PBS NewsHour full episode October 8, 2019

PBS NewsHour full episode October 8, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: the ambassador
who wasn’t there. The White House blocks a key player in the
Ukraine affair from appearing before lawmakers, as Democrats press forward with the impeachment
inquiry. Then: In what may become a landmark case,
the Supreme Court hears arguments on expanding the workplace rights of LGBT Americans. Plus: a conversation with Hillary and Chelsea
Clinton on the strides women have made and the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s
former political opponent. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Former U.S. Secretary
of State: This is no longer just about the crazy stuff he says and does that everybody
shrugs out or worries about. This is a direct threat to the national security
of America. And I think that’s what’s gotten people’s
attention. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump is taking his
impeachment battle to the next level. Late today, the White House informed congressional
Democrats that it will not cooperate with their inquiry. That came hours after presidential aides barred
a key witness from testifying. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins
reports on the day’s events. LISA DESJARDINS: The day started with a hard
stop. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): We were informed about
an hour-and-a-half ago that — by the attorney for Ambassador Sondland that the State Department
would refuse to allow him to testify today. LISA DESJARDINS: House Intelligence Chairman
Adam Schiff announcing a key interview was canceled, with the U.S. ambassador to the
E.U., Gordon Sondland. He’s a potential witness for both sides. Sondland was among those texting in August
about how the president wanted Ukraine to launch specific investigations, including
of Vice President Biden and his son Hunter. At one point, Sondland texted that the president
really wants the deliverable. At another, he said the president wanted no
quid pro quo, meaning no attempt to trade aid money for investigations. “NewsHour” has confirmed that, in the hours
before that no quid pro quo text, Sondland communicated with the president. Hours later, the White House sent a letter
to top House Democrats, saying their proceedings are unfair and unconstitutional and refusing
to cooperate further. This morning, the president tweeted that Sondland
could not testify because the committee is “a kangaroo court, where true facts are not
allowed out for the public.” His Republican allies, like Congressman Jim
Jordan, are echoing that message. REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): We would encourage Adam
Schiff to run a fair process. LISA DESJARDINS: Jordan is referring to the
handling of other testimony by U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. Republicans say his closed-door testimony
backs up the president, and the public should see a transcript. But Democrats, including Schiff, say Volker
proves their points, and, to them, the president is the one refusing to follow the law by blocking
their investigation. Today, Schiff and other Democrats announced
they will subpoena Sondland. And they indicated that blocking his testimony
may be an impeachable offense itself. REP. ADAM SCHIFF: The failure to produce this witness,
the failure to produce these documents, we consider yet additional strong evidence of
obstruction of obstruction of the constitutional functions of Congress, a co-equal branch of
government. LISA DESJARDINS: Here are Democrats’ options. They can hold Sondland or others involved
in contempt, then go to court to try to compel testimony. That is something that often takes years to
resolve. Or, at some point, Democrats could consider
it all obstruction and move directly to articles impeachment on that charge. Meantime, Republicans in the Capitol are making
decisions, too. In the Senate, Trump defender Lindsey Graham
of South Carolina today invited the president’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to testify to the
Senate Judiciary Committee about how he sees corruption in Ukraine. On impeachment, the White House and Congress
are talking about substance, but clearly making strategic decisions about choreography. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Lisa joins me now, along
with our White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor. So, Yamiche, to you first. The White House today blocking Ambassador
Sondland, saying he cannot testify, what does this say about how they plan to handle everything
that the Congress is trying to do? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president is making
crystal clear that he doesn’t plan to comply with any document requests coming from Democrats
related to this impeachment inquiry. He’s also making it clear that he will block
witnesses because he doesn’t think the Democrats are going about this fairly. Now, I want to read parts of the White House’s
letter to House Democrats that was released just a couple moments ago. I want to now walk you through what it says. It says that the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry
is — quote — “constitutionally invalid and violates basic due process rights and the
separation of powers.” It also says that the inquiry — quote — “seeks
to reverse the election of 2016 and to influence the election of 2020.” It also says that the president did nothing
wrong and there is — quote — “no legitimate basis for your impeachment inquiry.” So the White House is now making the case
that the president, if he had due process, would be allowed to cross-examine witnesses,
would be allowed to look at evidence, would be allowed to call his own witnesses. And it’s also clear that the White House,
though, has not exactly decided how it will cooperate and when it will cooperate, because
this letter stops short of saying that the House has to have a floor vote on an impeachment
inquiry. Just a few moments ago, I put the question
to the White House: What will make you cooperate? If a House did hold a floor vote, would you
then provide documents? And the White House said, well, that’s a hypothetical
issue. We might look at that in the future. So it’s not clear what would make the White
House actually cooperate and stop blocking witnesses. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Lisa, we now see the administration
saying, we’re not going to cooperate, stonewalling, in effect. How is the House, how are Democrats reacting? LISA DESJARDINS: Well, I’m looking at my phone,
because, honestly, as Yamiche was speaking now, I had sources confirming — now it looks
like we have the official release — that House Democrats have, in fact, issued the
subpoena for Gordon Sondland, our U.S. ambassador to the E.U. So they are getting ready for this fight. Democrats have to consider, as we have laid
out in this report, whether they start moving toward contempt. And as we explained, that could be a court
process. But also Judy, tonight, I had more Democrats
saying they are thinking seriously about something called inherent contempt, where Congress operates
without a court and starts assessing fees to those officials it believes are not cooperating. That does set up a constitutional collision
that we have to watch for. Other thing to watch for this week, Judy,
the next person who’s supposed to testify, that is the former Ukraine Ambassador Masha
or Marie Yovanovitch. There she is. She’s scheduled to testify Friday. And you would think, because of the White
House’s position, there’s not a lot of chance. But I talked to some Democrats tonight who
said they actually are hopeful that she will appear. One other note in all of this. We had some news about the Mueller report
today. I want to show this court ruling that came
out today from a court in Washington, D.C. This is a court ruling directing the Department
of Justice to start giving some more information to House Democrats that they are requesting
in the Mueller investigation, in some ways scolding the Department of Justice for withholding
some of that information. It’s not the bulk that they wanted, but it’s
sort of — for Democrats, that’s progress. JUDY WOODRUFF: So interesting, because we
thought that was in the past. But we see it’s still living, in so many words. So, Yamiche, separately, news reports today
that the White House has been talking to or even hiring outside legal counsel to help
them deal with this impeachment matter. What are we learning about that? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: It looks like the White
House is starting to develop an impeachment inquiry plan that’s going to be both messaging
and a legal strategy. Presidents in the past have hired outside
legal counsel. We were waiting to see if the White House
was going to do that. And now it looks like President Trump is going
to be looking at hiring outside counsel. And that’s because this is all really deepening. You had today reports that the whistle-blower
wrote a memo saying that, after the call that President Trump had with the president of
Ukraine, that White House officials were visibly shaken and that they thought it was crazy,
and they were frightened by the fact that the president allegedly tried to pressure
the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden for his own political gain. So what you have there is some firsthand knowledge,
as well as a memo that’s now coming out. So the White House is really trying to figure
out how to deal with all of this. On top of all of that, Rudy Giuliani says
that he’s going to be thinking possibly about taking Lindsey Graham up on his offer and
coming to testify before the Senate. He said he’s not decided whether or not he’s
going to do that. But that also could be a legal issue that
the White House now has to have more lawyers to deal with. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, so much to look at. And, Lisa, separately from all of this, today,
you have the Senate Intelligence Committee issuing its report, finally, looking at Russian
interference in the 2016 election. We have heard about it before. But what is in this new report? LISA DESJARDINS: The intelligence can be broke
up its reports. So, this one today is focused on the use of
social media. And let’s look quickly at their conclusions. This is a bipartisan report. That’s one thing that’s critical about this. Republicans agreed with these conclusions. There was a calculated assault on the U.S.,
number one. The goal was to harm candidate Hillary Clinton
and to support candidate Donald Trump, and also that it was sanctioned by the Kremlin. Judy, all of that significant, because some
of this is what the White House has not always agreed with. But here we have a bipartisan conclusion. Some unexpected or I think new information
in this report, one more — a few more things to look at, they believe — they found that
the most targeted group in America was African-Americans. Part of the Russian divide strategy was to
focus on black Americans. Also, the senators here of both parties imploring
the White House to act now across all agencies, and they say Congress needs to come up with
a better data security law overall. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, Yamiche,
what are they saying at the at the White House about this? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The White House has not
commented on this report coming from the Senate. And that fits a pattern, because the president
has been loathe to talk about Russian interference in the 2016 election, because he thinks that
it hurts his legitimacy as president. He doesn’t like talking about that. The White House says that this is a White
House that has pushed back on Russia and other countries trying to interfere in the 2016
election and in the 2020 election. But it is really important to note that, in
their letter to House Democrats, they’re actually now accusing Nancy Pelosi and others of doing
what Russia is accused of doing in 2016. They say that Democrats are trying to influence
the 2020 election with this impeachment inquiry. So what you have is them not commenting on
this, but also making that — making the argument that this is what Democrats are now doing. JUDY WOODRUFF: So much to follow today, so
much. Yamiche… LISA DESJARDINS: And it’s Tuesday, I think. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s only Tuesday. Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, thank you. In the day’s other news: The U.S. Supreme
Court heard arguments on whether workers can be fired for being gay, lesbian, bisexual
or transgender. At issue is whether they are covered by the
1964 Civil Rights Act. A decision is expected by early next summer. We will discuss all of this right after the
news summary. Turkey moved troops into position today for
an offensive against Kurdish forces in Northeastern Syria. That was after President Trump ordered U.S.
troops out of the area. The Turks say they want a safe zone, free
of the Kurds, who helped defeat the Islamic State group. Today, Turkish soldiers and artillery deployed
to towns on the border with Syria. Officials said they had finalized all preparations. Hong Kong’s chief executive is warning that
she might have to call in the Chinese military if violent protests continue. New trouble flared over the weekend and through
Monday, aimed at a ban on face masks. Overnight, riot police tried to clear the
streets of anti-government protesters. Hours later, Chief Executive Carrie Lam wouldn’t
rule out asking China to intervene. CARRIE LAM, Hong Kong Chief Executive: I still
strongly feel that we should find the solutions ourselves, that that is also the position
of the central government, that Hong Kong should tackle the problem on her own. But if the situation becomes so bad, then
no options can be ruled out, if we want Hong Kong to at least to have another chance. JUDY WOODRUFF: Hong Kong police say more than
200 shops and public utilities have been damaged since Friday. Tensions are still running high between China
and the U.S. National Basketball Association. It stems from a tweet by Daryl Morey, the
Houston Rockets general manager, supporting the Hong Kong protesters. NBA commissioner Adam Silver defended Morey’s
rights today, saying he is — quote — “apologetic” about the reaction, but not about the tweet
itself. ADAM SILVER, NBA Commissioner: We are not
apologizing for Daryl exercising his freedom of expression. I regret, again, having communicated directly
with many friends in China, that so many people are upset. JUDY WOODRUFF: Chinese state broadcaster CCTV
shot back that any challenge to China’s sovereignty and stability is not covered by free speech. It also announced that it will not air two
NBA exhibition games in China this week. The United States imposed visa restrictions
today on Chinese officials linked to a crackdown on Muslim Uyghurs. In a statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
called for Beijing to end what he called a campaign of repression. Just yesterday, the U.S. Commerce Department
added 28 Chinese public security bureaus and companies to a trade blacklist over the same
issue. The new sanctions came just before new trade
talks with China, and sent a shudder through Wall Street. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 314
points to close at 26164. The Nasdaq fell 132 points, and the S&P 500
dropped 45. The number of migrants stopped at the U.S.
southern border declined in September, for the fourth month in a row. The Customs and Border Protection agency says
that it was 52,000, down from 144,000 last May. More than 45,000 migrants are waiting in Mexico
while their asylum claims are processed. And the 2019 Nobel Prize for Physics goes
to three scientists whose work bears on the search for life beyond Earth. Canadian-American James Peebles at Princeton
University was honored today for research into the evolution of the universe. Two Swiss astronomers were recognized for
being the first to find a planet beyond the solar system in 1995. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: what is on
the line as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the rights of LGBT Americans; the deadly
protests in Iraq — why are citizens mobilizing in the face of gunfire?; a wide-ranging conversation
with Hillary and Chelsea Clinton; and much more. This is day two of the United States Supreme
Court’s new term, and already the justices are grappling with one of the highest-stakes
questions on its docket. It is about Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex. But does Title VII also protect against discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity? William Brangham starts there. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The demonstrations outside
the Supreme Court today reflect just how high-stakes these cases are. Several were argued this morning. They’re the most significant LGBTQ rights
cases since 2015, when the court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Gerald Bostock is a welfare case worker from
Georgia. He initiated one of the lawsuits that made
it to the court today. He said he was fired because he’s gay. GERALD BOSTOCK, Plaintiff: We’re talking about
millions and millions of people who go to work every day fearful for being fired for
who they are, how they identify, and who they love. And that’s wrong. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Another of the lawsuits
was initiated by Aimee Stephens. She is transgender and said she was fired
from a Michigan funeral home after beginning her transition. But a lawyer representing the funeral home
says Title VII doesn’t apply here. JOHN BURSCH, Attorney: Americans should be
able to rely on what the law says. First, it was unelected government officials. Now it is the ACLU that seeks to redefine
sex in federal law, a change that Congress has repeatedly rejected. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Inside the courtroom today,
as always, was Marcia Coyle of “The National Law Journal,” and she joins me now. Marcia, welcome back, as always. MARCIA COYLE, “The National Law Journal”:
Thank you. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The argument today is whether
Title VII, which bans job discrimination on the basis of sex, could also include protecting
sexual orientation, right? Was that the argument today? MARCIA COYLE: That’s right, William. Does that language, sex, encompass discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And as we heard from one
of the plaintiffs, who basically argued, I’m was fired because I’m gay, and thus, under
Title VII, I should be protected. MARCIA COYLE: Right. And the other plaintiff you heard from, Aimee
Stephens, because she was — she claimed she was fired because of her gender identity,
that she had transitioned from male to female. And today, William, there were two hours of
arguments. The court had consolidated two cases involving
sexual orientation for one hour, and then the case on gender identity for a second hour. And the arguments were fascinating, fast,
quick, path-breaking. We heard for the first time words like transgender,
cisgender, even… WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Is that right? That’s the first time those have been uttered
in the Supreme Court? MARCIA COYLE: First time I have ever heard
them. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Interesting. MARCIA COYLE: And I have been covering the
court a long time. The LGBTQ community is arguing that, because
of sex, that this is a plain statutory interpretation case, that the text of Title VII, because
of sex, applies. And the best way to explain it was probably
Pam Karlan, who argued for those plaintiffs today on sexual orientation, in which she
said, if an employer fires a male employer — employee because he dates men, but doesn’t
fire a female employee who dates men, then that employer has discriminated against the
man because the employer’s treating that man worse than the female employee. And it’s because of sex, because the firing
is based on the employee, the male employee’s failure to conform to the employer’s expectation
of the male sex’s behavior. And it’s very similar in terms of the gender
identity case, too. Aimee Stephens, they say, was fired because
of sex. She was fired because of her biological sex
at birth. If she had had a different sex, female, she
wouldn’t have been treated — or she would have been treated differently. She wouldn’t have been fired. So — and, also, in her case, there’s an additional
element. She claims she was fired because she didn’t
conform to the funeral home owner’s expectations of how men and women should look, act, and
behave. And that’s illegal stereotyping under Title
VII. So those are the arguments on one side. The Trump administration and the employer
lawyers are saying, no, the text of Title VII supports us, too. In 1964, when Congress enacted the law, sex
was biological, male and female. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And only those two. MARCIA COYLE: Absolutely. Sexual orientation and gender identity, they
say, are independent, distinct traits or characteristics; they’re not covered by the language of Title
VII. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And how did the justices
seem to respond to this idea of sort of broadening the definition of Title VII? MARCIA COYLE: Well, I think there were three
sort of considerations, first on the meaning of the language, the text. You had Justice Gorsuch, for example. He said he thought the textual evidence here
was very, very close, but he didn’t say close to what. So we’re not quite sure where he is, whereas
Justice Kagan said she thought it was quite clear and that Title VII is very simple. It says because of sex, and if you have been
discriminated for your sex, then Title VII is there to protect you against that discrimination. The second concern seemed to be the role of
the court itself. Justice Alito said to the lawyers for the
LGBTQ plaintiffs, if we rule for you, some people are going to say, this is a big policy
issue. This is something Congress should be dealing
with. Congress has considered or has failed to consider
this, despite requests over a number of years. If we rule, we’re acting like a legislature. But then you had Justice Sotomayor saying
at a later point, sort of in response to that, at what point does a court step in to stop
invidious discrimination? And, finally, I think, the court was concerned
about what might be the impact if they do rule for the LGBTQ community. There were a lot of hypotheticals about, well,
what’s going to happen to sex-segregated bathrooms, sex-segregated athletic teams, dress codes? And the lawyers for the plaintiffs here, the
victims here, seemed to be telling the justices, look, that’s not in these cases right now. We’re talking about the workplace, Title VII. Those cases may come to you later, no matter
how you rule, but, right now, we’re talking about straight statutory interpretation. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And depending on how the
justices rule on this, I mean, this could impact a huge number of employees across the
country. MARCIA COYLE: This is incredibly important
to these workers. I think fewer than half of the states have
in their own laws workplace protections for LGBTQ workers. And so that leaves an enormous — I think
almost eight million employees without protection from workplace discrimination. So, yes, the stakes are huge. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So this is obviously an
enormous case. We know there is a huge term, with guns and
immigration and abortion. So I know we will be seeing a lot more of
you in the future. Marcia Coyle, as always, thank you. MARCIA COYLE: Always a pleasure. JUDY WOODRUFF: Young people in Iraq have turned
their country upside-down over the past week. They have taken to the streets, demanding
better social services and more economic opportunities. Clashes with security forces have sometimes
turned violent, and deadly, with many protesters killed. One question is who is doing the killing. Amna Nawaz examines why these protests are
happening now. AMNA NAWAZ: The streets of Baghdad were silent
today, after a week of deadly protests that wracked the nation from the capital and beyond. Two hours south, in the Iraqi city of Najaf,
grief-stricken families buried their loved ones. SABAH, Family Member (through translator):
He is exactly like the other protesters. They shoot the innocent and the criminals
together. People are protesting for income and bread. Look at the youth. Every day, they go out in thousands. What is the result? AMNA NAWAZ: More than 100 people have been
killed in the worst violence since the defeat of the Islamic State two years ago. But this wasn’t the result of insurgency or
terrorism. What started as peaceful protests last week,
demanding an end to rampant corruption, unemployment and lack of basic services, violently shifted
into clashes with security forces and armed groups. In response, the Iraqi government pledged
to add public sector jobs, and today approved a grant for employment development. But it may not be enough. Protesters pin the blame on corrupt leaders
they say don’t represent them. Despite the country’s oil wealth, much of
Iraq’s 40 million people live in dire conditions. PROTESTER (through translator): We went out
protesting because we are in pain and suffering. There is no electricity, no jobs, and people
are dying of starvation. People are sick. It is a curse. AMNA NAWAZ: Analysts say the government’s
dismissal of a widely respected Iraqi general, Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, helped set off the protests. Al-Saadi was key to the anti-ISIS fight. Leaders of two major political parties, including
one led by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have called for the government to resign. Back in 2016, al-Sadr inspired widespread
protests in Iraq. Last fall, Iraqis in the southern city of
Basra took to the streets to protest corrupt leaders and a lack of basic services. But Laith Kubba, an adviser to Prime Minister
Adil Abdul-Mahdi, said this round of protests are leaderless and apolitical. LAITH KUBBA, Adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister:
For the younger generation, those who went into these protests, they were all born in
a period where they know nothing about Saddam Hussein. They are less concerned about sectarian or
national issues. They see the world through their Facebook
and through their telephones, smartphones. They see how the rest of the world is living. And their questions are very, very simple. Iraq is a rich country. Why are we in such a mess? AMNA NAWAZ: Iraqi-born expert Abbas Khadim
was in Baghdad for an economic conference last week. He said the factors that led to these protests
are decades in the making. ABBAS KHADIM, Director, Atlantic Council Iraq
Initiative: Iraq has been having war, turmoil and economic hardships ever since the 1980s. A depleted country witnessed the invasion
of the United States and the change of government, and led to lack of security, terrorism, and
another 15 years of hardship. AMNA NAWAZ: The uprising is the biggest political
challenge for the prime minister since he assumed office last year. Last weekend, Iraq’s Parliament speaker met
with representatives of the protest movement in an attempt to calm the unrest. And Iraqi authorities lifted a days-long curfew
and Internet blackout on Saturday. Now Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi said
he was willing to respond to the protesters’ demands. He promised jobs for graduates, but also said
there was no magic solution for the country’s problems. LAITH KUBBA: In the short term, I think this
will calm a lot of people. Of course, it doesn’t solve the fundamentals
of the challenges that are facing the government. AMNA NAWAZ: Hundreds more protesters took
to the streets of Baghdad’s Sadr City district on Monday, demanding new jobs and denouncing
the killings of protesters. Iraqi police responded in force, using live
bullets and water cannons against the protesters. Iraqi President Barham Salih condemned the
attacks on protesters. BARHAM SALIH, Iraqi President (through translator):
The government and the security forces reaffirm that there has been no orders to fire at protesters,
and it has not been issued by the country and their instruments. Therefore, those who are committing these
actions are criminals and outlaws. AMNA NAWAZ: Iraqi federal police warned last
week that snipers separate from the security forces were shooting at protesters. But it is unclear if these snipers are rogue
elements of the police or foreign agents. ABBAS KHADIM: Knowing the nature of who is
in charge right now, Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi and the minister of interior, these are not
people who are putting snipers on top of buildings to assassinate Iraqi protesters. So, that is definitely the work of terrorist
groups or sleeping cells. AMNA NAWAZ: For now, the streets remain quiet,
but the rage here may yet reignite, putting greater pressure on a government already on
edge. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Amna Nawaz. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: the difficulty
of studying for a degree while facing the possibility of deportation. They are a family that has captured the American
political spotlight for decades. Now former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and her daughter, Chelsea, are out with a new book, “Gutsy Women.” We will discuss that in a moment, but when
I sat down with the two earlier today in New York City, I began by asking Secretary Clinton
about today’s developments in the impeachment inquiry, if the Trump administration has the
authority to block the American ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, from
speaking with Congress. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Former U.S. Secretary
of State: I don’t believe they do. I think that there’s quite a bit of precedent
in legal decisions that the Congress has an inherent power to seek evidence from witnesses
with respect to their investigations and, most particularly, an impeachment inquiry. I understand that the Trump administration
doesn’t want people talking to the Congress. But I recall, Judy, that back in the Nixon
impeachment, one of the articles of impeachment against President Nixon was his contempt of
Congress for refusing to cooperate with the investigation. So I think they can slow-walk it. They can try to block it. There’s already enough evidence about what
former Ambassador Sondland was saying about the effort to threaten and extort the president
of Ukraine through text messages and e-mails, that, certainly, the House can go on that. But I also think that, at some point, there
needs to be a reinforcement of the legal precedent that the administration must cooperate. JUDY WOODRUFF: You have said that the impeachment
process should go forward. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Mm-hmm. JUDY WOODRUFF: You have also said that you
think what happened in that phone call, where President Trump was asking the leader of Ukraine,
in effect, to investigate Joe Biden and his son, implicitly in return for receiving U.S.
military aid — why not just go ahead and say whether or not you favor impeaching the
president? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, because I served
on an impeachment inquiry staff as a young lawyer back in 1974, I think it is really
important to respect the process and to support the opening of the inquiry, which I do, and
the gathering of evidence, and then the weighing of that evidence. From my perspective, it appears as though
what the House is doing is very much in line with the appropriate use of the impeachment
power. So, I — they don’t want to jump to a conclusion. It appears to me that there is evidence of
abuse of power and obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. But we do want the House impeachment inquiry
to proceed in a way that tries to build credibility with the American people and also with Republican
members of the House and the Senate. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, can you think of a non-impeachable
interpretation or a benign interpretation of what that call was about? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: No. No. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I also want to ask you,
because you’re the former secretary of state, what about the role of Secretary Pompeo, being
on that call at the time? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, he, first of
all, didn’t admit that he had been on the call. Eventually, he did. And there were a number of people on the call. Part of the telling evidence in this case
is that, immediately after the call, the people who were either listening in or listening
to Trump’s end of the call knew that they had problems, which is why they tried to basically
conceal the call within a highly classified system. So, Pompeo was in on it. He knew from the beginning that this was a
problem. It’s really a shame that he has substituted
the defense of Trump for the defense of diplomacy, the defense of our country, literally doing
the job that a secretary of state should do. JUDY WOODRUFF: Former Vice President Joe Biden,
clearly a part of this, his name came up during that call. Whether he did or didn’t do anything wrong
— and there’s no proof that he did — President Trump keeps bringing that up — is there an
optical problem for Joe Biden, because his son was in a position to be making a lot of
money from a company in — that was in a foreign country? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: You know, Judy, this
is the goal of the Trump strategy. It is to raise questions. There is no evidence that either one of them
did anything wrong. Could there be a question of judgment about
his son? Well, that’s fair game. But there is absolutely no evidence, and there
will not be any evidence, that Joe Biden did anything wrong. Enough with these wild, unfounded conspiracy
theories, using the help of foreign governments to interfere in our elections and to undermine
people who have been in the public eye for a long time. And I hope that the American public rejects
this, as they should. JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton, as I’m sure
you know, there are plenty of Republicans and even some Democrats who are saying, despite
all this, that it is crazy to be pursuing impeachment, because whatever the House does,
there just are not going to be enough votes in the Senate. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I understand that
argument, but I don’t buy it. And the reason I don’t buy it is that the
founders put impeachment into the Constitution for a purpose. It was put there for a purpose, and I think
Speaker Pelosi has been very careful not to rush to that. There were many things that came up, you know,
obstruction of justice, as outlined in the Mueller report, emoluments, all of these things
that were circling around. But I think she rightly waited for something
that not only was understandable by the American public, but really went to the heart of our
national security, of the role of the president, to protect and defend the American people
and the Constitution. So, yes, will there be a decision? Well, that’s up to the House. But I recall, back in ’74, the full vote never
went to the House. The House committee voted to impeach Richard
Nixon. And, at that point, after the evidence had
been presented, after several Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted for
the articles of impeachment, Republican senators went to Richard Nixon and said, you need to
resign. So we don’t know, sitting here today, what
the outcome will be. Unfortunately, I don’t know that we have Republicans
with the same level of patriotism, putting country over party, that we did back in ’74. But we don’t want to prejudge that. JUDY WOODRUFF: You have both through impeachment
in your own family, President Clinton. How is this time different from what President
Clinton went through? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: This is a much more
serious set of charges than anything that was ever put forward against Bill. And I think the American people got that. This is a very different time. And, as a former secretary of state, I just
want Americans to stop and think, why are we allowing this president to, in effect,
undermine our sovereignty, turning over foreign policy to foreign governments, what he just
did with the Kurds, empowering Turkey and Russia against our staunchest allies in the
Middle East? Why are we sitting silently by and watching
this president do Vladimir Putin’s bidding? I mean, there is no happier man in the world
right now than Putin. Why are we watching this unfortunate trade
battle with China now being infected with his plea that China investigate Biden? This is no longer just about the crazy stuff
he says and does that everybody shrugs at or worries about. This is a direct threat to the national security
of America. And I think that’s what has gotten people’s
attention. So, certainly among Democrats, but now increasingly
among self-identified independents, and even growing numbers of Republicans are saying,
wait a minute, this must go forward. JUDY WOODRUFF: As all this is going on, President
Trump continues to come after you in his speeches, in his tweets. You have been tough on him as well. I think you called him recently a corrupt
human tornado. (LAUGHTER) HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, he’s come back at you
several times. In fact, he tweeted just this morning. And I’m going to quote. He said: “I think that crooked Hillary Clinton
should try to enter the race to try and steal it away from uber-left Elizabeth Warren. Only one condition: The crooked one must explain
all of her high crimes and misdemeanors, including how and why she deleted 33,000 e-mails.” HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Yes. You know, it truly is remarkable how obsessed
he remains with me. But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked
at than my e-mails. We all know that. So he’s either lying or delusional, or both. There was no subpoena, as he says in a tweet
this morning. So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again. But, just seriously, I don’t understand, I
don’t think anybody understands what motivates him, other than personal grievance, other
than seeking adulation. I said during the campaign, there was no other
Donald Trump. What you saw was what you were going to get. And I think a lot of Americans understandably
thought, oh, no, come on. That can’t possibly be the case. Once he’s in the office, he will certainly
moderate his behavior. Well, we have seen, no, he hasn’t. JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton, yesterday,
President Trump made big news by announcing that his policy was going to be to clear the
way for the Turkish government to send its troops into Syria, that the U.S. troops were
going to get out of the way, so, essentially, they can go in after the Syrian Kurds, who
they view as terrorists. Of course, the Syrian Kurds have been very
helpful to the United States in the conflict in that region. What’s at stake here for the United States? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I thought that
the announcement that President Trump made that he was ordering the withdrawal of American
troops from Northern Syria and, in effect, giving a green light to the Turks under President
Erdogan to go in with their military, was a betrayal, a betrayal of the strongest allies
that we have in the region. We wouldn’t have defeated ISIS by this time
if it had not been for the Kurds, who were our partners and allies. JUDY WOODRUFF: Even though Turkey, longtime
U.S. ally, NATO ally, you’re saying the Kurd — the interests of the Kurds should be placed
above the relationship with Turkey? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: In this instance,
the Turks have made very clear that they are going to engage in a broad-based attack on
the Syrian Kurds. It’s a direct threat to our national security,
to the blood, sweat, and loss that Americans have already committed to trying to beat the
Islamic State. So they are certainly a NATO ally, but they
have been, you know, taking weapons from Russia. They have been using the Kurdish problem to
bolster the reign of Erdogan. So it’s more complicated. And if there were to be a decision about withdrawing
American troops, it should have been subjected to the kind of careful deliberation that we
made in the Obama administration or that I know from prior administrations before being
announced, after the president has a phone call with Erdogan. For all we know, in that phone call, he asked
the Turks to investigate Joe Biden. I mean, we can’t trust anything he says. But the consequences of this decision are
incredibly damaging for the United States. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think he might have
asked him? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I have no idea. Who knows what he says to people. He is a loose cannon now in an even more dangerous
way than he was. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s talk about the book,
“Gutsy Women.” The two of you came together. You both talked about how you had discussed,
as Chelsea was growing up, strong women, gutsy women as role models, in effect. Chelsea, I was struck by your mother, when
— I think it was her comment about Abby Wambach in the book, the star American soccer player. And you said — I’m quoting — “She’s powerful,
and she knows it. She doesn’t apologize for it, the way women
are so often taught to do.” Is this still a problem, do you think, for
young women today? Do they still feel the need to apologize for
being themselves? CHELSEA CLINTON, Co-Author, “The Book of Gutsy
Women”: I think, unfortunately, yes. I think we know, actually, how sadly effective
so much of what still exists in the zeitgeist, telling women that we need to modulate our
voice, be aware of how we dress, kind of pay more attention to how we present ourselves
in the world, vs. kind of the substance of what we feel compelled to say or do. One of the reasons we felt so compelled to
write “The Book of Gutsy Women” was to share stories of women who are unapologetically
themselves, and then who use their stories to help propel progress for other women behind
them. JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton, you have
been advocating for women, I think, your entire career. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: Did you think, at this stage
of your life, you would still be having to fight this fight? HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I hoped not. But I agree with Chelsea that it is still
a very big challenge to women of all ages, but particularly young women. And this book truly is meant to spark a conversation
about gutsy women, trying to get people to think about who are the women they know in
their own lives, in their own workplaces, their education, wherever it might be, who
they admire, who they think has not only stood up for herself, which is the first step, but,
more importantly in our eyes, standing up for others, trying to open doors for others
to come behind. CHELSEA CLINTON: And, Judy, I would just say,
today, we have the Trump administration arguing at the Supreme Court that employers should
be permitted to fire people based on who they love or their gender identity. And the fact that they’re arguing this kind
of while we’re in the midst of just an epidemic of violence against particularly black trans
women is horrifying to me, that our government is on kind of the side of exclusion and segregation,
and not on the side of kind of human rights and human dignity and, I’d argue, history
is particularly troubling to me. JUDY WOODRUFF: As you grew up, you obviously
saw your mother doing this kind of advocacy. Did you think, at this stage in your life,
you would still be making these arguments? CHELSEA CLINTON: I wish that I could say,
when I was a little girl, I was kind of projecting forward a couple of decades. (LAUGHTER) CHELSEA CLINTON: But I don’t think I was,
although it was pretty shocking to me, Judy, when my dad ran in 1992, how many largely
older white men attacked me for my appearance, and called me awkward or ugly, or compared
me to the family dog. And, you know, it was on the kind of conventional
right and left. It was Rush Limbaugh and “Saturday Night Live.” And, thankfully, my parents and my grandparents
had kind of instilled enough in me that I knew that that was bonkers. Like, why were these old men attacking a little
girl? But it did shock me, because I realized, wow,
like, I’m being judged by how they’re kind of perceiving my appearance. And they know nothing about me. And I would like to say that we have moved
beyond that, but we see what’s happening to Greta Thunberg and other young women kind
of in the public eye. And, sadly, we haven’t moved beyond that. And adults are still behaving deplorably when
it comes to young women who are putting themselves out there or who have kind of been put into
the public arena by choices their families have made. And so I think, unfortunately, we still have
a lot of work to do. JUDY WOODRUFF: Chelsea Clinton, Secretary
Hillary Clinton, thank you both very much. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Thank you. CHELSEA CLINTON: Thank you very much, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Next month, the Supreme Court
will hear arguments on the Obama era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,
or DACA, which has protected hundreds of thousands of individuals, also known as dreamers. They were brought to the U.S. by their parents
illegally when they were children. The issue before the court is whether the
Trump administration acted legally when it sought to terminate the program in 2017. Since then, DACA has been closed to new enrollees. Hari Sreenivasan recently traveled to Ohio
to speak with DACA students about their experiences. It’s the latest in our special series on Rethinking
College, and it’s part of our regular education segment, Making the Grade. MAN: After you have decided on what you want
to study, you have to review the literature. HARI SREENIVASAN: Like many college students,
19-year-old Jimmy Rodriguez has a lot on his plate. He’s taking a full course load this semester
at Lorain County Community College in Ohio. In the evenings, he practices with the school’s
soccer team. But unlike most of his peers, Rodriguez is
pursuing a degree and a future in a country he may one day be forced to leave. WOMAN: I know there are a couple of things
I wanted to follow up with you on. And that is your paperwork for the DACA. HARI SREENIVASAN: Rodriguez is a DACA beneficiary. His parents brought him to the U.S. from Mexico
in 2002, when he was a year-and-a-half old. He’s never been back to Mexico. JIMMY RODRIGUEZ, College Student: DACA means
the world to me. I’m able to get a job, a normal job, get my
license, almost like a citizen, but not fully yet. HARI SREENIVASAN: He wants to be the first
person in his family to graduate from college. But those plans were almost derailed last
year when he and his father, who’s also undocumented, were caught up in a federal ICE raid while
working at a garden center. Jimmy’s dad caught some of the raid on his
cell phone. JIMMY RODRIGUEZ: And they told us to shut
up, to stop talking, that we were all illegal. HARI SREENIVASAN: Because he was protected
by DACA, Rodriguez was released, but his father was detained for several months. He’s out now and has been given a temporary
work permit while he awaits his next immigration hearing. JIMMY RODRIGUEZ: It’s always affected me since
I found out I was undocumented, in school, in class, at work, at a game, thinking about
your family, because you’re not with them, so you’re uncertain what’s going to happen
to them. HARI SREENIVASAN: According to the Migration
Policy Institute, about 98,000 dreamers graduate from high school each year in the U.S. Many enter the work force right away, but
it’s estimated 20 percent of DACA beneficiaries are enrolled in college. On a recent afternoon, as Ohio State University
fans cheered on their football team, a small student group met nearby to discuss their
goals for the upcoming school year. WOMAN: Who would we be targeting in the education
systems? HARI SREENIVASAN: The four leaders of the
newly formed Student Community of Progressive Empowerment organization, which advocates
for undocumented students, are all protected by DACA. LIZ, College Student: There are these kids
that would have applied for it, but can’t. So, they’re undocumented. HARI SREENIVASAN: Nineteen-year-old Liz is
a junior majoring in civil engineering. She prefers to go only by her first name,
due to concerns about her family’s safety. Liz has lived in Ohio since she came to the
U.S. from Mexico when she was 1. She’s been on the dean’s list and has a 3.7
grade point average. That type of academic performance would help
most students get financial aid, but not dreamers. LIZ: The number one challenge that we face
is a lack of financial aid. As DACA students, we don’t get federal financial
aid and a lot of public scholarships. HARI SREENIVASAN: How are you financing your
education? LIZ: A lot of my education is financed with
my own money. I work part-time as a server. I have been working since I was 16 to save
up for college. Other than that, I have had a handful of private
scholarships. HARI SREENIVASAN: Like most dreamers, Liz
had to apply as an international student, but Ohio allows DACA recipients to qualify
for in-state tuition if they meet residency requirements; 23 other states and the District
of Columbia have laws or university system policies that allow undocumented students
to qualify for in-state tuition. Liz wants to become an engineer, but she says
it can be hard to stay focused when faced with the possibility of deportation. LIZ: It’s a lot of anxiety knowing that you
might not graduate. You have this long-term goal, but it’s not
certain. You can’t work harder and get it. You can’t study harder and get it. It’s just completely out of your control. HARI SREENIVASAN: It’s not just undergrads
who are concerned. You’re hoping to build a database that researchers
can use to fight cancer? HAN GIL, College Graduate: Yes. HARI SREENIVASAN: Twenty-two-year-old Han
Gil is a DACA recipient who is applying for Ph.D. programs while working at a lab on campus. The recent Ohio State grad, who also prefers
to go by only her first name, was born in Korea and has been in the U.S. since the age
of 4. She and other DACA beneficiaries must reapply
every two years. HAN GIL: The programs I’m looking into are
minimum five years. And reapplying costs money. It’s hard for me to have any confidence in
what I’m going to do in the future, when I can’t even have the basics of knowing if I’m
even going to be here or not. HARI SREENIVASAN: Those kinds of concerns
are all too common for undocumented students, says Yolanda Zepeda. She’s assistant vice provost in the Office
of Diversity and Inclusion at Ohio State University. YOLANDA ZEPEDA, Ohio State University: What
I find is, our students have to work a lot of hours in order to just pay for their schooling. That can very much extend the time to degree. And I have seen students who start out very
enthused and very determined, and , over time, they just get tired. HARI SREENIVASAN: Ohio State University doesn’t
disclose the number of enrolled DACA students, and many dreamers choose not to reveal their
status. But there are campus programs aimed at giving
them support. ANNA BABEL, Ohio State University: A lot of
it is taking your own initiative to make sure that undocumented student concerns are getting
into the daily life of the university. HARI SREENIVASAN: Around 300 faculty, staff
and students have participated in a voluntary training program to become allies for undocumented
students. Ohio State language professor Anna Babel is
leading the effort. ANNA BABEL: They can run into problems with
court dates, if they have a court date and they don’t want to tell their professor what’s
going on in their life, maybe it conflicts with an exam or with a required class period. Many language departments traditionally have
requirements for study abroad, and undocumented students just can’t do that. HARI SREENIVASAN: As Ohio State and other
schools try to help dreamers, they are aware that immigration policy is contentious. They also know that there are many who want
to end DACA and support the Trump administration’s efforts to do so. HANS VON SPAKOVSKY, Heritage Foundation: I
think President Trump acted correctly in ending the program. HARI SREENIVASAN: Hans Von Spakovsky is a
senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation in D.C., a conservative think tank. He has concerns, among other things, about
universities giving in-state tuition to undocumented students. HANS VON SPAKOVSKY: Federal immigration law
doesn’t ban colleges and universities, state ones, from providing in-state tuition to aliens
who are here illegally. But it does say that, if they do that, they
have to provide in-state tuition to citizens who are from other states. That provision has never been enforced by
the U.S. Justice Department. HARI SREENIVASAN: While the political battles
are being fought, life goes on at universities for now. Civil engineering major Liz is keeping focused
on her studies. LIZ: For me, my number one goal is to do as
much as I can and try as hard as I can to graduate. And I will do that until I — until the last
second that I can. HARI SREENIVASAN: Liz, Jimmy, Han Gil and
many other dreamers across the U.S. will be waiting anxiously for the Supreme Court’s
decision on DACA, expected by next summer. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Hari Sreenivasan
in Columbus, Ohio. JUDY WOODRUFF: Part of our series on Rethinking
College. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank you, and we’ll see you soon.