PBS NewsHour full episode December 5, 2019

PBS NewsHour full episode December 5, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I am asking our chairman
to proceed with articles of impeachment. JUDY WOODRUFF: One step closer. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi directs
Democrats to draft formal charges against President Trump. Then: “Broken Justice” — a conversation with
Ricky Kidd, the focus of the latest “NewsHour” podcast, freed after 23 years of incarceration
for a crime he didn’t commit. And more than 50 years after starting The
Who, legendary guitarist Pete Townshend shows no signs of ending the tour. PETE TOWNSHEND, Musician: I feel very, very
lucky to have, what do they call it, a patron. And the patron is my audience. What I do has worked for them and continues
to work for them. And I want to keep doing it, if I can. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY : The
next stage of the impeachment process against President Trump is at hand. Word came today that the presentation of evidence
will take place on Monday, with the formal crafting of articles of impeachment to follow
immediately. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins
begins our coverage. LISA DESJARDINS: At a Capitol podium reserved
for the most formal or profound moments, the speaker of the House made her announcement. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own
personal political benefit, at the expense of our national security. Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with
allegiance to our founders and heart a full of love for America, today, I am asking our
chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. LISA DESJARDINS: Speaker Pelosi said the president’s
actions have left lawmakers no choice. But hours after returning from a NATO summit
in Europe, President Trump had a few words about impeachment. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
It’s a big, fat hoax. LISA DESJARDINS: He was more verbal on Twitter,
writing earlier in the day: “If you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast,” saying he
wants to move to a Senate trial. And on the Senate floor, a key player in any
future trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, joined the president in lashing
out at Democrats’ process. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): American families
deserve better than this partisan paralysis, where Democrats literally obsess over impeachment
and obstruct everything else. LISA DESJARDINS: House Republican Leader Kevin
McCarthy said Democrats have not proven their case. REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): That this is so divisive,
you need something overwhelming, you need something compelling, and it doesn’t meet
the criteria. The party means more to them than the country. LISA DESJARDINS: Republicans have pushed the
idea that Democrats are acting out of anger. That led to another remarkable moment today. As Speaker Pelosi left her weekly news conference,
a reporter asked if she hates the president. REP. NANCY PELOSI: I don’t hate anybody. QUESTION: Representative Collins — reason
I asked… REP. NANCY PELOSI: I don’t — I was raised in a
Catholic house. We don’t hate anybody, not anybody in the
world. LISA DESJARDINS: Pelosi stopped in her tracks
and firmly said impeachment is not personal. REP. NANCY PELOSI: This is about the Constitution
of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of
office. And, as a Catholic, I resent, your using the
word hate in a sentence that addresses me. So, don’t mess with me when it comes to words
like that. LISA DESJARDINS: Partisan lines and powerful
sentiments will keep mounting. Next, the House Judiciary Committee plans
a hearing Monday to look at the evidence for impeachment and the 300-page report about
that evidence from the House Intelligence Committee. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to help walk us through
what’s next for Congress and its impeachment inquiry, Lisa joins me. So, Lisa, as you said, they’re holding this
hearing on Monday. How is it going to be different? What do we expect? LISA DESJARDINS: Let’s talk about this. This could be the most substantial hearing
that we see before articles of impeachment come out. So, let’s talk about this. First, this is what we’re going to see, presentation
of the Democrats’ impeachment report from the House Intelligence Committee. There will be witnesses who will be staff
counsel, Republican and Democratic counsel. We don’t know yet how many or exactly who. And both sides, Republicans and Democrats,
will both be able to question those witnesses. Essentially, Judy, it’s as if a prosecuting
team, the counsel for the Democrats, will present their evidence that charges should
be brought, impeachment charges, and then the defense team, the Republican counsel,
will try and present their arguments that, no, there’s not enough evidence for impeachment. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, do we know — they’re going
to move ahead, so do we know the timing of when the full House would vote? LISA DESJARDINS: No, we don’t. But I am told that the announcement today
doesn’t change the timing, that they still seem to be on track for a possible committee
vote on articles of impeachment as soon as next week and a possible full House vote the
following week. I don’t know that it is set in stone yet,
but that seems to be the track that they remain on. One big question of course, Judy, is still
whether the president will participate. If he decides to — and he has until tomorrow
night to make that decision, per Democrats’ deadline — that will change the timeline,
because he can try and ask for witnesses, all of those things. Will he want to participate? I spoke to Kevin McCarthy, just asked him
personally, will the president participate? McCarthy doesn’t usually say yes or no, doesn’t
give clear answers about the president often. He indicated to me he doesn’t think the president
should participate. To me, that’s a strong signal that the president
is leaning toward no. JUDY WOODRUFF: So perhaps he’s recommending
it? LISA DESJARDINS: He didn’t say that. I know he’s talking to the president. So I don’t know who’s recommending what, but
he’s certainly gauging the temperature at the White House very closely. JUDY WOODRUFF: What about the Democrats? How unified are they on this? We assume Republicans are still all against
it. But what about that? LISA DESJARDINS: That’s right. So, if you talk to Democrats, the most interesting
group, of course, are those moderates. There are 31 Democrats who are in districts
that the president won. I spoke to several of those offices today. And where they’re at is, they are waiting
to see exactly what is in these articles of impeachment. Multiple offices told me it is very possible
that they could vote yes on some articles of impeachment, those moderate Democrats,
and no on other articles of impeachment when they hit the House floor. Nancy Pelosi needs 218 votes for any article
of impeachment. We will have to see how they draft them to
see if she will get those votes on all of the articles that they present. Republicans I’m watching closely too, we will
see. If public opinion changes, some Republican
votes could peel off as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: But what she needs is a simple
majority at the House? LISA DESJARDINS: That’s correct. At this point, the standard in the Senate
is much higher. But, at this point, it’s a simple majority. Lisa Desjardins, thank you. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: A
federal prosecutor has reportedly undercut claims that an FBI investigation of the 2016
Trump campaign and its alleged ties to Russia was a setup. The Washington Post and others say that U.S.
attorney John Durham found no evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies planted false leads. Attorney General William Barr had hand-picked
Durham. A separate review, by the Justice Department’s
inspector general, has also reportedly found that the FBI probe was justified. It is due out on Monday. President Trump appealed today to the U.S.
Supreme Court to shield his financial records from congressional oversight. U.S. House committees subpoenaed the records
from Mr. Trump’s accounting firm. The president is also asking the court to
keep his tax returns from prosecutors in New York. The United States charged today that Iran
may have killed more than 1,000 people in a crackdown on protests. The special U.S. representative for Iran,
Brian Hook, cited reports from inside Iran and intelligence analysis. At the White House, President Trump met with
U.N. Security Council ambassadors and called for international pressure on Iran. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
It’s a horrible situation. It’s something that is — that is going to
be a big scandal throughout the world very soon. They’re killing a lot of people. And they’re arresting thousands of their own
citizens in a brutal crackdown in recent weeks because they’re protesting. JUDY WOODRUFF: The president wouldn’t confirm
or deny reports that he might send thousands more troops to the Middle East to counter
Iran. The U.S. Justice Department is accusing a
Russian cyber-gang of stealing at least $100 million from banks and other institutions
worldwide. A 10-count indictment today charged two alleged
leaders of a group known as Evil Corp. They remain at large, but officials announced
a $5 million reward for one of the men. That’s the most ever for an accused cyber-criminal. In France, union workers staged one of their
biggest strikes in decades, largely bringing travel to a standstill. Tens of thousands of people turned out in
Paris and elsewhere. They protested President Emmanuel Macron’s
move to standardize more than 40 existing pension plans. MAYA CLAUDE, Protester (through translator):
I think the majority of people are against Macron’s pensions scheme, which will not lead
us anywhere. We will end up with a pension that is equivalent
to that of someone beginning their career, even when having worked 40 years. That doesn’t make sense. JUDY WOODRUFF: Some of the Paris demonstrators
set fires, and police answered with tear gas. It was unclear how long the strike might last. A grim report today on the global resurgence
of measles. The World Health Organization says that nearly
10 million people were infected last year. More than 140,000 died, most of them young
children who had not been vaccinated. Both figures were up sharply from 2017. And the WHO says the numbers are far worse
this year. It cites opposition to vaccines as a main
factor. Back in this country, Republican Congressman
Tom Graves of Georgia has announced that he will not run for reelection. He said he wants to spend more time with his
family. The six-term lawmaker will be the 21st House
Republican to retire after the current term of Congress. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial
average gained 28 points to close at 27677. The Nasdaq rose four points, and the S&P 500
also added four. And the holiday season is officially under
way in Washington, with the lighting of the National Christmas Tree. The president and the first lady did the honors
this evening in front of thousands of guests and a lineup of musical performers. The annual tradition dates back to 1923. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: lawmakers
respond to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s direction to draft articles of impeachment; legendary
guitarist Pete Townshend on having the same gig for more than 50 years; “Broken Justice”
— sitting down with Ricky Kidd, an innocent man freed from prison after more than two
decades; and comedian Nick Kroll gives his Brief But Spectacular take on animating adolescence
in the show “Big Mouth.” In
the span of two-and-a-half months, the impeachment inquiry in the Congress has taken testimony,
produced a report, and examined the legal grounds for impeaching a president. Now, as the House of Representatives works
toward drafting charges against President Trump, we get two more perspectives tonight
on what to expect next. First, I spoke with Representative Doug Collins
of Georgia. He’s the House Judiciary Committee’s ranking
Republican. Congressman Doug Collins, thank you very much
for joining us. Now that we know that Democrats in the House
of Representatives are going to draft articles of impeachment — they’re in the majority
— do the Republicans have a plan for stopping this? REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Well, I don’t think we
have plan for stopping it. I think this is a culmination today. And I’m not sure why there was such a production
of it by Speaker Pelosi to say that now they’re going to write articles of impeachment. Anybody that has been following this knows
that this has been the plan all along. I think the big question comes now is, how
do they do it in the Judiciary Committee? Do they speed it up? Do they just bypass a lot of the rules even
they passed a couple of months ago? And, frankly, just sad to say, Judy, I’m standing
here on this night telling you I don’t really know where the path forward is. We know that there’s going to be a couple
of presentations of reports on Monday, but past that, we really don’t know. So it’s a concerning process for us to be
prepared. But this has not been a surprise. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, they say that this is
going to be about presenting the evidence. But what I want to ask you is, do you dispute
the facts that the Democrats have laid out? And I’m asking you because, yesterday, the
law professor the Republicans called on the Judiciary Committee, Jonathan Turley, said
that President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president — and I’m quoting — “was anything
but perfect, and that Congress had a legitimate reason to scrutinize it.” REP. DOUG COLLINS: Well, that’s Jonathan Turley’s
interpretation. And, of course, he was our actual witness. I find it different. I don’t think there was anything wrong with
the call. And I think that was what brought out in the
hearing yesterday over and over and over again, is that, at best, Mr. Turley said that it
was a paucity of errors. There was very much there. It’s wafer-thin was the word, I think. But what we’re seeing is, it was nothing wrong
with what went on and how it went about. So I think the problem is, is, we don’t have
a problem talking about the substance of the issue and how it went about. And I think that’s going to be the problem
for the Democrats going forward, because, remember, Judy, they can do what they want
to in the House of Representatives. They have the votes to manipulate this. But when it goes to the Senate, or, better
yet, when it goes to the American people, they have to convince the American people
that there’s a crime, that there was something actually committed, tangible, in real world
terms, not in philosophical terms of academics in a meeting. JUDY WOODRUFF: But isn’t an impeachment of
a president about how Congress sees the oath of office, whether there’s been abuse of power,
what the framers, what the founders put in the Constitution? REP. DOUG COLLINS: Well, it is. And what was interesting is, is, yesterday,
again, this shows you how disputed — the facts are in dispute. They’re not — and this will be the first
impeachment in which there’s actually, if they go forward with this, where the — there
wasn’t agreement at least on basic facts. In Nixon and in Clinton, among Democrats and
Republicans, there was a commitment on basic facts that came from the reports that were
issued on these different facts. We don’t have agreement on facts. In fact, we have a very much a dispute, when
they say that there was actual quid pro quo. There was actual witnesses says, no, there
wasn’t. They have witnesses who say, well, we believe
or presume that the information given to us, because I heard it secondhand, was that he
was holding back because of a meeting. But yet we have others with direct knowledge
who said no. We also have five direct meetings after the
aid was put on hold, five meetings in which Zelensky was present, one with a phone call,
three with ambassadors, and one — one with a senator and one with Vice President Pence,
in which two of which, those last two meetings, with the senators and with Vice President
Pence, were after they found out money was being held. And there was never a connection between aid
and doing something. So I think what we have got here is very much
a disputed fact. And I think, in the past, Congresses have
relied on actual crimes. Clinton lied. Nixon committed the crime of a conspiracy
for break-in. There’s nothing there that actually they can
put their hands on. And that was part of the problem yesterday
in the hearing. JUDY WOODRUFF: But when all — when there
as many dots as there are, if you want to use that analogy, isn’t the conclusion going
to be that, if there was discussion about withholding aid, and aid was withheld for
several months, and there had been conversation, which the president himself acknowledges,
saying to the Ukrainian leader, I want you to investigate the Bidens, what are you left
with? REP. DOUG COLLINS: Well, what did he say that was
— again, we go back to this — was helping us? And this was the day after. Remember, this telephone call happened the
day after the Mueller report here on the Hill. And about the time, you and I actually spoke
about that whole report. And there was very much of a frustration then. And the conversation was, can you help us
investigate this, what just happened, and what had tore our country up for so long? I think you got to be very careful, Judy. And I appreciate what you’re saying about
trying to connect dots to become. But then, if you do, you become like one of
the law professors yesterday that says, well, if you see all these facts, and you infer
there’s a problem or you infer a crime was committed, then you go forward on impeachment
like that. That’s a very slippery, wrong slope to stand
on, because this country, the average American outside of D.C. understands due process. They understand fairness. They do not understand that I can infer that
you may have done something wrong, so, that way, we’re going to convict you of it. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about something
else. We heard from the Democrats yesterday that
they are considering widening this impeachment inquiry to include the article — the second
part of the Mueller report having to do with obstruction of justice. In that, we saw 10 minutes episodes they laid
out where the president may have, could have obstructed justice. And, again, the report doesn’t exonerate the
president. It says the decision is up to Congress. Does that strengthen what the Democrats are
trying to do or not? REP. DOUG COLLINS: No, there’s two parts to that. One, I believe that most Democrats are ready
to move on from the Mueller report. It was a very painful experience for them
because they put everything into it. And it didn’t turn out conclusive as they
wanted to. But I also think it’s very interesting. Go back to the Mueller hearing that day, and
the Democrats tried to walk through each of these points that they showed of obstruction
that they saw in the part two. And at the end of it, Mr. Mueller would agree
with various parts, but at the end of it, he would say, I don’t agree with your conclusion. I don’t agree with your outcome. He made that statement over and over and over
again. So it’s going to be very hard to walk back
Mueller’s own words, when he said he disagreed with the — at the end the conclusion of obstruction. JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Doug Collins of
Georgia, thank you very much. REP. DOUG COLLINS: We’re glad to be here, Judy. It’s always good to be with you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now for a perspective from
a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, we’re joined by Representative Madeleine Dean of
Pennsylvania. Congresswoman Dean… REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): Good evening. JUDY WOODRUFF: … thank you very much for
joining us. Are you confident at this point, given what
Speaker Pelosi has done, has charged the Judiciary Committee to go ahead to write, to craft articles
of impeachment, that there is enough evidence there, enough proof that the that articles
of impeachment are warranted? REP. MADELEINE DEAN: I am. I’m sad, but confident, that we have enough. The evidence is undeniable. You will notice it’s also undenied. And it is damning. The president coerced a foreign leader to
try to intervene in our elections for his own personal and political gain. There could be nothing more grave than that
kind of an assault on our election integrity. As the professor said yesterday, it will make
us all less free. So, there is plenty of evidence. But I find it puzzling that the Republicans
or the administration say, oh, you don’t have a enough evidence, in the face of the president
not answering lawful subpoenas, extraordinary obstruction by this president and everyone
in his administration. So, if the Republicans want more evidence,
they ought to go over to the White House and say to the president, answer lawful subpoenas,
let everyone testify, clear your name, be a part of the process. You notice they’re not doing any of that. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, at this point, there’s
no evidence — no sign that they will do that, although they have time certainly to come
forward before this works its way — this process works its way forward. But, Congresswoman Dean, we just heard again
Congressman Collins, the ranking Republican on Judiciary, saying, as you just noted, the
evidence is not there, that it’s all conjecture, that it’s assumption, in so many words. How is it that Democrats see clear, compelling
evidence and Republicans say it just doesn’t exist? REP. MADELEINE DEAN: I think they’re actually not
saying it doesn’t exist. They’re not speaking to the evidence. You have seen them pound the table over process,
process, process, due process. In fact, this is offering the president due
process. And he’s not taking advantage of it. And so there’s plenty of evidence. And so I don’t understand what Mr. Collins
is talking about. You notice they don’t want to talk about that
phone call. They don’t want to talk about a president
holding up $391 million of congressionally appropriated aid to a country that is under
attack, assault, and invasion by Russia. You will notice that what happens here is,
it weakened their national security, it weakens our national security, because who benefited
from that attempt to withhold aid, and, in fact, the withholding of aid? Putin and Putin’s Russia. That’s what this is about. Americans should have a chill from the horrifying
obstruction by this president and the use of his office, the abuse of his office for
personal political gain. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it is not just Congressman
Collins and other Republicans. There are now the people who support the president
who are listening to that argument who are saying they too don’t hear solid evidence. What more could the Democrats, can the Democrats
do to put a compelling case together that the Republicans and their supporters say just
they don’t see? REP. MADELEINE DEAN: Well, I think they just need
to go back and look at the testimony of the public witnesses. You know, Intelligence Committee had 100 hours
of depositions that were not public testimony, but we have a report on that. Then we had, I think it was 12 witnesses who
were publicly testifying, heroic, patriotic folks, who came forward to say what was going
on was crazy, was irregular, was a separate line of diplomacy through Rudy Giuliani working
literally with Russians to try to figure out how to dump dirt on a political foe. The evidence is there. I think the American people were very impressed
with people like Dr. Hill. She had no interest in coming forward. She’s a career-long diplomat. She’s worked for Republican administrations
and Democratic administrations. This isn’t about politics. This is about patriotism. This is about upholding our Constitution. If we turn a blind eye on this, it is as though
we have said the impeachment clause doesn’t exist, and, therefore, the president can be
above the law. We simply cannot have that. JUDY WOODRUFF: Congresswoman, what is your
view of expanding this — the articles of impeachment to include obstruction as it was
outlined in the Mueller report? REP. MADELEINE DEAN: We know there are many considerations
in terms of what articles will be drafted. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I
think it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the articles. But, certainly, the events surrounding Ukraine
before and after, the seeking by this president of interference with our elections — publicly,
he called on Russia to interfere. Publicly, he called on China to interfere,
and privately, by record of the call that he released. It’s the only document he’s released thus
far. He asked Ukraine to interfere. So, I think — I’m not going to speculate
on the articles, because I will be a part of that conversation, as a member of the Judiciary
Committee. What I hope is that our articles are very
concrete, specific, thoughtful, and rooted in the law. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, if I were to ask you, do
you think it strengthens your case to add an article that encompasses obstruction in
the Mueller report? REP. MADELEINE DEAN: I don’t know if that strengthens
our case. And I’m not interested in the Mueller report. I’m interested in the behavior of the president,
as revealed either publicly by him, privately by him, or as revealed in the investigation
by the special counsel. I’m not interested in the Mueller report. I’m interested in the corrupt behavior of
this indecent president. JUDY WOODRUFF: Last question. What are you hearing from your constituents
about this? Are they raising the issue of the president,
his behavior, of impeachment, or not? REP. MADELEINE DEAN: Yes, they are. I serve suburban Philadelphia, Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania, and Berks County. My constituents are gravely concerned. They’re fearful for our country. They come up to me in the barbershop or at
the grocery store, and they say, what are you doing? This — I’m worried for our country. I’m worried for our precious Constitution
and our democracy. And I’m tired of being so agitated. I’m worried about our leadership and our standing
in the world. Please do something about it. The vast majority of my constituents say,
please, you have to take this seriously. And, sadly, you have to take this extraordinary
step to impeach and remove the president. Don’t get me wrong. There’s certainly a number of my constituents
who do not support this — this action, but the majority do. JUDY WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Madeleine Dean
of Pennsylvania, thank you very much for joining us. REP. MADELEINE DEAN: Thank you, Judy. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Our economics correspondent
Paul Solman talks to an older worker of some note tonight about his music, his life traumas,
his career as a rock star, and why he still feels the need to record a new album and hit
the road at the age of 74. It’s part of our Making Sense series Unfinished
Business. ROGER DALTREY, Musician (singing): People
try to put us down. BAND MEMBERS (singing): Talking about my generation. PAUL SOLMAN: Maybe the generational anthem
of the ’60s, with a line for the ages, and ageists. ROGER DALTREY (singing): Hope I die before
I get old. PAUL SOLMAN: But Pete Townshend, who wrote
those lyrics, doesn’t live by them; 55 years after co-founding the rock band The Who, Townshend
is still at it. You’re famous for the line “I hope I die before
I get old.” PETE TOWNSHEND, Musician: Yes. PAUL SOLMAN: So, you didn’t. PETE TOWNSHEND: It was a song I wrote when
I was 18 years old. I was living in London and getting pushed
around by rich women in fur coats. I hated them all. They hated me. Let’s just shut down the conversation. (LAUGHTER) PETE TOWNSHEND: I know your show is about
old people. Well, I’m happy to be here as an old person. I have actually come to realize that this
time of life is probably the best. When you hit 70, when you hit 75, as I will
next birthday, you realize that — you know, that you’re definitely on a shorter leash. And you tend to kind of settle with the present. And, in a sense, for people of my generation,
who went through the LSD era of trying, in a sense, to find out who is God, you know,
who am I, all of that stuff, you know, you suddenly realize, well, here it is. I’m me. It’s now. I have a life. I have minutes, I have hours, I have weeks,
months, years, maybe, and I should live in the present. So it’s a very beautiful thing. PAUL SOLMAN: How much of what you’re feeling
in terms of gratification is because you are continuing to work? PETE TOWNSHEND: I’m really — if I’m absolutely
honest, I’m really only working as hard as I am at the moment for money. PAUL SOLMAN: Now, unlike so many his age,
Townshend can continue to work. And, as a high-living rock star, money to
him means yacht racing, one of his boats a classic from 1906. PETE TOWNSHEND: The average for running a
boat is 15 percent of the rebuild cost. Let’s say you tried to build it today. It would cost about a million dollars, maybe
a million-and-a-half dollars to build. So, it’s $200,000 a year to run a tiny little
boat I go racing in twice a year. PAUL SOLMAN: Townshend and the other surviving
member of the original Who, lead singer Roger Daltrey, have hit the road again touring. For Townshend, there’s another economic incentive
to keep going, his sizable retinue of dependents. PETE TOWNSHEND: My daughter Aminta, for example,
has got a full spectrum autistic boy. And when we worked out how much it would cost
to get him through education, it came to a million pounds. And I employ people and the band employs people. And it’s great to be the person who kind of
decides whether that happens or not. It’s a moment of power. (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: Well, isn’t it a moment of power
to go on tour, to have all those people sticking with you for all these years, your fan base? PETE TOWNSHEND: That isn’t me. I don’t feel excited. I feel I’m there to do a job. I have no — there’s no thrill. Indeed, I would say that I don’t like it much. As I said to my wife, now, Rachel, I said,
I must be a really brilliant actor… (LAUGHTER) PETE TOWNSHEND: … if I look like I’m enjoying
it, because I really don’t enjoy it. I do it as a job. And I find it incredibly easy, so easy. I don’t even have to think about it. PAUL SOLMAN: Over the years, Townshend brought
energy a plenty to the stage. The Who’s lyricist and lead guitarist became
known for his windmilling and mutilating his instruments. Do you still jump? PETE TOWNSHEND: You know, I try. I don’t get very high, but I still try. You know, I don’t know why I’m in good shape. I certainly — I don’t exercise. I don’t eat well. PAUL SOLMAN: Well, do exercise, because you
exercise when you tour, right? PETE TOWNSHEND: That’s true. I wore my Apple watch for one gig, and it
turned out that I’d walked, so it said, eight miles. PAUL SOLMAN: Townshend and Roger Daltrey have
been performing together since the 1960s. PETE TOWNSHEND: He loves doing it. And I think he will do it until he drops. I don’t think that’s my story. You know, one of us really, really, really
wants to go on. And then there’s me, who really actually — I
know, I would prefer to just go sailing and read a book. (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: And write one, too. He calls his new novel, “The Age of Anxiety”
— quote — “an extended meditation on manic genius and the dark art of creativity.” He plans to turn it into an opera, like previous
works “Tommy” and “Quadrophenia.” The Who also have a new album out called “Who”
about, among other things, aging. PETE TOWNSHEND: I wrote the songs for Roger. So, I was dealing with his perception of what
aging is and hoping — funny enough, he didn’t connect with — I sent him about 15 songs. He didn’t connect with any of them. And he didn’t respond for five months. Nothing. I heard nothing. And then, when he did respond, he said, these
are songs for you, Pete. And I said, no, Roger, these are songs for
you. (LAUGHTER) PAUL SOLMAN: Because he doesn’t want to face
the aging the way you do? PETE TOWNSHEND: Maybe, maybe, maybe. I don’t know. PAUL SOLMAN: One song Townshend penned for
the new album, “I Don’t Wanna Get Wise.” PETE TOWNSHEND: I aligned the idea of the
wisdom of aging, the wisdom of experience, the wisdom of suffering, the wisdom of passing
through life, being something which is a mark of aging. And, therefore, you know, in a sense, the
song “I Don’t Wanna Get Wise” is another of, I don’t want to get old. PAUL SOLMAN: In 2003, Townshend was arrested
on child porn charges. But he’s always said it was part of his own
sting operation. PETE TOWNSHEND: We were just trying to demonstrate
that banks needed to stop taking money for this. It’s not like buying “Playboy” magazine. It has consequences. PAUL SOLMAN: Townshend himself says he survived
childhood abuse. PETE TOWNSHEND: I had been damaged. I always used to say, you know, I’m like a
diamond with a flaw, and the flaw is that period of abuse. It was brief in my case. I was only with my grandmother for two years. That was pretty terrifying. And, you know, at 74 years old, oh, you know,
it’s still here. It’s not something that’s ever going to go
away. And I should use the word sexual abuse. I shouldn’t shy away from that, that some
of the abuse that I suffered was sexual. And… PAUL SOLMAN: From your grandmother? PETE TOWNSHEND: Yes, the grand — friends
of my grandmother. My grandmother was off her trolley, unfortunately. PAUL SOLMAN: “Tommy,” the film and hit Broadway
rock opera about a boy struck deaf, dumb and blind by trauma, turns out to have been an
allegory of that experience. PETE TOWNSHEND: I completely unconsciously
use this idea as a vehicle for exploring my own really quite tragic story. Roger Daltrey wanted to do a tour of the complete
“Tommy.” And we did a test of it. And on the first night, I had a nervous breakdown
on the stage. And so I took him aside and I said, Roger,
I can’t do this. This is too much, in a sense, a celebration
of my difficulties, a celebration of my childhood suffering. PAUL SOLMAN: In the end, though, Townshend
believes in art and its ability to reinforce not suffering, but hope. PETE TOWNSHEND: And my method, as a musician,
is to try to create events, to try to create musical moments where people gather, where
they unify, and where they realize that just standing together and understanding that we
all understand is very, very important. PAUL SOLMAN: So, are you in part working at
your age because you feel that you are a source, as indeed you are, of people coming together? PETE TOWNSHEND: As an artist, I feel very,
very lucky to have, what do they call it, a patron. And the patron is my audience. What I do has worked for them and continues
to work for them. And I want to keep doing it, if I can. PAUL SOLMAN: So Pete Townshend is still on
the road rocking for a living. For the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Paul Solman
in New York. JUDY WOODRUFF: And now the story behind the
exoneration of a wrongly convicted man in Missouri who spent decades in prison, and
the lens it provides on larger problems with the criminal justice system. Amna Nawaz explores these questions. AMNA NAWAZ: Over the past five weeks, our
original podcast series “Broken Justice” has been telling the story of Missouri’s overloaded
public defender system and what that tells us about justice in America. The series focuses on how that system failed
one man in particular, Ricky Kidd. In 1997, Kidd was convicted of double homicide
and sentenced to life without parole. He has always maintained his innocence. In the final episode of the series, which
is now out, we share that Kidd, after 23 years in prison, was exonerated and released. That is in large part due to pro bono legal
efforts of Sean O’Brien, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who
has spent decades working to overturn wrongful convictions. With us now to discuss all of that are Ricky
Kidd and Sean O’Brien. Thank you so much to both of you for being
here. SEAN O’BRIEN, University of Missouri-Kansas
City: Thank you. Thank you for having us. RICKY KIDD, Exonerated: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: Ricky, let me start with you. It’s an incredible story to the rest of us. It is your life. It’s impossible to cover in full due here
in this conversation. But how do you even begin to explain to people
what it was like to be incarcerated for two decades knowing you didn’t do what you were
accused of doing? RICKY KIDD: It was a nightmare. It was like going to sleep, falling into a
nightmare dream, and not being able to wake up. You know, often, we do that, right? We go to sleep, and we wake up and say, hey,
I had a bad dream, and it’s over in a matter of seconds or however long that dream lasts. But, for me, that nightmare was 23 years. And so that’s the best way I can explain it. It was a living nightmare. AMNA NAWAZ: Did you ever think that you wouldn’t
get out? Did you ever think, I’m going to give up hope? RICKY KIDD: In the far back of your mind,
you do. You know the stats, that less than 1 percent
are ever successful on appeals after conviction. But the other — or, rather, the larger part
of your mind is, I can’t — I can’t afford to think that I won’t get out, because then
there would be no reason to fight. So… AMNA NAWAZ: Sean, let me ask you about this,
because Ricky was defended by the public defense system in his case. They are the front-line lawyers we chronicle
in our podcast. We should mention you worked as a public defender
for years in the ’80s, before leaving that line of work. When you saw Ricky’s case and what had happened,
what did you see that said to you this deserves a second look? SEAN O’BRIEN: Well, first of all, Dan Grothaus,
the investigator who brought the case to me, he had looked into the case and made a very
compelling case. Then I went and met his alibi witnesses, Ricky’s
alibi witnesses, and they were solid, absolutely solid. And then, of course, you know, the prosecutor
is someone who is herself a red flag for wrongful convictions. So, when I saw the whole picture, I couldn’t
not step in at that point. AMNA NAWAZ: Ricky, help us understand what
it was like when you connect with Sean, and for the first time someone is telling you,
I believe what you’re saying, I think there’s something here. What was that like for you? RICKY KIDD: It was — it was amazing. I worked hard for 10 years trying to get somebody
to pay attention to my case. And when Sean, who we are — a lot of us knew
to be a good lawyer, a good advocate for those who are innocent and on death row, it was
exciting. It was exciting. I felt like he was my superhero out of the
Marvel Comics. And I say that all the time, that today’s
superheroes wear dresses and suit coats, and not tights and capes. (LAUGHTER) SEAN O’BRIEN: You don’t want that mental picture. (LAUGHTER) RICKY KIDD: He certainly is my hero. He certainly is my hero. I thank him so much every day, and the rest
of the team who fought and worked and never gave up. It’s easy not to give up on yourself when
others have not given up on you, and, so, yes, definitely a superhero. AMNA NAWAZ: Sean, I got to ask you, too. I guess the question everyone has is, why
does it take so long for those kinds of convictions to be undone once they’re done? SEAN O’BRIEN: I’m still asking that question. You know, it was way too easy to convict an
innocent person, and it’s way harder than it should be to prove that he’s innocent and
get him released. You know, if you’re innocent, you should never
quit. You know, your innocence will get you free
someday. And it’s the someday part that was hard in
this case. AMNA NAWAZ: But you know this system inside
and out. Are there things, are there reforms that could
be put into place right now that would prevent things like this from happening to people
like Ricky? SEAN O’BRIEN: Yes. And there are too many to talk about, but
the first starting point is a decent public defender system. If we put public defenders on parity with
prosecutors, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion today. If public defenders had the resources, the
salaries, the caseloads of the prosecutors they’re up against, we’d have a level playing
field, and it would make a ton of difference. This case is a good example, because Ricky’s
lawyer is not a bad lawyer, but she was outgunned by a prosecutor who was unscrupulous, but
knew that, because of her overworked opposition, that she could get away with things that she
couldn’t get away with if there was a well-staffed defender system on the other side. AMNA NAWAZ: Ricky, you are a free man. RICKY KIDD: I am. AMNA NAWAZ: You have been out for about over
three months now? RICKY KIDD: A hundred and 11 days now. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: Not that you’re counting. (LAUGHTER) RICKY KIDD: I’m not counting. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: How are you? What are your plans? What do you want to do? RICKY KIDD: I’m great. I’m great. I want to add my voice to the cry for justice
reform. I have had opportunities to touch six states
now since I have been home. And most of those travels have been advocacy
work, speaking out on the behalf, trying to be the voice of those who are voiceless. AMNA NAWAZ: You are not turning away from
the last two decades of your life. It sounds like you are leaning into it. You’re not angry about that time. RICKY KIDD: No, not angry in a sense of where
it can be destructive. I have learned how to turn my anger into passion. But we should be angry that taxpayers are
spending billions and hundreds of millions of dollars keeping the wrong person in prison. And so I don’t want people to misconstrue,
because I’m happy and I’m full of joy and excitement today, that the anger has dissipated. It has not. It’s turned into passion for me. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, we are so happy to have
you here today, to have both of you here today. Ricky Kidd and Sean O’Brien, thank you so
much. RICKY KIDD: Thank you so much. SEAN O’BRIEN: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: And all five episodes of “Broken
Justice” are out now. You can listen on our Web site or wherever
you get your podcasts. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will be back shortly
with a Brief But Spectacular take on turning mortifying adolescent experiences into comedy
today. But, first, take a moment to hear from your
local PBS station. It’s a chance to offer your support, which
helps to keep programs like ours on the air. JUDY WOODRUFF: For those stations staying
with us, a unique program started in Wisconsin helps to build bridges between farm employers
and migrant employees. Special correspondent Fred de sam Lazaro begins
our encore report in the Mexican state of Veracruz. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: They are hard to distinguish
from thousands of Americans who meet up in Mexico, headed to its beach resorts and a
respite from winter.But this group of Wisconsin dairy farmers had a very different destination,
as they headed inland and up steep gravel mountain roads. The views are breathtaking, but these are
places where tourists rarely go, and where locals say it’s hard to stay and earn a living.It’s
become an annual ritual for the Midwesterners, getting together with families their Mexican
employees left behind as they traveled north to find work. Their earnings sustain the families here in
Mexico, even if the breadwinners themselves, most of them undocumented in the U.S., could
not afford the cost or risk of a quick visit home.John Rosenow was on his ninth trip in
recent years, visiting the families of his 10 Mexican workers. First stop, the parents of Marco Rosales. JOHN ROSENOW: Is there any message you would
like us to take to Marco? MAN: Tell him that we are well and tell him
to behave. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Now, does he mostly behave? JOHN ROSENOW: Marco behaves. Marco at times works 12 hours a day, and right
now he’s working. And it’s 10 below. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: On a frigid early January
morning, I got to see Marco’s routine, which begins at the crack of dawn in the milking
parlor. JOHN ROSENOW: We run this 24 hours a day in
here. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: How many gallons of milk
come out of this place? JOHN ROSENOW: Like, today, we will ship probably
5,000 gallons. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Families like Rosenow’s
— he’s fifth generation on this farm — helped give Wisconsin the bragging rights as America’s
dairy land.But the unrelenting routine of milking, birthing, feeding and cleaning is
one Rosenow says Americans long ago stopped wanting to do. For years, Rosenow says he’s tried to recruit
for jobs that pay between $32,000 and $42,000 a year, plus on-farm housing, if needed. JOHN ROSENOW: I have gone to farm supply stores
locally, asking people that work there. And I have never got a response, ever. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And you would pay more
these big department stores? JOHN ROSENOW: Yes. And so I don’t understand why Americans don’t
do it, but they don’t. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: About 20 years ago, left
with no choice, he says, he hired a Mexican immigrant he found through a farm magazine
ad. JOHN ROSENOW: He came and milked 54 days straight. Here was somebody that worked as hard as I
do. Wow, this is the answer to my biggest, biggest
problem that I had, was labor.FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Migrant workers may have solved the
labor problem for some farmers here, but also revealed a new one: communication.So, a county
extension agent asked Shaun Duvall, the local high school Spanish teacher, to start language
classes. SHAUN DUVALL: And I thought, well, they’re
not going to learn enough Spanish. And they’re not going to learn about the culture,
why people do what they do, in a 20-hour Spanish class.So, I thought, well, let’s do something
more.FRED DE SAM LAZARO: She and Rosenow founded a nonprofit called Puentes/Bridges, intended
to offer language immersion trips to Mexico, Spanish lessons for dairy owners, English
for their workers, as well as a dairy technician training program, trying to help two very
different cultures better understand each other. SHAUN DUVALL: It’s politically a conservative
area, but all of a sudden there’s this presence of people who don’t share your culture, and
they needed somebody who knew something. And I didn’t know much, but I knew more than
they did. Fred de Sam Lazaro: Today, Wisconsin’s dairy
industry says a majority of workers are immigrants, an arrangement that endures despite the rancorous
debate about immigration.For their part, the immigrants keep a low profile. Roberto Tecpile, who is 39, agreed to share
his story. In the 20 years he’s been in the U.S., he’s
returned home just four times, he says. Returning to the U.S. is treacherous and expensive. ROBERTO TECPILE: I walked two days and two
nights. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Did you have to pay people
to get here? ROBERTO TECPILE: Yes. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The trafficker’s fee was
$10,000.Thirty-two-year-old Armando Tecpile, who is not related to Roberto, endured the
same expensive ordeal, driven, he says, by dreams of earning enough to build a comfortable
home in his village. AARRON TECPILE: My house, I thank God it’s
already three floors and complete concrete. It’s not finished yet, still in construction,
but all the outside is done. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Back in Mexico, Armando’s
home was the next stop for his boss. LOURDES RAMOS: I’m really grateful Armando
found you as a place to work, because it’s hard to find a good job. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Here and everywhere they
visited, the Wisconsin visitors found expressions of appreciation and warm hospitality.But just
beneath the smiles in many cases lurked the pain of long separation for the host families. After her guests left, Armando’s wife, Lourdes
Ramos, told me she’d pleaded with her husband not to go to the U.S., to stay home with their
sons, now 10 and 5. LOURDES RAMOS: I said, I’m not asking you
for anything. I’m not asking you for money. We don’t need such a big house if it’s just
two of us and the two boys. And, really, it’s nicer to have a smaller
place. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: She fears they will wind
up like Roberto’s family, who have endured his absence over much of the past two decades.Rosenow
talked with Roberto’s father about the new prosperity, visible across villages here in
new construction and in small enterprises many families have started. But his wife and mother reflected on the price
they have paid, particularly the children.AAarron is their middle child. AARRON TECPILE: I miss my papa. I love him a lot. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: When was the last time
you saw your papa? AARRON TECPILE: I was 5 years old. He used to carry me, and we used to go and
see my grandma far away. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: His younger sister, Megan,
was barely a month old when her father left. CONCEPCION ACAHUA: We miss him. We really do miss him. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But it is Roberto and
Veronica’s 15-year-old son, who was away when we visited, who most worries his mother. VERONICA TECPILE: He just wants to go and
work with his dad and is waiting to be able to do that. I’m not going to let my son go, because the
border is very dangerous. FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Whether she will prevail
against the strong tug of economic opportunity up north is a big question. A generation ago, her mother-in-law remembers
pleading similarly with Roberto and his brothers. All four of them remain in the United States.For
the “PBS NewsHour,” this is Fred de Sam Lazaro in Zongolica, Mexico. (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Tonight’s Brief But Spectacular
features comedian Nick Kroll. He mined the hilarious and mortifying experiences
of adolescence to create the animated Netflix series “Big Mouth.” Although it is a period of life some of us
would prefer to forget, Kroll says it has been healthy to revisit his past. NICK KROLL, Comedian: “Big Mouth” is my animated
TV show on Netflix. It is about my journey through puberty with
my best friend, Andrew Goldberg. It’s based on our childhoods. Andrew became a writer for “Family Guy,” and
I became a comedian, and then we came back together 30 years after we met to create this
show. We knew from the beginning that we wanted
this to be animated. We felt like we wanted adults to voice the
kids. I think I voice over 30 characters on the
show. There is the voice of Nick. This is Nick’s voice. There is the Hormone Monster, who is Maurice. There’s Coach Steve. Hey, what’s up everybody? I’m Coach Steve. There is the Jansen twins. They are two twins. There’s a little Ladybug. And Ladybug will tell you what’s what on a
daily daily. And I don’t know. There’s like 25 more voices. The tone of the show is very dirty, but I
think it is equally weighted with an incredible warmth and sincerity. ACTRESS: You’re actually kind of fun. ACTOR: You think so? ACTRESS: Absolutely. ACTOR: Should we like, I don’t know, take
a picture? ACTRESS: Yes, go for it. You’re very photogenic from that angle. Not that one. Yes. ACTOR: This one? ACTRESS: Yes, a little to the right, and go. Hunk alert. ACTOR: What’s that? ACTRESS: That’s like an Amber Alert, but also
there is a kid missing in a red Mazda. ACTOR: Oh, no. NICK KROLL: Being a late bloomer meant that
I just physically matured a lot later than most of my friends. I didn’t hit 5 feet until into high school. Andrew was the earliest bloomer. It didn’t take much to realize that Andrew
was hitting puberty, because he could grow a mustache and beard in sixth grade. Whether you were a late bloomer or an early
developer, you felt alone, and you felt like you were different. Season two of “Big Mouth,” we introduced a
character called the Shame Wizard. ACTOR: Surely you knew I was coming? NICK KROLL: And in writing the show, we realized
how much shame played into adolescence and puberty itself. ACTRESS: I wish I didn’t have to wear a bra. What is that, an undershirt? NICK KROLL: Your body is changing. You’re having these different kinds of urges,
sexual urges, emotional swings. What comes with those emotional swings is
the feeling of shame. I was lucky in my family that we did talk
about sex, and we had these books called “What’s Happening to Me?” The most gratifying thing about making the
show has been hearing from kids and parents and teachers saying that they have watched
the show, and it has given them a platform and a vocabulary to talk about what’s happening
to them. The show at its core is about making people
feel not so alone. As I have made this show, the experience has
been incredibly therapeutic in helping me understand who I was and how what I was going
through has affected the man that I have become. My name is Nick Kroll, and this is my Brief
But Spectacular take on characters of different ages brought to life. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you can watch additional
Brief But Spectacular episodes on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. And on the “NewsHour” online right now: Protests
have rocked Haiti for more than a year, part of a global wave of uprisings triggered by
economic inequality and dissatisfaction with government. Take a look at what’s driving unrest in that
country on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. And a news update before we go. Uber says that it has recorded more than 3,000
sexual assaults in rides with its drivers in the U.S. last year. A long awaited safety report released by the
company this evening also detailed murders and fatal crashes that happened on its 1.3
billion rides in 2018. It is the ride-hailing company’s first safety
study since it has faced pressure to increase transparency. 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.

Dereck Turner

Leave a Reply

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