GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Congress returns to Washington facing a deadline to keep the government funded and concerns about Senate leadership.

GEOFF BENNETT: The former leader of the far right militia group the Proud Boys is sentenced for his role in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

AMNA NAWAZ: And Saudi Arabia and Israel move closer to normalizing relations after decades of animosity, but many questions remain.

DALIA DASSA KAYE, University of California, Los Angeles: I think it's quite a high price, and there's a lot of wishful thinking about the kind of gains that it could potentially bring.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

U.S. senators are back to work in Washington today after a month-long recess.

The return sets up the start of a high-stakes showdown to prevent a government shutdown by the end of the month.

That will be a tough task.

The Democratic-led Senate and Republicans in the House currently do not see eye to eye on spending priorities.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Senate gaveled into session days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared to freeze up for more than 30 seconds during a press event in Kentucky, the second such incident in as many months.

Today, while speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell referenced the episode, but did not discuss it in detail.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Now, one particular moment of my time back home has received its fair share of attention in the press over the past week, but I assure you, August was a busy and productive month for me and my staff back in the commonwealth.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Washington Post's Leigh Ann Caldwell joins us now from Capitol Hill.

So, Leigh Ann, let's start with concerns about Senator McConnell's health.

His office released a letter today from the Capitol's attending physician.

What did it say?

And what's the level of concern among McConnell's Senate colleagues about his well-being?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, The Washington Post: Hey, Geoff.

So, before the Senate even came into session, McConnell's office did release this letter from the attending physician, as you mentioned, trying to get ahead of the controversy and the questions swirling around his health.

What the letter said is that there is no evidence of a seizure disorder, that there's no evidence of a movement disorder, such as Parkinson's or of a stroke.

And so that was an attempt to tamp down on any questions.

As far as what his Republican colleagues are saying, there are still some concerns about wanting to know more information, about wanting to know the full story.

But I will say, he has the support of his fellow Republican leaders.

The number two, Senator John Thune, said today that he has the full support of McConnell.

But it will be a topic of a discussion among Republicans as they meet for their weekly conference lunch tomorrow, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, when the House returns, the first order of business will be funding the government before September 30 deadline, or face a government shutdown.

The two chambers, as Amna mentioned, are far from agreement, in large part because far right House Republicans are making their demands known.

So, what's the latest?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: So the Senate did come back into session, and I spoke to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in an interview that published this morning.

And he said it is up to Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, on if there is a government shutdown.

It is because McCarthy can choose to go the bipartisan route and ensure that there is no shutdown.

But McCarthy has not committed to that yet.

But it does seem like McConnell and Schumer are on the same page.

In McConnell's floor statement today, he addressed it.

And he's saying that the government needs to keep its lights on and that also the government needs to fund money for Ukraine and money to help all the people who have been impacted by disasters.

And so this is really going to be a showdown, but it's going to be up to Speaker Kevin McCarthy on if he's going to do this a bipartisan way or if he's going to appease his far right members that lead them to a shutdown, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, shifting our focus back to the Upper Chamber, Senator Tommy Tuberville, the Republican from Alabama, he's facing new pressure to release his holds on military promotions.

The secretaries of the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army wrote a rare joint op-ed accusing him of putting national security at risk.

Is there any evidence, based on your reporting, that that will soften the hard line that Tuberville has drawn here?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: There isn't.

There's been a lot of pressure on Tuberville for months now coming from Democrats, coming from leaders of the military, including Defense Secretary Austin, including Joints Chief of Staff General Milley, who I spoke to recently, and said that there's a real readiness problem with these holds.

But Tuberville insists that he is holding a line and it's the military and Democrats who need to compromise here.

He thinks that he has the support of Alabama Republicans, his Alabama constituents.

And so there is no sign yet that these holds - - there's going to be any sort of breakthrough on these military holds.

GEOFF BENNETT: Leigh Ann of The Washington Post, it's good to see you, as always, friend.

Thanks for being with us.

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: Thanks, Geoff.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: A panel of three federal judges struck down Alabama's second try at a congressional map.

That's after Republican lawmakers refused to create a second majority-Black district, despite a Supreme Court mandate.

Now a special master will be designated to draw up districts.

Ultimately, the case is expected to wind up back before the Supreme Court.

Prosecutors in Atlanta unveiled and charged 61 people with racketeering today after two years of protests against a police and fire training facility.

Activists call it Cop City and say it would militarize the police.

Prosecutors call them militant anarchists who burned equipment and threatened officials.

Republican Attorney General Chris Carr said it amounted to a criminal enterprise.

CHRISTOPHER CARR (R), Georgia Attorney General: Violence is not political speech, and I will never understand how we got to where we are today.

It's important to remember these acts of violence are in response to the fact that the residents of Atlanta have rightly chosen to build a state-of-the-art public safety training center.

AMNA NAWAZ: Activists accused the attorney general of using the case to build a campaign for governor.

First lady Jill Biden remained at the family's Delaware beach home today with mild symptoms of COVID-19.

She tested positive late Monday.

Meantime, President Biden was back at the White House today after testing negative twice.

Aides said he's being closely monitored.

He's slated to travel Thursday to the G20 summit in India.

In Afghanistan, the U.N. food agency has announced it's cutting off aid to another two million people in Afghanistan amid a major funding shortfall.

That's on top of eight million Afghans who lost food assistance in April and May.

Speaking in Kabul, the World Food Program's director for Afghanistan said the results could be catastrophic.

HSIAO-WEI LEE, Afghanistan Country Director, World Food Program: WFP has to cut 10 million people from emergency food assistance, from 13 million to three, leaving us only able to support one out of five people who go to bed hungry every night.

This is not sustainable.

AMNA NAWAZ: The U.N. agency estimates Afghanistan needs $1 billion in food aid for the next six months, but foreign donors have pulled back since the Taliban takeover two years ago.

Russia is refusing to comment on reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un may visit Russia this month to meet with President Vladimir Putin.

Spokesman Dmitry Peskov was asked today if he could confirm that Kim is coming.

He said -- quote -- "No, I can't.

There's nothing to say.

": But U.S. officials said plans for the meeting are in the works.

They said Moscow wants ammunition for the war in Ukraine, while North Korea wants weapons, food, and energy supplies.

Spain's Soccer Federation fired Jorge Vilda today from his job as coach of the women's World Cup champions.

He had applauded Luis Rubiales, the Spanish Soccer Federation president, who refused to resign after kissing a player without her consent.

Vilda later criticized Rubiales, but today's firing brought general approval.

LAURA MENGUADO, Madrid Resident (through translator): The dismissal is not in time at all.

It should have been done earlier, when there were initial complaints.

I think more could have been done because there is still a lot of change to be made in the federation.

LUIS ALEJANDRO GARCIA, Madrid Resident (through translator): It's late and it's what had to be done, especially if the girls are unhappy with him, despite achieving a maximum level of success as a coach.

AMNA NAWAZ: Rubiales was suspended last month and is under investigation by the Spanish government.

China's largest property developer narrowly staved off default today.

Country Garden told creditors it made an interest payment of $22 million just before a grace period ends.

A real estate crisis in China in recent years has already swept dozens of other homebuilders into default.

Back in this country, President Biden awarded the Medal of Honor to Retired Army Captain Larry Taylor.

In 1968, the helicopter pilot braved heavy fire in Vietnam to rescue a four-man reconnaissance team.

today's ceremony came after the men waged a long campaign to award Taylor the nation's highest military honor.

He is now 81 and lives in Signal Mountain, Tennessee.

And on Wall Street, stocks were sluggish after the long holiday weekend.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 195 points to close below 34642.

The Nasdaq fell about 11 points.

And the S&P 500 slipped 19.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton faces an impeachment trial on corruption charges; a new book gives an inside view on Biden's presidency; and tennis legend Billie Jean King reflects on 50 years of equal pay at the U.S. Open.

GEOFF BENNETT: The former leader of the extremist Proud Boys group, Enrique Tarrio, was sentenced to 22 years in prison today for his role in the January 6 attack.

Laura Barron-Lopez has more on what this sentence means and the larger threat of far right extremism.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Enrique Tarrio's sentence is the harshest punishment handed down to date for those convicted for their involvement on January 6.

Tarrio led the Proud Boys, a white power group that played a critical part in carrying out the insurrection.

The group is just one part of a trend, an increase in white supremacist and far right violence.

Those extremist movements, top U.S. law enforcement officials say, pose the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country.

To discuss this, I'm joined by Kathleen Belew, a historian at Northwestern University and author of "Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America," and Seamus Hughes of the University of Nebraska Omaha's National Counterterrorism, Innovation, Technology, and Education Center.

Kathleen and Seamus, thank you so much for joining us.

Kathleen, to you first.

Tarrio wasn't at the Capitol on January 6, because he was arrested a few days prior for setting fire to a Black Lives Matter banner.

But he did direct his Proud Boys to attack the Capitol without him.

What's the significance of this 22-year sentence and the domestic terrorism enhancement that was applied to it?

KATHLEEN BELEW, Northwestern University: So, the domestic terrorism enhancement is important because it recognizes the intent of the January 6 event.

Now, when we're thinking about January 6, we should always be thinking about a broad group of people, not all of whom had plans to become violent and storm the Capitol that day.

But in the case of Tarrio and the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers and affiliated groups who have now been found guilty and sentenced for seditious conspiracy, they were planning to do this.

They were violent.

And they're part of a long, decades-long movement of white power activists and militant right activists who have waged war on the United States since the early 1980s.

So this is still not the maximum sentence; 22 years, the headlines are reading long sentence, but the prosecutors were asking for 33.

And, in each case, the judge has handed down below the recommended sentencing guidelines for these defendants.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And, Seamus, broadening this out, as Kathleen said, this is -- the Proud Boys are a part of a much larger movement, are also a part of this web of increased threats.

You and researchers at your university have compiled data that shows that, in the last 10 years, there have been more than 540 federal arrest for people who violently threatened public officials.

Roughly 45 percent of those are ideological, often anti-government or racist in nature; 84 percent were for threats against election officials, candidates, lawmakers, law enforcement, and military.

Seamus, when you look at all of these threats - - all of these arrests that your researchers have compiled, along with these sentences that we have seen in relation to the January 6 insurrection, do you have any hope that recruitment or -- that recruitment will die down for such extremist groups or that people will stop believing in these conspiracies and ideologies?

SEAMUS HUGHES, University of Nebraska Omaha: So, unfortunately, so, the trend line tells us no, right?

So if you look at domestic terrorism arrests in the last few years, the FBI was investigating 850 people three years ago.

Now they're investigating 2,700.

If you look at the trend lines of people who have been arrested for arrested for arrests against -- threats against public officials, that's going much, much higher.

And so, no, I don't think necessarily arrests are going to stop this.

It's going to be a larger issue on how to address this, but it's important for us as society to put a finger on the scale and say, this is unacceptable.

We can't allow this happening.

And so, of course, some people will know, you can't arrest your way out of this problem, but it is a first start for it.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And then, Seamus, I also want to run you through some of the recent threats, some specifics, details about them.

All of the people here have either been arrested or sentenced this year.

A Texas woman using racist slurs threatened to kill a Black judge in the Trump January 6 case.

An Illinois woman threatened Trump and his son Barron.

A New Mexico man sent transphobic death threats to a Texas congresswoman.

And then an Iowa man threatened to hang an Arizona election official.

What is the trend that you see here?

SEAMUS HUGHES: Well, it's important to note that's all in the last three weeks, right?

So the trend line is going up.

You look at -- the Capitol Police put out their annual threat assessment every year.

They said 7,500 active threats against elected officials in the Capitol.

And that's been true for the last five years, in terms of those numbers.

Federal arrests for the last 10 years have steadily been rising.

And so this is a -- unfortunately, a real problem.

We have normalized violence and violent rhetoric in a way that's concerning.

And it's not just that we -- clearly, when you look at the threats, you have a number of individuals that come from right-wing or anti-government extremists.

But, unfortunately so, there's some bipartisanship of our threats.

So, if you look at threats against Barron Trump, against Congressman Santos, against a number of the federal judges covering the Trump trial, this is, unfortunately, kind of pervasive throughout, and federal officials are starting to sit up and take notice of it.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Kathleen, when you look at Tarrio's actions and his sentencing, the racist killing of three Black people in Jacksonville, Florida, a California woman who was killed for displaying a Pride flag outside her store, are these all connected?

KATHLEEN BELEW: Absolutely.

We are talking about a broad groundswell of white power activity, militant right activity.

The Proud Boys have to be considered alongside other public-facing groups like the Oath Keepers and Two Percenters and similar groups like this, other January 6 groups, and also alongside the violent underground of this movement, which includes groups like Atomwaffen and The Base, may or may not eventually turn out to include other sorts of underground activity and other sorts of attack, and certainly includes the -- quote, unquote -- "lone wolf" shootings in Jacksonville and Buffalo and Charleston and Christchurch and El Paso and Pittsburgh.

We can go on and on and on.

This is all part of the same movement.

It is an opportunistic movement.

It will use this moment for recruitment, as it always does.

So it would be a huge mistake to think that these sentences will slow the activity of this movement.

This will -- this is like cutting the head off a hydra.

We are still very much under threat.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Seamus, do you think that Americans are becoming desensitized to this increased level of white supremacist extremist violence?

SEAMUS HUGHES: Absolutely, unfortunately so.

It reminds me a lot of school shootings, in terms of the ability for our public and our media to be able to move on to the next day.

Jacksonville was only a 24-hour story for folks out there where it's a real life and stays with the victims there forever.

The problem when you talk about this is the normalization of violence, right?

I worry less about the president and the former president getting threats or elected officials, because there's a security apparatus to deal with that.

My concern is the local election official who doesn't have that apparatus, doesn't know who to call when they get those threats, the people -- we look at the threats of individuals who've been arrested the last 10 years, there's plenty of examples of individuals who ran for city council, got a threat and said, I don't want to do this anymore.

So we have to talk about the slow burn of democracy on this one.

And this does affect how we address and how we are as a society.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Kathleen Belew of Northwestern University and Seamus Hughes of the University of Nebraska Omaha, thank you both for your time.

SEAMUS HUGHES: Thank you.

KATHLEEN BELEW: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, America's top diplomat called Israel's prime minister and the president of the Palestinian Authority.

And senior U.S. officials met their counterparts in Saudi Arabia.

Among the topics of focus, could two of America's closest allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, normalize relations?

Nick Schifrin examines the outline of a possible deal and its implications.

NICK SCHIFRIN: It would be a grand bargain and create a tectonic shift in the Middle East.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have never had diplomatic relations, but, today, both countries' leaders appear to want normalization, and the U.S. is actively negotiating its details.

The broad outline would be this: The U.S. provides Saudi Arabia security guarantees, civil nuclear technology with enrichment and advanced weapons, and Israel provides what officials describe as -- quote -- "meaningful concessions" to the Palestinians.

Here's how National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan described the possible deal late last month.

JAKE SULLIVAN, U.S. National Security Adviser: Peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel would be a big deal.

It would help create a circumstance in which the countries of the region could collaborate on everything from economics to technology to regional security.

And that would benefit the United States of America in a fundamental way, because we have an interest in a more integrated, more stable Middle East, where de-escalation, as opposed to escalation, is the order of the day.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But critics have argued it could come at too high a price for not enough gain.

To examine a possible deal and its implications, we get three views.

Robert Satloff is the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Bernard Haykel is the professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.

And Dalia Dassa Kaye is a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to all three.

Bernard Haykel, let me begin with you.

Why is this important for Riyadh?

And, as you understand it, what are their most important asks?

BERNARD HAYKEL, Princeton University: So, it's extremely important for Riyadh, because they would like to get certain guarantees from the United States.

There's a fourth, by the way, or fifth issue that they would like, which is a free trade agreement with the United States, in addition to the ones you have already listed.

And I think they are interested in stability and they want to move away from the ideologies of anti-imperialism and resistance to the U.S. and turmoil which has characterized much of the history of the modern Middle East until recently.

And so it's very important for Riyadh to normalized with Israel, but under certain conditions.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Robert Satloff, security guarantees from the U.S., advanced weapons from the U.S. civil nuclear program with enrichment.

Are these things that Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel and President Biden are willing to give Saudi Arabia?

ROBERT SATLOFF, Executive Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy: Well, Nick, so far, it looks like President Biden wants to go big.

He doesn't want to nickel-and-dime on what each side is asking the other.

He's trying to make a big deal, that each side makes big concessions to each other.

As for the Israelis, there's an internal debate we're seeing within the national security establishment in Israel on what types of guarantees and benefits to the Saudis might have a negative impact on Israel's qualitative military edge.

But, right now, it seems as though Israel's political and security leaders are leaning toward accepting the big deal outlines of security guarantees and even a civil nuclear relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Dalia Dassa Kaye, you recently argued that this deal would not genuinely advance peace in the Middle East; in fact, it could make things worse.

Why?

DALIA DASSA KAYE, University of California, Los Angeles: Well, look, normalization is, of course, positive, and the U.S. should welcome it.

But as the piece setup suggested, it will be a high price and mostly paid from Washington.

So this defense pact that we're talking about with the Saudis is the kind of agreement we don't even have with Israel.

We tend not to have these agreements with undemocratic partners, particularly those with erratic records, foreign interventions.

The nuclear agreement on the table seems to go beyond the type of cooperation we have with other regional partners.

So, I think it's quite a high price, and there's a lot of wishful thinking about the kind of gains that it could potentially bring.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And staying with you, Dalia Dassa Kaye, are there also concerns, given human rights concerns, about Saudi Arabia and its leader, Mohammed bin Salman?

And there's also concerns by critics in Israel that certain steps that government is taking would erode the checks and balances.

DALIA DASSA KAYE: Well, there's always concern about the Saudi domestic record on human rights and continued repression, transnational repression against dissidents and so forth.

This will be a particularly big issue if this comes to Congress.

If this is a formal defense pact, it will require congressional ratification.

There also is concern in some quarters that this could be -- the timing is quite awkward, because it could potentially bolster the Israeli prime minister when he is launching this assault on the independent judiciary in the country, when you have unprecedented protests for 35 weeks.

So, that is another concern that comes up with the timing of this particular agreement.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Bernard Haykel, address some of those arguments about concerns about the promises to Saudi Arabia when it would come to especially enrichment, and to what Dalia Dassa Kaye referred to as the repression of the kingdom.

BERNARD HAYKEL: De facto, the United States has come to the defense of Saudi Arabia when it was threatened in 1990 by an Iraqi invasion.

So, I think that, in fact, the United States would come to Saudi Arabia's defense simply for geopolitical reasons and because of the oil reserves that are in that country and neighboring countries.

On human rights, absolutely, the Saudis don't have a good record.

They have a pretty bad record.

And that is something that the United States has raised in the past and should continue to raise.

I don't see how, though, a purely value -- values-based foreign policy is going to advance peace in the Middle East or, for that matter, make the Saudis behave better.

If you link the Saudis to a normalization agreement with Israel, I think you have a better chance of gaining leverage on that and many other files.

And, finally, on the nuclear agreement, the Saudi position is, the United States has effectively agreed to the Iranians being allowed to enrich, so why shouldn't they be allowed to enrich?

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, Robert Satloff, can you respond to the concerns that Dalia Dassa Kaye raised about the Israeli government that are, frankly, being raised across Israel every night through unprecedented domestic protests?

ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, I think the answer here is very simple, that you can't choose when moments of opportunity emerge.

And I think we do a little bit of disservice to the negotiations to only call this a normalization agreement.

I think what the Biden administration has in mind is something much more transformative, which is, yes, at its core, making a normal, peaceful relationship between our closest Middle East ally and perhaps the most important Arab and Muslim states, Saudi Arabia.

But it's even bigger than that.

It has to do with deterrence against regional threats headed by Iran, and it has to do with getting our partners on the same side with us in terms of the military security and the high technology approach vis-a-vis China.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Dalia Dassa Kaye, are your concerns assuaged perhaps, if this is a truly transformative deal, as Robert Satloff just said?

DALIA DASSA KAYE: What I am questioning is what gains we will get on the strategic level.

When it comes to China, this notion that this agreement can kind of help move the Saudis back into the U.S. camp, move it further from the Chinese orbit, it's just not in touch with the regional realities today, that countries like Saudi Arabia and others, other partners in the region, don't want to take sides.

They are playing all sides, and they're playing them well.

When it comes to Iran, we're not going to have some unified pro-American axis confronting the Iranians, as much as we might like it.

The Saudis themselves are normalizing and resuming relationships, diplomatic relations, with Iran as we speak.

And then, finally, when it comes to these expectations of big wins on the Palestinian front, what Israeli government are we talking about?

We are 30 years from Oslo, and we are as far as we ever have been from a two-state solution.

We have time.

Let's get a good agreement if we're going to normalize and let's make sure the U.S. isn't paying an unnecessarily high price.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Bernard Haykel, let's zoom into the Palestinians and their request right now.

When the United Arab Emirates normalized with Israel, they agreed with the Trump administration and the Israeli government that the Israeli government would not pursue annexation for a number of years.

Will the Saudis ask for even more than that?

And, in general, how important are the Palestinian requests to this overall conversation for the Saudis?

BERNARD HAYKEL: So, I think the Saudis will ask for a certain freezing of settlements and the removal of certain settlements that are deemed illegal, even under Israeli law, I think.

But, to be honest, I don't think the Palestinian issue is central to this agreement from the Saudi perspective.

Saudi Arabia is, at the moment, pursuing a policy where national interests, the national interests of the kingdom are first and foremost in terms of strategic thinking.

I do want to add one thing, which is that the Saudis can and will do things that are deeply troubling for American interests, strategic interests, not just becoming closer to the Chinese, but they can also start selling oil in currencies that are not the U.S. dollar.

And that would be a serious attack on the status of the dollar as a global reserve currency.

So the Saudis do have a number of cards that they can play, eventually, if U.S.-Saudi relations are not put on a much more secure footing, which they have not been under this administration.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Rob Satloff, last word.

What are the chances of this coming to fruition?

And, as has been mentioned, can a deal get through Congress if, in fact, it needs to?

ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, there's a remarkable effort by the administration for something which stands only about a 50/50 chance, given all the moving parts of this deal.

But they are putting -- the White House is putting a lot of effort into it.

And they believe that, if there is an Israeli security component that goes with a Saudi security component, that this is something they can bring to the Senate, and they believe that they can get the two-thirds majority in the Senate for approval for treaties that would set a new baseline for our relations in the Middle East.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Robert Satloff, Bernard Haykel, Dalia Dassa Kaye, thank you very much to all of you.

DALIA DASSA KAYE: Thank you.

BERNARD HAYKEL: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: It was an historic day in Texas, as the state Senate transformed into a court of impeachment for the first time in nearly 50 years.

Suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton pleaded not guilty to 16 charges, including bribery, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and abuse of the public's trust.

The House impeachment managers and Paxton's attorneys each began to make their case.

STATE REP. ANDREW MURR (R-TX): Mr. Paxton has been entrusted with great power.

Unfortunately, rather than rise to the occasion, he has revealed his true character.

And as the overwhelming evidence will show, he is not fit to be the attorney general for the state of Texas.

DAN COGDELL, Attorney For Ken Paxton: We are living on the wet end of democracy right now.

Is it up to the voters or is it up to politicians to see who stays in office?

Your decision is much bigger than Ken Paxton.

Your decision is literally about democracy in this state.

AMNA NAWAZ: For more on the trial, I'm joined by Tony Plohetski.

He's a reporter for The Austin-American Statesman.

He's been following today's proceedings.

Tony, welcome back.

Always good to see you.

TONY PLOHETSKI, The Austin-American Statesman: Thank you so much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let's begin with what exactly Mr. Paxton is being accused of here.

What are these charges related to?

TONY PLOHETSKI: So, Amna, this all dates back to 2020.

And during the pandemic, a number of Ken Paxton's top aides were talking about his first assistant and other people who worked in the executive offices of the attorney general's office.

They went to the FBI.

And they said, we believe our boss, the attorney general of Texas, is committing a number of federal offenses, including bribery and abuse of office.

The allegations relate to Ken Paxton's alleged actions to aid a well-known Austin investor by the name of Nate Paul, who himself was under FBI investigation.

And, according to the allegations, Ken Paxton took a number of steps in his official capacity as attorney general to assist Nate Paul and then received benefits, allegedly, from doing so.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, we heard part of what Mr. Paxton's defense team has to say there.

But what else are they saying?

What's the crux of their argument?

TONY PLOHETSKI: They are essentially saying that all of this has been misconstrued, that any alleged evidence or any allegations brought forth by these whistle-blowers is just inaccurate, that they got it wrong, and that the House investigators who spent months digging into ken Paxton's conduct, that they simply just have it wrong.

And, Amna, they're also contending that this is a weaponization of the impeachment process, that Ken Paxton was duly elected last fall in November to a third term to serve as Texas' top attorney.

And they say that this effort is an effort to undermine the electorate and the voters of Texas.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Tony, what would it take to get a conviction?

And is that likely in this Republican-led state Senate?

TONY PLOHETSKI: So, really, it has been described as a trial for nine Republican senators.

The question is whether or not there will be enough Republican senators to push this impeachment effort over the finish line.

It requires a two-thirds majority.

There is an assumption that all 12 Democrat senators will, in fact, vote for impeachment.

But then it would take an additional nine to get the finish line, to see the finish line for the impeachment.

And I think it's an open question, frankly, about whether or not that is going to happen.

AMNA NAWAZ: It is worth noting Ken Paxton has been a staunch ally of former President Trump for a long time.

This is all unfolding in a state Mr. Trump won handedly back in 2020 and still has good support.

How do Texans feel about this impeachment proceeding?

TONY PLOHETSKI: Well, to be clear, there is an effort that has been under way for several weeks now by a couple of political action committees, a couple of very well-funded political action committees.

And they have essentially launched campaigns to say to Texas Republican senators who they feel may be at risk for voting to convict Ken Paxton.

They have said, look, if you do so, you will face a primary challenger.

But then, when you look at other information, like a recent poll released by the University of Texas just days ago, many Republican voters, according to this survey, don't really even know or fully understand the allegations against Ken Paxton.

But many of them also similarly said that they do not believe that this impeachment effort should go forward.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, as we noted, was day one of the trial, many more days ahead.

And we will hope to check back in with you as these proceedings continue.

That is Tony Plohetski of The Austin-American Statesman joining us tonight.

Tony, thank you.

TONY PLOHETSKI: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: When Joe Biden stepped into the Oval Office as president on January 20, 2021, following his decades-long career in public service, he was perhaps better prepared and more equipped than other presidents in recent history to deal with the ways of Washington and his fellow world leaders.

"The Atlantic"'s Franklin Foer has examined president Biden's first two years in office, which he writes about in fascinating detail in his new book, "The Last Politician."

And Franklin joins us now.

Thank you for being with us.

FRANKLIN FOER, Author, "The Last Politician": Thank you so much for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the prologue of this book, you write that the electorate in 2020 turned to Joe Biden as a balm, that his victory was ascribed to the fact that voters wanted calm and decency and competency, even a bit of boredom after four years of the Trump administration.

But you write that that wasn't the view that Joe Biden had of himself and for his presidency.

What was his initial vision and how did it evolve?

FRANKLIN FOER: Well, Joe Biden hadn't sat around his whole life wanting to be president just to be a placeholder.

He had grand ambitions for what he wanted to accomplish.

He had a massive social spending program that he wanted to put into place.

He wanted to redirect American foreign policy so that it was oriented more to the challenges of a rising china.

And he wanted to redirect a lot of the old orthodoxies of Democratic Party economics to steer it in a different direction, where it was warmer to unions, it took the problem of monopoly more seriously and had some version of industrial policy.

GEOFF BENNETT: You also recount the untold timeline of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

And though it was former President Donald Trump who set that plan into motion with the Doha agreement, it was president Biden who decided to honor that decision.

And you write that he had distrusted officials who warned him against ending the war too soon, that he had a contrarian faith in the righteousness of his decision.

How did that affect the strategy and the execution of that withdrawal?

FRANKLIN FOER: So, one of the most interesting qualities of the Biden presidency and of Biden's whole career is that he has a very complicated relationship to elites.

On the one hand he craves their respect and approval.

On the other hand, he doesn't feel totally at home within the elite, and he thinks, to some extent, that they are constantly underestimating him.

Biden, I think, believes that he possesses certain qualities that allow him to be a contrarian.

And, on Afghanistan, he was a contrarian for over a decade.

During the Obama administration, he was calling for withdrawal.

And so I think that he felt the impulse to get out so strongly.

He was so intent, to some extent, on winning the bureaucratic wars over Afghanistan and so intent on focusing on the strategic redirection of American foreign policy, that he lost a bit of track of the humanitarian questions that ultimately came to the fore and were so vivid in those weeks in August of the withdrawal.

GEOFF BENNETT: There is a ton of reporting in this book about the president's domestic legislative achievements.

I want to talk, though, about abortion, because Joe Biden's Catholic faith, according to his friends and staffers, is central to how he views the world.

Is that what accounted for what his critics saw as his sort of flat-footed response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade?

FRANKLIN FOER: As a devoted Catholic, he's got a complicated set of feelings about abortion.

But I also think that Biden came from this other era where the terms of the abortion fight were different.

I don't think he fully appreciated initially the radicalism of Dobbs and the ways in which it would be radically implemented straight away.

And so it took that case of a 10-year-old girl who -- from Ohio who went to Indiana to have to have an abortion and the way in which the law fell down on her.

And, for Biden, that became a morality tale that forced -- that snapped everything into place for him.

He could suddenly see the radicalism of the Dobbs decision.

And whatever flat-footedness, whatever qualms he had at the outset melted away.

And I think he eventually came to not just appreciate what Dobbs would mean for women, but I think he also came to appreciate the political benefit for the Democratic Party with the Dobbs decision in the way in which it took maybe a demotivated Democratic base and rallied them to the polls.

GEOFF BENNETT: What's the relationship like between President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris?

FRANKLIN FOER: Their relationship was forged on the job.

It comes with all the baggage that Biden brought from the Obama administration about his own time sitting in that chair.

And so I think Kamala Harris initially, for reasons having to do with her own sense of political self, and some reasons having to do with Joe Biden's sense of the job, struggled to find her way.

And the truth is that Obama needed Biden because he saw certain holes in his own resume that he thought that Biden could fill.

Biden has this supreme sense of self-confidence, based on all of his many years in Washington.

And I think it was harder for him to see the space for Kamala Harris in the vice presidency.

And so, while the relationship formally, emotionally, is a very healthy one, as a practical matter, I think it made it harder for Harris to find her legs.

And I should also say that my book ends with the midterm elections in 2022.

And I think Harris has had an easier time, has found a greater sense of political identity since my book closes because of the abortion issue, where she's been the administration's primary spokesperson.

And I think that she's developed a more coherent political identity in the months that follow the close of my book.

GEOFF BENNETT: Voters right now overwhelmingly think that President Biden is too old to run for president.

That was the latest finding in a Wall Street Journal poll out this week.

How is the White House planning to turn his age, his real half-century in public service, turn that into an asset?

FRANKLIN FOER: It's a real strange disconnect, because, in the course of my reporting, I depict a president who is deeply involved in the intricacies of policy, an extremely active commander in chief, and he's got to find a way to explain what he's done and to convey this sense of activity.

And I think you're correct in saying that they haven't really leaned into his age as an asset, even though he was clearly elected because he was an experienced hand.

But we're navigating a proxy war with a major nuclear power.

Our relationship with China is extremely tense.

There are ways in which those things could go off the rails.

His experience actually does matter in navigating those conflicts, and he needs to show that it was his legislative skills, his political skills, gleaned on -- based on all of those decades of experience that yielded these accomplishments that he can rack up on his side of the ledger.

GEOFF BENNETT: The book is "The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden's White House and the Struggle for America's Future."

Its author is Franklin Foer.

It is a triumph of reporting.

Congratulations, and thank you for being with us.

FRANKLIN FOER: Thank you so much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, some women's tennis players are among the highest paid athletes in the world.

But that wasn't always the case.

Equal pay was a years long battle, hard fought by the same women playing the game, including the legendary Billie Jean King.

I met up with King at the U.S. Open recently, as the tournament marked 50 years since it became the first sporting event in U.S. history to offer equal prize money for men and women.

It's been decades since she played on these courts and literally changed the game for women.

BILLIE JEAN KING, Former U.S. Tennis Champion: Well, we're microcosm of society anyway, sports are, so -- but at least we're going in the right direction.

AMNA NAWAZ: But Billie Jean King is still everywhere at this year's U.S. Open, as the tournament marks 50 years of equal pay.

And she's not nearly done pushing for change.

BILLIE JEAN KING: Women's tennis has always been the leader in women's sports, so we have a responsibility and an opportunity to help make this world a better place.

AMNA NAWAZ: It was a different tennis world in which King made her name, winning 39 Grand Slam titles between 1961 and 1979, with a number one ranking for six years.

It was at the U.S. Open in 1972 when King clinched the women's singles title, then made a revolutionary demand.

BILLIE JEAN KING: I just remember sitting in the media conference after I'd won.

I don't know what came over me, but inside my heart and soul said, I don't think we will be back next year unless we have equal prize money.

And I said it very quietly.

I'm not ranting and raving.

And the media goes, what?

And I said, I haven't talked to the women yet about it, but I'm pretty sure that they will go along with it.

And, of course, inside, I'm going, what have I done?

Because what if the women don't get behind?

I'm like, I thought they would.

AMNA NAWAZ: King made sure they did, rallying more than 60 other women players in London's Gloucester Hotel in the summer of 1973 to get them to band together and form the Women's Tennis Association.

And you told someone to literally stand at the door BILLIE JEAN KING: Yes.

Don't let anyone leave.

I said, don't let anybody out.

Lock the doors.

(LAUGHTER) BILLIE JEAN KING: We have to have an association.

AMNA NAWAZ: It was king the so-called Original 9 who laid the foundation three years earlier, at a time when some men earned as much as eight times as the women.

This groundbreaking group signed $1 contracts each to take part in the first women-only tournament.

And in June, King and the other WTA founders returned to the famed London hotel where the WTA first formed 50 years ago, forcing equal pay at the U.S. Open.

It feels both like a long time ago and also not that long ago at all.

How does it seem to you?

BILLIE JEAN KING: It seems, in some ways, recent, because I can remember everything clearly.

In 1972, I got $10,000 for winning.

Our tour was only in its second year then, so women's professional tennis had just gotten started.

AMNA NAWAZ: King too was just getting started, off the court, a private war, convincing one corporation to help close the prize money gap.

ANNOUNCER: The Tennis Battle of the Sexes.

AMNA NAWAZ: On the court, a very public, so-called Battle of the Sexes, taking on and beating Bobby Riggs in 1973.

An estimated 90 million people tuned in, tennis' most watched match to this day.

King went on to rack up 12 singles Grand Slam titles.

The three other Grand Slams followed the U.S. Open's lead on equal pay.

But that took decades.

Even today, across women's sport, the pay equity fight rages on.

But the fact that it's taken 50 years to get to a place where this is not the norm?

BILLIE JEAN KING: When you have talked to CEO or companies, do you invest in women's sports as much as you do in men's sports, and they usually get very quiet, but a lot of times they will say: I hadn't thought about it.

So just putting the thought in their heads is a start.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have always -- since you were 12, you have found a reason to speak out for what you think is right.

Do you see that same kind of leadership and willingness to speak out among this new generation, the younger players today?

BILLIE JEAN KING: Oh, absolutely.

Venus Williams fought for equal prize money through the years.

One thing that we stressed in the WTA and the older players at that time when we started was, this is a platform.

We have an opportunity.

We actually have an obligation to help make this world a better place.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mary Joe Fernandez, a former world number four, says King's contributions to the sport weren't without a cost.

MARY JOE FERNANDEZ, Former U.S. Tennis Champion: She had to sacrifice so many tournaments and her practices and her tennis career for something bigger than herself, which is why I think she's beloved.

But now I think there's so much more money, everybody's so much busier.

Tennis is not just tennis.

It's the physical part, it's the mental part, it's the nutritional part.

A lot revolves around all these athletes, and I don't feel like the top, top feel like they have the time to really dedicate themselves like Billie Jean did.

AMNA NAWAZ: What do you think about that?

MARY JOE FERNANDEZ: I understand it.

I totally understand it.

But I'm hoping, down deep, that if Venus ever retired, she would sort of take a little bit of the mantle and takes that responsibility, because she really helped women's tennis.

AMNA NAWAZ: I asked 29-year-old American Jessica Pegula, now number three in the world, about how her generation views that responsibility.

I wanted to get your thoughts on whether you individually feel pressure or responsibility as a leader in this generation of players to continue that advocacy work.

JESSICA PEGULA, Professional Tennis Player: I think, when you're younger, you're just playing and you don't really care, and you're just, oh, this is fun, this is my dream, and all this stuff.

And then you start realizing how important it is to make an impact on your sport and leave with some sort of legacy.

It's a very exciting time in women's tennis.

I think that we are improving and we're moving forward, and, hopefully, we keep seeing that, yes, and keep pushing for what we believe in.

AMNA NAWAZ: Women's tennis, like other sports, is also grappling with how and when transgender athletes can compete.

King herself lost endorsements when she was outed as gay in 1981 and has been a champion of LGBTQ+ rights.

Her views on this issue, she says, are still taking form.

BILLIE JEAN KING: I do think, in certain sports, we're going to have to take a hard look, because, especially timed sports, track and field swimming, each sport, I think, is making up their own rules, from what I understand.

I'm trying to -- I keep learning.

I keep talking to scientists.

Please help me to understand what's the right thing to do.

One thing for sure is, when they're young, let everybody have fun and play.

Once you get to probably high school and you start having elite sports, where it matters, like going to the Olympic, to be a professional athlete, then I think you really have to have rules.

I'm still trying to learn more and more all the time.

I'm not that emphatic.

I'm trying to figure it out.

AMNA NAWAZ: But you think that should change after high school?

BILLIE JEAN KING: If a male gets through puberty, they have a bigger skeletal system, their heart's bigger, everything.

So, these are the things you have to take into consideration.

MICHELLE OBAMA, Former First Lady: Ladies and gentlemen, my friend the incomparable Billie Jean King.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: As her views and the sport continue to evolve, she's enjoying the spotlight put on the 50th during this tournament and turning her attention to the future.

I asked King, who turns 80 this year, about the many ways conditions for women have improved since she stopped playing.

Does any part of you wish that you were playing today?

BILLIE JEAN KING: Yes, I would love to be able to play today.

That would be fun, because they're better than we were, and I would always want to get better.

They're living the dream.

That's exactly what we wanted.

AMNA NAWAZ: Her fight on the court locked in her place in tennis history.

Her work off tethered King's story to our nation's.

In 2009, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama.

There's now an effort under way to award King the Congressional Gold Medal.

Only 11 athletes have ever received the award, but King would be the first woman.

GEOFF BENNETT: I love that she says she still wants to play.

AMNA NAWAZ: Oh, yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: That's fantastic.

AMNA NAWAZ: Such a trailblazer, still going strong.

GEOFF BENNETT: Great interview.

AMNA NAWAZ: Thank you.

Remember, there is a lot more online, including a story on what borrowers need to know now that student loan repayments have resumed.

That is at PBS.org/NewsHour.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "NewsHour" team, thank you for joining us.