PBS NewsHour full episode November 12, 2019

PBS NewsHour full episode November 12, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: The dreamers get
their day in court. The Supreme Court hears arguments on the fate
of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Then: how we got here. With public hearings in the impeachment inquiry
slated to start tomorrow morning, examining what brought us to the edge of this history-making
event and what will come next. And on the frontier — a look at life in the
Israeli borderlands, where civilians are forced to live with the fearsome reality of backyard
rocket fire. ANAT WEINBERG, Israel: So let me show you
our safe room. A year ago, there was a rocket — they shot
a rocket. And our 2-year-old was just like a 1-year-old,
less even. And I just ran with them here. That’s not normal. Like, that’s not normal. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The United States Supreme Court
has heard the legal case, and now hundreds of thousands of young immigrants will wait
to learn their fate. They are the so-called dreamers, brought to
the U.S. illegally as children. At issue is President Trump’s move to end
DACA, the Obama era program that protects them against deportation. Amna Nawaz begins our coverage. AMNA NAWAZ: Hundreds of young immigrants rallied
outside the Supreme Court this morning. JOSE ARNULFO CABRERA, DACA Recipient: I’m
coming here to make sure that the justices know that they have to stay on the side of
justice today. AMNA NAWAZ: DACA recipients were anxious as
justices inside heard arguments that could decide their fate. MARISSA MOLINA, DACA Recipient: DACA has been
an opportunity to liberate our passions, unleash our dreams and use them for the good of our
community and the country that we all call home. AMNA NAWAZ: DACA, formally known as Deferred
Action For Childhood Arrivals, is shielding roughly 700,000 so-called dreamers from deportation. JEFF SESSIONS, Former U.S. Attorney General:
To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit
everyone who would like to come here. AMNA NAWAZ: The Trump administration attempted
to end the program in 2017, but was prevented from doing so by lower courts. And, today, justices heard arguments on the
legality of that decision. The administration says President Barack Obama
exceeded his constitutional powers when he created the program. Plaintiffs say the administration has failed
to give adequate reasons for ending it. The program protects immigrants who arrived
to the country at a young age before June 2007, are enrolled in school or have a GED,
and have no criminal record. President Trump vowed to end the program during
his 2016 campaign, then showed sympathy for dreamers soon after taking office. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
We’re going to show great heart. DACA is a very, very difficult subject for
me, I will tell you. To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects
I have, because you have these incredible kids, in many cases, not in all cases. AMNA NAWAZ: But on Twitter today, he wrote
DACA recipients were — quote — “far from angels,” calling some tough, hardened criminals. Democrats decried Mr. Trump’s words and called
for justices to side with the young immigrants. REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX): And despite the president’s
attempts to slander them, to speak ill about who they are and what they represent, these
folks are among the very best that America has to offer. AMNA NAWAZ: The decision is expected by next
June. And now let’s take a closer look at the arguments
inside the court with Marcia Coyle of “The National Law Journal,” who was at the court
today, and Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration and cross-border policy at
the Bipartisan Policy Center. Marcia and Theresa, welcome back to you both. THERESA CARDINAL BROWN, Bipartisan Policy
Center: Thank you. MARCIA COYLE, “The National Law Journal”:
Glad to be here. AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, let me start with you. Now, it’s a big issue, obviously, but one
the justices could look at narrowly potentially. What is the central question or questions
they’re seeking to answer here? MARCIA COYLE: OK, there are really two questions
that they were wrestling with today. The first one has to do with whether, as a
court, they actually have the authority to review the decision to rescind or terminate
the DACA program. And the second question has to do with whether,
if they do have the power to review it, was that decision is legal, or did it, as the
lower courts have held, violate the Administrative Procedures Act, which we may remember was
figured last term in the census citizenship case. It requires agencies to give a reasoned explanation
for the decisions they make. And, in this case, the lower courts said,
uh-uh, Trump administration, you didn’t give reasoned explanations. AMNA NAWAZ: And so, very basically, the plaintiffs
are saying,you didn’t give us a reason. You have to do that. What is the government’s argument in this
case? MARCIA COYLE: The government is saying, first
of all, that there is no authority to review what they have done here, that this is a decision
to either enforce or not enforce a federal law, and that’s a discretionary decision committed
to each agency, unless there is a law that says otherwise. On the legality of their decision, they claim
that they gave adequate reasons. They had concerns about the legally. In fact, in 2017, then Attorney General Jeff
Sessions said the program is illegal. And they also have a general opposition to
non-enforcement of federal law, here, non-enforcement of federal immigration law against hundreds
of thousands of undocumented immigrants. AMNA NAWAZ: Theresa, let me ask you about
that. We’re talking about roughly 700,000 people,
as we just laid out in the piece. What is important to know about that population,
especially in light of what the president tweeted earlier today about many of them being
hardened criminals? And what’s the potential impact of the Supreme
Court decision here? THERESA CARDINAL BROWN: Sure. So with regard to the president’s tweet, first
of all, it should be noted that, in order to get DACA status under the program rules,
you can’t have a felony conviction or more than three misdemeanors. So the idea that those who got DACA are somehow
full of criminals, that is patently incorrect. But these are people who, by the designation
of DACA, have been in the United States for — since they were children, under 16 years
of age. They have not committed crimes, and they have
signed up for protection from deportation and work authorization. And so this population are people who have
grown up in the United States for the most part. They have American values. They think of themselves as American in every
way. Since they have gotten this status and the
ability to work, many of them have graduated college. They are now professionals, and doctors and
lawyers. They have made plans. They have bought homes and had families. And so the effect of the Supreme Court decision,
if it were to agree with the administration in terminating the program, would mean that
they would lose that status at the end of their current period, and then all of that
would be in jeopardy. And that’s one of the reasons why you saw
so many other parties engaging in this debate, businesses that are employing DACA individuals. One of the cases was filed by the University
of California and supported by a lot of universities who have DACA students. So there’s a lot of the economy, if you will,
and communities surrounding these students that are supporting them. AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, let’s look at some of
the moments from inside that court today. There was this one moment from Justice Sotomayor. She referenced President Trump’s shifting
views on this, as he’s articulated it. And she said this: “The president telling
DACA-eligible people that they were safe under him, that he would find a way to keep them
here. And so he hasn’t, and, instead, he’s done
this. And that, I think, has something to be considered
before you rescind the policy.” What does this tell us about how some of the
more liberal justices are viewing this vs. some of the more conservative ones? MARCIA COYLE: Well, first of all, what she
was referring to was a key aspect of the argument today. And that is the reliance that the dreamers
have built up in a program that’s been in existence since 2012. And she and even Justice Breyer pointed out
there are lots of reliance interests, not just the dreamers’ reline, but, as Theresa
said, businesses have filed amicus briefs saying their employees are dreamers. Medical institutions, health organizations,
educational institutions all have shown how they have relied on dreamers in different
respects. Justice Sotomayor was saying that that reliance
is a key aspect of determining whether the administration gave adequate reasons for deciding
to end the program. Did they consider reliance in-depth, as they
should? The liberals on the court, they seem to feel
that, no, the administration didn’t give adequate consideration of that. The government says, in opposition, we did,
and here are two memos that show that reliance was considered, along with other considerations. That is a clear divide here. And how it will figure into an ultimate decision,
we will have to wait and see. AMNA NAWAZ: Theresa, there’s another moment
in which Justice Gorsuch seemed to say that this continuing legal battle, the fact that
this is still a question before the courts, is complicating a potential political solution. Here’s what he had to say — quote — “It
would leave this class of persons into a continuing cloud of uncertainty and continued status
in the political branches, because they would not have a baseline rule of decision from
this court on this issue.” Is there even a political solution in the
mix in Congress? THERESA CARDINAL BROWN: Well, what I would
say is, first and foremost, we have to understand that the best outcome for DACA recipients
at the end of this court case is another temporary reprieve. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the
administration didn’t terminate the program appropriately, that doesn’t mean the program
won’t be terminated. It just means the administration can go back
and re-terminate it under the rules that this court sets out. And this administration has indicated it wants
to terminate the program. So I think that his question is about continuing
to litigate this, and does that actually give any certainty? And the answer is, it doesn’t. The only certainty can come from Congress. The courts cannot give these people permanent
status. Even the DACA program itself wasn’t permanent
status. That has to come from Congress. And Congress doesn’t have to wait for a court
decision to act. They could go right now. They have tried. The president, when he announced the ending
of the program in 2017, said he wanted to give Congress time to act. The House and the Senate considered bills
in 2017 and 2018, failed to come to agreement with the president. And it didn’t happen. So now I think it does turn back to Congress. If this is going to be settled in a permanent
way, it has to come from there. AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, based on what you heard
today, do you have a sense of which way the court is leaning? MARCIA COYLE: Well, I never like to predict,
but my sense was that there is not a fifth vote for the dreamers in this case. AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia Coyle of “The National
Law Journal” and Theresa Cardinal Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, thanks for being
here. MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure. THERESA CARDINAL BROWN: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: The
Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit to go forward against Remington Arms over the school shootings
in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. The company manufactures the AR-15 rifle that
a gunman used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators. We will look at the details later in the program. At the Roger Stone trial, testimony today
suggested that President Trump knew WikiLeaks would release e-mails from the Clinton campaign
in 2016, something that he denies. But his former deputy campaign manager Rick
Gates — that is the president’s deputy manager, campaign manager — testified today about
a phone call between Stone and Mr. Trump apparently involving an impending WikiLeaks release. Roger Stone is charged with witness tampering
and lying to Congress. Closing arguments in the trial are tomorrow. The ousted president of Bolivia, Evo Morales,
went into exile in Mexico today. He had resigned on Sunday, under military
pressure, after weeks of protests over alleged fraud in his reelection. After landing in Mexico City, Morales called
his ouster a coup. He vowed to continue the struggle, and appealed
for peace in Bolivia. EVO MORALES, Former Bolivian President (through
translator): I would like to say for there not to be any more bloodshed, more confrontations. We have decided to resign for the people. I would like to say to you, we are very grateful
that the president of Mexico and the Bolivian people saved my life. JUDY WOODRUFF: Bolivia’s military has now
sent troops into the streets of the capital, La Paz, to help restore order. Protesters in Hong Kong blocked traffic and
battled police again today in a series of confrontations. Thousands flooded central Hong Kong, and were
met by police firing tear gas and rubber bullets. After nightfall, protesters burned barricades. The trouble came a day after a protester was
shot dead by police and another man was set on fire. New violence erupted today between Israel
and Islamic Jihad militants backed by Iran. Israeli airstrikes killed a senior commander
of the group in Gaza, plus eight others. The militants fired back with rockets, reaching
as far as Tel Aviv. There were no Israeli casualties. A second airstrike targeted an Islamic Jihad
commander in Syria, but he survived. In Australia, dry conditions and high winds
pushed ferocious wildfires into the suburbs of Sydney. In all, at least 85 fires were burning across
New South Wales. That is the country’s most populous state. Fourteen were rated out of control, the most
in decades. And officials warned that it could get worse. SHANE FITZSIMMONS, New South Wales Rural Fire
Commissioner: Given the forecast for very high and likely severe conditions ahead as
we head into this weekend, and another really hot burst of air coming through New South
Wales on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, we simply aren’t going to get the upper hand
on all of these fires. JUDY WOODRUFF: The fires have destroyed at
least 150 homes since Friday, amid some of the warmest conditions in a century. Back in this country, former President Jimmy
Carter is recovering after surgery to relieve pressure on his brain. It was caused by bleeding from a recent fall. A spokeswoman said that Mr. Carter is resting
comfortably at a hospital in Atlanta after a procedure with what she said were no complications. He is 95 and the oldest ex-president ever. Republican Mark Sanford has ended his bid
for the Republican presidential nomination just two months after he began. The former South Carolina governor and congressman
had hoped to challenge President Trump, but he says impeachment has made it impossible
to get the public’s attention. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has
elected its first Hispanic leader, Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez. He was chosen today at the conference meeting
in Baltimore. Gomez was born in Mexico and has been a strong
advocate for a more welcoming U.S. immigration policy. A frigid air mass from Siberia brought deep
cold across much of the eastern United States today. Commuters in Chicago braved single digits,
while parts of Upstate New York got record snow. Even Southern states like Tennessee saw a
blanketing of snow and chills. Southwest Airlines is facing a January 31
deadline to inspect dozens of used Boeing 737s that it bought from foreign airlines. That’s after the Federal Aviation Administration
threatened to ground the jetliners. It’s been reported they may not have had needed
repairs that had needed repairs or had repairs that were never documented. Southwest insists that the aircraft are safe. And on Wall Street, in a rare occurrence,
the Dow Jones industrial average was unchanged. But the Nasdaq rose 21 points, and the S&P
500 added four. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: open impeachment
hearings start tomorrow — who is testifying and why it matters; families of shooting victims
score a fresh victory in their fight to hold gun makers accountable for mass killings;
how we got here — the timeline that took us to the precipice of impeachment; and much
more. The U.S. House impeachment inquiry moves to
the next level, with the first public hearings tomorrow. Democrats and Republicans on the House Intelligence
Committee will get to question two key witnesses in the ongoing investigation into President
Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Nick Schifrin joins us now to break down what
we can expect. So, hello, Nick. NICK SCHIFRIN: Hi, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: You have been looking at this
story day after day. Tell us, what is it going to look like tomorrow? NICK SCHIFRIN: This is the fourth impeachment
process in U.S. history, and it begins with open hearings tomorrow. And what we’re going to see is radically different
interpretations from each party on the president’s policy on Ukraine. That’s really at the core of this impeachment. So let’s talk about the logistics tomorrow,
first what it’s going to look like. Opening statements by House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Adam Schiff, by Ranking Member Republican Devin Nunes, and opening statements by the
witnesses, then 90 minutes of questions split between the chairman and the ranking member. And that will mostly be their counsels, Democratic
and Republican lawyers asking the questions. That is followed by five minutes of questions
by other members. Democrats believe that, beginning tomorrow,
the public will see their argument that President Trump abused the powers of his office. Republicans believe that Democrats will show
no evidence of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, as required in the
Constitution for impeachment. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, tell us — these are witnesses
called by the Democrats. Who are the two witnesses we hear from tomorrow? NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes, the Democrats called these
witnesses because they say they are career respected diplomats who had kind of a front-row,
real-time look at the president’s policy on Ukraine and how it was changing. So, the first one is Bill Taylor. He is the current ambassador, the top diplomat
at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. He was also George W. Bush’s ambassador in
Ukraine from 2006 to 2009 and has served in every administration, Democratic and Republican,
for the last 34 years. Based on his deposition, here’s what we expect
for his open hearings. He’s going to talk about how Rudy Giuliani,
the president’s lawyer, led an irregular, informal foreign policy to Ukraine. Taylor’s words about Giuliani is that he’s
leading a snake pit in Washington and that the president withheld vital security assistance
to Ukraine for political gain. Now, what is that specific? Taylor will testify
that, beginning in mid-July, Giuliani, the president and some allies asked Ukraine to
investigate two things, meddling in 2016 and why Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, was on
the board of a Ukrainian energy company exactly as Vice President Biden was leading the Obama
administration’s policy on Ukraine. And Taylor will say that Ukrainian officials
understood that they had to do those investigations or pledge that they would do those investigations
before getting what they asked for, which was a meeting with President Trump in the
White House and also the security assistance to be released. And then, quickly, the second testimony today
will be similar — the second testimony tomorrow will be similar to Taylor’s. It’s George Kent. He’s the deputy assistant secretary of state
for European Union and Eurasian affairs, which means he’s in charge of Ukraine policy for
the Department of State, has served Democratic and Republican administrations since 1992. Based on his deposition, he will also single
out Giuliani for leading a — quote — “campaign of lies.” But he will say that he raised concerns about
Hunter Biden with the vice president’s office and was rebuffed. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, behind all this, Nick,
there are the witnesses, but each party — these inevitably become political undertakings. Each party has a message going into this as
well. NICK SCHIFRIN: A message and a radically different
interpretation of the same facts. So, let’s start with Democrats. They believe this testimony will prove three
points, one, that President Trump pressured Ukraine and conditioned assistance. Again, Ukraine had to investigate those two
things before a White House meeting and before military aid released. Democrats will argue that’s an abuse of power. Point number two, that President Trump didn’t
actually care about Ukrainian corruption, which was U.S. policy at the time, but only
cared about corruption of one family in Ukraine, the Bidens. And, number three, Democrats are going to
try to pressure Republicans to either exonerate President Trump or admit that his actions
were acceptable. Now, that’s the Democrats’ message. Let’s take a look at the Republicans’ message,
again, same facts, very different interpretation. President Trump, one, was rightly focused
on Ukrainian corruption — Ukraine is a notoriously corrupt country — and rightly pushed the
new Ukrainian administration to investigate corruption. And part of that corruption, Judy, was the
company that put Hunter Biden on the board. Point number two, Ukrainian officials criticized
candidate Trump in 2016, which, by the way, they are on the record doing, especially after
President Trump started talking about Crimea. Now, congressional Republicans do not go as
far as President Trump on this second point. All right, let’s do the third point, that
the bottom line, Republicans will say that the meeting between Zelensky and Trump was
held, and the assistance in the military was resumed without Ukraine doing those investigations. I just want to make one small point there,
though, that congressional Republicans do not go as far as President Trump does on the
2016 point about Ukraine. President Trump says that, in 2016, somehow,
Ukraine was the one that hacked the DNC, not Russia. This is a conspiracy theory that has been
disproven. What the congressional Republicans start talking
about is a much more small point, that Ukrainian officials were criticizing President Trump
in 2016. The bottom line, same facts, same witnesses,
very different interpretations. JUDY WOODRUFF: We can expect each side to
bore in on their side. And, again, our coverage starts tomorrow 10:00
Eastern. Nick Schifrin, thank you. NICK SCHIFRIN: Thanks very much. JUDY WOODRUFF: In a blow to the firearms industry,
the Supreme Court today denied an attempt by Remington Arms to block a lawsuit filed
by the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre. The families argue the maker of the AR-15-style
rifle should be held liable for the way that it was marketed, its military-style weapons. William Brangham has the story. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That’s right Judy. The original lawsuit was filed on behalf of
10 victims and one survivor of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. That’s the shooting where 20 first-graders
and six adults were killed by one man in just a matter of minutes. The suit argues that Remington, which owns
the company that made the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used by the killer, was guilty of recklessly
marketing the weapon, and that that violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
after Connecticut’s highest court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. For more on all this, I’m joined now by Robert
Spitzer. He is the author of several books on gun control
policy. And he is also a professor at SUNY Cortland. Professor Spitzer, thank you very much for
being here. Can you just help us understand a little bit
more about the argument this these families are making? They’re saying Remington was somehow reckless
in the way that it marketed these weapons to civilians. Please explain. ROBERT SPITZER, SUNY Cortland: Yes. Under Connecticut law, there is a provision
that allows prosecution of companies if they engage in marketing and sales practices that
pose a direct danger. And this is the claim that the families are
going after now, that the marketing of these weapons was manifestly oriented around the
idea of their destructive capabilities. For example, there is a famous phrase, or
infamous phrase, that was uttered and has been repeated that you can earn your man card
by obtaining an AR-15. And it invokes not just manliness, but it
suggests a kind of violence. It orients itself towards sort of the military
utility of these weapons and the military derivation of them. And, under Connecticut law, that is prosecutable. And I should add that there is a federal law
that was passed by Congress in 2005 that was designed to provide immunity to the gun industry
from such lawsuits. But even that law had a couple of exceptions,
including an exception saying that, if a gun manufacturer, for example, was found to have
engaged in activity that are illegal, they could be subject to prosecution. And the Connecticut state court ruled that
this could proceed, this lawsuit could proceed, under that exception in the federal law. And now, of course, the Supreme Court has
said that the lawsuit in Connecticut can go ahead, by not hearing the case appeal. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Back to this issue of these
ads, though, help me understand. Walk me through the argument as it follows
through. So, the families are arguing that these hyper-macho,
masculine ads that the company was running somehow entices people who are violent-minded
to buy these weapons, and that that is somehow the problem? ROBERT SPITZER: Well, it extols the weapon’s
destructive capabilities. And, certainly, there is a great deal of firepower
that accompanies a weapon like the AR-15. It is a semiautomatic weapon, but it can receive
large-capacity magazines. You can fire off a great many rounds. Medical professionals will tell you that they
cause even more harm to the human body than other kinds of firearms. And this kind of invocation, the litigants
are arguing, constitutes an actual threat, precisely because the appeal is, oh, these
weapons are so destructive, and, therefore, this is a violation of what they call in the
Connecticut law negligent entrustment. And that breach, that claim is the center
of this lawsuit. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, the Supreme Court denied
Remington’s appeal. That means the case will go forward, as you
were mentioning, in Connecticut. What do you imagine the likely impact this
might have? I know there is an elaborate discovery process. What are the ripple effects of this case,
potentially? ROBERT SPITZER: Well, I think there are a
couple of very important consequences. The first, just as you mentioned, is discovery. It means that the plaintiffs will be able
to get access to e-mails, company documents, other information of internal communications
from Remington that could be at the least politically embarrassing or damaging, and
at the most could actually contribute significantly to the weight of the lawsuit being brought
against them. In addition, it will certainly embolden others
to bring similar litigation. All states of the union have laws regarding
consumer protection in advertising. And the laws in many of those states may not
be appropriate for this kind of litigation, but it certainly will encourage others interested
in bringing such suits to do so. It might also encourage some state legislatures
to modify their consumer protection laws, perhaps to facilitate legal action of this
nature. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Robert Spitzer
of SUNY Cortland, thank you very much. ROBERT SPITZER: Good to be with you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: on the frontier
— living with the realities of rocket fire in the Israeli borderlands; and the fight
for your entertainment dollar heats up, as Disney jumps into the streaming ecosystem. As we have been discussing, tomorrow will
be the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry, raising the question, how did we
get here? To look back and bring it all into focus,
our Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: More than a dozen witnesses,
thousands of pages of testimony, and a whistle-blower complaint that we learned about only in September. LISA DESJARDINS: It all led to Democratic
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing this: REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I’m announcing the House
of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. LISA DESJARDINS: This has all happened quickly,
almost too quickly to process. So we want to want to step back and look at
how we got here. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Let’s start where this investigation
began, that letter from an anonymous whistle-blower. The whistle-blower writes that multiple U.S.
officials told them that President Trump pressured the president of Ukraine for his own political
gain. He wanted Ukraine to open an investigation
into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. The younger Biden served on the board of a
Ukrainian energy company. The whistle-blower says that the president
was soliciting interference from a foreign country and sought to pressure the Ukrainian
leader to help the president’s 2020 reelection bid. LISA DESJARDINS: This is the core charge by
Democrats, led by House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The president of the United
States has betrayed his oath of office and sacrificed our national security in doing
so. LISA DESJARDINS: President Trump and his allies,
however, insist this is a political attack. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
This is a witch-hunt at the highest level, and it’s so bad for our country. LISA DESJARDINS: There’s plenty of rhetoric
from all sides, but what do we actually know? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Let’s drill down on some
key dates. In May, President Trump has the ambassador
to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, abruptly removed from that job. This happens just two weeks before massive
change in Ukraine. On May 20, Volodymyr Zelensky, an actor and
comedian, is inaugurated as president of Ukraine. He pledges to fight corruption in his country. But Zelensky has another problem: a continued
costly war with Russia over large swathes of land. Zelensky needs U.S. military aid and also
clear back from the U.S. LISA DESJARDINS: On July 10, a key event. At a White House meeting with the Ukrainians,
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, states that Ukrainians need
to reopen some investigations, according to multiple witnesses. Sondland, here on the right in a picture after
that meeting, testifies he doesn’t remember saying that. But then National Security Adviser John Bolton
erupts, according to other witnesses, calling the idea a drug deal and flagging it for White
House lawyers. Right around that time, in mid-July, the United
States freezes $391 million in aid to Ukraine. Several witnesses testify they were told this
was by order of the president, directed through acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney has not commented on that idea, but
has ardently defended the president. MICK MULVANEY, Acting White House Chief of
Staff: And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in
foreign policy. LISA DESJARDINS: This brings us to the event
at the heart of all of this YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The July 25 phone call between
President Trump and President Zelensky. President Trump tells Zelensky that the United
States has been very good to Ukraine. He then says — quote — “I would like you
to do us a favor, though.” He goes on to say that he would like Zelensky
to look into two things, the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden and his
son Hunter’s dealings in Ukraine. LISA DESJARDINS: Among the officials on that
call, An Army lieutenant colonel named Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National
Security Council. He’s usually behind the scenes. Now he is central. Vindman testifies that what he heard on the
call wasn’t proper, the president demanding that a foreign government investigate a U.S.
citizen and political opponent. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump has said
the call was about getting to the bottom on corruption in Ukraine. DONALD TRUMP: We are looking at corruption. We’re not looking at politics. We’re looking at corruption. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: But Democrats say it is
in that now famous call that President Trump personally tried to extort Ukraine. LISA DESJARDINS: About a month later, on August
29, a news report reveals to the public and to some members of Congress that the aid money
was on hold. On September 1, Vice President Pence meets
in Warsaw with Zelensky. During that meeting, Pence brings up corruption. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: That same day, a key exchange
between Gordon Sondland, the E.U. ambassador, and a top adviser to President Zelensky. Sondland tells the Ukrainian official that
U.S. aid would likely not be provided until Ukraine made a public pledge to investigate
the Bidens. LISA DESJARDINS: One more date. By September 11, following heavy congressional
pressure, the military aid to Ukraine is taken off hold and sent. We do not know how long public hearings or
any impeachment debate will last. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: We do know this is the fourth
presidential impeachment investigation in history. And we’re sure to learn more from all sides
as it unfolds. JUDY WOODRUFF: We return to the Middle East
and today’s targeted killing in Gaza by Israel of a militant leader and the rocket fire that
showered Israel in reprisal. These attacks and counterattacks between Israel
and its enemies come frequently. They have exploded into all-out war in the
past. Militant groups in particular present a major
challenge to the country’s security, Hezbollah, in Lebanon to the north, and Hamas and other
groups in Gaza to Israel’s south. A few months ago we brought you a report about
life inside Gaza for many wounded by the Israeli army in protests there. To find out what life is like for Israelis
on these frontiers, special correspondent Ryan Chilcote recently went to the borderlands,
where a normal day can be anything but. RYAN CHILCOTE: The old adage that good fences
make good neighbors might not apply for Levav Weinberg. LEVAV WEINBERG, Farmer: This is a checkpoint
of Hezbollah. RYAN CHILCOTE: Not everybody has a Hezbollah
checkpoint outside their back door. LEVAV WEINBERG: I get one. Did I get a bonus for that? No. But you can see there’s action over there. RYAN CHILCOTE: That action over there is a
quarter-mile from Weinberg’s yard here in Metula, Israel’s northernmost town. And that checkpoint is manned by Hezbollah. We can see them, and they surely see us. Hezbollah’s goal is to eliminate the state
of Israel. Backed by Iran, the Lebanese militia began
an on-again/off-again war with its southern neighbor when Israeli troops invaded, then
occupied Southern Lebanon in the ’80s and 90s. The two last fought a brutal month-long war
in the summer of 2006. The border is tense, occasionally volatile. And Weinberg, a farmer and an army reservist,
always carries a pistol. LEVAV WEINBERG: Right now, it’s very peaceful
and lovely, and we can hear the birds. But we always know that, in a minute, it can
be changed. And we need to be ready. RYAN CHILCOTE: That vigilance doesn’t get
in the way of the birthday party in the backyard. Ellah is 2 today. LEVAV WEINBERG: Most of the stress is on the
family, on my kids and on my wife. RYAN CHILCOTE: Even in their bedroom, Anat
Weinberg prefers to sleep on the side of the bed furthest from the window. Levav wanted to live here. He can have it. And, by law, every house must have one of
these. ANAT WEINBERG, Israel: And this is our safe
room. It’s double doors, because this is the regular
door we use. RYAN CHILCOTE: While Levav is from here, Anat
grew up 25 miles south of the border in the major port city of Haifa. Metula has taken some getting used to. ANAT WEINBERG: A year ago, there was a rocket
— they shot a rocket into Israel, into Metula. And it was like 3:00 a.m. in the morning. And Ellah, she was seven months. And I just — I just ran with them here. That’s not normal. Like, that’s not normal. RYAN CHILCOTE: Not normal and not to be dismissed. Hezbollah attacked an Israeli military here
convoy just two months ago. Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus is the
top spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces. LT. COL. JONATHAN CONRICUS, Israel Defense Forces:
Hezbollah poses the most significant military threat along our borders that Israel faces
today. It’s a threat that we are, of course, capable
of dealing with. But we understand that almost all of Hezbollah’s
arsenal is aimed at Israeli civilians. RYAN CHILCOTE: Welcome to life in Israel’s
apple capital, hard by the border, separated here by a seven-mile-long wall that, for all
its height, still can’t obscure Hezbollah propaganda. You’re farming here, and yet, over your shoulder,
you have got the picture of one of your enemies. How does that make you feel? LEVAV WEINBERG: Weird. But, you know, he’s behind my back. So it’s me that I’m trying not to make him
affect my life. RYAN CHILCOTE: Little did Levav know the real
threat could come from right under his feet. LEVAV WEINBERG: You see the house on the left. And the tunnel came from that house straight
to us into my orchards. RYAN CHILCOTE: From Lebanon into Israel? LEVAV WEINBERG: From Lebanon to Israel. I didn’t have a clue. When I finished to pick, the army a few days
after that came to us and say, OK, now it’s a close military area, and no one go in. RYAN CHILCOTE: While Hezbollah can tunnel
from Lebanon here into Northern Israel, it sure isn’t easy with soil this rocky. Just a few hours to the south, it’s a different
story. Nahal Oz is the closest town in Israel to
the Gaza Strip. It’s a kibbutz of some 400 Israelis with a
suburban feel, at its edge, an imposing iron fence that separates Israel from Gaza. No one moves here without attracting the military’s
attention. They found us in just minutes. On the other side of the fence is Shejaiya,
site of the Israeli airstrike earlier today that killed Baha Abu al-Ata, the leader of
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a militant group Israel blames for much of the recent violence. Al-Ata’s wife was killed. Their four children were also reportedly injured
in the attack. Shejaiya is also one of the most densely populated
neighborhoods in what is already one of the most crowded strips of land in the world. In 2014, the area was almost completely destroyed
when the Israeli army and Hamas militants, who control Gaza, fought door-to-door in its
streets, part of a month-long war. More than 150 rockets have been fired at Israel
from Gaza since the killing, including this one, captured by a traffic camera, DANI RAHAMIM, Israel : A few years ago, different
days. We used to go to Gaza freely. RYAN CHILCOTE: Dani Rahamim raised a family
here and used to have friends there. DANI RAHAMIM: I had friends in Gaza, Palestinians. I got married in 1983. I invited five Palestinians to my wedding,
and they came to my wedding. RYAN CHILCOTE: That was long before Israel
started building this 37-mile-long wall in 1994. But it’s Hamas’ tunnels that worry Dani the
most. The group has used them in the past to launch
surprise attacks inside Israel with armed squads of militants. DANI RAHAMIM: When there is rockets, you have
the siren. But when they build a tunnel, and the Hamas
can go out, and it can be a big disaster. But we insist to stay here, to grow our crops
here, because this is our home. RYAN CHILCOTE: Through clouds of dust, the
rumble of trucks are a clue this is no normal home. Israel is expanding its wall underground,
pouring concrete up to a reported 200 feet deep in places to prevent tunneling. It must be a little bit sad that you have
to have a fence and a deep wall with your neighbor. DANI RAHAMIM: I’m sure that, one day, we will
live with them in peace, because I believe that most of the people in Gaza Strip would
want to live a normal life, like us. RYAN CHILCOTE: Rahamim got therapy to deal
with the stress of the rocket attacks. Now he says he’s fine. More painfully for a parent, though, has the
stress of living here affected any of your kids? DANI RAHAMIM: Yes. My little daughter, she’s in post-trauma. RYAN CHILCOTE: PTSD. DANI RAHAMIM: When there is a siren, she has
all her body shaking for a long time. Even after the siren finished, she is still
shaking. It can be one hour, two hours. RYAN CHILCOTE: Gadi Yarkoni knows better than
many Israelis the price of war between Israel and Hamas. He’s the mayor here, and he shows me a brand-new
rocket-proof school and takes me to the place that forever changed his life. He was out trying to restore his town’s power. It was less than an hour before a cease-fire
would take hold bringing the 2014 Hamas-Israel war to a close. The rocket took the lives of two friends and
his two legs. GADI YARKONI, Israel (through translator):
The rocket came from there. It came from there and fell between my legs. And I think that was my luck. RYAN CHILCOTE: Months of rehab followed, prosthetics,
learning how to walk again for the first time. Even after this, Gadi had something to say. GADI YARKONI: If you want to have a good life,
they should have that too. They should also have something worth living
for. I am not talking about peace today. I am talking about living one alongside the
other. I think that this is the important message
to come out of here, from this specific point where I am now standing, the point where I
lost two friends and two legs. The most important is that our children have
a future. RYAN CHILCOTE: Whatever happens in the future
hinges on Israel’s frontier. MAJ. GEN. AMOS YADLIN, Former Israeli Intelligence Chief:
All the active fronts, not zones with peace, are very explosive, can erupt tomorrow, Gaza,
Hezbollah. RYAN CHILCOTE: Retired General Amos Yadlin
once headed military intelligence in Israel. He now runs Israel’s leading national security
think tank. MAJ. GEN. AMOS YADLIN: Each side knows that the other
side doesn’t want to go to war. So there is a leeway for some activities that
they hope will not reach the point of escalation. But this is a basis for miscalculation. And miscalculation would lead us to another
clash between Hamas and Israel, no doubt about it. RYAN CHILCOTE: Back up north, Levav’s mother
has a heavily fortified underground shelter for when her son’s safe room won’t suffice. It’s spartan, two cots, no bathroom. Rockets have rained down on the Weinbergs
for two generations. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in
1982, she once spent two months in this bunker with Levav and his brother. Now, though, she worries more than she used
to. Grandmothers do. You have lived here for 40 years. You were a mother here. Now you’re a grandmother here. It’s different a lot. ORNA WEINBERG, Grandmother: Maybe I will have
five for six… RYAN CHILCOTE: … grandchildren. ORNA WEINBERG: … grandchildren I they need
to take care of here, because I spend with them a lot of time during the week. I don’t know how to start, what to do. It’s frightening. RYAN CHILCOTE: Just a 10-minute walk away,
Levav laments the loss of hundreds of apple trees, bulldozed by the army to close up the
Hezbollah tunnel. LEVAV WEINBERG: But it’s nothing compared
to the damage it was able to happen. My mom house is just behind you. RYAN CHILCOTE: Levav told us there was a time
when he exchanged pleasantries with his neighbors in Lebanon across the wall. Not anymore. It’s too tall. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Ryan Chilcote
in Metula, Israel. JUDY WOODRUFF: The battle between media giants over the future
of video streaming services ratcheted up today. As John Yang tells us, the Walt Disney Company
jumped in, as companies are spending tens of billions to try to lock in your entertainment
dollars. It’s part of our ongoing series on arts and
culture, Canvas. JOHN YANG: A highly anticipated new Star Wars
spinoff, “The Mandalorian,” was today’s debut offering of the Walt Disney Company’s new
streaming service, Disney+. But the launch of the latest entry in the
intensifying streaming wars wasn’t without glitches. Users were greeted by long loading pages and
error messages that Disney blamed on higher-than-expected demand. Disney+ boasts programming from across the
media giant’s brands, Marvel and Star Wars movies, Pixar animation, Fox TV shows and
classic Disney films. The introductory price, $6.99 a month. Disney enters an ever-growing field. JENNIFER ANISTON, Actress: The part you guys
never seem to realize is that you don’t have the power anymore. And, frankly, I have let you bozos handle
this long enough. JOHN YANG: Earlier this month, Apple jumped
in with nine new programs on Apple TV+, spending about $240 million alone for two seasons of
“The Morning Show,” starring Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, and Steve Carell. More new shows and original movies are expected
in coming months. Two more newcomers are to debut next year. HBO Max from AT&T’s Warner Media will offer
all of HBO’s content. And NBC Universal’s Peacock will include longtime
favorite NBC shows like “The Office.” They are all taking on long-established rivals. Netflix and Amazon Prime both have vast libraries
of content and tens of millions of subscribers. And Hulu, also controlled by Disney, has made
a name for itself with shows like “The Handmaid’s Tale.” One big question is how many of these services
consumers will pay for. Monthly fees vary from about $7 to $15 a month. TV critic Eric Deggans follows all this for
NPR. He joins us from St. Petersburg, Florida. Eric, thanks for being with us. What’s going on? Why all these streaming services starting
now? ERIC DEGGANS, National Public Radio: I know. What’s going on? People are drowning in television. Well, there’s a few different things going
on here. Firstly, I think there’s a lot of media companies
that don’t want to miss out on the streaming revolution. They realize that this is a major way that
people are choosing to experience television, and they want to carve out a piece of that
medium. And they want to control it. So, in the past, they may have sold reruns
of valued shows to Netflix, “The Office” and “Friends” and “Big Bang Theory” and shows
like that, but they realized that that was making Netflix very powerful and allowing
Netflix to control a huge corner of the TV industry and dictate terms in a way, how much
shows are worth. And so some of these companies have decided
to pull back those episodes and build streaming services around them, so that they can control
their own platforms, they can control their own piece of this medium. And then the other reason is that it’s a part
of some of these media companies’ strategy to lure customers into a universe of media
products that are all connected to their company. So, for Apple TV+, if you get involved with
Apple TV+, it encourages you to become part of the Apple family. So maybe you watch it on an Apple iPad or
on an Apple laptop. Maybe you use Apple software in order to engage
it. Maybe you buy an Apple TV device in order
to watch Apple TV+ original programming. It makes you a part and connected to the company
in a way that you otherwise wouldn’t be. JOHN YANG: Are we seeing a shift from cable
the streaming, in the same way that years ago we saw a shift to cable from over the
air? ERIC DEGGANS: Yes, without a doubt. I think — I have talked often about what
I call on-demand attitude amongst consumers. People want to have TV content when they want
it, where they want it, how they want it. And cable TV offered more flexibility from
broadcast television. You could see more things, and there was more
chance that you might stumble on something that you wanted, and then some cable systems
gave you some on-demand programming. But streaming gives you even more flexibility. You can buy smaller bundles of channels. You can buy services that are directly tailored
to the content that you’re interested in. You can start and stop those subscriptions
with a few clicks of a mouse button. And you get content that you can watch on
your phone, that you can watch on your iPad or on your laptop whenever and wherever you
are. JOHN YANG: How should consumers think about
navigating this new marketplace of streaming services? ERIC DEGGANS: Well, I did a piece for NPR.org
where I talked a little bit about this, how you can pick the streaming service you actually
want. And one of the things you have to do, I think,
is be honest about what you watch. I encourage people to do — you know how some
nutritionists tell you to figure out a dieting diary to see what you actually eat, write
down when you have lunch and dinner. Well, I expect that you should write down
what you watch on television. Don’t try to guess what you watch, but actually
write down what you watch, so when you watch those “Law & Order” reruns, be honest about
what you watch. And then once you have a sense of what you’re
watching day to day and week the week, then you can cobble together a strategy for what
kind of streaming services will get the most of what you want to watch. Now, you shouldn’t be shy about trying some
services and dropping them if they don’t work. You can — a lot of services have a week free
trial. Sometimes, you can try them for a month. You pay $6 or $7 and you get a month’s service. And then you can drop it if it’s not working. We’re used to the in the past having these
TV structures that are pretty permanent. You put up an antenna or you buy cable service
or you buy Netflix, and then you don’t do anything else, and you just experience whatever
that platform delivers to your home. But now you have more control than ever as
a consumer. It means you have to do a little bit more
work. You have to do some research. You have to figure out what you want to watch. You have to figure out how much you want to
spend on these streaming services, and then you have to try them. But once you put together an ecology of media
outlets, you will be much more satisfied with the media that you’re consuming, and I bet
you will spend less money. JOHN YANG: Eric Deggans, TV critic for NPR,
thanks very much. ERIC DEGGANS: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: A correction to a story we
reported earlier tonight. We said that a protester in Hong Kong yesterday
was shot dead by police. In fact, that protester is still alive, but
in serious condition. Our apology. Tune in later tonight on PBS. “Frontline” presents “Kids Caught in the Crackdown.” The joint investigation by “Frontline” and
the Associated Press exposes the traumatic stories of migrant children detained as a
result of President Trump’s immigration policies. Online, get all of our coverage on the impeachment
hearings, including our newsletter dedicated to the topic. We deliver the latest news and key moments
right to your inbox. You can find the link to subscribe at PBS.org/NewsHour/Politics. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and at the same tomorrow, but
first tomorrow morning starting at 10:00 a.m. Eastern for special live coverage of the first
public impeachment hearing. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank you, and we’ll see you soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *