judy: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight. no deal in sight. americans continue to feel the financial pain as congress and the white hoe grapple with the prospect of no covid relief for months. suing big te, the u.s. justice department brings an anti-trust lawsuit against google, alleging the tech giant abused its standing to stifle competition at the expense of consumers. and the cost of beef. a shift to imported meat in american groceries as a result of the pandemic causes dire repercussions in nicaragua.

>> people are dying from violent land invasions, their lands taken away for cattle ranching, cattle which then turns into beef, which comes into united states. yes, people are being killed. judy: all that and more on tonight's pbs "newshour". ♪ announcer: major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by -- >> pediatric surgeon. volunteer. topiary artist. a raymondjames financial aisor trailers advice to help you live your life. life well planned. >> for 25 years, consumer cellular school has been to provide wireless service that helps people communicate and connect. we offer a variety of no contract plans and our u.s.-based customer service team can helps find one that services you.

to learn more, visit consumercellular.tv. announcer: johnson & johnson. bnsf for away -- railway. >> the john s and james all night foundation, fostering informed, engaged communities. more at kf.org. announcer: and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. judy: a deadline is passing

tonight in the push for new economic stimulus before election day. but, u.s. house speaker nancy pelosi says time has not run out, yet. we turn to congressional correspondent lisa desjardins to explain what's been happening today. pand in the last few hours. fill us in on where things stand . as of now, we know speaker pelosi had said they needed a framework as of tonight to get it done by the election. lisa: that's right. they do not have that framework in place. they still have areas of agreement -- disagreement, although speaker pelosi sent a messag tonight that they believe they got closer. she and the main negotiator for the president, secretary-treasurer stephen mentioned, had another call deadline. pelosi was saying that they need a deal in the next few days. she originally said today, in

order to pass relief by election day. as like any kid trying to make the school bus, they are trying to push it as far as they can. now it looks like negotiators will again return tomorrow. there remains a question about senate republicans and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. the washington ports -- post reports that he does not think there should be a deal and that he does not have faith in pelosi. all of this as americans by and large agree on what they want. this is a poll from the new york times and siena college showing 72% of voters in their survey support a $2 trillion deal. that is about the middle point between the white house and pelosi right now. let's look at the breakdown by party. 56%, a majority of people who identify as republicans, and 91% of democrats support the ideal. americans want stimulus now but congress has not been able to figure out a deal with the white house. judy: the obvious question is

why? if you have almost three quarters of the american people saying you want to get it done, why are they not able to get it done? lisa: we spoke about the politics last night. that's a major factor with the election looming. i want to talk about something else. these are two parties that are seeing and feeling very different effects of the coronavirus. let's look at where the virus has hit the hardest. in the first graphic, you can see the highest unemployment in the country has been in places like hawaii, nevada, the highest economic loss by gdp, hawaii, nevada and michigan. highest revenue loss for the states, california, new jersey and new york. most but not all of those states are led by democrats. largely blue states. now let's look at the opposite. where are things going the best in this crisis relatively? where is unemployment the lowest right now? north dakota, south dakota, nebraska, iowa, missouri and

vermont. where is the economy doing the best? utah, arizona, north dakota again. where is the lowest revenue loss? places like kansas, kentucky, north carolina. those are red states. you see a real disparity in which states are being hit, that disparity is reflected in the urgency of lawmakers at the capital with them across pushing for much more sweeping aid and republicans reluctt to go that far. judy: pretty striking when you look at it from that point of view. still, in every state, even in states word things are -- where things are generally going well, you hear about people who are hurting and suffering. that diets not make a difference? lisa: no, because it is industry specific. you look at communities of color. you see in paying for the

census, who is having the hardest time? blacks and latinos. there is a dispaty on that level as well. judy: i know you are following this very closely and they are still talking to one another so we will see where it goes. lisa desjardins, thank you. we know the intended purpose of any covid relief package is to ease financial hardship of workers who lost jobs in the fat down, but at the same -- shut down, but at the same time to put more money into the hands of consumers. what happens when that relief money disappears and who most feels the pain? we turn once again to david wessel, director of the hutchins center on fiscal and monetary policy at the brookings institution. welcome back to the "newshour." tell u what the overall projections are about what happens to the economy overall if we don't see any sort of relief package in the foreseeable future. david: the economy was fueled by

the cares act, which passed in march. so the thirduarter that ended at the end of september, it will show up big when the government comes out with numbers, a big increase in growth. but without stimulus, that will level off and level off with far fewer people working than before the pandemic. a couple of my colleagues at brookings estimate with a $2 trillion package, which is roughly where mnuchin and pelosi are talking, we could get back on the pre-pandemic road path by the end of 2021 or early 2022. but without any more fiscal stimulus, they estimate it could be several years and perhaps a decade before we return to the pre-pandemic growth package -- path this is a moment where it really matters. judy: help us understand what sectors of the economy.

we heard some of this from lisa and talking about t states that are hurt more than others. but what sectors of the economy seem to be in the greatest need and which ones seem to be coasting along? david: i think we know that industries that depend on personal services, airlines, restaurants, hotels, resorts, all of those peace -- places are really suffering. that makes the recession somewhat different than those in the past. it used to be that services held up well in a recession. this time, those are getting really hurt. there's also really interesting disparities. people tracking this closely say service industries that serve rich people are actually suffering more because those people are sying home, not going to restaurants, whereas in lower income neighborhood where people our -- are out in about because perhaps they have essential jobs, small businesses

have done somewhat better. it's interesting. judy: really interesting. what about other sectors? agriculture. we have a story coming up on the beef industry. in terms of manufacturing, what different kinds of manufacturing? the financial services industry, what do we see? david: for instance, housing seems to be doing ok. mortgage rates are low. we have seen an increase in housing sales and new home construction. manufacturing is depressed because the world economy is. but in industries where people are able to go to work, the manufacturing is doing better than the service industries. one place that has been hit hard and will be hit harder without aid is the state and local government sector. 13% of all americans work for state and local government and

revenues are down because people are working less, shopping less, driving less and taking mass transit less. although revenues did not get hit as hard as some had feared, looking ahead it will get worse. because states, unlike the federal government, can't borrow the cover deficit, for the most part they have a -- have to have a balanced budget, without aid, we will see seriously alps in the state and local sector in the month to come. judy: in understanding why that's a tough argument to make sometimes politically, people hear the word government and maybe they are noto sympathetic. but remind us, these are firefighters, police officers, other folks who are essential to the functioning of our society. david: exactly. they run the prisons. many times they run the hospitals. local education is a huge employer. we will get less service from

e local government if they have to cut back. i don't think people really want that. they just don't see the connection yet between what's going on in washington and how it will affect them directly. judy: i'm asking you this because there does seem to be a disconnect. we see and we read a route -- about long lines for food banks, peop who need help and are really hurting. then you see the paralysis in the congress and people are asking, why isn't there a connection? david: i think it tells us there is a certain dysfunction in our political system where paulison -- partisan politicians are worried more about positioning themselves for election day than dealing in what is needed. there are some republicans who have suddenly discovered they are worried about deficits, and that led them, particularly in the senate, to say they don't want to do this. one of the things to keep in

mind is there's a lot of talk about it being a k shaped economy, meaning some people are doing ok. people who make more than $60,000 a year, those jobs are almost completely back from the worst of the spring. people who make less than $28,000, the jobs have not come back. many of those have evaporated. at the moment, i think some people are complacent. the cares act provi a lot of juice to the economy and made the recession a lot less worse than it was. people are not quite seeing that we are like wiley coyote running down the cliff. the bottom is about to fall out unless we do something. judy: so important to understand what is underneathhis. david wessel, we thank you for joining us.

stephanie: i'm stephanie sy with "newshour" west. we will return to judy woodruff and the full program after the latest headlines. the cdc issued a stronger recommendation for both passengers and employees to wear face masks on planes, trains and buses. the guidance is more specific than previous statements, and it comes as infections are surging again. all told, the u.s. has recorded 8.2 million confirmed infections and 220,000 deaths. the u.s. justice department today formally sued google for allegedly abusing its power in online search and advertisements. the lawsuit claims the search giant has effectively created a monopoly that harms competition and consumers. google called the suit deeply flawed. we'll have a full report, after the news summary. election day is now exactly two weeks away, and president trump is back on the road night. this time, in pennsylvania. earlier, the president warned

again that a win by democrat joe biden would be a victory for the left-wing. >> the american dream, the great american dream, versus being a socialist hellhole. they're going to turn us into a socialist nation no different than venezuela, and i'll tell you what it cahappen. ,stephanie: on the democratic side, former vice president biden continued his preparation for thursday's final presidential debate. his running mate, senator kamala harris, addressed a virtual event on early voting in wisconsin. she rejected the president's warnings, and argued the democratic agenda is mainstream. sen. harris: we will invest in people who need help with health care and better schools and child care. we will protect social security and medicare. these are the things that we will do because we understand that if we want to build up america's economy, we have to build up working people. [:17] . stephanie: the u.s. and russia

are closer to extending their last nuclear arms control agreement by one year. moscow said it will accept a neutral freeze on the number of nuclear warheads that could keep the so-called new start agreement alive instead of letting expire. we will look at this later in the program. a deadly boat fire in southern california last year is being blamed on the vessel's owner. the national transportation safety board ruled truth aquatics think failed to operate the conception dive boat safely by not having a roving nightwatchman. the coast guard received criticism for inadequate regulations thatontributed to the high death toll. 34 people were killed. and a nasa spacecraft osiris-rex swooped down on an asteroid 200 million miles from earth tonight. as this animation shows, the

goal was to grab a material sample from asteroid bennu, then return the sample to earth by 2023. a japanese spacecraft is already headed back to earth with samples from another asteroid. still to come on the "newshour". going after google. the justice department brings a major anti-trust lawsuit against the tech giant. the u.s. and russia near an agreement to extend a major nuclear arms control agreement. concerns remain over the security of american votes as election day approaches. plus, much more. announcer: this is the "pbs newshour," from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. judy: the antitrust lawsuit brought against google by the u.s. justice department today marks the most significant challenge to a big tech company in this country in decades.

the federal government says the tech giant is abusing its power to block competition. amna nawaz fills in the details and looks at the proects ahead. reporter: that's right. the justice department alleges that google uses its enormous advertising profits to pay phone manufacturers to make sure that google is the default search engine on your phone. this pattern, prosecutors say, has helped google capture almost 90% of the search engine market in the u.s. 11 state attorneys general, all republican, joined the federal lawsuit. but google, which has a market value of more than $1 trillion u.s., says it is not using anti-competitive practices. to unpack this, i'm joined by dipayan ghosh. he heads the digital platforms & democracy project at the harvard kennedy school. he also worked at facebook, leading efforts to address privacy and serity issues at the company. welcome back to the newshour. let's talk about what the justice department is alleging.

they say google is so dominant that it abuses the dominan here's a line from the lawsuit. they say that it primes -- they say google is harming consumers and advertisers. how strong an argument is that when it comes to the antitrust case? dipayan: i think it is difficult toay right now but i think the justice department does have a case here as do many regulators around the world. it isot a bad thing to have a monopoly. it is a bad thing though to use illegal means to gain that monopoly status, get into that market position, or to maintain your position as a monopoly using illegal means. those illegal means are anticompetitive measures.

in this case and other cases that could mean shutting off the opportunity for would-be rivals to compete with you. i think it is the justice department that has a case here and suggesting google has shut out that opportunity f competition for would-be rival by engaging in these commercial agreements with phone mafacturers, telecommunications firms to make sure google is the preferred search engine for all these channels. amna: let me ask about what google says in response. they argue our services are free, we don't force anyone to use them. they issued a statement in response saying the lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers and to the contrary it would artificially prop up lower search alternatives and raise prices and make it harder for people to get the services they want to use. in response to that lawsuit,

what do you make of that defense from google? dipayan: from googles perspective, this is a totally expected line of argument. we are google, we have the most innovative engineers, we were the first major search engine on the market in the sense that we became most popular through our innovation, we developed the algorithm, we hired all of these tremendous computer scientists to develop our product. this has happened over the course of the past two decades, not just the past five years in the maintenance of this monopoly as the justice department has suggested. to that point, google might try and point to the fact that it doesn't actually charge its consumers any monetary price. yet i thi with the justice department would say to that,

and rightly so, is that you do charge a price, it just doesn't come in the form of money. it comesn the form of people's data and attention. when you have a monopoly and you coect so much of that data and attention at an exploitative rate, it affects the rest of society culturally, politically, and economically. amna: let me ask about the timing there are some questions about this. a quickcroll through the president's twitter shows he's long held google in his sites. there's a number of attorneys general who decided not to join the lawsuit. is there any concern there is political motivation behind the lawsuit? dipayan: i think we have to acknowledge that possibility exists. as you mentioned, the timing of this is highly suspect. we are two weeks away from the biggest election in the country,

in the world. we are just moments from hearing about what will happen in our national and political discourse. donald trump and the justice department may well really wish to be able to point to the possibility of holding tech's feet to the fire, particularly given trump himself has implied that big tech has engaged in anti-conservative bias and suppression of conservative voices, and especially as you mentioned, given the stakes and the politicians in those states joining the justice department and pushing this, it does seem

politically motivated alg themes of anti-conservative bias. amna: a lot of questions around that and of course not the first time big tech has come under scrutiny. that is dipayan ghosh from harvard's kennedy school joining us. thank you for your time. dipayan: thank you. judy: the u.s. and russia say they are close to a major agreement on arms control. the world's largest nuclear powers are discussing extending the last remaining nuclear treaty, currently scheduled to expire in february, and freezing the total number of nuclear warheads. nick schifrin reports. >> today is an important milestone for nuclear security and non-proliferation. nick: 10 years ago, the u.s. and russia signed the new strategic arms reducti treaty, or new start, which caps the number of u.s. and russian warheads deployed on long-range systems -- intercontinental ballistic misses, submarine-launched

ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers. and it includes verification measures such as movement notifications and on-site inspections. today russia released a statement agreeing to a one year extension. and separately, to quote assume a political obligation to cap the total number of nuclear warheads, as the u.s. has requested. t russia has not publicly agreed to u.s. demands for additional verification. joining me now is marshall billingslea, special presidential envoy for arms control, and the lead u.s. negotiator. welcome back to the "newshour." bottom line, do you have an agreement on a one-year new start extension and a one year cap on nuclear warheads? >> we don't have an agreement yet but certainly given the fact at russia has moved in the direction of the united states proposal for this cap, it looks like the two sides are getting much closer together. i would say we are very, very close to a deal. nick: the russian statement

today does move closer to where you have been, but also suggests they will not agree on additional verification, that you have said is required to enforce a new warhead cap. what is the additional verification and has russia agreed to it? >> that is one of the areas we will need to sit down and work together and finalize. russia has said they will not agree to additional add-on measures, but i would say verification is not an add-on when it comes to arms control. it is a fundamental part of any arms-control deal and always has been. of course, there will have to be effective verification associated with the warhead freeze. we will work with the russians to make sure it is a mutually agreeable solution, but that is something we are looking for and intend to have. nick: to verify the cap, the aspects of that, as you know, have to include a stockpile,

declaration, you have to have additional monitoring. you have to have agreement on what it is that you are counting. why do you think the russians will agree to this when you have accused them of cheating in previous agreements? >> we documented numerous russian violations of nearly every arms-control agreement they have with us and the world which is precisely why verification will be important. let me also say verification historically has been something the russians also wanted and the idea of verification is in the materials the russians proposed to us. nick: we have seen previous agreements with verifications for missiles that has existed for decades, but we are talking about verifications on warheads which are smaller. is that something you believe russia is willing to do to allow the u.s. to inspect, to the point, you can find warheads,

which some experts i'm talking to, think it can be fickle to see? >> that has historically been one of the challenges associated with this approach. i firmly believe based on working with experts at the department of energy and national weapons laboratories that a mix of technology and procedural solutions are available, probably best applied outside the production complexes to make sure we are not producing an excess of number of warheads compared to those who come in for dismantlement. nick: when you agree to extend the siefert -- separate new treaty itself? >> the national security advisor made clear -- crystal clr that is a nonstarter. here's what. the new start treaty constraints 92% of the entire u.s. arsenal, of our deterrent. it only covers 45% or less of the russian arsenal. the russians are building up in all of these capabilities, the missiles and short-range nuclear

weapons focused at nato. and of course, it does nothing and covers not a single chinese warhead. nick: only two weeks from election day and vice president biden made it clear that if he wins, he would extend new start for five years without any kind of warhead cap. is that reducing your leverage? >> not in the least. first of all, the president, by signaling his intention to pursue this historic approach and with the russians know agreeing in principle, that sets the floor for future arms-control discussions. so the biden camp would have to rethink their entire approach where they to take office, but the also need to be exposed to the kinds of information we have, particularly the alarming intelligence we have regarding secretive trainees nuclear buildups -- chinese nuclear buildups. nick: you demanded china sign onto a multilateral agreement and an increase of verification

before extending new start. have you failed to achieve some of your initial goals? >> no, will first of, we have been consistent and clear all along that the next treaty must be trilaral and must include the chinese. by the way the russians have said exactly the same thing. the russians have said the next treaty must be multilateral. of course, they would also include the british and the french. we have been consistent on that front. we are not talking about a treaty at this stage. we are talking about a political agreement that over the coming year we would move to translate into that treaty. by that point, we will expect the chinese to be a participant in the process. nick: marshall billingslea, thank you very much. >> thank you. good to be with you. judy: two weeks out from election day, and the rules around voting in certain states

are still being contested, incling a split decision yesterday from the u.s. supreme court. william brangham has more on the story. reporter: that's right. yesterday, in a 4-4 split, the supreme court of the united states couldn't agree whether to allow pennsylvania, a major swing state, whether they should be blocked from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after election day, as long as they were postmarked november 3rd or earlier. for more on this decision, and other looming cases, i'm joined by nate persily of stanford university law school. he is the co-founder of the healthy elections project, which tracks coronavirus-related election litigation, and he joins me now. very good to have you on the "newshour." let's talk about this pennsylvania ruling. the democrats said because of the pandemic, we want to give a three day grace period. if a voter males in their

ballot, we should count it as legit. if it is postmarked for election day, republicans said no. the supreme court couldn't decide, so the democrat position stands. what do you make of the ruling? >> it is quite extraordinary that we have not only a decision this close to the election but a 4-4 decision from the u.s. supreme court in a high-profile election case. it does raise the stakes for the current controversy and confirmation process over amy coney barrett. but the decision itself leaves in place with the pennsylvania supreme court said, which is that because of the right to vote in the pennsylvania constitution, they thought it proper to allow late arriving absentee ballots to account for the presidential and other elections. william: as a signal, both to pennsylvania voters, they note they have an extra couple days, is it also seen as a signal to

other states that are also currently fighting over extensions of deadlines and all manner of election related matters? >> it is a signal to the state supreme court's in other states because what was at issue was the claims republicans had made that the pennsylvania supreme court, by unilaterally eending the deadline, was behaving like the legislature which violated the u.s. constitution and the supreme court said, it gave a mixed signal, but four justices said pennsylvania supreme court's decisions should probably be overrul and four said we will let it stand. as a result of the tie, they let it stand. other state courts that are considering other similar changes for the election laws in their states have a signal from the supreme court that at least so long as there are eight justices, those may stand. william: this assurance a brighter light on the impending arval of justice. -- justice barrett.

is it safe to assume she will side with conservatives in these cases what? do we know about her jurisprudence? >> i don't think we know for sure but generally she considers herself an originalist, looking at the words of the constitution strictly.the provision in the constitution at issue in this case is whether as article two, section one says, each state shall determine in such manner as their legislature thereof shall determine. does the state legislature have special power that even a state supreme court possibly can't modify? that is what the more conservative justices on the court believe and perhaps she would be in their camp. william: if the election count is drawn out, does it worry you? we have ard the president say that if he doesn't hear the winter election night, that there is de facto fraud. do you worry about the drawing

out of counting the ballots? >> we need to understand no election has been completely finalized election night. we have always had millions outstanding. what makes this different is we could have as many as 50% othe ballots that are cast being cast by mail. that could be 75 million to 80 million ballots. we may have to wait a little longer but it is better to get the result right than to get it fast. you are right that the more that we are in limbo, the more concern people have some candidate might declare premature victory or there will be allegations of fraud about the process. in a thin-skinned political environment, that is the concern , that there will be a lot of conflict if it goes into overtime. william: talk to the voters who are out there. we know millions have already voted. many are sitting on mail-in ballots that are in their house

debating, fill it out, mail it income a vote early, vote in person. if people are seeing these cases and ongoing fights, what would you counsel them to do to guarantee the safety that their vote gets counted? >> vote as sn as you can. that is the message everyone should sign right now. don't wait until election day if you are voting in person. if you can vote in person early, please do so. if you are going to vote by mail, send it in immediately. also in some states, uck your ballot. there is ballot tracking software that states have made available to see whether your vote has been received. if there are mistakes in your ballot, if you live in a state where it gives you the opportunity to correct your mistake, make sure you do that. the key thing is to read the instructions and mail it in early. william: nate persily of

stanford university, great to have you. >> thanks very much. judy: when outbreaks of covid-19 at meat processing plants in the u.s. slowed production, american wholesalers turned to foreign beef suppliers. beef exporters in the small country of nicaragua were happy to fill that gap, actually ramping up production amid the pandemic, but this has come at a high cost for indigenous communities who are being run off their land to make way for cattle ranches. a warning to viewers. this story contains some upsetting images of violence. nate halverson of reveal, from the center for investigative reporting, is our guide. nate: that classic american meal, the hamburger, is increasingly arriving on ships. imports of frozen beef are up nearly 20% since the coronavirus

pandemic began slowing u.s. meat production. and one country has led that surge of imported beef. nicaragua, that small central american country, has become the third largest supplier of frozen beef to the united states. its imports have reached an all-time high during the pandemic, doubling in just four years, according to u.s. import records i reviewed. but how this little country the size of mississippi exports all that beef, comes with a cost. >> the supply chain of beef from nicaragua is anything but clean. nate: anuradha mittal runs a nonprofit, the oakland institute, that investigates land thefts around the world. in a socially distanced interview, she described how she went to nicaragua after hearing that cattle ranchers are stealing land fromndigenous communities. when you got there, what did you find? >> the indigenous populations are not just losing their lands. they're losing their

livelihoods. they're losing their lives. nate: in january, a group of armed cattle ranchers attacked an indigenous community in nicaragua, burning homes, and killing four men. an indigenous leader shared these cellphone images, that capture the destruction, and the funerals, in their community. >> people are dying from violent land invasions. their lands taken away for cattle ranching, cattle which then turns into beef, which comes into united states. yes, people are being killed. nate: the indigenous communities own these lands, under a landmark international court ruling 19 years ago. yet, a recent united nations report reveals that despite the law, indigenouse people are increasingly losing their lands, and their lives, to cattle ranchers. >> so this violence is escalating. nate: lottie cunningham is a leader in the indiginous community. i asked her about the cattle invasions. >> that is going to cause us

ethnocide. and as indigenoupeople, we are going to disappear. nate: as beef exports have increased to the u.s., so have attacks on these small indigenous communities, resulting in whole villages, being decimated, and abandoned. >> in this year, we have more than 10 people in less than seven months murdered already. these settlers, they shot with a gun one girl of 14 years. nate: why would somebody do that to her? >> to create fear. nate: is it safe for you? >> no, it is not safe for me. i have suffered death threats, i have suffered intimidation, harassment. but i have to continue this battle because my people is suffering. nate: the nicaraguan government is legally obligated to protect the indigenous people from land invasions, but cunningham and others say that instead, president daniel ortega's

government is cutting ribbons for new slaughterhouses, which buy cattle raised on the stolen lands, and sell the beef, to their biggest customer, the united states. the nicaraguan ambassador, who i spoke to multiple times on the phone, declined to sit down for an interview, or address the deadly attacks by cattle ranchers. but senator mike rounds, who has been looking into imported beef, told me in a socially distanced interview that most americans don't even realize they're eating nicaraguan beef. >> american consumers don't have any inkling as to where their beef comes from today. nate: that's because u.s. beef importers are no longer required to disclose where their meat comes from, aftea change in u.s. regulations four years ago. sen. rounds: that's right. the chances are very good that it can contain product from other countries and that all it happened was it was brought here to the united states, and if they slice it up here, they can put a product of the united states sticker on it. nate: senator rounds wants all beef to carry country of origin

beling again, and in october introduced the u.s. be integrity act. >> if it comes from a country where you believe that there are human rights violations, if it comes from a country where you don't trust that the quality is being assured, then i think the consumer should have the ability to say, wait a minute, i don't want to buy that. nate: dozens of companies import beef from nicaragua. thomas foods is one ofhe largest, importing beef from some of the same slaughterhouses that lottie cunningham said are buying cattle from the ranchers attacking her community. thomas foods sells its imported grass fed and organic beef nationwide, to wal-mart, safeway, target, even, yale university. on its website, it claims to track production, every step of the way, literally from the farm to the table. but in nicaragua, that's not true. like other importers of nicaraguan beef, it buys from the slaughterhouses, not directly from the farmers, and has no way of ensuring where in nicaragua that beef comes from. well i'm here at thomas foods. the ceo, michael forrest, has not returned my phone calls or

my emails, but i thought i'd give him one last try to see if we can sit down and hear about nicaraguan imports. yeah. michael, it's nate halverson with reveal and the pbs "newshour" giving you a call back. michael forest never called back, but i talked to company security guards, who helped tracked down a different executive. >> i'm john cassidy. i'm the chief financial officer. nate: i explained to john cassidy what i had read in public reports, the murder and violence, and how the nicaraguan slaughterhouses were sourcing beef from these stolen lands. >> if we were to find out that there was something that you just explain going on, that would definitely impact our purchasing decision. nate: who within your company's job is it to make sure that that's not happening in the beef industry? >> i think that falls to all of us as executives. nate: so if if thomas foods knew that, that within nicaragua, the beef was being sourced from these regions where the indigenous people, t brown people, the black people are being murdered and their land taken from them, you guys would stop buying from nicaragua? >> i believe we would. yes. so we're not you know, we're not out to exploit anyone.

nate: thomas foods emailed me a statement a few days later, saying they will continue to import from nicaragua, because their partners have an agreeme that commits to zero agricultural activity in protected areas. i asked for a copy of that agreement, but thomas foods declined, saying they would have no further comment. >> if they are saying that there are actually actions being taken, they are lying. nate: camilo de castro belli, a veteran nicaraguan journalist, said the indigenous communities and the cattle companies did discuss an agreement, but it fell apart. >> there is no agreement. the cattle industry has been basically worried about their bottom line and they haven't taken any concrete action. nate: de castro recently filmed these cattle being raised on the same indigenous lands that thomas foods said that agreement was supposed to protect. de castro said u.s. retailers need to take a closer look at their supply chains. >> they are being complicit with a system that is hurting people, which is killing people.

nate: i reached out to wal-mart, safeway and target. safeway's parent company said they bought beef from thomas foods this year because of the meat shortages. wal-mart declined to comment. pand target denied selling beef from nicaragua, but when i sent details about thomas food's import records, the retailer declined further comment. i asked lottie cunningham what she would have americans do about nicaraguan beef. >> please don't buy it. that's the way they could contribute with us. nate: but american consumers can't make that choice, until they know where their beef comes from. and so for now, the cattle ranches in nicaragua are expanding, and the killings continue. for pbs "newshour" and reveal, i'm nate halverson.

judy: four of america's first five presidents were born and raised within a 60 mile radius in the state of virginia. those men -- george washington, thomas jefferson, james madison and james monroe -- and their at times complicated relationships are the focus of lynne cheney's new book "e virginia dynasty." i spoke recently to the former second lady and she started by explaining why she chose to profile these men. lynne cheney: i wrote a book about madison. and i was interested in how his inner relationships with the other three virginians shaped his ideas. he helped shape theirs. and in the course of the early republic revolution, these men did amazing things. they, of course, established a republic. they proclaimed independence.

they doubled the size of the nation. they made america continental nation. so these are stories i think we're ignoring now. and i hope that i can help bring them back to the fore. judy: and as you point out, they grew up in a 60 mile radius of this in the state of virginia. lynne: exactly. it's quite an astonishing thing to see that much greatness emerge from a small backwater, which is essentially what virginia was in the eyes of the world. judy: you make them come to life by writing about not only their great talent, what they accomplished, but also writing about their weaknesses and the disagreements that they had. how, despite all that, did they get done what they got done? lynne: you know, it's interesting that by being together, of course, they sharpened one another's wits. they brought others. they brought one another to higher and higher ideas, but their quarrels were also very productive.

and i think that's a way of sharpening wits too. one of their quarrels, the quarrels of between three of them and washington, led to a complete break with washington, which i think people don't often realize. washington died a pretty lonely man, admired by millions, but with few friends. but out of that break came political parties. the idea that a loyal opposition was a good thing, that presidents shouldn't reign unhindered after their elected. -- they are elected. judy: and it's there'so much interesting here to explore. part of it, of course, is the contradictions and you write about this. they own slaves, and yet they believed in equality. they believed in liberty. and i was reading at one point, you said virginia back in 1790 had a population of 516,000 freed people, but it had another 300,000 enslaved people.

how were they able to both justify what they were doing, what they believed in, and then what they were doing in being slave owners? lynne: well, they lived in contradiction and they were fully aware of that. they believe that slavery, that holding slaves was immoral. jefferson called it a sin against god. but they could never find a way to achieve the complete emancipation, the justice required. at the same time, they also lived in this place where a new nation was being created. and they lived in a time when the enlightenment made clear that people could improve their lot and they could approve -- improve the lots of others. jefferson, madison, monroe, washington were all committed to the idea of building a nation on the basis of enlightenment, ideas, liberty, justice, freedom.

these were the ideas they used to build, even though in their own lives they contradicted that by holding people in bondage. one point i want to make is that the ideals that they envisaged and the ideals on which the country was based, have been praised by some pretty interesting people who saw them as mighty weapons against slavery. you know, abraham lincoln, who really didn't have much truck with jefferson, praised him for putting the idea of freedom at the center of the declaration because he said freedom will keep us from ever falling backward into a non-free state. these ideas were very powerful. the most powerful weapons against slavery one can imagine. judy: finally, lynne cheney, the growing number of questions out there on the part of many americans about when we're going

to know the results of the election. for a number of reasons, the presidential election this year, you and your husband, vice president dick cheney, lived through the 2000 election, the vote recount settled by the supreme court. what words do you have for americans today who are wondering whether the results are going to be accepted, whether either side might challenge the result? what what would you say? lynne: well, it's not the first time that the electoral process has frightened americans. nor the first time that they fought about it. i immediately think of t election of 1800, which was tied between aaron burr and thomas jefferson. and before it was settled, there was talk of the people arming themselves in maryland and pennsylvania. we came through that. i am sure will come through this, but we should always be vigilant to guard our liberty and our republic. judy: and so to americans,

you're saying because of what you saw in 2000, and earlier. lynne: well, the country has come through. that doesn't mean it will always come through, but it does mean that we should be maybe a little less panic stricken than we are, although, i don't mean to suggest at all that we shouldn't be vigilant. it's kind of a mixed message, judy, not a simple one. judy: not a simple one for sure. lynne cheney, thank you so much. the book is "the virginia dynasty: four presidents and the creation of the american nation." thank you. lynne: thank you, judy. thank you. a pleasure. judy: later tonight on pbs, the premiere of frontline's "whose vote counts." teaming up with usa today, and columbia journalism investigations, "new yorker" writer jelani cobb reports on allegations of voter disenfranchisement and how the pandemic could impact turnout in the fall election. that is "whose vote counts,"

later tonight. before we go, we wanted to let you know about an important conversation online tonight, hosted by amna nawaz, "tee, covid, and coping." our student reporting labs teamed up with "well beings" a public media reporting initiative, to explore how the pandemic, quarantine and remote learning, are affecting adolescent mental health. here's a eview. >> i mean i've always struggled with my mental health but it's been more prominent than ever. having to combine the negative thoughts that clutter this space with the stress from classes is just the perfect mix for a disaster, if i am being honest. >> i feel like i'm trapped within my own mind. no one can hear me. i feel like no one knows who i am. i don't like this feeling. >> freshman year is something that's always given me anxiety so not having a social life honestly isn't that horrible for a more introverted person such

as myself. >> school and my home life is basically one and the same. i really miss when school would just end, and boom, you could come back home and chillax. >> while i'm trying to stay optimistic, i'm still anxious about what will happen next. i plan to go to school a few days a week for a hybrid learning situation but things change so fast that i honestly don't know what will happen. >> you never really realized how long a day is until you go back to school again and you are wearing a face mask and you can barely talk to anyone and it's just you and your brain. it's pretty rough. >> i struggle with anxiety and depression. and i do suffer with mental health issues. someone listening and having that love, support and encouragement to just help me along the way right now is appreciated, and i think that's what i want or sort of need right now. judy: such an important conversation. tune in and join the

conversation, 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight. visit wellbeings.org. and that is "the newshour" for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again here tomorrow evening. for all ofs at the "pbs newshour," thank you, please stay safe and see you soon. announcer: major funding for "the pbs newshour" has been provided by -- >> when the world gets complicated, a lot goes through your mind.with fidelity wealth management, a dedicated advisor could tailor advice and recommendations to your life. that's fidelity wealth management. announcer: consumer cellular. johnson & johnson. bnsf railway. financial services firm raymond james. carnegie corporation of new york , supporting innovations in

education, democratic engagement and the advancement of international peace and security, at carnegie.org. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ >> this is pbs "newshour" west. from weta studios in washington and our studios at walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. >>

♪

-seeking something fresh to sink your teeth into? well, sonora has it. mexico's second-largest state is prime cattle country, whose western edge is gilded with more than 500 miles of rich coastline. and in this episode, i get to taste the bounty of this vast landscape straight from the source. in the sea of cortez, i'm after a real prize -- the sweetest and biggest scallops i've ever seen. i'm in awe. in the sonoran heartland, i explore the state's iconic beef culture with sonora's first female butcher, nere vejar espinoza. -[ speaking spanish ]