Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  November 1, 2021 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT

3:00 pm
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, the tipping point-- world leaders convene to combat the worsening global climate crisis as extreme weather events grow more frequent and deadly. then, abortion battle-- the future of reproductive rights hangs in the balance as the supreme court again hears arguments about texas' restrictive abortion law. plus, a critical election-- the virginia governor's race looks as if it could be close, whether it is or isn't, the results are being watched from one end of the country to the other. and, facing judgment-- a high profile trial begins in wisconsin following several shooting deaths during last year's violent protests. all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour.
3:01 pm
>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> fidelity is here to help you work through the unexpected, with financial planning and advice for today, and tomorrow.
3:02 pm
>> the william and flora hewlett foundation. for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world. at >> the chan-zuckerberg initiative. working to build a more healthy, just and inclusive future for everyone. at >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.
3:03 pm
thank you. >> woodruff: the u.n. climate summit has begun with calls for bold and urgent action. in glasgow, scotland, today, president biden appealed for the world to act now. he said it's time to answer the call of history. >> there's no more time to hang back or sit on a fence or argue amongst ourselves. this is a challenge of our collective lifetimes. the existential threat to human existence as we know it. and every day we delay, the cost of inaction increases. >> woodruff: the president also apologized for president trump's pulling out of the paris accord on carbon emissions, a decision that mr. biden has reversed. today, his administration released a strategy for the u.s. to run entirely on clean energy by 2050.
3:04 pm
we'll return to the climate summit, after the news summary. the official, worldwide death count from covid-19 crossed five million today, topped by 746,000 in the united states. meanwhile, in new york, some 9,000 municipal workers, six percent of the city's work force, went on unpaid leave for failing to get vaccinated. mayor bill de blasio said that's far fewer than feared. >> i want to thank everyone who got vaccinated. i know people had a lot of questions and concerns. thank you for getting vaccinated. clear contingency plans have been in place, but as you can see from the numbers vaccinated, different reality than some feared. >> woodruff: elsewhere, a judge in chicago blocked a city mandate r police to be vaccinated by december 31st. the u.s. supreme court heard arguments today on letting texas abortion providers, and the federal government, challenge a strict new state law. for now, the statute has
3:05 pm
virtually ended abortions in texas. the justices gave no indication of when they might rule. we'll get details, later in the program. a key congressional moderate is warning fellow democrats against acting this week on a giant domestic spending bill. west virginia senator joe manchin complained today there are still too many questions about the measure, totaling $1.75 trillion. his vote would be critical in the evenly divided senate. >> i for one won't support a multi-trillion dollar bill without greater clarity about why congss chooses to ignore the serious effects of inflation and debt that have on our economy and existing government programs. >> woodruff: instead, manchin demanded the house of representatives vote on an infrastructure bill that totals $1.2 trillion. it passed the senate last summer. but, pramila jayapal, leader of house progressive democrats,
3:06 pm
insisted again that the two in ethiopia, rebels from tigray province appeared to be advancing toward the capital, addis ababa. the tigray forces claimed they seized two key cities along a major highway over the weekend. ethiopia's prime minister called for national unity, and authorities in addis ababa rounded up ethnic tigrayans in today. american airlines canceled hundreds more flights today, making nearly 2,300 since friday. the company blamed bad weather and a shortage of flight attendants. southwest airlines had similar problems last month. and, on wall street, major indexes closed at record highs again. the dow jones industrial average gained 94 points to finish near 35,914. the nasdaq rose 97 points.
3:07 pm
the s&p 500 added eight. still to come on the newshour: how will the supreme court come do on texas' restrictive abortion law? what the governor's race in virginia portends for the two parties. a wisconsin case that has divided the country gets its day in court. and much more. >> woodruff: in his remarks to global leaders, president biden said climate change is "ravaging the world." that message is likely to be delivered repeatedly at the u.n. summit on climate change. leaders, researchers and activists all say we are at a tipping point to reduce emissions, and the need for
3:08 pm
meaningful action. but getting commitments that translate to real change is no small lift. william brangham reports on the stakes of this summit. >> brangham: in the small belgian town of pepinster, heavy machinery finishes what the floodwaters started. >> this situation is difficult for me. >> brangham: camille brisbois knows his home is next. it's the only house he's ever known. >> ( translated ): i'm sentimental and emotional. i was born in this house on december 5th, 1946. >> brangham: its pain that was shared across belgium and germany this summer, where catastrophic floods killed more than 200. 6,000 miles away in the philippines, 61-year-old luzviminda tayson fears she and her family will face a similar fate-- their home swept away in a flood.
3:09 pm
>> ( translated ): the monsoon rains are terrifying so we decided to evacuate early. in the last typhoon, it was difficult to get out. this time, we didn't want the waters to rise and be caught in it again. >> brangham: across the pacific ocean, that same month, friends gathered in olympia, washington to mourn the death of barnett moss, one of the hundreds who died in a brutal heat wave. >> i brought extra water and implored him to drink it. i could tell that he was gravely affected by the heat. >> brangham: just south of them, on the same coast, in the same summer, the caldor fire took chris sheean's home. >> everything that we owned, everything that we've built is gone. the only thing that's left standing is a chimney. >> brangham: four lives, among millions more, distorted and lost this year alone from the impacts of climate change. a warming atmosphere isn't the sole cause of these disasters, but the evidence grows clearer
3:10 pm
every day that fossil fuel emissions make these calamities more frequent, more severe, more deadly. >> i'm delighted that so many of you have joined us here in glasgow. >> brangham: this is what's facing leaders and negotiators from nearly 200 countries over the next two weeks in glasgow. can those emissions be curtailed? and can it be done in time to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change? >> there's just a huge amount at stake this fall. it's almost hard to put into words because the burden on these policymake could not be any greater. >> brangham: dr. kim cobb is a climate scientist at the georgia institute of technology. she was one of the lead authors on a recent u.n. climate report, which showed emissions rising much faster than previously known. she says these cop 26 negotiations could be historic. >> this is something that is a clarion call for our generation and future generations, for
3:11 pm
centuries to come. really, we're going to be deciding what futures we're bringing down upon ourselves, largely over the next decade and in part that can be distilled to this most historic year of international ambition or lack thereof. >> brangham: back in 2015, in the paris agreement, 196 nations pledged to reduce their emissions enough to keep warming below an additional two degrees celsius, compared to the pre- industrial era. the planet has already warmed over one degree since the 19th century. the hope in paris was to keep warming to just 1.5 degrees. beyond that threshold, scientists say the punishing and lethal effects of climate change will only get worse. here's how, back in 2015, princeton university's michael oppenheimer stressed the urgency. >> if we don't start with rapid emissions reductions and substantial emissions reductions, then we will pass a danger point, beyond which the
3:12 pm
consequences for many people and countries on earth will simply become unacceptable and eventually disastrous. >> brangham: at the conclusion of the paris talks, president obama expressed optimism that the world understood the severity of the crisis, and was acting. >> i think we're going to solve it. i think the issue is just going to be the pace, and how much damage is done before we are able to fully apply the brakes. >> brangham: but in the six years since, the world has only stepped on the gas. apart from a brief dip during the early days of the pandemic, global emissions have continued to set records. more than half of all the carbon that's been put in the atmosphere was done in just the last 30 years. global temperatures have also continued to rise. the last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record. >> it's time to say enough. enough of brutalizing
3:13 pm
biodiversity. enough of killing ourselves with carbon. enough of treating nature like a toilet. enough of burning and drilling and mining our way deeper. we are digging our own graves. >> brangham: a report released by the u.n. last week said that, at this pace, the world will blow past those paris targets, and hit 2.7 degrees celsius of warming by the end of the century. >> it's really important to realize just how little we have tipped the scales in our global climate system, and how these have translated into the devastating effects we're seeing today. we have warmed 1.1 degrees celss since the pre-industrial era. century to double or triple the kinds of impacts that we're seeing, that's a two or three degrees celsius world, and that is not a world that would be remotely recognizable to those of us sitting here today, already reeling from the effects
3:14 pm
of a 1.1 degree celsius world. >> brangham: unrecognizable to us? >> yes. >> brangham: right now, climate change is forcing massive migrations. one recent analysis said climate-related events drive twice as many people from their homes as war and violence. two weeks ago, the pentagon, the white house, d.h.s., and the director of national intelligence all echoed this concern that “the climate crisis is reshaping our world”... and that these migrations could trigger “... political instability and conflict.” providing aid to these vulnerable nations will be another main topic in glasgow. the world's major polluters have failed to fully deliver a promised $100 billion yearly fund to help these countries adapt and survive in a warming world. >> build back better. blah, blah, blah. green economy. blah blah blah. net zero by 2050. blah, blah, blah. >> brangham: in the lead-up to
3:15 pm
glasgow, the global climate movement has continued to press for action, including swedish teenager greta thunberg, who's been excoriating world leaders for unkept promises. >> this is all we hear from our so-called leaders: words. words that sound great but so far have led to no action. >> we have to get strong commitments to reduce emissions by 2030. >> brangham: as negotiators in glasgow hope to forge the safest possible future, those on the front lines continue to suffer the very ugly present of a warming world. >> woodruff: and william joins me now. what a stark picture that report is painting, william. so these meetings huge gathering of leaders and activists, it goes for two weeks, what is expected is going to km out this in practical terms? >> brangham: it is important
3:16 pm
to know glasgow ask a continuation of this process, paris as you heard set this it goal of let's do everything we can to keep warming of the planet from going above an additional 1.5 degrees celsius. this meeting in glass glow is sort of a check-in of sorts for all the nations to come together and say are we cutting emissions enough to stay under that threshhold. it st sort of a way to stiffen the global spine for more action. one complication on all of this is that all of these pledges are voluntary. there is no built-in enforcement mechanism. no one should be waiting for a treaty or pact to be signed at the end of all of this. it is is really what happens after glasgow in the weeks and months and year after yard-- afterwards that we'll know whether these countries took themselves seriously. >> so how likely is it that we are going to see some measure of success, some semblance of real success. >> there is real hope but there are a lot oftdark clouds on the horizon. the u.s.' position in
3:17 pm
particular, there is no doubt joe biden is in glass glow right now with a weekend hand. last week a major climate tool was taken out of the toolbox by joe blanchein-- manchin. the build back better has some elements that are potent climate schools-- tools but we know manchin is dubious about that but it is difficult for the u.s. to cajole other nations and say act bolly on this issue when we have a hard time doing it here in the u.s. the same issue also applies to the other major emitters, china, india, brazil. their leaders were either not at glasgow or their pledges so far have not goten us anywhere near where we need to be. the important thing to take away from this is the gulf what we know needs to be done and what nations have pledged to do is unbelievably vast. and narrowing that chas. is the whole goal. >> woodruff: we are going to be watching it. you are going to glasgow next week. you will be reporting from there for us. thank you william. >> brangham: you're welcome,
3:18 pm
judy. >> woodruff: two months ago today, the nation's toughest restrictions on abortion took effect in texas, effectively ending access to abortion there. today, the law reached the highest court in the land, again. john yang begins our coverage by reminding us how we got here. >> the law bans abortions as soon as ultrasounds detect a flutter of cardiac activity. the only exception is for a woman's medical emergency. there are none for rape or incest. >> the vast majority of women by the time they even know they are pregnant will not be eligible for an abortion in the state of texas at this point. >> last month the newshour visited mar advice addler at the nonprofit whole women's health clinic in austin where she is director of clinical services.
3:19 pm
the lobby of the abortion provider was empty and staff feared legal risks for just working there. >> that is because the law is enforced by private citizens who are empowered to bring civil suits against anyone for even helping a woman get an abortion. and if the suit is successful, the person who brought it gets a cash award. >> we have a $10,000 bowntee on our heads now. >> in september a five justice majority of the supreme court allowed the law it to remain in effect while being challenged in the court. >> a pregnant woman can't be sued under the law. >> rebekah parma senior legislative associate for texas rights, the antiabortion group that helped draft the law. >> this is holding the abortion industry accountable to make sure they're not profiting off killing preborn children. >> today's challenges to the law were brought by adler whole woman health and the biden administration. >> this is the first abortion case for a supreme court reshaped by the death of ruth bader ginsburg and the addition
3:20 pm
of three justices nominated by president donald trump, marcia coyle chief washington correspondent for the law journal was in the court room today for oral arguments and is it it the studio now, marcia? >> we should make clear at the outset that the day's arguments were not about abortion rights per se. what were they about? >> john, they really boiled down to whether, well, who can sue to challenge this law and who do you sue. you have the united states saying it has a right to sue the state of texas. and you have the abortion clinic, whole women's health saying it has a right to sue state court judges, state court clerks, the attorney general and others who may try to enforce this law. so that is what we were hearing today for nearly three hours of arguments. two separate cases joined by the fact that both involved texas'
3:21 pm
antiabortion law. >> and the justices really sort of probed the limits of the arguments on both sides. at one point chief justice john roberts didded the texas attorney general about that provision in the law that gives someone who successfully brings a suit 10,000 dollars, let's take a listen. >> assume that the bowntee is not $10,000 but a million dollars. do you think in that case the chill on the conduct at issue here would be sufficient to allow federal court review prior to the end of this state court process? >> even if the amount of the sanction, again i agree with you a million dollars would be tremendous. we can increase it further. no number with suddenly cause the federal courts to become more open. >> it is mot a question of the federal courts being more open, it say question of anybody having the capacity or ability to go to the federal court because nobody is going to risk violating the statute because they will be subject to it be
3:22 pm
sued for a million dollars. >> john, this goes to an issue that was raised several times during the arguments. and that has to do with the chilling effect of the law on anyone seeking an abortion or trying to challenge an abortion. but mostly seeking an abortion or violating the law and getting an abortion. and what they stand to be liable for. it's a lot of money, $,000, it is a lot of money, $1 million. and several justices were concerned about the chilling effect and how this law in particular could be used by other states not just in the abortion context but to disfavor certain constitutional rights. gun rights, religious rights, on and on. >> and at that at another point justice sam sam alito-- which is to bar judges, texas state judges from even hearing these
3:23 pm
cases, let's take a listen. >> st unprecedented and st contrary to our system of federalism to enjoy-- enjoy a state judge even from hearing a case. how you can enjoy a judge from performing a lawful act which is the adjudication of a case that is filed before the judge. >> and the state court judges in texas are being utilized by texas to effectively create an apparatus that is so lopsided. so procedurally anomalous and so hostile to constitutionally protected conduct that the near existence of the suit no matter how the judges adjudicate them creates a constitutional harm by killing the kct. >> this is again going to who can be sued under this law. and the united states actually sued the state of texas but it did get an injunction in the lower court that included not only the state of texas but state coulter judges, state court clerks, individuals who may be involved in trying to
3:24 pm
enforce the law to civil suits and i think the solicitor general here was trying it to show how the state can't just say i don't enforce this law and when there is a whole chain of authority that can go all the way down to the fact that they have enabled private citizens to sue abortion providers, anybody who aids and abets an abortion. >> any sense of, from the questioning, any sense of where the court is headed on this? >> i am always reluctant to do predictions here but i had a sense that as the arguments proceeded, maybe a majority of justices became more sim pathetic to whole women's health, the abortion clinic, going forward with its challenge in the lower court. and that is about all that would happen, if they ruled for whole women's health. >> but the court will be hearing a case that is about abortion in five weeks. and how might that affect the
3:25 pm
timing of the decision on this? >> well, the court expedited really sped up how it briefed and heard the arguments today in these two cases. on december 12st-- december 1s they take up mississippi's 15 week abortion ban and the state of mississippi has explicitly asked the supreme court or urged it to overturn its abortion rights decision row and planned parent hoodz. so i don't know, i would expect that maybe the court will issue an decision in today's case fairly quickly since they can deal with the true challenge to row and casey in mississippi case later. >> marcia coyle we'll be talking about these coming up, thank you very much. >> my pleasure, john. >> woodruff: it's election day eve in many places. the virginia governor's race, in
3:26 pm
particular, has become a big- name, big-dollar fight. it pits a former chairman of the democratic party against a former private equity c.e.o., and is also a test of democrats' enthusiasm as well as the trump legacy in a swing state. as lisa desjardins reports, one lightning-rod issue has emerged: public schools. >> happy birthday. woooo! >> desjardins: a fall day in northern virginia. time for wine and catching up with friends... >> there's so much food here. >> desjardins: ...and in the final days before the state's gubernatorial election, some time to talk politics, too. >> i was more focused on presidential elections not realizing how important local and state elections are. >> desjardins:or this group of moms, that means the politics of education... >> i am confrontational and i will stand up for my children. >> because they know our kids matter and our kids have been politicized and that's not okay. not even a little bit. >> desjardins: women like this, from virginia's suburban
3:27 pm
counties, are critical for both republican glenn youngkin and democrat terry mcauliffe on tuesday. suburban voters in the state narrowly backed donald trump for president in 2016 before swinging to joe biden last year. now, polls show the race for governor is a dead heat. in northern virginia, the deciding issue for a quarter of voters is education, a 10 point jump from september alone. you're a swing voter? >> yes. i'm a swing voter. i'm the person that politicians sort of love and hate. >> desjardins: dana jackson, whose daughter is now in high school is an independent. she's voting republican this year. and she sees others like her. >> i have some friends that are democrats who never voted red in their life, and this time they voted every red box they could find. i mean, they were, you know, at the at the rally and raising hell about trump. >> desjardins: they opposed president trump but here they are now voting for the republican candidate? >> yes. >> desjardins: because of schools? >> yes, because of schools. schools have been the great equalizer. >> desjardins: during the last
3:28 pm
year, as the covid-19 pandemic forced classrooms to go virtual, she helped organize rallies to re-open schools. >> i think that our children's lives are at stake, literally. i think that our children were locked out of school last year, and it was detrimental to this area, detrimental to all of the states that have lockdowns for children. >> shame on you! shame on you! >> desjardins: that debate has flared at school board meetings across the state and country. ( booing ) after contentious meetings over the summer, northern virginia's loudoun county instituted a new policy. the dozens of people wanting to speak to the school board, now file in one at a time and address a mostly empty room. >> how stupid do you think parents are? >> desrdins: the anger was palpable at last week's meeting. most were upset about two recent sexual assaults... >> this board and school system puts children last. >> desjardins: as well as vaccine mandates... >> we will not relinquish our right to privacy, our body autonomy and our parental rights to care for our children exactly
3:29 pm
as we see fit. >> desjardins: and how history is taught, including the idea of critical race theory. >> i do not want him learning to hate himself because of the color of his skin. >> we gotta win because our children can't wait. >> desjardins: on the campaign trail, both men vying to be the state's chief executive have taken up the education mantle. >> we have got to take our education system to the next level. >> desjardins: democrat mcauliffe, a former governor, vows to raise teacher pay and expand pre-k programs. but something else he said about education, at a debate, has haunted him. >> i don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. >> desjardins: conservatives pounced. >> terry went on the attack against parents. >> desjardins: republican youngkin, a businessman and father of four, has pushed for school choice... >> virginia parents have a right to make decisions on their children's education. >> desjardins: but some parents, like todd kaufman, whose daughter is a high school senior, say youngkin twisted
3:30 pm
mcauliffe's words. >> nice shot! >> desjardins: he wants parents to have a say but thinks day-to- day classroom decisions are for educators. >> parents that have never joined the p.t.a., have never been involved in the school, all of a sudden they're upset that there is public schools deciding the curriculum. i mean, that's how that works. there are experts for a reason. we have educators for a reason. we elect a school board for a reason. we trust that they're the experts. >> i really appreciate you all coming out here. >> desjardins: kaufman feels so strongly he and others formed a group, loudoun for all, they go to school board meetings to push back against conservative concerns that he thinks republicans are manipulating for the election. >> focus on the fear. youngkin has definely embraced that and has pushed that. the fact that it's all based on misinformation, the fact that it's based on at times downright lies doesn't really matter. >> desjardins: democrats hope this new ad from youngkin actually helps them. >> it was some of the most explicit material you can imagine. >> desjardins: this mother is
3:31 pm
talking about toni morrison's book" beloved," saying she wanted a warning of its violent and sexual passages. the book, about slavery, was part of a college-level course. soon after the ad ran, mcauliffe's campaign started handing out “beloved” at his rallies. >> he has been endorsed by trump nine times. >> desjardins: mcauliffe also is trying to tie youngkin to former president donald trump, paint him as too extreme. trump has endorsed, but not campaigned with, the g.o.p. nominee. farida jalalzai is a political science professor at virginia tech. >> that's a lesson that the republican party has learned and taken to heart is trying to soften the stance, soften the image that some really started to associate with the republican party by the very fact that trump had been in office for four years. because virginia is trending democric. this should have been a race really that was perhaps more
3:32 pm
easily in favor of mcauliffe. >> desjardins: at stake is not just the state's political landscape but national momentum. that's why mcauliffe has campaigned with big names, like president biden and vice president harris. they know virginia is the most important blue gain the party has had in recent years, a foothold in the south. what happens here will either give democrats a sigh of relief or give republicans a bold new playbook. for e pbs newshour, i'm lisa desjardins in loudoun coun, virginia. >> woodruff: jury selection began today in a highly watched murder trial in kenosha, wisconsin. the trial will revolve around questions over protests in 2020 that led to riots and whether the defendant recklessly shot people or acted in self-defense. stephanie sy begins with this report. >> we're going to pick a jury to
3:33 pm
try a criminal case. >> sy: kyle rittenhouse is accused of killing two people and wounding another with an ar- 15 semi-automatic rifle in late august of last year. now 18, the charges against him range from murder to reckless endangerment. rittenhouse pled not guilty to all the charges. he is claiming self-defense. the shooting happened during a time of racial unrest in kenosha, wisconsin. three days earlier, jacob blake, a black man, had been shot seven times by a white police officer. blake survived but was left paralyzed from the waist down. the officer who shot him was never charged. the shooting occurred nearly three months after the police killing of george floyd, and sparked protests, some of which became violent, with buildings set on fire and intense clashes with police. on the third night of protests, kyle rittenhouse, then 17, left his hometown in illinois and crossed state lines into
3:34 pm
kenosha. he joined other heavily armed vigilantes, who said they banned together to protect businesses. rittenhouse first shot joseph rosenbaum in the head. rosenbaum, seen here wearing a red shirt before he allegedly chased and lunged at rittenhouse, was not armed. moments later, video footage captured rittenhouse being chased by a crowd of protesters, and having objects thrown at him. he falls and then shoots at the protesters surrounding him. anthony huber is killed. rittenhouse also shoots gauge- gross-crytz who was wielding a handgun. >> sy: hours later, accompanied by his mother, rittenhouse turned himself in to police. >> sy: following his arrest, rittenhouse garnered support from gun rights advocates and far right groups, such as the proud boys. online fundraisers helped pay for his $2 million bail and legal defense. and during a white house press
3:35 pm
briefing, then-president trump suggested rittenhouse acted in self defense. >> he was trying to get away from them i guess, it looks like. and he fell and then they very violently attacked him. i guess he was in very big trouble, he probably would have been killed. >> sy: the judge overseeing the case acknowledged the charged climate that surrounded the incident. >> this case has become very political. those of you who are selected for this jury, who are going to hear for yourselves the real evidence in this case. >> sy: as opinion on kyle let's break down more about some of these key issues at play in the trial. and for that, i'm joined by milwaukee-based criminal defense attorney craig mastantuono. thank you for joining the newshour, this trial has been more than a year in the making, as it gets under way what are you looking out for? well, i think timing is key for both sides in this casement i think that the prosecution
3:36 pm
probably wants to draw out the timing of the offense in question to make them a little longer■ than the defense would like. i think the defense is probably going to try to draw focus to the events in a shorter time frame right to the events in contention, and whether mr. rittenhouse engaged in self-defense at that moment. the prosecution might be wanting to move the time frame a little bit outward to ask questions like what situation did mr. rittenhouse place himself in leading up to those events. and what occurred before those events took place to cause the defense. so timing i think is going to be interesting. as we get into the presentation of evidence. >> we know that the defense is saying kyle rittenhouse was acting in self-defense in the cay ot-- chaotic moments that describe. what does his legal team need to show to prove that? >> well, in a technical sense they don't need to show anything. the prosecution needs to disprove that mr. risen house acted in self-defense. it is an affirmative defense,
3:37 pm
self-defense, it is a justification, if you will. so if any evidence is raised by the defense that mr. rittenhouse actedded in self-defense, and that is either through cross examination or presentation of testimony, then the prosecution then takes on the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. and self-defense in kind of a sentence or two is whether mr. rittenhouse reasonably believed that his actions were necessary to prevent interference with his person or prevent an assault on his person and when lethal force was use as it was in this case, deadly force, then there say requirement that the defendant reasonably believes that that force was necessary to prevent leltal force against himself. >> craig, this is already such a fraught case with political battle lines drawn. and during a pretrial hearing judge schroeder said he doesn't want the men rittenhouse killed
3:38 pm
described as victims. but then he said the men he killed could be described as rioters or looters, can you explain the judge's reasoning and did it hand the defense an early advantage? >> i'm not positive it did the first part of this ruling is con synths. have i been in trial in judge schroeder's court before. he always makes an order that nobody shall be referred toes a a victim until that is proven, meaning a crime is proven. that is what the jury is there. the judge is deferring to that premise. on the second part, the judge did make that ruling, said until it is supported by the evidence. so nobody is going to use terms rioters or looters until the attorneys introduce evidence that that actual three occurred by the people they want to apply those terms to. so i think we'll see that play out as the trial goes on. >> in questioning potential jurors today the assistant district attorney asked this question. can we all agree that human life is more valuable than property? does that give us incite into the prosecution's strategy?
3:39 pm
>> sure, i think that say defense claim is going to be that mr. riten-- rittenhouse was there to protect property in kenosha, that is the reason he came up from illinois. the district attorney is gaging people's feelings about that. and he got into that a little bit. there wasn't a discussion on it it but it tweant a-- in jury selection and that thrb introduced again as the evidence moves forward. >> craig mastantuono a criminal defense attorney, thank you for joining us on this first day of the kyle rittenhouse trial. >> thank you. >> woodruff: advance warnings of violence ignored. an unprepared capitol police force. a president who for three hours refused to tell the mob to disperse. and hundreds of personal threats against election officials across the country over the past nine months. these are just some of the findings in a new three-part investigation by the "washington post" into the forces that led
3:40 pm
to the insurrection at the u.s. capitol. here to walk us through it is one of the more than two dozen reporters who worked on the project, the post's senior washington correspondent, philip rucker phil rucker, welcome back to the newshour, thank you so much for being here, so there has already been as you know so much reporting on january 6th. there have been investigations, why did the post decide to do an additional deep accounting? >> a couple of reasons, ju aye shall-- judy and thanks for having me here, first there was more information to learn. we talked to more than 230 sources in the government, other key officials and figures who were involved in the run-up to january 6th, the event, the aftermath, we reviewed thousands of pages of court documents and other internal records at the fbi and justice department and found out scores of new details about whatted lead to the attack, the aftermath of it and post most importantly some of the red fags that were ignored by the pbi, d o.j. and other
3:41 pm
agencies in those days before january 6th. >> woodruff: let's start with the red flags because the report says red flags were everywhere before hand but that this was carefully planned from one end of the country to the other. what san example of one of those? >> for example, on december 20th the fbi got a tip that there had been a threat made against lawmakers and specifically senator mitt romney, the utah republican who was sort of enemy neumero uno for president trump at the time. that people were planning on lying to wage violence against these lawmakers. the pbi closed the case within 48 hours. they deemed it not a significant enough case to warrant further investigation or action. there was a thought within the fbi and within other law enforcement agencies that the people coming to washington on january 6th would not actually be as violent as they turned out to be. those red flags were ignored. >> this was the plan they saw to sneak guns into washington. there was conversation online
3:42 pm
about that. >> there was. and even the morning of january 6th we learned through our review of police chatter at the u.s. park police that hundreds of demonstrators, protrump supporters were gathered at the washington monday you mment at the lincoln memorial and they weren't just gathered for a peaceful protest. a man was seen way pitchfork. there were others carrying gas masks and other sort of battle gear. there were backpacks that were left unattended. all of these are red flags for law enforcement and yet they decided not to fact in those hours before, what we all saw happening at the capitol. >> another disturbing final, senior law enforcement, senior leaders in law enforcement were taking care not to do or say anything that might aggravate the president. and this ended up in some instances of creating a bigger problem. >> exactly right. they didn't want to get on the president's bad sigh politically. they were wary, of course, of what had happened sks months prior at lafayette square in the black lives matter protest,
3:43 pm
were there was a sense the military had become this political prop for president trump. so they were very sensitive to any suggestion that a decision by law enforcement or the pentagon could be seen as political in nature. >> woodruff: hence the delay in et going t national gua. >> exactly. >> woodruff: to the capitol. and you had then immediately or rather in the aftermath you describe how unsubstantiated claims of fraud are now not only believed by so many americans, they were being actively promul gated and promoted by some in the media, and one example of that and we have a clip of it it, this is fox news today, is starting to stream a new series of reports by it's an chore, tucker carlton arguing that january 6th was actually an act of path patriotism. >> we are dealing wih an insurgency in the united sates. >> white supremacy is the most lethal threat to homeland. >> i have been told that i am a white national, me.
3:44 pm
>> fbi. come out with your hands up. >> they have begun to fight a new enplea on a new war on terror. >> not al-qaeda, white supremacy >>-- flags have happenedded in this country. >> glory, glory. >> one of which may have been january 6th. >> they're saying saying that ts just been way too much focus on an attack on the capitol. what they were really trying to do was save the country. >> yeah, it is really a ridiculous argument, judy, because we all witnessed what happened on january 6th it played out on live television for us to see. and through our reporting in this investigation, we learned even more harrowing details about the violence that happened inside the capitol. that's the truth. those are the facts. and it is so important i think for every american to understand exactly what happened on january 6th so that we can try to preserve and save our democracy going forward preventing an attack like that in the future. >> as we mentioned phil rucker, so many americans are saying when they are asked about this,
3:45 pm
in polls and surveys. that they are either not sure what to believe or they just can't believe that it is what many in the press have said that it st. >> yeah, and that is a shame, but the reason for that doubt, i think, is because former president trump in the ten months since january 6th has tried to s ow doubt about what really happened. he tried to promul gate the big lie that he had won the election when in fact he lost the election and it has continued to be a fan see for many of his supporters. >> and a growing belief even. >> that's right. >> phil rucker, reporting part of this reporting team at the "washington post." thank you very much. >> thank you so much. >> woodruff: it's a busy week in politics with elections, the global climate meetings and more. here to talk about it all, our politics monday duo.
3:46 pm
that's amy walter of the cook political report and tamara keith of npr. >> hello to both of you on this mobbed, as we said another big monday so tam, just thinking back for a minute to what phil rucker or "the washington post" was saying, it is an enormous amount of detail reporting on what happened at the capitol on january 6th but there is still an enormous amount of disbelief out there about it. in fact, the poll that we do with npr and with merrick one of the questions we asked is whether people think re-- harms democracy, 86 percent of democrats only 56 percent of republicans pointing directly back it to what former president trump-- within so conceding an election when you lose is a fundamental part of how american elections work. it is a fundamental part of our kem october see.
3:47 pm
sometimes our elections are close, sometimes they are messy. but when the loser concedes, it's over. and in the case of this last presidential election, the loser still hasn't conceded. at aye rally he proudly just very recently said i have never conceded. the challenge for "the washington post," the challenge for off us going forward is that there is no longer a shared set of facts. there wasn't an independent commission that any-- you know, all americans rallied behind. it is not clear that there would ever be an independent commission that at this point in our divided state all americans would be able it to rally behind. but the institution of the press broadly speaking has been so de graded in the eyes of the public that they aren't-- people aren't turning to "the washington post" to solve whether this happened or not. and as phil said, we all saw it it with our eyes on live t it v and yet there has been a rewriting of history that has
3:48 pm
happened so rapidly. >> it it it was almost never seen. >> and this is the challenge, i think of our time, at least in the fore seeable future because we are so deeply divided, as we know, we talked about a lot, blue and red america, getting our information sources from two very different places. and we know for the fore seeable future that elections are going to be very close. we're going to have a lot of elections that look like 2016 and 2020 where it could come down do kl 10,000 votes here, 5,000 votes there. and so the fact that you have a significant portion of one party saying if that happens and we're on the losing side, we just aren't going to accept it. that is very, very problematic because again the idea that we're going to get into landslide territory where it is really clear, right, one side just cleaned the other side's clock, that is just not happening. at least as i said for the fore seeable future. >> in this very divided time in our country's history which of course brings us to the election
3:49 pm
that are taking place tomorrow. people have already been voting in sirnlgia and new jersey, the governor's races, but it is expected especially am virginia, it could be a close contest, not going to ask the two of you who you think is going to win. but i would love it to know, you know, what are you going to be looking for tomorrow? >> one thing i am looking for is what you just mentioned. which is that virginia has changed its voting laws to make it easier to vote early, to vote absentee. so more than a million people have already voted absentee in this case. now traditionally republicans have been really good at the early voting machine. but it is turned on its head and democrats are now emphasizing early voting and republicans are emphasizing same day voting which is why you have former president donald trump holding a telerally tonight trying to get republicans to shoip. the former president i think by my count has sent out four statements so far today about glenn youngton telling people to
3:50 pm
get out and vote. also raising the specter of fraud in the election. which there is no specter of fraud in the election and glen has said he will accept the result. but i think that this transformation where republicans are really counting on same-day voting more than ever is leading to sort of an interesting dynamic. the only other thing i will say i am watching for is whether these con ten sauce school board races that we heard about earlier, whether in areas that have had the most contentious issues around schools, whether their turn itout is higher and whether youngton is able to get into what has been democratic territory. >> that is a good point because a lot of these are in the suburban areas where democrats at least in the last five or six years have really done exceedingly well. and so we're going to get a chance to see if that movement in the suburbs, especially, like those women that lisa was talking to, whether that was a
3:51 pm
trump centric movement or whether it is more you know, more long-standing than that. turnout is going to be critical, jus in terms of the enthusiasm gap. the thing is they don't need to call in to get people to turn out and vote on the republicanned side. it st democrats who have much more of a turnout situation right now, the enthusiasm really lagging there. so the bigger challenge i think depending on what the margin is, it is not simply if terry macauliffe wins or glen yowngton does, but if virginia gets a cold, democratic state gets a coldk then those swing states get a fever. and it ising suggests that you are a democrat sitting in a much more purple or red leaning state, this is going it to be a very challenging time, if the environment looks like it is today, this time next year. >> a lot of close races next
3:52 pm
wear. tomorrow very quickly a question tam on what william brangham is reporting on, that global climate summit. we know there is a lot the stake for the planet, humankind, but what about a stake for president biden. he has gone there at a time of lack of movement in washington. >> yeah, he wants to say that america is back. he wants to say and he is saying that america is leading and at the g-20 everybody wanted to talk to him and wanted to know what america is doing. but this country has had one term president and now another one term president, there has been a 180 on policy and climate change. congress is somewhere else. and so. >> right, and it it can certainly president biden could get all of his build back better agenda in the next three weeks and we'll all say oh, there st. but it is not as ambitious on climate as president biden had
3:53 pm
wanted it to be at least in the current form. >> and the two sides to your point, the two sides see climate in an entirely different way, so if you were a foreign leader you see the united states come to the table, you know if it is a dem kraltic administration they will put climate on the top f it is republican, it is folt going to be on the agenda, you see that not just from the president but from voters, this was back in january but pe-w asked the question about what are your priorities what do you think congress, the president should democrats, more than i could think 40 point said climate versus republican, so yeah, if you were a world leader you have to be thinking i don't know how much should i trust that this thing is going to happen, the president, of course, even apologizing for his predecessor pulling out of the paris agreement. there may be more talk like that in the next coming years. >> i keep thinking back to that scene a moment ago, greta
3:54 pm
thunberg, the young teenage phenom, scolding world leaders what a scene that is. amy walter, tamara keith, thank you. >> and and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us onli and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> the landscape has changed, and not for the last time. the rules of business are being reinvented, with a more flexible workforce, by embracing innovation, by looking not only at current opportunities, but ahead to future ones. resilience is the ability to pivot again and again, for whatever happens next. >> people who know, know b.d.o. >> a raymond james financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life.
3:55 pm
life, well-planned. >> the kendeda fund. committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transformative leaders and ideas. more at >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions
3:56 pm
>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
4:00 pm
♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & co." here's what's coming up. >> the american people have never, ever, ever, ever let the country down. so let's get this done. >> president biden heads overseas with his legacy-defining agenda stalled. what this could mean for america and its reputation around the world. then -- >> you are the most significant warrior foreace i've ever met. >> as the president meets the pope, we discuss why some u.s. bishops are turning on biden. and protesters take to the streets of sudan to demonstrate against a coup. so has the country fallen off the path to democracy? plus -- >> after 20 months of facing your own


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on