AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett. On the "NewsHour" tonight: Congress works
to avoid a partial government shutdown. But could it cost the House speaker his gavel? AMNA NAWAZ: Princess Kate Middleton announces
she has cancer after weeks of speculation about her health. GEOFF BENNETT: And the first Muslim American
nominated to be on a federal appeals court hits a roadblock, with both Republicans and
Democrats voicing concerns. (BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: We
lcome to the "NewsHour." The federal government is just hours away
from partially shutting down as Capitol Hill scrambles to finalize its $1.2 trillion spending
deal. AMNA NAWAZ: The bill would keep the lights
on, but could also cost the speaker his job. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins
is here with more on the deal and why House Republicans now face the threat of yet another
chaotic leadership surge. Lisa, let's start with this shutdown deadline. We're just six hours away. Where do t
hings stand? LISA DESJARDINS: All right, the House passed
this bill that would fund the rest of government; 70 percent of government agencies need funding
or they will start shutting down this weekend. They passed that barely today, just five or
six votes to spare. The Senate now needs to act by midnight. Here is, at this minute, minute-to-minute
decisions being made in the Senate. And, right now, Amna, it looks like we may,
in fact, get to that midnight deadline without this getting through the
Senate. Senator Susan Collins has just said that,
other staffers confirming they cannot -- the two sides are not agreeing over amendments
that they want to vote on for this. Everyone knows amendments won't pass. This is all election-year symbolic votes,
but they can't agree on it. Adding to this Senator Susan Collins, top
Republican appropriator, her mother's funeral is tomorrow in Maine. She's never missed a vote. So this is not a factor in what happens, but
it is adding to the pressure around
all of this. Right now, it looks like we could very well
have a weekend shutdown. AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, just yesterday, you
were reporting on the rebellion, the dysfunction, the infighting among House Republicans. Today, House Speaker Johnson is now moving
forward with this spending bill. And one of his Republican members is moving
to oust him. What's happening? LISA DESJARDINS: As you're saying, this is
connected. As we were watching that dramatic floor vote
to see if government would be fund
ed, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican from Georgia,
took a small piece of paper over to what's called the hopper, where you file bills. I watched her put it in. It was a motion to vacate the chair. She says that she is now, as they have the
right under the new House rules -- any member can raise this idea. This is how Kevin McCarthy was ousted. She says she is not yet invoking this. She didn't call for the vote today. But she says she intends to. You can hear the difference between her and
other Republicans as they came outside after this action. REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I do not wish
to inflict pain on our conference and to throw the House in chaos. But this is basically a warning and it's time
for us to go through the process, take our time and find a new speaker of the House that
will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority, instead of standing with the Democrats. REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Not only idiotic, but
it actually does not do anything to advance th
e conservative movement, and, in fact, it
undermines the country and our majority. LISA DESJARDINS: So this, again, puts us in
a position. The House has gone on recess, but when they
come back, the position will be again to have to deal potentially with a speaker fight. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not someone who
backs down. The issue is, does she have any others with
her right now? AMNA NAWAZ: It's hard to imagine another speaker
fight among House Republicans. What does this mean going forward? L
ISA DESJARDINS: All right, let's look at
the votes exactly, because things are very tight in the House of Representatives. First of all, when you're looking at the margins,
it has changed because Ken Buck has left. We now have 218 Republicans after his departure,
213 Democrats. That means the majority in the House right
now is 216. Johnson can lose just two Republicans and
keep his speakership with all Republican support, or he will have to get support from Democrats. I talked to Democratic Repr
esentative Tom
Suozzi, what has just won that special election to replace George Santos. He right away said, "I will support Speaker
Johnson." So there's one Democratic vote. But other Democrats say, if we're going to
support Speaker Johnson, we want to get something out of it. This is going to lead to perhaps days of instability,
or maybe Speaker Johnson weathers the next two weeks. One thing is for sure. Marjorie Taylor Greene is going to make a
lot of money in fund-raising probably off of thi
s. AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, there was more news
related to those numbers you just showed us there. That slim Republican majority is about to
get even slimmer? LISA DESJARDINS: This was such a dramatic
Friday. We also had an unexpected piece of news from
a very high-profile Republican member, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin. He was just on this program, I believe it
was last week, talking about the TikTok bill. He's an up-and-coming rising star in the party,
40 years old, four-termer. We know he was go
ing to leave Congress this
term, but he announced today he's leaving early. He's leaving mid-April. He says he talked to his family. He does not want to be in the House anymore. Now, what this means is that narrow majority
gets even slimmer. Let's look at that same graphic I just showed
you. After he leaves, look at that. Now it's down to 217 Republicans, and then,
look, Johnson could lose just one Republican vote and get something through the House. So, on the positive side, they are going to
h
ave to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to pass legislation. On the negative side, they don't have a good
history of being able to do that, and it's an election year. Speaker Johnson, he is someone who talks about
the Bible. I hope he's written -- read the Book of Job,
because he's having so much political difficulty and challenges. We will see how he gets through it. AMNA NAWAZ: We will see. Lisa Desjardins covering a busy Friday on
Capitol Hill. Lisa, thank you. LISA DESJARDINS: You'r
e welcome. GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: Gunfire erupted at
a rock concert outside Moscow today. Russia's lead security service reported 40
people were killed and more than 100 wounded. Videos showed the Crocus City Hall ablaze
before part of the roof collapsed. News accounts said gunmen in combat fatigues
fired automatic weapons and threw explosives. Russian officials called it a terror attack. Ukraine denied it had anything to do with
the shootings. A tense meeting in Tel Aviv t
oday spotlighted
the strains in U.S.-Israeli relations over the war in Gaza. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but, afterward, the prime minister again insisted on invading
Rafah, the last Hamas stronghold. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister
(through translator): I told him that I greatly appreciate that we have been standing together
in the war. But I also said that we have no way to defeat
Hamas without going into Rafah and eliminating the
rest of the battalions there. And I told him that I hope we will do it with
the support of the USA. But if we have to, we will do it alone. GEOFF BENNETT: Later, at the airport, Blinken
said the U.S. and Israel still share the goal of defeating Hamas, but they differ sharply
on the strategy. ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of State: A
major military ground operation in Rafah is not the way to do it. It risks killing more civilians. It risks wreaking greater havoc with the provision
of humanitaria
n assistance. It risks further isolating Israel around the
world and jeopardizing its long-term security and standing. GEOFF BENNETT: The Tel Aviv meeting came as
the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza reported the death toll has passed 32,000, with more
than 74,000 injured. Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution
supporting a cease-fire in Gaza and a vote today at the U.N. Security Council. Ambassadors from Moscow and Beijing said the
resolution did not specifically demand a halt t
o the fighting and would let Israel act with
impunity. VASSILY NEBENZIA, Russian Ambassador to the
United Nations (through translator): This would definitively close the door when it
comes to discussions about the need for a cease-fire in Gaza. This would free the hands of Israel and it
would result in all of Gaza and its entire population having to face destruction, devastation
or expulsion. We are not guided by what is convenient for
Washington and its satellites. GEOFF BENNETT: In response, U
.S. Ambassador
Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that Russia and China opposed the resolution because it also
condemned the Hamas attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people last October. More than a million people in Ukraine lost
power today after a sweeping Russian attack on the electrical grid. At least 60 drones and 90 rockets rained down
across the country, killing at least five people. Cell phone video captured missiles striking
a dam in Zaporizhzhia that feeds power to a nuclear plant. Officials
said the dam was not in danger of
breaching. Back in this country, former President Donald
Trump's social media company completed a merger that stands to greatly increase his wealth. He will own the majority stake and his shares
could be worth more than $3 billion. But company rules bar Mr. Trump from selling
any of that stock for six months, so he cannot use it to cover a fraud judgment of $454 million
that is due on Monday. And on Wall Street, stocks gave ground after
three straight days of r
ecord closes. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 305
points to close below 39476. The Nasdaq rose 27 points, but the S&P 500
fell seven. And still to come on the "NewsHour": medical
history is made after a pig kidney is transplanted into a human; David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart
weigh in on the week's political headlines; and rock star Lenny Kravitz on his new album
and international tour. AMNA NAWAZ: The princess of Wales, Kate Middleton,
announced this afternoon that she's undergoing trea
tment for cancer. The news came amid rampant and often irresponsible
speculation about her in the British press and beyond. It also came after missteps by the royal family
itself about her whereabouts and condition. She revealed the news in a video message shot
earlier this week by the BBC Studios at Windsor Castle. KATE MIDDLETON, Princess of Wales: In January,
I underwent major abdominal surgery in London. And at the time, it was thought that my condition
was noncancerous. The surgery was succ
essful. However, tests after the operation found cancer
had been present. My medical team therefore advised that I should
undergo a course of preventative chemotherapy, and I'm now in the early stages of that treatment. This, of course, came as a huge shock, and
William and I have been doing everything we can to process and manage this privately for
the sake of our young family. AMNA NAWAZ: For more I'm joined from London
by Jennie Bond, a journalist with deep insights into the royal family. Tha
nk you for joining us. As you know, the princess hadn't been seen
in public since December in the weeks since then. It's been filled with conspiracy theories
and wild speculation about her absence. Was this video today something that she or
the palace wanted to release or something they felt they had to? JENNIE BOND, Royal Commentator: I think the
latter. I think we have -- we, as a society, really
have forced a young woman who is in battling cancer at the moment, and I think we have
forced her
into this situation. And I think it's very sad. I think we as a society should take a long
look at ourselves, because the trolls on the Internet have put about the most ridiculous
conspiracy theories consistently. And we, the mass media, actually have given
some of those theories airtime, which I think was entirely wrong. And, finally, I think -- yes, I think Catherine
has been backed into a corner and felt that she had to stand up and make a statement. It could have been a written statement, bu
t
she's a courageous and confident young woman. And she decided to make the video herself. And I think we have to salute her bravery,
as indeed her father-in-law, the king, has done already. AMNA NAWAZ: Do you think that the release
of this video puts to rest all of that wild speculation and those conspiracy theories? JENNIE BOND: Do you know what? I think that, if this doesn't silence the
conspiracy theories, then we as human beings, as a society have to take a long hard look
in the mirror and
say, what are we playing at? Now, I have reported on the royals for 35
years. I knew Diana, the former princess of Wales. And I watched her stand up and appeal for
time and space because of her mental fragility at the time. And she needed time out from her public role. Did we listen to her? No, we didn't. And I really do think, if we don't listen
now to this courageous young woman asking for time, space and privacy, then there's
something very, very wrong with the world. AMNA NAWAZ: I do need to
ask you, Jennie. There was the matter during her absence of
this photo, which was released by Kensington Palace on Mother's Day in the United Kingdom. It showed the princess of Wales with her children,
but it was also quickly pulled by news agencies after it was revealed that it had been manipulated. And the next day, the princess herself then
tweeted, saying: "Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion
the fami
ly photograph we shared yesterday caused." As you mentioned, this is a serious private
medical concern. But from a public relations messaging standpoint,
could the palace have handled all this differently? JENNIE BOND: Well, yes, that photograph, I
suppose, was a mistake, though put it in context. Cecil Beaton, a very famous professional photographer
who took pictures of the royals for decades, he admitted he often touched photos, changed
them around. At Prince Edward's wedding to Sophie, the
ph
otographer there admitted that William had been looking rather glum in one of the official
pictures, so he transposed William's head from a happier picture and put it on the wedding
picture. I mean, get real. These things happen. Did it harm anyone? Absolutely not. It was a ridiculous storm in a teacup and
another way of assaulting this young princess, I think, who subsequent -- after that subsequently
heard that the very hospital where she was treated for abdominal surgery, that there
are alleg
ations that members of staff had after that tried to access her medical records. She must feel assailed from all sides. AMNA NAWAZ: Of course, we're wishing her a
quick recovery and good health. Jennie Bond joining us from London tonight,
thank you so much. GEOFF BENNETT: President Biden's nomination
of the first Muslim American to a federal appeals court has come under intense criticism
and appears to be in peril. Laura Barron-Lopez has more -- Laura. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: That's right, Geoff. Pr
esident Biden's nominee to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, Adeel Mangi, is a veteran litigator unanimously rated well-qualified
by the American Bar Association. But he's faced a barrage of attacks from Republican
senators, which the White House says amounts to an Islamophobic smear campaign. SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Do you believe that Zionist
settler colonialism was a provocation that justified Hamas' atrocity against Jews in
Israel? SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Do you condemn the atrocities
of the
Hamas terrorists? ADEEL MANGI, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge Nominee: Yes, that's what I was about to address, Senator. SEN. TED CRUZ: Is there any justification for those
atrocities? ADEEL MANGI: Senator, I will repeat myself. The events of October 7 were a horror. I have no patience, none, for any attempts
to justify or defend those events. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And conservative outside
groups have launched ads baselessly labeling Mangi as antisemitic, despite his nomination
being endors
ed by more than a dozen Jewish organizations. To discuss this, I'm joined by former federal
judge Timothy K. Lewis, who was appointed to the same Circuit Court of Appeals as Mangi
by then-Republican President George H.W. Bush. Judge Lewis, thank you so much for joining. I want to start by asking you. You recently sent a letter to Senate Majority
Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in defense of Adeel Mangi. Why did you feel compelled to send that? TIMOTHY K. LEWIS, Fo
rmer Third Circuit Court
of Appeals Judge: Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me. I felt compelled to send that because of what
I consider to be outrageous, baseless, and really sad attacks on Mr. Mangi's character. I thought that they were -- I know that they
were initially rooted in his religion. They had nothing to do at all with his competence,
with his experience, with his qualifications to serve on the court I was honored to sit
on for a number of years. And I just thought
that it's so outrageous,
that something had to be done. And, quite honestly, it was an honor to have
the opportunity to stand up on his behalf. When I have a sense that someone is being
slandered and really torn down based on these kinds of untruths and bigotry and all of the
horrible things that were said at the Judiciary Committee hearing and written about him afterward,
there was just no way that I could stand by and allow that to happen. And, frankly, I think that most Americans
feel the sam
e way. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Judge, the attacks from
Republicans appears to have also had an impact on Senate Democrats. This week, Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez
Masto of Nevada came out against Mangi's nomination. She takes issue with Mangi's affiliation with
a nonprofit organization called the Alliance of Families for Justice. And she states that: "This organization advocated
for the release of individuals convicted of killing police officers. I cannot support this nominee." Judge, what's
your response to her statement? TIMOTHY K. LEWIS: Well, my response is that
I would hope that she would reconsider that position while there is still time to do so. Her decision is, respectfully, rooted in the
same kinds of baseless lies and smears that the religious claims against Mr. Mangi were
based, associating him with terrorists and antisemites and so forth, none of which is
true. And the record clearly demonstrates that. The same is true here. The organization that we are talking about
is
a group that reached out to Mr. Mangi to ask for pro bono services on behalf of an
inmate who had been murdered in the New York prison system. And this was not even a criminal case. It was a civil lawsuit that he brought. He achieved a landmark settlement on behalf
of the family that not only helped the prisoner's family, but also helped the prison and, in
doing so, helped prison guards, because the cameras were installed throughout the prison. This is honorable work. This is the kind of work t
hat we value, we
encourage in our profession. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And we should note that
Senator Cortez Masto has voted for at least one judicial nominee in the past who represented
a man charged with murdering a police officer. That was under the Trump administration. And so has Senator Ted Cruz, as well as a
number of other Republicans voted for judicial nominees who were -- either represented people
who were charged or convicted of murdering police officers. But, Judge, I do want to ask you.
It isn't new for judicial nominees to face
partisan attacks. And so is this just the price of politics
now for judicial nominees? TIMOTHY K. LEWIS: When I see this sort of
thing happen, it is beyond politics. Obviously, politics plays a role in judicial
nominations and in just about everything else that happens in the Senate and in the House
and in Washington. But this is way beyond that. It's interesting that you just noted those
other votes that were taken in connection with people who had co
mmitted heinous crimes
against police officers, and they voted were affirmatively by Senator Cruz and by others. They were not Muslims. I mean, we cannot allow ourselves to really
debase ourselves by sinking to such a level. This is the first Muslim nominee for an appeals
court in the history of the United States. And under the thin pretext of these issues
that have been thoroughly debunked, we are seeing people change their votes or not -- or
decide not to vote in favor. And it's just a very sa
d moment. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Judge, in your letter
to Senators Schumer and Senators McConnell, you said that: "Rejecting Mr. Mangi's nomination
would have a toxic long-term impact on the entire federal judiciary. We need more diversity on the bench." What long-term impact are you talking about
there? TIMOTHY K. LEWIS: I know, because I have been
told by other members of the Muslim faith in the wake of what has happened to Mr. Mangi
-- and these are very prominent Muslim lawyers -- that they do
not feel that it would be
worth pursuing a federal judgeship in this climate and in this atmosphere. That is awful. That is terrible. And that should not be condoned. We need diversity on the federal bench and
on appellate courts and courts throughout the country because of the lived experience
that each judge, each person who serves brings. And we see how that manifests at the United
States Supreme Court level and below. And it's very important that we have that. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: That's form
er federal
Judge Timothy K. Lewis. Thank you for your time. TIMOTHY K. LEWIS: It's my pleasure and my
honor. Thank you for having me. AMNA NAWAZ: In an historic first, a kidney
from a genetically modified pig has been successfully transplanted into a human. As William Brangham reports, the technique
used in the surgery last weekend is a big step forward and could have wide implications. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The patient here is a 62-year-old
Black man whose kidneys were failing, and he was on dialys
is for years. This kind of human-to-animal transplant, known
as xenotransplantation, is one that researchers hope to do more of because there aren't nearly
enough human organs for the thousands of people in need. But putting animal tissue into a human body
is complicated. The body often rejects foreign tissue. So, in this case, scientists removed several
genes from the pig that can trigger that rejection. To help us understand this brave new world,
we are joined by Dr. Leonardo Riella. He's the
medical director for kidney transplantation
at Massachusetts General Hospital, where this historic event took place. Dr. Riella, so good to have you on the program. Congratulations on this historic successful
first. I take it is still successful, right? The patient is doing well? DR. LEONARDO RIELLA, Massachusetts General Hospital:
The patient is doing extremely well. Thank you for asking. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And what is his -- so, his
prognosis -- normally, if you had a kidney transplant, how soo
n would he be getting out
of the hospital? And do you know what his -- when he will be
getting out? DR. LEONARDO RIELLA: Yes, so most patients remain
in the hospital after a kidney transplant for about five to six days. On his case, we're probably going to keep
about a week or nine days just to make sure everything's OK. But all the signs that we had so far, particularly
the blood tests and things that we follow, are extremely positive. So, and he has been off dialysis since he
got his transplan
t last Saturday. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's amazing. Before we get into some of the complexities
here, we were all very struck by seeing how moved you were at the press conference when
you announced this breakthrough. And I just wonder, if I had talked to you
back when you were a younger man in medical school, and I had told you that you could
have cured someone's end-stage renal disease with a pig kidney, what would younger you
have thought about that? DR. LEONARDO RIELLA: That that was just a drea
m,
a big dream, and maybe it would never happen. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And what is it, again -- for
people who might have thought, well, I have heard that we can put parts of pig hearts
into people or other animal transplantations, what is it that has been the challenge thus
far that you were able to surmount here? DR. LEONARDO RIELLA: So, if we go back 20, 30
years, when xenotransplants started, there had been so many challenges, in particular,
what was mentioned before about these incompatibilitie
s. And changing the DNA to make animals more
compatible was extremely difficult. I think what really changed -- was a game-changer
was the development of the CRISPR-Cas technology, and so the discovery and then the application
of that in xenotransplantation, because then scientists were able to modify multiple genes
at the same time in a short period of time, which before was impossible. And that permitted us to overcome all these
barriers and make organs that were really more compatible with hu
mans. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And is that why you think
that this case was successful, when other previous attempts have not been? DR. LEONARDO RIELLA: Well, that's one point that
is very important, is the type of donor organ that we're going to get. What type of gene-modified pigs are donating
these kidneys, so that we can do a successful transplant. I think the second aspect is, what are the
medications that we're going to be giving this patient in order to prevent it from rejecting? What we have le
arned from all preclinical
models, so animal studies, is that the usual immune-suppressive drugs, anti-rejection medications
that we use in the clinic do not seem to be effective in the case of xenotransplantation. And what we had to do is then adapt some of
the new drugs that were being developed. And, for the first time, we used one of these
medications on the current patient. And I think that that was so far a success. Of course, rejection takes time, so we have
to follow this patient careful
ly. And -- but the initial impression is only
positive from our team. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can you help me understand
a little bit the potential that you and your colleagues see for this type of thing, given
the enormous need, tens of thousands of people, and we know the big disparities in racial
minorities in the country? DR. LEONARDO RIELLA: Yes, those are huge. The disparity in kidney transplantation keeps
increasing, and as well as the organ shortage. So patients don't get referred for transpla
nt,
and when they do get referred, they have to wait on a waiting list years before getting
a transplant. And, unfortunately, while they're still on
dialysis, their health deteriorates. So while they were initial candidates for
kidney transplant when they first entered the list, if they wait four or five years,
many of them will not be candidates anymore. So I think what we hope to be able to do is
that one first step in getting more organs for these patients, so they can be transplanted
in a ti
mely manner. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There have been a series
of concerns that have been raised about using gene-edited organs in humans, about the potential
for spreading animal viruses from animals to humans. How do you weigh those risks versus the potential
that you're talking about here? DR. LEONARDO RIELLA: That's always a major debate
in the entire field of xenotransplantation. So how high are the risks? And what we have learned over the past 20
years with many animal studies is that, if these p
igs are grown in a very isolated manner,
with frequent testing, you're able to actually have a very low risk of infections. And I think what was unique about the pig
that donated the kidney for our patient was that, in addition to the improvements in compatibility
that we just mentioned, they also did 59 modifications in the gene, in particular, in some retroviruses
that are present endogenously on the pig. And so that creates an extra level of safety
in terms of minimizing infections coming fro
m the pig. And then we tested for all the other pathogens,
bacteria and viruses that could be present on the pig to make sure that they were negative
prior to transplantation. And that reassures. So, the risk overall, we consider very low,
but, of course, this is the first time we're doing this in humans, so we're going to be
monitoring this very carefully. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Leonardo Riella
of Massachusetts General Hospital, thank you so much. And, again, congratulations on this histo
ric
breakthrough. DR. LEONARDO RIELLA: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. GEOFF BENNETT: With House Republicans facing
yet another fight over who will lead their conference and a host of other political stories
driving this week's news, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks,
and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post. Great to see you all, as always. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, Geoff. GEOFF BENNETT: So, House Speaker Mike J
ohnson
is facing the first direct threat to his speakership after Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor
Greene filed what's known as a motion to vacate against him today for working with Democrats
to fund the government. Jonathan, this resolution is not privileged,
which, in plain English, means the House doesn't have to vote on it until Marjorie Taylor Greene
says so, which effectively means that Speaker Johnson has this axe hanging over his head. How do you see this playing out? JONATHAN CA
PEHART: Well, the speaker has had
this axe hanging over his head since the moment he got the job. And when he got the job, the conventional
wisdom was, because he's from that faction of the far right of the House, he will have
a honeymoon period, that he will be able to do things that then-Speaker McCarthy wasn't
able to do or the things that made him lose his job. And what we're seeing now is -- and I think
one of the last few weekends, few Fridays, I was here where I was asked this question,
I
said, he's living in fear of this motion to vacate. And, well, Marjorie Taylor Greene today decided,
well, today's the day that I'm going to file this motion. But you raise a key point. She didn't file it as a privileged motion. If she really wanted him out, she would have
done that, and that would have forced them to get -- to vote on it in two legislative
days. The way she's done it, they could punt it
to a committee. And that's where it would go to die. But he has always been facing this thr
eat. And now that it's out there, the key question
for me is, what do Democrats do? GEOFF BENNETT: Well, on that point, Congressman
Tim Burchett said that if the House had voted today on this motion to vacate, it's entirely
possible that Hakeem Jeffries could have ended up as speaker, given the way the votes might
have fallen and how narrow that majority is. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I mean, the first thing, the antics that she's
doing are driving good people out of the House. And so Mike Gallagher ann
ounces he's going
to leave next month. And Mike Gallagher, I have seen him present
on China and things like that. It's like watching a scholar present, one
of the finest minds in the House. Damning with faint praise, I get you. (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: But so he's leaving. So, if -- like Ben Sasse left the Senate. If it's just going to be craziness, why stick
around? And so that is just a long-term effect on
the country. I think -- I look at the upside, as always. And I think if Johnson gets in
trouble, Democrats
are always saying, we will vote for Johnson if he brings the Senate's Ukraine aid bill
up. And so, if it could force the House to vote
on that bill and to pass the Ukraine aid bill, he could do that with Democratic votes, he
would keep his job, and the country would be a winner. GEOFF BENNETT: What are the incentives for
Democrats to help Johnson out if that's what is needed? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, it depends on who
you ask. I did a reach-out to some members. And what's inte
resting is, the common refrain
has been -- or I should say the thing that I have gotten back mostly is a stand-alone
Ukraine bill. A few others have said to -- not a damn thing. I was wondering whether I could say the word
damn on PBS. (LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: But there are Democrats
who don't -- like, no, no, we're not going to do anything to help Speaker Johnson. But the key thing is, it doesn't matter what
those individual members say to me. It depends -- what really matters is what
Lead
er Jeffries says, because I think that's where the majority of the conference is going
to take its lead. GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, Donald Trump needs
to find half-a-billion dollars, and he has to find it fairly quickly. He has until Monday to post a bond covering
the full amount of the $454 million civil fraud judgment against him as he appeals this
ruling. And if he can't somehow find the money, the
New York A.G., Letitia James, she might start seizing some of his assets to help cover that
oblig
ation. David, for any candidate running for public
office, especially the presidency, who is short on cash and who has to find $454 million,
that is a serious liability, and it also raises in this case some national security questions. DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I mean, I have a few problems
with the seizure. The Associated Press did a good survey. They looked like at 70 years of cases like
this. And in cases where there was no clear victim,
they have never seized assets before. And so if the people who
claim a lot of this
is a political witch-hunt, I think that Associated Press, I found it kind of alarming that the
Trump case is not being treated like the other cases. Nonetheless, it is what it is. And so he's got to raise a lot of money really
fast. And can he do it through TRUTH Social? His very weird online social media outlet
is on the market. Suddenly, it would boost his net worth $3
billion, which is also troubling, because it made -- in the first nine months of last
year, it made $3.3
million and it's valued at $3 billion. So it looks to me like another form of fund-raising
disguised as investment. And that is already crooked. And then you take what a desperate Donald
Trump is likely to do, do what his son-in-law did, go to the Saudis and get some money,
and it just opens up for a desperate Donald Trump all sorts of corrupt possibilities. GEOFF BENNETT: One of Donald Trump's attorneys
was on FOX recently, and the anchor in this instance asked if he would accept money from
Sau
di Arabia or Russia to help cover this bond. Here's how that played out. MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX News Anchor: Is there
any effort on the part of your team to secure this money through another country, Saudi
Arabia or Russia, as Joy Behar seems to think? ALINA HABBA, Attorney For Former President
Donald Trump: Well, there's rules and regulations that are public -- I can't speak about strategy
-- that requires certain things. And we have to follow those rules. JONATHAN CAPEHART: I'm curious by the u
se
of the word strategy. I don't know. I think someone who's running for president
of the United States should automatically say, yes, I owe a half-a-billion dollars. I'm not going to go to foreign governments,
because that would open me up, as president of the United States, to foreign interference
and foreign influence. But we're not talking about any old, regular
person. And, of course, he's going to take the money
from wherever he can get it. That's been his entire career. And I have to disa
gree with David. No, take the properties. If any of us at the table were in that situation,
we would be in serious trouble. And it would be within the right of the attorney
general to say, you know what, we're going to take your golf club or we're going to take
your tower. And, quite honestly, I would love to see the
A.G., the New York attorney general, do that, because then it would be the most tangible
sign for the nation, the world, and for Donald Trump that you have been held accountable. GE
OFF BENNETT: Well, as we reported earlier,
there was this U.S.-sponsored resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire between Israel
and Hamas in Gaza. It failed to pass the U.N. Security Council
today. But it still marks, David, a toughening of
the U.S. stance toward Israel by the Biden administration, which had vetoed two previous
resolutions. How do you see this relationship and how do
you see this playing out? DAVID BROOKS: It's unprecedented that there
is this much tension between Israel
and the United States. And I think the Biden administration is right
on a couple of things and wrong on one big thing. They're right to demand a cease-fire or to
try to get a cease-fire, so that there can be humanitarian aid to go in. They're right to pressure Israel to take moral
responsibility and strategic responsibility for the Gazans, for the people who are there. They're also right that Israel has to have
a day-after plan. And so, all that thing -- I think the administration
is absolutely
correct to be pressuring Israel on. Where I differ is on their new policy this
week that Israel should not go into Gaza in the way they think they have to. Now, they're -- according to the IDF, the
Israeli Defense Forces, there are 6,000 to 8,000 Hamas fighters in there. You can't leave Hamas in power after this. There's no possibility for a two-state solution. There's no possibility for economic reconstruction. There's no possibility that foreign NGOs,
if Hamas emerges from this surviving, comp
etent and, frankly, victorious. So, Israel can't go into Rafah the way they
went into Gaza City with that massive destruction and doing insufficient to get those civilians
out of there, but, in my view, they -- it's terrible, but they have to go into Rafah because
they have to eliminate Hamas to have a decent future. GEOFF BENNETT: And, Jonathan, what about this
relationship between Netanyahu and President Biden? President Biden, he's an old-school politician. He believes that personal relations
hips are
how you get stuff done. As it was described to me, the two of them
met each other 40 years ago, when Joe Biden was the junior senator from Delaware, and
Netanyahu was the deputy chief of mission here in Washington. Did President Biden put too much stock in
their personal relationship early on? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Perhaps he did, just leader-to-leader. Hey, we have known each other a long time. We're the United States. We're allies. Please, listen to me, listen to us. And what the prime m
inister has done time
and time again in private, but also increasingly in public, is defy the president, defy Biden,
defy the United States, which I think explains why we have seen a ratcheting up of this pressure
that you're talking about on the part of the United States towards Israel. But I try to make a distinction here when
talking about this. There is, I don't think, much daylight between
the United States' support for the nation of Israel. What we are seeing, however, is a lot of daylight
,
yawning daylight, between Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu. And this is where those personal relationships
come into play. GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan Capehart and David
Brooks, great conversation. Thank you both. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Geoff. GEOFF BENNETT: Lenny Kravitz has been busy,
a new single out today from his album set for release in May and an international tour
this summer. And earlier this month, he earned a star on
the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I spoke with Kravitz in Los Angeles, a
nd we
visited some of his old haunts for our arts and culture series, Canvas. Lenny Kravitz seamlessly blends rock, funk,
soul and R&B, resulting in a sound uniquely his own. With a career spanning nearly four decades,
he has not only captivated audiences worldwide with chart-topping hits, but has become a
symbol of artistic authenticity and individualism, always effortlessly cool. We spoke with Lenny Kravitz about his life,
career and new album at the El Rey Theatre in Los Angeles. Your music d
efies categorization. How are you able to resist the commercial
demands, especially earlier in your career, to fit a specific genre or appeal to a specific
audience? LENNY KRAVITZ, Musician: I never had the desire
to do that, thus me turning down those record deals when I was a teenager. GEOFF BENNETT: It would have been easy to
accept one of them. How did you know that... LENNY KRAVITZ: Absolutely. GEOFF BENNETT: Yes. LENNY KRAVITZ: And not only that. I needed it and I wanted it so badly. I wan
ted to be making music. And so when you have people offering you at
a young age, we're going to give you money, we're going to give you the opportunity, we're
-- you're going to go to Europe, and we're going to put you in the studio with big producers,
and then you're going to go on tour,and these are the things you have been dreaming of as
a child. But every time they offered me that situation,
it came with, you know you can't make that music that we just listened to you making. You have to do
this, because this is what
works. This is the formula. This is what a Black artist should be doing. This is what making hit records is. But there was always this feeling inside of
me that, when I was about to say yes, felt very uncomfortable, and I shut down. My body would not let me do it. And I said no each time. And I'd walk off the lot of the record label
and get back on that 212 bus going down La Brea to wherever the hell I was going at the
time. (LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: We spent the day w
ith Lenny
Kravitz, and he took us to that bus stop, the symbolic starting point for a transformative
career that would solidify his status as one of the preeminent musicians of our time, starting
with his debut 1989 album, "Let Love Rule." LENNY KRAVITZ: Every time I pass this place,
I always think about those days. GEOFF BENNETT: Yes, your face lights up when
you talk about it. It's really incredible that you have never
lost sight of this. LENNY KRAVITZ: No, I never will. It's all part of the a
dventure. And I spent a lot of time sitting here and
thinking about life and making music. And so it's very close to my heart. GEOFF BENNETT: Performance is ingrained in
his DNA. His father, Sy Kravitz, was a TV news producer. His mother, Roxie Roker, was an actress who
found TV fame on Norman Lear's classic sitcom "The Jeffersons." ROXIE ROKER, Actress: Are the Howards by any
chance an interracial couple? GEOFF BENNETT: His was a multiracial, multiethnic
household, Ukrainian Jewish and Afro-Car
ibbean. His family moved to the historic Baldwin Hills
neighborhood of Los Angeles when he was in high school. So what memories does this house hold for
you? LENNY KRAVITZ: This is everything. This was the first house my family owned,
my mom and my dad. We moved out here in '75, when "The Jeffersons"
started, but this became the center of our family functions and all the parties that
my mom had, you know, with all of these Black pioneers that were doing everything at the
time in every field. Eve
rybody stuck together. Everybody was extended family. And so everything happened in this house,
man. GEOFF BENNETT: Yes. (LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: As we were talking, neighbors
and old family friends came out to say hello and catch up. LENNY KRAVITZ: Oh, my God. GEOFF BENNETT: Lenny says he finds a comfort
and a steadiness in these relationships and values that shaped him from the start. LENNY KRAVITZ: Good to see you. GEOFF BENNETT: In your book, you wrote that
your life is one of opposites, bl
ack and white, Jewish and Christian, Jackson 5 and Led Zeppelin. How has that manifested in your work? LENNY KRAVITZ: More contrasts than opposites,
beautiful contrasts. Having this wide range and not paying attention
to so-called boundaries just gave me more colors to play with, more depth. So I'd make my stew and use all of these things
that people maybe thought shouldn't be all put together, but that's what I was making. GEOFF BENNETT: Beyond his musical success,
Lenny Kravitz has made an imp
rint in the realms of fashion, design and acting, appearing as
Cinna in the "Hunger Games" franchise. JENNIFER LAWRENCE, Actress: Will I be twirling
tonight? LENNY KRAVITZ: Save it for the end. GEOFF BENNETT: He also had roles in the critically
acclaimed Lee Daniels films "Precious" and "The Butler." But even with four consecutive Grammy Awards,
11 studio albums, which have sold 40 million copies worldwide, it hasn't been easy making
a way in an industry that doesn't always value individuality.
Do you feel like the cultural gatekeepers,
the music gatekeepers had to catch up to you and had to catch up to what you're doing? LENNY KRAVITZ: I don't really pay much attention
to that, but, like the people that influenced me, sometimes, you just got to be ahead of
the game. And you may not get whatever attention or
accolades or what -- you know, whatever it might be, but that doesn't matter. It's about the journey, you know? GEOFF BENNETT: Do you ever feel underappreciated
for your barrier-br
eaking and all of your contributions to music and the culture? LENNY KRAVITZ: No. No, because I appreciate it. I appreciate the life that God's given me
and what I'm doing, and not that I need validation, but when you have people that did give you
that, whether it was Miles Davis after he heard my first album, or it was Mick Jagger,
or it was Robert Plant, or it was Prince, or it was Curtis Mayfield, the people that
taught you, the people that you look up to, they were befriending me. They were
supporting me. They understood what I was doing. That gave me a lot of fuel. And the whole reason I create and perform
music is to amplify love. GEOFF BENNETT: And he says his love affair
with music still hasn't lost its spark. How do you maintain that? Forty-million plus records sold. You have been in this business for 35 years,
Rock and Hall of Fame nominee this year. I mean, how does all of that strike you? And how do you then also maintain that same
creative spark? LENNY KRAVITZ: I think it'
s my love for music,
period. I love music. I always have loved music. I was born to make music. Music has created my life. It has saved my life. It has brought me meaning and joy and purpose. And I think, by nature, I'm an extremely grateful
person. I wake up every day grateful for life every
day. GEOFF BENNETT: Lenny Kravitz's 12th studio
album, "Blue Electric Light," his first in six years, is scheduled for release in May
ahead of a world tour kicking off this summer. And, online, you can hear
more from Lenny
Kravitz on the inspiration behind one of my favorite songs. That's "I Belong to You." And that's on our YouTube channel. AMNA NAWAZ: And finally tonight, Charles Duhigg
is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and bestselling author whose latest book seeks
to unlock the secret language of communication. Here, he shares his Brief But Spectacular
take on connecting with others. CHARLES DUHIGG, Author, "Supercommunicators:
How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection": The goal of
a conversation is not to convince
someone else that you're right. It's not even to come to agreement or find
a common ground. The only goal of a conversation is to understand
each other. So, my relationship with small talk is that
I used to be terrified of it, until I started doing this research about how to have conversations,
in which I learned the key for small talk is to get deep as fast as possible. The best way to get deep with someone is to
ask a deep question. And a deep question asks s
omeone about their
values or their beliefs or their experiences. And this can seem intimidating, but it's as
easy as meeting someone who says they're a lawyer and saying, oh, what made you decide
to go to law school or do you love practicing the law? Those are easy questions to ask, but they
invite the other person to really tell you who they are in a meaningful way. My favorite question is, when someone tells
me something, say, oh, that's really interesting. What does that mean to you? And the
other person feels like I'm so curious
about their life, which I actually am. I have nine siblings. And, as you might imagine, dinnertime conversation
was challenging. What I discovered is, if I could make everyone
laugh, it was like magic. And that's kind of one of the things that
got me so interested in understanding communication. Why sometimes am I able to do that and, at
other times, I want to connect with someone and I just can't? My book is called "Supercommunicators," unlocking
the secre
t language of connection. This is a book about why some people manage
to connect with others so much more, what we know about the science behind conversation
and how we can learn the skills that help us connect and have real meaningful conversations
with almost anyone. The biggest roadblocks to having a real conversation
with someone is twofold. First of all, oftentimes, we're anxious. And so one thing that you can do is just write
down a couple of topics that you want to discuss before you star
t the conversation. And then the second thing that we can do is
prove that we're listening. Show the other person by repeating back what
they say by asking questions that we're listening closely and we want to understand them. Laughter is a great example. Eighty percent of the time when we laugh,
it's not in response to something funny. It's to show someone that we want to connect
with them. And then, when they laugh back, they're showing
they want to connect with us. Almost all discussions fall
into one of three
kinds of conversation. There's practical conversations, which is
about decision-making and solving problems and making plans. And then there's emotional conversations,
where I might tell you how I feel and I don't want you to solve this for me. I want you to empathize and listen. And then there's social conversations, which
is about how we relate to each other and how we relate to society. And the key is what's known as the matching
principle, which says that, in order to comm
unicate with each other, we need to be having the
same kind of conversation at the same moment. Communication is humans' superpower. It's what has allowed the Homo sapiens to
be so successful. The more we learn how communication works,
the more we understand how to take a conversation apart and fiddle with its gears, the more
we allow our own instincts to come out. And the truth is, we were born to connect
with each other. We just have to learn how to listen to that. My name is Charles Duhigg, a
nd this is my
Brief But Spectacular take on supercommunication. AMNA NAWAZ: And, as always, you can watch
more Brief But Spectacular videos online at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief. GEOFF BENNETT: A late news update now to the
shooting at a rock concert in Moscow that killed 40 people, according to Russia's security
service. U.S. officials tell the "NewsHour" that the
U.S. warned Russian authorities earlier this month that a terror attack was imminent in
Russia. On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Pu
tin
labeled that American caution a -- quote -- "blatant attempt to destabilize Russian society." And we invite you to tune into "Washington
Week With The Atlantic" tonight for a look at the growing tensions between the U.S. and
Israel over the war in Gaza. AMNA NAWAZ: And on "PBS News Weekend" tomorrow,
we take a closer look at the working conditions of migrant farm laborers and their role in
the U.S. economy. And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz. GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff
Bennett. Thanks for spending part of your evening with
us, and have a great weekend.
Comments