captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, the trial begins: donald trump mes e er prto facjudg fm the senate as both sides begin to make their case over his role in the capitol insurrection. then, getting the vaccine-- west virginia emerges as a leader in the inoculation fight against covid-19 as new variants of the virus continue to spread. and, the longest war-- a campaign of targeted assassinations against civil society creates a climate of fear in afghanistan's capital. >> this should be a relatively safe neighborhood of kabul, and one of the effects of these killings is to remind everyone,

especially professional women, that they are not safe anywhere in this city. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: our u.s.-based customer service team is on hand to help. to learn more, go to consumercellular.tv

>> the john s. and james l. knight foundation. fostering informed and engaged communities. more at kf.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the united states senate has made history today, prosecuting a past president for the first time. the first order of business was voting 56 to 44 that putting donald trump on trial again , is constitutional.

congressional correspondent lisa desjardins begins our coverage. >> desjardins: for the second time in just over a year, the senate convened as a courtroom. >> the senate will convene as a court of impeachment. >> desjardins: in front of the dais, newly installed tables separated the defense from the prosecution. and senators, already sworn in as jurors, gathered for the second impeachment trial of donald trump. >> desjardins: the former president is charged with inciting the deadly insurrection that more than a month later still has the capitol building on edge, surrounded by razor wire and heightened security. democrats began dramatically, with a video showing the attack on the capitol, and president trump's actions and words that day. >> after this we're going to walk down, and i'll be with you, we're going to walk down to the capitol.

>> take the capitol! we are going to the capitol! >> desjardins: the team of house democrats acting as impeachment managers were inside the capitol during the attack and stressed the danger they saw. >> what you experienced that day, what we experienced that day, what our country experienced that day, is the founders' worst nightmare come to life. >> desjardins: lead impeachment manager, jamie raskin, was emotional, speaking of burying his son one day previously and then, on january 6, fearing for the lives of his daughter and son-in-law who were at the capitol with him. >> this cannot be our future of america. we cannot have a president inciting violence against our government! >> desjardins: he and other democrats pointed to the constitution itself as evidence

that this trial should go ahead, because it allows for officials to lose the right to run for office again. >> the text of the constitution makes clear there is no january exception to the impeachment power. that presidents can't commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any congressional response. that's not how our constitution works. >> desjardins: if mr. trump is convicted, senators could bar him from holding federal office in the future. this as dozens of constitutional and other lawyers, including conservative charles cooper who published an op ed, agree that the process is constitutional. democrats also pointed to historical precedent, the 1876 trial of secretary of war william belknap, who resigned before his trial. >> and when his case reached the senate, this body, belknap made the exact same argument that president trump is making today.

that you all lack jurisdiction, any power to try him because he's a former official. >> desjardins: ultimately, the senate voted that it had the right to go ahead anyway. >> the belknap case is clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial. >> desjardins: the trump team started with a different approach. >> have discovered whether it be democrats or republicans, united states senators are patriots first, patriots first. they love their country. they love their families they love the states that they represent. >> desjardins: pennsylvania attorney bruce castor began by extolling the senate and senators themselves. even praising his legal opponents. >> we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought that the house managers' presentation was well done. >> desjardins: he and fellow trump lawyer david schoen argued

that the impeachment trial is an unnecessary and rushed partisan exercise, showing their own video, of democrats calling for impeachment years ago. >> i rise today mr. speaker, to call for impeachment of the president of the united states of america. >> i continue to say impeach him! impeach 45! >> desjardins: they argue the trial is divisive and unconstitutional. >> the section i read: judgment in cases of impeachment, i.e. what we are doing, shall not extend further than removal from office, what is so hard about that? which of those words are unclear? president trump is no longer in office. >> my overriding emotion is frankly wanting to cry for what

i believe these proceedings will do to our great so long enduring sacred constitution and to the american people on both sides of the great divide that w characterizes our nation. >> desjardins: through it all, staff and senators watched, taking in the constitutional arguments that were more like opening arguments. those officially are set to begin tomorrow. >> woodruff: andisa joins me now along with our yamiche cindor. hello to both of you. you were both watching this very closely. lisa, we could see only the speaker during today's proceedings, but you were in and out of the senate chamber. tell us the bigger picture there. how were senators reacting? what else was going on? >> reporter: senators certainly came ready to take notes, ready to be informed about the situation, but i will tell you that they definitely seemed to be paying much more close attention to the democrats' case than to the republicans' case. i saw many senators including

some swing senators taking copious notes during the democrats' presentation and, of course, it's very significant that, when that video of the riot was played, senators had different reactions. some didn't react at all. some looked down and didn't watch. others were emotional and turned away because of the emotion that they were feeling and watching. in the midst of all of it, senator mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, whose own words were put in that video, was reactionless. so it was a fascinating spectrum of reactions. but when republicans, the tump team began their case, i saw only one or two senators taking notes and it was a clear difference in sort of the way the gravity senators took those two sides at least today, and we saw in the vote as an additional republican senator joined democrats senator bill cassidy of louisiana to vote to keep this trial going. >> woodruff: and lisa, that's a reminder that at the last impeachment trial for former presidentrump, the vote came down almost entirely, finally, along partisan lines, only one

senator joined the democrats. what is your sense from reading the senators this time in terms of how they may be receiving the arguments? >> reporter: i have been able to speak to many senators. they were actually remarkably chatty after this ssion today. i just in the past few minutes. and something really stands out to me, i have never heard members of one party criticize an attney representing their party the way i've heard republican senators in the last half hour talk about bruce castor, including senator lindsey graham, one of trump's biggest allies saying i thought i would figure out where he was going, but, in the end, i don't know where he was going. senator lisa desjardins told me it was a missed opportunity. senator susan collins had this quote, she said, i was perplexed by that first lawyer who seemed to not make any arguments at all. general agreement that the second attorney for president trump, mr. shown, did a better job, but a missed opportunity is how republicans look at that. on the other hand, they also think, i hear from republicans

and democrats, that the democratic team did better than the team we saw last year, that it was a more senatorial tone, less angry, less political, and more didactic and legal, something that senators seem to be paying closer attention to. >> woodruff: interesting that they said that, in that 44 of them, all by six, voted that it still was not constitutional to go ahead with the trial. but, yamiche, i know you've been in touch with the trump defense team before today. what struck you about the arguments they made? >> reporter: well, this was a trump defense that was really at times meandering, at times really struggling to get to their point and, at times, frankly, confusing and contradicting the president, the former president trump's own words. that said, they did eventually feel like democrats were doing this for political theater and really this was about democrats

wanting to make sure president trump can't be their political opponent in future elections. now, to bruce castor, who was the first attorney that lisa and others are reporting, is really getting bad remarks from both democrats and republicans. he made this argument that president trump was really a taet of a politically motivated attack here. he said something, though, that was really interesting which is he said that the american people spoke and that they made sure to vote president trump out of office. that is a concession that president trump himself has never made. it's also something interesting he said, in his long 50-minute speech, he said that he believes that no one on the trump defense will be trying to at all defend the actions on january 6. keep that in mind as i read this tweet by president trump on january 6, he said, these are the things and event that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is unceremoniously swept away from patriots.

his attorneys are now saying they'ret not going to do that. getting to david schoen, the person who is seen as more precise and focused, he talked that democrats were showing "movies," making the case they were trying to be too emotional in their arguments, but, of course, democrats were showing real video from the attack on january 6, trying to remind lawmakers just what happened. something else that david schoen said that was really interesting is democrats were too slow to send the impeachment articles to the senate but also they rushed the impeachment of this. there are also the four lawyers that are going to make up the team for the trump legal defense, today we saw two of them. these were some of the interestings things, contradictory arguments but still arguments that landed their punches when they finally got to the point. >> woodruff: all right, yamiche alcindor and lisa desjardins, watching today, and you will be watching again for the rest of the week.

thank you both. and now i'm joined by a member of mr. trump's defense team from his first senate impeachment trial, robert ray, he was also independent counsel during the whitewater investigation into president clinton. robert ray, thank you for joining us today. they did take a vote in the senate, and it was 56 to 44. they a going to proceed. the argument prevailed that it is constitutional to have this trial, but you think that's a mistake. why? >> i think the proceedings are obviously like the pre-game festivities. i think there's a structural constitutional argument still to be made that was made today, an that is that if the only purpose served by this impeachment upon conviction is the remedy that precdes donald trump from ever running for public office again, it strikes me that that's a

political judgment that is more appropriately reserved to the american people and the voters, close to 75 million of whom spoke in the last election, and not one that should be made by 50 senators from the democratic party plus possibly 17 senators from the republican party. i think that's basically senator marco rubio's view from florida, and i think he's right about that. so i think that's a structural constitutional argument as to why presidential impeachments once theup has left office are not a good idea. i don't think that's healthy for the country in the future. when the shoe is on the other foot as it invariably will be, i'm not sure that this is the kind of precedent that any party would like to see. but, look, the decision has been made. there was a difference of opinion, a majority vote carries, and we now proceed to trial. >> woodruff: well, i'm sure you know that the argument not only by the house managers by but a number of constitutional scholars, many of them

conservative, is that the constitution gives the senate the ght, the role of carrying out not just removal from office but the decision on whether someone can hold office again. they're basing the argument on that. but let's move on to what the trial will be about in the days to come. how strong do you believe the arguments are that president trump had a role, a direct role in inciting the insurrection at the capitol? >> well, that's not enough. i mean, the role that has to be shown so that it's not contrary to the first amendment is that there was a direct call for violent or lawless action. i don't know of any evidence that i have seen so far that would suggest that kind of coordination with the president -- the then president of the united states, and i know that the majority leader chuck schumer has promised there will be new evidence presented at

trial. i will be very interested to see if that kind of new evidence is presented because, if it's not, this is an impeachment that should fail as a legal matter because there's not going to be sufficient proof of insurrection, a federal offense. after all, an impeachment is about impeaching for high crimes and misdemeanors, and the problem with the first impeachment of president trump, is a crime wa't charged at all. the problem with this impeachment is although a crime has been charged, the president didn't commit the crime that was charged. a statement or speech like fight like hell otherwise you're not going to get your country back is not the same as a call for violent action, and if you can't show that under brandon vs. ohio, it violates the first amendment. so i think the president will have a strong defense under the constitution under the first amendment as to why he should not be convictim. >> woodruff: just elaborate on that. what is it you're saying the president would have had to have done or said that would have

made him culpable? >> he has to call for violent action or illegal conduct, you know, it's not enough to just say, well, you know, there's encouragement. there is a very broad protection, particularly for political speech. the brandenberg decision from more than 50 years ago is clear ont that, and it's why there have been precious few prosecutions under federal law in this area because it invariably bumps up against the first amendment. and apparently the aclu as i understand it from professor dershowitz shares my view that this prosecution by impeachment in the senate is unconstitutional under the first amendment. i expect you will hear more about that as the defense unfolds in the coming days. >> woodruff: well, we will be listening, and we certainly do appreciate you joining us today. robert ray, thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> woodruff: and next we turn to constitutional scholar and former judge michael mcconnell of stanford university law school. he was nominated to the tenth circuit court of appeals by president george w. bush and he served on the bench for seven years. judge mcconnell, thank you very much for joining us. you may have■ just heard robert ray saying, in so many words, that it is a mistake that it is not constitutional for this trial to go forward, which we now know that it will because that was the senate vote, but his argument is that it isn't constitutional because the decision of whether someone runs for office again is something that should be left to the voters and not to the congress. i would love you to react to that, but also to explain, you know, your view on the constitutionality of this trial.

>> what's constitutional isn't what we think is a good idea, it's what the constitution says, and the constitution clearly gives the nate the authority to try all impeachments and to impose the sanction of disqualification from future office. senators will decide whether that's an appropriate sanction or not, but it certainly is authorized by the constitution. >> woodruff: so the argument that it should be left to the voters, you're saying, doesn't hold weight? >> well, that's an argument to the discretion of the senators, but it is not a constitutional argument. >> woodruff: so you're comfortable, essentially, with the argument, with the fact that this trial is going ahead, that it is constitutional. so that brings us, judge mcconnell, to the question of the president's role operate in inciting this insurrection.

how to you read the evidence so far that you've seen? >> so let me just be clear, first, on the constitutionality point because i think many people have missed this, that i to think that the constitution allows for impeachnt only of current office holders, but mr. trump was impeached when he was president of the united states on january 13th, so that requirement is met. once the house impeaches, there's a separate provision of the constitution that gives the senate the power to try all impeachments. so while i do agree that impeachment is limited to current officers, that does not disqualify this particular proceeding. now, as to the incitement, we haven't seen all of the evidence

yet. i think the house made a serious mistake in framing this impeachment simply in terms of the criminal law of incitement, because i think it will invite people to treat this as if this was a criminal prosecution of mr. trump. it is not. this is an impeachment -- a trial of an impeachment, not a criminal trial for incitement. i doubt very much that mr. trump could be convicted of the crime of incitement, but that's not what the congress is limited to. the question here is whether mr. trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a term of art which extends beyond mere violations of the criminal code to, you know, serious abuses of the office and would include such things as

attempting to persuade officers of the states to disregard election results after proper challenges to those election results had been properly pursued in the courts and rejected. it would include the failure of mr. trump to take any action to stop the riot when it was taking place, when he was in the very best position to do that. the president does have the duty under the constitution to take care the laws be faithfully executed. >> woodruff: so just very incitement to insurrection, in your view, would have been stronger if it had been worded how? >> i think that it should have -- it should not have been framed in terms of the precise words of the criminal violation, and it should have included both the attempts to persuade

officers not to certify properly-cast voting results and also the failure of the president to take steps that he should have taken to end the riot. >> woodruff: former judge michael mcconnell, now professor at stanford law. thank you very much, we appreciate it. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, president biden endorsed making $1,400 stimulus payments to americans earning up to $75,000. democratic leaders in the house ways and means committee backed that figure overnight. republicans and some democratic moderates want to limit payments to those making $50,000 dollars

or less. the nominee for white house budget chief acknowledged today that new stimulus might ignite inflation. but neera tanden told her senate confirmation hearing that doing too little could do even more damage. on another issue, tanden apologized for her history of scathing tweets about top republicans. >> i recognize that this rolis a bipartisan role and i know i have to earn the trust of senators across the board. for those concerned about my, my rhetoric and my language you know i'm, i'm sorry and i'm sorry for any hurt that they've caused. >> woodruff: also today, the senate environment committee endorsed michael regan to be e.p.a. administrator. his nomination now goes to the full senate. experts from the world health organization have concluded that covid-19 most likely did not come from a chinese lab. the team announced that finding

today after investigating in wuhan, where the first cases appeared. >> our initial findings suggest that the introduction through an intermediary species is the most likely pathway. the findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely and to explain to introduction of the virus in the human population. >> woodruff: the u.s. state department said today that "the jury's still out" on whether china has been fully forthcoming. in myanmar, police cracked down on crowds who defied a ban on protesting against last week's military coup. authorities in the capital city and elsewhere fired water cannons and warning shots. some of the protesters were wounded by rubber bullets. search parties in northern india looked for survivors again today, after a himalayan glacier

broke apart on sunday. it unleashed a flash flood that killed at least 32 people and left 165 missing. rescue workers today looked through muddy valleys, and cleared debris from a tunnel where three dozen workers are believed to be trapped. back in this country, at least five people were shot and wounded in buffalo, minnesota, northwest of minneapolis. it happened at a health clinic, and police arrested 67-year-old gregory paul ulrich, a man with a record of run-ins with the law. >> the history that we have as a department with this individual makes it most likely that his, his, this incident was targeted at that facility or at someone within that facility. >> woodruff: police also found what appeared to be homemade bombs. but they said this does not appear to be a case of domestic terrorism.

federal safety investigators blamed a helicopter pilot today for the crash that killed former basketball great kobe bryant. the helicopter smashed into a hillside outside los anges, in january 2020. bryant's 13-year-old daughter and six others, including the pilot, also died. the national transportation safety board ruled the pilot violated safety rules when he flew into heavy fog. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average lt about 10 points to close at 31,375. the nasdaq rose 20 points, to a new record close. the s&p 500 slipped four points. the arab world scored a triumph in space today. as this animation shows, an unmanned craft from the united arab emirates reached orbit around mars after traveling for seven months. the orbiter will gather data on the planet's atmosphere. spacecraft from the u.s. and

china are also set to arrive at mars in the next few days. and, singer mary wilson, one of the original supremes, has died. she helped power motown in the 1960's. jeffrey brown has our remembrance. ♪ where did our love go? >> brown: mary wilson was a key part of a legendary sound-- a founding member, with florence ballard and, of course, diana ross, of the supremes. ♪ ♪ can't hurry love >> brown: they were trailblazers with a string of hits for motown in the 1960s after coming together as teenagers in detroit. >> we came from a time when, as black people, you didn't dream about becoming a star. you didn't dream about making money. it was all about being a human being, being respected. being equal. >> brown: the group would go through changes, most of all ross leaving for a solo career. mary wilson remained until the

end in 1977, before starting her own solo career, including a her 1986 memoir, “dreamgirl” documented those early years, including strained relations with ross before the split. in a video shared saturday on her youtube page, she said she was excited to celebrate black history month and the release of more of her work, timed to her upcoming march 6th birthday. >> we'll see. i've got my fingers crossed here. yes i do. >> brown: wilson died monday at her home in las vegas. no cause of death was given. for the pbs newshour, i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: mary wilson was 76 years old.

>> woodruff: the data are preliminary so far. but there are concerns that some of the new covid strains are more infectious, more deadly, and possibly even more resistant to the vaccines. given that, experts stress mass vaccination is crucial to slowing this spread because studies show vaccines can prevent severe disease, hospitalization and death. william brangham has our conversation about what can be done, and changing public attitudes. >> brangham: judy, dr. atul gawande leads one of those mass vaccination campaigns in massachusetts with his company c.i.c. health. he is a surgeon at brigham and women's hospital in boston. dr. gawande iso a stf mazine. for its latest issue, he visited one north dakota town when it was suffering a terrible outbreak, and also a very public fight over the public health protections meant to contain it. he joins me now.

dr. gawande, great to have you back on the "newshour". your company in a sense was created to step into the breach, initially over testing, now over vaccinations. when we look around nationally, some states have done well, many have really struggled with this. do you have a good sense as to why this initial stage has faltered so much? >> first of all, everybody was late to planning. this showived part of the planning process months ago. states were coming forward asking for that planning process but it really didn't get underway until after thanksgiving. we got involved to enable mass vaccination at gillette stadium, fenway park, reggie lewis track and field here in boston, and the challenges really were that the planning only got underway maybe the week before christmas for enabling this kind of mass scale that we're now hitting.

so the good news is people have had six weeks, eight weeks of getting these operations up and running. we're now past 2 million vaccinations a day that hit the peak over the weekend, and we are well on our way to reaching 100 million vaccines in arms by 100 days, but we have to move even faster because to have the mutant strains that are spreading that you mentioned. >> reporter: yeah, how concernedio are you you about those because there is a concern that they might be more contagious, one might be, perhaps, more deadly. how -- seems like we really are in this race against time to get the shots before the variants truly spread. >> yeah, we have across the world tens of millions of active infections and a very large base of infections here that have become a petri dish for lots of

mutations, mutations spreading one from u.k., south africa, one from brazil. these are more contagious and in some cases have less effectiveness with the vaccines. i'm very concerned about these, the doubling time, the rate at which you see this virus spreading to double its number is only ten days. florida already is at 5% of all infections there have the u.k. variant which we know to be more contagious. that means that as our counts drop right now for the wild type that had been the dominant one in the u.s., we are seeing a rise in this more contagious version which means, around march, we can expect rale trouble unless we really double down, not just on vaccines but on our masks. >> reporter: i'd love to turn to your piece in "the new yorker," which you focused it in my not, north dakota, when that

region was going through its worst stretch ofo the pandemic and they were having this very public open fight about a mask mandate in town. can you give us a synopsis? what was the debate about? that masks don't work, that the virus isn't such a threat? what was the debate going on there? >> it was a fierce debate over both, you know, an argument over whether masks work, and then also about whether this was a really serious infection worth attacking or not, and then, at a more fundamental level, and i really engaged in discussion with people across the spectrum of opinion, it was that people were riven about the fact that there was pain and suffering among not just about the public health consequences, which us experts have tended to focus on, but also they felt their arguments weren't being heard about their jobs being damaged, about not being able to have their kids in schools, and they just wanted to return to normal.

that fierce debate was had out in a city council that forced the issue. the state would not adopt the mask mandate but the city council did, and ovetime what you saw throughout north dakota, which, at that time, had the highest rate of infections, you saw a place change where mask wearing reached a high of 89% in the state. now the challenges, can they keep the foot on the pedal, the mask mandate was repealed just a couple of weeks ago. >> reporter: i hear everything you're saying about the importance of recognizing the economic pain caused by some of the shutdowns and restrictions, but, i mean, this pandemic, as you well know is not over by any stretch. people are still going to have to wear masks and not crowd into bars and all those public health measures. going forward, from what you have rorted, what is your

sense about how we ought to do our messaging about public health better next time ths time? ? well, i think the first thing to understand is we're not going to get consensus on these issues. the question is can we have an open, respectful debate, hear each other, pay attention to the pain everybody's feeling. you have people who are reluctant to enter back into society as rates fall an participate, and you have reluctance on the other side about taking the measures that we need to to stop the infection from coming. there is a lot of exhaustion, there is a lot of pain, and we are going to be -- you know, the debate, the arguments, the anger isn't going to stop, and yet the country, even north dakota, got past 80% wearing of masks, they got the infections down, the debates will be hard and fierce and angry, but our democracy may

be frayed. what i saw there, though, it wasn't broken, that we were able to hold together, have these fights, and then move forward. >> reporter: dr. atul gawande of brigham and women's hospital and "the new yorker," thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: the biden administration announced more efforts today to ramp up vaccine distribution around the country, and to make sure underserved communities get more acces it comes after many states struggled to distribute it quickly. but as amna nawaz reports, west virginia has been a leader from the outset. in fact, it's outpaced nearly every other state when it comes to vaccinations. >> nawaz: for 75-year-old ed turley, the question was never if he would get the vaccine...

>> i talked to my wife about it. you don't know what it's like to be married to a nurse. >> nawaz: what is it like? >> you can't get away with nothing. >> nawaz: the question was when. the very day he was eligible, he booked a slot. >> i was relieved when they called and said i could get it. i wasn't going to turn them down and i had my mind made up. i wasn't going to turn it down. >> left arm okay? >> nawaz: on this day, turley was one of about 250 people vaccinated at a clinic in preston county, west virginia. >> alright ed, you're all finished. >> okay. >> nawaz: his home state is now leading the country when it comes to vaccinations. seven weeks into their rollout, west virginia's already vaccinated more than 12% of its population, including both doses delivered to all nursing home residents and most health care workers. now anyone 65 and older can sign up on a statewide waitlist. each week, local clinics work their way down that list, and schedule the next round of shots.

this west virginia university clinic is one of several specialized clinics also in place. today faculty and staff over 65, plus younger clinical students are getting their vaccines. so here's the lay of the land here, basically at the table all the way in the back, the syringes are all being filled. they are distributed to six vaccination stations. organizers say from the moment people arrive to the moment they get a shot in the arm should take five minutes total. 64-year-old toni christian is getting her second dose, and looking forward to the protection it affords. >> i miss the social interaction more than anything, i think that's probably been the hardest thing. >> nawaz: 77-year-old paul lewis says while he's relieved to be vaccinated; he's worried about his son; a vaccine skeptic. what's that conversation like? >> that conversation is consistent but brief. you don't know what the long term health implications are of

having covid-19. so if i'm going to take my choices, i'll take the choice with the vaccine. >> nawaz: here in west virginia, that vaccine arrives each week from the federal government. national guard members transport it to five state hubs. those hubs then allocate to clinics, like the one at west virginia university, where residents who've put their names on a waitlist are brought through. >> it's really all hands on deck approach so that we can get everybody in our state vaccinated as quickly and safely as possible. >> nawaz: gretchen garofoli is an associate professor in west virginia university's school of pharmacy who's been coordinating vaccine distribution. key to their success, she says, is remaining nimble and flexible. >> we have a group text message that we utilize often so that we get our people there when we need to get them to the places to vaccinate. >> nawaz: you literally have a group chat going? >> we have those relationships and we know how to work together. we know how to get into the rural communities. >> nawaz: and because the state is mostly rural, west virginia chose to tap into its network of

independent pharacies, instead of joining the federal partnership with cvs and walgreens. waterfront family pharma owner karl sommer says that decision was crucial to getting the most vulnerable vaccinated quickly. >> one of the big advantages that we have as independent pharmacists is we're able to adapt and make changes very quickly. we don't have to go through any corporate bureaucracy. >> i think that, you know, we're not scared of going a different direction. >> nawaz: dr. clay marsh is west virginia's covid czar. >> if we had a great idea that this plan was better for us and we didn't implement it, then that would have been irresponsible for us. >> nawaz: he says he's proud of the speed of their rollout, but it hasn't been without bumps. in december, more than 40 people in the southern part of the state were given an antibody treatment instead of a covid-19 vaccine. >> with the complexity of this, we know mistakes will be made. we hope nobody gets hurt, but we will always get better and will be better the next time.

>> nawaz: other states are now turning to west virginia as a guide. marsh was recently asked to testify before a house committee. >> what can we say to the other states on how they can improve on that? >> ultimately west virginia made a plan that worked for us. >> nawaz: but what works here, marsh cautions, in a small, homogenous, rural state, may not work in bigger, more urban states. >> it's really important that, you know, in your own state, that you have a committed group of empowered people, that you have the right culture. everybody's on the same page and you're trying things, but you're sticking with some very clear true north principles that you won't violate. >> nawaz: and for all their success, west virginia is still facing the same vaccine shortage frustration the rest of the country is. >> if we keep getting the supply that we're getting, we'll still be doing first doses towards the end of the year, which is not a number i like to hear. >> we have the capacity today with no more infrastructure expansion, we believe, to be able to push out 125,000 doses a week

>> nawaz: so today you could be doing at least four times what you're currently doing. >> yes. >> nawaz: one practice they've developed to stretch supply? use every last drop from every single vial. >> some syringes work better than others to gethose extra doses i can say that out of the thousands that i've given, i have not wasted a single dose. we found arms for all of them. >> nawaz: as they reach the end of the list at the preston county clinic, organizers realize they have extra doses left in the vials. they'll expire within hours. so county health administrator v.j. davis starts working his way down the standby list for folks who live nearby. >> we have an extra covid shot today. would you be available to come down and get it? >> nawaz: sally stanton and her sister linda bratten were two of the lucky ones. >> they called us like five minutes before we got here. >> it just frees you up a little bit more to feel like you can go out and you've got some protection now. >> nawaz: protection ed turley

welcomes. he says he hasn't hugged his grandkids in nearly a year. can i ask you, have you ever lived through anything like this in your life? >> no, i don't want to go through anything more like this either. >> nawaz: with both shots behind him, he hopes the pandemic will soon be too. for the pbs newshour, i'm amna nawaz in west virginia. >> woodruff: let's return to our series on afghanistan and the longest war there. tonight: deep fear in the afghan capital. special correspondent jane ferguson and producer- cinematographer emily kassie report now on a campaign of >> reporter: afghans wake up to news of more assassinations in kabul. this time it's two female judges, killed in a brazen execution on their way to work in the morning. seconds after zakaria heravi left this house to go to work,

her brother heard the gunshots. >> ( translated ): i heard the bullets fired. constant firin my wife screamed. we all ran out barefooted. i saw one of her colleagues was laying down and shouted at me to go check my sister. but when i saw her she was hit here and also in the shoulders. i felt as though the ground fell away below me and the sky fell. when i saw her i knew she was gone. >> reporter: she was a supreme court judge, and a breadwinner. every man in this room relied on her to support them and their children. a highly successful professional at work, she was a matriarchal leader in the home. >> ( translated ): she was a very strong person. when she left and kissed the hand of our mother and said,¡ i'm not sure i will be back alive.' >> reporter: rooms like this, filled with families gathered in shock and grief, emerge across kabul every day now. afghanistan has suffered

immeasurable loss for years on battlefields and in bombings, but this recent campaign of assassinations has shocked the country. kabul's middle class neighborhoods are stalked by killers, picking off a generation of professionals. >> ( translated ): the people in the catal are educated, bright people. some people from the villages are uneducated and they come and kill the educated people of afghanistan. >> reporter: the grief here is turning into anger. bitterness runs deep. >> ( translated ): 100% this was the taliban. from karzai's time tnow, all attacks are carried out by them. all people are targeted, police, prosecutors, she was a judge. what will the international community do? they are leaving, while the talin is still here. >> reporter: it's not clear if the assassinations are ordered by the taliban. no group has formally claimed responsibility. according to a deal signed between the taliban and the trump administration a year ago,

the last american boots on the ground here leave in less than 100 days. in the meantime, peace negotiations between the taliban and afghan governments are not making progress. journalists, judges, human rights activists, anyone with a voice and a role to play in building civil society here is now marked for death by nameless assasss. since the deal was signed, over 150 have been murdered. a new, cold fear has descended here. no one knows who will be targeted next, or why. this should be a relatively safe neighborhood of kabul, and one of the effects of these killings is to remind everyone, especially professional women, that they are not safe anywhere in this city. anisa shaheed refuses to bow to that pressure. a well-kwn tv reporter for afghanistan's to tv, heading out on a sto is more dangerous for her now than ever. the afghan intelligence services have told her militants plan to

lure female journalists to interviews like this one, where assassins will be waiting. >> ( translated ): yes, yes don't worry she is not suspicious. no, no, i investigated, don't worry. yes, yes it's fine. >> reporter: "the office is worried, and calling to check on her,” she tells us. >> reporter: today she is reporting on a domestic murder case, interviewing a family who say the government and police won't investigate. to anisa, her job is a form of service to her people and community. but it leaves her very exposed. isn't this dangerous? >> ( translated ): yes, because kabul is insecure, and right now we are far away from the city, so yeah, it doesn't feel good. >> reporter: but you don't stop doing this? why? >> ( translated ): i can't not come here just because i'm scared, or because i'm under threat. i can't not come here. if i don't, who will make this

family's voice heard who will make sure their words reach officials? >> reporter: the taliban deny they are responsible for killings across the country. we traveled to one of their strongholds less than two hours outside the capital and challenged them on this. is the taliban responsible for assassinations, in particular against female journalists? >> ( translated ): whatever acts or attacks we do, whether it's in kabul or around the country, we claim responsibility. the other attacks that have been carried out are perhaps by isis, or someone else to create tension. the taliban always claims responsibility for any attack they have carried out. >> reporter: but the afghan government insists it's the taliban, not the afghanistan franchise of isis. they are so keen to prove it, they gave us access to an intelligence services prison to meet with a self-confessed taliban member, saying he helped in the assassination of an election official. this young man, who says he thinks he is 17 or 18 years old, is from the very same taliban-

controlled area we visited. although he says he is fully willing to do the interview, we are hiding his identity because he may be a mir, and has no access to a lawyer. >> ( translated ): where i live there is a lot of taliban. they have a lot of influence. everyone tre is a part of it. >> reporter: he's accused of monitoring the movements of the election official, thereby helping his cousin, a taliban commander, assassinate the man. >> ( translated ): they told me to follow him and watch his house, to keep track of his whereabouts, when he leaves and when he comes home. i don't support them now. i've been captured, i know my punishment. >> reporter: now his young life could be ended too, with high officials calling for the death penalty against those involved in such killings. >> ( translated ): i want to study, to go to school. i had ambitions growing up, but my cousin destroyed everything. >> reporter: now he too has become a casualty in this long war. anger here at the trump administration's handling of their peace negotiations with

the taliban is tangible. since the february 2020 agreement between the american government and the taliban, the group has not killed american soldiers for over a year, but afghans continue to be slaughtered, on the >> there was this promise by the americans who initiated this process, that there would be a reduction in violence. however, what we see on the ground is the opposite. the americans did protect themselves through the u.s.- taliban agreement. but there was no protection for afghans. >> reporter: shaherzad akbar heads afghanistan's independent human rights commission. >> the feeling is this feeling of being forgotten, the process not being about afghans at all. is it about a dignified exit for the u.s., or is it about lasting peace for afghanistan? >> reporter: like so many here, akbar has been personally impacted by the killings. colleagues of hers at the human rights commission have been targeted and killed in recent months. >> one of the biggest achievements for the past 20 years was this cadre of afghans

who were trained, some of them given standard educaon, some studied here in afghanistan. they are the backbone of running a system of governancethey are in civil society, they are in they are judges, and the message to them ¡there is not a future for you here'. >> reporter: as for so people many in this city, the grief is crushing for those left behind. >> i don't know if i have the strength, but... i think losing my colleagues really tested my strength, really tested my faith and really tested my hope. but it didn't stop me. but i need tbe honest, i think if there is one thing that can really test my strength again would be something like that. i am more afraid of losing any of my colleagues than i am afraid of losing my own life. and it's a horrible fear to live with because i know i can't protect them.

sometimes the only regret that i have about taking this job is this: that maybe i'm too young to experience this pain. to look the colleagues' parents in the eyes and tell them ¡i'm sorry we lost your child.' >> reporter: back in the newsroom at tolo tv, anisa is putting together her story. she's defiant about keeping up her work as normal, but privately carries around the same fears as shaherzad. that the sudden and violent loss of loved ones will continue. >> ( translated ): i'm scared that i will lose more colleagues. we have lost too many. when my friends see me outside they say ¡you are alive?!' everyone who goes outside, you

think they won't come back alive. it's a huge worry. i never thought we would get to the point where every day we wait for the death of our friends. all my friends know me, they know i'm not one to be afraid. but now i know that i actually do have fear. >> reporter: whoever is behind these killings, their chosen targets seem to speak to how they view afghanistan's future. one without the new generation of civic leaders, rights activists, and journalists. without influential, professional women. as america stumbles out of this war, the fight for afghanistan's future has entered a new, deadly phase. for the pbs newshour, i'm jane ferguson, in kabul, afghanistan. >> woodruff: such important reporting. thank you, jane. and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. i'm judy woodruff.

foall of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> 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 captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc

oh, you think this is just a community center? no. it's way more than that. cause when you hook our community up with the internet... boom! look at ariana, crushing virtual class. jamol, chasing that college dream. michael, doing something crazy. this is the place where we can show the world what we can do. comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers

to create wifi-enabled lift zones, so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. oh we're ready. ♪

hello, everyone, and welcome to “amanpour and company.” here is at is coming up. south africa suspends the rollout of the astrazeneca vaccine. we'll discuss with w.h.o. regional director for africa. and the power of misinformation with the socl scientist angus thompson. and then -- ♪ he's driving in tonight from california ♪ >> recreating history, the legendary judy collins talks about restaging one of her most famous performances and how at 81 she's only getting better with age. plus -- >> you lock them inside in social isolation during a pandemic. that becomes really difficult. >> a pandemic on top o