Skip to main content

tv   KQED Newsroom  PBS  July 26, 2019 7:00pm-7:31pm PDT

7:00 pm
. >> tonight on kqed newsroom rabbit mueller awlong ted testimony and -- also a major housing contract in san biunno was rejected despite lycog with city regulations sparking quesions about how to get approval process. facebook nominated chief privacy officer with a million dollar fine hello, and welcome to kqed. we begin our show with special council robert mueller's testimony tothe house judicialal and intelligence committees on wednesday. he spent hours in front of the congressional committees sounding the alarm of russian interference in our elections and pushing back president
7:01 pm
trump's eninsistce the two-year victims in the 2016 was a witch unt but didn't give democrats the game ntanging mome they were look for. unclear whether republicans will do anything to combat what mueller warned was an active threat from russia. . joining me is the positions of partners on both sides. there were key moments in which she indicated that he would not
7:02 pm
be able to charge he president sitting president under the departmentolf justice y and president could be charged after he leaves oice. for republicans, they found more evidence that in their framing of it, the mueller report is not producing any damming evidence against the presint and it was a last, last gasp hail mary attempt fo democrats to make political hey out of this. >> you d gree? we ar him say i think that was a big moment. it's. >> the witch hunt. but mostly not only stuck to the four corners of the report but we read fro right. does anything surprise you. going hing surprises me into it everyone figures robert mule he would be invited but he was very much -- he didn't want to speculate and answer questions. think what was interesting was hew appeared visually. democrats would have liked to see a t moreau besidential of the facts but that was not
7:03 pm
mueller. he was there to be anunwilling tness in a lot of ways. i think it reenforced people's impressions of the repoent and presand the political importance. >> what do you think? >> i don't think it moves the needle politically. he think the interesting thing is in some y it may have made nancy pelosia role less easy. the pressure to proceed with impeachment proceedings is lessened and it's the best thing for the democratic party for what she wants to do in terms of 2020. it take the pressure off her to it comes down ther but terms of chaining opinions and people's minds i doubt it. >> it confirms what people think. but i do think that there sense immediately after the impeachment is off out table, it's gone, and doesn't totally seem like that's the case now. we have seen a representatives, including one
7:04 pm
of the 8 who flipped to republican seat in sacalifornia ng they are for it. on friday, house judiciary chair nadler filed as promised he was in court saying we want more information about e yiport and grand jury transcripts and it's under consideration. is there any chance the democrats are trying to slow walk it so it's closer to the election? >> i would agree that it -- the st few days seemed sort of vindicated nancy pelosi's cautious approach. it doesn't seem like we are going to get any sort of real progress towards impeachment proceedings before the 2020 election. but, as you noticed, this is issue noty much an just for house democrats but for a lot of these front line first termmembers including in california, you mentioned whmikelevin in san diegis the third california first term democrat to back impeachment. katie hill in los sort of the 95% of she is there she said she believe the president committed a crime and we want to see if the subpoenas
7:05 pm
are honored before we pursue the strongest possible case. even as manse pelosi's effort to tamp down rgthe t lawnp of impeachment hearings drive has sort of been worn out by the hearings, it's clear house democrats will keep >> the fact you have the democrats in the districts who did flip seats, does that tell you anything about how democrats are thinking about this politically? i think they are in the narrative that for, you knowdi folks in thrict it's a big risk but we are seeing at least in california, more of them want to at least keep it alive thdiscussion aknife and california may not be representative of the other districts in the rest of the country. in california, the sentiment at lst in favor of moving towards impeachment is much more favorable mithan yt find in other places. the question is, how does nancy pelosi, i mean, before, i think the big question was how does she arbitrate between the sides of the partthe ones who
7:06 pm
wantto pursue impeachment and e ones that don't. how does she look going ahead to continue to satisfy people who wan that, whiearly not moving ahead with it right? so she said today, we will do it when we do it which moons they won't and the interesting question will be how does she satisfy the folks going dforw that want impeachment. >> there was a picture with her alexandria ocasio cortez. we talk about the political implications but there's lot of disturbing things about ssian met meddling and theirests to influence our ection and democracy. do you see any move on republicans in washington to take the warnings that mueller laid out clearly to take seriously. we have not seen slleion for example. >> i think mitch fconnell is m they clear on this in serms of pushing back on democrat attemo try to advance legislation to deal with some of the larger issues
7:07 pm
around ca security. ion but i think you are right. one of the truly moments from the hearing in which it was not something that was fullyexpected was when robert mueller said i see this is -- unequivocal signal that we have a problem here. >> >> and so whether washington acts on that, i think i wouldn't put money on it, but to hear a law enforce man official at that level sort of so clearly state that democracy is facing real parel was a take away. >> remarkable haven't seen any bipartisan effort to deal aith something you would think everybody woulee is not a great thing. on politics next week we will see the second round of democratic presidential debates. do you expect this report that the peachment proceedings russia meddling will be part of the conversation at all? >> i think it will be part of the conversation.
7:08 pm
but i think it's going to be small part. think by in large the candidateswould love to be able to continue to define differences between one another. we will have a interesting matcp when you have elizabeth warren and bernie sanders on the stey same debatstage that will provide clarity on the progressive side and we have sort of kamala hear apes joe biden 2. the opportunity for them maybe to talk about more issues from the 1970s. i don't know. but it's interesting to see the two debates in terms of tenor and tone. >> we have seen for colin kamala harris these are the opportunities she needs. she got a bump when s attacked joe biden. but waned a little bit. inat are you watching for terms of her and that duo. >> i think that the fact that kamala hair apes joe bide harris and joe biden have the reat clash that's going to be one most interesting dynamics of the debates. i am curious to see if kamala
7:09 pm
harris will ntcomjoe biden aggressively. i am curious to see if joe biden seems ke he has a plan. what was striking in the first debate was not just kamala harris' commanding performance in the moment that stuck in voters' minds when she confronted joe biden. but have you seen him caugh off guard. something that is given the push back he was facing for comments about past work with segregationist senators and questions about his political record, yeah. it seems like something that his advisers didn't prepare him adequately for. so i am curious to see not only if he seems better equipped to dewl ith what kamala harris throws at e him but if is ready to go on the offensive. you've seen it in the last week pushing back kamala harris and cory boioer. i am c to see in an effort to shore up the front- runner status, is not just
7:10 pm
defensive but going out. >> on the final minute i. mean, one of the things we did see is joe biden droll out a oniminal justice plan as cory booker will behe stage and he pushed back on that. do you think that was a potent issue. i feel like for harris, biden and booker, there's benefits but potential drawbacks to in ng up criminal justice. >> yeah. i mean there's a couple obvious drawbacks one being it risksappearig they are debating issues americans may not believe is front and center to what they will make the n decisiin the campaign based on. in other words, they are not talking about the gheconomy, the danger of that. but you have the danger of potentially looking like they are talking about authority that happened in the senso the trump administration democrats work together to do criminal justoe reform. sorisk that as well. so, we will have to see but my guess is that they will touch on other issues and there will be some flint. but the pressure is on biden no question about . >> we willleave it there.
7:11 pm
thank you guys both. >> >thanks. thank you. . earlier this month insan bruno a mills park development project slated to provide er 400 units of units was reject by san bruno city uncil with a single no vote. san francisco chronicle eported that there were concerns over tilding size and increased traffic. even though the developer aims city guidelines were followed and request from residents were inco porated. salject is a time when san bruno is adding jobs with little housing just one new home for about every 19 jobs between 2010 and 2015. joining me now to discuss that and more are founder of political city susan pirch and heather knigh thanks for coming in. so i want tostart with san bruno. some of the fight we have been seeing around the ste and bay area. this was a proposed 425 unit developmnt in an area the city that was rezoned for
7:12 pm
transit oriented development. and the developer saidpohe red to community concerns over 3-year period. spent $3 million on the development process and did a lot of i things. an, susan, as somebody who works on the issues a lot, why do you thinkopposition remains? >> well, one i can say watching the hearings at went on until almost 3 in the morning it was a very painful process for everybody who is a part of that and i think the reason the issuecontinues au bee communities still seem like they are too often exclud early enough to be getting input into the project or when they are asked to pass measures like measure in in san bruno, the measure doesn't really disclose how big or lhow or how dense the projects will be. get a re's issues that small amount of affordable really affordable housing for projects that are as bigas
7:13 pm
this project. >> it's 15%. >> and it's standard sometimes they want to go to 18 person. developers say they need to house market rates howing for this to pencil out.ac does this what you've seen in san francisco around the development sites. >> yeah. e's sites from seems like any neighborhood san francisco nts to add anything. positive housing development and sheltinger and there's a push back and they are frustrated it's hard to get anything through because of the regulation that allows one angry neighbor toslow down projects. >> how would you respond to that? do you think there isinything to dthe cases to convince the nents you can live in area single family homes and we do need housing. i mean, i think that's i some most everyone can agree on. >> yes. absolutely. i think everybody agrees we need especially affordable housing. not so much agreement we ne market rate housing. but many people, you know,
7:14 pm
marty a man who voted no is viewed as someone standing up for the wishes. community and saying yes to a lot of things that many of us want to reserve in our communities. but he was saying yes to not making traffic worse and a part of that is this project included a 40,000 square foot grocery store, even though there are many grocery stores in the area. and that grocery store was anticipated to after 56% of the additional traffic. that would be coming into the project. so that didn't make sense and he was standing up for community concns p that. >> that's interesting. i understand they add was in response to the community. but without getting ryto ev detail, heather, traffic is always an issue. i mean, the character of s is something you hear on the west side of san francisco quite a bit. i don't know there's a way to add the amount of housing california says it needs without the ssues changing the
7:15 pm
neighborhoods. is that fair? >> rht. i believcalifornia is 3.5 million housing units short what havit would take to actuallyhouse everybody here and expect to come here because of new jobs being createall the time. nd half of the shortage of t country. so obviously, you have to accept more housing into the neighborhoods including single family residential neighborhoods existing. and new developments and it's big numbers it seems like. t> can we get that a little bit. in san francisco, there's a push to create more of a city de, that would affect everybody. we have seen a lot in san francisco and there's lot g of build one pick -- a couple particular neighborhoods where there's a itperceptio was more accessible to have more high rise more dense howing. how are neighbors in say the west side of san francisco responding to that, and is there any effort by the elected officials to try to bridge some of the gaps we are talking about? >> yeah. i read there's a new proposal
7:16 pm
in the nonprofit to cure 11 hadu ad been new units all over the cityp they want 100 units in ach district. we have 11 districts and they want 100 new ones in each which is nota big and not that many compared to how many people live in san francisco. but they are expecting a push back. and hey are calling on neighbors who are opened to the new developments to stand up and sign a pledge and say i am cool with morepeople people neighborhoodmy because they want the voicess to be raised. >> susan, do you think in some cases, the pi north is killing r e projects. because we do heu know i think people who are opposed to these sometimes have a bigger incentive to come out. . >> well, i think whwe have is power on the side of the development wch is not reaching out to what is going on within the communities. and what we need is more of the understanding of what's causing the problems. so even the number how many housing units we need i understand that's based ton the projns of how many jobs there are going to be in the
7:17 pm
area. ybe that's a basic element that we need to look at again as to how many jobs do we want oming into the communities. and should we be making s me adjustmebout the jobs, so the jobs concentrated within t same high value areas are getting disbursed more broadly. . >> heather, one way that the affordabilityth of housing has become visible in the bay area is aros.d homelessn we saw the count come out. pretty staggering numbers. tell us what we know about how are doing with the problem. >> the numbers came out in the past couple monthsand have been shocking up and down the state. every county in california sa dramatic increases in the number of homeless people counseled. this hpens every other january on one night people count homeless people in every county is required. for jeers san francisco held steady. this is the fitime we saw a jump and it was 30% in two
7:18 pm
years. which is just astounding. city hall was shocked because they have been saying so much money snd putting in much effort on the subject and we went backwards. so, it was pretty devastating. >> susan, your group workto elect candidates that -- i mean some people say are antigrowth or you say slow growth and we have seen the beef around trying to havehe state come in and force cities to do more. are riyou w at all by continuing to elect the folks that you can spur morewhat you don't like to be in sacramento. >> i am not worried about that all. in fact, i think we need more of that. we need more of the cal community voices coming out strongly because the local e vel community has da great deal of work following state required housing elements within the general plans and thy have got a lot of plans in those areas. they are showing ways to covelet housing probleme too often narrative is cities are to blame because
7:19 pm
they are not building inenough ho but actually it goes back to knowing cities don't build housing. they allow for -- a number of housing units us about the developers have to pun the builpermits and then the builders have to build ewing the permits. so, in my opinion they are being unfairly blamed for that. and in sacramento, they are tasng a very plistic look at the problem we should curtail their powers. and what we benefit everybody is if there was a much more -- the wisdom that's gone into in so the problem. . >> slightly different sentiment. >> what do you think needs to happen and would you welcome state intervention in the communities? >> i think that because we have seen so many communities not rise to the occasion yes state involvement is necessary including san francisco perhaps. i think that may not orjust be
7:20 pm
ed about what the neighborhoods look like now and how long we sit in traffic but think about where children vewi and grandchildren will live and the problem will ge a wor worse and it can't wait. >> you agree? >> i think that's a great are ple what how much they sitting in track and to go forward with the project wouldn't would have made that so much worst immediately. maybe we need more solutions coming from ithe tra industry. >> more transit. >> yeah. >> we will have to leave this here. susan and heather, thank . you both >> thank u. . on wednesday states agreed to pay $5 pillion in the settlement with the federal trade commission over the tech giant's role in he cambridge analytical scandal. joe simon said they deceived users about the ability to control their personal information. part of the c agreement
7:21 pm
requires facebook institute an independent privacy coittee while understanding fall certification will subject them to individual, civil and criminal penalty. on the same day facebook record $16 billion in revenue for the second quarter. a 28% increase from the same period a year ago. joining me is sanisfra bureau chief jeremy owens from market watch. thanks for being here. >> thankfor having me. >> so let's back up and ta about the scandal which seems kind of far away at this point. wh was that all about? and with why did that cause so >> basically, the data that was involved in the scapeddal thwas takeugh a quiz app and involved a lot of data that facebook doesn't allow thesapps to take anymore. but that was then given and sold to a political consultant team called cambridge analytical that used it for exit and trump's election to target users. now, th-- facebook claims that they changed the anrules
7:22 pm
doesn't allow the data to be takee and ask the data tbe destroyed and was told it was, right. but at this point, facebook faced so many issues that they realizeed that was a problematic thing and it's going to accept he the fine and walk. >> and there's a new committee. and there's you know mark zuckerburg uld be held personal responsible f >> criminally, yes. >> you think it will change things? shoul >> i don't know. ? if you look at a lot of problems we have in his country, the answer is usually blue ribbon panel or commission. how ch better does that make you feel? this is a board committee that's going to look ait. there's an independent person from facebook looking at pracy reporting to that board committee and lzuckerburg get informed about what they found for the quarter and will it. off on it's just more red tape that they have to go through. so, that makes you feel . bette
7:23 pm
su i don't know if it makes me feel better. i hope the $5 billion d the chance of criminal charges against mark uckerburg will make them think twice about everything they do at the company. >> but i mean, there's $17 billion in revenue d 2 1/2 billion in profits. >> the fine is 3 billion off they had more than 5 or 6 billion in profit. >> do we need to force theato e or send a message to other companies? what's the goal. >> reporter: to scare other compaes to let them now this happens and it shows they are going to step up and so, facebook says for privacy in 2012 and says yif do it begin we are going bigger this is going bigger. >> seems like a drop in the bucket. >> report r: there's a of money don't get me wrong but with when you look at ifrom facebook it's quarter worth of profit for the annual profit
7:24 pm
right. it's just not going to have that much of a long lasting effect. right? facebook willic to do well as long as advertisers are coming there. and facebook offers hasomething nobles has and that's billions of users. and really in depth data on the useers to target them. no. nobles can say that so advertisers are not going to go anywhle else. >> speaking of we have been hearing a lot about antitrust inquiries from the federal government. not just facebook but other big tech giants. ne is doj that will look at this. what are the trend looking at. we have to wait and see. ar. >> theylook at big tech and they called out social
7:25 pm
mea this had language that could include apple right. so tis is sepafrom what we believe to be four individual antitrust investigations into those four companies. apple facebook and amaetn and alph
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
7:29 pm
7:30 pm
robert: house democrats at a crossroads. and republicans face pressure on election security. i'm robert costa. ngwelcome to "waston week." democrats debate impeachment. following robert mueller's testimony before congress. >> we did not reach a determinion as to whether the president committed a crime. robert: speaker pelosi pledges to move forwa with investigations and their battles in the courts. >> it's based on the facts. the facts and the law. that's what matters. not politics. not partisanship. just patriotism. bert: the president wants to move on. president trump: this whol h thing been three years of embarrassment and waste of time for our country.b rot: but foreign interference remains a

19 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on