PBS NewsHour full episode September 11, 2019

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: paying for the
pain. A tentative deal is struck to settle massive
lawsuits with one of the biggest manufacturers of opioids. Then: closed polls, open future. After a closely watched election in North
Carolina breaks for the Republican, questions abound over what it means for the 2020 presidential
race. And spy games — new revelations that the
U.S. extracted a high-level source inside the Russian government. What did he know about the Kremlin’s plot
to influence the 2016 election? Plus: art, the Internet, and authenticity
— artists grapple with the impact of digital technology on creation and collection. JOHN WATKINSON, Co-Creator, CryptoPunks: It’s
a little different than having a painting on your wall. But I think it’s clearly something that’s
coming, because the younger generations are totally comfortable with digital ownership,
and digital things feel real to them. So it feels like it’s something that will
naturally become more prominent. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: This has been a day of remembrance,
18 years since the September 11 attacks left nearly 3,000 people dead. In New York City, crowds surrounded the memorial
pools where the World Trade Center towers once stood. In Washington, a huge American flag hung at
the Pentagon during ceremonies including President Trump. Defense Secretary Mark Esper noted that many
Americans have no memory of the attacks. MARK ESPER, U.S. Defense Secretary: On this
18th anniversary of 9/11, service members who were not even born on that day now stand
among our ranks. As each year passes, and the details of that
tragic day fade, we must ensure the memories of the departed do not. JUDY WOODRUFF: Vice President Pence joined
ceremonies outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where one of the hijacked planes crashed. Bells rang to commemorate the passengers who
fought the al-Qaida hijackers. President Trump today defended his decision
to fire National Security Adviser John Bolton. He cited their differences over North Korea
and Venezuela, among other issues. The president spoke during a meeting in the
Oval Office, and said Bolton had made some big mistakes. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
He wanted to do things, not necessarily tougher than me. John’s known as a tough guy. He’s so tough, he got us into Iraq. That’s tough. And — but he’s somebody that I actually had
a very good relationship with, but he wasn’t getting along with people in the administration
that I consider very important. JUDY WOODRUFF: The president of Iran, Hassan
Rouhani, welcomed the ouster of Bolton, who has advocated a hard line against Tehran. Rouhani called for Americans to — quote — “abandon
warmongering.” A court in Scotland has joined the battle
over Brexit. It ruled today that British Prime Minister
Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament this week. The court found that he was trying to clear
the way to leave the European Union, with or without a formal deal. The British Supreme Court will have the final
say at a hearing next week. Palestinians today condemned any Israeli move
to annex the Jordan Valley. The region is seen as the heart of a future
Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
pledged Tuesday to annex it if he wins reelection next week. The Palestinian Liberation Organization warned
it would be a fatal mistake. SAEB EREKAT, Palestinian Liberation Organization:
Annexing the Jordan Valley in any way or form means one thing. It the burying of any prospects of peace between
Palestinians and Israelis. Why such an administration and such a prime
minister is willing to invest everything they have in order for our children and Israeli
children to continue in conflict for another 100 years? Why? JUDY WOODRUFF: Other Arab leaders also criticized
Netanyahu’s announcement. Back in this country, President Trump said
his administration will propose a ban on all e-cigarette flavors, except the flavor of
tobacco itself. It’s aimed at curbing underage vaping. The Food and Drug Administration has had the
authority to ban vaping flavors since 2016, but had resisted taking that step. A federal jury in Florida has convicted a
Chinese woman of illegally entering the president’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Yujing Zhang was arrested for trespassing
and lying to Secret Service agents. She carried electronic gear, but wasn’t charged
with espionage. Zhang could get six years in prison. California lawmakers gave final approval today
to protections for workers at ride-sharing and on-demand delivery services. Uber, Lyft and others that rely on contractors
strongly opposed the measure. Their workers will have to be treated more
like employees when it comes to wages and benefits. General Motors is recalling nearly 3.8 million
pickup trucks and SUVs in the U.S. and Canada after reports of faulty brakes. The company says there have been 113 crashes
and 13 injuries. The affected vehicles range from model years
2014 through 2018. On Wall Street, stocks rallied after China
exempted some U.S. products from tariffs. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 227
points to close at 27137. The Nasdaq rose 85 points, and the S&P 500
added 21. Oil tycoon and philanthropist T. Boone Pickens
died today at his home in Dallas. He made a name in the oil business, and then
led bids to take over larger companies. Later, he pushed renewable energy and donated
millions from his fortune. T. Boone Pickens was 91 years old. And there’s hopeful news in the campaign to
save a species. Scientists in Italy have created embryos of
the nearly extinct northern white rhinoceros. They inseminated eggs from the last two females
using frozen sperm collected from the last males before they died. The embryos will be carried by a surrogate
mother from another rhino species. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: decades of
death and billions of dollars — an opioid manufacturer pays for the epidemic; what can
the special election in North Carolina tell us about the race for the White House?; another
challenger appears, Mark Sanford on why he’s contesting President Trump for the Republican
nomination; the hurricane is over, but the damage remains — the difficult path for recovery
in the Bahamas, and much more. The opioid crisis has left a huge toll and
permanent scar across America and the lives of many families and individuals. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated
that as many as 400,000 people died in the U.S. since the late ’90s from prescription
and illegal opioids. Now the first comprehensive settlement against
a key manufacturer appears to have been reached. More than 20 states and more than 2,000 cities
and counties have reportedly reached a deal with Purdue Pharma. That’s the manufacturer of OxyContin. The case against the company was expected
to go to court next month. Now, as Amna Nawaz reports, there are some
asking whether this settlement is enough. AMNA NAWAZ: Judy, to be clear, the deal is
not yet finalized. But plaintiffs’ lawyers and Purdue Pharma
have confirmed they are working on a settlement. Now, the settlement would reportedly include
a payout of up to $12 billion to states, cities and counties over a number of years, $3 billion
from the Sackler family directly, which owns Purdue Pharma. The Sacklers would also give up control of
Purdue Pharma. There would be a major change for the company
as well. Purdue Pharma would declare bankruptcy. It would then be converted into a public trust
focused on combating the opioid epidemic. Several attorneys general said this was a
settlement in the best interest of their communities. But others are against it, including William
Tong, the Connecticut attorney general. Purdue Pharma’s headquarters are in his state. And he joins us live now. Attorney General Tong, thank you for being
with us tonight. Let’s just begin with the big question. Why are you opposed to this tentative settlement? WILLIAM TONG, Connecticut Attorney General:
Well, thank you for having me here tonight, Amna. I’m opposed because the scale and the depth
of the destruction, the pain, the death that has been caused by Purdue and the Sacklers
far exceeds this purported deal and proposed deal. And let’s just be clear. No one, to my knowledge, has offered $12 billion
guaranteed in cash, or $10 billion, for that matter. The basis of this is a $3 billion guarantee
from the Sacklers. And beyond that, we don’t know anymore. And that just doesn’t cut it. The Sacklers have a real opportunity here
and Purdue has an opportunity to make this right and to begin to meet their obligation
to fund vital investments in addiction science, treatment, and prevention, because they started
this fire, and they poured gasoline on it. And instead of trying to help put it out in
all of the states, they’re choosing to watch it burn. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, let’s start with the Sackler
family there. You mentioned that there is a $3 billion offer
from them as part of this tentative deal. How much more would you like to see from them? WILLIAM TONG: I would like to see them meet
their obligation to fund treatment and prevention and to really start to tackle this problem. This is, frankly, just a down payment. And there’s so much more to be done. And we have been very clear about our principles. And I think that our beliefs are shared by
a number of states that Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers have to get out of the opioid
business completely, that Purdue Pharma has to get shut down, that it can’t continue as
a going for-profit company. (CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: Well, sir, let me just point out
that — let me just point out, as part of the reporting so far, the Sackler family would
give up control of the Purdue Pharma, and Purdue Pharma would go into bankruptcy. So, you said you want the Sackler family to
meet their obligation. What is the number that you are looking for? When you’re in talks with them, and negotiations
are ongoing, how would they meet that obligation, in your mind? (CROSSTALK) WILLIAM TONG: I don’t think that’s clear that
— under the terms of what has been reported on. And I’m not going to comment on specific negotiations. But it’s clear to me that there has not been
an agreement to shut down Purdue Pharma and for Purdue management and the Sacklers to
get out of the opioid business completely in the U.S. and abroad, never to return. I don’t think that that’s been offered, and
I don’t think that’s been agreed upon. With respect to the dollars, it’s just clear
to me that what’s been offered isn’t sufficient. And the scale of what is the largest public
health crisis, at least in my lifetime, isn’t met by $3 billion or something approximating
that. And, certainly, there’s been no offer of something
like $10 billion or $12 billion that’s been reported by the press. Any suggestion that there’s an offer of that
size in guaranteed, committed dollars to treatment and prevention is inaccurate. AMNA NAWAZ: There are several people who will
say, look, $3 billion is a starting point. You’re not being specific with how much money
you would like to see. But those same victims and families that you
say need your help, $3 billion would begin to help. And this wouldn’t end the path for accountability. There are still several other litigation paths
ahead. What do you say to that? WILLIAM TONG: It would — it would begin to
help, but it doesn’t do enough. And the fact is, Purdue Pharma pled guilty
to federal criminal charges in 2007, and, after that, Purdue Pharma enabled the Sackler
family to siphon off billions upon billions of dollars, well north of $3 billion, out
of the company to line their own pockets. And they prioritized profits and protecting
their own wealth over confronting a crisis that they led the way on and helped to create
in this country that cost, by the way, more than 1,000 lives in Connecticut just last
year, and even more this year, and billions and billions in damages, not just across the
country, but in Connecticut alone. AMNA NAWAZ: Attorney General Tong, I should
ask you as well, though, even if this doesn’t move ahead, there are several other players
in this field. And I apologize. We have less than a minute left. But there is another trial, a federal trial
in October, including a number of other opioid manufacturers and distributors and pharmacies. In other words, this is not the only player. So why not move with what you can now to get
the money that could be available now, and then pursue other paths against other players? WILLIAM TONG: Because in our view, based on
what we know of the billions of dollars that the Sacklers took out of the company, because
of the tremendous damage that they have done, and the scope and the scale of the death and
destruction and the pain that came at their hands, what’s been offered so far doesn’t
even begin to meet what they owe the people of Connecticut and the people of this country. And the damage that they have caused far exceeds
any offer that I have seen. AMNA NAWAZ: That is Connecticut Attorney General
William Tong joining us tonight. Thank you very much. WILLIAM TONG: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: Nearly a year after the midterm
elections and a result that was thrown out because of evidence of Republican fraud, North
Carolina’s Ninth District finally has a congressman-elect. Republican Dan Bishop won yesterday’s special
election by less than two points and fewer than 4,000 votes in a district President Trump
won by nearly 12 points in 2016. The campaign was seen by both parties as potentially
a first signal about voters’ thoughts ahead of the 2020 presidential race and the Republican
Party’s strength with suburban voters. Steve Harrison is a political reporter for
public radio station WFAE in Charlotte, and he has been tracking the race. Steve Harrison, thank you very much for joining
us on the “NewsHour.” What has been reactions across the state to
Dan Bishop’s win? STEVE HARRISON, WFAE Radio: So, I think that
people were a little surprised, not so much that Dan Bishop won, but that he won by 2
percentage points. Now, that doesn’t sound like a lot, but in
the previous race last fall, the Republican candidate was ahead by 905 votes. So, this was a little bit bigger margin. I think one of the early reads on it on for
Republicans is that President Trump came on Monday night and held a rally for Bishop in
Fayetteville, which is at the far eastern end of the district, and, apparently, that
worked. Cumberland County is the home of Fayetteville. Dan McCready, the Democrat, won that last
fall. And this time, Dan Bishop took Cumberland
County. So, you know, this was a win for the president. He had — as he was leaving to come down to
North Carolina, he was kind of downplaying his involvement in the race. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. STEVE HARRISON: But then, you know, after
Dan Bishop won, he started taking a lot of credit for the win. JUDY WOODRUFF: And which he has done. This is an interesting district. It sprawls all the way from Charlotte toward
the western end of the state, all the way to Fayetteville in the east. It’s urban, it’s suburban, it’s rural. What do you see in the results about who voted
for whom that tells you why Bishop won and why, frankly, McCready came so close? STEVE HARRISON: So, the district is a gerrymandered
district. The Republicans drew it to be a safe seat. And, really, the heart of the district is
a part of Charlotte that is very wealthy, white, college-educated, and has voted for
Republicans in big margins for decades. That part of Charlotte, combined with Union
County, a suburban county, has about 60 percent of the vote. It’s designed to really carry the district
for Republicans. But what’s happened is that that part of Charlotte
has really flipped. Dan McCready won it last fall. He expanded on that margin this time. And that part of Charlotte is going more blue. But, at the same time, Dan Bishop was able
to make inroads in the more rural parts of the district, working-class voters. It was a little bit of a replay of 2016. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying and you’re
pointing out and reminding us that McCready, the Democrat, did better than he did last
fall. What are Republicans taking away from this? Are they telling you, are you sensing there’s
more nervousness about how — what President Trump can expect in North Carolina next year? STEVE HARRISON: So, I spoke with Bishop’s
campaign strategist today, and his view was, look, we may be losing college-educated voters
in Charlotte, but he said, if we can make that up by getting working-class voters in
rural counties, that’s OK. That’s still a winning coalition. He felt like they were in good shape for statewide
races and going into 2020. On the Democratic side, like you said earlier,
President Trump won this district by 12 percentage points. For the Democrat to get within two points
is a pretty big shift. And if the Democrats can perform like that
again in 2020, they have a really good chance of winning North Carolina. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, at this point, just very
quickly on this, Steve Harrison, any sense of which party is better organized going into
the presidential election? STEVE HARRISON: I think that North Carolina
will again be a highly contested swing state. Of course, the Republican National Convention
will be in Charlotte next year. That’s going to bring a lot of attention here. But I think that both sides, as they have
for the last two elections, are going to be spending millions of dollars and lots of time
in North Carolina. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, I want to ask
you about what happened in your state capital, Raleigh, today. In a surprise move, the Republicans called
a vote which, in essence, overturned the Democratic governor’s veto of a budget. I think this is a reminder — we think the
country is dividing from looking at politics in Washington. It’s a reminder it’s very divided at the state
level. STEVE HARRISON: Right. What happened in Raleigh today kind of takes
— takes it to a whole other level. What happened was, the Democratic governor
of North Carolina had vetoed the Republican budget. The legislature doesn’t have enough votes
to override the budget. The Democrats have been — it’s been two months
now with this impasse over what’s going to happen with the budget. The Democrats this morning were under the
impression there would be no vote on the budget. They say that the Republican relationship
had told them that. The Republicans say no such thing. And this morning, they had a quorum, and with
hardly any Democrats in the chamber, they passed an override. And Democrats were livid. JUDY WOODRUFF: Sounds like not a lot of love
lost at this point, but, again, a reminder of just how deep the partisan divide, even
at the state and local level. Thank you very much, Steve Harrison, with
WFAE. We appreciate it. STEVE HARRISON: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: To many, Donald Trump is reshaping
the Republican Party, but there are some Republicans who disagree with his leadership and policies
enough to try to challenge him for the presidency. Mark Sanford is one. The former South Carolina congressman and
governor announced this week he’s running for the Republican nomination for president,
making him the third in his party to do so. And he joins me now. Mark Sanford, welcome to the “NewsHour.” So, why challenge a president who is polling
at 87 percent favorability in his own party? MARK SANFORD (R), Presidential Candidate:
Because I think we need to have a conversation about what it means to be a Republican these
days. I think that certain tenets of what the Republican
Party traditionally stood for have been lost of late. And I think that, at a grassroots level, there
are a lot of people out there that I think still believe in those things. Take, for instance, this issue of spending
and debt and deficits. They have gone out of control in Washington. The president said: If I get elected, I will
completely eliminate that debt over the eight years that I might be in office. In fact, the numbers have gone in the opposite
direction. I think it’s worth a conversation. JUDY WOODRUFF: And I want to ask you about
that. I mean, you’re making that a centerpiece. At least, that’s what you’re talking about
this week. But just how far are you prepared to go? Are you prepared to talk about cuts in Social
— the entitlement programs, so-called, Social Security, Medicare, even tax increases? How far are you prepared to go? MARK SANFORD: To go all the way in simply
telling the truth. I think that, you know, people would acknowledge
that we’re on an unsustainable path. I think there’s a disconnect between the way
in which people gather around the family kitchen and the watercooler and the business table,
and very carefully and meticulously going through their budgets at the business or individual
level. And they see the numbers and they say, you
know, they don’t add up. And if nobody else is worried about it, I
guess I’m not worried about it either. And so we have been lulled into this sense
of, it will go away on its own, when, in fact, that’s not case. Erskine Bowles, was one of the co-chairs of
the Bowles-Simpson report, said this at the end of it. He said, we’re walking away from the most
predictable financial crisis in the history of man. And I think we’re now at that the tipping
point, if you look at the way we’re projected to run deficits over the next 10 years, if
you look at where we are on debt, if you look at the spending that accompanies both, we
are at a tipping point. And so either we go out and confront truth
and, indeed, deal with entitlements and other, or we pretend it is going to go away, which
it never does, and as a consequence the financial markets will bring us back to reality, and
it will be bruising for every one of us. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you think you can get people
to care about this, to vote for this, when there’s no evidence right now that there’s
any kind of consensus, even among Republicans, who used to be — it used to the party of
getting spending down. MARK SANFORD: Yes, it was, again, a cornerstone,
as were many other things. The Republican Party is not exactly the Republican
Party that I invested a lot of years of my life into. But it is what it is, which makes it that
much more important to say, is this really the direction that we want to go? I mean, take, for instance, just the congressional
district that I used to represent here… (CROSSTALK) MARK SANFORD: … of South Carolina. JUDY WOODRUFF: And I… MARK SANFORD: I’m sorry. You were about to say something? JUDY WOODRUFF: No, go ahead. I just want to say, I have got a couple of
other issues I want to ask you about. MARK SANFORD: OK. OK. But take that district. It went Democratic for the first time in 50
years, in large part simply because of the president’s tone. Working women, suburban women, young millennials
turned out in droves. And, as a consequence, the district went a
different direction. I think it’s time to have a real conversation
about where we’re going as a party. JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to ask you very quickly
about a few other issues. One is climate change. Are you with the president in his skepticism
about it? MARK SANFORD: I’m not. I believe in science. It is inconceivable to me that you could say,
I believe in the miracles of modern medicine and what science can do in healing the human
body, but I don’t believe in science outside of the body as it relates the larger, you
know, ecosystem that we live in as human beings. JUDY WOODRUFF: Immigration, the president’s
been very tough on this issue. He wants a border wall. You have said you agree with that. What about the policy of family separation,
tighter asylum rules, laws? Where are you on that? MARK SANFORD: I agree with much of that. I mean, I think that, inasmuch as asylum is
abused, and not for true asylum, we have a problem, and it ought to be tightened up. I don’t agree with the idea of separating
families, simply because, you know, you can be tough on immigration, but also believe
in the sanctity of the family unit. JUDY WOODRUFF: Foreign policy. Would you talk to the leader of North Korea? MARK SANFORD: You know, I don’t think so. I mean, I think he’s proven himself an awfully
bad actor on the world stage. I was in Congress at the time that, you know,
the Clinton administration, in essence, struck a deal with North Korea, and the net-net of
that deal was, you know, we sent a lot of money their way, and we got nothing in result. I don’t see this movie ending up much differently. I think it falls more carefully on the lines
of trust, but verify, what Reagan talked about. And they need to do some things that show
verification before we step out in trusting them and meeting with them. JUDY WOODRUFF: And do you agree with President
Trump’s policy on trade toward China, the tariffs? MARK SANFORD: I think that, you know, as late
as this last Friday, The Wall Street Journal had an article talking about how there had
been a full percentage point drop in our growth in this country as a result of trade uncertainty. I think the way that he has approached it
has been mistaken. I think it is hurting the American consumer. You look at about $1,000 of cost per household
that’s calculated now in what’s coming our way, and it’s going to get worse. And if we don’t watch out, we’re going to
go the direction of Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, where world trade declined by two-thirds. You start a trade war, you don’t know exactly
where it ends. I think we’re, again, not approaching this
in the right direction. JUDY WOODRUFF: How would your White House,
if you’re elected, be run differently from this White House under President Trump? MARK SANFORD: I was a chief executive of a
state for eight years of my life. And what I saw in that experience is, it’s
incredibly important that there be predictability from the executive branch. It allows forces for you and against you to
line up, and there is at least a battle line drawn, where you can have a real debate on
where you want to go next as a state, where you want to go next as a country. What we have more of is sort of chaos theory. One day, it’s here, the next day, it’s here,
the next day, it’s here. And, as a consequence, what happens is exactly
what we’re seeing in trade, wherein business investment has been frozen up because people
don’t know what comes next. You’re not going to invest in that kind of
environment. And the same is true of political decisions. They’re not made because nobody knows exactly
what’s going to happen next. Am I really going to take a stand as a Republican? Well, he may or may not have my back. It’s important there be predictability out
of the White House. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, the president
has made some very cutting personal comments about you, Mark Sanford. He’s referred to your leaving the office,
how you left the office of governor, and a number of other things. The chairman of… MARK SANFORD: Well, no, let’s be clear. I didn’t… JUDY WOODRUFF: Go ahead. Yes. MARK SANFORD: Go ahead. I’m sorry. JUDY WOODRUFF: No. MARK SANFORD: No, go ahead. Yes, ma’am. JUDY WOODRUFF: I was just going to say, the
chairman of the Republican Party in South Carolina has called your candidacy a vanity
project. You’re not getting a lot of support in your
home state. They have canceled the Republican primary
in your home state of South Carolina. How do you — I mean, when your home folks
are not behind you, how do you have a candidacy? MARK SANFORD: There’s a big difference between
political folks and home folks. And I have had the honor of getting to know
all kinds of folks from across South Carolina over my long number of years, both in Congress
and the governorship. And there is a decided difference between
the political body and regular people in our state. I think what this should tell us is, wait
a minute. Somebody in the Trump Organization is looking
at the numbers and saying, my support is a mile wide, but an inch deep, because if you
have a chance to pick up supposedly a 90 percent win in the first-in-the-South primary, you
take it, because it signals other things in primaries that will follow. Instead, they canceled that primary in South
Carolina, which is, again, beyond perplexing. And so I would simply say, I think it begs
much more of the question, why are they doing this, and begs that much more of the question
of the need for a debate in the Republican Party on where we go next. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Sanford, a candidate for
the Republican nomination for president, thank you. MARK SANFORD: Yes, ma’am. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: the art world
contends with questions of authenticity as it embraces a digital future; and new twists
in the case of the CIA’s high-level spy in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Now let’s get an update on the situation in
the Bahamas and the very difficult relief efforts. Stephanie Sy is our new national correspondent
at the “NewsHour.” She will be based in Phoenix. But she joins us here at the desk here tonight
with the story. Welcome, Stephanie. We’re so glad to have you. STEPHANIE SY: Thank you so much, Judy. It’s great to be part of your team. Unfortunately, the scope of Hurricane Dorian’s
destruction in the Bahamas is still coming into focus. The island of Abaco is virtually uninhabitable. And there’s major destruction near Freeport
and the surrounding area on Grand Bahama. Government officials say 2,500 people are
listed as missing. Some of them could be in shelters or still
on the islands. Earlier this evening, I spoke with Christy
Delafield of the relief group Mercy Corps. She joined us via Skype from the eastern part
of the Grand Bahama. And I began by asking what it looks like there. CHRISTY DELAFIELD, Mercy Corps: The destruction
on Abaco really was complete. The homes were flattened. It’s not quite like that here in Freeport. The buildings were built a little bit better. They fared a little bit better. But people still don’t have running water. A lot of windows are blown out. The wind did a tremendous amount of damage
on roofs. And the floodwaters were devastating. Floodwaters of up to maybe eight feet just
destroyed people’s homes and people’s vehicles with salty, contaminated water. STEPHANIE SY: We know that those floodwaters
were dangerous as well. And the government is now saying that there
are 2,500 people that are still unaccounted for. Is that surprising to you to hear that number? CHRISTY DELAFIELD: Sadly, no. This is something that we were hearing from
people all along in the past week, people saying that they had loved ones that they
hadn’t heard from or that they didn’t really know where — where people had fled to or
how they had fared. So this is — this is devastating. And we need to learn more information, and
the search-and-rescue needs to continue. STEPHANIE SY: And that doesn’t necessarily
mean the death toll will go that high. CHRISTY DELAFIELD: No, it’s a thing that just
we need to get through the confirmation process. And that’s, you know, managed through the
government, and they are going to work to understand the full picture. And it just takes time. STEPHANIE SY: Let’s talk about the response
for groups like Mercy Corps in week two vs. how you responded in the days right after
the hurricane. What are you focused on now? CHRISTY DELAFIELD: Today, the focus is really
on connecting with those organizations locally that understand whose needs haven’t been met. We’re still really trying to bring in urgently
needed supplies, clean water, food, tarps, rope, all those things that needs to be brought
in, in great volume. But, at the same time, we understand that
there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach. Different people lost different things and
need different things. And this is a part of a response where you
start to see maybe pockets of people that are more difficult to get to that aren’t getting
help that they need. I think that one of the other things that
you might not expect that’s really been useful in this situation is, Mercy Corps is bringing
in solar lanterns, so people have a little bit more light, the electricity grid being
knocked out. But they also have a little USB charger, so
people can charge their phones. As the cellular service is coming back, that’s
a really important way to communicate out with different communities, help people reach
their loved ones and access emergency services. STEPHANIE SY: It’s September, and school should
be starting for kids there this month. Will they be able to go to school anytime
soon? CHRISTY DELAFIELD: School was supposed to
start on Monday. We’re seeing a lot of people, a lot of kids
who just before the storm were buying school uniforms, were buying new clothes. They had paid school fees, which is how that
operate here in the Bahamas. And it’s a real disappointment for a lot of
families who aren’t going to be able to send their kids back to school. We’re also hearing that it might be as much
as two months before the electricity gets back up and running. Of course, local officials are working really
quickly and as fast as they can to get that to happen for schools and other really essential
resources. But it may be some time. STEPHANIE SY: When it comes to the Bahamian
economy, what are the longer-term ramifications that are becoming evident now? CHRISTY DELAFIELD: So, this is an economy
that is really driven by tourism. As a lot of people who have visited the Bahamas
know, it’s a beautiful destination. It’s an archipelago made up of hundreds of
islands. These two islands being devastated aren’t
in a position to welcome tourists, but the Bahamian government is really concerned that
they’re seeing fewer visitors and just depression over all of the tourist economy, which could
have broader ramifications moving forward. And there are a lot of people that are wondering
if they’re going to have jobs in the next year or two years. STEPHANIE SY: A tough road ahead, for sure. Christy Delafield of Mercy Corps, thank you
so much for your insights there in Grand Bahama. CHRISTY DELAFIELD: Thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: how some in the art world
are using technology to help guarantee the authenticity of their work and help ensure
artists get paid. It’s a story that’s a mix of art and technology. Miles O’Brien has the story for our latest
segment on the Leading Edge of technology and part of our ongoing Breakthroughs series. MILES O’BRIEN: In the capricious world of
fine art, there is little that is fair and equitable for the artists themselves. If you are at the top, your work can fetch
astronomical prices. This David Hockney painting sold for $90 million
in 2018. But Hockney’s cut? Zero. And, of course, for the vast majority of artists,
zero is an all-too-familiar number. They don’t call them starving for nothing. But technology may be changing the landscape,
with some bold brushstrokes. JACKIE O’NEILL, Blockchain Art Collective:
I am a big proponent of what I call, the new art economy. MILES O’BRIEN: Artist and entrepreneur Jackie
O’Neill is doing her part to create that new economy. She started a company called the Blockchain
Art Collective. She believes helping artists monetize their
work begins with a better system for identifying what is real and what is fake. For 10 dollars, she sells artists a little
gadget you might have implanted in your dog to keep him or her from being lost, a radio
frequency I.D. chip. JACKIE O’NEILL: So, if you try to remove it,
it will fall apart into a bunch of little pieces, and then the microchip pieces will
void once you get to the point of actually removing that. MILES O’BRIEN: A smartphone app can scan the
RFID, which stores information about the piece, the artist, title, date, medium, area, region,
and origin. And it has a unique identification number. It’s a way to prove it is authentic. JACKIE O’NEILL: Authenticity basically says
that this rare, precious, unique object is what people claim it is, and it’s hard to
prove that often. So, when people are going and trying to prove
authenticity or provenance, they usually go to the expert. Experts usually are art historians. MILES O’BRIEN: Anyone who watches the “Antiques
Roadshow” knows how that works, authenticity, scarcity and value determined by seasoned
experts, sometimes leading to thrilling moments. WOMAN: I would suggest an estimate of $200,000
to $300,000. WOMAN: That’s so much. MILES O’BRIEN: But as the name of Jackie O’Neill’s
startup suggests, much of the work of the middlemen is supplanted by storing all that
history, or provenance, with blockchain technology. Blockchain enables cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin
and Ethereum, but it has many more applications. After all, it’s all about verification and
trust. Instead of relying on an accountant, appraiser
or an auction house to keep an accurate database of an art’s provenance, blockchain allows
the whole world to watch. The chain of these records is copied on thousands
of computers, making it virtually impossible for anyone to cook the books or, in this case,
forge a piece of art. JACKIE O’NEILL: There’s way more complexity
that can be baked into it now that benefits the artists over time, that automates the
gallery commission, saves time and money, and you don’t have to work so hard to prove
that authenticity and provenance. MILES O’BRIEN: And it works even if there
is no physical object, when the art is purely digital, nothing more than a binary code collection
of 1’s and 0’s. John Watkinson is the co-creator of CryptoPunks,
a groundbreaking pixel art sensation. In 2017, he and co-creator Matt Hall produced
10,000 CryptoPunk characters. They kept 1,000 for themselves, then offered
up the rest online, for free. JOHN WATKINSON, Co-Creator, CryptoPunks: There
is male, female and there’s a few rare types. So, you can see there’s a zombie, an ape. The most rare is an alien. There’s nine of those. We wanted to make it so that there was sort
of a scope of rarity. MILES O’BRIEN: Each character was assigned
a link in the Ethereum blockchain, so the authenticity, scarcity and ownership of the
Punks was all instantly and globally provable. Nerdy art collectors soon began buying and
selling CryptoPunks, spurring an active online market. JOHN WATKINSON: We sort of hit a nerve, I
think, in that the audience that was into these currencies, the art appealed to them
and the collectible aspect appealed to them. It all worked together, but it also was just
an interesting answer to question, like, do you feel like you own these things? And the answer was yes. MILES O’BRIEN: Right now, the average value
of the CryptoPunks, including the common ones, is about $40 to $50. But the high water mark, one rare alien, which
sold for $16,000. JOHN WATKINSON: It’s a little different than
having a painting on your wall. But, yes, I think it’s clearly something that’s
coming, because the younger generations are totally comfortable with digital ownership,
and digital things feel real to them. So it feels like it’s something that will
naturally become more prominent. MILES O’BRIEN: An all-digital art market is
an empowering prospect for aspiring artists. That’s a big driver behind Dada.Art. It’s an online social network that allows
artists to collaborate and communicate with each other through their drawings. JUDY MAM, Dada.Art: So you make a drawing,
and somebody from anywhere in the world can reply to you with another drawing. And this creates these spontaneous visual
conversations among people from all over the world who may not know each other. It’s a really pretty magical thing. MILES O’BRIEN: Judy Mam is the co-creator
of Dada. JUDY MAM: The first person who draws decides
on a topic or a theme, colors, but the people who follow, to our surprise, really try to
create a very coherent work of art. MILES O’BRIEN: This Dada piece began with
a portrait of your humble correspondent, and ended with this depiction of our favorite
anchor Judy Woodruff. JUDY MAM: Hola, Boris. How are you? BORIS TOLEDO GUTIERREZ, Artist: Hola, hola. MILES O’BRIEN: Judy Mam introduced me to the
artist, Boris Toledo Gutierrez of Santiago, Chile. He is a frequent Dada contributor. Boris, it’s a great pleasure to meet you. Tell me a little bit about what you find interesting
and fun about drawing on Dada. JUDY MAM: “What is generated by the community
and the fact that people make all these works, but that they are always shared in common.” MILES O’BRIEN: When Judy Mam and Dada.Art
founder Beatriz Ramos looked at ways to help their artists monetize all this stunning creativity,
they too turned to the blockchain. It allows anyone to own an individual drawing
or an entire conversation. BEATRIZ RAMOS, Dada.Art Founder: We want to
give artists a guaranteed basic income, everyone in the community. We would hope that artists could make ends
meet by being artists. It’s like no one ever thinks of dentists,
oh, poor dentist are struggling, right? The dentists need to have four gigs in order
to survive. It should be the same with artists. MILES O’BRIEN: Even established art icons
are dabbling in this brave new art world. In 2018, Christie’s, with help from blockchain
art registry startup Artory, sold a collection whose provenance was stored on a blockchain. It was used to give buyers more confidence,
but blockchain could also make it possible for an artist to capture royalties in auctions
like this or wherever and whenever their work is sold. It’s the norm for composers and novelists,
so why not artists? JACKIE O’NEILL: Every time this object gets
resold, I can contractually automate, embed securely that each subsequent sale of an art
on the secondary market for living artists, for artist estates, they can seek 10 percent
of every single subsequent sale. Right now, they don’t see any of that. MILES O’BRIEN: No doubt, David Hockney would
appreciate the royalty. As it is, some of his work is finding its
way onto the chain. A Korean company intends to sell fractional
ownership of his work, meaning many people can own a share of a Hockney piece, a way
to please to art fans with shallower pockets. But even though they could guarantee royalties
as well, these blockchain sales will not put anything in Hockney’s pocket. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Miles O’Brien
in New York City. JUDY WOODRUFF: Reports that the U.S. extracted
a Russian spy from the Kremlin have dominated the headlines over the past few days. The news sparks discussion about the sources
and methods used to develop the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of Moscow’s interference
in the 2016 election. Our Yamiche Alcindor has more. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: In early 2017, the U.S.
intelligence community made a startling accusation: Russian President Vladimir Putin personally
directed a campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election. They made that conclusion with — quote — “high
confidence.” That is the kind of qualification reserved
to the most solid intelligence. That led to years of speculation about what
or who provided that confident assertion. This week, a series of reports emerged about
a Russian asset whom the CIA extricated. The Washington Post reported that the source
is living in the Washington, D.C., area. To discuss these revelations, I’m joined by
Andrew Weiss. He oversees Russia research at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. Thanks so much for joining me, Andrew. What do you make of the fact that all of this
information about this Russian informant has been made so public? ANDREW WEISS, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace: There’s something here that doesn’t add up. First off, it’s a problem to see this kind
of information being talked about publicly. It goes to the heart of what our intelligence
community is about, which is protecting the sources and methods they use to gather sensitive
information. Setting that aside, what we see is a lot of
swirl right now. Is this person high-level? Is this person the bag carrier? Is he the person who basically helped run
the motor pool for the Russian ambassador in Washington? So there’s a lot of information that is being
dumped out there that doesn’t fully point in the picture of someone who was high-level. What it suggests is that it is someone who
was in the know and who was in policy-making circles in the Kremlin. And that could have been very valuable for
U.S. intelligence. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: How unusual is it for the
U.S. to infiltrate the inner circle of the Russian president? And what does it mean that that asset could
have been lost? And how might the U.S.’ ability to gather
information in Russia be impacted by that? ANDREW WEISS: We don’t know about what kind
of sources the United States government currently has or has had in the past in Russian ruling
circles. It’s a very closed society. Putin is a notoriously circumspect person. The Russians are very good at protecting sensitive
information about their foreign policy activities, including their interference in the 2016 presidential
election. What we do know is the message this sends
to the world, which is that the United States doesn’t do a good job of protecting information
about people who assist us. And so the fact of this information coming
out, I think, sends a very negative signal to people who might want to work with the
United States going forward. It’s a very, I think, disruptive set of revelations,
not because it necessarily blinds us in Russia, but it just really sort of casts a negative
cloud over the U.S. intelligence-collecting apparatus. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: President Trump has tweeted
out an image of surveillance that is widely believed to be classified. He has also shared sensitive information with
Russian officials when they were visiting the White House. The CIA is pushing back and saying that it
would be inaccurate to report that anything the president has done has impacted their
taking — possibly taking out a source from a foreign country. But that being said, what do you make of the
president’s actions? And how could they have at all impacted the
U.S.’ ability to protect classified information? ANDREW WEISS: Well, I should emphasize, the
negative cloud here really is not really on the U.S. intelligence community. It’s on President Trump. From the very first meeting he had with a
Russian official in the Oval Office, with the Russian foreign minister, he was basically
retailing secrets. He was sharing information that we had gotten
from a foreign government, in this case Israel, dealing with a terrorist threat involving
ISIS. So, he has basically thrown convention out
the window. By virtue of his office, he is able to declassify
information basically on a whim. The problem is, the president doesn’t seem
to understand the consequences of that. And day in, day out, President Trump basically
trashes our allies. He said something in a campaign appearance
the other day, where he just saying, our allies are worse than our enemies. And he doesn’t seem to understand that so
much of the information the United States receives from partner intelligence services
comes from our allies and it comes from governments around the world, who basically see their
interests as aligned with us. And so what we have got right now is a completely
undisciplined and disruptive presidency, which is going to have lasting consequences for
how we cooperate with people the world over. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: You served on the National
Security Councils of past administrations. There are very strict guidelines to safeguard
sources. Tell us about those guidelines and why they
are put in place. ANDREW WEISS: Well, the protections are in
place for a bunch of reasons. They’re to prevent disclosure of sensitive
information involving the sources and methods for our intelligence collection. They’re also there to protect, as we were
saying a few moments ago, the sources of that information, so that they don’t face harm
or inadvertent disclosure. What we normally have, I think, tried to do
inside U.S. government circles is allow the intelligence collectors — intelligence collectors
to do their thing and the policy-makers to do their thing. At times, there’s a need for policy-makers
to have a little better sense of what might motivate someone to share information, what
the reasons were or how this information was collected. But, you know, up to now, I have never read
information like this in the press about, you know, things that involve, you know, a
very important event in U.S. foreign policy and national security. It’s — this is really, as I was saying earlier,
an unprecedented event to have this level of disclosure and this level of disruption. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: An unprecedented event. Let’s now talk about Russia and its response. What do you make of Russia’s response? And how is it comparing to past responses
where spies have been revealed? ANDREW WEISS: So, the Russian government takes
a very hard line on these things. And Putin himself tends to speak in a very
cold-blooded and rather chilling fashion about, traitors need to be wiped out. Traitors need to pay the price for their conduct. In this case, the Russian government has done
something very different. They have basically said, this guy was a joker. He had some sort of role here. He certainly wasn’t a high-level adviser to
President Putin. They basically disparaged the initial Western
press reporting on the subject. But what they have also done at the same time
is tried to say, we never did anything anyway, so this is all just a compounding of, you
know, unfair and malicious slander aimed at us. That also just doesn’t hold a lot of water. But, as a result, what you see is a mockery. And I think the mockery does have a chilling
undercurrent to it. There was a cartoon on one of the Russian
state news agencies last night, and it basically has the mole showing up in the Oval Office
popping up in Donald Trump’s office and saying, you burned me, basically. You were the one who ratted me out. So the government is sending a message to
Russian officialdom that, we are all watching you very closely. Don’t make any mistakes. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, thank you so much
for being here. These are certainly extraordinary revelations,
Andrew Weiss. ANDREW WEISS: Thank you so much. JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, we look back
18 years to a moment that forever changed American history and a new way to pay tribute
to the first responders who took great risks on 9/11. Here’s a moment from “Rescue, Recovery & Healing:
The 9/11 Memorial Glade Dedication.” It’s a documentary produced by New York public
media station WNET, as part of its All Arts series. ANTHONY PALMERI, Recovery Worker: I just don’t
think the general public realizes how many people have gotten sick because of September
11. The number of people that have died because
of injuries of September 11 will actually outnumber the people who were murdered on
September 11. ALICE M. GREENWALD, President and CEO, 9/11
Memorial and Museum: We feel it’s really important that people remember the story of the recovery. We actually dedicated a new component of the
9/11 Memorial known as the 9/11 Memorial Glade. And the Glade is dedicated to everyone who
is suffering from 9/11 illness, and those who have died, and those who will die. It’s comprised of a pathway that runs from
the southwest corner of the plaza toward the northeast corner. On either side of it are these sculptures,
these slabs of stone. And they’re meant to suggest the determination
of those who participated in the recovery. One of the things we heard from the constituents,
the former rescue and recovery workers, was that it somehow incorporate remnant World
Trade Center steel. And that’s what you see, is these rough and
rugged granite pieces, and inset throughout them in these cracks is World Trade Center
steel. In a way, it’s simply conveying that, you
know, we’re actually stronger at the broken places. And there’s an element of hope that is conveyed. RONALDO VEGA, Recovery Worker: The Glade was
intended to sort of geographically mimic the Echo Bridge, taking you down to bedrock. I appreciate it. I really do. It is our space. It is a space dedicated. As it said, this is where heroes walked. And this is your Glade. JUDY WOODRUFF: Such a powerful tribute. And you can see the full documentary, “Rescue,
Recovery & Healing: The 9/11 Memorial Glade Dedication,” online at allarts.org. And a news update before we go. The Supreme Court, in an order issued late
today, is allowing the Trump administration to enforce new nationwide asylum restrictions. The administration first proposed the change
in July, but it was quickly blocked by lower federal courts. It now goes into effect, forcing many migrants
to first seek asylum in any country they travel through before they reach the U.S. And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

Leave a Reply

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