tv PBS News Hour PBS July 29, 2016 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, the race for the white house officially shifts gears to the general election, with both tickets set and both conventions behind us. plus, digging up london's history while reshaping the iconic city's look for the future. >> what we found was a roman road crossing right across the station construction site, and alongside that roman road, a burial ground. >> woodruff: and, mark shields and david brooks consider the biggest convention moments, and look at the campaign that lies ahead. all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour.
charge of your financial future. >> md anderson cancer center. making cancer history. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs
station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: with their national conventions in the rear view mirror, the presidential candidates head out on the road to target states that could go either way, and help determine the election outcome. correspondent lisa desjardins begins our coverage. >> reporter: the newly minted democratic ticket made its first post-convention campaign stop at temple university-- just minutes from last night's political party. >> what better place to kick off this campaign than right here in philadelphia? >> reporter: for three days, the maiden bus tour will wind through the rust-belt battlegrounds of pennsylvania and ohio. clinton will be joined by her husband bill, as well as running mate tim kaine and his wife, ann. >> i can't think of an election that is more important certainly in my lifetime, and it's not so much that i'm on the ticket, it
is because of the stark choice that is posed to america in this election. >> reporter: today was about november; last night was about history, as clinton became the first woman to accept a major party's presidential nomination. for many of her supporters it was an emotional night. >> it's a trailblazer kind of moment for me. it kind of tells me that i can be anything that i want to be when i grow up-- just put in some hard work and dedication. >> reporter: countering that narrative was republican donald trump, who launched a barrage of tweets this morning, including: "crooked hillary clinton mentioned me 22 times in her very long and very boring speech. many of her statements were lies and fabrications!" later this afternoon, he spoke at a campaign rally in colorado springs. >> i watched last night, i watched hillary clinton. what a sad, what a sad situation.
and i watched her last night giving a speech that was so average. >> reporter: on this first official day of the general election fight, there are new concerns today over political cyber-security. reuters reported today the computer network used by the clinton campaign was hacked. also today, the democratic congressional campaign committee, a group focused on the house of representatives, today said its computers have been hacked. the f.b.i. is investigating and said the breach resembles an earlier cyber attack on the democratic national committee. that intrusion revealed emails in which party officials privately berated clinton's primary opponent, bernie sanders. clinton's team has said the hack reveals a problem with trump-- and his relationship with russia, who intelligence experts suspect of being responsible. trump himself denies involvement. he did publicly ask russia to find emails missing from clinton's private email server, but he insists those remarks
were sarcastic. in an interview on cnn this morning, clinton's running mate called the remarks "ignorant." >> and when donald trump is basically trying to encourage them to do it with respect to the u.s. election, i think an awful lot of people will see that and say that that is temperamentally disqualification for the office. >> reporter: it is a first volley in a campaign where national security promises to loom large. for the pbs newshour, i'm lisa desjarsdins. >> woodruff: from the campaign trail to a major legal decision in a swing state-- a federal appeals court today struck down a north carolina law requiring voters to show certain forms of identification at the polls. it determined the legislation was passed with "racially discriminatory intent." we will take a closer look at today's decision, and its effect, right after this news summary. in the day's other news, the governor of florida said his state likely has the first local zika outbreak in the continental u.s. mosquitoes are transmitting the virus in two miami-area counties.
so far, four people-- one woman and three men-- have been infected. governor rick scott announced the "homegrown" zika outbreak this morning. >> now that florida has become the first state to have a local transmission, likely through a mosquito, we will continue to put every resource available to fighting the spread of zika in our state. if it becomes clear that more resources are needed, we will not hesitate. >> woodruff: over 1,650 zika infections have been reported across the u.s. but up until now, they've been linked to travel outside the u.s. mainland. six more state officials in michigan have been charged with misconduct and neglect in flint's water crisis. investigators found employees in the state's health and environmental departments hid or manipulated evidence of dangerous lead levels in the city's tap water. michigan's attorney general announced the new charges today at a news conference in flint. >> each of these individuals attempted to bury or cover up,
to downplay or hide information that contradicted their own narrative and their story. and their story was, there's nothing wrong with flint water, and it was perfectly safe to use. in essence, these individuals concealed the truth, and they were criminally wrong to do so. >> woodruff: nine michigan public officials are now facing prosecution for their roles in the tainted water crisis. today, investigators insisted they're "working their way up" in the probe. in syria, three airstrikes hit a maternity hospital supported by the charity "save the children." it was located in an opposition- held area in idlib province. at least two people were killed. the bombing followed an overnight u.s.-led coalition airstrike that killed 28 civilians in an islamic state- controlled village elsewhere in the north.
turkey's president recep tayyip erdogan said today he'll drop all lawsuits against hundreds of people charged with insulting him. erdogan also lashed out at western powers for not showing solidarity with turkey in the wake of a failed military coup earlier this month. pentagon officials denied the u.s. played any role in supporting the coup. the international organization for migration today confirmed a dramatic surge in deaths among migrants attempting to cross the mediterranean. it reported more than 3,000 migrants and refugees have died so far this year. that is a 60% increase in deaths over the same period last year. in poland, pope francis paid a visit to the former nazi death camp at auschwitz today. the pontiff spent much of his pilgrimage in quiet contemplation, honoring the more than a million victims who died there during the holocaust. he also met with several survivors, and christian poles who rescued jews.
his only public comment was a message written in the site's guest book, saying "lord, forgive so much cruelty." stocks were mixed on wall street today, after a worse-than- expected g.d.p. growth report. the dow jones industrial average lost 24 points to close at 18,432. the nasdaq rose seven points, and the s&p 500 added three. for the week, both the dow and the s&p 500 were down a fraction of a percent. the nasdaq rose more than 1%. still to come on the newshour: north carolina's voter i.d. law requirement struck down; new developments in the hack against the democratic party; a look back at the best moments from the republican and democratic conventions, and much more. >> woodruff: now, another major ruling about voting laws that could impact the upcoming
election. a federal appeals court today struck down several of north carolina's voting laws, ruling they were intentionally designed to discriminate against black voters. william brangham has the latest. >> brangham: before we get to the ruling, a bit of background. three years ago, the g.o.p.- controlled legislature in north carolina changed the voting rules in their state. they passed stricter voter i.d. requirements, and cut back on things like early voting and same-day voter registration. those were reforms democrats had put in place years before. but today's ruling by the fourth circuit court of appeals said that those changes discriminated against black voters. the court said "the new provisions target african americans with almost surgical precision," and that these voting rules "impose cures for problems that did not exist." joining me now to wade through the implications of all this is kareem crayton. he is a visiting professor of law at vanderbilt university. professor crayton, thank you. this is a very sweeping ruling by the court today.
the court basically argued that the state of north carolina intentionally discriminated against voters. i mean, that's a pretty rare finding, isn't it? >> that's true. in the modern era, most of these cases get litigated under a concern about the effects of the law whether they were disproportionately affecting ont so far to say that the purposes for which this law was adopted were those that prohibited -- were prohibited by law, that they were racially discriminatory and targeting african-americans in a way the law doesn't permit. >> brangham: what was it specifically that the court found so troubling? >> well, there were a number of circumstances under which this law was adopted that raised some serious sus -- suspicions. first, the adoption of the law on the heels of shelby county versus holder, supreme court ruling, which had a number of protection discriminations for african-americans, and north carolina quickly rushed
through the statute. in addition to that, the legislature had information in front of it identifying avenues for participation that african-americans disproportionately tended to take advantage of, and when you look at the kinds of things that the new law prescribed or restricted, they really cleverly matched up with those areas and those avenues that african-americans used more often than not. and i think the select tift of these restrictions ultimately raised the specter of discriminatory intent. so taking all that into account in addition to the fact that north carolina has a pretty long history of discrimination -- with respect to race and the court found nor recent evidence of discrimination in redistricting cases, this court was willing to say there was a pretty strong claim that the purposes for this statute were some of the same considerations what were behind the 14th amendment's prohibition of assuring that states shouldn't take race into account in creating new laws. >> brangham: supporters in north carolina of these laws say
this had nothing to do with racial discrimination, they were trying to target, they said, voter fraud. you lived in north carolina and taught there for a while. was voter fraud a problem in north carolina? >> well, the problem with that argument is that i tend to do work based on evidence and data and there was no data available to the legislature showing voter fraud was that kind of consideration that was actually meriting some sort of regulation, or they hadn't uncovered any evidence that voter fraud was a problem to be solved. to the extent there was voter fraud, there is actually evidence that members to have the legislature had engaged in voter fraud and none of that in some ways was regular laid. the stuff they seemed to be going after was sort of the specter, the illusion of voter fraud as opposed to the actual evidence of voter fraud, and that's also another factor that influenced the court's analysis in this case. >> brangham: north carolina isn't the only state around the
nation currently changing voting laws. why do you think we're seeing such an uptick in a sudden reformation of voting laws nationwide is this. >> well, i think one of the considerations is a lot of the legislatures after 2010 changed hands. the rep -- republicans were effective at win ago lot of races in off years when turnout is lower. in north carolina, a purple state, the legislature recognizes that in statewide contests, every vote tends to make a difference and, so, from a partisan perspective, the court even recognized there might be an advantage to be had by republicans limiting populations that tipped to vote for democrats. what the court in this case said was, even if that's present, it doesn't forgive the targeting of people based on race and that was the offensive part under the analysis of the civi the votings
act in the constitution. >> brangham: if i go to cast my vote in the next election, how does this change anything? >> well, the court was clear that this decision should have immediate effect and, so, while procedurally sometimes you can seek additional review, in this case, the fact that the court had seen such rampant evidence of intent to discriminate, they made sure that this was going to be the law that would apply for the upcoming election. so if you're a voter in north carolina, the law is now that you can proceed to cast ballots without the restrictions that the legislature put on the books in 2013. even if the court -- in d.c., the supreme court were asked to review this case, the time it would take to get through the analysis would not be quick enough to apply to this claim, in most cases. so i think voters can confidently prosaid under the view that -- proceed under the view they won't have the same kinds of restrictions present in 2013 and 2014 because of the
statute. >> brangham: kareem crayton, vanderbilt university school of law, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: we return to the hacking of the democratic national committee. according to reports, u.s. intelligence has high confidence the russian government was behind it. sources close to the investigation told the newshour one of the hackers was also involved in the breach of the democratic congressional campaign committee. and then today's revelations that hillary clinton's campaign was also hacked. we explore how the u.s. government should respond now, with susan hennessey-- she was an attorney in the office of general counsel of the national security agency. she is now a fellow at the brookings institution; and andrew weiss-- he has worked for both republican and democratic administrations as a staffer on
the national security council, in the state and defense departments. he is now at the carnegie endowment for international peace. and we welcome both of you to the "newshour". susan hennessey, let me start with you. before i even ask you about the hacking of the clinton campaign itself, which we just learned about this afternoon, how confident are you that it was the russian government that was behind the hacking into the d.n.c. and the congressional campaign committee? >> when attributing cyberattacks, it's almost impossible to be 100% certain. in this case you are about as certain as you could reasonably expect to be. there were strong technical indicators that emerged as early as june. i'm now hearing the intelligence community has reported to the president high confidence. that's a likely indicator that they found corroborating evidence through other intelligence mechanisms, financial intelligence, human intelligence, so it's a fair
operating assumption there might be room for plausible denight club but it's quite certain. >> woodruff: we're having a little difficulty with your microphone. i'll turn to andrew weiss. how much confidence do you have that it's clearly the russian government behind what we know so far? >> so far this is a fast-moving story and we all need to be cautious because the facts are not out there. yesterday general clapper director of national intelligence said he wasn't prepared to make a call. but everything that dribbled out seems to point to some form of russian government involvement. forensic data dribbled to the press points to comparable attacks that have been attributed to russia in the past several months and the attacks on the d.n.c. and the d.c.c.c. seems to be fitting in the same group of russian actors. >> woodruff: andrew, now that we're seeing the report late this afternoon that the clinton
campaign itself had been hacked, what does that tell you? >> well, about a month or so ago general clapper also pointed to is possibility that foreign governments were trying to hack into the u.s. presidential campaign staffs. so the word has been on the street that this is a very toxic environment and there is a lot of interest in what traditionally people would think is confidential or secret. >> woodruff: susan hennessey, why would the russians do this? i mean, there is a lot of suspicion going around maybe they want to tilt the election one way or the other, what is believed by the people who study these issues all the time? >> there is a lot of different explanations. one is there is reasons why president trump would be more favorable to russian interests. he's indicated positions withdrawing support from n.a.t.o. example, which is a primary truck on global power in the world. the russians have a history with hillary clinton and vladimir putin so they have a reason to oppose her and they have a reason to demonstrate that the u.s. has corruption in elections
of its own. >> woodruff: andrew weiss, what's your sense of motivations behind what the russians are doing is this. >> let's step back a little bit. you remember the past three years ve been a doin' point in russian-u.s. relations and the recommend cline authorized any number of lines of effort, so we've seen cyberattacks in europe, support for populous parties, financial support, political support, cyber intrusions against u.s. allies, we've seen military intimidation, russian jets trying to barrel roll u.s. military planes over the baltics, the process of russian putting pressure on the united states is well established. the question is why were the facts from the d.n.c. leaked publicly? what was the goal and the political motivation? it seems in part to be to create as much confusion and a big as mess as possible to say that an attack that was going back 12 months when the first detection was of russian presence inside
the d.n.c. email servers, today it's been a very complicated election campaign. it's hard to say the russians tactically knew exactly what they were doing. >> woodruff: and susan hennessey that gets to this question of whether the russian government gave it to wikileaks to put it all out there or whether it was stolen and things just got out of hand. >> one thing that's interesting is the initial leaks from the documents were not leaked through wikileaks. they're post-ed on a stand alone site by a hacker. it was this latest emil dump that actually went through wikileaks. there are reasons to believe the russians may have handed it over but there are alternative explanations. >> woodruff: what do you mean reasons to believe the russians may have handed it over. >> there's no evidence a third party breached the d.n.c. or downcreek. so it's a logical inference the documents were in one place when
no one else has them and they wind up in another. it's possible the documents were stolen from the russians themselves or from the d.n.c. by a third party. >> woodruff: what are the options for the u.s. government in response to this? >> f.b.i. director james comey came out recently in the last 24 hours and said he's looking at the possibility of naming the culprit, so this has been something that the u.s. government has done very seldom in the past where they basically try to name and shame and say we can attribute this attack to a state actor, in this case potentially russia. that's been done seldom if the past with regards to china and north korea and would be a very big step. >> woodruff: is that the strongest step the united states culled take? >> certainly not. that's the most basic step they could take. the additional levels of attribution might be the individuals behind the attacks operating in the russian state. so in the past the department
of justice indicted iranian, chinese cyber hackers, so those indictments would be an eas escalation. but there is the full scope of options in terms of how to respond. >> woodruff: naming individuals part of the russian government? >> sure, in imposing financial sanctions against individuals who are suspected or believed to be involved. there is a benefit, an embarrassment of saying we know who that is and putting that out into the public space. >> woodruff: andrew weiss, what are the possible repercussions if the u.s. does not only name and shame but go even further? >> i think we're in a real moment of uncertainty. people think about what's going to happen in this election campaign. you have to think about where will u.s.-russian relations be in three or four months. i have no idea. are we in a spiral or in a possible moment where there could be a worse confrontation of military to military, inadvertent escalatory moment?
so it's a dangerous situation and important for if the pus policy community to evaluate before rushing into anything. >> woodruff: it's a clear that this is a new story as days go by. susan hennessey, andrew weiss, thank you both. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: mark shields and david brooks analyze this week at the democratic national convention; and a building boom that's threatening london's underground history. but first, some of the stand out moments of a wild two weeks at the political conventions. here's a look.
>> as to hillary clinton, charge of putting herself ahead of america, guilty or not guilty? >> lock her up, lock her up! >> if you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution. >> i'm a christian, a conservative and a republican, in that order. >> i have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. nobody knows the system better than me.
which is why i alone can fix it. >> when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military in your command, you can't make snap decisions. you can't have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. you need to be steady and measured and well-informed. >> i have known hillary clinton for 25 years. hillary clinton will make an outstanding president and i am proud to stand with her tonight! >> there are times when i disagree with hillary. but whatever our disagreements may be, i've come here to say: we must put them aside for the good of our country. and we must unite around the
candidate who can defeat a dangerous demagogue. >> think about that. think about everything you learned as a child, no matter where you were raised. how can there be pleasure in saying, "you're fired"? >> hillary clinton and i are compañeros del alma. and we share this basic belief: it's simple, do all the good you can, and serve one another. that's what i'm about. >> if you were sitting where i'm sitting and you heard what i have heard at every dinner conversation, every lunch conversation, on every long walk, you would say, this woman has never been satisfied with the status quo in anything. she always wants to move the ball forward.
that is just who she is. >> we're not a fragile people. we're not a frightful people. our power doesn't come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order as long as we do things his way. we don't look to be ruled. >> i'm michael jordan, and i'm here with hillary. i said that because i know that donald trump couldn't tell the difference. >> donald trump, you are asking americans to trust you with our future. let me ask you: have you even read the u.s. constitution? i will gladly lend you my copy.
>> and most of all, don't believe anyone who says: "i alone can fix it." he's forgetting every last one of us. americans don't say: "i alone can fix it." we say: "we'll fix it together." that's the country we're fighting for. that's the future we're working toward. and so my friends, it is with humility, determination, and boundless confidence in america's promise, that i accept your nomination for president of the united states! >> woodruff: and with that we turn to the analysis of shields and brooks.
that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. so, gentlemen, looking back on those highlights from both cleveland and philadelphia, what does it make you think, mark? >> it makes me think that the democrats -- this is my 24t 24th convention, and i think this was as good a democratic convention as i have seen since the 1976 convention which nominated jimmy carter which he left with a 30-point lead over president ford. i just thought it was a spectacularly successful convention. i don't think hillary clinton's speech was spectacular, but i don't think she's a spectacular speaker. i thought their messages worked and certainly the national security and preempting both faith and country and patriotism from the republicans which had been the republican symbols for so long was effective. >> woo davdruff:? the democrats had the better convention by a long way. it's rarely you see a gap so big, frankly.
they controlled the debate. donald trump tried to set up a globalist vs. nationalist debate and the republicans were going to be the nationalists, but if anything the democrats looked more patriotic and nationalist than the two, so that was a big win. i agree with mark, the whole presentation was powerful. it's funny, maybe just because i'm tired, but the further away you get, the less you know about the convention and it boils down to one thing. for the republican convention, i think of trump's speech and sort of the darkness, the fear of crime, the need for a strong arm, really, so that one core theme. then for the democratic one, i likely think of trump erratic. i think that was the big message that came out. the positive agenda for hillary was a little less vibrant. of the two, i do think right now, at least if my mind, the democratic theme is eclipsing the republican one. the democrats won this volley, i think. >> woodruff: and, mark, we're hearing today the numbers of
people watching the conventions was a little bit higher for the republican convention. how much do these conventions set the stage for the rest of this campaign? i think it's 101 days between now and the election day. >> well, if david and i are right, which is -- >> woodruff: 99% of the time. -- then hillary clinton should get a bounce out of this convention, a bounce in the polls. i think it's probably conceded donald trump got a 3-point bounce out of his conventions, he's closed the gap thatch, and if she doesn't -- i mean, after what was o a good convention, this is when you have the unfiltered message of your party and the candidate to the country, even a slice of the country for four full days, then i think it's some cause for alarm for the democrats. but, you know, i think we're looking at next, judy, is the debate, you know, barring something major, a mishap on one side or a tragedy or a scandal,
i think, you know, we're looking at the debates, because i think that's the kind of race it's going to be. >> woodruff: they don't start till the -- till september and the end of october. do the conventions define the race going forward? >> i think to some degree. now it's my turn to rain on progressive overconfidence because the two-week major speeches for the democrats for the two candidates, not that they weren't bad, at a just weren't up to the level of the bidens, the obamas, the bloombergs, even, so you have two democrats who may be making sense, they're just not vibrant personalities as donald trump. so over the next month until the debates, i expect trump to do what he's done successfully, which like it or not, he will be the dominant player, the one on offense, serving volleys, and may be some weird stuff about
the russians, but he will be controlling things a little more than probably over the last two weeks. >> woodruff: is that the way elections get decided, snark. >> let me just descend a little bit from david. i think donald trump is obviously the more colorful, the more flamboyant, the more dominant personality, but take the russia issue. you open up the convention and you have a report that the democratic party has been hacked by the russian e-mails, the e-mails of the democratic party, which is headline and words that you don't want in hillary clinton's campaign, and donald trump immediately takes the story and basically steps on the advantage he has and said, well, the russians, who am i to tell putin? you know, if the russians ought to come in and continue to hack and find out where the e-mails are -- i mean, i was wrong, it was -- i mean, it was wrong, irresponsible and unhelpful to his canned sivment in a strange way -- there are a couple of thoughts, david reminded me of
this, an awful lot of people ordinarily don't have day-to-day contact with police officers. in both cleveland and philadelphia, the police were enormously impressive. their temperament, to use a word -- >> woodruff: you mean the police in the street? >> i mean the police in the streets. the interaction with the police. they had to be tired, you know, they had a lot of jerks including several in the press, and it was hot, and they had long hours, and they were just so professional and so cool. but it strikes me that it's the competing pronounce that the democrats did effectively. i versus we. it's we the people. donald trump says nobody knows it like me, i can do it, and i think that was a very effective construct in framing this race. >> to pick up on the cops, i hadn't really thought abit, but
we all agree they did such a good job by not being overaggressive. but the political effects of that. donald trump's argument is essentially 1968, the cities are burning. and if something really bad had happened in one of the two cities, that would have underlined the theme, and nothing bad happened. that doesn't mean it's settled, events are in the saddle here. if i.s.i.s. begins a continual series of weird, random attacks around the world, then that doesn't align with the theme. what we have been saying in the last couple of weeks, we're not sure what game we're playing. if you're playing the normal rules, people loving each other, helping each other and being informed about the issues, the democrats are doing well, but if you just want a strong man with no compassion and you just want a toughness, then by those rules, donald trump is going to go a little better.
so we'll figure out what game we're playing. >> woodruff: which is what the democrats are trying to say for four days is we don't need. this we're a strong, good people and we don't need some bully telling us what to do. >> exactly, and the president did that, president obama did. in a strange way, hillary clinton was helped and victimized by mrs. and -- mr. and mrs. obama. >> woodruff: victimized? really? >> well, politically. you were talking about -- i mean, michelle obama was probably better than barack obama. her speech was a masterful speech and she delivered it in a per swaysively conversational tone. you can't say this is a political attack or document. so in a strange way, she's getting compared to -- instead of to donald trump, she's p being compared to joe biden who gave this emotional speech about america and his life and both
obamas -- tim kaine reminds me -- peter hart asked what kind of a neighbor would they be. george w. bush always seemed to be a good friendly neighbor, pick up the newspapers if you were out of town, check your mail. tim kaine is a good neighbor. he's kind of the dependable, you know, friendly, helpful, you know, he would be over to give you a hand if there were a problem at the house. >> woodruff: but does that help hillary clinton? >> it gives hillary clinton -- what they did not address at this convention is hillary clinton's problems of her personality and her secrecy. they tried through testimony. she can't open up herself. she can't be self deprecating, or made the decision not to be. tim kaine kind of gives the
warmer, human face of the democrats. >> if she's elected, this will be an issue and problem. it's important for presidents to emotionally connect both with the country in times of crisis but also people in washington. if you can't emotionally connect, and obama is not the greatest, but he can at least do it, then people won't be with you when the times are hard. there will always p be a distance between you ant the people around you. she can clearly emotionally connect with her independent mats within the zone of trust. it's the wall outside the zone of trust is so impermeable. so i was really struck, every pundit from mark and i on down -- >> woodruff: well, ope on down, i'm sure! (laughter) you guys are right up there. >> everybody is saying show vulnerability, and they must have said that internally, and she's such a private person, she just did not do it. >> woodruff: it almost sounds like you're both saying -- i don't want to use the word "doomed" but that the cake is baked and she's not going to be able to relate and open up.
i mean, donald trump is relating -- >> this was a great opportunity to open up. it was on her terms, it was nonadversarial, it was in her control and she chose not to. i do disagree with david on her versus obama inside in dealing -- i think she would be far superior to president obama who is basically remote, aloof and not involved with -- he doesn't deal with members of congress, and he plays golf every time with three staff members. he never thinks of including a john boehner or anybody else. it was very easy to do. he obviously views golf as his time and that alone. but she showed in the senate that ability to connect and reach across and to forge alliances. i think she'll be better. i think the problem with connecting emotionally with the people remains at large. >> i stand corrected. that's true what he said. >> woodruff: you're getting
back to the point that somebody who is good at governing may not be great at campaigning. >> and the inverse, too. there are people who ar great campaigners who are not -- >> right, and we can certainly point to examples of that. mitch daniels former governor of indiana was an outstanding administrator. i'm saying every candidate comes into the white house assuming if she wins or doesn't, with strengths and weaknesses. this will be a weakness because this was such an easy moment to show some heart. >> woodruff: well, it was just a thrill to spend the last two weeks -- for gwen and peto spend the past two weeks -- >> you couldn't pass a polygraph now. >> woodruff: we just want you to go get sleep this weekend like the rest of us want. thank you and sea you next friday. >> thanks very much. >> woodruff: one of the world's
great cities experiences a building boom above ground, and a "digging" boom below. jeffrey brown reports from london, part of our ongoing "culture at risk" series. >> brown: along london's famous skyline, cranes and towers of all kinds, and hundreds more under construction or in the planning stages. the recent brexit vote may raise new questions about the future, but there's no question that this city has been going through an unprecedented re-shaping. financial times architecture critic edwin heathcote. >> in the center of the city there's never been anything on this scale. and when i say "never," even after the great fire of london, things were only rebuilt to five or six stories. >> brown: yeah, because there's a lot of history here; you mean "never." >> i mean, never! >> brown: in this global financial capital, property prices have skyrocketed, along with the demand to build, and there's no place to go but up.
while heathcote sees individual buildings he likes, he worries about the larger picture. >> now we have a much more generic, globalized city. the architecture is more like chicago or singapore. it is changing in the texture and the architectural language and the materials and the scale. >> brown: but even as this city's future grows skyward, another part of london's story-- its past-- is being explored in a very different direction. below ground. >> if we were standing here on, say, a lovely summer's afternoon in the 1590s, we'd actually be standing on the stage of the curtain playhouse. >> brown: "the curtain" was one of the 16th century theaters where several shakespeare plays, including "romeo and juliet," were first staged. the archeological work here suggests it was originally built within a pre-existing tenement or apartment house, functioned as a playhouse through the golden age of elizabethan theater in the 16th and 17th centuries, and then reverted to
residential use. in other words, like so much of underground london: use and re-use, urban decay and renewal, through layers of history. archeologist heather knight: >> it's not just the archeology of the building we're finding. we're also finding personal objects. things that belonged to people who used this space. so, things like hair combs and, as at my feet, we've got clay tobacco pipes. >> brown: literally, a pipe? can i pick it up? >> go on. i'll let you. this dates from around 1740. i think you're the first person to pick that up in a few hundred years. >> brown: that's pretty cool. >> one of the things we found that we're quite excited about is the bird whistle. in any other context, just a toy. but here, associated with the playhouse-- could it be special
effects for romeo and juliet? where juliet is talking about nightingales and larks. >> brown: the work on "the curtain" is being carried out for the developer of a large new complex called, yes, "the stage," that includes a 37-story residential tower, two office buildings, retail stores and restaurants. once finished, the excavation site itself will be part of the development, open to the public. developer robert allen says the connection to the bard makes this a rare melding of building and archeology. >> that is one of many considerations when you come to do development in london. but the benefit of the archeology, actually, is that it actually can be a positive as well. >> brown: in this case, it's such a positive that you're naming the place "the stage," so it's sort of marketing shakespeare, in a sense. >> yeah, for us, it's as good as it's ever going to get, i think, to be fair. >> brown: protection of historical remains has been required in britain at all construction sites since the
early 1990s. many treasures have been revealed, including the first hand-written document known from britain at the excavations for bloomberg's new european headquarters. the mix of development and archeology isn't always smooth, but in london's largest construction project of all, it was unavoidable. we went deep underground for a look at the enormous "crossrail project," a new 73-mile east- west railway system due to open in 2018, intended to ease london's overcrowded transit system and roads. it's costly and controversial, but it's also led to uncovering more than 10,000 artefacts that span millions of years. jay carver is lead archeologist for crossrail. >> the big challenge for archeology is to integrate with the construction program. that's the biggest risk,
discovering something of complexity that's going to take a long time, and if you weren't ready, prepared for that, there's going to be a big problem for a project like crossrail. >> brown: it's going to be a big problem in terms of, you can't be building until you deal with it? >> that's right. so we spend several years really researching in detail every location where the new railway's going to be constructed and >> brown: here at what will be the new liverpool street station the archeology is completed, but the findings were fascinating. >> a roman road crossing right across the station construction site, and alongside that roman road, a burial ground. quite a macabre one-- several decapitated burials were found. and a large group of skulls, seemingly just on their own. the site was also a burial ground from the 16th to 17th centuries. so we've got a new window, really, on all these lives of londoners of that time, including, without a doubt, some multiple burial grounds that are
probably victims of the great plague. >> brown: and that led to our last stop-- the museum of london archeology, a lab where many of the underground artefacts have been taken for cleaning, drying, proper storage, and study. here we were shown a 1st century roman iron stylus for writing in wax; a third century spearhead; and a fragment of 16th century armor. and then there was this young woman, found in the dirt of the liverpool street station we'd visited. don walker, a human osteologist, or bone specialist, said she'd probably died of syphilis. but she'd lived in the 1600s, a period that saw several major outbreaks of plague, including the great plague of 1665.
d.n.a. from the teeth of skeletons like this can be examined and diseases studied. >> scientists particularly want to know what is the relationship between the black death in the 14th century and these later outbreaks in europe? what is the evolutionary history? because we're not very good at handling or dealing with new outbreaks of different diseases, or re-emerging diseases. you can tell from sars and aids and all these diseases coming up. so the more we can know about the evolution of such diseases in the past, the more we can prepare for the future, perhaps. >> brown: secrets underground that may help us today, even as the grand old city goes through the latest of its changes above. from london, i'm jeffrey brown for the pbs newshour. >> woodruff: finally, another installment in our "brief but
spectacular" series, where we ask interesting people to describe their passions. tonight, we hear from "new york times" political reporter amy chozick, who has been providing the "times" with regular coverage of hillary clinton since her first presidential run in 2008. >> from the outside, you know, it looks like, "oh, you're covering hillary clinton and this is the most exciting news story of the year," and then the reality of the day-to-day is a lot of schlepping around to holiday inn expresses in eating out of your lap in plastic containers on a bus somewhere in ohio, the day-to- day is pretty grueling. not all that glamorous. i had been a foreign correspondent based in tokyo with the "wall street journal," and my editors moved me back to the u.s. and they said, how would you like to cover hillary clinton? and i didn't know what a caucus was, which the clinton people joked with me years later, that "that's okay, they didn't know what a caucus was either." and i saw hillary clinton's arc from thinking, "oh, i'm covering hillary clinton, i'm riding this
to the white house," to all of a sudden seeing her lose to obama and also when she was losing, become a very different type of candidate. less guarded, more willing to communicate with the reporters who traveled with her. just sort of having fun when it looked like she had nothing left to lose. she would do this famous game on the campaign trail and that was rolling oranges down the aisle of the plane-- you know, the press sits in the back and writes a question on the orange and roll it up to the front of the plane and she writes her answers and rolls it back. my editor said, okay, that's enough. we really need you to go be with the obama campaign. and it was such a change for me. i saw him, just, you know, keep a crowd just raptured and my takeaway was that this guy is incredibly charming to a crowd of 50,000 people and hillary is incredibly charming to a crowd of five, you know, and that's been a struggle for her current campaign. it's a pretty historic
phenomenon that this first female nominee of a major party's likely nominee of a major party has a predominantly female press corps covering her. and there's been, like, lots of analysis why that has happened. i don't think we think about it very much, you know, on a day- to-day but it's certainly more female than 2008 or any of the press corps i've seen. writing a tough story about a candidate who you're going to see the next day, whose advisers you're going to be in very close contact with the next day, is inherently awkward. with hillary clinton, i know she takes these things pretty personally, the coverage, but i also always think of her as one of those kids' dolls that you punch and it'll bounce back up. i mean, she has bounced back from so much difficult coverage, whether it's whitewater, monica, i mean, you put decades of coverage and i think that's very much formed her impression of the political media, rightly or wrongly. and i think so, that's not a lot she hasn't seen at this point, my name is amy chozik and this is my "brief but spectacular" take on life on the campaign trail, covering hillary clinton. >> woodruff: you can watch more of our "brief but spectacular" series on our website. www.pbs.org/newshour/brief. also online, artists are rallying behind a poet imprisoned in saudi arabia, raising awareness through twitter and by bringing his work
to larger audiences through translation. you can read about their activism, and more on our web site, www.pbs.org/newshour. and a reminder about some upcoming programs from our pbs colleagues. gwen ifill is preparing for "washington week," which airs later this evening. here's a preview: >> ifill: hello judy. after two weeks on the road, we're back in the home studio with a lot of questions to answer. chief among them: now that it's official, what is this general election race going to look like? will it be a tweet storm? or an old-fashioned bus tour? and, is it the tossup so many pollsters are predicting? and where will it be decided? we'll do our best to tackle it all, tonight on "washington week." judy? >> woodruff: thank you gwen. on pbs newshour weekend, climate refugees right here in the united states. >> sreenivasan: in the past 60 years, 98% of this island has disappeared. this is what it looked like in 1963-- about 11 miles long and
five miles wide. this is what it looks like today-- about two miles long and a quarter of a mile wide. there are multiple causes for the continuing land loss, including decades of oil and gas canals speeding up erosion, and the sinking of the land by three feet in the past century, along with eight inches of sea level rise. one effect? the 60 or so people still living here must move, because the island is becoming uninhabitable. >> woodruff: that's tomorrow night, on pbs newshour weekend. and we will be back, right here, on monday, with a look at the demographic challenges facing a rising china finding its footing on the world stage. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a great weekend. 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 financial future. >> bnsf railway.
>> xq institute. >> md anderson cancer center. making cancer history. >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> 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 captioned by media access g
this is nightly business reporth tyler matheson and sue herera. >> stall speed. the growth of the wind extended in >> crude realities. profits drop sharply at two of the world's largest oil producers as low crude prices challenge big oil. >> big promise, the much hype mart phone not so smart after all? >> good evening, everyone and welcome. the s&p 500 hit an intraday high, but closes just shy of one. when it comes to the economy, there was the economy expanded much less than forecast in the