and, frankly, the lack of planning on the part of the United States government, it was up to individuals and sometimes smaller military units to help either, in my case I had to triage who we were going to take out. I had to prioritize operational pilots over pilots in training versus crew members in the back simply because everyone was trying to do everything they could. So, we have tens of thousands that fought alongside us left behind. Each one of them in danger in their own way. Not to mention family members that can be used as tools of leverage against those that are even here in the United States now. MARGARET BRENNAN: And to that point, under the Taliban right now, the daughters, the wives, the female family members of a lot of these people who worked with Americans are facing some pretty tough conditions. However, this administration just recently said through Homeland Security that it is safe for Afghans to return. So those here could be sent back. Some Afghans who had arrived here and been given temporary protection. Does what the U.S. government said match in any way what you are hearing is happening on the ground? JACK MCCAIN: I would disagree with the entire notion that it is safe for anyone, especially if they've been in the United States, to return to rule under the Taliban. Whether they are male, female, young, old, that regime has proven itself to be – to not only have gone back on every promise they made to us, but to be – to have no problem using human lives as pawns to imprison, torture, rape, kill, even sell into slavery. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, there are a number of veterans of the war in Afghanistan who serve currently as lawmakers in the United States Congress. And it is Congress that sets the number of visas for these – these special immigrant visas, SIVs. We checked. There are more than 144,000 applicants in the pipeline, but there are only 11,000 visas left. That's not even counting family members here. Have you gotten any indication from the lawmakers you know that they are going to raise that cap? JACK MCCAIN: No, I have not. And it is an utter travesty that that is the case. People on both sides of the aisle had – have served in Afghanistan or have fought alongside Afghans, much like me. And the political theater that has taken place of simply ignoring the problem can only be summarized by the word despicable. This is an issue of humanity. This is an issue of national honor. And this is a debt that we owe. So, I would urge lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to solve this problem because it is not going to go away. It is your job to legislate, so, please do so. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, that's in the hand of lawmakers. That was a problem even during the last administration. Now, though, we have this extra complication where the Trump administration has put in orders to restrict refugee admissions and said the U.S. should prioritize people who can, quote, 'fully and appropriately assimilate and who do not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.' That's made it hard for Afghan refugees, family members to enter here. How do you reassure the public that these refugees are not a risk? Even the vice president of the United States has said he does not trust the vetting of refugees. JACK MCCAIN: Well, I mean, I think I passed the ultimate test in that I literally put my lives in – my life in these people's hands. So, not only are they worthy of trust, but they are worthy of our care. The vetting process has taken place. It continues to take place. And if vetting is the issue, fantastic. Let's pass legislation to solve that problem. Let's make sure everyone up to this point has been vetted. MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, your father famously said, 'it matters less that you can fight, but what you fight for is the real test.' I know you feel passionately about this particular issue. Can you ever see yourself entering politics to fight for other issues? JACK MCCAIN: That's a – a very interesting question. One that I happen to get asked fairly regularly. And I would say trying to follow his example that the best life is one lived adventurously and in service of a cause greater than one's self interest. I'm doing that. And if someday that does take me to office in service of the nation, then by all means. But to live a life simply focused on the single goal of attaining public office is not in my mind a life purposefully lived, in – in service in office, it is a purposefully lived one, but that should not be the overriding goal of your life. MARGARET BRENNAN: We will continue watching. Jack McCain, thank you for weighing in on this important issue. JACK MCCAIN: Thank you so much. MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll be back in a moment. MARGARET BRENNAN: This year, the bipartisan group, led in the past by then Congressman Mike Waltz, went from the House floor, where they had just passed the president's spending bill in an early morning vote, down to the Washington Mall. Cleaning the Vietnam War Memorial may have been delayed, but the mission was not deterred by either lack of sleep or rain. (BEGIN VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: You were up all night. Why did you show up in the rain in your suit to still do this? REPRESENTATIVE SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Because this is way more important. You know, sometimes people ask me, God, Seth, Washington is a mess today. Is it as bad as Iraq? And every single day the answer is, this is easier than the war. And it's important to keep that perspective. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that the divisions in our country now are in the same place, different from what this country went through around the time of Vietnam, when it was a very divided country? REPRESENTATIVE SETH MOULTON: You know, I think there are actually a lot of – a lot of parallels. And one of the lessons that we should learn is to – to do right by our veterans, if for no other reason we've got to work on coming together. And, you know, it's – it's difficult when it feels like we've got the divider in chief to quote one of his former officials, at the head of our government right now. But that doesn't mean that those of us in Congress, especially veterans, can't work together. MARGARET BRENNAN (voice over): Iowa Republican Zach Nunn spent 20 years as an Air Force intelligence officer as still served in the Air Force Reserve. North Carolina Democrat Don Davis also served in the Air Force and told us that his work as a mortuary officer at nearby Andrews Air Force Base makes Memorial Day especially important to him. After the wall was cleaned, we talked about their work together on Capitol Hill. MARGARET BRENNAN: Congress did give that boost of pay last year to the troops. Is it enough in this economy though? Is the country doing enough? REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS (D-NC): We know that families are still struggling to make ends meet. Taking care of the day to day, kids, putting gas in the tank. So, it's definitely, I'm sure, not enough. But we are moving, I believe, there with that (INAUDIBLE) in particular in the right direction, not only with pay, but looking at broader quality of life issues, housing, childcare that's available on our installations. MARGARET BRENNAN: America spends more than any other country on its defense. How is it possible we have this happening to our troops? REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN, (R-IA): We've tried to work together on things that not only help veterans, leading a veteran's suicide bill, assistance to families in the military. I'm proud the bill that we just passed is going to be able to extent a 22 percent tax cut to military families. I'm proud that we got a child tax credit in there. I'm thrilled that we were able to get our bill in there that worked towards giving a family a tax credit for adoption. We've got two adopted kids. This goes a long ways to helping a middle American family, whether you're military or not, be successful going forward. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: But I want to also say, it's important to do all of this for recruitment, retention, addressing quality of life. We recruit families. But also, when I think about being right here, at the Vietnam Memorial, and I think about our service, my service, you don't do it for the money, you do it because you love the country. REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: That's right. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: So, because of that love for the country, realizing that families are fighting for our country, the service members and their families, we have to continue to just look and – at prioritizing our military families. MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you tell people now, encourage them to enter public service, at a time when they're being told, even by the federal government – REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: The private sector is going to be more rewarding for you? REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: Look, Margaret, I think you highlight a really important part here. There's a number of ways that people can be called to serve. It's one of the things that I think has actually made us most combat effective in Congress is finding people who are mission oriented, who are working together. I tell my kids, the things that they could potentially learn in the military will echo throughout their entire life. But it's up for every American to make that decision, that pathway. You're right, less than 1 percent of Americans are serving. That 1 percent distinguishes itself time and time again. And there's lots of great ways to public service. Don and I have worked together to get more teachers, more nurses, more doctors. There's all great calls to public service. The federal government has a role to play in this, but ultimately it's up to Americans to decide how do they best give back to the communities that they represent? We certainly felt that military service was a way to do it, but I think we came to it in our own pathway. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: Yes, and I would love to say to any young person listening right now that's remotely interested, I had an amazing career serving in the United States Air Force. I love serving our country. And it was definitely a great career for me. And now as a member of the Armed Services Committee, we're doing everything to continue to make sure all of our branches are vibrant and we're doing things to make sure we support them. Give it a shot. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Well, we talk about the Vietnam War and the memorial behind you. There are it looks like students coming to reflect this morning. Three million people died in that war, 58,000 Americans among them. I wonder this Memorial Day, who are you thinking of? REPRESENTATIVE ZACH NUNN: Look, this isn't ancient history. This is living history. I think of my uncle who flew spotter planes over Vietnam. I think of my dad, who had the choice between enlisting or joining the ROTC program. I also think about my mother, who got – back home taking care of, you know, at that point, her career as a nurse. Ay aunt, who had two little girls. These are the stories that I think it's so important that young people do have the opportunity to learn about. One, so we never enter this kind of a situation again where we send men and women off to fight and they come back home, not to a hero's welcome, but as a despised class. Peace through strength is a real deterrent. But also knowing that we've got a military that when we commit to fight, we have to go in there knowing that we have a strategy, a plan, and that we're not going to be bringing people home injured, broken or shattered to a country not ready to receive them. REPRESENTATIVE DON DAVIS: It's so warming to see young people, kids walking through and looking at the Vietnam Memorial. I think of those throughout my community back home in eastern North Carolina, who I know served our country during Vietnam. And I go beyond Vietnam. I think of Corporal Ryan Russell, who's from east North Carolina, who was killed in Iraq. And I have a special relationship with his mom, Kathy. And we're doing everything to commemorate those who were killed, not just Vietnam, but in all wars and conflicts so that they know the – that the families, that we're standing with them. There's a way to get through this, this healing process that so many families are going through, those tears, that they're not alone. But not only that, but to embrace nationally when we see this, to think about all those who ultimately gave their lives in service of our country. (END VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: That's it for us today. But on behalf of all of us here at FACE THE NATION, to our military, our veterans, and especially their families, thank you for your service. We are all in your debt. Until next week, for FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan.
Wakala News
4 days ago
- Wakala News
Michelle Renee, California mother who was kidnapped and forced to rob a bank, falsely painted as a criminal in court
This story originally aired on Feb. 11, 2023. It was updated on May 24, 2025. The only monsters that had ever scared Michelle Renee's 7-year-old daughter Breea were make-believe. But on Nov. 20, 2000, just a day before three masked men broke in … Michelle Renee: She calls me. 'Mom, there's somebody outside the window' … I looked out there. I didn't see anything. I didn't see anybody. … So, I just brushed it off. Michelle had chalked it up to her child's imagination. But this time was different. Michelle Renee: She saw them looking through the window. They were there the night before. The same men now held Michelle and Breea at gunpoint in the living room. The gunmen said they'd been following the 35-year-old bank manager for months. Michelle Renee: It was very much that mind control thing that they were doing, that 'we know everything about you.' Michelle would recount the events inside the house for investigators: FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE: 'We're going to be here all night with you to make sure you know exactly what you're going to do or you will die.' Throughout the night, the ringleader gave specific instructions about how he wanted Michelle to rob her own bank the next morning: FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE: 'We're going to go over this again. This is what you're going to do … When Brinks gets there, you're going to get Brinks' money.' As she huddled with Breea on the couch, now duct taped, Michelle could hear him talking to a woman on a two-way radio. Tracy Smith: That's what they called each other. Michelle Renee: Yeah, they called each other Money One to Money Two. Money One was the ringleader. Around 11, the voice on the walkie-talkie got his attention: 'Car coming up the driveway. The roommate's there.' It was their roommate Kimbra. FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE: And they put the gun right here in her face, right up her nose, and said, 'don't make us f***ing use this.' … I pushed the guy's hand out of her face and said, 'don't do this, don't hurt her.' And he just pointed it right at me and said, 'don't ever f***ing touch me again …' Michelle realized this might be the last night she ever spent with her daughter. Michelle Renee: Wondering if that was gonna be the last time I was gonna get to touch her hair and see her sleep … was pretty tough. In the morning the nightmare would continue. Michelle Renee: It was like 6 a.m. … he said 'Get up. It's time to get ready for work.' FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE: I got dressed and started doing my hair when he came in and stopped me and said, 'we need to put the dynamite on you now.' Michelle, her roommate Kimbra, and Breea would all be strapped with dynamite. Then Money One showed Michelle what looked like a doorbell. Michelle Renee: 'This is a detonation device. … you will disintegrate. Your daughter will go first.' FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE:: 'One false move, I push this button.' … And they sat me right here and said, 'now we're going to take your daughter.' The gunmen put Breea in her bedroom closet. FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE: I was just telling her I'd be right back, that everything is going to be fine. Michelle Renee: 'Be brave, Mommy' … that was the last thing she said … before I walked out to go to the bank. Tracy Smith: Did you feel brave? Michelle Renee: No. As two of the gunmen stayed in the house, Money One handed Michelle a briefcase stuffed with a duffle bag before he crouched in the back of her Jeep. With dynamite on her back and a gun to her side, she drove to work. Tracy Smith (outside of the bank): So, you pull up into your spot … What does he tell you before you get out of the car? Michelle Renee: 'Don't … don't f*** this up.' Tracy Smith: The Brinks truck came at — 8:50? Michelle Renee: I believe right around 8:50 was the drop, right over here (poins to the left side of the building from the entrance). That's when Michelle grabbed her briefcase and headed to the vault. Michelle Renee: I brought my teller in the vault with me, said … 'I'm getting ready to clear out this vault, or my daughter and I are gonna die. This is what's happened all night.' Tracy Smith: And you whispered to her 'I have dynamite on my back'? Michelle Renee: Yes. …Yeah, I whisp — I pulled my shirt up. Tracy Smith: And then you just opened up the duffel bag and started shoveling in money? Michelle Renee: I did. … My heart was racing. My –'am I fast enough?' Michelle's colleagues would alert the authorities, but not before she walked out with $360,000. Michelle Renee: … Just get to the Jeep. Hurl it in the Jeep — Tracy Smith: And go. Michelle Renee: — and just do what's next. Money One directed Michelle to get out a few blocks later. Michelle Renee: And that I would find my Jeep down the street. She found her car and raced home. Michelle Renee: I don't know if Breea's gonna be there. I don't know if she's gonna be alive when I get there … And I went to open the door, and I was just screaming … 'Hello? Hello?' … It was eerily silent. Breea Renee: And I just heard 'Breea,' and I remember screaming, 'We're back here, we're back here.' Breea was still in the closet right where Michelle had left her. Tracy Smith: What was that like to hear and see her? Michelle Renee: Oh my gosh … She was alive. … 'I did it. We did it. … we didn't die.' Breea Renee: Probably the happiest moment of my life. … But then I could still see the panic on her face. Michelle Renee: The dynamite's still on me. Before leaving, the gunmen had ripped the dynamite off of Kimbra and Breea. So, they cut it off of Michelle's back before running to the nearest neighbor. Rick Brown lived up a steep hill. Rick Brown | Neighbor: I opened the gate, went down the hill real fast, helped them up to the house. I called 911 right away. 911 DISPATCHER: Sheriff's Department, can I help you? RICK BROWN: Yes, some neighbors of ours were held hostage … I need somebody out here right away. Soon, the place was crawling with investigators from the FBI, San Diego Sheriff's Department, and the bomb squad. Tom Manning: This is the dynamite that was taken off of Michelle. San Diego County Prosecutor Tom Manning would lead the task force investigating the case. They quickly figured out the dynamite was fake. Tom Manning: They realize that it actually is two painted dowels or broomstick handles … But as you can see from a distance and the lighting, plus it's on your back with the stress of the situation, you're not gonna take a chance that it isn't real. But during the very real 14 hours they were held hostage, Michelle had held onto any detail that might help identify the attackers. Michelle Renee: Remembering details is just sort of this part of my DNA about people. That was kinda my superpower. Details like Money One's eyes. FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE: When I turned the light on to go to the bathroom … and I saw his eyes in there… I said 'those eyes were at my desk; those eyes were at my desk today. Oh my God.' Michelle says it was a man with whom she'd had an odd encounter at the bank hours before being taken hostage. Michelle Renee: And he sat at my desk for a really long time asking sorta the same questions over and over. … and then a woman walked in and said, 'Chris, we need to get going.' And they got up and left. The man had handed Michelle his business card. Michelle Renee: Christopher Butler. THE EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND After hours of police questioning, Michelle and Breea were sent to a hotel. Michelle called her brother Dave. Dave Estey: It didn't sound like her … it was — someone, you know, heavily traumatized. Dave, who lived three hours away, rushed to his sister's aid. Dave Estey: What I saw when I opened that door … it scared the daylights out of me. … 'Are you OK?' And she would shake. Tracy Smith: How about Breea? Dave Estey: Same thing. In the days ahead, Michelle struggled to hold it together for her daughter – 'She was the strongest person for me,' says Breea — while investigators wanted answers. They grilled her about that odd encounter with Christopher Butler. Tracy Smith: Why was he in the bank? What was he saying he was there for? Michelle Renee: He came in to say that he was a potential client. And that he wanted to talk about investments. Before Butler handed Michelle his business card, a woman he introduced as Lisa came in and whisked him away. Michelle Renee: 'Hey, Chris, we need to go.' It was the same voice Michelle says she heard later that night on the walkie-talkie. Michelle Renee: I kept saying it over and over. Tracy Smith: 'Check my desk. Get that card.' Michelle Renee: 'Check my desk. Get that card. …I know that it's them.' Tom Manning: Through that card, they started the investigation. The FBI soon discovered Butler was a convicted felon with a history of robbing banks. Tom Manning: They figured out where he was staying … then the team that I work with set up surveillance. Butler and his fiancée, Lisa Ramirez, lived in a house just a few miles from the bank. Tom Manning: Some of the people in the house were tellin' the police who was there, when they planned it Within days, detectives identified the two other men. Christopher Huggins – Tom Manning: He was a big guy, maybe — maybe 6'4″ he's … gang ties. And the man who'd held a gun to little Breea — a gang member called 'Bones' — real name Robert Ortiz. Tom Manning: Ortiz was the connection … who got the guns. On Dec. 1, they decided to arrest Butler and Ramirez during a traffic stop. Tom Manning (in evidence room): In the glove compartment was a weapon … it's actually a BB gun … if you look at that in a stressful situation, that looks as real as it can get. Tracy Smith: What'd they find when they popped the trunk? Tom Manning: A plethora of evidence. Tracy Smith: All this. Tom Manning: All this. … They found the black bag that Michelle described the money being carried in, several pairs of black gloves … and a homemade ski mask. Tracy Smith: Oh, yeah. Look at the eyeholes there that they clearly cut themselves. Tom Manning: Michelle's credit cards were all found in the trunk of the vehicle … and then of course the money straps from the bank. Also in the trunk, that doorbell 'detonator'. And there was even more at the house. Tom Manning: They found all the ingredients to make the fake bomb. … There were broom handles, which were cut up into small dowels which actually were used in making the fake dynamite. … They also recovered the actual spray cans … Ramirez's fingerprint was on one of those cans. Tom Manning: It was crazy. I've never seen that much physical evidence left at a crime scene. Tracy Smith: They thought they'd gotten away with it. Tom Manning: Yeah. One thing investigators didn't find on Butler and Ramirez – any of the bank's $360,000. But after arresting Huggins that same day, they did recover $93,000 of the cash that he'd stashed away. Huggins confessed and said he'd already spent several grand on a trip to Vegas. The fourth suspect, Robert Ortiz, was on the lam. When authorities arrested him three months later in Wisconsin, Ortiz still had $32,000 of the bank's money and gave a full confession. Tom Manning: Yes, very much so. Tracy Smith: So, did Huggins and Ortiz's confessions corroborate what Michelle had told investigators? Tom Manning: Yes, almost identical. Butler denied everything, even when confronted with direct evidence: his thumbprint on the fake dynamite sticks. DETECTIVE: We've got fingerprints that are yours that link you to the bank robbery. CHRISTOPHER BUTLER: I doubt that because I wasn't involved in the bank robbery. He tried to protect Ramirez. CHRISTOPHER BUTLER: Lisa wouldn't have been involved with that. But Ramirez was about to start talking. She admitted she was the female voice on the walkie-talkie. LISA RAMIREZ: That was me. DETECTIVE: That was you? LISA RAMIREZ: Mm-hmm. She even took credit for the idea to use fake dynamite and kidnap the bank manager. LISA RAMIREZ: I honestly know whose idea it was, about eight months ago. DETECTIVE: Who? LISA RAMIREZ: Jokingly, mine. Ramirez said they'd split the money three ways, but that her and Butler's share – more than $100,000 – had been stolen. And to everyone's surprise, she said Michelle was in on the plot. LISA RAMIREZ: Supposedly from what they had told me this Michelle lady was helping them. Tom Manning: We walked out of that thinking, 'OK, Lisa's the mastermind behind all this. And, is it possible Michelle's involved?' Manning says, ultimately, he knew Michelle was innocent. Tom Manning: The first time I interviewed her, she had Breea with her. And … I saw that bond and relationship. And when she left, I went, 'She's not involved in this.' But that wouldn't be enough in court. San Diego County Sheriff's detectives Rudy Zamora, Dale Martin and Randi Demers would have to rule Michelle out as a suspect. Rudy Zamora: Every time we pushed a button, she would react in a way … a true victim should. They recreated the dynamite packs and strapped them on Kimbra, Michelle and Breea. Dale Martin: She was very upset. And Michelle was emotional when asked to revisit the horrific details of the kidnapping. FBI VIDEO OF MICHELLE RENEE AT CRIME SCENE: And then they — I had to put her in there and they just shut the — shut the closet. Dale Martin: She was shaken up. I thought she was gonna have a nervous breakdown. Tracy Smith: When Michelle did those reenactments, were her story, Kimbra's story, and Breea's story consistent? Tom Manning: Yes. Completely consistent. In fact, investigators couldn't find any evidence Michelle was involved. Still, they worried as they took a deep dive into Michelle's life. Rudy Zamora: She was not our normal victim. Tom Manning: She didn't hide anything. Including the fact that for years she had worked as a stripper. Michelle Renee: I'm not embarrassed or ashamed by any of that. Michelle says it was one of the choices she had to make for survival at a young age. Michelle Renee: I ran away at 15. … I worked really, really hard to get to where I was. With no high school diploma, she had climbed the corporate ladder all the way to regional vice president before taking the bank manager job to be home more with Breea. Tracy Smith: And while you were working at the bank, you were still dancing, still stripping for a while? Michelle Renee: I was for a while …The money was really great. But more worrisome were things that went directly to Michelle's credibility. Tom Manning: She falsified resumés … claimed she had various experience, various education which she didn't have. Tracy Smith: Bounced a check, filed for bankruptcy. Tom Manning: Right. Tracy Smith: That doesn't look good. Tom Manning: It doesn't look good. …And if you're a defense attorney, you're lickin' your chops. ATTACKED AT TRIAL By spring of 2001, the suspects were in custody awaiting trial for kidnapping and bank robbery charges, but Michelle and Breea were still reeling from that night of terror. Michelle Renee: I could still hear them. I could still hear the sounds … I couldn't get it to turn off. Breea Renee: I just wanted to hide. I thought they were gonna find us. They were gonna kill us still. In June, Michelle decided to move Breea to Alaska to live with her grandmother. Michelle Renee: I was gonna fly her up there and get her to safety … I was gonna figure out what to do from there. After a few days, Michelle says she had an epiphany. Michelle Renee: To go back to San Diego and get rid of everything I could possibly get rid of and drive back to Alaska. With a dog, some cash, and a camcorder, in July she embarked on a 9-day drive to the Last Frontier. Tracy Smith: You had a deadline. Michelle Renee: I had a deadline. Breea's birthday was in nine days. And I'd promised her I'd be back before her birthday party. That's when Michelle and Breea say they began to heal. Breea Renee: Safer … I could be a kid again. By the time they returned to San Diego a year later for the trial, Michelle says she was ready. Michelle Renee: There was so much evidence. There was no way I thought that this trial was gonna be anything but … slam dunk. Butler and Ramirez would be tried first. Tracy Smith: When her case came across your desk what did you think at first? Herb Weston: She's guilty. Tracy Smith: You thought she's guilty? Herb Weston: Well, yeah. Herb Weston, who represented Lisa Ramirez, had a problem. His client had confessed on camera. DETECTIVE: There was a female voice that came out on one of those walkie-talkies. LISA RAMIREZ: That was me. Herb Weston: If they play that tape, saying that she wasn't involved woulda been difficult. Weston proposed a plea deal, hoping to save Ramirez from a potential life sentence. But the prosecution turned him down. Tom Manning: We thought we would definitely get the key statements in that she was involved. But, since Ramirez had also implicated Butler, the judge ruled her entire statement inadmissible. Herb Weston: We now can at least argue to the jury that she wasn't involved. Without her confession, the case against Ramirez relied almost entirely on Michelle — a fact Manning was keenly aware of during his opening statement to the jury on June 3, 2002. Tracy Smith: You told the jury that this case was about credibility. Tom Manning: Right … Michelle's background was gonna be an issue … I knew there were issues … but I believed her. Tracy Smith: And you thought … the jury would believe her. Tom Manning: Right. But not if the defense had its way. Tracy Smith: What was your strategy going into trial? Herb Weston: My strategy was to beat the hell out of the victim and show all these inconsistencies that the victim is saying. Tom Manning: It got very confrontational. Michelle Renee: I was really, really pissed off. That played right into Weston's hand. Herb Weston: Angry witnesses don't come across as credible. Michelle Renee: I was treated like I was the criminal. During his cross-examination, Weston implied Michelle was lying about recognizing Lisa Ramirez' voice on the walkie-talkie. Herb Weston: Well, wait a minute, ma'am. I've looked at all this stuff. … isn't this the first time you've said that? In fact, he pointed out it wasn't in any of the FBI reports. But Michelle insists she told them. Michelle Renee: I did … I 100% did. And Manning says she identified Ramirez's voice to him before taking the stand. Tracy Smith: Does it bother you that Lisa actually admitted that that was her voice on the walkie-talkie? … the fact is it was Lisa. Herb Weston: But that's not the issue. … for me it made a great opening to attack her credibility. Weston then grilled Michelle about bait money — the traceable bills banks keep in their vaults to trap bank robbers. Tracy Smith: You didn't take the bait money. Michelle Renee: Did not take the bait money. Tracy Smith: Why not? Michelle Renee: They said … 'no funny money.' Tracy Smith: You say that's suspicious, that she must have been in on it. Herb Weston: Correct. Maybe worst of all for Michelle, Weston questioned her maternal instincts. Herb Weston: Would a mother run … to a place where her daughter was … if she believes that 'I have a bomb on my back?' Tracy Smith: She wasn't sure whether her daughter was dead or alive. Don't you think it's possible she wasn't thinking straight? Herb Weston: Sure … But also what could be true is she knew there wasn't a bomb, and so she didn't have to worry about it. Michelle Renee: 100% felt like I was on trial. Dave Estey: I would be sitting in the front row. And all I could think about was … it's gonna take me … maybe six seconds to get from this point to the offender. … that is how irate I was. Tracy Smith: Day after day, listening to this. Dave Estey: Listening to this. Tracy Smith: Is it fair to beat up the victim. Herb Weston: Oh absolutely, absolutely. While Weston hammered on every decision Michelle made that day, the attorney representing Butler went after everything else. Tracy Smith: What was the worst thing they asked you? Michelle Renee: About my sex life. … They were trying to paint me as somebody that was irresponsible … A selfish, terrible mother … that … would do anything for money. And they picked apart Michelle's finances. Tom Manning: She's in … financial distress, and that could be the motive. Tracy Smith: Isn't it kinda odd that we're talking about motive when we're talking about a victim? Tom Manning: It is. … The defense in the case was to make Michelle a culprit here. After Michelle's grueling three-day testimony, it was Christopher Butler's turn. He protected Lisa Ramirez on the stand, claiming Michelle was the mastermind, and that they'd had an affair. Tom Manning: I was shocked. Michelle Renee: It's almost laughable. Tracy Smith: What was his story about how the two of you met? Michelle Renee: From what I understand … we met in a grocery store and that I recruited him. Butler claimed that he'd gone to Michelle's house that night with Huggins and Ortiz. He said that in the early morning hours while smoking pot, Michelle brought up the bank robbery idea again and decided they should do it that morning. Tracy Smith: His evidence of this, his proof of this? Tom Manning: Zero … If any of this were true, he woulda thrown Michelle down in a heartbeat in his (police) interview. The jury deliberated for five days before finding Butler guilty of the bank robbery and Breea and Kimbra's kidnapping. But they hung 9-3 on the charges of kidnapping Michelle. Tom Manning: When we talked to the jurors, you know, we discovered … it was one juror who completely believed Butler and the other two jurors … were unsure. And they found Lisa Ramirez not guilty on all counts. Herb Weston: Oh, it was the best verdict I ever got in my life. Michelle Renee: Mind-boggling. The fact it was her idea to do this to a mother and a child and laughing and proud of it. Tracy Smith: How involved do you think she was in this? Tom Manning: Very involved … the investigators kept saying … she was the brains of the outfit. Tracy Smith: So, the brains of the outfit walked. Tom Manning: Right. The second trial would go very differently, with Huggins and Ortiz easily convicted. Tracy Smith: In so many of the stories that we tell, the ending is the conviction. But in your case, in a lot of ways, that's just the beginning. FACING NEW CHALLENGES Even though the men who had terrorized them were now serving multiple life sentences, Michelle and Breea would never be the same. Breea Renee: There's aspects of that night that are gonna be with me for the rest of my life. They were treated for post-traumatic stress disorder for over two years. Michelle says dealing with the break-in led to a breakthrough. Michelle Renee: It was two choices. … call them monsters and stay angry … and blame everything in my life on them … Or … I can take this other road. Michelle Renee: The best thing I could do for Breea is to be an example. Michelle wrote a book, 'Held Hostage,' which was made into a TV movie. And she and Breea went on speaking tours to discuss their experience with trauma. Tracy Smith: A lot of people coming out of this would want to just forget about it, put it behind them. But you and your mom … talked openly about it. Breea Renee: Yes. And I think it was the best decision for us. Breea Renee: I was showing people that it's not always the end-all, be-all when something bad happens to you. You can come out of it stronger. And by 2011, the girl who had hidden from everything was a high school senior and competitive cheerleader. Michelle Renee: She really turned the corner and started enjoying her life again. Michelle Renee: She loved it. It was her absolute passion. Tracy Smith: You're thriving. You're living the dream. You said you dreamed of this. You were living the dream. Breea Renee: Yes, I was. Then suddenly … Breea Renee: Senior year in December, I started feeling a little off. … I was dropping things. Michelle Renee: Showed up at my work at 6 o'clock, dragging her leg … going 'Mommy, something's really wrong. Something's wrong. I don't know what's happening.' Breea Renee: I said … 'Mom, I'm really scared.' They had no idea Breea was in for the fight of her life. Michelle Renee: We rushed her to the hospital. And they started pricking her leg and she couldn't feel it. And her heart rate started going crazy. Tracy Smith: Oh my gosh. Breea Renee: By 8 p.m. that night, I was paralyzed on my left side, couldn't talk, couldn't swallow, blind in my left eye. Michelle Renee: 'We found abnormalities in the brain' is all they could tell me that night. Tracy Smith: It almost sounds like there's that same feeling of helplessness that you had the night that you were held hostage. Michelle Renee: Completely. The next morning, Breea was diagnosed with an acute onset of multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease in which the body's immune system attacks its own tissues. Michelle Renee: Based on the scans, she has … tumefactive MS, which is not only rare in and of itself, but people Breea's age at 18 …rarely get MS. Breea says she was told she might never walk or talk again. Tracy Smith: Just like that. Breea Renee: Just like that. … My life just ended again … I was 18 trying to go off to college, do cheer in college, and that was never gonna happen for me. Tracy Smith: So much of your healing had been talking …. and now you couldn't talk? Breea Renee: Now I couldn't talk … I couldn't feed myself anymore. Michelle Renee: She had to relearn all of that. But it was as if they had been training for this for years. Tracy Smith: Do you think in some way what happened to you when you were seven prepared you for battling MS? Breea Renee: Yes … I think it made me strong enough to go through what I went through with MS. Michelle Renee: It was here we go again, here we go again. Breea would spend six weeks in the hospital. Breea Renee: Two to three times a day of physical therapy, occupational … therapy, speech therapy. Michelle Renee: After she could talk again … she turned to me and said, 'Kidnapping was a piece of cake compared to this.' And just as with the kidnapping, Breea wanted to inspire others. Michelle Renee: She wrote her college essay from her hospital room, from her wheelchair and said, 'I'm going to college. I am going to be the first person in my family to graduate college no matter what.' BREEA RENEE (video of her reading college essay in the hospital): I now know that there is no time to waste. Life can change so suddenly. She chronicled her journey on her Facebook page. Michelle Renee: She fought tooth and nail every single day for every single step she took. She walked outta the hospital. This time it was Michelle doing the cheerleading. Dave Estey: The rehab started … in the hospital. But the real rehab was Michelle constantly on her, 'we're gonna do this.' Michelle Renee: We were a total team. We just ended up going into full gear. We lived in a house with stairs. … She couldn't do stairs anymore. Tracy Smith: So once again, you're out of a home that you've been living in? Michelle Renee: Right, and I had to … become her full-time caregiver for about a year-and-a half, two years. … and rebuilding our life, again. Despite the odds, she made it to college. Michelle Renee: She relapsed three times her first year in college and had to come home. But she did it. Dave Estey: She follows in her mom's footsteps … I mean with the tenacity, and the never give up … philosophy that they have. Breea is walking, talking proof. Tracy Smith: So, they told you would never walk again? Breea Renee: Yeah. I'd never walk again, never see again, never anything like that… Tracy Smith: And? Breea Renee: I would say I beat the odds. Tracy Smith: Yet again. Breea Renee: Yes, exactly. But 20 years after their world first came crashing down, they'd be faced with the unimaginable once again. Christopher Butler could be released. SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT From the very beginning, the case hit close to home for prosecutor Tom Manning. Tom Manning: The fact that there was a little girl. My daughter was the same age as Breea when this happened. Nearly 20 years later, in June 2020, Christopher Butler was up for parole. Michelle Renee: He's the one who lied about me. Manning made sure he was at the hearing. Tracy Smith: And you had a plan going in. Tom Manning: I did. He saw a chance to set the record straight by asking Butler about the story he'd told on the stand. Tom Manning: I told Michelle if I felt it was right, I was gonna go for it. Tracy Smith: What'd you think … about that? Michelle Renee: Go for it … ask away. Tracy Smith: Even though that's risky? Michelle Renee: It's a little risky … this guy could go to the grave with these lies. The risk paid off. Butler recanted his whole story, admitting he and Michelle never had a relationship. Tracy Smith: How did that feel to hear that? Michelle Renee: Hmm … it's about time … I wanted everybody who ever doubted me to read this parole transcript. I wanna blast it all over the internet … that there was never, ever a chance … that I would ever, ever have been involved in anything like this, ever. Breea says it's a bittersweet victory for her mom. Breea Renee: It feels good, but it's a little too late. … You can search my mom's name and it can come up on the internet. You can't take that back. Dave Estey: Why is it take him so long to come clean? And it's probably because he had an opportunity to be free. Even though Butler was unequivocal that Michelle was not involved – Michelle Renee: He still hasn't really taken responsibility. He blamed his old flame Lisa Ramirez. But Butler said he was sorry for what he'd put his victims through, and even said he'd read Michelle's book more than once. Tracy Smith: He … said some of the passages in your book really got to him. Michelle Renee: Yeah … on the road trip to Alaska … I really started to think about what it would be like to try to just understand. Michelle says that's when she started to wonder about the people behind the masks. Michelle Renee: This is someone's son. … This is someone's brother. This is someone's grandson. …What happened to them in their life that got them to the point where they thought … the only option was to attack a mother and her daughter? Tracy Smith: Do you accept Christopher Butler's apology? Michelle Renee: I do … Yeah, 1000%. … I appreciate him finally being honest after all this time … I hope he keeps digging deeper. Breea Renee: Yeah. I forgave him a long time ago and I accept his apology. But neither Breea nor Michelle want Butler released. He's already been denied parole twice. The irony isn't lost on Dave. Dave Estey: All he really did is free everybody else … he's held hostage with his lie. Michelle Renee: In a very weird … way, I could breathe … I could exhale finally after all this time. While they don't believe Butler has changed his ways, they feel very differently about the other two men who held them hostage. Breea Renee: They confessed … they take accountability for what they did. And that's a big thing. Tracy Smith: Are you actually rooting for these guys to succeed at this point? Breea Renee: Yes, yes. … They were younger … than what I am now … if they are doing the work, I want nothing but the best for them. Especially Robert Ortiz. Michelle Renee: At the sentencing Robert Ortiz is the only one that turned around and looked at me and said, 'I'm sorry' … he mouthed it. They wrote to Ortiz back in 2011 and received a reply 9 years later. Michelle Renee: Out of respect for him, I'm not going to say everything that's in the letter. … I can say that … it's beautiful. … It's heartfelt. … And … I can't wait to see where that leads. Tracy Smith: This is the young man who held a gun to your daughter's head. Michelle Renee: Yes, and she spoke at his parole hearing in his favor. In the meantime, Michelle has written her follow-up book about the road trip that changed her point of view. Michelle Renee: It is about healing … it's called 'Nine Days,' which is how long I was on the road to Alaska. Dave Estey: I do believe that through this terrible … tragedy that something beautiful was meant to come about. … It has built these people into these incredible human beings. And through it all, they say they wouldn't change a thing — even the kidnapping. Tracy Smith: So, if you look back at the last 20 years, what has this journey been about? Michelle Renee: Raising a remarkable daughter … It's the best thing I've ever done in my life, is be her mom. Tracy Smith: It seems like both of you look at this at least a tiny bit as a gift. Breea Renee: Uh-huh. Yeah … I wouldn't change it. … it … gave us the chance to build the bond that we have today. And it's just gotten stronger … Yeah. Robert Ortiz was granted parole in January 2021. Christopher Butler was granted parole in December 2024. Christopher Huggins was granted parole in March 2025. Produced by Gayane Keshishyan Mendez. Michael McHugh is the producer/editor. Emma Steele, Lauren Turner Dunn, and Danielle Arman are the associate producers. Greg McLaughlin and Diana Modica are the editors. Peter Schweitzer is the senior producer. Nancy Kramer is the executive story editor. Judy Tygard is the executive producer. More from CBS News Tracy Smith Tracy Smith is an award-winning correspondent for 'CBS News Sunday Morning' and '48 Hours,' who joined CBS News in 2000. Smith has covered a wide range of subjects, producing revealing interviews with news-making artists to moving, in-depth reporting.
Wakala News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Wakala News
Why is Bangladesh's interim leader Muhammad Yunus considering resigning?
On the surface, it was a routine closed-door meeting between Bangladesh's interim leader and Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus and the chiefs of the country's three armed forces, to discuss law and order. But the May 20 meeting came amid what multiple officials familiar with the internal workings of the government described to Al Jazeera as an intensifying power struggle in Dhaka. Portrayed in both social and mainstream media in Bangladesh as a 'cold war' between the armed forces and the interim administration, these tensions now threaten the future of Yunus's role, nine months after he took charge following the ousting of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the ruling Awami League. Hasina fled to India in August 2024 amid a mass uprising against her 15-year-long rule, during which she was accused of orchestrating extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. We unpack the latest tumult in Bangladesh, and what it means for the country's fledgling efforts to return to electoral democracy. Why are tensions mounting between the military and the government? The Bangladesh Army has remained deployed since July 2024, following the mass protests that led to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's ouster. Their continued presence was necessitated by the collapse of civilian law enforcement during the upheaval, including a nationwide police strike that left many stations abandoned and public order in disarray. Although the police resumed operations in mid-August, the army's presence has been maintained as part of a civil-military consensus, because of unrest in the country. On Wednesday, Bangladesh's army chief, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, publicly urged that national elections be held by December this year, warning that prolonged deployment of the army for civil duties could compromise the country's defences. According to a report by The Daily Star, General Waker told a high-level gathering at Dhaka Cantonment, 'Bangladesh needs political stability. This is only possible through an elected government, not by unelected decision-makers.' The comments came during a rare address in which he delivered a 30-minute speech, followed by more than an hour of questions and answers. Officers from across the country and at Bangladeshi UN missions reportedly joined the event, both physically and virtually, in full combat uniform – a show of unity and resolve. 'The army is meant for defending the nation, not for policing … We must return to barracks after elections,' Waker was quoted in The Daily Star as saying. His remarks indicate a difference of opinion with the Yunus administration's stated intention of holding elections no earlier than mid-2026, to allow time for political and electoral reforms first, in order to ensure a fair election. According to local media reports, Waker is also strongly opposed to key initiatives being considered by the interim government. On a proposed humanitarian corridor into Myanmar's Rakhine State, he reportedly said: 'There will be no corridor. The sovereignty of Bangladesh is not negotiable.' He warned that any such move could drag Bangladesh into a dangerous proxy conflict. 'Only a political government elected by the people can make such decisions,' he said, according to the paper. The army chief also voiced concern about making other decisions without an electoral mandate – including the potential foreign management of Chattogram Port, Bangladesh's main seaport, and the launch of Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite internet service – which he said could compromise national security. 'The army will not allow anyone to compromise our sovereignty,' The Daily Star quoted him as saying. His remarks came amid widespread speculation – still unaddressed by either the military or the government – that the Yunus administration had attempted to remove General Waker from his post last week. Though unconfirmed, the rumour has dominated public discourse and prompted questions about civil-military relations during the transitional period. The timing, therefore, of General Waker's assertive public statement – and its emphasis on constitutional process and national sovereignty – is widely viewed as a signal of growing unease within the military over the interim government's expanding civilian initiatives, according to analysts. Are there tensions with political parties as well? Yes. Since its formation on August 8 last year, the interim government has faced escalating pressure from different sides. While the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) insists that national elections must be held by December, the National Citizen Party (NCP) – a student-led party formed earlier this year – and several other political groups argue that sweeping reforms and the prosecution of former Awami League (AL) leaders for killings resulting from the brutal crackdown on student-led protests last year must precede any election. Bangladesh's largest political party, the BNP, has launched a wave of protests over other demands as well, including that its candidate, who lost an allegedly rigged mayoral election in Dhaka on February 1, 2020, under the Awami League regime, be reinstated as mayor. On Thursday, the BNP held a news conference demanding an election by the end of the year, as well as the resignation of two student advisers and the national security adviser. The party warned that without these steps, continued cooperation with the Yunus-led administration would become untenable. On Saturday, Yunus is expected to meet with both the BNP and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (BJI), the largest Islamic political party in Bangladesh. Is Yunus preparing to resign? Amid this growing turbulence, speculation has intensified that Yunus may be preparing to resign. Local media began reporting that he had indicated that he intended to step down and address the nation in a televised statement, during a cabinet meeting on Thursday afternoon, following widespread social media chatter. That evening, Nahid Islam – a student leader from the July uprising against the previous government and now head of the newly formed National Citizen Party (NCP) – met Yunus along with two student advisers to make an appeal for him to stay on. After the meeting, Nahid confirmed to BBC Bangla that Yunus was seriously considering stepping down. By Friday evening (13:00 GMT), sources within the interim administration told Al Jazeera that Yunus was still weighing his options. However, two government sources said Yunus is likely to convene an emergency cabinet meeting on Saturday, during which he is expected to discuss the next course of action. One of the sources confirmed that Yunus's resignation remains a possibility. Why might Yunus want to resign? Yunus is contemplating resigning because of intensifying political pressure, according to local media reports. Two advisers quoted in the Samakal newspaper said Yunus told cabinet members on Thursday that the political parties and other government institutions had failed to deliver on promises to cooperate with the transitional government to implement state reforms and a peaceful democratic transition since the fall of Hasina's government last year. It had become impossible to carry out his responsibilities, he was reported as saying. Pressure is also mounting to hold an election. 'The prospect of a fair election in the current situation is slim,' he said. He was concerned any election would be interfered with or rigged and he did not want to have to take responsibility for it. Later on Thursday evening, Yunus met Information Adviser Mahfuj Alam, Local Government Adviser Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain and NCP convenor Nahid Islam at his official residence, the Jamuna State Guest House in Dhaka. Speaking to BBC Bangla afterwards, Nahid confirmed Yunus was considering resigning and quoted him as saying he felt 'held hostage' by protests and political gridlock. 'I cannot work like this if you, all the political parties, cannot reach a common ground,' Nahid quoted Yunus as saying. He urged the interim leader to 'remain strong', stressing the hopes the public had pinned on him after the July uprising that ousted the Awami League government. Meanwhile, Yunus's ambitious reform agenda is reportedly faltering, with analysts noting that key arms of the state – including the police and civil bureaucracy – are increasingly slipping beyond the interim government's control. One striking example among many, they say, is a proposal to split the National Board of Revenue (NBR), the country's authority for tax administration, overseeing the collection of income tax, value-added tax (VAT) and customs duties, into two separate entities – a move that the government says is aimed at enhancing efficiency and the integrity of Bangladesh's tax system. This has been met with strong resistance from senior officials of the NBR over fears that experienced revenue officers will be sidelined. What does the BNP want? Speaking to Al Jazeera, BNP leader Amir Khasru Mahmud Chowdhury said his party does not want Yunus to resign. 'Nobody asked for his resignation, and we do not want him to do so,' he stated. 'The people are waiting to cast their vote and bring back democracy. They have been deprived of this for nearly two decades,' said Khasru. 'We expect him to go for a free and fair election and peacefully hand over power. That's how he came in.' He questioned the delay in setting an election timeline. 'What is the wait for? This is something (about which) a very strong conversation is going on in the country.' Khasru said the BNP wants the administration to move into caretaker mode – with a leaner cabinet and the removal of some controversial figures, particularly those with political ambitions or affiliations. 'They have already floated a political party,' he said, referring to the student representatives. 'Others made partisan statements. These should go if you're serious about a credible election.' He dismissed any contradiction between reforms and elections, saying both could move forward simultaneously. 'Where there is consensus, reforms can be completed within weeks.' Khasru also voiced confidence in the Election Commission and the role of the army in ensuring a fair vote. 'This is not the era of Sheikh Hasina,' he remarked, suggesting a more conducive political environment for elections. On the question of trying former Awami League leaders, he said judicial processes could continue in parallel. 'The judiciary must do its job – the elected government will continue if more is needed.' 'BNP suffered the most under the previous regime,' he added. 'The trials are a national consensus.' BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed echoed this sentiment in a TV interview on Friday: 'If Yunus is personally unable to carry out his duties, the state will find an alternative.' But he added: 'As a globally respected figure, we hope he will understand the situation and announce an election roadmap by December.' What do other political parties want? NCP's Senior Joint Convenor Ariful Islam Adeeb rejected the BNP's narrative, telling Al Jazeera: 'All parties were meant to support the interim government after the July uprising, but the BNP stuck to old tactics based on muscle power – that's the root of the crisis.' He urged unity, saying: 'BNP and all other parties must come together for the national interest.' Meanwhile, demonstrations and behind-the-scenes meetings continued across Dhaka. On Thursday evening, top leaders of five political parties, including the NCP, attended an emergency meeting at the headquarters of another Islamic political party, Islami Andolan Bangladesh (IAB), called by its chief Mufti Syed Muhammad Rezaul Karim. They urged all 'anti-fascist forces' to unite, defend national sovereignty, and support a credible election under Yunus after key reforms. Several of these parties, including BJI, argue that elections must come after key reforms – such as adopting a proportional voting system and ensuring accountability for past abuses – to prevent any repeat of past authoritarian practices. They believe holding elections without these changes would undermine public trust and risk another crisis. BJI chief Shafiqur Rahman joined the IAB meeting via phone and endorsed the resolution. On Thursday, he urged Yunus to convene an all-party dialogue to resolve the crisis. Then, on Friday night, BJI's Shafiqur Rahman requested a meeting with Yunus, proposing to convene at 12:00 GMT (6pm local time) on Saturday. Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday night, NCP Joint Convenor Sarwar Tushar said: 'Whatever the rumours, we believe Dr Muhammad Yunus is committed to his historic responsibility. 'There is massive expectation – both from the international community and the people,' he added. While acknowledging political divisions, Tushar said: 'If everyone moves beyond party agendas and focuses on a national agenda, the crisis can be resolved through dialogue.' What can we expect next? Political analyst Rezaul Karim Rony told Al Jazeera that talk of Yunus's resignation may reflect growing frustration over the lack of unity within the transitional setup. 'The unity that had formed around the post-uprising interim government appears to be weakening due to vested interests,' he said. 'The resignation talk might be a signal underscoring the need to rebuild that unity.' Rony suggested that certain government appointments may have alienated political parties, raising questions about whether some actors have agendas beyond the official reform mandate. 'This could be one reason why the government is struggling to gain broad political cooperation and function effectively,' he noted. Rony added: 'At this point, advocating for elections may (make the administration) appear politically aligned with the BNP. But in the end, it should be up to the people to decide who they want to lead.' NCP's Nahid Islam, however, sees otherwise. He warned in a Facebook post on Friday night: 'There's a conspiracy to sabotage the democratic transition and stage another 1/11-style arrangement.' The term '1/11' refers to January 11, 2007, when the military-backed caretaker government took control in Bangladesh amid political chaos and ruled for two years, suspending democratic processes. 'Bangladesh has repeatedly been divided, national unity destroyed, to keep the country weak,' Nahid wrote. Urging Yunus to stay in office and deliver on promises of reform, justice and voting rights, he said, 'Dr Yunus must resolve all political crises while in office.' He also outlined NCP's demands: a timely July declaration, elections within the announced timeframe (Yunus has repeatedly promised that the election will be held between December 2025 to July 2026), a July Charter with core reforms before polls, visible justice for the July killings, and a roadmap for a new constitution through simultaneous elections to a Constituent Assembly and legislature. Meanwhile, public anxiety is rising. On Friday, the Bangladesh Army issued a Facebook alert debunking a fake media release circulated a day earlier, which falsely used the military's logo in what it described as 'an apparent attempt to sow confusion and create rifts' between the armed forces and the public. 'Do not believe rumours. Do not be misled,' the statement warned. As the weekend approaches, all eyes are on Muhammad Yunus – and whether he will resign, stand firm, or forge a new consensus to lead the country through its second transition since last year's dramatic uprising.
Wakala News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Wakala News
‘Warzone': Why Indian forces have launched a deadly assault on Maoists
Raipur, Chhattisgarh – Indian security forces have launched an all-out war against Maoist fighters in Chhattisgarh state, as the federal government aims to 'wipe out' long-running armed rebellions in the mineral-rich tribal region of the country. The Karrigatta hills forest, which straddles across Chhattisgarh and Telangana states, has turned into a 'warzone' with more than 10,000 Indian soldiers deployed in the anti-Maoist operation – dubbed 'Operation Zero or Kagar'. The right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which runs both the state as well as the central government, has drastically escalated security operations, killing at least 201 Maoist rebels, also known as Naxals, this year. At least 27 rebels were killed on Wednesday, including the leader of the Maoists. In the past 16 months, more than 400 alleged Maoist rebels have been killed in Chhattisgarh state, home to a sizable population of Adivasis (meaning original inhabitants or Indigenous people). But activists are alarmed: They say many of those killed are innocent Adivasis. And campaigners and opposition leaders are urging the government to cease fire and hold talks with Maoist rebels to find a solution to the decades-old issue. More than 11,000 civilians and security forces have been killed in clashes involving Maoist fighters between 2000 and 2024, according to official figures. Security forces have killed at least 6,160 Maoist fighters during the same period, according to police and Maoist figures. So, will the government's hardline approach help bring peace, or will it further alienate the Adivasis, who are already one of the most marginalised groups in the country? Who are the Maoists, and why are they fighting against the Indian state? The armed rebellion in India originated in a 1967 rural uprising in the small town of Naxalbari, located in West Bengal state. The word Naxal comes from the town's name. Led by communist leaders Kanu Sanyal, Charu Majumdar, and Jungle Santal, the armed uprising called for addressing the issues of landlessness and exploitation of the rural poor by landlords. The three leaders founded the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (CPI(ML)) on April 22, 1969, to wage armed rebellion against the Indian state. They believed that their demands were not going to be met by the prevailing democratic set-up. The Naxal rebels were also inspired by the revolutionary ideology of the Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Modelled on the Chinese communist party's approach to capturing the state, they waged a violent rebellion against the Indian security forces in mineral-rich central and eastern India for decades. The West Bengal government, led by Congress leader Siddhartha Shankar Ray, launched a fierce campaign to suppress the Naxalite uprising. I once again assure the countrymen that India is sure to be Naxal-free by 31 March 2026 by Amit Shah, home minister Sanyal, one of the founding leaders of the movement, told this reporter in 2010 that 'by 1973, at least 32,000 Naxalites or sympathisers had been jailed across India.' 'Many were killed in fake encounters. And when the Emergency was declared in June 1975, it was clear- the sun had almost set on the Naxalite movement,' he said. He died in 2010, aged 78, apparently by suicide in Siliguri. Over the years, the CPI(ML) splintered into multiple parties, more than 20 of which still exist. The main CPI(ML) itself gave up armed struggle, expressed faith in the Indian Constitution and began participating in electoral politics. Currently, it is a legally recognised political organisation with several legislators. Meanwhile, in 1980, one of the splinters, the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People's War, was founded by Kondapalli Seetharamayya and Kolluri Chiranjeevi in Andhra Pradesh. Another major breakaway faction, the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), had a base in Bihar and West Bengal states. In September 2004, the MCC and CPI(ML) People's War merged, resulting in the formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the largest armed Maoist organisation in India today. The organisation's most recent general secretary, Nambala Keshava Rao, alias Basavaraj, was killed by security forces on Wednesday in Bastar, Chhattisgarh – the last stronghold of Maoists. Has the BJP intensified the campaign against Maoists? The BJP-run Chhattisgarh state government has adopted a more aggressive stance against Maoists compared with the previous government led by the Congress party. At least 141 Maoists were killed between 2020 and 2023, when the Congress party was in power, but after the BJP came to power, security forces claimed to have killed 223 alleged Maoists in 2024 alone, according to government figures. 'For the past 15 months, our security personnel have been strongly fighting the Naxals,' Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai told Al Jazeera. 'This action is part of the broader efforts, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, to make India free from Naxalism. This is a decisive phase, and we are advancing rapidly in that direction,' he said. The security forces have currently surrounded suspected Maoist hideouts in Karigatta Hills, with the army's helicopters assisting in the operation, according to authorities. Whether it's the Maoists or the DRG, the one who kills is tribal and the one who dies is also tribal by Former Member of Parliament Arvind Netam On May 14, India's Home Minister Amit Shah announced the killing of 31 fighters in the Karrigatta Hills. 'I once again assure the countrymen that India is sure to be Naxal-free by 31 March 2026,' Shah reiterated in his post on X. Overall, nearly 66,000 security personnel spanning a range of paramilitary and special forces have been deployed in Chhattisgarh. The latest operation, which involves more than 10,000 soldiers, centres around the mineral-rich Bastar region of Chhattisgarh, which spans 38,932 square kilometres (15,032sq miles) – an area nearly the size of the US state of Kentucky. The government has set up approximately 320 security camps in Bastar alone – home to three million people. The number of personnel at each security camp fluctuates depending on the requirement: It can be as low as 150 personnel and rise up to 1,200. They include security forces, as well as technical staff. Security camps are often equipped with surveillance and communication equipment to assist in the operation against the rebels. The 20,000-strong local police force is also helping in the operations in Bastar. The use of cutting-edge technology, such as advanced drones equipped with high-definition cameras and thermal imaging sensors, has helped security forces monitor Maoist activity in the region's dense forests. However, local villagers allege that security forces have carried out aerial bombings in various parts of Bastar using large drones. Maoist groups have also accused the forces of conducting air strikes. Security forces have consistently denied these allegations. Shah, the home minister, has made frequent visits to Chhattisgarh, even spending nights with security forces in Bastar. But the federal government of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who preceded Modi in India's top executive office, had also taken a tough stance against Naxals. Singh even called Naxalism the 'greatest internal security threat' to India, and his government launched a major crackdown in 2009 under what it called 'Operation Green Hunt' to quash the armed rebellion. Amid allegations of human rights violations, Indian security forces managed to reduce the terrain controlled by the Maoists. In the 2000s, Naxals controlled nearly one-third of India's mineral-rich tribal areas, known euphemistically as the Red Corridor, straddling the states of Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand and Maharashtra, among others. But the number of districts where Maoists wield significant influence had declined from 126 in 2013 to just 38 by April last year. As the government claims success in its military offensive, human rights groups such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) accuse the security forces of carrying out fake encounters or extrajudicial killings. 'A large-scale military campaign is being carried out under the pretext of eliminating Maoists,' Junas Tirkey, the president of the PUCL in Chhattisgarh state, said. 'Since 2024, violence, human rights violations, and militarisation have increased sharply in Bastar. Innocent tribals are being killed in fake encounters,' he told Al Jazeera. Since 2024, violence, human rights violations, and militarisation have increased sharply in Bastar. Innocent tribals are being killed in fake encounters by Junas Tirkey, president of the PUCL in Chhattisgarh The PUCL has identified at least 11 incidents as fake encounters over the past one and a half years. On March 25, police claimed it had killed Maoist rebels Sudhakar alias Sudhir, Pandru Atra, and Mannu Barsa in Bordga village, Bijapur, about 160km (100 miles) east of Bastar. But villagers allege the police's version is false. They claim that the police surrounded the village at night, took 17 people away, released seven, shot three, and took the remaining seven with them. The government has denied the allegations, but no independent investigation has been conducted in this case. The regular magisterial inquiry, which is carried out after so-called encounters, is not considered credible by rights groups and tribal communities as it is largely based on the police version of events. 'It's true that Sudhakar was a Maoist and came to visit someone in the village. But the police captured Sudhakar, my brother and others alive, took them away, and later shot them, falsely declaring it an encounter,' the brother of Mannu Barsa, Manesh Barsa, told Al Jazeera. Inspector general of police of Bastar region, Pattilingam Sundarraj, disagreed with these allegations. He claimed that Maoists often pressure locals to fabricate accusations against the police following encounters. However, multiple so-called encounters in Bastar have been proven fake in the past, and in most cases, justice has evaded victims. Even if they are eliminated from Bastar, Maoism is an ideology that cannot be defeated through violence alone by Former DGP Vishwaranjan Out of thousands of so-called encounters in Bastar in the last 25 years, only two have faced judicial inquiry. On June 28, 2012, 17 Adivasis, including six minors, were killed in Sarkeguda village in Bijapur district. On May 17, 2013, four minors were among eight Adivasis killed in Edasmeta village in the same district. The inquiries led by High Court judges found all victims to be innocent. The reports were released in 2022 during the previous Congress rule, though no police cases have been registered against any personnel to date. Even peaceful protests against mining projects and the militarisation of the region have been met with harsh crackdowns. The Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM), led by Adivasis, was banned last year for 'opposing development' and 'resisting security forces'. Dozens of Adivasi youth associated with MBM have been arrested since 2021. Why is the recruitment of former Maoists in government forces criticised? The recruitment of Adivasis, many of them former Maoists, in recent years by the authorities seems to have turned the tide in favour of the government. The then-BJP state government started to incorporate Adivasis, particularly former Maoists, in the District Reserve Guard (DRG) force in 2008 with the aim of using them in anti-Maoist operations. The idea: Former Maoists are better at navigating dense jungle terrain and know about Maoist hideouts. But past records have raised concerns. Adivasis enlisted as Special Police Officers (SPOs), as they were called, have been accused of rights violations. In 2005, the state government ruled by the Congress government launched a campaign against Maoists called Salwa Judum (meaning 'peace march' in the local Gondi language). Salwa Judum members were armed and were later designated as SPOs and paid 1,500 rupees/month ($17/month). On one hand, the government itself had proposed dialogue with the Maoists. But now, that same government has turned Bastar into a warzone by Soni Sori, Adivasi activist But Salwa Judum members faced accusations of rape, arson, torture and murder. In 2011, the Supreme Court declared Salwa Judum illegal and slammed the state for arming civilians. Subsequently, many SPOs were absorbed into the DRG. DRG personnel have also been accused of rights abuses, but such cases have rarely been investigated. Campaigners have also questioned the policy of using surrendered Maoists in combat instead of rehabilitating them. 'The manner in which SPOs were incorporated into the DRG is disturbing. It shows how tribal youth involved in violence were again handed guns under the pretext of rehabilitation,' lawyer and human rights activist Priyanka Shukla told Al Jazeera. Former Member of Parliament Arvind Netam believes Bastar is 'in a state of civil war'. In a situation like this, he says, it's the tribals who suffer the most. 'Whether it's the Maoists or the DRG, the one who kills is tribal and the one who dies is also tribal,' Netam, a tribal leader, told Al Jazeera. Campaigners have argued that Chhattisgarh's new rehabilitation policy, which promises bounties and cash rewards, incentivises people to turn on each other for money, often with allegations that may be legally untenable. Why has the government resisted calls for a ceasefire? Interestingly, while the government has intensified its offensive, it has also continued to offer peace talks to Maoists. 'We still reiterate, Maoists should come forward for dialogue after laying down their arms. Our doors for talks within the framework of the Indian Constitution are always open,' Chhattisgarh's Home Minister Vijay Sharma told local media last week. The Maoists, however, insist on a ceasefire and withdrawal of paramilitary forces as conditions for talks. They argue that peace talks and military operations cannot run simultaneously. In a statement, CPI (Maoist) spokesperson Abhay said, 'The right to life guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is being crushed by the government itself … On one hand, our party is trying to initiate unconditional dialogue, and on the other hand, ongoing killings of Maoists and tribals render the peace process meaningless.' Activists have raised concerns regarding the plight of Adivasi communities. Soni Sori, an Adivasi social activist from Bastar, believes the government must take the initiative for peace talks. 'On one hand, the government itself had proposed dialogue with the Maoists. But now, that same government has turned Bastar into a warzone,' Sori told Al Jazeera. 'Given the way these operations are being conducted, the government should halt them, foster an environment conducive to dialogue, and take meaningful steps toward initiating peace talks.' Human rights activists, academics and students have been targeted after being dubbed Naxal sympathisers. A 90 percent disabled professor from Delhi University, GN Saibaba was jailed for backing Maoists. Last October, he died months after being acquitted by the country's top court after a decade of incarceration. But state Chief Minister Sai says there will be no leniency in this matter. 'Naxal eradication is not just a campaign but a mission to secure Bastar and Chhattisgarh's future,' he said. Is Maoist support declining? In 2011, then-Director General of Police of Chhattisgarh Vishwaranjan estimated approximately 10,000 armed Maoists and 40,000 militia members in the Bastar region. Accurate numbers are hard to determine. The rebels were able to carry out deadly attacks against the security forces. In 2010, they killed 76 paramilitary troops in a forest ambush in Chhattisgarh. Three years later, dozens of people, including the Congress leader who founded the Salwa Judum, were killed in a rebel ambush. Current Bastar IGP Sundarraj P estimates about 1,000 armed Maoists remain, along with 15,000 affiliated individuals. Internal Maoist reports acknowledge declining recruitment, smaller units, and ammunition shortages. Of the 40 central committee and politburo members, only 18 remain free – the rest are either dead or arrested. Meanwhile, security forces have expanded, built new camps, and improved intelligence and training, while Maoists' base areas are shrinking. While our government is running an anti-Naxal campaign, we are also actively working on development projects Former DGP Vishwaranjan says Maoists are weakened in Chhattisgarh, but they have expanded into neighbouring Madhya Pradesh. 'Even if they are eliminated from Bastar, Maoism is an ideology that cannot be defeated through violence alone,' he told Al Jazeera. 'As long as we build a society on economic inequality, the ideology may resurface in a new form.' Defending his government's policies, Chief Minister Sai said that 'security and development go hand in hand.' 'While our government is running an anti-Naxal campaign, we are also actively working on development projects,' he said. Is the real fight over iron ore? Naxals have invoked the exploitation of natural resources, particularly through mining leases issued to global corporations, and the displacement of local communities, as their reasons for picking up guns in mineral-rich areas of the country. Thousands of Adivasis have been displaced and their local environments severely damaged due to mining activities. Of the 51 mineral leases in Bastar, 36 are held by private firms, including global steel major ArcelorMittal. Former MLA and tribal leader Manish Kunjam echoes a similar sentiment, arguing, 'The real issue is iron ore.' According to the Indian government, 19 percent of the country's iron ore reserves are in Chhattisgarh, mainly in Bastar. Chhattisgarh accounts for 18 percent of India's railway freight revenue, largely from mineral transport – and this is growing. Kunjam explained that when the corporations Tata and Essar began their projects in 2005 to mine iron ore, the state launched Salwa Judum, evacuating 644 villages under the pretext of Maoist fear. At least 350,000 people were displaced. However, strong tribal resistance forced the companies to withdraw. 'Learning from that failure, the government has now set up security camps in mining zones, preparing for renewed extraction,' he said. 'Without village council approval, mining cannot proceed. If tribals protest, they will be labelled as Maoists or sympathisers and dealt with accordingly.' A closer look at his claims reveals that most camps are indeed in areas where mining has begun or is about to. In Bastar's mining belt, there is one soldier for every nine tribals. Many of these camps are funded by mining companies. But Chief Minister Sai believes that the mineral resources in tribal areas should be utilised. by Sushil Anand Shukla, opposition Congress party spokesperson 'The lives of tribals will change with the beginning of mining and industrial activities,' he said. He boasted that Chhattisgarh ranks second among mineral-producing states (after Odisha), earning approximately 14.19 billion rupees ($1.71bn) last year. This year, the state has allocated 48 major mineral blocks to private companies in the state. But mass poverty and lack of basic health facilities expose the government's claims. Netam, the tribal leader, pointed out that the state has an infant mortality rate of nearly 38 per 1,000 live births, compared to the national infant mortality rate of 28 per 1,000 live births. In Bastar, he said, poverty is 80 percent. The opposition Congress spokesperson Sushil Anand Shukla claimed that under the guise of mining, preparations were under way to completely displace tribals from Bastar. 'Today, Bastar stands on the brink of war, and its answers cannot be found by looking to the past. The government must stop surrendering to corporate houses and mining companies at the cost of evicting tribals,' Sushil Anand Shukla says. 'The idea of generating revenue at the cost of tribal lives is dangerous and unconstitutional,' he told Al Jazeera.
