captioning sponsored by newshour productio, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonigho or coward? fallout from the scathing essay by an anonymous senior trump administration official describing acts of resistance to the president himself. then, abortion takes center stage as newly released documents fuel questions in the brett kavanaugh confirmation hearing. and, help wanted-- inside the effort to combat the growingr laortage in wisconsin.ty >> the reas anywhere in southeastern wisconsin right now, if you need employees,yo re struggling to find them. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> carnegie corporation of new york. sung 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 cobloration for broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. h >> woodruff: tt is on in a 'who done it?' at the white house. a slew of top ranking trum administration officials, including the vice president, say they did not wte the explosive essay in the new york times that has rattled washington. john yang will get a view fromis inside the admation and from a former white house chief of staff, but first, yamiche alcindor updates today's fallout. >> alcindor: an anonymous column.a

and esident still fuming. at the white house today, president trump refused to comment about the firestorm following yesterday's anonymous op-ed in the "new york times." but on twitter, he didn't hold back. early this morning, the president went off, writing: "the deep state and the left, and their vehicle, the fake news media, are going crazy..." all this directed at yesterday's scathing column in the "new york times" written by an unnamed "senior official in ump administration." in it, the official described the president's style as "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective," adding; "many trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve ourtu democratic insons while thwarting mr. trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office..." the author also wrote some cabinet officials have even considered invoking the 25th icendment to remove the president from o throughout the day, senior officials rushed to deny writing the column, including vice

president mike pence who was ind fl >> i think it's a disgrace. the anonymous editorial blished in the "new york times" represents a new low in american journalism. and i think the "new york times" should be ashamed. and i think whoever wrote this anonymous editorial should be ashamed as well. >> alcindor: meanwhile, on capitol hiuse speaker paul ryan also criticized the author. >> it's a person who obviously is living in dishonesty. it doesn't helthe president. so if you're not interested in helping the president,sh yoldn't work for him, as far as i'm concerned. >> alcindor: but at least one republican, tennessee senator bob corker, said no one should be surprised. >> anyone who's had any dealings over there knows that this is the reality that we're living in. so i think a lot has been made out of nothing. i think the biggest issue they're going to have is o figuri who wouldn't right a letter like that. >> alcindor: the times op-ed follows news of a new book from veteran washington reporter bob woodward. the book says white house

advisors work to curtail the president's actions.t presidump must now deal with the idea that people close to him both inside and outside of the white house may bet working agaim. a number of allies o trump allaysside the white house signaled their willingness to work with federal prosecutorsst inating mr. trump and his companies. >> tensions remain very hey at the white housru one former administration official told me he worries this could have a big impact internally an on policy issues. at person also said that this could lead white house staffers to simply not e truh other. meanwhile tonight the president is heading to montana to hold a yally for supporters. we'll see if he s more, john. >> thank, yamiche. now frw om the vfrom the white house we' joined by mercedes schlapp on the whi house north lawn. thanks so much more joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> in the past three days we ve had a book come out saying

top advisors of the president were taking documents off his desk to keap himrom signing them. we now have this essay in "the rk times" from someone claims to be a senior official saying that they are that warting the president. is this presidency, is this administration under threat from within? ol no, absely not. i think those individuals, those of us who spend time with the president on a daily basis are completely focused on pushing forward his policy, his visionsm forica, and obviously we're seeing the victory. and the vctory there are very clear. we just saw the manufacturing productivity index come out, the best we have seen in 14 years 6789 we're expgciting exein terms of job creation. and as well as wage increases. i mean we're having a winning agenda for america. and so while you have this could ward coward source deciding to write thisiece about the president, someone who obviously

doesn't have a gooind understaof how the president makes his decisions and putting his interests and his ego abovee interests of the american people, it is justy incredroubling. i have to till. >> they did acknoe edge that thre a cheerments on the economic sood and on deregulations and getting the economy working. >> that is from the president, that is what is so telling. you have an individual who has made this decision not to reveal his name, and then basically saying yes, america is morfe sae yes, america is more prosperous, guess who did that,wat because of the work of president trump stsm because of his leadership and because of his administration and those individus wh are working for him every day. with you but last night theha president saidthe author of this essay must for national security purposes be turneover to the government at once. what are the natna security threat exemplified by this essay. >> well there is always concern

about whether there is classified information being sented out or being leaked. t s point the organization that knows who this person is, is "the new york times." obviously they're the ones that know who this individual is. i think had we need to be looking at rate now is the fact that for individuals who are everyday is working and supporting this president, who know that what his vision is for america, what his accomplishments have been, thus far, which has been incrediblyul succes is an honor to serve this president, to work ple.the american peo and if you don't believe in this president, then don't work for him t is the right thing to do. and it is somhing that. >> if there is a national security threat f there is this threat as you say of disclosing classified information, what is the administration doing inside the who us to try to find out who this person is. >> look, i'm not going to get into any intern delib rationings or go intlo hypotheticals, a

can i say is "the new york timeses" who knows who thians ymous source is, who this coward is, this individual whor obviously is concern about their interests and pretending like they have this moral high ground withouttaruly undeing what the president is doing day in and day out. for those us who arhee with president, who get to see him in action, working with the republican leadership, working with our coalitions, working with the dfferent cabinet members, we are committed to making sure that the president has the support he needs to make sure that his policies and his agenda are delivered. >> you raise this pobtd of classified information being disclosed. i mean that's seems like a real threat, it seems to me the administration what want to find this person. >> i'm not going to-- ookings i'm not going to go into any internal delib rations, i think at the end of

the day, call "the new york times," call thair opinion page editor, obviously the media is obsessed about who this individual is, they are calling around, seeing who is denying, who is not denying. thiss why they have investigations. the media will be one to look into it see if thean find out who this individual is. >> the denial came t today of the long list of people who sent out statements, w that for the president's benefit, so people would let the president know it wasn't them. >> we were with the president and certain news org were reporting that the president was looking at these denials which is com false reporting. the president has been in meetings all day. he has been meeting wh his staff on a variety of issues including north korea. and quite frackly, ias something that we were like this is not true. and so thetre is a of this false reporting out there on what is, the president is looking at denies or not which is absolutely inaccurate. >> mercedes at the white house, i'm sorry, wee got to go. thank you very much for coming on.

>> and now we continue our look at this issue with leon panetta. the former chief of staff to president clinton and served both as secretary of defense and cia director undeer prsident obama. mr. pannetta welcome, thanks for joining us. you not only served under president obama and clinton, you also served briefly for president nixon early in his administration from your standpoint, is the person who wrote this essay protecting the united states as he says, if he or she says in the essay or a gutless coward as the white house says. >> well, you know, it is hard to me down with a definition here because on one hand if that person is describing the situation that is real in the ite house, and a president who is not very effective and doesn't have either the moral or intellectual capabil be

president of the united states, and this person is ide antifying th the efforts of the staff to restrain it,en obviously that person is performing an important role here. on the other hand, if that individual is not willing at some point to come forward and really inform the people in the congress and in the country iout what is really gong on, then obviously that person is in part a coward as well. so i think it's probably a little bit of both at thispo t. >> but as someone who ran the staff of the white house and someone who was a top senior official in the white house, is this a rsional reponse or a reasonable response to someone who hasbouestionsut a president or should this person resign? >> well, you know, le's look at the bottomline here, john. the bottomline is that the presidency cannot operate this way. we have a president who in some ways is at war with his own

staff, both pointed out inth e woodward book as well as this op ed as well as others. bd we elect one president of the united states president of the united states. to discharge the duties and powers that that president has under the investigation. and here are the indication is s that tff is working to try to contain this president and make sure that he doesn't make some of the decisions that he wants to make. you cannot have that in thico try. we need to have one president, whether you are for or gengs t donaump. the fact is you need to have one president. and show thais not case today. >> so are you saying that the staff shouldt be tryingo that wart him. that by trying to that wart, unelected staff traying to that wart an elected president of the united states is not the right thing to do? >> this country is at riswh you have a president of the united states elected by the people andt the same tie have

a sphaf who believe that this president for whatever reason is not exercising the rightkind of jujt, that situation cannot exist. and frankly, under our constitution, it cannot exist. the issue here, the fundamental issue is can this president digs arge his duties and powers of the office of the presidency. is hle to do that. and obviously the are members of the staff who believe that's not the case and obviously there are members who support the president who believe that is the case. that is an issue that very frankly i believe the leader shirp and the congress has a responsibility to look the and determine what is happening. because we cannot allow that situation to continue. it puts the country at rik. >> how what they do that, hearings? or how would they look at that. >> i think the first thing that should be done is the leadership

and i would assume that the best step would be the republican leadership, mitch m donnell and speaker ryan and whoev they want to a a sp them. let it go down and talk to thed president ief of staff to discuss the situation. and determine whether or not there is this war going on within the white touse. it see be the case. senator corker also mentionedth situation as have others. so how is the president and the chief of sta addressing this situation in order to make sure that this nd of conflict doesn't continue. because if it does,e don't know ultimately who is making pe decisions here. is it theresident of the united states? or is it the staff members who are trying to do the right thing for the country? even though they may be praight under the best of intentions, that is simply no way for the presidency of the united states

to opera >> we have had cases in history, at the end of the nixon administration, when secretary of defense schlesinger issued an order that any nucmalear c from the president should be cleared thraw him first, i have also heard white house chiefs of staff lking abo slow-walking decisions they fement were wrong-- they felt were wrong or have been quick leigh, tooma quickl and hoping to give the president a chance to rethink it. e-- what is th difference between those things and what is going on now? >> well look, in a normal white house, there are always going to have to be, you know, thoseon kinds of relaips between the president, chief of staff and others within the administration. but normally this is worked out wiin the white house. through a process of policy making, of discussions, of being le to convey your views to the president. and being able to determine

ultimately what the president is going to decide. because in the end, this has to be about the president of the united states making the decision on but in the past there has always been this tension in personal relationships. t it also has worked out in a way that i think serves the president of the united states. day what i see is a situation where for whatever reason the president is not able to have the staff be able to look at him in the eye and say we have real concerns with the decisions that ing.are mak that is normally the way the process with take place. instead the taff is going around him, to try to impose their particular will in certain situations. and while i understand that they do it out of the best of intentions for the sake of the untry, the fact is it

undermines the presidency of thn united state it takes away from the fact that the unitied states elected one person. they didn't elect the staff to serve as president of the united states. >> former white house chief of staff leon panetta, thanks so much for being with us. >> you bet. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, republicanand democrats battled again over supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh and his paper trail. a key focus was an e-mail from when he worked for president george w. bush. in it, kavanaugh suggested not all legal scholars view the landmark roe versus wade decision as settled law. we'll have a full report after the news summary. the trump administration today disavowed long-standing rules on detaining migrant children.

the 1997 "flores agreement" requires they be held in the least restrictive setting and, generally, for no more than 20 days. instead, the department ofy homeland securys it wants to detain families, together, until their cases are resolved. migrant advocates promise legal challenges. a powerful earthquake rocked northern japan early today, killing at least nine people and injuring hundreds. r shook the island of hokkaido, and knocked out po three million homes. ivorennett, of independent television news, reports. >> reporter: this was the mont the earthquake struck in the middle of the night near hokkaido's mn airport, a force great enough to make planes look like flimsy models cities were suddenly plunged into darkness as the entire island lospower. an area roughly the size of scotland and homto more than five million people. the wot of the damage was near

the epicenter in the island's rural south. where entire hillsides collapsed the earthquake triggered huge ndslides turning what was green to brown. the mounds of earth and fallen trees crushing the buildings beneath. one survivor explains how she didn't know what happening, calling it unbelievable. another says he would have been killed if the trees had broken through his house. 25,000 troops have been dispatched to help search for the dozens who are still missing still missing, buried in what remains of their homes.ni japan's prime er shinzo abe said that saving people's lives is the government's utmost priority, in the face of yetst another disa. ov tuesday the west of japan was battered by wind 100 miles an hour, the strongest typhoon in a quarter of a century

destroying all in its path. >> woodruff: that report from ivor bennett of independent telesion news. in iraq, new violence broke out today in the southern city ofba a, closing the country's main oil hub. the main provincial government building waset ablaze, despite a newly imposed curfew. it came amid protests against unemployment and lack of public services. 12 civilians have been killed in clashes with police this month. .here's been more bloodshed in northern afghanist suspected taliban fighters 1 killsecurity troops in separate attacks overnight. they came a day after two bombings in kabul killed 21 and wounded 89. islamic state militants are suspected in those attacks. the supreme court of india issued a milestone decision on gay rights today. it struck down part of a colonial-era law that punished

homosexual acts with up to 10 years in prison.a' ins l.g.b.t. community celebrated the court's decision, which found sexual orientation cannot be used to justify discrimination. >> ( translated ): i have never faced this amount of hmypiness ever iife. we didn't expect to see this dah but finally e got justice and at this moment i can't express anything else. >> woodruff: the ruling in india could aid efforts to strike down similar laws in laighboring bash and pakistan. top south korean officials say north korea's leer has reaffirmed his commitment to give up nuclear uapons. kim jomet with south korean envoys yesterday in pyongyang. s th he told them he wants to denuclearize by the end ofpr ident trump's first term. the officials also announced that kim and south korean president moon will hold their next summit, starting september 18th. back in this country, the u.s.

justice department hased a north korean man with a series of major cyber attacks. officials say park jin hyok was behind the 2014 hack of sony pictures entertainment, a last year's "wannacry" ransomware campaign. north korea allegedly ordered the hacks, but there's little chance it would extradite park. firefighters in northern california are battling a new fire near the oregon state linet roke out wednesday and closed 45 miles of interstate 5. riven flames as high as 300 feet forced truckers to abdon their rigs. by today, the fire had burned 23 square miles.it r announced today it has htpermanently banned far-r figure alex jones, and his prograe "info-wars." mpany says jones violated its policy against abusive behavior by posting video of his berating a cnn journalist.ze

jones speciain conspiracy theories. he's also been suspended by other social media sit ford motor company today recalled some two million of its f-150 pickup trucks across north america. it said the seat belt assemblies can throw sparks when th tighten, and cause fires. the recall affects trucks from the last three model yearsan on wall street, the dow jones industrial average gained 20 points to close near 25,996. the nasdaq fell 72 points, andth s&p 500 slipped 10. still to come on the newshour: highlights from the kavanaugh confirmation hearing. how companies in wisconsin are bofilling jobs in a tight market. and remembering actor burt reynolds. dr >> wf: we return to the

confirmation hearing of brett kavanaugh to be the nereme court justice. it was another day of discord-- this time centering on abortion and puce. democraticly released a few dozen of judge kavanaughs documents and emails from his ti in the george w. bush administration. a lawyer for president bush had previously deemed those emailsfi "cntial," meaning senators could read, but not talk, about them. the release sparked a ated exchange among senators. >> i am going to release the email about racial profiling, and i understand tt the penalty comes with the potential ousting of the senate. tham releasing it to expose that, number oneemails that are being withheld from the public have nothing do with national security, nothing to jeopardize the sanctity of those ideals that i hold dear. >> running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the senate or of the

confidentiality of the documents we are privy to. no senator deserves to sit on this committee or serve in thete sein my view, if they decide to be a law into themselves and willingly flat the rules of the senate and the determination of confidentiality and classification. >> it's called the presidential records act. that's the demon you're after here-- that is the onlon we've got this issue. now, the custodian of those documents holds and exercises a privilege on behalf of the bush administration. those records has agreed, cutwithstanding the privileged nature of those nts, to hand those over to us, with an understanding that when there is a need that arises with respect to one or re of those documents, to make them public, we can as a committee, go through a process to do that. >> there is no senate rule that i viated because there is no senate rule that accounts for this process. i will say that i did willgly

violate the chair's rule on the committee confidtial process. i take full responsibility for violating that sir, and violated it because i sincerely believe that the public deserves to know this nominees record. >> may i read senate rule 29-5, the standing rules of the senate, for the benefit of allna rs: "any senator, officer or employee of the senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the senate, shall be liable. if a senator to suffer expulsion from the body, and if an officer or employees, to dismissal from the service of the senate, and to punishment for contempt." >> bring it.br g it. >> so i would correct the senator's statement, there is no rule. there is clearly a rule applies. >> then apply the rule, bring the charges. ing it. >> woodruff: and that's where art our analysis of day 3 of this marathon hearing.

our own lisa desjardins has been in the hearing room all week-- hishe joins us from capito. twshour regular marcia coyle covers the court f "national law journal." paul clement served as u.s. solicitor general under president george w. bush. and neal katyal. he was acting solicitor general in the obama administration, and he joins us from new york. welcome to all of you. and lisa, i'm going to come to you firstment because just fill us in, if you will, briefly on wh was going on overnight that lead to the release of some of shese documents that thi argument started about earlier. >> simply, judy,emocrats including senator booker actually requested that the documents which had previously aten confidential be allowed to be made public s something they had not requested until last night. they did. they did it late and through the night committees, doctors along with doctors for george stffas for gorge w bush and the

department of justice worked through those and they cleared them for public release. by the time the committee met this morningnd had that holdback and forth and kerfuffl the documents that cory booker was talking about were in fact no longer committco idential. so there was to breaking of the rules today. but judy, i think what you saw was a bigger battle over the image for both parties. omocrats felt like they had some ground to stabased on these emails, one of which dealt with racialot profiling, r with a dorgs, to say hey there is something in these documents worth talking about that we couldn't talk about before. republicans acted quickly because they did not want to reflect they had anything to hide. >> woodruff: marcia coyle, why did t matter in th end whether this material was made public or not? >> well, i think because at least from the democrats' perfective, semote deats' perspective, it did open some additional lines of questions about judge kavanaugh's views on abortion, affirmative action and

race ine gneral. so i don't know that the politics are all that important but i think it was just another avenue in which they could try to gain more insight into his views on those issues in particular. >> woodruff: paul clement, back and forth yesterday and today over who is responsible fore dciding what was released and what wasn't. was it in the interest of the bush administration in some way to keep this material or-- frankly so many pages of documents still under seal? >> i don't think that it was inr the ints of the bush add p necessarily to keep this material confidential. obviously there is a process under the presidential t cords d i think there are important reasons why that process should be fwed. i think the key thing though is the one person who wasn't

responsible for keeping thesent docufrom the public was judge kavanaugh. so in some ways i any all of these procedural side shows probably work to his benefit. because he's t the one that has sort of kept these documents away from people. and this is really sort of a fight between the democrats and the republicans on the senate judiciary committee. >> so neel katyal, at the end of the day having had a lot giving democrats and the public a look at this, do we come away with any sort of different per accepting of this nominee? >> i think we do. and so you know, i agree with paul, we don't knowe if thre is interest in the bush administration. but it is really not in the interest of tdge kavanau have 100,000 pages of documents still withheld even at this moment and many pages dumped just a little whale ago and some dumped, as you said, at 4 a.m. and senor mcconnell warned president trump and said look, if you nominate jud kavanaugh and you want to have a rush hearing, it is going to be ae

problem becaey have asked for the a number of documents. and when you have held a document like is, like the ones today were not classified or anything like that. they are things about lke abortion, it looks fishy. it looks like there's something to hide. even when there may well be nothing to hide. but here we are on day three, we ten all the't got documents. they are trickling out there are still 100,000 pages being t withheld andnk you know, it looks particularly suspicious when th rules of ator grassley insisted on and senator cornyn with reect to kan, they are now throwing that rulebook out saying oh, we dobility need all the documents. >> woodruff: let's get a sense of what more judge kavanaugh was asked today. we're going tolanow a little bit more sound from today's hearing. this exchange this exchange with democratic ranking member dianne feinstein about a 2003 email in which judge kavanaugh questioned if "roe v. wade" is settled law, or if other judges would overturn it.

>> tell us why you believe roe is settled law. and if you could, do you believe it is correctly settled? >> point-- roe v wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it's been reaffirmed many times. it was reaffirmed in plannedod parent. casey in 1992, when the court specifically considered whether to reaffirm it or overturn it. in that case, in great detail,e ree-justice opinion of justice kennedy, justice souter and justice o'connor went through all the factors-- thefa stare decisictors, analyzed those and decided to reaffirm roe. >> so you believe it's correctly settled. but is it correct law, in your view? >> just the whole body of supreme court case law, i have to follow what the nominees who have bee have done.at before

with just if i can briefly explain. >> is, you can. ill try to be brief, but this, when you are in this seat, i'm not just sitting here for myself, i'm's sitting here as a representative of the judiciary and the obligation to prethserve independence of the judiciary which i know you care deeply about. and so one of the this i've done is studied very carefully what nominees have done in the past. what i have referred to as nominee precedent. and justice ginsburg but really enl the justices have not giv hints or forecasts and previews and just justice kagan captured it good as she always does like talking about the ones like the one aranyou asking, you give a thumbs up or thumbs down and maintain the independence of the judiciary so i need to follow that nominee precedence. >> so judge kav i am sichly doing what the other justices who are now sitting on the court havne doe when they were asked these questions. >> there has been considerable confusion over the last three ays about what he may mn by settled law. and wheon the email frthe time

he was in the white house came out in which he was respondin to a statement that was being drafted in support of another judicial nominee, the statement said something to the effect thal all lcholars agree that row is settled law. and he said no, you know, i don't think that you can say that row is settled law. that all legchalolars agree that row is settled law. because there are at least three justices who may be inclined to overturn it. so that just prompted a ole series of questions. did he belief it was settled law or not? that email resnse really didn't reflect what he thought. so he had to exp, lau know, settled law, precedent. how do doustinguish between the two. and he did point out that there are certain decisions of the supreme court, historical decisions involving issues that are unlily to come before the court again such as school

segregation, brown versus board of education, that he felt d coy that that was correctly decided. that is settled lawt . said there is also a wholed aboutee of supreme court decisions, precedents that could come back to theupme court. and so he was following what other nominees had said, he can not comment. >> paul clement, what was-- whas would be thein his going on-- going ahead and saying yes, i thinthis was correctly settled, unless he doesn't believe it. in whh cse, you have a different situation. >> oh, i think the risks are quite considerable. and that is why i think judge kavanaugh invoked the nominee precedence am i think eveon peho sat in that seat in the senate judiciary committ hearing really has perceived that if you start saying even as to an innocuous precedent that you think it is correctly decided,hat okay, that one is krkly decided, then you have sort of opened it up to answer that question about every one of the cases. and then when you get, if you

are confirmed, on the court, then you are in a position where people are literally going to be citing your senate judiciary testimony in briefs tohe court and suggesting that you are hemmed in. so i do thik that he's correct to invoke thedere of judge sotomayor whenhe was judge, solicitier general kagan when she was b the committee. i think invoking that is a good tactic for present purposes but also is very important and ultimately correct. >> woodruff: so neal katyal, did we get as much as wee wre likely to get from judge avanaugh today? >> well, i wasittle surprised that the answer wasn't a bit more lt som after all justice ginsburg certainly answered the question abourow in her hearings, even judge kavanaugh answered aboutet r brown was rightly decided or not and some other cases. this is not a usual nomination.

this is a nomination by a president who campaigned and promised that he would appoint prolife justices, two or three, that would quote overturn row. and we heard it and heard it and ard it andeard it again until the justice kennedy vacancy. and then all of sudden it disappears. and that is why i think the email today was significan because it does suggest that judge kavanaugh has a differenth view of wh he would be able to and would be willing to overturn federal precedent. now again maybe there's nothing but itks fishy to have theas othere. documents coming out on day three of the hearing. they were marked confidential before. there is nothing classified . th this is not a good process. >> woodruff: and there is just one more clip we want to play from today's hearing, when delaware democratic senator countries coons ws questioning judge kavanaugh's views on presidential power. >> >> i simply wish you would be clear with us and the american people about youview of the scope of presidential power and what its consequences might be. i don't think you're being

direct with me about that, because i think to be direct with me about that in thpu context woulyour nomination at risk. >> i respectfully disagree, senator. you're talking about a statute that has been non-existant for 20 years. that's no longer what i talking about, your honor. as you know, what i'm talkingou about isview of presidential power, as made clear in speeches, and in decisions and writings. we're not talking about the independent counsel statute now. we're talking about the scope of presidential authority, and i think it has consequences for the nation. respectfully, i believe you're talking about a statute that has not been in place since l 99. secondly, the specunsel system, i've specifically written about multiple times. thirdly, if there were some kind of protection, a for-cause protection or some other kffd, that were ent from the old independent counsel statute, i said that i would keep an open mind about that, so i would have not said anything to rulthat out.

so those are, and i've referred to u.s. v. nixon as one of the greatest decisions in supreme court history. >> woodruff: now since that happened, and that happened about an hour or so ago, hearing has continued and i am told in the last few minutes judge kavanaugh has said under questioning that he would not recuse himself if there were any mueller case, any legal case that did reach the supreme court were he to be confirmed. lisa, this is something democrats have wanted to get ati not? >> that's right. and to be honest i'm sur pitiesd ook this long for them to ask that question. i was speaking to nuer two democrat dibbing durbin days agw and ths the first thing he spoke about, asking that recusal question, that is a very important answer, we will hear a lot more about it from democrats. >> woodruff: mcia coyle, for quick go round at the end, that is a significant statement on his part, isn't it? >> yes, but i think it would not be unusu for a nomee to say thatec bause they realize this

is the supreme court when a justice recuses, the court is left with eight justices and there is deficit in reaching a decision at that point. i think judge kavanaugh h been asked this before and i think he said it would depend on what the case, the issues in case.u he said he w follow the judicial code's guidance on recusal in making that decision. he also made clear, goead, judy. >> no. >> i just wanted to say on the presidential power issue, he also made itcl really ear that if there were a court order telling the president to do something or not to do something, that that would be the final wod. and as far as the president taking some action remove the special counsel, as you heard in the clie p,aid he would keep an open mind on what that special counsel regulations is as well as what congress has

said about removal. >> woodruff: all of tha especially matters right now, paul clement, because of what has been going on with the special counsel. what do we finally take away with regard to his views on presidential power? >> well, i think what he is trying to do here is he is trng not torejudge any of these issues. and that goes to the merits of an sue like abortion or a particular executive power issue that could come up. and nobody knows exactly the precise conxt or wch issue would come up. i think he's trying to prerve his ability to decide those issues when they do come up. and i ink it goes even tthe question of whether he could recuse himself or need to recuse himself. he would never, you know, he would absolutely never recusef. hims i think he wants to keep an open mind and apply the standards that would normally be app by a justice in that situation. >> and finally neal katyal what do you take away in terms o his views of presidential power. >> there is judy, a bombshell in that answer. he said that he approved a

special counsel regulation in yeswering that clip that you provided. nowsterday when asked about race and abortion and affirmative action an consumer protection, he said i can't tell you about those hiepts cases because they could pending in may court. but probably the most significant case currentlyin pein his court, is about the legality of the special counsel regulations, it's challenged by concord and thefo ma associates and the like. and he provided an answer there. so i suspect the rest of the hearing is going to focus on that and say look, if you can answer that question about a pending case in your court, how can you not answer all of these otheruestions? >> woodruff: a number of questions still there the hearing continues into onight. we'll be monitoring it all. i want tohank all of our guest, neal katyal, paul clement, marcia coyle, lisa desjardins, thank you. 7

>> woodruff: now, why there's some extraordina measures being taken in wisconsin to find enough workers to fill jobs, including a multi-million dollar ad campaign to attract millennials and a job training program for prison inmates. economics correspondent paul solman has our report. it's part of our weekly seriesg "maknse" and it's also the latest in our series "chasing the dream" on poverty and opportunity in america. >> reporter: the sign of the times in wisconsin: "help wanted"-- on virtually every restaurant window, store front and city bus. even public tv has openings. an aging population and few immigrants has this state, with a record low jobless rate of 2.9%, projecting 45,000 more job openings by 2024 than workers to fill them. >> the reality is anywhere inut astern wisconsin right

now, if you need employees, truggling to find them. >> reporter: erik anderson, is c.e.o. of basin precision w machininch makes parts for, among others, harley davidson. in spite of high tech machinery that requires fewer operators, anderson wants to expand, and is sperate to hire. you still need how many people? >> 20. d >> reporter: you still n right now? >> i've got 20 jobs right now. >> reporter: the labor crunch, s s, has become the number one threat to his business. >> i'm on-- i guess you'd callof it a full charnsive. as a c.e.o., youe usually looking to grow the business. for me, this situation is such a revenue limiter that i spe about half my time on hr promotion. that's why i was so glad when you folks wanted to talk about this very topic. >> reporter: you're doing a little recruiting while you're talking to me? >> pretty much every waking hour i'm doing a little recruiting. >> reporter: wisconsin's answer to the worker shortage? trying to lure labor from out- of-state.

>> an hour commute or an hour with friends? in wisconsin the average commute is less than 22 minutes. >> reporter: this million dollar ad campaign was a blatant appeal to millennials in chicago, and anyone who didn't know wisconsin. >> they thought of the traditional things, beer, cheese, packers football. >> reporter: tricia braun runs the state's economic development agency. t >> by didn't say things like it, software development jobs or great healthcare or tgineering jobs. so we needmake sure those, along with messages about our quality-of-life were getting out there to the potential talent we could recruit. >> reporter: braun says it's too early to know if the campaign is n rking. >> reporter: but e it works, another state initiative will make the shortage more acute. a 20-million square foot foxconn plant being constructed in southern wisconsin is promising to create 13,000 more jobs. foxconn, a chinese electronics manufacturer got a $4.3 billion tax credit to locate there.t'

>>about 3 billion from the state itself, the rest is coming from local governments. >> reporter: in cash, says economist marc levine. >> because wisconsin manufacturers do not pay taxes, the tax credit will be converted into cash payment. >> wisconsin will give. >> give them a check, right. >> reporter: meanwhile, says levine, there are more than enough unemployed wisconsinites the money could have been used to retrain, victims of theat deindustrialn that's been going on since the 1980s. >> in milwaukee almost 50% of african-american males employed in the, through the 1970s into the 1980s were employed in manufacturing. compared to about 32% te males. >> reporter: when those jobs vanished, so did the pipeline middle class inner city jobs. >> the african american male prime age employment rate in

milwaukee today is a little over 63%. >> reporter: and many others are underemployed, working pt.t-time at bes one problem, says levine, living in innerities, they simply can't get to jobs at machine shops an hour or more away. >> all the net job growth in milwaukee over the last 30 years has occurredn the suburbs. suburbs that are not connected effectively to the central city with good transportation links. >> reporter: so where would you go for workers? wisconsin employers have turned to a totally unemployed and previously untapped labor pool. women at the robert ellsworth correctional facility an hour south of milwaukee, learning factory skills like c.n.c.--um computerical control-- at the nearby technical college on work release. >> i have been incarcerated for a little over two years right now. >> reporter: for what? >> drunk driving. and i have a little over two years to go.

>> reporter: a four year sentence because it's her third such conviction. but "randilyn," no last names allowed, is not worried about getting a job. >> i know there's jobs o there, i see them in the paper, i see them on the want ads. i've gone to temp agencies, andy e always looking for c.n.c. help.or >> rr: "bethany" is doing time for forgery and drug use. >> since i've been locked up, i've been offered a lot of opportunities to change my life, and become a different person, and i've taken them. m tr what doesload do? >> reporter: the itor here, neil petersen, seemed geinely surprised his cons are, well, such consummate pros. i've done approximately boot camps and you get a scatteringf f's, a couple d's, some c's. so far from these ladi i've gotten 10 a's, one b and one b minus. i've never seen that bore in my life. >> reporter: the fact is, though, that the national unemployment rate for those with

a criminal record has been estimated as high as 80%. and yet, after graduating from the 22-week boot-camp, these women figure to actually srt work at nearby wisconsin machine shops, while still incarcerated. how many employers come here willing to hire someone from prison? >> right now we've had 12 who've gotten involved and we're anticipating more. >> reporter: gateway's kate walker has found more employers with jobs offers than there are trained inmates to take them. >> there's no hesitation about hiring them. even if it's for the short term. if they're not going to reside in the county that the employer is located, they know that they can help them in the interim.>> eporter: i was told some 70% of these prisonefe are in for es related to substance abuse, where the recidivism ra a may be as hinine out of ten. c.e.o. anderson says that won't deter him. we heard yesterday that there are employers aroundn'ere now who do drug testing.

>> that's true. >> rorter: because they don' want to tomatically eliminate drug using employees. >> yes, that's tru that's true, and we're one of them. >> reporter: now in every story about a labor shortagethere's one obvious question: why don' employers just offer to pay more? well, because of globalization and automation in recent decades most just haven't had to. professor levine adds the decline of unions.ab >> keeping costs low is part of a corporate strategy to keep overall costs low. breaking unions has certainly been part of that. the decline of unionization in this state since the early 1970s has been extraordinary. where you once had 35% of workers unionized, today it's 10%. >> reporter: there's no sign that unions are coming back. j

but maybt maybe, a tight labor market is finally nudging up wages. at least erik anderson is raising them. three years ago, new hires made $9 an hour here. this fall he plans tarraise their ng wage to $15. .nd within a year they'll make in the upper tee for the pbs newshour, this is economics correspondent paul solman in southern wisconsin. >> woodruff:inally tonight, remembering actor and screen star burt reynolds who died today. as jeffrey brown tls us, reynolds was one of the top box office draws worldwide for a number of years. >> brown: with his trademark grin, a signature mustache and a kind of macho swagger, burt reynolds became one of the biggest stars in hollywoodn

the late 1970s and early '80s, appearinin car crash movies like "smokey and the bandit" and "the cannonball run." during his major run, he also played jocks or former jocvi in moes like "semi tough" and in romantic comedies too, including "starting over." the critics rarely took him seriously and sometimes the movies were panned, but his career included more than 100 if included more than a hus red movies and numerou shows, reynos once told a reporter, i think i'm the onlyho movie star w is a star in spite oftis pictures, no because of them. >> i think the love has gone out of our relationship. his career began on tv, including as a regular character on gunsmoke. his moveo films and more serious acting credentials got a major boost in 1972 with his

performance if "deliverance." >> why do you go on these trips with me? >> reynolds off screen behaviort also drew plof attention. in 1972 he famously posed nude inosmopolitan. he dated some of the biggest stars of his time including sally field and far a faucet.to his marriagong yie anderson ended in bitter acrimony, often performing hisn own dagerous stunts, reynolds dealt with many injuries. at one point battled an addiction to rspain kil. he continued it act at a slower pace as his box office appeal fadedment a not comeback team with boogie nights in 19 -9d 7 when he was nominated for an oscar por his role as a porn film director. >> it iammy dreit is my goal strks my idea to make a film that the story just sucks them in. >> later he spoke of his ups and downs. >> not too long before that, i

was haing a rough time. and then this picture came along and it changed everythg. >> butter reynolds died this morning in jupiter, florida. he was 82 years old. >> >> woodruff: on the newshour dline right now, we repor yesterday on the toxic red tide in florida that's devastating marineife and hurting the state's economy. so what makes the algae bloom toxic? we explain on our web site, pbs.org/newshour. and that's the newshr for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again he tomorrow evening when mark shields and david brooks break down a packed week of news. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> kevin. >> kevin! kevin. >> advice for life. life well-planned.

learn more at raymondjames.com. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting.by anontributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning spowsored by ur productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

♪ ♪ this bridge proved the power of a miracle material this aqueduct let cities bloom in the desert. and this canal opened up the west. all of these made the list of 10 modern marvels that changed america. i'm geoffrey baer, and i'll be your guide. geoffrey: as we visit of civil engineering. we'll drive the first underwater tunnel built for cars and ride the railroad that madeoast-to-coast train travel possible. g that is a mind boggl engineering achievement. well, it would be like you and me planning to gto the moon. offrey: we'll see how engineers stopped one river dead in its tracks