PBS NewsHour full episode, Feb. 20, 2024 - VoiceTube 看影片學英語

字幕列表影片播放

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening. I'm William Brangham. Geoff Bennett and Amna Nawaz are away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange makes a
last-ditch attempt to avoid extradition to the United States on spying charges.
Then: Taiwan's top diplomat in Washington discusses the island's
relations with the U.S., as both confront China.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI, Taiwanese Representative to the United States: We trust that we will continue
working closely with the U.S. administration, as well as Congress, so that Taiwan can get,
under circumstances, the best defense capabilities.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And a look at the presidential race,
as President Biden breaks a fund-raising record,
and Nikki Haley tries to gain ground on Donald Trump ahead of the primary in her home state.
(BREAK)
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "NewsHour."
President Biden says the United States will impose major new sanctions on Russia after the death of
opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Officials gave no details today, but the president said the
formal announcement will come on Friday. Navalny reportedly died in an Arctic prison last week.
His mother appeared in a video today outside the prison still
seeking answers and access to his body and pressing Russia's president for action.
LYUDMILA NAVALNAYA, Mother of Alexei Navalny (through translator): Behind me
is the IK-3 Polar Wolf penal colony, where my son Alexei Navalny died on 16 February.
I am turning to you, Vladimir Putin. The solution to the issue depends only on you. Let me finally
see my son. I require that Alexei's body be immediately given so that I can bury him humanely.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Kremlin today denied any involvement in Navalny's
death or that he was poisoned with a nerve agent. In turn, his widow, Yulia Navalnaya,
urged European nations to reject the results of Putin's expected reelection next month.
For his part, Putin insisted today that Russia will not deploy nuclear weapons in
space. He spoke as he met with his defense minister and urged all nations to honor an
international ban on deploying nuclear arms in orbit. U.S. officials say Russia has a
new anti-satellite capability, but they have not said if it's nuclear-capable.
Also in Russia, a Moscow court refused to release Wall Street Journal reporter
Evan Gershkovich from jail. That's pending his trial on espionage charges,
which he denies. Russian authorities also detained a dual Russian-U.S.
citizen on treason charges. She's accused of fund-raising to support Ukraine's army.
The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution today that called for an immediate
humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza. The vote was 13-1 on the measure, which was backed by Arab
states. U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said passing it would sabotage negotiations.
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: Demanding an immediate,
unconditional cease-fire without an agreement requiring Hamas to release the hostages will not
bring about a durable peace. Instead, it could extend the fighting between Hamas and Israel.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In Northern Gaza, the U.N.'s World Food Program suspended food and
aid deliveries, saying drivers faced violence from people swarming the trucks. Hamas called
the decision a death sentence, and it comes amid reports of people reduced to eating animal feed.
A U.N. study found that one in six children under 2 years of age in Gaza, are acutely malnourished.
Back in this country, two men were charged with murder in the Super
Bowl parade shootings in Kansas City. A crowd of fans ran for their lives when
an argument turned into gunfire last week. One person was killed,
and 22 were injured. Two juveniles were charged earlier with gun violations and resisting arrest.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined a case on diversity in education. Parents
and students argued that a special Northern Virginia high school discriminated against
Asian Americans in favor of other minorities. A lower court upheld
the admissions policy. The justices also deciding against hearing a religion case
on whether potential jurors may be excluded over their beliefs.
A first-of-its-kind federal trial opened today in South Carolina for a hate crime based on
gender identity. The defendant is accused of killing a Black transgender woman in 2019.
Prosecutors say he'd been ridiculed for having an affair with the victim.
In economic news, there could be a new team in the credit card industry. Capital One Financial
says it will buy Discover Financial Services for $35 billion. If it wins federal approval,
the merger would challenge the dominance of Visa and Mastercard in the credit card industry.
And on Wall Street, tech stocks dropped,
pulling the broader market lower. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 64 points,
to close at 38564. The Nasdaq fell 144 points, or about 1 percent. And the S&P 500 was down 30.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": low demand for commercial office space fuels economic fears;
a domestic violence call in Minnesota that turned deadly sheds light on a growing problem in the
U.S.; a new exhibit chronicles the rich history of independent Black cinema; plus much more.
A two-day hearing in a London courtroom began today over the fate of Julian Assange,
the founder of WikiLeaks. At stake is whether he will be extradited
to the United States on espionage charges.
His case has reopened debate over whether Assange is a journalist and publisher or something more
sinister, and many defending him say free speech and an independent press is also at stake.
This will likely be Julian Assange's last chance to avoid facing prosecutors in the United States.
His two-day hearing got under way today at London's Royal Courts of Justice. Assange's
lawyers are battling to block extradition, which they insist is politically motivated.
American prosecutors want the WikiLeaks founder to stand trial on 17 charges of
espionage and one charge for computer misuse for releasing
huge troves of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents back in 2010.
JULIAN ASSANGE, Founder, WikiLeaks: It is clear that it will shape an understanding
of what the past six years of war has been like, and that the course of the war needs
to change. The manner in which it needs to change is not yet clear.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: They say the Australian citizen conspired with U.S. army intelligence
analyst Chelsea Manning to steal military files and diplomatic cables. The Justice Department
is also separately investigating whether Assange has ties to the Russian government,
especially after WikiLeaks published internal e-mails from the Democratic
Party that were stolen by the Russians during the 2016 election.
Today, Assange's wife, Stella, compared his case to that of Russian opposition
leader Alexei Navalny, who died in a Russian prison last week.
STELLA ASSANGE, Wife of Julian Assange: It's an attack on all journalists all over the
world. It's an attack on the truth. And it's an attack on the publics right to know. Julian is
a political prisoner, and his life is at risk. What happened to Navalny can happen to Julian.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Assange's legal troubles also include his arrest by British authorities in
2010 after two women in Sweden accused him of rape and sexual assault. Two years later,
he jumped bail and sequestered himself at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
where he stayed around the clock for seven years.
JULIAN ASSANGE: As WikiLeaks stands under threat,
so does the freedom of expression and the health of all our societies.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The tiny Ecuadorian Mission eventually evicted him in 2019.
And British police immediately arrested him for his bail violation years before.
He's been held in a maximum security prison in London ever since. Assange's supporters
rallied outside the court today, demanding his release, and hailing him as a whistle-blower
who exposed U.S. military wrongdoings in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
SADIA KOKNI, Julian Assange Supporter: Assange, for us and for me, he is a hero.
He's an advocate for truth, peace, justice. It's really important that he's free,
not just for journalism, but for everyone that's actually walking this
planet. His work affects us, because he's exposing injustices throughout the world.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Should the British court reject his appeal, Assange could be sent
to the U.S. immediately to stand trial. If convicted, he faces up to 175 years in prison.
For a closer look at Julian Assange's appeal and the
U.S. effort to prosecute him, we get two views.
Carrie DeCell is a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. Her litigation
focuses on freedom of speech on social media and digital age threats to freedom of the press. And
Jamil Jaffer, he's a former senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee who also served
in the Justice Department's National Security Division during the George W. Bush administration.
Thank you both so much for being here.
Carrie, to you first.
As I mentioned in that setup there, Assange could be facing 175 years if he were convicted on all
of these charges. Do you think he should face prosecution here in the United States?
CARRIE DECELL, Senior Staff Attorney, Knight First Amendment Institute: No, I don't.
I think regardless of whether or not the U.K. courts decide to extradite him to the United
States, the U.S. Justice Department should drop these charges. They are a direct threats to press
freedom here because they could be brought against any national security reporter worth their salt.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jamil, what do you have to say about that? What
is -- is he a journalist? Is he a publisher, as his defenders allege?
JAMIL JAFFER, Former Senior Counsel, House Intelligence Committee: Well,
a couple of things, William.
One, these charges haven't been brought against any journalist ever in the United States,
because Julian Assange isn't a real journalist. He never has been. He's
been a hacker his whole life. He doesn't engage in the normal course of journalistic ethics. He
doesn't redact sources. He doesn't try to protect the innocent, right?
In fact, all of his disclosures have resulted in more journalists and more
human rights activists being under threat abroad than ever before. It's
his disclosures that have put those very people, legitimate journalists, at risk.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, Carrie, what do you make of that,
that there is a distinction here that he, in one case, helped someone hack into a
computer? That is not what a normal national security reporter would do.
CARRIE DECELL: That may be right, but that's one count of an 18-count superseding indictment.
The Justice Department could have left the charges against him at that one count,
but they filed an indictment adding 17 counts under the Espionage Act. And the
charges under the Espionage Act are for things that typical journalists engage in every day.
It's soliciting information from confidential sources, obtaining that information,
and then publishing it. So, regardless of whether or not Assange himself qualifies as a journalist,
it doesn't matter when it comes to this particular prosecution,
because these charges could be brought against your average journalist.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jamil, I wonder if you would help -- your take
on this distinction between being a journalist and between being a hacker,
as he says. Does he fall under the First Amendment in any way, in your mind?
JAMIL JAFFER: Well, one, he's not a U.S. citizen, so he doesn't actually have rights
from the U.S. Constitution. Now, he's being brought here, prosecuted here. Presumably,
those rights will apply once he's here and in our courts. But having published from abroad,
he doesn't actually have First Amendment rights.
That being said, even if we apply the First Amendment to him, he doesn't do
the things that you would expect a journalist to do. He doesn't comply
with journalistic ethics. He doesn't abide by these things. In fact, the whole reason
Ecuadorian Embassy kicked him out after seven years is, he was behaving poorly while there.
On top of all that, even if you put aside the hacking charges, right,
journalists don't normally solicit classified information in the sense of like, go get this
specific information out of a classified database. If they receive it, sometimes, they will publish
it. But even when they publish it, they take efforts to redact information that is sensitive,
protect sources of methods and the like, give the government a chance to respond.
Julian Assange didn't do any of that, because he's not a real, legitimate journalist. And
the idea that this prosecution would undermine any journalist's rights, it just makes no sense to me.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Carrie, I'm sure you share this concern that many of his supporters and his
lawyers have, which is that he would have a very difficult time getting a fair trial in the U.S.
Do you believe that's the case?
CARRIE DECELL: You know, I mean, I'm a U.S. lawyer and I practice in U.S. courts,
and I do still believe that the U.S. courts can proceed through a fair trial.
But, that said, there are a lot of circumstances around this particular
prosecution that are terribly concerning. And, as Mr. Jaffer mentioned previously,
this really is the first prosecution of a publisher of information under the
Espionage Act, regardless of whether or not he qualifies as a journalist.
And I think there are a lot of questions, open questions, that the courts will have to address
if he's successfully extradited here. And the biggest, to my mind, is whether or not there
are First Amendment limits on his and other publishers' potential liability for publishing
truthful information on matters of clear public concern when it comes to the Espionage Act.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, Jamil, we should remind our audience that, back in 2019, the Obama
administration was presented with this option of prosecuting Assange, and they chose not to.
Do you have an understanding as to why they chose not to?
JAMIL JAFFER: You know, I'm not exactly sure why they declined prosecution at the time,
but, of course, since then, the Trump administration has
brought the charges. They brought a second superseding indictment.
And those charges have continued to be prosecuted by the Biden administration
after a change in administration, a Biden administration that, by the way,
most of the people in the Justice Department and the National Security Council served in,
in the prior Obama administration, including Merrick Garland,
who was nominated to be -- nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama, right,
Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, the head of the National Security Division.
Matt Olsen was the head of the National Counterterrorism Center. So the same
people who are prosecuting Julian Assange today served in similar or
related positions back in the Obama administration as well.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: so, Carrie, what would you argue there, that, if
the administration back then, the Obama administration, you believe,
made the right call, why do you think that they have changed course now?
CARRIE DECELL: Yes, well, I mean, as reported at the time, apparently,
the Obama administration was really concerned about its own inability to draw a line between
Assange and journalists when it comes to what they intended to prosecute him for in this instance.
And the Trump administration clearly made a different decision, probably not least because
the Trump administration was not at all concerned about jeopardizing freedom of the press and,
in fact, was excited, I think, about the possibility of putting the press on notice.
It's, I think, a typical Justice Department practice of maintaining prosecutions that
a previous administration filed, really for the appearance of impartiality. And I think,
in this case, however, the charges should not have been brought by the Trump administration. And the
Obama administration was right not to bring those very same charges when it had the opportunity to.
So I think this Justice Department should drop those charges.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jamil Jaffer, what do you make of the separate allegations that
are made that Assange has some unhealthy connection to Russia, that he basically
served as a far-too-willing conduit for those stolen e-mails back in 2016 from the DNC?
JAMIL JAFFER: Well, William, we have seen that play out in real time. We have seen it play out
during -- during that particular incident, but many times as well where it appears that
Assange has this somewhat inappropriate relationship with the Russian regime.
He seems to be parroting Russian talking points oftentimes. It's hard to know exactly how those
ties play out. They're not indicted. They're not part of the charges. But it appears to
be part of what's underlying all this. And it's not surprising in the context of what
we have seen the Russians do in terms of election misinformation, disinformation,
and their efforts to manipulate Western and -- Western audiences.
So this wouldn't be surprising as a Russian tactic. Whether it's accurate or not really
doesn't matter to the prosecution, because, at the end of the day,
what Julian Assange is accused of doing, if he's found guilty in a court of law,
is prosecutable and is punishable at U.S. law and has been since 1917.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Carrie, lastly to you, the -- what happens next? Let's
just say he is extradited or the court rules against him and says he could be.
Does he have another route for appeal?
CARRIE DECELL: Well, in the United Kingdom,
my understanding is that he would next have to go to the European Court of Human Rights,
and that he might be even put on a plane in the meantime to the United States.
But, certainly, within the United States, he would have the opportunity to argue that
he should not be held criminally liable for publishing information,
again, truthful information matters of clear public concern. And the Supreme
Court has held that the First Amendment strongly protects that kind of publication.
Now, it hasn't done so in this particular context. But Assange and his lawyers,
I would hope, would make a vigorous First Amendment defense to these charges.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Carrie DeCell and Jamil Jaffer,
thank you so much, both of you, for being here.
CARRIE DECELL: Thank you.
JAMIL JAFFER: Thanks.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This week, tensions have increased in the Taiwan Strait following
incidents near an island involving the Chinese and Taiwanese Coast Guards.
It's happening at a sensitive moment in between Taiwan's recent election and
the upcoming inauguration of its new president.
Nick Schifrin speaks to Taiwan's new representative in Washington
for his first broadcast interview.
NICK SCHIFRIN: More than any single issue,
Taiwan has long been at the center of tension between the United States and Beijing. Last
month, Taiwan elected Lai Ching-te, known as William Lai, as president.
It is an unprecedented third straight presidential victory for the Democratic Progressive Party,
or DPP. Beijing calls Lai a separatist whose election could trigger war. But,
publicly, Lai has insisted his policy is to retain the status quo.
To discuss these issues and the wider relations among Taiwan,
China and the U.S., we welcome Alexander Tah-ray Yui, Taiwan's top diplomat to the United States.
Thank you very much, Representative.
Let's begin with some recent tension in the strait. Last week,
two Chinese nationals died when their boat capsized while it was being chased about
one mile from the Taiwanese island of Kinmen. Today, Taiwan drove away a Chinese Coast Guard
boat after yesterday the Chinese Coast Guard actually boarded a Taiwanese tourist boat.
What is your concern that these incidents could escalate?
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI, Taiwanese Representative to the United States: Well,
we have always strived for status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
The incident that you just mentioned, it's a concerning trend that is happening. They
are the ones who are changing the status quo by changing all these incidents. They
talk about red lines. They say, oh, you shouldn't cross the red
line because this is a fundamental issue for the people of the Republic of China.
But they are the ones changing the red lines. They draw the red lines
constantly on a different line. And that is a concerning trend, including the one in Kinmen.
NICK SCHIFRIN: There's also diplomatic pressure.
After the election, the Pacific island of Nauru traded recognition of Taipei for Beijing...
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Yes. Sure.
NICK SCHIFRIN: ... leaving you with only 12 diplomatic allies. That's 10
countries that have switched from Taipei to Beijing during the term of President Tsai.
Why do you believe Taiwan is losing so much recognition?
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, in Nauru's case, it was mainland China's punishment
to the Taiwanese people for choosing the candidate they did not like.
But we will not go challenges or go race with mainland China on a
dollar diplomacy. People in Republic of China promises these countries a
lot of benefits, a windfall of economic benefits, airports, railways, housing,
et cetera. But in most of the cases, they go unanswered after they switch sides.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Beijing has recently unilaterally adjusted a commercial flight path.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Exactly right. (CROSSTALK)
NICK SCHIFRIN: We're going to show an app right here.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Yes.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Closer to the median line in the Taiwan Strait,
essentially normalizing the flight of Chinese civilian aircraft closer to Taiwan.
Why is that so concerning to Taipei?
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, first of all, their measure was unilateral. And they should have
consulted with Taiwan, the way they consulted with Taiwan back in 2015 when M503 was established.
It increased dangers of national security for us, because their planes are flying closer to Taiwan.
But it also increases dangers for civilian people, civilian air routes,
because there is encroaching on our airspace. And they should have consulted with us first.
NICK SCHIFRIN: I have a question about whether Taiwan trusts the
United States. We looked at a poll that shows, over the last few years,
Taiwanese trust in the United States has dropped from 45 percent to 34 percent.
And, of course, we're all watching where Congress has not been able to send aid,
mostly to Ukraine, but also to Taiwan and Israel,
that the administration has promised. The leading Republican candidate in the election,
of course, is promising or is vowing that he will not stand by promises to NATO.
Do you trust that in the future the U.S. will stand by whatever promises it makes to Taiwan?
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, the recent definition, whenever people
talk about Taiwan-U.S. relations, the most often used term is rock-solid.
And I would say that the support that we, the Republic of China Taiwan,
we get from United States is bipartisan. And it's very heartwarming that Congress
has the last session passed over 60 resolutions or acts in favor of Taiwan.
The United States, who has -- is having elections in November. And we are trustful that, whoever
wins the election, the new administration, this bipartisan support for Taiwan will continue to be.
So, we trust that we will continue working closely with the U.S. administration, as well as Congress,
so that Taiwan can get under circumstances the best defense capabilities as possible.
NICK SCHIFRIN: If Ukraine loses to Russia or forced to cede territory in some kind
of negotiated settlement with Russia, would that embolden Xi Jinping to attack Taiwan?
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, that's why the defense of Ukraine against
the Russian invasion is very important, and the support from all like-minded
countries to make sure that Ukraine is able to defend itself is very important,
because facing aggression from authoritarian regimes -- and you speak about appeasement.
You speak about the Crimea incident in 2014. Not much was done. So it emboldened
the Russians to attack Ukraine two years ago. But you see also,
you see the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, was in Munich not long ago.
NICK SCHIFRIN: The security forum this weekend.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Yes, the security -- and he mentioned about,
if you want peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, then you should not cross our red lines,
and then you should follow our one-China principle and accept that Taiwan is part of us.
And excuse me, this sounds very much like Munich in 1938, when Hitler said, you want peace and
stability in my region, then cut -- Sudetenland is mine. Isn't it the same thing that they're saying?
But, besides, I'm -- as I said...
(CROSSTALK)
NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you think the U.S. is acting in the correct way to prevent war?
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, we're very heartened and we are very appreciative that, every time the
U.S. leaders, as well as other leaders from the United States, from Japan, et cetera, they
meet with the Chinese leadership, they -- they warn, they appeal to the Chinese side.
They're insistent that peace and stability of the China -- of the Taiwan Strait is
necessary, and they're against the unilateral -- unilateral change of
status called by means of military aggression, nor economic coercion.
NICK SCHIFRIN: But they also assure Beijing that they will not
support Taiwan independence and they will restrain Taiwan from any further action.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: People in Taiwan are not talking about
independence nowadays. You go to Taiwan, nobody is talking about independence.
Again, Taiwan is our official name is Republic of China. We are already a
sovereign and independent nation. So, there is no talk about independence,
because we already are. And, again, as I mentioned in another occasion, if we talk
about independence, it means that we are right now subordinate to some other entity, which we're not.
In President Tsai's 2021 National Day speech, she mentioned there's four insistences. We will
insist on rejecting any attempt to encroach or annex Taiwan and the Republic of China and
the insistence that the future of ROC Taiwan will be determined by the people of Taiwan.
And that's the line that we follow and that's the road that President Lai is also following.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Representative Alexander Yui, thank you very much.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: It's a pleasure sir.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley today vowed to stay in the
Republican primary even if she loses Saturday's vote in her home state of South Carolina.
Haley's decision comes despite not winning a single primary race thus far and as President
Biden's campaign prepares for an expected rematch with former President Trump.
To discuss that and other news in the 2024 election,
I'm joined by our political correspondent, Lisa Desjardins.
Hi, Lisa.
LISA DESJARDINS: Hi.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, Haley doubled down on this
idea that she is in no matter what. What is her strategy here? What is her plan?
LISA DESJARDINS: She declared this her state of the race and -- speech.
And I want to read some remarks that I thought were striking and something
we ought to watch carefully. She said she will campaign every day
until the last person votes. That's June 4 in the Republican primary.
She says she's in this that long. She was passionate, defiant, spoke for 25 minutes.
Her argument in some ways is the same. She is saying that much of this country does
not want a Biden-Trump rematch. But there were some new things in here, many barbs,
and particularly sharp, at former President Trump, who she said has been a disaster. And
she called out other Republicans, saying they have not been honest about him.
NIKKI HALEY (R), Presidential Candidate: I feel no need to kiss the ring.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
NIKKI HALEY: I have no fear of Trump's retribution. I'm not...
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
NIKKI HALEY: I'm not looking for anything from him. My own political future is of zero concern.
LISA DESJARDINS: The Trump team, meanwhile, however,
sent out a memo today saying, in their view, the campaign will end Saturday.
Of course, Haley says the opposite. When will it end, is the question everyone wants to know. I
spoke to one of Haley's former competitors, Asa Hutchinson, who has now endorsed her.
And he said that there is -- there are some pragmatic concerns here for her.
FMR. GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR): You don't have to win,
but you have to show that you're mounting a significant challenge.
Then that takes you to Super Tuesday, and you have to have a strong enough showing in South Carolina
to showcase to the donors that you have got a shot at this and that you can turn this around.
LISA DESJARDINS: Haley right now is running off of fuel from August,
when she had those big debate moments and she got -- brought in a lot of money. So
she needs to keep doing that to really keep going.
Meanwhile, as those who have watched the program know, I worked in South Carolina
politics for a while and I spoke to many of my sources down there. They
do see perhaps a way that she can make up a little bit of ground. Close the gap? No way.
But what everyone is saying to me, including our team on the ground, producer Layla Quran,
Ian Couzens, who are returning today, they say there's just a real lack of enthusiasm. They
were at a Trump event today, William, that only had 70 or 80 people to greet
him. That is a low number. Low turnout is good for Haley, by the way, on Saturday.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, but Asa Hutchinson mentioned this, that money is critical.
Where do the candidates stand on that front now?
LISA DESJARDINS: This is where we bring in President Biden. He actually had some
record-setting numbers. News today, his campaign says they raised $42 million in January.
That is a record for a Democrat at this time of year. So let's look at everyone,
starting with the Republicans together. Haley and Trump, the last figures we had from both
campaigns were at the end of last year, Haley with $14 million hand, Trump with 433 million on hand.
The equivalent for Joe Biden, end of last year,
was $46 million. So that is good news for Democrats. We have not heard about
Trump's latest figures, which makes you question how well he's doing with that.
There is another factor for former President Trump. Two PACs,
major PACs supporting him reported that they actually spent $55 million in legal fees for
him. And that is before his trials really start, his criminal trials, I should say.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.
I mean, campaign dollars certainly great news for
Biden, but they only -- can't really buy votes with dollars.
LISA DESJARDINS: Yes.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What do we know about how he's doing with those actual voters?
LISA DESJARDINS: Well, his approval rating still is around the same,
under 40 percent, not where the Biden campaign wants it. And there still is this disconnect,
where the economy, unemployment's doing well, Wall Street in general is doing well,
we're seeing growth in productivity, inflation is getting a little bit better.
We noticed a poll today from Monmouth University that talked about this issue with President Biden,
asking, should he give -- get credit for the economic upturn? Look at the largest number there
on the bottom; 36 percent say no, no credit at all for President Biden for the economic upturn.
And when you mash these things together, you look at the who gives him credit, who doesn't,
it's 50/50, which is remarkable when you see a lot of the economic numbers. Another statistic
that caught our attention from this same Monmouth poll, has your family benefited from this upturn?
Look at this. You see about third of this country say they have benefited,
but look at that; 64, two-thirds of this country say they still have not benefited. And, William,
looking at this, maybe the question isn't how much have you benefited, but who?
The folks who said that they did not benefit much at all,
the largest group there, the significant difference there was folks earning under
$50,000. Traditional Democrats, they just aren't seeing any gain.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lisa Desjardins, thank you, as always.
LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.
PAUL SOLMAN: What some folks consider America's ticking financial time bomb,
empty office buildings.
NANCY WALLACE, University of California, Berkeley: Commercial real estate is the
big problem across the country, really.
PAUL SOLMAN: Real estate economist Nancy Wallace.
NANCY WALLACE: And, obviously, San Francisco, the problems are really significant.
PAUL SOLMAN: Especially in San Francisco, which The New York Times just called
the most empty downtown in America. How empty are the office buildings?
JESSE BLOUT, Strada Investment Group: About 33, 35 percent vacant.
PAUL SOLMAN: Develop Jesse Blout.
Compared to what?
JESSE BLOUT: Natural vacancy rate is 10 to 15 percent.
PAUL SOLMAN: Which means that the owners:
NANCY WALLACE: They are literally not paying their mortgages.
PAUL SOLMAN: Bad enough, but there are also another trillion
dollars in mortgages that need to be refinanced this year and next. And so:
NANCY WALLACE: If interest rates don't come down,
those mortgages would be nearly impossible to refinance. And so we're going to see another
wave of water called maturity defaults, of people being unable to refinance.
PAUL SOLMAN: And that would wipe out the owners, leaving downtown San Francisco and similar cities
more hollowed out, shades of the great financial crash of 2008, and thus investor and depositor
fears in San Francisco and in the past few weeks all around the country triggered by losses at
New York Community Bank, which announced it will try to reduce its commercial real estate loans.
But, to some folks, like developer Blout,
the current crisis in San Francisco at least actually seems like an opportunity.
JESSE BLOUT: We have never seen prices like this. We started our business after at the
start of the Great Recession in 2009-2010. And that was a historic buying opportunity.
PAUL SOLMAN: This moment even more historic. So Blout's firm, Strada,
which moved into this 18-story building in 2022, bought it a month ago for a song.
JESSE BLOUT: Fully 70 percent discount off of what it was valued just five years ago.
PAUL SOLMAN: OK, a pricey song, $67 million, still, just 30 cents on the dollar.
JESSE BLOUT: San Francisco is still one of the best cities in the country. It's the center of
artificial intelligence. So there is more office jobs in San Francisco than there ever were.
PAUL SOLMAN: So the office is fairly empty here.
JESSE BLOUT: Yes.
PAUL SOLMAN: And yet I see all that traffic on your bridge.
JESSE BLOUT: It's picked up quite a bit. We're not unlike most companies in San Francisco these days,
where we tend to let people work from home from -- on Mondays and Fridays,
and then everybody's here. If you were here tomorrow, it would be -- you couldn't find a seat.
PAUL SOLMAN: Some see a building half-empty, Blout half-full, and betting on a return to
work from work. Having paid only 30 cents on the dollar, he had money to fill it up.
What are you going to do to get them back?
JESSE BLOUT: We're going to spend some money,
a million bucks just for the window washing equipment. It's all about
creating new experiences for the tenants and giving people a reason to come to work.
PAUL SOLMAN: Including a rooftop common area with a view.
JESSE BLOUT: We're going to upgrade all of the pavings and all the
railings and everything and put in some beautiful plantings and places to sit.
PAUL SOLMAN: So, Blout thinks he's buying at the bottom of the so-called real estate
cycle. That is, too little office space means soaring rents, prompting a building
boom, financed with debt. Eventually, there's a glut, your tenants skedaddle,
especially this time, thanks to COVID. Your rents can't cover your costs.
NANCY WALLACE: Then you foreclose or you sell your
property at a third of its market value, and the cycle starts again.
PAUL SOLMAN: But what happens to those holding the commercial real estate loans,
many of them regional banks without much of a capital cushion? What do they do to keep afloat?
JESSE BLOUT: A lot of them now are working with their
borrowers to not take back the keys in the so-called pretend and extend.
PAUL SOLMAN: Pretend and extend.
Pretend that it's worth more than it is, until such time as it comes back.
JESSE BLOUT: And everyone's hoping that rates come down and more people come back to work.
PAUL SOLMAN: And extend is, hey, you can pay us off over a longer period of time,
so you don't have to give us back the keys.
JESSE BLOUT: Correct.
PAUL SOLMAN: Now, to be fair, many of San Francisco's office
towers are financed by huge banks like Wells Fargo, which can afford bigger
losses. But they too do so-called loan restructuring, AKA pretend and extend.
Ed Obuchowski and Wendy Ross founded and run the community Bank of San Francisco. So, I asked,
is pretend and extend an accurate description?
ED OBUCHOWSKI, Co-Founder, Bank of San Francisco: It is accurate. And if there's a challenge,
I think it's incumbent on both parties to try to work it out.
PAUL SOLMAN: So it's just a question of terminology. I mean, pretend and extend or?
ED OBUCHOWSKI: Or working collaboratively and taking the long-term view to work out of the loan.
PAUL SOLMAN: Now, their bank makes commercial real estate loans. So is it in trouble,
maybe even headed for collapse like nearby Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic not so long ago?
ED OBUCHOWSKI: It's not had a major impact with us.
PAUL SOLMAN: No, it lends modestly, they say, charges a bit more, pays depositors a bit less.
But you thank your lucky stars that you're not
a bank that put money into fancy downtown real estate?
ED OBUCHOWSKI: Sometimes, small is good.
PAUL SOLMAN: Was that your thinking going in, that small is good,
in that you wouldn't get stuck with properties that might plummet in value?
WENDY ROSS, Co-Founder, Bank of San Francisco: Our core is community banking,
if you will. And so it's always going to be the type of lending where we have a loan,
but also a personal guarantee, and with guarantor support,
we can look at the other assets of the person behind the property, if you will.
And that kind of just goes back to the core
community banking people. It's a people business, if you will.
PAUL SOLMAN: Isn't a big problem elsewhere in the country among regional banks that,
if the value of what's on their books, the collateral of the commercial real estate,
has gone down a lot, that they're not going to be able to lend locally?
ED OBUCHOWSKI: It just has a negative knock-on effect over there,
because if they're working through challenges there,
it's hard to shift even psychologically from workout mode to new business development mode.
PAUL SOLMAN: Or perhaps even survive.
So much depends, then, on whether workers return to their offices,
as Jesse Blout is pretty much demanding three days a week, and, of course, whether
interest rates come down. Fed Chair Jerome Powell is holding off on rate cuts for now.
How worried is he willing to admit he is about commercial loans,
Scott Pelley asked him recently on "60 Minutes."
JEROME POWELL, Federal Reserve Chairman: We looked at the larger banks balance sheets,
and it appears to be a manageable problem. There's some smaller and regional banks
that have concentrated exposures in these areas that are challenged.
PAUL SOLMAN: But, of course, how can the head of the Fed say there is a crisis or even could be?
OK, you would like a bottom line, right, on Powell's prognosis, Blout's investment,
San Francisco, commercial real estate and its lenders? Well,
time will tell has become such a cliche, we can't sign off with it anymore. But
let's face it. Time will tell, until the next real estate cycle, that is.
Hope to see you then.
Paul Solman for the "PBS NewsHour" back home from San Francisco.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A shooting outside of Minneapolis over the
weekend is putting the spotlight once again on domestic violence.
Police responded to a domestic abuse call and discovered a man armed with
multiple guns who barricaded himself, seven children and other family members inside his
home. He killed two police officers and a paramedic, before turning a gun on himself.
The gunman was not legally allowed to own guns because of a previous assault conviction,
and he had reportedly been accused of domestic abuse.
To better understand how what happened fits into a broader national picture,
we're joined by Rachel Louise Snyder. She's been covering domestic violence
for 15 years and is the author of the memoir "Women We Buried, Women We Burned."
Rachel Louise Snyder, so good to have you on the program.
I want to just run through some pretty jarring statistics we just recently
pulled from the CDC. This says that over half of the women murdered in the U.S. are
murdered by a male intimate partner. Overall, a third of women in America
and a quarter of men report suffering severe violence from intimate partners.
I also understand that these numbers have been rising in recent years. Do we know why that is?
RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER, Author, "Women We Buried, Women We Burned": I think there's
macro levels and micro levels.
I mean, on the macro level, they're -- women are not staying in bad marriages anymore,
and we are better at gathering statistics, right? That's a very simplistic view. But,
also, guns are far more prevalent, and they're used obviously for homicide,
but they're used as threats. They're used as coercion.
And I think that men also probably feel like they're losing ground. I think, also,
there's a way to read those statistics as positive, in that we have more resources now
to help more people. So there's a sense in which, the better the resources are,
the more people are going to be able to come forward. And so that in itself is a good thing.
But it's baffling, because you think, the more we know,
the more we should be able to prevent it, and it doesn't seem to be the case.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do we know how much the pandemic exacerbated domestic violence in America?
RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: That's an interesting question, because,
in the very beginning of the pandemic, rates of calls to hot lines went way, way down.
And that was a really disturbing sign. And it sort of gets at what my previous answer
was. That was a really disturbing sign, because what it meant is that victims
were unable to access resources and unable to make those calls.
Once things loosened up a little bit after the first couple of months,
rates of calls to hot lines shot up in record numbers really all across the world. And I think,
coming out of the pandemic, there's a lot of exacerbating causes that are not in and
of themselves enough to make somebody violent, but could trigger an already tense situation.
And those are things like economic factors, addiction. And all that,
all those kind of social ills have risen, I think, parallel to domestic violence.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: If this nexus, as you are describing it, between domestic violence
and guns is so clear -- and, again, with regards to the Minnesota case, we should
say that case is still being investigated. We don't really know the details of it.
But if that nexus is so clear, and it is illegal to possess a gun if you have a
restraining order against you, why is this so hard to enforce? Why is that not protecting more women?
RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: That's a question that I bang my head against the wall asking.
I mean, the simple answer is, you can have a law, but that doesn't mean it's going to
be enforced. And it has to be enforced. And when you look at places -- I mean, I should
say there's a Supreme Court case addressing this right now. We're waiting the -- on the decision.
But, right now, as you say, there is a federal law banning domestic abusers or anybody charged
with a violent criminal act from owning guns, but those guns have to be collected
by police officers or whatever. And then, in the case of Minnesota, that man had an arsenal.
And if you ask -- you go around and ask jurisdictions why they don't enforce that,
you will get a huge array of reasons, everything from, well, that's that
person's recreation. So you take the guns away, you're taking away the recreation. Obviously,
the Second Amendment has a place there. We have a right to arm ourselves to the teeth.
And I have even had police chiefs say to me like, hey, we would love to enforce that,
but we don't have a place to hold all these arsenals, thousands and thousands of guns.
When you look at a state like California that has enforced that, you see those gun
charges go way down, you see homicides go down. I mean, it's just mind-boggling,
because, statistically, almost any way you look at it, if you take the guns,
the rates of homicide and suicide and all other gun crimes go down.
But we just simply don't enforce it.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You touched on this, the Supreme Court. This is the Rahimi case,
I believe it is called. Can you remind us what's at stake in that case?
RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: Yes, that's essentially whether or not,
since it comes out of -- it comes out of Texas.
A not very good guy had access to guns and then had his guns taken away
from him when he got charges. And his attorneys have -- he's in prison now,
but his attorneys have filed suit saying he has a right to the Second Amendment,
regardless. And so they're looking -- that's what they're essentially deciding.
Do -- does someone who has a criminal charge have a constitutional right to the Second Amendment?
And those of us who are really familiar with the stats just are living in a kind of terror that
the Supreme Court is going to rule that they somehow maintain that constitutional right,
even though they have proven themselves to be a danger to their community.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Rachel Louise Snyder,
thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate your insights.
RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: Thank you for having me.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Film buffs will frequently cite "Citizen Kane" or "Gone With The Wind"
as early classics, but a new exhibit at the Detroit Institute of Arts seeks
to showcase lesser-known Black filmmakers and actors who have a rich history of their
own. Jeffrey Brown has the story for our arts and culture series, Canvas.
JEFFREY BROWN: "Regeneration," a silent film released in 1923,
was a romance set in the South Seas featuring an all-Black cast. It's just one of more than
500 so-called race films produced for Black audiences between 1915 and 1950.
RHEA COMBS, Co-Curator, Regeneration: There was an African American sort of cultural production,
folks working in front of and behind the camera that were using the tools of
modern technology to create these visual stories.
This is a parallel history that has been overlooked,
yet still has been critical to the ways in which we understand film history.
JEFFREY BROWN: Co-curators Rhea Combs and Doris Berger uncovered
this parallel history of Black film in an exhibit originally presented
at the Academy Museum in Los Angeles, now at the Detroit Institute of Arts.
Covering the first 73 years of Black cinema, the exhibit takes its name from that 1923
silent era film, which survives only in a heavily damaged 11-minute fragment.
Elliot Wilhelm is the DIA's film curator.
ELLIOT WILHELM, Film Curator, Detroit Institute of Arts: We can see a portion of what it was,
but we can also see, in a physical way, the neglect and the decay that happened to the
film. And, in a way, it's a metaphor for what the exhibition is about, the erasure of the past.
JEFFREY BROWN: On display, surviving evidence of this overlooked history, documents, costumes,
film clips, and vivid posters, like this one for the 1939 film "Reform School."
DORIS BERGER, Co-Curator, Regeneration: What is really stunning is the actress
Louise Beavers is mostly known in Hollywood films in supporting characters.
Hollywood offered Black actors and actresses most often butlers and mammy roles. But, in this film,
she's not playing a supporting character, but the main character. She is the star of the film. She
is the boss of the prison and would like to see a prison reform, a very topical story to this day.
LOUISE BEAVERS, Actress: It means to change from bad to good, to make better morally.
JEFFREY BROWN: "Reform School," in fact, was released the same year as two film classics,
"Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz," but it was long believed to be lost.
Now it, along with three others, has been fully restored and is part
of Regeneration's accompanying screening series.
RHEA COMBS: We can wax poetic about films like "Gone With The Wind," but,
at the same time, we had other works taking place like "Reform School."
The films highlight that African American experiences are not a singular story.
JEFFREY BROWN: The exhibition does reckon with the pervasive racial stereotypes in early films,
including the minstrel performances of Bert Williams, who starred in the
unreleased "Lime Kiln Field Day," the earliest surviving feature film with an all-Black cast.
And the exhibit juxtaposes its film artifacts with the work of contemporary artists, here, Kara
Walker taking on Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which also became a 1903 film.
RHEA COMBS: She is providing us another way to look at this work.
she's interrogating it. she's challenging it.
JEFFREY BROWN: The early cinema section of Regeneration ends in 1915,
the year a technically innovative, but deeply racist film was released.
DANIELLE ELISKA, Filmmaker: Just seeing in person this invitation to the White
House for the premiere of "Birth of a Nation" is really emotional for me.
JEFFREY BROWN: Danielle Eliska, a Detroit-based filmmaker visiting the exhibition,
found inspiration for her own work amid the hard truths of history on display.
DANIELLE ELISKA: But if I could take anything from this particular film is that it has such
a wide impact on people and made them do things, and I just think about my
own films and how I can utilize my films to -- in a positive way, to impact my people.
JEFFREY BROWN: Long ago, the power of films also drew in Madeline Anderson.
MADELINE ANDERSON, Filmmaker: We went to the movies practically every week. And I saw that
there was something wrong with this picture. Black people were always presented in pejorative
ways. They were always lazy, not too smart, happy to do anything that their masters said.
And, at first, it made me angry. And then it made me sad. And then,
as I grew older, it made me want to do something about it.
JEFFREY BROWN: And that meant becoming a filmmaker yourself.
MADELINE ANDERSON: Exactly.
JEFFREY BROWN: At 96, Anderson is believed to be the only surviving
filmmaker featured in Regeneration through her 1970 documentary "I
Am Somebody" about Black nurses in South Carolina trying to unionize.
WOMAN: We want to be recognized, not because of our race, but because we are human beings.
MADELINE ANDERSON: And I myself, being a working mother, Black woman,
identified so closely with them. They were my sisters.
JEFFREY BROWN: Anderson has made a career working in television and on films.
MADELINE ANDERSON: I wanted to be a filmmaker to show the achievements of Black people,
and I also wanted to work in the struggle for equality for my people. And that's
what I have done all of my life. I have been an activist filmmaker.
JEFFREY BROWN: And she's still at it, about to go into postproduction on a film about her own life.
RHEA COMBS: Despite so many structural challenges,
people still felt compelled and they still felt inspired to do this work.
JEFFREY BROWN: "I Am Somebody" is prominently featured in the final chapter of the exhibit,
alongside the likes of Melvin Van Peebles and Gordon Parks.
Taken as a whole, the hope is,
this showcase of Black film history up to 1971 will celebrate it in new ways.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight. I'm William Brangham.
On behalf of the entire "NewsHour" team, thank you so much for joining us.