GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Amna Nawaz is on assignment.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Former President Donald Trump is arraigned in federal court following his indictment in the January 6 insurrection case.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr gives an insider's take on the latest Trump's indictment.

WILLIAM BARR, Former U.S. Attorney General: The abuse was on after the election, and the abuse was conducted by Trump.

GEOFF BENNETT: And four years after a mass shooting killed nearly two dozen people in El Paso, Texas, two people affected by the tragedy reflect on gun violence and grief.

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

It has become a familiar sight.

For the third time this year, former President Donald Trump was arraigned on criminal charges.

Today, he was in federal court in Washington just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol, where a mob of his supporters rioted on January 6 and in the same courthouse where hundreds of participants in that attack have also appeared as defendants.

Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty to four felonies relating to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and remain in power, among them, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the right to vote.

Mr. Trump spoke to reporters after his court appearance today.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: When you look at what's happening, this is a persecution of a political opponent.

This was never supposed to happen in America.

This is the persecution of the person that's leading by very, very substantial numbers in the Republican primary and leading Biden by a lot.

So, if you can't beat him, you persecute him or you prosecute him.

We can't let this happen in America.

GEOFF BENNETT: Cameras were not allowed in the courtroom, but a handful of reporters were given access.

Carrie Johnson was among them.

She's a justice correspondent for NPR and joins us now from the courthouse.

Carrie, thanks so much for being with us.

So, you were in the overflow room.

Give us a sense of how the proceedings unfolded.

And what could you make out of Mr. Trump's demeanor?

CARRIE JOHNSON, NPR: Sure.

We were all waiting, Geoff, most of the day for this proceeding to start.

It started a little bit late, after 4:00 p.m. And the former president and drove through the back of the courtroom.

He seemed pretty somber.

He spent a lot of time talking with his two attorneys, and seemed very animated in flipping through some court papers.

And when the magistrate judge took the bench, Trump paid close attention to her.

He talked about his name and his age, and he took an oath to tell the truth and answer her questions.

It was quite a remarkable moment when the clerk called out the case, the United States v. Donald J. Trump, the former president of the United States, as you said, just really steps away from the U.S. Capitol, which was the scene of the crime here in many ways.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Carrie, this magistrate judge, as I understand it, also told Mr. Trump, do not commit a crime, do not tamper with the jury.

Is that right?

How did he respond?

CARRIE JOHNSON: Sure.

The magistrate judge, Moxila Upadhyaya, basically said Trump would be released on very limited conditions.

One, pretty basic, don't commit a new crime, a new alleged crime, while you're out on release, and, two, don't retaliate against anyone you think is a witness, don't talk with people who you think might be witnesses without the presence of their lawyers.

And Trump nodded and said he understood all of that.

And he basically paid close attention to the judge and seemed to follow along with what she was saying.

GEOFF BENNETT: Mr. Trump's attorney, John Lauro, shared in the courtroom an argument that he shared on this program last night.

He said the government had years to investigate, years to bring this case, and that the Trump legal team would need more time to bring a defense.

Tell us more about that and how this judge reacted to it.

CARRIE JOHNSON: Geoff, this is going to be the heart of the matter, the judge wanting to set a next court appearance for Donald Trump, the prosecutors for the special counsel wanting to pick the first available date, and Donald Trump and his lawyers wanting to pick the last available date.

And so it's going to be a push and a pull.

The special counsel's office says they want to go to trial under the Speedy Trial Act.

They are ready to start sharing information with Donald Trump and his defense lawyers relatively soon.

But, as you mentioned, John Lauro says he's not aware of the magnitude of evidence in this case, yet there could be reams of paper documents, electronic evidence, years-long investigation, and he thinks it might be absurd to follow the speedy trial rules.

He says he wants Trump to get a fair trial, not a fast one.

And the magistrate judge said she could guarantee, in this courthouse, he would get a fair trial.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, we have a date for the next hearing in this case, August 28.

It's just a few weeks away.

That suggests to me that this is going to be a speedy trial.

I mean, how do you read it?

CARRIE JOHNSON: Yes, Judge Tanya Chutkan, a longtime public defender who was appointed to this bench by former President Obama, is relatively no-nonsense and tough.

She's going to preside over that next hearing at the end of the month.

And the magistrate says Judge Chutkan wants to set a trial date at that hearing.

The open question, Geoff, is, Trump already faces trial in March in New York City over those alleged hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels.

He's set for trial in May of 2024 over the Mar-a-Lago documents, the allegedly classified documents found at Trump's resort.

And so it's hard to see when, in that busy schedule, they can matter -- they can notice this January 6 case for trial.

More will become clearer by the end of the month about what the judge wants to say and do there, for sure.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, on that point, in the roughly minute we have left, as you mentioned, the president, former president, is facing three trials in three separate jurisdictions.

He's also obviously running for president again.

Has the Trump legal team given any indication of how they intend to sequence all of this, handle all of it?

CARRIE JOHNSON: I think their strategy is to delay as much as possible for as long as possible.

So, even though he has trial dates set next year in two of these cases, I'm not at all sure he won't go back to the judge and ask for additional delays.

And with respect to this January 6 case, I think the defense's preference is to try this case after the election.

Geoff, that's important, because, if Trump actually wins the election and becomes the president again, he could pardon himself or direct his new attorney general to get rid of these federal cases altogether.

GEOFF BENNETT: Carrie Johnson of NPR, we're so grateful to have you as our eyes and ears in that courtroom on this historic day.

Thanks so much.

CARRIE JOHNSON: My pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: A federal judge formally impose the death penalty on the gunman who carried out the worst attack on Jews in U.S. history.

Robert Bowers killed 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018.

He never expressed any remorse.

Before the sentencing today, U.S. District Judge Robert Colville told the court that - - quote -- "There is nothing I could say to him that might be meaningful."

The U.S. military is said to be considering a major new move to stop Iran from seizing commercial ships in the Persian Gulf.

Reports today said officials are actively considering putting armed troops on civilian vessels as tensions with Tehran increase.

The Pentagon has already sent more warships and planes to the region.

In Niger, hundreds of people marked the country's independence from French rule in 1960 with a rally supporting last week's military coup.

At a crowded square in the capital, protesters denounced the West African regional bloc known as ECOWAS that had condemned the coup.

MAN (through translator): The people are coming.

And we're going to demonstrate to all the ECOWAS countries and all those who are taking unpopular and inhumane measures against Niger, which is in the process of freeing itself from the yoke of colonization.

GEOFF BENNETT: The crowd also demanded that French and other foreign forces leave Niger.

France dismissed that idea, but said it's finished evacuating more than 1,000 civilians.

The U.S. has also ordered its nonessential embassy personnel to leave the country.

A man in South Korea drove a car onto a crowded sidewalk today, injuring five people.

He then jumped out and stabbed nine more people.

Officials said two of the wounded were in serious condition.

Local reports say that one person had died.

It happened at a shopping mall outside Seoul.

The unidentified suspect, a man in his 20s, was arrested at the scene.

Police called it terrorism, but did not offer details.

Meantime, South Korea is hosting the World Scout Jamboree amid triple-digit heat.

More than 40,000 people are attending, most of them teenage scouts.

And at least 600 people have been treated for heat exhaustion in the first two days.

Dozens of military doctors and nurses have helped -- have been deployed to help treat patients suffering headaches, dizziness and nausea.

Organizers say more help is on the way.

CHOI CHANG-HAENG, Secretary-General, World Scout Jamboree Organizing Committee (through translator): To prepare for more patients with heat-related illnesses, we're going to install more air conditioners for five hub clinics.

There are already air conditioners in place, but we feel that we need more in this kind of heat.

GEOFF BENNETT: The heat wave is expected to last until next week.

The Scout Jamboree runs through August 14.

Back in this country, daytime temperatures in Phoenix have topped 110 degrees again after a break that lasted all of two days.

Forecasters say it could stay that way for the next 10 days.

Phoenix suffered through 31 straight days of readings over 110 before this week.

Texas A&M University announced a $1 million settlement today with Kathleen McElroy, a Black journalism professor at the University of Texas.

A&M had agreed to hire her to run its Journalism Department.

But McElroy says critics of her support for diversity and inclusion got the offer reduced and she finally rejected it.

And on Wall Street, stocks suffered fractional losses after Wednesday's sell-off.

The Dow Jones industrial average slipped 66 points to close below 35216.

The Nasdaq fell 13 points.

The S&P 500 was down 11.

And still to come on the "NewsHour": rising hospitalizations point to another summer surge in COVID infections; a wildfire in the Mojave Desert threatens California's iconic Joshua tree; and there's much more.

As we reported earlier, former President Donald Trump returned to Washington today to face a federal judge on charges related to his alleged efforts to stay in power and overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

I spoke with Mr. Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr earlier today about the historic legal case his former boss is now facing, as well as his new memoir, out in paperback now.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr, thanks so much for being with us.

WILLIAM BARR, Former U.S. Attorney General: Thanks for having me, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: This is Donald Trump's third arrest in four months.

He was previously charged by the special counsel in the classified documents probe, and, before that, by that Manhattan grand jury for business fraud.

In your mind, what sets this case apart from the previous two?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, this case is a more serious - - first, I don't think Alvin Bragg's case is a legitimate case.

I think it -- that is a political hit.

But I think this case is the most serious of the cases, because the conduct here involved, trying to subvert and prevent the progress, the execution of probably the most important process and proceeding we have in our country, which is the peaceful transfer of power after an election.

And what's being alleged here is that he knew that he lost the election, he knew that the claims of a stolen election were false, and yet he decided he was going to try to stay in office by subverting that process, by putting out misinformation, but, more important, by putting out these false panels of electors and presenting them to Congress and trying to push the vice president to make these decisions to suppress the legitimate votes.

I mean, that was outrageous.

And putting aside whether it's criminal or know, it -- I don't see how the Republican Party could nominate someone who's capable of doing something like that.

GEOFF BENNETT: In your book, you catalog the chaos at the end of Mr. Trump's time in office.

You had unique access to him.

You were familiar with his thinking, his thought processes.

Did he know lying about election fraud?

WILLIAM BARR: I don't -- initially, I couldn't tell, and -- but he didn't appear to really care about what the answers were.

And he kept on repeating the same charges, even after other people sat down, walked him through them, and explained that there was no problem with those allegations.

And he kept on repeating them.

He didn't really appear to care about the facts.

But I have come to believe that he knew that he lost the election, because something I didn't know at the time when I was telling him that was that his own campaign was telling him that.

In fact, I was concerned at the time that maybe his campaign was feeding some of this stuff to him, but, on the contrary, I think everyone was telling him he lost.

GEOFF BENNETT: There are Republicans who have disparaged this case as being politically motivated.

How do you see it?

Was an indictment warranted in this January 6-related case?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think it's a legitimate case.

I don't understand the attacks on the department and saying it's abusive or it's weaponization for bringing this case.

When someone says, you know, this is unfair, this is -- there's some other motive here, the first question is, OK, was the crime done?

Was there serious wrongdoing here, or is this a case of going after somebody who really didn't do anything or a technical violation or stretching the law way beyond where it should be?

No.

There was very grave wrongdoing here, and I think it's reasonable to say that it falls within the obstruction of a proceeding.

That's not weaponization.

That's enforcement of the law.

And are there some -- some hair on -- on the case?

Is it going to be maybe hard to prove?

Are there areas where they may not be able to make the case?

Perhaps.

Are there some disadvantages for having brought the case?

I think there are.

But I think it's unfair to say that this is an abuse.

The abuse was on after the election, and the abuse was conducted by Trump.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, what are the disadvantages that you see in terms of bringing this case?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think it's coming at a time where there's a profound feeling among many Americans that there's two standards of justice.

And I believe there are, that that's a justified concern.

And I think to come at the same time you see sort of the mishandling of the Hunter Biden investigation, I think it's going to be very hard to persuade people that it's not political.

Now, I don't think bringing this case is political, but I think -- I can understand why people would think it is, given the handling of the Hunter Biden thing.

So, that's one.

And the other is, it helps Trump.

And I think that has to be taken into account.

What are we trying to do here?

If the feeling is that his conduct was dangerous and we don't want this stuff happening, I can see why people would say, OK, well, we have to prosecute this.

But, on the other hand, you're making it more likely that he could get back into office.

GEOFF BENNETT: What do you make of the job that the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, is doing?

Because there are Democrats and Republicans who, for different reasons, criticize the DOJ, and they say that it took too long to bring this case, and now here we are in the middle of an election, and, to your point, it helps Donald Trump.

WILLIAM BARR: I don't know why it -- I don't think it took that long.

I mean, I think they were focusing on the people who went into the Capitol, sort of the lower-level people, for a while.

And I said publicly they seem to have decided just to do that and not work their way up the chain and see what happened.

I don't -- I have seen articles to say that there was some resistance to the idea of doing that from others, including the FBI.

But I think it's -- it was a legitimate investigation to look at what happened on January 6.

I would like to know some things about what happened there.

But I do think that Garland -- Attorney General Garland should -- I think he needs to act swiftly to deal with the Hunter Biden thing, because I think it's hurting the department a great deal.

And I don't think it's possible for an attorney general to distance themselves from this kind of decision and say, well, this U.S. attorney was a Trump U.S. attorney.

He made the decision.

You own the decision.

You -- the decision has to be right in your judgment as attorney general.

So, I think if -- I would advise him to pull the issue in, make a decision as to whether it's going to be a felony or a misdemeanor, make the decision, explain it, and make sure that you can assure Congress that there's a vigorous investigation of all the other aspects of the case.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Trump legal team, as you well know, they're floating their legal defenses.

I spoke with John Lauro, Mr. Trump's attorney, on this program last night, and he said that the January 6-related indictment is an attack on Mr. Trump's free speech and his right to political advocacy, even though the indictment makes clear that it's focused on Mr. Trump's conduct.

Do you think that line of defense will find its way into a courtroom?

WILLIAM BARR: Oh, I'm sure it will.

And I also think that's sort of a bastardized version of what the real issue is.

The real issue is whether it's possible to impose liability in this case without chilling other kinds of legitimate speech.

I don't think the stuff that was involved here that is in the crosshairs of the prosecutor is stuff that he's entitled to do under the First Amendment.

But you don't want to have a fuzzy decision here, where future campaigns are reluctant to challenge the outcome because they're afraid, oh, someone may think -- try to accuse me of this being a crime.

And I think that's a legit commit concern.

But I think this indictment was carefully drawn.

And it's -- they are saying that they will prove that Trump knew what -- that the election wasn't stolen.

And they are focused in on deceitful actions and false, fraudulent actions, such as submitting false slates of electors and trying to use those to create the illusion that there was a bona fide dispute within a state that the vice president could then rule on.

And that was a complete fallacy.

And he doesn't have a constitutional right to do that.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes.

Well, Mr. Lauro also said that the former president was following the advice of his lawyers, to include John Eastman, that he had the advice of counsel.

How solid a defense is that, in your view?

WILLIAM BARR: I think that's quickly going to fall apart.

First, Trump basically searches around for any lawyer he can find who agrees with his predisposition.

He doesn't get advice and follow it.

He looks for a lawyer who will tell him what he wants to hear.

And, here, he was saying -- just passing through all the lawyers, all the government lawyers, all his campaign lawyers who were telling him, no, no, no.

And he finally found this professor who -- it's going to be interesting to say what he actually told him, because I don't think he necessarily said, this is legal, and it's OK.

I think he said, well, you might be able to make an argument to this.

You might make it.

The courts wouldn't accept it, and so forth.

So we will have to see how he casts it.

But there's a big practical hurdle to him doing that, because he's going to have to get on the stand to raise that defense and subject himself to cross-examination, and he will have to waive attorney-client privilege.

And Eastman would have to get on the stage - - on the stand.

So... GEOFF BENNETT: Would you ever testify?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, if they call me, of course, I'm going to -- I'm hoping I'm not called as a witness, but, if I am, I would testify.

GEOFF BENNETT: Why not?

Why are you hoping that you're not called?

WILLIAM BARR: I have better things to do.

(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let me ask you this.

Can Mr. Trump get a fair trial in Washington, D.C.?

Because his legal team is asking for a change of venue, or at least they say they're going to ask for a change of venue, because they say that D.C. isn't politically favorable.

WILLIAM BARR: To be honest, I feel strongly that the most important thing in any of these, whether you like the defendant, whether you're rooting for him or not, is fairness to the individual.

And, to be honest, I think that this may not be the -- a fair jurisdiction for him, given the heat of political sentiment these days.

So, I think that motion is worthy of consideration.

GEOFF BENNETT: Are there any charges... WILLIAM BARR: I would just point out that the other case... GEOFF BENNETT: Yes.

WILLIAM BARR: ...

I thought the Justice Department sought venue in Florida, rather than D.C., and then it was moved to an even more favorable jurisdiction, Fort Pierce.

So that favors the president, President Trump.

I think it would be good to consider that here.

GEOFF BENNETT: It's remarkable how little visibility the American public will have into what you could argue is the most important federal criminal proceeding in U.S. history.

There's only a handful of reporters who are allowed into the courtroom, and there are no cameras that are allowed.

Should an exception be made?

Should cameras be allowed into this proceeding, so that the American public can watch it unfold?

WILLIAM BARR: No, I don't think so.

I'm opposed to cameras in court.

I mean, our politics and our life is becoming more and more like a reality TV program, and everyone's posturing, and political conversation is all talking points and so forth.

And I'd hate to see that start happening more and more in our courts, where it's performance, rather than substance.

GEOFF BENNETT: Mr. Barr, what did you see in Donald Trump initially that made you want to serve as his attorney general?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I didn't want to serve as his attorney general.

I was actually not interested at all in going into the government.

I had reservations about him.

I didn't support him initially.

But my view was, he was the duly elected president, and I felt he was being unfairly treated and his -- he was being thwarted in trying to run a normal administration.

And I felt that he was entitled to that.

And I also saw some good things about him.

I mean, everyone focuses nowadays on the criticisms I have, but he was willing to speak plainly, to take on issues that other people were afraid to talk about.

And he also, I think, had the stamina to keep on going on these issues and try to keep his election promises.

And I think his policies substantively were ones that I generally agreed with.

I didn't like the way they were presented and the erratic nature of the administration and so forth.

But -- so, I went in because I felt we were headed toward a constitutional crisis, and I thought I could help stabilize things, and especially at the Department of Justice.

GEOFF BENNETT: You were for a time one of the president's most influential, most ardent supporters in his administration, even faced criticism for personally intervening in high-profile cases, the Roger Stone case, the Michael Flynn case, characterizing the Mueller report before it was made fully available to the public.

Do you have any second thoughts about that or regrets about serving in his administration?

WILLIAM BARR: No, I don't.

I would agree that maybe I was influential, but you said the most ardent supporter.

I support -- I supported the president.

I was a member of his Cabinet.

But I think, more than many others, because I had heard so much about him beforehand from my New York business colleagues, that I realized his deep faults.

And he has very, very deep faults, but he was the duly elected president of the United States.

And I would note that people are talking about the weaponization of the department.

And I always -- I have said to them sometimes where I bother to engage with them, I say - - so you say I was going after the president's enemies.

Who did I go after?

And there's a long silence.

And then they start talking about cases where I intervened to lighten their treatment, friends of the president, Stone and... GEOFF BENNETT: Flynn?

WILLIAM BARR: Flynn.

And I said, well, that's because we're not going to weaponize the department.

In each case, demonstrably, the line prosecutors, the normal system kicked out treatment that never would have been done in any other case.

They asked for a sentence two to three times higher than would normally be given.

And I said, no, we're going to leave it to the judge.

(CROSSTALK) GEOFF BENNETT: Well, there are Democrats who make that same case about Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden is facing the kind of prosecution that he's only facing because he's the president's son.

WILLIAM BARR: No, I disagree, because those charges relate -- some of them were brought under me.

So, for example, the Democrats were constantly beating up the administration for not prosecuting people who lie when they get their guns, called lie and try.

And they said, you're weak on guns.

You're not prosecuting people who do that.

I said, OK, I made it a priority.

It was one of the top priorities of the department to prosecute as felonies people who lie on their gun applications.

Lo and behold, one of the first people to stroll into view is none other than Hunter Biden.

And he was brandishing that gun in photographs and stuff.

In my opinion, he should not be allowed to plead to a misdemeanor.

He should be charged with a felony, and other people have been charged with felonies in those cases.

So I hear what they're saying, but I think they're wrong, if they're thinking that this should be an automatic misdemeanor.

GEOFF BENNETT: You're clear in your book that the GOP needs to move on from Donald Trump, and yet he is the dominant figure still far and away ahead of the pack in terms of the folks who are running to be the GOP nominee in 2024.

Is his nomination inevitable, do you think?

WILLIAM BARR: No, I don't think so.

I think the media and Trump and many others are way ahead of themselves.

I think he has a hardcore following of about 30 or 35 percent in the Republican Party.

I think there's about 20 percent in the Republican Party who tend to support him, but they are very much attuned to his problems and are willing to shift.

I think that they were shifting in droves up until Alvin Bragg's indictment, and then, all of a sudden, they snapped back.

And I think that reflects that, when they're asked by a pollster, they instinctively want to man the ramparts for the president, the former president, who they feel is embattled.

But I think that that's going to change over time.

And I think if the Republicans are able to get the number of candidates down, and it becomes more like a two- or three-man race, I think there's a good chance of having another nominee.

And that's what I hope.

And I think it's essential for the future of the Republican Party.

GEOFF BENNETT: You said in a previous interview that there could be or there will be more shoes to drop in the special counsel investigation.

What do you think those might be?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I don't think -- I think it'll be more evidence, and perhaps, as we saw in the document case in Mar-a-Lago, maybe another additional charge.

GEOFF BENNETT: Evidence like what?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think evidence of his knowledge, evidence of statements he's made or other things that would be probative of what his state of mind was and whether he understood that the election -- that he had lost the election.

I think there could be a lot more evidence of that.

I think they have evidence on a number of fronts.

And I don't think the department's going to throw all of its evidence in its first filing.

GEOFF BENNETT: Were you questioned by Jack Smith?

WILLIAM BARR: I'm just not getting into any discussions I have with the government.

GEOFF BENNETT: Do you believe that you -- it's your duty to speak to him if he were to call?

WILLIAM BARR: Of course.

If he asked me to talk to him, I would talk to the special counsel.

GEOFF BENNETT: Would Republicans ever turn away from Donald Trump if he were to be convicted?

WILLIAM BARR: I think a lot of Republicans would.

I think, over time, when they see some of the facts here that are characteristic of his behavior, that they will.

But I think, unfortunately, a lot of Republicans are -- seem to be tolerant of behavior that I don't think is appropriate for the chief executive.

One of the things is, he has a lot of people who follow him stubbornly.

And one of the interesting things is, the people who actually have worked with him, have seen him, have seen him behind the scenes, not many of them are supporting him.

GEOFF BENNETT: I spoke with, as I mentioned, Mr. Trump's attorney last night, and I asked, is there any universe in which Donald Trump would accept a plea deal?

And he said no.

Should Donald Trump accept a plea deal?

Is the potential threat of prison time that great?

WILLIAM BARR: I don't -- I mean, I wouldn't push him to accept a plea deal?

And I don't think he will.

I actually think this stuff about prison time is hyped.

At the end of the day, even if he's convicted, even if he's convicted of both crimes, I don't think he will serve a day in prison.

GEOFF BENNETT: As a former president, it would be inappropriate?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think he -- yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: Is that what you're saying?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think as a -- he will have a felony record, but I think any president, Republican or Democrat, and any Department of Justice would basically cut some kind of deal, so we don't have the spectacle of a former president in prison.

I don't think that's going to happen.

Now, the president is out there, of course, saying he's at risk of 500 years in prison or something like that, because he's raising money.

GEOFF BENNETT: If Donald Trump is reelected, what would a second term mean for this country, and what would a second-term Trump DOJ look like?

I mean, the legal advisers who had his ear at the end of his term, the majority of them, many of them, are now unindicted co-conspirators in this indictment.

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think many of the people he might otherwise turn to won't have law licenses during a second term.

So it'll be interesting to see how he staffs the Department of Justice.

I found in the -- in his first term that the only way to really talk sense into him was to say, this is going to hurt you, and it's going to hurt your reelection chances, and so forth.

He would then pay attention.

So I am concerned that, in the second term, he will be off the hook.

There will be no way of controlling him, and he will also surround himself with yes-men.

GEOFF BENNETT: Former Attorney General Bill Barr, his memoir, now out in paperback, is "One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General."

For people who haven't read the book, that title, "One Damn Thing After Another"... WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: ... can you quickly explain where that came from?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

So it's a story that attorneys general tell, because when Reagan appointed William French Smith, William French Smith went to talk to one of his predecessors, Ed Levi,who was an academician.

He had been dean of the law school at Chicago, smoked a pipe, wore a tweed jacket.

And he said: You know, Ed, tell me about this job of attorney general.

And he was expecting to hear this, you know, elevated lecture about separation of power.

And Levi puffed on his pipe and said: "One damn thing after another."

(LAUGHTER) WILLIAM BARR: So that's what attorneys general have told each other since then, that that's the job.

And that was the basis of the title.

GEOFF BENNETT: Bill Barr, thanks for coming in.

WILLIAM BARR: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Good to see you.

WILLIAM BARR: Yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: Four years ago today, a gunman entered a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, fatally shooting 23 people and wounding 22 others.

The shooter targeted Hispanic shoppers in one of the deadliest such attacks in U.S. history.

Last month, he was sentenced in federal court to consecutive life sentences, as grief-stricken family members read emotional statements in court.

We hear reflections now from two people intimately connected to the tragedy of that day.

ADRIA GONZALEZ, El Paso Shooting Victim: My name is Adria Gonzalez.

And I live right now in Georgia.

And I am a Walmart shooting survivor.

TITO ANCHONDO, Brother of Andre Anchondo: My name is Gilberto Luis Anchondo.

Everybody calls me Tito.

And I lost my brother Andre Anchondo and his wife, Jordan Anchondo, in the El Paso Walmart shooting.

ADRIA GONZALEZ: Once we heard the gunshots going on, the first thing that happened to me was how many were there, how many shooters, or what was really going on.

So, I left my mother in the meat section and I went to the front.

And that's when I saw everything, a body laying down with blood, people screaming.

And I saw him for some seconds as he was holding the gun.

I took off my cap and just started yelling in Spanish and English: "Vamonos.

Vamonos.

Let's go.

It's this way," because that was our Walmart.

TITO ANCHONDO: My dad got nervous because he knew that my brother was going to be in that area.

I started just calling, and he didn't answer.

It turns into like a dream, kind of.

Like, you start hearing things, and your mind's trying to process it.

One of my brother's friends, his dad was one of the police officers at the scene.

And I said: "Please, please, man, just tell me, like, is my brother alive or dead?"

And he was like: "I just want you to know, Tito," he's like, "Your brother is a hero.

He tried to stop the guy.

He protected his family.

And I just want you to know that your brother's a hero."

So that's when I kind of know things were not looking good.

ADRIA GONZALEZ: Before, I did say that I do forgive him.

But now that time passes and I have a baby now, it really angers me sometimes that there has not been any justice yet for us.

There's a saying in Mexico, an eye for an eye, teeth by teeth.

(SPEAKING SPANISH) The reason that I want the death penalty is because these type of people are like virus.

It's not about feelings.

It's about justice, because what I saw that morning, bodies with blood, him with the weapon.

I even heard from his mouth: "F the Mexicans."

He didn't care.

TITO ANCHONDO: A lot of people get upset because I'm against the death penalty, because I think that's just too easy.

That's just like an easy out.

I think it's worse punishment sitting with your thoughts, knowing that you got arrested in jail and you have no freedoms left.

I think that's the worst punishment a human being can get.

I was able to look that guy in his eyes and forgive him and let him know that his actions will not affect the rest of my life.

My brother was a very loyal type of person.

He was a great, funny individual.

He was about to be a great father.

The next year, following the shooting, my father dies as well.

It's very depressing at times.

I'm not going to lie.

It does get very depressing.

But, at the same time, it's something that has helped me change my life for me to become a little bit more responsible and mature.

ADRIA GONZALEZ: I'm very happy that I'm not in El Paso anymore.

Mentally, it was not helping me to be in El Paso.

It hurt me, to the point where I would drive and I would see that Walmart.

It was too much for me.

I personally changed who I trust now, how I go to stores or restaurants.

Before I go, I check where the exit doors are.

If I park somewhere, I look at the license plates.

I look who comes out of the car.

My wife considered that I should go and take some courses of how to shoot a gun.

And now I carry a weapon with me.

I don't like carrying guns.

It's not in me.

But with what's going on, now that I have a baby with me, now that I have my child, now it's not only my protection, but it's my baby's protection now.

TITO ANCHONDO: My nephew's doing really, really amazing.

He reminds me a lot of my brother.

He was at my mom's house.

He was staring at a photo of his father, and he was crying.

And she said: "What's wrong, mijito?

What's going on?"

He said: "I miss my dad."

So, it's strange to see like a -- sorry.

It's strange to see -- you see them as children who would, like -- like, you think that they're not as intelligent, as a full-grown adult.

But that's completely wrong.

We need to show my nephew and my daughter love, so that they don't grow up and thinking that this world is just full of fear and danger.

ADRIA GONZALEZ: I'm still looking for some closure, but it's getting there.

What moves me is my family.

What moves me is just to wake up in the morning and take my coffee.

Just simple things in life are what -- that's what makes me happy, and just waking up and seeing my daughter's eyes and seeing that she's OK. That's my closure, knowing that she is OK. GEOFF BENNETT: Signs point to a COVID-19 summer surge once again for the fourth consecutive year.

Overall infections remain much lower compared to the past, but cases started increasing last month.

John Yang looks at the growing concerns.

JOHN YANG: Geoff, after months of decline, numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that reported cases and hospitalizations are on the rise, slowly, to be sure, but still rising.

For the week ending July 22, COVID-19 hospital admissions were up by 12 percent from the week before and emergency department visits up by 17 percent.

The CDC says COVID deaths are the lowest they have been since the government started keeping track, but, still, between 300 and 400 Americans are dying each week.

Katelyn Jetelina is an epidemiologist at the University of Texas.

She writes the popular Substack column Your Local Epidemiologist.

So, Katelyn, what -- when you hear those numbers, what do they tell you?

What are those -- what does this little spike tell you?

KATELYN JETELINA, University of Texas Health Science Center: Well, it tells me, well, here we are yet again.

We find ourselves in the middle of this COVID-19 summer wave.

And I don't think this should be very surprising, because we have seen a summer wave the past three years, particularly in the South, due to a combination of three things.

One, the virus continues to mutate about two times faster than the flu.

Two, people are moving inside because of the heat.

And, three, the susceptibility pool is growing.

Our protection is waning over time.

I will say, though, that there's two pieces of good news, though.

One is that, like you said, John, although metrics are increasing, they're starting from very low absolute levels, which is certainly helpful for our hospital systems.

And then, two, some signs today actually indicated that acceleration is slowing down.

So we may be starting to see our peak here soon.

JOHN YANG: Should people be concerned, or are there particular types of people who should be concerned?

KATELYN JETELINA: Yes, I think it depends on how you define concern.

I mean, this is definitely causing disruptions in family vacations, which is not fun.

It's also not fun to take care of a sick toddler or getting sick yourself for a week.

But those most at risk right now for severe disease remain to be older people and immunocompromised, particularly those that haven't had their spring booster, or haven't been infected in more than six months.

JOHN YANG: Katelyn, the White House is eliminated the job of COVID coordinator, CDC no longer tracking positive tests, a lot of state health officials no longer tracking that.

Has this created a sense that, well, it's all over?

KATELYN JETELINA: Well, CDC is still tracking some metrics.

And I do agree that we are in a very different place in 2023, compared to, for example, 2020.

And I understand the mind-set for, man, thank goodness that's done.

But we do the public a disservice by rolling over, saying, let's move on, because the truth is, the virus doesn't care.

COVID is obviously still here.

It's going to be with us.

It's going to cause disruptions.

And it's going to cause a lot of people to lose their lives.

And we can prevent this.

And we prevent that by removing the gaps for a lot of room for improvement.

For example, only one in four nursing home residents get Paxlovid during a COVID-19 infection.

And this is absolutely unacceptable.

So we still have a lot of work to do.

And public health cannot do it without engaging the public.

JOHN YANG: You talk about that there's still work to be done.

You say that protection is waning.

Is this sort of lack of concern or feeling that it's over contributing to the low rate of people getting boosters?

I mean, when the last booster came out, only 17 percent of us got a booster shot.

KATELYN JETELINA: Yes, I'm very nervous about booster rates specifically going into fall, and specifically among those over 65.

Last fall, 40 percent of those over 65 got a COVID-19 vaccine.

And if we compare this to flu, 75 percent of the same population got a flu vaccine.

And that's a disappointing difference, given COVID-19 is more severe than the flu for this population.

For this fall, I think we still have a lot of unanswered questions, though.

Like, we know we're getting an updated vaccine formula, but we still don't know who's eligible yet.

The CDC is going to decide that in the next month.

So, to be determined who is eligible this fall.

But I hope everyone who is gets a vaccine.

JOHN YANG: I want to ask you, quickly because there's so many -- so much concern among people out there about specific advice and tips you might have, I'm just going to name a topic and a quick answer.

Masks.

KATELYN JETELINA: Yes, you should wear -- be wearing masks in crowded areas, especially during a surge.

JOHN YANG: But what about at home and when you're walking on the street?

KATELYN JETELINA: So, certainly, at home, it works, if you want to reduce household transmission.

I wouldn't wear a mask when walking your dog.

Just be distant of other people.

JOHN YANG: Home testing.

KATELYN JETELINA: At-home antigen tests are an incredibly valuable tool.

Keep in mind, though, that there's a lot of false positives in the beginning of symptoms.

So be sure to retest if you get a negative within 48 hours.

JOHN YANG: And if you do get a positive, how long should you isolate?

KATELYN JETELINA: According to CDC, it's five days, but a lot of people are still infectious, which means please wear a mask if you leave isolation at five days.

The best practice is to test to exit.

Whenever you get a negative on the antigen test, you're not contagious anymore, and you're good to go.

JOHN YANG: Katelyn Jetelina, Your Local Epidemiologist, thank you very much.

KATELYN JETELINA: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Firefighters are working to control the massive blaze known as the York Fire that has swept through the California desert and into Nevada.

A brief, but heavy downpour Tuesday helped containment efforts, which were about 35 percent as of this morning.

But a wildfire of this scale did not used to be common in the Mojave Desert landscape, known for its unique vegetation and animal species.

Stephanie Sy explores what has already been lost and why experts say it's unlikely it'll grow back.

STEPHANIE SY: In this part of California's Mojave Desert near the Nevada border, smoky skies aren't the view they're used to.

LISA CALDERWOOD, Traveler: There's a haze, nothing.

You can't see ahead.

I mean, you can't see the mountain.

STEPHANIE SY: And while crews are making progress on containing the fire, a major concern among officials and ecologists is the lasting damage to the fragile desert ecosystem, including the region's trademark Joshua tree.

Jacob Margolis is a science reporter at LAist focused on climate change and natural disasters.

He says fires of this scale in the Mojave region used to be rare.

JACOB MARGOLIS, Science Reporter, LAist: Everywhere in California sees fire at some point.

But if we're talking about fire return intervals, like how often these areas historically saw fire, some of these ecosystems might not see a substantial fire that could maybe clear stuff out, some estimates are, a couple 100 years.

STEPHANIE SY: The Mojave Desert is known for its unique vegetation and wildlife, says Kelly Fuhrmann acting superintendent of the Mojave national preserve.

KELLY FUHRMANN, Acting Superintendent, Mojave National Preserve: It's a very special place in a lot of ways, being a desert ecosystem.

The vegetation assemblages are quite diverse, although in a -- sort of a subtle way, not a large array of trees, for example.

It's desert scrub and grasses and such like that., and then also a large variety of wildlife that inhabits ecosystems there too, such as the desert tortoise, which is a very unique species out here that we protect.

STEPHANIE SY: There are an estimated 10,000 threatened desert tortoises in the region, as well as the iconic Joshua trees, which experts worry may not spring back after such an intense wildfire.

JACOB MARGOLIS: When you have a plant that is not fire-adapted that's getting hit by fire maybe previously every few hundred years, say, the seeds had time to reestablish -- these Joshua trees grow three centimeters or something like that a year.

It takes a long time for them to grow to like 10 meters in size.

KELLY FUHRMANN: The long-term impacts of those fires on those ecosystems in the preserve are of great concern to us, because the recovery can take decades, if not centuries, in some respects, depending on the ecosystem.

STEPHANIE SY: Experts also say climate change has helped make conditions right for the blaze, not just hotter summers, but wetter winters, like California experienced this year.

JACOB MARGOLIS: The many landscapes in California already, as we are in Mediterranean kind of climate here, but it is supposed to become more extreme as time goes on, as the climate does continue to change.

And so what we might see and what we do see our a lot of rain.

There's a lot of rain, growth rates, and then the drying out of those grasses or plants, and then they get crispy quite quickly.

And so they're ready to burn.

STEPHANIE SY: The York Fire started on private land.

And while there have been no reported human casualties, it's too soon to know how many tortoises or trees may have been lost.

High winds have created extremely challenging conditions for firefighters.

But even more challenging may be the path to recovery for this precious desert ecosystem.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Stephanie Sy.

GEOFF BENNETT: An obscure bit of colonial history dating back to a summer night mid-18th century led to a New England town celebrating frogs in sculpture, poetry and song to this day.

David Wright of Rhode Island PBS Weekly takes this leap of whimsy as part of our arts and culture series, Canvas.

DAVID WRIGHT: Whether you arrive in Windham, Connecticut from the north, south, east, or west, one of the first things to greet you is a large green face.

SUSAN HERRICK, Herpetologist: They have got a lot of character too, don't you think?

DAVID WRIGHT: They do.

SUSAN HERRICK: Yes, they do.

DAVID WRIGHT: Four big bullfrogs, as solid as anvils, planted there on the Willimantic Bridge like a concrete lily pad right in the middle of town.

So, I'm sure I'm not the first person to ask this, but what's with all the frogs?

(LAUGHTER) BEV YORK, Historian: So, welcome to Windham.

That is a very popular question.

A lot of people who arrive here say, what's the deal with the frogs?

DAVID WRIGHT: At the pharmacy and the library on Main Street, the hospital and the local radio station, Windham honors amphibians.

The town's only real rival in frog mania may be Calaveras County, California, home of the Jumping Frog Jubilee, celebrating Mark Twain's famous 1865 short story.

But Windham's association with amphibians predates that by more than a century, an obscure bit of colonial history.

SUSAN HERRICK: 1754 summertime, it was right in the middle of the French and Indian War.

So people were a bit on edge.

I think I saw some numbers that there were approximately 100 people living within the general area of this green right here.

DAVID WRIGHT: So they heard a noise.

SUSAN HERRICK: They heard a noise.

And it was about 100 yards into the woods off the road.

DAVID WRIGHT: Susan Herrick is in an herpetologist, AKA frog biologist, who was born and raised here.

SUSAN HERRICK: Men are getting up out of their houses and arming themselves and, yes, against what they thought was an invasion of either - - either Natives or somebody else during this rough period of time.

And everybody was apparently -- afeared for their lives is what some of the writing... DAVID WRIGHT: Because of the noise.

SUSAN HERRICK: Because of the noise.

DAVID WRIGHT: Herrick believes the terrible sound that so spooked the locals in 1754 was the result of a colonial climate disaster.

SUSAN HERRICK: It's reported that it was -- there was a drought here at that time in 1754.

Between late June and early July, apparently, it was pretty dry.

And I think the pond had shrunk a little too much.

And they gave up trying to hold territories and did what we call May acquisition strategy, switching.

So instead of defending territories, they did what's called a leck (ph), which is where all the males just sort of gathered together and display themselves, sort of like a singles bar, if you will.

DAVID WRIGHT: So instead of singing a froggy love song, they were kind of having a... (CROSSTALK) SUSAN HERRICK: They're... (CROSSTALK) DAVID WRIGHT: ... primal scream.

SUSAN HERRICK: Having a mosh pit, yes, exactly.

DAVID WRIGHT: In her research at the University of Connecticut, she spent more than 3,000 hours recording bullfrogs in the wild.

SUSAN HERRICK: This is what a frog pond would normally sound like.

So, that's whole songs calling.

Now, here they start switching notes.

So, they will sing to each other.

DAVID WRIGHT: She's built a recreation of what the 1754 frog pond might have sounded like with all of the bullfrogs bleating at once.

SUSAN HERRICK: Now, this is what I think it could potentially have sounded like on the battlefield... (LAUGHTER) SUSAN HERRICK: ... so to speak, right?

DAVID WRIGHT: It sounds like a big swarm of angry bees.

Nevertheless, when word got around that this little town had panicked, taking up arms against a bunch of bullfrogs...

The story had legs.

BEV YORK: The story had legs.

The story had legs.

DAVID WRIGHT: The great Windham frog fight became an American Batrachomyomachia, the stuff of epic comic poems, at least three of them.

Before the U.S. had a national currency, banknotes issued by the Windham Bank featured a frog standing on top of another frog.

In 1905, the local opera house even mounted an operetta, a musical, "The Frogs of Windham," which has enjoyed several local revivals.

And, to this day, the local brewery has an annual Hop Fest.

So, you have embraced the frog, which was originally sort of a joke at Windham's expense.

BEV YORK: A joke at Windham's expense, but we're pretty good at laughing at ourselves, yes.

DAVID WRIGHT: The bridge itself is an example of that good humor.

Built 20 years ago by the state of Connecticut, the locals insisted it pay tribute to their heritage.

SUSAN HERRICK: Apparently, it was pretty embarrassing for the colonists back then.

But, nowadays, we look back and we laugh, and we think, oh, that must have been the equivalent of nowadays online ribbing.

You know, these ribbing... DAVID WRIGHT: Yes.

SUSAN HERRICK: Ribbiting?

DAVID WRIGHT: So, forever, these frogs will troll the town of Windham.

SUSAN HERRICK: Troll the town of Windham forever.

DAVID WRIGHT: For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm David Wright in Windham, Connecticut.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for spending part of your evening with us.