PBS NewsHour full episode October 24, 2019

PBS NewsHour full episode October 24, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: heeding the call
of the White House. More Republican lawmakers attack the impeachment
process, but steer clear of declaring the president innocent of claims that he tied
military aid to political gain. Then: prisoner of conscience. A conversation with Pastor Andrew Brunson,
who was held captive in Turkey for two years on false charges. And by the numbers. As creative industries rely ever more on consumer-generated
data, concerns over privacy grow, and the line between artist and algorithm begins to
blur. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN, New York University
School of Law: The author is now not bringing something out of nothing. The author is kind of conjuring all of our
preferences, taking them into account, and in a sense reflecting ourselves back on us. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Taking on the impeachment process,
more Republican lawmakers are speaking up against how the impeachment inquiry in the
House of Representatives is being conducted. This follows testimony from the top U.S. diplomat
to Ukraine, who, on Tuesday, directly linked President Trump to the withholding of U.S.
military aid in return for political favors. Here to report on where it all stands today,
our own Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor. Hello to both of you. So, Lisa, I’m going to start with you. I know you were talking to a lot of folks
on the Hill today. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: What are congressional Republicans
saying as they push back against this impeachment inquiry? And do you get a sense of how much pressure
they are feeling to defend the president? LISA DESJARDINS: It’s tremendous pressure. And what a difference a day makes, because
we saw, I think, Republicans especially in the Senate yesterday struggling to understand
that testimony of that top diplomat from Ukraine, Bill Taylor. Today, we heard the sound of a resounding
defense of the president. Part of that came from a White House lunch
that the president had with a few Republican senators, including Senator Lindsey Graham. At that lunch, Graham told us reporters at
the Capitol today that the president said he feels in his bones this process is unfair. He wants, urges, demands Republicans push
back. Here’s how Lindsey Graham described where
he is on the process. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): And when you’re talking
about the president of the United States, it seems to me you would want to have a process
that is consistent with who we are as Americans and consistent with what Bill Clinton was
allowed to do, Richard Nixon was allowed to do. And the process in the House today, I think,
is a danger to the future of the presidency, because if you can drive down a president’s
poll numbers by having proceedings where you selectively leak information, where the president
who is the subject of all of this is pretty much shut out, God help future presidents. LISA DESJARDINS: So, he’s saying quite a lot
in that sound bite. Let me break it down quickly. When he’s talking about Bill Clinton and President
Nixon, what he is asking for in part is the chance to — basically, the president should
be able to object to testimony, see the testimony against him, have his own counsel, his own
witnesses. Now, Democrats say that’s coming. They’re saying this closed-door process so
far is the initial investigation phase. Now, when Lindsey Graham talks about poll
numbers and leaks, he’s talking about the testimony that we have seen, the opening statements
especially, from some witnesses. You know, Lindsey Graham admitted to me he’s
not exactly sure where it’s coming from. He suspects House Democrats are putting that
out there. But a bigger picture here, Judy, when I talk
to House Democrats — or House Republicans in particular, they say they feel such pressure
to fight for this president because their base is telling them they have to fight for
this president. They have been told by statistics, this president
is not just the one controlling the Republican message, he is the Republican message. So they have to storm committee hearing rooms
to show they’re behind this president. And one source told me today they think that
isn’t going far enough, that they want to tell their base they’re fighting for the president. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, you’re obviously
talking to folks at the White House. Republicans on the Hill feeling pressure from
their base, but clearly they’re also getting signals from the White House? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the White House and
President Trump are really pushing Republicans to defend him both privately and publicly. So, as Lisa mentioned, there was a lunch at
the White House today. And the president was essentially walking
Republicans through what he wants them to say about him. He wants them to say that, I did nothing wrong. He wants them to make sure that they’re making
it clear that he feels like the process is flawed. Mick Mulvaney also told lawmakers that the
White House is trying the get its plan together on impeachment. So what you see is the White House trying
to tell Republicans, we are going to eventually get handle on this and please bear with us
while we do this. And then publicly the president has been making
statements. On Monday, we saw the president really lash
out at Republicans and say, you need to get stronger. The Democrats here have their stuff together. They’re sticking together. And I’m having to deal with Senator Mitt Romney
of Utah, who is tweeting and going on TV, basically, really criticizing me, and that’s
not what I want to see. I want to see more people getting on TV and
defending me. And then we saw the Republicans storm the
Capitol and go into that secure facility and basically do exactly what the president says. That’s what he saw as getting tougher and
really the kind of loyalty that he’s been seeking. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what are you hearing about
the president’s attitude toward all this? Anger? Frustration? I mean, where do they put it on a scale of
whatever? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, the president is very,
very angry about this impeachment inquiry. This issue of Ukraine has really been something
that’s stuck to this presidency and has been a headline for so long. The last couple — really, the last four to
five weeks have been all filled with this. And we have seen this president kind of really
go away from all sorts of scandal and controversy. And this one isn’t going away in the same
way. I also want to walk through kind of the president’s
own responses to this impeachment inquiry, because it’s really something that’s been
something that we should be beholding. So let’s look at what the president has said
and what the White House has said. They said at first that there was no pressure
applied to Ukraine on this call. Then they said aid was delayed to Ukraine,
but that it wasn’t about the investigations into the Bidens or into Joe Biden or Hunter
Biden. They then said the aid was tied to the investigations
of Democrats, but Ukrainians were unaware of that. And what we have seen is that the White House’s
responses have really been pushed back and have been proven to be untrue at least in
time after time after time. We have seen, with the no-pressure campaign,
we saw the call where he says, I need you do me favor, though. Joe Biden needs to really be investigated. They also said that the aid wasn’t delayed
because of the Bidens. We now — there have been multiple people
at least that have come to Capitol Hill to say that aid was tied to the Bidens. And then you have the fact that they say Ukraine
wasn’t aware. And, in fact, there are multiple reports that
say Ukraine knew as early as May that the president wanted them to try to really influence
the 2020 election. LISA DESJARDINS: Lindsey Graham was asked
about that today, saying the president — the White House has had multiple messages. And he said, you noticed that, huh? So, Republicans know. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Lisa, getting back to
the process, which is what the Republicans have been focused on, what do we know about
how the normal, regular process is for these kinds of investigations compared to what’s
happening right now? LISA DESJARDINS: I think is so important. There is so much spin right now. Let’s look at what we know about these closed-door
hearings that are going on right now. First of all, right now, Republicans on three
committees — that’s 47 different House Republicans — do have access to all of this testimony
if they want. Now, that does include about a dozen of those
members who protested yesterday. They didn’t need to so-called storm the facility. They had access as it was. Now, most Republicans don’t have access, but
many do. Democrats say this is a regular practice. They point to a few things, Judy. Let’s talk about the Benghazi investigation
run by the House Oversight Committee under Republican Trey Gowdy. They also had closed-door hearings like this. And, in fact, they kicked out Republicans
as well. Lindsey Graham is saying essentially this
is higher stakes and I think this needs to go public sooner. He thinks this is a derailment of the impeachment
process. But impeachment is how you define it. And Democrats say they are moving to a public
kind of scenario soon, but the pressure, of course, to do that is mounting, and Republicans
want to put that pressure on them. They also want to make this process look like
a circus, which is one of the reasons they did that yesterday. Democrats are trying to make it look serious. So watch those two different dynamics. JUDY WOODRUFF: Two forces heading in each
other’s direction. We will see where this all ends up. Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor, thank you
both. LISA DESJARDINS: Thanks. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: Congress
put aside its divisions over impeachment to join in honoring the late Representative Elijah
Cummings. The Baltimore Democrat died last week. Today, an honor guard brought his flag-covered
coffin to Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol. Fellow lawmakers, friends and family looked
on as leaders from both parties remembered Cummings as a moral compass. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Elijah was truly a master
of the House. He respected its history, and, in it, he helped
shape America’s future. I have called him our North Star, our guide
to a better future for our children. REP. MARK MEADOWS (R-NC): He is defined by the
character of his heart, the honesty of his dialogue, and the man that — the man that
we will miss. JUDY WOODRUFF: Cummings lay in state at the
Capitol into early evening. His funeral is tomorrow in Baltimore. A new wildfire spread new fear in Northern
California’s wine country. Flames raced across 15 square miles in Sonoma
County, pushed by winds gusting to 70 miles an hour. Some 2,000 people were ordered to evacuate. Meanwhile, Pacific Gas & Electric imposed
new blackouts to prevent downed lines from igniting fires. Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the outages. GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): It is infuriating beyond
words to live in a state as innovative and extraordinarily entrepreneurial and capable
as the state of California, to be living in an environment where we are seeing this kind
of disruption and these kinds of blackouts. It’s about corporate greed meeting climate
change. It’s about decades of mismanagement. JUDY WOODRUFF: PG&E filed for bankruptcy in
January, facing billions of dollars in damages from the fires of recent years. In Northeastern Syria, both the Syrian government
and Kurdish-led forces accused Turkish troops of cease-fire violations. But Ankara made no apologies. Instead, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
warned Kurdish fighters to leave a border zone, or else. RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through
translator): Now our soldiers and the Syrian national army are patrolling the area of the
operation inch by inch. If any of these terrorists come across us
there, it is our natural right to crush them. JUDY WOODRUFF: Under a Turkish-Russian plan,
the Kurds must withdraw nearly 20 miles from the Turkish border. The president of Lebanon today urged protesters
to accept a promise of economic reforms and end days of mass demonstrations. Crowds in Beirut listened to the appeal on
speakers and rejected it. Protesters closed roads and lit fires for
an eighth day in an ongoing revolt over economic collapse and official corruption. Chile’s government has offered new concessions
after a week of unrest there that has left 18 dead. President Sebastian Pinera announced today
that he will freeze a hike in electricity rates. But protesters in Santiago were back on the
streets anyway, angered over living costs and inequality. Others returned to work a day after the latest
demonstrations and riots. MAN (through translator): This is a tragedy
for Chile. I think that the majority of the people, the
ones who do not go out and protest and destroy everything, I think they feel differently. These types of things don’t do anything good
for Chile. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, protests in Honduras
turned violent. Hundreds of people demanded that President
Juan Orlando Hernandez step down over allegations that he aided his brother in drug trafficking. British police confirmed today that all 39
people found dead in a container truck were Chinese citizens. The truck was discovered early yesterday in
an industrial park about 25 miles east of London. The victims included 31 men and eight women. The 25-year-old driver is being held on suspicion
of attempted murder. And in Spain, the remains of the dictator
Francisco Franco were exhumed from a state mausoleum and reburied in a private crypt. Franco’s family carried the coffin away as
supporters gave the fascist salute. Others said the man who overthrew a democratic
government and persecuted his opponents didn’t deserve a place of honor. PEDRO SANCHEZ, Spanish Acting Prime Minister
(through translator): This decision puts an end to a moral affront, the exaltation of
the figure of a dictator in a public place, and takes another step in the reconciliation
, which can only rest in the freedom and democracy. JUDY WOODRUFF: General Franco took power after
the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s that killed half-a-million people. He ruled until his death in 1975. Back in this country, Ohio Congressman Tim
Ryan dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race. He said he will run for reelection instead. Ryan’s departure leaves 17 Democrats vying
for the nomination. Former President Jimmy Carter went home from
a Georgia hospital today. He fell Monday night and fractured his pelvis. It was his third fall and injury since last
spring. Mr. Carter is 95. He has lived longer than any other American
president. The U.S. Census Bureau is now out with new
projections of dramatic change. They show a population of 400 million by the
year 2058, up from the current 326 million. It will also be more diverse, with non-Hispanic
whites dipping below 50 percent of the population. And there will be more senior citizens than
children in just 15 years from now. And on Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial
average lost 28 points to close at 26805. The Nasdaq rose 66 points, and the S&P 500
added five. And the Houston Astros have fired an executive
who shouted abusive language at female reporters. “Sports Illustrated” had reported that Brandon
Taubman used profanity, yelling about player who was once suspended over domestic violence. The firing came as Houston trails the Washington
Nationals in the world series two games to none. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: captive in
Turkey — Pastor Andrew Brunson on his two years imprisoned on false charges; Cambodia
cracks down on the growing orphanage industry; plus, privacy vs. precision — how data is
driving creative breakthroughs and novel legal challenges. We had planned to have a conversation with
Vice President Mike Pence tonight, but that has been moved to Monday. Now we want to hear from lawmakers who have
access to that secure room for the interviews at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. We reached out to all the Republican members
on the three committees involved. None of them were able to join us. We turn to Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat
from California. She sits on the Intelligence Committee and
on the Oversight Committee, both involved in this phase of the impeachment inquiry. Congresswoman Speier, thank you for joining
us again. REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): Thank you, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: We appreciate it. I want to ask you first about the pushback
from Republicans, who are focusing, as we have heard, not so much in defending the president
and what he did, although some of them say they’re sure it doesn’t amount to anything,
but on the process. They’re saying it’s unfair, that it damages
the presidency. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, first of all, when you
can’t speak to the merits of an issue, you then direct yourself to something less, and
that’s why they’re looking at process. The interesting thing is that, during the
Benghazi committee meetings, there were over 107 interviews that were held privately before
there was any public hearings. The committee was created and operational
for four months before there was the first public hearing. So if you’re comparing the two efforts, we
are far and away going to see open hearings happen much sooner than four months and much
fewer than 107 private interviews. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the most vocal opponents
today or critics was Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. I want to play for our audience and for you
just part of what he said at a news conference this afternoon. This is Senator Graham of South Carolina. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What they’re doing
is selectively leaking information to drive the president’s poll numbers down and to drive
the momentum for impeachment up. Everything coming out of this Star Chamber
process is being leaked by Democrats. They said, you heard Bill Taylor, I was breathless. Well, I — the point is, you don’t know what
Bill Taylor was asked. We don’t know if he was cross-examined and
what unfolded. So what you have here is a hearing, a process
that is, to me, not sufficient for due process. It’s being used in a politically dangerous
fashion. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Congresswoman Speier, he’s
calling it a Star Chamber. He’s saying it is not due process. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, I would say, first of
all, that that’s a reckless description. He has not ventured into those committee rooms,
but I can tell you and tell him that those interviews that take place are very fair. The Democrats have one hour to ask questions,
the Republicans have one hour to ask questions, and then we alternate back and forth for the
duration of the interview. Secondly, the — most of the transcripts will
become public. Third, the statements that have been released
for the most part have been released by the individuals who were being interviewed. So I don’t quite understand why Mr. Graham
is — or Senator Graham is suggesting such vitriolic language. JUDY WOODRUFF: Why are the hearings being
held in private now? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, they’re not really hearings. They’re interviews. And it’s fact-finding. So when you’re trying to develop your facts,
you don’t necessarily want persons to corroborate their testimony before coming in. So if we did, in fact, make them public at
the outset, we wouldn’t find the inconsistencies that, frankly, we have already found. JUDY WOODRUFF: Because that is an essential
point Republicans keep making, that this is so critical, we’re talking about the survival
of the president, the president himself, and the public needs to know what is going on
in this room. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, they do need to know, and
they will get to know that. The transcripts are going to be made public,
and there are going to be a series of public hearings as well, where many of these witnesses
will come back and testify before an open committee, so that everyone can hear their
testimony. JUDY WOODRUFF: How does the public have confidence,
Congresswoman Speier, that the questions — that what these individuals who come before the
committee are telling the truth? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, they swear under oath. So, by doing so, if they perjure themselves,
they would be subject to a criminal trial. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what would happen? I mean, how would you… REP. JACKIE SPEIER: I mean, that’s how Michael
Cohen is spending time in prison. He swore under oath, and he was lying. And so he’s now in prison. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when — so, for example,
when Senator Graham and other Republicans compare this to the process leading up to
the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and even recalling what happened under President
Nixon, and saying this doesn’t follow the process back then, how does it compare? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, there aren’t any specific
rules. But in those case, there was a special prosecutor
who was identified. In this situation, the Department of Justice
under Attorney General Barr declined to pursue the whistle-blower complaint, because they
didn’t think that there was any evidence there. So we have to do the evidence collection at
this point, because the Department of Justice declined to do so. JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the other criticisms
we’re hearing from Republicans is that you didn’t have a special prosecutor who was — and
maybe it’s connected to the point you just made, but they’re saying, wait a minute, Robert
Mueller spent all that time investigating Russia connections. He ended up not finding anything, and Democrats
are disappointed they couldn’t impeach the president over that, so they’re turning to
this, but, in this case, there has been no special prosecutor. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Well, I guess I would beg to
differ with the conclusion. In the Mueller report, there were 10 incidents
of obstruction of justice, but Robert Mueller believed he could not file any because there
is this Department of Justice rule that you cannot charge a seated president. And I would argue, even in volume one, where
they looked at the intervention by the Russians and to what extent the campaign of Donald
Trump was engaged with them, there were over 250 contacts by the Trump campaign and Russian
operatives and 32 in-person meetings. JUDY WOODRUFF: Look ahead for us, if you will,
Congresswoman. Where do you see this process moving? How long is it going to take to interview
all the people you want to interview? And we’re now hearing that there will be public
hearings next month. When do you see that beginning, and what will
it look like? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: So, I can’t give you a specific
date when those hearings will begin. But I would be confident that we will be having
public hearings within a month. And I think they will be run like any other
hearing, where the Democrats will ask questions and the Republicans will ask questions. It will be very fair, much like all of the
depositions that we have taken. And let me underscore once again that the
Benghazi committee had over 107 behind-closed-door interviews before they completed their work
and four months before they went to their first public hearing. So we’re way ahead of their schedule. JUDY WOODRUFF: And do you know finally, at
this point, how many more witnesses you’re going to be hearing from? REP. JACKIE SPEIER: I can’t tell you a specific
number, but I think we probably have another two weeks or so of interviews to undertake. JUDY WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Jackie Speier
of California, who serves both on the Intelligence Committee and the Oversight Committee, thank
you very much. REP. JACKIE SPEIER: Thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: American evangelical Pastor
Andrew Brunson spent two years imprisoned in Turkey on what the U.S. calls bogus charges. His case created a crisis between the U.S.
and its NATO ally. For Brunson, it caused a crisis of faith and
a battle with depression. And a warning: There will be a brief mention
of suicide in this segment that is upcoming. Brunson has written a new book about his ordeal
that is titled “God’s Hostage.” Our Nick Schifrin sat down with him and with
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who played a key role in his release and in Brunson’s story. NICK SCHIFRIN: Before Pastor Andrew Brunson
became an unwilling media sensation and then flash point of U.S.-Turkish hostility, he
lived a quiet life in Turkey for 25 years. He built a small Christian congregation near
the Aegean Sea, and with his wife, Norine, helped refugees from neighboring Syria. But in July 2016, elements of the Turkish
military launched a failed coup. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan cracked down
on the military and all aspects of society. He rallied supporters and arrested hundreds
of thousands he accused of terrorism. And the Brunsons were also both arrested. In Turkey, they had spent every day together. But when Norine was released, Andrew was isolated
and shuttled between prisons for two years. Norine visited the prison every day and kept
a vigil. And Turkish TV kept Brunson in the news, accusing
him of being a CIA agent and supporting Fethullah Gulen, an exiled cleric living in Pennsylvania
who Turkey blamed for the coup attempt. Turkey wanted to trade Gulen for Brunson. MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States:
Release Pastor Andrew Brunson now, or be prepared to face the consequences. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Trump administration refused
and imposed sanctions, and Congress maintained bipartisan pressure. North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis: SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): And the charges that we
have seen to me are specious. And I think that we have got to continue to
support the family. NICK SCHIFRIN: New Hampshire Democratic Senator
Jeanne Shaheen pushed Erdogan for Brunson’s release. And on October the 12th, 2018, he was released,
almost two years to the day after his arrest. Last week, I sat down with Brunson and Shaheen
together in Washington. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON, Former Turkey Detainee:
We were arrested to be deported. And then somebody decided to hold us, and
I think that was to intimidate other missionaries, so they would self-deport. At some point, I became, obviously, a use
for leverage to try to gain concessions from the U.S. There is a human story and the God story. What Erdogan was doing, I was his hostage,
but when God had completed what he wanted to through my imprisonment, then he caused
my release. NICK SCHIFRIN: The first night, you describe. And you write this: “Being locked up behind
a big metal door in a foreign country, hearing the keys turn and the bolt slam for the first
time is sobering. It’s a sudden loss of control and plunge into
uncertainty.” Can you describe what that felt like? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: A total loss of control. It was very scary. So, I was saying, God, you’re the one keeping
me here, when I have — I’m desperate to get out. I’m full of fear. And you’re the one who could release me. And you’re not doing it. And you’re doing this to toughen me up. And so I was having — it was taking me into
a crisis of faith. NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you think you lost your
faith? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: No, I didn’t lose my
faith. I was actually desperate to hold on to it. I wasn’t wanting to walk away from it. But I was afraid that I was going insane at
times. NICK SCHIFRIN: Did you feel forsaken? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: At times, I did. And I was very surprised. Many of the biographies I have read of who
I would call Christian heroes, my heroes, they show very strong people. And I expected that, when I was suffering,
I would also have that strength. And, instead, I felt very broken and weak. NICK SCHIFRIN: And you write very honestly
about not only your crisis of faith, but your crisis of depression. How deep was your despair at one point? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: At one point, the Turkish
government wanted to give me three life sentences in solitary confinement with no parole. So I thought this. I could waste away here and spend years in
this terrible isolation, and I’d much rather be in heaven than spend the rest of my life
in a Turkish prison. And that’s what was leading me to think of
suicide. I’m glad I didn’t do it. The combination of despair and anxiety is
very dangerous. So, when I think I may not ever get out, I
just wanted to escape the situation. It’s not that I wanted to die. It’s that I didn’t want to live, I couldn’t
imagine living in these circumstances for a long period of time. NICK SCHIFRIN: Senator Shaheen, let me turn
to you. How important was this case to you? And how did it become a bipartisan issue? SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): You know, I think the
passage that you read in the beginning, that Andrew describes what it felt like to be locked
in that cell, is an experience that no American citizen should ever have to deal with in a
foreign country, especially someone who’s trying to do good, who’s lived there, whose
family has lived there, who then is taken into custody for no reason. I mean, those were totally trumped-up charges. There was no — there was no spying. No, it clearly was not due process. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: The charges against
me were just ridiculous and had no base. I knew that there would — I could be released
through the judicial process, but this was not being driven by the courts. NICK SCHIFRIN: Meaning it was being driven
by the top? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: Sure. And I knew that there was one person in the
end who would make the decision to release me or not. NICK SCHIFRIN: The president of Turkey. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: Yes. NICK SCHIFRIN: During the trial, when you
had to defend yourself, you described how you found your voice. Can you describe that and what that trial
was like? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: I chose to forgive
people, which I have to forgive them anyway, because that’s what I’m required to do as
a Christian. Actually, Jesus said that we’re supposed to
rejoice when we’re persecuted for his sake. So, I said, I’m blessed to actually be suffering
for his sake. And that’s when I felt — I felt almost a
holy defiance, I would say. We didn’t know, when we went to the final
court session, it ended up being the final court session. I didn’t know that I would be released. I packed two bags, one to go to come to the
States and the other to return to prison. So, in the court session, they declared me
guilty of terrorism. But then they said, we’re suspending this
for time served and while you appeal it, and your travel ban is lifted. And that basically means, please leave as
soon as you can. So it was such a roller coaster to go from
being convicted of terror, thinking I’m going back to prison, and then we’re rushing to
the airport to get on an Air Force plane and leave Turkish airspace as soon as possible,
in case they change their mind. So, within 24 hours, I go from being convicted
of terror to visiting the White House. Overwhelming feeling of gratefulness to all
the people who were involved in both Congress and the administration, and how wonderful
to be back with my children and with my wife. NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you also give President
Trump some credit? SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: I do. Listen, this is the way government is supposed
to work. People are supposed to work together, both
houses of Congress, with the administration, to accomplish whatever the goal is in the
interests of the American people. We should be able to weigh in for every American
who is falsely imprisoned around the world to try and make sure we can get them released. NICK SCHIFRIN: And was the president’s personal
involvement important? Was the White House’s involvement important? SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: So, I think so. Clearly, he has a relationship with President
Erdogan. And I think the more pressure we could put
on Turkey, the better. NICK SCHIFRIN: After everything you have been
through, how do you feel about Turkey today? PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: We still love the Turks. I don’t really like the Turkish government. But I feel like they stole two years for me,
but it’s — God has redeemed it. And I believe that what I went through, what
I suffered is actually going to bring blessing to Turkey. So we have no regrets. My faith has deepened as I went through this. It’s been — I would say it was severely tested. And because it was tested, and I came out
of it, it’s proven now. So, it’s tested and proven. NICK SCHIFRIN: Senator Shaheen, Andrew Brunson,
thank you very much to you both. PASTOR ANDREW BRUNSON: Thank you. SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: The concept of orphanages has
long been considered outdated in developed countries, and yet these institutions still
house hundreds of thousands of children in the developing world. And, surprisingly, most of these children
are actually not orphans. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports
from Cambodia as part of his series Agents for Change. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Six year old Makara Rith
spent three months in an orphanage in Battambang, Cambodia. But, on this day, his mother’s fingerprint
made it official: He was going home. There, a counselor waited in welcome with
toys for Makara and his siblings. MAKARA RITH, Six Years Old: I’m happy that
I can see my mom and my sister and my brother. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Makara was one of thousands
of Cambodian children who live in facilities commonly called orphanages here. Like him, the vast majority are not orphans. Neither parents nor the facilities are looking
to offer the children for adoption. Parents, many in dire poverty, are easily
convinced to place their children in these so-called residential care facilities, says
Jedtha Pon, co-founder of a nonprofit called the Cambodian Children’s Trust. JEDTHA PON, Co-Founder, Cambodian Children’s
Trust (through translator): Most of them think that, in an orphanage, the child will have
a better life with access to food, education and medical care. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Now Makara and his mother,
Minear Norn, are part of an effort by several aid agencies working with Cambodia’s government
to return children to their families. MINEAR NORN, Mother (through translator):
I feel like I have my child closer to me. Now I feel happy. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Happy that she now has
all three children together. But this was a day of mixed emotions, guilt
for sending her son away, worry about the future. She’s single and has no formal education. MINEAR NORN (through translator): My life
has been very difficult. We just survive day to day. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Under the new campaign,
she will have help. For at least two years, Cambodia Children’s
Trust provides a safety net for the families it serves. JEDTHA PON (through translator): If they have
domestic violence, they have mental health issues, or any children who are not going
to school, we will work with the social worker. We also provide support in terms of food. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The challenges for this
family and for the broader campaign are daunting. It begins with the image Cambodia cannot seem
to shake, of the Khmer Rouge genocide, its two million victims, displayed in museums,
immortalized by Hollywood. SEBASTIEN MAROT, Founder and Executive Director,
Friends-International: Cambodia 2019 has nothing to do with Cambodia 1979. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Sebastien Marot founded
a vocational training charity 25 years ago that’s helped thousands of marginalized children
and their parents. SEBASTIEN MAROT: The movie “Killing Fields”
and all the movies that came out about Cambodia is about this. So, when people think Cambodia, they think
that all the children are being victims of destruction, and everyone is an orphan, which
is far from the truth. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: With the civil strife
over, he says there are far fewer orphans now. Many children still live in poverty, but their
number has also dropped amid robust economic growth, notably in tourism to Cambodia’s world
famous temples. There may be fewer orphans, but orphanages
have also become a growth industry. There were about 150 in 2005. Today, there are more than 400, housing more
than 16,000 children. Often, they are put on display, dancing for
tourists who are then coaxed to leave a donation. DARA ROEUM, 14 Years Old (through translator):
We learned to dance. We performed for foreign visitors. It’s not fun. It’s so exhausting. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Fourteen-year-old Dara
and his sister, Dary, who’s 9, were recently reunited with their mother after six years
in an orphanage, where they recalled lives of physical abuse and insufficient food. DARY ROEUM, 9 Years Old (through translator):
It wasn’t fun. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: There’s profit, Marot
says, in pity. SEBASTIEN MAROT: It’s an easy sell. A child in a terrible situation, fly on the
eye, give me $5 a month. If it were that easy, it would be fantastic. But it’s not. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Then there’s voluntourism,
a thriving industry in which college or gap year students pay agencies to place them in
orphanages. Each year, tens of thousands of young Australians,
Europeans and North Americans come to Cambodia to volunteer. They will spend a few days, sometimes weeks
in orphanages, mostly teaching English to the children. Child development experts say not only does
this not help the children; it actually harms them. SEBASTIEN MAROT: It comes from a very good
feeling that, I’m helping, but, realistically, would you like to have your teacher change
every week? FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Children thrive on nurturing
long-term relationships with adults, the kind usually found only in a family. SEBASTIEN MAROT: The development of a child,
especially a young child, is hindered dramatically by being in an orphanage, by the lack of personal
attention, by not being in a family. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But to Ted Olbrich, it
depends on the family and the orphanage. Olbrich is an American evangelical pastor
who, with his wife, Sou, founded Foursquare and Children of Promise, the largest of several
faith-based operators of residential care facilities, or, as he calls them, church homes. Some older religion-based groups have joined
the campaign to de-institutionalize children. But others, like Foursquare, have resisted. The Olbrichs say they opened their first church
home in the early ’90s because there was a pressing need. TED OLBRICH, Co-Founder, Foursquare and Children
of Promise: We didn’t come here intending to take care of orphans. We came here to build a church, and we wound
up having these kids dumped on our doorstep. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And that need has only
grown, he says, to 106 homes, driven by family dysfunction that’s widespread and social mores. TED OLBRICH: Our biggest source of children
is children that had mothers who died in childbirth. Now those children are considered cursed. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Widows are also marginalized
in Cambodia, he adds, and they are brought in to staff their facilities. Each has about 25 children. TED OLBRICH: These widows, they live with
the kids, and they’re there with the kids their entire life that they’re growing up
in the orphan homes. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Many then profess their
Christianity, not a requirement, he says, but a good outcome. TED OLBRICH: I’m a proselytizer. We absolutely… FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Unapologetically? TED OLBRICH: Unapologetic proselytizer. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Sebastien Marot says Olbrich
is exaggerating Cambodia’s social ills and says his mission would be intolerable if the
tables were turned. SEBASTIEN MAROT: I’m sure they would be very
upset if a Muslim organization opened centers in the U.S. or in France, started taking children
from communities, put them there to turn them into nice little Muslims. And this is what they’re doing here. It’s a Buddhist country. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: He says orphanages are
an outdated concept, closed long ago in France and the U.S., in favor of placing children
in foster families and adoption. That’s the goal in Cambodia, but it’s not
easy, given the poverty that keeps life fragile for many families and limited resources for
family reintegration, which, ironically, is the cheaper option. JEDTHA PON (through translator): It’s about
10 to 15 times cheaper to support a child living with their family, rather than to bring
them into an institution. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Olbrichs say their
institutions are family, and they have no plans to scale them back. The Cambodian government’s goal is to reduce
the number of children in orphanages by a third by next year. For the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Fred de Sam
Lazaro in Battambang, Cambodia. JUDY WOODRUFF: Fred’s important reporting
is a partnership with the Under-Told Stories Project at the University of St. Thomas in
Minnesota. One major transformation profoundly affecting
the global economy is the way that big data and artificial intelligence are being used
in commerce and business. What’s gotten less attention, how this decision
is driving changes in the creative industries. In the second of two pieces, special correspondent
and Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell looks at some of the fundamental questions
this is raising for artists, designers and other creators. It’s part of our regular series Making Sense. CATHERINE RAMPELL: This bright, cheerful clothing
line is a hot commodity, worn by the likes of Michelle Obama, Aidy Bryant, Taylor Swift,
Beyonce. TANYA TAYLOR, Tanya Taylor Clothing: People
wear us to be happy. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Tanya Taylor is undoubtedly
creative, an artist who paints original prints for her clothes. But she’s in demand partly because she gives
customers what they want. TANYA TAYLOR: To me, the biggest part about
being a successful designer is absolutely listening to a customer and knowing who they
are. CATHERINE RAMPELL: And she knows what they
want because they tell her quite explicitly. ACTRESS: So what do you guys do with your
closet space now that you rent the runway? CATHERINE RAMPELL: Thanks to detailed feedback
she receives from Rent the Runway. It’s a platform that allows customers to rent,
rather than buy designer clothes. NARRATOR: Endless styles, infinite possibilities. SARAH TAM, Rent the Runway: We basically had
harnessed millions of data points over the last decade. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Sarah Tam is Rent the Runway’s
chief merchant officer. SARAH TAM: Every item of clothing that we
have on our site is tagged with over 60 attributes, things like color, fabric, silhouette, length. We also have millions of customer interactions
that we collect and millions of photo reviews. CATHERINE RAMPELL: The data help Rent the
Runway refine its inventory and predict what its typical customer will want next season. SARAH TAM: Last fall, we noticed that blazers
really performing extremely well. She loves color and pattern, so we sourced
brands like Veronica Beard that we launched on site. She loves fitted. She likes to outfit in suit sets. So we brought in this Veronica Beard set here. CATHERINE RAMPELL: The data also get Fed back
to designers like Taylor, who use it to nip in the hips or let out the bust, or choose
a different color or fabric, or mash up elements of different designs that are working well. TANYA TAYLOR: So this was our Inez Dress,
and it was definitely the most rented dress of our last spring season. And what we learned is that people loved the
stretch linen, but they didn’t love the snap at the neckline. The next step we learned was that people love
jumpsuits from Rent the Runway. So we’re like, let’s combine that information. What we did, is we took away the snap, and
then it’s a little jumpsuit shape. CATHERINE RAMPELL: In a dark neutral print,
because that’s what the data advised. Access to this kind of feedback significantly
improves the chances that a creation will succeed. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN, New York University
School of Law: The biggest risk for most creators is the risk that what they create will fail. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Law professors Christopher
Sprigman and Kal Raustiala have researched how the harvesting of vast troves of data
is changing creative industries, and what it might mean for their legal protections
and economic rewards. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Human creativity has
always been an incredibly risky endeavor as a business. If data can lower that risk, it makes creative
endeavors easier to invest in, potentially more rewarding. KAL RAUSTIALA, UCLA Law School: It’s not a
guarantee, but they’re going to place a better bet. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Creative industries have
traditionally had difficulty predicting what will sell and what won’t. As screenwriter William Goldman memorably
put it in his 1983 memoir, “Nobody knows anything.” WILLIAM GOLDMAN, Screenwriter: Very simply,
people go to see hits because they want to see that movie. They don’t go to see flops because they don’t
want to see that movie. It’s as simple as that. And the problem Hollywood has is, they can’t
figure out why. KAL RAUSTIALA: It’s one of the many reasons
we see so many sequels. What’s worked before will probably work again. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Big data has allowed companies
to figure out what works with much more precision, which, of course, can mean more precise pandering
to the masses. KAL RAUSTIALA: The processes that we’re talking
about tend not to give you something wildly different. They tend to give you more of what you already
watched or listened to or liked. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Keep in mind that there’s
a bunch of literature on how much novelty people want. And the answer is a relatively modest amount. People like paintings that look somewhat like
the paintings they have seen. People like movies that are somewhat like
the movies they have seen. CATHERINE RAMPELL: That said, data has been
used to overturn at least some of the conventional wisdom about what and who audiences want to
see. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: An example is Netflix,
which not too long ago produced a film with Sandra Bullock called “Bird Box.” They cast an older female lead, a relatively
diverse cast in this horror film. That’s a relatively adventurous choice that
turned out to pay off for them. And the talk among Netflix people was that
they did that in response to data. CATHERINE RAMPELL: A ton of data pulled from
more than 100 million users’ viewing habits. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Size, scale is very
important here. To make use of data, you have got to collect
a lot of it. CATHERINE RAMPELL: How replicable is what
you do? Could an upstart produce the high-quality
data and analytics that you have? SARAH TAM: It’s not so easily replicable. We have a decade worth of data, along with
a lot of the technology that we employ to analyze the data. CATHERINE RAMPELL: This hunger for data might
be driving consolidation in creative industries. Take the merger of Time Warner and AT&T. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: They went to the judge
and they said, look. Time Warner is a programmer. AT&T has a platform. What we need to do is, we need to link these
things up so that we can get the data to Time Warner that allows them to produce better
content. CATHERINE RAMPELL: That might be good for
the newly merged company. but, says Sprigman: CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: If the returns to data
keep growing and growing and growing as you get bigger, we could have a pretty strong
impetus toward monopoly, or at least significant market power. And that’s a concern. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Also a concern, privacy. Consumers may not know their Netflix-watching
habits, for example, are being closely monitored. KAL RAUSTIALA: Most people don’t realize how
much data about their activities, when they’re stopping, when they’re starting, that’s being
in a sense just gathered up and then spit back at them in different ways, or maybe sold
to third parties, which is a concern that a lot of people increasingly have about their
data in other contexts. CATHERINE RAMPELL: On the other hand, some
customers turn over this information willingly. SARAH TAM: Our customers, 98 percent of them
give us item level feedback after every time they rent something. So we can understand if our customer loves
an item, how it’s fitting her, how many times she’s wearing it and where she’s wearing it
to. CATHERINE RAMPELL: And the customers just
provide all of this information to you voluntarily? SARAH TAM: Yes. Believe it or not, we have built this incredible
brand community. CATHERINE RAMPELL: There are other legal questions
that arise from this use of big data, like whether we should rethink copyright law, which
exists in part to incentives artists to create. CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: Copyright is a way of
lowering the risk of investing in creative enterprises. If data-driven creativity is lowering that
risk, then it will kind of be a helpmate to or even a stand-in for copyright protection. CATHERINE RAMPELL: And who even deserves to
own the copyright to a work, if it’s created by algorithm, rather than artist? CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: The author is now not
bringing something out of nothing. The author is kind of conjuring all of our
preferences, taking them into account, and in a sense reflecting ourselves back on us. If this shifts people’s views of who’s responsible
for the creative work, where it’s more of a community project, then this might shift
some of the moral supports that undergird copyright protection. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Yes, do I own my consumer
preferences or do the companies whose stuff I buy own those preferences? CHRISTOPHER SPRIGMAN: That is a very current
debate over whether you and I own the data that we in a sense produce through our activities
and that we transmit to these companies. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Artists will argue that
they’re still running the show. SARAH TAM: The algorithm isn’t really telling
them how to create the art. I think it’s just optimizing the art they
create. CATHERINE RAMPELL: It wasn’t like the data
was plugged, it was, like, fed into a computer, and boop, boop, boop, boop, boop, like, the
algorithm spit out this. TANYA TAYLOR: No. I don’t think women’s minds work in algorithms,
unfortunately. I wish it could be that straightforward and
easy. It’s more intuition, and you have to read
between the lines with the data. Where women are going next is hard to predict. CATHERINE RAMPELL: At least for now. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Catherine Rampell
in New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s estimated that as many
as 2.5 billion people around the world need prescription eyeglasses, but don’t have them. Untreated, we know poor vision keeps people
from reaching their full potential. Tonight’s Brief But Spectacular features an
eye doctor looking for new ways to solve the problem. DR. ANDREW BASTAWROUS, Eye Surgeon/Inventor: When
I was 12 years old, I was told by my teachers that I was a bit slow and that I wasn’t paying
attention. And then I was taken for an eye test, where
they found that I had really poor vision. And when I put on a pair of glasses, I saw
that trees have leaves on them for the first time, and my life took a very different course
as a consequence of something so simple. I was aware that the thing that happen to
me with a pair of glasses may not have been true if I have lived somewhere else. And so I wanted to become a doctor, which
I then became, and then I became an eye surgeon and with this burning desire to change this
injustice. Worldwide, there’s 2.5 billion people, so
one in three who need a pair of glasses and can’t get them. There’s 36 million people who are blind, four
in every five of whom shouldn’t be, because their cause of blindness is curable. In 2011, I left my job as an eye surgeon in
the U.K., and my wife and our 1-year-old son packed our bags and moved to Kenya. We went there because we wanted to really
understand the needs of a large population. And to do it, we had to establish 100 eye
clinics, and, in the course of doing so, just realized how big the scale of the problem
was, but also how much potential there was to change lives if this were done differently. When I was working in the field in Kenya,
I was taking 100,000 pounds’ worth of eye equipment and a team of 15 people to understand
why people couldn’t see and what the causes were. What we then started to do as Peek was creating
mobile technology that could do the same assessments, but in the hands of non-specialists. So, the first thing that we built was a vision
test that could measure somebody’s vision in any language. And then we built a tool that would sit on
the phone which would allow you to see inside the eye, so you could see the back of the
eye and understand why somebody can’t see. When I was working in Kenya, it became apparent
how many people had access to a mobile device. I would go to places that had no roads, no
electricity and no water, but in those same places, people had a mobile phone. An incredible doctor said to me: “In the community
that I work, there are children in the schools who can’t see. And when I send my nurse from the hospital
to go and see them, she finds them, but she spends all day in one school to find around
5 percent of the children with a problem. And I can no longer afford to send her because
the clinic is too busy.” So we said, why don’t we train teachers to
do the same thing? And so teachers started using our Peek Acuity
app to measure vision, to get a simulation of what that child could see, and then it
would automate a message to that child’s parents, to the head teacher and to the hospital. So, suddenly, everybody knew that child existed
with a solvable problem. The first time we trialed it, 25 teachers
screened 21,000 children in just nine days. We then went on to scale that up to 300,000
children covering the entire district. The government of Botswana has shown incredible
leadership and have committed to screen and treat every single schoolchild in the country,
making them the first country in the world where an entire generation no longer have
to suffer this problem. My name is Dr. Andrew Bastawrous, and this
is my Brief But Spectacular take on eradicating avoidable blindness. JUDY WOODRUFF: So good to hear about that. And you can find more episodes of our Brief
But Spectacular series at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. Also online: A new study finds that hospitals
that have experienced a data breach, the death rate among heart attack patients increased
in the months and years afterward. We explain the connection on our Web site,
PBS.org/NewsHour. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again here tomorrow evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank you, and we’ll see you soon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *