tv PBS News Hour PBS October 8, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: the ambassador who wasn't there. the white house blocks a key player in the ukraine affair from appearing before lawmakers, as democrats press forward with the impeachment inquiry. then, in what may become a landmark case, the supreme court hears arguments on expanding the workplace rights of l.g.b.t. americans. plus, a conversation with hillary and chelsea clinton, on the strides women have made, and the inveigation into secretary clinton's former political opponent. >> this is no longer just about the crazy stuff he says and does that everybody shrugs out or worries abt.
this is a direct threat to the national security of america. and i think that's what's gotten people's attention. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> consumer cellular offers no-contract wireless plans that are designed to help you do more of the things you enjoy. whether you're a talker, a texter, browser, photographer, or a bit of everything, our u.s.-based customer service team is here to find a plan that fits you. to learn more, go to consumercellular.tv >> bnsf railway. >> 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. >> woodruff: president trump is taking his impeachment battle to the next level. late today, the white house informed congressional democratl that it will not cooperate with their inquiry. that came hours after presidential aides barred a key witness from testifying. congressional correspondent lisa desjardins reports on the day's events. >> desjardins: the day started with a hard stop. >> we were informed about an hour and a half ago by the attorney for ambassador sondland that the state department would refuse to allow him to testify t today. >> desjardins: house intelligence chairman adam schiff announcing a key interview was canceled, with the u.s. ambassador to the e.u., gordon sondland, a potential s witness for both sides. he was among those texting in august about how the president wanted ukraine to launch
specific investigaons of vice president biden and his son, hter, at one point, texting the president "really wants the deliverable." at another, texting another day that the president wanted "no quid pro quo," meaning no attempt to trade aid money for investigatioid. newshour has confirmed that soon before that "no quid pro quo" text, sondland communicated with the president. this morning, the president tweeted that sondland would not testify because the committee is a "kangaroo court," where true facts are not allowed out for the public. his republican allies, like congressman jim jordan, are echoing that message. >> we would encourage adam schiff to run a fair process. >> desjardins: jordan is referring to the handling of other testimony, by u.s. envoy to ukraine kurt volker. republicans say his closed-door testimony backs up the president, andhe public should see a transcript.
but democrats, including schiff, say volker proves their points, and to them, the president is the one refusing to follow the law, by blocking their investigation. today n.hiff and other democrats announced they are subpoenaing sondland, and indicated that blocking his testimony may be an impeachable offense itself. >> the failure to produce this witness, the failure to produce these documents, we consider strong evidence of obstruction of congress, a co-equal branch of government. >> desjardins: here are democrats' options: they can hold sondland or others in contempt, then go to court to try to compel testimony, somethg that often takes years to resolve. or, at some point, democrats could consider it all obstruction and move directly to impeachment.
meantime, republicans in the capitol are making decisions, too. in the senate, trump defender lindsey graham of south carolina today invited the president's attorney, rudy giuliani, to testify to the senate judiciary committee about how he sees corruption in ukraine. on impeachment, the white house and congress are talking about substance, but clearly making strategic decisions about choreography. >> woodruff: and lisa joins me now, along with our white house correspondent, yamiche alcindor. so yamiche, to you first. the white house today blocking ambassador sondland, saying he cannot testify. what does this say about how they plan to handle everything that the congress is trying to do? >> the president is making crystal clear that he does not plan to comply with any document request coming from democrats related to this impeachment inquiry. he's also making it clear that he will block witnesses because he does not think the democrats are going about this fairly. now, i want to read parts of the white house's letter to house democrats that was released just
a couple moments ago. i want to now walk you through what it says. it says that the democrats' impeachment inquiry is "constitutionally invalid and violates basic due process rights and the separation of powers." it also says the inquiry, "seeks to reverse the election of 2016 and the influence the election of 2020." it also says the president did nothing wrong and there is "no legitimate basis for your impeachment inquiry." so the white house is now making the case that the president, if he had due process, would be allowed to cross-examine witness, would be allowed to look at evidence, would be allowed to call his own witnesses. it's also clear that the white house has not decided how it will cooperate and when it will cooperate, because this letter says it stops short of saying the house has to have a floor vote on an impeachment inquiry. i put the question to the white use: what will make you cooperate? if a house did hold a floor vote, would you then provide documents, and the white house said, well, that's a hypothetical issue.
so it's not clear what would make the white house stop blocking witnesses and cooperate. >> woodruff: lisa, we see the administration stonewalling. how are the house democrats responding? >> i'm looking at my phone, because as yamiche is speaking now, i have sources confirm, now it looks like we have the official release that house democrats have issued the subpoena for gordon sondland, our u.s. ambassador to the e.u. so they are getting ready for this fight. democrats have to consider, as we laid out in this report, whether they start moving toward contempt and as we explained, that could be a court process, but also, judy, tonight, i have more democrats saying they are thinking seriously about something called inherent contempt, where congress operates without a court and starts assessing fees to those officials it believes are not cooperating thatch does send out a constitutional collision we have to watch for. another thing to watch for, the next person who is supposed to testify, that is the former ukraine ambassador.
mashayovanovich, there she is. she's set to testify on friday. you would think there is not a chance because of the white house's position, but some democrats are hopeful she will appear. one other note new york all this, we had some news about the mueller report today. i want to show this court ruling that came out today from a court in washington, d.c. this is a court ruling directed at the department of justice to start giving more information to house democrats that they are requesting in the mueller investigation, in some ways scoldinghthe department of justice for withholding some of that information. it's not the bulk that they wanted, but for democrats that's progress. >> woodruff: interesting, because we thought that was in the past, but we see i's still living in so many words. so yamiche, separately, news reports today that the white house has been talking to or even hiring outside legal counsel to help them deal with this impeachment matter. what are we learning about that? >> it look like the white house is starting to develop an
impeachment inquiry plan that's going to be both messaging and a legal strategy. presidents in the past have hired outside legal counsel. we were waiting to see if the white house will do that. now it look like president trump is going to be looking at hiring outside counsel. that's because this is all really deepening. you had today reports that the whistleblower wrote a memo saying that after the call that president trump had with the president of ukraine, that white house officials were visibly shaken and that they thought it was crazy and they were frightened by the fact the president allegedly tried the pressure the president of ukraine to investigate joe biden for his own political gain some what you have there is some firsthand knowledge as well as a memo that's now coming out some the white house is rally trying to figure out how to deal with all of this. on top of all of that, rudy giuliani says he's going to be thinking possibly about taking ken graham up on -- lindsey graham on his offer to testify before the senate. he said he's not decided whether he will do that, but that could be a legal issue that the white house has to have more howyers the deal with. >> woodruff: so much the look at. lisa, separately from all of
this, today you have the senate intelligence committee issuing its report finally looking at russian interference in the 2016 election. we've heard about it before, but what is in this new report? >> the intelligence community broke up its reports. this one today is focused on the use of social media. let's look quickly at their conclusions. this is a bipartisan report. that's one thing that's critical about this. republicans agreed with these conclusions. there was a calculated assault on the u.s., number one. the goal was to harm candidate hillary clinton and to support candidate donald trump, andles that it was sanctioned by the kremlin. judy, all of that significant because some of this is what the white house has not always agreed with. here we have a bipartisan conclusion. some unexpected new information in this report, two more things to look at, they found that the most targeted group in america was african americans, part of the russian's strategy was to focus on black americans. also the senators here in both parties imploring the white house to act now across all agencies and they say congress
needs to come up with a better data security law overall. >> woodruff: quickly, yamiche, what are they saying at the white house about this? >> the white house has not commented on this report coming from the senate. and that fits a pattern, because the president has been loathe to talk about russian interference in the 2016 election, because he thinks that it hurts his legitimacy as president. he doesn't like talking about that. the white house says that this is a white house that has pushed back on rusia and other countries trying to interfere in the 2016 election and in the 2020 election, but it is really important to note that in their letters to house democrats, they're actually now accusing nancy pelosi and others of doing wat russia is accused of doing in 2016. they say that democrats are trying to influence the 2020 election with this impeachment inquiry. so what you have is them not commenting on this but also making the argument that this is what democrats are now doing. >> woodruff: so much to follow today, so much. yamiche -- >> it's only tuesday. >> woodruff: it's only tuesday. yamiche alcindor, lisa
desjardins, thank you. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, the u.s. supreme court heard arguments on whether workers can be fired for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. at issue is whether they are covered by the 1964 civil rights act. a decision is expected by early next summer. we will discuss all of this, right after the news summary.r turkey moved troops into position today for an offensive against kurdish forces in northeastern syria. that's after president trump ordered u.s. troops out of the area. the turks say they want a safe zone, free of kurds who helped defeat the islamic state group. today, turkish soldiers and artillery deployed to towns on the border with syria. officials said they had finalized all preparations. hong kong's chief executive is warning that she might have to call in the chinese military if violent protests continue.
new trouble flared over the weekend and through monday, aimed at a ban on face masks. overnight, riot police tried to clear the streets of anti-government protesters. hours later, chief executive carrie lam would not rule out asking china to intervene. >> i still strongly feel that we should find the solutions ourselves. that is also the position of the central government, that hong kong should tackle the problem on her own. but if the situation becomes so bad, then no options can be ruled out, if we want hong kong to at least to have another chance. >> woodruff: hong kong police say more than 200 shops and public utilities have been damaged since friday. tensions are still running high between china and the u.s. national basketball association. it stems from a tweet by daryl morey, the houston rockets general manager, supporting the hong kong protesters.ho
n.b.a. commissioner adam silver defended morey's rights today, saying he is "apologetic" about the reaction, but not about the tweet itself. >> we are not apologizing for daryl exercising his freedom of expression. i regret, again, having communicated directly with many friends in china, that so many people are upset. >> woodruff: chinese state broadcaster cctv shot back that any challenge to china's sovereignty and stability is not covered by free speech. it also announced that it will not air two n.b.a. exhibition games in china this week. the united states imposed visa restrictions today on chinese officials linked to a crackdown on muslim uighurs. in a statement, secretary of state mike pompeo called for beijing to end what he called
"a campaign of repression." just yesterday, the u.s. commerce department added 28 chinese public security bureaus and companies to a trade blacklist over the same issue. the new sanctions came just before new trade talks with china, and sent a shudderud through wall street. the dow jones industrial average lost 314 points to close at 26,164. the nasdaq fell 132 points, and the s&p 500 dropped 45. the number of migrants stopped at the southern border declined in september, for the fourth month in a row. u.s. customs and border protection agency says it was 52,000, that is down 65% from a peak of 144,000 last may. and, the 2019 nobel prize for physics goes to three scientists whose work bears on the search for life beyond earth. canadian-american james peebles at princeton university was
honored today for research into the evolution of the universe. two swiss astronomers were recognized for being the first to find a planet beyond the solar system in 1995. still to come on the newshour: what is on the line, as the supreme court hears arguments on the rights of l.g.b.t. americans. the deadly protests in iraq. why are citizens mobilizing in the face of gunfire? a wide-ranging conversation with hillary and chelsea clinton. and, much more. >> woodruff: this is day two of the u.s. supreme court's new term, and already, the justices are grappling with one of the highest-stakes questions on its docket. it is about title 7 of the 1964 civil rights act, which bars employers from discriminating against employeeo on the basis of sex.
but does title 7 also protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or gender identity? william brangham starts there. >> brangham: the demonstrations outside the supreme court today reflect just how high-stakes these cases are. several were argued this morning. they're the most significant l.g.b.t.q. rights cases since 2015, when the court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. gerald bostock, a welfare case worker from georgia, initiated one of the lawsuits that made it to the court today. he said he was fired because he's gay. >> we're talking about millions and millions of people who go to work every day, fearful for being fired for who they are, how they identify, and who they love. and that's wrong. >> brangham: another of the lawsuits was initiated by aimee stephens. she is transgender, and said
she was fired from a michigan fural home after beginning her transition. but a lawyer representing the funeral home says title 7 doesn't apply here. >> americans should be able to rely on what the law says. yet, for the past six years, tom first it was un-elected government officials, now, it is the a.c.l.u. that seeks to redefine sex in federal law. a change that congress has repeatedly rejected. >> brangham: inside the courtroom today, as always, was marcia coyle of the "national law journal," and she joins me now. marcia, welcome back, as always. >> thank you. >> brangham: the argument today is whether title7, which bans job discrimination on the basis of sex, could also include protecting sexual orientation. is that the argument today? >> that's right. duds that language, "sex," encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identityism as we heard from one of the plaintiffs who basically argued, i'm titled because i'm guy and thus under
title 7 i should be protected. >> that's right. the other plaintiff you heard from, aimee stephens, she claimed she was fired because of her gender identity, that she had transitioned from male to female. and today, william, there were two hours of arguments. the court had consolidated two cases involving sexual orientation for one hour and then the case on gender identity for a second hour. and the arguments were fascinating, fast, quick, past breaking, we heard words like "transgender," "cys gender." >> brangham: is that right? that's the first time they've been uttered? >> first time i've heard them, and i've been covering the court a long time. the lgbtq community is arguing because of sex that this is a plain statutory interpretation case, that the text of title 7, because of sex, applies. and the best way to explain it
was probably pam carlin, who argued for those plaintiffs today on sexual orientation in which she said, if an employer fires a male employee because he dates men but doesn't fire a female employee who dates men, then that employer has discriminated against a man because the employer's treating that man worse than the female employee. and it's because of sex, because the firing is based on the employee, the male employee's failure to conform to the employer's expectation of the male sex's behavior. it's very similar in terms of the gender identity case, too. aimee stephens, they say, was fired because of sex. she was fired because of her biological sex at bir. if she had had a different sex, female, she uld notave been treated or she would have been
treated differently. she wouldn't have been fired. so also, in her case, there's an additional element, she claims she was fired because she did not conform to the funeral homeowner's expectations of how men and women should look, act, and behave, and that's illegal stereotyping under title 7. so those are the arguments on one side. the trump administration and the employer lawyers are saying, no, the text of title 7 supports us, too. in 1964, wen congress enacted the law, sex was biological, male and female. >> brangham: and only those two. >> absolutely. sexual orientation and gender identity are independent, distinct traits or characteristics. they're not covered by the language of title 7. >> brangham: how did the justices seem to respond to this idea of sort of broadening the definition of title 7? >> ily think there were three
consideration, first on the meaning of the language, the next. -- text. you had justice gorsuch. he said he thought the textual evidence was very, very close, but he didn't say close to what. so we're in the quite sure where he is. whereajustice kagan saiea thought it was quite clear and n that title 7 is very simple. it says because of sex, and if you have been discriminated but for your sex, then title 7 is there to protect you against that discrimination. the second concern seemed to be the role of the court itself. justice alito said to the lawyers for the lgbtq plaintiffs, "if we rule for you, some peoplare going to say, this is a big policy issue. this is something congress should be dealing with." congress has considered or has failed to consider this despite requests over a number of years. if we rule, we're acting like a
legislature. but then you had justice sotomayor saying at a later point, sort of in response to that, at what point does a court step in to stop insidious discrimination. and finally, i think, the court was concerned about what might be the impact if they do rule for the lgbtq community. there were a lot of hypotheticals about, well, what's going to happen to sex-segregated bathroom, sex-segregated athletic team, dress codes, and the lawyers for the plaintiffs here, the victims here, seemed to be tel, ling dhe justices, look, that's not in these cases right now. we're talking:n(> about the workplace, title 7. those cases may come to you later, no matter how you rule, but right now we're talking about straight statutory interpretation. >> brangham: and depending on how the justices rule on, this this could impact a huge number of employees across the country. >> this is incredibly important
to these workers. i think fewer than half of the states have in their own laws workplace protections for lgbtq workers. and so that leaves an enormous, i think almost eight million employees without protection from workplace discrimination. so, yes, the stakes are huge. >> brangham: so this is obviously an enormous case. we know there is a huge term with guns and immigration andmm abortion. so i know we will be seeing a lot more of yu in the future. marcia coyle, as always, thank you. >> always a pleasure. >> woodruff: young iraqis have turned their country upside down over the past week. they have taken to the streets, demanding better social services and more economic opportunities. clashes with security forces have sometimes turned violent, and deadly, with many protesters killed.
one question is, who is doing the killing. amna nawaz examines why these protests are happening now. >> nawaz: the streets of baghdad were silent today, after a week of deadly protests that wracked the nation from the capital and beyond. two hours south, in the iraqi city of najaf, grief-stricken families buried their loved ones. >> ( translated ): he is exactly like the other protesters. they shoot the innocent and the criminal together. people are protesting for income and bread. look at the youth. every day they go out in thousands. what is the result? >> nawaz: more than 100 people have been killed in the worst violence since the defeat of the islamic state two years ago. but this was not the result of insurgency, or terrorism. what started as peaceful protests last week, demanding an end to rampant corruption, unemployment and lack of basic services, violently shifted into clashes with security forces and armed groups. in response, the iraqi government pledged to add public
sector jobs, and today approved a grant for employment development. but it may not be enough. protesters pin the blame on corrupt leaders they say don't represent them. despite the country's oil wealth, much of iraq's 40 million people live in dire conditions. >> ( translated ): we went out protesting because we are in pain and suffering. there is no electricity, no jobs, and people are dying of starvation, people are sick. it is a curse. >> nawaz: analysts say the government's dismissal of a widely-respected iraqi general, abdul wahab al saadi, helped set off the protests. al saadi was key to the anti- isis fight. leaders of two major political parties, including one led by shiite cleric moktada-al sadr, have called for the government to resign. back in 2016, al sadr inspired widespread protests in iraq. last fall, iraqis in the southern city of basra took to the streets to protest corrupt leaders and a lack of basic services. but laith kubba, an adviser to
prime minister adel abdul mahdi, said this round of protests are leaderless and apolitical. >> for the younger generation, those who went into these protests, they were all born in a period where they know nothing about saddam hussein. they are less concerned about sectarian or national issues. they see the world through their facebook and through their telephones, smartphones. they see how the rest of the world is living, and their questions are very, very simple. iraq is a rich country. why are we in such a mess? >> nawaz: iraqi-born expert abbas khadim was in baghdad for an economic conference last l week. he said the factors that led to these protests are decades in the making. >> iraq has been having war, turmoil and economic hardships ever since the 1980s. a depleted country witnessed the invasion of the united states and the change of government, and led to lack of security,
terrorism and another 15 years of hardship. >> nawaz: the uprising is the biggest political challenge for the prime minister since he assumed office last year. last weekend, iraq's parliament speaker met with representatives of the protest movement in an attempt to calm the unrest. and, iraqi authorities lifted a days-long curfew and internet blackout on saturday. now, iraqi prime minister abdul mahdi said he was willing to respond to the protester's demands. he promised jobs for graduates, but also said there was no magic solution for the country's problems. >> in the short term, i think this will calm a lot of people. of course it doesn't solve the fundamentals of the challenges that are facing the government. >> nawaz: but hundreds more protesters took to the streets of baghdad's sadr city district on monday, demanding new jobs and denouncing the killings of protesters. iraqi police responded in force, using live bullets and water
cannons against the protesters. iraqi president barham salih condemned the attacks on protesters. >> ( translated ): the government and the security forces reaffirm that there has been no orders to fire at protesters, and it has not been issued by the country and their instruments. therefore, those who are committing these actions are criminals and outlaws. >> nawaz: iraqi federal police warned last week that snipers separate from the security forces were shooting at protesters, but it is unclear if these snipers are rogue elements of the police or foreign agents. >> knowing the nature of who is in charge right now, prime minister abdul mahdi and the minister of interior, these are not people who are putting snipers on top of buildings to assassinate iraqi protesters. so that is definitely the work of terrorist groups or sleeping cells. >> nawaz: for now, the streets remain quiet, but the rage here may yet re-ignite, putting greater pressure on a government already on edge.
for the pbs newshour, i'm amna nawaz. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: the difficulty of studying for a degree while facing the possibility of deportation. they are a family that have captured the american political spotlight for decades. now, former secretary of sta hillary clinton and her daughter, chelsea, are out with a new book, "gutsy women." we will discuss that in a moment. but when i sat down with the two earlier today in new york city, i began by asking secretary clinton about today's developments in the impeachment inquiry-- if the trump administration has the authority to block the american ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland, from speaking with congress. >> i don't believe they do.
i think that there's quite a bit of precedent in legal decisions that the congress has an inherent power to seek evidence from witnesses with respect to their investigations and most particularly an impeachment inquiry. i understand that the trump administration doesn't want people talking to the congress, but i recall, judy, that back in the nixon imptheachment, one of the articles of impeachment against president nixon was his contempt of congress for refusing to cooperate with the investigation. so i think they can slow walk it. they can try the block it. there's already enough evidence about what form ambassador sondland was saying about the effort to threaten and extort the president of ukraine througr text messages and e-mails that certainly the house can go on that, but i also think that at
some point there needs to b a reinforcement of the legal precedent that the administration must cooperate. >> woodruff: you have said that the impeachment process should go forward. >> uh-huh. >> woodruff: you have also said that you think what happened in that phone call, where president trump was asking the leader of ukraine in effect to investigate joe biden and his son, implicitly in return for receiving u.s. military aid, why not just go ahead and say whether or not y impeaching the president? ause i served on an impeachment inquiry staff as a young lawyer back in 1974, i think it is really important to respect the process and to support the opening of the inquiry, which i do, and the gathering of evidence, and then the weighing of that evidence. from my perspective, it appears as though what the house is doing is very much in line with the appropriate use o the
impeachment power. so they don't want to jump to a conclusion. it appears to me that there is evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of justice and contempt o congress, but we do want the house impeachment inquiry to proceed in a way tha tries to build credibility with the american people and also with republican members of the house and the senate. >> woodruff: can you think of a non-impeachable interpretation or a benign interpretation of what that call was about? >> no. >> woodruff: i also want to ask you because you're the former secretary of state, what about the role of secretary pompeo being on that call at the time? >> well, he, first of all, didn't admit that he had been on the call. eventually he did. number of were a people on the call. part of the telling evidence in this case is that immediately after the call, the people who
were either listening in or listening to trump's end of the call knew that they had problems, which is why they tried to basically conceal the call within a highly classified system. so pompeo was in on it. he knew from the beginning that this was a problem. it's really a shame that he has substituted the dense of trump for the defense of diplomacy, the defense of our country, literally doing the job that a secretary of state should do. >> woodruff: former vice president joe biden clearly a part of this. his name came up during that call. whether he did or didn't do anything wrong, and there's no proof that he did, president trump keeps bringing that up, is there an optical problem for joe biden, because his son was in a position to be making a lot of money from a company that was in a foreign cuntry? >> you know, judy, this is the goal of the trump strategy. it is to raise questions.
there is no evidence that either one of them did anything wrong. could there be a question of judgment about his son? well, that's fair game, but there is absolutely no evidence, and there will not be any evidence that joe biden did anything wrong. enough with these wild, unfounded conspiracy theories using the help of foreign governments to interfere in our elections and to undermine people who have been president public eye for a long time, and i hope that the american public rejects this, as they should. >> woodruff: secretary clinton, as i'm sure you know, there are plenty of republicans and even some democrats who are saying, despite all this that it is crazy to be pursuing impeachment, because whatever the house does, there jt are not going to be enough votes in the senate. >> i understand that argument, but i don't buy it. and the reason i don't buy it is that the founders putñna5ñ impeachment into the
constitution for a purpose. it was put there for a purpose, and i think speaker pelosi has been very careful not to rush to that. there were many things that came up, you know, obstruction of justice as outlined in the mueller report, emolument, all of these things that were circling around, but i think she rightly waited for something that not only was understandable by the american public, but really went to the heart of our national security, of the role of the president to protect and defend the american people and the constitution. so, yes, will there be a decision? well, that's up to the house, but i recall back in '74, the full vote never went to the house. the house committee voted to impeach richard nixon. and at that point, after the evidence had been presented, after several republicans on the house judiciary committee voted for the articles of impeachment,
republican senatorswent to richard nixon and said, you need to resign. so we don't know sitting here today what the outcome will be. unfortunately i don't know that we have republicans with the same level of patriotism, putting country over party that we did back in '74, but we don't want to prejudge that. >> woodruff: you've both within in impeachment in you own family, president clinton. how is this time different from what president clinton went through? >> this is a much more serious set of charges than anything that was ever put forward against bill, and i think the american people got that. this is a very different time, and as a former secretary of state, i just want americans to stop and think, why are we allowing this president to in effect undermine our sovereignty, turning over foreign policy to foreign governments, what he just did with the kurds, empowering
turkey and russia against our staunchest allies in the middle east? why are we sitting silently by and watching this president do vladimir putin's bidding? i mean, there is no happier man in the world right now than putin. why are we watching this unfortunate trade battle with china now being infected with his plea that china investigate biden. this is no longer just about the crazy stuff he says an does that everybody shrugs at or worries about. this is a direct threat to the national security of america. and i think that's what gotten people's attention. so certainly among democrats, but now increasingly among self-identified independents and even growing numbers of republicans are saying, wait a minute, this must go forward. >> brangham:>> woodruff: as alls going on, president trump continues to come after you in his speech, in his tweets. you've been tough on him, as
well. i think you called him recently a corrupt human tornado. well, he's come back at you several times, in fact, he s morning, andhi i'm going to quote, he said, "i think that crooked hillary clinton should try to enter the race to try and steal it away from uber left elizabeth warren. only one condition: the crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors, including how and why. she deleted ,000 e-mails." >> it truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me, but this latest tweet is so typical of him. nothing has beere examined and looked at than my e-mails. we all know that. so he's either lying or dilutional or both. there was no subpoena, as he said in the tweet this morning, and so maybe there does need to be a rematch. obviously i can beat him again. but just seriously, i don't
understand, i don't think anybody understands what motivates him other than personal grievance, other than seeking adulation. i said during the campaign, there was no other donald trump. what you saw was what you were going to get, and i think a lot of americans understandably thought, oh, no, that can't possibly be the case. once he's in office, he will certainly moderate his behavior. well, we see, no, he hasn't. >> woodruff: secretary clinton, yesterday president trump made big news by announcing that his policy was going to be to clear the way for the turkish government to send its troops into syria, that u.s. troops would get out of the way so essentially they could go in after the syrian kurds, who they view as terrorists. of course, the syrian kurds have been very helpful to the united states in the conflict in that region. what's at stake here for the united states? >> well, i thought that the
announcement that president trump made that he was ordering thwithdrawal of american troops from northern syria and in effect giving a groan -- green light to the turks under presidentered want to go in with their military was a betrayal, a betrayal of the strongest allies that we have in the region. we would not have defeated isis by this time if it had not been for the kurds, who were our partners and' >> woodruff: even though turkey, long-time u.s. ally, nato al, you're saying the kurd -- the interest of the kurds should be placed above the relationship with turkey? >> in this instance, the turks have made very clear that they are going to engage in a broad-based attack on the syrian kurds. it's a direct threat to our national security, to the blood, sweat, and loss that americans
have already committed to try to beat the islamic state. so they are certainly a nato ally, but they have been, you know, taking weapons from russia. they have been using the kurdish problem to bolster the reign of erdogan. so it's me complicated. if there were to be a decision about withdrawing american troops, it should have been subjected to the kind of careful deliberation that we made in the obama administration or that i know from prior administrations before being announced after the president has a phone call with erdogan. for all we know, in that phone call, he asked the turks to investigate joe biden. we can't trust anything he says, but the consequences of this decision are incredibly damaging. for the united states. >> woodruff: do you think he might have asked them? >> i have no idea. who knows what he says to people. he is a loose cannon now in an
even more dangerous way than he was. >> woodruff: let's talk about the book. "gutsy women." the two of you came together. you both talked about how you had discussed, as chelsea was growing up, strong women, gutsy women, as role models in effect. chelsea, i was struck by your mother, when i think it was her comment about abby wambach, the star soccer player. you said, she's powerful and she knows it. she doesn't apologize the way women are so often thought to do. is this still a problem for young women to do today? do they still feel the need to apologize for being themselveses? >> i think unfortunately, yes. i think we know actually how sadly effective so much of what still exists in the zeitgeist telling women that we need to modulate our voice, be aware of how we dress, kind of pay more
attention to how we present ourselves in the world versus the substance of what we feel compelled to say or do. one of the reasons we felt so compelled to write the book of "gutsy women" was to share stories of women who are unapologetally themselves and then who use their stories to help propel progress for other women behind them. >> woodruff: secretary clinton, you have been advocating for women i think your entire career. did you think at this stage of your life you would still be having to fight this fight? >> well, i hoped not, but i agree with chelsea that it is still a very big challenge to women of all ages, but particularly young women, and this balk truly is meant to spark a conversation about gutsy women, trying to get people to think about who are the womennúd in their own workplaces and their education, wherever it might be, who they admire, who they think has not only stood up
for herself, which is the first step, but more importantly in our eyes, standing up for others, trying to open doors for others to come behind, and -- >> judy, i would say we have the trump administration arguing in front of the supreme court that employers should be permitted to fire people based on who they love or their gender identity. and the fact that they're arguing this while we're in the midst of just an epidemic of violence against particularly black transwomen is horrifying to me that our government is on kind of the side of exclusion and segregation and not on the side of human rights and human dignity and i'd argue history is particularly troubling to me. >> woodruff: as you grew up, you obviously saw your mothmo doing this kind of advocacy. did you think at this stage in your life you would city be making these arguments. >> i wish that i could say when i was a little girl i was projected forward a couple of decades, but i don't think i was, although it was pretty
shocking to me, judy, when my dad ran in 1992 how many largely older white men attacked me for my appearance and called me awkward or ugly or compared me to the family dog and, you know, it was on the kind of conventional right left, it was rush limbaugh and "saturday night live." thankfully my parents and my grandparents had kind of istilled enough in me that i knew that was bonkers, like why were these old men attacking a little girl, but it did shock me because i realized, wow, like i'm being judged by how they're kind of perceiving my appearance, an they know nothing about me, and i would like to say that we've proved beyond that, but we see what's happening to thune -- greta thuneburg, but sadly we have not proved that and adults are still behaving deplorable to young women who are putting themselves out there or who have been put into the public arena by choices
their families have made. so i think unfortunately we still have a lot of work to do. >> woodruff: chelsea clinton, secretary hillary clinton, thank yu both very much. >> thank you very much, judy. >> woodruff: next month, the supreme court will hear arguments on the obama-era program called "deferred action for childhood arrivals," or daca, which has protected hundreds of thousands of individuals, also known as dreamers. they were brought to the u.s. by their parents illegally when they were children. the issue before the court is whether the trump administration acted legally when it sought to terminate the program in 2017. since then, daca has been closed to new enrollees. hari sreenivasan recently traveled to ohio to speak with daca students about their experiences. it's the latest in our special
series on "rethinking college," and part of our regular education segment, "making the grade." >> sreenivasan: like many college students, 19-year-old jimmy rodriguez has a lot on his plate. he's taking a full course load this semester at lorain county community college in ohio. in the econings, he practices with the school's soccer team. but unlike most of his peers, rodriguez is pursuing a degree, and a future, in a country he may one day be forced to leave. rodriguez is a daca beneficiary. his parents brought him to the u.s. from mexico in 2002 when he was a year and a half old. he's never been back to mexico. >> daca means the world to me. i'm able to get a normal job, and get my license, almost like a citizen, but not fully yet. >> sreenivan: he wants to be the first person in his family
to graduate from college. but those plans were almost derailed last year when he and his father, who's also undocumented, were caught up in a federal ice raid while working at a garden center. jimmy's dad caught some of the raid on his cell phone. >> they told us to shut up, stop talking, that we were all illegal. >> sreenivasan: because he was protected by daca, rodriguez was released, but his father was detained for several months. he's out now and has been given a temporary work permit while he awaits his next immigration hearing. >> it's always affected me since i found out i was undocumented. in school, in class, at work, at a game. thinking about your family, because you're not with them, so you're uncertain what's going to happen to them. >> sreenivasan: according to the migration policy institu, about 98,000 dreamers graduate from high school each year in the u.s. many enter the workforce right away, but it's estimated 20% of daca beneficiaries are enrolled in college. on a recent afternoon, as ohio
state university fans cheered on their football team, a small student group met nearby to discuss their goals for the upcoming school year. the four leaders of the newly- formed "student community of progressive empowerment" "organization, which advocates for undocumented students, are all protected by daca. 19-year-old liz is a junior majoring in civil engineering. she prefers to go only by her first name, due to concerns about her family's safety. liz has lived in ohio since she came to the u.s. from mexico at a year old. she's been on the dean's list and has a 3.7 g.p.a. average. that type of academic performance would help most students get financial aid, but not dreamers. >> the number one challenge that we face is a lack of financial aid. as daca students, we don't get federal financial aid, and a lot of public scholarships. >> sreenivasan: how are you financing your education?
>> a lot of my education is financed with my own money. i work pt-time as a server. i' been working since i was 16 to save up for college. other than that, i've had a handful of private scholarships. >> sreenivasan: like most dreamers, liz had to apply as an international student, but ohio allows daca recipients to qualiffor in-state tuition if they meet residency requirements. 23 other states and the district of columbia have laws or university system policies that allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition. liz wants to become an engineer, but she says it can be hard to stay focused when faced with the possibility of deportation. >> it's a lot of aiety knowing that you might not graduate. yohave this long-term goal, but it's not certain. you can't work harder and getan it. you can't study harder and get it. it's just completely out of your control. >> sreenivasan: it's not just undergrads who are concerned. you're hoping to build a database that researchers can use to fight cancer? >> yes. >> sreenivasan: 22-year-old
han gil is a daca recipient who is applying for ph.d. programs while working at a lab on campus. the recent ohio state grad, who also prefers to go by only her first name, was born in korea and has been in the u.s. since the age of four. she and other daca beneficiaries must reapply every two years. >> the programs i'm looking into are minimum five years. and reapplying costs money. it's hard for me to have any confidence in what i'm going to do in the future, when i can't even have the basics of knowing if i'm even going to be here or not. >> sreenivasan: those kinds of concerns are all too common for undocumented students, says yolanda zepeda. she's assistant vice-provost in the office of diversity and inclusion at ohio state university. >> what i find is, our students have to work a lot of hours in order to just pay for their schooling. that can very much extend the time to degree.
and i've seen students who start out very enthused and very determined, and over time, they just get tired. >> sreenivasan: ohio state university does not disclose the number of enrolled daca students, and many dreamers choose not to veal their status, but there are campus programs aimed at giving them support. around 300 faculty, staff and students have participated in a voluntary training program to become allies for undocumented students. ohio state language professor anna babel is leading the effort. >> they can run into problems with court dates. if they have a court date and they don't want to tell their professor what's goingn in their life-- maybe it conflicts with an exam or with a required class period. many language departments traditionally have requirements for study abroad, and undocumented students just can't do that. >> sreenivasan: as ohio state and other schools try to help dreamers, they are aware immigration policy is contentious. they also know there are many who want to end daca and support the trump administration's efforts to do so.
hans von spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation in d.c., a conservative think tank. he has concerns, among other things, about universities giving in-state tuition to undocumented students. >> federal immigration law doesn't ban colleges and universities, state ones, from providing in-state tuition to aliens who are here illegally. but it does say that if they do, that they have to provide in-state tuition to citizens aro are from other states. that provision has never been enforced by the u.s. justice department. >> sreenivasan: while the political battles are being fought, life goes on at universities for now, civil engineering major liz is keeping focused on her studies. >> for me, my number one goal is to do as much as i can and try as hard as i can to graduate. and i'll do that until i, until the last second that i can. >> sreenivasan: liz, jimmy, han gil and many other dreamers across the u.s. will be waiting anxiously for the supreme court's decision on daca,
expected by next summer. for the pbs newshour, i'm hari sreenivasan in columbus, ohio. >> woodruff: later tonight on >> woodruff: "on the president's orders" will air tonight on pbs, and can be wigched online at www.pbs.org/frontline. >> bnsf railway. >> consumer cellular. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org.
>> 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 group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
>> pati narrates: today it's all about the classics. american classics. but i'm gonna "mex" them up, i'm taking 3 beloved american dishes and giving them a new twist. first, maryland lump crab at dip with roasted chiles. ooh, you can see how cheesy it is! then alan is helping me with an outrageous crunchy sweet and spicy southern fried chicken. oh my gosh, look at this! for dessert, chocolate pecan pie with a mexican favorite - dulce de leche caramel. and nothing makes me happier than sharing new recipes with my three boys. >> i'll wait, i'll wait. >> you'll wait? since when do we wait? >> yeah, we don't wait. ♪