. hello, everyone. and welcome to amanpour and company. here is what's coming up. >> tensions mount between i lies over the mysterious disappearance of saudi journalist jamal khashoggi. as fingers point we ask will president trump turn on this key partner. with me to discuss is a presidential historian. and will congress take action, like blocking arms sales to saudi arabia? senator bob menendez is teeming up with republican colleagues to demand answers from the saudis and from trump joining me live. plus a young black man's reluctant odyssey into guns.

we talk about his new memoir, let it bang. >> announcer: additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. bernard and irene schwartz. sue and he had garr waukon heim iii. the mill stene family and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> welcome to the program, everyone. i'm chrissy yan amanpour in london. has jamal khashoggi been murdered by saudis operate he was. it's consumed the airways for nine day and it's a question casting a cloud over u.s. saudi relations. the veteran saudi journalist and virginia resident walked into the istanbul and has not been seen since. turkish believe he was murdered on order resist of the soudy gem. the united states has said they had turned him back to detain opheim the saudi categorically deny any involvement in the disappearance. that was a quote at the start of the week president trump said that he hoped the situation would quote sort itself out. but today he said that even if reed one of america's closest allies in the middle east is indeed responsible he opposes cutting u.s. arms sales to the

kingdom in retaliation. adding there are other things we can do. keep in mind, of course, that america has billions of dollars in arms sales to saudi arabia which is also the world's biggest oil exporter. what is the correct course of action for an american president to pursue in a situation like this? in a momently speak with senator bob menendez, the most senior exact on the senate foreign relations committee. but award ining presidential historian his latest presidents of war. he spent the last ten years studying how american presidents usurped war making powers from congress and taking the matter into their own hands. michael beshlov joins me from washington. welcome to the program. >> thank you, christiane. >> we have a very live situation of a major crisis that could fit right into the contextual

history that is your latest work. so given what we have just said, how should president trump navigate what might be a necessity to hold an ally accountable? >> we have got a real problem, christiane, because, you know of all the presidents i can think of particularly in modern times, as you know better than anyone, when america has an alliance with another country, especially an alliance with another country whose values may not be similar to ours at times it's extremely important to run with the alliance with nuance. as you know president trump may do many things he does not do nuance well. he has thrown in very much with the saudis. s in a crossrelationship of a kind we haven't seen much in modern times. it's possible the saudis interpret that as listen to do all sorts of things they might not do had there been a different president. the other thing is remember what trump said over and over again

in recent months. he says journalists are the enemies of the people. that is heard in other capitols and they may react in ways we don't want to see. >> it's incredible to hear you say that. many of us took note of what president trump said. sort of off the cuff in the oval office and the fact that it is a journalists raise this is to another level. he seemed to defend the notion that a journalist should be, you know -- should be free of attack. so i hear what you are saying, sort of a mixed message at the moment. some are saying that in every administration and every era there are moments that set the era, that set the history of this moment. and particularly in bilateral relations. do you think this is the moment for this administration when it comes to saudi arabia relation sns. >> i think it may very well. i think the president may be compelled to. but it's not his natural

instinct. if you think of other recent presidents without being advised to we would say we are in a different world with in alliance. i'm not sure he would react that way. >> let me play the sound bite from president trump who has spoken to the highest levels of saudi government in the last couple days to get some clarity on what happened. but this is what he had to say about king salman. >> i always found him to be a fine man. we had a good relationship. i'm not happy about this. we have to see what happens. we have to see what happens. nobody knows what happened yet. they don't know over there. but it's a very serious situation. and it's something we're taking very seriously. >> now, there are apparently as the president says u.s. investigators who have gone over there. but i want to, again, put it into this historical context that you write about. the idea of you just mentioned the press but certain democratic institutions fraying in the united states, critics have said, under this presidency.

and you sort of alluded to the fact that that might embolden other leaders who are not democrats by any stretch of the imagination but more autocrats and dictators. thinking if it's happening in the u.s. maybe they will look the other way this time. >> absolutely. and you know, it's plain for all to see that president trump females very comfortable with autocrats around the world, whether erdogan or the philippines and exhibit a would be vladimir putin. anyone who saw the display in helsinki where he cut vladimir putin every break as he has over the last several years, one consequence of that is going to be that other people who have alliances with the united states, whom president trump seems to look kindly on will think they will be cut a break with something like this and this may have happened in with saudi arabia. >> let's talk about congress on

the presidency. because you address that in your new book. let's say congress. -- in a moment we speak to the ranking democrat on the foreign releases committee. and other senators have asked for a robust reaction if this is the case with saudi arabia. now, if the president still is ambivalent about his relationship with ire the king or the crown prince, what power does congress have to impose the kinds of things that america usually imposes, whether sanctions -- >> they can -- yeah, they can do sanctions, they can do resolutions. they have control of the money power. that's something that's gone through history as you mentioned earlier. i read about that in my book which is that the best foreign policy in in country is always when you have members of congress, leaders of congress, even a president's -- of a president's own party challenges what he is doing. lyndon johnson ran the vietnam war, as i write about, for five

years. what he lacked was leaders of his own party saying you can't do this. this is a war that's unsupported. you are dealing with a corrupt regime in saigon. george w. bush would have done a better job in iraq and afghanistan if his own leaders in congress challenged him more. in going all throughout american history as i write about, back to 1807 that's what the founders wanted. they didn't want a president to get us involved in a war single-handedly. they demanded if he want add war they go to congress and get a war resolution, a war declaration. and the problem is that since 1942 not a single president has gone to congress asking for that declaration when he wanted to steek a war. truman, johnson, george w. bush, george w bush. got the nation into war with varying ideas of doing it or not but without consulting congress.

>> why didn't congress exert the legislative and constitutional prerogative. >> because too often they are lap dogs. and they are accustomed to a president going to war with only asking for a flimsy rchlgs like the gulf of tongan resolution which was in 1964. johnson and nixon used that flimsy resolution based on an attack that never took place to run the vietnam war. big american tragedy for ten years. congress was lap dogs and should have shut it down. >> just to pursue that a little bit. you just layed out how many presidents did that. president truman didn't seek a declaration of wherefore korea. none of the conflicts, persian gulf, afghanistan were declared wars. so i mean you said they are lap dogs. but it's if it's so detrimental to the united states why does it persist? >> it persists because, for instance, look at the leaders of

congress right now. if president trump wanted to get involved in a war it's very unlikely that a republican congress leadership would get in his way. and the result is that nowadays we are in the dangerous situation where a president can almost single-handedly get the united states in a major war overnight and he may be tempted to do it for political reasons. any modern president, for instance donald trump in 2011 and' 12 put out tweets predicting that barack obama would get involved in a war to get himself re-elected in 2012. very dangerous thing for a president to think of, sending americans off to potentially die in a major war, possibly for political reasons. >> you know, michael i wanted to ask you about that. because you bring it up. we heard him say, believe me president barack obama was ready to push the trigger or whatever over north korea? have you ever herd of that

before i never did. >> again if you subject donald trump's tweets to a lie detector test it might not entirely pass all the time. this would be an example of that. but this is a temptation for modern presidents, including him. for instance, another thing that president trump has said is that if you want to be a great president you look through history. the great presidents often times have been presidents who took the nation on to war. not wrong. but a very dangerous idea for any president to have. >> and you know, you talk about -- well first of all let's get to another kind of war. the whole idea of a trade war. you know, very early on in his presidency donald trump actually says a trade war is good. and actually easily winnable. how do you see in the context of history that you write about what's happening right now? because there seems to be a trade war between the united states and china, playing tit-for-tat on tariffs. the imf saying this could have a

major effect on the american people in terms of slowing american economic growth, and global growth if it slows china's growth as well. >> no question. and it can also as you well know trigger a real war, a military one. and that's one of the dangerous. one of the things i write about and see through history we have gotten involved in war often times on false pretenses. 1846, james polk got news a war with mexico claiming there was a border incident that was actually fake. we had the huge war with mexico, brought us almost a million square miles to the united states. but it was based on something that was courtney fit. the sinking of the maine off of haurch. we went to war with spain because of that turns out to be a bailer accident. one thing that any president of stature we hope he or she always does is make sure if we ever go into a big military conflict it's not based on something that

is accidental, such as a trade war, that in 1941 with japan for instance lebron jamesly led to pearl harbor and the entrance in world war ii. and also let's make sure that we never have a president fabricate an destine or exaggerate an incident causing americans to stampede and demand the nation go into a major war that we really did not find essential. >> it's really very important to remember this historical context. bup lest i forget and lest we forget, actually the united states currently is backing the saudi arabian war in yemen. and many in congress don't like that one little bit. so there is -- you know, there is war by proxy going on. the u.s. actively supporting saudi arabia. and her is ken buck a republican congressman inio. he wrote this in the walgds. war is a heavy responsibility

but many of american foreign conflicts are started, executed and largely overseen by one man, the president. congress has seeded the war making authority to the executive brnch. war and peace are no longer an expression of the will of the american people. so that, you know, representative buck actually does have a son son on active duty in the military. you have described what congress is doing and why. but can it regain? should it regain? how can it retain the prerogative and for it to be something the american people actually have a say in? >> has to demand that the president explain every such conflict that we are in both to the house and senate abo, and also to the american people. for instance, the war that you were talking about, how many americans are aware of that? how many times has donald trump given an extended speech explaining why we are enmeshed in that conflict? that's a responsibility that you have from a president.

one of the great things abraham lincoln did which i write about was when he waged the war against the south we are not just legalistically trying to bring the south back into the union aflt part of it. he lift to do to a moral plane. saying we are trying to advantage wish slavery and carry out best ideals. and the best presidents in history. franklin roosevelt for most of world war ii. i lament what he did about the holocaust and i hate what he did with the japanese american internment. but when the war presidency is at its best you have the war president lifting the towns a moral plane. haven't seen that with president trump. i think he thinks that something that presidents shouldn't deal with. it's always raw balance of power. and i think that could be very dangerous. >> so let's get back to the war that started our millennium. and congress did authorize the war in afghanistan, considered a

defensive, retaliatory war for 9/11. but in the interveeng, you know, 17 years, that has been invoked by both president bush and ponn, a republican and exact for dozens of incursions all over the world. i mean, that -- that authorization is still standing. >> it's a total violation of the constitution, the founders never intended anything like that. and they were -- that's what they were absolutely worried about. they were worried that presidents of the united states would become like european monarchs. as you know in history the monarchs of europe when they got to be unpopular they would go to war with another country and the suddenly the nation was united and loved the king. they wanted to make sure our system was the opposite. can you imagine if the founders came back and found we were enmeshed in a war that has gone on 17 years, the longest war in american history, or gnat iraq

war, whether you want to argue that round or flat, in 2004 as i write in my book, there was one poll that asked americans why did we get involved in the iraq war, something like the mid- -- something like 45% said we got into the iraq war because saddam hussein was behind 9/11. that's not the country the founders envisioned. >> i want to ask you sort of end by asking but what might happen within the united states. we're talking mostly about the u.s. in wars overseas. we have in issue between the united states and saudi arabia which could come to some kind of diplomatic crisis. but in terms of domestically, you know we talked about the fraying of some of the pillars of american democracy, including the press. >> right, right. >> civil liberties and this didn't just start with trump because -- but even under president bush, obama, some of

the surveillance the crackdown on the press all the rest. but it's gone to huge new levels under this president. and at the same time this alarming poll recently said that a majority or a huge significant number of young americans could see a sort of military strongman or woman in charge right in the united states. do you see as you look out to the future the constitutional guard rails holding? or do you see the kind of potential collapse and threat and fraying that could have a sort of disastrous authoritiarian result in the united states? >> well, actually i write about it in my book. you know, democracy is always in jeopardy. it has been over 200 years. and one of the ways it's most in jeopardy is in war time, because war and authoritiarianism go hand in hand. for instance, wood row, an academic who wrote about simple liberties. he was the guy who came up with

the espionage act as you know christiane is still in force being used by donald trump today to go after journalists keeping this them from writing and saying what they should with, trying to plug leaks. if you were worried about democracy -- and i think over the long run anyone who bets against democracy in america is crazy because it's so deep in our dna. but we have to fight for it every day. and any president who is -- doesn't feel as strongly about democracy -- and this is one worry about donald trump i think. i don't think he has the understanding of our history to know how important democracy is to what this nation is. the biggest danger would be if you have a president in war time given certain powers that non-war time presidents don't have. presidents in war time can declare martial law, they can exile, you know, certain members of our society to other places. as franklin roosevelt showed with the japanese in 1942.

but roosevelt and wilson were people who understood civil liberties. if you have a president who is not sensitive to those things, that can be a real danger. >> really fascinating, especially at this moment. thank you so much. author of "presidents of war." . and returning back to the khashoggi incident will the united states use the leverage over saudi arabia to force that country to come clean about whatever it knows about whatever happened to jamal khashoggi? two people leading the effort are the top republican and democrat on the senate foreign relations committee. senators bob corker and bob menendez. they have both been briefed on the administration's classified intelligence and they are using a relatively new law, the global mag knitsky act, to force trump to investigate and consider sanctions. 22 senators in total have signed on. senator bob corker says he thinks khashoggi is dead. the saudis are responsible and his action with menendez will

hold the white house's feet to the fire. just listen. >> i think it puts intense pressure upon the administration to go about this in a diligent way and then sanction -- and we made sure we had language in fl -- to make sure we look at the highest levels of the saudi government. >> now, his colleague bob menendez is the most senior democrat on the senate foreign releases committee and joins me now from the capitol. senator, welcome to the program. >> good to be with you christiane. >> so i mentioned the senators have been briefed on some of what the administration and the intelligence knows. you've just been briefed again. te on specifically and up to precisely what you know about this terrible and alarming case? >> well, christiane, i can't speak to the intelligence itself. butky characteri-- butky charac.

it's incredibly alarming. i think the saudis have a lot of answering to do. and my own view is either mr. khashoggi has been detained and may be some form of rendition or he has been murdered. and in either event we need to get to the bottom of how either his rendition, disappearance and/or murder took place. and that's why we invoked for the first time as the chairman and the ranking member myself as ranking member invoked the first time the provisions of global mag knitsky allowing to us require the president to conduct an investigation and come back to the the congress with an answer. and secondly if that answer leads to anyone in the saudi government or anyone else associatewood the saudi government as being the perpetrators, then there are consequences for that. and we expect this to be taken

extremely seriously. >> i'm asking you about the consequences in a moment and how you think president trump reacts given what he said publicly. but i want to pick up on what u have said that given your latest briefing you are even entertaining the possibility still that potentially jamal khashoggi may be alive, may have been detained and potentially rendered back to saudi arabia or somewhere. that's a new thing. because yesterday or just before in latest briefing, your chairman bob corker said that he thinks he is dead, and the saudi denials and explanations he says are incredulous. >> well, one could come also to a conclusion that mr. khashoggi is no longer alive. but i am not of the view that is definitive conclusion. it's an either or proposition. he obviously has disappeared. he entered into the saudi embassy in turkey, did not come out. there is all types of information in the public domain about the -- a series of vans

that left there. where they ended up, what they did, where he is is still an open question. he may in fact have been murdered. but i don't know that for a fact yet. >> i know you don't want to get in and can't get into the specifics of intelligence. blic domain reports of u.s. intercepts suggesting that conversations between saudi officials and others talked about potentially luring khashoggi back home and detaining him there. does that sound credible to you? would i be correct if i asked you if that was the case that you've been briefed on that? >> i would say that those public reports are part of why i consider the circumstances alarming and why the saudis have a lot of answering to do. >> and you have an ally -- nato ally, turkey. how closely are you in touch with them as congress, as the u.s. administration?

how much faith do you put in their extensive leaking on backgrounds of what's happened? >> at a congressional level we have not been with turkey. but the administration has supposedly been engaged with turkey and is engaged with turkey. obviously those two countries have a -- a poor relationship to say the least. so it always creates a caveat of concern. but i think thats it relatively true mr. khashoggi entered the saudi arabian embassy in turkey, did not leave by any account, and his whereabouts are unknown. so that -- that much factual. it's also factual about the published reports from saudi arabian who came in that day and subsequently left. so there is plenty to draw not

only conclusions from but deep concerns from. and i think in in respect the -- turkey has some legitimate concerns what happened in their country. >> it is gruesome what they are briefing to journalists and what they are getting from turkish intelligence officials awful, murder, dismemberment, body, ertz autopsy experts coming into the country. we wait for further official confirmation of that. but let us get to what you are concerned about. 22 senators, yourself included, have signed a letter. you want the administration to really do the necessary and hold an ally accountable if it does prove to be -- to be the worst that we expect it to be. can i just play you what president trump has said about how he feels about that? and then we'll talk about it. >> surely. >> i don't like stopping massive amounts of money that's being

poured into our country -- i know they are talking about different kinds of sanctions. but they are spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs, like jobs and others for this country. i don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the united states. because what they're going to do they are going to take that money and pend it in russia or china or someplace else. so i think there are other ways, if it turns out as bad as it might be there are other ways of handling the situation. >> so how do you react to that? and what might be the other ways? >> i have no idea what the president is referring to as the other ways. this is part of an alarming trend -- trend of the trump administration where human rights, press freedoms in the world, the rights of citizens to

speak out against their government and democracy are a low priority for the trump administration. in my 26 years of doing foreign policy between the house and senate foreign relations committee, i have never seen a lower moment in our history in terms of the priorities that we give to individual freedoms in the world, to human rights, to democracy. and so i am deeply concerned that the administration once again is potentially willing to overlook those violations. and not only sends a message to saudi arabia that almost gives enemy a carte. blanch. here a country we should be concerned about the axes they have already taken. they have ended or seizesed replaces with ktd over the question of human rights discourse. they, you know, ultimately detained the prime minister of lebanon and held him hostage and had him resign. they arrested a series of saudi women just speaking up for

individual rights. they are in the midst of a horrific campaign in yemen. and the list goes on and on. we should be concerned at the end of the day about the trajectory that saudi arabia is taking and all of these actions, many of which i believe violate the international order. and if we let saudi arabia get away with it simply because they are an alloy or we have some strategic interests with it then we send a global message that in fact if you have an alliance with us or some strategic interest with us that we will overlook the critical issues of human rights, democracy, freedom of press, and of individual citizens globally. i think that's something we can't afraid to do. >> therefore you are known to oppose arms sales to saudi arabia, principally over the war in yemen. your colleague, the republican senator rand paul also wants to ban arms sales now because of khashoggi case. do you have the capacity to do

that? can you exert as congress influence over knows arms sales? and do you think that crown prince salman should be personally sanctioned in these cases? where does it stop? what are you asking for. >> right now as the ranking member there is a process of the senate foreign releases committee -- there is a process arms sales have to go before the rank willing member and chairman and if we sign off and they can be publicationly noticed for ultimate sale. i have not signed off on the saudi arms sale in the last batch because of what is happening in yemen where we are -- we see incriminal knit killing of civilians at the end of the day. the dsh dsht apex of that, a horrific apex was the killing of the children on the school bus. so i have not signed off. so there is in resolution of this approval to bring unless there is an arms sales moving forward. and i don't intend to sign off any time soon, if in fact there comes a point in time that the

administration seeks to violate the understanding that the chairman and the ranking member have a obligation to sign off and the right to sign off before they can notice it, if they blow through that then there is the opportunity for a resolution of disapproval. i must say at this point in time my sense is that there is a growing sentiment in a bipartisan fashion in the senate that would actually disapprove of such an arms sale. >> okay. >> so as it relates to the crown prince or anybody else in leadership in saudi arabia, we have to see where the facts lead us. but wherever they lead us if the facts deduce this in fact they were part of the disappearance, rendition, and/or murder of mr. khashoggi they must pay the consequences. >> we will get to the specifics of the prince salman in just a moment. but first i want to ask with regard to the power of congress, the legislative branch, i just -- you might have heard presidential historian michael

beshlov talking to me before about his book, presidents of war. he actually said it's gone back several decades that congress has turned into lap dogs, have not exercised their constitutional duty, neither party, when it comes to holding the president accountable, especially in the highest endeavor which is sending americans to war and conducting war. >> well, look, it is true. i voted against the war in iraq in the house of representatives. i believe that any war should ultimately have a -- a resolution by the congress to authorize that military activity anywhere in the world. and when we are talking about a war in and of itself. at the end of the day, the difficulty has been that those of us who might believe that some engagement in the world is one that we want to pursue as we

pursue al qaeda and other elements in the world, isis, that to do that, we want to give a limited authorization. there are those in the congress, particularly here in the senate who want to authorize that without any limitation on the president. i am -- i am not one who believes that giving an unfettered authorization to the president is appropriate. we have seen that the authorization that was given on the where in afghanistan, the pursuit after september 11th has been used far beyond what anybody would have believed that authorization was for. if i believe the cause is right and i am willing to commit my son and daughter and america's sons and daughters then i want the authorization that has the appropriate to guard rails and limitations to it. that has been a difficulty in getting an agreement here in the senate on what the guidelines, what are the -- you know the parameters of such an authorization?

>> again, why hasn't congress been able to do it? there was a time when the democrats controlled both houses of congress, when president obama was elected. now it's the republicans. so why haven't you done it, either party? >> because there is a disagreement on a fundamental issue, which is what is the scope of the authorization given, authorization for use of military force. there are those who believe that if you are going to give an authorization to let the commander in chief send sons and daughters into ward war that it should be an authorization without constraints. and i fundamentally disagree with that. i'm not going to vote for an authorization for the use of military force without some appropriate constraints. and there are those who join me in that view. that tug is a very principled one and but consequential in trying to come together on authorization.

i'm willing to compromise to a dreg but not for unfettered authorization especially for this president. >> of course it's relevant to the conversation because again the united states is the principal backer of the saudi arabia in the catastrophic war in yemen. let's get back to why this administration -- actually the body politic all over has been so enchanted by crown prince mohamed bin salman of saudi arabia. he came to the united states. went to hollywood. met celebrities. met silicon valley, he has been to washington. he has been really double and triple red carpeted. you know, people -- you all were impressed by husband calls for reform. how do you square what seems to be happening right now? >> well, listen, all of us applauded his calls for reform, his 2020 plan. we believed that that was a -- a legitimate effort to move the kingdom in a different

direction. however, that has been undermined by the actions that the kingdom has taken in so many different ways. you know -- you know, coming to a head now with the khashoggi incident. so from my perspective that's why i held up the arms sales of the ranks democrat on the foreign releases committee. i believe what's happening in yem isn't a humanitarian catastrophe. there is no military victory to be achieved there. everybody says that. and yet we give arms sale that ultimately were being used indiscriminately in the bombings in yemen. so where i have had power i used it. i used it in holding up the arms sales, using it to incorporate global mag knitsky and we will continue to use the power we can where we can from a legislative branch to get the executive branch to move a different direction. but my aspersions what the crown

prince laid out as reforms was something i wanted to see. but all of the actions i mentioned before, what's happened in saudi arabia, lead me to believe that that is less substance and more window dressing at the end of the day. >> i want to ask you about the relationship between the executive branch, the current executive branch and saudi arabia. but first i want to play a back and forth about who is carrying out saudi arabian business right now. >> what's the name of the ambassador in turkey right now? >> i don't have that in front of me right now. >> what's the name of the ambassador in saudi arabia right now. >> i see what you are getting at okay. we have confidence in our diplomatic. >> you don't know the ambassador in eithers place. in fact the the ambassador to yemen is in reed. is it correct you don't have

ambassadors in place in ankara or rhead. >> we have senior diplomatic officials very much in charge. >> so, you heard all that. there are no ambassadors. how much of a problem is that if at all in a situation like this? an acute situation like this? >> well, it's a real challenge. and an ambassador is the voice of the united states in that country. he speaks with the authority, because he is nominated by the president can be confirmed by the senate. and therefore has the power of the american people behind him. or her. and it makes a real consequence at the end of the day when there are interfacing with that government. >> so we hear that prince mohamed bin salman has been in touch with jared kushner, the president's son-in-law and adviser with -- i think with the secretary of state, with the national security adviser. i guess what i want to ask you

is this, do you think it would be different if the democrats were in power? i think you would say yes. do you think that you will win that control of the senate in the midterm elections? and to that particular issue, do you think it is right given your situation that you should be run at the moment because as we all know there were charges be, ended in a mistrial jury dead locked but there is a quote from patrick murray .director at monmouth overt there is no question that ray race is tighter than it should be. if you had a clean democratic candidate running there she should be ahead by 20 points. what do you say, senator in terms of the stakes of what's at stake are you happy that you're the one running for the democratic ticket there? >> well, listen, christiane, i would just simply say that if you have a multimillionaire who

made his millions by making a killing off of cancer patients, who drove the price of a cancer drug in the united states that is a life or death drug for people with cancer by over 200%. sued by the federal are federal government for defauding the health system and putting patients at risk for potentially fatal side effects and settled it for $280 million over a quarter billion dollars and using the money he made in that process in a negative, false campaign, anyone would face a challenge. he spent over $20 million already. spending probably another $20 million in the general election. anyone would face a challenge. i'm convinced that the history that i have on behalf of the people of the state of new jersey on meeting the challenges, on being able to bring a million new jerseyen hshlg who didn't have it before

under the affordable care act i helped write. protecting 3.8 million new jerseyens who have a preexisting condition and can't be discriminated against, of being rst natural disaster in tate's superstorm sandy. and brought $60 billion no the region and when our citizens were turned down by fema got the cases reopened and got them $300 million in the sfat that has the highest rate of autism in the nation. being able to pass into law with a republican colleague, the autism care act and so much more, that they will judge the history of decisions and judgment. and that they will choose someone standing up to the president not just be another - >> all right senator menendez thank you for joining us this evening. and we put the tough questions to the senator. and we will do the same seeking comments from his opponents. and we continue to difficult into many issue was the ohio and colorado governors be john kasich and hiken looper the idea of cross party unity arriving after the mid-terms if that's possible.

a rare bipartisan dwoou as a time of deep seated animosity between the parties. when it comes to the political divide. gun culture looms large. mass school shootings sparked cries for bans with young voices the loudest. why did a young black man with little gun culture become an instructor how to shoopt. our our junk anyyoung. he was trying to relate to his father-in-law. in his new booklet it bang, he breaks down the relationship between guns, race and self-protection. and our michelle martin sat down with rj young for in unusual conversation. >> rj let me set the table. you live in tulsa, oklahoma. you meet with young lady. urine treeinged by her. you want to get to know her better. and by extension her family. and you find out that they are very -- at least her dad is very interested in guns.

when did you realize that guns were really important to this man. >> we were sitting alone in his living room. and recliners. and he brought up a bag with a firearm in it. he went everywhere this the bag that had the firearm in it. and i just came out with it, something i probably would not have done knowing what i know about gun culture now and said why do you -- why that gun? and what is special about it? and he talked for an hour. he just went into revolvering a semiautomatics all the things i didn't have the language to understand at the time. but it was clear this was very important. and this was the thing that i decided was going to link us. we were going to come to understanding each other if we could. but that would mean i needed to do a lot of work, work that i didn't know i was so unprepared to do. >> what was your family's

relationship with guns growing up? what did they think about guns? >> my relationship with guns was movies and music. my parents never kept guns in the house. though they are both retired military, air force. my mother was an officer, captain. my father a buck sergeant. but we didn't have guns in the house. didn't think it was a big deal. >> and you decided not only to learn how to shoot. you decided to learn a lot about guns. tell me about that. >> i didn't decide to learn a lot. i decided to keep going. there were questions raised by myself. there were assertion that is were put forth to me by other people that i wanted to put to bed for myself, one of which is a good guy with a gun really that -- am i safer with a gun as folks walking around with concealed carry weapons tend to say or folks keeping weapons in

homes firearms in the homes for the purpose of self-defense? what is it that they believe and is what they believe correct? and should i believe it. >> you obviously went pretty deep. and you also got a concealed carry permit and got yourself trained as an instructor. i think that shows a lot of commitment. what did you come to see about the experience of shooting. >> for me or people. >> for the people you met or the people you talked to or for you. >> well, for most people it's empowering. you know, you are at the end of something that can take a life. you're at the end of something that's very, very powerful. and it's all up to you. it's tremendously empowering. which you know is dangerous from where i'm sitting. because i don't believe most people understand the responsibility of that power even the folks who think they do. >> charles, your father-in-law, brought you into his world. i mean and he took you to gun shows with him. i mean, he -- i think he helped you pick your first gun.

initially tried to teach you to shoot it. you weren't good at it at first. but you quickly realized the experience he is having with his guns is very different than the experience you are going to have as a gun owner. did you ever talk to him about that? did you ever say to him, hey, charles, me with a gun in my truck is kind of different than you with a gun in yours. did you ever get to have that conversation with him? >> often. often. it would come up when we were riding together from to or fro and he has a gun in the truck. also coming up we he watched "gun smoke." and i would ask where are the black folk sns where are the minorities? over time, little conversations became larger conversations. the news would be helpful, because charles watches a lot of news. and i would watch it with him. i'm still seeing his daughter

when trevon martin was shot. i can list off terrance fletcher was hot in tulsa. we got to see each other. >> you talk about race in the black. this is a black man's journey. and your race is fundamental to the experience that you had. how could it not be? you have made a powerful case in your book that for some people in commitment to guns is really tied up in racial grievance in a sense of fear. what a lot of people would call irrational fear. but with this family they loved you like a son. and they still loved their guns. i'm worning how you understand it. >> i think how i understand it for them is i'm not going to tell charles who believed this -- and i think still believes this -- he does not get to protect his family in the best way he thinks he can. and i'm not telling anybody charles or otherwise that that's not a good reason to have guns.

and that's one way of making peace with it. >> you have made the point in the book. let me talk about that that african-american women in particular and african-americans more broadly show a greater interest in firearms. why is that? why in your experience is that? >> fear. fear. black women, black men are more afraid, say, than they were three years ago. because they are being accosted more often with hate speech, with rhetoric that puts them in a state of fear. and when we are afraid we usually take steps to make sure that we know longer feel afraid. and for many black folks that means i need a gun. and i need to keep it close. and i need to know how to use it because there are people who feel empowered to tell me i don't live in their country anymore. >> i'm just reading a passage

from your book if i learned anything during my odyssey into the role of gun in our country we are in a arms race ramped bup i the radicalized fear peddle aed to buspy near force in the lan. white people historically fear black men with guns. i cited facts, hearts history story and policy to prove this point. yet i live as a black man in a country where too many people are so afraid of being called racist they won't confront racism around guns or constitutional privilege. you trained yourself. you have learned to shoot. you have guns yourself. and you say yet now you are still afraid. in fact more afraid. why? >> well, the more i learned and the more i know the more i -- i don't believe other people do.

i don't -- i don't feel better knowing that there are more people with guns who don't practice, you know. i had to go look that up. i had to go find that knowledge. i don't feel better knowing that the response to hatred is to prepare for violence. so when i say a little arms race, more black people are buying guns. more white people have been buying guns. i was told at my nra instructor krert attention i was teaching them to shoot back. >> them. >> now i didn't go as far as to ask who them was. i was dumb founded by the them i assumed them was black people being me. so, yeah, i'm afraid. i'm afraid to go outside. i'm afraid to get pulled over. i'm afraid to walk in my own city sometimes. >> and where does it end up rj? you say we are in a literal arms

race not wit a foreign power. we are in an arms race with ourselves is what i hear you saying. where does it this end up? sfl. >> hopefully with conversations like this. but -- but it's really hard to have this conversation if i have a gun on my waist and you have a gun on yours. there is no -- there is no talking in the way that we need to talk. if you are afraid the person across from you is going to hurt. >> you some argue, at least the argument from the people who believe in expansive gun ownership put it that way. their argument is it's the opposite makes it more essential that we talk because now we are all equal what do you say. >> i say i'm a black man who has been targeted more often thap many white folks are targeted. and i would say that my experience and my story would say that's not true. now, do i have facts to point that out? no, i also have fear.

and what i've closen to do with my fear is to continue to stand in it, is to lean in, is to walk around in my jordans and and my beads and my hair and believe that people will see me when i speak to them and say, hey, that's rj. and not that's a black man who is going to try to hurt me. or vice versa. see my buddy jason and not a 6'5"30 oh pound white guy trying to hurt me. people will stand in their fear a little bit longer, ask a vulnerable question and hopefully get to know a person. >> to that end, though, and spoiler alert your rice lake with i see and i and her family by extension it ended and what does it say that you are in this deeply intimate relationship with in woman whom you loved deeply and loved you and whose family loved you and embraced

you but somehow you couldn't make it work, do you have hope that in divide that we are now living in can be bridged at some point? >> yes. yes. >> because. >> i was -- i was in an interracial marriage. nobody died. you know, we didn't -- we don't want to hurt each other. the hurt was not something we attempted to do. it happened. and it will happen again for someone else. if it's not happening already. but i have hope because people who don't look alike fall in love. that's a thing that they do. people who don't look alike become friends forever. that's what we do. and i believe that when push comes to shove knows friends will matter more than the guns they have. the violence they can perpetrate. and you hear those stories a

lot. i know i hear those stories a lot how folks say no that's not a black person, a white person. that's john. that's jenny. and sometimes that rears up and you have to be in an uncomfortable spot and make a decision. and that is the part that i'm not sure about in my country. >> rj young thanks for talking with us. >> thanks, michelle. >> rare insight there into the complex web of fear and race in the u.s. gun culture. tomorrow on the show, i'll be joined by the hollywood star keira nightly, the british actress tells me about her role as a revolutionary french writer and the parallels with her own campaigning for women rights. that's it for our program tonight. thanks for watching pour and company on pbs and join us again tomorrow night. >> announcer: uni world is a proud sponsor of amanpour and

company. when bee tollman founded a collection of boutique hotels she had bigger dreams. and those dreams were on the wert. a river specifically. multiple rivers that would one day be home to uni world river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for are more information visit uni world.com. >> announcer: additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. ben ard and irene schwartz. sue and he had garr waukon heim iii. the cheryl and phillip millants family by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

this is nightly business report with bill griffith and sue herera. >> what a week. a dramatic sell off. what happens next and what money moves should you consider making? big bank earnings. results are in. it is what they are saying about the economy, interest rates and trade that is getting all the attention. the new subprime, no down payment, low interest loans. sound familiar? they are back and they have the support of a major bank. those stories and much more tonight on "nightly business report" for friday, october