Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: following the money -- conflicting stories from President Trump
and his personal attorney about payments to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford.
Then, I sit down with former CIA Director Michael Hayden to discuss what's at stake
in this new era for the nation's intelligence community.
And President Trump's inaugural pastor talks about the role of faith at the Trump White
House.
Plus: Ontario's income experiment -- a look at Canada's pilot program offering a less
bureaucratic way to break the cycle of poverty.
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE,®MD-BO¯ Wellesley Institute: You don't have to show that you're sick.
You don't have to show that you can't work.
You get it as a right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: The White House finds itself tonight fending off new questions about the
adult film star Stormy Daniels, and who paid for her silence.
The questions erupted after a swirl of statements by a member of President Trump's own legal
team.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Prayer has always been at the center of American
life.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The president marked the National Day of Prayer this morning, amid new disclosures
about a payment to an adult film star.
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you changing your story on Stormy Daniels?
MAN: Shame on you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: One of Mr. Trump's personal attorneys, Michael Cohen, has long said he
used his own money to pay $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, just before
the 2016 election.
Clifford says it was hush money to buy her silence about an alleged *** affair with
Mr. Trump in 2006.
The president has denied any relationship, and, for months, he denied knowing about a
payment.
Then, last night, newly hired attorney Rudy Giuliani acknowledged President Trump repaid
Cohen.
RUDY GIULIANI (R), Former Mayor of New York: That was money that was paid by his lawyer,
the way I would do, out of his law firm funds or whatever funds -- it doesn't matter -- and
the president reimbursed that over the period of several months.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Appearing on FOX News's "Hannity," Giuliani maintained the president was unaware
of details of the Stormy Daniels matter until recently.
RUDY GIULIANI: He didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know.
But he did know about the general arrangement, that Michael would take care of things like
this.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Giuliani told The New York Times that Mr. Trump made a series of payments
to Cohen of $35,000 each, totaling as much as $460,000, for what he called incidental
expenses.
He rejected any notion that the payments might have violated campaign funding law.
RUDY GIULIANI: That money was not campaign money.
Sorry, I am giving you a fact now that you don't know.
It is not campaign money.
No campaign finance violation.
SEAN HANNITY, Host, "Hannity": So, they funneled it through a law firm.
RUDY GIULIANI: Funneled through a law firm, and then the president repaid it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The president reinforced the point on Twitter this morning.
He said that: "Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign
and having nothing to do with the campaign.
These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth."
Giuliani was back on FOX again early this morning, saying the initial payment to Clifford
was made to protect the Trumps from being personally hurt by false allegations.
But he later suggested the looming election was a factor.
RUDY GIULIANI: Imagine if that came out on October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last
debate with Hillary Clinton.
QUESTION: So, to make it go away, they made this payment.
(CROSSTALK)
RUDY GIULIANI: Cohen didn't even ask.
Cohen didn't -- Cohen made it go away.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Still these latest revelations call into question the president's own words
aboard Air Force One last month.
QUESTION: Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?
DONALD TRUMP: No.
No.
What else?
QUESTION: Then why did Michael -- do you know where he got the money to make that payment?
DONALD TRUMP: No, I don't know.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Cohen said in a statement in February that: "Neither the Trump Organization
nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither
reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
At the time, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders echoed that denial from the White
House briefing podium.
SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, White House Press Secretary: There was no knowledge of any payments
from the president, and he's denied all of these allegations.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Today, Sanders faced a new barrage of questions.
SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: As Mayor Giuliani stated, this wasn't something that was initially
known, but later learned, and, again, we give the best information possible at the time.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Cohen is now the target of an FBI investigation.
Agents raided his home and office last month, reportedly searching for documents on the
Clifford payment, among other things.
Clifford is now pursuing her own civil suit against President Trump for defamation.
And we will examine the implications of the Giuliani disclosures after the news summary.
In the day's other news: The White House has a new reason for why President Trump fired
James Comey as FBI director.
In his FOX News interview last night, presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani said it was -- quote
-- "because Comey wouldn't say that he, Trump, wasn't a target in the Russia investigation."
This is at least the third explanation that the president and his aides have given for
firing Comey.
Iran's foreign minister insisted today that his government will not agree to any changes
in the 2015 nuclear deal.
In a YouTube video, Javad Zarif dismissed President Trump's demands that European leaders
fix the agreement.
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, Iranian Foreign Minister: Let me make it absolutely clear once and for
all: We will neither outsource our security, nor will we renegotiate or add on to a deal
we have already implemented in good faith.
The U.S. has consistently violated the agreement, especially by bullying others from doing business
with Iran.
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump is weighing whether to recertify Iran's compliance with
the agreement or end U.S. sanctions relief by May 12.
The Trump administration stayed mum today on whether U.S. Special Forces are helping
Saudi Arabia battle rebels in Yemen.
The New York Times reported about a dozen of Green Berets are helping to locate and
destroy rebel missiles being fired at Saudi cities.
The report said there is no indication that the commandos have actually crossed into Yemen.
A fierce rainstorm roared through Northern and Western India overnight, killing more
than 90 people.
Some 160 others were injured.
The deluge brought winds of 80 miles an hour that blew down trees and destroyed homes.
Most of the deaths and the worst of the destruction came in the northern city of Agra.
The famed Taj Mahal is located there, but it was undamaged.
Meanwhile, there's word that the 10 cities with the most polluted air are all in India.
The World Heath Organization released its findings today, based on data from 2016.
According to the WHO, roughly seven million deaths a year worldwide are caused by air
pollution.
Talks are under way in Beijing, as China and the U.S. try to avert a trade war.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and the U.S. delegation arrived today, as China's Foreign
Ministry said any agreement must benefit China as well.
HUA CHUNYING, Spokeswoman, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through translator): We
welcome negotiation and consultation, but it must be on the basis of equal footing and
mutual respect, and the result should be mutually beneficial.
Let's wait and see.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The talks will continue through tomorrow, with the focus on technology trade
and tariffs.
Back in this country, the U.S. military is now investigating the crash of a Puerto Rican
National Guard plane that left nine airmen dead.
The aging C-130 Hercules nosedived onto a highway near Savannah, Georgia, yesterday
just after taking off for Arizona.
It was making its final flight before the aircraft was retired.
Officials say the plane was at least 40 years old.
In Arizona, teachers are set to end their six-day strike after scoring a major victory.
The governor signed a budget bill today including a 20 percent salary hike for teachers over
three years.
It didn't meet their demands for more school funding.
Schools are expected to reopen tomorrow.
The Motion Picture Academy today expelled Bill Cosby, after his conviction for drugging
and sexually assaulting a woman.
At the same time, the organization expelled director Roman Polanski.
He fled the United States 40 years ago after pleading guilty to drugging and having sex
with a 13-year-old girl.
And on Wall Street, upbeat economic data rescued stocks from an early swoon.
The Dow Jones industrial average dropped nearly 400 points initially, but ended up five points
up and closed at 23930.
The Nasdaq fell 12 points, and the S&P 500 slipped six.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": former CIA Director Michael Hayden on the agency under
the Trump administration; on this National Day of Prayer, what's behind Christian evangelicals'
strong support for the president; and much more.
As we reported earlier, Rudy Giuliani's comments to various media outlets last night have created
a new legal headache for his main client, President Trump.
We take a closer look at the legal questions the statements raise now with John Carlin.
He was a longtime Justice Department official and federal prosecutor, and now works in private
practice.
And ®MDNM¯Rick Hasen, he's an election law expert and a professor at the University of
California, Irvine, School of Law.
And, gentlemen, we welcome both of you back to the program.
Rick Hasen, I'm going to start with you.
We just heard a few minutes ago in that piece we put together Rudy Giuliani tell the anchors
at FOX News, he said there was no campaign violation, everything was done properly.
How do you see it?
RICK HASEN, University of California, Irvine: Well, I think it's a really open question.
Right now, what it looks like is that Michael Cohen gave a loan to Donald Trump.
And if that was a campaign-related loan, then that had to be reported on campaign finance
forms.
And each time the loan was paid back, that payment had to be put in there.
It's all going to turn on, what did Trump know, when did he know it, and was this campaign-related?
Was the motive to help the campaign or was the motive to help Trump personally?
So while we don't know enough to know whether or not there's a campaign finance violation,
there's certainly enough to investigate here.
And Giuliani has made things, I think, much worse for Donald Trump right now.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And in terms of a reason, we heard Rudy Giuliani say at one point it was
connected to the campaign date, but at another point in the interview, he said it was to
spare President Trump and his wife embarrassment.
RICK HASEN: Right.
Well, it could have been both those things, but the timing, coming just before the election,
just before Stormy Daniels was supposed to be on television talking about the affair,
that's some circumstantial evidence it was campaign-related.
And it might be that when the U.S. attorneys went and seized evidence in -- from Cohen's
offices, they were looking for evidence of motive.
Was this more about Wisconsin or was it more about Melania?
I think we don't know that yet.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, John Carlin, there were so many parts of what Rudy Giuliani had to
say, but I want to ask you about his comment where he said, this was -- he said, this was
a private contract between two parties known as a nondisclosure agreement, an NDA.
He said these agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth.
Is that true?
Are these kinds of payments done all the time?
JOHN CARLIN, Former Justice Department Official: Well, there are so many aspects of this current
investigation that seem unusual, to say the least, one of which is the public discussion
and disarray and chaos in The legal team, in the way that the legal team often doesn't
seem to be matching up with what the client is saying, which is never ideal when you're
in a defense situation.
And you contrast that with the Mueller and his prosecution team.
They never speak on the record.
They never speak to the press.
When they do speak, it's through official court filings and documents, and they're running
this investigation by the book.
And, remember, outside the daily news is a serious investigation about a foreign power
trying to undermine our democracy.
And it's all the more important that we get to the bottom of that, as we head towards
another election cycle today.
We just heard news today that a state election might be attacked through a cyber-attack.
We have got to get prepared.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well -- but, again, back to what Rudy Giuliani was saying, and this on
the heels, of course, a few weeks ago the FBI raid, going into the office and home of
the president's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, does it look to you as if -- I mean, again,
we're speculating here -- what Rudy Giuliani was trying to do was clean up some of this,
because they know the FBI has taken material from Cohen's office?
JOHN CARLIN: Well, trying to avoid speculation, but, at times, they have attacked the search
warrant on Cohen's offices as something that was inappropriate or done through the Mueller
special counsel investigation,.
And they're different.
What we have learned to date is that, in the special counsel investigation, they apparently
uncovered evidence showing that there was crime -- there were crimes committed, and
those crimes were sufficiently serious that the acting attorney general, Rod Rosenstein,
said they need to be investigated by an independent prosecutor's office in the Southern District
of New York, which is legendarily independent, hard-charging prosecutors.
And what it looks like is, they found serious evidence of crimes that led to not only a
search warrant of attorneys' offices and seizure of materials, but also they put in that filing
seizure of his e-mail.
That's not an easy standard to meet.
So it does seem like, because of that, there's a lot of concern that, as they uncover the
crimes that were -- that they are investigating there, that it's somehow going to lead back
to the president and his legal team.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Again, so many strands.
I know the Washington Post was reporting today that the president had been advised by Rudy
Giuliani and perhaps others not to have any contact with Michael Cohen.
And then, of course, NBC was reporting earlier in the day that the FBI was eavesdropping.
And they modified that later to say the FBI was monitoring the...
JOHN CARLIN: That's a significant -- yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... phone calls going into Cohen's office, and that there may have been
a call with the White House.
Back to you, Rick Hasen.
We are trying to understand here whether laws might have been broken or not.
So, as somebody who understands election law, what more information do you need to know?
You mentioned a minute ago motive.
What more do you need to know to understand whether the law was violated or not?
RICK HASEN: Well, so, once we know when Trump knew what he knew, if it was during the campaign
period, or even now, because he's running the 2020 campaign, the main question is going
to be, was this campaign-related?
And that's a motive question.
This came up in the John Edwards prosecution, Senator John Edwards also receiving payments
for a mistress.
And he argued they were personal, not campaign-related.
So, how do you get evidence of motive?
You can infer circumstantially, for example, from the fact of the timing, coming just before
the election.
But there might well be communications between Trump and Cohen or communications with others
which would indicate that the payments were being made to stop Daniels from going on TV
just before the election.
If that evidence is in what the U.S. attorneys have gathered, that would be pretty good evidence
this was campaign-related and that there has been a campaign finance violation.
And if it's willful, that moves it from a civil problem that would be handled by the
Federal Election Commission to potentially a criminal problem.
And with enough money at stake and the motive there, it's potential jail time, is something
that's at least on the table, if not something that's likely to happen.
JUDY WOODRUFF: John Carlin, very quickly, how much does it matter when these payments
by the president were made back -- were made to Michael Cohen and the fact that they were
done in installments?
JOHN CARLIN: There are a lot of questions still to answer, and one of which would be,
were people trying to intentionally deceive in the manner in which they made payments?
The language funneling was very odd to hear the defense attorney bring in and characterize
that way.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Rudy Giuliani used that word.
JOHN CARLIN: That was very surprising, because it sounds like lot that it may have been brought
in, in order to hide the source of the funds.
Might be something that they look into.
But, again, as you said, Judy, this is one strand of many, many elements now of evidence
of different types of criminal activity by people surrounding the campaign and person
of the president.
More to come.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So many questions, but at the center of it, this contradiction between what
the president had said himself and now what his lead personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,
is saying.
John Carlin, Rick Hasen, we thank you both.
JOHN CARLIN: Thank you.
RICK HASEN: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump was elected, at least in part, on a promise to upend the
way Washington and its bureaucracies work.
That gave pause to some in the nation's intelligence community, including retired Air Force General
Michael Hayden, who, during the George W. Bush administration, served consecutively
as director of the National Security Agency and the CIA.
In his new book, "The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies,"
he critiques the president's campaign tactics, his behavior, and his governing style, especially
as it relates to the nation's secrets and its spies.
General Hayden, welcome back to the "NewsHour."
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN (RET.), Former CIA Director: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you worked in a Republican administration, but you're pretty tough on
President Trump.
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Yes, actually, I try to appear and be apolitical.
I was actually a Clinton appointee to NSA.
But, indeed, I am fairly tough on the president.
Judy, I look at as kind of a three-layer cake.
And, so, let me begin at the base layer, which is not Donald Trump.
The base layer is us, all right?
We have entered what the Oxford Dictionary calls a post-truth world, a world in which
decision-making is less dependent on data and facts, and more dependent on the emotion,
preference, grievances, loyalty, tribalism.
And what President Trump did as a candidate, he identified that.
He exploited that.
And, frankly -- and here's the crux of the book -- as president, he seems to worsen that.
And then you have got those two layers.
I have got a third layer of the cake that's somewhat troubling as well, and that's a foreign
power, the Russians, kind of coming in through the perimeter wire, taking advantage of all
that I just described.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What is the problem that you have, the criticism you have of his relationship
with the intelligence community?
He's been very critical at times.
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Yes, at times.
And, frankly, though, and the phrase you would use at CIA, the intel community right now
is a little bit off of the X.
The Department of Justice and the FBI are on the X.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you mean?
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: I mean they are the target of the president's criticism of both institutions
and people.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: But that shouldn't be comforting to the people in the intelligence community,
because you have a president here who seems to emphasize loyalty, personal loyalty to
him, over the norms that have governed these institutions for decades, if not centuries.
So that could easily be turned to the intelligence community as well.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you know that this president is so very different from other presidents
in his relationship to the intelligence...
(CROSSTALK)
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: So, to be very fair, I have never briefed President Trump.
I have briefed President Bush, President Obama.
And I go to great pains in the book to point out, it's our job to accommodate the president.
We have had presidents who have argued with us.
We have had presidents, frankly, who may not have told the truth either.
This is a president -- and this is the distinction -- who seems to make some decisions based
on something other than a view of objective reality.
He's based decisions on some other criteria, back to that basic layer of a post-truth world.
JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the many things you write about, General Hayden, is the so-called
Steele dossier.
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: This was the document, the report prepared by the former British intelligence
agent Christopher Steele.
You know him.
You have looked at that.
How credible is it?
And I'm asking because Republicans in the Congress have discounted it.
They say it was paid for by the Democrats, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: So, I don't know Chris Steele.
I know people who have worked with him.
He was a solid officer for MI6.
But, Judy, when I read that document, a couple of thoughts, right, when it became public.
Number one, that sounds like us.
It has the patois of an intelligence report.
All right, so it was familiar language to me.
But if we had produced that, we would have had in bold letters at the top and bottom,
this is not finely evaluated intelligence.
This is raw information.
It would have been the beginning of a process, not the end.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And -- but you're saying it wouldn't have been completely discounted?
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Oh, no, no.
What we would have done, we would have gone through every particular proposition.
We would have said, who's the source?
Would the source be expected to know?
Has the source reported reliably in the past?
And do we have other information that would sustain or not sustain that data point?
And, frankly, that, I think, is what's now going on with Bob Mueller and others.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, speaking of Robert Mueller, special counsel, so much to ask you about
here.
There's a lot, in fact, everything we don't know about what he has learned, but we do
know there have been an unusual number of communications, connections between people
around President Trump and Russian officials.
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it that unusual?
I think people are looking at that and saying, is that something we should be paying this
much attention to?
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: So, I -- yes.
And an answer is yes, from my point of view.
Remember, the Mueller investigation has gotten pretty broad now, but its origins, its origins
are in a counterintelligence investigation.
It's, what were the Russians trying to do, and did anyone over here engage in helping
them?
So, we do have, I think, an extraordinary number of contacts between the Trump campaign
and the Russian security services.
And we know for a fact what the Russians were trying to do.
Now the question becomes for Director Mueller, in those connections, is that born out of
naivete, out of ignorance, or something darker?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it possible -- and this emerged from the Steele dossier -- that Moscow
may view Donald Trump, President Trump, as a -- when he was a candidate as a Russian
asset?
I mean, is that even conceivable?
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: I don't -- I wouldn't -- and I have used the word -- and some supporters
of the president think I'm being a little unkind here -- I have used the Russian word
polezni durak, the useful idiot, the useful tool.
In other words, a naive -- it actually comes out of the Soviet period.
It's actually a term of art.
It's the naive individual who is exploited by the Soviets then, the Russians now, even
though they may hold him in personal contempt.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you worry most about as this investigation goes on?
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: The lack of resolution.
The intelligence community report on what the Russians did, when you look at what Americans
think about it, it looks like a national Rorschach test, depending upon which political party
you claim membership in.
And so we can't get out from under this cloud until most Americans are able to look at one
another and say, well, that looks about the way that it happened.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, two other things I want to ask you about that are taking place in
this administration.
The possibility of a deal between the United States and North Korea to potentially get
rid of its nuclear weapons program, does that seem like something that could happen?
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: The broad-based intelligence estimate for the longest time, Judy, has been,
these guys aren't crazy, the Koreans, and they would have to be crazy to give up their
weapons.
When you look at the Moammar Gadhafis and the Saddam Husseins, at the Ukraines of the
world, what happens to a country when they don't have this stuff?
Denuclearization, in any way that has meaning for you and me, is something that's going
to take place at the end of a very long process, which doesn't mean the president shouldn't
go meet Kim Jong-un and perhaps begin that process?
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, a question about Iran.
Should the administration, the Trump administration, stay in the current deal, or should the U.S.
pull out?
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: My personal view is, we should stay in for the time being.
I wasn't a fan of the deal.
I had all my criticisms of the deal.
But I think the consensus of folks like me is that Iran is further away from a weapon
with this deal than they would be without it.
We know more about the Iranian program with this deal than we would know without it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But it looks like the president is preparing to...
(CROSSTALK)
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: I fear that he is.
And what I just told you about further away and so on, that's actually the intelligence
community assessment.
And we're back to the premise of the book.
How much of presidential action is based upon this objective view of reality, as opposed
to his original instincts and campaign rhetoric?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Michael Hayden.
The book is "The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies."
Thank you very much, General.
GEN.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump marked this National Day of Prayer with an event in the
Rose Garden, as his support among white evangelicals is at an all-time high.
The annual event stood in contrast to the other news of the day we have been discussing
of Mr. Trump's payments to an adult film actress.
William Brangham has more.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Joining me now is a leader amongst American evangelicals, a man who has
prayed with and prayed for President Trump.
Reverend Samuel Rodriguez is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership
Conference, and he has served as an adviser in various capacities to Presidents Bush,
Obama, and now President Trump.
Welcome to the "NewsHour."
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference: Thank you
for having me.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, the president was here for National Prayer Day.
He met with many leaders of the faith community.
You are in that inner circle.
As we were saying before, the president has enormous support among the evangelical community.
And I wonder if you could just help me understand, where does that support come from?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: Public policy.
Evangelicals experienced or felt that, in the past number of years, the past 10 years,
issues of religious liberty, issues of advancing their Judeo-Christian value systems stood
in a de facto and du jour manner, for that fact, threatened.
Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, Supreme Court cases that to evangelicals infringed
their ability to advance the Gospel of Jesus.
So, all of a sudden, we have President Donald Trump, and the public policy initiatives as
it pertains to faith is much more favorable to the evangelical community indeed.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There's many things on that one side of the ledger that would seem to
alienate him from the evangelical community, three marriages, accusations of adultery,
bragging about *** assaults.
You're arguing that the policy side of the ledger is enough to make people think that
things don't matter as much?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: No, I don't think it's ever to a point where it doesn't matter.
I think it comes to the point where we don't want to write anyone off.
You don't want to write off access to a president who can impact religious liberty, who can
impact the sanctity of life.
So it's a matter of balancing these narratives in a way where we never sacrifice truth on
the altar of expediency, but we likewise support policies that reflect our Judeo-Christian
value system.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, it was something much more fundamental to evangelicals?
When they looked at this last election, President Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, they just felt
much more fundamental was at stake that made them want to support him?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: Some would argue the future of American Christianity.
Some argued...
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Is that right?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
It became that sort of canopy.
The impetus behind it, putting the personalities aside, the imperative, what's at stake here,
put it in perspective, religious liberty, sacrificing your conscience on the altar of
politics, government obligating you to somehow put away your belief system if you worked
in a hospital, whatever that may be.
There were a number of issues that prompted 81 percent of evangelicals to support President
Trump.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: How much a role did abortion play, do you think?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: Significant.
And I mean arguably in the top two, right next to religious liberty.
Even in the Latino evangelical community, there are 29, 30 percent, whatever number
you want to embrace, of Latinos supported President Trump.
When asked in the exit polling what drove Latinos to support President Trump, it was
life.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There were, as you well know, many people in your own congregation
that didn't like your support of the president, largely on the issue of immigration, I believe.
And I know you have differed with the president on some of his stances on immigration.
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: I have.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What do you say to him?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: In my particular congregation, I pastor a very multiethnic congregation,
40 percent African-American, 40 percent white, 20 percent Asian and Latino.
So I received -- on a stack of Bibles -- no pushback in my personal congregation, because
they saw there with Obama.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: No pushback to your support of Trump?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: No.
I never endorsed Donald Trump or his presidency.
To me, it's a continuum of George W. Bush, President Obama for eight years, and now President
Trump.
I disagreed with President Obama on a number of issues, I mean, really respectfully disagreed
with him.
But I love the man and respect the man, likewise with George W. Bush.
So, my congregation sees it as continuity in what they would deem as a prophetic role
to speak truth to power, to advance an agenda of love, and truth, and grace, for immigration
reform, educational equality, preserving life in and out of the womb.
To them, there's a continuum taking place here.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: One of the issues with regards to immigration is the issue of DACA and these
700,000 or 800,000 young people that were brought to America as children.
You described it as morally reprehensible, the way that they are treated now by our legislators.
When you talk to President Trump about this, what would you say to him about that?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: I am able to speak to the president about these issues, and if not the
president, his team.
And the pushback -- not even the pushback -- that answer has been, "Reverend, I love
these young men and women."
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: He has used that language?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
As a matter of fact, the president looked at me and said: "I'm a father and a grandfather,
Reverend, and I get it.
And I don't want to do anything to harm these young men and women," to me.
So, I heard that from the president of the United States.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But then how do you also...
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: And then you heard him subsequently talk about a love agenda regarding these young
men and women.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: How do you reconcile then President Trump talking about a love agenda
with regards to DACA with his other rhetoric about immigrants, which many have called toxic
rhetoric?
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
And on a number of occasions, I have expressed, in a very respectful manner, my displeasure
with comments and even wording, phrases that do not line Up with what I believe is a viable,
sustainable message of love, and hope and compassion.
So, it's a conundrum.
And there seems to be not a dichotomy, but there seems to be this sort of balancing act
that takes place.
And, at the end of the day, what do I care about?
Public policy.
I care about, what has the president signed in the Rose Garden?
Will these men and women who are created in the image of God be deported?
Will they be protected?
Will there be a pathway for legalization, inevitably for citizenship?
That's right there is what drives me to do what I do.
So, I understand it.
It's by the grace of God I'm there.
But I have had conversations with the president where he has celebrated, affirmed, validated
the immigrant community in America.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Reverend Rodriguez, thank you very much.
REV.
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for having me.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The economy may be doing well by many measures, but for years, there have
real concerns over wage growth and the overall standard of living.
Perhaps it's not so surprising that at least one recent survey showed growing public support
for a new government program that would guarantee some income to citizens.
There are small pilot projects of how it could work.
Economics correspondent Paul Solman traveled to Canada to see one of the larger programs.
It's part of his weekly series, Making Sense.
PAUL SOLMAN: Cheerios, sans gluten, without gluten.
ALANA BALTZER, Ontario: I may not speak French, but I have been in a bilingual country my
entire life, so I know what the French actually...
PAUL SOLMAN: What sans gluten means.
ALANA BALTZER: Yes.
PAUL SOLMAN: A Tuesday trudge to the local grocery store in Hamilton, Ontario.
ALANA BALTZER: Love the organic vegetables.
PAUL SOLMAN: This is the first time 29-year-old Alana Baltzer has been able to afford the
healthy food here at the Mustard Seed Co-op, because, she says, when you're poor:
ALANA BALTZER: It's buy the stuff that you can afford, which is generally quick, easy
and all processed and high in sugar and trans fats and all the other unhealthy stuff.
PAUL SOLMAN: That's all that Baltzer could afford on her $575-a-month welfare disability
check.
But Ontario will now give her $1,130 U.S., no questions asked, as part of a three-year
basic income pilot launched late last year.
NARRATOR: Around the world, people believe that basic income could provide a simpler
and more effective income support.
PAUL SOLMAN: The idea's also being piloted in Finland and California.
Now it's Ontario too.
KATHLEEN WYNNE, Premier of Ontario: How are people's lives changed, and how are they able
to do better in their lives, prevent illness, stay in school, get jobs and keep jobs?
PAUL SOLMAN: Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.
KATHLEEN WYNNE: We should be looking at different ways of providing support, ways that actually
don't punish people, but actually support people in getting on with their lives and
produce better outcomes.
PAUL SOLMAN: Four thousand randomly selected Ontarians in three communities will get about
$13,000 a year U.S. for a single person, $19,000 for a couple.
In exchange, recipients give up some social supports and the government gets back 50 cents
of every dollar they earn.
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE,®MD-BO¯ Wellesley Institute: It is definitely the biggest basic income
study that there's ever been in North America.
You don't have to show that you're sick.
You don't have to show that you can't work.
You get it as a right.
PAUL SOLMAN: Research director Kwame McKenzie and his team will analyze the results.
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE: We're going to see whether it increases your chance of coming out of
poverty.
We're trying to see if it makes your housing stable.
We're trying to see whether it improves your mental health, whether it basically decreases
your use of other services, such as hospital beds.
PAUL SOLMAN: Turns out Manitoba launched a basic income experiment in 1974 that the provincial
government there later pulled the plug on.
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE: It was an incomplete study.
PAUL SOLMAN: But, long after, researchers studying the data found:
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE: We have got less health service use.
We have got mental health improving.
We have got people going back to college and they're getting better, getting better skills
to move forward.
This is a great thing, right?
PAUL SOLMAN: But was it a fluke?
And could the same policy produce like results 40-plus years later?
Well, for Jodi Dean and family, the answer seems to be yes.
Ten-year-old daughter Madison has suffered from both brittle bone disease and epilepsy
since toddlerhood.
Yes, Canada has universal health care, but not for the E.R. commute.
JODI DEAN, Mother: As far as parking goes, we're not covered for that.
That's $25 an emergency visit.
PAUL SOLMAN: How many times has she broken bones?
JODI DEAN: She's probably had at least 70 breaks.
PAUL SOLMAN: How many times a month do you have to pay for parking?
JODI DEAN: Two to three times a week.
PAUL SOLMAN: Basic income now covers, in effect, half the parking bill, a huge relief for someone
who never dreamed she'd be poor, used to volunteer at the food bank, then found she couldn't
live without it.
JODI DEAN: How do you go back to where you just gave that time and tell them now you're
in need?
PAUL SOLMAN: Jodi Dean, like Alana Baltzer, lives in Hamilton, a once-thriving steel city
of 750,000 within an hour of Toronto.
TOM COOPER, Director, Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction: We used to have 40,000
people working directly in steel, and, today, it's probably closer to 7,000.
PAUL SOLMAN: Tom Cooper, who directs an anti-poverty project, claims he's already seen benefits
from the program.
TOM COOPER: Many of the individuals I have talked to who are on the basic income pilot
are going back to school, wanting to improve their opportunities to get a better job.
PAUL SOLMAN: Moreover, he says:
TOM COOPER: There's not the oversight we see in traditional social assistance systems that
requires people to report monthly on their income or their housing status or their relationship
status.
PAUL SOLMAN: While most poor Ontarians didn't make it into the pilot, Baltzer did, and no
longer has to deal with the provincial welfare system.
ALANA BALTZER: You do not have the bureaucracy involved with welfare or disability.
If you get a job, you simply call, let them know, give them the information, submit your
pay stubs, bada boom, bada bing, done
PAUL SOLMAN: And your mom made it on to the program.
Has it made a difference in her life?
ALANA BALTZER: Oh, God, yes.
She's more ecstatic about not having to deal with Ontario Works, the welfare workers.
PAUL SOLMAN: The pilot has even induced Baltzer to lose five pounds since November, more exercise,
more confidence.
ALANA BALTZER: The first time in years I have been able to wear high heels without groaning
in absolute pain and sheer agony.
PAUL SOLMAN: As for the depression she has long struggled to fend off:
ALANA BALTZER: It's nice to not have a full-blown episode because I'm worried about whether
or not I'm going to be able to eat tonight or be able to pay my rent or do something
as simple as laundry.
PAUL SOLMAN: Other pluses?
Well, from the government's point of view, it no longer has to subsidize Baltzer's housing,
so the pilot is costing Ontario less than $700 a month more.
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE: It's important to measure that and measure sort of use of government
services.
PAUL SOLMAN: But Baltzer attends college in the fall, as now planned, and then gets a
job, government would be off the hook entirely.
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE: And it's also important to measure whether people are actually generating
wealth, because everybody's thinking often about the cost, but people don't always think
about the possible economic benefits.
PAUL SOLMAN: But, look, say skeptics, basic income will cost a pretty, albeit Canadian,
penny going out, while benefits may never actually flow in.
DAVID WAKELY, Attorney: I don't think the savings are actually going to be there.
So, I think that's misleading.
PAUL SOLMAN: That's local lawyer David Wakely, who says, if the program is extended universally,
it would cost Ontario two-thirds of its annual revenue.
And he doubts recipients will go to school or get a job.
DAVID WAKELY: Where someone can stay home and get a basic income guarantee, this just
serves as a security blanket for them, because they have always got this income to rely on.
PAUL SOLMAN: And as I asked former U.S. union leader Andy Stern, isn't that the time-honored
objection to a basic income?
If you pay people to do nothing, isn't that an incentive for them to continue to do nothing?
ANDY STERN, Economic Security Project: There are always people who are going to stay at
home and take advantage of government programs.
There are a lot of wealthy people and children who are paid to do nothing, and it doesn't
seem to affect them being vital and involved in society.
PAUL SOLMAN: John Clarke of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty doesn't worry about poor people
taking advantage of a basic income.
But he does worry that the program is a move to take advantage of them by laying the groundwork
for the elimination of government-provided social workers, health care, the eventual
privatization of social services.
JOHN CLARKE, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty: So you're shopping for health care, you're
shopping for housing, you're shopping for public transportation, child care, all these
things.
And this is the prevailing agenda at the moment.
And a basic income system takes us in that direction.
PAUL SOLMAN: Moreover, says Clarke, a basic income creates downward wage pressure on the
working poor.
JOHN CLARKE: If you create a situation where low-wage workers are receiving a significant
portion of their wages out of the tax revenues, then the pressure on employers to increase
wages is reduced, the pressure on governments to increase minimum wages is reduced.
PAUL SOLMAN: So how to know then if the costs outweigh the benefits?
DR.
KWAME MCKENZIE: We can all of these theoretical discussions, or we can say let's do a test
and see what actually happens.
What are the costs?
Is it a more efficient way of giving people who need it support?
What are the benefits?
Does it grow the economy or not?
And then we can have a rational discussion based on evidence, rather than just based
on theory.
PAUL SOLMAN: And rather than based on promises of breaking the cycle of poverty, which might
or might not, in the end, be mainly smoke and mirrors.
For the "PBS NewsHour," this is economics correspondent Paul Solman reporting, mainly
from Ontario.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: new allegations of *** harassment and a longtime abuse of power by
a former well-known TV news anchor and, this time, as John Yang explains, claims about
just how much the network management knew.
JOHN YANG: Judy, it was more than five months ago that Charlie Rose lost both his PBS interview
show and his job as anchor of "CBS This Morning."
It came after The Washington Post reported complaints about his behavior toward women
at the PBS program.
Today, The Post reports that the incidents of Rose's *** misconduct were far more
numerous than previously reported, and that CBS managers were told about them as early
1986.
Late today, CBS News told its employees it had hired a law firm to investigate the allegations
in the Post report.
We're joined by one of the reporters who wrote both stories, Amy Brittain, who is on The
Washington Post's investigative team.
Amy, thanks for being with us.
AMY BRITTAIN, The Washington Post: Of course.
Thank you for having me.
JOHN YANG: When you say that -- your story says that this was more pervasive, more widespread,
the complaints you found.
How widespread are we talking?
AMY BRITTAIN: Well, we have 27 new allegations against Charlie Rose, and they span 42 years
ago.
The oldest allegation is from 1976, and the most recent is from 2017.
JOHN YANG: We say *** misconduct.
It is sort of a fuzzy term.
What are we talking about?
AMY BRITTAIN: Well, there's a range of behavior that is included in that total.
I would say some of the most serious incidents involve, in one case, exposure of his genitals
to a woman who was working, in fact, in the NBC News Washington bureau, in the research
library, in 1976.
Some of this behavior later involved pulling women into his lap, making lewd *** remarks,
late-night *** phone calls, asking them about their sex lives, groping them in some
cases.
JOHN YANG: And, originally, CBS News had said that they knew nothing about this, before
your story in November.
But you found instances where CBS managers had been told about this.
AMY BRITTAIN: Right.
So, after our first story, we were kind of flooded with tips and voice-mails and people
reaching out, saying that we had just kind of hit the tip of the iceberg with our first
story, that this, in fact, had been going on at CBS and that people knew about it.
So, my co-reporter, Irin, and I set out to find out, well, what did they know and when
did they find out?
JOHN YANG: And what did you find?
AMY BRITTAIN: Well, we found that the earliest instance of somebody reporting this to a manager
was in 1986, when Charlie was making lewd *** remarks to a young news clerk.
She told a manager at the time, and he kind of laughed it off and said, OK, well, you
don't have to be alone with him.
As Charlie career progressed at CBS, his star continued to rise.
He became kind of a franchise player for CBS News, on "60 Minutes," on "CBS This Morning."
And some of these recent incidents involved women going to executive producers at "CBS
This Morning," where he was a co-anchor.
In one case, he had forcibly kissed a "CBS This Morning" employee.
In another instance, a young woman went to the manager saying: You know what?
I'm uncomfortable about Charlie's attention toward another young woman on the show.
Something doesn't feel right about this.
He was taking her out to lunches outside of the office.
JOHN YANG: And what was the CBS News policy about managers finding out, being told these
things, and about whether they should report it up?
AMY BRITTAIN: Right.
So, I want to be clear that, to the best of our knowledge, there are no known cases of
actual human resources complaints against Charlie Rose.
So, none of these incidents of people raising concerns actually made their way into human
resources complaints.
In no instances are we aware of that -- are we aware of any of these managers actually
elevating the concerns above their heads.
JOHN YANG: And should they have -- under the CBS News policies, should they have?
AMY BRITTAIN: Well, I think the case of the employee who was forcibly kissed is an interesting
case, because when she went to her manager, the executive producer of "CBS This Morning,"
this woman asked him not to elevate it to H.R.
And he didn't.
He has told us that he spoke to Charlie.
He has not told us what he told Charlie.
But now CBS said that they have changed that policy and they have made it a requirement
for managers to immediately report instances of *** harassment to human resources.
JOHN YANG: So, this has changed since these incidents?
AMY BRITTAIN: They actually changed in 2016.
It's unclear what prompted that change or if they realized that their policy was outdated.
They haven't said exactly why they changed it.
JOHN YANG: And some of the women you talked to are preparing to file a lawsuit?
What can you tell us about that?
AMY BRITTAIN: That is correct.
We expect that the lawsuit could be filed by the end of the week.
There are three young women.
They are some of the most recent allegations that we have against Charlie.
Two of these women worked at "CBS This Morning."
One of them is the one who raised concerns to an executive producer about Charlie's attention
toward one of the other young women.
And one of these women went on to work for his show at "Charlie Rose."
So, it will be an interesting case, because it's against both Charlie Rose, Inc., and
CBS.
And I think if it gets to the point of discovery or depositions being taken, there could be
a lot more questions asked about what managers knew.
JOHN YANG: And what is CBS saying about what the managers knew?
How did they respond to The Post when you presented them with your reporting?
AMY BRITTAIN: Well, CBS News president David Rhodes said recently in a public forum, in
a very broad statement, he said, we had no knowledge.
And that's kind of a sweeping statement.
At least, it sounds sweeping to me.
And I think our reporting shows that there was knowledge.
We're not saying that every person knew.
But, certainly, some people knew.
And I think the question is, how pervasive was it?
How widespread was it?
How much collective knowledge was there at CBS?
JOHN YANG: You even cite a manager who tried to talk someone out of taking a job with Rose
at CBS.
AMY BRITTAIN: Yes.
That is correct.
There was instance that happened in the late 1990s, when "60 Minutes II" was starting.
A woman came in and interviewed for a position to be Charlie Rose's assistant.
And a CBS News executive pulled this woman aside and said: I want you to think long and
hard before you take this job.
Do you really want to be alone with this man?
JOHN YANG: Amy Brittain of The Washington Post, thanks so much.
AMY BRITTAIN: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Next: another installment of our weekly Brief But Spectacular series, where
we ask people about their passions.
Tonight, Dana Mortenson, CEO of World Savvy, which is a national education program, she
is working to prepare students for a more diverse, globally connected world.
DANA MORTENSON, Co-Founder and CEO, World Savvy: The demographic changes across this
country are phenomenal.
In 1970, the population of the U.S. was 88 percent white.
By 2010, that had dropped to 75 percent white, and it's estimated that, by 2050, that number
be 47 percent.
So, for the first time, we will be a collective majority.
No single ethnicity or culture will be in majority in this country.
And that's already true for the population under 18.
Students definitely find international affairs intimidating.
Most of the studies that you see over the last several decades is that Americans, particularly
young Americans, don't know a lot about the rest of the world.
And so a natural byproduct of that is fear of things that we don't know and that we don't
understand.
So, World Savvy is a national movement that's reimaging K-12 education.
And the way we work is by focusing on student engagement, to take complex issues in the
world and learn about them and to create knowledge to action projects that help them take action,
so that you can leverage diversity in the classroom as an asset.
A lot of our methodology is around saying, we don't believe young people have potential
to lead in the future, but that you have that in the present.
The way that international affairs was taught for so many years was sort of food flag festival.
We made a buche de noel.
We celebrated Cinco de Mayo.
We had a Black History Month.
Shifting that and allowing young people to kind of do two things, one, to explore themselves,
their history and their identity in that place and space, and then also allowing them to
kind of move towards the issues they're passionate about, is a really critical way to kind of
get them hooked on wanting to know something outside themselves.
The reality is, we are not preparing young people for a standardized world.
The only sort of common thread with what young people will encounter after they graduate
is change, particularly when you think about the kinds of problems that this next generation
will inherit.
We're looking at climate change, migration, poverty, war, grappling with how technology
will advance.
The other way we're sort of falling short with K-12 education is that that focus on
achievement and how we have defined what it is leaves very little room to measure what
matters.
If you ask most parents what they want for their young people, in addition to just graduating
from school, they want them to be good people, to be able to work with others.
Those are things that get lost in translation because people think they can't be embedded
into educational discourse or that they lack rigor, when, truly, it can be done.
It can be done, and it can be measured.
My name is Dana Mortenson, and this is my Brief But Spectacular take on being World
Savvy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: To be good people, a good lesson for all of us.
And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
Join us online and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks.
For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and we will see you soon.