concerns about circumstances in the unit and the lack of leadership in the unit, sgt. bergdahl concluded that he had to get to a higher echelon. >> ifill: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> ♪ love me tender ♪ love me true we can like many, but we can love only a precious few. because it is for those precious few that you have to be willing to do so very much. but you don't have to do it alone. lincoln financial helps you provide for and protect your financial future, because this is what you do for people you love. lincoln financial-- you're in charge. >> fathom travel-- carnival corporation's small ship line. offering seven-day cruises to three cities in cuba. exploring the culture, cuisine and historic sites through its people. more at fathom.org. >> bnsf railway. >> genentech. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: the battle was officially joined today over the vacancy on the u.s. supreme court. the president formally opened the fray, nominating the head of the federal appeals court for the district of columbia. >> today, i am nominating chief judge merrick brian garland to join the supreme court. >> ifill: the announcement was greeted with applause in the rose garden as the president hailed his nominee. >> judge garland has earned a track record of building consensus as a thoughtful, fair- minded judge who follows the law. he's shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples, assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide- ranging judicial philosophies to sign onto his opinions. >> ifill: that was calculated to make the case that senate republicans should at least give garland a chance. >> to suggest that someone as qualified and respected as merrick garland doesn't even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our supreme court, when two-thirds of americans believe otherwise, that would be unprecedented. >> this is the greatest honor of my life. >> ifill: the judge, in turn, choked back tears as he thanked the president, and seemed to make his own appeal. >> fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life, and is the hallmark of the kind of judge i have tried to be for the past 18 years. if the senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which i have been nominated today, i promise to continue on that course. >> ifill: garland is 63. he left private practice for the justice department in 1993, and oversaw its response to the oklahoma city bombing. president clinton then nominated him to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. he was confirmed in 1997. at the time, he drew praise from the likes of republican orrin hatch, then chair of the senate judiciary committee. >> he belongs on the court. and i believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as republicans can expect from this administration. in fact, i would place him at the top of the list. >> ifill: that was then. this is now. now, garland is being nominated to replace conservative justice antonin scalia, who died last month. republicans fear that confirming him to the high court would create a liberal majority. so, within minutes of the president's announcement, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell went to the senate floor to double down on his pledge to deny the president as much as a hearing on his nominee. >> the decision the senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle and not a person-- about a principle, not a person. it seems clear that president obama made this nomination, not not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election. >> ifill: on the presidential campaign trail, republicans ted cruz and john kasich seconded that notion, while democrats hillary clinton and bernie sanders issued statements backing garland. still, that sentiment was far from universal, even among the president's own party. civil rights activists and progressives wanted an african- american woman, or another minority nominee. possibly, indian-born federal appeals judge sri srinivasan. in a newshour interview, white house senior advisor valerie jarrett explained the president's thinking. >> he's nominated two women to the court before, one of them a latino woman, so obviously he believes there are lots of people who are qualified. the question isn't, "is the person qualified," the question is who is the best person for it. in this instance, he made the judgement that that would be the chief judge. >> ifill: the white house says judge garland began making calls to senators this afternoon, and will go to capitol hill tomorrow for meet-and-greets. and in spite of the pushback, several republicans have said they may meet, if not vote, for him. we'll have a closer look at judge garland-- and hear from both sides in the senate-- after the news summary. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, republican donald trump warned against trying to deny him the party's presidential nomination, if it comes down to a contested convention. trump and democrat hillary clinton padded their delegate leads in tuesday's primaries, and their rivals became even longer shots. we will have a full report, later in the program. >> ifill: the federal reserve decided to keep short-term interest rates unchanged today. policymakers at the central bank said the economy is growing, but still faces risks from abroad. fed chair janet yellen underscored that two rate hikes are still possible this year, depending on economic growth. >> if events continue to unfold in that way we are likely to gradually raise rates over time. again that's not fixed in stone. we'll watch how the ecnomy behaves. we're prepared to respond if things transpire differently. >> ifill: the fed raised its key rate in december after years at a >> ifill: the fed raised it's key rate in december after years at a record low. >> woodruff: wall street had been lower before the fed's statement, but stocks rose on the news. the dow jones industrial average gained 74 points to close at 17,325. the nasdaq rose 35 points, and the s&p 500 added 11. >> ifill: the state supreme court in ohio gave the green light today for officials to execute a convicted killer-- again. they tried and failed in 2009 to put romell broom to death by lethal injection. after two hours-- and 18 attempts-- the executioners could not find a vein. the court today rejected broom's argument that under "double jeopardy," the state gets only one try. >> ifill: an american tourist arrested in north korea was sentenced today to 15 years of hard labor. otto warmbier is a 21-year-old student at the university of virginia. he was charged with subversion after confessing he tried to steal a propaganda banner. the verdict came down after just an hour in court, where warmbier offered a tearful plea to be forgiven and sent home. ( crying ) >> my brother and my sister need me. i beg that you see that i am only human, how i have made the worse mistake of my life. >> woodruff: the u.s. state department called the sentence "unduly harsh." and in a separate development, president obama ordered new sanctions against the north, over its recent nuclear and missile tests. >> ifill: in nigeria, two women blew themselves up at a mosque, killing at least 24 people and wounding 18. it happened in maiduguri during dawn prayers. one attacker struck inside the mosque; the second targeted worshippers trying to escape. officials suspect boko haram, the militants trying to carve out their own islamic state. >> woodruff: a manhunt is underway in brussels for two suspects with possible ties to last year's paris attacks. they fled last night after a police raid turned into a shootout. an algerian man was killed, and investigators uncovered a trove of weapons and ammunition. they also found an islamic state flag. the november shootings in paris left 130 dead. and today, french police arrested four people suspected of planning a new attack. >> ifill: brazil's former president-- luis inacio lula da silva-- was named chief of staff today to his successor, president dilma roussef. he is embroiled in a corruption scandal, but the new post provides him special legal protections. the popular silva is also expected to shore up support for roussef, who is facing enormous public pressure and calls for impeachment. >> woodruff: and, with apologies to disneyland, denmark is now officially the happiest place on earth. the united nations says so, in a new survey based on health data, job security rates and other social and political factors. the united states ranked 13th. burundi came in last. >> ifill: i'm happy enough. >> woodruff: i guess 13 ngt is okay. >> still to come on the newshour, senators weigh in on president obama's supreme court nominee; donald trump and hillary clinton's improved path to the white house; an exclusive report on army sergeant bowe bergdahl, and much more. >> woodruff: if confirmed, he'd become the third justice appointed to the supreme court by president obama. so, who is merrick garland? to answer that question, we turn to seth waxman. he was the u.s. solicitor general under president clinton, in charge of that administration's cases before the supreme court. he now focuses on supreme court litigation in private practice; and marcia coyle, chief washington correspondent for "the national law journal," and a newshour regular. and welcome to you both. so, seth waxman, you've known merrick garland since you were in college together. what should we know. him? >> merrick garland is a grand-slam nominee for the supreme court, not just a home run, but a grand-slam nominee. he has every qualification to be a truly great supreme court justice. he is-- he has a very keen intellect. he thinks rights and speaks very clearly. he is the consummate collegial human being in his personal life and in his professional life. he is a terrific, terrific-- and always has been-- a terrific listener to other people's views. he decides everything very deliberately. he is a very careful person, a very considerate person. i doubt very much that there is anybody who has known merrick garland personally or has been a professional colleague or adversary of his that would not say that this man has all the qual fikdzs to be an important jurist and a valued colleague for the other supreme court justices, whatever their jurs prudential views. >> woodruff: that's quite an endorsement. marcia coyle, where does he fit on the ideological spectrum? >> well, i think his reputation is as a centrist. and he has that reputation because you can't peg him as always liberal or always conservative. he is not on the the d.c. circuit, always progovernment when agency cases come before him. he's not always proenvironmentalist, or pro-business. he is in the middle. on those types of cases that the d.c. circuit gets-- and that court has a very heavy, steady diet of federal regulatory cases-- he is a centrist. what we don't know is how he might rule in sort of the culture war issues that currently are now before the supreme court because he hasn't had those types of issues. >> woodruff: because those are the type cases that presumably don't come up. >> that's right, judy. but it is fair to say that president obama would not have nominated someone like justice scalia, for example. he nominated merrick garland because at least he sees in merrick garlanmerrick garland as really unassailable qualifications, someone who shares a similar approach to the law. >> woodruff: what would you add to that, seth waxman? >> you know, i think merrick has a reputation for being a centrist, a prudent jurist, and i want to say that, you know, since we were in college together, merrick has had the deserved reputation for being a careful, deliberate, prudent person. i don't mean to say that he's timid. he makes decisions, and he makes them when they have to be made, and he makes difficult decisions, but he doesn't decide anything. he doesn't decide things-- with the exception of his decision to marry lynn, he doesn't decide things on emotioned. >> woodruff: which he mentioned today. >> and he doesn't make decisions based on the received wisdom of other people. he scnt say, "all these people they respect think this so i should think that." you know, merrick goes back to first principle when deciding things like which ski run to take when we're skiing together. he is a careful, prudent person, and, you know, honestly, in the 45 years we've known each other, i don't think that we've ever had a political discussion. nobody would call me politically astute, and nobody would call merrick politically active. i honestly can say i don't know what his views on some of these hot-button issues. i think the president's decision to nominate him reflects a determination to make a-- an unassailable merits nomination. >> woodruff: mash ahow does this-- you were saying to us earlier this is kind of an unpress departmented situation where the senate is not only saying we're not going to hold hearings. many of the republicans are saying we don't even want to meet with him. >> yes, that's true. >> woodruff: how does this compare with other nominations? >> well, it doesn't compare with any in my past, and i've covered confirmation hearings and nominations since the robert bork hearings in 1987. even as controversial as robert bork was, the senate did have a hearing. to say they-- some senators to say they would not even meet judge garland i think is unprecedented, and, you know, personally, a little disrespectful. this is a presidential nomination to the u.s. supreme court. >> woodruff: seth waxman, finally, you know it's already being sid that merrick garland is a sacrificial lamb, that given the disposition of the senate majority, that he isn't going to get a hearing, that his name is being put out there and is going nowhere. is he prepared-- knowing him, is he prepared to be just that? >> well, i should say that as close as i feel to merrick, i haven't spoken to him since justice scalia passed away, we haven't had a conversation on this. but based on what i opinion him, i can tell you he is the kind of person who feels tremendously honored to have been nominated, to have been considered by the president. and he's not the kind of person who holdaise grudge or gets angry over displays anger. if it turns out that he's not given a fair, respectful treatment by the senate, it would be regrettable for the nation, but he'll go on being a terrific jurist as the chief judge of the d.c. circuit. >> woodruff: seth waxman, marcia coyle, we thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you, judy sphwhrf now that the president haas anounsed >> ifill: now that the president has announced his nomination for the supreme court vacancy, the responsibility falls squarely on the senate to act-- or perhaps in this case, not to act. i spoke a short time ago to two members of the senate judiciary committee. first, republican senator orrin hatch of utah. as you probably are aware, several of your republican colleagues have said they at least plan to meet with judge merrick garland. do you plan to? >> we're friends. i'd be happy to meet with him any time, but it isn't going to change the viewpoint. the viewpoint is that we ought to put this off until the next election. or until after the election so that it's fair to both sides and we get out of this what really is a toxic presidential election process. it's just terrible. >> ifill: so you're saying if this were not a toxic election process it would be okay for any president to make his nominee? >> well, it depends, i don't know what's going to happen after this election but putting it off until after the election seems to me to be a wise thing to do. it will bring people together better than trying to ram it through this time. >> ifill: does it seem right to you that this should be about the election process rather than about the quality of the nominee? >> yeah, look, the quality of the nominee isn't an issue. the person is not an issue. what is an issue is should we do this during this toxic presidential election process? because you've seen over the recent years expoot democrats started this when they really destroyed bork, one of the all-time great legal miewndz. >> ifill: so you're saying-- let me just get this right-- that all things being equal, if this were not an election year but it was still this president making the nomination, knowing what you know about merrick garland, you could conceive of supporting him? >> well, i didn't say that. i'm saying that, you know, we've only had a very few times in history where somebody has been put up during a presidential election year. 1916 was the last effective time, and that's when chief justice charles evans hughes decided to leave the court and run for president. we had one other time when judge kennedy was confirmed after-- during a presidential year, but he was nominated in the year before, and that only came after the toxic, you know, bork proceedings where his reputation was really attacked viciously by democrats. and i can tell you this-- if the table were turned and this was-- and the democrats are in charge, i guarantee you-- or skews me, republicans had the presidency-- i guarantee you the democrats would not do anything different from what the republicans are doing. and i think it's only right. >> ifill: so since so much of the toxicity, as you describe it, in this election, has happened on the republican side of the competition, do you worry that if a democrat were elected president, you may have missed a chance to at least hear-- hold a hearing for someone you who might actually find more acceptable than a democrat it's next democrat might nominate? >> i think it's been toxic on both sides, and it's going to get worse, as far as i can see. so, you know, the democrat election hasn't been a walk in the park, either. i'll tell you one thing i'm tired of, and that is when it comes to the supreme court, we should all be venerating that court and venerating the people to. and to put them through-- put even a good candidate through this toxic process during a presidential election, which really hasn't been done before in this way, i think is a tremendous-- would be a tremendous mistake, and republicans just aren't going to do that. neither would democrats if the position was changed and it was the other way around, the democrats wouldn't be going ahead, either. >> ifill: so what happens next, we just go through the motions for a couple months? >> well, i think-- i think people ought to start accepting that the republicans are not going to do this at this time, in this presidential election. but there will come a time when it will have to be done, regardless of who is president. and, yes, to answer your question, yeah, i would prefer having a republican president, because i think you'll get better judges, but, you know, if mrs. clinton is elected, she's certainly going to be able to appoint the judges that she thinking are the better type of judges. and they'll be much more liberal than the judges and certainly justices that the republicans would promote. >> ifill: i suppose that's gamble then. senator orrin hatch of utah. thank you very much. >> nice to be with you. >> ifill: now we turn to a democrat on the senate judiciary committee, senator al franken of minnesota. senator, what do you make of the nominee that was put forward this morning? and, also, the republican reaction to him already. >> well, i think he was a great choice. i've been hearing about judge garland fair long time. he, i know, was in the running for justice kagan's seat, and i think maybe sotomayor's. i've heard great things about him from a number of friends, including from orrin hatch, my republican colleague from utah, who is on the judiciary committee. i think that this is a great nominee because he's a consens consensus-builder, he's widely respected, and i think my republican colleagues who are taking a very unpopular position with the american people, which was not to meet with, not to give a hearing to the president's nomination, not to do the job that's there in the constitution for us to do, to provide advice and consent, i think they're going to back off of that, and i think we're going to have a hearing and a vote on judge garland. >> ifill: what indication do you have that that's going to happen? they have been as tough and firmer today, if anything, about-- senator mcconnell has, even senator hatch has-- that this is not going to happen. how do you get around that? >> well, for example, the chairman of the committee, chairman grassley, has said that he wouldn't meet with the-- any nominee, and today, he announced that he was going to have a phone call with judge garland to discuss a meeting. i don't think you announce that you're having a phone call to discuss a meeting unless you're gog have a meeting. so it feels like they're softening. and i know that there are seven meetings scheduledded from republican senators, including someone as conservative as senator inhofe. they think has with the unbelievably stellar job that judge garland did on the oklahoma city bombing. >> ifill: well, i certainly don't have to tell that you saying that you're open to a meeting is not saying that you're open to a hearing orgsaying that you're opening to bringing it to a vote on the floor of the senate. >> i'm-- i'm aware of that. what i was saying is it represents a softening of their position. it represents movement that happened in the first hourses after he announced this nomination. so that seems to be movement in the right direction. and i think-- you know, the american people have spoken pretty clearly in polls about two to one, saying this is a-- this is a lousy idea for republicans not to do what's in the constitution. our responsibility in the constitution, which is provide advice and consent, which we've been doing through hearings since 1916. they refuse to have a hearing, and they refuse to vote on this at their peril. >> ifill: senator franken, you're a pretty liberal guy what, do you say to progressives who think the president missed an opportunity to make a more liberal pick? >> i think the president made a wise pick. the white house reached out to democrats on the judiciary committee, asked us what kind of nominee we'd like to see. i said,iment" somebody who at the end of the hearings, the american people will say 'i want nine of those to be the supreme court' that's what i would like, i would like nine of those." and it seems to me from everything i know and i've heard about judge garland, that you'd want nine of those. >> ifill: senator al franken, democrat of minnesota, thank you very much. >> thank you, gwen. >> woodruff: now, the latest on the presidential race of 2016. hillary clinton and donald trump scored big wins in tuesday's voting, and hold narrow leads in missouri, where the races have not yet been called. but, their remaining challengers are soldiering on. >> isn't it interesting that for the first time, people are getting to see my name, my face, and hear my message, because i labored in obscurity. >> woodruff: republican governor john kasich got right back to campaigning this morning, hoping for a new lease on political life, after claiming his first win in his own home state, ohio. >> kasich! kasich! kasich! >> woodruff: kasich's victory was the only loss last night for donald trump. but, the new york billionaire steamrolled to victories in florida, north carolina and illinois. >> we're gonna go forward, and we're gonna win. but more importantly, we're gonna win for the country. we're gonna win, win win, and we're not stopping. >> woodruff: with those wins, trump now has 673 delegates-- well ahead of the competition, and more than half what's needed to win the g.o.p. nomination. on cnn this morning, trump warned of possible trouble, if he keeps building strength and then is blocked by fellow republicans: >> i think we'll win before getting to the convention, but i can tell you, if we didn't and if we're 20 votes short or if we're 100 short and we're at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we're way ahead of everybody, i don't think you can say that we don't get it automatically. i think it would be-- i think you'd have riots. i think you'd have riots. >> woodruff: texas senator ted cruz is trump's closest rival, with 411 delegates, despite his failure to come in first anywhere on tuesday. with florida senator marco rubio dropping out last night, cruz insisted it's now a two-man race. >> only two campaigns have a plausible path to the nomination: ours and donald trump's. and only one campaign has beaten donald trump, over and over and over again. >> woodruff: former house speaker john boehner had said he might back his own successor, paul ryan, for president, at the g.o.p. convention. but ryan said today he would not accept the nomination. in the meantime, fox news canceled a debate scheduled for next monday, after first trump and then kasich said they would not attend. on the democratic side, hillary clinton is moving on, after a sweep of wins in florida, illinois, north carolina and ohio last night. >> this is another super tuesday for our campaign. we are moving closer to securing the democratic party nomination and winning this election in november. >> woodruff: the contests brought her delegate count to 1606-- more than two-thirds of what is needed for the democratic nomination. that puts her far ahead of bernie sanders, who has 851. the candidates now turn toward contests in three western states next tuesday-- arizona, utah and idaho. >> woodruff: for more of last night's results and what's ahead this campaign cycle we turn to susan page, washington bureau chief for "u.s.a. today," and reid wilson, chief political correspondent for the morning consult. welcome back to both of you. let's start by talking about the democrats. susan, you've looked at these exit polls last night what the voters were saying. are there messages there for hillary clinton? what should we take away from what happened yesterday? >> hillary clinton continues to have challenges we've seen all along in this election cycle. she does very poorly among voters under 30. sand sers carrying them by about seven to one. and she scores poorly on the issue is she honest and trustworthy? this is a challenge she shares canw donald trump and there are things she needs to address. on the other hand, he probably went for five for five if missouri goes the way it seems to be going, especially after the surprise defeat in michigan a week ago when it looked like sanders might be coming from behind in a big midwestern case. that didn't prove to be the case in ohio. overall i think the message for hillary clinton is she is on the verge of having an unstoppable lead in getting the number of delegates she'll need to become the first woman ever nominated by a major party for are the. >> ifill: reid, what else do you see in the results of yesterday? >> susan makes a good point about donald trump's honest and trustworthy problem here. we have two party nomination contests neither an end. donald trump has a plausible path to the republican nomination. ted cruz's is much more troubling. if we have a donald trump versus hillary clinton, both candidates are going to start with extremely high negative ratings and honest and trustworthy questions from within their own party. it's not just democrats who don't like trump. it's republicans, too, who have big questions about him. >> woodruff: on the democratic side, you can read something into this. we keep hearing that say they many voters believe she is not honest or trustworthy. >> democrats are looking by and large for a candidate who can win in november. when you ask them which candidate is most electable, which candidate has the experience to be president, hillary clinton wins by leaps and bounds among those candidates, as widely as bernie sanders does among younger voters who are his biggest supporters. >> woodruff: what were you going to add? >> hillary clinton has another problem in the f.b.i. investigation into her use of a private e-mail server when she was secretary of state. and i think that bothers some voters and people are waiting to see what does the f.b.i. conclude? could she be indiepted? she said that's not a possibility. it gives some people some pause and gives the democrats chills as they go down the path of making her the nominee. >> woodruff: she's way ahead in delegates but bernie sanders is still in the race. he didn't do very well yesterday. he said he's not going away. what is his role at this point? >> bernie sanders has the money to continue on. he has tens of millions of dollars. he's been very successful raising money, especially from small-dollar donors. he spent last night in arizona, the next contest down the road, and barely mentioned during his speech last night that vote had gone happened anywhere else. sanders' role, though, is still to try to nudge the party to the the left. he has been successful in moving hillary clinton to the left on a number of key eerves the last couple of months. clinton, though, has singled she's sort of wrapping up the democratic nomination, maybe in her own head, ready to move on to a general. she spent all of her victory speech last night talkin talkint donald trump, not bernie sanders. >> woodruff: susan, how much does hillary clinton have to continue to contend withed bernie sanders? >> last night she said, "congratulations on your vigorous campaign," and then she ignored him. she turned entirely to donald trump. she probably won't get over the finish line until early june and bernie sanders will be in this race. hillary clinton has a hard argument to make that he needs to get out. you know what, eight years ago, barack obama was making the same argument to her, and she stayed in in the very end. >> woodruff: let's talk some more about the republicans, reid. donald trump didn't win every state. john kasich won his home state, his first win in ohio. but where does trump sit right now on the road to the nomination? >> he sits better than anybody else does by a long shot. he grew his lead over ted cruz, his nearest competitor, by nearly 200 pledge delegates, once all the final numbers are susd out from last night. and the other two candidates are having to explain more and more how their path forward exists. john kasich has won so few delegates, it's mathematically impossible for him to get to a nomination. on the other hand, ted cruz is trying to force kasich out of the race. there's an argument to be made, though, if the two of them focus on their core voters, very conservative voters for ted cruz, more moderate, centrist voters for john kasich-- that that is the only path forward for both of them by denying donald trump a majority at the convention in cleveland. >> woodruff: that's interesting, susan, because you also hear the argument if one of them drops out it becomes a one on one and thus a better chance to stand up to donald trump. >> i know the trump people wanted to win in ohio, and, obviously, that would have been a big victory. but the fact is you can make the argument that this is helpful to donald trump. now, john kasich is in this race. it denies ted cruz what he's wanted for so long which is to go head to head against donald trump. i think it makes things easier for trump in a way. trump needs to get what, about 55%, of the remaining convention delegates. that is probably a doable number in a three-person race, especially when where john kasich, it's really hard to see the state that he wins. i don't think john kasich is likely to meet the rule that allows him to be nominated at the convention. you have to have a majority of delegates in eight states. he now has one. only donald trump has gotten over the margin-- over that hurdle of having a majority of delegates in eight states. so kasich, you know, goes to pennsylvania today, pennsylvania doesn't even vote for a month. there's a long interval here where i think donald trump will be getting convention delegates and john kasich won't. >> woodruff: that's interesting about the eight states. i think a lot of people have not focused on that. given that sort of interim period we're going into when there are not that many contests, what does donald trump need to be doing you? mentioned some of the problems he still has with voter' perceptions of him? >> what he needs to be doing is probably the opposite of what he will do. he has been rewriting the playbook of how a modern presidential campaign has been operating for the longest time. i think what he needs to do is begin convincing voters, especially the centrists and independents who are going to decide this election, that he sin fact, presidential, that he can do something other than take shots at his opponents or take shots at the media or meganicleo fox news or whoever the target of the day is. and if he can do that, then i think hillary clinton has something to worry about in november if it's a trump-clinton match-up. as a matter of fact, i think she's got something too worry about no matter what. a friend of mine likened this race air, presidential race to being in a boxing match-- if you're fighting another professional boxer, you know where the punches are coming from. but if you're fighting somebody who is not a traditional boxer a punch could come from anywhere and lay you out. >> i think trump's biggest problem, though, is about four in 10 republican primary voters say if he's the nominee for hillary clinton, they'll seriously consider a third party candidate. if that's the race we have, if it's trump versus clinton, don't you think zeile third-party candidate of some sort? i think the first task trump has to do is reach out a bridge to the republican voters before he can have a hope of reaching out to the independent voters who will determine the general election. >> woodruff: so much to contemplate in the coming weeks. susan page, reid wilson, thank you both. >> thanks a lot. >> thank you. >> ifill: a sincere if misguided young soldier? or a deserter and even a traitor? bowe bergdahl, the army sergeant who walked off his post in june 2009, now faces court-martial on charges of desertion and endangering troops. still unclear: what motivated bergdahl to leave his comrades. the pbs newshour and the "new york times" were recently provided with the transcript of bergdahl's only interview with the army's top investigating officer, in which the sergeant lays out what made him do it. jeffrey brown has the exclusive details. >> brown: may 31st, 2014. >> this morning, i called bob and jani bergdahl and told them that after nearly five years in captivity, their son, bowe, is coming home. >> brown: army sgt bowe bergdahl's release came after the u.s. agreed to free five taliban leaders being held at guantanamo bay. to some the announcement brought joy and relief. but others, including soldiers who served in his unit, saw something different. >> he's at best a deserter and at worst a traitor. >> brown: five years earlier, bergdahl had served at a remote outpost called mest malak in southeastern afghanistan-- this is one of the post's observation points on the top of a hill. and these are the last known pictures of bergdahl in the days before he walked off the post. he was captured by the taliban the day after he left. >> all's i was seeing was basically leadership failure. >> brown: bergdahl had told the podcast, "serial", that leadership problems were endangering his unit, and that he planned to hike to another post to alert a senior army commander. >> i was fully confident that when somebody actually took a look at the situation, and when people started investigating the situation, that people would understand that i was right. >> brown: now there's more insight into bergdahl's thinking. it comes in a transcript provided exclusively to the newshour and the "new york times" by his attorney, from an interview bergdahl gave two months after his release, to the army's senior investigating officer. in it, he speaks of concerns he had with immediate commanders from the very beginning of his enlistment. here, for example, in a passage read by a newshour producer, he described a platoon inspection before his deployment to afghanistan. >> "i know you all joined because you want to rape, pillage, and kill. that's why i joined. however, you need to think about [counter insurgency] coin." i was a little taken aback by it, because that's not why i joined. >> brown: bergdahl's lead attorney, eugene fidell, spoke to the newshour's dan sagalyn: >> he takes things literally that are said to him. the notion that his personal he came into the army with some ideals and he had a notion of what the army was about and what the environment he was going to be in with was going to be like, and it sounds to me like he was quite surprised to have this kind of guidance. >> brown: elsewhere in the transcript, bergdahl talked of his first mission in afghanistan, a night patrol in which his job was to look for explosive devices. one of his commanders, he told the army investigator, yelled at him to speed up te search. >> "hurry up" goes against the common sense. he was just saying, "there's a possible minefield in front of you, hurry up and go hit a mine." that's amazing coming from the person sitting back in the car or in the truck. you're telling me to hurry up in situations i shouldn't be hurrying. that was my first mission. that was my first experience in afghanistan. and that basically continued. >> i think that sgt. bergdahl expected that his command-- that his superiors in the chain of command would be attentive to his personal safety and the personal safety of other members of the unit. and the kind of instruction or reaction that he got from a fellow soldier in that particular incident displayed an indifference to personnel safety. >> brown: later, bergdahl spoke of his fear he'd be sent on a suicide mission. it was around this point that he decided to leave the base. >> "what could happen is this battalion commander could see us, my platoon, as this stain on his reputation. now, sending us on a suicide mission wouldn't be the first in military history. somebody doing-- somebody giving out an order on personal agendas or off of personal grievances, it is not going to be a first in military history." >> feeling that there was no alternative way to get his concerns about circumstances in the unit and the lack of leadership in the unit, sgt. bergdahl concluded that he had to get to a higher echelon. and his view was that, the way to do that was to walk overland, >> brown: "nonsense," says former army lawyer lt. col. geoffrey corn. >> his concerns over the unit originated long before he ended up on the combat outpost. so what did he do about it? did he talk to the chaplain? did he go see the inspector general? did he try to see any of the superior officers in the chain of command? those are all options that a soldier has. is it possible that there were decisions that in retrospect, we can look back on or statements were made that might have been a little bit cavalier or maybe a subordinate would have been concerned about what they were being asked to do? of course, this is the nature of the military, it's the nature of combat operations. >> brown: last july, an army forensic psychiatrist issued a report diagnosing bergdahl with schizotypal personality disorder, a condition marked by distorted perceptions, eccentric behavior, and "magical" thinking. bergdahl's attorney adds that his client's problems were known earlier, when he was discharged from the coast guard, and that he should not have been allowed to enlist in the army. >> sgt. bergdahl was released prematurely from u.s. coast guard boot camp at cape may, new jersey, because of a psychological or psychiatric incident. that in turn required him to get a waiver in order to be enlisted into the army, for reasons i'm unable to explain. he was given that waver, the army has said well we think it was an okay thing to do, that will be an issue at the trial. >> brown: geoffrey corn say bergdahl's mental state could be a relevant factor in the later part of the court martial. >> i think it would be a consideration in sentencing, but it's no surprise that when the military is trying to fill the ranks in an all-volunteer force in a time where it's hard to bring in the number of recruits they need, that they accept greater risk with the people they bring in. although i do find it somewhat ironic that, based on public information that we've seen, that members of his unit thought that up to this point he was a fairly good soldier. >> brown: in fact, the results of the bergdahl investigation produced a dramatic split within top army ranks. the senior army investigator, lt. general kenneth dahl, recommended that bergdahl not face prison time, saying it would be, "inappropriate". but in december, a higher official, general robert abrams ruled that a court martial should go ahead. the court martial is tentatively scheduled to start in august. if convicted of all charges, bergdahl could face life imprisonment. for the pbs newshour, i'm jeffrey brown. >> ifill: you can read more about what else bergdahl told the senior army investigating officer, including the full transcript itself. all that is on our home page, www.pbs.org/newshour. >> ifill: we'll be back in just a moment. but first, take this time to hear from your local pbs station. it's >> woodruff: on the newshour online: a new survey finds that most customers who bother to call their credit card company about a late fee succeeded in having it reversed, and in many cases, have even gotten a lower interest rate. but, the study finds, it depends on who you are. see how results can vary by age and race, on our home page, www.pbs.org/newshour. >> ifill: tonight on charlie >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. on thursday, a report from making sense series: as college basketball kicks off its annual tournament, should schools better compensate athletes? i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your financial future. >> fathom travel-- carnival corporation's small ship line. offering seven-day cruises to three cities in cuba. more at fathom.org. >> genentech. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> supported by the rockefeller foundation. promoting the wellbeing of humanity around the world, by building resilience and inclusivce ecomonies. more at www.rockefellerfoundation.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> the magic number is two. the federal reserve slashes its rate hike forecast implying just two raises this year as its view of the global economy darkens. happy holidays. yep. you heard right. fedex had a jolly season and shareholders may be starting to reap the benefits. strange success. the entrepreneur who saw the profit potential in a rundown abandoned prison. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for wednesday marc >> good evening, everyone, and welcome. the federal reserve is in no rush to raise interest rates. the central bank held rates steady for the second straight meeting and said it would increases them more gradually