WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening. I'm WilliamBrangham. Geoff Bennett and Amna Nawaz are away. On the “NewsHour” tonight: WikiLeaksfounder Julian Assange makes a last-ditch attempt to avoid extraditionto the United States on spying charges. Then: Taiwan's top diplomat inWashington discusses the island's relations with the U.S., as both confront China. ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI, Taiwanese Representative tothe United States: We trust that we will continue working closely with the U.S. administration,as well as Congress, so that Taiwan can get, under circumstances, thebest defense capabilities. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And a lookat the presidential race,.
As President Biden breaks a fund-raising record, and Nikki Haley tries to gain ground on DonaldTrump ahead of the primary in her home state. (BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the “NewsHour.” President Biden says the United States will imposemajor new sanctions on Russia after the death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Officials gaveno details today, but the president said the formal announcement will come on Friday. Navalnyreportedly died in an Arctic prison last week. His mother appeared in a videotoday outside the prison still seeking answers and access to his body andpressing Russia's president for action.
LYUDMILA NAVALNAYA, Mother of AlexeiNavalny (through translator): Behind me is the IK-3 Polar Wolf penal colony, wheremy son Alexei Navalny died on 16 February. I am turning to you, Vladimir Putin. The solutionto the issue depends only on you. Let me finally see my son. I require that Alexei's body beimmediately given so that I can bury him humanely. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Kremlin todaydenied any involvement in Navalny's death or that he was poisoned with a nerveagent. In turn, his widow, Yulia Navalnaya, urged European nations to reject the resultsof Putin's expected reelection next month. For his part, Putin insisted today thatRussia will not deploy nuclear weapons in space. He spoke as he met with his defenseminister and urged all nations to honor an.
International ban on deploying nuclear armsin orbit. U.S. officials say Russia has a new anti-satellite capability, but theyhave not said if it's nuclear-capable. Also in Russia, a Moscow court refusedto release Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich from jail. That'spending his trial on espionage charges, which he denies. Russian authoritiesalso detained a dual Russian-U.S. citizen on treason charges. She's accusedof fund-raising to support Ukraine's army. The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Councilresolution today that called for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza. The vote was13-1 on the measure, which was backed by Arab states. U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfieldsaid passing it would sabotage negotiations.
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, U.S. Ambassador tothe United Nations: Demanding an immediate, unconditional cease-fire without an agreementrequiring Hamas to release the hostages will not bring about a durable peace. Instead, it couldextend the fighting between Hamas and Israel. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In Northern Gaza, theU.N.'s World Food Program suspended food and aid deliveries, saying drivers faced violencefrom people swarming the trucks. Hamas called the decision a death sentence, and it comes amidreports of people reduced to eating animal feed. A U.N. study found that one in six children under2 years of age in Gaza, are acutely malnourished. Back in this country, two men werecharged with murder in the Super Bowl parade shootings in Kansas City. Acrowd of fans ran for their lives when.
An argument turned into gunfirelast week. One person was killed, and 22 were injured. Two juveniles were chargedearlier with gun violations and resisting arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined acase on diversity in education. Parents and students argued that a special NorthernVirginia high school discriminated against Asian Americans in favor of otherminorities. A lower court upheld the admissions policy. The justices alsodeciding against hearing a religion case on whether potential jurors maybe excluded over their beliefs. A first-of-its-kind federal trial opened todayin South Carolina for a hate crime based on gender identity. The defendant is accused ofkilling a Black transgender woman in 2019..
Prosecutors say he'd been ridiculedfor having an affair with the victim. In economic news, there could be a new team inthe credit card industry. Capital One Financial says it will buy Discover Financial Servicesfor $35 billion. If it wins federal approval, the merger would challenge the dominance ofVisa and Mastercard in the credit card industry. And on Wall Street, tech stocks dropped, pulling the broader market lower. The DowJones industrial average lost 64 points, to close at 38564. The Nasdaq fell 144 points,or about 1 percent. And the S&P 500 was down 30. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: low demand forcommercial office space fuels economic fears; a domestic violence call in Minnesota that turneddeadly sheds light on a growing problem in the.
U.S.; a new exhibit chronicles the rich historyof independent Black cinema; plus much more. A two-day hearing in a London courtroombegan today over the fate of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. At stakeis whether he will be extradited to the United States on espionage charges. His case has reopened debate over whether Assangeis a journalist and publisher or something more sinister, and many defending him say free speechand an independent press is also at stake. This will likely be Julian Assange's last chanceto avoid facing prosecutors in the United States. His two-day hearing got under way today atLondon's Royal Courts of Justice. Assange's lawyers are battling to block extradition,which they insist is politically motivated.
American prosecutors want the WikiLeaksfounder to stand trial on 17 charges of espionage and one charge forcomputer misuse for releasing huge troves of classified U.S. militaryand diplomatic documents back in 2010. JULIAN ASSANGE, Founder, WikiLeaks: It isclear that it will shape an understanding of what the past six years of war has beenlike, and that the course of the war needs to change. The manner in which itneeds to change is not yet clear. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: They say the Australiancitizen conspired with U.S. army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to steal military filesand diplomatic cables. The Justice Department is also separately investigating whetherAssange has ties to the Russian government,.
Especially after WikiLeaks publishedinternal e-mails from the Democratic Party that were stolen by theRussians during the 2016 election. Today, Assange's wife, Stella, comparedhis case to that of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who diedin a Russian prison last week. STELLA ASSANGE, Wife of Julian Assange: It'san attack on all journalists all over the world. It's an attack on the truth. And it's anattack on the publics right to know. Julian is a political prisoner, and his life is at risk.What happened to Navalny can happen to Julian. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Assange's legal troubles alsoinclude his arrest by British authorities in 2010 after two women in Sweden accused himof rape and sexual assault. Two years later,.
He jumped bail and sequestered himselfat the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he stayed around the clock for seven years. JULIAN ASSANGE: As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expressionand the health of all our societies. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The tiny EcuadorianMission eventually evicted him in 2019. And British police immediately arrestedhim for his bail violation years before. He's been held in a maximum security prisonin London ever since. Assange's supporters rallied outside the court today, demanding hisrelease, and hailing him as a whistle-blower who exposed U.S. military wrongdoingsin the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
SADIA KOKNI, Julian Assange Supporter:Assange, for us and for me, he is a hero. He's an advocate for truth, peace, justice.It's really important that he's free, not just for journalism, but foreveryone that's actually walking this planet. His work affects us, because he'sexposing injustices throughout the world. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Should the British courtreject his appeal, Assange could be sent to the U.S. immediately to stand trial. Ifconvicted, he faces up to 175 years in prison. For a closer look at JulianAssange's appeal and the U.S. effort to prosecute him, we get two views. Carrie DeCell is a senior staff attorney at theKnight First Amendment Institute. Her litigation.
Focuses on freedom of speech on social media anddigital age threats to freedom of the press. And Jamil Jaffer, he's a former senior counsel forthe House Intelligence Committee who also served in the Justice Department's National SecurityDivision during the George W. Bush administration. Thank you both so much for being here. Carrie, to you first. As I mentioned in that setup there, Assange couldbe facing 175 years if he were convicted on all of these charges. Do you think he shouldface prosecution here in the United States? CARRIE DECELL, Senior Staff Attorney, KnightFirst Amendment Institute: No, I don't. I think regardless of whether or not the U.K.courts decide to extradite him to the United.
States, the U.S. Justice Department should dropthese charges. They are a direct threats to press freedom here because they could be brought againstany national security reporter worth their salt. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jamil, what doyou have to say about that? What is — is he a journalist? Is he apublisher, as his defenders allege? JAMIL JAFFER, Former Senior Counsel,House Intelligence Committee: Well, a couple of things, William. One, these charges haven't been brought againstany journalist ever in the United States, because Julian Assange isn't a realjournalist. He never has been. He's been a hacker his whole life. He doesn't engagein the normal course of journalistic ethics. He.
Doesn't redact sources. He doesn'ttry to protect the innocent, right? In fact, all of his disclosures haveresulted in more journalists and more human rights activists being underthreat abroad than ever before. It's his disclosures that have put those verypeople, legitimate journalists, at risk. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, Carrie,what do you make of that, that there is a distinction here that he,in one case, helped someone hack into a computer? That is not what a normalnational security reporter would do. CARRIE DECELL: That may be right, but that'sone count of an 18-count superseding indictment. The Justice Department could have leftthe charges against him at that one count,.
But they filed an indictment adding 17counts under the Espionage Act. And the charges under the Espionage Act are for thingsthat typical journalists engage in every day. It's soliciting information from confidentialsources, obtaining that information, and then publishing it. So, regardless of whetheror not Assange himself qualifies as a journalist, it doesn't matter when it comesto this particular prosecution, because these charges could be broughtagainst your average journalist. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jamil, I wonderif you would help — your take on this distinction between being ajournalist and between being a hacker, as he says. Does he fall under the FirstAmendment in any way, in your mind?.
JAMIL JAFFER: Well, one, he's not a U.S.citizen, so he doesn't actually have rights from the U.S. Constitution. Now, he's beingbrought here, prosecuted here. Presumably, those rights will apply once he's here and inour courts. But having published from abroad, he doesn't actually have First Amendment rights. That being said, even if we apply theFirst Amendment to him, he doesn't do the things that you would expect ajournalist to do. He doesn't comply with journalistic ethics. He doesn't abideby these things. In fact, the whole reason Ecuadorian Embassy kicked him out after sevenyears is, he was behaving poorly while there. On top of all that, even if you putaside the hacking charges, right,.
Journalists don't normally solicit classifiedinformation in the sense of like, go get this specific information out of a classified database.If they receive it, sometimes, they will publish it. But even when they publish it, they takeefforts to redact information that is sensitive, protect sources of methods and the like,give the government a chance to respond. Julian Assange didn't do any of that, becausehe's not a real, legitimate journalist. And the idea that this prosecution would undermine anyjournalist's rights, it just makes no sense to me. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Carrie, I'm sure you sharethis concern that many of his supporters and his lawyers have, which is that he would have a verydifficult time getting a fair trial in the U.S. Do you believe that's the case?.
CARRIE DECELL: You know, I mean, I'm aU.S. lawyer and I practice in U.S. courts, and I do still believe that the U.S.courts can proceed through a fair trial. But, that said, there are a lot ofcircumstances around this particular prosecution that are terribly concerning.And, as Mr. Jaffer mentioned previously, this really is the first prosecutionof a publisher of information under the Espionage Act, regardless of whetheror not he qualifies as a journalist. And I think there are a lot of questions, openquestions, that the courts will have to address if he's successfully extradited here. And thebiggest, to my mind, is whether or not there are First Amendment limits on his and otherpublishers' potential liability for publishing.
Truthful information on matters of clear publicconcern when it comes to the Espionage Act. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, Jamil, we should remindour audience that, back in 2019, the Obama administration was presented with this optionof prosecuting Assange, and they chose not to. Do you have an understandingas to why they chose not to? JAMIL JAFFER: You know, I'm not exactly surewhy they declined prosecution at the time, but, of course, since then,the Trump administration has brought the charges. They broughta second superseding indictment. And those charges have continued to beprosecuted by the Biden administration after a change in administration, aBiden administration that, by the way,.
Most of the people in the Justice Departmentand the National Security Council served in, in the prior Obama administration,including Merrick Garland, who was nominated to be — nominated to theSupreme Court by President Obama, right, Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general,the head of the National Security Division. Matt Olsen was the head of the NationalCounterterrorism Center. So the same people who are prosecuting JulianAssange today served in similar or related positions back in theObama administration as well. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: so, Carrie, whatwould you argue there, that, if the administration back then, theObama administration, you believe,.
Made the right call, why do you thinkthat they have changed course now? CARRIE DECELL: Yes, well, I mean,as reported at the time, apparently, the Obama administration was really concernedabout its own inability to draw a line between Assange and journalists when it comes to what theyintended to prosecute him for in this instance. And the Trump administration clearly made adifferent decision, probably not least because the Trump administration was not at all concernedabout jeopardizing freedom of the press and, in fact, was excited, I think, about thepossibility of putting the press on notice. It's, I think, a typical Justice Departmentpractice of maintaining prosecutions that a previous administration filed, really forthe appearance of impartiality. And I think,.
In this case, however, the charges should not havebeen brought by the Trump administration. And the Obama administration was right not to bring thosevery same charges when it had the opportunity to. So I think this Justice Departmentshould drop those charges. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jamil Jaffer, what doyou make of the separate allegations that are made that Assange has some unhealthyconnection to Russia, that he basically served as a far-too-willing conduit for thosestolen e-mails back in 2016 from the DNC? JAMIL JAFFER: Well, William, we have seen thatplay out in real time. We have seen it play out during — during that particular incident,but many times as well where it appears that Assange has this somewhat inappropriaterelationship with the Russian regime.
He seems to be parroting Russian talking pointsoftentimes. It's hard to know exactly how those ties play out. They're not indicted. They'renot part of the charges. But it appears to be part of what's underlying all this. Andit's not surprising in the context of what we have seen the Russians do in terms ofelection misinformation, disinformation, and their efforts to manipulateWestern and — Western audiences. So this wouldn't be surprising as a Russiantactic. Whether it's accurate or not really doesn't matter to the prosecution,because, at the end of the day, what Julian Assange is accused of doing,if he's found guilty in a court of law, is prosecutable and is punishableat U.S. law and has been since 1917.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Carrie, lastly toyou, the — what happens next? Let's just say he is extradited or the courtrules against him and says he could be. Does he have another route for appeal? CARRIE DECELL: Well, in the United Kingdom, my understanding is that he would next haveto go to the European Court of Human Rights, and that he might be even put on a planein the meantime to the United States. But, certainly, within the United States,he would have the opportunity to argue that he should not be held criminallyliable for publishing information, again, truthful information matters ofclear public concern. And the Supreme.
Court has held that the First Amendmentstrongly protects that kind of publication. Now, it hasn't done so in this particularcontext. But Assange and his lawyers, I would hope, would make a vigorousFirst Amendment defense to these charges. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right,Carrie DeCell and Jamil Jaffer, thank you so much, both of you, for being here. CARRIE DECELL: Thank you. JAMIL JAFFER: Thanks. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This week, tensions haveincreased in the Taiwan Strait following incidents near an island involving theChinese and Taiwanese Coast Guards.
It's happening at a sensitive momentin between Taiwan's recent election and the upcoming inauguration of its new president. Nick Schifrin speaks to Taiwan'snew representative in Washington for his first broadcast interview. NICK SCHIFRIN: More than any single issue, Taiwan has long been at the center of tensionbetween the United States and Beijing. Last month, Taiwan elected Lai Ching-te,known as William Lai, as president. It is an unprecedented third straight presidentialvictory for the Democratic Progressive Party, or DPP. Beijing calls Lai a separatistwhose election could trigger war. But,.
Publicly, Lai has insisted hispolicy is to retain the status quo. To discuss these issues and thewider relations among Taiwan, China and the U.S., we welcome Alexander Tah-rayYui, Taiwan's top diplomat to the United States. Thank you very much, Representative. Let's begin with some recenttension in the strait. Last week, two Chinese nationals died when their boatcapsized while it was being chased about one mile from the Taiwanese island of Kinmen.Today, Taiwan drove away a Chinese Coast Guard boat after yesterday the Chinese Coast Guardactually boarded a Taiwanese tourist boat. What is your concern thatthese incidents could escalate?.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI, TaiwaneseRepresentative to the United States: Well, we have always strived forstatus quo in the Taiwan Strait. The incident that you just mentioned, it'sa concerning trend that is happening. They are the ones who are changing the statusquo by changing all these incidents. They talk about red lines. They say,oh, you shouldn't cross the red line because this is a fundamental issuefor the people of the Republic of China. But they are the ones changing thered lines. They draw the red lines constantly on a different line. And that is aconcerning trend, including the one in Kinmen. NICK SCHIFRIN: There's also diplomatic pressure.
After the election, the Pacific island of Naurutraded recognition of Taipei for Beijing… ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Yes. Sure. NICK SCHIFRIN: … leaving you withonly 12 diplomatic allies. That's 10 countries that have switched from Taipei toBeijing during the term of President Tsai. Why do you believe Taiwan islosing so much recognition? ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, in Nauru'scase, it was mainland China's punishment to the Taiwanese people for choosingthe candidate they did not like. But we will not go challenges orgo race with mainland China on a dollar diplomacy. People in Republicof China promises these countries a.
Lot of benefits, a windfall of economicbenefits, airports, railways, housing, et cetera. But in most of the cases, theygo unanswered after they switch sides. NICK SCHIFRIN: Beijing has recentlyunilaterally adjusted a commercial flight path. ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Exactly right.(CROSSTALK) NICK SCHIFRIN: We're goingto show an app right here. ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Yes. NICK SCHIFRIN: Closer to themedian line in the Taiwan Strait, essentially normalizing the flight ofChinese civilian aircraft closer to Taiwan. Why is that so concerning to Taipei?.
ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, first of all, theirmeasure was unilateral. And they should have consulted with Taiwan, the way they consulted withTaiwan back in 2015 when M503 was established. It increased dangers of national security for us,because their planes are flying closer to Taiwan. But it also increases dangers forcivilian people, civilian air routes, because there is encroaching on our airspace.And they should have consulted with us first. NICK SCHIFRIN: I have a questionabout whether Taiwan trusts the United States. We looked at a pollthat shows, over the last few years, Taiwanese trust in the United States hasdropped from 45 percent to 34 percent. And, of course, we're all watching whereCongress has not been able to send aid,.
Mostly to Ukraine, but also to Taiwan and Israel, that the administration has promised. Theleading Republican candidate in the election, of course, is promising or is vowing thathe will not stand by promises to NATO. Do you trust that in the future the U.S. willstand by whatever promises it makes to Taiwan? ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, therecent definition, whenever people talk about Taiwan-U.S. relations, themost often used term is rock-solid. And I would say that the support thatwe, the Republic of China Taiwan, we get from United States is bipartisan.And it's very heartwarming that Congress has the last session passed over 60resolutions or acts in favor of Taiwan.
The United States, who has — is having electionsin November. And we are trustful that, whoever wins the election, the new administration, thisbipartisan support for Taiwan will continue to be. So, we trust that we will continue working closelywith the U.S. administration, as well as Congress, so that Taiwan can get under circumstancesthe best defense capabilities as possible. NICK SCHIFRIN: If Ukraine loses to Russiaor forced to cede territory in some kind of negotiated settlement with Russia, wouldthat embolden Xi Jinping to attack Taiwan? ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, that'swhy the defense of Ukraine against the Russian invasion is very important,and the support from all like-minded countries to make sure that Ukraine isable to defend itself is very important,.
Because facing aggression from authoritarianregimes — and you speak about appeasement. You speak about the Crimea incident in2014. Not much was done. So it emboldened the Russians to attack Ukrainetwo years ago. But you see also, you see the Chinese foreign minister,Wang Yi, was in Munich not long ago. NICK SCHIFRIN: The security forum this weekend. ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Yes, thesecurity — and he mentioned about, if you want peace and stability in the TaiwanStraits, then you should not cross our red lines, and then you should follow our one-Chinaprinciple and accept that Taiwan is part of us. And excuse me, this sounds very much like Munichin 1938, when Hitler said, you want peace and.
Stability in my region, then cut — Sudetenland ismine. Isn't it the same thing that they're saying? But, besides, I'm — as I said… (CROSSTALK) NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you think the U.S. isacting in the correct way to prevent war? ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Well, we're very heartenedand we are very appreciative that, every time the U.S. leaders, as well as other leaders fromthe United States, from Japan, et cetera, they meet with the Chinese leadership, they –they warn, they appeal to the Chinese side. They're insistent that peace and stabilityof the China — of the Taiwan Strait is necessary, and they're against theunilateral — unilateral change of.
Status called by means of militaryaggression, nor economic coercion. NICK SCHIFRIN: But they alsoassure Beijing that they will not support Taiwan independence and they willrestrain Taiwan from any further action. ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: Peoplein Taiwan are not talking about independence nowadays. You go to Taiwan,nobody is talking about independence. Again, Taiwan is our official name isRepublic of China. We are already a sovereign and independent nation. So,there is no talk about independence, because we already are. And, again, as Imentioned in another occasion, if we talk about independence, it means that we are right nowsubordinate to some other entity, which we're not.
In President Tsai's 2021 National Day speech,she mentioned there's four insistences. We will insist on rejecting any attempt to encroachor annex Taiwan and the Republic of China and the insistence that the future of ROC Taiwanwill be determined by the people of Taiwan. And that's the line that we follow and that'sthe road that President Lai is also following. NICK SCHIFRIN: RepresentativeAlexander Yui, thank you very much. ALEXANDER TAH-RAY YUI: It's a pleasure sir. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Former U.N. AmbassadorNikki Haley today vowed to stay in the Republican primary even if she loses Saturday'svote in her home state of South Carolina. Haley's decision comes despite not winning asingle primary race thus far and as President.
Biden's campaign prepares for an expectedrematch with former President Trump. To discuss that and othernews in the 2024 election, I'm joined by our politicalcorrespondent, Lisa Desjardins. Hi, Lisa. LISA DESJARDINS: Hi. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, Haley doubled down on this idea that she is in no matter what. Whatis her strategy here? What is her plan? LISA DESJARDINS: She declared thisher state of the race and — speech. And I want to read some remarks thatI thought were striking and something.
We ought to watch carefully. Shesaid she will campaign every day until the last person votes. That'sJune 4 in the Republican primary. She says she's in this that long. She waspassionate, defiant, spoke for 25 minutes. Her argument in some ways is the same. Sheis saying that much of this country does not want a Biden-Trump rematch. But therewere some new things in here, many barbs, and particularly sharp, at former PresidentTrump, who she said has been a disaster. And she called out other Republicans, sayingthey have not been honest about him. NIKKI HALEY (R), Presidential Candidate:I feel no need to kiss the ring. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE).
NIKKI HALEY: I have no fear ofTrump's retribution. I'm not… (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) NIKKI HALEY: I'm not looking for anything fromhim. My own political future is of zero concern. LISA DESJARDINS: The Trumpteam, meanwhile, however, sent out a memo today saying, in theirview, the campaign will end Saturday. Of course, Haley says the opposite. When will itend, is the question everyone wants to know. I spoke to one of Haley's former competitors,Asa Hutchinson, who has now endorsed her. And he said that there is — there aresome pragmatic concerns here for her. FMR. GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON(R-AR): You don't have to win,.
But you have to show that you'remounting a significant challenge. Then that takes you to Super Tuesday, and you haveto have a strong enough showing in South Carolina to showcase to the donors that you have got ashot at this and that you can turn this around. LISA DESJARDINS: Haley right nowis running off of fuel from August, when she had those big debate moments andshe got — brought in a lot of money. So she needs to keep doing that to really keep going. Meanwhile, as those who have watched theprogram know, I worked in South Carolina politics for a while and I spoke tomany of my sources down there. They do see perhaps a way that she can make up alittle bit of ground. Close the gap? No way.
But what everyone is saying to me, includingour team on the ground, producer Layla Quran, Ian Couzens, who are returning today, they saythere's just a real lack of enthusiasm. They were at a Trump event today, William,that only had 70 or 80 people to greet him. That is a low number. Low turnout isgood for Haley, by the way, on Saturday. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, but Asa Hutchinsonmentioned this, that money is critical. Where do the candidates stand on that front now? LISA DESJARDINS: This is where we bringin President Biden. He actually had some record-setting numbers. News today, his campaignsays they raised $42 million in January. That is a record for a Democrat at thistime of year. So let's look at everyone,.
Starting with the Republicans together. Haleyand Trump, the last figures we had from both campaigns were at the end of last year, Haley with$14 million hand, Trump with 433 million on hand. The equivalent for Joe Biden, end of last year, was $46 million. So that is good newsfor Democrats. We have not heard about Trump's latest figures, which makes youquestion how well he's doing with that. There is another factor forformer President Trump. Two PACs, major PACs supporting him reported that theyactually spent $55 million in legal fees for him. And that is before his trials reallystart, his criminal trials, I should say. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.
I mean, campaign dollars certainly great news for Biden, but they only — can'treally buy votes with dollars. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What do we know abouthow he's doing with those actual voters? LISA DESJARDINS: Well, his approvalrating still is around the same, under 40 percent, not where the Biden campaignwants it. And there still is this disconnect, where the economy, unemployment's doingwell, Wall Street in general is doing well, we're seeing growth in productivity,inflation is getting a little bit better. We noticed a poll today from Monmouth Universitythat talked about this issue with President Biden,.
Asking, should he give — get credit for theeconomic upturn? Look at the largest number there on the bottom; 36 percent say no, no credit atall for President Biden for the economic upturn. And when you mash these things together, youlook at the who gives him credit, who doesn't, it's 50/50, which is remarkable when you see alot of the economic numbers. Another statistic that caught our attention from this same Monmouthpoll, has your family benefited from this upturn? Look at this. You see about third ofthis country say they have benefited, but look at that; 64, two-thirds of this countrysay they still have not benefited. And, William, looking at this, maybe the question isn'thow much have you benefited, but who? The folks who said that theydid not benefit much at all,.
The largest group there, the significantdifference there was folks earning under $50,000. Traditional Democrats,they just aren't seeing any gain. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: LisaDesjardins, thank you, as always. LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome. PAUL SOLMAN: What some folks considerAmerica's ticking financial time bomb, empty office buildings. NANCY WALLACE, University of California,Berkeley: Commercial real estate is the big problem across the country, really. PAUL SOLMAN: Real estate economist Nancy Wallace.
NANCY WALLACE: And, obviously, San Francisco,the problems are really significant. PAUL SOLMAN: Especially in San Francisco,which The New York Times just called the most empty downtown in America.How empty are the office buildings? JESSE BLOUT, Strada InvestmentGroup: About 33, 35 percent vacant. PAUL SOLMAN: Develop Jesse Blout. Compared to what? JESSE BLOUT: Natural vacancyrate is 10 to 15 percent. PAUL SOLMAN: Which means that the owners: NANCY WALLACE: They are literallynot paying their mortgages.
PAUL SOLMAN: Bad enough, butthere are also another trillion dollars in mortgages that need to berefinanced this year and next. And so: NANCY WALLACE: If interest rates don't come down, those mortgages would be nearly impossible torefinance. And so we're going to see another wave of water called maturity defaults,of people being unable to refinance. PAUL SOLMAN: And that would wipe out the owners,leaving downtown San Francisco and similar cities more hollowed out, shades of the great financialcrash of 2008, and thus investor and depositor fears in San Francisco and in the past few weeksall around the country triggered by losses at New York Community Bank, which announced it willtry to reduce its commercial real estate loans.
But, to some folks, like developer Blout, the current crisis in San Francisco atleast actually seems like an opportunity. JESSE BLOUT: We have never seen prices likethis. We started our business after at the start of the Great Recession in 2009-2010.And that was a historic buying opportunity. PAUL SOLMAN: This moment even morehistoric. So Blout's firm, Strada, which moved into this 18-story buildingin 2022, bought it a month ago for a song. JESSE BLOUT: Fully 70 percent discount offof what it was valued just five years ago. PAUL SOLMAN: OK, a pricey song, $67million, still, just 30 cents on the dollar. JESSE BLOUT: San Francisco is still one of thebest cities in the country. It's the center of.
Artificial intelligence. So there is more officejobs in San Francisco than there ever were. PAUL SOLMAN: So the office is fairly empty here. JESSE BLOUT: Yes. PAUL SOLMAN: And yet I see allthat traffic on your bridge. JESSE BLOUT: It's picked up quite a bit. We're notunlike most companies in San Francisco these days, where we tend to let people work fromhome from — on Mondays and Fridays, and then everybody's here. If you were heretomorrow, it would be — you couldn't find a seat. PAUL SOLMAN: Some see a building half-empty,Blout half-full, and betting on a return to work from work. Having paid only 30 centson the dollar, he had money to fill it up.
What are you going to do to get them back? JESSE BLOUT: We're going to spend some money, a million bucks just for the windowwashing equipment. It's all about creating new experiences for the tenantsand giving people a reason to come to work. PAUL SOLMAN: Including arooftop common area with a view. JESSE BLOUT: We're going to upgradeall of the pavings and all the railings and everything and put in somebeautiful plantings and places to sit. PAUL SOLMAN: So, Blout thinks he's buyingat the bottom of the so-called real estate cycle. That is, too little office spacemeans soaring rents, prompting a building.
Boom, financed with debt. Eventually,there's a glut, your tenants skedaddle, especially this time, thanks to COVID.Your rents can't cover your costs. NANCY WALLACE: Then you foreclose or you sell your property at a third of its marketvalue, and the cycle starts again. PAUL SOLMAN: But what happens to thoseholding the commercial real estate loans, many of them regional banks without much of acapital cushion? What do they do to keep afloat? JESSE BLOUT: A lot of themnow are working with their borrowers to not take back the keysin the so-called pretend and extend. PAUL SOLMAN: Pretend and extend.
Pretend that it's worth more than itis, until such time as it comes back. JESSE BLOUT: And everyone's hoping that ratescome down and more people come back to work. PAUL SOLMAN: And extend is, hey, you canpay us off over a longer period of time, so you don't have to give us back the keys. JESSE BLOUT: Correct. PAUL SOLMAN: Now, to be fair,many of San Francisco's office towers are financed by huge banks likeWells Fargo, which can afford bigger losses. But they too do so-called loanrestructuring, AKA pretend and extend. Ed Obuchowski and Wendy Ross founded and run thecommunity Bank of San Francisco. So, I asked,.
Is pretend and extend an accurate description? ED OBUCHOWSKI, Co-Founder, Bank of San Francisco:It is accurate. And if there's a challenge, I think it's incumbent on bothparties to try to work it out. PAUL SOLMAN: So it's just a question ofterminology. I mean, pretend and extend or? ED OBUCHOWSKI: Or working collaboratively andtaking the long-term view to work out of the loan. PAUL SOLMAN: Now, their bank makes commercialreal estate loans. So is it in trouble, maybe even headed for collapse like nearby SiliconValley Bank and First Republic not so long ago? ED OBUCHOWSKI: It's nothad a major impact with us. PAUL SOLMAN: No, it lends modestly, they say,charges a bit more, pays depositors a bit less.
But you thank your lucky stars that you're not a bank that put money intofancy downtown real estate? ED OBUCHOWSKI: Sometimes, small is good. PAUL SOLMAN: Was that your thinkinggoing in, that small is good, in that you wouldn't get stuck withproperties that might plummet in value? WENDY ROSS, Co-Founder, Bank of SanFrancisco: Our core is community banking, if you will. And so it's always going to bethe type of lending where we have a loan, but also a personal guarantee,and with guarantor support, we can look at the other assets of theperson behind the property, if you will.
And that kind of just goes back to the core community banking people. It'sa people business, if you will. PAUL SOLMAN: Isn't a big problem elsewherein the country among regional banks that, if the value of what's on their books, thecollateral of the commercial real estate, has gone down a lot, that they'renot going to be able to lend locally? ED OBUCHOWSKI: It just has anegative knock-on effect over there, because if they're workingthrough challenges there, it's hard to shift even psychologically fromworkout mode to new business development mode. PAUL SOLMAN: Or perhaps even survive.
So much depends, then, on whetherworkers return to their offices, as Jesse Blout is pretty much demandingthree days a week, and, of course, whether interest rates come down. Fed Chair JeromePowell is holding off on rate cuts for now. How worried is he willing to admithe is about commercial loans, Scott Pelley asked him recently on “60 Minutes.” JEROME POWELL, Federal Reserve Chairman: Welooked at the larger banks balance sheets, and it appears to be a manageable problem.There's some smaller and regional banks that have concentrated exposuresin these areas that are challenged. PAUL SOLMAN: But, of course, how can the head ofthe Fed say there is a crisis or even could be?.
OK, you would like a bottom line, right,on Powell's prognosis, Blout's investment, San Francisco, commercial realestate and its lenders? Well, time will tell has become such a cliche,we can't sign off with it anymore. But let's face it. Time will tell, untilthe next real estate cycle, that is. Hope to see you then. Paul Solman for the “PBS NewsHour”back home from San Francisco. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A shootingoutside of Minneapolis over the weekend is putting the spotlightonce again on domestic violence. Police responded to a domestic abusecall and discovered a man armed with.
Multiple guns who barricaded himself, sevenchildren and other family members inside his home. He killed two police officers and aparamedic, before turning a gun on himself. The gunman was not legally allowed to ownguns because of a previous assault conviction, and he had reportedly beenaccused of domestic abuse. To better understand how what happenedfits into a broader national picture, we're joined by Rachel Louise Snyder.She's been covering domestic violence for 15 years and is the author of thememoir “Women We Buried, Women We Burned.” Rachel Louise Snyder, so goodto have you on the program. I want to just run through some prettyjarring statistics we just recently.
Pulled from the CDC. This says that overhalf of the women murdered in the U.S. are murdered by a male intimate partner.Overall, a third of women in America and a quarter of men report sufferingsevere violence from intimate partners. I also understand that these numbers have beenrising in recent years. Do we know why that is? RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER, Author, “Women WeBuried, Women We Burned”: I think there's macro levels and micro levels. I mean, on the macro level, they're — womenare not staying in bad marriages anymore, and we are better at gathering statistics,right? That's a very simplistic view. But, also, guns are far more prevalent, andthey're used obviously for homicide,.
But they're used as threats.They're used as coercion. And I think that men also probably feellike they're losing ground. I think, also, there's a way to read those statistics aspositive, in that we have more resources now to help more people. So there's a sensein which, the better the resources are, the more people are going to be able to comeforward. And so that in itself is a good thing. But it's baffling, becauseyou think, the more we know, the more we should be able to preventit, and it doesn't seem to be the case. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do we know how much thepandemic exacerbated domestic violence in America? RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: That's aninteresting question, because,.
In the very beginning of the pandemic, ratesof calls to hot lines went way, way down. And that was a really disturbing sign. Andit sort of gets at what my previous answer was. That was a really disturbing sign,because what it meant is that victims were unable to access resourcesand unable to make those calls. Once things loosened up a little bitafter the first couple of months, rates of calls to hot lines shot up in recordnumbers really all across the world. And I think, coming out of the pandemic, there's a lotof exacerbating causes that are not in and of themselves enough to make somebody violent,but could trigger an already tense situation. And those are things like economicfactors, addiction. And all that,.
All those kind of social ills have risen,I think, parallel to domestic violence. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: If this nexus, as you aredescribing it, between domestic violence and guns is so clear — and, again, withregards to the Minnesota case, we should say that case is still being investigated.We don't really know the details of it. But if that nexus is so clear, and it isillegal to possess a gun if you have a restraining order against you, why is this so hardto enforce? Why is that not protecting more women? RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: That's a questionthat I bang my head against the wall asking. I mean, the simple answer is, you can havea law, but that doesn't mean it's going to be enforced. And it has to be enforced. Andwhen you look at places — I mean, I should.
Say there's a Supreme Court case addressing thisright now. We're waiting the — on the decision. But, right now, as you say, there is a federallaw banning domestic abusers or anybody charged with a violent criminal act from owningguns, but those guns have to be collected by police officers or whatever. And then, inthe case of Minnesota, that man had an arsenal. And if you ask — you go around and askjurisdictions why they don't enforce that, you will get a huge array of reasons,everything from, well, that's that person's recreation. So you take the guns away,you're taking away the recreation. Obviously, the Second Amendment has a place there. Wehave a right to arm ourselves to the teeth. And I have even had police chiefs say to melike, hey, we would love to enforce that,.
But we don't have a place to hold all thesearsenals, thousands and thousands of guns. When you look at a state like Californiathat has enforced that, you see those gun charges go way down, you see homicidesgo down. I mean, it's just mind-boggling, because, statistically, almost any wayyou look at it, if you take the guns, the rates of homicide and suicideand all other gun crimes go down. But we just simply don't enforce it. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You touched on this, theSupreme Court. This is the Rahimi case, I believe it is called. Can you remindus what's at stake in that case? RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: Yes, that'sessentially whether or not,.
Since it comes out of — it comes out of Texas. A not very good guy had access toguns and then had his guns taken away from him when he got charges. And hisattorneys have — he's in prison now, but his attorneys have filed suit sayinghe has a right to the Second Amendment, regardless. And so they're looking –that's what they're essentially deciding. Do — does someone who has a criminal charge havea constitutional right to the Second Amendment? And those of us who are really familiar with thestats just are living in a kind of terror that the Supreme Court is going to rule that theysomehow maintain that constitutional right, even though they have proven themselvesto be a danger to their community.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Rachel Louise Snyder, thank you so much for being here.Really appreciate your insights. RACHEL LOUISE SNYDER: Thank you for having me. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Film buffs will frequentlycite “Citizen Kane” or “Gone With The Wind” as early classics, but a new exhibitat the Detroit Institute of Arts seeks to showcase lesser-known Black filmmakersand actors who have a rich history of their own. Jeffrey Brown has the story forour arts and culture series, Canvas. JEFFREY BROWN: “Regeneration,”a silent film released in 1923, was a romance set in the South Seas featuringan all-Black cast. It's just one of more than.
500 so-called race films produced forBlack audiences between 1915 and 1950. RHEA COMBS, Co-Curator, Regeneration: There wasan African American sort of cultural production, folks working in front of and behindthe camera that were using the tools of modern technology to create these visual stories. This is a parallel historythat has been overlooked, yet still has been critical to the waysin which we understand film history. JEFFREY BROWN: Co-curators RheaCombs and Doris Berger uncovered this parallel history of Black filmin an exhibit originally presented at the Academy Museum in Los Angeles,now at the Detroit Institute of Arts.
Covering the first 73 years of Black cinema,the exhibit takes its name from that 1923 silent era film, which survives only ina heavily damaged 11-minute fragment. Elliot Wilhelm is the DIA's film curator. ELLIOT WILHELM, Film Curator, Detroit Instituteof Arts: We can see a portion of what it was, but we can also see, in a physical way, theneglect and the decay that happened to the film. And, in a way, it's a metaphor for whatthe exhibition is about, the erasure of the past. JEFFREY BROWN: On display, surviving evidenceof this overlooked history, documents, costumes, film clips, and vivid posters, like thisone for the 1939 film “Reform School.” DORIS BERGER, Co-Curator, Regeneration:What is really stunning is the actress.
Louise Beavers is mostly known inHollywood films in supporting characters. Hollywood offered Black actors and actresses mostoften butlers and mammy roles. But, in this film, she's not playing a supporting character, but themain character. She is the star of the film. She is the boss of the prison and would like to see aprison reform, a very topical story to this day. LOUISE BEAVERS, Actress: It means to changefrom bad to good, to make better morally. JEFFREY BROWN: “Reform School,” in fact, wasreleased the same year as two film classics, “Gone With The Wind” and “The Wizard ofOz,” but it was long believed to be lost. Now it, along with three others,has been fully restored and is part of Regeneration's accompanying screening series.
RHEA COMBS: We can wax poetic aboutfilms like “Gone With The Wind,” but, at the same time, we had other workstaking place like “Reform School.” The films highlight that African Americanexperiences are not a singular story. JEFFREY BROWN: The exhibition does reckon withthe pervasive racial stereotypes in early films, including the minstrel performancesof Bert Williams, who starred in the unreleased “Lime Kiln Field Day,” the earliestsurviving feature film with an all-Black cast. And the exhibit juxtaposes its film artifactswith the work of contemporary artists, here, Kara Walker taking on Harriet Beecher Stowe's “UncleTom's Cabin,” which also became a 1903 film. RHEA COMBS: She is providing usanother way to look at this work..
She's interrogating it. she's challenging it. JEFFREY BROWN: The early cinemasection of Regeneration ends in 1915, the year a technically innovative,but deeply racist film was released. DANIELLE ELISKA, Filmmaker: Just seeingin person this invitation to the White House for the premiere of “Birth ofa Nation” is really emotional for me. JEFFREY BROWN: Danielle Eliska, a Detroit-basedfilmmaker visiting the exhibition, found inspiration for her own work amidthe hard truths of history on display. DANIELLE ELISKA: But if I could take anythingfrom this particular film is that it has such a wide impact on people and made themdo things, and I just think about my.
Own films and how I can utilize my films to– in a positive way, to impact my people. JEFFREY BROWN: Long ago, the power offilms also drew in Madeline Anderson. MADELINE ANDERSON, Filmmaker: We went to themovies practically every week. And I saw that there was something wrong with this picture.Black people were always presented in pejorative ways. They were always lazy, not too smart,happy to do anything that their masters said. And, at first, it made me angry.And then it made me sad. And then, as I grew older, it made mewant to do something about it. JEFFREY BROWN: And that meantbecoming a filmmaker yourself. MADELINE ANDERSON: Exactly.
JEFFREY BROWN: At 96, Anderson isbelieved to be the only surviving filmmaker featured in Regenerationthrough her 1970 documentary “I Am Somebody” about Black nurses inSouth Carolina trying to unionize. WOMAN: We want to be recognized, not becauseof our race, but because we are human beings. MADELINE ANDERSON: And I myself,being a working mother, Black woman, identified so closely withthem. They were my sisters. JEFFREY BROWN: Anderson has made a careerworking in television and on films. MADELINE ANDERSON: I wanted to be a filmmakerto show the achievements of Black people, and I also wanted to work in the strugglefor equality for my people. And that's.
What I have done all of my life.I have been an activist filmmaker. JEFFREY BROWN: And she's still at it, about to gointo postproduction on a film about her own life. RHEA COMBS: Despite so many structural challenges, people still felt compelled and theystill felt inspired to do this work. JEFFREY BROWN: “I Am Somebody” is prominentlyfeatured in the final chapter of the exhibit, alongside the likes of MelvinVan Peebles and Gordon Parks. Taken as a whole, the hope is, this showcase of Black film history upto 1971 will celebrate it in new ways. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I'm Jeffrey Brown.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that's the “NewsHour”for tonight. I'm William Brangham. On behalf of the entire “NewsHour”team, thank you so much for joining us.
