JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: one-on-one with John Kerry.

The former secretary of state reflects on America's role in the world and takes aim at President Trump.

JOHN KERRY, Former U.S. Secretary of State: You have a president of the United States about whom everybody knows there is a disdain for facts.

There is almost no truth coming out on a daily basis.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Then: an eye on sexual misconduct.

The head of CBS is out after new reports of harassment and even assault.

And "Big Game."

A new book goes inside the scandals and challenges lining up for professional football.

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

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Evacuations are gearing up tonight as Hurricane Florence turns into a major menace to the Mid-Atlantic and Southern U.S.

It powered up today to a Category 4 out of 5, with winds of 140 miles an hour.

The storm is on track to make landfall by Friday.

And South Carolina has now ordered a million people off the state's coast.

People in North Carolina and elsewhere stocked up on groceries and supplies today.

Governor Roy Cooper warned against ignoring the danger.

GOV.

ROY COOPER (D), North Carolina: This storm is strong and it's getting stronger.

The best safety plan is preparation and common sense.

North Carolina is taking Hurricane Florence seriously.

And you should too.

Get ready now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The storm could be the strongest to hit North Carolina since 1954.

The states of Virginia and Maryland have also declared emergencies.

The White House pressed again today for a federal investigation into who wrote that anonymous essay in The New York Times.

The writer, said to be a senior administration official, claimed that top Trump appointees are working to thwart his worst impulses.

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders defended the president's demands for the Justice Department to get involved.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, White House Press Secretary: I'm not an attorney.

It's the Department of Justice to determine - - make that determination.

And they certainly are fully capable of doing that.

But someone actively trying to undermine the duly elected the president and the entire executive branch of government, that seems quite problematic to me and something that they should take a look at.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, President Trump called veteran journalist Bob Woodward a liar over allegations in his new book.

It quotes Chief of Staff John Kelly and Defense Secretary James Mattis as disparaging the president.

Both men denied making the comments.

Woodward said Sunday they are not telling the truth.

In Northwest Syria, the United Nations reports more than 30,000 people have fled their homes, as Russian and Syrian airstrikes intensify.

The assault began last week in Idlib province.

It is the opening phase of a campaign to recapture the country's last rebel stronghold.

Taliban insurances in Northern Afghanistan kept up a wave of attacks today with multiple strikes at police and soldiers.

They killed at least 52 people and seized weapons and military equipment.

A provincial governor said nearly 40 Taliban fighters also died in the fighting.

Sweden is facing political uncertainty after Sunday's elections.

No party won a clear majority in Parliament.

But a far-right anti-immigration party captured nearly 18 percent support.

The ruling center-left bloc lost ground, but its leader, the prime minister, dismissed the far-right group.

STEFAN LOFVEN, Swedish Prime Minister (through translator): Of course I am disappointed by the fact that the party with Nazi roots could gain so much ground.

They have no budget that will work, no improvements that will make life easier for people.

The only thing they could offer is a widening gap in society and growing hatred.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It could take weeks or months to form a new governing coalition.

North Korea wound up its 70th anniversary celebrations today with thousands taking part.

The festivities culminated in a nighttime rally in Pyongyang's Central Square.

Crowds of students carrying torches spelling out slogans.

This year's anniversary promoted economic growth and kept long-range missiles out of sight.

In Washington, the White House called the change a sign of good faith.

Human rights groups in Russia say more than 1,000 protesters were detained nationwide on Sunday.

From Moscow to the Russian far east, riot who these rounded up protesters and beat some with batons.

The demonstrations were aimed at unpopular pension changes.

Back in this country, the Miss America Pageant has a new representative after a year that saw its leaders forced out over sexist comments.

Miss New York, Nia Franklin, won the title last night in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

There was no swimsuit competition for the first time in the pageant's 98 years.

And on Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 59 points to close at 25857.

The Nasdaq rose more than 21 points and the S&P 500 added five.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": former Secretary of State John Kerry on foreign policy in the Trump presidency and his own new book; a wave of sexual misconduct allegations forces out the chairman of CBS; why the U.S. is taking aim at the International Criminal Court; and much more.

John Kerry has led many lives over a five-decade career in public service.

He enlisted in the Navy in 1966 and served in Vietnam after graduating from Yale.

A highly decorated officer, he then famously spoke out against that war upon his return.

He would go on to serve in the U.S. Senate for nearly 30 years.

In 2004, he was the Democratic nominee for president.

And, in January 2017, he completed four years as secretary of state under President Obama.

He recounts those years and those lives in a new autobiography, "Every Day Is Extra."

And John Kerry joins me again.

Welcome back to the "NewsHour."

JOHN KERRY, Former U.S. Secretary of State: Thank you so much.

Happy to be here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, this book is about your life, your public life, your personal life.

I want to back into it, though, by looking at Washington right now.

A lot of news about disarray, confusion inside the White House, questions about President Trump's leadership.

In all your time in this city, have you ever seen anything like this?

JOHN KERRY: Never.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And is there anything you can compare it to?

JOHN KERRY: Well, obviously, the closest comparison is the years of Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon taped himself.

Donald Trump had Omarosa, so there's a little more spice to it.

But what we're seeing, Judy, I regret to say, is simply not rising to the level of concern publicly or in choices that are being made by people in Washington who have an ability to have an impact.

And I particularly the United States Senate was designed for moments like this.

That's why people have six-year terms.

It's why it's operated under different rules.

But one party appears to have decided that their fealty, their loyalty to party, president and power is greater than their loyalty to upholding the Constitution and preserving the institution itself.

I think it is stunning to me that -- I mean, look, you have a president I would states about whom everybody knows there is a disdain for facts, there is almost no truth coming out on a daily basis.

The major media documented almost 5,000 lies now.

You have a document being taken off the desk of the president so that a policy isn't put in place.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What effect do you think it's having on United States' position in the world?

JOHN KERRY: Horrible effect.

And it's not what I think is happening.

It's what I know is happening.

There are certain people who are readily and happily taking advantage of this president.

And you have seen that, I think, with what China is doing right now in certain places.

You see that with President Putin in so many ways.

I mean, what happened in Helsinki is a total disgrace, when he met with President Putin.

And he came out of a meeting with President Putin and ratified, seemed to take President Putin's position on how we could get to the bottom of the Russia investigation, by having Mike McFaul, the former ambassador, be submitted, be subjected to coming over to Russia to have to be interrogated by the Russians.

He gave up on the idea after 24 hours, but it shouldn't have lasted for 24 seconds.

I mean, this is the kind of thing that I think people all over the world are holding their breath and wondering, what's next?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me ask about some specific places, parts of American foreign policy where we are watching problems right now.

Syria.

This is a place, it's been in the middle of the civil war.

Right now, they are on the cusp of what appears to be a humanitarian disaster.

The Syrian government, with the backing of Russia and Iran, about to go in and attack the last holdout of rebels.

This -- over the -- it happened, built up over a course of years, in which the U.S. has not played the role that many thought it had.

You tried in your time in the Obama administration to get the U.S. more involved.

Is what we are seeing today, honestly, the fruits of decisions made during the Obama administration not to get more involved?

JOHN KERRY: It's the fruits of a long period of, unfortunately, the entire international community failing to do what the international community should do.

But I write in the book -- there's a chapter on Syria called "The Open Wound."

Why?

Because it is a festering, open wound, because we didn't, in my judgment, make the moves we should have made to leverage Assad to the table.

I thought there were things we could have done.

The -- I lost that argument.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you think President Obama didn't go along with you?

JOHN KERRY: He had a perception and a different conclusion to his thinking process.

And his judgment was that it carried risks that were not worth taking, that it also would probably drag us in even more at a time when we were trying to get out of several other wars.

I didn't carry the argument.

The president is the decider.

And I backed the decision.

I mean, he makes those decisions.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to move you through several other elements of American foreign policy.

North Korea, you have been very critical of President Trump, but he did extend an outreach to leader Kim, North Korea.

They had a summit.

There are some signs that the North Koreans may be slowing down -- we don't know what more they are doing -- their nuclear development program.

There haven't been any more... JOHN KERRY: Well, the intelligence community says they're continuing.

Our intelligence community says they're continuing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you don't believe there's been any positive move toward an agreement on nuclear -- denuclearization?

JOHN KERRY: I believe that it is good to talk.

I supported the president in his effort to try to reach out.

But I don't support diplomacy that has not been thought through sufficiently to have a clear preparation process for a summit and a clear understanding of what you can get out of that summit.

But the truth is, there is no understanding on what denuclearization means.

There is no understanding for how you move to actually account for the current weaponry they have.

There has to be a declaration of what they have.

Then there has to be an adequate process of access to determine whether that declaration is truthful and then, how do you manage it?

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you don't... JOHN KERRY: None of that has happened.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you don't see anything positive there that... JOHN KERRY: I see positive that they reached out and positive that they're willing to talk.

I see it's positive that, for at least this period of time, he's not firing a missile.

But what we hear from our intel community is that they are continuing the production behind the scenes, quietly, under the table.

And there are great indications that, in fact - - that, in fact, Chairman Kim is playing rope-a-dope.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly through some other points, because I want I want to get to the book.

But I do want to ask you about the Iran nuclear deal.

You have made it clear you think it was a huge mistake for the Trump administration to withdraw the U.S. from that nuclear deal.

What do you -- do you think -- just very quickly, do you think the Europeans can hold that together, A, and, B, what do you think the Trump administration's goal here is?

Do you think it's regime change?

JOHN KERRY: Well, I do.

I think that, fundamentally, they have -- they're reaching for a regime change strategy.

But I think that they have, in fact, made a decision which is extraordinarily dangerous and counterproductive for our country.

And so let me ask you a question.

I mean, what countries are with us?

I mean, a couple of countries in the Middle East who have always hated Iran, their focus is Iran.

But the countries that were involved in the negotiation, China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, are all supportive of the agreement today, trying to keep the agreement.

And what's interesting is, Iran is supportive of the agreement and trying to keep the agreement.

Now, President Trump, by pulling out, has abandoned our allies, actually infuriated them.

He has also broken apart the capacity of a moderate president of Iran, moderate, by their standard -- I'm not -- don't qualify here - - but to try to begin to move his country away from where they were heading and embrace change and an opening to the world.

Now the hard-liners in Iran have been empowered by what has happened, and the president has made it harder for any Iranian leader to sit down and negotiate with an American, because the hard-liners said, don't negotiate with the Americans because you can't trust them.

JUDY WOODRUFF: To the book -- or more on the book and more on your life.

How do you see your role in how the United States looks back on Vietnam?

JOHN KERRY: What I hope -- I mean, John McCain and I defined that role to a degree together.

John and I didn't know each other well.

He was the prisoner of war, spent five-and-a-half years in jail.

I was a protester who came back after the war I had seen.

So we went back to Vietnam.

We created the -- an enormous process by which we account for those missing and dead or prisoner.

And I write in the book that one of the most profound moments of my public career was standing in the jail cell in Hanoi, in the Hanoi Hilton, where John McCain spent some of those years, with him, just the two of us.

And it struck me, if John McCain and John Kerry can come together and find common ground in a jail cell in Hanoi, we can solve any problem here in America.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And that's what I want to ask you about, because you do write about your time in the Senate in the 1980s, the '90s, the 2000s, when, even though there was clearly disagreement between Republicans and Democrats, they were able to work together on some important issues.

Is this country ever going back to a time like this?

Or are we permanently changed?

JOHN KERRY: Depends on leaders.

The rules of the Senate, I tell people, are only marginally -- tiny rule or here, the nuclear piece, obviously, on judges -- but, basically, the rules of the Senate are the same they were when it worked.

It's the people who have changed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have been talking, in talking about this book, about the importance for Democrats of these midterms, of showing up, voting.

What is it that Democrats should be saying to the American people this fall?

JOHN KERRY: Well, I think the Democrats are saying it to the American people.

It gets swallowed up in daily tweets and in other things that are happening.

But it's very, very clear only one party in this country made a point of nominating a candidate who didn't believe the president of the United States was born in America or was American.

Only one party in this country has been willing to walk back from their constitutional responsibility when you look at what's happening in the White House today.

But the Democratic Party, I believe, wants to make sure that they're not going to take away health care from Americans because of - - because of preexisting conditions.

I think the Democratic Party is very clear about climate change.

We want to be the -- the people who bring the energy revolution that is millions of jobs, cleaner, saves lives, and makes America a leader in the world.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have referred several times to the need for presidential leadership.

You haven't ruled out yourself running in 2020.

JOHN KERRY: I have not been thinking about doing it.

My entire effort right now is focused on 2018, because, in two months, we have an opportunity to make our democracy work.

And it's a great course correction we could have.

The difference in Donald Trump's presidency is not the people who voted for him.

It's the people who didn't vote at all.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you haven't ruled it out, 2020?

JOHN KERRY: You keep going there, you guys.

(CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: Former Secretary of State John Kerry.

And the book is "Every Day Is Extra."

Thank you.

JOHN KERRY: Thank you.

Appreciate it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The chairman and chief executive of CBS, Leslie Moonves, is stepping down, as several more women have come forward to accuse him of sexual harassment or assault.

As Amna Nawaz reports, his departure marks a dramatic downfall for one of the television industry's most powerful men.

AMNA NAWAZ: The 68-year-old Moonves has been at CBS since 1995 and chairman and CEO since 2003.

The accusations against him cover a 20-year span from the 1980s to the 2000s.

And Moonves reportedly began negotiating the terms of his departure weeks ago, after a "New Yorker" report earlier this summer featuring accusations made against him by six separate women.

The New Yorker published a second report this weekend with six new allegations of misconduct or assault by Moonves.

Within hours of the story's publication, the company announced his departure.

The reporter behind both of those reports, Ronan Farrow, joins me now.

Welcome back to the "NewsHour," Ronan.

And I want to begin by asking you about those dozen women across both reports.

Give me a sense of what stood out to you about their stories and consistencies you saw across what they told you.

RONAN FARROW, "The New Yorker": Well, on the - - often, in a body of reporting like this, there is a point at which you realize there are too many stories with too many similarities in the fact pattern for it to be coincidental.

These were not women that were in touch with each other.

There was no coordination.

And yet they were producing uncannily similar details about alleged misbehavior by Les Moonves.

The other overriding impression you come away with talking to these women is just how serious the misconduct was.

I mean, we are talking about multiple allegations that would meet the Department of Justice's definition of rape, potentially, multiple allegations of serial sexual assault, forced oral sex.

And, finally, there is a theme running through these stories of retaliation, women claiming that their careers were destroyed after they rejected Les Moonves.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's worth mentioning, of course, in response to your report, late on Sunday, Mr. Moonves released a statement.

I want to read that in part.

He says -- quote -- "The untrue allegations from decades ago are now being made against me that are not consistent with who I am.

I'm deeply saddened to be leaving the company.

I wish nothing but the best for the organization."

I want to ask you about the CBS response, though, not to this story, Ronan, but your first one.

Back then, they said that there were no settlements or claims of misconduct that they knew about during Mr. Moonves' time with them.

In this report, you talk about a criminal complaint that was filed by one woman last year.

Did the CBS board not know about that?

RONAN FARROW: We report in this latest article that a portion of the CBS board knew about that dating back to late January.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, they did in fact know about that one.

But tell me a little bit about the investigation now.

There are two law firms that have been appointed to both conduct investigations.

You have been talking to folks inside CBS.

What do they make about how these investigations might turn out?

RONAN FARROW: It's worth pointing out that these investigations are being led by reputable law firms and by two attorneys at each firm.

There's -- there's a woman in charge of this that I think commands respect.

That said, there are significant questions from these sources in the stories about the impartial nature of the investigation.

As long as the board was in place, as it was a few days ago, with a majority of its members very much predisposed to be in favor of Mr. Moonves, people within the company said, we are not prepared to speak to these investigators in a lot of cases, because they felt that there was no universe in which there would be an outcome that actually held anyone to account, and they feared that they might be retaliated against for speaking.

And that's partly because of the board on the -- but it's also because this is not just Les Moonves they were complaining about.

This is a broader culture and a story of men allegedly protecting each other within the company.

That includes Jeff Fager, the former head of CBS News, who is still there.

So there are women within CBS News saying they're still reluctant to speak to investigators because of that.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, to that point about that broader culture you reported on both times, do you get the sense that the investigation is looking into those possibilities, into the broader culture?

Do you think that there could be similar additional behavior uncovered?

RONAN FARROW: If these -- this firm is -- the two firms are doing their jobs, then that's exactly what they're looking at.

It has been stated publicly that they are looking at the problems at CBS News.

We spoke to an executive on one of these stories who said that the writ of these firms specifically includes the allegations against Fager, as well as those against Moonves.

There is some cautious optimism now, Amna, now that the board has changed, six members have been replaced, now that Moonves is out of power.

But there are still a lot of questions for a lot of employees at CBS who are frightened to speak.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ronan Farrow, reporting on this continuing.

And congratulations on your reports.

Thanks, as always, for making the time.

RONAN FARROW: Thank you, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: To learn more about what CBS' reaction has been and what lies ahead for the media giant, I'm joined by Meg James of The Los Angeles Times.

Meg, welcome to the "NewsHour."

I want to ask you about the timing of some of what we have seen from CBS.

It wasn't really until the second report from Ronan that decisive action was taken.

What's been happening in the CBS boardroom for the last several weeks since the allegations first surfaced?

MEG JAMES, The Los Angeles Times: Well, the CBS boardroom has been very fraught over the last few weeks.

Some of the board members were quite taken aback by the charges that Ronan's first article back in July exposed.

I think a lot of the board members -- some are older gentleman -- felt like these were going to be just casual flings, and that the allegations themselves went back decades.

So they weren't really that concerned, or at least it didn't appear that they were that concerned, until after the first story hit.

And then, a few days later, CBS said, like, yes, we're taking these allegations very seriously.

And then a few days after that, they hired two very prominent law firms to investigate not only the charges against Mr. Moonves, but the culture at CBS, CBS News, and all of CBS Corp. AMNA NAWAZ: There was an FCC filing yesterday by CBS as part of another agreement I want to ask you about in a moment.

But my reading of it is that unless the board ultimately decides, pending the investigation results, to fire Mr. Moonves for cause, he is now and will continue to work for them for up to a year in an advisory capacity.

He also stands to get paid $120 million.

Can you explain to us how that would work?

MEG JAMES: Yes, Mr. Moonves had renegotiated his contract more than a year ago.

So there were provisions in place for him to be paid a pretty lucrative settlement when he left CBS.

He's been in charge of the company for more than 12 years.

He's been incredibly successful, one of the most successful executives in all of Hollywood.

And the board rewarded him with this very lucrative contract, which allowed a production deal and considerable stock and option and other compensation when he left.

The board is now in a very uncomfortable position.

They have a contract with Mr. Moonves every requires them to pay him out.

They have not fired him yet.

But they want to wait until after this investigation is completed.

And then they will decide what portion of that $120 million, if any, will be paid to Mr. Moonves now.

The $20 million that is going to go to groups supporting MeToo and women's equality in the workplace, that money is going to come right out of whatever they would pay Mr. Moonves.

It will likely be negotiated, I suspect, in the coming weeks when the findings are complete, and CBS can really look at the totality of the charges.

So there's a lot of legal implications that come from this review.

And I think CBS, in their filing early this morning or late last night, just made that clear, that they're going to put $120 million in a trust account, and that will be sealed up until they can figure out how much, if any, Moonves is entitled to.

AMNA NAWAZ: Meg, there was another legal battle playing out in the background, this one involving the former parent company of Viacom, sort of a battle for control there.

That was settled this weekend.

Do we have any sense that the board's foot-dragging in dealing with Mr. Moonves and these specific allegations, was any of that wrapped up in the turmoil over that battle?

MEG JAMES: A little bit.

I mean, it was separate from the sexual harassment charges.

But last fall, Shari Redstone, who is one of the controlling shareholders of CBS, as well as Viacom, the other media company, started making -- agitating for changes on the board.

And I believe that Ms. Redstone felt like the CBS board needed a refresh, it needed new board members with different experience.

And that's what was a compromise that they came to over the weekend, was that they would install six new board members in an attempt to ensure the board would have independence, not only from Ms. Redstone, but also from CBS management.

I think that there was a feeling that the previous board, the one that was just replaced, was a little too close to Moonves.

And that was part of the rough and tumble between Shari Redstone and Les Moonves, and he had had the support of the board, of course, until yesterday.

AMNA NAWAZ: Until yesterday, when everything changed there.

A media giant has now forever changed.

Meg James of The Los Angeles Times, thanks for your time.

MEG JAMES: Thank you very much.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Today, Ambassador John Bolton gave his first official speech as President Trump's national security adviser.

Bolton spoke to the Federalist Society, the conservative and libertarian organization.

And he took aim at the International Criminal Court.

But Bolton also targeted the Palestine Liberation Organization.

And he announced the closure the PLO's office in Washington.

Our foreign affairs correspondent, Nick Schifrin, was in the room.

And he joins us now.

So, Nick, why are they closing the PLO office?

NICK SCHIFRIN: The main reason that Ambassador Bolton and the State Department said today was Palestinians' use of the International Criminal Court, the ICC.

The ICC is based in The Hague and is designed to tackle some of humanity's toughest challenges, war crimes, crimes against humanity.

The Palestinians have said that they would go to the ICC over Israeli settlements in the West Bank, over seizure of Israeli property, over what Palestinian officials call Israelis' use of force inside of the West Bank.

That's number one.

Number two reason why the U.S. says that it's closing the PLO office here is that the Palestinians aren't being helpful when it comes to peace talks and peace efforts.

Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner, the two advisers to President Trump who are creating a peace plan, the Palestinians have refused to meet them since the U.S. moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem a few months ago.

And they have also been disparaging some of the work that the two of them have done, even though that work isn't done.

And so what you heard Bolton say today is that, one, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, shouldn't be investigating what he called Israeli housing projects, not settlements, and, two, that the -- that the office here in Washington had blocked efforts toward peace.

JOHN BOLTON, U.S. National Security Adviser: The Trump administration will not keep the office open when the Palestinians refuse to take steps to start direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel.

The United States supports a direct and robust peace process.

And we will not allow the ICC or any other organization to constrain Israel's right to self-defense.

NICK SCHIFRIN: I talked to Ambassador Husam Zomlot, the ambassador to the U.S. for the Palestinians.

He said: Look, this is not going to change our behavior.

We are going to take the Israelis to the ICC.

And we're going to continue not to help Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt's peace effort.

And he later released a statement, saying: "We stand firm in our decision not to cooperate in this ongoing campaign to liquidate our rights and cause.

Our rights or not for sale.

We will block any attempts at booing and blackmailing us."

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Nick, this reveals not just frustration about what's going on right now, but longstanding frustrations with the Palestinians.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Longstanding frustrations and real frustrations with the Trump administration over the last few months, one, the move of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and President Trump saying, well, we took Jerusalem off the table.

Palestinians, of course, want Jerusalem, East Jerusalem as a future capital.

Number two, $200 million in humanitarian aid being canceled by the U.S. administration that went to things like hospitals in East Jerusalem that provided cancer treatment, for example.

The Palestinian Authority can't provide that treatment, and those hospitals have lost that money.

And, number three, $300 million for UNRWA, the U.N. agency that helps Palestinian refugees, again, providing schools, health care, things that no one else in the West Bank or Gaza can provide.

Now, U.S. and Israel say that those UNRWA schools, those U.N. schools, were being used by Hamas to house rockets, and also that that organization was kind of skewing the definition of a refugee.

In the past, the U.S. has provided aid and separately hoped for a political solution.

Palestinians believe that this is the U.S. taking away aid to blackmail them and force them toward a political solution.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So where does this negotiation stand?

We haven't seen any peace plan, have we?

NICK SCHIFRIN: We have not seen any peace plan.

U.S. officials are hoping to release something by the end of the year.

And they describe a different approach.

Rather than a blueprint for talks, negotiation between two sides, they really are going to release a robust, significant long peace plan.

And a lot of it has to do with economic incentives for the Palestinians, rather necessarily than answering every Palestinian grievance.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you were saying that Bolton spent most of his time talking about the International Criminal Court, the ICC.

What is this -- what's behind this?

NICK SCHIFRIN: This is part of John Bolton's world view.

It really is, that states are the most important body in the international arena, and states should never give up any sovereignty ever, especially to any kind of international organization.

And the way to have influence in the world is not through allies.

It's not through alliances.

It's not through influence and multilateral institutions, but, as he put it today, power.

JOHN BOLTON: The hard men of history or not deterred by fantasies of international law, such as the ICC.

Time and again, history has proven that the only deterrent to evil and atrocity is what Franklin Roosevelt once called the righteous might of the United States and its allies.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That's pretty direct.

So how does that play out in policy?

NICK SCHIFRIN: It hasn't changed policy dramatically yet.

But we are seeing Bolton's ideology play out across the administration's foreign policy priorities, threatening the use of force against Syrian President Assad and his ally Russia if there's another chemical weapons attack inside of Syria, threatening European countries, European allies, if they try and help Iran, basically calling their bluff, saying that they don't have the military, economic or political way to convince Iran to stay inside the nuclear deal.

And in North Korea.

North Korea needs to give up all of its nuclear weapons before the U.S. gives in very much.

That is Bolton's philosophy.

North Korea and, frankly, South Korean officials say: That's not how it should work.

We will take steps if you take steps.

That's what the Koreans say.

That's not a philosophy that John Bolton adheres to.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Nick Schifrin, we thank you.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: This week marks the last week of primary voting before the midterm elections.

It comes on the heels of former President Obama making his presence felt on the campaign season.

Lisa Desjardins is here for this week's Politics Monday.

LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.

The early rounds are ending.

It's a good time to get ready for the finals of this key midterm year and, of course, a very good time for Politics Monday.

Here to bring us up to speed, Shawna Thomas, D.C. bureau chief of VICE News, and Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report.

Thank you.

Let's just jump right into where we are.

We have New York gubernatorial primary on Tuesday -- on Thursday.

We have got tomorrow Delaware and New Hampshire, which is, strangely, the last primary in the nation, I guess they could say now.

But let's go big.

Why not?

Amy, tell us, what are the themes and what are the expected real battle lines for November right now?

AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: I think the one theme that has been apparent throughout all these primaries in all different kinds of states and all different kinds of districts is the number of women who were successful as candidates on the Democratic side.

My colleague looked into all the races for the House.

And what he found is, of all the candidates in Democratic primaries -- these are without incumbents, OK, so open seats -- a woman who was running against at least one other man won 69 percent of the time.

So women were winning a disproportionate number on the Democratic side.

The number on the Republican side, much, much, much lower.

But that is one key variable.

And I think that's going to be obviously a very big talking point on election night, to see if we do hit and exceeded the mark set in 1992, which was the first year of the woman, when a record number of women were elected to Congress.

LISA DESJARDINS: Shawna, what do you see here?

What are the two battle lines here?

What are the two parties trying to sell?

And where do they conflict in November?

SHAWNA THOMAS, VICE News: Well, I mean, I think the key battle line and the other big theme, other than women, and maybe because of women, is President Trump.

And there's no way to get around that.

As many midterms are -- they usually are about the person who is in the White House.

This one is no different.

And this one is even more powerfully so about the person in the White House.

I think we saw examples of that -- and I'm sure we will get to this -- with President Obama, former President Obama being on the campaign trail... LISA DESJARDINS: We will, yes.

SHAWNA THOMAS: ... in Illinois, railing directly against President Trump, but also in California, striking a slightly different tone in California, but still making sure people know this is about flipping the House of Representatives for Democrats.

And flipping the House of Representatives is a -- in some ways a code of saying a way to put a check on the president.

AMY WALTER: And the other main storyline too for these elections is just the difference in the maps for the House and for the Senate.

The battle for the Senate runs through red, rural states that President Trump is still relatively popular, in some cases, still very popular in.

The battle for the House runs through purple, suburban America, where the president is not very popular.

So we could have an election night where Democrats actually do very well in the House, but struggle in the Senate.

LISA DESJARDINS: Well, it's interesting.

So if this in part a test, at least in some places, of President Trump, but we have former President Obama out there, let's look at -- first of all, let's listen to what he's been saying.

This is from this weekend.

Let's play the tape.

BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United States: We have a chance to flip the House of Representatives and make sure that we are checks and balances in Washington.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) BARACK OBAMA: And I cannot tell you, all across the country, you can feel the energy.

You can feel people saying, oh, enough is enough.

We're going to kick off our bedroom slippers.

We're putting on our marching shoes.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) BARACK OBAMA: We're going to out and we're going to start taking some clipboards out.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) BARACK OBAMA: And we're going to start knocking on some doors.

And we're going to start making some calls.

We're going to volunteer.

LISA DESJARDINS: Kicking off the bedroom slippers, making some calls, whatever people do.

Shawna, my question to you is, what does President Obama do for Democrats?

What might he do for Republicans?

SHAWNA THOMAS: Well, I mean, just like President Trump, President Obama comes with his flaws and his positives.

The positives are, when it's all said and done, the person who is the head of the Democratic Party still, despite the fact that he's not in the White House, is President Obama.

Nobody who I ever talk to has had a better answer for the question of who is the head of the party.

One of the things our correspondent on VICE News Tonight saw when he was out there in California was that people were driving miles and miles and hours and hours to be part of this event.

And those were hard-core Democrats.

That wasn't necessarily independents and other people, hard-core Democrats.

But they're coming to see him.

He is able to get that kind of rally and energy that President Trump to a certain extent can get on the other side.

So that's a positive.

Great.

The other thing is, in some ways, he is also the example of what people were rallying against when they voted for President Trump.

And so they will -- and so, there, Republicans who will say, look, they're going back to Barack Obama.

That is somebody you didn't like when he was in the White House.

That is still the head of their party.

Come out and vote for -- vote for the people who support President Trump.

LISA DESJARDINS: Amy, is President Obama the head of the Democratic Party?

AMY WALTER: Yes, though I probably -- you probably remember this.

I remember those speeches that he made saying those exact same things.

You guys need to come out and vote.

You need to do this for my legacy.

Whatever you do -- apathy is our biggest problem.

He said that in 2010.

He said that in 2014.

He said that in 2016.

Those voters still didn't turn out for Democrats.

They turned out for him, but never his party.

I still believe that the biggest motivator for Democrats is Donald Trump, and he's still the biggest -- he's the 800-pound gorilla.

He is the biggest factor in 2018.

I do think, yes, Republicans are going to try to use Obama, but mostly use Nancy Pelosi as the boogey-person, right, to say, if you elect Democrats, they're just going to follow the same liberal marching orders from their leaders.

But I think the bigger risk right now for Republicans is that Trump is taking all the oxygen and all of the focus that they would rather be spending, talking about the economy, deregulation and anything else that they're doing in Washington.

They don't want Donald Trump to be making it all about him.

LISA DESJARDINS: Quickly, I want to talk about the U.S. Senate and something that might be going on in Texas, home state of yours, Shawna.

SHAWNA THOMAS: Yes.

LISA DESJARDINS: I want to show some video of Beto O'Rourke, the El Paso congressman.

He's lighting a fire for many progressive.

He's doing things like skateboarding in parking lots.

This is unconventional.

This is something that the liberal left is loving, something that some people think might be a problem for Ted Cruz.

There's a Marist poll showing he's within four points.

What's going on in Texas?

Does this man actually have a chance of becoming a Democratic senator from Texas?

SHAWNA THOMAS: Well, I have to admit I saw the Marist poll and also was like, oh, OK, OK.

So maybe he has a chance.

There is a possibility of a chance.

In our reporting VICE News has done when it comes to Beto, he has gone to a lot of parts of the state that usually Democrats have ignored.

He has made it his duty to go to every single county, with the idea of, like, if you know you can win Houston, Dallas, Austin, major cities, if you can pick up an extra 1,000 votes here way out west, if you can pick up 1,000 votes somewhere else, perhaps this is something that is actually possible.

I'm still saying perhaps because I still think Texas is still a solidly red state.

But... LISA DESJARDINS: OK. OK. AMY WALTER: I think the bigger challenge for - - that's right.

I think the bigger challenge right now for Republicans in holding a seat is Tennessee, a deep red state where the candidate on the Democratic side is actually a little bit ahead of the Republican.

LISA DESJARDINS: But the Senate is getting interesting.

Thank you, Amy Walter, Shawna Thomas.

Wonderful having you here for Politics Monday.

AMY WALTER: Of course.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A long-running feud between President Trump and the National Football League over players taking a knee for the national anthem bubbled up yesterday, even before players took to the field for the first games of the regular season.

Mr. Trump tweeted: "If the players stood for our flag and anthem, and it is all shown on broadcast, maybe ratings could come back."

William Brangham explores the month-long dispute.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: By some measures, the NFL is in great shape.

Football games are consistently the most popular events on TV, and owners are making millions.

But the NFL is also wrestling with multiple scandals, horrible violence committed off the field by players, the growing awareness that players' bodies and brains can be irreparably damaged by the game, and, of course, the political protests by some players, which have been amplified and attacked by President Trump.

New York Times political reporter Mark Leibovich spent four years in and amongst the owners and players of pro football.

And he's just out with a new book, "Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times."

Welcome to the "NewsHour."

MARK LEIBOVICH, Author, "Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times": Good to be with you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, many people are going to know you as a political reporter.

They will remember your last book, "This Town," which was all about Washington, D.C. MARK LEIBOVICH: Right.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I'm just curious what it was like for you, spending all these years chronicling and covering Washington, and then now immersing yourself in what, to my eye, feels like a very different world.

MARK LEIBOVICH: To my eye, it did too.

I wanted a respite from politics.

I needed a break.

And, as it turned out, I jumped into the NFL swamp, and the respite from politics probably lasted about two minutes or so.

(LAUGHTER) MARK LEIBOVICH: There was no escape from politics in the NFL.

And that includes league politics, and then getting sort of immersed with the owners and the commissioner and a bunch of players.

You realize that the backbiting and the elbowing that goes on in Washington is very comparable to what you see in this organization.

But then, obviously, Donald Trump got involved, and the NFL has become this hobby horse of his, and he thinks it's a winning political issue for him.

And he sort of jumped on it.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You actually uncovered a tape of owners talking about the difficulty they were having with this.

What did you find?

MARK LEIBOVICH: This was during the height of the national anthem crisis last October.

There was a private meeting between a group of players and a group of owners that Roger Goodell, the commissioner, convened at the Park Avenue headquarters.

And it was a private meeting.

And one of the participants in this was nice enough to share an audio recording of this with me and Ken Belson, my colleague at The New York Times.

And to be able to listen to how the owners talk about this issue, and really the kind of primal fear they have of Donald Trump was very reminiscent somewhat of listening to sort of U.S. senators or congressmen, particularly Republicans, who are living in fear of the next presidential tweet.

It's like you have a sense of someone who is manipulating events from afar.

And I was amazed at how scared they sounded, how confused they sounded, and also how shortsighted they sounded.

I mean, they are sitting at the top of a multibillion-dollar empire.

They can just print money.

I mean, it's not going to go away anytime soon.

And yet they're just worried about the next tweet.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You also spend a lot of time in the book and personally with Tom Brady, the NFL's golden boy, marquee man.

And you admit heavily in the book that you are a die-hard Patriots fan.

I think you referred to it as the disease you contracted early on.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What was that like for you?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Tom Brady is a very good guy.

I was able to write a profile of him for "The Times Magazine" a few years ago.

And, look, I have interviewed presidents and all kinds of CEO, celebrity types.

I don't think I have ever been as nervous as when I sort of got to meet like the... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Is that right?

MARK LEIBOVICH: I got to be a fanboy.

It's a kind of pathetic thing to admit.

But it's sort of true.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And yet, in the book, you're - - you're not -- you don't go easy on him.

I mean, you're tough on him.

You do point out, especially with regards to this holistic mind-body thing he's doing with his guru... MARK LEIBOVICH: Yes.

(CROSSTALK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: ... fellow.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Look, I mean, this is an absurd world we're talking about.

I mean, these are worlds of incredible wealth and incredible ego, incredible accomplishment, incredible success, but also incredible insularity.

And I think it's incumbent upon me to sort of tell what this anthropology is like, and how it's different from what you and I are used to.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The subtitle of the book, as we described, is "The NFL In Dangerous Times."

I mentioned a few of the things that might be icebergs in the water.

What do you see as the most dangerous things for the NFL?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Well, I mean, I think -- I would say the two things, one are definitely health and safety and concussions, and, like, the realization that the NFL is just going to be unsafe at any speed.

Players keep getting bigger, faster, stronger.

And you can probably influence it around the margins with some rule changes or some equipment changes, but, ultimately, that's not going to change in any big way, except that the research is going to keep showing us that it's very dangerous.

And the more dead players' brains become available, the more awareness is going to be.

And people are going to make, hopefully, informed decisions about whether they want to be a part of this.

The other thing, I think, is just the technological and cultural change around cord-cutting and technology change, and also just the idea that people have so many more options of entertainment, and there's just no sense that football has the room to grow that they might think it is.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On the issue of concussions and the degenerative brain disease, your book is filled with examples of players and owners and people on the margins saying: I don't want to talk about concussions.

I don't want to address that.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Right.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But it really is, potentially, an existential threat.

If the talent pool dries up, if enough kids and parents say, I'm not doing that, I don't know how the game survives.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yes.

Look, I mean, for, like, a viewer of this - - I like to think I'm a thoughtful viewer of this -- there's a lot of cognitive dissonance that goes into watching and loving football.

I mean, I experience it.

I'm sure a lot of other people who watch football experience it.

There's this commingling of just loving the sport, loving what's on TV, the great spectacle that football presents, a lot of the nostalgia that I grew up with watching football, with the adult realizations of what the sport is doing to people.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Of course, we have also been seeing this recent controversy with the Nike ads and Colin Kaepernick and the ongoing protests by players against police violence and racial injustice.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President Trump, as you mentioned, has -- clearly believes that the antagonism against those guys is a winning political issue for him.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: What are the owners' reaction to that?

MARK LEIBOVICH: I mean, a lot of them have personal history with Donald Trump.

I mean, a lot of them gave money to his campaign.

Donald Trump himself has been trying to get into the NFL over four decades, and they really wouldn't give him the time of day.

So, they're -- this is driven in some ways by personal grievance.

Most of them know him sort of in that rich guy circle, and they want nothing to do with him.

And yet now they have to deal with him, because he's sitting in the White House, and he has decided to sort of heckle from the bully pulpit.

And I assume we will be hearing a lot more from him as we get closer to the midterm elections.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Your book also spent a good deal of time dissecting the career of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: How much of the problems facing NFL do you put his at his feet.

Could he have ameliorated any of these things you're talking about?

MARK LEIBOVICH: I think he could make them a lot better than he has.

I will say that, in the last 10 years, which sort of mimics his commissionship, the league has gone from one of the most unifying institutions in America to probably the most polarizing sports brand we have.

And I asked him flat out last January, do you bear any responsibility for this?

And he punted -- good football metaphor there.

He said: Well, I think that's more to do with the political times we're living through than anything else.

And it's probably true.

But it's also -- I mean, it's not -- I don't think it's a healthy thing for the league to have a commissioner that is despised as widely as he is by the fans of the NFL and by a lot of the players of the NFL.

I mean, yes, he makes people a lot of money, but this is 32 really rich guys.

And I think the rest is sort of a drain on the brand in some ways.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The book is "Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times."

Mark Leibovich, thank you.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Thanks for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: As students across the country return to their classrooms, how can they best prepare for the academic year ahead?

Daniel Levitin is a musician, author, neuroscientist, and teacher.

Every September, he tells his students something they would never expect, revealed in tonight's In My Humble Opinion.

DANIEL LEVITIN, Musician/Author/Neuroscientist/Teacher: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.

It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

You may be familiar with this Mark Twain quote.

It was used in the film "The Big Short" and in Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth."

Twain is saying that, if you're sure you know something, you act on it with the strength of conviction, never considering that you might be wrong.

If you're sure that this alternative treatment will help cure you better than Western medicine, you will forego the traditional treatment.

Two-thirds of cancer patients think this way, that alternative medicine will prolong their lives.

But, in fact, patients who turn to it are twice as likely to die of their cancers, and they die earlier.

If you're sure that your choice of political candidate is right, you're not going to be open-minded about any new evidence that might come in that could or should cause you to change your mind.

I'm a college professor, and I train Ph.D. students for careers as neuroscientists.

They come into my laboratory full of confidence.

They have been at the top of every class they have been in their entire lives.

I spend most of my time trying to teach them that they don't know everything they think they do.

My job as a teacher really is to unteach them.

I'm always asking, why do you think that?

What's the evidence?

These lessons can take four to eight years.

Knowledge can only be created in an environment where we're open to the possibility that we're wrong.

You may recognize the Zen connection, the wisdom of insecurity.

If you think you know everything, you can't learn anything.

I think that all of us are capable of this kind of critical thinking.

Every 4-year-old asks a series of incessant why questions.

We have this beaten out of us early on by worn-down parents and teachers.

But this why mode is the key to critical thinking.

Think like a 4-year-old.

Ask why and how.

Ask them often.

This attitude allows us to navigate the world more effectively, choosing among options or political candidates or medical treatments that are more likely to maximize our success and our well-being.

By the way, Mark Twain is widely cited for the quote we began with, but there's no evidence that he ever said it or anything like it.

The source of it is unknown.

Sometimes, you don't know what you think you do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A great lesson for all of us.

And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

Join us online and again here tomorrow evening.

For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and we'll see you soon.