April 22, 2024 - PBS NewsHour full episode
04/22/2024 | 57m 46s | Video has closed captioning.
April 22, 2024 - PBS NewsHour full episode
Aired: 04/22/24
Expires: 05/22/24
Problems Playing Video? | Closed Captioning
04/22/2024 | 57m 46s | Video has closed captioning.
April 22, 2024 - PBS NewsHour full episode
Aired: 04/22/24
Expires: 05/22/24
Problems Playing Video? | Closed Captioning
GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.
I'm Geoff Bennett.
Amna Nawaz is away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: Opening statements begin in the trial of former President Donald Trump over alleged hush money payments to boost his 2016 election prospects.
Israel's intelligence chief resigns for failing to prevent the October Hamas attack, as the war in Gaza grinds on.
And the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case about homelessness, with far-reaching consequences.
MARCIA COYLE: The implications are huge because so many cities are dealing with this problem.And what the Supreme Court has to say about what Grants Pass can do is going to affect how all the other cities try to address this problem.
(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "NewsHour."
Opening statements began today in the first criminal trial of former President Donald Trump.
Prosecutors accused Mr. Trump and his associates of falsifying business records during his 2016 campaign for president in an effort to conceal an alleged extramarital affair.
But the former president's attorney said he was not involved in the payments, which they argue were not illegal and did not commit a crime.
Our William Brangham was in the courthouse today following it all.
So, William, we know that the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, very much wants this case to be seen as a case about interference in the 2016 election and less about alleged hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.
How much of that came out in the prosecution's opening statement today?
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Geoff, it came out an enormous amount.
I mean, it was one of the very first things out of prosecutor Matthew Colangelo's mouth.
He was arguing that Donald Trump engaged in and coordinated a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 election, as you're talking about.
That's the frame that they want jurors to see this entire case through.
Now, the tricky part is, it's not what they're charging.
There's no allegation or insinuation that they broke campaign finance laws here.
They're talking about prosecuting Donald Trump for falsifying business records, but they want those 34 charges of what they call cooking the books to be seen in service of that larger, more nefarious goal.
And prosecutors today took the jurors back in time to 2016.
It was the end of the presidential election, and the "Access Hollywood" tape had just dropped, and Donald Trump's campaign was in panic mode.
And then, all of a sudden, the story that Stormy Daniels, the pornographic actress, had been trying to sell for a few months suddenly became much more urgent to them.
And so, then, Donald Trump's lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, paid her $130,000 of his own money to stay quiet and to not say anything about that.
Then, once Donald Trump became president, he repaid Cohen that money and more.
And it is in that process, that's where prosecutors argue that the conspiracy to cover all this up was, because they argue that Trump tried to make that -- those payments seem like -- quote, unquote -- "just run-of-the-mill legal fees," when, in fact, they were in service of this hush money.
And so Colangelo said this was election fraud, pure and simple.
GEOFF BENNETT: And how did Mr. Trump's defense team respond to that?
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Well, Todd Blanche, who represents the former president, said that Donald Trump is innocent of all of this, he's not guilty of any crime.
He said Stormy Daniels' allegation was completely false.
He said Trump had nothing to do with those initial payments to her, nor did he have anything to do with the accounting of how the payments to Michael Cohen were being made.
He flat-out rejected the idea that there was anything unusual about Trump paying Michael Cohen, who was his lawyer at the time, called himself Trump's lawyer, was his lawyer, and that, of course, you pay your lawyer fees all the time.
He said there's nothing out of the ordinary there.
GEOFF BENNETT: And Michael Cohen, who you mentioned is expected to be the prosecution's star witness, given his centrality to this whole alleged scheme, the Trump team says that Michael Cohen cannot be trusted.
How are both sides really laying the foundation for his coming testimony?
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Geoff, this is going to be one of the central tensions of this case, is trying to impugn the reliability and trustworthiness of Michael Cohen.
As you said, he is a convicted felon.
He has been found guilty of perjury.
The prosecution tried to inoculate themselves in some way by this, by admitting all of that, and saying that everything that you hear Michael Cohen say on the witness stand, don't just take it as Michael Cohen's word, but they will promise that they will back it up with evidence, e-mails, texts, phone calls, recordings of Donald Trump himself that affirm all of the things that Michael Cohen has to say.
Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, in his opening statement today, said, not only is Michael Cohen a liar who you cannot trust, but he said that he is -- quote -- "obsessed" with Donald Trump and obsessed with seeing him in jail and seeing his family in jail.
He painted Michael Cohen as someone who's basically staked his entire career and financial future by selling books and doing these podcasts as someone who wants to see Trump sunken at all costs, and that you thus can't trust him, that it's all poison fruit, everything coming out of his mouth.
GEOFF BENNETT: So what other witnesses should we expect to hear about and hear from in the coming weeks?
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Well, we heard from one of them partly today.
That was David Pecker, who is the head of American Media, which was the publisher of The National Enquirer.
And Pecker's role in all of this is that he, for the prosecutors, helped set up this pattern, that David Pecker and Michael Cohen and allegedly Donald Trump were all part of this early scheme set up in 2015, before the campaign began, to make The National Enquirer sort of the eyes and ears for Donald Trump and that, if anyone came forward with stories that could be damaging to the candidate, they would buy those stories up and squash them.
So we will hear more from Pecker.
We're expected to hear from Stormy Daniels.
We're expected to hear from Michael Cohen, as we have been discussing.
We might also hear from Hope Hicks, who was a campaign aide at the time, and who apparently had some conversations about these payments.
The biggest unanswered question as far as who gets on the witness stand is Donald Trump himself.
He has said he wants to testify, but he has said this in previous cases and then, when given the choice, chooses not to.
Whether he does or not is still a big open question.
I mean, there's not a single legal analyst that I have spoken to who thinks that it's a good idea, thinking that would be an incredibly risky move for Trump himself to take the witness stand.
GEOFF BENNETT: William Brangham.
Thanks, as always, William.
We appreciate it.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thanks, Geoff.
GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: There have been more pro-Palestinian protests at some of the nation's most prominent universities.
At Yale University, police arrested at least 45 demonstrators today.
They were calling on the school to divest from companies involved in Israel's war in Gaza.
A pro-Palestinian encampment has gone up outside New York University's Stern School of Business, and Columbia University canceled in-person classes today as it tries to calm tensions.
Police arrested 100 protesters there last week.
Today, the NYPD said they hadn't found any credible threats, but said it would maintain a presence outside the campus.
MICHAEL GERBER, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters: We're always going to protect people's First Amendment rights, but to the extent you have criminal conduct that's going that's not protected by the First Amendment, we're going to take action and our officers are very clear about that.
GEOFF BENNETT: After the arrests at Columbia, pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up encampments at the University of Michigan, MIT, and the University of North Carolina, among others.
Harvard University has restricted access to its famous Harvard Yard to prevent any protests taking place there.
The growing unrest comes as the Jewish holiday of Passover starts tonight.
Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled new rules today to improve care at federally funded nursing homes.
The new standards mandate a minimum number of hours that staff members must spend with residents.
They also require a registered nurse to be on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
It's the first time the government has issued such requirements.
And it comes after the COVID-19 pandemic exposed understaffing and neglect at facilities that care for the elderly and disabled.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a Biden administration appeal in favor of regulating so-called ghost guns.
Those are kits that can be bought online to assemble untraceable firearms.
The justices will address a lower court's ruling that a regulation imposed back in 2022 on ghost guns was unlawful.
The case will be heard in the court's next term, which starts in the fall.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said today that President Biden promised his country air defense systems once the U.S. Senate signs off on $61 billion in aid.
The two leaders spoke by phone after the House passed the aid measure this weekend.
The Senate is due to vote later this week.
Mr. Zelenskyy also told Mr. Biden about an attack in Kharkiv that happened just minutes before their call.
A Russian missile strike broke a TV tower in half, leaving it in pieces and disrupting television signals in Ukraine's second largest city.
There were no casualties.
In Southern China, state media is reporting that at least four people are dead and 10 others missing after a weekend of continuous rain flooded parts of that region.
Across Guangdong Province, rescuers helped locals swim through neck-deep water to safety.
Others fled from low-lying villages where farmlands were completely washed out.
HUANG JINGRONG, Farmer (through translator): Everything is gone.
All the seedlings are gone.
Our fields over there all flooded.
We will eat some of the grain we have left.
Some of it was bought.
Nobody is paying attention to us this year.
The government hasn't come.
They did in previous years, but nobody came this year.
GEOFF BENNETT: Official media reports say that more than 100,000 people have been evacuated throughout the province.
The world has been marking Earth Day in support of environmental protection.
President Biden used the occasion to announce a $7 billion investment in residential solar projects.
He also vowed to expand the green jobs training program known as the American Climate Corps.
Speaking at a park in Northern Virginia today, the president stressed the urgency of addressing climate change.
JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: Over the last two years, natural disasters and extreme weather in America have caused $270 billion, $270 billion in damages.
The impacts we are seeing, decades in the making, because of inaction are only going to get worse, more frequent, ferocious and costly.
GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, Europe is warming up faster than any other continent on Earth.
A new report out today from the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization and the European Union's climate agency warns that temperatures there are rising nearly twice the global average.
On Wall Street today, stocks started the week higher across the board.
The Dow Jones industrials added 253 points to close at 38239.
The Nasdaq snapped a six-session losing streak, adding 169 points.
The S&P 500 also ended a losing run, tacking on 43.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": Chinese swimmers face allegations of doping at the last Olympics; Tamara Keith and Andrew Desiderio break down the latest political headlines; and a major modern art museum creates space for the work of artists with disabilities.
Israel's top military intelligence officer resigned today, blaming himself for missing the signals that Hamas was poised to attack Israel in the run-up to the October 7 attacks.
And just two days after the U.S. House approved a new large military aid package for Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken rejected claims that Washington has a double standard when applying U.S. law to allegations of abuses by the Israeli military in Gaza.
Ali Rogin has our reporting.
ALI ROGIN: Another day in Gaza is another day of mourning, a wife grieving over her husband's remains, a daughter left fatherless.
Osama's body was found in a mass grave in Khan Yunis, Gaza's second largest city, his family nearly inconsolable.
But, today, they find some measure of that solace in his burial in a freshly dug grave.
SOMAYA AL-SHOURBAGY, Khan Yunis, Gaza Strip, Resident (through translator): We found Osama's body, but we couldn't find the body of his brother, Mohammed.
You saw how the scene is.
There are piles of bodies, and some victims can't be found.
ALI ROGIN: Like Osama's family, many Palestinians have returned to Khan Yunis to search for their dead after Israeli forces withdrew from the city.
And for more than a week now, they have unearthed graves where their loved ones are believed to be buried.
So far, more than 200 bodies have been found in the courtyard of Nasser Hospital.
And according to the Palestinian Civil Emergency Service, around 2,000 people are still missing under the rubble.
But the pain for Palestinians stretches across the entire Gaza Strip.
In Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, over the weekend families mourned the death of loved ones after two Israeli strikes killed at least 22 people, mostly children.
Saqr Abdel Aal's home was hit, killing his entire family.
SAQR ABDEL AAL, Rafah, Gaza Strip, Resident (through translator): Did you see one man of all those killed?
All of them inside the house and here are women and children.
ALI ROGIN: But even in war, a miracle.
This doctor at Rafah's Emirati Hospital rushed to save a premature baby girl whose mother was six months pregnant when she was killed in the strike.
Rafah is home to some 1.4 million displaced thousands who fled fighting elsewhere.
And despite U.S. calls for restraint, for months, Israel has insisted a major ground offensive in Rafah is needed to destroy Hamas.
Another issue shaking the U.S.-Israel alliance today, a possible U.S. move to punish an Israeli military unit, the Ultra-Orthodox Netzah Yehuda Battalion, accused of human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank.
The U.S. can apply penalties under the 1997 Leahy law, which bans foreign military battalions accused of human rights violations from receiving U.S. aid or training.
But, today, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said there was no timeline yet.
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of State: These efforts are ongoing, and when we feel that we have made the -- that we have the facts, we have been to do the analysis, we will make known the findings.
SARAH ELAINE HARRISON, International Crisis Group: There's important symbolic significance, because the law has never been interpreted to restrict assistance to Israeli security forces.
ALI ROGIN: Sarah Elaine Harrison is a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group and an expert in U.S. foreign policy and national security.
SARAH ELAINE HARRISON: The impact, though, for people who are watching what's happening in Gaza and the -- and the violence in the West Bank will be minimal, because these units units can still function and these units still receive U.S. weapons if they're purchased by Israeli funds.
ALI ROGIN: Yesterday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized U.S. plans.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister (through translator): If anyone thinks they can impose sanctions on a unit of the IDF, I will fight it with all my strength.
ALI ROGIN: Meanwhile, turmoil has also reached inside the highest ranks of Israel's military.
Today, the country's top military intelligence chief, Major General Aharon Haliva, announced his resignation over the Hamas October 7 attacks in Southern Israel.
On that day, Hamas militants blasted through Israel's border defenses, rampaging through entire communities and killing an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 300 soldiers; 253 Israelis were kidnapped.
In a letter shared by the Israel Defense Forces, Haliva said -- quote -- "The Intelligence Directorate under my command did not fulfill its task.
I have carried that black day with me ever since, every day, every night.
I will forever bear the terrible pain of the war."
But even in the shadow of war, in Tel Aviv today, hostage families gathered to mark the beginning of Passover, the Festival of Freedom, as they pray for the freedom of the 133 captives remaining in Gaza.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Ali Rogin.
GEOFF BENNETT: The U.S. Supreme Court today heard arguments in the most significant case on homelessness in decades.
The case looks at challenges to laws in a small Oregon town for fining homeless people up to $300 for setting up camps in public parks.
The heart of the question is whether these laws classify as cruel and unusual punishment.
Our Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle, has been following it all and joins us now.
So, Marcia, the justices expressed some concern that these laws punish homeless people who have no other choice really but to sleep outside.
What was the basis of this case?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, Geoff, as you mentioned earlier, the lawsuit that was filed by the group of homeless citizens of Grants Pass claimed that the city's ordinances prohibiting camping in public spaces really punished them and violated the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause.
They said they were being punished because of their status as homeless.
And the Supreme Court has said in earlier opinions that you cannot punish someone on the basis of their status.
You can punish conduct, but not status.
GEOFF BENNETT: Our team spoke with Ed Johnson.
He's an attorney who first brought the suit against this city, Grants Pass, Oregon, as well as Theane Evangelis.
She's an attorney representing the city who argued before the court today.
ED JOHNSON, Attorney For the Respondents: These were people who had lived in Grants Pass sometimes for generations, certainly had lived there their whole lives and went to high school there.
And then, all of a sudden, there was no place for them to live.
This is not only not a solution to homelessness.
It will make matters worse.
They will have a criminal record, which makes it harder to convince an employer or a landlord to let you work there or live there.
THEANE EVANGELIS, Attorney for City of Grants Pass, Oregon: In Grants Pass, in a tent on the little league field, a dead body was found, believed to be an overdose.
This is a very real crisis.
And people are dying on our streets.
We think it's safer and better for people to avoid camping in public and that cities need to have the tools.
These laws help encourage people to accept available shelter.
GEOFF BENNETT: So, Marcia, walk us through these arguments and how the justices tackled them.
MARCIA COYLE: Well, the arguments really were dominated by this dividing line between status and conduct.
For example, the Supreme Court has said, you cannot punish someone for being a drug addict.
That's punishment on the basis of status.
But you can punish conduct, say, a drug addict's buying and selling or possession of drugs.
So the justices probed, where is the line here between status and conduct?
And so we had a lot of hypotheticals from the justices as they talked about, what exactly is homelessness?
What is the definition of it?
And how do these ordinance play out?
GEOFF BENNETT: And on that point, we heard Justices Kagan and Sotomayor focus on the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, and their concerns that this criminalizes homelessness.
Here's Justice Kagan.
ELENA KAGAN, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: Your ordinance prohibits a single person who is homeless, so does not have another place to sleep.
That's a status.
It's a single person with a blanket.
And you don't have to have a tent.
You don't have to have a camp.
It's a single person with a blanket.
THEANE EVANGELIS: Sleeping in public is considered conduct.
(CROSSTALK) ELENA KAGAN: Sleeping is a biological necessity.
It's sort of like breathing.
I mean, you could say breathing is conduct too.
But, presumably, you would not think that it's OK to criminalize breathing in public.
(CROSSTALK) ELENA KAGAN: And for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public.
Your statute says that person cannot take himself, and himself only, and can't take a blanket and sleep someplace without it being a crime.
GEOFF BENNETT: So what should we take away from that, Marcia?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, first of all, during the arguments, it was pretty clear that the court's three more liberal justices are more sympathetic to the homeless residents, citizens of Grants Pass, because they do feel that they are being punished on the basis of their status.
And I think Justice Kagan really explained that as clearly as she could, her position here.
And yet the city continues to claim that it's not punishing status.
It's punishing conduct.
The conduct is the camping in public spaces.
GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, the chief justice appeared to press the Biden administration, who had filed an amicus brief in support of the homeless parties in this case.
Here's what he had to say earlier.
JOHN ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: If there is a town next to Grants Pass, 10 minutes away, has just completed building a homeless shelter that has many vacant beds, does that change the analysis here, because you don't want to be taken 10 minutes away where there's a homeless shelter?
EDWIN KNEEDLER, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General: I think, if they're right across the town line, it would be appropriate to take into account that there's a homeless shelter there.
JOHN ROBERTS: So what if it's 30 miles away?
Is it -- is the shelter available in that case?
(CROSSTALK) EDWIN KNEEDLER: I think it depends on the accessibility.
The problem here... JOHN ROBERTS: How far does that go?
Let's say there are five cities all around Grants Pass and they all have homeless shelters, and yet the person wants to stay.
Can that person be given a citation?
GEOFF BENNETT: All right, so help us understand his concerns.
MARCIA COYLE: Well, he was trying to probe how far the supporters of the homeless citizens who filed the lawsuit are going to go before a city can actually take action, as Grants Pass has, in fining one of them or even giving them jail time.
So he kept extending his hypothetical from right across the border of the city, 30 miles away.
What if there's a whole group of cities nearby that have a shelter available and a homeless citizen does not want to leave Grants Pass?
And he was somewhat frustrated with the government's response, because the government's response is basically, it depends.
These people, these homeless residents of Grants Pass have lived there for many, many years, and there's a community of interests that they don't want to leave.
GEOFF BENNETT: And, finally, Marcia, where did it appear the justices are leaning in this case?
And what are the implications of their ruling?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, certainly, one thing they all agreed upon and said many times is that this is a very difficult policy issue.
So, my feeling right now is that they are divided, and they're going to go back and try to hash this out, maybe find common ground, maybe not.
But it does seem as though the conservative majority is leaning towards the city.
And the implications are huge, Geoff, because so many cities are dealing with this problem and what the Supreme Court has to say about what Grants Pass can do is going to affect how all the other cities try to address this problem.
GEOFF BENNETT: "NewsHour" Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle.
Marcia, thanks, as always.
We appreciate it.
MARCIA COYLE: Always a pleasure, Geoff.
GEOFF BENNETT: We are less than 100 days from the Opening Ceremony of the Summer Olympic Games in Paris, and a new doping scandal has erupted involving Olympic swimmers from China.
Nearly two dozen Chinese swimmers were cleared to compete despite testing positive for a banned drug prior to the Tokyo Games.
Jeffrey Brown has the story.
JEFFREY BROWN: Several of the swimmers who tested positive went on to win medals, including three gold medals.
Chinese authorities and the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, had found the drug TMZ, but cleared the swimmers and did not flag problems to Olympic or other officials.
In fact, none of this was widely known until The New York Times and a German TV broadcaster broke the story this weekend.
TMZ is the same drug that led to Russian Olympic figure skater Kamila Valieva's four-year ban after she was disqualified from the 2022 Beijing Olympics.
For now, Chinese officials and WADA stand by the results of their initial investigation, saying the use of the drug was not intentional.
But that has not satisfied many in the sports world, including the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.
Its CEO, Travis Tygart, joins me now.
And welcome to you.
Your contention is that this should have been raised well before those Olympics and gone through a more standard process?
TRAVIS TYGART, CEO, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency: It's not just my contention.
It's actually the rules require it.
And it's beyond question that China didn't follow the rules.
They effectively swept this under the carpet because they didn't find a violation.
They didn't announce a violation.
They didn't disqualify the athletes from the event at which they tested positive.
And this is absolutely mandatory under the world anti-doping code that all nations are required to follow.
And that didn't happen.
JEFFREY BROWN: Now, WADA says that it did go -- it did consult with some scientists.
It did conclude that this was unintentional.
It said that, of course, this was happening during the COVID lockdown.
That made some of the investigation, the traditional on-the-ground investigation, impossible.
TRAVIS TYGART: Yes, listen, it's just simply not believable to think, during the COVID lockdown, that two months after these athletes ate in a hotel, that two months later they continued to find or found -- and, remember, it was the Chinese security that found it and did this report that WADA just accepted -- that TMZ somehow still remained, right, in this hotel kitchen and somehow got into these athletes' systems.
I mean, I remember, and many of your viewers, I'm sure do too, those terrible times during COVID.
Many restaurants weren't open.
The ones that were doing a daily, if not hourly cleaning.
So to think that this drug that has no business being in a kitchen somehow lasted there for two months during this COVID time period is just incredible to believe.
But even if you did believe, right, Tinker Bell came and sprinkled some fairy dust and that's what caused these positive tests, under the rules, it is without question you still have to disqualify, you still have to find the violation, and you still have to announce the violation.
And this is the tragedy for athletes, because this could have been announced at the time, and we wouldn't necessarily be here.
But, unfortunately, they allowed China to not follow the rules and sweep this under the carpet.
And then WADA didn't do their job in ensuring that the rules were effectively forced.
And it took a whistle-blower and other people in The New York Times and this German documentary public station to come out and expose what we're now seeing.
And, of course, we're all horrified.
And you have to ask, well, why didn't they do the things that were required?
JEFFREY BROWN: We did note the different response to the Russian figure skater.
Why do you think this was treated differently by WADA?
TRAVIS TYGART: Listen, I think, on the eve of the Games -- and WADA in its press conference today acknowledged the Games were coming and that that obviously had a major influence on them.
The Valieva got out during the Games.
And I think, if you go back and look at, it was -- it was actually leaked out.
So, at that point, WADA had no choice.
They were forced, because the information was out in the world.
And, look, they did what they should have done under the rules with Valieva.
And they did that there, in stark contrast what has happened with these cases.
And that's something that is, frankly, just inexplicable.
JEFFREY BROWN: Tell us briefly about TMZ.
And how much difference can it make in a swim race?
TRAVIS TYGART: You know, it was a drug I think originally developed in Russia.
It's a prescription drug, so it doesn't show up in the environment or magically appear in kitchens.
It is controlled.
It's not even available here in the United States, but it is in some parts of the world, comes in pill form.
And, look, it's prohibited in the most serious category of doping products.
It's banned at all times, because it can help you in training, it can help you in recovery, it can help you in an event.
And it's why it's prohibited.
It's why a mandatory four-year sanction is what's put in place, like in the Valieva, the Russian figure skating case, unless you can demonstrate the source and that you were without fault it getting into your system, which hasn't been done to the level of satisfaction that needs to be done here.
But, again, even if he believed the story of contamination that the Chinese government put to WADA that they readily accepted for some unknown reason without doing a full investigation, and not much of one, actually, you still have to announce those cases.
And China didn't do that.
And they acknowledge that China didn't do that.
That's a cover-up of these cases by the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency, and WADA went along with it.
JEFFREY BROWN: So what do you think should happen now?
I mean, here we are less than 100 days before the start of the next Olympics.
What about the medals that were won by those swimmers?
What about what's coming?
How much can other athletes and all of the millions of people watching trust the results?
TRAVIS TYGART: Look, I think it's a collapse of the anti-doping system, and it has to be immediately repaired.
There has to be major reconstruction at the World Anti-Doping Agency to make sure something like this never happens again.
But, more importantly, for those athletes at the 2021 Games who competed against these swimmers that we now know had positive tests on the eve of those Games, we have to get to the bottom of what actually happened here and find some justice, so that those athletes have confidence.
And going into 2024, Paris, if some of these swimmers with these positive tests end up showing up, and many are still swimming at high levels and likely will be on the Chinese swim team, it's going to be a disaster.
So we can't allow that to happen.
So, immediately, we need to find a way to get justice and ensure that those who rightfully should have won and be recognized as the winners are rewarded for that and their hard work and sacrifice that they have put in.
It's just -- it's an injustice that we can't stand by and just allow to happen right now.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Travis Tygart, thank you very much.
TRAVIS TYGART: Thank you.
I really appreciate your time.
GEOFF BENNETT: Few things in Washington are ever easy.
That was certainly true for foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel.
After months of debate and political gamesmanship, a bipartisan majority in the House passed four bills worth $95 billion over the weekend.
The Senate is expected to vote this week.
But the turmoil has put Speaker Mike Johnson in the hot seat with some Republicans.
For the political stakes, we are joined tonight by Tamara Keith of NPR and Andrew Desiderio of Punchbowl News.
Amy Walter is away.
It's great to see you both.
So, after much delay in GOP infighting, the House passed the foreign aid bill on Saturday, lots of money for Israel, Taiwan, $61 billion for Ukraine.
Andrew, how did Speaker Johnson come to embrace aid for Ukraine and defy his right flank?
How did he get to yes?
ANDREW DESIDERIO, Punchbowl News: It's quite the 180 that he exhibited over the last year or so.
This was a guy who embedded himself with the Republican Study Committee, the Freedom Caucus throughout his entire tenure in the House of Representatives, voted consistently against every single Ukraine package that came up since the start of the war in 2022, yet is now putting his speakership on the line over this issue.
He's credited a couple of things with this sort of transform -- transformation -- excuse me -- if you will.
The first is the fact that he's receiving high-level intelligence briefings that he didn't receive as a rank-and-file member of the House of Representatives.
When you're the speaker, you're part of what's called the Gang of Eight, so you get basically the same intel briefings that the president gets, right?
And so that was sort of impressed upon him, the stakes of the war in Ukraine and what would happen if the United States does not send these weapons and this funding to Ukraine.
The second thing is, he talked personally about his own son about to start at the U.S.
Naval Academy.
And one of the arguments for aiding Ukraine is that we're not putting American boots on the ground, right?
And you heard Speaker Johnson say when he was giving his press conference on Saturday, I'd rather American bullets than American boys go to Ukraine.
And I think that was a very personal element for him of this as well.
And you just saw that play out over the weekend, to the point where, again, this is a guy who went from outright opposing Ukraine aid to basically being the one who could influence the tide of this war by deciding to bring this aid package to the floor and having it passed.
GEOFF BENNETT: And, Tam, how does the White House view all of this being split up into individual bills?
And is there anything that could threaten the expected passage in the Senate as early as tomorrow?
TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Right.
As long as this gets to the president's desk, the White House is quite happy to have this, what ultimately will be a package, because, in essence, this is what President Biden has been asking for, for a very long time.
There aren't poison pills in there.
There isn't -- he isn't being jammed.
This is what the president was asking for.
For months and months, we would ask the White House, what is your plan?
How are you going to get this through the House?
And their response, they were fairly restrained in their response, and they just repeated this refrain that if it got a vote, it would get bipartisan support.
It would pass with bipartisan support.
It was like a mantra.
And, ultimately, that's exactly what happened.
Not expecting -- I mean, there certainly could be some drama in the Senate, but ultimately expecting that this probably will get to the president's desk and will become law and everything that that involves.
GEOFF BENNETT: Yes.
And one thing that gets a lot less attention is the TikTok bill.
What's the deal with that, this bill that requires new ownership for TikTok over the course of the next year?
If not, it would be outright banned in the U.S. ANDREW DESIDERIO: Right.
The House of Representatives cobbled together this bill kind of at the last minute a couple months back, and it basically ignited this big lobbying effort by TikTok and by their allies as well.
Basically, what it does is, it gives TikTok one year to divest from ByteDance, which is the Chinese parent company that controls it.
And if they do not divest within a year, then the app itself would be banned in the United States.
And you had a very interesting cross-section of Democrats and Republicans both for and against this bill.
It cleared the House easily.
It got around 350 votes.
It never got a vote in the Senate, but Mike Johnson's decision to include this bill in the foreign aid package is what is ultimately going to get it signed into law by President Biden, who has said he supports this bill.
But, of course, there's that element of politics, where he's got a huge chunk of his base that lives on TikTok.
People make money on TikTok.
People have their -- sort of their livelihoods on TikTok.
And so the consequences, I think, are going to be talked about more once we get past the initial fervor of the foreign aid, which is obviously the highlight of this package.
GEOFF BENNETT: And, Tam, the Biden campaign, they court TikTok influencers.
I believe the campaign has a presence on TikTok.
TAMARA KEITH: Yes, the campaign announced with some fanfare that they were creating an account on TikTok and they are very actively courting young voters and TikTok voters and, as you say, working with influencers and others.
At the same time, though, the president has said that he will sign this legislation.
Interestingly, today, former President Donald Trump went out on TRUTH Social and essentially said, hey, young voters, do you have any idea what Joe Biden might sign, what -- this is happening?
Former President Trump had also himself as president signed a ban on TikTok in the U.S.
So it's a bit of a flip-flop, but Trump trying to find a wedge.
GEOFF BENNETT: And what does the weekend passage of this legislation in the House, Andrew, mean for Speaker Johnson's job?
Does this make the motion to vacate that Marjorie Taylor Greene, the congresswoman from Georgia, introduced,does this make this more of a threat?
ANDREW DESIDERIO: Let's just say at the outset the longer this hangs out there as an issue that's being talked about, the more Marjorie Taylor Greene benefits from it, not just from the attention, but also from the fund-raising as well.
So I think that is an important element of this as well.
But what you're going to have basically is, when and if she does go forward with this, leadership is going to do what's called a motion to table the motion to vacate, which means you're voting on whether to kill it or not.
That will put Democrats on the spot.
For Democrats to say, OK, this is not me voting for Mike Johnson or voting for Hakeem Jeffries, this is me voting to dispense with something that would ultimately force the ouster of Mike Johnson, right?
That can be viewed a bunch of different ways if you're Marjorie Taylor Greene, right?
If Democrats help the majority of Republicans kill that effort, then Marjorie Taylor Greene can essentially say Mike Johnson serves at the pleasure of the Democratic Party, right?
And that advances her whole argument, which is that Johnson has caved to Democrats on too many things.
And then, for Democrats, it's a question of, Hakeem Jeffries is not going to be the speaker of the House.
Do you really want to cause more chaos in the House of Representatives, have this weeks-long speaker fight that we had late last year, when Kevin McCarthy was ousted?
Some of -- for some of them, the answer might be yes, because of the political benefit that comes from it.
But you already have a number of Democrats who are on the record saying that they would vote for this motion to table the motion to vacate.
I know that's a lot of congressional jargon.
(LAUGHTER) ANDREW DESIDERIO: But it's basically you're voting on whether to kill it outright.
GEOFF BENNETT: Got it.
And, Tam, look, you can argue that the divisions within the House GOP Conference have never been this evident.
Listen to what Texas Congressman Tony Gonzales said on CNN yesterday.
REP. TONY GONZALES (R-TX): The House is a rough and rowdy place, but Mike Johnson is going to be just fine.
I served 20 years in the military.
It's my absolute honor to be in Congress, but I serve with some real scumbags.
Look, Matt Gaetz, he paid minors to have sex with them at drug parties.
Bob Good endorsed my opponent, a known neo-Nazi.
These people used to walk around with white hoods at night.
Now they're walking around with white hoods in the daytime.
GEOFF BENNETT: So, I mean, that frustration is out in the clear open.
TAMARA KEITH: That is a stunning series of statements to make, for a member of Congress to make.
The sort of chummy club of Congress is not a chummy, friendly place right now.
And it is actually an extremely toxic environment, which is why you have seen several, especially on the Republican side, members of Congress leave before their terms were up, and at pretty inconvenient times for the rest of the Republican Conference.
GEOFF BENNETT: And, Andrew, you mentioned Democrats potentially stepping in to save Speaker Johnson's job.
I wonder if you can contextualize what we heard from California Congressman Ro Khanna yesterday.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): I'm a progressive Democrat, and I think you would have a few progressive Democrats doing that.
And I disagree with Speaker Johnson on many issues and have been very critical of him, but he did the right thing here and he deserves to keep his job until the end of this term.
I don't think everything in politics needs to be transactional.
I think here you have Speaker Johnson, who not only put this up for a vote, but he also separated the bills, which I thought was courageous.
GEOFF BENNETT: So that could be a real possibility, Democrats stepping into the gap there.
ANDREW DESIDERIO: Yes, it could.
You already have a number of Democrats on the record saying that they would do this, and that would presumably make up for the number, the small number of Republicans who would vote for this motion to vacate effort.
But look, you heard him say it there.
Mike Johnson, in their view, did the right thing and he deserves to be rewarded for that, right?
You don't hear that often in politics, especially from a member of the opposite party.
One of the reasons why Democrats decided to band together with this effort to oust McCarthy was because, in their view, they couldn't trust him, and they didn't think he would do the right thing on Ukraine, on appropriations, on any issue, you name it, right?
They just saw Mike Johnson do what they believe is the right thing, and, as a result, this is going to likely be an effort that Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, blesses, even if he himself doesn't vote to kill the motion to vacate.
GEOFF BENNETT: Andrew Desiderio, Tamara Keith, great conversation.
We appreciate it.
Thanks.
TAMARA KEITH: Thank you.
ANDREW DESIDERIO: Thank you.
GEOFF BENNETT: It's a center for art by artists with disabilities, which has the larger art world paying major attention.
Jeffrey Brown recently visited the San Francisco Bay Area for our ongoing look at health and the arts, part of our Canvas series.
JEFFREY BROWN: A crowded exhibition at SFMOMA, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, known for showing works of leading contemporary artists, on display here, a large abstract painting by 43-year-old Joseph Alef.
JOSEPH ALEF, Artist: It's a big thing.
It's a big accomplishment in my life.
And to see a painting like this, and to imagine how incredible I did, and it's wow.
And it's just, I mean, amazing.
It's just wow.
JEFFREY BROWN: Also in the exhibition, Susan Janow.
You probably didn't expect that when you started 21 years ago.
SUSAN JANOW, Artist: Mm-hmm.
JEFFREY BROWN: No?
SUSAN JANOW: No.
(LAUGHTER) And here I am today doing exhibitions.
I can tell you, it was totally amazing.
JEFFREY BROWN: Janow and Alef are among some 140 self-taught artists who call Creative Growth Arts Center in Oakland California their creative home.
SUSAN JANOW: That's really awesome.
JEFFREY BROWN: The organization celebrating its 50th year offers an open, light-filled space, supplies and instructors like Amy Keefer... AMY KEEFER, Creative Growth Arts Center: So, are these different kinds of cars or just different colors?
JEFFREY BROWN: ... comradery and all-around support to people with developmental, mental and physical disabilities.
Executive director Tom di Maria: TOM DI MARIA, Executive Director, Creative Growth Art Center: The idea of being an artist is often a privileged act.
So I think, if we bring people into an artistic studio and say, you can be creative here, we will support you, you have materials, please tell us your story, please experiment, there's no right or wrong here, that's an incredible opportunity.
JEFFREY BROWN: And you're saying these are people who often have been told the opposite?
TOM DI MARIA: Yes.
These are people who have been told the opposite.
And I think it's as simple as flipping the switch from, I don't want to hear from you to, I do want to hear from you.
You can't contribute, you can be a major contributor.
You're outside of culture, you're a cultural leader.
And I think those are important ideas.
JEFFREY BROWN: Founded in 1974 by Elias Katz and Florence Ludins-Katz as part of a burgeoning disability rights movement, Creative Growth is one of three such organizations in the Bay Area alone, not a therapy or health center, but a working art studio for people making a variety of kinds of art, including, on this day, textiles for an upcoming annual fashion show.
Fifty-nine-year-old William Scott was using 3-D modeling software to help plan his next painting.
He has autism... WILLIAM SCOTT, Artist: Oh, I should read a little.
JEFFREY BROWN: ... and had prepared a statement for us.
WILLIAM SCOTT: I feel happiness because I am a peacemaker.
I feel very proud of my big mural in the museum SFMOMA.
JEFFREY BROWN: Scott paints versions of himself, family members and others and alternative worlds.
His 32-foot-long mural at the museum presents a reimagined San Francisco called Praise Frisco.
You're also looking at a different kind of city with no violence?
WILLIAM SCOTT: That's right.
JEFFREY BROWN: Uh-huh.
WILLIAM SCOTT: Yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: And how does the art let you do that?
WILLIAM SCOTT: Because the art makes the real world, and making the real world.
JEFFREY BROWN: The art makes the real world?
WILLIAM SCOTT: It does.
It makes the real world.
That's why it does that.
That's why I do that.
JEFFREY BROWN: The museum exhibition is titled Creative Growth: The House That Art Built, with 80 works by 11 artists, including intricately layered works on paper by Dwight Mackintosh and Dan Miller, brightly colored paintings by Alice Wong and Ron Veasey, ceramics by John Martin.
Susan Janow, who has an intellectual disability, works in a variety of media, including video.
In this one, she stares at the camera while posing questions in voice-over.
SUSAN JANOW: When I first started going to Creative Growth, I found art and started drawing, and I just -- that was my calling.
JEFFREY BROWN: Joseph Alef, who has autism, paints most days at Creative Growth.
Going to Creative Growth, that's been a very important part of your life.
JOSEPH ALEF: Yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: Why?
Tell me, what do you get from it?
JOSEPH ALEF: Just by going there and get my experience out and how I feel, and just imagine in how I feel in my heart and in my soul, and just paint.
JEFFREY BROWN: Most striking now, the embrace of these artists by the mainstream art world, where a number of them, including William Scott, are in important collections and leading museums like SFMOMA and earning money for their work.
The museum, in fact, recently purchased more than 100 works by Creative Growth artists, and this exhibition is the start of a three-year partnership.
Katy Siegel is SFMOMA's research director.
The hope for this first exhibition, she says: KATY SIEGEL, Research Director, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art: Just to blow people away, overwhelm them with the evidence that these artists are incredibly important.
That said, going forward, I'm really most excited in a way about showing that art throughout the whole museum, putting it in the context of the larger collection, and showing these artists just like all the other great artists making great artwork in our collection.
JEFFREY BROWN: So the idea for now has to be an exhibition dedicated to disabled artists, but eventually integrated?
KATY SIEGEL: Yes.
I think museums have done a lot of gatekeeping over the years around who's a professional artist, and so the idea of having self-trained artists, having artists with differing abilities, having artists from different backgrounds, and judging people not by their certifications, but by their artwork.
JEFFREY BROWN: Back at Creative Growth Arts Center, I asked executive director Tom di Maria about this.
Are you asking people to come see this as the work of disabled artists... TOM DI MARIA: Right.
JEFFREY BROWN: ... or are you asking them to come see the art?
TOM DI MARIA: Yes, so that's the critical question.
Is this a disabled art exhibition, or is it an exhibition by artists who have disabilities?
And we tend to lead with art, saying that, if the art is interesting, that's why it's in the museum.
But there is a very important lived experience of the artist's disability and the culture of disability that's within the work.
JEFFREY BROWN: That's the advocacy part.
TOM DI MARIA: That's the advocacy part.
And then, once that's happened, you can say, OK, the work is on the wall, and we're in the art world, and now we have something to say.
JEFFREY BROWN: The magnitude of the museum exhibition brought plenty of emotion, including tears, as well as the support people told us they feel among a community of friends.
It all culminated, as every Friday afternoon, with a dance party, one more celebration of a special week in making and showing art.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown in the San Francisco Bay Area.
GEOFF BENNETT: Kevin J. Patel is a climate activist from Los Angeles.
After experiencing health issues due to poor air quality in his city, he founded an organization aimed at giving young people from underserved communities a chance to be change-makers.
On this Earth Day, he gives his Brief But Spectacular take on giving climate activism a shot.
KEVIN J. PATEL, Climate Activist: When I was younger, my parents told me the story of them leaving India.
Both my parents had to come to America not only to seek better opportunities, but as climate migrants, because generations of my family are farmers.
In India, with extreme droughts and extreme weather, it was not livable for farmers.
Living in a community like South Central Los Angeles, you get to experience and see a lot of the injustices that occur in my community.
One potent example is the lack of access to fresh food, non-GMO, organic vegan, or even healthier produce within the grocery stores.
But what we have an abundance of is fast-food restaurants.
And I really wanted to do something about it, because my father taught me the ways in which to grow our own food.
And that really kind of sparked me teaching fellow peers about where their food comes from and speaking out against the issue of food injustice.
When I was 12 years old, I was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat that was tied to the air and smog pollution that ravaged South Central Los Angeles.
Understanding that air pollution and smog pollution not only impacted myself, but impacted my entire community, I was one of merely thousands and millions of people who were affected because they live in a certain area.
OneUpAction started in 2019.
I didn't see people who looked like me.
So OneUpAction was really kind of founded in the light of putting marginalized voices at the forefront of not only decision-making tables, but also making sure that their voices, their ideas, their solutions are heard.
When people tell me that climate change is inevitable, I always tell them that that's not true.
We can still do something about this crisis.
I'm very optimistic in the young people who are leading this fight.
Everything makes a difference of making sure that we're working together to solve shared issues that are impacting all of us.
The possibilities are endless when we do something.
My name is Kevin J. Patel, and this is my Brief But Spectacular take on giving climate activism a shot.
GEOFF BENNETT: And you can join us here again tomorrow night, when we will look at the growing number of protests over Israel's war in Gaza across college campuses.
And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Geoff Bennett.
For all of us here at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you for joining us and have a good evening.