GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Amna Nawaz is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Former President Donald Trump faces additional charges for allegedly trying to delete security camera footage in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.

A prominent Hong Kong dissident and pro-democracy activist in exile describes the Chinese government's crackdown on dissent.

ELMER YUEN, Hong Kong Dissident: They never had the support of people.

And, in fact they have hijacked all the human rights and democracy from the Chinese people and the Hong Kong people.

GEOFF BENNETT: And the complex and opaque supply chain for prescription drugs puts increasing pressure on local pharmacies.

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

Nearly 200 million Americans have spent another day under a long list of heat advisories and severe weather warnings.

Oppressive temperatures that scorched the Southwest for weeks have moved into much of the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic.

Forecasts for Philadelphia's heat index topped out at 108 degrees today, and other cities reached the 100-degree mark as well.

Beyond that, severe thunderstorms are expected in the Great Lakes region and Ohio Valley.

New economic numbers today are the latest to show that inflation in the U.S. is easing.

A government gauge that's closely watched by the Federal Reserve finds consumer prices rose 3 percent in June from a year earlier.

That's the smallest annual increase in more than two years.

In Niger, soldiers declared an army general to be the new head of state today after ousting the democratically elected president this week.

That came hours after the general addressed the nation, saying the civilian government failed to defend the country against Islamist insurgents.

ABDOURAHMANE TCHIANI, Niger Coup Leader (through translator): The current security approach has failed to secure our country.

We can no longer continue with the same approaches proposed to date, at the risk of witnessing the gradual and inevitable disappearance of our country.

GEOFF BENNETT: The U.S. has about 1,000 troops in Niger, and it's unclear how the coup will affect that commitment.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin aimed tough talk at China today over its aggressive moves in the Pacific.

He was in Australia for talks on providing submarines powered by U.S. nuclear technology.

He said directly it's aimed at countering Beijing, officially, the People's Republic of China.

LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. Secretary of Defense: We have seen troubling PRC coercion from the East China Sea to the South China Sea to right here in the Southwest Pacific.

And we will continue to support our allies and partners as they defend themselves from bullying behavior.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, Japan released a defense analysis that warns of the most serious security threats since World War II.

It cites actions by China, North Korea and Russia and calls for a Japanese military buildup in response.

The U.S. House and Senate now face tough negotiations over an annual defense policy bill.

The Senate passed its version last night.

It includes a 5.2 percent pay raise for the military.

But, unlike the House version, it does not curb troops' access to gender-affirming care or abortion.

That leaves lawmakers to work out a compromise bill.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was moving to quash questions about his health and future.

That's after the Kentucky senator froze up during a news conference this week.

In a new statement, his office says -- quote - - "Leader McConnell appreciates the continued support of his colleagues and plans to serve his full term in the job they overwhelmingly elected him to do."

McConnell is 81 and is the longest-serving Senate party leader ever.

And, on Wall Street, the new inflation data fueled a new rally.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 176 points to close it 35459.

The Nasdaq rose 266 points, and the S&P 500 was up 1 percent.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": a podcast examines the legal pitfalls victims of domestic violence face when they defend themselves; Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy weigh in on the week's political headlines a Black-owned brewery in California bucks industry trends while fostering community.

Special counsel Jack Smith expanded his classified documents case against former President Donald Trump with three new felony charges, including claims that Mr. Trump asked an employee of his Mar-a-Lago club to delete security footage sought by the grand jury investigating the mishandling of government records.

And prosecutors added a third defendant to the case, Carlos De Oliveira, a worker at Mar-a-Lago who was accused of joining Donald Trump and aide Walt Nauta of obstructing the investigation by attempting to destroy the security footage.

Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. attorney and a senior FBI official, and he joins us now.

Thanks so much for coming in.

CHUCK ROSENBERG, Former U.S. Attorney: Oh, my pleasure, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, these new charges were presented in what's known as a superseding indictment that was handed up by the grand jury in Florida yesterday.

How do these new charges illustrate the depth and breadth of the legal jeopardy in which Donald Trump now finds himself?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: Well, they add to our knowledge of the obstruction.

And why is that important?

The obstruction of justice in the first indictment, the underlying indictment, the original one, had to do with Mr. Trump's attorneys -- Mr. Trump using his attorneys to try and conceal information that had been subpoenaed from the government.

But now we see a second aspect to the obstruction, Mr. Trump using employees to try and delete security camera footage.

And why is that important?

Because obstruction helps the government prove intent.

It helps them argue to the jury, assuming that they can adduce all of this a trial, that, by trying to obstruct the investigation, hide documents, destroy security camera footage, Mr. Trump is demonstrating that he did something wrong and wanted to conceal it.

It helps the government's case significantly.

GEOFF BENNETT: The new indictment alleges that Carlos De Oliveira, the Mar-a-Lago worker, told another Trump employee that -- quote - - "the boss" wanted the server deleted.

And the employee, according to the indictment, responded that he didn't know how to do that and didn't know if he had the rights to do that.

The specificity of this indictment suggests that this other Trump employee, Employee Number 4, is cooperating.

Is that how you see it?

And how does that add to the case?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: It is how I see it and suggests too that he would be a very important witness.

I am confident that the FBI spoke to many, if not most, if not all of the employees.

Most, I hope, told the truth.

It sounds like Employee Number 4 told the truth.

Others had a choice to make.

Mr. De Oliveira, we know, in January of this year was questioned by the FBI in his home.

He had two paths he could take.

He could tell the truth.

He chose not to.

He lied, and he was charged with it.

But it sounds like Employee Number 4 told the truth.

And, by telling the truth, A, he buttresses the government's case, and, B, Geoff, he stays out of trouble.

GEOFF BENNETT: Chuck, why was a superseding indictment necessary in this case?

Why couldn't these charges have been included in the initial indictment back in June?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: That's a great question and one that I have wondered about.

So, normally, the government would prefer to bring all of its charges and all of its defendants in one case, one time.

Sometimes, there are pieces that are lingering that they haven't quite yet resolved.

It's also possible that they learned new information after the original indictment was filed.

So I don't know which of those things happened.

I know the preference is to bring it all at once in one charging instrument.

It's entirely possible too that they were hoping Mr. De Oliveira would tell the truth and would cooperate and would be a witness at trial, and that he chose a different path.

Having chosen a different path, they had little option but to indict him.

GEOFF BENNETT: We should say Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

And he was talking about this case today in a conversation on conservative talk radio.

Here's a bit of that.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: They're trying to intimidate people, and so they have to lie to get out of a problem.

But these are two wonderful employees.

They have been with me for a long time, and they're great people.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, he's saying that the special counsel intimidated the witnesses and that the witnesses lied.

How do the former president's public statements complicate his legal case?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: Well, many of his public statements contradict evidence that will be adduced in the case.

So, if he chooses to take the stand in his own trial, in his own defense, which is an option, not a requirement, he's going to be confronted with lots of things that he's said.

And it's going to be very difficult, even for Mr. Trump, in a court of law, under oath, under questioning by experienced federal prosecutors, to sort of weave his way through that.

And, by the way, his two employees may have been wonderful, and they may have been great people.

I will accept that at face value.

But that's not inconsistent with the fact that they committed crimes.

If they were wonderful employees, it's an odd way for Mr. Trump to treat them, because he has put them in great jeopardy.

GEOFF BENNETT: Could this new information, Chuck, delay the start of this trial, which right now is slated for May 2024?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: Yes, so that's about 10 months out, Geoff.

I come from the Eastern District of Virginia, which was known as the Rocket Docket, where 10 months would be an eternity.

In my view, that date can and should hold.

It may not.

And, obviously, the defense attorneys will use the fact that there's more charges and now a third defendant to argue for more time.

It's up to the judge, ultimately.

I think the date can hold.

I think the date should hold.

Whether or not it does hold, we shall see.

GEOFF BENNETT: Chuck Rosenberg, it's always a pleasure to speak with you.

Thanks so much for coming in.

CHUCK ROSENBERG: My pleasure, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: For over 20 years, it was understood that Hong Kong was part of China, but it ran its own affairs under what was known as one country, two systems.

Hong Kong residents had many freedoms that mainland Chinese did not.

That all started to change four years ago, as Beijing cracked down on pro-democracy activists.

Now the once-freewheeling capitalist haven resembles a police state run by the Communist Party.

And, as John Yang tells us, Beijing is trying to extend that crackdown overseas.

JOHN YANG: Geoff, for several years now, Hong Kong has been cracking down on dissent at home.

A strict new security law was implemented in 2020, after nearly a year of pro-democracy protests.

Since then, more than 260 people have been arrested, nearly all independent media shut down, and opposition candidates disqualified from elections.

Now China is trying to extend the reach of its repression by targeting critics living in exile.

They have issued eight arrest warrants for scholars, pro-democracy activists, and former lawmakers no longer living in Hong Kong.

Elmer Yuen is named in one of those warrants.

He's a Hong Kong businessman turned online commentator now living in the United States.

Mr. Yuen, the government accuses you of subversion, colluding with foreign forces, and they put a six-figure reward for your arrest.

How does that -- how do you feel?

How do you react to that?

ELMER YUEN, Hong Kong Dissident: I think I'm very happy, because it means that I really touch on their nerve, their weakest point.

The whole thing about the Communist Party is, they claim that they represent all the people.

And now I'm trying to form a elected Hong Kong parliament outside of Hong Kong.

And this is -- make them very nervous, because it's really the power of the people organized.

And this is communist.

They really -- they never had the support of people.

And, in fact, they have hijacked all the human rights and democracy from the -- from the Chinese people and the Hong Kong people.

JOHN YANG: Why do you think they're going after people overseas, exiles?

ELMER YUEN: They are trying to reach out, have their police station in many free countries.

But they don't have the control, as in Hong Kong or in China.

So the result is, they want to scare us.

And they do this kind of tactic all the time.

Now, only now, people start paying attention.

JOHN YANG: Sort of on that point, I know that the Hong Kong police have detained members of your family, I believe your daughter and son.

What's your response to that?

ELMER YUEN: Again, they're trying to scare me, totally illegal.

In fact, what I'm doing is based on the universal declaration of independence.

We have the right to be elected, to elect, to vote.

And it's also in the Chinese Constitution and Hong Kong basic law.

This is all rights given to us to form our own government and autonomy.

So, they tried to detain my kids, tried to scare me and get me to stop, I wouldn't be surprised if they detain them for a longer period of time, like what they did to the two Michaels in Canada.

JOHN YANG: I have seen reports that quote your daughter-in-law saying publicly that she no longer speaks to you, telling the Chinese officials who have detained her that.

Why do you think that is?

ELMER YUEN: I think she has to say everything, anything just to be able to leave Hong Kong.

Otherwise, Hong Kong, and China is one big prison.

They don't allow people to go, to leave.

There a lot of people like Martin Lee, Anson Chan, and also the Cardinal Zen that they don't have freedom even to leave Hong Kong.

JOHN YANG: Earlier today, a Hong Kong court rejected the government's request to ban "Glory to Hong Kong," which has become a protest anthem.

Were you surprised by that?

ELMER YUEN: I'm quite surprised.

Seems like they don't have total control of the judiciary system.

The judges, most of them are foreign.

And they are still -- they still finally like to rule by law.

But, on the other hand, the U.S. Congress has been threatening sanction those national security judges.

So that's why they may be scared.

Once there's a sanction, they won't be able to travel to the free countries.

JOHN YANG: Do you think this could be a sign of -- that these judges will defy the government in other areas?

ELMER YUEN: I think they will.

They have to choose, either they resign, or they rule according to the law, because the whole world is watching how they rule.

And I believe that now they have to consider.

And it looks like there is some recovery, because they understand this cannot go on.

I think even Xi Jinping understand it cannot go on.

It's really hurting the Hong Kong economy.

We supply 70 percent of their foreign income.

JOHN YANG: You spoke earlier about forming a parliament in exile.

How's that effort going?

What are you doing to do that?

ELMER YUEN: We are forming a Hong Kong parliament.

And then I have -- we have invented a mobile online voting system, very secure, so that people even in Hong Kong or outside Hong Kong can vote online without being detected or being traced.

So we're doing quite well.We hope to have an election by the end of the year and elect our first member of the parliament.

And their first duty will be to draft a constitution for Hong Kong.

JOHN YANG: Have you -- are you able to communicate with not only your family, but other people in Hong Kong who may be sympathetic to your position?

ELMER YUEN: All -- most of the phone calls are tapped.

So I communicate mostly with Hong Kongers outside Hong Kong.

JOHN YANG: So you -- I'm wondering if you would have any sense of what life in Hong Kong is like right now?

ELMER YUEN: Oh, I'm very familiar.

We -- of course, we watch -- all the news is censored and controlled by the communists, all the medias in Hong Kong, whether it's TV or newspaper or magazines.

But we do have -- of course, we have friends traveling back and forth.

A lot of Hong Kong people are still traveling.

And I meet them all over the world, I mean, Sydney, London, Vancouver, San Francisco, everywhere.

So I'm very up to date.

It's like -- it's like a police state, and more or less -- and this national security law is more or less like martial law.

JOHN YANG: Elmer Yuen, thank you very much.

ELMER YUEN: Thank you.

Thank you for the interview.

GEOFF BENNETT: The supply chain that brings pharmaceutical drugs from the factory to the pharmacy is long, complex, and, many experts say, opaque.

Congress and several state legislatures have proposed or enacted laws to bring more transparency and curb soaring drug prices.

As special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro reports, many small or independent pharmacies complain that those high prices in many cases actually hurt them.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: This story began on a personal note.

I recently went to refill a prescription at my neighborhood pharmacy.

I assumed my drug's $500 co-pay was bringing a reasonable profit to the store.

But, much to my surprise, a few months ago, the folks at St. Paul Corner Drug asked if I could take my business out elsewhere because they were losing money filling this prescription.

JOHN HOESCHEN, Owner, St. Paul Corner Drug: If you pay $578 for something, and you only take in $500, that's not a sustainable model.

And that's kind of where we're at right now.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: John Hoeschen owns the drugstore, a Norman Rockwell-like fixture that's been here for 101 years, complete with a soda fountain until the pandemic.

He's not sure how long he will be able to hang on.

JOHN HOESCHEN: They're literally sucking the financial life out of my business.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The "they" he's referring to are three principal links in a complex supply chain, drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and he says his most immediate existential threat, PBMs, or pharmacy benefit managers, so-called middlemen companies that determine what drugs are covered by insurance, the price he is paid, and the co-pays required of patients.

PBMs began to grow rapidly in the 1980s and '90s, as the pharmaceutical pipeline began swelling with new drugs, statins to lower cholesterol, antidepressants, acid reducers.

Health insurers scrambled to keep up.

JOHN HOESCHEN: It didn't take very long for the insurance side of life, to say, hey, if you want to manage this stuff for us, great.

It was a reasonable thing to simplify the claims management of prescription drugs.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: PBMs were hired by insurance companies to manage the growing drug benefit costs by establishing and maintaining formularies, a list of what drugs will and will not be covered.

Over time, they have evolved into a multibillion-dollar business themselves.

JOHN HOESCHEN: They literally are taking money from every aspect of pharmacy distribution.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: They demand extensive documentation, tie reimbursements to elaborate metrics of quality, and yet, Hoeschen complains, reimburse him far less than what it costs to fill a prescription and far less than they bill their client health plans for the same prescription.

JOHN HOESCHEN: Bill Blue Cross $40, pay me $7.

People ask, where does the $33 go?

To the PBM.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And PBMs have branched into his business with their own retail shops, like CVS, and with mail-order and specialty pharmacies.

JOHN HOESCHEN: All the things that you see advertised on TV, those are all essentially not available at my pharmacy.

They have been classified by the pharmacy benefit manager industry as specialty drugs.

And what's special about them is that they can make a lot of money off of them.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nothing beyond your expertise?

JOHN HOESCHEN: Correct.

They're supposed to be negotiating lower prices for consumers, but they're actually doing the opposite.

The St. Paul pharmacist has an unlikely ally in Stephen Ubl, who heads pharma, the trade group of large drug manufacturers.

STEPHEN UBL, CEO, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: They're buying pharmacies.

They're buying health care providers.

And they're steering patients to the providers that they own.

JOHN HOESCHEN: He notes that the three top pharmacy benefit companies are now owned by large insurance companies and control nearly 80 percent of the market.

And a key source of revenue are rebates they negotiate from drug manufacturers.

A company must agree to these price discounts to have its product, instead of a competitor's, covered by the insurance plans.

The amount of the rebates is not publicly disclosed for proprietary reasons, PBMs say.

But instead of bidding down drug prices, PhRMA's Ubl says they do the opposite.

STEPHEN UBL: They actually make more money off a higher-priced drug.

Our members now capture less than 50 cents of the dollar of the list price of a medicine.

JOHN HOESCHEN: That, in turn, forces drug companies to raise their list prices, he says.

What do PBMs say?

They have gone public.

NARRATOR: Big pharma has power over drug prices.

J.C. SCOTT, CEO, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association: Big drug companies are setting the price of pharmaceuticals out of reach.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: J.C. Scott, who heads the trade association of PBM companies, says things would be a lot worse without his members.

J.C. SCOTT: The pharmacy benefit companies have been largely very successful in helping to mitigate the net cost of prescription drugs and provide access for millions and millions of Americans.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Scott argues his members' entire focus is on high quality and lowering costs and in providing cost-saving options to patients.

NARRATOR: Price hikes and patent schemes.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The PBM group accuses drug companies of raising prices and gaming patent laws to preserve high prices.

He cites insulin, the diabetes drug whose prices were cut first by one and then the two other leading makers amid widespread criticism of sharp price increases over recent decades.

J.C. SCOTT: They used their discretionary power to cut the price of those drugs.

They weren't prevented by the rebates.

It was a good thing.

And, in fact, we continue to encourage pharma companies to cut the -- cut the price of their drugs.

ACTRESS: I'm sorry.

This medicine isn't covered by your insurance.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: As Congress and state legislatures debate reforms, pharma has its own ad campaign.

ACTOR: I'm your insurance company's pharmacy benefit manager.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: PhRMA's Ubl seizes the insulin example to make a counterpoint.

When prices began to fall, he says many, PBMs continue to require that their patients remain on brands that had not yet dropped their prices, sticking patients with higher co-payments.

STEPHEN UBL: Because they made more money as a percentage of the higher-priced drug.

To me, it's a poster child for why the system needs to be changed.

DR. S. VINCENT RAJKUMAR, Hematologist, Mayo Clinic: The system is so complex, I don't think there are even 50 people in the U.S. who understand the full thing.

See the price going up over time.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Dr. Vincent Rajkumar, hematologist at the Mayo Clinic, says, despite various bipartisan efforts to bring more transparency and the Inflation Reduction Act, which will allow Medicare to begin negotiating the price of some drugs, comprehensive reform is difficult in a complex half-trillion-dollar business.

DR. S. VINCENT RAJKUMAR: There's a blame game where pharmaceutical companies say, it's not us, and PBM say, it's not us, it's them.

So we really are caught between two people who are both profiting.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So what do you see emerging in the next few years?

DR. S. VINCENT RAJKUMAR: I don't even think it's right to say what the market will bear.

It's what outrage will bear.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Insulin remains a rare example of a price drop, he says, one at least partly a response to public outrage.

DR. S. VINCENT RAJKUMAR: The outrage caused by families losing children with type 1 diabetes to high prices of insulin, the outrage caused by citizens in the U.S. finding that they could go to Canada and find the same drug at one-tenth the price led to this movement of advocacy.

That advocacy led to action.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: What does all this mean for the corner drugstore?

JOHN HOESCHEN: I get letters every month from one of the major chains to purchase my prescription records, my files, and basically buy me out.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: His response is to buy time and sell new things, nutritional supplements and vaccination services, hoping reforms at the state and federal level somehow bring relief.

And although his store is so busy, they're not accepting new patients, Hoeschen says there's a good chance the ones he has will soon have to go to those chain stores, and this drugstore, like a third of all independent pharmacies in Minnesota, will go the way of the soda fountain.

For the "PBS NewsHour," this is Fred de Sam Lazaro in St. Paul.

GEOFF BENNETT: More than two dozen states around the country have a version of self-defense laws, sometimes known as stand-your-ground laws.

They allow for the use of force, even deadly force, when someone feels threatened in their home or other locations.

But a new podcast and investigation details how women, especially women of color, who try to use self-defense laws don't always get the same protections, especially in cases of domestic violence.

William Brangham has that conversation.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Geoff, this podcast tells how, in 2017, a 25-year-old Black woman named Deven Grey shot and killed her white boyfriend, John Vance, during what she said was a violent night at their home in rural Shelby County, Alabama.

Over the course of their relationship, Grey had been repeatedly and violently abused by Vance.

DEVEN GREY, Alabama: I saw the guy, and I saw him.

I saw the guy, and I saw him.

And I was just like -- I was just like, it's -- I have had enough of this.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Grey's stand-your-ground defense was rejected.

And so, in 2020, she took what is known as a blind plea, where you plead guilty, in her case to manslaughter, but you don't know what your punishment is.

She was sentenced to 15 years.

Her story is the focus of a new podcast called "Blind Plea."

It's produced by Lemonada Media.

Journalist and author Liz Flock is the host and I'm happy to say a former "NewsHour" colleague.

Liz Flock, great to see you again.

Before we get to Deven's legal situation, which is so well-documented in your podcast, can you tell us a little bit about her and her relationship with her boyfriend?

LIZ FLOCK, Journalist and Author: Yes.

So, Deven Grey was a young woman from Upstate New York.

She met her boyfriend, John Vance, there.

Their mothers live diagonally from each other.

She found him charismatic and handy and handsome.

They fell in love.

And she followed him -- or, rather, John took her down to rural Alabama to his family land.

And although he had gotten violent with her before, as often is the case in domestic abusive situations, once she was more isolated, things really escalated from there.

And all of our reporting, which comes from thousands of text messages and interviews with John's own family, show that he was severely physically and emotionally abusive to Devin over six years' time.

They were living in this rural, rundown trailer, incredibly isolated.

He monitored her phone, and they had a child together.

So she felt like she couldn't leave.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As you document in your podcast, the violence escalates.

And then, this one night, it sort of erupts in a terrible circumstance where she shoots him and kills him.

And, on its surface, it seems like a textbook case of self-defense.

But as you report, it does not turn out that way.

LIZ FLOCK: Yes, so I have been covering cases of women who kill their abusers for years now.

And one thing that I see again and again is that women often do not fight back in the precise moment of violence.

So, often, in a domestic abuse situation, things will escalate for years.

And by the time that woman decides to defend themselves, it often will be in a break in the violence.

So, in Deven's case, that night, in particular, crime scene photos and her testimony suggests that she was pistol-whipped, he shot at her, broke bones in her face.But, by the time she shot him, it was after several minutes had passed that she got the gun.

And he was on their pullout couch.

So you can see why, in our criminal legal system, we would say, hey, that's not self-defense.

But, as advocates have told me, a woman who's in a domestic abusive situation is always in fear for her life.

And so I think a lot of those folks are looking for a change in the criminal legal system where we expand our notion of self-defense to better understand the dynamics of domestic abuse.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And in these cases of stand-your-ground laws, you report how, in particular, they tend to go against women and women of color in particular.

LIZ FLOCK: Yes.

And there's actually a lot of research to document this, that women are twice as likely to be convicted as men when claiming self-defense in their home, and that Black people who use the stand-the-ground law are almost 15 percent more likely to lose their hearings.

So, it's basically that the stand-your-ground law is being applied unequally.

And, you know, one thing in general that experts have told me is that self-defense laws come with a lot of masculine assumptions, like that it's two people of equal size, let's say, who get into a fight in a bar.

But that's not the case in domestic abuse situations.

It's often someone of a larger size.

A woman might not be able to defend herself with her fists, let's say, and so she might use a weapon.

And, as we discussed before, it's often not in the exact, precise moment of incoming violence.

So, I think that all shows that there's something that needs to change in our understanding or application of self-defense laws, and stand-your-ground laws, in particular.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And as you -- as you report, she tries this self-defense case that is rejected.She's charged with murder.

She then takes this blind plea.

Can you help us understand why she did that,why she accepted a plea not really knowing what the punishment would be?

LIZ FLOCK: Yes.

So, when our team started looking into this, we were really amazed at the lack of research around this thing called a blind plea.

We know that, in America, 90 percent of cases are actually adjudicated through plea bargains.

That's how they finish.

Most people do not go to trial.

But a lot of people have not heard of this thing called blind plea, which is a type of plea bargain where you basically say, I'm pleading guilty to this lesser charge.

In Deven's case, it was manslaughter, instead of murder, but I'm kind of leaving it up to the judge to determine my fate and my sentence, and I'm rolling the dice with my life here.

So, Deven didn't know if she was going to get between 10 years or 20 years.

Ultimately, she got 15.

But I think the thing that we found disturbing about blind pleas is, it's often dependent on your lawyer sort of knowing the judge.

It feels like almost like a good old boys' club, where they say, hey, I think this judge will do me a solid and give you a lesser sentence.

And so I think a lot more research is needed in that realm to better understand blind pleas.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, Deven gets sentenced to 15 years, and she has just recently gotten out because of good behavior and she was a model citizen.

She, in your final episode, the epilogue episode, of your podcast talks a lot about how she wants other victims of domestic violence to think of themselves and to be seen in society.

Let's play a little clip of that.

DEVEN GREY: And I also want the people who are in those relationships or who have been then those relationships to understand that someone is -- they're not alone, that -- or - - and then they shouldn't feel like they're less than or that they're stupid, because that's what I -- I mean, I still kind of kick myself and feel that kind of way.

But I just want to make the world more aware of the problem.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Liz, it sounds like, on some level -- she's got a job.

She sounds like she's doing pretty well.

Is that the case?

LIZ FLOCK: Yes, so Deven is out now, and speaking a lot about domestic abuse and how complicated it is.

But every day is a struggle.

Just because she's free from prison doesn't mean things went magically back to normal.

She spent five-and-a-half years away from her daughter.

And prison is really not a place for rehabilitation in many states, and especially not for people who have dealt with domestic abuse.

So I think she really feels like she's beginning her journey towards healing now.

When you get out of prison, you don't have even an I.D., maybe not your Social Security card.

She has to get an apartment.

She just got a job.

But every day is sort of step by step.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, the podcast is "Blind Plea."

I really can't recommend it highly enough.

Liz Flock, thank you so much for being here.

LIZ FLOCK: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: To dive deeper into the repercussions of Donald Trump's latest legal troubles and more, we turn to the analysis tonight of Capehart and Abernathy.

That's Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, and Gary Abernathy, also a Washington Post contributor.

David Brooks is away.

It's good to see you both.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hi, Geoff.

GARY ABERNATHY, The Washington Post: You too.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, special counsel Jack Smith leveled new charges against Donald Trump this past week, including an allegation that Trump and others sought to delete security video of rooms in which boxes of classified documents were kept.

Gary, how do these additional charges change or expand our understanding of GARY ABERNATHY: Well, what's interesting is, when I talked to a lot of Trump supporters today, or several of them about this, they were very disappointed to hear this.

I mean, of all the things in this documents case, the cover-up is going to be the worst.

I mean, this is -- I have questioned whether a lot of these things are going to be or should be pursued, but if they get one of his people to turn on him and say, yes, he told me to cover up this or see if we could delete this footage, that's going to be very bad for him.

Now, his opponents, looking at this politically, need to actually quit resorting to defending him if they want to make any headway against him and start saying, look, this is a cover-up.

As your earlier guest said today on the show, this is evidence of doing something wrong.

Now, having said that, it's an opportunity to separate Trump from his supporters.

But, to do that, Jonathan and Geoff, the DOJ also needs to realize, look, we have got two parallel things going on here, and we can't seem to have a double standard.

Here, you had a week where the president's son was in court trying to do a sweetheart deal, plead to two misdemeanors and, he thought, be exempted or be immunized from any other crimes that he may have committed, whereas, on the other hand the president's probably main opponent for November is -- it's all full barrels, let's keep indicting more and more people around him to get someone to flip and see if they will say, Trump told me to do this.

You have got to not have an excuse for Trump supporters to say, hey, we have got a double standard going on here.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, how do you see it?

And what do you make of that parallel between... JONATHAN CAPEHART: There's no parallel.

(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: OK. JONATHAN CAPEHART: I'm not even going to let you answer the question, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: OK. (LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: There is no parallel between the legal troubles involving the president's son and the mountain of legal problems facing the former president of the United States.

The cover-up that is alleged in the superseding indictment is damning, but so is the original indictment.

We're talking about a former president of the United States who kept classified documents, despite the fact he no longer had legal access to them once he was no longer president of the United States.

And in the initial indictment, we saw how the boxes were being moved around.

What the superseding indictment shows is that "the boss " wanted the tapes destroyed, was moving boxes himself, was even going through the boxes and picking things out and shoving other boxes elsewhere, and then lying to his lawyers.

If Trump supporters are disappointed by the cover-up, that's on them.

What the American people are learning is that the former president of the United States looks even worse now after this superseding indictment than he did with the original indictment, as we're waiting for a possible indictment in the other Jack Smith investigation.

GARY ABERNATHY: And I agree with everything you said about -- there's no excuse for this.

OK?

I have said from the beginning, Trump's his own worst enemy.

Trump should have given these documents back the minute he was asked to give them back.

But there's also -- let's don't pretend there's not a public perception element of this too that's going to be very important to successfully prosecute Trump.

You need more of the public to weigh in and say, this is the right thing to do.

And, to do that, you need the confidence that the DOJ plays it straight down the middle on high-profile cases, both involving the president's likely opponent in November and the president's son.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, we have a new "PBS NewsHour"/NPR/Marist poll that doesn't ask that question, but asks a similar one.

It looks at how Trump's legal troubles are resonating among the electorate.

And 51 percent of those responding to this poll said that they believe that Trump has done something illegal, 27 percent say that he's done something unethical, but not illegal, and then 19 percent say he's done nothing wrong.

And this poll was conducted, as you see there, between July 24 and July 27.

So, what do you make of those results, Jonathan?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, I take solace in the fact that a majority of the country views what the former president did as illegal.

If you add the 27 percent who think that what he did was unethical, but maybe not illegal, I will take that too.

You add those two together, if my math is right, that's -- my math is wrong that I wrote.

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: It's 70 -- it's actually 78 percent of the country thinks he's shady, if you put the two together.

That tells me that the investigations and the impact of what we're learning is having an impact on the way people are viewing the former president, and I think rightly.

The 19 percent who view him as having done nothing wrong, that is not surprising.

That is actually... GARY ABERNATHY: Well, if you take that middle result, though, and group it with the others that say, we don't think it's illegal, you have got a group that says -- about half saying it's not illegal.

They may say it's unethical, but it's not illegal.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: It's not about half.

It's 46 percent.

(CROSSTALK) JONATHAN CAPEHART: So, just less than half.

GARY ABERNATHY: When is 46 percent not about half, Jonathan?

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, when 51 percent say that some -- he's done something... (CROSSTALK) GARY ABERNATHY: Fifty-one is bigger than 46.

We will agree on that.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Exactly.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there's also the margin of error.

So, yes, we will table that for now.

(CROSSTALK) GEOFF BENNETT: But, Gary, what are we to make of Donald Trump's hardwired fixation with Hillary Clinton's e-mail server during the campaign, an e-mail-investigation that ended without charges, the "Lock her up" chants?

It was a call-and-response to -- at all of those rallies.

I was there covering it.

And now fast-forward to the current moment.

Donald Trump is accused of trying to wipe a server that had video footage of the mishandling of document -- of classified documents.

GARY ABERNATHY: So are you saying that perhaps we will get the same result with the Trump case as we got with the Hillary case, which was no charges?

(LAUGHTER) GARY ABERNATHY: And that's the problem that a lot of the country has with what they see.

That's why they bring up Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, very similar situation, as you point out, no charges.

No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges was the famous quote from FBI Director James Comey.

A lot of people just have never bought that.

And so they're going to question, OK, why is Trump being treated differently?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Donald Trump is being treated differently because he had classified documents that were about nuclear secrets, preparedness of America's allies.

And to your original question, Geoff, if we have learned anything from the four years of Donald Trump's presidency and his campaign leading up to it and the campaign to try to get reelected, he's the master of projection.

Anything that he accuses someone else of doing, whether it's Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, you name them, he has either done it himself for real or would really like to do it.

And what we're discovering now is that he has done all of the things he has accused Hillary Clinton of doing, actually done.

The e-mails that they found on Secretary Clinton's server, a lot of them had to do with cooking recipes and appointments.

None had to do with nuclear secrets and secrets about our allies.

And you just can't -- there's no parallel.

There is no symmetry.

There is no similarity at all.

GARY ABERNATHY: Well, actually, Director Comey pointed out that a lot of her things that they found on her server were classified and probably were accessed by foreign agents.

I mean, this is something they said probably happened.

So we don't know if they were nuclear secrets.

Of course, we don't know about all the ones that were deleted before anyone ever got to see them.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: If they were nuclear secrets, Gary, we would have known.

Donald Trump's DOJ?

Come on.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, in the time that remains, I want to talk about something else that happened this past week.

And that was the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell.

He was giving a press conference, and he suddenly stopped speaking.

It was difficult to watch.

He stopped speaking for about 19 seconds.

And he -- as you see there, one of the senators to his left stepped in, and he was walked away.

Later, an aide said that he was feeling lightheaded.

And then yesterday, Senator Dianne Feinstein appeared confused during a vote on a defense bill, prompting a fellow Democrat to step in.

WOMAN: Just say aye.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): OK, just -- aye.

GEOFF BENNETT: What are we to make of the gerontocracy that runs Washington, Gary?

GARY ABERNATHY: Yes, I think it's concerning.

It plays to why people have these concerns to begin with.

It plays to why a lot of people aren't happy about having a couple of people around the age of 80 probably going to be running for president against each other.

But the Mitch McConnell thing was disturbing to watch.

It was uncomfortable for everybody.

It makes you really say, we hope he's OK. We say a little prayer for him and hope that his health is really OK.

But it raises disturbing questions.

There's no way to come back, as they tried to do, and kind of whitewash it a little bit and say, he's fine.

He's clearly not fine.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, the Republican leader says he's going to serve out the remainder of his term.

It's another 17 months.

And we should say that Senator Feinstein's office said that that was a very chaotic, their word, markup session, a business meeting of that committee, and that she wasn't fully aware of what was happening when.

How do you see it?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, this is the difference between the health conversation and age conversation we're having on the -- at the presidential level and the conversation that we're having now because of what happened between -- with Senators Feinstein and McConnell.

They have been -- they have demonstrable and reported health difficulties.

And for them to hang on for so long is what's giving certainly Democrats agita and Republicans a lot of concern.

I do think that what's happening with them is going to lead to a conversation that I think we should have in the country about, how long is too long?

How old is too old?

And then, if you want to serve even longer, beyond the age of 75 or 77, what are the things you have to do to demonstrate to the American people that you should be entrusted with an elected position?

How much more transparent must you be or should you be if you want to serve beyond a certain age?

I think those are reasonable questions to debate.

GEOFF BENNETT: What about that, Gary?

Because, as you both know, seniority accounts for a lot in Congress.

You get plum committee assignments, fund-raising.

There are prerogatives and positions that come with continuous terms, I mean, over decades.

GARY ABERNATHY: Yes.

Yes.

Well, that's true.

GEOFF BENNETT: Do term limits make sense?

GARY ABERNATHY: Yes, I have never been a fan of term limits, and even though Republicans are the ones that pushed them over the years, by and large.

I think they're -- they -- when people complain about the deep state and leaving the bureaucrats in control of things, that's what's going to happen when you have term limits and people have to come and go and only the bureaucrats get to stay.

But I don't like an age limit.

I don't like saying 80 is the age or 75 is the age.

But I do think some cognitive testing or something like that is not unreasonable, especially when you see what we have seen today.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: The key thing you lose with term limits is expertise.

That is the key thing.

GEOFF BENNETT: That's true.

Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy, great to see you all -- both.

Have a good weekend.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Geoff.

GARY ABERNATHY: You too.

Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Take care.

A new craft beer company in the Bay Area is on a mission to diversify the brewing industry and create change in its local community.

Laura Barron-Lopez has the story.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Here in Wine Country, craft beer served up by a brewing duo that's breaking barriers.

CHAZ HUBBARD, Co-Owner, Hella Coastal: There you go, sir.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Hella Coastal is the first Black-owned brewery in Oakland California, and one of the fewer than 1 percent of Black-owned breweries nationwide.

CHAZ HUBBARD: Cheers.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Community, equity, and of course, a shared love of good beer are the heart of the business for founders Chaz Hubbard and Mario Benjamin.

The pair turned their home brewing hobby into a business in 2020.

CHAZ HUBBARD: We kind of had like a competition between each other, like who can kind of make the best beer.

We also always had this entrepreneurial spirit between each other.

One day we, were brewing together, home-brewing, and kind of brainstorming, like, well, we're doing this right here.

We're making beer.

It's fun.

It's enjoyable.

We love the craft.

Like, why don't we try to start a brewery together?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: That meant breaking into a space where 94 percent of brewery owners are white, according to a 2021 survey.

MARIO BENJAMIN, Co-Owner, Hella Coastal: Some of the breweries that we have gone to, we realized that the beer is great, but, sometimes, the energy just didn't feel as receptive.

I mean, we were like the very few and far between, as far as who we see as -- not only as a consumer, but as who's going to be represented front of house, who's serving.

That's what we have realized that there is a sense of community, but there needs to be some improvement.

And we need to disrupt what was essentially who the beer drinker looks like.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Their beer, like every other, is born out of simple ingredients, grain, hops, water, and yeast.

But timing, temperature, and fine details make every pint unique.

MARIO BENJAMIN: These right here are the fermentation tanks that our beer is going to be going into.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: This work takes patience.

It can take weeks to finish one batch and a delicate, measured touch to keep the taste fresh and consistent.

So, when the beer goes through the fermentation process, what happens?

MARIO BENJAMIN: The yeast is -- essentially is what converts the sugar into alcohol.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Through every step, Benjamin and Hubbard look to highlight their Oakland roots, representing their community in flavor, name and design.

MARIO BENJAMIN: This is our latest release that we did, So, Oakland Haze is a shout-out to the Oakland A's.

And then this one is the one that we did for Black History Month and also Women's Appreciation Month.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Called 3900 'Til Infinity, this beer pays respect to a long history of Black female brewers that goes back centuries, with a special message: Beer is Black history.

CHAZ HUBBARD: It was 3900 B.C.

in Mesopotamia where the first beer recipe is supposed to be conceived by a Black woman, just kind of to knock down those barriers of folks thinking that it's just like German and European.

And we want to make sure that people know the real history of it.

It's not just about Black History Month and beer, but it's also like, yo, like, we do this, we have been doing this, we're going to continue doing it.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: They're also looking to the future, to build generational wealth for their kids and equity for other Black business owners, like creative director Julia Vann, the designer behind many of Hella Coastal's bright, bold labels that evoke Black culture.

MAN: It was literally just making beer at home.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Right now, they're renting space in a taproom downtown, but hoping to one day open a brick-and-mortar that can be more than just a spot to grab a drink.

CHAZ HUBBARD: But we want to do is be the creators of that space, create something where folks in our community, allies also can come to and feel welcome, and can be their true, authentic self in a brewery.

MARIO BENJAMIN: And one thing that we want to do in our space is to not only make it inclusive, but we also want to make it a place where people can come in, learn about beer, have different beer styles, but, at the same time, have guest speakers, have artists, have art on the wall that's representing the community and highlight organizations, nonprofits, initiatives that's really resonating to -- not only to us, but just to the community in general.

CHAZ HUBBARD: Come on in.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: At Sonoma County's craft beer festival, they're again serving to a largely white clientele flanked by white brewers.

But customers showed an appreciation for the flavors... WOMAN: It's good.

It's very refreshing.

And it's not too citrusy.

But it's nice.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: ... and the message.

MAN: They're like, it's the only Black brewery in this place.

You should go check them out.

And I was like, oh, say less.

I'm going there.

CHAZ HUBBARD: There you go.

Cheers.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Fresh beer and fresh faces in an industry they're working to change.

Cheers.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez in Oakland, California.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, remember, there is much more online, including a story about Black residents in the St. Louis neighborhood who are still dealing with the consequences of their families being displaced by development projects back in the 1960s.

That's at PBSNews.org.

And for more analysis of the fallout from former President Trump and Hunter Biden's legal challenges, watch our own William Brangham moderate "Washington Week."

That's later tonight right here on PBS.

And don't forget to tune in to "PBS NewsHour Weekend" tomorrow.

That is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Have a great weekend.