robert:ongress, and a nation divided. >> it's a sad day because nobody comes to congress to impeach a president. no one. robert: an historic house week formalizes impeachmentag proceedingainst president trump. as evidence mounts aut a possible quid o quo and as more officialsrealled to testify. the president and republicans respond with fury. president trump: you can't impeach a phosident did nothingg wrong. you can't impeach a president the history of nation.economy in >> trying to put a bow on a sham doesn't make it any o lessf a sham. >> this is "washington week." funding is provided by --

there's a moment. a moment of realization, of understanding. a moment where everythg is clear. at fidelity, wealth planng is about clarity,ho knowiou were, where you've been and where you want tgo. that's fidelity wealth nagement. announceun additional funding is ovided by -- koo and patricia yuen through the yuen foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corration for public broadcasting, and by station from viewers like you. thank you. ce again, from washington,r modera robert costa. robert: good evening. after five weeks oflosed-door testimony, the house voted a ang

party lines on thursday to approve a resolution that establishes the rules for the xt public phase of the impeachment process. the vote closed aense week in waington as another round of witnesses testified about the president's conduct and lawmaks sparred. >> the impeachment inquiry h evidence around presidentde trump's call with president zelensky of ukraine. >> w historyl ask you when you cast his vote -- when you a vote to july somethi that has gone on behind closed doors, what do you know that happened there? robert: joining us tonight are four reporters who h the front lines of this story at the capitol and at the white house. nancy cordes, chief congressional correspondent for ws. vivian salama, white house eporter for the "wall street journal" journal

peter peter, chief white house correspondent for the "new york times" and jake shermaer senior writeror politico and co-author of "playsok." leegin with that house vote. speaker pelosi remains at the center of i debate, driving the inquiry and her party's strategy and a jake wrote "mocrats have several key hurdles over the next few ds to keep their ranks together. the momentuthey'rere ao head into a recess week. how do they keephe momentum going,"? jake? jake: they have to move these hearings to a more public setting and that's t whats woke -- vote was about. people are going to go home and they're going to get qstions an speaker pelosi want them to talk about it. theyeyound themselves in a moment that they can'turn eir backs on this. is what pelosi thinks but again,

they're abo to have a bunch of witnesses come to capitol hill or not come capitol hill a a not testify. that's a challenge for pelosi over the next week to keep the drumbeat up but she spoke to bloomberg and said there will be hearings this month.an robert:, what are you hearing about the scheduling and time somethingancy: jake is right about how quickly they want to move. even though they're scheduling some for next week, a lot of witnesses won't show up and they're seeduling depositions as early asext week and we could get word next week about public heangs they would like to start the week after tha a few big blockbusters as they try to lay out this story, pressuring campaign on thank you cranian government through the narrativ words of the ditch lo malts and white house officials who lived through it. robert: what's the view at the

white house? do they see the democrats moving forward in a commanding way? peter: this remind me of the day that bill clinton was impeached 1988. mber after the day, the house democratss rallied behind him. one of his aids walked in and -- aveleds walked in and said instead of the impeachment, it was pretty good day. it's going to be aty pine impeachment absent some democratichange in the environment. some explosive evidence we haven't seen yet.le it's a w lot easier as a republican in the house to vote for an inquiry thabe for a ararcle of impeachment. if you didn't want to vote for an inquiry, it'soing to be hard to see how they'd vote for an actual impeachment. bert: how did the white house

hold the .comtogether this week? there wufpblets much of a strategy for the lt month inl genehe president likes to control messages so there was a lot of talk about the formatiar of a room for a while and then it went away and now there's discussion about possibly sprathing t thm impet strategy from the rest of the white house strategy. peter, you would know more's bu th sort of the way the clinton white house approached it as well. let's have the white house and perspectivct focus on policy issues, promoting the economic growth and things like tt that are going to get him into theel tion year and have over people from outside some come in and focus on the impeachment strategy. that's a lot of talk but right now we don't seet happening and rention are going to him, pressing him saying this is the way to move forward. >> frankly, the white house doesn't need to do that much to as long as n line

republican support. for the president remains this high. a new wol out says only8% of republicans thinks the preside should be impeached. if the numbers stay like tt, republicans don't see a value of them stepping out of line and voting for anui iy or impeachment. robert: congressman van drew of new jersey and congressman peterson of minnesota. were there more breaks behind the scenes? peter: no, pelosi has done an amazing job at controlling a process and selecting a chairman in dame schiff, who i managing a tight process. have been drew is annteresting case. that's not the way you can vote. yohave to vote for a human being. donald 2ru6r7 won brian

peterson's district by nearly 31 poinpo. he's always voted for right of his party. democrats are sticking togethe there are bumps on the road. questions about how the process is playingut a what it will look like in public where it's going to get a lot stickier and more paurnl. peter: i think that's right but the tmp feel want to it remain partisan. just lik bill clinton wante the 1988 impeachment to be public, so does donald trump want this to remainarsan. so the argument about the proces may go away to some extent but republicans want to to be us vs. them. robert: is it going to drag into the ele eion year?rt peter: it already has. the presirent has three rallies in this next week alone. that's the problem of not having a war room.

clinton was part of the white use that didn't focus on it. in this white house, the president would be the guyad g the war room. >> and if it does drag into an actual election year 2020, that's going to be b pblem for six cdidates in this large democratic field. t re is a senate trial that lasts for weeks in january or february, those are very important days that instead of beinginut campaigning in iowa or new hampshire, they're going to have to be sitting in their seats for this hours every single d tt can't speak on the senate floor and that is not what any candidate wants toe doin in ar. election y robert: that's on the horizon of current and former trump sion administration officials who testified this week. vivian's reporting looks at the latest key witness. lieutenant colel alexander vindman. he listened to the cal between

president trump and perspective zelensky over the smirp and he said that the summary released by the white house did not match his own recollection of theca . and he said gordon sond ld sa they need to secure specific things to get the support. lings this turned the probe on significant direction? does it give democrats more of the thple in adn tion following the testimony by ambassador taylor? >> this was a big week f depositions. we heardrd from two current nfc officialsith first hand knowledge of the phone in july and both of them said they had me concerns because of the fact that presidenid trump raisd the phone call. in of course, hearing it from current officials, both of whom nonpartisan manne talk about

this, this was obviously something that was very troubling for a lot ofre people blicans reacting to it, vindmanman particular.li tenant colonel in the army. a purple heart. he was an iraq war he said i was concerned because of the facthat i heard the perspective talking about this issue and he called it concern of an appearance of a partisan play. this was one thing he said i i s opening statement. the other interesting thing is the circle closing in increasingly on gordon, the u.s. ambassad to the european union. now playing a very key rule -- roam, as did rudyiuani. there were concerns that he was thank you cranean yens, you nee to open -- ukrainians, you need to open an e investigatiher to secure a meeting with president trump or to have a

aide come through. to hear that from current officials were was very striking. we still don't hearhem saying any of these things coming out of the president's mfment and that going to be the big challenge for a lot of democrats going forward. what you have is the phone call, which everyone talks about a quid pro quo. do they link directlywithholding of mility aid to the ukraine to investigations to bide sson there are both raised in the phone call but there is no explicit link but with gordon sondland, u a specific link, according to the testimony. peter: they don't have something but they don't necessarily have to. in the nixon case one of the articles of impeachment held him responsible for the actions of his aides so youe able to

prove that sondland and giuliani and others acted in an inappropriate way, you could use that. >> also, democrats are planning w usingt they see as the president's obstruction as an article ofotmpeachment, allowing these people to testify, holding them back fro hearoogin. democrats said for a long time we're going to take them toco t and actually said no, this is enough to bring articles ofism people. . obert: there were attacks on the lieutenant colonel, mr. vindman, saying he might be a spy butepsentative liz chainy had this to say. ni >>uest the dedication to country of people like mr. vindman. inninge need to show that we are better than that as a nation. it was -- it is shameful to question their patriotism, their love o >> i was there when she said

that and that came very early on as they attacks just got ctarted onolina and you got the sense that republican leadership was comg out and saying this, not to discourcoe their own mention from making tho kinds of attacks on vindman but also president him hey, don't you go down this road either. they didn't thinkhawa going to be beneficial to him or to the party to go after seone who had served his country, won a purple heart and still serving his kiffin. >> well, the psident did go down that road. e next day he was calling vindn, not by name but calling him a never trumper. this is the pition he's taken. ok, they're serving in e administrationut they're not democrats but they're never-trump earnings. that's the position he's taken with these people. robert: is there any contesting of the facts hale? offifter official,

ambassador after ambassador keeps ling out what appears to have --- be an alleged quid pro quo on the president's part. military aide exchange for information. >> democrats and republicans kind of agree on a basic set of facts, that the% perspective had this callith the leader of you cranial and asked himin to stigate joe biden. now, republicans say there's nothing wrong with that. enall of gover and all of politics is a quid pro quo. he wasn't asking them to do anything illegal and democrats say, noctually, this is really bad, not what perspectives should be doing and this is a high crime and that's the interesting thing here. with every testimony you're just getting more a collarut an episode th we already know the broad outlines of. robert: if the expert othe national security council, if move to public phase, does vinv

that change the dynamic among republicans? robert: it would be halve to be something rather stunning to change them. they've heardthrom taylor, vindman, and nick mulvaney who got on television and said, yes, there was a connection between holding back the aid and an investigation and they t tri e it back. there's no real dispute about the facts right now. it's how you characterize them and unless some of thens with -- bns are so dramatic and would change public opinion, i don d see why that would change american minds. robert: could this lead to a speedy process if all the facts are here in the depositions? yes, and i think that's what democrats would like because they're being characterized by the republicans as a party that cares about impeachment but nothing else. if they can keep things moving,

they feel that publicentiment has shifted and they don't wan to take the chance of it shifting back song they're g to try to move shiftly. every house memberke i've t to is eager to get this done by the end of the year. robert: the white house continues to contest the wholep hment process. noifpbles asked hou judiciary cheap member jerrybo nadler this on thursday. to impose appropriate remedies f you determine that the president is unlawfulfully block witnesses. what do you mean? one party to litigation unlawfly blocks the testimony testimony, has this president has been doing. we may have to take steps. >> what kind of punishments are you consider something at the moment.sidering athing we'll see what happens. robert: and one of the most prom innocentce witness on the democrats' radar is john

the for fr national security peterrote "this -- there may be no one in government that democrats wants to questiones more." and he called rudyliani "a hand defend who's going to blow everybody up." bolden's possible testimony looms but he and others are o er they'll have to appear. >> john golden's lawyer said he'll not appear voluntarily, even if he gets a subpoena, another individual who was represented the same lawyer will say judge, you make the decision. ifde bolton goes that direction that could slow things down. and the point you made about speed, does the house go to court, fight out the litigation or move on? ey would like john bolt on the

testify because he was firing by or quit under protest from the white house. he would seem to be a powerful witness. >> what i was total today is that you can do both. they can move to the public ase of testimony, have big public hearings and they canin co to do depositions. obviously they have to cut it off at some point if they hand erything over to the house judiciarymi cee. but even ifhey move to public hearings in the middle of november, they cod still do a deposition or a hearing with john bolton if they have the opportunity. they've take to hi anytime they have the chance. >> so many people who have been depo so far have brought up john bol b as far as him im telling n.f.c. officialso report concerns to the n.f.c.'s attorney, general counsel. calling rudy giuliani a handan grenade, realizi he was up to

something. abruptly ending a july 10th meeting with the ukraine yenls because gordo sondland had raised the issue of linking aid with the president. he played a key role in basically waving red flags at a time -- a number of people -- he was alws viewed a hawk. some felt he was too abrup with his foreign policy views, withams was courting a war iran but all of a sudden he's in a way thi unlikely hero in this contt because of the fact he was starting to raise red flagse : regardless of whether mr. bolton telephones or not.ot i was talking to a member of the eedom caucus and they said alghdaddy was recently killed. and they still feel likey' tsa in a comfortable pitioit with the economic record. but in bue senate, one

republican privately said to me it's like a horror movie because they don't know what's around the corner. how do you see the repubcans as this moves public? >> house republicanselieve that therethre a bunea of, a dozen or so that democrats control that donald tru t won and those people cannotav h impeachment hung arounddheir head and maybe their right or wrong. but that's kevinev mccarths very strong bleacle in the senate you have a more tricky situatiua in which no one is willing to defend this presidt because they don't believe he's been completely truthful about what he's done andome ported himselfse adande behindhe scenes. also, familiar a bunch of o sea up tough for republicans to keep. colorado, joanie aanst of io. and if you add impeachmente to ist, we don't know how that plays politically. >> today the president sai again that his call with the ukrainian pnsident was perfect aneverybody says so. on the same week that two of his

top avepleds telledehind closed doors that they were so troubled by the phone call they went to white house lawyers. robert: you mentioned the "washington post" poll. sit breakinghrgh, the testimony? at least at this moment? >> until we see public testimony, i don't know that wyoming see bighifts in the numbers, if then -- but that's why senate republicans are so wary about defending the present on the merits, or on the sub stance as he said thisd week hike them to do. because the t don't know what te substance is. >> someone told me today in these kinds of things, the facts neveret better, they get worse. the numbers are 49-47. although identical to the popular vote in 2016. the country hasn't moved in three years. nobody has changed their mind. >> and i hate to say this because it sounds like a talking

point but house republicans do have ave point. these are improvement hearings far being cubsed -- >> but b they're going to be public. >> they are but they've been n conducte for a month but if you bring that message out to theemerican people, w saw that inin 2010--- 20 a 2010 when house republicans to -- went to every memberf the house -- >> the president platt ant lip asked the presidef another country -- >> and they face a trial. >> yes, so he asked another president to get involved and conduct investigation related to the u.s. electioct that is already uneasy quid pro quo or no quid pro quo. is a very uneasy position for republicans to be in. everyonee should read that transcript and formulate their own opinions and the republicans have and that's where they are

now. robert: one last tough question for peter baker on this special "washington weon." the washinationals, world champions. peter: thereatest week in the history. my goodness. what a week. the teamas the first world series championship in 19 -- 95 years. it only thingng that's brought the city together. and it's like a movie. they weye down and out from the beginning, 19-31, to comean bk win against the dominating team of our year. it's an amazing thing. >> the two stories are going to merge because the nats are goite to the wouse on monday. so we shall see s peter: ectly. they're going to go visit the president, whoooas when he visited game five. robert: i would see jake at r.k. by himself in 2006 and 2007 ke: i felt some nights i wasso the only p watching these broadcts of a lowly team.

it'szi been a t see. robe: great. i'll be at the parade tomorrow. i'mi' robert costa. thanks for joining us and good d night. ♪

announcer: corporace funding fo" "washington wes proved by -- additional funding is proved by -koo and patricia yuen, through the yuen foundation, bdging cultural fferences is iur communities. the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your station from viewers like you. thank you. >> you'r

welcome to sunny somerset.

we're putting the final touches to our summer party with all the classic ingredients you'd ed for such a thing -- balloons, bunting, bandstands, bickering relatives, th ane of the finest amateur bakers in the land. last time, it was french wk. [kissing] and the semi-finalists tackled three gallic classics. canapé. you are bakery rock'n'roll, frances. -charlotte royale... -mmm...slop. -...and opera ca. -it's beyond multi-tasking, isn't it? -it's -- yeah, no, it a new level. -oh, god. -it was beca who fell at the final hurdle. -i don't think i need to say . -now, it's the fin -spoon, spoon, spoon. -oh, god! -what? what, wha but who will be crowned champion? the winner is... ♪