Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  November 21, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PST

6:00 pm
♪ judy: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on "pbs newshour" tonight. >> i refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the ukrainian government is a u.s. adversary and the ukraine, not russia, attackeds in 2016. judy: two more witnesses shed light on the pressure campaign for an investigation of the bidens and forcefully rebuke the interfered in the election. we examine what you need to know on this week's final day ofe hearings in peachment inquiry. then, indicted. amid unprecedented uncertainty over who will lead the country, israel's prime minister benjamin genetanyahu is formally ch with bribery. plus, out of the classroom and into the street. a husbanand wife team up to
6:01 pm
tackle poverty and win the nobel prize in economics along the way. >> i think over time, i started to realize that what i was doine could onnected with my previous life. judy: all that and more ont' tonig's "pbs newshour." ♪ announcer: major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided cellular, and by the alfred p sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and impred economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. carnegie corporation of new york.ti supp innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement
6:02 pm
of international peace and curity at, and with the ongoing support of this -- these individuals and institutions. ♪ announcer: this program was made possible by the corporation fora public broing and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. rdy: pressure on ukraine investigations was a domestic, political errand that wouldw "b." that's what we heard in the final day of public impeachment hearings this week. it was another full day with a lot to gain to break down the highlights and what they mean, lisa desjardins at the capitol.
6:03 pm
e was in the hearing room. yamiche alcindor at the white house. nick schifrin is here at thewi tabl me. hello 12 you. npa lot tok here, but let's start with listening to one of today's two witnesses. he's a diplomat, david holmes. he came to talk about his first-hand sighting, what he saw in a moment at has received so much attention in these hearings. let's listen to part of what david holmes had to say. mr. holmes: thfour of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. i sat direly across from ambassador sondland ad the two staffers sat off to the sides. at first, the lunch was largely social. ambassador sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us and we discussed topics like working f strategi his hotel business. during the lunch, ambassd or sondland s would call president trump to give an update. ambassador sondland placed a call on his mobile phoi
6:04 pm
eard him announce himself several times along the lines of "gordon sondland holding for the president." it appeared he was being transferred through severalf layersitchboards and assistants. i then noticed ambassador sondland's demeanor changed.ha i understood hbeen connected to president trump. while ambassador sondld's phone was not on speakerphone, i uld hear the president's voice through the earpiece. the president's voice walarge --loud and recognizable. ambassador sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume. i heard ambassador sondland greet the president and explain he was calling from kiev. i heard president trump clarify ambassador sondland was ukraine. ambassador sondland replied yes, he was in ukraine, and stated that president zelensky "loves your a--."es i heard ent trump ask, is he going to do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied that he was going to do it, adding that president zelensky would do
6:05 pm
anything he asks you to do. even though i did not take notes, i had a clear recollection that these statements were made. i believe my colleagues were sitting at the table and also knew that ambassador sondland was speaking to the president. i also took the opportunity to ask ambassador sondland for his candid impressions of the president's views on ukraine. in particular, i asked ambassador sondland if it was true that the esident dinot give a expletive about ukraine. ambassadorondland agreed the president did not given i asked why not.ukraine. ambassador sondland stated that the president only cares about big stuff. i noted there was big stuff going on in ukraine like a war with russia. ambassador sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefitd the prt, like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani pushed for. the conversation then moved onth to topics. judy: let's go to you first, lisa, on this.da d holmes is referring to gordon sondland, the u.s. ambassador to the european union.
6:06 pm
we heard from ambassador sondland yesterday. how does this fit in with what sondland said yesterday? lisa: that's right. this is important testimony cause there were gaps in ambassador sondland's memory, td it's also importa connect the issue about a key moment in time. remember, this all kind of starts with that july 25 phone call between president trump and ukrainian president zelensky. think about the phone call like this. zelensky and trump on the call . what we learned from david holmes was what happened in those two different players. he testified today that the thzelensky next day after that call, he met with him, holmes and sondlananin ukraine, told them that after the call, he felt like there had been very sensitive issues raised in that call. he said it three times, according to david holmeel this is whatsky is thinking about. that is sensitive issues. he's feeling some pressure, he's cautious, he's worried about sensitive issues. just a couple hours later,
6:07 pm
president trump, ambassador sondland makes the phone callav that holmes overhears. what does he say? president trump immediately says, "is he going to do the investigations?" meaning zelensky and ambassador sondland according to david , holmes, ambassador sondland says yes, he will do the investigations, completely contrary to what zensky just told that group hours earlier that there were sensitive issues and he could only follow-up in person with the president. in between those twos, zelensky had a closed-door closed-door meetinsky aide had a ambassador sondland. thato's where mr.and, stothers have ied said, in order to get this aid, he had to do the investigations. while there is not a direct link to the president exactly, it's getting closer in this testimony, the idea that right after the phone call, president trump wanted to know about the investigations president zelensky was worried about. judy: that brings us to you,
6:08 pm
yamiche. what is the white house saying about this? yamiche: first, it's really critical to look at david holmes' testimony. remember that we learned about him and what he overheard when the current top u.s. diplomat in ukraine, william taylor, said there was an aide o overheard the conversation. this has been really percolating and people have been thinking abou the white house has been really having a long time to get ready and say, the president's not directly implicated. that's what the white house did today. in real time, the white house s saying a lo of people have a lot of things to say about what the president did or didn't do, but at the end of the day, no one has linked the president to saying to anybody, i need an vestigation into joe biden and hunter biden in order for ukraine to getd.his military i want to read you a white house statement that sums that up. but here's what stephanie grisham, the white house, had to say. . these two witnesses like the
6:09 pm
rest have no personal or direct knowledge regarding why usaid was temporarily withheld. . the democrats are clearly beingc motivated by ahatred for president trump and their rapid desire to overturn the 2016 election. you also have the attorney for mick mulvaney, the actchg white housf of staff, his attorney put out a statement saying that fiona hill was messentially aguided and misrepresenting her relationsh with mick mulvaney, essentially saying mulvaney was not part of this. pothat's ant, because even though we have not heard from fiona hill yet in the sound wein are pl you have her saying the white house was directly holmes' testimony.vid but the white house is sticking to the fact that theyhink it is a partisan attack and it's all about people being mad about the election. judy: let's listen now to what fiona hill had to say. she isme a fwhite house advisor, national security advisor expert on russia. dr. hill: unfortunately, had a bit of a blowup with ambassador
6:10 pm
sondland. e had some testy encounters with him. s in june 2018. i actually said to him, who put you in chae of ukraine? i\ admit i was a bit rude, and that's when and then, i was to be honest, angry with him. i hate to say it, but often when women show anger, is not fully appreciated, it is often pushed onto emotional issues, perhaps or deflected onto other people. what i was angry about is he was not coordinating with us. have actually realized, having listened was right.position, he he wasn't coordinating with us because we weren't doing the same thing he was doing. i was upset with him that he wasn't fully telling us about all the meetings he was having. he said to me, but i'm briefing the president, i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney, i'm
6:11 pm
briefing secretary of staff pompeo and i have talked toam ssador bolton. who else do i have to deal with? the point is we have a robust interagencprocess that deals with the ukraine that includes mr. holmes, ambassador taylor, a whole load of other people. but it strucke yesterday when you put up on the screen, bassador sondland's emails and who was on these emails. he said these are the people who know that he w absolutely right, because he was beingom involved in atic, political errand and we were being involved in national security foreign policy, and those two thind. had diver judy: nick schifrin, how here.ficant what she saying nick: this is the heart of what you and i have been talking about. the divide between national icsecurity pof president trump and the administration, and that of hisfi cntes led by rudy giuliani and ambassador sondland. olfiona hill actually ized because she admitted sondland
6:12 pm
wasn't operating in the irregular channel,wa h talking to the president of the united states, just that the president of the unitees was not talking to national security staff or listening to the official channel. the implication that is that the presint was looking for a domestic political errand, in her words. she says biden and burisma a the same thing. that is the energy company that had hunter biden on the board. she says they are t same. rudy giuliani was saying they are the same. president trump used the word biden in the context of burisma on july 25 she says it's not credible any other diplomat including ambassador sondland and ambassador voelker did not know about th. so for 55 days, she said there is a triumph of domestic politics over naonal security. judy: separately, we knothat fionaill, and her opening statement, had strong words contradicting what s said she
6:13 pm
fe were republican points, ukraine and its role in the 26 election -- 2016 election. >> the impact of the successful 2016 russiannterference is known today. our highly professional foreign service is being undermined. ukraine, continuing to face aggression, is politiced or the russian government's goal is to weaken our country, diminish america's globalne role, and to threata perceived to russian influence. president putin and the russian security services aim to counter u.s. foreign policy objectives including in ukraine, where moscow cash wishes to reassert political and economic dominant. i say this as a rlist. republicans and democrats have agreed for decades, we play an important part in national security. as i told the cmittee last
6:14 pm
month, i refuse to be part of an effort to legitimizee an altern narrative that the ukrainian government is a u.s. kraine, notthat the russia, attacked us in 2016. judy: now, i want to turn to you lisa. put this in context with what republicans on thettee have been saying about this. lisa: this is an interesting situation, judy. on the one hand, there's a narrative rudy giuliani was shing forth that the ukrainian government itself, as we heard g from fiona hill, was try we heard more ofro that today republicans than in the past. they pointed to things like an op-ed fromhe ukrainian ambassador in which the ambassador brought up the idea that candidate trump was saying he could consider allowing russia to takever the crimea. that obviously is a huge igsove issue for ukraine and the op-edd back against that idea.
6:15 pm
never fully said she opposed candidate trump, just that this would be a national security ri. that op-ed to republicans is evidence ukraine had reasons to have a president and that's why they were going after him. they also point to theories that cythere was somr activity in ukraine targeted against the president. this has not been proven. they are putting f mth this theoe than i've seen in the -- than i've seen recently. meanwhile, it seems they are spending more ti on the bidens. it does look like perhaps the president will get some kind of investigation of thebe bidens, use today in the senate, trump ally senator lindsey ,grah the head of the judiciary committee and the senate, sent a letter to the state department asking them for documents about hunter biden, about burisma, about vice president jobiden when he was vice president. it is noan investigation. so far, it is a request for informatn.
6:16 pm
this is clearly something the president still cares about and his allies are still pushing for. republicans are pushing back at the same time at the idea that ssthey don't believia was ever meddling. i want to show a picture. this is representative mike turner of ohio. he held up a report. that is a report from the housei intelligence cee that did find that in fact russia was trying to meddle in the elections. he said republicans did in fact sign onto that. shpublicans are trying te up the idea that they believe russia was a factor while pointing tokraine. they are trying to walk difficult linesy here, especia with these ukraine theories. the broad want have not been proven. judy: we justaw a photo of that, of that report being held, actually by the ranking republican on the committee devin nunes. but i do want to come to yamiche and ask you, how does this fit in with the narrative we have
6:17 pm
been hearing from the white house, which has still held out, we know the president has been skeptical about russia's role in the e:ection? yami there are two big things to look up your the first, president's relasionship with r critics of the president say to statements that again and again, he bolstered the standing of russia and played into their hands. in finland when he was standing next to vladimir putin, he was asked about the idea th russia meddled in the 2016 election. and he said, i asked putin about it and h he sa didn't do it, so he didn't. that was contradicting multipl intelligence agencies. been someont has who is skeptical of this idea that russia interfered in the election, but there has not been anyone else really questioning th. the other thing to note is president trump has also felt ke talking about russia meddling in the 2016 election seems to delegitimize his win. he doesn't like talking about
6:18 pm
what they could have done because he thinks that mean he was not duly elected. there have been people casting doubt on whether or not the president was effectively legitimately elected. but there is of course, no change -- noof p russia actually changed voting totals. the second thing to note is the president often operates in a personal way when it comes to foreign policy. he likes to ve personal relationships, bilateral meetings. in this case, he decided early on that ukraine as a wholet did support his 2016 presidential election. as a result, he was telling officials again and again that ukraine trieto take him down, he was thinking about the fact that the ukraine was somehow helping democrats into defeating. some witnesses have come before congress saying that was coming from rudy giuliani. for whatever reason, president trump was very negative on ukine and the ukrainians were warned about that. you have to president essentially continuing to hold onto these debunked claims that
6:19 pm
ukraine was against him overall. judy: so there's one other chunk we want to play forhi you of fia , the russian expert who was working at the white house. isas to do with the role that rudy giuliani, the president's good friend and peonal attorney, has played in ukraine. dr. hill: ambassador bolton basicallyed indic with body language that there was nothing much we could do about it. he then, in the course of that discussion, said that rudy giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. >> did you understand what he meant by that? dr. hill: i did, actually. he meant that obviously what mry giuliani wasg was explosive in any case. he was frequently on television making incendiary remarks about everyone involved in this and he was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would probably come back to haunt us. inha fact, i thin's where we are today. judy: what do we take ay?
6:20 pm
st day of televised hearings. nick: a realid d between president trump and the trump administration policy. what was the policy? strong support for ukraine and support for ukraine combating corruption overall. for 55 days, what was his policy? holding military support for ukraine, investigating two specific things, 2016 andig biden inveing to specific things, 2016 and biden. . the pentagon and nfc asking, is the policy changing the policy changing? of course it has not changed/ . the process is gordon sondland pompeo, rude giuliani talking to the president. the people who know best and that proce, giuliani, pompeo, mulvaney, secretary perry. those are people we have not heard from at all. judy: yamiche at the white house, they are feeling how as we come to the end of this public hearing?yamiche: white hl
6:21 pm
the presis good standing because no one has directly linked to theresident to withholding order for an investigation into joe budden. the ite house continuing to not supply any subpoenas not complying. continue ent will defend himself and say this is unfair. lisa: we had nine witnesses in three days. this is now -- i'm going to move forward. democr their case.ident about republicans say they are ready to defend their president. voters are going to talk a lot about over the holidays, i have a feeling. judy: coming up on thanksgiving week. lisa desjardins the capitol, yamiche alcindor at tte house, nick schifrin and studio. thank you.
6:22 pm
let's step back now and take a broader look at the testimony we heard this week in these public impeachment hearings. we turn to leon panetta. he was president bill clinton's chief of staff. later, he served as director of the cia and the secretary of defense for president obama. former florida congressman representative will maccallum,o wh was a republican member of the house judiciary and served as one of the house managers for public -- president clinton's impeachment trial. leon panetta, i will start with you. taking everything we've heard so far in the last weekend a half, have the democts strengthened eir case? where do they stand? >> i don't think there's any question, but that when you look at all of the testimony that has been provided, a loty of it people who are professional or
6:23 pm
civil service who are committed to their jobs, but if you take all of the testimony, i don'ts think there'y question, but the weight of the evidence makes clearen that the pres as president, tried to get a foreign president, the president of ukraine, to conatct an investn into a political opponent, joe biden, and in an exchange would get a visit to the oval office and the $400 million in foreign aidor military assistance that was being held up. i think those points were hill, who i think made an fiona excellent point that what the president did is, rather than focusing on the broad national security issues that are
6:24 pm
involved with the ukraine and what russia is trying to do to thene ukr and the assistance we need to provide in order to defend the was involved in a domestic political errand, which was to try to get an investigation into a political opponent. judy: congressman maccallum, setting aside the impeachment question, would you agree with leon panetta that the democrats did build the case that the president, as he said, try to get the president of ukraine to investigate the bidens? >> secretary panetta and i are old friends, but we have a pedifferent peive on this particular matter. i believe theas presidenteen trying for a long time to find out what happened with regard to ukraine and the 2016 presidential electio he was very concerned as he should've been with corruption going there, with the fact that there were people, clearly evidence exists, although it was
6:25 pm
democrats denied rcans ande the devin nunes expressed that, the opportunity to bring forward witnesses to corroborate that. the fact who controls primary interest in burisma w corrupt. everyone understands that. and hunteriden, according to devin nunes, may have made il much as $300on on a side deal -- $3 million on a side deal. we don't have the answers, but it's enough from me, and most whole process has been in search es an impeachment for quite a while since the ent got elected. in this case, they landed on this particular instance and suggested the whole investigation that the president was seeking, which i do believe he was seeking, was to get dirt on vice president biden, when in fact i don't believe that was his primary motive. at least i'm in doubt tha i
6:26 pm
don't think there's a chance in the world anyone would objectively find a bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors to convict this president or remove him from office. judy: leon panetta, why don't some of the pointalthat bill mam made, that the president felt, aggriev felt ukraine was out to get him, ukrainian officials were out to get him, that i undercuts the democrats' case? the fundamental charge that'st involved here. the charges that the president of the united states was trying to get a foreign leade to get involved in an investigationf a politica opponent, whether it was burismathe main point that all the witnesses have pointed out, was to go after joe biden. in order to ensure they would get an oval office meeting and to get the military aid that was held up, that they would have to
6:27 pm
make that kind of announcement, that they were going to conduct that kind of investigation. that is the abuse of powererhat i think ody is focusing on. bill maccallum woumo not want a atic president to engage with a foreign leader investigate a political, republican political opponent. that just is not done and it is an abuse of power. that's the bottom line. it is confirmed frankly by the transcript of the president himself that he released in which he asks for the favor, and makes very clear what he wants the president to do is conduct an investigation of joe biden. judy: bill maccallum, if it is proven, whether or not you agree the democrats were able to prove it with these witnesses, is that grounds for impeaching or bringing a charge against a prident? we can't think of another president who has exactly like this, can we?
6:28 pm
>> i first of all believe that they will impeach the president, the democrats will go for with ar i do not believe however that is sufficient grounds. i don't agree with all the policies of president trump and in fact, i suspect secretary would find a lot of areas we disagree with the foreign policy of the president. where you disagree or don't agree with how he conducts himself or temperament, or how we handle the question of ambassador jovanovich, those are things that go t temperament and questions decided by the american publiecin the next on. they don't go to removing the presidentn th middle of his term 163 million americans voted for him and like his style. my conclusion is there was no quid pro quo, they got thef id at the ende day, the 55 days delay was in some paterwork authorn, and we heard
6:29 pm
testimony yesterday from witnesses who said it didn't cost any of the military aid or anything else, it was being processed in the same fashion it would have normally. a delay only a paperwork. i think this was wro blown out ofrtion. if it wasn't for thepo personal vits who don't agree with the president, who have like to see him out of office,no we woud be at this point today. when we did president clinton's timpeachment,as almost the flipside. judy: just about 20 seconds left for each of you. leon panetta, is this something thdemocrats should go forward with if it's only the democrats who favor it, if they don't onve republican board? >> i really think that the democrats ought not to rush to judgment here. there are some issues that i think need to be looked at. what is john bolton's testimony?
6:30 pm
what is mick mulvaney's testimony here? what is mike pompeo'sestimony? i think there is an urgent need to g this additional evidence presented before anybody comes to any kind of final conclusion. judy: and bill maccallum, i guess the expectation is that won't be forthcoming. >> i don't know what's going to happen in this regard, because assuming this goes to the judiciary committee, the president will presumably be given an opportunity to present something. judy: it will. >> the democrats can allow testimony and if that's the case, who knows what comes forward? my hypothesis asiut what the pnt might have been doing and his motives is equally valid to that of secretary panetta. the problem is all of these theories have led to a wash at this point. we wl see what happens in the future. i'm open-minded but i don't sees itg with the same kind of thing is president where we knee ommitted crimes of perjury
6:31 pm
and obstruction of justice, but the public did not want to see him removed from oice. at the end of the day for whatever reason, i think that was the will. in this case, a lot of people would like to see him removed because they don't agree with them, but i don't think you have therimes and i don't think you have the abuse of power demonstrated to the degree that you should remove him or. go forward with this. you are right. judy: -- judy: you are right, we are only part of the way. it goes to the judiciary then to the house floor before het ven think ab going to the senate. thank you both. ill maccallum, leon panetta, thank you. ♪ stephanie: good evening from "pbs newshour west." we will return to judy woodruff and e rest o the program after these headlines. trump once the impeachmentr.
6:32 pm
process to proceed to a senate trial. in a statement, hogan gidley said "it's clearly the only chamber where he can expect fairness and receive due process." he added the white house would expect former vice president joe biden and his son as the whistleblower to testify. israeli prime minter benjamin netanyahu was indicted in three separate bribery and corruption cases. it came as israel faces an unprecedented third election in less than a year with no political party able to form a governing coalition. theou cry's attorney general announced the charges against netanyahu in jerusal >> i made the decisionan to isse ndictment against him with a heavy heart, but wholeheartedly with a feeling of deepe commitment to le of law, the public interest, and the citizens of the state of israel. law enforcement is not a matter of choice. this is not a matter of right or left. mathis is not er of politics. stephanie:n netanyahu has b
6:33 pm
prime minister for 10 years. he went on national tv today and claimee is the victim of a conspiracy by police and prosecutors. >> i will let the light wind. i wilcontinue to lead the country according to the law exactly as written. i will continueo lead the country with responsibility with law and for justice, we need to do one thing. we need at last to investigate the investigators. stephanie: some of netanyahu's political rivals called for his resignation. we will take a closer look at israel's political crisis after the news summary. president trump insisted today that the u.s. navy will not kick a navy seal out of the elite fourth. chief petty officer edward gallagher has been at the center of a push and pull between the president at the navy. villagher was ced by a military court of posing with a captive'sps cand demoted, but last week the president
6:34 pm
restored his rank. the navy reacted saying it will review gallagher's status. now the c presidentld decide to halt the review. in iraq, security forces killed at least eight more people in antigovernment protest in badad and some of the deadliest clashes yet. medical workers said the victims were hit by live fire or teargas canisters aimed at the head. the fighting focused on demonstrations leading to a key winess in government center becca. dozens more were antigovernment protests in latin america spread to columbia today, were more than 200,000 people took part in onebi of the est protests in the nation's recent history. what started off as peacefu demonstratio against democratic president, itturned viol later. meanwhile, a mti-day standoff between students at a hong kong university and police appear to be winding20own. more tharotesters surrendered.
6:35 pm
sost 1000 pros have surrendered or been captured at the campus since last weekend. in congo, an epidemic of measles has now killed nearly 5000 people this yea, despite a recent vaccination campaign. that word today from the world health organization. it says more than twice as many edpeople have rom measles in congo than from ebola over the nearly 90% were young children. back in this country, a federal judge has halted the first federalxecutions in 16 years, at least until a lawsuit of the issue was decided. the ruling was issued last night in washington. it suspends for executions starting next nth. the justice department announced in july that executions would resume. the u.s. senate today avoided a shutdown. theegislation went to president trump, who signed it this evening. a fight over funding a border
6:36 pm
wall has blocked progress on a long-term spending bill. still to come on "pbs newshour." indicted.ol at a moment ofical turmoil, israel's prime minister charged with bribery. analysis of the key moments from last night's denocratic presal debate. plus, what works' what doesn't, and how we know the difference in the fightgainst poverty. announcer: ts is "pbs newshour " from wep studios in washington and in the west from the water concrete studio -- school of journalism at arizona state. judy: as we mentioned earlie prime minist benjamin netanyahu became the first sitting leader of israel to be indicted. the announcement came a day after opposition leader benny unity israel is w william brangham examines the
6:37 pm
fallou reporter: t major political ents converging, the sitting prime minister gets indicted. at the same momt, his main challenger misses his deadline to form a new government. fors, the next three weny member of the party can try his or her hand at formingio a coal government. if that fails, israel will face its third election in less than one year. for more these develop its, i'm joined by david makovsky, a distinguished fellow at the washington institute for near is also the co-author of "be strong and of good courage," a book about israeli leaders who made historic decisions. welcome back to the "pbs newshour." obviously a tremendoufor israeli politics. this indictment has been dayeatened for month, but it drops can you remind us, what is the allegation against him? >> there are actually three cases againstne him.
6:38 pm
eachf the cases has components. the third case, the most serious one because it includes bribery, is there will be regulatory favors of about $500 million to the utility, like the at&t of israel. that's inetn for the utility website being netanyahu basically the keys to the website. porter: soreporter: he denies all this, says it is all lies, a political hit, says it's time to investigate the investigators, which is certainly rhetoric we heard here statede. as the evidence against him strong? is this a legitimate cas >> i think the public thinks so. 46% ofhe public calling on him to resign. i think it is in one day sad for israel that a sitting premised or is being indicted -- prime minister is being indicted, but at the same time it is important that israel's legal law
6:39 pm
enforcement institutions have provenesilient despite rtisan attacks. that is something that also ryresonates in our own cou reporter: as i mentioned, it comes at an incredible moment in israeli politics where his rival benny gantz has failed to create a coalition of his own. netanyahu is no weaker -- nowea whatr. what do you foresee happening? >>as if israeli politics football game, we are now entering overtime. by law, there is a 21 day period that any party can pov together aernment. basically, there's been a lot of talk of power-sharing arranging between benny gantz's government and the likud, the right. what we don't know, whether he goes first in the power-sharing agreement, and the -- composition, will it include
6:40 pm
ultra orthodox and settlers that netanyahu insisted upon? don't know if it shifts the political dynamic towards benny gantz and forcing netanyahu toe conchose key points in the next 21 days. if that is not the case, then there will be, believe it or not, a third election. the joke and israel is israelis like to see a themselvethe only democracy in the middle east, but having tckee elections o back is a little ridiculous. reporter: [laughter] a lot of people lost a lot of money trying to bet against bibi netanyahu. you think if you were a betting man that he survives this? >> he is an extraordinary politician. he's a master communicator. it's hard to completely bet against him. bu if he would run for third time as his way out of this, he would be no running at a much steeper climb. i think the netanyahu era as we have seen it over the last 10 aris coming to an end.
6:41 pm
if he lis along in a power-sharing agreement for another year, ok, but under the terms that netanyahu has dominated over the last decade, not under those terms. reporter: thank you very much. h >> delighted to be wu. ♪ judy: 10 democratic candidates aiming to replace inesident trumhe oval office met on stage last night for their fifth n.bate of the 2020 campa w e candidates tried to stand out. reporter: nearly 1000 miles from inshington, d.c. -- >> we have a cr in the white house. reporter: the impeachment inquiry still the first topic at the democratic debate were five of the candidates on stage would have a vote on removing president trump from office if it got to that point. >> we have to establish the
6:42 pm
principle no one is above the law. we have a constitutional response ability and we need to meet it. >> this impeachment proceeding is really about our democracy at stake. >> sadly, we have a president who is not only aathological liar, he is likely the most corrupt president in the modern mestory ofca. reporter: former vice president itbiden, who alonghis son hunter, is central in the republican pushback, weighed in on the hearings. >> i learned number one t that donamp doesn't want me to be the nominee. errepofor pete buttigieg, gaining ground in early staples, wednesday night was the fir 3 time tyear-old mayor of south bend based direct questions about his expense to bequest -- be president. >> there's more than 100 years of washington experience on the stage and where are ht now as a country? reporter: experienced amy klobuchar said >> women are played to a higher
6:43 pm
standard. otherwise, we cou play a game called name your favorite women president. reporter: the sharpest critique came from hawaii congresswoman tulsi gabbard.>> i think the mot example of your and experience in national security and foreign policy came from your recent careless statement about how you as president would be willing to send our troops to mexico to fight the cartels. >> i know that it's par for the course in washington to take remarks out of context, but that is outlandish, even by the standards of today's politics. >> at you saying you didn'y that? >> i was talking about u.s.-mexico cooperation. reporter: in atlanta, a city that's more than 50% black, the candidates also try to state their case on who would best serv democrats' most reliable demographic. >> they show up when it's close to election time, show up in a black church, and want to get the vote. but they have not been there before.
6:44 pm
>> i welcome the challenge of connecting with black voters in america who don't yet know me. >> i have a lifetime of expanse with black voters. [laughter] 've been one since i was 18. iave more people supporting me in the black community because they know me. the only african-american wr an that had een elected to the united states entered -- senate, a whole range of people -- >> that's not true. toreporter: new jersey se cory booker questioned biden's criminal jusce stance, one that disproportionally affected rican-americans. >> this week i literally hear him say i don' think we should legalize i thought you have been high when you said it. >> i said we should decriminalize marijuana, perio reporter: they debated kitchen table issues like texas. >> a wealth tax is not about >> i'm sorry, it's cumbersome, it been tried. it's hard. reporter: how much paid family leave should be required? >> i will not go for things just because they sound good on a
6:45 pm
bumper sticker. >> i would pass paid family leave is one of the first things we do. reporter: with less than three months before the first votes are cast, the candidates are nning short on time to introduce themselves to voters. four the "pbs newsur," i am amna nawaz in atlanta. judy: the democrats will share the stage again one month from now in los angeles, as the pbs newshour partners with politico to host the final debate of this sar. that'n thursday, december 19. mark your calendars now. this year, trio of economists were awarded the nobel prize for their work to allevialobal poll of the dutch property. their research helpemore than 500 children and india benefit from remedial tutoring in schools. today we talked to husband and wife 20 part of our series
6:46 pm
making sense. poer: mit's professors, the first mried couple to win the nobel prize in economics, also the youngest and second woman to win the prize. they met in t 90's when they took a course on economics of poverty. she says -- >> i was going to study development no matter what happened. >> development toor help people. with data. >> exactly. and link careful thinking, not go with intuitions. our intuitions are often wrong. reporter: or they have been taught in economics classes by authority figures. >> yes. reporter: he was such a figure, but economic theory was totally divorced from the mumbai neighborhood in which he grew up. >> i played with the kids from the slum all the time.
6:47 pm
i think over time, i started to realize what ibeas doing could connected with my previous life. reporter: previous life as an economist? >> know, as a little boy playing with other little boys who didn't go to school. mostly, i think i was always a little conscious of the fact that the economics i practiced were not necessarily always deeply connected. >> here is a sort of experiment for you. reporter:eg thus their vigorous approach to combating poverty, testing policy solutions through randomiz controlled experiments, the way new treatments are tested in medicine. >> it is not the middle ages anymore. srandomized control tri revolutionized medicine by allowing us ttwdistinguish n drugs that work and drugs that don't work. you can do the same for socl policy. rerter: how to improve the dreadful state of schooling in india, for example, at the
6:48 pm
lowest cost. >> you can think of any number of solions, giving more textbooks, lesson class-size, incentives to the teachers. >> what you>> think of the sce of the indian school system, these are massive resource implications. 600,000 schools. you want to figure out what exactly you need to do. can it be done within the school wsyith normal teachers ind normal teag hours? reporter: what emerged was a simple cost-benefit conclusion. teach students what they don't rather than one-size-fits-all. but the team isn't known only for finding out what works, but what doesn't. in a word, debunking. >> one of the places where we partially debunked was microcredit. that was kind of the flavor of 2000. reporter: was it ever. and well before 2000. >> micro lending. small loans to small entrepreneurs.
6:49 pm
reporter: i did a newshour story in 1994 in pine bluff, arkansas, where archer partners -- entrepreneurs like this here weaver were having trouble getting bank loans. >> here, you have to have money to get money. then you don't need the money anyway. i don't understand the banking process. if you don't have it, you don't get it. repoinstead, she applied for and got a $7,000 loan and business advice from a nonprofit based on the idea of nobel peace prize winner. >> to create a job, i need money. the bank wilen not me money. once you have a enterprise, you are allowing a person to show his worth and her worth. reporter:reporter: it sounded great,ooked great, but this was based on a tiny sample. the randomized, controlled trials in india were anything but. >> these are 104 neighborhoods in the city. 52 were going to get microcredit , 52 would get in two years.
6:50 pm
we compared the places that got microcredit with the ones that didn't and we found that on average, it did nothing for the earnings of the people who lived there. they did not get richer. reporter: you realize of course that for me, and for the audience, this is an extremely depressing result. >>es it was extremely depressing for us, too. >> but for the few people who already had a businessis before, ther a positive effect. >> there is a presumption that we will win,obin, win is the lem. it was oversold. reporter: also controversialre the economist couple' politics.d trials on local >> we focused on the question of how do we gi ogres -- voters to be responsive of the fact that this politician 't doing his job. reporter: all they actually did, puicize coding records in local newspapers. >> when you ask poor people in poorsa neighborhoods, 2we
6:51 pm
want roads. just 2%. 57% say we want drains and sewers. reporter: this politician voted for drains and sewers. this one voted for roads. in fact, people begin to vote for the dra >>ad over the roperson. reporter: once they see in the newspapewhh way they voted. >> exactly. reporter: another intervention was to just let the locals know that what politicians do matters. informational theater. >> street plays. street actors. eowe seee deciding to try it out. rereporter: mo candidates for office in the places where the play was staged as opped to places where it was not. >> exactly. the second consequence iscu the ent got fewer votes. even more imptantly, the incumbent is the one that gets completely clobbered.
6:52 pm
>> they get zero. so next, we told people, two years from now we will put out a report card. indeed when you do that, bu whatever they want to do. reporter: who would've guessed? but that is what the research is all about, trying to reduce the guesswork of economic development policy by seeing what's in store and what doesn't, at least in its current form. four "pbs newshour," paul .sondland in massachuset -- paul solman in massachusetts. judy: one of the highest honors beents and humanities have the national medals awarded by the president annually. those have not b since president trump took office, until today. the with more on reporter: among the honorees in the room were bluegrass country
6:53 pm
star alison krauss -- >> ♪ it's amazing how you speak right to my heart ♪ reporter: best known for her fiddle playing and voice, she has en the winner of 27 grammys. and actor jon voight, best known for "midnight cowboy," and his oscar-winning performance in the 1978 film "coming home. " >> jon captures the imagination of every mood audience and dominates every scene. reporter: voigt has been a longtime supporter of the president and celebrated his arrival to washington on the eve of the inauguration. since taking office, president trump has had are strained tionship with the arts. for three years in a row, he proposed a budget seeking to eliminate both the national endowment for the arts and humanities. in 2017, members of his white
6:54 pm
house arts panel resigned en masse, protesting hisns re to the violence at a white nationalist rally i charlottesville, virginia. and the presidentad and first have skipped events like the by every pnt since 1970.ttended today, he had this to say. ac>>of today's recipients has made outstanding contributions to american they exemplify the genius talent and creativity of our exceptional nation. reporter: among the honorees was one of our own, sharon percy rockefeller, president of weta, washington, d.c.'s public television and radiotation and ho to "pbs newshour." he -- she was recognized for her work and philanthropy in the arts. >> sharon rockefeller has been a strong advate for the arts and public broadcasting. she is currently chairman of the board of trustees for the national gallery of art and has
6:55 pm
helped thenstitution acquire breathtaking works of beauty, some of the best anywhere in the world. reporter: t final arts medal went to the musicians of the u.s. military. best-selling author james patterson, a champion for illiteracy and books, was given a humanities metal. thech others were , a texas philanthropist, and the claremont institute, a conservative think tank. for "pbs newshour," i'm jeffrey brown. judy:judy: we are so proud of sharon rockefeller w leads weta. announcer: major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by bnsf railway, consumer cellular, and with the ongoing support of these institutions.
6:56 pm
and friends of the newshour. this program was made possible broadcasting and byblic contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. announcer: this is "pbs newshour washington and at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. by[captioning performed the
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ it's basic, it's simple, abouand it depends is, on a few high-quality ingredients. now, here are a few recipes that ihink really make the most of italian cooking. one is a tuscan beef anpepper stew. you throw the ingredients in a pot, and it's just beef with its own juices and pepper in a great ion. second, there's a pasta con faoli, which is pasta and bean soup. that's another classic. d finally, we went south of milan to find out how to make authentic and easy polenta.