tv Washington Week With Gwen Ifill PBS June 25, 2016 1:30am-2:01am PDT
gwen: living on the edge in europe, at the supreme court, on the campaign trail, and in the halls of congress. we cover surprise after surprise tonight on "washington week." >> i do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination. gwen: in a shocking turn, britain votes to leave the european union. sending ripples through international finance and politics. >> what happened should have happened. and i think they'll end up being stronger for it. gwen: in the u.s., a supreme court rebukes a key obama administration immigration reform that would have offered protection to millions of the undocumented. president obama: leaving the broken stem the way it is, that's not a solution. and in fact that's the real amnesty.
gwen: but civil rights advocates win another court decision on affirmative action. on the campaign trail, as cash talk and trash talk. mr. trump: hillary chin ton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency of the united states. secretary clinton: he's going after me personally because he has no answers on the substaps. -- substance. gwen: as clinton outraises trump by millions. in congress, house democrats throw down the gauntlet on guns. >> i would ask that all of my colleagues join me on the floor. gwen: civil disobedience comes to the house of representatives. >> we are not going to allow stunts like this to stop us from carrying out the people's business. gwen: covering the week, washington editor for "the wall street journal." joan biskupic, legal affairs editor for roirts. jonathan martin, national political correspondent for "the new york times." and ed o'keefe, political
reporter for "the washington post." announcer: award winning reporting and analysis, covering history as it happens, from our nation's capital this is "washington week with gwen ifill." corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> thousands of people came out today to run the race for retirement. so we asked them, are you completely prepared for retirement? ok. mostly prepared? could you say 1 -- save 1% more of your income? it doesn't sound leak much but saving an additional 1% now could make a big difference over time. >> i'm going to be even better about saving. >> you can do it. it helps in the long run. >> prudential. >> we're committed to strong. we're committed to sure.
we're committed to smart and light. secure and bold. in a world of enduring needs, the men and women of boeing are proud to build and deliver critical capabilities. but those who serve to protect our nation and its allies and that's an enduring commitment. announcer: additional corporate funding for "washington week" s provided by genentech. bringing the world of genetics to you. and by the x.q. institute. additional funding is provided by newman's own foundation, donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the common good. the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation, the ford foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs
station from viewers like you. thank you. once again, from washington, moderator gwen ifill. gwen: good evening. we're going to do our best tonight to make sense of a week that intertwined foreign policy, financial policy, 2016 politics, domestic civil rights, and guns. yes, all of that. just this week. first, to britain and brexit. the markets and the potential for new leadership here and abroad. >> there are times when it is right to ask the people themselves, and that is what we have done. the british people have voted to leave the european union and their will must be respected. gwen: back from a recent tour covering the european union in brussels and he's probably best positioned to explain how this came about and why. so have at it. >> in the great twist of this whole thing is that it was david cameron's idea. so watching him stand up and
announce his resignation, you got the sense that he was the author of his own downfall. gwen: it was his idea to create this -- >> create a referendum. because he was facing enormous pressure from the right of his own party and from the united kingdom independence party, which has been a real force against the e.u. and he felt like he had to do something. so his idea was if i get re-elected, i will hold a referendum and put this in front of the british people and thought there would be a resounding vote to stay. and that would put the problem behind him. of course he like many other people completely miscalculated and not the result we are seeing now. gwen: why did he quit? people lose here all the time and don't quit. how many names can i name? >> partly the difference between a parliamentary system and the system that we have. if he was out there in an impassioned and emotional way really, particularly in recent days, making the case for staying in the european union, he had gone to brussels and renegotiated britain's relationship with the e.u., came back and said ok, now we've got to stay in. our country's future depends on it and it's vital. it's crucial. when you lose a vote like that
you don't have a lot of choice. >> he was so emotional. who would be next? who's in line? >> well, the -- the betting is on a guy named boris johnson, his former mayor of london a flamboyant character. gwen: sort of. >> he's out there and made the case strongly for leaving. and so in a way, there's a sort of -- you own it now. and he's the guy who fought, particularly hard and particularly in a high-profile way to make this happen. and so now it's going to be his responsibility to negotiate the separation in a way that's good for his country and good for the e.u. gwen: you know, we can blame pollsters as they often get blamed. but why did remain as it was called lose? >> well, i think -- >> and blame pollsters because it looked like they were going to win. gwen: a lot of young people that -- younger people according to these polls were in favor of remaining. >> i think the fundamental miscalculation maybe was the importance of the immigration issue. and the great failing maybe of the remain camp was to let this
turn from a referendum on the pluses and minuses of the e.u. to a referendum on how do you feel about all this immigration we're getting? and that was a vote they were going to lose. they lost resoundingly. and the -- the pro-leave camp used that relentlessly and something that ultimately couldn't be overcome. gwen: how did -- i'm actually curious about how the u.s. and britain relations -- relationships ultimately will be affected. because we -- we've all been watching what happened with the stock market today. but we know it's about more than just that. >> oh, it is. i think the european union, for leaders in europe, is really about history. and it's about culture and politics. it's the idea that after centuries of bloodshed, culminating in world war ii, this greater -- ever greater integration and union would be the solution and the never again response. so this is really something of a trauma. and in terms of the relation with the u.s., you know, obama today was talking about the
special relationship. it will endure and won't change. but the u.s. counted on the e.u. to be a sort of pro-u.s. force within europe. and now they've just lost that. and now i think what we're going to see is an attempt for example to strengthen nato. and other organizations where the u.s., the europeans, and the british are all together. >> can i ask you about scotland? >> yes. so scotland -- >> may break off again? >> and ireland, too, right? >> talk about referenda. so not that long ago, there was a referendum in scotland about leaving the u.k. scexit you could call it. so there was a vote to stay in. but scotland is much more pro e.u. and left leaning than the rest of the united kingdom and likely a move for another referendum for scotland to leave the u.k., and i think it would have a better chance of passage. just one more sign of the unintended consequences. and similarly, with ireland, there's going to be a push probably for sort of a reunification of ireland which means northern ireland would
leave the united kingdom. these things have their tremendous represental effects. but i don't think we're foreseeing by everyone. >> how serious do you take the movement on the continent among some of the far right parties to bring up referenda in their own countries? for example, holland and france, you've already seen moves now from leaders there on the far right. >> there's no question i think that this is going to energize those forces. but i do think that the united kingdom is in slightly of an unusual, almost unique position. they were not actually as fully integrated into the e.u. >> island nation. >> an island nation and saw themselves as being halfway between europe and the u.s. if you will. but they didn't adopt the euro. maybe not everybody knows that. but not every country in the european union has the common currency. the euro. they weren't part of the free travel arrangement that the other european countries have. so there's a sense in which it was easier for them to extract themselves. and france, a euro country, holland is a euro country that will certainly be a push for it. but i think it's going to be
tough for them to leave than it's going to be for england. gwen: going to continue to unfold and so interesting. but perhaps this consequential on this side of the pond. the u.s. supreme court decided this week to strike down an obama-directed emigration reform provision and to uphold the texas sferm active action plan. of the two, which surprised you most? and joan, i was more -- what surprised you most? >> i had to say the affirmative action decision was most surprising. gwen: ok. we agree. >> well, first of all, i should tell you that was one case where we knew they wouldn't deadlock because seven justices had heard that case. and just as -- justice antonin scalia passed away in february but elena kagan was also out of that case because she had worked on it when she was in the obama administration. as solicitor general. here's what happened. you got a decision, 4-3, that was a very strong endorsement of race conscious admissions on college campuses. and that's something that sure the court had done before.
but it looked like in recent years that the court was going to go in and -- an opposite direction. four years ago when the justices first took up this case, brought by a white young woman by the name of abigail fisher, it was sort of a surprising move. she had been rejected in 2008 from the university of texas flagship campus in austin. she had already gone to another school. she was close to graduating. it looked like the case should be over. the texas affirmative action policy is fairly distinct. but the justices still reached out to take it. and we think, you know, conservative interests to maybe roll back the policy. nd then in the 2013, earlier ruling on this, they punted back to a lower court. but suggested that these programs need more scrutiny. then she lost in the lower court. she came back again and the justices said we're going to hear your challenge again. so it looked like they were headed in a certain direction. and then reversed course all because of anthony kennedy. >> that immigration case, though, probably has a more
real world impact on a lot of people in this country. and i'm just curious, it was 4-4 which means -- gwen: talking millions and millions of people. >> or their children. and 4-4 technically not a decision, right? >> well, it was a decision but not a national precedent because it had no ruling. they left in place the lower court decision that was against president obama. that had blocked his plan that as you're right, would affect more than four million immigrants who are here illegally now. and he had wanted to give them, you know, shield them from deportation. but also give them work permits. so that is a really big deal with so few months left in his administration. >> what is the practical effect? presumably we're not going to turn around and deport four million people right now. >> no. >> what is the actual practical impact of the decision? >> it's the work permit. they can't be free to work now. and it really sends a signal to a lot of people who have been in the shadows. gwen: isn't there also a practical impact on the president's power to make change by executive action?
is it what -- isn't that what the court was really rejecting? >> well, first of all, the lower court was rejecting, yes. gwen: yes. >> that his executive action here had violated an administrative law. gwen: right. >> but this was a case that was actually designed by republican -governed states, 26 states to come forward and found a judge in texas that sort of would think along those lines. so it didn't give any kind of definitive idea about the scope of executive power. but the lower court, you're right, gwen, were for a narrower view. >> what is the -- these two cases tell us about the polarization of the court? the increasingly almost political nature of the court? >> well, it's short-handed. and a lot of the politicians were saying we wouldn't have had this deadlock if somebody had gotten on. but merrick garland was not going to get on that quickly that's for sure. this time of year in june, we always look forward to 5-4 decisions and we're looking forward to 4-4 and 4-3 decisions. gwen: how applicable are these cases to anything beyond --
affirmative action, we know it spoke to the university of texas affirmative action program. a very specific way of addressing that issue. does it apply to anybody else? any other university? >> it doesn't. but it certainly signals that this court, with these justices, especially anthony kennedy, who did a little bit after switch here a little piff to the from where he had been before, and the first time he had upheld a race conscious affirmative action program and that signals loud and clear to places like harvard and university of north carolina that have been sued by the same conservative advocates in this case saying this court really isn't ready for business to roll back affirmative action right now. gwen: maybe we can't specifically say that was about politics but as we know, everything else whether it's donald trump taking credit for the brexit outcome, he was standing on one of his golf course properties in scotland or running mate debates or cash on hand or tit for tat policy speeches. secretary clinton: we cannot
put a person like this with all his empty promises in a position of power over our lives. we can't let him bankrupt america like we are one of his failed casinos. mr. trump: she has always misread everything. if you think. she's misread this. and i was surprised that she was so bold to say the only reason she did it is because obama wanted it. if obama wanted the other way, if he said leave, she would have said leave. gwen: referring to how the president and clinton ended up on the losing side of the brexit debate by supporting their ally david cameron. but when it came to money, staffing, and polling, it's not like it was a good week for donald trump, was it, john? >> no. this is -- every week it's stunning to see what's happening in this campaign. where you got a major party nominee with as much money in the bank as most house candidates, it does not happen. and it's -- gwen: talking about $1.3
million cash on hand in may. as opposed to her $42 million cash on hand. >> 42-1 deficit. canyon sized. it tells us how different this campaign is. from more conventional campaigns. as well as watching him there on the cliff of scotland talking about his golf property. >> at length. >> at length. so this is different. but he's stilltitive. it is so fascinating to me, gwen, that he's got far less money. he's got no real campaign. structure at all. he's -- he says things on a daily basis that would disqualify most other candidates. and he still is competitive in the race. and that tells you how polarized this country is. donald trump may find the floor yet. but to be sure, there is a floor. and, you know, the fact is that if you look at the state level, he's still competitive in some of these battleground states in this country. so there's no question that she has an advantage right now. but it's still -- stunningly
competitive given his deficits on money, on staff, and on message. >> john, what do you think of the down ballot races? this is something that comes up a lot. the question is not only will he win but the democrats hope to retake the senate. they feel like they have an outside shot at taking the house. how real is that and how much of a concern is that to republicans? >> elections in this country are increasingly -- parliamentary. you don't see the kind of ticket splitting that you saw 40 years ago in america. so if you're -- you're a republican on capitol hill, or in a statehouse, that makes you concerned because your fate is tied to donald trump. now, they will say until the cows come home he's running his race and i'm running mine. but as you know from covering this stuff, that's not always how it is. and if there's a significant downdraft, that is going to hurt them. and i think that's why you're seeing separation between these candidates and him. i'm just not sure it matters if it's that bad of wipeout for them this fall. >> let me ask you about the effective ruling like the immigration ruling yesterday.
on donald trump. >> uh-huh. >> do you think there will be enough of a backlash to bring more hispanics to the polls? this is exactly where he's been living on the immigration issue. >> absolutely. it cuts both ways. it was a hugely helpful force-for-him in the primary which is dominated by white individuals. white voters in america. this is the challenge for the republicans. they have two different universes. they have a primary electorate that's almost all white and a country that is increasingly diverse. and trying to -- gwen: when he talks about what a great success he's had he's always -- almost always talking about that primary audience. >> absolutely a definite deal to scale up from a fraction of the country which is the primary to the entire country and the general. and that's where the hispanic vote comes into play. a totally nonfactor during the primaries and it's going to be crucial in nevada, colorado, and most importantly in florida. if donald trump can't carry florida everything gets harder for him.
>> real quick, can he close that 42-1 money gap do you think? >> i think he can. and i think he will close it. from 42 to 10 or so. gwen: but we're suggesting here on some level that hillary clinton is just sitting back and hoping that he falls on his own. >> and that's the other point. is that she and president obama and the democratic party will hammer donald trump on issues related to hispanic voters, on issues related to women, african-americans. you name it. and so they're going to go after him very, very aggressively. and so far, you know, it's like he's throwing rocks at airplanes. it's just -- so ineffective right now. what he has in his arsenal. again, primary versus general. you can win a primary, i guess these days on a twitter account and a news presence -- gwen: wouldn't rule it out and i can't wait to get -- find out. exactly. we'll see. and we saw a remarkable demonstration on the house
floor this week. inspired by 1960's activism and empowered by current day's social media. democrats stopped action on the house floor by simply sitting down. the plan was to get a vote on gun control which did not happen. but a debate did. >> we have laws, hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence -- we have lost hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence, children, babies, students and teachers, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, daughters and sons. friends and neighbors, what has this body done? mr. speaker, nothing. >> democrats were not interested in advancing the process. they're interested in stopping the process. gwen: well, ryan kind of had a
point and that they succeeded but that doesn't mean that the democrats didn't -- didn't do what they came to do, does it? >> they didn't get a vote and they don't have an assurance when the house reconvenes on july 5 that there will be a vote. and ryan was correct in pointing out that while this was going on, the democratic congressional campaign committee, which is responsible for electing democrats to the house, was sending out fundraising appeals reminding potential donors that they were doing this. so -- gwen: makes you question what was the point. >> i think there's a genuine frustration among many of these democratic lawmakers that despite their best efforts, they have not been able to do what they did here. dominate the conversation and get a real conversation going about guns. chris murphy, the senator from connecticut, did it last week in the senate. john lewis and friends did it this week in the house. it is notable that in both cases rank and file lawmakers who come from areas of country where gun violence or mass shootings are prevalent and kept up leadership out of it and went to the floor and they did something. and forced their party to come
along with them. and get the attention that they did. gwen: no pelosi and i no reed -- no pelosii and no reid involved in any of this. >> and how did it come about? john lewis, the civil rights icon, recall selma. who he who was his partner to get him to the floor like that? >> several different rank and file members had sort of dreamt this up earlier in the week. and they went to lewis and said would you join us and kept it secret from pair leaders in their wednesday morning meeting. during the meeting somehow word got out to pelosii and said ok. if you're going to do it let's see what happens. and it proceeded. what i was told and i think it's true is that what they didn't anticipate was how quickly this would sort of mushroom through social media. they had to rely on periscope and facebook and how that viral -- literal viral look of it. >> if c-span -- the house -- cut the feed, would it have gotten as much attention?
>> what happened was they couldn't show it and that word got down to the floor. and so they took out their phones and started streaming it. >> the chant was no vote, no break. well, there wasn't a vote. and there is a break. in this era of short attention spans, on the brexit now, and is there any evidence that this was effective for them in the long term? this november -- >> they do believe it will be. they showed me a list of house races across the country, new york and florida, and even iowa, kansas, and colorado, which are more rural places, where they think now they can run on this issue against the republican opponent. and make the case that congress overall isn't doing a lot but they're especially not addressing this issue. in the senate races, they believe that in ohio, in new hampshire, in florida, and a little bit in pennsylvania, because pat toomey, the incumbent has actually been pretty active on this they can make the point as well. you have not seen that from democrats probably since the 1990's since the assault weapons ban was passed back in 1994. >> that's what i wanted to ask is how much of a climate change we're seeing in the sense that
they're technology filibuster and have sit-ins where a few years ago they seemed to run from the issue? >> they're look at polling that on issues like banning terror suspects getting guns or expanding background checks the public is with them and because of that they will continue to talk about it. gwen: and on the senate side the collins compromise which is still stuck and maybe this will force it to move. >> absolutely. gwen: well, we did it. we got most of it in. but we could barely squeeze in everything. so be sure to check out our "washington week" webcast extra. online. where we will also be able to talk marco rubio's political return and what's up next in the supreme court's final decision week. that's later tonight and all weekend long at pbs.org/washingtonweek. keeping up with developments th judy woodruff and me on pbs. good night.
announcer: corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> you were born with two stories. one you write every day, and one you inherited that's written in your d.n.a. 23 and me is a genetic service that provides personalized reports about interest rates, health and ancestry. learn more at 23andme.com. >> q.x. institute. -- x.q. institute. >> thousands of people came out today to run the race for retirement. so we asked them, are you completely prepared for retirement? ok. mostly prepared? could you say -- save 1% more
of your income? saving an additional 1% now could make a big difference over time. >> i'm going to be even better about saving. >> you can do it. it helps in the long run. >> prudential. announcer: additional corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by boeing. genentech. additional funding is provided by newman's own foundation. donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity. and nourishing the common good. the ford foundation, the excellence in journalism foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.
♪ hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom." coming up on our program, we kick off a bay area media collaboration focusing on homelessness with a look at those on the streets in san jose. and the impact of the orlando mass shooting on san francisco pride celebrations this weekend. first, a closer look at the scandals russthat have rocked t police department. at least four officers under investigation in a sexual misconduct case involving a teenager. the city has opened investigations into other misconduct allegations including racist texts sent by officers. oakland has lost three police chiefs within nine days amid the turmoil, and now some