captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: a critical threat in britain. new arrests tied to the manchester attack as police search for a network allegedly behind the bomber. also ahead this wednesday, one-on-one with senator dianne feinstein. a key member of the intelligence committee weighs in on the state of the russia investigations. and comey's records. >> one way or another, they're going to be turned over. it's just a question of time. his documents are fundamental to the issue of his firing. >> woodruff: then, we are in rome for president trump's first meeting with the pope. plus:

♪ ♪ celebrating the intersection between music and technology. jeffrey brown takes us to a festival pushing the bounds of sound. >> there's something to be said about all music being some translation of our language and our way of communicating. it's a language. this is a new language. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪

moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> the lemelson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention, in the u.s. and developing countries. on the web at lemelson.org. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org

>> 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. >> woodruff: the investigation into monday night's bombing in manchester, england, is spreading. 22-year-old british-born salman abedi blew himself up at a concert monday night, killing 22 people. today, police in libya arrested his father and younger brother. british officials say abedi recently returned from libya. meanwhile, several more arrests in manchester. ciaran jenkins of independent television news has that story. >> reporter: this is now a hunt for salman abedi's accomplices. armed police and special forces forced their way into a central manchester property earlier. it took a controlled explosion to get them in. in the south of manchester,

three more arrests, and another in wigan tonight, followed the arrest yesterday of abedi's older brother. now there is a real urgency to police activity in this city today. remember, the current threat level means an attack is expected imminently. police want to know if there are more bombs in circulation, or if there are other potential attackers. and crucially, who made this man's deadly device? police have yet to say definitively if it was the work of an accomplice, but this afternoon, the first confirmation that abedi did not act alone. do you believe somebody else put the bomb together, and are you searching for that person? is this a search now for a bomb maker? >> i think it's very clear that this is a network that we are investigating. and as i said, it continues at a pace. there's extensive investigations going on and activity taking place across greater manchester as we speak. >> reporter: the threat level is at its highest, for the first time in ten years; the army enlisted to protect key

landmarks at buckingham palace and in westminster. manchester armed police patrol piccadilly station and the arndale shopping system. >> it's not going to stop me going about my daily life or anything like that. it's just something in the back of the mind that's a bit scary. >> it really all just feels like a different place, you know. >> reporter: as the hours pass, we learn a little more of the innocent children who were killed, and the adults who accompanied them. michelle kiss, a mother of three, taken, her family said, in the most traumatic way. and, kelly bruster. her friends said she died saving a young life, throwing her body on her niece as the bomb exploded. saffie roussos, from leyland, was the youngest victim, eight years old. >> saffie was simply a beautiful little girl in every aspect of the word. she was loved by everyone, and her warmth and kindness will be

remembered fondly. saffie was quiet and unassuming, with a creative flair. >> reporter: there is resilience in a manchester all too conscious of the still-imminent threat, but there is impatience too, to see those who brought horror to this city taken off the streets. >> woodruff: this evening, police in manchester made another two arrests. and, britain's home secretary criticized u.s. officials for leaking the name of the bomber and other information. in the day's other news, the congressional budget office issued it's analysis of the republican bill to replace obamacare, which passed the house. it estimates the bill would leave 23 million more americans without health insurance by 2026. that is one million fewer than an earlier version. the report also projects deficit reduction of $119 billion over ten years, much less than

before. we'll take a closer look, later in the program. word has leaked that president trump disclosed that the u.s. had positioned two nuclear submarines off north korea. the "new york times" reports, mr. trump revealed the information in an april 29 phone call with philippines president rodrigo duterte. according to confidential transcripts, he also said duterte is doing an "unbelievable job" fighting drugs. thousands of drug suspects have been killed since duterte took office. fighting raged for a second day in the southern philippines, where islamist militants have seized control of a city. at least 21 people have been killed. the fighting broke out yesterday in marawi city, on the island of mindanao. president duterte responded by imposing martial law. thousands of residents fled the area today amid tight security, as duterte vowed to hunt down the militants.

>> if i think you should die, you will die. if you fight us, you will die. if there is an open defiance, you will die. and if it means many people dying, so be it. >> woodruff: the philippines president also said he might extend martial law nationwide, if the islamic state group gains a foothold. taiwan will become the first asian nation to legalize same-sex marriage. the country's constitutional court ruled today that a ban on such unions violates the taiwanese constitution. now, lawmakers have two years to enact new laws or amend the current statutes. if they do not, couples will be allowed to submit a written document to have their marriages recognized. in economic news, moody's rating service lowered china's credit rating by one notch because of its surging debt load.

beijing protested the decision. and on wall street, the dow jones industrial average gained 74 points to close back above 21,000. the nasdaq rose 24 points, and the s&p 500 added six. marking a new record. still to come on the newshour: i speak to senator dianne feinstein about the latest in the russia investigation. the president meets the pope, after trading barbs with him last year. montana prepares for a special congressional election. and much more. >> woodruff: there are now multiple investigations into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and any possible ties to the trump campaign. on capitol hill, we've heard they have expanded to look into a possible cover up. there are many questions swirling around, and we put some

of them to senator dianne feinstein of california. she's a member of the senate select committee on intelligence, and the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee. senator feinstein, thank you very much for talking with us. first about those memos that were written by former f.b.i. director james comey. i know your committee has been asking for those. have you received them yet from the f.b.i.? >> no, not to my knowledge, we have not. >> woodruff: do you expect to get them? >> well, that's an interesting expectation. there are two answers. one is yes and one is no. i think we're serious. i believe we're serious. then we have to take the next step. we have invited very politely the former director to come meet with us and be able to ask him questions in public. howeverrers he has agreed to go before intelligence, which i

appreciate. i'm on the committee. but i think he also ought to provide the documents to our committee and be willing to come and explain those documents. we are the oversight committee, after all. he has said he wants to make a public appearance. he'll do that at intelligence, and i think he also should provide those documents and make an appearance at judiciary and explain them. >> woodruff: how much of an obstacle is it, senator , if those documents are not turned over. >> well, i mean, one way or another, they're going to be turned over. i think it's just a question of time. i think his documents are fundamental to the issue of his firing. how many times did he meet with the president? what were the circumstances? what was said? and was there any unusual

request, such as leading to an investigation, potential investigation of the president of the united states? and i think that's something that, one way or another is going to come out, and those documents will come out, and it's quite proper that they do so. that's what he kept notes to be able to protect himself in the event of something that's untoward. >> woodruff: senator , how much of this investigation do you expect may ultimately be about any efforts by the president or by the white house, the administration to stop or slow down this investigation? >> hard to tell. i don't think i can answer that at this stage. i think the president -- it's interesting the president is apparently in the process of retaining outside counsel. that would likely have to do with an event that an investigation might reveal.

i am one that believes that both the house intelligence committee and the senate intelligence committee ought to add investigators and people with prosecutorial expertise to the staff for this investigation. i think it has to be well known, now, that even the 9/11 commission had about 100 staffers and people with prosecutorial experience and investigative experience. we, in the intelligence committee, have our intelligence staff, and they're accustomed to reading and interpreting intelligence, and they're very good at what they do. but one of the things that's been brought to my attention is that you need technical people, if you're going to follow the money. >> woodruff: right. as representative spear said and get involved with finance,

you need financing people to show you how to get the appropriate information in the appropriate way. if it's an investigation you're looking at, you need people, i think, who are trained investigators. >> woodruff: senator , if i may, it sounds as if you're saying this investigation, the potential size of it has grown much languager than even what it seemed to be a week ago. >> well, i think that's right. i think that is happening. i think, as events go and comments are made by principal parties, it adds to the investigative material that's out there and i think that what both the house and the senate needs to do is create the atmosphere where bob mueller could come in as an absolutely responsible and respected former prosecutor, former u.s. attorney, former director of the f.b.i. and be the special counsel and see that the f.b.i.

counterterrorism investigation and criminal investigation -- it's both -- are able to proceed as rapidly as possible. >> woodruff: "the washington post" reported last friday, senator , i'm sure you know, that the investigation -- that there is a "person of interest" in this investigation who is a senior official in the trump white house who's very close to the president. do you know who that is? >> no, i do not. i read the same article but i do not know who that person is. >> woodruff: are you getting the cooperation from everyone you're seeking -- we know that general michael flynn has declined to turn over documents, but other than general flynn, are there others who are not cooperating? >> i think, with respect to the judiciary committee, senator grassley and i spoke on the floor, and we've written letters asking for materials and asking

that mr. comey, inviting him to appear. i think we perhaps need to do more than just invite. i think it's important that he come before the oversight committee that has responsibility for oversight of the f.b.i. and at least do us the courtesy of appearing and that we should be able to look at his material and ask questions about them. so i think both senator grassley are on the same pathway to that and, hopefully, we'll be able to accomplish it. >> woodruff: and senator, i want to turn you to one other issue that's much before congress right now and that is the healthcare reform bill that passed the house of representatives. it's now in the senate. the congressional budget office came out just this afternoon with its own estimate of the cost and the implications and, among other things, it says that almost as many people will be

without insurance under this proposed legislation as there was in the original republican proposal. is it your sense this bill has a chance in the u.s. senate right now? >> well, not knowing what's in it, it's my understanding there was a committee of about 12 men appointed from the senate to put together a bill. i think the same mistake was made in the senate that was made in the house. no hearings. the medical profession has no chance to respond. the insurance industry can't respond. those people that run hospitals can't respond, and the general public can't respond. it's unbelievable. this is the first time in my over 20 years in the senate a big bill, a costly bill, a bill important to every single american citizen has no hearing and goes right on to the floor

as some kind of secretive document. i have no idea what's in the senate bill. it's not the way business should be done. it creates an atmosphere that makes a bill more difficult to pass not less difficult, and it certainly gets the emotions going. you have 24 million people who are going to be without insurance. it makes no sense to me. >> woodruff: well, we'll certainly all be watching to see what happens to it in the senate. senator dianne feinstein, we thank you. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: now, we return to the manchester attack and the ongoing investigations happening in britain. william brangham takes a deeper look. >> brangham: as british investigators continue to piece

together who was behind this attack, and try to stop another from occurring, we wanted to take a closer look at just how the u.k. handles counter- terrorism. for that, i'm joined by r.p. eddy. he served on the staff of the national security council during the clinton administration and worked closely with british officials. and, he is the author, along with richard c. holbrook, of "warnings: finding cassandras to stop catastrophes." r.p. eddy, thanks very much for being here. i wonder if you could start off by telling us the distinctions that u.k. intelligence and terror officials have as compared to say, u.s. officials? >> well, overall, it's a fairly similar system. there is probably two key differences. one is it's easier to open up investigations and surveillance on individuals in the u.k., british citizens or others, than it is in the united states. the second thing is that we have an inverted model. in the united states, for example, here i'm sitting in new york city, the nypd would go out and collect much of the intelligence about a potential

terrorist attack, and then the f.b.i. would make the arrest, depending on the maturity of the intelligence collection in the city. in the u.k., it's opposite. the metropolitan police service or the local police would actually do the arresting where mi5 and mps would do the intelligence gathering. the key difference is it's easier to begin surveillance on people of concern. >> brangham: and the u.k. i know also has a wide network of cctv cameras where i know that's been relevant tool in prior terror investigations. >> it's a massive difference. they adapted the use of closed circuit televisions much earlier than the united states in our major cities. in three terrorists investigations since the '80s, cc tvs have been hugely useful in very quickly figuring out who is behind it and wrapping up the cell. that and the laws, most of these things are children of -- growing up in the era of the

i.r.a. threat, so they addressed their terrorism threat and got over some of their learnings earlier than we did. >> brangham: even with the tools, it's clear the u.k. officials missed this plot. this is an indication to me of how difficult it is to identify individuals or a group of individuals who are trying to plot quietly these types of attacks. >> let's say there is probably two big reasons for that, the first is technological. you've heard a number of u.s. and british government officials over the last three or four years bemoan the fact that it's much easier now to encrypt your communications on your cell phone or internet to a military grade level than it used to be. so in some instances we're blind as we try to do collection on signals intelligence. so that's the first reason it's harder, much harder. the second reason is i.s.i.s. is different than al quaida. part of why they're different is they're more willing to allow or to foster what you would call

retail attacks, small attacks by lone wolves or people who are just sort of getting converted into extremism by i.s.i.s., where al quaida as we know is more interested in large-scale attacks, taking down huge buildings, blowing up buildings, doing things simultaneously. so the latter model, al quaida, the easier to find, requires more planning, cells and training. the i.s.i.s. model, being an idea of mass destruction is harder to catch. someone can be converted into extremism over the internet. they don't even have to meet anybody and they can go off and carry out smaller, harder to surveil, harder to stop terrorist attacks. >> brangham: the theater that was the site of this attack is what's knowns a soft target, a place where the security apparatus is just not that robust. how do we as a society at large go about trying to harden places like that? either we do that to try to prevent these types of things or just in some level try to be

accustomed to the fact that this might be a more common occurrence? >> we should never become accustomed to it and i would say editorially, i don't think we should allow these conversations it was only 22 people, look how many died from dirty water the same day. those are both horrible things but different. these terrorist acts terrorize and change things politically and change our way of life. so can we accept our soft targets will be hit? no. is it very, very hard to protect these soft targets? absolutely. think about the last time you went to the airport when you got through t.s.a., the magnetometers, you had a degree of s.a.t., but in lane, queued up 50 or 1,000 of you, you are a very soft target. same thing at theaters and football games. so it's a very unfortunate reality that we really can't secure everything and i.s.i.s. is sort of well situated by allowing or fostering these smaller attacks to hit us at that weak point. >> brangham: r.p. eddy, thank you very much for your time.

>> thanks for having me. >> woodruff: president trump's first visit abroad started at the vatican today, marking mr. trump's first meeting with the leader of the catholic church. special correspondent malcolm brabant is in rome for us tonight, and has this report. >> reporter: it was a meeting of two men with a difficult history. >> welcome. >> reporter: after a public greeting, president trump and pope francis spoke privately for half an hour. later, introductions all around, and group pictures. mr. trump smiling broadly, the pontiff stone-faced. just a little over a year ago, they clashed publicly. the pope took on the trump campaign pledge to build a wall along the u.s.-mexico border: >> ( translated ): a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is

not christian. >> reporter: the candidate answered with a dig of his own: >> for a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful. >> reporter: today, instead of barbs, they exchanged gifts. mr. trump presented the pope with a first-edition set of martin luther king jr.'s works. francis offered his three main teaching documents, and an olive branch medal. >> we can use peace. >> reporter: later, after touring the sistine chapel and st. peter's basilica, and the president offered a new assessment of the pope. >> he is something, he is really good. we had a fantastic meeting. we had a fantastic tour. it was really beautiful. >> reporter: president trump's take on his meeting with the pope differs greatly from the interpretation of veteran vatican analysts. they believe that the president was exaggerating. the vatican issued an unusually brief statement about the discussions. >> they qualified the meeting as "cordial," which means that the meeting was not a cold one.

not warm. >> reporter: but long-time vatican watcher riccardo christiano says he doubts there was any meeting of minds. >> i think that it was a opportunity to meet, but also, impression is that they understood that they have different perspectives. >> reporter: analyst robert mickens was far more upbeat. he says it was a success for the vatican. >> pope francis is always very gracious. he likes to build bridges of encounter. it's very, very important to get the super power online with the soft power, the holy see. >> reporter: the president also met with the vatican's secretary of state, who encouraged continued u.s. participation in the paris climate agreement. secretary of state rex tillerson gave his own appraisal, on the flight from rome to brussels:

>> well, we had a good exchange on the difficulty of balancing addressing climate change, responses to climate change, and ensuring that you still have a thriving economy. >> reporter: the president arrived in brussels this evening for meetings with european union and nato officials, and was greeted by the belgian prime minister and royal family. thousands of demonstrators also turned out, protesting the president's immigration and environmental policies. for the pbs newshour, i'm malcolm brabant. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: how the trump administration is changing the makeup of the e.p.a. the ripple effects of "fake news"-- a democratic staffer's death sparks conspiracy theories. plus, a festival that melds technology and music.

but first, let's go back to the health care battle, and the new analysis that came out late today from the congressional budget office. it came out almost three weeks after it passed through the house of representatives. it now sits with the senate. the c.b.o. found the house bill would lead to 23 million more people being uninsured by 2026, and it would reduce the deficit by about $119 billion over a decade. our lisa desjardins has been studying the numbers, and joins me now. so, lisa, you've had a little bit of time to look at this. essentially, what is different about the c.b.o.'s look at this version of republican healthcare from what the earlier version was? >> in those top line numbers, not much. the changes that the republicans made meant there was an improvement in the number of people with insurance by 1 million people. that's something republicans were happy to see but it's not very much.

judy, i think, overall, the differences are in the individual effects here. we see from c.b.o. a forecast that says under this republican bill you would see a wide disparity with the less healthy seeing much higher bills and also older people seeing much higher bills. >> woodruff: so we know the republicans were trying to do a number of things with this legislation to make it more palatable to people to win not only more approval in the house but the senate. they were trying to get premiums down. talk about some of the changes they made and what the c.b.o. was saying about that? >> the biggest change is they want to give states the ability to waive out of requirements called essential benefits, things that say any health insurance must cover the basics, they want to be able to stays to waive out of that. they also want states to be able to waive out of requirement on pre-existing conditions, allowing insurers to charge more than the six than they're paying now. c.b.o. looked at waiver changes and what it means in premiums.

a 21-year-old who's making $26,500, low income, this is who this is targeted at. now that 21-year-old's premium would be $1,700. in a bill in a state that waives out those requirements, that 21-year-old would pay $1,250. that's good for that healthy 21-year-old. let's look at a 64-year-old american paying 1700 now but, judy, look at that, under this g.o.p. bill with the waivers out of requirements, the c.b.o. thinks that 64-year-old would see their premiums skyrocket. essentially, what the c.b.o. has found and is going to vary market to market is the less healthy and older americans would see more costs. >> woodruff: so premiums are part of the story but we know something else the c.b.o. was looking at is frankly the overall quality of healthcare under this new legislation. >> this is such an important point. we talked about premiums. it's almost a buzz word. c.b.o. went deeper and said in some of the states with the waivers, premiums may go down

for some people but, overall, they think healthcare costs could substantially increase because what you're getting are health insurance packages that cover a lot less. if you're sick, you might have a low premium but you're going to pay a lot more out of pocket. also i asked on a call i just got off of with the c.b.o. about stabilization, are the markets going to be stable. they told me point blank they think there will be a stability problem in the waiver markets. they say some people may not be able to get premiums at all and take those markets back to the days of the affordable care act. essentially more of a gamble for americans, pay less but much hiring risk. >> woodruff: sounds like this will be even more complicated than what the republicans -- it's going to make what they sent over more complicated and make it challenging to get it passed. >> i don't see any republicans coming out with happy tweets or statements today. democrats are talking about the c.b.o. score, not republicans. >> woodruff: lisa desjardins following the story, thank you

very much. >> woodruff: and, sticking with politics, montana's at-large seat in the house of representatives is up for grabs, and democrats are eager to frame the fight as a referendum on president trump. to discuss why tomorrow's special election is garnering national attention, we are joined by anna rau of montana pbs. anna, thank you for joining us. montana is a very red state. why is this even close? >> well, that's the question, actually, going forward, and i think people are watching it from the outside very closely because it has tightened in the last month. you see maybe 12 to 15 points, and then internal polling within the campaigns are showing closer 8 to 10 points, maybe 6 to 8 points, so in some of the best polls for the democrats. >> woodruff: let's talk about

the candidates in this race. tell us quickly the differences between the two. >> they're both outsiders, political outsiders, but rob quist is a country blue grass player. he played with the mission mountain wood band in the '70s. he's popular throughout the state with his nukes but no political experience and greg forte is a millionaire from boseman who made his money creating a great business in montana employing over 500 people. so he created ieg-wage software job in boseman so has business acumen but very little political experience. he ran for governor in november and lost narrowly to governor bullock who was the incumbent. this was a situation where the whole ticket went red except for the governor's race. so some of the republicans crossed when they got to gene forte and voted for bullock. to quist and the republicans think they have a shot. >> woodruff: what do polls and

your interviews with voters tell you is most on voters' minds? >> early on in the campaign, sounds like the two candidates were saying public lands and regulations out of washington, because out west we have the extractive industries timber and mining, and so when it came to republican voters they were concerned about e.p.a. and government overreach. for democrat and republican voters, public lands were big access. also healthcare. healthcare picked up especially with what's going on in washington, d.c. and forte andquist have come out strongly in the healthcare bill. quist made it the cornerstone of his campaign because he had a healthcare issue in the '90s that says explains his problems financially. and forte says he wouldn't

support the current repeal and replace. >> woodruff: how much has president trump come up in this campaign? >> well, forte said make no mistake about this, this is a referendum on donald trump. he was very popular in montana soquist tries to make it more an trump than the character of the candidates and politics. so they try to argue it's not a referendum. but you see thousands of dollars coming from donors out of state toquist if some support for him. the last stand in montana to say we aren't happy with what the trump administration is doing. so you have to argue the trump administration has had an impact on the race and fundraising for quist. it will be interesting to see how much impact it has tomorrow night. >> woodruff: anna rau, montana pbs. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> woodruff: now, big changes at the e.p.a. in the trump administration. as a candidate, the president vowed to get rid of it, in "almost any form." the budget he unveiled yesterday would reduce its budget by a third-- more than any other federal agency. what is less known are recent moves by the agency to give industry more of a voice when it comes to shaping its approach to scientific recommendations. that's the focus of our "leading edge" segment tonight. jeffrey brown looks at what's afoot. >> brown: it all has to do the way the e.p.a. and the government evaluates science underlying many regulations. earlier this month the e.p.a. and the interior department announced they would review and overhaul who served on key scientific advisory boards. the e.p.a. move attracted particular notice since its administrator scott pruitt decided not to renew the contracts for half the members to have the so-called board of scientific counselors. our scientific correspondent miles o'brien is here to help

fill in the picture, so, miles, the board of scientific counselors. what is that? what do they do? >> jeff, a formerly obscure board at the e.p.a. made up of 18 scientists, most academics, a few of them from industry. their goal is to get really deep in the weeds with e.p.a. staff researchers and give them some sound advice on research priorities and equipment and techniques that allow them to do their work. they do not get involved in policy, however. >> brown: what exactly happened last week? >> well, nine of them whose term had come up, their first term came up, were told they were not automatically being renewed which had been the practice in the past. it was an unusual move. they were told they could reapply for their jobs but it is something that has taken that board aback for sure. i spoke with the childrenperson of the board of scientific

counselors, deborah swackhamer, professor emeritus at the university of minnesota. he was quite shocked. >> it is highly unusual for someone to not be appointed. this is not a political board in any way, shape or form, and we don't advocate for regulation or lack of regulation. we're not political. so to say we would behave differently because we were appointed under president obama is actually a little insulting. we are scientists. we won't be swayed by who's president or administrator. i've served under three presidents and four administrators of e.p.a. in my time on various boards, and it never has influenced how i think about the science that i'm reviewing. >> so the board stands by its autonomy and objective, yet this happens, jeff. >> brown: so what was the reason given by the trump administration? >> well, spokesperson for the e.p.a. says this -- we should have people who understand the impact of regulations on the

regulating committee. the administrator of e.p.a. scott pruitt last month was in pennsylvania talking to some coal miners, talking about the broader issue of industry input on ea regulations. listen to this. >> as we spend time at the industry across the country recognizing we have such opportunity with respect to energy independent that just by spending time some on the environmental left think we're somehow compromising outcomes with respect to our environment. >> brown: well, so, miles, a new administration, as you say, often get to appoint a lot of their own new people. what kind of responses were you hearing about this action? >> well, it's a definite shift and there is something at work here that's been going on quite some time. i spoke to a former assistance in the bush administration jeff holmstead, an attorney in private practice, it is his

contention and widely held in circles that stating a conflict of interest is enough to eliminate it. >> see, i don't understand why there's a conflict. as long as they are disclosed, the fact someone has done consulting work for industry shouldn't disqualify them from offering their scientific views on things. anyone who's engaged in that debate can take those views into account. >> brown: of course, on the other hand, many in the science committee fear a broader move towards greater influence for those being regulated. >> the concern is if you stack these boards with people who are industry researchers, who are weighing in on subject matters that affect the corporations that pay their salaries, that that is going to put the thumb on the scale or in some way block regulation that would be scientifically justified. it's a reasonable concern, and we're kind of in the middle of this debate between traditional

academics and industry researchers to try to sort this out. >> brown: so what's next? this is what's interesting, there are 21 separate boards of all manner that are advising the environmental protection agency. the grand-daddy of them all is the scientific advisory board. changing its constituency requires a vote of congress. so far the house, in march, passed legislation which would allow the e.p.a. to change the rules the to allow more industry input on that scientific advisory board. cup that with the so-called secret science legislation which makes it very difficult for researchers on these boards to use certain types of data related to human studies in weighing their decisions. and scientists are very concerned that there are other shoes that will going to drop here. let's listen to deborah swackhamer one more time. >> it almost feels like this is the first of a wave of potential

actions that are going to further marginalize science advice and, therefore, marginalize the science being done at e.p.a., marginalize the science being done in other government agencies, and then there is going to be this very slow motion, snowball effect. >> just to add to the optics here, the e.p.a. has taken down its web site on climate change. the spokesperson is telling us they're changing it to reflect the priorities of the new administration and the new administrator mr. pruitt. mr. pruitt, you recall, when he was the attorney general of oklahoma, he sued the e.p.a. more than a dozen times and more recently as the newly appointed e.p.a. administrator said, carbon dioxide is not even a greenhouse gas. >> brown: miles o'brien, thanks as always. >> you're welcome, jeff.

>> woodruff: now, how an unsolved murder in the nation's capital turned into a conspiracy theory, and then became a case study of one kind of fake news. it underscores, once again, the problem of polarized politics and alternative realities. john yang reports. >> to the extent of my ability, i am not going to stop trying to find the truth. >> reporter: the story of seth rich's death is a story of how "fake news" spreads, from websites and online forums like reddit, to prime-time cable tv. >> murder investigation. >> reporter: early one morning last july, 27-year-old rich was found fatally shot near his washington, d.c. home. politics had drawn the omaha native to the city, and he was working at the democratic national committee when he died. the case is still unsolved. d.c. police theorize it was a

botched robbery, the latest in a string of attacks in the neighborhood. as rich's family and friends mourned, he became the subject of a baseless conspiracy theory. the claim was that he was the source of the d.n.c. emails about hillary clinton's campaign that wikileaks released later that month. >> a private investigator says there is evidence to show rich was communicating with wikileaks. >> reporter: last week, fox's washington station broadcast an interview with fox news legal commentator rod wheeler. >> you have sources at the f.b.i. saying that there is information... >> for sure. >> ...that could link seth rich to wikileaks? >> absolutely. yeah. that's confirmed. >> reporter: two days later, wheeler backtracked, saying his statemets were a "miscommunication." but not before trump ally sean hannity devoted part his fox show to the story, giving wheeler a much bigger platform for his unsubstantiated claims. >> with the totality of

everything else that i found in this case, it's very consistent for a person with my experience to begin to think, "well, perhaps there were some email communication between seth and wikileaks." >> reporter: for some conservative commentators, retractions and fact-checks appeared to make little difference. supporters of president trump tried to use the story to discredit the investigation into russian meddling in the election and possible collusion with the trump campaign. newt gingrich on fox and friends this past sunday: >> we have this very strange story now, of this young man who worked for the democratic national committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4:00 in the morning, having given wikileaks something like 23,000-- i'm sorry, 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. nobody is investigating that.

>> reporter: there is no evidence. yesterday, the fox news website retracted a story it had published on rich's death, saying it "was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require, and has since been removed." on his radio show yesterday, hannity initially doubled down. >> i am not fox.com or foxnews.com. i retracted nothing. basic journalistic principles weren't met. the story was run without the source being properly vetted and without the d.c. police or the rich family being consulted. >> today rich's parents wrote in "the washington post" the amount of pain "the amount of pain and >> we have two grieving parents who would like to find out the truth about their murdered son and what they're getting instead

is avalanche of conspiracy theories and politically motivated spin. >> hannity said he'd had heartfelt talks with the rich family on his show last night. >> out of respect for the family's wishes, for now, i am not discussing this matter at this time. >> reporter: but then, he spoke to his fans: >> please do not interpret what i'm saying tonight to mean anything. don't read into this. i promise you, i am not doing-- going to stop doing my job. >> reporter: analysts say it underscores the fragmented media world we live in. >> the lesson here is that it is easy to find-- online and with this enormous wealth of information there is around us-- all kinds of stuff, all kinds of conspiracies, all kinds of hoaxes. if you are predisposed to think that something sketchy happened with the d.n.c. and the leaks, then you are more likely to believe stories that aren't necessarily true, as this one.

which has been roundly debunked. >> reporter: but still a story that shows no signs of going away, at least in some circles. for the pbs newshour, i'm john yang. >> woodruff: the idea: how technology, music and science can inspire one another, and to the creation of distinct new sounds. jeffrey brown takes us to an unusual gathering held just a few days ago in durham, north carolina. >> brown: start with a circuit board. add knobs and dials. solder everything together, and eventually, if you know what you're doing, you have an instrument that can do this. ♪ ♪ moogfest, named after inventor robert moog, is a celebration of the art, engineering and technology of "synthesizers," machines that create sounds electronically.

by night, it's a festival of different genres of music, centered on-- as they call them here-- "synths." ♪ ♪ by day: talks, workshops, a pop-up factory, and plenty of hands-on tinkering, twisting, and tapping. creative director emmy parker says the big idea behind the festival is in the name of the instrument: to "synthesize." >> we try to create a space where people have the opportunity-- even though they're surrounded by thousands of people here-- where they have the opportunity to get lost inside their own minds and the tools they're engaging with. in this case, synthesizers assist them to open new doors to new creative ideas. ♪ ♪ >> brown: all these gadgets may look like fun toys to unlock your inner geek, but they're part of a revolution in sound that's all around us, whether we know it or not.

just one example: a sound you've heard a million times. suzanne ciani used a synth to create the famous "pop and pour" sound of coke, while working in the ad industry in the '70s. >> they're electronic bubbles. and they're like the platonic idea of a coke bottle opening. there's some perfection there. >> brown: i never heard that. the "platonic idea of coke!" ♪ ♪ a classically trained pianist, she'd started down the road that would make her a rock star in here at moogfest: as a pioneering musician and composer of electronic music and sounds. this year she was given the festival's innovation award. >> my job was to just work intuitively with the knobs and the dials. so it was very friendly, it's not scary. it's just getting to know the machine as if it were a friend.

>> brown: so you have a conversation with the machine? >> yes, yeah, i'm having a conversation with the machine. i think there's something to be said about all music being some translation of our language and our way of communicating. it's a language. this is a new language. >> brown: chiani worked with don buchla, one of electronic music's greatest inventors, who over the years, a wide variety of musicians have seen the potential for new sounds and effects through synthesizers. moogfest featured a range of current performers: indie rock band "animal collective," dance music by "808 state," and the experimental soundscapes o"" moor mother." ♪ ♪ also appearing, the synth band" survive", which created the soundtrack for the hit netflix drama, "stranger things," futuristic sounds matching the eerie tales of the show.

band members michael stein and kyle dixon: >> one thing about the show that's great is that we don't have to describe what our music sounds like anymore. >> as the band, yeah. >> we only have to use a couple of words and-- >> brown: those words are? >> "stranger things" >> brown: "stranger things," and everybody kind of gets the sense of-- >> yeah, like, "okay, okay." i get it. >> brown: in the meantime, scientists and engineers keep coming up with new things for musicians to try. dave rossum designed some of the modules, or components, on this synthesizer. >> these modules, we call them "universal control voltage generators." that's a very big batch of words, but basically it just means that they're creating interesting electronic signals so that we can make interesting notes. >> brown: at moogfest, you could build your own synthesizer-- at least, a simple model. comedian hannibal buress, who performed at the festival, decided he couldn't miss this class.

>> i said, "man, i got to try to do that. that's the most extreme thing you could do." >> brown: for some of us, i think that's right. so how's it going? >> it was a little tough getting some of the components in initially, but we figured it out, and now we're mid-way through the soldering phase, which is something i've never done. i'm not a crafty dude, i don't work with my hands like that. i can't build a shelf. i haven't done anything like that, so i'm enjoying the experience. >> brown: a view of the future was also on display, including a demonstration of so-called "machine learning" to create new music. google's adam roberts and jesse engel showed us "a.i. jam session," an artificial intelligence program that responds to the notes you play with something of its own creation, based on input and analysis of tens of thousands of existing melodies. is it now composing this music?

>> yeah. >> brown: yeah? >> yes, and so-- >> brown: based on all the information you've fed it. >> there still was a human incredibly involved in creating that system, deciding what data to train it on. another experiment, called "n-synth," is developed through a huge database of sounds of instruments and more-- including animals-- that form a so-calle"" neural net." it allows merging two sounds to create a new one, even a trombone and a dog. >> we're just creating the ability to explore and express ourselves in new ways using technology, and that's about as we're not just creating tools. we're creating ways to make new tools as well. >> brown: technology at the service of music and art. for the pbs newshour, i'm jeffrey brown at moogfest in durham, north carolina.

>> woodruff: before we go tonight, we want to take a moment to remember a pioneer of public broadcasting, and a beloved member of the newshour family. al vecchione was the first executive producer of the "macneil-lehrer report." he died today at the age of 86. al began his broadcasting career at nbc, covering stories around the world. in addition to helping to launch our original program in 1975, al became the executive in charge of expanding from 30 minutes to creating the nation's first hour-long evening news broadcast. we are grateful for his decades of work and friendship. we will miss you, al. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again right here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> bnsf railway. >> supported by the rockefeller foundation. promoting the wellbeing of humanity around the world, by building resilience and inclusive economies. more at www.rockefellerfoundation.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. >> this program was made captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin with a terrorist attack in manchester monday night. we talk to former new york city police commissioner ray kelly and caroline hyde of bloomberg television in london. >> we had some foiled as a result of intelligence, some from n.s.a., some from informants. so you have to try to drill down, get intelligence as much as possible. it's become much more difficult. using, you know, apps that encrypt messages, that sort of thing, they've upped their game. the lone wolves upped their game in terms of what they can learn from the internet. so it'