captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc i>> woodruff: good evenin judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, hero 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 growing labor shortage in wisconsin. >> the reality is anywhere in southeastern wisconsin right now, if you need employees,tr you'regling to find them. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonig's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been prided 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 yonn. supportingations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals.

>> this program was made possible by the corporation car public broing. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the hunt is on in a 'who done it?' at the white house. a slew of top ranking trump administration officials, includinthe vice president, say they did not write the explosive essain the new york times that has rattled washington. john yang will get a view from inside the administration and from a former white house chief of staff, but first, yamicheci alor updates today's fallout. >> alcindor: an anonymous column.en and a presidstill 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, theen preswent off, writing: "the deep state and the left, and their vehicle, the fake news media, are going crazy..." tl this directed at yesterday's scathing column "new york times" written by an unnamed "senior official in the trump administration." in it, the official described the president's style as "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective," adding; "many ump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions 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 amendmento remove the president from office. throughout the day, senior officials rushed to deny writing the column, including vice president mike pence who was in florida. >> ihink it's a disgrace. th

anonymous editorial published in the "new york times" represents a new loin 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. sp alcindor: meanwhile, on capitol hill, housker paul ryan also criticized the author. >> it's a person who obviously is living in dishonesty. it doesn't help the president. so if you're not interested in helping the president, you shouldn't work for him, as far as i'm concerned. >> alcindor: but at least one republican, tennessee senator bob corker, said no e should be surprised. >> anyone who's had any dealings over there knows that this is the reality that we're living in.so think a lot has been made out of nothing. i think the biggest issue they're going to have is figuring out 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.ok the boays white house advisors work to curtail the president's actions.

president trump must now dealth he idea that people close to him both inside and outside of the white house may be working against him. a number of allies trumphe allays outsidehite house signaled their willingness to work with federal prosecutors investigating mr. trump and his companies. >> tensions remain very hey at the white house. one former trump administration official told me he wores this could have a big impact internally an on policy isssos. that palso said that this could lead white house staffers to simply not trust each oter. meanwhile tonight the president is heading to montana to hold a rally for supporters. we'll see if he says more, john. >> thank, yamiche. now from the view from the white house we're joined by mercedes schlapp on the white house north lawn. thanks so ch more joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> in the past three days we have had ak bome out saying top advisors of the president were taking documents off his desk tkeap him from signing

them. we now have this essay in "the new york timesclfrom someone ms to be a senior official saying that they are tt warting the president. is this presidency, is this administration under threat from within? >> no, absolutely not. , those those individua of us who spend time with the president on a daily basis are completely focused on pushing forward his policy, his visions for america and obviously we're seeing the victory. and theor vithere are very clear. we just saw the manufacturing productivity index come out, the best we have seen in 1 years 6789 we're exciting exepgs in terms of job creaon. and as well as wage increases. ningan we're having a win agenda for america. and so while you have this could ward coward source deciding to write this piece abo the president, someone who obviously w esn't have a good understanding of e president makes his decisions and putting his interests and

his ego above the interests of the american peoe, it is just incredibly troubling. i have to till. >> they did acknowledge tha there were a cheerments on the economic sood and on deregulations and getting the economy working. >> that is from the president, that is what is selling. you have an individual who has eale this decision not to rev his name, and then basically saying yes, america is more safe yes, america is more prsperous, guess who did that, it was because of the work of president trump stsm beuse of hi leadership and because of his administration and those individuals wh areorking for him every day. with you but last night the utpresident said that ther of this essay must for national security purposes be turned ove to the government at once. what are the national security threat exemplified by this essay. >> well there is always concern about whether there is classified information being sented out or being leaked.

at this point the organization that knows who this person is, is "the new york times." obviously they're the ones that know who this ivndual is. i think had we need to be looking at rate now is the fac that for individuals who are everyday is working and supporting this president, who knowhat what his vision is for america, what his accomplishments have been, thus n r, which has been incredibly successful t is nor to serve this president, to work for the american peoanple. if you don't believe in this president, then don't work for him ts the riht thing to do. and it is something that. >> if there is a nat security threat f there is this threat as you say of disclosing classified information, what is the adinistration doing inside the who us to try to find out who this person is. >> look, i'm not going to get into any iern delib rionings or go into hypotheticals, all can i say is n"t york timeses" who knows who this

anonymous source is, who thisco rd is, this individual who obviously is more concern about their interests and pretending like they have this moral high ground without truly understanding what the president is doing day in and day out. for those us who are with the president, who get to see him i action, working with the republican leadership, working with o coalitions, working with the different cabinet tmbers, we are committe making sure that the president has the support he needs to ma sure that his policies and his agenda are delivered. >> you raise this pobtd of classified information being disclose 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 tong go-- looi'm not going to go into any iernal delib rations, i think at the end of the day, call "the new york ti s," call thairinion page

editor, obviously the media is w obsessed abo this individual is, they are calling around, seeing who is denying, who is not denying. this is whyhey have investigations. the media will be one to look into it see if the fy cand out who this individual is. >> the denial came out today of the long list of people who sent out statements, was that r the president's benefit, so people would let the president know it wasn't them. >> we were with the and certain news organizations were reporting that the president was looking at these denials which is completely false reporting. the president has been in meetings all day. he has been meeting with hi staff on a variety of issues including north korea. and quite fraly, it ws something that we were like this is not true. and so there is a lot 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, we've 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 under president 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 standpnt, is the person who wrote this essay protecting the united states as he says, if he or she sayin the essay or a gutless coward as the white house says. >> well, you know, it is hard to come do n with afinition here because on one hand if that person is describing the situation at is real in the white house, and a president who is not very effective and doesn't have either the moral or inllectual capability to b president of the united states, and this person is identifyie that and t efforts of the

staff to restrain it,e thn obviously that person is performing an imptant role here. on the other hand, if that individual is not willing at someoint to come forward and really inform the people in the congress and in the country about wh is really going on, then obviously that person is in part a cowarell. so i think it's probably a little bit of both at this point. >> 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 rational response or a mreasonable response to seone who has questions about a president or should this person resign? >> well, you know, let's looat the bottomline here, john. the bottomlineis that the presidency cannot operate this we have a president who in some ways is at war with his own staff, both pointed out in the woodward book as well as this o

ed as well as by others. and we elect one president of president of the united states. to discharge the duties and powers that that presidentas under the investigation. and here are the indication iss that the staff working to try to contain this president and make sure that doesn't make some of the decisions that he aants to make. you cannot have thin this country. we need to have one pre whether you are for or gengs donald trump. the fact is you need to have one president. and show that isot the case today. >> so are you saying that the staff shouldn't be ting t that wart him. that by trying to that wart, an unelected staff traying to that wart an elected president otathe uniteds is not the right thing to do? >> this country is at risk. when you have a president of the united states elected by the people and at thee ame timhave a sphaf who believe that this

president for whatever reason is not exercising the right kind of jujt, that situation cannot exist. and frankly, under our constitution, it cannot exist. the issue here, the fundamental issue is canhiesident digs charge his duties and powers of the office of the presidency.o is he able that. and obviously the mre abers of the staff who believe that's not the case and obviously the 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 altermine what is happening. because we cannoow that situation to continue. it puts the country at risk. >> 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 repubcan leadership, mitch mng donnell and speaker ryan and whoever they want to a a sp them. oft it go down and talk to the president and chietaff to discuss the situation. and determine whether oot there is this war going on within the white house. t it seems to b case. senator corker also mentionedua that son as have others. so how is the prsident and t chief of staff addressing this situatioin order to make sure that this kind of conflict doesn't continue. because if it doens, we 't know ultimately who is making the decisions here. is it the president of the united states? or is it the staff members who are trng 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 operate. >> we have had cases in history,

at the end of the nixon administration, when secretary of defenseschlesinger issued an order that any nuclear command from the president should be cleaid thraw him frst, i have also heard white house chiefs of staff talking aut slow-walking decisions they fement were wrong-- they felt were wrong or hove been quick leigh, too quickly made anng to give the president a chance to rethink it. is-- what is the difference between those things andin whats on now? >> well look, in a normal white house, there are always going to have to be, you know, those twkinds of relationships n the president, chief of staff and others within themi stration. but normally this is worked out within the wte house. through a process of policy making, of discussions, of being able to convey your views to the president. and being able to determine ultimately what the president i going to decide. because in the end, this has tot

be ahe president of the united states making the decision on policy.i bun the past there has always been this tension in personal relatilsships. but ithas worked out in a way that i think serves the president of the united states. today what i see is a situation where for whatever reason the president is not able to havea the ff be able to look at him in the eye andsay weave real concerns with the decisions that you are making.th is normally the way the process with take place. instead the staff is going around him, to t to impose their particular will in certain situations. and while i understand that thef do it outthe best of intentions for the sake of the t countr fact is it undermines the presidency of the united states and 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.ho >> former white chief of staff leon panetta, thanks so much for being with us. >> you bet. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, republicans and demoats 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 gal 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 of homeland security says it wants to detain families, together, until their cases are resolved. migrant advocas promise legal allenges. a powerful earthquake rocked northern japan early today, killing at least nine people and injuring hundreds. it shook the island of hokkaido, anknocked out power to thr million homes. ivor bennett, independent television news, reports. >> reporter: this was the moment the earthquake struck in the ddle of the night near hokkaido's main airport, a force great ough to make planes look like flimsy models. cities were suddenly plunged into darkness as the entire island lost power. an area roughly the size of scotland and home to more an five million people. the worst of the damage was near the epicenter the island's rural south.

where entire hillsides collapsed the earthquake triggered huge landslides turning what wasto greerown. 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 missin, still missuried in what remains of their homes. japan's prime minister shinzo abe said that saving people's lives is priority, in the face of yet another disaster. t on tuesd west of japan was battered by winds over 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 television ns. in iraq, new violence broke out today in the southern city oflo basra,ng the country's main oil hub. the main provincial government building was set ablaze,sp e a newly imposed curfew. it came amid protests against unemployment and lack of public services. 12 civilians have been killed ic clashes with pthis month. there's been more bloodshed in northern afghanistan. suspected taliban fighters killed 19 security 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 alo nial-era law that punished homosexual acts with up to 10 years in prison.t.

india's l.g. communityce lebrated the court's decision, which found sexual orientation cannot e used to justify discrimination. >> ( translated ): i have never faced this amount of happiness ever in my life.ct we didn't exo see this day but finally we have got justice and at this moment i can't express ything else. >> woodruff: the ruling in india e could aid efforts to strwn similar laws in neighboring bangladesh and pakistan.ko top soutan officials say north korea's leader has reaffirmed his comtment to give up nuclear weapons. kim jong un met with south korean envoys yesterday in pyongyang. they say he told them he wants to denuclearize by the end of president trump's first term. the officials also announced that kim and south korean president moon will hold theirxt ummit, starting september 18th. back in this country, the u.s. justice department has charged a north korean man with a series of major cyber attac.

officials say park jin hyok was behind the 2014 hack of sony pictures entertainment, and last yr's "wannacry" ransomware campaign. north korea allegedly ordered the hacks, but there's little chance it would extradrk. firefighters in northern california are battling a new fire near the oregon state line. it broke out wednesday and closed 45 miles of interstate 5. wind-driven flames as high as 300 feet forced truckers to abandon their rigs. by today, the fire had burned 23 square miles. twitter announced today it has permanently banned far-right figure alex jos, and his program "info-wars." the company says jones violated its policy again abusive behavior by posting video of his berating a cnn journalt. jones specializes in conspiracy theories.

he's also been suspended by other social media sites. ford motor companyoday recalled some two million of its f-150 pickup trucks across north america. it said the seat belt assemblies can throw sparks when they tighten, and cause fires. the recall affects trucks from the last three model years. and, on wall street, the dow jones industrial average gained 20 points to close near 25,996. the nasdaq fell 72 points, and the s&p 500 slipped 10. still to come on the newshour: highlights from the kavanaugh confirmation hearing. how companies in wisconsin are filling bs in a tight labor market. and remembering actor burt reynolds. re >> woodruff: wrn to the confirmation hearing of brett h to be the next supreme court justice.

it was another day of discord-- this time centering on abortion and race. democrats publicly released a few dozen of judge kavanaughs documents and emails from his time in the orge w. bush administration.a wyer for president bush had previously deemed those emails" "confidentiaaning senators could read, but not talk, about them. the release sparked a heated exchange among sators. >> i am going to release the email about racial profiling, and i understand that the penalty comes with the potential ousting of the senate. i am releasing it to expose at, number one, the emai that are being withheld from the public have nothing to 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 is committee or serve in the senate, in my view, if they decide to be a law into themselves and willingly flaunt the rules of the senate and the determination of confidentiality and classification. >> it's ca records act.dential that's the demon you're after here-- that is the only reason'v got this issue.us now, thedian of those documents holds and exercises a privilege on behalf of the bush administration. those recos has agreed, notwithstanding the privileged nature of those documents, to hand those over to us, with an understanding that when ere is a need that arises with respect to one or more of those documents, to make them public, we can as a committee, go through process to do that. >> there is no senate rule that i violated becse there is no senate rule that accounts for this process. i will say that i did willingly violate the chair's rule on the committee confidential pross.

i take full responsibility for violating that sir, and i violated it because i sincerely believe that the public deserves to know this nominees record. >> may i reasenate rule 29-5, the standing rules of the senate, for the benefit of all senators: "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 aenator to suffer expulsi from the body, and if an officer or employees, to dismissal from the service of the senate, and to punishment for contempt." >> bring it. bring it >> so i would correct the senator's statement, there is no rule. there is clearly a rule thatpl s. >> then apply the rule, bring the charges. bring it. >> woodruff: and that's where we'll start our analysis of day 3 of this marathon hearing. our own lisa desjardins has been in the hearing room all week--

she joinus from capitol hill. newshour regular marcia coyle cors the court for the "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 administrn, and he joins us from new york. welcome to all of you. and lisa, i'm going to come to lou firstment because just fill us in, if you l, briefly on what was going on overnight that lead to the release of some of these documents that this argument started about earlier. >> simply, judy, democrats tcluding senator booker actually requestat the documents which had previsly been confidential be allowed to be made public that is 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 staffers for gorge w bush andnthe departf justice worked through those and they cleared them for public release t

by te the committee met this morning and had that holdback and foth and kerfuffle, the documents that cory booker was talking about were in fac longer committee confidential. so there was to breaking of the rules today. but judy, iwhink what you sa was a bigger battle over the image for both paties. democrats felt like they had some ground to stand on based on these ema s, one which dealt with racial profiling, another with a dorgs, to say hey there is sometcng in these douments 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 it matter in the end whether this material was made public or not? >> well, i think because at least from the democrats' perfective, senate democrats' perspective, it did open some additional lines of questions about judge kavangh's views on abortion, affirmative action and race in general.

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 hiss vi those issues in particular. >> woodruff: paul clement, there was a back and forth yesterday and today ovesr who i responsible for deciding what was released and what wasn't. erest of thee int bush administration in some way to keep this material or-- frankly so many pages of documents still under seal? >> i don't thnk that it was in the interests of the bush add p necessarily keep this material confidential. obviously there is arocess under the presidential records y t and i think there are important reasons at process should be followed. i think the key thing though is the one person who wasn' responsible for keeping these documents from the public was

judge kavanaugh. in some ways i any all of these procedural side showpr ably work to his benefit. because he's not the one that has sort of kept thse documents away from people. and this is really sort of a tsfight between the democnd the republicans on the senate judiciary nemmittee. >> sl katyal, at the end of the day having had a lot giving democrats and the blic a loo at this, do we come away with any sort of different per accepting this nominee? >> i think we do. and so you know, ige with paul, we don't know if there is interest in the bush administration. but it is really not in the interest of judge kavanaugh to have 100,000 pages of documents still withheld even at this moment and many pages dumped just a little whale ago and dumped, as you said, at 4 a.m. and senator mcconnell warned president trump an said look, if you nominate judge kavanaugh and you want to have a rush hearing, it is going to be a problem because they have asked for the a number of documents and when you have held a

document like this, like the tnes today were not classified or anything likt. they are things about like 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 still haven't gotten all the documents. they are trickling out there are still 100,000 pages being withheld and i think you know,it ooks particularly suspicious when the rules of senator grassley insisted onnd senator cornyn with respect to kagan, they are now throwing tha 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 to play now 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. y was reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. ca 1992, when the court specifically considered whether to reaffirm it or overturn it. in that case, in great detail, the three-justice opinion of stice kennedy, justice souter and justice o'connor went through all the factors-- the stare decisis factors,nalyzed those and deded 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 been in this dat before hae. with just if i can briefly explain. >> yes, you can. >> i will try to be brief, but this, when you are in this set,

i'm not just sitting here for myself, i'm's sitting here a representative of the judiciary and the obligation to preserve the independence of the judiciary which i know you care deeply about. and so one of thehings i' done is studied very carefully what nominees have done in the past. what i have referred to as nominee precedent. and justice ginsburg but ally all the justices have not given hints or forecasts and previews and just justice kagan captured it good as she always does like talking about the ones like the one are you askg, you can't give a thumbs up or thumbs down and maintain the independence of th ijudiciary so need to follow that nominee precedence. >> so judge kavanaugh is saying n am sichly doing what the other justices who are sitting on the court have done when they were asked these questions. >> there has been considerable confusion over the last three days abouthat he may mean by settled law. and when the emmil from the e he was in the white house came out in which he was responding

to a statement that was being drafted in support of another judicial nominee, the statement said something to the effect that all legal scholars agree that r is settled law. and he said no, you know, i don't think that you can say that rw is setled law. that all legal scholars agree that row is settl law. because there are at least three justices who may be inclined to overturn it. so that just prompted a whole series of questions. did he belieit was settled law or not? that email response really didn't reflect whahe thought. so he had to explain, you know, settled law, precedent. how do you distinguish between the two. and he did point out that there are certain decisions of the supreme court, historicalsi des involving issues that are unlikely to come before the court again such as school segregation, brown versus board of education, that he felt he could say that that wastl

corrdecided. that is settled law. but he said there is also a wholed aboutee of supreme court decisions, precedents that could come back to the supreme court. and so he was foltlowing w other nominees had said, he can not comment. >> paul clement, what was-- what would be the risk ihis going on-- going ahead and saying yes, i think this wosrrectly settled, unless he doesn't believe it. in which cae, you have a different situation. >> oh, i think the risks are quite considerable. and that is why i think judge kavanaugh invoked thinee precedence am i think every person who sat in that seat ine nate judiciary committee hearing really has perceived that if you start saying even as to an innocuous precedent that you think it is correctly decided, that ok i, that one krkly decided, then you have sort of opened it up to answer thatn questout every one of the cases. and then when you get, if you are confirmed, on the court, then you are in a position wherr people literally going to be

citing your senate judiciary testimony in briefs to the court and suggesting that you are hemmed in. so i do think that he's correct to invoke the precedent o judge sotomayor when she w judge, enlicitier general kagan w 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 kayal, did we get as much as we were likely to get from judge kavanaugh today? >> well, i was a little surprised that the answer wasn't a bit more fult some. after all justisb ging certainly answered the question about row in her hearings, even judge kavanaugh answered about whether 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 tat he would appoint

prolife justices, two or three, that would quote overturn row. d we heard it and heard it and heard it and heard it again until the justicekennedy vacancy. and then all of a sudden it disappears.i and that is whink the email today was significant. because it does suggesthat judge kavanaugh has a different view of whether he would be able to and woulde willing to overturn federal precedent. now again maybe there's nothing there. out it looks fishy to have theas documents comin on day three of the hearing. they were marke before.ntial there is nothing classified in them. this is not a good process. >>oodruff: and there is jst one more clip we want to play from today's hearing, whenla re democratic senator countries coons was questioning judge kavanaugh's views o presidential power. >> >> i simply sh you would be clear with us and the american people about your view of the scope of presidential power and what its consequences might be. i don't think you're being direct with me about t because i think to be direct with me about that in this context would put your nomination at risk.

>> i respectfullnadisagree, r. you're talking about a statute that h been non-existant for 20 years. >> that's no longer what i'm talking about, your honor. as you know, what i'm talking about is your view of presidential power, as made clear in speeches, and ins decisid writings. we're not talking about the independent cosel statute now. '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 noteen in place since 1999. secondly, the special counsel system, i've specifically wrten about multiple times thirdly, if there were some kin, of protect for-cause protection or some other kind, that were different 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 rule that out. so those are, and i've referred to u.s. v. nixon as one of the greatest decisions ieme court history.

>> woodruff: now since happened, and that happened about an hour or so ago, the hearing has continued and i am told in the lat few minutes judge kavanaugh has said under questioning that he uld not recuse himself if there were any mueller case, any legal cae that did reach the supreme court were he to be confirmed. lisa, this i something democrats have wanted to get at, is it not? >> that's right. and to be honest i'm sur plihied it tooks long for them to ask that question. i was spking to number t fmocrat dibbing durbin days ago and that was tirst 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: marcia coyle, for a quick go round at the end, th is a significant statement on his part, isn't it? >> yes, it i thit would not be unusual for a nominee to say that because theiy realize ts 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.d i think juge kavanaugh had been asked this before and i think he id it would depend on what the case, thes iss in case. he said he would follow the judicial code's guidance on recusal in making that decislsn. heo made clear, go ahead, judy. >> no. >> i just wanted to say on the presidential power issue, he also made it really clear that if there were aourt ord telling the president to do something or not to do somethin w that thld be the final word. and as far asde the pre taking some action to remove the special counsel, as you heard in the clip, he said he would keepn pen mind on what that special counsel regulations is, as well as what congress has rsaid abomoval. >> woodruff: all of that especially matters right now,

paul clement, because of whatbe ha going on with the special counsel. what do we finally take away with regard to his vi o presidential power? >> well, i think what he is tryingo do here ishe is trying not to prejudge any of these issues. and at goes to the merits of an issue like abortion or a particular executive power issue that could come up. and nobody knows exctly the precise context or which issue would come up. i thk he's trying to preserve his ability to decide thoseis es when they do come up. and i think it goes even to the question of whether he coul recuse himself or need to recuse himself. he would never, you know, d wosolutely never recuse himself. sthink he wants to keep an open mind and apply tandards that would normally be applied by a justice in that situation. >> and finally neal katl what do you take away in terms of his views of presidential power >> there is judy, a bombshell in that answer.ai hethat he approved a special counsel regulation in c answering thp that you

provided. now yesterday when asked about race and abortion and affirmative action and consumer protection, he said can't tell you about those hiepts cases because they could be pending in may court. but probably t mst significant case currently pending in his court, is about the legality of the special counsel regulatngns, it's chal by concord and the manafort associates and the like. and he provided ansr there. so i suspect the rest of the hearing is going to focus on that and say look, iyou can answer that question about a pending case in your court, how can you not answer all of these other questions? >> woodruff: a ns ber of questiill there the hearing continues into tonight. we'll be monitoring it all. i want to thank all of our guest, neal katyal, paul clement, marcia cle, lisa desjardins, thank you. 7

>> woodruff: now, why thers some extraordinary measures beintaken in wisconsin to fi enough workers to fill jobs, including a multi-llion dollar ad campaign to attract millennials and a job training program for pron inmates. economics correspondent paul solman has our report. it's part of our weekly series a "making sens it's also the latest in our series "chasing the dream" on poverty and opportunity in america. >> reporter: the sign of theti s 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 jon gs by 2024 than workers to fill them. >> the reality is anywhere in southeastern wisconsin right no if you need employees, you're struggling to find them. is reporter: erik anderson, is

c.e.o. of basin prn machining, which makes parts for, among others, harley davidson. in spite of high tech machinery that requires fewer operators, anderson wants to expad is desperate to hire. you still needow many people? 20. >> reporter: you still need 20 right now? >> i've got 20 jobright now. >> reporter: the labor crunch, he says, has become the number one threat to his siness. >> i'm on-- i guess you'd call it a full charm offensive. as a c.e.o., you're usually looking to grow the business.th for me situation is such a revenue limiter that i spend about half my time on hr promotion. glad wheny i was s you folks wanted to talk about this very topic. >> reporter: you're doing a little recruiting while u'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 chicnd anyone who didn't know wisconsin.gh >> they thof the traditional things, beer, cheese, packers football. >> reporter: tricia braun runs the state's economic development agency. >> but they didn't say things like it, software development jobs or great healthcare or engineering jobs. so we needed to make sure those, along wi 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 working. >> reporter: but even if it works,nother 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. >> it's 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 the deindustrialization 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 emplod in manufacturing. compared to about 32% of white males.n >> reporter: wose jobs vanished, so did the pipeline for middle class inner city jobs. >> the african american male prime age employment rate in milwaukee today is a little over 63%. a>> reporter: and many otre

underemployed, working part-ti at best. one problem, says levine, living in inner cities, they simply can't get to jobs at machine shops an hour or more >> all the net job growth in milwaukee over the last 30 years has occurred in the surbs. 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.-- computer numerical control-- at the nearby technical college on work ree.le >> 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. a >> reporter: 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 out ere, i see them in the paper, i see them on the want ads. i've gone to temp agencies, anda they're looking for c.n.c. help" >> reporter: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 come a different person, and i've taken them. >> what does a misload do? >> reporter: the instructor here, neil petersen, seemed genuinely rprised his cons are, well, such consummate pros. >> i've donepproximately 20 boot camps and you get a scattering of f's, couple d's, some c's. so far from these ladies i've gotten 10 a's, one b and one b minus. i've never seen that before 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 start work at nearby wisconsin machine shops, while still incarcerated. how many employers come here willing to hire someone from prison?ve >> right now w 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 the i evit's for the short term. if they're not going to reside in the county that the employer tis located, they know thy can help them in the interim. >> reporter: i was told some 70% of these prisoners are in for offenses related to substance abuse, where the recidivism rate may be as high as nine out of ten. c.e.o. anderson says tn't deter him. we heard yesterday tere are employers around here now who don't do drug testing. >> that's true. >> reporter: because they don't

want to automatically eliminate drug using employees. >> yes, that's true, thas true, and we're one of them. >> reporter: now in evory about a labor shortage, there's one obvious question: why don't 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. >> keeping labor 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%.ep >>ter: there's no sign that unions are coming back. but maybe, just maybe, a tight labor market is finally nudging

up wages. e at leak anderson is raising them. three years ago, new made $9 an hour here. this fall he plans to raiseag their startingto $15. and within a year they'll make in the upper teens. for the pbs newshour, this is economics correspondent paul solmann southern wisconsin. >> woodruff: finally tonight,er remeg actor and screen star burt reynolds who died today. as jeffrey brown tells 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 hollywood in the late 1970s and early '80s, appearing in car crash movies

like "smokey and the bandit" and "the cannonball run." during his major run, he also played jocks or former jocks inm movies like "si tough" and in romantic comedies too, including "starting over." the critics rarely tk him seriously and sometimes the movies were panned, but his i cancluded more than 100 if included more than a hundred movs and numerous tv shows, reynolds once told a sporter, i think i'm the only movie star who is ar in spite of his pctures, not 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 move to 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 behavior also drew plenty o attention. in 1972 he famously posed nude in cosmopolitan. he dated some of the biggest t stars of hie including sally field and far a faucet. his marriage to long yie anrson ended in bitter acrimony, often performing his own dangerous stunts, reynolds det with many injuries. at one point battled an addiction to he continued it act at a slower pace as his box office appeal fadement a notable eback team with boogie nights in 19 -9d 7 when he was nominated for an oscar por his role as a porn film director. >> it is my dream, it is my goal strks my idea to makae film that the story just sucks them in >> later he spoke of his ups and downs. >> not tooong before that, i was having a rough time.

and then this picture came along and it changed everything.ut >>r reynolds died this morning in jupiter, florida. he was 82 years old. >> >> woodruff: on the newshour online right now, we reported yesterday on the tic red tide in florida that's devastating marine life 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 newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again here 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 yo soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> kevin. >> kevin! >> kevindv >>e 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.ut and by contrns to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh acss.wgbh.org martha stewart: have you ever seen a fanciful pie

or an in avative beautiful nd wondered, "how did they do that?" then you won't want to miss esthis season of "martha b join me in my kitchen where i'll teach you the techniques you'll need for creating picture perfect recipes,il antly colored cakes, elegant cookies, magnificent meringues and swoon-worthy desserts. all gulianteed to be as ous as they are gorgeous. welcome everesne to "martha bak". "martha bakes" is made possible by: fo domino and c&h sugars have been used by home bakers to help bring recipes to life and create memories for each new generation of baking enthusiasts. ♪ man: the cows are in atlantic ocean behind them. this isn't an image, this is reality, and it's a reality every day here.