Prosecutor Removed From SEAL Case, 2020 Census, Women’s Soccer
KPBS Midday Edition / June 4, 2019
A military judge has removed a prosecutor from the U.S. Navy SEAL war crimes case due to a possible conflict of interest. Also, the Justice Department said the government's plan to add citizenship question on the 2020 census wasn’t devious, four undecided California Democrats explain what they want in a presidential candidate, how the U.S. Women’s National Soccer team strives for wins on the field and in the courtroom, and the Old Globe artistic director talks about the summer Shakespeare season.
Speaker 1: 00:00 Naval prosecutors in the court, Marshal of Navy Seal Edward Gallagher now have to regroup. On Monday, the court ordered lead prosecutor commander Christopher Chap, lack removed from the case judge Aaron Roommate. The unusual move as a remedy for prosecutors secrets, cyber surveillance of defense attorney's emails. The murder case against Gallagher had been set to begin next week. Now that timeframe or even if the case will be allowed to proceed is up in the air. Joining me as KPBS military reporter Steve Walsh, Steve, welcome back. Hi Maureen, is this removal by the judge the same as finding prosecutorial misconduct in this case?
Speaker 2: 00:38 No, it's not. Judge Rule was actually very clear about that. He said that he could actually not judge whether or not there had been prosecutor misconduct that was not part of his authority. So what he removed Christopher Chap like four it was a potential conflict of interest in this whole leak investigation.
Speaker 1: 00:56 Now, another prosecutor was removed from the case as well. Was it for the same reason?
Speaker 2: 01:00 We don't know. All we know is that last week in court it was mentioned that the marines had pulled their attorney, in this case, a marine jag officer
Speaker 1: 01:10 removing the lead prosecutor was the remedy. The judge said for prosecutors introducing tracking codes to emails sent to defense attorneys. They were reportedly looking for the source of leaks in the case. What does the prosecution say in its defense for using that tactic?
Speaker 2: 01:27 Well, what they say is in what they said in court was that this didn't rise to the level of actually spying on the defense, which is what the defense is contending. And they're also saying that, um, they were simply trying to find the source of these leaks and they were using whatever means they had at their disposal.
Speaker 1: 01:43 How much could removing two people from the prosecutor's team affect them?
Speaker 2: 01:48 Well, it could effect it tremendously. We, we've been taken aside and told that you can substitute other prosecutors. You can bring other prosecutors in to help with this case. But we have two members of the prosecution team that are now off of this. We've got to trial that's supposed to be coming up on Monday. It's kind of hard to see at this point that a, that trial is going to go off though. Um, somebody's going to have to file a motion, either prosecutors or the defense team themselves. From their standpoint, the defense team has said that, uh, they've spent all their time on this whole notion of a leak investigation, so they haven't had adequate time to prepare. So we'll see in the next couple of days whether or not one of them will ask judge roof for a continuance.
Speaker 1: 02:28 So far, defense attorneys have been successful in making their case that the tactics used by navy prosecutors were improper. Could this ultimately lead to a dismissal of the case?
Speaker 2: 02:39 Well, that's what the defense is asking for. They're asking for a complete dismissal because of prosecutorial misconduct. If you read into what we know of the judge's motion in this case, that he's already seems to have given his remedy, he's allowed Eddie Gallagher to be released pretrial, he was in confinement and he's now removed the prosecutor this case. So he certainly could come back at the end of the week and decide it's time to dismiss this, but it doesn't feel like that's the way he's leaning. Yeah.
Speaker 1: 03:08 So Gallagher is accused of very serious crimes stabbing to Jeff and Iraqi prisoners shooting at Iraqi civilians. How do you think the gravity of those crimes will weigh in the judge's decision whether or not to move forward on the case?
Speaker 2: 03:21 Be a tremendous shot in the foot for both prosecutors and the judge and the military justice system as a whole. If this, after all of this buildup and all of the people weighing in on this case that it never actually reached trial because of this leak investigation, which was really 10 gentle to the whole process.
Speaker 1: 03:39 So the trial, as you say, is set to begin next Monday. How long does it seem? This shakeup of the prosecution team could delay it?
Speaker 2: 03:47 We don't know how long. We do know that this judge has wanted to get this case moving. He'd like to have this case done by July and they've already blocked off three weeks for this. You not only have a situation where you know the judge impatient to get this moving in the who was taken into custody back in September of 2018 but you also have witnesses that were scheduled to testify and you even have a, one of the attorneys in the case is scheduled to leave, leave the military. So that would leave the defense shorthanded.
Speaker 1: 04:16 I've been speaking with KPBS military reporter, Steve Walsh. She will be following this case. Oh yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Maureen.
Speaker 3: 04:24 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 The Supreme Court is expected to publish its decision this month on whether the Trump administration can include a citizenship question on the census. Meanwhile, new details have emerged that appear to show a now deceased GOP strategist played a role in the decision to add the citizenship question in the first place. Those details about political bias. We're not included in oral arguments before the high court justices, but we'll be heard tomorrow and a federal court in New York. David Savage covers the supreme court and legal issues for the Los Angeles Times. He's been following the story and joins us now to talk about the new findings. David, welcome.
Speaker 2: 00:37 I did.
Speaker 1: 00:37 Let's talk about the new allegations. Tell us about the documents reportedly found on the hard drive of the late GOP redistricting strategists, Thomas Holfeller and what they show.
Speaker 2: 00:48 He was a real wizard of about drawing districts to a Gerrymander districts and help Republicans get elected. I'll fill her said, you know, the supreme court in the 60s talked about one person, one vote rule. Why don't we draw districts based on the number of adult citizens and that's a different number. It's, it's, it's quite different number in places like Texas and California because a lot of areas have a lot of immigrants who are not citizens. They're not eligible to vote. Uh, but they are counted in the census. So anyway, hope or wrote this long paper saying that if we do this, it will really shift political power in favor of Republicans and it will hurt Democrats. There's one problem. However, we don't have very good data because the census doesn't ask about citizenship. And so he said, you know, uh, the next census we ought to try to get a citizenship question on the census. And when that document came to light, a lot of people who were opposing the Trump administration said, see, that's what's really behind this. It's sort of a scheme to change things after 2020 to change how districts are drawn. And it would be a scheme that would, um, hurt Democrats, they said, and, uh, and help Republicans.
Speaker 1: 02:15 And what's known about the validity of these new documents?
Speaker 2: 02:19 Well, um, he, uh, hopeful or died last year. His daughter was apparently as strange but was involved, knew some of the people involved in the North Carolina. Gerrymandering case is an amazing coincidence. By the way, the supreme court has two really big gay suspending this month about politics. One is a partisan gerrymandering case from North Carolina. The other [inaudible] case, it turned out tome health I'll follow was involved in both of them. Anyway, she found these documents, turned him over to the people and who were working on the North Carolina redistricting case and they said, wow, this is also important for the census. Okay, so they, they turned him over to people, the lawyers, the ACLU lawyers and others who were involved in the census case and that's how they came to light.
Speaker 1: 03:06 She handed them over to common cause. What does that organization say? The documents indicate about the aim for adding the citizenship question?
Speaker 2: 03:15 Well common cause like the ACO, you said this sort of shows that the Trump administration has a secret scheme in mind here that they didn't essentially tell the court about or tell this country about the, they said the administration said, oh, we're going to add this citizenship question to the census. For the first time since 1950, a lot of census experts said, hey, this is a bad idea because it's going to drive down the count. In other words, a lot of areas where there are a lot of immigrants, people who are not going to, millions of people are not going to respond. And that's a bad thing. Administration said, well, we need this data to enforce the voting rights act, which seemed a little bit for fish, but the theory was that sometimes when judges are drawing new election districts, they want to know whether there are enough minorities. Uh, for example, uh, Hispanics in Texas to elect a Hispanic candidate. So they actually need data on how many voting age as citizens are there in this particular area. So sometimes the government needs this data, but a lot of people were very skeptical that that explanation made any sense and this new data. Then she seemed to confirm for them that the administration was not telling the truth as to why they were pushing for the citizenship. Question
Speaker 1: 04:47 and reminders, how adding a citizenship question could impact California.
Speaker 2: 04:51 The big impact for California would be driving down the count. California like Texas, uh, you know, has a very high percentage, a large number of immigrant families who are not citizens. They could be legal residency in the United States, but if they're not citizens or undocumented, right? People like that probably are not going to fill up that form and put down their name. And that would knock down the population count in California and the state could lose, um, representatives in Congress. It could lose, uh, federal funding and also within the state, the areas you can think around southern California, some areas have a very, neighborhoods have a very high number of immigrants in some areas have a lesser number of immigrants. If the cup goes down in those areas with the high number of immigrants, they're going to lose representatives in the state legislature and they're going to lose federal funds. So even before this new evidence came up, a lot of people in California thought this, this, the addition of this question is really going to hurt California for the next 10 years.
Speaker 1: 06:08 And there's a hearing on this tomorrow, correct?
Speaker 2: 06:11 Correct. Yes. The judge in New York who decided this case and ruled against the administration wants to hear evidence, uh, who your discussion about whether people in the administration essentially lied to his court. And as I say, I don't know what the judge is going to do with that. I'm not sure in the end that the judges, um, handling of it will have any effect on what the Supreme Court finally rules,
Speaker 1: 06:37 right. I mean, the Supreme Court has already heard arguments in this case, so I mean, how could this really impact their decision on whether there is a citizenship question on the 2020 census?
Speaker 2: 06:47 Well, the one possibility would be that if chief justice John Roberts or Brett Kevin or one of the justices said, well, this, this really is a big problem. Uh, the administration wasn't straight, so we're not going to uphold, um, the, the Trump administration move on this. I think that's highly unlikely. I think they're going to say the administration knew what it was doing. The law gives the Commerce Department a lot of power to decide the census, and my guest is on a five to four vote. They will say, ah, the, uh, we're going to uphold what the Commerce Department did. It's their decision and we're going to uphold it,
Speaker 1: 07:26 and we'll find out more about that later this month, correct?
Speaker 2: 07:29 Yes. I would predict the last days of June.
Speaker 1: 07:32 All right. I've been speaking with David Savage, Washington correspondent with the La Times. David, thank you so much.
Speaker 2: 07:38 Thank you, Jay.
Speaker 3: 07:39 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 It's the question many Democrats are grappling with this presidential primary campaign. Do you pick the candidate who best reflects your policy views or the one you think has the best shot of winning a general election against president Trump at this past weekend's California Democratic Party Convention Cap Radio's Ben Adler sat down with for undecided voters and asked them who they like, who they don't and what they're looking for in a nominee.
Speaker 2: 00:26 Uh, my name is kin chuck Juanita. I am work with a local labor union that union United health care workers.
Speaker 1: 00:33 And you're 27 years old and you're from Richmond?
Speaker 3: 00:35 Yes. Hi, I'm Joe Griego. I am the chief technology officer for the Mono County Office of education, but I live in Bishop California in Inyo County, California. And I am our county, one of our county delegates. Well, and you're 54 years old. I'm 54 years old. All right. And next. My name is rosemary ran and I'm an educator and a student and San Luis Obispo County, California. And I'm also the chair of our county Democratic Party. I'm 55 years old. And you want it to be clear that you were speaking for yourself and not for the party. Exactly. Thank you. All right. And I'm Mimi fell. Koen I'm from Irvine, California. I'm 56 years old and a small business owner. All right.
Speaker 1: 01:17 Why don't we start by just going around and asking for your opening impressions of the weekend. You've had a chance to hear from 14 Democratic presidential candidates. That's about two thirds of the 23 candidates who have declared so far. And, and so what stood out to you the most? What's each of your takeaways from this weekend and, and, uh, let's start with Keenan.
Speaker 2: 01:39 Okay. Um, I have to say that some of the candidates who maybe I wasn't so hot on earlier, I'm impressed me with their rhetoric and the way that they were able to kind of get across. Um, I guess certain policies, ideas, values, even like, um, for instance, may repeat Buddha, judge somebody who have been extremely skeptical of, and I think that he did a really good job. And, and why were you skeptical about him? Um, I honestly think that has policy or his rhetoric doesn't actually have a lot of kind of substantive kind of policy under girding it. And I guess one thing that's really important for me is not only, you know, we always say who can win was electable, but for me it's how can you solve the problems that got us here. Um, and that's why I've, I still remain relatively skeptical of him and Joe, uh, what stood out
Speaker 4: 02:23 you from this weekend? I think, uh, changing hearts and minds requires engaging people's emotions. Donald Trump does an excellent job at that. I wish he didn't put, he does right? It resonates with people. The things that he says, and that's what I was hoping to gain. So I, I wanted to hear people speak so that I could hear, uh, whether or not they had an emotional hook and whether or not I could relate that to our constituency back at Inyo county. And I did. I, I was, I was excited to hear some folks speak. Um, some folks were a lot more dry than I had hoped. Um, I liked, for example, what Elizabeth Warren had to say. She does in fact have a plan for everything. Um, and she was really strikes me as a policy wonk, which speaks to me, but she does, she is not as power powerful and orator, which is a requirement. It seems like I, when I heard for example, Tulsa Gabbert, I didn't know that much about her, but she is a passionate can be a passionate speaker. But policy wise I need to make sure that I can go back and report to my constituents and Inyo county, well, here's, here's what she says here, how, how exciting she can be here, her policies. So we'll see. I'm excited to see what might happen in November. Rosemary.
Speaker 5: 03:52 Yeah. I um, I'm with keen on this where I heard from people who I was pretty skeptical about and felt a lot more energized by them from then before. So me, Pete in NATO or actually two that got my attention more than they had before. Uh, I'm, I'm with you though on Elizabeth Warren and her policies and her plans. I think of all the speakers, she had the most, uh, to support what she wants to do. And it was a really great opportunity I think for Californians to hear from these candidates because we are an important state in the, in the upcoming election. And I think it was very important for us to get to hear from them.
Speaker 4: 04:39 And Mimi, your takeaways from the weekend?
Speaker 3: 04:42 Well, I was really anxious to hear from some of the candidates that I had read and heard from. Um, but shockingly, by the end of the weekend, the ones that I was most eager to listen to, um, we're not the most memorable in my mind. And the what do you mean by that? Um, I was really excited to hear Mayor Pete and in my opinion did not deliver. Um, I really, and also Beto I was very excited to hear it from and um, just kind of Ma about Elizabeth Warren. I was so pleasantly surprised by how engaging she was as well as Cory booker really surprised me. And then I was at the veteran's caucus last night and heard from Tulsi and she was and really didn't know much about her coming into this and was very impressed.
Speaker 4: 05:40 What are you most looking for in who you are going to vote for in March? There's this debate over policy views verse electability or trying to have the best combination of the two. Where do each of you fall on that and this time? Let's, let's start with Joe. I think what's most important to me is if I am honest with myself, electability, I wish I could say it was policy, but the Democratic Party planks are something that aligned with my values. And so honestly I'm not so worried about who specifically, as long as they are, uh, support the Democratic Party planks and all of the members do. So for me, I'm looking for electability. Does that mean that you will vote for the candidate in March who you think has the best shot of winning in all likelihood? Yes. Rosemary,
Speaker 5: 06:33 when I'm looking for is a candidate with, with integrity who is also someone who I believe can lead. That being said, whoever does come out of the Convention, um, in 2020, I will support that candidate as a Democrat because like Joe said, if they've adopted the Democratic Party principles and values, then I'm, I'm good with that Mimi. I'm all about electability. I feel we have to get Trump out of office and, um, I will vote for whoever will get him out of office
Speaker 2: 07:08 and keen. Um, I actually, uh, the way that, the way that I look at it is, um, we are where we are and we have the president that we have because I think that a lot of people were ignoring to the point where they felt like this process wasn't working for them. And while I understand the concern about, you know, electability, I also think that if we have that conversation now, we might be kind of closing the door on certain candidates. I mean, if you look at last cycle, the, the candidate who at least on the republican side was pulling the highest at this time was Jeb Bush. And we all know how that turned out. So I know, and I'm not saying that that's what you're saying now, right? Um, but I, I think that there are a set of problems within like American society, both like in our politics and in our economy, um, that have led us to where we are. Um, so things like income inequality, um, that kind of reach out into every facet of our political life now are extremely important to me. And if you can show me that you have a plan to combat that on multiple fronts, you'll have my phone next year, next year,
Speaker 4: 08:10 several of the candidates seem to sense what's on many of your minds, the electability question and sought to offer a counter arguments to that. So let's hear these two pieces of tape from Elizabeth Warren and Pete, a judge.
Speaker 6: 08:23 Take it from this Midwesterner though he is deservedly unpopular. This president really could win again. We're not going to let that happen are we? We'd better not, but he wins. If we look like defenders of the system, he wins. If we look like more of the same, he wins if we look like Washington. And so the riskiest thing we could do is try too hard to play it safe. Some Democrats, Washington
Speaker 7: 08:56 believed the only changes we can get our tweaks and nudges if they dream at all, they dreams small. Some say if we all just calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses. But our country is in a time of crisis. The time for small ideas is over. So I'm starting this time with
Speaker 4: 09:21 Rosemary. I wonder what you think when you hear the candidates say those things.
Speaker 5: 09:27 A mentor of mine once said, sometimes you have to put a stick in the spokes of the bike wheel to stop and, and really shake things up a little bit to, to get things back on track. So I believe that the candidate that can lead us to beating Trump is the one who can show young people who can show, um, underrepresented people that that person has their values and their best interest in mind.
Speaker 4: 09:55 And Mimi. So, so when you hear many of the candidates take implied jabs, I think most likely it Joe Biden. What are your thoughts when you hear a candidate say like Elizabeth Warren or people to judge? Um, well we have to think big. We can't just be incremental.
Speaker 3: 10:11 Well, I think that, um, one of the thing, the reasons that Trump got in and one of the biggest problems that we have since he got in was promising to shake it up, bring in new people, drain the swamp as it were. And now we have people in some of the highest positions in our country with no experience who are completely incompetent in the position enrolled that they're in. And I would, and I think that that has, um, awakened a large percentage of the population who prior to this election where like myself just kind of somewhat paying attention. Now I'm fully paying attention and I think that that will help us if we provide a clear message, a clear mission, a clear, um, path. And if that candidate can do that, keeping, keeping it very simple, like Trump kept it very simple and whichever candidate can do that is going to be our best chance at beating Trump.
Speaker 4: 11:19 He, and I would imagine that quotes like that speak to you.
Speaker 2: 11:24 Yeah. Um, I think if you start thinking about political considerations before you've put together your policy proposal, you're doing this backwards. Um, policy is meant to solve problems. I think everybody here would agree that the United States has problems. So if you're thinking about, oh, well, you know, what will, how many votes will I lose if I say this instead of just trying to address the problems that people have. Um, well the end result of that is government not working for people. Um, and that's how people lose hope and hopeless people don't want to say that they don't turn out to vote, but you know, hopeless people. Um, I think one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the democracies, people losing faith.
Speaker 4: 12:08 Joe, you are among the most concerned at this table with electability. So, uh, what do you make of quotes like the mayors and the senators? I think that big ideas are necessary, but the key is that the candidates need to make sure that those big ideas connect with the people in the country. And I mean all of the people in this country, I come from a very rural, very red county, and those people felt left behind. They felt ignored and they felt that whatever they did didn't really matter and they would reach for anything, anything that made them feel relevant, that made them feel someone was listening to them. And if you can make a big idea, resonate with their real life. That to me is electability. Could we end with two lightning round questions? The first, give me your first and second choices as of this moment in the primary. And then the second lightning round question is, will you vote for the Democratic nominee for president no matter what, whether it's anyone ranging from Bernie Sanders to Joe Biden keen. Do you want to take a stab at those two lightning round questions first? They don't need to be long answers.
Speaker 2: 13:20 Yeah, sure. Um, tied for one Sanders Warren and absolutely. Yes. I mean, anything is better than Donald Trump that we have for
Speaker 4: 13:29 right now. Joe Griego, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. I was inspired by Cory Booker. I think Elizabeth Warren could be an effective legislator and a wonderful leader. And will you vote for anyone for any Democrat for precedent over any Republican? Yes, every day of the week rosemary run.
Speaker 5: 13:50 I'm with keen, literally tied with Bernie and Elizabeth. I think either one of them would. I would be ecstatic to see either one of them on the top of the ticket. And barring that, yes, I will vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 and made me feel calm. Well this has come back full circle. Um, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker and yes, I will vote Democrat no matter what.
Speaker 4: 14:17 And now all of you together, can you name the 23 presidential candidates? Can you put your heads together and the name all 23 can you give us 15 minutes? We're going, yeah, if I can Google it. Yeah. Well thank you. Thank you so much. All of you for making the time to talk. I'm just going to let everyone know who you are. One last time he and chuck, when ETA from Richmond and organizer for a local healthcare union, Joe Griego from Inyo County who works for the Mono County Office of education. Rosemary ran, who a part time lecturer, uh, and doctorate student, uh, from the San Louis Obispo County and made me, fell Cohn, a small business
Speaker 1: 14:52 owner from Irvine and Orange County. Thank you so much for talking with capital public radio. Thank you. That was capital public radio has been Adler speaking with, for undecided voters at this past weekend's California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco.
Speaker 8: 15:08 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 [inaudible].
Speaker 2: 00:07 That was four years ago in Canada and now the US women's national soccer team is preparing to defend it's World Cup title as the tournament gets underway this weekend in France. But while the team has been successful on the field winning three World Cup titles in four Olympic gold medals off the field, it's a different story. A new book gives a behind the scenes history of the team from its formation in the 1980s to the run up to the 2019 World Cup. Caitlin Murray is a soccer journalist and author of the new book, the national team, the inside story of women who changed soccer. She joins us via Skype. Caitlin, welcome. Hi. Thanks for having me. So earlier this year the US women's national soccer team filed a gender discrimination lawsuit accusing US Soccer Federation of paying lower wages to women in writing this book. What else did you learn about the other ways in which female players are treated differently from their male counterparts?
Speaker 3: 01:05 Yeah, equal pay has become an issue on the US women's national team for the past couple of years. And one of the things I learned in working on this book is that these sorts of fights with the federation have actually been going on throughout the team's history. It's just that usually it was happening behind the scenes, behind the scenes, the players were organizing boycotts. And there's a great, a anecdote in my book where Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy are sitting in a conference room with the president of us soccer in 1999 and they're essentially sort of telling him off and telling him that they're not going to play soccer for the US federation ever again if the federation doesn't treat the players better. And that was really interesting to learn because I think that equal pay and issues of equality in sports have become bigger issues recently. Certainly with the women filing this gender discrimination lawsuit in March, that has brought it to the forefront.
Speaker 3: 02:06 But this is really been something that the team has been doing for a long time and this kind of part of the team's DNA just constantly pushing and standing up for itself. So how has the teams fight for equality evolved over the years? Have the players made any gains? Yeah, I mean going back to the nineties, I mean the players, um, you know, they were getting $10 a day per diem and that was it. They didn't have pretty basic things like the men's team were provided meals for the training sessions and the women were not provided. Those. One player I talk about in my book, I had never heard this story before. One of the players was kicked off the team when she got pregnant and they had to fight for a pregnancy protection in their contracts. So there've been a lot of gains over the years.
Speaker 3: 02:56 I think some of those gains were for pretty basic things. Um, you know, none of these players were getting rich off being members of the US women's national team in the early days and now I think the conversation has adjusted in a way where they're not asking for such basic things anymore. But there are still things like the men's team pretty much plays all their games on natural grass. The women have had to play a significant portion of their games on artificial turf, which soccer players say is a lot harsher on their bodies and harder to recover from. So that's part of this lawsuit. It's not just about money, it's a higher level, it's more professional and they have main gay made gains. But clearly, you know, there's still work to do. And in what ways have the u s national women's soccer team changed the sport?
Speaker 3: 03:47 Well, I think soccer really wasn't on the map in the United States until the 1999 women's World Cup. I think most people remember that moment when Brandy chestain scored that penalty kick against China and she rips off her shirt. And the image of her in her sports bra is on the cover of sports illustrated. And to this day, I think it's one of the most iconic images and moments in sports. And prior to that point, soccer wasn't really a sport that people cared or talked about in the United States. One year before that at the 1998 men's World Cup, the men's USA team came in last place and they were sort of a laughing stock and there wasn't really much reason to be excited about soccer in this country until that 1999 women's World Cup was the biggest story of that summer. It was the biggest sporting event of that year. And what's the status of the discrimination lawsuit and how has us soccer federation responded to the players allegations?
Speaker 3: 04:49 Yeah, it's interesting. US Soccer did uh, respond legally. They just had to answer and basically deny everything that was in the lawsuit. So that has happened and now it looks like this will probably end up going to trial. It's going to take a long time. If it goes to trial, it'll probably be next year. It may be us soccer denying the allegations, claiming that the men bring in more revenue than the women, which you know, is a whole other issue. Um, but it'll be months before we kind of know where this is going to end up for now. The players just have to get through the World Cup and kind of, you know, push it out of their minds. So is all of this, what inspired you to write this book? Yeah, and you know, part of it is this team, the US women's national team is one of the most dominant women's teams in sports and they're really important team.
Speaker 3: 05:47 But no one had ever really told the full story of this team and kind of the context of how this team came to be, what it is. And I really wanted to take in the locker rooms, in the board rooms, kind of dig into some of these stories that frankly I just hadn't heard before. A weren't really out there and do the team justice because this is a team, you know, they've won multiple world cups, they won multiple gold medals, they have sell out crowds, the record TV ratings, all of those things. And yet there were still a lot that we just didn't know about the team. So for me it was really about doing the team justice.
Speaker 2: 06:23 Okay. And you're going to be in France for the World Cup. So what are some of your predictions for how the u s will perform in the 2019 World Cup?
Speaker 3: 06:32 Yeah, I think that people are expecting the US to repeat and I just think that's very difficult. It's very rare for teams to win back to back World Cups, both on the men's and the women's side. And um, I think this is a world cup where we can see a first time winner because the women's game has progressed so much in so many teams are better now. France, the host have never made it to a final, but they've always been super talented. Uh, there's just been sort of a mentality piece that has been missing. So I'm interested to see how being the host and having the crowds behind them, how that's going to help France, you know, other teams I'll be watching for Australia and England are two teams that I've never made a final as well. But I think they look really good. Um, it's hard to make a prediction. I think the US did get a difficult draw where it looks like at this point we'll have to see how the game just play out. But at this point, the u s could have to play Germany or France in the quarter final, and those are two incredibly difficult teams that could very easily when the World Cup. So it's going to be a tough, tough path for the u s and they are going to repeat.
Speaker 2: 07:41 I've been speaking with Caitlin Murray, journalist and author of the new book, the national team, the inside story of the women who changed soccer. Caitlin, it was great speaking with you. Yeah. Thanks for having me. The 2019 women's World Cup starts this Friday with a match between host country France and South Korea at noon.
Speaker 1: 08:00 [inaudible].
Speaker 1: 00:00 Summer means Shakespeare in San Diego. KPBS arts reporter Beth Armando speaks with the old globe theater as artistic director. Barry Edelstein about the upcoming season. Barry, you are going to,
Speaker 2: 00:12 are you doing, you're thinking Shakespeare live, probably
Speaker 3: 00:15 Graham again or lecture talk. What can people expect from this? Well, I love doing this and to my surprise, it really resonates with audiences here who love Shakespeare, the gloves been doing Shakespeare per 80 what, five years, something like that. So I'm enormous amount of time that the gloves been doing Shakespeare in San Diego and so there's a real audience for Shakespeare here uniquely so very few other places around the United States that have as rich as Shakespeare audience and they want to know more. So we created this program to help people understand a little bit about what goes on behind the scenes, how a director works with actors to bring the language to life. And it's 90 minutes and I have three actors there to help me out and we demonstrate how the language works in the mouths of an actor in the rehearsal process, the technical details through which Shakespeare organizes the language in order to make it energetic and muscular and clear and fun. It's great. People really have a good time and people come up to me all the time and say, oh my goodness, if I had a teacher like that teaching Shakespeare when I was in high school, I'd be in the theater right now, and I think, you know, as somebody who knows what it looks like in the theater, they have no idea of that bullet that they dodged, but it's nice of them to say, hmm.
Speaker 2: 01:24 Now people who just attend a plate and want to be entertained by it may think, oh, do I really need to learn more about the language? But explain kind of how understanding some of the technique of delivering these lines or are some of the things that actors can do to make it more comprehensible to the audience. How those things can actually help someone who is just going to watch the play for fun.
Speaker 3: 01:50 So two things are true. One, when Shakespeare wrote these plays, 400 and some odd years ago, there was a theater culture around them that understood instinctively what he was doing and how he built the plays. Um, so today we pick up a play script written by a modern play, right? And we see sometimes the word pause in brackets and a modern actor understands that pause means that you take a little moment, think about what are you going to say next? And then go on. Shakespeare had his own equivalent of those kinds of things. And the way that he put the language together that actors in his period would have instinctively understood. But 400 years later, they need teachers to help them spot and see. So for example, Shakespeare really liked the idea of juxtaposing opposites in his speech that which has made them drunk half made me bold. I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him.
Speaker 3: 02:43 And you hear him, the thought, the, the idea of PR to praise being juxtaposed against the idea to Barry to be or not to be. That is the question. Uh, now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this Son of York and on and on and on. Everywhere. The technical term for that is called antithesis. We know it in our modern political world. Um, uh, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. You hear the, the words that are opposite being juxtaposed against each other. Well, when we train actors to do Shakespeare, we really stressed this idea and say that you've got to think the thought in such a way that the terms that are opposite each other sort of lift off and become particularly vivid and that makes the audience understand the thing much, much, much more clearly. If an actor doesn't stress the words that are opposite each other, the thought isn't communicated. And, um, we demonstrate this and thinking Shakespeare live and we do this when I'm rehearsing a play, I'm going into rehearsal and a couple of weeks I'll be talking about antithesis all the time. Yeah.
Speaker 2: 03:47 This summer you're going to, the globe is going to be having as you like it and Romeo and Juliet. So you are the artistic director here. What went behind your thought process for picking these two particular plays to run tonight?
Speaker 3: 03:59 The summer? Well we have a lot of criteria that go into choosing the shows that we want to put on first. Um, we think about what the audience might want to see, what they might enjoy, what might be fun and entertaining for them. Obviously we have financial limitations. What can we afford to produce given our budget? What shows are going to sell a certain number of tickets, which the globe needs in order to keep the lights on, stuff like that. Then we look at how long has it been since we've produced these plays we haven't done as you like it in almost a decade. Something like that. Having done Romeo and Juliet in longer than that and Shakespeare only had 36 plays, you cycle through them pretty quickly. And uh, the famous ones in particular that are really rewarding to audiences and that introduce audiences to Shakespeare for the first time tend to come up a little bit more frequently.
Speaker 3: 04:45 So that's one part of it is just figuring out the audience dynamic of it. The other part is the artist's dynamic. I had a conversation with Jessica Stone, the director who's coming to do as you like it, and she said, God is my favorite Shakespeare and I'd really love to do it. I said, that's a pretty good reason. This is a director who's incredibly talented, very, very gifted at comedy, has become a really close friend at the old globe. She's done four plays here in the last four years. And I thought this is a great opportunity for her to stretch into this other area of doing Shakespeare. And she really loves and wanted to do that play. So check. Um, as for Romeo and Juliet, I've never done it. I've done little more than half of Shakespeare's plays now, some more than once. But Romeo and Juliet is not one I've ever directed. So I thought, I think this is the time to give it a go.
Speaker 2: 05:32 And talk a little bit about as you like it in terms of what are your, what are the elements that you think are make it such a
Speaker 3: 05:38 popular one of Shakespeare's plays as you like. It is one of those place that really has everything in it that we celebrate Shakespeare for great, beautiful poetry. You know, all the world's a stage and all the men and women, merely players, lots of romance and love, you know, love at first sight and the chaos that follows from that disguise. There's a woman who disguises herself as a boy who then disguises himself as a woman, um, and in chanted forest where crazy things happen, lots of music. It's really got kind of everything that you think of when you think of Shakespeare, that special charm, that special beauty of the language. The other thing about it, and this is the thing I love about the place so much as one of my very favorite lines in all of Shakespeare in it, which is much virtue in if, and there's this big long speech about the power of the word if and the way that if activates our imaginations and activates our curiosity and if is the thing that allows human beings to progress in this world because we have an image of the way things might be if only and then we take steps to pursue it and the whole play is built on this complicated idea of if a series of suppositions, a series of conjectures, what happens if we take a bunch of city slickers and throw them into the country?
Speaker 3: 06:55 What happens if we could disguise ourselves so well that even the person who loves us most in this world can't recognize us and the play plays out this series of ifs in this gorgeous confection that's just rewarding and romantic and fills your heart by the end.
Speaker 4: 07:11 Brush up on Shakespeare. Stop quoting him now, brush up and no women
Speaker 1: 07:22 thinking Shakespeare live is this Saturday at 11:00 AM and it will likely sell out as you like. It opens June 16th listen to more about Shakespeare on stage and on film with Beth's latest Sinema Junkie podcast. Got a cape pbs.org/junkie podcast.