Tag Archive : news

/ news

IOC open to idea of inter-Korean Winter Youth Olympic Games in 2024: IOC chief


the International Olympic Committee is
set to begin talks with South Korea to develop a plan to host to the 2024
Winter Youth Olympics in the country with an eye on North Korea potentially
being involved during a press conference on Thursday after a three-day IOC
Executive Board meeting in losing Switzerland IOC president Thomas Bach
said the IOC would be open to take North Korea on board quote if the
circumstances allow it South Korea’s 2024 bid would center
around the cities of Pyongyang and come Ninh where the 2018 Winter Olympics were
held the IOC said Pyongyang could be formally elected as the host for the
2024 games at the next IOC Session in January

PBS NewsHour full episode December 4, 2019

December 5, 2019 | Articles, Blog | No Comments

PBS NewsHour full episode December 4, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Never before has a
president engaged in a course of conduct that included all of the acts that most concerned
the framers. JUDY WOODRUFF: The next phase is gaveled in. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee hears the
constitutional arguments for and against impeaching President Trump over his attempts to bend
a foreign government for personal political gain. Then: on the ground in London, as the president
meets with NATO allies during a tense period for the 70-year-old military alliance. And rolling back the rules. Hundreds of thousands of Americans risk losing
their food stamps, as the Trump administration finalizes a major policy shift. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The
next phase of impeachment comes to order. As Nick Schifrin reports, the partisan fight
over the constitutional rationale for removing President Trump from office took center stage. REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): The House Committee
on the Judiciary will come to order. NICK SCHIFRIN: It is the most rare hearing
the House of Representatives holds. And from the beginning, this impeachment hearing
was partisan. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler described
President Trump’s actions as unprecedented and grave. REP. JERROLD NADLER: Never before has a president
engaged in a course of conduct that included all of the acts that most concerned the framers. NICK SCHIFRIN: The committee’s top Republican,
Doug Collins, called the hearing a sham and accused Democrats of trying to remove a president
they have opposed since his election. REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): You just don’t like the
guy. You didn’t like him since November of 2016. So don’t tell me this is about new evidence,
and new things, and new stuff. We may have a new hearing room. We may have new mics and we may have chairs
that aren’t comfortable. But this is nothing new, folks. This is sad. NICK SCHIFRIN: At question, whether President
Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky in order to force Zelensky to announce investigations into Democrat presidential
candidate Joe Biden and the 2016 election. PAMELA KARLAN, Stanford University: Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee… NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, four legal scholars
testified on whether President Trump’s actions were impeachable. The three who were called by Democrats said
they were. Michael Gerhardt of the University of North
Carolina: MICHAEL GERHARDT, University of North Carolina:
If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. NICK SCHIFRIN: Pam Karlan of Stanford University. PAMELA KARLAN: If you don’t impeach a president
who has done what this president has done, then what you’re saying is, it’s fine to go
ahead and do this again. NICK SCHIFRIN: Noah Feldman of Harvard University: NOAH FELDMAN, Harvard University: If we cannot
impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live
in a democracy; we live in a monarchy, or we live under a dictatorship. NICK SCHIFRIN: Republicans called George Washington
University’s Jonathan Turley, who accused Democrats of rushing to judgment without proving
the president committed any crimes. JONATHAN TURLEY, George Washington University:
I’m concerned lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance
of anger. I believe this impeachment not only fails
to satisfy the standard of past impeachments, but would create a dangerous precedent for
future impeachments. NICK SCHIFRIN: For two months, the House Intelligence
Committee and Chairman Adam Schiff investigated President Trump’s actions, and last night
released a final report accusing the president of having solicited the interference of a
foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. NOAH FELDMAN: The president solicited assistance
from a foreign government in order to assist his own reelection. That is, he used the power of his office that
no one else could possibly have used in order to gain personal advantage for himself, distorting
the election. And that’s precisely what the framers anticipated. NICK SCHIFRIN: But Turley called the evidence
ambiguous, and said President Trump’s asking Zelensky on the phone to investigate 2016
or Joe Biden wasn’t proof of impeachable conduct. JONATHAN TURLEY: If you were going to make
a case to George Washington that you could impeach over a conversation he had with another
head of state, I expect his hair, his powdered hair, would catch on fire. NICK SCHIFRIN: The House Intelligence Committee’s
report also accused President Trump of having — quote — “ordered and implemented a campaign
to conceal his conduct from the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives.” The Democratic-called professors said President
Trump committed obstruction by ignoring impeachment subpoenas and stifling Robert Mueller’s inquiry
into the Trump campaign’s possible coordination with Russia. MICHAEL GERHARDT: The full-scale obstruction
of those subpoenas, I think, torpedoes separation of powers. And, therefore, your only recourse is to,
in a sense, protect your institutional prerogatives, and that would include impeachment. NICK SCHIFRIN: But Turley argued President
Trump hadn’t committed obstruction, because Democrats hadn’t given him enough time to
respond. JONATHAN TURLEY: You set an incredibly short
period, demand a huge amount of information, and when the president goes to court, you
then impeach him. If you impeach a president — if you make
a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you are criticizing
the president for doing. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Democratic-called witnesses
also accused President Trump of bribery, as understood by the Constitution’s writers. PAMELA KARLAN: If you conclude that he asked
for the investigation of Vice President Biden and his son for political reasons, that is,
to aid his reelection, then, yes, you have bribery here. NICK SCHIFRIN: Committee Republicans and President
Trump’s campaign targeted Karlan for separately mentioning President Trump’s son and described
the experts as irrelevant. Republican Matt Gaetz: REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): When you try to make a
little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like you’re attacking someone’s
family, the minor child of the president of the United States. So let’s see if we can get into the facts. To all of the witnesses, if you have personal
knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge
of a single fact. NICK SCHIFRIN: Not present today, President
Trump’s lawyers. On Sunday, White House counsel Pat Cipollone
released a letter refusing to appear that said: “An invitation to an academic discussion
with law professors doesn’t begin to provide the president with any semblance of a fair
process.” Today in London, 3,600 miles from Washington,
President Trump attended a NATO heads of state summit. Alongside Italy’s prime minister, he called
today’s hearing unfair and declared himself innocent. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Impeachment is a dirty word, and it’s a word that was only supposed to be used only in
special occasions, high crimes and misdemeanors. In this case, there was no crime whatsoever,
not even a little tiny crime. MAN: Today, the committee starts consideration
of the most awesome power constitutionally vested in the House of Representatives. NICK SCHIFRIN: In 1974, the House Judiciary
Committee passed three articles of impeachment against President Nixon, including obstruction
of justice and using the government for political purposes. MAN: Our next witness is Admiral Bud Edney. NICK SCHIFRIN: In 1998, the Judiciary Committee
held two months of hearings into President Clinton before passing four articles of impeachment,
including perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse his office. Today, both sides compared Trump’s actions
to Clinton’s and Nixon’s, but with different conclusions. PAMELA KARLAN: President Nixon abused domestic
law enforcement to go after his political opponents. He’s asked a foreign country to do that. It’s sort of like a daily double. JONATHAN TURLEY: This is the narrowest impeachment
in history. If you rush this impeachment, you’re going
to leave half the country behind. This isn’t an impulse buy item. You’re trying to remove a duly elected president
of the United States. NICK SCHIFRIN: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m
Nick Schifrin. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now we take a closer look
at highlights and fallout from today’s hearing with Lisa Desjardins — she was in the room
today — and our White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor. So, Lisa, to you first. Looking at what happened today, talking to
both sides, what do they think they accomplished? And do you now — do we now have a better
sense of what these articles of impeachment, if they go ahead, would look like? LISA DESJARDINS: Judy, right now, I don’t
think any — either side believes that they might have made major headway with voters,
but they do both believe they made their case. We did learn a little bit, I think, about
what Democrats are considering pursuing for articles of impeachment. I heard four charges, essentially: one, that
the president abused power; two, that he solicited foreign interference; three, that he obstructed
Congress in this investigation about Ukraine; and then, four, Judy, the very interesting
one, Democrats today asked about obstruction of justice in regards to the Mueller report. And our reporting, myself and our producer
Saher Khan, is from Democrats on the committee have told us, in particular Representative
Deutch, that they are still considering whether or not, but have not decided, if they will
include Mueller-related articles of impeachment. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, listening closely,
watching closely, from the White House perspective, how did the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee
make the case for the president? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, even though the White
House did not have legal representation, what they had was Republicans making their cases
and defending the president in ways that the White House supports. So, first, you had the Republican witness,
Jonathan Turley, he was making the case that this is, one, going too quickly, that this
is an impeachment hearing that’s really just running out of time, and that this should
really be taken more cautiously. He also said that there’s no evidence of a
quid pro quo, that Democrats haven’t proven their case. He also said that bribery should not be something
that is discussed here, even though Democrats are making the case. And he made the case, going back to what Lisa
said about the Mueller investigation, he was pointing out that this is a White House and
this is an administration that made the Mueller report public. So, as a result, they are forthcoming. The other thing they note is that lawmakers
who are close allies of the president, they were making very, very fiery defenses of the
president. We had Matt Gaetz of Florida. We had Jim Jordan of Ohio. And all of them are really making the case
that this is all about what Representative Collins said, that this is about tears in
Brooklyn. And they were going back to the 2016 election
and referencing the fact that there were people in Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn campaign headquarters
who were upset about President Trump winning, and this all goes back to the fact that Democrats
really want to unseat and remove a duly elected president. JUDY WOODRUFF: Lisa, back to you. I know that you have taken the time to go
back and look at the Bill Clinton — President Bill Clinton impeachment hearings in the House. Contrast what we’re seeing now with what happened
then. LISA DESJARDINS: I have watched many hours
of those hearings, Judy. And the differences are staggering, first
of all, the tone. Those impeachment hearings in 1998 began with
the Republican Henry Hyde and the Democrat John Conyers thanking each other, being respectful
to each other, and saying they both believed the process was fair. Could not be more different than where we
are today, with both sides attacking each other and being quite personal today. Also, I think that we — the question is different. Back then, it was a question of, they knew
what the president, President Clinton, had done. Was it enough to impeach him? Today, there was more debate over what exactly
could be proven that the president did, if he did issue a quid pro quo. There seemed to be a lot of thought that that
is wrong. The question is, what can be proven about
that? Third, Judy, the witnesses. Today, it was all law professors. But in 1998, when they held this hearing with
witness — with experts, there were nine witnesses, including military generals, judges who spoke
to the chain of command and why they thought what the president was doing was a problem
for national security or the military. It was stakeholders who thought that parts
of government could be affected, not just law professors speaking theoretically. JUDY WOODRUFF: And to Yamiche, Lisa just mentioned
how that, at points today, it got personal in the way the members of Congress were directing
their questions to the law professors. What’s been the reaction from the White House
to all this? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The White House is taking
this very seriously, and they were reacting in real time. I want to first read a tweet by White House
Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham. She tweeted: “Three of the four experts in
this sham hearing have known biases against President Trump. Not only is President Trump given no rights
in the process. The Dem ‘witnesses'” — in quotation marks
— “made up their minds long before today. The people of this country are being cheated
of a Congress who works for them.” So, essentially, she’s making the case that
Democrats were being super partisan and that these witnesses were people who didn’t like
President Trump from the very beginning. But it’s really important to also note the
personalness of this. Let’s listen to what Stanford University Professor
Pamela Karlan said about the president’s youngest son, Barron Trump. PAMELA KARLAN: So, kings could do no wrong,
because the king’s word was law. And contrary to what President Trump has said,
Article 2 does not have give him the power to do anything he wants. And I will just give you one example that
shows you the difference between him and a king, which is, the Constitution says there
can be no titles of nobility. So, while the president can name his son Barron,
he can’t make him a baron. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: And what you have there
was that professor making the case that the president can’t give his son a hereditary
noble title. She later apologized for that. She said she regretted saying that. She also noted that she hopes President Trump
will apologize for some of the things that he did. But while she was criticizing the president,
it’s important to note that there were Republicans who were reading into the record a tweet by
Melania Trump. And here’s what she wrote. She wrote: “A minor child deserves privacy
and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your
very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it.” So what you had was the first lady defending
her youngest child, the 13-year-old Barron Trump, saying that that was out of line. The vice president also said that this was
really a new low for this witness. Now, again, she apologized, but she was also
criticizing President Trump, essentially saying, I’m going to apologize, but the president
should apologize too. JUDY WOODRUFF: Interesting that the first
lady was pulled into this. And, Lisa, finally back to you. We know the committee took several breaks
today to cast votes. So there was more going on in the House of
Representatives today beyond this Judiciary Committee hearing. LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. We’re still waiting to see what the next steps
are. We do expect more hearings. Our reporting is there will be some next week. We just don’t know when or who. But, yes, I really want to stress there were
other things to talk about that the House is doing, ironically, on a bipartisan fashion. Look at the three bills that the House passed
just in the last day, Judy, one at the top, criminal justice reform for elderly prisoners
in the federal system. This would allow prisoners of a certain age
more opportunity for home release. Second, there was a bill that was passed that
would sort of rectify a problem in the way citizenship is handled for military kids and
kids of State Department employees who are overseas. That was passed. And then, thirdly, Judy, something I think
everyone can probably agree on, but it’s taken a long time to get through Congress, a bill
that would help sort of limit robo-calls, give people and also carriers more power against
robo-calls. That passed. And that’s going to the president. That happened just today while the impeachment
hearing was happening. So, Congress is getting some things done on
a bipartisan basis, even if they’re not really talking about it much. JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot of people are going to
be happy about the robo-calls. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, I think so. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: Lisa Desjardins reporting for
us all day long at the Capitol, Yamiche Alcindor reporting from the White House, thank you
both. And now back in the studio with me are two
legal experts who’ve been watching the hearings all day with us. They are Sol Wisenberg. He was the deputy independent counsel during
the Whitewater investigation, in which he personally conducted grand jury questioning
of President Bill Clinton. And Frank Bowman, he is one of the experts
who submitted testimony on the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors to this House
Judiciary Committee — or, rather, I should say, the committee during the Clinton impeachment
period. He currently teaches at the University of
Missouri School of Law and at Georgetown Law. He’s also the author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.” Hello to both of you. Frank Bowman, Sol Wisenberg, good to have
you still with us tonight. Let me start with you, Sol Wisenberg. The Democrats had this hearing today in an
effort to bolster their argument that the president has committed offenses that are
worthy of removing him from office, in other words, that rise to the level of impeachment. How far did they go in making that case? SOL WISENBERG, Former Federal Prosecutor:
Not very far. I think it’s — at best, it’s a draw. I think it was a big mistake to limit the
Republicans to one scholar, because that scholar was Jonathan Turley, who’s been doing this
a long time. He’s very quotable. He’s a real pro. And he was able, because he was the only one,
to give more of a flow in his answers and to have more time to respond. They really have two problems here, as I see
it, based on what happened today. One is that the hearings are rushed, have
been rushed. Articles haven’t been drawn up yet, intelligence
report just issued 24 hours prior to the hearing. And, two, if you were going to impeach a president
for non-criminal high crimes and misdemeanors, it better be big and it better be systemic. And I just don’t think they made those points,
though, in reality, each side is going to think they won. JUDY WOODRUFF: Frank Bowman, how do you see
it? How well did the Democrats do it at making
their case today? FRANK BOWMAN, Georgetown Law School: I would
say two things. One, I think it was an error for them to have
a hearing of this kind until they had decided what the scope of their inquiry is going to
be, the scope of potential articles of impeachment, and the theories on which they were going
to proceed. Unfortunately, we started this hearing with
uncertainty on that point, sort of a smorgasbord of possible impeachable offenses. And that made it less effective than it might
have been. That having been said, I think I disagree
with Sol to this extent. I think the experts called by the Democrats
made a very solid case, explaining, first of all, how the Constitution works with respect
to impeachment, explaining in particular that what happened here was plainly an abuse of
power by the president of the United States, and also that his behavior in response to
the congressional investigation amounts to obstruction of justice, which is, in itself,
an impeachable offense. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you get at the question
I wanted to ask both of you. And that is, of the potential grounds for
impeachment, potential rationale for impeachment, whether it’s abuse of power, abuse of the
office, whether it’s bribery, which came up today, obstruction of justice, or obstruction
of Congress, did any — did the arguments for any one of those, Sol Wisenberg, you think
— where those made more effectively than for the others? SOL WISENBERG: Not particularly. Again, you have got the country pretty evenly
divided on this. And so you need something really, really major
to have happened. And I don’t think that it did. FRANK BOWMAN: Well, if Sol means you need
something major to have happened in this hearing to have moved public opinion, I think that’s
probably right. And I think that public opinion is probably
sufficiently well-rooted that nothing that happened here would change that. On the other hand, if what Sol means is that
there needs to be something big that happened that Mr. Trump did that would merit his impeachment,
I think this — that the matters pertaining to Ukraine are plainly very large, indeed. We not only have an abuse of presidential
power, but we have it in a context where he’s misusing his power for personal ends, and
where he’s using it — misusing his power against a vulnerable country. He’s misusing his power in a way that damages
national security interest. That’s pretty big stuff. JUDY WOODRUFF: If — is what’s lacking here
— I mean, coming back to your point, Sol Wisenberg, is it a lack of facts to back up
these — the case for any one of these potential articles? What is it that the Democrats haven’t provided
yet? SOL WISENBERG: Well, to quote Professor Turley,
I think they need a larger foundation. Clearly, President Trump engaged in wrongdoing
here. It was an abuse of power. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the Ukraine matter? SOL WISENBERG: Yes. But it alone, I don’t believe it alone is
impeachable, because he would be in a position to say it’s a one-off. And you can’t just have five or six or seven
grab bags. You have got to have — like I say, it’s either
got to be systemic or something that’s obviously criminal. Now, I think you may have that with the obstruction
portion of the Mueller report, but they don’t even seem to know whether or not they’re going
to do that. They seem to be in disarray, the Democrats. JUDY WOODRUFF: Which is something they had
decided earlier not to pursue. But how do you see that, Frank Bowman? What is it that the Democrats would need to
do to make a case if they were going to? FRANK BOWMAN: Well, I think — I think — well,
again, I think they have made the case. The argument from the Republican — arguments
from Republicans are really two. One of them is a complaint about process,
that this is too rushed and so forth and so on. But as a part of that process argument, they’re
claiming, well — and this is really actually Professor Turley’s argument on behalf of Republicans
— is, you can’t proceed because the investigation isn’t yet complete. He doesn’t really deny that, if proven, what
happened in Ukraine is abuse of power and would be impeachable. He doesn’t really deny that. What he basically says, well, you haven’t
actually proven it yet. But, of course, the reason that all the I’s
haven’t been dotted and all the T’s haven’t been crossed is simply because the witnesses
closest to Mr. Trump, the people who could actually say, without having to rely on any
inferences at all, Trump ordered this or that, those people didn’t come down because Trump
ordered them not to. That, in and of itself, in my view, and as
Professor Gerhardt and others testified, is an impeachable offense. But it’s a point that the Republicans continually
to want elide, which is to say, they want to ignore — they want to say the evidence
is incomplete, but they refuse to acknowledge the fact that the evidence is incomplete because
the president is refusing to produce it. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is refusing, which is something
that we discussed today, Sol Wisenberg. And we also talked about how, going forward,
the Democrats are going to need to streamline, in your view — one of you was telling me
this — are going to need to streamline the case that they’re making. SOL WISENBERG: Yes. And I think one of the ways they can do that,
strictly as a matter of tactics, I think their best bet is to have the Ukraine incident and
to have something from the obstruction section of the Mueller report, because, again, you
don’t have to have a crime there. But there was really serious misbehavior in
the — identified and that really no one can — no one can question in the obstruction
section of the Mueller report. And, by the way, if McGahn ever is allowed
to testify… JUDY WOODRUFF: This is Don McGahn, the president’s
former White House… (CROSSTALK) SOL WISENBERG: The president’s former White
House counsel. Even though he’s a very conservative person,
and was pro-Trump, he will be a devastating witness, potentially, against the president. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it is — it was a day
of — it was a different day, not your typical congressional hearing, but a day for us to
go back, look at the Constitution, look at what the founders said, and what they intended. Thank you both very much, Frank Bowman, Sol
Wisenberg. We appreciate it. SOL WISENBERG: Thanks for having us. FRANK BOWMAN: Great pleasure to be here. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: President
Trump headed home to the impeachment fight in Washington, after some final jabs at the
NATO summit in London. He called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
two-faced for mocking Mr. Trump to other leaders. Still, the alliance declared unity, at least
on the issue of confronting Russia. We will have the details after the news summary. New doubts arose today over a possible U.S.-China
trade deal. Beijing sharply criticized the U.S. Congress
over a bill blasting China’s mass detention of ethnic Muslims. The measure threatened sanctions. China’s Foreign Ministry warned that the move
could affect overall relations, including the ongoing trade negotiations. HUA CHUNYING, Spokeswoman, Chinese Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (through translator): China maintains a consistent position on the trade
issue. We believe only the spirits of equality and
mutual respect can help us reach a mutually beneficial deal. But no one should underestimate our resolution
to safeguard national sovereignty. Any attempt to hamper China’s development
using issues of Hong Kong or Xinjiang is just wishful thinking. JUDY WOODRUFF: The Chinese also objected to
President Trump suggesting yesterday that a trade deal might be delayed until after
the 2020 presidential election. Today, Mr. Trump today said the trade talks
were going very well. Meanwhile, the trade agreement Mr. Trump reached
with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will take effect in January, after it won approval
in the Japanese Parliament today. The deal was agreed to in September, easing
Japanese tariffs on U.S. farm products. Further talks may address a U.S. tariff on
cars imported from Japan. Top officials in Iran urged today that jailed
protesters be treated with what they called Islamic mercy. The jailings came during a crackdown on demonstrations
over gas price hikes. In a televised speech, President Hassan Rouhani
claimed again that the U.S. helped foment the protests. But he said some who took part were innocent. HASSAN ROUHANI, Iranian President (through
translator): Those who were not guilty in this regard, or those whose crime is not major,
they have to be treated with mercy, and they should be released. JUDY WOODRUFF: Separately, Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that protesters who were killed should be considered martyrs
if they had no role in instigating the unrest. He urged that their families be compensated. Amnesty International says that at least 200
people were killed by security forces. The European Union announced today that it
will likely miss its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bloc has been aiming for a 40 percent
reduction by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. Today, E.U. environmental officials said the
cut will be closer to 30 percent. Back in this country, the Roman Catholic bishop
of Buffalo, New York, resigned over his handling of alleged sexual misconduct by clergy. Bishop Richard Malone said that the diocese
would be better served by someone else. The Vatican had just finished an investigation
into the abuse allegations. The Buffalo Diocese is named in 220 lawsuits
over the claims. U.S. Attorney General William Barr drew fire
today for his latest comments on policing. In a speech on Tuesday, he said that Americans
should stop protesting against police and show them more respect. He warned that those who do not back local
officers could wind up doing without their services. WILLIAM BARR, U.S. Attorney General: They
have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement
deserves. And if communities don’t give that support
and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need. JUDY WOODRUFF: Barr didn’t specify which communities
he meant. But civil liberties and human rights activists
charged that he was targeting minorities and others who protest police brutality and racially
motivated misconduct. Georgia’s Republican governor tapped business
executive Kelly Loeffler today to fill a U.S. Senate seat. She replaces fellow Republican Johnny Isakson,
who has Parkinson’s disease and is resigning at month’s end. Congressman Doug Collins also wanted the Senate
seat. He’s one of President Trump’s biggest supporters. As the Senate gets a new member, the U.S.
House is losing another veteran. Democrat Denny Heck of Washington state announced
today he is retiring. He said his work on the House Intelligence
Committee and the impeachment inquiry had worn him down. Heck is the ninth House Democrat not to seek
reelection, along with 20 Republicans. Former President Jimmy Carter is back home
in Plains, Georgia, tonight, after his latest hospital stay. He had been treated for a urinary tract infection. Just last month, he had surgery to relieve
pressure on the brain from bleeding caused by a fall. Mr. Carter is 95 years old. And on Wall Street, stocks recouped some of
their losses from recent days. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 147
points to close at 27649. The Nasdaq rose 46 points, and the S&P 500
added 19. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: NATO at a
crossroads — President Trump meets with allies at a contentious moment; the new Trump administration
rule that will bar hundreds of thousands of people from receiving food stamps; and on
the hunt for one of Earth’s surprising climate change winners, wild mushrooms. It was intended to be a meeting to celebrate
a critical military alliance. But, as special correspondent Ryan Chilcote
reports from London, it was instead divisions on display. RYAN CHILCOTE: NATO leaders may have been
marching to the beat of different drummers yesterday, but all 29 fell in line for this
morning’s group photo to mark the alliance’s 70th anniversary. Pretending NATO is a happy family was never
going to be easy, though, after yesterday’s public airing of grievances and this private
conversation caught on camera among the queen’s daughter and the leaders of the U.K., France,
the Netherlands, and Canada, in which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to mock the
president. JUSTIN TRUDEAU, Canadian Prime Minister: He
was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference. You just watched his team’s jaws drop to the
floor. RYAN CHILCOTE: They may not been the only
jaws to drop. In yesterday’s meeting, the president openly
questioned whether NATO should defend countries that don’t pay their fair share on defense,
while adding Canada was, in the president’s words, only semi-delinquent. This afternoon, the president was asked about
the candid moment during a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Well, he’s two-faced. And, honestly, with Trudeau, he’s a nice guy. I find him to be a very nice guy. But the truth is that I called him out on
the fact that he’s not paying 2 percent, and I guess he’s not very happy about it. RYAN CHILCOTE: Trudeau denied that. JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I have had a number of good
conversations with the president over the course of this — this day and yesterday. I have a very good relationship with President
Trump and his team. This is a concern the United States legitimately
has, that every country needs to step up in different ways. RYAN CHILCOTE: Two percent is the amount NATO
countries committed to spend on their defense and weapons, like this armored vehicle NATO
has on display here back in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea. NATO’s 29-member countries have five more
years to reach the target. A handful of them already have. Today, the president dined with them. DONALD TRUMP: Eight countries, plus us, plus
the United States, that are fully paid. They met the goal of 2 percent. We call them the 2 percenters. RYAN CHILCOTE: Germany isn’t a 2 percenter,
but the German chancellor and President Trump had a very civil conversation. Trade did come up. DONALD TRUMP: It’s been a little tough for
the United States. We have had a very bad imbalance for many,
many years, for — for decades, actually. And we’re discussing that right now. RYAN CHILCOTE: President Trump also had an
unscheduled meeting with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at which news cameras
were not present. After an October phone call, Mr. Trump announced
a U.S. pullout from Northern Syria. Turkey then invaded, and Mr. Trump threatened
Erdogan with economic ruin if he went too far. Mr. Trump spoke later. DONALD TRUMP: And we pulled our soldiers out. We took over the oil. We have soldiers where the oil is. And that’s the way I like it. And they can police their own border. And that’s what they’re doing. They can use other countries if they want,
if they want to spend the time and energy. RYAN CHILCOTE: After two days and well over
two hours of impromptu press conferences, the president tweeted that he’d done enough
and canceled a formal news conference. As he left London, the White House press office
released a triumphant video record of his NATO trip, and the president wished everyone
safe travels, and perhaps good riddance. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Ryan Chilcote
in Watford, England. JUDY WOODRUFF: And late today, as the president
flew home to the U.S., he tweeted: “The fake news media is doing everything possible to
belittle my very successful trip to London for NATO. I got along great with the NATO leaders.” The Trump administration is making some big
changes to the food stamp program. Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
finalized a new rule expected to end food stamps for nearly 700,000 people. Now known as SNAP, the food stamp program
helps feed more than 36 million Americans. The new measure is the first of three initiatives
to curtail those benefits. The administration, which is scaling back
the size of social safety net programs, says the changes will save the government billions
of dollars. Amna Nawaz has the story. AMNA NAWAZ: Judy, the new rule enforces tougher
work requirements. And states also will have less flexibility
to exempt able-bodied adults without children or dependents from those requirements. The other proposed changes will affect even
more people, dropping roughly three million people from getting food aid when all is said
and done. As he announced the latest rule, which goes
into effect next April, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said he’s trying to restore the
system to — quote — “provide assistance through difficult times, not a way of life.” Elaine Waxman studies this program and has
done her own analyses for the nonpartisan Urban Institute. Elaine Waxman, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” ELAINE WAXMAN, Urban Institute: Thank you
for having me. AMNA NAWAZ: So, the argument from the administration
is: The economy is doing very well. It’s improved dramatically. Unemployment is at historic lows. Many of these able-bodied adults without children
or dependents don’t need this assistance anymore. What do you say to that? ELAINE WAXMAN: It’s true the economy has improved
a great deal, but not for all people and not in all places. And national or even state level unemployment
statistics can mask a great deal of variation in opportunity. States have had the ability to apply for waivers
from these work requirements and time limits when they felt there were insufficient jobs. And it will be much harder to do that now. Some of the individuals affected by this change
are among the most vulnerable. They have very, very low incomes. They often work in unstable jobs. And unlike the characterization of the secretary
today, they don’t use SNAP as a way of life. They turn to SNAP during periods of unstable
employment. And the vast majority of them work when they
can. AMNA NAWAZ: Just to clarify a point here,
the definition of able-bodied adults, this implies it will only affect single adults. Is that your understanding? ELAINE WAXMAN: So, the term able-bodied adults
without dependents is an interesting one. It is for single adults, but they’re not all
able-bodied. We know from research that many of them may
have significant physical or mental health issues that create barriers for work. And they may be without dependents, but that
doesn’t mean they don’t have children. They may be noncustodial parents. And whenever they’re struggling, we know they
have fewer resources available to provide support to those children. AMNA NAWAZ: I do want to ask you about the
numbers, though. It’s important to provide some context. If you take a look at the last 20 years of
the enrollment in those food stamp programs, take a look at this now from 2000 to 2019. It is safe to say it is still twice the number
today that it was back in 2000, although it hit a peak up in 2015, about 45 million, down
to 36 million now. What’s important to understand about these
numbers? Why haven’t we come down to pre-recession
numbers? ELAINE WAXMAN: So, the first thing that’s
important to understand is that we still have more than 37 million people who struggle with
food insecurity, despite a better economy. So, that suggests there’s still a very significant
need for support, even as many people are able to regain employment. We don’t quite know what the employment challenges
are, but we know that many people may have a criminal justice record that make it more
difficult to get employment. They may, in fact, have limited education,
may only have a high school diploma or less. The unemployment rate for those people is
not the same. And so we know, in general, in the last 20
years, the labor market is much more unstable. There’s been a rise of gig economy, of people
working multiple jobs. And I think that’s reflected in the numbers
we see today. AMNA NAWAZ: So you’re saying just because
people have a job doesn’t necessarily mean that they are able to provide for themselves,
and still might need food aid? ELAINE WAXMAN: Absolutely. And we know that many people on SNAP do work. AMNA NAWAZ: So let me ask you about those
waivers now, because you mentioned not all communities are the same. States could issue them, so that even people
— so people could continue to qualify for food assistance. What do we know about where they’re issued? ELAINE WAXMAN: So, the waivers have historically
been issued in many different parts of the country. About three dozen states have used them either
recently across the state or at least in some counties. The administration will now limit the ability
of those waivers to be provided unless the unemployment rate for 24 months is 6 percent,
and also if it’s above 20 percent of the national average. That might not sound that dramatic, but here’s
the point; 24-month average means that if unemployment shifts rapidly, states won’t
be able to respond to that. So, we’re concerned that there may be scenarios
where an area could have an unemployment rate of, say, 9 percent and still not qualify for
a waiver. AMNA NAWAZ: Let me ask you about two of the
other rules we mentioned earlier, because this new rule goes into effect in April. There are two more potential rules on the
books. One basically does, what they say, closing
a loophole, right, that they say allow households without certain incomes or assets to qualify. It’s — the household income would be at $50,000
a year for a family of four — that is 200 percent of the poverty level — or households
that have more than $2,250 in total assets. That number would be higher for disabled adults. That is one rule that’s proposed at the moment. There’s a second rule as well that could come
into effect. And that would just cut the overall food stamp
budget. It would cut it by $4.5 billion from the program
over five years. They do that by adjusting the eligibility
standards. When you look at those two proposed rules,
in conjunction with the new rule today, what would be the combined effect of those rules? ELAINE WAXMAN: And that’s a really important
question, because when we look at them individually, they may be concerning, but over the course
of a year, we have had three major proposed changes. And we estimate that somewhere around 3.7
million people will lose benefits. And that’s not including the almost one million
children that will lose a direct link to the free lunch program at school. That is something that the administration
has acknowledged is a consequence of the rule you mentioned changing eligibility. AMNA NAWAZ: Very briefly, Elaine, the administration
says this will save money, we’re saving billions of dollars by doing this. Isn’t that true? ELAINE WAXMAN: I think it will save money. And I wouldn’t challenge that, in the short
term, and perhaps in the SNAP program. What we know about SNAP is that it reduces
food insecurity, it reduces poverty, and that people who participate in SNAP may have lower
health care expenditures. With all things being equal, if fewer people
are on SNAP, we can expect those poor outcomes to increase. We may see increased expenses in the Medicaid
program and changes over the long term. So, to save money is a relative concept. AMNA NAWAZ: Elaine Waxman of the Urban Institute,
thank you very much for being here. ELAINE WAXMAN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will be back shortly
with a look at how mushroom hunters are sprouting up and dealing with the effects of climate
change. But, first, take a moment to hear from your
local PBS station. It’s a chance to offer your support, which
helps keep programs like ours on the air. For those stations staying with us, Jeffrey
Brown sat down with one of the nation’s preeminent biographers, Robert Caro, back in April. Caro, who has profiled figures from Robert
Moses to Lyndon Baines Johnson, has written a memoir about what he does. It’s titled, simply, “Working.” JEFFREY BROWN: “Power Reveals,” two words
on the wall of an office in Midtown Manhattan. ROBERT CARO, Author, “Working”: You do all
the research, and then you sit here and you say, well, what is this book about? JEFFREY BROWN: This is the inner sanctum of
one of the nation’s leading historians, Robert Caro, now sharing some of the lessons he’s
learned over a more-than-six-decade career. ROBERT CARO: I learned it book by book as
I went along. I said, well, I think I have learned some
stuff. And I just want to pass it along, people who
are trying to find out the truth about things. JEFFREY BROWN: Caro began his working life
in the 1950s and ’60s as a reporter, including for Newsday. His first book, “The Power Broker,” published
in 1974, chronicled how an unelected official, master builder Robert Moses, became the most
powerful figure in New York and shaped the city’s destiny. Since 1977, Caro has been writing “The Years
of Lyndon Johnson.” Four books have been published. And the fifth and final volume has been his
labor of love for 10 years. Along the way, he’s won two Pulitzer Prizes
and two National Book Awards. ROBERT CARO: So, I type them up every night. JEFFREY BROWN: And gained a reputation for
dogged research, brilliant analysis, and, more than 40 years into the Johnson project,
giving his works all the time they need. When ROBERT CARO: You know, when I was a newspaper
man, I remember I hated having to write an article while there was still questions I
wanted to ask. When I started to do books, I just started
to say, I don’t want to start writing until I have got all my questions answered, and
it takes a long time. JEFFREY BROWN: But do you ever have all your
questions answered? ROBERT CARO: No. (LAUGHTER) ROBERT CARO: This says, John Connally at his
Floresville ranch. JEFFREY BROWN: Now, at 83, Caro is out with
something different, a book of new essays and earlier pieces that take us behind the
scenes of his work. It’s called “Working: Researching, Interviewing,
Writing.” One insight, the man considered a leading
biographer doesn’t think he’s writing biographies at all. ROBERT CARO: I never had any interest in telling
the life of the great man. And I think of them as studies in political
power. JEFFREY BROWN: And what does power mean to
you? ROBERT CARO: It’s got such an influence on
our lives that people don’t think about, from Social Security and Medicare, to where is
a bridge located or a highway located, what happened to the neighborhoods that had to
be destroyed? It’s what government can do for people, both
for good or for ill. JEFFREY BROWN: And so the unelected, but hugely
powerful Robert Moses, shaping the nation’s largest city for more than 40 years, without
any public accountability, and Lyndon Johnson, rising from dirt-poor ranching country in
Texas, first elected to Congress in what Caro shows was a rigged election, a master of the
Senate as majority leader, and president who forged major civil rights and other legislation,
before being brought down by the catastrophe of Vietnam. Caro acknowledges his author wife, Ina, the
only other person to help research his books. The couple uprooted life in New York to live
in the Hill Country of Texas to better understand the place and people who shaped Johnson. ROBERT CARO: I said to Ina, my wife: “You
know, I’m not understanding these people. And, therefore, I’m not understanding Lyndon
Johnson. We’re going to have to move here.” Ina said — she loves France. She said, “Why can’t you do a biography of
Napoleon?” (LAUGHTER) ROBERT CARO: But we moved there. JEFFREY BROWN: In the LBJ Library in Austin,
Caro did as much as humanly possible what an earlier editor had told him, turn every
page — that is, look at every document, even if it seems irrelevant. Only years later does the writing begin. ROBERT CARO: And then I go to the typewriter,
and I write a lot of drafts on the typewriter. JEFFREY BROWN: An old Smith Corona. ROBERT CARO: An old — they stopped making
that Smith Corona 25 years ago. JEFFREY BROWN: On the walls of his office,
pages of the latest chapter he’s working on for the fifth and final volume on Johnson. ROBERT CARO: Right now, he’s appointing Thurgood
Marshall to the Supreme Court. So, I’m right up to writing a line where I
say: “Thurgood Marshall said it right. You didn’t wait for the times, Mr. President. You made the times.” JEFFREY BROWN: In an adjacent room, just some
of the hundreds of files of interviews, clippings and notes gathered over the years, and more
insight into how Caro works.” ROBERT CARO: I take the interviews and a stenographer’s
notebook. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes. ROBERT CARO: And my rule is that I type it
up every night before I go to bed, no matter how tired I am, because I want to remember
the expressions on the face. So, we have… JEFFREY BROWN: The expressions on the face,
I mean, so that kind of detail? ROBERT CARO: Yes. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes, because… ROBERT CARO: I think you learn — I think
you learn a lot. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes. Altogether, a kind of master class in interviewing,
researching, writing, and, perhaps most relevant to today, how to think about facts and truth. ROBERT CARO: There is no truth. It’s just ridiculous. But there are — let’s say you wanted to find
out how Lyndon Johnson ran the Senate as a majority leader. The more facts about that, the more you find
out, what did he do with the unanimous consent agreements, who did he put on committees,
how did he change the seniority system, and 1,000 facts, the more of those facts you get,
if you just describe the facts, the closer you’re coming to whatever truth there is. JEFFREY BROWN: So are you concerned today
watching what’s happening with the — with facts being contested everywhere you go? ROBERT CARO: Yes. I don’t think there’s anything more serious
for a democracy than what’s happening right now, where, for many reasons, we’re losing
belief in facts and truth. JEFFREY BROWN: Because? What’s lost? ROBERT CARO: Well, if you have no confidence
that anything is true or correct, what does a democracy base its actions on? JEFFREY BROWN: Robert Caro’s book “Working”
is out now. As to volume five of his epic LBJ biography,
well, we saw the final pages, but only at a distance. Caro told us, we too will have to wait. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown
in New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mushroom hunters have fanned
out across forest floors for hundreds of years searching for what can be lucrative and delicious
finds. But is climate change affecting these fungi? From the Cronkite School of Journalism at
Arizona State University, Melanie Porter found weather change, at least, isn’t all bad news
for these foragers. WOMAN: It’s like I said. It looks like it’s a shallot. MELANIE PORTER: A delicacy found on the forest
floor only a mushroom lover would treasure. WOMAN: These, usually, you need like a saw. MELANIE PORTER: The Arizona Mushroom Society
has a mission to provide educational and scientific opportunities for members to learn about mushrooms
in a hands-on environment. WOMAN: Just blow the spores. MELANIE PORTER: The Society hosts dozens of
workshops throughout the year. MAN: Could turn out to be a four-hour, five-hour
hike down the mountain. MELANIE PORTER: Members also have the opportunity
to trek to areas across Arizona to look for precious fungi. FABIAN MONJE, Arizona Mushroom Society: It’s
the adult idea of a Easter egg hunt. MELANIE PORTER: Mushrooms can be used in teas,
broths and medicinal remedies. WOMAN: These are bioluminescent. MELANIE PORTER: But it takes a careful eye
to determine which are poisonous and which are safe to eat. This group knows enough about mushroom species
to understand not to eat them before they’re properly identified. WOMAN: This one, I believe we are calling
(INAUDIBLE). MELANIE PORTER: And these mushrooms also bring
balance to the forest. FABIAN MONJE: The ecosystem, we need the mushrooms
just like the bees need the flowers. The mushrooms provide the mycelium, the mycelium
on the mushrooms, for the trees. MELANIE PORTER: Fabian Monje is a foray leader
for the Arizona Mushroom Society, and he’s seen firsthand how mushrooms reflect a changing
climate. FABIAN MONJE: Mushrooms come and go with the
season and how much rain we get. And we had a great winter. It could have had a very productive summer
if it had continued. But, you know, you can’t have it both times. MELANIE PORTER: And while these mushroom hunters
see climate change happening locally, research shows that, globally, fungi could adapt to
the changing climate. WOMAN: Beautiful. MELANIE PORTER: One study from Spain found
that wild mushrooms thrive when there are changes in temperatures and moisture across
a growing season. In fact, they found climate change had no
negative long-term effect on mushrooms. It actually helped produce more mushrooms
by increasing their fruiting and growing season. WOMAN: Underside of the gills are even brighter
purple. MELANIE PORTER: Based on the weather in this
part of Arizona, foragers said this season was decent, but not the best. RAY YOUNGHANS, Arizona Mushroom Society: Some
years are definitely spottier than others. It has not been the juiciest year. MELANIE PORTER: The study found that these
forest gems do well in areas with more rain at the beginning of the season and warmer
temperatures at the end, like some Arizona mountains. FABIAN MONJE: Every monsoon season is different
in different areas. But that time is a very small frame and a
very small window. MELANIE PORTER: Mushroom hunters are taking
advantage of this window of opportunity by hitting the trails all around the state. WOMAN: Mmm, delicacy. MELANIE PORTER: They’re hopeful that the mushroom
crop will continue to be fruitful. ELIZABETH BILODEAU, Arizona Mushroom Society:
We are just hoping that our season still isn’t over yet. When the temperatures start to drop, the mushrooms
hide. MELANIE PORTER: But they’re prepared to say
goodbye to these delicacies until next season. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Melanie Porter
with Cronkite News in Tucson, Arizona. JUDY WOODRUFF: Who knew? A benefit from climate change. There you have it. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again right here tomorrow
evening. For all of us at “The PBS NewsHour,” thank you, and we’ll see
you soon.

The Newest Virtual Sport Sweeping the Nation | The Daily Show


Hi. I’m Michael Kosta. And before I started
covering the news on cable TV, I was a successful
professional athlete. What sport? Tennis. Duh. I was ranked 864 in the world, so I was a natural
to investigate the newest sport
sweeping the nation. Video games? Competitive video gaming,
known as esports, is booming. There’s even a training center with five training rooms
and six locker rooms. The Olympics are considering
adding esports. KOSTA:
I went to California to a so-called training center
in someone’s garage to talk with these Ethletes about why video games
isn’t a sport. What the hell is this? This was the Alienware
Training Facility for eSports’ Team Liquid, complete
with scrimmage stations, a war room, PR department, a team coach,
and even an in-house chef. The team’s star,
whose name is Taco, was acquired
from Brazil’s top team. This is a real sport. You call yourself an athlete? Yes, of course. We compete,
we go to tournaments, we travel a lot,
we got some money. What does an eSport athlete, Mr. Taco, do every day? -Just practice.
-Yeah. I’m a former professional tennis
player. That-That’s what I would call,
like, a-a real sport. There is an opponent, and you would relish
the opportunity to defeat them with your racket. What do you actually have
to show for what you’re doing? Yeah, but, come on, I-I have
a-a really strong finger. -A finger?
-Yes. This finger have killed
at least one million people. -That finger’s killed
one million people? -Yes. At least. Taco is referring to his kills
in Counter-Strike, a game where guys shoot
other guys before a bomb goes off,
apparently. How is this a sport? I won the Ann Arbor Junior Open
at 11 years old. How hard could it be
to pound on these dorks? What are you staring at, huh?
I’m gonna whup your ass next. -TACO: To the left, to the left.
-To the left? You think– Oh, Jesus Christ! I shot him four times.
He shoots me once and I die? These games were clearly rigged
against more muscular athletes. Aw, Jesus. How do I keep dying, Taco? But who’s paying
for these cucks to sit around all day
and mash buttons? Apparently, guys
like three-time NBA champion Rick Fox, owner
of eSports franchise Echo Fox. What are you doing
with these nerds, man? You’re a real athlete. And so are they. What the shit
are you talking about? Me and you,
we played real sports, you know? You can see our balls
in our pants when we play. Were you an athlete? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I played professional tennis. I was ranked 864 in the world. Oh, okay. You win– you win
a couple of tournaments? No, I didn’t win the
tournaments, but… (stammers) How much money did you make
in your career? I made $11,000, about. But there’s-there’s
a whole system, and I-I was, you know, right in
there, playing as a pro athlete. Oh, okay. In our era, I think there was no shame
around pursuing a career, uh, in professional sports
because you could get a scholarship to college,
which, by the way, you can get
as an eSport player now. Uh, there’s a number of colleges
that are building eSports arenas
on their campuses. -This is all great,
-Yeah. but let’s get down
to brass tacks here. How much do these ethletes make? Probably the best, top player in
the world in one of our games, he makes probably $800,000. What? And while players like Taco
made over $800K last year, other top gamers
earned upwards of $4 million. And thanks to advertising
and sponsorships, revenues will top $1.4 billion
this year! $1.4 billion?! Are you kidding me?! But what really makes it legit is Vegas sportsbooks
take bets on it. So I did what anyone would do, sold my dog for 3,000 bucks and put it all on Team Liquid
at the Barclays Center. I’ll buy him back after I win. Amsterdam. London.
Cologne. Montreal. I don’t give a shit!
You’re in Brooklyn now, baby! This is the Barclays Center. This is where champions play. And the Brooklyn Nets. We’re gonna heal as a team or we’re gonna die
as individuals. Did I make myself clear? -Yeah. -Yeah.
-Yeah. -Yeah. Come on! All right, ignore all that, and
we just follow the game plan. -Let’s go, guys.
-It was time for Team Liquid to win in the semifinals
and make me some money. -ANNOUNCER: Team Liquid!
-(cheering) Let’s go, baby. Let’s go! It definitely felt
like a real sport. These gaming gladiators
were ready for battle. ANNOUNCER:
Ladies and gentlemen, the moment you’ve all been waiting for,
Team Liquid versus Gambit! Click your mouse! They flexed their fingers. They clicked their buttons. They adjusted their headsets. Come on! -Liquid! Taco! Liquid! Taco!
-Taco! Taco! Hey, let’s start the wave,
starting over here! (whoops) (cheering) Watch the stairs. Watch the– -Oh!
-Oh! They fought to outmaneuver,
evade, and shoot
their opponents’ heads off. And just when it looked like
Team Liquid was on the ropes, they rallied. -Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
-(cheering) ANNOUNCER: The next round
finalist is Team Liquid! That’s what I’m talking about! That’s what I’m talking about,
baby! (whoops) Number one! Team Liquid! Are video games a sport? Who cares? I’m rich. Time to try to buy my dog back.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 29, 2019

December 2, 2019 | Articles, Blog | No Comments

PBS NewsHour full episode November 29, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: The prime minister
of Iraq announces he’s resigning, after weeks of protests that have left hundreds dead. Then: on the ground in Afghanistan — as the
U.S. resumes peace talks with the Taliban, what Afghan women stand to lose if the militant
group returns to power. And a death in the Amazon warehouse, an accident
and an investigation at one of the world’s largest companies. Plus: Waste not — finding sources of renewable
energy in surprising places. DENISE BARSTOW, Barstow’s Longview Farm: A
hundred pounds of cow manure per cow per day, and we’re treating it through this system
and getting electricity. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The growing protest movement
in Iraq has claimed dozens more new casualties today. The prime minister says that he will step
down, giving in to public demands. But, in the streets, the killing goes on,
security forces shooting down scores more protesters. Foreign affairs correspondent Nick Schifrin
reports on this critical day. NICK SCHIFRIN: On the streets of Baghdad,
protesters today declared victory. They have demonstrated for two months, and
many gave their lives. They warned that sacrifice would be worth
it only if today sparked fundamental change. MAN (through translator): We consider this
as the first step. We demand the resignation of all lawmakers. NICK SCHIFRIN: Adil Abdul-Mahdi was a consensus
candidate who struggled to deliver promised reforms. In early October, leaderless demonstrations
rallied against 15 years of failed governance, unemployment, and corruption, and called for
the entire political class’ ouster. They also criticized Iran’s influence. Today, they burned the Iranian flag, and Wednesday
night torched the Iranian Consulate in Najaf. In response, security services have used deadly
force. More than 400 protesters have been killed. The violence spread to Iraq’s south, threatening
to destabilize the country. That’s why, today, the spokesman for Iraq’s
most powerful Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, spoke to followers
and strongly suggested the government step aside. AHMED AL-SAFI, Spokesman for Grand Ayatollah
Sistani (through translator): We call upon the House of Representatives, from which this
current government has emerged, to reconsider its options. NICK SCHIFRIN: A few hours later, Abdul-Mahdi’s
office released a statement saying he would step down, so Iraq could — quote — “avoid
slipping into a cycle of violence, chaos, and devastation.” FEISAL ISTRABADI, Former Deputy Iraqi Ambassador
to United Nations: The initial response of some security forces or militias to begin
to engage the demonstrators with violence really caused things to spiral out of his
hands very quickly. And so his remaining an office seemed to have
no particular logic to it. It seemed to be a situation where he could
not control the streets anymore. NICK SCHIFRIN: Feisal Istrabadi is an academic
and former Iraqi diplomat. He says Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation is unprecedented,
and will spark difficult horse-trading in a deeply divided Parliament. FEISAL ISTRABADI: You have the same political
parties who have been at an impasse for the last year-and-a-half having to form another
government. We are in a state of deadlock probably for
sometime to come. NICK SCHIFRIN: Protesters will be watching
to ensure today was the beginning, not the end, of the reforms they demand. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Stabbing
attacks jolted Britain and the Netherlands at the start of the holiday season. In the first incident, a man killed two people
near London Bridge, before he was shot and killed by police. Officials said the man was wearing what looked
like a suicide bomb vest, but it turned out to be a fake. What drove the attack was unclear. NEIL BASU, U.K. Head of Counterterrorism Operations:
I’m now in a position to confirm that it has been declared a terrorist incident. But I must stress, we retain an open mind
as to any motive. It would be inappropriate to speculate further
at this time. JUDY WOODRUFF: Hours later, in The Hague,
three people, including children, were stabbed on the Dutch city’s main shopping street. Police said that at least one attacker was
at large and the motive was unclear. In Afghanistan, thousands of people protested
amid alleged fraud — or protested alleged fraud, that is, in a recount of September’s
presidential election. Supporters of candidate Abdullah Abdullah
marched in Kabul. They claimed that fake ballots are being counted. Abdullah is challenging the incumbent President
Ashraf Ghani. But, so far, no results have been announced. Environmental protesters staged new rallies
around the world today, calling for tougher action on climate change. Thousands marched in 153 countries. Activists in Berlin even swam in a cold river
to protest a government proposal they say is too weak. In East Texas, officials declared that fires
at a chemical plant are now isolated and contained, and they lifted evacuation orders for 50,000
people. Major explosions erupted at the site on Wednesday,
touching off fires and heavy smoke. The plant owners say that it could take some
time to extinguish the flames entirely. TROY MONK, TPC Group: There’s still going
to be smoke in the air. There are still going to be flames visible
at night. That’s going to be addressed as quickly and
as safely as we possibly can. I would love to tell you that we’d be done
by the end of the day. I wouldn’t be telling you the truth if I made
that statement. JUDY WOODRUFF: The Texas Gulf Coast has suffered
a series of major accidents this year. The region has the nation’s highest concentration
of oil refineries and related plants. The holiday shopping season is officially
under way on this Black Friday, and online shopping is setting records. Retail trackers estimate that shoppers could
spend $7 billion today alone. But critics of consumerism clogged department
stores across Europe today. And protesters rallied outside Amazon’s headquarters
in France. On Wall Street, doubts about traditional retailers
hurt stocks, as trading ended early for the holiday weekend. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 112
points to close at 28051. The Nasdaq fell 39 points, and the S&P 500
slipped 12. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: what the
women of Afghanistan could lose if the Taliban returns to power; investigating the death
of an employee at an Amazon warehouse; waste not, want not — finding renewably energy
in unlikely places; Mark Shields and David Brooks examine the White House response to
the impeachment inquiry; and much more. President Trump returned early this morning
from a surprise trip to Afghanistan, where he said that talks between the U.S. and the
Taliban had restarted. At stake, the prospects for peace in this
conflict-racked nation, but also at stake progress for women there who, when ruled by
the Taliban, could not work, study or even leave the house without a male escort. Special correspondent Jane Ferguson reports. JANE FERGUSON: In one of the toughest countries
in the world to be a woman, this clinic offers a refuge. The Afghan women visiting Dr. Najmussama Shefajo
this morning will get some of the best care in the country. DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO, OB-GYN: This is X-ray
of the uterus and the fallopian tubes. JANE FERGUSON: She is one of Afghanistan’s
top gynecologists, an expert on women’s reproductive health. Dr. Shefajo gave us a tour of her clinic,
full of the latest technology that she imported herself. For the patients that you see, how important
is this sort of equipment? DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: For the patient, we reach
to the diagnosis soon, and there is no need to go out of the country. JANE FERGUSON: So it saves lives? DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: Yes, of course. This is the nose. This is the mouth JANE FERGUSON: To Dr. Shefajo, interaction
with her patients is important. DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: Here, the mother sees
the baby, her own ultrasound. JANE FERGUSON: How do they react? DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: Yes. They are very happy. Right now, they know this is the head, this
is the heart, this is the stomach, because I teach them. JANE FERGUSON: That’s one reason women love
coming here. It would have been absolutely unthinkable
for Afghan women just 20, even 10 years ago to have had this kind of technology. Dr. Shefajo knows that all too well. She began her career delivering babies on
mud floors in Taliban-controlled parts of the country. When you were working under Taliban rule,
did you ever imagine that one day you would have a clinic like this, equipment like this? DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: I was a — I had a hope. JANE FERGUSON: You pictured it? DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: Yes. Yes. JANE FERGUSON: Since the U.S. invasion, Afghan
women like Dr. Shefajo have, through their own hard work and self-belief, built incredible
new lives. That’s why, today, they watch the news anxiously. A major campaign promise by President Trump
was to bring American troops home. And in September, he came close to making
a deal with the Taliban, after more than nine months of negotiations in Qatar, negotiations
where Afghan women quite literally had no seat at the table. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until
their ouster by U.S.-led forces in 2001. That was a deeply cruel time for Afghan women. The Taliban’s harsh interpretation of Islamic
law afforded them virtually no rights. Trump’s deal has fallen apart for now, but
women like Freshta Karim are afraid their rights could still be pushed aside to make
it happen. She’s part of a new generation, educated Afghan
women completely invested in this country’s future. She discovered Afghan children had trouble
getting hold of books to read, so she gathered donations and bought a few old buses, turning
them into mobile libraries. We joined Freshta in one poor neighborhood
of Kabul on her way to a school. FRESHTA KARIM, Activist: It allows them to
have general knowledge and broaden their horizons of life and understanding of world, and inspire
them, inspire them to think about what they want to be, and also understand different
characters’ roles, to put themselves into different characters’ shoe, and start having
an understanding of complex human feelings. And I think this all adds to one’s critical
thinking. JANE FERGUSON: Freshta won a scholarship to
study for a master’s degree in public policy at Oxford University in England. After returning to Afghanistan, she took a
job as an analyst with the government. But her heart was elsewhere. FRESHTA KARIM: And whenever I would work with
children, that would make me happy, because Afghanistan is one of the youngest countries
in the world. And it made so much sense to me to work with
people who will be the future of this country. JANE FERGUSON: How do you keep hopeful and
keep motivated and keep inspired to keep doing this work? FRESHTA KARIM: I think children. We have the responsibility to create that
opportunity for them to meet their potential. JANE FERGUSON: Her potential is at stake,
however, if the Taliban returns to power. FRESHTA KARIM: I think many of us — or at
least I can talk about myself. I might push back for as long as I can, to
resist and to fight for the city that we have built it ourselves. JANE FERGUSON: Outside major cities, much
of life looks similar to the way it did under Taliban rule. Child marriage is rampant, as is violence
against women. It’s in the home that women are most at risk. Those that escape abusive husbands are the
lucky ones. WOMAN (through translator): The day I left
home, my husband had beaten me very badly, and I had injuries on my head. So I left with my children and ran to the
police station. JANE FERGUSON: This young woman, whom we won’t
name for her own safety, is one of them. The police brought her to this shelter. Her husband, she tells us, is a violent drug
addict. WOMAN (through translator): When he was beating
me, I was thinking about how I could run away. But how would I raise the children and keep
them in school? JANE FERGUSON: Amid a climate of fear and
intimidation, even the shelters can be vulnerable places. This one is managed by a U.S.-based charity. And those who run it tell us people in the
community still opposed to women’s rights spread lies about the shelters, and the facilities
come under attack. Even the location is kept secret, and we are
not allowed to film anything that could betray where it is. But for thousands of battered women who have
come through here, it’s a lifeline, women like this 22-year-old, who escaped her abusive
husband six months ago. WOMAN (through translator): My husband was
a drug smuggler, and he always used to keep knives and guns. Every night, I thought he might kill me. JANE FERGUSON: If this shelters had not been
here, if this facility did not exist, where would you have gone? WOMAN: If there had not been a shelter like
this, I might have killed myself, because there is no place for a woman to go if there
are not these shelters. JANE FERGUSON: Elsewhere in Kabul, we see
what she means. The burns unit at Istiklal Government Hospital
is a depressing place, not just because of the power cuts and poor hygiene. Dr. Abdul Khaled Waqila has seen an increase
in self-immolation, women pouring gasoline over themselves and lighting a match. DR. ABDUL KHALED WAQILA, Istiklal Government Hospital
(through translator): It is only the burns patients who come to us. Those who eat poison or do something else
to themselves go to another part of the hospital. So I can only say that the easiest thing for
them to use is gasoline. They have access to it. JANE FERGUSON: Sat on the end of her bed,
and completely alone, this young woman has burns across much of her body and a deep gash
over her throat. She responds to questions with just a whisper. At first, she told the doctor it was an accident,
but later confided it wasn’t. There are laws to protect women in Afghanistan,
but where the letter of that law becomes enforcement is the bigger challenge. SHAHARZAD AKBAR, Afghanistan Human Rights
Commission: There is a huge distance between laws and implementation. JANE FERGUSON: Shaharzad Akbar is the new
head of Afghanistan’s Human Rights Commission. SHAHARZAD AKBAR: It requires not only changing
the legal framework, which there have been improvements in the legal framework, but also
it’s changing the mentality and behavior of people who deliver justice across Afghanistan,
you know? JANE FERGUSON: Akbar won a scholarship to
study abroad, and completed a master’s degree at Smith College in Massachusetts. She wanted to apply that education to making
life better for women in Afghanistan. SHAHARZAD AKBAR: For many women I know, they
aspire to lives different and better than their mothers. For some, it’s as simple as saying, you know
what, I want to have access to a clinic when I give birth. That’s it. I’m not interested in education. I’m not interested in becoming a pilot. I want to marry. I want to have children. But I know that it’s my right to have access
to health care when I give birth. JANE FERGUSON: At just 31 years old, she feels
huge pressure to lead the way for other Afghan women. SHAHARZAD AKBAR: It changes a lot for the
young — the younger girls who are watching us. I am — every day, I am conscious of being
watched. JANE FERGUSON: They also watch to see what
choices powerful politicians are making. If the Taliban were to return to power, she
says, Afghanistan’s women risk losing everything. SHAHARZAD AKBAR: Women were stoned by them. Women were flogged by them, and this continuously
happening in areas under their control. Now imagine the possibility of them not only
coming back to power, but also determining what the laws of Afghanistan will look like. That’s really scary. JANE FERGUSON: Flying up to Badakhshan province
in the rural north of Afghanistan, we met with a group of 83 Taliban fighters who had
surrendered to government forces just a few days before. We challenged them on their attitudes. If the Taliban come back into power, how will
things be different for women this time around? MAN (through translator): There should be
some changes, like in university with co-education. There shouldn’t be things like that, like
you standing here and not covering yourself, wearing this kind of tight clothing. It’s not allowed. JANE FERGUSON: Would you work with female
leaders in government? MAN (through translator): We are not against
women’s education, because we do need doctors. We need educated females. But it should be in a framework of Islamic
principles. JANE FERGUSON: But back in Kabul, Dr. Shefajo
tells us she sees Islamic principles already being applied by women in their lives every
day, with the services they provide through their professions. DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: We want our right as a
woman, as a doctor, as a mother, and as an Afghan, as a Muslim. JANE FERGUSON: You have daughters. What do you hope for their future? How do you picture it? DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: For my elder daughter,
I want her to be a pilot. (LAUGHTER) DR. NAJMUSSAMA SHEFAJO: She is also interested
to travel a lot. But for the others, they are interested to
be a doctor. JANE FERGUSON: Like their mom. (LAUGHTER) JANE FERGUSON: As politicians negotiate with
the Taliban to end the war, Afghan women risk losing their hard-fought freedoms and rights. They could end up paying a devastating price
for peace in Afghanistan. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jane Ferguson
in Kabul, Afghanistan. JUDY WOODRUFF: On Wednesday, we examined safety
rates at Amazon facilities using never-before-public injury records from 23 warehouses across the
country, representing about 20 percent of Amazon’s fulfillment centers. Most of those sites had higher injury rates
than the industry average, from two to as much as six times higher. Tonight, Will Evans of Reveal from the Center
for Investigative Reporting looks into one particular case that raises questions about
how regulators and government officials deal with potential safety violations at the global
company. WILL EVANS: John Stallone has been a safety
professional for nine years. JOHN STALLONE, Former Indiana OSHA Inspector:
These are from all my years doing construction and in industrial safety. WILL EVANS: In a way, it’s the family business. His father worked as a top state government
safety official. JOHN STALLONE: I think it runs in our blood,
in the fact that we want to help people when we can. WILL EVANS: Two years ago, he was working
for the Indiana state branch of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA,
when he was called to investigate an accident at an Amazon warehouse outside of Indianapolis. MAN: There’s an emergency in the maintenance
area — I’m sorry — at Amazon. 911 OPERATOR: Is he conscious and breathing? WILL EVANS: Phillip Lee Terry had been doing
maintenance on a forklift. A security camera captured the accident. JOHN STALLONE: Clearly, you could see he’s
underneath this. There’s nothing protecting him. WILL EVANS: The heavy forks and metal platform
suddenly fell, crushing Terry and killing him. His body lay there nearly two hours before
a co-worker found him. Stallone realized that about five feet from
where the accident took place was a safety device that should have been used. JOHN STALLONE: The thing that was most bothersome
to me was that right there is the stand. That’s the jack. You would actually put this underneath the
fork to make sure that they don’t come down. Nothing was used. Why don’t they know they need to block those
forks, so they don’t fall down? WILL EVANS: Stallone concluded that Amazon
failed to provide adequate training. In interviews with Terry’s co-workers, Stallone’s
notes show one employee even said there was no training, no safety. “It’s get ‘er done.” JOHN STALLONE: It was shocking. I was under the assumption that they would
have had a really good safety culture to begin with. WILL EVANS: Amazon declined repeated requests
for an interview, but sent a written statement saying it could not comment on the specifics
of Terry’s death due to privacy concerns. It would only say that: “During the inspection
and follow-up discussions with Indiana OSHA, we provided Mr. Terry’s training records.” But Stallone said the training records Amazon
gave him didn’t relate to the forklift Terry was working on. ZACH TERRY, Father Killed in Accident at Amazon:
It was devastating to all of us, because he meant so much to each and every one of us,
being the patriarch of our family. Losing him was indescribable. WILL EVANS: Zach Terry, Lee’s son, says his
father was very organized and responsible. ZACH TERRY: You know, I have a lot of anger
built up because of everything that’s happened. But, you know, my big thing is honoring my
dad’s memory and who he was as a person. WILL EVANS: Indiana OSHA gave Amazon four
citations for serious workplace safety violations, with fines totaling $28,000. But the case didn’t end there. Soon after, Stallone’s boss held a conference
call with Amazon’s lawyers and discussed ways the company could reduce its fines. One strategy would be to blame the accident
on employee misconduct. JOHN STALLONE: It’s very unorthodox to have
someone that is in that kind of a management position. It’s like being at a card table and having
a dealer teach you how to count cards. WILL EVANS: Right after the call, Stallone’s
boss, Indiana OSHA Director Julie Alexander, told him they might change his citations. Stallone secretly taped the conversation,
which is legal in Indiana. JULIE ALEXANDER, Indiana OSHA Director: I
hope you don’t take it personally if we have to manipulate your citations any, or… JOHN STALLONE: I think they should all — I
mean, I think they’re all pretty — I think all four of them are pretty strong on their
own. But I’m just — I get paid by the hour. You do what you got to do. WILL EVANS: Stallone was especially upset
that she speculated on the worker’s responsibility for his own death. JULIE ALEXANDER: I’m guessing the guy was
probably on drugs or something. WILL EVANS: To be clear, the toxicology report
shows that Phillip Lee Terry had nothing in his system, other than nicotine and caffeine. OSHA Director Alexander ignored repeated requests
for an interview. A former Amazon safety manager, who asked
not to be identified, says that Terry’s death should have been a wakeup call. MAN: There’s nobody checking up on a guy that’s
doing dangerous work under elevated forks like that. That, to me, like, there’s several breakdowns
there. WILL EVANS: He says it’s wrong to blame Terry’s
death on employee misconduct. MAN: There’s no way that would be misconduct. If there’s any misconduct there, it’s putting
a person that has little to no experience in working on this piece of equipment. There’s your misconduct. Whoever allowed that to happen, that’s the
misconduct. WILL EVANS: When OSHA inspector Stallone pushed
for Amazon to face penalties, he says he found himself called into a meeting with state officials. Those officials deny this meeting took place. Can you remember what they said exactly? JOHN STALLONE: You need to back off. You need to back off in this case. You don’t need to push this. And if you feel — if you’re going to, then
you need to resign. WILL EVANS: And they specifically brought
up the fact that Amazon might bring its second headquarters to Indiana? JOHN STALLONE: Correct. WILL EVANS: State officials deny that meeting
took place and declined repeated requests for an interview. A state Labor Department spokesperson even
called the claim bizarre and fantastical. But we saw an e-mail Stallone sent to a federal
government OSHA official after the meeting, sounding the alarm about political interference
in the case. Stallone says he quit. The state says he was fired for poor performance. Documents show the Indian Labor Department
dropped all penalties against Amazon. The department said Amazon provided proof
that Terry was properly trained and the accident was the result of employee misconduct. The former Amazon safety manager feels that,
even from the company’s standpoint, this was the wrong outcome. It bothers you that those citations were deleted? MAN: It does. It bothers me a lot, because somebody lost
their life. Fighting the citation vs. saying, hey, I’m
going to acknowledge that we have a problem, and we’re going to fix it, are two different
things. It sounds to me like we took an easy path,
instead of taking the difficult path. WILL EVANS: Three weeks after the citations
were dropped, the governor appeared in an Amazon roundtable event. MAN: But the governor said he’s still working
with the major online retailer, trying to land the second headquarters by answering
any questions the company might still have. GOV. ERIC HOLCOMB (R-IN): Obviously, our tax and
regulatory climates are very, not just attractive, but enticing. And we want to grow together. WILL EVANS: Ultimately, Indiana lost its bid
for Amazon’s headquarters. But Stallone believes the way regulators bent
over backwards to help Amazon just makes accidents more likely to happen in the future. JOHN STALLONE: You are gambling with people’s
lives every day. And that doesn’t seem like you should get
a pass. You have to hold people’s feet to the fire. You have to be accountable for what they did
or didn’t provide. WILL EVANS: This is Will Evans for Reveal
and “PBS NewsHour” in Plainfield, Indiana. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the final episode of our
special series this week on food waste, we look at some innovative solutions being developed
to deal with the growing problem of spoiled and surplus food in this country. Special correspondent Allison Aubrey visited
a state where dairy farmers are using it to power their farms and more. ALLISON AUBREY: It’s burger night at Barstow’s
Dairy and Bakery at Longview Farm in Hadley, Massachusetts, and the Pioneer Valley String
Band has drawn a crowd. As advertised, the burgers are born and raised
here. But the cows on this farm produce more than
just meat. DENISE BARSTOW, Barstow’s Longview Farm: Our
cows are producing about a hundred pounds of cow manure per cow per day, and we’re treating
it through this system and getting electricity, renewable energy that’s coming right here
from the farm. ALLISON AUBREY: The system that seventh-generation
farmer Denise Barstow is talking about is an anaerobic digester. Those green towers are part of it. She’s one of a handful of dairy farmers in
Massachusetts using this technology. Just down the road, dairy farmer Peter Melnik
is using it, too. STEVEN MELNIK, Bar-Way Farm: We are taking
food waste from all over the greater Boston area and our very own cow manure. We mix them together in the digester vessel
and make electricity. ALLISON AUBREY: This land has been in Melnik’s
family for four generations. But times are tough for dairy farmers, so
Melnik has diversified. His land is now part farm, and part renewable
energy plant. The process starts here. STEVEN MELNIK: This is the manure pit, as
we like to call it. ALLISON AUBREY: But he needs more than manure. The trick to making this waste-to-energy system
profitable is volume, and Melnik has found an abundant source. Millions of pounds each year of surplus and
spoiled food that would otherwise be destined for a landfill now arrives at his farm in
trucks like this. The food scraps are ground up into a liquid
slurry that gets pumped into this pit. The more you add, the more electricity you
can make. The waste comes from all over. There’s unsold produce from whole foods, scraps
and whey from a Cabot butter plant, and spent grain from a local brewery. STEVEN MELNIK: Inside the digester, it’s about
almost a million gallon tank. It’s heated to 105 degrees. And inside there are tiny microbes. ALLISON AUBREY: Microbes from these cow’s
digestive tracks and the rotting food produce methane, which is usually released into the
atmosphere, playing a role in climate change. But, here, when the gas is captured, it’s
stored in these big black bubbles, and Melnik can actually generate power from it. STEVEN MELNIK: We produce a megawatt of electricity
every hour. ALLISON AUBREY: How much is that? STEVEN MELNIK: A megawatt is enough to power
the digester and the dairy farm, our houses and outbuildings out here, and we still have
90 percent of our electricity left over to be put back on the grid. ALLISON AUBREY: And the other 90 percent? It powers some of the businesses that send
their food waste to the digesters. It also powers two local towns. They’re able to purchase the electricity at
a 10 percent to 15 percent discount. So, what is it that you get from this? How does this help your bottom line? STEVEN MELNIK: We are getting about $100,000
a year in savings. ALLISON AUBREY: The digesters are built and
run by a company called Vanguard Renewables. The company pays farmers a fee for the use
of their land and gives them free electricity to power their farms and houses. In addition to the economic boost, Melnik
says he likes the environmental benefits. STEVEN MELNIK: I don’t need an app or an environmental
calculator to tell me that this thing just makes sense. Having such a closed-loop system, it’s really
been neat to see the connection between all the food companies. ALLISON AUBREY: One player in this loop is
Whole Foods. Seventeen of their stores participate. They ship 50 to 100 tons of food waste every
week to their digesters. At the stores, they grind up food they can’t
sell or donate, and then truck it to Melnik’s farm. Whole Foods’ Karen Franczyk explains. KAREN FRANCZYK, Whole Foods: Anything that
ends up going to landfill or incineration costs us more money. That is the most expensive way to get rid
of waste in our stores. ALLISON AUBREY: So, sending the waste to the
anaerobic digester is cheaper, and can help reduce the ecological footprint. Up to 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions
are linked to food waste. And in 2014, Massachusetts passed a law to
ban food companies from sending their waste to landfills. It applies to all businesses that generate
over a ton of food waste a week. So far, four other states in the U.S. have
passed similar bans. JOHN MAJERCAK, President, Center for EcoTechnology:
Each part of the food waste stream. ALLISON AUBREY: John Majercak is president
of the Center for EcoTechnology, a nonprofit that helps businesses in Massachusetts save
energy and reduce waste. JOHN MAJERCAK: To transport food waste super
long distances is very expensive and also wasteful. So the idea was to try and put dots on a map
all across the state close to where the waste is produced, so that it could be used to produce
energy. And the state did this by incentivizing the
development of these digesters. ALLISON AUBREY: Those dots are now sprinkled
across the state, and incentives came in the form of grants given to the companies to build
the digesters. John Hanselman is Vanguard’s CEO. He says he is inspired by what has happened
in Europe, where there are over 17,000 digesters and government policies to promote renewable
energy. JOHN HANSELMAN, CEO, Vanguard Renewables:
So we saw what was happening in Europe, where anaerobic digestion is extremely widespread. Across the United States, we don’t have that
incentive program. We don’t have the federal energy policy or
any federal benefits for anaerobic digestion. I think we are at the cusp. We are at the early days. We have finally got the economics to work. ALLISON AUBREY: Hanselman says, after six
years in the making, he expects to make a profit this year, and he’s optimistic about
the growth. This waste-to-energy approach is new in the
U.S., and the extent to which it can take off may depend on how much states or the federal
government are willing to incentivize it. In Massachusetts, it took two new laws, a
food waste ban, and a renewable energy law, plus grants to make it happen. Farmer Denise Barstow is glad it’s all worked
out. DENISE BARSTOW: You can’t just work really
hard anymore and make it in the dairy industry. You have to work smarter, not just harder. And part of that is diversifying in a way
that is better for the land, better for the animals and better for the next generation. ALLISON AUBREY: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m
Allison Aubrey of NPR News in Hadley, Massachusetts. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you can see all of our
stories on the topic of food waste on our home page. That’s PBS.org/NewsHour. Now here to analyze the politics of this Thanksgiving
week, as always, are Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields
and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Hello to both of you. MARK SHIELDS: Hi, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, the impeachment process,
we are seeing the Judiciary Committee marching ahead, David. There’s a hearing next week where they are
going to talk to constitutional scholars about impeachment. The committee sent a letter to the White House
saying the president has until next Friday to say whether he’s going to call witnesses
and provide evidence. Meantime, the president is out on the campaign
trail saying the whole thing is a witch-hunt, and he’s not going to cooperate. And is he making some progress, because we’re
seeing the polls show some slipping in support for impeachment? DAVID BROOKS: Yes, especially in swing states. And so I think the contrast for the coming
week will be that the Democrats will be ever more treating this like a legal matter, and
Donald Trump will be ever more treating it like a political matter, and them trying to
close it in on the exact events and him trying to widen it, see, this is just what they have
been doing at me. They have been — this is an attack on you. And they will both win. And the impeachment now numbers are just like
every other numbers in our politics, completely divided right down the middle, and with nobody
moving on either side. And so I suspect Trump will see this as a
tremendous way to get his base, and Democrats will see the same way. And we will march forward. And eventually it’ll end. And then we will turn our attention the Democratic
Party, and I’m not sure what will have been achieved. JUDY WOODRUFF: His best defense, go out and
call it a witch-hunt? MARK SHIELDS: David is such a Pollyanna. (LAUGHTER) MARK SHIELDS: Look, Judy, I think continues
to slide is just a little bit of an overstatement. If you think — compare this to Watergate,
it took 26 months after the break-in at Watergate, 14 months of hearings, to get to the point
where we are now with Richard Nixon. That was the summer of 1974, one month before
he resigned, to the point we are with Donald Trump right now. And as far as — I mean, you can look at all
the polls. Ipsos does it — has done six since the end
of October. It’s gone from 47 percent in favor of impeachment,
to 41 against, to 47 percent in favor of impeachment, 41 — 40 against. I mean, it’s been next to — next to no movement. I just I just think that we have, quite frankly,
is early stages. And we’re very much in the early stages. And I think for us to rush — Jeff Horwitt,
the Democratic pollster who does The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll with Bill McInturff,
the Republican, compares it, the impeachment and conviction in the Senate, as to the criminal
part of a trial. And the civil — the civil trial will be the
election of 2020. Donald Trump may very well be not guilty in
the criminal part, but, right now, he’s in just terrible, terrible shape looking at November
2020. Have 47 — 6 percent of Americans who say
they would vote for anybody except Donald Trump. And 34 percent say they will vote for Donald
Trump, regardless of who runs against him. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. MARK SHIELDS: So, I mean, he’s really just
in worse shape than any incumbent in my lifetime. JUDY WOODRUFF: So are you saying — and I’m
going to turn to David on this. Are you saying that this is not about impeaching
him and removing him from office by the Congress, but doing it — but damaging him enough so
that it happens at the polls next November? DAVID BROOKS: Well, that’s not the way it’s
supposed to be. MARK SHIELDS: No. DAVID BROOKS: It’s supposed to be a legal
thing to see if he did high crimes and misdemeanors. I don’t — I agree, I think Donald Trump is
in serious trouble, more than — more than most of my Democratic friends do. That having said, in swing states, The Times
had a poll that gave everybody anxiety on the Democratic side about two weeks ago showing
Trump winning all these swing states. And we have, surprisingly, shockingly little
data on how he’s doing in swing states or how impeachment is doing in swing states. The one thing we do have is a poll that Marquette
did in Wisconsin, which was 40 percent support, 55 percent oppose. And so if that’s the way the swing states
are reacting, then that’s not a good thing, because this is not going to be about looking
at how the whole country views this. This is about how those swing voters are viewing
it. And whether the Democrats want to go and do
Watergate style or Watergate length set of hearings, it seems to me that’s highly problematic. I think there’s a case, as we discussed last
week for bringing in Mike Pompeo, and trying to ask him some questions. But the Democrats so far seem loath to do
this because they want to rush this thing. And so that — that’s just a big philosophical
difference. Do they go big and try to engineer that, or
do they say, let’s just get this over with? JUDY WOODRUFF: The calendar is working against
them, isn’t it, Mark? MARK SHIELDS: The calendar — the calendar
is the calendar. I mean, it’s a reality. We’re in dual realities, that the nominating
process is going. But you’re talking about Donald Trump’s counteroffensive. And I think the worst mistake that the Democrats
could make is to look for a Democratic Donald Trump, I mean, somebody who can go toe to
toe with them in insult to insult with him. American voters, after a president lets them
down and disappoints, go looking for the exact opposite of what was missing. They went after George Bush and sort of the
off-the-cuff anti-intellectualism. They sought the cerebral, almost removed presence
of a Barack Obama. After Watergate and Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson
and Richard Nixon and all that experience, they wanted the outsider, Jimmy Carter. And I don’t think they want more of somebody
who can go elbow to elbow and insult to insult. I think, quite frankly, that’s the appeal
of Pete Buttigieg, is that he lowers the temperature, he lowers the thermostat, he lowers the rhetoric. He is — he’s the Mr. Rogers of this campaign. JUDY WOODRUFF: Whoa. MARK SHIELDS: And I say that in the most — in
the most appealing and most flattering of ways. I mean, he’s reasoned, he’s reasonable, and
he listens. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that’s the segue. You’re giving it to us, Mark. But, David, I mean, there has been a little
bit of shifting in the presidential landscape on the Democratic side this week, Elizabeth
Warren slipping a little bit in the polls. And we have seen some critical stories about
Kamala Harris’ campaign. Where are we? Michael Bloomberg is in there spending a lot
of money to get his name and message out. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. It could — well, what we’re seeing is, we
in the pundit class often put people in buckets, which are based on ideology. And voters are not quite in the buckets that
we think they’re in. And so we had the Warren-Sanders bucket, and
then we had the moderate bucket. And — but people are moving straight from
Warren to Buttigieg. There’s a lot of people — votes between one
of those two. And they’re somewhat similar. They’re analytical, a little academically,
and so they said, let’s get a technocrat. Let’s get an expert with plans. And I think a lot of people, at least the
ones I talk to, like Elizabeth Warren. They just think she’s poisoned herself with
Medicare for all. And they just say, we can’t go for that. So let’s go for Buttigieg. And Buttigieg is doing well, just a slow,
gradual rise. The Kamala Harris thing, I think, is just
remarkable. My newspaper had a story on the deconstruction
of that campaign, where they spoke to 50 current and former members of that campaign who were
willing to go off the record criticizing the campaign and the candidate. That’s just amazing. And they had the resignation letter from a
senior official. And it was as poorly structured a campaign
as I have heard of. Like, they had — part of the headquarters
was in Baltimore and part of the headquarters with her sister in California. Like, who structures anything like that? So, that’s just a remarkable incident. And it’s hard to see how she turns around,
if her machinery is so bad. JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot of talking from inside
— from inside that campaign. MARK SHIELDS: You find that people are far
more voluble in losing campaigns. That is the poll, when people start talking
about what went wrong and who to blame. It’s the cover your own area aspect. It’s not the most attractive feature in American
politics. And as far as Elizabeth Warren is concerned,
I think what happened, there’s a real cold shower of reality into it, Judy. It was 1949, 70 years ago, Harry Truman proposed
national health care. It was defeated by calling it socialized medicine. Every Democratic President Trump that point
forward fought for it, from — and they were talented people, jack Kennedy and Jimmy Carter,
Bill Clinton. And they did their best effort. And the only time it broke was Medicare and
Medicaid in ’65. That’s 54 years ago, all right? And that was Lyndon Johnson because of the
Goldwater landslide. Other than that, there’s been resistance. Finally, in 2010, the Democrats get it. Give Barack Obama credit. Give Nancy Pelosi, people who voted for it
credit. It costs a lot of people their careers and
their seats. It cost the Democrats their Majority. And it took seven more years before people
said they were favorable. Now, the idea that you’re going to pass Medicare
for all with the whisk of your hand is just absolutely blowing smoke. It is self-delusion. It’s self-deception. It’s going to require careers. It’s going to require the same kind of effort
Bill Bradley put into four years of working on tax reform, which was, if anything, a lot
less tough… (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: But you’re saying that’s what’s
hurt Warren? MARK SHIELDS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes. MARK SHIELDS: We found out the cost, I mean,
the reality. It’s a cold shower. I mean, nice to talk about it. It ain’t going to happen. JUDY WOODRUFF: You heard it here. So, we are in Thanksgiving week. And I can’t let you get away without asking
both of you, what do we have to be thankful for? (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: David? (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: I’m thankful that this is — we
didn’t begin our career in the Trump era. (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: We got to see what real politics
is normally like. Actually, I have been thinking about the quality
of Thanksgiving that we give this year. We have been having a very healthy exercise
in the country of going through our history on racial injustice, on treatment of the Native
Americans. And so we have laid open the sins which have
to be laid open. But I think it’s still possible to love your
country equally, even after being aware and paying a lot of attention to these sins. And so giving thanks to be born and — or
grown up or living in what, to me, is still the most lovable, amazing country on the face
of the Earth is something you can still say, even after looking at the history of slavery,
the history of genocide and all the other stuff. It’s possible to have a mature love for your
country. JUDY WOODRUFF: A country that keeps renewing
itself. MARK SHIELDS: Good. JUDY WOODRUFF: Keeps working on its problems. Mark. MARK SHIELDS: After standing in awe of Marie
Yovanovitch, and William Taylor, David Holmes, and George Kent, and David Hale, and Fiona
Hill, my admiration, gratitude for public employees of integrity, of decency, of commitment,
of patriotism, who put their careers at risk to speak truth to power and to the American
people is — I’m grateful for it. I’ll say this. This is the 19th Thanksgiving that David and
I have been lucky enough to spend on the “NewsHour” together. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ah. MARK SHIELDS: I have misspoken. I have contradicted myself. I have said stupid things. And never once in those 19 years has David
taken a cheap shot. And for his friendship and decency, I thank
him. DAVID BROOKS: And I thank you. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: This is a place where people
treat each other with more than respect. And we are thankful at the “NewsHour” for
the two of you, Mark Shields, David Brooks. Thank you. Five years ago, the U.S. Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence released a report on the torture tactics the CIA used on terror suspects after
the 9/11 attacks. That investigation is now the subject of a
new film, “The Report.” Jeffrey Brown has a look. It’s part of our ongoing arts and culture
series, Canvas. ACTOR: Why did the CIA torture people, lie
about it, and then hide it from history? JEFFREY BROWN: The story is straight from
the headlines. MAN: Better intelligence could have been obtained
by more humane methods. MAN: Their report, released by Democrats,
contends the tactics failed to produce useful information. GWEN IFILL, “PBS NewsHour”: A sweeping Senate
report leveled damning charges against the Central Intelligence Agency. JEFFREY BROWN: “The Report” portrays the real-life
six-year effort by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to uncover the CIA’s use of
so-called enhanced interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects following the 9/11
attacks. Those were implemented at the suggestion of
two U.S. Air Force psychologists. The torture proved ineffective, but remained
in practice at CIA black sites around the world. Daniel Jones was lead investigator on Senator
Dianne Feinstein’s Intelligence Committee staff. Actor Adam Driver, known for recent roles
in “BlacKkKlansman” and the “Star Wars” sequel trilogy, portrays Jones. ADAM DRIVER, Actor: After 9/11, everyone was
scared, scared it might happen again. It was my second day of grad school. The next day, I changed all my classes to
national security. JEFFREY BROWN: Jones is the primary author
of the report on torture. DANIEL JONES, Former Senate Intelligence Committee
Investigator: Well, there are 20 findings and conclusions in the overall report, which
can boil down into three key findings, overall findings. One is that the techniques the CIA used, which
most refer to as torture, resulted in false answers and didn’t result in unique information. MAURA TIERNEY, Actress: Why are so many of
these guys still lying to us after you work on them? Where’s this special sauce? You have to make this work. It’s only legal if it works. DANIEL JONES: Two is, the techniques were
far more brutal than the CIA had described to Congress, to the president, to the Department
of Justice. ACTOR: We improve his treatment for a week
or two, give him some hope. And then we go back at him hard and create
a sense of helplessness. DANIEL JONES: And three is, the program was
grossly mismanaged. The CIA didn’t hold officers accountable for
wrongdoing. They didn’t set up appropriate guidelines. Over and over again, we saw some significant
management failures. JEFFREY BROWN: Scott Z. Burns wrote and directed
the film. Best known for his screenplay “The Bourne
Ultimatum,” Burns also produced the Academy Award-winning documentary “An Inconvenient
Truth.” Why did you think this might be a movie? SCOTT Z. BURNS, Director, “The Report”: You
know, for me, it started out that both my parents are psychologists, and I grew up with
some awareness of that profession as a thing that exists to help people. And so when I read that people had figured
out a way to weaponize psychology, I found that appalling. ACTOR: We fundamentally disagree with the
assertion that the program was poorly managed and executed, and that unqualified officers
imposed brutal conditions, used unapproved techniques, and were rarely held accountable. SCOTT Z. BURNS: I also felt that my country
had tortured people, and that that was antithetical to everything I had thought. And I know that may sound naive, because the
CIA had done that at other points in history. JEFFREY BROWN: Jones and his team set up a
secure room within a CIA facility to go through the evidence. ADAM DRIVER: No paper? ACTOR: Paper has a way of getting people in
trouble at our place. ADAM DRIVER: At our place, paper is how we
keep track of laws. JEFFREY BROWN: Investigators would face multiple
hurdles put in the way by the CIA and other officials, including threat of legal action
against Jones. COREY STOLL, Actor: They can go after the
next best thing, you. JEFFREY BROWN: The film’s narrative follows
Jones as he puts the puzzle pieces together. DANIEL JONES: When Scott first described to
me his idea, which was this — almost this dark comedy of errors, in some ways, that
was the only thing that made sense to me. SCOTT Z. BURNS: I think it’s the struggle
of somebody to get — to get the truth out. And I think what happened with Dan I think
is kind of a tracer bullet through our political system right now, that there are these systems
and institutions that exists to provide oversight and accountability, and yet it took really
Herculean effort on Dan’s part and the other people, the senators on the committee, to
get this story out. JEFFREY BROWN: According to the film, the
CIA and the Obama administration actively tried to keep the findings from being made
public amid other national priorities. Actor Jon Hamm portrays Denis McDonough, President
Obama’s chief of staff. Annette Bening is Senator Dianne Feinstein. JON HAMM, Actor: When this administration
took office, we faced the very real possibility of economic collapse. Do we spend our political capital on going
around trying to find people to blame, or do we solve the problem? ANNETTE BENING, Actress: Maybe the way to
solve the problem is to hold people accountable. Do you ever wonder why history repeats itself? Well, I think maybe it’s because we don’t
always listen the first time. JEFFREY BROWN: Director Burn says he felt
it was important to depict acts of torture. You had to make some decisions about what
you were going to show us, right, especially when it came down to those interrogation torture
scenes. SCOTT Z. BURNS: Right. JEFFREY BROWN: How did you decide? SCOTT Z. BURNS: Well, it was probably the
part of the film that I worked and agonized the most over through the edit and through
writing, through every aspect. I mean, there were early drafts where I wondered
if we could tell the story without showing anything. ADAM DRIVER: They water-boarded him 183 times,
and then concluded KSM may never be forthcoming or honest. Everything they got from him was either a
lie or something they already had. ANNETTE BENING: Well, OK. So my first question is, if it works, why
do you need to do it 183 times? ADAM DRIVER: Maybe, when the report comes
out, people will finally see that. SCOTT Z. BURNS: The reason why Abu Ghraib
was such a sea change in this whole story is, people saw these things. And, obviously, someone who works in a visual
art form, pictures do paint thousands of words. And I felt, unless I show the audience enough
of what really happened, they wouldn’t truly understand the trespasses against the law
and against human dignity. But when I shot it, I tried to make it more
about the torturers than the torture, because a lot of these people did do criminal acts. And it wasn’t to elicit sympathy for al-Qaida. JEFFREY BROWN: In the end, after the years-long
drama, Daniel Jones says the system worked. DANIEL JONES: We did get a report out. It’s 525 pages. It has redactions, but we did get the report
out. The report was released. And I think that’s really to the testament
of what the senators did of that committee. They really were committed to this and committed
to getting it out in public. JEFFREY BROWN: Do you feel that you told a
positive story or a warning story? What is it? SCOTT Z. BURNS: Well, as a filmmaker, I don’t
feel like I get to decide what the audience should feel at the end. I know how I feel, which is I am — I’m greatly
buoyed by the fact that this country did put that report out. And Steven Soderbergh, who’s a producer on
this, has always said, I don’t — I don’t know that there’s another country, other than
maybe Canada or the U.K., that would — that would have even allowed this kind of investigation. JEFFREY BROWN: “The Report” is now streaming
on Amazon Prime video. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown
at the Toronto International Film Festival. JUDY WOODRUFF: Another movie to put on your
list for this holiday season. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here on Monday. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we hope you have a great Thanksgiving weekend.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 27, 2019

November 29, 2019 | Articles, Blog | No Comments

PBS NewsHour full episode November 27, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: a clearer timeline. New reporting reveals the extent of Rudy Giuliani’s
business in Ukraine and more confirmation that President Trump knew of a government
whistle-blower’s complaint before releasing military aid. Then: injured on the job at Amazon and hidden
from view — the human cost of convenience at one of the world’s largest companies. Plus: Waste not. Shocking amounts of food never make it to
the table, and head straight for the landfill. But states like California are working to
change that cycle. LUIS YEPIZ, Food Forward: There is definitely
enough food in Los Angeles and in the local food systems that we are definitely able to
feed everyone in Southern California. The issue is not necessarily with the food
being available. It’s a distribution problem. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: A major storm dumped heavy snow across the Midwest
today, fouling travel on the day before Thanksgiving. As much as a foot fell in some places, delaying
flights at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, one of the nation’s busiest. A separate system slammed Oregon and California
with rain, snow and high wind, and transportation officials scrambled to keep roads clear. RICH ANTHES, California Highway Patrol: We
ran into some fog a little earlier, where — reduced the visibility substantially. Snow’s coming down, and it’s sticking. Caltrans is out in full force. They’re sanding. They’re plowing. They laid a brine solution down last night. We are going to try to keep it open. We are. That’s our goal, is to keep it open and keep
it safe. JUDY WOODRUFF: Utility crews in California
and Oregon also worked today to restore power to thousands. Explosions and fire at a chemical plant in
Texas have forced thousands of people from their homes tonight. The first blast hit the TPC plant at Port
Neches, 80 miles east of Houston, before dawn. A second explosion erupted this afternoon. It sent new fires racing through the site
and new clouds of smoke high overhead. There were no deaths, but some 60,000 people
within four miles of the plant were ordered to evacuate. President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani
is facing new questions about financial dealings in Ukraine, amid the impeachment inquiry. The New York Times and The Washington Post
report that Giuliani pursued contracts with Ukrainian officials as he was pushing them
to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals. We will take a closer look after the news
summary. In Iraq, security forces have killed six more
protesters and wounded 35 amid new unrest over corruption and economic distress. In Baghdad, crowds threw rocks over a barricade
today, braving live fire and tear gas. Some of the security officers were even spotted
dancing amid the debris. Later, protesters burned the Iranian Consulate
in Najaf, in a show of opposition to Iran’s influence in Iraqi affairs. Officials in Iran now say that 200,000 people
took part in protests over gas prices last week, and that 7,000 were arrested in a crackdown. Also today, the government reported nearly
900 banks, gas stations and official buildings were burned out during rioting. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told
a rally that it was all fomented by the United States. AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, Supreme Leader of
Iran (through translator): It was a deep, extensive, and very dangerous conspiracy that
cost the U.S. so much money and effort. They thought that they had found the opportunity
and brought their troops to the field. This move was destroyed by the people. JUDY WOODRUFF: Amnesty International says
more than 140 protesters were killed in the crackdown. Iran has not reported any number of its own. Violence surged overnight in Lebanon, and
dozens of people were hurt. Riot troops were called out in Tripoli, as
supporters and opponents of the country’s president fought each other. The clashes left buildings damaged and fires
burning. Protests against the country’s political elite
began in mid-October. And in Colombia, several thousand demonstrators
marched in Bogota again today over economic conditions and a variety of other causes. The peaceful gathering came after nearly a
week of sometimes violent protests. Four people have been killed, and millions
of dollars in business have been lost. Back in this country, the White House says
that it will defend making immigrant visas contingent on proof of health insurance. A federal judge temporarily blocked the policy
on Tuesday. Opponents argue that it would bar nearly two-thirds
of all prospective legal immigrants. Meanwhile, immigration agents have arrested
some 250 foreign students who enrolled in a fake university outside Detroit, so that
they could stay in the U.S. It was part of a sting operation. Massachusetts today became the first state
to ban flavored tobacco and e-cigarette products. Most of its provisions take effect immediately. Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed the
bill at a ceremony in Boston. And he urged more action from the federal
government. GOV. CHARLIE BAKER (R-MA): A national policy with
respect to this stuff obviously can be far more effective than doing this one state at
a time. But I cannot understand why anybody would
think, given all the data and all the evidence and all the information that’s out there at
this point in time, that the right thing for us to do would be nothing. JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump has proposed
banning most flavors of e-cigarettes nationwide, but has not yet taken any concrete action. At least six companies that make or distribute
prescription opioid painkillers are facing a federal criminal investigation. The Wall Street Journal and others report
that the focus is their role in the epidemic of opioid addiction and overdoses. The drugmakers include Amneal, Johnson & Johnson,
Mallinckrodt, and Teva, along with distributors AmerisourceBergen and McKesson. On Wall Street today, major indexes finished
at record highs for a third straight day. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 42
points to close at 28164. The Nasdaq rose 57 points, and the S&P 500
added 13. Former President Jimmy Carter was released
from a hospital in Atlanta today to head home for Thanksgiving. He had surgery two weeks ago to relieve pressure
on his brain caused by bleeding from a recent fall. Mr. Carter is 95 years old. And former Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus has died. He gained fame in 1973, when he refused to
fire the Watergate special prosecutor, as President Richard Nixon had ordered, and resigned
his post instead. He was also the first head of the Environmental
Protection Agency. William Ruckelshaus was 87 years old. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the White
House’s pressure on Ukraine grows clearer; and we check in to see how impeachment is
resonating around the country; hidden costs of two-day shipping — the dangerous conditions
faced by Amazon’s warehouse workers; reversing mammoth amounts of food waste in Southern
California; and much more. Another day, another new handful of revelations
filling in our understand of how President Trump, his associates, and his administration
have been interacting with Ukraine. What was President Trump’s personal attorney
Rudy Giuliani doing in that Eastern European country? What did the president know about the government
whistle-blower complaint, and when did he know it? Here with me to walk through yet another day
of developments is our own White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor. So, hello, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Hi. JUDY WOODRUFF: Much to follow, as always. So, we did learn more today about Rudy Giuliani’s
involvements, dealings in Ukraine. What are we learning? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The key thing is that people
often say, you need to follow the money. And in this case, both The Washington Post
and The New York Times say they followed Rudy Giuliani’s money to show that he was trying
to really negotiate a lucrative consulting deal with the government of Ukraine while
he was, at the same time, urging the top prosecutor there to look into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. So what we know is that through documents
Rudy Giuliani was negotiating up to at least $200,000 to be paid by the Ukrainian government
to do work that would have essentially been him looking into whether or not Ukraine had
stolen money that somehow then ended up overseas. Rudy Giuliani says that he looked at this
deal, that he agrees that this was something that he was looking into, but he says that,
ultimately, he said, this was a conflict of interests, I thought it would look bad, and
I never made a penny off of this. Why this is important is because what we see
is Rudy Giuliani pressuring, essentially, or making Ukrainian officials look into this
claim that Joe Biden might have been a corrupt person operating in their country… JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: … at the same time as
he’s actually trying to benefit financially from it. So this is a very, very big deal and something
that people are going to continue to look into. JUDY WOODRUFF: And it raises questions again,
Yamiche, about the relationship between Rudy Giuliani and the president. He’s the president’s personal lawyer. But what’s happening in their relationship? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, it’s very interesting,
because the other thing to note is that this could be breaking the law. If Rudy Giuliani was operating in this way
in Ukraine, he could actually have been looking into possibly not registering as a foreign
agent here. And that is breaking the law, because you
would be essentially seeking to influence the United States government on the behalf
of a foreign country. The other thing to note is that President
Trump was answering questions about this, about whether or not he told Rudy Giuliani
to do anything in Ukraine. And here’s what he told Bill O’Reilly — Bill
O’Reilly. He’s a former FOX News host. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
Well, you have to ask that to Rudy. But Rudy, I don’t even know — I know he was
going to go to Ukraine, and I think he canceled a trip. But Rudy has other clients other than me. No, I didn’t direct him. But he is a warrior. Rudy is a warrior. Rudy went. He possibly saw something. But you have to understand, Rudy has other
people that he represents. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Some people see this as
the president trying to put some distance between himself and his personal attorney
Rudy Giuliani, even though number of officials have said that President Trump leaned on Rudy
Giuliani to try to pressure Ukraine for this money. The other thing to note is that Rudy Giuliani,
at one point, said that he had insurance on President Trump, in case he tried to throw
him under the bus. But he’s since said that this is him being
sarcastic. His lawyer, though, has said that he told
Rudy Giuliani to call the president to reassure him that he was not trying to say anything
that would upset their relationship. But I want to read a quote to you from Rudy
Giuliani, because he’s really trying to make sure that he’s defending the president and
in the president’s good graces. He tweeted today: “Reality check. Democrats have now issued more subpoenas than
they have had bills signed into law. Their focus is not on bettering the lives
of everyday Americans. It’s about protecting their seats and remaining
in power.” And that, Judy, is really Rudy Giuliani echoing
the president’s complaints about this. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, so much to — so much
interesting there to follow. But, Yamiche, separately, there was some reporting
today about when President Trump learned of that government whistle-blower’s complaint. And what do we know about that? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: We long knew that White
House officials were facing pressure from Congress and from reporters to release this
$391 million in military aid to Ukraine. What we now know, based on the reporting by
The New York Times, is that the president was briefed on the whistle-blower’s complaint
some two weeks before that military aid was released. And why that’s really important is because
the president told the E.U. ambassador, the European Union ambassador, Gordon Sondland,
that he didn’t want any sort of quid pro quo when they were talking before the money was
released. And this timeline essentially shows that the
president said this after he knew that there was a whistle-blower complaint that was talking
specifically about a quid pro quo. The other thing to note is that the White
House has really had this defense that everything was OK because Ukraine got the money and the
presidents of Ukraine and the United States eventually met. What we know now is that aid, again, was released
because the president knew about — or at least was in part because the president knew
about the whistle-blower complaint. The other thing to note is, the White House
meeting never actually happened. The two presidents met on the sidelines of
the year — of the United Nations. But the president of Ukraine has yet to ever
come to the White House and get what would really be a very diplomatic and big welcoming
at the White House. That’s much different than a sideline meeting. JUDY WOODRUFF: Coveted invitation. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you, Yamiche. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks. JUDY WOODRUFF: Here in the nation’s capital,
pretty much all the attention is on impeachment, but how is it being received in other parts
of the country? We turn to three public media reporters to
find out. Caitie Switalski is with WLRN. It is South Florida’s public radio station. Mary Lahammer of Twin Cities PBS in Minneapolis,
and Bente Birkeland of Colorado Public Radio. Bente joins us from Minneapolis as well, where
she is visiting for the holidays. So, hello to all three of you. It’s great to have you with us on the “NewsHour.” Bente, I’m going to start with you. I know your home is Colorado, and that’s what
I want to talk about. When you talk to Colorado voters about what’s
going on with impeachment, what do they say? How much attention are they paying? Are they interested in it? BENTE BIRKELAND, Colorado Public Radio: When
we talk to voters across the political spectrum, I was surprised how engaged people are and
how much they’re paying attention. A lot of people said they were going to watch
the public hearings live. Other people were planning to follow it closely
in the news. And people had a lot of opinions, but also
understood the nuance and were just very, very closely paying attention. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Mary Lahammer, what about
you? I mean, your beat is Minnesota, the Twin Cities. Are people — are they following these hearings? MARY LAHAMMER, Twin Cities PBS: Absolutely. Minnesotans are always incredibly engaged
in politics. You know we lead the nation in voter turnout,
and we’re also politically divided. We have one of, if not the only divided legislature
in the nation. And we’re divided on impeachment too. The latest polls show not a majority for or
against it. So, Minnesotans tend to run independent. We have a libertarian streak. We know President Trump came close to winning
Minnesota, just a percentage point-and-a-half away. He visited here last month. He wants to be in contention. But those same polls are showing that as much
as 10 points down on the presidential race. May have a factor that we do have a Minnesotan
in the race in Senator Amy Klobuchar. JUDY WOODRUFF: You surely do. So, Caitie Switalski, President Trump came
to South Florida last night for a political rally. You were there. You went to the rally. And before I turn to you, I want to play for
viewers just a bit of what the president had to say about the Democrats who are running
this impeachment process. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
They’re pushing that impeachment witch-hunt. And a lot of bad things are happening to them,
because you see what’s happening in the polls? Everybody said, that’s really bull (EXPLETIVE
DELETED). (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Caitie, clearly a very
pro-Trump crowd. They appeared not to think much of the impeachment
process. But what did they tell you? CAITIE SWITALSKI, WLRN: So, I think one of
the interesting parts is that the Trump supporters that are really worried about impeachment
are worried about it from the perspective that their vote could potentially be suppressed
or taken away from the 2016 election, which was a really interesting perspective I hadn’t
heard before. But last night, by and large, people are aligning
impeachment just like they are from the Stormy Daniels scandal or the Mueller report. They’re kind of thinking that this is one
other thing, something new that is going to blow up — or blow over soon. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about — staying with
you, Caitie, what about voters you talked to before this rally? I mean, you have been interviewing voters
over a number of days. What’s everybody — what is everybody else
telling you? CAITIE SWITALSKI: Well, so, last night, there
was a huge group of 19,000 to 20,000 Trump supporters in Broward County, which is a very,
very blue Democratic county, ahead of this rally, but there was also a counter-Democratic
protest. So I think South Floridians are worried about
a couple of things here, but they are engaged in the impeachment process. And one of the interesting things is, if they’re
not watching it live, they have been seriously following news recaps at the end of the day
to make sure that they at least know the gist. I have had a lot of people tell me they’re
really relying on recaps. JUDY WOODRUFF: Bente Birkeland, I want to
come back to you in terms of how people are following this. Do you find folks have their minds made up? Or are they still open-minded, waiting for
more information? What do they say about that? BENTE BIRKELAND: I think it’s a little bit
of both. Definitely, you have the pro-Trump supporters,
who feel like this is just a waste of time, and the government should move on, and people
have been trying to get Trump out of office since the day he was elected. And some Democrats, they know how they feel. They think there’s already enough evidence
for impeachment. But I was surprised how many people are in
the middle, who were waiting to get more information. I talked to a conservative woman who did not
vote for Trump in the last election. She voted third party. And she said how lawmakers conduct themselves
during this public phase will impact her vote, especially down-ticket. We have a very competitive U.S. Senate race. Republican Cory Gardner is facing potentially
a tough challenge. And she said that could impact how she votes
in the Senate race, when it moves to that phase, if it does. So it was — you know, not everyone is set
in their opinions on this. And we found that with unaffiliated voters
as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Mary Lahammer, what about
the Twin Cities, and what about Minnesota people? Set in stone on this, or still looking for
information? MARY LAHAMMER: You know, I think there are
some looking for information. Our latest poll, Survey USA and KSTP, came
out with 45 percent of Minnesotans thinking there was enough evidence to convict, and
40 percent saying they’re not; 15 percent either don’t have an opinion or undecided. I talked to one independent voters voter today
who said he is still watching, watching everything closely, watching as much of the hearings
as possible, to make up his mind. He said he’s staying open-minded, really wants
to hear. Then I checked in with another independent
voter. We have a lot of them here. And that independent voter said they’re at
complete fatigue. They’re done. They’re not watching. They want to move on to issues. We are an issue-oriented populace here. And this voter want to hear about health care,
cares a lot about health care. We have major employers, the world famous
Mayo Clinic here, the largest employer in the state of Minnesota, many, many health
care companies, a lot of Fortune 500 companies. We care about business. We care about health care. It sounds like some have really kind of started
to reach a fatigue point on it. JUDY WOODRUFF: Caitie Switalski, back to you
in South Florida. What about this question of, across the board,
voters still open to new information, new facts, or pretty much set in their views? CAITIE SWITALSKI: I would say the voters I
have spoken with are set in their views one way or the other. I think, especially for Democrats, keeping
up with the impeachment hearings, a couple of voters told me, now we know that there’s
evidence. Now we see our evidence, vs. Republicans — I
think a lot of Trump supporters I spoke with are really, really convinced that there’s
not evidence. So I think both sides are seeing what they
want to see come from the impeachment proceedings, but they’re still paying attention, even though
they’re not necessarily coming across as open-minded. JUDY WOODRUFF: Bente Birkeland, I want to
come back to you on the question of, are people believing what they see and what they hear? Do they think the process is being — is being
conducted in a fair way, that it’s on the level? BENTE BIRKELAND: I think — well, that one
was a little bit more partisan. I think Republicans feel like the whole question,
in and of itself, is — is done in a partisan way, and it shouldn’t even be happening. And I think Democrats and more of the unaffiliated
voters thought, look, this information has come to light, and we need to get to the bottom
of this. To echo of what Mary said, there is a sense
of fatigue, even from Democrats who feel that the president should be impeached. They don’t want this to drag on too long. People are just really worn out and wary. And a lot of folks, it’s even hard to get
them to talk about this topic. People said they try to keep their opinions
to themselves because they know how volatile it can be and they know how divergent people’s
opinions are. So, in some sense, people are really interested,
but they also want to move on. JUDY WOODRUFF: Same thing, Mary Lahammer,
Minnesota. Do you find people believe what they’re watching? Do they think this is a — this is a fair
process? MARY LAHAMMER: I think it really depends on
where you come from. I think Democrats think it’s fair, and I think
Republicans don’t. I have noticed, looking at just my e-mail
inbox from our members of Congress, because we have a really interesting delegation — we
have a majority — five out of eight of our new members of Congress are new, and four
of them flipped seats. So we had two Republicans who flipped Democratic
districts, two Democrats who flipped Republican districts. And they’re all relatively quiet. I don’t even think our members of Congress
really want to be talking about this much. We even have an ad going now. We have our Seventh District congressman,
Collin Peterson. He is a Democrat who won in the biggest Trump
district. So he has a really tough challenger in a battle
with former Lieutenant Governor Michelle Fischbach running against him. And there are ads right now trying to drum
on Collin Peterson about this. And he is one of only two Democrats who voted
against the initial impeachment proceedings. So we are incredibly divided. And those five new members of Congress are
under a lot of pressure on this issue. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when you add it all up,
Caitie Switalski, people feeling that we’re going to get to the bottom of this in some
way, or just — they just are writing this off? CAITIE SWITALSKI: Well, I had a couple of
voters tell me, look, impeachment is going to happen one way or the other, potentially. We don’t know if that equals removal, but
it doesn’t matter, because what’s next is the election. So I think Democrats are really, really trying
to look forward, figure out how to get out the vote, mobilize, organize ahead of the
election, despite whatever happens with impeachment, keep moving towards the election. JUDY WOODRUFF: So interesting to get these
views from around the country. Caitie Switalski, Broward County, Florida,
WLRN Radio, Bente Birkeland with Colorado Public Radio, and Mary Lahammer, Twin Cities
PBS, thank you very much. CAITIE SWITALSKI: Thank you, Judy. BENTE BIRKELAND: Thanks, Judy. MARY LAHAMMER: Thanks. JUDY WOODRUFF: Black Friday, two days away,
kicks off the peak of shopping season, and especially for Amazon. This year, the company is offering to deliver
some packages to its Prime members in one day. In fact, the retail giant announced that it
will hire 200,000 people for the holiday shopping season, double the number of workers it hired
a year ago. But many Amazon staffers say the demand for
greater speed is the leading factor harming warehouse workers. Like many other companies, Amazon doesn’t
make its workplace injury rates public. But Search Will Evans of Reveal from the Center
for Investigative Reporting was able to compile injury records from Amazon work sites across
the country for the first time, and has some sobering findings. WILL EVANS: It’s the beginning of peak shopping
season at Amazon. In a company video, this is how one manager
revs up his workers. MAN: One, two, three! WILL EVANS: Amazon is gearing up for a huge
spike in shipping. Last year, the online retailer says it sold
180 million items in the five days from Thanksgiving to Cyber Monday. The company boasts of the speed, which is
the cornerstone of its business model. NARRATOR: Have you ever wondered how Amazon
gets your packages to you so quickly? The SLAM machine weighs, scans your box, and
attaches a label all in like one second. WILL EVANS: Candice Dixon has experienced
this push for speed firsthand, working at an Amazon fulfillment warehouse in Southern
California. CANDICE DIXON, Former Amazon Employee: I have
worked physical jobs. And it seemed OK at the very beginning. WILL EVANS: Dixon worked as a stower, loading
hundreds of products into storage bins, with a computer tracking her pace per package down
to the second. CANDICE DIXON: It should take 11 seconds or
less, if you can. But 11 seconds was the goal. WILL EVANS: Is that hard to meet? CANDICE DIXON: Yes. (LAUGHTER) WILL EVANS: If staffers don’t meet their quota,
they can get written up and fired. Dixon had to hit her rate no matter what package
came her way. CANDICE DIXON: I had a whole shift of all
heavy items. That’s what happened. I got injured. I pulled my back out. WILL EVANS: Her doctor told her to limit heavy
lifting, but she says Amazon sent her back to work, still dealing with heavy boxes, and
her injury got worse. She’s now out of work. She received a worker’s comp settlement, but
that money is running out. CANDICE DIXON: Doing dishes hurts. Preparing my food hurts. And so I don’t even know how I’m going to
survive financially. Am I going to have a home in a couple months
if I don’t have an income? Probably not. So I don’t know what to do. WILL EVANS: Amazon refused to let us film
inside any of its warehouses, but in online videos, the nation’s second largest private
employer touts its culture of safety. WOMAN: Safety is always the number one priority. MARLA CORSON, Director of Safety, Health and
Environment, Amazon: We want it to be the most safety-centric organization in the world. WILL EVANS: Amazon, which is not unionized,
closely guards records of serious injuries like Dixon’s. But federal regulations say the company must
provide workers with the injury logs from their work sites. So, with the help of Amazon employees around
the country, we were able to obtain official injury records from 23 warehouses across 14
states, representing about 20 percent of Amazon’s fulfillment centers. At these warehouses, we found that, last year,
workers got seriously injured at more than double the industry average. In some facilities, it’s four or even six
times that average. Serious injuries are those for which workers
need to take time off or be restricted from certain tasks. Amazon declined to be interviewed, but in
an e-mail stated the rates are high because it diligently reports injuries, saying: “Amazon
encourages the reporting of every incident, regardless of how small.” It also said that rates of lost work time
are high because Amazon takes an abundance of caution in not placing employees back at
work before they are ready. We showed our findings to a former Amazon
safety manager, who asked us to hide his identity. He said last year’s injury rates at Dixon’s
warehouse were much higher than they should be. MAN: Four hundred and twenty-two reportable
injuries. That’s a significant amount of injuries. That shouldn’t be happening. WILL EVANS: Overall, the injuries we found
ranged from lacerations to concussions. Most were labeled strains and sprains. About a third of the injured workers had to
take off more than a month to recover. MAN: We have looked at how we can get packages
to the customer in a day. But we haven’t figured out how we can get
packages to the customer in a day without hurting people. WILL EVANS: He says the high injury rates
are linked to the extreme production quotas that Amazon workers must hit every shift. Are they just going too fast? MAN: I think that’s where it lands. It doesn’t afford for what the toll on the
body is. People might be making those numbers, but
what are they sacrificing to make that number? CHRISTINA VAN VORCE, Amazon Employee: This
is the shirts that they gave everybody. WILL EVANS: Christina Van Vorce worked at
the same warehouse as Dixon. CHRISTINA VAN VORCE: And then this is the
million unit club. WILL EVANS: And that means you ship out a
million units in a day? CHRISTINA VAN VORCE: Yes. WILL EVANS: She saw the overwhelming pressure
to get packages out the door as fast as possible, especially during peak shopping season. CHRISTINA VAN VORCE: It’s intense. It’s very, very intense. Think of Santa’s workshop. From the time you punch in to the time you
punch out, you’re, like, going a million miles a minute. WILL EVANS: In early January, Van Vorce was
working the night shift, when she and her co-workers smelled gas. Her manager told her to keep working, but
she felt she had to call 9/11. CHRISTINA VAN VORCE: Hi. I’m calling from Amazon building. I’m one of the associates here. And I believe that there is a gas leak here. There was two associates that I know for sure
that were vomiting. One girl almost completely passed out. WILL EVANS: She says management wouldn’t stop
operations, for fear of not meeting their quotas. CHRISTINA VAN VORCE: I have already said something
to them several times, like, everyone’s sick and you’re not letting people go. Like, they’re trying to tell us, you have
to use our personal time if we want to leave. 911 OPERATOR: OK. CHRISTINA VAN VORCE: They’re worried about
getting fired or losing their hours or losing their pay. And that’s not something that they should
be worried about when there’s a gas leak. You should be worried about your life. WILL EVANS: Workers who left their shift that
day were docked for personal time, though Amazon eventually reversed that after workers
complained. CHRISTINA VAN VORCE: When they sit there and
say that all they care about is the safety of their employees, well, obviously not, because,
if they cared about the safety — if safety was first, then everybody would have been
evacuated from that building. And they weren’t. WILL EVANS: In its statement, Amazon refuted
this, saying: “Within minutes of being alerted to the smell of gas, all associates in the
immediately affected area were removed. The site shut down for about one-and-a-half-hours. Associates are to remain on site, so we can
resume operations once the situation is resolved.” But Van Vorce and three other workers told
us there was no site-wide shut down. Amazon says it is doing what it can to make
warehouses safer for workers, like by adding more robots to the warehouse floors. WOMAN: We’re constantly striving to be a leader. There’s many things that we have actually
changed in our operations through the use of technology that actually helps speed things
up. And, at the same time, it makes it safer for
our associates to do. WILL EVANS: But, in fact, we found that, in
our data, many of the highest injury rates were from warehouses with robots. The former Amazon safety manager saw this
firsthand. MAN: If you go to the Amazon robotics sortable
buildings, you’re basically going into the lion’s den. There’s more automation. There’s more places for me to interact with
a process where I can get hurt. WILL EVANS: And it’s faster? MAN: It is. It’s faster. The pace in that building is blistering. WILL EVANS: He says robots increase the pace,
to the point where humans just can’t keep up. Have the robots basically pushed humans past
their limits? MAN: I think you’re seeing that nexus where
we’re like, man, humans are tapping out. WILL EVANS: He hopes that Amazon workers will
not pay the price for even speedier deliveries this holiday shopping season. MAN: You know, when you order something from
Amazon, and you have worked inside Amazon, you wonder, like, hey is it going to cause
some sort of significant injury or illness or something like that? If I order one-click ship, what’s the effect
that it’s going to have on somebody’s life? WILL EVANS: This is Will Evans for Reveal
and “PBS NewsHour” in Eastvale, California. JUDY WOODRUFF: On Friday, in the second of
our series, Will investigates a death at an Amazon fulfillment warehouse that raises questions
about how government officials deal with potential safety violations at the global company. Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: the threat of
rising water — an entire village in Alaska moves. For many of us, the Thanksgiving meal is one
of the most beloved culinary traditions of the year. But that feast usually ends with plentiful
leftovers, and then some. That extra some, so to speak, often ends up
in the garbage and adds to the much larger problem of food waste in this country. That makes it a good time to look at the burgeoning
movement to rethink our attitudes and approach about all of this. Special correspondent Allison Aubrey of NPR
showed us the depth of the problem in previous reports. And she’s back for a special series this week. Allison, welcome. ALLISON AUBREY: Hi there. Good to be here, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: And it’s good to have you back. So, the numbers are staggering. Something like 30 to 40 percent of the food
we produce never makes it to the table. ALLISON AUBREY: That’s right. And when these numbers were first documented
several years ago, the reaction was, how could this be? This is insane, right? Now, two years later, there are all kinds
of solutions being tried all over the country. For instance, we visited farmers in Massachusetts. They are taking food waste, streams of food
that can’t be eaten, and turning it into electricity, into renewable energy. Now, we start the series in California. That’s because the state is really leading
the way. I traveled with producer Mary Beth Durkin
around the state. And here’s what we found. When we first came to Salinas Valley four
years ago, we saw walls of leafy greens being tossed away. And it’s still happening. On peak days, up to 200 tons of produce is
headed to this dump. It’s all surplus from nearby farms and packaging
facilities. One reason these greens end up here is because
they weren’t shipped in time to give grocers enough shelf time to sell them. But it was these plastic bags that really
frustrated Cesar Zuniga. He’s the facility’s waste manager. CESAR ZUNIGA, Operations Manager, Salinas
Valley Solid Waste Facility: It’s sad to receive all this material and not put it to better
use. The plastic makes, it hard to compost as well,
because you shred the plastic with the organics, it contaminates the compost. ALLISON AUBREY: All this used to be tossed
in a landfill, where it would rot and emit methane, a greenhouse gas. But Cesar Zuniga says there’s a new solution. Look at all that lettuce. And it’s all in plastic. CESAR ZUNIGA: Yes, it’s all film plastic. This is the same stuff we saw four years ago. Now we have this machine, the debagger, which
separates that film plastic from the lettuce. ALLISON AUBREY: All of that bagged lettuce
goes in here. CESAR ZUNIGA: As you can see, it’s being separated. ALLISON AUBREY: Oh, yes. CESAR ZUNIGA: The plastic is coming out here. And if you walk around the corner here, you
will see the organic materials coming out on this side into this container here. ALLISON AUBREY: Whoa. Look at that. It’s like a slurry. CESAR ZUNIGA: We call it a salsa. ALLISON AUBREY: Oh, so a salsa of wasted lettuce. So here is where you take all that lettuce
slurry and turn it into something more valuable? CESAR ZUNIGA: After we debag the material
and get the slurry out of it, we will mix it with the material that’s behind us and
compost it. ALLISON AUBREY: So, you’re turning into compost
and then selling it back to farmers? CESAR ZUNIGA: Yes. We sell it back to farmers, and they place
it back on the agricultural lands to grow more produce for us. ALLISON AUBREY: So it’s a real reuse, recycle. And composting can reduce or prevent the release
of methane as these greens break down. This is beneficial because methane is a significant
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and a factor in climate change. In addition to composting, recovering edible
food before it makes it to a landfill is another effective way to prevent food waste. In the coming year, California will roll out
new regulations that require food businesses, like grocery stores and wholesale distributors,
to donate their edible food waste. By 2022, if they don’t comply, businesses
could be fined. DANA GUNDERS, Next Course: Right now, the
easiest thing to do is to just throw whatever food you have out. So, with this new law, it’s forcing people
to take that extra effort. And that exercise, in itself, helps people
to reduce the amount of surplus they’re creating. ALLISON AUBREY: That’s Dana Gunders, who helped
put the issue of food waste on the map back in 2012 with a report that documented just
how much goes to waste. The state of California is also expanding
grants to nonprofits to recover all of this surplus food that may have just gone to waste,
in order to feed hungry people. RICH NAHMIAS, Food Forward: Millions of pounds
of produce a year. ALLISON AUBREY: One group leading the way
is called Food Forward. It’s run by Rich Nahmias. Collecting food donations is nothing new,
but what you see here is taking it to a whole new level. RICK NAHMIAS: It’s the quantity that’s kind
of amazing. We have got melons, kale, watermelon, corn
in the back. It’s like a supermarket. ALLISON AUBREY: Thanks to a $500,000 grant
from the state, Nahmias bought this warehouse equipped with a refrigerator that can hold
up to 150,000 pounds of produce. All of this will double the amount of food
he can recover. RICK NAHMIAS: People just don’t understand
the scale of overproduction. And there is no one in, let’s say, fruit and
veggie land control tower figuring out exactly where the stuff should be going and coming
from. So, the result is waste. ALLISON AUBREY: He’s out to change this. Food Forward has developed a sophisticated
system to match the wholesalers who have surplus produce to give away with the people who need
it. And, this year, they will distribute food
to 1,800 hunger relief agencies in Southern California. A lot of the surplus comes from farms, farmers
markets and right here, the L.A. Wholesale Food Market. We woke up at 5:00 a.m. to check it out. Do you have any deals yet this morning? LUIS YEPIZ, Food Forward: Yes. Right now, we just got offered eight pallets
of peaches, 14,000 to 15,000 pounds of peaches. ALLISON AUBREY: Whoa. That’s a lot. LUIS YEPIZ: Yes. ALLISON AUBREY: Luis Yepiz is part of the
Food Forward operation team. And his job is to nag vendors who are getting
ready to toss stuff out. By 6:00 a.m., Yepiz has recovered close to
80,000 pounds of produce. So, why would any of these vendors be offering
you donations? What’s wrong with this produce? LUIS YEPIZ: A lot of the produce that gets
donated gets donated mostly because there’s minor imperfections. ALLISON AUBREY: And that’s not the only reason. LUIS YEPIZ: They told me it was these pallets
right here, that pallet, this pallet, all these pallets right here. ALLISON AUBREY: Wow. All going to waste? LUIS YEPIZ: They haven’t been sold yet. And they have a new shipment of peaches coming
in. So they want to get rid of them before they
have to throw them away. The issue with this particular box of peaches,
that there is some decay. ALLISON AUBREY: But some of them are good,
so you don’t want to throw away the whole box. LUIS YEPIZ: Unfortunately, this particular
company is short on refrigerated space. They want to donate them. ALLISON AUBREY: By 10:00 a.m., these peaches
and all the other produce are loaded onto this truck. First stop, Resurrection Church in East L.A.
Families are lined up waiting. Back at the wholesale market, I asked Yepiz
if he’s worried about not having enough food. LUIS YEPIZ: There is definitely enough food
in Los Angeles and in the local food systems that we are definitely able to feed everyone
in Southern California. The issue is not necessarily with the food
being available. It’s a distribution problem. ALLISON AUBREY: Getting it to the people in
need. LUIS YEPIZ: Yes. It’s just a logistics problem. So, you got to create the bridges between
the abundance and the people in need. ALLISON AUBREY: A logistics problem that Nahmias
has a fix for. He’s got new software to help track the enormous
amounts of produce they’re moving in and out. RICK NAHMIAS: We’re able to track food in
real time, we’re able to see where the trucks are at, what is on each truck, where it’s
coming from, where it’s going. And it’s allowed us to scale. ALLISON AUBREY: And that scale is what’s needed. California is not the only state taking action. Five states and five cities have restrictions
aimed at diverting food waste from landfills. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Allison Aubrey
of NPR News in Los Angeles. JUDY WOODRUFF: This week has brought another
alarming milestone. Global greenhouse gas emissions hit a record
level again last year. As those heat-trapping gases increase, the
Earth warms, melting even the thick ice in the Arctic that’s supposed to remain permanently
frozen. As a result, rising seas could threaten hundreds
of millions of people worldwide, including in a small Alaskan village. Stephanie Sy has the story of that village
and its efforts to adapt. It’s part of our series on the Leading Edge
of science, health and technology. STEPHANIE SY: More than two decades ago, the
Yupik of Newtok, Alaska voted to move to a new land. With the Earth warming, the permafrost their
village sat on was melting, while rising seas were making the Ninglick River rise and erode
the riverline and coastline, on average, 70 feet a year. In early October, the first Yupik started
moving to their new town, Mertarvik, located along a hillside of a volcanic island from
where the Ninglick meets the Bering Sea. The new place is close, only nine miles away,
but the journey was long and, as relocation coordinator Romy Cadiente describes, arduous. ROMY CADIENTE, Newtok Relocation Coordinator:
Getting all of the material, equipment, people, food, everything that’s associated with construction,
the whole logistics, the whole planning of this move was really challenging for everybody. STEPHANIE SY: Without a federal policy for
relocating people affected by climate change, the Yupik sought various funding sources,
and the military helped build some of the houses. The first prototype house was erected in 2016,
and 17 families have now moved into new abodes. They are improvements to what they and many
other rural Alaskans have had, with proper running water and sewage, replacing the so-called
honey buckets that made living in Newtok less than sanitary. The community collaborated with outside groups,
including the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, to design and engineer a village
that would continue their culture of subsistence living off the land. Cadiente says the fishing is better near Mertarvik. ROMY CADIENTE: The folks didn’t want to get
integrated into another village or move, because they have been around this area for hundreds
of years. They know where to fish, when the fish is
running. They know where to hunt, when it’s that time
of the year. So, just keeping their subsistence livelihood
intact, together with their culture, we wanted to keep that alive for them. STEPHANIE SY: The houses are more sustainable,
harnessing renewable energy, and, with them, the Yupik enter a new future, one that they
hope is healthier, and safer. ROMY CADIENTE: It’s heartbreaking to see a
home, you know, that is almost being lost to the river, just scared families that don’t
know or don’t — and then you keep their tradition. You keep their identity. STEPHANIE SY: Climate refugees, they have
been called, but also survivors, and, in a way, pioneers. The resettlement of the Yupik people has drawn
in local, state and federal agencies from different fields and is far from over. One of the organizations helping to manage
the relocation effort is the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Gavin Dixon is the community development manager
for that group and joins me now from Anchorage. Gavin, you were in Mertarvik recently. Give us an idea of how people are settling
in. GAVIN DIXON, Development Manager, Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium: We have got about 18 families moved in out there. And people are settling into their new homes
and, you know, getting used to more space in a new location. And I think people are starting to embrace
their new home. STEPHANIE SY: How long will it take to fully
relocate and resettle the entire community from Newtok? GAVIN DIXON: It depends a little bit on when
investment comes for additional housing and infrastructure in Mertarvik. But we’re forecasting, by 2023 relocating
the entire population of Newtok to the new site. STEPHANIE SY: There are communities around
the country and the world, as you know, facing tough questions about whether to stay in flood-prone
areas or relocate. Where do you see that Yupik relocation model
fitting into the national conversation? GAVIN DIXON: Well, I think Newtok is a community
that’s moving early, and doing it in advance of the impacts of erosion. They’re not the only community in rural Alaska. There are many other communities, at least
12 other communities, that are likely to face either a partial or full relocation due to
the impacts of flooding and erosion. But there’s a lot more people in this country
and all over the world that face the same threats. And it’s not easy to move. And it’s not just the challenges from a personal
level are very serious. The challenges from a technical design and
construction level, especially in the Arctic and especially in rural Alaska, are very complicated. STEPHANIE SY: What other challenges came out
of this process of relocation that would be informative to other communities facing the
same fate with climate change approaching? GAVIN DIXON: I think some of the decisions
that have been the most challenging are, how do you relocate, and then — and how do you
plan for something that happens slowly? A lot of times, when a community faces a disaster,
it’s an event. It’s a tornado. It’s a hurricane. It’s an earthquake. And the effort to rebuild is based on that
specific event. But what happens when it’s a slow-moving disaster,
like erosion or persistent flooding? And how do you plan for addressing a disaster
like that? And so Newtok has put a lot of effort into
planning on a long time scale, what it’s like to relocate the community, how they do it,
what’s the highest priority. STEPHANIE SY: How much did the people, the
Yupik people, contribute to building this new community? GAVIN DIXON: An incredible amount. More than half the construction crew has been
a local work force out there. And the community has also put every dollar
that they can — they can scrounge, from every funding source they can imagine, including
their own tribally generated revenues, into building more housing for their people. STEPHANIE SY: How much time do the folks that
are still in Newtok have to relocate before their homes disappear into the sea? GAVIN DIXON: In 2019, seven homes would have
gone into the Ninglick River, if they had not been demolished in advance of the advancing
erosion. Those homes, those residents have already
relocated to the new site, but more homes lie in the way of the erosion that’s encroaching
about 60 feet a year. The folks closest to the erosion have less
time than others. We expect there’s about four houses that could
be potentially impacted in 2020. We expect that the school, which is really
a central pillar of the community, will be impacted as soon as 2021 or 2022. And the airport, which is the community’s
primary transportation access, would be impacted by 2023. One of the core tenets of the culture in Newtok
is adaptability. And I think that’s a really important value
that their community and their culture maintains to deal with a threat like climate change,
a changing environment. STEPHANIE SY: Gavin Dixon, the community development
manager with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Gavin, thank you so much. GAVIN DIXON: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tonight’s Brief But Spectacular
features performer Adrienne C. Moore, an actress best known for her role in “Orange Is the
New Black.” She opens up here about pulling characters
from her upbringing in Atlanta and the impact her father had on her. This is part of Canvas, our continuing covering
of arts and culture. ADRIENNE C. MOORE, Actress: What I love about
acting and being in front of people is, honestly, seeing their expressions. My first production that I can remember was
“The Best Christmas Pageant Ever” in Nashville, Tennessee. I had no lines, just the little chorus parts. But that gave me a chance to look at every
single person in the audience during the show and seeing them smile, and laugh, and have
feelings and emotions. And from that moment on, I said, I want to
do this for the rest of my life. “Orange Is the New Black” came about just
like any other audition. They called me in for Black Cindy. Immediately, when I read it, I said, oh, my
gosh, I know this girl. To me, she represented a lot of girls that
I had run across when I’d moved to Atlanta, just very fiery and speak their minds, and
pop their fingers, and roll their eyes, and roll their heads, and just tell their truth. And so, when I read her, I said, I think I
could embody her pretty well. Of course she ain’t smiling. She got screwed by me, by — by everybody. Suzanne, everything is broken and life is
unfair. When are you going to learn that? The play that I did in Shakespeare in the
Park was called “Taming of the Shrew.” I got to work with Phyllida Lloyd, who is
a phenomenal director. And I was always afraid of Shakespeare, iambic
pentameter, and just going up on a line and all that kind of stuff. But she really taught me how to own the language
and, in that ownership, how to own the character. And once I got past that fear, I had the most
amazing time. What was so revolutionary about that experience
was that I lost my dad literally in the same time that I was doing that show. And so I was experiencing incredible highs
and incredible lows at the same time. But one of the things that my dad taught me
and told me before he passed was happiness. And so that’s the thing that I always try
to embody in my work and in my life and in who I am. I feel like, when I’m in the pocket with something,
I will sometimes hear this little chime or this a little ding somewhere off in the distance,
and I feel like it’s my dad being like, you got it. You’re on the point, girl. My dad was very proud of me, of his children,
because one of the things he always said was, do what makes you happy. And a lot of times, when I get in very confusing
places in my life, and I don’t know what choice to make, I always think about what he said,
which is, do what makes you happy. And so that’s how I make my decisions. I don’t question. I just go inside of myself. And I say, well, what will make me happy in
this moment? Because that’s what my dad taught me. My name is Adrienne C. Moore, and this is
my Brief But Spectacular take on all the characters of my life. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you can watch additional
Brief But Spectacular episodes on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. Tonight, the “NewsHour” has a special report
airing on PBS, “The Plastic Problem.” Our “NewsHour” reporting teams spent more
than a year examining how our global dependence on plastic has created one of the biggest
environmental threats to our planet. Amna Nawaz hosts the program. And here’s a quick look. AMNA NAWAZ: The oceans are swimming in it. Rivers are choked with it. Coastlines are collecting it. Landfills are clogged with it. Our trash bags are filled with it. And it’s even floating in the air we breathe. MAN: Imagine spreading out nine billion metric
tons evenly. We could cover an area the size of Argentina
or of California six times over. AMNA NAWAZ: It’s plastic, the material we
can’t seem to live without, that also lasts longer than a lifetime. Plastic can take hundreds of years to break
down, and even then only into microparticles. It’s hurting animals. It’s in our food chain. Plastic is everywhere. JUDY WOODRUFF: “The Plastic Problem” airs
on PBS tonight at 10:00 and at 9:00 Central. And two news updates before we go. Late this evening, President Trump signed
into law two bills backing pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. The move allows the U.S. to sanction human
rights abuses, and it bans the export of tear gas and other crowd control munitions to Hong
Kong. It comes despite China’s objections and amid
ongoing talks to end trade tensions with Beijing. And in an opinion piece for The Washington
Post, former U.S. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer speaks out, three days after being fired following
a dispute with President Trump over how to handle a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes. Spencer writes, in part — quote — “The president
has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically
or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices” — end quote. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” have
a wonderful Thanksgiving.

PBS NewsHour full episode November 26, 2019

November 28, 2019 | Articles, Blog | No Comments

PBS NewsHour full episode November 26, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: a bleak forecast. The United Nations issues a stark warning
of the action that must now be taken to mitigate the climate crisis. Then: the limits of power. A new court ruling declares the president’s
aides must testify before Congress, as the next public impeachment hearing is set. And the bidding will start at one euro — why
a shrinking Italian town is selling abandoned homes for the price of a cup of espresso. BERT VAN BELLINGEN, Belgian: In one year,
what we have done, me and my wife, it’s beautiful. If you’re waking up, and you see this view
in the morning… CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: No regrets. BERT VAN BELLINGEN: No regrets, never. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The United Nations has released
a grim and alarming assessment about the impact of climate change. Even worse, it found that countries around
the world are not doing nearly enough right now to slow the damage before it becomes worse. JOHN CHRISTENSEN, Lead Author, United Nations
Emissions Gap Report: The probability of avoiding dangerous levels of global average temperature
increases is dwindling. If you look at the global emissions, they
are still going up. JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s according to a new U.N.
report. It found the planet will have to reduce carbon
emissions by 7.6 percent a year between 2020 and 2030. Instead, emissions have been increasing by
about 1.5 percent a year over the past decade. JOHN CHRISTENSEN: We had a little hope a couple
of years ago that the CO2 part of the emissions had basically been stable for a few years,
and we hoped that that indicated a stabilization. But it started to increase again, and it doesn’t
look too good. JUDY WOODRUFF: As part of the 2015 Paris climate
accord, nearly 200 countries, including the U.S., had vowed to take action to limit temperature
rise to between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees Celsius, or about 2.7 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Beyond those levels, scientists warn the climate
will reach a dangerous tipping point. But the goal is slipping out of reach. Greenhouse gas emissions reached a record
level last year, the highest since pre-Industrial times. Many countries are not on track to meet the
goals of the Paris accord. And, under President Trump, the U.S. is withdrawing
from the Paris agreement, effective next year. INGER ANDERSEN, United Nations Environment
Program: Had we acted in 2010, we would have had to reduce our emissions by 3.3 percent
a year. Now, because of climate procrastination, which
we have essentially had during these 10 years, we are looking at a 7.6 percent reduction
every year. But the science tells us that we can do this. JUDY WOODRUFF: If serious action is not taken,
the U.N. warned that global average temperatures could rise as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit
by the end of the century. The challenge ahead is enormous, and it comes
amid daunting estimates over the impact of what’s already happened. A recent study found that greenhouse gases’
warming effect on the planet has increased by 43 percent just since 1990. Let’s explore some of these questions with
a climate scientist. He is Radley Horton. He works at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
at Columbia University. Dr. Horton, welcome to the “NewsHour.” Thank you very much for being here. I want to ask you, first of all, this sounds
pretty dire, I mean, to say that we have got starting right now to reduce emissions by
over 7.5 percent a year, or we face catastrophe. Is it that dire? RADLEY HORTON, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory:
I believe it is that dire, when we think about the climate risks that we’re facing, Judy. In order to not blow through this 1.5-degree
Celsius warming target, just as you said, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
by on the order of 7 or 8 percent per year. By 2030, we have to have 50 percent less emissions
each year than we do today to avoid the worst impacts that we could see from climate change. JUDY WOODRUFF: Where does the fault lie here? We just — we heard one of the scientists
— it caught my ear. He said because of climate procrastination. Who has been procrastinating? RADLEY HORTON: Well, the short answer is just
about everybody. Really, to get to where we need to be, we
need to see much greater ambition. Especially, I think, the leadership has to
lie primarily with the large economies that historically have burned so many fossil fuels. And, remember, these fossil fuels stay in
the atmosphere for a very long time. So, we’re still experiencing today warming
and sea level rise from emissions, for example, by the United States, European Union for decades
past. So that’s the first place that you have to
look. And those are also the countries that have
benefited historically from their greenhouse gas emissions in terms of economic growth. So those are the countries we have the look
at first. But the short answer is, we have gotten ourselves
into such a pickle now by delaying — reducing our emissions that now every country in the
world really has to get on board with dramatically reducing our emissions. JUDY WOODRUFF: I’m asking because I heard
a panel discussion over the weekend where one of the experts said the U.S. can’t wait
for China and India, for example, to go first, because of their population. The U.S. has to go ahead and move on its own. So you’re saying everybody has got to move
right now? RADLEY HORTON: Everybody has to move, absolutely. Here in the U.S., I think, by not being more
ambitious, and indeed by pulling out of the protocol, other countries see that as a signal
that maybe they can afford to back off a little bit. So we need more ambition from everybody. One thing to keep in mind is even those countries
that made pledges for 2020, the only way this was going to work was if they then amplified
and made much more aggressive their emissions pledges beginning in 2020. So, what we’re actually seeing is many, not
all countries, failing to meet the emissions reduction pledges that they had said they
would get to by 2020. That sets the stage for us needing far more
ambitious reductions in our emissions over the coming decade. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe it’s doable,
that this is actually — that this can be done? RADLEY HORTON: So here’s the paradox. Despite all the negative things we have been
talking about so far, in some ways, I think it’s more doable than ever, because I think
we’re starting to see some early signs of a mass mobilization. It’s still a small amount of gas emissions
averted, but when we look at powerful levers in society, they’re showing some signs of
activating around this issue. I’m thinking, for example, about youth movements,
people who are saying that they’re not going to accept the way things were done in the
past. When they think about the colleges they’re
going to go to, the jobs they want to have in the future, where they’re going the make
their investments, they are going to be picking industries that are focused on reducing emissions
and focused on thinking about how they’re going to be vulnerable to climate change. That could, I think, lead to a whole shift
of revenues in the future. That’s one example. We could also talk about what we have seen
in terms of renewable energy prices dropping faster than predicted, battery technology
starting to reach a price parity. We have already hit the point where renewables
are outcompeting fossil fuels such as coal just about everywhere. So we’re seeing signs of that mobilization. The question is, is it happening fast enough? JUDY WOODRUFF: And, just quickly, what are
some examples of the tough trade-offs that are going to have to be made? RADLEY HORTON: So, a few of the sectors that
are really, really challenging, we think about aviation-related emissions. Aviation emissions are growing roughly 6 percent
per year as people fly more. We do not have a viable substitute right now
for fossil fuels for aviation. Similarly, in heavy industry — think about
things like mining, steel smelting — those require fossil fuels. We don’t have solutions today. So there are no easy fixes there. In terms of other types of trade-off, even
where we see renewables reaching parity, there are going to be some existing entrenched interests
that could suffer in the short-term, but, for society, as a net gain, we see new jobs,
we see new areas of economic growth going forward. And, critically, if we quickly reduce our
emissions, we avoid or avert some of these catastrophic damages that we’re going to see
if we fail to adapt. If we don’t, for example, get emissions down,
get sea level rise to slow, think of the costs we’re going to be look at in terms of trying
the adapt, trying to build seawalls, having to retreat from vulnerable areas. Those costs exceed anything that greenhouse
gas emissions reductions could look like. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just finally, how much
of the tough choices that have to be made are really political choices? RADLEY HORTON: I think, fundamentally, this
is a political problem. You’re absolutely right. The technology already exists to get us quickly
towards where we need to be, those sectors I mentioned that are thorny notwithstanding. If we can quickly reduce our emissions in
renewables, for example, if we can get the electric grid off of fossil fuels, if we can
get the transportation sector off of fossil fuels, the land-based transportation, those
are things we could do today. If we do that aggressively, we buy ourselves
time for currently pie-in-the-sky technologies to maybe become viable. I’m talking here about things like directly
pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. We don’t have an ability to do that today,
but can we buy ourselves enough time with the right investments, and maybe in 10 or
20 years something like that will be feasible, allowing us to actually lower carbon concentrations? But, to be clear, we’re not there today, hence
the need for greater ambition across the board in society now. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it’s important to end
with at least a piece of an uplifting note here. Dr. Radley Horton, thank you very much, Columbia
University. Thank you. RADLEY HORTON: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: The
U.S. House Judiciary Committee set December 4 to open hearings on possible articles of
impeachment. They will focus on whether President Trump
withheld military aid to Ukraine for his personal political benefit. House Democrats today released depositions
from interviews with White House budget official Mark Sandy and State Department official Philip
Reeker, and said their testimony bolsters the case against Mr. Trump. We will return to impeachment right after
the news summary. In Iraq, more violence today. Three bombings across Baghdad killed at least
five people and wounded more than a dozen. There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Those attacks followed clashes with security
forces that left three more demonstrators dead. Meanwhile, smoke filled the air across parts
of Southern Iraq, as protesters burned tires and occupied roads. The protesters are demanding an end to corruption,
to poor services and high unemployment. In the West Bank, several thousand Palestinians
staged a day of rage against the changed U.S. stance on Israeli settlements. The Trump administration announced last week
that it no longer considers the settlements illegal, reversing 40 years of U.S. policy. In Bethlehem today, protesters threw rocks
at Israeli soldiers, who fired back with tear gas. And, in Ramallah, Palestinian leaders condemned
Washington. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI, Palestinian Politician:
This decision makes the American administration a participant with Israel in violating the
international law. Israeli settlements are illegal by international
law, by the decision of the International Court of Justice. And we are here to declare that we will struggle
for our rights, for our freedom. JUDY WOODRUFF: Israel has steadily expanded
the settlements that an international court has said are illegal and says that their fate
should be determined by negotiations. In Britain, charges of anti-Semitism are roiling
the election campaign. The nation’s chief rabbi claims in a newspaper
column that anti-Jewish racism is — quote — “sanctioned from the top of the opposition
Labor Party.” Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn has faced repeated
criticism on the issue. Today, he condemned anti-Semitism as vile
and wrong. A powerful earthquake in Albania has left
at least 21 people today and more than 600 injured. The tremor was centered just northwest of
Tirana, the country’s capital city. Rescue crews used excavators to search for
survivors amid the rubble. The quake shattered hotels and other buildings
in the port city of Durres. Back in this country, a sweeping new study
finds death rates for younger Americans, 25 to 34, have jumped nearly 30 percent this
decade. The report in “The Journal of the American
Medical Association” says that, in turn, has helped cut the nation’s overall life expectancy
for three straight years. It says causes range from opioids to obesity
to distracted driving from cell phones. A winter storm is wreaking havoc on U.S. holiday
travel from the Rockies to the Great Lakes. Parts of Colorado got two feet of snow overnight. Hundreds of flights were canceled at Denver
International Airport, stranding more than 1,100 travelers. This morning, in Denver, it was still snowing,
fouling the morning commute. And, as the storm headed east, Minnesota and
others braced for the blow. TODD KRAUSE, National Weather Service: So
we’re looking at eight to 12 inches of snow, winds maybe gusting to 30, 40 miles an hour. It’s going to be bad. The snow is going to come down hard. It’s going to come down fast. Visibility will be very, very poor during
the height of the snowstorm. JUDY WOODRUFF: The storm will arrive in the
Northeast by Thursday, and officials in New York say that it might ground the giant balloons
in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. A separate storm is hitting Northern California
and Oregon tonight, with high winds and waves and heavy snow. That storm could help contain a wildfire burning
out of control in southern California. Nearly 5,500 people were ordered out of its
path today, but most were being allowed back later. The fire erupted Monday, fanned by strong
winds, in a mountainous area above Santa Barbara. But, as of late today, no homes had been destroyed. An outbreak of E. coli from romaine lettuce
is getting worse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reports that there are now 67 cases in 19 states. They have been linked to romaine grown in
the Salinas, California, area. E. coli can cause severe gastrointestinal
illness and even death. And on Wall Street, stocks edged higher, taking
three major indexes to new record highs. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 55
points to close at 28121. The Nasdaq rose 15 points, and the S&P 500
added almost seven. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: how the courts
can shape the road ahead for impeachment; the rise and fall of WeWork — why the start-up’s
value dropped by $40 billion in a matter of weeks; own your own home in Italy for a single
euro, with a few strings attached; and much more. The process of impeaching a president is the
ultimate test of the balance of power in our government. Now the courts are weighing in on how the
White House must comply with Congress. The rulings could change what evidence and
witnesses appear in the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. We also have new details on the next public
hearing and another patch of witness transcripts released this evening. Here to break down the latest, our White House
correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor. So, hello, Yamiche. A lot to catch up with here. Just in the last hour, these transcripts released. These were the last witnesses to appear before
the House Intelligence Committee. Tell us who these individuals were. And what are we learning from their testimony? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, our team was combing
through hundreds of pages of transcripts in the last hour. There’s so much to unpack. The first person that was — whose transcript
was released was Ambassador Philip Reeker. I want to tell you a little bit about who
he is. He’s U.S. acting assistant secretary for European
and Eurasian affairs. He served over under both Democratic and Republican
administrations. He didn’t appear in public hearings. And what’s important about him is that he
essentially confirms a lot of the things that we know were happening when it comes to Gordon
Sondland, the E.U. ambassador the European Union, ambassador being seen as an irregular
actor when it came to pressuring Ukraine to look at investigations into Joe Biden and
Hunter Biden in exchange for this $391 million in military aid. He also talked about acting Chief of Staff
Mick Mulvaney possibly being involved. He also says that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s
personal attorney, was playing a role there. I also want to note that he talks about four
big themes that the officials were looking at. And I want to read them. The first is attacks on Yovanovitch. That is Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who
testified publicly. The 2016 election and interference by Ukraine
to aid Hillary Clinton. Burisma and Biden. And Burisma was that company that Hunter Biden
was on the board of. And George Soros, a philanthropist and activist. Influence on the region through an NGO. So that was really what Philip Reeker was
talking about there. And he was really confirming a lot of things. There wasn’t a big — a lot of big red flags
there. Then the other person who testified is Mark
Sandy. I want to tell you a little bit about him. He’s a senior career official in the Office
of Management and Budget. He served under also — under both Democratic
and Republican administrations. He’s important because he’s from OMB. That’s what we call the Office of Management
and Budget. Both acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and
the current — the current head of OMB, neither one of them have come to Congress to talk
about talk about anything that was going on in that office. So this is someone, a career official, who
said, I’m going to come to Congress and talk about this. And the main thing that we learned from his
— from him is that someone might have actually resigned in part because there was this hold
on military aid. So that was something completely new. We had not heard anything about that. The other thing to note is that he just talks
about the process of which, how the money was held up. So he doesn’t say anything new about kind
of what we knew. But he does say that people were concerned
that this hold might have been breaking the law. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, as we said, so much to
follow there, and I know that our team is going to continue to pore through these transcripts,
as are you. But, yesterday, later in the day, we had an
appeals — I’m sorry — a federal district judge ruled that Don McGahn, formerly President
Trump’s legal counsel, must testify before the Congress. Today — it’s not a surprise, but, today,
the White House went ahead and said, we are appealing. Where does all that stand right now? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: This was a major ruling
that really caught a lot of people by surprise, because Don McGahn, the White House — the
former White House counsel, was essentially being told, you have to go up to Congress
and testify, you have to comply with the subpoena. And I want to read to you a little bit about
what the judge said in her ruling. She said: “The primary takeaway from the past
250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings.” And what the judge was saying there was that
the president can’t require people to have loyalty, and that when — either current officials
or former officials, they have the same constitutional rights to have free speech. Now, this has been appealed, and it might
be moving pretty quickly, or we might have to wait months to figure out what’s going
on here. What we do know is that the president of the
United States, President Trump, has been tweeting. He’s very angry about this ruling. And here’s what he said on Twitter. “I am fighting for future presidents and the
office of the president. Other than that, I would actually like people
to testify.” He went on to list a number of people that
he would want to testify, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the former National Security
Adviser John Bolton. And he essentially is saying, I would love
these people to come and say that this is all a hoax and that actually I did everything
very right. But what the president says is that this would
compromise future presidencies, and that essentially people who work for me should be able to not
be forced to tell him — to tell Congress what we talked about. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, just quickly,
separately from all this, Supreme Court order affecting the accounting firm that does work
for President Trump, tell us quickly about that. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: So, quickly, the Supreme
Court is essentially saying that they’re blocking temporarily the House trying to get financial
records for President Trump. He has not released his tax returns, so this
really goes down to his personal attorney Michael Cohen telling Congress that the president
has sometimes inflated his earnings. So the House wants to essentially get to the
bottom of that. So we’re going to have to see. It might go all the way to the Supreme Court,
but there are going to be appeals moving through the courts. JUDY WOODRUFF: And finally, in terms of what’s
next, the Judiciary Committee has now announced what it’s doing. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The big news today was that
the House Judiciary Committee announced its last — its first formal public hearing in
the impeachment inquiry. It is going to be on December 4. So everyone should mark their calendars. It’s not going to be as newsy or as — I would
say, as surprising as what we saw with Fiona Hill and other people who came to testify
publicly, because we’re not going to have current and former officials coming and saying
what they heard the president was doing. Instead, they’re going to be having constitutional
experts, maybe legal experts talking about how impeachment works, talking about what
high crimes and misdemeanors are. So it’s not going to be the same as what we
saw in the House Intel Committee. But it’s still going to be important, because
the president can now bring his attorneys and cross-examine witnesses. And that means that they could start to look
at other public hearings and say, well, this person said this. What do you think about that? So there could still be a little bit of drama,
but it’s going to be much different than what we saw last week. JUDY WOODRUFF: Next step in the impeachment
process. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Yamiche Alcindor, thank you. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks. JUDY WOODRUFF: This has been a sobering year
for some of Silicon Valley’s highest-flying start-up companies, some of which have been
brought down to earth. The Wall Street Journal estimated today that
some of the most prominent start-ups have lost $100 billion in market value, one of
the biggest, WeWork. John Yang looks at what went wrong. JOHN YANG: Judy, WeWork set out to revolutionize
the workplace, leasing offices, fixing them up, and then subletting them as shared spaces. At the beginning of this year, it was the
single biggest office tenant in London, New York and Washington. But since January, WeWork’s valuation has
plunged from $47 billion to $7 billion. Last week, the company said it was laying
off 2,400 employees. That’s nearly a fifth of its global work force. The announcement was delayed until the company
raised the cash it needed for severance payments. That was after co-founder Adam Neumann was
bought out for more than $1 billion and given a four-year $185 million consulting contract. Peter Eavis of The New York Times has been
covering this story. He joins us from the paper’s newsroom in New
York. Peter, thanks so much for being with us. Fundamentally, what was the problem? What happened? Why did $40 billion go away? PETER EAVIS, The New York Times: That $47
billion valuation was the result of WeWork’s biggest backer, SoftBank, pouring in billions
of dollars into the company. That then set off an enormous expansion across
the globe that left the company with huge losses. And when they — when WeWork came to do its
IPO, and everybody saw how much it was losing, how it was draining cash so quickly, they
balked, and the IPO had to be called off. JOHN YANG: So, tell us quickly, who is SoftBank,
and who was running it, and why is it important? PETER EAVIS: SoftBank is a Japanese conglomerate. It’s headed by a legendary investor called
Masayoshi Son. And he gained his reputation for making a
very successful bet on the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba. He’s made other successful investments as
well. And he’s used his reputation and the gains
he’s made over the years to invest in a lot of young companies recently, one of which
was WeWork. But he’s also put a lot of money into others. And not all of them are doing particularly
well. JOHN YANG: And his decision to invest in WeWork
— his initial investment — was $4.4 billion, came after a very brief meeting with the co-founder,
Adam Neumann. PETER EAVIS: Correct. I mean, that investment scaled up to as much
as $10.5 billion. He was enthralled by Mr. Neumann’s vision. He shared this idea — Masayoshi Son shared
this idea that a shared space could somehow revolutionize the workplace and was happy
to put in the billions, and apparently even said that Mr. Neumann should be even crazier
than he thought he should. JOHN YANG: You say he was enthralled by Mr.
Neumann. Let’s give the viewers an idea of Mr. Neumann. We are going to play a bite of him selling
WeWork to a group of U.S. mayors. ADAM NEUMANN, Co-Founder, WeWork: If you bring
us in for 10 locations, we will create 200,000 jobs other the next 10 years. And it can go bigger and bigger. And we won’t just bring you jobs. We will bring a place to live. We will bring education. And — and this is important — we will bring
corporate America. JOHN YANG: So, we get a sense of charisma,
his energy, his — the zeal he brought to these things. Tell us more about Adam Neumann. PETER EAVIS: He was raised on a kibbutz. He apparently came from an unhappy home. He talks about that. He served time in the Israeli military. He went to Baruch. He teamed up with a guy from — who grew up
on a commune, I think, in Oregon, and they founded WeWork. And they wanted to create, you know, a company
that they said ultimately would elevate the world’s consciousness. They — I don’t know to the degree it was
sincere, but they said they wanted to create a place that would revolutionize the workplace
and bring people together and spark creativity and create entrepreneurship. JOHN YANG: And it’s not just — I mean, what
he was doing was subletting office space, but he sold it, as you say, as a way to build
a community, to change the nature of communities? PETER EAVIS: Correct. And you will still find a lot of people who
are in WeWork spaces, particularly those early on, who still believe in this vision. It’s a catchy one. I can see how it caught on, especially in
the dark days after the financial crisis, when WeWork was formed. There were people looking for work. They went to these shared spaces. They dreamt up ideas for new businesses, start-ups. And that was the pitch. Of course, you know, we ultimately saw just
how hollow it was, but you can see how it had some attraction. JOHN YANG: This is, of course, one of the
great crashes in American business. Is there a moral to this story? PETER EAVIS: I think there is. I think that there’s a good moral and there’s
a bad moral. I think bad moral is the one that — made
one somewhat pessimistic, is that so many people fell for this. There were people on Wall Street that wanted
to sell this company at over $47 billion, maybe as much as $60 billion. But on the other hand, there was — as soon
as these numbers went out into the public, nobody wanted to buy this company. It was seen to be a risky proposition, and
the IPO failed. So, you know, people were wise to it. They saw through it. JOHN YANG: Peter Eavis of The New York Times,
thanks so much for being with us. PETER EAVIS: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Did you ever dream of owning
your own vacation getaway in Italy? Well, the cost usually makes people think
twice at least. But now, in some parts of Sicily, you can
buy your own home for just one euro, or little more than a dollar. That’s because the homes for sale have been
abandoned, and the towns there risk vanishing if new owners don’t move in soon. Special correspondent Christopher Livesay
went to see just what kind of home you can buy for less than the price of a cup of coffee. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: In the Sicilian town
of Gangi, it seems like little has changed since the Middle Ages. Throngs have turned out on this day to celebrate
the annual Festival of St. Francis. But many in the crowd are only tourists or
actors. And once the festivities finish, and everyone
leaves, the town looks like this, empty, at least down many streets. And it’s been getting worse for decades. FRANCESCO MIGLIAZZO, Mayor of Gangi, Sicily
(through translator): of Consider that, in 1951, Gangi had 13,000 inhabitants. Today, there are fewer than 7,000. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Francesco Migliazzo is
the mayor of Gangi. He tells me that the same things that make
his town so picturesque, from its narrow streets to its isolation from noisy cities, have also
made it inconvenient for locals, who’ve been steadily leaving in search of work in those
noisy cities since after World War II. In Sicily and across Italy, there are thousands
of towns like it, risking extinction in the coming decades. The mayor says Gangi was desperate. FRANCESCO MIGLIAZZO (through translator):
Homes were being abandoned and left to fall apart. We needed a way to incentivize people to live
in the historic center in order to save our town. So we started selling homes for only one euro. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: So, hold on. You can buy a house in this town for only
one euro? FRANCESCO MIGLIAZZO (through translator):
Absolutely, for the price of a cup of coffee. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Sound too good to be
true? To see for myself, I meet Ignazio Tuzzolino,
a retired banker who bought a vacation home for less money than he will spend repainting
his mirrors. IGNAZIO TUZZOLINO, Italy (through translator):
I have got to get a smaller car. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: So this is it? Wow. This is amazing. Of course, he didn’t find it this way. Part of the one-euro deal requires that buyers
renovate their home within three years of purchase. So the original design was this way. You just cleaned it up and made it habitable? IGNAZIO TUZZOLINO: Exactly. Exactly. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Wow. Amazing. Beautiful. With some slight modifications. OK. So you took the shutters off the old window,
and it became a cupboard. IGNAZIO TUZZOLINO (through translator): We
managed to save that sink too. It’s at least one century old. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: They don’t make them
this way anymore. Tuzzolino says he spent 200,000 euros, about
$220,000 right now, to makeover all 3,200 square feet, inside and out. IGNAZIO TUZZOLINO (through translator): That’s
money that went into the local economy to pay for materials and wages for workers. Now multiply that by all the other homes like
mine. So far there’s been roughly 120 homes sold
as a part of this program. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Perched in the shadow
of Mt. Etna, Gangi’s allure has been contagious. So has its marketing strategy. It’s been 10 years since it began selling
homes for one euro, and now other towns in Sicily have caught on, towns like Mussomeli. With a population of 10,000, it’s currently
selling nearly 400 homes for just over a dollar each. Houses are cheap, come with stunning views,
and 300 days of sunshine a year. But, buyer beware, there are hidden costs
and a lot of assembly required, some more than others. To start the house hunt, I book a visit with
a realtor. Cinzia Sorce shows me just what you can get
for one euro. CINZIA SORCE, Realtor (through translator):
As you can see, this floor is divided between the living room and bedroom, which is very
big. You have got to be careful about the floors,
which are very fragile. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Wait, wait. so you can’t walk over here? CINZIA SORCE (through translator): No. Avoid it. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: It could collapse? CINZIA SORCE (through translator): Yes, it’s
unsafe. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: OK. For better or worse, one euro also gets you
whatever you find inside these dusty 2,000 square feet. CINZIA SORCE (through translator): Whoever
buys the house then has to empty it out in order to rebuild it. That means getting rid of furniture, getting
rid of rubble and debris. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: A lot of surprises, yes. CINZIA SORCE (through translator): Yes. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: But don’t be surprised
by the extent of the overhaul. In this house and most others, there’s little
you won’t have to fix. CINZIA SORCE (through translator): Everything,
new pipes, new electric, gas. Not a single thing is up to code. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: So how much would I have
to invest in this house if I wanted to make it livable again? CINZIA SORCE (through translator): You will
have to invest a lot, absolutely. It’s impossible to say. At least 20,000 euros. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Still, not a bad deal
for idyllic views in your own Sicilian hideaway. And hidden, it is, not to mention hard to
get to. The nearest major airport is more than two
hours away by car on highways that have seen better days. If tourists are going to want to move here,
they’re going to have to put up with roads, which range from the good, to the bad, and
the utterly nonexistent. And most of these homebuyers are, after all,
tourists, here for just a few months out of the year. Most aren’t raising children, the only real
long-term solution to the population decline, according to demographers. But among the hundreds of people who have
already invested their euro in Sicily, some are starting new families. BERT VAN BELLINGEN, Belgian: Hello. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: So nice to meet you. BERT VAN BELLINGEN: Nice to meet you. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: One year ago, Belgians
Bert Van Bellingen and Nina Smets became the first people to buy abandoned real estate
in Mussomeli. This is original, these tiles? BERT VAN BELLINGEN: This is original. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: But you rebuilt it? BERT VAN BELLINGEN: I rebuilt it. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Lovely. BERT VAN BELLINGEN: It’s about 300 years old. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Now it feels so much
like home, they got married here just a few days before we met. Over here at the church? BERT VAN BELLINGEN: Over there at the church. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: Oh, wow. Since they moved here, more than 100 other
homes have been sold in Mussomeli to people from across Europe, Asia, and the United States. Do you regret anything about having moved
here? BERT VAN BELLINGEN: No. It’s worth. It’s worth. If you see what the finish is, in one year,
what we have done, me and my wife, it’s beautiful. If you’re waking up, and you see this view
in the morning… CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: No regrets. BERT VAN BELLINGEN: No regrets, never, no. CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY: For the “PBS NewsHour,”
I’m Christopher Livesay in Mussomeli, Sicily. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow night, PBS will air
an hour-long special report from our “NewsHour” team. “The Plastic Problem” examines how our global
dependency on plastic has created one of the biggest environmental threats to our planet. Amna Nawaz hosts the hour. And she joins me here now. So, Amna, hello. This was an enormous undertaking. You all spent, what, a year working on this. Tell us a little bit about what’s in it? AMNA NAWAZ: That’s right. I was part of this reporting team from the
“NewsHour,” along with John Yang, Paul Solman and Jeffrey Brown. And we were led by our producer Lorna Baldwin. Over the last year, we have dug into more
about the reporting from the series last year, expanded that reporting across the globe. And we wanted to try to understand how this
one material that we all rely on so much every day is now irreversibly hurting our planet
in ways most of us don’t even understand. Most people don’t know, in the 70 years plastic
has been around, we have made nine billion tons of that, and that most of that is still
around in some form. In fact, we should point out, some of the
images people may see this documentary are a little disturbing. And we found, in some places, the plastic
is ended up in places we don’t expect it to. Take a look at this. MAN: Oh, my God. AMNA NAWAZ: In 2015, a Marine biologist’s
went video went viral documenting the painful process as she removed a plastic straw stuck
in a sea turtle’s nose. WOMAN: Oh, man. AMNA NAWAZ: In the Philippines, a whale washed
ashore in 2019 with nearly 90 pounds of plastic in its stomach. Seals are getting caught in fishing nets made
out of plastic. They’re called ghost nets, abandoned by the
fishing industry. And an estimated 640,000 tons of them are
floating in the ocean. That’s 10 percent of all known ocean plastic. Judy, we should point out experts now believe
that, by the year 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. JUDY WOODRUFF: Oh, my gosh. That’s hard to comprehend. So it does sound as if we’re just now coming
to an understanding of how serious the problem is. What did you learn about that? AMNA NAWAZ: Yes, we really tried to approach
this from every angle, not just looking at the history of how we got here and why the
problem is so big, but also looking at how the people who make the plastic, the people
who package everything up to sell it to us, how they see the problem. So we went to two of the biggest producers
in the world. We went to Coca-Cola and to Unilever. And we asked them what they’re doing to help
fix this problem they helped to create. We also looked at the role recycling plays. A lot of people think that they roll the blue
bins out to the curb at the end of the week, and that’s it. We followed that trail of recyclable goods
thousands of miles to see where that plastic is ending up. We talked to scientists who are looking at
the fish that eat the plastic to ask, now are humans eating plastic because we eat the
fish? And we also talked to the innovators, the
people who are taking on new and creative approaches to try to address this problem. Judy, some of those approaches would actually
surprise a lot of people. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, and, in fact, a lot of
— you talk to a lot of people, and they say they want to know, what can be done about
it and what can I, as an individual, do about it? AMNA NAWAZ: That’s right. I’m sure a lot of people have heard about
campaigns to end plastic straw use or bans on plastic bags. We actually went to some cities and communities
where those are in place to see, what has actually been the impact? Does it make a difference at all? Look, it took every part of society to get
us where we are, to make the problem as big as it is today. So, despite our efforts to reuse and reduce,
we’re not yet making a dent. We use and make more plastic today than we
ever have before. But experts say, look, if you want to make
a difference today, start small and scale up. So we actually visited with one family in
Canada who is trying to do just that. Take a look. So, all reusable cups now. WOMAN: All reusable cups. AMNA NAWAZ: A cloth coffee filter? WOMAN: Yes. And we get our coffees in a jar. Reusable snack bags. We have got silicone. AMNA NAWAZ: OK. What do you replace this with? WOMAN: We are replacing it with beeswax wax. It covers food so that it doesn’t dry out. AMNA NAWAZ: How on earth do you get rid of
plastic in your bathroom? WOMAN: Yes. We’re using a toothpaste in a jar. AMNA NAWAZ: And it’s a glass jar. WOMAN: And it’s a glass jar. AMNA NAWAZ: Right? You can wash it out, reuse it. WOMAN: Got hand soap. So now, instead of the plastic pumps, we have
got a glass jar. AMNA NAWAZ: So you have made little changes
everywhere you can. WOMAN: Little changes, yes. AMNA NAWAZ: And, Judy, that’s what people
say will make a difference right now if you want to try something, lots of little changes. I actually tried this, testing out my own
grocery shop. It’s not as hard as it looks, but especially
to keep in mind, if folks go out Thanksgiving shopping, you can start the make little changes
today. JUDY WOODRUFF: It does look challenging, though,
to remember to do those little things. AMNA NAWAZ: That’s right. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Make a difference. All right, the program “The Plastic Problem”
airs tomorrow night on PBS. It’s at 10:00 Eastern, 9:00 Central. Thank you, Amna. AMNA NAWAZ: Thanks, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Many of our viewers known Karine
Jean-Pierre as a Democratic strategist and one of our analysts. In her book “Moving Forward,” she shares her
personal story about growing up the eldest child of Haitian immigrants. I sat down with her recently and began by
asking her how her upbringing shaped her life. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, Author, “Moving Forward”:
That immigrant upbringing, growing up in New York, it shaped everything and anything that
I’m about, right, who — the person that I sit here — that sits before you, my hard
work, my perseverance, the way I meet, see people and talk to people. It has made me who I am, the type of mother
that I have become, partner that I have become. My parents, Haitian immigrants, it’s like
the immigrant experience. They came here for the American dream that
in many ways eluded them. They still live check to check, but in their
eyes, because I made it to the White House, because their daughter went to Columbia, they
have received it. So it’s been interesting watching their experience. They have been knocked down , and they get
back up. And so, when I’m knocked down, I get back
up. Some that experience with them growing up
has really made me so much stronger. JUDY WOODRUFF: Your family is threaded through
so much of this book, your father a taxi driver, but trained as an engineer. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Exactly. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: And your mother had been a
nanny and then a caregiver. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, a caregiver. JUDY WOODRUFF: Both of them very involved
in you life. High expectations for you. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: High expectations. And it was overwhelming. Being the oldest of three siblings, I had
to take care of my siblings while my parents were working six, seven days a week. I had to feed them. And I’m 8 years older than my sister, 10 years
older than my brother, so I was pretty young when they were toddlers, and make sure their
food was cooked, make sure diapers were changed, because they had to provide for the family. And all of that heaviness, all of that responsibility
led to some dark times as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: You write about secrets in
the family. There were things your family didn’t talk
about. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: You write, Karine, about your
own struggles at points in your life with emotional difficulties, your own sexuality,
coming out as a gay woman, and how your parents responded to that. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Yes. So one of the things — there are so many
things that I bring up that you just laid out perfectly, but one of them is mental health. And one of the reasons I talk about it in
the book is because there is a stigma connected to mental health. And people don’t want to talk about what they
go through when they are in dark times and they don’t know how to get out of it. And because of the pressures of me growing
up, and just feeling like an outsider all through my growing up, my young — young days,
there was a time where I attempted to take my life. I attempted suicide. And it was a dark, dark time in my life, clearly. And so I put that in the book. I put it in the book because I want to help
people. I want anybody who has ever felt that way
to feel like there is a way out and to know there is a way out. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you think got you through
that? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I think back again — even
though there was pressures from the community, pressures from my family that I put on to
myself really in many ways, I think because, growing up, my parents always instilled in
me that I was going to survive, that I was going to be a star, that I was going to do
anything that I wanted, somehow, somewhere, that was still there, even though I was so
down and out. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you kept pushing through. You finished college. You went on to graduate school, ended up going
into politics. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you think you did? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I think I just persevered. I think it’s the being knocked down and going
back up again. I now teach at Columbia University, an Ivy
League school. I have to mentor and teach young people and
help them get through their lives. And I have a 5-year-old. My partner and I have this beautiful 5-year-old
daughter. And I think that helps me persevere, and that
helps me understand, what kind of world do I want to leave for her? JUDY WOODRUFF: You talk about advice to young
people, that they don’t have to work at the White House, which you said, or the state
capitol. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Yes. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: That they can make a difference
in politics and policy at the grassroots level. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. I believe that they can. The way they’re going to make that change
is if their voice is in the fight, if they step into the political arena, whether it’s
working on that issue, or deciding to run themselves, or working for a candidate that
they really believe in and want them to decide their future. And I tell that in my book. And I lay out the blueprint and the playbook
for doing that. JUDY WOODRUFF: In fact, there is a point of
the book where you have not only worked for President Obama. You worked for Anthony Weiner. You worked for John Edwards. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I did. JUDY WOODRUFF: Politicians who didn’t exactly
end up in the right place. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: And it’s an interesting lesson
you learned, isn’t it? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. And I say in my book, don’t put people up
on a pedestal. Right? Care about the issues, for sure, but don’t
put people on a pedestal, because people are flawed. We are flawed individuals. And I also tell young people, if you do end
up working for a flawed candidate, make sure you — you got to make sure you take care
of your career as well. Right? You have to make sure that you navigate through
those waters, so that you can continue your career. And so it’s just a fine line the walk on,
but you have to continue sticking with what you believe in. JUDY WOODRUFF: You are political strategist. You’re a Democratic political strategist. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: So I’m not going to let you
get away without asking you, how do you believe Democrats can defeat Donald Trump next year? Do you think they have a good chance of winning? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I do. And the reason why is because we have been
energized the past three years, we, the Democratic base, the resistance, if you want to call
it that, and we have shown up in races in big ways, in historical numbers. And there is an energy there. When you look at the polling and it says,
what do Democrats want the most, they want somebody who can beat Donald Trump. That’s the thing. Whoever is the nominee has to understand it’s
going to take a movement to beat Donald Trump. It’s not going to be easy, but we can do it. You got to get young people out. You got to get people of color, black voters,
black women who have been the backbone of the Democratic Party. You have to get women, educated white women
out. You have to get everybody. You have to get that coalition and people
who don’t normally vote or don’t think their vote matters. You have got to convince them to get them
out. It’s going to take a movement. JUDY WOODRUFF: The book is “Moving Forward:
A Story of Hope, Hard Work, and the Promise of America.” Thank you. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: What objects give meaning to
our lives? KPBS reporter Maya Trabulsi talked to an artist
who gathered things special to San Diego residents and preserved them as 3-D laser art. It is part of our arts and culture series,
Canvas. MAYA TRABULSI: When you walk into the New
Americans Museum, you may wonder where the art exhibit is. But if you look closer, you will see a pen
knife, a bell, a figurine. And if you look even closer, you will learn
about the stories embedded in these objects. KERIANNE QUICK, Artist, New Americans Museum:
Each one of these individual stories come together as a chorus, in my view. MAYA TRABULSI: Kerianne Quick is the artist
in residence here. KERIANNE QUICK: When you start with something
specific, something completely surprising can unfold, something you never would have
access to otherwise. MAYA TRABULSI: Something specific like a typewriter? KERIANNE QUICK: Like a typewriter, yes, yes. MAYA TRABULSI: For her exhibit called A Portrait
of People in Motion, she spent over a year gathering treasured objects from San Diego
residents. But, more importantly, she gathered the stories
that accompany them. KERIANNE QUICK: If we can feel some of that
emotion about what it’s like to try to figure out how to live in a new place, then maybe
we can empathize with those who are experiencing the most extreme version of that discomfort. MAYA TRABULSI: The item is scanned, and then
3-D printed or laser engraved to leave behind what Kerianne calls a ghost, transparent,
with faint detail, yet still teeming with the story of how it came to San Diego. KERIANNE QUICK: The story is the art piece. The objects that are represented here, they’re
just a way in to those stories. And, yes, the objects are transparent. And that’s on purpose. MAYA TRABULSI: Some objects are made of clear
resin. Others are acrylic. KERIANNE QUICK: The light as it projects through
the laser-engraved surface, it creates a shadow where the writing almost becomes legible. MAYA TRABULSI: At first glance, they are hard
to see against the stark white wooden furniture designed to look like furniture in a home. But looking closer is exactly what Kerianne
wants you to do. KERIANNE QUICK: And when they look closer,
and they wonder what that — what the thing is that they’re looking at, they are given
access to the story that is behind it. MAYA TRABULSI: Kerianne also recorded the
oral histories of each piece. They can be played by dialing a number on
your phone and then the corresponding number of the item. MAN: My object is a jacket that, when I was
in Korea during the Korean War, this was a jacket that I, in effect, stole from the Army. WOMAN: From 1971 to now, we have lived many
places, and the recipes have gone with me. WOMAN: My object is a little tiny Inuit figure
that was given to me in 1945 by my first boyfriend, who was stationed in the Aleutians. WOMAN: And I think just seeing it makes me
feel at home, because I grew up seeing it. KERIANNE QUICK: The crux of what I’m trying
to do here is to help people, people in general, feel something that might make them treat
their neighbor a little bit better. MAYA TRABULSI: And as the sound of plane engines
roar above this little museum under the San Diego flight path, it offers a subtle reminder
that we are all people in motion. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Maya Trabulsi
in San Diego. JUDY WOODRUFF: Before leaving the White House
this afternoon, President Trump handed out a pair of pardons. And the recipients gobbled up the spotlight. Amna Nawaz is back with how this Thanksgiving
tradition began. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
I hereby grant you a full and complete pardon. (APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: Bread and Butter won’t be on the
Thanksgiving menu this year, thanks to President Trump. The commander in chief spared Butter in a
Rose Garden ceremony, saving the bird from a crummy situation. His wingman Bread also received a presidential
pardon. This year’s fortunate birds, who hail from
North Carolina, became instant celebrities this week, after checking in at the
Willard International Hotel in Washington, D.C. This is Bread. He weighs in at 45 pounds, and, according
to the White House, likes bluegrass music and college basketball. His heftier counterpart, Butter, weighs 47
pounds. He enjoys sweet potato fries and NASCAR. DONALD TRUMP: Today, we come together to honor
the beautiful feathered friend, the noble turkey. AMNA NAWAZ: This White House tradition has
happened every November for the past quarter-century. But there are some, let’s say, ruffled feathers
about how it all got started. BILL CLINTON, Former President of the United
States: President Truman was the first president to pardon a turkey. AMNA NAWAZ: But that’s not true. In fact, the Truman Presidential Library says:
“Truman sometimes indicated to reporters that the turkeys he received were destined for
the family dinner table.” Truman was actually the first president to
receive a turkey from the National Turkey Federation 71 years ago. So, who was the first president to pardon
a turkey? Lincoln, it appears, was the first on record. But it was a Christmas turkey that his son
had taken a liking to. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy was the
first to pardon a Thanksgiving turkey. Despite a sign hanging around the turkey’s
neck that read — quote — “Good eating, Mr. President,” Kennedy sent the bird back to
the farm. Richard Nixon also gave the birds a reprieve,
sending his turkeys to a nearby petting zoo. Ronald Reagan was the first to use the word
pardon when he was talking turkey in 1987. The turkey pardoning became formalized in
1989, with President George H.W. Bush. GEORGE H.W. BUSH, Former President of the United States:
Let me assure you, and this fine tom turkey that he will not end up on anyone’s dinner
table. Not this guy. BILL CLINTON: This is the eighth I have had
the privilege to meet and set free in the Rose Garden. AMNA NAWAZ: In 2000, Jerry the turkey from
Wisconsin sported a White House pass around his neck. Four years later, the Bush administration
also had some fun. The names of that year’s turkeys were chosen
in a vote on the White House Web site. GEORGE W. BUSH, Former President of the United
States: This is an election year, and Biscuits had to earn his spot at the White House. Biscuits and his running mate, Gravy, prevailed
over the ticket of Patience and Fortitude. AMNA NAWAZ: When President Obama pardoned
his final turkeys, he said that he wouldn’t stop, even after leaving office. BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United
States: We are going to do this every year from now on. (LAUGHTER) BARACK OBAMA: No cameras, just us, every year. No way I am cutting this habit cold turkey. AMNA NAWAZ: President Trump, for his part,
couldn’t resist bringing politics into today’s ceremony. DONALD TRUMP: They have already received subpoenas
to appear in Adam Schiff’s basement on Thursday. AMNA NAWAZ: Bread and Butter will now be sent
to Blacksburg, Virginia, to live out the rest of their days at Virginia Tech, home of the
HokieBird. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Amna Nawaz. JUDY WOODRUFF: As far as I’m concerned, they
have all gone to the birds. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.