JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Former director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the latest target of President Trump's attacks on the intelligence community, on Russia's role in the 2016 election.

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER (RET.

), Former National Intelligence Director: To me, it just exceeds logic and credulity that they didn't affect the election and it's my belief they actually turned it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Then: the NFL's new policy on taking a knee.

After a firestorm over national anthem demonstrations, the league enacts a new rule punishing players for protesting on the field.

And remembering a literary giant -- how Philip Roth captured American life through history and controversy.

PHILIP ROTH, Novelist: I don't think about the reader.

I think about the book.

I think about the sentence.

I think about the paragraph.

I think about the page.

I go over it and over it and over it.

The book begins to make its demands.

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

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: From President Trump today, a new demand on the Russia investigation.

He said he wants -- quote -- "total transparency" on whether an FBI informant spied on his campaign.

At the same time, former intelligence chief James Clapper says he now believes Russian meddling won Mr. Trump the White House.

We will talk to Clapper after the news summary.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted today that the Trump administration will not tolerate Russian interference in the 2018 elections.

He told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that there will be appropriate countermeasures, but he gave no details.

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State: We have not been able to achieve deterrence, effective deterrence, with some of these efforts with the Russians, but this administration has taken enormous efforts to push back against Russia that haven't been done in an awfully long time, either here in the United States or, frankly, from our partners who are more threatened by Russia than we are in Europe and elsewhere.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The Democrats voiced doubts about the Trump team's efforts on election interference.

New York Congressman Eliot Engel said the administration is -- quote -- "giving Russia a pass."

A string of Southern and border states held primaries on Tuesday, and voters made some history.

Lisa Desjardins has our report.

LISA DESJARDINS: In Georgia, a historic primary night.

STACEY ABRAMS (D), Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate: Now let's go get it done.

LISA DESJARDINS: As Democrats picked Stacey Abrams, a former statehouse leader, as the country's first female African-American nominee for governor from either major party.

STACEY ABRAMS: We are writing the next chapter of Georgia's future.

LISA DESJARDINS: Abrams' strategy, notably, is not about the middle.

It's more about the base, increasing registration and voting among minorities and the poor.

Meanwhile, Georgia Republicans are moving to the right, with a run-off between two candidates pushing hard on immigration, Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle and Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

NARRATOR: Criminal illegal aliens are spreading across the country.

BRIAN KEMP (R), Georgia Senatorial Candidate: I got a big truck, just in case I need to round up criminal illegals and take them home myself.

LISA DESJARDINS: Another first last night, in Texas, Lupe Valdez became the first Latina and first openly gay person to win a party nomination for the state's governor.

Overall, it was another banner night for Democratic women, including two first-time candidates winning key congressional races in Texas and one pulling off an upset in Kentucky, all three seen as potentials to take over Republican seats.

The midterms, and his own agenda, were clearly on President Trump's mind as he addressed abortion rights opponents in Washington last night.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: But if Democrats gain power, they will try to reverse these incredible gains.

These are historic gains.

They will try and reverse many of them.

So your vote in 2018 is every bit as important as your vote in 2016, although I'm not sure I really believe that, but you know... LISA DESJARDINS: For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Lisa Desjardins.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will talk to one of Tuesday's big winners, Georgia's Stacey Abrams, a little later in the program.

As the 2018 campaign heats up, President Trump is calling for radical changes in foreign aid to curb illegal immigration.

In Bethpage, New York, today, he talked of slashing aid to countries whose citizens enter the U.S. illegally.

He didn't say which nations he had in mind.

There's word that presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner has now obtained a permanent security clearance.

That was widely reported today.

Kushner is serving as senior adviser on the Middle East, but he was temporarily barred from access to secrets as his FBI background check dragged on.

The president is promising a decision soon on whether the U.S.-North Korea summit takes place as planned.

For now, Mr. Trump is set to meet with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, on June 12 in Singapore.

He suggested yesterday that the summit might be postponed, and he was asked about it again today.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: It could happen, could very well happen, but whatever it is, we will know next week about Singapore.

And if we go, I think it will be great thing for North Korea.

Someday, a date will happen.

It could very well be June 12.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, foreign journalists headed to North Korea's remote nuclear test site today.

Pyongyang has invited them to watch as it demolishes the underground facility.

The U.S. State Department says that a diplomatic staffer in China has reported what it calls abnormal sensations of sound and pressure.

It happened at the U.S. Consulate in the southern city of Guangzhou.

The department says the symptoms were similar to a mild concussion.

The same unexplained ailment affected a number of Americans in Cuba last year.

On the China trade talks, President Trump said today that negotiations are -- quote - - "moving along nicely."

But he suggested the two sides need a different structure to govern trade relations.

Otherwise, he said, in an early morning tweet: "This will be too hard to get done and to verify results."

For now, the U.S. and China have suspended plans for new tariffs.

A federal judge in New York ruled today the president violates his critics' free speech rights when he bars them from his Twitter account.

He was sued last July by seven people who'd been blocked from viewing the site.

The Justice Department said it disagrees with the court's ruling, and is considering an appeal.

And on Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average gained 52 points to close at 24886.

The Nasdaq rose 47 points, and the S&P 500 added eight.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": I sit down with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper after the president calls him out; new NFL penalties for kneeling during the national anthem; why many patients can't get the cure for hepatitis C; and much more.

First, President Trump's stepped-up campaign to discredit the Russia investigation.

The newest focus is on claims that the FBI spied on his campaign, something that he's now calling spy gate.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: So, what I want from Rod, from the FBI, from everybody, we want transparency.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Leaving the White House, the president pressed again for full disclosure by the Justice Department and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

He is overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

The president has already demanded Justice investigate whether the FBI illegally infiltrated his 2016 campaign.

DONALD TRUMP: All you have to do is look at the basics and you will see.

It looks like a very serious event.

But we will find out.

JUDY WOODRUFF: This issue didn't come up this afternoon, as the president and Rosenstein sat mere feet from each other at a roundtable on immigration in New York.

But earlier, Mr. Trump tweeted that elements of the Justice Department are part of the - - quote -- "criminal deep state caught in a major spy scandal."

Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo contradicted the president's long-running deep state accusations while testifying today on Capitol Hill.

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. Secretary of State: You know, this term deep state has been thrown around.

I will say this.

The employees that worked with me at the CIA nearly uniformly were aimed at achieving the president's objectives and America's objectives.

REP. TED LIEU (D), California: Thank you.

And that's your experience also when you interact with colleagues at the FBI and the Department of Justice as well?

MIKE POMPEO: Yes.

There are always exceptions to every rule.

I have never led an organization that didn't have bad actors.

I don't think any government organization is exempt from having malfeasance as well.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All of this after reports that an FBI informant named Stefan Halper did meet with three Trump campaign officials in 2016.

At least two, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, were already on the FBI's radar for contacts with Russians.

Tomorrow, Republican leaders of the House Intelligence and Oversight Committees receive a rare classified briefing on the issue from Justice Department and intelligence officials.

DONALD TRUMP: When they look at the documents, I think people are going to see a lot of bad things happened.

I hope it's not so, because if it is, there's never been anything like it in the history of our country.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But Democrats, including Congressman Joaquin Castro on the House Intelligence Committee, pushed back today, after no Democrats were invited to the briefing.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D), Texas: This very much is a departure from standard operating procedure, and it makes it seem more like a Trump legal defense team meeting than anything else.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The president today also went after James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, for saying any informant would have likely been looking for Russian interference in the 2016 election.

DONALD TRUMP: If you look at Clapper, he sort of admitted that they had spies in the campaign yesterday, inadvertently.

But I hope it's not true.

But it looks like it is.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For his part, Clapper disputes that, defends his long career, and offers a tough assessment of President Trump in his new book, "Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence."

And with me now is former Director of National Intelligence and retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper.

General Clapper, welcome to the program.

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER (RET.

), Former National Intelligence Director: Thanks for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, I want to ask you about the book, but I also want to start with the news of the day, because you're right in the middle of it, as we just mentioned.

President Trump said this morning, regarding allegation that the FBI used an informant during the 2016 campaign, he said: "I hope it's not so, but if it is, there's never been anything like it in the history of our country."

He went on to say, "If you look at Clapper, he sort of admitted that they had spies in the campaign, inadvertently.

I hope it's not true, but it looks like it is."

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Well, I think he's kind of distorted what I was trying to say, which was -- actually took aversion to the term spy, which I don't like anyway, but particularly it's inappropriate in this context.

A big gulf between a spy in the traditional sense employing spycraft or tradecraft, and an informant, who's open about what -- who he was and the questions he was asking.

The intent, though, is the important thing, wasn't to spy on the campaign, but rather to determine what the Russians were up to.

Were they trying to penetrate the campaign, gain access, gain leverage, gain influence?

And that was the concern that the FBI had.

And I think they were just doing their job and trying to protect our political system.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The president, as you know, has been just constantly critical of the intelligence community since he's been in office.

Today, among other things, he's saying elements of the Justice Department are part of the - - quote -- "criminal deep state caught in a major spy scandal."

Now, we know Secretary of State Pompeo somewhat contradicted the president today, said he doesn't think there's a deep state.

But what is the effect of these cumulative comments by the president?

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Well, right now, the heat is kind of off the intelligence community, I think.

The focus for him, of course, has, of course, been the Department of Justice and the FBI.

And I absolutely am concerned about the morale impacts on those two organizations.

And I'm also concerned from the standpoint of standards and norms of our country that have been followed for decades, whereby the independence of those two, of the Department of Justice and the FBI, are respected and, in fact, enforced by presidents.

And this one is very different.

And so, when he starts directing investigations and making these kind of allegations, it's - - for me, it's not good for the country.

And I said this some time ago, that, you know, there's an assault on our institutions, both internally -- from both internal and external sources.

The external source is Russia.

The internal source is our president, is attacking these institutions that have served this country long and well.

And, you know, there's not a whole lot of - - these are actually fragile, and if they're not protected and nurtured over time, we risk losing them, and not all that much different between where we are today and being a banana republic.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You write in the book about your decades-long career working in intelligence.

You cover the raid on Osama bin Laden, the Benghazi attacks in Libya, and then the 2016 election.

And, at one point, you note, LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: "The public history of U.S. intelligence traditionally reads as a narrative of failures and shortcomings, certainly dating back to Vietnam.

When we get it right, though, we almost never discuss it publicly."

I guess my question is, is the college community destined to be undermined, misunderstood, not appreciated?

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Well, it appears that, you know, we have had our ups and downs and we have had our failures.

I think the important thing about that is that the intelligence community is a learning organization, so when we have made mistakes, we have tried to apply -- learn from them and apply lessons learned, so they don't repeat themselves.

But intelligence is one of the things that makes it interesting.

It's also very challenging, in that you are attempting to reduce uncertainty with less than a full deck of information, and that's all -- almost always the case with intelligence.

Without it, I think the nation is less safe and secure.

And one of the points or themes I try to make in the book, that it's my belief, not surprisingly, that intelligence is a noble calling, a noble profession that's important, vital to the safety and security of this country and its people.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You ask some very tough questions about the nature of intelligence, whether the intelligence community has gone too far in some of its tactics and methods.

What did you conclude?

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Well, this is a function of the current conditions, and it's also -- it underlines the importance of enlightened oversight.

It's one of the features that I lived through, Church, Pike in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

That was my war.

And I was in the intelligence community then, and I was around when the two Oversight Committees were established.

They have a special burden, in my mind, the members of those two committees, because they have to represent the rest of our citizens, who, by -- understandably, can't know all the details of intelligence, particularly with respect to sensitive sources and methods.

So the members on those committees have to represent our citizens to make sure that what the intelligence community is doing is legal, ethical and moral.

And we have had cases where, depending on the situation, post-9/11, for example, where our intelligence community did things that, after the fact, people objected to.

And that sort of thing happens, and it's one of the challenges of serving in the intelligence community.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the things you write very -- or have spoken about, I should say, in addition to writing about it very candidly is how you have concluded after what happened in 2016 that the Russians not only affected - - tried to affect the election, but you said they actually did affect the outcome.

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What did you mean?

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Well, first, I need to make clear that, when we did our formal intelligence community assessment in January of 2017, we didn't make any call at all about whether the Russians affected the outcome of the election.

We didn't have the authority, charter or capability to do that.

Since I left the government, though, as a private citizen, it's what I would call my informed opinion that, given the massive effort the Russians made, and the number of citizens that they touched, and the variety and the multidimensional aspects of what they did to influence opinion and affect the election, and given the fact that it turned on less than 80,000 votes in three states, to me, it just exceeds logic and credulity that they didn't affect the election, and it's my belief they actually turned it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That's a stunning conclusion, isn't it?

I mean, and what does that say about where we are as we head into these midterm elections and the next election?

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Well, one of the motivations for my speaking out and writing this book was to do my small part in trying to educate the public on what the Russians are up to.

They are bent on undermining our fundamental system here.

And when a foreign nation, particularly an adversary nation, gets involved as much as they did in our political process, that's a real danger to this country.

And I think educating the public is probably the toughest thing to do.

And I felt I needed to do that, because I think our institutions are under assail here, those which I have spent about 50 years of my life trying to defend.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You are, when all is said and done, quite critical of President Trump.

You write toward the end of the book: "He set a new low bar for ethics and morality.

He's caused damage to our societal and political fabric that will be difficult to repair."

And you go on.

Are you concerned, James Clapper, that by taking him on so directly that you may cause people to think, well, the intelligence community just has it in for Donald Trump anyway, therefore, why should we have confidence in any investigation, in any -- the special counsel investigation?

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Well, that's a good question, and it's one I have thought about.

I mean, the alternative that -- and some people feel that I just should dance offstage quietly into the night.

And I thought a lot about that, and I thought about potential blowback on the active intelligence community, which I am no longer a part of.

I'm now a private citizen, and I have my First Amendment rights, like everyone else.

But I decided that, because I am so concerned about the health and strength of our institutions and our values that I spent a lot of time defending, that I had to speak out.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you are comfortable with what you have written?

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: James Clapper.

The book is "Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence."

Thank you very much.

LT. GEN. JAMES CLAPPER: Thanks for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: After two seasons of protests during the national anthem, and a debate that's been fueled by President Trump, the NFL took a stand today against taking a knee on the field.

Amna Nawaz looks at the reaction and what may be behind the decision.

AMNA NAWAZ: Judy, some players began taking a knee to call attention to police brutality and racial inequality in America.

The silent protest began with quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who has yet to be signed by an NFL team since the season before last.

Today, NFL owners voted for a new policy requiring any players or team personnel who are on the field to -- quote -- "stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem."

Players who don't wish to do so can stay in the locker room during the national anthem.

But if they choose to kneel or sit on the field, their teams will be fined, and the teams can then penalize their players.

The policy comes after months of public criticism of players who kneel from President Trump.

Here's how NFL commissioner Roger Goodell explained the changes today.

ROGER GOODELL, National Football League Commissioner: Clearly, our objective as a league and to all 32 clubs, which was unanimous, is that we want people to be respectful to the national anthem.

We want people to stand.

We think that we have come up with a balanced process here and a procedure and policy that will allow those players who feel that they can't stand for the anthem to stay in the locker room.

And there's no penalty for that.

But we are going to encourage all of them to be on the field, we'd like for them all to be on the field, and stand at attention.

AMNA NAWAZ: The NFL Players Union said it wasn't consulted by the owners about the new policy, and called it contradictory to the - - quote -- "principles, values and patriotism of our league."

We asked the union to appear tonight, as well as several players.

They declined our invitation, as did the NFL.

Some perspective now on this from L.Z.

Granderson, who is a co-host for ESPN's "SportsNation" and a political commentator for CNN.

L.Z., thanks for being here.

Let me ask you now about the timeline.

Colin Kaepernick first took a knee in 2016.

President Trump first started criticizing the protests in 2017.

Why now, in May of 2018, are the NFL owners and the league taking this decision?

L.Z.

GRANDERSON, ESPN: Because they believe there is some correlation between the criticism of Colin Kaepernick and the protesting and their bottom line.

The NFL is still the juggernaut when it comes to American sports, both financially and as well in terms of visibility, but it has dipped a little bit.

And owners feel that the protests isn't helping them from a business perspective, never mind the fact that the NFL was already dipping prior to the protests.

This allows them to point all of the issues that the league has been having with fans on this one particular player and this one particular issue.

AMNA NAWAZ: L.Z., we know the owners have been concerned about the attacks from President Trump as well.

Was this a political decision or purely a business one?

L.Z.

GRANDERSON: I believe it is purely business.

These owners are -- many of them are multibillionaires.

And most of their motives are financially driven.

Many of them give donations to both parties.

Many of them have supported candidates of both parties.

And so they aren't necessarily being married to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

But they definitely seem to be married to money.

AMNA NAWAZ: L.Z., let me ask you.

Now, there are folks out there who will say, we're not saying that the issues that the players want addressed here aren't worth addressing, we're glad the owners met with players privately, we're glad they agreed to donate tens of millions of dollars to those causes, we just don't want politics on the field.

What do you say to those folks?

L.Z.

GRANDERSON: Stop playing the national anthem.

It's that simple.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's as simple as that?

L.Z.

GRANDERSON: The national anthem is politicizing sports.

And, oh, by the way, if you really are concerned about respecting or disrespecting the flag, then perhaps you should probably refamiliarize yourself with the U.S. flag code, because you will see multiple violations that the NFL and other leagues, as a matter of fact, do in terms of how the flag is to be treated.

We aren't supposed to be having football uniforms with flags on them.

We aren't supposed to be having a flag laid down flat.

We aren't supposed to be having the flag on tickets or on beer cans and things of that nature, all these things that you can find in an NFL stadium.

So if you really want to stick to the rule of law about disrespecting the flag, then let's be authentic with it.

I tend to think it's more about what the players are protesting than the actual protest itself.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, L.Z., what would have been a better solution or better step, in your mind, for the owners and the league to take?

L.Z.

GRANDERSON: Be honest.

You know, stop trying to pretend as if you truly do care about the issues that the players are protesting, and tell the truth, that we believe these protests are hurting our bottom line, we're a business, we're a private business, and so we're making a business policy to help make sure our bottom line doesn't suffer anymore.

But certainly don't tell us that you're doing this out of some respect for the flag, or that you're doing this, but we still support what the players are concerned with, because you don't issue a ban like this in the same week that we're bracing ourselves to see video of an NBA player being Tased in Milwaukee, reportedly for no reason.

Those two things -- just doesn't seem to add up to me.

AMNA NAWAZ: L.Z., it's hard to that the tensions will go down from this.

We already have seen Vice President Pence weigh in on Twitter with the hashtag #winning and a headline about this decision.

We have also seen players start to weigh in, Chris Long among them, saying he will continue to use his platform to call attention to the things he thinks is important.

Look, the preseason starts this summer.

Do you think players are going to protest?

What do you think the fallout from this is going to be?

L.Z.

GRANDERSON: Well, Amna, there's two fundamental flaws in this new policy.

Number one, there's no clear definition of what it means to violate or disrespect the flag.

But number two is that there's an option for a player not to actually come to the field during the national anthem.

Now, if you are a reporter looking on the sideline and you happen to notice that several players are missing, you're still going to ask the same very questions that were being asked the past two seasons about, why aren't you there, why are you protesting?

And the issue doesn't go away.

This is the reason the NFL owners' cowardice sort of bites them in the butt, if you will, because they didn't solve the problem.

They just made a bigger problem.

AMNA NAWAZ: L.Z.

Granderson, thanks for your time.

L.Z.

GRANDERSON: Thank you for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us.

Coming up on the "NewsHour": the woman trying to become the nation's first African-American female governor; and remembering the revolutionary writer Philip Roth.

Now: the latest on a medical breakthrough that's starting to have an impact on a hidden, deadly epidemic in this country.

New drugs can cure up to 95 percent of patients with hepatitis C, a virus that often leads to debilitating or deadly results.

The drugs can save lives, prevent expensive hospitalizations and liver transplants.

But some states are feeling the squeeze of the cost of this medicine.

Special correspondent Cat Wise has our report for our weekly series on the Leading Edge of science.

CAT WISE: Three-point-five million Americans are living with a potentially deadly virus, and half don't even know it.

It's hepatitis C, a blood-borne pathogen which attacks the liver and can eventually cause serious liver problems, including cirrhosis and liver cancer.

Three-quarters of those with the virus are baby boomers, exposed from unscreened blood transfusions, I.V.

drug use, and other blood-to-blood contact prior to the early '90s.

But now the opioid epidemic has led to a 20 percent rise in new infections from 2015 to 2016.

One state where the young and the old have been hit hard by the disease is Oregon.

Oregon has the highest hepatitis C mortality rate, per capita, in the country.

It's estimated about 100,000 Oregonians have been infected with the virus and more than 500 die every year.

It's been a very difficult disease to treat, but over the last four years, there's been a revolution in hep C drugs.

Many are being cured around the country now, and here in Oregon, many are coming here to the Oregon Clinic for those treatments.

DR. KENT BENNER, The Oregon Clinic: We never talked about cure of hep C until the last few years, and now we're all talking about cure of hep C. CAT WISE: Dr. Kent Benner is a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the clinic in Portland.

He says people are still dying from the disease, often because they haven't been tested and aren't aware they have virus until they are quite sick.

But Benner says much has changed since he first started treating patients several decades ago.

DR. KENT BENNER: Treatment at that time was interferon.

This required injections, shots several times a week.

Quite a few side effects.

We felt we were doing well if we could cure 15 or 20 percent of patients.

Since late 2013, there's been a remarkable development from a number of different companies.

They have developed drug combinations that provide 95 percent cure rates in patients we treat.

CAT WISE: Costly liver transplants are often the only option when the liver becomes too badly damaged.

But at earlier disease stages, the liver often starts to heal once the medicines have cleared virus from the body.

DR. KENT BENNER: Not only are we seeing liver function improve, but patients with more advanced liver disease occasionally can come off the transplant list.

CAT WISE: Sixty-four-year-old Rob Shinney, who recently had knee surgery, is one of those cured by the new hep C drugs known as direct-acting antivirals, or DAAs.

Like many others of his generation, he doesn't really know how he contracted the virus.

Under the care of Dr. Benner, Shinney began a three-month treatment in late 2016 after his liver showed signs of moderate scarring known as fibrosis.

Tests later confirmed he was virus-free.

ROB SHINNEY, Patient: I had a serious chronic illness hanging over my head that I knew could kill me.

And that's gone now.

CAT WISE: We spoke at a local pub he visits now and again with his choir friends, something he never did when he had the virus.

ROB SHINNEY: I swear I felt like I was 20 years younger.

I had energy.

I could do things.

It's great just to be able to sit around and have a beer with everybody and, you know, just enjoy life.

CAT WISE: The cost of the drugs used to cure Shinney, who has private insurance, aren't cheap.

Since Gilead Sciences' Sovaldi first hit the market in late 2013 at a whopping $84,000 for a course of therapy, competitors have steadily lowered the costs.

Last year, a new medication called Mavyret was released for around $26,000.

Many payers often, though, negotiate even lower prices with the drug company.

Still, the drugs are expensive, and they aren't a vaccine.

If someone is cured, they can become reinfected.

Access to the drugs varies widely around the country.

A report last year by two national advocacy organizations found that many public and private payers choose to limit access to DAAs due to their cost, as well as other concerns.

Oregon is among a number of states which have had restrictive Medicaid requirements, including denying coverage to patients in the early stages of disease and those who are abusing drugs and alcohol.

But some of those restrictions are beginning to ease.

DR. DANA HARGUNANI, Oregon Health Authority: In January, we just started covering individuals with lower stages or lower levels of fibrosis.

CAT WISE: Dr. Dana Hargunani is the chief medical officer for the Oregon Health Authority, which oversees the state's Medicaid program.

She says, while the state is starting to expand access, costs are still a significant issue.

Oregon has spent more than $94 million on the drugs since 2014, covering about 1,500 people.

DR. DANA HARGUNANI: The newer treatments for hepatitis C have a significant budget impact for our state.

We had to get additional funding through the legislative process.

We're trying to manage our limited resources to ensure coverage for those who need it immediately for the hepatitis C treatment, as well as all the other individuals in our Medicaid program.

CAT WISE: Hargunani says another reason the state delays coverage until patients have mild liver scarring, not everyone needs the medicines.

DR. DANA HARGUNANI: One in five individuals who get infected with hepatitis C will spontaneously clear their infection.

Right now, the data doesn't help us understand how to know which individuals will need to have a high-cost drug to treat and cure their infection.

DR. BRIANNA SUSTERSIC, Central City Concern: Luckily, he doesn't have any evidence of cirrhosis.

CAT WISE: Dr. Brianna Sustersic is a medical director at Central City Concern, a federally funded health center in downtown Portland which serves a large number of homeless individuals, many of whom have substance abuse disorders; 25 percent to 50 percent of the patients have hep C. DR. BRIANNA SUSTERSIC: The Medicaid requirements have limited access to treatment for many of our patients.

From a public health standpoint, if we are able to treat the population who is contracting this, and spreading it, then we can move toward eradicating the disease.

CAT WISE: To prove that point, and to meet a big need, the clinic and a local syringe exchange program began a small drug company-sponsored study last year to treat patients who otherwise wouldn't have qualified for the medications; 56-year-old Kim Trano is now virus-free thanks to that trial.

She says she's felt a lot of stigma being a recovering drug user and it was hard to learn she had initially been denied drug coverage.

To those who would question giving expensive medicines to someone who might become reinfected, she says: KIM TRANO, Patient: Everyone is worthy of a chance.

If I were to relapse, I would all precautions not to be reinfected.

And that's pretty easy to do.

Most people know how to do that.

CAT WISE: The new medicines combined with the big surge in those looking for treatment has led to a unique care model.

Chris Hulstein is not a doctor.

He's a clinical pharmacist and part of a new program at Portland's Providence Hospital.

Over the past year, about 50 patients have been successfully treated by Hulstein and his colleagues.

Another 30 are currently in treatment.

CHRIS HULSTEIN, Clinical Pharmacist: A lot of the specialists are very busy managing very complex patients, and that is their role.

Having a pharmacist being able to manage the patient gets patients treated faster and more successfully than we ever have been able to do before.

CAT WISE: Hepatitis C advocates are now working with the state and private insurers to open up more access to the drugs.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Cat Wise in Portland, Oregon.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We return now to the historic win in the state of Georgia last night.

As we reported earlier, the former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives, Stacey Abrams, became the first African-American woman to be a major party nominee for governor in the United States.

And Stacey Abrams joins us now from Atlanta.

Congratulations on your win yesterday.

And do you see this as history-making?

STACEY ABRAMS (D), Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate: I do.

And, first of all, I want to say thank you.

Yes, but it's not just history for me.

It's history for changing the face of what leadership looks like in America.

And I'm excited to be part of a vanguard.

But I also am excited about what this means for the people of Georgia, having someone who is really ready to look out for their needs and their interests.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you think you won?

STACEY ABRAMS: Because we ran an incredibly concentrated effort, where we were on the ground 11 months ago.

We really focused on talking to voters, asking them questions, and putting out bold and detailed plans, so they knew why voting for me would matter.

And we were very grateful to see a resounding response, 75, 76 percent of the vote.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There's a lot of conversations, Stacey Abrams, about how you were able to turn out voters, many of whom had not voted before.

What did you say to them?

What was the message?

STACEY ABRAMS: I talked about three things.

One is educating bold and ambitious children.

Every family wants to know that they have opportunities from cradle to career for their children, and we have very specific plans about how we can invest and have access for every family.

Number two, it's about making certain there are good jobs in every single county in Georgia, and we have a lot of them, 159, and really focusing on small business investment, because we know those are the jobs that pay the best and stay for the long term.

And the third is making sure government works for everyone.

And at the center of that is the conversation about expanding Medicaid in Georgia.

Medicaid expansion would cover more than 500,000 people, create more than 50,000 jobs, and save 15 rural hospitals.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, as we know, that all well be what you said, and you did win the primary, Georgia is still a very red, a very conservative state.

Donald Trump won, beat Hillary Rodham Clinton by 5 percentage points two years ago.

Can you win, Stacey Abrams, unless you turn back some of those Democratic voters, independent voters who went for Donald Trump in 2016, but maybe who had voted Democratic before?

STACEY ABRAMS: I want every voter in the state of Georgia.

I want every independent-thinking voter.

But I do think that Georgia is actually a bluer state than people realize.

We have an opportunity to turn out voters who haven't voted in recent years.

They vote in the presidential election, but not in the gubernatorial election.

And we have more than enough of those voters to win, without compromising our values and pretending to be moderate to conservative to appeal to a certain segment.

There are places where we differ on policy, but at the core of being a progressive in Georgia, it's about making sure that we're helping families have the freedom and opportunity to thrive.

And I know from my personal experience as a Democratic leader that that message resonates across the state.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, The New York Times, of course, covered your race.

And, among things, they wrote today, they said, "She has signaled that she is not likely to spend much time pleading with rural whites to return to the Democratic Party."

Is that accurate?

STACEY ABRAMS: That's a mischaracterization of the state.

Number one, in the rural communities of Georgia, it's a very diverse community.

A third of Georgia -- a third of rural Georgia is African-American.

But the reality is, whether you're rural or urban or suburban, you want your kids to have a good education, you want good jobs, and you want your hospitals to stay open.

Those are all issues that appeal to everyone.

What I have said is that I don't intend to pretend conservative values that demonize immigrants, that say that we have to put a gun in every counter, that say that we can have gun safety laws without sacrificing the Second Amendment.

I'm not going to pretend to be a conservative to win.

I'm going to run the same way I have run my entire career, and that is with authenticity, and with honesty, but with clear plans for how we can lift up every Georgian.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does that mean you don't talk about those issues?

STACEY ABRAMS: Oh, no, I talk about them very aggressively.

In fact, I talked about the fact I had only D's and F's from the NRA, and I'm very proud about that.

I'm proud to have been endorsed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, because the reality is, these are issues that matter to everyone, whether you live in rural Georgia or in the city of Atlanta.

The realty is, Democrats cannot win by pretending to be Republicans, Republicans see through it and Democrats see through it.

I want to win by turning out voters who want the best lives possible.

And that's how I ran this campaign, and that's how we're going to win in November.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Another thing, when we were in Georgia a couple of years -- two years ago to talk to you about the Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump contest, you said, among other things, it was going to be a challenge at that point - - this was a couple months before voting day in November.

You said it was going to be a challenge to turn out black voters, especially young black voters, for the Democrat, for Hillary Clinton, to get them engaged.

It's two years later.

Have things changed?

STACEY ABRAMS: Absolutely.

And part of what we were facing when you and I spoke a few years ago was that we were nearing the end of the campaign and there hadn't been the investment in voters everywhere.

There hadn't been that deep investment in lifting up their voices.

That's what we have done differently in this campaign.

But we have not only done that for young African-Americans.

We had one of the highest turn out of Latino voters in Georgia history.

We had a high turnout among Asia-Pacific Islanders.

And, in fact, for Democrats in Georgia, we nearly matched Republican performance, something that hasn't happened in the last 15 years.

Those are all very strong signals of the energy and the enthusiasm that is available if we have candidates willing to do the investment of cultivating the voters.

And that's what I have been doing the last 11 months.

And that is what I'm going to keep doing for the next six months until we win.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does it help you or hurt you if Donald Trump campaigns in Georgia?

STACEY ABRAMS: Donald Trump appeals to a very specific part of the state.

And I -- you know, the Republican Party and the Republican electorate is its own beast.

My mission is not to beat Republicans.

My mission is to galvanize and energize Democrats and independent-thinking voters who understand that our mission and our message are the right ones for Georgia.

And I think that what we saw happen yesterday across the state of Georgia is that, whether you live in rural north Georgia near the border of Tennessee, or down on the coast near Savannah, that people heard our message and they turned out in record numbers.

My job is to simply scale the message and scale the numbers.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Stacey Abrams, winner of the Democratic primary for governor of the state of Georgia, congratulations.

STACEY ABRAMS: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, we remember the prolific writer and Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Philip Roth.

He died yesterday of congestive heart failure at the age of 85.

Roth was the author of more than 25 books, and a giant in American literature.

His work evolved through several distinct phases, and often featured Roth's fictional alter egos, including his best-known character, Nathan Zuckerman.

The 1969 novel "Portnoy's Complaint" rocketed him to fame for its raunchy, hilarious depiction of a teenage boy's lustful urges and ensuing guilt.

Roth would later focus more deeply on Jewish life, mortality, and American history, often setting his novels in Newark, New Jersey, where Roth grew up.

During a particularly fruitful period in his 60s, Roth returned to a number of those themes.

The accolades and the novels came quickly, including "American Pastoral," "I Married a Communist," and "The Plot Against America."

In a moment, William Brangham talks with a colleague and collaborator of Roth's.

But, first, how Roth himself saw his work.

Jeffrey Brown had the chance to sit down with him for a rare interview back in 2004.

Here are some excerpts.

JEFFREY BROWN: What is it you want to do when you start a novel?

What are you trying to do?

PHILIP ROTH, Novelist: Get to work.

Work.

JEFFREY BROWN: Get to work?

PHILIP ROTH: Get to work.

Work.

Without a novel, I'm empty.

I'm empty and not very happy.

So, when I get to work on a novel, I begin to do what I'm supposed to do.

It's a long process.

Usually, it takes between two and three years to write a novel for me.

I don't think about the reader.

I think about the book.

I think about the -- I think about the sentence, I think about the paragraph, I think about the page.

I go over it and over it and over it.

The book begins to make its demands.

The demands are intellectual, they're imaginative, they're aesthetic.

JEFFREY BROWN: That's interesting, because you're often described as something of a provocateur, sort of throwing out literary bombshells.

I mean, you get a lot of reaction to your work.

PHILIP ROTH: I'm a very bad judge of how people will respond to my work, how the general reader will respond to a book.

And I'm always surprised by the responses that a book elicits.

JEFFREY BROWN: Many observers have noted this great run of books that you have had over the last, say, 10 years or so.

What happened?

(LAUGHTER) PHILIP ROTH: What did I eat for breakfast, you mean?

I don't know.

Maybe it's a consequence of age.

But I did feel energetic, and I do feel ambitious.

And I did the work.

JEFFREY BROWN: And what was your ambition to do?

PHILIP ROTH: To be able to write this kind of book.

To be able to broaden the subject, while, at the same time, keeping it a novel, while, at the same time, having the subject enacted by people.

JEFFREY BROWN: And broaden the subject, what is the subject?

PHILIP ROTH: When I came back to live in America in 1989 all the time, I felt enormously energized by being home.

But, also, I realized I had in front of me a new subject that was an old subject, which was this country, that it was brand-new to me in a strange way, yet I knew all about it because I had been brought up here.

So, being away for 10 or 12 years produced a -- I think a burst of running energy.

JEFFREY BROWN: And when you think about now, do you see a different writer, a better writer, a worse writer?

PHILIP ROTH: Oh, I like to think a better writer.

A different writer?

Sure.

You begin with -- or I began certainly with an enormously naivete and rawness.

You're very raw when you begin.

And I don't think I'm -- I think I'm only half as naive now.

And raw -- I'm only raw from the hard work.

I'm not in the raw in the way a young fellow would be raw.

JEFFREY BROWN: Some years ago, I know you were involved with Eastern European writers at a time when they were a kind of moral voice against a totalitarian society.

What do you see as your role or as the role of a writer in our society?

PHILIP ROTH: Your role is to write as well as you can.

You're not advancing social causes, as far as I'm concerned.

You're not addressing social problems.

What you're advancing -- there's only one cause you're advancing.

That's the cause of literature, which is one of the great lost human causes.

So, you do your bit.

You do your bit for fiction, for the novel.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Here the talk now about Roth's life and work is Max Rudin.

He's the president of Library of America, a nonprofit that preserves, publishes and celebrates America's greatest writing.

In 2005, Philip Roth became just the third living writer to have his books enshrined in the Library.

Rudin collaborated closely with Roth throughout the years.

Max Rudin, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, and obviously sorry for the world, who doesn't get any more of Philip Roth's remarkable works.

For people who are not familiar with those works, can you just explain to us, what made him so special?

MAX RUDIN, President, Library of America: Well, I think the first thing to say is the sheer verbal inventiveness and imaginative power of his work.

He is, you know, nearly unique in American letters in the number of different modes and tones he could write in.

He was an amazing literary ventriloquist, from the ironic comedy of the clearly book "Goodbye, Columbus," to the more -- the outrageous, kind of stand-up farce of "Portnoy's Complaint," to the more tempered realism of the American Trilogy, and then the chastened, elegy -- elegiac tone of the later books.

It's amazing that one writer could do all that.

And I think, you know, looking at his entire career as a whole, 31 books, 51 years, together, it makes one of the most extraordinary literary journeys in American writing.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Just as you say, he really did at times seem like four or five writers compressed into one.

He was so funny.

He could write about mortality and sadness so well.

He could write about his faith.

He really could seem to do it all.

Did you have a sense from working with him that he was aware of all of these different pots that he could dip into?

MAX RUDIN: Everyone who knew him knew of his extraordinary verbal gifts.

I mean, you know, he not only had it on the page.

He had it talking in person.

He was extremely funny and extremely intelligent and a warm person.

I guess the other thing I would say about his work is that, after "Portnoy" especially - - and "Portnoy" is the first great breakthrough book.

Philip has a couple of different breakthrough books throughout his career, but "Portnoy" really opens the floodgates for the first time.

And this voice, you know, comes pouring out that -- or seems to come pouring out -- it's the result of hard work, of course -- and it hums with intelligence and, you know, energy and humor on the page.

And that's what makes him -- and humor -- and that's what makes him compulsively readable.

And I think that's another reason why people have come back to him.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Does the evolution of his career make sense to you when you look back on it now?

Because, if you do look at the younger books, they really are largely about a younger man and his coming to terms with his own sexuality.

Then they move into a middle age phase, and then very later in his life, they sort of deal with a man growing old and facing his ultimate reckoning.

MAX RUDIN: Right.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Does that trajectory make sense to you?

MAX RUDIN: It does.

I mean, you know, fundamentally, you know, Philip was on kind of two sides at the same time.

He was on the side of vitality, you know, of libido and liberation.

And it's a '60s theme, you know, the era where his work really, really begins.

And yet he was also a ruthlessly honest observer of the forces, the historical forces arrayed against that liberation and vitality.

And I think, as the work goes on, I mean, that darker side gets explored more and more, you know, the forces of political violence and the war in Vietnam in "American Pastoral," the McCarthy era in "I Married a Communist," and the way a certain era of political correctness could be used as a bludgeon in "Human Stain."

He's one of the great ironists in our literature, because he was at once in sympathy with the impulses of liberation, and yet understands deeply the forces, as I say, that block that liberation, the forces of fate and history.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Max Rudin, the Library of America, thank you very much.

MAX RUDIN: Thank you so much for asking me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: 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.