Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
PBS NewsHour full episode October 31, 2019

PBS NewsHour full episode October 31, 2019

NICK SCHIFRIN: Good evening. I’m Nick Schifrin. Judy Woodruff is on assignment. On the “NewsHour” tonight: REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): What is at stake? What is at stake in all of this is nothing
less than our democracy. NICK SCHIFRIN: The next phase of impeachment. The U.S. House votes on the rules that will
govern the future of the investigation into President Trump. Then: Social media giant Twitter bans all
political advertising. What does it mean for the campaign trail,
and what will Facebook do in response? Plus: unfinished business. Making sense of the booming entrepreneur scene
among older Americans. CHERYL THOMPSON, Entrepreneur: I’m still perpendicular. I still have my health, and I’m just constantly
on the go, doing, doing, doing, and just trying not to think negatively, and being around
positive people. NICK SCHIFRIN: And the district of champions. After decades of defeat, the Washington Nationals
finally bring home a World Series win. All that and more on tonight’s “PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) NICK SCHIFRIN: In U.S. history, the House of Representatives has only pursued
impeachment of the president three times. Today, the House took a major step toward
initiating the fourth impeachment effort, and it laid out where the process proceeds
from here. Lisa Desjardins begins our coverage. LISA DESJARDINS: It is the rarest of congressional
debates, about procedures for the possible impeachment of a president. REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D-MA): I truly believe that,
100 years from now, historians will look back at this moment and judge us by the decisions
we make here today. This moment calls for more than politics. REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): No matter what is said
by the other side today, this is a dark day, and a cloud has fallen on this House. LISA DESJARDINS: This was the House opening
a new, far more defined phase in impeachment, voting on the process ahead, and putting lawmakers
on the record for the first time since concerns rose about President Trump’s requests to Ukraine’s
president. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): On this vote, the yeas
are 232, the nays are 196. LISA DESJARDINS: It was almost a straight
party split, with the exception of two Democrats who broke ranks. The two sides do agree on something, the stakes
involved. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: REP. NANCY PELOSI: The times have found each and
every one of us in this room and in our country to pay attention to how we protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States. What is at stake in all of this is nothing
less than our democracy. LISA DESJARDINS: Republicans are blasting
Democrats’ impeachment process, held behind closed doors so far, as unfair to the president. REP. LIZ CHENEY (D-WY): It is absolutely the case
that it has been a secret process that has denied rights to the minority, that has involved
leaking selectively things that the majority would like to have leaked, in which rights
have absolutely been denied. LISA DESJARDINS: The resolution today sets
up a two-part process, first with public hearings by the Intelligence Committee, led by Adam
Schiff, to gather facts, he says. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The resolution, from the
perspective of the Intelligence Committee, sets out important procedures for how we may
conduct our open hearings. LISA DESJARDINS: Then, if impeachment is recommended,
the House Judiciary Committee, led by Jerry Nadler, would take it up, and at that point
allow for the president and his lawyers to be involved. But Republicans say that is too late, that
initial hearings without that ability will taint the process. REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): The problem I’m having
here is, the resolution before us today is not about transparency; it’s about control. LISA DESJARDINS: At the White House, Press
Secretary Stephanie Grisham accused Democrats of having — quote — “an unhinged obsession
with this illegitimate impeachment proceeding.” For his part, President Trump turned to his
favored retort during the Russia investigation, calling the impeachment inquiry a witch-hunt. Meanwhile, House investigators heard from
Tim Morrison, the top Russia expert on the national security staff. He gave a closed-door deposition and said
he is leaving his post after his testimony. Morrison was repeatedly mentioned in earlier
testimony from William Taylor, currently the top diplomat in Ukraine. NICK SCHIFRIN: And Lisa Desjardins joins us
now, with White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor. Welcome to you both. Yamiche, let’s start with you, and let’s where
Lisa left off. What did Tim Morrison say behind closed doors,
as far as we know, today in the impeachment proceeding? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Tim Morrison, an aide to
the National Security Council, essentially corroborated much of what William Taylor,
the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, told lawmakers yesterday — told lawmakers last week, rather. And, essentially, Democrats are saying that
this was stunning testimony, that William Taylor was saying that people were very concerned
about what people in the U.S. government was telling Ukraine about this investigation into
the Bidens. The way that Tim Morrison fits into this is
that he was the person who alerted William Taylor. He says he went to him twice. The first time was, he had a conversation
that said, look, I think Gordon Sondland is going to the Ukrainian officials and telling
them that they need to have an investigation into the Bidens in order to secure $391 million
in military aid that was already appropriated by Congress. He then goes to William Taylor a second time
and says, I’m having a sinking feeling, because Gordon Sondland said that he talked to the
president, and the president says there’s no quid pro quo, but he’s still demanding
that the Ukrainian officials open an investigation into the Bidens. So what you have here is really Tim Morrison
saying, most of what William Taylor told you last week is true. NICK SCHIFRIN: Gordon… LISA DESJARDINS: And you know what is interesting? Really quick. Standing outside that room, both parties thought
he said something that helped them. NICK SCHIFRIN: How’s that? LISA DESJARDINS: Well, he said that he didn’t
hear anything illegal, per se, in the call. Republicans like that. And everything Yamiche was talking about was
also something Democrats mentioned. NICK SCHIFRIN: And, Yamiche, let’s just come
back to you quickly. Gordon Sondland, of course, U.S. ambassador
to the E.U., someone who’s close to President Trump. What is the significance of that story, him
in the middle of it, the combined stories of Tim Morrison and acting Ambassador to Ukraine
Bill Taylor? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: So, Tim Morrison really
gives credibility to what William Taylor said. So he essentially is saying most of what he
said is accurate. Now, there’s two big differences here. Lisa alluded to it a bit. The first is that Tim Morrison essentially
says, I wasn’t concerned that anything legal was discussed. Then you have William Taylor, who says, actually,
I thought it was crazy that military aid was held up for political means associated with
the president. So you have two people essentially saying,
we heard the same thing, but we have different takes on what it means for U.S. policy and
for national security. NICK SCHIFRIN: So, Lisa, what we’re talking
about, of course, is the substance of the impeachment proceeding. Let’s talk about the procedure and what happened
today. How did each side rally the troops on a real
partisan vote? LISA DESJARDINS: There are not just high stakes,
but high pressure for both parties. And I think, when you talk about Democrats
and how they’re looking at this, they’re thinking about two things. They’re telling their members who are in vulnerable
districts, first, they’re trying to stress, this is the process. This is not a vote on impeachment itself yet. Second, they’re looking at the polling, Nick. And they’re seeing polling moving in the direction
of impeachment. In fact, a majority of Americans in most polls
now want an impeachment inquiry to move forward. That’s something Democrats feel good about
in terms of what they’re doing. But the biggest deal here was that they only
lost two of those vulnerable Democrats, both of them in major Trump districts, though that
still is two Democrats who feel like this process may be unfair. For Republicans, the pressure, the message,
all of it is coming from the White House, something Yamiche knows a lot about. President Trump met with some of these Republicans
yesterday from the House. And, basically, I heard from one of them who
was there. He said it was actually a very relaxed message,
because we’re not confident in this process. We are where the president is right now. NICK SCHIFRIN: So, Yamiche, where is the president
right now? What is the message coming out of the White
House and Republicans? And how does that differ from a couple of
the previous messages? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: This was — today was a
huge moment in the president’s presidency. It is really now him looking forward and saying,
I’m looking at a formal impeachment inquiry process, and I need to really get my strategy
together. So, essentially, the president — today’s
message to the president and to Republicans who gathered at the White House both yesterday
and today is, this is all a total sham. No matter what Democrats do from here on forward,
they were — this — all of this is unfair to me. That’s an issue, because this has been an
evolving message. Republicans first said the president didn’t
pressure Ukraine. Then they said this is all secondhand knowledge. Then they said, well, we really need a House
floor vote on the impeachment inquiry. Every single time that they have made up a
message here, they have had to adjust to that because of all the things that we were talking
about. There was a vote. There was the call memo that came out. There is people that were on the call saying,
I had issues from the very moment I heard President Trump talk about Joe Biden in relation
to this military aid. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lisa, we have heard Republicans
all day challenging these rules that were set today as different from those rules during
the Clinton impeachment hearing. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. NICK SCHIFRIN: So are they different? LISA DESJARDINS: This is complicated. If viewers come away with one thing about
the process today, I want them to understand that the difference is, there is a two-step
process now. The House Intelligence Committee will have
public hearings. That’s something we didn’t see in Watergate
and Clinton, because there were previous investigations leading into impeachment. Here, the Intelligence Committee is doing
the first investigation. And Republicans are right that, in that portion
of it, the president doesn’t have rights to question testimony or to question witnesses. But there’s the second part of the process,
which is House Judiciary Committee, should impeachment move forward. And that process, Nick, actually is almost
exactly parallel to what we have seen in impeachments before. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lisa, I want to come back to
one more thing also that so many people here have been talking about today. Freshman Democrat Katie Hill of California
has resigned and gave a pretty incredible speech today. Let’s just listen to a brief part of it. REP. KATIE HILL (D-CA): This is bigger than me. I am leaving now because of a double standard. I’m leaving because I no longer want to be
used as a bargaining chip. I’m leaving because I didn’t want to be peddled
by papers and blogs and Web sites, used by shameless operatives for the dirtiest gutter
politics that I have ever seen. NICK SCHIFRIN: Why are people talking about
this so much today? LISA DESJARDINS: This Congress is younger
than it has been before. There are two dozen members in their 20s and
30s now. This is a new kind of vulnerability, the idea
of pictures you took of yourself in private on your iPhone being used against you. It’s a new kind of scandal. But, also, her defense was a new kind of defense. It was a more personal and assertive defense
than I have ever seen from a departing member of Congress. NICK SCHIFRIN: Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor,
thanks very much to you both. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks so much. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome. NICK SCHIFRIN: In the day’s other news: Southern
California faced another assault by wildfires driven by major winds. And firefighters are now battling new flames. Here’s Stephanie Sy. STEPHANIE SY: Before dawn in San Bernardino,
Santa Ana winds sent a blowtorch burning through half-a-dozen homes. Flames raced downhill, driven by gusts of
up to 70 miles an hour and with little warning. CHASE, San Bernardino Resident: You could
smell smoke. People started screaming down the street and
everything else. So we came out and started wetting things
down. And things kind of just went downhill from
there. STEPHANIE SY: Crews battled to turn back the
fire, but the fierce wind made it difficult and dangerous. In short order, officials ordered some 1,300
residents to evacuate 500 homes, as the fire kept spreading. KATHLEEN OPLIGER, San Bernardino County Fire:
This fire moves so fast and continues to have the potential to move so quickly that, if
folks don’t evacuate when we ask them to, it will be very difficult to try to get them
out. STEPHANIE SY: In Northern California’s wine
country, most mandatory evacuations for the Kincade Fire have now been lifted. And Pacific Gas & Electric has moved to restore
power to hundreds of thousands of people. Some had been in the dark since the weekend. Residents at this low-income senior facility
in the San Francisco Bay Area say they were trapped for two days. BRIAN CHERRY, Senior Home Resident: It was
total darkness in every hallway, every stairwell, and all three of the buildings. Outside assistance wasn’t here at all. We were left on our own. STEPHANIE SY: Fire conditions have now improved
in the north, as the wind dies down, and officials say the winds in Southern California should
ease tonight. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Stephanie Sy. NICK SCHIFRIN: The teachers strike in Chicago
is over. The teachers union agreed today to go back
to work, after the city agreed to make up five of the 11 school days lost to the strike. The two sides had already reached a tentative
deal with pay raises over five years. Mayor Lori Lightfoot welcomed the outcome. LORI LIGHTFOOT, Mayor of Chicago, Illinois:
Enough is enough, and so, in a spirit of compromise we agreed. It was a hard-fought discussion. Took us a lot of time to get there. But I think this is the right thing ultimately
for our city, and I’m glad that this phase is over. NICK SCHIFRIN: The end of the strike means
more than 300,000 students can go back to class tomorrow. The Islamic state group today confirmed the
death of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and vowed revenge. He died in a U.S. raid last weekend in Syria. An ISIS audio statement named his successor,
Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, but gave no details. U.S. troops have returned to Northeast Syria
weeks after President Trump ordered their withdrawal. Armored vehicles flying American flags patrolled
today just four miles south of the Turkish border. An Iraqi Kurdish TV network showed them visiting
oil facilities. President Trump ordered the withdrawal earlier
this month, but later said later some troops would stay to secure oil sites. The Kurds say that, in the interim, Turkish
forces have killed some 700 Kurdish fighters who are U.S. partners. The president of Iraq called today for a new
election law, with early elections to follow, amid widespread anti-government protests. He said Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi is
willing to resign if political leaders agree on his replacement. But, in Baghdad, students clogged a major
bridge and clashed with police, leaving one person dead and 60 wounded. They said the prime minister’s resignation
wouldn’t be enough. HUSSEIN, Iraqi Protester (through translator):
We want a total change of government. We don’t want the firing of one or two officials
and replacing them with another corrupt one. We want the government to be uprooted totally. They think that we will protest for one or
two days and then go home. No. We are staying here until the government is
totally uprooted. NICK SCHIFRIN: This month, Iraq has seen waves
of mass protests over corruption and economic struggles. At least 250 people have been killed. In Pakistan, fire engulfed a train in Punjab
province, killing at least 74 people. Officials said a gas stove exploded into flames,
and the blaze quickly spread through the carriages. Some passengers jumped out of the windows
to escape. More than 40 people were injured, including
many with serious burns. North Korea fired two more projectiles into
the sea today. Its state news agency reported the test involved
— quote — “super large multiple rocket launchers.” Japan said they appeared to be ballistic missiles. South Korea, meanwhile, said they flew about
230 miles. The testing comes after North Korea has criticized
the slow pace of nuclear talks with the U.S. Back in this country, General Motors announced
a recall of 638,000 SUVs and pickup trucks. The company said a wheel speed sensor could
fail and cause sudden unexpected braking. The affected vehicles include Chevrolet Suburbans,
Tahoes and Silverados, plus GMC Sierras going back to the 2014 model year. Stocks fell on Wall Street today, led by losses
in the banking sector and lingering trade concerns. The Dow Jones industrial average shed 140
points to close at 27046. The Nasdaq lost 11 points, and the S&P 500
slipped nine. And the Washington Nationals are celebrating
their first World Series title. They won it last night in Houston, beating
the Astros 6-2 in game seven. The capital city’s streets erupted in celebration
with dancing and cheering crowds. No Washington team had won a World Series
since 1924. We will have more on the Nats later in the
program. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the U.S.
House votes, and the next phase of the impeachment inquiry begins; why Twitter is banning all
political ads on the platform; after 39 migrants are found dead in a truck in the U.K., what
will it take to stem human trafficking in Europe?; and much more. Now that the U.S. House of Representatives
has approved rules for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, what happens now? Democrat Adam Schiff of California is the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which is playing a central role in the impeachment
effort. Chairman Schiff, thank you very much. Welcome to the “NewsHour.” Today’s vote was entirely along party lines. How do you convince the public that this is
not a partisan attempt to, as the president says, overturn the election? REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, I think by letting
the public hear from the witnesses themselves. At the end of the day, this is all about the
facts, what are the facts. And I think the American people will see that
there are very serious problems with the president’s conduct, grave problems, in terms of his abuse
of the powers of that office, his sacrificing of U.S. interests, our national security interests,
in favor of personal and political interests. So, I think the best way to show the American
people why we had to take this serious step of moving forward with our impeachment inquiry
will be allowing the American people to hear firsthand from those that were eyewitnesses
to this kind of abuse of power. NICK SCHIFRIN: Republicans call your effort
a partisan crusade against a president you have never liked. You yourself for years have been criticizing
many of President Trump’s national security decisions. Do Republicans have a point? Are you going after a president that you haven’t
liked long before Ukraine became an issue? REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, it is certainly true that
I take serious issues with the president on matters of policy, on matters of character
and ethics, on his propensity for falsehood. But my Republican colleagues conveniently
forget the fact that, for a long time, I was one of the relatively few senior members who
was urging us not to move forward with a formal impeachment proceeding, that we should take
the process one step at a time, learn the facts, that we shouldn’t rush to embrace this
extraordinary remedy. It was only when this most serious conduct
came to light that I felt like we had no choice. NICK SCHIFRIN: Of course, there are questions
of the procedures for that impeachment, which are not written in the Constitution. The procedures that you passed today prevent
Republicans from issuing subpoenas, unless Democrats approve or unless you personally
approve. Why not give them the opportunity to submit
their own subpoenas? REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, this is the same process
and the same procedures that were used during the Clinton impeachment and the Nixon impeachment,
although it has been represented otherwise by my GOP friends. The minority didn’t have unilateral subpoena
power. They could compel a vote. And that’s the right that we give them here. But we have seen from a lot of my GOP colleagues,
with their storming into the SCIF and their histrionics, a fundamental lack of seriousness,
indeed, a view that they exist to do the president’s will, to be the president’s defenders. When the president says, you have got to be
more aggressive, they decide to be more aggressive. When the president says, you have got to do
this stunt, they go and do that stunt. That is not a group you can give unilateral
subpoena authority to. A lot of the same people complaining about
this secret chamber have refused to take advantage of the fact that they could participate. When the transcripts are released, the American
people will see that, in fact, it was eminently fair, that every Republican who had a question
got their questions answered. NICK SCHIFRIN: Mr. Chairman, I have only have
so much time. I’m sorry to interrupt you. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Yes. NICK SCHIFRIN: But you just said when the
transcripts are released. When will those transcripts are — released? And when will these public hearings take place,
which you just voted on, even though you still have private depositions scheduled for Monday? REP. ADAM SCHIFF: In terms of when the transcripts
will be released, that was authorized by the resolution just passed today. And we expect to begin releasing them very
soon. We still have to… NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you have a sense of timing? REP. ADAM SCHIFF: You know, I think early next
week is probably the realistic time. And we still need to go through some of the
transcripts and excise any potentially classified information or personal information. But they will be released very soon. NICK SCHIFRIN: Chairman, we just got word
that a judge has ruled that Mr. Kupperman, the former deputy national security adviser,
will not be compelled to testify, or at least there won’t be a decision about whether he
will be compelled to testify until at least December 10. That will affect him and his former boss National
Security Adviser John Bolton. Do you have a response to that? REP. ADAM SCHIFF: In this case, there is no standing
to sue in federal court if you don’t like a congressional subpoena. So, we have every confidence that that suit
will fail. But the whole goal of it is to delay. It’s part of the obstruction effort by the
administration. And as they obstruct the impeachment inquiry,
they are just building the case for an article of impeachment based on obstruction. So, even as they try to prevent us from getting
relevant information — and we believe that Dr. Kupperman has relevant information on
the issues at the core of our investigation — even as they try to prevent those facts
from coming to light — and I certainly expect that, if the administration thought those
would be helpful to the president, he would be coming in. They must conclude that they are incriminating
of the president. But they are merely building the case for
obstruction of Congress. NICK SCHIFRIN: And will you delay your public
hearings until you have a final word on Dr. Kupperman and John Bolton? REP. ADAM SCHIFF: It fully is my expectation that
we would see with the administration the same kind of delay tactics rope-a-dope. If they lose in the district court, they will
appeal to the court of appeals. If they lose there, they will ask for an en
banc hearing. So I think Dr. Kupperman understands that
he’s going to lose that litigation. Indeed, he will be found not have standing,
but, apparently, it is his desire to try to avoid testifying, avoid the obligation and
the duty that others have had the courage to undertake. NICK SCHIFRIN: Adam Schiff, Democrat of California,
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, thank you very much. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you. NICK SCHIFRIN: We reached out to more than
50 Republican members of the House of Representatives to come on the program tonight. None of them accepted our invitation. For a Republican perspective on today’s news,
I’m joined by longtime GOP strategist and former press secretary for Speaker John Boehner
Michael Steel. Welcome to the “NewsHour.” Republicans have been criticizing the process,
as you know, throughout the last few weeks, specifically that these depositions have been
held behind closed doors, instead of having public hearings. Republicans had a chance today to vote for
public hearings. Why did they vote against it? MICHAEL STEEL, Former John Boehner Spokesman:
Well, I think they would argue that it’s too little too late. I think that if this vote had been held three
or four weeks ago, it would have been a meaningful part of this inquiry. I think, at this point, they’re closing the
barn door after the cow has already run off, from the Republican perspective I think that we will continue to see closed-door
depositions. We’re not going to yet see the sort of robust,
open, fair, transparent, televised hearings that marked the Watergate impeachment inquiry
and the impeachment inquiry against former President Bill Clinton. NICK SCHIFRIN: We heard language that goes
even farther today from Steve Scalise, number three in the House, accused the Democrats
of imposing Soviet-style rules. How are these rules Soviet, when Democrats
say that they actually are based on the impeachment rules that Republicans set when they impeached
or tried to impeach Bill Clinton? MICHAEL STEEL: And some of the rules that
were put in place by former Speaker Boehner as part of the Benghazi Select Committee. The argument — and I think there is a lot
of fairness to it — is that this is a secret proceeding behind closed doors. The news is being released selectively by
the majority. NICK SCHIFRIN: But that’s what it’s been so
far. These — we’re talking about public hearings. (CROSSTALK) MICHAEL STEEL: … so far. When we get — those criticisms will not be
valid when and if we get to open, televised hearings, where Republicans have the ability
to confront some of these witnesses, cross-examine them, live on camera, and the American people
can see and judge. NICK SCHIFRIN: What will the Republican strategy
be when we begin those public hearings? MICHAEL STEEL: I think it depends on the substance
that we find. I think that the president’s defense that
his phone call was perfect is probably not going to hold up. It seems very likely that there will be evidence
of a quid pro quo, either retrospectively, looking for information about what interference
may have occurred in the 2016 election, what, if any, involvement Ukraine had in that, which
I don’t think that our intelligence services judge as any. But that’s a question. The other is whether the president was looking
for dirt on his potential political rival — or his political rivals, potential opponent,
Joe Biden, and his son. NICK SCHIFRIN: Specifically, Joe Biden and
his son Hunter, yes. MICHAEL STEEL: And that’s a very different
standard there. But you can argue — and I think Republicans
probably will if the facts are what we think they will turn out to be — that what the
president did is wrong, it is an abuse of his office, but it doesn’t rise to the level
that he should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office less than a year before
the American people will be allowed to make that judgment for themselves. NICK SCHIFRIN: There’s a lot of nuance in
that argument you just made. It is not a 10-second or 12-second sound bite. Let’s talk about the substance. I mean, are there members of the House whom
you’re speaking to who are concerned about the substance of this inquiry and what the
president did vis-a-vis either 2016 or Vice President Biden and Ukraine over the last
few months? MICHAEL STEEL: Sure. And I don’t think that — the way our laws
are constructed, if the facts are what we think they are, I don’t think you can make
a credible defense of the president on the substance, which is why so much of this debate
thus far has focused on the process. NICK SCHIFRIN: That’s not the language the
president has been using, though. MICHAEL STEEL: That’s exactly right. The president is the outlier here. The president wants to insist that the phone
call was perfect. He continues to refer to the memorandum describing
the call as a transcript, which it is not. We have seen news reports suggesting that
there were important things — important details omitted from that memo. So this is the real problem. Republicans can defend the president successfully. He has to be — he has to be willing allow
them to make the argument that, yes, he did do something wrong, but it doesn’t rise to
the level that he should be removed from office. NICK SCHIFRIN: So far, he has not been willing
to allow Republicans to make that argument. Why would he going forward? MICHAEL STEEL: It’s interesting. He has not attacked Republicans who have made
that argument generally, the Mitt Romney attacks aside. There have been some cases where Republicans
have made that argument, and he has not unleashed a tweetstorm on them. He obviously believes that there’s nothing
wrong substantively and wants Republicans to make a substantive case for him. NICK SCHIFRIN: But? (CROSSTALK) MICHAEL STEEL: But there’s nothing you can
— there isn’t a case to be made there. So he has a choice. He can either allow them to make the case
that comports with the facts, that is defensible, that is safe, or he will leave Republican
elected officials on the mile-high swinging bridge, and he will be taking an axe to the
ropes. He will undercut them completely if he tries
to insist they make a factual, substantive case for what was pretty clearly, it seems,
if the facts were what we think they are, a quid pro quo and inappropriate. NICK SCHIFRIN: And quickly, in the time we
have left, you believe that, if the president allows Republicans to make that argument,
that, hey, maybe this wasn’t perfect, but it’s not impeachable, that they will come
out ahead? MICHAEL STEEL: I think that they will — the
American people will agree that it is a time — that the voters should choose. And I think the vote that was held today will
prove to be a very bad vote for the 30-odd House Democrats sitting in seats that the
president won in 2016, half of them in seats that he won by big margins. NICK SCHIFRIN: Michael Steel, thank you very
much. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has publicly
defended allowing paid political ads, including those with false claims, amid scrutiny of
Facebook and other tech platforms. Twitter has long allowed political ads. But, last night, Twitter’s CEO said the social
media giant would ban them starting in late November. John Yang looks at the reasoning, the reaction,
and what it could mean for it could mean for other tech giants. JOHN YANG: Nick, in a series of tweets announcing
the decision, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said political ads present entirely new challenges
to civic discourse at increasing velocity, sophistication and overwhelming scale. He said the ads have significant ramifications
that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. Nancy Scola is senior technology reporter
for Politico. Nancy, thanks for joining us. NANCY SCOLA, Politico: Thanks for having me. JOHN YANG: So, this is a change for Jack Dorsey
of Twitter. Why now? Why make this change now? NANCY SCOLA: So, in a lot of ways, Jack was
reacting to a great deal of pressure that’s been applied to a different company than Twitter. That’s Facebook. There’s been this great deal of controversy
around Facebook in recent weeks over their policy of not pulling down misleading posts
that politicians put up. Jack was reacting to that in a way and saying,
we’re taking a completely different path, a completely different road than Mark Zuckerberg
and Facebook have decided to go down. JOHN YANG: And this announcement — Dorsey
made this announcement just before an earnings call for Facebook. And Zuckerberg was asked about it on that
call? And he said: “In a democracy, I don’t think
it’s right for private companies to censor politicians or the news.” You have been talking to Facebook executives
today. Do they feel pressure now because of what
Twitter has done? NANCY SCOLA: They don’t. I mean, there’s a great deal more attention
them. They’re well aware of that. But they say, we have made this decision. Our problem now is we haven’t articulated
it particularly well. But we have made a decision. We think it’s the right way, and we’re going
to stick to it. JOHN YANG: And, essentially, their decision
is what? NANCY SCOLA: Their decision is that they are
not going to — if politicians put up posts that are misleading, they’re going to count
on voters to look at those posts, those ads and say, OK, that’s something that’s not true,
allow the public to make those decisions about truthfulness or not, not do the fact-tracking
on the front end. JOHN YANG: And has — Dorsey made a distinction
in his tweets, which are much longer than what we read, between paid speech ads and
free speech, posts by people. What was the distinction he is making? NANCY SCOLA: That’s right. So, Jack’s argument is that, if somebody post
something on Twitter, and it gets a great deal of traction, even if it’s misleading,
that’s fine. You’re winning the sort of like war of political
discourse and you’re gaining traction your own. If you’re going to pay to promote it, that’s
sort of a false promotion, that Twitter is sort of being — what’s the best way of putting
it? Twitter is helping to implement, helping to
perpetuate your falsehoods. They’re not going to play that role. So he’s making that distinction of, you can’t
pay to get scale. You have to get scale by actually the value
of your message. JOHN YANG: And is Facebook — what’s Facebook’s
attitude toward what we would call here free — the free media, the people — the things
that people are posting, rather than the ads? NANCY SCOLA: So, Facebook and Twitter actually
have a newsworthiness exception. So, if you’re a politician, a world leader,
that sort of thing, they actually allow you to post things that otherwise might be violative
of their terms of service. They will mark them on Twitter to say this
breaks our rules of service, but it’s — our terms of service — but it’s more important
for the public to actually be able to see what their political leaders are posting. So that’s the approach that Facebook takes
too. They leave it up. And they don’t actually — they don’t pull
it down in a way that they might pull down other people’s content. JOHN YANG: Is this sort of two different philosophies
on this between Twitter and Facebook? NANCY SCOLA: Absolutely. That’s actually the really interesting thing
that we’re seeing happening is that I think you mentioned, in Jack’s tweets, he really
kind of referenced Facebook’s policy. He didn’t mention Mark Zuckerberg by name,
but it was clearly a point-by-point refutation of the approach that Facebook has taken on
this. And they’re really kind of saying, OK, we’re
two different companies. We have two different ways of viewing the
world. And we’re going to go down different paths
on this. JOHN YANG: There were some political reaction
to this, as you might expect. The Biden campaign put out a statement saying:
“When faced with a choice between ad dollars and the integrity of our democracy, it is
encouraging that, for once, revenue didn’t win out,” speaking of the Twitter decision. On the other hand, President Trump’s campaign
manager, Brad Parscale, said: “This is yet another attempt to silence conservatives,
since Twitter knows President Trump has the most sophisticated online program ever known.” Are we seeing this rivalry of Twitter vs.
Facebook becoming political and partisan? NANCY SCOLA: Absolutely. And we have seen Facebook again and again
be very cautious about being seen by conservatives as somehow biased against them. There’s no evidence that they are biased against
them. But they have really reacted against that
critique that have come from Republicans since the 2016 election. They’re really worried about doing anything
that might set off those sort of alarm bells. JOHN YANG: And this started — the debate
overall this, we should note, started when Vice President Biden’s campaign complained
about an ad on Facebook. NANCY SCOLA: Yes. JOHN YANG: Tell us a little bit about that. NANCY SCOLA: So there was an ad that the Trump
campaign ran that alleged a connection, a nefarious connection, between the Biden family
and the Ukraine. It’s misleading. It’s — there’s no evidence to sort of back
it up. And Facebook declined to take that down. JOHN YANG: Nancy Scola of Politico, thank
you very much. NANCY SCOLA: Thank you. NICK SCHIFRIN: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: unfinished business
— what’s driving the entrepreneurship boom among older Americans?; and nonpartisan victory
— Washington, D.C., comes together to cheer the world champion Nats. British police are trying to find the culprits
behind the manslaughter of 39 people found dead last week in the back of a refrigerated
truck outside of London. The case shines a light on criminal gangs
that prey on the world’s most vulnerable migrants who flee violence and lack of opportunity
to try and find a better life. Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports
from Britain. MALCOLM BRABANT: A scent of jasmine lingers,
where 39 lives were snuffed out in a locked refrigerated trailer. This industrial estate east of London is a
grim place to die. Latest reports indicate that most of the victims
were Vietnamese. One of them, Pham Thi Tra My, sent a text
as oxygen ran out and hypothermia overwhelmed her. It read, in part: WOMAN: “I’m sorry, mom. My path to abroad doesn’t succeed. Mom, I love you so much. I’m dying because I can’t breathe. I’m sorry, mom.” TONY SMITH, Former Head of U.K. Border Force:
Well, it indicates to me that they’re getting more desperate, I mean, the migrants and the
smugglers. MALCOLM BRABANT: As the former director general
of the U.K.’s border force, Tony Smith has extensive knowledge about people trafficking
and illegal immigration into Britain, which has intensified recently. TONY SMITH: We have seen lots of attempts
in the last year in small boats coming across the English Channel, and some drownings, sadly. And now this just demonstrates that the smugglers
are prepared to go to any lengths at all, really, to bring people over here. MALCOLM BRABANT: The trailer entered the country
by ship via the River Thames. The gang responsible avoided the crossing
between Calais in Northern France and Dover in Southern England, where security is tighter. Precise details of the victims’ desperate
6,000-mile journey aren’t yet known, but the clandestine passage from impoverished Vietnamese
villages to Britain can cost around $30,000. The International Organization for Migration
has identified one route as going via Russia, with migrants walking across land borders
through Eastern Europe to reach ports serving Britain. The people in this case were trafficked through
Zeebrugge in Belgium. DR. PATRICK BURLAND, International Organization
for Migration: One of the key vulnerabilities we have identified for Vietnam is just the
length of their journey, the kind of physical violence they might experience, sexual violence. MALCOLM BRABANT: Dr. Patrick Burland’s specialty
is modern slavery. He’s investigated the ordeals of Vietnamese
migrants. Many of them end up working in nail salons
or cannabis farms to send money home. Burland says they are most at risk when, exhausted
after their journey, they finally reach the channel ports. DR. PATRICK BURLAND: They realized that what they
were doing was very dangerous. They were — they were terrified of the refrigerator
lorries, terrified of the — hiding under the lorry wheel axles, hanging on for dear
life. But they — there was a person there who was,
you know, screaming and shouting at them. They had to get on, or there was a physical
threat. MALCOLM BRABANT: Two hundred miles away from
London, Syrian Ahmad Al Rashid has found sanctuary. He escaped the siege of Aleppo and ISIS beheadings
in Iraq. But his closest brush with death came in the
back of a refrigerated truck in France. He and his companions were rescued when their
cries for help were heard. AHMAD AL RASHID, Syrian Refugee: When we first
got into the back of that lorry, you know, you are very hopeful that it’s going to be
all right. You don’t think about it. But, with time, with — it became more airless. And you’re losing your concentration. And you cannot breathe anymore. And this is where the panic kicks in. And this is where I started, like, seeing
death, smelling death, looking at the eyes of the other people who were in the back of
that container, seeing death in their eyes. I mean, this was one of the most terrifying
experiences. MALCOLM BRABANT: Ten-year-old Ahmad Amiri
is using his story to discourage other refugees from risking their lives. His drawings illustrate his journey from Afghanistan,
across the Aegean Sea to Greece, and eventually into the back of a refrigerated truck in Britain
with his elder brother, Jawad, and 14 others. Ahmad saved their lives. On their way, the brothers stayed in a squalid
camp in Calais. An American volunteer, Liz Clegg (ph), gave
Ahmad a phone. She was able to alert the police just in time. AHMAD AMIRI, Afghan Refugee: Sometimes, I
have bad dreams. Inside the lorry, I couldn’t breathe. So, then people are trying to get some help. But then they couldn’t, because their phones
weren’t working. And I just rang Liz Clegg, who gave me a small
phone that, if I needed any help, I could ring her, and she would help me. MALCOLM BRABANT: There was no such lifeline
for the 31 men and eight women as they were transported up the Thames and deposited in
a district experts say is a netherworld for Eastern European gangs. Northern Irishman Mo Johnson, the driver of
the truck found last week, has been charged with 39 counts of manslaughter. Local police have identified two Irish brothers
in connection with what they’re treating as one of Britain’s worst mass murders. Crime writer Wensley Clarkson’s new book deals
with the underworld operating in this region. He says the gang masters use British and Irish
drivers because they attract less attention. WENSLEY CLARKSON, Crime Reporter: These criminal
gangs are highly organized, ruthless and far from desperate. They have turned it into a very lucrative
business enterprise. MALCOLM BRABANT: And Clarkson says the gangs
used Brexit as a marketing tool. WENSLEY CLARKSON: The Brexit deadline meant
that the criminals could almost legitimately say it would be harder for them to get into
England once that agreement had been made. And this has helped them enormously. And even with the deadline extension which
has just been announced, I predict that, over the next three months, there will be a surge
of even more trying to get into this country illegally. MALCOLM BRABANT: One of the benefits of Britain’s
membership of the European Union has been its ability to share intelligence about cross-border
crime and people trafficking with nations like Belgium and France. But Britain’s participation in the police
agency Europol could be jeopardized as a result of Brexit. TONY SMITH: We may not have access to some
of the European systems that we have access to now. But I do think it’s really, really important
that, one way or another, we find a way to collaborate at an international level. This is international organized crime. It demands an international organized response,
and we need to be a part of that. WENSLEY CLARKSON: We have a very, very difficult
situation for the police. They are chasing their tails, literally. They have no idea who most of them are. And, at the moment, it doesn’t look like they’re
likely to get any nearer. MALCOLM BRABANT: Now that he’s safe, Ahmad
Al Rashid doesn’t like to lecture other refugees about the dangers of getting into a smuggler’s
truck, but he hopes this tragedy will act as a catalyst for change. AHMAD AL RASHID: I think it needs leadership. With this, you need kind of thinking about
finding legal pathways for people to move without relying on these criminals. MALCOLM BRABANT: But ever since the European
refugee crisis began, such pleas have fallen on deaf ears, and the death toll keeps rising. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Malcolm Brabant
in Purfleet. NICK SCHIFRIN: There might be a stereotype
of the 20-something start-up entrepreneur, but older people start businesses at higher
rates than their younger counterparts. Correspondent Paul Solman visited a New York
City tech center that is helping seniors realize their start-up dreams, part of a new series
about older workers we’re calling Unfinished Business, part of our weekly look at economics,
Making Sense. MAN: Let the fashion show begin. PAUL SOLMAN: For a group of designers in Manhattan’s
Chelsea district, senior moments to remember. Former recreational therapist Virginia Hamlin
modeling her handmade scarves. VIRGINIA HAMLIN, Entrepreneur: I’m 75. I’m at level 75. PAUL SOLMAN: Knitter Madelyn Rich, a former
paralegal and social worker. MADELYN RICH, Entrepreneur: I’ll be 75 next
month. PAUL SOLMAN: Arline Rubin, who makes clothes
with recycled material, was a professor for 35 years. ARLINE RUBIN, Entrepreneur: I’m 84 years old. PAUL SOLMAN: But this is a venue for much
more than fashion statements. VIRGINIA HAMLIN: If you have a smartphone,
and the phone is smarter than you, you need to go to Senior Planet. PAUL SOLMAN: Nowadays, every day, in locations
across the country, Senior Planet teaches Americans 60 and over the basics of cyberspace,
from video streaming to job search. WOMAN: If you don’t have social media, it
will appear like you don’t know what’s going on. Founder Tom Kamber’s first senior client was
a woman in her 80s. TOM KAMBER, Executive Director, Senior Planet:
And once a week, she would come to my office with her breakfast in a napkin, and we would
do a computer class. And over the course of a year, she learned
a lot about technology, but I learned a lot more about aging, and a lot more about the
magic of what happens with older people when you bring together computers and seniors and
you give them a chance to succeed with it. BONNIE MACKAY, Consultant; I needed support. PAUL SOLMAN: Even though Bonnie MacKay had
been a hotshot retail designer at Bloomingdale’s and then New York’s Museum of Modern art. Now 68, she’s consulting and, thanks to Senior
Planet, cultivating a younger clientele online. Yes, she still has customers from the past. BONNIE MACKAY: But you still have to communicate,
and you still have to — you have to do LinkedIn, and you still have to do social media, and
you still have to communicate with the cross-generational. PAUL SOLMAN: She has no plans to throw in
the towel. Sixty-six-year-old Cheryl “The Gourd Lady”
Thompson, who plays and sells African instruments fashioned from gourds, is not about to bow
out either. CHERYL THOMPSON, Entrepreneur: I’m still perpendicular. I still have my health, and I’m just constantly
on the go, doing, doing, doing, and just trying not to think negatively, and being around
positive people. PAUL SOLMAN: The main virtue of Senior Planet
for her? CHERYL THOMPSON: It’s become an extended family
for me. PAUL SOLMAN: For so many older people, working
on is critical to well-being, says Tom Kamber. TOM KAMBER: And there’s a lot of research
about how important it is for people to still be activated and have a purpose and be trying
to be creative in their later years. MADELYN RICH: I don’t know if these colors
look great for you. PAUL SOLMAN: Like Madelyn Rich, her creativity
inspired by a chilly ride on the New York subway. MADELYN RICH: By the time I got home, I had
a stiff neck. And I pulled out my yarn, and I started knitting. And two days later… (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: Wait, this is a New York subway
over-air-conditioning cowl? MADELYN RICH: Exactly. My saying is fun, funky, but functional. PAUL SOLMAN: A slogan she’s learned to hawk
online. For many here, though, like milliner Carlos
Lewis, 73, Senior Planet begins as remedial ed in low tech. CARLOS LEWIS, Entrepreneur: I was a dummy,
don’t know a computer, couldn’t type. Now I can type. Now I can actually partially build a Web site. Now I can send a picture to a client. PAUL SOLMAN: Did you think you would be working
at this age? (LAUGHTER) CARLOS LEWIS: Working at this age? No, because I thought that the business that
I started, I thought it would be, like, really, really long, ongoing. PAUL SOLMAN: But he took a financial hit when
his hat factory went bust, now markets custom pieces to private clients. Income is an even more pressing concern for
The Gourd Lady. CHERYL THOMPSON: Just keeping the roof over
my head. I don’t get regular, steady paychecks. And I get residencies, and they are temporary. So I’m always looking for the next residency,
the next sale, the next source of income. PAUL SOLMAN: Cheryl Thompson’s Senior Planet
goal? To sell her instruments on Etsy, so she can
start saving for retirement. She’s 66, remember. CHERYL THOMPSON: I was just so busy, always
looking for the next dollar to keep the roof over the head. And, of course, now, being older, I realize,
oh. And I’m like 60 came so fast. I have saved I don’t know how many times,
but then I have had to use it. TOM KAMBER: Twenty percent to 25 percent of
the people that come in the doors here are looking to improve their financial situation. They are looking for a job. They are looking to save money by shopping
online. Or there is some business idea that they have
been percolating for years, and now they’re 65, and they suddenly have an opening in their
life to say, I want to start that business. PAUL SOLMAN: According to the Kauffman Foundation,
in 2018, the 55-to-64-age group made up 26 percent of new entrepreneurs, a larger share
than their younger counterparts. Baby boomers turn out to be twice as likely
to start a business within the next year as millennials. Senior Planet is teaching the tech-savvy that
passed so many seniors by. There’s is a downside in becoming acclimated
to cyberspace, says Cheryl Thompson. CHERYL THOMPSON: I told my instructor it was
his fault. He said, why? What? What did I do now? You introduced me to Spotify. I spent a whole day at home on Spotify just
going through and collecting songs and things. I was like, wow, this is great. (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: Great, but not exactly income-producing. On the other hand, says Tom Kamber, older
entrepreneurs aren’t looking to strike it rich. TOM KAMBER: Entrepreneurship turns out to
be different for younger people vs. older people. When you talk to a 20-year-old and they’re
starting a business — and I know a lot of those — they have this whole dream of, you
start the business up and then you get bought out by a big company and they buy you out,
right? PAUL SOLMAN: Right. TOM KAMBER: When we get older, our horizons
become a little shorter. And so we start realizing, well, geez, I might
have 20 years or 10 years to execute something that really represents me as a person on this
Earth. For many people, they have been waiting a
long time to do that stuff. PAUL SOLMAN: Like the designers on the runway
at Senior Planet. And that’s why Tom Kamber calls this a senior
moment. TOM KAMBER: Ageism is one of the last really
accepted areas where people will engage with some really negative stereotyping and negative
biases, and act as if it’s normal. So, for example, somebody just the other day
used the word senior moment in front of me, and I had that I had to not, you know, like,
throttle them, because a senior moment — can you imagine if your demographic was defined
as the demographic that forgot things? To me, a senior moment is about being honest,
because seniors are much more honest and much more willing to speak their mind than younger
people. They’re more confident. They know who they are. They have experience. They have some judgment. They have perspective. Those are senior things. PAUL SOLMAN: And, often, they’re less paralyzingly
self-conscious as well. For the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Paul Solman
in New York City. NICK SCHIFRIN: Finally from us, the biggest
news in Washington today. Right as the impeachment vote took place,
the top of The Washington Post’s Web site, for those of us in D.C., was “At Last, the
Nats Are Champs.” The Nats, the Washington Nationals, the team
with the oldest roster in baseball, the team everyone underestimated, won the World Series
last night. And forgive a little hometown crowing, but
they finished the fight the same way they have been fighting all season. ANNOUNCER: There it is! The Washington Nationals are world champions! NICK SCHIFRIN: One final comeback, after a
comeback season. The Nationals topped the Houston Astros in
Houston to capture D.C.’s first World Series title in 95 years. They made history. Never before in any seven-game series in any
sport has a visiting team won every game. The Nats trailed 2-0 in the seventh inning,
before a pair of home runs, including this go-ahead blast by designated hitter Howie
Kendrick. HOWIE KENDRICK, Washington Nationals: I mean,
this is what it’s about right here. This is what it’s about. I mean, words can’t even describe the feeling. NICK SCHIFRIN: For the fifth time this postseason,
Washington came from behind to win an elimination game, including against baseball’s two best
teams. And through it all, the dugout dance parties,
the “Baby Shark” theme. They always played with joy, and their D.C.
fans celebrated a remarkable turnaround for a team that started the season as one of baseball’s
worst. WOMAN: For us to come back and win — and
win the championship, it’s amazing. It’s just amazing. NICK SCHIFRIN: And The Washington Post’s Jesse
Dougherty was there last night. He’s back in town already, joins us from The
Post newsroom. Jesse, thanks very much. Welcome to the “NewsHour.” On May 24, the Nats were 19-31. The chances of their winning were 1.5 percent. How much of this team is defined by playing
from behind? JESSE DOUGHERTY, The Washington Post: I think
it’s — this team is entirely defined by playing from behind. They did it for most of the season. They felt like they were backs against the
wall from May — mid-May on, and, as you said, 19-31, no one gave them much of a chance of
doing anything really. And I think they just took it as a, we can
only go up from here. And we saw the results when they finally got
to the mountaintop there. NICK SCHIFRIN: The final mountaintop that
they went over was a pretty tall one. The Astros’ offense, I mean, surely one of
the most impressive in history, Astros had the best home record in baseball this year,
and the final two starting pitchers that the Nats faced were ranked number one and two
on the active win list. So how do you think they won the World Series? JESSE DOUGHERTY: Yes. And then, on top of that, no team in history
had ever won the World Series by winning all four road games. So I think they just — this team had a propensity
to just make history one step at a time. And they won by just sticking it through. I mean, obviously, their starting pitching
was great. You have Max Scherzer, Stephen Strasburg. The ball is always in your court when you
have those guys going on the mound. And the Nationals set it up that they had
their best guys in the biggest moments. And they delivered. So I think it really was a star-driven victory. And, again, we saw the result that, when those
stars came to play and they did their thing, the Nationals were pretty unstoppable in the
end. NICK SCHIFRIN: The fact that Scherzer was
even on the mound was divine intervention, I think, one of your colleagues wrote. Let’s talk about the success of this team
and why you think they had it. There is a high payroll, obviously, but what
really defines the success? Does it come from that high payroll, or does
it come from something about how they develop these players and how these players play together? JESSE DOUGHERTY: Yes. I mean, since 2012, the Nationals have been
building a contender. I mean, I think high payrolls, it’s not new. That wasn’t sort of a new ingredient for this
team. So, when you think about success and what
gets you over the hump, of course, I mean, you get the right mix of talent. You spend money in the right way, but also
that chemistry mix was really important for this team. I mean, they were close. They played loose. They had a great mix of veterans. They were the oldest team in baseball, but
also had some young guys that kept them on their toes. So I think, the way this team gelled, the
way they love playing together, I think all of that comes into play, because, again, since
2012, this team has been spending and spending and spending and trying to get to this point,
but there was something missing. And so when you think of the missing piece
then, and you see the way this team really came together, I think you know all along
that just liking each other and liking playing together actually can be pretty powerful. And when you have talent in that mix, I mean,
that’s when you get a championship team. NICK SCHIFRIN: And, lastly, we’re both talking
from Washington about Washington. What does this mean for D.C.? JESSE DOUGHERTY: I mean, 86 years since D.C.
had been to a World Series at all, and then decades without a team. There’s generations of fans that lived without
baseball for a long time. And then, again, since ’05, there’s been a
lot of ups and downs, a lot of heartbreak. So for the city to finally get to see this
team break through, I think you start to trust in the sport again, trust that it doesn’t
have to always have a bad ending, and you can sort of — you can enjoy baseball in the
fall. And I think that’s what we’re going to see
this city do now in the coming days. NICK SCHIFRIN: They finished the fight, Nats
World Series victors. Jesse Dougherty of The Washington Post, thanks
so much. JESSE DOUGHERTY: Thanks much. NICK SCHIFRIN: On the “NewsHour” online right
now: The Trump administration has a proposed rule that would alter eligibility for food
stamp benefits. We explore how that would affect some children
who receive free and reduced-price school lunches. That’s on our Web site, And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Nick Schifrin. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening,
when we will have Judy Woodruff’s interview with former Vice President Joe Biden. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” I hope
you had a good day. And have a happy Halloween. Thank you, and see you again soon.

Leave a Reply

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