PBS NewsHour full episode October 1, 2019

PBS NewsHour full episode October 1, 2019


JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: The president,
the attorney general and the secretary of state are all now at the heart of an impeachment
inquiry that questions the uses of power and contacts with foreign leaders. Then: One year after the murder of journalist
Jamal Khashoggi, what have we learned about the man many claim bears responsibility, Saudi
Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman? Plus: As China exports its cutting-edge technology
worldwide, critics cry foul over what they see as surveillance with the power to silence
dissent. MARIO PAZMINO, Former Military Intelligence
Director, Ecuador (through translator): They choose Chinese companies because China had
already developed a monitoring system that allowed them to have control over the activity
of the population. Their gift is a Trojan horse, designed to
control everything in society. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
has forcefully entered the fray over impeachment. He wrote to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs
Committee today, rejecting demands for testimony and documents. In the letter, Pompeo accused Democrats of
trying to — quote — “intimidate and bully” State Department employees. He warned that he will not tolerate such tactics. In turn, Democrats insisted on full compliance. They are investigating whether President Trump
pressured Ukraine’s leader for help with his reelection, in return for military aid. In Kiev today, Ukraine’s president again denied
he would ever go along with that. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, Ukrainian President (through
translator): I would like to say that I do not feel any pressure. There are many people, both in the West and
in Ukraine, who would like to have influence on me, but I am president of Ukraine, president
of an independent country, and I think that the steps I took so far prove that I cannot
be influenced. JUDY WOODRUFF: To help break down these latest
developments, our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardins, and our White House correspondent,
Yamiche Alcindor, are here. Hello to both of you, another very busy day. Yamiche, let me start with you. The Democrats charging full-speed ahead with
this impeachment inquiry. What are you learning about how the administration
is preparing and responding? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Secretary of State Pompeo’s
letter is really a key part of that. He is now saying that he thinks that the Democrats
are making it unfeasible for these depositions to go forward because they’re going so quickly. He’s also saying that State Department officials
feel bullied. I want to point out some things that are in
the letter. The first is that he says depositions essentially
need to be slowed down, because his State Department officials need to have time to
find their counsel and to be able to know exactly what these depositions are going to
be about. He also says that Trump administration officials
and their lawyers need to be included in these depositions, because there might be executive
privilege issues. And we have seen the White House stop a lot
of people from saying things that they think are executive privilege. And Democrats, of course, have said that that’s
not exactly the right way to go about things. He also says that he is still going to be
intending to comply with a subpoena, or at least looking — intending to comply with
the subpoena to have documents turned over to Congress by Friday. So there are some people who are seeing this
as hard no from Secretary Pompeo. I was reaching out to the State Department
to say, is this a hard no? And I haven’t got an answer yet. So, it leads me to think that Secretary Pompeo
is saying, hey, these are not — we’re not going about this right, but I am also going
to provide people and have these depositions, as we know there are some scheduled already
this month. JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Lisa, it is a strongly
worded letter from the secretary of state. What are Democrats doing in response? LISA DESJARDINS: Well, we have had some developments
in just the last hour. I have been told by my sources on the House
Intelligence Committee that, in fact, one deposition has been delayed now. That’s the deposition of the former Ukraine
ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch. She is still currently a State Department
official. But we’re told that she’s scheduling now her
deposition for next week. The other deposition for this week of note
was Kurt Volker. He’s the former envoy to Ukraine who left
that office and left the State Department last week. He’s no longer with the State Department. That’s going ahead as scheduled for Thursday. So, what we’re seeing here is both sides,
I think, feeling each other out. But, in general, Democrats think that this
is a sign that the Trump administration is going to block them every chance they get. They had a strongly worded letter of their
own. Three committee chairmen involved wrote this. Let’s show you. They said: “Secretary Pompeo is now a fact
witness in the House impeachment inquiry,” because he was on the phone call to begin
with. “He should immediately cease intimidating
department witnesses in order to protect himself and the president.” They go on: “Any effort to intimidate witnesses
or prevent them from talking with Congress is illegal and will constitute evidence of
obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.” They’re saying, if they obstruct, that itself
could be impeachable. JUDY WOODRUFF: So if that’s the Democrats,
what about the Republicans? It’s the president’s and their party. How are they handling this? LISA DESJARDINS: There is something new happening,
I think, with a few Senate offices and a few senators. While most Republican senators are defending
the president in general right now, there’s a lack of comfort when it comes to the whistle-blower
and the president’s statement yesterday and over the past few days that he is looking
for the whistle-blower. We saw it from a key Republican today. Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent out this statement. Look at this, wrote: “This person, the whistle-blower,
appears to have followed the whistle-blower protection laws, and ought to be heard out
and protected.” Grassley never named the president, but he
seemed to be pushing back at both the president and Democrats and say, I think this whistle-blower
is credible. And that’s very significant. Talking to Republicans, behind the scenes,
they’re not comfortable with how he’s handling the whistle-blower. Also, Judy, separately, getting down the road,
if we have a Senate trial on the impeachment, that could put some Republicans, those moderate
Republicans who are up for reelection next year, in a very uncomfortable position. They are already reading up, getting background
materials, preparing for if they have to take that vote. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, that can’t make
the White House very happy that there are some Republicans who are hesitant and more
about all this. How’s the White House dealing with that among
Republicans? And what is the administration doing about
this — this ongoing inquiry? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The White House points to
the president’s poll numbers first off and says he still has record high numbers, or
at least very high numbers among Republican voters. So he says — so they still tell me, even
if the president’s — even if there are some Republican lawmakers who are criticizing the
president or maybe not liking the way that he’s talking about the whistle-blower, that
voters are still with him. They also say that the president is acting
within its right. They feel as though the president has been
falsely accused and it’s rightfully so that he would be angry and want to face his accuser. Now, federal law is very clear about this. The whistle-blower is supposed to be — remain
anonymous. And that person is also supposed to not be
retaliated against. So what you have there is the White House
pushing back, but also federal law being a very hard line there. The also — thing I want to point out is that
Rudy Giuliani, he’s been a central figure in all of this. He has now hired his own lawyer. I was texting with him tonight. And I want to read what he told me. I first asked him, are you going to be complying
with the subpoenas issued by House Democrats? He wrote back one word: “Studying.” I then said, well, what do you make of all
of this? And he said: “They are trying to interfere
with his ability” — that would be President Trump’s ability — “to govern and to defend
himself.” So, essentially, what you have is the president’s
lawyer lawyering up, but also still defending the president. JUDY WOODRUFF: Fascinating. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. I think we’re seeing right now a document
war that very likely — I know House Democrats think this — is going to lead to a court
battle, in addition to a potential impeachment battle in the House. JUDY WOODRUFF: And all this as Democrats say
they want to do this as quickly as possible. This may be fighting that. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. Will courts force the Trump administration
to produce documents and testimony? That is the question. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: They might also — they
might possibly also try to say that this is all executive privilege. And that’s been something that they have tried
to use in the past, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. House Democrats have really said that they’re
inventing the way that they use some of these privilege issues. But the White House is pretty clear. They think that they at least are on firm
legal ground here. JUDY WOODRUFF: Documents and the courts. LISA DESJARDINS: Unprecedented. JUDY WOODRUFF: Unprecedented in every way. Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor, thank you
both. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Thanks. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day’s other news: A
mass march in Hong Kong erupted into some of the worst violence seen there yet. And for the first time, police shot a protester. The unrest came as mainland China marked the
70th anniversary of the communist state. Matt Frei of Independent Television News is
in Hong Kong and reports on the protests that swept the city. MATT FREI: This march was banned by the authorities,
who hovered in the wings, a bit like these awestruck and camera-shy tourists from mainland
China. And yet the numbers today were huge. It’s easy for Beijing to blame any violence
on the hooligans and these so-called terrorists, but this is more difficult to explain, tens
of thousands of ordinary Hong Kong citizens, unafraid, marching for democracy on the streets
of the city. But, minutes later, things began to kick off. The police had promised to return force with
force, and so they did, making more than 100 arrests. Today marks a grim first. A policemen drew his gun on a protester because
he feared for the life of a fellow officer. The 18-year-old protester was shot in the
chest, but survived. There were six locations where they fought
pitched battles, and we were at one of them. The tear gas canisters returned throw from
the Hong Kong headquarters of the People’s Liberation Army. They wheeled in new supplies, bricks dug up
from the road, and a production line of barricades. The resilience and fearlessness of the protesters
has stunned the government here and in Beijing. Life in Hong Kong was supposed to be all about
the aspiration of wealth, not the destruction of it for the sake of freedom. But, today, Asia’s financial capital was a
battlefield, a bonfire at Beijing’s birthday vanities, not that they cared, or even knew,
in the capital, dancing, cheering, and reveling by numbers in a parallel universe, the one
that still has all the muscle. JUDY WOODRUFF: That report from Matt Frei
of Independent Television News. And we will return to the momentous events
in Hong Kong and Beijing later in the program. In Iraq, violence broke out in Baghdad as
security forces fired on crowds protesting corruption and a lack of jobs. Officials said one person was killed and some
200 hurt. Protesters waving flags confronted police,
who initially fired rubber bullets and tear gas. Then, they turned to live ammunition and water
cannon. But the demonstrators insisted they won’t
go away. MOHAMMED JASSIM, Iraqi Protester (through
translator): We want the very basic rights, electricity, water, employment, and medicine,
nothing else. We don’t want power or money. All we ask is to live and have a piece of
bread to eat, but this government is shooting at the crowd. JUDY WOODRUFF: The government blamed what
it called a group of rioters. Iraq has witnessed a number of similar protests
in recent months. A new Parliament took office in Indonesia
today, amid protests against banning extramarital sex, penalizing abortions and curbing anti-corruption
efforts. Demonstrators swarmed the streets of Jakarta,
and police fired back with tear gas. The protests began last week over a new criminal
code. North Korea and the United States will revive
nuclear talks beginning this weekend. The announcement today breaks a months-long
stalemate. It began after a failed February summit between
President Trump and the North’s Kim Jong-un. North Korea has since carried out a string
of short-range weapons tests. Back in this country, a jury in Dallas convicted
a white former police officer, Amber Guyger, of murdering a black neighbor in his own apartment. Guyger said she mistook Botham Jean’s apartment
for hers, thought he was an intruder, and opened fire. The courtroom erupted in cheers when the verdict
was announced. An attorney for Jean’s family spoke afterward. LEE MERRITT, Attorney for Botham Jean Family:
This is a huge victory not only for the family of Botham Jean, but as his mother, Allison,
told me a moment ago, this is a victory for black people in America. It’s a signal that the tide is going to change
here. Police officers are going to getting to be
held accountable for their actions. JUDY WOODRUFF: Guyger could get up to 99 years
in prison under Texas law. A U.S. Justice Department watchdog is blaming
the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for a slow response to the opioid crisis. The inspector general’s report today said
that the DEA sharply reduced its policing of opioids, even as overdose deaths exploded
from 2013 to 2017. The finding comes just before a major federal
trial of claims against the industry. Former Republican Congressman Chris Collins
of New York pled guilty today in an insider trading case a day after resigning. He appeared in federal court in New York and
admitted to conspiracy and making false statements. Prosecutors said that he leaked information
about a drug company, and then lied about it. Harvard University has scored a big win in
a legal fight over its admissions process. A federal judge in Boston ruled today that
the school doesn’t hold Asian American applicants to a higher standard, as a lawsuit claimed. The case could end up before the U.S. Supreme
Court. Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in Washington
upheld the repeal of the so-called net neutrality rules. But it allowed states to enact their own standards. The federal regulations had barred Internet
providers from favoring some services over others. The Federal Communications Commission scrapped
them in 2017. On Wall Street today, stocks sank on news
that U.S. manufacturing is down for a second straight month. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 343
points to close at 26573. The Nasdaq fell 90 points, and the S&P 500
dropped 36. And former President Jimmy Carter turned 95
today, making him the first American president to reach that milestone. Mr. Carter had hip replacement surgery in
May, and has survived brain cancer in 2015, but he remains active. Happy birthday. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: the attorney
general and the president of Australia, what we know and why it matters; fears of global
surveillance, as China exports its technology to the world; and much more. For all of the focus so far this week on President
Trump and the impeachment inquiry into him, there has also been renewed scrutiny of the
U.S. Justice Department. William Brangham reports on the new questions
being raised today about the nation’s top law enforcement official. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That’s right, Judy. When Attorney General William Barr began his
second stint as attorney general earlier this year, he was seen by many as a stabilizing
force for the department. He ended up overseeing the tail end of Robert
Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the last presidential election. But upon the release of the Mueller report,
and in subsequent months, critics have accused him of acting more like the president’s attorney,
rather than the country’s. Now, according to The Washington Post, Attorney
General Barr has been personally visiting with foreign intelligence officials to encourage
them to help out with an investigation that President Trump hopes will discredit the entire
Russia probe. Devlin Barrett is one of the reporters at
The Washington Post who helped break this story. And he joins me now. Devlin, always good the see you on the “NewsHour.” Thank you. Before we get into Attorney General Barr’s
role in all of this, can you just remind us what this investigation that is going on at
the DOJ is looking into? DEVLIN BARRETT, The Washington Post: Right. This investigation has been going on since
about May, when Attorney General Barr, who hadn’t been in the job that long, appointed
a Connecticut U.S. attorney named John Durham to start looking into questions of, was there
any inappropriate conduct by intelligence agencies, specifically the CIA or the FBI,
involving the investigation of Trump campaign associate and this whole notion of the collusion
investigation? And the question that was trying to be answered
was, did any intelligence officials of either of those agencies cross any lines? WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And so this is looking in
part at what the president on a nearly basis refers to as the witch-hunt. That’s what this investigation is in part
looking at. DEVLIN BARRETT: Right. It’s another review, internal review of that
process. And, remember, there is already the inspector
general from the Justice Department looking at it. There’s a lot of, frankly, people looking
over their shoulders and checking their work, but this is — has been moving around in the
background, and we have just come to learn how significant this effort has become. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And your reporting last
night revealed just how deeply involved Attorney General Barr is in that investigation. Can you tell us a little bit about what you
found? DEVLIN BARRETT: That’s right. So, for example, last week, the attorney general
traveled to Rome to meet with Italian intelligence officials to talk about some of the areas
of interest in this case and to essentially act as an introduction to John Durham. Durham was with him in Rome, we’re told, for
some of these meetings. And what folks around the attorney general
say is, he’s basically trying to make sure that whatever Durham wants or needs, he can
get in terms of cooperation from foreign countries. But it’s an amazing situation, right, because
you have a senior U.S. official asking foreign governments to help investigate U.S. agencies,
and that’s just a very rare thing. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You spoke with in your reporting
a lot of current and former Department of Justice officials who, quite frankly, do not
seem very happy with this arrangement. Can you explain what their complaint, what
their beef is with this? DEVLIN BARRETT: Well, remember, the political
backdrop to all of this is that the president keeps accusing the folks involved in this
investigation of crimes and corruption. So, amid that public, you know, sort of drumbeat,
what you have is the attorney general pushing forward on an investigation that, at least
in theory, could find examples of that. But what current and former intelligence officials
say is, that’s just nonsense, that nothing untoward happened in this investigation, other
than intelligence officials trying to figure out, what was the extent of the Russian interactions
with Americans, and that this is all just sort of, in their minds, a witch-hunt of,
you know, professional intelligence officers, and it’s unfair. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But if Durham’s investigation
is considered legitimate, the conspiracy theories aside, what really is the problem with the
head of the DOJ saying to foreign governments, I’d like do you help with this DOJ investigation? Isn’t that the defense that the DOJ currently
makes? DEVLIN BARRETT: Absolutely. And their argument is, look, what’s wrong
with having a review of what happened to make sure nothing was done inappropriately? What is the possible harm in that? I think the challenge in the political — the
public discussion of all of this is that, because of the way Barr handled the Mueller
investigation, because of the way Congress is now fighting over so many things that the
Trump administration is doing, there’s so little trust between Democrats on the Hill
and the Justice Department run by Barr. And, frankly, there is a fair bit of distrust
even among some of these agencies as they try to sort through this that no one is really
sure that the other guy is operating in good faith. And so that is a big part of the concern you
hear from current and former officials. And that’s a big part of the accusations being
lobbed against the attorney general right now. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Your reporting comes out
obviously in this swirl of other news about the impeachment inquiry going on into the
president’s conversation with the president of Ukraine. To what extent is there a connection between
this backwards look at the Russia investigation and the current ongoing investigation into
the president’s phone call with the Ukrainians? Are they connected, or are they not? DEVLIN BARRETT: They are, but in an odd way. So, if you remember, when the phone call came
out and the first details of the phone call came out, the news really focused on — rightly,
focused on the question of, was the president trying to get the Ukrainian government to
investigate Joe Biden and his son? That’s an important question, no doubt, but
part of the government response to that was, you know, the U.S. side hasn’t really pursued
that. This is not something that the agencies themselves
have pursued. But there was another part of the conversation
that was sort of overlooked, which is the president also asking the Ukraine for help
in reexamining 2016. And there you see actually, in fact, there
has been a fairly extensive government effort involving the attorney general and others
to go around the world and talk to people and try to figure out exactly what was done
in 2016. So that part of the conversation was based
in hard reality. And so that’s the connection between the whistle-blower
story that everyone has been chasing and this sort of under-the-radar, frankly, investigation
touching on all these countries. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This under-the-radar investigation,
I know it’s hard, and I appreciate you helping us keep them separate and keep our eyes on
the ball here. What is the timeline? What do we know about when Durham’s investigation
might come out? What do we know about when the DOJ inspector
general’s report might come out? DEVLIN BARRETT: So, the inspector general
report is expected pretty soon, maybe a matter of weeks or a couple of months. The Durham investigation is a different matter. First of all, it’s much more far-flung. Second of all, Durham historically is a very
well-respected investigator, but he’s also someone who tends to take years for some of
his investigations. So the Durham work could take a long time. But we do expect to see that I.G. report pretty
soon. And I think, at that point, it will be an
interesting moment in terms of the public debate: Is this really just a bunch of conspiracy
theories, or is there some issue inside the investigation that we hadn’t known about? WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Devlin Barrett,
as always, of The Washington Post, thank you very, very much. DEVLIN BARRETT: Thanks for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: reckoning with
the epidemic of imagery of child sex abuse on the Internet; plus, the killing and the
crown prince — the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi one year later. As we reported earlier, tensions between police
and protesters in Hong Kong escalated dramatically overnight, as officers opened fire on a young
activist. The violence occurred as China’s leaders in
Beijing were celebrating the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of
China. The “NewsHour”‘s Nick Schifrin recently returned
from a reporting trip that took him to both mainland China and Hong Kong. And he joins me now. Nick, hello and welcome back, and incredible
reporting. So, you’re seeing, as we are, what’s going
on in Hong Kong. What does it add up to? NICK SCHIFRIN: Well, it adds up to two completely
different stories and a split-screen. So let’s just go over what happened in Beijing
for a second, because, for the Chinese, this is massive, historic day. This is 70 years since the creation of the
People’s Republic of China. And what we saw in Beijing was pomp, circumstance,
and a real show of strength. Xi Jinping under China has really developed
its military, the fastest military modernization in world history. And Xi Jinping talks about China as a great
power, about the inheritor of empire, and showing off all of this military really helps
him prove that. These are nuclear missiles we have never seen
them before, nuclear-armed gliders, weapons designed to evade U.S. defenses, 15,000 troops,
160 aircraft, 580 artillery. And that’s Xi Jinping there celebrating with
the crowds. And, as I said, this commemorates the founding
of the People’s Republic of China, so this is a communist celebration, but very much
to show that he and China have arrived on the world stage as a great power. JUDY WOODRUFF: To what extent, though, is
that now overshadowed by what’s going on in Hong Kong? NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes, it completely changed
the narrative. As I said, the Chinese are so proud of today. They have been working on that for months. And now we are covering Hong Kong, when we
have a split-screen, literally, between the two things, and so all of the pomp and circumstance
on the left side in Beijing, the protests and clashes there on the right in Hong Kong. And these are completely different ideologies,
on the left, celebrating one party rule, celebrating how far China has come, on the right, people
fighting for democracy, and people on the right saying that the people on the left represent
authoritarianism. And I talked to a lot of these protest leaders
who are protesting there on the right. And they say that they created today’s protest
in order to embarrass Beijing, in order to have this split-screen that you see today. And so what police — what protesters are
talking about today is, they’re the victims of police brutality. We saw this protester shot. What the Chinese say is that, look, you guys
are creating the violence. You are talking about separating from China. The police are just trying to maintain stability. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when you see the — I mean,
we know that the government in Hong Kong has given in to some of the protesters’ demands,
and yet they continue to protest. NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes, this is what’s remarkable
about it. The core demand, the withdraw of a bill that
would allow the extradition of suspects to China, that was withdrawn a while ago, and
yet we still see these protests. And that really goes to the core of what demonstrators
are demanding, not only an independent police investigation, not only the release of some
of those who have been arrested over the last few months, the right to directly elect their
city administrators, but also a different kind of identity. When I was in Hong Kong, when so many reporters
had been asking these protesters what drives them, they talk about a separate independence,
a separate identity that they believe is not mainland China. And when you ask pollsters, they will say
that actually for the first time since Hong Kong was independent, since Hong Kong separated
from Britain, people identify as Hong Kong residents, not Chinese citizens. JUDY WOODRUFF: So we are in the middle on
the “NewsHour” of your remarkable series. Last night, you were looking at technology
in China, tonight, more of that. Tell us about what’s coming. NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes. Last night, we reported on how technology
has helped the country make great strides, but also sparked alarm over domestic surveillance. Tonight, we’re going to look at China’s efforts
to spread its technology around the world, and why the U.S. believes that is a fundamental
threat to democracy. So, with the help of the Pulitzer Center,
we begin by examining the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and its influence far outside
of China. It may look like an Apple event in California,
but this is Germany, and the presentation is for the Chinese company Huawei. MAN: We’re the first one, 5G. NICK SCHIFRIN: Last month, Huawei launched
the world’s first chip with integrated 5G, or fifth-generation, technology. It will dramatically speed up phones and is
designed to connect everything around us, transmit huge amounts of data instantly, and
transform entire cities. EDWIN DIENDER, Chief Information Officer,
Huawei: We’re now walking on the floor that touches everything in your city. NICK SCHIFRIN: Huawei chief digital information
officer Edwin Diender shows off what Huawei calls a smart city. Closed-circuit cameras feed into a database
with advanced artificial intelligence, and facial recognition can identify everyone,
cross-reference license plates, and analyze unlimited information. Diender calls it the future of policing. EDWIN DIENDER: Where, for example, today,
teams manually need to look through CCTV camera footage, with a good video cloud analytics
platform, you can say, I’m looking for a white guy, blue jeans, red T-shirt. You can give an order or a query, almost like
a Google search. I can say, find me this black car with this
particular license plate, of which I think it is an L or a 7, a W or an M, but I’m not
sure. Then the system can look into different camera
points, for example, and does it for you. NICK SCHIFRIN: Huawei promotional videos compare
the combination of A.I., 5G, and surveillance to how a brain processes information to control
the body. The U.S. fears that Huawei’s information isn’t
secure, because the control is actually the Chinese government’s. MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States:
To have Huawei operating as a 5G network in our country or in our allies’ countries, we
believe, represents a fundamental compromise of our national security and the privacy of
millions of citizens. NICK SCHIFRIN: It may actually be billions
of citizens. Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies
are building 5G and smart cities in more than 65 countries. “PBS NewsHour” producers in three continents
heard praise from police and alarm from human rights advocates, beginning in the Philippines. RODRIGO DUTERTE, Philippine President: There
will be no letup in this campaign. NICK SCHIFRIN: The government of President
Rodrigo Duterte is waging what it calls a war on drugs. It’s turned to China for help. In 2016, Duterte traveled to Beijing to secure
Chinese government loans that allowed the Philippines to buy a Chinese safe city. NARRATOR: Huawei sets up safe city solutions. JONATHAN E. MALAYA, Philippines Government
Undersecretary: In terms of the benefit of this project to the country, it’s immeasurable. NICK SCHIFRIN: Jonathan Malaya is the Philippines’
Department of Interior and Local Government’s undersecretary. JONATHAN E. MALAYA: If we are to ensure the
safety and security of our countrymen, we must use every tool available. NICK SCHIFRIN: But how are those tools being
used? The government’s opponents call the war on
drugs an extrajudicial, murderous crackdown that’s killed tens of thousands, and they
say Chinese technology could enhance government suppression. FRANCISCO ASHLEY ACEDILLO, Former Philippines
Congressman: Former What a safe cities program is all about is increased electronic and technological
surveillance. NICK SCHIFRIN: Francisco Ashley Acedillo is
a former congressman. He says Huawei’s a front for the Chinese government. Founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei is a current
member of the Chinese Communist Party and former officer of the Chinese military. and international researchers say Huawei employees
regularly collaborate with analysts from the army, or PLA. FRANCISCO ASHLEY ACEDILLO: My concerns with
Huawei is, if a company which was founded and is still currently run by former PLA officers,
that already is a problem. NICK SCHIFRIN: Huawei insists that it’s private
and independent. And the Philippines government points to Huawei’s
success. JONATHAN E. MALAYA: If you look at the Southeast
Asian region, no country has banned Huawei. Why should we be unduly alarmed, when the
rest of the world is not alarmed? NICK SCHIFRIN: But critics say that misses
the point, because Manila’s safe city could hand over unlimited data to Chinese companies
that must collaborate with the Chinese government. Chinese law says — quote — “Any organization
or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to
law.” China has no independent judiciary for companies
to appeal. FRANCISCO ASHLEY ACEDILLO: They cannot say
no to any request from the Chinese government for such kind of intelligence gathering. NICK SCHIFRIN: We found similar concerns 5,000
miles west in Ethiopia. For more than a decade, Ethiopian and Chinese
officials have collaborated to improve Ethiopian infrastructure, including the phone and Internet
backbone for state-owned Ethio Telecom. MAN: Almost $1.6 billion, we have an agreement
with Huawei. They are implementing the telecom infrastructure. NICK SCHIFRIN: But that infrastructure provides
a backdoor for intelligence agencies, says investigative journalist Daniel Berhane. DANIEL BERHANE, Political Blogger: They designed
the system in a way the security agencies can parallel access the Internet data and
the voice data. NICK SCHIFRIN: Berhane is the editor of a
new site and was Ethiopia’s first political blogger. He accuses multiple Ethiopian governments
of repression and surveillance, but says Chinese technology has allowed this government to
better exploit Ethio Telecom to spy on its critics, including journalists. Berhane says he too was targeted by government
surveillance and his accounts were hacked. DANIEL BERHANE: Spy agency used that code,
and entered my Facebook account. Huawei was an accomplice in setting up the
system in a manner. Huawei’s doing a business. Why would they care about my political rights
and my freedom? NICK SCHIFRIN: That same question was asked
by the new government in another country, 8,000 miles further west, Ecuador. ECU 911 coordinates Ecuador’s emergency responses
and receives a national network of 4,600 surveillance cameras. Juan Zapata is ECU 911’s director. JUAN ZAPATA, Director, ECU 911 (through translator):
Video surveillance and technology gets absolute results, because they’re our eyes without
resting. We have saved lives. NICK SCHIFRIN: Former President Rafael Correa
built ECU 911 with Chinese technology and Chinese government loans. In 2016, he gave Chinese President Xi Jinping
a tour of the center. But the new president, Lenin Moreno, says
ECU 911 surveillance wasn’t only designed to save lives; it was built with a backdoor
to Ecuador’s intelligence agency that allowed a ECU 911’s surveillance to be weaponized
against the government’s opponents. LENIN MORENO, President of Ecuador (through
translator): The tasks the institution should have exclusively focused on were diversified
to a different task, a perverse one, espionage of political opponents, and espionage of citizens
they had intentions to harm. NICK SCHIFRIN: This is what that espionage
looked like. In this safe neighborhood in capital Quito,
a single camera stands watch and looks right into a specific living room. Retired Colonel Mario Pazmino was a constant
critic of the former government. He says they installed the Chinese-produced
camera to keep watch. MARIO PAZMINO, Former Military Intelligence
Director, Ecuador (through translator): They choose Chinese companies because China had
already developed a monitoring system that allowed them to have control over the activity
of the population. Their gift is a Trojan horse, designed to
control everything in society. NICK SCHIFRIN: Which brings us back to Shenzhen
and the core of the U.S.’ concerns. A White House official talking to me called
this authoritarianism in a box. What’s your response to that? EDWIN DIENDER: What do you want me to say? I think it’s also liberation in a box. I think it’s also city management and being
very efficient in daily operations in a box. NICK SCHIFRIN: Some governments are using
that to persecute or target their critics. So can this be used for surveillance? Is it being used for surveillance? EDWIN DIENDER: Well, what you’re looking at
is an element of intelligent video surveillance, which is common technology that is available
worldwide. Like every technology, it can be used in certain
ways. NICK SCHIFRIN: Does that concern you, that
some of these countries might be using this for… EDWIN DIENDER: Personally, yes, of course. I’m a person, just like everybody else is
a person. I have my own concerns and my own views. And, yes, of course, that is a concern. NICK SCHIFRIN: But the genie’s out of the
bottle. Huawei’s been packaging smart cities and 5G
for years. The U.S. is trying to contain Huawei’s expansion,
and is building its own 5G systems. But the U.S. is behind, says another Huawei
technology recipient, Indonesian Minister Luhut Pandjaitan. LUHUT BINSAR PANDJAITAN, Indonesian Minister
for Maritime Affairs: American technology is very good, you know? But the last five years, I think the Chinese
technology is much better. I think, to some extent, I agree with America
about Trump policy, you know. But I think it’s too late to force China to
follow all American desire. NICK SCHIFRIN: Senior U.S. officials say they’re
trying to stop Chinese technology before it changes the world. But China’s system of surveillance, facial
recognition, and exporting safe cities has already changed the world. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin
in Shenzhen, China. JUDY WOODRUFF: There has been a explosion
in the number of images of sexual abuse against children posted on the Internet in recent
years. It is the focus of an investigation by The
New York Times that we are going to talk about tonight. But a warning that some viewers, especially
with children in the room, may find this conversation disturbing. As Amna Nawaz reports, the sheer amount of
content has soared, despite efforts to crack down over the last decade. AMNA NAWAZ: Judy, the numbers are stunning. According to The Times, technology platforms
like Facebook and Google reported some 45 million videos and photos of children being
sexually abused last year. That is more than double the number found
the previous year. Now, The Times called the images horrific,
portraying children, some as young as 3 or 4 years old, suffering abuse, in some cases
physical torture, at the hands of adults. The report also outlines how law enforcement
and others are struggling to track and curb the crimes by the perpetrators. Donna Rice Hughes is an advocate for child
safety online and president and CEO of Enough Is Enough, a nonprofit group dedicated to
making the Internet safer for children and families, particularly by confronting child
sexual abuse and predation. Donna, welcome to the “NewsHour.” DONNA RICE HUGHES, President, Enough Is Enough:
Thank you for having me. AMNA NAWAZ: So that number, 45 million, help
me understand that. Is that a problem that’s been getting worse
and worse, or are authorities just better at detecting what’s out there? DONNA RICE HUGHES: It’s a problem that’s getting
worse and worse and authorities are better at detecting this. But we started to see the beginning of child
sex abuse images coming into the Internet world at the advent of the Internet. In fact, that was a lot of the early driver
of the Internet, that type of content and illegal adult pornography as well. AMNA NAWAZ: So in other words, this problem
has been around for years and years. Has it been steadily getting worse, or has
there been a recent jump? DONNA RICE HUGHES: Well, it’s — a number
of things have happened. I call it the perfect storm, if you will,
because the Internet actually created the ideal scenario for sexual predators to create
new child pornography images and to share those. It actually created a forum to share how to
avoid law enforcement detection and to virtually molest children. Now predators can gather together from all
over the world and watch another predator sexually abuse a child in real time virtually. So all of these things have happened. And then, when Web 2.0, which is when the
social media world came into being in 2002 to 2004, that changed everything, because
now you have a platform where anyone can be a creator of content. And so that magnified the problem. We have had a number of laws, including one
of the ones that was mentioned in this article, the PROTECT Act of 2008. And they did a great job laying out a wonderful
strategy. And now what we know from this piece — this
article in The New York Times is that not all of that has been done. And there’s been $60 million appropriated,
but only half is actually funded each year, and some of that is being taken from the cyber-crimes
budget and being put someplace else. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, let’s break that down a
little bit to understand some of these steps, because you mentioned it’s been around for
years. There have been a number of steps taken to
try to address it. It’s not like authorities don’t know this
is going on. These are reported cases. DONNA RICE HUGHES: Right. Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: So what is supposed to happen? When a Google or a Facebook says, we found
these videos, what is supposed to happen, in an ideal scenario, then? DONNA RICE HUGHES: Well, they’re supposed
to report it right away. And that law actually outlined what they’re
supposed to report. Now, oftentimes, they don’t have all the data
to report, but they have also gotten very lax. Additionally, at the Department of Justice,
they created a position, a wonderful position for someone to be the quarterback of all of
this, but that person was never given the authority or even all of the funding to do
this. So I am so glad that this article came out,
because it shows where we have fallen down and what we need to do. But there’s even more — $60 million isn’t
enough anymore. And now you have got the evolution of the
Dark Web and anonymizing tools. So, that’s going to make it even worse. Facebook is looking at creating an anonymizing
tool, so that Messenger is encrypted. AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned the funding part
of it, the $60 million in that last bucket, only half of which, I understand, was ever
appropriated to go to all the authorities trying to address this. DONNA RICE HUGHES: Yes. Right. Right. AMNA NAWAZ: So is this purely a funding problem? Is it a priority problem? Is it a staffing problem? What’s going on? And why are authorities so overwhelmed? DONNA RICE HUGHES: Well, it’s all of the above. It’s funding. You need funding to staff. You need funding to get the technology. And it needs to be a top priority. And so we actually wrote the Children’s Internet
Safety Presidential Pledge, and both Clinton and Trump got behind that. And we believe that the White House… AMNA NAWAZ: This was back before the election,
we should mention. DONNA RICE HUGHES: This was before the election. AMNA NAWAZ: You got both candidates to… DONNA RICE HUGHES: Yes, both candidates to
make the protection of children in the digital age a top priority, not from just child sexual
abuse images, but from trafficking, also from the pornography problem, because you have
got to go at this like a war with all hands on deck. And you can’t just target one piece of this,
and not the other piece of this. AMNA NAWAZ: You also mentioned a word we hear
a lot, which is encryption, right? A lot of these social media companies, a lot
of these platforms offer encryption as a safe space where you can have private conversations. DONNA RICE HUGHES: Right. AMNA NAWAZ: It’s also being exploited by exactly
these kinds of criminals. DONNA RICE HUGHES: That’s right. AMNA NAWAZ: So, where’s the accountability
for the people who host those sites and host those platforms? DONNA RICE HUGHES: There needs to be more
accountability, in my opinion. And there’s not. And so I would like to see more oversight
with that. The high-tech industry typically avoids any
kind of a mandate. They want to do everything voluntarily. But they do fall short. They fall short in a lot of areas. And I believe — and I believe that your audience
would agree with me — that we have to put the protection and the safety and the innocence
of children over the privacy of some people that might want to encrypt their data. And another thing is, the United States is
number two in the world for hosting child pornography Web sites. AMNA NAWAZ: Number two in the world right
now? DONNA RICE HUGHES: Number two in the world. We were number one, until a couple of years
ago, according to the Internet Watch Foundation. That is absolutely horrendous. And we’re number one as far as hard-core,
obscene pornography, which is also not protected speech. They each fuel the other. So we have to say, enough is enough. AMNA NAWAZ: I think we can all agree that
more needs to be done to protect children in these circumstances. And there’s probably a whole world of things
that need to be addressed. But if you had to pinpoint one or two things
that could be done right now, what would those — what would those be? DONNA RICE HUGHES: Well, they would be for
there to be enough funding for everything that was in the PROTECT Act, that the appropriation
needs to be bigger than $60 million. And we need to have the governors, the president,
the U.S. attorneys and the Department of Justice make this issue as top priority as all the
other issues that we talk about on the news just about every night. This needs to be front and center, because
this is the innocence of our children, and not just America’s children, but children
all over the world. And they can’t speak for themselves. They need us. And that’s part of the compelling role of
the government, is to protect them. AMNA NAWAZ: You want to see more from your
leaders. DONNA RICE HUGHES: Absolutely. AMNA NAWAZ: Donna Rice Hughes, president and
CEO of Enough Is Enough, thank you for being here. DONNA RICE HUGHES: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: And if you or someone else you
know is in immediate danger, call 911. If you are concerned about a child being exploited,
or about explicit content being posted, call the National Center for Missing and Exploited
children at 1-800-THE-LOST. Or go online with a tip at cybertipline.org. JUDY WOODRUFF: Later tonight on PBS, “Frontline”
presents “The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.” In the documentary film, Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman addresses for the first time his role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In a moment, we will hear from “Frontline”
reporter Martin Smith, but first a clip from the film. In this scene, Smith has tracked bin Salman
down at a racetrack to ask him about Khashoggi. MARTIN SMITH: It was reported that on the
day of the murder, Maher Mutreb made a call. He said, in effect, tell your boss the deed
was done. BRUCE RIEDEL, Former CIA Analyst: The phone
number that was being called in Riyadh was the crown prince’s office. It doesn’t get much better than that. If you call the White House Situation Room,
I come to the conclusion the White House knows what is going on. MARTIN SMITH: Last December, I talked to Prince
Mohammed at the racetrack. He spoke about his role in the Khashoggi murder
for the first time. My camera was outside, but he said: “It happened
under my watch. I get all the responsibility because it happened
under my watch. I really take it very seriously. I don’t want to tell you, no, I didn’t do
it or I did do it or whatever. That’s just words.” I asked how it could happen without him knowing
about it. “Accidents happen. Can you imagine? We have 20 million people. We have three million government employees. I am not Google or a supercomputer to watch
over three million.” “They can take one of your planes?” I asked. “I have officials, ministers to follow things,
and they’re responsible. They have the authority to do that.” “But during it, Qahtani is texting you, right?” I asked. “Yes, he texts me every day.” MARK MAZZETTI, The New York Times: After Khashoggi
is killed, the United States intelligence community starts looking backwards, grabbing
intercepts that they had picked up over years. MARTIN SMITH: And they find MBS chatting with
Qahtani back in 2016. MARK MAZZETTI: Mohammed bin Salman is expressing
frustration and annoyance about Khashoggi, saying he’s becoming more influential. MARTIN SMITH: Qahtani cautioned the prince
that any move against Khashoggi was risky and could create an international uproar. MBS scolded Qahtani for being too cautious. JUDY WOODRUFF: And to explore more of what
“Frontline” uncovered, I’m now joined by Martin Smith. Martin Smith, welcome to the “NewsHour.” Explain to us, first of all, why you weren’t
able to get closer to the crown prince with a camera. MARTIN SMITH: Well, it’s — this is an enormously
opaque country, to begin with. We were able to — I was able to stand next
to him on the rooftop at this event that took place. But he is tremendously guarded about — and
chooses how he is going to be portrayed very carefully. JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you think he explained
his role in this as he did? MARTIN SMITH: Well, I think that what he said
has been something that his advisers, I know, have been telling him he should say for a
long time. That is that: It happened on my watch and
I get the responsibility for it. That had been worked out. He used similar language when he did an interview
later with “60 Minutes.” So he’s wanting to get this past him. I think he’s been frustrated that it hasn’t
passed. I think, when I saw him in December of 2018
at the big sporting event, this big race, I think he thought that this was going to
pass much sooner. Now we’re a year down the road, and still
this is something that haunts him. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it your sense, Martin Smith,
having spent as much time as you have knowing and interviewing Jamal Khashoggi, and then
working on this, that one day we are going to know for a fact the connection between
what happened and the crown prince? MARTIN SMITH: That’s a good question, that
there are people that know what happened. Some of those people are on trial, although
that trial is closed to the public and to reporters. There’s a big question about where his closest
aide, Saud al-Qahtani, is. If I had one more chance to sit down with
the crown prince, I would ask him, where is Saud al-Qahtani? They won’t say. I have sent many messages to them asking. And he’s not on trial. That’s what we know. So he certainly knows what’s going on. You know, I wouldn’t give up on this. I think that, if anything, this deserves a
lot more attention from the United Nations. And I think it is important to remember that
this isn’t just about Jamal Khashoggi. There are women in prison for asking for equal
rights. There are academics, writers, others that
have been rounded up and put in jail, businessmen as well. So, Jamal Khashoggi’s murder opened a window
on Saudi Arabia. And it’s up to us to make sure we look into
that and find out just what is going on. This is major U.S. ally. JUDY WOODRUFF: No question. But I think people probably can’t fully understand
the kind of roadblocks that that government, that that — that they have put up to prevent
the press from figuring anything out here. MARTIN SMITH: Well, they’re not letting a
lot of reporters in. It’s very difficult to get in and work there. I was fortunate enough to have had a long
association with Saudi Arabia and had gone back many times. I don’t think, after this documentary airs,
I will be getting any invitations in the mail. It’s a tremendously Kafkaesque, closed place,
tightly controlled. But the crown prince is trying to open the
country up for foreign investment. He’s trying to open it up socially, to some
degree. He doesn’t want to grant political rights. That’s clear. But he is going to have to have a difficult
time opening the — continuing to open the country up and preventing journalists from
getting in there and asking questions. JUDY WOODRUFF: And they have, I guess, a major
international business conference coming up very soon that a number of American business
leaders are going to be attending. How much do you think Saudi Arabia’s ability
to operate in the world, to function as a major power is impaired or affected by this? MARTIN SMITH: I have to think it’s fairly
serious, although I did attend a financial sector conference, another one, that was held
at the Ritz-Carlton in April. And the businessmen there were saying: We
don’t really worry about the executions that are ongoing and the imprisonment of activists. We’re interested in the opportunities that
are here. And I suppose that will continue with this
upcoming conference. They’re going to have a G20 meeting in Riyadh
next year. At least, that’s what’s scheduled. But all of this, opening the country up to
businessmen and others, is a risky proposition, if they’re going to continue to clamp down
on the ability of anybody to really see into what they’re doing. JUDY WOODRUFF: Martin Smith with “Frontline”
and, again, another extraordinary documentary, “The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.” Martin, thank you very much. MARTIN SMITH: Thank you, Judy. JUDY WOODRUFF: “The Crown Prince of Saudi
Arabia” will air tonight on PBS, and can be watched online at PBS.org/Frontline. Also online, as we saw millions of young people
take to the streets around the world recently, climate change and related natural disasters
are a source of anxiety for some children. We have ideas for how to talk to children,
both about their fears and what they can do. That is on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour. And that is the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m Judy Woodruff. Join us online and again right here tomorrow
evening. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank
you, and we’ll see you soon.

Leave a Reply

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