good evening from los angeles. i'm tavis smiley. we saw the fireworks of james comey's testimony before the senate and shining a light on what happened in his meeting with president trump. did he deliver enough evidence to amount to obstruction of justice? are his business interests being enriched in violation? tonight we look into this and more in a conversation with barbara boxer who spent three decades as a lawmaker on capitol hill before retiring from the u.s. senate earlier this year. we're glad you've joined us. a conversation with barbara boxer in just a moment. ♪

♪ and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ ♪ pleased to welcome back barbara boxer to this program, the lifelong democrat and former senate from this state of california, retired in january after more than 30 years in congress. yet she remains committed to fighting for the cause she believes in. her memoir is out now in

paperback. senator boxer good to have you back on this program. >> glad to be with you. >> let me start with the person who took your site in the senate from california, now the only -- well corey booker is there of course from new jersey and tim scott is there from south carolina. >> correct. >> but she's the only black woman in the united states senate and she made some news last week with some pretty tough questioning of dan coats and rod rosenstein. what did you make of that questioning that she put on them last week? >> i was so proud of her. she's trying to get to the bottom of a really big problem. what are they hiding in this administration, where's this whole connection with the election and russia and trump's business and you know trying to intimidate comey and others. so he was tough. and they tried to cut her off and i just want to say as a woman in politics for so long, unfortunately that happens to

women more than you can imagine. and she just refused to be intimidated. she stood her ground. both times that she was questioning. and i think -- i was proud. i was proud of her. >> i'm not naive in asking this but why does that happen to women more than we think it does? >> you know, the men that do this, they don't even realize it. in the back of their mind. i just think people who have power resent others who are trying to get some power. and it's -- i don't get it. but it happens. it just does. and we saw it with anita hill within we saw it with elizabeth warren. she was quoting dr. martin luther king and they stopped her. she persisted in talking. that's what you do as a senator. and they do it across the board to women. i had it happen when i was told

to sit down when we were trying to get the very first person who was a lesbian into the government in the bill clinton days. they took down my words because i quoted from a san francisco crown call editorial in favor of roberta ackerburg. we got her through but in the course they tried to stop me. it goes on and on and people are seeing it. >> one more question about the hearing last week before we move on to other issues here. and this happens of course to men and to women because we saw this last week. what's it like being a member of congress when you are responsible for oversight and you're asking questions like senator harris did and others for that matter? there was a litany, a long list of members last week who asked questions and they were essentially stonewalled. dan coats just wouldn't answer,

rod rosenstein wouldn't answer. as a member of congress how do you engage your responsibility for oversight when these persons sit there in front of you and just won't answer your questions? >> well in my book i talk about how you have to be tough, you have to hold to your questions, you have to make sure that the people watching understand you're being stonewalled and you never give up. the most frustrating thing is you usually only have five to seven minutes. we have a little longer here so we can go into depth. a member of congress who is tarj charged with oversight who is getting stonewalled is really set back. but they have to utilize that time to make that point and expound on why they think there's a stone wall. and then you can turn it around. but it does take a certain toughness not to say, okay, i'll take my marbles and go home. you have to be just as tough as the person answering your questions or i should say dodging your question. >> let me jump now to the

hearings of james comey, all of the fireworks that people were looking forward to last thursday. i think he delivered on what people were expecting in terms of his shining a light on what happened in those meetings with president trump. there sis increasingly a number of high profile americans, americans of note and authority, those who know the system who are saying that clearly now there is enough evidence of obstruction of justice. do you agree with those persons? >> i would say there certainly are -- we certainly have a road map toward that, you know, because i'm not an attorney. it takes a certain kind of a look at this where you have to go to motivation. but the more we see it, it's a very disturbing pattern. so i definitely think that there's some there. for example, you're not just talking about firing comey. you're talking about firing bashar ra.

>> saying he believes there is enough evidence of obstruction. >> but he felt uncomfortable because he said it was uncomfortable for him, for the president to keep cozying up to him when he has the investigatory power. and then you have sally yates who came and said i'm worried about flynn's contact with russia. she gets fired. now comey gets fired. this adds up at the minimum to abuse of power. >> there are two attorneys general in washington and maryland who have already filed suit, said they're going to file suit against the president, against the white house. seems like outside of the halls of congress this story is gaining some traction. >> i think they're looking at him enriching himself. i think those are the issues that the d.c. and maryland, they're saying he's using his power to enrich himself. he didn't give up this trump hotel.

he's taking money from all over the place. they got all kinds of gifts if you will from china in allowing their patent to go forth. i am so glad that the attorneys general are looking at this. this is -- i've served with five presidents, three republicans, two democrats. you noted i'm a very strong democrat. since the ronald reagan days, i served with him. i never saw a president that i thought was in it for himself, to enrich himself, to enrich his family. i am stunned that there's not more talk about looking at the emoluments clause. i'm happy to see there are attorneys outside who are going to sue on this point. >> given his background, it's hard to imagine that there weren't millions of fellow citizens who didn't see the same thing that you have just acknowledged now. this is who this guy has been

his entire life. and so you say you're happy to see this now. why didn't the american people see this on election day? why did your girl lose? i don't mean girl in the prejor tif sense. why did secretary clinton lose. >> there are going to be volumes of books written about it. >> starting with her. >> there are a number of factors that went into it, not the least of which is the electoral college where she got 3 million more votes. and that's never stated. so she won but she lost. and i think the reason is we democrats took for granted a lot. you know, i worked every day of my life for one reason, make life better for people, make sure they had good job, good minimum wage, make sure they had good clean air.

99% of democrats do this but we took it for granted. and he was so outrageous. he insulted more than half the people. and i think -- i blame myself too. i was out there. i think that we focus too much on him and thought that that was enough and it was enough for her to win by 3 million. but in the midwest where they're struggling, she had the plans but we took it for granted. that's my opinion. also the dampening of the turnout in those swing states. every time i ran my posts would come and say barbara, i have got good news and bad news. what do you want first. bad news. the bad news is if there's a low voter turnout, you're toast. the better news is if it's medium you've got a chance. and the great news is if it's a large turnout, you win in a landslide. that's the way it is with the democrats. when our people stay home we lose. and in the midwest they had a terrible turnout in the swing

states because people were depressed. they were confused on the e-mail thing. they were confused on the wikileaks and a lot of the stuff that came out. it was -- again we have to write the book about it. but at the core of it, i think, we just didn't get the message out to the midwest. >> there are three or four things i want to pick up on. no particular order. when you say that we focused too much on him, part of that we is clearly the media. my audience knows. i've talked about this, and my disappointment in the way that the media covered this campaign. like it was a horse race. but he was getting so much free media, it was unbelievable. what did you make of the way he was regarded, treated by the press then with the way they turned on him a few months later? >> you know, i find it very hard to blame the media. ever since richard nixon did it and now trump is doing it. i don't go there. it's up to us, those of us who

are running to capture the imagination of everyone, including the media. but you're right. look. he was so outrageous and he had so many skeletons that the media definitely played it. but if i could talk about freedom of the press for a minute. >> sure. >> when people say what worries you about this president, i talk about this pattern of intimidation. the bullying. the attack on the media he had put out there, the press is our enemy. this is so dangerous. when i speak all over the country. to corporate america. what i talk about is this. we're in a divisive time. we're in an angry time. we can't talk to each other. if you were a trump support are, we would be going at it. >> you don't have that problem with me. >> and you don't have that problem with me.

with can argue about the small stuff. but on the big side i start to think how can we break through. one of the articles is don't act out of anger. be tough but don't lose it. so i did some research and the great hero of america, one of the greats, george washington. what did he think about freedom of the press. so i have -- i brought one sentence. would you let me read it? >> i certainly will. >> this is the man who always wrote in the most long winded fashion, also circumspect. listen to what he said. if freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. >> uh-huh. >> this is george washington. and the other president who is demeaning the press, who is in a war with the press, calls it all fake news.

we're in a very serious time right now and i am trying very much in my post elected life to get out there. and not with anger but with, i hope, some kind of reasonable approach, win people over to understand that 2018 is the first time we can check and balance this man. and you know, regardless of what happens if somebody tries to impeach him, we have to focus, i think, on 2018. >> you said earlier that we agree on most of the big things and we do. and we could argue about some small things. in the interest of time i won't. there are other things i want to talk to you about. one could ask a legitimate question of with whether the media set themselves up. if they hadn't given the guy so much free press, maybe he wouldn't have won and maybe he would not be demeaning us, them now the way he is. i digress on that point and i hear the point you're making.

i'll move on. the other issue you raise is the question of how the democrats play the hand they've been dealt. and you just raised what opportunity the democrats have come 2018. last weekend bernie sanders gave a big speech to the progressives meeting in chicago, a lot of news media around that. and what he essentially said is we have to, you know, beat back donald trump, take back congress. he gave the speech we expected him to give to progressives. the question is whether or not those progressives who are concerned that the party is starting to tilt -- i saw a big piece in the "the new york times" about this today, that the party is starting to tilt a little bit to the left, too much to the left for some people and democrats are worried that come 2018 they won't be able to take back congress if the party tilts too far to the left. you're a good progressive. when you hear that kind of conversation, you think what? that they're leaning too far

left. >> we're a big party. some will lean left, some will lean center and some will lean right. if we lose that, we're going to lose. we can't turn on one another. so we go from left to center to a little bit right of center, just a little bit right of center. and to my view we have to focus on the big questions. why are we here? to make life better for people. that's all it's about. now one part of the party might go one direction, one might go a little different direction. but we're in it for the right reasons. so if we break up because of it, it would be a tragedy for the country. so we have to be willing, it seems to me to work together on the things that we can agree on. we agree on 90%. it's just around the edges. and that's going to mean -- if we're going to turn to our people on the far left and say bye-b bye-bye, that's ridiculous. and if the far left turns to the people little right of center

saying we don't want you. it's a big mistake. >> but strategically, there in lies the problem. you're the expert. that the folk on the left, many of the persons who supported bernie sanders think whenever there is a come to jesus meeting the meeting is held in the center and increasingly held to the right of center. the meeting is never held to the left of center so they continue to feel left out, disenfranchised and disavowed by the party. isn't that part of the problem? we saw that in the last election, in the convection, that the progressives, the left always feel left out of the conversation and left out of any authority. >> i don't view it that way. >> okay. >> i honestly don't. we have bernie sanders who is a democrat, elizabeth warren who is a democrat. we have a number of democrats who are a little left of center and we have democrats in the center and a little bit to the right of center. if we hope to win and make life better for people, best we get on with it.

you're never going to agree with someone 100% of the time. it just doesn't happen. my family doesn't agree. we've had a number of arguments over the years. mom, i can't believe you're not for legalizing marijuana, you know. and we've had all of these go on and, you know, i just think we can't, we can't be stuck in our space. we have to work together. and i'm speaking as someone who is on the liberal wing of the party. but we need to understand that on 99% of everything we're together. >> would you acknowledge, would you agree, senator, that it is a problem, though. again i could point to the speech that bernie gave this weekend, i could point to the fight they had over who was going to leads the party, mr. perez obviously won that fight against congressman keith ellison. but you admit that the democrats have some work to do between now and 2018. >> yes. >> just asking. >> i agree 100%. all i'm trying to see is a way

out of it, which is we agree on 98% of the issues from the far right to the far left of the party, which is a tad right of center if. and we have to understand. we can't allow that to divide us. we just can't. and i could understand if in a primary you support one candidate over another. but after it's over we have to come together. i think it's absolutely critical. we need to unite because if we don't, we're going to lose everything. there's nothing guaranteed. nothing guaranteed. you got to fight for it. >> a couple of issues while i have you here. we're hearing stories that president trump now wants to sort of tighten the noose on cuba with president obama had a different take on that. since you were on the intelligence committee would that be a good strategy on his part or a bad strategy. >> bad. i mean it just doesn't make any sense. we can really have an influence there in the best of ways, our

people. so it doesn't make sense to me. >> what is your sense at this point of his foreign policy agenda to the extent you think he has a foreign policy agenda. >> he likes tyrants. he feels so comfortable with them. >> yeah. >> and obviously i don't think it's good for this country. it's just not. we have to lead people toward, you know, self governance. >> on the intelligence front, what most concerns you again, since you served for so long on that committee. what most concerns you about what his administration is doing or not doing as it were? >> on the intelligence front? >> uh-huh. >> what is he doing on the intelligence front. you tell me. >> i don't know that we are yet clear on what his agenda is vis-a-vis foreign policy. we know the havoc that he's

causing. but is it becoming clear to you what his, what his foreign policy agenda is? >> well, he certainly likes putin. i just don't think he has a foreign policy. i don't think he knows where he's going. >> that's what i'm getting at. >> he doesn't know where he's doing. and it's worse to me. it's like where ask he sell, you know, america's products seems to be leading him in that direction. >> you chose not to run for reelection. you could have. b what is it that you think you can do as a private citizen. >> good question. >> that you couldn't do in congress. >> i'm working to help other people get elected. it's very rewarding. we're raising funds to take back the house, do our best to take back the senate. we're having events all over the

state and some outside the state. and i'm volunteering for my political action committee and i'm hopeful that we have this opportunity. even in california we have a lot of seats we could take back so we're excited about that. >> do you think it's likely that democrats can take back congress in 2018 given where he is now? >> i think we have a real shot at the house. the senate is a tough math. but we have a good shot at the house. and we're working hard. there's so many women who want to run now. it's exciting. thousands. and they're getting train. we have a shot. >> i appreciate the work that you're doing and there are others doing similar work. but i'm concerned at times when i talk to people on the left who seem to have as their strategy that donald trump is ultimately going to implode, that he's going to be impeached. if he doesn't implode -- we saw him on the campaign trail.

we thought he was going to implode every day and the guy won. so those who think he's going to implo implode, think he's going to be impeached and they think that's the best strategy, sort of sit and wait he's going to do himself in, what do you say to those people? >> bad strategy. we have to work to make life better for people. he's done nothing. and his budget isn't going to go anywhere. we need to focus on the house races, the senate races. we have to make 2018 a do or die year and get ready for 2020. and if he gets impeached, he gets impeached. i wouldn't focus on that, you know. we have a lot of work to do. his budget is horrible. it hurts people. his environmental policy is awful. it hurts people. he doesn't seem to really care. so we need to really focus where we can now on this election coming up and we have a chance, i think best at taking back the house and that's what i'm working on with my political

action committee and volunteering my time. >> let me close when we began this conversation. we were talking about your service and that of now ms. harris who have your seat and you referenced there are women who want to run. what are the best reasons for women now more than ever to put themselves in the ring to run for office in 2018 and beyond? >> well, for obvious reasons we, you know, women are equal to men, equally good, equally bad, we should be equally part of every institution, you know, whatever it is, whether it's your business or the business i gave my life to, the business of politics. i think women do bring a certain, a certain way of dealing with issues, a certain way of solving problems. so it's an exciting moment. i think if they step forward in this next election we could make a difference. >> her name of course is barbara b boxer. spent more than 30 years in congress. her book is out in paper book called "the art of tough."

thank you for your service and good to have you back on this program. >> thanks so much. great to be with you. >> that's our show tonight. thanks for watching. and as always, keep the faith. ♪ ♪ for more information on today's show visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. hi, join me next time for a conversation with novelist and poet about his memoir "you don't have to say you love me" that's next time. we'll see you then. ♪

and my contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ ♪

good evening from los angeles, i'm tavis smiley. one in five children in the country shows a sign of a mental health disorder that can interfere with their daily life and make learning a serious challenge. tonight, part of our road to health series, conversation with adolescent psychiatrist, about how to identify and treat mental illness in your kids. then, grammy winner, and two time oscar nominated singer songwriter joins us for a conversation and premiere performance of her new single. we are glad you joined us. all of that in just a moment.