wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. the xfinity 10g network. made for streaming. ♪ geoff: good evening. i'm geoff bennett. amna: and i'm amna nawaz. on "the newshour" tonight -- rudy giuliani is ordered to pay $148 million to two election workers for defamation. geoff: displaced gazan civilians bear the brunt of continuing israeli airstrikes in areas

where they sought refuge, as the u.s. calls for a more precise offensive. amna: and the latest court ruling over abortion access in texas highlights the roadblocks and dangers faced during pregnancy in much of the country. >> physicians are placed in a situation where they are unsure whether what they consider to be their sound reasonable judgment would be acceptable to our attorney general or to judges in the state of texas. ♪ the >> major funding for "the ps newshour" has been provided by the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions, and friends of the newshour, including jim and nancy goldman and kathy and paul anderson. >> it was like an a-ha moment, this is what i love doing.

early-stage companies have this energy that energizes me. these are people trying to change the world. when i volunteer with women entrepreneurs it is the same thing. i'm helping people reach their dreams and i am thriving by helping others every day. people who know know bdo. >> the john s. and james l. knight foundation, fostering informed and engaged communities. more at kf.org. ♪ >> and with ongoing support of these individuals and institutions -- and friends of "the newshour." ♪ this program was made possible by the corporation for public

broadcasting and contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you. thank you. amna: welcome to "the newshour." as we come on the air, a verdict tonight in one of the cases related to the 2020 election. geoff: earlier this evening, a federal jury in washington ordered rudy giuliani, donald trump's former campaign attorney, to pay $148 million to two georgia election workers for distress caused by lies he spread following the 2020 election. npr's miles park was in the courtroom today and joins us now. miles, we should say, this was a civil trial. the jury was asked only to decide the amount of damages. here is what giuliani told reporters. >> very little i can say right now, i have to analyze this. possibly we will move for a new trial and certainly we will appeal.

the absurdity of the number merely underscores the absurdity of the entire proceeding. geoff: he is calling the $148 million absurd. how did the jury arrive at that number and what message were they trying to send? miles: it is a staggering number. i think throughout the entire week, the plaintiff's attorneys were trying to make the case that the jury should send a message, that election lies, especially when the people pushing them are essentially using real people as casualties, it's not acceptable. made it clear they wanted the jury to repair the women's reputation but more than that they wanted them to send a message that this is not how healthy democracies behave. geoff: we heard from both women that were subject to the lies. >> money will never solve all of my problems should -- problems.

i can never move back into the house i called home. i will always have to be careful about where i go and who i choose to share my name with. geoff: how did their attorneys make the case to the jury that the extreme emotional dismiss, damaged reputations, was worth x amount? miles: it was a two-pronged approach, the practical aspects, and they made that case, they had an expert witness from northwestern come in and show how these lies reached tens of millions of americans after voting ended in 2020 and to have her put together a strategic communications plan, what it would cost to repair the reputation and that estimate was roughly $47 million. on top of that, they said how do you measure essentially the emotional toll?

both women testified and got emotional and cried on the stand. the jurors and public saw -- more death threats than i could count. racist voicemails left for the women that moss's son reportedly hurt. that all was taken into consideration when they came up with the number. geoff: we heard rudy giuliani saying and appeal is on the way. what happens next? miles: it is unclear. he says he's going to appeal. one of the strange things about this, while the attorneys for the plaintiffs say they want to send the message this is not acceptable, giuliani has continued to say these lies. on the courthouse steps he said everything i've said about those women is true. said again they stole the election.

he is clearly indicating he's going to appeal his decision. i think more unclear is if the penalty will affect him or the former president or the people continuing to spread the lies, whether this affects them continuing to do this into 2024. geoff: miles, thank you for coming in straight from the courtroom today. ♪ amna: there is fresh tragedy tonight in the war between israel and hamas. israeli troops mistakenly shot and killed three hostages today in gaza city. that news came as israel kept up an unrelenting bombardment of gaza, and a top american envoy pressed them to curtail the combat. as israel pounds the gaza strip with airstrikes, and idf troops advance on the ground, the u.s. national security advisor today

laid out his vision for a more limited war. >> there will be a transition to another phase of this war that is more focused in more precise ways on targeting readership and an intelligence driven operation that continues to deal with the ongoing trend. amna: in the occupied west bank, sullivan spoke with the palestinian authority leader. benjamin netanyahu rejects their plan. >> there is disagreement about the day after hamas. i will not allow the injury into gaza for those that support and finance terrorism. amna: concern today for palestinians outside of gaza, telling sullivan that the u.s. must intervene to force israel to stop its aggression against our people in the west bank, including occupied jerusalem. the west bank has seen an uptick

in violence since october 7, both by extremist is really settlers and the idf, killing at least 287 palestinians good in the gaza strip, the death toll quickly approaching 20,000. outside of a hospital in rafah this morning, mourners prayed and wept for victims yet to be identified. >> until now no one came to confirm the identities so we hope that someone comes to identify and bury them. we need people to identify their children who are dead. amna: he fears there is no one left to could recognize them. the idf announced this morning they recovered the bodies of three israeli hostages in gaza. one taken from the nova music festival, and two soldiers could the idf later reported the death of three other hostages by friendly fire which they are investigating.

also today, the world's largest shipping company, maersk, said it is a pausing all container ship traffic through the red sea indefinitely siding safety concerns. this after repeated muscle strikes on commercial vessels by rebels in yemen asked by iran who say they are targeting ships headed for israel. the attacks have renewed concerns the war could spread to a broader regional conflict. geoff: earlier this week both cnn and "the washington post" reported that the u.s. intelligence community believes that 40% to 45% of the bombs israel has dropped in gaza were unguided, so-called dumb bombs, as opposed to precision munitions, which are much more accurate. israel says it has struck over 22,000 terror targets in gaza since the hamas attack on october 7. an israeli military spokesman defended the use of unguided bombs, telling "the newshour" in a statement that "the idf strikes military targets of the hamas terrorist organization, based on high-quality

intelligence while using high-quality munitions that are operated by skilled pilots and advanced systems. the type of munitions used in each strike is determined according to the characteristics of the target, the operational need, and the effort to mitigate harm to civilians." two prespectives now on the israeli use of unguided bombs in gaza. retired lt. gen. david deptula had 36 year career in the air force and played major rolls in planning american bombing campaigns in numerous wars including against iraq in 1991, and in afghanistan in 2001. and marc garlasco was the chief of high value targeting at the defense intelligence agency from 1997 to 2003. he led teams that planned attacks while limiting civilian deaths. he then worked for human rights watch where he investigated attacks against civilians. welcome to you both. what is your reaction to reports that 40% to 45% of the bombs israel is dropping in gaza have been unguided? marc: honestly i am shocked. there are three reasons you use

precision guided munitions -- you want to destroy your target with minimal civilian harm while uploading the laws of war. nothing will do a better job than decision guided munition, especially compared to an unguided bomb. you're looking about a three meter error and unguided you could have upwards of missing the target by 100 feet which is highly problematic. let's look at u.s. practice. in 1991, 80% of bombs in iraq were decision, 99, 30% of bombs in were precision. by libya in 2011, it was 100%. it's not just the use of unguided munitions leading to civilian guests -- civilian deaths in gaza, it's not using

smaller weapons with less fragmentation that they could be using and this is why we are seeing upwards of 20,000 dead palestinians right now. geoff: general, i want to get your reaction. why is it ok for israel to use unguided bombs when the u.s. does not use them anymore? lt. gen. deptula: the use of a weapon is highly dependent on the effects that need to be accomplished. the collateral damage concerns regarding a particular target and the accuracy of the weapon system in its entirety, not just the bomb itself. the dumb bomb delivered by a smart aircraft can still be accurate. there are legitimate reasons to use low cost dumb bombs. an example is hitting a weapon storage location in an area

where intelligence is determined there are no collateral damage or civilian casualty concerns. in other cases, there are fleeting targets that don't allow for the process of obtaining coordinates for gps guided weapons or obstacles that prevent a laser guided delivery. so the pilot with a precise delivery system can quickly get to the target and deliver accurately before the opportunity evaporates. the bottom line is i've seen the exquisite care of the israeli defense force takes to avoid civilian casualties. they have extraordinarily stringent rules for avoiding collateral damage. and i'm told by a very good source that israel only uses dumb bombs after they clear an area. geoff: your response to the notion that unguided bombs can be dropped in a precise way, and is israel using these weapons because they don't have enough guided bombs in their arsenal? precision marc: i certainly

agree that unguided weapons can be used in an accurate way in sort of a circumstance ences. but we are talking about 10,000 unguided bombs being dropped in 50,000 one of the most densely populated parts of the earth. and this is incredibly dangerous. now, looking at the weapons transfers that are put publicly out by the defense security cooperation agency, we can see that over 35,000 guided weapons have been provided to israel in recent years, and that doesn't include the weapons that were provided just this year. and that right now is classified. but let's take again a look at u.s. practice. when i was in the pentagon and conducting targeting there for the iraq war, for example, in 2003, we were dropping munitions in baghdad and throughout different cities in iraq. and at no time did i ever have a weaponeer suggest to me that we should use an unguided munition. and let's take a look at a very similar conflict. let's look at raqqah in syria, where the u.s. was involved with

a lot of a lot of aerial munitions. there's a great story. there was a quote there from a pilot talking about how you have all of these buildings around a densely populated area. the enemy co-mingled with civilians. and the pilot asks, how am i supposed to fly the plane and drop a bomb down an alleyway? and the answer that the report comes up with is precision guided munitions. geoff: when president biden described israel's bombing campaign as indiscriminate as he did this past week, i'd imagine you take issue with that. lt. gen. deptula: yeah, actually, i would. it was an extraordinarily unfortunate and indiscriminate use of the term indiscriminate attacks. and i think definitions are important here. in accordance with the international humanitarian law, indiscriminate attacks are defined as first attacks which are not directed specific military objectives. second, attacks which employ a means of combat that cannot be

directed at a specific military objective. or third, attacks which employ a means of combat, the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law, and consequently are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. none of these situations apply to the israeli air force. geoff: that is retired lieutenant general david deptula and marc garlasco. we thank you both for your insights. ♪ amna: in the day's other headlines -- the congressional budget office projected inflation will slow to near 2 percent next year. that is close to the federal reserve's goal, and it could pave the way for lower interest rates.

the cbo also estimates that unemployment will rise to 4.4 percent by late next year. the nation's gross domestic product -- or, overall economic output -- is expected to fall to a rate of one and a half percent before rebounding in 2025. homelessness in the united states has soared to its highest levels on record -- more than 650,000 people. federal data released today showed a 12 percent increase in january from a year earlier. the numbers are increasingly evident in chicago, denver and other cities. rents and the end of pandemic-era assistance. european union leaders insisted today they will ultimately get more military aid to ukraine early next year. germany, france and others voiced optimism despite hungary's veto of a $50 billion aid package. hungarian prime minister viktor orban is russia's closest ally in the eu. he defended his position in brussels, as an eu summit ended.

pm orban: we can say, the situation in ukraine is bad. so, we shouldn't send more money to finance the war, instead, we should stop the war and have a ceasefire and peace talks. instead of that, now they want to give money to keep the war going. amna: the eu aid is especially critical for ukraine, with future u.s. assistance stuck in congress. meanwhile, the bloc will begin talks on letting ukraine join. but, hungary's orban says he may stop that process later. russian officials now say the jailed opposition leader alexei navalny has been moved from a penal colony east of moscow. confirmation came today during a court hearing. but, navalny's whereabouts remain unknown since his lawyer lost touch with him after december 6. moscow is digging out from one of its biggest snow storms in 60 years. blizzards dumped eight inches on the russian capital and other parts of the country today. it amounted to more than one-fifth of moscow's average december snowfall in just 24 hours.

forecasters say the city could get a record of nearly 20 inches this month. a bitter cold wave has plunged much of china to below-freezing temperatures. snow blanketed beijing this week and disrupted highway travel in provinces across the north. today, president xi jinping called for an all out emergency response with conditions set to worsen over the weekend. britain's prince harry scored a victory today in his legal war with british tabloids. a london court ruled "the daily mirror" used phone-hacking to snoop on harry in the early 2000's, and it awarded him $180,000. later, lawyers read a statement from the prince, calling for action against publishers who abuse their power. mr. sherborne: today's ruling is vindicating and affirming. i've been told that slaying dragons will get you burned, but in light of today's victory and the importance of doing what is needed for a free and honest

press, it is a worthwhile price to pay. amna: prince harry's testimony in the trial was the first by a british royal in more than a century. back in this country, former president trump faces a new controversy over highly classified documents that disappeared as he left office. reports today say it involves a binder of material on russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election. intelligence agencies are said to be worried that secret sources and methods will be compromised. the virginia woman whose first grader shot and wounded his teacher was sentenced today to two years in state prison for child neglect. deja taylor's son used her gun in the attack in newport news. she'd already been sentenced to 21 months in federal prison for using marijuana while owning a gun. and, on wall street, stocks had a mixed day but closed out another winning week. the dow jones industrial average gained 56 points to close at 37,305. the nasdaq rose 52 points.

the s&p 500 slipped a fraction of a point. still to come on "the newshour" -- david brooks and ruth marcus weigh in on the week's political headlines. and book critics share their picks for the best reads of the year. >> this is "the pbs newshour" from weta studios in washington, and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. amna: the landmark supreme court decision overturning roe v wade nearly 18 months ago upended the american landscape of reproductive rights. state laws popped up restricting abortion access. the issue became central to some elections. and we've heard many stories of confusion from patients and doctors trying to understand the new limits. geoff: a new story from "the new york times" explains some of the internal dynamics of the court from how the justices decided to hear the case to how the decision was drafted, and when

it was ultimately handed down. jodi kantor is one of the authors of that report and she joins us now. thank you for being with us. many of the justices, including amy coney barrett, who was picked by donald trump in part to help overturn roe initially opposed even hearing the case. what changed? jodi: when we were reporting the story, that was one of the big surprises. she did eventually vote to overturn the law. but voting to take the case or not is different. initially what she said is she wanted to vote to grant to hear the case but she had timing reservations. she didn't want to hear the case that term, which some of her conservative colleagues were pushing to do. months later she actually ended up changing her vote from a grant to a deny. it didn't make a substantive difference, you only need four

votes, which justice alito had to move the case forward, but it meant it moved forward with a bare minimum of the court. only four votes. those were all male justices. geoff: there is another detail any reporting that the justices initially voted in january 20, 2021 to take up the case. this was months before they publicly announced they would hear it. you report it was justice kavanaugh who pushed for a delay to create the appearance of distance from justice ruth bader ginsburg's death. why did he think that was important? jodi: one of the things he cited is he wanted to watch some other abortion cases play out in the lower courts, but it is really the effect that is interesting. it pushes the case to the next term and also creates the appearance of distance from justice ginsburg's death. the court has the vote to grant, the case is clearly moving

forward and yet they essentially withhold the decision from the public for months. geoff: once justice alito wrote the draft of the opinion and sent it to colleagues, you report the other conservative justices quickly signed onto it without requesting any changes. that was reportedly alito's way of safeguarding the coalition around overturning roe. how and why did the leak of his opinion to politico in may of 2022 cement the ruling? jodi: one of our discoveries is they were really extensive -- there were really extensive attempts to craft compromises. we don't know what prospect they had of succeeding but chief justice john roberts, justice breyer, the first thing they did is try to stop the case from being heard. when it went forward, justice roberts, and this is public, he has described this, he had a

kind of 15 week compromise where he wanted to uphold the mississippi law that restricted abortion to 15 weeks, but he didn't want to overturn all of roe. even though it was a very lonely position on the court, he only needed one more vote to make it happen. in fact, justice breyer was considering joining him in that position and that would have been just symbolic. if justice kavanaugh had joined the position as well, the entire outcome would have been different. the leak came just as those efforts were underway and rendered them hopeless. justice's votes are secret for a reason, they want room to change their minds, which sometimes they do before the official opinion comes out. in this case because everything was so public, it really cemented the results.

we don't know who leaked the opinion but we can say what the effect was, to really lock in the final result. geoff: jodi, thank you for sharing your reporting with us. the supreme court will soon weigh in on reproductive rights again as the justices agreed this week to hear a case about access to mifepristone for medication abortions, which make up more than half of abortions in this country. for many americans, these supreme court decisions have immediate, real-life implications. amna: that's playing out this week in texas where the state's supreme court overturned a ruling that would have allowed dallas resident kate cox to terminate her non-viable pregnancy. cox had to leave the state to get that abortion, but the ruling has broad repercussions. and has put medical providers on the frontlines of interpreting legal language while caring for their patients. we are joined now by one such provider, dr. amna dermish, an ob/gyn based in austin, texas.

welcome, it's nice to have someone with my same name on the show even if we differ in pronunciation. i want to ask about the perception of -- exceptions in the texas law. the exceptions are risk to the life of the mother. in this case, she said it was a risk and the court disagreed. they said the exception is predicated on the doctor acting within the zone of reasonable medical judgment, which is what doctors do every day. do you understand what the exception encompasses? dr. dermish: you know, i don't. i think that gets to the heart of the matter. we have been set up as health-care providers to be put in a situation where every medical decision we make is being second-guessed by the legislature and judiciary. physicians are placed in a situation where they are unsure whether what they consider to be sound reasonable judgment would

be acceptable to the attorney general or judges in the state of texas. amna: here is a clip of what kate had to say. >> i will have to carry her to term and deliver her stillborn. her life will be measured in minutes or hours or days and played with -- plagued with medical devices. she would be placed directly into hospice. imagine receiving that news and the risks and complications of continuing with pregnancy and childbirth. amna: knowing the uncertainty and interpreting the law, how do you talk to patients about this kind of thing knowing many of them will face the same thing? dr. dermish: given there is essentially a complete ban on abortion in texas, these

conversations are hard to have and they are not happening the way they should and did even two years ago. listening to kate is heartbreaking because nobody should ever be in that situation. we are in a situation where doctors are having to say how sick is too sick? how close to death to somebody need to be and who is allowed to make that determination? patients aren't allowed to choose their own risk. is it at 20% risk of death that is a good enough to have an abortion in texas or doesn't need to be 70%? how much blood is too much blood to lose before we can say this is unacceptable abortion? it is untenable, people are forced into terrible choices they are not even allowed to make. as a physician it is heartbreaking to be there. i have the training and capacity to provide care to these people. i live here in the state of

texas and i am prevented from providing essential medical care to patients based on my judgment and the patient's desires, by my stay. amna: there is a mission to serve your patients but also the legal risk and you and your colleagues face having these discussions. what is the conversation among other ob/gyn's in texas? dr. dermish: there is a culture of fear now. people are not sure what to say to patients or what kind of care they can offer. they are afraid that if they offer the standard care they will be punished, they will lose their license, their livelihood, their family will suffer. and again, on the other side the patient suffers even more. you go into medicine to help people and to be held back from that is really devastating as a provider. i think what we've seen in the kate cox case is the state is

determined to prevent us from practicing safe medicine. we see that with the letters of the attorney general sent to the hospitals and the physician, threatening them if they were to proceed with providing the standard of care. i think it will continue to harm people in ways we can't even imagine at this point. amna: as you know, texas is not alone in her abortion restrictions. there are some 15 other states that have near-total bands into the landscape shifts quickly. the arizona supreme court just heard arguments about an abortion ban and a wyoming judge is considering medication abortion ban. do you compare notes with doctors and other states? dr. dermish: we are fortunate to belong to an amazing community of providers across the country. in some ways it feels like a race to the bottom.

when we talk about this, the focus is always on the care our patients need and what we can still do to help them in the face of all of these restrictions. our patients are terrified. i callings are telling me that patients are leaving their phones behind when they travel across state lines to get abortion care because they are afraid they will be tracked and punished for seeking health care. that is the environment we live in. amna: that is doctor dermish, thank you for joining us tonight. dr. dermish: thank you so much. ♪ amna: senators put an aid and border megadeal atop their holiday wish list. the house takes a formal step toward impeaching the president. and the caucus kickoff to 2024's race for the presidency is less than 30 days away.

that brings us to the analysis of brooks and marcus. that's new york times columnist david brooks and ruth marcus columnist for the washington post. jonathan capehart is away. it is great to see you both. i want to get your reaction that rudy giuliani has been ordered to pay georgia election workers almost $150 million for defamation. what you make of that? david: it is deserved. he ripped their lives to shreds. i think these big penalties are meant to send a message and they are, you cannot lie and destroy people's lives when you are in a position of authority. the larger story is what happened really giuliani. when he was mayor, i covered him, he was smart, calm. he had quirks but he was not the guy we see now and it's one of the most remarkable transformations i've seen in journalism. what gets rotted when you are

desperate for relevance. a friend of mine michael kelly, there were former officials across the restaurant, and he pointed to them and said look, a powerless lunch. i think that ate giuliani's soul to shreds. ruth: i couldn't agree more. but he did have power, to destroy their lives. i wish he could be summoned to pay the 150 million, that amount will be reduced, he doesn't have it. no amount of money could make up for what they suffered. he is so shameless. he continued to defame them outside the court even as the trial was going on. he will not have a comfortable retirement and he shouldn't and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy and i mean that sarcastically. amna: we should note this is

happening during a time of rising threats toward election workers, a lot of them leaving their roles. let's turn to the hill, we know senate negotiators are working to pass the foreign aid bill that includes billions for ukraine in israel, held up in border policy talks. senator schumer is saying they will hold a vote. are republicans as incentivized as democrats to get this done? david: no. republicans, some of them don't worry if we don't have ukraine aid. they have less urgency. i still somehow think it will get done, it just makes so much sense. everybody has something they want. what is happening at the border has to be addressed and the democrats have to address it. it is a super important issue that democrats a getting hammered on. and we cannot let vladimir putin win that war. it is obvious. sometimes when you get 60 votes in the senate, you try to get

nine votes from the other party and it won't happen here. you will get 30 and 30 and both sides lose a lot of people. doing that kind of deal and we've seen a partisan deals, 30 and 30 is super hard to do, let alone the immigration issue we haven't made progress on. it will be tough, but the logic behind the deal is so strong to me that i suspect they will eventually get it done but you don't hear a lot of optimism right now. amna: what about the logic behind the biden position? he's taking a lot of heat from the progressive wing in particular over concessions. will he lose some of the coalition that put him in office? ruth: yes, but there are lies on both sides. i think many republicans and especially senate republicans, the majority are very

incentivized to get ukraine funding, including senator mcconnell. they know that border security has to be a piece of this. the problem is getting it through the house. to get it through the house, you have to convince house republicans that democrats were dragged to this kicking and screaming. to a certain extent, getting this across a line benefit from the yelps on the left. house republicans have mixed motives. they like border security as an issue perhaps more than they like border security as a solution. from the president's point of view, my last thing, he has a problem on the left and people will be yelling at the end of the process if this comes together, people from the left will be yelling but he has a bigger political problem, which

is border security is a motivating issue for voters and he has to get on side to get reelected. this gives him an excuse to do something he might not have the political freedom to do otherwise and say i took steps to solve this. amna: david, i want to get your reaction, it was president biden that linked the border policy to the war and aid package. if it gets addressed in these ways does it take it away from republicans as a political cultural next year? david: i would say, remember joe biden, in 2020, a lot of the politicians on the primary debate stage wanted to decriminalize the border. joe biden was one of the few democrats to say i don't go there. if they had gone there, donald trump would have won the election to now not be quite so progressive on the border, it is a political must. ruth: and the border situation

has gotten much worse since that conversation so he really needs to do something. amna: in the house, the republican conference voted to open an official impeachment inquiry into president biden. we should point out, a slight increase in approval and are latest poll to move forward on this. by december, 48% disapproved and 49% approved. hunter biden, on him republicans are hanging many allegations, this week defied a subpoena to testify privately and he said he wanted to testify publicly. this is what he had to say. >> let me state as clearly as i can, my father was not financially involved in my business, not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of burisma, not my partnership with a chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad and certainly not as an artist. amna: there is no evidence

licking the president to any law -- any wrongdoing. why are they having this vote? david: it's easy to have an inquiry, a lot of republicans have no problem with an inquiry but a lot of republicans are also saying there is no evidence here. the inquiry was already going on so this just continues. i think there are still a lot of republicans who are like fine, let them have their inquiry. amna: when you say let them? david: jim jordan basically. on tour i've met hundreds of hundreds of people and talked about ukraine and the border and how any people have asked me about hunter biden? zero. it's one of those issues not resonating. amna: your take? ruth: i think the republican maga base is not going to --

[laughter] you sort of make it sound like no harm, no foul, but this is a shameful misuse of impeachment power. someone was on the program the other night talking about how there had never been a formal impeachment inquiry in american history in the absence of wrongdoing. we are looking -- it is a junta for high crimes and misdemeanors without evidence. once you get the official ball rolling, how do you stop from getting into demands for a vote for articles of impeachment? then you put 80 or so in districts biden won against trump and a terrible position. they will invite their base to primary them if they don't vote for it or have their general electorate mad at them when they

are trying to get reelected. the only smart politics of this are to assuage trump and the base. but it's not to protect your majority. amna: 30 days to go until the iowa caucuses, feels like a good time to remind people about many of the candidates still running. mr. trump is up 32 points compared to the other candidates. also still running for the republican nominee seems -- nominations are others. david, do you see anything field changing between now and the iowa caucuses? david: probably not. we are always waiting, once the campaign starts in i whether nubbers will move around. the campaigning has started and the numbers are not moving. one of the statistics that leapt out at me is among iowans who

are political novices, trump was winning by 62% or 63%. he is bringing in new people. he just looks very formidable in iowa. ruth: he's bringing in new people and he has an operation for how to run the caucuses that was very amateurish last time around and is much better -- last time being 2016 when he had a contested primary. it's kind of a preview of, heaven forbid, a second trump term. he's getting smarter at doing this. i don't think there is any reason to expect he won't win the caucuses and be the republican nominee. amna: there was a conversation we had several months ago about eventually if enough people wanted to stop him from becoming the nominee, they had to drop out and coalesce behind a single candidate. is that moment coming on? david: he is over 50% so

it's more of an academic argument. but i think it would be helpful for chris christie to drop out and give nikki haley a shot in new hampshire. it is a rerun of 2016, the other republicans are not attacking him or dropping out. it is a rerun and they have arned nothing. ruth: politicians don't win if they are worrying about themselves first. and it would make a difference. amna: ruth and david, always great to see you. thank you very much. ♪ geoff: with the holidays upon us, you may be hunting for gifts for book lovers in your life. to help narrow down the many best books of the year lists, jeffrey brown speaks to two newshour regulars for our arts and culture series, canvas. jeffery: joining me again this

year our top readers and reviewers, gilbert cruz, books editor of the new york times, and maureen corrigan, book critic of npr's fresh air. nice to see both of you again. maureen, i'll start with you. where should we start with fiction? maureen: why not. jeffery: give us two of the many that you loved. maureen: it's been a great year, so two is hard. alice mcdermott's absolution. anybody who's read alice mcdermott knows that she usually writes about my people. irish catholics, working class background. new york. jeffery: you're not biased? maureen: no, i'm not. this time she takes those characters and puts them in vietnam in 1963. we have the main character is a newlywed, a young wife who is pulled into this group of women who are doing charitable works in vietnam while their husbands are busy doing something else. and without being heavy handed, mcdermott manages to make a connection between the insistent charity of these women and early american intervention in

vietnam. jeffery: yeah, because that's something else turns out to be that turns out to be the vietnam war, right? maureen: yeah. you gave it away. the other the other book that i loved, one of the other books, the heaven on earth grocery store by james mcbride. i think he's one of our most nuanced but clear eyed writers about race. this is set in pottstown, pennsylvania, around 1925, in a historically immigrant jewish neighborhood and african-american. and i'll stop there. it's amazing. jeffery: gilbert, you want to give us two fiction, two novels? gilbert: sure thing. so one of my favorite books of the year, one of our top books, there was a book called the bee sting by paul murray. paul murray is an irish author. his book was shortlisted for the booker prize this year, and it's a family saga. it is a book about four family members who formerly were riding high on the hog in the 2008

financial crisis is hitting ireland, is hitting them in their little town. and it's a book that sort of digs deep down into their internal lives, their emotional lives, their sections that go between all of the different characters. and it's a book about sort of the unknowability of people that you love. you can live with someone for a very long time and still not get to know them because you can never truly know a person. it's funny. it's sad. it's tragic. it's a lot of things. and you really fall in love with all of the characters. so that's my first one. jeffery: ok. gilbert: second one is a book called northwoods, and this is by daniel mason, and it is set over 300 years, and rather than focus on any individual character, this plot of land and this house in western massachusetts is the main character. it takes you through three centuries and it gives you all these different characters. and through these characters, daniel mason writes through several different genres and several different types of literary styles. it's constantly surprising and it's just a delight to read.

his writing is so beautiful. jeffery: interesting. all four of these books have a lot of history as well as the family life to them. how about nonfiction? maureen: well, here's some more history. the wager by david grann, he's having such a big year. jeffery: with killers of the flower moon. maureen: this this work of history narrative history is about as traditional as you get. it's about a shipwreck, a mutiny, survival on a rocky island. a bunch of british sailors are on a ship called the wager. that ship breaks apart in a storm in 1741 off the coast of patagonia. and for a while, they survive on this island. and then a group of the sailors patches together a rickety vessel and sails 2500 miles to brazil. and that's only part of the story. that's one of them. and then safiya sinclair's memoir, her debut memoir, how to save babylon, i thought was outstanding. it you know, it tells that kind of familiar story about breaking

out of a repressive childhood context into a wider world. in her case, she grew up in a strict rastafarian household. she's a lovely writer. she's a poet. and her nature descriptions of jamaica, along with everything else, are really stunning. jeffery: ok. gilbert? gilbert: i have to maureen's second recommendations, the book she is talking about a great. i will talk about is master slave, husband, wife by john woo. this is a piece of of historical narrative nonfiction. it is about a couple in 1848. they live in georgia. they are an enslaved couple. and right before christmas they decide to make a run for it to leave georgia and try to escape to the north. and the way that they do this is by disguisg the wife, ellen craft, who is a light skinned african-american, as a wealthy white man, and her husband sort of play acts her servant.

as her servant. and they make this four day journey. it's very tense. it's amazingly researched. that's just the first part of the story. you get a peek into their lives after they make it to the north, the way they got involved in anti slavery advocacy. it's a historical, you know, drama. it's a love story that reads like a novel. it is quite an amazing book. the second nonfiction book i will talk about is a book called fire weather. this one is set now. this one is set in present time. it is a climate change book, fire weather by john valiant. it's ostensibly about the 2016 fort mcmurray wildfire, which took place in canada, fort mcmurray as an oil boomtown. it is a place that popped up and has made great wealth for people based on extraction of oil from the ground. that extraction has led to climate change and that climate change has led to a giant wildfire that resulted in the evacuation of almost 100,000 people in 2016. and again, it's a book that reads like a novel. it mixes a beat by beat account of a wildfire with the history of oil extraction, climate

change. it's just masterfully done. jeffery: i want to ask you, just in our short time left here about whether you're seeing any , trends either in your own reading or in the writing that's coming across your desk. maureen: well, as many people have pointed out, we're living in a time that's very much like the 30s. our fiction, especially our literary fiction, is very much centered on social issues and social problems. i thought it was interesting, though, this year that some novels that i wouldn't have expected to see social issues crop up in, especially reproductive rights, all of a sudden, those novels veered into an abortion rights plot, which was megan abbott's suspense novel, beware the women. and also to a certain extent ann patchett's novel, tom lake, had that. so we're very much socially conscious in our art these days. jeffery: gilbert, what are you

seeing? gilbert: there are tons and tons of historical fiction novels out there. i feel like this genre, if you can call it a genre, just continues to grow and grow. to mention a book that maureen just mentioned, tom lake, that is one of at least three books set during the pandemic that came out this summer and fall. michael cunningham had a book. sigrid nunez had a book. i think we'll continue to see books set during the pandemic. and then there is this subgenre that has been around for a while and has rolled sort of out of the bestseller list this year, which is romanticy. we have written about it at the times. it is a mix of romance and fantasy. and the author rebecca yarros, with her books fourth wing and iron flame, sort of really dominated the bestseller lists this year. jeffery: all right. gilbert cruz of the new york times, maureen corrigan of npr's fresh air. thank you both very much once again. geoff: you can check out the

full book list on our website -- that is pbs.org/newshour. ♪ amna: there's always a lot more online, including a story about the challenges faced by the nation's only mental health hotline specifically for and operated by transgender people. that's at pbs.org/newshour. tune into washington week with the atlantic tonight on pbs. guest moderator franklin foer and his panel discuss the convergence of political president biden's re-election. geoff: on saturdays pbs news weekend, a look at why pope francis advocating church reform is creating growing division between some conservative american catholics and the vatican. and that is the newshour. i'm geoff bennett. amna: and i'm amna nawaz. on behalf of the entire newshour team, thank you for joining us. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- ♪

>> moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. ♪ >> and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions, and friends of the newshour, including kathy and paul anderson and camilla and george smith. the walton family foundation, working for solutions to protect water during climate change so people and nature can thrive together. the william and flora hewlett foundation. for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world.

at hewlett.org. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions -- ♪ and friends of the newshour. ♪ 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 performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.] ♪ ♪

wow, you geto watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. the xfinity 10g network. made for streaming. hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & company." here's what's coming up. horror and pain in gaza, cnn witnesses firsthand the intense suffering at a hospital inside the enclave, and we'll have a special report. and amid the anger and loss, a beacon of