Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  December 5, 2017 3:00pm-4:01pm PST

3:00 pm
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, president trump signals plans to recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel, igniting fears of violence across the middle east. then, the u.s. supreme court weighs freedom of speech against discrimination-- the case of a baker refusing to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. also ahead, the aftermath of sexual assault accusations reach multiple political leaders-- representative john conyers resigns, while the president faces a defamation case. and, should teachers be armed? parents and educators debate the best way to protect their schools nearly five years after the sandy hook attack.
3:01 pm
>> there's no other emergency where we rely 100% on outside help. if a kid falls in a pool and starts to drown, we don't simply dial 9-1-1 and wait for the paramedics to get there. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour >> 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.
3:02 pm
>> woodruff: the u.s. supreme court today heard one of the biggest cases of this term: whether religious beliefs override the rights of a gay couple. a colorado baker refused to bake the couple's wedding cake in 2012. today's arguments pitted his religious convictions opposing same-sex marriage against the couple's claim of discrimination. >> our case has always been about being singled out in public and humiliated, just for who we are and who we love. and we pursued this case not just for ourselves but because we don't want another loving couple to have to go through what we want, or, what happened to us. >> it's hard to believe the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and employees and violating my relationship with god. that is not freedom, that is not tolerance. >> woodruff: we'll get the full background on the case, and analysis of today's supreme
3:03 pm
court hearing, after the news summary. the department of homeland security has a new leader: kirstjen nielsen won senate confirmation today, 62 to 37. nielsen served under the last d.h.s. head, john kelly, then moved to the white house when he became president trump's chief of staff. new government figures out today show the effects of president trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. arrests in the u.s. interior rose 25% in the last fiscal year, with aggressive moves to deport those here illegally. arrests at the mexican border also dropped 25%, to a 45 year low. that could signal the new policies are discouraging crossing attempts. hot, dry santa ana winds blew wildfires across swaths of southern california today. the flames burned at least 150 buildings, including a psychiatric hospital and dozens of homes, and forced thousands
3:04 pm
of people to evacuate. the largest fire started monday in ventura county, and swept across more than 70 square miles. it was fanned by winds of more than 60 miles an hour-- so strong that they grounded aircraft trying to fight the flames. >> we have extremely high winds, very, very low relatively humidity; and our fuel conditions out there are absolutely about as bad as they could be for fire spreads, so, we're very concerned about the wind popping up again today and pushing the fire a little bit further towards the west. >> woodruff: the fires also sent smoke billowing over the region, causing breathing hazards. environmental groups and american indian tribes are going to court to block the reduction of two national monuments in utah. they began filing suits late monday, after president trump announced his execution actions. they downsize the bears ears monument area by 85%, and grand staircase-escalante by half. the court cases are likely to
3:05 pm
drag on for years. and, wall street tumbled again, as a tech rally lost momentum. the dow jones industrial average lost 109 points to close at 24,180. the nasdaq fell 13 points, and the s&p 500 slipped nearly 10. still to come on the newshour: president trump signals a possible move of the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. before the supreme court, can wedding cake makers refuse to serve gay couples? and, in a new york court, a woman accusing president trump of defamation, plus much more. >> woodruff: president trump may be on the verge of a major announcement regarding a crucial u.s. ally. trump called leaders around the
3:06 pm
middle east today, to tell them he's considering moving the u.s. embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem. jerusalem is claimed by both israelis and palestinians. the status of the city is seen as a key part of any final agreement between the two peoples. a spokesman for palestinian president mahmoud abbas in a statement today, said that abbas had warned of the "dangerous consequences such a decision would have to the peace process. and to the peace, security and stability of the region and the world." in a separate statement, king abdullah of jordan said he had joining me for more on this: david makovsky, he was a senior policy adviser to secretary of state john kasich's peace team for israeli-palestinian negotiations during 2013 and 2014 and is a long-serving fellow at the washington institute for near east policy.
3:07 pm
and, shibley telhami, the anwar sadat professor of peace and development at the university of maryland. and we welcome both of you back to the program. i'm going to start with you, shibley telhami, if this happens, as it looks like it, will how big a departure is this from previous presidents? >> it's huge historically, because not only has the u.s. not recognized jerusalem as the capital of israel, but really historically the international community has seen jerusalem as very different. in fact, even west jerusalem was not recognized by the u.s. in part because there was some international status historically. things have changed over the years. the most important issue is really the consequences. put aside the departure. in terms of why the administration is doing this, there's no one in the world who is arguing this would be helpful to american policy, not even the white house. the only argument that is being
3:08 pm
made is how bad is it going to be? is it going to be terrible? is it going to be tolerable? so why in the world are they doing it? >> woodruff: well, we'll get to that, but david makovsky, how is this going to be received in israel? >> they will clearly be thrilled in israel. there is no doubt. it looks like from what i hear from the white house that they're moving both on recognition and they have got an exploratory team for more land purchases in west jerusalem. look, israelis see this as an historic injustice. even if the palestinians get 100% of what they like it doesn't impact west jerusalem, and the u.s. has been doing business in west jerusalem since its capital was there in 1949. >> woodruff: but is this something israelis wanted? did they expect to get it? >> i don't know if they expected it. prime minister benjamin netanyahu has pressed hard for. this he feels he has a very close relationship with president trump.
3:09 pm
this has been high up on his priority list. >> woodruff: when you say, shibley telhami, that no one in the area wanted this to happen, how are they going to react? >> well, you know, first of all, let's remember that the administration is supposedly working on the deal of the century, which of course everybody understands is going to be more complicated than they even imagine. >> woodruff: between the israelis and palestinians? >> between the israelis and the palestinians. they want to put a peace deal on. most people are worried if the deal collapse, which they were expecting to happen, then the president would move the embassy to jerusalem. no one would expect he would do this before he even offers ideas, which will make it harder for him to sell anything at all. now what are the consequences? i think the white house thinks there is not much, because i think people believe that arab leaders pay only lip service to this issue. they think arab public opinion does not matter anymore. they think palestine is no longer a priority for the arab, and they will measure this by how many people go out on the streets. that would be a mistake. because history of jerusalem
3:10 pm
issue that... it mobilizes. even clinton underestimated it and it derailed the camp david accord. if you look at american priorities, the president says he's confronting iran's influence and he's confronting islamic militancy. this issue place into the hands america's enemies in the middle east. >> woodruff: how do you respond? >> i agree with a good part of what shibley said. i think it's crucial what the president actually says tomorrow. from what i'm hearing, he is going to say that whatever the u.s. does to not prejudge final status. if he says that west jerusalem, in other words, part of jerusalem, is, you know, israel's capital, that's just acknowledging a fact that's been true since 1949. and we'll be ending the fiction that we have not... that we have been part of. so i think that... i would agree with shibley actually, if he says, i have therefore said that all sovereignty of the entire city should go to israel, it
3:11 pm
will cause an explosion. in other words, the political messaging here is going to be crucial. people are asking, is president trump capable of walking a fine line as acknowledging a certain reality on one hand but saying he doesn't want to prejudge east jerusalem. if he can draw that, i think it's okay. but the messaging is going to be crucial, and that remains to be seen. >> woodruff: do you agree that it matters that much whether he makes that distinction between all of jerusalem or just east? >> it matters a little bit for sure, but not enough. people are not going to see the nuance in the arab and muslim world. rulers will try to interpret it that way, but it will hurt them a lot. the question again, you know, when you say, okay, it's not going to hurt a lot, it's going to hurt a little, so why do it? what is driving the president to do it? there is no pressure on him from the israelis. there is no pressure on him from the arab world. it doesn't advance america's ends in the middle east, why is he doing it? >> woodruff: why do you think he's doing it? >> this is a president who
3:12 pm
revels in the fact that he's going to be different from all his predecessors. everyone said i'm going to move the embassy to jerusalem and didn't do it. he's going to show he's different. i think... i agree that... i mean, there is an element of also his domestic base that's clearly been agitating in this direction. i think also frankly the unesco vote, the u.n. general assembly vote recently, which says that the holy sites are only muslim and they're not both muslim and jewish, i think these are all pieces to it. this is a president who revels in the fact they e-mail not going to do what my predecessors have done. >> well, on the pressure domestically, of course, here's the thing, we just did a poll. 63% of all americans don't want the u.s. embassy moved to jerusalem, including 44% of republicans and 4 0% of evangelicals. they're not pushing him. people think he's already very for israel. 66% of evangelicals think he's
3:13 pm
leaning toward israel and a majority of all americans think he's leaning toward israel, even though a majority of americans want the u.s. to be neutral on this issue: so it is hard to understand even from the point of view of his base who is pushing him in that direction. >> woodruff: bottom line, david makovsky, does this help matters in the region or hurt? >> i think if he does not draw the key distinction, i agree with shibley, it could be a death blow for his peace efforts. if he draws the distinction and hammers it home in arab media time and time again, what this is and what this is not, this is not about accepting israeli sovereignty everywhere, if he draws that distinction, i think that people will see it in a better light. if he doesn't draw the distinction, i think his peace plan could be dead on arrival. >> i don't see an up side. that's why i'm left to believe that maybe the administration has already given up on making peace and they think this will enable them to blame someone else. >> woodruff: well, we will find out more tomorrow. shibley telhami, david makovsky,
3:14 pm
thank you, as always. >> you're welcome. >> woodruff: as we reported earlier, the supreme court heard arguments today in a case that embodies the conflict between religious conscience and equality under the constitution. john yang begins with the backstory. >> yang: colorado baker jack phillips has been drawing since he was a kid. he says he was inspired to become a cake decorator the first time he saw one in action. >> i thought, "oh, this is really cool. you can do art and bake at the same time." >> yang: so instead of paper and pencil, you moved to-- >> now i have a different canvas and it's a cake. >> aw thank you; you already did. >> yang: when charlie craig and david mullins got married five years ago, they wanted one of phillips' cakes. >> we looked at the website and we were like, "oh, look-- these cakes look good.
3:15 pm
these cakes look like a cake we would want have." >> yang: though none of them knew it, that simple decision set in motion a legal battle over l.g.b.t.q. rights and freedom of speech. >> as soon as we sat down with the owner, he asked who the cake was for and we told him it was for us. >> so, i'm thinking how can i politely tell these guys that's an event i can't participate in? i said we can make them a birthday cake, cookies, brownies-- i'll sell you anything in the shop. it's just an event i can't create a cake for. >> what followed was just a horrible pregnant pause. >> they both got up. one of them flipped me off, swore at me, went out that door. the other one went out that door. >> the experience was mortifying. and to have charlie's mother there with us really made it all that much harder. >> she was just kind of in horror and, you know, when we left the bakery we cried together, you know, it was really emotional.
3:16 pm
it was really sad. >> yang: phillips says designing their wedding cake would have violated his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. his religious faith is so important, he says he put it in his business' name. >> the first part of 'masterpiece' is 'master.' in jesus' sermon on the mount, he says no man can serve two masters. i wanted to have that as a focus of my life as a christian that i would be serving him in everything i do. >> yang: mullins and craig say phillips discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation. they complained to the colorado civil rights commission. >> we felt like we were treated lesser. and it really took us a while to kind of let what happened to us sink in internally because it was such a shock. >> those emotions-- the embarrassment, the feelings of being degraded in public-- you know, those inspired us to pursue this. >> yang: a pursuit that has now reached the highest court in the land.
3:17 pm
here's the question the supreme court will have to decide: when jack phillips designs custom cakes like these, is he providing a service? or his he creating a work of art? >> these two gentlemen are suing me for that-- just for trying to use my art, use my craft, to make a living. i never turn anybody away. just events that i turn away. >> i don't feel like we asked him for a piece of art or we asked him to say anything. we asked him for a cake. >> he turned us away because of who we are and because of who we love. >> yang: the state civil rights commission said if phillips designed custom wedding cakes for opposite-sex couples, he had to do it for same-sex couples, too. so he stopped making wedding cakes altogether, cutting his business by 40%. >> it's in the constitution that we're guaranteed the right to freely exercise our religion and for them to say you can only exercise it this far is
3:18 pm
surprising. that's just like such an extreme overreach to me. all i'm trying to do is use my art, use my craft to create cakes to help people celebrate special occasions in their life. >> are you hungry? >> yang: craig and mullins are no less passionate about their position. >> when we go into a business. you know, it's in the back of our mind: are we able to be served equally here? can we talk about our relationship openly? can we hold hands in public? all of these insecurities are, you know, have manifested through this experience. >> yang: leading all three to an unexpected date in washington. did you ever think that you'd be going before the supreme court? >> before all this happened, i didn't know how the court worked. a fantastic thing to think about the importance of this issue and be part of it is pretty amazing. >> we never asked to be sitting
3:19 pm
here, honestly. but you know, we're grateful that we have the opportunity to have this platform to talk about >> you read about the supreme court when you were in school. it's not a place you go in and certainly not a place you'd go to watch your case be argued. >> yang: now nine justices will have their say in this tale of three men, a cake and their conflicting rights. whatever they decide, the ruling could have widespread implications for generations to come. all three of those men we just met in that report were inside the courtroom today, and so was marcia coyle, the chief washington correspondent for the "national law journal." marcia, thanks for being with us now. as we heard in the report, jack phillips, the baker, based his argument on the first amendment, not just the free exercise of religion, but also freedom of speech that he talks about his cake as artistic expression. >> that's right, john. in fact, his claim is that
3:20 pm
applying colorado's anti-discrimination law to him violates his free speech rights, one, because it compels him through his cakes to deliver a message that is approving of same-sex marriages, and it also violates his religion, free exercise of religion, his religion does not support same-sex marriages. >> yang: how did the justices take that argument? >> first of all, i think the justices took very seriously the arguments on both sides, and there was a concern expressed by several and perhaps best expressed by justice breyer who said, where do we draw the line here? how do we draw it so that we don't undermine all of our anti-discrimination laws? and the reason he raised that, we saw through a whole rash of hypotheticals posed by the justices, for example, if this baker because of religion can refuse to bake a cake for a gay
3:21 pm
couple, what about the florist who creates the floral arrange. s for the wedding? what about the make-up artist also feels that he or she is an artist, like jack phillips is an artist in his cakes, what about the tailor who makes the custom suit for the groom, and on and on. justice ginsburg at one point said, "i don't think you can draw the line." she said that to the trump administration's lawyer, who is supporting the baker, the solicitor general of the united states. he tried to say that this case can be decided narrowly. it affects a small group of people. but as the hypotheticals showed, there were a number of justices who didn't believe it could be decided narrowly. >> yang: narrowly talking just about bakers in this case. >> or artists, real artists. >> yang: although jack phillips would argue he is a
3:22 pm
real artist. >> that's right. exactly. >> yang: but justice kennedy is looked at as a key figure in this case. why? >> justice kennedy, for this place in particular, it hits two things very close to home for him. one he is probably the strongest defender of first amendment speech rights on the bench right now, and he's also a very strong defender of the dignity of the individual, which was at the center of the opinions that he has written supporting gay rights, particularly the most recent same-sex marriage decision. so at one point during the arguments, he felt that the baker's lawyer and the trump administration lawyer made a comment, he asked the trump administration's lawyer, could the baker hang a sign out on his window saying, "no wedding cakes for gay couples." and the trump administration's lawyer said, no custom made
3:23 pm
wedding cakes. and justice kennedy said that's an affront to the dignity of gays and lesbians. so that's very much on his mind. but also during the argument, he felt that the colorado commission on civil rights, which ruled against jack phillips here, did not show much tolerance or respect for the baker's religious beliefs, and that also is very important to him. so he's really at the center now of speech and dignity in this case with an overlay of religion, and i think as is so often the case, when the justices are closely divided, he may well be the key to the outcome. >> yang: maybe the swing vote, but he gave no clue today. >> he didn't and he often doesn't. the court did see ideologically divide, but they are struggling with where that line may be drawn. >> this may not be the only gay rights case before the court
3:24 pm
this term. >> it's very possible they will take another case that is pending, their decision to take it or not, and that case is out of georgia, and it asks a very important question. it asks whether title 7, which is our country's major job anti-discrimination law, whether it protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. a lot of course are watching that. there is a division right now in the lower court, so the court... the justices may well have to jump into that one. >> yang: marcia coyle of the "national law journal," thanks so much for joining us. >> my pleasure, john. >> woodruff: now, to the latest on allegations of sexual misconduct aimed at political figures. the day's headlines begin with congressman john conyers' decision to step down. he's calling it a retirement,
3:25 pm
not a resignation. 88-year-old john conyers announced it this morning, on a radio show from his hospital bed in detroit. >> i am retiring today, and i my legacy will continue through my legacy can't be compromised or diminished in any way by what we're going through now. this, too, shall pass. >> woodruff: first elected in 1964, the michigan democrat is the longest serving member currently in congress. now, he faces multiple allegations that he sexually harassed female aides over the years. one accuser, marion brown, said she was fired in 2014 for refusing conyers' advances. she received a financial settlement. >> it was sexual harassment, violating my body, propositioning me, inviting me to hotels with the guise of discussing business and
3:26 pm
propositioning for sex. >> woodruff: another woman, elisa grubbs, says she witnessed conyers touching brown's legs and buttocks. grubbs also say conyers "slid his hand" up her skirt in church. meanwhile, a former communications director for texas republican congressman blake farenthold says she faced a backlash after suing him for sexual harassment in 2014. >> i was told that if i pursued with this my career on capitol hill would be over. and that was all i knew. >> woodruff: lauren greene ultimately settled for $84,000, but she says she's been unable since then to land a full-time job. on the senate side, alabama republican roy moore is still running in a special election next week. he's denied accusations by various women of preying on them when they were teen-agers. today, it's widely reported that the republican national committee has resumed its
3:27 pm
financial backing for moore, three weeks after severing all ties. top senate republicans have also dialed back their calls for moore to quit the race. majority leader mitch mcconnell: >> there's no change of heart. i had hoped earlier he would withdraw as a candidate. that's not going to happen. if he were to be elected, he would immediately have an ethics committee case and the committee would take a look at the situation and give us advice. >> woodruff: for his part, president trump gave moore a full endorsement on monday. he repeated his support at a luncheon today with republican leaders. >> we don't need a liberal democrat in alabama, believe me. we want strong border we want stopping crime. we want the things that we represent. >> woodruff: allegations about the president's own behavior were back in a state court today in new york. summers zervos is one of at least 11 women who came forward during last year's election
3:28 pm
campaign to accuse mr. trump of sexual harassment. he said the women were lying, and zervos sued him for defamation. the president's lawyers say that under the constitution, he cannot be sued in state court while he's still in office. joining me to discuss the defamation suit filed against president trump is karen tumulty of the "washington post." karen, thank you for coming back on the program. as we just said, 11 some women made allegations against the president. he said in the campaign they were all lying, total fabrication, in fact, he said he was going to sue them once he was elected. he has not done that, but now this one woman is suing him. tell us, remind us who is she and what is the suit? >> she was briefly a contestant on his show "the apprentice," and she alleges that a decade ago on two separate occasions he basically forced himself on her,
3:29 pm
kissing her on one, thursting his pelvis into her on another. he has said that she was lying. so she is taking him to court not on the act of sexual assault, which is what this would be, but on defamation, on standing up in public and saying that she is a liar. >> woodruff: and what are his lawyers saying about that? >> his lawyers are saying a couple of things. one is that everybody looks at the precedent of bill clinton in the 1990s when paula jones sued him for sexual harassment. it was allowed to go forward. he was allowed to be sued while he was president of the united states. president trump's lawyers are arguing two things. they are arguing, first of all, that that suit was in federal court, that there are different standards in state court, and that ironically, paradoxically enough, they are pointing to bill clinton's experience and saying that that lawsuit, which
3:30 pm
was allowed to go forward, which took years, which the united states supreme court unanimously allowed to go forward, really took a lot of the president's time away from his job. it was a big distraction, which is what bill clinton argued it was going to be and lost. so... >> woodruff: so there are two different arguments they are making. how much does it matter? what are the consequences if this case goes forward, if they allow it to go forward? >> well, one thing is it is going to go on for a very long time, because whichever side win, you can assume they're going to keep appealing. ultimately the question would become would president trump be forced to be deposed in this. don't forget, when bill clinton got impeached, it was over lying in the deposition in the paula jones case, and then second of all, the question would be what else could they go after in discovery? could they bring in these other women who made these accusations?
3:31 pm
could they bring in unshould be footage from "the apprentice"? >> woodruff: you're reminding us that there was a suit against president clinton. there was a settlement ultimately. >> $850,000. but he never admitted guilt. he maid an $850,000 settlement. >> woodruff: we don't know what's going to happen in this case against president trump. you've been talking to some of the other women who have made allegations against the president. what are they saying and why aren't they also coming forward? >> i'm finding a couple different reactions. there are some women who want to just go back the their regular lives. they have businesses. they have families. president trump was suggesting these women were doing this for the publicity. this is not a pleasant experience for these women. the second reaction i'm getting from other women is a lot of anger and frustration, because they see these accusations being
3:32 pm
brought up in other settings, whether it's harvey weinstein or whether, you know, it's matt lauer, and it becomes fatal. these guys are gone almost immediately, and yet they say every day they look up and there is donald trump on their television. >> woodruff: which is a reminder that the political environment is a very different one from the private sector or at least not the public sector where people work in business or work for private employers. and i hear women asking today, can an accusation against a man who is in public office ever be satisfied? we've seen some of the... we've seen john conyers today finally announce that he is stepping down, but there are so many other accusations out there, senator franken and others that are still up in the air and unresolved. >> because of the tribal nature in our politics, and we are seeing down in alabama, it does appear that tribal loyalty
3:33 pm
trumps everything. it does appear that in reality the only real due process for these kinds of allegations in politics comes at the ballot box. and it was when nancy pelosi and the other house leaders decided that john conyers was going to be a liability for them politically after, you know, sort of false start where she was calling him an icon, then all of a sudden they turn and say, no, this guy has to be out of here. >> woodruff: is there a pattern to how voters have seen these cases over time? >> the pattern would suggest that if you... the pattern, the two cases we have seen in the past year would suggest if you stand up and deny it and then stoke your base, that that is actually in the current environment a successful formula. we saw it work for donald trump, and it appears to thus far have worked for roy moore in alabama. despite the wishes and urgings of practically the entire
3:34 pm
republican establishment, he is still in this race and he could very well win. >> woodruff: and he could very well win. and especially now with the reversal of the republican national committee and other republicans. karen tumulty reporting on this story for the "washington post." thank you very much. >> great to be here. >> woodruff: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: russia banned from the winter olympics. nearly five years after the sandy hook shooting, the debate over arming teachers. and we catch up with the man walking around the world after traveling through afghanistan. but first, the russian team will be banned from participating as a team in the upcoming winter olympics in pyeongchang, south korea because of previous systematic doping.
3:35 pm
some russian athletes still could compete with special dispensation in some cases. but the punishment from the international olympic committee, or i.o.c., is unprecedented, william brangham gets a fuller look at this surprising decision. >> brangham: today's decision means you won't see scenes like these. there will be no display of the russian flag at the games in february. the russian anthem will not be played. and government officials cannot attend. some russian athletes, who often medal in the winter games, can play if they can prove they are clean of drugs and wear a neutral outfit. russian president vladimir putin had already warned a tough punishment could provoke a boycott. and the country's sports officials have denied they doped at the sochi olympics. but the i.o.c. has found the russian sports ministry had an extensive doping program in effect at the last winter games. i.o.c. president thomas bach cited those findings today.
3:36 pm
>> the report clearly lays out an unprecedented attack on the integrity of the olympic games and sports. the report includes in particular the manipulation of the anti-doping laboratory at the olympic winter games in sochi 2014. this decision should draw a line under this damaging episode and serve as a catalyst for a more effective and more robust anti- doping system led by wada. >> brangham: so what does this mean for the winter games? christine brennan covers the olympics extensively for "usa today." she joins me now. so christine, this is a pretty surprising, stunning development. what's your reaction? >> absolutely, william. i was surprised. i did not see this coming. i thought this is what the international olympic committee executive board would do, but did i think it was going to
3:37 pm
happen? no. the icbm is -- the ioc is the oldest of the old boys netswork. he is their buddy. he just spent $51 billion, starting with a b, to put the olympics in sochi four years ago. i think vladimir putin thought he had a lifetime pass to get away with whatever he wanted with the international olympic committee based on that incredible gift he gave of the olympics in sochi and building them from scratch to the tune of $51 billion but no. the ioc basically said enough is enough. this is not lance armstrong or marion jones or some of the other scoundrels who are notoriously cheating and getting caught. this is the state-sponsored doping machine of russia, government involved, multilayered, over 1,000 athletes cheating at the very least, and now 25 athletes just from sochi alone kicked out,
3:38 pm
banned, accounted for 11 medals that should have gone to other athletes to other countries from -- who were not cheating but were robbed of that moment by this diabolical russian plan. it's a great day for clean sport, and it's a great day for those who are sick and tired of cheating going on in the olympic games. >> as i mentioned before, depending on whether the russian choose to boycott or not, russian athletes, if they can prove they're clean, can compete. can you explain how that might happen? they have to wear these strange uniforms? how will that go forward? >> by the way, nike is already in on that. they're going to be make these white or whatever they are, neutral uniforms. so as you said, of course, no russian flag, no russian anthem. it will be the olympic hymn and the five-ring olympic flag. but how this goes from here is fascinating. there are two months until the games starting in february. and so athletes who... russian
3:39 pm
athletes who want to maintain their innocence and say they're clean, and certainly there are those who are, are going to go in front of a panel that is supposed to be independent, that will involve the world anti-dopings agency, several other entity, experts who are not affiliated with any country, at least hopefully, and they will plead their case. what they will do is show they have taken x number of drug tests around the world some say a figure skater competes at skate america or skate canada. he or she will then have a drug test very likely from canada or from the united states. that's one or two. if you have been in japan and competing, if you're a biathlete and you've competed around the world, you have been tested around the world. the idea is to prove you were tested by legitimate drug testing around the world in western nations or in asia who have been going by the book and have not been cheating as the russians have. if you can prove that, they'll probably do an interview as well with the athlete, then, in fact, that athlete will be able to
3:40 pm
compete at the olympics in south korea. >> brangham: last quick question for you, christine do. you think this stance today will do anything to stop doping more widely? >> i hope it does. this is a major statement. this is unprecedented. this is the finest hour in the long, tangled history of the olympic games and performance-enhancing drugs. so if any country is out there, hey, we'll try the pull this off and have it be state-sponsored doping, they got a huge message today that you're going to pay a very big price for that. >> brangham: all right, christine brennan of "usa today." thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: next week marks five years since the nation's worst school shooting took place at sandy hook elementary, killing 20 children and six staff members. the massacre did not, as some had hoped, become a
3:41 pm
transformative moment and lead to policies restricting gun access. but the killings did lead most school districts across the country to ramp up security measures, including lockdown drills, hiring police officers and installing cameras and metal detectors. now, advocates in a growing number of states are pushing those efforts a step further by lobbying for state laws that would allow educators to carry concealed weapons in classrooms. correspondent kavitha cardoza with our partner "education week," traveled to west union, ohio, for our weekly segment, "making the grade." >> reporter: it's a peaceful morning on this lush 200-acre private property in rural ohio. that is, until class starts. >> i want it dead center every time. >> reporter: the 20 students at this firing range, all work for school districts. they're teachers, principals, bus drivers. >> we actually had a lunch lady in here, and no, she did not wear her hairnet while she was
3:42 pm
doing the training! >> reporter: joe eaton, is the program director of this three- day training, faster saves lives. >> if i do a tap rack, it feels different. there's no other emergency where we rely 100% on outside help. if a kid falls in a pool and starts to drown, we don't simply dial 9-1-1 and wait for the paramedics to get there. we jump in the pool. we pull the kid out and we pray somebody knows c.p.r., and we start saving lives while we're waiting for the professionals to get there. it's the same thing with heart attacks or fires. >> reporter: eaton says school violence should be no different. he's all for trying to prevent shootings-- locking entrances, setting up tip lines and identifying troubled students. but he says it's just as important that educators are prepared if there is a shooting. just waiting for outside help? eaton says that just means more deaths and injuries. >> my number one concern in my district as a superintendent is for student safety. >> reporter: that's lori synder- lowe, the superintendent of
3:43 pm
morgan local school district. her rural schools are spread out over more than 400 square miles, which makes them, what she calls, a soft target. >> the response time for emergency services is rather long. and it can take half hour to get to the school, depending on where the sheriff's department is in the rest of the county. >> reporter: school shootings, especially those like columbine or sandy hook, are very rare. more than 55 million children go to school every day. since 2013, a firearm has been discharged 144 times at a school. but, erin knox, a second grade teacher at a suburban school district, fairfield city schools, is still concerned. she learned to shoot when she was nine years old and has long had a concealed carry permit. >> i carry everywhere i go in my personal life. >> reporter: so, grocery, church? >> yes, everywhere.
3:44 pm
>> reporter: in her school. knox's district, like most across the country, doesn't allow her to carry a gun, when teaching. she's hoping that will change. >> it's for selfish reasons in that my own children go to my school. so, i want to know what to do if there would be an active killer and how to keep my kids safe and everyone else's kids safe. >> if someone hands you a gun that's closed, you always want to make sure it's unloaded first. >> reporter: under ohio law, local school boards can vote on whether to allow staff to carry guns. board members can also decide whether or not to inform parents, and school staff, about their decision. across the country, 15 states already allow concealed carry of some kind, in schools. and just this year, two dozen states are considering or have recently considered, these controversial policies. most were defeated. the non-profit moms demand action was formed after the
3:45 pm
sandy hook shootings. since then, they've joined forces with everytown for gun safety. >> i think the biggest misconception is the mindset that a teacher could instantly move from the mindset of teaching a classroom full of students to springing into action like a sharpshooter, in a very chaotic and crisis situation. >> reporter: jennifer hoppe is the deputy director of moms demand action. she says the focus should be on prevention. >> an educator is there to nurture and care for and educate students. and to put the burden of being a crisis responder on them, it just isn't fair. especially when research has shown even highly trained police officers, in crisis situations, frequently don't hit their targets. >> reporter: but the notion of arming teachers is becoming very popular. why do you think that is? >> i think that's because the
3:46 pm
gun lobby, they have prioritized normalizing guns into every situation. into making us accept guns everywhere, for everyone, with no questions asked. >> reporter: according to a 2017 pew study, 55% of adults are against allowing teachers and officials to carry guns in k to 12 schools. in fact, all the major teacher, principal, school employee and security organizations oppose guns in schools. except when carried by a police or security officer. they say it would distract from teaching, lead to possibly fatal accidents as well as increase liability insurance costs. john moffatt is a retired principal in montana. even though it's been more than 30 years, he vividly remembers walking down a school hallway one day and seeing a student he knew carrying a gun. >> as he passed me, he fired a shot. it hit me in the side and passed right through my body and
3:47 pm
knocked me to the floor. he fired a second time. >> reporter: moffatt has been shooting since he was 12. but all his experience did not prepare him for terrified students, crying and screaming, as they rushed out the building. >> absolute chaos. just absolute pandemonium. imagine what would happen if you introduce into that scene somebody on staff carrying a weapon and running, adrenaline charged into that scene. it's almost impossible for me to imagine that it wouldn't have been worse. >> carry a concealed hand gun in school. >> reporter: earlier this year, montana lawmakers debated a measure that would have allowed staff to carry guns in schools. >> guns in the hands of law- abiding citizens, stop criminals from killing people. it's that simple. >> reporter: moffatt, who volunteers for the organization moms demand action, testified against the proposal. it didn't pass.
3:48 pm
moffatt says not allowing guns in schools is not about taking away anyone's gun rights. >> i think we can have a balance in montana which has a strong and rich hunting tradition and gun ownership by responsible people. i'm not trying to change that at all. it's just-- this is not responsible. it's not common sense. >> good use of space. >> reporter: lori synder-lowe, the superintendent, is practicing an active shooter scenario. she wishes she didn't have to worry about gun violence in schools, but wants to be prepared. >> i would agree that guns have no place in schools. in a perfect world, yes. but the reality is that in today's society, guns have been brought into school many, many times and caused very much death and injury to many children and staff members. >> reporter: for the pbs newshour and "education week," i'm kavitha cardoza in west union, ohio.
3:49 pm
>> woodruff: and online, a poet with a personal connection to the 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in newtown, connecticut, shares a new anthology of poems and essays about gun violence. that's at pbs.org/newshour. >> woodruff: finally tonight: we often get lost in frantic daily routines-- rush hour, work, school, smartphones buzzing the whole day; too much to do with too little time. but now and again, we check in on a reporter who's life's work now is found in walking, and taking meaning and telling stories from his years of footsteps. hari sreenivasan has this update. >> you know, the walk turned into my life. ni. october 2015, i went for a walk in the southern caucuses
3:50 pm
mountains with the journalist paul salopek. for me it was a few days. for him, he had been walking for nearly three years as part of his out of eden walk, a global journey by foot. we spoke with him in kazakhstan last year, and when he was in kyrgyzstan earlier this year. paul joins me again now. paul, tell me where you're at. >> i can hear a river rushing in the background. >> right now i'm next to the bank of the kennard river in northern pakistan after having just walked well over 1,000 miles through the mountains of central asia starting in kyrgyzstan, tajikistan, a big chunk of afghanistan and now, of course, here in pakistan. >> sreenivasan: you were in afghanistan years ago during the war, how has it changed? >> you know i've walked through a part of afghanistan that i've only known marginally before when i was in the war. in the war i was in a hostile environment, filled with guns, filled with explosions, filled with movements of armed men as a war correspondent.
3:51 pm
the last segment that i walked through was a completely different afghanistan. it's a wild, pristine, almost unknown afghanistan to the outside world where people are carrying not guns but shovels, where men are digging holes not to plant i.e.d.'s but to create traps for snow leopards, and women aren't wrapping their faces in purda except to bake bread in smokey ovens. it's a completely different afghanistan than the one i used to know. >> sreenivasan: you're one of the few people to cross afghanistan on foot, right? >> yes, at least this segment, that i know of. according to my research the last time any outsiders walked through what is called the wakhan corridor, this really wild, alpine strip of land between tajikistan, china and pakistan, was probably 10 years ago. and before that, maybe generations. it's simply a roadless area, it's an area that's inhabited by shepherds.
3:52 pm
it looks like alpine parts of british columbia or switzerland, and it's safe to walk through. >> sreenivasan: sounds like extreme conditions. >> yes, to get through this region required quite a bit of logistical preparation. we had to go over 14,000, 15,000, 16,000 foot passes. and the last pass, called irshad pass, in the wild mountains of the karakuram between afghanistan and pakistan was particularly extreme. it was so cold that even inside of my tent my clothes froze on my body. >> sreenivasan: given where you are now you said your phone was confiscated, are you concerned for your safety? >> yeah, it was an interesting experience coming down out of this extremely wild and high mountain wilderness of karakuram into pakistan. i wasn't aware that i needed a permit for my satellite phone so my satellite phone was
3:53 pm
confiscated. but i feel very safe here, the pakistani authorities have done a great job of collaborating with my project and ensuring that there's overwatch, that they're keeping an eye out for me. so, other than nature, which you always have to keep your eye on, i feel quite safe. >> sreenivasan: you're working on a story about the silk road for "national geographic." tell us a bit about that. >> yeah, coming out in the december issue is a piece that describes the last 2,500 miles of the walk almost. it's a vast area stretching from the caspian through kazakhstan, uzbekistan, and kyrgyzstan. that piece tells how lessons from the silk road, which is kind of one of the early experiments in globalization still echo today, especially in an environment where there's a backlash against globalization. it's a story about what happens when you open up the walls of society to free trade and free ideas, versus turning inwards at which point society's stop growing.
3:54 pm
>> sreenivasan: the silk road is what you've been walking for quite some time now. >> yeah, it's been a while, it's been i think since may of 2015 since i set foot in kazakhstan so it's a big stretch of the earth, it's a big stretch of my global project. it's crossing open steps, following the fabled abu dariya or ooxus river through central asia with all these silk road empires along the way, these beautiful old medieval cities, and now this amazing montane wilderness. this last segment through afghanistan in particular has been extraordinary. everything from the quality of the light, light like champagne to vistas of mountain peaks stretching as far as the eye can see, to the edge of the world, to the very edge of visibility, and most of it untraveled or stepped on. >> sreenivasan: where to next? >> well from here i hope to continue down through northern
3:55 pm
pakistan, through the foothill country, through the capital, islamabad, and then to the old cultural capital lahore into northern india, and then across northern india into bangladesh, and then onward into china. >> sreenivasan: journalist paul salopek joining us from the hills of pakistan. thank you very much. >> it's always great to reconnect with you, hari. maybe i'll see you on the pilgrim trails of india. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:
3:56 pm
>> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> 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. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
4:00 pm
wes: we're the history detectives, and we're going to investigate some untold stories from america's past. tukufu: in this episode, we investigate a mystery surrounding the death in a hail of bullets of bonnie and clyde. a woman in wisconsin thinks she might have some of those bullets. so can we tell from these images make and model of the gun that they were fired from? gwen: we investigate this ordinary suburban house to find out if it's part of an important but largely forgotten phenomenon that revolutionized the way americans built their homes. elyse: we discover whether or not this wisconsin movie theater