captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: a political earthquake. doug jones becomes the first democrat to win a senate seat in alabama in 25 years. we break down the aftershocks from the upset. then, the deputy attorney general stands by robert mueller's investigation into russian meddling, as political bias is brought into question. and, as california battles one of the largest fires in the state's history, a look at the scientific link between climate change and the growing fire threat. >> the area of the burns in any given year is up by over 300%.

if we looked at forest in particular, the amount of area that burns in any given year is up by over 1,000%. >> 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: house and senate republicans have reached an agreement in principle on a sweeping tax overhaul package.

it reportedly will narrowly cut the top tax rate for individuals to 37%, but slash the corporate tax rate to 21%. at the white house, president trump hailed the plan as "massive tax cuts for everyday working american families." he said he hoped the legislation will reach his desk next week, so he can make good on one of his major campaign promises. >> now, we're just days away-- i hope, i hope. you know what that means, right? --from keeping that promise and delivering a truly amazing victory for american families. we want to give you, the american people, a giant tax cut for christmas. and when i say giant, i mean giant. >> woodruff: meanwhile, democrats argue that the bill would hurt middle-class families, while giving permanent tax breaks to the wealthy. senate minority leader chuck schumer, referencing last night's senate election in alabama, warned republicans that passing the current tax bill

would unleash political backlash in the mid-term elections. >> our hope is that mitch mcconnell will hear what the voters in the suburbs of alabama said. "help us." it's our hope that mitch mcconnell will realize, proceeding with this tax bill will be a dramatic, dramatic death nail for the republican party in 2018. answer >> woodruff: we will try to answer some of the most common questions about the emerging tax reform bill, later in the program. last night, there was a political earthquake in the american south. doug jones became the first democrat to win a u.s. senate seat from the state of alabama in 25 years, defeating republican roy moore. as john yang reports, the g.o.p. loss followed a tumultuous campaign. >> i have said throughout this campaign that i thought that december 12 was going to be a historic day.

( cheers and applause ) >> yang: celebrating his upset win last night, doug jones called for unity. >> i have always believed that the people of alabama have more in common, than to divide us. we have work to do. to reach across with those that didn't vote for us to try to find that common ground. i'm pledging to do that tonight. >> yang: with a surprisingly strong turnout for a special election, voters in one of the most republican states repudiated the party's nominee, roy moore. in the closing days, he was dogged by decades-old accusations of sexual misconduct with teenagers. >> thank you. >> yang: last night, moore refused to concede. >> realizing when the vote is

this close, that it's not over, and we still got to go by the rules about this recount provision. >> yang: but the alabama republican party declared that the race was "over." this morning, former arkansas governor mike huckabee agreed, tweeting, "god wasn't registered to vote in alabama, but the people who voted did speak, and it wasn't close enough for recount." >> the african american community, thank you. >> yang: jones' improbable victory was fueled by a diverse coalition, including strong support from african american voters. >> i feel like tonight means that american can be inspired now. i feel like, for so long, that last 13 months, righteousness seemed like it was losing. it won tonight. >> yang: exit polls showed that 96% of african american voters supported jones, despite they made up 29% of the electorate, about the same number that turned out for president obama's 2012 reelection. basketball legend charles barkley, an alabama native, said it was a wake-up call for

democrats. >> it's time for them to get off their ass and start making life better for black votes and people who are poor. >> yang: another crucial factor? write-in votes, after alabama republican senator richard shelby said he didn't vote for moore. >> well, i'd rather see the republican win, but i'd rather see a republican write-in. i couldn't vote for roy moore. >> yang: there were about 23,000 write-in ballots, roughly jones' margin of victory. >> we want jobs, jobs, jobs. so get out and vote for roy moore. do it, do it. >> yang: the outcome was a blow for mr. trump, who embraced the embattled candidate in the final weeks of the campaign. >> as the leader of the party, i would have liked to have the seat. >> yang: jones is not likely to join the senate until january. for the pbs newshour, i'm john yang. >> woodruff: for more on last

night's historic results, i am joined by u.s. representative terri sewell, who represents selma and parts of birmingham and montgomery, alabama. she was, until now, the only democrat in the state's congressional delegation. congresswoman sewell, thank you very much for talking to us. as we said, you are going to have some democratic company for a change. how much of a shift was this in alabama politics? >> it was a huge shift. you know, last night, alabama spoke up and spoke out. and they showed up and showed out. my district over-performed, which was awesome. i was just very happy that we show the rest of the world what i already knew, and that's that the heart of alabama is about decency and integrity and that character does matter, and it matters so much that people were willing to actually, you know, do that, to vote out of their party, which is awesome. >> woodruff: i heard doug jones today at his news conference give you credit for being instrumental in turning

out votes in the african american community. who does he owe this victory to? and how much of it should go to the african american vote in your state? >> well, i think a large part of it should go to the traditional democratic base, which includes african americans. you know, african american women turned out the strongest for douk, and so when i think about who we owe this victory to, it's a whole coalition of folks. it's the african american community, the latino community, labor. it's also, you know, white women in suburbia who have children. so white mothers was a big draw as well. i think what i'm most excited about is the fact that women really showed up for doug jones. of all the female voters he received 57% of all female voters in this election. so we owe a debt of gratitude to a lot of folks. but i think this is a great recipe for other democrats who are running in ruby red states

like alabama. what we need are coalition politics and a candidate does matter. who the candidate is matters. his message or her message matters. as well as working together and building coalitions. >> woodruff: what would you say african american voters who voted for doug jones, women and others who voted for him, what do they look for him to do in washington? >> well, i think they came out in droves because the stakes were so high, and because doug spoke to issues, the same issues -- whether he was in an african american church or a synagogue or a chamber-- he talked about kitchen table issues. so people expect him to fight for health care, to fight for equal funding for public education so that every child has an opportunity to reach their god-given potential. we really want the senior-- the senate leadership to hold back of back this vote on tax so the information of alabama have a true voice in the senate to vote against a tax reform bill that doesn't help the middle class. so i think that our expectations

is that doug will do what he said and fight for the issues, those bread-and-butter,kitchen table issues that are so important to all alabamans. >> woodruff: we noticed last night in his victory speech he also-- he notably called for reaching across the aisle, working with the other party. how much do you expect him to vote reliably democratic, and how much do you expect he's going to look for common ground with republicans? >> i think that, you know, i'm the lone democrat, was the lone democrat-- i love saying that, was lone democrat in alabama. and work across aisles is what we have to do to get things done in alabama. the reality sihave had to work with my republican senators, my republican delegation in order to get, you know, economic opportunities for my district. we wouldn't have gotten the $150 million copper facility in the poorest district in the state and the poorest county in the state-- wilcox-- without republican help. so i expect doug will reach

across the aisle, as he said. i think that he will not compromise his core values or core issues that people voted for him on. so i expect that he will be a senator for all of alabama. >> woodruff: u.s. representative jeff sessions, celebrating today after add joe' win, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: we will have more on the alabama election results, later in the program. in the day's other news, minnesota will soon have its own new u.s. senator. the state's democratic lieutenant governor, tina smith, has been tapped to fill senator al franken's seat, after he resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct. smith says she plans to run for a permanent senate seat in next november's special election. in the meantime, she pledged to carry on franken's fight for social and economic equality. >> though i never anticipated this moment, i am resolved to do everything that i can to move minnesota forward. and i will be a fierce advocate in the u.s. senate for economic

opportunity and fairness. i can tell you, i shouldn't be underestimated. and if i weren't confident, i wouldn't be doing this. >> woodruff: smith said she expects to be seated in early january, but no specific date has been set. president trump is facing new criticism, after tweeting that democratic senator kirsten gillibrand of new york "would do anything" in exchange for political contributions. "usa today" published a scathing editorial today saying, in part, "a president who would all but call senator kirsten gillibrand a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the barack obama presidential library or to shine the shoes of george w. bush." gillibrand demanded mr. trump resign over more than a dozen allegations of sexual misconduct against him. the massive thomas fire raging in southern california is now 25% contained. nearly 8,000 firefighters are

hard at work amid high winds and arid conditions. the fire has destroyed over 900 structures, including 700 homes, since it first broke out last week. we will examine the impact climate change has on wildfires, later in the program. palestinian president mahmoud abbas insisted today the u.s. is no longer fit to mediate the middle east peace process, a week after president trump declared jerusalem the capital of israel. abbas called mr. trump's decision a "crime" at a summit of leaders from islamic nations being held in turkey. >> ( translated ): the united states chose to lose its role and eligibility as an intermediary and not to have a role in the political process. we will not accept any american role in the political process from now on. the u.s. is biased to israel. that is our position. >> woodruff: turkish president recep tayyip erdogan also rebuked mr. trump's decision at today's summit, calling it a provocative "red line" for muslims.

and iranian president hassan rouhani maintained the only reason president trump recognized jerusalem as the capital was to head off moves by others in the region who were looking to establish ties with israel. back in this country, the federal reserve raised its benchmark interest rate a quarter of a point, as expected. it is the fed's third rate hike this year. janet yellen made the highly- anticipated announcement at her final news conference as head of the central bank. she acknowledged that tax reform factored into today's decision. >> overall, we continue to expect that the economy will expand at a moderate pace. while changes in tax policy will likely provide some lift to economic activity in coming years, the magnitude and timing of the macro-economic effects of any tax package remains uncertain. >> woodruff: fed policymakers also said that they plan to make three additional incremental rate hikes next year. stocks were mostly higher on

wall street, on word of today's rate increase and progress on tax reform. the dow jones industrial average gained 80 points to close at another record high, 24,585. the nasdaq rose 13 points, while the s&p 500 slipped a point. still to come on the newshour: how the democrats' win in alabama shifts the balance of power in the senate. the f.b.i. under fire for alleged bias against president trump. we answer your questions on the republican tax overhaul. and, much more. >> woodruff: turning back now to the alabama special senate election, and to tackle what the results tell us, i am joined by chris buskirk, editor of the conservative website american greatness. michael steel.

he was the former press secretary for house speak john boehner. and, stu rothenberg, senior editor at the political newsletter "inside elections." and we welcome all three of you back to the program. stu, i'm going to start with you. you've been looking at the exit polls. what do they tell us about why doug jones was able to pull this off? >> well, it's a terrific profile of the state as we understand how various groups performed. and, judy, as we then look back and compare how those groups performed in alabama with how they may have been performed in virginia. we want to get a profile of the electorate, and are people changing, are certain groups changing? and it's very clear why one side won and the other side lost. >> woodruff: we looked-- we've been talking about the african american vote, how it turned out in numbers like what president obama had in 2012 in a regular presidential election year. but we also have looked-- and i'm going to put this graphic up-- the difference in how people voted depending on whether they were younger or older. what did we see? >> well, we saw a dramatic difference. younger voters, voters 18-44,

went for jones by 23 points. voters 45 and older went for roy moore. this is part of the democratic base pup talked about the african american voters. that's also part of the democratic base. and what we saw was a lot of enthusiasms on the part of african americans and younger voters and a different view of society, of government, and of culture, i think, with younger voters. and they voted democratic in virginia, and they now voted very democratic in alabama, a very republican state. >> woodruff: and striking, also, the women's vote. this came up in my conversation moments ago with my conversation with in terri sewell of alabama. no surprise but among independent women, significant. >> yeah, and college-educated white women. a big difference. yeah, they still went for roy moore narrowly. but very different from white men, and very different from white working class women without a college degree. so you see a complex situation,

where it's not simply women voting one way or the other. it's different kinds of women with different backgrounds, different life situations, and the democrats seem to be making in roads there. >> woodruff: and quickly, stu, the suburban vote, almost split. >> this is a big deal. it's a big deal in alabama. it was a big deal in virginia. and it will be a big deal next year. what we have seen-- and this goes to white women and white upscale women-- we saw significant changes in bill alabama counties, cities with suburbs. madison county, huntsville, shelby county went 72% for donald trump and this time 56% for roy moore. that's a big difference. i could give you three or four other counties, but they're there, trust me. >> woodruff: well, let's turn to chris buskirk, joining us. chris, how do you read these results? and how much of a blow is this to president trump? >> well, it's-- there's no doubt that it's a blow. i read the results, though-- i've seen some of the numbers that stu is looking at, and they

are what they are. i mean, i look at-- i read them slightly differently. you know, seven years ago i guess it was now, scott brown won in massachusetts, and there was a lot of sort of self-congratulations among republicans at the time that turned out to be premature. i think it's premature to read too much into these results in alabama as well. yell? well because this was really a referendum on roy moore. it wasn't a referendum on donald trump or on trump's agenda or on. this was all about roy moore, about the man and his character. and that's why you saw republicans just didn't turn out in the numbers they needed to in order to win. it's also why you saw democrats turn out in greater numbers than you would have expected in a special election. and, you know, this just goes to prove, once again, candidates really do matter. we've got to get good ones if we want to win. >> woodruff: michael steele, unique circumstances or something bigger than that? >> both upon. i think more-- look, alabama had their own set of issues. roy moore is a uniquely repugnant for many reasons.

democratic strength in suburban areas, democratic strength among young people. these are terrifying trends if you care about the future of the republican party. >> woodruff: chris buskirk, how do you respond to that, i mean, that it's not just alabama, but you're seeing it in virginia and we may be seeing it in other parts of the country. >> well, sure, let's think about alabama. i mean, does anybody seriously doubt that if jeff sessions or mobrooks or richard shelby office the ballot yesterday that they would have lost? , of course, not. so i just eye don't think we need to do a straight-line extrapolation and expect to get the correct result here. this was-- this tells us a lot about alabama. it tells us a lot about roy moore in particularly-- in particular, and i do think it's a note of caution for republicans, no doubt. republicans need to make sure that they vet their candidates and that-- and above all, that they realize that they need to work together if they want to win elections. and that means stop with the-- stop letting the ideological civil war that is happening on

the right, right now, stop letting it break out into public, particularly during a general election. that's just self-destructive. >> woodruff: michael steele, is that possible? >> well, i don't think it's a civil war in this case. it was a failure of the president to take responsibility and ensure that the people of alabama had a better choice. conservative voters in alabama, the vast majority of alabama voters, deserved a better choice than roy moore versus a democrat. and had it not been for the president's support, i think it would have been possible to have another special election called or a credible write-in candidate replace moore. this was entirely the result of the president's decision. it was a bad one. >> woodruff: excuse me. i didn't mean to interrupt you. you said a bad decision. >> bad decision. >> woodruff: stu rothenberg, let's turn just quickly to what this means for legislation that's going to come out in the coming year. how should, how could this change the republican approach to the legislation they want to get done? they're working on tax reform. there are other projects down the line. >> well, it's just one vote that

flipped, but one vote is pretty big when the republicans are struggling to come up with legislation, whether it was health care or now tax reform. so it certainly could affect that. look, if the-- if it changes the president's style of governing, if it changes the way he approaches politics that would be significant. i don't expect that. we know who and what donald trump is. so i think the republicans are stuck with a narrower majority in the senate, a democratic party that is euphoric, enthusiastic, and optimistic. and to me that's not a good prescription for the republicans for the next year. >> woodruff: chris buskirk, how do you expect president trump is going to deal with this new landscape? >> yeah, well, he's got a challenge. there's no doubt about that. as stu said, he has one less vote. i think what's going to happen now-- at least i hope would happen, what i would counsel to have happen-- is republicans in congress led by the president to focus on-- to focus, number one, on getting the tax package through, and then to turn their

attention to what i would call small balls. let's get some legislation passed so they can rack up some wins. but things that matter to the middle class. focus on jobs and run on jobses in 2018. and put some of the-- you know, i do think there is a civil war brewing on the right. but don't focus on that right now. let's focus on win something elections and doing what voters sent republicans to washington to do, which is to represent their interests, in particular, how do you strengthen the middle class? how do you grow the middle class? those are things people care about. those things all got submerged in alabama and they shouldn't because that's what people really care about. >> woodruff: michael steele, how do you see the congressional future for the republicans, somebody who was just there for a long time. >> yeah, i think it's actually going to make lesof a difference in the next year than you would think. the senate has two modes. either things require basically 60 votes to pass, a super majority. or 50 votes with the so-called reconciliation procedure which is what the tax legislation is

proceeding on. i would be very surprised if we had major legislation moving under reconciliation rules next year. therefore, it's going to be something like a larger, more popular majority. so it's not going to make that big a difference on the margins what we'll be doing. at the same time, we should remember when we talk about the disdwissiveness on the right, that there would be four or five more senate republicans if we had not had divisive, pointless primaries that wound up with unacceptable candidates. >> woodruff: all right, final quick question for each one of you. does this mean the democrats could take back the house and senate next year? the house is certainly in play, and this at least gives a theoretical possibility for the senate to be in play, sure, absolutely. >> woodruff: chris buskirk? >> yeah, i think it's possible. i still think it's a long shot, but it's the republicans' race to lose. but we've seen republicans lose races they shouldn't. >> yeah, i think the map is very much against it in the senate. and it's going to be an uphill fight in the house. i think we'll continue to have

republican majorities next year. >> woodruff: michael steele, chris buskirk, stu rothenberg, thank you all. >> thanks, judy. >> thanks. >> woodruff: the man who oversees special counsel robert mueller's russia probe was grilled today on capitol hill. as hari sreenivasan reports, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein defended himself against republican charges the investigation was a partisan "witch hunt" against the president. >> sreenivasan: the chair of the house judiciary committee kicked off the hearing with a litany of what he called "insider bias" against president trump. >> mr. deputy attorney general, the d.o.j.'s reputation as an impartial arbiter of justice has been called into question. >> sreenivasan: he pointed to text messages that were turned

over to congress by the justice department yesterday. peter strzok, a top f.b.i. official, texted an agency lawyer that the prospect of candidate trump becoming president was "terrifying" and that hillary clinton just "has to win." strzok had investigated clinton's use of a private email server, and after trump won, he was named to the team investigating the president's ties to russia. special counsel mueller removed strzok when he became aware of the texts. still, goodlatte said the texts were proof of political animus behind the investigation. >> these text messages prove what we all suspected. high-ranking f.b.i. officials involved in the clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election, and clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgment. >> sreenivasan: rosenstein insisted the that investigation was not tainted by agents' political leanings. >> we recognize we have employees with political opinions, and it's our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence

their actions. >> sreenivasan: several democrats raised fears that rosenstein would fire mueller at the president's request. >> will you protect mr. mueller if he deserves the protection and has done nothing to violate his duties and responsibilities? >> i won't take any action unless he's violated his duties. >> sreenivasan: g.o.p. members, such as jim jordan, like goodlatte, have been calling for a second special counsel to investigate bias in mueller's probe. >> you're the guy in charge. you could disband the mueller special prosecutor and you can do what we've all called for: appoint a second special counsel to look into this. >> we take very seriously the concerns of 20 members of this committee or one member of this committee, but we have a responsibility to make an independent determination, and we will. >> sreenivasan: one of mueller's top deputies, andrew weissman, has also come under scrutiny for an email praising former acting attorney general sally yates. he told her he was "so proud and in awe" of her refusal to enforce the president's travel ban. we take a closer look now at the ramped-up campaign by some

conservative lawmakers to discredit mueller's probe, with two former justice department officials who worked under different presidential administrations. michael mukasey was u.s. attorney general under president bush, from 2007 to 2009. and, neal katyal served as acting solicitor general under president obama, from 2010 to 2011. both now work in private practice. neal, let me start with you. for the record we should mention-- we should mention that you are fighting the trump travel ban in court. but we have you on here tonight because you helped write the rules on special counsel regulations in the 1990s. so based on the texts, some of the texts that we've seen being exchanged with-- between f.b.i. officials, is there everything of bias here? i there evidence enough to fire robert mueller. >> not at all. i mean, i think it's very common for investigators, prosecutors, or agents to have political opinions. i mean, judge mukasey, who is a republican, was a fabulous judge on the southern district in new york. one of the very best.

he was a republican. he was also the attorney general of the united states. he was a republican. so the fact that they have political views i don't think is important. i think the critical thing, as rod rosenstein said today, is, are their views somehow impacting their action? are they indicting someone that they shouldn't be or something like that? and if they're doing the job impartially, then that's all that you need. and here i think, you know, mueller's investigation so far are it's impartial, it's professional. this is a guy who was nominated for five different senate-confirmed positions by four different presidents, including two republicans. >> sreenivasan: mr. mukasey, one of trump's lawyer lawyers is calling for an investigation into the investigation. would that solve anything? do you have concerns with how the investigation is being handled? >> i have concerns, but i don't think they would be dissipated by a step like that. i think the problem with the mueller investigation is really two-fold. one is in the way that it was set up. and the second is in part the

way that it's staffed. as neal katyal knows, at least as well as i do if not better-- because because he wrote the regulations -- according to the regulations, there's supposed to be a finding that a criminal investigation is warranted and that the justice department is conflicted in conducting it, whether there are other special circumstances. and then this person selected as special counsel is supposed to be provided with a specific statement of what it is he is supposed to be investigating that suggests the existence of a crime. now, here, the letter that appointed robert mueller from rod rosenstein said he was popursue the investigation that was testified to by james comey, when he testified in front of the house intelligence committee, and that he was to investigate-- that he was to-- that this included "any links and/or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president donald trump." well, the investigation that was testified to by james comey was not a criminal congratulations

vgz. it was a national security investigation. and links or coordination may sound sinister, but it doesn't define or suggest the existence of a crime. so what's been defined here, or not defined here, is something that looks very much like a fishing expedition or a safari. now, mr. rozen stein was urged to define what it is that mr. mueller is supposed to be investigating, and he said that he and mr. mueller have an understanding about that, and if mr. mueller is going to go any further, he will check with mr. rosenstein. we don't do business that way based on private understanding between official officials and k that's part of the reason the investigation has strayed as far as it has. >> sreenivasan: he called it a fishing expedition or a safari. your response? >> i think absolutely not. i think judge mucase seright, it requires a high threshold, criminal wrongdoing, which is why the special counsel to

investigate the special counsel like the dr. seuss "b" watchers watching "b" watchers, and the like is ridiculous. the idea that it's a fishing expedition, obviously rosenstein-- let's remember who rosenstein is. he's not some obama holdover. he's president trump's guy. he's the acting attorney general of the united states for this investigation. he found in that letter that the russia stuff was important and merited an investigation, and lo and behold, we know that that judgment was right because there have been indictments because of russia with respect to manafort, papadopoulos, flynn, et cetera. then the question is what do you do when there's an investigation that starts to get close and the heat gets up? well, it seems like from today's hearing, the republicans are saying and president trump are saying, "we can't trust this guy mueller." but that's not the way the system works. the way the system works is let them bring the indictments. it's not as if, you know, you have to get grand juries to sign off and then you need a jury to convict. so there's all sorts of safeguards that are built into

the system. but at the end of the day, there's also one other important check, which is rod rosenstein. he's trump's guy. and president trump is saying, "i can't even trust him to supervise mueller," and that just adds to the laundry list of people the president doesn't trust, you know, not just the democratic party but the republican party and the media and so-called judges and comey and the f.b.i. and chris wray, which is his own appointee to the f.b.i. and the list goes on and on. and at some point you have to ask-- we have a word for this in law enforcement, when you see someone so afraid of everyone the word begins with "g" and ends with "y." i hope that's not true, but that's sure what it's looking like. >> sreenivasan: you were attorney general at one time. is it possible for one individual or a pair of individuals to shaipt outcome? >> sure, it's possible. and part of the problem here is that although we just heard that there were indictments and charges, those indictments and charges had absolutely nothing

to do with any criminal participation by the russians in anything. mr. manafort was indicted for not reporting his-- his status as an agent of a foreign power, and not reporting his receipt of funds, for, apparently, lawful activity. but he didn't register and he didn't report. both pop dop las and flynn were charged with and pleaded guilty to lying to the f.b.i. over their contacts with russians, but nothing having to do with participation in the election. so we've strayed very far from where this was supposed to have gone. that was my point. >> sreenivasan: all right, michael mukasey, neal katyal, thank you both. >> thank you. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: is climate change making wildfires worse? and, why we might be giving

vladimir putin too much credit as a strategic mastermind. now, let's go back to the tax bill that is likely to be sent to the president's desk by christmas. republicans are on the verge of working out their differences. it is a major piece of legislation that could affect work, business and many facets of american life. last week, we asked readers online for their questions. we received an avalanche! over 800 people responded. our lisa desjardins is here to help answer some of the most common questions. lisa, thank you, and that was your idea to ask people to send them-- >> among others. >> woodruff: to send in their questions. so before we talk about that, though, quickly, what is in this deal? >> right, let's talk about what is happening today. we have broad parameters only right now, the corporate tax rate will land probably at 21% from 35 now. we also understand they will have a decrease in the top rate for the wealthiest americans. other than that, judy, to be honest, i think they have an outline, but they're checking the score, check exactly how much this will cost and making

sure they have the votes. we don't have other details yet. >> woodruff: you were telling me it's looking like next week? >> that's right. they're hoping to have details, maybe language this week, and a final vote in the chambers next week is planned. >> woodruff: let's look at these questions. hundreds of them came in. a lot of them have to do with small business. a number of people were concerned about what the changes in taxes that affect small business are going to mean. >> that's right. and we got a very specific type of question that a lot of folks are wondering about. here, let's listen to this one viewer. >> i live in los altos, california. i work as a freelance technical editor. currently, i can deduct my business-related expenses on my individual taxes and my question is, with the new tax plan, will i still be able to do this or do i need to consider forming a corporation? >> so what she's talking about-- we talked about the corporate rate that ( rns are mentioning, the 21%. this is different than that. republicans are also cutting tax rates for other types of smaller

businesses known as pass-throughs. the idea that if you're a pass-through business you get a lower rate than an individual filing the same way. let's talk about what happens here. should we all incorporate? should i become kennedy day ll"c." they're put something limits in here. there are some businesses called personal services, like accountant, lawyers, architects, they will be blocked from doing this. let's talk about our writer. she could qualify for this, technically, but she has to consider some things carefully. how much is she deducting now for her work-related expenses? will she save more with a lower tax rate. and here's the important part, judy-- how much does it cost to incorporate? it is not free and you will probably have to hire an accountant. overall, the experts i talked to said this is the messier part of the tax bill. the winners will be accountant. >> woodruff: which is ironic because the whole point of this or much of the point of was this

to simplify the process of filing for taxes. another popular question had to do with charities, with charitable deductions. what kind of questions there. >> let's go straight to another very popular question. this is from alice muy of frl point, oregon. >> my husband and i are retired and fortunate enough to be able to make a number of charitable contributions which we itemize on our current tax returns. we also volunteer at our local historical society, which is dependent on the small- and medium-sized contributions from people like us. so my question has two parts. the first part is, what will be the effect of the tax bill on our income taxes, especially as it relates to charitable contributions? and the second is what are the likely ramifications to charitable organizations like the historical society? >> that's a great question. first the effect on her.

the charitable deduction would remain in this bill. it was in both the house and senate versions. however, republicans are doubling the standard deduction. that's sort of the threshold level at which you would itemize or even begin to claim the charitable deduction. so it means fewer people will be claiming the charitable deduction. something like 30% of people can do it now. that is forecast to go to 5%. what does that mean for charities her second question? there's a study out of indiana university, they spent a long time looking at this, they estimate this will mean a drop of 2% to 5% in charities in how much they bring in. for alice's organization, the southern oregon historical society, i did the math, it looks like that will be about $17,000 less. >> woodruff: so bad news for some charitable organizations. >> that's the expectation, but, again, this is untested. >> woodruff: another set of questions, lisa, were around medicare, and social security. we know this bill is about taxes but medicare and social securities play into it. >> this was one of the biggest categories. let's listen.

>> high, i'm beth, and i live in wisconsin with my son, who is disabled. my question is with all of the discussion about raising the deficit in order to facilitate the tax cuts i would like to know what is going to happen to the programs like social security and medicare and medicaid? i am the sole caregive of lloyd, my son, and he also gets s.s.i., and i get paid through the medicaid waiver to take care of him. if anything happens to those programs, we will lose all of our income. >> all right, so so there's a lot in this question, obviously. let's start with social security. social security would not be affected by this tax bill because it gets income separately. however, medicare could be affected because this bill spending goes above a certain threshold, it could trigger automatic spending cuts in medicare and other mandatory programs. but, judy, republicans say they plan to waive those cuts, to vote later to waive them, so it's a question of having to watch them.

one other thing that actually she did not ask about this, beth did not ask, but there are other effects in this bill on people who are caregivers. i spoke to the caregivers' network and he said they are worry bad because some of the tax deduction they get now are lower. they get to take a head of household deduction which is not there now. >> woodruff: but no effect on social security payments directly. >> that's correct. neither for social security for the aging population or disability, no effect directly from this bill. >> woodruff: but again, it's going to require people looking hard at what's in here. >> yes. >> woodruff: finally, another set of questions around higher ed. you heard a lot of questions about that. >> right. we talked about this issue before-- graduate students and the circumstance they're in. let's go to this question from texas. >> i'm andrew from austin, texas. i'm a graduate student in the stem field. currently, my department pays my tuition to the university and gives me a stipend in change for my teaching assistant responsibilities. my question is how much can i expect my taxes to increase and how will this affect higher

education in general? >> all right, we have some breaking news on this, actually. i have one source and we're seeing others "bloomberg report" that in tonight's deal, republicans are jetisonning this idea of changing this provision, that they would keep in tact grat students' ability to waive their tuition without taxation. that's good news for the graduate students. we have to see the final bill but that is the direction the republicans are moving in right now, going away from the house bill as it was. >> woodruff: so potential big changes here at the last minute. just quickly, finally, lisa, when will this take effect. >> that was one of the big oast questions and the answer is immediately. when will it hit your paychecks if this is passed, probably a few weeks, late into january. the american payroll association says they are having trouble figuring out how this would make this happen but this would happen very fast. >> woodruff: remarkable, a huge piece of legislation all turning really quickly. >> that's right. >> woodruff: lisa desjardins, thank you. >> you're welcome.

>> woodruff: firefighters are battling tonight against a wildfire that has become the fifth largest in california history. it has been a brutal fire year throughout the state. scientists are trying to better understand the role and influence of climate change in hopes of preventing and dealing with tough fire years to come. miles o'brien has our report, for our segment on the "leading edge" of science. >> reporter: long before the devastation in california, scientists had built a strong case linking changing climate to more wildfires. a lot more. >> since 1984, the area-- the burns in any given year is up by over 300%. if we looked at forest in particular, the amount of area that burns in any given year is

up by over 1,000%. >> reporter: park williams is a bio-climatologist at lamont doherty earth observatory of columbia university. >> we use tree rings to understand the history of the environment and especially of drought and temperature. >> reporter: and that helps him understand how drought and temperatures are linked to fire. a narrow ring means a tree grew less that season, possibly signaling a drought. and those skinny rings often correlate to scars left by fire. >> drought years, you have a higher probability of fire. and temperature promotes drought. and so, as temperatures have been rising, we have seen drought intensifying. and as a result, we've seen increased fire. >> reporter: his colleague at lamont doherty, climate scientist radley horton, says the link between fires and climate change is well documented. >> i think the science is pretty solid to indicate that wildfire

risk is likely to increase in the future due to climate change. >> reporter: climate change creates conflagrations for a handful of reasons. >> i think exhibit a has to be the increase in temperature that we've observed. in california, we've seen about 1.5-degree increase in temperature over the last century. >> what we've seen, especially in forested areas, is that as we turn up the temperature, even by one or two degrees, then fire responds in a large and measurable way, because the vegetation dries out. >> reporter: along with the increased temperatures comes a greater likelihood of less rainfall in southern california and other subtropical regions. the driver for all of this is an atmospheric circulation pattern called the hadley cell. here is how it works. warm, moist air at the equator causes heavy precipitation. the air rises to more than 30,000 feet, where it then flows

then the air gets cool and dry, then descends and heats up. >> with climate change, we expect a stronger branch of rising air over the tropics. there's a lot of suggestion that the sinking branch of that hadley cell could become stronger which would tend to make things even drier. >> reporter: normally, california's winter rains begin in october and november. but this year, it's been a hot and dry fall and summer. >> the overall trend with climate change, we think, is going to be towards drier winters and, for sure, warmer weather that's going to increase the amount of evaporation. you'd effectively need more rainfall just to maintain the fire risk that you had in the past and not see it go up. >> reporter: but a fire of this magnitude also requires moisture as well, in advance, to create the fuel. and last winter, california got a huge amount of precipitation. >> and that has led to an abnormal amount of vegetation growing in the hills around the cities of los angeles and the

surrounding areas. and it's now that vegetation that's burning. >> reporter: the unusually wet winter followed by the long stretch of hot, dry weather needed one more thing: hot, dry winds whipping down from the high desert toward the ocean. in the north, they call these winds "diablo;" in southern california, "santa ana." >> the air gets compressed. and when we compress air, it warms, and when we compress dry air, it warms really rapidly. and so, these winds that are coming out across coastal southern california are very warm and very dry and that's a perfect recipe for intense wildfire. those air masses could get even drier in the future as temperatures rise, which would give us more fuel for fires. >> reporter: human beings have another role to play besides their impact on the climate. our cities are fast encroaching into forest and grassland, into a place called the wildland urban interface. >> people are wanting to live in nature. so, they're creeping up into the foothills of the coastal

mountains and this is where we're seeing a lot of the trouble with fire interacting with people. people accidentally start fires. they're living in forests or in heavily vegetated areas, and these areas are very prone to fire. and so, these people are living in potential disasters areas. there's a broader conversation we need to have, i think, about helping to get people out of harm's way, making sure that we're pricing risk to reflect the true risk. that's a difficult conversation. we need to make sure that vulnerable members of the population, those with less economic resources, aren't left behind, as we have that discussion about how to make sure people are safe and that their assets are protected. >> reporter: and it's part of a larger conversation about our changing climate, which california governor jerry brown has already begun. >> this is kind of the new normal. with climate change, some scientists are saying southern california is literally burning up, and burning up as maybe a metaphor, or a description.

not just the fire around here, but what we can expect over the next years and decades. >> reporter: whether it's this winter's california fires, this summer's devastating hurricanes, or routine blue sky flooding in miami and norfolk, the evidence is stacking up. global warming, and its deadly consequences, are here and now. for the pbs newshour, i'm miles o'brien. >> woodruff: as we heard earlier, russian interference in last year's u.s. election continues to sow political division here. but what motivated the man the u.s. accuses of ordering that hacking? special correspondent nick schifrin now, with more on what drives mr. putin. >> winston churchill once called stalin's russia a riddle wrapped

in a mystery. julia loffee tries to unwrap where that riddle stands today in her new cover story "what putin really wants." julia loffee joins me in the studio today. thank you very much. >> hi. >> many in the u.s. see russia right now as very strategic, as organized, but you write that russia's weaker, and almost more emotional than we see it. why is that? >> because that's, in some ways, deeply cultural, and it's also the kind of leader vladimir putin it is. he tends to leave as many options and doors open as he can, and then he'll make aistition at the last minute, often in a very emotional way. for example the invasion of crimea, the invasion of ukraine, the decision to interfere in the american election, again, what he saw as the c.i.a. and:'s involvement in the leak of "the panama papers" which was a big

dossier from a law firm based in panama that helped very rich people hide their ill-gotten gains, and a lot of kremlin people were caught up in it and implicated in it, including putin's own family. so he was very angry, and in the spring of 2016 is when he decided to retaliate. >> you mention aid couple of examples putin's aggression into crimea. each this blowback. syria, there's a lot of radicals trying to come back to russia and the f.s.b., the success of the k.g.b., has kind of lost its relationship with u.s. intelligence. is that blowback something that russia and the government and putin kind of anticipated and doesn't care about or these are unintend consequences they have to deal with now? >> i think these are unintended consequences, and the problem with them is that it then makes russia or putin do more things to kind of fix the damage incurred with the first move. for example, the incursion into syria, or the intervention in

syria, let's call it, was done in part because of the isolation in which putin found himself after invading ukraine. so he was trying to say, "look, i know you guys are mad at me for annexing crimea, for invading ukraine, but we're at least all on the same side in defending western christmassiandom against the crazy radicals. let's fight terrorism in syria." and it worked for a while and he meddled in the american elections, and the german elections and maybe the brexit vote. >> after the next election, which most people believe he will win, to the exit strategy. he came to power in 1999, promising his predecessor, promised that they weren't going to go after any of the family members or actually go after his predecessor personally. does putin have an exit strategy? does he have that in mind for his successor? >> we don't know, but it sure doesn't seem like it.

when i was in moscow a few months ago, people were already looking past the 2018 elections because everybody knows putin was always going to run and putin will win when he does. the quo is what happens in 2024 when this term runs out, this next term runs out, and who takes over for him? does he stay in power after that, or does he fiend somebody to guarantee his safety and his family's safety, like he did for boris yeltsin. that's going to be hard to do because he tried to do it once in 2008 when he had medvedev hold his place for four years and in pint's mind he screwed it up royally so he feels himself hemmed in and doesn't have a lot of good options. >> lastly, you write many people here predict 2018 and 2020 will be a repeat of what russia tried to do in 2016, in part because they haven't experienced any consequence to what happened in 2016. is there something that can be done to prevent russia from doing this again? >> well, there is something that has been done a little bit, right. the sanctions that the outgoing

obama administration around this time last year imposed on russia have been basically written in for the next generation. and russia has lost a bunch of its spying compounds in the u.s. but there aren't really real consequences, no real sanctions that cripple the russian economy in any way. our cyber armies, counter-intelligence armies are not fighting back in any way. they haven't gotten any kind of signal from the top. and here there has only been political resistance at the very top, but it doesn't seem like where it matters they're encountering any friction. >> julia loffee, staff writer at the "the atlantic," thank you. >> and a news update before we go. pbs has indefinitely suspended tavis smiley and his show amid allegations of misconduct. smiley has not yet responded. and "the new york times" is reporting that three women are accusing music mogul russell simmons of rape, in incidents that span from 1988 to 2014.

simmons has denied these accusations. he already stepped down from def jam recordings and other companies in november over separate allegations of rape and sexual harassment. and that is 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. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> pati narrates: mexican flavors are vivid, zesty and in love with cheese. and more is better. mexicans adore cheese, and mexico has so many varieties! in oaxaca, i visit a cheese-maker who makes the famous oaxacan cheese in the most traditional way. >> it's a little salty. >> and irresistibly chewy. >> pati narrates: in my kitchen, i make a dish that's a winner for each of my 3 boys. the satisfying señor breakfast sandwich. a feisty bacon-cheese dog with avocado relish. a velvety 3-cheese chicken pasta. >> i like a lot of cheese. >> i know you love cheese! >> pati narrates: so when you aim to please, i say, "just add cheese!"