PBS NewsHour full episode, Feb. 9, 2024 - VoiceTube: Learn English through videos!

Subtitles section Play video

AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.
I'm Amna Nawaz.
Geoff Bennett is away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: President Biden pushes back at the special counsel's comments
on his mental fitness that the White House calls gratuitous.
A climate scientist's million dollar legal victory shines a light on conservatives' attacks
on science.
And the father of a Palestinian-American teenager killed in the West Bank remembers his son.
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR, Father of Tawfic Abdel Jabbar: My son was full of life, 17 years
old, always happy and smart, never say anything to hurt anybody's feeling.
He had dreams.
They took all that away from him.
(BREAK)
AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "NewsHour."
On Thursday, special counsel Robert Hur's report concluded that no criminal charges
were warranted against President Biden for his handling of classified documents.
However, the report made several references to President Biden's age and called his memory
into question.
The president shot back last night.
JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: I'm well-meaning, and I'm an elderly man,
and I know what the hell I'm doing.
I have been president.
I put this country back on its feet.
AMNA NAWAZ: White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez has been following all this and
joins me now.
Laura, the president spoke directly to the nation last night about this report in a very
heated press conference.
Why?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Sources inside the White House told me that the president felt compelled
to respond, that he wanted to highlight that there were no charges, remind people of that,
and point out the differences between the way he handled his classified documents and
the way former President Donald Trump handled the classified documents, basically that he
cooperated and immediately gave them back.
Former President Trump didn't.
They also wanted to dispute what they called editorializing about his memory and age.
And they thought that it would be a good time for him to take questions.
AMNA NAWAZ: And he's not being criminally charged.
So what did the president highlight from the report, and what's the White House challenging
in there?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Specifically, the president wanted to talk about the parts of the report
where Robert Hur, the special counsel, said that he did not willfully retain classified
documents, talking about classified Afghanistan documents, as well as others, and that they
felt as though there was no real evidence to say that the president intentionally did
this.
He also got emotional about the parts of the report that had to do with his son Beau Biden,
specifically that the report said that the president did not remember, even within several
years, when his son Beau died.
And so the White House was really angered by that.
The president was angered by that.
And you saw that in his remarks.
The White House basically universally felt, everyone in there, the White House official
that I spoke to told me, that the special counsel -- they felt as though the special
counsel was performing for -- quote -- "MAGA Republicans," and that it was time for the
president to respond to that.
AMNA NAWAZ: A very strong emotional response from the president on that.
Well, the White House did continue to respond today, and they're announcing a task force,
right?
What will that do?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, this task force is going to review the presidential transition
process and specifically how classified documents are handled during that transition.
Transitions can get messy.
They can get speedy.
People can make mistakes.
And so Biden is going to appoint a senior government official to oversee that new task
force that will make recommendations.
AMNA NAWAZ: And what about from the wider Democratic Party?
What's been the response among them?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Democrats were quick to point out that the mental fitness and misspeaking
is not just a President Biden problem, that it is something that is also a problem for
former President Donald Trump, who has frequently mixed up foreign leaders.
DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate:
Viktor Orban, did anyone ever hear of him?
He's probably like one of the strongest leaders anywhere in the world.
And he is the leader of -- right?
He's the leader of Turkey, fronts on both Russia.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So Viktor Orban is not the leader of Turkey.
He is the leader of Hungary.
And President Trump has also frequently mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi.
Overall, Amna, Democrats are really upset about this report.
I spoke to Congresswoman Debbie Dingell from the swing state of Michigan, who said that
she was so upset that she wanted to share with me this personal detail that the President
Biden always checks in with her this week every year, because it's the anniversary of
her husband's death.
She now occupies his seat in Congress.
And it's also very close to Beau Biden's birthday.
AMNA NAWAZ: This is an issue that has been plaguing the president, will likely continue
to plague him through his reelection campaign.
How is this impacting or resonating among voters?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, Democrats admit that this is going to be something they have to
confront head on.
I spoke to Jim Messina, who ran former President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign, and he said
that voters need to see more of Biden.
JIM MESSINA, Former Obama White House Deputy Chief of Staff: Americans are going to have
questions about this.
Age is an issue for both candidates.
And part of how you address it, as a former presidential campaign manager, my advice to
them is always, transparency is important here.
People need to see the president doing his job.
Where Joe Biden is the best is talking to average Americans.
And the more he can do that, the better off he is.
And I think some of the problem has been, it's always these kind of scripted moments
or these sort of White House moments.
And voters want to see him out with them talking about these things.
And I think the campaign's got to do more of that.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: But I also spoke to a Democratic state party chair who told me that,
every time that they knock on doors to talk to voters, voters ask them questions like,
why didn't Joe Biden retire and pass the torch to the younger generation?
So, across the board, the Democrats that I spoke to said that the campaign, that they
themselves need to take it on, take it head on, the president's age.
And when they take that head on, they tend to pivot to, with age comes experience, Amna.
AMNA NAWAZ: Laura Barron-Lopez, thank you, as always.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.
AMNA NAWAZ: Today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the military to
develop plans to evacuate Rafah, the southernmost city in Gaza.
Its pre-October 7 population was 100,000.
Today, Gazans from all over the strip have filled tent cities there.
More than half of Gaza's 2.3 million people have fled to Rafah.
And even before today's order, Israel has been maintaining pressure on Rafah, launching
dozens of airstrikes.
At the same time, there's progress on talks that would pause the fighting.
Nick Schifrin is here with more on that.
Nick, you have new details on the hostage negotiations.
What do we know?
NICK SCHIFRIN: A U.S. official tonight confirms to me that Bill Burns, the director of the
CIA, will head to Cairo soon to participate in another round of negotiations over a hostage
deal.
And he has been the crucial U.S. official leading those negotiations.
And as a reminder of how we got here, two weeks ago, Israel agreed to a plan negotiated
by the U.S., Qatar and Egypt to an initial six-week pause that would be extended in three
phases of hostage releases.
Hamas' counterproposal this week required an Israeli withdrawal first from cities, then
all of Gaza.
Israel interpreted that counterproposal as Hamas remaining in power after the war.
But U.S. officials tell me that, while that was going on, there's been progress in those
negotiations just in the last few days, despite Netanyahu's public statements.
Remember, he called Hamas' counterproposal -- quote -- "delusional," and of course, what
you mentioned at the top of this, threatening to expand the war into Rafah.
So Burns is hoping to maintain that progress that officials tell me has been made in the
last few days, but also keep pressure on Netanyahu to take these negotiations seriously.
The question for Netanyahu is, will he allow his spy chief, David Barnea, the head of Mossad,
who's been leading the Israeli negotiations -- you see him there -- to go to Cairo to
keep the negotiations going?
And this is crucial, Amna, as we have been talking about.
The U.S. believes that even a temporary -- even a temporary pause is the key to trying to
unlock its broader goals across the region, Gaza reconstruction, Gaza governance after
the war, and, of course, the big goals, two-state solution and normalization between Saudi Arabia
and Israel.
AMNA NAWAZ: As you mentioned, though, Netanyahu is threatening to expand the war, not pause
it, let alone stop it.
So, how difficult is that going to be in a place like Rafah?
NICK SCHIFRIN: Extremely difficult.
As you pointed out, more than a million people are living in Rafah.
That is 10 times the pre-October 7 population.
And U.S. officials insist that Israel does not have any military plans ready for Rafah,
let alone any plans to deal with all of those civilians, as deputy State Department Spokesman
Vedant Patel said yesterday.
VEDANT PATEL, Principal Deputy State Department Spokesperson: We have yet to see any evidence
of serious planning for such an operation.
And to do -- conduct such an operation right now with no planning and little thought in
an area where there is sheltering of a million people would be a disaster.
NICK SCHIFRIN: You can actually see Patel referring to his notes.
So they had planned to make that statement before the briefing.
And that's a shift for the administration.
It does not usually warn Israel not to conduct an operation that it has not yet launched.
And that's what we saw from multiple U.S. officials.
Yesterday.
We also heard President Biden last night -- last night making his most pointed critique of
how Israel has launched this war.
JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: The conduct of the response in the Gaza Strip
has been over the top.
Initially, the president of Mexico, El-Sisi, did not want to open up the gate to allow
humanitarian material to get in.
I talked to him.
I convinced him to open the gate.
Innocent people, innocent women and children were also in badly need of help.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Part of that sound bite, of course, was President Biden mixing El-Sisi
for AMLO, the president of Mexico, for the president of Egypt.
But the fact is that U.S. officials believe Netanyahu is serious about going into Rafah,
and they really wanted to make the point that it was a bad idea.
But they also make the point that Netanyahu behind the scenes is negotiating, is making
progress for that pause in Gaza to release the hostages.
And so they say there is some bluster in what Netanyahu is doing, because he is trying to
maintain his coalition that includes far right politicians who have threatened to leave the
coalition, bring down the government if he presses pause on the war.
So, the question, of course, Amna, that we have tonight, is, will Netanyahu try and achieve
his military goals in the coming days or weeks, or will he embrace the possibility that this
war could at least pause?
And, of course, that is what the U.S. wants to open up those larger negotiations across
the region.
AMNA NAWAZ: We will see where those negotiations lead.
Nick Schifrin with the very latest.
Thank you, Nick.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you.
AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: President Biden huddled with Germany's Chancellor
Olaf Scholz on getting new military aid to Ukraine.
The president said it will be -- quote -- "close to criminal neglect" if Congress fails to
act.
Scholz said U.S. and European support is vital to let Ukraine defend itself against Russia.
The Senate is now working on a $95 billion package for Ukraine and Israel after Republicans
blocked a separate bill this week.
Russian President Vladimir Putin urged the U.S. today to get Ukraine to agree to peace
talks.
He spoke in an interview with former FOX host Tucker Carlson that aired last night on the
Tucker Carlson Network Web site.
Putin also suggested a possible prisoner swap for Evan Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal
reporter jailed in Russia.
Putin's remarks were dubbed into English.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through translator): By the end of the day, it does
not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia.
We want the U.S. special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving
the goals our special services are pursuing.
We are ready to talk.
AMNA NAWAZ: Gershkovich has been held since last march on espionage charges, which he
denies.
In Pakistan, independent candidates backed by former Prime Minister Imran Khan took a
surprisingly strong lead today in elections for Parliament.
Khan himself is in prison and banned from running, but allies claimed 95 of the 235
seats with most of Thursday's results reported.
As the outcome became clear, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reversed course and
called for a coalition government.
Back in this country, former President Trump is celebrating more election wins as he works
to clinch the Republican presidential nomination.
He swept all the delegates in last night's GOP caucuses in Nevada as the only major candidate
taking part.
He's also won caucuses in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Earthquakes shook millions of people across Hawaii and Southern California today.
The first struck the Big Island of Hawaii on the southern flank of Mauna Loa.
The second hit near Malibu and sent shockwaves across the Los Angeles region.
There were no reports of major damage or injuries.
On Wall Street, big tech stocks led much of the market higher, but blue chips lagged behind.
The Dow Jones industrial average lost 54 points to close at 38671.
The Nasdaq rose 197 points or 1 percent.
The S&P 500 added 28 and closed above 5000 for the first time.
And a passing of note in the arts.
Famed Japanese conductor Seiji Ozawa has died in Tokyo after suffering
heart failure.
He led the Boston Symphony Orchestra for 29 years until 2002.
His animated style captivated crowds, and he broke barriers for East Asian musicians.
Here he is in 1975 conducting the Boston Symphony in Mahler's Symphony No. 2.
(MUSIC)
AMNA NAWAZ: Seiji Ozawa was 88 years old.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": multiple governors turn down a summer food assistance
program, putting millions of children at risk; David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in
on the week's political headlines; bestselling author Kwame Alexander on his new collection
of Black poets' work, poems of hope, heart and heritage; plus much more.
A long legal battle ended yesterday, when a jury found that two conservative writers
had defamed the prominent climate scientist Michael Mann, awarding him a million dollars
in damages.
Amid increasing attacks on science, William Brangham looks at what this verdict means.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Amna, over his long career, Michael Mann has been an influential contributor
to climate research, as well as becoming one of the most effective communicators about
climate change's impact.
But he has also faced considerable backlash.
In 2012, a conservative policy analyst compared Mann to a child sex abuser, saying that, instead
of molesting children, he molested and tortured data.
Another called his work fraudulent.
Mann sued them both.
And, yesterday, after 12 years, he won his case.
We turn now to another prominent scientist who has also endured this kind of vitriol.
Dr. Peter Hotez is the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College
of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.
Dr. Hotez, great to see you again.
I know you are in very different fields, but I have to imagine there was a small sense
of victory that you must have felt seeing Michael Mann win this defamation case.
DR.
PETER HOTEZ, Baylor College of Medicine: Well, absolutely.
And, remember, the attacks -- now there's somewhat of a convergence of the attacks on
climate science with the attacks on biomedicine.
And it's -- in some cases, it's coming from the identical forces.
I think the message for this week is, remember, the attacks denigrating science and trying
to undercut science, both for climate science and biomedicine, is not just about the science.
It's now gone the next step to attack the scientists and portray us as public enemies.
And that's where it really starts to get dangerous.
So, both Michael and I are stalked regularly.
We receive threats online, phone calls to the office, sometimes physical confrontations.
So it's gone out to that new level.
And so I think the reason the court victory is important is it sends a signal that, while
it's certainly fine to disagree with the science and express skepticism, it crosses a line
when you're attacking scientists and putting us in danger.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can I just ask you what that is like?
I mean, you spend a career, as Michael Mann did, in a very different field, but you spend
a career trying to create medicines to help people and to help humanity, which you have
clearly done.
And then to be attacked like that and to be -- to worry about threats to your life, I'm
just wondering what that is like as a professional.
DR.
PETER HOTEZ: Well, it can be demoralizing at times.
Remember, I did my M.D. and Ph.D. 40 years ago to make vaccines for global health, to
make low-cost, affordable vaccines for the world that the big pharma companies wouldn't
make.
And we have made vaccines for parasitic infections, low-cost COVID vaccines reaching 100 million
people or more.
And I always considered that something important and meaningful and to make the world better.
And so the idea now that you would be attacked for it, first of all, it can be demoralizing.
But, second, to actually feel like you're in danger at some level, your family's in
danger, that's what's really worrisome.
And so I think that's the reason why the court ruling this week is kind of a line in the
sand to say, stop.
You cannot -- it's fine to disagree, but when you attack scientists, you're affecting not
only the scientific field, but sending chilling messages to future generations of scientists
that maybe this is not something you want to go into.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Michael Mann said after this verdict that he hopes that this sends
a message that falsely attacking a scientist is not protected speech.
Is it your sense that this kind of a victory will serve to blunt that army of people out
there who are sniping at you all?
DR.
PETER HOTEZ: I don't know.
Is this a one-off thing, or is it -- will it be more enduring?
I think it's too soon to tell.
First of all, remember, resorting to the courts is something that's nobody's first choice.
Look, in Michael's case, he had to go through 12 years of this.
I mean, who wants to do that?
I mean, if you gave me the choice, do I want to spend my day developing a new human hookworm
vaccine that's looking promising to benefit the hundreds of people who suffer from hookworm
anemia on the African continent, Asia, and Latin America, or do I want to make cold calls
to plaintiff attorneys, it's no contest, right?
I want to be a scientist, and so does Michael.
So, this is -- this actually says something else, that we don't have the systems in place
right now to protect scientists, and too often we're on our own.
And having to find plaintiff attorneys and think about suing people is nobody's first
choice, nobody's first option.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And I have to imagine that a lot of these attacks now that come anonymously,
driven by bots, now by A.I., has got to make it even harder to defend yourself.
I mean, Michael Mann at least had two people who signed their names to the vitriol they
spewed at him.
DR.
PETER HOTEZ: Yes, it's coming from all sectors.
It's coming from foreign actors.
We know that there are bots and trolls coming from Putin's Russia.
That's really disturbing.
In some cases, it's coming anonymously.
Often cases, it's coming from bloggers and podcasters who are actually making a living
targeting science and scientists.
And now it's even gone to the next level.
We're actually seeing at least two U.S. senators boasting about how they target scientists,
same with some members of Congress from the House Freedom Caucus.
And there's a whole system in place at FOX News to amplify this.
So, it's -- the point is, there's an entire ecosystem of attacks on science, which I kind
of understand, but also the scientists.
And when they start portraying us as public enemies, that puts us in danger.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Dr. Peter Hotez, always good to talk to you.
Thank you so much for being here.
DR.
PETER HOTEZ: Thanks so much.
AMNA NAWAZ: A new federal food assistance program is aiming to reduce child hunger by
giving low-income families money for summer groceries.
But only those who live in certain states will have access to that relief.
John Yang explains.
JOHN YANG: Many children who qualify for free or reduced school lunches would lose that
benefit when the school year ended.
But now a new program aims to bridge that gap by giving needy families $40 a month for
each child who's eligible while the school is not in session, money to buy food at grocery
stores, farmer's markets, or other approved outlets.
It's called Summer EBT, for Electronic Benefits Transfer, because the money is electronically
loaded onto cards like debit cards; 35 states have signed up for the program, aiding an
estimated 21 million children.
But 15 other states have said no, excluding about eight million children.
Crystal FitzSimons is director of child nutrition programs for the Food Research and Action
Center, an advocacy group that works to reduce poverty-related hunger.
Crystal, how big a problem is it for needy families to lose that benefit when school's
not in session?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS, Food Research and Action Center: Yes, well, so we have millions of
families who rely on free and reduced-price school lunch during the school year.
And when the school bell rings, they lose access to those meals.
And during the summer, we see an increase in food insecurity.
We see kids gaining more weight.
And there's just a tremendous amount of stress on families when they need to replace those
breakfasts and lunches that they could rely on during the school year.
So it's a huge hardship.
And the summer EBT program, like you said, is just an amazing new opportunity to make
sure that kids are not going hungry during the summer.
JOHN YANG: Before this program, was there any way for children to get free or reduced-price
lunches?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: Well, we have the summer meals program, and that will continue.
And in a lot of ways, it's an amazing program.
Often, it combines activities and enrichment for kids, along with the meals.
But it served only a fraction of the kids who relied on free and reduced-price school
meals during the school year.
And, as a result, we saw food and security go up.
So, Summer EBT really is designed to kind of bridge that gap.
JOHN YANG: And in the other programs, they'd have to go to a location, rather than have
the money go directly to the parents.
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: That's exactly right.
So it's great when there is a site in the community, and there's also -- families are
going to be able to pick up meals too in rural areas this summer.
But Summer EBT really is kind of the easiest way to get resources to families to purchase
food.
JOHN YANG: The 15 states that opted out of this program, what reasons did they give for
doing that?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: So there were a lot of reasons, and they can come into the program
in 2025.
So the door is open, and we really encourage them to consider it.
But it is a relatively new program, and so states are implementing it for the first time
this summer.
And so some states just needed a little more time.
States also have to provide 50 percent of the admin costs.
And so it's taking states a little bit more time to figure out where that money is coming
from.
But we are hopeful that, by 2025, all the states will be in the program.
JOHN YANG: Did some governors have philosophical differences with this?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: Well, there were a couple of governors who did come out and express
concerns about the program, Iowa and Nebraska.
But we are hopeful that when they take another look at the program, they will reconsider
it, because some of the things that they said, like that it was a pandemic era program, really,
that's just not true.
We have had an issue with summer hunger since I have started working at FRAC 25 years ago.
And it continues every summer when families lose access to those meals.
So, hopefully, in 2025, those states will actually take advantage of this tool to make
sure that the kids in their state aren't going hungry.
JOHN YANG: But, for this summer, there are 15 states that have not -- that opted out.
You have millions of children beyond the reach of this program.
What are your concerns and worries about those children?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: Well, the concern is that food insecurity will go up again in those
states during the summer.
But we do encourage families to access the summer meals program.
Those are still available in those states.
And they do provide an important resource for families.
JOHN YANG: One of the governors who said no was Governor Kim Reynolds of Iowa.
She said that, rather than creating a new program with what she said would be a new
bureaucracy, she thought the administration should give the state's flexibility under
current programs, so they could do this on their own.
What do you say to that?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: Well, I would say that the Summer EBT program is a program that has
been piloted for more than a decade.
And the pilots have shown that food insecurity goes down when families have access to it
and nutrition goes up.
So it's not -- it is technically a new program, in that it is available to all states nationwide
this summer, but it has been piloted because we knew that there was a problem during the
summer, and Congress did act about 10 to 12 years ago to actually pilot it.
And those evaluations just show what an amazing program it is.
JOHN YANG: Earlier, you said that, during the summer, children gain weight.
Is that because they're eating unhealthily?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: During the summer, kids lose access to free and reduced-price school
meals, which do have nutrition standards and do provide some of the healthiest meals that
kids are eating.
And so, during the summer, kids can be less active.
I know a lot of people think that kids are out at the park and we have these visions
of what it's like for the summer for kids, but they may be less active.
And then, if families are struggling to put food on the table, if you provide more resources
to them, then they're likely going to spend it on healthier food too.
JOHN YANG: Looking more broadly beyond just children, schoolchildren, where do we stand
on food insecurity now in this country for just the general population?
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: Yes.
Well, so, food insecurity did go up in 2022, the most recent data that we have.
It continues to stay with us.
And there are a lot of ways to combat it.
But one of the easiest ways to combat it is to give families more resources to purchase
food.
JOHN YANG: Crystal FitzSimons of the Food Research and Action Center, thank you very
much.
CRYSTAL FITZSIMONS: Great.
Thank you for having me.
AMNA NAWAZ: The New Orleans community is mourning the loss of a Palestinian-American teenager
killed in the West Bank last month; 17-year-old Tawfic Abdel Jabbar is one of the 94 children
among the 370 Palestinians killed in clashes on the West Bank since October 7, according
to the United Nations.
In late January, over 100 cars formed a motorcade in his memory along a New Orleans highway.
I spoke with his father, Hafeth Abdel Jabbar, earlier this week from the West Bank, and
I asked him what happened to his son.
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR, Father of Tawfic Abdel Jabbar: What I know and what happened is,
my son was traveling from one piece of property to another piece of property with a friend.
Me -- and with other friends, so they can do a barbecue.
And as he was traveling, he was, I think, ambushed by a settler, retired police officer,
a soldier.
We're not sure.
There was three different weapons used.
The truck was hit with 10 bullets, four of them, is very clear, to the driver's side,
and two of them to the passenger side.
But, luckily, and thanks God, the passenger had ducked, and he's 16 years old also.
He's an American citizen.
And he was traveling towards the village on a dirt road from the mountain.
And that's when he was struck and lost control of the car and flipped three times or four
times, and it came to stop.
AMNA NAWAZ: How did you learn that your son had been killed?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: One of my friends called me and said, your son's truck had flipped
on the dirt road.
And I said, where?
And he told me where.
So we rushed over there.
And that's how I find my son in the car shot in the head.
AMNA NAWAZ: Israeli officials say that they have launched an investigation.
Are they sharing any of that investigation and the findings with you?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: They have not shared anything with me personally, no.
They said they did, but they have not shared.
They know who did it.
They said, they have made comments to me that they know who did it, but he's not under arrest
until they finish their investigation.
I'm not sure why.
AMNA NAWAZ: Do you trust the results of the investigation when they will be complete?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: I cannot trust them, no.
I won't trust anything that they do.
I hope my government can step in and do their own investigation, so we can come to conclusion
who shot my son.
AMNA NAWAZ: When you say your government, you're referring to the American government;
is that right?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: Yes, ma'am.
I'm an American citizen, been there since 1996.
Five of my kids was born in the U.S. in Gretna, Louisiana.
My wife is an American citizen, so my government is the American.
My son was born and raised for 16 years in Gretna, Louisiana.
So, I'm seeking help from my government, from my president, to seek justice for Tawfic.
AMNA NAWAZ: You moved your family to the West Bank in May of last year.
Tell us a little bit about why.
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: Well, I was born here in Palestine in Al Mazra'a Sharqiya about
25 miles away from Jerusalem.
My dad was born here.
His dad was born here, the whole family.
I can go back to 1870, 1880s.
And I wanted to bring my kids, so they can spend a little bit of time here.
But this is what happened in the first nine months.
I have only been here for nine months.
AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned you're seeking help from the U.S. government.
Can you tell us about who you have been in touch with, who has reached out to you or
what you have heard from the American government?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: I have just been getting calls from the consulate here.
I'm trying to reach to senators, congressmen, trying to put pressure on the Israeli government
to allow us to do an investigation to see who did that to my son.
All I have seen is just a comment from the White House speaker, I guess.
And that was it.
I haven't seen anything yet.
There's no movement.
AMNA NAWAZ: Can I ask about your family?
I know Tawfic has several siblings as well.
How are they doing?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: It's a bit tough for my wife.
I have two daughters, 8 and 6 years old.
And I have a 12-years-old boy and a 21-years-old boy.
It's a bit tough.
My 8-years-old, she kept asking me: "I don't understand what happened to him."
So I kept telling her what happened.
And then the light -- when you're trying to explain to her that he's in heaven, she still
says: "I just don't understand.
Can you explain it to me?"
I don't know the answer to that.
AMNA NAWAZ: Hafeth, my colleague Roby Chavez has been reporting on your son's death from
New Orleans.
And he spoke to the vice principal of his school there, who said that Tawfic was larger
than life.
And he called him a big teddy bear and said that the school was absolutely reeling after
his death.
What do you want us to know about your son?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: My son was full of life, 17 years old, always happy and smart, never
say anything to hurt anybody's feeling, no matter who it is, no matter what color he
is, no matter what religion he is.
He plays football.
He's full of life.
He went to Muslim Academy schools.
He went to Christian Brother Martin school.
He had dreams of engineering.
They took all that away from him.
AMNA NAWAZ: What does justice look like for you right now?
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: There's no justice.
I think we lost human -- humanity.
My government, my president, we claim democracy.
We claim human rights, and we claim that nothing should be done against humanity.
And now our own guns is killing our own children.
And my son, it's a big example.
And it shouldn't be -- it shouldn't matter if he's American citizen, or he's from Mexico,
or he's Latin, or he's Chinese, or he's white, or Jewish, or Muslim, or -- children shouldn't
be killed.
People shouldn't be killed for no reason, like my son did.
AMNA NAWAZ: Thank you so much for your time and for joining us and for sharing the memory
of your son.
Thank you.
HAFETH ABDEL JABBAR: Thank you.
AMNA NAWAZ: The special counsel's report on President Biden's handling of classified documents
draws a spotlight on concerns about his reelection campaign.
On that and the other major political stories shaping the week, we turn to the analysis
of Brooks and Capehart.
That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for
The Washington Post.
Great to see you both.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, Amna.
AMNA NAWAZ: So, special counsel Robert Hur released his report on the president's handling
of those classified documents.
The investigation, we know, did find some classified documents during their search.
This was at President Biden's Delaware home, a tattered box in a garage, among others.
But he did conclude the evidence was not sufficient for criminal charges.
Jonathan, what was your reaction to that decision and how it's being received?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, I mean, great the decision not charging the president, terrific.
The other thing about the report that was good is that it compared and contrasted President
Biden...
AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: ... versus what former President Trump did.
And that is the thing that I think everyone needs to remember.
When classified documents were found at the home and all the other places of President
Biden, President Biden and his administration cooperated, gave them back, had authorities
do searches.
When documents were found or believed to have been at the former president's residences,
he stonewalled.
He lied about handing them all over.
And that's why he was indicted.
And so anyone who's trying to conflate the two situations is being disingenuous.
So that's what I have to say about that.
(LAUGHTER)
AMNA NAWAZ: Well, David, we know he did -- the special counsel went to great lengths to say
there were several material distinctions between the two cases.
Is that resonating with the public?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think so.
I think people know the Mar-a-Lago case is more serious.
But Biden was sloppy.
He did share classified material with a ghostwriter, apparently.
I think, frankly, it was unattractive of him last night to blame it all on staff.
Maybe staff was partially to blame.
But I don't think that's what leaders do, that they blame the team.
But, nonetheless, as Jonathan said, he cooperated.
It was sloppy.
He said, let's rectify this.
And if Donald Trump, when they came to him about his documents, had said, yes, I cooperate,
he probably wouldn't be in the mess he's in.
AMNA NAWAZ: Well, we also know the special counsel chose to comment on Biden's memory
function in that report, saying he had -- quote -- "significant memory problems."
He wrote this: "Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview
of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."
Jonathan, what did you make of that inclusion in the report?
Does that...
(CROSSTALK)
JONATHAN CAPEHART: ... Amna?
(LAUGHTER)
AMNA NAWAZ: Your face perhaps says it all.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: So...
AMNA NAWAZ: But, please.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: And that wasn't the only place where he talked about the president's
age.
I thought those reports were supposed to be just the facts.
That was gratuitous.
A lot of the other ones were gratuitous.
We have spent way too much time talking about this president's age.
And I will say it again.
When Ronald Reagan was the oldest person to ever be in the White House and to run for
reelection, I don't recall a lot of people within his own party talking about the fact
that we need to get another person, he's too old.
And what counsel Hur did was feed lines to Republicans who want to make the president's
memory and capabilities and whether he's senile a talking point.
It gives them some fodder.
But what he's also -- what counsel Hur has also done is given bed-wetting Democrats another
reason to complain about the president's age.
Meanwhile, they're not focused on the fact that the 82-year-old president of the United
States has an incredible record in the three years he's been president.
I wish people would focus on that.
And the fact that he mixed up the president of Egypt with the president of Mexico, I did
the same thing on -- around this table when talking about the governor of Virginia.
Remember when I said Governor Northam, and the two of you -- your heads popped off.
You're like, who's he talking about?
AMNA NAWAZ: Well, the former governor.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: A former governor, but still.
AMNA NAWAZ: And, also, to be fair, you are not president of the United States.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I know, but...
AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.
DAVID BROOKS: Not yet.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: ... one can dream.
(LAUGHTER)
AMNA NAWAZ: But let me ask you about this, David, because what you did see, as you both
mentioned, President Biden come out in a fiery press conference last night, and he referenced
specifically one of the mentions that counsel Hur made about him, his failure to remember
when his son Beau died.
Have a listen to how the president responded.
JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: How in the hell dare he raise that?
Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn't any of their
damn business.
I don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away.
AMNA NAWAZ: David, the White House used the word gratuitous.
Was it?
DAVID BROOKS: Two-thirds.
I think the special counsel used -- talked about the age because his job is to think
through how a jury would think.
And the argument was, a jury would not convict the guy because they think he'd be a well-intentioned
guy with memory problems.
Nonetheless, prosecutors are also not allowed to insult people who they don't charge, because
they -- the people they're insulting don't get their day in court to fight back.
And so there -- this is prosecutorial standards, and I think he sort of very much flirted or
went over the line on that.
On the age issue, I think it's a perfectly legitimate issue.
Listen, I have been interviewing Joe Biden for 30 years.
He's not as quick as he was.
I say he was a pitcher used to do it throw 94 now throws 87.
So the age is a factor, and you got to think, it's 86, he will be if he's reelected.
It's a totally legitimate issue.
His staff seems to think it's a legitimate issue, because they act like he has a big
problem.
I was stunned that he turned down the Super Bowl interview for the second year in a row
this time.
Your guy is behind.
You have a chance for an easy interview to talk to tens of millions of people, and you
turn it down because they're so cautious, the staff thinks he will say something stupid?
Now, my own personal opinion, based on my own direct contact and my reporting, is that
his judgment is -- his memory may sometimes slip, but his judgment is good.
And he absolutely runs the White House.
He's in charge of that administration.
He's completely sharp enough to do that.
But will he be able to do that in five years?
I think it's a legitimate issue for voters to think about.
AMNA NAWAZ: I know we're going to be talking about this a lot more, but I do want to get
both of your takes on another issue this week, because the Supreme Court did hear arguments
related to the Colorado case that's seeking to remove former President Trump from their
primary ballot.
It doesn't seem like they're likely to do that based on some of the concerns we heard
from the justices.
But what's your takeaway, Jonathan, from how the justices are looking at it and the impact
of this decision?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, if we were to judge the arguments on their face, it seems like
we're headed to, what, 8-1 or unanimous decision to keep his name on Colorado's Republican
primary ballot.
This might be the one and only time we get a unanimous decision, especially when we think
about the fact that this is a 6-3 conservative supermajority, where the pendulum swings from
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson all the way to the six conservatives on the far right.
And yet it seems like they are all pretty much in agreement here.
So that's what I found the most amazing takeaway I took from the hearings.
AMNA NAWAZ: What about you, David?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, unsurprising.
There was no way the Supreme Court was going to get in -- want to get involved in the middle
of an election.
And I was comforted by the lines of questioning, particularly the idea, as Justice Roberts
said, that the 14th Amendment is not there to empower states.
The 14th Amendment is there to take power away from states and give it to the federal
government.
And the idea that each state gets to choose basically who can be president, can choose
for the other states, as several justices have said, it just doesn't seem like a smart
argument.
So I'm relieved that this whole issue seems to be about to go away.
AMNA NAWAZ: I also need to ask you both about this, the year that was this week in Congress.
It just felt like everything happened.
Jonathan, we came as close as we ever have in decades to having actual immigration reform,
failed when Republicans backed away after a deal from four months of negotiating.
What's your takeaway from how this unfolded?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: It just says to me once again that Speaker Johnson's not in control.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's not in control.
Senator Lankford, who was the Republican who negotiated with Murphy and Sinema, is not
in control.
Donald Trump is in control.
Donald Trump signaled before the text was even presented, weeks earlier, don't do the
-- don't do this bill.
And the bill, even though it got, what, 67 votes on the procedural, it's not going -- even
if it gets out of the Senate, it's not going anywhere in the House.
So that's what's so unfortunate about what's happening.
And leave aside the competence of Speaker Johnson and the mess that he had to deal with
in his own chamber.
It's just, nothing is going to get done.
AMNA NAWAZ: Did Republicans miss their best chance for some kind of border bill?
DAVID BROOKS: Oh, for sure, for a generation, yes.
But that's not the least of it.
I wish it was just Trump said, I need election issues, so don't pass this bill, and they
cynically did it.
I wish that's all it was.
It's much deeper than that.
The Republicans are not only bowing to Trump.
Trump is inside their brains.
They're thinking like Trump.
And so -- and a couple things.
So how does democracy work?
You have a negotiation, the two parties meet.
You have a compromise.
You hope to improve on the status quo.
This was the most one-sided compromise I have ever seen.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes.
DAVID BROOKS: The Republican Party got pretty much everything they wanted.
Democrats got nothing.
And, still, the Republican after Republican are arguing, I can't support this because
it doesn't have everything I want.
And that's Trump's myth of the dictator, that I will come in there and you will get everything
you want.
So they're beginning to think like Trump.
And then, on foreign policy, I'm a conservative.
I was rooting for Republicans for decades.
Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Mitt Romney, these were internationalists.
They believed America has a role in trying to preserve a stable world order.
We now have a majority of Republicans in the Senate and an implacable seeming majority
in the House who are going to -- who want to cut the Ukraine funding bill, the ultimate
isolationist act, which would destroy American credibility and sentence a nation to servitude.
And so the fact that this is the Republican Party, I thought I was unshockable, and I
remain profoundly shocked this week.
AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, were you shocked the same way?
Or did you see this coming, that Republicans would block it?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Oh, no, no, I -- no, I saw this coming.
But the thing that worries me the most is what happens on March 1, the first funding
deadline, what happens on March 8, if -- we're going down a road where we're going to a government
shutdown that could be a government shutdown we can't get out of.
AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you so much.
Great to see you.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Amna.
AMNA NAWAZ: Kwame Alexander, an award-winning author and producer, has just released his
latest work.
It's an anthology by Black poets called "This Is the Honey."
I spoke to him earlier as part of our arts and culture series, Canvas.
Kwame Alexander, welcome to the "NewsHour."
KWAME ALEXANDER, "This Is the Honey: An Anthology of Contemporary Black Poets": It's good to
be here.
AMNA NAWAZ: So, this new book is a collection of contemporary Black poets.
The title of the book comes from a poem included in here by Mahogany L. Browne.
The first lines of it, which are so beautiful, the first lines read: "There is no room on
this planet for anything less than a miracle.
We gather here today to revel in the rebellion of a silent tongue."
Why did this give you the title of the book?
What did you want to put out into the world?
KWAME ALEXANDER: Well, the idea that, yes, we deal with drama and trauma, but there's
also triumph.
We deal with woe, but there's also wonder.
Like, amidst all the divisiveness and the uncertainty that's happening in this world,
I wanted to give us something that would uplift us, that would give us a little bit of that
hope, that would bring us together.
AMNA NAWAZ: How do you pick poems?
How did you invite people to be a part of this?
KWAME ALEXANDER: I sort of view this book like you would a day in your life.
So you wake up in the morning, the sun is out.
It's promise.
And so this first section of the book is going to be poems of hope and promise and joy.
You greet your family, the people who you love, the people who love you.
So the next section of the book is going to be love poems.
And then, of course, you go out into the world and you're dealing with all the craziness,
and so you're going to have poems that challenge us, that are obstacles.
And then, next, you're going to sort of take that lunch break.
Or, in my case, when I worked in corporate America, I'd go to the restroom and just sort
of chill a little bit just to get my bearings and to say a prayer.
(LAUGHTER)
KWAME ALEXANDER: So you're going to have your devotions.
And, of course, the last part of the book is, you come home.
And it's a long day, and you eat food, and you share, and you're grateful.
And so you're going to have praise poems.
So I thought about that as the metaphor.
And then I just sort of started looking for poems and poets that fit.
AMNA NAWAZ: There's some incredible work in here.
There's a poem from Warsan Shire, who's one of my personal favorites.
Ruth Forman has this eight-line poem in there that is just so powerful.
You have an original poem in here as well, right?
It's called "How We Made You."
KWAME ALEXANDER: Right.
AMNA NAWAZ: Tell me about that.
KWAME ALEXANDER: Oh.
So, Stephanie, my wife and I were together -- we were married for 24 years.
And when the uncoupling happened, I didn't want my daughter to think that it was the
divorce that defined us or was the things that didn't go right.
I wanted to let her know that it was about -- it was not about the storm, but about the
rainbow, that we love each other, that we are very good friends and that we built a
lot together.
We built a business.
We built a beautiful daughter.
So I want to focus on that.
So that poem deals with how we made you, and it's really all about love.
AMNA NAWAZ: What was it like for you after she read that poem, your daughter?
KWAME ALEXANDER: Has she read it yet?
(LAUGHTER)
AMNA NAWAZ: Has she read it is the better question.
(LAUGHTER)
KWAME ALEXANDER: Look, when I wrote that -- when I wrote that memoir, "Why Fathers Cry at Night,"
I had it on the counter.
And my kid, she's 15.
She comes in, and she says: "Dad, we're studying memoir in school now.
How cool would it be if I read your memoir?"
She's like: "I'm not going to do it, but how cool would it be?"
(LAUGHTER)
KWAME ALEXANDER: So I doubt she's read it yet.
AMNA NAWAZ: Speaking of that memoir, it has been about a year now almost since it's been
out.
That was an intensely personal blend of poetry and prose that you put out in that -- the
memoir called "Why Fathers Cry at Night."
All this time later, what's it like for you to have that out in the world?
KWAME ALEXANDER: That is a great question, because I have wrestled with realizing that
this book is out in the world still.
AMNA NAWAZ: Really?
KWAME ALEXANDER: Because it's a memoir about these challenges that I have had dealing with
the fact that, in 2017, my mother passed, my marriage started sort of breaking down,
and my oldest daughter and I had an argument that just blew up into an estrangement.
And so all these things happened.
And so writing the book allowed me to deal with it, to heal from it, and then to get
on a path to sort of figure it out, which I did.
So now the book is out, I'm a much better person, but I'm like, oh, the book is still
out, all the stuff I went through.
But, hopefully, it helps people, it offers some insight and some inspiration for people
who are dealing with their own things.
AMNA NAWAZ: Kwame, you are nothing if not prolific.
Your Newbery Award-winning New York Times bestselling book "The Crossover" was made
into a Disney+ series that won you your first Emmy.
What was that moment like?
(LAUGHTER)
KWAME ALEXANDER: What was it like?
Well, somebody asked me, was it a dream come true to win an Emmy Award?
And I was like, no, because it was never a dream.
I wanted to write good books.
And so the fact that this book that got rejected by 22 publishers, the fact that this book,
which came out six years, seven years ago won an Emmy Award for a TV adaptation, it
just speaks to the power of poetry to me, how it can translate and transfer across different
mediums.
And I think poetry ultimately is about making us feel better.
And, hopefully, the TV show did that.
The Emmy certainly did that for me.
AMNA NAWAZ: Well, you have been carrying that Emmy around everywhere.
I'm going to show people here a photo of you with the Emmy on your lap on the flight home.
Tell me about that.
KWAME ALEXANDER: Well, they made me check the bag.
I wanted to put it in the overhead, and it didn't fit.
So I said, well, let me take something out.
And I did.
AMNA NAWAZ: That is a flex.
(CROSSTALK)
KWAME ALEXANDER: That's a flex.
Hey, it didn't fit.
(LAUGHTER)
AMNA NAWAZ: All of your work though, all of your writing, it's really grounded in who
we are as a country, who we are as a people and where we are.
I remember reading this op-ed that you wrote for The L.A. Times earlier this year on MLK
Jr.
Day.
You wrote about the first protest you went to back in 1978 in New York.
You wrote about studying Dr. King's famous Selma speech with the "How long, not long"
call and response.
And you said that there was hope embedded in those words.
You wrote this: "In the war room of our red, white and weary blues, we become pioneers
in this renewal by awakening our conscious, summoning our courage, then treading the stony
road through a tunnel of hope."
Where do you find that hope today?
KWAME ALEXANDER: You know, I still find it in words.
I still find a world of possibility in language and literature.
I think, when a child sees themselves in a book, the book is a mirror.
It shows them who they are and what they're capable of and gives them some sort of experiences
outside of what we're thinking.
When you show a child a book, a book can be a window, and it can show a kid someone else
or another community.
I think, ultimately, these words can connect us to ourselves and to each other and allow
us to become better human beings because we're empathetic and we're connected.
So, for me, that's where the hope comes from.
It comes through the power of words to make us imagine a better world or a different world.
AMNA NAWAZ: The book is "This Is the Honey."
The author is Kwame Alexander.
Kwame, thank you so much.
Great to see you.
KWAME ALEXANDER: Thank you very much, Amna.
AMNA NAWAZ: Be sure to tune into "Washington Week With The Atlantic" tonight on PBS.
I will be joining moderator Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel to discuss Donald Trump's influence
on the collapse of the bipartisan border bill and the latest concerns about President Biden's
age.
And don't forget to watch Saturday's "PBS News Weekend" for a look at the increased
role of tech companies and social media in this year's election.
And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Amna Nawaz.
On behalf of the entire "NewsHour" team, thank you for joining us, and have a great weekend.