Bolivia’s President Evo Morales Resigns


>>A military coup has occurred in Bolivia
forcing its President, Evo Morales, to step down. Now, he is urging individuals to resist this
military coup, but there had been violence that he felt the need to stop. And he felt the only way to stop it was to
step down. Now, there is reason to believe that this
military coup has the United States written all over it and I’ll tell you why in just
a moment. But first, let me just note that Morales was
Bolivia’s first indigenous President. He was re-elected last month for his fourth
term and you had an organization get involved and argue that there was fraud in this election. Even though there was absolutely no evidence
whatsoever to indicate that there was any type of rigging or any type of fraud. The Organization of American States, also
known as OAS, made this claim. And it’s important to note that this is mostly
funded by the United States. Now, before I get into more details about
what occurred in Bolivia, I do wanna go to this next video. Mark Weisbrod is from the Center for Economic
and Policy Research. And he gives you some sense of what the OAS
is and what type of US interest played a role in this military coup. Take a look.>>Well this is a military coup. There is no doubt about it now, after the
head of the military told the president and vice president to resign and then they did. And I think it’s really terrible the way it’s
been presented, because from the beginning, you had that OAS press release the day after
the election, which hinted. Or implied actually, very strongly, that there
was something wrong with the vote count. And they never presented any evidence at all. They didn’t present it in that release. They didn’t present it in their next release. They didn’t present it in their preliminary
report. And there’s really nothing in this latest
so-called preliminary audit, that shows that there was any fraud in this election. But it was repeated over and over again in
all the media. And so it became of true and if you look at
the media you don’t see anybody. You don’t see any experts for example, saying
that there was something wrong with the vote count. It’s really just that OAS observation mission,
which was under a lot of pressure, of course, from Senator Rubio. And the Trump administration to do this because
they wanted for some time to get rid of this government.>>So Evo Morales was well-liked by Nicolas
Maduro, by Lula da Silva from Brazil. He was part of the Pink Tide Movement in Latin
American countries where leftists really took over with an economic populist message.>>And Morales was able to lift nearly 20%
of Bolivians out of poverty.>>They hate that.>>And they hate that. That is the reason why you have people like
Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, targeting Latin American leaders like Evo Morales. Now, I wanna know, Morales wasn’t perfect,
okay? So, I don’t want this to be a one-sided story. This was a military coup. I disagree with it. again, it has the United States written all
over it and it’s wrong.>>But one of the things that some liberals
in America keep latching on to is what happened with term limits in Bolivia. Now, back in 2009, there were term limits. You could only get reelected one more time. You can serve two terms. But Evo Morales is actually worked with the
Constitutional Court to do away with that term limit. And so he got reelected for the fourth time. And that’s when you have the OAS get involved,
and essentially, do this military coup to push him out. Now, I’m gonna give you more details in just
a minute. But Jake, do you want to jump in?>>Yeah, so two things about that. Look, I’m not a big fan of that either, but
now let’s give you context. First of all, so their Constitutional Court
is our Supreme Court. So, there was a guy named Powell who wound
up becoming justice Powell, who wrote a memo for the Chamber of Commerce when he was a
lawyer for them say. We should take over the Supreme Court and
other institutions in America. So Nixon eventually saw that memo, said, well
I like this guy letting big corporations take over the Supreme Court. And literally put Powell on the Supreme Court. And so he packed the court with his favorites. And eventually the court said yes, corporations
can give unlimited money to politicians, which allowed corporations to buy all of our government. So you’re telling me, Latin America is corrupt? Well, our republicans stacked the court so
that corporations can buy our entire government wholesale, but it’s not just that. How about term limits? Well, New York has a term limit on mayors. But when Bloomberg didn’t like it, he was
like, yeah? I’m gonna run for a third term. What are you gonna do about it? But nobody ever called him a dictator. And in fact, the mainstream media kiss his
ass day in and day out, including today, right? Like, Bloomberg. Maybe you should be president. Maybe you should be president. He’s got a real chance here, right? But when Evo Morales does the same exact thing,
dictatorial, tyrannical, right? So then be honest and be objective. Are they both tyrannical and will you call
Mike Bloomberg tyrannical from here on out? If not, what are your standards, okay? The New York Times story on this was an embarrassment.>>It was 100%, 100%, but luckily, there are
independent media sources that have done good reporting on this. And Democracy now happens to be one of them. And so I wanna go to one more clip from Democracy
Now. Again, this is Mark Weisbrod. He’s from the Center for Economic and Policy
Research and he gives more detail into the OAS and how its funded.>>In terms of the Trump administration, you
can look at the tweets. And statements from Marco Rubio right before
the votes were even counted saying that there was gonna be fraud. And making clear that they didn’t want this
government to be there. And so yeah, I think that it’s very obvious
that they support this coup. And it’s very obvious that they pressured
the OAS, where the United States supplies 60% of the budget. And this is the problem. The media treats this OAS as though it’s really
an independent arbiter here and they do have electoral missions. And most of the time they’re clean but they
are not always. And in Haiti, in 2011, for example, they reversed
the results of a first round presidential election without any statistical test, recount
or any reason. It was completely political.>>So he’s right. This is mostly funded by the United States. You have Donald Trump which he attempted a
coup in Venezuela earlier which we’ve talked about on this show. And now it appears that there was a successful
military coup in another country where you have a leftist leader that they do not like. And keep in mind, Evo Morales, the profits
from oil in Bolivia, he made sure that it went back to his people, or the commodities. Any profits from the commodities went back
to the people. And that is exactly what people like Marco
Rubio and Donald Trump absolutely despise. Now, there have been some good politicians
in America who have spoken out against this. And one of those politicians is Bernie Sanders. He said via Twitter. I’m concerned about what appears to be a coup
in Bolivia where the military, after weeks of political unrest, intervened to remove
President Evo Morales. The US must call for an end to violence and
support Bolivia’s democratic institutions. Morales was democratically elected. Unless there is actual evidence to indicate
otherwise, this is unacceptable. This was a military coup. And look, it is, I guess consistent with how
republicans feel about election meddling, because they allowed Russia to meddle in our
elections. Why not go off and meddle in other countries’
elections as well?>>So, Weiss made another great point. He said, look, when there was this slight
irregularity where the vote counting was paused for a while in the middle of the election. And so Morales needs ten points to avoid a
runoff. But when they stopped the vote counting, he
already had a big lead. And the rest of the counties were more indigenous
areas where he does great. So the trend, after they started counting
the vote again, was the same as the one before they started county. And the OAS has no evidence. It has shown no evidence of actual voting
irregularities. I’d like to note that here in America in the
year 2000, we stopped vote counting. And it turns out Al Gore would’ve won the
state of Florida. He should have been president. But our corrupt Supreme Court said no, I don’t
care what the votes are. I’m gonna stop the vote counting. You wanna talk about a voting irregularity? And I’m going to just declare Bush the president. So that is way more corrupt. Okay, now do I like that they stopped the
vote in the middle? No. Does that give me pause? Yes. This reminds me of who said in one particular
vote, a cat walked into an electric socket or something. And knocked out the electricity in nine different
cities. Okay, so I treat that with great skepticism. But here, in the case of Venezuela, there
actually were voting irregularities, okay? And I’m very concerned about the elections
in Venezuela. But here, you have no evidence of voting irregularities.>>No evidence, and Morales offered to do
the election again. Right, he offered that but it’s not about
the election. It’s not about supposed irregularities. It’s about pushing him out and that’s exactly
what they got.>>And guys, in Venezuela they said voting
irregularities. Here they see the same thing, even though
they have no evidence of that. Then they said in Venezuela, well look, he
destroyed the economy and everybody’s suffering. But Evo Morales lifted the economy up. And he lifted a ton of people, a huge percentage
of the country out in power poverty. So they don’t have that excuse, but it doesn’t
matter. They go to the same playbook anyway, cuz he’s
like, it reminds me of The Big Lebowski. We want the oil any way, Lebowski, right? And so in this case, it’s natural gas more
than anything else. But, the reason I say the New York Times did
an embarrassing piece here is cuz Weisbrod gives you, for example, context. And is fair about it. He say OAS most of the time is honest, but
it has these issues. Did you notice what he said about Rubio? That he tweeted about voting irregularities
before they happen. Before the so-called irregularities happen. Okay, that is that the bare minimum, something
you should look into verify. And if that is really true, makes you go hm,
I wonder what Rubio knew about the so-called irregularities that were gonna happen. I am not saying definitively that Rubio’s
part of some planet or something. But if you’re a real reporter, you’d look
at that. If you’re a real reporter you would note that
the military demanded that he step down. And Morales is calling it a coup, and so is
his vice president. And so are all the so many different people
who resigned from his government. You would give that context. Now, they do know that Morales called it a
coup and so did his vice president. But they don’t explain when the military says
you must step down that is by definition a coup. Instead, almost all the mainstream media is
reporting well, hey look irregularities and Morales is a bad guy. And if you’re thinking wow I can’t believe
New York Times is doing that. When we did all the other coups in the 1960s
70s and all in that era, one of the first things the CIA, they would do two things. You go read any history on this, okay? Number one, they would do fake agitation in
the streets. They would rile up people. And then they would start paying off cops
and military and say, my god, it’s untenable. Somebody has to do something about this. And the second thing they would do is they
would go to our press, New York Times included. Time Magazine was notorious for this back
in the day. And they would say now write that he is a
bad guy. He is a Communist and if we don’t do something
about it he’s gonna endanger America. Full well-known, it isn’t true and a lot
of the mainstream media played along with that. So now I think they’re better today, but
this was not a shining example of it.>>And one final thing that I do have to mention,
again, Morales was the country’s first indigenous president. Prior to him, the country was ruled by a small
group of elite who were descendants of European countries. Now, there is a component of this that is
clearly racist. And Glenn Greenwald tweeted a video which,
why don’t we bring that video up now and I’m gonna read Glenn’s tweet as we watch it. Bolivian police cutting the indigenous flag,
which had been Bolivia’s second official flag, off their uniforms. This coup is literally the opposite of restoring
democracy, which is how it’s being depicted in Western press. It’s violent, racist, imperial, christian
fanaticism. It’s disgusting.>>Yeah, now why do you cut the indigenous
flag off if this isn’t about race and this is about so-called voting irregularities? Or does that look a little organized to you
from forces who never wanted the Bolivian people lifted up? Who just wanted more profit from the natural
resources of Bolivia. This is a story as old as time, as old as
America and the Americas. And how we have, unfortunately, oppressed
so much of these two continents North America and South America. And if you wanna cry about that cuz you’re
a Republican, my god, you’re telling people the truth. And that doesn’t play well for America. How can you guys do that? Well, that’s a sad day for you. We do the news here. So if you want a pretty little story about
how America is always the golden hero, rising on a white horse that saves the day, go to
Fox News. Go to get your propaganda somewhere else,
or sometimes go to the New York Times. But we don’t do that here, we give you the
full context. And by the way, doesn’t mean that every leftist
government is wonderful. We told you several instances of things that
concern us, cuz if you’re a real progressive, you want democracy no matter who’s in charge. But this coup had nothing to do with a democracy. It was the exact opposite.

Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on Buttigieg’s surge, Democratic wins in the South


And that brings us to Politics Monday. I’m here with our Politics Monday team. That is Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report
and host of public radio’s “Politics With Amy Walter,” and Tamara Keith from NPR. She co-hosts the “NPR Politics Podcast.” And welcome to you both. We have some new poll numbers. Shall we dig in? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Indeed. AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Let’s. AMNA NAWAZ: Let’s go to Iowa first. Take a look at some of these numbers. This is from a new poll in Iowa for CNN and
The Des Moines Register. Look who’s at the top of this poll right now. Pete Buttigieg leads with 25 percent of support
in the state. After him there, you see Senators Warren,
former Vice President Biden and Senator Sanders. And then you have got the rest of the field,
or that’s basically everyone else, polling below 10 percent. That is in Iowa. Amy, start us off here. AMY WALTER: What is happening? Right. AMNA NAWAZ: What is happening here? How — that’s a 16-point surge, we should
mention, for Buttigieg. AMY WALTER: No, it’s pretty remarkable that,
of all the candidates, this is the one candidate who has gone literally from zero to the lead. Back in March, I think he was polling somewhere
around 1 percent or 2 percent. But what’s remarkable about Iowa right now,
we have had four polls since March from The Des Moines Register, which is the gold standard
of polling in the state. And while it’s very volatile, right, we have
had three different leads in these polls, so four polls, three different leaders, they
have been the same four people. It’s been of the pool of four people. We have a huge field, but the same four people
are mentioned as either one, two, three, or four since March. And so what we’re seeing is, yes, there is
some volatility here, but it’s not, at this point, opening a lane for somebody who is
not in those top four. AMNA NAWAZ: Tam, what do you see when you
look at these numbers? One of these things for the voters is like,
do they want someone who reflects back to them their values? Do they want someone who will beat Donald
Trump? What does this say to you right now? TAMARA KEITH: I think part of what this says
is that Pete Buttigieg has a pretty strong ground game in Iowa. And this is a unique state. It has a caucus system. He raised a lot of money earlier this year,
and he spent it. He’s investing putting staff on the ground
in Iowa. He just did a bus tour through the state. All of those things, like, being someone who
is the mayor of a small city and having time to meet a bunch of voters, that can actually
matter in a state like Iowa and can be reflected in this poll. AMY WALTER: And it certainly helped Elizabeth
Warren over the course of the summer, when people said, well, why is she now moving ahead,
as she was in a June-September poll? TAMARA KEITH: Yes. AMY WALTER: I can’t remember which one, but
it was that she had been building this ground game here. One thing to talk about too is the fact, like,
why are we spending so much time on Iowa? It has… (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: It has 45 delegates. California has over 490 delegates. But we know that really for the last 40 years,
with an asterisk on 1992 — and I’m not getting in the details. We don’t have enough time. (LAUGHTER) AMY WALTER: But the Democratic nominee for
president has won Iowa, New Hampshire, or both. So, those two states, again, for the last
40 years, have told us who the nominee will be, which is why Iowa, one or the other, right,
is so important. And it also sets the narrative. And it sets the media expectations really
for a good — obviously, for the next week, before we get to New Hampshire, but it really
does winnow the field pretty quickly. TAMARA KEITH: And Iowa, though, is not perfectly
reflective of the Democratic Party or America as a whole. AMY WALTER: It is not. TAMARA KEITH: This is the criticism. (CROSSTALK) TAMARA KEITH: Iowa and New Hampshire are super
white. AMY WALTER: Yes. TAMARA KEITH: And it just is what it is. They’re also highly educated. And there are — there are a lot of demographics
that make Iowa and New Hampshire not your standard reflection of the — of the broader
Democratic Party, which is where you get to South Carolina, where we also have a new poll,
and where Pete Buttigieg is in fourth place, but, like, barely registering. AMNA NAWAZ: Let’s see if we can put that up,
so you can talk to these numbers while people look at them at home too. This is the latest South Carolina poll from
Quinnipiac out today. A very different picture here, right? TAMARA KEITH: Well, and Pete Buttigieg knows
that he’s had trouble with African American voters. He’s been working on it pretty much most of
his campaign, at least since the summer. But it continues to be a challenge. And you see that in polling in South Carolina. It’s also not clear how he’s doing in Nevada,
which is the state that comes after that. And then it’s Super Tuesday, which is a whole
bunch of states, including California. AMNA NAWAZ: And you have mentioned to our
producer earlier, Buttigieg now being on top in some ways in Iowa, does that make him more
of a target for his fellow candidates? AMY WALTER: Right. So, look — so here’s what we have seen. In December and through March, it was Biden
who was on top in Iowa. Scrutiny gets onto Biden. Then it moves over to Warren. She’s leading. Scrutiny on Warren and her Medicare for all
plan. She starts to dip a little bit. And now we see Buttigieg on top. And you will remember we have a debate on
Wednesday. And I’m sure his friends and colleagues on
the stage with him will have a couple questions for him to answer. AMNA NAWAZ: That is a prediction from Amy
Walter, who hates to make predictions. AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: But you do bring me to Elizabeth
Warren. And I want to ask you about sort of an evolution
her Medicare for all plan. This has been sort of the defining issue for
her candidacy. And she seemed to, I don’t want to say evolve. It’s shifted a little bit now. She’s rolled out sort of a timeline for how
she plans to get there. AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: What do you make of that? AMY WALTER: It’s that whole trying to have
cake and eating it too or whatever the phrase — however the phrase goes, which is, she’s
been getting a tremendous amount of criticism, even from Democrats, for a plan that would
kick people off of their private insurance and institute a Medicare for all or basically
a single-payer system. What she has offered is to say, well, OK,
for the first two years, I will be able to push through a public option, which is, people
can stay on their private insurance or they can buy into a Medicare system, similar to
what Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are talking about, many other Democrats are talking about But then, by year three and four, all those
people who’ve gotten in the public option are going to say, this is so great, I’m saving
so much money, the health care system has been so incredibly altered in the years since
it’s been implemented, that we’re going to do then Medicare for all. TAMARA KEITH: But let me just say that I have
covered presidents. And their third years and fourth years tend
not to be when they pass most of their most meaningful legislation. AMY WALTER: Right. TAMARA KEITH: And that’s why candidates always
talk about, on day one, or the first 100 days. AMY WALTER: Day one. TAMARA KEITH: There’s a reason for that. Midterms happen. Things come screeching to a halt. AMNA NAWAZ: Does this open her up to criticism
that she’s changing her tune, that she’s lining up more with moderate candidates? TAMARA KEITH: It has opened her up to criticism,
remarkably, both from the Bernie Sanders side of the world and the Pete Buttigieg side of
the world. She’s getting it from all angles, in part
because she decided to go out there and say that she had a plan and put it in writing. AMNA NAWAZ: Right. Tam, I’m going to give you the last word on
something else here. I want to make sure we get your take, because
the last time we were sitting here, I was asking you about these three key Southern
states in which President Trump campaigned very heavily for the gubernatorial candidates
there, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Those are the margins by which President Trump
won election back in 2016 in each of those states. You said watching those races would paint
a picture, or at least give us an indication of what’s ahead. What do we now know? TAMARA KEITH: Well, I will just say that President
Trump at a rally said, you have got to give me a big win, please, and said that the eyes
of history would be watching, that people should send a message to Washington and the
Democrats in Washington. Well, guess what happens? Two out of three of those ended up going to
the Democrat. Now, he will say that the Republican in Kentucky,
good guy, he says, but deeply unpopular. And he will say, well, John Bel Edwards, it
was close, and it was super close. But the reality is that the president couldn’t
get them over the finish line. He went and did a bunch of rallies, put a
lot of personal capital — political capital out there to say, like, I’m the president,
I can drag them over the finish line. And he didn’t do it. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, a few seconds left. Want to weigh in on this? Sorry. AMY WALTER: A few seconds. Yes. If I am a Democrat in the more moderate side
of the equation, I looked at those and said, what those two Democrats did, the ones who
won, they ran as a centrist. They ran on building on the Affordable Care
Act, not on Medicare for all. The Medicaid expansion is very popular in
those states, i.e., Democrats, stay toward the Affordable Care Act and building on that,
not moving too far to the left on health care. AMNA NAWAZ: That is what worked for them there. AMY WALTER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy Walter and Tamara Keith, always
good to see you guys. TAMARA KEITH: Thank you. AMY WALTER: Thank you.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 18, 2019


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

Roger Stone Guilty on ALL COUNTS, Trump EXPLODES


We’re later going to talk about what might
have landed president Trump in the hospital for an unscheduled visit. And, um, we’re going to talk about many of
the things in fact, which would likely have caused stress over the weekend because quite
frankly, it was a very stressful couple of days for Donald Trump during the second day
of the impeachment hearings on Friday with Marie Evanovich close, uh, STO, uh, Roger
Stone, a close Trump advisor, Roger Stone and close Trump ally Roger Stone was found
guilty on all seven counts with which he was charged and Trump absolutely exploded afterwards. Now as a reminder, please review my interview
with Roger Stone from, I guess it must be about a year and a half ago at this point
or longer, where Roger Stone insisted he did nothing wrong. No one did anything wrong and it turns out
he may not have been honest with me during that interview. Check that out because Roger Stone was found
guilty on seven counts, including lying to Congress, witness tampering, obstruction of
justice of the Russia probe into Donald Trump. He is Trump aide and advisor number six to
be convicted. So far. So the immediate question is, how much time
might Roger Stone end up doing in prison? The answer on paper is that he could end up
with up to 20 years. Although if I had to bet, and I am not a betting
man, I would bet that Roger Stone gets nothing close to 20 years. And then of course we will talk about pardon,
uh, possibilities momentarily adding to the hi-jinks of the stone guilty verdict. There’s this other Trump aide named Michael
Caputo who was in the courtroom at the time of the verdicts readout. And he had to be removed from the courtroom
because when the verdict was read, he just turned around and turned his back on the jury. Extraordinarily childish. But again, these are the types of people that
Donald Trump has around him in a variety of different capacities. And then of course, Trump exploding on Twitter. And why wouldn’t he, if stone were to turn
on Trump, it could be very, very bad for the president, although there’s no indication
at this point in time that stone plans to turn on Trump for the purposes of a lighter
sentence. And why would he, if he expects or anticipates
that he will be pardoned by Donald Trump. But we will get to that Trump first tweeting. But, but, but, but what about all the people
that I want put in jail saying quote. So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and
want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about crooked Hillary? Comi struck Paige McKay, Brennan clapper shift
the shifts or, and Nelly steel and all of the others, including even Mueller himself,
didn’t they lie a double standard like never seen before in the history of our country. Understand that the president of the United
States is publicly saying he wants to, uh, uh, put the legally appointed special counsel
who investigated him in prison. Trump believes on the one hand, I guess that
Mueller wrote a report that completely exonerates him. Remember Trump went around the country claiming
that Robert Mueller completely exonerated him. But then he also wants the person who supposedly
exonerated him, imprisoned authoritarians on one hand, but also a completely incoherent
on the other hand. And then of course, you’re still talking about
Hillary Donald. Uh, seriously. And notably it’s important that Trump doesn’t
actually say in the tweets, stone is innocent. Stone is not guilty. Stone might be innocent. He merely says, if you convict Roger Stone
for this, then you should really convict all of these other people that I don’t like. It’s brazen. Authoritarian. What about ism? Now let’s discuss the pardon. That’s the other topic here that deserves
some attention. Although it probably deserves its own exploration
in a topic in and of itself as usual, the white house is not even entertaining. The idea that Donald Trump may have signaled
in any direct or even indirect way that any pardons would be incoming for anybody who
keeps their mouth shut. Now we do have, when it came to Paul Manafort,
there were allegations that the possibility of a pardon had been intimated through a number
of different channels. I don’t have anything specifically about Roger
Stone here, but we do know that if you keep your mouth shut and you don’t turn on Trump
and you don’t turn into someone who could potentially, uh, put Trump in a precarious
position, you may be rewarded with a pardon when it is all said and done. I hope that Robert Mueller truly deeply just
sincerely regrets not subpoening Donald Trump and at least trying to force him to show up
in person because he didn’t do it. And Mueller is still getting crushed by Trump. What was the big advantage again, to not bringing
Trump in? I guess it was that Mueller said, well, the
policy of the justice department is not to prosecute sitting president. So we decided not even to subpoena Donald
Trump, arguably the weakest decision of Mueller’s entire investigation maybe of his entire career. Because in the end he didn’t do it. He let Trump off and in the weakest possible
way. And Trump is still saying publicly. What about imprisoning Robert Mueller? Pardon? We will see Roger Stone sentencing not scheduled
until, I believe it’s in the first week of February. And, uh, when that time comes, we will see
what the guy ends up with. I think it will be far, far short of the 20
year maximum that he could hypothetically be sentenced. To. Let me know what you think about the likely
sentencing for Roger Stone.

Diplomatic Spat Continues Between Trump And British Ambassador To Washington NPR Illinois


Diplomatic Spat Continues Between Trump And British Ambassador To Washington NPR Illinois ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: President Trump stepped up his Twitter attacks on the British ambassador to the U.S. today, calling him wacky and saying the U.K. foisted him upon the U.S. British officials say Sir Kim Darroch was only doing his job, sending back his insights into the workings of the Trump administration. In leaked cables, he describes the Trump White House as inept, as NPRs Michele Kelemen reports. MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: President Trump writes on Twitter that he doesnt know Ambassador Kim Darroch but was told that he is a, quote, “pompous fool” and a “very stupid guy.” He should speak to his country and prime minister about their failed Brexit negotiations and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was handled, Trump says in one of numerous tweets on the subject. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway says its up to the next British prime minister to decide what to do with Darroch. SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING KELLYANNE CONWAY: The presidents made very clear the way he feels about the ambassador and those comments and the way he felt how Brexit was handled. I mean, it looks like were on the precipice of having a brand new prime minister. KELEMEN: British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, one of the men running to become the next U.K. prime minister, says if he wins, the ambassador will stay. Hunt calls Trumps comments disrespectful and wrong, pointing out that its the job of ambassadors to give their private opinions to their governments. U.S. ambassadors all over the world were put in similarly awkward situations when WikiLeaks published U.S. diplomatic cables nearly a decade ago. State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus says officials there will deal with all accredited diplomats until it hears otherwise from the White House. SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING MORGAN ORTAGUS: We have an incredibly special and strategic relationship with the United Kingdom. That has gone on for quite a long time, and its bigger than any individual. Its bigger than any government. Its something that has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. KELEMEN: Governments can kick out ambassadors, declaring them persona non grata. If they dont, they have to deal with them. Thats usually the way it works, says former foreign service officer Brett Bruen. BRETT BRUEN: So for the president of the United States to say well, stay, but Im not going to deal with you any longer; my government isnt going to deal with you any longer is really a cop out. You either boot him out of the country, or you button it. KELEMEN: The Twitter insults, he argues, are just making matters worse. BRUEN: All it does is harm U.S. U.K. relations at a critical time; at a juncture when we can least afford it for the U.S. and the U.K. to have daylight between us, to have difficulties between us. KELEMEN: The British ambassador was uninvited to a dinner last night with the visiting emir of Qatar. And today the Commerce Department canceled a meeting with the U.K. trade minister that the ambassador was due to attend. The U.S. and U.K. are trying to negotiate a post Brexit trade deal. An official says the Commerce Department is working to reschedule the meeting at a, quote, “mutually agreeable time.” Michele Kelemen, NPR News, the State Department. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

Chris Painter on The Open Mind: Cyber Diplomacy or Mr. Robot Dystopia?


I’m Alexander Heffner, your host on The Open
Mind. When I recorded my first ever program here
in 2014, the subject with digital scholar and educator John Palfrey was the very real
possibility of a digital Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in our lifetimes. It’s clear from our evaluations on The Open
Mind that such a crisis played out during the 2016 campaign, but not as we expected. We lacked the imagination foresight and most
of all political will to respond as governments, citizens, and corporations, which often were
hosts of malignant disinformation and enablers of massive security breaches. Joining me today is Christopher Painter, commissioner
of The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace. For over two decades, painter has been at
the helm of American Internet policy as a prosecutor of high-profile cyber crimes. And then as a senior official at the Department
of Justice, FBI, National Security Council, and finally the State Department. In his most recent role as the nation’s top
cyber diplomat, Painter coordinated and led the diplomatic efforts to advance an open
internet and information infrastructure, establishing the office of the coordinator for cyber issues
dedicated to advancing the diplomatic aspects of cyber issues ranging from national security
to human rights. Welcome, Chris. PAINTER: Happy to be here. Thanks. HEFFNER: Thank you for being here. You were pivotal in brokering an accord, or
at least theoretically an accord between the US and China in 2014. What were you and your colleagues attempting
to accomplish and has it been enduring? PAINTER: So we were faced with a situation
where there was widespread theft of commercial information, trade secrets, other business
and proprietary information by China, not just in the US but around the world. And this was becoming not just a cyber issue,
but really a core economic issue and national security issue. And you know there was a strong feeling that
this really had to stop. This was stealing the life’s blood of our
economy going forward. So what we’re trying to get is that to stop
frankly and, and we were looking at different aspects to do that and one of the aspects
was trying to get China to agree that this is something that should be prohibited and
not done. Now I will say there is a difference between
a theft of intellectual property to benefit your own commercial sector and espionage. Every country gathers information. Every country will for all of time. They have from the beginning you can’t really
prohibit that, but this is a specialized kind that we don’t do and we don’t think any country
should do. So. HEFFNER: Cambridge Analytica was really at
the intersection of the for profit commerce and espionage. PAINTER: Yeah, it was a little different though. I mean there were, it was for-profit espionage
in a sense which is not necessarily all that new. Although the way that was done was I think
a new form of this, but the kind of theft of information that you use. So let’s say you steal the plans is something
or the trade secret for something and then you give it to your own commercial sector
and then they become competitive, and they use that to become competitive and really
displace your own industry. So that’s what we were trying to stop. And it did, it was interesting. It took really from the president on down
strong messaging to China that this was unacceptable that this was just not a cyber thing. It affected the overall relationship and we
eventually got an agreement with them and you asked if it’s been enduring. I think after that agreement was reached,
which didn’t prohibit all hacking because that’s not realistic, but prohibited this
kind of hacking. A lot of people saw that activity drop dramatically
after that. And it did for a while now, right? Recently it’s gone back up again. And that’s a big concern. But I think partly that’s due to the fact
that the reason China wanted to reach this agreement, it was an irritant in the overall
relationship, but with something that China cares about, the way it’s perceived, it was
a big problem, not just in the cyber realm but across the board with the US. It was a problem with Russia or with, I’m
sorry, with Germany, with Japan, with Australia and other countries around the world, the
UK. And so they agreed to do it, but now the relationship
is really frayed, I think they don’t see any real need or benefit to comply with that. And that’s the problem we have now. HEFFNER: Are you referring to the implementation
of the tariffs? PAINTER: I think if you, the overall relationship
between the US and China, I think it’s fair to say it’s not very good right now and there’s
a lot of reasons for that. There’s certainly the trade conflict, war,
whatever you call it going on, which I think is a, is a concern for them and I think their
feeling probably is, and I’m not in the Chinese mind, but I think that, what their thinking
is why do we need to comply with all these agreements we made if the relationship is
so bad already, we’re not improving the relationship. And maybe it’s even a bargaining chip who
knows? HEFFNER: The current President speaks lovingly
of China and at times at least the Premier, the President, and yet has taken actions that
obviously have injured that relationship, so that souring effect has materialized in
the way that the United States and Canada are negotiating a potential resolution with
someone in their technology sector who is accused of breaking the Iran sanctions. 6:37PAINTER: Well, that the person who’s been
accused at Canada is accused of violating the sanctions have of taking actions that
violates them. It’s against the law. There is no, you know I see no issue of when
you see violations of the law as a former prosecutor going after them. I think the larger question is, how can you
address all these issues, how can you make sure this doesn’t happen? And look, the trade imbalance with China is
a big issue and we do have to address it. How we address it and how we message I think
is important. You raised a really interesting point though,
when you say that Trump speaks lovingly, sometimes of President Xi, that messaging is as kind
of a problem. If your messaging doesn’t match your actions,
it undercuts your own negotiating and undercuts your own deterrent value. I think the classic example, certainly with
Russia, where despite all the evidence, despite all the things that even this administration
has done, Trump constantly calls into question whether Russia was responsible. It doesn’t matter what you do in terms of
sanctions or other things if you’re a top leader, is not consistent in messaging, and
Obama was very consistent in messaging with China for almost two years. HEFFNER: Even if he decided not to prosecute
forcefully enough the case against cyber espionage from Russia during the ‘16 campaign, behind
the scenes and in public he was consistently critical of Wikileaks, Assange, and those
criminals. There was a digital Watergate… PAINTER: Do you mean Obama? HEFFNER: Obama, right. That there was a digital Watergate and the
plumbers and dirty tricksters were Russians as a country, and I think this is testified
to in ongoing support for the special counsel’s investigation. This country has not seen accountability in
the area where you prosecuted cyber criminals. When is there going to be accountability/
PAINTER: Well, that’s a great question. I think you have to divide this into two spheres. One is nation-states and the other is individuals
and criminals. Individuals and criminals we need to go after
using our criminal tools. You know, sometimes it’s difficult to reach
them for various reasons, but we need to continue to do that and that’s one aspect when you’re
talking about nation states, we have been just terrible at deterring or punishing nation
states for activity that really violates all the norms, that goes beyond, you know, the
kind of things we, we believe very acceptable conduct. So yeah, a good example certainly is Russia,
when you’re trying to deter someone, there are two aspects. One is timely and the other is something that
actually makes a difference. It’s going to change your calculus in the
future, and punish them for past conduct. Now, the Obama administration did come up
with a series of package of expulsions and sanctions at the end of the administration. That was pretty late. I mean, frankly, I think it was clear we needed
to act as sooner we needed to act more strongly. I don’t think that those things really punished
Putin or changed his calculus could certainly he’s engaged in this again and again after
that and then in this administration there’s been sanctions. There’s been some other targeted events. Russia has not limited their malicious cyber
activity to election interference. They released this big what’s called computer
worm the NotPetya worm that was – several countries attributed to them. Yes, the US and Australia and others have
attributed, this conduct to Russia, but you’re not going to name and shame Russia, you know,
you’re not going to – you might China, but Russia or North Korea, that’s not going to
have an impact. It’s a, it’s a good foundation, but then you
have to follow it up with action. The Ashley will make a difference to them
and then as I said before, you have to couple it with consistent and strong messaging. You can’t say, well, I don’t know if they
really did it, it’s okay. He said he didn’t do it. I mean those, that, those undercut all the
actions you’re trying to do to actually punish that conduct and make sure there’s accountability
and I absolutely agree with you. We have to be far better at imposing those
costs. HEFFNER: The kind of reciprocal action that
could be meaningful is allowing the young people of Russia to have digital freedom and
use the grassroots technologies that infuse our politics here and through the web to bring
about reform. PAINTER: We have always been seen as the leaders
in terms of freedom and democracy and my colleagues at the State Department, and we work closely
with them, champion this idea of Internet freedom, freedom online and helping those
communities who are often oppressed or monitored try to escape that monitoring to express their
views. And, you know, there is something called Freedom
House, which measures the level of freedom in the world online every year and they’ve
seen that level of freedom decline year to year, which is a real concern around the world. And if the US is not championing those causes,
if the US is saying for political or whatever, expediency you know human rights are important,
but they’re not so important that we’re going to take them seriously and factor them into
our larger policy. That gives them carte blanche to these countries,
these dictators, these more repressive regimes around the world. And it’s a good parallel to cyber because,
you know, if you don’t have consequences for your actions, then you’re creating a norm
of it’s okay, we can just do this. And the same is true in this area and you
can’t look at cyber security totally separate than human rights or economic policy. They have to be looked at together. HEFFNER: Where are you hopeful based on your
own prosecutions in the United States? There is not really a criminal court or tribunal
to adjudicate this and that doesn’t even work when there’s genocide to the best of its ability. So what is the best hope based on your own
prosecutions? You started doing this when cyber was just
being born in the 90s. PAINTER: Back when it wasn’t cool? Laughs. HEFFNER: So, so how is it working here in
America in terms of the ongoing pursuit of justice with domestic actors who hack us or
attack our infrastructure? PAINTER: I think we’ve gotten better. I don’t think we’re there yet. I think I’ve seen, there are a couple of trends
that I’ve seen over the 20 some 5 years I’ve been doing this. One is that we have been getting better, not
just catching the criminals here, but also overseas and it’s trivial for a cyber criminal
to route their communications through several different countries to evade detection. So in an unprecedented way you have to have
real international cooperation. We’ve gotten better at that. You know, it’s still not perfect. I think a lot of criminals still see this
as a cost free or risk free enterprise, but we’ve done a lot of big cases where we’ve
wrapped up a lot of criminals around the world and that sends an important deterrent message. So that’s good. We’ve trained more people around the world. More countries have cyber security law, so
they didn’t used to have them back, I don’t even remember years ago when the, I Love You
worm came out; it was traced back to someone in the Philippines. The Philippines didn’t have a law to punish
that, so that’s changed and that’s changed around the world. So I’m hopeful about that and I’m hopeful
about the kind of cooperation I’m seeing. It’s a steep hill to climb still, which is
an issue. I’m also hopeful that, you know, we have done
these joint attributions. So one of the things that may be surprising
is the Trump Administration came out with its strategy, its cyber strategy recently. We did these in the Obama Administration as
well. The Trump cyber strategy is really very much
like the Obama cyber strategy. It’s not really very different and that’s
actually a good thing, you’re building on what you’ve done before. You’re looking at this in a more holistic
way and saying we really don’t have to create a whole new regime. We need to do this. And there was a portion of that that talked
about deterring bad actors including state actors and it talked about and it had language
in there that said we are better acting together than with other countries than we are acting
alone. That doesn’t sound very America First-is,
does it? It sounds actually very collaborative. And that gives me hope too. So you know, I think that those things are
continuing to go on, which is good. You know, there’s lots of things that I’m
worried about as well but I think that there’s some positive aspects. And the other thing I’d say is people care
about this more. I mean, back when I was doing some of the
early parts occasions, people thought, well, that’s really cool. That’s a neat thing. Or you know, it’s a Robin Hood sort of thing. These hackers are cool. Where now, they really care about it. And, and you know, I think we’re at the stage
where, you know, back when I used to go and talk to, if you went to talk to the attorney
general, if you want to talk to, although Janet Reno was exception, she cared about
this deeply. If you went to talk to a cabinet official
in our system or a minister, and in Europe you went to talk to the CEO about this and
their eyes would roll back in the back of their heads and they will run from the room. They didn’t want to deal with these issues. There were technical issues. You technical people deal with them and now
there’s a recognition this is a core issue of our, you know, economic policy our national
security policy or human rights policy. And our foreign policy. That’s a big deal because it takes it out
of that technical realm. Technical aspects are still important, but
it really makes it a core policy issue. Now the problem is people recognize it as
an issue, they just don’t know what to do about it. HEFFNER: Right. They recognize it and it’s heartening to hear
the copying and pasting of the Obama manual, if in fact it’s being implemented, which you
mentioned, PAINTER: Which is a key question, yes. HEFFNER: Right. But at the same time, this lack of concern
was revealed when these folks’ emails were hacked, and that was an impetus, whether it
was State Department officials or business executives, they became aware and concerned
about it after their materials became, PAINTER: Sure. HEFFNER: In effect, declassified stolen, hacked,
publicized, which is, and it’s, there’s a learning curve. So now they’re up to speed potentially,
PACKER: Not sure they’re up to speed, but HEFFNER: Or in the process of..
PACKER: And look, it makes a difference when like the executive that head of Sony pictures
lost their job because of that. HEFFNER: Sure, sure. So here’s my question to you as a fellow viewer
of Mr. Robot, PACKER: Laughs
HEFFNER: So when does this reach the point of a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? And I’m thinking economic insecurity as a
function of a hacking that is so basic to the necessity of our livelihood as Americans
or as global citizens. You know, of course there are vulnerabilities
that are particular to Bitcoin in new currencies. But, what about that scenario of a hacking
that completely disrupts the economy? PAINTER: Well, we, we’ve talked about this
literally for 20 years. We’ve been worrying about the kind of cyber
attack that would be against critical infrastructure, the financial system, the electrical power
system, the, you know, food distribution, something that would have catastrophic and
really rolling consequences that, you know, blackouts, things like that. And there’s no shortage of movies about this
too. HEFFNER: Right. PAINTER: So I, you know, my, I tried to make
my office unique in the State Department. I had movie posters where hackers or computers
where the main character, so I had like 30 of them up there and they’re all dystopian
movies. There are very few really happy movies there. That said we haven’t seen that kind of crippling
cyber attack. We’ve seen cyber being used and wore a like
in Georgia by Russia. We’ve seen some of the activity obviously
with our election and others. We’ve seen certainly very serious activity,
but not that kind of crippling 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or something like that. I also, I’m not that fond of those terms and
the reason I’m not fond of them is if we keep waiting for that before we do something, we’re
never going to do anything, you know, so we need to, we need to think about what’s happening
every day and the conduct is pretty serious. HEFFNER: Chris, is that because only state
actors would have the bandwidth to do that and the rogue elements like an ISIS in a cyber
unit of an ISIS or a like terrorist organization just doesn’t have the equipment to perform
it. PAINTER: I think there’s a couple of aspects. One, yes, sophisticated actors in Russia,
China, North Korea and Iran are always rated as the most sophisticated state actors, have
more capability, but even there, if you’re talking about taking down like the electrical
power grid, not just taking it down but keeping it down. So that requires a lot. That’s not just an instantaneous conduct. And yes, you know, this is an asymmetric area
where people without much resources can cause kind of large disruptions, but can they really
keep that disruption going in a way that’s going to substantially affect the economy. So I think that that’s a part of the issue
and you know, in terms of terrorists, we had been thinking about terrorists and literally
I remember giving a speech about this maybe 17 years ago where we were worried about terrorists
turning to this and attacking critical infrastructure and there’s two reasons they haven’t. One, they’re not really interested in doing
that. They’re interested in using the Internet to
communicate, to plan to proselytize, to raise money, all those things. And they do that a lot. We’ve certainly seen ISIS do that a lot,
but they’re not interested in really attacking critical infrastructure when what they want
to do is they want to attack physical targets and cause death and destruction that’s going
to have more of an impact. Now, maybe in the future they could do that
in a way that’s going to have a large level of impact. Maybe you’re going to a couple a physical
attack with an attack on say, emergency communications that’s going to magnify it. We just haven’t seen it yet. Now we’re always worried about it, but it’s,
I think interesting that we haven’t seen that so far. HEFFNER: Well, the net effect of closing the
power grid, PAINTER: Oh yeah. HEFFNER: Turning off the lights,
PAINTER: Sure. HEFFNER: Especially when it comes to the market
and being able to produce the necessities of life and companies handicapping their ability
to provide goods and services that are central to our health and wellbeing, that that could
be pretty serious. PAINTER: It could be. They could always borrow capabilities, they
could rent capabilities so you can get other people to come in and bring capabilities. You know, I think we haven’t seen this from
nation states by and large because there’s lots of reasons it doesn’t make sense for
them. I mean,
HEFFNER: Right. Yes Iran and North Korea have been more active
because they don’t have much to, or especially North Korea does. Russia used to be much more stealthy, but
now it’s much more active as we’ve seen because again, it’s positioned after the Ukraine invasion
the world community is very different. So there’s reasons that the nation states
don’t want to deal with or they worry about escalation and reprisal. Terrorists, you know, there is still a chance,
but it’s again, having that widespread effect that they want to have and that long-term
effect, HEFFNER: It’s perhaps more likely to come
from the yellow vest type movement. PAINTER: You don’t want to also shoot yourself
in the foot. You don’t want to take down infrastructure
that’s going to have an effect on your own life too. HEFFNER: No I’m not condoning it whatsoever. I’m just saying that it seems that the dystopian
of some of the fictional PAINTER: Yeah, yeah. HEFFNER: accounts are not so far in our, our
future. I mean there, I think that a lot of the grassroots
protests that have grown up and are now marching in the streets or causing havoc, are a function
of economic discord. PAINTER: True. And we look, we’ve had hacktivists so for
quite some time and they haven’t targeted these kinds of systems. And again, I think it’s harder and we’re getting,
we are getting better at protecting these systems. We’re getting a better at protecting electrical
power grids. We’re getting better at protecting financial
systems. It is not perfect yet and there are scary
times. Like for instance, when Russia shut down,
part of the power grid in the Ukraine, then we saw some, what we call prepositioning,
a malware on some of our power grid systems that looked like it was from Russia as well. Look, there’s real concern about that, but,
you know, I think we also have to look realistically at what, you know, what we’re doing to protect
ourselves, which we absolutely have to do. We have to do a far better job and we are,
I think in protecting those systems and have resilience so if something happens, we can
bounce back from it. So you’re not down for a long period of time
and it’s still not easy. It’s not easy to have that sustained effect. HEFFNER: What about the idea of a generator
in effect, having a generator to turn that on in the event of one of one of these incapacitating
cyber, national cyber terrorist acts, PAINTER: Having a generator that’s. HEFFNER: A kind of a kind of backup plan. PAINTER: Yeah, that’s. Absolutely, that’s the resilience aspect. So you know, you have to assume that sophisticated
actors, particularly state actors, if they really put their mind to it, can get into
a system and can affect systems. Now what that means is you do everything you
can to protect your system. That’s the, that’s the cyber security part
of it. You make sure there are consequences for people
who break in. That’s the deterrence part of it. So they don’t do it in the first place. They don’t see a benefit in doing it. And then the last part is you have to have
resiliency. You have to have backups so that even if they
succeed in doing this, you can get back up and running very quickly. There was a case a few years ago about Saudi
Aramco where a hackers got into their system and basically destroyed all their computers
wiped all the data from all their. And interestingly, they didn’t have that backed
up. Now I think people realize that you have to
have that all backed up. You have to make sure that you have those
things so that you can reconstitute yourself. One of the big worries I have that we haven’t
seen yet is dealing with the integrity of information. So yes, we see all these attacks, we see the
theft of information, but the integrity of information means that if I, for instance,
was able to hack into your medical records and change your blood type, so the next time
you got a transfusion you died. That’s pretty significant. Or if I could somehow get into the stock exchange
and make it unreliable in terms of the settling trades that would have a widespread effect. We haven’t seen that yet. HEFFNER: Is your commission working with these
sectors? PAINTER: What our commission is doing is we’re
looking. So there’s various aspects of this issue,
right? And part of the aspect is what are the long-term
rules of the road. What is the, what is the framework we want
that states will agree to over time. So there’s been work between governments on
this, international law applies, which is important. It’s not a free fire zone, but what are the
rules of the road what are the voluntary, at least in the beginning, rules of the road,
things like don’t attack critical infrastructure absent war time, more time. There’s different rules, but don’t do it in
peacetime. Don’t attack the Cert, the computer emergency
response teams. It’s like going after the ambulances. The commission has come up with things like,
don’t attack the public core of the Internet because we do that. You could take down the Internet for everyone. Don’t, you know, the industry has an obligation
to look at their software to make sure the vulnerabilities are not there to the extent
they can. That states should have vulnerability equities
processes, that election machinery should be off limits too the states should not attack
that. Does that mean that everyone will abide by
those norms or embrace them? No. But what it means is that if they don’t do
that, then you have to have that level of accountability. And, and we don’t have that firm understanding. There’s a lot of uncertainty in cyberspace. You don’t know what the rules are. You don’t know what the consequences are and
we have to change that. HEFFNER: Right, and in the seconds we have
left; you’re really attempting to resurrect the Geneva Accords or something like that
for… PAINTER: Not so much a treaty, because the
Geneva Convention applies to cyber. I mean, I think the worry is when you say
we need a Geneva Convention for cyber, the Geneva Convention applies to cyber, things
like proportionality to say all these things that have brought us safely into the 20th
and 21st century, those are things that apply to cyber. We have to figure out how they apply, but
they apply, HEFFNER: But do we need a new body that is
going to… PAINTER: I don’t think we need a new body. I think what we need to do is get countries
to accept these rules of the road and then we need to start enforcing them. I think if you create a new body, that’s a
lot of overhead, HEFFNER: Right,
PAINTER: And you don’t necessarily get the payoff you’re looking for. HEFFNER: Chris, a pleasure to be with you
today. PAINTER: Happy to be here. Thanks. HEFFNER: Thanks and thanks to you in the audience. I hope you join us again next time for thoughtful
excursion into the world of ideas. Until then, keep an open mind. Please visit The Open Mind website at Thirteen.org/OpenMind
to view this program online or to access over 1,500 other interviews and do check us out
on Twitter and Facebook @OpenMindTV for updates on future programming.