PBS NewsHour full episode February 19, 2018

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: Students speak up -- how the survivors of the Florida school
shootings are trying to become a mobilizing force.
Then: President Trump lashes out at the Russia investigation indictments, but what do the
charges in the probe actually reveal?
And we continue our series on modern-day redlining -- how differences in home loan approvals
are reshaping neighborhoods.
ANGELA MCIVER, Fair Housing Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania: It is forcing African-Americans
out of their homes. African-Americans aren't able to move in at the same rate as whites.
And it's unfair.
JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: From Parkland to protest. Last week's school shooting in Florida is giving
rise to a campaign for action on guns. The pressure ratcheted up again today.
New calls for gun safety laws sounded from Florida to Los Angeles to Washington, D.C.,
as students protested gun violence.
Outside the White House, they read the names of the 17 people killed in last week's mass
shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida.
STUDENT: We're not the ones in office, but we are the ones in the classrooms.
STUDENT: They say now is not the time. Marco Rubio, when is it the time?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Over the weekend, students who survived the shooting called for stricter
gun laws and criminal background checks.
EMMA GONZALEZ, Senior, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School: If the president wants to come
up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and how it should never
have happened and maintain telling us how nothing is going to be done about it, I'm
going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
EMMA GONZALEZ: To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA, shame on you.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: You came through for me, and I am going to
come through for you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The NRA contributed more than $30 million to support candidate Trump's bid.
As president, Mr. Trump has largely opposed any gun restrictions.
A White House statement today said the president is -- quote -- "supportive of efforts" to
improve the federal background check system, and that he now supports a bipartisan bill
on criminal background checks.
The NRA also says it backs that bill introduced after 58 people died in the Las Vegas shooting
massacre last October. It aims to ensure federal agencies enter information into databases.
The president made no mention of gun laws Friday night as he visited with first-responders
in Parkland. Instead, on Saturday, he cited the FBI's failure to investigate a January
tip about the accused gunman, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz.
He wrote on Twitter that the bureau was -- quote -- "spending too much time trying to prove
Russian collusion with the Trump campaign."
Meanwhile, Cruz was back in court today for a preliminary hearing. He's been charged with
17 counts of premeditated murder. This morning, James and Kimberly Snead, who took Cruz into
their home last November after his mother died, said they had no inkling of what he
planned.
KIMBERLY SNEAD, Took in Nikolas Cruz: Still can't process it, what he's done, because
this wasn't the person that we knew. Not at all.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Sneads say Cruz kept the AR-15 he allegedly used locked in a gun safe
in the house. But they say, unbeknownst to them, he had his own key.
For more on the outcry that has grown out of last week's violence, we turn to two students
from the Florida high school where the attack occurred, both of whom are now active in the
calls for change.
Suzanna Barna is a 17-year-old senior who writes for the school paper. Lewis Mizen is
also 17 and a senior. He took shelter in a closet during the attack.
Suzanna and Lewis, thank you both for talking with us.
Suzanna, I'm going to turn to you first.
How are you doing? How are you friends doing in the aftermath of this?
SUZANNA BARNA, Senior, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School: The whole community is strong.
We're united right now.
It's so unfortunate, what we're going through right now. It's a work in progress. But we
will get through it, and hopefully make a change in the end of all of this.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Lewis, we should point out you're a legal permanent resident of the United
States. You have been here for four years. How are you doing? How are your friends doing?
LEWIS MIZEN, Senior, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School: I'm OK. Again, it's completely
different from anything I could have experienced in England.
But the community has been phenomenal, not just the community here, the community in
the world as a whole. Especially, my friends back in England have been sending all their
love and support, and it's helpful, because, you know, we really do appreciate the support,
because we're going through a lot right now.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Suzanna, what would you like to see happen?
SUZANNA BARNA: Personally, national change, I would love.
But, for now, our community is really focused on getting change in our own state, in Tallahassee.
We would like to see -- I mean, specifically, what we would like to see is just some sort
of policy change.
So, an example would be to change the age to purchase a gun to 21 for all weapons -- for
all types of guns, opposed to just handguns, which it is now. So, 21 would be the age for
that.
And then stricter background checks and just making sure that -- making sure they're thorough
enough, because the shooter for -- the shooter who came to our school, he had a history of
being expelled from school, and he had multiple problems and, like, violent outbreaks during
his time as a student, which I think needs to be looked into, especially when someone
is so young, where they're 18 and like early 20s, because they're still getting out of
school.
That's an important record to have and to look at for a background check. It says a
lot about their behavior.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Lewis, what about you? What would you add to that? What do you want to
have happen?
LEWIS MIZEN: Well, I think, obviously, it's recently come out in the news one of President
Trump's aides has said that he would be for a bipartisan agreement on having background
checks.
And I think that's phenomenal. I think it's a great step in the right direction. Obviously,
gun culture is part of American culture, and that's OK, but there is a line between owning
a gun to defend yourself and giving mentally unstable people access to the same sort of
weapons that we send our soldiers to fight foreign wars with.
JUDY WOODRUFF: In other words, that weapon that the gunmen used at your school.
Suzanna, our understanding of what President Trump is calling for is making it a little
bit harder to get a gun, making sure that if someone has a criminal history, that that
history goes into a federal database.
I hear you saying that's a step in the right direction, but you want more than that.
SUZANNA BARNA: That is a step in the right direction. I mean, we do want -- we do want
more than that.
But, I mean, as of now we're looking for change. We will take -- we will take what we can get
almost at this point. We really just want to see something happen. And from there, we
plan to do more and more and keep this political activism going for the students and by the
students to keep us involved.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Lewis, do you think the students are committed to stick with this? Is this
something is that going to last a long time, do you think?
LEWIS MIZEN: I think that this is our home. This is our high school, and, obviously, for
everyone around the world who sees us on the news, they get to go home, they get to go
to bed at the end of the day and wake up and move on with their lives and forget about
it.
We're going back to school in a week or so, and we have to walk the hallways where this
has happened. And it's going to stay in our minds for the rest of our lives. And I think
that I'm so, so lucky to have classmates who are willing to step up and kind of demand
change, because they're right. We do have a right to be able to go to school
and not fear for our lives. And teachers have a right to go to work and not have to worry
that, in their job requirements, they're going to have to stand in front of kids and take
bullets for them.
There is something to be said for change. We need to make change.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Suzanna, some people have said what we need, what this country needs is for
there to be people who are armed at every school. What do you think about that?
SUZANNA BARNA: Personally, that is not my political belief.
I think that -- I think that a good guy with a gun wouldn't be able to stop a bad guy with
a gun just because of the -- in -- well, just from my experience in the situation we were
in, I think that we do have an armed sheriff on our campus at all times, and -- but the
problem with that is that one good guy cannot stop someone with a higher -- with a better
gun and, like, with -- just with a motive to kill, because it would just create more
panic within the hallways, that the students who are running for their lives, they don't
know if the bullets are coming from a good guy or a bad guy.
And, I mean, I do -- I mean, I don't personally agree with it, but like, right now, I'm just
-- I'm really focused on just getting gun safety in general and about, like, how he
was able to get a gun, the shooter.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you have a thought about that, Lewis?
LEWIS MIZEN: I -- I come from a country where the most dangerous thing that can happen at
a school is culinary set something on fire. That's the worst-case scenario, really, for
an English school.
And it's on a complete different level here. And if we're thinking about sending elementary
school kids into a place with fences and men armed with machine guns, it's not going to
feel like a place where you can get educated. It's going to feel like a prison.
And that's not very, you know, conducive to an educational environment. And I understand
-- and people do have a point when they say, you know, OK, one guy with an assault rifle
can take down another guy with an assault rifle, but kids can get caught in that crossfire.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I know everyone watching is just heartbroken that you -- the two of
you and your classmates have to even think about some of these things.
But it is what we are dealing with right now as a country. And I just want to thank both
of you so much for talking with us.
Suzanna Barna and Lewis Mizen, thank you both.
LEWIS MIZEN: Thank you.
SUZANNA BARNA: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to the day's other news.
President Trump charged again that President Obama should have done more to stop Russia's
election meddling in 2016. It came in the president's latest tweet since federal indictments
on Friday that named 13 Russians.
We will look at the fallout from those charges made by the special counsel, Robert Mueller,
and Mr. Trump's response after the news summary.
Islamic State attackers in Iraq have ambushed and killed 27 Shiite-led militiamen. It happened
in a town southwest of Kirkuk, while the militiamen were conducting nighttime raids. Families
mourned the victims as their bodies arrived at a military airfield in Baghdad. Iraqi officials
had declared victory over ISIS just two months ago.
Turkey and Syria may be headed toward a confrontation. Syrian state TV reported today that pro-government
forces will go to the aid of Kurdish fighters near the Turkish border. Turkey says the Kurds
are terrorists, and it's attacking them around Afrin.
In Jordan's capital, Amman, the visiting Turkish foreign minister warned that Syria is risking
an armed clash.
MEVLUT CAVUSOGLU, Turkish Foreign Minister (through translator): I have also seen the
reports this morning. The aim of our Afrin operation is obvious, to eliminate the terrorists
that carry out attacks against us and pose a threat against Turkey. However, if the Syrian
regime comes in to defend them, then nothing and nobody can stop us or the Turkish soldiers.
JUDY WOODRUFF: By nightfall, no Syrian-backed troops had entered Afrin. Turkey has also
demanded that the United States stop supporting the Syrian Kurdish fighters.
The state parole board in Louisiana has denied parole to an inmate whose case led to a landmark
court decision. Henry Montgomery was just 17 years old when he killed a sheriff's deputy.
He's now 71. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juvenile murder defendants
to life without parole is unconstitutional. Montgomery must now wait another two years
to seek parole again.
And at the Winter Olympics in South Korea, the day's highlights included a win for American
women. The U.S. women's hockey team beat Finland and will play Canada for the gold medal later
this week.
And officials confirmed that a Russian curler failed a doping test. Russia is trying to
recover from findings that it ran a systematic doping scheme for years.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": what the indictment of 13 Russians means for the broader
investigation; the struggle to get home loans in gentrifying neighborhoods; the U.S. aid
cuts that could hurt Palestinians; and much more.
Now to the continued fallout over the sprawling indictment of 13 Russian nationals for intervening
in the 2016 presidential election.
In a moment, William Brangham will take an in-depth look at the charges.
But, first, White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor has some of the backstory, beginning
with the president's reaction.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump didn't speak publicly about the bombshell indictment during
his weekend away from Washington. His venting, instead, came through some 20-odd tweets since
Saturday.
More than half were related to the indictment or the Russia investigation in general. In
several tweets, including one today, Mr. Trump blamed former President Obama for not doing
enough about Russia's meddling.
Mr. Trump also claimed he -- quote -- "never said Russia didn't meddle in the election."
But last July, in an interview with Reuters, Mr. Trump wouldn't say if he believed Russia
actually meddled in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump said then that he raised the issue with
Putin twice, and that Putin denied any meddling. Mr. Trump then told Reuters -- quote -- "So,
something happened, and we have to find out what it is."
Special counsel Robert Mueller's indictment against the Internet Research Agency, other
Russian associates and companies alleges that Russian entities did have -- quote -- "a strategic
goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, and acted toward that goal."
On Saturday, the president's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, left little doubt
about where he stood.
H.R. MCMASTER, U.S. National Security Adviser: As you can see with the FBI indictment, the
evidence is now really incontrovertible and available in the public domain.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Mr. Trump attacked that as well over the weekend.
"General McMaster," he tweeted, "forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election
were not impacted or changed by the Russians."
The indictment does claim that the Russian defendants aimed to hurt some of the 2016
presidential candidates, like Democrat Hillary Clinton, and Republican senators Ted Cruz
and Marco Rubio, and to support President Trump, as well as one Democratic candidate,
independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders, over the weekend, said that lined up with
some of what he knew from 2016.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), Vermont: And it turns out that one of our social media guys in San
Diego actually went to the Clinton campaign in September and said, something weird is
going on. Bernie's not in the campaign. Hundreds of these people are now coming on to his Facebook
site.
So I think we already knew that it was an effort to undermine American democracy and
to really say horrible things about Secretary Clinton.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The indictment alleges that, as part of the Russian operation, some of
the defendants -- quote -- "traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the
purpose of collecting intelligence to inform defendants' operations."
That's in direct conflict to President Trump's remarks in West Virginia this past August.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: The Russian story is a total fabrication.
Have you seen any Russians in West Virginia or Ohio or Pennsylvania? Are there any Russians
here tonight? Any Russians?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: And when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictment
last week, he went into detail about the rallies that the Russian defendants allegedly helped
arrange using social media.
ROD ROSENSTEIN, U.S. Deputy Attorney General: The Russians also recruited and paid real
Americans to engage in political activities, promote political campaigns, and stage political
rallies.
The defendants and their co-conspirators pretended to be grassroots activists. According to the
indictment, the Americans didn't know that they were communicating with Russians. After
the election, the defendants allegedly staged rallies to support the president-elect, while
simultaneously staging rallies to protest his election.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The indictment says that rallies, allegedly boosted by the Russian
defendants, happened before and after the election in Florida, New York, North Carolina,
and Washington, D.C.
At a Senate hearing last week, the administration's intelligence chiefs fielded questions about
whether President Trump specifically asked them to take actions to curb future Russian
election operations.
SEN. JACK REED (D), Rhode Island: Has the president directed you and your agency to
take specific actions to confront and blunt Russian influence activities that are ongoing?
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI Director: Not as specifically directed by the president, no.
ADM. MIKE ROGERS, National Security Agency Director: For us, I can't say that I have
been explicitly directed to -- quote -- "blunt" or actively stop. On the other hand, it's
very clear generate knowledge and insight, help us understand this, so we can generate
better policy. That clearly -- that direction has been very explicit, in fairness.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The intelligence officials told the panel they had no reason to believe
Russia's efforts would subside. Mr. Trump claims last week's indictment proves his campaign
didn't collude with Russia. But Mueller's investigation into that possibility continues.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Yamiche Alcindor.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This indictment of over a dozen Russians for committing -- quote -- "information
warfare" on the United States is, without a doubt, a major development in the special
counsel's investigation into Russian meddling in our last election.
Matthew Olsen ran the National Counterterrorism Center during the Obama administration, and
was a longtime federal prosecutor. Welcome back to the "NewsHour."
MATTHEW OLSEN, Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center: Thanks, William.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, give me your initial impressions of this indictment.
MATTHEW OLSEN: Yes.
So, I think the most striking thing about the indictment when you read it is the extraordinary
detail that it includes about this information warfare campaign that the Russians carried
out. This is a speaking indictment, what prosecutors call speaking indictment.
Prosecutors could just lay out the bare elements of the crime, but in this case, the special
counsel went to great pains to establish each of the facts necessary to show this really
systematic effort to conspire against the United States.
And it's important to bear in mind that, for every overt act in this indictment, that means
that the special counsel believes he has provable evidence, he has facts that he can demonstrate
in court to back up these facts, as your opening showed, of infiltration of the United States
by Russian operatives to do all manner of things, including set up phony rallies and
establish fake personas for Americans.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Some have referred to this as a message indictment, meaning, we're not
going to any time soon see any of these Russians put on a plane and extradited to the U.S.
So is Mueller sending a message with this? Is this laying out in such explicit detail,
that's the purpose, in and of itself?
MATTHEW OLSEN: Well, I think it does send that message. And, as you say, it's unlikely
that these individuals will be in the United States in a courtroom any time soon.
But it does much more than that. This indictment is a foundational indictment. It establishes
the bedrock foundation of this conspiracy charge on which the special counsel can now
build a broader case. And I think there's every reason to expect, given the extraordinary
detail in this indictment, as well as the fact that there are a number of cooperating
witnesses who have pled guilty now and are assisting the special counsel, including,
for example, Mike Flynn, to expect that there will be additional charges on top of this
foundational charging document.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In this indictment, there's no specific mention that these operators,
these actors were being told to do what they did by the Kremlin.
That is the assumption that everyone makes. Do you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt
this is a Putin operation?
MATTHEW OLSEN: I believe what the intelligence community has said about this from the early
days of it first being exposed by our intelligence leaders and officials.
And that is that this type of operation wouldn't occur without explicit direction of the Kremlin,
including Putin himself. And I think that's absolutely consistent with everything I have
seen.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You mentioned that this is building the foundation for further possible
conspiracy charges.
What else about this? Does this give you any greater sense of where the probe is going
forward?
MATTHEW OLSEN: It does.
Again, this is a conspiracy charge that just charged the Russian side of this. I think
that that, in my view, is potentially a strategic decision by the special counsel to make this
a very apolitical charging document, because it's focused on the Russians.
But if you look at the document itself, it talks about the grand jury charged individuals
known and unknown who conspired, that there are others who are known and unknown to the
grand jury who are part of this.
So, again, there are other charges. For example, the hacking of the Democratic National Committee,
we know that's a crime. That's not charged here. Obstruction of justice is also within
the purview of this investigation.
So, again, I think there's every reason to expect that this is really the first major
salvo in what is likely to be additional charges with other crimes, as well as other individuals
charged.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All of the intel chiefs have said Russia meddled and they they're
going to -- were going to do it again.
For the record, the White House gave us a statement today, saying that President Trump
does take this very seriously, that he's going to do everything he can to defend the next
election. They pointed out that they held a hearing last week with state and local election
officials to talk about meddling.
Do you think, looking at the landscape now, that we are doing enough to defend the next
election from this kind of attack?
MATTHEW OLSEN: You know, there have been some signs of additional efforts being done, but
I think the answer to your question is definitively no.
We lack from the very top, from the leader, from the commander in chief, a definitive
statement saying that this was the Russians and that he is not going to blame others,
for example, President Obama, but he is going to blame the people who are responsible. And
that is the Russians, including the Russian government.
And there are lots -- there's lots more that he can do, that the president can do, and
the government can do to make Russia pay a price, including sanctions and including other
activities that the government can -- our government can undertake.
As of this point, the president really hasn't stepped up to his constitutional obligation
to defend our democracy. He's actually failed to do that. And I think that's what we will
be looking for in the future from the president.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Matthew Olsen, thank you very much.
MATTHEW OLSEN: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tonight, we continue a two-part series investigating why blacks and Latinos
seem to have a harder time getting home-related loans.
Since banks constricted credit immediately after the 2008 housing bust, they have been
slowly increasing the amount they're lending. But this financial leg up has not reached
everyone.
From Reveal at the Center for Investigative Reporting, Aaron Glantz returns to Philadelphia.
AARON GLANTZ: Point Breeze is undergoing a transformation. Named by Zillow as the hottest
neighborhood in Philadelphia in 2017, it is one of the only majority black communities
where banks are doing a lot of lending.
Banks are even making special loans on generous terms to people here, thanks to the 1977 Community
Reinvestment Act, a landmark law designed to get banks to extend all types of loans
to low-income borrowers and in low-income neighborhoods.
But some longtime residents here say they're being left behind.
ADRIENNE STOKES, Philadelphia Resident: It's not balanced. It should be equal. You understand
what I'm saying? And just -- for me, that is just discrimination. It's not right.
AARON GLANTZ: Adrienne Stokes has owned her Point Breeze home for decades. She lives here
with her pit bull, Bootz (ph). There is a lot of new investment in the area and property
values have skyrocketed. But normal wear and tear has taken a toll on her house.
ADRIENNE STOKES: See how this window is off-track? They're off-track.
AARON GLANTZ: So, she went to a local bank, Firstrust, the only one with a branch in the
neighborhood.
ADRIENNE STOKES: I went there to get a home equity loan, OK, because I wanted to fix up
my home.
AARON GLANTZ: She was looking for $30,000 and, because of rising property values, had
$200,000 of equity in her house. She was current on her mortgage, and she has a steady income.
ADRIENNE STOKES: Never, you know, did no refinancing the home. I just wanted a home equity loan
to fix up my house. And I couldn't believe they denied me.
AARON GLANTZ: She was told her credit score wasn't good enough. Without the loan, she's
afraid the condition of her house will only get worse.
ADRIENNE STOKES: Here you go. Look. Yuck. All these wires drive me crazy. It's like,
oh, my God, I don't know what's going on. I'm just scared.
AARON GLANTZ: We reached out to Firstrust, but company officials declined to be interviewed.
Under the Community Reinvestment Act, banks are required to make loans to qualified buyers
in low-income neighborhoods, like Point Breeze, provided the bank has a branch that takes
deposits anywhere in that city.
But banks don't have to give them to the people who already live there. The 40-year-old law
didn't anticipate that historically black neighborhoods would be sought out by young
white homebuyers.
While it's hard for longtime residents, who are overwhelmingly African-American, to get
loans, it's much easier for white newcomers like Beth Warshaw.
BETH WARSHAW, Philadelphia Resident: I was definitely aware that I was like, I'm a white
person moving into this neighborhood that is historically not white, and what is that
going to look like?
AARON GLANTZ: Warshaw realized that she had some financial challenges. Since moving back
to Philadelphia, she'd been unemployed for nine months and only just found a job. So,
she couldn't show a stable work history.
BETH WARSHAW: I needed someone who understood the limitations of my bank account. Even the
amount that I had is still, like, a very small amount when it comes to buying a house in
this town or in any town.
AARON GLANTZ: Banks can pass their Community Reinvestment Act test by lending to anyone
in a low-income neighborhood, regardless of race. Here in Point Breeze, federal lending
data show that financial institutions granted 806 loans to whites between 2012 and 2016
and rejected them 152 time. On the other hand, African-Americans got 275 loans, and were
rejected 471 times.
ANGELA MCIVER, Fair Housing Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania: It's a bit disheartening
to hear that the very people who were probably the ones that were excluded or redlined are
the ones that are not benefiting from the banks' corrective actions.
AARON GLANTZ: Angela McIver heads the Fair Housing Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania.
She says the way these banks meet their community lending obligations feeds gentrification and
leads to displacement.
ANGELA MCIVER: It is forcing African-Americans out of their homes. African-Americans aren't
able to move in at the same rate as whites. And, you know, it's unfair.
AARON GLANTZ: And that's not the only gap in the law. Here in Philadelphia, an increasing
share of the home loan market is controlled by mortgage brokers, who are not regulated
by the Community Reinvestment Act at all. Warshaw got her loan from one, Trident Mortgage
Company.
MAN: Remember, your Trident Mortgage consultant is there to answer all your questions.
AARON GLANTZ: It helps more people buy homes in Philadelphia than anyone else. They made
nearly 1,000 conventional home purchase loans in 2016, and only 28 of them were to African-Americans.
BETH WARSHAW: It makes me angry. Somebody is not asking themselves the right questions,
including me. I wasn't asking those right questions either.
AARON GLANTZ: And rather than getting their business through a local bank branch, it gets
most of its clients through referrals, which can lead to a lack of diversity, and ultimately
racial imbalances.
So, you're white. Your real estate agent was?
BETH WARSHAW: White.
AARON GLANTZ: And your broker at Trident was?
BETH WARSHAW: Definitely white.
AARON GLANTZ: So, everyone in the whole chain?
BETH WARSHAW: Yes.
AARON GLANTZ: Here in Philadelphia, there's been a dramatic growth of lending from unregulated
mortgage companies. An overwhelming majority of those loans are going to white homebuyers
in a city that is 40 percent black.
BETH WARSHAW: It struck me how white everything was. I don't think I realized I had any other
alternatives.
AARON GLANTZ: We asked Trident, which is part of Berkshire Hathaway, why a lender with offices
all around the city grants so few loans to African-Americans. But company officials declined
to be interviewed.
The Community Reinvestment Act applies to only banks with branches, so mortgage companies
like Trident don't have the same requirements to lend in low-income communities.
Tom Curry was in charge of enforcing that act for five years under President Obama as
comptroller of the currency.
THOMAS CURRY, Former Comptroller of the Currency: I think after 40 years, it's shown its age.
A lot has changed in the banking industry.
AARON GLANTZ: This month, the newly-appointed comptroller, Joseph Otting, said he would
be seeking formal input to update the law. We requested an interview with Otting. He
declined to comment, but said in a statement he was interested in modernizing the 40-year-old
act so that it would encourage banks to invest in and meet the needs of their communities.
Otting is no stranger to the banking industry. From 2010 to 2015, he served as CEO of OneWest
Bank. When he was in charge, government lending records show only 1 percent of home purchase
loans went to African-Americans and 3 percent to Latinos. This month, the Comptroller's
Office met with the American Bankers Association at the Treasury Department to get their recommendations
on how the act should be changed.
In a report the association submitted in December, they complained of overly restrictive concepts
of community and economic development under CRA and said the rules should be loosened.
All of that lobbying is likely do little to help Adrienne Stokes in Point Breeze. While
you can see construction on just about every block, very little lending has been going
to longtime residents of the neighborhood.
The home two doors down, where a black family lived for three decades, has been demolished,
is now a hole in the ground, sold to a local developer, who plans to build a three-story
house with a roof deck and a cellar. If the trends of recent years hold, this house will
likely go to a white newcomer.
ADRIENNE STOKES: But for me, I'm not going anywhere. I will be right here. Maybe they
might change their mind, and I might get this loan. And that would be a blessing.
AARON GLANTZ: Stokes says, like her neighbors, her house gets offers from developers, but
she won't sell the home she's fought so hard to keep.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Aaron Glantz in Philadelphia.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us.
Coming up on the "NewsHour": the chances Congress could take up gun control legislation; and
"Tell Them We Are Rising," a documentary about the influence of historically black colleges.
But first to the Middle East.
For decades, a United Nations agency has helped Palestinian refugees with various forms of
assistance, and has relied on international aid to run its programs.
John Yang recently sat down with one of the agency's top officials, as the Trump administration
seeks to cut its funding.
JOHN YANG: The United States is the largest donor to the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency. Known by its initials, UNRWA, it provides education, health care and other aid to Palestinian
refugees in Gaza and the West Bank.
Last month, the Trump administration announced it was withholding more than half of a scheduled
$125 million payment to the agency, saying it wanted unspecified reforms.
Joining us now is Scott Anderson, UNRWA's director of operations. Before joining the
agency, he was an Army officer for 10 years, including a stint as a company commander in
Afghanistan. Scott Anderson, thanks for being with us.
What's going to be the effect of the -- withholding this money on UNRWA's operations?
SCOTT ANDERSON, Director of Operations, United Nations Relief and Works Agency: What I like
to talk about is what at risk of UNRWA being underfunded.
Every day at our schools across the Middle East, we have over half-a-million children
come into our doors for education. And if we were here in the U.S., that be the third
largest school district, after New York and Los Angeles.
We have millions of patient visits in our health care centers. And we provide food assistance
to more than a million refugees in the region. So, all that is at risk. And I think the part
that's very important with our education program is that, in addition to math and science and
the normal type things, we teach human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance.
And we also have a very strong gender component to try to bring gender parity and gender equity
to the region.
JOHN YANG: The administration says it wants reforms. It hasn't said publicly what those
reforms are. Have they told UNRWA what they want?
SCOTT ANDERSON: I don't know anybody what reforms they do want.
I have been with UNRWA since 2008 almost continuously. And what I can say is that we are constantly
reforming what we do. We have reformed our education program. We have reformed our health
program. We have moved from food to cash in the West Bank.
And this is just indicative of the very serious obligation we feel we have to be the best
that we can be.
JOHN YANG: In January, the president said that -- he said: "We pay the Palestinians
hundreds of millions of dollars a year and get no appreciation or respect."
Is there in any sense or a suspicion that there's some sort of -- this is punitive,
that this is somehow a payback from the president and the administration?
SCOTT ANDERSON: I mean, I can't speak to what the motivations were.
All I can say is that, if we get no more funding from the U.S. this year, it would be a reduction
of 83 percent of what they gave us in 2017. And I would just -- I would like to add we're
very grateful to the U.S.
They have been a strong partner from President Trump all the way back to President Truman,
as we do our -- administer our services to the refugees of Palestine, primarily in the
West Bank, which is where I am.
JOHN YANG: Israel has had, I think fair to say, a contentious relationship with UNRWA.
They praised the president's move. They have long said that UNRWA contributes to the Palestinian
militancy, that they let militants use UNRWA facilities and that the UNRWA staff is often
sympathetic to the militants.
How do you respond to those?
SCOTT ANDERSON: I mean, I think I just -- I mentioned that we teach human rights, conflict
resolution and tolerance, which actually would be quite on the opposite end of the spectrum
from militancy in any form.
And we certainly do not support in any way, shape or form any type of violence. That is
completely opposed to the values of the United Nations. And I work very closely with the
Israeli security forces, the Israeli defense forces, the army and so forth on a daily basis.
And there is mutual respect and appreciation for the services that we provide on the ground.
And they do understand how important it is that UNRWA is there and that we contribute
to stability, which I think is in the national interest both of Israel and the United States,
but all the member states of the U.N.
JOHN YANG: They also complain or say that UNRWA cooperates with Hamas.
SCOTT ANDERSON: When Hamas came to power in 2008, the U.N. had a strict no contact policy.
I was in Gaza in 2008, from then until 2015, and we adhered to the no contact policy.
But it did allow for existing technical relationships to continue. So, for example, if there was
a mumps outbreak in a camp, you can't treat that in a vacuum. You have to work with the
Ministry of Health to make sure that it's contained, so it doesn't become a public health
phenomena that impacts people on a broader scale.
So, we do very strictly to the no contact policy, but there are components where you
just can't function in the best interests of the larger public good if you don't have
some sort of interaction.
JOHN YANG: And, finally, I want to ask you about your career path.
I think, how does a farm boy from Iowa, a career military officer end up at a U.N. relief
agency in Gaza and the West Bank?
SCOTT ANDERSON: I have to say it was purely accidental. It wasn't planned.
After I left the Army, I went to Saudi Arabia. I worked for the U.S. government on a foreign
military sales program. And I saw for a job in Gaza with the U.N., and I applied because
I thought it looked really interesting.
And what I found, when you get to Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, it's a very compelling
place to work, the history that's there, but also just the people. The Israelis and Palestinians
are wonderful people. I have enjoyed very much the time that I have had there. And I
have been very grateful for that opportunity.
JOHN YANG: Very good.
Scott Anderson of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, thanks
for joining us.
SCOTT ANDERSON: Thank you very much, John. Pleasure to be here.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Turning back now to the ongoing Russia investigation, the school shooting
in Florida and President Trump's response to both, it's time for Politics Monday with
Tamara Keith of NPR and Shawna Thomas. She is the Washington bureau chief for VICE News.
And we welcome both of you to the program, Politics Monday.
So, Tam, the president has now had several days to, I guess you would say, soak in what
happened at Parkland, the high school in Parkland last week. How do you size up his reaction?
There have been tweets. He did visit Parkland over the weekend. What do you make of it?
TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: There haven't been that many tweets, actually. And
one of them tied the FBI's error in the shooting to the Russia investigation. Most of his focus
this weekend has been on Russia.
As for the gun issue, there is this interesting development where, with the past two mass
shootings that have happened during the Trump presidency, the White House has said the president
wants to be part of the conversation.
Well, this week, they are actually trying to drive a conversation, and that's a little
different. Typically, they have sort of hung back and waited for the conversation to fade
away. But this week, they are bringing some students to the White House, as well as state
and local leaders, trying to do that thing that presidents can do, which is convene and
guide a conversation.
Who knows if that will result in anything different, but it is slightly different on
the front end than some of the other past mass shootings during the Trump administration.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, Shawna, how is it different? We're trying to -- we're looking at this and
trying to figure out, are they reacting differently?
SHAWNA THOMAS, VICE News: Well, I think there's two things.
There's, one, we also had the White House confirm that President Trump has spoken with
Senator John Cornyn of Texas about possibly a background check bill that him and Chris
Murphy had written. And the fact that -- I think that they confirmed it, put it out as
a press release basically, that was one step towards an actual thing that exists on paper
right now.
And I think the other thing that can't be denied is the power of those students, and
that it's really hard not to say something or at least put out a press release or do
the student thing that you were talking about when you are faced with those kids on all
of the Sunday shows yesterday, playing on a repeat on cable.
They clearly know they are losing a little bit of a P.R. battle here, and that he needs
to get on top of it, to a certain extent.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But, on the other hand, Tam, they are still dealing with the same relationship
they have with the gun lobby, with the NRA.
So, the same -- it seems to me it's the same landscape out there of political support.
Or is it changing?
TAMARA KEITH: I don't think that the landscape has necessarily changed. There's a lot of
wiggle room in the language that Sarah Sanders used in her statement about how the president
feels about possibly considering this background check legislation.
The other thing I would say is, President Trump has been tweeting a lot all weekend.
He hasn't tweeted an endorsement of the legislation, and he hasn't spoken publicly about it. And
so he hasn't really -- he has a spokesperson out there, but he hasn't really put himself
out there.
The other thing I would say is that, earlier -- this legislation actually came about as
a result of the last major mass shooting, that Texas church shooting. And the NRA, at
least on some level, backed the legislation. It doesn't expand background checks.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.
TAMARA KEITH: This is a far cry from what advocates, gun control or gun safety advocates
are arguing for.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, in fact, Shawna, it is. It would be -- the Cornyn-Murphy legislation
is really about just making sure that information goes into that database, right?
SHAWNA THOMAS: Exactly. It is about that.
And it's trying to make sure the databases are talking to each other properly. It does
give some more money to the states to be able to do that. But I think the thing about it
is -- and maybe this is a small thing that people could get done.
There are so many background check systems. There are so few people in the various agencies
to actually do the work that needs to be done here, that if you don't see any movement at
least on money or trying to confirm certain things, then it is going to be a little bit
toothless.
The other problem being that the House legislation, that version of it had a concealed carry provision
within it, which the NRA did like. And even Senator Cornyn has said that needs to be sort
of separated from the background stuff if it's ever going to get through the Senate.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, meanwhile, these students, we heard them on our program a few minutes
ago being very passionate about this, but how long will that last? We don't know.
I do want to turn to Russia.
Tam, as you said, that is what you said the president did tweet a lot about over the weekend.
He's still pretty unhappy with what came out from the special counsel on Friday.
TAMARA KEITH: It sure seems that way.
He has been tweeting. And those are the public statements we have from him this weekend,
largely trying to separate himself, trying to really say, you know, I was a great candidate.
You know, basically, the president is doing what he's been doing all along as it relates
to the Russia investigation, which is trying to say, this doesn't threaten the legitimacy
of my presidency. Here, look at all the other ways how.
And he didn't go after Russia.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. TAMARA KEITH: And he also didn't offer any
prescriptions for how he, as president of the United States, would lead the nation in
dealing with what laid out in that indictment is a very serious problem.
SHAWNA THOMAS: And he also kind of went after his own national security adviser just a little
bit on Twitter.
JUDY WOODRUFF: He sure did.
SHAWNA THOMAS: Yes.
And I think one of the things is, the indictment doesn't indict him, and it doesn't indict
the Trump campaign. And the sort of overreaction on Twitter makes you wonder a little bit,
why are you overreacting so much?
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, as you say, because, Tam, if you look at it, I mean, the Russians started
in 2014. They were clearly trying to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances.
Donald Trump points out, well, I -- you know, they're not saying that I was the main beneficiary
of this, because this happened long before I was a candidate.
TAMARA KEITH: It started long before he was a candidate.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.
TAMARA KEITH: Ultimately, the indictment makes clear that they did favor both Donald Trump
and Bernie Sanders and were trying to disadvantage Hillary Clinton as part of that campaign.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sure. Yes.
Well, it is -- we heard the conversation earlier in the show, Shawna. People look at this indictment.
It's deadly serious. You have to believe there's more coming out. And yet the White House reaction
is no.
SHAWNA THOMAS: No, but it -- one of the things that -- the White House doesn't need to push
back necessarily in the way they did.
They have an opportunity here to shift the conversation to our election process in 2018,
to shift the conversation to what are the states doing, how is the federal government
going to act with what the states are doing to protect the election systems, and, for
some reason, they aren't doing that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And not going after Russia, as both of you are pointing out.
Shawna Thomas, Tamara Keith, thank you both.
Politics Monday.
TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.
SHAWNA THOMAS: Thanks.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tonight at 9:00 p.m. on most PBS stations, "Independent Lens" tells the
story of this country's historically black colleges.
Jeffrey Brown is here with a preview.
JEFFREY BROWN: "Tell Them We Are Rising" is the story of the nation's historically black
colleges and universities, commonly known as HBCUs.
The film charts their rise and pivotal role in producing generations of professional and
middle-class African-Americans and looks at threats to their continuing prominence, even
in some cases their existence.
Stanley Nelson is the film's director.
Welcome to you.
STANLEY NELSON, Director, "Tell Them We Are Rising": Thank you so much.
JEFFREY BROWN: Why take this on?
I gather it's at least partly personal.
STANLEY NELSON: Well, it's a very important story.
But, also, my parents went to HBCUs, both in the 1930s. My mother went to Talladega
in Alabama. My father went to Howard in Washington, D.C.
And there's no way they would have gone to college if it wasn't for HBCUs. So, HBCUs
changed the trajectory of their lives. It changed my life. It will change my kids' life,
on down through the generations. So it's been very important to me.
JEFFREY BROWN: There's a historian early in the film who says the question for African-Americans
has always been, what is the purpose of education, who controls it, what is the relationship
of education to the broader aspirations of our people?
You are presenting in the film these colleges as the answers to that.
STANLEY NELSON: Yes.
And I think one of the things that the film does is kind of ask that question and then
answer it. You see, as HBCUs have gone through their history, how that's changed, how who
controls our education has changed, how what it's for has changed, and how so many times
it's been the students actually at HBCUs who have changed what education is for.
JEFFREY BROWN: Let's take a look. We have a short clip that shows some of the impact
it had.
DOROTHY SMITH, Bennett College Alumna: If a teacher saw you kind of slipping or faltering,
there was a, what's going on, what's the matter? Can I help? There was a watching over you
to see that you did the best you could.
MARYBETH GASMAN, Historian: Black colleges were educating future doctors and future lawyers
and future teachers and nurses and judges. And they were responsible for lifting African-Americans
out of poverty, and they started to create the black middle class as we know it.
JAMES ANDERSON, Historian: For a black child, every teacher that you knew had gone to a
black college. Every lawyer that you knew had gone to a black college. Every medical
doctor that treated you had gone to a black college.
MICHAEL LOMAX, United Negro College Fund: Black colleges were redefining what it meant
to be black in America. You weren't doing something with your hands. You were pursuing
a career where education and intellect mattered.
JEFFREY BROWN: That part goes to a period where there were really almost no other choices,
right?
STANLEY NELSON: Right.
JEFFREY BROWN: But one of the other aspects that you bring out is these colleges as incubators
of social change, right, the places where leaders and movements began.
STANLEY NELSON: Yes, but I think that's one of the important functions that HBCUs have
served so many times.
So, we talk about the sit-in movement that started at North Carolina A&T. We talk about
the fight to get to Brown vs. Board of Ed, to send segregation. That started in Howard
-- the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, Freedom Summer, all of these things. Martin Luther
King came out of an HBCU.
So, yes, they have been this kind of safe intellectual space for African-Americans,
because this is a place where young black people can sit around and talk about the future
and where we're going.
JEFFREY BROWN: What was life like on these campuses that differed from other universities?
What made them?
STANLEY NELSON: Well, I think one of the things that made and still makes HBCUs different
is that they are a nurturing environment.
You know, like, for my own father, who was the first -- he and his brother were the first
people in his family to graduate high school. And my father went to Howard University just
because he lived in D.C., and it was there, and he went to Howard.
And he's there, and someone comes up to him and says, what are you doing? You're fooling
around. You can do this. Stop goofing around.
My father then went on to graduate Howard, and then went to Howard Dental School, became
a successful dentist. And that's one of the reasons why I'm sitting here today.
But it's that nurturing, that -- as we saw in the clip, it's that nurturing that's so
important that HBCUs have provided and still provide today.
JEFFREY BROWN: That students might not have gotten elsewhere.
STANLEY NELSON: No.
I think that that is a very different kind of attitude than a lot of times you get at
majority white institutions, which is, like, well, you got here, and so you belong here.
And so, here's the work. Do it.
JEFFREY BROWN: Right. Now do it.
STANLEY NELSON: Now do it.
HBCUs, it's a little bit different. It's, like, we are here to help you and to help
you do this work, because we know you can do it because we might have been in the same
position that you are.
JEFFREY BROWN: You do get at the situation today with many black colleges struggling.
And there's still a debate, I guess, over to what extent they are needed, what role
they play today. What did you conclude after doing this?
STANLEY NELSON: Well, I think that one of the ways to look at it is that, until racism,
until racialism, until we -- ends in this country, until we have kind of a level playing
field for kids in grade school and junior high and high school, that we need HBCUs,
right.
That's one way to look at it. Another way, one of the things that people who work with
HBCUs will tell you is, like, we still have Catholic universities, right?
JEFFREY BROWN: Right.
STANLEY NELSON: And nobody's questioning that. We still have Yeshiva. Nobody is questioning
that. And so...
JEFFREY BROWN: We still have women's colleges.
STANLEY NELSON: We still have women's colleges.
So, I think that that's really not a -- really a real question at this point. I think we
need HBCUs, maybe not as much as we did in 1865, but we still need them very much today.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, the film is "Tell Them We Are Rising."
Stanley Nelson, thank you very much.
STANLEY NELSON: I thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: "Tell Them We Are Rising" airs tonight on most PBS stations.
On the "NewsHour" online right now, we talk to a poet whose upcoming book explores freedom,
extreme beliefs and America's relationship with guns. Read some of her work at PBS.org/NewsHour.
All that and more is on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour.
And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.
On Tuesday, a look at the battle over teaching climate change in schools.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
Join us online and again right here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour,"
thank you, and we'll see you soon.
China's New Silk Road | DW Documentary Tamara Keith and Shawna Thomas decipher three days of Twitter Turmoil PBS NewsHour Weekend full episode Feb . 18, 2018 PBS NewsHour full episode February 9, 2018 Robert Mueller Indictment: Russia Hacks Didn't Stop After 2016 | The 11th Hour | MSNBC Nava Jeevana Vedam By Garikapati Narasimha Rao | Nava Jeevana Vedam | Full Episode 1167 | ABN Telugu Trump maintains 'no collusion' after Russian indictments PBS LBJ Part 1 Man Who Invested Rs 60 Crore In Mehul Choksi Duped | Mehul Choksi Scam How Donald Trump Won the 2016 Election - (TIMELINE)

PBS NewsHour full episode February 19, 2018

Latest Posts