PBS NewsHour full episode February 8, 2018

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: Congress rushes to make a deal to keep the federal government
open before a midnight deadline.
Then: another flash point in the Syria conflict, as American forces attack pro-government fighters
in a rare offensive.
And Making Sense of the volatility on Wall Street.
How long will the roller coaster last?
And what the wild swings mean for Main Street.
PAUL SOLMAN: Optimists have a seemingly strong case, with data to back them up.
The U.S. and global economies appear to be doing just fine.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Plus: on the ground in South Korea.
The 2018 Winter Olympics get under way amid the Russian doping scandal and an Olympians's
feud with Vice President Pence.
All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: Wall Street's wild ride took it way south again today, as fears of coming
inflation and higher interest rates overcame U.S. markets.
The Dow Jones industrials dropped more than 1,000 points for the second time this week,
to close at 23860.
The Nasdaq fell almost 275 points, and the S&P 500 gave up 100.
Both the Dow and S&P are down 10 percent from their highs of just two weeks ago.
That officially signals what experts call a correction.
Our other major story tonight: Deal or no deal on the federal budget?
U.S. Senate leaders labored all day to pass a funding bill that keeps the government running.
The House of Representatives waited to cast its own vote, as time ticked away.
Lisa Desjardins reports.
LISA DESJARDINS: At the Capitol, hours away from another government shutdown, a sweeping
solution with admitted flaws.
SEN.
MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), Majority Leader: I am confident that no senator on either side
of the aisle believes this is a perfect bill.
LISA DESJARDINS: Still, Senate leaders pushed their mega-budget deal as a way to avoid a
shutdown and end budget uncertainty.
SEN.
MITCH MCCONNELL: But I'm also confident this is our best chance to begin rebuilding our
military and make progress on issues directly affecting the American people.
SEN.
CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), Minority Leader: And it's a strong signal that we can break the
gridlock that has overwhelmed this body and work together for the good of the country.
LISA DESJARDINS: But as the midnight funding deadline drew closer, the Senate floor was
mostly empty.
That's because a single senator, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, objected to an immediate
vote, saying he would keep objecting unless the Senate had a chance to reduce the spending
in the budget deal.
This as most members were still digesting the dense 652-page final bill released overnight.
In it, a big boost for defense spending, over $160 billion over the next two years.
For non-defense, a $130 billion increase.
The packed proposal also includes funding for community health centers, a 10-year extension
of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and nearly $90 billion in disaster aid for
areas hit by last year's hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters.
But more than two-thirds of the bill's spending is unpaid for, a major concern for fiscal
conservatives.
To Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, it's a bad deal and bad direction.
SEN.
JEFF FLAKE (R), Arizona: I love bipartisanship.
It seems like the only bipartisan measures we can do now is when we just spend obscenely
and spread enough money around where everybody's OK.
And we just can't do that anymore.
We have done that too long.
So, it's just too bad.
LISA DESJARDINS: Separate hurtles await if bill in the House.
REP.
NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), House Minority Leader: I'm just telling people why I'm voting the
way I am voting.
LISA DESJARDINS: Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she won't vote for the bill.
Today, she again called for House Speaker Paul Ryan to guarantee a vote on protections
for DACA recipients brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already made that promise.
The speaker, who likely needs Democratic votes to pass the bill, insisted that he is committed
to a DACA solution.
But, he added, the budget must come first.
REP.
PAUL RYAN (R-WI), Speaker of the House: In order to shift our focus and get on to the
next big priority, which is a DACA solution, we got to get this budget agreement done.
I'm confident we can bring a bipartisan solution to the floor that can get signed into law
and solve this problem.
LISA DESJARDINS: First, Congress still has to pass a funding bill, with just hours until
a shutdown.
But as we speak right now, Senator Rand Paul's on the Senate floor still objecting, still
blocking a vote on this bigger budget bill.
And, of course, Judy, that means blocking the funding that would avert a shutdown.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So we are, what, six hours away from when they have to do something.
Where do things stand?
LISA DESJARDINS: Yes.
OK, let's game this out.
In truth, if the Senate were to pass something at this exact instant, it could still take
six to seven hours for them to get the bill to the House and have the House be able to
vote.
So, Judy, I think at this moment because of the delays in the Senate primarily, we will
have technically a shutdown.
It could be a few hours into the overnight.
I think what's going to happen is this battle will be determined in the dark, in the midnight
hours, where we have seen the most ferocious fights of this past year happen.
And to be honest, Judy, we don't know yet if there are the votes on the House side to
pass this bill.
It seems so, but it's not clear.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, let's step back just a moment, as you started to do there.
LISA DESJARDINS: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Talk about this budget bill and how this process works at this point.
LISA DESJARDINS: Right.
It's important to realize what this large budget bill is, is permission to spend more.
It's guidance and maximum amounts that they can spend.
They're raising the maximum amounts, but they're not saying how you can spend it.
To do that, Congress wants another six weeks of time to do the normal appropriations bills.
So this bill does two things.
It raises those maximum spending amounts and it has a continuing resolution, or one last
short-term funding bill, that would go to March 23.
That's the item that's most imperative to avoid a shutdown, that short-term C.R., or
continuing resolution, but they're tied together, and right now they're both being blocked.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, I watched your report last night.
You got into some of what is in this bill, but flesh out some more of it for us.
LISA DESJARDINS: Right.
Let's talk about some key things.
A lot of folks concerned about the opioid crisis.
I mentioned there's $6 billion worth of funding.
Let's have some perspective on that.
That's not much compared to the $25 billion that was recently requested from senators
in high-impact states.
Now, another thing, the military.
We hear a lot about that and this $160 billion increase in their annual budget over the next
two years.
What other people don't talk a lot about, Judy, is there's also another $160 billion
for the military in something called the overseas contingency fund.
It's emergency funding that's actually been kicked around year after year.
It has become an annual spending item.
So, the military getting an even bigger increase than people realize.
There's also a slew of tax extenders, NASCAR, racing horses, Indian reservations, plug-in
cars, many, many dozens of the tax cuts in this bill.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So we heard Senator Flake lamenting what does this does to spending.
There is an increase in the debt ceiling included here.
LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tell us a little bit more about how that works.
What does this bill do to the debt?
LISA DESJARDINS: So, the debt ceiling would be increased for a year, not by a nominal
amount, but just by however much it naturally grows until next March, March 2019.
Now, then you also look at what does this bill do itself in terms of red ink.
Well, if the spending amounts in this bill were extended over 10 years, it would be $1.5
trillion added to the deficit.
Let's add that on top of the other bill recently passed, the tax cut law, another $1.5 trillion
over 10 years, two big bills from Republicans.
But compare that to TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program.
Remember that that was so unpopular to save the banks, and the Obama stimulus?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.
LISA DESJARDINS: Those two things, TARP and the Obama stimulus, $1.5 trillion together,
and that is what the amount of each of these bills would add to the deficit.
So, the Republicans didn't like those two bills earlier.
That's what started the Tea Party movement.
Instead, now they're passing two different bills that would add that much red ink, each
of them.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Ten years later.
LISA DESJARDINS: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And just very quickly, we heard Speaker Ryan talk about immigration.
Where does immigration come down here?
LISA DESJARDINS: Right.
Roll up your sleeves.
It is going to be a major debate in the Senate next week.
Senator McConnell has said he's not starting with any particular immigration bill, but
instead allowing all the amendments that people want to come to the floor.
He says it will be a full process.
We will have to see the exact rules.
It could take more than a week for the Senate to run through all the different ideas that
senators have and to vote on all of them.
But get ready.
Next week will be a very big one in the Senate.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I have a feeling the midnight oil in the Desjardins household will be burning.
LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.
A lot of federal workers are going to be up late figuring out if they go to work tomorrow
or not.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Appreciate it.
Lisa Desjardins, here we go again.
LISA DESJARDINS: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you.
In the day's other news: The White House says that it could -- quote -- "have done better"
in handling allegations of domestic violence against former top staff member Rob Porter.
The two ex-wives of the until-yesterday staff secretary say that he physically assaulted
them.
And, yesterday, one released a photo of herself with a black eye.
News reports today said some White House officials knew of the claims weeks ago.
But Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah says Chief of Staff John Kelly only became fully aware
of the facts yesterday.
RAJ SHAH, White House Deputy Press Secretary: The allegations against Rob Porter are serious
and deeply troubling.
He did deny them.
The incidents took place long before he joined the White House.
Therefore, they were investigated as part of a background check, as this process is
meant for such allegations.
It wasn't completed, and Rob Porter has since resigned.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Shah said President Trump didn't know about the allegations until Tuesday.
The Pentagon will permanently mark the records of service members who sexually harass or
bully others on the job or online.
The new policy comes nearly a year after a scandal in the Marine Corps over an online
nude photo.
Pentagon officials say they're also making it easier to report problems and hold abusers
accountable.
In North Korea, intercontinental ballistic missiles rolled through Pyongyang in a huge
military parade, this on the eve of the Winter Olympics opening in South Korea.
Sporting a black fedora, the North's leader, Kim Jong-un, presided over goose-stepping
soldiers and missiles, marking the anniversary of the country's military.
Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President Pence arrived in Seoul, meeting with South Korean's President
Moon Jae-in and promising full support.
MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States: The United States of America will continue
to stand shoulder to shoulder in our effort to bring maximum pressure to bear on North
Korea until that time comes when they finally and permanently and irreversibly abandon their
nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Before arriving, Mr. Pence said the North's participation in the Olympics
amounts to -- quote -- "propaganda."
Moon took a more conciliatory tone, and said that he hopes the Games provide a diplomatic
opening.
Former President George W. Bush said today that he believes Russia did interfere in the
2016 presidential election.
He spoke in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.
During the talk, the 43rd president said -- quote -- "There is pretty clear evidence that the
Russians meddled."
But he went on to say -- quote again -- "Whether they affected the outcome is another question."
President Trump is nominating a Beverly Hills tax attorney, Charles Rettig, to be commissioner
of the Internal Revenue Service.
The White House announced the choice today.
Rettig has represented companies and individuals in tax disputes.
He also defended Mr. Trump's decision not to release his own tax returns during the
2016 campaign.
Twitter has turned a quarterly profit for the first time.
The company made $91 million in the fourth quarter of 2017, despite long-term challenges.
Those include a backlash over Twitter's handling of Russian-linked accounts and hate speech.
And hundreds of thousands of ecstatic fans swarmed downtown Philadelphia today for the
Eagles' Super Bowl victory parade.
With trophies in hand, players and fans decked out in Eagles green, or not, braved freezing
temperatures to celebrate.
Philadelphia beat New England last Sunday for its first Super Bowl win.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": how the White House chief of staff handled domestic violence
allegations against a top aide; increasing tensions with the U.S. military coalition
forces in Syria; Making Sense of the stock market's high prices and wild swings; and
much more.
We return now to the resignation of a top White House aide following accusations of
abuse.
White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter stepped down after allegations of domestic violence
by his two ex-wives and photographs surfaced of his first wife with a black eye.
Chief of Staff John Kelly initially defended Porter and urged him to stay on the job.
Porter served in the White House over a year without a permanent security clearance, raising
questions about how much General Kelly and White House staff knew about the allegations.
Yamiche Alcindor is the "NewsHour"'s White House correspondent, and Chris Whipple is
author of "The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency."
Welcome to both of you.
And, Yamiche, I'm going to start with you.
I have two main questions, but the first one is, why did Chief of Staff John Kelly continue
to defend Rob Porter, even after those photos were made available?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: That is probably the most important question when looking at whether
or not John Kelly will keep the credibility that he came into office with.
I spoke to Hope Hicks today.
She's someone who is supposed to be romantically engaged with Rob Porter.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The White House communications director.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: She's The White House communications director.
And she was supposed to be Rob Porter's girlfriend.
She told me that she could not answer any questions about how that statement was crafted
that initially had John Kelly calling him a man of integrity.
But the reporting that I have been doing essentially shows that John Kelly was -- that Hope Hicks
was very much involved in crafting that statement and that they were defending someone because
they thought that he had a good reputation, and that his girlfriend was helping do that.
The White House today said that there was that the chief of staff wasn't fully aware
of all of the things that Rob Porter was accused of, even after the picture.
So the question was posed to them, why after the picture would John Kelly still say he
has a couple more days, he's going the transition slowly, and then today he was packing his
bags?
JUDY WOODRUFF: But the other big question I think on people's minds, Yamiche, is, Rob
Porter worked in the White House over a year in the sensitive position, access to virtually
everything that goes across the president's desk, but he didn't have a permanent security
clearance.
He had an interim clearance.
The FBI, the White House said today, was still working on it.
How could that be?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Of course, we're a year into this presidency, and there are essentially
multiple people who are working in the White House with that same status.
The White House confirmed today that Rob Porter definitely was handling classified information
and that he was doing so much like Jared Kushner, who, of course, is the son-in-law of the president.
He also doesn't have a security clearance as of January 2018.
That means that there are multiple people who could have problematic backgrounds that
are operating in the White House.
The White House has said that there are background checks continuing and that Rob Porter was
one of those people who was still getting a background check.
But it's interesting that the FBI had already interviewed the ex-wives, and he was handling
classified information.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And he was doing his job.
Chris Whipple, you have studied chiefs of staff.
You have written a book about them.
What's your reaction to all of this?
CHRIS WHIPPLE, Author, "The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every
Presidency": Well, you know, this has been for a year the most dysfunctional White House
in modern history, and it's hard to believe that it gets worse by the day.
But here we are.
And John Kelly was supposed to be the guy who would make the trains run on time in the
West Wing.
He famously said that he wasn't put on this Earth to manage the president.
He was simply in charge of managing the information flow to him.
Now, even by that very narrow definition of the job, which, by the way, is not sufficient,
he's failed.
You know, the idea that the staff secretary could operate for a year without a security
clearance is mind-boggling.
I spoke to two former Republican White House chiefs today.
Each was incredulous.
It just -- it isn't done.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that was going to be my next question to you: How unusual is it
to have someone in a crucial senior position, the staff secretary, working side by side
with the chief of staff, without a permanent clearance, with the FBI withholding permanent
security clearance?
CHRIS WHIPPLE: Unprecedented, according to the people I have talked to, including, as
I say, two former White House chiefs, another very high-ranking Republican former Trump
White House adviser.
And so it's unheard of, but it's hardly the only thing, the only precedent that this White
House has shattered, after all.
I think that, you know, when I think of John Kelly, I'm reminded of Don Regan, who was
Ronald Reagan's disastrous second White House chief of staff.
Regan was imperious, he was arrogant, and he was also politically inept and oblivious.
It's no coincidence that the Iran-Contra scandal happened on his watch, as I describe in my
book "The Gatekeepers."
And I think Kelly shares some of those characteristics.
He's arrogant.
He's politically inept.
He loves to call everyone in Congress idiots.
This is a guy who has been out of his depth politically since he stepped up to the podium
in the White House Briefing Room and attacked Representative Wilson with a phony story.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I remember Don Regan well, having covered the Reagan White House.
Just quickly to you, Yamiche, finally.
What is Chief of Staff John Kelly's position now?
Is he going to be able to hang on to his job?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In the Trump White House, the person has their job for the time being.
Right now, the White House is saying that if the president loses confidence in someone,
that they will know it, which means that he could be either here for another four years
or three years, or he could be fired tomorrow.
The Trump White House has had a rotating cast of characters, and there is no way to tell.
I should tell you that I talked to a source who is very close to people inside the White
House, and staffers are really surprised and are really dismayed that John Kelly came out
with that statement supporting Rob Porter, because they feel as though it makes the whole
White House look bad.
And there is reporting that Trump is still mad about Michael Wolff's book, and that he's
not happy with the way that he's being portrayed in that.
Of course, all of this makes him look bad, which is really important to this president.
He wants to really look good for the American people.
And in this, he really looks bad and the administration looks bad.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Very tough episode.
Yamiche Alcindor, Chris Whipple, we thank you both.
CHRIS WHIPPLE: Thanks.
JUDY WOODRUFF: It was yet another bloody day and nerve-racking ride for the U.S. stock
market, as the Dow plunged, as we reporting, another 1,000-plus points, while volatility
shot up again, and two of the major indexes fell into what's known as a correction.
Several ideas have been cited about what's behind the fall, including worries over inflation
and whether the economy could, ironically, be heating up too quickly.
Some have also suggested that the market shot up too high of late with what has been the
second longest bull run in history.
That's the focus tonight for economics correspondent Paul Solman.
It's part of our weekly series Making Sense.
PAUL SOLMAN: OK, you have heard explanations of this week's stock market jitters: rising
interest rates, which induce investors to sell stocks and buy suddenly more attractive
bonds, a bursting Bitcoin bubble, baby boomers hitting 70 and finally obliged to start cashing
out their 401(k)s and pay taxes on them.
But how about the explanation that stock prices were and still are historically out of whack?
Stock prices of U.S. companies have recently reach their second highest level since 1888,
according to Nobel laureate Robert Shiller, CAPE, or C-A-P-E, an acronym for cyclically
adjusted price/earnings ratio.
Since a share of stock is, in theory, a share of a company's profits, a P.E., or price/earnings
ratio, means a high stock price relative to profits.
Using the S&P 500 index, an average of 500 major companies, Shiller's CAPE has had three
dramatic peaks, the Roaring '20s, the dot.com boom, and last week.
And even though the index has dropped almost 10 percent, it's still above the ratio in
October of 1929.
So on a day like today, you may be wondering, how low could the market go?
Well, the first peak on Shiller's chart came in 1929, promptly followed by the crash of
'29.
And the S&P index bottomed out in March of 1933, having dropped by more than 80 percent.
A similar drop from last week's peak of 2867 would drive the S&P below 600, the Dow below
5000.
And what's been the average price/earnings ratio over the entire 129 years?
Somewhere around half of what the market closed at today.
But before you panic, the highest Shiller peak ever was about 40 percent above the current
ratio.
That was during the first Internet boom, which lasted quite awhile.
So exuberance, whether irrational or not, could still have quite a ways to go.
A repeat performance of the dot-com boom would imply an S&P index approaching 4000, a Dow
nearing 35000.
Now, a warning out predictions.
As I once heard the famous economics professor John Kenneth Galbraith say, there are two
kinds of economists, those who don't know the future, and those who don't know they
don't know.
And as another famous economist, Paul Samuelson, once said, the stock market has correctly
forecast nine of the last five recessions.
Look, optimists have a seemingly strong case, with data to back them up.
The U.S. and global economies appear to be doing just fine, with a U.S. unemployment
rate of barely 4 percent, wages finally rising, business so good that companies may be borrowing
to invest again at last.
And the S&P, even after this week's cascade, is still up more than 12 percent over the
past 12 months, the Dow still up about 19 percent.
But the pessimists point out that people were just as upbeat in 1929, when unemployment
was, as best we can tell, below 3 percent and the 1920s were still roaring.
And then look what happened.
You find this kind of unsatisfying, like President Harry Truman's famous lament that all my economists
say, on one hand, then, but on the other?
Well, what else is there but Truman's answer?
Give me a one-armed economist.
For the "PBS NewsHour," this is economics correspondent Paul Solman.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us.
Coming up on the "NewsHour": what to watch for in this year's Winter Olympics; a spy
thriller set in the time of Nazi Germany; and a Brief But Spectacular take from one
of the hosts of the hit comedy podcast "2 Dope Queens."
But first to Syria.
The war there will soon mark its seventh bloody anniversary.
And, as Nick Schifrin reports, a conflict known for its complexity and brutality is
breaking ghastly, dangerous new ground.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Even after seven years, the fog of the Syrian war is as thick as ever.
There is fighting in Syria on at least three fronts, and the Syrian people remain the primary
target.
For a fourth straight day, Syrian and Russian jets and artillery pummeled the last significant
rebel holdouts.
The targets are in Idlib province and the Damascus suburb eastern Ghouta, where, in
the last week, rescue workers and activists reported nearly 200 deaths.
The relentless bombardment reduced entire neighborhoods, and their hospitals and their
schools, to rubble.
Even in this war, the U.N. calls these bombings extreme.
And it says it's investigating whether some of the bombs have been filled with chlorine.
Among the victims of the violence, 400,000 residents who remain trapped.
Many need medical attention and food, and the U.N. says the Syrian regime is preventing
aid deliveries.
Meanwhile, on the U.S.' front line in Northern Syria, American commanders vow to hold their
ground on behalf of Kurdish and Arab allies.
Manbij is the most important forward operating base for U.S. and local troops who cleared
Northern Syria of ISIS.
Yesterday, top U.S. commanders made a rare visit to inspect front lines.
They say local Kurdish and Arab forces need to remain here to stabilize the area and prevent
an ISIS return.
Major General Jamie Jarrard is the special operations commander in Iraq and Syria.
MAJ.
GEN JAMIE JARRARD, Special Operations Commander: We need to stay here until that political
environment is stable and our security here, our presence here provides that level of stabilization
and brings security.
NICK SCHIFRIN: But that presence is destabilizing the U.S. relationship with NATO ally Turkey.
Turkey sees Kurdish Syrian fighters as threat, and attacked them in the Northwest region
of Afrin.
Turkey's now threatening to target Kurds, and Americans, in Manbij.
This week, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a NATO ally, demanded the U.S. withdraw.
RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through translator): Go ahead and leave.
You are telling us not to come to Manbij?
We will come to Manbij to deliver the land to its true owners.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And a third front in the eastern province of Deir el-Zour.
Yesterday, the U.S. says it launched air and artillery strikes against the Syrian regime
to defend U.S. allies.
It was the largest direct U.S. strike on Syria since last April, when the U.S. launched cruise
missiles in response to a Syrian regime chemical weapons attack.
But, today, the Pentagon insisted it wasn't trying to open up another front.
DANA WHITE, Spokesperson, Department of Defense: We are not looking for a conflict with the
regime.
Any action that takes away from our ongoing operations to defeat ISIS is a distraction.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And for more on this moment in the many-sided Syria war, I'm joined by
journalist and author Gayle Tzemach Lemmon.
She's just returned from Kurdish-controlled Northern Syria, and traveled there last summer
on assignment for the "NewsHour."
And Hassan Hassan, he's a senior fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy,
a think tank here in Washington.
He also co-authored the book, "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror."
Thank you very much to you both.
Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, let me start with you.
You just returned from Northern Syria.
You saw the Kurds consolidating some of their gains.
How destructive perhaps could it be for Turkey to be talking about even invading Manbij?
GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON, Journalist/Author: It's destructive and it's a distraction, depending
on where you sit, right?
So, it's destructive for the Kurdish perspective, in that here they have this democratic project
they're working on.
And now they are really sending civilians and obviously those in uniform to the front
to defend Afrin.
On the distraction side, right, for the U.S.-backed forces who are fighting in Deir el-Zour, certainly
the fight in Afrin is very much taking resources and people away from the fight against ISIS.
NICK SCHIFRIN: So, let's stay in Northern Syria, Hassan Hassan.
How serious is Turkey about this?
HASSAN HASSAN, Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy: Turkey is quite serious about
this.
They have demonstrated that they are very serious since 2016, when they shifted their
priorities in Syria from removing Bashar al-Assad to working very closely with Russia and Iran
to basically redraw the political and military map in the North.
And what they did in Afrin is another demonstration that they are very serious.
Nobody expected Turkey to go this far.
They had -- I think the Americans expected that Turkey was thinking of going to Afrin,
but they didn't think that they had the courage or the kind of really appetite to go and fight
in Afrin.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, for a while, we had mutual enemies.
Right?
Everyone was kind of on the same page fighting ISIS.
It doesn't seem like that is the case.
Has that exacerbated some of the problems, especially in Northern Syria?
GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON: Very much so.
The fight against ISIS was a unifying force, right, where all sides could kind of freeze
their fights with one another and focus on the ISIS fight.
That is over.
I mean, I talked to Syrians who said, listen, if you think that this war is ending, it's
actually just now ramping up to its next phase, where parties who were warring before the
ISIS fight will now go back to fighting one another, because it's really now about the
endgame and who has what territory going into whatever the end of this war looks like.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Hassan Hassan, just ramping up, that's horrifying to think about that.
We have got this other strike in Deir el-Zour, the U.S. saying that it was acting in self-defense.
So, is this a case where the regime and some of its allies are being more aggressive, testing
the U.S., or is it the U.S. being more aggressive, or something in between?
HASSAN HASSAN: No, I think the Syrian regime has been considering more of these provocations.
They have done it before.
The United States struck back.
They downed a Syrian plane, I think, a year ago.
And after that, the deconfliction zones agreed between the Russians and Americans held for
a while.
And now we see this incident in Deir el-Zour against the Syrian Democratic Forces on the
other side of the river.
So, I think it's not a secret that the Syrian regime doesn't like the Americans being in
Syria.
And this is just a message that, we're still there, we're still thinking of you leaving
at some point.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, there are so many attacks that we talk about in
Syria.
And yet the ones we also are talking about now, separately in Idlib, in Eastern Ghouta,
some of the last holdouts for the rebels, are just even worse than some of the ones
we have seen in the past, right?
GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON: Syria is the war that's extinguished the power of adjectives to describe
its hell.
And when you read what is happening right now, right, more than a million Syrians fled
to Idlib from other parts of Syria that were racked by war.
People really feel like the war is following them and taking away their children, their
parents, their loved ones with its horrors.
And in Eastern Ghouta, right, there are people say, this is the worst fighting we have seen,
in the last couple days, in the past seven years.
NICK SCHIFRIN: I mean, that's horrifying.
Hassan Hassan, what is the Assad regime after?
We have obviously seen a lot of violence in Syria over the years.
These are some of the last rebel holdouts.
What's their aim?
HASSAN HASSAN: So, I mean, the clear aim of Bashar al-Assad, has made it clear that they
want the capture all of Syria.
Now, they also recognize that they cannot do that.
They don't have the resources.
They don't have the legitimacy in some areas to do that, but every now and then, they go
after a certain area to kind of unroot and uproot any alternatives that are being built
up in some of these areas.
So, they are after all these areas.
Now, they also -- they know their limits, and they have to demonstrate their willingness
to go back to these areas by a relentless bombing campaign every now and then.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, relentless bombing campaigns.
Are you optimistic at all about the future of Syria after your last few trips there?
GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON: The one thing that gives you optimism is that people are pushing forward
regardless.
There was a woman we interviewed last summer who had been -- left Raqqa eight-and-a-half
months pregnant.
And she fled to an IDP camp right outside Raqqa, gave birth there to a baby that was
less than two kilos.
And we didn't know what had happened to her.
And I actually went and found her this last trip, and she's doing so well, which is such
an exception in the stories of this war that we hear.
She's working for an NGO.
She's supporting her family.
She has a very clean, a very warm home for her children that is in an IDP camp, but also
feels very cozy when you're there.
So she's really pushing forward, putting her kids in school.
And I think that resilience, that strength and that courage is what gives you some hope
about the real awful tragedy of this war.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Hassan Hassan, quickly, resilience, hope, but you also see more violence in their
future?
HASSAN HASSAN: I do.
I think, just two months ago, people thought that Syria was headed towards more civility,
with different countries working together.
We had the momentum against ISIS towards the end of last year.
You have Turkey, Russia, and Iran working together.
But now suddenly everything is unraveling in different parts of Syria.
And that tells you how fragile these things are.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Absolutely.
Hassan Hassan, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, thank you both.
GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Winter Olympics are set to begin in South Korea.
It comes at a particularly tense moment in the region.
The United States and North Korea have rattled other countries with threatening language
in the months leading up to these Games.
But there's also a lot of excitement around the Olympics themselves.
And John Yang is here with a preview.
JOHN YANG: Judy, the opening ceremonies are less than 12 hours away, and competition has
already begun.
For a look ahead at the next two weeks, we spoke earlier with Christine Brennan, sports
columnist for USA Today.
She was at the Olympic venue in PyeongChang, South Korea.
We began by asking her what it is like there.
CHRISTINE BRENNAN, USA Today: Right now, we're talking more about the cold weather than we
are about North Korea being just 50 miles away.
And I know that might sound strange, but I have been here almost a week, and it really
is a sense here they're going to have the Olympics.
It's sport.
It's games.
The athletes are here.
And maybe, maybe we can focus just on sports and not on the politics.
We will see.
We know most Olympic Games, we tend to have a little bit of both.
But I really think, because of what is going on with South Korea, the way they're running
these Games, the efficiency we're seeing here -- everything has been finished for a while
-- by first appearances, it's running well.
JOHN YANG: Christine, there is going to be live coverage of figure skating on U.S. television
tonight.
Who are some of the U.S. men to keep an eye on?
CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Nathan Chen is really one of the great stories of these Games.
He's the 18 years old, but he's the only undefeated male skater in the world this year.
Think about that.
They have had all these competitions, and he's the only one who hasn't lost.
And so he goes into these Games with a real sense that he could maybe win the Olympic
gold medal.
Then again, that is a slippery sheet of ice and it's a quarter-inch blade of steel.
And to land all those quads -- he's the quad king.
He's the first man ever to land five quadruple jumps in a long program.
He did that last year at the U.S. nationals, 2017.
He did it again at the U.S. nationals in 2018.
And there's going to be a lot of pressure on Nathan Chen.
And he's a really smart young man.
We have had several conversations.
And he even talks about the pressure.
He talks about the intensity of this.
And he understands the moment.
And he's going to try to take it all in, while he's also, of course, trying to stay on his
feet.
The fascinating thing about figure skating, as we know, that it is art and it is sport.
You have got both marks.
You have got the judges looking at the artistry, as well as, of course, all the jumping and
everything else that they're doing athletically.
And Nathan Chen was built for both.
JOHN YANG: You have been reporting on a controversy involving another of the U.S. men's figure
skaters, Adam Rippon, and Vice President Mike Pence.
Tell us about that.
CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Back in mid-January, I actually interviewed Adam Rippon, who is one
of the first openly guy athletes to compete in the Winter Olympic Games for the United
States.
And I talked to him about many things, including Mike Pence being the delegation leader for
the U.S. at the opening ceremonies.
And Adam Rippon said that -- he goes, Mike Pence, the same Mike Pence who funded guy
conversion therapy?
He said, I'm not buying it, and was very critical of Pence and President Trump.
And he has already said, as Lindsey Vonn has said as well, the skier, that they will not
go to the White House after the Olympics to celebrate to the U.S. Olympic team.
Pence's office actually denied that Pence ever did want to fund gay conversion therapy,
although there is interesting wording on his Web site from the year 2000 during a congressional
campaign.
Anyway, we put that in there.
Within an hour, heard from the vice president's office that he wanted to rebut and reply the
Adam Rippon.
Anyway, I have continued to report this story in the last couple of weeks.
And my reporting from various sources includes the fact that Pence went so far as to want
to have a conversation with Adam Rippon and work through U.S. Olympic Committee channels
to try to have that happen.
And Adam Rippon declined the request from the vice president.
JOHN YANG: Christine, what about the U.S. women figure skaters?
CHRISTINE BRENNAN: As for the women, the big names that we know from the last few years,
Gracie Gold, Ashley Wagner, they're not here.
And it's a new crop, except for one big name.
And that's Mirai Nagasu, Mirai, 24 years old.
Eight years ago, she made the Olympic team and finished fourth in Vancouver, then didn't
make it in 2014.
And now she's back.
What a great story.
There's a woman in women's figure skating.
Think about that.
It's usually the sport of the teenagers.
But Mirai Nagasu is a wonderful story about perseverance and coming back from disappointment
over and over again.
Otherwise, Bradie Tennell Karen Chen are the other two Americans.
Bradie Tennell is the reigning U.S. champion.
She barely misses a jump in practice and almost never misses a jump in competition.
That is her strong suit.
It's not the artistry of, say, someone like Ashley Wagner or Gracie Gold or even Mirai
Nagasu.
So we will see how she does.
But at the top, it's the Russians, Evgenia Medvedeva and Alina Zagitova, Med and Zag.
And they will either one, two, or two, one.
I'm pretty sure we can say that.
The Russians control women's figure skating right now.
JOHN YANG: Now, in December, the International Olympic Committee banned Russia from taking
a team to the Games because of the doping scandal, but will some Russian athletes still
be competing?
CHRISTINE BRENNAN: It looks like about 169 Russians will be here.
And that is not a complete ban, but it's far less than the 232 that were in Sochi.
So there is that.
But there are battles and there are hearings and court of arbitration court hearings that
are going to go right up basically to the time they're lighting the cauldron at the
opening ceremonies here.
The end result, it's probably not satisfying to a lot of people, including myself, who
thought that they should just ban the Russians outright, no Russians here, state-sponsored
doping, the worst doping we have seen since the East Germans of a generation or two ago.
But I think if you want to look at any positives, a couple of things.
One is there is no Russian flag going to be raised for any medal ceremonies, no Russian
anthem at all.
It will be the Olympic, as well as the Olympic flag, and then also no Russian flag coming
into the opening ceremony.
And maybe the best of all -- again, if you're looking to punish the Russians, which I think
many people are -- maybe the best of all is that when people 20, 30 years from now look
back in the history books of how many medals Russia won at the 2018 Winter Olympics, the
answer -- we already know the answer.
It's zero.
JOHN YANG: And for those of us who are going to be camped out in front of our television
sets for next two weeks, who are some of the other Americans to watch?
CHRISTINE BRENNAN: When you're thinking about who to look at over the next couple of week,
certainly Lindsey Vonn coming back, going to be barreling down the mountain once again,
and now in her mid-30s, to try win another downhill gold medal.
And her compatriot on the slopes, Mikaela Shiffrin, who was one of the newcomers and
stars of the Sochi Games four years ago, well, she's back, and she is going to be in several
races and could win several gold medals.
Watch those two, kind of the old guard, and then the passing of the torch to the new guard,
Shiffrin.
I think, also, when you look at sports like ice hockey, the men's hockey is going to be
interesting and kind of jarring for people to watch, because you won't have the NHL players
for the first time in quite a while.
But that makes it kind of interesting too.
I'm not going to go all the way to the miracle on ice in 1980, but it is a young American
team with minor leaguers and college players.
Refreshing.
And I think fans and viewers might find that interesting.
And on the women's side, two big stories, one, the U.S. women's ice hockey team.
As we talk about equality for women and equal pay for women, they were really ahead of the
game.
Back in the spring of last year, they were boycotting the world championships for better
pay and more equal opportunities for them compared to the men's ice hockey team for
the United States.
And they did get a better contract.
So, the U.S. women are going to be facing the Canadians.
I am as sure as I can be that they will be playing for the gold medal.
Canada, U.S., it's going to be must-see TV.
The U.S. has lost the last couple, and they so want to beat the Canadians to win that
gold medal in women's ice hockey.
And one other story, a footnote for women's ice hockey, of course, the Korean team, unified,
as we watch the Koreans come into the opening ceremony as a unified team, the two dozen
or so North Koreans with the South Koreans.
You will also see that the women's ice hockey team actually has three or four North Korean
players, who the coach, Sarah Murray from Canada, has to integrate.
It's going to be fascinating to see how that works.
JOHN YANG: Christine Brennan of USA Today, thanks for joining us.
CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Thanks very much.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And one postscript,.
Since we spoke with Christine, a White House official traveling with the vice president
said Mr. Pence offered to meet with athlete Adam Rippon, but didn't ask to meet with him.
The vice president told Rippon in a tweet, "I want you to know we are for you."
Christine Brennan stands by her story.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Next: Imagine at the eve of World War II a mission by the U.K. to prevent
war with Germany.
Jeffrey Brown speaks to an author who tells that tale in the latest book on the "NewsHour"
Bookshelf.
JEFFREY BROWN: September 1938, Germany threatens to invade Czechoslovakia.
Britain fears being drawn into war just 20 years after the end of first World War.
The diplomats scurry between European capitals to negotiate, assessing each other's influence,
strengths and weaknesses.
It's the real-life setting for the new historical novel "Munich," the latest from author Robert
Harris, well-known and read for his many imaginative takes on ancient and modern history.
And welcome to you.
ROBERT HARRIS, Author, "Munich": Hi, Jeff.
JEFFREY BROWN: You have written nonfiction and fiction about this particular moment.
What is it that galvanizes you still?
ROBERT HARRIS: I think it was an incredibly dramatic story, four days in September 1938,
when the world came very close to war, the moral compromises that had to be made to preserve
peace, the controversy that still surrounds it, and the sheer drama of Chamberlain and
Hitler meeting.
And I have wanted to write a novel about it for 30 years.
JEFFREY BROWN: So, these characters, it's Hugh Legat, the Brit, and Paul von Hartmann
is the German.
ROBERT HARRIS: Yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: Are they based on real characters or are they all imaginative?
ROBERT HARRIS: The background and the characters of Chamberlain and Hitler, who are both in
the book, and the civil servants and so on, that's all real.
And the places, Downing Street, the Fuhrerbau in Munich, Hitler's apartment, that's all
real.
But into that, I put these two characters.
Hugh Legat is a completely made-up figure, 27-year-old, high-flying Foreign Office diplomat
who is working Downing Street and flies with Chamberlain.
And then Germany character owes a lot to a guy called Adam von Trott, who is one of the
conspirators against Hitler who was killed in 1944.
But he, I drew a lot on the character of von Trott for his portrayal.
He was part of kind of a nascent embryo resistance to Hitler in the German Foreign Ministry,
which I wanted to try and put in the book.
JEFFREY BROWN: It's often said that you're fictionalizing history to sort of explore
the what-ifs of history.
I wonder is that what you see yourself as doing, or are you just delving into the history
to tell it in a fictional way?
ROBERT HARRIS: I thought at first of doing this as a what-if.
What if there had been no Munich agreement?
Because part of the argument for the book is that Chamberlain and Hitler, actually,
it was the opposite to what most people think.
Chamberlain actually got what he wanted, and Hitler was furious with this whole deal.
And Chamberlain's a much different character to Hitler.
And so I thought of doing it as a what-if and showing that actually we might well have
lost the war if we hadn't had Munich.
But then it became too conjectural.
So I decided really to put as much of the actual truth and facts in.
So, I hope people come away with a different impression of the Munich agreement.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, and also a different impression of Neville Chamberlain.
Right?
In history, he's the great appeaser.
In your book, he comes off better.
ROBERT HARRIS: Well, yes.
Well, he certainly was the great appeaser, but he was a dynamic, driving figure.
And there's no doubt, if you actually look at it, he got Hitler on the back foot, because
Hitler wanted to invade Czechoslovakia and begin the war in 1938.
And to the end of his life, he was lamenting that Chamberlain had cheated him out of the
war.
Chamberlain was hugely popular when he appeared in Munich.
He got louder cheers than Hitler did.
This drove Hitler mad.
But he realized that the German people weren't ready for war.
And Chamberlain did a very clever thing.
He sort of appealed behind Hitler's back to the German people.
And he postponed the war, and Britain rearmed much more fully, and also fought on a better
issue, if you like, the invasion of Poland.
Much better to fight on that issue than the taking of Germans back into Germany.
JEFFREY BROWN: As a lover and reader of fiction and novels, when you're writing this, we know
the ending.
Right?
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERT HARRIS: There is a war, yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: You build all this tension, and there is a great plot between these characters.
But I know how it's going to end ultimately in the big picture.
Do you worry at all about that?
ROBERT HARRIS: Not at all.
One of the most successful postwar thrillers was "The Day of the Jackal."
We all know that President de Gaulle was not assassinated.
It doesn't stop it being thrilling.
I did a novel called "Pompeii."
We all know that Pompeii is destroyed.
Actually, people waiting for the shoe to drop in a way is often a source of greater drama
than when you don't know what's going to happen.
JEFFREY BROWN: To the degree that you're looking at different periods of history, what does
something have to have for you to want to tackle it?
ROBERT HARRIS: I think it has to have something perhaps that's new, one can say.
It has to have something that's relevant.
I hope that, from "Munich," people will take away the fact that whenever we use these loose
terms about appeasement and Munich, actually, we're misusing them, and that there might
not have been the great Churchill victory speeches in 1940 if we hadn't had Neville
Chamberlain patiently trying to buy time and to make sure we -- when we did fight, we fought
on a big issue, and not something that people would probably have given up on if it we had
gone to war in '38.
So, I like something -- if I can twist the history and show something new, that, I like
doing.
JEFFREY BROWN: What about our own moment?
Do you see anything here that, in 10 or 20 years, that you might want to tackle?
ROBERT HARRIS: The trouble is, it's all so bizarre, you can't do it in fiction.
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERT HARRIS: It's putting political novelists, thriller writers out of business.
I find it again and again with modern reality.
It's so outlandish, there's nothing that your imagination can come up with that's more bizarre.
That's why I often reach into the past.
And if I was going the write something about modern America or in modern Britain, I might
well go back and take a Roman emperor or something like that.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, that's one approach to our daily news.
ROBERT HARRIS: Yes, Nero maybe.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY BROWN: OK.
The new novel is "Munich."
Robert Harris, thank you very much.
ROBERT HARRIS: Pleasure.
Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Next, we turn to another installment of our weekly Brief But Spectacular series,
where we ask people to describe their passions.
Tonight, we hear from comedian Phoebe Robinson.
She co-hosts the podcast "2 Dope Queens" from WNYC Public Radio Studios in New York.
Her HBO special of the same name airs this Friday.
PHOEBE ROBINSON, Comedian: I'm from Cleveland, Ohio.
I was the only black girl in my grade.
And I was just like really dorky.
Like, I wasn't cool.
Like, I didn't go to high school parties.
Like, I would later find out about all these parties where people were making out, and
I was, like, legit at home watching "The West Wing," being like, I think I'm like Donna.
Recently, I looked back at a clip of me doing stand-up at Gotham Comedy Club, and I had
this tiny, tiny baby fro, still as flat-chested as I am now.
I was like a size two.
Now I'm a 10.
What up, double digits.
It's really kind of cool to see myself from, like, a 24-year-old to now a 33-year-old doing
comedy and actually, like, having success at it.
Yes, so "2 Dope Queens," Jessica and I met four years ago.
We never really set out to have a podcast.
We just realized there aren't a lot of people at the Upright Citizens Brigade that talk
like us, that necessarily have the same pop culture references as us.
I don't ever recall like, you know, someone mentioning, like, "Living Single" or "Martin"
or the black "Cinderella" movie with Brandy and Whitney Houston as, like, a joke reference.
When the podcast first came out, we would get messages from white guys -- not to profile,
but it was from white guys -- and they will always comment on the way that we talk and
be like, your show would be so great, but you should stop saying the word like, all
these sorts of things where it was just like, do you, like, hit up Jerry Seinfeld?
And you are like, you sound too much like a rich white guy.
Like, I don't think you do, you know?
I also have another podcast called "Sooo Many White Guys," because guess what?
There's a lot of them.
We also have, like, a token white guy at the end of each season just for diversity.
LOL.
We had Tom Hanks.
And he actually recorded the outgoing message on my phone.
TOM HANKS, Actor: She's not home right, now so you know what to do when the beep goes
off.
Beep!
PHOEBE ROBINSON: I think people who listen to the podcast we're kind of like, oh, this
is what stand-up is.
It's not just what I'm being presented with, like, a guy in a suit jacket in front of,
like, a red curtain.
Like, there are people who are going to make jokes about having trans family members, and
it's really going to be smart and intelligent, and not just like punching down.
And people are going to talk about the female experience in a way that's interesting and
cool and different, and people can identify with it whether or not they're a woman.
Being in a male-dominated industry, you can feel, like, a little excluded.
That was making me feel like maybe I'm not funny.
I was really seriously considering, like, quitting stand-up.
I was like, I don't know if I'm good enough.
I don't know if I can cut it.
And I just had to really figure out that, like, you are good enough.
Just because you're not like other people doesn't mean that you're bad.
It means that you're different, and that's great.
I'm Phoebe Robinson.
This is my Brief But Spectacular take on being a dope queen.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we're really glad you didn't quit.
You can watch more Brief But Spectacular videos online at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief.
And a quick news update before we go tonight.
There is word that the federal Office of Management and Budget is preparing for a government shutdown
if Congress cannot approve a funding bill by tonight's midnight deadline.
You can visit our Web site for the very latest updates on the budget battle throughout the
night.
And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
Join us online and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks.
For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and we will see you soon.
This singer wants to inspire you to do something good PBS NewsHour full episode February 7, 2018 Сенаторы договорились о бюджете | АМЕРИКА | 08.02.18 How is John Kelly’s credibility hurt by Rob Porter abuse scandal? PBS NewsHour full episode February 6, 2018 PBS NewsHour full episode February 5, 2018 Fight against ISIS over, fight for Syrian territory ramps up The political peril of taking credit for a booming stock market Rafale Deal - प्रशांत भूषण ने किया खुलासा ! Prashant Bhushan राफेल All about Rafale FighterJet deal WATCH LIVE: White House news briefing for Feb. 8, 2017

PBS NewsHour full episode February 8, 2018

Latest Posts