"k" is for koala. vo: pbs kids animal alphabet! koalas are from australia. and they sleep up to 18 hours a day! the koala! on pbs kids! wild kratts is made possib by announcer: at readingiq, we believe that when you love to read, there's no limit to thedventures you can take. readingiq, offering a world of reading opportunies, is a proud spo or of pbs kids andwild kratts. the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ wild kratts! in the great bahama bank of the caribbean sea. hey, it's us, the kratt brothers.

i'm chris. i'm martin. and we're in search of one of the smartest creatures in the ocean. so smart, they even havealheir very own speanguage of clicks, whistles, and body postures. do you know who we're talking about? dolphins! spotted dolphins! martin: it's a group of wild spotted dolphins. they' bow-riding, having a great time. l let'get a closook! all right. chris: wow, there must be about 30 in this group. hey! they're coming right up to us and swimming with us! they're so curious! these intelligent criotures are as cur about us as we are of them. martin: two young ones, and they really want to play. st like human kids, young dolphins are really playful. (dols clicking) did you hear that? when we go under, listen for those clicks and whistles.

that's thdolphins communicating, talking to er. come on. and clicking)ueaking it's a whole language of clicks and whistles, mixed with different body postures that s entists are stiltryingto unrave. chris: i wish we could understand what they were sayin are they talking tus? martin: trying to tell something? imagine if we had th dpower to talk tophins, to speak "dolphinese." then we could discover so much more about the secret lives of these intelligent sea creatures. what ♪ on adventure with the coolest creatures ♪ ♪ from the oceans to the trees ♪ ♪ the broers kratt are going places you never get to see ♪ cr♪ hanging with theieature friends ♪ ♪ get ready, it's the hour ♪ ♪ we're gonna save some animals today with ♪

♪ creature power ♪ gonna gwild, wild kratts ♪ gonna go wild, wild, wild kratts ♪ ♪ gonna go wild, ld kratts ♪ gonna go wild, wild, wild ♪ cheetah speed and lizard glide ♪ ♪ falcon flight and lion pride ♪ ♪ gonna go wild, wild kratts ♪ gonna go wild, wild, wild kratts ♪ gonna go wild, wild kratts ♪ ♪ gonna go wild, wild, wild kratts ♪ ♪ go wild, wild, wild kratts aviva: parar, jimmy. aqui, aqui es perfecto! huh? sorry, jz. sometimes i think in spanish. it's my second language. okay, are you guys ready for my surprise? are you kiddin especially when it involves presents. does it involve presents? well, sort of. it's an invention i've been working on. it's not done yet, and that's why we're here. but when we finish it, it'll be incredible!

okay, i can't stand it! i like surprises and presents, bubest part is finding out what they are. spill it, aviva. jimmy z: what is it, aviva? what's this mission? okay, get ready to hablar un idioma de los animales! hablar un idi- what? she's speaking spanish again. idioma: language. yes! we're going to speak a creature language! talk to anals! who? how? with this, my first creature language invention! the dolphin decoder. dolphins! yes! i've been waiting forever for a dolphin adventure. you kidding me? here's my list of everything i've always wanted to say to a dolphin but didn't know how. well, this could be our chance. burst, we have to figure out the language. the sond words of dolphinese. who's to teach us those? they are. bottlenose dolphins!

ll cheering) you guys take the hydrophone part. i'll take the receiver to program the sounds. dolphin dive! ha ha! jimmy z: diatching amphipod. good luck, team dolphi make a splash! chris: wow! hello, dolphin pod. it looks like this one has aboua 14 dolphins, young old. (dolphins squeaking and icking) (martin chuckling) a couple 4-yeaolds. i think they're talking about us, chris. yeah, i hope they're saying nice stu. (dolphins squeaking and clicking) click, whistle, whistle, click click. oh, that's not good. it's not? i have no idea! it's all dolphinese to me. okay, well let's try this thing out. listen up dolphin pals, we've got something to say. i'll pick a whistle from the databas

and see if we can nsfigure out what it mea. how will we know? from their reaction. here goes. (clicking) (grunting softly) whoa! (laughing) whoa! whoa...! whoa...! (yelling) so, have you figured it out yet? no! not yet! well, that whistle definitely meant something. yeah, like, "let's take these guys on a crazy ride "till they can't see straight!" whoa! stop! slow down! (yelling) (sighing) (dolphins squeaking and clicng) (sighing) (moaning) or they coulaying something a little simpler,

like, "let's play." they are one of the most playful creatures in the world. (groaning) okay, so we get it, we get it. now we know what that click-whistle means. yeah"lthe dolphin word for et's play" is this onright here. (clicking) martin! uh oh! you said it again! whoa! whoa! the past, so this is a y new thing that the white house did today to make sure people knewe in realthat the president and the white house is thinking. the white house today wase tha talking to lawmakers and that, before this hearing, the president and/or whuse staff members met with 120 lawmakers and 42 senors, nting to make the point they needed to defend the president by saying this was air system, an unfair process and also by saying the president wal a target of partisan attack because democrats wanted to undo01 theelection. the other thing to note is the

president at the white house was responding to ambassador he said that was hearsay and essentially that aide that toldr ambassaylor that the president was talking to gordon sondland was really just an anonymous person and real evidence against him. so that's the president responding in realtime ambassador taylor's response and >> woodruff: and wt comes. to republicans, the members to have the committee were asking questions, but they also were using a counsel who actually is with the house oversight committee, works for ngressman jim jordan, who has been temporarily deployed to thell inence committee. here now is just a sample of the questions that were posed by th counsel, his name isr, caso bill taylor, the acting ambassador to ukraine. >> ambassador taylor, do you know whether hunter biden offers anything other than the fa that his dad's the former vice president? >> i don't. >> okay, but given hunter biden's role on burisma's board

of directors, at some point you testified in your deposition y th expressed some concern to the vice president's office, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and what did they do aboutt that concern tu expressed? >> i have no idea. >> i have no idea. i reported my concern to thece office of the resident. >> ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you? with president-- you didn't listen on president trump's call and president zelensky's call? >> i did not. >> you never talked with chief of staff mulvaney? >> you never met with the president? >> that's correct. >> you had three meetings againl withsky, and it didn't come up. >> and two of those they had never heard about, as far as i know. >> and president zelensky never made an announcement. >> this is-- this can't believe, and you're their star witness. you're their first witness. you're the guy, you're the guy, based on this-- based on, i mean, ve seen, i've seen church prayer chains that are >> the ukrainian pnt stoodthis. in front of the world press and repeatedly, consistently, over anrover again, interview af interview, said he had no knowledge of aid being withheld. meaning no quid pro quo, no aiessure, no demands, no threats, no blac nothing

corrupt. and unlike the first 45 minutes that we heard om the democrats day, that's not second-hand information, that's not hearsay. overheard ambassaddland say. that was his direct testimony. ambassador taylor, do you haveid any ce to assert that president zelensky was lying to the world press when he said those things? yes or no? >> mr. ratcliffe-- >> my time is short. yes or no? >> i have no reason to doubt what the president said in his-- >> okay. very good. n >> woodruff: sk schifrin, as we're hearing, the republicans were very much pushing their own narrative today with these witnesses.ht >> rso we saw three major points, and let's just go from the beginning, that first one that we saw from the republican counsel first about corruption.e ping a case, they believe, about ukraine being very corrupt and that a particular company, burisma, being particularlyup co on burisma's word was hunter biden, we've talked about this,s

right, t of vice president biden, at the time that vice president was leading ukraine poly for the administration, the obama administrati, and the question is why would hurnt be on the board when vie president biden was working on that policy for the obama administration and, as we heard kent say, my concern i there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. that's one major pont the republicans made today. the second one that we heard is hearsay, right. so we heard this from jim jordan, that neither witness called by the democrats today talked to the president not only about ukraine but ever, nor did they really regularly talk to rudy giuliani, whom they accuse of leang this irregular campaign to block military assistance and block overall assistance to ukraine before ukraine had to do these investigations. >> woodruff: or shadow >> shadow campaign, right, they called it. the white house reiterated that. you saw stephan grisham, the

press secretary, talk to them, a tweet today talking about them, that they had never spoken to president trump, this country deserves better, these are essentially two bureaucrats with they didn't know any specifics firsthand. quickly, the third one that we heard from republican rat cluff is that ukrnian goernment never said publicly that it felt pressure, nor did it actually conduct these investigations that giuliani and sondland the president were asking for before the aid was lifted and before president zelensky of ukraine me president trump. the argument is if ukraine didn't actually do the ps the democrats are accusing ump of demanding, how could they ever been a quid pro quo. >> woodruff: and, lisa, i want to come back to you. we do have a -- one of the democratic members, eric swalwell of california,

questioning ambassador taylor about these issues, about holding up security systems. let's listen. >> you described in your text message exchanges that engaging in a scheme like thiis "crazy." can we also agree tht it's just wrones >> why is it wrong?lagpñ n, our holding up of security systems that would go to a country that is fighting aggression froi russia for no good policy reason, nood substantive reason, no good national security reason, wrong. >> woodruff: so, lisa, what does this tell us? >> that was an eye-popping sound byte. when i talk to republicans likee markows who's a leading ally of the president, he said, overall, i think democrats didn't really ghain ground, except i said what about that sound byte where you had an acting ambassador to ukraine

saying that it seemshe policy of the president was wrong? and with that, markd meadows ha to admit this is ermewhere whe the democrats seemed to land a pun. it's a good contrast to what there is a fight over the details. democrats and republicans are making detailed argumen about what we know the president did or didn't do. but, on the other hand, jud some like representative swalwell realize that the bigger battle is for the american public and what theink happened here, and swalwell there was making a lar, r argumetting away from themi tia, the legalese, the prosecutor talk and saying was this wrong? being able to get an acting ambassador to say that about ahe presiden's currently serving is incredibly rare and, in the room, everyone felt so it was an important moment that sort of went beyond the mechanics of what is an impeachableo fenceaind sort of wad at this president and his policies, are they good or bad, and democrats and

republicans both felt that moment. >> woodruff: nick schifrin, this reminds us that there are policies at issue here at are being, frankly, at the very heart of this. >> and a core one of what wa u.s. policy to ukraine and how ping was the u.s. hel ukraine.over the last five yeare u.s. has provided ukraine aboutt $1.6 billion, across both the obama and trump administration, and s iterything from ambulances to dasistance, night vision, communications, lots of training to try and make sure that the ukrainian military looks toward the west rather than the east. is a javelin.re loo this is the key difference between the obama administrruion and the administration. the trump administration sent an offensive weapon to ukraine, those are javelins, anti-tank weapons seen at a parade in 2018.the reason we're showing yu photos of a javelin at a parade is because they're not deployed to the front line the trump administration is getting credit and talks about

how they are deploying javelins to ukraine. here's the thing, javelins have a specific security requirement. the department of dense says that, when they are deployed, they have to have extra security, basically. that serity is not on the front lines. ukraine is not able to provide that security on the front lines. so the gave lips we're talking about -- the javelins we're talking about designed to destroy tanks are not actually ukrainians are fighting on the one side with russian-backeds separati the others. what the u.s. ambassadors and diplomats whom we've heard frome say then if they're not deployed, they provide deterrents to russia, and that's why so many people were upset when president trump stopped the deployment of $390 million of assistance that includes javelinst >> woodruff:to come back to all three of you to button this up, but, nick, that is so interesting to tell us the thing that is being held up is not even being used for the

purpose for which it's designed. >> not only that, but the trumpn administraolicy was helping ukraine more than the obama administration poli, as seen by nose -- >> woodruff: which sometimes gets lost in all this. >> right, as seen by the offensive weapons, andbl reans made the point. the problem that democrats point out, the president himself, rudy giuliani himself stopped the trump administration poly of providing military aid to ukraine when there was a temporary freeze on that military aid, apparently asking that freeze to be lifted only when uke did those investigations, and the end, though, judy, as we talked about, the aid was nd, the was a president trump and a president zelensky meeting and ukraine never did conduct these those investigations.>> woodrufn this up, what do democrats think they need to do on friday, atnt this p? >> right, well, i think it's interesting. that's srt of separate thought line for democrats, one being the aid money an what was tied to it, the other being whether an acting and by most

accoun credible, well known and well liked ambassador to ukraine was ousted for political and financial reasons including those of thsie prent's personal attorney. democrats see that as an important thought line b republicans they they haven't connected it directly to the president. we'll he more from members soon. >> woodruff: finally, yamiche, talking to your sources at the ite house, what do they think they need to do between now and friday and as this continues? s well, the white house is taking this verriously, so they are going to continue to iron out their strategy, we'll see more rapid response in the white house with them trying top d in realtime with regards to things coming out in this impeachment inquiry. the other thing, thsident is looking into the intelligencs communities,pector general michael atkinson, there were reports he wanted to dismiss him. today at the white house, e president said he wanted to dig into his actions. this is the perwhsogave the whistleblower comment to at him.s so the president is mad

he says thfrsday, his st call to president zelensky, he congratulated the president ton call. the july 25th caere thed call, president said i need you to do me a favor, though, i need you to look into the bidens, that call is the more important call, with you but we need to continue to look at what the white house >> woodruff: setting up a contrast there. a very full day yamiche alcindor at the white house, lisa desjardins at the capitol, nick schifrin here in the studio following it all, thank you all three. >> thank you. s. >> woodruff: we turn now to influential members of the u.s. house for their assessment of today's hearing. first up, representative doug collins of georgia. he is the highest ranking republican on the house judiciary committee.

congressman, welcome back to the newshour. >> great to be back with you, judy. >> woodruff: so i assume you were able to hear a lot if not all of what was said today.e what did you cay with? keaway for today is nothing new. the hearing was just a regurgitation of what we heard was leaked outo frm adam schiff in the closed door hearings. we've seen the transcripts from both witnesses. what we've heard is a public airing of what we read, making f tv kinovie out of a transcript already there. the big takeay at the end of the dais there's nothing new here. we go back to the basics, if there's noing new in the trnlings what do we know? we know the call itself, no quid pro quo. we know coming ouom today, no linkage. mr. ambassadoraylor said no linkage he had. he had conversations with zelensky in which it never came up. weound they did ge the aid. we look forward to this, no pressure. attend of the day, i heard hemments about how amazing day was.

attend of the day, there was nothing new here. >> woodruff: as you know, the democrats have a very different view of this. they would point to the testimony and y there was linkage in those conversations, not just the phone call, but otheise. you also had ambassador taylor saying today that he had an aide who, afiter he tes in closed session, an aide who told him about overhearing president trump refensto investigat so we know there are two different sides or interpretations, but, this point, your committee, the judiciary committee will receive whatever comies out of s committee, the intelligence committee, and you and other republicans, todntay, a letter to the leadership of the house today. what are you asking for? >> well, we woasd like to at see if they're going to actually do this, they can brin it b his hiss historical norms.

you bring up the only thing today they brought up that wawa nean overheard hearsay phone call. a lot of hearsayt ifs democrats, i would hang on to everything i could, too. but from my perspective, when it comes back to judiciary, this is the historical home of impeachment whether you agree or disagree, and there arele a lotf pr with what we've seen in the past few weeks, if you're going to do this andn sed it to us to overturn an election, it's time for a judiciary committee who's been sidelined due to ineptness during the russia investigation can come back an do this properly so all sides including the president are ented. that's something that's missing in this project, we'll see it going forward. when we get it back and mr. schiff sends a report to us, adam schiff should be the first witness to sit there andtake questions about this because he is the one that is driving this whole process.uf >> woo do you believe it is acceptable for the president of the united states to ask a foreign lder to investigate a

political rival?>> object to the premise of the question. i think what we have here is a prident who actually asked about corruption which h is required to do under the law. where that corruption m lead is up to whoever committed the corruption. we have had outside sources, no the president, mainstream news source who reported the problem with the hunter bidend an joe biden situation. in fact even the gentleman today mr. kent talked about that and iised concerns about hunter biden's proximi burisma. at this point in time what he was asking for was toat investigate went on in ukraine in the 2016 election. this coven missed, judy. in the 2016 election, the ukrainians were big in theco russiausion or russian mueller investigation. the ukrainians were involved fromfo mr. ma to the brack ledgers to orthothings. this is what he was actually asking for so we can spin it how we want to, but there was a legitimate reason to ask about inorruption he ukraine.

>> woodruff: well, you are correct that there are questions raised that are still out there abouthe role that hunter biden played in that energy company in ukraine,, but the same time, two other points, number one is, as i understand it, it is not proven, there hasn'been anything proven about ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election, d we know inat phone call between president trump and the president of ukrpraine, ident trump never used the word "corruption," at least that was what was testified today. you, finally -- to come back to >> can i jump in there, judy? >> woodruff: sure. you said ukraine, and i want to be specific. country, i said ukrainians. that was a mix coming through ukraine through the ukrainians who were there. i don't want it mixed up saying the ukraine state is a part of. th there were ukrainians in the mix. that's a point i want to make to clarify. >> woodruff: what i meant to say, the word "corruption," acco ing to theanscript,

didn't come up in that conversation. very quickly, how long do yo think in process is going to take? what's your expectation is this. >> i think right now what they look like from adam schiff and what they sad is there would be one more hearing on friday, then set up for eight me witnesses coming in next week to do public hearings. i think from their own time onframe they're rushed this because they're trying to get it out because they don't want to be trying to interfere in a 2020 presidential election, so you will see it come to us in december is my understanding. this is where it'sll chaging, if they try to rubber stamp it through judiciary committee, you can't come rubber stmp articles of impeachment designed to overturn an election. >> comingman doug collins, ranking reublican on the se juciary committee, thank you. >> judy, always good to be with you. w druff: and for a democrat's take, we turn to

representative jackie f california. she's a member of the intelligenceommittee, and she questioned the witnesses today. she joins us now from capitolhi . congresswoman speier, welcome back to the "newshour". we heard congressman collins say nothing new today. how did you hear it? >> we have a very different view of what took place. first of all, we have evidence that the president of the united stateshijacked our foreign policy agenda for his personal benefit in his 2020 campaign. there is more and more evidence growing that he is committing bribery where he has asked someone to do something for him in his official capacity, he's withheld military aid during that time me, in exchange for these investigations. what's important to out is that tom brosa who wathe homeland security adviser to the prident back in 2017 debunked all of the mythsd an the story that was being told on very

fringe organizations that there had been ukrinainianolved in advisors told him it had noown that particularly tive.pursuing >> woodruff: well, we did hear congressn collins make a distinction between ukrainianff governmentials and the government itself being involved in 2016. he made the distinction of saying it was ukrainian, ukrainian individuals. so does that change the argument, in your view >> no, because, as it turns out, in 2016, there was a reference to crowdstrike, which is, frankly, a company in e united states that is a former ukinian or russian owner. so putting all of that aside, what george kent said today wast t was unfortunate that there was an american whohad

engaged with ukraians who were corrupt and pursuing a private agenda to try and trash the bassador to ukaine who was taken out of that position because of the likes of lev parnas and others who wanted her out and who had contributed cabstantial sums of money to president trump'aign and who actually had white house meetings, something that yesident zelen has certainly wanted to try and show that the united states is aligned with them against russia, as russia continues their very aggressive and advsarial relationship in trying to take over land in ukraine. >> woodruff: congresswoman, what about the reublicans' repeated declaration that this is so much of what the democrats arhanging their view on is hearsay. it is not -- and we did hear th two witnesses say today that

neither one of them had spoken directly with president trump, their information is based on what other people have told them or what other people have told them they heard. >> woodruff: i have two hesponses. first of all, we the actual script, the sumryf president trump's call with mr. zelensky where he sets out at, i want a favor, though, and then asks for an investigation. as yu pointedt, he wasn't asking for an eaustivereview of corruption in ukraine, he was asking for a specific focus of an investigation on biden and on hunter biden. so that's number one. number t o, if they w have persons who had direct knowledge would love to have mick mulvaney come and testify, we would love to have john bolton come and testify, but,ag n, it's the white house, it's the president who has said that they cannot come and testify before the committee. the two persons that we had today from the state department

had a total of 77 years of service to this country, and they came because of a subpoena issued to each of them. th defied the white hse because ey recognize their obligation to the constitution and to the american people. >> woodruff: congresswoman, can democrats make thicas se without those officials who either are from the white house or the state department who are part of theadministration and, frankly, without republican -- republicans being on board, the argument you're tryingke? >> well, first of all, there were republicans who joined in wanting to have an impeachment tquiry, josh lamache, and he proceeded to leae republican and become an independent. there is such a lock step requirement to just follow whatever the president says that many of my coluele regrettably, have lost sight of their responsibility to be a check and baleance on

executive branch. so, moving forward, wewill have ambassador sondland come and testify next week. he has some direcconversations with the president. the president who says he hardl knows t has him on speed dial, it appears, is going to be an interesting conversation that we have with him next week. >> woodruff: and aside from ambassador sondland, where do you think most of the attention next wk is going to fall? >> well, i think fiona hill is gog to be an oustanding witness for us to listen to, and i think h testimony will be very important. we will hear from a number of witnesses that the republicans have sought, in particular -- tim morrison, mr. hale, and kurt volcker. so it's gointo be a very comprehensive look with republican witnesses a witnesses that the democrats are going to bring, and the american people will have the opportunity to make their own minds up. yiu know, for months, now, the

republicans are this is being done in the dark, this is being done behind closed doors, now it's in the open and now they've got to change their narrative, and, so, that's whath 're doing. >> woodruff: congresswoman jackie speier, the intelligence committee, thank you very much. >> woodruff: thank you, judy. >> woodruff: and now, two people that joined me here all day. mieke eoyang, formertaffer for democrats on the house intelligence committee, and emichael allen, former ho intelligence committee staff director under republican leadership. also joining us in studio is c. boyden gray, former u.s. ambassador to the european union under president george w. bushd ite house counsel for president h.w. bush. and, from raleigh, north

carolina, walter dellinger, former acting solicitor general and head of the office of legal counsel under president clintono hello to ayou. so much to consider. we've had hours and hours of testimony today. boyden gray, i'm going to start the white house an we said,d in you served as ambassador to the european union. what did you primarily take away from all this testimony? what i primarily took away from it is the two witnesses who appeared are very solid citizens, the best, you know, in the foreign service, although, s taylor's not a foreign service officer. i took away that they're they're solid people, but they didn't break throug the big problems the democrats have which is the aid went through and no request was made for an investigatio so what is the transaion that is under investigation?

what is the so-called high crime? >> woodruff: walter dellinger,a what about thasomeone who's watched the american legal process for as long as you have, did they make the case? did they not make the case? what did you hear? >> well, i still think they made the case, and in response to boyden gray's point that the aid tually went without any investigation, the aid went because they were caught, the whistle was blown, congress was going to investigate, and they hastened to release the aid. but i think, judy, the big picture is, ke in watergate, what we have is a president attempting to use the powers of his office to improperly influence the outcome of the next presidential election. both of the demands made on the

ukrainians, first to, in effect, cast some aspersions against biden who was the leading candidate at the me and the fact he wants to blame ukrainians for interfering in the 2016 election which is a way ofexcusing what vladimir putin did, andhere's no russian hoax. mueller repeats what every agency of government agreed to that there was a systematic and vast sweeping interference in the election in 2016. the president has encouraged that kind of interference andthn ukraine example it's sort of like the watergateak bren, it's a one instance of a larger project which is to undermine the next presidential election, made worse here by the use ofn forewer. >> woodruff: so we're hearing two qute different

interpretations. michael allen, to you, first. you served on the committee, on the intelligence committee for a number of years, as we said, staff director. did you hear, today, something that materially changed theal in this argument? >> so not yet. we have a long way to go, obviously. the thing i was look for most today was were the democrats able to layut a crime? question, why arewe here? the and, so, the crime here in this case would be did the president convince -- were they convinced that the pdesident conditio aid? and then they need to answer the question, does it matter? was u.s. national security hurt? and i think here is where you saw the republicans advance a series of arguments which are it was not withheld, nodelayed, investigation occurred like the president allegedly asked for, and nor were there any ensuing

statements that came out had done anything wrong.esident so we have a long way to go but i don't think the democrats have gotten over the hurdle they ned to establish. >> woodruff: mieke eoyang, same question to you. did what ear today change our understanding of what it is that the democrats say the president did? >> i think a lot of the facts we heard today were already in the public domain.o the bakelines of this inquiry have been out since the president released the cal record earlier. so we've known for a long time that the president was brig pressure to bear against ukraine for these investigations16n the hrekses and biden, and what we heard today was really important context setti what u.s. national security policy is, why anti-corruption efo fors wereportant, and why ukraine was so interested in mainining u.s. aid, and, so why it was such a divergence to see this attempt to push ukraine

in to these other >> woodruff: becayou're saying it was so different from what had been done previously. >> exactly. >> woodruff: i mean, we went raso far, boyden gy, back to you, we heard congresswoman speier say, yoknow, more and more she said there's evidence of bribery, if you look at wh the president did. did you -- did you see -- did that come through to you? >> did not come through to me beuse, i'm repeating, it wesn't to me make any difference exact the aid went through. i mean, i think there are a lot of different reasons. they were running out of time, they had do it because of day.ember 30th was a drop-dead bu no, they went through, there was no -- there was no transaction there, and there wasn't any request for heangs or an investigation, so what happened? a lot of consion, a lot of talk. i hate to say this about any

president, but this particular president is not known for his consistency and he's changed his mind many, many times on many, many issues. the question is what actually happened, and what actually happened was nothing. >> woodruff: mieke eoyang, can we say there's just eno lughack of clarity in all of this that, in the end, the white housen republicans argue -- you know, and, again, the aid flowed in the end. >> right. i think one of the fundamental mistakes the republicans are making is insisng the aid has to have flown, that it had to bo a completetract here. when we're talking about a gornment initial making a demand that's not in an official government act, not a part their official duties but is a personal benefit, the request itself can be a crime, the request itself is prolematic, and, here, people talk a lot about bribery in the constitution impeachment is one of the listed crimes. there was oderstanding

about bribery, it was abouten self-enricand self-benefit then. when we talk about this, people through this is more like a crime of w extortiere pressure is brought to bear on someone who is unwilling to do something they don't want to do. >> woodruff: how do you see this? >> the question is the a high crime or misdemeanor deserving of negating a presidential ection and removing a president? that's the thing we all have to confnt as acountry. that's what the democrats are case over this series of weeks. today is only the first very, very early. but it is a tremenusly high bar and that's the way the founders intended it to be, and so, i th're going to have to wait and see. >> woodruff: boyden gray, this came up in my conversation with jackie speier, the fact that t white house is not willing to allow most of the administration

officials to testify, some em are testifying under subpoena, but the fact that they haven't wanted to cooperate with this investigation, does that affect how we should understand what we're hearing? >> i think it's up to the individual member of the house and senate attend of the day, obviously, but, no, tdo think it makes any difference. i think the key is that nothing happened. >> nothing happened meaning -- there was no transaction, there was no request for hearing, there were no hearings, , ere was no holdup of aid, the aid went throuere was no harm done, no harm, nofol. it was -- sure, was it messy? well, when you go into a separate channel in nfore policy, which every president's done and every president in the future will do, you rutherisk of confusion and mixed signals, and i think that's what happened here, but nothing, the end, actually ever happened.

>> walter dellinger going to come back to you, now, on this point, but, also, again, another point that was raised when i spoke with the two members of congress,nd that is, in that conversation that the president had, president trump h with the president of ukraine, there wasn't a reference t corruption broadly, there was a reference to joe biden, to joe biden's son, and to the 2016 election. how much of a difdoferencs that distinction make? >> it makes a huge difference because what we have here is a president that seems intent on using the powers of his office in order to sabotage the next presidential election, and what you will see, this is a president who has shown no interest in corruption anywhere in the world home or abroad. what he wantedas to use $400 million of military aid as a leverage to get this particular governmentto facilitate his election campaign

by harming what seemed to bhis strongest opponent. he has encouraged the chinese. he has encouraged the russians, and he has given the russians a green light for their massive involvement in the tiext presiden election. that's why i think it was imperc imperative fngress to act. >> woodruff: mieke eoyang, we earlier in the dayi think, typically, in an impeachment onocess, not that there have been that many,y the fourth one, the judiciary committee is involved. it is unusual to have the etelligence committee of house involved. how awkward is it? how does intelligence fit in to this story? >> i think that it is very precedent-break, in part because when you look at the two most recent impeachment to the modern era, you have a standtutory indet council who did the investigations that the house has to do itself now because thers no way you ca get an

independent counsel passed and signed by this president. so you have the intelligence investigation because of tissues that arose because to have the whistleblower and because it's foreign policy and also becauseh chairmanf is one of the investigators in the house and a careful and thoughtful so when the speakers looks at the choices, he made the most sense. >> woodruff: michael all, how does this come down to you? invest our whole committee with impeachment. >> woodruff: a big mistake? a g mistake. the intelligence committees were founded after intelligence abuses in the lae '70s to be an oasis of bipartisanship to oversee the most sensitive activity of ttr ce agency and the f.b.i. and all of a sudden to vest with them the most partisan of exercises that the u.s. house of representatives can go throgh i think ising damage to what should be a place where people get along. >> wooldruff: and ter

dellinger, we did hear congress the ranking republican on the judiciary committee which will handle, if this process goes house judiciary committee, he is saying none of the rules wes normally ve have been followed, namely the refusal evidence, we haven't been able to examine the evidence goingt intos. how much will that matter? >> i think that's a big mistake to assume that we'rlooking for 're particularities of a crime or that wefollowing the federal rusfederal rules of i think what we have is fairness. all sides had a chance to question the witnesses today, and i think those discussions are just avoiding the centralon quesf whether we have a president who is willing to use his leverage oveigfo governments in a way to distort the next presidential election. >> woodruff: itis the first of a number of days in this four of you for being with us. walter dellingeroining us from

north carolina, boyden gray here in washington, michael allen, mieke eoyang, thank you all. >> woodruff: today's was just the first public hearing in thip impreachmecess. please join us on friday starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern next impeachment hearing withthe the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, who was fired by president trump. marie yovanovitch will be at the witness table then. th >> woodruff: iday's other news, the tense alliance between the u.s. and turkey was on just last month, tsident of turkey brushed aside u.s. objections and invaded part of syria. today, he was welcomed at the white house. amna nawaz has our report. ( protesters chanting ) ide, kurdish americans a others protested the visit by

turkish president recep tayyip erdogan. but inside, president trump gave his guest a warm reception, tensions, most recently over syria. >> the president and i have been, we've been very good friends. we've en friends for a long time. >> nawaz: that overlooks seriout disagreebetween the longtime allies. last month, after speaking with erdogan,r. trump announced a withdrawal of u.s. troops from northeastern syria. >> turkey, syria-- let tm take care of it. let them take care of it. we want to bring our troops back home. >> nawaz: that cleared the way for a turkish military offensive against kurdish fighters inri they had helped the u.s. battle isis, but erdogan considers them kurdish separatistdee with turkey. mr. trump warned erdogan peatedly to restrain his operation, even writing him a blunt letter telling him, "don't be a fool." erdogan ignored him, but the two nations did reach an agreement, announcedy vice presidegrtoeairsyriawat sae

turkey, a na this aernoon, erdogan stood by his policy at a white house news conference. >> ( translated ): we're just fighting terrorists, period. they don't have a nationality. if you don't fight back, then tomorrow you will have to pay a very hefty price. >> nawaz: the two leaders alsoou spoke abturkey sendingpt caed islamic state fighters back to their home countries-- further straining ties with nato partners. >> i have spoken to europe about it, i think they should help us fight isis. >> it's important foreig d fighters should be accep countries of origin. >> nawaz: also on the agenda today, turkey purchasing russian missile defense systs, and the s. canceling sales of f-35 stealth fighter jets to ankara as a result. mr. trump said today, "i expect we will work it out." the presdent also called in

republican senators to meet rth erdogan, and voice th concerns. south carolina republican lindsey graham criticized the president's withdrawal decision, and has denounced erdogan. >> the purpose of this meeting is to have an american civics lesson for our friends in turkey, and there is a pony in there somewhere, if we can find it. >> nawaz: back at the capitol, the top republican in ss, expressed his worry. senate majority leader mitch haconnell: >> i my colleagues' uneasiness at seeing president erdogan honored down at the white house. >> nawaz: a bipartisan bill is now before the senate, imposing sanctions on turkey over its assault on syria. the use approved a similar measure last month. hour, i'mbs ne amna nawaz. >> woodruff: a second day of israelairstrikes blasted gaza today, killing 26 people. palestinians said most wer islamic jihad fighters, backed by iran, but at ast three were minors. the air assault left buildings in ruins, in the heaviest fighting in months.

s anwhile, the militants fired hundreds of rockto israel. they caused no casualties, but drew a warning from the israelis >> these terrorists are not only ilt to kill israelis. in fact, they'reng their own people in gaza. at the cost of every rocket they shoot, they could have built another gazan classroom. >> woodruff: the fighting started on tuesday, when an israeli strike killed a top islamic jihad commander. the militant group said today would accept a truce, if israel stops targeted killings and eases the blockade of gaza.te meanwhile, ps in lebanon resumed full force today. it came after the country's president warned of more delays in forming a new government, and after a soldier killed a man during overnight protests. today, demonstrators set tires oaon fire to block major r and highways. they vowed to stay until a new government takes over and attacks corruption and economic distress.

in hong kong, protesters put up disrupted transit and faced off with police for a third straight day. demonstrators using umbrellas as shields clogged the in business district, where police in riot gear made arrests.ig at, police patrolled in armored cars. officials in afghanistan have postponed releasing results from september's presidential election for a second time. the election commission cited unspecified technicaes. the tally had been due tomorrow, but incumbent prident ashraf ghani and challenger abdullah abdullah are locked in a disputover a planned recount. most of venice, italy was underwater today, inundated by the worst flooding sce 1966. water levels in the famed city of canals reached moresix feet above average sea level, basilica suffered serious damage. business owners accused the citi

-conceived efforts to build off-shore barriers. >> ( translated ): resources have been invested for completely useless sres. these structures have made things worse, because with the enlargement and the cleaning of the port entrances, it brings more water to the lagoon. >> woodruff: the city's mayor blamed intense winds and sing sea levels caused b climate change. he said the damage could runto undreds of millions of dollars. wildfires in eastern australia have forced hundreds of people to evacuate-- some for the second time in a week. the danger increased today in queensland state, fueled by drought conditions. and, fires kept burning in e new south wales, where man 200 homes have been destroyed. since frid back in this country, southern califoia edison agreed to pay $360 million to local governments for wildfire damages. two major fires were sparked by the utility's equipment in the

last two years. they led to 23 deaths and destroyed more 1,600 homes and other buildings. the settlement does not cover private lawsuits. the democratic presidential field for 2020 is back up to 18 candidates. it was widely reported today that deval patrick will enter the race. he was the first black governor of massachusetts, serving two rms. patrick had initially said that he would not run for prealdent. onstreet today, the dow jones industrial average gained 92 points to reach a new record close of 27,783.th the nasdaq lose points, and the s&p 500 added two, also closing at a new rec and, a japanese spacecraft is on its way back to earth with preciousargo-- the first soil samples from an asteroid. the unmanned "hayabusa-2" left its orbit around the space rock today. it will need a full year to

travelack across 180 million miles to earth. the samples could shed new light on the origins of the solar system. >> woodruff: and a reminder to check out oulatest podcast, "broken justice," about the flaws of the public defender system in the united states.pi the latestde in the series is out today, and focuses on the landmark supreme court case that lawyer, even if they couldn't a afford one, and how that played out for one man in missouri.st you can by visiting the "broken justice" link that's on our website. you can alsoind episodes on ple podcasts, stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. all that and more is on our

website, www.pbs.org/newshour. and that is the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff.an join us onlineagain here tomorrow evening. for all of us at thean pbs newshour, you, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs >> consumer cellulersvided by: no-contract wireless plans that are designed to help you do more of the thingyou enjoy. whether you're a talker, a texter, browser, photographer, or a bit of everything, ou u.s.-based customer service team is here to find a plan that fits you. to learn more, go to consumercellular.tv >> bnsf railway. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals.

>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. contributions to your p station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by g media acceup at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> you're watching pbs.

llo, everyone, and welco to "amanpour and company." here's what's comingp. >> suchgr a friendlp. such a nice group. >> with the first public impeachment testimony soon to get under way, we separate the substance from the noise with the former acting cia director jogh mclaughlin and talk thr the political strategy former democratic congressman joe crowley. then, as gaza and israel trade fire again, i speak to a former top commais with el's defense force plus -- >> there was a conflict. between fe and unfree world. >> checkmate from the legendary russian chess