Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  August 11, 2022 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT

6:00 pm
william: good evening. i'm william brangham. judy woodruff is away. on the "newshour" tonight new details. attorney general merrick garland provides more information about the f.b.i.'s search of former president trump's florida home amid rising conservative backlash. then vulnerable ecosystems. united states asks the democratic republic of congo to slow oil and gas exploration within rainforests and national parks including one that is home to endangered gorillas. and faith and abortion. three religious leaders come together to discuss americans' wide ranging views on rerich rights and how -- reproductive rights and how or whether those beliefs should influence u.s. laws. >> there is this sense that
6:01 pm
anyone who is traditionally observant religious person would align with the pro-life movement. but many religious people are fighting against the dissolution of roe v. wade because of our religion. william: all that and more on tonight's "pbs newshour." announcer: major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by -- >> fidelity dedicated advisors are here to help you create a weal plan. a plan with tax sensitive investing strategies. planning focused on tomorrow while you focus on today. that's the planning effect. from fidelity. announcer: committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transform active leaders and ideas.
6:02 pm
more at carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement and the advancement of international peace and security at and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. announcer: this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and to contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. william: attorney general merrick garland announced today that he personally approved the
6:03 pm
decision to seek a search warrant for former president trump's home in palm beach, florida. f.b.i. agents executed the warrant at mar-a-lago earlier this week. reports indicate they were seching for classified documents. t more details could soon be revealed. garland said today that the department of justice filed a motion to make the search warrant and theight of the items taken -- receipt of the items taken public. >> the department does not take such a decision lightly. where possible, it is standard practice to seek less untruth means as -- less intrusive means as an u.v.a. to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken. much of our wk is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. we do that to protect the constitutional rights of all americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations. william: to help us understand what this all means, i'm joined by former federal prosecutor and professor at the cardozo school of law jessica roth.
6:04 pm
she's been following this all closely. jessica roth, great to have you bark on the "newshour." so garland came out today and said i authorized this. we're going to try to make this warrant and the list of what we took public. again, we know that garland likes to let his actions and his department's actions speak for themselves. so seeing him in front of the cameras today was a bit striking. did you see it the same? jessica: yes, absolutely. it was very striking and unexpected for me to see him today and have that press conference. but i actually think that it was important that he do what he did today. an entirely appropriate under the circumstances. and i thought it was very important and appropriate that he file the motion to unseal the search warrant application at this stage. as is set forth in that application, there are really two reasons primarily why search warrant applications are -- remain under seal usually at this stage in the proceedings. one is to protect the privacy and interests of those who were searched, and the other is to protect the integrity of ongoing
6:05 pm
law enforcement operations. in this circumstance, former president trump himself essentially decided he didn't want to keep it private. he announced that the search had happened. and attorney general garland is essentially saying that in the department of justice's opinion, the application at least in some redacted form can be made public without commings ongoing law enforcement -- commings ongoing law enforcement concerns and that there's a significant public interest here. and so it's important that the public have accurate information about precisely what it was that the department was investigating. and if the application is granted, the public will know what facts are in the possession of the department to set forth probable cause that serving crimes were committed and that evidence of them were to be found in the former president's residence. william: so the former president can object to that unsealing, right? what would be the basis for his objection to that happening? jessica: well, he could object
6:06 pm
on the basis that he does have ongoing privacy interests that quob compromised by the release of this information. it is one thing to announce that there was a search of your home. it's another thing as -- to have it out in the public exactly what crimes that itself search was -- that the search was there to look for evidence of. and the specific facts that established probable cause to a judge's satisfaction that those% crimes have been committed and that evidence of them was to be found at that location. so if the motion is granted, the public will soon have a lot more specific information about what the f.b.i. alleges had occurred and the evidence -- importantly also that the inventory of items that was recovered is released then the public will have a sense of what the evidence was that was recovered. william: can you take a step back here for us and help us just remind us, given that there are so many of these cases going, the january 6 investigation, there's the new york attorney general, as far as
6:07 pm
we know, what is the d.o.j. looking at here? what was the f.b.i. trying to find as best we know it? jessica: so it's important to state at the outset that we do not yet have public confirmation or official confirmation from the department of justice about the nature of the investigation that gave rise to the search warrant. however, the fact that the motion to unseal the search warrant application was signed in part by the chief of the department of justice's counterterrorism section tells us that it likely was part of an investigation that he was overseeing which means it would be -- involve counterintelligence interests and that would be consistent with reporting that has been done about essentially the buildup to this search which was a back and forth between the national archives and the president -- former president's representatives about an effort to recover material he took from the white house when he left. and about how -- when the archives did recover some of that material, they found in it
6:08 pm
classified information that should not have been taken from the white house. and their ongoing determines that there was still classified materials that were missing. and so the fact that the motion today was signed by somebody who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations suggests th that is the focus. at least primarily of the search warrant. william: garland's comments as you well know come amidst this remarkable conservative backlash to this raid, "raid" on the former president's home. some very angry violent rhetoric being directed at the department of justice and the f.b.i. over their actions in this case. i mean, we saw this attack today in cincinnati. it's unclear if that was related on an f.b.i. office. do you think on some level that that is partly what motivated the attorney general to come out today to try to cool some of that down?
6:09 pm
jessica: i think that the attorney general felt it was important to get accurate information about what the department was doing. out into the public domain so long as it was legally permissible for him to do so. there has been a lot of misinformation, disinformation out in the public domain, some tuch may be responsible for some of the violence and the rhetoric that you're talking about. i'm not confident that those who take part in that rhetoric and those actions will necessary hear what the attorney general had to say today. but nevertheless, it's important that he not creed the entirety of the public domain to information that is inaccurate. i also think it was important that he stand up for the personnel of the department of justice including the f.b.i. agents as he said at the press conference today to stand up for their professionalism and integrity in the face of such attacks. so when it's permissible for the department of justice to be somewhat transparent about its actions and to explain the
6:10 pm
actions it's taking on behalf of the american people, it's important that it do so. william: lastly, and just a few seconds we have left, we heard attorney general garland say that he would have preferred a less intrusive approach. he's ilying there that in essence that we sent subpoenas and we asked for this to go down in a gentler way and that didn't happen. is that how you read that? jessica: yes. what he was making clear is that the department prefers to act in ways that are less intrusive than a search warrant which is a very intrusive measure. it's time intensive and resource intensive and intrusive upon the interests of those who are searched. so what he was broadcasting was that the department did not move automatically to that method that it sought to obtain the material by subpoena first. the reporting has suggested that the department also sought to get it by consent previously and that there was a back-and-forth in an effort to get it.
6:11 pm
but the reporting suggests that the material was not provided in its entirety and for the department to have taken the action that it did in obtaining the search warrant it must have deemed that the material was so important that it had to recover it through this measure. and so i think in that respect, garland was tryingo speak to some of the perhaps misinformation or incomplete information that has been in the public domain about what happened here. and then to the last thing i would like to say on that, there has been so much use of the word "raid" in the public domain, it's important to remind viewers that this was a lawfully executed search warrant pursuant to a court-ordered warrant or a judge found there was probable cause that crimes have been committed and evidence of them would be found on the residence. and it was executed pursuant to that court process. william: jessica roth, thank you so much for helping us wade through all this. jessica: my pleasure.
6:12 pm
>> "newshour" west. we will return to the full program after the latest headlines. "the washington post" is reporting tonight that classified records relating to nuclear weapons were among the items f.b.i. agents were seeking when they searched mar-a-lago. the paper sources did not say if the documents were recovered in the search. as we briefly mentioned, an armed man in body armor tried to force his way into the f.b.i. cincinnati field office then led police on a car chase. officials say ricky schiffer shot at a state trooper before abandoning his car. they say he was ultimately killed in a standoff with police that lasted several hours. there have been growing threats against federal agents since the search of temperature -- trump's florida estate. the triple-a auto club reports the national average price of gas has dropped below $4 a gallon.
6:13 pm
and the u.s. labor department says wholesale prices fell half a percent between june and july. the c.d.c. has dropped its long-standing covid-19 recommendation to quarantine after a close contact with someone who is infected. the agency also ended guidance to stay at least six feet apart. officials also said 95% of the population has now achieved some form of immunity from vaccinations or prior infections. u.s. secretary of state anthony blinken pressed leaders in rwanda today over supporting rebels in the democratic republic of congo next door. in rwanda's capital, blinken said leaders in both countries have agreed to talk. >> my message to both president tshisekedi and kagame has been the same. any support or cooperation with any armed group of d.r.c. endangers local communities and regional stability and every country in the region must respect the territorial integrity of the others.
6:14 pm
>> the u.n. secretary general called for an immediate halt to all shelling of a nuclear plant in southern ukraine. the zaporizhzhia facility is an area controlled by russian forces. the two sides have blamed each other for the shelling. meanwhile, satellite images today showed scorched ground and damaged warplanes at a russian air base in crimea. it was hit earlier this week. ukraine has not directly claimed responsibility. still to come on the "newshour," the shift in how the firearms industry markets to consumers. we examine the tax provisions in the democrats' budget bill and who will feel the most impact. announcer: this is the "pbs newshour." from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. william: on multi-country tour of africa this week, secretary of state anthony blinken has been making the case that the
6:15 pm
u.s. can be a "equal partner" with african nations. in that vein, he recently announced a new partnership wit democratic republic of congo. in an effort to protect some of that nation's natural treasures. it's one of the most famous and extraordinary places on earth. the virunga national forest, established in 1925, is now a unesco world heritage site. this area nested in the congo basin is africa's oldest national park. it's home to the only mountain gorillas left on the planet. but parts of this precious land are now up for auction. congo is selling 30 oil and gas drilling blocks across the congo basin including some in the virunga park. the congo basin covers 1.3 billion acres. it spans across six nations. and its trees and soils and peat absorb about 4% of the world's annual carbon emissions.
6:16 pm
the auction was announced last may in a video posted by the government on social media encouraging oil and gas companies to bid. this week, on a visit to the capital, secretary of state anthony blinken urged congolese officials to prioritize environmental conservation. >> we had concerns about the announcement of the auction of these oil and gas exploration blocks. some of the blocks infringe on sensitive rainforests and peat land areas including in the virunga national park. william: u.s. and congolese officials have agreed to oversee the oil and gas extraction to ensure the operations are done as possible. and congo auction plans have enraged environmental activists. >> this obviously has very bad and harmful environmental impact. william: irene wabiwa is with greenpeace africa based in
6:17 pm
canchas. >> it is a carbon sink that's fighting against climate change and if opened in this area, that means we will be seeing a lot of carbon to be released into the atmosphere. also many communities are depending on virunga national park for their survival. >> do you have a sense of how those communities in these regions feel about this idea? >> they were shocked to hear that. the d.r.c. government is opening up their land to oil blocks. and they were not told or consulted and for them any kind of development doesn't involve them from the beginning is not a development for them. william: this decision to sell off forest land also conflicts with a pledge the government made less than a year ago at the last u.n. climate change summit in glasgow. there, former u.k. prime minister boris johnson and congolese president felix tshisekedi signed a landmark
6:18 pm
deal to protect the country's rainforests. in a joint statement back then, the democratic republic of congo committed to, quote, halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2031. that deal included international pledges of $500 million. but russia's invasion of ukraine combined with covid-19 has sent food and energy prices soaring. and exacerbated congo's already dire humanitarian crisis. according to the world bank, three quarters of congo's 80 million people live on less than $2 a day. with these leases, congo's president sees an economic opportunity. >> it is time for us to follow in the footsteps of those nations. which before us were able to make their endowments of hydro carbon resources a real spearhead for their economies. >> it is really noble for the d.r.c. government to seek for
6:19 pm
e development of the country. and being a congolese, i really want my country to be developed. but not for the price of the future of the planet. not for the price of the life of million communities. william: for those communities and the world, wabiwa says congo should make other choices. >> we have a lot of solar. we have a lot of potential for renewable energy. this is something that the green development path that the d.r.c. government should be considering instead of jeopardizing its forests. that is critical for the future of humanity. william: but for now the so-called lungs of humanity seem to be under threat. william: while many say the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade is the answer to decades of prayer, some faith leaders fear their religious rights will be infringed amid new abortion
6:20 pm
restrictions. amna nawaz has that conversation. amna: tonight, we explore how some of the major faiths view the question of when life begins and how those beliefs should or shouldn't shape the law of the land. joining me now are rabbi jen leader of west bloomfield, machine, a constitutional law and islamic law professor at the university of wisconsin and the interim co-director of muslim advocates. and chelsea patterson sobelik, former policy director of the ethics and religious liberty commission within the southern baptist convention currently working in government affairs for lifeline child. welcome to you all. and thank you for being here. rabbi, i read something that surprised me. there's a synagogue suing the states of florida and the governor there among others saying that the state's 15-week abortion ban infringes on the religious freedom of jews. and you have said that lawsuit excites you. that you support it.
6:21 pm
tell us why. >> there is this sense that anyone who is a traditionally observant religious person would align with the pro life movement. but many religious people are fighting against the dispollution of roe v. wade because of our religion, not in spite of it. it is a jewish value to support women and pregnant people's ability to get the medical care they need and that includes the right to abortion. our tradition mandates abortion in many instances. william: and doctor, you wrote an op-ed on this issue saying the overturning of roe v. wade would be an fringement on the religious freedom of muslims. how so? >> islam has quite a range of beliefs on on permeability, discouragement or allowance of abortion based on different interpretations of scripture, islamic scripture of when life begins. so there's a range within all the different schools of thought starting at the majority opinion which says life begins sewhere around 120 days into the
6:22 pm
pregnancy, all the way down to minority opinion that says zero. so muslims would choose which school of thought to follow. we don't have the same sort of black and white way of thinking about this as either a life or it's not a life. there's a range of choices. so when you have an abortion ban that reduces those choices that muslims have, to zero. amna: so to what you just heard, for those who don't believe that life begins at conception, does an abortion ban of any kind, does it infringe on their religious freedom? what's your view? >> we do believe that we're talking about two people. and we believe that both -- both people have a right to live. and our perspective is that religious liberty is not ultimate and had a government's creating these laws protecting the most vulnerable among us, we believe that life begins at conception. so we do believe that is the proper role of government. amna: doctor, would you look to respond? >> the first question is what -- what muslims should do in a situation of pregnancy in a
6:23 pm
difficult situation. but that doesn't actually answer the question of what the state should do with regard to everybody who may or may not be muslim in a muslim-ruled place. muslim government is very clearly distinguish between the laws of living life as a muslim which are scriptural interpretation based and then a different type of law which is the law of the state. the state should be making laws to serve the general good of all. amna: to this point about where we are now and the point that chelsea just made that there's a time that the government should be stepping in because religious liberty isn't absolute, what would you say to that? >> for those of us who don't believe that the choice between a life and a life, then that calculation is very different than those who believe the choice is between a life and a life. in india, the right wing hindu party has tried to ban all cattle slaughter because they believe that that is a sacred life. and in a pluralistic society we have to figure out ok, how do we make a law that's going to protect all of us and all of our choses and not impose one view on all others? i think this is a question of where is there harm? are there going to be more
6:24 pm
maternal and fetal deaths? are there going to be more overburdening of the foster care system. is it going to affect the marginalized and the poor? those are serious harms that we have to wrestle with. as a minority, religious american, i'm screamly -- extremely concerned about that. amna: chelsea, what about some of those plans? there areen bans that make no exception for the mother's health or bans that would force a child to carry into -- and deliver a baby which could be very harmful and physically tortuous as many argue, how do those kind of outcomes square with christian beliefs? >> i don't know a law on the books that doesn't prevent a woman from getting life-saving care. but we view that as saving the life of a mother. i think intent here is important. the intent of an abortion is to end the life of a pre-born child and the intent of miscarriage or treating an ectopic pregnancy ir and when able, a doctor can and
6:25 pm
should attempt to save both lives. our position on abortion is that life is inherently sacred and valuable. amna: there are differing views within the christian faith, right? you look at whole numbers that's really quite evangelicals who overly -- overwhelmingly believe abortion is wrong and shouldn't be allowed in the united states, when you look at that does this mean that states are now pushing bans that really represent even a liberty christian view? -- a minority christian view? >> i can speak on behalf of southern baptists which is the nation's largest protestant denomination. so i would say people advocating for the pre-born, it's not just christians. there are democrats who are life and atheists for life. my advocacy on this issue is rooted in my faith but there are people of different faiths or of no faith who are advocating for the pre-born. amna: it fascinates me to hear chelsea when you reference
6:26 pm
scriptures because my intere consolidation of our sacred text which shares this foundation with yours in our interpretation it is extremely clear that a fetus is not considered a life. for the first 40 days of its -- of a fetus being inside of a person's body it's considered mere water and then after ward considered -- and i quote, as if it were a woman's thigh. so this idea that scripture teaches us that the lives of a person who is carrying a fetus and the if theus are equal is certainly not rooted in my faith traditio interpretations lead to consequences in the real world. i'm just so interested in how that difference in interpretation and text tewell study has led to such varied viewpoints when it comes to this issue. >> personhood beginst conception because anything beyond that is arbitrary. 39 days is -- a person with rights or not, we see in psamp -- psalm139 god knits us
6:27 pm
in our mother's wulff and jesus carrying for the most vulnerable and proclaiming that. amna: for us the most vulnerable in this moment are these people who now are losing access to health care and not able to care for themselves. >> can i jump in? amna: please do. >> i would love to have a theological conversation with my abrahamic cousins about this. but i don't think it's an appropriate conversation when we're trying to decide what the state law should be for everyone. that's my main point is this is fascinating. and we can all share ideas about what we think god said and -- and those who don't believe in jesus at all can chime in on what they think and we can have great conversations. and i recognize that it's a really existential concern for those who believe it's a life butf we reduce ourselves to a conversation about what scripture says that's not the place of the state. >> the issue of abortion in my opinion is inherently different. there is a second person involved. and so i think the question we need to have a discussion on is
6:28 pm
this about one person's religious liberty or two people's right to live? i would say that just because someone makes a religious argument doesn't mean that you have to be christian to recognize that it's a distinct life in the womb. amna: what about this idea is if this issue, this abortion is actually handled at the state level, state by state, it would be better for everyone because then it would be more representative of that state's needs and beliefs and values? even if 75% of the people living in a state are pro-life, the other 25% may need access to abortion or reproductive health care that they wouldn't be able to access. if we had a jewish person where the mother's emotional health or physical health were in danger, but her life wasn't in danger yet, she would not be able to access the health care she needed at that time and for us that's just not acceptable. >> people get to vote and to
6:29 pm
share with their state representatives how they want this issue to look in their states. so there's definitely a role that people have within their states. and gone from individuals getting to choose over their own lives to states getting to choose all of our individual lives, that scares me. amna: rabbi, big picture here is we're having a faith conversation in -- on a legal matter. and i'm just curious how you as a faith leader in your community view that when it comes to the rights of your community and every other american. >> we try really hard to preach to values and to discuss values within our community and my congregation specifically and keep politics out of it. it's not a controversial issue within my congregation and generally within the jewish community that our religious freedom means having access to health care in a way that makes sense for us and for everybody. amna: doctor, you hear chelsea saying absolutely her advocacy is rooted in her faith.
6:30 pm
and millions of americans do share those values and beliefs. so what do you say to those who defend pushing this as a legislative move because our country's laws have historically been based on christian morality. >> abolitionist movement was rooted in christian values among others. i think religion is amazing and motivating human behavior. but it's amazing when it's motivated from the inside, when i myself feel some kind of scripturally bound duty. but it's less effective when it comes from the outside. so i can -- no problem. but when i'm asked to stay on a diet or force me to fast it would be much harder and harder if it was somebody else's religious values so if people really are wanting to limit abortions in this country, i think there's way more effective ways to do that-than-then making baps that are enforced by the state. amna: rabbi, what would you say about that? >> it's scary being a religious mentor in a country that seems to be leaning toward making
6:31 pm
legal and political decisions based on this very vocal, very politically active christian nationalism. and if the supreme court is able to make decisions that go against the will of the vast malnati of american citizens -- majority of american citizens based on the value system and beliefs of a religious group, that is not -- doesn't feel safe and doesn't feel a good place for us to be as americans here today. amna: chelsea, it is very true, we are an increasingly diverse nation on faith, right? when it comes to religious diversity or being unaffiliated or even secular. so what would you say to the tens of millions of people out there who do not share your views on this matter but now feel as if your views are being imposed on them? >> absolutely. we all bring our values to the public square. and i think that is part of living in a pluralistic society where we're able to have these conversations. and i keep going back to the
6:32 pm
little one in the womb. and also moms who are -- who are scared right now. there are women around the country who are scared. and i hear that. and i understand that. my very own birth mother was -- like a lot of women who find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy right now. i completely understand that. and we need to respond to that. we need to meet moms and dads where they're at with care, love, and resources. amna: chelsea, dr. -- doctor, rabbi, thank you to all three of you. william: thank you, amna. the debate over gun control in america often centers around who should own guns and what kinds are appropriate. but in recent years, the marketing techniques of gun companies have come under scrutiny. paul solman has that story. paul: thinking about buying a gun?
6:33 pm
>> so why daniel -- >> you too can use what the pros use. >> i'll take it. paul: be like rapper post malone. #gunporn and if you're still in grade school or use a pacifier, you can get your mancard at the top of the testosterone food chain. >> this is a bushmaster firearms ad and this is a very clear unambiguous statement that if you're feeling insecure about your manhood struggling with issues of fragile masculinity the easiest way for you to reissue that havoc lint is to buy -- that masculinity is to buy their gun. paul: psychologist sarah gaither studies male aggression. >> when we think about being a man very fixed you have to be aggressive, tough, protect your family and the message is that gun ads showing specifically targeting men who are struggling with this notion of what it means to be a man in our society. paul: and sometimes leads them she says to violence. not true, says the national
6:34 pm
shooting sports foundation's larry keane. >> advertising commercial products is protected by the first amendment. so long as it's truthful and doesn't incite violence. and i don't think the advertising by the industry generally speaking does anything remotely like that. paul: ok. a little back story. in the 1990's, gun marketing focused on hunting and target practice. but with hunting slumping, by the mid 2000's, gun companies started to shift their advertising to a new audience. >> i sold lots of guns probably personally responsible for selling a couple of million guns. paul: as a firearm salesman, ryan busse watched the pivot. especially to young men. >> that demographic group say 18-35 has been a near exclusive focus for the firearms industry for the last 15 years. paul: in five five, president bush signed a bill that gave broad legal protection to gun manufacturers. a law that made it significantly harder to hold the companies
6:35 pm
accountable. including for how they marketed their weapons. busse, a gunwner you thisist since childhood, began to worry. then in 2012, the sandy hook shooting pushed him over the top. and out of the industry. and now -- >> what i'm really worried about is it's accelerating. this sort of stuff that i know is coming down the pike with regard to advertising. is all about encouraging this sod faux machismo, masculinity own the room with guns. and it's really, really dangerous. >> if you get a gun and ammunition, you can be just like this man in the military. you can act like you're a military member and act like you are defending your country every single day of the year and not even enroll in the military. >> whenever anyone is struggling with belonging issues, wanting to fit in and wanting to aspire to be someone that they think they need to be, they're looking for messages, everywhere, a cue, those are the men we find are more likely to be aggressive. more likely to look to guns or other means of aggression to
6:36 pm
sort of reassert their manhood. paul: i showed several of the ads to larry keane. are the ads not aimed to some significant extent at young men? >> they're directed at law-abiding americans. adult young men who have a constitutional right when they turn 18 or fully vested in their constitutional rights. and they purchase firearms for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. just like other americans. paul: and some of them for mass shootings. a few of them. >> you can't even measure how small it is in the total universe of people who purchase firearms. paul: what about thi one? i mean, isn't this an appeal to a young man to feel more manley? >> i would reject the premise of that. they may be appealing to young men and also appealing to lots of individuals who are law-abiding and want to purchase
6:37 pm
those products for lawful purposes. paul: i'm afraid that the audience will think you're being disingenuous. by not seeing that as an appeal to a person's lack of sense of manleyness. >> do you have any questions about any timecard, you should address it to the company that produced the ad. paul: we did reach out to gun makers. none of them responded. cracks, smith and wesson, that's their corporate headquarters, makers of the semi automatic m&p15. in 2020, the best-selling rifle in america. >> experience more performance. paul: an m&m or military and police, shown in this ad, looks just like the gun in the first person shooter game "call of duty." so popular among young men. the same gun used in several shootings. in a movie theater in aurora, colorado, in 2012, in parkland, in 2018, and more recently at a fourth of july parade in
6:38 pm
highland park, illinois. >> that'daniel. in a nutshell. smiling and running. paul: 7-year-old daniel, so kind hearted he used to rescue worms from frying in the sun, and return carpetter ants to their families outdoors. nearly a decade ago, he was one of 20 children and six educators shot and killed at the sandy hook elementary school in newtown, connecticut. his mom, jackie barden. >> i was in my school. i was a school teacher. and i said nothing is going to happen. it's daniel. it was his school. nothing will happen to him. he's special. i mean, i really pulev that. up until the end. paul: the gun used in the shooting, a remington bushmaster. subject. man card campaign. >> we both were -- how did this happen? how does somebody come across these -- i didn't even know about an a.r.15 or magazine. and i was just aghast at -- i
6:39 pm
started seeing these man card ads. and i just couldn't bieve that that was out there that people were seeing it. paul: the bardens and eight otheramilies wound up suing remington for marketing a.r.-15 style guns to civilians. >> today, the families -- paul: this february, remington's insurance companies paid out $73 million. which the bardens hope will restrain other gun makers. the settlement also required remington to release thousands of pages of internal marketing documents. expected to soon be released to the public. >> hopefully that will be a wake-up call to the industry. paul: daniel's dad, mark barden. >> there's a direct correlation between the reckless advertising and marketing practices that remington was using and acts of violence. byted bye who are t that marketing. paul: that was sort of what inspired us to say is there a legal recourse here to just
6:40 pm
advertise more responsibly and certainly less recklessly? paul: i told the bardens one of larry keane's responses. some of them for mass shootings. and he says you can't even measure how small it is in the total universe of people who purchase firearms. is he actually trying to say that it's -- the lives lost are worth it? or insignificant or don't matter? in the grand scheme of things? to not a high enough number? what's the threshold? paul: now, keane's group is headquartered in new town. only three miles from sandy hook elementary. you're a spokesman for the industry. but if you had experienced what folks in say sandy hook experienced, your family, would you speak differently about this do you think? >> it's a terrible tragedy. but what we see all too often is particularly in these high-profile events is it's not a failure of gun ctrol.
6:41 pm
but it's a failure of the mental health system in our country to provide these individuals with the help that they needed long before these incidents occurred. and we continue to see that. paul: so keane says his group's support in some parts of the gun legislation recently signed into law which provides roughly $13 billion for mental health and school safety. but the group ultimately opposed it. both the bardens and ryan busse like the law. but think the industry needs to be much more seriously reined in. unlike tobacco or alcohol, gun marketing is not federally regulated. >> it's just wrong. it may be legal. but it's certainly not moral. we have to figure out as a country what is necessary to rebuild this system of norms that the industry itself once adhered to not very long ago. we have to figure out a way to put this back where it belongs. otherwise, it's going to rip the
6:42 pm
country apart. paul: as if we're not being ripped far enough apart already. for the "pbs newshour," paul solman. william: as the u.s. house of representatives prepares to cast the final vote on the democrats' sweeping climate and health care bill tomorrow, lisa desjardins takes a look at how the measure would change the nation's tax laws. lisa: william, few things before congress directly affect our bank accounts who is rich and who is poor more than tax policy. these changes in the bill are significant. here's what it will do. first, this would create a 15% minimum tax on large corporations exempt from that would be some hedge funds and investment firms. also new, a 1% tax on stock buybacks which companies use to
6:43 pm
increase their stock price. what will all that mean in reality? for more i'm joined by michael grads a. -- gratz a professor of tax law at columbia university and co-author of the wolf at the door, the menace of economic insecurity and how to fight it. first, professor gratz, i want to establish some baselines with our viewers. let's talk about the corporate tax change. here's what we know about it. this 15% minimum tax would be for businesses making over $1 billion a year. that would be on an average over three years. the joint committee on taxation says that will affect about 150 companies and raise well over $200 billion. that's a lot of numbers. but michael gratz, how significant do you think this is? >> well, in some sense, it's important. it's not earth-shaking. this minimum tax raises about the same amount of money as raising the corporate rate from
6:44 pm
21% to 23%. so it's less than many people had urged. although as you know well, kyrsten sinema was not prepared to raise the corporate rate, the main rate, at all. the problem here is that there are many companies that have very large earnings they are reporting to their shareholders. and they're paying little or no tax. and this minimum tax is directed at addressing that problem. and so the revenue it raises is only from large corporations who have large amounts of income and are paying taxes that are less than 15% of the income they're reporting to their shareholders. lisa: those corporations also have large amounts of lawyers. what are the chances that they'll find a different way around this tax? how do you read this new law? how strong is it? jared: well, i think it's quite
6:45 pm
strong. because corporate managers are very anxious not to reduce the amount of earnings that they report to shareholders. and if you look at the history of tax shelters in the corporate sector in the united states, one common feature of those tax shelters is that they reduced taxes but they do not reduce the earnings reported to shareholders on their books. lisa: you mentioned senator kyrsten sinema. one of the groups that also did well in this bill is hedge fund and equity fund managers who she protected. a couple of different times from getting larger tax hits from this bill. when i asked sources close to her told me that she was concerned that raising taxes on hedge fund managers would affect investment this her state. i wonder what you make of that argument and what do we know about taxing these wealthy hedge fund managers? >> this has been an issue for more than a decade that there have been major efforts to
6:46 pm
change these taxes so that these managers pay ordinary income rates, the normal rates you and i pay on our salaries. the private equity groups in particular, but the hedge fund managers as well, have been very effective in blocking those changes and now going back over a decade and it turns out that kyrsten sinema is taking the heat for this because she was the only democrat in the senate that was prepared to say let's not do this. but they've been very effective and spent millions of dollars in lobbying and spent tens of millions if not more in campaign contributions and every time this comes up they seem to win. lisa: i want to ask you about the stock buybacks a new 1% tax on that, that companies buy back their stocks to increase the value for them and for their shareholders. tuesday, judy woodruff asked the
6:47 pm
majority leader chuck schumer about this idea that the bill does help some of the healthy and here -- wealthy and here was his response. >> we're putting a 1% tax on stock buybacks. these stock buybacks -- buybacks help the corporate billionaires and big hedge fund holders and things like that and they do no benefit for people. they just make the stock price go up by having fewer shares. so that broad in $70 billion against the very wealthy. william: stock buybacks, companies use those to increase their value for them and their shareholders. is what leader schumer said accurate? >> well, he's right that they use stock buybacks which have some tax advantage over paying dividends. and that the stock buybacks do tend to raise the prices of their shares. the real question here is whether this 1% tax on stock buybacks is going to change any behavior of corporate managers at all. i would predict not. if you look at the revenue that
6:48 pm
the joint committee on taxation believes this provision will bring in they believe not. basically assuming stock buybacks will continue at a high rate. that's how you get the money from this provision. so i don't think it will change corporate behavior. and i don't think it will affect millionaires and billionaires that senator schumer was referring to. lisaall of this is grogged disparity in this country -- is growing disparity in this country. do you think these tax changes will have any effect on that rich and poor gap that has been growing in this country? >> i think not. i'm sorry to say. there are no taxes on wealthy individuals. joe biden as president proposed $365 billion of increased taxes on the wealthy in his budget proposals this year. and in this bill, there are zero
6:49 pm
of those. so there are many loopholes that remain. but this bill is basicly -- has basically decided the only taxes that will be raised here mainly are large corporations. and those taxes are small enough that i don't think it's going to have any effect, any noticeable effect on the distribution of wealth or income in this country that theivision between the rich and everybody else is going to continue i'm afraid. lisa: michael gratz of columbia university. thank you so much for talking with us. >> thank you, lisa. william: as a young woman in iran, artist arghavan khosravi was subjected to many restrictions. but on the canvas, she renders it all in fanciful, magical layers. special correspondent jared bowen of g.b.h. boston met her
6:50 pm
at the currier museum of art in manchester, new hampshire, for our arts and culture series "canvas." >> i like this idea of having these whimsical gardens and then having some other things, a little bit disturbing. jared: this her paintings as in her own life iranian artist arghavan khosravi sees two irans. one she found inside her family home. >> we had a lot of freedom. i was lucky that i was born and raised in a family that culturally educated and gave me this pace to do whatever i want. jared: and then there is the public iran, where life is heavily restricted, especially for women. >> when we go to school, we have to wear the hijab and there are things that you must do to comply with those rules. jared: accounts be yourself. -- you couldn't be yourself.
6:51 pm
>> i think that's too extreme to say you couldn't be yourself. i could. but just the modified version. more contained. jared: so in this her first museum exhibition, we find flowering trees, summitius textiles, and birds with widespread wings. but we also find women diminished. faces obscured, sometimes forcibly restrained. the work khosravi says all comes from memory. >> usually the mostly not very positive so for me, reacting to those memories in the paintings is somehow a way also to cope with those often traumatic experiences. ared: and none of these women are ever you. >> no. i never intend to have these women as self-portraits. but i have some of the
6:52 pm
characters -- characteristics in common with me. like the hair color, eye color, to some extent skin tone. i want to refer to my own race. jared: khosravi left iran seven years ago to attend art school in the united states. and as an immigrant, she's no longer free to travel home. but on the canvas, she dwells in a magical realm says samana cataldo, show's curator. >> there's a real element of like a dream space or like a moment frozen in time. but it's rendered in really sharp detail. and so you kind of have that push-pull of reality. and -- jared: in her latest work khosravi's paintings enter our space taking on qualities as they protrude from the wall. their weight literally suspended before us. you're confronted with the work but not of course in a bad way. it's brought to you and it's -- it beckons you and invites you
6:53 pm
to investigate all of its layers. jared: in a visual language khosravi has steadily cultivated. look closely and you'll find her paint often sparkles. a nod to the precious. like middle eastern oil, she says, that comes at the expense of democracy. the classical sculpture represented throughout her work speaks to both pay remarky and notions of human -- patemarky and nions of human decay. >> and also includes things like more eastern traditions like contemporary fashion photography. it sets up this interesting contrast and contradiction of ideals. jared: khosravi also returns time and again to historic persian miniature painting. there are images she was raised on but in her versions, she moves men to the side. >> i see that women have a secondary role or not very important roles in those scenes. and in my own work, i wan to --
6:54 pm
that idea and give women more presence than what we have seen throughout our history. jared: history is literally woven into khosravi's work as she paints around, over, and through hand-made textiles, her father has sent from iran. you come in and you really are having a conversation with the artist who came before. >> yeah. yeah. because i -- like i decided these -- this color pallets because of the color pallet than interesting dialogue. jared: and choice. which arghavan khosravi now a long way from home will never take for granted. you have what you talk about in these patentings. you have freedom. full freedom. >> yeah, yeah. and in contrast with what i'm saying in the paintings, i have freedom to say whatever i want to say. jared: for the "pbs newshour," i'm jared bowen, in manchester, new hampshire. william: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm william brangham.
6:55 pm
for all of us at the "pbs newshour," thank you, and see you soon. announcer: major funding for for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by -- >> for 25 years, consumer cellular has been offering into contract wireless plans designed to help people do more of what they like. our u.s.-based customer service team can help find a plan that fits you. to learn more, visit the ford foundation. working with vanquish's -- visionaries on the lines of social change worldwide. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. and friends of the "newshour" including leonard and norma klorvine and koo and patricia yuen. and with the ongoing support of these institutions.
6:56 pm
and friends of the "newshour." this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and pi contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. announcer: this is the "pbs newshour." from weta studios in washington, and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university.
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
-"jacques pépin: heart & soul" is brought to you by... for those who cook with heart and soul, we present a kitchen made with passion. introducing the completely reimagined suite of appliances from kitchenaid. you can see more at oxo good grips -- thoughtfully yours. vine connections, proud importer of luca, boutique argentine wines from fourth-generation wine maker laura catena. bertolli -- proudly crafting olivoil since 1865. -viva bertolli! -riedel, the wine glass company. -oceania cruises -- worldwide destinations, fine dining, personalized service. your world. your way. -i started working for the french president back in late-1956.