PBS NewsHour full episode Jan. 3, 2020

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Last night, at my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless
precision strike that killed the number one terrorist anywhere in the world, Qasem Soleimani. JUDY WOODRUFF: A U.S. airstrike kills one
of Iran’s top military leaders, escalating tensions to a new level. As Tehran vows to retaliate, we consider what
the strike means for U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East and around the world. And it’s Friday. Mark Shields and David Brooks are here to
analyze today’s Iran news and the Democratic presidential campaign with exactly one month
to go before the Iowa caucuses. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: An elite Iranian general is
dead, and the United States and Iran are closer to conflict. The U.S. military killed Qasem Soleimani in
Iraq today. Washington called it self-defense. Tehran called it a crime and vowed vengeance. Foreign affairs correspondent Nick Schifrin
begins our coverage. NICK SCHIFRIN: He was the Middle East’s most
recognized military commander, the strategist and operational chief of Iran’s militant network,
the symbol of Iran’s regional ambitions. And Qasem Soleimani died last night, when
an American drone fired missiles into his car at Baghdad’s airport. Today, U.S. officials told “PBS NewsHour”
it was a target of opportunity. The president pre-authorized the strike. Military and intelligence officials tracked
Soleimani, and waited for him to land and meet with this man, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis,
the deputy commander of Iraqi militias closely aligned with Iran. The U.S. blames Soleimani and those militias
for the siege of the U.S. Embassy this week, and for launching nearly a dozen attacks on
U.S. bases, including one last Friday that killed a U.S. contractor. Today, President Trump said Soleimani’s death
prevented more attacks. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military
personnel. NICK SCHIFRIN: In Iran, Soleimani’s death
sparked widespread anger. During Friday prayers, congregants chanted
“Death to America.” Outside, they burned U.S. and Israeli flags. And a local commander delivered a threat. MOHAMMAD REZA YAZDI, Commander, Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (through translator): The Americans must know now that, due to the crime they
have committed, they will face no safety or peace anywhere. NICK SCHIFRIN: The protesters also filed in
front of our cameras with less anger than sorrow. They beat their chests and mourned a man they
called MAN (through translator): When I heard the
news of the general’s assassination today, I got very sad. I got sad because we lost a blessing, a son
of God, a man the whole world knew so well. NICK SCHIFRIN: Soleimani was one of Iran’s
most popular figures, outside the supreme leader, who rose through the ranks of the
military to become an icon of ruthless resistance. As commander of the elite paramilitary Quds
Force, he confronted U.S. allies around the region and warned U.S. presidents. QASEM SOLEIMANI, Commander, Iranian Revolutionary
Guards Corps Quds Force (through translator): Hereby, I tell you, the gambling Mr. Trump,
be aware that we are near you, where you do not even imagine. NICK SCHIFRIN: Soleimani helped build what
he called an axis of resistance, militant Shia Muslim groups in half-a-dozen countries
or territories across the region. In Yemen, Shia Houthi militants who receive
arms from Iran fight against a coalition led by Iran’s longtime enemy Saudi Arabia. In Syria, Soleimani personally helped convince
Russia to intervene in the war, and, today, Russia and Iranian-backed fighters have helped
President Bashar al-Assad largely win the war. Every time Soleimani arrived in Syria, he
was greeted as a hero. In Lebanon, Iranian-founded and -backed Hezbollah
threatens Israel with tens of thousands of Iranian-provided rockets and missiles. Today, Hezbollah supporters vowed revenge. MAN (through translator): Call upon us. We are here to strike the oppressors and to
fight. NICK SCHIFRIN: And in Iraq, the U.S. says
fighters loyal to Soleimani killed more than 600 American troops during the Iraq War. But despite targeting the U.S., in the war
on ISIS, Soleimani provided many of the ground troops who pushed ISIS out. Those troops are today integrated into the
Iraqi military. And his supporters now fill Iraq’s Parliament
and vow to evict U.S. troops from the country. But, today, longtime Soleimani adversary Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the U.S. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister:
President Trump deserves all the credit for acting swiftly, forcefully, decisively. NICK SCHIFRIN: In Washington, the response
to the strike fell largely on party lines. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): For too long, this
evil man operated without constraint, and countless innocents have suffered for it. NICK SCHIFRIN: Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer: SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): This action may well
have brought our nation closer to another endless war. NICK SCHIFRIN: But President Trump today described
the attack as defensive. DONALD TRUMP: We took action last night to
stop a war. We didn’t take action to start a war. NICK SCHIFRIN: For 15 years, U.S. officials
have been following Soleimani, accusing him of global terrorism. DONALD TRUMP: Today, we remember and honor
the victims of Soleimani’s many atrocities, and we take comfort in knowing that his reign
of terror is over. NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, what was left of the
car where Soleimani died sat in the morning sun. The symbol of Iran’s regional ambitions is
dead, but the ambitions themselves are very much alive and unchanged. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Nick joins me here in the
studio, along with, from Beirut, our special correspondent, Jane Ferguson. Jane, I want to come to you first. What are you learning about reaction in the
region, especially from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah? JANE FERGUSON: Well, of course, Judy, from
Hezbollah, we have seen some of the strongest reaction in terms of rhetoric so far. They released a statement earlier on today,
saying that this was a huge crime and — quote — “It will be the responsibility, duty and
action of all mujahideen brothers throughout the world to take harsh revenge.” It’s worth noting that it’s believed he — Soleimani
was flying back to Baghdad from Beirut. He, of course, had very strong relations here
with the Iranian proxy Hezbollah. And he had been advising both the Iraqi government
and the Lebanese group Hezbollah on how to deal with protests that were affecting them,
protests that, yes, were about domestic politics, but threatened Iranian hegemony and Iranian
influence in the region. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Nick, separately, what
are you learning from the administration about the legal justification for what happened? NICK SCHIFRIN: White House officials are very
clear there’s two justifications, one, self-defense. And they say that comes both from the Constitution
and also international law. And, two, they cite the 2001 post-9/11 authorization
to use military force, which, of course, Judy, was about 9/11. We should note that the Quds Force, that Iran
had nothing to do with 9/11. But now Presidents Trump, Obama and Bush all
have used that AUMF, all used that military force authorization to pursue military interventions
across the world since 9/11. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Jane, back to you. We know Iran involved in so many conflicts
around the region. What are you hearing about what the repercussions
from this could be. JANE FERGUSON: Like you say, Judy, their tentacles
have spread so far across the region, that the repercussions could be huge, on two sides,
on both the conflicts that they are involved in — and that’s, of course, in places like
Syria, where the Iranian — special Iranian forces, as well as Soleimani himself, were
advising and helping with the Syrian government there — and across Iraq, as well as here
in Lebanon. Thinking about the reaction that Iran could
possibly basically invoke in the coming days and weeks, there are so many possibilities,
whether it’s Hezbollah here in Lebanon, who are one of the strongest armed groups in the
region, or in Iraq in terms of mobilizing politicians who have been already calling
for U.S. troops to be pulled out of Iraq. There are about 5,000 troops there at the
moment. And if politicians were to come to the rare
moment of agreement in Iraq to vote to push American troops out, then that, in turn, would
also have a knock-on effect of basically making U.S. troops in Syria less viable, because
they are, of course, supported by bases in Iraq. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Nick, just finally, you
have been talking to officials inside and outside the administration. What concerns are they expressing? NICK SCHIFRIN: One of them is exactly where
Jane ended, the concern that Iraq will decide to evict U.S. troops from Iraq. And the Council of Representatives, the group
that will decide that, will meet this weekend. And so there is some concern that this strike
will inhibit the U.S. presence in Iraq moving forward. Escalation, as Jane said, across the region,
absolutely possible, in many ways. The Trump administration today announced 3,000
more troops to the region. That’s 18,000 troops in the last — over the
last year or so, Judy. That’s quite a few troops for a president
who says he’s wanted to leave the Middle East. And, three, some fears that I have been talking
to people about, a more extreme successor. Jane mentioned the fact that Soleimani went
to Beirut, went to Damascus, went to Baghdad. They were working on governments. He was largely a diplomat, in addition to
being a military commander. There are people who are even more extreme
than him behind him. The administration officials I talk to, though,
say, look, we had the chance. We had to kill this person. He’s got too much blood on his hands. We couldn’t give this shot up. JUDY WOODRUFF: So many threads to this story. Nick Schifrin, Jane Ferguson, thank you both. NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Members of Congress were quick
to respond to the news of Soleimani’s death, and their reactions were mixed. A short time ago, I spoke with two key members
of the Senate, first Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia. He serves on both the Foreign Relations and
the Armed Services committees. Senator Tim Kaine, thank you very much for
joining us. What about the killing of General Soleimani? Was this the right thing to do? SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Well, look, I think the
president, President Trump, has pushed the United States essentially to the brink of
an unnecessary war with Iran in the killing of General Soleimani. Is he a despicable killer? Absolutely, he was. Is Iran a bad actor? Absolutely, it is, and it remains a bad actor. But the question that we have to grapple with
is, should the United States be engaged in a war with Iran? Should we get involved in another war in the
Middle East? And that’s what President Trump has pushed
us to with the maximum pressure campaign that he has announced that has involved diplomatic
and economic and military pressure against Iran. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well… SEN. TIM KAINE: And so, today, I filed a resolution
to force the debate onto the floor of the Senate, so that the Senate can weigh in, because
whatever you think about whether the U.S. should be at war with Iran or not, that decision
should be made by Congress, not by a president acting on his own. JUDY WOODRUFF: Before I ask you about that
resolution, though, what about the administration argument that this was a necessary move because
General Soleimani, what he represented was an imminent threat, he was planning more attacks,
he had already been responsible for the deaths of many Americans, and was plotting more? SEN. TIM KAINE: That is what the administration
says, Judy. They have not briefed Congress on that. The leader of the House and the Democratic
leader of the Senate were not briefed about it. They were told after they read about the attack
in the newspaper. And the Constitution makes very, very plain
that, if we’re going to be engaged in a war, it should be Congress making that decision,
not the president doing it on his own. So, now the president has brought us to the
brink of hostilities, our embassy being invaded, an American contractor being killed. The president tore up a diplomatic deal with
Iran. The president ordered this strike on his own,
without briefing key congressional leaders. It’s time for this president to not just act
on his own, but to do what the Constitution says, and let’s have a debate about whether
the U.S. should be engaged in war with Iran or not. There may be some who believe we should. I happen to believe that that war would be
unnecessary at this point, but let’s at least have a debate in front of the American public
and actually have a vote on it. JUDY WOODRUFF: What are you concerned about
in terms of an Iranian response right now, Senator? SEN. TIM KAINE: Beginning last October, Judy, October
of 2018, the Pentagon started to warn the president that the actions that the president
was ordering, diplomatic, economic and military, were raising the threat of retaliation against
the United States. The Defense Department has warned the president
of this now for well over a year. And their warnings have proven correct. So when the U.S. takes actions, in airstrikes
that kill 25 Iranians last week, obviously, that raised the threat level. When the U.S. takes action against Soleimani,
again, a despicable killer, but when that action is taken, it raises the threat level
for Americans. The embassy is closed now. The U.S. is telling Americans to get out of
the country of Iraq. And, as you know, if the U.S. presence dwindles
in Iraq, what that means is that Iran gets more and more powerful in Iraq. By taking military strikes in Iraq over the
objections of the Iraqi government, we are pushing Iraq more and more into Iran’s hands,
and we’re also pushing our adversaries Iran, Russia and China, closer and closer together. I know you are aware, as I was, that those
nations did joint naval exercises last week. We’re hurting our allies. We’re pushing our adversaries closer together. And that’s because the president acts on his
own, without meaningfully engaging in Congress, especially on this matter of war. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Senator, are you saying
with this resolution that Congress would have to authorize any military action against Iran? SEN. TIM KAINE: What my resolution makes plain
— and it’s a resolution that’s filed in connection with the War Powers Act of 1974 — is that
there would be just two routes for war against Iran, that Congress would authorize military
action, either by an authorization or a declaration of war, or there would be a demonstrated imminent
threat. And the U.S. can always protect itself against
a demonstrated imminent threat. But the notion the president can just say
that without briefing Congress and engage in military strikes to of the kind that the
U.S. has now been engaged in for some time, it’s time to put this out on the table, explain
the facts to the American public, and have an open discussion about whether we should
be in another war in the Middle East. I don’t think that war is necessary right
now. Some may disagree, but at least we shouldn’t
allow this president or any president — and, as you know, I said the same thing about President
Obama as I’m saying about President Trump. Don’t start with war without coming to Congress,
submitting it for a debate and a vote that the American public can see. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia,
we thank you. SEN. TIM KAINE: Absolutely. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now, for a Republican view,
we turn to Senator James Risch of Idaho. He’s the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Senator, thank you very much for joining us. I know that you agree with the president that
this targeted killing of General Soleimani was warranted. Why? SEN. JAMES RISCH (R-ID): This man is as well-known
— was as well-known as Osama bin Laden. Certainly, the case can be made that he was
more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, if you take just the number of people that he killed
vs. what Osama bin Laden did. He’s done terrible things. He heads up a terrorist organization, the
Quds Force. He has — he was the person who was responsible
for executing the program of manufacturing and deploying IEDs. They’re the terrible roadside bomb that killed
and maimed so many of our men and women who fought in Iraq. This was a bad person. Just recently, there is very strong and clear
intelligence information that he was ratcheting up and getting ready to commit some acts that
would have resulted and most likely resulted in a loss of very significant American life. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that’s what I wanted to
ask you about, because we just heard Senator Kaine say there was no evidence that Congress
had of an imminent threat and that, in effect, what the president has done is drive the U.S.
and Iran, in his words, to the brink of an unnecessary war now. SEN. JAMES RISCH: Well, Tim’s a bright guy. And I really respect his judgment. But Tim knows as well as I do that Iran has
been doing this for a long time. They shot down that drone just recently. They attacked the Saudi Arabia oil plant. They have been for — over the last 60 days,
they have committed a dozen attacks on our troops in Iraq by lobbing rockets onto the
grounds. They hadn’t killed anybody until just recently
and, of course, killed an American and an injured four. I think, really, the — they have been notorious
for miscalculating in the past. They looked at what I think was reasonable
forbearance on the president’s part when he made the decision the drone in the second
attack that he would forbear at that moment. I think they mistook that for weakness. Myself and others have been sending the message
to the Iranians, both publicly and through the usual back channels, that they shouldn’t
mistake reasonable forbearance for weakness… JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Senator… SEN. JAMES RISCH: … that this man is… JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Senator, if I could just
step in, given the fact that there’s every expectation Iran will now retaliate, was it
worth whatever they’re going to do to take him down? SEN. JAMES RISCH: Well, clearly, this had to be
done. Judy, can you imagine if we were holding this
interview after the intelligence information that we had clearly showed that Soleimani
was going to do these attacks and killing Americans, and then the word got out that
the president knew about it and didn’t do anything? That would be horrendous. Can you imagine what the Democrats would be
saying under those circumstances? JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, one other point Senator
Kaine made had to do with how this pushes, in his words, Iraq into the arms of Iran,
that carrying this out on Iraqi soil — we know the Iraqi prime minister has criticized
the U.S. for doing this. Is that another repercussion the U.S. would
rather not have seen? SEN. JAMES RISCH: Easy charge to make. The difficulty is, is the Iranians have been
infiltrating Iraq for a long time. Soleimani himself was commanding Iranian troops
that were present in Iraq. This — there’s no pushing needed. The Shia who live in Iraq are perfectly happy
to be in bed with the Iranians, the Sunnis not so much. And as with most of these conflicts in the
Middle East, it is very, very deeply tied to the religious difference between those
two sects. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, Senator, what
about the role of Congress in this? Should Congress be required to have an authorization,
a sign-off before the president takes this kind of military action in the future? SEN. JAMES RISCH: You know, we have the War Powers
Act that the president has. And the president also has powers under Article
2 of the Constitution. This wasn’t a political action. This was a military action that the president
took to protect American people and American interests. Under the law, he is required to report to
Congress within 48 hours of the action he took and the basis for it. And I have been assured in the numerous calls
I have had, including talking with the president this morning, that — that report will be
coming. And this was a military action. It wasn’t a legislative action. JUDY WOODRUFF: And going forward? SEN. JAMES RISCH: Same thing. I think that the — there’s not going to be
any military action on our part at this point, unless, of course, more — we get information
or the president gets information from the intelligence community that we have an imminent
attack. He will defend American troops. I’m absolutely convinced of it. He hates doing this. He doesn’t like using kinetic action, but
he is deeply committed to protecting American lives. JUDY WOODRUFF: Chairman James Risch of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thank you, Senator. SEN. JAMES RISCH: Judy, thank you very much for
having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: One question now, how may Iran
respond to today’s American military strike, and how well-prepared is the U.S. military
to withstand Iran’s retaliation? Nick Schifrin is back with more on that. NICK SCHIFRIN: We now get two views from people
who watch or have dealt with Iran over the years. Retired Admiral Michael Mullen was chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011, at a time when the U.S. significantly
increased the number of troops in Iraq and the war in Iraq intensified. And here with me is Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran
expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a global bipartisan think tank. Welcome back to you both to the “NewsHour.” Thank you very much. Karim Sadjadpour, let me start with you. How irreplaceable is Qasem Soleimani? KARIM SADJADPOUR, Carnegie Endowment For International
Peace: Well, Nick, Iran is the only country in the world which is simultaneously fighting
three proxy wars with the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. And Soleimani has been managing these proxy
wars for the last two decades. He has been leading Iran’s fight in places
like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. And he had very effectively built up a Shiite
foreign legion to project Iranian power throughout the Middle East. He was a figure who was widely respected within
the Iranian regime and with Iran’s regional allies. If you talk to U.S. military commanders, they
would say he’s enemy number one for the United States, far greater than al-Qaida, Osama bin
Laden, Baghdadi, and others. So I would say he’s as close to being irreplaceable
to Iran as any other individual in that regime. NICK SCHIFRIN: Admiral Mullen, do you believe
he is as irreplaceable as anyone is in Iran, outside of the leaders of the country itself? ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN (RET.), Former Joints Chiefs
Chairman: Well, it’s not a perfect comparison, Nick, but I do agree. I think the loss of Soleimani is the equivalent
of the loss of bin Laden or Baghdadi to the organization in which each of them — in which
each of them represents. And Soleimani has been a brilliant strategist. He has been the controlling entity inside
Iran for two decades. And this is a huge loss for the national security
apparatus inside Iran. I know we often talk, someone will come in
behind him. I’m sure that. But it will not be somebody that has the same
kind of capability as Soleimani. So it’s good riddance to him after a long
period of time. NICK SCHIFRIN: I’m reminded that Soleimani
would go to — could go to Moscow, could go to Beirut, could go to Damascus. Karim Sadjadpour, the fact that he could do
that means that Iran has the ability to respond across the region, as you said, a foreign
legion of Shia militia groups. What’s the most likely Iranian response, given
how high-profile, given how important he was to the country? KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, the regime has to
respond, or else they will lose face. But if they respond excessively, they could
risk losing their heads. And for the Iranian regime, what is paramount
is their own survival. Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, is
80 years old. He’s been ruling for 30 years. He’s not a gambler. I think that Iran has plenty of means at its
disposal to respond, both regionally and internationally. They like to operate via proxy. They like to have plausible deniability. These days, in the era of drones and cyberattacks,
they will be sure to employ that. And we know the old expression that revenge
is a dish best served cold. I don’t think that they’re not likely to launch
all hell in the next 48 hours. But this is going to be a sustained proxy
war against the United States and U.S. allies for many months to come. NICK SCHIFRIN: And even more intense than
it already is? KARIM SADJADPOUR: More intense, certainly. NICK SCHIFRIN: Admiral Mullen, I want to come
back to something that you said, the fact that Soleimani has been kind of the controlling
entity for two decades for some of these efforts that Iran — take me back to your time as
chairman. You served both in the Bush administration,
at the end of it, and into the Obama administration. In both of those administrations, there were
opportunities to kill Soleimani. Why were those opportunities not taken back
then? ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN: I think the — the target
list, if you will, in those — in those times didn’t include Soleimani. And that’s different from the terrorist organizations
of al-Qaida in Iraq and ISIS over time. That said, he was somebody that we kept a
very close eye on and knew where he was and still felt, the sooner he was gone, the better. I think the fact that he’s a government representative,
an official, spent a lot of time obviously in Iran. So it’s a different approach in terms of assassinating
somebody. In this case, he’s a military commander on
the ground in Iraq with what appears to be exquisite intelligence on our part. And he’s planning to kill more Americans. He’s a legitimate target now. And for that — those reasons, actually, I’m
very supportive of taking him out. I recognize there’s significant risk here. I think the Trump administration, since it
left the nuclear deal, has been ratcheting it up. I worry that there’s no off-ramp for Iran,
and there’s no off-ramp for the U.S. for a diplomatic solution. So the risks are high. I just think, from the standpoint of eliminating
somebody who really was the strategic link for — for Iran’s national security was, at
this particular point, worth that risk. NICK SCHIFRIN: Karim Sadjadpour, there are
critics of this strike. And as, Admiral Mullen says, one of them is
about escalation. But he also brought up the nuclear deal. On Monday, Iran has promised to step away
a little bit more from the Iran nuclear deal. Could they actually do even something more
dramatic when it comes to nuclear for a response? KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, I will expect Iran
to put its foot on the accelerator again in the nuclear context. Now, they’re very careful not to go from zero
to 100. They will try to go from zero to 20. The goal is to really further split the international
community. They’re not going to announce that they’re
moving full speed ahead for a bomb, something that would unite China, Russia and Europe
with the Trump administration. They want to move deliberately, in a way that
the world will essentially blame the Trump administration for provoking Iran, rather
than blaming Iran. And so they will restart their nuclear program. They will continue to launch proxy attacks
on the region. And, pretty soon, there will be pressure from
Israel. As Iran is inching towards nuclear weapons
capability, there will be pressure from Israel on the United States to take preemptive military
action. NICK SCHIFRIN: And, Admiral Mullen, you mentioned
no off-ramp. In the time we have left, how concerned are
you about the chances of escalation, the cycle of escalation, and the fact, as you put it,
that there is no off-ramp to that escalation right now? ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN: It’s been very difficult to
see what the endgame is for the Trump administration with respect to Iran, and specifically the
diplomatic channel that needs to be created, so that we can both step down from this ladder,
if you will, before something really bad happens. We are in a situation where escalation has
taken place. And, in that, miscalculation can take place,
in which case it could really, really result in a disastrous outcome and another war in
the Middle East, which is the last thing in the world we need. NICK SCHIFRIN: And a war that President Trump
has promised not to actually get into, right? ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN: He has. But it’s very clear — and this strike is
an example — that he will — he will take action to defend U.S. interests and U.S. citizens. So it’s — I mean, the options or the space
to maneuver here is just getting smaller and smaller. Someone needs to take a step to get us off
this path before something really bad happens. NICK SCHIFRIN: Mike Mullen, former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment, here with me, thank you
very much to both. KARIM SADJADPOUR: Thanks, Nick. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: The
confrontation with Iran sent U.S. oil prices surging 3 percent. But stock prices sank, as investors sought
safety in U.S. government bonds. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 234
points to close below 28635. The Nasdaq fell 71 points, and the S&P 500
slipped 23. The U.S. Senate officially returned to business
today, still at odds over how to run an impeachment trial of President Trump. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
refused again to commit to calling additional witnesses. But Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
insisted that hearing from top White House aides is critical. They spoke on the Senate floor. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Impartial justice
means making up our minds on the right basis. It means seeing clearly, not what some might
wish the House of Representatives had proven, but what they actually have or have not proven. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Leader McConnell has
been clear and vocal that he has no intention to be impartial in this process. Leader McConnell reminds us today, and in
previous days, that, rather than acting like a judge and a juror, he intends to act as
the executioner of a fair trial. JUDY WOODRUFF: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
has balked at submitting the impeachment articles until the Senate decides if it will hear from
more witnesses. A federal appeals court heard arguments today
on whether White House officials have total legal immunity against testifying before Congress. Former White House counsel Don McGahn was
subpoenaed last April about the special counsel’s Russia investigation, but he was directed
from above not to comply from. In Washington today, judges pressed the issue. JUDGE THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals: Has there ever been an instance of such a broad-scale defiance of a congressional
request for information, in the history of the republic? HASHIM MOOPPAN, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General: Never before in history has the Congress engaged in the sort of illegitimate inquiry
that it’s doing. I don’t want to get into that fight, because
— precisely because that is the sort of political dispute that this court shouldn’t be engaged
in. JUDY WOODRUFF: The outcome of the McGahn case
could have implications for other Trump aides who refused to testify at impeachment hearings. The appeals court also held arguments today
over a congressional subpoena for grand jury materials from the Russia investigation. In Australia, officials rushed today to complete
a mass evacuation of historic scope, before wildfire conditions worsen again. Several coastal towns are facing imminent
danger. Dan Rivers of Independent Television News
reports from Moruya in New South Wales. DAN RIVERS: The edge of this town used to
be a green calm wildlife refuge but not anymore. Now it is thick with smoke, and constantly
patrolled by pilots who risk their lives to save others. They are throwing everything they have at
this disaster, but the wall of flames keeps advancing. This town, like so many others down the coast,
is literally in the line of fire, with very little left to protect it. In the hands of these pilots, the fate of
so many depends. In Mallacoota, it felt like the fire was winning
this war. Tourists turned into evacuees, rescued by
the Australian navy, aboard, a helping hand, a hot meal and a huge sense of relief. HMAS Choules usually accommodates 700 troops,
but its commander said it can cope with many more evacuees. Up in the hills of Victoria, the tourist town
of Bright is one of just dozens left almost deserted by the hasty mass evacuation. MAN: here’s tents and caravans and all sorts
of things scattered around there. There’s a lot of food in all the villas, and
probably seen what happened over the coast, and they have said, OK, we’re out of here. DAN RIVERS: Now those who are left are braced
for the worst. Winds of more than 90 miles an hour tomorrow
and temperatures soaring to more than 40 degrees Celsius threaten to make Saturday the most
dangerous day so far, with three separate fires all possibly converging into one potentially
deadly conflagration. JUDY WOODRUFF: That report from Dan Rivers
of Independent Television News. The death toll has reached 43 in monsoon flooding
around Indonesia’s capital, with nearly 400,000 people forced to flee. Today, just outside Jakarta, waters receded
to reveal streets turned to wastelands. Residents struggled to push damaged vehicles
off muddy roads littered with debris. Back in this country, downpours across the
Deep South put parts of five states under flood warnings and watches. The National Weather Service said that flood
advisories covered parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia, as the storm
system moved east. The region faced flooded roads and overflowing
rivers. Tennessee Congressman Phil Roe has joined
a wave of House Republicans who are retiring at the end of this year. He said today that he always planned to serve
only five or six terms after his initial election in 2008; 25 other House Republicans have already
decided not to run for reelection. And leaders of the United Methodist Church
say they are splitting in two over allowing gay marriage and gay clergy. They announced today that one branch will
endorse both practices. The other will oppose both. A church conference will vote on the plan
in May. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: a doctored
video of Joe Biden goes viral, drawing attention to the threat of disinformation on the 2020
campaign trail; plus, Mark Shields and David Brooks break down the top headlines from the
first week of the new year. As the 2020 campaign heats up, candidates
are facing an historic challenge, an unprecedented scale and variety of disinformation online. John Yang has that story. Hey, folks. JOHN YANG: The latest example? This selectively edited 19-second viral video
of former Vice President Joe Biden. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
Our culture, our culture, it’s not imported from some African nation or some Asian nation. It’s our English jurisprudential culture,
our European culture. JOHN YANG: An anonymous Twitter user posted
the video, saying: “Biden proclaims European identity of America. Our culture is not imported from some African
nation.” QUESTION: Could you speak to your work with
women in sexual assault, domestic violence? JOSEPH BIDEN: Yes. JOHN YANG: But missing from the edited video? The context of Biden’s full remarks. In his more than 10-minute answer, Biden called
domestic violence a cultural problem from English common law of the 1300s that allowed
men to abuse their wives. Then, Biden said: JOSEPH BIDEN: Folks, this is about changing
the culture, our culture, our culture. It’s not imported from some African nation
or some Asian nation. It’s our English jurisprudential culture,
our European culture that says it’s all right. JOAN DONOVAN, Harvard Kennedy School: Right
now, we’re in no way prepared for what’s to come. JOHN YANG: The ease of creating this kind
of misinformation is the scariest part, says Joan Donovan of the Harvard Kennedy School. JOAN DONOVAN: It’s difficult to see why a
video like this might be a problem, because it is not using any fancy editing technology. The issue is, is that we have no mechanism
for retraction, nor correction on these platforms. So, anybody who saw that video before there
were any articles written by journalists debunking it may still believe it’s true. JOHN YANG: Biden later responded at a campaign
event in Iowa, partly blaming President Trump. JOSEPH BIDEN: Because that’s how this guy
operates. JOHN YANG: While the president didn’t share
that video of Biden, he’s shared similar edited videos including this one of Biden: JOAN DONOVAN: When someone who is a newsworthy
individual, be it the president or someone from his Cabinet, as well as other political
candidates, shares different pieces of media, and some of these are decontextualized videos
or other kinds of rumors and scandals, we have to be especially careful, as both experts
and journalists, not to take the bait. JOHN YANG: Another example of misinformation? A doctored photo that accused the campaign
of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren of replacing a Black Lives Matter sign with
one reading “African Americans With Warren.” SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): We need comprehensive
immigration reform. JOHN YANG: And in March, the Republican National
Committee posted a video of New York Senator and then-presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand
touting comprehensive immigration reform, with the misleading headline “Senator Gillibrand:
Expand Social Security to all illegal immigrants.” Misinformation comes from both sides. This clip of President Trump telling a story
about a World War II soldier on Veterans Day was taken out of context. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Roddie responded, “Major, you can shoot me, but you will have to kill us all.” That’s something. JOHN YANG: A journalist at the media outlet
Vox clipped that sound bite to: DONALD TRUMP: You can shoot me, but you will
have to kill us all. JOHN YANG: Harvard’s Joan Donovan. JOAN DONOVAN: Unfortunately, right now, the
onus falls on audiences to be careful sharers. Is there another way in which I can look into
and verify this piece of information? And, in most cases, waiting is the — is one
of the best ways to deal with this. JOHN YANG: Valuable advice for 2020. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m John Yang. JUDY WOODRUFF: Between the escalating conflict
with Iran and the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2020 has already
been a busy year for American politics. Here to help us make sense of it all, Shields
and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and
New York Times columnist David Brooks. Hello to both of you, and happy new year. MARK SHIELDS: Happy new year. JUDY WOODRUFF: Although, as we have been reporting,
the new year has gotten off to a sobering start. Mark, what do you make of the Trump administration
decision to target and kill this senior Iranian general? MARK SHIELDS: I don’t know. Every act like this has risk and reward, and
I don’t know anybody who can predict what will happen, Judy. I mean, it violates all of the rules that
we have about going into armed conflict with disproportionate force and with fully understood
objectives and with an exit strategy and with backing of our allies and so forth. None of those was met. And the president doesn’t have the benefit
of the doubt. He treats truth like a second home. He only lives there occasionally, and, therefore,
he doesn’t have the natural credibility that American presidents — and it has been hurt. The Afghan papers, most recently The Washington
Post, revealed 18 years of deception and deceit and self-delusion about the United States
in Afghanistan, the lying that we have had and the evasion. So, you know, I don’t see it — I see it more
impulsive than strategic, just like the entire Trump administration. It doesn’t appear to be thought out. JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you respond to that? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, first, like the other 7.5 billion inhabitants
of this Earth, I don’t know either. But I do see it sort of on three levels, first,
in the near term, the immediate term, which is, I think it’s a reasonably good thing that
somebody who was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and hundreds of thousands
of people in the Middle East meet some justice. I do think that’s a good thing. The fact that there were rallies around the
Middle East celebrating his death is a sign of the destruction he has wrought. Then there is the middle term, and that’s
somewhere between anxiety-inducing and terrifying, because we just — I don’t think either Iraq
or Iran or the U.S. want to have a war, but they have got to show they do something, and
then we do something. And it could escalate into something. I think it’s extremely unlikely. But they play this game. I have been covering the Middle East for 30
years. And they play this game. And, sometimes, it goes fine and somebody
just finally quiet — walks away, but, sometimes, it doesn’t. And so, in the middle term, I think we’re
overall right to be worried about that. And then, in the long term, I think talent
doesn’t grow on trees, and this guy was their best guy. And so getting rid of your enemy’s best guy
probably in the long term yields some benefit. And, second, his strategic — his basic signature
move was to create militias around the Middle East, extragovernmental militias, in a sometimes
hostile country. And to the extent that we can weaken that
there should be militias all around the Middle East, then we have stabilized the Middle East
long-term. The middle term is what you have to worry
about. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Mark, do you get the idea
the administration is prepared for what may come from this, as a result of this? MARK SHIELDS: No. No. And I guess where take some — depart from
David is, we have been down this road before. We had a major Republican leader address the
Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention and assure us that the foreign leader has weapons of
mass destruction, there’s no doubt he’s amassing them to use against us, against our allies,
I’m confident that he’s on the verge of having nuclear weapons. That was Dick Cheney. That was 18 years ago. And that was hundreds of thousand of deaths
ago. As a consequence of this act, the Iraqi Parliament
may very well do what it hasn’t done. And that is act in concert and ask us to leave. If they ask us to leave, now, what does that
mean for our troops in Syria? What does that mean for any of our influence
in the area? Now, I just — I do not see any coherent,
thoughtful policy emanating from this. It’s almost like the administration has been
scrambling to come up with a rationalization. They did it, and now, well, we’re going to
brief you on Tuesday. We’re going to brief you 120 hours after the
event as to what happened. We’re going to do it from a resort in Florida,
I mean, suggesting the gravity of the moment — all of that. I mean, for a man who’s sensitive to theatrics
and optics, like Donald Trump is, none of this makes any sense. DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I guess the only — the
first thing I would say was, what Mark raised, all those are real possibilities. And, frankly, it’s above my pay grade to know
all the different details of this. But a lot of people I admire, like Mike Mullen,
who we just had on the show, or General Stan McChrystal, who was head of special ops, before
running the Afghan war, they say, on balance, they see the risks and it’s worth the risks. And so these are really professional operators,
and so you have to have some respect for that. As for the Trump administration, I sort of
agree. I often ask the administration officials from
past administration, what did you learn inside that you didn’t learn outside? And how is it going to affect your career
as a pundit afterwards? And they always say, you never know the actual
information that is going on inside. In most administrations, there’s all these
backroom signals they’re all sending even to their adversaries. And so you have some confidence, well, these
people know what they’re doing. I don’t have that confidence right now. And so I do agree with Mark that I don’t think
there is a policy process in anything realm of the Trump administration. And so, therefore, the thought they have sketched
out scenarios B, C, D, and Q, that’s probably not happened. And so that’s where the anxiety comes from. JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you discouraged? MARK SHIELDS: Judy, on the eve of going to
war in Iraq, Jim Webb had been secretary of the Navy and later be secretary — senator
from Virginia, asked a very straightforward question, which the administration, Bush administration,
refused to confront. Are we as a nation prepared to be an occupying
country and force in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years? And he was — oh, what do you mean? What do you mean? I mean, war begins with unintended consequences. Admiral Mullen referred to that. I mean, on the eve of World War I, the German
general staff was absolutely convinced 42 days to conquer France and France’s army. I mean, and here we have 75 years after Victory
in Europe Day, and we have troops in Europe, and we have American troops in Japan, and
67 years after the armistice in Korea, we’re on the front lines in Korea. I mean, so… DAVID BROOKS: I don’t think anyone wants to
do boots on the ground. I certainly would find that appalling. But the Middle East fights their wars differently. They — it’s like a little shot here and then
a little shot there. And it’s choreographed. You go up here. You go there. And so they have been doing this. And they’re professionals at it, which is
— and we’re not. So that should be faced. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, a lot of conversation
around it and reaction, David, by the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. We are today exactly one month away from the
first votes being cast, the Iowa — the Iowa caucuses. Do you see this Iran event having a real effect
in some way on the presidential contest? Does it favor one candidate? DAVID BROOKS: Well, you would think would
favor Biden, because he’s been there in foreign policy, and a lot of the others have barely
spoken about foreign policy. I think it favors them all to some degree. I think it hurts Donald Trump. I think the idea that we may get sucked into
a war in the Middle East is something that nobody wants. And I think a lot of people, certainly in
my texting early this morning, said, are we going to war, are we going to war? There’s, A, a sense of great danger and, B,
no faith that the U.S. can conduct this. And that’s a fallout from the Iraq War. And the second — but on the general election,
I do think the Democrats have to come up with some sort of defense policy. It’s not enough to say, we’re going to have
no war, because every president in all of our lifetimes has had to get conduct military
operations. And so you have to give some sense of when
you would use military force and when you wouldn’t. It’s not enough just to say, no endless wars,
which is what they’re all falling back to right now. JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see the candidates? (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: … campaign? MARK SHIELDS: I think the beneficiary, initial
beneficiary, is Joe Biden. I think the question is, is the United States
four years into this a more respected, a more trusted and safer nation than it was four
years ago? And I think Biden can make the case that it
is not. The case makes itself that it is not under
Donald Trump. And I think he offers stability and maturity
and knowledge. I mean, for one thing, we’re dealing with
someone who his arrogance is only matched by his lack of information. And that — so I think, in that sense… JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re speaking about the president. MARK SHIELDS: The president. I’m speaking of the president, the commander
in chief. So, I do think that it benefits Biden more
than anybody else. Bernie Sanders has obviously trumpeted the
fact that he was opposed to it initially in 2002. And that’s the card he will play. I don’t see how the others benefit, quite
frankly, at this point. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it’s war and peace, and
I hate to bring up something crass, but money is something that makes the wheels turn in
American politics. And, David, this week was the end of the — the
end of December, the end of the last cycle of counting how much money. And we have got — we can show our audience
and you just quickly. Here is what it looked like, President Trump
hauling in $46 million, but right behind him, Bernie Sanders $34.5 million, Pete Buttigieg
more than 24.5, Joe Biden 22. We learned today Elizabeth Warren coming in
behind. She didn’t raise as much as she had the previous
quarter. And then you see Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker
and others. What is this telling us about the race, if
anything? DAVID BROOKS: I think they’re all doing very
well, exceptionally well. There’s a lot of money there, even Sanders. She went down, but she shouldn’t go down hugely. And so there’s just a lot of money there. JUDY WOODRUFF: You mean Warren. DAVID BROOKS: Warren, I’m sorry, yes. Sorry. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes. DAVID BROOKS: Sanders is the most impressive
of the group. The one thing I’d highlight, sort of perversely,
is the amount of money Yang and Klobuchar raised, which is very high. For the big candidates, they’re getting a
lot of free media. They’re — they’re sort of established. But this kind of money means that Yang and
Klobuchar can be in the game. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. DAVID BROOKS: And, to me, money diminishes
in value the more of it you have. You need enough to be in the game, but, after
that, it sort of doesn’t matter as much. And so the fact that those two are staying
in the game, to me, is a significant part of the race. JUDY WOODRUFF: A minute. What do you see? MARK SHIELDS: In a minute. (LAUGHTER) MARK SHIELDS: What I do think is that the
two beneficiaries were two who had the bad news this past quarter. Bernie Sanders had a heart attack and raised
$36 million. I mean, it’s a great tribute to his support
and the intensity of it. And Donald Trump was impeached, and he got
small contributions. There is enough. What you have to have is enough to get through
Iowa and New Hampshire, and to do it comfortably and competitively. And every one of the people on that list does
have that money. And if they finish second in New Hampshire
or in the top three in Iowa, they will go on. If they don’t, they can say good night and
return to their day job. JUDY WOODRUFF: And I think they’re all listening
to you right now. And they know — they know what their future
is. All right, fourth-quarter fund-raising, and
so much more. Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will be back right here
on Monday. We hope you will join us. That’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Have a great weekend. Thank you, and good night.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 25, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: Pro-democracy forces
in Hong Kong deliver a stunning rebuke to Beijing at the ballot box, as leaked documents
reveal the brainwashing faced by China’s imprisoned Uyghur Muslims. Then: questions of military justice. The U.S. secretary of the Navy is out after
the Pentagon and White House clash over the proper punishment for a Navy SEAL accused
of war crimes. Plus: aging Italy. As the country’s birth rate plummets, anxiety
soars and the era of the big Italian family comes to a crashing stop. ANGELO MAZZA, University of Catania: Eventually,
the population could extinguish. And when baby boomers will retire, you know,
you’re going to have a small amount of individuals taking care of a larger amount of the old
people. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: A federal judge in Washington has this evening ordered that President Trump’s former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a congressional
subpoena and appear before lawmakers. He had been called to testify about the Mueller
report. The ruling late today also has implications
for Trump aides who have refused to testify at impeachment hearings. Separately, the chair of the U.S. House Intelligence
Committee, Democrat Adam Schiff, said today that his panel will report soon after the
Thanksgiving recess. He said the evidence — quote — “conclusively
shows” that the president tried to force Ukraine to aid his reelection campaign. The president today defended his actions in
the Edward Gallagher case. The Navy SEAL was acquitted of murdering an
Islamic State militant, but convicted of posing for the photo — for a photo with the body. Last week, the president rejected forcing
Gallagher out of the SEALs. Instead, he will retire from the Navy. Today, meeting with Bulgaria’s prime minister,
Mr. Trump said he is sticking up for Gallagher and those like him. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
He was a great fighter. He was the — one of the ultimate fighters. Tough guy. These are not weak people. These are tough people. And we’re going to protect our war fighters. And I have been given a lot of thank yous. JUDY WOODRUFF: Amid the uproar, the secretary
of the Navy, Richard Spencer, was fired on Sunday. Today, his boss, the secretary of defense,
Mark Esper, accused Spencer of dealing secretly with the White House in the Gallagher matter. We will discuss all of this after the news
summary. The U.S. Supreme Court refused today to order
a new trial for a Baltimore man featured in the hit podcast serial. Adnan Syed was convicted of murdering an ex-girlfriend
in high school. He is serving now a life sentence. Syed’s lawyers had argued the podcast series
found new evidence that warranted a new trial. The high court rejected the appeal without
comment. A Chinese woman convicted of trespassing at
the president’s Mar-a-Lago estate will be released next week and deported. Yujing Zhang was sentenced today to eight
months in prison, but she’s already been jailed nearly that long. She illegally entered the Palm Beach resort
in March and lied to federal agents afterward. The head of Iran’s hard-line Revolutionary
Guard threatened the U.S. and others today over last week’s protests in his country. Hossein Salami accused the United States,
plus Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia, of fomenting demonstrations over a fuel tax hike. He spoke at a rally of tens of thousands of
government supporters in Tehran, and he warned that the regime will answer its enemies. MAJ. GEN. HOSSEIN SALAMI, Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps (through translator): Wait for our response. If you cross our red lines, we will destroy
you. We will not leave any move unanswered. We will not remain indebted to any superpower
and will settle scores with all of them. Just wait. JUDY WOODRUFF: Amnesty International says
that at least 140 people have died in a crackdown on these protests. Tehran has not given an official number. A grim new warning today on climate change. The World Meteorological Organization reports
that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached a new record. The U.N. agency says that concentrations of
carbon dioxide are 50 percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution. The group’s head warns that current efforts
to reverse the trend are simply not enough. Russia’s athletes may be facing a four-year
ban over doping. They would have to compete as neutrals, including
at next year’s Summer Olympics. A committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency
made the recommendation today. It said that hundreds of positive drug tests
are missing from a Russian lab — from Russian lab data. A final decision is due next month. Back in this country, the newest entry into
the Democratic presidential race made his first campaign appearance. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
announced on Sunday. Today, the 77-year-old billionaire was in
Norfolk, Virginia. ®MDNM¯MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, Presidential Candidate:
I will be the only candidate in this race who isn’t going to take a penny from anyone
and will work for a dollar a year, just as I did for 12 years in New York City Hall. I have been using my resources for the things
that matter to me. I was lucky enough to build a successful company. It has been very successful, and I have used
all of it to give back to help America. JUDY WOODRUFF: Bloomberg becomes the 18th
candidate vying for the Democratic nomination for president. McDonald’s agreed today to pay $26 million
in a settlement with employees in California. A long-running class action lawsuit alleged
that the company denied overtime pay and timely breaks, among other things. Nearly 38,000 people would be compensated
if the settlement wins court approval. The ride-sharing giant Uber has lost its license
to operate in London for the second time in recent years. City officials said today that unauthorized
drivers got past Uber security and carried out thousands of rides. The company will appeal today’s decision. It says that facial recognition technology
is addressing the problem in Britain and in the U.S. Two major players in online stock trading
are joining forces. Charles Schwab announced today that it is
buying TD Ameritrade for $26 billion pending, federal approval. On Wall Street today, that buyout and hopes
for the China trade talks pushed stock higher. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 190
points to close at 28066. The Nasdaq rose 112 points. And the S&P 500 added 23. And a U.S. military dog named Conan got a
White House welcome today. The Belgian Malinois starred in the raid that
led to the death in Syria of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State group. Today, President Trump presented the animal
that he called probably the world’s most famous dog. Conan was injured during the raid, but has
since recovered. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: Hong Kong’s
protesters go to the polls — what does it mean for the pro-democracy movement?; the
military clashes with the president over an accused war criminal; Amy Walter and Tamara
Keith are here to break down the latest political headlines; plus, much more. After months of protests in Hong Kong, yesterday
brought an extraordinary rebuke of Chinese authority by Hong Kong’s voters in local elections,
and another startling revelation about Chinese government persecution of Uyghur Muslims. Amna Nawaz takes a look at both stories. AMNA NAWAZ: Newly elected pro-democracy legislators
walking today through debris from last week’s fiery clashes at Hong Kong’s Polytechnic University. Sunday’s landslide election made clear the
grassroots protesters have the overwhelming support of Hong Kong voters. Pro-democracy forces won control of 17 of
18 district councils in the first election since the unrest began six months ago. LEE WING-TAT, Democratic Party Legislator:
It is a genuine referendum of the people in Hong Kong. The candidates from the Democratic government
allies won this election. Democratic Party hope our chief executive,
Mrs. Carrie Lam, receives the message, because the votes make a clear voice of the Hong Kong
people. AMNA NAWAZ: The increasingly-unpopular Lam
is backed by Beijing. She said in a statement that the government
will — quote — “seriously reflect on the results.” The district councils have little power, but
Hong Kongers calling for democracy say the outcome is a turning point. KELVIN WONG, Student (through translator):
I am happy about the election result. A victory in the district council election
is the first step for Hong Kong democracy. I am still reasonably optimistic about Hong
Kong’s future. AMNA NAWAZ: But, in Beijing, China’s communist
government insisted today that its one country/two systems policy remains firm. GENG SHUANG, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson
(through translator): Stopping the violence and restoring order is the paramount task
for Hong Kong at the moment. Hong Kong is China’s Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s affair is purely China’s domestic
affair. The Chinese government’s resolution of protecting
China’s sovereignty, security, development and interests is firm. AMNA NAWAZ: Hong Kong activists say the election,
with record voter turnout exceeding 70 percent, was a resounding rejection of that policy. JOSHUA WONG, Pro-Democracy Activist: People
orderly and peacefully lining up outside the voting station early in the morning just because
they hope to get the vote, which represented we deserve democracy. AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, in Washington, the
bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act awaits action on President Trump’s desk,
after easily passing both the House and Senate. The bill would impose sanctions on Hong Kong
officials who abuse human rights. But the president has suggested it could also
affect trade talks with China. Let’s explore the stakes in Hong Kong with
Susan Shirk. She’s the chair of the 21st Century China
Program at the University of California, San Diego. She returned from a trip to China this week. Susan, thank you very much for being with
us. I want to ask you about what we just saw. There’s now no doubt, we heard, about where
the public sentiment in Hong Kong lies. So, from the perspective of the Hong Kong
government and from the Chinese government in Beijing, how does this change the calculus
for what they do next? SUSAN SHIRK, University of California, San
Diego: Right before I came to the studio, the official media in China had not yet reported
the outcome of the election. They did finally report there was the election,
but they really haven’t reported the results. And there’s some indication from people on
the ground I have heard from that they have been talking to journalists, Chinese journalists,
who say that, in fact, the Chinese leadership was surprised by the outcome of the election,
and then they are now scrambling to figure out what to do about it. It’s really remarkable that, despite these
large-scale protests that have gone on for months, they still were surprised by the outcome
of the election. AMNA NAWAZ: So how do you think these election
results changed the dynamic? SUSAN SHIRK: If Carrie Lam resigns to kind
of take responsibility for the outcome, that might defuse the protests for a while, as
people wait and see what more Beijing will do to meet the other demands, including some
progress toward more direct elections. And, of course, if Carrie Lam has to be replaced,
then that also raises the issue of how you select the chief executive. AMNA NAWAZ: Susan, you heard in the piece
there some people were referring to this as a turning point. Do you believe that it could be that, this
could bring about some real change? SUSAN SHIRK: Well, you know, it’s a test of
Xi Jinping’s pragmatism. Is he really very dogmatic? Did he really believe his own propaganda? Did the internal channels from the liaison
office in Hong Kong actually, fearing to give him bad news, give him an unrealistic view
of what was happening in Hong Kong? If he’s pragmatic, then it to seems to me
he’s likely to do — try to find a way to respond to some of the protesters’ demands,
at least by getting rid of the very unpopular Carrie Lam. Really, this is kind of a fork in the road
for Xi Jinping. Is he going to double down on control and
indoctrination, or is he going to be flexible and give a little bit in the direction of
more direct democratic election of Hong Kong political leaders? AMNA NAWAZ: And, Susan, that is the latest
from Hong Kong, but I do want to get your take on a different topic we’re also covering
today. I would like to shift now to mainland China,
where leaked Communist Party documents show the internal workings of internment and reeducation
camps used to detain a million people. The China cables are the first official glimpse
into the structure and ideology behind these camps in Northwest China’s Xinjiang province,
where at least one million Muslim Uyghurs and members of other minority groups are detained
on industrial scale. The documents show that the Chinese government
officials designed the camps as brainwashing centers on a massive scale, with multiple
layers of security. Among the other revelations: Camp inmates
could be held indefinitely. Camps are run on a points system where inmates
earn credits for compliance. Weekly phone calls or monthly video calls
are the only contact allowed. And preventing escape is paramount. The Chinese foreign minister said documents
leaked earlier this month to The New York Times were fabricated. GENG SHUANG (through translator): They are
also sensationalizing these internal documents by using poor tactics, like taking them out
of context and grafting them onto another, to undermine and tarnish China’s efforts on
anti-terrorism and depolarization in Xinjiang. AMNA NAWAZ: Foreign affairs correspondent
Nick Schifrin sat down with National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien over the weekend at
the Halifax Security Forum. ROBERT O’BRIEN, U.S. National Security Adviser:
We have over a million people in concentration examples in Xinjiang. I mean, that’s an outrage. President Xi has the power of writ in China. What he says goes. And those camps should be closed. They should be dismantled. But it’s not just the camps. It’s the surveillance infrastructure that’s
been built in the region. AMNA NAWAZ: Susan Shirk, as we reported, that
is the second trove of leaked documents to be published in just over a week, the previous
batch by The New York Times. Going through the documents, what do we learn
in terms of the involvement of President Xi Jinping in these camps and these efforts? SUSAN SHIRK: Well, The New York Times’ story
makes explicit that there’s no evidence, no statement in these documents that Xi Jinping
actually ordered the establishment of the camps. What he did is start a campaign to try to
crack down on terrorism in 2014, after a number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang and, of course,
terrorist attacks outside of China as well. And he — so, he launched this very harsh
campaign of indoctrination to try to undertake thought reform of Uyghurs and other ethnic
groups in Xinjiang. So, he himself — we don’t have the document
yet in which he ordered the camps, but, certainly, the establishment of the camps, which was
done by provincial officials — at least, that’s what the documents tell us — was a
response to this campaign launched by Xi Jinping. And what’s really remarkable about the campaign
is it shows that Xi Jinping still believes in this Maoist notion of thought reform. He really believes that this kind of intensive
brainwashing can change the way people think. AMNA NAWAZ: What does it say to you that these
documents are even being leaked at all, the fact that these are seeing the light of day? SUSAN SHIRK: Well, it shows that not everybody
in the Chinese bureaucracy and the party and government bureaucracy agrees with this very
heavy-handed, repressive police state approach to governing China. In fact, the documents, from the standpoint
of a China watcher, are really fascinating, because they show that some of the local officials
objected to this approach. And, in fact, some officials released people
from the camps because they wanted to make sure that they met their economic growth targets. And without the labor power, they weren’t
going to be able to do that. So I think, you know, from outside, China
looks so monolithic, but, in fact, I think there are a lot of different points of view,
and not everybody agrees with the direction Xi is taking the country. AMNA NAWAZ: That is Susan Shirk of the 21st
Century China Center at the University of California, San Diego. Thank you for being with us. SUSAN SHIRK: My pleasure. JUDY WOODRUFF: War and crimes, the two came
to a head this weekend with a divide between the military and the commander in chief. William Brangham has the story. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: At the center of all of
this is the case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a highly decorated Navy SEAL. Previously, he was accused of murdering a
wounded ISIS militant in Iraq in 2017 and of shooting at civilians. A court-martial acquitted him on those charges,
but did convict him of posing in a photograph with the dead militant’s body. Gallagher was demoted for that. But the controversy since has been whether
the Navy should mete out any further punishment, like whether he should keep his status as
a Navy SEAL and keep the emblem of that force, a pin showing an eagle carrying a trident
and a musket. The president has routinely championed Gallagher
and said that he wouldn’t allow the Navy to punish Gallagher anymore. And then, last night, the secretary of the
Navy, Richard Spencer, was forced out of his post by the secretary of defense, Mark Esper,
over his handling of Gallagher’s case. Here to walk us through this controversy is
Nancy Youssef. She’s a national security correspondent for
The Wall Street Journal. Welcome back to the “NewsHour.” NANCY YOUSSEF, The Wall Street Journal: Great
to be with you. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Gallagher’s case is over,
but then Rear Admiral Green, who oversees the Navy SEALs, decides he wants to have Gallagher
out of the service. He doesn’t want him to be a SEAL anymore. Pick up the story from there. NANCY YOUSSEF: Well, he wants is to say that
the military should review whether Chief Gallagher should have the distinction and the honor
of being called a Navy SEAL after this case. And so he calls for a review board. And that’s where peers come forward, look
at the case, and decide whether he should be able to keep something called the trident
pin, which sort of signifies publicly and on your uniform that you’re a member of one
of the most elite forces in the United States military. And I think that’s what Admiral Green was
trying to get at with this review process. And that, after the fact that the president
had restored his rank and brought back his pay, was sort of the last outstanding issue
vis-a-vis this case. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And so then how did — explain
the process by which the secretary of the Navy is out. NANCY YOUSSEF: And so what happened was, there
was really concern within the United States military leadership about the prospect of
restoring Chief Gallagher’s rank and pardoning two other service members who are also accused
of committing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The feeling was that, once you did that, and
had an outside intervention, it potentially undid the — or threatened the sanctity of
sort of good order and discipline that is so critical to the military. And the other fear was that if the U.S. didn’t
prosecute those accused of killing civilians in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, it would
send a negative message to key partners. And so he was pardoned — excuse me — he
was — his rank restored. And Secretary Spencer was among those who
was really against the outside intervention. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So the Navy secretary is
pushed out by the secretary of defense. And in his letter sort of acknowledging resignation,
he says this — quote — “I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates
the sacred oath I took.” But the secretary of defense’s problem, it
seems, with the secretary of the Navy was something other. It was about a back channel he was doing with
the White House. Can you explain that? NANCY YOUSSEF: Sure. So, the secretary of defense, Mark Esper,
came out today and said that the U.S. military leadership had agreed that they would allow
the process over his trident pin to proceed, and that he learned two days ago that Secretary
Spencer had tried to come up with a back-channel deal in which the — Chief Gallagher would
be allowed to keep his pin, regardless of the findings of the panel. And Secretary Esper said that he lost confidence
in Secretary Spencer because he was usurping the existing process. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And in the middle of all
of this, of course, then Eddie Gallagher goes on FOX News, which has been his champion all
along and championed his case from when he was back in the brig, all the way through
to his court-martial. NANCY YOUSSEF: That’s right. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And Gallagher is kind of
remarkably very, very critical of some of his superiors. Let’s take a listen to what he said. CHIEF PETTY OFFICER EDWARD GALLAGHER, U.S.
Navy SEAL: This is all about ego and retaliation. This has nothing to do with good order and
discipline. They could have taken my trident at any — any
time they wanted. Now they’re trying to take it after the president
restored my rank. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Later, in that same interview,
he went on to specifically, by name, criticize his superior officer, Rear Admiral Green. I mean, again, for people who don’t appreciate
this, how unusual is it for a sailor to say those things about his commanding officer? NANCY YOUSSEF: It’s extraordinarily unusual,
because there’s a chain of command, and you’re not allowed to criticize your superiors in
a one-on-one setting within your company, your unit, and let alone on FOX News. But I think it really gets at how much this
case depended on him behind becoming a cause celebre on FOX News. Sean Hannity had taken a personal interest
in — but for that, it’s not clear that this case would have gotten the kind of attention
that it did. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, what are you hearing
amongst the military community more broadly about this particular case? Does this have a lasting impact, or is this
just a one-and-done? NANCY YOUSSEF: No, I think it does have a
lasting impact. Like most things around this case, it’s become
very polarized. You hear people look at Chief Gallagher as
either a war hero or a war criminal. You hear about concerns about the enduring
impact of what happens when the military justice system can be undone with outside intervention. There are concerns that perhaps other service
members will come forward and ask for an outside intervention and seek to undo the rulings
of the military court system. And so there’s a real wait-and-see approach
in terms of what the after-effects are, the second- and third-order effects. There’s an expectation that they will happen. And yet there are those who think that this
was the president’s prerogative, his right to do, and all falls within the proper chain
of command. And so, like most things around this case,
it has led to really polarized reactions even within the Pentagon. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Nancy Youssef of The Wall
Street Journal, thank you so much. NANCY YOUSSEF: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: Italy’s birth
rate falls to historic lows — is this the end of the big Italian family?; on the “NewsHour”
Bookshelf, “The American Story: Conversations With Master Historians”; and how art can help
fight the isolation of Alzheimer’s. Will the latest entrant to the crowded race
for the Democratic presidential nomination shake up the standings, as the impeachment
marches ahead? Our Politics Monday duo are here to examine
it all, Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and host of public radio’s “Politics With
Amy Walter” and Tamara Keith from NPR. She co-hosts the “NPR Politics Podcast.” Hello to both of you. So we have a little bit of news this evening
on the impeachment, the tug of war between the president and the Congress. And that is, a federal district judge ruled
the president’s former legal counsel Don McGahn should, must testify before lawmakers, before
the Congress. We assume there will be an appeal, Tam, but
this could set a precedent for other White House and administration officials to be required
to go testify before the Congress. We don’t know. We haven’t heard what the Intelligence Committee
report is. We know the Judiciary Committee is next. But all this raises, again, the question of
the public’s perception of this and where do we go. So, Amy, to you. What are we seeing in terms of the needle
moving at all in how the public is reading this? AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: So,
we have had two weeks of hearings, which produced a lot of fireworks and a lot of coverage,
but it really hasn’t produced a lot of movement in the polls. We’re basically where we have been since,
well, October, basically, since before these hearings began. If you go and you look, FiveThirtyEight.com
has a great tracking measurement of all the polling that’s been done on the issue of impeachment. And if you go back to the day before the public
hearings began, support for impeachment was at 48 percent; 45 percent said they didn’t
prove approve of impeachment. Today, it’s 46-46, which is essentially, in
the world of numbers, very little movement to just sort of statistical around the edges. So what we’re seeing, I think it’s folks that
— who are already deeply engaged, who are paying attention to this are paying attention
to it because they were already sort of committed to whatever outcome they would like to see. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Tam, how much does this
matter to members of the House of Representatives, who are back in their districts, presumably,
this week, maybe heading toward a momentous vote? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Yes. I mean, if they are hearing about it from
their constituents, then that could affect behavior. But what we saw right before they left town
is someone like Will Hurd. He’s a congressman, R retiring, is what I
like to say, Republican retiring, has sort of the freedom of a retiring Republican. And he’s always been sort of more moderate
and also has been fairly outspoken about his concerns with President Trump. As the hearings were winding down last week,
he came out. He’s on the Intelligence Committee. And he said that he wasn’t persuaded that
this was impeachable, certainly proper, but not impeachable. If Will Hurd is there, then Republican Congress
— members of Congress are not feeling pressure. Another example is Elise Stefanik, who at
times has charted a more moderate course. She was closely allied with Paul Ryan, who
had his issues with President Trump. Well, she became a star for the hearing for
sort of pushing President Trump’s viewpoint and position in those hearings. So these are two public examples of Republican
members of Congress who are not persuaded. And if House members, if these sorts of Republicans
are not tempted to vote against the president, then there’s no way that senators are going
to feel pressure. JUDY WOODRUFF: Quickly, it just looks like
the two sides are far — growing farther apart. AMY WALTER: Growing farther apart, or maybe
they are just feeling more committed to their position or just as committed as they were
before this began. The Republicans, though, who should be concerned,
and probably are concerned right now, are in the Senate, on the Senate side, where you
have Republicans up for reelection in blue states like Colorado and Maine and increasingly
purple Arizona. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, we will see. And they’d come into play after the House
voted on impeachment. AMY WALTER: Absolutely. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, to the 2020 Democratic
race. We have a new entrant as of this weekend. He is none other than the former Mayor of
New York City Michael Bloomberg. And he’s out with a splash, Tam, $31 million
in ads across the country. Here’s an excerpt of the first ad they’re
running. NARRATOR: And now he’s taking on him to rebuild
the country and restore faith in the dream that defines us, where the wealthy will pay
more in taxes and the middle class get their fair share. Everyone without health insurance can get
it, and everyone who likes theirs keep it, and where jobs won’t just help you get by,
but get ahead. And on all those things, Mike Bloomberg intends
to make good. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Tam, they’re running that
ad — that’s just a short version of it — in something like 46 of the 50 states. We have got a map here. Every state that’s yellow on that map, they’re
running. TAMARA KEITH: That’s the whole country. JUDY WOODRUFF: And spending 2-plus million
in New York City alone, $1.6 million, I think, in Los Angeles alone. This is $1.9 million. I’m sorry. This is huge. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. So, this is going to test some things, some
ideas in politics. One idea in politics that emerged after President
Trump won with far less money than Hillary Clinton was, oh, well, maybe money doesn’t
matter. I guess we will find out whether money matters,
because he is in the process of trying to buy some love and attention. The other question, though, is, traditionally,
you can’t skip the first few states and think that you’re going to somehow have momentum
after that. Ronna McDaniel, who is the chair of the RNC,
the other day was saying that people who plant their flag in states after those first few
states often find that momentum overtakes them. JUDY WOODRUFF: He’s counting, Amy, on money
overcoming a lot of this. (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: Right. He’s counting on a couple of things. It’s really good that you pointed out Donald
Trump, because he also went against conventional thinking, because even in the primaries, he
didn’t spend that much money. He was counting on his name I.D. and his ability
to dominate the media landscape, right? Every minute of every day, he was being covered
by cable news. And he took up all the political oxygen. And all the traditional ways of campaigning,
go and organize, host these meet-and-greets with voters, it didn’t matter. JUDY WOODRUFF: It was called free media, is
what we call it. AMY WALTER: It was all — he just sucked all
of that up. Now, if you’re Michael Bloomberg, it’s a little
bit different. Obviously, you’re not getting free media. You’re paying for it, and the theory being,
if you spend an amount of money like we have never seen before, ever seen before in American
politics, that, by the time that we hit… JUDY WOODRUFF: You can repeat that again. (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) AMY WALTER: That we have never seen before
in American politics. By the time we hit post-South Carolina, so
the very beginning of March, the theory being the process has so just sort of obliterated
the field, right, nobody’s really a front-runner, everybody has all of this baggage, and they
can turn to somebody who’s just been on their airwaves and on their smartphones for the
last couple of months telling them how great he is. Oh, all these other candidates look bad, say
Democrats, they have gotten beaten up? Why don’t we turn to Michael Bloomberg? That’s his theory. It’s a big, big gamble, but that’s what he’s
counting on happening. JUDY WOODRUFF: But is there any history of
somebody coming in late and making it work? TAMARA KEITH: Not in this particular way. (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: Not in modern history. JUDY WOODRUFF: Not since we have had these
early primaries. AMY WALTER: That’s right. Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ah, $31 million in one week,
and there are a couple of weeks to go, a couple of months to go before we get to the post-early
primaries. AMY WALTER: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: We will watch. Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, thank you both. AMY WALTER: Thank you. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: Family sizes have been steadily
shrinking around the industrialized world for decades. And Italy is a prime example. Just a generation ago, four children was the
norm. Today, the average family has fewer than two. And as special correspondent Christopher Livesay
reports from Sicily, demographers warn that the shrinking population could drag the country
into an unprecedented economic crisis. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Little Saverio is just
13 days old, born here in the Sicilian town of Nicosia. GIACOMO DI MARTE, New Father: It’s special
for the hospital, and very, very special to us. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Special to them because
it’s their first child. Special to the hospital because he’s the only
newborn here. The birth rate here is so low, the maternity
ward has risked closing, says Dr. Maria Rosaria Vena, who oversees it. DR. MARIA ROSARIA VENA, Maternity Ward (through
translator): It’s a bit sad to see all these empty beds, because, when there aren’t any
births, we feel like we’re wasting hours of our time. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: How many births were
there last year in total? DR. MARIA ROSARIA VENA (through translator): About
200 births, whereas, when I started working here 20 years ago, there were about 400 every
year. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: So just in the span of
20 years, half of the births have gone? DR. MARIA ROSARIA VENA (through translator): Yes. That’s why there’s always the risk they could
shut us down. To justify a maternity ward, you have to have
a minimum 500 annual births. But the nearest other hospital is a very long
and difficult drive away. If they close this hospital, some mothers
would end up giving birth on the side of the road. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Across the hall, I meet
20-year-old Lorena Scriffignano, the only expectant mother in the ward. LORENA SCRIFFIGNANO, Expectant Mother (through
translator): I don’t have any friends who are pregnant. It’s really hard to raise a family. I don’t have a job. And the father has to drive an hour and 30
minutes to work. So he’s going to be away a lot. And my child isn’t going to have many friends
his own age. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: It’s a scene repeating
itself across Italy. Census figures show the national population
is steadily shrinking, the first time that’s happened in 90 years, due in large part to
the declining birthrate. The average Italian family today only has
1.2 children, says Angelo Mazza, a professor of demographics at the University of Catania
in Sicily. There’s that idea of the Italian family with
lots of kids. I mean, what could be more Italian than that? ANGELO MAZZA, University of Catania: I’ll
tell you that fertility rates have been going down from the mid-’60s. To replace the population, every woman should
make at least two babies during her life. I mean, that’s logic. And 1.2 is kind of far from two. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: So why are Italians just
not having as many children as they used to? ANGELO MAZZA: Well, it is not because they
don’t want to. They feel that conditions are not good enough
to have two babies, because you need to get a job, a proper job. And it may happen that this doesn’t give you
enough time to fulfill your wishes, your reproductive wishes. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Italy’s economy has been
reeling since the 2008 global economic crisis. The youth unemployment rate stands at a staggering
35 percent, prompting young people to both hold off on starting a family and leave in
search of work. Last year, more than 150,000 Italians emigrated
abroad. Factor in the plunge in pregnancies, and you
have the only major European economy with a population forecast to decline even further
over the next five years. Take, for example, the town of Acquaviva Platani
in Sicily. Today, it has only 800 inhabitants, down from
roughly 3,700 in the ’50s. Founded four centuries ago, the town’s narrow
streets and position high atop a hill once made it difficult for invaders to pillage. Today, young people find it difficult to live
and work here, says Mayor Salvatore Caruso. SALVATORE CARUSO, Mayor of Acquaviva Platani,
Italy (through translator): There’s hardly any industry. A number of young people have gone to live
in the north or abroad either to study or to work. It’s hard to imagine young couples coming
here if they don’t have work. Today, the majority of the population is elderly,
so there are hardly any births. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: How many births are we
talking about? SALVATORE CARUSO (through translator): I believe,
last year, there were five or six, and we will have around that this year too. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Over the years, he says,
vanishing families has meant shrinking class sizes, forcing them to combine age groups,
and, in some, close schools. But if people aren’t having children anymore,
does your town run the risk of eventually dying? SALVATORE CARUSO (through translator): There’s
a gap of 10 to 15 people every year between births and deaths. So it’s certainly possible. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Walking the empty streets,
I meet some of those few young people still living here. They all share the same part-time job, one
of the few left in town, caretaking for the elderly. ALESSANDRO, Italy (through translator): It
would be nice to raise a family in my hometown. But I don’t know if I have a future here. I really think I will have to leave. I don’t want to see my town disappear, but,
in the end, we have to look out for ourselves. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Italy is second in the
world only to Japan for having the highest concentration of senior citizens. If more young people leave, it’s a vicious
circle for the town and country. ANGELO MAZZA: If we have less children today,
we’re going to have less parents tomorrow, and even less children and so forth, you know? CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: So what are some of the
problems that we might run into? ANGELO MAZZA: Eventually, the population could
extinguish. And when baby boomers will retire, you know,
you’re going to have a small amount of individuals taking care of a larger amount of the old
people. Things are going to be even worse in the next
10 or 20 years. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Only 10 or 20 years? That’s right around the corner. ANGELO MAZZA: Yes, that’s the emergency. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: It’s an emergency? ANGELO MAZZA: It’s an emergency, yes. It’s a real emergency. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: But solutions exist,
he says. The government could incentivize childbirth,
much as neighboring France has done, by investing more in day care, longer parental leaves,
and tax exemptions to parents. ANGELO MAZZA: They have now almost the same
population that Italy does. You know that they have 65 percent more children
every year there. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: In France? ANGELO MAZZA: In France, yes, than in Italy,
65 percent more. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Sixty-five percent more? ANGELO MAZZA: Yes. Yes. Yes. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: The other solution, migrants,
mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. They have been steadily arriving in Italy
for years, offsetting much of the decline in population. Last year, however, Italy began to ban migrant
ships and enact other measures to lower immigration to the country. If Italy continues to block migration from
outside Europe, then half of the population will die out by the end of the century, according
to the E.U.’s statistics agency. Back in Acquaviva Platani, Alessia Boscarini
manages a cafe, where she’s recently given her shrinking town a bump of hope. ALESSIA BOSCARINI, Cafe Manager (through translator):
He’s due in just a few weeks. His name is Alessandro, our first. It’s very exciting, because there are so few
babies born from our town every year. This will only be the fifth this year. It’s such a big event that the town rings
the church bells every time a baby is born. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: But with that birth several
weeks away, the bells remain silent, as they have for most of the year. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Christopher Livesay
in Acquaviva Platani, Sicily. JUDY WOODRUFF: In 2013, billionaire investor,
businessman and philanthropist David Rubenstein set out an ambitious plan, to moderate a series
of conversations with prominent historians in front of an audience of bipartisan lawmakers. The goal? To make members of Congress more knowledgeable
about the past, so they could better deal with the country’s future. Rubenstein is now sharing the best of those
conversations in a new book, “The American Story.” A note: David Rubenstein’s philanthropy includes
public television and the “PBS NewsHour.” I spoke with him recently. And I began by asking him if work with lawmakers
and historians has achieved its goal. DAVID RUBENSTEIN, Author, “The American Story:
Conversations With Master Historians”: We have Republicans, Democrats and people from
both houses coming. We get about 250 to 300 people participating
in each interview. They have a reception. We ask them to sit with people from the opposite
party in the opposite House, so they get to know people they don’t otherwise know or otherwise
get to talk to. There’s no press there, so there’s not pressure
to do anything. And they have an interview that they can watch
and then they participate in the interview by asking questions. And they’re just like any other audience. They bring their dog-eared copies Robert Caro’s
book or David McCullough’s book. They want them autographed just like anybody
else. So the real reason for this is not just the
era of good feels, but the thinking is this. People who make the laws should know our country’s
history. And our country’s history should be known
by everybody in the country, particularly the lawmakers. Right now, we don’t teach history very much
in the United States. We don’t teach civics very much anymore. And, as a result of that, you get surveys
that show, for example, three-quarters of Americans cannot name the three branches of
government. And one-third Americans cannot even name one
branch of government. It’s a sad situation. JUDY WOODRUFF: It is a sad situation, when
you see those statistics. And from this book, David Rubenstein, you
talk to historians of 10 different presidents, but then you talk to other great American
leaders. I mean, there were so many things that stood
out to me, talking to historian Jack Warren about George Washington, and how he was the
right man for the moment. Why? DAVID RUBENSTEIN: Well, remember, George Washington
three times turned down power. After he won the Revolutionary War as the
leading general, he went back to Mount Vernon, said, I don’t want to be the leader of the
country. Second time, he presided over the Constitutional
Convention, but he didn’t really want to lead the country. He went back to Mount Vernon. And the third time, he was elected president,
and he didn’t really want to be president. But he served. And each time, he basically said, I’m going
to do what I can for my country. And he was the indispensable man. If we had not had George Washington, I’m not
sure we would have won the Revolutionary War. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s so striking in so many
ways. And I’m jumping way ahead. Franklin Roosevelt. You press Jay Winik on why Franklin Roosevelt
didn’t intervene in World War II to stop the Holocaust any sooner. The answer was kind of stunning. I mean, he says it was Roosevelt’s decision
not to intervene any sooner. DAVID RUBENSTEIN: That’s correct. I don’t think it stemmed from anti-Semitism. I just think it was a combination of many
things going on in the war. I don’t think even he knew how much impact
he could have, had he been willing to bomb the railroads that were then going to Auschwitz. So I think what I try to do in this book is
try to say, here are some of the interviews from the greatest historians in our country. Don’t read this book alone. Read the books themselves. Basically, I’m digesting the interviews. And I think they’re very readable, but you
should read the entire book. JUDY WOODRUFF: Most of the great leaders you
write about, of course, are man. In the chapter where you interviewed Cokie
Roberts, our dear friend, the late Cokie Roberts, who passed away not long ago, because she’d
written several books about the founding mothers. What did you take away from that, David Rubenstein,
about why women haven’t gotten more attention in history? DAVID RUBENSTEIN: Well, in the early days
of our country, women were not allowed to vote. They weren’t allowed to hold — own property. If you were married, you couldn’t own property. And, obviously, you couldn’t be an officeholder. So how did they exercise influence? Well, they tended to do it through their husbands. And very often, their husbands were away. So they wrote elaborate letters. And the letters between John and Abigail Adams,
there are about 1,000 of them. And when you read them, you realize that Abigail
Adams, although she had maybe a second grade education, was every bit as intelligent and
literate and well-written a person as her husband, John, who was trained as a lawyer. So the letters from these women are one said
Cokie Roberts dug into. She found many that nobody really knew had
existed. And you saw that the women had a lot of influence
on the men. JUDY WOODRUFF: There’s so much here. David McCullough telling you early on in the
book — he, of course, the great historian of John Adams — he said: “The best and most
effective people in public life, without exception, have been the people who had a profound and
very often lifelong interest in history.” Do you make a connection with today and President
Trump? DAVID RUBENSTEIN: Well, I think many people
who understand history are at an advantage. But because of STEM, we have taken civics
and history out of our curriculum. JUDY WOODRUFF: The focus on science and math,
right. DAVID RUBENSTEIN: Yes. People are concerned about competing with
the Chinese. That’s a very legitimate concern. But I don’t think people should only take
STEM courses and not take history courses. Right now, over the last eight years, history
majors in the United States have gone down by 34 percent. So there are fewer people majoring in history. And the result is, very few people know about
our history. JUDY WOODRUFF: Have you thought about which
great historian is going to be in a position to write about President Donald Trump? DAVID RUBENSTEIN: Our mutual friend Michael
Beschloss would say it takes maybe 40 years after a president is gone for a historian
to really be able to get hold of all the documents and really come up with some judgment. So I think it’s probably too early. The person who’s going to be the great historian
who is going to write about that president probably is in grade school right now. So it’s probably going to be a while. I think people your age, my age are not going
to be the great historians probably to write that. But I think it’s just too early to say. And, of course, we don’t know what’s going
to happen to his term. Most presidents are judged as successes if
they get reelected, even if the second term isn’t that successful. And many second terms are not that successful. But I think, until you know whether President
Trump’s going to be reelected, I think it’s difficult to say whether his first term is
successful or not. JUDY WOODRUFF: Last question. There are two, maybe three billionaires right
now running for president of the United States, of course, President Trump running for reelection,
Tom Steyer, maybe Michael Bloomberg. What about David Rubenstein? What do you think about running for office? DAVID RUBENSTEIN: Well, I think that, right
now, I’m doing the best I can in what I do. I think the country has enough people who
are billionaires running for president. I know many of them. They are very qualified in some ways to be
president. But I think my best use for the country is
doing what I’m doing right now. And what I would rather do more than anything
else is talk to you about this book. JUDY WOODRUFF: David Rubenstein, the book
is “The American Story: Conversations With Master Historians.” Thank you very much. DAVID RUBENSTEIN: My pleasure. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Nearly six million Americans
are living with Alzheimer’s disease. For many, this diagnosis is the start of a
life with limitations, but as an art program in Minneapolis shows, a life that can still
hold great joy and meaning. The story comes to us from Kate McDonald of
Twin Cities PBS, as part of our ongoing arts and culture series, Canvas. WOMAN: Welcome to the Walker Art Center. We have a beautiful day today. We’re going to explore the sculpture garden
together. KATE MCDONALD: Taking a tour of outdoor sculpture
would not have been a normal activity for most of Marv Lofquist’s life. But when the retired chemistry professor was
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease seven years ago, he began to appreciate art in a new way. MARV LOFQUIST, Tour Participant: I like to
contrast between the dark coat and the whitish face. If I got upset every time I didn’t remember
anything, I’d be upset all day. I can’t remember what I said five minutes
ago. But I think then you turn around and say,
just enjoy what is there right now. I can look at things and start to appreciate
them in ways that I never would have thought I would. KATE MCDONALD: Lofquist is among the more
than 1,000 people who’ve participated in Contemporary Journeys, a program designed by the Walker
Art Center for people with dementia and Alzheimer’s, along with a partner, often a family member
or friend. ILENE KRUG MOJSILOV, Teaching Artist: This
artist loved to collect bones, wood pieces, stones, rocks. KATE MCDONALD: Ilene Krug Mojsilov helped
found the program in 2009 and leads the tours once a month. Mojsilov says that people with dementia are
uniquely open and without inhibition when it comes to interpreting what they see. ILENE KRUG MOJSILOV: Oh, Marv, you’re demonstrating. Very good. MARV LOFQUIST: Yes. Shake your hand. Give me your hand. (LAUGHTER) ILENE KRUG MOJSILOV: One thing I learned from
this group is, there’s always someone that contributes something fresh and new that I
haven’t considered before. This group is totally in the moment. It makes me more sensitive to the world at
large. What’s missing from that coat? (LAUGHTER) ILENE KRUG MOJSILOV: Cool. Cool. KATE MCDONALD: Tour guides make adjustments
for the needs of the participants. They discuss only the artwork that is right
in front of them and keep conversation in the present. ILENE KRUG MOJSILOV: That’s what’s so cool
about art. What you each bring to the sculpture is important. Your ideas are important. KATE MCDONALD: But does art therapy work? It’s not as easy as determining if a drug
is effectively working. The Walker asked public health Professor Joseph
Gaugler to assess the project. JOSEPH GAUGLER, University of Minnesota: You’re
talking about outcomes, quality of life, well-being, more humanistic outcomes that sometimes you
can always measure with a scale. Art therapy approaches can really help enhance
the personhood of the person living with dementia. People with memory loss can still continue
to express thoughts, feelings and emotions in a healthy way. KATE MCDONALD: In addition to looking at art,
the program engages participants in making their own art, inspired by artworks they have
seen on the tour. ILENE KRUG MOJSILOV: This is your space. You’re going to make a sculpture park. Art-making, I think, amplifies the experience. It’s a way to activate cognition, and is what
jazzes me too. I’m looking for meaning in life. And I think care partners and our participants
are looking for meaning too. KATE MCDONALD: Art-making can also decrease
the stress, agitation and isolation often associated with memory loss. Elaine Lofquist is Marv’s wife and care partner. They met in high school and have been married
for 53 years. ELAINE LOFQUIST, Care Partner: Doing something
with Marvin just alone is fun, and we enjoy doing that. But having an activity that we can go to with
other people is even more beneficial for us in terms of not feeling isolated. MARV LOFQUIST: I think self-isolation is one
of the worst things you can do in any situation, but especially with memory loss. I don’t want to be sitting there and not feeling
like I can’t participate, cannot contribute. Getting a group like we had together to look
at some artwork or talk about some things, that’s what I still want to keep doing, is,
what can I find enjoyable? What can I find that’s meaningful? JOSEPH GAUGLER: As more people, unfortunately,
get Alzheimer’s disease, you’re going to start, I think, seeing the seeds of really an advocacy
movement of people with memory loss stating that, I’m still here, and my values, my thoughts,
preferences matter. MARV LOFQUIST: How can we turn some of the
negativity around Alzheimer’s and say, let’s just accept it, and deal with it, and enjoy
what we can? ELAINE LOFQUIST: And that is
what art does. It’s for the people, no matter where you are
in your walk in life. MARV LOFQUIST: For a chemist, not too bad. (APPLAUSE) KATE MCDONALD: For “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Kate
McDonald of Twin Cities PBS in Minneapolis. JUDY WOODRUFF: Such a wonderful idea. Let’s hope it catches on. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 18, 2019

AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening. I’m Amna Nawaz. Judy Woodruff is away. On the “NewsHour” tonight: Hong Kong chaos. Tensions escalate, as police and protesters
clash at a local university. Then: rules of war — how President Trump’s
latest pardons raise serious questions about military justice. And our Politics Monday team breaks down the
latest from the campaign trail and results from key governor’s races across the country. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Police in Hong Kong tightened
their siege of a university campus tonight, where hundreds of protesters remain trapped
inside. It’s the latest bout of violence the city
has seen in nearly six months of protests. In other parts of the city, protests fueled
by the stand-off continue. Nick Schifrin has the latest. NICK SCHIFRIN: Overnight and through the morning
darkness, the streets of Hong Kong remained a battlefield. The police pushed to retake the campus of
Hong Kong’s Polytechnic University. And students used any means necessary to hold
their ground. Through masks that protect them from tear
gas, they plead for help. WOMAN: I really hope that someone could give
a helping hand. NICK SCHIFRIN: In a predawn raid, Hong Kong
police arrested a student journalist and repeatedly asked the student to stop recording. Some protesters fled on motorcycles. The police arrested more than 400 trying to
flee. Protesters tripped over barricades and were
tackled to the ground. This is the crescendo of six months of protests
that started against the law that would have extradited criminal suspects to mainland China. But, today, demonstrators are calling for
fundamental reform. And mainland China is threatening to escalate. For the first time since the protest began,
this weekend, Chinese soldiers left their Hong Kong barracks and cleaned up debris wearing
T-shirts and shorts. And, today, China’s ambassador to the United
Kingdom blamed the West for instigating the protests and warned the protesters. LIU XIAOMING, Chinese Ambassador to the United
Kingdom: To restore law and order, violence must end, and the violent perpetrators must
be brought to justice. This is the only way to safeguard the interests
of the public and secure a better future for Hong Kong and cement the foundation of one
country, two systems. NICK SCHIFRIN: The two sides are on a cycle
of escalation. Police say they’re defending themselves and
warned they could begin using live ammunition. But protesters say they are responding to
police brutality and demand the city give in to their demands. OLIVIA, Protester: We want a peaceful Hong
Kong to be back, but I think, before that, the government has to listen to the people,
and the police has to stop whatever they’re doing. And I hope that Hong Kong can go back to the
previous Hong Kong as soon as possible. NICK SCHIFRIN: For more on what this standoff
means for Hong Kong, and mainland China, we’re joined by Kurt Tong, who just finished a 29-year-career
in the State Department. He was the most recent U.S. consul general
to Hong Kong, who served there from 2016 to July 2019. He’s now a partner at the Asia Group, an international
business consulting firm. And welcome to “NewsHour.” Thanks very much. KURT TONG, Former U.S. Consul General to Hong
Kong: Thanks, Nick. It’s a pleasure to be here. NICK SCHIFRIN: What is the significance of
this we’re looking at right now, this standoff in this university, one of the first times
where we have seen protesters actually try and hold a little bit of ground? KURT TONG: Well, I think that’s right. It’s a departure in strategy by the protesters
to establish, essentially, a situation where they’re under siege, rather than using their
old philosophy of move like water, have a protest, and then leave before they could
get arrested. So I think it creates some new risks, both
for the protesters, but also for how the police handle it. NICK SCHIFRIN: So the police handling of not
only this moment, but throughout this process, the protesters have talked about things like
police brutality. That’s the language that they use. And we do see videos of police beating up
protesters, for sure. Do you believe that some of the police actions
over the last few months have fueled the protests? KURT TONG: I think that’s right. I think that the police have been under intense
pressure. Personally, I don’t think that they were particularly
well-trained for this kind of circumstance. And so they’re having an emotional response
to people coming at them violently and, in some instances, responding inappropriately. Inappropriate is a such a weasel word. I mean responding violently in ways that they
shouldn’t have. That is something that the protesters are
now calling for an investigation of. And that probably makes sense to do that. It is important to remember, at the same time,
that the protesters have, if you will, taken first blood in terms of making this a violent
situation. NICK SCHIFRIN: Of course, behind the police,
literally in a garrison in the middle of Hong Kong are PLA soldiers, or Chinese soldiers,
and we saw them out in T-shirts and shorts… KURT TONG: Right. NICK SCHIFRIN: … in response to this in
the last day or so. Talked to some people who fear that it could
be some kind of test run of some sort. Do you share that fear, that the Chinese military
could respond in some way, if this violence continues? KURT TONG: The fact of the matter is that
there is a significant military presence in Hong Kong, which is not designed for crowd
control or for police activity. China, of course, has immense police resources
across the border that are not, again, prepared for working in the Hong Kong environment under
Hong Kong law. So I think that the options for the mainland
in terms of direct intervention are limited and bad. And so I don’t anticipate that happening. But they have from time to time — for example,
earlier this fall, they released a video of them practicing this kind of activity. And I think that was — that was intended… NICK SCHIFRIN: And we have seen the rhetoric
increase from Chinese officials, including Xi Jinping. KURT TONG: And that’s intended to scare people. NICK SCHIFRIN: Scare people as a level of
deterrence. You don’t think it will go beyond that? KURT TONG: I certainly hope not. And I think it would be a mistake if it did. NICK SCHIFRIN: Which brings us to the U.S.
response. The U.S. has, in fact, warned China not to
go further than it has gone. And we have saw Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
today in the State Department say two things. One, he endorsed the idea of that police investigation. And he also gave a little bit of a reference
to some — one of the protesters’ key demands. Let’s take a listen. MIKE POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State: We call
on Chief Executive Carrie Lam to promote accountability by supplementing the Independent Police Complaints
Council review with an independent investigation into the protest-related incidents. As the United States government has said repeatedly,
the Chinese Communist Party must honor its promises to the Hong Kong people, who only
want the freedoms and liberties that they have been promised in the Sino-British Joint
Declaration. NICK SCHIFRIN: Must honor its promises and
police investigation. Is that an adequate U.S. response? KURT TONG: I think that’s a good response. Certainly, I think what Secretary Pompeo said
is right. And that — we need to keep in mind that there
is some limits to the reach of the United States to influence events within Hong Kong. But, certainly, calling for a thorough investigation
of what has taken place is a natural thing to do in this circumstance and an important
thing to do. And the reference to the 1984 Sino-British
Joint Declaration, I think, is spot on. It’s really important for everyone in this
circumstance to really think carefully about, what are we trying to achieve? What are they trying to achieve? What are the protesters trying to achieve? What does China want? What does Hong Kong? What does the United States want? NICK SCHIFRIN: And quickly, in the time we
have left, U.S. officials are weighing even more drastic options, for example, even removing
some diplomats from Hong Kong, some kind of sanctions. Would those moves be positive, do you think? KURT TONG: I think that it depends on who
the sanctions are on. Removing diplomats, I don’t think, is necessary
unless it’s unsafe. The — I would… NICK SCHIFRIN: Could it send a signal, though,
to remove diplomats? KURT TONG: It could. But it — would it be effective? I would question that. I think that the bigger question here is,
whatever the U.S. does, a matter of U.S. policy should be carefully designed to really have
an impact on the situation in a positive way, not an emotional response to short-term exigencies,
but, rather, how do we reinforce this idea of a Hong Kong that’s part of China, but is
very different from the rest of China? To be specific on that, it’s important that
the United States not do something that actually ends up hurting the Hong Kong people more
than the intended target, which would — in the case of a bad situation there would be
the Beijing government. If Hong Kong is — no longer has autonomy,
then we should treat it like it no longer has autonomy. But if it has autonomy, I don’t think we should
take away our recognition of that autonomy because of a short-term situation, because
Hong Kong serves the United States’ interests, being a great place to do business and a communication
point for dealing with China. And it’s also a place where seven million
people live, that — most of whom we like. And we don’t want to take away their livelihood
just to spite Beijing. NICK SCHIFRIN: Kurt Tong, until July consul
general in Hong Kong, thank you very much. KURT TONG: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: In the day’s other news: Iran’s
powerful Revolutionary Guards warned protesters they will face — quote — “decisive action”
if nationwide unrest doesn’t stop. People occupied streets and set fire to cars,
banks and other buildings over the weekend. They were angered by a 50 percent hike in
gasoline prices. The government cut off Internet access in
an effort to smother the protests. ALI RABIEI, Iranian Government Spokesperson
(through translator): Today, the situation was calmer, more than 80 percent compared
to yesterday. Only some minor problems remain. And by tomorrow and the day after, there will
remain no riots. AMNA NAWAZ: The protests took place in dozens
of cities and put more pressure on Iran’s government as it struggles with an ailing
economy and U.S. sanctions. In Iraq, anti-government protesters again
seized a major bridge in Baghdad, burning tires to block traffic. They also held a funeral procession for a
protester killed by security forces. More than 320 demonstrators have been killed
in recent weeks, as they demand a new government and political and economic reforms. The Trump administration is softening its
policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced today
he will abandon a 1978 State Department legal finding that the settlements are inconsistent
with international law. Pompeo said the finding had hindered the path
to peace. MIKE POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State: We have
had a long time with the policy, the legal interpretation announced today being the other
way, and it didn’t work. That’s a fact in evidence. We believe that what we have done today is,
we have recognized the reality on the ground. We think, in fact, we have increased the likelihood
that the vision for peace that this administration has, we think we have created space for that
to be successful. AMNA NAWAZ: Today’s move is one of a series
of Trump administration decisions that weaken Palestinian claims to statehood. North Korea declared today it doesn’t want
— quote — “meaningless nuclear talks” with the U.S.. President Trump had hinted at a
third summit with Kim Jong-un. But North Korea’s Foreign Ministry said Kim
rejects any summit unless he gets something tangible. A senior official said — quote — “We will
no longer gift the U.S. president with something he can boast of.” Kim has demanded that the U.S. offer acceptable
terms by the end of the year, in return for him ending North Korea’s nuclear program. The city of Venice, Italy, struggled to begin
recovering today, after unprecedented tidal flooding. On Sunday, tourists and officials waded through
historic St. Mark’s Square, though some businesses stayed open despite the water. The mayor said the record flooding is a warning. LUIGI BRUGNARO, Mayor of Venice, Italy (through
translator): Venice is a way to give a signal that we need scientists here. They need to come here and create a permanent
place where they can study and then recount what is happening here because of climate
change, with all its effects. Venice is a frontier. We are in the trenches. AMNA NAWAZ: The water levels on Sunday reached
nearly five feet for the third time in the past week. That had not happened since record-keeping
began in 1872. Back in this country, a congressional watchdog
group says at least 60 percent of Superfund sites are prone to flooding or other effects
of climate change. Those sites contain hazardous industrial waste. The Government Accountability Office called
today for the Environmental Protection Agency to state explicitly that it will focus on
the problem. President Trump has often derided talk of
climate change. Seven people are dead after two shootings
in different parts of the country. In Duncan, Oklahoma, three people were killed
today outside a Walmart. Police said the gunman shot two people in
a car, before killing himself. Meanwhile, a manhunt is under way in Fresno,
California, for two men who shot and killed four people on Sunday evening. It happened at a backyard gathering where
about 30 people, including children, were watching a football game. Six more people were wounded in the shooting. ANDY HALL, Fresno, California, Police Chief:
They walked into the backyard and began immediately firing into the crowd; 10 of those 16 people
at that event were hit and struck by bullets. The unknown suspects fled the scene on foot. What I can tell you is, this wasn’t a random
act. AMNA NAWAZ: Police say some of the victims
may have been involved in an incident last week. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has
ordered a hold on letting House Democrats see President Trump’s tax records. A federal appeals court had ruled in favor
of enforcing a House subpoena for the documents. The Roberts order today blocks enforcement
for an unspecified time to give the high court time to issue a definitive ruling. President Trump is backing away from a plan
to bar sales of most flavored e-cigarette products. He had said in September he would announce
a ban to try and curb teenage vaping. But it was widely reported today that he changed
his mind after being warned that a crackdown could cost jobs and votes. And on Wall Street Today, the Dow Jones industrial
average gained 31 points to close at 28036. The Nasdaq rose nine points, and the S&P 500
added one point. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the latest
in the impeachment inquiry and what to expect in the second week of public hearings; how
President Trump’s latest pardons raise concerns about military justice; our Politics Monday
team breaks down the latest from the campaign trail; plus, a new exhibit of paintings by
Winslow Homer examines the artist’s fascination with the sea. The stage is set on Capitol Hill for the second
week of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. And as White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor
reports, there’s word today he may testify on his own behalf. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: On CBS’ “Face the Nation”
Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Trump to appear. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): If he has information
that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward
to seeing it. The president could come right before the
committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants, if he wants to… MARGARET BRENNAN, Host, “Face the Nation”:
You don’t expect him to do that? REP. NANCY PELOSI: … if he wants to take the
oath of office. Or he could do it in writing. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Today, President Trump responded
on Twitter. He wrote: “I like the idea and will, in order
to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it.” President Trump is accused of withholding
almost $400 million in military aid from Ukraine in exchange for probes into his political
opponents. Over the weekend, Republicans continued to
defend the president. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who sits on the House
Intelligence Committee, said Democrats don’t have a case because Ukraine never followed
through with any of the investigations. He also appeared on “Face the Nation.” REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): The Ukrainians did nothing
to, as — as far as investigations goes, to get the aid release. So there was never this quid pro quo that
the Democrats all promised existed before President Trump released the phone call. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In an interview today with
“NewsHour”‘s Judy Woodruff at a cancer fund-raiser in San Antonio, former Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson criticized the president’s actions. JUDY WOODRUFF: What is appropriate and what
is proper in the role of a diplomat? REX TILLERSON, Former U.S. Secretary of State:
Well… JUDY WOODRUFF: And in American foreign policy? REX TILLERSON: Yes,. I mean, clearly — clearly, asking for personal
favors and using United States assets as collateral is wrong. There’s just no two ways about it. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Meanwhile, House Democrats
on Saturday released two more transcripts from closed-door testimony. They came from Tim Morrison, a departing National
Security Council official, and Jennifer Williams, a career State Department official who is
an aide to Vice President Pence. Both were on the July 25 call between President
Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. On it, President Trump pressed Zelensky to
investigate Democrats. Morrison testified that he had — quote — “concerns
about a potential leak of the call for political reasons.” He also was concerned about how its release
might affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. But he said — quote — “I wasn’t concerned
that anything illegal was discussed.” Williams testified the call seemed — quote
— “unusual and inappropriate.” She said it shed some light on possible other
motivations behind a security assistance hold. In a tweet on Saturday, President Trump went
after Williams. He called her a never-Trumper and accused
her and other witnesses of attacking him. Williams and Morrison plan to testify publicly,
along with Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, National Security Council director
for European affairs, as well as Kurt Volker, former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine. They all will appear before the House Intelligence
Committee tomorrow. AMNA NAWAZ: Yamiche is here with me now to
break all of this down. Good too see you, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Great to be here. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: Let’s start with the week. It’s a big one, right? We have three days of public hearings, a number
of officials coming before Congress to testify. Walk us through who we’re going to hear from
and why they matter. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, we have a full schedule
this week, a packed schedule, really. And Democrats want to do this to make sure
that they’re basically laying out their case. So, if you look at this calendar, there’s
just a number of officials, both current and former officials who are serving in the Trump
administration or who has served in the Trump administration. There are three key people that I’m going
to point to. The first is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander
Vindman. Now, he’s someone who is still working at
the National Security Council. He’s their Ukraine expert. And he’s someone that has a Purple Heart. He’s someone that Democrats point to and say,
this is someone with a very good character. He’s someone who’s patriotic, who served the
country. They’re going to be pointing out that he is
someone who had concerns in real time with the July 25 phone call between President Trump
and the president of Ukraine. Vindman listened into that call and then went
his superiors and said, I have concerns about the way that the president is asking for investigations
into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Republicans, though, say that Vindman has
been inconsistent with his testimony. They also say that he’s someone who can’t
really speak to whether or not the president did something that’s impeachable, so he shouldn’t
essentially be coming before Congress in this way. So that’s one person that they’re going to
be pointing to and kind of — you’re going to hear the contrasting, contrasting messages
between both parties. Second person is Kurt Volker. He is a longtime Foreign Service officer. He is someone who is a special envoy to Ukraine
from the U.S. He’s no longer in that role. But he’s someone that Democrats are going
to point to and say, when that call came out, and everyone learned what happened on July
25, he says he was surprised and troubled. But Republicans, again, are going to be making
the case that Kurt Volker said he was never, himself, requested to do anything wrong. He’s also going to say, they think, that he
is someone who is going to say that Ukraine didn’t know in real time that this money was
being held up. Essentially, they couldn’t be bribed, because
they didn’t know that there was a bribe happening. And the third person is Gordon Sondland. He’s the person that’s going to be — everyone’s
going to be watching. AMNA NAWAZ: Yes. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: I’m going to be watching,
because he is someone who is — he’s the European Union ambassador. He is a close ally of President Trump. And he’s going to be making the case, essentially,
that he was in direct contact with President Trump. Democrats say that he knew that President
Trump wanted these investigations before and after the call, and that he was pressing — pressuring
for that. Republicans are going to be making the case,
essentially, that Sondland is someone who maybe had been — was acting on his own, but
that the president didn’t directly say, I need you to do this for me. So there’s going to be a lot to watch there. AMNA NAWAZ: A lot to watch, indeed. And some of those folks are going to raise
concerns about the president’s behavior and what they allegedly saw. President Trump’s already been tweeting about
some of them before we even hear from them publicly. What are you hearing from Republicans, from
his own party about the president’s actions. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The shock of Friday and
the president going after Ambassador Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, in real
time during the impeachment inquiry has not worn off. I have talked to a number of Republicans who
essentially are saying, are you talking to White House sources? Are they going to be able to control the president
this week? And the answer, of course, is no. No one at the White House can stop the President
Trump tweeting. So Republicans are hoping that the president
won’t undermine their messaging and won’t be attacking a lot of the witnesses’ characters. But the president’s already been doing that. He’s already been tweeting, saying, these
are never-Trumpers, these are people that were bad ambassadors. So we’re going to have to watch very closely
President Trump’s Twitter account, because it’s likely going to be very active in real
time. AMNA NAWAZ: And, meantime, related to his
Twitter account, you just reported there in your piece, Speaker Pelosi had said he’s welcome,
the president welcome to come before this hearing and testify and give us his account. He has tweeted he might be open to that. What do we know about that happening? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the president says,
hey, you have questions for me, I want to give you some answers in writing. The issue is that the House is already looking
into whether or not the president lied to special counsel Robert Mueller during the
Russia investigation. Essentially, he provided written answers there. And special counsel Robert Miller said those
answers were inadequate, and that he really was not happy with the fact that he couldn’t
have follow-up questions to the president. The other thing to note is that Democrats
say, this is really the president playing games here. The president, if he really wanted to come
before Congress, could come and sit before the lawmakers and answer questions. They also say that he could provide people,
like acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who has refused to come before Congress, to
come and actually speak to Congress. They also say he could tell his national — his
former National Security Adviser John Bolton to come before Congress. They could provide, they say, documents at
the White House to help this impeachment inquiry. They’re not really doing any of that. So Democrats are essentially saying, we understand
that the president wants to provide us written answers, but that’s just not quite good enough. AMNA NAWAZ: It’s a good reminder too a number
of White House officials there we haven’t yet heard from. A busy week ahead. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: You’re going to be following it
all. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Yes. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: Our White House correspondent,
Yamiche Alcindor, thanks, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks. AMNA NAWAZ: And you can join us for special
live coverage of the public impeachment hearings. We start tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern. Late Friday, President Trump intervened in
the legal cases of three U.S. service members, all of whom had been accused of war crimes. Against the advice of the Pentagon, the president
pardoned two of the men and reinstated the rank of the third. As William Brangham reports, these cases have
ignited a debate about justice in war and whether these moves undercut the military’s
own legal system. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That’s right, Amna. Despite the objections of some senior officials
in the Pentagon, President Trump believed these men had been wronged by military justice,
and so he stepped in. In a statement issued Friday, the White House
said: “For more than 200 years, presidents have used their authority to offer second
chances to deserving individuals, including those in uniform who have served our country.” The first pardon went to Army Lieutenant Clint
Lorance, who in 2013 was convicted of second-degree murder for ordering members of his platoon
to shoot several Afghan men approaching on motorcycles. Lorance had been sentenced to 19 years in
prison. The second pardon was for Army Major Mathew
Golsteyn, a highly decorated Special Forces officer who later admitted to killing and
burning the body of a suspected Taliban bomb-maker in Afghanistan. He was to go on trial next year. The third case involved NAVY Seal Eddie Gallagher,
another highly decorated man who earlier this year was acquitted of killing a suspected
teenage ISIS fighter. Gallagher was demoted, though, because he
posed with the dead boy’s body in a photograph. President Trump reversed that demotion. Joining me now are two people with very different
views on the president’s moves. Retired Lieutenant Colonel David Gurfein had
a 25-year career in the Marines. He is CEO of United American Patriots, which
is an advocacy group that supports service personnel when they get into legal trouble. And retired Lieutenant Colonel Rachel Vanlandingham
had a 20-year career in the Air Force as a lawyer. She’s now a professor at Southwestern Law
School, where she teaches criminal law, constitutional criminal procedure, and national security
law. Welcome to you both. Rachel, to you first. The president in his statement on Friday said
that these three men were deserving of this pardon, deserving of mercy, as he said elsewhere
in the statement. I know you have been very critical of the
president’s move. What is your concern? LT. COL. RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM (RET.), Southwestern
Law School: My concern, I think — I hope everyone is deserving of mercy, but by pardoning
these three individuals, he undermines not military — not just the military justice
system. He undermines his own military commanders. In the military, it is senior-level commanders
that make the decision to bring charges against one of their subordinates. It’s not lawyers. And guess what? In the military, it’s also military members,
those who understand and appreciate the operational complexities of the battlefield, that sit
in judgment of their peers. So by pardoning these individuals and saying
they’re deserving of mercy, what is he saying about the commanders and the fellow military
members that found these three — at least — that two of the — excuse me — that we
had two convicted war criminals earlier this year that were pardoned. We have Lieutenant Lorance, a convicted war
criminal, pardoned, and Golsteyn’s war crimes court-martial that’s been aborted. And so what message is President Trump sending
to the folks that sat throughout all these processes? And what message is he sending to those individuals
that are adhering to the commands of their senior leadership, that are adhering to the
proper and honorable way to fight? I’m not sure this is about individuals being
deserving of mercy. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: David Gurfein, there’s a
lot there that she’s arguing. One of the points she’s arguing is that these
guys were tried by a military court, by military prosecutors, by a jury, theoretically, of
their peers or higher in rank. You think that the president did the right
thing making this pardon. What do you — give me the argument there. LT. COL. DAVID GURFEIN (RET.), United American Patriots:
Absolutely. The president stepped in. And it’s not about the combatant commanders. It’s what happens after that call is made,
and it’s about the individual’s rights. And this is one of those things where we have
seen across the board prosecutorial misconduct, we have seen investigator abuse, we have seen
unlawful command influence. And we can go into detail in every one of
these cases. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But you believe, in all
three of those cases, those types of offenses occurred? LT. COL. DAVID GURFEIN: Absolutely. And we can go into details with every single
one. But we have seen exculpatory information that
has been hidden. It was not brought to bear. We have seen lies told by senior officers
to protect the perception of the institution and also perhaps to protect their own careers,
where you have had appeals which should be identifying all these wrongdoings that were
not even allowed to go forward. Biometric evidence proved that the so-called
civilians that were ordered to be killed by Clint Lorance were not civilians. These were enemy combatants. And when brought to the appeals court, they
said they would not dive into the abyss of biometrics, which is bizarre. See, this is where — how we solve cases with
DNA and skin cells where — coming off of IEDs and improvised explosive devices that
have killed Americans prior. These were enemy combatants, make no mistake
about it. Same in Mat Golsteyn’s case, where he ambushed
and killed an enemy combatant, and next thing you know, he’s being brought up on murder
charges. And it went and was investigated. And in that investigation, they found no evidence
to support this allegation, other than Mat said, he killed an enemy combatant, which
many of us have done. That is not a crime. And so they still didn’t like it. They didn’t like the rumor of it and that
he was talking openly about this. They stripped him of his Army Special Forces
tab. They took his Silver Star. And the next thing you know, they held him. For over nearly 10 years, they have had this
over him and his family’s head and continuously said, hey, we’re going to get to this. And they kept bringing him on. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Rachel, I’d like you to
follow up on some of this. But, again, David is making the point that,
in each of these cases, there was some serious misconduct. You were a JAG lawyer. You prosecuted cases like this. We don’t have time to litigate all… LT. COL. RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM: I defended cases. I — of course we don’t. I was an appellate defense counsel as well. And my heart is with the defense. But I’m also — my heart is also with the
rule of law. And the rule of law involves process. There are numerous appellate courts established
to ensure that legal errors, if they do occur, and travesties of justice, if they occur,
are remedied. Lieutenant Lorance’s case regarding exculpatory
evidence that was supposedly withheld, it didn’t matter who those individuals were. And that’s what the Army Court of Criminal
Appeals held. They said there was overwhelming evidence
that not only he committed murder; he committed attempted murder, obstructed justice, solicited
lies, and made — and threatened individuals. Those individuals that he killed were found
by overwhelming evidence, by the testimony of his own subordinates, to have posed absolutely
no threat to him or to his teammates. They were on foot walking back to their motorcycles
at the direction of the Afghan National Army, who commanded them to do so. Yet Lieutenant Lorance ordered them to be
killed and fired upon, ordered them to be murdered, despite their lack of threat. He knew of no evidence at the time that they
— that they were any type of any combatant. He was only given the orders to ensure that
he protected his troops against those who posed some type of imminent threat. And all of his troops testified very clearly
to other fellow military members that those individuals did not pose a threat and they
were gunned down indiscriminately. And Lieutenant Lorance created further Taliban
threats and created greater risk for the Americans that were honorably serving there. You know why? The third individual that he tried to murder
actually wound up going and then joining the Taliban and committing attacks, because he
turned — because he knew that the Americans were going to go after every innocent Afghan
as well, at least according to Lieutenant Lorance. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Again, I know it’s very
difficult. And our viewers are probably somewhat confused
by the sort of avalanche of details we’re getting into here. I’d like to step back, David, for a moment
and look at a criticism that some people have made, veterans primarily, that, in pardoning
these three gentlemen — again, putting aside, slightly, the specifics of what they have
been accused of — that this gives free rein to the occasional bad actor out in the war
zone and that the rules of war don’t apply if you can exert enough political pressure
and get your case thrown out. What do you make of that criticism? LT. COL. DAVID GURFEIN: I think it’s interesting that
we talked about, in this situation, that Clint Lorance killed civilians. The biometrics prove they were not civilians. So the next argument is, well, he didn’t know
that. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: OK. I… LT. COL. DAVID GURFEIN: And so I’d like to just, if
I may — but he did act within accordance with the rules of engagement. And of all the things that he was found guilty
of, violating the rules of engagement, he was found not guilty. So everything that’s being said here about
how he acted inappropriately, his peers found that he did not act inappropriately. He acted, and all of his soldiers came home
alive. (CROSSTALK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: OK, I hear what you’re saying,
but what about this larger question of the criticism that many veterans, people who have
served in Iraq and Afghanistan and earlier combat missions, that this sends a terrible
message, that the rules of war sometimes are not going to apply? LT. COL. DAVID GURFEIN: No, what’s — the message it
sends is that, when you act in combat, and you make the right decision, or even if you
make the wrong decision, that you will be treated fairly, and you will receive your
rights. And this is where our warriors, they swear
to support and defend our rights, and yet they don’t get the same protection that perhaps
an individual who would go into a school and gun down children with intent is getting. So, here we’re seeing time and time again
where these warriors, they’re being thrown under the bus for political reasons. And what’s interesting is, we saw right after
Clint Lorance’s case a patrol outside Bagram, Afghanistan, they knew that Clint Lorance
got put away for murder. And a motorcycle came towards their patrol. And they had to make the decision what to
do. They chose not to engage. Those four individuals are dead. Our warriors should not have to question whether
or not they’re going to go to Leavenworth for pulling the trigger and doing the right
thing at the right time for the right reasons. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I realize there are so many
complicated details in all of these cases. And I’m sorry we can’t get into more of these
here tonight. But, David Gurfein, Rachel Vanlandingham,
thank you both very much for being here. LT. COL. DAVID GURFEIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. LT. COL. RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM: Thank you so much. AMNA NAWAZ: We turn now to the Democratic
presidential race. Over the weekend, candidates still trying
to break through in the crowded field headed West. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), Presidential Candidate:
Hello, Nevada Democrats! AMNA NAWAZ: As impeachment news consumes Washington,
a show of force by the 2020 Democratic candidates in Nevada. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), Presidential Candidate:
This is a fight to end that national nightmare called Donald Trump. AMNA NAWAZ: In Las Vegas Sunday night, 14
of the 2020 candidates made their pitch to Nevadans, who’ll vote third in the party’s
nominating contest. DEVAL PATRICK (D), Presidential Candidate:
I’m confident there is a path. AMNA NAWAZ: The lineup included former Massachusetts
Governor Deval Patrick, who entered the crowded race just last week. HARRY REID (D), Former U.S. Senator: When
we get that nominate, we’re all going to join together. AMNA NAWAZ: Former U.S. Senate Leader Harry
Reid, still a giant in the state’s politics, made an appearance and a call for unity. But beneath the surface, the struggle continued
over what kind of Democratic nominee should lead the party next, a centrist like former
Vice President Joe Biden. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
The risk of nominating someone who wouldn’t beat Trump is a nation and a world that our
children and our grandkids won’t want to — won’t want to live in. AMNA NAWAZ: Or a progressive like Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren, who often warns against running what she calls a safe campaign. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential Candidate:
We’re not going to change it by a nibble here and a little bit of change over there. We’re going to change it with big structural
change. AMNA NAWAZ: It came a day after former President
Barack Obama, a moderate Democrat, made rare comments on the 2020 race and a veiled criticism
of that big structural change. Mr. Obama said — quote — “This is still
a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement. They like seeing things improved, but the
average American doesn’t think you have to completely tear down the system and remake
it.” He warned candidates to — quote — “pay some
attention to where voters actually are” and that — quote — “we also have to be rooted
in reality.” MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (I), Former Mayor of New
York: I got something important really wrong. AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, another potential late
addition to the Democratic race, Michael Bloomberg, apologized for the stop-and-frisk policing
policy he led while mayor of New York, and has since defended as a means to combat crime. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: I spoke with many of the
innocent people affected, and listened to their frustrations and their anger. AMNA NAWAZ: The policy, granting police broad
authority to detain and question people, overwhelmingly impacted people of color, and is largely seen
as out of line with the current Democratic Party. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: I was wrong, and I am sorry. AMNA NAWAZ: Today, Bloomberg picked up a key
endorsement from Stephen Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, and one of the state’s
highest-profile black politicians, who applauded Bloomberg’s apology. And that brings us to Politics Monday. I’m here with our Politics Monday team. That is Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report
and host of public radio’s “Politics With Amy Walter,” and Tamara Keith from NPR. She co-hosts the “NPR Politics Podcast.” And welcome to you both. We have some new poll numbers. Shall we dig in? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Indeed. AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Let’s. AMNA NAWAZ: Let’s go to Iowa first. Take a look at some of these numbers. This is from a new poll in Iowa for CNN and
The Des Moines Register. Look who’s at the top of this poll right now. Pete Buttigieg leads with 25 percent of support
in the state. After him there, you see Senators Warren,
former Vice President Biden and Senator Sanders. And then you have got the rest of the field,
or that’s basically everyone else, polling below 10 percent. That is in Iowa. Amy, start us off here. AMY WALTER: What is happening? Right. AMNA NAWAZ: What is happening here? How — that’s a 16-point surge, we should
mention, for Buttigieg. AMY WALTER: No, it’s pretty remarkable that,
of all the candidates, this is the one candidate who has gone literally from zero to the lead. Back in March, I think he was polling somewhere
around 1 percent or 2 percent. But what’s remarkable about Iowa right now,
we have had four polls since March from The Des Moines Register, which is the gold standard
of polling in the state. And while it’s very volatile, right, we have
had three different leads in these polls, so four polls, three different leaders, they
have been the same four people. It’s been of the pool of four people. We have a huge field, but the same four people
are mentioned as either one, two, three, or four since March. And so what we’re seeing is, yes, there is
some volatility here, but it’s not, at this point, opening a lane for somebody who is
not in those top four. AMNA NAWAZ: Tam, what do you see when you
look at these numbers? One of these things for the voters is like,
do they want someone who reflects back to them their values? Do they want someone who will beat Donald
Trump? What does this say to you right now? TAMARA KEITH: I think part of what this says
is that Pete Buttigieg has a pretty strong ground game in Iowa. And this is a unique state. It has a caucus system. He raised a lot of money earlier this year,
and he spent it. He’s investing putting staff on the ground
in Iowa. He just did a bus tour through the state. All of those things, like, being someone who
is the mayor of a small city and having time to meet a bunch of voters, that can actually
matter in a state like Iowa and can be reflected in this poll. AMY WALTER: And it certainly helped Elizabeth
Warren over the course of the summer, when people said, well, why is she now moving ahead,
as she was in a June-September poll? TAMARA KEITH: Yes. AMY WALTER: I can’t remember which one, but
it was that she had been building this ground game here. One thing to talk about too is the fact, like,
why are we spending so much time on Iowa? It has… (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: It has 45 delegates. California has over 490 delegates. But we know that really for the last 40 years,
with an asterisk on 1992 — and I’m not getting in the details. We don’t have enough time. (LAUGHTER) AMY WALTER: But the Democratic nominee for
president has won Iowa, New Hampshire, or both. So, those two states, again, for the last
40 years, have told us who the nominee will be, which is why Iowa, one or the other, right,
is so important. And it also sets the narrative. And it sets the media expectations really
for a good — obviously, for the next week, before we get to New Hampshire, but it really
does winnow the field pretty quickly. TAMARA KEITH: And Iowa, though, is not perfectly
reflective of the Democratic Party or America as a whole. AMY WALTER: It is not. TAMARA KEITH: This is the criticism. (CROSSTALK) TAMARA KEITH: Iowa and New Hampshire are super
white. AMY WALTER: Yes. TAMARA KEITH: And it just is what it is. They’re also highly educated. And there are — there are a lot of demographics
that make Iowa and New Hampshire not your standard reflection of the — of the broader
Democratic Party, which is where you get to South Carolina, where we also have a new poll,
and where Pete Buttigieg is in fourth place, but, like, barely registering. AMNA NAWAZ: Let’s see if we can put that up,
so you can talk to these numbers while people look at them at home too. This is the latest South Carolina poll from
Quinnipiac out today. A very different picture here, right? TAMARA KEITH: Well, and Pete Buttigieg knows
that he’s had trouble with African American voters. He’s been working on it pretty much most of
his campaign, at least since the summer. But it continues to be a challenge. And you see that in polling in South Carolina. It’s also not clear how he’s doing in Nevada,
which is the state that comes after that. And then it’s Super Tuesday, which is a whole
bunch of states, including California. AMNA NAWAZ: And you have mentioned to our
producer earlier, Buttigieg now being on top in some ways in Iowa, does that make him more
of a target for his fellow candidates? AMY WALTER: Right. So, look — so here’s what we have seen. In December and through March, it was Biden
who was on top in Iowa. Scrutiny gets onto Biden. Then it moves over to Warren. She’s leading. Scrutiny on Warren and her Medicare for all
plan. She starts to dip a little bit. And now we see Buttigieg on top. And you will remember we have a debate on
Wednesday. And I’m sure his friends and colleagues on
the stage with him will have a couple questions for him to answer. AMNA NAWAZ: That is a prediction from Amy
Walter, who hates to make predictions. AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: But you do bring me to Elizabeth
Warren. And I want to ask you about sort of an evolution
her Medicare for all plan. This has been sort of the defining issue for
her candidacy. And she seemed to, I don’t want to say evolve. It’s shifted a little bit now. She’s rolled out sort of a timeline for how
she plans to get there. AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: What do you make of that? AMY WALTER: It’s that whole trying to have
cake and eating it too or whatever the phrase — however the phrase goes, which is, she’s
been getting a tremendous amount of criticism, even from Democrats, for a plan that would
kick people off of their private insurance and institute a Medicare for all or basically
a single-payer system. What she has offered is to say, well, OK,
for the first two years, I will be able to push through a public option, which is, people
can stay on their private insurance or they can buy into a Medicare system, similar to
what Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are talking about, many other Democrats are talking about But then, by year three and four, all those
people who’ve gotten in the public option are going to say, this is so great, I’m saving
so much money, the health care system has been so incredibly altered in the years since
it’s been implemented, that we’re going to do then Medicare for all. TAMARA KEITH: But let me just say that I have
covered presidents. And their third years and fourth years tend
not to be when they pass most of their most meaningful legislation. AMY WALTER: Right. TAMARA KEITH: And that’s why candidates always
talk about, on day one, or the first 100 days. AMY WALTER: Day one. TAMARA KEITH: There’s a reason for that. Midterms happen. Things come screeching to a halt. AMNA NAWAZ: Does this open her up to criticism
that she’s changing her tune, that she’s lining up more with moderate candidates? TAMARA KEITH: It has opened her up to criticism,
remarkably, both from the Bernie Sanders side of the world and the Pete Buttigieg side of
the world. She’s getting it from all angles, in part
because she decided to go out there and say that she had a plan and put it in writing. AMNA NAWAZ: Right. Tam, I’m going to give you the last word on
something else here. I want to make sure we get your take, because
the last time we were sitting here, I was asking you about these three key Southern
states in which President Trump campaigned very heavily for the gubernatorial candidates
there, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Those are the margins by which President Trump
won election back in 2016 in each of those states. You said watching those races would paint
a picture, or at least give us an indication of what’s ahead. What do we now know? TAMARA KEITH: Well, I will just say that President
Trump at a rally said, you have got to give me a big win, please, and said that the eyes
of history would be watching, that people should send a message to Washington and the
Democrats in Washington. Well, guess what happens? Two out of three of those ended up going to
the Democrat. Now, he will say that the Republican in Kentucky,
good guy, he says, but deeply unpopular. And he will say, well, John Bel Edwards, it
was close, and it was super close. But the reality is that the president couldn’t
get them over the finish line. He went and did a bunch of rallies, put a
lot of personal capital — political capital out there to say, like, I’m the president,
I can drag them over the finish line. And he didn’t do it. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, a few seconds left. Want to weigh in on this? Sorry. AMY WALTER: A few seconds. Yes. If I am a Democrat in the more moderate side
of the equation, I looked at those and said, what those two Democrats did, the ones who
won, they ran as a centrist. They ran on building on the Affordable Care
Act, not on Medicare for all. The Medicaid expansion is very popular in
those states, i.e., Democrats, stay toward the Affordable Care Act and building on that,
not moving too far to the left on health care. AMNA NAWAZ: That is what worked for them there. AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy Walter and Tamara Keith, always
good to see you guys. TAMARA KEITH: Thank you. AMY WALTER: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: And finally tonight, the mysterious
meeting of land, sea, and sky through the eyes of 19th century American artist Winslow
Homer. Special correspondent Jared Bowen examines
at an exhibit of the landscape painter’s enchantment with seascapes. It’s part of our ongoing series on arts and
culture, Canvas. JARED BOWEN: Many an artist has heard the
siren call of the sea. For Winslow Homer, it would change his life. BILL CROSS, Curator: We think of him today
principally as a marine painter. Until age 33, though, he had never shown a
marine painting. JARED BOWEN: Until then, Homer had been a
well-known illustrator who’d captured the Civil War from the front lines. He was raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and was a New Yorker by the time he found the sea as a painter in 1869. He was enchanted, says curator Bill Cross. BILL CROSS: The times of day, the times of
tide, storms washing in and washing out, the mysterious meeting of land sea and sky was
alluring to him, as it is to us. OLIVER BARKER, Director, Cape Ann Museum:
We have been able to assemble 51 works by Homer here at the Cape Ann Museum. JARED BOWEN: Oliver barker is the director
of the Cape Ann Museum in Gloucester, where Homer at the Beach commemorates the 150th
anniversary of the artist as a marine painter. OLIVER BARKER: We know he came here on four
separate occasions, initially to Manchester and then three separate occasions to Gloucester. And so it wasn’t accidental. JARED BOWEN: Homer initially sought out the
sea up and down the East Coast. In New Jersey, he found heavily populated
beaches, with crowds in wool bathing costumes like this one. But as he moved north, Homer found vastly
different vistas. He discovered industry in a Gloucester shipyard
and the solitude of rock-strewn beaches. OLIVER BARKER: He was very inspired by the
ordinary people of Gloucester. I think, as time went on, he started to show
some of the beauty of the surrounding areas. There are these glorious sunsets. JARED BOWEN: This is the first marine painting
Homer ever exhibited, inspired by Singing Beach in Manchester. It went on view in New York. And, says curator Bill Cross, the critics
hated it. BILL CROSS: He received disdain because he
was ahead of his time. JARED BOWEN: Homer had embarked on his marine
painting after a lengthy trip to France, where he was exposed to all that was new in European
painting, photography and Japanese prints, none of which had yet taken hold in America. BILL CROSS: Homer was using diffuse light,
had little narrative content. And the critics wanted less sketchy paintings. They wanted a work that included figures. JARED BOWEN: The hostile reviews continued
with these two works called Low Tide. But, here, Homer’s response was equally hostile
and physical. I know this is a trick question, but one painting
or two? BILL CROSS: Both. (LAUGHTER) BILL CROSS: Homer made his most ambitious
painting based on his visits to Long Branch, New Jersey, in 1869, and exhibited that, to
scorn. JARED BOWEN: Scorn from the critics? BILL CROSS: Scorn from the critics. He removed the painting from the exhibition
before the exhibition ended and took his own knife to it, dismembered the painting, and
turned it into two works. Only once before in U.S. history have these
two paintings been brought together in this way. JARED BOWEN: Part of the beauty of Homer’s
works, the light, the glint of the sea, and even a lot of the landscapes are still as
they were. Living on Ten Pound Island in Gloucester Harbor,
Homer painted some 100 watercolors over one summer. Today, he’s known as one of the best watercolorists
ever. But he had a profound role model, his mother. BILL CROSS: She exhibited her watercolors
in New York before he did. And when he exhibited his watercolors for
the first time, she was in the same exhibition. JARED BOWEN: Cross says the 11 years of works
in these galleries are tantamount to an artist in a process of self-discovery, one that would
result in the most significant works of his career. What made some of the greatest works? BILL CROSS: He was discovering these places
in himself through the application of three essential lessons, travel widely, experiment
boldly, and love deeply. JARED BOWEN: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jared
Bowen of WGBH in Gloucester, Massachusetts. AMNA NAWAZ: In September, the Trump administration
proposed an annual refugee cap of 18,000 people for the year 2020. That’s down from the low of 30,000 refugees
this year. But what makes someone a refugee and another
person a migrant? Tonight, writer Dina Nayeri offers her Humble
Opinion on that important difference. DINA NAYERI, Author, “The Ungrateful Refugee:
What Immigrants Never Tell You”: In 1989, when I was 10, I arrived in Oklahoma as a
refugee. In Iran, my mother had been threatened with
execution for converting to Christianity, so we were recognized as political dissidents
and granted asylum. According to American law, refugees are entitled
asylum because they have suffered persecution and face future danger, whereas economic migrants
must prove their merit. The difference between these two groups may
seem obvious, danger to one’s life, but, in practice, it is anything but. When you apply for asylum, either at the border
or in an embassy, often before you have had legal advice, you’re given what’s called a
credible fear assessment. Let’s say you’re from Central America and
a gang demanded money from you. You refused, and they threatened to kill you. Naturally, you fled. At the U.S. border, the officer will ask for
the specific reason that you refused the gang. The truth is there are many reasons you didn’t
pay. You don’t have the money. It stinks to face extortion every day. But if you happen to say to the officer, “Because
I didn’t have the money,” then you don’t qualify for refugee status. But if instead you say, “Because I don’t believe
gangs should be running my country,” that would make you a refugee. Why? Because you have a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on your political opinion, that the country shouldn’t be run by gangs. Think about that for a minute. If you testify that the gang said, “We will
kill you, you cheapskate,” you’re just a migrant. If you say they said, “We will kill you, you
traitor,” you’re a refugee. Seems arbitrary, doesn’t it, to hang an entire
person’s fate on the gangster’s insult of choice? I come from a family of doctors and scholars. When we had our asylum interview, we knew
that our Christianity was the central question. If my mother had been less educated about
what she shouldn’t say, she might have wept about her marriage or a lack of money after
we escaped Iran. If she had, would our asylum have been denied? Would I be a writer now, or a frustrated housewife
forced to live under a head scarf? I’d like to believe that would have been a
waste. So here’s my question: How meaningful is the
distinction between migrant and refugee? Is this really a useful way to decide how
much people have suffered and what care and protection we owe to our fellow man? And how exactly do you define a life in danger? If a life is sure to be wasted in poverty,
without education, opportunity, or purpose, isn’t that a kind of danger too? AMNA NAWAZ: And that’s the “NewsHour” for
tonight. I’m Amna Nawaz. Join us online and again here tomorrow at
9:00 a.m. Eastern for special live coverage of the impeachment
hearings. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 14, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: Over 900 newly
released e-mails tie the president’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, to white nationalism
and extremist right-wing publications. Then: on the ground in Afghanistan. Our Jane Ferguson goes behind Taliban lines,
where, after almost 20 years of U.S. fighting, the radical militant force still roams. And unfinished business — as older employees
retire, decades of experience go out the door, and companies rush to save all that knowledge. STEVE KEMPF, CEO, Lee Spring: We do everything
to keep our older workers, because they’re — A, they’re so skilled, and, B, we don’t
have the people to fill in behind them. And we have invested 10, 15, 20, 30 years,
some of them, in their skill set. And we want to keep those as long as we can. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The speaker of the U.S. House
of Representatives is flatly accusing President Trump of bribery a day before the second public
hearing on impeachment is scheduled. Nancy Pelosi pointed today to what Mr. Trump
called a favor, asking the president of Ukraine to investigate Democrats, the 2016 election
and the Bidens. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The bribe is to grant
or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation
into the elections. That’s bribery. I am saying that what is — the president
has admitted to and says it’s perfect, I say it’s perfectly wrong. It’s bribery. JUDY WOODRUFF: Pelosi’s word choice is significant
because the Constitution explicitly mentions bribery as grounds for impeachment. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that
a second U.S. Embassy staffer in Kiev overheard President Trump discussing Ukraine and the
investigations he wanted in a cell phone call. That call first came to light at yesterday’s
impeachment hearings. We turn now to our Yamiche Alcindor, who was
at the White House today. Yamiche, pretty strong words from the speaker
of the House. How does this fit in to the Democrats’ strategy
at this point? And what is the White House saying? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Speaker Nancy Pelosi is
trying to put in the simplest terms possible what she describes as President Trump’s trying
to bribe or extort Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter
Biden. So Democrats want to make that point simply
because they think that Americans who are just tuning in might not understand the Latin
term quid pro quo, which is what a lot of people in Washington, D.C., including some
Democrats, have been saying in describing President Trump’s alleged actions. So she’s really trying to get Democrats, as
well as the American public, to use start using the term bribery, because she wants
that to be what people think of as they think about the impeachment inquiries and what President
Trump is being accused of. The White House is pushing back on that. The president didn’t speak out publicly about
this, but he was tweeting. And, essentially, he was saying that Democrats
are going down this unfair path — going down this unfair path of impeachment, of this impeachment
inquiry. He also tweeted something that was very interesting. He said: “Where is the fake whistle-blower?” That’s important, because the whistle-blower’s
attorneys have sent a letter to the White House saying that he needs to cease and desist,
talking about the president — the whistle-blower’s anonymity, talking about the president — the
whistle-blower’s identity. And, essentially, the president is saying,
I’m not going to stop doing this. I want to know who this whistle-blower is. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, Yamiche,
what do we look for from tomorrow’s impeachment hearing? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Tomorrow, we’re going to
have a second public hearing. We’re going to be hearing from the former
Ukrainian ambassador. She was the ambassador to the Ukraine for
the U.S. Her name is Marie Yovanovitch. I want to walk through some of who she is. She has 33 years of service as a Foreign Service
officer. She has also been nominated by both the Republican
and Democratic administrations. Democrats are going to be making the case
that she was the first casualty when it comes to President Trump’s alleged scheme to pressure
Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. So they’re going to be making the case that
she’s not a victim, per se — they have stopped using that term — but that she is someone
that should be sympathetic to the American people. I have heard and aides have told me that she
cried during her deposition, so tomorrow might be an emotional day. We should also be looking forward to the deposition
of David Holmes. He is the supposed — he is reportedly the
aide who overheard Gordon Sondland, the E.U. ambassador, the European Union ambassador,
speaking to President Trump about wanting an investigation into the Bidens. So it’s going to be really interesting to
watch what comes out of the deposition, but also what comes out of the public hearings. JUDY WOODRUFF: Serious business. Yamiche Alcindor, reporting from the White
House, thank you. And please join us tomorrow morning starting
at 9:00 a.m. Eastern for our live special coverage of that
second public impeachment hearing. In the day’s other news: A gunman killed two
students and wounded three at a Southern California high school, and then shot himself. It happened at Saugus High School in Santa
Clarita, outside Los Angeles. Investigators said the suspect was also a
student, who had just turned 16 today. CAPT. KENT WEGENER, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department: Detectives have reviewed the video at the scene, which clearly show the subject
in the quad withdraw a handgun from his backpack, shoot and wound five people, and then shoot
himself in the head. There are no other subjects who are outstanding
as part of this incident or who took part in this assault. JUDY WOODRUFF: The alleged shooter was in
grave condition this evening. Officials said they are working to piece together
a motive. In the Middle East, a cease-fire ended two
days of Israeli airstrikes and rocket attacks by Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian militants
backed by Iran. With the calm came mourning in Gaza, where
hundreds attended the funeral of eight family members killed in a single airstrike. In all, 34 Palestinians died during the fighting. Israel triggered the exchange by killing the
group’s top Gaza commander. And in Iraq, new bloodshed in Baghdad. Security forces shot and killed four more
anti-government protesters and wounded more than 60 today. Demonstrators fled from live fire and tear
gas and carried the wounded away. But they also called for a million people
to turn out tomorrow. At least 320 people have been killed in Iraq
since the protests broke out last month. Protesters in Hong Kong paralyzed the city
for a fourth straight day. Hundreds marched along the central business
area, using emptied trash bins to cut off traffic. Meanwhile, students built barricades. Police said those at Chinese University of
Hong Kong are — quote — “a step closer to terrorism.” JOHN TSE CHUN-CHUNG, Hong Kong Police: The
school has been used as a weapon factory and an arsenal with all kinds of offensive weapons,
like bows and arrows and catapults. It is also evident that it has become a manufacturing
base for petrol bombs. JUDY WOODRUFF: Chinese President’s Xi Jinping
called today for severely punishing those he termed violent criminals. Back in this country, President Trump asked
the U.S. Supreme Court today to block a subpoena for his income tax returns. State prosecutors in New York are seeking
the returns from the president’s accountants. Today’s filing asks the high court to decide
the case by next June. A State Department report says Trump administration
officials removed an Iran expert from her post over her Iranian background and her work
in the Obama administration. The department’s inspector general says Brian
Hook, who is the special representative on Iran, made the reassignment. Hook says that he didn’t consider any improper
factors. Kentucky’s Republican Governor Matt Bevin
conceded defeat today to his Democratic opponent. It came after officials double-checked last
week’s election tallies. Bevin still trailed Attorney General Andy
Beshear by more than 5,000 votes, and he said today he would accept the result. GOV. MATT BEVIN (R-KY): We have already been working,
our team with his team. Conversations have been had. And we will continue to, and I think we should
continue to, expect to have a smooth transition. I wish Attorney General Beshear well as he
transitions to his next role in this state. It’s a big responsibility. JUDY WOODRUFF: Republicans won the other statewide
races in Kentucky, but Bevin faced the fallout from various controversies that he had triggered. Former President Jimmy Carter is said to be
recovering well after having surgery to relieve pressure from bleeding in his skull. His family minister says the 95-year-old Carter
was up and walking at an Atlanta hospital yesterday, one day after the procedure. There is no word yet on when he will be released. On Wall Street today, not much change either
way. The Dow Jones industrial average lost one
point to close below 27782. The Nasdaq fell three points, and the S&P
500 added two. And scientists at the University of Washington
want to hear from old dogs out there, 10,000 of them. They need data for the Dog Aging Project,
the largest ever study of its kind. The results could shed new light on how dogs,
and ultimately humans, grow old. Owners can nominate their pets online. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: white nationalism
in the White House — a top presidential adviser’s ties to a hateful ideology; on the ground
in Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban is fighting for control; the threat of superbugs,
infectious bacteria immune to antibiotics; and much more. The
Southern Poverty Law Center has made public excerpts of e-mails sent by White House senior
adviser Stephen Miller, who is a key figure shaping immigration policy for President Trump. The e-mail messages from 2015 and 2016 show
Miller’s support of white nationalist Web sites and ideologies. Reporter Jean Guerrero with the San Diego
public media station KPBS is writing a book on Stephen Miller. And she joins me now to talk about what these
e-mails say and the light they appear to shed on his thinking, as he exerts influence on
the president’s approach to immigration. Jean Guerrero, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” JEAN GUERRERO, KPBS: Great to be here. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, tell us, first of all,
these e-mails were an exchange between Stephen Miller and whom? JEAN GUERRERO: They were exchanges between
Stephen Miller and Breitbart. That’s about 900 of the e-mails, and they
were sent when he was working for Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and while he was on
the Trump campaign. And, essentially, what happened is, there
was a Breitbart editor named Katie McHugh who was fired in 2017. She has since renounced the far-right movement,
and she decided that she was going to take these e-mails and share them with the Southern
Poverty Law Center to expose the white nationalism that she says is affecting or influencing
the Trump administration in its formation of immigration policies. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just for those who might
not know, Breitbart is a far-right news Web site, and that’s where she worked until she
was fired, we understand, a couple of years ago. So, go — tell us what is in — what’s the
content of these e-mails? They were exchanging their thoughts, their
ideas on what Breitbart should be covering. I know that’s part of it. JEAN GUERRERO: Exactly. So, McHugh had been introduced to Miller as
somebody who was going to be influencing the direction of her reporting and the reporting
of other editors at Breitbart. So he was providing materials, often from
white supremacist Web sites, white nationalist literature, and encouraging them to draw from
it in their coverage, in their stories. What I found to be the most telling from reviewing
some of these e-mails is that, at one point, Stephen Miller recommends that they do a story
about this book called “Camp of the Saints.” It’s an incredibly racist book that depicts
the end of the white world — that’s how they put it, the — quote — “end of the white
world” — as the result of an invasion of refugees. And it’s just — it’s filled with extremely
degrading descriptions of migrants. And just to give an example of the kind of
rhetoric it includes, this quote: “kinky-haired, swarthy-skinned, long-despised phantoms, all
the teeming ants toiling for the white man’s comfort.” So, just these descriptions of migrants that
are very degrading fill the book. And what happened was, Julia Hahn — he encouraged
Breitbart editors to do a story showing parallels between the book and real life. So, Julia Hahn, who was an editor there as
well and who is now a special assistant to the president, did a story saying that the
book was prophetic and that it showed what was going to happen at the border, what was
happening at the border, and that potentially immigration was going to lead to the doom
of society. After that, Steve Bannon, who was then a Breitbart
executive and who worked for Trump as chief strategist after that, he also started referencing
the book repeatedly after Stephen Miller recommended it to Breitbart. And he said that it described the — quote
— “invasion at the border,” that, basically, the book had been prophetic, and that what
— the doom described in the book was going to be happening now in the United States. JUDY WOODRUFF: So the White House — and I
want to ask you about the effect this has had on immigration policy — but the White
House is saying, but, wait a minute, this comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center,
which they say is a left-leaning organization that they know already opposes them. And so they’re basically saying this material
is suspect. JEAN GUERRERO: Exactly. They have not explicitly denied the content
of the e-mails, but they have said that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a — they have
called it a left-wing smear organization. What the center is and has been doing for
several years is exposing hate groups and trying to shed light on white supremacists
and white nationalist groups. But, yes, the White House is essentially saying
that the organization is a smear organization, and that they are — their reporting and analysis
is not to be taken seriously. JUDY WOODRUFF: Jean Guerrero, as we said,
you’re writing a book on Stephen Miller. How does what you see in these e-mail changes,
how does that connect to what the administration’s policies have been towards immigrants, towards
refugees, and any of the policies Stephen Miller has had a hand in? JEAN GUERRERO: Well, what these e-mails show
is some of the white nationalism that’s informing the formation of these policies. What’s interesting is — so, Stephen Miller
is the architect of the Trump administration’s border and immigration policies. And President Trump has repeatedly said that
he’s focused on cutting off illegal immigration, that he wants to go after criminals, after
drug traffickers, after rapists. But what we have actually seen over the course
of the past — over the course of his presidency is that they have limited legal immigration. They have gone after refugees, they have gone
after asylum seekers, largely from non-white countries. And so what the e-mails show and indicate
is some of the white nationalist ideologies that may have gone into informing the formation
of those policies, which largely echo some of the groups that Stephen Miller was drawing
from in — that he was communicating with and sharing with to Breitbart. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Jean Guerrero doing a
lot of reporting on this. And I know there are, as you said, a lot of
e-mails out there to examine. I know that people will want to look at the
e-mails themselves. I know they’re posted on the Southern Poverty
Law Center site. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. JEAN GUERRERO: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now to Afghanistan and our
exclusive look behind Taliban lines. The U.S. has been fighting there since the
9/11 attacks by al-Qaida. They were hosted in Afghanistan by the Taliban,
a movement of radical militant Islamic extremists that ruled with a harsh interpretation of
Islam. A U.S.-led coalition ousted them in 2001,
but the Taliban quickly formed into an insurgent group, fighting the American military and
democratic Afghan government that replaced them. Now, 18 years later, fighting there rages
more violently than ever. And some are drawing attention to the tactics
used in the fight against the Taliban. Our special correspondent Jane Ferguson recently
met members of the Taliban in Wardak province, near the capital, Kabul, to report, with their
constant presence on the shadow war that rages largely out of view. JANE FERGUSON: These are the faces of America’s
most persistent enemy. U.S. soldiers have been battling the Taliban
for nearly two decades in the nation’s longest war. Leading up to 9/11, the Taliban ruled over
most of Afghanistan, giving refuge to al-Qaida and its training camps. American troops were sent to destroy the Taliban. Yet, 18 years later, their fighters roam freely
across more of this country than at any point since 2001, and these commanders say they
are close to victory. MOTMAEEN, Taliban Commander (through translator):
I am fully confident that America is being defeated and will be defeated. And they will be humiliated when they leave. JANE FERGUSON: They talk with us face to face
out in the open, even as, nearby, we hear the sound of their fighters clashing with
Afghan government forces. After months of serious negotiations, Taliban
leaders and the Trump White House came close to doing a deal in September that would have
seen some of the 13,000 American soldiers withdraw from Afghanistan, in exchange for
peace talks between the Taliban and the U.S.-backed Afghan government. It fell through at the last minute, and the
group continues to fight Afghan forces and their American advisers every day, but they
know President Trump still wants America out of this war. MAN (through translator): Yes, we have won. They are definitely leaving, whether by force
of through negotiations. JANE FERGUSON: Our journey to meet with the
Taliban began at sunrise, traveling far outside the capital, Kabul, to Wardak province. It’s so dangerous for Westerners in these
regions now, the only way I can travel safely is by disguising myself as an Afghan woman,
in a full burka to cover my face and completely shroud my body. These roads show the scars of conflict, smashed
by explosions. Each crater marks the spot of an IED. Government forces are hunkered down in small
outposts on one side of the road. On the other, the Taliban occupy everything. So, our escorts came and met us, and they
are in a motorcycle leading our car away off the main road and into the mountainous area
here. This is one of the most violent parts of the
country. Just as we have arrived here, where we are
going to be interviewing the Taliban commander, ironically, we are very close to government
positions, and gun battles can be heard in the distance. Despite the Taliban’s confidence, this war
is far from over. In fact, it is more brutal than ever. We came to find out what’s happening to the
people here. Village elders greeted us. Their communities are trapped between government
forces and the Taliban, and they pay a heavy price for it. Airstrikes in Afghanistan, largely by the
U.S. military, are the most intense since nearly a decade ago, when 100,000 American
troops were in the country as part of a surge ordered by President Obama. These Afghans are suffering under the results. We visited several villages, all of them partially
destroyed by the war from above. But it’s not the planes that people here fear
the most. MAYIN, Afghanistan (through translator): Afghan
Special Forces came in the night. They blew off the door and said we were Taliban
and they would kill us. JANE FERGUSON: This is an increasingly covert
war, mostly fought by Afghan and American Special Forces against the Taliban, with little
access for the outside world to see what’s going on. Few have had a chance to tell their story. MAYIN (through translator): They said I was
a liar. And I said, “No, I am telling you the truth.” Then they beat me. It was a terrible moment. They blindfolded me and put me on the ground
over there. They set fire to my car and motorcycle, like
this one here, see? This is not a Taliban bike. There was another guy with them, and he was
asking me questions in English. Then they threw me in this room and left. JANE FERGUSON: He was lucky. Some of these night raids are conducted by
Afghan Special Forces connected to the country’s intelligence agency, backed by the CIA. Human Rights Watch says these forces, in their
hunt for the Taliban, are unlawfully executing people. In many cases, innocent civilians are also
killed because of mistaken identity, poor intelligence or even political rivalries in
the community. In a report released last month, the U.S.-based
organization says: “These troops include Afghan strike forces who have been responsible for
extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances, indiscriminate airstrikes, attacks on medical
facilities, and other violations of international humanitarian law or the laws of war. They largely have been recruited, trained,
equipped, and overseen by the CIA. They often have U.S. Special Forces personnel
deployed alongside them during kill-or-capture operations.” Because these forces come under intelligence,
rather than the military, getting answers on alleged abuses is difficult. KATE CLARK, Afghanistan Analysts Network:
The CIA are absolutely unaccountable. You or I can’t go and see them. Afghans can’t go and see them. JANE FERGUSON: Kate Clark runs the Afghan
Analysts Network, which monitors the war here closely. KATE CLARK: So, in terms of accountability,
they are unaccountable in this country. And considering the fact that they seem to
be breaking the Geneva Conventions on a regular basis, that is really concerning. And it’s not just journalists saying that
or Afghan families. It’s also the U.N. JANE FERGUSON: The CIA-linked Afghan Special
Forces are often referred to as strike forces. They are technically part of the country’s
National Defense and Security Forces, called NDSF, but their chain of command is not clear. Even Afghan government officials appear to
know very little about them. How many are there? Who funds them? Who are they? FEROZ BASHARI, Afghan Government Spokesperson:
Well, those small number of issues are not policy-level issues. I don’t have the information. But, in general, we talk about the… JANE FERGUSON: Can you tell us anything about
them? FEROZ BASHARI: Well, for the moment, I don’t
have any information. I don’t know about that particular one, but
I assure you that any force that operates in Afghanistan operates under Afghanistan’s
laws. JANE FERGUSON: So who do they answer to? FEROZ BASHARI: Well, if they work for NDSF,
they work for NDSF. JANE FERGUSON: I’m talking about the special
forces linked to your intelligence services. Who is their boss? FEROZ BASHARI: Well, I have to ask. JANE FERGUSON: These strike forces have been
increasing their night raids and airstrikes since 2017. And places like Wardak province, a Taliban
stronghold, are on the front line of this war. As America, the Afghan government and the
Taliban all scramble for stronger positions in any future peace negotiations. Violence has intensified, making Afghanistan
the deadliest conflict on Earth right now, according to the U.N., with civilian casualties
in record numbers, caught between the U.S.-backed Afghan military and the Taliban. On the ground, our Taliban escorts are fearful
of attracting attention from above. They are telling us now that we need to keep
moving. We can’t spend too long in any village or
any house, because these areas are being constantly surveyed by drones. And any kind of gathering of people for any
period of time could attract an airstrike. In the next village, even more gun battles
can be heard in the distance. Shir Hasan came out to speak with us. He can barely get the words out. Last winter, he tells us, an Afghan special
forces team arrived here and came to his house. SHIR HASAN, Afghanistan (through translator):
I told them: “We are not Taliban. Don’t do this to us.” JANE FERGUSON: Hasan says the soldiers took
his two nephews away, one of them a teenage boy. SHIR HASAN (through translator): After some
minutes, I heard the sound of bullets fired. Their father here asked: “Why did you kill
my children?” One of them was so small. JANE FERGUSON: Another neighbor, an elderly
man, was also executed, we are told. SHIR HASAN (through translator): One American
was standing here at the door. I saw him myself. I don’t know if the Americans shot them or
the others did. There were a lot of them. When the shooting happened, my brother shouted:
“They killed my little children.” JANE FERGUSON: Hasan says, although the Taliban
control these areas, no one from the village is a member of the insurgency. And when he went to the local governor to
complain, he was told the killings were a mistake, and nothing could be done. The CIA responded to a request for comment
by the “NewsHour” on alleged abuses, stating: “We neither condone nor would knowingly participate
in illegal activities, and we continually work with our foreign partners to promote
adherence to the law. “The U.S. government routinely reviews such
serious allegations to determine their validity. Although Human Rights Watch didn’t provide
the CIA time to study the particular allegations in this report, without confirming or denying
any particular role in government of Afghanistan counterterrorism operations, we can say with
some confidence that many, if not all, of the claims leveled against Afghan forces are
likely false or exaggerated.” January to July of this year marked the first
time in this long conflict that U.S. and Afghan government forces have killed and injured
more civilians than the Taliban, according to the U.N. Yet, because of their brutal tactics, the
Taliban are still killing and maiming thousands, like in this September attack in Kabul, when
a Taliban member detonated a car bomb, killing both an American and a Romanian soldier and
eight Afghan civilians in the street. We challenged their commander on this. Why does the Taliban target areas where civilians
are in the neighborhood? MAN (through translator): The martyrs try
to hit their targets and not harm civilians. But it happens. There is a clear order from our senior leaders
not to harm any civilians. JANE FERGUSON: The people living in these
villages have nothing but mud walls between them and the war outside. Reduced to labels like Taliban supporters
or pro-government, those in Afghanistan’s hidden battlegrounds fight their own personal
battles to survive every day, sometimes against anonymous, shadowy killers. America’s longest war is theirs too. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jane Ferguson
in Wardak, Afghanistan. JUDY WOODRUFF: A new report out from the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control highlights that we are still losing the battle against so-called
superbugs, bacteria that are resistant to nearly all the antibiotics. As William Brangham tells us, the scope of
the problem is bigger than previously estimated. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The CDC’s new report shows
that, while overall deaths from these superbugs are decreasing, new infections are rising. Federal health officials say it shows how
far we still have to go. These superbugs exist largely because of the
overuse and misuse of antibiotics, which allows the targeted bacteria to develop defenses
against them, which makes those lifesaving drugs less and less effective. According to the CDC, about 35,000 people
die every year from these infections. The majority of these deaths are from people
getting infected in hospitals and other health care settings. More than 2.8 million new infections occur
every year. That’s about one new infection every 11 seconds. For more on all this, I’m joined now by Arjun
Srinivasan, who works on infection control at the CDC and helped put together this report. Dr. Srinivasan, thank you very much for being
here. Before we get into some of the granular details
of this report, I wonder if we could talk about the broader scope of this problem. I mean, I think, by any public health measure,
almost three million infections every year is a lot of infections. DR. ARJUN SRINIVASAN, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention: Yes. And thanks for having me, William. It is. It’s a huge number. It’s a staggering burden. And that burden is really why we have been
calling attention to this problem for several years. The burden is larger than we thought it was. We knew that our report in 2013 was a conservative
estimate. We recognized it was likely an underestimate. It was the best information we had at the
time, and now we have better information, and we have put out a new number. And that number really continues to show that
this is a significant problem. It’s a massive problem. It’s a threat to patients in hospitals. It’s a threat to people in the community. It is a serious threat that we have to address. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Some of these infections,
we know, are life-threatening. Some of them are not. Can you just describe, what kinds of infections
are we talking about? DR. ARJUN SRINIVASAN: These antibiotic-resistant
infections, as you mentioned, they run the full gamut of different types of etiologies,
of different types of infections that they cause. And they do range in severity. Some of them cause skin infections that may
be readily treatable by draining the infection and a short course of antibiotics. Some of them cause very serious infections,
life-threatening infections. And, as you mentioned, we know that roughly
35,000 people every year don’t survive one of these infections. So it’s a huge gamut. But for each individual person, this is a
serious occurrence, right? This is pain, it’s suffering. So it’s important that we not underestimate
or that we trivialize any one of these 2.8 million infections. For the person who gets it, it’s a serious
infection. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: One thing that obviously
stands out is the declining number of deaths. It’s an 18 percent overall reduction, nearly
30 percent in hospitals alone. I think that is straight-up good news. What is driving that decline? DR. ARJUN SRINIVASAN: Those declines are absolutely
good news. It is really encouraging. And for some people who have seen this report,
it a little bit flies in the face of what we have come to expect, what conventional
wisdom is with antibiotic resistance. There was a lot of suspicion out there, and
people who said, once resistance begins to develop, there’s just nothing you can do,
you will never see it go back down. This report shows that you can, in fact, put
the genie back in the bottle to a certain extent. We’re seeing the number of deaths have gone
down. The number of infections with many of these
important pathogens, especially in health care, has gone down. What’s driving that? We really do think it’s the hard work of people,
especially in hospitals, where we have seen the biggest decreases. It’s the day-in and day-out work of people
paying attention to cleaning their hands, wearing gowns and gloves when it’s necessary
to care for these patients, working to improve antibiotic use. Some of these things are — seem relatively
simple. None of them are easy to do every day taking
care of every single patient. But that hard work is paying off, and we really
want to acknowledge the work that people are doing and encourage them to keep at it. Those efforts, your efforts are making a difference. Keep it up. It’s saving lives. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You mentioned this issue
of better antibiotic use. This obviously dovetails with one of the reasons
why these superbugs emerged in the first place. For individuals who might be listening out
there, what would you tell them about best practices for themselves, for their family,
for their communities? DR. ARJUN SRINIVASAN: You know, antibiotics are
lifesaving medications. They improve the quality of life. And when you have an infection that needs
an antibiotic, you definitely need an antibiotic. And that’s why we’re here, right? We want those antibiotics to be available
and effective when we need them. But we know too often in the United States,
both in hospitals and in outpatient settings, in doctor’s offices, we are prescribing antibiotics
when they’re not needed. And it’s really important for people to know
that, if you take an antibiotic when you don’t need one, you are exposing yourself to all
sorts of potential side effects from antibiotics. These are medications that have significant
side effects. When you need them, obviously, those side
effects are risks worth taking. But when you don’t need them, you are exposing
yourself to all of those side effects with no benefit. So, really, one of the key messages has been
and continues to be, don’t demand an antibiotic if your provider thinks you don’t need one. You don’t want an antibiotic if you don’t
need it. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Dr. Arjun Srinivasan
at the Centers for Disease Control, thank you very, very much. DR. ARJUN SRINIVASAN: Thank you so much. JUDY WOODRUFF: As older workers are making
up more and more of the labor force, employers are taking notice. Paul Solman has the story. It’s part of our Making Sense series Unfinished
Business. BRENDA PHILLIPS, Project Administrator, Trane:
So, I’m practicing to be retired, is what I tell people. PAUL SOLMAN: Sixty-six-year-old Brenda Phillips
still works as a project administrator at HVAC manufacturer Trane. But she’s no longer full-time. BRENDA PHILLIPS: I have taken up quilting,
and I have nine grandchildren. And I get asked to baby-sit a lot. PAUL SOLMAN: After almost 40 years on the
floor, Herbert Galbreath, at age 61, simply opted to hang it up. HERBERT GALBREATH, Production Leader, Trane:
Working on concrete for years, it causes a lot of joint problems. PAUL SOLMAN: But after two years, returned
as a supervisor. HERBERT GALBREATH: Retirement wasn’t really
what I thought it would be. And I’m a doer. What’s really important to me is to pass some
of the knowledge that I have on to the younger generation. I’m just one person. I can’t get everybody, but I can correct some
things. PAUL SOLMAN: Phillips and Galbreath are part
of My Encore, a program started a couple of years ago by Trane’s parent company, Ingersoll
Rand, says Timitra Hildebrand-Jones. TIMITRA HILDEBRAND-JONES, Director of Diversity
and Inclusion, Ingersoll Rand: We quickly realized that the majority of our employee
population was over the age 50, and many of them very close to retirement. And as we looked at that population, we started
to immediately get concerned about all of the tribal knowledge that we could potentially
lose. PAUL SOLMAN: And thus Trane’s phased retirement
and post-retirement work programs, to leverage worker expertise and commitment. RUTH FINKELSTEIN, Hunter College: This is
a gallery of age-smart employers. PAUL SOLMAN: Hunter College’s Ruth Finkelstein
says it’s happening elsewhere too. RUTH FINKELSTEIN: This is a school where they
pair older and younger teachers together. And this is the Urban Health Plan, that has
amazingly flexible policies. PAUL SOLMAN: The main reason firms have begun
to accommodate? They have little choice. The fastest growing segment of the labor force
is workers 55 or older. And admit it, says Finkelstein: RUTH FINKELSTEIN: Do you want the nurse who
is, you know, dealing with her first intravenous tube? No, you want the one who can do it with her
eyes closed. PAUL SOLMAN: And retention adjustments aren’t
just to keep good professionals. The savvy shortage is everywhere. RUTH FINKELSTEIN: Work force shortages in
skilled trades, work force shortages in fine garment work, work force shortages in plumbing
and heating and skilled construction. PAUL SOLMAN: Lee Spring, in fact, a century-old
manufacturing firm in Brooklyn. CEO Steve Kempf: STEVE KEMPF, CEO, Lee Spring: We do everything
to keep our older workers, because they’re — A, they’re so skilled, and, B, we don’t
have the people to fill in behind them. And we have invested 10, 15, 20, 30 years,
some of them, in their skill set. And we want to keep those as long as we can. PAUL SOLMAN: So what do you do to keep an
older worker like me? I’m 75. OK? STEVE KEMPF: Seventy-five. So we have got several people your age here. Generally, the most common thing we will do
is give them the ability to work a shorter workweek. And, usually, it also eases their way out,
so that we learn to get their job done with them there only two or three days a week. Makes it easier when they fully leave a few
years later. So, I’m not trying to be some great saint. I’m just doing what’s best for the company. PAUL SOLMAN: By keeping the likes of machinist
Mikhail Rapoport, on the job for 40 years, and still into it. How long do you think you will continue to
work? MIKHAIL RAPOPORT, Machinist, Lee Spring: When
my wife say enough is enough, let’s go to Florida, I go. PAUL SOLMAN: But she hasn’t said that yet? MIKHAIL RAPOPORT: No, now she tell to me,
working, working. (LAUGHTER) MIKHAIL RAPOPORT: She don’t want to see me
all day. PAUL SOLMAN: Fifty-nine-year-old Robert Metolli
worked the factory floor for years. But when he hurt his back, the company put
him behind a desk. ROBERT METOLLI, Engineering Team, Lee Spring:
They suggested probably I might be helpful in the office, bringing the experience that
I had on coiling, as well as helping me not lifting heavy wire or working with heavy machines. PAUL SOLMAN: But Lee Spring doesn’t hire seniors,
does it? STEVE KEMPF: Five of our workers who are in
their 70s, we hired them, all five of those people, in their late 50s. So we’re hiring somebody who’s 59 years old
to go into the factory. And we have gotten 15 years out of that person. And, generally, at that point, they’re also
not looking to jump around and look for a better place. PAUL SOLMAN: Accounting firm PKF O’Connor
Davies, where almost 40 percent of the work force is past 50, does the same, recruiting
senior partners from larger firms. Chief human resources officer Dawn Perri: DAWN PERRI, Chief Human Resources, PKF O’Connor
Davies: If somebody has to retire due to a mandatory practice that a firm has in place,
we wind up getting people that have great experience, who want to work, who are motivated,
who can help our less experienced individuals. PAUL SOLMAN: Al Fiore was a partner at accounting
giant KPMG. In his 70s, he brought his Rolodex and executive
experience to PKF O’Connor Davies. ALFRED FIORE, Principal, PKF O’Connor Davies:
I still act as a mentor to some of the members on the executive committee who’ve been here
a number of years, where my perspective is very beneficial. You feel like you’re making a contribution. PAUL SOLMAN: The company’s contribution, a
flexible schedule. ALFRED FIORE: I think what’s important in
staying involved is being able to work when you want to work. ANDREW CAPLIN, New York University: It’s clear
that older workers particularly value having some flexibility to take time off, maybe regularly,
but maybe a little bit as they want. So, flexibility matters. PAUL SOLMAN: So much so, according to New
York University economist Andrew Caplin’s research, that fully 60 percent of retirees
say they’d go back to work if it were flexible. But, for so many, it just isn’t. ANDREW CAPLIN: That is, the options they’re
looking for simply don’t exist. So if somebody stepped out of the work force
because they felt a little burned out, said, I’m taking a temporary time-out, and I think
I will step back a little while later, I wonder how many of them found that that’s a permanent
time-out? PAUL SOLMAN: Do you think there’s a huge untapped
pool of productivity… ANDREW CAPLIN: Yes. PAUL SOLMAN: … that is on the sidelines? ANDREW CAPLIN: Yes. PAUL SOLMAN: Well, Al Fiore is still working,
but thanks to his flexible schedule. ALFRED FIORE: I come in most days of the week. But if I need something — to be able to do
something else, I do that. PAUL SOLMAN: Back at Trane, does Brenda Phillips
miss working full-time? BRENDA PHILLIPS: No. (LAUGHTER) BRENDA PHILLIPS: Did I say that fast enough? (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: But she likes working part-time,
and needs to. BRENDA PHILLIPS: My husband had a major stroke,
and he’s disabled, so I’m the breadwinner. So I have a lot of responsibility on my shoulders. PAUL SOLMAN: Returning to work gave retiree
Herbert Galbreath financial stability. HERBERT GALBREATH: Get out of debt, and pay
bills off, and that opened the door for other things. I want to travel out West for three weeks
in a row, you know, things like that. PAUL SOLMAN: And as the proportion of older
workers continues to grow, says economist Caplin: ANDREW CAPLIN: We’re going to have to face
this issue that many places will want to keep employing people who would need a time-out
now. So, the most imaginative will find their individual
solutions. PAUL SOLMAN: As some places now have. For the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Paul Solman
in New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: The word elite increasingly
has a negative connotation. It’s often used as a political attack. Amna Nawaz sits down with author Joel Stein,
whose new book, “In Defense of Elitism,” explores how we view privilege. AMNA NAWAZ: Joel Stein, welcome to the “NewsHour.” JOEL STEIN, Author, “In Defense of Elitism”:
Amna, thank you for having me. It’s the elitist’s dream. To be on the “PBS NewsHour”? This as good as it gets. AMNA NAWAZ: Let me start with the title of
the book. JOEL STEIN: Oh, yes. AMNA NAWAZ: “In Defense of Elitism.” The subhead is “Why I’m Better Than You and
You’re Better Than Someone Who Didn’t Buy This Book.” Why does elitism need a defense right now? JOEL STEIN: Nobody is admitting they’re elite. Everyone hates the elite right now. And somebody has to stick up for the intellectual
elite in this country, before we drive this country into the ground. Everybody says that they can just operate
from their gut and they know more than the generals. And I just want to restore some kind of expertise
and some value and appreciation for education. AMNA NAWAZ: What does it mean to be elite
right now? JOEL STEIN: So, I don’t mean rich. Let me be clear about that from the beginning. Many members of the elite are journalists,
or they are in nongovernmental organizations, or they’re in academia. We’re talking about people who have influence
and power. But what I learned in writing this book is,
we’re now in this fight between these two groups of elite. This guy Vilfredo Pareto in 1900s, this Italian
economist, fascist, came up with this idea of the circulation of the elites, that there’s
always a battle between two people, and somebody always rules. And I feel like right now we’re in a battle
between our people, the intellectual and elite, the people watching this, and the boat elites,
which is a term I came up with after watching Donald Trump make this speech last year in
Minneapolis, where, after railing against the elites for so long during the campaign,
he said, well, we should be the elites. Like, we have bigger houses and we have boats. And I thought, oh, those are the people that
we’re against, the people who care about money more than ideas, the boat elite. AMNA NAWAZ: I should mention the book actually
begins with the election of Donald Trump, right? JOEL STEIN: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: That’s where this whole sort of
exploration of the idea of elitism begins for you. You write in the book: “The populist revolution
succeeded tonight for the same reason it did nearly two centuries ago. The main reason Trump won wasn’t economic
anxiety, wasn’t sexism, wasn’t racism. It was that he was anti-elite.” So explain — again, I want to get two definitions
on this. JOEL STEIN: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: He’s an Ivy League grad. He’s a millionaire or billionaire. And he has incredible power and privilege. JOEL STEIN: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: Is that what it means to be elite. Why is he anti-elite? When did it become a bad word? JOEL STEIN: Well, he doesn’t have any respect
for anyone who’s got any kind of expertise or education. Like, he knows more than the generals. He operates from his gut. He just says he instinctually knows what’s
right. So that’s the kind of anti-elitist, populist
sentiment that we’re talking about. AMNA NAWAZ: So, you head out on a pilgrimage. You leave your home in Los Angeles. JOEL STEIN: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: You go to a town called Miami,
Texas. JOEL STEIN: And you pronounced it right for
a good reason. AMNA NAWAZ: I did. I have been there myself. I have reported on the communities there. And I went there because, in this Panhandle
town, they’re known as having — being the county in the 2016 election that had the highest
level of support for Donald Trump. When you had a conversation with them about
elitism, what did they tell you? JOEL STEIN: You’re the only person I can talk
to, other than the people there, about this town, because you’re the only one I know who
has been there. (LAUGHTER) JOEL STEIN: It was really interesting. I went to Miami, not knowing that you were
also going there, thinking that I would teach them a lot, and they would teach me a little
bit that I could, like, stitch on a doily and keep in my kitchen. But, instead, I don’t know about you, but
I feel like I learned a lot from them, and they were so different than what I expected. They were very white, and they were very Christian. But they were also really well-educated and
they knew more about my life than I knew about theirs, both from traveling and watching television. And their anger about what is going on was
different from what I thought it would be. AMNA NAWAZ: What did you think it was going
to be, and how is it different? JOEL STEIN: I just thought it would be racist. And that’s the first thing they asked me. They were like, you think we’re going to be
racist, don’t you? Like, three people asked me that, which is
weird. And I found out that what they’re upset about
is, they feel really discriminated against. These are the people that, if you asked, are
Christians discriminated against more than black people, they will say yes. And I think that’s — it took me a while to
figure it out. But I think people feel acceleration and they
don’t feel speed. So what they have noticed is that white Christians
do have less power than they did 10, 20, 30 years ago. And they’re panicked about that kind of change. AMNA NAWAZ: I got to ask you, a lot of the
book is very tongue in cheek, right? You make fun of yourself in the book, too. But there are times when you make fun of the
people you’re interacting with too. You’re in Miami. You’re describing the home of someone you’re
staying with there as a museum to the 1950s. You make fun of the fact that they have a
tube television, not a flat-screen TV, that they’re playing “Andy Griffith” on the TV
in the local restaurant. Isn’t that the kind of elitism that they would
complain about? JOEL STEIN: Oh, yes. And they did to me. (LAUGHTER) JOEL STEIN: And I think they had a point. I think elites have a real problem with smugness. I think all of my friends who think, if they
could just go to Miami, Texas, and tell people that they’re voting against their own interests,
and explain to them why Medicare for all is great for them, that they would — they would
just change their minds, as if they’re like the unenlightened masses. And that’s not what’s going on at all. These people are voting for what they want
for the country. I think it’s a dangerous vision they have,
in my opinion, but it’s not ignorant. AMNA NAWAZ: So you set off on this journey. You meet with a number of different people. I will list off a few of them too. Tucker Carlson is profiled in the book. There’s Scott Adams, the man behind the “Dilbert”
cartoon, as well. JOEL STEIN: Yes, a big Trump supporter. AMNA NAWAZ: Eric Garcetti, the Los Angeles
mayor, as well. You bring all these people together to have
conversations about elitism. At the end of the day, what is it that you
take away? JOEL STEIN: You know, I wrote the book hopefully
in a funny way, partly because I want to draw attention to how ridiculous the situation
we’re in is. Like, there’s so many angry books about politics
right now. And I just wanted to point out that, like,
when I was growing up, if you told me there was going to be a populist revolution in America,
I would have thought, oh, there was an economic collapse or there was a war or something horrible
had happened. And, instead, things are going pretty well,
despite what people may tell you about corruption and the economy. Like, things are pretty good. And people flipped out. And I want people just to tone it down before
we lose democracy. AMNA NAWAZ: Joel Stein. The book is “In Defense of Elitism.” Thanks for being here. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tonight’s Brief But Spectacular
features artist Delano Dunn. His work explore questions of racial identity. DELANO DUNN, Artist: I grew up in Los Angeles,
California, so South Central L.A., which is a block of about 24 neighborhoods. When I was a young kid, the neighborhood was
fantastic. You know, I would play outside on the streets
with most of my friends. But, as I got older, got into my teens, things
got rough. The riots happened. The gang wars sort of sparked, so it became
a neighborhood where you couldn’t walk down the street. It became very rough. Everything about the neighborhood that I grew
up in, the friends that I had, the experiences of being a black student in a predominantly
white high school and elementary school, all of those things come into the work. My work is not happy work. It’s very difficult work. It’s very powerful work, I like to think. So I make stuff very colorful. I make it bright. I make it look like a piece of candy, so that
you want to come up and unwrap it. And when you do and you put it in your mouth,
it tastes like salt. As a kid, we didn’t talk much about the civil
rights movement in the house. I was more interested in space, in space exploration. As I got older, I started to realize really
what was probably more important to my life. PROTESTERS: Freedom, freedom, freedom. DELANO DUNN: And I started to want to have
a reconciliation. You’re taught in school that these two events
are happening not at the same time, even though they actually are. And the goal was to build a new history that
showed these two events happening concurrently, and these two groups of people working together
to develop a cohesive idea of the American dream. 1961 is significant because, in my research,
it was the first time I found these remarkable connections. So you have got Freedom Riders driving down
on May 4 to desegregate interstate travel. And the next day, one of the Mercury astronauts
goes up. I remember sitting in the library at the time
coming to that conclusion, and it just kind of blew my mind, that these things were happening
within hours and days of each other. Growing up and not really seeing any black
astronauts, to have this opportunity to make a world where you have African-Americans and
these astronauts working together, and blending the lines that maybe, you know, African-Americans
were part of these Mercury missions, made me kind of giddy, and I decided to go see
what I could do with it. I grew up in a family that was mostly women. I was raised by my mom, my aunt, and my grandmother. And I wanted to make work that talked about
the contribution that women have had in history, whether it be African-American civil rights
movement, whether it be the space race. My daughter’s name is Violet, and she’s 6. It’s a rough world out there, and particularly
for women and particularly for women of color. And so when I make work, I think a lot about
her. I make sure that I have images of women in
the work and that these women are not seen through the male gaze and that they’re depicted
in positions of power and strength. And that is the main impact of the work these
days, is her. My name is Delano Dunn. And this is my Brief But Spectacular take
on exploring the world through my art. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you can watch additional
Brief But Spectacular episodes on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. It is hard to believe, but today marks three
years since our dear friend and colleague Gwen Ifill passed away. We think of her all the time. Her loss was especially felt by young journalists
in the “PBS NewsHour” Student Reporting Labs. Here are four graduates of that program who
went on to be Gwen Ifill Fellows at their local PBS stations. We asked them to write letters they wish they
could have shared with Gwen. JAYLAH MOORE-ROSS, Gwen Ifill Fellow, WETA:
Dear Gwen, through journalism, I have been able to connect with so many different people. And through the Gwen Ifill Fellowship, I got
to sit around the same table that you and your co-anchor, Judy Woodruff, sat every day
to report on the most influential stories. GWEN IFILL: We always talk about African-Americans,
people of color. I want to talk to you about white people. OK? ANGELINE ABRERA, Gwen Ifill Fellow, Houston
Public Media: Dear Gwen, I can honestly say this fellowship has been one of the greatest
experiences in my life thus far. Because of you, I feel so much more confident
in myself and what I believe I can accomplish. You taught me to embrace my differences and
to never let anyone degrade me based on my appearance. MARY WILLIAMS, Gwen Ifill Fellow, CET Public
Television: Dear Gwen, your legacy means so to me as an African-American woman. It shows me that it’s possible to be a part
of something bigger than myself. Seeing you on the news made me realize you
did it, so I can do it. You paved the way for me so I can pave the
way for others like me. MERCEDES EZEJI, Gwen Ifill Fellow, Austin
PBS: Dear Gwen, you probably had no idea that a fellowship would be created in your name
at the end of your career. I used to watch you all the time when I was
younger. You were a major inspiration in my decision
to become a journalist. JAYLAH MOORE-ROSS: And though I never got
to meet you, I feel connected to you. ANGELINE ABRERA: Thankfully, our society has
become much more inclusive. But there are still many areas where women
are not seen as competent. JAYLAH MOORE-ROSS: You have not only inspired
young girls, including myself, to go for what they love, despite the challenges. GWEN IFILL: … investigations in Little Rock
and in Washington involving… JAYLAH MOORE-ROSS: But you have opened up
so many doors for storytellers behind you. Your legacy lives on, and your smile remains
infectious, even to those who only witnessed your light on screen. GWEN IFILL: Have a little fun. ANGELINE ABRERA: Thank you, Gwen Ifill, for
being my greatest role model. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Gwen lives on through every
one of these remarkable young women. We thank them. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us at 9:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow for our special live coverage
of the next public impeachment hearing. Thank you, and we’ll see you soon.

PBS NewsHour full episode October 24, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: heeding the call
of the White House. More Republican lawmakers attack the impeachment
process, but steer clear of declaring the president innocent of claims that he tied
military aid to political gain. Then: prisoner of conscience. A conversation with Pastor Andrew Brunson,
who was held captive in Turkey for two years on false charges. And by the numbers. As creative industries rely ever more on consumer-generated
data, concerns over privacy grow, and the line between artist and algorithm begins to
blur. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN, New York University
School of Law: The author is now not bringing something out of nothing. The author is kind of conjuring all of our
preferences, taking them into account, and in a sense reflecting ourselves back on us. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Taking on the impeachment process,
more Republican lawmakers are speaking up against how the impeachment inquiry in the
House of Representatives is being conducted. This follows testimony from the top U.S. diplomat
to Ukraine, who, on Tuesday, directly linked President Trump to the withholding of U.S.
military aid in return for political favors. Here to report on where it all stands today,
our own Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor. Hello to both of you. So, Lisa, I’m going to start with you. I know you were talking to a lot of folks
on the Hill today. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: What are congressional Republicans
saying as they push back against this impeachment inquiry? And do you get a sense of how much pressure
they are feeling to defend the president? LISA DESJARDINS: It’s tremendous pressure. And what a difference a day makes, because
we saw, I think, Republicans especially in the Senate yesterday struggling to understand
that testimony of that top diplomat from Ukraine, Bill Taylor. Today, we heard the sound of a resounding
defense of the president. Part of that came from a White House lunch
that the president had with a few Republican senators, including Senator Lindsey Graham. At that lunch, Graham told us reporters at
the Capitol today that the president said he feels in his bones this process is unfair. He wants, urges, demands Republicans push
back. Here’s how Lindsey Graham described where
he is on the process. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): And when you’re talking
about the president of the United States, it seems to me you would want to have a process
that is consistent with who we are as Americans and consistent with what Bill Clinton was
allowed to do, Richard Nixon was allowed to do. And the process in the House today, I think,
is a danger to the future of the presidency, because if you can drive down a president’s
poll numbers by having proceedings where you selectively leak information, where the president
who is the subject of all of this is pretty much shut out, God help future presidents. LISA DESJARDINS: So, he’s saying quite a lot
in that sound bite. Let me break it down quickly. When he’s talking about Bill Clinton and President
Nixon, what he is asking for in part is the chance to — basically, the president should
be able to object to testimony, see the testimony against him, have his own counsel, his own
witnesses. Now, Democrats say that’s coming. They’re saying this closed-door process so
far is the initial investigation phase. Now, when Lindsey Graham talks about poll
numbers and leaks, he’s talking about the testimony that we have seen, the opening statements
especially, from some witnesses. You know, Lindsey Graham admitted to me he’s
not exactly sure where it’s coming from. He suspects House Democrats are putting that
out there. But a bigger picture here, Judy, when I talk
to House Democrats — or House Republicans in particular, they say they feel such pressure
to fight for this president because their base is telling them they have to fight for
this president. They have been told by statistics, this president
is not just the one controlling the Republican message, he is the Republican message. So they have to storm committee hearing rooms
to show they’re behind this president. And one source told me today they think that
isn’t going far enough, that they want to tell their base they’re fighting for the president. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, you’re obviously
talking to folks at the White House. Republicans on the Hill feeling pressure from
their base, but clearly they’re also getting signals from the White House? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the White House and
President Trump are really pushing Republicans to defend him both privately and publicly. So, as Lisa mentioned, there was a lunch at
the White House today. And the president was essentially walking
Republicans through what he wants them to say about him. He wants them to say that, I did nothing wrong. He wants them to make sure that they’re making
it clear that he feels like the process is flawed. Mick Mulvaney also told lawmakers that the
White House is trying the get its plan together on impeachment. So what you see is the White House trying
to tell Republicans, we are going to eventually get handle on this and please bear with us
while we do this. And then publicly the president has been making
statements. On Monday, we saw the president really lash
out at Republicans and say, you need to get stronger. The Democrats here have their stuff together. They’re sticking together. And I’m having to deal with Senator Mitt Romney
of Utah, who is tweeting and going on TV, basically, really criticizing me, and that’s
not what I want to see. I want to see more people getting on TV and
defending me. And then we saw the Republicans storm the
Capitol and go into that secure facility and basically do exactly what the president says. That’s what he saw as getting tougher and
really the kind of loyalty that he’s been seeking. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what are you hearing about
the president’s attitude toward all this? Anger? Frustration? I mean, where do they put it on a scale of
whatever? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the president is very,
very angry about this impeachment inquiry. This issue of Ukraine has really been something
that’s stuck to this presidency and has been a headline for so long. The last couple — really, the last four to
five weeks have been all filled with this. And we have seen this president kind of really
go away from all sorts of scandal and controversy. And this one isn’t going away in the same
way. I also want to walk through kind of the president’s
own responses to this impeachment inquiry, because it’s really something that’s been
something that we should be beholding. So let’s look at what the president has said
and what the White House has said. They said at first that there was no pressure
applied to Ukraine on this call. Then they said aid was delayed to Ukraine,
but that it wasn’t about the investigations into the Bidens or into Joe Biden or Hunter
Biden. They then said the aid was tied to the investigations
of Democrats, but Ukrainians were unaware of that. And what we have seen is that the White House’s
responses have really been pushed back and have been proven to be untrue at least in
time after time after time. We have seen, with the no-pressure campaign,
we saw the call where he says, I need you do me favor, though. Joe Biden needs to really be investigated. They also said that the aid wasn’t delayed
because of the Bidens. We now — there have been multiple people
at least that have come to Capitol Hill to say that aid was tied to the Bidens. And then you have the fact that they say Ukraine
wasn’t aware. And, in fact, there are multiple reports that
say Ukraine knew as early as May that the president wanted them to try to really influence
the 2020 election. LISA DESJARDINS: Lindsey Graham was asked
about that today, saying the president — the White House has had multiple messages. And he said, you noticed that, huh? So, Republicans know. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Lisa, getting back to
the process, which is what the Republicans have been focused on, what do we know about
how the normal, regular process is for these kinds of investigations compared to what’s
happening right now? LISA DESJARDINS: I think is so important. There is so much spin right now. Let’s look at what we know about these closed-door
hearings that are going on right now. First of all, right now, Republicans on three
committees — that’s 47 different House Republicans — do have access to all of this testimony
if they want. Now, that does include about a dozen of those
members who protested yesterday. They didn’t need to so-called storm the facility. They had access as it was. Now, most Republicans don’t have access, but
many do. Democrats say this is a regular practice. They point to a few things, Judy. Let’s talk about the Benghazi investigation
run by the House Oversight Committee under Republican Trey Gowdy. They also had closed-door hearings like this. And, in fact, they kicked out Republicans
as well. Lindsey Graham is saying essentially this
is higher stakes and I think this needs to go public sooner. He thinks this is a derailment of the impeachment
process. But impeachment is how you define it. And Democrats say they are moving to a public
kind of scenario soon, but the pressure, of course, to do that is mounting, and Republicans
want to put that pressure on them. They also want to make this process look like
a circus, which is one of the reasons they did that yesterday. Democrats are trying to make it look serious. So watch those two different dynamics. JUDY WOODRUFF: Two forces heading in each
other’s direction. We will see where this all ends up. Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor, thank you
both. LISA DESJARDINS: Thanks. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Congress
put aside its divisions over impeachment to join in honoring the late Representative Elijah
Cummings. The Baltimore Democrat died last week. Today, an honor guard brought his flag-covered
coffin to Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol. Fellow lawmakers, friends and family looked
on as leaders from both parties remembered Cummings as a moral compass. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Elijah was truly a master
of the House. He respected its history, and, in it, he helped
shape America’s future. I have called him our North Star, our guide
to a better future for our children. REP. MARK MEADOWS (R-NC): He is defined by the
character of his heart, the honesty of his dialogue, and the man that — the man that
we will miss. JUDY WOODRUFF: Cummings lay in state at the
Capitol into early evening. His funeral is tomorrow in Baltimore. A new wildfire spread new fear in Northern
California’s wine country. Flames raced across 15 square miles in Sonoma
County, pushed by winds gusting to 70 miles an hour. Some 2,000 people were ordered to evacuate. Meanwhile, Pacific Gas & Electric imposed
new blackouts to prevent downed lines from igniting fires. Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the outages. GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): It is infuriating beyond
words to live in a state as innovative and extraordinarily entrepreneurial and capable
as the state of California, to be living in an environment where we are seeing this kind
of disruption and these kinds of blackouts. It’s about corporate greed meeting climate
change. It’s about decades of mismanagement. JUDY WOODRUFF: PG&E filed for bankruptcy in
January, facing billions of dollars in damages from the fires of recent years. In Northeastern Syria, both the Syrian government
and Kurdish-led forces accused Turkish troops of cease-fire violations. But Ankara made no apologies. Instead, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
warned Kurdish fighters to leave a border zone, or else. RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through
translator): Now our soldiers and the Syrian national army are patrolling the area of the
operation inch by inch. If any of these terrorists come across us
there, it is our natural right to crush them. JUDY WOODRUFF: Under a Turkish-Russian plan,
the Kurds must withdraw nearly 20 miles from the Turkish border. The president of Lebanon today urged protesters
to accept a promise of economic reforms and end days of mass demonstrations. Crowds in Beirut listened to the appeal on
speakers and rejected it. Protesters closed roads and lit fires for
an eighth day in an ongoing revolt over economic collapse and official corruption. Chile’s government has offered new concessions
after a week of unrest there that has left 18 dead. President Sebastian Pinera announced today
that he will freeze a hike in electricity rates. But protesters in Santiago were back on the
streets anyway, angered over living costs and inequality. Others returned to work a day after the latest
demonstrations and riots. MAN (through translator): This is a tragedy
for Chile. I think that the majority of the people, the
ones who do not go out and protest and destroy everything, I think they feel differently. These types of things don’t do anything good
for Chile. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, protests in Honduras
turned violent. Hundreds of people demanded that President
Juan Orlando Hernandez step down over allegations that he aided his brother in drug trafficking. British police confirmed today that all 39
people found dead in a container truck were Chinese citizens. The truck was discovered early yesterday in
an industrial park about 25 miles east of London. The victims included 31 men and eight women. The 25-year-old driver is being held on suspicion
of attempted murder. And in Spain, the remains of the dictator
Francisco Franco were exhumed from a state mausoleum and reburied in a private crypt. Franco’s family carried the coffin away as
supporters gave the fascist salute. Others said the man who overthrew a democratic
government and persecuted his opponents didn’t deserve a place of honor. PEDRO SANCHEZ, Spanish Acting Prime Minister
(through translator): This decision puts an end to a moral affront, the exaltation of
the figure of a dictator in a public place, and takes another step in the reconciliation
, which can only rest in the freedom and democracy. JUDY WOODRUFF: General Franco took power after
the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s that killed half-a-million people. He ruled until his death in 1975. Back in this country, Ohio Congressman Tim
Ryan dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race. He said he will run for reelection instead. Ryan’s departure leaves 17 Democrats vying
for the nomination. Former President Jimmy Carter went home from
a Georgia hospital today. He fell Monday night and fractured his pelvis. It was his third fall and injury since last
spring. Mr. Carter is 95. He has lived longer than any other American
president. The U.S. Census Bureau is now out with new
projections of dramatic change. They show a population of 400 million by the
year 2058, up from the current 326 million. It will also be more diverse, with non-Hispanic
whites dipping below 50 percent of the population. And there will be more senior citizens than
children in just 15 years from now. And on Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial
average lost 28 points to close at 26805. The Nasdaq rose 66 points, and the S&P 500
added five. And the Houston Astros have fired an executive
who shouted abusive language at female reporters. “Sports Illustrated” had reported that Brandon
Taubman used profanity, yelling about player who was once suspended over domestic violence. The firing came as Houston trails the Washington
Nationals in the world series two games to none. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: captive in
Turkey — Pastor Andrew Brunson on his two years imprisoned on false charges; Cambodia
cracks down on the growing orphanage industry; plus, privacy vs. precision — how data is
driving creative breakthroughs and novel legal challenges. We had planned to have a conversation with
Vice President Mike Pence tonight, but that has been moved to Monday. Now we want to hear from lawmakers who have
access to that secure room for the interviews at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. We reached out to all the Republican members
on the three committees involved. None of them were able to join us. We turn to Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat
from California. She sits on the Intelligence Committee and
on the Oversight Committee, both involved in this phase of the impeachment inquiry. Congresswoman Speier, thank you for joining
us again. REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): Thank you, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: We appreciate it. I want to ask you first about the pushback
from Republicans, who are focusing, as we have heard, not so much in defending the president
and what he did, although some of them say they’re sure it doesn’t amount to anything,
but on the process. They’re saying it’s unfair, that it damages
the presidency. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, first of all, when you
can’t speak to the merits of an issue, you then direct yourself to something less, and
that’s why they’re looking at process. The interesting thing is that, during the
Benghazi committee meetings, there were over 107 interviews that were held privately before
there was any public hearings. The committee was created and operational
for four months before there was the first public hearing. So if you’re comparing the two efforts, we
are far and away going to see open hearings happen much sooner than four months and much
fewer than 107 private interviews. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the most vocal opponents
today or critics was Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. I want to play for our audience and for you
just part of what he said at a news conference this afternoon. This is Senator Graham of South Carolina. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What they’re doing
is selectively leaking information to drive the president’s poll numbers down and to drive
the momentum for impeachment up. Everything coming out of this Star Chamber
process is being leaked by Democrats. They said, you heard Bill Taylor, I was breathless. Well, I — the point is, you don’t know what
Bill Taylor was asked. We don’t know if he was cross-examined and
what unfolded. So what you have here is a hearing, a process
that is, to me, not sufficient for due process. It’s being used in a politically dangerous
fashion. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Congresswoman Speier, he’s
calling it a Star Chamber. He’s saying it is not due process. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, I would say, first of
all, that that’s a reckless description. He has not ventured into those committee rooms,
but I can tell you and tell him that those interviews that take place are very fair. The Democrats have one hour to ask questions,
the Republicans have one hour to ask questions, and then we alternate back and forth for the
duration of the interview. Secondly, the — most of the transcripts will
become public. Third, the statements that have been released
for the most part have been released by the individuals who were being interviewed. So I don’t quite understand why Mr. Graham
is — or Senator Graham is suggesting such vitriolic language. JUDY WOODRUFF: Why are the hearings being
held in private now? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, they’re not really hearings. They’re interviews. And it’s fact-finding. So when you’re trying to develop your facts,
you don’t necessarily want persons to corroborate their testimony before coming in. So if we did, in fact, make them public at
the outset, we wouldn’t find the inconsistencies that, frankly, we have already found. JUDY WOODRUFF: Because that is an essential
point Republicans keep making, that this is so critical, we’re talking about the survival
of the president, the president himself, and the public needs to know what is going on
in this room. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, they do need to know, and
they will get to know that. The transcripts are going to be made public,
and there are going to be a series of public hearings as well, where many of these witnesses
will come back and testify before an open committee, so that everyone can hear their
testimony. JUDY WOODRUFF: How does the public have confidence,
Congresswoman Speier, that the questions — that what these individuals who come before the
committee are telling the truth? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, they swear under oath. So, by doing so, if they perjure themselves,
they would be subject to a criminal trial. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what would happen? I mean, how would you… REP. JACKIE SPEIER: I mean, that’s how Michael
Cohen is spending time in prison. He swore under oath, and he was lying. And so he’s now in prison. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when — so, for example,
when Senator Graham and other Republicans compare this to the process leading up to
the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and even recalling what happened under President
Nixon, and saying this doesn’t follow the process back then, how does it compare? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, there aren’t any specific
rules. But in those case, there was a special prosecutor
who was identified. In this situation, the Department of Justice
under Attorney General Barr declined to pursue the whistle-blower complaint, because they
didn’t think that there was any evidence there. So we have to do the evidence collection at
this point, because the Department of Justice declined to do so. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the other criticisms
we’re hearing from Republicans is that you didn’t have a special prosecutor who was — and
maybe it’s connected to the point you just made, but they’re saying, wait a minute, Robert
Mueller spent all that time investigating Russia connections. He ended up not finding anything, and Democrats
are disappointed they couldn’t impeach the president over that, so they’re turning to
this, but, in this case, there has been no special prosecutor. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, I guess I would beg to
differ with the conclusion. In the Mueller report, there were 10 incidents
of obstruction of justice, but Robert Mueller believed he could not file any because there
is this Department of Justice rule that you cannot charge a seated president. And I would argue, even in volume one, where
they looked at the intervention by the Russians and to what extent the campaign of Donald
Trump was engaged with them, there were over 250 contacts by the Trump campaign and Russian
operatives and 32 in-person meetings. JUDY WOODRUFF: Look ahead for us, if you will,
Congresswoman. Where do you see this process moving? How long is it going to take to interview
all the people you want to interview? And we’re now hearing that there will be public
hearings next month. When do you see that beginning, and what will
it look like? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, I can’t give you a specific
date when those hearings will begin. But I would be confident that we will be having
public hearings within a month. And I think they will be run like any other
hearing, where the Democrats will ask questions and the Republicans will ask questions. It will be very fair, much like all of the
depositions that we have taken. And let me underscore once again that the
Benghazi committee had over 107 behind-closed-door interviews before they completed their work
and four months before they went to their first public hearing. So we’re way ahead of their schedule. JUDY WOODRUFF: And do you know finally, at
this point, how many more witnesses you’re going to be hearing from? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: I can’t tell you a specific
number, but I think we probably have another two weeks or so of interviews to undertake. JUDY WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Jackie Speier
of California, who serves both on the Intelligence Committee and the Oversight Committee, thank
you very much. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: American evangelical Pastor
Andrew Brunson spent two years imprisoned in Turkey on what the U.S. calls bogus charges. His case created a crisis between the U.S.
and its NATO ally. For Brunson, it caused a crisis of faith and
a battle with depression. And a warning: There will be a brief mention
of suicide in this segment that is upcoming. Brunson has written a new book about his ordeal
that is titled “God’s Hostage.” Our Nick Schifrin sat down with him and with
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who played a key role in his release and in Brunson’s story. NICK SCHIFRIN: Before Pastor Andrew Brunson
became an unwilling media sensation and then flash point of U.S.-Turkish hostility, he
lived a quiet life in Turkey for 25 years. He built a small Christian congregation near
the Aegean Sea, and with his wife, Norine, helped refugees from neighboring Syria. But in July 2016, elements of the Turkish
military launched a failed coup. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan cracked down
on the military and all aspects of society. He rallied supporters and arrested hundreds
of thousands he accused of terrorism. And the Brunsons were also both arrested. In Turkey, they had spent every day together. But when Norine was released, Andrew was isolated
and shuttled between prisons for two years. Norine visited the prison every day and kept
a vigil. And Turkish TV kept Brunson in the news, accusing
him of being a CIA agent and supporting Fethullah Gulen, an exiled cleric living in Pennsylvania
who Turkey blamed for the coup attempt. Turkey wanted to trade Gulen for Brunson. MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States:
Release Pastor Andrew Brunson now, or be prepared to face the consequences. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Trump administration refused
and imposed sanctions, and Congress maintained bipartisan pressure. North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis: SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): And the charges that we
have seen to me are specious. And I think that we have got to continue to
support the family. NICK SCHIFRIN: New Hampshire Democratic Senator
Jeanne Shaheen pushed Erdogan for Brunson’s release. And on October the 12th, 2018, he was released,
almost two years to the day after his arrest. Last week, I sat down with Brunson and Shaheen
together in Washington. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON, Former Turkey Detainee:
We were arrested to be deported. And then somebody decided to hold us, and
I think that was to intimidate other missionaries, so they would self-deport. At some point, I became, obviously, a use
for leverage to try to gain concessions from the U.S. There is a human story and the God story. What Erdogan was doing, I was his hostage,
but when God had completed what he wanted to through my imprisonment, then he caused
my release. NICK SCHIFRIN: The first night, you describe. And you write this: “Being locked up behind
a big metal door in a foreign country, hearing the keys turn and the bolt slam for the first
time is sobering. It’s a sudden loss of control and plunge into
uncertainty.” Can you describe what that felt like? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: A total loss of control. It was very scary. So, I was saying, God, you’re the one keeping
me here, when I have — I’m desperate to get out. I’m full of fear. And you’re the one who could release me. And you’re not doing it. And you’re doing this to toughen me up. And so I was having — it was taking me into
a crisis of faith. NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you think you lost your
faith? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: No, I didn’t lose my
faith. I was actually desperate to hold on to it. I wasn’t wanting to walk away from it. But I was afraid that I was going insane at
times. NICK SCHIFRIN: Did you feel forsaken? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: At times, I did. And I was very surprised. Many of the biographies I have read of who
I would call Christian heroes, my heroes, they show very strong people. And I expected that, when I was suffering,
I would also have that strength. And, instead, I felt very broken and weak. NICK SCHIFRIN: And you write very honestly
about not only your crisis of faith, but your crisis of depression. How deep was your despair at one point? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: At one point, the Turkish
government wanted to give me three life sentences in solitary confinement with no parole. So I thought this. I could waste away here and spend years in
this terrible isolation, and I’d much rather be in heaven than spend the rest of my life
in a Turkish prison. And that’s what was leading me to think of
suicide. I’m glad I didn’t do it. The combination of despair and anxiety is
very dangerous. So, when I think I may not ever get out, I
just wanted to escape the situation. It’s not that I wanted to die. It’s that I didn’t want to live, I couldn’t
imagine living in these circumstances for a long period of time. NICK SCHIFRIN: Senator Shaheen, let me turn
to you. How important was this case to you? And how did it become a bipartisan issue? SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): You know, I think the
passage that you read in the beginning, that Andrew describes what it felt like to be locked
in that cell, is an experience that no American citizen should ever have to deal with in a
foreign country, especially someone who’s trying to do good, who’s lived there, whose
family has lived there, who then is taken into custody for no reason. I mean, those were totally trumped-up charges. There was no — there was no spying. No, it clearly was not due process. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: The charges against
me were just ridiculous and had no base. I knew that there would — I could be released
through the judicial process, but this was not being driven by the courts. NICK SCHIFRIN: Meaning it was being driven
by the top? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: Sure. And I knew that there was one person in the
end who would make the decision to release me or not. NICK SCHIFRIN: The president of Turkey. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: Yes. NICK SCHIFRIN: During the trial, when you
had to defend yourself, you described how you found your voice. Can you describe that and what that trial
was like? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: I chose to forgive
people, which I have to forgive them anyway, because that’s what I’m required to do as
a Christian. Actually, Jesus said that we’re supposed to
rejoice when we’re persecuted for his sake. So, I said, I’m blessed to actually be suffering
for his sake. And that’s when I felt — I felt almost a
holy defiance, I would say. We didn’t know, when we went to the final
court session, it ended up being the final court session. I didn’t know that I would be released. I packed two bags, one to go to come to the
States and the other to return to prison. So, in the court session, they declared me
guilty of terrorism. But then they said, we’re suspending this
for time served and while you appeal it, and your travel ban is lifted. And that basically means, please leave as
soon as you can. So it was such a roller coaster to go from
being convicted of terror, thinking I’m going back to prison, and then we’re rushing to
the airport to get on an Air Force plane and leave Turkish airspace as soon as possible,
in case they change their mind. So, within 24 hours, I go from being convicted
of terror to visiting the White House. Overwhelming feeling of gratefulness to all
the people who were involved in both Congress and the administration, and how wonderful
to be back with my children and with my wife. NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you also give President
Trump some credit? SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: I do. Listen, this is the way government is supposed
to work. People are supposed to work together, both
houses of Congress, with the administration, to accomplish whatever the goal is in the
interests of the American people. We should be able to weigh in for every American
who is falsely imprisoned around the world to try and make sure we can get them released. NICK SCHIFRIN: And was the president’s personal
involvement important? Was the White House’s involvement important? SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: So, I think so. Clearly, he has a relationship with President
Erdogan. And I think the more pressure we could put
on Turkey, the better. NICK SCHIFRIN: After everything you have been
through, how do you feel about Turkey today? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: We still love the Turks. I don’t really like the Turkish government. But I feel like they stole two years for me,
but it’s — God has redeemed it. And I believe that what I went through, what
I suffered is actually going to bring blessing to Turkey. So we have no regrets. My faith has deepened as I went through this. It’s been — I would say it was severely tested. And because it was tested, and I came out
of it, it’s proven now. So, it’s tested and proven. NICK SCHIFRIN: Senator Shaheen, Andrew Brunson,
thank you very much to you both. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: Thank you. SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: The concept of orphanages has
long been considered outdated in developed countries, and yet these institutions still
house hundreds of thousands of children in the developing world. And, surprisingly, most of these children
are actually not orphans. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports
from Cambodia as part of his series Agents for Change. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Six year old Makara Rith
spent three months in an orphanage in Battambang, Cambodia. But, on this day, his mother’s fingerprint
made it official: He was going home. There, a counselor waited in welcome with
toys for Makara and his siblings. MAKARA RITH, Six Years Old: I’m happy that
I can see my mom and my sister and my brother. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Makara was one of thousands
of Cambodian children who live in facilities commonly called orphanages here. Like him, the vast majority are not orphans. Neither parents nor the facilities are looking
to offer the children for adoption. Parents, many in dire poverty, are easily
convinced to place their children in these so-called residential care facilities, says
Jedtha Pon, co-founder of a nonprofit called the Cambodian Children’s Trust. JEDTHA PON, Co-Founder, Cambodian Children’s
Trust (through translator): Most of them think that, in an orphanage, the child will have
a better life with access to food, education and medical care. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Now Makara and his mother,
Minear Norn, are part of an effort by several aid agencies working with Cambodia’s government
to return children to their families. MINEAR NORN, Mother (through translator):
I feel like I have my child closer to me. Now I feel happy. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Happy that she now has
all three children together. But this was a day of mixed emotions, guilt
for sending her son away, worry about the future. She’s single and has no formal education. MINEAR NORN (through translator): My life
has been very difficult. We just survive day to day. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Under the new campaign,
she will have help. For at least two years, Cambodia Children’s
Trust provides a safety net for the families it serves. JEDTHA PON (through translator): If they have
domestic violence, they have mental health issues, or any children who are not going
to school, we will work with the social worker. We also provide support in terms of food. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The challenges for this
family and for the broader campaign are daunting. It begins with the image Cambodia cannot seem
to shake, of the Khmer Rouge genocide, its two million victims, displayed in museums,
immortalized by Hollywood. SEBASTIEN MAROT, Founder and Executive Director,
Friends-International: Cambodia 2019 has nothing to do with Cambodia 1979. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Sebastien Marot founded
a vocational training charity 25 years ago that’s helped thousands of marginalized children
and their parents. SEBASTIEN MAROT: The movie “Killing Fields”
and all the movies that came out about Cambodia is about this. So, when people think Cambodia, they think
that all the children are being victims of destruction, and everyone is an orphan, which
is far from the truth. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: With the civil strife
over, he says there are far fewer orphans now. Many children still live in poverty, but their
number has also dropped amid robust economic growth, notably in tourism to Cambodia’s world
famous temples. There may be fewer orphans, but orphanages
have also become a growth industry. There were about 150 in 2005. Today, there are more than 400, housing more
than 16,000 children. Often, they are put on display, dancing for
tourists who are then coaxed to leave a donation. DARA ROEUM, 14 Years Old (through translator):
We learned to dance. We performed for foreign visitors. It’s not fun. It’s so exhausting. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Fourteen-year-old Dara
and his sister, Dary, who’s 9, were recently reunited with their mother after six years
in an orphanage, where they recalled lives of physical abuse and insufficient food. DARY ROEUM, 9 Years Old (through translator):
It wasn’t fun. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: There’s profit, Marot
says, in pity. SEBASTIEN MAROT: It’s an easy sell. A child in a terrible situation, fly on the
eye, give me $5 a month. If it were that easy, it would be fantastic. But it’s not. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Then there’s voluntourism,
a thriving industry in which college or gap year students pay agencies to place them in
orphanages. Each year, tens of thousands of young Australians,
Europeans and North Americans come to Cambodia to volunteer. They will spend a few days, sometimes weeks
in orphanages, mostly teaching English to the children. Child development experts say not only does
this not help the children; it actually harms them. SEBASTIEN MAROT: It comes from a very good
feeling that, I’m helping, but, realistically, would you like to have your teacher change
every week? FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Children thrive on nurturing
long-term relationships with adults, the kind usually found only in a family. SEBASTIEN MAROT: The development of a child,
especially a young child, is hindered dramatically by being in an orphanage, by the lack of personal
attention, by not being in a family. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But to Ted Olbrich, it
depends on the family and the orphanage. Olbrich is an American evangelical pastor
who, with his wife, Sou, founded Foursquare and Children of Promise, the largest of several
faith-based operators of residential care facilities, or, as he calls them, church homes. Some older religion-based groups have joined
the campaign to de-institutionalize children. But others, like Foursquare, have resisted. The Olbrichs say they opened their first church
home in the early ’90s because there was a pressing need. TED OLBRICH, Co-Founder, Foursquare and Children
of Promise: We didn’t come here intending to take care of orphans. We came here to build a church, and we wound
up having these kids dumped on our doorstep. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And that need has only
grown, he says, to 106 homes, driven by family dysfunction that’s widespread and social mores. TED OLBRICH: Our biggest source of children
is children that had mothers who died in childbirth. Now those children are considered cursed. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Widows are also marginalized
in Cambodia, he adds, and they are brought in to staff their facilities. Each has about 25 children. TED OLBRICH: These widows, they live with
the kids, and they’re there with the kids their entire life that they’re growing up
in the orphan homes. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Many then profess their
Christianity, not a requirement, he says, but a good outcome. TED OLBRICH: I’m a proselytizer. We absolutely… FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Unapologetically? TED OLBRICH: Unapologetic proselytizer. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Sebastien Marot says Olbrich
is exaggerating Cambodia’s social ills and says his mission would be intolerable if the
tables were turned. SEBASTIEN MAROT: I’m sure they would be very
upset if a Muslim organization opened centers in the U.S. or in France, started taking children
from communities, put them there to turn them into nice little Muslims. And this is what they’re doing here. It’s a Buddhist country. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: He says orphanages are
an outdated concept, closed long ago in France and the U.S., in favor of placing children
in foster families and adoption. That’s the goal in Cambodia, but it’s not
easy, given the poverty that keeps life fragile for many families and limited resources for
family reintegration, which, ironically, is the cheaper option. JEDTHA PON (through translator): It’s about
10 to 15 times cheaper to support a child living with their family, rather than to bring
them into an institution. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Olbrichs say their
institutions are family, and they have no plans to scale them back. The Cambodian government’s goal is to reduce
the number of children in orphanages by a third by next year. For the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Fred de Sam
Lazaro in Battambang, Cambodia. JUDY WOODRUFF: Fred’s important reporting
is a partnership with the Under-Told Stories Project at the University of St. Thomas in
Minnesota. One major transformation profoundly affecting
the global economy is the way that big data and artificial intelligence are being used
in commerce and business. What’s gotten less attention, how this decision
is driving changes in the creative industries. In the second of two pieces, special correspondent
and Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell looks at some of the fundamental questions
this is raising for artists, designers and other creators. It’s part of our regular series Making Sense. CATHERINE RAMPELL: This bright, cheerful clothing
line is a hot commodity, worn by the likes of Michelle Obama, Aidy Bryant, Taylor Swift,
Beyonce. TANYA TAYLOR, Tanya Taylor Clothing: People
wear us to be happy. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Tanya Taylor is undoubtedly
creative, an artist who paints original prints for her clothes. But she’s in demand partly because she gives
customers what they want. TANYA TAYLOR: To me, the biggest part about
being a successful designer is absolutely listening to a customer and knowing who they
are. CATHERINE RAMPELL: And she knows what they
want because they tell her quite explicitly. ACTRESS: So what do you guys do with your
closet space now that you rent the runway? CATHERINE RAMPELL: Thanks to detailed feedback
she receives from Rent the Runway. It’s a platform that allows customers to rent,
rather than buy designer clothes. NARRATOR: Endless styles, infinite possibilities. SARAH TAM, Rent the Runway: We basically had
harnessed millions of data points over the last decade. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Sarah Tam is Rent the Runway’s
chief merchant officer. SARAH TAM: Every item of clothing that we
have on our site is tagged with over 60 attributes, things like color, fabric, silhouette, length. We also have millions of customer interactions
that we collect and millions of photo reviews. CATHERINE RAMPELL: The data help Rent the
Runway refine its inventory and predict what its typical customer will want next season. SARAH TAM: Last fall, we noticed that blazers
really performing extremely well. She loves color and pattern, so we sourced
brands like Veronica Beard that we launched on site. She loves fitted. She likes to outfit in suit sets. So we brought in this Veronica Beard set here. CATHERINE RAMPELL: The data also get Fed back
to designers like Taylor, who use it to nip in the hips or let out the bust, or choose
a different color or fabric, or mash up elements of different designs that are working well. TANYA TAYLOR: So this was our Inez Dress,
and it was definitely the most rented dress of our last spring season. And what we learned is that people loved the
stretch linen, but they didn’t love the snap at the neckline. The next step we learned was that people love
jumpsuits from Rent the Runway. So we’re like, let’s combine that information. What we did, is we took away the snap, and
then it’s a little jumpsuit shape. CATHERINE RAMPELL: In a dark neutral print,
because that’s what the data advised. Access to this kind of feedback significantly
improves the chances that a creation will succeed. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN, New York University
School of Law: The biggest risk for most creators is the risk that what they create will fail. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Law professors Christopher
Sprigman and Kal Raustiala have researched how the harvesting of vast troves of data
is changing creative industries, and what it might mean for their legal protections
and economic rewards. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Human creativity has
always been an incredibly risky endeavor as a business. If data can lower that risk, it makes creative
endeavors easier to invest in, potentially more rewarding. KAL RAUSTIALA, UCLA Law School: It’s not a
guarantee, but they’re going to place a better bet. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Creative industries have
traditionally had difficulty predicting what will sell and what won’t. As screenwriter William Goldman memorably
put it in his 1983 memoir, “Nobody knows anything.” WILLIAM GOLDMAN, Screenwriter: Very simply,
people go to see hits because they want to see that movie. They don’t go to see flops because they don’t
want to see that movie. It’s as simple as that. And the problem Hollywood has is, they can’t
figure out why. KAL RAUSTIALA: It’s one of the many reasons
we see so many sequels. What’s worked before will probably work again. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Big data has allowed companies
to figure out what works with much more precision, which, of course, can mean more precise pandering
to the masses. KAL RAUSTIALA: The processes that we’re talking
about tend not to give you something wildly different. They tend to give you more of what you already
watched or listened to or liked. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Keep in mind that there’s
a bunch of literature on how much novelty people want. And the answer is a relatively modest amount. People like paintings that look somewhat like
the paintings they have seen. People like movies that are somewhat like
the movies they have seen. CATHERINE RAMPELL: That said, data has been
used to overturn at least some of the conventional wisdom about what and who audiences want to
see. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: An example is Netflix,
which not too long ago produced a film with Sandra Bullock called “Bird Box.” They cast an older female lead, a relatively
diverse cast in this horror film. That’s a relatively adventurous choice that
turned out to pay off for them. And the talk among Netflix people was that
they did that in response to data. CATHERINE RAMPELL: A ton of data pulled from
more than 100 million users’ viewing habits. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Size, scale is very
important here. To make use of data, you have got to collect
a lot of it. CATHERINE RAMPELL: How replicable is what
you do? Could an upstart produce the high-quality
data and analytics that you have? SARAH TAM: It’s not so easily replicable. We have a decade worth of data, along with
a lot of the technology that we employ to analyze the data. CATHERINE RAMPELL: This hunger for data might
be driving consolidation in creative industries. Take the merger of Time Warner and AT&T. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: They went to the judge
and they said, look. Time Warner is a programmer. AT&T has a platform. What we need to do is, we need to link these
things up so that we can get the data to Time Warner that allows them to produce better
content. CATHERINE RAMPELL: That might be good for
the newly merged company. but, says Sprigman: CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: If the returns to data
keep growing and growing and growing as you get bigger, we could have a pretty strong
impetus toward monopoly, or at least significant market power. And that’s a concern. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Also a concern, privacy. Consumers may not know their Netflix-watching
habits, for example, are being closely monitored. KAL RAUSTIALA: Most people don’t realize how
much data about their activities, when they’re stopping, when they’re starting, that’s being
in a sense just gathered up and then spit back at them in different ways, or maybe sold
to third parties, which is a concern that a lot of people increasingly have about their
data in other contexts. CATHERINE RAMPELL: On the other hand, some
customers turn over this information willingly. SARAH TAM: Our customers, 98 percent of them
give us item level feedback after every time they rent something. So we can understand if our customer loves
an item, how it’s fitting her, how many times she’s wearing it and where she’s wearing it
to. CATHERINE RAMPELL: And the customers just
provide all of this information to you voluntarily? SARAH TAM: Yes. Believe it or not, we have built this incredible
brand community. CATHERINE RAMPELL: There are other legal questions
that arise from this use of big data, like whether we should rethink copyright law, which
exists in part to incentives artists to create. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Copyright is a way of
lowering the risk of investing in creative enterprises. If data-driven creativity is lowering that
risk, then it will kind of be a helpmate to or even a stand-in for copyright protection. CATHERINE RAMPELL: And who even deserves to
own the copyright to a work, if it’s created by algorithm, rather than artist? CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: The author is now not
bringing something out of nothing. The author is kind of conjuring all of our
preferences, taking them into account, and in a sense reflecting ourselves back on us. If this shifts people’s views of who’s responsible
for the creative work, where it’s more of a community project, then this might shift
some of the moral supports that undergird copyright protection. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Yes, do I own my consumer
preferences or do the companies whose stuff I buy own those preferences? CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: That is a very current
debate over whether you and I own the data that we in a sense produce through our activities
and that we transmit to these companies. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Artists will argue that
they’re still running the show. SARAH TAM: The algorithm isn’t really telling
them how to create the art. I think it’s just optimizing the art they
create. CATHERINE RAMPELL: It wasn’t like the data
was plugged, it was, like, fed into a computer, and boop, boop, boop, boop, boop, like, the
algorithm spit out this. TANYA TAYLOR: No. I don’t think women’s minds work in algorithms,
unfortunately. I wish it could be that straightforward and
easy. It’s more intuition, and you have to read
between the lines with the data. Where women are going next is hard to predict. CATHERINE RAMPELL: At least for now. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Catherine Rampell
in New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s estimated that as many
as 2.5 billion people around the world need prescription eyeglasses, but don’t have them. Untreated, we know poor vision keeps people
from reaching their full potential. Tonight’s Brief But Spectacular features an
eye doctor looking for new ways to solve the problem. DR. ANDREW BASTAWROUS, Eye Surgeon/Inventor: When
I was 12 years old, I was told by my teachers that I was a bit slow and that I wasn’t paying
attention. And then I was taken for an eye test, where
they found that I had really poor vision. And when I put on a pair of glasses, I saw
that trees have leaves on them for the first time, and my life took a very different course
as a consequence of something so simple. I was aware that the thing that happen to
me with a pair of glasses may not have been true if I have lived somewhere else. And so I wanted to become a doctor, which
I then became, and then I became an eye surgeon and with this burning desire to change this
injustice. Worldwide, there’s 2.5 billion people, so
one in three who need a pair of glasses and can’t get them. There’s 36 million people who are blind, four
in every five of whom shouldn’t be, because their cause of blindness is curable. In 2011, I left my job as an eye surgeon in
the U.K., and my wife and our 1-year-old son packed our bags and moved to Kenya. We went there because we wanted to really
understand the needs of a large population. And to do it, we had to establish 100 eye
clinics, and, in the course of doing so, just realized how big the scale of the problem
was, but also how much potential there was to change lives if this were done differently. When I was working in the field in Kenya,
I was taking 100,000 pounds’ worth of eye equipment and a team of 15 people to understand
why people couldn’t see and what the causes were. What we then started to do as Peek was creating
mobile technology that could do the same assessments, but in the hands of non-specialists. So, the first thing that we built was a vision
test that could measure somebody’s vision in any language. And then we built a tool that would sit on
the phone which would allow you to see inside the eye, so you could see the back of the
eye and understand why somebody can’t see. When I was working in Kenya, it became apparent
how many people had access to a mobile device. I would go to places that had no roads, no
electricity and no water, but in those same places, people had a mobile phone. An incredible doctor said to me: “In the community
that I work, there are children in the schools who can’t see. And when I send my nurse from the hospital
to go and see them, she finds them, but she spends all day in one school to find around
5 percent of the children with a problem. And I can no longer afford to send her because
the clinic is too busy.” So we said, why don’t we train teachers to
do the same thing? And so teachers started using our Peek Acuity
app to measure vision, to get a simulation of what that child could see, and then it
would automate a message to that child’s parents, to the head teacher and to the hospital. So, suddenly, everybody knew that child existed
with a solvable problem. The first time we trialed it, 25 teachers
screened 21,000 children in just nine days. We then went on to scale that up to 300,000
children covering the entire district. The government of Botswana has shown incredible
leadership and have committed to screen and treat every single schoolchild in the country,
making them the first country in the world where an entire generation no longer have
to suffer this problem. My name is Dr. Andrew Bastawrous, and this
is my Brief But Spectacular take on eradicating avoidable blindness. JUDY WOODRUFF: So good to hear about that. And you can find more episodes of our Brief
But Spectacular series at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. Also online: A new study finds that hospitals
that have experienced a data breach, the death rate among heart attack patients increased
in the months and years afterward. We explain the connection on our Web site,
PBS.org/NewsHour. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank you, and we’ll see you soon

PBS NewsHour full episode November 15, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: MARIE YOVANOVITCH, Former U.S. Ambassador
to Ukraine: How could our system fail like this? How is it that foreign corrupt interests could
manipulate our government? JUDY WOODRUFF: The next witness is called. The ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine testifies
in the impeachment inquiry, while President Trump at the same moment tweets new criticisms
of her. It’s Friday. Mark Shields and David Brooks are here to
analyze a dramatic and historic first week of public hearings. Plus: the fire and the fallout. Seven months after Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral
burned, debate swirls over how to rebuild, and the city fears further collapse. ALINE MAGNIEN, Historical Monument Research
Laboratory (through translator): There’s a risk that Notre Dame’s vault will become unstable,
which would result in more stones falling and would put the public in danger. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s been a dramatic day at
the U.S. Capitol. In the second public hearing in the impeachment
inquiry into President Trump, the witness was Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador
to Ukraine. Mr. Trump derided her in his July phone call
with Ukraine’s president that is now at the center of this investigation. Many of today’s questions focused on how and
why he fired her. In a first, Mr. Trump resorted to Twitter
to attack her while she was testifying. There is a lot to unpack from this day. And here to look at it all, Yamiche Alcindor
is at the White House. Our Lisa Desjardins was in the committee hearing
room. She us joins us now in our studio, along with
Nick Schifrin, who is also at the table. Hello to all of you. There is a lot to unpack. Lisa, I’m going to start with you. The day pretty much started — here we have
a career diplomat, and they went right to the firing, how it happened, what happened,
how she felt about it when it happened, and she talked about feeling threatened. LISA DESJARDINS: I think the Democrats here
were trying to show real damage. And Ambassador Yovanovitch, for anyone who
watched the hearing, she was very consistent in her testimony. She was trying to provide direct answers. She didn’t get very emotional, except occasionally. But the words, she said, described the emotion
she went through as first she was ousted and as the president attacked her on Twitter. Let’s listen to some of what she said. MARIE YOVANOVITCH, Former U.S. Ambassador
to Ukraine: I was shocked and devastated that I would feature in a phone call between two
heads of state in such a manner, where President Trump said that I was bad news to another
world leader, and that I would be going through some things. So I was — it was a terrible moment. A person who saw me actually reading the transcript
said that the color drained from my face. I think I even had a physical reaction. I think, you know, even now, words kind of
fail me. LISA DESJARDINS: That, of course, is the call
between President Trump, the man she was — she had been serving, and President Zelensky,
the man she was trying to sort of help his country with. And she never said she expected to be in that
call. Also, Judy, she was asked how her family is
coping with this. And that was sort of a very heavy moment,
where you could almost feel her bracing herself. And she said quietly she doesn’t want to talk
about that. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, that was something that
came through on the television screen as we were watching. So, Yamiche, meantime, at the White House,
the president was paying attention. Tell us about that. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president was ready
to defend himself in real time. But defending himself meant in this case attacking
Ambassador Yovanovitch as she was testifying publicly in this impeachment inquiry. I want to read to you some of the tweets that
the president sent out, because they are, in some ways, quite remarkable. Here are two tweets that he sent out: Everywhere
Maria Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia. How did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new
Ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. president’s absolute right to
appoint ambassadors.” He went on to say: “With all of that, however,
I have done far more for Ukraine” than O,” referring to President Obama.” Now I have to fact-check here. The president is saying that it was the president
of Ukraine who actually had an issue with Marie Yovanovitch, when, in fact, on that
July 25 phone call, the president of Ukraine says very clearly: “Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, President Trump, for being the
first person to bring up that Marie Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador.” So it was President Trump who initially said
the Marie Yovanovitch had a problem and that he did not like the work that she was doing. And then the president of Ukraine essentially
says, I agree with you. So while the president was lashing out at
the ambassador, he was also misleading the American public in these tweets. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Yamiche, we know that
not long after the president did tweet those criticisms of her, the ambassador was asked
about it by Chairman Adam Schiff. Let’s watch that. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Would you like to respond
to the president’s attack that everywhere you went turned bad? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: I mean, I don’t think I
have such, not in Mogadishu, Somalia, and not in other places. I actually think that where I have served
over the years, I and others have demonstrably made things better for the U.S., as well as
for countries that I served in. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Notwithstanding the fact that,
as you testified earlier, the president implicitly threatened you in that call record, and now
the president, in real time, is attacking you, what effect do you think that has on
other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: It’s very intimidating. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: It’s designed to intimidate,
is it not? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: I mean, I can’t speak to
what the president is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Yamiche, that brought
a round of reaction and conversation about whether the president was trying to intimidate
a witness. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Democrats say that the president
was essentially trying to witness-tamper here and that he was trying to intimidate Ambassador
Yovanovitch with his tweets. At the White House, the president was specifically
questioned about that. Here’s what he said: DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
And I’ll tell you about what tampering is. Tampering is when a guy like shifty Schiff
doesn’t let us have lawyers. Tampering is when Schiff doesn’t let us have
witnesses, doesn’t let us speak. I have been watching today. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president is saying
that Republicans didn’t have a chance to have lawyers speak within that public hearing. But, in fact, a Republican lawyer was questioning
Ambassador Yovanovitch throughout the day, as was the Democratic lawyer, along with lawmakers. So the president there was lashing out and
unloading at Ambassador Yovanovitch. He also made the point he essentially has
free speech, that he, as an American, can say whatever he wants to say. But there are a lot of people are looking
at the president saying his words have more weight than the average American. His Twitter account has some 50 million to
60 million people who are following him. So when he attacks Ambassador Yovanovitch,
there are people who are worried that she will possibly be attacked or possibly be criticized
by even more people. And, of course, Ambassador Yovanovitch said
that this is very, very painful for her. But the president is essentially saying, I
can say whatever I want to say. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Nick, let’s go back into
the hearing room, because there were a number of things that were brought up today. But one of them, related to all this, was
what Ambassador Yovanovitch had to say about the effect of all this on people who work
at the State Department. NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes, what she called as the
smear campaign against her, the effect of the campaign that started really last year,
but really took place or accelerated earlier this year, Ukrainian officials inventing facts
because they wanted her gone, facts then repeated on FOX News, in The Hill newspaper, by Rudy
Giuliani, by Donald J. Trump Jr., leading the president to lose confidence in her, and
then the State Department bringing her home early. And she said she, I’m not the only one who’s
going through this. She called it a part of a campaign against
Foreign Service professionals. And they said — she said that those Foreign
Service professionals were being denigrated, being undermined. And it’s not only the people in the State
Department. She said the State Department itself was visibly
unraveling. MARIE YOVANOVITCH: The crisis has moved from
the impact on individuals to an impact on the institution itself. The State Department is being hollowed out
from within, at a competitive and complex time on the world stage. This is not a time to undercut our diplomats. What I’d like to say is, while I obviously
don’t dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time, for
any reason, but what I do wonder is, why it was necessary to smear my reputation. NICK SCHIFRIN: And Ambassador Yovanovitch
blamed Secretary of State Pompeo, senior officials for not defending her from that smear campaign. And said the impact was U.S. ambassadors no
longer having the faith that the U.S. government would defend them for doing their jobs, extraordinarily
serious charges against the man who is still her boss, Secretary of State Pompeo. There’s no on-the-record response from the
State Department to what she said, but political appointees in the State Department say they
are continuing their job, they’re not feeling this. But Foreign Service officers I talk to say
they’re definitely feeling that this is not a good moment for them inside the State Department. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, meantime, Lisa, Republicans
on the Intelligence Committee not happy at all about these impeachment proceedings. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: What — step back for us. What are they trying to accomplish, from their
point of view? And do they think they’re doing it? LISA DESJARDINS: They went into this week
saying they wanted to do a few specific things. One of them, they wanted to show that Ukraine
is generally a corrupt country and that President Trump has long been concerned about that corruption. That came up a few times today, but I don’t
think that really was an overall message that they hit home so much. It’s something that they will come back to. They also have wanted to make the point that
there really was Ukrainian interference in the president’s campaign, something Nick has
talked about a lot as well. Again, that’s something that I think they
mentioned. But, to me, Judy, their most — more successful
moments were in pointing out what Ambassador Yovanovitch could not say, that she could
not directly connect the president to some of these things that the Democrats are saying
were the problems. Here’s an exchange from Representative Chris
Stewart of Utah, in which he really gets this idea of, what do you know about possible impeachable
offenses? Let’s listen. REP. CHRIS STEWART (R-UT): Do you have any information
regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: No. REP. CHRIS STEWART: Do you have any information
regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with
at all? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: No. REP. CHRIS STEWART: Thank you. Thank you for answering that directly. The American people know this is nonsense. The American people know this is unfair. And I have a prediction regarding this. I think that public support for impeachment
is actually going to be less when these hearings are over than it is when the hearings began,
because finally the American people are going to be able to see the evidence. And they’re going to be able to make their
own determination regarding that. LISA DESJARDINS: And, of course, when he talks
about the American people, for Republicans, they’re thinking a lot about the Republican
base and Trump voters. Those are the folks who think this is unfair. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, of course, another part
of the Republican strategy here, Nick, is bringing up the connection to Joe Biden, his
son Hunter Biden, who served on the board of this Ukrainian energy company. Fill us in on how that went. NICK SCHIFRIN: Right. The two lines of attack that Lisa just mentioned
are Ukraine criticized candidate Trump in 2016 and Ukraine is corrupt, and those two
things are the reason that President Trump should be skeptical of the new Ukrainian government. That’s the logic there, so first criticism
in 2016. We heard Representative Jim Jordan goes through
quite a few Ukrainian officials who criticized candidate Trump. Ambassador Yovanovitch said, that doesn’t
mean the Ukrainian government undermined U.S. elections. And she reminded the committee that it was
Russia that attacked in 2016. And then corruption. And the focus, of course, was Burisma, the
largest energy company in Ukraine, so corrupt, after 2014, it was the first company that
the British investigated for corruption. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, was on the
board of that company while Vice President Biden was dealing with Ukrainian officials. And earlier this week, we heard from another
State Department official, George Kent, said he approached Biden’s office, saying, hey,
I’m concerned about this. And we heard Representative John Ratcliffe,
Republican of Texas, ask about that again today. REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): Did you ever — do
you agree with that? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: Yes. REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE: That it was a legitimate concern
to raise? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: I think that it could raise
the appearance of a conflict of interests. NICK SCHIFRIN: And Republicans want to keep
the focus on corruption, of course, Judy, and they’re going to use Hunter Biden and
Burisma to do that. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now to Yamiche. Early in the day, separately, the White House
did finally release something they were going — they said they were going to, and that
is a transcript — or the memo describing the first phone conversation between President
Trump and President Zelensky. What did we learn from that? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Just as this second public
hearing with Ambassador Yovanovitch was getting under way, the White House released a memo,
not a transcript, but a memo, of a call between President Trump and President Zelensky, the
president of Ukraine. It was their first call in April. And in that call, President Trump was essentially
congratulating President Zelensky, saying, it’s really great that you were elected. I’m looking forward to having you at the White
House. They do not talk about Joe Biden. They don’t talk about Burisma, which is the
board of — or the energy company that Hunter Biden was on the board of. But it’s important to note that Joe Biden
was not yet running for president. So the former vice president had not yet entered
the race. The second thing to note is, the White House
put out a readout of the calls, basically a short note of the call, to reporters in
April. And it said that — in that call, that President
Trump and the president of Ukraine had discussed routing out corruption, except that, today,
the call memo does not say anything about corruption. When I pressed the White House on that discrepancy,
they said, well, actually, the National Security Council is the one in charge of putting up
those readouts, so, really, you should go talk to them. That’s significant, because Ambassador — because
Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who said he had an issue and was concerned
about the president bringing up the Bidens in the July call, is one of the people that
would be involved in getting that readout ready. So what you have is essentially some people
thinking that the White House is now blaming someone who had a concern about that July
25 call for not having the first call, the April call, be an accurate portrayal of what
was discussed. JUDY WOODRUFF: So interesting. Lisa, we talked a moment ago about what the
Republicans were trying to accomplish. What are the Democrats trying to accomplish? And do they think they are doing that? LISA DESJARDINS: They want to make the point
that the president was setting up a system where corruption itself could blossom. And they wanted to establish a connection,
essentially, between the president and Rudy Giuliani and what was happening in Ukraine,
a big part of that connection, a man named Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European
Union we have talked about before, also a man who donated — and this is important to
remember — a million dollars to the Trump inaugural. So, listen to this line of questioning from
Chairman Schiff to Ambassador Yovanovitch about this idea that her ouster was the first
step in bringing in potential corruption, that these forces at work by Giuliani needed
her out of the way to gain personally. Here’s the question. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: But what if the president could
put someone else in place that wasn’t a career diplomat? What if he could put in place, say, a substantial
donor to his inaugural? What if he could put in place someone with
no diplomatic experience at all? What if he put in place someone whose portfolio
doesn’t even include Ukraine? Might that person be willing to work with
Rudy Giuliani in pursuit of these investigations? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: Yes, maybe. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, that’s exactly what happened,
wasn’t it? MARIE YOVANOVITCH: Yes. LISA DESJARDINS: It’s extraordinary to hear
her say that. That’s basically associating Gordon Sondland
with kind of this idea that there were personal interests at stake. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we’re going to hear from
Gordon Sondland next week. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right, I believe on
Wednesday… JUDY WOODRUFF: He’s coming to testify. Yamiche, finally, back to you. The hearing ended this afternoon, but then
the committee continued behind closed doors. Give us a quick sense of what’s come out of
that. I know a little information has come out,
and then what we should look for in the week ahead. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: David Holmes is an aide
to William Taylor, who is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, who overheard Gordon Sondland,
the E.U. ambassador, speaking to President Trump. He told lawmakers just a few moments ago that
the reason why he could overhear that call is because Gordon Sondland had the cell phone
far away from his ear because President Trump was speaking so loudly. And what he heard was President Trump essentially
saying he wanted to have investigations into the Bidens. That aide, David Holmes, also told William
Taylor that President Trump cared more about the investigations of the Bidens and his 2020
campaign than anything else that was going on in Ukraine. So that’s significant. And, next week, we’re going to see more depositions
and possibly — and also more public hearings. JUDY WOODRUFF: Hearings that continue Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday. Yamiche Alcindor, a long day for you, Lisa
Desjardins here at the table with me, Nick Schifrin, thank you all. Thank you all. I saw that stretch. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: Get ready. In other news today, Roger Stone, the former
aide and longtime confidant of President Trump, today was found guilty in a federal court
on seven felony counts, among them, obstructing a congressional investigation into Russia’s
interference in the 2016 election. Stone was also convicted of lying to investigators
and tampering with a witness. Prosecutors said that stone committed these
crimes to protect the president. Amna Nawaz has the details. AMNA NAWAZ: That’s right, Judy. In fact, the panel that Stone lied to is the
same congressional committee that is conducting the impeachment hearings. Now, Stone’s indictment was the last, brought
by former special counsel Robert Mueller. And the trial revealed new details about the
Trump campaign’s interest in e-mails hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks. Stone is the latest in a string of former
Trump aides and officials who have now been convicted. They include Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort,
Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, and Michael Flynn. Moments after the verdict, the president tweeted
— quote — “So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years
to come.” The president then referenced Hillary Clinton,
James Comey and a list of others, accusing them of lying. Spencer Hsu of The Washington Post covered
the trial. And he joins me now. Welcome to the “NewsHour.” SPENCER HSU, The Washington Post: Thanks very
much. AMNA NAWAZ: So, Stone is found guilty of obstructing
that congressional investigation that we listed there. In what ways did prosecutors say he obstructed
that investigation? What did he do? SPENCER HSU, The Washington Post: Well, jurors
found that he lied in five different ways, denying that he had a back channel or an intermediary
with WikiLeaks, with whom he sought information, that he didn’t have any records of any communications
with those — any such individuals. He falsely named one person as a source of
information, and then he proceeded to threaten that witness and direct him to lie or to mislead
or not cooperate with the committee. And he also denied communicating with the
Trump campaign about this intermediary or his efforts. And then, finally, he denied any communications
with third parties about his — about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the man who is holed
up at the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012, who was tweeting and making comments about the
e-mails. AMNA NAWAZ: That one witness that he tried
to block the testimony of, who was that? Why is he important to this entire story? And in what ways was Stone trying to keep
him from testifying? SPENCER HSU: Right. Randy Credico was a colorful figure, the key
witness. He took the stand for the government. He is a former comedian and a New York City
radio talk show host. His distinction in the 2016 campaign was he
scored an August 25 interview with Julian Assange from the embassy. It emerged that, in communications — well,
and also that, when Stone was asked and pressed by the committee, well, you made all these
public statements in August of 2016 predicting what WikiLeaks was going to do, predicting
the release of damaging Democratic e-mails by Hillary Clinton and her campaign. You said you had an intermediary. Who was it? The president named Credico. Turned out, evidence showed that Credico wasn’t
in touch with anyone or seeking information until weeks after that time that Stone named. AMNA NAWAZ: You said the president named Credico. You mean Stone named Credico. SPENCER HSU: Excuse me. Stone. AMNA NAWAZ: I just want to make that very
clear. And, of course, we now know the role that
WikiLeaks played here in all of this. In part of the trial, I do want to also mention
that they heard from two former Trump campaign officials as well, Steve Bannon among them,
who was a former adviser, and Rick Gates, who was the deputy campaign chair. In part of Gates’ testimony, he talks about
this phone call. What was that phone call? Why was it key to what prosecutors were alleging? SPENCER HSU: So Stone had denied speaking
to the campaign about trying to get the WikiLeaks e-mails. President Trump, in his own answers to the
Mueller commission, said he spoke with Stone several times in the course the election campaign
season, but that he didn’t recall any specifics, didn’t recall speaking to him about WikiLeaks,
and didn’t recall knowing about any communications that Stone had with this campaign. What Gates said and other evidence showed
was that there had been discussions since April about — that Stone had had with the
top levels of the campaign, chairman Paul Manafort, his deputy, Rick Gates, the later
on chief executive Steve Bannon, and with the candidate himself, that, on July 31, right
in the middle of the period of the Democratic National Committee — excuse me — the Democratic
National Convention, and the time when the e-mails were coming out, and WikiLeaks was
tweeting about this, there was this call between Stone and Trump that Gates heard while they
were traveling from Trump Tower to La Guardia Airport. After the call hung up, Trump said, there’s
going to be more information forthcoming. How dispositive is that? It was known that Assange was — WikiLeaks
were saying more information was coming. But the issue is that Stone denied to the
committee knowing about that. Stone’s defense has pointed out, there’s nothing
illegal about opposition research. He wasn’t charged with that. The point of prosecutors was, you have to
tell the truth to a committee investigating for foreign interference efforts in an American
election when they’re investigating that. And the belief was that the Russians hacked
and leaked to WikiLeaks. AMNA NAWAZ: And what Gates has now said calls
into question some of the written answers that the president himself gave to the special
counsel about the details of those phone calls. One last thing before I let you go. You were in the courtroom. It is fair to say that Roger Stone is a very
colorful character. He once said that it’s better to be infamous
than not famous at all. There was a lot of sort of circus to this
trial itself. What was it like over the course of this trial? And, also, a lot of people are asking, what’s
the possibility that the president now just pardons Roger Stone? SPENCER HSU: You know, there had been some
question of why this case have gone to trial. It was a very strong paper records case. Prosecutors had said that’s the beauty of
this thing so much was, papers don’t lie. And they had 1,500 texts and e-mail messages
that he had — that Stone had claimed didn’t exist. And the thought had been that Stone was really
not just appealing to a jury of 12, but maybe an audience of one, that he had used this
case to attack the Mueller prosecution and accuse it of being a witch-hunt. And you saw that — I don’t know that Stone
now can come to a jury and say that he accepts responsibility now that the president has
come out and said that it’s a double standard, maybe he shouldn’t have been prosecuted. We will see what approach he takes facing
potentially a prison term. AMNA NAWAZ: We will wait to see, indeed. Spencer Hsu of The Washington Post, thank
you so much for being here. SPENCER HSU: Thanks for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Officials
said a 16-year-old student clearly planned an attack on his Southern California high
school because he made sure he had one bullet left. The gunman shot and killed two students and
wounded three more on Thursday, then shot himself with the last round. He remains in critical condition today. Investigators, meanwhile, search for what
drove the attack. CAPT. KENT WEGENER, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department: No motive or rationale has been yet been established for the subject’s assault. Suffice it to say, we didn’t find any manifesto,
any diary that spelled it out, any suicide note or any writings which will clearly identify
his motives behind this assault. JUDY WOODRUFF: Police have not publicly identified
the shooter, but they say he had no apparent ties to the victims, other than attending
the same school. In Iraq, thousands of protesters turned out
in Baghdad, but security forces opened fire again, killing three people. Crowds filled a central square after breaking
through barriers, and soldiers and police turned to tear gas and live fire to drive
them out. Later, a car bomb killed two more protesters,
but it wasn’t clear if they were the intended target. Lawmakers in Chile agreed today to hold a
spring referendum to replace the country’s unpopular constitution. It was imposed during General Augusto Pinochet’s
military rule nearly 40 years ago. The new agreement follows a month of protests
that have seen more than 20 people killed. The protesters blame the Constitution for
deep-seated economic inequality. CATALINA PEREZ, Democratic Revolution Party
(through translator): Today, people are able to move the barriers of politics, to move
the barriers as much as possible. Today, we are going to have a referendum for
the first time in democracy that asks people whether or not they want a New Constitution,
and also asks them what that mechanism to transform it would be. If today, we are able to dream of a constituent
assembly, it is because people have been on the streets. JUDY WOODRUFF: Voters will decide next April
on calling a constitutional convention to draft a constitution. A later vote will consider the document itself. Palestinians in Gaza have returned to picking
up the pieces after an overnight flare-up rattled a day-old truce. It happened when Islamic Jihad militants,
backed by Iran, fired a new round of rockets, and Israel struck back with new airstrikes. The Israelis said later that there will be
no further air raids if there are no additional rocket attacks. For the second time this week, high-tide flooding
has submerged much of Venice, Italy. Water levels peaked today at five feet above
sea level, forcing the closure of iconic St. Mark’s Square. Locals were defiant, but frustrated. NAVA NACCARA, Venice Resident (through translator):
I am not afraid, because I am Venetian and used to it. But it hasn’t ever been like this, with all
these consecutive days. We are in an emergency, and we just can’t
put up with it anymore. JUDY WOODRUFF: The flooding on Tuesday was
even worse, hitting the highest levels since 1966. Since then, sea levels in Venice have risen
by four inches, and the city has slowly settled deeper into the mud. Back in this country, the Trump administration
announced rules to make health insurers and hospitals post prices up front. Officials said the goal is to foster competition
and push down costs for common tests and procedures. The health care industry and major hospital
groups said they plan to sue. They argue the proposals would violate the
privacy of contracts and create confusion. And on Wall Street, three major indexes racked
up new record closes, as the White House reported progress on a trade deal with China. The Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly
223 points to finish above 28000 for the first time. The Nasdaq rose 61 points, and the S&P 500
added 23. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: a report
from Hong Kong, where the months-long protest movement has entered a new phase; Mark Shields
and David Brooks break down the first week of open hearings in the impeachment inquiry;
and the smoke has settled, but the debate rages on — Paris wrestles with how to rebuild
Notre Dame. The pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong have
entered a new and more violent phase this week, with the shooting of a protester by
police, the burning of a supporter of the government in Beijing, and the death of an
elderly man after struck in the head. Also this week, universities’ campuses become
the site of clashes between riot police and protesters, exacerbating public anger against
authorities for the use of force. “NewsHour” special correspondent Divya Gopalan
has this report from Hong Kong. PROTESTER: Five demands! PROTESTERS: Not one less! Stand with Hong Kong! DIVYA GOPALAN: This has been the scene every
lunchtime since the week began, in an area considered to be Hong Kong’s Wall Street. Many office workers have joined the protest
movement, which has gripped the city for nearly six months. And once they leave, riot police take over,
clearing strategically placed bricks on the road, trying to get the commercial heart of
the city back to business. An uneasy calm on Friday caps off one of the
most violent weeks since the protest movement began in June, prompting China’s leader, Xi
Jinping, to comment on the unrest for the first time, saying: “The continued radical
violent criminal actions in Hong Kong have gravely trampled on rule of law and social
order, seriously damaging the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.” And he added the Chinese government strongly
supports the Hong Kong police in enforcing the law. But anger against the police has been growing,
with many accusing them of using excessive force against protesters. Universities have become the new flash point,
with intense confrontations between protesters and riot police, who fire tear gas, rubber
bullets and water cannon, and protesters retaliating with stones and crudely made gasoline bombs. At the Polytechnic University, the campus
has been turned into a fortress. MAN (through translator): We have been preparing
a lot of offensive and defensive weapons. As you see, once you enter the university
campus, a lot of people wear helmets and masks. We are also making Molotov cocktails to protect
ourselves and stopping the police from entering the university. DIVYA GOPALAN: The university is a hive of
activity, even though classes have been canceled until the end of the year. Operations on the campus are well-organized,
with different groups assigned tasks. The kitchens feed anyone who wants a hot meal. Among them are students, alumni and those
who want to help the mostly young protesters. Frank Wong is one of them, despite being on
the government’s payroll. As a search and rescue worker, he often works
alongside the police, and says he is concerned about the protesters safety. FRANK WONG, Search and Rescue Worker (through
translator): The police force ordinance tells you that batons should never be used on the
head. That can cause death. But that’s what they do. So the question is, do the police want to
apprehend the protesters or kill them? DIVYA GOPALAN: Along with defending their
campus, the protesters are keeping watch over a tunnel right next to their university. This is the Cross Harbour Tunnel. It connects the financial center of Hong Kong
with the rest of the city. It’s normally very busy with heavy traffic,
but the protesters have shut it down. And by doing this, they have not only taken
over a major transport route, but they are also sending a message to the government of
how much they can disrupt the city. It’s part of a new strategy to create as much
chaos and disruption as possible during the weekdays. Small groups of protesters barricade roads
and highways at peak hours to create commuter chaos. MAN: If they can’t go to work, then maybe
it will have some pressure for the enterprise to — so that they can give more pressure
to the government. DIVYA GOPALAN: The action has proved effective. Schools were closed for the week, while many
shops, business and commercial outlets near protest sites are periodically shut, and public
transport and trains canceled. It’s paralyzed the city, and seems to have
done the same to the government. Despite the escalation with each week of protests,
the city’s leadership has yet to find a way to defuse the crisis. For the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Divya Gopalan
in Hong Kong. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now joining us to analyze this
historic week in American politics are Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields
and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Hello to both of you. So, David, I guess you could say it’s the
best of times and the worst of times for President Trump. On the one hand, we just reported the financial
markets today were off the charts, setting new records all over the place, but, meantime,
there are impeachment hearings going on just down the street from the White House. Look at this first couple of days of hearings. Have the Democrats strengthened their argument,
or where are we? DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think they have. The case is very solid and airtight that there
was the quid pro quo. All the testimony points to that. And, mostly, you see a contrast. In the first two, the first two gentlemen
that testified on the first day, they were just upstanding, solid public servants. And I was like — I felt like I was looking
back in time, because I was looking at two people who are not self-centered. They, like, cared about the country. They were serving. They had not partisan axe to grind. They were just honest men of integrity. And I thought we saw that again today with
Yovanovitch. And in her case, the day was more emotional,
because you got to see a case of bullying against a strong, upstanding woman. And so I thought she expressed — like, the
heavy moments of today where when she expressed her reaction to how badly she was treated. And so that introduces an element of emotion
and pathos into what shouldn’t be just a legal proceeding. It should be something where people see the
contrast between good people and bad people. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you — how is it all
adding up for you? MARK SHIELDS: Well, the conventional wisdom,
Judy, last Friday, was that it would be — the Democrats would impeach in the House and the
Republicans would acquit in the Senate. I think the conventional wisdom has been dealt
a blow. I think we have learned and reminded ourselves
again that this is a not a static process. It’s a dynamic process. Each testimony changes the narrative and changes
the reality. There’s no question that the first two witnesses,
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent, have inspired and encouraged and given spirit to other people
to come forward, David Holmes today. And Ambassador Yovanovitch, I agree with David. After listening to Ambassador Taylor and Secretary
Kent, you came away with a sense of respect and admiration. Today, you were moved, not only at Ambassador
Yovanovitch’s own story, but there’s a sense of outrage building. This is a story of corruption, corruption
not in Ukraine, corruption in the United States. I mean, why? Why did they go to such lengths to denigrate,
to attack, to try and destroy and sabotage the career of a dedicated public servant,
a person who had put her life on the line? Why did they do it? What was it, money? Was it power? Why was Rudy Giuliani doing it? Why was the president involved? I think there’s a real narrative that’s developing. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying that you
think the Democrats are making the point… (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: I think the witnesses are making
the point. And, obviously, the president, today, by tweeting
and attacking, I mean, he invariably punches down. This is a man who doesn’t punch up. He never takes on somebody his own size or
somebody bigger. It’s always somebody smaller. The idea of witness intimidation, of just
the worst of bullying, before God and man, as he did it, is just — it’s unforgivable. And I think, as Mike Rogers, a former Republican
congressman from Michigan, put it very well, the only time he isn’t shooting himself in
the foot is when he’s stopping to reload his gun. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, David, I mean, the Republicans
kept pushing back today, just saying the whole thing is a sham, is a waste of time, and worse. What should we measure the success of these
hearings by? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, what… DAVID BROOKS: I mean, if this were a football
game, it would be 42-3. The Republicans, I don’t blame them. There’s just not much of a case there. What he is accused of clearly happened. And it’s so hard to — you can throw up some
flares and do some defensive measures, which Republicans are doing. And they’re complaining about whether the
process is fair. But they don’t have much to work with. I do disagree that this is somehow changing
minds. I have seen no polling evidence that it’s
changing minds. I don’t think people are watching particularly
out in the country. Since this whole impeachment thing has started,
I have probably been in 20 states. I can’t think of too many places where people
have talked to me about this. And I talk to — you go out and interview
lots of people and people are talking about other stuff. And so if it’s changing minds, especially
in Middle America or in the swing states, I see no evidence of that. My newspaper did a big story this morning,
interviewing a lot of people there. There was no evidence of that. So I do think the case is a very strong one. I do think what he has done was appalling. But Americans who like him like him. And the economy is the economy. And so I’m not sure I see the evidence that
Mark sees. MARK SHIELDS: Let me… JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you — yes, sure. MARK SHIELDS: Let me just make two quick points
in response to David. First, it’s a legal constitutional case, which
I think is building and was — certainly the witnesses buttressed this week. But the other thing is — whether it’s the
diabolical plotting of Nancy Pelosi or whatever, there’s a political case. And it makes it more difficult to stand up
for Donald Trump. It’s going to make it more difficult for Republicans
to stand up. You just say, oh, that’s Donald Trump being
Donald Trump. What he did today to Ambassador Yovanovitch,
I mean, is just unforgivable at a human level. You can’t say, gee, he’s my kind of guy, I
like this kind of guy. The other thing is, Judy, the collateral story,
Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state… JUDY WOODRUFF: State. MARK SHIELDS: … the hollowing out of the
department, this is a hollowed-out man. In the Marine Corps, there’s a simple rule
every enlisted man learns. And that is, officers eat last and that any
officer worries first about feeding his or her privates and lieutenants before he even
picks up a knife or a fork. And Mike Pompeo is the antithesis of that. He is missing in action. He’s absent without leave. When his own people are under attack and under
siege, he goes quiet. He goes mute. I mean, he is a disgrace to the United States
military, the United States military academy, and is just a hollowed-out man. DAVID BROOKS: Well, Trump governs by fear. But I think this only changes if we’re surprised. And if Trump had been a Boy Scout up until
this week, we would all be shocked by this behavior. But we have been sitting here three years
angry and outraged week after week, throwing spittle around because of how upset and offended
we are. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you’re saying there’s not
that much new? DAVID BROOKS: There has to be a surprise for
this to change. And Trump’s behavior today and over the course
of this episode is totally in character. MARK SHIELDS: Stay tuned, David. DAVID BROOKS: OK. MARK SHIELDS: Stay tuned. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we — I know we say this
maybe every week, but this has the effect of taking the oxygen out of the room, or however
you want to put it, David, of the 2020 Democratic candidates for president. We had another one announce this week, the
former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick, on top of Michael Bloomberg last week. Is someone like Deval — Governor Patrick
going to be able to make any headway in this environment? DAVID BROOKS: It will be challenging. As I said last week, I think — I thought
he and Mitch Landrieu, the former mayor of New Orleans, were the two strongest candidates. And he couldn’t run for various reasons. His wife had illness and things. But he’s now into the race. It’s obviously going to be very hard. He doesn’t have a campaign, he doesn’t have
money. Things happen very quickly. We have got a few states, and then suddenly
we’re into California, Texas, North Carolina on Super Tuesday. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. DAVID BROOKS: So things are really going to
unfold very quickly. It’s worth taking a shot, because among the
Democratic elites, the Democratic establishment, there’s genuine serious anxiety about Elizabeth
Warren’s Medicare for all plan. And so they’re looking for somebody who can
rescue them. Right now, if you look at the polls, if you
look in Iowa, the person who looks like the rescue is Pete Buttigieg, who’s still rising. Amy Klobuchar is also suddenly rising a bit. So out on the campaign trail, where the campaigns
have built staff and where they’re doing events, they’re having — they’re having more movement
than I expected. And it’s just away from the impeachment story. It’s away from the national story. JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see this field now
that — I mean, what do you make of Patrick getting in? Why? MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, he wants to be
president. JUDY WOODRUFF: Sure. MARK SHIELDS: That’s the only — that’s the
reason people run for president. They want to be president. JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you for straightening
me out on that. MARK SHIELDS: And they have had a number of
people tell them. Certainly, in Mike Bloomberg’s case, he’s
had a lot of people telling him. But, no, I think Patrick — Patrick made sense
on paper, made a lot more sense a year ago than he makes now. There’s two finite resources in any campaign,
time and money. Bloomberg, you could say, can overcome the
money thing. Patrick is behind the eight ball on both of
them. But he does present a potential threat to
Joe Biden and to Pete Buttigieg. I mean, as David says, there’s — the sense
of alarm goes up, especially among Democratic elites, and especially among Democratic elite
givers, about Elizabeth Warren. And Medicare for all is part of it, but part
of it is the wealth tax, too. Let’s be very frank. To see billionaires crying, which has probably
given her a political issue that she didn’t have and a political advantage. When you see, you know, literally billionaires
crying over the prospect of her wealth tax, is kind of a lift to her candidacy. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, money can make a difference. You’re saying Deval Patrick — Bloomberg has
a chance because he has a lot of money, endless amount of money, whereas Patrick may have
some good ideas, but if you don’t have the money at this point… DAVID BROOKS: Right, because say Pete Buttigieg
wins Iowa, Warren wins New Hampshire. I don’t know what happens in South Carolina,
but suddenly you go to California, and Mike Bloomberg has the money to play in California,
in those states, North Carolina, Texas, California. Those are a lot of big states. And Bloomberg may be the only one that has
money to play in those states. And if there’s chaos and panic, it could spin
in a million different ways. So it’s not crazy for Deval Patrick to enter
the race, because, if you got so many people, it could really go crazy. And people are like, who can we all agree
on? And Deval Patrick is the kind of guy everybody
could agree on. And so if there’s total panic — but it’s
certainly a long shot. MARK SHIELDS: A lot of people are going to
be recycling the lines people used in 2012 used against Mitt Romney about Bain company,
because that’s where Deval Patrick has been since he was governor of Massachusetts. JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s right. MARK SHIELDS: Which is not exactly fighting
for widows and orphans. JUDY WOODRUFF: This is a financial and business
advice — business counseling firm. MARK SHIELDS: Yes, I guess we call it private
finance. JUDY WOODRUFF: Private finance. I will let you define it. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: But, anyway, the race keeps
— Mike Bloomberg — we should say, Mike Bloomberg’s not in yet, but may officially get in. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, we will leave it
there. Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you both. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: This past April 15, the world
watched in horror as Notre Dame Cathedral, the beloved Gothic symbol of Paris dating
to the Middle Ages, was engulfed in flames and smoke. Its world famous spire fell. Its roof collapsed. The cause was believed to be an accident. But, seven months later, a debate swirls over
how to rebuild, and how quickly. Jeffrey Brown has our report from Paris. It’s part of Canvas, our ongoing arts and
culture coverage. JEFFREY BROWN: They are the fallen angels,
once soaring high in the cathedral, now lying chipped, broken and contaminated in the Historical
Monument Research Laboratory in a suburb of Paris, where director Aline Magnien sums up
the daunting challenge of restoring Notre Dame. ALINE MAGNIEN, Historical Monument Research
Laboratory (through translator): It’s really a building site like no other. It’s quite an extraordinary project, which
is very difficult, very tough and very demanding at the same time. JEFFREY BROWN: From some angles today, you
can squint and imagine all is well at Notre Dame, but it is certainly not, and tourists
and locals alike still mourn. BEV WEISS, Tourist: Just devastated for the
world because of what a treasure it is. ARLINE MALLIMSON, Tourist: It’s the Eiffel
Tower and Notre Dame when you think of Paris. AURELIE CAPDEVIELLE, Paris Resident: A monument
burning is like the part of a piece of a story of humanity vanishing. JEFFREY BROWN: Visitors continue to come an
act of witness and just out of curiosity. But now they’re kept behind barriers, and
the entire site has been shut off to visitors. Inside, the cleanup work continues, and, all
around, the realization has grown of just how hard it will be to repair and restore
the great cathedral. JACKY BONNEMAINS, Robin Hood (through translator):
The dust is mainly concentrated in seals like this or on the banks of the Seine, between
cobbles or in inlays or in cracks like this. JEFFREY BROWN: An immediate and ongoing problem? Lead contamination. The fire melted hundreds of tons of lead in
the roof, and the smoke carried and spread it throughout the surrounding area. Jacky Bonnemains of the French environmental
group Robin Hood says the government was slow to respond to a public health threat, even
allowing visitors into the cathedral’s plaza for the first months. JACKY BONNEMAINS (through translator): From
around April 20 until August 20, it was open. There were thousands of people, tourists,
coming as families with children, who were lying on the ground to take photos and to
eat. JEFFREY BROWN: Nearby schools like this one
had to be decontaminated. The long-term health impact remains unclear. Also unclear, just how much of the lead found
here, in a city as old as Paris, is due to the fire. Government officials insist they are taking
it seriously, but Bonnemains’ group has filed a lawsuit demanding more accountability. JACKY BONNEMAINS (through translator): What
we really want — and this might surprise you, is that other cities in France, as a
lot of towns in Spain and in Italy, maybe even in the United States, that have beautiful
monuments like Notre Dame, learn something from this fire and the way it was handled. JEFFREY BROWN: Lead contamination inside the
cathedral has slowed the cleanup and forced workers to wear hazmat suits. In July, authorities offered several media
organizations a tour of the interior, but, not long after, issued a dramatic new warning,
that the entire structure is still in danger of collapse, and stabilizing the walls is
a priority, before turning to any restoration of the spire and roof. At the lab outside Paris, Aline Magnien explained
it this way: ALINE MAGNIEN (through translator): There’s
a risk that Notre Dame’s vault will become unstable, which would result in more stones
falling and would put the public in danger. So we have to establish to what extent the
stones are damaged, and whether they still have some resistance, and then which stones
we can keep and which ones need to be replaced. JEFFREY BROWN: Here, scientists study how
stones drenched with water in the aftermath of the fire expand or contract as they dry. VERONIQUE VERGES-BELMIN, Historical Monument
Research Laboratory: This is a vault element has been used to many, many little tests. JEFFREY BROWN: They’re also conducting tests
using lasers to clean the stones. So the test is to see if the lead can be removed
by this kind of method? VERONIQUE VERGES-BELMIN: Yes, on a small scale. And then they will go to the cathedral with
the machine and make tests on the wall and on the sculptures of the cathedral. JEFFREY BROWN: All of this will eventually
lead to the main event, actually rebuilding and restoring Notre Dame. And surrounding that are many more issues. Though the cathedral dates to medieval times,
the spire was actually a 19th-century design by architect Eugene Viollet-le-Duc. Among the questions now, whether to restore
the wooden and lead roof, or use more modern materials, and whether to build an exact replica
of the spire. When authorities put out a public call for
new designs just days after the fire, Instagram lit up, including with some wild ideas. But the prevailing attitude seems to be, rebuild
it exactly as it was. Art historian Philippe Plagnieux: PHILIPPE PLAGNIEUX, Friends of Notre Dame
Society (through translator): I think our duty is to preserve the heritage we have inherited
for future generations. And if we can’t preserve it, then we should
recreate it, reconstructing the cathedral, the roof, the spire, as it was before. JEFFREY BROWN: Another question, how soon
can this be done? Immediately after the fire, French President
Macron promised to rebuild within five years, a target many saw as timed to France’s hosting
of the 2024 Olympic Games. This summer, France’s Parliament created a
new commission to oversee reconstruction, led by a former army chief. It’s yet to formally meet, but we talked with
one member, Monsignor Benoist de Sinety, who will represent the Catholic Church. MONSIGNOR BENOIST DE SINETY, Vicar General,
Paris Archdiocese (through translator): The most important thing is to remember that Notre
Dame is first and foremost a cathedral, a church, a place of worship. JEFFREY BROWN: That may sound obvious, but
debate had already swirled around Notre Dame for years, as it became an often overrun tourist
site. The monsignor wants to use this moment to
return to church values. MONSIGNOR BENOIST DE SINETY (through translator):
It is important to underline that when a bishop decided to build a cathedral in the Middle
Ages, it was also a project to help the poorest in society. Today, when rebuilding Notre Dame, we are
going to launch projects to help the most vulnerable in our society. JEFFREY BROWN: There are so many interests. There’s political and economic, and cultural,
of course, and the church. There could be a clash. MONSIGNOR BENOIST DE SINETY: Never in France. JEFFREY BROWN: Never in France? (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: You mean always in France? (LAUGHTER) MONSIGNOR BENOIST DE SINETY: No. (through translator): Yes, of course, there
will be difficulties. There will be questions, big debates. In France, we like having big debates, asking
questions. We can go on and on. We love to speak. JEFFREY BROWN: But will the rebuilding go
on and on? Like others, we spoke with, Monsignor de Sinety
wonders when the last stone will finally be put in place, the cathedral completely restored
and reopened. But he does hope to celebrate mass in Notre
Dame within the next five years. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown
in Paris. JUDY WOODRUFF: And a news update before we
go tonight. This evening, President Trump issued pardons
for military service members who were all accused of war crimes. Two received full pardons, including one about
to go on trial for murder. A third had his rank restored after he was
demoted following a trial. Senior Pentagon officials had recommended
against the move, concerned that it would undermine military justice. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Have a great weekend. Thank you, and good night.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 11, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: crisis in Bolivia. The country’s longtime socialist president
steps down, as the streets erupt in violence and supporters cry foul over a suspected coup. Then: how Rudy Giuliani went from America’s
mayor to a major player in the impeachment inquiry. Plus, our Politics Monday team breaks down
what to expect from the start of public hearings. And art out of the land — why communities
of artists all across the country are working to revive rural America. SAM MILTICH, Jazz Guitarist: I think it’s
a little bit of an equity thing. Rural people are every bit as deserving of
art as any other group, and maybe more so because they don’t have as much access to
it. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and
more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Anti-government protests in
Hong Kong erupted into chaos today, leaving two people critically injured. One protester was shot at close range by police. Elsewhere, a pro-China supporter was doused
in flammable liquid and set on fire. Hong Kong’s leader vowed to spare no effort
to bring an end to the violent demonstrations that have gripped the semiautonomous Chinese
territory for over five months. Blasts from riot guns echoed through the streets
in Central Hong Kong, the city’s business district once again ground zero for clashes
between police and protesters. Thousands of anti-government demonstrators
flooded the streets at lunch hour. They were met by police in riot gear, who
fired tear gas and sent the crowds sprinting away. Protests began in the spring, first in opposition
to a proposed law to extradite criminal suspects to mainland China. They have morphed into calls for greater freedom
and an end to attacks by police. MISS WALL, Protester: They are not doing anything
violent, and the police just shoot them. And we are so angry about the police brutality. And there is no solution, because the government
never responds to any of our requests on the police violence. JUDY WOODRUFF: The cries denouncing police
violence grew louder today after an online video showed a protester being shot. In it, an officer in Hong Kong’s eastern Sai
Wan Ho district grapples with a protester. As a masked man in black rushes toward him,
the officer shoots him in the stomach. He is now in critical condition, but stable
after surgery. Police said the shooting was justified. PATRICK KWOK PAK-CHUNG, Regional Commander,
Hong Kong Island (through translator): It all happened just in a flash of a moment. He was trying to protect himself and his pistol. JUDY WOODRUFF: Police also accused protesters
of beating up a man and setting him on fire. Hong Kong executive Carrie Lam condemned the
demonstrators and called them — quote — “the people’s enemy.” CARRIE LAM, Hong Kong Chief Executive: If
there’s still any wishful thinking that, by escalating violence, the Hong Kong SAR government
will yield to pressure to satisfy the so-called political demands, I’m making the statement
clear and loud here. That will not happen. JUDY WOODRUFF: In Beijing, China’s Foreign
Ministry repeated claims that Western governments are supporting and accelerating the protests. GENG SHUANG, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson
(through translator): Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs, and no foreign
government, organization or individual has the right to intervene. We express firm opposition to anyone providing
a platform or creating conditions for activists or activities pro-Hong Kong independence. JUDY WOODRUFF: Back in Hong Kong, clashes
continued into the evening, as police fired tear gas from moving vehicles. Protesters lit fires in the middle of the
street. Police sprayed water cannons to put them out
and disperse the crowds. Tensions were also high in Bolivia today,
as the country struggled with a power vacuum left by the resignation of President Evo Morales. His 14-year rule came to an end Sunday, after
weeks of violent protests over claims of fraud in his reelection last month. But yesterday’s celebrations were quickly
eclipsed by clashes and fires that raged into the night. We will get the latest right after the news
summary. The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog raised
new concerns today about Iran violating its 2015 nuclear deal. Its inspectors discovered manmade uranium
particles that Tehran hadn’t previously declared. They also confirmed that Iran is enriching
uranium at its underground Fordow facility. Meanwhile, in Paris, European Union members
met to try to keep the nuclear deal alive. HEIKO MAAS, German Foreign Minister (through
translator): I think now it’s time to make it clear to Iran that it can’t continue like
this. Iran must fulfill its obligations laid out
in the treaty. But the country isn’t doing that when uranium
is being enriched again. We want to keep the deal in place, but that’s
only possible if Iran fulfills its obligations, too. JUDY WOODRUFF: The head of Iran’s nuclear
program reported that his country was now producing more low-enriched uranium daily
than previously believed, with the help of its Fordow centrifuges. Under the treaty, that facility was only to
be used for research. Turkey began sending captured foreign members
of the Islamic State, including one U.S. citizen, back to their home countries today. Last week, Turkey’s interior minister estimated
some 1,200 foreign ISIS fighters were in Turkish prisons. Separately, a former British army officer
who helped found the Syrian civilian rescue group known as the White Helmets was found
dead in Turkey. The body of James Le Mesurier was discovered
near his home in Istanbul. His death is now under investigation. Australia’s most populous state, New South
Wales, declared an emergency today amid raging wildfires. At least three people have died. The inferno began Friday in the northeast
part of the state. It’s already destroyed more than 150 homes
and burned nearly 4,000 square miles of forest and farmland. Fire officials warned conditions are expected
to worsen. SHANE FITZSIMMONS, New South Wales Rural Fire
Commissioner: We continue to have more than 60 fires burning across New South Wales, and
more than half of them remain uncontained. And we can expect to see the alert levels
increase on a number of these fires up in northern New South Wales. The conditions are still extremely dry. And the fire behavior is still quite volatile JUDY WOODRUFF: Australia’s annual fire season
started earlier than normal, after an unusually warm and arid winter. Australian environmental activists have linked
the intensity of the fires to climate change, and said that the Australian government is
not taking strong enough action. Spain appears set for more uncertainty, after
a second general election this year failed to end the country’s political impasse. Sunday’s vote put the ruling Socialists in
first place, but they failed to secure a parliamentary majority. Meanwhile, the far-right Vox Party shot to
third place, after more than doubling its seats in Parliament. Back in this country, a federal judge in Washington
dismissed President Trump’s lawsuit against New York officials who are trying to win release
of his tax returns. The Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee
had been hoping to use a New York state law to obtain Mr. Trump’s tax records. Today, the judge ruled that he does not have
jurisdiction over the case, but Mr. Trump can file a similar lawsuit in New York. New York Congressman Peter King announced
today he won’t seek reelection. The moderate Republican was first elected
to Congress in 1993, representing part of Long Island. King is the 20th House Republican to announce
plans to leave after next year’s election. A record-setting cold is causing parts of
the American Midwest to experience January-like temperatures in November. That same wintry blast brought more than three
inches of snow to Chicago today, forcing some 900 flights to be canceled. One plane slid off the runway at O’Hare International
Airport, but no injuries were reported. Stocks were flat on Wall Street today over
uncertainty about U.S.-China trade talks. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 10
points to close at a record 27691. The Nasdaq fell 11 points. And the S&P 500 slipped six. And America paid tribute to our nation’s veterans
today with wreath-laying ceremonies, parades, and other events. President Trump spoke at the 100th annual
New York City Veterans Day parade, while Vice President Pence took part in a solemn service
at Arlington National Cemetery. We will have more on today’s commemorations
at the end of the program. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: a power vacuum
in Bolivia, as the three-term leader steps down amid violent protests; the long journey
of Rudy Giuliani, the man in the middle of the impeachment inquiry; Amy Walter and Tamara
Keith on the outset of a historic week; plus, much more. President Trump today praised the Bolivian
people and that nation’s military for forcing the resignation yesterday of Bolivia’s longtime
President Evo Morales. Mexico today announced that it would offer
Morales asylum, but in the Andean nation, a power vacuum prevails. With Morales and the politicians in line to
replace him all gone, what now for Bolivia? And what does it mean for the region? Nick Schifrin reports. NICK SCHIFRIN: Today in La Paz, public buses
sit torched and abandoned. Pharmacies are ransacked and looted. South America’s poorest country is violently
divided, and right now, leaderless. MARCIAL SALAZAR, Bolivia (through translator):
What we need now is control over lootings and robberies that are taking place. But all of the citizens are in agreement that
a change of government needed to happen. NICK SCHIFRIN: That change happened yesterday,
when longtime President Evo Morales announced on state TV he was victim of a coup. EVO MORALES, FORMER Bolivian President (through
translator): I am resigning precisely so that my brother and sisters, leaders, authorities
of the socialist movements don’t continue to be held hostage, chased, or threatened. I am very sorry for this civic coup d’etat. NICK SCHIFRIN: But what Morales calls a coup,
his opponents call the prevailing of democracy. For three weeks, hundreds of thousands of
protesters filled the streets, accusing Morales of being a dictator and violating the Constitution
when he ran for a fourth term last month. The Organization of American States accused
him of trying to steal the election. Residents who filled the streets complained
of increasing corruption. The protests became increasingly violent,
with demonstrators and police clashing in clouds of tear gas. And, yesterday morning, the final straw, Military
Commander Williams Kaliman said Morales had to go. WILLIAMS KALIMAN, Bolivian Armed Forces Commander
(through translator): After analyzing the situation of internal conflict, we suggest
the president of the state resign his presidential mandate, allowing peace and continued stability
for the good of our Bolivia. ROBERT GELBARD, Former U.S. Ambassador to
Bolivia: He really misunderstood the fact that he was losing the consent of the governed
to a significant degree. NICK SCHIFRIN: Robert Gelbard is a former
U.S. ambassador to Bolivia. He acknowledges that Morales was popular and
successfully helped lift up the poor to create a middle class. ROBERT GELBARD: Evo Morales clearly made enormous
progress, but what has happened is that he has, in many senses, overstayed his welcome,
as they have also witnessed corruption, financial corruption, but also political corruption. And so people have begun to move away from
him, including a significant percentage of people who had been supporters originally. NICK SCHIFRIN: Morales was Bolivia’s first
leader of indigenous origin. He was from this rural poor area. And, today, his supporters say he was overthrown
by a middle-class minority. Kathryn Ledebur is the director of a Bolivian
think tank. KATHRYN LEDEBUR, Andean, Information Network:
It’s interesting. The way that the conflict has evolved now,
it’s really splitting down much more on class lines and ethnic lines and rural-urban lines. NICK SCHIFRIN: Morales supporters blame the
military and police for acting illegally, and warn his ouster could lead to more violence. KATHRYN LEDEBUR: It’s clear that corruption
persists in the police force. The police force is an institution with deteriorated
credibility. And now, at this point in time, that situation
has become even worse. NICK SCHIFRIN: After Morales resigned, his
vice president, the Senate president, and the lower House president all in line to take
over also resigned. Opposition leader Carlos Mesa called the vacuum
of power the end of tyranny. CARLOS MESA, Opposition Leader (through translator):
The clear and unequivocal will of the democratic opposition, of the civic opposition of the
Bolivian citizenship is that a democratic government has to be built, and that means
strictly respecting the political constitution of the state. NICK SCHIFRIN: That could be led by new Senate
President Jeanine Anez, whose emotion showed in La Paz today. Whether she can successfully transition away
from Morales could help influence democracy across a region with a history of military
coups. ROBERT GELBARD: If it goes in the direction
of either returning to the radical left or going further, or away from democracy toward
a military dictatorship, that could give others ideas in other countries ideas, too. So this is, in many ways, a kind of laboratory. NICK SCHIFRIN: There’s still a debate if this
was democracy restored or democracy denied. But both sides agree, in today’s Bolivia,
no one gets to stay in power, forever. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin. JUDY WOODRUFF: It has been another day of
new twists and hundred more pages of documents released in the impeachment inquiry. Our Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor are
here to help us break it all down and understand it. So, to both of you, hello. This has all happened just in the last couple
of hours. In fact, one of these sets of transcripts,
Lisa, has come just within the hour. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. JUDY WOODRUFF: So the two of you have been
scrambling to catch up, to read the transcript. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. JUDY WOODRUFF: So let’s talk about these former
— these are former State Department and former Defense Department officials. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. And let’s start with Laura Cooper. She’s a Defense Department official, which
is a unique perspective here . Usually, you have been hearing from the diplomats. She is the deputy assistant defense secretary,
specializes in Russia. She says that’s where she spends most of her
time. But she also works on long-term strategy for
Russia and for Ukraine. She has been with the Defense Department since
2001, but she says this year at one point almost all of her time was spent on Ukraine
because of what was happening. In her transcript, which, as you say, we have
just got, we learned that there was high concern and surprise when the aid money to Ukraine
was being frozen. The Department of Justice — Department of
Defense was one of the last to sign off on that. They did sign off in June. She said, when they learned it was frozen
— that is something she oversees — no one understood it, and, even more, Judy — this
is interesting — she says seniors involved in that process questioned if they legally
could freeze it, because Congress had already appropriated those millions of dollars, and
it was ready to go. They weren’t sure even the president had the
ability to stop that money from flowing to Ukraine. JUDY WOODRUFF: And this backs up other testimony
that had been given by others. LISA DESJARDINS: It does. No one was sure why the money was being frozen. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, as we mentioned,
still more testimony from current State Department and one former State Department official. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Yes. So the next person whose transcript was released
today is Christopher Anderson. He’s a special adviser for Ukraine negotiations. He’s also a career Foreign Service officer. And he was an aid to Kurt Volker, who was
the U.S. envoy to Ukraine at the time. So, he says that he essentially is filling
in the gaps with this irregular channel that Rudy Giuliani and others had when it comes
to our relationship with Ukraine and the U.S. policy with Ukraine. He says that Rudy Giuliani was seen as an
obstacle to both increasing relationship with Ukraine, but also as an obstacle when it comes
to pressuring Russia. The other thing is that he has a conversation
with William Taylor. Now, that is the current U.S. ambassador to
Ukraine. And they both say, look, we shouldn’t be pushing
for any sort of individual investigation. They don’t mention the Bidens by name, but
they say anything having to do with that is really not something that the U.S. should
be involved in. He does, of course, also say that he didn’t
actually hear Kurt Volker, which, again, is the U.S. envoy to Ukraine — the U.S. envoy
to Ukraine. He didn’t actually hear him say that there
was any sort of investigation that needed to be done with the Bidens or with Burisma,
which is, of course, the company that Hunter Biden was working for. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Lisa, yet another set
of transcripts. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. So the woman without took over from Christopher
Anderson is named Catherine Croft. She was then the next adviser to Kurt Volker. She is also a special adviser for Ukraine
negotiations. Now, a couple of things about her. As you see, she also worked on Ukraine issues
for the National Security Council. Nine years, she has under her belt, as a matter
of fact, as a career Foreign Service officer. Now, what is interesting is, she took over
from the man Yamiche was just talking about in July. That is right as all of this was starting
to happen. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the middle of this. LISA DESJARDINS: In the middle of this. She said Kurt Volker told her he was going
to try and keep her out of the Giuliani mess. However, she also said Kurt Volker came to
her about this idea of asking Ukraine for an investigation and asked her, have we ever
done this before, meaning has the United States ever asked another country for an investigation
like this? It was that exceptional to them. One other note. The timeline just expanded with her testimony. She said that the first — there was another
package of Ukrainian aid back in 2017. At that point, one agency had objected to
that Ukrainian aid. It was Mick Mulvaney, when he ran the Office
of Management of Budget. And she testifies that Mulvaney didn’t like
the aid then because he was worried about what Russia would think. The whole point of this aid is to protect
Ukraine from Russian aggression. But here was Mulvaney trying to protect — or
worried about what Russia thought. JUDY WOODRUFF: With a different set of priorities. And just quickly, Yamiche, Mick Mulvaney,
speaking of him, over the weekend, we learned he is trying to join the lawsuit by former
National Security Adviser John Bolton and his deputy, Charles Kupperman, who are appealing
whether they should testify before Congress. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: So, the acting chief of
staff, Mick Mulvaney, is very important to this, a lot for the reasons that Lisa just
pointed out. There are officials and witnesses pointing
to Mick Mulvaney in their testimony, saying he was part of the White House strategy, he
was the one that was having these conversations. Now Mick Mulvaney is essentially saying, look,
I want the courts to decide whether or not I should have to testify before Congress. That is controversial because he works just
a few feet away from the president of the United States. And, essentially, the White House is telling
him, we don’t want you to show up to Congress. But if the courts essentially tell Mick Mulvaney
to show up, he is now saying, I might show up. That is going to be very problematic for his
relationship with President Trump. The other thing to note is all the politics
is that Mick Mulvaney is being seen as on the outs with the president. This is someone who still has an acting title
in his title. He’s not — he’s acting chief of staff, not
permanent chief of staff. And, as a result, people think that this is
also maybe possibly a warning to President Trump that I could go to Congress and tell
things about you if you don’t essentially bring me back into the inner circle. JUDY WOODRUFF: Very fast-moving, as we are
now just a little more than a day away from these public hearings. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: And a lot of fast work on the
part of both of you. Thank you, Lisa. Thank you, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, as we just heard, transcripts
of closed-door closed-door testimonies from various State Department officials put Rudy
Giuliani at the center of the impeachment inquiry. He is the president’s personal lawyer, but
now his own actions in Ukraine, ones that are being called shadow foreign policy, have
put him and his associates under the microscope. Yamiche is back now with this report on how
a man once known as America’s mayor arrived at this moment. RUDY GIULIANI, Attorney for President Donald
Trump: That we can save a few people. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The attacks on September
11, 2001, thrust Rudy Giuliani onto the national stage. OPRAH WINFREY, Producer/Philanthropist: America’s
mayor. He’s the mayor of New York City. Ladies and gentleman, Rudy Giuliani. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) RUDY GIULIANI: So, I thank you very much for
your leadership on the ground. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: For a city in crisis, Giuliani,
the mayor of New York, was seen as a steady leader. He helped rally those in grief and is often
remembered for his fortitude during those times. Prior to 9/11, Giuliani was a polarizing figure. RUDY GIULIANI: I speak my mind. It was that way yesterday. It’s going to be that way today. It’s going to be the same tomorrow. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: He presented himself as
a tough-on-crime mayor who was going to clean up the city. RUDY GIULIANI: It’s going to stop and end
when we change the people who are running New York City. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But, under his tenure, New
York ushered in controversial policing tactics. A federal judge later ruled some were racial
discriminatory and were, hence, unconstitutional. Before he was mayor, Giuliani made a name
for himself as one of the country’s most powerful prosecutors. RUDY GIULIANI: You’re dealing with a true
crime empire. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Early in the Reagan administration,
he was the associate attorney general, the third highest position in the Department of
Justice. Then he became U.S. attorney for the federal
prosecutor’s office in Manhattan. There, he was known for going after corruption
and organized crime. RUDY GIULIANI: Twelve board members have aided
and abetted wire fraud. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Andrea Bernstein, co-host
of the “Trump, Inc.” podcast from WNYC and ProPublica, has covered Giuliani for decades. ANDREA BERNSTEIN, WNYC: He put the families
that ran the national mafia in prison. He sent corrupt political figures to prison,
including a business partner of Roy Cohn, who President Trump has often referred to
as the lawyer no one else could match. And he also went after Wall Street traders. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In New York, Giuliani was
a big name. So was Donald Trump. The two ran in similar circles. ANDREA BERNSTEIN: They’re of a certain era. And they both have really made their bones
by selling their brands, in Trump’s case, glitz and success, in Rudy Giuliani’s case,
law and order. When Rudy ran for mayor, Trump became a major
financial backer. And the Giuliani administration helped Trump’s
business projects. And they struck up a friendship, a chemistry,
really, which has lasted all the way into the present. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In the year 2000, the two
appeared together in a comedy sketch for a press dinner. RUDY GIULIANI: Oh, you dirty boy. Oh. Oh. Donald, I thought you were a gentleman. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In 2007, not long after
leaving the mayor’s office, Giuliani ran for the Republican nomination for president. For several months, he was the front-runner,
but dropped out after the Florida primary without securing a single delegate. RUDY GIULIANI: Thank you all for your hard
work, your spirit, and your support. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In 2016, Giuliani was an
early and vocal supporter of then candidate Trump. RUDY GIULIANI: What I did for New York, Donald
Trump will do for America! (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) YAMICHE ALCINDOR: When Robert Mueller began
investigating the president as special counsel, Mr. Trump turned to Giuliani to be one of
his personal lawyers. Giuliani took their defense right to the court
of public opinion on TV. RUDY GIULIANI: The president didn’t collude
with the Russians, whatever contact, nobody. CHRIS CUOMO, CNN: He said nobody had any contact. Tons of people had contact. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Now Giuliani finds himself
at the center of the impeachment inquiry. CHRIS CUOMO: So, you did ask Ukraine to look
into Joe Biden? RUDY GIULIANI: Of course I did. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In closed-door depositions
on Capitol Hill, a parade of witnesses said Giuliani played a critical role in shaping
U.S. policy to Ukraine to benefit President Trump politically. The initial whistle-blower complaint that
sparked the impeachment inquiry states: “The president’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudy Giuliani,
is a central figure in this effort.” The top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, William
Taylor, told U.S. House investigators he was concerned about Giuliani’s actions. He said Giuliani was leading a — quote — “irregular,
informal channel of U.S. policy making with respect to Ukraine.” For Giuliani, his work abroad has often been
met with legal scrutiny. In 2001, Giuliani launched a lucrative consulting
firm. His clients were all over the globe, Brazil,
Qatar, Romania, Argentina. ANDREA BERNSTEIN: By the time he ran for president
in 2007, his disclosure forms showed that he’d gone from having less than $5 million
in assets when he left City Hall to about somewhere between $20 million and $50 million
in assets, and much of that had come through these foreign business relationships. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: A lot of that work remains
mysterious. For example, his work in Turkey and with an
Iranian dissident group may have broken the law. BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN: Rudy Giuliani is going
on a fishing trip, as in an information-gathering mission, in Ukraine. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Ukraine though is at the
heart of the impeachment inquiry. It may also be central to a possible criminal
investigation into Giuliani. CHUCK TODD, Moderator, “Meet The Press”: A
criminal investigation into Rudy Giuliani’s work in Ukraine. HOWARD KURTZ, FOX News: And joining us now
from New York is a key figure in the Ukraine drama, Rudy Giuliani. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Giuliani made his first
trip to Ukraine in 2003. That began a decade of consulting and publicity
trips to the country. ANDREA BERNSTEIN: People in countries around
the world see him as a conduit to the Trump administration. He began working in Ukraine for the mayors
of various cities, for the mayor of Kharkiv, for the mayor of Kiev. He began making trips there. It doesn’t seem like these trips involved
real consulting work, maybe a speech, but certainly appearances. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: During the first two years
of the Trump administration, Giuliani ramped up his trips to Ukraine. He sought to dig up dirt on President Trump’s
political rivals there. To do so, he turned to two associates, Lev
Parnas and Igor Fruman. ANDREA BERNSTEIN: These two individuals, with
a series of different kinds of businesses, but no real track record in American politics,
began to get very, very close and to make very generous donations to Trump’s political
causes. What was unusual about this is that they really
didn’t have a business profile, and yet they were making contributions running up to the
hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican political causes. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Giuliani dispatched Parnas
and Fruman to Kiev, the capital city of Ukraine. They were to uncover information to undermine
the U.S. intelligence community and special counsel Mueller’s findings that Russia interfered
in the 2016 election. In their efforts, the two connected Giuliani
with the Ukrainian prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko. RUDY GIULIANI: Lutsenko is somebody that,
at one point in the past year said, that he had information that could be damaging to
the Bidens and was working closely with Rudy Giuliani in his effort to, as Giuliani saw
it, expose some kind of malfeasance by the Biden family. Now, it’s worth saying that there is no such
evidence of that. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Giuliani’s meetings with
the Ukrainian prosecutor are an important thread in the impeachment investigation. As for Parnas and Fruman, they ran into their
own legal troubles. WILLIAM SWEENEY, Assistant FBI Director: This
Investigation is about corrupt behavior, deliberate lawbreaking. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The two have been indicted
by federal prosecutors for allegedly illegally funneling campaign contributions to get the
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed from her post, among other charges. JOHN SULLIVAN, U.S. Ambassador to Russia Nominee:
My knowledge in the spring and summer of this year about any involvement of Mr. Giuliani
was in connection with a campaign against our ambassador to Ukraine. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: That was President Trump’s
nominee to be ambassador of Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, in his public
confirmation hearing before the Senate last month. As these questions swirl, Giuliani has been
noticeably absent from his once frequent TV appearances. He has been subpoenaed by the U.S. House. So far, he is refusing to comply. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Yamiche Alcindor. JUDY WOODRUFF: To set the stage for this first
week of public impeachment hearings and talk about the 2020 presidential race, I’m here
with Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report. She’s also the host of public radio’s “Politics
With Amy Walter.” And Tamara Keith of NPR, she also co-hosts
the “NPR Politics Podcast.” And before I turn to both of you — and welcome,
by the way, Politics Monday — a little bit of late-breaking news. And we were just talking about it with Yamiche
and Lisa. And that is the inquiry — or the filing by
the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who was wanting to join the lawsuit
by former White House special — National Security Adviser John Bolton, his deputy,
Charles Kupperman, who were questioning their being subpoenaed to appear before Congress. He’s now withdrawn that filing. So we can set that aside for the moment. But the drama continues in so many other pieces,
as both of you know. And, Amy, these hearings, public hearings,
starting in two days, how is this going to be different from hearings behind closed doors? (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Right,
other than the fact it’s out in public. JUDY WOODRUFF: On cameras. AMY WALTER: Right. Well, the theory row is that this could maybe
change people’s opinions about impeachment, which I’m very doubtful that is going to happen. If you go back and you look at what the public
hearings did during the Nixon impeachment era, they did move public opinion pretty steadily. When the summer of 1973 started and the impeachment
hearings were public, they were watched by almost everybody; 70 percent of Americans
said they watched those hearings live at some point. And the president, Nixon, his approval ratings
dropped significantly over that summer, dropped about 13 points. And interest and support for more investigation
into Watergate rose. Let’s fast-forward to now. People are much more polarized and partisan
even than they were back in the 1970s. People are getting their information from
so many different sources. There is not just four television stations. Obviously, people are going to go to the news
sources or the Internet or social media that appeals to them. And so I think what we’re going to see is
one hearing and a lot of different interpretations of that hearing by a lot of different sources. And we’re going to see them, I think, Americans,
still pretty well-settled into how they feel about this. The one group that I’m watching for are those
independent voters, who probably haven’t been paying that much attention as partisans have
to this process. Maybe they get moved a little bit. Right now, they are a little less supportive
of impeachment than supportive of it. Maybe this pushes that, but it’s going to
be very hard to do that. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Tam, we may see witnesses
called by the Republicans. We’re waiting to see how that plays out, right? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: We are
waiting to see how that plays out. They have put in a long wish list. And the best way to describe it is a wish
list that they have sent to the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. The chairman, Adam Schiff, is the one who
gets to decide ultimately. He has the ultimate power to decide who gets
called. Now, this list the Republicans sent over includes
names like Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistle-blower, who they would like to have
publicly testify. Schiff has already made it clear that he has
no interest in either of those potential witnesses. But there are some other names on that list,
like Ambassador Volker, or Tim Morrison, who is a National Security Council aide — or
was. And both of them are people who have provided
closed-door depositions. In those depositions, there were some items
that Republicans took some solace in. Morrison, for instance, said that, although
he was concerned about the president’s call with Zelensky, he didn’t think that a law
had been broken. His concerns were more about U.S. and Ukrainian
relations and other things like that. So — but, in their testimony, if you read
it, there are also a lot of things that are damaging to the president and that further
corroborate this narrative that Democrats have built up around the call, that Democrats
have been able to sort of corroborate around the call. And so it seems possible, at least, that Democrats
would be willing to hear from those witnesses, because they are not slam-dunk great witnesses
for the president. JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s right. And you mentioned Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. We are going to talk about 2020 very quickly,
Amy, but is Joe Biden in the clear here? I mean, we don’t… (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: Well, certainly, Republicans do
not want to let him go in the clear. And they want to still make that case in the
House, which, as Tam pointed out, is not likely to happen. Where it could be an issue is, if impeachment
passes, it goes to the Senate, and it’s Republicans in charge in the Senate side, of course, and
they can call witnesses there during the trial. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. TAMARA KEITH: And one other thing. In the sort of cross-examination and the questioning
that Republicans will do of these witnesses in this public hearing, in the private depositions,
they were asking about Hunter and Joe Biden. So you can expect them to do that in public
as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, for whatever reasons,
a man named Mike Bloomberg has decided, maybe Joe Biden’s chances don’t look as good as
he thought a few months ago. He is now seriously exploring getting in. Amy, quickly to you first. Is this going to change the race, if he gets
in? AMY WALTER: If he gets in, maybe, but on the
margins. Look, there has been conventional wisdom among
— especially among Democrats inside the Beltway, elites and establishment that Joe Biden cannot
win the nomination and Elizabeth cannot win the race against Donald Trump. And so what is happening today is, this establishment,
elite group of people saying we have got to find a way to ensure that, if it is not Joe
Biden, if he collapses, because there is this assumption amongst this group that he is going
to collapse, that somebody has to be there as sort of the moderate standard-bearer. Elizabeth Warren’s positions, especially on
things like Medicare for all, are way too far to the left for the swing state voters. But is Michael Bloomberg the answer that people
are looking for? If you are Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg
or any of those other candidates in that lane… JUDY WOODRUFF: The other — in the moderate
lane. AMY WALTER: … you’re raising your hand and
saying, you know what, I think I can pick up that slack if Joe Biden is not around. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, meanwhile, Biden, of course,
is saying, I’m not week. Hey, I am go to win this thing. AMY WALTER: Right. TAMARA KEITH: Right. And he is still running for president. And — though it’s interesting, one of my
colleagues, Scott Detrow, spoke with of Biden’s allies, who said, well, you know, if Biden
isn’t in the race, then Michael Bloomberg would be a great option, which was slightly
off-message. (LAUGHTER) AMY WALTER: More than slightly. JUDY WOODRUFF: Slightly off-message. So, very quickly to Amy Klobuchar, who said,
we noticed yesterday, in an interview — she was asked about Pete Buttigieg, who has done
very well in the polls, with money. And she said, if the women on the stage: “My
fellow women senators, Harris, Warren and myself, do I think we would be standing on
that stage if we had the experience that he had? No, I don’t. Maybe we’re held to a different standard.” Are they? AMY WALTER: For sure, women are held to a
different standard. At the same time, I think it also shows the
degree to which Iowa has become the most important state, overwhelmingly so. If Pete Buttigieg gets a foothold by doing
really well in Iowa it puts Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, those others out of the mix. JUDY WOODRUFF: Double standard? TAMARA KEITH: Certainly, she is stating a
fact of American politics. Women in politics tend not even to run for
higher office or to run for the Senate, until they are much older, because this has been
the standard. There is like a desire to have a great amount
of experience for female candidates. JUDY WOODRUFF: Speaking of these women, we
are going to see them and the guys on stage a week from this Wednesday. AMY WALTER: That’s right. TAMARA KEITH: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tamara Keith, Amy Walter, thank
you both. AMY WALTER: You’re welcome. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we want you to please join
us, in the meantime, for special live coverage of the first public impeachment hearings. We start on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. And be sure to sign up for our newsletter,
which is dedicated to the topic. You can find the link to subscribe at PBS.org/NewsHour/Politics. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments
that could decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of dreamers. That’s the younger generation of undocumented
immigrants brought to this country by their parents and protected from deportation. The justices will hear arguments over a series
of lawsuits around the Obama era decision and President Trump’s efforts to end it. Whatever the outcome, it will be one of the
signature decisions of this session and will land right in the middle of the 2020 campaign. Amna Nawaz looks at the stakes and how we
got to this moment. AMNA NAWAZ: In 2012, then President Barack
Obama was running for reelection when he announced a new executive action, a program giving undocumented
immigrants the chance to apply for protection from deportation. BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United
States: This morning, Secretary Napolitano announced new actions my administration will
take to mend our nation’s immigration policy, to make it more fair, more efficient, and
more just, specifically for certain young people sometimes called dreamers. AMNA NAWAZ: Those who qualified for the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, had to arrive in the United States before
June 2007 and before turning 16, be enrolled in school, or have a high school diploma or
GED, and pass a background check with no felony convictions. DACA status shielded enrollees from deportation,
was renewable every two years, and allowed recipients to work legally in the U.S. Nearly 800,000 people received that protection,
including Ewaoluwa Ogundana. Whether she and others should still receive
those same protections is a central question the Supreme Court will take up tomorrow. At the age of five, Ogundana was brought to
America from Nigeria. She received DACA status when she was 15. EWAOLUWA OGUNDANA, DACA Recipient: DACA changed
my life so much for the better. I was just constantly insecure. And then knowing that I was an immigrant,
and I technically — like, hearing that I didn’t belong here, it just added to that
insecurity. So, when I had DACA, and I knew I could work,
and I knew I could have a driver’s license, and I could drive, and I could have my own
car, I didn’t feel like I had to be insecure about anything anymore. Like, it broke that barrier of insecurity. AMNA NAWAZ: But the security DACA provided
was supposed to be only temporary, as President Obama said in 2012. BARACK OBAMA: This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets
us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven,
patriotic young people. AMNA NAWAZ: The president’s move was met by
a Republican chorus of criticism, branding DACA illegal and unconstitutional. In 2014, when Obama proposed expanding DACA
to protect parents of dreamers, the Republican-controlled House struck back, voting to defund DACA;
26 states followed with suits to block the expansion. In the years since, lawmakers have tried and
failed to pass several bipartisan versions of the DREAM Act to offer qualified dreamers
a long-term solution, despite strong bipartisan support for a legislative fix. SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): I do believe it’s unconstitutional,
whether you agree with the merits of it or not. But I also believe that it should be replaced,
it comes to an end because it’s replaced by something that is constitutional, which is
a legislative action. AMNA NAWAZ: Dreamers’ fate was thrown into
further uncertainty when candidate Donald Trump vowed to eliminate DACA entirely. Here he is in June of 2015. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
I will immediately terminate President Obama’s illegal executive order on immigration, immediately. AMNA NAWAZ: Once elected, President Trump
appeared to soften his stance. DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to show great heart. DACA is a very, very difficult subject for
me, I will tell you. To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects
I have, because you have these incredible kids, in many cases, not in all cases. AMNA NAWAZ: But seven months later, the administration
announced it would be terminating DACA. Then Attorney General Jeff Sessions: JEFF SESSIONS, Former U.S. Attorney General:
To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit
everyone who would like to come here. AMNA NAWAZ: Courts have since halted the president’s
move, and several offers to reform DACA have been rejected by the Trump administration,
including another bipartisan bill from Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and South
Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): There are a lot of
people on the Republican side of the aisle understand your dilemma, and we want to find
a fair solution, because you have done nothing wrong. You came here as children. You have contributed to society. You have passed criminal background checks. AMNA NAWAZ: That plan included a 12-year path
to citizenship and $1.6 billion for the president’s border wall. While the overwhelming majority of DACA recipients
come from Mexico, dreamers come from at least 200 different countries, according to government
data. Today, after failed attempts to pass legislation
and strike a deal with the administration, the futures of roughly 700,000 people brought
to this country as children lies with the Supreme Court. But the arguments heard by the justices may
focus on very specific legal questions. Lower courts have found the Trump administration
didn’t provide a solid rationale for its decision to end DACA. The administration argues it has the ability
to do so through executive power. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Amna Nawaz. JUDY WOODRUFF: Rural America has experienced
a rebound of sorts in recent years. And some residents of those areas point to
a perhaps unexpected reason: the arts. The National Governors Association reports
that rural counties with performing arts organizations had population growth three times higher than
counties without them. Jeffrey Brown recently found a gathering celebrating
and helping to spread this trend. It’s part of our ongoing arts and culture
coverage, Canvas. JEFFREY BROWN: Friday night, hot jazz, but
we’re not in a flashy club in New York. This is the VFW in the town of Grand Rapids
in Northern Minnesota. On the guitar, Sam Miltich, who grew up here
and has performed in hundreds of venues around the world, but this small stage is home. SAM MILTICH, Jazz Guitarist: People thought
I was kind of crazy to try and make a life as a jazz musician in Northern Minnesota. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes, it does sound a little
crazy. SAM MILTICH: It does sound a little crazy. And, actually, maybe it is a little bit crazy. But the quality of life where I grew up was
just so high. And I was, like, acutely aware of how good
that life was. And I wanted that life. JEFFREY BROWN: And he’s not alone, as we saw
in the nearby performing arts center that played host to a recent rural arts and culture
summit and. The summit is a biennial event held in different
towns. This one brought together some 350 artists
and community leaders from 25 states to exchange ideas, celebrate the role of creativity in
small towns, and fight a national narrative about rural America in decline. LAURA ZABEL, Executive Director, Springboard
for the Arts: That’s a pretty simple way to tell that story. And I think underlying that story is often
this attitude of sort of, well, why don’t you just get over it or why don’t you just
move? I think that kind of ignores the history and
the complexity, and it often ignores all of the people who are working really hard to
make what’s next for that community. JEFFREY BROWN: Laura Zabel heads Springboard
for the Arts, a Minnesota organization that helps artists and organizations in both urban
and rural areas and puts on the summit. Where do you see the arts fitting in? What’s the role of arts and artists? LAURA ZABEL: They sort of have this ability
to make meaning from — sometimes from the really hard parts of what it means to live
in a rural community right now. And I think that’s necessary for a community
to move forward, that, rather than just telling people, get over it, people need outlets for
their pain and their shame and their joy. JEFFREY BROWN: The summit focuses on the practical
side of succeeding in rural areas: There are consultations for legal aid, economic planning
and career advice. With a dream of being a professional dancer,
Molly Johnston left her hometown of Battle Lake, Minnesota, with a population of less
than 1,000, for college in Philadelphia. She remembers thinking she wouldn’t return
until retirement. MOLLY JOHNSTON, Co-Director, DanceBARN Collective:
I was the first one out of town after graduation ready to explore the world. JEFFREY BROWN: But family and lifestyle pulled
her back to Battle Lake. The problem? How to make it work as a dancer. MOLLY JOHNSTON: I’m creating opportunities
that didn’t exist in the first place. So it’s not like I… JEFFREY BROWN: In what sense? I mean, explain that to me. MOLLY JOHNSTON: Well I mean, there’s no dance
studio in Battle Lake, for instance, so I can’t just like walk in and be like, hey,
I have my master’s in dance. Can you give me a job and a weekly paycheck? JEFFREY BROWN: So she and a colleague created
their own organization, DanceBARN Collective, to put on a festival and give opportunities
to those living in rural communities. She also teaches dance classes to make ends
meet. MOLLY JOHNSTON: We’re becoming part of our
town’s makeup, that when they see that DanceBARN is doing a pop-up show at the bar on Thursday
night, people show up. I think that’s something really beautiful
and surprising about living in a rural town. JEFFREY BROWN: Jay Arrowsmith DeCoux came
to the summit with a different perspective, as mayor of Grand Marais, Minnesota, a small
town of about 1,300 people that sits on Lake Superior near the Canadian border. It’s a town that’s long valued the arts, he
says, but is now making them part of its planning and policies, like incorporating artists and
creative design into the reconstruction of a local highway. JAY ARROWSMITH DECOUX, Mayor of Grand Marais,
Minnesota: The idea is that if you can at least consider art when you’re working on
any policy then you won’t create barriers to the development of art in your community. JEFFREY BROWN: Everyone here acknowledges
the challenges of making a life in art in a small town: earning enough income, housing,
finding an audience. AMBER BUCKANAGA, Fashion Designer: There’s
a lot of this that is really — that’s uncomfortable for us. JEFFREY BROWN: Amber Buckanaga has faced those
and other challenges firsthand. A member of the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa,
she lives in East Lake, on the reservation, and works as a fashion designer, incorporating
traditional patterns into contemporary clothing. But lack of access to proper equipment and
technology are a constraint. The Wi-Fi in her area, she says, isn’t even
worth paying for. AMBER BUCKANAGA: We do have those challenges. And then on top of us being indigenous people,
it becomes more challenging. The access that these that the non-indigenous
population has to, like, arts spaces and resources, it just — it’s there right in front of them,
and it comes to them, and people feel more comfortable inviting them to those things. So… JEFFREY BROWN: You don’t have that network. AMBER BUCKANAGA: No. No, we just don’t have that. JEFFREY BROWN: Here in Grand Rapids, where
the massive paper mill and the crucial timber industry have struggled, an arts community
has blossomed. There’s a gallery and small shops, pop-ups
in the beautifully-restored old school house, an art walk on the first Friday of each month. And jazz guitarist Sam Miltich, a full-time
musician, is a regular at the VFW. With grants from a state sales tax fund for
arts and culture, he’s able to bring musicians from urban areas to play with him in Grand
Rapids. Miltich says he feels a sense of mission. SAM MILTICH: I think someone dubbed the term
jazz ambassador of the north or some such thing. You know, and I have always… JEFFREY BROWN: Which you embrace? SAM MILTICH: Which I embrace. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes. SAM MILTICH: And I have always felt, I think
it’s a little bit of an equity thing, where I always have felt that rural people are every
bit as deserving of art as any other group, and maybe more so, because they don’t have
as much access to it. So it’s about providing access. JEFFREY BROWN: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m
Jeffrey Brown in Grand Rapids, Minnesota. JUDY WOODRUFF: We close tonight with a tour
of commemorations on this Veterans Day, from the president’s visit to New York City, the
vice president’s trip to Arlington National Cemetery, and beyond, as America halted to
express its gratitude to the men and women who have defended the United States. GEN. DAVID BERGER, U.S. Marine Corps Commandant:
Today, we gather to recognize the service of everyday patriots who have dedicated their
lives to our country, men and women who raised their hand and took a solemn oath. VINCENT MCGOWAN, President Emeritus, United
States Veterans Council: The veterans community really stands for solidarity, regardless of
the things that separate Americans, service to our country, honor amongst our relationships
with one another, trust and respect of one another. MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States:
You put on the armor. You stood in the gap. You defended our freedom. You counted our lives more important than
your own. You stood for a cause greater than yourselves. CMDR. FRANK KOWALSKI, National President, Catholic
War Veterans: In particular, we salute those who came home with the scars of war, who continue
to fight daily against mental, emotional and physical disabilities. We can never thank them and support them enough. They are an inspiration to us all. GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): When our veterans complete
their service, it becomes the shared duty of all Americans to serve our veterans, to
listen to them, to honor them and to ensure that they receive the care and support that
they need. BRIG. GEN. KRIS BELANGER, U.S. Army Reserve: Their service
and sacrifice from the gas-filled trenches of World War I to the mountains of Afghanistan
and the deserts of Iraq chronicle much of the history of the century just passed and
the one we are in now. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
On Veterans Day, our nation rededicates itself to our most solemn duty. While we can never repay our warriors for
their boundless service and sacrifice, we must uphold with supreme vigilance our sacred
obligation to care for those who have borne the battle. To every veteran here today and all across
our land, you are America’s greatest living heroes, and we will cherish you now, always
and forever. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we do salute all of America’s
veterans. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

PBS NewsHour full episode October 14, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: shifting alliances.
In the wake of President Trump’s controversial order to withdraw U.S. troops from Northern
Syria, the Kurds seek new support amid fears of a resurgent Islamic State and further violence. Then: As the impeachment inquiry in the Congress
pushes on, a few holdout Democrats in the House face fierce tensions back home while
they weigh the choice. And Ronan Farrow on his new book, “Catch and
Kill,” the Harvey Weinstein scandal, and how news organizations handled it. RONAN FARROW, “The New Yorker”: In industry
after industry, these patterns of misconduct and cover-ups exist, and also there are more
and more people speaking out, and more and more really good, brave reporters refusing
to stop reporting. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The battlefield in Northern
Syria has grown wider and increasingly complicated and more dangerous. The Kurds, once aligned with the U.S., are
now fighting with Syrian government troops against invading Turkish forces. As foreign affairs correspondent Nick Schifrin
reports, President Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region is leading to more
change than the area has seen in years. And a warning: Some viewers may find some
of the images in this piece disturbing. NICK SCHIFRIN: On state TV, the Syrian flag
flies over an important Northern Syrian city, after Syrian troops overnight recaptured this
territory for the first time in more than five years. Meanwhile, in another important Syrian town,
Turkish troops and Turkish-backed rebels advanced. Both cities had been held by U.S.-backed Kurdish
partners. But in just a few days, the map of Northern Syria is being redrawn. Just last week, the U.S.-backed majority Kurdish
Syrian Democratic Forces, in yellow, controlled a large area along the Syrian-Turkish border.
Now Turkey, in green, is moving south across the border, and the Syrian regime, in red,
backed by Russia, is taking back territory. For Turkey, the goal is to remove Kurdish
forces it considers terrorists and establish a buffer zone along the border. It’s an operation
Turkey long threatened, but avoided so long as U.S. troops remained in Northern Syria,
partnered with those Kurdish forces to defeat ISIS. But those U.S. troops are now withdrawing,
giving Turkey a window to launch an offensive that Defense Secretary Mark Esper called inevitable. MARK ESPER, U.S. Defense Secretary: We didn’t
want to get involved in a conflict that dates back nearly 200 years between the Turks and
the Kurds and get involved in another — yet another war in the Middle East. NICK SCHIFRIN: But the U.S. was already in
the middle of the war, and, by leaving, the carnage came quickly. This weekend, videos posted on social media
showed Turkish-backed militias killing Kurdish prisoners on the streets. And residents injured
by the Turkish assault ended up in the back of pickup trucks. Washington asserts Turkey will not go unchecked.
In a statement this afternoon, President Trump increased tariffs on Turkey, called Turkey’s
actions setting conditions for possible war crimes, and threatened to swiftly destroy
Turkey’s economy if Turkey’s operation continued. But just hours before that announcement, Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan doubled down. RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through
translator): Regardless of the threats and pressures, we are determined to continue the
operation until the end. I am stating clearly, we will absolutely finish the job we started. NICK SCHIFRIN: For Turkey’s Kurdish targets,
they felt they had no choice but to embrace the Syrian regime and invite Syrian troops
to provide the protection once promised by the U.S. MAN (through translator): We came here to
face the Turkish attack and to ensure the safety of families from the random Turkish
shelling. NICK SCHIFRIN: The U.S. military fears that
shelling could allow ISIS to resurge. Over the weekend ISIS-affiliated prisoners escaped. The alarm is being sounded loudest by countries
hit hardest by Islamic State terrorism. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas spoke today
in Europe. HEIKO MAAS, German Foreign Minister (through
translator): We are also fearing, and we are seeing it already, that this is leading to
a strengthening of ISIS, which we absolutely must prevent. NICK SCHIFRIN: Caught in the crossfire are
Syrian civilians. The U.N. says 130,000 have fled their homes in what local Kurdish authorities
call a humanitarian disaster. WOMAN (through translator): I have four children,
two girls and two boys. Where should I go? I’m so tired. I left the house a week ago.
Where should I go now? NICK SCHIFRIN: And it’s not clear where the
future of Northeast Syria goes now either. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin. JUDY WOODRUFF: Another marathon of private
hearings on Capitol Hill today, as members of three committees in the House of Representatives
question President Trump’s former top Russia adviser Fiona Hill. It’s part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry. Our Yamiche Alcindor has been reporting on
Capitol Hill today. And she joins us now. So, Yamiche, remind us who Fiona Hill is.
What is her background? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Fiona Hill was the first
person who worked at the White House to come before Congress to testify as part of the
Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. She was President Trump’s top Europe and Russia
adviser. She worked with President Trump for about two years as part of the National Security
Council staff. And she had a long career as a national intelligence officer before she
came to work for President Trump. Now, she left the administration just a couple
of days before that July 25 phone call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine.
Before, she worked — came to work for President Trump, she worked for both George W. Bush’s
administration, as well as the administration of Barack Obama. And she’s seen as someone who’s very knowledgeable
on the issue of Russia. She’s also seen as someone who’s very skeptical of Vladimir Putin.
She’s written several books about Russia. And one of them is seen as a critical biography
of Vladimir Putin called “Mr. Putin.” So she’s someone who is very well-respected.
And Democrats are eager to hear what she has to say. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Yamiche, we know that
she was answering questions among a number of committees in the House of Representatives
today, but behind closed doors. What do we know about what she’s been saying? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, it’s clear that Fiona
Hill came here with an agenda. And that agenda is to, based on reports, talk
about the fact that she was against the removal of the former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie
Yovanovitch, and she was also really concerned with the actions of Trump allies. She thinks
that they were abusing power by having the former ambassador of Ukraine removed. She’s, according to reports, wanted to come
here, but she also was a complying with a subpoena, much like last week, when we saw
the former ambassador of Ukraine say that she was legally required to be here. Her lawyer
said she was served with a subpoena today and came here before Congress to offer information. So we’re not exactly sure exactly what she
said in the deposition, because it’s continuing to go on, but the idea is that she’s going
to be giving critical information that’s going to be part of this impeachment inquiry. And,
basically, it’s going to be saying that Rudy Giuliani and Gordon Sondland, the ambassador
to Europe — to the European Union, as well as the president’s personal attorney, were
operating outside of the official channels that the State Department has to try to pressure
Ukraine to investigate the president’s political rivals. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Yamiche, separate story,
but we know that the White House is today dealing with the fallout from something that
happened several days ago. This was at a conference of Trump supporters
at which a video was shown that actually shows someone with the head of President Trump going
into a church, a congregation, people filling a church, and shooting people, with the names
of news organizations superimposed on their heads, among them, PBS, The New York Times
and others. What is the White House saying about this? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, Judy, this is really
a disturbing video that depicts President Trump murdering journalists. And the White House press secretary, Stephanie
Grisham, says that the president hasn’t seen the video, but that, based on what’s been
described to her and to him, that he would condemn it. However, the president, who has been out tweeting
about all sorts of other things, has not actually condemned this video. Now, the president of the White House Correspondents
Association, he released a statement saying that this video is horrifying. And he called
on both President Trump and people who went to that pro-Trump conference to denounce this
video. I should also tell you, I have been talking
to reporters personally all day about this video. And there are a lot of people who are
shaken up. They see this as an escalation of the president’s rhetoric against journalists. He’s been calling reporters the enemy of the
people. And now people are really afraid that people might actually be violent toward journalists.
So people are really telling me that they’re laying low and really trying to be vigilant
about their surroundings. So this is really something we’re going to
have to keep our eye on, because it’s really disturbing to a lot of reporters. JUDY WOODRUFF: Incredibly disturbing. Yamiche Alcindor today reporting from Capitol
Hill, thanks, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news, a
white police officer in Fort Worth, Texas, has resigned after fatally shooting a black
woman in her own home Saturday. The officer, Aaron Dean, was responding to
a call about an open door. Police body-cam video showed Dean firing a split-second after
shouting at 28 year old Atatiana Jefferson to show her hands. Fort Worth Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus: ED KRAUS, Fort Worth, Texas, Interim Police
Chief: Nobody looked at this video and said that there’s any doubt that this officer acted
inappropriately. Had the officer not resigned, I would have fired him for violations of several
policies, including our use of force policy, our de-escalation policy, and unprofessional
conduct. JUDY WOODRUFF: Jefferson’s family told reporters
today they want accountability. ASHLEY CARR, Sister of Atatiana Jefferson:
There is simply no justification for his actions. She was enjoying a life in her home, where
no one would have expected it to be — her own life to be in harm’s way, especially not
at the hands of a civil servant. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, former Georgia police
officer Robert Olsen today was found not guilty of murder in the 2015 fatal shooting of a
black man who was unarmed and naked. In Spain, the Supreme Court has convicted
12 Catalan separatist leaders over the region’s failed secession attempt in 2017. After the
ruling, protesters clashed with riot police outside the airport in the region’s capital,
Barcelona, injuring dozens. And thousands descended on the streets of the city, with
separatists decrying the decision. WOMAN (through translator): These people have
been unfairly sentenced, although we already know this was going to happen because it had
been decided already. That has been a fake trial. There is no other name for this. JUDY WOODRUFF: The Catalan regional president
called the verdict an act of vengeance and said that it wouldn’t stop a bid for independence. In Britain, Queen Elizabeth opened a new session
of Parliament today as the deadline looms for the country’s exit from the European Union.
In the House of Lords, she gave a ceremonial queen’s speech, written by Prime Minister
Boris Johnson’s government. She said his government is committed to leaving
the E.U. by the end-of-month deadline. QUEEN ELIZABETH II, United Kingdom: “My government’s
priority has always been to secure the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union
on the 31st of October. My government intends to work towards a new partnership with the
European Union based on free trade and friendly cooperation.” JUDY WOODRUFF: Both sides said that significant
gaps remain in the talks, which could spill into next week. Ecuadorians are celebrating deal between the
government and indigenous leaders to end nearly two weeks of protests that left seven dead.
The agreement would cancel an austerity package, including sharp fuel price hikes, that set
off the demonstrations. In the capital, Quito, protesters danced in the streets overnight. And, today, thousands of demonstrators and
volunteers cleaned a park where police had clashed with protesters. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial
average lost 29 points to close at 26787. The Nasdaq fell eight points to close at 8048.
The S&P 500 dropped four. Three researchers working to fight poverty
have won the Nobel Prize for Economics. They are Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Kremer of Harvard. Their studies favored
practical steps: breaking down poverty into areas like education and health care, and
then testing specific solutions. ESTHER DUFLO, Nobel Prize Winner: It goes
in two ways. It goes in designing the policies, not based on your intuition or whatever happens
to be the flavor of the month, but based on a better understanding of how the poor live,
why they make the choices they make, what are the specific traps that hold them back,
and how to — what lever to push that could unlock these traps. JUDY WOODRUFF: Duflo, who is married to Banerjee,
is only the second woman to win the economics prize. And in a surprise, judges have awarded two
authors the prestigious Booker Prize. Canadian Margaret Atwood won for “The Testaments,”
a sequel to her bestselling novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.” And British author Bernardine Evaristo
is the first black woman to win the major literary prize for her novel “Girl, Woman,
Other.” Still to come on the “NewsHour”: why a handful
of Democrats are still holding out on throwing their support behind the impeachment inquiry;
Amy Walter and Domenico Montanaro analyze the president’s relationship with his own
party as he moves troops out of Syria; journalist Ronan Farrow on his new book about covering
the most explosive stories of the MeToo era and much more. We return now to the volatile situation on
the Syrian-Turkish border, where an American effort over the past five years devolved into
new violence just in the last few days. Nick Schifrin is back with that. NICK SCHIFRIN: Thanks, Judy. So, what do the latest developments in the
fluid situation in Syria and Middle East mean? For that, we get two views from two longtime
Syria watchers. Ted Kattouf was a career diplomat and served as ambassador to Syria under President
George W. Bush. He’s now president of Amideast, which promotes mutual understand of the Middle
East. And Joshua Landis is the director of the Center for Middle East studies at the
University of Oklahoma and runs the blog called SyriaComment.com. Thanks very much to you both. Ambassador Kattouf, let me start with you. The developments in the last few days, Turkish
forces, Turkish-aligned forces moving south into Northern Syria, Syrian government forces
moving north, now allied with former U.S. partners Syrian Kurds. How does that affect the U.S. stated goals
in Syria, including the enduring defeat of ISIS and starting the political process? THEODORE KATTOUF, Former U.S. Ambassador to
Syria: Well, I remember that President Obama was severely criticized for pulling out of
Iraq in 2011, and many people said that that pullout of the U.S. troops led to the rise
of ISIS, although some have said it would have happened anyway had we stayed or not. But, clearly, there’s a clear link between
what has just happened and the potential for ISIS to reassert itself in various parts of
Syria. And also besides Turkish-Kurdish clashes going on right now, and, of course, the Turks
clearly having the upper hand over a militia group, we also have the potential for Syrian-Turkish
fighting going on. The Turkish army, I believe, is much stronger
than Syria’s war-weary units. But you have Iran in the mix. You have Russia in the mix.
It’s a real — we have opened a Pandora’s box. NICK SCHIFRIN: Joshua Landis, wasn’t that
Pandora’s box opened long ago, when this civil war started? And President Trump has talked about how the
U.S. shouldn’t be in forever wars. Do you think he has a point? JOSHUA LANDIS, University of Oklahoma: He
absolutely has a point. Of course, the execution has been very ham-fisted.
And I agree with Ted on that. But the notion of pulling out of Syria is, I think, well-made.
And there’s no good way to pull out of Syria. The real mistake was getting into Iraq and
invading Iraq and turning over the apple cart in this region to begin with. But Americans
don’t see any benefit coming out of these wars. And it’s now $5 trillion, according to some
estimates, that have been spent in the Middle East over the last 20 years. I am sitting
here at the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City. And people are fed up. They want better
roads. They are wondering why their schools aren’t as good as they should be. And they wonder where the money has gone.
In some ways, the elite in Washington, the foreign policy establishment, has become dissociated
from the average American. And Trump is exploiting that. He’s going to use it in order to try
to — I think, obviously, try to win the elections. And this is what he ran on last time, and
he’s going to run on it again. NICK SCHIFRIN: Ambassador Kattouf, the Trump
administration also makes another point, which is that Turkey has been a NATO ally since
1952, has fought in every war alongside the U.S. since then, and the Kurds were simply
a partner, a temporary one, at that, to help fight ISIS. So do those arguments have a point? Do the
Turks have legitimate security interests here? THEODORE KATTOUF: The Turks have legitimate
security interests. And I also want to say I don’t disagree with
Joshua Landis that eventually we need to get out of these areas, get our troops out. But
it’s how it’s done, the implementation, the impulse of the president, talking to Erdogan,
and then just telling the Pentagon, the National Security Council, pull our troops back, leaving
the Kurds totally exposed. And, by the way, this is not the first time
we have betrayed the Kurds. You could go back to the San Remo conference of 1923. NICK SCHIFRIN: Twenty-three. THEODORE KATTOUF: If you want to look for
original sins, that might be it, because 20 million Kurds have been left out of having
their nation state of their own, and they’re divided among four countries in that region. But this is a terrible betrayal. And our allies
will not — our other allies will not fail to notice. NICK SCHIFRIN: Joshua Landis, I want to move
to something that we have seen in the last few hours, this afternoon. President Trump has imposed sanctions on Turkey,
and he’s used language also that went even further than he did before. He talked about
how the Turkish incursion precipitating a humanitarian crisis and setting the conditions
for possible war crimes. The vice president just came out a few minutes
ago talking — calling for a cease-fire and negotiations. Will this change Turkish behavior? JOSHUA LANDIS: You know, Turkey — unfortunately,
this has been so badly handled, that you would think that, if you’re going to sell out the
Kurds to Turkey, that you would get something in exchange, perhaps that Turkey would move
closer to the United States, would get rid of its Russian missiles that it just bought. And — but that hasn’t happened. And now the
United States looks like it could be moving into a situation where it’s putting sanctions
on Turkey, it’s throwing the Kurds under the bus. And you wonder, what are we coming away
with? Very little. NICK SCHIFRIN: Ambassador Kattouf, on what
happens next, you mentioned before there could be some confrontation between Turkey and Syria.
How serious would that be? THEODORE KATTOUF: It would be very serious. But I think Russia is going to play a role,
a very important role, in all of this. Russia doesn’t want to have to get its troops involved
in defending Syria against Turkey. They’re going to be talking to both sides. Both sides
are going to listen to Russia. Erdogan is not going to be intimidated right
now by sanctions, because he wants a cordon sanitaire. And it won’t take him forever to
get that done. NICK SCHIFRIN: You mean he wants a buffer
zone right along that border. THEODORE KATTOUF: Right. Exactly. NICK SCHIFRIN: And he’s going to continue
to do that, you think? THEODORE KATTOUF: He will. NICK SCHIFRIN: Joshua Landis, we just heard
Ambassador Kattouf mention Russia. What is the state of Russian influence in
Syria, and how does compare to U.S. influence right now? JOSHUA LANDIS: Well, Putin’s stock has gone
up to the skies now. And Trump has collapsed in terms of Middle
East. We see Putin has gone to Saudi Arabia today, first time a Russian president has
gone to Saudi Arabia in over a decade. And he has a royal — he’s getting the royal treatment. Everywhere, we see Middle Eastern countries
turning to Russia. Israel has established close relations with Russia. So has Saudi
Arabia. Iran, of course, is an ally. Syria, Turkey is an ally. So Russia — Putin, in many ways, is the man
of the hour. He’s become the statesman who can talk to everybody. Everybody’s looking
to him to help to attenuate the conflicts that seem to be multiplying in the Middle
East. This is a bad moment for the United States. Trying to get out of the Middle East the way
it has been has caused many people to distrust the United States and to wonder, are they
an ally that will come to my aid in our time of need? NICK SCHIFRIN: Joshua Landis, Ambassador Ted
Kattouf, thank you very much to you both. THEODORE KATTOUF: Pleasure. JUDY WOODRUFF: As of today, only seven of
the 235 Democrats in the House of Representatives aren’t supporting the inquiry into impeaching
the president. Each one represents a district President Trump won in 2016. John Yang traveled to Upstate New York to
find out what constituents there are saying to one of the holdouts. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI (D-NY): I work for you. JOHN YANG: It was freshman Democratic Representative
Anthony Brindisi’s 11th town hall meeting since taking office, this one in the new Hartford,
New York, high school auditorium. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: I’m here to listen,
which I think is the most important role any representative can play, is to be a good listener. JOHN YANG: And he got an earful from both
sides in the debate over impeachment, from supporters of President Trump in this GOP-leaning
district in Upstate New York that gave Mr. Trump 54 percent of the vote: MAN: What have you said against your colleagues
who would promote this unfairness of the president? MAN: What about the 95 percent who have rushed
to a conclusion about impeachment? What have you said to those people? REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: I can’t change people’s
minds. MAN: What have you said to them? (CROSSTALK) REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: I say what I — all
I can say is what I believe and what I am going to do as a representative. I can’t control
what colleagues… MAN: You said you speak up. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: I say… MAN: Have you spoken up to those people? (CROSSTALK) REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: Absolutely. (CROSSTALK) REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: Do you want me to answer? MAN: Yes. I’d love to hear… REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: OK. I’m trying to. JOHN YANG: And from Democrats who helped Brindisi
unseat a Republican last year in a narrow 1 percentage point victory. MAN: Do you think the president of the United
States is above the law? And if you do not, then what do you plan to do about it? JOHN YANG: For two hours, Brindisi delicately
threaded a needle, raising concerns about the president’s behavior, but avoiding explicit
support for the impeachment inquiry. WOMAN: You should at least come out forcefully
on, I want to see this evidence. This wishy-washy is for the birds. It really is. (APPLAUSE) REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: In my opinion, the
standard is, is the president a danger to the country, putting our national security
at risk. AUDIENCE: He is! AUDIENCE: Yes, he is! WOMAN: We’re the ones who are voting for you. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: I understand. WOMAN: And I get your position. You won here
by a very small margin. It’s a Republican area, a Republican state. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: Look, politics — I
want to make this very clear to everybody: Politics is not calculating into my mind.
If the voters send me packing next year, that’s their business. I am very troubled by the allegations that
I have read. We want to hear — I want to hear from the people who are in that whistle-blower
report. WOMAN: Then you support the inquiry? REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: The inquiry’s happening,
whether I support it or not. WOMAN: I want to know that you support it. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: It doesn’t matter. JOHN YANG: Those whistle-blower allegations
moved a majority of House Democrats toward impeachment, but not Brindisi. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: Look, I didn’t go to
Washington to impeach the president, OK? I went to Washington to try and get things done
for the people in this community. JOHN YANG: Most of the questions were about
other topics. WOMAN: Could you talk about a humane immigration
policy for our country should look like? WOMAN: Are you in favor of Medicare for all? WOMAN: What is your plan to ensure the U.S.
and this district reaches 100 percent clean and renewable energy? JOHN YANG: That’s where Brindisi wants the
focus to be as Congress returns from a two-week recess. What do you want your colleagues to understand
the needs of this district as this impeachment inquiry goes on? REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: I think people have
struggles here that are more front and center than some of the latest news that’s coming
out of Washington. And that’s what I’m committed to working on. JOHN YANG: But the flash points of the evening
were the questions about impeachment, like the one from Lauren Earl. Were you satisfied with his answer about the
impeachment inquiry? LAUREN EARL, Voter: Right now, by not saying
it, I feel like that gives Trump leverage. So just come out and say how you feel and
trust that what you believe is how you are going to lead, because we will follow you
if you tell us what you believe. JOHN YANG: Trump supporters, who were early
to the meeting and loud, hope impeachment could be leverage to win back Brindisi’s House
seat. Earlier this month, Claudia Tenney, the Trump-backed
incumbent Brindisi defeated, said she’s running again. James Zecca helped rally Trump backers in
front of the school before going inside for Brindisi’s meeting. JAMES ZECCA, Voter: He’s in a real pickle
here, because, if he votes to impeach, he’s going to lose all of the people that supported
Trump. And if he doesn’t vote to impeach, he’s going to lose his radical left-wing socialists. (LAUGHTER) JOHN YANG: The tension didn’t stop when the
town hall ended. WOMAN: I can’t stand you. I hate you. So why
should I vote for you? REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: Well, look, I… WOMAN: Some of these people act like they
think he somehow got in there illegitimately. He didn’t. REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: Yes. No, I take that
very seriously. We, as representatives in Washington, have
to do everything we can to try and get the emotion out of this, to get the partisanship
out of this. JOHN YANG: Can that calm and measured approach
survive, sustain through this? REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI: I’m an eternal optimist,
and you have to be when you’re in politics, I guess, in Washington. JOHN YANG: And facing an election year that’s
bound to be filled with emotion and partisanship. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m John Yang in New
Hartford, New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: That town hall was just a few
days ago, and all signs point to the House impeachment inquiry looming large over this
coming week as well. But that’s not the only major political event
in the cards. Amna Nawaz takes a look. AMNA NAWAZ: That’s right, Judy. It’s not just
the impeachment inquiry. Capitol Hill is also focused on the president’s
actions toward Turkey and Syria. And the 2020 Democrats have a primary debate tomorrow night. That’s plenty for our weekly Politics Monday
roundup. I’m joined by Amy Walter of The Cook Political
Report and host of public radio’s “Politics With Amy Walter,” and Domenico Montanaro.
He’s senior political editor at NPR. Welcome to you both. Shall we jump right into the polls? AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Why
not? Let’s do it. AMNA NAWAZ: Take a look at this graphic. These
are five polls over the last week, the latest just out today in the lower right-hand corner
from Quinnipiac. We can now say a majority of Americans in
all five of these polls show support for the impeachment process. Amy, when you look at those numbers, all of
those represent an increase, the numbers ranging from 51 percent to 58 percent now. Why are
we seeing those now? AMY WALTER: I think they — it’s really important
to understand the difference between supporting an impeachment inquiry and supporting impeachment
itself, which is still there are a couple of polls that show it just over 50 percent
support, but it’s really hovering around 48, 47 percent. Why is that important? Because there are people
out there who say, I support an inquiry, but I don’t necessarily support, at this point,
the idea of Trump being impeached by the House. So I think that’s a really important thing
to appreciate. What we have also seen in the polls is, not surprisingly, people have taken
to their corners. But you have seen the president’s approval ratings in just his overall approval
ratings not budge pretty much at all. So, even as support for an impeachment inquiry
has risen, the president’s overall — how people feel about him overall has not budged. DOMENICO MONTANARO, Political Editor, NPR:
Look, and also, when you look at our NPR/”PBS NewsHour”/Marist poll, 58 percent of people
said that they would like to see the president’s fate decided at the ballot box, rather than
through the impeachment process. I think that that tells you that, even though
we also saw a big swing among independents saying that they support this impeachment
inquiry, I think that really tells you how cautious Americans are, and that while Democrats
over the last couple of weeks have won over those independents, and that independents
see that maybe that phone call was unacceptable — they said in our poll — two-thirds of
people said that what President Trump did in asking for a favor in investigating a political
rival was unacceptable. But that they’re cautious about how they want
Democrats to have this process play out. And Democrats have to walk a very fine line, sticking
to unimpeachable facts, so to speak. AMNA NAWAZ: So, that swing towards the increase
there fueled by the independents. Could it go the other way, swing back down? DOMENICO MONTANARO: Absolutely. It could. I mean, but I think there’s a little bit of
a ceiling for independents. I mean, having them at 50, 55 percent is about as good as
Democrats can do. But it’s important, because Democrats — independents have tracked with
Democrats on almost every issue since President Trump took office. And why that’s really important is because
Republicans need to win a greater share of independents to win presidential elections.
Remember, Mitt Romney won a majority of independents in 2012 and still lost the election to President
Obama. Amy, your analysis — your latest analysis
actually titled the fall was supposed to be about 2020 Democrats. It’s now all about impeachment.
Is that just taking up all the oxygen in the room now? AMY WALTER: Well, and I think, if this were
normal time, which I realize I don’t know when that last time was, but we would have
been talking about the fact that there’s a presidential — Democratic presidential debate
coming up, that we would be actually — we probably would have been talking about it
the week previous. It is now barely registering. And it’s very
difficult for a bunch of these folks to sort of break through. I think this has been good
news overall, though, for Elizabeth Warren, who has seen her start rise, seen her poll
numbers rise. She now gets to sort of freeze the race in
place. And I think that all of the attention that today would be focused on her specifically,
media scrutiny, scrutiny of her opponents, is now being lost in the focus on the impeachment
inquiry. AMNA NAWAZ: And I do want to get both your
takes on the debate in just a second. But one other question I wanted to ask you
related to the president and specifically his relationship to key members of his party
is something else we have seen happen last week now seems to be defining much of this
week. And that is many Republicans now speaking
out very critically about the president’s decision to pull back troops from the U.S.
— U.S. troops, rather, from the Syrian border. Domenico, for all the many times Republicans
have struggled to defend the president, it’s unequivocal now the criticism. Why now? DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well, look, I think that,
as we know, the Republican Party is made up of a three-legged stool. It’s national security
chief among them, economics and culture being the other two. And the Republican Party, if it’s nothing
else, the brand is macho. So if you’re going to say, let’s pull out of a country, that
kind of goes against their instincts of how they want to be in foreign policy, and not
to mention it’s a bipartisan issue. I mean, almost nobody on Capitol Hill thinks
the way the president handled this was a good thing. And if you look at the polling, the
biggest vulnerability for President Trump is in his handling of foreign policy. Nothing rates lower for him than that. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, you look at some of the people
who are criticizing him, though, very vocally, some of his staunchest defenders. You have Lindsey Graham out there saying it
could be the biggest mistake of his presidency. You have Liz Cheney saying it was catastrophic
to do this. What does that do for him and his support? AMY WALTER: I don’t think it does much of
anything. I mean, these are very well known hawks within
the party. Even if President Trump were not the leader of the party, they would probably
be to the right of whoever the president would be on some of these foreign policies. And I think what Domenico said is really important
about the three-legged stool and the fact that Republicans knew this president coming
in was unorthodox on a number of issues that have been traditionally Republican issues,
free trade and national security, specifically the role that America plays in the world. And Republicans have been able to criticize
him on those issues, in part, because you have seen some criticism about the tariffs
and the trade war from Republicans, in part because there are still a lot of Republicans
who believe those things. It’s when Republicans criticize the president
personally, when it looks like it’s about his behavior, that they get the backlash.
When it’s about policy, I think there is within the Republican electorate a sort of like acceptance
for, OK, you can criticize the policy. Don’t criticize him personally. AMNA NAWAZ: And backlash, you mean, from voters. AMY WALTER: From voters, from Republican voters. AMNA NAWAZ: Yes. DOMENICO MONTANARO: One place I think you’re
seeing some cracks among a key group of Trump supporters are evangelicals, for example. They really feel like Kurdish Christians and
Christians in general in that part of the world are persecuted. And, remember, white
evangelicals in the U.S. have for at least 30 years felt like they don’t like the direction
that the country is headed in liberal, mainstream culture, and feel like that they can sympathize
and have a bit of a kinship with Christians in that part of the world. AMNA NAWAZ: Very quickly before we go, less
than a minute. I hate to do this to you. But tomorrow is another Democratic primary
debate. AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: Twelve candidates on the stage
this time, the most any one stage so far this cycle. Domenico, what’s one thing you’re looking
for tomorrow night? DOMENICO MONTANARO: I mean, look are the other
candidates going to criticize Joe Biden and Hunter Biden for his ties? I mean, clearly, the Bidens feel like this
is a problem, because Biden had to put out an ethics program, and Hunter Biden had to
step down from a board in China. AMY WALTER: I’m watching Elizabeth Warren
and whether her opponent — now that she’s the front-runner, or at least the co-front-runner,
the focus on her. And I’m also going to spend a lot of time
looking at Pete Buttigieg. I think he, more than almost anybody else in this race, is
making a very clear distinction between his brand of progressivism and specifically against
the other candidates, making critical remarks about other candidates’ positions on things
like guns and health care. AMNA NAWAZ: Two key things, among many others… AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: … we will be watching. Domenico Montanaro, Amy Walter, thanks for
being here. AMY WALTER: Thank you. DOMENICO MONTANARO: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ronan Farrow’s explosive reporting
on Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual abuse of women helped to launch the MeToo movement
in 2017, winning him and other reporters a Pulitzer Prize the year after. Now Farrow has written a book about the episode,
“Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators,” which he charges includes
efforts by NBC News, his former employer, to stop his reporting. And Ronan Farrow joins me now. Welcome back to the “NewsHour.” It was exactly two years ago this week that
we talked. That story in “The New Yorker” came out with all your reporting on Harvey
Weinstein… RONAN FARROW, “The New Yorker”: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: … his efforts to stop you
and other journalists from reporting on it. This book builds on that. RONAN FARROW: It does, and there’s a lot of
threads to it. You know, this really is about a set of systems
that we have now been talking about for several years as I broke these stories about the private
espionage world and Harvey Weinstein hiring former Mossad agents to go after sources and
reporters. That’s something where there’s brand-new information
about it in the book. About the efforts of AMI and the tabloid “The National Enquirer”
to catch and kill, this term that stands for buying and burying stories, unflattering items
about Donald Trump. There are brand-new revelations about that in the book. And indeed in the mainstream media world.
You and I have been talking about now for a while when I broke the story about CBS and
allegations of misconduct there. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. RONAN FARROW: And now, with this book, there
are allegations of misconduct at NBC and a paper trail that suggests that there was an
active effort to kill this story. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, and I want to get to
that, but just on the point of Harvey Weinstein sending out detectives and others to find
out what you and others were doing, by way of argument, a person is within his rights
to protect his reputation, right? So where’s the line? What is OK and what isn’t? RONAN FARROW: Absolutely. And nothing in the book suggests that someone
shouldn’t have the right to legally defend themselves, shouldn’t have the right to respond.
And, indeed, the book is very carefully fact-checked, extremely fair to each of the parties I just
mentioned. It is inclusive of every response from every person discussed in it, including
in the private espionage world. But there is a point at which when sophisticated
lawyers, in this case, Harvey Weinstein’s attorney, David Boies, something of a liberal
hero, hired some of these former Mossad agents, who in turn hired subcontractors who were
chasing me, chasing other reporters, staking us out. There were multiple secret agents with false
identities following accusers, following reporters. The question is, as you say, where’s the line?
And I think that, correctly, there’s a conversation happening now in response to this reporting
in this book about maybe a need for more accountability. Now, the story of Rose McGowan is an important
thread in this book, Judy. And Rose McGowan had an individual infiltrate her life to the
point where she thought it was her best friend, and this person was secretly recording her
for Harvey Weinstein. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you write extensively about
that. But one of the central threads, as we mentioned,
was what you say happened at NBC News, where you spent a number of months working on the
story. What — they are pushing back on your main
narrative here. They are saying they gave you many months to work on the story and,
at the end of the time you were there, that you just didn’t have a single source who was
willing to go on the record, and that’s the reason they weren’t allowing you to go forward
with your reporting. RONAN FARROW: So the reporting in this book,
Judy, shows that that’s flatly untrue. My working level producer at NBC, Rich McHugh,
has come forward and said that is flatly untrue. We always had multiple named women in the
story. We had an audiotape of Harvey Weinstein admitting to serial sexual assault. I’ll let people decide for themselves whether
they think that should have been aired. We were fighting like hell to get it on air. But that’s actually not the point. The point
is that this is a company that ordered a hard stop on reporting. Six times in this book,
the president of NBC News, Noah Oppenheim, orders a stop to reporting. And the book really answers why. It suggests
with documentation and a fact-checked paper trail that this was a company that, like CBS,
had a lot of secrets, had a pattern of secret settlements, not dissimilar from Harvey Weinstein’s
own, and had a knowledge of predation within the company that was under threat of exposure
at the time. JUDY WOODRUFF: So you’re referring to — in
part to Matt Lauer and what happened to him. You’re saying that NBC knew there were accusations
against Matt Lauer. Are you saying that’s the main reason that
NBC didn’t want your story to go forward? Because, again, they are pushing back completely
on that and saying, it’s not true, that they didn’t have any credible charges against Matt
Lauer before — the day before he left. RONAN FARROW: The reporting in the book, which,
again, very carefully fact-checked — and NBC’s denials are all included in the book
— it’s extremely fair to NBC — it’s very measured — suggests otherwise. I personally talked to executives who, years
before Matt Lauer’s firing, were told about Matt Lauer misconduct allegations within this
company. And there were multiple settlements with women who had complaints about Matt Lauer
that they voiced within this company. Now, they say, in terms of formal records,
these were not Matt Lauer-related settlements. That is what sexual harassment secret settlements
look like. They do not say in writing, this is what happened to this woman. They are designed
to conceal exactly that connection. JUDY WOODRUFF: The other point they make — and
I do want to pursue this, because you do spend a lot of time in the book on it, about NBC
— they say, when you went to “The New Yorker,” after you left NBC, two months later, you
produced a story that was very different, they said bore little resemblance to what
you had at NBC. So… RONAN FARROW: So, that is inaccurate, Judy. The timeline is that “The New Yorker” actually
green-lit the story and, a month later, they ran it. And here’s the fundamental fact. “The New
Yorker” looked at the same reporting that NBC sent out the door. They ordered us to
stopped taking calls, stop conducting interviews. And, in the end, executives there suggested
that we run it elsewhere. And we went across the street, and I took
it to “The New Yorker.” And, four weeks later, it was a Pulitzer Prize-winning story. So people can decide whether their decisions
had a valid journalistic ground. When they read the book, I think it’s pretty clear. JUDY WOODRUFF: And when they go on to say
that you had an axe to grind, that you really wanted to stay at NBC News, what do you say? RONAN FARROW: Well, they extended that offer,
and that’s discussed in the book. There were sources coming forward at that
time at both CBS and NBC. And the book is very open about me being someone who didn’t
want to lose my job and was in a quandary over this. And senior people there were saying,
we will issue an apology. Come back. Come back. And, in the end, I realized that the accumulating
weight of evidence that there was a significant cover-up and a significant story to be told
about this company and misconduct there and about these broader themes of accountability
in the media, Judy, made me understand that I would have to independently report this
from the outside. And that’s what I have done for two years.
And I think the reporting in the book correctly has been regarded as airtight and held up
to all of those rebuttals. JUDY WOODRUFF: What are you saying overall,
Ronan Farrow, about the news media in this country? Are you saying that it’s — some of it is
bought and paid for by powerful interests, or what? I mean, NBC News has a reputation
built on many years. So do other news organizations. What are you saying? RONAN FARROW: And, look, in many ways, the
book is a love letter to my fellow journalists and great journalists at NBC News who are
right now anguished and asking tough questions of their bosses there and who were supportive
at every step of the reporting. There’s only executives who shut down the
reporting. The fundamental point here, Judy, is, whether
it’s AMI, the publisher of “The National Enquirer,” going after people on Trump’s behalf, or Weinstein’s
behalf — they did both, and that’s all documented in this book — or NBC becoming an instrument
of suppression on Harvey Weinstein’s behalf — I document 15 secret calls between executives
and Weinstein that they have now admitted did take place in which assurances were made
to kill this story. Those are the kinds of things that shouldn’t
happen in any journalistic process. These are ways in which the media shouldn’t be deployed.
And this is not a book that reinforces the authoritarian attacks on the media. This is
a book that highlights the bravery and importance of reporters. It’s not just me that face this kind of intimidation
and these kinds of tactics. It is a whole community of reporters. I am optimistic that
they will not stop and brave sources will not stop coming forward. But we have got to hold ourselves accountable
too and do right by those stories and sources. JUDY WOODRUFF: How much more willing do you
think women are — how much freer do you think women are today to tell their stories than
they were just a year or two ago? RONAN FARROW: You know, there’s still a long
way to go. The reporting in this book shows that. At some of our great institutions, we have
an active effort to silence these kinds of accusations and to diminish transparency about
them. That said, there’s no doubt in my mind that
things are changing for the better. My inbox is full right now of allegations, not just
from within NBC, but in the broader media world and beyond. In industry after industry,
these patterns of misconduct and cover-ups exist. And, also, there are more and more people
speaking out and more and more really good, brave reporters refusing to stop reporting. JUDY WOODRUFF: And are you saying that employers
are more — are listening to this and acting on it, or not? RONAN FARROW: Well, I’ll give you an example. I mean, one of the things that I have documented
both at CBS and now at NBC is that, in periods of time where they claimed there were no secret
settlements with harassment survivors, there actually were many of them. In NBC’s case, in a period where they denied
this, there were seven. Many companies have now stepped away from that. Companies like
Uber have said, we’re not going to use these kinds of tactics to silence accusers in sexual
abuse allegation cases. I think that we’re seeing more and more of
that for a reason. I’m a reporter, not an activist, but I certainly see why both legislatures
and private companies are reassessing the use of those tools, including NDAs. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ronan Farrow, the book, again,
is “Catch and Kill.” And we thank you very much for joining us. RONAN FARROW: Thank you, Judy. Always a pleasure. JUDY WOODRUFF: Detroit is home to an unusual
museum that draws on African history and customs, including a city block filled with installations
and sculptures. It also allows visitors hands-on experiences and is a stabilizing force in
the city. Special correspondent Mary Ellen Geist reports,
as part of our ongoing arts and culture series, Canvas. MARY ELLEN GEIST: Olayami Dabls is an artist
and the founder of Detroit’s MBAD African Bead Museum. OLAYAMI DABLS, Founder, MBAD African Bead
Museum: You have got to do some things for just the average person. I decided that I
would open up an African Bead Museum, specially learning that the beads embodied the culture
and the history of the people. And that’s something that was missing in the
history of Africans in this country. MARY ELLEN GEIST: The museum is located in
one of Detroit’s most distressed neighborhoods, and for two decades has provided something
else that was missing, stability. It has expanded to include a bead gallery
and 18 outdoor sculptures covering an entire city block. OLAYAMI DABLS: I decided to take the relationship
between Africans and Europeans over a 500-year period of time and put them in storylines. And, to my surprise, the community was elated
over this and said, oh, man, this is nice. The best indicator that we have been accepted
by the community, this place is out in the open. You can access it 24/7. Anyone can come.
If people wanted to destroy it, they could destroy it in one day, years of work. MARY ELLEN GEIST: Maurice Cox is the former
director of Detroit’s Planning and Development Department. MAURICE COX, Former Director, Detroit Planning
and Development Department: Artists have a very special superpower to take the ordinary
and turn it into something extraordinary. The area that Dabls adopted was an area that
was devastated and had gone through trauma. He found a way to tell that story, but also
to find some joy in the retelling of the story. MARY ELLEN GEIST: In telling the story of
his neighborhood, Dabls has inspired Detroit officials to rethink how to structure the
city’s recovery. MAURICE COX: He’s begun to show us how the
city can recover in increments. His Bead Museum is a building that, in one part, it’s completely
ornate and it’s been transformed. But then you go to another portion of it,
and the roof is caved in and it’s waiting for investment. He’s said, oh, OK, here’s
a way that you can incrementally go about stabilizing an area or a building that wasn’t. That’s a brand-new way of creating an institution.
That’s not normally how we do it. OLAYAMI DABLS: This is not a traditional museum.
This is a museum for exposure to connect with what’s inside of you. The community engages
with us on their own terms. MARY ELLEN GEIST: Dabls has continued to engage
the surrounding community by starting an internship program. Over time, the surrounding neighborhood
may change, but Dabls says the guiding principle behind his work and the MBAD African Bead
Museum will not. OLAYAMI DABLS: Just because a person is poor,
just because a person is homeless, just because a person doesn’t have anything, they still
can have an appreciation for art. MARY ELLEN GEIST: For the “PBS NewsHour,”
I’m Mary Ellen Geist in Detroit, Michigan. JUDY WOODRUFF: And finally tonight, for those
of you watching “NewsHour” in the Western part of the country, or after 9:00 p.m. in
the East and online, you may have noticed something different. We are thrilled to announce that tonight we
are launching “NewsHour West.” We realize the news doesn’t stop after we go off the
air, most nights at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. So we will be updating news headlines to better
serve our Western and late-night audiences. And I’m now joined by our correspondent anchor
Stephanie Sy, who is based at our bureau at the Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona
State University in Phoenix. Stephanie, you have been preparing for months.
Are you ready? STEPHANIE SY: We are absolutely ready and
so excited. Thank you so much, Judy. You might recognize my surroundings, by the
way, because this set was built to match your set. Starting tonight, we are offering an
updated version of the show for our viewers in the Western U.S. and for viewers online
or, if you’re on the East Coast and take the late-night feed, you as well. To be clear, we won’t be redoing the entire
show. We will be redoing the news summary, which will allow us to bring the most up-to-date
news to viewers in the Western time zone. As you said, Judy, often, news breaks after
you get off the air. Maybe a Cabinet secretary resigns or a wildfire gets out of control. So, myself, our senior producer here, Richard
Coolidge, and the rest of our team will be here to stay on top of those developments
and write bring the latest news where you have left off. It is something our West Coast and online
audiences have been wanting. And I think it really broadens “NewsHour”‘s reach and scope. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re also going to be
serving as a center for expanding our ability to report throughout the Western U.S. STEPHANIE SY: Yes, that’s right, Judy. Our bureau here in Phoenix is also going to
be serving as a reporting hub for this part of the country. So I and a field producer
will be going to cover both breaking news of national importance that comes up, as well
as feature stories. For example, there are a lot of unique challenges
in states in the Southwest, water shortages, land use issues, issues that are particular
to Native American communities. Then we have the political impact of a state
of Arizona, which has a crucial Senate race coming up in 2020, and has a changing demographic
that could make it highly significant politically in coming years. And then, of course, you have the giant out
West, California, which is becoming really, Judy, a laboratory for all kinds of progressive
legislation and is also, of course, with its raging wildfires, one of the front lines in
climate change. It’s a lot, and now we will be closer to those
stories. JUDY WOODRUFF: The “NewsHour” goes West, Stephanie
Sy, starting tonight. Thank you, Stephanie. And on the “NewsHour” online right now: Out
of 12 Nobel laureates honored for their work in the sciences this year, one was a woman,
and two were people of color. Why do the Nobel Prizes lack diversity? We
examine that question on our Web site, PBS.org/”NewsHour.” And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m
Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening.
For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank you, and we’ll see you soon.

PBS NewsHour full episode September 27, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: a pivotal week
for the presidency. The impeachment inquiry intensifies, as a
whistle-blower’s concerns are increasingly verified. Then: the road to influence. China’s Belt and Road Initiative builds infrastructure
around the world, but critics say the cost is more than money. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD, Malaysian Prime Minister:
When you start borrowing huge sums of money and asking foreign countries to develop, and
then you cannot pay, then, obviously, you’re going to lose that part of the country. JUDY WOODRUFF: And it’s Friday. Mark Shields and David Brooks are here to
analyze the breakneck fallout from the whistle-blower complaint and the opening salvos of the impeachment
inquiry against President Trump. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Congress is headed home for
a break tonight, leaving a White House besieged by impeachment revelations. The disclosures and President Trump’s denials
kept coming today, and the top Democrat in Congress kept up the pressure. White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor
begins our coverage. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: A historic week and, at
the end of it, both sides sounding off. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summed up the situation
from her point of view like this: REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The impeachment of a
president is as serious as our congressional responsibilities can be, apart from declaring
war or something. And so we have to be very prayerful and we
always have to put country before party. The clarity of the president’s actions is
compelling, and gave us no choice but to move forward. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: On Monday, President Trump
started the week in New York upbeat. He was looking forward to being on the world
stage at the U.N. General Assembly. But that visit was quickly upended, when news
broke of a whistle-blower complaint from the intelligence community against him. It focused on a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint alleged that President Trump
pressured Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival and former Vice President Joe Biden
and his son Hunter. And it accused the president of temporarily
withholding military aid to force Ukraine to look into the younger Biden’s business
dealings in Ukraine. The whistle-blower didn’t personally hear
the phone call, but said multiple officials relayed the facts. Reports say the whistle-blower is an unidentified
CIA officer. On Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi announced a formal
impeachment inquiry. She confirmed it would narrowly focus on that
call. REP. NANCY PELOSI: The president of the United
States used taxpayer dollars to shake down the leader of another country for his own
political gain. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Initially, White House officials
blocked release of a transcript the call, as well as the whistle-blower complaint itself. But, by Wednesday, after both the House and
Senate demanded the transcript, the White House gave in. It distributed a memo summarizing the call. It also sent the redacted whistle-blower complaint
to Congress. And, yesterday, the House Intelligence Committee
made the document public. Among the revelations, the whistle-blower
accuses President Trump of — quote — “using the power of his office to solicit interference
from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” The complaint also said senior White House
officials intervened to — quote — “lock down” all records of the Ukraine phone call. And it alleged that — quote — “This was
not the first time under this administration that a presidential transcript was placed
into this code word-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive
information.” Today, reports surfaced that unnamed White
House officials confirmed the attempt to lock down the Zelensky call. Minutes after the complaint was released on
Thursday, acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified before the House
Intelligence Committee. JOSEPH MAGUIRE, Acting Director of National
Intelligence: We consulted with the White House Counsel’s Office, and we were advised
that much of the information in the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege,
a privilege that I do not have the authority to waive. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Meanwhile, yesterday, during
a private event at the U.S. mission to the U.N., President Trump lashed out at the whistle-blower
and the whistle-blower’s sources. Bloomberg News published video from the event. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
That’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days,
when we were smart, right, with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently
than we do now. (LAUGHTER) YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Today, the president took
to Twitter, saying it’s — quote — “sounding more and more like the so-called whistle-blower
isn’t a whistle-blower at all.” Back in Washington, House Democrats are forging
ahead on their inquiry, even as they begin a two-week Columbus Day recess. REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): The president
of the United States is threatening a whistle-blower’s life. This is authoritarian behavior, and we have
to recognize and see it for what it is. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But Republicans, by and
large, are defending the president. REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): He had no firsthand knowledge,
wasn’t on the call, and the inspector general even told us that he had a bias against the
president. And yet we’re going to — the Democrats are
going to move ahead with impeachment after reading that transcript? It’s just ridiculous. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Speaker Pelosi said today
there is no timeline for the inquiry, but the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
Adam Schiff, said impeachment hearings could begin as early as next week. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Yamiche joins me now with
the latest. So, Yamiche, the Democrats getting more specific
about who they want to come testify from the Trump administration. What are you learning about who all may be
implicated in this? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The whistle-blower’s complaint
focuses on President Trump, but, like the Mueller report, it also outlines a number
of individuals that are either trying to mitigate President Trump’s alleged actions or trying
to help him. So I want to walk through some of the people
mentioned in the complaint. There’s Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal
lawyer. The whistle-blower calls him — quote — “a
central figure” in President Trump’s alleged effort to pressure Ukraine. He’s said to met in person with Ukrainian
officials. There’s also John Bolton. He’s the former national security adviser. He is implemented because the National Security
Council is being accused of trying to bury President Trump’s call with the president
of Ukraine in a computer system. There’s also Attorney General William Barr. He’s accused by the whistle-blower of being
involved in pressuring Ukraine. And Trump talks about Barr on the call with
president of Ukraine — the president of Ukraine. There’s also Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
because State Department officials are said to be on the call. And Rudy Giuliani also claims that the State
Department called him and asked him to get involved in — with Ukraine. And then, lastly, there’s Kurt Volker. He’s a U.S. special representative for Ukraine
negotiations. And Gordon Sondland, he’s the U.S. ambassador
to the European Union. Both of them are said to have given advice
to Ukraine, basically saying, here’s how you deal with President Trump’s actions. So there’s a lot of people involved here. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, you were just reporting
that Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, is talking about maybe
moving as quickly as next week. What are you learning about how the committee
is going to move forward? There’s so much to cover and they want to
move quickly. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Democrats have said that
they’re going to move quickly with this impeachment inquiry expeditiously, they have said. And they’re doing basically just that. The House Intelligence Committee is supposed
to be going back to — basically coming back into D.C. on Friday and — early next week,
at least — and having a hearing with the inspector general Michael Atkinson. He’s supposed to be testifying behind closed
doors about basically the handling of this call. Also, three House committees subpoenaed Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo for documents related to Ukraine. The House Intelligence Committee, the House
Oversight Committee and the House Foreign Relations Committee are saying, you have until
Friday to produce those documents. Also, NPR has surfaced an hat interview that
happened in March where Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said that if the House
voted to impeach President Trump, the Senate would have no choice but to hold a trial. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, so much going
on. This has been — I mean, every week is high
pressure at the White House. This one has been particularly so. How are they dealing with this? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The White House is in full
defense mode. And they’re really trying to help — trying
to get help from the Trump campaign with all of this. The president has been lashing out, but the
Trump campaign is going to be launching millions of dollars in ads, both on Facebook and social
media, but also in cable news outlets. And they’re going to be basically making the
case that the president is being unfairly targeted. The other thing to note is that there’s going
to be, in some ways, the spin that’s going to continue to go on from the White House. And that’s been in its — in their part, their
defense of the president. It’s also important to know that there are
300 former national security officials who released a letter. And I want to read part of that letter, because
all of this is going on as people are basically sounding the alarm. In that letter, they say: “We consider the
president’s actions to be a profound national security concern.” They also say: “There is no escaping that
what we know already is serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings.” So as the president is trying to essentially
launch his impeachment defense, you have people that are — that have worked for both Democrats
and Republicans who are pushing back on that. JUDY WOODRUFF: And those ads you mentioned,
the White House is saying they’re going to run — that’s going to start pretty quickly. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: It’s going to be the Trump
campaign running the ads. But, yes, it’s going to be pretty quickly. It’s starting this weekend. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yamiche Alcindor, so much to
keep track of. Thank you. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks so much. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Democrats
in the U.S. House of Representatives challenged President Trump on another front, the southern
border. They voted to end the national emergency declaration
that allows military funds be diverted from the military to building a border wall. The Republican-controlled Senate already approved
the resolution, but the president is expected to veto it. Congress wasn’t able to override a similar
veto last March. A federal judge in Los Angeles today blocked
the Trump administration’s new rules that could prevent indefinite detentions of migrant
children. The judge said that the rules violate the
standards set by the 1997 so-called Flores Settlement agreement. It barred indefinite detention. The administration is expected to appeal. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani says that
the United States offered to lift all sanctions in exchange for renegotiating the 2015 nuclear
deal. Rouhani returned to Tehran today after attending
the U.N. General Assembly in New York. He said European leaders there brought him
a message. HASSAN ROUHANI, Iranian President (through
translator): They said America was saying it would lift the sanctions. Another issue under discussion was which sanctions
would be lifted. The Americans had clearly stated that we would
lift the entire sanctions. JUDY WOODRUFF: Hours later, President Trump
claimed that Iran asked for sanctions relief in return for a meeting, but he tweeted — quote
— “I said, of course, no.” Meanwhile, Iran today released a British-flagged
tanker that it had detained in July. Iranian state TV showed the ship leaving port. It sailed to Dubai so that the crew could
disembark and undergo medical checks. The vessel was seized after British authorities
in Gibraltar stopped an Iranian oil tanker suspected of violating European sanctions. The British released that ship last month. In Afghanistan, millions of people are preparing
for tomorrow’s presidential election, despite Taliban threats of violence. In Kabul today, armed police were preemptively
deployed to polling stations. but potential voters were divided on whether
to risk the Taliban’s wrath. MALANG SHAH, Kabul (through translator): If,
like previous elections, fingers would be chopped off, no security, I personally will
not go to vote. ABDULLAH RAMAZANI, Kabul (through translator):
At any cost, we will go to vote and elect our leader. We support the Afghan security forces ensuring
our security. JUDY WOODRUFF: President Ashraf Ghani is seeking
reelection to a second term. His chief executive, Abdullah Abdullah, is
his main rival. Security forces in Egypt moved today to prevent
new mass protests against President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. Popular demonstrations in recent days targeted
poor living conditions and corruption. Police vehicles took up positions all over
central Cairo today. There were still scattered protests, but El-Sisi
dismissed them and the claims of corruption. ABDEL FATTAH EL-SISI, Egyptian President (through
translator): This is an image being painted as was done before, comprised of lies and
defamation, and some media working to present an image that isn’t true. We’re really strong. The country is really strong, so don’t worry
about anything. JUDY WOODRUFF: Egyptian authorities have carried
out mass arrests in recent days. Human rights monitors say that at least 1,
900 people have been detained. Hundreds of thousands of young people marched
in cities worldwide today in a second wave of worldwide climate protests. The rallies began in New Zealand, where demonstrators
crowded filled streets outside the Parliament in Auckland. Elsewhere, there were about 180 protests in
Italy alone, with more than 10,000 people marching in Rome. Back in this country, federal immigration
judges accused the U.S. Justice Department of unfair labor practices. A union representing the more than 400 judges
alleged that a racist, anti-immigration blog post appeared in a briefing. The union also said judges are sinking under
huge caseloads and that the department is challenging their right to have a union. President Trump tonight has signed a spending
bill to keep the federal government open. It will fund federal agencies through November
21. It gives lawmakers more time to negotiate
money for points of disagreement, like funds for Mr. Trump’s border wall. And on Wall Street, stocks finished the week
on a down note. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 70 points
to close at 26820. The Nasdaq fell 91 points, and the S&P 500
was down 15. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: building
the future — Chinese construction and the global balance of power; 2020 Democratic hopefuls
vie for the crucial support of black voters in South Carolina; Mark Shields and David
Brooks break down a week that may be destined for the history books; and Judy Garland back
on screen — a new film depicts the last year in the life of the Hollywood legend. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is the most
expensive infrastructure project in history. Chinese companies are building roads, pipelines,
and railroads around the world. But the initiative is also building China’s
influence. With the support of the Pulitzer Center, Nick
Schifrin has the second installment in our series “China: Power & Prosperity.” He begins this report in Indonesia, a recipient
of Belt and Road investments. NICK SCHIFRIN: In the middle of West Java,
Indonesia, fishermen drop nets from bamboo poles, and a tea plantation fills rolling
hills that lead to a major highway and Indonesia’s fourth largest city. Here on the outskirts of Bandung, the commuter
train is old and slow. But now, cutting through the hills that lead
to Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta, there’s a tunnel for a high-speed train, and the engineers
and managers who lead this $6 billion project are Chinese. They construct railway that will carry the
fastest train in Southern Asia, able to travel 215 miles an hour. Xiao Songxin leads the consortium of Indonesian
and Chinese companies building the railroad. XIAO SONGXIN, High-Speed Railroad Contractors
Consortium (through translator): The two countries’ companies can complement each other, support
each other, and develop together. It’s fundamentally a win-win project. NICK SCHIFRIN: Two thousand years ago, the
ancient Silk Road helped China spread goods, ideas and culture all the way to Europe. Today, China aspires to recreate a maritime
Silk Road of ports and an economic belt of roads, in the orange, and railways, in the
red, including the high-speed route from Bandung to Jakarta, where, in 2013, President Xi Jinping
debuted the Belt and Road Initiative as a signature foreign policy. XI JINPING, Chinese President (through translator):
Only with high ambition and hard work can one make great achievements. We have the confidence, conditions and capabilities
to obtain our goals. NICK SCHIFRIN: For Indonesia, the goal is
to collaborate with China on Belt and Road projects to lift millions of its citizens
out of poverty. At this construction yard, many lower-skilled
Indonesians, in the yellow hats, have been trained by Chinese workers in the white hats. Belt and Road projects create jobs and spark
development, says Indonesian minister Luhut Pandjaitan. LUHUT BINSAR PANDJAITAN, Indonesian Minister
for Maritime Affairs: This benefit us very much, you know, because we are going to have
also like new cities, suburbs, so then we can spread out people to the area. NICK SCHIFRIN: With new industry, new employment,
new production? LUHUT BINSAR PANDJAITAN: Yes. Yes, indeed. NICK SCHIFRIN: Indonesia needs improved infrastructure. Right now, the road from Jakarta to Bandung
weaves through the edges of forests, where constant traffic means the 90-mile trip takes
five hours. On the railroad been built over the next three
years, the trip will take 45 minutes. Luhut dreams of Indonesians traveling like
the Chinese. LUHUT BINSAR PANDJAITAN: I experienced that
when I was in Beijing. I went from Beijing to what name of the city
only one hour by speed train, very comfortable. NICK SCHIFRIN: Like the train we rode from
Hong Kong to the city of Shenzhen on the Chinese mainland. Welcome to China. In 20 years, China has gone from no high-speed
rail to the longest high-speed rail network in the world, thanks to state-owned enterprises,
the rails, the electricity, the telecommunications all produced by majority state-owned enterprises. And much of the steel comes from companies
like the majority state-owned Baosteel. The company is now so large, it has its own
ports, four of them, on the outskirts of Shanghai. Baosteel Group makes as much steel as the
entire U.S. It’s actually too much. Excess Chinese steel capacity weighs down
the economy. The Belt and Road Initiative gives Baosteel
new markets. Huang Weiliang directs Baosteel’s strategic
planning and technology. HUANG WEILIANG, Baosteel (through translator):
For the steel industry, the Belt and Road Initiative will generate direct demand for
steel products. With the economic development in those Belt
and Road countries, their people’s living standards will improve, and thus the demands
for durable consumer goods will increase. NICK SCHIFRIN: And China says the Belt and
Road Initiative also improves Chinese living standards by connecting rural, previously
unconnected areas, such as this site in Sichuan province. The government argues more rail access produces
prosperity and stability. XIAO WEIMING, Director General, National Development
and Reform Commission (through translator): We encourage Chinese companies to go out of
China to enhance their production capability. In return, we can use the increased government
revenue to improve the income level of some poor areas. This is important. NICK SCHIFRIN: Xiao Weiming leads the office
in the Chinese Ministry that oversees the Belt and Road Initiative. He describes the initiative as helping China
to develop internally and expand externally. XIAO WEIMING (through translator): China has
entered a new era. The Belt and Road Initiative is the banner
of China’s new round of reform and opening up, as well as a general plan of economic
cooperation with foreign countries. NICK SCHIFRIN: But, for some countries, that
cooperation led to a loss of control. In Kuantan, Malaysia, a state-owned Chinese
developer was building this industrial park and port. But the construction is frozen, stopped by
an unlikely critic. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD, Malaysian Prime Minister:
China is a big power now. And big powers normally want to expand their
influence. NICK SCHIFRIN: Mahathir Mohamad served as
Malaysian prime minister from 1981 to 2003. He used to describe the U.S. as the colonizer. But last year, at the age of 92, he came out
of retirement and was reelected. His opponent was accused of siphoning off
Chinese money connected to Belt and Road contracts. Mahathir called China the new colonizer and
Belt and Road projects predatory. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: Everything is imported,
mostly from China. Workers were from China. All of the parts and the materials were from
China. And the payment for the contracts were also
to be made in China. That means that Malaysia doesn’t get any benefit
at all. NICK SCHIFRIN: The original contracts called
for Chinese-built ports, Chinese-built pipelines, a $20 billion Chinese-built rail link, and
the Melaka Gateway, a Chinese-financed development project on the Melaka Strait, through which
almost all Chinese oil flows. Mahathir accused the Chinese of taking advantage
of a corrupt government. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: The whole thing was
done in a hurry by the previous government without due regard for the interests of Malaysia. NICK SCHIFRIN: In Belt and Road deals, countries
can lose sovereignty and China can gain assets. Sri Lanka had to hand over a port when it
couldn’t afford debt payments to a Chinese bank. To build this Belt and Road railroad with
Chinese loans, Kenya agreed to apply Chinese law inside Kenya and give up East Africa’s
largest port if it couldn’t repay its debts. And to pay for South America’s largest dam,
Ecuador is selling 80 percent of its most valuable asset, oil, to China at a discount. Mahathir says he too feared that loss of control. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: When you start borrowing
huge sums of money and asking foreign countries to develop, and then you cannot pay, then,
obviously you’re going to lose that part of the country. NICK SCHIFRIN: That warning has been echoed
by the U.S.’ most senior officials. MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States:
We don’t drown our partners in a sea of debt. We don’t coerce or compromise your independence. The United States deals openly, fairly. We do not offer a constricting belt or a one-way
road. NICK SCHIFRIN: The U.S. argues, China’s version
of Belt and Road fosters corruption. The state-owned China Communications Construction
Company alone has been accused of bribery across four countries. The U.S. also warns, China’s ports could one
day host Chinese warships. Last year, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
warned that could lead to a Chinese empire. MIKE POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State: When
China shows up with bribes to senior leaders in countries, in exchange for infrastructure
projects, then this idea of a treasury-run empire build is something that I think would
be bad for each of those countries, and certainly presents risk to American interests. NICK SCHIFRIN: The United States government
describes the Belt and Road Initiative as a way for Chinese to exert control and to
increase Chinese power around the world. XIAO WEIMING (through translator): We Chinese
do not have what you call ambition or a grand vision to change the world order. We only want to promote more economic cooperation. NICK SCHIFRIN: What’s your response to that
criticism, that the Belt and Road Initiative contracts are debt traps and aren’t transparent? XIAO WEIMING (through translator): Chinese
companies won the bidding, and other foreign companies didn’t win. And the reason is simple. Foreign companies and workers are not as hardworking
as the Chinese. NICK SCHIFRIN: But don’t those Chinese companies
get advantages, not because they are just hard workers, but because they are protected
by the Chinese state? XIAO WEIMING (through translator): I cannot
say it’s the Chinese government’s support. China’s financial institutions will provide
financing only if they deem the projects are profitable. We do not make investments blindly. We Chinese are not stupid. NICK SCHIFRIN: And some of the countries with
Belt and Road investments say they’re not stupid either. Malaysia renegotiated with China, and, in
late July, the construction of the rail link restarted, in a joint Malaysian-Chinese ceremony. China agreed to reduce the price tag for construction
by 30 percent and allow more Malaysian workers. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: They are willing to
listen to our views, and, in the end, they accommodated our problems. NICK SCHIFRIN: U.S. officials say they’re
trying to develop an alternative. The leaders of a new $60 billion agency that
will launch next month have been visiting countries where China is investing. The U.S. is pitching public-private deals
to counter Belt and Road investments. And the U.S. advocates Japanese investment
as an alternative. Japan built Jakarta’s local subway. But the Chinese deals are better, Indonesian
Minister Luhut told the Japanese. LUHUT BINSAR PANDJAITAN: I said to them, OK,
look, your term on the previous project, I think too tight for us. The Chinese offer us now the term much better. NICK SCHIFRIN: And countries who receive Belt
and Road investment say the Trump administration is difficult to deal with compared to the
Chinese. They have got this Belt and Road Initiative. Does the United States offer anything like
that? LUHUT BINSAR PANDJAITAN: Never. To reach Washington is very hard. We don’t know to whom to talk. In China, we have so many people over there. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: The U.S. approach is
always with a big stick and very little carrot. This has not happened with the Chinese. That’s not the Chinese way. NICK SCHIFRIN: But the Chinese way is to increase
its presence and find allies all over the world to increase influence. The Belt and Road Initiative is the engine
to power that expansion, and it’s full-speed ahead. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin
in Bandung, Indonesia. South Carolina JUDY WOODRUFF: South Carolina’s primary is
an early and critical test of support from black voters. That is why Democratic presidential candidates
have already held more than 400 events in the Palmetto State. Yamiche Alcindor is back to report on how
the 2020 hopefuls still have a lot of voters to win over. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In North Charleston, South
Carolina, Royal Missionary Baptist Church has seen its fair share of presidential candidates. REV. ISAAC HOLT, Royal Missionary Baptist Church:
Some people say we need a change in the nation’s highest office. Amen. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Reverend Isaac Holt isn’t
making any endorsements. He believes the best way to help his members
decide who to support is to give them options. REV. ISAAC HOLT: Let’s receive sister Kamala Harris. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: So, he’s welcoming the candidates
to show up in person and speak to his more than 3,000 parishioners. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), Presidential Candidate:
Good morning. Good morning, Royal. Good morning. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Today, California Senator
Kamala Harris is taking a turn. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Yes, we must love thy neighbor,
but let’s define and be clear about who is our neighbor. Our neighbor is not just the person that lives
next door. We learn and know everybody is our neighbor,
including that man by the side of the road who may be afflicted, who may have been rejected. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Black voters, like those
at church this morning, made up more than 60 percent of the South Carolina Democratic
primary electorate in 2016. That means the path to the presidential nomination
runs straight through communities like this one. But Harris is still struggling to break through
here. She’s stuck in single digits in recent polls. She trails former Vice President Joe Biden,
as well as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But she is ahead of South Bend, Indiana, Mayor
Pete Buttigieg and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. What do you make of the fact that there are
two white male candidates, both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who have more support
in the African-American community? SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: A lot of it has to do with
the fact that they are known, and we are still introducing ourselves. And there is still a long way to go in this
campaign to be able to do that. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: For a number of the senator’s
Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority sisters, many sitting in the front row of church, the candidate
showing up here is an important step. LORETTA JENKINS SUMTER, South Carolina: You
need to start grassroots. And I think her infusion into the community
like this is the best way to go. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But she has some work to
do here? LORETTA JENKINS SUMTER: She has some work
to do. She needs to interface more, be it in this
community, the African-American community, the Hispanic community, wherever. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The South Carolina primary
is just five months away. That gives candidates precious little time
to make in-roads with the biggest voting bloc in the Democratic Party here. Coming to a historically black community like
Liberty Hill in North Charleston is a prime opportunity. After the Civil War, freed African-Americans
founded this neighborhood. Today, it’s holding its first annual reunion. Hester McFadden helped plan the celebration. HESTER MCFADDEN, South Carolina: We thought
it was necessary to bring together folks so that they could learn about the history of
this community. All too often in this country, a lot of the
African-American communities are fading away, for whatever reasons, gentrification and for
a lot of other reasons. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In this neighborhood, politics
and fellowship are intertwined. SHAMEKIA DESAUSSURE, South Carolina: You got
like 20 candidates running at this point. To read up on 20 different people, that’s
too many people at this point. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Tell me a little bit about
who you’re thinking you like for the 2020 election? TERRY HART, South Carolina: I like Biden. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Why? TERRY HART: I like Biden because I think he
will still have a lot of what Obama did. THOMAS ALSTOM, South Carolina: I’m hoping
Elizabeth Warren actually succeeds in her bid for the nomination. You know, actually, I like quite a few of
them. I think we have got a great team. Biden is all right, but I think Biden and
Bernie are a little past the lifespan, you know? Cory Booker, he’s — you know, I mean, he’s
pretty good. SHAMEKIA DESAUSSURE: Talking about Harris,
so, I — I’m just not connecting with her at all. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Some black voters said they
don’t trust Harris because of her background as a prosecutor. SHAMEKIA DESAUSSURE: What I have read so far
about her, they were saying that she was kind of harsh on African-Americans, especially
on drug charges and things like that. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: So how is she trying to
change this perception? SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Look, first of all, let’s just
back up, because here’s the thing. I am the only one on the stage who decided
to jump in the fire at a very young age in my life and do what I could to reform the
system from the inside. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Hester and her daughter
Stephanie represent a generational divide that is showing up in polls. Like most older black voters, Hester is strongly
in the Joe Biden camp. She likes his connection to former President
Barack Obama. Stephanie likes Biden, but she also likes
Sanders, and her mind isn’t quite made up yet. There are times when African-Americans are
given this message of criminal justice: I want to come to your church and talk about
these other things. Is there pandering that you worry about? STEPHANIE MCFADDEN, South Carolina: Absolutely. HESTER MCFADDEN: Yes, most definitely. STEPHANIE MCFADDEN: We don’t need a candidate
to play on our emotions. We just want someone to get the job done. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: As African-American women,
what are your concerns when you think about your race and your gender? HESTER MCFADDEN: I’m concerned about equity
in the job market and housing, and to make sure that our children are not straddled with
debt. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Hester McFadden thinks the
still-crowded Democratic field could learn from her reunion. HESTER MCFADDEN: The candidates need to sit
down and say, look, let’s — let’s work together collectively. Let’s work together as a united front. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Meanwhile, Liberty Hill
has already started thinking about its next reunion in 2021. That one won’t be overshadowed by presidential
politics. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Yamiche Alcindor
in North Charleston, South Carolina. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now back in Washington,
fallout from the whistle-blower’s complaint, as the formal impeachment inquiry picks up
steam. And to help analyze this historic week, I’m
joined by Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields
and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Hello to both of you. So much going on this week, but I think we
know where to start. And that is — David, looking back at this
conversation that took place in July between President Trump, the president of Ukraine,
the White House continues to say this is perfectly appropriate, the president said perfect, conversation
with the leader of another country. Democrats are saying it was a violation of
his oath, an impeachable offense. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I’m a little mystified. I think they’re sincere. They thought it was exculpatory. But I don’t see how they could actually think
that. I mean, the crucial thing to do with that
transcript is to look at the logic chain of the thing. So Trump says, we have been very generous
to you. You haven’t always been generous to us. We have been more generous than the others. And then — then that follows with, well,
maybe you can do us a favor. And that favor is to investigate the Bidens. So when you just break down the logic chain,
it’s a very clear, we did this for you, you owe us, here’s what you can do for us. And that is — it’s not an explicit quid pro
quo, but it comes pretty close, I think. JUDY WOODRUFF: Are there shades of questions
here about what happened in that conversation, Mark, or is it clear-cut for you? MARK SHIELDS: It’s clear-cut, Judy. I mean, what it puts to rest is the lie about
the confidence of the Trump campaign: We’re leading in all polls. We’re ahead. He was so terrified, so intimidated, the president
of the United States got on the phone with the leader of Ukraine to get dirt on the one
Democrat who in every major poll was beating him and that candidate’s son. I mean, this shows the terror, the intimidation. And the false bravado is just totally exposed. And it is — David — I think David was more
than kind. It is totally explicit. This is a country, Judy, that has a smaller
army than that of Sri Lanka. I mean, it’s sitting on the doorstep of Russia,
that has shown nothing but imperial totalitarian impulses toward it, translated into physical
action. It’s got an economy smaller than that of El
Salvador. And we’re holding $451 million? And the president of the United States — it’s
a supplicant, mendicant. It’s the boss to the lowest employee. I mean, the power is totally disproportionate. And anybody has to acknowledge that who sees
it. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, David, you still have
Republicans, though, saying, highly appropriate for the United States to be saying to the
leader of Ukraine, we want you to clean up corruption in your country, that that was
what… (CROSSTALK) DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, that is appropriate, I suppose, to say. But the Republicans are not going to break
on this. And that’s, I think, when — as we look at
impeachment — I vaguely remember Watergate. I was young. But I remember a sense of gravity, a sense
that we’re stepping outside our party lines. At least some people did that, Sam Ervin,
other people, Howard Baker. And we’re going to weigh the evidence. And this is so serious, we can’t just play
normal politics. That’s not going to happen this time. To me, this is already feeling like very normal
politics, where the Democrats are going to be all here and the Republicans will be all
here, and the idea of stepping outside your partisan affiliation for the sake of the truth,
that’s just not the way the game is played anymore. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I want to ask you both
about the role that the whistle-blower played in all this. We learned several days ago that this is someone
in the intelligence community, in the last few days, Mark, reporting, that it’s an analyst
at the CIA. We don’t have the name. In fact, we’re not supposed to have the name. This person is supposed to be — identity
is supposed to be protected. But the president is calling this individual
a spy, in effect, saying, this is somebody who’s disloyal to the country. MARK SHIELDS: Last week, the president branded
the person a partisan hack, you will recall. It’s gone now to treachery. I mean, the person who did it, Judy, assuming
that it’s a person of rational — and I think it’s an intelligent and comprehensive and
well-written complaint — had to know what he or she was putting at risk, in the hothouse
in which we live here in Washington, that the identity will eventually be made public. And I think it can only be revealed and described
as act of great — of great courage to do so. JUDY WOODRUFF: And pulling in, David, a number
of other administration officials, which is what’s launching the congressional… DAVID BROOKS: Yes. That was the big thing I took away from the
report, that it was — it’s bigger than just one phone call. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. DAVID BROOKS: It’s partly the cover-up, but
he said it was over a series of months. There’s a lot of people who were in a panic
about this. And so it’s not just that one phone call,
and then he heard about it. But there was a process. There were people who were freaked out about
it. And so there’s a little more here than just
one person who’s going to be involved in this. MARK SHIELDS: David’s right, Judy, that he
laid out a blueprint. That’s what the letter does and the statement
does. It’s a blueprint to pursue investigation,
to interview and expand. JUDY WOODRUFF: And the fact that this person,
what, spent four months, collected — talked to a number of different people. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Didn’t just rashly set this
— set this out there and throw it out. MARK SHIELDS: No. JUDY WOODRUFF: But the question then comes
down to is, David, the impeachment inquiry. The House is doubling down. We had Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House
Intelligence, on the program last night, saying, this is more serious than the Mueller report,
which they spent months and months considering. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. It’s certainly narratively cleaner. You can understand it, where Russia was much
more complicated. And, to me, the decision to do impeachment
is a mistake. They — I do agree Trump did something impeachable,
but this is a political process, not a legal process. There’s no obligation to prosecute. And, to me, it’s a mistake for a couple reasons. If your object is to get Donald Trump out
of the White House, impeachment doesn’t get you there, because the chance that you will
get 20 senators, 20 Republican senators, to vote to vote Donald Trump out of office seems
to me so remote, it’s minuscule. So the likely outcome of this is that Donald
Trump will say, see, I was acquitted in the Senate. I’m vindicated. I beat these people. And so he will get a little victory. And then both parties will go into revolt. And so that’s the way it likely looks to end
up. In the meantime, you’re trampling over your
Democratic primary season. You’re not having the debate the voters want,
which is about climate change and health care and jobs and stuff like that. You’re focusing all the attention on the Democratic
side, or the bulk of it, to the Congress, not to the presidential candidates. And, to me, so what Pelosi has done, I think,
here is taken a decision that has a very low chance of succeeding, to get him out of office,
but has huge risks in ways we can’t even imagine. And so I’m a little nervous about where impeachment
is going to get us. JUDY WOODRUFF: You think the Democrats are
doing the right thing, or not? MARK SHIELDS: The Democrats are doing the
only thing they can do. I mean, what this president has done is not
outrageous. It’s not indefensible. It’s criminal. And that’s what he’s done. He has totally abdicated, abrogated and corrupted
his oath of office. So when it comes to making this decision,
I think the preeminent national American political leader of the 21st century is the speaker
of the House, more so than any president. She single-handedly passed the Affordable
Care Act. She is the one major figure in the national
firmament of any presidential candidate who opposed the folly and the debacle and the
tragedy of the war in Iraq. She put at risk her majority to pass the Affordable
Care Act, covering 17 million Americans, two million of whom have lost their coverage as
a result of Donald Trump’s policies in the last year alone. And she knew she was losing the majority. And she came back. She has not — she has avoided the rush to
join the pound-of-flesh club, let’s get — get him for double-parking outside an orphanage
on the Capitol — on Christmas Eve. This is just too serious. You can’t turn your back on it. I agree with David it may not be politically
good timing, expedient. It would be an act of total irresponsibility
not to act when you have the evidence given to the Democrats. JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you… DAVID BROOKS: Yes, there’s this thing called
the ethical responsibility. What’s the actual outcome of the decision? And maybe she couldn’t act, but she said,
I will not do impeachment unless there’s a bipartisan upswell of support for this. And there’s not that. And that will never happen right now. And so I think she was — she was forced into
it by the pressure in her own party, their own caucus. But the House is not the central question
here. The Senate is the central question here. And it’s the Senate that’s going to give Trump
this victory. And, in the meantime, I just think she’s given
Trump the fight he wants, which is the fight against the congressional Democrats, not about
policy, not about things that actually affect people’s lives, but just a personality, reality
TV role with inside the Beltway. And, to me, that’s the fight he wants. I don’t know where it’ll go. It’ll spin wildly out of control over the
next several months. But it’s — to me, it’s not — the ethical
responsibility is, what can I do to get Donald Trump out of the White House? And this is not the right path, in my view. MARK SHIELDS: I would say this, Judy, that,
unlike David and perhaps Secretary Clinton, I do not believe people on the other side
are irredeemable. I really do believe that, when confronted
with the evidence and the reality, and that this — we have seen just the beginning. This is the tip of the camel’s nose that we
have seen. I think… JUDY WOODRUFF: You means in terms of… MARK SHIELDS: Of what’s gone on. And I think, when people come and are under
oath and are sworn to testify, I think we will find more. And I think Republicans, at the core, are
Americans before they’re Republicans. And, yes, there’s a herd mentality and a silo
attitude right now, but I do think that, when the — when the evidence becomes overwhelming,
which I think it will be, I think they will act. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you think, David? If not an impeachment inquiry, what should
the — what should Democrats do? DAVID BROOKS: Well, they could have censured
him and then say, let’s have an election. We’re in an election year. Let’s have an election about this. And then they can investigate and lay before
the American people everything that’s happened. I think the inquiry is totally fine. But let’s not have this process swallow up
an election year. We have elections for a reason. We happen to be in the middle one. And let’s do that. And I think this election was a — it’s a
good moment for the Democratic Party. It’s an exciting election, a lot of ideas. And to overshadow that, to me, a lot of people
are going to take a look at this and say, well, we could have settled this with 100
million voters around the country or 100 millionaires in the Senate. Who should have the power here? MARK SHIELDS: He — this is question, Judy,
of, he is asking, if not demanding and coercing, an ally, a subservient ally, let’s be very
frank about it — I mean, in the relationship between the United States and Ukraine, Ukraine
is subservient to the United States on — in all candor. He’s asking them to interfere in an American
election, to spill dirt on an opponent. I mean, we can’t have that. I mean, we can’t pretend that that’s tolerable
at all and, oh, we will just wait until the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. It’s — I’m sorry. It’s just too grave. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is there — is there something,
David, that would make an impeachment inquiry the right thing to do, or is it — I mean,
is there anything this president can do? (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, are you saying there’s
nothing that… DAVID BROOKS: No, I’m not saying that. But I agree with Mark on the severity of what
he did. I’m not saying that he — I think he did an
impeachable offense. I’m just saying, look at our context. And our context is, we’re in the middle of
an election year. And we should not walk down a path that will
lead ultimately to failure in 99 percent. I really do not think — and Mark and I may
disagree on this — that the Republican senators who hung with Donald Trump through Charlottesville,
through three years of moral turpitude, of 1,000 outrages which we speak about on every
Friday, I just don’t think they’re going to break with him. And I don’t think the Republican voters are
going to break with him. They will find some way. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Mark, what about that? MARK SHIELDS: I guess I have more confidence
in the Republicans than David does. But I’d say — and I don’t argue. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Mark — but let me just… MARK SHIELDS: This is totally disruptive. I mean, it’s totally disruptive to the process. David’s right. It totally intrudes and puts everything else
aside. But I will say this. If you’re picking sides in the Democrats,
you want the Intelligence Committee. You want it to be Adam Schiff against Devin
Nunes. I mean, that’s a mismatch in talent. JUDY WOODRUFF: And in just five seconds, you’re
saying it’s worth it to go through with this even if the Senate does not vote to convict? You’re saying it’s worth it? MARK SHIELDS: Yes, it is. I mean, we have — we cannot sit here and
pretend that this didn’t happen and that it’s not serious, what this president has done. And it should be disqualifying. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, David Brooks,
thank you. We are still months away from awards season
in Hollywood, but one film already getting buzz. It’s “Judy,” a biography about legendary actress
Judy Garland. From the recent Toronto International Film
Festival, Jeffrey Brown takes a look at the movie and its star, as part of our Canvas
series on arts and culture. JEFFREY BROWN: In the new film “Judy,” we
meet one of the 20th century’s greatest entertainers in freefall near the end of her life. RENEE ZELLWEGER, Actress: I can’t. ACTRESS: You will be fine. JEFFREY BROWN: It’s a study of Hollywood both
magic and tragic, the girl who is forever Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz,” the woman who
dazzled with her singing and screen performances, the great Judy Garland, played by Renee Zellweger. RENEE ZELLWEGER: It’s impossible not to appreciate
just how truly extraordinary she was. JEFFREY BROWN: What did she have? And what did you see in her? RENEE ZELLWEGER: Hope, joy, tenacity, and
just raw, God-given talent. Her ability to transcend. She gets inside a song. She breaks it apart. She lives and feels the content of whatever
it is that’s speaking to human emotion. And every person who sees her feels that she’s
singing to me. JEFFREY BROWN: Rupert Goold directed the new
film. He’s best known for his work in London theater. RUPERT GOOLD, Director, “Judy”: I spent my
life in rehearsal rooms, and had the privilege of being incredibly close to all sorts of
actors and singers. And I was just really interested in trying
to capture what it is to perform, sort of intuitively in the body, emotionally, psychologically. And Garland was, like, an incredible performer. And in some senses, this film is a study of
what that means and the cost of that. JEFFREY BROWN: The film shows flashbacks to
the teenaged Frances Gumm, her given name, from a small town in Minnesota, as she becomes
the national darling Judy Garland, part of the star-making MGM Studio machine, groomed
for fame, but fed pills to stay slim, others to stay awake for grueling 18-hour shoots,
still others to sleep. RUPERT GOOLD: Judy Garland literally grew
up on camera. She was the first person who had that experience. Her entire life was in the public eye. And she was incubated by the studio, and I’m
sure that had lots of triumphs and joys in that. But there was also a lot of very punishing,
difficult times for her, particularly in her youth. JEFFREY BROWN: But the real focus here is
much later, in 1969, the final year of her life, when, all but broke, homeless, and unemployable
in Hollywood, Garland took on a series of stage performances in a London nightclub. Zellweger says that, while much has changed
in the film world, she found ways to connect. RENEE ZELLWEGER: Well, I probably understand
a little bit of it, from personal experience. There’s an awareness among most people in
our business that we’re lucky to be doing what we’re doing. So there’s a certain level of gratitude that
then translates into a sense of responsibility, that you want to hold up your end of the deal. And for someone like Judy, for example, who
was made to feel constantly that she was lucky, and — but lucky and replaceable, and that
there’s a million girls who can take your place, what wouldn’t you do in order to hold
onto your place, when this is your joy? JEFFREY BROWN: You have to make a decision
about how to play her, right, an iconic person. Do you end up coming to feel that you are
impersonating her, playing her? RENEE ZELLWEGER: Oh, I hope not. JEFFREY BROWN: No? RENEE ZELLWEGER: I hope not. No, it felt — I don’t know. It just felt — I just wanted to express what
it was I was feeling. It was a search for finding that moment, that
opportunity to tell that point of that emotional experience, and a celebration. RUPERT GOOLD: It was funny. I remember, in the early part of the shoot,
we talked about whether we’d refer to Judy or Renee in between takes or in filming. JEFFREY BROWN: Oh, really? RUPERT GOOLD: And I think, as it went on,
which often happens, I think, with actors in a role, it just becomes a she. She’s this, she’s that. And the she, of course, is Judy Garland, but,
of course, it’s also what we’re doing on the day in the performance. And the she becomes sort of like a dream state,
which, hopefully, if you have done the work beforehand, that there is enough Judy in there. JEFFREY BROWN: Oh, goodness. Were you in this dream state, too? Judy, Renee, Judy, Renee, Renee, Judy? RENEE ZELLWEGER: Hopefully not cognizant of
what’s happening in the moment, in the surroundings, but trying to stay connected to whatever it
was that we had collected and discussed and, again, conjured, bring this energy, bring
this emotion, bring this moment in the telling of her story. JEFFREY BROWN: Some of the interest in this
film, too, is seeing Zellweger herself, now 50, return to the screen. A star since her 20s in films like “Jerry
Maguire,” “Maguire,” “Chicago,” “Bridget Jones,” and “Cold Mountain,” for which she won an
Oscar for best supporting actress, she stepped away from the movies for six years, and has
spoken openly of the emotional stress and depression she battled. Part of it, she told me in Toronto, was her
own Hollywood bubble, estranged from life itself. RENEE ZELLWEGER: And I’d learned about this
process. But I don’t think that you can authentically
tell stories when you don’t have authentic exchanges with people. And most of my exchanges were as a different
character, or talking about the character that I had played. So, you know, where’s home, and who are your
friends, and what do you like to do now, and why don’t you learn something new, and why
don’t you grow as a person? It just seemed essential to me, or I was boring
myself. You know, kill, I would hear myself speaking
the lines. That’s no good. JEFFREY BROWN: “Judy,” one of today’s stars
taking on one of the greatest ever, is quite a comeback performance. And Zellweger did her own singing and dancing. RENEE ZELLWEGER: That’s his fault. (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: That’s his fault? RUPERT GOOLD: I wasn’t the one singing. (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: What do you mean? He made you do it? Yes? RENEE ZELLWEGER: Well, I didn’t show up going,
hey, guys, I have a good idea. (LAUGHTER) RUPERT GOOLD: She’s a great singer. JEFFREY BROWN: But you went for it, huh? RUPERT GOOLD: And then some. RENEE ZELLWEGER: You won’t forget me, will
you? Promise you won’t. JEFFREY BROWN: Judy Garland was just 47 when
she died. The new film “Judy” opens this weekend. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown
at the Toronto International Film Festival. JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s got to be quite a film. And on the “NewsHour” online: Medicare for
all has become a central tenet of some Democrats’ presidential campaigns. But 40 percent of U.S. adults say they still
do not know enough about the insurance proposal to offer an opinion on it. That is according to a survey from the Commonwealth
Fund released yesterday. We take a look at where Americans stand on
health care ahead of the 2020 election. All that and more is on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. Our China series continues on tomorrow’s edition
of “PBS NewsHour Weekend.” Nick Schifrin and special correspondent Katrina
Yu examine the trade war and the winners and losers on both sides. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Have a great weekend. Thank you, and good night.

PBS NewsHour full episode October 4, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: The president’s
push for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens comes into sharper focus. We report on the ground there on what’s borne
out with evidence and what’s not. Then: As our special series on China continues,
we look at how Beijing has forced one million Uyghur Muslims into detention camps, tearing
families apart. GULBAHAR JALILOVA, Former Detainee (through
translator): I’m drinking tea. I’m eating bread. But those helpless people are desperate. They don’t have enough to eat. I see them all in front of me, as if I were
still in the camp myself. JUDY WOODRUFF: And it’s Friday. Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru are here to
analyze the swirling impeachment investigation and the money race for the Democrats running
for president. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: From President Trump today,
new denials that he abused his power. And, at the same time, a new trove of text
messages adds fuel to the impeachment inquiry fire. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins
begins our coverage. LISA DESJARDINS: On the White House lawn,
President Trump started the day with a lengthy, freewheeling defense of his actions, including
asking other countries to investigate the Biden family. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
This is not about politics. This is about corruption. And if you look and you read our Constitution
and many other things, we I have an obligation to look at corruption. I have an actual obligation and a duty. LISA DESJARDINS: This as, at the Capitol,
House lawmakers held a closed-door hearing with the intelligence watchdog, inspector
general Michael Atkinson, who first flagged a whistle-blower’s concerns about the president. But dominating the day was new information,
pages of recent text messages between Trump administration officials. Some see them as proof the president was pressuring
Ukraine for political reasons. Others disagree. The messages indicate the president’s personal
attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was helping craft Ukraine policy and pushing for investigations
in return for a White House visit. That made some other officials uncomfortable. To understand these text messages, first a
look at those writing them, two longtime diplomats, Kurt Volker, the U.S. envoy for Ukraine, and
Bill Taylor, the acting top diplomat in Ukraine, with them, one political appointee, Gordon
Sondland, a hotel owner and Republican donor appointed by President Trump to be the U.S.
ambassador to the European Union. The timeline matters. July 25, the day of the controversial phone
call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. Before the call, Ukraine envoy Volker texted
an adviser to Zelensky, writing: “Assuming President Zelensky convinces Trump he will
get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down a date for a visit by Zelensky
to Washington,” indicating, if Ukraine investigates, they will get a White House visit. Then, an important moment. In the last week of August, stories appear
that the Trump administration is holding up aid money for Ukraine. Then, President Trump cancels a planned meeting
with Zelensky in Poland. A few days after that, September 1, Bill Taylor,
running the embassy in Ukraine, texts Sondland, the political appointee. And he asks: “Are we now saying the security
assistance for Ukraine and White House meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland doesn’t say. He responds, “Call me.” Just over a week later, on September 9, a
few things happen. The intelligence inspector general notifies
Congress about the whistle-blower complaint, and House Democrats announce they are investigating
the Ukraine issue. That day, Bill Taylor, the top diplomat in
Ukraine, seems to see a dangerous quid pro quo here, texting; “I think it’s crazy to
withhold security assistance for Ukraine for a political campaign.” Sondland, the political appointee, responds:
“I believe you are incorrect about the president’s intentions. The president has been crystal clear, no quid
pro quos of any kind.” This as Congress is waiting for a response
from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who’s currently in Southeast Europe. Today was the deadline that Democrats set
for him to turn over documents related to the Ukraine investigation. House Democrats are also planning to subpoena
the White House for documents. But, today, President Trump said he doesn’t
know if he will comply. DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know. That’s up to the lawyers. I know the lawyers think they have never seen
anything so unfair. LISA DESJARDINS: The president himself raised
new questions about his interactions with world leaders, when he said yesterday about
China: DONALD TRUMP: China should start an investigation
into the Bidens. LISA DESJARDINS: Today, he insisted he won’t
tie that request for China to a long-awaited trade deal between the two countries. DONALD TRUMP: One thing has nothing to do
with the other. LISA DESJARDINS: But, as Mr. Trump and his
allies mount a defense, today, one Republican senator, Mitt Romney of Utah, denounced the
president’s words and actions, tweeting: “The president’s brazen and unprecedented appeal
to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.” For President Trump and Congress, the disputes
may stay in written form a few more days. Congress will be on recess, out of Washington,
next week as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: To help us better understand
all this and more, Lisa joins me now here at our desk, along with our White House correspondent,
Yamiche Alcindor. Hello to both of you. So, Lisa, we thought there was a lot that
was going on already today, much more, as you just reported. Where do things stand right now with regard
to this impeachment inquiry from the Democrats’ perspective? LISA DESJARDINS: Right. Let’s tell you the big picture. Democrats in general think that this is different
than their efforts on the Mueller report. They think the American public is paying closer
attention, is more seriously paying attention to this. And, moreover, they say they’re not seeing
the kind of backlash they were when Democrats were being aggressive about the Mueller report. To me, that reads that there’s still a moment
of decision. But Democrats like where that stands on that
front right now. But they also say they have some big decisions
coming up. Judy, the biggest one is, how narrow do they
keep this? We’re seeing more layers each day, Giuliani,
China, all of this. Do Democrats keep it narrowed to Ukraine or
not? It’s a big question for them. Meanwhile, there’s more information even from
the Senate. The Senate Republican Homeland Security chairman,
Ron Johnson, told The Wall Street Journal today that he also was told there was a quid
pro quo in this effort by Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. He said, Johnson, he asked the president. The president denied it. But the idea, Judy, is, officials thought
there was a quid pro quo. JUDY WOODRUFF: Which is fascinating, that
they’re saying that openly. So, Yamiche, strategy from the White House,
what are they — how are they dealing with all this? Do they have a strategy? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The White House appears
to be mounting a strategy to go on the offense. The White House is now, I’m told by several
sources, preparing a letter to send to Congress that will say, unless the House votes on the
floor for a formal impeachment inquiry, the White House doesn’t have to comply with any
sort of document requests. So the president essentially is saying to
Nancy Pelosi, look, until you hold a House floor vote, I don’t have to do anything that
you’re saying. Nancy Pelosi has said several times that she
doesn’t believe that they have to have a floor vote to have a formal impeachment inquiry. She also points out that the Constitution
doesn’t say that. But what’s important here is that the president,
while he’s sending this letter to Congress, he’s really sending it to the American people. And he’s really formalizing what Republicans
have been saying all week, which is that Nancy Pelosi is actually not going through with
the proper procedures for her impeachment inquiry. It’s also important to note that the president
is looking at possibly going to court now, and that this is really about them playing
the long game and saying, House Democrats, take us to court, and maybe then we will provide
whatever documents you want. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, as you and Lisa
have been reporting, this is now not just about the president. There are other senior figures in the administration
who are caught up, Secretary of State Pompeo, waiting for his cooperation. Today, we learned they’re asking Vice President
Pence for documents. And just how tangled up are other people,
top people in the administration, tied up into all this? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the people in the
Trump administration who are facing document requests from House Democrats is growing by
the day. We see Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He had a deadline for today to supply documents. It’s still unclear whether or not he’s going
to actually supply any documents. But, as I said, the White House is saying
now that, unless there’s a formal floor vote, they don’t have to do anything. So that might be the stance that Secretary
Pompeo takes. It’s also important to note that Vice President
Pence is now being asked to provide documents not only about the call between President
Trump and President Zelensky, but also he’s being asked to call — he’s being asked to
provide documents about his meeting with the Ukrainian president in Warsaw, which happened
in September, which happened on September 1, 2019, this year. So what you see is Vice President Pence really
being pulled into this. Now, the president’s office and the vice president’s
office both say that this is not a serious request by the House Democrats, and they think
that House Democrats are really just trying to harass and really, they say, pursue a — quote
— “partisan impeachment.” So we will have to see how the House Democrats
deal with this and how the White House responds. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it just — the story
keeps growing and getting more challenging for all of us every day. Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, thank you
both. In the day’s other news: U.S. businesses managed
to make slight job gains in September. The Labor Department reports that employers
added a net of 136,000 jobs last month. That came as factories shed 2,000 jobs, amid
concerns that the manufacturing sector is now in a recession. Overall, the unemployment rate fell to 3.5
percent. That is the lowest it has been in 50 years. In Iraq, security forces in Baghdad shot and
killed at least 17 more protesters, bringing the week’s death toll to 59. The shooting sent people running for cover,
after they defied a curfew. Hospitals reported dozens hurt, despite the
prime minister’s televised appeal for calm. ADIL ABDUL-MAHDI, ®MD-UL¯Iraqi Prime Minister
(through translator): Your demands in countering corruption, providing job opportunities, and
comprehensive reforms are rightful demands. First, we have to bring life back to normal
in all the provinces. We have to respect the authority of law under
which we are all are living in peace and stability. JUDY WOODRUFF: Iraqi troops have also killed
protesters in other cities this week. The country’s leading Shiite cleric, Grand
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called today for an end to the violence, before, he said, it
is too late. Anger intensified in Hong Kong today after
the government banned protesters from wearing face masks. Thousands of demonstrators turned out, wearing
masks. They protested into the night, vandalizing
storefronts, setting fires at subway stations and defying the city’s chief executive. CARRIE LAM, Hong Kong Chief Executive: If
there’s no violence, if there’s no protests, we do not need to have all these instruments
with us in order to deal with this violence. Of course, if the situation worsens — I suppose
that’s your question — then, as a responsible government, we will continue to have to identify
other means that we could tackle the situation. JUDY WOODRUFF: The protesters wear masks to
avoid being identified and punished. But, as of Saturday, violations could mean
a year in jail. Greece is demanding that Turkey reimpose controls
on the outflow of migrants. Turkey had agreed in 2016 to seal off the
route to Greece. But in the past two months, a new wave of
migrants arrived at jam-packed refugee camps on the Greek islands of Lesbos and Samos. Greece says that Turkey is using the surge
to ask for more financial help from the European Union. Microsoft says that hackers linked to Iran
have targeted a 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, plus government officials and journalists. The company today reported that attempted
hacks of more than 240 e-mail accounts, with four actually compromised. It didn’t name the campaign that was targeted. Top U.S. officials stepped up the pressure
on Facebook today over its plans to encrypt its messaging platform. The company says that it would enhance user
privacy. But, in Washington, FBI Director Christopher
Wray warned that the platform could become — quote — “a dream come true” for predators
and child pornographers. Attorney General William Barr said that the
government is not asking for a backdoor into any and all communications. WILLIAM BARR, U.S. Attorney General: We would
be happy if the companies providing the encryption keep the keys. What we are asking is some responsible party
have the keys, so that when we can demonstrate a lawful basis, probable cause that crimes
are being committed, we can gain access to that evidence. JUDY WOODRUFF: Facebook says that it can still
identify sexual predators, even in encrypted systems. The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue
of abortion again, in the midst of the 2020 presidential race. Today’s announcement involves a Louisiana
law that says doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The case is expected to be argued in the winter,
with a decision expected by next June. On Wall Street, the September jobs report
fueled a Friday rally that erased most of the week’s losses. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 372
points to close at 26573. The Nasdaq rose 110 points, and the S&P 500
added 41. And pioneering actress Diahann Carroll has
died of complications from breast cancer. In 1968, she broke through racial barriers
in “Julia,” the country’s first TV series portraying a black professional woman. Carroll was also a singer, winning a Tony
Award in “No Strings,” and she was nominated for an Oscar in the 1974 film “Claudine.” Diahann Carroll was 84 years old. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: separating
fact from fiction in Ukraine, the country caught in the middle of the impeachment inquiry;
another whistle-blower comes out against the White House, this time from the IRS; Mark
Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru on the widening investigation into President Trump; and much
more. Returning now to our main story, the Eastern
Country of Ukraine lies at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. Special correspondent Simon Ostrovsky has
reported from Ukraine for years. And we sent him back to try to find out what’s
true and what isn’t in the actions of Hunter and Joe Biden. SIMON OSTROVSKY: How did Ukraine find itself
suddenly in the middle of an American impeachment investigation? At the heart of the matter are events that
took place in 2016, when former Vice President Joe Biden threatened to pull a billion dollars
in loan guarantees from the struggling post-Soviet nation if its prosecutor general wasn’t fired,
echoing demands of other allies and the International Monetary Fund, who wanted Ukraine’s judicial
system rid of corruption. But President Donald Trump alleges that Biden
did this in order to stop an investigation into a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma,
which his son Hunter served on the board of. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Somebody ought to look into Joe Biden’s statement, because it was disgraceful. SIMON OSTROVSKY: It all centers on this man,
Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s former prosecutor general, a bureaucrat who had spent over 35
years as a state’s attorney, first under Soviet rule and then in an independent Ukraine. It has emerged as a central narrative in Trump’s
2020 reelection campaign. NARRATOR: Joe Biden promised Ukraine a billion
dollars if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company. SIMON OSTROVSKY: And the president’s personal
attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has been deeply involved in pushing U.S. officials to have Ukraine
investigate the Bidens and another theory that alleges Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server
and those famous missing e-mails are actually in Ukraine. To deflect from Russia’s 2016 interference,
Mr. Trump has repeatedly called that attack on America’s election process a hoax. But then came the CIA officer whistle-blower
complaint that resulted from the summary of a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, where the American president repeatedly asked Ukraine to investigate
his main political opponent, Joe Biden. I’m here in Kiev to speak to Ukrainians who
were key players in the lead-up to the dismissal of prosecutor general Shokin to find out if
Trump’s theory about why he was fired holds any water. I started with the man who then at the top,
Ukraine’s former President Petro Poroshenko, who personally faced the pressure from Biden
to dismiss his own prosecutor. He told me it was never about Biden or his
son’s business with Burisma. PETRO POROSHENKO, Former Ukrainian President:
We are talking only about the reform of the prosecutor office, to make it independent,
to make it more transparent. SIMON OSTROVSKY: Ukraine’s Independence Square,
known as the Maidan, was the epicenter of mass protests that toppled the pro-Russian
regime of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 and led to Poroshenko’s election. It was also the site of mass killings of protesters
by security forces. The former prosecutor Shokin’s shadow is felt
here acutely. In the eyes of many Ukrainians, his biggest
failure was that nobody from the former regime was prosecuted for the killing of protesters
here on Independence Square. Parliamentarian Yehor Soboliev was the first
official to demand the prosecutor’s dismissal. YEHOR SOBOLIEV, Former Chairman, Ukrainian
Parliament Anti-Corruption Committee: It was time when people strongly hoped that murders
here on Maidan will be investigated. It was time when people strongly hoped that
great corruption in Yanukovych’s presidency will be punished. In 2015, I personally initiated the resignation
of general prosecutor Shokin. (through translator): Come up and sign for
the resignation of Viktor Shokin. SIMON OSTROVSKY: What ®MDNM¯Soboliev did
was ask members of Parliament to sign a document calling for a no-confidence vote in Shokin. So, you’re saying it wasn’t Joe Biden who
asked for the prosecutor to be fired; you asked for the prosecutor to be fired first? YEHOR SOBOLIEV: Yes, we were campaigning for
his resignation more than half-a-year. SIMON OSTROVSKY: One campaigner was Daria
Kaleniuk. She heads the Anti-Corruption Action Center
in Kiev, and has been a leading voice against corruption here since before the revolution
that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader Yanukovych. She demanded Shokin’s ouster for attacking
reformers in his office, and: DARIA KALENIUK, Anti-Corruption Action Center:
Another reason was failure to investigate grand corruption of Yanukovych. Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office didn’t
want to help to provide evidence. SIMON OSTROVSKY: So, in 2015, the U.S. ambassador
to Ukraine took the unprecedented step of telling the country it should fire prosecutors
who were blocking an investigation of the owner of Burisma, where Hunter Biden was reportedly
earning $50,000 a month. Here’s the former vice president speaking
about his efforts to get Ukraine to fire Shokin a year later. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
We will be leaving here, I think it was, what, six hours. I looked at him. I said, we’re leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not
getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. (LAUGHTER) SIMON OSTROVSKY: So, was Biden holding back
the billion to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor or to stop an investigation into Burisma? I asked Ukraine’s finance minister, who was
a deputy minister at the time. OKSANA MARKAROVA, Ukrainian Minister of Finance:
Well, we had three guarantees that were extended to us by the U.S. government, which were a
big help. There were some conditions with regard to
the corporate governance reform. All the conditions were reform- and market-oriented. SIMON OSTROVSKY: Fast-forward to 2019, and
it’s easy to understand why Ukraine’s current government is unwilling to criticize the Trump’s
narrative of the Shokin dismissal, or anything else, for that matter. Ukraine depends on the United States for financial
support for its economy and for its security in Eastern Ukraine, where it’s fighting Russian
troops and Russia-backed separatists in a war that has killed more than 13,000 people. So, when President Volodymyr Zelensky was
asked this week if Mr. Trump temporarily froze nearly $400 million of military and security
aid in order to press Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, he was visibly flustered, and
did his best to steer clear of the political controversy gripping Washington. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, Ukrainian President (through
translator): Nothing was explained to me. We didn’t talk about this issue. I asked a question. I wanted — I really wanted to support our
army. That’s why I spoke about it strongly, and
not just with the president of the United States. SIMON OSTROVSKY: So what of Mr. Shokin himself? He failed to appear in court on Thursday in
his own lawsuit claiming he was unfairly sacked. For Ukraine, a country reliant on the U.S.
for support in its war with Russia, this political storm that’s putting it between an American
president and his reelection drive couldn’t come at a worse time. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Simon Ostrovsky
in Kiev. JUDY WOODRUFF: There is another whistle-blower
case that has emerged in recent days. This one involves a career official at the
Internal Revenue Service and the president and vice president’s tax returns. William Brangham has the story. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Judy, it’s not a well-known
fact, but the IRS does annual audits of the president’s and vice president’s tax returns. These audits are supposed to be protected
from politics. But now a whistle-blower has come forward
alleging that at least one political appointee at Treasury interfered in that process. President Trump has long refused to release
any tax returns, and Vice President Pence has also not released any of his recent tax
returns. Jeff Stein is part of The Washington Post
team that broke this story. And he joins me now. Jeff, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” As best we know, can you tell us, what is
it that this whistle-blower is alleging happened? JEFF STEIN, The Washington Post: We actually
first became aware of this whistle-blower complaint back over the summer, when, as part
of his lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking President Trump’s tax returns, the
House Democrat who is leading that push disclosed that he’d received information that suggested
improper interference related to the president or the vice president’s tax returns. What we have learned recently and what we
published yesterday is that that complaint comes from a senior IRS — a career IRS official
and names at least one Treasury official as being implicated in potential interference
of the president or vice president’s audit of their return. I think it’s really clear — and we try to
stress in the story and I will try to stress here — that we do not know what kind of interference
this refers to. Is it someone calling and saying, stand down,
don’t go too hard on the president and his audit or his return? We have no proof of that right now. This could be as simple as an informational
call to say, hey, what’s the deal with the president or vice president’s audit? That said, even that level of communication
case between political officials at the Treasury Department and career department at the IRS,
who are supposed to be completely walled off from political consideration, according to
the former IRS commissioners I have spoken to, according to legal experts, that could
be seen as extremely unusual and potentially dangerous to the integrity of the audit process,
which has gotten so much attention recently. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Has the Treasury Department
responded to this? JEFF STEIN: Officially, no. The Treasury Department spokesperson could
not comment to us. However, we have spoken to administration
officials who tried downplaying the complaint and said that it was based on secondhand information
and hearsay. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You spoke to the whistle-blower,
him or herself. And it’s obvious this is coming forward in
the midst of these accusations that the president and his supporters have made about the other
whistle-blower with regards to Ukraine, alleging that that whistle-blower and his or her sources
are spies or might have committed treason. Did this whistle-blower express to you some
concern about coming forward in this environment? JEFF STEIN: Yes. And that was actually quite striking. He did comment on record to us to say, in
this political atmosphere, there’s been attacks on whistle-blowers. And he said that people who have been silent
about these attacks need — know better and should stand up, and that this — what could
discourage or deter people who see wrongdoing in the government from speaking out and identifying
and could pose a serious, serious harm and serious challenge to the ability of whistle-blowers
to do that. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Jeff Stein of
The Washington Post, thank you very much. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: the devastation
wrought by China’s forced detention of over one million Uyghur Muslims. And an update. Late today, the House of Representatives’
Oversight Committee formally notified the White House that it is issuing a subpoena
for documents related to the impeachment investigation. Now to the political analysis of Shields and
Ponnuru. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields
and Ramesh Ponnuru of “The National Review.” David Brooks is away. Hello to both of you. So, the news just keeps coming. It’s been a week of cascading information
about what the president said in a phone call. And then the president himself, Mark, reinforces
this with announcing to the world that he’s urging China to look into Joe Biden and his
son Hunter. My bottom-line question for both of you is,
is there fire here? Is there evidence, in your mind, of either
a law that’s been broken or a violation of the president’s oath? Or is this just smoke? MARK SHIELDS: I think there’s more than smoke,
Judy. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on
TV, but there’s certainly a strong case to be made that the president openly solicited
and sought the intervention and involvement of a foreign government on behalf of his own
candidacy, an American presidential campaign. And I think, usually, it’s the law that’s
in dispute in these cases of a big argument, rather, about facts. There’s no real argument about facts here. They’re pretty much out in the open. And the president really opened it up on the
driveway on Thursday, when he bid China to come in and come up with information, unflattering,
libelous or criminal information, on Joe Biden and his family. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ramesh, do you see this as
either a law broken or a violation of his oath? RAMESH PONNURU: We have this tendency to see
scandals in terms of hidden events that have to be uncovered. And so we can’t always process when the president
says something in public, the way he did with respect to China, when he openly, publicly,
with the world watching, said that he wanted China to investigate political opponents,
and that his treatment of China in trade negotiations would depend on that. All of his defenders have been saying, no
quid pro quo. We saw a quid pro quo on national television. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, of course, the president
said today — made a point of coming out today and saying to the press, no, there’s no quid
pro quo. I’m not tying what China does with regard
to these investigations to the trade negotiations. But he did say that yesterday. RAMESH PONNURU: Right. He said it. And he — I think he realized that he made
a mistake, and he is trying to un-say it. But it also shows you that he will undercut
the defenses that his allies make, which is one reason why a lot of Republicans have been
heading for the tall grass. They don’t want to be out there defending
the administration with a line that the administration itself might abandon. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Mark — Mark… (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: No, I think Ramesh’s point is
salient and right. There’s been a little bit of the old Sherlock
Holmes story about the dog that didn’t bark, the story of the dog that, when the race horse
was stolen, the dog didn’t bark in the night, which suggested that maybe it was somebody
inside the household who was responsible for the crime. The dog didn’t bark. There’s no Republicans — usually, Republicans
— there’s a number of Republicans you can count on to be on television. There’s no such term as indecent exposure
to them. If there’s a microphone and a camera, they’re
there. All of a sudden as Ramesh puts it, they’re
in the tall grass. They don’t want to. And the reason is, Judy, that there is no
White House strategy. I mean, it’s pretty obvious. I mean, the difference between this and Bill
Clinton in 1998, when Clinton effectively compartmentalized, I’m going about my business,
Donald Trump, as one leading Republican said to me this week, ought to be working on prescription
drugs. He ought to be doing that and holding meetings
on it, and this and that and the other thing. And he’s totally obsessed with this. And he — so if you’re going to defend him,
you don’t know what you’re going to be defending an hour from now or certainly tomorrow morning. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you see a — did you see
a — do you discern a White House strategy in all of this? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, I think, as often is
the case with this administration, there is a strategy for holding the president’s base
supporters. And that may well be enough, because you need
a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict and remove a president from office. So if you’re looking forward to the endgame,
just maintaining your base is enough. I don’t see a strategy right now that is trying
to change the minds to of people in the middle. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, Mark, the congressional
Democrats, the House Democrats — and we just mentioned another one — they’re asking the
White House now for documents. I was told just a moment ago it’s White House
Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, among others. They’re asking for documents as they pursue
these investigations. But they have asked Secretary of State Pompeo. They have asked Vice President Pence. This is not — they seem to be moving briskly
with this. What does that tell you? Is that the smart course? Should they be taking their time? What do you make of this? MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think events are very
much in the saddle. And I think it’s moved a lot faster than anybody
anticipated. If a week ago, you had suggested that the
president was going to call for the arrest and trial on treason for the chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee this week, and go on at a pace, as Ramesh described, as his
negotiation on trade with China on the basis of information on the Bidens, you know, it
— so I don’t think there’s any master plan here, Judy. And the White House’s decision to say, we
want a vote on the impeachment in the House, that puts a lot of House Republicans in a
bad position. I mean, do you want to vote against an impeachment
inquiry and then get overcome by events, I mean, to put you in a position November of
2020 when you wanted — it looks like you wanted the dust everything under the rug,
because, given the velocity with which disclosures are being made, that’s a very risky vote for
a lot of House Republicans? JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. Do you want to give the Democrats, the House
Democrats, a grade on how they’re pursuing this? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, I think there have been
some errors. I think that Chairman Schiff’s dissembling
really about his contacts or his staff’s contacts with the whistle-blower was an unforced error. But I think the key thing going forward, the
Democrats have to internalize that the politically smart thing to do is not to constantly be
trying to figure out the politically smart thing to do at each step of the process. They have got to handle this like a serious
inquiry for adults and not be distracted by every moment’s polls. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think they’re doing
that right now? RAMESH PONNURU: I think that they are trying. I think that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made
a very concerted effort to get Democrats to take a step back a little bit, not be gleeful
about condemning this administration, but to rather have a posture of seeing where the
facts go. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, you have been watching
this city for a long time. Do you think this is something the Democrats
can get done? They have said they want to get it done as
quickly as possible. Can they get something like this, the inquiry
finished, move on potentially to an actual impeachment vote in a matter of a few weeks
or month? MARK SHIELDS: I think probably months, Judy. But, I mean, just take somebody like Mike
Pompeo, secretary of state. They were talking seriously a week ago about
him running for the United States Senate from Kansas. He was the logical inevitable candidate of
the Republicans. I think he’s a lot less so today. I mean, this is reaching out and touching
more and more people. I do disagree with Ramesh on NICK SCHIFRIN:
and the Intelligence Committee. I think it’s absolutely natural that the whistle-blower,
a professional public employee, would go to the staff. I mean, he has been surrounded by people who
have been hostile. And I think it’s very — it’s very frank,
and we ought to take notice of the fact that the only reason we’re aware of what’s happened
is because of career public employees. (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: This is not — these weren’t
political appointees. These are people who are nameless, faceless,
who get attacked by every cheap shot in a political campaign. But at Foreign Service and at CIA and the
Department of Justice — the I.G. was a Department of Justice 15-year attorney. So, I mean, I think it’s time to give some
credit to the people who did put their vow of service above their own self-interest. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Excuse me. I do want to turn to the 2020 candidates here
and ask you quickly, number one, is Joe Biden hurt by this? What do you think? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, Biden, I think, had
been sinking in the Democratic primaries, and Senator Elizabeth Warren had been coming
on pretty strong, even before this story really blew up. But I think that those trends have continued
since that story has blown up. I don’t know if the — if Biden has been sufficiently
agile in making his case and being aggressive and saying, look, the president is afraid
of me. I think he’s started sound that note, but
it’s a little late. MARK SHIELDS: OK. Joe Biden ought to take a leaf out of the
campaign of Grover Cleveland, where he was nominated at that convention by General Edward
Bragg, who said Cleveland had alienated the Democratic organization, the corrupt Democratic
organization, and big money on the Republican side. And he stood up, and he said, we love Grover
Cleveland for the enemies he has made. That’s — Joe — Joe Biden ought to have the
— his campaign ought to have the wit and wisdom stand up and say, it’s obvious that
they’re terrified. They’re so terrified of Joe Biden. They don’t want to run against Joe Biden. And that’s why Trump has been doing everything. And I think that’s — that’s a natural way
to come back. But I agree that he has slipped. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, one thing that has — new
information that’s come in, and that is how much money the Democrats have been able to
raise in the last quarter. Joe Biden came in fourth among all the Democrats. And I just want to say that I just learned
both The New York Times and The Washington Post are reporting tonight that Bernie Sanders
did have a heart attack this week. We knew that there had been an incident of
some sort. He had two stents inserted in an artery. MARK SHIELDS: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: But we now know, the reporting
is that he had a heart attack. Having said that — and we just showed the
graphic there, Ramesh — he earned — he picked up more than $25 million, Bernie Sanders did,
better than all of the all — of his competitors. Elizabeth Warren after — came in after him,
and then Pete Buttigieg, and then Joe Biden. And we just showed our audience — we’re going
back and forth here, but we just showed them President Trump’s amount. And it’s $125 million, of course, overshadowing
everything that the Democrats have done. But, Ramesh, what do we learn from these numbers,
if anything, right now? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, I think that they tend
to confirm the trends that we were talking about, that Warren has been rising, and that
Biden has been sinking. Biden is closer in his fund-raising haul to
Andrew Yang than he is to either Senator Sanders or to Senator Warren. We know that Senator Sanders has a strong
fan base. And I think one thing this fund-raising appeal
shows us is that he’s not going to be fading out. He’s not going to be muscled out of the primaries
in favor of some other candidate, but can stay in the long haul, if he wants. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, about 30 seconds. What do you see in these — in these numbers? MARK SHIELDS: Money matters. I mean, make no mistake about it. I think Warren — Bernie, God bless him. His numbers in the polls have been slipping,
but, I mean, he got $25 million. They — he has a committed donor base. Elizabeth Warren’s surge, both in the polls
and in money, is impressive. Make no mistake about it. I don’t think this campaign is going to be
won or lost on money. I really don’t. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well… MARK SHIELDS: Among the Democrats. JUDY WOODRUFF: One thing is for sure right
now, that it’s the president who’s getting most of the attention in this — in this campaign. MARK SHIELDS: That’s right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, Ramesh Ponnuru,
thank you. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you. RAMESH PONNURU: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tonight, we continue our series
“China: Power & Prosperity” with what the U.S. calls one of the worst human rights crises
of our time. Uyghur are Muslims who trace their roots back
through thousands of years to Central Asia. Today, most of them, about 11 million, live
in the Chinese province Xinjiang. They represent less than 1 percent of the
population in a country that is more than 92 percent Han Chinese, the ethnicity that
China traces back to an ancient Chinese empire. Communist China has long persecuted people
based on their religion. But the U.S., international groups, and Uyghurs
say this is different. They accuse China of throwing Uyghurs into
camps and targeting their religion and entire culture. With the support of the Pulitzer Center, Nick
Schifrin reports from a city many Uyghurs have fled to, Istanbul. NICK SCHIFRIN: Istanbul is 2,500 miles from
Xinjiang, China. Muslim Uyghurs who live here are free, but
their minds are still imprisoned. GULBAHAR JALILOVA, Former Detainee (through
translator): I never imagined this could happen in the 21st century: innocent people subjected
to cuffs on their hands, shackles, and black hoods over their heads. NICK SCHIFRIN: Gulbahar Jalilova lives alone
in a small apartment. The injuries she suffered in Chinese detention
two years ago have healed, but she hasn’t gotten over the memories. GULBAHAR JALILOVA (through translator): I
saw them, 14-year-old girls to 80-year-old women. They take them for interrogation. They would come back, and their bodies were
bruised, their heads swollen. After three months, they put a black hood
over my head and took me away. NICK SCHIFRIN: Is it still upsetting? What are you thinking about? GULBAHAR JALILOVA (through translator): I
feel like I’m in there right now, there in the cell. I will never forget this as long as I live. They destroyed my life. NICK SCHIFRIN: Abdulsalam Mohammed also found
sanctuary here on the banks of the Bosphorus. He and every Uyghur we spoke to live in self-imposed
exile, because they are too scared of the Chinese government to go home. Can you describe for us what that detention
center was like? ABDULSALAM MOHAMMED, Former Detainee (through
translator): They brought everyone in there because they called us suspicious. There is unimaginable oppression inside. Every day, they’d toss us a little bread and
water, so that we didn’t die, and, every day, they would interrogate 15 or 20 of us with
unbearable brutality. We are a people who’ve lost their freedom. We became their target because we’d studied
religion and because we had influence in our society. They locked us up in jail. Then, after taking us to a camp, they’d tell
us that we hadn’t done anything wrong, that they were just educating us. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Chinese say they are reeducating
Uyghurs by teaching them Chinese and vocational skills. This is state media video. The detainees we interviewed and international
researchers call it staged and scripted, a facade that hides what’s really happening. As seen in the only video that exists of a
camp under construction, the entrance has an iron gate, the windows have bars, and the
cells look like jails. And in this drone video the U.S. believes
is authentic, prisoners in blue with shaved heads are kept blindfolded and are led away,
one police officer per prisoner. Mohammed says what the Chinese call schools
for reeducation are actually prisons for brainwashing. ABDULSALAM MOHAMMED (through translator):
The 10 hours of class they would teach one day were the exact same 10 hours they’d teach
the next. The goal was to change our minds, our faith,
our beliefs. It was a plot to force us to renounce our
religion. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Chinese call some Muslim
Uyghurs extremists and terrorists. In 2009, Uyghurs in Xinjiang’s capital rioted. Almost 200 died, and hundreds more were injured,
mostly Han Chinese, the ethnic group that represents 90 percent of the country. Uyghur militants affiliated with al-Qaida
took credit for this 2013 attack in Tiananmen Square that killed two people. And China blames male and female Uyghur militants
for this 2014 knife attack that killed more than 30. Those attacks are claimed by Uyghurs who call
Xinjiang East Turkestan, which self-declared independence in the early 20th century. China says it’s administered Xinjiang since
60 B.C., and Foreign Minister Wang Yi says China is fighting separatists. WANG YI, Chinese Foreign Minister (through
translator): The education and training centers are schools that help the people free themselves
from the influence of extremism and terrorism, and acquire professional skills. The centers are anything but horrific concentration
camps. NICK SCHIFRIN: But in Xinjiang and a neighbor
province, residents say China’s launched a campaign against Islam. The government has partially or completely
destroyed at least a dozen mosques. And Uyghurs say the Chinese only targeting
their religion. In Istanbul, Uyghurs describe how China criminalized
Uyghur language and all Uyghur culture. International researchers have called that
campaign cultural genocide. China has even banned Uyghur music. Yusup Sulayman sings about a culture that’s
been lost, and a people who’ve been silenced. YUSUP SULAYMAN, Family Members Missing (through
translator): They’re disappearing our famous artists, composers, and songwriters before
anyone else. They’re disappearing our intellectuals. They have burned what they wanted to burn,
and scrubbed what they wanted to scrub. NICK SCHIFRIN: He gave us photos of all his
family members who have disappeared into camps. He hasn’t heard from any of them in more than
two years. YUSUP SULAYMAN (through translator): The absolute
worst thing is that I don’t know whether they’re dead or alive. Our communication is completely cut off. NICK SCHIFRIN: Abliz Ablikim says many Uyghur
men have been powerless to protect their families from the Chinese government. Can you tell me how a Han Chinese basically
ended up as a member of your family? ABLIZ ABLIKIM, Uyghur (through translator):
Ever since the government began locking up most of the men, women, children, and the
elderly have been left behind. The government has sent officials to be ears
in these households. They sent one to my uncle’s house. NICK SCHIFRIN: Ablikim takes out his phone
and opens a grainy photo, his aunt in Uyghur clothes, his uncle in Uyghur clothes holding
his baby cousin, and then a Han Chinese man posing like a member of the family. But he’s not a member of the family. Was he forced onto your family? ABLIZ ABLIKIM (through translator): He was
forced. He wouldn’t be able to live there if he weren’t. NICK SCHIFRIN: State media does stories on
Han Chinese inserted into Uyghur families, and calls the program United As One Family;
1.1 million Han Chinese have been sent by the government into Muslim homes. In your opinion, why is the Chinese government
doing this? ABLIZ ABLIKIM (through translator): They refer
to Uyghurs as criminals. If we ask them what our crime is, they say
openly: Aren’t you Uyghur? That’s crime enough. NICK SCHIFRIN: In Xinjiang’s capital, a huge
statue of Chairman Mao looms over the city. In multiple interviews across China, we heard
the same thing: China is fighting terrorism and fake news. Su Ge is a former ambassador and former head
of one of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s think tanks. SU GE, Former Chinese Ambassador: China and
the United States, I think that we feel the same about extremists. We also have this danger of terrorism. The best way to eradicate radicalism is to
provide education, to provide development. NICK SCHIFRIN: There have been cases of imprisonment
that are on a mass scale, not just of terrorists or suspected terrorists, but actually entire
families and entire cities. SU GE: Well, to us, that’s just somebody’s
trying to write a story about it. NICK SCHIFRIN: Meaning you think they’re fiction? SU GE: Yes. But I would say that, if you have only interviewed
those people who, for some reasons, who are paid somehow… NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you think they’re paid to
tell these stories? SU GE: I do not know. I’m only saying that they must have a source
for income. You ask them, how many policemen have been
injured just by the — by terrorists? NICK SCHIFRIN: But in the name of pursuing
terrorists, international researchers say China turned Xinjiang into an open air prison. Local residents say police keep a close eye
on all Uyghurs, interrogate them wherever they go, check their documents every few feet,
and forcibly collect DNA samples. And researchers identify at least 85 camps
and probably many more across Xinjiang. All of them are recently built. A barren field in August 2016 became, in one
year, what researchers say is a former school turned into a camp with barricades and barbed
wire. Just six miles away, researchers say another
camp started being built in early 2017. By late 2018, there were barricades, watch
towers, and barbed wire enclosures, and more than a million square feet of buildings. The U.S. says more than a million Uyghurs
have disappeared into Chinese detention. On the outskirts of Istanbul, Uyghurs have
been doing their own building to try and protect their identity. It’s a school where hundreds of Uyghur children
are being raised and educated in Uyghur language and history. The children are all right, because their
memories aren’t formed. But the adults stare into the distance, trying,
but failing, to forget. Aqil Shamsky is the English teacher. AQIL SHAMSKY, English Teacher: First, my mother
was arrested. And three months later, they released my mother,
dead, dead body. My mother was very healthy, felt like she
was at home. Three months later, she died. NICK SCHIFRIN: It is impossible to walk through
here without adults asking to share their stories. So we assembled five of them. Could you raise your hand if you have multiple
members of your families currently in the camp in Xinjiang? Sirajidin Abdukadir fled Xinjiang after the
Chinese threatened to take his passport. Today, he is the school security guard. He hasn’t heard from his family since he left
them three years ago. SIRAJIDIN ABDUKADIR, Security Guard (through
translator): I told my children farewell, and we will meet again. That’s the only thing I got to say to them. I never thought this would happen. I’m security here. They provide my meals. At this age, I cannot do anything else. That is what God gave me. I’m incredibly lonely. NICK SCHIFRIN: Everyone here has their own
stories of family imprisonment, both of Tursun Yasin’s brothers, 42-year-old Abdugeni Musa’s
daughter and other children. Ablet Tursun spent one month inside a camp. And 72-year-old Amina Emet is the principal’s
mother. Do you know where your children are? AMINA EMET, Missing Family Members (through
translator): I don’t know. I am searching for any kind of news every
day. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Chinese say they have closed
the camps and Uyghurs have returned home. But everyone here says their family members
are still missing. Emet’s 19 children, grandchildren, and their
spouses are still missing. AMINA EMET (through translator): I wish God
would free us from the Chinese. The Uyghurs are too weak to resist. There are no Uyghur people left, no people
left in our homeland. My eldest son passed away years ago. I basically raised the two of his kids myself. But even they were taken away. AQIL SHAMSKY: Now every Uyghur, no matter
of inside of jail or outside of jail, is feeling the same thing, fear of disappear from the
world. NICK SCHIFRIN: A few miles away, Gulbahar
Jalilova’s mind is still in detention. GULBAHAR JALILOVA (through translator): I’m
drinking tea. I’m eating bread. But those helpless people are desperate. They don’t have enough to eat. I see them all in front of me, as if I were
still in the camp myself. NICK SCHIFRIN: After she was released, she
wrote down all the names of the people in her cell, just one of what could be tens of
thousands of cells across Xinjiang, China. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin
in Istanbul. JUDY WOODRUFF: Extraordinary. Tomorrow, on “NewsHour Weekend,” our China
series ends with Nick Schifrin reporting from Hong Kong. And on our Web site, we take a visual exploration
of the so-called reeducation centers, where one million Uyghurs are now being held. And you can watch all the stories from our
series “China: Peace & Prosperity” online at PBS.org/NewsHour. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Have a great weekend. Thank you, and good night.