Quantcast
Loading...
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)
Loading...

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


Loading...

Channel Description:

Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.

older | 1 | .... | 1147 | 1148 | (Page 1149) | 1150 | 1151 | .... | 1175 | newer

    0 0

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump called Friday for a “tougher and more specific” U.S. travel ban after a homemade bomb exploded on a London train.

    In several tweets, Trump called the explosion another attack “by a loser terrorist” and suggested London police missed an opportunity to prevent it. He added that his travel ban targeting six mostly Muslim nations should be “far larger, tougher and more specific – but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!”

    The bomb exploded on a packed train during rush hour on Friday, leaving at least 22 people injured but no one seriously hurt. Police said the explosion was a terrorist attack, the fifth in Britain this year.

    “Another attack in London by a loser terrorist,” Trump tweeted. “These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!”

    Scotland Yard said it would not comment Trump’s suggestion that police could have prevented the attack. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The president has repeatedly criticized London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the British capital’s first Muslim leader.

    In June, after attacks in the London Bridge area that claimed seven lives, Khan warned locals not to be alarmed by the large presence of armed officers on the capital’s streets. Trump accused the mayor on Twitter of suggesting there was “no reason to be alarmed” by the attack itself.

    On Friday, Trump again jumped into the fray, suggesting that only he could handle extremist militants and that the government should cut off the internet to such groups.

    “Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner. The internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off & use better!” And he argued that his administration has “made more progress in the last nine months against ISIS than the Obama Administration has made in 8 years.”

    Trump concluded: “Must be proactive & nasty!”

    The post Trump calls for ‘larger, tougher’ travel ban after London subway attack appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    A homemade bomb was detonated on a packed train in West London Friday morning, wounding at least 22 people. Authorities said most of the victims had “flash burns.”

    Authorities are treating the incident as a terrorist attack, making it the fifth one in Britain this year.

    What happened?

      Emergency and police officials responded to reports of an explosion around 8:20 a.m. local time at the Parsons Green train station in London.

      Photos circulated on social media show a white bucket inside a grocery bag. Commuters who were reportedly near the explosion saw fire emanate from the bucket and fill the train.

      “I could smell the burning. I walked down the platform and saw the bucket on fire,” commuter Eduardo Moreira told the BBC.

      Upon hearing the explosion, commuters on their way to work rushed away from the train in a panic.
      Nearly two hours after the first reports of the explosion, authorities said they were treating the incident as a terrorist attack.

    What we know

      Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan Police said the explosion came from an “improvised device.” Scotland Yard said no arrests have been made yet in connection with the attack.
      No one appears to be seriously hurt. The London ambulance service said in a statement that none of the victims “are thought to be in a serious or life-threatening condition.”
      BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner reported that the device “was designed to kill and maim a large number of people,” but “failed to explode properly.”
      Friday’s attack is being described as London’s fifth terrorist attack this year. In June, attacks near the London Bridge killed seven people. By BBC’s count, all five attacks in 2017 have claimed 36 lives.

    How are leaders responding?

      British Prime Minister Theresa May said in a statement, “My thoughts are with those injured at Parsons Green and the emergency services who, once again, are responding swiftly and bravely to a suspected terrorist incident.”

      London mayor Sadiq Khan, said the city “utterly condemns the hideous individuals who attempt to use terror to harm us and destroy our way of life.”
      In a series of tweets, President Donald Trump said a “larger, tougher” U.S. travel ban was needed after the London attack. The president also said Friday’s attack was carried out “by a loser terrorist” and appeared to suggest that authorities there failed to prevent it.

    READ MORE: Trump calls for ‘larger, tougher’ travel ban after London subway attack

    The post What we know so far about the London subway attack appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    President Donald Trump is expected to tour and give remarks from Joint Base Andrews in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

    Trump is scheduled to deliver remarks to military personnel and families at Joint Base Andrews on Friday at 3:35 p.m. ET. Watch the president’s remarks in the player above.

    The president and the first lady are also scheduled to participate in an air fleet demonstration at the base.

    The Joint Base Andrews Air Show is set to begin this weekend in Maryland.

    The post WATCH LIVE: Trump to speak at Joint Base Andrews appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Apple this week unveiled its new iPhone X as part of the smartphone’s 10th birthday, and with it comes a host of security concerns.

    One of the major features of the iPhone X (X for the roman numeral 10) is FaceID, a facial recognition feature for unlocking the phone by just looking at it.

    Apple has a solid track record on personal privacy when it comes to securing its devices, but FaceID raises major issues, such as whether the tool be used against an owner’s will to gain access to their phone or what happens if a hacker steals your facial identity?

    A staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement could use someone’s face against their will to unlock their phone, possibly without violating the person’s’ Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

    Carrie Leonetti, a law professor at the University of Oregon who specializes in emerging technology, agreed. She said FaceID and TouchID carry less constitutional protection than former methods for securing one’s phone.

    Sign up to get our Science email

    We'll explore the wide worlds of science, health and technology with content from our science squad and other places we're finding news.

    “There’s at least a very open question if [police] said, ‘Tell us your iPhone password.’ You could successfully assert your Fifth Amendment privilege,” Leonetti said. “The Fifth Amendment protects communication and probably thought processes. It does not protect other tangible things, like your fingerprints or your face.”

    Apple offers two ways to bypass this sticky situation. The new iOS 11 operating software added two security features to keep thieves or law enforcement from accessing your data.

    The first is “SOS mode,” which allows panicked users to disable FaceID or TouchID by pressing the power button five times. The second requires a user to enter the phone’s passcode in order to trust a connection with a new computer, making it much more difficult to extract data from an unlocked phone.

    Hacking your face

    FaceID could usher in a new age of personal digital security, but in the age of 3D printing and Equifax breaches, could some enterprising hacker swipe your facial credentials and use them for bad deeds? To understand the answer, you first have to comprehend how the technology works.

    FaceID starts with a scan of a person’s face. It creates a 3D map by projecting 30,000 infrared dots onto your face every time you open your phone. This facial map refines itself whenever you open your phone, building more detailed credentials with each time.

    Apple executives said a 3D projection of dots avoids problematic situations — like the one raised with the Samsung Galaxy Note 8. One web developer gained access to a Galaxy Note 8 by simply holding up a selfie of the phone’s owner.

    3D facial recognition prevents this type of hack, but it isn’t full proof. Researchers at the University of North Carolina beat four different versions of these recognition apps by creating 3D facial models based on publicly available photos found on websites like Facebook and Linkedin.

    By using a heat-detecting infrared camera, Apple may have avoided hackers using this method, but FaceID could be exploited in other ways.

    Windows Hello, another facial recognition app that uses infrared technology, is considered one of the most secure on the market, but in 2015, Berlin-based SR Labs used a plaster mold of a person’s face to break the security lock.

    Despite these blips, Apple remains confident. During the iPhone X unveiling, Apple senior vice president Phil Schiller said his company worked with Hollywood makeup artists to test against hacker-made masks.

    Schiller claimed the chance of a random person unlocking a device is one in a million, though he added “the statistics are lower if the person shares a close genetic relationship with you.”

    The possibility did not go unnoticed on Twitter. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro joked that he would let Apple know if his identical twin brother, Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro, could unlock his phone. “This should be fun,” Julian Castro tweeted.

    Most security experts agree that if you want to ensure your phone’s security, make sure to use a six-digit pin. This tactic still remains the most private and secure way to protect one’s phone, and it can be easily changed. The same cannot be said for one’s face.

    The post With FaceID, Apple’s iPhone X wades into Fifth Amendment gray area appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Hillary Clinton slammed President Donald Trump’s foreign policy Friday, saying his national security team is in “disarray” and that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hasn’t reached out to her for advice since taking over as the nation’s top diplomat.

    “I don’t know who [Tillerson] has reached out to. He certainly hasn’t reached out to me,” Clinton, who led the State Department in President Barack Obama’s first term, told PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff. It’s common practice in Washington for new cabinet officials to reach out to predecessors for advice about their new jobs.

    Clinton singled out Mr. Trump’s approach to North Korea, which fired a missile over Japan Friday morning, the latest in a series of recent threats, including North Korea’s sixth nuclear test earlier this month, that has raised alarms across the region. And she criticized Trump for making “diplomatic pronouncements on Twitter” and praising foreign adversaries like North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    “He’s being played by these dictators in a way that undercuts our credibility and the capacity to come up with a diplomatic solution in that region.”

    “He’s being played by these dictators in a way that undercuts our credibility and the capacity to come up with a diplomatic solution in that region” and around the world, Clinton said of Trump. “I’m deeply concerned, and I think in many ways the Trump presidency poses a clear and present danger to our country and to the world.”

    The United States and its allies have struggled for years to slow North Korea’s nuclear program, with little success. But Clinton said there were several options to deter North Korea and protect U.S. allies in the region.

    They include a “full court diplomatic effort,” and strengthening Japan and South Korea’s missile defense systems, Clinton said, a move that could encourage China to put pressure on North Korea to rein in its behavior. For its part, China has starkly criticized the U.S. deployment of some missile defense systems to South Korea.

    READ MORE: North Korea fired another missile over Japan. Here’s what we know

    Clinton said Tillerson has been “largely invisible excepting for his obsession with cutting the budget at the State Department.” Tillerson has defended proposed cuts to the State Department included in the White House’s proposed budget, saying that his goal is to make the department run more efficiently while prioritizing hard power and that some cuts could be offset by private philanthropy.

    Defense Secretary James Mattis, Clinton added, has filled the leadership vacuum on both defense and diplomatic issues for Trump, who was not well-versed on foreign policy when he entered office and surrounded himself largely with Washington outsiders.

    “You have a White House that has been in disarray over national security from the very first day.”

    Mattis “often acts like both secretary of defense and secretary of state because there’s a big void to fill there,” Clinton said.

    Clinton also went after the Trump administration’s overall approach to national security, an issue she highlighted in the presidential election when she called out Trump’s inexperience on foreign policy.

    Trump fired his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, less than one month after taking office, after news surfaced that Flynn — who advised the Trump campaign — had lied about his contacts with Russian officials.

    The White House “has been in disarray over national security from the very first day,” Clinton said.

    Clinton is back in the news this week following the publication of a new memoir, “What Happened,” where she explains why she thinks she lost the 2016 election.

    In the book, Clinton admits to making several mistakes in the run up to the race and then during the campaign, including using private email as secretary of state and making paid speeches to Wall Street banks.

    But Clinton also blamed other forces for her loss, including sexism among many voters, former FBI Director James Comey’s role in the race, and media coverage of the campaign that she argued focused too much on her private email server, instead of substantive policy issues.

    See Judy Woodruff’s extended interview with Hillary Clinton on Friday’s broadcast, and more from the conversation online here.

    The post Hillary Clinton calls Trump ‘clear and present danger,’ says Tillerson has never sought her advice appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    Loading...
    0 0

    President Donald Trump has provided a “lot of encouragement” to the Klu Klux Klan and hasn’t done enough to condemn neo-Nazis and white supremacists, Hillary Clinton said Friday, though she stopped short of calling her former rival racist.

    “I believe that he has given a lot of encouragement and rhetorical support to the Ku Klux Klan,” the former presidential candidate and secretary of state told PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff on Friday, noting that Mr. Trump “accepted the support” of David Duke, a former KKK leader.

    Trump drew criticism for his initial hesitance to disavow Duke’s endorsement during the campaign. He later condemned Duke.

    “I believe that [Trump] has not condemned the neo-Nazis and the self-proclaimed white supremacists in Charlottesville and other settings.”

    Clinton also called out Trump for his response to a rally organized by white supremacist groups in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12. The rally turned violent as the white supremacist groups clashed with people protesting the event, leaving one person dead and several injured.

    Trump initially blamed “both sides” for the violence, drawing criticism from Democrats and Republicans who said that he failed to denounce white supremacism in strong enough terms.

    READ MORE: Every moment in Donald Trump’s long and complicated history with race

    Trump later condemned hate groups more forcefully, adding “racism is evil,” but has since offered conflicting comments on who was responsible for the violence at the Charlottesville rally.

    “I believe that he has not condemned the neo-Nazis and the self-proclaimed white supremacists in Charlottesville and other settings,” said Clinton, who made her own statement against the violent rally after it occurred last month.

    When asked if she thought Trump was racist, Clinton demurred.

    “I can’t tell you what’s in his heart,” she told Woodruff.

    READ MORE: Hillary Clinton calls Trump ‘clear and present danger,’ says Tillerson has never sought her advice

    But Clinton did offer a possible explanation for Trump’s approach to talking about race, saying that it might be driven by “total rank cynical opportunism.” She added: “He’s got a hardcore base that believes these things, and he’s going to keep feeding it.”

    Clinton also said Trump took advantage of the birther conspiracy theory — which held falsely that former President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States — and that the president had been sued for racial discrimination by the federal government during his career in real estate development. Ultimately, Trump and his family settled that suit with the Department of Justice, but did not admit any wrongdoing.

    Clinton said as a leader, Trump should “speak up on behalf of the rights of all Americans” and “the respect we should show for the diversity of our country.”

    “He’s got a hardcore base that believes these things, and he’s going to keep feeding it.”

    She added she would be among those giving the president credit if he successfully brokers a deal to protect “dreamers,” something on which he’s worked since deciding to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program last week. DACA, through executive order, offers renewable work permits and temporary deportation relief to children illegally brought here by their parents; Trump gave Congress six months to find a legislative solution, one of the items he discussed this week with Democrats at the White House.

    “Memorializing that protection for these 800,000 striving young people in legislation would be a legitimate accomplishment,” Clinton said, adding Trump’s signing of such a bill “ would only come about because of bipartisan support.”

    The comments come as Clinton embarks on a tour to promote her new book, “What Happened,” which was released this week.

    In the memoir, Clinton looks back at the 2016 election and offers a stark assessment of her mistakes as a candidate, as well as other forces that she said explain why she lost the race.

    See Judy Woodruff’s extended interview with Hillary Clinton on Friday’s broadcast. See more from the conversation online here.

    The post Hillary Clinton on whether President Trump is racist appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference announcing the takedown of the dark web marketplace AlphaBay, at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., July 20, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RTX3CBGD

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference announcing the takedown of the dark web marketplace AlphaBay, at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters

    CHICAGO — Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t follow through — at least for now — with his threat to withhold public safety grant money to Chicago and other so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to impose new tough immigration policies, a judge ruled Friday in a legal defeat for the Trump administration.

    In what is at least a temporary victory for cities that have defied Sessions, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled that the Justice Department could not impose the requirements.

    He said the city had shown a “likelihood of success” in arguing that Sessions exceeded his authority with the new conditions. Among them are requirements that cities notify immigration agents when someone in the country illegally is about to be released from local jails and to allow agents access to the jails.

    The city had asked the judge for a “nationwide” temporary injunction this week, asking the judge not to allow the Justice Department to impose the requirements until the city’s lawsuit against the department plays out in court.

    City officials have said such a ruling would prevent the Justice Department from withholding what are called Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants to the cities based on their refusal to take the steps Sessions ordered.

    Chicago has applied for $2.2 million in the federal grant money — $1.5 million for the city and the rest for Cook County and 10 other suburbs. But in a recent court hearing, attorneys representing the city said that more than 30 other jurisdictions across the United States filed court briefs supporting Chicago’s lawsuit and have up to $35 million in grants at stake. At least seven cities and counties, including Seattle and San Francisco, as well as the state of California, are refusing to cooperate with the new federal rules.

    Though the $1.5 million is just a tiny fraction of the city’s budget, the ruling could be a major victory for a city that has been in a public fight with Sessions. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said the city would not “be blackmailed” into changing its values as a city welcoming of immigrants, and Sessions responded that the Trump administration would not “simply give away grant money to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety.”

    The ruling is another blow to Sessions, a longtime champion of tougher immigration laws. Earlier this month, Sessions announced that the administration would end a program that protects young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families who overstayed their visas. Trump later announced he was working on an agreement to protect them.

    Whether or not the ruling means that Leinenweber will ultimately decide in favor of the city is unclear.

    During a hearing, Ron Safer, an attorney representing the city, said that if the Justice Department prevailed, it could use the same argument to “seize” even more authority to tie grant money to doing what he wants.

    READ MORE: Trump administration pushes back against Chicago lawsuit over sanctuary city policy

    The post Judge: Sessions can’t deny grant money for sanctuary cities appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Copies of Hilary Clinton's new book "What Happened" line shelves before she arrives for a book signing in Barnes & Noble Union Square in Manhattan, New York, US September 12 2017. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly - RC1C65D4A820

    Copies of Hilary Clinton’s new book “What Happened” line shelves before she arrives for a book signing in Barnes & Noble Union Square in New York. Photo by REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

    Mega-retailer Amazon has come under scrutiny for deleting nearly 900 predominately negative reviews of Hillary Clinton’s new campaign memoir “What Happened.” The number of reviews spiked to more than 1,400 following the book’s release, split almost evenly between glowing praise and scathing condemnation.

    When only around 500 reviews were on the e-commerce site Friday morning, some saw Amazon’s decision to remove them as censorship. More negative reviews surfaced this morning directly referencing the redactions.

    Manipulation of content, including unusually high numbers of reviews, are grounds for removal according to Amazon’s community guidelines. In a statement emailed to PBS NewsHour, an Amazon spokesperson said, “We never suppress reviews based on star rating or sentiment. We have triggers in place to detect when numerous reviews post in a short amount of time that are unrelated to the product.”

    Tommy Noonan, founder of product review analysis site ReviewMeta, says concerns that Amazon’s deletions serve as a cover-up of negative press is false, according to his data.

    ReviewMeta’s report on “What Happened” revealed that over 50 percent of the book’s initial reviews were from unverified users who hadn’t actually purchased the book from Amazon.

    ReviewMeta uses a complex system of tests to measure unnatural trends in product reviews to help customers make informed purchases. Tests examine patterns in product reviews, posting frequency and characteristics of the reviewers themselves. ReviewMeta’s report on “What Happened” revealed that over 50 percent of the book’s initial reviews were from unverified users who hadn’t actually purchased the book from Amazon.

    Additionally, ReviewMeta monitors review deletion rates as yet another way to identify irregular reviewing behavior. If the site sees high rates of deletions from Amazon’s platform, it’s a signal that the content might not be legitimate. Amazon says that when “triggers” are activated, all non-Amazon Verified Purchase reviews are removed.

    In the case of Clinton’s book, most of the unverified reviews flagged for removal happened to be negative. After a deeper investigation into similar cases, Noonan says “review brigades” were probably at work. Review brigading is usually perpetrated by trolls who band together online to trash talk a product through the review section. “You see a lot of that happening with popular, politicized figures,” Noonan said speaking anecdotally.

    Clinton’s other books, including “Stronger Together,” also experienced review brigading that was subject to Amazon-sanctioned removal, according to Noonan. Last Christmas, Amazon similarly cleaned up around 3,000 unverified reviews for a “Make America Great Again” tree ornament.

    Last Christmas, Amazon cleaned up around 3,000 unverified reviews for a “Make America Great Again” tree ornament.

    The list of recent review brigade victims is long, spanning the reaches of both literature and film. Noonan recalls similar online attacks against Megyn Kelly and Amy Schumer. NewsHour covered similar trends surrounding the film “I Am Not Your Negro,” which was also lambasted online.

    Extensive research has been done concerning the influence that reviews have on purchasing decisions. Researchers agree that product reviews carry a lot of weight for consumer behavior.

    And those reviews can often come from unverified users. According to research by Eric Anderson from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern and Duncan Simester at MIT Sloan School of Management, reviews by unverified users are twice as likely to receive a one-star review.

    “There is a lot of evidence out there that some of the reviews that appear on different sites may not indeed be truthful,” said Anderson. “On average, these reviews that we couldn’t link back to a purchase were fairly negative.”

    Fraudulent reviews also look a certain way, according to the research. Indicators in the text, like the use of multiple exclamation points, can be a signal someone is being deceptive, Anderson said.

    Amazon maintains it shouldn’t be the one to make decisions on what constitutes a review as helpful or unhelpful, but the company does strive to ensure that the voices of the many don’t overrun the voices of the few.

    “Reviews are meant to help customers by providing real feedback on a product from other customers who have tried it,” an Amazon spokesperson said.

    The post Reviews of Clinton’s memoir were deleted for violating company guidelines, Amazon says appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    HARI SREENIVASAN: Karen Walrond is a former engineer, an attorney, photographer and writer.

    Three weeks ago, Hurricane Harvey destroyed her home in Houston. She and her family are now living with a friend, figuring out what to do next.

    Tonight, Walrond shares her Humble Opinion on the best way to help storm victims, in fact, anyone who is facing a crisis.

    KAREN WALROND, Hurricane Harvey Survivor: At first, it wasn’t that much, a couple of inches or so. But, by the time it was over, we had almost three feet of water sitting in our home.

    My husband and I evacuated our daughter to the safety of a friend’s house early on. That’s her in the pink raincoat. But when it became apparent that we couldn’t save our home, we realized that we needed to get back to our daughter fast.

    Unfortunately, by that time, most streets had flooded, so that meant wading through chest-deep water for about a mile. As we started on our way, a young woman approached us, and told us to wait. There were three guys with a boat shuttling people to safety. So, we waited.

    And while we waited, we witnessed people who were using their gifts and their skills to address specific needs, in service of others. That young girl? She lived in a second-story apartment nearby, and after watching cars continuing to drive into the dangerous floodwaters, she put on a raincoat, walked out into the storm, and for two days waved cars away from the deep water.

    The three young men who took us to our friend had taken their bass boat out of storage and opened their own ferry service to help. And a restaurant owner who showed up to check on his cafe, instead of returning to the security of his home, opened his restaurant to the volunteers, giving them free coffee and water and a place to warm up.

    Each of these people took a moment to consider what they had to offer, and then, without hesitation, simply helped. But they helped with specificity.

    It’s human nature to ask, how can I help when someone is in a difficult situation. It’s admittedly something I have said countless times in the past. But the truth is that, when people offered, I was in crisis, and couldn’t even begin to think about what I might need, far less consider what they might have to give.

    More powerful have been the offers from people who have been specific, like the friend with impeccable organizational skills who offered to be a single point of contact between us and friends who wanted to donate clothing and tools to help deal with the damage to our house, or chef friends who have offered us hot meals at the end of long days of mucking out our house.

    They have taught me that specific is more meaningful than general every time.

    People face crises all the time. Heartbreak, grief and loss, these are facts of life. So, I would challenge us all, when we’re struck by the need to help a friend going through a difficult time, that, instead of asking, how can I help, let’s mine our own gifts, talents and skills that we have been entrusted with, and instead declare: I can help you, and here’s how.

    The post There’s a better way to help than asking ‘How can I help?’ appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Hillary Clinton talked about her loss in the 2016 election and how Donald Trump is performing so far as president in an interview with PBS NewsHour's Judy Woodruff on Friday. Photo by Phil Hirschkorn.

    Hillary Clinton talked about her loss in the 2016 election and how Donald Trump is performing so far as president in an interview with PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff on Friday. Photo by Phil Hirschkorn.

    Hillary Clinton criticized President Donald Trump on a number of fronts in a PBS NewsHour interview Friday, saying “he’s being played” by dictators like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, and also criticizing the president’s response to August violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

    WATCH: Dissecting the election, Hillary Clinton sees dangers for democracy

    Clinton reflected on her loss to Mr. Trump and other political issues in her wide-ranging interview with PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, which comes as the former presidential candidate and secretary of state touts her new book about the 2016 election, “What Happened,” which was released this week.

    Here are some highlights from our conversation.

    President Trump’s national security team in “disarray.” Clinton said the White House has been “in disarray over national security from the very first day,” and that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hasn’t reached out to her for advice since taking over as the nation’s top diplomat, a position she once held.

    Clinton said Trump’s “diplomatic pronouncements on Twitter” give “aid and comfort to people like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin.”

    “[Trump is] being played by these dictators in a way that undercuts our credibility and the capacity to come up with a diplomatic solution in that region” and around the world. “I’m deeply concerned, and I think in many ways the Trump presidency poses a clear and present danger to our country and to the world.”

    Is President Trump racist? “I can’t tell you what’s in his heart,” Clinton told Woodruff when asked whether the president was racist, though she said “I believe that he has given a lot of encouragement and rhetorical support to the Ku Klux Klan,” and “I believe that he has not condemned the neo-Nazis and the self-proclaimed white supremacists in Charlottesville and other settings.”

    (Here’s our own look at Mr. Trump’s history with race).

    On Comey and her defeat. Clinton singles out former FBI Director James Comey in her book as part of the reason she lost the 2016 election. “What was really costly and what I believe was the proximate cause of my defeat was his Oct. 28 letter, which has never been adequately explained or defended,” she said. That letter to Congress said the FBI was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.

    On getting a grip on sexism and misogyny in politics. Clinton said the United States has to “come to grips with the endemic sexism and misogyny” in politics as well other parts of American life, including the business and media worlds.

    Clinton noted that she was often asked why she was running for president, whereas male 2016 candidates were rarely asked to explain why they wanted the Oval Office. “I didn’t hear Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders asked that question,” Clinton said. It was “as though there was something hidden or so unusual about a woman stepping forward and saying, ‘you know I think I could be a good president, I hope you’ll support me.'”

    The former First Lady, who devoted a chapter of her book to gender, said she wasn’t alone in facing sexism in politics. Clinton noted that Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have all spoken out about being treated differently because they were women.

    Clinton’s candor in her book is surprising, syndicated columnist Mark Shields told NewsHour on Friday’s program; she’s more open and honest than she’s been previously when talking about her campaign.

    “She does accept responsibility” for her loss, Shields said, “but doesn’t do it exclusively.”

    Clinton’s institutionalism, particularly when describing what she called a White House national security team “in disarray,” shone through in her interview with Woodruff, New York Times columnist David Brooks added. “Let’s face it: This election was about anti-institutionalism,” so it’s not surprising voters put Trump in the White House, he said.

    While Trump “clearly plays identity politics and white identity politics,” and race was a strong factor in 2016’s election, Brooks said he would be careful not to say Trump won the election because of race, as he thought Clinton came close to doing in her interview with Woodruff. The president “won for a lot of reasons,” Brooks said.

    See Judy Woodruff’s extended interview with Hillary Clinton on Friday’s broadcast of the PBS NewsHour. Find more clips online, on Facebook, on Twitter and on Instagram.

    Daniel Bush contributed reporting for this story.

    The post ‘What Happened,’ according to Hillary Clinton appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    Loading...
    0 0

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    HARI SREENIVASAN: Let’s turn our attention again to “The Vietnam War,” Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s latest landmark documentary.

    The 18-hour film begins on Sunday night.

    Judy Woodruff sat down with the co-directors to discuss how history shows the war was actually a long time in the making.

    READ MORE: The first American Vietnam War POW on why we need to understand the war

    KEN BURNS, Co-director, “The Vietnam War”: We have reconciled with Vietnam, but we haven’t reconciled with ourselves. The news flash is also, they haven’t reconciled with themselves.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: By talking firsthand to North Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, Vietcong guerrillas and South Vietnamese civilians, soldiers, diplomats, the filmmakers hope to fill out the picture of what was happening in Vietnam and the U.S.

    I have been to Hanoi, so I have seen some of the remembrances of the war. But they don’t have anything like this.

    KEN BURNS: It would stretch to the Capitol Building if they did this.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: The Burns-Novick team spent a decade talking to hundreds of veterans from both sides of the bloody conflict, in which more than 3.5 million people may have died, estimates are about 58,000 American military deaths and the rest, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians.

    KEN BURNS: We Americans always assume we’re at the center of this story of Vietnam, that the Vietnam War is about Americans.

    LYNN NOVICK, Co-director, “The Vietnam War”: Right.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: The first episode looks at how, after one long and brutal war with the French, Vietnamese revolutionaries led by Ho Chi Minh ended nearly a century of French colonial occupation.

    With the Cold War intensifying, Vietnam is divided into two at Geneva. Communists in the North aim to reunify the country, while America supports Ngo Dinh Diem’s untested regime in the South.

    There is clearly an unknowable aspect to all this.

    LYNN NOVICK: Yes.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Lynn, do you come away, do you think, understanding how the United States got pulled into this, despite the French being kicked out, essentially, Dien Bien Phu?

    Senator John F. Kennedy saying the Americans don’t belong in a land war in Asia. Decisions made by Eisenhower not to get involved. And yet the United States was pulled in.

    LYNN NOVICK: Yes.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Did you understand why, at the end, do you think?

    LYNN NOVICK: Well, it is sometimes stunning to think, with all those road maps and signposts saying don’t do it, we still did.

    It seems clear that there’s definitely a Cold War context that’s very important, and certain kind of received wisdom, conventional wisdom about that, and that we have to stop communism and containment and that whole idea.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Even so, the film shows that, in May of 1964, President Johnson himself expressed misgivings about why the U.S. was at war and Vietnam’s value in a phone call with national security adviser McGeorge Bundy.

    FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON: I just laid awake last night thinking about this thing. The more I think of it, I don’t know what in the hell — it looks like to me we are getting into another Korea.

    It just worries the hell out of me. I don’t see what we can ever hope to get out of there with, once we’re committed. I don’t think it’s worth fighting for, and I don’t think we can get out, and it’s just the biggest damn mess.

    MCGEORGE BUNDY, Former National Security Advisor: It is an awful mess.

    FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON: And I just thought about ordering those kids in there. And what the hell am I ordering them out there for? What in the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What is it worth to this country?

    MCGEORGE BUNDY: Yes. Yes.

    FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON: Now, of course, if you start running into communists, they may just chase you right in your own kitchen.

    MCGEORGE BUNDY: Yes, that’s the trouble. And that’s what the rest of the — that half of the world is going to think if this thing comes apart on us.

    LYNN NOVICK: Now, when we talk about when did the war start, this year, people are talking about the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War. We’re not really sure why. Fiftieth anniversary of what?

    The Vietnam War didn’t start in 1967. That was a moment of great kinetic energy in the war, but it started long before that. And you could argue that it really started in 1945.

    KEN BURNS: Which we do in the film, when the OSS parachutes into Northern Vietnam to sort of help this ragtag insurgency that they hope will help us against the Japanese.

    LYNN NOVICK: Right.

    KEN BURNS: And it happens to be led by a guy named Ho Chi Minh.

    So, all of a sudden, all of the normal, stabilized sense of Ho Chi Minh as the leader and the bad guy get challenged, and it’s further challenged as you walk down just that path in Vietnam.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Ho Chi Minh, did you come away from this experience understanding better who he was and what he represented?

    I mean, it’s striking. He was, what, quoting Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, at one point.

    KEN BURNS: During his declaration of Vietnamese independence…

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Independence.

    KEN BURNS: … quoting Thomas Jefferson. And there’s an OSS officer standing next to them.

    So, you begin to say, as Lynn is talking about, if you understand the overlay of the Cold War and how we’re going to not have World War III, no one wants World War III, so what we’re going to do is, we’re going to pick our little battles, and fight it through places like South Vietnam/North Vietnam struggle, that you can misread what a local leader is all about.

    NARRATOR: The war began to seem like an open pit, one North Vietnamese remembered. The more young people were lost there, the more they sent.

    MAN (through interpreter): I witnessed Americans dying. They carried away the body, and they wept. I witnessed such scenes, and thought Americans, like us Vietnamese, also have a profound sense of humanity. They cared about each other.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the things you do so powerfully, which you’re talking about here, is bringing to an American audience the Vietnamese view of this, experience of this, the depth to which Vietnam and the Vietnamese people suffered in this war.

    You make them come alive, become human, the way I don’t believe any other vehicle I can think of has done.

    LYNN NOVICK: We were able, with the really incredible talents of a Vietnamese producer, to communicate to people that we wanted to know, which was the human story of the war, not the big propaganda narrative and the sort of conventional wisdom, but just, what was it really like for you and your family? What did you go through?

    MAN (through interpreter): Even the Vietnamese veterans, we avoided talking about the war. People sing about victory, about liberation. They’re wrong. Who won and who lost is not a question. In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction. Only those who have never fought like to argue about who won and who lost.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: In a big tent way, the film invites voices from every corner, and lets viewers judge history, try to resolve some of the nation’s unfinished business for themselves.

    KEN BURNS: We made sure there was room for everybody in our film. If you still think the — we should be fighting the commies there still, there’s the representation of that in our film.

    If you believe that it was wrong from the very beginning, there are people that will represent that point of view. But, more importantly, all those shades of gray are able to coexist.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: The documentary’s 10 episodes will air over the next two weeks.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: The premiere is this Sunday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 7:00 p.m. Central, on your PBS station.

    The post Voices from all sides trace deep roots and wounds in ‘Vietnam War’ appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    HARI SREENIVASAN: And now it’s time now for the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

    First off, your reactions to the interview so far?

    MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: What I find interesting is, I don’t pay any attention to books from politicians.

    And the only time I listen to any politician waxing semi-candid is when they are either over 70 or given up all hopes of the White House.

    And I think Mrs. Clinton is not 70, or close to it, I guess, but she’s obviously given up all hopes to the White House. And, in that sense, there’s a lot more candor, than I think I have certainly seen in past books, an admission that every candidate is ultimately responsible for his or her campaign, victory or defeat.

    And every campaign is inevitably a mirror reflection of the candidate. And she does accept responsibility, but she doesn’t do it exclusively. She wants to share it with some in the press, with other forces in our society.

    DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times: Well, as for the book, it’s tough to be reflective and a good storyteller and be in the public sphere.

    You’re so active that you don’t have time for reflection. And I read the book. And I thought it was interesting, by political standards, way more interesting. I think she’s right, as she said in the interview, that it was just not her year. She’s not going to the anger, outsider politician.

    I think she’s pushed up too much emphasis on Comey and all that other stuff and the Russians in blaming this. But she has cusps of thoughts throughout the book.

    For example, at one point, she says she really loves the parable of the prodigal son. And she says, I’m so much like the older brother, who is the rule follower. And, of course, then you think, well, Bill Clinton is the ultimate younger brother, the prodigal son. And she’s on the cusp of a really interesting insight about her relationship with him.

    But she can’t — she never, never takes the next step. And I think that’s just because active people — I remember I once interviewed Margaret Thatcher, and she was the same way — so much active, not a writer, not reflective, not getting the analysis you actually want.

    But that’s just a product of being in the public sphere. I think the book with is far more interesting than most political books of that sort.

    MARK SHIELDS: Obama wrote a very book, but he wasn’t a presidential candidate at the time.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: There’s a section in there about foreign policy where she kind of slips back into secretary of state mode.

    Almost you could see she’s excited to weigh in on this. And she also takes Secretary Tillerson to task. Well, he has never called me. I don’t necessarily know what their foreign policy is.

    MARK SHIELDS: No. That was. It was really a memorable passage in her interview with Judy.

    What’s interesting is, Donald Trump — Rex Tillerson, of course, serves at the pleasure or displeasure of Donald Trump. And Donald Trump, unlike anybody else in American history after winning the presidency, made no attempt to reach out.

    In fact, he’s continued to berate her and beat her up at his rallies and continued to have rallies and run against her. So, it’s almost made her toxic to his administration.

    But I’m surprised that Tillerson, once he got the job, didn’t call her and have a sit-down. And I think — I just think it’s part of it.

    But, if you think about it, Donald Trump, once he won, never reached across. He never met with Jimmy Carter. He never talked to George H.W. Bush.

    There was not a — so, I guess Tillerson doesn’t surprise me. But there’s no question she’s totally disappointed and disenchanted with his stewardship at State, and very frank about the National Security Council, and the disarray, the Michael Flynn period, and that McMaster has spent the last seven months trying to get rid of the people that Flynn brought in, and he’s had to wait for General Kelly to get there to complete the…

    HARI SREENIVASAN: Yes.

    DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, she’s an institutionalist.

    When she was in the Senate, she respected the rules and the standards of the Senate. When she was secretary of state, she was very much of the building and of the body and going around the world interviewing people.

    And I generally like institutionalists. I think organizations are really what change history, rarely a random person. But let’s face it. This election was about anti-institutionalism.

    It was about, we don’t like the way those things are working in Washington. Let’s burn the place town. And so it’s not surprising the Trump administration is bad at institutions, and they’re hollowing out all our institutions. They were sort of hired to do that.

    I happen to think that was a mistake, a bad way to run government, but that sort is what they were hired to do.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: There’s also a section on race where she weighed in on the divisiveness that she says Trump exacerbates.

    DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

    I — there’s a mixture here. Trump clearly plays identity politics, and white identity politics. And race has been a strong factor in this election. There’s no question about that.

    I think it’s always necessary to be careful and not say Trump won because of race. I think a lot of the people who voted for Trump voted for him on a million different reasons, a lot of them quite legitimate reasons.

    And so I think she sometimes, in this interview with Judy, gets a little close to saying, he’s the KKK candidate.

    I think that’s overly simplistic. Is there a white identity stream running through his thought which is deeply disturbing? Well, after Charlottesville, we saw that to be the case.

    But I don’t think you want to play this election as, well, white racism won this election. I don’t think that’s fair.

    MARK SHIELDS: I disagree, to this extent.

    I thought she put it — she couched it. She said, he gives rhetorical encouragement to white supremacists.

    And I don’t think anybody can argue with that. And his revised position number nine on Charlottesville, that there’s bad dues on both sides, he just — his — didn’t know who David Duke was.

    There’s no question that he is — the great original sin of America, which has been so prominent in American politics and so central to our presidential experience of the past 60 years, that Donald Trump is an outlier, and remains an outlier.

    He doesn’t see the duty or the responsibility of a president to bring together the country racially. And I think she’s legitimate with that. And certainly his language has been loose.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: There’s a pivot we will make in the conversation where she actually gives credit to Donald Trump on sort of the DACA conversation, the immigration conversation that is now happening with Democrats.

    For what to be the second time in a month now, Trump has sided with Democrats, much to the chagrin of Republicans.

    DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

    So, all my life, I have been waiting for a president who would go with the Democrats when the merits of the argument are on their side, and go with the Republicans when the merits are on their side, and now finally it turns out to be Donald Trump who is doing this.

    (LAUGHTER)

    DAVID BROOKS: So, oh, well.

    I guess I think two things. I think that, one, this particular deal, if it is a deal, is a good deal. And I think most of the country — only 12 percent of the country thinks the DACA people should be sent out of the country. It’s a pretty popular position to want to some way codify their position in this country.

    And the wall is a stupid idea. I don’t think Donald Trump actually believes that we should build a wall with Mexico. And so, if that is the deal, that’s a good deal on the merits.

    Can Donald Trump continue to be a bipartisan president? Well, I wish we had a skilled political operator who could do that. I don’t think Donald Trump is that skilled political operator.

    It takes great skill to go with one party and then go with another. And I fear what he’s going to end up doing is isolating himself, the distrust with both parties, isolating himself from his administration, which is pretty down-the-line conservative, and discrediting bipartisanship along the way.

    So, if we are going to have an independent president, which is something I think we need, I wish it was somebody a little more politically skilled.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: Does the president deserve credit, Mark?

    MARK SHIELDS: Yes, he does deserve credit.

    Talk about motives, but if, in fact, 700,000 Americans can come out from the shadows, and not be at the whim or the cruel caprice of a brutal employer who wants to expose them, or some personal enemy, or some sheriff who is looking for headlines, yes, I mean, that is good.

    That is good for America. I agree with David, the numbers. Americans are overwhelmingly in favor. You’re talking about misanthropes in the single percentage numbers of people who really want to punish and send back kids who were brought here at the age of 3 and have grown up and are working here.

    But I think what I find most fascinating, to me, is, is the Cleveland Indians have been on a 22-game winning streak, and Donald Trump has been on an uninterrupted losing streak since January.

    And when you’re in a losing streak, you change the lineup, you change the batting order. He changed teams. He just said, no, no, this Republican team isn’t working. I’m going to work with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

    It will last about the extent of — most of his relationships have a very short shelf life, and political relationships anyway.

    And I think — but, yes, if this does achieve that — we’re a long way from getting there. And the Republican leadership and the Republican membership in the House, in the Senate have their feelings hurt, have more than that. They have had their prestige undermined, their power sabotaged by the president doing this.

    DAVID BROOKS: Trump is going to go so far left, he’s going to be filling in for Mark on his weeks off. We’re going to go all the way up the other side.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: The seat is open here any time he wants.

    (LAUGHTER)

    HARI SREENIVASAN: But speaking of — continuing with that sort of sports analogy, but what does this do to his die-hard fans, the ones that show up in the middle of winter?

    DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

    I think the evidence so far is that it doesn’t really hurt him. There are some of the die-hard fans, like Ann Coulter, who are upset. And there are a lot of people who are burning their MAGA hats, the make America great again hats, because they’re upset.

    But if you look at the Sean Hannitys and those people, and a lot of the people who are calling into the Rush Limbaugh show, they want to drain the swamp. And they don’t like Mitch McConnell very much.

    And if he goes against Mitch McConnell and he changes things up in Washington, so far, the evidence is, they are willing to stick with Trump and not really walk away from him.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: Mark.

    MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

    No, I mean, among the Republican voters who supported him in the primaries in 2016, three out of five of them thought that immigration has been — has weakened the country.

    But among Republicans at large, those who didn’t support him, three out of five believe that immigration has strengthened the country. And, overwhelmingly, that is the case.

    And I do think that he probably — he has great political insights. And he said, when I stood at Fifth Avenue and shot somebody at high noon, people wouldn’t leave me.

    And he does. He has a very loyal constituency. And I don’t think it hinges on this issue by any means.

    He’s going to have to come away with something. And what could kill this in the House is the Republicans in the House have never passed immigration reform at any time, because they could not get a majority of the majority.

    So, they’re going to have to come up with something that’s tough, whether it’s a wall or it’s bamboo shoots under the fingernails of people who come in illegally or something, which may be a deal-killer for the Democrats.

    So, that has been the case in the past. And I fear that we’re a long way from this being signed into law.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you both.

    MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.

    The post Shields and Brooks on Hillary Clinton’s election candor, Trump’s dealing with Democrats appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    ‘What Happened,’ according to Hillary Clinton

    HARI SREENIVASAN: Hillary Clinton, she is one of the most prominent and polarizing figures in modern American history.

    This week, she is back in the spotlight promoting a new book.

    She opens up tonight to Judy Woodruff, revealing where she gives President Trump credit, but also her fears that he is dangerous for the world.

    Judy sat down with the former presidential candidate, secretary of state and first lady at the CORE: club in New York City, and began by asking about the premise of the book: What happened in the 2016 election?

    HILLARY CLINTON, Author, “What Happened”: I really was not ready or equipped to run for president against a reality TV candidate.

    I take running for president and being president really seriously. It’s a — maybe the toughest job in the world, right? And I knew that there was unfinished business from the successful two terms of President Obama, whom I had served, but that we needed to go further on the economy, on health care, and so much else.

    I really prepared, and I prepared what I wanted to say, how I would defend what I wanted to do.

    It turned out that was very hard to communicate. It was a time when an empty podium got more broadcast minutes than all of the policies that I was putting forth.

    And now that there’s been a lot of analysis coming from all sorts of independent observers, I think it was clear that the kind of campaign I was running, and the seriousness with which I looked at the agenda I wanted to represent and then execute, was just out of sync with the anger that a lot of the electorate felt, or the disappointment that another part of the electorate felt, so that my brand of leadership, which is very focused on bringing people together, solving problems — it’s what I have always tried to do — just had a hard time being as powerfully compelling in that campaign as I think it has been in previous years for other candidates.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: You single out James Comey, the former FBI director.

    HILLARY CLINTON: Yes, I do.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: My question, though, is, he was in the role he was in because the then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had pulled back and essentially turned over the leading role in overseeing the FBI — or the investigation into your e-mails because of that meeting on the airport tarmac with your husband, former President Bill Clinton.

    So, my question is, to what extent did Loretta Lynch and President Clinton make a costly mistake?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Judy, I just don’t buy that.

    I honestly reject that premise, partly because there’s a chain of command in the Justice Department. There’s a deputy attorney general. We all now know who it was, Sally Yates, a woman of experience and integrity.

    We knew at the time, after it was reported that, you know, both my husband and Loretta Lynch said they didn’t say a word about this. The optics were not good. I admit that.

    But in this chain of command, if the attorney general is recused, you know, the deputy attorney general. And what we know happened is that the investigation was getting nowhere. There was nothing to find. And he was in a position of having to accept the evidence that there was no case.

    I think what he did, against the advice of people around him in the FBI and the Justice Department, was in large measure due to political pressures that he was under from people that he had worked with before in the FBI and outside the FBI.

    And so, when you’re a prosecutor or you’re an FBI director, if there’s no case, there’s no case. And, instead, he had a press conference and really, you know, went after, not just me, the entire State Department.

    OK, that was over on July 5. Right. That — you know, that, I thought, was a breach of professional ethics and responsibility and a rejection of the protocols within the Justice Department. It was over. And we were doing fine going forward.

    What really was costly, and what I believe was the proximate cause of my defeat, was his October 28 letter, which has never been adequately explained or defended, had nothing to do with what happened, you know, months before.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: But my point is, he wouldn’t have been in that position had Loretta Lynch not pulled back after that meeting with President Clinton.

    HILLARY CLINTON: I just don’t — Judy, I don’t believe that.

    I mean, he was in a position that was subordinate to the chain of command in the Justice Department. So, Loretta Lynch recuses. It’s like when Sessions recused. The deputy attorney general steps forward and starts, you know, running the investigation.

    There was — there were plenty of people who were in the chain of command who were telling him, I’m told, you know, OK, nothing there, end it. And that’s not — that’s not what he did.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: You also write about the role of gender, the fact that women are treated differently in politics, held to a higher standard.

    You quote your friend Sheryl Sandberg talking about how women, the more successful they are, the less they are liked.

    HILLARY CLINTON: People all the time say, oh, if you only knew Hillary Clinton the way I know Hillary Clinton.

    Well, it’s really hard to get to know me, or any candidate. And I would be asked questions like, well, why are you really running for president?

    I didn’t hear Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders asked that question, as though there was something hidden or — or so unusual about a woman stepping forward and saying, you know, I think I could be a good president, I hope you will support me.

    So, I do believe, and in this chapter called “On Being a Woman in Politics,” that we have to come to grips with the endemic sexism and misogyny. Of course, it’s not just in politics. It’s in business. We have seen a lot of that coming out of Silicon Valley, and it’s in the media, it’s in culture. We know that.

    But, in politics in particular, where now some of my former colleagues and friends in the Senate are being attacked, and they’re being attacked in very sexist ways, you know, Elizabeth Warren told to, you know, sit down and basically shut up, don’t persist, Kamala Harris being attacked.

    Kirsten Gillibrand talks about being manhandled by fellow members of Congress in the gym. You know, I want to blow this up, so that people have to confront it. And then maybe whoever comes next won’t have to face it as much.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: The Trump campaign.

    You think Trump operatives cooperated, colluded with the Russians in order to prevent you from winning this election. You’re a good lawyer. Do you think that meeting in New York last year between a Russian lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner was illegal, that laws were broken by that meeting?

    HILLARY CLINTON: We — I don’t know enough about whether that’s the case.

    I mean, this investigation that’s going on is necessary and incredibly important, because what happened, certainly so far, proves there was communication between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives that they have gone to great lengths to try to hide and not disclose.

    There were meetings like the one you’re talking about. There were others as well. There were, now we know, Russian paid ads that played into the Trump campaign. We now know that some of the placement of ads and the weaponization of information by the Russians was very skillfully injected into our campaign, which suggests that they were getting advice from someone and somewhere.

    We know that the WikiLeaks drop within one hour of the “Hollywood Access” tape on October 7th was meant to do exactly what it did, divert from Trump’s admission on tape that he was a — a sexual assaulter.

    So, you can add all of this up, and you can just say it’s all coincidence, but were campaign finance laws broken? Were foreign agency laws broken? Were financial dealings irregular or illegal? We don’t yet know, but I have a lot of confidence in the work that is going on in the Senate to delve into these issues.

    And I have a lot of confidence in, you know, Robert Mueller and his investigation to tell us whether there’s something there or not.

    But my point is bigger than that. Let’s put what happened to one side. If I had been elected president, and the intelligence community came to me and said, well, you won, but Putin was trying to defeat you, even though I won, I would still say, we have got to get to the bottom of this.

    Right now, we don’t have any leadership from this White House to try to understand what our principal foreign adversary was doing to interfere with our elections, to, in effect, destabilize our democracy. So, I think this is — this should be of interest to any American.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: You are very tough in the book, and now, on President Trump.

    After the birther issue he raised over President Obama, his campaign rhetoric, and now, as president, his comments on Charlottesville — and he repeated some of those yesterday — do you believe the president is racist?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Here’s what I believe.

    I believe that he has given a lot of encouragement and rhetorical support to the Ku Klux Klan. He accepted the support of David Duke. I believe that he has not condemned the neo-Nazis and the self-proclaimed white supremacists in Charlottesville and other settings.

    I believe that the Congress had to, on a bipartisan basis, pass a resolution asking that white supremacy be condemned by this president, which he then signed. And we will wait and see what he does.

    So, I can’t tell you what’s in his heart, Judy. I don’t know. It could be total rank, cynical opportunism. He’s got a hard-core base that believes these things, and he’s going to keep feeding it.

    He took advantage of some of the conspiracy theories that these people propagate, like birtherism. So, I can’t tell you what’s in his heart. I know that he was sued for racial discrimination in his business.

    So I think that what’s important is that, as a leader, he speak up on behalf of the rights of all Americans and the respect we should show for the diversity of our country, which I think is one of our great strengths.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Having said all that, if he is able, as president, to oversee the passage of legislation to protect the dreamers, these young people who came to this country as children, undocumented, but they came here young, if he’s able, if President Trump is able to get that done, something we’re seeing movement on in the last few days, he will deserve credit for that, won’t he?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Yes.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, after so many presidents tried to do it.

    HILLARY CLINTON: Yes, he will deserve credit.

    I will be among those giving him credit for it, because memorializing that protection for these 800,000, you know, striving young people in legislation would be a legitimate accomplishment. And that would only come about because of bipartisan support, that he would then be able to sign such a bill.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: There have been deals — I mean, speaking of the dreamers, there have been deals cut in the last — what appear to be deals in the last few days between Democratic leaders in Congress and the president, not just on the dreamers, on the debt, on funding for the hurricane-ravaged areas.

    Why shouldn’t Democrats cooperate with this president, if it’s going to lead to the kind of legislation that Democrats believe in?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think that we are seeing, from the two Democratic leaders, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, very skillful negotiations that are leading to positive outcomes, that are going to help people, that are part of the broader Democratic agenda.

    That’s what should be happening in Washington, and it’s certainly what I would have done had I been president. I would have worked with Republicans if they’d been willing to work with me, and I would look for ways to make that possible.

    But that doesn’t mean it wipes out a lot of the other behavior and rhetoric that we hear coming from the president, which we hope will, you know, not continue at the pace it has over the first nine months of his presidency.

    But I think, to get protection for dreamers, to save the full faith and credit of the United States by raising the debt limit, all of that is in the interest of America, and it shouldn’t be a partisan issue. And I hope that there’ll be more of that.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: You mentioned the Democratic leaders.

    Your former New York colleague, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has said he gets Trump. He said they get along. He said, we can get deals done, he can successfully work with him.

    You agree?

    HILLARY CLINTON:Well, I think he’s showing that he can.

    And I have had many conversations with Chuck since the election, and have, you know, certainly seen him firsthand as a very experienced legislator and someone who, consistent with his principles and values, will see whether there’s a way to make progress.

    You know, compromise can’t be a dirty word in American politics. There’s plenty to argue about. This administration is still talking about ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy. That should be resisted with every fiber of our being.

    But where there might be areas to try to cooperate to get positive results, you know, I think that both Chuck and Nancy have a lot of proven skills in, you know, finding where those are and then trying to, you know, get them passed.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me ask you quickly to put your foreign policy hat on.

    (LAUGHTER)

    HILLARY CLINTON: Yes.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: What’s your assessment of the Trump national security team?

    HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t know what the team is. You fundamentally don’t have a team. I think that’s one of its biggest deficits.

    You have a secretary of state who’s largely invisible, except for his obsession with cutting the budget of the State Department. You have a…

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Has he reached out to you?

    HILLARY CLINTON: No.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary Tillerson?

    HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t know — I don’t know who he’s reached out to. He certainly hasn’t reached out to me.

    You have Secretary Mattis, who often acts like both secretary of defense and secretary of state, because there’s a big void to kill there.

    You have a White House that has been, you know, in disarray over national security from the very first day.

    And so many of the people in our government with great expertise — let’s take North Korea, which is a very serious threat right now. There were, and maybe still are, a number of people in the State Department who speak the language, understand the history, have studied Kim Jong-un, are ready to be part of a diplomatic offensive. They’re not being called upon.

    So, I think that you have got a president who makes diplomatic pronouncements on Twitter, who gives aid and comfort to people like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, because often what he says is not about them and the threat they pose, so much as going after our friends and allies, as, you know, President Trump just did going after South Korea.

    That makes no sense at all. And he’s being played by these dictators in a way that undercuts our credibility and the capacity to come up with a diplomatic solution in that region and other places.

    So, I’m deeply concerned. And I think, in many ways, the Trump presidency poses a clear and present danger to our country and to the world.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, on North Korea, how dangerous a moment is this? I mean, they flew another missile yesterday, or last night, over Japan. Do you sense that we could be close to some sort of military action?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Well, he — Kim Jong-un is certainly being more and more provocative. And taunting Japan, as he is doing with these missiles, raises really serious questions for the Japanese government.

    So, here’s what I believe. I believe we should have a full-court press diplomatic effort. If Trump doesn’t want to listen to the experts inside his own government, then go to people outside in think tanks and academia who know about this very complicated region, and particularly North Korea.

    Make it clear that we will do everything in our power to protect our allies, South Korea and Japan, including installing even more missile defense.

    Now, the Chinese don’t like that, but then the Chinese better be more on board with us in trying to rein in Kim Jong-un. And the Japanese are not for long going to leave their defense against this aggressor in North Korea to us, when they can’t really rely on Trump’s understanding of our promises.

    That means Japan may well consider rearming even more. That will make the Koreans and the Chinese upset.

    So, we have a lot of cards to play in getting people to work together, as well as protecting our allies. And, at the end of the day, there is a military threat that has to be posed, and it should be very clear: If Kim Jong-un attacks our allies or any part of America, including Guam, we will retaliate with devastating force.

    We don’t want to do that. We’re not interested in that kind of confrontation. But I don’t at least see in any public way an effort by this administration to do what I would be doing right now, and that is, China, South Korea, Japan, get them all on the same page and go after what would be ways into influencing Kim Jong-un.

    Most cards are held by China, but some threats can very well be made by, not just us, but South Korea and Japan as well.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it frustrating for you not to be able to be in there working on this?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Well, it is frustrating. And it’s not just because I’m not there.

    I don’t see enough people who have experience and understanding, their being part of the decision -making. I just — I haven’t seen it.

    And, you know, you don’t have to agree with how I see the world, but you need people who can bring substance to the table. And I don’t think there’s enough of that.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, you have been saying that you don’t plan to run for office again, but you will be very active in public life.

    HILLARY CLINTON: I’m excited about this next chapter in my life. I think there’s a lot to be done.

    And, in the book, I try to sound some alarms, because what happened to me is not sui generis, like, OK, it happened to her, we can move on.

    Voter suppression will make it more and more difficult. You have a White House commission that was set up under the guise of fraud, which hardly exists anywhere in America, to suppress even more voters. You have got the Russia unanswered questions. You have got sexism and misogyny.

    And I think the press has to do some soul-searching.

    How can it — in a democracy — and, you know, that’s really one of the real shining contributions of your program, Judy.

    In a democracy, if people don’t have accurate information, how can they be active citizens? How can they be part of the debate? And if you are facing powerful forces on the right and in this administration who want to create an alternative reality that feeds into their objectives for our country, you more than ever need the press to cut through that, and to be as accurate as possible.

    And so I think all of us have some work to do, because, look, we love this country. I, for one, am deeply grateful for the opportunities that I have been given. I think we all have a role to play in making sure it’s there for my grandchildren in a way that is just as vigorous, contentious, argumentative, but reality-based, evidence-based, reason-based, which was at the core of who we have been as a democracy for 240 years.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Hillary Clinton.

    The book is “What Happened.”

    HILLARY CLINTON:“What Happened.”

    (LAUGHTER)

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you very much.

    HILLARY CLINTON: Thanks, Judy. Good to talk to you.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: You will want to tune in Monday for part two of Judy’s interview, where Secretary Clinton cites well-executed voter suppression of African-American voters as a reason she lost Wisconsin.

    The post Dissecting the election, Hillary Clinton sees dangers for democracy appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    HARI SREENIVASAN: British police launched a major manhunt after a homemade bomb exploded on a subway train in Southwest London. The Islamic State group claimed responsibility, and the British government raised the threat level to critical, meaning another attack could be imminent.

    Paraic O’Brien of Independent Television News has our report.

    PARAIC O’BRIEN, ITN: This is the remains of a device detonated on a packed tube train at 8:20 this morning. The fifth terrorist attack in the U.K. this year targeted the morning commute, the school run.

    Twenty-nine people were treated in hospital. There were no serious injuries. Two teachers one stop from work were near the device as it went off at the back of the train, and described a fireball coming at the down the carriage.

    SHU-CHEN WARNER, Eyewitness: I saw the fire rush towards my side. But, yes, I literally — I heard a lady screaming.

    SALLY FAULDING, Eyewitness: I was falling over people myself, and I was just saying to myself, keep up, right? Because either you can be crumpled to death, or if you have got a madman behind you, because I still didn’t know what was going on.

    PARAIC O’BRIEN: People described to us a flash of fire suddenly running up the walls of the carriage, burning those nearby. Then, the panic.

    LUKE WALMSLEY, Eyewitness: That moment when people are running towards me and pushing you out the way, and you’re unsure of what’s happening, you’re then — you don’t know whether to fight or run. And it was at that, sort of, 10 seconds of sheer panic, and the whole train went through it and it was like a tidal wave.

    MAN: But now what’s happening is, I think people are getting crushed on the stairwell.

    PARAIC O’BRIEN: After the initial surge of people, this was the scene on the crowded platform, people trying to make sense of what had happened.

    Still partly on fire when these pictures were taken, wires are clearly visible sticking out from a would-be bomb. It’s still not known exactly why it failed to fully detonate.

    It’s been reported that some sort of timer device may have been attached to the IED. The official police statement today didn’t speak to this point, but emphasized that the search is on for a perpetrator.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: President Trump reacted to the attack with a tweet that suggested police could have done more to prevent it.

    British Prime Minister Theresa May responded by saying — quote — “I never think it’s helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation.”

    Later, the two spoke by phone. The White House said the president’s criticism may have come up in the conversation.

    Mr. Trump voiced confidence today that U.S. options for dealing with North Korea are — quote — “both effective and overwhelming.” He spoke after the North Koreans launched another ballistic missile over Northern Japan.

    At the White House, the president’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, called for rigorous enforcement of sanctions to cripple the north’s economy.

    H.R. MCMASTER, National Security Adviser: What’s different about this approach is, is that we’re out of time. We have been kicking the can down the road. And we’re out of road. And so for those who have said and been commenting about the lack of a military option, there is a military option. Now, it’s not what we would prefer to do.

    So, what we have to do is call on all nations, call on everyone to do everything we can to address this global problem, short of war.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: The North’s latest missile flight covered 2,300 miles. That would be far enough to reach the U.S. territory of Guam. This afternoon, the U.N. Security Council condemned the launch.

    A judge in Saint Louis has acquitted a white former police officer, Jason Stockley, in a fatal shooting. He was charged in the killing of a black man, Anthony Lamar Smith, after a high-speed chase in 2011. After today’s verdict, hundreds of protesters marched, most of them peacefully. A small group confronted police, and got pepper-sprayed.

    More glimmers of progress today in the recovery from Hurricane Irma. Utilities in Florida say they have restored power to more than 80 percent of the homes and businesses that lost it. Even so, nearly 3.5 million people are still in the dark.

    Meanwhile, local officials report more than 100 sewage overflows caused by the storm. A single spill near Miami spewed about six million gallons of wastewater.

    Chronic hunger around the world is rising again, after a decade of decline. The United Nations reports 815 million people went hungry last year, up 38 million from the previous year. Sixty percent were in war zones. The U.N. also cited floods and drought as causes.

    NASA’s Cassini spacecraft bade a fiery farewell today, burning up in Saturn’s atmosphere. Flight controllers destroyed the vehicle to prevent it from crashing into one of two months that may harbor life. NASA animation showed Cassini’s final plunge. It had nearly exhausted its fuel after recording more than 450,000 images and a huge trove of data.

    MIKE WATKINS, Director, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: The discoveries that Cassini has made over the past 13 years in orbit have rewritten the textbooks of Saturn, have discovered worlds that could be habitable, and have guaranteed that we will return to that ringed world.

    So, the fantastic discoveries that continue to be made with the last set of ring-crossing orbits, and in the grand finale of Cassini haven’t really even been studied yet.

    HARI SREENIVASAN: Cassini was launched in 1997. It’s the only spacecraft ever to orbit Saturn.

    A federal judge in Chicago today blocked the Justice Department from withholding grants for cities that harbor undocumented immigrants. The temporary injunction applies nationwide to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agents. Chicago is one of at least seven cities and counties that have balked at enforcing tougher immigration rules.

    On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 64 points to close at 22268. The Nasdaq rose 19 points, and the S&P 500 added four, hitting 2500 for the first time.

    And something new at the White House today, an 11-year-old boy mowing the lawn. Frank Giaccio of Falls Church, Virginia, got the gig after offering his services to President Trump. This morning, he cut the Rose Garden grass, and he kept his focus even when the president walked alongside him. Mr. Trump called him the future of the country. The boy said he usually charges $8 a lawn, but he did the White House job for free.

    The post News Wrap: Islamic State subway attack spurs London manhunt appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Army Sergeant Shane Ortega laces up boots before posing for a portrait at home at Wheeler Army Airfield on March 26, 2015 in Wahiawa, Hawaii.  (Photo by Kent Nishimura/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

    New guidance released Friday by the Pentagon makes it clear that any transgender troops currently in the military can re-enlist in the next several months, even as the department debates how broadly to enforce a ban on their service ordered by President Donald Trump. Photo by Kent Nishimura/For The Washington Post via Getty Image.

    WASHINGTON — New guidance released Friday by the Pentagon makes it clear that any transgender troops currently in the military can re-enlist in the next several months, even as the department debates how broadly to enforce a ban on their service ordered by President Donald Trump.

    In a memo to top military leaders, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said a high-level panel will determine how to implement Trump’s ban on transgender individuals in the military. Trump directed the military to indefinitely extend the ban on transgender individuals enlisting in the service, but he left it up to Mattis to decide if those currently serving should be allowed to stay.

    Members of Congress have already sent a letter to Trump calling on him to reconsider the ban.

    READ MORE: Fact-checking Trump’s reasons for a transgender military ban

    Sen. John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Friday he backed legislation that would bar the Trump administration from forcing transgender troops out of the armed forces.

    McCain of Arizona said in a statement that any service member, including those who are transgender, who meets the standards for military readiness and medical fitness should be permitted to serve.

    “When less than 1 percent of Americans are volunteering to join the military, we should welcome all those who are willing and able to serve our country,” McCain said.

    The bill is an attempt to establish protections for transgender troops in law, cutting off Trump’s efforts to kick service members out based on their gender identity. Trump tweeted in July that he would ban transgender troops from serving anywhere in the U.S. military. The directive caught the Pentagon flat-footed as defense officials struggled to explain what they called Trump’s guidance.

    About a month later the president issued more formal instructions, directing the Pentagon to indefinitely extend a ban on transgender individuals joining the military. But Trump also gave Mattis six months to come up with a policy on how to address those currently serving, leaving the door open to permitting their continued service.

    READ MORE: The lawsuits challenging Trump’s ban on transgender troops, explained

    Mattis has said the Pentagon will develop a plan that “will promote military readiness, lethality and unit cohesion.”

    In his memo released Friday, Mattis said the deputy defense secretary and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs will lead a panel that will determine how the department will implement the ban. Outside experts may be included to provide additional advice. The Pentagon refused to release the memo, but provided a summary.

    According to the Pentagon, Mattis made clear in his memo that the current policies on transgender troops remain in effect. He said transgender individuals can continue to serve in the military and continue to receive any required medical care.

    The issue raises a number of thorny legal questions, such as whether the Pentagon can say in 2016 that transgender individuals can serve openly and then a year later threaten to throw out anyone who came out publicly.

    That interim guidance laid out in the memo will stay in effect until Feb. 21, when the Pentagon must complete its final plan on how and when transgender individuals may serve in the military.

    The Obama administration in June 2016 changed longstanding policy, and declared that troops could serve openly as transgender individuals. And it set a July 2017 deadline for determining whether transgender people could be allowed to enter the military. Mattis delayed any decision on enlistments until Jan. 1, 2018. But that plan was upended when Trump tweeted in July that transgender individuals were not welcome in the armed forces.

    Since then, officials have been working to figure out a new policy, including whether transgender troops currently in the military should be thrown out. Many of them have been deployed to warzones multiple times.

    READ MORE: ‘Maybe I should just stay closeted’ — Trans troops weigh their options

    The issue raises a number of thorny legal questions, such as whether the Pentagon can say in 2016 that transgender individuals can serve openly and then a year later threaten to throw out anyone who came out publicly.

    The bill supported by McCain is also sponsored by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services panel, and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

    Gillibrand said she had planned to offer the measure protecting transgender troops as an amendment to the annual defense policy bill the Senate has been considering over the last several days. But she said the Senate’s Republican leadership “cut off debate” and blocked the amendment from getting a vote.

    “Thousands of brave transgender Americans love our country enough to risk their lives for it, fight for it, and even die for it, and Congress should honor them and let them serve,” said Gillibrand, who thanked McCain for his support.

    The legislation also requires Mattis to complete his policy review by end of the year and to provide the results to Congress.

    The post Transgender troops can re-enlist in military for now, Pentagon says appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    Loading...
    0 0

    The sign of the Department of Veteran Affairs is seen in front of the headquarters building in Washington

    The sign of the Department of Veteran Affairs is seen in front of the headquarters building in Washington, D.C., on May 23, 2014. Photo by Larry Downing/Reuters

    WASHINGTON — Suicide among military veterans is especially high in the western U.S. and rural areas, according to new government data that show wide state-by-state disparities and suggest social isolation, gun ownership and access to health care may be factors.

    The figures released Friday are the first-ever Department of Veterans Affairs data on suicide by state. It shows Montana, Utah, Nevada and New Mexico had the highest rates of veteran suicide as of 2014, the most current VA data available. Veterans in big chunks of those states must drive 70 miles or more to reach the nearest VA medical center.

    The suicide rates in those four states stood at 60 per 100,000 individuals or higher, far above the national veteran suicide rate of 38.4.

    The overall rate in the West was 45.5. All other regions of the country had rates below the national rate.

    Other states with high veteran suicide rates, including West Virginia, Oklahoma and Kentucky, had greater levels of prescription drug use, including opioids. A VA study last year found veterans who received the highest doses of opioid painkillers were more than twice as likely to die by suicide compared to those receiving the lowest doses.

    The latest VA data also reaffirmed sharp demographic differences: Women veterans are at much greater risk, with their suicide rate 2.5 times higher than for female civilians. Among men, the risk was 19 percent higher among veterans compared to civilians. As a whole, older veterans make up most military suicides — roughly 65 percent were age 50 or older.

    [Watch Video]

    “This report is huge,” said Rajeev Ramchand, an epidemiologist who studies suicide for the RAND Corp. He noted that the suicide rate is higher for veterans than non-veterans in every single state by at least 1.5 times, suggesting unique problems faced by former service members. “No state is immune.”

    Ramchand said it was hard to pinpoint specific causes behind veteran suicide but likely involved factors more prevalent in rural areas, such as social isolation, limited health care access, gun ownership and opioid addiction. Nationally, 70 percent of the veterans who take their lives had not previously been connected to VA care.

    “This requires closer investigation into why suicide rates by veteran status are higher, including the role that opiates play,” Ramchand said.

    The dataset offers more detailed breakdowns on national figures released last year, which found that 20 veterans a day committed suicide. The numbers come from the largest study undertaken of veterans’ records by the VA, part of a government effort to uncover fresh information about where to direct resources and identify veterans most at-risk.

    The department has been examining ways to boost suicide prevention efforts.

    “These findings are deeply concerning, which is why I made suicide prevention my top clinical priority,” said VA Secretary David Shulkin. “This is a national public health issue.”

    Shulkin, who has worked to provide same-day mental health care at VA medical centers, recently expanded emergency mental care to veterans with other than honorable discharges. The department is also boosting its suicide hotline and expanding telehealth options.

    Ret. Army Sgt. Shawn Jones, executive director of Stop Soldier Suicide, said veterans suicide is an issue that needs greater awareness to provide community support for those in need. Transitioning back to civilian life can be difficult for active-duty members who may return home with physical and mental conditions and feel unable to open up to friends or families. As a result, some veterans can feel overwhelmed by daily challenges of finding a job, buying a home and supporting a family.

    “It can be tough because the military is a close-knit community and you have that familial feel,” Jones said. “As you transition out, you tend to lose that a little bit and feel like an island onto yourself.”

    WATCH: Trump announces new ways to help veterans get medical care

    The attention on veteran suicide comes at a time when the VA has reported a huge upswing in veterans seeking medical care as they have returned from conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Veterans’ groups say the latest data may raise questions about the department’s push to expand private-sector care.

    “Veterans often have more complex injuries,” said Allison Jaslow, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, citing limitations if civilian doctors don’t understand the unique challenges of the veterans’ population. If doctors don’t ask the right questions to a veteran complaining of back pain, for instance, they may prescribe opioids not realizing the veteran was also suffering PTSD or brain injury after being blown up in a humvee, said Jaslow, a former Army captain.

    Expanding private-sector care and stemming veterans’ suicide are priorities of President Donald Trump. In a statement this week as part of Suicide Prevention Month, Trump said the U.S. “must do more” to help mentally troubled veterans.

    The post Suicide among veterans highest in western U.S., rural areas appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    File photo of a poll worker placing a mail-in ballot into a voting box as voters drop off their ballot in the U.S. presidential primary election in San Diego

    FILE PHOTO – A poll worker places a mail-in ballot into a voting box as voters drop off their ballot in the U.S. presidential primary election in San Diego, California, on June 7, 2016. Photo by Mike Blake/File Photo/Reuters

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers voted early Saturday to set the state’s presidential primary in March, a move that would force candidates to mount expensive campaigns earlier in the state that awards the most delegates.

    The bill will go to Gov. Jerry Brown for consideration. He has not said if he will sign it.

    The bill would move the presidential primary to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March — three months earlier than the June contest held in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were already the presumptive nominees.

    A March primary would likely fall on so-called “Super Tuesday,” when roughly a dozen states typically vote following the early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and several other states.

    “Candidates will have to spend more time in California,” said Democratic Assemblyman Kevin Mullin of San Francisco.

    An earlier primary could give an edge to well-funded candidates.

    READ NEXT: California lawmakers to tackle housing crisis, immigration

    California is home to 11 media markets, making it expensive to campaign.

    It’s easier for candidates with limited money to compete alongside financial heavy-hitters in early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. In 2016, for example, John Kasich took second in New Hampshire with limited money, while Jeb Bush, who had more than $100 million, placed fourth.

    “The cost of playing in California versus playing in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina is incredibly different,” said Mike Biundo, Republican Rick Santorum’s 2012 campaign manager who later worked for Kasich and Trump. “A Jeb Bush or a Hillary Clinton, I think, have the advantage if California is earlier.”

    An earlier primary, especially one held on Super Tuesday, wouldn’t mean every candidate will spend more time in the state. In 2016, for example, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Virginia and eight other states voted that day.

    And it doesn’t ensure the political relevance that California lawmakers crave. The last time California voted early — in February 2008 — the state backed Clinton, but Barack Obama went on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

    California’s last truly relevant presidential primary was perhaps in 1972, when George McGovern defeated Hubert Humphrey on McGovern’s way to winning the Democratic nomination.

    Michael Schroeder, Republican Ted Cruz’s California political director in 2016, said it’s too early in the political calendar to predict the impact of an earlier primary in 2020.

    “Right now, California is completely irrelevant for picking presidents. We didn’t pick Hillary (Clinton) and we didn’t pick (President Donald) Trump,” he said, referring to 2016 contests that were essentially settled before the state voted.

    Changing the date “will make us at least somewhat relevant; it could make us very relevant,” he said.

    The Republican and Democratic national committees have not yet set rules for the 2020 contests, including the preferred primary calendar and delegates awarded to each state. Depending on rules set, other states could attempt to leapfrog ahead of California, pushing the entire primary season earlier.

    California historically awards more delegates than any other state.

    California may also become the first state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state ballot. Lawmakers sent Brown a bill Friday requiring candidates to publicly share five years of returns; he hasn’t said if he’ll sign it.

    President Donald Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 sparked similar legislation in dozens of states from New Jersey to Hawaii. The documents reveal income sources, tax exemptions, charitable donations and potential financial conflicts of interest. Until Trump, every major presidential candidates has released his or hers for decades.

    Associated Press writer Michael R. Blood contributed reporting.

    The post California lawmakers approve presidential primary in March appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Bill Nye leads the March for Science in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 2017. Photo by Michael Rios

    Bill Nye leads the March for Science in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 2017. Photo by Michael Rios

    WASHINGTON — The hundreds of thousands of people who rallied on the National Mall and in cities worldwide for the March for Science in April came to be noticed. It was a march meant to demonstrate enthusiasm and political clout, and by those measures, organizers believe they succeeded.

    But as two dozen of them met in New York the following month for a debrief, they faced an obvious reality: A grass-roots organization that was quickly formed to plan a singular event was not, at least immediately, equipped for far-reaching and long-term science advocacy.

    “The big picture question was (and continues to be): How do we successfully transition from a march into a movement and how do we continue to mobilize our diverse, interdisciplinary, passionate supporters for science advocacy?” Caroline Weinberg, one of the national march’s co-organizers, wrote to STAT in an e-mail from Paris, where she was meeting with that city’s local march coordinators.

    In the coming weeks, the main organizers of the March for Science will begin to roll out their long-term strategy. Whether they can succeed in their efforts is an open question. Six months after the march, the movement remains a nascent one, despite organizers’ pledges of sustained activism. But the goal, organizers say, is clear: At a time when many in the community feel like science is under assault, create structures that sell and incorporate science into every level of daily life, and ensure that science advocates are recognized as a constituency at every level of government.

    READ NEXT: 7 takeaways from the March for Science

    For now, organizers have acknowledged that changing the way science is incorporated into American society — from elementary schools to universities and from city councils to the federal government — takes more than a one-day event, and needs to be done largely on a local level.

    So in Houston, the local chapter has created a communications network to help scientists displaced by Hurricane Harvey temporarily relocate labs and continue their work wherever scientists offered space. That offer was quickly extended to researchers based in the Caribbean and Florida displaced by the more recent Hurricane Irma.

    In Albuquerque, N.M., an organizer has partnered with a local expert in indigenous science and health equity. Together, the pair is considering a bike ride during which participants could take water samples to measure contamination from open uranium pits near Native American reservations.

    And in Indianapolis, organizers of the local march are using leftover funds raised before the rally to administer a grant program for area schools, awarding up to $500 to science teachers who submit a detailed plan for a hands-on lesson.

    Already, several local groups have found that sustaining political outreach takes immense organization.

    In the Great Lakes region, for instance, a rumored plan to shutter a regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency required a number of local march chapters to band together.

    “We started getting in contact with each other and forming a regional network so the larger marches on the Midwest could stay together,” said Rufus Cochran, a co-organizer for the Indianapolis march. His group is one of a number of chapters that have been incorporated as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations — a status the national group is currently seeking as well.

    The threat of the EPA consolidation faded, but the groups in the region, which are planning a summit to meet in person this fall, have responded to other issues. In May, when President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, the Midwestern groups led a campaign to pressure local officials to publicly acknowledge climate change as a scientifically proven and human-driven reality.

    Demonstrators gather at the Washington Monument before marching to the U.S. Capitol during the March for Science in Washington

    Demonstrators gather at the Washington Monument before marching to the U.S. Capitol during the March for Science in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 2017. Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters

    Cochran said that model of simple but effective advocacy could be replicable by science boosters nationwide.

    “We’re not narcissistic enough to think we did it ourselves,” Cochran said, referring to the decision by some local mayors to issue statements denouncing the withdrawal from the Paris agreement. But, he said, “our goal isn’t to become a policy think tank, at least currently. That’s pretty ambitious. Our goal is to change the perception around science and bring science to people in different ways.”

    The local efforts have zeroed in on projects befitting the challenges in various cities. Beyond coordinating to find scientists temporary lab space, Houston organizers have focused on science accessibility across the income spectrum.

    “Children raised in low-income households have little exposure to science, even at school, where resources are often severely limited,” AJ Ruley, a Houston organizer, wrote in an email to STAT. “A science drive is in planning stages, along with a blood drive, we will offer STEM focused books and science kits for children and youth, especially those in low-income areas that were destroyed by Hurricane Harvey.”

    While many have cited single instances of concern like an EPA office shuttering, a single piece of legislation, or even a hurricane, organizers have vowed in the future to remain organized regardless of circumstance.

    “We are working to make sure that we don’t focus our efforts only around times when something particularly disastrous is happening,” Weinberg wrote. “That’s a critical part of advocacy and a very effective one, but we’re hoping to give people the tools and resources to be independent advocates year round — to hold representatives accountable for their actions every day.”

    Monitoring 50 state legislatures and innumerable city governments — to say nothing of the federal government — remains a challenge, especially from afar. When many of the national planners met in New York, it was their first face-to-face encounter with other organizers.

    The national staff that has been built out largely post-march includes nine part-time employees. Its lone full-timer is Chief Operating Officer Terry Kush, a former consultant for the National Consumers League who joined in August.

    Koren Temple-Perry, the march’s new communications director, told STAT that Kush’s role would focus on providing support to satellite marches. And the staff will continue to oversee fundraising, which March for Science will soon ramp up in anticipation of its fall initiatives rollout.

    The group raised more than $1 million just prior to the march and during the second quarter, Temple-Perry wrote. “Those sources come mainly from donations and merchandise sales and we are planning larger fundraising campaigns this fall,” she wrote.

    The organization’s plans for the rest of 2017 will focus on allowing cities worldwide to do what Houston, Indianapolis, Albuquerque, and countless others have done already.

    “Part of that is going to be an advocacy guide on best practices paired with ‘issue’ one pagers,” Weinberg wrote. “Instead of telling people what evidence based policy they should call their representative about, we want to encourage a conversation around why. Get scientists to get into their communities to share that ‘why’ — to build a powerful community of science supporters with the resources and knowledge to advocate for science in policy and society.”

    The group also plans a “students for science” initiative, a high school student-designed initiative aimed at getting teens involved in activism.

    There is also talk of bringing the March for Science back next April for an encore.

    “I would like to see a lot more progress a lot faster, but that’s not how building something far-reaching works,” said Valorie Aquino, a local organizer in Albuquerque who sits on the national board and is the organization’s co-chair. “We’ve got a big table, we’ve invited a lot of people. I’m really excited for the coming months when these campaigns get more solidified.”

    This article is reproduced with permission from STAT. It was first published on Sept. 14, 2017. Find the original story here.

    The post They got hundreds of thousands to rally. Where does the March for Science go from here? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Police officers stand behind cordon tape near a property that was searched after an explosion on a London Underground train, in Sunbury-on-Thames

    Police officers stand behind cordon tape near a property that was searched after an explosion on a London Underground train, in Sunbury-on-Thames, Britain, September 16, 2017. Photo by Peter Nicholls/Reuters

    British authorities combed a London suburb on Saturday after the arrest of an 18-year-old man suspected of ties to a bombing on the city’s subway a day earlier.

    The homemade device shot flames inside a crowded subway car Friday morning at the city’s Parsons Green station but only partially detonated, injuring 29 people and spurring a “critical” terrorism alert in Britain, warning that another attack was imminent. The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for the attack.

    The man, who was taken into custody early Saturday morning in the town of Dover about 70 miles outside London, has not been identified by the authorities. He is being held for questioning but has not been charged, police said.

    “We have made a significant arrest in our investigation this morning,” London Metropolitan Deputy Assistant Police Commissioner Neil Basu said on Saturday.

    Counterrorism police also raided at least one property and evacuated neighbors Saturday in the London suburb of Sunbury with possible links to Friday’s attack.

    British officials convened an emergency meeting over the attack and hundreds of troops were dispersed at public sites throughout the country, according to the Associated Press. Friday’s bombing was the fifth terrorism incident in the country this year, in which 36 people have been killed.

    The post Police search London suburb after London attack appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    0 0

    Pro and anti-Trump demonstrators debate during the Mother of All Rallies demonstration on the National Mall in Washington

    Pro and anti-Trump demonstrators debate during the Mother of All Rallies demonstration on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 16, 2017. Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump skipped town for the weekend, but that didn’t stop demonstrators from making him the focus of competing rallies in the nation’s capital that highlighted the stark political divisions in the United States.

    Kicking off a Saturday of diverse demonstrations, about two dozen protesters gathered in Lafayette Square, a park just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, to demand that Trump take strong action against Russian leader Vladimir Putin in retaliation for Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

    They carried signs that said “We’re not PUTIN up with it!” and “Protect American Democracy.” After their rally, marchers headed to the home of the Russian ambassador a few blocks away.

    Nearby, on the National Mall close to the Washington Monument, a larger pro-Trump event got underway. Organizers, on the event’s website, appealed for people to “help send a message to Congress, the media & the world” that “we stand united to defend American culture & values.”

    The pitch to would-be participants: “If you stand for patriotism and freedom, this rally is for you!”

    Activists gather on the Trump Unity Bridge during Mother of All Rallies demonstration in Washington

    Activists gather on the Trump Unity Bridge during the Mother of All Rallies demonstration promoting the “protection for traditional American values and an America First agenda” on the National Mall in Washington, U.S., September 16, 2017. Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters

    Trump was spending the weekend at his golf club in New Jersey before attending the U.N. General Assembly next week.

    Later, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, thousands of juggalos, as supporters of the rap group Insane Clown Posse are known, readied for a concert and rally. They intended to push their demand that the FBI rescind its classification of juggalos as a “loosely organized hybrid gang.”

    The rap duo has developed an intensely devoted fan base over the course of a 25-year career.

    A 2011 report by the Justice Department’s Gang Task Force placed the juggalos, who favor extensive tattoos and outlandish face paint, in the same classification as overtly violent gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips.

    The rap group and its fans claim to be a nonviolent community subject to largely class-based discrimination by law enforcement. The band, along with the ACLU, sued the FBI in 2014 seeking to change the classification but with little success so far.

    The post Trump skips town, but still focus of competing rallies in D.C. appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


    Loading...

older | 1 | .... | 1147 | 1148 | (Page 1149) | 1150 | 1151 | .... | 1175 | newer


Loading...