tv PBS News Hour PBS March 2, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm PST
captioning sponsored by newshour productions llc >> ifill: israeli prime minister netanyahu arrives in washington, opening a political rift within the american jewish community over tomorrow's disputed address to congress. good evening, i'm gwen ifill. judy woodruff is away. also ahead: the supreme court case that could wipe out insurance subsidies for more than eight million americans. >> if you can imagine someone paying $100 a month and all of a sudden it's $415 a month which would be the average impact then you can imagine some people are going to stop paying. >> ifill: and, if it's monday, it's amy walter and nia malika- henderson on the week ahead in politics. those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs
newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your life and become you're own chief life officer. >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support
of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: iraqi security forces have launched a new offensive against tikrit, now held by islamic state fighters. it's their latest attempt to reclaim saddam hussein's hometown, before they try to retake mosul, to the north. ground troops opened the assault on tikrit with a rocket and artillery bombardment. they were backed by shiite sunni and iranian fighters, and iraqi planes. russian authorities insisted today they're conducting a thorough investigation into the murder of boris nemtsov. he'd been a leading critic of president vladimir putin before he was gunned down friday night, near the kremlin. on sunday, thousands marched
through moscow in a silent tribute to nemtsov. many charged putin bears at least some blame for his death but foreign minister sergei lavrov rejected that today. >> ( translated ): the attempt to use the heinous killing of boris nemtsov for political purposes is despicable. this is a heinous crime which will be fully investigated within the full framework of the law to ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice. president putin immediately handed down all instructions and is ensuring special control over this investigation. >> ifill: a woman who was with nemtsov when he was shot, said today she did not see the gunman. secretary of state john kerry held a tense hour-plus meeting with russian foreign minister lavrov today, in geneva. kerry complained last week that russians have lied to his face about their actions in ukraine. today's meeting came as the u.n. human rights office announced more than 6,000 people have been killed in eastern ukraine since april.
back in this country, fatal police shootings are drawing new attention today. cell phone video showed los angeles officers wrestling a homeless man to the ground before shooting him sunday. they said he grabbed for an officer's gun. in cleveland, the mayor apologized for a court filing in the killing of tamir rice last november. the documents blamed the 12- year-old, who was carrying a pellet gun, for causing his own injury. and at the white house, a task force called today for independent investigations in all such cases. >> we have a great opportunity, coming out of some great conflict and tragedy, to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations, so that everybody feels safer and our law enforcement officers feel, rather than being embattled feel fully supported.
>> ifill: there was also word the justice department will accuse police in ferguson missouri, of longstanding racial bias in traffic stops. "the new york times" reported investigators found the resulting animosity erupted when a white policeman killed an unarmed black teen last august. senator barbara mikulski, the longest-serving woman in congress, announced today she won't seek reelection in 2016. the maryland democrat was elected to the house of representatives in 1976. she entered the senate in 1987. mikulski is now 78. in baltimore today, she said it came down to her hopes for the final two years of her current term. >> i had to ask myself this question: who am i campaigning for? am i campaigning for me or am i campaigning for my constituents? i had to decide how i would spend my time-- fighting for my job or fighting for their job? do i spend my time raising money or do i spend my time raising
hell? >> ifill: mikulski has been a vocal advocate on issues from equal pay for women to protecting the environment. house speaker john boehner came under new pressure over homeland security funding. democrats urged a vote on a "clean" bill, minus provisions aimed at the president's immigration policies. boehner's office declined to rule it out. last week dozens of republicans rejected a three-week funding bill, so congress passed a one- week measure. it expires friday. and on wall street, the nasdaq composite index reached a milestone that it last hit 15 years ago, before the dot-com bubble burst. the index gained 44 points, to finish above 5,000 for the first time since 2000. the dow jones industrial average gained more than 150 points. and the s&p 500 added 13. still to come on the newshour. how american jews view prime minister netanyahu's visit to washington. the supreme court considers who
has authority to redraw voting districts. the high costs of health care if the supreme court outlaws federal tax credits. amy walter and nia malika- henderson on the week ahead in politics. and, novelist richard price on his new crime thriller "the whites." >> ifill: israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu sought today to ease strains over his plans to speak to congress tomorrow. but he also said he has a moral obligation to criticize a potential nuclear deal with iran. he spoke to aipac, the american israel public affairs committee, meeting in washington. >> reports of the demise of the israeli-u.s. relationship are not just premature, they are just wrong. >> ifill: it was the eve of his speech to congress, at the
invitation of republicans, and the israeli leader was at pains to play down divisions with the white house. >> my speech is not intended to show any disrespect to president obama or the esteemed office that he holds. the prime minister who was invited to go to capitol hill by house speaker john boehner emphasized he and the administration are polls apart when it develops to negotiating with iran. >> i plan to speak about an iranian >> i plan to speak about an iranian regime that is threatening to destroy israel, that is devouring country after country in the middle east, that is exporting terror throughout the world, and that is developing as we speak, the capacity to make nuclear weapons-- lots of them. american leaders worry about the security of their country. israeli leaders worry about the
survival of their country. >> ifill: as netanyahu spoke, secretary of state john kerry was in geneva, where he and iran's foreign minister javad zarif resume talks tomorrow. today, kerry cautioned against publicly discussing what he called "selective details"... >> i want to say clearly that doing so would make it more difficult to reach the goal that israel and others say they share in order to get a good deal. israel's security is absolutely at the forefront of all of our minds, but frankly, so is the security of all the other countries in the region, so is our security in the united states. >> ifill: president obama opted not to attend this year's aipac gathering, or to send the vice president or kerry. instead, he sent u.n. ambassador samantha power. this afternoon, he told the reuters news service that his commitment to israel remains strong.
he called the address to congress a distraction. >> as a matter of policy, we think it's a mistake for the prime minister of any country to come to speak before congress a few weeks they're about to have an election. it makes it look like we are taking sides. >> ifill: netanyahu's appearance also underscored fault lines within the american jewish community. today, the american jewish magazine released this ad claiming most american jews support president obama's approach to iran. while over the weekend the emergency committee for israel took aim at president obama in this video ad. >> president obama is holding secret talks with iran, even as iran threatens to wipe israel off the map. >> the prime minister of israel! >> ifill: the last time netanyahu spoke to congress was in may, 2011. this time, 30 democrats have said they will not attend tomorrow's speech.
so how do american jews view the controversy surrounding the speech of prime minister netanyahu? for that we get two views. jeremy ben-ami is the founder and president of j-street, a pro israel and liberal political action committee. and david harris is the executive director of the american jewish committee, a pro-jewish advocacy organization. we heard the president call this whole discussion about whether netanyahu should speak to congress a distraction. what is your view on what is the source of all this friction? >> well, the friction is actually over a question of policy because i think that the president and the united states and most of the american-jewish community are in line with the prime minister and all of israel in the end goal which is to ensure that iran does not develop a nuclear. but the question is what is the best way to get there and the president believes it's through negotiated compromise that is
worked out with the international community that limit's iran's capacity to enrich and gradually reduces sanctions with very intrusive regime and he believes that's the way to go. the source of the friction is the prime minister has a different view hand has come here two weeks before his own election working with the republican party in a way that undermines traditional bipartisannen cooperation and that is ant good thing for the u.s.-israel relationship. >> ifill: david harris, was that a mistake? >> well, i think the real issue today is not whether it's a mistake or not that the prime minister is in washington. the real question is what is he going to say tomorrow? what is his information on the deal. i met with him two weeks ago in his office in jerusalem and he felt the deal would be catastrophic and life-threatening for the state of israel and he felt he had the obligation to come. he said the timing wasn't meant to be connected to the elections
but rather the fact that the deadline is march 24 for the framework agreement, so he felt he had no choice but to come now to make his case to the congress. he wanted to do it in a bipartisan spirit. more than 90% of the members of congress of both parties plan to be there as of now, and then let's judge what he says. i wouldn't pre-judge what he says, though at this point. >> ifill: jeremy ben-ami, is that the tension we are all chronicling closely it's almost soap opera proportions. is this really about tensions between president obama and prime minister netanyahu or does it speak to something more fundamental happening within the u.s.-israeli relationship? >> actually, neither one. i don't think it's just a personal issue and i don't think it's really fundamental to the relationship between the countries. what i do think is that you have a right of center world view in the party that netanyahu heads and much of the government
israel holds it's in line with the republican world view of how to deal with threats, how to deal with iran and other threats in the region that is different from the world view that president obama and much of the democratic party in this country have and folks on the central left in israel have. so there's actually a very real policy disagreement here that is not just about iran, it can be translated as well into the israeli-palestinian conflict and the broader israeli-arab conflict. it's a legitimate disagreement, it should be discussed and debated and we're going to have to find a way to work through the disagreement while not hurting the fundamental relationship. >> ifill: david harris governor scott walker one of the many republicans running for president, wrote a story for national review magazine today in which he said the u.s.-israeli relationship is in crisis. do you agree or disagree with that? >> well, i think, first of all, the issue is not just the world view, it's the geographical divide. it's about where israel is
situated and where america is situated and eve to look at that first gwen. israel is sitting in the tumultuous middle east that since the so-called arab spring has become even more chaotic and more destructive. israel is facing the country iran that openly calls for its destruction. so the fact that the prime minister would come should be seen in that context. he's worried about the neighborhood, he's worried about the fact that iran or iranian proxies he says now are in gaza in lebanon, in syria, on the heights and worried about the grumbling of the middle east. he's iran asserting power extending its reach and building nuclear weapons capability. in that context he says the jewish state faces potential destruction and we can't outsource the discussions with iran to other countries that won't take our views necessarily into account as we feel they should be. so i think it's not just about world views, it's about
geographical location. >> ifill: but does that put a strain on the israeli-u.s. relationship to agree it's in crisis or is this just a disagreement we'll get past? >> i think it's axe actually the latter because if one takes the longer view and i think prime minister netanyahu said it earlier today at the apec conference, trive have been other disagreements between the united states and israel going back to 1948, with each president there has been a moment of not just december agreement but crisis with both democrats and republicans yet the relationship has gotten stronger. so i'm confident that despite the very open difference on this issue, it's about policy, not politics or personalities, and the relationship will endure because it's in both countries' interest for that relationship to endure. >> ifill: jeremy ben-ami something similar to what the president had to say when speaking to reuters today.
are both sides stepping back from the brink and we heard samantha power make the same kind of statement, do you think they're stepping back from what could have been an explosive situation? >> i think if there is a deal reached in the coming two to three weeks -- and we don't know, you know, the administration says it's perhaps a 50/50 shot that they can actually get to an agreement -- but if there is an agreement, the dispute that we're in the middle of here is going to be elevated to historic popro-russian. i don't know that there's been a fight in the congress and in the senate over an issue like this deal on which the government of israel and the government of the united states would be on different sides, and i think that i do believe it is a policy disagreement. i think it is something that reflects the world view of the two leaders and the two camps and i think that it is going to be a very very heated and difficult debate and discussion but one that we need to have in
the voters were seen as cutting edge to reduce partisanship hat resulted in safe seats for the incumbents to the party in power and reduced the number of truly competitive election districts. >> brown: but the state legislature said, no you've gone too far and that's how we ended up in court? >> yes, absolutely again. the issue before the court is whether voters acting through an initiative are really acting as a legislature within the meaning of that word "legislature" in the constitution. >> brown: all right. we've got that clause because
the argument is, as often, right, it's about a word or a clause. >> yes. >> brown: this is the election clause from the constitution. let's put that up. >> okay. >> brown: tell us about what happened here how that played into the argument today. >> former solicitor general paul clement was representing the arizona state legislature and he said that word "legislature" has always been meant to be a representative body from the beginning of the drafting of the constitution until today, and the one thing voters could not do was usurp the state legislature's power, cut them out of the redistricting process permanently, that that violates the elections clause which gives to a representative body the authority to direct the time, place and manner of congressional elections. >> brown: how did that go over with the justices? >> well, it actually went over fairly well with the majority. we're not sure yet. but there was pushback. justice sotomayor said there
wasn't initiativity and ref referendum of the drafting of the constitution, didn't exist. and there are supreme court decisions in other context that look at legislature more broadly as a process, the power of legislating. justice kagan said to mr. clement, there are zillions of laws that have been enacted through initiatives involving elections. for example voter i.d. laws voting by mail, voting by machines. she said wouldn't they all be unconstitutional under the state legislature's view? >> brown: conservative justices arguing more along with the state legislature. >> right. another former solicitor general seth waxman argued there is a broader meeting and said arizona state constitution defines legislature to include the people and two representative bodies, their senate and their house, and it is the process of
legislating that is the definition of legislature. he also pointed to dictionary definitions. he said every dictionary that they've looked at defines it more broadly. justice scalia said to him name he one provision in the constitution that uses the word "legislature" in the way that you use it, and mr. waxman could not say that, but he said the court has never really defined "legislature" one way or the other, and chief justice roberts also pushed back at mr. waxman saying, basically why, if it was to be a broader meaning didn't the drafters just say "by the state" instead of "by the legislature"? >> brown: are there implication force other states, for other laws? >> absolutely. california has a commission very much like arizona's and two former republican governors are supporting the a- commission. they have been -- the arizona
commission. they have been pleased with the outcome. there are about 11 states with something similar but not quite as arizona has done cutting the legislature completely out of the redistricting process. >> was there any discussion about the implications of gerrymandering or just the process. >> the process. the supreme court pretty much washed its hand of trying to decide if partisan germanderring violates the constitution. this was seen as one of the few checks on partisan gerrymandering. >> reporter: marcia coyle, "national law journal." >> my pleasure. >> ifill: on wednesday, the court will hear oral arguments in a case that goes to the heart of the affordable care act. at issue is whether the law bars the federal government from subsidizing health plans in the 34 states that rely on the federal health insurance exchange. the health care coverage of more than eight million people rides
on the decision. special correspondent sarah varney begins our report in north carolina. this story was produced in collaboration with kaiser health news. >> reporter: it's been a bitterly cold winter in the blue ridge mountains for julia ray and 13-year-old son charles. >> did you drink your coffee already? >> yes. >> reporter: but despite the punishing weather, 2015 is looking good. ray has finally been able to afford the insulin and other medications she needs to keep her diabetes under control. she's a self-employed auditor who relies on a $400 a month government subsidy to afford the private health plan she bought on mac.gov. before the affordable care act made tax credits available to low and moderate income workers, ray was uninsured. back then just one of her diabetes medications cost $320. >> during that time, i had no insurance, and i really just
wasn't taking my medicine, and there were times when my sugars and things would get up to 600. i remember getting to a point where the ambulance had to take me in because i was pretty much in a diabetic shock kind of situation. >> thank you for this chance to give us life -- >> reporter: since january 2014, ray has had steady insurance paying just $30 a month while her son was covered by medicaid. treating her diabetes has improved her vision and numbness in her feet. alt age 48, she finally got a mammogram. she's watching the latest legal challenge to the affordable care act with growing anxiety. in north carolina nine out of ten people who buy health insurance off the exchange use subsidy. if they lose the subbed diand drop the insurance insurance markets like north carolina will fall into disarray. as a snowstorm bore down on duke
university, donald taylor, associate professor of public policy, considered what would happen in north carolina if the court struck down the subsidies. >> you can imagine someone paying $100 a month and always of a sudden it's $415 a month which would be the average impact when you can imagine some people will stop paying. further, you would imagine the ones who didn't stop paying would be the ones the sickest who need the insurance the most and when you only have the sick people enrolled that's when you have what's called death spiral. >> reporter: that would likely happen across the country say healthcare economists. in 34 states the insurance market places are entirely run by the federal government because state lawmakers opted not to set up their own. if the court wipes out financial help for those shoppers the number of uninsured is expected to rise by 44%. the fallout one heavily concentrated in the south. estimates show that of those who could become uninsured, +*6 2%
live in uninshared states and 70% are white. court ratchers say the fact that the justices agreed to hear this case which many legal schorls considered a travial statutory flaw shows renewed interest by court conservatives to up end the health law. >> reporter: michael can, director of health policies at the cato cato institute, and others who dissected law after passagenote add six-word phrase that said financial assistance would be available to those who bought health plans through an exchange established by the state. >> what this case is about is about the latest and most dangerous in a long line of false promises the president obama has made about obamacare and this is not just a false promise, it's also an illegal one. >> reporter: the internal revenue service concluded congress never end inted to limit subsidies to slopers only in state exchanges and wanted to
make them available in all stainchts a colleague and i flew whisting on this and complained the administration had no authority to do this. we found out this was an intentional feature of the law that if president was trying to rewrite. >> it was totally wrong. i think the letter of the law when you read the entire law says that these credits were to be available to everybody, whatever exchange they were in. >> reporter: congressman sandy leven is a democrat from mi to chaired the ways and means committee during the passage of the health law. he says there was never a debate about restricting the subsidies. >> even those who objected to the law never raised that. what the opponents are trying to do is to look for any hook they can find and the court should not allow them to find a hook that isn't in existence that would tear apart the entire law. >> in raleigh north carolina that is exactly what anna bevin
bradley hopes will happen. bradley is a community activist at north carolina family action, a conservative political group. now 26 years old she's had to buy insurance on her own for the first time this year and shocked by the cost. >> it's one thing to have pay monthly for cable or netflix or hulu plus or a gym membership because you're getting something out of that. i feel like i'm not really getting anything out of my virtually $200 a month. this is power from last month's and this is this month's and working to get them down in cost to be able to pay for some of the things we really care about. >> reporter: bradley says she rarely visits a doctor and doesn't want the added benefits the law requires insurers to offer like mental health and maternity coverage. she hopes the supreme court declares north carolinans ineligible for financial
assistance. >> i think that will help a lot of people understand the true cost of h healthcare and what this does how it's driving up costs, it's increasing the burden on middle class families, on individuals like me who just want to have a plan that fits them and where they are in their life. >> i would be in poor shape to take care of my son. >> reporter: more than 4 hours west in the blue ridge mountains, julia ray says health insurance was plenty expensive before the health law and preexisting conditions like her diabetes weren't covered. >> i want to be able to go out and buy insurance and to have insurance at a workplace and i try to do so but when they come back with figures like $800 a month, that is not logical. it's half of what i bring in. i need the subsidy. this is what makes me be able to subsist, and it's just no way i could function without it. >> reporter: avenue the court hears all arguments wednesday a
decision is expected by the end of june. for pbs "newshour", i'm sarah varney in north carolina. >> ifill: we're looking ahead to a big and potentially unpredictable week in politics. what better time, then, for politics monday, with amy walter of "the cook political report" and nia malika-henderson of "the washington post." we heard john boehner on "face the nation" yesterday say things were a little messy friday which is kind of an understatement but we also heard him blame it on democrats. let's listen to what he said. >> the house is a rambunctious place. we have 435 members, a lot of members with different ideas about what we should and shouldn't be doing. >> can you lead those members? i think so. i'm not going to suggest it's easy because it's not. but remember what's causing. this it's the president of the united states overreaching --
>> ifill: it's the president's fault, not surprising he would say that. this afternoon he had another small setback, he tried to get the senate and house to get together and meet and agree to move forward on this and they rejected -- the senate democrats rejected it again. >> ifill: we knew john boehner would have at least 30 or 40 folks who were going to be against him almost at any turn, anything they saw as sort of helping democrats helping the president, compromising with the president, and i think they're digging in even more now because they see that they have a president at least on this issue that they feel like is on the ropes the court had made a decision that they think justifies their action and what we always seem to come up with as an answer in the segment is the fact that there are really ultimately no consequences for bad behavior in the house. these guys sit in such safe districts that they are -- if it shuts down, if it doesn't shut down, they don't think it's
going to impact their prospects. >> ifill: but are there internal political consequences to john boehner and his speakership? >> possibly. i think we saw him lose 25 votes this time when he was up for speaker. >> ifill: lost 52 on this one. yes. you said he always had trouble with 30. it was 52 this time. i think he'll survive. i think he's more bruised and battered than he's ever been. this issue is about immigration and about hispanics, right. in so many ways, the republican party has struggled with this voting block. sure, it's about whether or not to shut town the government but i think a lot of people see this as republicans once again really not heeding the sort of larger story about their demographics problem. >> ifill: the "wall street journal" known as the most liberal editorial page in america called this a
self-defeating rebellion. so is there any sign of any kind of backing away from this kind of rebellious behavior? >> again, i spent part of my weekend with a group called the club for growth. these are fiscal conservatives, a lot of members who came down to speak to this group and a lot of them basically had the message they got was we need to dig in even harder because the leader is not leading. we need to take it to the president, as you saw speaker boehner say, we need to put the blame back where it belongs on the president, on democrats, and ii think nia is right, the bigger problem for republicans is this party cannot figure out a way to deal with immigration, and if they're going to win in 2016 they have got to figure out a way to win over voters that aren't white. >> ifill: is there a true party split or are we just dancing around it? >> no, i think this is a true party split and i think this is certainly an example of that. also, i think you hear a lot of
people thinking if there were hopes for things getting done in the house and the senate, doesn't look like things are going to get done. also, republicans very much came in saying listen, we'll prove to everyone we can govern, right? and so far if you look back tallet the weeks of what they have been able to do, it's not much. >> ifill: i'll ask you about something we talked about a few moments ago the visit tomorrow of prime minister netanyahu to capitol hill. we talked about the the politics in israel, in the american-jewish community, how about the internal politics on capitol hill if a couple dozen people don't show up to the speech tomorrow? >> i don't know it will have long-lasting repercussion bus just a latest example of polarization of congress where you have democrats saying this is absolutely the wrong thing to do, first of all for the speaker to have invited him, and this is setting a cerebral precedent and the other interesting thing is you do have a split in the democratic party, this is one of those rare instances, support for israel where you have some
liberal members who will be, say they're supportive of israel, they're also going to see a palestinian view as well. >> ifill: where are democrats? sitting on the sidelines watching smugly waiting to see how it turns out? >> sure. i think the people who don't want to wait on the sidelines are donors who really want to see her get in there. some of the super pacs are saying we have to get her in here in april because we are looking at a need to raise $1 billion. so i think it's interesting, she obviously doesn't want to get in this early because who does. but there is all sorts of chatter among donors in the super pac saying get in. also, she's had a difficult week. there have been so many things that the clinton foundation is going through and she has to get
out there. >> ifill: she can defend herself without being "out there," right? >> a lot of people say the exact same thing which is not only do you want to let the republicans fight amongst themselves, why would you want to get into this mix now? the other is if you get in, quloin get in, you're gosh when you get in -- if you get in when you get in you're hillary clinton and there can't be a mistake because the expectations are so high. if you get out early, get ahead of the supply line, so to speak there will be a real problem. >> and you have to comment on everything that comes up. >> ifill: one final thing, the surprise announcement the longest serving woman in the senate will not run again. tell me, what's your sense about
it? >> 1986. i remember in 1992 when i started covering politics, she was the only democratic woman in the senate, yet diane feinstein coming in later. she was the first woman elected in her own right as a democrats to the united states senate in 198 +*6 and for some people that was a long time ago. >> not that long ago. w seeing the number of women that are there. >> she was also one on emily's list, one of the people they endorse and this is a group waiting for hillary now. >> ifill: nia-malika henderson, amy walter see you next monday. >> weyes. >> ifill: we'll be back with best selling author richard price on his latest crime novel. but first, it's pledge week on pbs. this break allows your public
television station to ask for your support. an >> ifill: now, a novel about old tragedies and new crimes. jeff is back to introduce you to what's on the newshour bookshelf. >> brown: they're the criminals who get away with something awful and become an obsession for the police officers first assigned to the case. richard price calls these men "the whites," after the great white whale in "moby dick." and it's the name of his new novel. price is well-known for his eight previous novels as well as for screenplays for films and tv including "the wire." here, he writes under the pseudonym, harry brandt. welcome to you. >> thank you. >> brown: we'll get to the pseudonym business later. first, let me ask you, why police stories? what's the fascination for you? >> well, because -- i don't write police stories per se but areas that are panoramic, like harlem, the lower east side or a
small urban city like jersey city, and i found the best way to navigate that big panoramic landscape so it doesn't look like a travel log is latch on to a crime indicative of the tensions in the area and follow the investigation. investigations are chronological, orderly and they bring in everybody -- witnesses, family, the housing projects where both the victim and the perp live the yuppy -- >> brown: when you say indicative, you are looking at something larger? >> i'm looking for something to show the shifting tectonic plates in a place that if it's being gentrified. if an encounter takes place that involves something violent
between the two and if i follow the investigation, it's my spine to an amore fuss big amoeba of geography. >> brown: how concerned are you to get the details right? i read things about research spending time with police officers. but at some point you throw it all aside and just write? >> i won't take copious notes, but i'll always take notes, but when i go home i look at them and they're on steno pads and i can't remember if i wrote like this or like that and it's illegible. then after a year, i figured whatever i don't remember wasn't worth it. whatever was important to me, i don't need to look up in my notes. >> brown: the idea of the whites is a an obsession a lot of cops get with a case they couldn't solve. and you write about a group of young police officers and even as they age some out of the police force are still obsessed.
this was a rich vein for you to tell different kinds of stories? >> it's a phenomenon i discovered. i started out hanging out with a detective squad in 1986 to write sea of love, the alpacino movie. the first guy i met had an obsession with the highway shooting outside a university where two students were killed and no one ever caught him and he was obsessed. he was going off into retirement with this case. now, he's in an area where there is so many more bloody crimes with so many more victims yet this case somehow spoke to something in his gut that he couldn't get rid of it, and the more i hung out with detective squads, the more there was always one guy or two guys or a woman who had a case that they were the primary on years ago, it was never solved, and they take that case into their retirement, they'll go home, drink a couple of beers, go
through files they stole and they'll call up relatives from upstate new york or, you know, nobody interviewed the coffee guy that served coffee to the guy we know as shooter. >> brown: so back story and back story and layered kinds of stories. >> but i love personalness and the mystery of why this crime and detective responded. it's like malaria. the obsession comes and goes till the day they die. i>> brown: richard price writing as harry brandt. did you want to write not as you but then you were you? >> what you said. >> brown: yeah? i originally wanted to write a book that was going to be purely genre unlike my other books that were, like, you know barbell weights. i wanted to write a straight-up
urban thriller, what you see is what you get, and all you care about is who did what to do. you establish the characters and you just go -- and what was supposed to be a back up job turned out to be a four-year obsession of my own. i regret i took a pen name, it's kind of confusing. at the time, i had my own reasons. and by the time ill realized i didn't want the pen name, it was too late. >> brown: makes pore a good story. >> it do it do. >> brown: we'll continue the conversation online. i'll invite the audience to join us there later. richard price, writing as harry brandt, "the whites." thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> ifill: finally, to our "newshour shares" of the day. something that caught our eye that might be of interest to you, too. tonight, classic rock like you've never heard it before.
a group of pint-sized percussionists have become stars in their own right after uploading their rehearsal of a led zeppelin medley to youtube. the video took off after zeppelin guitarist jimmy page posted it on facebook, saying it was "too good not to share." the children are all part of the "louisville leopard percussionists," a kentucky- based non-profit that provides extracurricular music education to local children aged 7 to 14, at little or no cost. here they play zeppelin hits on a variety of percussive instruments, including a multitude of xylophones. listen and see if you can name that tune. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ >> ifill: bringing led zeppelin to a whole new generation. again, the major developments of the day. israeli prime minister netanyahu sought to tamp down tensions over his speech to congress tomorrow, even as he condemned nuclear talks with iran. in response, president obama said relations with israel remain strong, but he said "it's a mistake" to address congress so close to the israeli elections. and, iraqi security forces launched a new offensive against tikrit, now held by islamic state fighters. on the newshour online: thirty- five years after the iran hostage crisis, ill will between the u.s. and iran echoes still hovers over the two countries' nuclear negotiations in geneva. on a reporting trip last year we were able to take a rare look inside the former u.s. embassy in tehran where 52 americans were held for fourteen months.
we have a photo gallery that depicts the eerie scenes frozen in time and other oddities that are now on display in what's been converted to a museum. find that on our website, pbs.org/newshour. and that's the newshour for tonight. on tuesday, we talk with the director and producer of "the hunting ground," a new documentary that explores rape on college campuses. i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:
>> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your life and become you're own chief life officer. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc
herera. nasdaq 5000 almost 15 years to the day. the index closes above that key level. but this time around it's different. life after buffett on the 50th anniversary of the helm of birkshire hathaway. who may be next in line to succeed him. "nightly business report" for monday march 2nd. good evening, everyone. welcome to march. it was a long road back but the nasdaq once synonymous with the dotcom bubble climbed above the 5,000 level for the first time in almost 15 years, march of 2000 to be exact. only the third time by the way, that the nasdaq composite index has closed above that symbolically significant number 5,000. it was a record day, by