JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: A powerful cyclone makes landfall in Eastern India, as the government evacuates over one million people from the coast.

Then: A new rule regulating testosterone levels in female athletes raises questions about the relationship between gender and sports.

And it's Friday.

Mark Shields and David Brooks join us to talk about Attorney General William Barr's testimony and lack of testimony, and President Trump's hour-long phone call with Vladimir Putin.

Plus: a legendary couple of American music, Gloria and Emilio Estefan, on their decades-long artistic and romantic partnership.

GLORIA ESTEFAN, Musician: We're on the same page.

We rarely differ when it comes to business or music.

So, if you don't argue a lot, that really makes it for a great, great life.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: A monster grade 5 storm has slammed into India's eastern coastline.

The cyclone made landfall in the state of Odisha.

Winds gusting up to 127 miles per hour ripped through trees and shattered glass doors.

We will take a closer look at all this, at the scope of the devastation, right after the news summary.

Here in the U.S., record-breaking floods in the Midwest have now claimed the lives of at least four people.

In Iowa, the Mississippi River swelled nearly 23 feet in Davenport, breaking the record set during the Great Flood of 1993.

Floodwaters also inundated communities farther south in Burlington.

Meanwhile, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, flash flooding submerged cars, as families evacuated their homes.

In economic news, the U.S. job market shattered expectations in the month of April.

The Labor Department reported that U.S. employers added a net 263,000 jobs last month.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to a five-decade low of 3.6 percent.

That's down from 3.8 percent.

And wages rose 3.2 percent from over last year.

The president's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, welcomed the robust jobs report today outside the White House.

LARRY KUDLOW, Director, National Economic Council: The strength in jobs and wages is coming from the middle and the lower middle.

It's the blue-collars.

It's what I call Main Street.

And the increase in wages similarly, not the level, mind you, but the increase, is much faster than white-collars.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Today's better-than-expected jobs report sent stocks soaring on Wall Street.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 197 points to close at 26505.

The Nasdaq rose 127 points, and the S&P 500 added 28.

Also today, Vice President Pence joined President Trump in calling for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates on account of the strong economy.

President Trump spoke by phone with Russia's President Vladimir Putin today for more than an hour.

He said they didn't discuss potential Russian meddling in the 2020 elections, despite intelligence community warnings about it.

But Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the two did speak about special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: We discussed it.

He actually sort of smiled when he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain and it ended up being a mouse.

But he knew that, because he knew there was no collusion whatsoever.

JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump said much of their phone call focused on the political crisis in Venezuela, and he stated that Putin wasn't looking to get involved.

But that contradicts comments that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made Tuesday, when he blamed Russia for convincing Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro to remain in Venezuela.

Moscow backs the Maduro regime, while the U.S. supports opposition leader Juan Guaido.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, Jerry Nadler, has set a new Monday deadline for Attorney General William Barr to hand over special counsel Robert Mueller's full, unredacted report.

In a letter, Nadler threatened to hold Barr in contempt if he doesn't comply with the request.

The death toll from the Ebola outbreak in Eastern Congo has now surpassed 1,000 people.

The country's health minister said attacks on treatment centers have undermined containment efforts; 85 health workers have been wounded or killed since January.

The outbreak began back in August, and is the second deadliest in history.

In Britain, there has been a Brexit backlash at the polls, with nearly all the votes tallied from Thursday's local elections.

More than 1,300 of Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives lost their seats, along with over 80 lawmakers from the opposition Labor Party.

Meanwhile the pro-European Union Liberal Democrats won more than 700 seats in the party's best showing since 2004.

Its leader hailed the outcome.

VINCE CABLE, Leader, Liberal Democrats: Well, I'm just celebrating a really great result here, Chelmsford, Essex.

But this is a story across the country.

You know, the Liberal Dems were written off at one point, but we're coming back very, very strongly.

Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for stopping Brexit, absolutely clear, unambiguous, honest.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Prime Minister May conceded that the election results have sent a message to the Conservative and Labor parties to -- quote - - "just get on and deliver Brexit."

A federal court in Cincinnati has ruled that Ohio's congressional map is unconstitutional.

It determined the district boundaries were manipulated by Republican mapmakers to their advantage, and ordered that the map be redrawn for the 2020 elections.

And a passing to note.

Peter Mayhew, the British-born actor made famous for his role as Chewbacca in the original Star Wars films, has died.

The furry Wookiee warrior was the loyal companion to Harrison Ford's Han Solo.

Though Mayhew was always in costume, his guttural roars became iconic.

Peter Mayhew was 74 years old.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": a deadly cyclone makes landfall over coastal India; new revelations about the FBI's counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign; the Trump administration expands the rights of health care workers to deny treatment on religious grounds; and much more.

We return now to our top story, the enormous cyclone that slammed into Northeastern India today, whipping the region with lashing wind and torrential rain, before moving into neighboring Bangladesh.

It was the worst storm to hit the area in two decades.

Cyclone Fannie lashed India's east coast Friday with prolific force.

Sustained winds of 127 miles an hour battered coastal areas, destroyed homes, tore apart roofs, toppled electrical lines and knocked out power across the region.

DIPAK, Local Media: This one is the most severe tropical cyclone I have experienced.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The storm came ashore Friday morning near the town of Puri as an extremely severe cyclone.

It is now tracking northeast past Kolkata and toward Northwest Bangladesh.

Inland, driving winds shattered glass doors and windows at a local college.

Gusts even toppled this crane onto nearby houses.

Indian officials say unprecedented evacuation efforts have been under way.

Some 1.2 million people have been forced from their homes in low-lying areas to 4,000 temporary shelters.

DILESHWER, Migrant Worker (through translator): The situation is very bad.

There are no arrangements.

We only have a place to stay.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Transit across the region is disrupted as well.

Rail lines closed and at least 200 trains were canceled across India, leaving travelers stranded.

WOMAN (through translator): Since last night, we have been sitting here.

We are not getting any train.

We are just sitting.

And our money is also gone.

What do we do?

JUDY WOODRUFF: In Kolkata, the major regional airport closed for a time.

In some places, residents have gone out to clear fallen trees.

Relief efforts are under way, with more than 50 rescue teams dispatched.

India's Coast Guard is out distributing aid to survivors via helicopter and ship, the navy, air force and army on high alert.

The most devastating cyclone in recent memory to hit India landed in 1999.

With heavy rain and winds more than 170 miles an hour, it killed 10,000 people.

With Bangladesh in this storm's path, 60 million people are potential targets.

Authorities there have already evacuated 400,000 to shelters.

Snigdha Chakraborty is the Bangladesh country manager for Catholic Relief Services.

She says the nation faces severe flood risk, especially in low-lying areas.

SNIGDHA CHAKRABORTY, Catholic Relief Services: The rains have already started.

And the dikes, the river dikes, are getting damaged because of the high rise and the high water.

The primary aim is now to evacuate the people to the safest cyclone shelters.

JUDY WOODRUFF: She adds, the more than one million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar who are living in Bangladesh are also at risk.

They live in makeshift housing at camps in Cox's Bazar and will yet again have to relocate.

SNIGDHA CHAKRABORTY: They're already living in sort of temporary shelters, although they are strong enough for the time being.

But it will also give them a mental kind of, I would say, stress, anxiety that, how they will live again?

JUDY WOODRUFF: As the cyclone moves northeast this weekend, heavy rain and strong winds are expected to persist.

After months of President Trump accusing the U.S. government of spying on his 2016 campaign, the president responded positively Thursday to a story by The New York Times with new details on the FBI's effort to covertly gather information from a Trump campaign adviser.

We're joined now by one of the article's reporters.

He is Adam Goldman.

He covers the FBI and national security for The Times.

Adam Goldman, welcome again to the "NewsHour."

So tell us on what basis it was.

The story is about an FBI investigator meeting covertly with a Trump campaign adviser.

Tell us, how did this come about?

How unusual was it?

ADAM GOLDMAN, The New York Times: Well, I don't think it's particularly unusual, if the FBI believes there's wrongdoing and they need to get to the bottom of this.

They typically might send an investigator like this woman in alongside an informant to figure out what happened.

And that's exactly what they were trying to do.

The FBI was trying to understand, you know, was George Papadopoulos, this foreign policy, this campaign adviser for Trump, in some way working with the Russians?

And they thought that because they had received an allegation that, in fact, he was.

So they moved quickly and aggressively to try to figure out, before the election ended, was he, in fact, working with the Russians?

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, what was the basis they were using?

What evidence did they have that there was a reason to try to get in and know more about what he was up to?

ADAM GOLDMAN: I think, at its core, the Australian government provided information that George - - that the Russians had essentially made George Papadopoulos an offer, saying they had hacked e-mails, Democratic e-mails, and they could help him release them and coordinate the timing of that.

And Papadopoulos had told that to the Australian ambassador at the time in London, and that information was relayed to the FBI, months later, in fact.

And that was the genesis of the FBI's Russia investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

And just in terms of parlance, as somebody who follows the FBI all the time, what's the difference between investigating someone, as they did in this case -- and they acknowledge it -- and spying on someone, which was the term the attorney general used at one point and the president is using?

ADAM GOLDMAN: I mean, you typically don't hear law enforcement officials use the word spying.

You know, it's court-ordered or court-approved surveillance.

That seems to become -- that seems to have become a loaded term, a pejorative term.

You know, Attorney General William Barr said earlier this week that it was a fine English word, and he had no problems using it.

But for critics of Trump, they see this as a way to, you know, delegitimize, you know, the FBI's efforts to try to figure out what was going on in this really hectic period before the election.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, as you say, the Trump administration attempting, many of them, to say that this wasn't a legitimate move on the part of the FBI.

Who would have had to approve it before it took place?

ADAM GOLDMAN: And this was a sensitive operation taking place in London.

And, as I have said, the British authorities were notified, MI5.

And that would have gone to the highest levels of the bureau and the Justice Department itself.

This was a very, very sensitive operation they were running in London.

And a lot of people would have known about it and it would have required approvals at the highest, highest levels of the Justice Department.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In other words, multiple layers of authorization, which makes it easier or harder for it to have been politically motivated?

ADAM GOLDMAN: Right, exactly, with career prosecutors making those decisions.

You know, the inspector general of the Justice Department is looking at what happened in London and the use of this informant who the FBI deployed to brush up against Papadopoulos.

And, as part of that, they will probably look at this government investigator and what she was doing, too.

And, ultimately, the I.G.

will come down and say whether this was inappropriate or not.

So far, nobody's provided evidence that it was somehow illegal or unjustified.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Adam Goldman with The New York Times on a story that's getting a lot of attention.

Thank you, Adam.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us.

Coming up on the "NewsHour": new questions about the relationship between gender and sports; Mark Shields and David Brooks analyze the week in Washington; plus, Gloria and Emilio Estefan on their shared life in the music business.

For many years, both political parties have agreed to exempt some health care workers from providing care and performing certain procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds.

That can include abortions and sterilizations.

But, as Amna Nawaz tells us, President Trump has gone further than his predecessors by issuing a complex and more comprehensive rule allowing for these exemptions.

AMNA NAWAZ: Judy, the president announced the new rule tied to the National Day of Prayer.

Conservative groups welcomed what they call conscience protections.

But women's groups, LGBTQ advocates and others are warning the rule could reduce services and lead to discrimination against transgender patients and others, if providers refuse to deliver certain care or treat people.

Under the new rule, hospitals, clinics and other institutions must comply with 25 laws that are part of this in order to receive funding from federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Margot Sanger-Katz writes about health care for The New York Times.

And she joins me here.

Welcome to the "NewsHour."

So you have described this to my colleagues as an expansion of existing rules, both the category of workers, but also the ways in which they can object.

Explain that to me.

MARGOT SANGER-KATZ, The New York Times: Yes, so, there have always been roles that have protected health care practitioners from having to participate in certain kinds of services that they might have religious or conscience objections to.

And I think the classic example is a health care provider who objects to performing an abortion, say.

But what this rule does is, it really widens the category of person who could have this kind of objection, to include even, say, the scheduler in a medical office who might not want to schedule a patient for a certain procedure, all the way up through the board of directors of a hospital that might say, this hospital will not perform certain services, will not offer them to our patients.

So, the kind of groups of people who can object to things on conscience basis have grown.

And the other thing that this rule does is that it provides more enforcement kind of processes and more punishment.

So, if a hospital fails to protect the rights of its religious worker, then it could be punished pretty substantially, potentially losing a lot of its federal funding.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, obviously, critics of the rule, opponents to it say that this just means there's a lot of ways that people can actually discriminate against certain categories of communities.

What are some of those examples that they cite as places where people can come in contact with the health care system and be denied services they should get?

MARGOT SANGER-KATZ: So, I think there are a lot of concerns.

We don't know exactly how this is going to play out on the ground.

But the worry is that certain kind of patients may be denied care because there are -- the health care workers who are treating them have religious conditions that disagree with certain aspects of their lifestyle.

So, there's a concern, for example, that perhaps a doctor wouldn't want to treat the child of a gay couple because they have a religious objection to gay marriage, for example.

Or there are a lot of concerns that transgender patients may have difficulties accessing services.

The rule itself makes reference to some very old laws from the 1970s that protect workers who don't want to participate in sterilization.

It seems to suggest that certain services that transgender patients receive might be treated as sterilization, which transgender rights advocates say is really a stretch of what that law was originally intended to do.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned the enforcement, though.

What if there's a conflict?

What if protecting someone's religious freedom, if they don't want to perform a certain service, means that then they're discriminating against another group?

How do you resolve that conflict?

MARGOT SANGER-KATZ: I think it's a really interesting question that's raised by this rule, because these are both civil rights questions, right?

There are civil rights that are supposed to protect patients and prevent them from being the subjects of discrimination because of their status, because of their sex or their - - other aspects of their person.

But then there's also this concern about the civil rights of these health care workers, who shouldn't be forced to do things that interfere with their religious convictions.

And I think the Trump administration through this action and through a series of other actions has really signaled that they're much more worried about the civil rights of the religious person in a health care setting than they are about the civil rights of the patient being denied care.

The details of how this would work out in any individual case, I think we are going to have to see.

And you could imagine, for example, a situation in which both parties might have a legal case to bring forward about the way that their health care institution resolves this.

AMNA NAWAZ: Speaking of legal cases, we should note that San Francisco immediately sued the Trump administration.

The rule is scheduled to go into effect 60 days after it's published in the federal register.

Less than a minute left.

What do we expect to happen next?

Does this just get caught up in a legal battle and never actually implemented?

MARGOT SANGER-KATZ: I think it's very possible that it will.

There are a number of health care institutions and also states and municipalities, like San Francisco, that are worried about this rule potentially interfering with some of their practices.

And it could be stopped before it even goes into effect.

We have seen that with other related Trump administration actions, including one having to do with family planning grants, where they were trying to prevent certain health care providers that provide abortion from getting these family planning grants.

So this is all part of the regulatory agenda that may well get caught up in the courts before we really see it happening on the ground.

AMNA NAWAZ: One to follow, for sure.

Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, thanks for being here.

MARGOT SANGER-KATZ: Thank you for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All over the world today, men and women compete in high-level athletics.

But to keep competition fair, they almost always compete separately.

The world's sporting organizations argue there's a clear, distinguishable line between the sexes.

But as, William Brangham reports, the case of one female South African runner, Olympic gold medalist Caster Semenya, has blurred that line.

For more on Semenya's case, and what it means for the sporting world, I'm joined now by Madeleine Pape.

She's a former track and field Olympian.

She represented her home country of Australia in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and in other international competitions.

She's now working on a sociology Ph.D. focusing on gender at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

And Christine Brennan, she's a sports columnist for USA Today and a regular guest on the "NewsHour."

Thank you both very much for being here.

Madeleine, to you first.

You have raced against Ms. Semenya, and you have a sense of how fast and what a remarkable athlete she is.

What did you make of this ruling saying, if she wants to keep racing, she has to start taking drugs to suppress testosterone?

MADELEINE PAPE, Former Track and Field Olympian: I was disappointed with the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

I think Caster Semenya has really been on a journey over the past 10 years, since we first saw her compete on the international level.

And the sport as well has been on a journey.

And I think, contrary to how this is being represented sometimes, there actually is a great diversity of opinion about this topic.

And a lot of people have changed their views about sex and testosterone.

So I was really hoping that Semenya would be the athlete that put an end to these kinds of practices in sport and that the Court of Arbitration for Sport would make a ruling that reflected the journey that we have been on as a sport since 2009.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What is that you think that the court specifically got wrong?

MADELEINE PAPE: Look, it's difficult to say because we don't have a full account of how the court made its decision.

I think some -- there are some questions, though, that remain unanswered.

For example, why is it that these rules apply to the 1,500 meters and the mile, even though the court acknowledged that the IAAF doesn't actually have scientific evidence to illustrate a relationship between testosterone and athletic ability in those events.

So I think that has gone unanswered.

And I also think there has -- there has to be more discussion of the scientific debates that continue to surround this idea that testosterone has a clear relationship to athletic ability.

That scientific discussion is ongoing, as we have seen in the last few days.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Christine, the court clearly ruled that the science is clear.

I mean, contrary to what Madeleine is saying, they argue that the science does show that higher levels of testosterone confers an advantage.

But the court basically acknowledged that, yes, we are discriminating against this woman, but we're doing it to protect the integrity of women's athletics more broadly.

What do you make of that?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, USA Today: Right, William.

Well, first of all, we cannot say it enough how terribly Caster Semenya has been treated, especially by the IAAF.

This is a woman who is so important in her country, obviously a woman of color in South Africa.

We know our history there.

And for her to be dragged through 10 years, basically, of uncertainty, when she was born this way, is astounding.

And the lack of leadership there is remarkable.

Having said that, this is a conversation that I think we're going to be having for the next 30, 40, 50 years, a conversation about exactly, well, one, the level of testosterone that we would like to see allowed in women's and girls sports, whether -- of course, with Caster Semenya, she was born this way.

But it easily morphs into... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

It's crucial to keep saying this.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Absolutely.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That she did nothing to change.

This is how she is.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN: And I have written columns defending her, absolutely.

But the important point is, there is a larger conversation.

And this may well be -- as a journalist covering the Olympics now for 30-some years, this may well be, William, a story that then jumps into the world of transgender participation in sport.

This is a topic and a conversation that's going to be discussed at dinner tables.

It's going to be discussed in supermarkets, what we want in terms of girls and women's sports.

We have made the classification that girls and women's sports are different than boys and men's sports.

We have made that classification.

So, now, how do we then pursue these issues, especially at a time where we're looking at the science?

And I think that's why this ruling was important.

And discrimination, again, against Caster Semenya is so unfortunate.

There is a larger pool here to also look at and to wonder about discrimination against those athletes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Madeleine, as Christine is saying, we did once upon a time decide that boys athletics and women's athletics, boys and girls athletics, should be separate, because there is a desire to have a more level playing field.

Caster Semenya's case seems to force us to really reconsider that.

MADELEINE PAPE: Yes, that's right.

And I think -- I appreciated Christine saying that.

I mean, I think one of Semenya's legacies is going to be that she has led us towards this -- this conversation and this reflection on how we feel about sex and testosterone in elite sport.

I think, in response to Christine's -- Christine's answer earlier, it's important to be clear that transgender women and women with high testosterone are subject to distinct sets of regulations, and changes in one set of regulations doesn't necessarily have implications for the other.

There's no doubt that we have to have a larger conversation as a sport about the place and the rights of transgender women, who haven't been given a fair hearing in terms of it being a compassionate and informed conversation.

But I do think that women with high testosterone need to be judged on their own terms, and that people shouldn't be bringing their feelings about transgender women into this conversation.

And I think we can all agree that we have women's sport as our top priority, and we want what's best for women's sport.

We may disagree on how to get there, but we all want what's best for women's sport.

I take my lead on this issue from the Women's Sports Foundation here in the United States and advocates like Billie Jean King, who have come out in support of Caster Semenya, and who are encouraging us to see her contributions to women's sport as a positive and something that we should celebrate.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Christine, in elite sports elsewhere -- I'm thinking of Usain Bolt, LeBron James, Simone Biles, Michael Phelps, those people are, of course, extraordinary athletes, but they are also near physically perfect for their particular sports.

We don't look at their abilities and think of it as an unfair advantage.

We just think of it as part and parcel of their greatness.

Why do you think we think of Caster's case differently?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Yes.

We haven't made a classification for many of those categories that you just described.

For example, Michael Phelps' feet, like flippers, certainly helped him win all those gold medals.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And his enormous wingspan.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Exactly, and his torso.

So, if we had a classification for foot size - - and I'm not -- you -- I think you know me well.

As a journalist, I take this very seriously.

So I'm not making light of this.

But, if we did, then Michael Phelps would be in a different category than some of the other swimmers.

But we don't do that.

We have decided -- society has decided, our culture, William, has decided to make categories for men's and women's sports and separate them.

We basically have segregation.

Now, by the way, transgender rights are hugely important to me.

And I think it must be said, because any time you delve into what, as I said, is a complex conversation -- this has been going on for a long, long time -- you want to make this crystal clear.

I, of course, support transgender rights.

I absolutely do.

The question is, what are we going to -- what do we want to see out of women and girls sports?

And is there a limit on testosterone involving participating in women's and girls sports?

And we have seen, for example, with the NCAA and the International Olympic Committee and others, they say, if you are going as a transgender person -- and, again, Caster Semenya is not transgender -- but to take the conversation further, if you are transgender, and you are a woman, then you need to take some hormones, so that your testosterone level is lower.

We have seen leagues say this.

Maybe there -- this will go to the Supreme Court at some point.

And, as a journalist, I plan to cover every second of this.

But I would also say this, that if you think of Caitlyn Jenner -- of course, Bruce Jenner won the Olympic gold medal in 1976, before I started covering the Olympics, in the decathlon, and was one of the great heroes in sport around the world, cover of "Sports Illustrated," et cetera.

If, instead of a few years ago, Caitlyn Jenner deciding to transition, if she had done this back in -- from '76 to '84, and then become a woman and come back to the Olympics in '84 in Los Angeles and competed in the heptathlon, and I dare say probably won that event.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As a woman.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN: As a woman.

We would have had a fantastic and interesting and riveting conversation about this then.

That's what we're talking about.

And that is what, as a journalist, I see moving forward.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It is such a complicated question, with obviously no easy answers here.

Christine Brennan, Madeleine Pape, thank you both very much for being here.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: From the attorney general's testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary, his refusal to appear before the House committee, and a growing 2020 field, it's been another busy week in Washington.

Here to assess it all are Shields and Brooks.

That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who's joining us tonight from San Francisco.

Hello to both of you, David and Mark.

Let's start by talking about that phone call that we learned about this afternoon, Mark, the president on the phone, over an hour, with Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

We are told the president himself said they talked about Russian interference or alleged interference in the 2016 election, but completely dismissed it.

He said the two of them agreed that the Mueller report was a waste of time, in so many words, and that the whole Russian -- belief that the Russians did anything wrong was a hoax.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, the president has ended the discussion.

That's it, Judy.

I mean, it's over.

I mean, ignoring the findings of the CIA, of the NSA, of the intelligence agency the Center for National Intelligence, Senator, former Ambassador Dan Coats, all of the American agencies, including General Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, and Secretary -- now Secretary Pompeo, Mike Pompeo, when he was CIA director.

All concluded that Russia had interfered.

But when asked by Kristen Welker today, did you talk about meddling on the part of Russia, he accused -- the president accused the NBC correspondent of being rude by asking such a question.

So that's where we are.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, are we -- does it undermine what Robert Mueller did that the president continues to say this whole thing was a hoax?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it really undermines American democracy.

It's like having a conversation with the Japanese emperor in 1942 and not mentioning Pearl Harbor.

It was an invasion of this country, an invasion of our democratic process.

And every American in our country, except one, understands that.

And so Trump wonders why people investigate the idea of Russian collusion and the idea that he's somehow tied to Russia in some nefarious way.

Well, this is why they do it, because, in public and in the way he conducts himself, he acts like someone who is in collusion with Russia .

And there was probably no collusion, but he certainly acts that way.

And you just wonder a few things.

You wonder what Putin is thinking when he doesn't get challenged when he does something like this.

And then you wonder, what exactly is the motivation here?

Does Trump just like Putin personally?

Is there an actual strategic thought behind these decisions?

It's kind of baffling.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we are told that it doesn't appear the president brought up any concerns about the Russians interfering in 2020, which, Mark, as you said, other officials have said.

But somebody who was before the Congress this week because of the Mueller report was the attorney general, William Barr.

Mark, he spent hours answering questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It was very contentious when Democrats were asking questions.

But he held his ground.

He said he -- he defended the way he handled Robert Mueller's report.

And this came just hours after we learned that Mueller had stepped in to tell the attorney general he didn't like the way the report had been characterized.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right.

Judy, I have to say that the attorney general - - finally, the president got an attorney general he wanted.

This is what he's been asking for, that Jeff Sessions failed the test of the loyal counselor, the apologist, the defender, and all-out defender.

I mean, he even ascribed the president's interventions or attempts to get people to do things, to make calls to fire people as just the innocent act of somebody frustrated, not in any way nefarious or double-dealing.

So that's what he did.

And now he's not going to appear before the House.

And I would say, as long as this feud goes on, as it's Bill Barr against Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, it's exactly where the White House wants it to be.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, what did you make of the attorney general this week before the Senate?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I thought it was best expressed by a piece by Benjamin Wittes, who's a legal expert in "The Atlantic."

He said he didn't see any sign of perjury, that he didn't lie, as Nancy Pelosi claims, but he spun.

And so everything he said was shaded in the direction to make Trump look good.

And if there was one thing we needed right now, and one thing we need, it's people being honest, people who you can actually trust, who are not just spinners.

And the job of attorney general is to -- is not like the other administration jobs.

It's supposed to have its own independent loyalty to the law and to the agency.

And when you become just another spinner for the president, then you're undermining your relationship to the American people.

You're undermining your defense of the agency, and you're subtly undermining law.

And so I just would have loved for him to just get out there and say, here's the facts, you can trust me, I'm telling you straight.

But he didn't tell it straight.

He withheld when he wanted to.

He was -- he sort of sidestepped things.

He was just another press spokesman.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And this all seemed to play in, Mark, to what appears to be a seriously deteriorating relationship between Democrats in the Congress and the administration.

As the Democrats seek more information, they want to investigate what comes out of the Mueller report, the administration, the Trump White House is saying, no, we're not going to turn over documents.

We're not going to let you interview people.

What are we headed for?

I mean, as David just mentioned, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was comparing - - today was comparing what the president is doing to Richard Nixon.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

I mean, that the attorney general was deliberately misleading, deliberately unclear, nobody can argue.

I don't think there's any question about that.

As far as deteriorating relations, Judy, I mean, the Democrats have the House, the Republicans have the Senate.

And the election is some 14, 15 months, 16 months away.

And it's a -- it's politically fraught, make no mistake about it.

If -- the Democrats have to make the case against Donald Trump.

And the case to be made is on health care, that this administration, led by this attorney general, this week moved again for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

That would lead, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 32 million Americans losing health insurance.

All right?

That's where you ought to be fighting politically.

But I understand the Democrats' dilemma.

It's, quite frankly, this, Judy, that they are facing what is a constitutional challenge and test with this president and what he has done.

And to leave it be and move away from it completely is to somehow establish the precedent that a president can do just about anything.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, are the Democrats making a mistake?

Are they going overboard by the demands that they're making?

DAVID BROOKS: I think, in some ways, they are.

The focus -- I think Nadler's focus is -- seems just as partisan as anything that's coming from the Republican side.

I think there's one more step here.

That's a Mueller testimony .

But it's hard to see too many other steps after that.

If I were a Republican, I would think, if they want to talk about the minutia of the Mueller report, and we want to talk about 3.2 percent growth and 4.4 percent increase in wages for the poorest workers, that's a conversation I would like to have as a Republican.

And so I do -- I think the Democrats would be wiser politically to let the voters settle this argument and take it to the voters on the issues the voters actually care about.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Mark, just to wrap this up, so are you saying Democrats should just drop this?

MARK SHIELDS: No, I don't think -- I don't think they drop it.

I think, quite bluntly, Judy, that Chairman Nadler has come across as almost on a personal vendetta against Donald Trump.

I think there's hearings to be held.

I think the Bob Mueller hearings -- I mean, I don't know, for example, why they just didn't have Attorney General Barr in.

And then, if they wanted to turn it over to a staff attorney to ask questions at some point, let the attorney general get up and barge out.

I mean, why get into this back and forth, if you really want to hear what he has to say?

And that's what it's -- that's what it's become.

Yes, no witness should be able to determine exactly what the conditions are under which that witness will appear.

But, listen, I just don't -- I think Bill Barr, Jerry Nadler, with the best unemployment record in 50 years, is a plus for the White House.

And that's not exactly where you want the Democrats to be right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, just quickly, any middle ground here?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't think so.

I haven't seen much middle ground in Washington in a few years.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That's true.

DAVID BROOKS: So I don't think so.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let's move on just quickly, both of you, to 2020.

We -- Joe Biden jumped in the race over a week ago.

But he made his first big campaign appearance, David, this week in Pittsburgh.

He's making a clear pitch, reach to Democrat - - I mean, to voters who are working-class, who are members of labor unions, and others.

Is that a smart approach for him?

And, by the way, we have now got close to, what, 23 Democrats who are talking about running for president.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

First, I think Biden is taking the smart approach.

And it's paying off for him.

I think a lot of us were stunned by how well he's done in the polls since he announced.

He's very strongly ahead.

He's tied with Bernie Sanders among Democrats who call themselves very liberal.

He's strong in the center.

He's strong on the right of the party.

He's strong across the board.

He's especially strong with minorities, 50 percent of minorities.

African-American voters support him.

He's opened up -- it's very early.

He's opened up a very compelling lead.

So his strategy is clearly working.

As for the number of candidates, I'm beginning to think it's a problem.

You have a dinner party, you think how many people can we have a good conversation with?

Twenty-two is not the right number.

(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: And I think, if we have that many candidates, first, they're going to have to do desperate things to win attention.

And, second, we in the media are going to act as gatekeepers.

We're only going to be -- pay attention to a few and we will be the gatekeepers and not the voters.

So I'm sort of worried about what's about to happen.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What about that?

I want to ask about Biden... MARK SHIELDS: Sure.

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... but also about this notion that there are so many candidates who are making a serious run.

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, there's so many candidates for a very simple reason.

In the last Gallup poll before the election of 2016, the first time in American history, both candidates were rated personally unfavorably by the voters.

Donald Trump was 36 percent favorable, 61 percent unfavorable.

He had never served a day in public office, either in civilian or military life.

He had no experience, and he won, an unpopular man.

I'm a congressman, three terms, I'm a county commissioner, why shouldn't I run?

If I could be one of the two people on the field against him in November, I can beat him.

That encourages all kinds of people who never thought, quite frankly, of running in the past to run.

David is right.

The idea of the press being the gatekeepers is a rather sobering and un-reassuring prospect, based upon the great job we did in 2016 with Donald Trump in particular.

(LAUGHTER) MARK SHIELDS: So I think that's a problem.

The other problem is that somebody could win in that big a field with 33, 35 percent, and never have to worry about getting to a majority.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot less than 50.

MARK SHIELDS: A lot less than 50.

If you have got a solid 30, then that's problem.

But it will winnow out in a hurry.

We won't get -- have 23 in Iowa.

And we sure as hell won't have more than four or five, max four, after Iowa.

So I'm confident in that respect.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, 30 seconds, David.

Do you think we're going to be down to four or five by Iowa?

(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: No, I don't.

I think we're going to have many.

And let's just respect the office of the presidency.

It's an impossible job.

It's some -- you should have the preparation of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or somebody who's been around, John Kennedy, before you step into that job.

Let's -- there should be a ladder leading to that job.

You just -- it's not a novice, first job for anybody.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That rules out several of the folks who are running.

We won't name any names, but it does rule out a few.

MARK SHIELDS: And it rules several in.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It does rule several in.

David Brooks, Mark Shields, thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Later this evening on PBS, a special honoring Gloria and Emilio Estefan for winning the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Songwriting.

Amna Nawaz is back with a conversation with that talented couple.

AMNA NAWAZ: That beat, it is instantly recognizable, sounds from the 1980s that dominated radio and MTV, making Gloria Estefan and her band, the Miami Sound Machine, including her husband, Emilio Estefan, one of the most popular musical acts of the time.

Breaking through from the Spanish-language genre to number one hits on the Billboard pop charts.

Last month, the Library of Congress honored the couple with the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song.

The next day, we sat down with the Estefans to learn more about their music, their journey and their relationship.

How does this work?

EMILIO ESTEFAN, Musician: I think it's love, love and respect.

Have a lot of respect.

Love is absolutely the main thing, respect and communication.

GLORIA ESTEFAN, Musician: That, and he makes me laugh every single day of my life.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: Every single day?

GLORIA ESTEFAN: Every single day in some ways, sometimes not on purpose.

(LAUGHTER) GLORIA ESTEFAN: He makes me laugh.

No, you know what it is?

I think we're a balance.

We're very different, personality-wise, but when it comes to the things that are important in a good partnership, is, we have the same values, morals.

Our family come first, the priorities.

We're on the same page.

We rarely differ when it comes to business or music.

So, if you don't argue a lot, that really makes -- makes it for a great, great life and very fast.

AMNA NAWAZ: You really don't argue a lot?

People will find that hard to believe.

GLORIA ESTEFAN: We don't.

EMILIO ESTEFAN: I'll tell you, love is making the other person happy.

GLORIA ESTEFAN: Yes, that's true.

EMILIO ESTEFAN: As long as -- that's right.

That's the secret.

Sometimes, you don't do things if you think she's going to get upset, and, sometimes, I do things that makes her happy.

And I think that's been our secret.

AMNA NAWAZ: It was music that brought you together in the first place.

GLORIA ESTEFAN: It was.

They'd been playing around town.

They just played for the mayor.

So we're all excited.

Oh, good, this guy's going to come to give us pointers on how to do this thing.

So he knocks on the door.

We're at my friend's house.

And they open the door, and in comes this guy with a giant accordion around, like -- and in very short shorts, which made it look like he was naked, because the accordion was covering the shorts.

(LAUGHTER) GLORIA ESTEFAN: So I was sitting on the floor.

And I remember looking up.

And he has great legs.

So that was the first thing I saw.

It was very nice.

(LAUGHTER) GLORIA ESTEFAN: And then, a couple months after that, my mom dragged me to a wedding.

I walk in, and there's this band.

And everybody's having a blast.

It's all the -- it felt like a scene out of a movie for me, especially because there was a guy playing "Do the Hustle" on the accordion.

Hello!

AMNA NAWAZ: The guy with the legs.

GLORIA ESTEFAN: It was him.

(LAUGHTER) GLORIA ESTEFAN: I didn't recognize him until we kind of bumped into each other in a doorway, and I go, wait a minute, because I hadn't seen him with the band.

I go, "You're that guy."

He goes, "You're that girl."

Then he asked me to sit in with the band that night a couple songs.

Then he asked me to join the band that night, but I said no.

AMNA NAWAZ: What was it about her?

Why did you chase after her like that?

EMILIO ESTEFAN: You know something?

The first time that I met her, I mean, I just saw her singing.

I said, she has such a beautiful voice.

So I said: "Why don't you come and sing with us in the band?

It will be something totally different," because I love her voice.

This is the best country in the whole world.

And dreams can come true.

AMNA NAWAZ: And be rewarded.

Between the two of them, they have won three Grammys and three Latin Grammys, stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, induction into the Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and, for Gloria, a Kennedy Center honor.

You know, you said something once in an interview about the first time you met Gloria.

This goes back to what you were sharing about her family.

You said, when you first met her, that there was a lot of sadness... EMILIO ESTEFAN: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: .. in her.

Where did that come from?

GLORIA ESTEFAN: Well, we left Cuba, my mom and I.

My dad took us out of Cuba, because he was a police officer.

So, when the coup happened on New Year's Eve, he came home to my mom and he said: "We're in trouble.

The president just left the country."

And she told him: "Don't go back."

And he said: "I have to go back.

I'm a police officer.

I can't abandon my post."

So then he told my mom: "I have to get you and Gloria out, because this is going to get very ugly."

So I was alone with my mom, and then my dad - - because my dad then went to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

He was a political prisoner for two years.

So, for those two years, I started playing guitar and singing.

I sang since I talk.

This was -- it just came with me.

So music was my catharsis.

I would -- my mom would make me play for her friends, and I would, like, stare at the floor, because I don't like being the center of attention.

But when I sang, people would cry, and I would say to my mom, "Why do you make me sing if people are going to cry?"

(LAUGHTER) GLORIA ESTEFAN: You know?

And she goes: "They're crying because you're moving them emotionally.

It's not because they don't like what you're doing."

AMNA NAWAZ: You have now lived the majority of your lives here.

GLORIA ESTEFAN: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: You were a child when you first came.

You were a teenager, right?

But you said, we still have an immigrant mentality.

GLORIA ESTEFAN: Yes, we do.

AMNA NAWAZ: What does that mean?

GLORIA ESTEFAN: He keeps the slippers that are in hotel rooms.

He's got a stack of them like this.

(LAUGHTER) GLORIA ESTEFAN: Why?

(LAUGHTER) GLORIA ESTEFAN: You take -- you never know.

He still likes to buy on sale.

We don't owe anything.

So that kind of thing, where you're always thinking, this could go away, this could go away, you have to be safe, you have to be careful.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: You still think that?

EMILIO ESTEFAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: You still think this could all go away?

EMILIO ESTEFAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK) EMILIO ESTEFAN: They don't pay you.

(CROSSTALK) GLORIA ESTEFAN: Everybody has to realize that things can go away.

EMILIO ESTEFAN: You know something?

I think, in this country, that people take things for granted.

And one of the things that we don't take for granted is freedom.

I mean, we came to this country not looking for maybe a better opportunity here.

We were also looking for freedom.

And you know something?

Keeping that safe is -- really keep your feet on the ground, saying, you know something, we're blessed.

We have been blessed with our career.

We have been blessed with our family.

We have the healthy kids.

We're happy people.

And you know something?

We are blessed, and that we are alive and that we made a career in something that we love.

That is music.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What a great interview.

You can see tributes to the couple tonight right here on PBS.

And before the Estefans, don't forget "Washington Week."

Robert Costa reports on the bitter legal fight on Capitol Hill, complete with threats of contempt and impeachment.

That's coming up on "Washington Week."

And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

Have a great weekend.

Thank you, and good night.