PBS NewsHour full episode September 2, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: the coming storm. Hurricane Dorian lays siege to the Bahamas,
as it continues its journey closer to the U.S. mainland. Then: former Secretary of Defense James Mattis
on leadership, the role of the military and his work in the Trump administration. JAMES MATTIS, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense:
George Washington, the father of our country, I think, put it very well, how you have to
listen, learn, help, and then lead. That was his approach, and I think it’s one
that served me well. JUDY WOODRUFF: Plus: Parliament, the prime
minister, and the protests in the street — outrage in the United Kingdom as no-deal Brexit looms. ZOE BINNIE, Protester Organizer: I think this
is a British coup. It’s very polite, it’s very unassuming, and
that’s the worst thing. It’s very quiet. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Hurricane Dorian pummeled the
Bahamas today, leading to several deaths and what was called catastrophic damage. Officials confirmed at least five people died
in the Abaco Islands. And there are many reports of people in serious
distress tonight. The prime minister of the Bahamas called the
storm — quote — “a historic tragedy.” The damage was also on the minds of federal,
state and local leaders in the U.S., as preparations continued for possible landfall this week. John Yang reports from Florida. JOHN YANG: Hurricane Dorian carved a slow,
destructive path across the Bahamas today. It made landfall yesterday with winds exceeding
185 miles per hour, a Category 5 storm, the strongest on record to strike the island nation. Dorian weakened to a Category 4 storm this
morning, but continued lashing the Bahamas. The winds rocked trees. Torrential rains triggered massive flooding. HUBERT MINNIS, Prime Minister of the Bahamas:
Some areas, you Cannot tell the difference as to the beginning of the street vs. where
the ocean begins. JOHN YANG: The storm toppled power poles and
damaged vehicles. The current forecast envisions Dorian moving
dangerously close to the Southeastern U.S. Seaboard, offshore of Florida’s East Coast
tonight through Wednesday evening. It’s expected to pass near the Carolinas,
where states of emergency have now been declared. Even a minor deviation could send Dorian onshore. But if it doesn’t make landfall, it still
has the potential to do major damage. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis: GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Hurricane Dorian has
shown what it is capable of. It’s absolutely battered the Bahamas. Our East Coast is certainly within the cone
still, and people need to remain vigilant. If you’re ordered to evacuate, you need to
do that. JOHN YANG: At the Good Samaritan Society’s
retirement community in Kissimmee, outside Orlando, a fleet of ambulances transported
seniors to a sister facility on higher ground. The community was flooded after Hurricane
Irma in 2017. Throughout Florida, past experiences are shaping
residents’ responses. Ivette Alsina of Winter Haven, south of Orlando,
stocked up on sandbags, and other emergency supplies. You got everything ready here. You’re all prepared. IVETTE ALSINA, Florida: Almost prepared. I think I’m prepared. I got the batteries, flashlight, a first kit. I got food, water. Everything is set. JOHN YANG: Alsina is among the tens of thousands
of Puerto Ricans who moved to Florida after surviving 2017’s Hurricane Maria. How did you feel when you heard about this
hurricane and that it might be coming and hitting Florida? IVETTE ALSINA: I felt fear and anxiety. JOHN YANG: Anxiety? IVETTE ALSINA: Yes, because it’s really bad. I was in Puerto Rico when Maria passed. And thinking that that is coming here right
now is really bad. JOHN YANG: She evacuated from Cayey, Puerto
Rico, 10 days after Maria to get treatment for high blood pressure. Storm warnings this week have put her back
on high alert. IVETTE ALSINA: Three days ago, I went to the
doctor. He gave me a lot of medicines, so I can be
calm through the toll of these days. JOHN YANG: Other Puerto Ricans in the area
are also feeling tense. MILLIE SANTIAGO, Florida (through translator):
I’m not the only one. I have received a lot of calls from Puerto
Rican families who ended up here because of Maria. They’re in critical states of anxiety. JOHN YANG: Millie Santiago is another survivor
of Hurricane Maria. She’s helping 22 families staying at an Episcopal
Church conference center outside Orlando, where mental health counselors are on hand. Yemanja Krasnow is a University of Central
Florida clinician and social worker. YEMANJA KRASNOW, University of Central Florida:
A lot of the Puerto Ricans that came to Central Florida post-Maria, they had some very traumatic
experience. It wasn’t just the storm. There was loss of lives. There was loss of house, of pets, of properties,
of businesses. So there was a compound of trauma going on,
not just the experience of the hurricane itself. JOHN YANG: In Jacksonville, restaurant owner
Andy Zarka is preparing for the possibility his business might end up underwater, as it
did during Hurricane Irma. ANDY ZARKA, Florida: They told us two years
ago that Irma was a once-in-a-lifetime storm, that there’s no — it’s never happened like
that and it’s never going to happen again. And now here we are two years later, and we’re
getting ready for what could be Irma 2.0. JOHN YANG: On Jacksonville Beach, residents
enjoyed a pleasant day while considering their next steps. WALTER CHOWN, Florida: We are going to take
our time on making a decision to leave. But, especially having children, we don’t
want to make — be foolhardy or make bad decisions. JOHN YANG: Others took advantage of the high
Atlantic waves Dorian churned up. But few expect the calm to last long. Here on Jacksonville Beach, the winds and
the waves already picking up, even though the brunt of Hurricane Dorian won’t be felt
for another 48 hours or so. Just a little bit ago, the Orlando Airport
announced it is suspending operations overnight tonight, which means that every major airport
on the eastern side of Florida from West Palm Beach to Daytona Beach is now closed. And, Judy, even if Dorian doesn’t make landfall,
it doesn’t mean there won’t be any damage. The track it’s forecast to take is very similar
to Hurricane Matthew about — in 2016. That storm too stayed off the coast, never
made landfall all the way to North Carolina. It caused about $3 billion of damage and claimed
12 lives — Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we remember that well. So, John, I — you were telling us you have
been talking to a lot of people there in Florida about the decisions they’re having to make
about whether to go, whether to stay. Tell us a little about what they’re saying. JOHN YANG: Well, this hurricane has been sort
of on the news and in the headlines for about a week now. They started talking about it last Monday. The good news is, that’s given a lot of people
a lot of time to plan. The bad news may be, it’s also given a lot
of people time to worry, and anxiety levels are high. But I thought that with the — perhaps with
the storm taking so long to get here, with it slowing down over the Bahamas so much,
that some people might become complacent. But the people I have talked to say that they
know what storms can do. This is the — would be the eighth major hurricane
to hit Florida since 2000. And a lot of people say that they know what
storms can do, they respect their power. And they also point to Andrew, the storm in
1992 that did about $27 billion worth of damage, killed 65. They say, since then, they take every storm
seriously. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, John, they are now issuing,
what, evacuation orders in Georgia and in the Carolinas. JOHN YANG: That’s right, up and down the coast. Low-lying coastal counties — actually, all
the counties along the coast have mandatory evacuation orders in place. And in South Carolina, they have begun what
they call contraflow. All the interstates going into Charleston,
all the traffic is outbound — from Charleston to Colombia outbound, and the other parts
of the state, the interstates all leading out of Charleston. You can’t get into Charleston. They want people to leave. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes. Even with this hurricane still sitting over
the Bahamas, so much havoc it is already creating up and down the East Coast. John Yang, reporting for us tonight from Jacksonville
Beach, thank you, John. Back in the Bahamas, Hurricane Dorian spent
much of this day pummeling Grand Bahama and other islands and is expected hover there
into tomorrow. The National Hurricane Center warned this
afternoon of ocean storm surges that could be 20 feet higher than normal, while wind
gusts were nearly 200 miles an hour at times. Phone service has been spotty or disconnected
there. So we check in this evening with Danica Coto,
who covers the Caribbean for the Associated Press. She’s been reporting, along with a colleague
who’s in the Bahamas. Danica joins us via Skype from San Juan, Puerto
Rico. Danica, hello again to us. So, what are you hearing about what this hurricane
has done to the Bahamas? DANICA COTO, Associated Press: Well, there’s
a lot of harrowing call for help coming out of not only the Abaco Islands, which was hit
on Sunday, but as well from Grand Bahama Island, which was affected today, on Monday — all
Monday for more than 12 hours. It’s a pretty significant amount of time for
an island that is mostly zero to 15 feet above sea levels, given that the storm surge is
expected between 18 to 23 feet. JUDY WOODRUFF: I was seeing in a report you
did with your colleague in the Bahamas there were something like over 2,000 distress calls? DANICA COTO: Correct. A lot of people were calling in for friends
and relatives, relaying messages to a radio station that was then passing on messages
to the Emergency Management Agency. These calls ranged from a 5-month-old that
was stuck atop a roof, to an elderly woman who had a stroke, to a pregnant woman, to
a grandmother with six grandchildren who had to literally cut a hole in the roof. And many of these people were asking for help. But rescue crews said that they were unable
to go out, given the current weather conditions. So, unfortunately, a lot of people were left
waiting for help. And as soon as the weather cleared, officials
said they could go out and help. And most of them went out as the eye passed
through Grand Bahama. So some people were able to be rescued, but
many are still waiting for help. JUDY WOODRUFF: What about infrastructure there? Danica, you mentioned it’s, what — you said
zero to 15 feet above sea level. How prepared are they to deal with any storm
and in particular a storm like this one that’s just sitting there? DANICA COTO: Well, the Bahamas is pretty used
to major storms. From 2015 to 2017, they were hit by three
Category 4 storms consecutively in those years. The homes are built to withstand 150 mile-per-hour
winds. But Dorian was no match. Dorian was carrying 185 mile-per-hour winds,
with gusts of up to 220 mile-per-hour winds, when it hit the Abaco Islands on Sunday. JUDY WOODRUFF: But we don’t know yet, is what
you’re saying, the extent of the destruction. DANICA COTO: Correct. Officials say they are still unable to go
to the Abaco Islands, which was hit on Sunday. And so the earliest they would be able to
go in to help these communities and the nearby keys would be around 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday. But a lot remains unknown, given that the
storm has basically parked itself over the Grand Bahama and the Abaco Islands for two
days. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it known how many people
were able actually to leave the Bahamas? I’m assuming not that many before the storm
hit. DANICA COTO: A lot of people sought shelter,
but legislators have said that many remained in the tiny keys around Abaco Island and Grand
Bahama. And they’re talking about creating legislation
to be able to enforce mandatory evacuations. JUDY WOODRUFF: But in order to do that, people
have to have the — they have to be able to afford to get on a boat or an airplane. DANICA COTO: Correct. They provide the transportation for many of
these people. And it was even up to 11:00 a.m. on Sunday,
which was the last bus leaving for shelters. And, even then, a couple of shelters in Grand
Bahama today were reporting problems with flooding. Our local reporters were saying that children
were sitting on the laps of adults as floodwaters began to rise in at least two shelters. Some people are describing the airport in
Freeport, which is in Grand Bahama. They say it looks like an ocean. A lot of areas are completely underwater. People are in the second floors of their homes. Bahama they say it looks like an ocean. A lot of areas are completely underwater. People are on the second floors of their homes
filming videos with waters rising. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it’s a terrible situation. And, of course, we’re all waiting to see what
more is learned. Danica Coto with the Associated Press, thank
you, Danica. DANICA COTO: Thank you very much. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Four
people died and another 29 are missing and feared dead after a dive boat sank off the
coast of Southern California. The 75-foot vessel caught fire before sinking
near Santa Cruz Island. The Ventura County Fire Department released
photos of the boat engulfed in flames before dawn. All five crew members survived by jumping
into the water. But the U.S. Coast Guard is still combing
the site, looking for missing passengers. CAPT. MONICA ROCHESTER, U.S. Coast Guard: Presently,
the Coast Guard is — has full efforts in a response posture right now. We are currently still in the response phase. Right now, they are conducting shoreline searches
for any available survivors. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s still unclear what caused
the fire. Federal transportation authorities have sent
a team to the scene to investigate. Authorities in Odessa, Texas, say the gunman
who killed seven in a mass shooting this weekend was fired from his job on the day of the attack. The shooter wounded at least 22 people before
he was killed by police. Authorities said he made rambling calls to
911 and to the FBI before the attack. CHRISTOPHER COMBS, FBI Special Agent in Charge:
He was on a long spiral of going down. He didn’t wake up Saturday morning and walk
into his company and then it happened. He went to that company in trouble. He’s probably been in trouble for a while,
which is why we have been reaching out. I talked to some of you yesterday about, we
really need the public’s help to reach out to us when they see people in that downward
spiral that may be on that road to violence. JUDY WOODRUFF: We will get a report on the
latest from Odessa later in the program. In Afghanistan, the Taliban claimed responsibility
for a massive explosion that rocked the capital city, Kabul, today, killing at least five
civilians. More than 50 others were wounded. It targeted the heavily secured Green Village
compound that’s home to several aid agencies and international organizations. The attack happened hours after U.S. envoy
Zalmay Khalilzad briefed the Afghan government about a draft peace deal with the Taliban. Special correspondent Jane Ferguson is in
Kabul, and joins us now. Jane, good evening. JANE FERGUSON: Hi, Judy. This is just the latest of a series of escalating
attacks by the Taliban in recent days, designed to keep up pressure on both the United States
and the Afghan government here in Kabul. The timing is very significant. The U.S. special envoy to those peace talks
between the United States government and the Taliban that have been taking place in Qatar,
Zalmay Khalilzad, just arrived this weekend back into Kabul, where he is presenting Afghan
President Ashraf Ghani with the initial details of a proposed agreement between the United
States and the Taliban. It’s believed they’re close to agreeing on
a U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, but have yet to finalize that agreement. In the meantime, the Taliban have marched
on two major cities in the north of Afghanistan just over the weekend as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s special correspondent
Jane Ferguson reporting from Kabul tonight. Thank you, Jane. In Hong Kong, tens of thousands of students
boycotted their first day of class to join anti-government demonstrations. Their peaceful rallies followed a weekend
of violent clashes with police that resulted in over 150 arrests. Today, high school and college students wore
face masks and school uniforms, as they demanded democratic change and an inquiry into police
conduct. ANDY CHAN, Student (through translator): I
think that secondary school students are part of society, and if we secondary school students
decide to boycott classes, that shows that part of society has already stopped functioning. JUDY WOODRUFF: The mass pro-democracy protests
in the semiautonomous Chinese territory began in June. Police officials have arrested more than 1,000
people since then. Medics in Yemen pulled 88 bodies from a demolished
detention center run by Houthi rebels. The building was targeted yesterday by Saudi-led
coalition airstrikes. In all, the strikes killed over a hundred
people and wounded dozens more. It was the deadliest assault there so far
this year. And the Trump administration said today that
it’s reconsidering its decision to force immigrants with life-threatening illnesses to return
to their home countries. U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services
abruptly ended the program last month, sparking widespread condemnation from the medical community. The policy had allowed immigrants to avoid
deportation as they or relatives underwent lifesaving medical treatment. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: former Secretary
of Defense James Mattis speaks about his decades of service in the Marines and why he’s unwilling
to answer questions about President Trump; an update from Odessa, Texas, after a gunman
kills at least seven in deadly drive-by shootings; protesters in the U.K. angry over the prospect
of leaving the European Union without a deal; and much more. Now to my interview with former Secretary
of Defense retired Marine Corps General James Mattis. He resigned in protest just before Christmas
last year after President Trump announced that he would pull American forces out of
Syria. The U.S. and its allies were trying to finish
off the remnants of the ISIS caliphate, and Mattis wrote in his resignation letter that
he believed Mr. Trump deserved a secretary of defense whose — quote — “views are better
aligned with yours.” The decorated Marine served more than four
decades in uniform, including commands in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He left the Corps in 2013 after a tumultuous
turn running U.S. Central Command under President Obama. Secretary Mattis has written a new book, “Call
Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead.” And I sat down with him this morning in New
York City. Former Secretary James Mattis, thank you very
much for talking with us. JAMES MATTIS, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense:
Yes, it’s a pleasure to be here this morning. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, the book is “Call Sign
Chaos.” It’s about your 40 years in the Marines. It’s also about your philosophy of leadership. And there’s a lot of advice in here with regard
to leadership. What does it boil down to? JAMES MATTIS: Well, I think leadership has
some enduring qualities, whether you’re leading a parish, or you’re leading a school district,
you’re leading a business, or you’re in the military or politics. George Washington, the father of our country,
I think, put it very well, how you have to listen, learn, help, and then lead. That was his approach. And it’s one that served me well. JUDY WOODRUFF: The book is full of so many
stories of your life, among other things, how you thought the troops and the people
out on the front lines were not being listened to by people in Washington. And one of those examples was in 2001, when
you thought Osama bin Laden, you had him cornered, in essence, in Afghanistan, but then the Bush
administration, in effect, pulled the rug out from under you. JAMES MATTIS: The Marine Corps required you
to read a lot of history. And when our intelligence services said that
they believed Osama bin Laden was in one of two valleys in an area up near Tora Bora,
having studied the Geronimo Campaign, and how you could put in outposts that would cut
him off, I pressed very hard to move against him. The challenge we face — and you’re right
to bring it up the way you did, Judy — is, oftentimes, we have 19- and 25-year-olds out
there giving 100 percent, rigorously learning their jobs and carrying them out, but I’m
not sure we have been as rigorous in setting policy. And this isn’t about Republicans or Democrats
or partisan. This goes across party lines. It even goes throughout the Western democracies
right now that seem to be stumbling in protection of democratic values and what we all stand
for. JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to ask you about a few
issues touching on American leadership today, and start with Russia. You write at the end of the book especially
about the critical importance of alliances, of America’s allies. Is it a good or a bad idea to let Russia back
into the G7, which is what the president has suggested? JAMES MATTIS: Let me answer that in two ways,
Judy. First, I believe that, when someone departs
an administration over policy differences, you have what the French call a duty of reserve,
a devoir de reserve. I don’t want to, on the outside, be making
it more difficult for our secretary of defense, secretary of state and president who have
to deal with this very complex world. There will be a time when it’s right for me
to come out on strategy and policy disagreements. But I was clear in my letter of resignation
that I believed in having alliances and staying true to alliances. And I think that, as we look at the importance
of alliances, this is critical that we work with our allies. For example, when this town was attacked on
9/11, I was joined on the battlefield very quickly by troops from Canada and the United
Kingdom, Norway and Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Jordan, and Turkey, not because their
city had been attacked, because we had been attacked. So we need to hold our allies close. In this world, if you study history, nations
with allies thrive, and nations without allies wither. And that’s a reality. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about Russia joining
— joining the G7? JAMES MATTIS: Yes, I think I maintain my quiet
right now. I don’t want to speak to things that I’m no
longer responsible for. JUDY WOODRUFF: Saudi Arabia. Given what we know about the murder of journalists
Jamal Khashoggi, is it in the long-term interests of the U.S. to be working with Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman? JAMES MATTIS: I think what we have to look,
and what my book is written about is the lessons I learned about, how do you lead? And part of this is, at times, you have to
work with countries that you don’t share everything in common with. No doubt about that. But when you get into current policies and
that sort of — that sort of subject, the reason I want to keep quiet right now is,
we have troops all around the world engaged in operations. We have diplomats all around the world engaged
in very sensitive negotiations. And for a former sitting secretary of defense
to come out with criticism, especially when I’m not completely current — I don’t know
all the back-channel things that are going on — I think it’s unhelpful, especially when
I’m contributing to political assessments at a time when it’s — the political discussions
in this country are so corrosive. I think it is better that we all — at least
the majority of us learn how to roll up our sleeves and listen to each other, work together,
and try to support sound policies that answer the question you just asked. JUDY WOODRUFF: I hear what you’re saying,
Secretary Mattis, but your book is full of references to decisions made for ethical reasons. This is an ethical decision, is it not, given
what Mohammed bin Salman is accused of? JAMES MATTIS: I believe it would be an ethical
decision about working with him. I think you can separate that decision from
working with Saudi Arabia. And that’s difficult to do. But this is sometimes the case that those
in positions of authority, they have to make accommodations to things, where you take the
least of two bad options. JUDY WOODRUFF: North Korea. President Trump has praised Kim Jong-un as
a great leader with — quote — “a beautiful vision” and that, due to the president’s personal
diplomacy, he says he’s changed his behavior. How do you assess Kim Jong-un and the success
at this point of U.S. policy with North Korea? JAMES MATTIS: I’m going to frustrate you here,
Judy, because I don’t believe that, now in the cheap seats, is what I would call myself,
that I’m going to engage in political assessments of something like that. There will come a point where I want to talk
about strategy and policy. It’s not yet. But there will come a time. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, as you know, the election
coming up in November of next year, Americans are going to be making a very important decision
about in whom to place enormous decision-making power over the future of this country and
the world. Are you saying you don’t think it’s your responsibility
to speak up before the election? JAMES MATTIS: That’s exactly what I’m saying. I come from the Department of Defense. And this isn’t just about me. Secretary Ash Carter, the secretary of defense
under President Obama, made very clear that the defense of this country is a nonpartisan
issue. And that was our area of expertise. He studiously avoided political statements. And that — so, this is not just me trying
to be protective of the administration that I just left over policy differences, I might
add. This is a standing tradition of the American
military and the American defense establishment that goes back to century now. And in the current corrosive political debates,
it can get submerged, where everybody thinks it’s all about political assessments all the
time. That doesn’t have to be the case when it comes
to the U.S. military. They protect the experiment. And it’s pretty a raucous experiment right
now. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you also served as the
secretary of defense, a Cabinet position… JAMES MATTIS: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: … in the government with
immense responsibility. And I just want to ask you some more about
that, because you spent a lot of time with the editor of “The Atlantic,” Jeffrey Goldberg. He did — wrote a very thoughtful piece for
them. He talked to a number of your associates. They have talked to you about President Trump,
that they believe what you believe about him is that he is a man of limited cognitive ability
and of generally dubious character. JAMES MATTIS: Number one, I never said that. And I’m not going to comment on who might
have said it. But I wouldn’t tolerate, when I was on active
duty or as secretary defense, any condemnation or characterization like that of any elected
commander in chief. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, to those who would — and
some are writing this right now — who say that you have a responsibility, because you
have worked so closely with this president, to speak candidly about what you have seen? And some of them are saying, you’re trying
to have it both ways, that you both enjoyed this position of enormous influence inside
the administration, but now you’re out, you don’t have that responsibility anymore, and
you’re not speaking to the American people about what you know. And allies of this country could be asking
the same question. JAMES MATTIS: Well, I — frankly, I determine
my own responsibilities. And I have lived what I believed is a responsible
life. The area of expertise that I had had to do
with the protection of this experiment that you and I call America. It’s the protection of it. And, at times, it’s very raucous. But I also have a lot of confidence in the
American people that they can select who they think is the best president, without me coming
in from the outside on a — as a defense official, whether active or former or whatever, and
start sounding like I’m the one who is able to evaluate those who have the toughest job
in the world. JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you confident this is a
president who can be trusted with the nuclear codes, a fateful responsibility? JAMES MATTIS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: You want to expand on that,
why you believe that? JAMES MATTIS: You know, the responsibility
that lies — and that’s a very grave one. I have not heard anything that would indicate
there was some irresponsibility there. The thing is, Judy, that we live in a time
where every word is taken apart. And I realize we have an unusual president,
and he talks openly about many things. But, at the same time, in the privacy of the
office, he has to deal with the reality of competing factors. And I would bring the grim realities of war
into that office. At the same time, political leaders are elected
to try to bring human aspirations to bear, of a better economy, of pulling troops out
of wars. This is the normal — to me, this is the normal
tension between human aspirations and war’s realities, those grim realities. And it’s something that, I like being hard
on the issues. I don’t believe in being hard on the people. JUDY WOODRUFF: If you believed that this president
or any president wasn’t a fit commander in chief, would you say so? JAMES MATTIS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: In other words, you think he’s
fit? JAMES MATTIS: No, I’m not saying that. I don’t make political assessments one way
or the other. I come from the Defense Department. We protect this experiment in democracy. We don’t make assessments of the people’s
choice to serve as the elected commander in chief. JUDY WOODRUFF: Former Secretary of Defense
James Mattis, thank you very much for talking with us. JAMES MATTIS: You’re welcome, Judy. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: The weekend shooting rampage
in West Texas has left two more American communities in mourning. Seven people were killed in Odessa and nearby
Midland on Saturday, and another 22 people were wounded, including a 17-month-old girl. It came after state troopers stopped the alleged
shooter for driving his car erratically. He shot one of the troopers and then sped
away, firing at people randomly. William Brangham gets an update. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Judy, there was an emotional
vigil last night for victims of the shooting. The gunman’s motive is still unknown. He was apparently fired from his job just
before the traffic stop that started the shootings. This, of course, all comes less than a month
since the massacre at the Walmart in El Paso that killed 22 people. Mitch Borden of Marfa Public Radio joins me
from Midland via Skype. Mitch, thank you very much for doing this. Could you just tell me, first off, what we
know about the seven victims who were killed in this rampage? MITCH BORDEN, Marfa Public Radio: We know
they ranged in age by quite a bit, the youngest being 15 and the oldest being 57. The youngest was a high school student, a
sophomore at a local Odessa high school. And other than that, information is coming
out slowly about the victims. There are fund-raisers. But, so far, at least from what I have seen,
they haven’t released a complete list of the names of the dead. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And this is such a strange
type of mass shooting, where it’s going sort of between these two cities from location
to location. How are the two communities of Midland and
Odessa doing, grappling with all of this? MITCH BORDEN: Just to clear things up, the
traffic stop probably started in Midland County, but it mostly took place in Odessa. The shooter never went to the city limits
of Midland. And both communities, I think, are just in
shock. After being at the vigil last night, people
are ready to heal, but people are scared. This happened in so many places, so quickly,
so many people were affected, that, you know, it’s only, what, two days later. Like, people are trying to still just understand
how this happened. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And Governor Abbott today
said we still don’t know anything about the motive of what drove this man to act this
way. But he did say something, that they found
out something about him failing some background checks for purchasing guns. Can you tell us more about that? MITCH BORDEN: Yes, it does — it did come
out in a presser held earlier today by the — by law enforcement officials that he had
in the past failed a background check. They didn’t release any more information. They also said they didn’t know how he obtained
the assault-style weapon that he used in the shooting. Other than that, we will just have to wait
for them to release more information. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So this massacre, following
El Paso, also occurs right when a series of new state laws go into effect that would loosen
prior gun regulations in the state of Texas. What are those changes? MITCH BORDEN: There’s a lot. There were eight laws that came into effect
on September 1. But a lot of them make it easier to carry
guns in certain settings, such as houses of worship during a disaster. One increased the amount of school marshals
that can carry a firearm. And at a presser — a presser yesterday, Governor
Abbott addressed a crowd and talked to them about action was needed, but he didn’t specify
what type of action. And when asked about, like, these regulations,
he stated that some of them make situations safer, such as the school one, where school
marshal — more school marshals can be armed. So he didn’t want to really engage on the
idea that maybe these regulations make things unsafe. And, so far, there hasn’t been any more comment
around Odessa on this matter. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, calls for new gun
control measures always follow these types of shootings. We saw that after El Paso and Dayton, and
we certainly saw it here. And I know former Congressman Beto O’Rourke
was in the region. I know you were with — I take it, with him
earlier today. He has made much of his presidential campaign
based on gun control. He’s called for some very aggressive measures,
like mandatory buybacks of assault-style weapons. Did he talk about that today? And, if so, what is your sense of, how does
that play in Texas to Texas ears? MITCH BORDEN: You know, I — when I saw him,
he was visiting a Labor Day celebration, a potluck at a union hall — or, like, a celebration
put on by unions. And he was just there trying to spread support
from all of West Texas, El Paso. The shooting in El Paso happened less than
30 days ago. And it was just about trying to bring the
communities together. And he also said action needed to be taken. He didn’t go into, like — and during his
speech, he didn’t go into the certain policies, but he did express like, yes, more things
need to be done on a policy level. He wasn’t shy about that. I don’t think he’s usually shy about that. How that will play in Texas, I think Texas
is a red state. I think a lot of people love guns in this
state and are very protective of their Second Amendment rights. At the same time, two mass shootings in less
than 30 days. I think some people do want change. And I think you can get really granular when
you go into what type of change people want. But I think people are getting to their wit’s
end with this violence. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Mitch Borden of Marfa Public
Radio, thank you very much for your time and for your reporting. MITCH BORDEN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Britain has begun a critical
week in the battle over its planned exit from the European Union. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has ordered members
of his governing Conservative Party to back his efforts to secure the best possible Brexit
deal. The state of Britain’s democracy is now under
severe scrutiny, after Johnson obtained the queen’s permission to suspend Parliament,
in an apparent attempt to halt debate over Brexit. As special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports,
that move led to dozens of demonstrations over the weekend. MALCOLM BRABANT: Members of Boris Johnson’s
Cabinet were summoned to his Downing Street residence for an emergency session. He told them he’s optimistic of getting concessions
from Europe, so that Britain can leave on October the 31st with a deal. But his plans are being threatened by an opposition
bill due to be tabled by the Labor leader, Jeremy Corbyn, tomorrow. With demonstrators jeering in the background,
the prime minister urged his party to back him. BORIS JOHNSON, British Prime Minister: But
if there’s one thing that can hold us back in these talks, it is the sense in Brussels
that M.P.s may find some way to cancel the referendum or that, tomorrow, M.P.s will vote
with Jeremy Corbyn for yet another pointless delay. I don’t think they will. I hope that they won’t. But, if they do, they will plainly chop the
legs out from under the U.K. position and make any further negotiation absolutely impossible. MALCOLM BRABANT: The implied threat was that,
if the government fails to defeat the bill in Parliament tomorrow, he will seek a general
election. BORIS JOHNSON: I don’t want an election. You don’t want an election. Let’s get on with the people’s agenda. MALCOLM BRABANT: Johnson spent the weekend
war-gaming with his closest advisers at his official retreat, Chequers, after he decided,
controversially, to suspend Parliament for five weeks. His ultimatum is a response to plans outlined
by Labor’s Brexit spokesman, Sir Keir Starmer. SIR KEIR STARMER, Brexit Spokesperson, Labor
Party: The legislation is simple and straightforward, the purpose of which is to ensure that, if
we get to the 31st of October without a deal, we do not crash out. There’s no mandate from the referendum for
crashing out without a deal, nor is there a mandate from Parliament for that. So, actually, Boris Johnson has no mandate
for this at all. MALCOLM BRABANT: Two opinion polls conducted
in recent days indicate that Boris Johnson is gaining support for his tough stance. Despite the resistance to the suspension of
Parliament, one of those polls suggests that Johnson would win a general election. He’s buoyed by reactions like this from businesswoman
Kindi Kaur, a Conservative supporter. She’s from Gravesend, a district east of London
that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. KINDI KAUR, Brexit Supporter: I think Boris
has done a fantastic tactical move here to make everyone pull their acts together and
give us a good deal. Otherwise, thank you very much. We’re leaving, whether you like it or not. And we are strong enough to survive this. MALCOLM BRABANT: The shockwaves of Boris Johnson’s
nuclear option to suspend Parliament have reverberated nationwide. There may not have been thousands on the queen’s
doorstep at Windsor Castle, but the symbolism was obvious. PROTESTERS: Stop the coup! Stop the coup! ZOE BINNIE, Protest Organizer: I think this
is a British coup. It’s very polite, it’s very unassuming. And that’s the worst thing. It’s very quiet. They slip things through the door. Before we know, we have accepted things that
we didn’t realize were going to happen. MALCOLM BRABANT: The precise verb to suspend
Parliament is prorogue. The prime minister insists it’s a standard
procedure, leaving ample time for lawmakers to debate Brexit. But protesters don’t believe him. CLAIRE PATON, Teacher: It’s the most vital
time in our recent history, and he’s just shut everybody up. He’s shut everybody out, so he can force through
what the vocal minority of people want, which is a no-deal Brexit. MALCOLM BRABANT: Architect Matthew Taylor
is concerned that Johnson is flouting the conventions of Britain’s unwritten constitution. MATTHEW TAYLOR, Architect: In the past, it’s
relied lots of trust and good faith, a belief that the people in charge are doing the right
thing. But if they switch to not doing it, it’s very
easy to start abusing a system like that, because there aren’t enough checks and balances
in place. MALCOLM BRABANT: Another reason for staging
the protest here. Just opposite the queen’s favorite pad in
Windsor lies Eton. The very name exudes privilege in class-obsessed
Britain. That Ivy-est of Ivy League schools, Eton College,
is where Britain’s royals and upper crust send their heirs to learn about gaining and
using power. It’s produced 20 British prime ministers,
including the latest, Boris Johnson. PROTESTERS: Hey, ho, Boris Johnson has to
go! ANGUS CAMERON, Chairman, Windsor Labor Party:
The idiot that got schooled just down the road has in one or two weeks destroyed everything. We are supposed to be the home place of democracy. OK? No longer. CRAIG MACKINLAY, British Parliament Member:
This has got nothing to do with outrage about democracy. This is all to do with trying to stop Brexit. And it’s not going to work. MALCOLM BRABANT: Craig Mackinlay is a leading
member of a hardcore conservative group of lawmakers? known as the Spartans. They helped depose the previous prime minister,
Theresa May, because they thought she wasn’t tough enough on Brexit. Mackinlay defends Parliament’s suspension
as normal, and applauds Johnson’s push for a better Brexit deal from Europe. CRAIG MACKINLAY: Everybody goes to look at
new houses, new cars. You don’t go into that showroom to buy a new
car and saying, I’m not leaving here until I buy it. If you’re not getting the deal you want, the
price you want and the extras you want, you walk away. So what Prime Minister Johnson has done is
trying to get that no-deal threat back on the table, because only if you have that no-deal
threat, in my view, have you got any chance of getting a deal that would be acceptable. MALCOLM BRABANT: There are fears that a no-deal
Brexit would cause hold ups at ports like Dover. The government has promised there will be
no food shortages. But Matthew Taylor is not convinced. MATTHEW TAYLOR: If anything, civil unrest
is likely to start when there are food shortages and stuff. Only a few months ago, we had people phoning
the police because KFC ran out of chicken. So, if people are going to react like that
about that, their idea of this Blitz spirit, where they all kind of survive on homegrown
vegetables, it’s not going to happen. MALCOLM BRABANT: They’re not starving just
yet, but there’s increasing worry, in picture-postcard Britain, that the country’s destiny is about
to change forever. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Malcolm Brabant
in Eton. JUDY WOODRUFF: From coast to coast, the 2020 presidential candidates celebrated Labor Day. But a weekend of breaking news turned their
attention to guns once again. Lisa Desjardins brings us this campaign update. LISA DESJARDINS: There they were, at work
today, among the crowds and parades charming potential voters. But, listen closely. On this Labor Day, Democratic candidates for
president focused less on jobs and wages, and more on the gun debate, after Odessa,
Texas, became the latest site of a mass shooting on Saturday. Take former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa. He said the Constitution doesn’t protect semiautomatic
rifles, like the one used in Odessa. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
Having assault weapons on the street and multi — magazines carrying multiple bullets is
irrational. There is no need for it, and your Second Amendment
rights are in no way violated. LISA DESJARDINS: Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar,singled
out Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on guns. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), Presidential Candidate:
Mitch McConnell is going to have to decide what side he’s on. He’s going to have to explain to the people
of this country why he wouldn’t let that bill that just passed the House come up for a vote. LISA DESJARDINS: And all this follows the
comments from former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke, who used an expletive on CNN Sunday
while reacting to another mass shooting in his home state. BETO O’ROURKE (D), Presidential Candidate:
So, yes, this is (EXPLETIVE DELETED) up. And if we don’t call it out for what it is,
if we’re not able to speak clearly, if we’re not able to act decisively, then we will continue
to have this kind of bloodshed in America. And I cannot accept that. LISA DESJARDINS: In Los Angeles, California
Senator Kamala Harris hit several notes, vowing executive action on guns if Congress doesn’t
act, while commemorating the holiday. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), Presidential Candidate:
We are celebrating the leadership of organized labor that brought all of us, whether you’re
member of a union or not, better conditions, better wages, better benefits. LISA DESJARDINS: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth
Warren sent out a Labor Day video to her supporters, while, for another candidate, Labor Day was
about their work force. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
is expanding in Iowa. PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
That starts with the folks who are gathered here. And it starts in this, the first of 20 field
offices that we’re going to be opening over the next few days. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) LISA DESJARDINS: In the meantime, Vermont
Senator Bernie Sanders focused on New England, stumping in the first-in-the-nation primary
state of New Hampshire. And that brings us to Politics Monday. Our Politics Monday team is back, Amy Walter
of The Cook Political Report and host of public radio’s “Politics With Amy Walter,” and Tamara
Keith from NPR. She also co-hosts “The NPR Politics Podcast.” Multimedia women, thank you for working this
Labor Day. We appreciate it. TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Absolutely. LISA DESJARDINS: Let’s start with unions on
this Labor Day. And, Tam, what do we know about President
Trump’s relationship with unions? He talks a lot about them. Is he keeping those voters right now? TAMARA KEITH: He does talk a lot about them. And what he talks about is how he really identifies
with the rank and file. And he is constantly saying, well, the union
bosses, they don’t like me, but the rank and file, they’re my people. The numbers don’t exactly bear that out. Certainly, some rank and file union members
and union households did support President Trump and no doubt continue to. But he’s really pushing the idea. And his idea, I think, the image in his mind
of a union worker is somebody with a hardhat and a lunch pail who takes a shower at the
end of the day. Now, that isn’t necessarily reflective of
union workers as a whole in America. (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: And that’s what I want to
talk to you about, Amy. In your podcast, “Politics With Amy Walter”
from “The Takeaway”… (LAUGHTER) AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Yes. Thank you. LISA DESJARDINS: … you spent the whole episode
last week looking at this. And the face of actual union voters is not
what people think it is. AMY WALTER: Right. I mean, Tam is right that Trump has made inroads
with rank and file members, especially in places that we know are key to the presidential
election, in those battleground states. In Ohio, according to the exit polls, he actually
won union households by 13 points. This is a group of voters that four years
earlier Obama had won by 20. So there is something going on there. He did much better overall with labor voters,
for example — or union households is how exit polls ask that — than Romney did four
years earlier. So, yes, he’s been able to make some inroads. But Tam is also correct that this image of
the hardhat — and, really, we’re talking about a white guy with a hardhat or a white
guy who’s coming out of the mines — doesn’t reflect, I think, where labor currently is
in terms of its membership. It’s becoming much more female-centered. Certainly, for — people of color are much
more significant influence and force within the labor movement than they have been ever
before. And think about where — if you’re looking
to what the most high-profile union-organizing or labor issues have been in the last year
or so, it’s been the teacher strikes, again, a profession that’s heavily female, and the
Fight for 15, this — the organizing of fast food workers for minimum wage of $15 an hour. So, the service industry also very influential. And we know that, in 2018, women were a very
big source of Democratic votes and energy. And I think we should be looking also to those
women who are part of labor as a another piece of this. One more thing about the labor makeup that’s
interesting, I think part of the reason that Joe Biden has done as well — or doing as
well in the Democratic primary is that he’s seen as the candidate, the one candidate who
can win back those guys with lunch pails and hardhats in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in
Ohio. And that has, I think, helped submit his front-runner
status. TAMARA KEITH: And he obviously pushes that
image, that sort of Scranton Joe, middle-class Joe. AMY WALTER: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely, TAMARA KEITH: Like, he really — that is part
of his pitch. AMY WALTER: That’s right. TAMARA KEITH: And, in part, that pitch isn’t
just to white voters who fit the image. He’s also pitching that to voters of color
who just want to beat President Trump. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. He’s saying: This is how we can win. I can get these voters. AMY WALTER: That’s right. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. LISA DESJARDINS: Another way that Democrats
are hoping to get attention and energize at least their base, maybe some suburban women
voters, is the issue of guns. We are here yet again on another Monday after
another weekend with more gun deaths in this country. Tam, where exactly do you think the White
House really is on wanting to get legislation through Congress of any kind? TAMARA KEITH: In part, I think the White House
is still trying to figure that out. I know that they — and I have spoken to people
who’ve been in meetings. The White House at a staff level has been
having meetings with gun rights people, but also with victims families and other advocates,
staff of members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. But what they think they can actually do,
what they think the president will actually get behind, that’s not clear. It’s — there’s sort of a disconnect right
now between the president and the staff, and sort of a disconnect between the president
from one moment to the next. And what I mean by that is, he keep saying
different things that are seemingly quite contradictory, saying, well, we do want to
do background checks, but then saying, except, you know, background checks wouldn’t have
prevented any of the recent shootings, so I guess maybe, well, we need to protect the
Second Amendment. It’s not clear exactly where he stands. The issue right now is that the White House
keeps saying, we need to know what is politically feasible. We need to know what can pass Congress. You talk to people over in Congress, and they
say, we need to know what the president would actually support. LISA DESJARDINS: Amy, yes. AMY WALTER: Doesn’t that sound familiar? (LAUGHTER) AMY WALTER: It feels like we have this conversation
a lot. The interesting element here, too, is what’s
happening on the Democratic side. And when we have talked to before about, this
is a really unique period of time where you have all the Democratic candidates running
for president pretty much united around the issue of guns, that’s brand-new. But now you see somebody like Beto O’Rourke
from Texas, who has retooled his campaign since the El Paso shooting, and is running
essentially on the issue of gun control, moving even farther than we have heard previous Democratic
candidates on issues like having buybacks for assault weapons. Will this become part of the debate? He’s no longer in Congress, but are there
other members of Congress who will say, huh, maybe we should put that into the mix, too? That’s probably — that is certainly too far
for Republicans. The question is, will it be too far for many
Democrats too? LISA DESJARDINS: This is a good transition
to another thing we have seen in the last week, which is more retirements from Congress,
especially by Republicans. I believe we’re at around 11 right now. I know it’s still early, but lightning round,
ladies. Are we going to see another record year retirements
from Congress, or no? TAMARA KEITH: Well, what I will say is that
some of these retirements are based on personal factors. Other retirements appear to be based on, well,
it’s just not that fun to be in the minority. AMY WALTER: Yes, that is absolutely true. I think we will know if there will be another
slew of retirements. There’s a special election in North Carolina
in a very Republican district on September 10, next week, right? TAMARA KEITH: Yes. AMY WALTER: That’s next week. (CROSSTALK) TAMARA KEITH: Already. AMY WALTER: I know. It feels like it’s already coming up on it. I think, should Democrats win there, that
would be another alarm bell and a real worry spot for Republicans, maybe another incentive
to pack it in. LISA DESJARDINS: Amy Walter, Tamara Keith,
thank you. Enjoy the rest of your holiday. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. AMY WALTER: Thank you. You too. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we thank Amy, Lisa, and
Tam for coming in on this Labor Day. And that’s the “NewsHour” for this day. I’m Judy Woodruff. Thank you, and we’ll see you soon.

Pompeo on disaster relief in Bahamas, peace talks with the Taliban


PBS NewsHour full episode September 9, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: the meeting that
wasn’t. After President Trump cancels a secret summit
with Taliban and Afghan leaders, where does the United States stand in the effort to end
its longest war? Then: Brexit on the brink. Chaos envelops the British government, as
its options for leaving the European Union grow murkier. Plus, Amy Walter and Tamara Keith are here
to examine the closely watched special election in North Carolina and President Trump’s latest
Republican challenger. And Margaret Atwood, author of the acclaimed
novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” returns to her infamous dystopia in the new sequel, “The
Testaments.” MARGARET ATWOOD, Author, “The Testaments”:
If I had thought, let’s write a sequel to “The Handmaid’s Tale” this kind in 1999, I
would have said, why bother? We’re not going there. Surely, people are moving away from that. But in the moment in which we know exist,
that’s not true anymore. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump now says that
peace talks with the Taliban are dead. His pronouncement today came after he disclosed
that he was canceling a secret weekend meeting with Taliban and Afghan leaders at Camp David. He blamed a Taliban bombing that killed a
U.S. service member last Thursday. We will get some analysis after the news summary. North Korea’s government offered today to
restart nuclear talks with the United States this month. The talks stalled after President Trump and
North Korea’s Kim Jong-un held a failed summit in Hanoi last February. Mr. Trump reacted this afternoon outside the
White House. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
I have a very good relationship with Chairman Kim, Kim Jong-un, and it just came out. I just saw it as I’m coming out here. It just came out that they would like to meet. We will see what happens, but I always say
having meetings is a good thing, not a bad thing. JUDY WOODRUFF: Kim Jong-un is widely believed
to be seeking security guarantees and relief from U.S. sanctions. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
claimed today that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons site. He said it had been in Abadeh in Central Iran,
but was destroyed by the Iranians after being discovered. Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif dismissed
the Israeli claim. He said — quote — “The possessor of real
nukes cries wolf.” The deadly storm Dorian is no longer a hurricane,
but thousands are still struggling in its wake. The storm lashed at Nova Scotia and Newfoundland
yesterday, before moving into the North Atlantic. Meanwhile, search teams in the Bahamas recovered
more bodies, as the death toll there reached at least 45. We will hear more about the Bahamas, later
in the program. In Russia, voters have handed a victory to
opponents of President Vladimir Putin’s party. Results from Sunday’s voting show the opposition
won nearly half of the Moscow City Council’s seats. Opposition leader Alexei Navalny had urged
support for the anti-Kremlin candidates with the best chance of winning. ALEXEI NAVALNY, Russian Opposition Leader
(through translator): In general, we can say that the tactical vote worked in the country
and for the first time. It worked much better than we had expected. This was an experiment, and in those cities
and regions where it was implemented for the first time, it worked very, very well. JUDY WOODRUFF: Putin’s party won several governorships,
but also suffered defeats in several other city elections. Thousands of high school and college students
in Hong Kong formed human chains today to support democratic reforms. They held hands outside their schools. It was a show of solidarity after violent
weekend clashes between protesters and police. On Sunday, marchers urged the U.S. to impose
sanctions on Hong Kong and on mainland China. Back in this country, the U.S. Coast Guard
rescued three of four crew members trapped inside a South Korean cargo ship off the coast
of Georgia. The massive vessel was carrying more than
4,000 new vehicles when it overturned and burned early Sunday, closing the Port of Brunswick. Today, a Coast Guard helicopter landed on
the ship’s side, and rescuers rappelled down and drilled a hole into the hull. They found the crew members alive and safe. Twenty other crew members were rescued yesterday. Fifty states and U.S. territories have opened
an antitrust investigation into Google. The bipartisan group announced today that
they are looking into alleged monopolistic behavior. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was among
those speaking outside the U.S. Supreme Court. KEN PAXTON, Texas Attorney General: This is
a company that dominates all aspects of advertising on the Internet and searching on the Internet,
as they dominate the buyer’s side, the seller’s side, the auction side, and even the video
side with YouTube. JUDY WOODRUFF: Facebook is facing a similar
investigation by a separate group of states. Three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives,
Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs, are all investigating whether President Trump
and top aides pressed Ukraine for reelection help. At issue is whether they pushed Kiev to probe
Hunter Biden’s connections to a Ukrainian gas company. His father is former Vice President Joe Biden,
who is now, of course, a Democratic presidential candidate. A federal judge in California has reissued
a nationwide injunction against barring most migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico
border. The Trump administration rule applies to those
who pass through a third country. An appeals court restricted the judge’s previous
injunction. But, today, he reinstated his initial ruling. The White House called it — quote — “a gift
to human smugglers and traffickers.” And on Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial
average gained 38 points to close at 26835. The Nasdaq fell 15 points, and the S&P 500
slipped a fraction. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: nearly 18
years after the invasion, how close is the U.S. to ending its military involvement in
Afghanistan?; dealing with the magnitude of suffering in the Bahamas, as the scope of
Hurricane Dorian’s destruction becomes clear; the Brexit breakdown — U.K. leaders scramble
to figure out just how they will be leaving the European Union; and much more. The fallout continued today from the collapse
of the White House plan to invite the leaders of the Taliban and president of Afghanistan
to Camp David. President Trump’s twin surprise, that he had
invited the Taliban to the U.S., but then was canceling the talks, echoed in Washington
and in Kabul. And that’s where special correspondent Jane
Ferguson is tonight. JANE FERGUSON: Leaving the White House today,
President Trump had ominous words about the Taliban peace talks. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
They’re dead. They’re dead. As far as I’m concerned, they’re dead. JANE FERGUSON: He spoke after canceling separate
meetings with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Taliban leaders planned for this weekend
at the Camp David presidential retreat. Lawmakers of both parties blasted the president
for even inviting the Taliban to Camp David days before the 18th anniversary of the September
11 terror attacks. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New
Jersey: SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): I think it was ill-conceived
in the first place. It’s another example of the Trump administration’s
foreign policy, which is a high-wire act. JANE FERGUSON: Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the
third-ranking Republican in the House tweeted; “No member of the Taliban should set foot
there ever.” The meeting would have come after nearly a
year of talks. U.S. officials, led by Afghan native and former
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, and the Taliban had closed in on a peace deal to end the 18-year
American war in Afghanistan. As part of that tentative deal, the U.S. would
remove 5,000 troops in return for a Taliban pledge to reduce violence and prevent the
terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaida from operating in the country. There would also be follow-on talks between
the Taliban and Afghan government. Then, in three tweets Saturday night, President
Trump announced the Camp David talks with the Taliban, and said he had canceled the
meeting and called off peace negotiations. He blamed a Taliban attack last Thursday that
killed a U.S. soldier, an attack he said proved the Taliban were negotiating in bad faith. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday defended
the president. MIKE POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State: When
the Taliban tried to gain negotiating advantage by conducting terror attacks inside of the
country, President Trump made the right decision to say, that’s not going to work. JANE FERGUSON: In Kabul, Afghan presidential
spokesman Sediq Seddiqi welcomed the breakdown of the deal. The Afghan government says it has been shut
out of the talks completely, and their criticism of the proposed deal had strained relations
with the Trump administration. SEDIQ SEDDIQI, Afghan Presidential Spokesman:
We strongly believe that that shift in policy is a reflection of the concerns that we have
raised towards that peace deal, and there is a true and genuine understanding in the
White House of any consequences of any bad peace deal or peace process. JANE FERGUSON: Mr. Trump announced from the
start of negotiations that he was determined to pull the troops out entirely. DR. HAMDULLAH MOHIB, Afghan Presidential National
Security Adviser: I would have done the negotiations differently. JANE FERGUSON: Dr. Hamdullah Mohib is President
Ashraf Ghani’s national security adviser. DR. HAMDULLAH MOHIB: Showing your card right at
the outset doesn’t make for good negotiations. And I think perhaps that’s why their position
has hardened over the last nine months, since these negotiations have been going on. JANE FERGUSON: The violence across Afghanistan
in recent weeks has been staggering, as both sides have pressured each other in the negotiations. The Taliban has killed dozens of Afghan civilians
here in Kabul in suicide attacks and launched offensives on provincial capitals, as well
as killing four U.S. soldiers in the last two weeks. In turn, Afghan and American forces have been
pounding the Taliban with special forces raids and airstrikes. If there is no deal, and the Taliban continue
to refuse to talk to the Kabul government, then the bloodshed in Afghanistan will continue. But the Taliban have still said that they
won’t recognize your government. If they won’t sit down with you, is there
a plan, other than more war? SEDIQ SEDDIQI: If they do not accept that,
and they are still a major threat to the security of us and partners, so they will face the
consequences. And we have the will. JANE FERGUSON: The Taliban have reacted angrily,
releasing a statement saying: “This will harm America more than anyone else.” It’s not clear if this deal is completely
off the table or the current collapse of the talks can be repaired. No deal at all comes with one certainty: that
the U.S.’ longest war will get longer. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jane Ferguson
in Kabul, Afghanistan. JUDY WOODRUFF: We look further now into why
the talks collapsed and where this goes from here with Laurel Miller. She was President Obama’s special representative
for Afghanistan and Pakistan. She’s now at the International Crisis Group. It is a global nonprofit. Laurel Miller, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” So, we heard President Trump say today that
the peace talks are dead. Do we believe, do you believe that’s the case? LAUREL MILLER, Former State Department Official:
They don’t have to be dead. It’s a question of whether the U.S. has the
will to restart the talks. Some of the statements that have been made
by Secretary Pompeo, in particular, have indicated some openness to restarting the talks, and
the Taliban has likewise. It’s hard to know how to interpret President
Trump’s latest statements that sound more definitive, given that he has changed his
mind on similar issues in the past. JUDY WOODRUFF: And given that it’s just a
couple of days after we thought these — the meetings were on. LAUREL MILLER: That’s right. JUDY WOODRUFF: What’s your understanding of
exactly what caused this thing to go off the rails? The president is blaming, as you know, Taliban
attacks that include killing an American service member in Afghanistan. But Americans have been killed regularly over
many months. And many people we have talked to say they
think there’s there’s much more here. LAUREL MILLER: Yes. I mean, there’s no logic, you can say, to
that explanation. The attacks, the ramping up of violence that
was described in the earlier piece has been going on throughout these negotiations, almost
a year now. Last year, Afghanistan was the deadliest conflict
in the world. This has been a trajectory over a long period
of time. And many Americans have been killed before
now. So the idea that one particular attack, tragic
as it may be, was the unique reason for canceling these last-minute, thrown-together events
in Camp David doesn’t sound very credible. What’s more likely is that the Taliban didn’t
want to show up, because it was their understanding that the deal had been concluded, that it
had been negotiated with Ambassador Khalilzad. Why would they want to come to Camp David
to reopen the deal? JUDY WOODRUFF: In other words, they had been
in these discussions with Ambassador Khalilzad, and they thought that that was what was going
to — they were going to be discussing, whereas the word they got from the White House was
that this was going to be something that was open. LAUREL MILLER: Right. At a minimum, there was a lot of ambiguity
about what this meeting would be. Also, the invitation to President Ghani raised
questions as to what was the intention of this meeting, given that the negotiations
that have taken place so far have only been on a narrow set of issues just between the
U.S. and the Taliban? JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s talk about what
was in the agreement. We just heard Jane Ferguson refer to — and
we have heard this before — 5,000 some U.S. troops out of the total 14,000 in the coalition,
a follow-up of Taliban talks with the Afghan government. What more do we know about what was in this
deal? LAUREL MILLER: Not a lot more. I mean, the administration and others, the
very, very few people who’ve actually seen the text of the agreement, have been extraordinarily
tight-lipped about it. So we know about the first phase of drawdown,
the 5,000, over 135 days that you referred to, very little detail about what the rest
of a drawdown of American forces would look like. We know there would be a commitment to starting
Afghan talks, and that there would be some kind of assurances from the Taliban that they
would break with al-Qaida and prevent Afghanistan from ever again being used as a launching
pad for terrorism. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, at this point, how much
trust is there among these parties involved? LAUREL MILLER: Very little, but you never
negotiate peace on the basis of trust. You negotiate on the basis of interests and
of trying to identify common interests. And the reasons that gave birth to these negotiations
nearly a year ago still exist. The Afghan war is a bloody stalemate. The U.S. is not going to defeat the Taliban. The Afghan government is not showing signs
of being able to defeat the Taliban. And the U.S. was looking for a way out, with
as much grace and potential stability left behind as possible. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it your understanding that
the key figures in the Trump administration believed that if the Taliban signed on to
any agreement, that they were going to abide by it? My question is, were they — did they truly
believe that the Taliban was ready to split from al-Qaida, to stop attacking the Afghan
government and so on? LAUREL MILLER: You don’t have to believe that
they’re ready in order to enter into an agreement like this. You have to have mechanisms for verifying,
for implementing the agreement, and then provisions that enable you to pull out of the agreement
if they don’t abide by it. But you can never know whether that intention
is real in advance of actually testing it through a negotiation and implementation. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is there one party on whom
we can say the responsibility for this thing falling apart lies? LAUREL MILLER: I think the United States. I mean, I — that’s not to say that there
haven’t been difficulties in the negotiations or that the Taliban hasn’t been stubbornly
insistent on its positions. But there’s no evidence so far there was any
last-minute change of position their part. There’s only evidence that there was this
last-minute initiative to hold the Camp David meeting. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right, because they had — as
you said earlier, they had agreed or thought they had an agreement, a tentative agreement,
with Ambassador Khalilzad. LAUREL MILLER: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Where do we go from here, Laurel
Miller? LAUREL MILLER: Yes. I mean, it’s — there’s no good alternative
to trying to negotiate a peace agreement in Afghanistan. That remains true today as it was a few days
before this. It’s obviously going to be hard to restart
the talks, if the parties want to, because credibility has been damaged. And, already, minimal trust has been further
lost. (COUGHING) JUDY WOODRUFF: And at this point — excuse
me. Go ahead. Have a sip of water. (COUGHING) JUDY WOODRUFF: At this point, President Ghani,
who — sorry — go ahead and — sorry about your cough. But President Ghani of Afghanistan was reluctant
to accept these talks, but then he agreed to come. And then, I guess on Friday, he changed his
mind about coming. So, there is a factor there. LAUREL MILLER: Yes, it’s not clear whether… JUDY WOODRUFF: I’m sorry about that. (COUGHING) LAUREL MILLER: It’s not clear whether his
not coming was a refusal to enter into talks, as much as just the cancellation. JUDY WOODRUFF: Sorry about that, Laurel Miller. It happens to all of us. It’s happened to me. Thank you very much, and we will have you
on again to talk about this. LAUREL MILLER: Thank you very much. JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you. Rescue workers searched for bodies in the
Bahamas today, and thousands of residents evacuated to shelters. The Abaco Islands were devastated by Hurricane
Dorian. Relief operations are under way, but it’s
been a slow and difficult process. Amna Nawaz gets a report from the islands. AMNA NAWAZ: Judy, it’s been a week since Dorian
struck the Abaco Islands and part of the Grand Bahama. It’s been slow going to get enough food, water
and supplies to these places. As much as 90 percent of all the buildings
and structures on the Abaco Islands appear to have been destroyed. Areas like Marsh Harbour, where there were
many Haitian immigrants, may not be habitable for any real length of time. There’s also been difficulties in getting
supplies to people in need, and there’s been talk of possible strains between the local
government and some relief groups. Today, government officials were asked about
why some flights aren’t getting to the hard-hit islands. MAN: The priority is given to those entities
that made contact with NEMA. That is one of the functions of NEMA. It is to coordinate. And so we are not preventing persons from
getting in, but it has to be done in an orderly fashion. We don’t want a disaster upon a disaster. AMNA NAWAZ: UNICEF began delivering water
supplies this weekend, after a plane landed with 1.5 tons of supplies. Naqib Safi is an emergency specialist for
UNICEF. He was in Marsh Harbour yesterday. And he joins me from Nassau by Skype. Naqib Safi, welcome to the “NewsHour.” You were just in Marsh Harbour. Some of the hardest-hit areas are there. Tell me what it was that you saw and heard
on the ground. NAQIB SAFI, UNICEF: Devastation. Almost all infrastructure, houses were affected. At the airport, when we arrived, we saw a
long queue of children, women and of rest of the families who were evacuating in a flight
towards Nassau. We drove almost for five to seven hours in
different locations. We talked to people. We saw destruction, we saw desperation. And when we talked to individuals and different
groups who were taking shelter in churches, school and, in one case, within a government
complex, they were all stressed and they were desperate for help. AMNA NAWAZ: Naqib, I have to ask. There have been dozens of accounts of people
fleeing, people evacuating, people leaving. When it comes to basic needs, water and food,
on the most basic level, are those getting through to the people who need them? And if they aren’t, why not? NAQIB SAFI: What we have observed in all these
areas, at least in nine specific centers that I can refer to, food and water was provided
through either private donation, government, and whoever was working and providing assistance. What I have seen, there were food available. Of course, it’s the matter for how long, but,
at the moment, it’s not been an issue of serious concern in a given moment. AMNA NAWAZ: So, we heard earlier from one
of the Bahamian emergency management officials. And this has been a criticism we have heard
again and again now, that there have been difficulties with some relief organizations
working with the Bahamian authorities on the ground. Can you tell me a little bit? Have you seen those kinds of tensions? Is it any more difficult to work with this
— with this government than others? NAQIB SAFI: There are realistic challenges
on the ground, especially in a crisis of this scale and magnitude, which was unexpected
and it was much more bigger than initially thought. The stress — those who are dealing with it,
they are part of the affected population, so, if there are occasion that we see some
level of destruction, that’s actually a normal nature of this crisis. I have been to many crises around the world,
and I don’t see anything different. In addition, actually, here, the government
is allocating resources. And they are showing quite extensive level
of commitment and determination to provide support and facilitate other partners’ access
to the people in need. AMNA NAWAZ: Naqib, very briefly, it’s been
one week since the hurricane struck. Do you see that the people on the islands,
the people of the Bahamas, will get the aid that they need, or will leaving be the best
option for many of them right now? NAQIB SAFI: In Abaco, which mostly has been
affected, I think 90, 95 percent of the population has already left. Remember, this percentage should be taken
into the context, because we are still figuring out — and when I say we, the government and
the partners — to see, what are the exact number of people staying? The return of these people will need significant
level of investment, of rehabilitation of water system, power supplies, infrastructure,
et cetera, and, most importantly from our perspective, a sense of normal and education
for children, so — which I don’t think it will happen, at least in the very near future,
because it will require quite significant level of investment and reconstruction effort. AMNA NAWAZ: That is Naqib Safi of UNICEF joining
us tonight from Nassau. Thank you very much for your time. NAQIB SAFI: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: Amy Walter and
Tamara Keith break down what Congress is up to now that it’s back in session; a conversation
with Margaret Atwood the sequel to her acclaimed and controversial bestseller “The Handmaid’s
Tale”; plus, remembering the life and legacy of pioneering disabilities rights activist
Marca Bristo. The British Parliament was as blur of activity
today, as lawmakers rushed to get work done before they are forced to disband until mid-October. They approved a bill that requires Prime Minister
Boris Johnson to delay Brexit, now just over six weeks away, if he doesn’t have a deal. They were also voting on his effort to force
a snap election next month. Johnson is dismissing Parliament until mid-October. His critics say it’s a ploy to prevent further
anti-Brexit machinations. Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant has
this update. MALCOLM BRABANT: Boris Johnson began his day
in Dublin with his Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar. He was addressing one of the key Brexit issues,
the border between Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic
of Ireland in the south, which is part of the E.U. BORIS JOHNSON, British Prime Minister: I want
to get a deal. Like you, I have looked carefully at no deal. I have assessed its consequences both for
our country and yours. And, yes, of course, we could do it. The U.K. could certainly get through it, but
be in no doubt that outcome would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible. MALCOLM BRABANT: Johnson wants an alternative
to what’s known as the Irish backstop, a mechanism designed to prevent a hard border between
the republic and the north. The government in London opposes it because
it claims it could keep the U.K. tied indefinitely to the E.U. LEO VARADKAR, Irish Prime Minister: In the
absence of agreed alternative arrangements, no backstop is no deal. MALCOLM BRABANT: As he returned to Westminster,
Johnson’s hands were officially tied by the final approval of a law designed to stop the
government leaving the E.U. without a deal. Cabinet members have suggested the prime minister
may try to circumvent that new law. The bill’s author, Hilary Benn, has threatened
a legal challenge if that happens. HILARY BENN, British Parliament Member: If
the government tries not to do what the bill, which will become an act on Monday, says very
clearly they have to do, then it provides time to go into court. Lawmaker Tommy Sheppard’s Scottish National
Party is fighting to thwart Johnson. TOMMY SHEPPARD, British Parliament Member:
There really is a case of the lunatics having taken over the asylum here. I mean, the people that seem to be running
the strategy in No. 10 Downing Street are not playing by the normal rules. MALCOLM BRABANT: At the Institute for Government,
historian Catherine Haddon said the current state of British politics is the most chaotic
in centuries. CATHERINE HADDON, Institute for Government:
Parliament is the creator of law, so for them to even be talking about the idea of, you
know, not obeying the law or trying to find ways to disrupt the intention of that law
is an incredible situation that we are finding ourselves in. MALCOLM BRABANT: One of the loudest voices
of the Brexit campaign will soon be silent. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow promised
to step down on October the 31st, the date Britain is scheduled to leave the E.U. The reality is, he jumped before he was pushed. His departure follows that of Pensions Secretary
Amber Rudd over the weekend. She accused the prime minister of an assault
on decency and democracy. Meanwhile, more and more E.U. member states
are warning that a no-deal Brexit is looking more likely. HEIKO MAAS, German Foreign Minister (through
translator): The British Parliament has decided that it wants to prevent a no-deal Brexit. And we remain ready for discussion in principle. We must also make an orderly exit possible,
which is preferable, but for this to happen, we finally need a decision and proposals from
London. MALCOLM BRABANT: As Parliament began its last
debates before being closed down by the prime minister, rival factions outside tried to
make their voices heard. LISETTE STUX, London; I am very afraid. This smacks of 1930s Germany. Hitler closed down the Parliament. This is what Boris is doing. MAN: In God’s name, will the traitor M.P.s
go? WOMAN: This is it, do or die. We’re leaving on the 31st of October. MALCOLM BRABANT: With Parliament shuttered
for the next five weeks, Boris Johnson is not going to be distracted by bruising fights
in the chamber. Although he’s lost his majority, he’s still
in charge of the country. And now he can concentrate on trying to persuade
the E.U. to give him a Brexit deal. At the same time, his government is stepping
up preparations just in case the country does crash out of the E.U. without a deal. The uncertainty that’s hobbling Britain is
no closer to being resolved. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Malcolm Brabant
in London. JUDY WOODRUFF: Labor Day is behind us, schools
have started and the political calendar is ramping up. Lisa Desjardins fills in the picture. LISA DESJARDINS: North Carolina is the first
hot spot, hosting President Trump tonight for a campaign rally tonight ahead of a special
congressional election. And Congress is also back, with Democrats
in the House shedding the spotlight on gun violence and impeachment. That’s plenty for our weekly Politics Monday
roundup with Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and host of public radio’s “Politics
With Amy Walter” and Tamara Keith of NPR and co-host of the “NPR Politics Podcast.” Ladies, it’s Election Day tomorrow, just one
special election, the North Carolina Ninth Congressional District. Let’s look at — there’s two candidates running,
Republican Dan Bishop. He’s a state senator, also fiscal conservative,
running against Dan McCready. He’s a Marine veteran and also a former money
manager. He’s running as more of a moderate. Amy, why are people paying such attention
to this race? What does it tell you? AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: And
people, the parties and the outside groups, are also spending a whole lot of money here. It’s over $10 million that outside groups
have spent in this race, you’re right, for one congressional seat. It’s because it’s symbolic. This is a district that the Democrat, Democrat,
Dan McCready, lost very narrowly, but there was vote fraud allegations. The election was thrown out. This is the do-over election with a different
Republican. But, really, it’s about, is Donald Trump still
as strong of a force for Republicans in Republican-leaning districts as he was, let’s say, in 2016? The president there trying to urge Republicans
to turn out in a district that gave him 54 percent. But recent polls from that district show that
the president’s approval rating there is now down to 47 percent. The race is within single digits. If the Democrat were to win here, if Dan McCready
were to win here, it would — it would send a pretty big shockwave, that not only is a
district that the president pretty handily carried in danger, but it would also say to
Democrats, you better put North Carolina in play, and, Trump, you can’t count on winning
North Carolina again. That would be a very big upset. LISA DESJARDINS: And this is a partially suburban
district too around Charlotte. TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Right. It’s partially suburban. It actually — it has — it has a mix of rural
and suburban. And it is a decent test case of a Trump district
and what happens there. In a lot of ways, even though this is the
last vote of 2018, it is the first vote of 2020. And a lot of people are treating it that way,
including the president, who, as you said, is there holding a rally tonight. And although he doesn’t want to put too much
of his political sway on the line, or he doesn’t want to admit that he’s putting a lot into
this, he is putting a lot into this. The most valuable thing that a candidate and
a president have is the president’s time. And he is dedicating his time by going down
there, holding this rally, and hoping that he can declare victory in less than 48 hours. AMY WALTER: The other interesting thing about
this district, if a Democrat should win, it would be one of the most Republican districts
held by Democrats. We know that Democrats won a lot of seats
in 2018. They netted 40 seats, but they were mostly
in districts that Trump narrowly won or narrowly lost. There aren’t many districts that he won by
54 percent or even 53 percent that Democrats hold. So this would be one of the most Republicans. LISA DESJARDINS: To move the line. AMY WALTER: Yes. LISA DESJARDINS: Someone else trying to move
the line, former Congressman and former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who announced
he is also a candidate for president. Let’s take a listen to what he said, why he’s
doing this. MARK SANFORD (R), Presidential Candidate:
Those people were core to the Republican Party and what it used to stand for. They haven’t been talked to here lately. And the president said those concerns you
have with regard to spending, they’re out the window, we’re not going to worry about
them, the economy is great. But I believe that they’re still there. LISA DESJARDINS: He’s talking about Republicans
who are unhappy with the direction of the party, think this is not the party they recognize. He’s a complicated figure. He’s got a complicated party. But, Amy, is there a possibility of Republicans
who don’t like Trump actually breaking from him, going with someone like Mark Sanford? AMY WALTER: It doesn’t look like there’s any
opportunity — or possibility of Trump losing this nomination, or even any of the three
candidates who are running right now getting much of the vote. This is especially true in South Carolina,
where they actually — the Republican Party canceled the primary there. And there are four other states where the
primary has been canceled on the Republican side. LISA DESJARDINS: Just in the past few days. AMY WALTER: Just in the past few days. Now, in 2004, when George W. Bush was running
— running for reelection, about 10 states canceled their Republican primary. So this isn’t all that new. The interesting — really interesting thing,
though, about Sanford is, he’s running on this fiscal conservatism, right? The debt is too big, the deficit is too high. This is something Republicans, right, we heard
them talk about all the time during the Obama administration. And, in fact, if you look at what priority
Republicans put on the issue of debt and deficit, it peaked at 82 percent in the middle of the
Trump — I’m sorry — the Obama administration. (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: The Obama administration. And since then, it’s been going back down. So if you look at like the arc of it, of Republicans’
concern, voter concern with debt and deficit, really high when the Democrat is in office,
pretty low when George W. Bush’s in office, pretty low when Donald Trump’s in office. LISA DESJARDINS: Tam? TAMARA KEITH: Yes. And Bill Weld, and Joe Walsh, and Mark Sanford,
they’re all entering this knowing that they basically have no chance of winning the nomination
and even less of a chance of becoming president of the United States. But that’s not their only goal. Sanford is clearly saying, like, I want to
have a conversation. He doesn’t feel like the Republican Party
has really had an internal debate about who they are since President Trump became president. Mark Sanford tried to have that debate when
he was in Congress, and he started criticizing President Trump. President Trump endorsed his primary opponent,
and then that person won, and then went on to lose in the general election to a Democrat,
which was a pretty big surprise in that district. So all of these candidate in part are either
hoping to have a conversation or they are hoping to damage the incumbent. And incumbent presidents who have had primary
challenges in the past, there is a history there of them going on to — and being denied
a second term. But it is hard to say that these three are
at the same level as a Ted Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan or a Pat Buchanan in 1992. AMY WALTER: Yes. LISA DESJARDINS: So Congress is also back. I feel like we need to take a deep breath. I think things are going to start moving very
quickly. It started today, with House Democrats holding
a news conference on guns. This is issue number one for them. And they invited to that news conference the
mayor of Dayton, Nan Whaley. There she is right there at the U.S. Capitol
today. Last week, you all did a great job of helping
us understand we don’t know where the president is on guns. But let’s talk about Congress a little bit. It seems like there are many members on both
sides trying to coalesce around maybe expanding background checks, perhaps helping states
with red flag laws that give law enforcement more power in emergency and crisis situations. Do either of these stand a chance? They’re very popular in polls with the American
people. TAMARA KEITH: Well, they stand a great chance
in the House of Representatives, where Democrats are in power, and, in fact, well, they have
already passed bills that do these things, essentially. But on the Senate side, it’s much more difficult. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said
that he is not going to put up something for a vote that the president won’t sign. And they don’t yet know what the president
will sign. LISA DESJARDINS: Briefly, Amy? AMY WALTER: Yes. I mean, this is one of those issues that,
again, if you’re looking at this, if you’re President Trump, you know suburban women are
going to be very important in this election. This would be an issue to take and support
to win those voters back. But this is a president who’s always been
about his base and keeping them happy. LISA DESJARDINS: We still have a lot to watch. AMY WALTER: That’s right. LISA DESJARDINS: Amy Walter, Tamara Keith,
thank you. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: A dark, dystopian vision that
is capturing the public’s attention. Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” is
now a cultural touchstone for readers and viewers. Her much anticipated sequel, “The Testaments,”
is out tomorrow, and is already on the short list for this year’s Booker Prize and green-lit
for a series on Hulu. Jeffrey Brown sat down with Atwood recently
in Toronto for a preview. It is part of our ongoing series on arts and
culture, Canvas. ACTRESS: Whose fault was it? JEFFREY BROWN: In a harrowing scene early
in the TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale,” young women are being forcibly reeducated for their
subservient roles in the United States that has become a fundamentalist theocracy. One of them, played by actress Elisabeth Moss,
is suddenly struck. The perpetrator, in a surprise cameo appearance,
none other than celebrated author Margaret Atwood. MARGARET ATWOOD, Author, “The Testaments”:
And we had to shoot it four times because she kept saying: “Hit me harder.” No. (LAUGHTER) MARGARET ATWOOD: No, I don’t want to injure
the leading lady. “Come on. Give me a whack.” JEFFREY BROWN: Yes. Yes. It was Atwood who started all this back in
1984, when she wrote her classic novel of a near future takeover of the U.S. by religious
zealots, who forced fertile women into sexual servitude as childbearers. ACTRESS: You will bear children for them. JEFFREY BROWN: The new nation is called Gilead. What did you think you were doing then at
that time? MARGARET ATWOOD: I thought I was getting in
trouble. JEFFREY BROWN: You thought it was going to
get you in trouble because of the story? MARGARET ATWOOD: Well, it answered the question,
if the United States were to become a totalitarianism, what kind of totalitarianism would it become? JEFFREY BROWN: Atwood, now 79 and author of
more than 60 books, is Canadian, but traces part of her ancestry to early American Puritans. “The Handmaid’s Tale” struck a deep and lasting
chord for millions of readers the world over. We talked this summer in her Toronto neighborhood. You have got to be amazed by what “The Handmaid’s
Tale” has grown into as a phenomenon. MARGARET ATWOOD: It’s out of control. JEFFREY BROWN: Out of control? MARGARET ATWOOD: Yes. Well, I can’t do anything about it. (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: Well… MARGARET ATWOOD: Come back. (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: Not a chance. The story has been made into a 1990 film,
an opera and ballet, a graphic novel, and, reaching millions more, the Emmy Award-winning
hit Hulu series, which has completed its third season. Atwood served as a consultant and, with her
blessing, the series move well beyond her original ending. Now Atwood has written her own sequel, “The
Testaments,” in part a response to her readers’ continued interest. MARGARET ATWOOD: It was a lot of unanswered
questions that either they kept asking or they kept making up answers to. There’s a lot of things left hanging at the
end of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” JEFFREY BROWN: So you decided to address that? MARGARET ATWOOD: Investigate it. JEFFREY BROWN: The new book, set some 15 years
after the previous ending, is told through three testimonies, two young women and an
older one, Aunt Lydia, familiar to viewers of the series as the most powerful woman in
Gilead. Played by Ann Dowd, she’s gone along with
evil, and, for the young handmaids, become their principal enforcer, but Atwood had her
own questions. MARGARET ATWOOD: Is she really evil? Is she totally evil? The question is, how do people end up in those
positions? And I remember, when I was born, which was
1939, I was a war child. So I have always been pretty interested in
those totalitarianisms, how people born into them, how people rose in them, how they became
members of the hierarchy. JEFFREY BROWN: So you’re always looking to
these historical analogies, huh? MARGARET ATWOOD: The series, as well as the
book, and as well as “The Testaments,” follow one axiom, and that is, you can’t put anything
in that doesn’t have a precedent in human history. So, yes, I’m always looking. JEFFREY BROWN: It has to have happen somehow
at some time? MARGARET ATWOOD: Well, in these books, yes,
because I didn’t want anybody saying, you’re just weird. Somebody asked me on Twitter recently, how
do you come up with this (EXPLETIVE DELETED)? The answer is, it’s not me who comes up with
it. It’s the human race over the past 4,000 years. JEFFREY BROWN: And that leads to the other
reason for the sequel, the times we’re living in today, where Atwood and others again see
women’s rights under threat. MARGARET ATWOOD: If I had thought, let’s write
a sequel to “The Handmaid’s Tale” this kind in 1999, I would have said, why bother? We’re not going there. Surely, people are moving away from that. But in the moment in which means now exist,
that’s not true anymore. JEFFREY BROWN: So, in 1999, you would have
said, why bother? MARGARET ATWOOD: Yes. JEFFREY BROWN: But, in 2016-’17? MARGARET ATWOOD: I’m going to bother. I’m going to bother. It’s time to bother. You can ignore the fact that there are a number
of regimes that have come into power than have these kinds of ideas in mind. The thing they have in common is, they all
want to roll back women’s rights. JEFFREY BROWN: Atwood is no fan of Donald
Trump, but doesn’t see him in the world she’s created. MARGARET ATWOOD: Trump is not Gileadean leader
figure. There’s some other people kicking around on
the U.S. political scene that would be much more like one of those figures, but he is
not that kind of figure. JEFFREY BROWN: Gilead is a theocracy. MARGARET ATWOOD: We are probably pretty close
to it in some states. JEFFREY BROWN: You wrote that readers bombarded
you over the years with questions, right? MARGARET ATWOOD: Yes. JEFFREY BROWN: Is it a feminist novel? Is it a warning? MARGARET ATWOOD: Yes. Yes. JEFFREY BROWN: You’re going to be asked the
same thing of this new — of this sequel. MARGARET ATWOOD: Yes. Yes. JEFFREY BROWN: In what sense would you say
it is a feminist novel? MARGARET ATWOOD: It makes women front and
center and puts it reproductive rights front and center. But it doesn’t say all women are angelic beings
who would never, ever do anything wrong, because, as we know from having been in grade four,
that’s not true. JEFFREY BROWN: And in what sense is it a warning? MARGARET ATWOOD: Don’t go there. Don’t make those choices. Don’t go there. JEFFREY BROWN: Atwood’s handmaids have become
part of the political culture, popping up in protests. And the frenzy around the new book is intense,
unusual for any novelist this side of J.K. Rowling and another “Harry Potter” book. MARGARET ATWOOD: See you in September. JEFFREY BROWN: It includes a live event Tuesday
in which Atwood and various guests will take part, which will be telecast in more than
1,000 theaters around the world. And Atwood has been glammed up for features
like this one in The Sunday Times of London “Style” magazine. You are in rare air for a novelist, for a
writer. MARGARET ATWOOD: I’m in rare air for an old
bitty writer. JEFFREY BROWN: Well, you are. I mean, it’s sort of international celebrity
air. MARGARET ATWOOD: Well, yes. And good thing that I’m old, because if this
happened to younger people, it would probably ruin their life. Where do you go from here, except down? JEFFREY BROWN: Are you enjoying it? MARGARET ATWOOD: Of course I’m enjoying it. I would be lying to say otherwise. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes. MARGARET ATWOOD: You saw the pictures of me
with hair extensions. Who wouldn’t enjoy that? (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: Margaret Atwood’s “The Testaments”
is out tomorrow. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown
in Toronto. JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, we remember
a woman who helped changed the law and the lives of tens of millions of people with disabilities. Marca Bristo may not have been a household
name, but her work seeped into many U.S. households. Paralyzed from the waist down after a diving
accident when she was 23, Bristo became a longtime disability rights activist from her
home base in Chicago. She worked on improving access and rights,
no matter how small or how large the issue. Bristo fought against discrimination, helped
create a better model for independent living, and led strikes and helped file lawsuits that
led to the creation of bus lifts in Chicago. She was a pivotal voice in the shaping and
passage of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act. Bristo died yesterday of cancer at the age
of 66. Former U.S. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa knew
her well and worked with her when he helped to write the Americans With Disabilities Act. Senator Harkin, thank you so much for being
here. And we’re sorry for your loss. We know how close you were to Marca Bristo. You have worked for decades in the disabilities
movement. TOM HARKIN (D), Former U.S. Senator: Mm-hmm. JUDY WOODRUFF: How did — how should we see
Marca Bristo in that movement? TOM HARKIN: I think she will enshrined in
the future as one of the great leaders of a global disability — civil rights movement
for persons with disabilities. When you think of the civil rights movement
for African-Americans, you of course think of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King and John
Lewis. I think, when people in the future look back
at the disability rights civil rights movement, they will think of, of course, Justin Dart
and George H.W. Bush that signed the law, but they will also think of Marca Bristo,
who really made it happen. JUDY WOODRUFF: As I mentioned, you were pivotal
in writing and putting together the Americans With Disabilities Act. You worked on it. A lot of people were involved in that. It was the late 1980s into 1990, when President
George Bush, H.W. Bush, signed it into law. What did Marca Bristo do that others weren’t
doing at that time? TOM HARKIN: She was Justin Dart’s protege. Justin Dart… JUDY WOODRUFF: And he, of course, was one
of the real leaders. TOM HARKIN: One of the real advocates of the
Americans With Disabilities Act. He, in his wheelchair, went to all 50 states. But then he got ahold of this young woman
from Chicago, Marca Bristo, and sort of got her to move all over the country getting young
people involved, young people who may have been born with a disability or, like herself,
had been injured in an accident. And she got them stimulated to think about
themselves not in terms of someone that just had to take what was given to them, but to
start getting young people to demand better access to all forms of living in America. She was a foot soldier in that effort. JUDY WOODRUFF: I met her at an Access Living
event in Chicago. That was an organization that she helped to
found all around, pushing for independent living for people with disabilities. What do you think drove her? What pushed her to do what she did? TOM HARKIN: She wrote about this once and
spoke about it often, and I have often talked about the fact, after she had her diving accident
when she was 23, as you mentioned, she thought: How am I going to cope? How do I have to change my life? Well, she ran into Judy Heumann, another advocate
for disability rights, and a few other people, Ed Roberts, others, in the movement, who said,
no, you don’t have to change. They have got to change. Society needs to change. They need to change the way they buildings,
the way they make doorways, the way they have bus lifts. You’re still the same person. They have got to change how they’re doing
it. And so that sort of got her thinking that,
yes, society has built in all these barriers to people with disabilities. If we break down the barriers, people with
disabilities can do anything. JUDY WOODRUFF: She wouldn’t accept the idea
that anything was closed to someone with a disability. TOM HARKIN: Marca Bristo didn’t want to be
paternalized. She didn’t want to have people patting her
on the head and say, now you go off and we will help you. She said: Take the barriers down. I can help myself. JUDY WOODRUFF: She was tough. TOM HARKIN: Oh, she was tough. She was very tough, but had a heart of gold. She was just one of the most unique persons
I have ever known in my lifetime. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, she certainly left a
mark on the lives, as we said, of millions and millions of Americans. TOM HARKIN: Oh, just — she was a mentor to
so many young women. She was also a feminist, so she got young
women with disabilities to think of themselves in a different light. She was just a wonderful mentor to so many
young people. JUDY WOODRUFF: Former Senator Tom Harkin,
who worked with Marca Bristo, thank you for helping us remember her. TOM HARKIN: Thanks for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: Appreciate it. Thank you. We close with our ongoing honor roll of American
service personnel killed in combat during U.S. military operations overseas. We add them as their deaths are made official
and photographs become available. Here now, 16 more. We honor each and every one of them. 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 5, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: Dorian’s deadly
journey north. With rescue efforts under way in the Bahamas,
residents of the Carolinas evacuate, under threat of rising waters. Then: paying for promises. President Trump takes money from over 125
military projects to deliver on his campaign pledge of building a border wall. Plus: the Amazon under attack — in our final
dispatch from Brazil, the growing risks to rain forests’ biodiversity and to life on
earth. SILVANA CAMPELLO, Instituto Araguaia: If we
start losing species, it’s like removing a card from the house of cards. Eventually, there will be a point when the
planet will collapse. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that then more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Hurricane Dorian is hugging
the coast of the Carolinas tonight and still doing damage, with winds of 105 miles an hour. The storm flooded streets in a series of towns
today and blew out power to more than 200,000 customers. It is also blamed for four deaths in the U.S.,
plus at least 20 in the Bahamas. John Yang reports again from Nassau in the
Bahamas on the storm’s progress. JOHN YANG: An all-day assault, rattling winds
and unrelenting rain, as Hurricane Dorian batters the Carolinas. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster: GOV. HENRY MCMASTER (R-SC): We urge everybody to
stay inside. If you don’t need to be out, don’t go out. And in this kind of situation, you don’t need
to go out. Stay off the streets. It’s very dangerous. JOHN YANG: Overnight, the storm actually strengthened
for a time as it push north just offshore. Rushing water flooded streets in Charleston,
South Carolina. By day, massive waves crashed on the Folly
Beach Pier near Charleston. Up the coast at Myrtle Beach, a foam-covered
jeep was partially submerged. Onlookers took selfies as waves rocked the
car. More than 800,000 South Carolinians were under
evacuation orders. Some, like Michael Gordon, sought shelter
in Charleston. MICHAEL GORDON, Charleston Resident: They’re
expecting a lot of water downtown, and it was best to get out. Prepare — I mean, hope for the best, prepare
for the worst. And I’m preparing for the worst. JOHN YANG: But Chip Ervin and others decided
to ride it out. CHIP ERVIN, Charleston Business Owner: We
just kind of waited and watched the storm to decide what was going on, and we have been
through enough storms that we kind of just wait and kind of see how they play out. JOHN YANG: As the day progressed, Dorian lumbered
toward North Carolina, where the Outer Banks barrier islands are vulnerable. Governor Roy Cooper: GOV. ROY COOPER (D-NC): Get to safety, and stay
there. Don’t let your guard down. This won’t be a brush-by, whether it comes
ashore or not. JOHN YANG: Cooper also warned of storm surges
that could reach seven feet. Another danger? Tornadoes. One ripped through Emerald Isle south of Wilmington,
leaving shredded homes and fences in its wake. In the Bahamas, Dorian’s devastation was again
on display. Under sunny skies and along now calm shores,
leveled homes and yachts tossed around a damaged harbor. On Abaco Islands, survivors faced their new
reality. In a shantytown known as The Mud, a rainbow
rose out of the vast rubble. Andrew Evans arrived in Nassau today from
Abaco. ANDREW EVANS, Abaco Resident: Everything in
Abaco is totally destroyed. It literally looks like we were bombed. Everything in Abaco is gone. JOHN YANG: A flurry of rescue and aid groups
geared up in Nassau, hoping to make it to Abaco and Grand Bahama tomorrow. Heather Hunt, an attorney on Abaco, started
a group called Restoration Abaco. HEATHER HUNT, Restoration Abaco: As time goes
on and the days go by, we have to add other things, like building materials and appliances
or whatever else the needs are once we get there and get a full assessment. But, right now, it’s just food and water,
medical supplies, making sure everyone is safe and secure and well-fed. JOHN YANG: Her group rented a 90-foot barge
to haul relief supplies. And celebrity chef Jose Andres is leading
a team in the kitchen of the Atlantis Hotel Convention Center in Nassau. Today, they cook massive batches of pasta
soup and made thousands of tuna fish sandwiches for survivors on Grand Bahama and Abaco. Today’s goal, 10,000 sandwiches. Here in this marina in Nassau, some of these
pleasure boats are being loaded up, ready to make the run tomorrow to Abaco island. These four boats are being loaded with supplies
donated by Chattanooga businessman Lou Lentine. They have 20,000 tarps, generators, medical
supplies, tents, toiletries. They expect to get offshore of Hope Town,
Abaco, and they hope to stay there for three or four days and ferry all this stuff onshore,
an example of people taking efforts into their own hands. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, John, you were telling
us that you have just seen widespread examples of this, of individuals moving to do what
they can on their own. JOHN YANG: That’s right. In the spot, we talked about the group Restoration
Abaco and heard from one of the organizers. Another organizer we met last night was Danalee
Penn Mackey. She’s a native of Abaco. She is now a mortician here in Nassau and,
interestingly, is organizing other morticians across the Bahamas. And she told us the idea behind her efforts. DANALEE PENN MACKEY, Mortician: Me, as a funeral
director, I’m told that there are the number of casualties arising. I have deployed a team of professional morticians. In fact, we were supposed to go today. We couldn’t get in, but we’re leaving in the
morning. But the hard part for me is, I don’t know
if I will be retrieving my own loved ones. I have my mother, I have aunts, I have uncles,
I have brothers, I have sisters, I have nieces, I have nephews all in the area where there
has been no, no, no relief at this particular time, no rescue, no recovery. JOHN YANG: Just an example of people taking
— making efforts on their own in the midst of great personal tragedy, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, John, you were also telling
us about a number of nongovernmental organizations, how they are trying in their way to provide
help and the challenges they face. JOHN YANG: In the last couple of days, there
have been a number of NGO officials who have been privately complaining about the government’s
pace of giving them permission to take their efforts out to Grand Bahama, out to Abaco. They feel stifled, they feel frustrated that
they haven’t been able to act faster. But, on the other hand, there are other NGOs
who say they understand, that they feel that they need to work with the government, not
go out there on their own. Here’s Joan Kelly of the Heart to Heart International
Organization. JOAN KELLY, Heart to Heart International:
I would say that, generally speaking, it’s important that we work through the agencies
that exists here. They will be here long after we leave and
were here before we were. Frankly, but this is going to be a long-term
response. And I think everyone’s going to need a long-term
support. So that’s, I think, most critical. JOHN YANG: We reached out to the Bahamian
government for a response to the complaints of some of the NGOs. We haven’t heard back. And I should also add that, among the NGO
community, there seems to be a sense of optimism that things are changing, things are getting
moving, that perhaps tomorrow or in the coming days they will be able to get out and start
their efforts on the two — on the islands. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, John, I gather we are
only beginning to understand the full sweep of just how devastating this hurricane has
been. And some of that sense we’re getting is from
these before-and-after images of these islands before and after this hurricane. JOHN YANG: Yes, that’s exactly right, from
social media, from people on the islands who were sending out pictures like this of the
airport on Abaco, just showing how the airport has been inundated, the runways inundated
with water, with sand, with debris. The force of the hurricane-force winds sitting
on that island, sitting over it for more than two days, and we can see the devastation and
the effects of that in those before-and-after pictures. JUDY WOODRUFF: So much work left to be done. John Yang, reporting for us tonight from Nassau
in the Bahamas, thank you, John. Back here in the U.S., the storm has weakened
as it churns up the Atlantic Coastline. But it still poses a threat. And Charleston, South Carolina, is one of
the places in its sights today, as we have been hearing. John Tecklenburg is the mayor, and I spoke
with him by phone. Mayor Tecklenburg, thank you very much for
talking with us. So, what has Charleston seen of this storm? JOHN TECKLENBURG, Mayor of Charleston, South
Carolina: Well, thank you, Judy. Charleston, a beautiful city, has seen kind
of an ugly day. It’s been Dorian day in Charleston today. And the good news is, even though the wind
was higher than we expected, the water was lower. And in a city where flooding and sea level
rise are a number one issue, boy, that was good news today. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, preparations, did you feel
the city was prepared for what might come? JOHN TECKLENBURG: Well, I was. And, Judy, we have had real practice over
the last four years. We have had four years now with the hurricane
preparation. So, we really, if I may say, have this down
to somewhat of a science. We were really prepared. And — but we have seen quite a storm here
today, and now have had some impacts. We have a number of closed roads, lots of
people without power, over half of our citizens. So we have got some cleanup to do, and we
have had a day today. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about evacuations? Were you in a situation where you had to urge
people to leave? JOHN TECKLENBURG: We have been doing that
for — since Monday, when governor, Governor McMaster, issued an evacuation order, and
we fully support the governor when he does so. And so we have been asking people to leave,
and then we know a lot of folks don’t. So all of those folks remaining, we ask them
to hunker down and batten down the hatches. And I’m very proud of our citizens that, last
night and today, it was like a ghost town, and people were off the street. And that really helps people stay safe, but
it also protects our first — our wonderful first responders that they don’t have to go
out and make response calls that are unnecessary. JUDY WOODRUFF: You do have cleanup. You were spared the worst. You didn’t have the flooding, the storm surge
that you might have had, but you’re saying there’s work to be done? JOHN TECKLENBURG: Oh, absolutely. And we had some flooding, but it just wasn’t
as bad as we anticipated. The wind was a little higher, so, yes, we
have got some cleanup to do. But we have got crews standing by, and now
are finally out in the streets doing work and pumping water and cutting down trees. We have got over 100 local streets that are
closed, mostly due to trees and power lines that are down. So, together, with the power company, we are
working to get those streets back open. And we’re going to have beautiful weather
this weekend. In fact, we will be back in business this
weekend. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Mayor, how much harder
do you believe this was because of the unpredictability of this storm? It was a Category 5 and then a 4. And, as you know, it was a 2, then back to
a 3, and the time of arrival was so unclear. How much more difficult did that make your
job? JOHN TECKLENBURG: Well, this is a very uncertain
business. And let me say, my heart goes out to the devastation
that occurred in the Bahamas. In fact, we have some local folks that are
already starting local relief efforts for the Bahamas. That was just terrible devastation down there. But a week ago, they were saying this storm
would barrel on across Florida, rather than even coming our way. So it’s just an uncertain science. There’s a lot of science to it, but it’s a
bit uncertain. So you just have to prepare for the worst
and hope and pray for the best. That’s what we always do. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we wish you the very
best with all the recovery that you have ahead of you. And, yes, we all are so relieved that it wasn’t
worse than it was in your city. The mayor of Charleston, John Tecklenburg,
thank you very much. JOHN TECKLENBURG: Thank you so much, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s find out more about where
Dorian is right now, the projected path in coming hours, and what it can mean for the
rest of the Carolinas and farther up the Eastern Seaboard. Ed Rappaport is the deputy director of the
National Hurricane Center. And he joins us from Miami. Ed Rappaport, hello again. So, tell us, where is Dorian now? ED RAPPAPORT, Deputy Director, National Hurricane
Center: At this hour, Dorian is centered — and you can see very clearly the eye — that eye
is located about 45 miles from Myrtle Beach, about 85 miles from Wilmington. During the day, it’s been gradually drawing
closer to the coast. And the forecast has it actually coming ashore
likely later tonight or early tomorrow, perhaps in the southern part of North Carolina or
on the Outer Banks. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, coming ashore, does that
— is that more of a sign of potentially more damage? Or what do you expect? ED RAPPAPORT: That’s right. Even with the center offshore today, we have
seen winds of hurricane-force from about Charleston northward. But the strongest winds are still offshore. And as the center makes its landfall, those
winds will come over the shoreline. And we would expect to have wind gusts exceeding
100 miles per hour observed, reported over the next 12 to 18 hours, as the center passes
across Southeastern North Carolina. And those winds will be falling pretty much
the way the rain bands are moving here, moving water ashore. And so we expect there to be a storm surge
that could be life-threatening along the coastline. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about the speed of
this hurricane? Has it sped up since its very, very slow origin
there in the Bahamas? ED RAPPAPORT: Yes, it’s gradually accelerating. And that’s good news, as it won’t linger too
long in any one place. The system is now moving, the center is moving
towards the Northeast — pardon me — the Northeast about 10 miles per hour, and over
the next 24 hours will be accelerating further, and then pulling away from the coast during
the evening hours tomorrow. JUDY WOODRUFF: Have you learned at this point
— Ed Rappaport, can we understand any better why this storm seems to have been so unpredictable? ED RAPPAPORT: Well, actually, the forecast
has not been off by that much. We did think it was going to — the hurricane
was going to take a run towards South Florida, as it did in a couple days ago, and then slow
and turn and take a course roughly parallel to the coastline up through the Southeast. And that’s roughly what happened. Didn’t get all the details right,. but I think
the sense of what to expect in both the Bahamas and the Southeastern United States was covered
pretty well in the messaging. JUDY WOODRUFF: We’re now hearing about tornadoes
being spawned. Do they have connection to the hurricane? Or is that an independent thing? ED RAPPAPORT: On occasion, there are tornadoes
associated with hurricanes. And often, as they are in this case, they
occur in these outer bands well ahead of the center. And that’s what we saw earlier today. And there is some risk still for tornadoes
during the overnight hours tonight. JUDY WOODRUFF: And the last thing I want to
ask you is, just for folks who may be in the path, South Carolina, North Carolina, Southern
Virginia, what do they need to be on the lookout for? ED RAPPAPORT: We talked about the winds, that
they could have wind gusts at least over 100 miles per hour. The greatest concerns are going to be, as
often is the case, is the water, the depths of the water. And here we have the forecast for the inundation
from storm surge, can reach four to seven feet along the coast, particularly in the
northern part of South Carolina, up through North Carolina, and even some inundation expected
in the southeastern part of Virginia. This is considered life-threatening at these
levels. We also are concerned about excessive rainfall
in just the same areas, six to 10 inches of rain forecast for coastal South Carolina and
North Carolina, locally 10 to 15 inches. And it’s the combination of those two factors,
storm surge and rainfall, that’s going to lead to flash flooding and potentially loss
of life in this area. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we are doing everything
we can to get the word out. And I know that you are too. Ed Rappaport with the National Hurricane Center,
thank you. ED RAPPAPORT: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: A
Taliban car bombing in Afghanistan killed two NATO soldiers and 10 civilians. One soldier was an American, the fourth to
die in the last two weeks. The suicide blast in Kabul left wrecked vehicles
near the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters. In addition to the dead, 42 people were wounded. Hours later, a bombing in a neighboring province
killed four people at an Afghan military base. In Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is
vowing to push again for early elections in the battle over Brexit. The House of Commons voted Wednesday against
calling elections. It also voted against leaving the European
Union on October 31 without a formal deal. Today, at a police recruiting event in North
England, Johnson said an election is now essential. BORIS JOHNSON, British Prime Minister: I hate
banging on about Brexit. I don’t want to go on about this anymore. And I don’t want an election at all. I don’t want an election at all, but, frankly,
I cannot see any other way. The only way to get this thing done, to get
this thing moving is to make that decision. JUDY WOODRUFF: Johnson’s ruling Conservatives
will try again on Monday to win approval of new elections. Meanwhile, the prime minister’s brother, Jo
Johnson, quit his position as a conservative member of Parliament today. He said he was torn between family loyalty
and the British national interest. President Trump’s Middle East envoy, Jason
Greenblatt, has announced he is leaving the administration. He was the architect of the president’s still
evolving Israeli peace plan. But it has not been released, and the Palestinians
rejected negotiations after Mr. Trump moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and recognized
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
is threatening to let a flood of Syrian refugees leave Turkey for Western countries, that is,
unless a safe zone for refugees is established inside Syria before the month is out. Erdogan voiced his frustration to officials
of his ruling party in Ankara today. RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through
translator): We will be forced to open the gates. We will be forced to open the gates. If you’re going to provide support, then provide
support. And if you’re not, sorry. We have tolerated this up to a certain point,
and we’re still tolerating it. Are we the only ones who are going to carry
this burden? JUDY WOODRUFF: Turkey has taken in 3.6 million
Syrian refugees since the war in Syria began in 2011. Erdogan says the European Union has not kept
promises of financial support in exchange for Turkey stemming the flow of migrants. Back in this country, a jury in Oakland, California,
acquitted one of two men charged with involuntary manslaughter in a warehouse party fire in
2016. The jury failed to reach a verdict on the
other defendant. The pair managed the warehouse, where 36 people
died. The place was packed with furniture and other
flammable material, but had only two exits, and no smoke detectors. The U.S. Education Department fined Michigan
State University $4.5 million today over sexual abuse by a sports doctor. The announcement said the school failed to
respond to repeated complaints against Larry Nassar. He is now in prison, effectively for life,
for possessing child pornography and molesting young girls. On Wall Street, stocks surged on news that
the U.S. and China plan to hold new trade talks next month. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 372
points to close at 26728. The Nasdaq rose nearly 140 points, and the
S&P 500 added 38. And basketball great Jerry West received the
Presidential Medal of Freedom today. West was a 14-time All-Star in his Hall of
Fame career with the Los Angeles Lakers, a career that ended in 1974. President Trump presented West with the medal
at a White House ceremony. It is the nation’s highest civilian honor. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: where is
President Trump finding the money to pay for his long -promised border wall?; a threat
to the Amazon is a threat to the planet, — Brazil and the risks of species extinction; fusing
the political and the artistic to critique how leaders wield power; plus, much more. It was one of President Trump’s most notable
campaign promises, that he would build a wall on country’s southern border, and that Mexico
would pay for it. But now there is word this week of 127 U.S.
military projects whose funds will be diverted instead for construction of the border wall. Our own Lisa Desjardins has been digging into
all of this, and she’s here with me now. Hello, Lisa. So, tell us, where is this money coming from? What are these projects? LISA DESJARDINS: Let’s start with that first. As you say, it’s 127 projects. It totals about $3.6 billion that the president
will move to help build border barriers of various sorts. Half of this money is coming from overseas
installations. The other half is from military installations
here in the U.S. Let’s look at where those are. Those are affecting 23 states, and I want
to leave this up for a minute so people can look at their states. Notice, it’s really the perimeter of the country. Judy, it’s interesting. This affects everything from our service academies
like West Point to small and large institutions, training facilities. All of the branches of the service are being
affected by this. These funds, Judy, that are impacted specifically
are those that have been approved by Congress, but there is not a contract yet to start building
them. So this means they are at least on hold. The president is gambling Congress will refund
them later. It’s not clear that Congress will do that. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, 127 different projects. Tell us a little bit more about what these
projects are. Who is going to be affected by this? LISA DESJARDINS: It’s a fascinating list. And it involves strategic installations and
compounds, and it also affect things that affect the quality of life for the men and
women who serve in our military. Let’s look at three that I think are good
examples of what we’re talking about. One, for example, starting over on the right,
$95 million for an elementary school. That’s in Okinawa, Japan. That would be for the children of American
military service members. Military families depend on those schools. Many of them need constant upkeep or need
to be rebuilt. That school is now put on hold. Now, moving back, then we see $15 million
now put on hold for an ambulatory care center or outpatient health center in Camp Lejeune. Health care, a rising problem in the military
in some sectors — that is on hold. Now, then, you look there below, $17 million
that would have gone to a fire and rescue station in Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Judy, that one is has especially notable. I picked that out because that fire station
was damaged in Hurricane Michael last year. They were waiting for those repairs. They will have to continue waiting now because
that money has been put on hold again. Also, Judy, in this list, probably the one
area that saw the most — the largest number of projects differed is Puerto Rico, $400
million worth of projects there. That’s something that Democrats will raise. Also, a large number of projects affecting
European defense initiatives. That affects our posture with Russia. Those are being put on hold. That’s something that European allies are
going to watch closely. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Puerto Rico, of course,
devastated by Hurricane Maria. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: So these are just a few examples
you’re telling us about. But, in turn, President Trump has long said
he wants this border wall. What is he getting out of this? LISA DESJARDINS: Right. And this is important for supporters and opponents
of the president to look at. What the president is getting out of this
is more border fencing and wall. Let’s talk about it specifically — 11 projects
will be funded, they say. There, you see the steel slat fencing that
he’s putting up. It will include some of that, along about
175 miles of additional new fencing and some repaired fencing. I’m going to point out, it’s not all steel
slat. Some of it is that so-called Normandy fencing
that you saw there as well. So the president is actually going to expand
the amount of border barrier because of this money. Now, it’s 175 miles, but it’s a 2,000-mile
border. JUDY WOODRUFF: And tell us, how is he doing
this? I mean, this is money that was appropriated
by the Congress. So how can the president come in and say,
nope, we’re not going to spend it for this, we’re going to spend it for that? LISA DESJARDINS: The Constitution says that
the Treasury can only appropriate money that is passed by appropriations law by Congress. So he’s getting around that here. This is not the will of Congress. Let’s show how the process usually works if
a president wants to divert some funding. He would have to go to Congress and ask Congress
for permission. In this case, we know Congress is not giving
that permission because House Democrats do not want to fund this wall. What’s he doing instead? He has declared a national emergency for the
purpose of going around Congress. He’s invoking emergency powers. And he is not asking congressional permission,
which you usually would have to do even for small amounts of reprogramming. Anything over $20 million, Judy, you need
sign-off from Congress. That’s significant. This is such a huge amount of money. It’s really unprecedented in how much he’s
moving this way. JUDY WOODRUFF: Three-point-six billion, as
you just said. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. JUDY WOODRUFF: And finally, Lisa, this affects,
as you shown on that map, a diversity, a political diversity of states, red states, blue states. What kind of political reaction has there
been? LISA DESJARDINS: Democrats are irate about
it, as they have been, as they were expecting it. They call this stealing, raiding, unconstitutional. However, they so far have lost their battle
in court to try and make their case. Courts generally have ruled that if all of
Congress doesn’t agree, the House and the Senate, they can’t take action. They are furious. And I think we’re going to have to see how
this affects the upcoming spending debate this next month, because, in the next 30 days,
we’re supposed to see another spending bill. I already hear from some Democrats, well,
if the Defense Department doesn’t need this money, are we going to pay it for them or
not? Republicans are in a much more tricky position
here, Judy. I haven’t seen any that are outright defending
this idea of diverting money this way. But they are saying that the border needs
secure — to be secure. So they’re in a tricky position. When they come back next week, they will all
be tested to find out, are they going to backfill this money, or are they not? It is going to be a very hot political issue
for our Congress. And it affects so many towns across this country. Judy, dozens of local papers, this was the
headline today. JUDY WOODRUFF: And fascinating. As you point out, Lisa, this is happening
while the Congress is in recess. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. JUDY WOODRUFF: They’re not in Washington. It was announced while they’re all back home
in their states and in their districts. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. JUDY WOODRUFF: Lisa Desjardins, excellent
reporting. Thank you. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: South America’s Amazon rain
forest is home to a remarkable diversity of animal and plant life. But a record-breaking number of forest fires
and the already ongoing cutting down of trees is putting many of the rain forest’s original
inhabitants at risk. With the support of the Pulitzer Center, Amna
Nawaz and producer Mike Fritz traveled to Central Brazil to see the efforts under way
to save one of the most pristine sections of the Amazon. It is the last part of our series Brazil on
the Brink. GEORGE GEORGIADIS, Instituto Araguaia: So,
all these tracks are probably puma tracks. AMNA NAWAZ: In this corner of the Amazon Basin
in Central Brazil, signs of life are everywhere. AMNA NAWAZ: So, just by looking at the tracks
like this, you have a better sense of what actually lives in this area? GEORGE GEORGIADIS: Yes. We get a sense of what lives in this area,
of what is more abundant and what’s rare. And then we start getting a sense of, OK,
which habitat do we need to protect more of? AMNA NAWAZ: George Georgiadis is a Brazilian
scientist fighting to protect everything that lives here, animals like giant river otters,
pink dolphins, rarely seen jungle cats like jaguars, and hundreds of species of birds. So their survival is dependent on the survival
of this area? GEORGE GEORGIADIS: Their survival is dependent
on the survival of this area. AMNA NAWAZ: But climate change and the steady
destruction of the Amazon’s rain forest and the surrounding savanna, known as the Cerrado,
has made George’s mission all the more dire. GEORGE GEORGIADIS: We have lost probably half
the natural habitat of this area since 2013. Things are going fast. AMNA NAWAZ: How long do we have? What do you think? GEORGE GEORGIADIS: Oh, it’s already past time. We’re just picking up the pieces. AMNA NAWAZ: To save what they could, George
and his wife, Silvana Campello, helped the Brazilian state of Tocantins create Cantao
State Park in 1998, a nearly 350-square-mile-stretch of pristine forest and grasslands nestled
between the Araguaia and Coconut rivers. SILVANA CAMPELLO, Instituto Araguaia: We fell
in love for this place, because, as biologists, we could understand how important this place
is. AMNA NAWAZ: The couple houses visiting researchers,
who run long-term studies and use motion-activated cameras to better understand what animals
actually live here and what they need to survive. Some, like the giant otters, have even been
saved from the brink of extinction. SILVANA CAMPELLO: We have placed a camera
trap. So we’re going to go there and check the camera
trap and see if there has been any activity. AMNA NAWAZ: And tracking them, Silvana says,
has led to new discoveries about the way they live and interact with each other. SILVANA CAMPELLO: We have been finding also
interesting behavior that hasn’t been reported in science. AMNA NAWAZ: Really? SILVANA CAMPELLO: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: Among the otters? SILVANA CAMPELLO: Among the otters. AMNA NAWAZ: Like what? SILVANA CAMPELLO: Like, for example, den sharing. A certain group of otters will occupy a den
for couple of weeks, and then they will leave, and another group will come and use the same
den. And then the group will leave, and the former
owners would come back and live in that same den. AMNA NAWAZ: It’s like an Airbnb for giant
otters. SILVANA CAMPELLO: It’s like an Airbnb for
giant otters. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: For all the focus on the threats
to the Amazon rain forest, Silvana says it’s the animals that are the best bioindicator
of a changing environment. Millions of insects, thousands of known plants,
fish and birds and hundreds of mammals, reptiles and amphibians call this area home. You know, one out of every 10 known species
in the entire planet lives in the Amazon. That’s plants, and insects, and animals. Scientists say new ones are actually discovered
all the time, which is why they say they’re worried that, for every acre lost, an entire
species could disappear right along with it. That’s why Silvana says it’s crucial to not
only protect this area for the animals that live here, but for humans as well. SILVANA CAMPELLO: It’s the card effect. People say that nature is like a house of
cards. If we start losing species, it’s like removing
a card from the house of cards. Eventually, there will be a point when the
planet will collapse, because everybody has a role. Everybody’s here for a purpose, the purpose
meaning the balance of the planet. THOMAS LOVEJOY, Ecologist: The single greatest
repository of the variety of life on Earth is in the Amazon. AMNA NAWAZ: Thomas Lovejoy is an ecologist
at George Mason University who’s been coming to and studying the Amazon since the 1960s. THOMAS LOVEJOY: The Amazon actually makes
this planet work. It affects the climate. It affects the hydrological cycles. And all these species that, added up, become
biological diversity, all have evolutionary histories that go back four billion years. AMNA NAWAZ: But the Amazon’s incredibly rich
biodiversity is now under assault from several different fronts. Nearly 20 percent of it has been deforested
since the 1970s, cleared out to make way for infrastructure projects, mining and agriculture. That destruction is having a devastating impact
on the ecosystem, and many of the rain forest’s original inhabitants. It’s estimated that hundreds of species in
Brazil are now facing the threat of extinction. SILVANA CAMPELLO: As we lose species, the
next generation will not miss them. But if you show them, if you bring people
to see giant otters, for example, here, or pink dolphins, if they see them, if they relate
to them, they care now. We must care now, before they go. AMNA NAWAZ: But the monumental effort to repopulate
and regrow what has already been lost in the Amazon is slowly beginning, and some of the
solutions might be found in this small storage facility in Canarana, Brazil. MAN (through translator): The muvuca comes
from 60 to 120 species of seeds that we work with. AMNA NAWAZ: It’s called muvuca, a planting
technique that uses native forest seeds to be spread over burnt or deforested land. The method was developed with input from the
Xingu indigenous tribe. BRUNA FERREIRA, Xingu Seed Network (through
translator): The importance of involving them is because they have been here. It is their call. They are holders of the knowledge of these
species. They know what will germinate well. AMNA NAWAZ: Bruna Ferreira is the manager
of the Xingu Seed Network, a cooperative between indigenous communities, local farmers and
NGOs that started in 2007. BRUNA FERREIRA (through translator): This
is the job of ants. But the seed network is the largest network
in Brazil, and nobody does work like this. AMNA NAWAZ: The hope is that the forest will
slowly regrow with stronger, more durable plants and trees. It’s all part of a larger effort using native
seeds that aims to eventually plant millions of trees. BRUNA FERREIRA (through translator): Today,
there are 600 collectors of native seeds. And the network helped to recuperate and restore
more than 5,000 hectares of degraded areas below the Xingu and Amazon rivers. AMNA NAWAZ: For some Xingu tribal members,
like Abeldo Xavante, a 21-year-old who now works for the Seed Network, regrowing the
forest is essential to preserving the past. ABELDO XAVANTE, Xingu Tribal Member (through
translator): We came from the forest, and, today, nobody else from my tribe lives in
the forest. We live in the savanna. And young people do not know the seeds, and
they no longer want to eat forest fruits and other foods from our culture. They want white man’s food, sweets and sodas. So we must rebuild the forest, so that we
can live there again. AMNA NAWAZ: There’s also a push to have local
Brazilian farmers, like Nedio Goldoni, conserve more of their land. Goldoni owns a cattle ranch outside of Canarana. About 10 years ago, in order to comply with
deforestation laws, he allowed the Xingu Seed Network to work on his property. NEDIO GOLDONI, Farmer (through translator):
We need to produce, because you have a lot of human beings who need to be fed. But, also, we have to preserve what needs
to be preserved. AMNA NAWAZ: Back in Cantao, scientist George
Georgiadis says that, even with new efforts to stop deforestation, pristine areas like
this will likely disappear. You have conceded that it will mostly be destroyed? GEORGE GEORGIADIS: It will mostly be destroyed. AMNA NAWAZ: So why even fight to save what
you can now? GEORGE GEORGIADIS: Because you have to know
the limit of what you can do. It’s like the barbarians are burning the library. You can save a couple of books and hide them
under your shirt. That’s what you can save. You have got to be optimistic and do it. If you’re like, but they’re burning the whole
library, what’s the point, then you don’t even save those two books. And then, in 1,000 years, when people learn
how to read again, there’s not going be anything. So you have to have a different attitude. AMNA NAWAZ: But Georgia and Silvana hope a
different attitude will also help save areas like Cantao and the animals that call this
remarkable place home for as long as possible. Silvana, you have been studying these animals
for years and years, and you still talk about them with, like, a sense of wonder. Does it still excite you to come out and try
to find them? SILVANA CAMPELLO: Oh, definitely. It’s like talking about somebody you love. You never lose your enthusiasm when there
is love. AMNA NAWAZ: Even all these years later? SILVANA CAMPELLO: All these years later, and
— and more. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Amna
Nawaz in Tocantins, Brazil. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: global migration
and a family’s wrenching choice, speaking with the author of “A Good Provider Is One
Who Leaves”; and a Cambodian dancer gives his Brief But Spectacular take on honoring
traditional art forms. In the world of art, political turmoil can
sometimes provide inspiration. In Mexico, the echoes of revolution 100 years
ago can be seen in the work of a contemporary artist. Mexico City native Joaquin Segura weaves history
and social commentary into his work. NPR correspondent Lulu Garcia-Navarro has
his story. Her report is part of our ongoing arts and
culture series, Canvas. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Where you might see the
black bars of a heavily redacted document outlined in red and black to show where the
shrouded words would be, Mexican artist Joaquin Segura sees a tapestry. For his latest collection, Segura found inspiration
in a series of once top-secret documents, thousands of pages of declassified U.S. government
files about the CIA’s involvement in the 1973 coup that brought Chilean dictator Augusto
Pinochet to power. JOAQUIN SEGURA, Artist: So this is actually
the cover letter, the cover page of the daily brief that Richard Nixon received on the morning
of the military coup, September 11, 1973. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Segura’s art takes found
objects and transforms them, like this display of the tattered flags of powerful nations
called G8 for the international gathering that brings them together, or these blown-up
images of leaders from China, the Soviet Union and Germany, with discount price tags, playing
on the notion of a marketplace of ideas where political theory and the people who sell them
rise and fall in value. But his art has a common theme, his view that
the powerful only serve themselves and how real change can only come from the hands of
the people. MAURICIO GALGUERA, Director, Hilario Galguera
Gallery: When art becomes political, it really becomes a very important tool. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Mauricio Galguera is
his longtime gallery representative in Mexico. MAURICIO GALGUERA: He really manages to resonate
all the happenings in our local societies into things that are going on all around the
world. So, in the end, his work really speaks about
human nature. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Some of Segura’s work
explores the relationship between the United States and its neighbor to the south. America has a long history of intervening
in Latin American affairs, including those in Segura’s own country. It’s something he tackles head on in some
of his pieces, like this 2014 statue called Notes on Mexico. The stack of pages are how the sculpture got
its name. “Notes on Mexico” was a book written in 1822
by J.R. Poinsett. He became the first U.S. ambassador to Mexico,
but his meddling in local politics got him expelled. This stone had a previous life too. It was used to protest the outcome of the
2012 Mexican presidential election. JOAQUIN SEGURA: These materials were used
as projectiles by the people in demonstrations, specifically against the election of the Mexican
President Enrique Pena Nieto. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Pena Nieto’s party was
accused of vote-buying, which sent protesters into the streets. JOAQUIN SEGURA: One of the reasons I do art
is to come to terms with everything that’s happening, not only in Mexico, but in the
world at the moment. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Now there is a new leader
in power from an opposing party, but for Segura, the political affiliation is irrelevant. He doesn’t think things will get better because
of politicians. JOAQUIN SEGURA: Corruption in Mexico, it’s
so ingrained in our everyday institutions and structures that, again, it’s something
that we often overlook. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Segura’s political views
was shaped by his parents, who witnessed the 1968 massacre in Mexico City, where hundreds
of students were gunned down during protests around the Olympics. The event is seared into Mexico’s collective
memory, the dead still honored in annual demonstrations. In 2014, another mass killing drew Mexicans
back into the streets in response to the disappearance of 43 students who had been on their way to
a protest in Mexico City. Their bodies were never found, and Mexico’s
attorney general insisted all had been incinerated. But an independent report later dismissed
that explanation, calling it scientifically impossible. Segura’s piece Pyre forces viewers to contemplate
the scale that would require, seen here at a San Francisco showing. JOAQUIN SEGURA: You need 760 kilograms of
wood, 23 car tires, and 71 liters of gasoline just to disappear one single body. It’s not probable. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Mexico is still trying
to uncover the truth behind those 43 murders. Late last year, after taking office, the new
president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, created a new commission to investigate. Segura’s skepticism of any leader’s ability
to solve this or any other national problems has not made him cynical, though. He’s devoted to helping the next generation
of Mexican artists through a two-year training program. JOAQUIN SEGURA: There is something that we
are not satisfied with, and we are working every day to make that different. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: He is advising one of
his mentees, Yolanda Benalba, on a video installation, the culmination of her two-year training with
Segura. For Segura, the payoff is about much more
than simply launching careers. Does it make you feel hopeful about the future? JOAQUIN SEGURA: I think hope is also a very
heavy word. (LAUGHTER) JOAQUIN SEGURA: But, yes, definitely. I’m looking forward to see a different Mexico. LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: Segura knows that history
in Mexico sometimes repeats itself, but he’s committed to changing its future. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Lulu Garcia-Navarro. JUDY WOODRUFF: On our Bookshelf tonight: one
family’s quest to escape crippling poverty the only way they could, by leaving their
children behind to find work abroad. Amna Nawaz is back. She recently spoke with author Jason DeParle
about his book “A Good Provider Is One Who Leaves,” tracing three generations of a single
family across the world. DeParle begins by telling how he first met
the family in the Philippines. JASON DEPARLE, Author, “A Good Provider Is
One Who Leaves”: I was interested in life in shantytowns, not migration. Migration was the farthest thing from my mind. And I wanted to move in with a family and
try to see slum life up close. And I found a family to move in with. And, actually, I went to a nun who lived in
this community and asked her to help me find a family to live with. I thought she would go and screen families
and take me to meet one, but instead she walked me through the shantytown and just sort of
auctioned me off on the spot. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) JASON DEPARLE: First person she approached,
the woman said, no, no, no. And the second one, no, no, no. And the third was too frightened to respond,
and that was the one that I wound up moving in with. AMNA NAWAZ: And tell me about that family. JASON DEPARLE: It turned out that, while I
wasn’t thinking of migration, migration was the way the family survived. It was a mother home with five kids, and her
husband was a guest worker in Saudi Arabia, go off on two-year contracts, come back every
two years, see the family for a month or two, then go back abroad. And she was raising the kids on the money
he sent back, which was 10 times his Manila pay to do the exact same work. AMNA NAWAZ: Ten times his pay in Manila… JASON DEPARLE: Ten times. AMNA NAWAZ: … to go live abroad in a different
country and send money back? JASON DEPARLE: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: This is Tita and Emmet, right? JASON DEPARLE: Tita and Emmet Comodas, yes. AMNA NAWAZ: Yes. And how unusual was that arrangement, the
more you dug into it? JASON DEPARLE: Tita was one of 11 kids. In her family, nine went abroad or had spouses
who did. And now there’s a second generation of cousins,
45 or so cousins, and maybe, I think, in the last count, 23 or 24 had gone abroad. The Philippines is the country in the world
where the government does the most to promote migration. Remittances, the money that sent back, are
10 percent of the GDP. And migration to the Philippines is what cars
were once to Detroit. It’s the civic religion. AMNA NAWAZ: As you begin to dig into this,
and you’re spending sort of day-to-day life with this family, you’re talking about a very
big issue, right? It’s migration. People travel all over the world and send
remittances back. It’s not just people from the Philippines. But what are you seeing day to day in terms
of the impact it’s having on the family? How does it affect how they live, how they
relate to one another? JASON DEPARLE: They were one of the few families
in the slum area that — so, if you want a tangible example of what migration meant to
them, it meant they could put a new roof on their house. It meant they could have better walls. It meant they could have indoor plumbing. Eventually, it meant that their middle daughter,
Rosalie, the one I became closest to could afford, if barely, to go to nursing school. And that’s what allowed her in turn to go
abroad and eventually make it to the United States. So migration was more than a source of income. It was ultimately a vehicle for transformation
or salvation for this family. AMNA NAWAZ: You talk too about putting the
context — putting this family’s experience in the context of sort of global migration,
right? It’s a very intimate look at this one family. But what did you learn sort of more largely
about how and why people move? JASON DEPARLE: The moment — I call it the
lightbulb moment for me, when I really understood the importance of global migration, was when
I discovered research that had shown remittances, the money that people send home, are three
times the world’s foreign aid budgets combined. Migration is the world’s anti-poverty program. If you believe that people should get up and
help themselves, that’s what they do when they migrate. It had a profound impact, not only in the
Philippines, but all across the world. AMNA NAWAZ: We are, of course, having a lot
of national conversations about immigration right here in the United States. And I wonder, having followed this family
over multiple generations, having sort of put them in the context of the way the rest
of the world moves, how are you processing the conversations we’re having here right
now? JASON DEPARLE: I think there’s a lot of pessimism
in the United States about the prospects for assimilation. I mean, certainly, on the part of people who
don’t like immigration, they will say, the problem is immigrants aren’t assimilating
the way they used to do. They’re not learning English. They’re not fitting in. But even among, I think, people who are middle
of the road or even some somewhat supportive of immigration, they often worry, will this
generation assimilate the way immigrants of the past did? And no one family can stand for everyone in
a country of 44 million immigrants, but what I found was that, for this family and a substantial
number of immigrants, the powers of American assimilation remain profound, formidable. I mean, this family achieved in three years
the kind of assimilation that used to take three generations, a house in the suburbs,
kids on the honor roll. AMNA NAWAZ: You know, in another interview,
you were talking about this family’s story, and you said, what you put — what you took
away from their story personally was that immigration in America is actually working
much better; immigration as a whole is working much better than a lot of people give it credit
for. What did you mean by that? JASON DEPARLE: Well, as I say, there’s 44
million immigrants. So everybody’s got a different story, and
one can’t stand for everyone. But I think we have been so focused on illegal
immigration and on the crisis of the border — at the border, that we have forgotten that
three-quarters of the immigrants in the country are here illegally. Among new immigrants — our image of immigration
is often still one of Latino immigration, whereas, among new immigrants, Asians dominate. Most come middle class now. The majority have college degrees. The majority live in the suburbs among new
immigrants. So I think it’s — the reality is often very
different than the crisis coverage that drives so much of the news cycle. AMNA NAWAZ: The book is “A Good Provider Is
One Who Leaves.” Jason DeParle, thank you very much for being
here. JASON DEPARLE: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: bringing ancient traditions
alive in a new light. Artist Prumsodun Ok is taking a form of dance
that dates back to performances solely for royalty in Cambodia. His Khmer dance company is transforming that
classical style by using an all-male and openly gay group to showcase the art to the public. He now gives his Brief But Spectacular take
on this unique tradition. It’s also part of our Canvas series. PRUMSODUN OK, Dancer: So, when you look at
Khmer classical dance, there are a lot of curves in our art form. So we actually train our hands. We bend them back like this. And we have four primary hand gestures that
we use. This is — represents a tree. That tree is going to grow and then it’ll
have leaves. After it has leaves, it’s going to have flowers. And after it has flowers, it’s going to have
fruit. That fruit is going to drop, and a new tree
will grow. And so in those four gestures are the cycle
of life. We use those four same gestures to illustrate
sadness, love, anger, pain, joy, pride. The art form was nearly destroyed in the 1970s,
when the Khmer Rouge took over. In a period of less than four years, 90 percent
of Khmer dance artists lost their lives, during a time in which an entire third of Cambodia’s
population perished through disease, overwork, starvation, and execution. My teacher’s teachers were instrumental in
reviving the art form from the ashes of war and genocide. When I think about, what is my role to this
tradition that was nearly lost, I have a responsibility to offer my fullest self, my realities as
a gay man, someone born and raised in the diaspora, in and of and between many different
worlds. I didn’t go to Cambodia with the intention
of starting Cambodia’s first gay dance company. I had plans to move to Mexico City. Then I got a fellowship to work with all young
male gay dancers. And when I got to Cambodia, my friends, who
are the leading dance artists in Cambodia, they would say, Prum, can you stay here? You know, the country needs you. The art form needs you. And I would say, no, because everywhere I
looked around me, I saw so much sadness. After a month-and-a-half of training these
young men, I sat down and I watched them. And I said, oh, my God, they look like a real
company. And, oh, my God, Cambodia’s first gay dance
company just formed in my living room. To call the company, like, a gay dance company
is a very brave and very forward thing. Before I auditioned the dancers, I told them:
I need brave people. You are going to go on stage and you are going
to represent a community that doesn’t have a voice oftentimes. My name is Prumsodun Ok, and this is my Brief
But Spectacular take on honoring your traditions. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you can find additional
Brief But Spectacular episodes on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. On the “NewsHour” online right now: Millions
of Americans stand to lose food stamp benefits under a policy proposed by the Trump administration. New state level data offers a glimpse of who
would be impacted if this rule goes into effect. You can learn more on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. 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 August 30, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: all eyes on the
storm. Hurricane Dorian churns toward the U.S. mainland,
as Florida residents batten down for a dangerous landfall. Then: hearing from home. It’s the time of year when members of Congress
head back to their districts, and voters have a lot to get off their chests. Plus: a wandering wall and the art of change. Artist Andy Goldsworthy on capturing the ephemeral. ANDY GOLDSWORTHY, Sculptor: This work has
taken me into uncomfortable territory. And that is a great thing for an artist to
be put into. JUDY WOODRUFF: And it’s Friday. Mark Shields and David Brooks are here to
analyze President Trump’s tumultuous week, the appetite for impeachment among voters,
and the 2020 Democratic hopefuls, as the next debate lineup is announced. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Hurricane Dorian is still growing
tonight, and 10 million people along the east coast of Florida could be at risk. The storm will reach the Bahamas on Sunday,
then slam into Florida by Tuesday with Category 4 winds of 140 miles an hour. But with the actual track still uncertain,
Governor Ron DeSantis held off ordering evacuations today. GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): We know it’s going west. It’s going to eventually go north. Will it go north before it hits the east coast. Will it go — ride 95? Will it go up the center of the state? Will it go up the west coast or even into
the Gulf? We don’t know that yet. But I think if folks are in some of those
areas, they need to do what’s best to prepare. But, yes, it’d be great for me to say if I
could say, it’s been totally ruled out to go one direction or another. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s hear more about Dorian’s
trajectory as of this evening and the risks of this hurricane. Edward Rappaport is the deputy director of
the National Hurricane Center, and he joins me from the center in Miami. Ed Rappaport, thank you for being with us. So what is the latest information on Dorian? ED RAPPAPORT, Deputy Director, National Hurricane
Center: Good evening. Judy. Yes, during the day today, Dorian did strengthen
and became what we call a major hurricane, Category 3. The track is also beginning to change, and
this was expected. The storm had been moving toward the northwest,
but is now beginning to turn toward the west-northwest with. And in fact we expect it is going to turn
even more towards the left there, which is going to make it go towards the west. And here is the forecast now, the center located
about 600 miles to the east of the Florida east coast, and the track we have now forecasts
for it to approach by late in the weekend the coast, but then slow significantly and
turn very near the coast. So while typically forecasting intensity is
the hardest, in this case, the track forecast is particularly problematic for us. JUDY WOODRUFF: Why problematic? ED RAPPAPORT: Well, in this case, if the hurricane
should turn a little earlier than we are forecasting, which would be really great news, it would
take the center offshore. If the turn is delayed just a little bit — we
are talking about maybe 50 miles — then we have a landfall of a major hurricane on the
south or central coast of Florida, with the impacts that would be quite significant. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you were saying it had
slowed. And what does that mean in terms of the danger
that it represents? ED RAPPAPORT: Yes. There are a number of — there are positive
and negative factors for a slowing storm. The positive is, it gives us a little more
time to prepare. Prepare. The negative is, though, that once it arrives,
it is a prolonged period of those strong winds, very heavy and flooding rains and storm surge,
which might go through multiple high tide cycles, which would make things even worse. JUDY WOODRUFF: And any — what are the chances
now that it could weaken at this point? ED RAPPAPORT: In this case, we don’t think
there will be much chance for a weakening. Again, we have now what is Category 3 hurricane,
115-mile-per-hour winds. We are forecasting it to become even stronger
over the next day or so. The issue for us is, will the center actually
make it to the coast? And at this stage, there is still a fairly
significant chance of that. And we’re looking for all folks in Florida
to prepare because of that potential eventuality. JUDY WOODRUFF: For sure. If there is any chance at all, preparation
is so important. Ed Rappaport at the National Hurricane Center,
we thank you. ED RAPPAPORT: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, we have seen pictures
of gas lines. And we’re seeing people lined up in grocery
stores. To give us some better perspective on what
people need to know and what the state is doing to get ready, we turn to Craig Fugate. He headed the Federal Emergency Management
Agency under President Obama. Before that, he was director of Florida’s
Emergency Management Division. Today, he lives and works as an adviser in
Gainesville, Florida. And he joins us from there. Craig Fugate, listening just now to Ed Rappaport
at the National Hurricane Center, what should the state of Florida be doing to prepare? CRAIG FUGATE, Former Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency: Well, the folks up at Tallahassee in the state emergency operations
center, Governor DeSantis has called out the National Guard, is they are getting ready
for all of the worst-case scenarios. Is this storm going to come in as a major
hurricane and do tremendous damage? Is it going to be a slow-moving storm with
lots of rain, you know, torrential rainfall measured in feet? So they have to plan for all of these. The problem is, Florida is a peninsula, so
there is not too many options about how you can pre-position resources. So you have to kind of play this out and go
worst-case scenario, how do I get close enough, how do I have the right resources? But until that track gets closer, and we actually
start seeing the likelier impacts, they are just having to plan for a lot of scenarios
from South to North Florida. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, we heard the governor say,
we just don’t have enough information yet to tell people to start evacuating. How long can they wait, though, before they
tell them… CRAIG FUGATE: Well, this… JUDY WOODRUFF: Go ahead. CRAIG FUGATE: Yes. This is well-practiced. And it’s not something we just like jump and
say it’s time to evacuate. Every one of these counties along the coast
knows about how long it takes to evacuate their at-risk populations. And they’re looking for the arrival of the
tropical force winds. And they will count backwards from that forecast. And let’s say it takes them 24 hours to evacuate. They’re looking for that forecast how early
tropical force winds would reach their area. And they would want to get their evacuations
completed, if required, before that. They just don’t want to put people up on the
highways and going across bridges when you got 40 plus-mile-an-hour winds. So this is really based upon the timing of
the arrival of tropical force winds, how long it takes to evacuate counties, and the fact
that all these counties on the east coast are going to share evacuation routes like
I-95 and I-4. So they all work together on conference calls
with the state and the Hurricane Center to make that call. JUDY WOODRUFF: Because they have to think
about traffic and traffic jams? CRAIG FUGATE: Exactly. You have got some counties that, if they go
too early, they may actually be a bottleneck for a much larger population that needed to
go. So everybody gets on these conference calls,
all the counties, the Hurricane Center, the state, and they kind of walk through this
on the timing issues. But we know that the larger counties take
more time. The big thing is, do people know if they’re
in an evacuation zone? And, if not, that’s what we want them to do
right now. Find out if you’re an evacuation zone, know
where you’re going to go. You don’t have to go hundreds of miles. These counties will open up shelters. For most people, you don’t have to go more
than 10 miles. But if you are going to leave your county
and head to hotel, motel or somewhere else, make sure you have a destination and a reservation
before you get on the highway. You just want to get on there and drive and
hope something’s going to work out. Those are the folks that end up having to
drive to Atlanta. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, OK, so beyond evacuating,
what else can people be doing, other than watching television, listening to the radio,
of course, following the Internet right now? CRAIG FUGATE: Well, I plan to do a barbecue
on Saturday or Sunday. (LAUGHTER) CRAIG FUGATE: So I don’t think it’s going
to be that soon that storm gets here. Is, if you got your plan, you got your supplies,
you know what you’re going to do, just monitor the storm and keep on doing what you would
be doing. A lot of people are getting ready last minute. There’s still plenty of time. But this is kind of the challenge with these
kind of storms, is they’re so far out. They have slowed down. We have got lots of time. People, get your supplies and stuff. But if you have got everything and you’re
set, there’s no reason why you can’t at least salvage some of these July — this Labor Day
holiday. But if you’re not ready, you still got time
to get — you get your supplies. But what you’re preparing for, for a lot of
folks inland is going to be a lot of rain and, unfortunately, probably a lot of power
outages if the storm does come over the state. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, as somebody who has been
the head of FEMA and, of course, has been in charge of emergency situations in the state
of Florida, what is your biggest worry about this storm? CRAIG FUGATE: Well, it’s going to be the three
principal threats. First one is going to be storm surge in the
evacuated areas. Do people comply with those evacuations? Do they leave? We don’t want people waiting for the next
forecast or delaying. They may not get out in time. The second thing is going to be the winds. Outside of what you would see from just devastation,
winds are the primary thing that’s going to cause widespread power outages. And this is a big storm. So its potential is causing a lot of damage
well inland, really a challenge for all the utilities to deal with. But with a slow-moving storm, the third thing
you’re worried about now is heavy rainfall. And the slower that storm is and the longer
it takes, you start measuring rainfall in feet, and you saw what happened in Houston
during Harvey. Imagine that in places like Orlando that are
well inland from the coast, but could see a lot of rain if the storm slows down and
tracks in that direction. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just finally, does it look
to you at this point, Craig Fugate, that the state of Florida, that the federal — that
FEMA, the federal folks, are adequately prepared for this? CRAIG FUGATE: Well, we always talk about what
our state and federal partners are doing. And it really comes down to what our public’s
doing. If the public’s doing their part, then, yes. The governor’s called out the National Guard. People are getting resources ordered up. FEMA has got their folks in Tallahassee. They have got folks that are bringing in supplies. They have got urban search-and-rescue teams
that have water rescue capabilities on standby. So everybody up and down is getting ready. It really comes back to how prepared did the
public get, and what’s really critical is that people heed any evacuation orders and
move to higher ground. So that’s going to be the key to keeping our
fatalities low, is getting people to evacuate, evacuating early, and making sure that people
aren’t staying behind, saying, it won’t be that bad. That’s just not — it’s just — you just can’t
make that gamble with yourself and your family. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s hope people are
listening. Craig Fugate, someone who knows very well
about emergency management, thank you very much. CRAIG FUGATE: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Another
U.S. service member has been killed in combat in Afghanistan. NATO reported the death today, but gave no
details. It came amid reports that the U.S. and the
Taliban may be nearing a peace agreement. Some 14,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan,
providing air cover and support for Afghan forces. Authorities in Hong Kong moved today to head
off new pro-democracy protests. They denied permission for a major march scheduled
for tomorrow. It would have marked five years since mainland
China barred democratic elections for Hong Kong’s chief executive. Meanwhile, two veteran activists were arrested,
and then released on bail. They vowed to fight for the self-determination
of Hong Kong. JOSHUA WONG, Pro-Democracy Activist: We shall
not surrender. And I urge international communities to send
a clear message to President Xi. Sending troops or using emergency ordinance
is not the way out. We will continue our fight, no matter how
they arrest and prosecute us. JUDY WOODRUFF: Hong Kong’s police chief warned
of jail time for anyone who is caught at non-sanctioned rallies this weekend. Iran is still building up a stockpile of enriched
uranium, violating the 2015 nuclear agreement. That word comes from the United Nations’ nuclear
watchdog agency. It also says that Iran continues to enrich
uranium at a higher level than allowed. Tehran announced earlier this summer that
it would begin violating parts of the nuclear agreement after the U.S. quit the deal last
year. In Australia, officials today lowered the
outlook for the health of the Great Barrier Reef to very poor. Environment Minister Sussan Ley said warming
oceans and other factors are killing the corals that make up the reef. SUSSAN LEY, Australian Environment Minister:
This reef has suffered in the last few years six cyclones, two major coral-bleaching events,
and various attacks by the predator crown-of-thorns starfish. So, unsurprisingly, the outlook is that the
condition has deteriorated. And the report calls out the biggest threat
to the reef, which is climate change. JUDY WOODRUFF: The Great Barrier Reef is the
world’s largest coral reef system. Back in this country, the Democratic Party
effectively canceled plans for virtual caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, letting people vote by
phone in 2020. But national party leaders said the system
could be vulnerable to hacking. And on the Republican side, Illinois Congressman
John Shimkus announced that he will retire. He is the 14th House Republican not running
again next year, compared with nearly 40 in the 2018 midterms. The official account of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
was hacked today, sending out vulgar and racist tweets. Twitter quickly deleted the posts and said
it’s investigating. The incident may be related to Twitter’s promise
to crack down on hate speech. Ford is recalling more than 550,000 trucks
and SUVs over potentially faulty seat backs. They could fail to hold passengers in place
in a crash. The recall includes F-150 pickups, Super Duty
trucks, Explorers and Expeditions from model years 2018 to 2020. Wall Street had a quiet day headed into the
long Labor Day weekend. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 41
points to close at 26403. The Nasdaq fell 10 points, and the S&P 500
added about two points. And a passing to note. Former Dallas Police Detective Jim Leavelle
has died. He became part of history two days after President
Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963. Leavelle was at the police station in the
light-colored suit, escorting the man who killed Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, at the
moment that Oswald was fatally shot by nightclub owner Jack Ruby. In later years, Leavelle spoke about his experience
and he rejected all conspiracy theories about the assassination. Jim Leavelle was 99 years old. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: why guerrilla
fighters in Colombia are vowing once again to take up arms; members of Congress come
face to face with the concerns of their constituents; Mark Shields and David Brooks break down the
latest moves from the 2020 campaign trail; impermanence on display, an artist captures
the spirit of change; and much more. The 3-year-old peace deal in Colombia may
be coming apart. Yesterday, hard-liners from Colombia’s main
rebel group, known as the FARC, issued a renewed call to arms. As William Brangham reports, they claim the
Colombian government is failing to live up to its part of the peace agreement. William BRANGHAM: That’s right, Judy. The FARC and the Colombian government signed
a historic peace deal in 2016, agreeing to end the 50 years of civil war that’s killed
more than 220,000 Colombians. But, last year, Colombia elected a new president,
Ivan Duque, who vowed to renegotiate parts of that deal, saying it was too lenient on
the rebels and didn’t do enough for their victims. Yesterday, one of the FARC leaders known as
Ivan Marquez said the Duque government was violating the deal and carrying out political
assassinations, and he declared a new round of fighting. Today, Colombian troops killed nine FARC rebels
in a raid, and described it as a clear message for FARC members who want to walk away from
the peace deal. I’m joined now by Cynthia Arnson. She directs the Latin America program at the
Wilson Center, which is a nonpartisan Washington think tank originally established by Congress. Welcome back to the “NewsHour.” CYNTHIA ARNSON, Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars: Thank you. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The FARC leader, Ivan Marquez,
as we saw, here has said, take up arms, my fellow rebels. Are people likely to heed that call? CYNTHIA ARNSON: Well, I think it is unlikely
that a lot of people in the FARC will heed that call. The FARC political party has rejected what
Ivan Marquez and other FARC leaders did along with him. And there are 7,000 to 13,000 13,000 former
guerrillas and militias that did lay down their arms. And there is really only about 1,500, maybe
2,000 people that are the so-called rearmed guerrillas. But not all of them were people that had laid
down their weapons to begin with. So I think that it remains to be seen, but
it is obviously incumbent on the government to do much more to carry out the promises
of reintegration of former combatants and to really deliver on the major parts of the
peace deal that had to do with rural reform. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Because, as you well know,
that is Marquez and his fellow rebels’ argument, that the government has not been doing a very
good job. I mean, is there evidence for their point
of view? They are saying, you are not living up to
your end of the deal. You have been assassinating members of our
group. Is that true? Are their complaints true? CYNTHIA ARNSON: There is truth to that, but
it probably is not the main reason that they have gone back to take up weapons. Some about 130 to 150 members of the FARC
that had demobilized have been killed, and there had been hundreds and hundreds of social
leaders, of even government officials that are based in Colombian communities that have
been killed with impunity. And a number of organizations, including the
U.N. verification mission, have condemned the relentless assaults. And I think what really… WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And those are assaults done
by the Colombian government? CYNTHIA ARNSON: These are not done by the
Colombian government? The issue is the state, the Colombian government,
didn’t move quickly enough or resolutely enough to reoccupy all of these spaces or territories
that the FARC left behind when they demobilized. And those are the areas where people are getting
killed, where criminal groups are competing for territory, for control of drug trafficking
routes, of gold mining routes, and also in many instances where the coca, the raw ingredient
for cocaine, is grown. And these are very, very difficult areas. And there needs to be much more done not only
in security terms, but also to bring roads and development and the legal presence of
the economy and the state, including services, to these areas. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We know this deal was signed
by the former president, Santos, and now there is the new president, Duque, who campaigned
saying, I am going to make a lot of changes to that. And I understand that this was a very controversial
deal to begin with and there is a discontent about the parameters of the deal as it was
signed. What are Colombians’ problem with the deal
as it was put together? CYNTHIA ARNSON: Well, essentially the peace
deal was submitted to a vote of the Colombian public, and it was rejected by a narrow majority. And that led to a quick effort over a period
of months during the previous government, during the Santos government, to try to renegotiate
parts of the agreement. But the central objection of President Duque
and people in his political party is that the accord it is much too lenient in terms
of the justice aspects. And when any civil war comes to an end, there
are usually these mechanisms of transitional justice that are put into place. It is very difficult to tell a guerrilla force
that you are negotiating with, lay down your weapons and you go to jail. And so they come up with these kind of hybrid
mechanisms of transitional justice. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lay down your weapons, confess
your crimes. CYNTHIA ARNSON: Confess your crimes, give
reparations to victims. And for many people, the FARC is hated. It committed terrible crimes, massacres, kidnappings,
abuses against the civilian population. And there are people who want to see the FARC
behind bars. And the fact that that could be a result if
people don’t confess fully is just simply not enough for President Duque, for his party
and obviously for the majority of the Colombian public. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Quickly, just the last question,
is it your sense that the actions of the last few days mean that the deal is coming apart
or not? CYNTHIA ARNSON: I don’t think it is coming
apart. In fact, there have been some important, a
lot of advances, and the government doesn’t get enough credit for some of those things. There have been advances in voluntary eradication
of coca. There have been efforts to give titles to
land to campesinos in rural areas. But the security situation is just not conducive
to allowing the government to move ahead fully. There is also 1.4 million Venezuelan refugees
that have flooded into Colombia. And the government really has its hands full. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Cynthia Arnson of the Wilson
Center, thank you very much. CYNTHIA ARNSON: Thank you. A pleasure. JUDY WOODRUFF: When Congress closed down for
its late summer recess, Democrats were facing pressure on the question of whether the House
of Representatives should move forward with an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. But as lawmakers prepare to return to Washington
in September, David Cruz of PBS station NJTV in New Jersey reports that at least some Democrats
are hearing mixed messages from their constituents. REP. ANDY KIM (D-NJ): So, again, I just appreciate
you taking the time to come on out today. DAVID CRUZ: First-term Congressman Andy Kim
sets a genteel tone at a recent town hall meeting. In New Jersey, where even a discussion of
the weather can turn into a heated debate, that is no small feat. Kim is one of more than 40 Democrats elected
to seats formerly held by Republicans in the most recent midterm. He is a moderate Democrat in a district that
has been anything but safe for either party. The Third Congressional District stretches
across the southern portion of New Jersey from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the
Pennsylvania border on the west. It includes large portions of mostly Democratic
Burlington County and largely Republican Ocean County. In the last five presidential elections, voters
in this district have gone for Al Gore, George W. Bush, Barack Obama twice and most recently
Donald Trump. Its last four representatives to the House
have been a Democrat, followed by two Republicans, and now a Democrat. It is that kind of political split personality
that can give a first-term congressman fits. MARTY HAGERTY, New Jersey: Andy has got a
lot on his plate and he does have this weird district that is red and blue. DAVID CRUZ: Marty Hagerty is the mother of
two grown children, a self-described progressive who volunteered on Kim’s 2016 campaign. She is plugged into local and national news. She says she has read most of the Mueller
report and watched the hearings. She is one of those Democratic voters calling
on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. MARTY HAGERTY: If I were with in charge, that
guy would be in jail, as would his children. If you or I did half of the things he has
done and not done, we would be in jail. DAVID CRUZ: Hagerty says, among her circle
of friends in Cinnaminson, an upper-middle-class suburb here in Burlington County, impeachment
is something they talk about all the time. This was supposed to be impeachment August,
when activists were going to pressure their representatives to make their move against
the president. To be sure, constituents did bring it up. WOMAN: The solution for this is impeachment. DAVID CRUZ: And since coming home for recess,
more than 30 Democrats changed their stance on impeachment , bringing the number to more
than 130, the majority of the caucus. But as August turns to September, the fervor
for impeachment, at least in Andy Kim’s district, seems to have cooled. THOMAS ANTHONY, New Jersey: And, honestly,
my message is, do what you need to do for the people. That is more important, your people. DAVID CRUZ: On the streets of working-class
Burlington City, median income just over $24,000, Thomas Anthony has a different perspective. He says pocketbook issues are more important
than impeachment. THOMAS ANTHONY: Everything is more important. Your people need somewhere to go. They need food. They need shelter. They need jobs. DAVID CRUZ: Betty Wilson is a retired former
New Jersey assembly member and a Democrat. She is no fan of Donald Trump, but she thinks
any talk of impeachment this late in the president’s first term is probably moot. BETTY WILSON, New Jersey: That is a question
that, as we get closer to the election next year, it becomes less important to me, frankly. I just want to get rid of him. DAVID CRUZ: Do you feel any pressure from
either constituents or from your party to come out one way or the other in terms of
impeachment? REP. ANDY KIM: I am really not trying to approach
any of this from a political standpoint. I am not trying to think through in my mind
what is going help win an election or what is going to help. Look, we have to serve the Constitution. DAVID CRUZ: Kim’s response to talk of impeachment
is measured. He may be a first-term congressman, but he
is very familiar with the district and the political polar opposites that exist within
it. For many outside of this local grocery store
in Republican Ocean County, impeachment is a four-letter word. ROGER PERSICHILLI, New Jersey: Ridiculous. I am not in favor of impeachment. Trump is not a politician. He is a businessperson. He is crude, he is arrogant, but he is getting
the job done. And everyone is interfering with him, his
ability to try and get the job done, period. TOM ANZALONE, New Jersey: I think there is
a cost to everything. And the cost for impeachment on the country
would probably be damaging. And I don’t see it. I don’t see it — whether it is worth it or
not. I don’t think it is. DAVID CRUZ: For Kim, addressing local concerns
over the safe decommissioning of the nearby nuclear power plant, a topic of this town
hall, can provide cover. It is something most everyone can get behind. But it is no guaranteed safe haven from some
voters in the district where nuance can cost you. WOMAN: You’re doing nothing. You, sir, do not get my vote ever. DAVID CRUZ: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m David
Cruz in Lacey Township, New Jersey. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that brings us to the analysis
of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and
New York Times columnist David Brooks. Hello to both of you. So, David, let’s look at what we just heard
from these voters in Andy Kim’s district in New Jersey. You could say they are all over the map, but
it is interesting, yes, it is a divided district. These voters really are divided. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. And, you know, I think impeachment is just
this big mess of interruption in our process of government, to the extent that we have
one. And that usually is accompanied by a cultural
landslide, where people are talking about the issue of impeachment, perhaps on the front
page, and the Watergate is breaking stories — The Washington Post and The New York Times
are breaking stories. And as far as I can tell, the Russia investigation
has drifted to the back of a lot of people’s minds. And so there is a core that still wants to
do it, and there are over half of the Democratic Caucus want at least an inquiry into impeachment. But I just don’t feel the groundswell. And I do think that sense that let’s have
this campaign and let’s get to the issues is just going to make this impeachment thing
peter out. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, what do you make of people,
real people’s reactions? MARK SHIELDS: I thought Betty Wilson, the
voter in Burlington, had the best summation. I want to get rid of him, but let’s just get
on with the election, basically. And I think that is the prevailing attitude
now. I don’t think there is any question. I don’t question the intensity, the sincerity,
the conviction of those who seek the impeachment. But I think the practicality of that course
has been disproved. And I think Speaker Pelosi has made her position
pretty clear on it. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you do have — David, you
said it. You have now got more than half. You have got a majority of the Democrats who
have now come out and said, we should move ahead with an impeachment inquiry. You have got some key committee chairs. You have got Jerry Nadler, chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. So what happens? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, to some degree — well, there is sort
of the hard-core that wants to do this. Then some people are saying, I am for the
inquiry, but I am not sure I am for impeachment, which gives you — you’re able to play both
sides. And then Pelosi’s position has always been
when the public case has been made for it. And unless there is a groundswell, I think
— I don’t think she would go ahead and say the public case has been made for it. And the risks of doing it are reasonably high. We have seen that against the Clinton impeachment
that backlashes tend to happen. And that might happen in this case. JUDY WOODRUFF: Risks? (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: Sure. I mean, the steam went out of it, Judy. It is not a matter of — a topic of common
discussion in the country. It is not at the top of any talk show list. It just isn’t. There is an intensity obviously on the part
of some Democratic partisans, but it’s in no way is a majority position in the country
or it hasn’t changed. It is not a growing position. Bob Mueller’s testimony came and it went,
and it left in its wake no movement for impeachment. I think that is fair to say. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well… MARK SHIELDS: And, plus, we are on the cusp
of going to Iowa. I mean, so there is an election. (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes. Well, let’s talk for a moment about President
Trump coming off, David, the G7 meeting of world leaders last week. And I think it is fair to say this has been
a tumultuous week for the president. His position on trade with China was in one
place and then another and yet another. We were hearing something different almost
every day. You look back on the G7, again, the meeting
in France last weekend, and it was more characterized by tension that he had with other world leaders
than by any sense that anything was getting done. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. That’s sort of par for the course for G7 summits. But I think what struck me this week was how
the debate changed around Donald Trump. There has been whispering, is he mentally
not as fit as he was? Are impairments rising? That somehow seemed to rise and now become
public conversation. When he said his father was with born in Germany,
when your father was born in the Bronx, that’s not something you normally get wrong. That his wife is good trends with the North
Korean leader, when she had never met him. I mean, there are just a lot of things coming
out of his mouth. And this has always been the case, but the
verbal patterns — psychiatrists are not allowed to judge people they haven’t met, but there
are certainly a lot of people out there raising a lot of red flags. So, that — to me, among the tumult of — the
political tumult the G7, the psychological tumult is almost one of the key takeaways. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think we are in a different
place with regard to all that with the president, Mark? MARK SHIELDS: I don’t know, Judy. I think there is a fatigue about Donald Trump. I think there is a what is he going to do
next attitude, and that, you know, what is the capacity for outrage? Have we reached those limits? As far as the G7 summit, what hit me about
it was, I can’t get over how he continues to denigrate President Obama. I mean, that just — it’s gratuitous. And I had it explained to me by a Trump — longtime
Trump watcher, who said, Trump knows that at that G7 meeting, they would rather have
Obama than him — than rather have him. And so he is almost driven to make up stories
about President Obama, that President Obama gave away Crimea to Putin, that — you know,
it’s just — it’s sort of a fabricated thing. And that, to me, is bizarre. But the other thing about it is — and Adlai
Stevenson once said, better we lose an election than mislead the American people. Donald Trump lies when he doesn’t have to. On the meeting of the G7 on the environment,
and he skipped it, and he said, well, my — the reason he wasn’t there was that he was meeting
with Ms. Merkel and the prime minister of India, both of whom were at the meeting. So it is not — it’s just being — saying
things that are so easily corrected and so easily proved that he is lying. And at some point, I would just think the
burden of working for someone like that becomes unbearable, just unbearable. He lies to you, as a loyal staffer. He lies to the people he is dealing with. And, you know, at some level, in politics,
your word is the coin of the realm. And he is just — he’s overdrawn on that bank
account. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I don’t want to draw
too close a comparison here, but, David, this week there was attention to Joe Biden because
he has been telling a story about meetings he had with U.S. — American veterans who
were fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan and telling very emotional, compelling stories about pinning
a medal on them and, you know, how one was — retrieved a buddy from a burning vehicle
and another one rappelled down a cliff and so forth. But it turns out these are different things
that happened jumbled together with some, frankly, inaccurate pieces. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: You know, there’s been — some
are saying this should be connected and compared to the president. Others are saying in no way. DAVID BROOKS: Oh, I think in no way. I mean, Biden may be aging, and maybe that’s
an issue. I think it is a legitimate issue for voters
to think about. But he is not mendacious, he is not irresponsible. He may embellish a story to improve its dramatic
effect. And he may be for getting things. Our memories are just much more fallible than
we think. Every memory expert will tell you that. And when you’re on the campaign trail doing
thousands of events traveling everywhere, things get jostled in your mind. So, it could be just the normal jostling of
campaign. And for some reason, we have gotten into a
pattern where a Biden gaffe is the story. So he will do eight good things in the campaign,
tells one mistake, and that’s the story, because that’s the story we associate with Joe Biden
right now. But it is something for voters to monitor. I don’t think embellishing that kind of story
is like something that is necessarily a sign that he is over the hill. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Biden’s campaign, Mark,
is saying the press is making too much of this. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. The Biden campaign ought to shut up. I mean, they really do. The last thing in the world you want to do
as a campaign is tell voters what matters. Right now, it doesn’t matter to voters. We went through a campaign in 1980 where the
president of the United States running for election got 49 electoral votes and six — carried
six states, Jimmy Carter, against Ronald Reagan, a man who said that trees cause more pollution
than automobiles, a man who said there was more oil under Alaska than there was in Saudi
Arabia, a man who said that maybe Darwinism, you know, should we ought to teach creationism
as well? But there was no malice with Ronald Reagan,
and voters saw that. They said, yes, he said things that weren’t
totally factually true, but it wasn’t mendacious, to use David’s word, and it wasn’t an attempt
to aggrandize him. All of Donald Trump’s lies are to put him
in a better light. Joe embellishes, Joe embroiders, and I think
it can be a proxy for age when he starts doing that. And I think that they have to be worried about
that. But I don’t think the two are comparable at
this point, either morally or politically. DAVID BROOKS: It is noticeable with voters
that people will forgive you for getting the facts wrong if you get your basic narrative
right. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. DAVID BROOKS: That if you — basically, the
America you see is the America voters recognize, that’s what they care about. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meantime, we know that Biden
is going to be — and we have got a picture of the 10 Democrats who have made the next
debate stage. That means 10 others didn’t make the debate
stage. This was Democratic Party rules, David, that
said you had to have 130,000 people giving you money, and you had to be at 2 percent
in several polls. Some of the candidates who didn’t make cut
are saying these rules aren’t fair. What do you think? DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think they are fair. Getting to 2 percent is not like — it is
not like the British invasion, the Beatles landing at Shea Stadium. It’s 2 percent. (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: If you’re out there campaign
with all your might, and you can’t get 2 percent, to me, something is not working. JUDY WOODRUFF: But their point is, we are
still five months away from people voting. DAVID BROOKS: Yes, but the reality is, at
some point, the voters can’t really entertain 22 people up there — or 20 people over two
nights. And so there has to be a winnowing process. This seems to me a pretty effective one. I was surprised so many made the last round,
frankly. I thought they set the standards too low. So now we can take a look at, frankly, the
people who are plausibly likely to be the nominee, and take a more closer look. And I think that serves the party and I think
it serves the voters. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you think about these
debate rules? MARK SHIELDS: I think the debate rules are
a direct consequence of 2016, when the Democratic National Committee and party favored Hillary
Clinton over Bernie Sanders, unfairly. They were promulgated. They were there. Everybody knew about them going in. We could argue about whether they’re fair,
whether 2 percent this early is fair. But everybody knew the rules they were playing
by. So I think, in that sense, that the party
is doing better than it did four years ago. The problem is that some of the more electable
Democrats in my mind are off the stage, I mean, whether it is Senator Bennet or Governor
Bullock, are not going to be there. So their campaigns then have to make that
decision, what do I do? They have got to do something dramatic and
bold to reassert themselves into the debate. And that becomes a problem. But… DAVID BROOKS: I wouldn’t think it is a death
sentence for them, because you look at how much movement there has been, Warren was down
in the dumps, and now she is surging. Buttigieg was up. Now he’s down a little. I am really struck by how voters are really
moving around. MARK SHIELDS: But I just think the coverage
is going to the 10. DAVID BROOKS: For sure. MARK SHIELDS: And that’s going to be the… (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Going to go to the 10 who are
in the debates. MARK SHIELDS: The news directors are going
to say — and so you have to do something, if you are Senator Bennet or Governor Bullock
or the others who are not there to break through that coverage. JUDY WOODRUFF: It is pointed out for the October
debates, the rules are going to stay the same. So, some of them who didn’t qualify this time
may be able to qualify next time, maybe over two nights. But, David, only in just — in a few seconds
we have left, we are starting to see the shape of the race. I mean, all of the candidates on stage are
people we’re — I guess somebody pointed out Andrew Yang is the only non-politician on
the stage. DAVID BROOKS: Right. He’s run a real, vital campaign. MARK SHIELDS: He has. DAVID BROOKS: And then Warren, I think, is
the story. She’s slow, steady growth, based on fundamentals,
based on strength, frankly, based on likability. If people — Democrats pick any candidate
that’s their magic ticket, they like her. She’s taken 45,000 selfies. That’s a lot of hard work. (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: So I think her move is right
now the story of the moment. JUDY WOODRUFF: We’re going to leave it there. David Brooks, Mark Shields, thank you both. MARK SHIELDS: Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight: Walls, of
course, are all around us, but how often do we stop and think about what they represent? Well, that’s exactly what British sculptor
Andy Goldsworthy is doing in his latest project in Kansas City. Jeffrey Brown has the story for Canvas, our
ongoing series on art and culture. JEFFREY BROWN: As the sun came up on this
early morning on the grounds of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, workers took
apart stones from one end of a wall, piled them in small wheelbarrows and carried them
a short distance, where they were added to the wall’s other end. It’s an unusual project that began last March,
and will run through November in five stages, to build a section of wall 100 yards long
with 100 tons of rock, then tear it down and rebuild it section by section over time, essentially
creating a wall that will walk across the landscape and eventually into the museum itself. Its creator, 63-year-old British artist Andy
Goldsworthy, told me he’s always wanted to build a walking wall. ANDY GOLDSWORTHY, Sculptor: I proposed it
two or three times. No one got it. What? You’re going to… JEFFREY BROWN: Well… ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: It’s a challenge. No, it’s a challenge. JEFFREY BROWN: Well, it’s not only a challenge,
but it’s a little crazy in a way, right? You’re going to move… ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: I think it’s really sensible. Yes. JEFFREY BROWN: Thinking, seeing, even experiencing
differently, it’s what Goldsworthy has been doing for decades. He was first known for creating sculptures
in the landscape using natural materials he came upon, leaves, branches, fallen trees,
stones. It was art, but not the kind for a gallery
or home. These were of and remained in place. And they were, by nature, ephemeral, changing,
fading, eventually dying through weather and time. You were making things that are going to disappear. You didn’t care? ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: No, no, I care. JEFFREY BROWN: You do care. ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: No, I care. No, last doesn’t mean anything if you don’t
care. Essentially, art for me is a way of trying
to understand the world that I’m living in and my relationship with it. And things that change, things that go, even
when they go, how they decay, how they change, as this is changing. JEFFREY BROWN: Over time, the scale has grown
as his work has been commissioned around the world: nine stacked slate domes at Washington’s
National Gallery, large cairns in several locations, this one near his home in Scotland,
and a nearly 3,000-foot-long wall that winds its way through the woods at the Storm King
Art Center in New York’s Hudson Valley. In Kansas City, the material, limestone, came
from the nearby flint hills, the inspiration from the local landscape, the stone walls
marking boundaries all around the city and surrounding prairie. But the idea here is to make the stone move. ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: It’s about the movement
of stone. JEFFREY BROWN: What does that mean, the movement
in stone? That’s not how we think of it, usually. (CROSSTALK) ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: Well, I think that’s exactly
it. You know, rather than seeing stone as a static
thing, here, for example, we’re standing in a place where there have been walls come out
of the ground rebuilt and built again. This is what we do. JEFFREY BROWN: Structures on structures on
structures. ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: Structures. But it’s not just structures. It’s ideas on ideas. JEFFREY BROWN: And the people putting those
ideas in action. Goldsworthy enlisted a group of locals to
augment his own team. All followed the British tradition of a break
for tea. Edd Smith and Jason Wilton are experienced
craftsmen whose task was to keep the wall moving at a pace of 10 to 12 yards a day. No hammers or machinery and no binding mortar,
just stones fit together piece by piece, with big flat ones to level it on the top at four-feet-high,
measured the old-fashioned way. We use the age-old method of… (CROSSTALK) MAN: Top ribs. (CROSSTALK) MAN: So, we don’t have to use the tape measure
all day. JEFFREY BROWN: Fife Gibson has known Goldsworthy
since he was a child, even carrying stones as an 8-year-old. You have come a long way. FIFE GIBSON, Stone Wall Builder: Well, a long
way distance-wise, but still just carrying stones. (LAUGHTER) FIFE GIBSON: I never thought I would be building
a wall across a four-lane busy road. JEFFREY BROWN: Indeed, in phase two of the
project, the wall crossed and blocked for three weeks a normally busy street, forcing
commuters to find alternate routes. There were a few angry shouts, Goldsworthy
said, but most drivers, runners, and walkers seemed to enjoy the change of scenery. ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: A lot of the people come
in and go, really, oh, this is kind of nice. JEFFREY BROWN: Well, it’s nice for you, but
people might not be so happy on their daily commute. Right? ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: Absolutely. I know. I know. They will get their road back. There’s plenty of time for that. I thought one man said that. We can always have traffic. How often can we get a wall on the — crossing
the road, you know? JEFFREY BROWN: A bit of Kansas City kindness
and understanding, which is what’s been required of the museum itself. The Nelson-Atkins is one of the nation’s leading
art museums with an extensive outdoor sculpture collection that includes its now iconic shuttlecocks. But director of design Steve Waterman said
it’s never faced a challenge like this. STEVE WATERMAN, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art:
When you work at a museum, you get a lot of things in the mail or on a delivery truck,
and then objects come in crates. You take them out of the crates and you put
them on the walls. JEFFREY BROWN: They’re already finished, and
it’s your job just to… STEVE WATERMAN: It’s already done. You have just got to make it look good once
it gets here. And with Andy Goldsworthy, I would say it
was the absolute opposite of that. I mean, every night, I go home and think,
I don’t know whether to think this is art or this is life. (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: A bit of both, no doubt. And add to the mix a bit of politics, in an
age where building a wall has a new meaning. ANDY GOLDSWORTHY: This work has taken me into
uncomfortable territory. And that is a great thing for an artist to
be put into. It was conceived as an idea pre-Trump, pre
the wall, that is happening now. This wall, in some way, has got nothing to
do with that and everything to do with it. And how it will resolve itself, I’m not entirely
sure, but it’s indelibly written into the making of this. JEFFREY BROWN: For now, there were many challenges
ahead, including how to get his wall to squeeze through a narrow passageway, walk down a staircase,
wind its way through park-like grounds, and make its way, finally, into the museum. If all goes to plan, by the end of November,
a permanent piece of wall will stand half outside and half in, a walking wall, built,
taken apart, rebuilt stone by stone. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown
at the Nelson-Atkins Museum in Kansas City, Missouri. JUDY WOODRUFF: Never seen anything like it. Goldsworthy and his team will be back in Kansas
City on September 9 to build the next stage of the walking wall. Photographer Richard Ross has documented the
U.S. juvenile justice system for the better part of a decade. In tonight’s Brief But Spectacular, Ross shares
what it feels like to honor the voices of children behind bars. His books “Juvie Talk” and “Girls in Justice”
are available online. RICHARD ROSS, Photographer: I went to a juvenile
detention center in Texas. And I was used to photographing architecture,
but then, all of a sudden, I started talking to a couple of kids there that were very fragile,
didn’t speak any English. And I realized that I was the conduit for
their voice. When I would go into these institutions, I
would knock on the door of the cell, I would take off my shoes, I would ask for permission
to come in. And then I would sit on the floor of the cell. I would give that child authority physically
above me. And these were usually teenagers, and they
were isolated, bored, lonely. And somebody interested in paying attention
to them, they loved it. These kids all live under the umbrella of
trauma, poverty, abuse, neglect. And I’m trying to figure out the world where
they get the right resources to help them, and they don’t go into the deeper end of the
system. Every one of these children need mental health
services. These are kids without a voice from families
without resources, from communities without power, and that’s got to change somehow. Getting the images into the hands of the right
people to effect change is the battle that I do. The Senate and House was voting to renew the
act that kept children in separate courts. There was an exhibition of my work in the
Capitol Rotunda. And then, when the actual vote was taking
place, Senators Grassley and Durbin both had copies of my book when they were voting. I create these images because data, while
it’s incredibly important, exists in fluorescent sterility, yearning for a fragile voice to
make it comprehensible on human terms. When you have kids from one zip code that
are more likely to go to prison than college, then society has failed them, rather than
they have failed us. So, instead of figuring out how to change
these kids to fit into our institutions, we have to rearrange our thinking and figure
out how our institutions change to fit these kids. You have seen these images. You have a glimpse of who these kids are. Ask yourself, what would you do if this was
your kid? My name is Richard Ross, and this is my Brief
But Spectacular take on juvenile injustice in America. JUDY WOODRUFF: So powerful. And you can see all episodes in our Brief
But Spectacular series on our Web site. That’s PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. Tune in later tonight. On “Washington Week,” Robert Costa is on storm
watch. Hurricane Dorian has raised questions about
President Trump’s leadership after the administration redirects federal money for FEMA to bolster
immigration enforcement. That’s later tonight on “Washington Week.” And tune into “PBS NewsHour Weekend” for the
latest updates as Hurricane Dorian makes its way to Florida. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. You can join us on Monday, when I sit down
with former Secretary of Defense James Mattis. I’m Judy Woodruff. Have a great Labor Day weekend. Thank you, and good night.

PBS NewsHour full episode August 26, 2019

JOHN YANG: Good evening. I’m John Yang. Judy Woodruff is away. On the “NewsHour” tonight: on the world stage. President Trump tests the limits of going
it alone at an annual meeting of global leaders. Then: follow the money. What campaign fund-raising says about the
race for the White House and how it is narrowing the crowded Democratic field. Plus: the rhythm of the canvas. Painter and sculptor Oliver Lee Jackson gives
us a whirlwind tour of his artistic inspiration. OLIVER LEE JACKSON, Artist: These colors never
stop showing themselves clearly and evenly throughout. The pink throughout doesn’t shift. So the harmonies are never lessened by the
play of the light. JOHN YANG: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JOHN YANG: President Trump is headed home
tonight with no apologies after a weekend at the G7 summit. He defended his policies and tactics today
and played down tensions with the world’s other economic powers. White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor
reports from Biarritz, France. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: At the G7, a public show
of harmony amid deep divisions. Presidents Trump and Macron ended the conference
with the same kind of affection they displayed all weekend. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
If there was any word for this particular meeting of seven very important countries,
it was unity. I think, most important of all, we got along
great. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But the takeaways from the
gathering itself were meager. The seven nations only agreed to a set of
statements that filled a single sheet of paper. On many of the most pressing issues he discussed
with the other leaders, President Trump pointedly disagreed. On Iran, Macron extended a last-minute invitation
to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The French president told Trump about the
invitation only hours before Zarif arrived. Macron urged Iran to return to the nuclear
negotiating table with the United States. The 2015 deal, which Mr. Trump pulled out
of last year, hangs in the balance EMMANUEL MACRON, French President (through
translator): There will have to be a meeting between the Iranian and American presidents. And I would wish that, in the coming weeks,
such a meeting would take place. I want this meeting to happen, and I want
there to be an agreement between the United States and Iran. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump said he
is open to a meeting, but only under the right conditions. DONALD TRUMP: If the circumstances were correct
or right, I would certainly agree to that, but, in the meantime, they have to be good
players. You understand what that means. And they can’t do what they’re saying they’re
going to do, because, if they do that, they’re going to be met with really very violent force. We have no choice. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president also defended
his trade war with China. He said increasing tariffs would encourage
Beijing to make a new trade deal. He also claimed that top Chinese officials
were eager to negotiate. DONALD TRUMP: I do. I think they want to make a deal very badly. Maybe they want to, maybe they don’t, but
I think they want to make a deal. I’m not sure they have a choice. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Sunday was filled with confusion
and communications chaos after the president said he had second thoughts about his strategy
with China. QUESTION: Any second thoughts on escalating
the trade war with China? DONALD TRUMP: Yes, sure. Why not? Might as well. Might as well. QUESTION: You have second thoughts about escalating
the war with China? DONALD TRUMP: I have second thoughts about
everything. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But his aides later said
he was only reflecting on whether he should be even tougher on China. He also said his style of praising and then
criticizing his opponents was a winning one. DONALD TRUMP: Sorry. It’s the way I negotiate. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump also defended
his controversial push to have Russia again attend the annual meeting, returning the summit
to the G8. DONALD TRUMP: A lot of people say having Russia,
which is a power, having them inside the room is better than having them outside the room. By the way, there were numerous people during
the G7 that felt that way. And we didn’t take a vote on anything, but
we did discuss it. My inclination is to say, yes, they should
be in. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: He also repeated his incorrect
claim that Russia was kicked out of the group because Russia outsmarted former President
Barack Obama. He claimed an angry Obama engineered the ouster
because of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. DONALD TRUMP: President Putin outsmarted President
Obama. Wait a minute. And I can understand how President Obama would
feel. He wasn’t happy. And they’re not in for that reason. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Why do you keep using the
misleading statement that Russia outsmarted President Obama… DONALD TRUMP: Well, he did. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: … when other countries
have said that the reason why Russia was kicked out was very clearly because they annexed
Crimea? Why do you keep repeating what some people
would see as a clear lie? DONALD TRUMP: It was annexed during President
Obama’s term. If it was annexed during my term, I would
say, sorry, folks. It could have been stopped. But President Obama was unable to stop it,
and it’s too bad. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Russia’s foreign minister
said it has not discussed returning to the G7. Meanwhile, President Trump was the only G7
leader to skip a meeting on climate change, though, in his absence, leaders agreed on
a $20 million aid package to help stop the wildfires in the Amazon. On climate change, the president said he didn’t
want to sacrifice economic progress in the name of the environment. DONALD TRUMP: I’m not going to lose that wealth. I’m not going to lose it on dreams, on windmills,
which, frankly, aren’t working too well. I’m not going to lose it. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: With the end of this summit,
President Macron passed hosting responsibility to President Trump. And he wants to host the 2020 G7 at his resort
in Miami. DONALD TRUMP: With Doral, we have a series
of magnificent buildings, we call them bungalows. They each hold from 50 to 70 very luxurious
rooms with magnificent views. We have incredible conference rooms, incredible
restaurants. It’s like — it’s like such a natural. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Since 2015, Trump Doral’s
operating income has reportedly declined by almost 70 percent. But President Trump dismissed questions about
the ethics of profiting from his presidency. DONALD TRUMP: I’m not going to make any money. In my opinion, I’m not going to make any money. I don’t want to make money. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: It’s still unclear when
President Trump will make his final decision on where to hold the G7 in 2020, but certainly
many people will be watching, John. JOHN YANG: Yamiche, we heard you and saw you
in that news conference press the president about his version of events of why Russian
was kicked out of with a used to be the G8. Why does he stick with his story, the version
of events? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, President Trump is
insisting that Russia outsmarted his predecessor, President Obama, and he wants to stick to
that. Now, it goes with what President Trump has
done in the past, which is blame President Obama when he’s frustrated and when he feels
as though he’s getting unfair criticism. He’s blamed President Obama for child separation,
which is falsely — a false accusation. He also blamed President Obama for not being
tough enough on China. What is clear is that Democrats are already
very frustrated with the stance of President Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer put out
a statement saying it’s appalling that President Trump wants to add Russia back into the G7. He also said that it would make President
Trump look weak. JOHN YANG: Tell us more about the French president’s
efforts to mediate between Iran and the United States. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: It’s clear French President
Emmanuel Macron wants to be a sort of middleman between Iran and the U.S. He said today that Iran is going to be having
to get some sort of economic incentive in order to come back to the negotiating table
and get something better than the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. But President Trump hedged a little. He said he doesn’t want to give Iran any sort
of monetary compensation. But he said something could be worked out
with some sort of oil credit or some sort of letter giving Iran some sort of other kind
of monetary incentive. So it’ll be interesting to see how that plays
out. But Macron definitely wants to play a big
role in that. JOHN YANG: And you also reported, Yamiche,
that the president says he’s losing money as president. What do other watchdog groups say about that? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president says, by the
time he’s done being president, he will have lost between $3 billion and $5 billion. He hasn’t offered any proof that. And most watchdog groups say he and his family
are actually millions of dollars from him being president. An analysis by The Washington Post says that
he’s made at least $1.6 million for his properties because he’s been visiting them in Florida
and in New Jersey. And I spoke to a watchdog group, Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Their spokesperson said that they’re actually
looking at whether or not there’s any legal action they can take that will prevent President
Trump from holding the G7 at his Doral property. So we have to look out to see what watchdog
groups might do on that issue. JOHN YANG: Yamiche Alcindor in a very stormy
Biarritz, France, safe travels home, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks, John. JOHN YANG: In the day’s other news: A state
judge in Oklahoma issued a potentially landmark ruling, that Johnson & Johnson helped fuel
an epidemic of opioid addiction. He ordered the company to pay $570 million. The state had asked for up to $17 billion. Judge Thad Balkman found Johnson & Johnson
played up the benefits of opioid painkillers and played down the risks. THAD BALKMAN, Cleveland County District Judge:
Those actions compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans. Specifically, defendants caused an opioid
crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths, and neonatal
abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma. The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of
Oklahoma. It must be abated immediately. JOHN YANG: Johnson & Johnson immediately announced
plans to appeal. Some 2,000 other state and local lawsuits
are pending against opioid makers nationwide. We will look at all of this after the news
summary. Nineteen states sued today to block any rollback
of limits on detaining migrant children. The 1997 Flores agreement generally limits
that period to 20 days. Last week, the administration announced new
rules to hold entire families for longer. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
announced the legal challenge in Sacramento. XAVIER BECERRA (D), California Attorney General:
The Trump administration made the changes called for in this rule without regard to
the well-being of these children and without regard to the rule of law. Every time we go to court, for the most part,
we win. We’re proving that this administration is
trying to do things the wrong way, by breaking the rules. JOHN YANG: California also asked a federal
judge today to block the administration’s public charge rule. That would deny green cards to legal immigrants
who draw public benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps. Fallen movie producer Harvey Weinstein has
pleaded not guilty to revised charges of sexually assaulting two women. He was back in a New York court today to face
the new indictment. It would allow a third woman to testify that
Weinstein raped her in 1993. The judge has now delayed the trial to early
next year. Officials in Hong Kong warned today that violent
protests are pushing the Chinese territory to the brink of great danger. New violence erupted over the weekend, as
protesters threw bricks and smashed toll booths. Riot police fired back with a water cannon
and tear gas. MAK CHIN-HO, Assistant Commissioner, Hong
Kong Police Force: These attacks are intentional and planned and organized. Not only do their acts put everyone on site
in extreme danger, but they also threaten the everyday life of ordinary citizens. JOHN YANG: Police arrested more than 80 activists
over the weekend, some as young as 12; 21 officers were injured. Tensions between Israel and Iran and its allies
are heating up across the Middle East. In Lebanon today, Prime Minister Saad Hariri
accused Israel of violating his country’s sovereignty in a series of airstrikes. The first came Sunday, when two drones crashed
into Beirut suburbs. Hezbollah militants allied with Iran held
funerals today for two fighters killed in the raid. They marched, and their leader vowed revenge. Israel didn’t confirm any attacks in Lebanon. It did acknowledge striking at Iranian forces
in Syria over the weekend. And claims of Israeli air raids in Iraq are
prompting calls for U.S. troops to withdraw immediately. Iraqi officials say Israeli drones attacked
Iranian-backed paramilitaries on Sunday, killing one fighter. Shiite Muslims, including lawmakers, marched
through Baghdad in a funeral procession today. They said the United States bears the blame. AHMED AL-ASADI, Iraqi Lawmaker (through translator):
The aggression was carried out by Israel and by the powers which support it. It took place in broad daylight with the presence
of the international coalition flight American aircrafts. This means these crimes are done under the
cover of America and colonialism. JOHN YANG: U.S. officials didn’t comment on
Sunday’s attack in Iraq, but they have said that Israel attacked Iranian forces there
in July. Tropical Storm Dorian moved into the Eastern
Caribbean tonight, bearing down on Barbados and its neighbors. The islands braced for the storm’s arrival
early Tuesday. From there, its projected path takes it toward
Puerto Rico. Even a weak hurricane could be a problem for
Puerto Rico, which is still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Maria two years
ago. Back in this country, Republican Congressman
Sean Duffy of Wisconsin announced he’s resigning his seat next month. The four-term lawmaker said he needs to spend
more time with his family. His wife is expecting in October, and tests
show the child has a heart condition. Duffy becomes the 14th House Republican not
seeking reelection in 2020. He represents a strongly Republican district. And on Wall Street, stocks rallied after President
Trump suggested China wants to talk seriously about a trade deal. The Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly
270 points to close at 25893. The Nasdaq rose almost 102 points, and the
S&P 500 added 31. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: a major decision
in a case against a drugmaker, will this be a bellwether trial for the opioid epidemic?;
Amy Walter and Tamara Keith break down the 2020 candidates’ fund-raising scramble; a
new book highlights the difficult realities for female journalists in the Middle East;
and much more. Today’s $572 million judgment against Johnson
& Johnson is the first major legal decision against a drugmaker for its role in the opioid
crisis. As William Brangham reports, the Oklahoma
trial has been closely watched by thousands of litigants in other states and jurisdictions. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That’s right, John. While this was a clear victory for Oklahoma,
the state had been seeking far more, over $12 billion, from the drugmaker. During the seven-week trial in Oklahoma, lawyers
for the state called Johnson & Johnson a drug kingpin, arguing its sales force downplayed
their painkillers’ addictive qualities, which then helped lead to thousands of deaths in
the state since 2000. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter heralded
the judge’s ruling this afternoon. MIKE HUNTER, Oklahoma Attorney General: Today,
Judge Balkman has affirmed our position that Johnson & Johnson, motivated by greed and
avarice, is responsible for the opioid epidemic in our state. Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable
for thousands of deaths and addiction caused by their activities. Well, there’s no question in my mind that
these companies knew what was going on at the highest level. They just couldn’t quit making money from
it. And that’s why they’re responsible. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For its part, Johnson & Johnson
argued its drugs accounted for less than 1 percent of the U.S. opioid market, and were
similarly a tiny fraction of prescriptions in Oklahoma. It also denied any deceptive sales practices. For the record, Johnson & Johnson is a funder
of the “NewsHour.” Jackie Fortier has been reporting on all this
for StateImpact Oklahoma, and National Public Radio. She was in the courtroom today. Jackie Fortier, thank you very much for being
here. Obviously, this is an enormous victory for
the state and really the first loss for one of the opioid manufacturers that we have seen
thus far. Everything else has been settlements. The judge today was particularly tough on
the company in its ruling, wasn’t he? JACKIE FORTIER, StateImpact Oklahoma: Yes. He was — Judge Balkman detailed in the judgment
that the $572 million that he ordered the company to pay immediately was to remediate
the public nuisance. He even brought up things that were — he
even brought up parts that were talked about during the trial, saying that there was a
fetal problem with children in the state who have — who are born with opioids in their
system. So, the judge really highlighted a lot of
the main arguments that the state made during the case. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can you tell us a little
bit about more — about what the state alleged? I mentioned that the state said that Johnson
& Johnson basically hid the fact that they knew that these drugs were highly addictive. What else did the state allege Johnson & Johnson
did wrong here? JACKIE FORTIER: Yes. Well, I mean, the big thing that the attorney
general, Mike Hunter, alleged was that — and he said it multiple times, including today
at the press conference — that Johnson & Johnson was the kingpin of the opioid crises. And when he says that, he’s referring to their
former ownership of two companies out of Tasmania and Australia that grew and developed a highly
potent opioid poppy, and that companies, those companies then sold that base ingredient,
that raw narcotic, to other opioid manufacturers, like Purdue Pharma, which produced OxyContin
with it. So, during the course of the trial, the state
argued, a rising tide lifts all boats. Johnson & Johnson knew that, even if it wasn’t
their opioids that were being sold, their deceptive marketing campaign resulted in more
sales of opioids and more sales for their bottom line. Something to remember, Johnson & Johnson sold
those two companies in 2016. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You mentioned initially
that the state had used a somewhat novel legal strategy to go after the company. They used what’s called a public nuisance
law. Can you explain what that legal strategy argued? JACKIE FORTIER: Yes, public nuisance is a
very broad law in Oklahoma. It really refers to any public nuisance that
in regards even to health outcome. Before this, it has been successfully litigated
in regard to lead paint, things along those lines. It usually has to do with property, which
is why today’s decision is very interesting. I mean, West Virginia, for example, filed
a very similar lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, citing public nuisance law last week. So now that we have seen, at least in one
court case, that it works, we may see more attorneys general decide to take up this public
nuisance claim and see if they can get money for their own state. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As we know, there’s these
2,000 or so other cases that we’re all gathered under one federal judge in Ohio, and those
are against other manufacturers, distributors and manufacturers of these drugs. Everyone there has got to have been watching
what was going on in Oklahoma today to see whether or not this was a bellwether. What do you think is the likely impact on
that much larger pool of cases? JACKIE FORTIER: Well, public nuisance is one
of the claims that’s been made in the consolidated Ohio case. I mean, it really just gives more leverage,
really, to the side of the communities who are suing, whether that be tribes or other
municipalities. They might be able to bring other drug companies
or distributors to the table and say, hey, it worked here. Maybe you’re willing to settle with us now,
rather than going for a trial, because, as of right now, Johnson & Johnson now has to
pay over $500 million. And we saw before, I mean, Purdue Pharma settled
with the state for $270 million. Teva, which makes generic opioids, settled
for $85 million. They were initially both parties to this litigation,
but they settled before it began. So Johnson & Johnson could be on the hook
for this full 570-some-odd million dollars. And, you know, other companies are going to
look at that and say, hey, maybe it’s worth it to just settle. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Absent an appeal, which
I believe Johnson & Johnson has said they’re going to do, what is Oklahoma going to do
with this 500-something million dollars? JACKIE FORTIER: There was an abatement plan
that was put forward during the trial. The state initially asked, by the way, for
$17.5 billion to fund their 30-year plan. So they got a fraction of what they really
asked for. At the press conference earlier today, Terri
White, who’s the commissioner for mental health and substance abuse in Oklahoma, said that
they would be able to really start funding projects and treatment. It’s really an open question of how that’s
going to work. There was also a law that was passed after
the Purdue settlement in Oklahoma. So the legislature may be able to allocate
these funds. So whether or not they get allocated towards
opioid treatment or prevention is just really a big question mark right now. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Jackie Fortier
of StateImpact Oklahoma, thank you very, very much. JACKIE FORTIER: Yes, I’m happy to. Thanks. JOHN YANG: The crowded race for the Democratic
presidential nomination has started to winnow, and this week we will learn which of the remaining
21 candidates will be on the debate stage next month. It’s likely just half of the field will meet
the polling and donor requirements. Lisa Desjardins reports that the 2020 hopefuls
are competing for attention and dollars. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
So, please, please go to JoeBiden.com and sign up and join our campaign. We need your help. LISA DESJARDINS: As the 2020 Democratic candidates
debate policy, at the heart of the crowded race is a fight for money. The race’s top five candidates in the polls
are also the top five fund-raisers. PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
I hope I can look to you to continue helping us grow this movement. LISA DESJARDINS: Leading the pack, the mayor
of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. He raised nearly $25 million from April to
June of this year, according to financial filings. Former Vice President Joe Biden followed with
$22 million, then three senators, beginning with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren,
$19 million, then Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, $18 million, in fifth, California Senator
Kamala Harris, $11.8 million. REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI), Presidential Candidate:
A dollar, $5, $10, whatever they can, to make sure that we’re able to get our message out
there. LISA DESJARDINS: After that, a stark gap in
the field, in both money raised and polling, with a brutal fight for funds among the remaining
candidates. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, The Washington Post:
It’s been a real slog trying to come out of the crowd the LISA DESJARDINS: Michelle Ye Hee Lee covers
money and politics for The Washington Post. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: The more and more that
the five do better, the gap just continues to grow. REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): I am running an insurgent
campaign. LISA DESJARDINS: Unable to close that distance,
Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton And Washington Governor Jay Inslee dropped out
of the race last week. Both had yet to meet fund-raising or polling
qualifications for the third Democratic debates in September. JULIAN CASTRO (D), Presidential Candidate:
People pitching in a dollar, $5, $10, $20. And that’s the spirit that I’m going to move
forward in, in this campaign. LISA DESJARDINS: Julian Castro last week became
only the 10th candidate to qualify for the debates. So far, that leaves 11 others off next month’s
stage. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
I am asking for your help. LISA DESJARDINS: But even the top five fund-raisers
have been struggling to pull in steady funds among the crowded field. And how they’re going about it varies greatly. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: You see Joe Biden really
coming out of the gate with a fund-raiser, a private fund-raiser held at the Comcast
executive’s home. And he is — this is kind of like old school SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential Candidate:
I’m not taking a dime of PAC money in this campaign. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: At the other end of the
spectrum is Elizabeth Warren, who has rejected that type of fund-raising overall completely. And she’s only raising money from grassroots
donors, and she’s doing really well. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
I stand before you to officially launch my campaign for a second term as president of
the United States. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) LISA DESJARDINS: And then there is President
Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, which he kicked off right after his inauguration
in 2017. Mr. Trump’s reelection effort has so far outraised
all the Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee combined by about $100
million, with a mix of small donors and multimillion-dollar closed fund-raisers. That’s giving his campaign a decided advantage
at targeting voters. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: He’s been able to shape
the message online and on TV, run ads, really get to know the voter base very well, and
know how to reach these people, so that they could turn out on Election Day for him. LISA DESJARDINS: Democratic donors on the
other hand, especially the high-dollar ones, are largely still untapped. Many donors are still waiting for the race
to narrow before making their contributions, while smaller donors are spreading their money
across several different candidates. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: They know the money is
out there. The question is whether the money spigot is
going to really open up in time for the presidential nominee to be able to catch up to the lead
that President Trump has. MARIANNE WILLIAMSON (D), Presidential Candidate:
Please give at least a dollar, so I can get those donations up. LISA DESJARDINS: Candidates who don’t make
the third debate stage in less than three weeks will likely need to reevaluate whether
they have the cash or support to stay in the race. And that’s good news for anxious Democratic
donors, who say a final Democratic nominee can’t come soon enough. Also what can’t come soon enough is Politics
Monday. And reunited, we have in our studio back together
again the great Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and, of course, Tamara Keith of NPR,
also the “NPR Politics Podcast.” Thank you both. Good to see you back together. Let’s start with the dollar race, ladies. Tam, I’m going to ask you first. We talk about fund-raising every single election. Is it any different this presidential cycle? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: On the
Democratic side, there has been a decoupling of donor and voter. And what by that is, traditionally, campaigns,
they go out, they try to raise money, and when they raise money from someone, when someone
writes them a check, sends them $1, sends them $50, they can mark them down not just
as a supporter, but as a voter. And, this time, it’s not monogamous. You have can — you have voters, Democrats
giving money five candidates, 10 candidates. Every time there’s, please give me $1, so
that I can be on the stage and have my voice heard, people are like, oh, yes, sure I will
give you $1. So then, when it comes time to actually sort
of buckle down and get voters out, they aren’t going to be able to just go to their donor
file and say, well, I can assume that those people will be caucusing for me or voting
for me in New Hampshire or South Carolina or caucusing in Nevada. Instead, they will have to figure out which
of their donors are actually their voters. AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: The
other big difference when you look back, especially thinking about the Republican — they have
had the most competitive primaries over the most recent era, right, 2012 and 2016. And the big thing in those campaigns were
the super PACs. Remember, individual candidates were associated
with super PACs, Jeb Bush probably the most famous. He personally didn’t raise as much money,
but his super PAC, because there are different rules for fund-raising super PACs, you can
give millions of dollars to a super PAC, had tons and tons of money. In 2012, super PACs were really influential
in that race especially helping in the early states like Iowa for candidates like Mitt
Romney and Newt Gingrich. Democrats, they have been moving away from
taking money from super PACs. There are no super PACs involved in this primary
election. All the Democratic candidates have said, don’t
build one for me. I don’t want your money. They’re staying away from corporate PAC money. They’re staying away from a lot of the sort
of traditional — I think in your piece, setup piece, you said sort of the old school fund-raising
of going and — going to these big high-dollar fund-raisers. LISA DESJARDINS: High-dollar. AMY WALTER: And they used to boast about that. (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: And even Democratic candidates
used to boast about they had bundlers, right, and they had people who would come. And, individually, Lisa would go and ask 20
of her friends to write $1,000 checks, and you would get lauded by the campaign for being
that big fund-raiser. They’re not doing that now. The focus is really on small-dollar donors. And it means that the way — it’s not just
that the way that the money is being raised is different, but now if you think about these
early states, who’s going to have influence in these races, it’s going to look a lot different
than it has in recent years. LISA DESJARDINS: One reason, of course, for
all these small donor numbers going up is the Democrats are forcing the issue. You have to get 130,000 small donors in 20
states to make the next debate. So far, I think we have 10 qualified, but
we still have 21 candidates, ladies. My question to you is, when we see this field
really cut down? Is it going to be after this next debate? What do you think? TAMARA KEITH: Well, I mean, in the last week,
I think there have been three fewer candidates. So there is a winnowing as we get toward these
fall debates. And there are a few candidates who think that
they won’t make it for the September debate, but they could make it for the October debate. And so they are hanging on for that. But I think that we will see a winnowing this
fall, but it’s still going to be a very big field, a historically large field. AMY WALTER: It is. It just gets harder and harder. We talked about fund-raising. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. AMY WALTER: It gets harder and harder to raise
money if you’re not publicly having a presence, whether it’s on the debate stage or getting
invited for interviews. So I think you will see a little more winnowing. And, look, I think what voters really want
to see — I know I want to see this personally, just as an analyst — is to see the top candidates
all on the same stage. Look, we have a field of 21 candidates, but
there are really only three candidates who have consistently polled in the double digits,
Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Kamala Harris sometimes touches up there. Buttigieg gets in the low single digits, and
that’s about it. Nobody else — after these other two debates
that we have already had, we haven’t seen much movement, except really among the top
three, four candidates. And so getting on stage in the debate, I know
it may help candidates’ ego, but it’s not necessarily helping their poll standing. LISA DESJARDINS: Someone who would like any
stage, I think, is Joe Walsh, who is a conservative former member of Congress, also radio talk
show host, Republican, who announced. There you see it here, his announcement that
he’s running against Donald Trump as a Republican, and he’s doing it in a couple interesting
ways. He issued basically a mea culpa, saying, in
the past, he believes his remarks may have been racist. He apologized for them. He said the president is not appropriate for
our children to watch. He’s going after the president on moral grounds. Is he a serious challenger? He’s challenging the president for his conservative
base. TAMARA KEITH: So what my reporting has shown
over time is that the president has consolidated the Republican Party, both if you look at
polling in terms of support for the president. There is not a lot of weakness among Republicans. But in terms of the actual party apparatus,
the Trump campaign and the Republican Party are one and the same. The Republican Party, the GOP, the RNC is
not going to allow a robust and competitive primary, because the president of the United
States is their candidate. And they have… (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: He’s a Republican. TAMARA KEITH: And he’s a Republican. And they have worked very hard to lay the
groundwork to box out any serious challenge to the president in the primary. AMY WALTER: Right. I mean, the first thing is, it’s hard to know
whether to take Joe Walsh’s apology seriously. To say that he was a firebrand is putting
it nicely, the things that he has said on Twitter, that he said during his campaign,
that he has been known to tweet about, pretty out there, all right, and, in some cases,
calling for violence. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: He’s apologized for that,
but… AMY WALTER: That’s right. And one of his most famous, infamous was saying
Obama is indeed a Muslim, you should believe this. So that’s one piece that we have to deal with. The second piece is, who are these folks who
are frustrated with Donald Trump, the Republican Party? We think of the never-Trumpers, right, these
folks who were once — considered themselves Republicans. Either they’re conservative or they’re moderate. They don’t find a place with Donald Trump. Remember where Joe Walsh is from. It’s actually my home district, suburban Chicago,
a district that traditionally voted for Mitt Romney, voted for a Republican for Congress
for many years, this last year voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat, voted for Hillary Clinton
in 2016. He’s representative — even though he personally
is not like that, where he’s from his representative of a Republican base in the suburbs that once
supported every Republican candidate. But in the era of Trump, they have moved away
from him. But let’s be clear. He in his past was not that kind of candidate. But his district that he used to represent
was. LISA DESJARDINS: I want to end — I will end
on you, Amy. And we have seen ups and downs on Wall Street
in the last couple of weeks. That’s an important metric, we know, for President
Trump. My question to you, do you think this president
is recession-proof, if we have a recession? AMY WALTER: Yes, it’s hard to believe that
any president could withstand like a major economic crisis or recession. The question is whether or not just having
a slowing down is enough. And I think that, for Trump, we have already
seen the fact that his approval ratings on the economy have been separate from his overall
approval ratings. The gap between those is pretty significant. People, for a long time, at least up until
now, said they approve of the job he’s doing on the economy, don’t approve of the job that
he’s doing as president. So that gap is pretty big. LISA DESJARDINS: All right, we will have to
end it there. So good to see both of you. Tamara Keith, Amy Walter, thank you. AMY WALTER: You’re welcome. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. JOHN YANG: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: walking away
— a quarterback’s decision to leave the NFL in the prime of his career, rather than risk
another injury; and from Dutch masters to jazz music, a painter on the inspiration behind
his work. JOHN YANG: On our Bookshelf tonight, a new
look at female reporters in the Middle East. Amna Nawaz spoke to two women changing the
conversation by sharing some of those reporters’ unique stories. AMNA NAWAZ: For decades, stories about life
and war in the Middle East and Arab world have been filtered through the eyes of predominantly
male journalists. Sometimes, those narratives can obscure the
powerful work being done by female journalists, many of Middle Eastern descent. But a new book called “Our Women on the Ground”
seeks to change the conversation by spotlighting 20 Arab female journalists, each writing from
her own unique perspective. Here to discuss their new book is Zahra Hankir,
the editor, and NPR correspondent Hannah Allam, who wrote one of the chapters. Welcome to you both. ZAHRA HANKIR, Editor, “Our Women on the Ground”:
Thank you. HANNAH ALLAM, NPR: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: Congratulations on the book. It is out now. And, Zahra, I want to start with you, because
the idea of this book started with a Google doc, right, compiling a list of journalists
that you wanted to follow. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: Tell me that story. ZAHRA HANKIR: Yes, I was working as a reporter
in Dubai for Bloomberg News, and I was covering the Arab Spring from the economic angle or
perspective. And I was also asked to monitor regional and
local media to help Bloomberg follow up on what was going on around the region from people
who were on the ground. And I realized at that point that there were
so many incredible Arab women who were doing incredible work and really risking their lives
at the front lines. It wasn’t always people who are on the front
lines. It might have been women who were writing
different sorts of stories. And I felt at the time that they were not
really heard of. A lot of them were not really heard of, at
least in the international media landscape. And I felt that their voices needed to be
amplified. But it was also a little bit selfish. I felt that I wanted to learn the stories
behind that coverage. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, you have got a lot of voices
in there. Hannah is one of them, of course. And, you know, we talk about Western voices
and voices from the region. You have, like many people, sort of dual identities,
right, multiple identities. Tell me about how where you grew up and how
you grew up made you want to cover the Iraq War, which is the essay that you write about
in here? HANNAH ALLAM: Sure. I’m an Egyptian American, and grew up in — partly
in Oklahoma, but also in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. And so this was a region that’s dear to my
heart. The people, the culture, the food, the language,
everything was, you know, just part and parcel of my childhood and my upbringing. And I think that — that it’s useful as a
barrier breaker. I mean, there are so many trust issues when
you’re reporting on people in conflict, when they’re seeing their lives change around them,
they’re seeing death. And then here comes a stranger knocking on
the door saying, tell me all about it. If that stranger looks like you, if they know
the cultural cues, if you are sensitive with their story, and you consider them — you
think about, what if this was your relative that was being interviewed, and, you know,
to handle it sensitively like that. AMNA NAWAZ: And, Zahra, you mentioned this
too. With all the women who are included in this
book, many of them are covering their own homelands, right? And they’re often working in patriarchal societies,
right, where men control the public spaces. How did that inform — like, what kind of
common threads did you find in the essays they were contributing along those ideas? ZAHRA HANKIR: Many of the women, particularly
in Egypt and in Yemen, also in Sudan, have to contend with deeply patriarchal societies
in which their movement is limited, what they wear on a daily basis is constrained, the
way that their families respond to their career ambitions, it’s all part of their struggles
on a daily basis. And all of that filters into how they approach
journalism. There is one particular contributor, Zaina
Erhaim. She writes about when the uprising started
in Syria, and increasingly the country descended into utter chaos, she was faced with a situation
in which she was told repeatedly to cover her hair. She wasn’t able to move from one place to
another unless she had a male chaperone. That’s also a common theme in several of the
essays. And she felt that one way to navigate this
was to actually embrace the fact that she could enter spaces which were inaccessible
to anyone who wasn’t a local and who wasn’t a woman. AMNA NAWAZ: In other words, she could have
unique access that other people wouldn’t. (CROSSTALK) ZAHRA HANKIR: So she was going into a Syrian
gynecological clinic and she was taking the cameras in there with her. AMNA NAWAZ: Yes. ZAHRA HANKIR: You couldn’t conceive of that
story being told by someone else. AMNA NAWAZ: And, Hannah, you touch on this
too in your essay about the woman question, right? The idea being that, when you are covering
war zones or conflict zones or places where there is conflict of some kind, when you start
touching on things that are under the label of women’s issues, they’re seen as illegitimate
in some way or not worthy of our attention. Tell me about that. HANNAH ALLAM: That’s right. I think that, you know, if you’re not doing
the battle of the day, and you know, you’re not on the front lines, or you’re not covering
what’s sometimes called the bang-bang of war correspondents, of war journalism, then, you
know, you’re — somehow, you’re soft. It’s not, you know, the meat of the war. And I think that’s completely inaccurate. And in order to fully and thoroughly and accurately
cover a conflict like Iraq, for example, you cannot leave out half the population, and
in fact more than half in the case of Iraq. And even if — it’s just all these assumptions
that come into that question: What’s it like to be a woman there? I mean, the assumption is, you can’t do anything,
it’s very restrictive, it’s very oppressive. And there is some truth to that, depending
on where you are in the region. But it’s also true that power looks different. There is a quiet power. Sometimes, there is a behind-the-scenes power. Sometimes — you can’t be 60 percent of the
population in Iraq and not have some kind of power in your family, in your household
that might be exercised in different ways or look different — differently. And so, my essay, I really saw it as a love
letter, almost like a valentine to the Iraqi women who gave me a glimpse of their lives,
who allowed me to come to their country and to see so much of it, and who, frankly, on
many — many more than one occasion kept me alive. AMNA NAWAZ: The Iraq War is certainly one
of the biggest stories, one of the biggest conflicts of our times. Zahra, the women in this book cover a lot
of these stories, right, the Syrian refugee crisis, conflict in other countries. You said you wanted to amplify them by including
them in this book. What is it that you think is unique about
the way that they tell their stories and the stories that they choose to tell? ZAHRA HANKIR: I tend to say, actually, they’re
just women covering what’s happening in their — in their countries. You know, the stakes are that high, where
I feel that whatever they say is going to be intimate, it’s going to be on a different
level when they’re reflecting on that coverage. And it’s those little raw details. For example, we go on a trip with a Sudanese
journalist who, because she’s thought of as non-threatening because she’s a woman, they
allow her to go and interview the head of a militia, the Janjaweed at the time, Musa
Hilal. And she goes and she interviews him, and she
writes this bombshell story. And no one expected that from her. AMNA NAWAZ: We have more women, more women
from the region, more women with ties to the region covering some of these big stories
of our time. Do you think that plays a role in changing
the narrative? ZAHRA HANKIR: I definitely do, because I do
think that the global media narrative on the Arab world has been commanded by Westerners. I do think that there is a special place for
women like Hannah, who have had one foot in the West and one foot in the Arab world or
the Middle East and North Africa, who have that special insight and who are well-positioned
to do that. And there have been improvements. I do think that more and more women in this
space are being heard. But I think more needs to be done, and I think
that the locals need and deserve more protections and should be treated on the same level as
their Western counterparts. AMNA NAWAZ: Their stories are being heard
in your book. It’s “Our Women on the Ground.” Zahra Hankir and Hannah Allam, thank you very
much. ZAHRA HANKIR: Thank you. HANNAH ALLAM: Thank you so much. JOHN YANG: The physical and mental toll of
the nation’s most watched sport is being highlighted by the surprise retirement of the NFL’s Andrew
Luck. The 29-year-old quarterback of the Indianapolis
Colts called it quits just two weeks before the season begins. ANDREW LUCK, Former Indianapolis Colts Player:
For the last four years I have been in this cycle of injury, pain, rehab, injury — injury,
pain, rehab. And it’s been unceasing and relenting — unrelenting,
both in season, both in — and off-season. And I have felt stuck in it. And the only way I see out is to no longer
play football. It’s taken my joy of this game away. JOHN YANG: In seven years in the league, the
former first-round draft choice has had a lacerated kidney, injured ribs, at least one
concussion, torn cartilage in his throwing shoulder and, most recently, a calf and ankle
injury. Sportswriter John Feinstein profiled Luck
for his book “Quarterback: Inside the Most Important Position in Professional Sports.” The paperback edition of that book comes out
tomorrow. John, thanks joining us. JOHN FEINSTEIN, Sportswriter/Author: My pleasure,
John. JOHN YANG: You spent a lot of time with Andrew
Luck. Did you sense or did you see any of the toll
of that cycle he talked about of pain — injury, pain, recovery? JOHN FEINSTEIN: Very much so. And more probably in a mental, an emotional
sense than a physical sense. Every football player understands that it
hurts to play the game. It’s a brutal game. Even those who aren’t injured are hurt by
the end of the season because of the pounding they take. But when he missed the entire 2017 season
with a shoulder injury that you mentioned, it tore him up emotionally. He felt like he had failed his teammates because
he couldn’t be on the field. The quarterbacks who tried to replace him
were shadows of him. They went 4-12 that year without him. And he felt guilty. He was depressed. He finally went away to Europe to get away
from everything, all the constant pressure being, when are you coming back, when are
you coming back, and rehabbed over there for two months. And he talked about understanding the finite
nature of playing football. And the difference to me between Andrew Luck
and 99 percent of the athletes I have ever known is he loved his sport, loved it since
he was a kid, but he doesn’t need it. He’s so bright and so talented in other areas,
that he can go on with his life without sort of reaching out and trying to hold on to football
forever. JOHN YANG: You used the word brutal when you
talked about the sport. He got booed as he left the field Saturday
night. What would you say to those fans who booed
him, knowing that the — when the story broke that he was retiring? JOHN FEINSTEIN: First of all, I would say,
shame on you, because Andrew Luck gave literally heart and soul and body to that franchise
for seven years and helped keep them a playoff team. They were a playoff team four of the six years
that he was healthy. That’s number one. But, number two, I would say, you don’t understand. You don’t know. I don’t think, unless you play football at
the highest level, you can understand what every football player goes through. I spent an entire season watching games from
the sideline. And, John, I’m telling you, if you watched
the routine play, you would say, how did anybody get up from the collisions that take place? These are big, strong, fast men colliding
with each other play after play. Several commentators who didn’t play football
publicly criticized Luck after the retirement. And I would say — and two of them are friends
of mine. And I would say to them, you can’t understand
because you were basketball players. It doesn’t hurt to play basketball unless
you miss a lot of shots. But football hurts. And Andrew Luck, with all the injuries that
he’s been through, finally got to a point where, as he said, the joy was gone for him,
and all he could think about was this recurring cycle of injury, rehab, injury, rehab, feeling
like he was letting his teammates down. So, I under — I think I understand completely
why he felt the way he did. And most of those people, I suspect, did not. JOHN YANG: We’re also hearing more and more
about retired players, about this — their health problems. Is there a sense that more players, current
players, are weighing this balance of their careers and their long-term well-being? JOHN FEINSTEIN: I don’t think there’s any
doubt about it. I mean, first of all, CTE scares people, as
it should. And we are finding out more and more that
players who have concussions during the course of their careers will probably have CTE when
they get older. And we have seen — with more and more players
donating their brains when they passed away, we’re finding that many of them have CTE in
them. But there’s also the factor of that you do
get so beat up. And because the players are making more money
now, they don’t necessarily have to hang on and let their bodies get beat up. The other thing that’s really significant,
I think, with all these scares, is that the number of players playing high school football
has gone down significantly in the last few years. And I think what’s changed is, when I was
a kid, my mom didn’t want me to play football. Now I think dads and moms aren’t very eager
to see their sons play football. They say, play another sport. JOHN YANG: John Feinstein. The book is “Quarterback: Inside the Most
Important Position in Professional Sports,” the paperback edition out tomorrow. JOHN FEINSTEIN: Thank you, John. JOHN YANG: John, thanks so much. JOHN FEINSTEIN: My pleasure. JOHN YANG: The work of American artist Oliver
Lee Jackson explores, among many things, themes of music in American and African cultures. It is currently on display at the National
Gallery of Art in Washington. Born in 1935, Jackson sometimes collaborates
with musicians, and some of the music in this piece was written for him. We asked Jackson which artist has influenced
his work. He took us to the old masters wing of the
National Gallery to see Girl With a Red Hat painted in the Netherlands by Johannes Vermeer
3.5 centuries ago. Jackson’s story is part of Canvas, our ongoing
arts and culture series. OLIVER LEE JACKSON, Artist: He’s a maker. The effect is supposed to take you into a
dream world. That’s what it does. My name is Oliver Lee Jackson. I make things, paintings, sculptures, et cetera. This is all about light. Ain’t no light in the painting. The light’s out here. But you believe it. This is intense. This is not casual stuff. It’s not art. This is making. Our canvas is not a three-dimensional world. It is a flat plain, so we have got to make
a world. How do you do it? You make the architecture. How will it stand? What will push here so that you can get something
to happen that evokes in other people a feeling? The piece is really about joy that creates
an interior intimacy. Try to express that by just duplicating it
again and again, intimate relationships and images everywhere. These colors never stop showing themselves
clearly and evenly throughout. The pink throughout doesn’t shift. So the harmonies are never lessened by the
play of the light. This one was very, very physical in a specific
kind of roughness here and the building up of the paint here, kind of sickness here and
there that evoke feelings in you. As you move across this visually, you can’t
help but in the inside shift. It’s impossible that you cannot. When it’s happening in you, it’s like a kind
of symphony that is directed. He has to make the effects. He makes them with slanting that thing, forcing
you to feel space. This is what pulls you. It’s not the red hat. It’s the red. There ain’t no hat in there. That’s an excuse for the red, this big slash
of red against all that cool blue and those tertiaries and this slash of white. To be able to pull that off is to make a punch,
just a punch. It’s like getting in somebody’s face. When anybody looks at this, apart from the
subject matter, is that. I chose gestures that tell everything I want
to say. In this arena, which is the whole world, everything
seems to be connected to everything else. And there’s actually three of this, three
of this. In the space, it’s closed. They’re all closed in. They don’t shift outside. That means this is a potent area in which
these forms interact. I understand these marks, the scraping, everything,
every bone. You do this, what does this require in relation
to that? What is it — what are the requirements? There’s relationships. They never stop until it’s complete. My aesthetics put it together. Hopefully, it does some work as a machine
to you. And that’s personal between you and it. JOHN YANG: And on the “NewsHour” online: Nearly
60,000 fires have burned through the Brazilian Amazon so far this year. We take a look at some of the numbers to help
us understand why these natural disasters are capturing international attention. All that and more is on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m John Yang. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thanks. See you soon.

PBS NewsHour full episode July 29, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: As President Trump
doubles down on his denunciations of a black lawmaker, we examine the situation in U.S.
migrant detention centers that sparked this latest string of attacks. Then, our Politics Monday team unpacks the
fallout from the president’s criticism of Baltimore and the newest moves on the 2020
campaign trail. Plus, 25 years after apartheid, a black South
African chef makes her mark on the country’s restaurant scene and helps to heal its lasting
divisions. ZOLA NENE, Chef: There are more female faces,
black faces, you know, in the culinary industry for people to actually be like, oh, I can
see that. That’s a person that looks like myself. I can do that. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump’s verbal assaults
on a black congressman and his Baltimore district are still ricocheting across Washington and
beyond tonight. The president tweeted again today, attacking
Democrat Elijah Cummings, who chairs the U.S. House Oversight Committee. That panel is investigating Mr. Trump on several
fronts. But Maryland’s Republican Governor Larry Hogan
called the president’s remarks outrageous, and he said, enough is enough. We will get details after the news summary. Police in California are searching for a motive
tonight after a teenage gunman killed three people and wounded at least a dozen. It happened Sunday at the annual Gilroy Garlic
Festival southeast of San Francisco. People ran for safety, but police quickly
intervened and killed the shooter. SCOT SMITHEE, Gilroy Police Chief: We had
thousands of people in a very small area. And it could have gone so much worse so fast. So, I’m really proud that they got there as
quickly as they did, and that they were successful in taking the threat out of the equation. JUDY WOODRUFF: The gunman was identified as
19-year-old Santino William Legan, who lived near the festival site. He carried an assault-type rifle that he bought
legally in Nevada earlier this month. Those killed included a 6-year-old boy, a
13-year-old girl and a man in his 20s. In Brazil, at least 52 prison inmates were
killed today in a prison riot between rival crime gangs. The violence erupted at the Altamira prison
in Brazil’s northern state of Para. Authorities said that 16 of the victims were
beheaded, and others died of asphyxiation. Inmates also set fires to keep guards at bay. The death toll has reached 20 in Afghanistan
after a Sunday suicide bombing aimed at a vice presidential candidate. Amrullah Saleh was one of 50 injured in the
attack. The blast sliced exteriors off buildings in
Kabul and destroyed nearby vehicles. It came as campaigning began for the September
election. Meanwhile, the U.S. military announced that
an Afghan soldier killed two American service members today. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was
discharged from a Moscow hospital today, amid fears he might have been poisoned. He was rushed there Sunday, showing symptoms
of a severe allergic reaction. His doctor said Navalny showed signs of exposure
to something toxic. ANASTASIA VASILYEVA, Doctor (through translator):
The diagnosis was contact dermatitis. What does that mean? That there was some kind of agent, a chemical
substance that caused this reaction. I urged my colleagues that he should be left
under medical supervision for at least three more days. However, sadly, he was escorted by police
to the detention room just now. JUDY WOODRUFF: Navalny was returned to a jail
where he is serving a 30-day sentence for calling a protest without official permission. Saturday’s demonstration in Moscow may have
been the largest anti-Kremlin rally in a decade. More than 1,400 protesters were arrested. China defended Hong Kong police today after
they battled pro-democracy protesters again over the weekend. The Chinese also blamed the West for fomenting
the violence. Thousands marched in the streets on Sunday,
the eighth consecutive week of demonstrations. After nightfall, police in riot gear fired
rubber bullets and tear gas to break up the crowds. Back in this country, the U.S. Senate moved
to try to override President Trump’s veto of efforts to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia. A bipartisan group of lawmakers came up short
of the two-thirds majority needed. They had targeted the arms sales in response
to the Saudis’ war in Yemen and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. President Trump vetoed those measures last
week. The president today signed a compensation
bill for 9/11 responders, extending benefits for decades to come. He was surrounded by some of those emergency
responders, firefighters and others and their families for the signing ceremony in the White
House Rose Garden. The fund compensates those who contracted
illnesses after exposure to toxic fumes. The new law will guarantee benefits through
2092. And on Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial
average gained nearly 29 points to close at 27221. The Nasdaq fell almost 37 points. And the S&P 500 slipped about five. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the president
lobs insults against Baltimore, and Baltimore hits back; a critical staffing shakeup at
the top of the U.S. intelligence community; new evidence emerges in the case of the Boeing
jets that went into fatal nosedives; can a politically mixed marriage survive under President
Trump?; and much more. President Trump is doubling down on his assault
on the city of Baltimore. As Lisa Desjardins reports, there are echoes of previous attacks of his on urban areas of the United States and their leaders. LISA DESJARDINS: In Baltimore today, condemnation
of President Trump’s words about the city, seen there as stoking racial divide, from
the left, civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton: AL SHARPTON, Civil Rights Activist: He has
a particular venom for blacks and people of color. LISA DESJARDINS: And the right, former Republican
Party Chairman and former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. MICHAEL STEELE (R), Former Maryland Lieutenant
Governor: Mr. President, your reprehensible comments are like water off a duck’s back
when it comes to this community. It just washes over them. LISA DESJARDINS: This after the president
fired off over a dozen weekend tweets criticizing Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings and his
Baltimore-area district. He called Cummings a brutal bully and said
his district is considered the worst in the USA, adding that the district, which includes
part of Baltimore and its suburbs, is “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.” The Baltimore Sun defended its city with an
op-ed blasting the president as “returning to an old standby, using the most emotional
and bigoted of arguments.” The paper also stressed pride points, like
Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and Johns Hopkins Hospital. The most recent FBI crime statistics showed
Baltimore with the nation’s highest murder rate and second highest violent crime rate. But Cummings’ district also has above average
rates of college education and home prices and it’s the second wealthiest black district
in the country. This is coming up amidst a mental tensions
between the president and Cummings, who gave this response last week: QUESTION: Do you believe the president is
a racist? REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD): I believe that he
is, yes, no doubt about it. LISA DESJARDINS: Cummings also chairs the
House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the White House on several fronts. Last Thursday, he authorized subpoenas for
White House advisers, including Mr. Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and
Jared Kushner. And earlier this month, Cummings slammed the
administration’s previous zero tolerance policy that led to thousands of separated families
at the border. This is not the first time the president has
responded to criticism from a black lawmaker this way. REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA): I don’t see this president-elect
as a legitimate president. LISA DESJARDINS: Georgia Congressman and civil
rights icon John Lewis said that to NBC in 2017, commenting on Russian interference in
the election. The next day, Mr. Trump tweeted: “Congressman
John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district” and called it “crime-infested.” More recently, the president faced bipartisan
criticism for tweeting four Democratic congresswomen should go back where they came from. Three were born in the U.S. and all are citizens. Like that attack, Mr. Trump is showing no
signs of backing down or apologizing for his latest. Instead, the president pointed to a rival’s
words about Baltimore. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
You would think that you were in a Third World country. LISA DESJARDINS: That was Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders after touring part of Baltimore in 2015. It was a tour meant to highlight a specific
run-down area and income inequality. The White House and president insist the tweets
were not about race. What is this about? Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney Sunday said that
Cummings’ attacks are about his criticism of the president’s border policy. MICK MULVANEY, Acting White House Chief of
Staff: What this is about, though, is the president fighting back against what he saw
as being illegitimate attacks about the border in the hearing this week. When the president hears lies like that, he
is going to fight back, and that’s what you saw in his tweets. LISA DESJARDINS: Cummings and the House of
Representatives are out of Washington on recess until September. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Lisa Desjardins. JUDY WOODRUFF: We will get into the politics
behind the president’s rhetoric later in the program. But, for now, let’s examine the underlying
policy the White House says is at issue. As we just heard, the White House says the
president’s attacks on Cummings were, in part, driven by the congressman’s criticism of the
administration’s immigration policies. Here is an exchange from a House Oversight
hearing on child separation at the border earlier this month. This is Cummings and Kevin McAleenan. He’s the acting U.S. secretary of homeland
security. REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: You feel like you’re doing
a great job, right? Is this is what you’re saying? KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security: We’re doing our level best in a very challenging… (CROSSTALK) REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: What does that mean? What does that mean when a child is sitting
in their own feces, can’t take a shower? Come on, man. What’s that about? None of us would have our children in that
position. They are human beings. Come on. We’re better than that. And I don’t want us to lose sight of that. When we’re dancing with the angels, these
children will be dealing with the issues that have been presented to them. JUDY WOODRUFF: As Lisa noted in her tape,
the president’s acting chief of staff says Cummings’ claims are false. So let’s examine the facts, what we know and
what we don’t, about the current conditions on the southwest border. I’m joined now by Ali Noorani. He is executive director of the National Immigration
Forum. It’s an immigration advocacy group. Ali Noorani, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” ALI NOORANI, Executive Director, National
Immigration Forum: Thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, as we have been hearing
and reporting, the president’s chief of staff, acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, is saying
what Congressman Cummings said is, we heard him say, illegitimate, lies, when he talked
ant the conditions of families and children on the border. Is there evidence one way or another about
this? ALI NOORANI: So the Department of Homeland
Security has an Office of Inspector General. This lives within DHS, but doesn’t report
to the political structure of DHS. So, it is an independent, unbiased investigation
arm. They found, among other things, that — when
they did inspections earlier this year, they found one cell that had 71 men that should
have only had 41. They had one cell that was 50 — stuffed with
50 women, when it should only have 40. Two of the five facilities that were examined
over the course of their investigation were not providing children clean clothes or opportunities
to take a shower. As the vice president said, this is tough
stuff, but the administration is clearly not living up just to humanity and treating people
with compassion. JUDY WOODRUFF: In fact, I want — Ali Noorani,
I want to air a portion of an interview that my colleague William Brangham did. This was in late June. This was with an American attorney who had
been to the border detention facilities. She saw for herself some of the conditions. Here’s part of that interview. WARREN BINFORD, Willamette University: We
have children caring for other young children. For example, we saw a little boy in diapers
— or he had no diapers on. He should have had a diaper on. He was 2 years old,. And when I asked why he didn’t have diapers,
I was told he didn’t need it. He immediately urinated. And he was in the care of another child. Children cannot take children. And yet that’s how they’re trying to run this
facility. The children are hardly being fed anything
nutritious, and they are being medically neglected. JUDY WOODRUFF: So she’s testifying or saying
in an interview — and she had given a number of interviews where she shared this information,
and yet the pictures, video hard to come by. ALI NOORANI: And what we have right now is
this really, really incredibly ugly political debate, by and large, driven by the White
House, that is trying to lead the American public not to remember what they’re seeing
and what they’re hearing. So, over the last two years, we have traveled
to nearly three dozen cities across the country, from Fort Wayne, Indiana, to other conservative
communities. In every single community, what they’re asking
for, what are the practical and pragmatic solutions that treat people humanely and keep
us safe as a nation? People are tired of the political rhetoric. And they see what’s going back and forth. And they’re asking, OK, who’s going to actually
fix the problem? And, right now, the administration is not
fixing the problem. Congress in the supplemental budget gave the
administration about $4 billion to hopefully fix the problem. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just briefly, I want to
come back to, again, the specifics of what Mr. Cummings said in that exchange with Kevin
McAleenan, when he said children sitting in feces. There’s a story in The New York Times. This ran out on June the 21st, I think. It said, among other things: “Children as
young as 7 and eight, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, caring
for infants they have just met. Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves
in their pants.” My question is, how do we know this is true? ALI NOORANI: So we know it’s true, by and
large, because of the OIG report. I think Republicans and Democrats… JUDY WOODRUFF: The same… ALI NOORANI: Office of Inspector General report. I think that’s what we’re depending on as
an advocacy organization. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s a government organization. ALI NOORANI: They are sending experts into
the field to do these investigations. What they are putting out there is not colored
by one political stripe or the other. They’re saying, these are the facts on the
ground. Our detention facilities as a nation are not
living up to standards. Congressman Cummings, Chairman Cummings, in
his role as Oversight, he — it’s his job to challenge the administration on what they’re
doing, what they’re not doing. And it’s that Office of Inspector General
report, those are the facts of the case. JUDY WOODRUFF: Why isn’t there more — why
aren’t there more pictures, more video of these facilities? ALI NOORANI: Well, this administration, to
a large degree, even the previous administration — the Obama administration did open their
facilities eventually. This administration is really holding close
what is happening in these facilities. You see reports of children being moved from
facility to facility, being lost. The lack of transparency leads to a lot of
questions in voters’ minds, OK, what is going on? And, again, who is actually solving this problem? JUDY WOODRUFF: What about conditions right
now? Here we are, July, the end of the month of
July. Much of this testimony came about a month,
month-and-a-half ago. Have things gotten any better? Has it changed? ALI NOORANI: So, because of two factors, we’re
starting to see numbers at least plateau of individuals crossing the border to apply for
asylum. The first factor is the nearly 30,000 enforcement
officials that Mexico’s put at their southern border and the northern border. The second factor is the summer. We always see the numbers drop over the summer. So we hope that, as the numbers start to plateau,
and the $4 billion given by Congress to DHS and HHS to actually address the problem, we
will hopefully see — we won’t be seeing pictures and sights and sounds of children sitting
in feces, or we won’t be hearing those stories. We should — as a nation, we should be treating
people and children humanely. And now DHS and HHS have the resources to
do that. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you have a sense of how
this controversy is going to affect how well these migrants are treated by the United States,
whether there are better conditions or not for them? Do you have — and you talk to two people
who work on immigration issues all the time. ALI NOORANI: So, over the weekend in The New
York Times, there was this incredible set of reporting by Sonia Nazario. She’s the author of “Enrique’s Journey,” which
is one of the landmark books in the space. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. ALI NOORANI: And she reports from Honduras
of how the situation continues to get worse. One of the organizations there, an NGO called
Association for a More Just Society, they’re actually losing their foreign aid from the
U.S. because of the Trump administration’s decisions. So, as an administration, as a nation, we
are not actually addressing the problem in Honduras or are making the problems worse
over time along the border, because we don’t — we’re not putting immigration judges that
are free of political influence by DOJ. We are not, as of yet, improving facilities. Hopefully, that will change. So there are a lot of factors, a lot of things
in control of the administration to actually address this problem. And up to this point, they have not taken
those steps. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, meantime, as we know,
tightening asylum, the interpretation of asylum laws, the agreement with Guatemala. ALI NOORANI: Right, between alleged — or
claiming that Guatemala is a safe third country, which is clear, absolutely not, but then also
requiring asylum applicants to remain in Mexico. And you — we’re seeing stories of men, women
being extorted and subject of violence while they’re waiting in Mexico. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ali Noorani with the National
Immigration Forum, thank you very much. ALI NOORANI: Thank you. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump has long had
a contentious relationship with the nation’s intelligence community. It has been a public spat over the biggest
threats to the country, including Russia, Iran and North Korea. As William Brangham reports, the latest shakeup
at the top is likely to be a departure in style, as well as substance. DAN COATS, U.S. National Intelligence Director:
We both recognize that this position is frequently the bearer of unpleasant news. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It’s been not quite two-and-a-half
years since Dan Coats’ confirmation as director of national intelligence. Now he’s out. President Trump announced it yesterday, in
a terse tweet that thanked Coats for his — quote — “great service.” From the outset, the former Republican senator
from Indiana made clear his view of the job. DAN COATS: My responsibility would be to provide
him with the most accurate and objective and apolitical intelligence possible. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But that intelligence included
alarm bells about Russian interference in the 2016 election, alarms that ran afoul of
the president’s views. A year ago, at his Helsinki summit with Russian
leader Vladimir Putin, the president balked when asked if he accepted the conclusion of
his intelligence chiefs. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Dan Coats came to me, and some others. They said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Then, at a forum with NBC
News’ Andrea Mitchell shortly after the summit, Coats was clearly blindsided by some breaking
news. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC News: The White House
has just announced on Twitter that Vladimir Putin is coming to the White House in the
fall. DAN COATS: Say that again? (LAUGHTER) ANDREA MITCHELL: Vladimir Putin coming to… DAN COATS: Did I hear you? Yes, that’s going to be special. (LAUGHTER) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This past January, at a
congressional hearing, Coats differed with the president on issue after issue, for example,
the North Korean nuclear arsenal, which the president had declared was no longer a threat. DAN COATS: We currently assess that North
Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its
nuclear weapons. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And the state of the war
against the Islamic State group. DONALD TRUMP: We have won against ISIS. DAN COATS: ISIS is intent on resurging and
still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President Trump took to
Twitter again, branding the intel chiefs — quote — “passive and naive” and adding, “Perhaps
intelligence should go back to school.” Now the president has picked representative
John Ratcliffe, a Republican congressman from Texas, to replace Coats. Ratcliffe has already shown himself a full-throated
defender of the president. REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): The Mueller report
wasn’t written by Bob Mueller, and that a lot of the findings and conclusions that were
in there were written by a bunch of lawyers that didn’t like Donald Trump. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Last week, the congressman
grilled the former special counsel in person at a House hearing. REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE: You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages
about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And, respectfully, respectfully, by doing
that, you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors
not offering extraprosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer warned Sunday that Ratcliffe’s confirmation would be a big mistake. He said: “The nominee was selected because
he exhibited blind loyalty to President Trump with his demagogic questioning.” There is no word yet on when the Senate will
hold a confirmation hearings for Ratcliffe. On that issue, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairman Richard Burr said in a statement that he would work swiftly to begin the confirmation
process. For more on what this means for the president’s
relationship with the intelligence community, we’re joined by Shane Harris. He covers intelligence and national security
for The Washington Post. Shane, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” Before we get to talking about Dan Coats and
his would-be replacement, can you explain a little bit more about what the actual director
of national intelligence actually does? SHANE HARRIS, The Washington Post: You can
sort of think the DNI, as he’s known, as kind of A chairman of the board of this grouping
of agencies, 17 intelligence agencies in all, that you — in all that you often hear called
the intelligence community. And he kind is supposed to speak publicly
for them. He plays a big role in crafting the budgets. But really the job of the DNI was always supposed
to be to coordinate all those agencies and make sure they weren’t working at cross-purposes. This office was created after the 9/11 attacks
and it was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that there be something sort of sitting on
top of these agencies to make sure they were connecting the dots about threats, sharing
information with each other in a timely manner. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, the outgoing or soon-to-be
outgoing DNI, Dan Coats, as we just saw, contradicted President Trump on many issues on multiple
occasions. Is that why he’s out of a job? SHANE HARRIS: I think that’s really the big
reason. There was the issue of the contradiction,
which the president doesn’t like anyone contradicting him, much less somebody speaking as forcefully
about world events and national security issues as Director Coats did. But I think also their personalities clashed. In the time that I have been covering Director
Coats, it’s become clear that he is someone who will speak up when he thinks that you’re
wrong, will just kind of stick to his guns, and was never really a partisan warrior for
the president. He wasn’t there to carry his water politically. And he did on occasion speak his mind privately
and, of course, publicly as well. So there was always friction between these
two. And it was kind of a hot-and-cold relationship. And it’s why, ultimately, his departure now
being announced doesn’t really come as a surprise to people who’ve been following his relationship
with Trump. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So the president announced
that he’s going to nominate Representative John Ratcliffe to take over this position. Many of us saw him grill Robert Mueller very
vigorously last week during those hearings. What else can you tell us about him and his
world view? SHANE HARRIS: Well, on the question of the
Russia probe, he is definitely in the camp of a number of Republican lawmakers who question
whether the probe was improperly begun. The probe here we’re talking about, of course,
is of Russian interference in the election, but also possible linkages between the Trump
campaign and the Russian government, which is something that Director Mueller investigated
and found there wasn’t evidence to bring a conspiracy charge. Ratcliffe and others believe that this investigation
into Trump may have had a political motivation, and therefore kind of everything that came
after it is sort of a fruit of the poisoned tree. And he’s focused a lot of his inquiry in his
positions on the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee trying to get to the
bottom of things you hear about, like the Steele dossier, these memos that the FBI had
from a private investigator talking about possible linkages between Trump and Russia,
text messages that were exchanged between FBI personnel that revealed a political bias
against the president. So that’s really where he’s been coming at
it. In terms of his time in Congress, it’s been
quite brief. He was briefly a U.S. attorney before he was
elected to the House. And he did serve in an anti-terrorism position
in Texas, but not in a district that’s especially known for prosecuting a lot of terrorism cases. So he doesn’t come to the nomination to be
DNI with a very extensive resume in national security or foreign policy experience. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As you say, there have been
a lot of Democrats who have been out criticizing him and this relative lack of experience. Ron Wyden, who’s a Democrat on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, said: “Congressman Ratcliffe is the most partisan and least qualified
individual ever nominated to serve as DNI.” Is it unusual to have someone in that position
who, relatively speaking doesn’t have that much experience with the intelligence community? SHANE HARRIS: It is. It’s quite unusual. Everyone in this position has either had an
extensive background in intelligence or in foreign policy and national security at really
senior levels. So it is a total break from history to nominate
somebody with as little experience in these areas as Congressman Ratcliffe. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Given, as you were detailing
before, Congressman Ratcliffe’s criticism of the FBI in particular and how they began
this Russia investigation, is there a concern that he seems to have prejudged that there
was clearly lawbreaking during the Obama administration in that branch of the intelligence community? Is there a concern that that’s going to make
his job very difficult to do, if he has to now work with an agency that he has been pointing
the finger at? SHANE HARRIS: Yes, there’s a lot of concern
among intelligence officials, current and former, who I have talked to today about that
very issue, that he seems to already have a view of what the intelligence community
did, how they behaved, in coordination with the FBI. And it’s not a positive view. I mean, he really believes that there may
have been wrongdoing, even talked in one interview in 2018 with FOX News about the possibility
of, his words, a secret society within the Justice Department that was trying to stop
Trump from becoming president. This is a view that people in the intelligence
community just reject. They always see themselves as nonpartisan,
people who may have political beliefs, but they check that at the door when they come
into work. So if you have got someone running the intelligence
community overseeing it who kind of already has this preconceived notion of how conspiracies
have blossomed that just run totally counter to the ethic of the intelligence community,
that’s going to create some immediate friction. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Shane Harris
of The Washington Post, thank you very, very much. SHANE HARRIS: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: In March, the second of two
deadly air crashes in five months led the Federal Aviation Administration to ground
all Boeing 737 MAX passenger jetliners. But it also raised immediate questions about
why the agency had not acted more quickly. Now, as John Yang reports, an investigation
by The New York Times indicates that the FAA’s actions during the 737 MAX’s review process
may have compromised the safety of the plane itself. JOHN YANG: Judy, The Times found that FAA
engineers were increasingly sidelined and kept in the dark about key developments during
the approval process of the 737 MAX, and that FAA managers often deferred to Boeing. In fact, after the first deadly crash, the
newspaper says FAA officials realized they didn’t fully understand the automated system
now blamed for helping send the two planes into fatal nosedives. Natalie Kitroeff is the lead reporter on that
article in The Times, and she joins us now from The Times newsroom in New York. Natalie, thanks so much for joining us. This automated system called MCAS, Boeing
intended it as a way to prevent the plane from losing the ability to fly by having the
nose pitch up too high. So why is it — explain to us how it is that
the FAA, after that first crash, went into their records, and realized they had very
little information on it? NATALIE KITROEFF, The New York Times: So what
happened is, during the development of the plane, late in the process, the FAA gave Boeing
the right to fully approve this system. At the time, MCAS was a system that would
only activate in very rare scenarios. But then Boeing changed the system and fundamentally
expanded its use. But, at that point, Boeing had no responsibility
to hand over a new safety assessment to the FAA. At that point, Boeing had control over the
approval process, and the company determined that the change to MCAS didn’t make the system
any more dangerous. JOHN YANG: How does that happen? How does Boeing, how does the regulator turn
over to the manufacturer basic tasks in the approval process? NATALIE KITROEFF: This is a process known
as delegation. And the FAA has long relied on company engineers
inside Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers to help certify their own aircraft. But after intense lobbying to Congress by
industry, the FAA adopted new rules that allowed the company to take on more and more of the
regulatory process. So through this system of delegation, the
company was able to have final sign-off over the system. JOHN YANG: And you wrote, in your investigation,
you found that sometimes there were disputes between FAA engineers and Boeing about safety
issues, and that the managers would defer to Boeing. The example you cited was about cables that
control the rudder. NATALIE KITROEFF: That’s absolutely right. In this case, there was a dispute over these
cables, which FAA engineers, most of them who are working on this issue wanted the company
to make these cables safer. Boeing pushed back. And the FAA managers sided with Boeing over
the engineers in the FAA, and then gave Boeing the ability to approve these cables. An engineer inside the FAA filed a safety
complaint about this issue. But, again, managers were deferring to Boeing
and specifically cited Boeing’s timeline as one of the reasons. JOHN YANG: And talk about that timeline. Boeing was rushing to get this plane approved
because they were facing competition from Airbus. NATALIE KITROEFF: That’s right. Boeing was in a competition with Airbus to
get a new plane out. Boeing was behind. Changing these cables would likely have meant
delays. And so, again, FAA managers specifically said
that making a change would be impractical this late in Boeing’s timeline. JOHN YANG: Could there be other problems,
other issues that — like the MCAS, that just haven’t surfaced yet because of this relationship
between Boeing and the FAA? NATALIE KITROEFF: I think everything is on
the table at this point. The investigations are still ongoing. And I think it’s really important to await
the conclusions of those investigations. But what is clear is that lawmakers and federal
investigators are now looking very closely at every aspect of this plane and of the certification
of it. JOHN YANG: Natalie Kitroeff with The New York
Times, thanks so much for joining us. NATALIE KITROEFF: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: our Politics
Monday team breaks down the latest fights over race; and healing the lingering scars
of apartheid in South Africa through cooking. In rural Virginia, about 150 miles southwest
of the White House, sits one of the more than 200 counties in the U.S. that voted for President
Obama twice and then President Trump in 2016. With the 2020 campaign now in full swing,
Amna Nawaz recently visited one couple living in a politically divided house in this politically
divided country. AMNA NAWAZ: For three years, Lisa Bogan and
Jimmy Clowry have lived and worked together, caring for goats and chickens on their ranch
in Buckingham County, Virginia. LISA BOGAN, Virginia: This is from one of
our first trips. We went up to Upstate New York just camping. We used to camp a lot. JIMMY CLOWRY, Virginia: Cooks Falls. LISA BOGAN: Cooks Falls. I told you he would know where. One of the things I think that really helped
seed this relationship in the beginning was commonality. AMNA NAWAZ: Does Lisa do all of the cooking? JIMMY CLOWRY: She does most of the cooking. I make the best egg sandwich. LISA BOGAN: The best. AMNA NAWAZ: Jimmy and Lisa now are planning
for their future together. Look at that. JIMMY CLOWRY: So, the banner, as we were breaking
it out, I take a knee, and I’m like, “Will you marry me?” And I’m holding the ring. And she’s chewing food. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) JIMMY CLOWRY: … like that. AMNA NAWAZ: But not long after Lisa said yes,
things changed. At what point did you first realize, wait
a second, we’re on two very different pages here? LISA BOGAN: I think the 2016 election really
stamped and, like, resonated with both of us. AMNA NAWAZ: Jimmy, a retired Marine, likes
to listen to conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on his hour-long drive to work. Lisa, a waitress, listens to NPR. Jimmy voted for President Trump. And though he doesn’t agree with everything
the president says or tweets, he likes what the president’s been doing. JIMMY CLOWRY: The economy’s doing well. You know, the military is getting the support
that it needs, which is a big, big thing. AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa was a Hillary Clinton voter
in 2016. Her top issues now are health care and climate
change. She says President Trump doesn’t represent
her or the country. LISA BOGAN: I am so, so dead against our president. I don’t feel like he is someone that we can
respect. I don’t think Jimmy really grasps how much
it upsets me. But there are a lot of issues. AMNA NAWAZ: Jimmy, what’s it like for you
to see her get that upset about the person you voted for? JIMMY CLOWRY: You know, she’s got to — she’s
got to flow and roll with her emotion. I mean, it’s just — it’s a way of getting
it out, whatever it is. I can’t — I don’t have any control over that. But… LISA BOGAN: But he impacts my life directly. JIMMY CLOWRY: Well… LISA BOGAN: That someone of his demeanor,
especially as his actions are towards women. I mean, I just feel like he’s disrespectful. AMNA NAWAZ: The division here in Lisa and
Jimmy’s home is actually playing itself out across the entire country. In fact, one study by the Pew Research Center
actually measured the partisan political divide in America and found that, over the last 20
years, that gap had more than doubled. JOCELYN KILEY, Pew Research Center: Trump
is the most polarizing president we have ever had. AMNA NAWAZ: Jocelyn Kiley is the associate
director of research at the Pew Research Center. She says couples like Jimmy and Lisa are increasingly
rare. JOCELYN KILEY: For the most part, people say
that their spouses or partner share their same party or lean towards the same party. So about nine in 10 of both Democrats and
Republicans say this. So it’s certainly not the case that it’s common
to have a politically mixed couple. AMNA NAWAZ: Jimmy and Lisa have learned firsthand
some of the challenges of disagreeing politically with a partner. Take immigration. LISA BOGAN: This was our argument last night. This is what we were arguing about. JIMMY CLOWRY: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: You were arguing about immigration
last night? LISA BOGAN: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa was deeply opposed to the
Trump policy of family separation at the Mexican border. Jimmy’s undecided on the president’s proposed
border wall, but largely agrees with his positions, especially with the increase of migrant families
crossing the southern border. JIMMY CLOWRY: Hold it like that. Put the clip in. LISA BOGAN: Like that? JIMMY CLOWRY: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: When it comes to gun laws, Lisa
says she wants to see more restrictions. LISA BOGAN: That scares people who like their
guns. They don’t want more control. It makes them think that someone is going
to come and take their guns away. And then how are they going to protect themselves? AMNA NAWAZ: I notice you won’t even look at
Jimmy when you’re making these points. LISA BOGAN: No. AMNA NAWAZ: Why is that? LISA BOGAN: Because I’m afraid. AMNA NAWAZ: Afraid of what? LISA BOGAN: Reaction. AMNA NAWAZ: What do you think, Jimmy? What you think about what she’s saying? JIMMY CLOWRY: You know again, that’s her — that’s
her opinion. It’s not the weapon that does it. It’s a human. More background checks, I’m not against that. I think it should happen. LISA BOGAN: We agree on something. AMNA NAWAZ: But now there’s a new battle brewing
on the horizon, the 2020 presidential election. AMNA NAWAZ: Is that the number one issue for
you, is which of these candidates you think can beat President Trump? LISA BOGAN: Yes, it is. AMNA NAWAZ: Which of these candidates can
beat the person that Jimmy is going to vote for? LISA BOGAN: Yes. Sorry, but yes. AMNA NAWAZ: And, Jimmy, you’re dead set; you
know you’re going to vote for President Trump again? JIMMY CLOWRY: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: The fact that their union can
withstand a deep political divide, they say, should offer hope to the rest of the country,
and maybe even some lessons for elected officials on different sides of the aisle. LISA BOGAN: Try and find the points that you
do agree on, maybe, and have more conversations about that. JIMMY CLOWRY: I wouldn’t want to overstep
my bounds and say something that’s just irresponsible because I want my side to be right. I don’t want anything to be about just being
right. I want it to be something that you can both
come together with and go in the right positive direction. AMNA NAWAZ: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Amna
Nawaz in Buckingham County, Virginia. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now it’s time for Politics
Monday. Here to break down the political implications
of the president’s tweets over the weekend and preview the 2020 Democratic presidential
debates to come, I’m joined by Tamara Keith of NPR. She co-hosts the “NPR Politics Podcast.” And Kimberly Atkins of WBUR Radio. Hello to both of you. It is Politics Monday. So, before we talk about those other things,
I want to ask both of you — and I’m going to start with you, Tamara — about Amna’s
report from Virginia. This couple, they are very devoted to each
other, but they have got real political disagreement. How common is that? And how emblematic is it, do you think, of
the larger political divide in the country? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: I think
it’s more emblematic of the political divide than it is common at this point, because,
as the report indicated, there are a lot of people who don’t want their children to date
someone from the other political party, for instance. There is there is amazing polarization right
now. And sort of the bipartisan couples used to
be more common than they are now. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you find in your reporting,
Kimberly? KIMBERLY ATKINS, WBUR Boston: Yes, it’s the
same. They’re certainly a microcosm of the kinds
of divides that we are seeing in this country in the way that people on different sides
position themselves, with him saying, yes, the president, I don’t like what — everything
he tweets, but I think he’s doing a good job, and the other side saying, no, I find what
he says and does appalling. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be within
a relationship. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s curious, because you see
something like that, and you wonder — I mean, you know there are some examples that have
gotten some publicity. But it doesn’t seem to be the norm. But it does say a lot about our country. So let’s talk about the news, Tam, of the
last few days. The president started tweeting furiously on
— at a rapid pace on Saturday morning about Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings. We have been reporting on it on the program. Stepping back and looking at the president’s
criticisms of Baltimore, of the congressman, and then Al Sharpton today, does this help
President Trump politically? TAMARA KEITH: Well, there certainly is a strong
pattern in the people he goes after and the way he goes after them, the people and places. Does this help the president? In 2016, he campaigned, came down the escalator,
said some Mexicans are rapists. He had a fight with the Gold Star family who
were also Muslim. He said a Mexican judge couldn’t be fair. So President Trump in 2016 was doing and saying
— and never — don’t forget the birther thing — doing and saying many of the same things
that he is doing now on similar themes. And his campaign defends it in the same way
that they did then, which is, he will go to bat against anyone who goes to bat against
him. Will it work? It did work in 2016. I talked to a number of people today. One Republican pollster said, it can certainly
work again, depending on who the Democrats nominate. Basically heard the same thing from a Democratic
consultant. And then also I talked to some political scientists,
though, who’ve done some research that finds that independent voters and Democrats are
going to be turned off and mobilize in sort of in opposition to the president, in much
the way that he hopes that his base will be motivated. JUDY WOODRUFF: How much of this is determined,
Kimberly, though, by which states it comes down to? I mean, it helped him — apparently helped
him in those states that made the difference that was — we talk about them over and over
again, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. KIMBERLY ATKINS: It makes a big difference. I mean, we have — the Democrats are in Detroit
getting ready for this debate. Michigan is a key city. And Michigan is one of those — Michigan is
one of those states where the black vote was — didn’t turn out in 2016 the way it had
in the two previous presidential years. And there is a concern that this kind of talk
will depress the black vote. And so it’s incumbent on the Democrat, Democratic
Party, to try to get out and motivate those voters to get out and vote. We don’t know what will happen. But we have seen this president go to this
not just during the campaign, but throughout his presidency. He likes this cultural divide. He likes this cultural division, the stoking
of cultural division, particularly after he gets off of something tough, if he has a political
loss. We just had Mueller testifying. And that was directly where he went. So it is a pattern. JUDY WOODRUFF: It is interesting to — some
folks have looked already at the way the president — President Trump, Tam, talks about cities,
inner cities, and the way that he talks about people who live in rural areas. TAMARA KEITH: Right. And the term infested, he saves for inner
cities. And when — I went and looked through all
of his tweets. And going back throughout his tweets, whenever
he talks about someone being racist, he’s in almost every case referring to a person
of color being racist. He just — he does this. It is a pattern that he repeats again and
again. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we don’t know, of course,
what’s in his head, whether — to what extent this is deliberate, to what extent it’s what
he’s just thinking at the moment. But it is — as Tam says, there seems to be
a pattern. KIMBERLY ATKINS: There is absolutely a pattern
that goes back decades. It goes back to the way he talked about the
Central Park 5. It goes back throughout his life. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Literally decades. KIMBERLY ATKINS: Yes. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. KIMBERLY ATKINS: Yes. So he — this is the way he has repeatedly
spoken about people of color, especially people who challenge him. Elijah Cummings, of course, is the chairman
of one of the committee’s that is investigating the president and his administration. So we saw him go straight to that sort of
attack. It seems to be a place where he retreats to. He seems very comfortable there. The problem that it creates, of course, is
Republicans who refuse to call them out — to call him out on it. And they sort of have been twisting themselves
into circles to try to really make other excuses, that it was about policy or something else,
when it was clearly an attack on people of color in Congress. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the little bit of time we
have, I do want to turn to the Democrats. The 2020 candidates, Tam, they are going back
to the debate stage this week. Ten of them will be there tomorrow night,
Tuesday night, the other 10. And we have got a picture of the lineup, the
10 who will be there on Tuesday night and then the other 10 for Wednesday night. What should we be expecting? TAMARA KEITH: So, Tuesday night, I think the
most interesting thing will be whether Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren bring out their
contrasts in some way, or whether they sort of ignore each other and talk about their
policies. Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke are two candidates
who need a moment. They had been polling really well. Pete Buttigieg has raised a lot of money. But he didn’t have a standout moment in the
first debate. JUDY WOODRUFF: Kimberly — and we’re hearing
some more efforts on the part of these candidates to define themselves, to distance themselves
in some instances from each other. KIMBERLY ATKINS: Yes, they’re trying to set
out their agenda. We saw Senator Kamala Harris, who will be
on that second night, laying out her health care plan. We already saw surrogates from both sides
of both Senator — well, from Senator — former Vice President Joe Biden’s team. Sorry, there are lot of candidates on the
stage. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Name all 24 of them right now,
I insist. (LAUGHTER) KIMBERLY ATKINS: Already fighting back and
saying that — pulling it apart. So I think in the center of the stage, where
you have Cory Booker and Kamala Harris flanking Vice President — former Vice President Joe
Biden, is going to be where the real sparks will fly. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that’s going to be interesting. And that is Wednesday night. But, Tam, again, I mean, as you said on Monday,
this is the night — this is the last debate before the middle of September. So for — and where the rules get tougher,
the threshold gets tougher. TAMARA KEITH: Well, and not very many of these
people who will be on stage have qualified for the September debate yet. JUDY WOODRUFF: For the September debate. So this may be the last chance some of them
— it will be the last chance some of them have to make an impression. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. Indeed. JUDY WOODRUFF: We thank you both. Kimberly Atkins, thank you. Tamara Keith, thank you. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: Politics Monday. This year marks the 25th anniversary of democratic
rule in South Africa and the end of apartheid. A new generation of black South Africans,
who grew up without the limitations of segregation, are now transforming the cultural landscape. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports
on one chef’s quest to bridge the country’s racial divide one bite at a time. It’s part of our Canvas series on arts and
culture. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: At 35, with two bestselling
cookbooks and a prime-time TV show, Zola Nene is at the top of her game. When she first emerged on South Africa’s culinary
scene in 2009, she says there were few people in professional kitchens that looked like
her. ZOLA NENE, Chef: It’s a male-dominated industry. So I was very aware that being a female trying
to sort of break into this industry was already a hurdle. And then being a female of color was, you
know, even a secondary hurdle. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nene says a sheltered
upbringing gave her the confidence to be persistent. ZOLA NENE: I was never aware of, like, the
discrimination that was happening around me. I think that my parents worked really hard
to protect us from that. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nene spent the first 10
years of her life under apartheid, but it was only later, in school, that she learned
about the segregationist laws of the white minority government. ZOLA NENE: And I remember going home. And I was like, to my mom, I was like, they’re
teaching us the most unbelievable stuff. Like, did this really happen? And that was the moment when my mom was like,
OK, now you’re learning about it, and let me tell you about the things that we had to
go through, the fact that we had to get permission to walk in certain neighborhoods. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nene credits her parents
for raising her with the belief that she could do anything she wanted. ZOLA NENE: It makes me, like, a little bit
teary and emotional to, like, I think about it. I always feel like there’s no real room for
me to fail because I have been given so much opportunity. My dad is like a completely self-made, self-educated
man who comes from extreme poverty. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Her father put himself
through school and went to work in the petroleum industry. When Nene told him she wanted to cook, he
sent her to England, where she worked in a restaurant in Cheshire. ZOLA NENE: They saw my eagerness. By the end of my two years there, I was head
of the pastry section. And by then, I realized this is exactly what
I wanted to do. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: She returned to South
Africa to study culinary arts, thinking she could focus on her African roots, but she
says she found little that was African in the curriculum. ZOLA NENE: All the teachings are French. So you learn French methods. You learn French basic recipes. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: French cuisine and methods
may be an aspiration for many chefs and consumers, but she says black African food is very much
in the comfort zone of all South Africans, including whites. ZOLA NENE: My paternal grandmother was a domestic
worker, so a lot of people who potentially run the kitchens grew up with a nanny who
was black, who taught — you know, who fed them black foods. Yet somehow there’s still like a disconnect. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In her cook books, Nene
is trying to change that disconnect with recipes that fuse European and her own Zulu and other
regional black cultures. The one that caught my eye was a pap lasagna. What is the pap lasagna? ZOLA NENE: OK, so pap is what we make out
of Mealie meal. And maize meal is like a sort of staple ingredient
across all the cultures in South Africa. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Corn-based. ZOLA NENE: Exactly. To sort of, like, Africanize a Western dish,
I think is really fun. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Though her TV show and
cook books are popular, this type of food remains hard to find in fashionable foodie
locations, like Cape Town. ZOLA NENE: They do great brunch on Sunday. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nene took us to experience
one of the exceptions. South African grits, creamed and with cheddar. ZOLA NENE: So, I’m going to let you try it,
because, obviously, I have had it often. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: This is delectable. ZOLA NENE: It’s — right? It’s one of my favorite sort of traditional
ingredients that I grew up with my mom making — using, and my grandmother using. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nene says she’s proud
to have played a role in blazing a trail for other women of color. ZOLA NENE: There are more female faces, black
faces, you know, in the culinary industry for people to actually be like, oh, I can
see that. That’s a person that looks like myself. I can do that. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But, despite progress,
Nene says her country remains a highly unequal society. The rate of black unemployment, for example,
is still five times that for the white minority. It has economic problems and corruption scandals. But through it all, Nene says, she remains
optimistic about South Africa. ZOLA NENE: Our history may be painful and
maybe sordid, but the fact that we have overcome a lot of those things makes us so much stronger
as a country. I think it’s an ongoing process, this democracy
thing. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: As it sorts out its myriad
divisions, Nene says there’s one place all South Africans can come together to bridge
them: the kitchen. For the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Fred de Sam
Lazaro in Cape Town. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Fred’s reporting is a partnership
with the Under-Told Stories Project at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. 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.