Council Members Call For More Openness in San Jose's Permit Process

Two San Jose council members say their city makes it too tough on small business owners who want to open shop or expand.

CPUC to File Revised PG&E Penalty

The California Public Utilities Commission is set to file a revised penalty proposal Monday for PG&E’s part in the fatal San Bruno gas line explosion.

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Reverse California Redistricting?

In 2010, California voters approved a new way of redrawing congressional districts as a way to combat partisan gerrymandering. The state took the power away from the Legislature and put it in the hands of a nonpartisan citizen commission. But California's system could be threatened by a case now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the court heard arguments in a challenge to Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission, where Arizona legislative leaders argued that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of congressional elections.

Lawmaker Wants State To Collect Data on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

State agencies already collect information about our sex and race. A bill introduced in Sacramento on Thursday would require them to start asking about our sexual orientation and gender identity.

PBS NewsHour

Shields and Brooks on accidental drone deaths, Clinton money questions


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, the story we started out with tonight, David, that broke yesterday about two hostages killed in a drone strike in Pakistan, all sorts of second-guessing, third-guessing about this. Does the Obama administration need to rethink or get rid of this drone strike policy?

DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times: I don’t think they should rethink it because of this.

When you have a drone policy, when you go to war, friendly-fire and accidents and tragedies are just endemic in the nature of the fog of war. In World War II, there was something called the Allerona train bombing, where American bombers accidentally killed 400 American POWs and British and South African POWs that were in Nazi control.

It was an accident. These sorts of things happen in these sorts of circumstances. And so the fact that two people were tragic — two innocents were tragically killed is what we should have expected, I think, and what we did expect. War is never perfect.

So, you know, I don’t think it should be cause for us to reevaluate. I think the fundamental issue that is worth reevaluating all the time is the equation between how we’re setting back al-Qaida or are we inciting others to join ISIS? And that’s a legitimate issue. I don’t know the answer to it. But it seems like that’s the big issue here.

The fact that a tragedy — a completely foreseeable tragedy happened that’s endemic in the nature of this sort of business happened doesn’t seem to me a cause to rethink.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Time to reevaluate, rethink?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: I don’t think we have ever evaluated a thought about drones, quite frankly, Judy.

This is a perfect weapon for a 12-year war without any coherent explanation and without any conclusion to it. It’s a war, as James — General James Mattis, the former CENTCOM commander, pointed out recently in a speech, the only war since the American Revolution we have fought without a draft and we have fought it with tax cuts.

So, this is a great weapon because it removes the war. The war has been fought only by 1 percent of Americans, suffered only by 1 percent of Americans. And this takes all the carnage and all the killing. Is it effective, is it surgical, is it precise?  By all those definitions, it’s a rather remarkable device.

But it spares us from ever seeing dead people, from ever seeing the wailing of the orphan, of the widow. And I think there’s — in a responsible democracy, there has to be debate and there has to be accountability, and there hasn’t been.

The president has accepted responsibility, as he should. But he says there’s going to be an investigation. We don’t know what it’s about. And I think there are serious questions about whether, in fact, in the — with hundreds of civilian deaths acknowledged over the use of drones, that whether in fact it has been an incredible recruitment device for ISIS and for al-Qaida.


Well, I would say, what are their alternatives?  It seems to me there are four alternatives. One, we don’t do anything, and we allow al-Qaida to have safe haven in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That seems to me hardly a great option. The second is, we have bombing campaigns with conventional bombs. That seems to me much messier.

The third is, we send in special forces. And this isn’t Hollywood. You are not going to send in six people. You’re going to send in hundreds of people. And they’re scared, and they’re doing massive assaults. It seems to me you’re going to have more casualties. Or drones. It seems to me, of these horrible options, drones is the least bad option.

MARK SHIELDS: I just — I really do think that this comes back to we have not had a debate about what we are doing there and what we ought to be doing.

If there is a commitment, a true commitment on the part of the nation, it isn’t something that’s just done like a video game. It is something that does, should involve the American people, not only in the debate, but in some sense of commitment as to what we’re about.

There has been no debate on this war. It’s just been turning it over to the president. And I think liberals have to acknowledge that, under a liberal Democratic president, that the number of drone attacks has increased dramatically. And we have become reliant upon it and we have resorted to it. It’s become the default means of United States military engagement in a very, very difficult area.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it certainly is a — at least a debate in the short term. And the president saying today that we’re going to — that he’s going to reevaluate and look at whether any changes can be made.

But let me turn you to something else closer to home, but very much in the news this week, David, and that is the stories yesterday in your newspaper, The New York Times, and other news organizations about the Clinton Foundation, about money going to the foundation, about a uranium mining company, a Canadian company with donations, again, the head of the company giving money to the foundation, and then that company needing an OK from the U.S. government for the Russians to buy controlling interest.

What are we learning here about the Clinton Foundation and the charities they run?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, it’s way more egregious than I expected.

I thought there were donations and people were giving money. But there were probably people giving money for the noblest of reasons to the foundation, some people not — apparently giving money not for the noblest of reasons. And this uranium story, where there’s a connection, where the secretary of state nominally sits on this government body which gives OKs to mergers with national security implications, and then a company deeply involved in that kind of merger giving lots of money in the opportune money to the Clinton Foundation, according to my newspaper, the foundation not reporting it really adequately, that’s reasonably stark.

Now, the defense is, she didn’t know, she wasn’t directly involved. Well, that’s completely plausible. But the fact is, you’re sitting on — as secretary of state, or you’re Bill Clinton running the foundation, and somebody’s giving you all this money and you know it has government implications, and that doesn’t ring all sorts of alarm bells?

Where’s the self-protection there?  Where is the self-censorship or the self-thing, no, this is not right?  And so I’m sort of stunned by it. I’m surprised by it. And, you know, the paradox of it right now is for Hillary Clinton’s president — or candidacy is, people think she’s a strong leader.

But the latest Quinnipiac poll suggests they don’t trust her, they don’t think she’s honest. They have these two thoughts in their minds at the same time. And it just seems, with the Clinton family, there’s going to be a lot of competence and a lot of great political talent and governmental talent, but you’re going to have a run of low-level scandals throughout the whole deal.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is that what you see?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think there’s two separate memories that Democrats have of the Clinton years, the golden Clinton years, the lowest unemployment rate in the history of the country for African-Americans, and Latinos, lowest unemployment rate in 40 years for — among women, the first — greatest surpluses and budget deficit — budget in the country’s history, first balanced budget in 50 years, I mean, just rather remarkable.

Then there’s the transactional part of the Clinton administration, sort of the darker part, the major donations and renting out the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House, the briefings in the Map Room at the White House for businesspeople who contributed and meet their regulators, and, worst of all, the Marc Rich pardon, where his wife, Denise, who has since, let it be noted, renounced her American citizenship and gone to a tax haven, gave $201,000 to the Democratic Party, $450,000 to the Clinton Library, and $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

And, in return, apparently, she got a pardon for her husband, the fugitive financier, who is really one the sleaziest people on the planet.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, this is bad at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

MARK SHIELDS: This is the end of the administration.

But this is what it evokes, this kind of — the sense of the money and is their transactional politics. And I just think it comes now at a time when you have got to be totally transparent and get it out there, now amending their filings.

But I think this is — there is sort of dispirited feeling among Democrats. There’s enormous respect for her as a leader and her talents, but there’s a question of, my goodness, are we going to have more of this?

JUDY WOODRUFF: What does it mean for her campaign?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, first, for the Democratic Party, it should mean, let’s look around. Is this all we have got?  Whether she’s strong or not, you don’t know what’s going to happen.

Second, it re-raises the e-mail issue. Now it just — before, she could have some plausible case that the e-mails were destroyed because they were nobody’s business. But now, each time you get another scandal, you think, oh, that’s why she destroyed the e-mails, because she didn’t want — to hide.

And so it just brings that up again. And then they raised a lot of money. And Bill Clinton gave a lot of speeches. And she gave a lot of speeches. It’s very unlikely this is the last of the cases, this one uranium. And there’s the book coming out in a few weeks possibly detailing more of the cases. And so it will just be a steady theme, a subtheme of her campaign.

MARK SHIELDS: Let me just make one quick point.

And that is, Bill Clinton did get $500,000 for a speech — that’s a lot of money — in Russia. David goes for half of that. No, but…


DAVID BROOKS: Seventy percent.

MARK SHIELDS: Seventy percent.

But Ronald Reagan, when he left office in 1989, went to Japan, he gave two speeches of 20 minutes each for $2 million, $2 million, which is $4 million in today’s dollars, and $2 million contribution to the Reagan Library.

The difference?  Nancy Reagan wasn’t secretary of state. Nancy Reagan wasn’t getting to run for president of the United States. I mean, George W. Bush has made a lot of money on speeches. But that’s what makes it unseemly. And that’s what makes Democrats nervous.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But one of the arguments the Clinton people are making, though, is it’s disclosed, that they have disclosed everything, and if they haven’t, they are going to get everything out there.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes. They have got to get everything…

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does that take any of the bad taste…

MARK SHIELDS: Yes. Transparency — I think, at some point probably, the president is going to — former President Clinton is going to do almost a grilling, explaining what the Clinton Foundation did.

But I think this is — it’s a time for transparency, but it’s also a time for accountability here. And I think it’s going to be a — to their advantage, this is April of 2015. If it were Labor Day of 2016 and she were the nominee, this would really be a serious blow.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What about the transparency thing?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think it helps.

But the thing they don’t know is why people gave them the money. A lot of people were giving them millions of dollars. And some people did it probably because they believe in the foundation work, and they did it for beautiful reasons. A lot of people give money to these things and to presidential candidates because they want to be near the flame of power. They just want to be in the room.

They can go home and say, oh, I chatted with Bill Clinton. But some people give it because they are imagining a quid pro quo. I doubt there’s an actual quid pro quo. Mitt Romney said today it looked like bribery. I think that’s — there’s no evidence of that.


DAVID BROOKS: But you want to plant the seed. And you have got an issue before the government. And you think, well, this is how government works in a lot of other countries. It probably works a little like this in the U.S., too, and therefore I’m going to plant the seed of goodwill, I will get in the room.

And there’s no quid pro quo, but it’s not great. And so there are all these people giving them money for all different motives, some of them good and some of them pretty bad.

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, just one quick thing — $93 million Sheldon Adelson and wife gave to Republican candidates in 2012.

And the Koch brothers are talking about raising $900 million. They are not altruists. I mean, they have an agenda. Make no mistake about it. That’s what we’re talking about with the dimension of money now in our politics, which is very much in the saddle.

And to Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton’s credit, they are the only two people I know running who say we need a constitutional amendment to change it.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. It would just say, quickly, there is a difference between an ideological agenda, which seems to me legitimate, and a business deal that you want to get ratified.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, OK. No, I’m not questioning — I would rather — I would take the second, quite frankly.

DAVID BROOKS: Interesting.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You would take which?

MARK SHIELDS: I would take a business — I would take a business deal, rather than somebody who is making foreign policy for the United States.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Less than a minute.

I wanted to ask you about the Republican field. You have each got less than 30 seconds to tell me if you see anything settling out among the many Republicans.

DAVID BROOKS: The only thing I have seen this week is that Marco Rubio is shooting upward. He’s now — in the last two polls, he’s in number one place. And I think that’s because we were kind…


DAVID BROOKS: He’s at 13 and 15.


DAVID BROOKS: It’s basically unformed. It’s still sort of unformed. But we were kind to him, and he’s shooting right up there.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Cause and effect.

MARK SHIELDS: It was the Brooks boost, is what it was.


MARK SHIELDS: The Republican field right now is — there’s no leader. It’s a leaderless group.

But they’re all secretly praying that the Supreme Court will declare same-sex marriage legal nationwide, so they can get away from the issue. They — this is a killer issue for them. And they would love to be rescued by the John Roberts Supreme Court.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, on that note, we thank both of you on this Friday night in April.

Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you.


The post Shields and Brooks on accidental drone deaths, Clinton money questions appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Eric Holder bids farewell to DOJ after 6-year tenure

Attorney General Eric Holder, seen in this 2012 file photo, ends his tenure at the Justice Department Monday. Photo by
         Jonathan Bachman/Reuters

Attorney General Eric Holder, seen in this 2012 file photo, ends his tenure at the Justice Department Monday, when Loretta Lynch will be sworn in. Photo by Jonathan Bachman/Reuters

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder was bidding farewell to the Justice Department on Friday after six years as the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Holder was addressing employees at an afternoon ceremony one day after his chosen successor, Loretta Lynch, was confirmed by the Senate following a months-long delay.

In a tribute video prepared for the occasion, Holder describes an “emotional attachment” to the department and recounts efforts to protect civil rights, prosecute terror suspects in federal court and change the criminal justice system.

“We could not be more grateful for everything that you’ve done not just for me and the administration, but for our country,” Obama says in the video, which also included appearances by members of Congress and Holder’s wife, Sharon Malone.

Holder, a former judge and U.S. attorney who took the job in 2009, will exit the department as the third-longest serving attorney general in U.S. history. He has not publicly announced what he’ll be doing next.

After Lynch, 55, is sworn in at the Justice Department on Monday, she’s likely to pursue some of the same agenda as Holder as the Obama administration draws to a close. But she’s also said she aims to have a cooperative relationship with Congress following years of bitter feuding between Republicans and Holder.

Holder’s tenure was in many ways defined by his efforts on civil rights protections. His department challenged state laws that it saw as restricting access to the voting booth and refused to defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of gay marriage. Holder also pushed for changes in the criminal justice system, directing prosecutors to sharply limit their use of harsh mandatory minimum sentences and championing alternatives to prison for nonviolent drug defendants.

Though Holder sees civil rights as a defining element of his legacy, his early years were defined by national security concerns as the country confronted several terror plots, including a failed effort to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day in 2009.

In his first months on the job, he pushed to have some terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay transferred to the United States and prosecuted in the federal court system, but the plan was ultimately derailed amid congressional opposition. He has since expressed feelings of vindication in the successful prosecution of terror plots in American courts, especially as the military tribunal system at Guantanamo has slogged along without major results.

He also faced criticism for the Justice Department’s aggressive stance in news media leak investigations, including the seizure of Associated Press phone records in 2013.

Holder will also be remembered for his clashes with Republican members of Congress, who considered him overly political and dismissive of their views, and once held him in contempt of Congress.

The post Eric Holder bids farewell to DOJ after 6-year tenure appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Gwen’s Take: Accepting the Urbino Press Award

Gwen Ifill with Urbino Press Award President Giovanni Lani, left, and Italian Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero as well as
         previous winners Michael Weisskopf, Helene Cooper and Sebastian Rotella. Photo by the Italian Embassy

Gwen Ifill with Urbino Press Award President Giovanni Lani, left, previous Urbino Press Award winner Michael Weisskopf, previous winners Sebastian Rotella and Helene Cooper, and Italian Ambassador to the U.S. Claudio Bisogniero. Photo by the Italian Embassy

Editor’s Note: Washington Week moderator Gwen Ifill was named the winner of the 2015 Urbino Press Award during a reception Wednesday at the Italian Embassy in Washington. The Urbino Press Award is an Italian prize awarded annually to an American journalist, and Gwen will formally accept the award in Italy this summer. Past winners have included Washington Week panelists Martha Raddatz and Helene Cooper, as well as journalists Wolf Blitzer, Diane Rehm and Thomas Friedman.

Below is her speech from Wednesday’s ceremony at the Italian Embassy:

Gwen accepts Urbino press awardI am always stunned when someone offers me a prize for doing what I love to do, but never more so than tonight.

First of all, thank you Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero and thank you Giovanni Lani, the president of the Urbino Press Award, for allowing me to follow in the footsteps of so many of the journalists I admire so deeply — from Diane Rehm in 2006 to Maria Bartiromo last year to Helene Cooper, who won this prize in 2011 and just this week shared a Pulitzer Prize for her stunning coverage of the Ebola crisis. Urbino beat them to the punch.

It’s good company I get to keep. We are members of an earnest club of storytellers. From Martha Raddatz to Wolf Blitzer to David Ignatius to Sebastian Rotella to Michael Weisskopf and Tom Freidman, we do this work because we have just one more question, one more curious itch we need to satisfy.

I travel to college campuses where the students frequently tell me they get all their news from Jon Stewart.

And I tell them, “Well, where do you think he gets his news?”

I can tell you, he gets it from people like the journalists you honor — people who are persuaded that we can be the light of this world, by never accepting the first answer, by learning how to tell a story in an elegant and accessible way and by respecting our audience’s desire to embrace more, not less.

If this sounds like a love letter to journalism, that’s because it is.

We get a bad rap sometimes. Often it is deserved. But that’s because bad news travels well.

Less told are the stories of the imprisoned journalists who risk their lives to do their work in Iran and China and Ethiopia — hundreds behind bars around the world.

Less understood is the work that relies on data crunching and Freedom of Information Act requests and the willingness to challenge your own government.

And less appreciated is the work done by journalists who cover zoning boards and city councils and school boards — I know, I did all of that — the stuff that really affects our lives on a daily basis.

I tell people that I love covering politics because everything is politics. That, or religion. But politics, in particular, is about more than elections.

It is about whether your child will be fed. It is about whether your parents can afford long-term care. It is about whether you have a roof over your head. Or, perhaps, whether your son will be able to survive his next encounter with police.

As they say…ripped from the headlines.

To me, politics — and political coverage — is about government done right, and about accountability.

That’s the kind of journalism you honor every year with this award.

It’s about seeing beyond our borders to the world beyond and making the connection between migrants fleeing Libya and the refugees who flee Haiti or Cuba.

That, too, is driven by politics.

So I thank you so much for this award — not so much because I am flattered and overwhelmed, although that is true.

And not because I get to actually go to Urbino this summer — which, believe me, is completely true.

But I thank you because you honor the work I do — the work we do — as we strive every day to explain our world in the best way we know how.

And I leave you now with the only Italian word I really know: Grazie, grazie, grazie.

The post Gwen’s Take: Accepting the Urbino Press Award appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Not long ago, Rubio questioned his readiness for presidency

Republican presidential candidate U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership
         Conference in Nashua, New Hampshire on April 17, 2015. Photo by Brian Snyder/Reuters

Republican presidential candidate U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Conference in Nashua, New Hampshire on April 17, 2015. Photo by Brian Snyder/Reuters

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Marco Rubio lacks the experience to be president and Jeb Bush is a brilliant man ready for the job. So said Marco Rubio.

Thing is, that was Rubio a few years ago, a man of seeming humility who joked that the only thing he deserved to be president of was a condo association. He dismissed in colorful terms the idea that one term in the Senate could make a man ready for the White House.

“Everyone I’ve ever known that tries to use their position as a stepping stone for something else has ended up destroying themselves,” he said during a 2012 book tour.

Times — and ambition and ego — have changed.

Bush, the former governor who guided Rubio’s early political career, won Rubio’s praise as “one of the biggest, best thinkers in the Republican Party” with an “amazing” depth of knowledge on almost every issue.

Now Rubio says America doesn’t need politicians from the past.

After shooing off the roars of supporters in his 2010 Senate campaign who saw presidential mettle in him — “it’s fleeting and it’s not going to get to my head” — it’s now firmly in his head.

He’s hardly the first to be seized with the audacity of presidential hopes, even if others have taken a bit longer to get from you-must-be-kidding to yes-we-can.

Barack Obama’s star turn at the convention in 2004, the same year he was elected to the Senate from a background as a state lawmaker, made clear that the White House was in that young man’s eyes.

Few, though, have put down their own bona fides as thoroughly as Rubio did in his rough and tumble Senate campaign, when he wanted voters to know that a Senate seat was his total dream and devotion.

Then, he was stunned to be recognized at a Florida Panhandle truck stop while making a 400-mile round-trip drive so he could talk to 80 voters. The trip cost him as much as he raised in campaign contributions. Republican leaders in Tallahassee and Washington were trying to force him out of the race and have him run for attorney general so then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist could have a clean shot at the nomination.

“It was unpleasant,” Rubio said at the time, “but I’m glad it happened because it forced me to answer a very simple question to myself and that is, why are you doing this?” He decided “I’m in this because I want to do something.”

Rubio began the Senate race 31 points down in polls. Crist was raising $13 for every $1 Rubio took in. But Rubio used tea party rallies, the image of Crist embracing Obama and a well-delivered conservative message to top Crist by 20 points and drive him from the party.

Along the way, he’d poke fun at Obama’s sudden rise to power — a way of playing down suggestions that he could do the same. Like Rubio, Obama announced his presidential plans during his first Senate term.

He cracked at one Senate campaign stop that he was running because he wanted a Nobel Peace Prize, “but you’ve got to be in office two weeks to do that, so I’m going to have to wait.” Obama got the prize his first year in office, the Nobel committee citing his support for multilateral diplomacy and for a world without nuclear weapons.

The night Rubio won his seat, supporters roared when a speaker asked them if they wanted to see Rubio run for president.

The next day, Rubio pushed aside that talk.

“Politics is full of one-hit wonders,” Rubio told reporters. “The truth is, soon you will all go off and cover something else and there will be somebody else out there who’s the flavor of the month, and then I’m still going to be a U.S. senator.”

Two years later at a Panama City book signing, a man approached Rubio and said he should run for president in 2016. Rubio dismissed the idea afterward, and pointed to Bush instead.

“It’s just amazing to me the depth of knowledge that he has on virtually any issue, from foreign relations to the economy and obviously education,” he said.

Yet right after the 2012 election, Rubio was the first of the 2016 prospects to visit Iowa. His conviction that he’s ready for the presidency did not develop overnight.

Now, Rubio calls on voters to break with leaders of the last century. And his goals are much more ambitious than being a condo association president.

The post Not long ago, Rubio questioned his readiness for presidency appeared first on PBS NewsHour.