Skip to main content

tv   KQED Newsroom  PBS  July 28, 2019 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT

5:00 pm
. >> tonight on kqed newsroom rabbit mueller long awaited testimony and -- also a major housing contract in san biunno was rejected despite complying with city regulations ngspar questions about how to get approval faprocess. book nominated chief privacy officer with a million dollar fine hello, and welcome to kqed. el begin our show with special council robert r's testimony to the house judicialal and intelligence committees on wednesday. he spent hours front of the congressional committees sounding the alarm of russian interference in our elections
5:01 pm
and pushing back president trump's insistence the two-year viims in the 2016 was a witch hunt but he didn't give democrats the game changing moment they were look for. it remains unclear whether republicans will do anythingto mbat what mueller warned was an active threat from russia. . joining me ishe onposi of partners on both sides. there wee key moments in which she indicated that he would not
5:02 pm
be able o charge the president sitting president under the department of justice policy and presidentcould be charged after he leaves office. for republicans, thefound more evidence that in their framing of it, the mueller rert is not producing any damming evidence against the president and it was a last, last gasp hail mary attempt for democrats y to make political out of this. >> you agree? that was a big moment. hink it's. >> the witch hunt. but mostly not only stuck to the four corners of the report but we read from it right. does anything surprise you. >> nothing surprises me going into it everyone figures robert mule he would be invited but he as very much -- he didn't want to speculate and answer questions. think what was interesting was how he appeared visually. temocrats would have liked see a moreau bust presidential of the facts but that was no
5:03 pm
mueller. he was there to be an unwilling witness in a lot of ways. i think it reenforced people o impressiothe report and president and the political importance. >> what do you think? >> i don't think it moves nethe le politically. he think the interesting thing is in some way it may have made nancy pelosi a role less easy. the pressure to proceed with impeachment proceedings is lessened and it's the best thing for the democratic party for what she wants do in terms of 2020. her to the pressure off it comes down to her but terms of chaining opinions and people's minds i doubt it. >> it confirms what hipeople . but i do think that there was a sense immediately after the impeachment is off out table, it's gone, and it doesn't ke that's the case now. we have seen a couple
5:04 pm
representatives, including one of the 8 who flippeblto rean seat in california saying they are for it. on friday, house judiciary chair nadler filed as promised he was in court saying we wanrm more inion about the report and grand jury transcripts and saying it's under consideration. is there any chance the democrats are trying to slow lk it so it's closer to the election? >> i would agree that it -- the last few days seemed rtof vindicated nancy pelosi's cautious approach. it doesn't seem like we are going to get ny sort of real progress towards impeachment fo proceedings e the 2020 election. but, as you noticed, this is still very much an issue not just for house democrats but for a lot of these front line first term members including in california, you noned mikelevin in san diego who is the third california first term democrat to back impeachment. katie hill in los angeles, and sort of the 95% of she s there she said she believe the president committed a crime and we want to see if sthe poenas
5:05 pm
are honored before we pursue the strongest possible case. even as manse pelosi's effort to tamp downthe urgent lanp of impeachment hearings drive has sort of been worn out by the hearings, it's clear house democrats will eep pushing. >> the fact you have the democrats in the districts who did flip seats, does that tell you anything about how democrats are thinking about this politically? e i think they a the narrative that for, you know, folks in the district it's a big risk but we are seeing at least in california, more of them want to at lea ep it alive the discussion aknife and california may not be representative of the other districts in the rest of the country. in california, the sentiment a least in favor of moving towards impeachment is much more favorable than youmight find in other places. the question is, how does nancy pelosi, i mean, before, i think the big question was how does she arbitrate between the sides of the party the ones who
5:06 pm
wantto pursue impeachment and the ones that don't. how does slook going ahead people inue to satisfy who want that, while clearly not moving ahead with it right? so she said day, we wildo it when we do it which moons they won't and the interesting question will be how does she tisfy the lks going forward impeachment >> there was a picture with her alexandria ocasio cortez. we talk about the political implications but there's lot of disturbing things about russian met meddling and theirests to influence our election and democracy. do you see any me on republicans in washington to take the warnings that muellea laid out y to take seriously. we have not seen legislation foi example. >>think mitch mcconnell is from they clear on this in terms of pushing back on onmocrat attempts to try to advance legislao deal with some of the larger
5:07 pm
around campaign election security. but i think you are right. one of the truly notable moments from the heang in which it was not something that was fully expected was when robert mueller said see this is -- unequivocal signal that hereave a problem >> yeah. >> and so whether washington acts on that, i think i wouldn't put money on it,but to hear a law enforce man official at that level sort of so clearly state that democracy is facing real parel was a take away. >> remarkable we haven't seen any bipartisan effor deal with something you would think everybody would agree is not a great thing. on politics next week we will see the second round of democratic presidential debates. do you expect this report that the impeachment proceedings russimeddling will be partof the conversation at all? >> i think it will be part of
5:08 pm
the conversation. s but i think iing to be small part. think by in large the candidateswould love tobe able to continue to define differences between one another. we wing have a interest matchup when you have elizabeth warren and bernie sanders the stey same debate stage that will provide clarity on esthe proive side and we have sort of kamala hear apes joe biden 2. the opportunity for them mayab to talk t more issues from the 1970s. i don't know. but it's interesting to see how the two debates in terms of tenor and tone. >> we have seen for colin ar kamalas these are the opportunities she needs. she got a bump when she attacked joe biden. but waned a little bit. what areyou watching for in terms of herand that duo. >> i think that the fact that kamala hair apes joe bide harris and joe biden have the repeat clash that's going to be e most interesting dynamics of the debates. i am curious to see if kamala
5:09 pm
harris will comment bijoe n aggressively. i am curious to see if joe biden seems like he has a plan. what was striking the first debate was not just kamala harris' commanding performance in thmoment that stuck in voters' minds when she confronted joe biden. but have you seen him caught off guard. something that is given the push back he was facing for comments about past worgawith segonist senators and questions about his long political record, yeah. it seems like something that his advisers didn't prepare m adequately for. so i am curious to see not only if he seems etter equipped to deal with what kamala harris throws at him but if he is ready to go on the offensive. you've seen it in the last wee pushing bamala harris and cory booker. i am curious to see in an effort to shore up the front-
5:10 pm
runner status, he is not just defensive but going out. >> on the final minute i. mean, one of the things we d ee joe biden do is roll out a criminal justice plan as cory booker will be on the stage and he shed back on that. do you think that was a issue. i feel like for harris, biden and booker, there's benefits but potential drawbacks to bringing up criminicl ju. >> yeah. i mean there's a couple obvious drawbacks one being it risksappearing they are debating issues amerimay not believe is front and center to what they will make the decision in the campaign based on. in other words, they are not talking about the economy, right. the danger of that. but you have the danger of pottially looking like they are talking about authority that happened in the sense of the tru democrats work together to do criminal justice reform. so you risk that as well. so, we will have to see but my guess is that they will touch on other issues and there will be some flash point. but the pressure is on biden ab questiot it. >> we will leave it there.
5:11 pm
thank you guys both. >> thanks. >> thank you. . er this month in san bruno a lls park development project slated to provide over 400 units nif ts was reject by san bruno city council with a single no vote. san francisco chronicle repored that there were concerns over the building size and increased traffic. even though the developer claims city guidelines were followed and request from residents were incorporated. sales project is a time when san bruno is adding jobs with little housing to match. just one new home for about every 19 jobs between 2010 and 2015. joining me now to discuss that and more are founder of political city susan pirch and heather knight. thanks r coming in. so i want to start with san bruno. some of the fight we have been seeing around the state and bay area. thwas a proposed 425 unit development in an area of the
5:12 pm
city that was rezoned for transit oriented development. and thedeveloper said he responded to community concerns over 3-year period. spent $3 million on the development process and did a lot things. i mean, susan, as somebody who works on the issues a do you think opposition remains? >> well, one i can sa the hearings that went on until almost 3 in the morning it was a very painful process for everybody who isa part of that. and i think the reason the ssuecontinues is because communities still seem like they are too often excluded early enough to be getting input into the project or when they are asked to pass measures like measure in in san bruno, the measure doesn't really disclose how big or how tall or how dense the projects will be. so there's issues thaget a small amount of affordable really affordable hsing for ojects that are as big as
5:13 pm
this project. >> it's 15 >> and it's standard sometimes they want to go to 18 person. developers say they need to house market rates howing for this to pencil out. does this track what you've seen in sanfrancisco around the development sites. >> yeah. there's sites from seems like any neighborhood san francisco wants to add anything. positive housing development and sheltinger and there's a d push back they are frustrated it's hard to get anything through because of the regulation that allows one angry neighbor to slow dowo cts. >> how would you respond to that? do you think there is anything to do in the cases to convince opponents you n live in the area single family homes and we do need housing. i mean, i think that's something most everyone can agree on. >> yes. absolutely. boi think eve agrees we need especially affordable housing. so much agreement we need market horate sing.
5:14 pm
but many people, you know, marty a man who voted no is viewed as someone standing up for the wishes. community and saying yes to a lot of things that many of us want to preserve in our communities. but he was saying yes to not making traffic worse and a part of that is thisproject included a 40,000 square foot grocery store, even though there are many grocery stores in the area. aat grocery store was anticipated to after 56% of the additional traffic. that would be coming into the project. so that didn't make sense and he was stding up for mmunity concerns p that. >> that's interesting. i understand they add in was in reso nse the community. but without getting to every detail, heather, tlwffic is ys an issue. i mean, the character of neighborhoods is something you of san the west side francisco quite a bit. i don't know there's a way to add the unamof housing california says it needs without the issues changing the
5:15 pm
neighborhoods. is that fair? >> right. i believe california is 3.5 million housing units short what have it would take to yh actualse everybody here and expect to come here because of new jobs being created all the time. and half of the shortage of the country. so obviously, you have to accept more housing into the neighborhoods including sgle family residential neighborhoods existing. and new developments and it's lig numbers it seem. >> can we get into that a little bit. in san francisco, there's a sh to create more of a city wide, that would affect everybody. we ve seen a lot in san francisco and there's lot of building in one pick -- a couple particular neighborhoods where there's a perception it was more accessible to have more high rise more dense howing. how are neighbors in say the west side of san francisco responding to that, and is there any effort by the elected officials to try to bridge some of the gaps we are talking about? >> yeah. cread there's a new proposal
5:16 pm
in the nonprofit e 11 had you had been new units all over the cityp they want 100 unts in each district. we have 11 districts and they want 100 new ones in each which is not that big t and that many compared to how many people live in san francisco. but they are expecting a push bac and they are calling on neighbors who are opened to the new developments to stand up and sign a pledge and say i am cool with morepeople ople coming into my neighborhood because they want the voicess to be raised. >> susan, doou think in some cases, the pi north is killing e projects. because we do hear you know i think people who are opposed to these sometimes have a bigger incentive to come out>> . well, i think what we have is power on the side of the development which is not reaching out to what is going on within the communities. and what we need is more of the s causingding of what the problems. so even the number how many housing units we need i undersnd that's based on the projections of how many jobs
5:17 pm
there are going to be ithe area. so maybe that's a basic element that we need to look at again as to how many jobs do we nt coming into the communities. and should we be making some adjustments about the jobs, so the jobs concentrated itn the same high value areas are getting disbsed more broadly. . >> heather, one way that the oblem with the affordability of housing has become visible in the bay area is around homelessness. we saw the count come out. pretty staggering numbers. tell us what we aow ut how we are doing with the problem. >> the numbers came out in stth couple months, and have been shocking up and down the state. every couy in california saw dramatic increases in the number of homeless people counseled. this happens every other january on one night people count homeless people in every county is required. for jeers san francisco steady. this is the first time we saw a jump and it was 30% in two
5:18 pm
years. ich is just astounding. city hall was shocked because so mucave been saying money and putting in so much effort on the subject and we went backwards. so, it was pretty devastating. >> susan, your group worked to elect candidates that -- i mean some people say are antigrowth or you say slow growth and we have seen the beef around trying to have the state come in and force cities to do re. are you worried at all by continuing to elect the folky that can spur more what you don't like to be in sacramento. >> i am not worried about that at all. in fact, i think we need more of thato we need morethe local community voices coming out strongly because the local level community has done a great deal of work following state required housing elements wid hin the general plans they have got a lot oplans in those areas. they are showing ways to le cohousing problem. too often the narrative is
5:19 pm
cities are to blame because they are not building enough housing. but actually it goes back to knowing cities don't build housing. they allow for -- a number of housing units us about the developersave to pull the building permits and then the builders have tobuild ewing the permits. so, in my opinion theare being unfairly blamed for that. and in sacramento, thar taking a very simplistic look at the problem we should curtail their powers. and what we benefit everybody is if ere was a mu more -- the wisdom that's gone into solving the problem. . >> slightly different sentiment. >> what do you think needs to ppen and would you welcome state intervention in the communities? >> i thi that because have seen so many communities not rise to the occasion yes state involvement is necessary including san francisco perhaps. i think that may not just be
5:20 pm
worried about whrh the neighds look like now and how long we sit in traffic but ink about where children will live and grandchildren will live and the problem will get worse and worse and it can't wait. >> you iree? >> i that's a great example what how much they are sitting in track and to go forward with e project wouldn't would have made that so much worst immediately. maybe we need more solutions ming from the traffic industry. >> more transit. >> yeah. >> we will have to leave this here. nd susan aheather, thank you both. >> thank you. . on wednesday states agreed to pay $5 pillion in the settlement with the federal trade cmission over the tech giant's role in the cambridge analytical scandal. joe simon said they deceived users about the ability to control their personal information. part of the ftc agreement
5:21 pm
requires facebook institute an independit cy committee while understanding fall certification will subject them to individu, civil and criminal penalty. on the same day facebook recoin $16 billiorevenue for the second quarter. a 28% increase from the same period a year ago. joining me is san francisco bureau chief jeremy owens from market watch. anks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> so let's back up and talk about the scanl which seems kind of far away at this point. what was that l about? and with why did that cause so much outrage. that wasally, the data involved in the scapeddal was taken through a quiz app and involved a lot of data that facebook doesn't allow thesapps to take anymore. but that was then given and sold to a political consultant team called cambridge analytical that used it for brexit and torump's election target users. now, that -- facebook claims that they changed the rules and
5:22 pm
doesn't allow the ta to be takee and ask the data to be destroyed and wastold it was, right. but at this point, facebook faced so many issues that they realizeed that was a probl going to accept he the fine and walk. >> and there's a new committee. and there's you know mark zuckerburg could be held personal responsible financially if they. >> criminally, yes. >> you think it will ?change thin should users feel better? >> i don't know. if you look at a lot of ha problems w in this country, the answer is usually blue ribbon panel or commission. how much better does that make you feel? this is a board committee that's going to look at it. ere's an independent person from facebook looking at privacy reporting to that board committee and zuckerburg will get informed about what they found for the quarter and will sign off on it. it's just more red pe that they have to go through. so, that makes you feel better,
5:23 pm
sure. i don't know if it makes me feel better. i hopthe $5 billion and the chance of criminal charges against mark zuckerburg will make them think twice about ey everything tdo at the company. >> but i mean, there's $17 billion in revenue and 2 1/2 billion in profits. >> the fine is 3 billion off they had more than 5 or 6 billion in profit. >> do we nee to forthem to change or send a message to other companies? what's the goal. >> reporter: to scare other companies to let them know this happens andt shows they are going to step up and so, facebook says for privacy in do it nd says if you begin we are going bigger this is going bigger. >> seems like a drop in the >> reporter: there's a lot of money don't get me wrong but with when you look at it from facebook it's quarterworth of profit for the annual profit
5:24 pm
right. it's just not going to have that much a long lasting effect. right? but, facebook willic to do well as long as advertisers are coming there. and faebook offers something that nobles has and that's billions od users. eally in depth data on the useers to target them. no. nobles can say that so advertisers are not going o to anywhere else. >> well, speaking of we have been hearing a lot about aitrust inquiries from the federal government. not just facebook but other big tech giants. one is doj that will this. t what are the trend looking at. we ave to wait and see. . >> they are look at big tech ey and alled out social
5:25 pm
media this had language that could include apple htr so this is separate from what we believe to be four individual antitrust investigations into those four companies. app facebook and amazon and alphabet.
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
captioning sponsored by wnet >> sreenivasan: on this edition for sunday, july 28: the trump administration pushes ahead on a new asyluement with guatemala. in our signature segment: what'v causing macrop fires in iraq? and what we need to know about our robot future. next on "pbs newshour weekend." >> pbs newshour weekend is made possible by: bernard and irene suedgar wachenheim iii. the cheryl and philip mi.tein fami the j.p.b. foundation. rosalind p. walter, in memory of george o'neil. barbara hope zuckerberg.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on