captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight... >> i was going to fire comey. my decision. >> woodruff: ...conflicting statements from the white house add to confusion following the abrupt firing of the director of the f.b.i., james comey. then, a closer look at the man behind the memo arguing for comey's removal. what we know about the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein, and how he could steer the russia investigation going forward. and, making sense of gender roles on the job: why many men still avoid work, like nursing or teaching, traditionally dominated by women. >> there are a lot of guys who feel either because their friends or their community or

because of themselves, like, when they take one of these jobs that they are doing something girly. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> 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. thank you. >> woodruff: it was another day in washington that generated more questions than answers, with apparently conflicting statements coming from the white house, fueling the firestorm surrounding the dismissal of the former f.b.i. director. william brangham begins. >> brangham: it was another day >> the president laid into jim comey, the man he fired who days ago. >> he's a showboat, a

grandstander, the f.b.i. has been in turmoil. you know, that i know, that everybody knows >> brangham: those remarks came as the man who's now filling in for comey, acting fbi director andrew mccabe, painted a starkly different picture of his former boss. >> i hold director comey in the absolute highest regard. i have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity. and it has been the greatest privilege honor of my professional to work with him. i can tell you also that director comey enjoyed broad support within the f.b.i. and still does to this day. >> brangham: mccabe spoke at a senate hearing today to discuss various global threats, but democrats spared little time blasting the president for his dismissal of comey, who had been scheduled for this same hearing. >> however president trump's actions this week cost us an opportunity to get at truth at least for today. >> brangham: for his part, mccabe pledged that the ongoing f.b.i. investigation into

russian meddling in the election, and whether trump's team colluded in that meddling, will continue no matter what. >> as you know senator, the work of the men and women of f.b.i. continues despite changes in circumstances any decision so there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. cannot stop men and women of f.b.i. from doing right thing and upholding constitution. >> brangham: mccabe added he won't be updating the president on that russia investigation. senators pressed him about mr. trump's claim that comey had told the president he was not personally under investigation. mccabe said he couldn't comment on specific conversations between the two. republican susan collins of maine followed up: >> is it standard practice for the f.b.i. to inform someone that they are not the target of an investigation? >> it is not.

>> brangham: meanwhile, in that same nbc interview, the president doubled down on that claim, saying comey told him three times he wasn't a target. >> he said it once at dinner and then he said it twice during phone calls. >> did you call him? >> in one case i called him and one case he called me. >> and did you ask "am i under investigation?" >> i actually asked him, yes, i said if it's possible would you let me know am i under investigation? he said you are not under investigation. >> brangham: mr. trump also said he had decided to fire comey long before meeting with attorney general jeff sessions and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein on monday. >> i was going to fire comey, my decision. it was not - >> you had made decision before they came in the room. >> i was going to fire comey i-- there is no good time to do it by the way. they, they-- >> because in your letter you said i accepted their recommendations, so you had already made the decision. >> oh, i was going to fire him regardless of recommendation. >> brangham: but that seemed to contradict what senior white house officials had been saying all week: press secretary sean

spicer, vice president mike pence, and deputy press secretary sarah huckabee sanders had all indicated that the firing was driven largely by concerns from the justice department. at today's press brief, sanders offered an explanation for the seeming inconsistencies. >> i think it's pretty simple. i haven't had chance to have the conversation directly the president. i've since had the conversation with him. he laid it out very clearly. he had already made that decision. the recommendation he got from the deputy attorney general just further solidified his decision. >> brangham: meanwhile, outrage over comey's ouster stretched beyond washington. lawmakers, including new jersey's tom macarthur, have seen vocal opposition at town hall meetings to the president's action.

>> we need an independent prosecutor. >> and i hear you but there are loads of other people who don't see it that way. >> brangham: despite those calls, there have been few signs so far that a special counsel will be named. for the pbs newshour, i'm william brangham. >> woodruff: and we get more now from the white house and from capitol hill from our own john yang and lisa desjardins. lisa, i'm going to start with you. you were at the hearing today where james comey's successor, at least for the time being, andrew mccabe, we just heard a little bit from him, his first public appearance i guess, what, in less than 48 hours after this whole thing came down. what stood out to you from this hearing? >> quite a day, huh? on his third day on the job, andrew mccabe was in front of senate intelligence committee members, and for the most part, judy, he was non-controversial, but when asked about his former

boss, f.b.i. director james comey, mccabe defended him as man of integrity who mccabe said enjoyed broad support in the f.b.i. to this day. that's important because it directly counters what the white house has said. they said that comey was undermining morale at the agency. minutes after mccabe said that, the senate intelligence chairman, republican richard burr, came out and also defended comey. that became a theme, judy. i spoke to several republican senators who today felt they had to defend comey's reputation against attacks from the white house. meanwhile, as politicians were doing that, one democratic senator on the intelligence committee came out and said she thinks jeff greenfield -- jeff sessions should resign over his role in the comey firing. now, all of this, what does it mean? basically, judy, i saw the dial move away from the president's position for both republicans and democrats today. >> woodruff: meantime, john, from the white house, the time line on exactly what happened

seemed to be shifting, and the explanation seemed to be shifting a little bit. >> it didn't just seem to shift, it shifted. they first said it all happened on tuesday, that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general came to the president with this recommendation, which he accepted on the spot. then we learned that actually there was a meeting on monday at which this was discussed, and then it turns out, as the president said in the interview and as sarah huckabee sanders said in the meeting today, this was something on the president's mind since last week when he watched james comey's testimony on the hill. they originally said this was all rod rosenstein's idea. now the president and his advisers acknowledge he had made this decision before that meeting on monday. >> woodruff: lisa, just quickly, interesting, there was a republican at the capitol today saying the president himself may not be under investigation. >> yeah, not just any

republican, republican chairman of the judiciary committee chuck grassley. he says he wrote a letter saying he met with f.b.i. director comey and that comey shared with him who the targets were of the investigation. as for his ranking on the judiciary committee. now, grantsly said he can't divulge who the targets are, but in a carefully worded statement, judy, grassley said nothing that comey told him contradicts president trump's statement that he is not under investigation. that's a double or triple negative, but essentially grantsly is indicating that to his knowledge the president is not under investigation. >> woodruff: justifiably, john, what are you hearing from the white house about whether what has happened is going to affect the pace of this russia investigation? >> well, that's another thing that's evolved over the last couple day, judy. on tuesday night, sarah huckabee sanders said there is no there there of the russian investigation. she said it's time to move on, clearly indicating that the white house wanted it closed. but since then and again today,

she said any investigation that was going on on monday before comey was fired is still going on today. they want the f.b.i. to do what they think is proper and fit, and they say they want this investigation to continue but to end as quickly as possible. >> woodruff: well, i guess it doesn't get any more active at either place at the capitol or the white house. thank you both. john yang, lisa desjardins. and now what this means for the function and stability of the trump presidency. we turn to man who has had a front row in the white house. leon panetta was chief of staff for bill clinton. he then served as director of the c.i.a. and secretary of defense in the obama administration. secretary panetta, thank you for talking with us. so as somebody who has had a top

job, the top job at the white house as chief of staff, as we said at the pentagon and c.i.a., how do you read how this comey episode has unfolded? >> well, it's a very confusing picture obviously, because a number of reasons have been presented as to why it's happened. but, you know, deep down there's no question that however it happened, and for whatever reasons it happened, that this has undermined the credibility of a very vital national security investigation, and somehow that credibility has to be restored. >> woodruff: how has it undermined that credibility? >> it's undermined the credibility because obviously the f.b.i. was investigating the whole issue of russian interference in our election, and despite the various reasons that have been presented,

there's no question that the president remains concerned about that russian investigation, and tying that concern with the fact that he fired the f.b.i. director and in the way he fired the f.b.i. director, clearly undermines the credibility of the investigation. is the white house going to continue to try to influence the direction of that investigation? the key right now is for the congress, for the justice department, for the president to make sure they take steps to restore the credibility of that investigation by appointing a new director of the f.b.i., who is fair and objective and credible, and i think they should also frankly give consideration to the appointment of a special prosecutor, because the very fact that this president continued to ask the f.b.i. director as to whether or not he was the subject of an

investigation, when a president does that, it clearly is sending a signal that the white house is concerned about that investigation. frankly, it has to be an independent investigation, and it cannot have or be influenced by the white house. >> woodruff: are you saying, secretary panetta, that there's no way the american people can have confidence in this investigation unless there is an outside independent special counsel? >> well, my concern is that when the president himself has asked the question about whether or not he's the target of an investigation, something frankly that at least in my time is unheard of, that a president would, in fact, ask if he is the target of an investigation, when the president does that, he clearly is sending a signal to what should be a very independent, fair, and objective investigation by the f.b.i. and the fact that he's raised

that question tells me that whoever is going to be the next f.b.i. director, whoever that is, will probably get the same question from the president at some point in time. and just because of that fact alone, i just think some kind of independent prosecutor, committee, commission, whatever it would be, but something that is independent of the white house and independent of political influence needs to take place in this matter. >> woodruff: how much does it matter that the president, that the white house is giving a different explanation for why this happened? they're saying it has to do with a fact that they say director comey was not running the f.b.i. well, he was... and the way they say he mishandled hillary clinton e-mail situation. >> well, again, and i look back on my days as chief of staff to the president, i think when a major step like that is going to be taken, and clearly somebody

should have informed the president that once you fire the f.b.i. director that there's going to be a huge backlash because of the investigation that's going on, that in the very least the reasons for why he's firing him should have been set down so that everybody had the same talking points, and clearly that did not happen here. and the president again today said he had been thinking about firing director comey for a long period of time. so whatever reasons have been given in these last few days, it's only created greater confusion about just exactly why this happened. >> woodruff: secretary panetta, finally and just for a few second, you're a democrat, but i know you've talked to a lot of republicans. how much difficulty do you think this president is facing in his own party? >> well, you know, i think whether you're a republican or a democrat, there is an interest in conducting an investigation

into this national security issue. we've had a foreign adversary try to interfere in our election. that's a serious matter, and it needs to be investigated. so i think the republicans, as well as the democrats, are interested in putting this back on track where you have a fair and independent and objective investigation that determines what happened here, whether there was any collusion or not with the campaign, the trump campaign, and what should be done to make sure it never happens again. >> woodruff: former secretary of defense, former c.i.a. director, former white house chief of staff leon panetta, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: we'll get the perspective of two conservatives on how mr. trump's recent moves have divided the republican party later in the program.

the president's decision for firing director comey and the interview the president gave today to nbc are again prompting many questions about the way mr. trump makes decisions and carries out his job as chief executive. a "time" magazine team had chance earlier this week to get a lack at what life is like inside the trump white house. michael scherer, current washington bureau chief, was part of the group that met with the president and turned out before the comey firing. he joins me now. michael scherer, welcome back to the "newshour." you and the "time" magazine folks had an unusual access at the white house. tell us about what it was like? >> we got there about 6:30. we were invited into the oval office where he was meeting with a number of senior staff, signing the final orders of the day. from there began an almost three hour, two and a half hour evening where he took us to many parts of the white house that

most presidents never take the press, that includes starting in his private dining room, which is just down the hallway from the oval office in the west wing where he played us some dvred clips of that day's senate hearings with color commentary attached. then we walked down the come nadine. he took us in his elevator up to the residence on the executive floor of the mansion and toured us through the rooms there. that was followed by dinner in the blue room, the big oval room first floor of the residence. >> woodruff: what did you take away from this? i read the piece today. you said you had an extraordinary two and a half hours with him. from the outside, this is a presidency that's almost bathed in controversy. did you sense that kind of tension inside? >> there's an enormous amount of grievance he feels to the way he's been treated. that was evident almost from the moment we got there. he was talking about how the press has mistreated him. however, he was always very gracious and hospitable, and talking about how his message has not gotten out, how the good

things he had been doing were not being recognized. he returned to that time and again. there was a clear frustration. at times he was very emotional, even watching the day's hearing, he was sort of mocking the witnesses, and these are former federal officials, testifying before the senate, because i think he's angry at the way the american people have been presented the story of his presidency. >> woodruff: what do you think he wanted to get across most to you? >> i think he wanted to get that across. he wanted to make the case that his presidency is far more successful than has been recognized. there was an interesting moment when i asked him, do youly the there has been too much conflict at the white house at some point? and he answered by saying, "i think that may be true, and he said, but you have to understand, there's so much meanness out there." then he reverted back to name-calling of various other television correspondents and things like that. but i feel like he is someone who is trying to adjust his own personality, his own history, his own instincts t an office

that is a very different structure around him. i think he's waffling become and forth between the desire to lash out, to come back over the top, to confront, which has been actually very successful for him through his career, and the realities of the white house, which is the president has enormous power but he's also enormously limited in his power, there are lots of institutions, the press, the courts, the congress, that can constrain him. >> woodruff: you were telling us earlier today, it was almost like there were two operations going on at the same time. he has one operation around him to sort of protect him, make sure he's all right, protect his brand, you said, and then on the other hand, the operation to keep the business of the presidency going. >> he is enormously focused on his personal reputation and experience in office. i think he spends a lot of time watching tv at night, seeing how things are being digested. he's an incredibly erudite media critic, which we saw during the campaign, and that is really

separate i think from what the business of the presidency, is which is running a very large and complicated government. now, he's involved in those issues, too. it's not as if he's not engaged in the details of, you know, getting obamacare repealed through congress or something like that, but it's just that i think more than other presidents, he's spending a lot of time focused on the other thing. and he does have staff around him who are essentially personal staff. they're not staff that are plugged into the hierarchy of a traditional white house. they're not reporting directly to the chief of staff, and they help him with that. >> woodruff: any inkling, of course, this was monday before we knew about the firing of f.b.i. director, any inkling something like that was coming down? >> there was no discussion of the f.b.i. director comey. the only inkling was he returned several times to his frustration about the press not reporting that his wiretapping tweet of a few weeks ago, saying that barack obama wiretapped me in trump tower, he still believes, he still argues it's true, even

though director comey testified that there is no evidence... >> woodruff: he argues that he was wiretapped? >> his argument is complicated. hess saying wiretapping is in quotes, it includes any unmasking by any officials of anyone in my campaign, which may have happened. he believes an official was unmasked in a foreign intelligence tap that would could as wiretapping. ites a stretch, but his anger at... his feeling of being wronged by the way that's been discussed and i think that includes what the f.b.i. director said before congress, was very apparent. >> woodruff: michael scherer, "time" magazine, fascinating. >> thank you. >> woodruff: thank you. >> woodruff: until this week, much of the country had never heard of rob rosenstein. but he's been thrust into the spotlight following the firing of james comey.

late today leaders of the senate issued an unusual invitation to the senate to invite him to meet all 100 senators. margaret warner brings us up to speed on the man charged with overseeing the investigation into russia's interference in last year's presidential election. >> warner: the author of the fateful james comey memo appeared on capitol hill today. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein met with the top republican and democrat on the senate intelligence committee. afterwards they said comey's firing wasn't discussed. but democratic vice chair mark warner remained skeptical: >> i think it was a productive session but i still have concerns about mr. rosenstein in terms of his role in the comey departure in terms of the memo. >> warner: rosenstein has said privately he did not initiate comey's firing. still, there are now nearly as many questions for the justice department's number two as there are for the ousted f.b.i.

director himself. rosenstein graduated harvard law school in 1989. in 1997, he became an assistant u.s. attorney in maryland. in 2005, president bush appointed him the state's top federal prosecutor, a post he held until this year. in january, president trump nominated him for deputy attorney general. at his confirmation hearing, senators of both parties praised him. >> i know of no reason to question his judgment, his integrity, or his impartiality. >> rod rosenstein has demonstrated throughout his long career, the highest standards of professionalism. >> warner: the judiciary committee also received dozens of letters supporting his nomination one, signed by more than 120 former u.s. attorneys, said rosenstein "epitomizes the ideal department of justice lawyer." he was confirmed 94-to-6. one "no" vote: connecticut democrat richard blumenthal, who said he'd use "every

possible tool" to block any nominee for the position, unless there was a special counsel assigned to the russia investigation. attorney general jeff sessions recused himself from the russia probe in march, so when rosenstein was sworn in two weeks ago, that authority fell to him. for the pbs newshour, i'm margaret warner. >> woodruff: now let's take a closer look at what lies ahead for that russia investigation. william brangham is back with that. >> brangham: comey's firing has sparked accusations that the president is trying to derail the russia investigation, or at least exert more control over its direction. so where does that investigation go from here? frank montoya, jr. spent 25 years in the f.b.i. and oversaw national security and counterintelligence probes, both in field offices and at f.b.i. he joins us from salt lake city. and amy jeffress worked on national security investigations as counselor to former attorney general eric holder, and at the u.s. attorney's office in washington.

welcome to you both. montoya,'d like to start with you. you've been talking with a lot of f.b.i. agents. give us a sense of how they are responding to comb yes's firing. >> you've heard a lot of descriptions already in terms of being stunned or gut-punched. those i think are apropos of the sense of or the feeling that's in the organization right now. it really did come out of the blue. they're struggling with it. but at the same time, they're all professionals at what they do. they know how to put the mission first. and they will continue to move forward. >> brangham: do any of the agents you've spoken with believe the firing was justified? >> absolutely not. this is again out of the blue. it was one of those things where even amongst those few critics in the organization, the independence of the f.b.i. and jim comey represented that well, the independence of the f.b.i. is utmost in their minds. it's the only way they feel like they can go forward and do the work they do. >> brangham: amy jeffress, i'll turn to you. what was your reaction to

comey's firing? >> i absolutely agree with what frank just said and what andy mccabe testified to in congress today, which is that my perception is that director comey did have the confidence of the agency and certainly the actions he took last summer and in the fall were controversial and many people can criticize certain aspects of what he did, but i don't think anyone can say that he wasn't independent or that he wasn't trying to do what he perceived as the right thing during the investigation. my sense is the agents really felt like he was supportive of them and that he would have their back and he wanted to let them do their jobs professionally and independently. so i think morale is not good. agents are disappointed at his firing, but i also agree with frank that the agents will continue to do their jobs as best they can because that's their tradition. >> brangham: amy, what did you make of deputy attorney general

rod rosenstein's letter that cataloged a whole slew of criticisms of comey's handling of the hillary clinton investigation? >> well, the letter contained some criticisms that i think many people would agree with, but on the other hand, i didn't see it as any real justification for director comey's firing. and i don't think that that firing was handled in the way that any career department of justice prosecutor, which rod rosenstein is, would have liked to see it handled. it didn't go according to the process that should have been followed. >> i agree on that one by the way. i'd like to interject. this is really about independence. that's where the rubber meets the road on this. and what is causing us a lot of concern right now within the f.b.i. >> brangham: frank, sticking with you then, what does this mean for the ongoing russia investigation? i mean, there has to be a new head of the f.b.i. put into place. what does this firing and the

sbsequent events mean for that probe? >> well, andy mccabe put it very succinctly today. it will move forward. the men and the women of the f.b.i. will do the right thing. they will continue in their mission, and that includes investigating the russian interference in our democracy and all things associated with that. there is a lot of determination to get to the bottom of this. it was unfortunate that jim is not going to be at the head of this investigation anymore, but they will continue to do what it is they have sworn under oath to do, and this is to pursue this and other investigations to the full extent. >> woodruff:>> brangham: amy je, leon panetta was just telling judy woodruff that he thinks this firing and the way it was handled has undermined the credibility of the probe and any subsequent f.b.i. head is going to face similar pressures from the white house. and he's arguing in essence that a special counsel, a special prosecutor is what's needed to really get this thing done. >> they have certainly strengthened the arguments for a

special counsel. i absolutely agree with that. i would not have said that that was necessary before the events of the last two days, but i think that firing director comey made that argument much stronger. >> woodruff:. >> brangham: and frank montoya, would you agree with that, as well? the attorney general, the deputy of the f.b.i. said today he thinks internally it can go forward, but many other people argue someone from the outside has to do this. >> well, it will go forward internally. i mean, the question now is there's so much of this that is public, and we're talking about not public trust in the f.b.i., but in the integrity of the investigation. so i think that is where the argument is going now. i would also head the if there is a special counselor picked or selected, that it would be f.b.i. special agents that would be conducting the investigation for him. >> brangham: amy, what do you make of the idea that if there

is a new f.b.i. director put into place, that the political entanglements just can't really be undone, that the pressures are going to be too great? >> well, it's going to be very difficult for whoever takes that position, but i also worry that we are focusing perhaps too much and perhaps we have overly high hopes for the f.b.i. investigation and the department of justice investigation, because what they're doing is a counterintelligence investigation, the purpose of it is to really advise the intelligence community about what happens and what can we do to prevent this from happening again, what did the russians do, what techniques did they use, how do we block them from attacking our democracy in this way, in the future? and so a lot of what they do is going to remain classified. they're not going to be issuing a public report at the end of the day telling the american people, here's what happened. we want to explain it to you. that's really not what the department of justice does. that's why i think there is a

very good reason for congress to continue with its investigation, because i think they will have a greater role in doing that, in reporting to the public about what happened. and i think the public needs that at this point. >> brangham: all right. amy jeffress, frank montoya, jr., thank you both very much for being here. >> appreciate it. >> thank you. >> woodruff: now, we explore how president trump's firing of comey has divided republicans, with steve deace, a popular conservative radio talk show host in iowa. and david avella, chairman of "go-pac," a republican political action committee devoted to down-ballot and state races. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: david avella, i'm going the start with you. what's your assessment of the president's decision to fire james comey and how he handled it? >> the president didn't have a

choice. there is a term in the military called "combat ineffective." and james comey had become combat ineffective. he had become a political punching bag. and, gosh, for most americans it was causing whiplash. one day republicans were for him, and one day they were against him. one day democrats were for him, one day democrats were against him based off what he was saying on any given press account he did. secondly, and there were plenty of media stories about f.b.i. agents and the bureaucracy at the f.b.i. didn't trust him any longer about the way he was handling the investigation. he had become ineffective inside the building and he was a political punching bag outside the building. the president didn't have a choice. he had to get rid of him. keep in mind, the f.b.i. director serves at the will and the pleasure of the president. when you don't have the president's confidence anymore, you're gone. >> woodruff: steve deace, what's your opinion?

>> i agree with his analysis. it was hilarious watching john podesta at 11:00 on tuesday talk about what a terrible person comey was and then at 5:00, this was watergate and comey shouldn't be fired. i agree with david's nal si of the hypocrisy here, but the execution and how this was done undermines the white house's own cause, judy, and even if you buy into wild conspiracy theories and even if you agree most of the media is liberal, and i do, and would like the see trump fail, you can't play into this. he does this systematically. you can't have sarah huckabee on day two of her tryout contradicting everything she said on day one. you can't have the vice president seven times yesterday say that they got rid of comey on a recommendation from the deputy a.g. and then have the president go off and do his own lester holt where he says i was going to get rid of him irregardless. even if they believe everyone is against them, you have to understand the environment you are in, and you have to play it

accordingly. they often help to feed these narratives that work against them. >> woodruff: david avella, what about steve deace's point? >> it might not be the way human resource manuals 101 suggests handling things, but the best way a president can see how he's doing is based off mid-term election, and next year voters are not going to the polls to cast their votes based on james comey getting fired or not fired. they're going to base their vote on are there more jobs, have we been kept safe, the two reasons that president trump was elected in the first place. >> drew: what about this russia election? >> i defy any member of the media to find ten voters who were impacted by the alleged information from russia that they received last year during the election and first nine can be liars. you're not going to find ten people influenced about what they heard by hillary clinton. she was mid-40s in her

approval rating in january before the election. that's where she was on election day. voters' opinions of hillary clinton didn't change through the election. >> woodruff: be that as it may, steve deace, what about the credibility of that investigation? how much does that matter to this president? >> i think the last election proved really that i don't know how much trump's credibility really matters to most voters that would consider voting for him, especially last year, judy, when the proxy for the other side was maybe the most dishonest politician of her era. for trump i think it comes down to this: everything david said there is right. but you get to a point where the lack of execution gets in the way of you actually delivering on your promises. and right now they're trying to ram through a healthcare fix that doesn't repeal obamacare, that 26% of americans like. we're in the sure what the tax reform proposal is going to look like. they have to actually get to doing the things they promised the american people they would do. if they do those things, then as people show in the 1990s, when

we went after bill clinton, if the economy is great, i have a job, i don't care what your character, is but if things aren't going well, then suddenly i care and i care a lot. this white house needs the start governing. one quick example before we went on the air, trump trolling rosy on twitter. that's funny when the economy is greg at 4% and 5%. it's petulant and immature when it's not. they've got to govern, and just stop the consistent trolling and reality show and govern the country. >> woodruff: talking about rosie o'donnell. david avella, respond to what he said and also i want to ask both of you as we wrap this up, what's going to determine whether the white house gets back on an even keel in the short term or whether things just continue to... seem to be in turmoil? >> in this environment, it's hard to define what even keel will mean, and there will always be... there's very strong feelings about this president on both sides. but what are they going to judge

his legacy on or his presidency on? are we getting results? are they going to be more jobs? there is much discussion even amongst, and steven mentioned it, even amongst conservatives, we're not doing enough. we're a few months into this administration, and there are plenty of examples, particularly at the state level where go-pac focuses. maybe a republican governor and legislature, when they first enact something, it starts out unpopular. when people start seeing the actual positive result, those governor, those legislatures are reelected overwhelmingly. and as president trump delivers on the positive things that he talked about, more jobs, he's going to be reelected. >> woodruff: you're saying it doesn't matter, the comey incident won't matter. steve steve, what's going to determine whether things stabilize, seem to get back on track or remain in turmoil? >> judy, when i used to do sports talk radio, what i would find is the team's quarterback ran afoul of the law, but he had played well in his last game,

most fans didn't care, but if he played poorly in his last game, suddenly they wanted him disciplined and the program needs to stand for something bigger that. also applies here. if he governs well, if they get result, i think most people will say, that's trump being trump, and a lot of the same people don't like him i don't like either, but if this is the substitute for governing, if this is what they do instead of getting result, if they have nothing else other than this reality show, then i think in november of 2018, you will see that rubber band snap back and it will do so with extreme prejudice. >> woodruff: steve deace, talk show host joining us from iowa, david avella of go-pac in washington. gentlemen, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, president trump signed a pair of executive orders addressing two of his key priorities.

one aims to strengthen the federal government's cybersecurity. white house homeland security advisor tom bossert said that will help protect the nation's critical infrastructure from attacks. >> the trend is going in the wrong direction in cyberspace and it's time to stop that trend and reverse it on behalf of the american people. we've seen increasing attacks from allies, adversaries, primarily nation states but also non-nation state actors and sitting by and doing nothing is no longer an option. >> woodruff: president trump's second executive order established a bipartisan commission to review claims of voter fraud in the u.s. mr. trump has alleged, without evidence, that three to five million people voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election. the city of new orleans today removed a statue of the president of the confederacy, jefferson davis. it's the second of four confederate monuments slated to come down. in the dark, wee hours of the morning, workers wearing bulletproof vests and helmets removed the statue from where it

stood since 1911, as protesters cheered. there was no advance public notice of the operation due to threats of violence against the removal crews. there's word the trump administration is likely to extend a ban on laptops in the cabins of all u.s.-bound flights from europe. the ban was initially imposed in march to cover 10 airports in the middle east, north africa and turkey. it was put in place over concerns a concealed bomb could be installed in laptops and other large electronic devices. in india, 24 people died overnight when a wall collapsed during a wedding celebration. 28 others were injured. it happened in a town south of new delhi. the 80-foot wall gave out during a powerful dust storm, trapping guests inside the wedding hall. it's the latest in a string of building collapses in india, largely due to shoddy construction. young people with the h.i.v.

virus now have a "near normal" life expectancy, thanks to improvements in anti-retroviral therapy. that's according to a new study published in "the lancet h.i.v." medical journal. it found young h.i.v. positive adults are living a decade longer than they did 20 years ago. researchers attribute that progress to new, less toxic drugs, and better screening and prevention. the u.s. senate has overwhelmingly confirmed robert lighthizer to be the next u.s. trade representative. he'll play a critical role in renegotiating the north american free trade agreement, among other things. lighthizer served as deputy u.s. trade representative in the reagan administration. and stocks fell on wall street today, dragged down by losses in the retail sector. the dow jones industrial average lost 23 points to close at 20,919. the nasdaq fell 13 points and the s&p 500 slipped five.

>> woodruff: let's turn to an overlooked story: why some men are not pursuing certain types of jobs that are mainly held by women. our economics correspondent paul solman has the story, part of our weekly series, making sense, which airs every thursday on the newshour. >> reporter: out back of their classroom in columbia, south carolina, four and five year olds are building a fortress with their teacher, mister jamie browder. browder is that rare bird: a man in a woman's world of work, an early childhood teacher in a profession that's been a measly two to five percent male for years, is desperately looking to up the percentage.

meanwhile, so many male jobs in industry have gone poof,5.7 mllion since 2000 in manufacturing alone, that deindustrialization has become a stock explanation for rust belt resentment, even the election of president trump. >> i agree with the fact that americans should be america first. >> i think americans should have first opportunity on jobs. >> reporter: and in fact, the share of working men ages 25 to 54 has fallen dramatically since 1957-- fully 12% having dropped out of the workforce entirely. so why aren't there more jamie browders? betsey stevenson, who ran has a wry answer: "manly men" don't want to do "girly jobs." >> so if you look over the last 20 years, we've lost five million jobs in manufacturing and gained nine million jobs in education and health services. so we're more than making up for the jobs we're losing, but the characteristics of those jobs, the identity associated with a

worker who holds one of those jobs, the pay associated with those jobs, are different. >> reporter: "different" by cultural stigma. and that's true of jobs in home healthcare, nursing, and early childhood education, like the job jamie browder has had and loved for 13 years. so i asked him: why don't more men go into this profession? >> i think it's a lack of information, a lack of understanding how you can contribute to the children's lives. lack of understanding what you mean to a community. >> reporter: so men see jobs like grade school teaching as low status, low upward mobility. >> it's almost like if you enter the classroom, this is where you'll be and this is the rest of your life. >> reporter: you're stuck. >> you're stuck and this is the set scheduled pay. so you will only be able to move yourself up through additional education, which requires money,

and also each additional year. >> so you can't have a fantasy about striking it rich? you mean? >> no, no, no and i think that's almost somewhat anti-american. >> reporter: professor stevenson's answer is more gender-specific. >> i think they feel stigmatized, like they're going in to do girls' work. they're good jobs. but at the same time we need to recognize that there are a lot of guys who feel either because their friends or their community or because of themselves, like, when they take one of these jobs that they are doing something girly and that feeling is a barrier for them. >> reporter: now not all men feel this way. i once taught kindergarten. and jamie browder obviously

wasn't hindered by the "girly work" stigma. but in fact, says browder, being a man is a key asset for fellow teachers. >> because you offer a different perspective. they want to see what a man would say because there's a lack of men in that particular school, say our school right here. how do you see this, what should i do in these situations? >> reporter: "a different perspective": what diversity so often brings to the table. also, as a male in the classroom, browder gets to be a gender role model for boys at a formative age. >> very few times i can remember when there was actually a female student brought to me and said, they need a role model. >> reporter: but with browder, it's a regular occurrence. so shouldn't more men do as browder does, and buck the stereotype? economist nancy folbre isn't so sure. >> that question makes it sound too simple, as though if guys could just get over their social norm obsession they could really go out there and get a good job

and make the economy better, and i think that's a kind of silly proposition. >> reporter: look, says labor economist teresa ghilarducci: the stigma of women's work has a basis in reality. >> female dominated jobs are stigmatized because they're lower paid. if we're going to attack patriarchy, and stigma um, of women versus men, then we should attack it on an economic basis. and use that old fashioned idea of comparable worth, bring up jobs that women have to the same level of, of the equivalent jobs or comparable jobs that men have. >> reporter: now like the rest of us, browder wouldn't turn down a raise. but, he says... >> i think there's an underestimation of the pay. >> reporter: how much do you make? >> over $50,000. >> reporter: and you have summers off. >> and summers off and i also take home additional work to gain additional income. >> reporter: and browder's wife also works, lifting them well into the top half of american household incomes, and very

comfortably middle class in south carolina. so again, what's keeping men away? >> i've had professional development, done tons of reading about how you approach children when they are exhibiting challenging behavior, they are needing your help and what comes through in all of those readings and professional development is two inner spaces being calmed. you know you have to be calm. you will deescalate a situation if you remain calm. >> reporter: browder's point is that he has loads of education compared to most american men, barely one in three of whom gets even a four-year bachelor's degree. >> are they willing to go through the training you know, pay for the education, the continuous recertification. are they ready to undertake all of these steps to get to this space? >> reporter: but to betsey stevenson, our cultural definitions of gender roles play a bigger part in keeping men away. and not just from pre-k

classrooms. >> when we think about things like home healthcare aids, people tend to think of that as a very female job, but in truth that's a job that's about physically lifting, moving, restraining people. and those jobs require great physical strength that you could imagine a different culture, where we said: those are jobs for men >> reporter: stevenson isn't blaming "manly men" for not doing "girly jobs." she just wants to change the connotations of manly and girly, or ditch the adjectives entirely. but that will take time, says jamie browder, which means we should focus on the next generation. >> let's look at our young boys and instead of trying to enforce this masculinity on them, let's look at different ways of being. let's look at ways of being able to show them and give them opportunities to have, to be the nurturers. let's put them in places where

they can really take care of others and i think that's where the work, in my opinion should come. >> reporter: because the men right now aren't going to be going into this profession? >> i don't think so. >> reporter: because it's too much work, too predictable, too much preparation? >> not enough mobility. >> reporter: and it's not manly. yes? >> i look at this as very manly, this is the work that men should do. >> reporter: but the stereotype is that it isn't. >> the stereotype, yes. >> reporter: in columbia, south carolina, economics correspondent paul solman reporting for the pbs newshour. >> woodruff: in an upcoming making sense, paul profiles a star second grade teacher who's fighting the "manly man"

stereotype both inside the classroom and out. >> woodruff: now another in our brief but spectacular episodes where we ask interesting people about their passions. tonight, we hear from artist and poet jess x. snow, who uses her art to help her overcome a speech impediment. >> my parents, they grew up in a government in china that had a lot of censorship and the and when i was discovering art for the first time, i felt like, i felt like there was a door that opened in my family's ancestry and i could be, i could be the first person to tell our story without the fear of censorship. and i felt like me reclaiming my voice in the u.s. and overcoming my stutter created a doorway into being able to share my family story to the public.

i would get bullied a lot in the classroom and people would finish my sentences for me. through my art i was able to see myself overcoming my stutter. i found a community of poets of color when i was in college and that was the first time i was able to share my poetry on a stage and when that happened i just stopped, i stopped stuttering. of course they're afraid of all who present it. a lot of my work is inspired by the idea that migration is

natural. i think a border drawn upon the earth's skin is extremely unnatural. when people's families and lives are policed by borders, the result is that young immigrants grow up feeling like they're identities are divided and they have to give up like their homelands, they have to give up their connections to their families. maybe i will have a stutter for my whole life, but regardless, i'm able to accept it because to be an artist is to create a home for yourself in your work, regardless of how many times your identity has been sprint, whether it's by immigration or by a speech impediment. my name is jess x. snow, and this is my brief but spectacular take on why migration is natural. >> woodruff: you can find a link to her latest short film "migration is natural" on our facebook page, and additional brief but spectacular episodes on our website, pbs.org/newshour/brief.

and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and ramesh ponnuru. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> 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 access.wgbh.org

boom! hello, i'm julia child. welcome to my house. what fun we're going to have baking all kinds of incredible cakes, pies and breads right here in my own kitchen. master baker danielle forestier learned her craft in france from the famous boulanger, professor raymond calvel. today she shares her technique for baking the classic baguette. join us on...