July 19, 2023 - PBS NewsHour full episode

GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Amna Nawaz is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: IRS whistle-blowers testify before Congress, claiming the Justice Department slow-walked an investigation into Hunter Biden.

New reporting highlights Donald Trump's plans to expand executive power and limit judicial independence if reelected.

And Judy Woodruff hears from a panel of Iowa voters about the role of politics in their lives and their hopes for overcoming divisions.

SARAH LONGWELL, Longwell Partners: Bluer cities and redder sort of rural areas, and so the less people talk to each other, the less they have a really good frame of reference for how somebody might actually think.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

Tens of millions of Americans have spent another day under heat watches, warnings, or advisories in this long, hot summer of 2023.

The low temperature in Phoenix early today was 97, a record.

That followed 19 straight days with highs of 110 degrees, also a record.

Billboards around the city displayed the brutally high temperatures, while Arizonans and their dogs adjusted their schedules to escape the dangerous conditions.

HEATHER MOOS, Arizona Resident: We stay hydrated.

They drink a lot of water.

And then we're inside during the day.

And, when the sun goes down, we're out walking and going to the park.

So I guess we have to be vampires in this kind of weather.

GEOFF BENNETT: Searing heat overseas plagued firefighters in Greece as they battled wildfires near Athens for a third day.

And the streets in Sardinia, Italy, were deserted as temperatures neared 108 degrees.

A federal judge in New York has upheld a jury award of $5 million against former President Trump.

The jury found he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in 1996 and defamed her in his denial.

Today, the judge ruled the award was reasonable.

He said that it -- quote -- "did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation so as to make it excessive."

A separate federal judge refused today to take over a state court case involving Mr. Trump's alleged hush money payments to an adult film star.

In Southern Ukraine, heavy Russian air raids pounded Black Sea port facilities overnight.

Ukrainian officials report dozens of missiles and drones hit Odessa for a second straight night.

The barrage damaged critical grain and oil terminals and destroyed 60,000 tons of grain.

Russia had suspended a deal allowing Black Sea grain shipments.

The president of Israel, Isaac Herzog, went before the U.S. Congress today and acknowledged criticism of Israel's far right government.

Herzog's office is nonpartisan, but his appearance was boycotted by a handful of progressive Democrats over Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

ISAAC HERZOG, Israeli President: I respect criticism, especially from friends, although one does not always have to accept it.

But criticism of Israel must not cross the line into negation of the state of Israel's right to exist.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) GEOFF BENNETT: Over the weekend, the leading House progressive, Democrat Pramila Jayapal, branded Israel a -- quote -- "racist state."

She later apologized.

But, on Tuesday, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution reaffirming U.S. support for Israel.

The Biden White House proposed new guidelines for corporate mergers today.

It also called for action against junk fees charged by landlords and price-gouging in the food industry.

The president met his so-called Competition Council at the White House to discuss the proposals.

They're subject of public comment and revision before taking effect.

And, on Wall Street today, stocks edged higher again after a series of profit reports from major banks.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 109 points to close at 35061.

The Nasdaq rose four points.

The S&P 500 added 10.

And Major League Baseball has done something it had not done in 129 years.

On Tuesday, 12 teams scored in double figures.

The Chicago Cubs led the list, routing the Washington Nationals 17-3.

The only day with more offense was July 4, 1894, when 13 teams scored in double digits.

And still to come on the "NewsHour": jurors weigh the fate of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter; Germany's standing as an economic powerhouse grows increasingly uncertain; and author Sally Jenkins talks about her new book on life lessons learned from sports.

A pair of IRS whistle-blowers testified today before the House Oversight Committee about alleged meddling in the Justice Department investigation of Hunter Biden.

You will recall that Hunter Biden reached an agreement to plead guilty to two federal misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his taxes.

He also agreed to abide by a set of conditions to avoid a separate felony gun possession charge.

The whistle-blowers say those charges and this case are out of line with the norm.

Democrats dispute that.

Lisa Desjardins was in the hearing room today and joins us now from Capitol Hill.

So, Lisa, what did these whistle-blowers allege were the problems with the investigation?

LISA DESJARDINS: Geoff, this was a long and, for the most part, substantive and serious hearing from both sides.

These were not just any IRS agents.

These were two IRS investigators who were the chief two investigators in the Hunter Biden case.

They gave a list of things that they said were out of the norm, unprecedented obstacles and changes in the way that this case worked.

Among a few of those things that they listed, first, at the top, they said that they were not allowed to search Joe Biden's home where Hunter Biden was living, that they were blocked from interviewing Biden grandchildren, who may have been able to give testimony about Hunter Biden's tax returns, that they were prominently not -- they did not see the felony tax charges that they recommended and which they said other prosecutors early in the case also agreed with.

And they also said they saw outside limits on David Weiss.

He is the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is overseeing the prosecution and this plea deal in the Hunter Biden case.

One of these two IRS whistle-blowers, Joseph Ziegler, this was his first time talking in public today.

He said he is a gay Democrat.

He said this is not political, but that he did, in fact, see signs that there was something stifling that prosecutor.

JOSEPH ZIEGLER, IRS Whistle-Blower: It appeared to me, based on what I experienced, that the U.S. attorney in Delaware in our investigation was constantly hamstrung, limited, and marginalized by DOJ officials, as well as other U.S. attorneys.

I still think that a special counsel is necessary for this investigation.

LISA DESJARDINS: There's no reason to believe there will be a special counsel in this.

Ziegler said that, throughout the investigation, they became scared to ask questions that they thought would lead to the Biden family or Joe Biden or his campaign.

GEOFF BENNETT: Lisa, White House officials point out that there are often disputes, internal disputes, between investigators and prosecutors.

And a White House spokesperson today said that House Republicans, as I look at my notes here, were -- quote -- "staging partisan stunts to try to damage President Biden politically."

How did Democrats on the committee see it?

LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.

Democrats see this completely differently.

One thing that was unique in this hearing.

Democrats did not question the credibility of these witnesses.

They said these are career professionals, but they said they think they got some things wrong, that, essentially, these were investigators versus prosecutors.

And there's often a difference of opinion in how a case should be charged.

Now, they pointed specifically to a letter from the U.S. attorney in this case, David Weiss, that came out in the last few weeks, where Weiss was very clear, saying: I followed the process and I was never the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.

The whistle-blowers are saying that he told them otherwise.

So there is a difference here over what he said.

But, right now, that prosecutor says: No, I was never denied any authority that I needed.

Now, some other points that they make, they say that these plea deals often indicate charges that are graded down from the ideal prosecutor charges because Hunter Biden has pleaded guilty.

They also said Joe Biden was neither president nor vice president for some of this investigation.

Now, Jamie Raskin, the head Democrat on this committee, said, overall, while Hunter Biden has admitted to doing wrong, and there is a lot to say about Hunter Biden, but nothing Republicans have shown has led anywhere near Joe Biden.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): One thing you will not hear today is any evidence of wrongdoing by President Joe Biden or his administration.

Like every other try by our colleagues to concoct a scandal about President Biden, this one is a complete and total bust.

LISA DESJARDINS: Democrats also point out that prosecutor is a Trump appointee.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, Lisa, based on your reporting, where does this head next?

LISA DESJARDINS: Lots to say.

There will be more hearings.

We will see more reports from Republicans, especially on the House side.

We also should be on the watch, because Republicans now are trying to tie this to the attorney general in this case, his past testimony about how this was handled.

I asked Speaker McCarthy about this today, and he brought up the attorney general saying perhaps this will lead down the road of questions strong enough to even impeach him.

He's not going there yet, but he's raising that idea.

One last thing, Geoff.

Hunter Biden himself, that plea deal, the hearing, the next hearing in that case is next week.

The judge, of course, has to approve that deal for it to go through.

GEOFF BENNETT: Lisa Desjardins.

Lisa, thanks, as always.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

GEOFF BENNETT: Donald Trump and his allies are preparing for a second term in office that would massively expand the power of the presidency, centralizing control within the Oval Office.

Laura Barron-Lopez explains.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Strip tens of thousands of career civil servants of protections and replace them with political hires and exert political influence over the Justice Department, these are some of the agenda items under discussion among former President Donald Trump and his allies if he retakes office in 2024, according to recent reports by The New York Times and The Economist.

For more on what this would mean for our democracy and the power of the executive branch, I'm joined by Ruth Ben-Ghiat.

She's a history professor at New York University and an expert on authoritarianism.

Ruth, thank you so much for joining us.

The New York Times and The Economist spoke to a number of former and current Donald Trump advisers about this effort to radically expand the executive.

One of them, the former Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, told The Times this: "What we're trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them."

Ruth, you have said that there is a term for this.

What is that term and what does it mean?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT, NYU History Professional: Yes, in studies of authoritarianism, it's autocratic capture, autocratic capture.

And what this Trump adviser has described is that.

When you remake government, you remake civil service.

So you purge people who will not be loyal to you.

So, loyalty becomes a requirement, not expertise, and you restaff government with people who will do your bidding and, in this way, hugely centralizing and increasing presidential power.

And I was also struck by his language, seizing, looking for pockets of independence, and seizing them.

And this also negates the idea of an independent civil service and independent institutions.

This is a bedrock of democracy.

And the word seizing, this is not the language of democratic reform.

This is the language of authoritarian takeover.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Trump, as we know, is facing potentially a third indictment in a matter of days for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Much of his campaign has been centered on his plans to go after the Justice Department.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: I will totally obliterate the deep state.

We will find the globalists, warmongers and the bureaucrats who have weaponized our justice system, and we will escort them from federal buildings.

We're going to get them the hell out of government.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Now, Ruth Trump's campaign may be the most explicit in their plans for the Justice Department, but think tanks like the American First Policy Institute and the conservative Heritage Foundation have really crafted blueprints for any Republican that may win the presidency in 2024.

What's the endgame here?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: So, strongmen and authoritarians are not like other politicians.

For example, many of them are under investigation when they run for office.

That was true with Berlusconi in Italy, with Putin, with Trump in '16 -- 2016.

And now he has his legal woes.

Netanyahu.

And so the purpose of getting into power becomes to capture the judicial system and make yourself untouchable.

And we have an example in Israel now with Netanyahu facing corruption charges.

And so he's very focused on judicial reform, and this is why there are enormous protests against him.

But these are things that autocrats do routinely.

And so it's interesting to me that Trump is able to capitalize on this preexisting discourse of the deep state that Republicans had peddled for many years.

And now he's personalized it because he has so many legal woes.

And so he needs to get into office and realize the dream of becoming untouchable.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: That former Trump adviser, Russell Vought, that I mentioned has said that this plan is now -- quote -- "Republican doctrine."

And we have seen other candidates, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is the leading challenger to Trump, talk about plans like this as well, wanting to abolish certain agencies and take more control.

GOV.

RON DESANTIS (R-FL), Presidential Candidate: You're going to see the Justice Department turned inside out.

For far too long, this bureaucracy has imposed its will on us.

It's about time we impose our will on it, and that's what we're going to do.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Ruth, is that also a classic example of autocratic capture?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: It is.

I mean, federal bureaucracy, you take an oath to the Constitution.

You are serving the public, as well as the administration.

But DeSantis saying there he's going to impose his will is an assertion of executive power beyond and -- beyond what is proper for an independent and democratic political system.

It's the same with Trump.

Trump is not saying that he's going to fire inefficient people, he's going to get rid of big government because it doesn't work.

Trump is saying he's going to purge -- quote - - "the sick political class that hates our country."

So political attributes are at stake here.

That's what the criteria is, and that's what's disturbing in terms of the health of our democracy.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Ruth Ben-Ghiat of New York University, thank you so much.

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: Pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: Throughout this year, Judy Woodruff has been examining divisions across the country.

For her latest story, she listened in on focus groups in Iowa with two-time Trump voters as they talked about how they feel about the state of the nation, the divisiveness they see, and who they feel is responsible for it.

A note, we have chosen not to include the participants' full names after some received harassing calls following an earlier story.

This story was produced with our friends at Iowa PBS and is part of Judy's ongoing series America at a Crossroads.

ALLAN, Republican Voter: I definitely think the country's headed in the wrong direction, and, unfortunately, I think we're on that downhill slide, that I'm not sure it can be turned around.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That was a common feeling among the 16 two-time Trump voters.

We gathered recently studio of Iowa PBS in Johnston for a pair of focus groups led by Republican strategist and pollster Sarah Longwell.

BRENT, Trump Voter: In Iowa, we have a great governor, we have great leadership.

However, when you look at the country as a whole, it just seems like everybody has said.

The country's just going down the tubes.

RON, Republican Voter: I agree with all the different economics and all that, but we are so polarized that we can't come to common ground.

MATT, Republican Voter: It almost feels a little bit like a civil war.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Following the panels, I sat down with Longwell, who conducts focus groups with both Republicans and Democrats, to talk through what we heard.

SARAH LONGWELL, Longwell Partners: Mainly, the things that you hear -- and I hear this all the time from Republicans -- is they really feel like the country is going in the wrong direction.

They want a Republican back in power very badly.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In terms of these Republican voters and their view of how divided the country is, what came across to you the most about that?

SARAH LONGWELL: Well, everybody does think we're divided.

That is clear in the focus groups we did tonight and in the focus groups I do all the time.

People are -- they talk about things like a national divorce or a civil war.

They feel like we're at each other's throats.

How many of you think we're very divided?

Raise your hands if you think we're an extremely divided country.

Whose fault do you think it is that we're so divided?

WOMAN: The media.

SOPHIA, Republican Voter: The media, for sure.

WOMAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK) WOMAN: And the politicians.

WOMAN: The politicians.

SOPHIA: And they perpetuate the hate.

I mean, they do it on purpose.

They have an agenda, and it is to divide.

And that's what they seek and that's what they're doing.

WOMAN: That's how they get ratings.

That's how they get money.

SOPHIA: Exactly, because that's where the money is.

SARAH LONGWELL: And I'm curious, where are you getting your information?

Like, where are you -- what are you watching?

What are you reading?

What are you listening to?

SONYA, Republican Voter: I watch BlazeTV and FOX News, and I have TRUTH Social.

And I'm all over Twitter.

And I watch Channel 13, NBC, all the time.

SARAH LONGWELL: News junkie.

SONYA: I like to know what's going on.

PETER, Republican Voter: Clay Travis and Buck Sexton took over Rush Limbaugh's show.

They are good.

I mean, these guys, they look into things, they know things.

Sean Hannity is really good also.

RON: I think I'm smart enough to understand when I'm being manipulated, all right?

So, all I have to say is, I read everything.

I listen to everything, and then, what goes in, what goes out, and then I just make up my own decision.

KEVEN, Republican Voter: I'm going to blame the media and also social media.

I think back like 10 years ago, 15 years ago, we didn't -- it didn't seem so divided.

And it's driven me to seek out different news sources now to get my news, so I can compare, like Real America's Voice and Newsmax.

(CROSSTALK) SARAH LONGWELL: What about you, Mary?

MARY, Republican Voter: So, I was -- I agree with what you were saying.

So social media is a huge thing, in my opinion, because you don't have a personal relationship with the people mostly online.

Or like what I would say to you right now in person would be completely different than what I might way on social media.

SARAH LONGWELL: So it sounds like you guys blame the media, social media for the division.

How do you feel about Democrats in general?

MARY: Generally, any time that there's a fight between two people, there's never usually one side that's like 100 percent right.

It's always somewhere in the middle.

And so I'm not ever going to say like, this side's completely right and this side's completely wrong.

SARAH LONGWELL: Do you guys have friends and family who are Democrats?

MAN: Oh, yes.

WOMAN: Yes.

MAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK) MAN: Yes.

SARAH LONGWELL: And how does that -- how do you do with that?

Is it tense?

Can you talk to each other?

Is it -- how is it?

KEVEN: Recently spent some time with some relatives that are Democrat, and you really can't talk about Trump or Republicans in that house.

I mean, it's just you know tread lightly there.

DANIELLE, Republican Voter: My closest inner circle is mostly like-minded.

They vote Republican or pretty conservative.

But, outside of that, I try to avoid conversations, because they're just never productive.

No one's changing anyone's mind.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I did hear them say that they blame the media.

I also heard them say that they were reluctant to bring up their views with people who disagree with them politically, for fear that they would be criticized, they would be called out.

SARAH LONGWELL: Yes, I do hear this all the time, people feeling like they can't talk about their support for President Trump or can't say that they're a Republican without fear of being shouted down.

I think that both parties, members of both parties, sort of feel like it's really hot out there, and when you sort of wear your politics on your sleeve, that it's inviting a kind of combative experience.

And I think they feel like a real difference from how people used to be able to sort of agree to disagree maybe 10 15 years ago.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.

SARAH LONGWELL: And now they feel like it gets really personal really fast.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Another key division was over questions of faith and what it means for people's politics.

SARAH LONGWELL: Do you believe that it's possible to be very liberal, very progressive, but also be of deep Christian faith?

MAN: No.

SOPHIA: No.

No.

SARAH LONGWELL: Tell me more.

Go ahead.

SOPHIA: You can't.

Life is, well, very important.

And if you're a liberal, then you are pro-choice, and then you believe that it's OK to kill a baby.

And I don't believe that you can believe that and be a real Christian.

SARAH LONGWELL: What do you think?

AMANDA, Republican Voter: Technically, I guess you could be, but that would mean you're not, I don't know, allowing God's love to be in you as much and stuff.

RAMONA, Republican Voter: So, I don't think that the Democrats -- and I hate to say it like that.

I hate to segregate the party.

They have too many, yes, but what if?

Yes, but what if I don't feel like a girl?

So, whatever, God -- so, God made me a boy, but I don't feel like a boy, and so I'm going to change that.

It's just messing with creation.

It's just messing with the absolute.

So, when Joe Biden -- I know he's a Catholic.

Do you think that he's not Catholic?

PETER: I mean, you just -- in your original question, God is more of a God of just love.

He's a God of right and wrong.

He's a God of truth.

He's a God of righteousness.

I mean, you can't be liberal and be far left on beliefs and then say, oh, I'm a Christian.

Well, you can say it.

That's the -- that's the worst thing.

People do say it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There were strong views expressed about whether it's possible to be a Democrat, to be liberal, and have a strong Christian faith.

It's almost a barrier.

SARAH LONGWELL: Yes, people can be really paradoxical.

They can sort of express one thing in thinking about it one way and then express sort of the complete opposite if they're thinking about something else in a different frame.

You could hear on one hand people saying, well, I'd really like us to get along more, and I want us to have shared values and have these good conversations.

And then you would also hear them say, but I don't think that you can be a real Christian and be a progressive.

They didn't think those things were compatible.

JUDY WOODRUFF: When it came to the idea of their children marrying someone of the opposite party, feelings were mixed.

SARAH LONGWELL: Would any of you or all of you be OK if your child married a Democrat?

RAMONA: My child did marry a Democrat, a Democrat lawyer.

(LAUGHTER) RAMONA: It didn't go well.

SARAH LONGWELL: Is it still not going well?

RAMONA: No.

We are estranged.

SARAH LONGWELL: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.

RAMONA: Yes.

Yes.

BRENT: My daughters are both very liberal, which pains me, but I support them and their beliefs and try to have conversations with them about what I believe and why I believe that way.

And so -- but I don't try to change them.

I just let them know how I believe and why I believe that way.

But if they choose to marry a Democrat, I will support them 100 percent.

BRIAN, Republican Voter: And that, in itself, is the root issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And there was even some pushback to our framing of some of these questions along partisan lines.

BRIAN: We're all made in the image of God.

We're all valued by the creator.

Why are we dividing Democrat and Republican?

Like, my mom's a liberal Democrat.

And I work in something completely different, and we have the most loving relationship.

It's because I don't identify by our relationship based on Democrat, Republican.

SARAH LONGWELL: Yes.

BRIAN: And I think that's the problem in the country.

SARAH LONGWELL: Yes.

One of the things about doing the focus groups across the political spectrum every week now for years is, oftentimes, Americans are closer on a number of things than you might think, and people tend to overestimate how different the other side is from them or at how mad they would be.

And some of this comes down to the fact that we are now geographically very segregated as a country.

We are -- tend to have bluer cities and redder sort of rural areas.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.

SARAH LONGWELL: And so the less people talk to each other, the less they have a really good frame of reference for how somebody might actually think.

Oftentimes, people are a little more tolerant, and they want us to get along.

Like, they express the fact that they would - - they sort of lament being this divided, and they talk in terms of wanting America to be a place where you can talk about your disagreements and not feel like it's going to be so fraught.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And so a mixed picture from these Trump voters in Iowa.

Some wish for less division and blame the news media, especially social media.

And yet they have strong views about Democrats, are divided on having one in the family, and question if progressive politics and Christianity can coexist.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Judy Woodruff in Johnston, Iowa.

GEOFF BENNETT: The 2018 massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed 11 people is considered to be the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history.

A federal jury convicted the gunman of 63 charges, including 11 counts of hate crimes.

And, as John Yang reports, the same jury is now deciding whether to recommend the death penalty.

JOHN YANG: Geoff, this phase of the trial is really what the case has been all about.

Defense lawyers readily acknowledged during the guilt phase that the gunman planned and carried out the attack.

The jury is now in the third day of hearing from the victims' families and friends.

Later, the defense will make its case for a sentence of life in prison.

This phase of the trial is expected to take at least a week.

David Harris is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School.

He's also an adviser to the 10.27 Healing Partnership, which is a consortium helping the victims, survivors and broader community deal with the shooting and its aftermath.

To get to this phase, Mr. Harris, they had to go through a phase where they determined that the shooter was eligible for the death penalty.

Now they're deciding whether or not to recommend the death penalty.

Does the law give them any -- say anything about what factors they ought to be considering in making this decision?

DAVID HARRIS, University of Pittsburgh: Yes, it does, John.

And it's very clear about this.

At this phase, the penalty phase, the jury is to consider evidence of aggravating factors and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors are things that would push the jury toward a sentence of death.

And they can be things like a killing that is particularly heinous, victims who are particularly vulnerable, multiple victims.

All of this is spelled out in the law, the statutes that cover the death penalty and also by court decisions.

This is balanced, then, against mitigating factors coming from the defense.

And the defense mitigating factors could be things like brain trauma, mental illness, adverse childhood events.

All of that will be weighed and balanced by the jury.

And from that weighing and balancing, they will make the determination of whether this defendant is sentenced to death or life without parole.

JOHN YANG: And what the prosecution is doing now, putting up essentially victim-impact statements... DAVID HARRIS: Yes.

JOHN YANG: ... we have heard widows talk about losing their husbands, grandchildren talk about losing their grandmother, even the girlfriend of one of the police officers who was wounded talking about what that wound has done to his life.

Is this all in trying to convince the jury that it is worth the death penalty?

DAVID HARRIS: Yes, that's what it is.

This is the prosecution's aggravating evidence.

And nothing is typically more powerful than testimony from people who were victimized themselves or whose loved ones were the subject of the murder.

That's what we have here.

The Supreme Court allows this kind of victim-impact evidence at this stage to show the jury a kind of slice of life.

What has it meant that this victim has been lost?

What has it meant to the families, to the workplace, to the community at large?

And the court says that the jury can weigh this as part of the aggravating factors.

It is typically very, very impactful.

JOHN YANG: And based on what we have heard in the guilt phase of this trial and also in the phase to determine whether he was eligible, what do we expect the defense, what mitigating factors do we expect the defense to present?

DAVID HARRIS: The defense has treated the entire case front to back as a preview so far of its mitigating evidence.

So we know pretty much what they're going to bring.

What we will hear about is the fact that they say that the defendant has a series of mental illnesses, that perhaps he has schizophrenia, that he has epilepsy and other mental disease, that he had some very terrible things happen during his childhood.

As they said in their opening argument for this phase of the trial, don't add more death to this, punishment, yes, death, no.

JOHN YANG: And on that point, I know that you live in -- fairly close, relatively close to the synagogue where this shooting took place.

It's a very tight-knit community, still very much a Jewish enclave.

And I know that there is an array of opinions about whether this man should get life or get the death penalty.

What do you hear from your neighbors, what do you hear from your fellow congregants to sort of illustrate this?

DAVID HARRIS: Well, this is the most common question I get asked, as a person who taught classes to help the community come to grips with the trial.

And we're a mixed group of opinions, just like Americans are, on the death penalty.

There are many people who say, if this isn't a death penalty case, I don't know what it is.

If anybody ever deserved the death penalty, this guy does.

Others are just as opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, even these.

So there is not a unanimity of opinion on this.

What we are is united in our determination to support the victims, to see the process through correctly, to see the best we can as human beings that justice is done.

We don't always get what we want out of the legal process.

But what we will get here is, we will know that this case was carried out consistent with our values as a community, whether our values as a Jewish community, an American community, the community of Pittsburgh.

That's what we have going for us.

But what we're seeing here is a city and a community coming to grips with the worst thing that can happen in very solid way that seeks justice.

JOHN YANG: David Harris from the University of Pittsburgh Law School, thank you very much.

DAVID HARRIS: My pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: Germany's economy has been the envy of Europe for decades, but no longer.

The country is now officially in recession, and its people, who've been used to prosperity, are now losing confidence.

Much of Germany's current troubles have been caused by the war in Ukraine, with Germany turning its back on Russia, its former trading partner.

Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports from Berlin.

MALCOLM BRABANT: This is the face of Germany's new poor.

Ines, a former nurse and therapist, blames soaring energy costs for making her a client at one of the country's fastest growing sectors, food banks.

Out of embarrassment, she doesn't wish to give her surname.

INES, Food Bank Client (through translator): I never, ever thought it would come to this.

I worked in this country and raised three children.

I bought my own house, and I could never have foreseen myself in this situation.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Next in line is Alina, a hairdresser from Luhansk, one of the provinces in Eastern Ukraine occupied by Russian forces.

More than one million Ukrainian refugees have taken shelter in Germany since the war began.

ALINA, Ukrainian Refugee: It allows me to eat healthy food, because vegetables and fruits are very expensive here.

I can cook something.

I can eat.

I can buy meat, for example, because I'm going here.

MALCOLM BRABANT: In this country of 88 million, more than two million Germans are dependent on food banks.

This one is run by former Dr. Christina Klar in a church community center in what was West Berlin.

CHRISTINA KLAR, Food Bank Manager (through translator): At the beginning of this year, we had 100 to 120 households.

A household can be one person or a family with two adults and four or five children.

And the Ukraine war has virtually doubled that.

We are now at 200 households.

INES (through translator): As you can imagine, I'm ashamed to be here.

This is society's bottom layer.

But now there are so many middle-class people here.

Yes, and that includes me.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Food banks like this one are a real indication of poverty in one of the richest countries in the world.

And there are 14 million people who are considered to be in poverty.

That's one in six of the population.

MARCEL FRATZSCHER, President, German Institute For Economic Research: Germany and German citizens are in a state of shock.

The expectation was, even after the pandemic, we will return to the good old past of the 2010s, maximum employment, strongly growing wages, highly -- high competitiveness with other economies worldwide.

And now people realize the world will never be that way again.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Marcel Fratzscher is one of Germany's most respected economists.

He says that, after decades of growth and strength, the nation's economy is now at a tipping point.

MARCEL FRATZSCHER: People are worried about their jobs.

People are worried about what they have achieved in the past.

And the first sign of that is high inflation currently.

Most people, in particular, people with low incomes, are experiencing a massive cut in the purchasing power of their income and the living standard.

So people are scared.

BRIGITTE WEINBECK, Pensioner (through translator): I shop more consciously.

For example, I always make a plan at the beginning of the week about what I'm going to cook and when, and then I go shopping.

Otherwise, one sometimes has impulse purchases in between.

I avoid those now.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Berliners are constantly reminded of the source of their troubles by the monument commemorating the Russian-dominated Red Army that helped defeat the Nazis in World War II.

Outside Russia's embassy, Ukrainian folk music plays as a permanent protest against an invasion which has fueled inflation, created an energy crisis and stripped Germany of its defensive capacity.

Politicians insist that Germany is resolute in its support for Ukraine, but some beg to differ.

ERIC HANSEN, "The George Washington of Achievement": In my conversations with them, they're saying that things are getting more expensive.

That's what is the main thing.

And I think they would gladly give the Ukraine to the Russian, most Germans.

And they certainly do not want to give more money than they're already giving.

MALCOLM BRABANT: American author and social commentator Eric Hansen has lived in Berlin for decades and has written more than a dozen books in German.

ERIC HANSEN: They want a certain amount of prosperity.

And if you threaten to take it away, that's when they turn into different people.

You could see that in 2015, when the migrants came in, and they were really afraid of losing prosperity.

And that's when all the morals went out the window.

MALCOLM BRABANT: The Brandenburg Gate was once the Iron Curtain's western frontier.

Today, it's symbolic of Germany's current divisions.

Many in the former communist East believe Moscow's propaganda.

THOMAS WIEGOLD, Defense Analyst: Germans are rather afraid, because remembering the Second World War Is still very present in the collective memory.

NARRATOR: More of that captured German film, propaganda pictures, with which the Germans hoped to prove themselves unbeatable.

THOMAS WIEGOLD: Everybody had a grandfather who was in this war.

NARRATOR: We know how his war machines stabbed into the territory of our ally, but we all know too what it has cost him.

And he's far from achieving his object,the destruction of the Red Army.

THOMAS WIEGOLD: It's something Germans are aware of and really are afraid that this could happen again.

NARRATOR: Of course, the Soviet has lost tanks, hundreds of them.

So has Hitler in thousands.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Thomas Wiegold is one of Germany's leading defense analysts.

He says the nation's military is alarmed at how support for Ukraine has eroded its own capabilities.

THOMAS WIEGOLD: It's an open secret that ammunition stocks are running pretty low.

Officially and unofficially, the German armed forces are not in a position to fight a real war at the moment.

MALCOLM BRABANT: How long could Germany defend itself for, do you think, if there was a hot war?

THOMAS WIEGOLD: If there was a hot war, Germany would have a real problem when it comes to ammunition, certain types of ammunition.

The stocks are down to a few days' worth.

So this would mean Germany would have to rely on allies.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Besides defense, energy is Germany's most pressing concern.

Despite the war, the country's nuclear power stations have been shut down.

ALBERT STEGEMANN, Christian Democrats (through translator): In the long term, nuclear power is certainly not the technology of the future, but, at this time, it would have been good to be able to rely on it.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Deprived of Russian gas supplies, Germany is now importing higher-priced liquid natural gas to protect its economy and keep its citizens warm.

Germany's green energy sources aren't sufficient to fill the gap.

Klaus Mueller is the country's energy overseer.

KLAUS MUELLER, President, German Federal Network Agency: So what we need to do is, we need to be creative and innovative.

We need to save energy, and we need to invest in renewables.

MARCEL FRATZSCHER: Many companies might not survive the next five years, either because energy costs are too high.

WOMAN: We're planning a heat pump.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Despite boasts about its carbon footprint, the chemical giant BASF plans to relocate part of its production to China, blaming high energy costs at home.

WOMAN: And to power our own factories, we're building an offshore wind farm, the biggest in the world.

MALCOLM BRABANT: German prosperity has traditionally been rooted in the power of its motor manufacturing, but Fratzscher says that's no longer the case.

MARCEL FRATZSCHER: Car companies and other companies are losing out in global competition.

MALCOLM BRABANT: But is he downhearted?

No, he's not.

MARCEL FRATZSCHER: Germany's economic future might look very difficult, but Germany has a lot of strengths that are underestimated, often not seen, and which have been essential for Germany to manage big transitions, big challenges over the last 70, 80 years.

MALCOLM BRABANT: While Germany is not as badly off as other nations around the world, it has definitely lost its economic and defensive oomph.

But at least it still got its oompah.

(MUSIC) MALCOLM BRABANT: For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Malcolm Brabant in Berlin.

GEOFF BENNETT: Elite athletes like Michael Phelps and Serena Williams tend to hold a special place in America's imagination.

It's almost as if such sports stars are mythical figures capable of executing greatness at critical moments when the stakes are high.

But a new book debunks that and reveals the rest of us can learn a lot from the sports greats too.

Amna Nawaz recently spoke with Sally Jenkins about her new book called "The Right Call: What Sports Teach Us About Work and Life."

Sally Jenkins, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

Thanks so much for joining us.

SALLY JENKINS, Author, "The Right Call: What Sports Teach Us About Work and Life": Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, most of us, I think it's fair to say, are nothing like the elite athletes and coaches that you feature in this book.

But you write that there are lessons in their process for all of us.

Tell us about that.

SALLY JENKINS: Absolutely.

I think one of the things I have learned in all the years of covering these people is that they're just as flawed and insecure as the rest of us.

They just do a better job of sort of mitigating that and finding their weaknesses, facing them and curing them.

AMNA NAWAZ: You identify seven key elements in the book for anyone who wants to be able to, as you put it -- quote -- "act well in the face of extraordinary pressures."

Who among us doesn't want to?

Those seven elements you list are conditioning, practice, discipline, candor, culture, failure, and intention.

I want to start with practice, because that may seem obvious to many people, but you actually write there's a lot of bad practice out there.

What did you mean by that?

SALLY JENKINS: Well, there's a lot of purposeless activity, a lot of meaningless activity with no real measurable improvement.

All the people I talked to for the book, whether it was Peyton Manning, the Hall of Fame NFL quarterback, or Steve Kerr, the coach of the Golden State Warriors, they work with a purpose.

They diagnose a weakness and then they attack it.

Peyton Manning, for instance, early in his career had some unstable feet under pressure when heavy defensive linemen would dive below his knees.

So one of the things that his coaches did with him was, they started hurling heavy sandbags at his feet in practice to get him a little more stable under pressure.

Those are the sorts of granular things that athletes do to work on things that are really kind of marginal weaknesses, but make an incredible difference under pressure.

AMNA NAWAZ: Knowing and studying your own weaknesses too, that seemed to be a big part of competing at that elite level.

How does that apply to the rest of us?

SALLY JENKINS: Well, we all have a lot of unconscious incompetencies.

A Peyton Manning doesn't really know his feet are an issue until a coach like Tony Dungy gets ahold of him and says, you may have been a top draft pick and a future Hall of Famer, but right now you're a 32-32 quarterback in your won-loss record and you're leading the league in interceptions, despite all your talent.

So let's go fix that.

The rest of us, the same thing.

We have unconscious incompetencies.

We're not aware as we work through our own lives of where our weaknesses really are.

And it takes an evaluative eye.

And it also takes a certain amount of sort of personal courage to say, where am I not great?

AMNA NAWAZ: In the chapter on candor, you write about language, the difference between blame and critique.

You write -- quote -- "If you want to breed trust, you don't just tell someone what they did wrong.

You tell them how to do it right."

Who's a good example of that you have seen over the years?

SALLY JENKINS: Well, Pat Summitt was the greatest example I was ever around.

That's where I actually first got that insight.

I worked with Pat on some books and hung around her program at the University of Tennessee quite a bit observing.

And it was really, really striking.

Pat was known as a very demanding coach, as a very disciplined coach and fierce.

But I never heard her criticize a player without immediately offering the fix.

And it bred a great deal of trust.

She could then -- she could yell at players because they knew she was going to offer the solution in the next breath.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's a powerful line from Pat Summitt you have quoted that really resonated with me.

She said: "No one cares how much until they know how much you care."

How did that show up in her leadership?

SALLY JENKINS: Well, followers -- it turns out that teams actually have a lot more power than the coaches or the leaders.

I have seen countless teams take their coaches down by rebelling quietly.

Quiet mutinies in a locker room is something you see quite a lot in sportswriting.

You know it when you see it.

And Pat Riley, the president of the Miami Heat, has a really great description of what happens when followers don't trust the intentions of their leaders.

They start doing what Riley called subtly gearing down their efforts and enrolling others in their own cycles of disappointment.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sally, you write a lot about organizational culture and success.

We are speaking amid a lot of turmoil in the golf world, with the PGA Tour partnering with that Saudi-funded LIV Tour.

It's under a lot of scrutiny.

Should that deal have happened?

SALLY JENKINS: It's an essay in some of the worst leadership I have ever seen.

The hallmarks of really bad leadership are secrecy, lack of transparency, lack of preparation.

All of those things, the PGA Tour was guilty of.

They announced this deal without consulting anybody on the policy board of directors or any of their players, and their constituency has just absolutely rebelled.

The secrecy led to inquiry from everyone from Senator Richard Blumenthal and his committee to the Department of Justice.

I mean, there's just fallout after fallout here, because they violated some pretty basic principles of good organizational leadership.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sally, while I have you, I have to ask you about an incredibly powerful piece you wrote recently, a joint profile of two tennis greats, Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, not only the fiercest of rivals, but also the closest of friends for decades.

Both ended up battling cancer at the same time.

I want to play just a part of your interview with them.

CHRIS EVERT, Former Professional Tennis Player: Yes, and we went through the -- pretty much the same things in life.

MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, Former Professional Tennis Player: The trajectory, it's amazing, really.

CHRIS EVERT: And we're going through this together, which is like -- I love the phrase know we're in the trenches together.

Like, we have been in the trenches together our whole life.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sally, this was a sports story, but it really wasn't.

Why do you think it resonated so much with so many people?

SALLY JENKINS: Well, I think that, first of all, the reconciliation between the two of them after this epic ride rivalry is just - - it's very touching.

There's something moving about the fact that you can be the greatest opponents in the world and somehow emerge from that friends.

I think there's a real craving for sort of more gentle relationships in the world right now.

So I think that resonated.

Cancer is certainly such a common experience for Americans.

And, frankly, a lot of people grew up with these two women.

They were revolutionaries.

They established, as Chris Evert so beautifully put it, the right of women, the permission for women to really compete all out.

So they resonate with people in, I think, probably five or six different faceted ways.

And all of that came together in the perfect storm of this story about their friendship.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sally, it strikes me no one could have written that story but you.

You have covered them for so long.

You have covered all the greats in your book for so long.

What's it like to look back on that and think about that front-row seat to sports history you have had?

SALLY JENKINS: Well, that's partly why I wrote the book.

I -- it's -- the book is really, in some ways, a letter of appreciation to people like Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, who I started covering in 1984, when I was a very young writer.

I was about 24 years old, 25 years old.

They were just such great examples of how to go about your business, how to strive to be truly great at something.

I was very lucky to be exposed to them early.

I have been very lucky to have a front-row seat, and I have taken notes.

(LAUGHTER) SALLY JENKINS: So this is my offering from my notebook.

AMNA NAWAZ: The book is "The Right Call: What Sports Teach Us About Work and Life."

The author is Sally Jenkins.

Sally, great to speak with you.

Thank you.

SALLY JENKINS: Thank you so much.

GEOFF BENNETT: Tanya Aguiniga is a Los Angeles-based artist, designer, and activist who grew up as a binational citizen of Mexico and the U.S. Much of her work is centered on her dual identity and tells the larger and often invisible stories of her transnational community.

Tonight, she shares her Brief But Spectacular take as part of our arts and culture series, Canvas.

TANYA AGUINIGA, Artist: I, along with millions of people along the U.S.-Mexico border, grew up crossing the border every single day to go to school in the U.S.

I would go with my dad at like 3:30 in the morning to get to school by 8:00 because the border crossing is that long.

I would have to take two buses to the border to wait in line, walk across the border, then take a trolley to take the train to the town where my high school was or my junior high, and then take a bus from there over to school.

The majority of us that live in the borderlands on the Mexican side know that crossing the border and getting a job on the U.S. side is a necessity to be able to survive.

Crossing the border, it's such a stigmatizing experience, and most of us don't really talk about it.

A lot of us are U.S. citizens.

A lot of people have green cards.

Most people are paying taxes.

But we don't usually express our needs.

In a lot of those difficult times, I would have liked for someone to just check in on me and ask if I was OK.

So I started AMBOS, which stands for Art Made Between Opposite Sides, in 2016.

The AMBOS project came out of me just wanting to check in on people.

I wanted to come back to the border and do work specifically using the border space as a place of dialogue.

One of the biggest projects that we did with the AMBOS project was the Border Quipu.

A quipu is an Andean, a pre-Colombian organizational system.

I came up with using the quipu as a way to record our daily migrations to the north.

We went car to car and gave people these postcards and asked people to write a small reflection of what their thoughts were when they crossed the border.

And the postcards had two strings on them and asked them to please make an emotional knot that represented any of their emotions.

And then through the joining of these knots, we would be able to see ourselves in connection with our larger community and that we would understand that we're not alone in this.

We ended up taking three years and traveling across the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico border, and we engaged over 10,000 people.

I hope that, when people see my work, they feel like there's space within the work for them to see themselves mirrored in it and that they find some type of little home within it for themselves and for their own perspectives.

My name is Tanya Aguiniga, and this is my Brief But Spectacular take on using craft to push back on injustice.

GEOFF BENNETT: And you can watch more Brief But Spectacular videos online at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief.

And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

Remember, there's a lot more online, including a story about the long-term financial and emotional distress for folks in Missouri a year after catastrophic flooding in St. Louis.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for spending part of your evening with us.