>> this is the first in a sies of public hearings the committee will be holding as part of the house impeachment inquiry. judy: open hearings commence. the u.s. house of representatives launches the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into predent donald trump. we examine this historic day, what was said, what it means, and what comes next in the investigation of the president.l that and more on tonight's "pbs newshour."♪ aj>> funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by

bnsf railway. consumer cellular. >> sporting social trepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems. >> the lemelson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention in the world's developing countries. supported by the john d. and foundation.. macarthur committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information atfo md gorg. and with the g support of these institutions. this program was mad possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and contributions to your pbs station from viewers

like you. thank you. judy: it has been historic day at the u.s. capitol, the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry into president trump. it is the ultimate test of the united states constitution andof the balancower between the executive and the congress. it is only the fourth n history that it's happened. at the heart of the investigation, did president trump viole his oath of office and jeopardize u.s. national security by pressuring ukraine to take steps that would benefit him politically, nely to undertake investigations into his political rival? today, we heard from two key witnesses, william taylor, the acting u.s. ambassador to ukraine, and george kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state. we begin by hearing some of then opening stat from the leading lawmakers on the committee. >> f this wice congress to consider as it did with president nixon weather trump's

obstruion of the constitutional duties of congressonstitute additional grounds for impeachment. if the president can receive -- refuse all oversight in the context of an impeachment proceeding, the balance of power between our two branches of government will be irrevocably altered. that is not what the founders intended. y what we will witness to a televised theatrical performance staged by the democrats. it will take years, if not decades, -- to restoreth faith n e into -- institutions. pethisacle is doing great damage to our country. it is nothing more than an impeachment process and -- in search of a crime. judy: here to consider the hilights and what they all mean, lisa desjardins is at the committee hearing room. yamiche alcindor is at the white house, and nick schifrin joinsat me herhe newshour table.

hello to all of you. you have been watching all this closely. lisa, everybody is asking after weeks and weeks of hearing about what w aeged, what new did we hear today in the public heings if the lisa:he wd something significant and new. i have to give context, william taylor add to his testimony based on new information he said hem ot fe of his staffers. this has to do with one of the central questions, did president trump himself order that any aid to ukraine, anything given to ukraine must be tied to the investigations he wanted? we know the ambassador gordon ukrainians.hat to the did president trump convey that to sondland? in that context i want to play the soundbite from mr. taylor, ambassador taylor's opening statements and the question from chairman schiff

the democrat afterwards. >> ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his etings in kyiv. the member of my staff could hear president tru on the phone, asking ambassador sondland about "the investigations." ambassador sondland told president trump that the ukrainians were ready to move forward. following the call with president trump, the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president ump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland respondedde that pre trump cares more about the investigations of biden, which giuliani wasor pressing his response was trump cares -- >> his response was trump cares more about biden? is that right? >> and burisma. yes, sir. lisa: this they say proves the president was involved in pushing ukraine. republicans say it doesn't prove anything, that this was a staff tmember, taylor, who overheard something in another phone conversation.

i think it is something we will hear more about, the idea of how siinvolved was the pnt and what does the evidence show? judy: no doubt about it. we know president trump was asked about all of this today. let's hear what he had to say. >> i'm too busy to watch it. 's a witch hunt, it's a hoax, i'm too busy to watch it. so, m sure i'll get a report there's nothing, i have not been briefed.er s nothing there. i see they're using lawyers that are television lawyers, theyok ome guys off television. you know. i'm not surprised to see it, because schiff can't do his own questions. judy: yamiche is at the white house. that is what -- part of what the president had to say. how are he and e people around m responding to this? yamiche: the president maintains he didn't watch a minute of the public impeachment inquiry hearing. his personal twitter, which he uses to communicate with the american public, that account

was retreating and talking about republicans defending him durinh hearing. he was clear that he wanted republicans to be talkg about the fact that he did nothing wrong. that is what republicans diddu ng the hearing. the president and the white house had a rapid responseea and that team is a group of people that were tweeting and talking about the hearing in real-time. that is not what the white house has done in the past sohi is a new thing the white house did today to make sure people knew in real time what the president and white house was thinking. the white house today was talking to lawmakers, and before the hearing, the president and white house staffers akt with 120 las in -- and 42 setors wanting to make the point that they should defend the president by saying this was and by saying t president was a target of a partisan attack because democrats wanted to undo the 2016 election. the other thing to note, the president was responding to ambassador taylor'n.new

informat he said that was hearsay and the aid that told ambassador taylor that the president was talking to gordon sondland was an anonymous person. that is the president respoing real-time to ambassador taylor's response and new information. judy: when it comes to republicans, members of the committee asked questions but they also used a counsel with whthe house oversight midi works for jim jordan - committee, who works for jim jordan. here is a sample of the counsel, tbill taylor, theby the acting ambassador to ukraine. >> ambassador taylor, do you know whether hunter biden offers anytng other than the fact that his dad's the former vice president? >> i don't. >> ok, but given hunter biden's role on burisma's board of directors, at some point you testified in your deposition that you expressed some concern to the vice esent's office. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and what did they do about that concern that you expressed?

>> i have no idea. i reported my concern to the office of the vice president. >> ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you? with president, you didn't lienen on prestrump's call and president zelensky's call? >> i did not. >> you never never talked with chief of staff mulvaney? >> i ner did. >> you never met with the president? >> that's correct. >> you had three meetings again with zelensky, 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 is what i can't believe, and you're their star witness. you're theifirst witness. you're the guy, you're the guy, based on this, based on, i mean, i've seen, i've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this. >> the ukrainian president stood in front of the world press and repeatedly, consistentlyover d over again, interview after interview, said he had no knowledge of a being withheld, meaning no quid pro quo, no pressure, no demands, no threats, no blackmail, nothing.e unhe first 45 minutes that we heard from the democrats today, that's not secondhand information, that's not hearsay. that's not what someone

overheard ambassador sondland sa that was his direct testimony. ambassador taylor, do you have any evidence to assert that ngpresident zelensky was lo the world press, when he said those things? yes or no? >> mr. ratcliffe -- ti >> m is short. yes or no? >> i have no reason to doubt what the president said in his -- >> ok. very good. judy: nick schifrin, as we are hearing, the republicans were pushing their own narrative today with the witnesses. nick:e w three major points. the first one we saw from the republican counsel about corruption. asdeveloping a they believe, about ukraine being very corrupt particularly corrupt.any being on their board was hunter bid. we talked about this, the son of vice president biden.

at the v time president biden was leading ukraine policy hyr the obama administration and the question is,ould hunter be on the board when vice president biden was wking on that policy for the obama raadminion? as we heard current -- can't say , there could be a perception of conflict of interest. that is a point republicans made. the secondne is hearsay. we heard from jim jordan but neither witness called by the democrats today talked to the prneident not only about ukr but ever. nor did they really regularly talk to rudy giuliani, who they accuse of leading this irregular campaign to block military assistance and block overall assistance to ukraine before ukraine had to do these investigations. judy: a shackw campaign. right. the white house reiterated that. the press secretary talked to them, talked about them, that

they had never spoken to president trump, the country deserves better, these are two bureaucrats with arioreign policy. they didn't know specifics firsthand. the third one we hear from republicans, ratcliffe, is that the ukrainian government never said publicly that it felt pressure, nor did it actuall conduct these investigations that giuliani and some lunch and and the president asked for.d the argument is that if ukraine democrats are accusingse republicans that president trump demanded, how could they ever have been deck of judy: lisa, we have one of the democratic members, ericqu swalwell, tioning ambassador pay - taylor about the issues, holding up security systems. let'ans listen.

>>ou describe text message exchanges that engaging in a scheme like this is, quote l"crazy," can weagree that it's just wrong? >> yes. >> why is it wrong? >> again, our holding up of security systems that would go to a country that is fighing aggression from russiao good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good foreign national security reason, is wrong. judy: lisa, what does this tell us? lisa: that was in eye-popping soundbite. when i talked to republicans like mark meadows, he said overall, i think it was a snooze fe. democrats didn't gain any ground except i said, what about soundbite where you had an acting ambassador to ukraine saying it seems the policy ois the presidenrong?

mark meadows had to admit this wasomewhere democrats seemed to land a punch. it is impornt because it is a contrast with what nick pointed out. there is a fight over the detail here. democrats and republicans are making detailed arguments abt what we kn about what the president did or didn't do. on the other hand, it gordon sondland and swallow realized the bigger battle is for the american public. swallow well -- swalwell was saying, was this wrong? being able to get an acting ambassador to say that about a president h serving is very rare and everyone felt it. it went beyond the mechanics o what is an impeachable offense and was aimed at this president and his t policies, ay good or bad? democrats and republicans both mefelt that . judy: thiseminds us that there

are policies at issue here. that are being frankly at the very heart of this. nick: and a core of u.s. policy of ukraine. how much washe.s. helping ukraine? over the last five years the u.s. provided ukraine 1.6 billion dollars across the obama and trump administration's. thiss everything from ambulances to police uniforms to radar, night vision, training to make sure the ukrainian military looks towards the west rather than the east. what we are looking at here is te key difference between obama administration and the trump administration. the trump administration sent an offensive weapon to ukraine, those are javelins, antitank weapons seen at a parade in 2018. they are not employed to the front lines. the trump administration is getting credit and talks about w ey are deploying javelins

to ukraine. javelins have a specific security requirement terry of the department of defense says that when they are deployed, they have to have exit -- extra security. that is not on the front lines. ukraine can't provide that security on the front lines so the javelins, designed to destroy tanks basically come are not actually being used on the front lines, where ukrainian soldiers are fightingde on one with russian backed separatists on the other. the u.s. ambassador's and diplomats who we heard from say even if they are not deployed, they provide returns to russia deterrence thy -- russia and that is why everybody was upset when trump stopped the deployment judy: to all three of you, nick, that is so interesting to tell us the thing that was being held up is not even being used for the purpose for which it is designed. nick: the trump administration policy was helping ukraine more

than the obama administration policy, as seen by -- judy:s that sometits lost. nick:pu right. icans think that point. democrats pointed out rudy giuliani and theresident stopped the administration policy of providing military aid to ukraine when there was a temporary freeze on the military freeze to be lifted only when ukraine did those investigations. heas we spoke about,id was sent. thereas a meeting and ukraine never conducted the investigatns. judy: to button this up, what did democrats that democrats have to do on friday? lisa: one idea is that aid money, what it is tied to. the other idea is whether an acting at by most accounts credible, well known, well-liked

ambassador was ousted for political and potentially financial reasons including thos of the president's personal attorney. democrats see that an important plot line. republicans say toen 't connected it directly to the president so we will your more from members very soon. judy: talking to your sources at the white house, what do they think they need to do between now and friday as this continues? yamiche: the white house is taking this seriously so they will continue to iron out their strategy. we will see rapidesponse with the white house responding in real-time to things coming out in regards to the impeachment inquy. the president is now looking into the intelligence community inspector general michael atkinson. there are reports he wanted to dismiss him. today the president said he wanted to dig into his actions. this is a person that gave the whistleblower complaint to congress and the president is mad p him. thesident will be releasing maybe o thursday his first call with the ukrainian president

from april there are reports he essentially congratulated the president on that call. he says that it's -- that isst e important call. democrats say the julye call where esident set i need you to do me a favor and look into the bidens, that is more importanok we need to at what the white house will put out this week. judy: a very full day. yamiche alcindor, nick schifrin, lisa desjardins. thank you. we turn now to influential memberof the u.s. house for their assessment of today's hearing. firsup, representative doug collins of georgia. he's the highest ranking republicann the house judiciary committee. congressman, welcome. rep. collins: great to be back. hear a lot, if notf whatable to

was said today. what did you come away with? rep. collins: the big take away nothing new. this, the hearing was just a heard in the closed-door we saw the transcripts on both these witnesses. what we heard today was simply a public airing of what we have already read. it is a tv movie made out of a transcript. the takeaway was, there is nothing new. we go back to the basics and if there is nothing new in the testimony, what do we know? we know the call, there is no quid pro quo. there was no linka, ambassador taylor kept saying there was no linkage. he had conversatio with zielinski -- zelensky where it never came up. i want to ask, i heard all these comments about how amazing the day was. but there was nothing new. judy: the democrats have a

different view of this. testimony and say there was linkage in those conversations, not just the phone call but otherwise. you also had ambassador taylor saying today that he had an aide who, after he testified in closed session, and age who told me him -- told him about trump referring to investigations. there are two different sides or interpretations but at this point, the judiciary committee will receive whatever comes out of this comttee, the intelligence committee, and you and other republicans today sent a letter to the leadership of the house. what are you asking for? rep. collins: we would like to they are goiif to do this, they need to bring it back to historical norms. that is what we are missing. there is no substance. it is funny you bring up the only thing they brought

that was new was a overheard hearsay phone call. if there was nothing more in the testimony, it was a lot of hearsay. democrats should hang onto everything they cod. judiciary, this is thethe historical home of impeachment, whether you agr or disagree. there are lots of problems with what we have seen over the past few weeks. if youdo this properly you will send it to us and look to aovertuelection, it is time the judiciary committee, sidelinede because of ineptitude of the russian investigation, can come back and do this properly so all sides are represented. that is missing in this project. when we get it back, and mr. schiff should bthe first witness to sit there and take questions about this, becaushe is the one that is driving this will process. judy: do you believe it is excepted will for the president of the united statig to ask a fo leader to investigate a political rival? rep. collins: i would reject the

premise of the question. what we have is a president who asked aboutchorruption, we is required to do under the law. where the corruption may lead is up to who committed it. we had outside sources, n the president, mainstream news sources who reported problems with the hunter biden situation. even mr. kent talked about that. he raised concerns about hunter biden's proximity. what he was asking for was to investigate what went on through e ukraine in the 2016 election. this is often missed. the 2016 election, the ukrainians were big in what we know as the russia hoax. the ukrainians were involved in that in many ways fromr. manafort to otherwe thing have seen. this is where he was asking. there is a legitimate reason to ask about corruptionraine. judy: you are correct that there are questions raised that are

still out there about the role t hunter biden played in that energy company in ukraine, but at the same time, two other points, number one is, as i understand it is not proven. thereasn't been anything proven about ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election. we know in the phone call between present trump and the president of ukraine, trump never used the word corr ttion. at leat was testified today. rep. collins: can i jump in? you said ukraine and i want to be specific. i didn't say ukraine is a country, i said ukrainians. it was coming through ukrainians . i don't want it to be mixed up and talk about the ukrainian state. that is what i want to clarify. judy: what i meant to say, the wordin corruption accoto the transcript didn't come up in the conversation. there he quickly, how long do

you think this pr iessgoing to take? what is your expectation? rep. collins: right now, what adam schiff said, there will be one more hearingwe friday, tha have set up eight more witnesses coming in next week to do public hearings. i think from their own timeframe they are trying to rush this because they are try get out because they don't want to apngar like they are interfe in the election so you will see it in december. this is where it gets challenging. it -- if they are going to try to rubberstamp it, it will not be easy. you can't rublev -- rubberstamp articles of impeachment. judy: thank you, representative collins. rep. collins: always good to be wi you. judy: and for a democrat's take, we turn to representative jackie speier of california. she's a member of the intelligencete command she questioned the witnesses today. she joins us now from capitol hill. congresswoman, welcome back.

we heard congressman collins say nothing new today. i how did you he rep. speier: we have a very different view of wt took place. first of all, we have evidence that the president of the united states hijked our foreign his personal for benefit in his 2020 campaign. there is more and more evidence growing that he is committing e asked someone do something for him in his official capacity. he has withheld military aid during that timeframe in exchange for these investigations. what is important to point out is, the homeland security advisor to the president back17n debunked all the myths and the story that was being told on

very fringe organizations that there had been ukrainians involved ithe 2016 election. his own advisers told him it had no merit, yet he is still pursuing that particular narrative. judy: we did hear congressmanak collinsa distinction between ukrainian officials and, government officials or the government being involved in 2016. he made the distinction of saying it was ukrainians, ukrainian individuals. does that change the argument in your view? rep. speier: no. tas itns out, in 2016 there was a reference to crowd strike which is a company in the united states that is a former ukrainian or russi owner. aputting thde, what george kent said today was that it was unfortunate that there was an american who had engaged with wukrainians we corrupt and

pursuing private agenda to try and trash the ambassador to ukraine, who was taken out of thatosition because of the likes of fks who wanted her out and who had contributed substantial sums of money to president trump's gn and to actually had white house meetings, something the president of ukraine has wanted to try to show the united states russia as russia continues their very aggressive and adversarial relationship in trying to take over land in ukraine. judy: what about the republicans ' repeated declaration that this is so much of what the democrats on hanging their view hearsay? it is not, and we heard the witnesses say neither one of em had spoken directly with president trump.

their information is basedeon what othere told them or what other people told them they heard. rep. speier: first of all, we have the actual script, the summary of president trump's call with mr. zelensky where he asks for an investigation.then if he wasn't asking for an exhaustive review of corruption in ukraine, he was asking for one focus of the investiga on biden and hunter biden. that is number one. number two, if they want to have persons who had direct knowledge, we would love to havi mulvaney testify. we would love to have john bolton testify. but it is the white house, the president, who has said they can'tomment testify before the committee. the two w persohave from the state department today have a total of 77 years of service to

this country, and they came because of a subpoena issued to each of them. they defied the whitese h because they recognize their obligation to the constitution and to the american people. judy: can democrats make this case without those officials who either from the white house or the state department, who are part of the administration and frankly, without republicans being on board? rep. speier: first of all, there wanting to have an impeachment inquiry. one ofee them prd to leave the republican party and become an independent. there is such a lockstep requirement to follpr whatever thident says that many of myue colle have lost sight of the responsibility to be a check d balance on the executive branch. moving forwardwe will have

ambassador sandland -- sondlund teste y next week. esident says he hardly knows him but has him on speed dial. that will be an interesting conversation we have with him next week. judy: aside from the ambassador, where do you think most of the attention ne week will fall? rep. speier: i think fiona hill will be an outstanding witness for us to listen to. ini her testimony will be very important. we will hear from a number of witnesses that the republicans had sought, in particular tim morrison, mr. hale, kurt volker. reit will be a very consive look with republican witnesses and witnesses the democrats are going to bring. and the american people will have the opportunity to make their own minds up. for months now, the republicans have said this is done in the

dark, behind cloind doors. it i the open and they have to change their narrative, so that is what theare doing. judy: thank you very much, congresswoman. and now, two people who joined e here for our live cover the hearings all day. they are mieke eoyg, former top staffer for democrats on the house intelligence committee, and michaeallen, former house intelligence committee staff director under republicanad ship. also with us in thedi s c. boyden gray, former u.s. ambassador to the european union under president george w. bush, and white house counsel forw. president ush. and from reigh, north carolina, walter dellinger, former acting u.s. solicitor geral and head of the offi of legal counsel under president

clinton. hello to all of you. so much to consider. we had hours and hours of testimony. wi start with you, you served as ambassador to the eu. what did you primarily take away from this? boyden: the two witnesses who appeared are solid citizens, the best at four and serviceable i guess -- service although i guess taylor is, i took awayat hey are solid people. but they didn't break through the big problems we d which is , the aid went through and no request was made for investigation. what is the transaction that is under investigation? what is the so-called high crime? judy: walter, what about that?

as someone who has watched american, got to get you in the right camera, as someone who has watched the american legal process as long as you havth did they mak case did they not make the kc ecowas did you. go -- did they not make the case?what did you hear? walter: to his point that the aide didn't go, they'd went because they were caught, the whistle was blown, congress was goingst to inate. the big picture here is, like in attempting to use wers ofident his office to improperly influence the outcome of the next presidential election. both made demands on the ukrainians, first to cast

summons -- aspersions t on leading candidate against the president at the time, and the ukrainians for interfering inhe the 2016 election, which is a way of excading what ir putin did. there is no russian hoax, mueller repeats what every agency of government agreed to, that there was a sysmatic and vast interferenceel in the tion in 2016. the president encouraged that kind of interference and the ukraine example, it is like the watergate break-in. it is one instance where, of a larger project that undermined e next election. made worse by the use of a foreign power. judy: we are hearing two different interpretations. michael, you served on a

committee, the intelligence committee for a number of yea. staff director. did you hear today something that materiallyhanged the scales in this argument? michael: na yet. we havong way to go. today was, the democratsfor most able to lay out a crime? e to answer estion, why are we here? the crime in this case would be, where they convinced the president conditioned aid? and then they need tot answer, doestter? was national security hurt? this is where you some republicans advance a series of arguments which are basically, a was delayed, it was not withheld. no investigation occurred like the president allegedly asked for. nor were there any ensuing statements that came out in sin

you waiting that vice presint biden had done anything wrong. we have a long way to go, but i don't think the democrats have quite yet gotten over the hurdles they need to establish. judy:yo same question t it whateae today change our understanding of what it is the democrats say the president did? mieke: a lot of the facts we heard were in the public domain. utthe basicnes of this inquiry s been out since the president released the call record earlier. we have known for a long time th the president was bringing pressure to bear against ukraine or his investigation of the 2016 elections, and what we heard today was importantonxt, setting what national security policy is. whypt anticorn efforts were important and why ukraine was interested in maintaining usaid, why it was such a diversions to see this attemptuk to pusine into these other investigations. different from what had been

done. we went so far, we heard congresswoman spieier say there is evidence of bribery. did that come through to you? boyden: did not come through to me. to me it doesn't make any went through.tly why they'd i think a lot of different reasons. they were running otime. tey had to do it because 30th was a dropdead day. but he went through -- they went through, there was notransacti'y request for hearings or an investigation, so what happened? a lot of confusion, a lot of talk. i hate to say this about any president, but this president is

not known for his consistency and he changedis mind many times on many issues. the question is, what actually happened? what happened was nothin judy: can we say there is a lack of clarity in all of this that in the end, the white house republicans can argue, and again, the aid flowed in the end. eke: one mistake republicans are making is insisting that the aide had to be completed. tawhen w about a government of -- official making a demand that is not in the national interest, not part of their official duties, there is a personal benefit, the request itself can be a crime. the request itself is problematic. people talk about bribery in the constitution, that is one in the list of crimead the result bnderstanding of bribery. it was about self-enrichment.

lots of people think this is more like extortion or pressure being brought to bear by -- on someone unwilling to do something they don't want to do. michael: the question is, is it a high crime or misdemeanor deserving of negating a presidential election and moving a president? that is the thing we have to confront as a country. that is wt theemocrats are trying to do by laying out their case over this series of wee. today is only the first day. i don't think they we able to hit the mark but it is early. it is a tremendously high bar and that is way the founders intended it to be. we will have to wait and see. judy: this came up in my conversation with jackie speier. the fact that the white house is not willing tollow most administration offico testify, some are testifying

under subpoena but the fact that they haven't waed to a lawful rate with the investigation, does that affect how we should understand what we are hearing? boyden: it is up to the individual member of the aouse and sena the end of the day, but i don't think it makes any difference. i think the key is that nothing happened. judy: meaning -- boyden: there was no transaion, there was no request for a hearing, there were no hearings, there was no upho of aid, aid went through, no foul.s nharm done, no harm, was it messy? when you go into a separate channel in foreign policy, which everybody, every president has done and every president in the future will do,k you run the r of mixed signals and confusion them i think that is what happened here. but nothing in the end ever actually happened. judy: walter, on this point, and

another point that was raised when i spoke with the two members of congress, in the conversation the president had with the president of ukraine, there wasn't a reference to corruption broadly. there was a reference to joe biden, joe biden's son, and the how much of a difference does that distinction make? walter: it makes a huge difference. what we have here is a preside that seems intent on using the powers of his office to sabotage the next presidential election. what you will see, this is a president who has shown no interest in corruption anywhere in the world, at home or abroad. he wanted to use $400 millidn in militarys a leverage to get this particular gernment to facilitate his election campaign by harming his seeming

strongest opponent. he encouraged the chinese and the russians and gave the russians a greenight for their massive involvement in the next election. that is why i think it was imperati judy:e pointed this out earlier in the day, but typically in an impeachment process, if the judiciary committee involved, it is unusual to have the intelligence committee of the house involved. how awkward is it? it is precedent breaking. how does intelligence fit into this story? miee: when yolook at the two most important impeachment in the mern era, you have an independent counsel who did investigations the house haswo do itself ecause there is no way they could get an independent counsel passed bd signedthe president. you have the intelligence committee conducting the

investigation in part because intelligence commihrough the whistleblower, in part because it is foreign policynd in part because chairman schiff is one of the best investigators in the house and he is a thoughtful prosecutor. when the speaker looks at who the choices are, that made sense. michael: this is a very big this --istake to have invested the whole mmittee with impeachment. judy: a big mistake? michael: the intelligence committees we founded after intelligence abuses of the 1970's to be an away sis of bipartisanship, to oversee the most sensitive activities of the central intelligence agency mbf dei -- and the fbi. ho put them through a partisan exercise that the of representatives goes through is doing damage to what shoulde e a place whople get along. judy: walter, we heard doug collins, the ranking republican

on the judicwhry committee, h will handle if this process goes to the house could -- judiciary committee, he said none of the rules have been followed. namely was referring to the rules of evidence, we haven't been ablevto examine the ence going into this. how much will that matter? walter: t assume that.istake to particular it is a crime or that we are following the federal rules. what we have is i think fairness. all sides have a chance to questionhe witnesses today and i think those discussions are just avoiding the central whestion oher we have a president who is willing to use his leverage over foreign governments to distort the next presidential election. judy: it is the first of a number of days in this process. i want to thank all for review for being with us. -- four of you for being with us.

thank you all. oipleaseus on friday starting at 9:00 a.m. easternve for pecial coverage of the next impeachment hearing withrm the u.s. ambasssador to ukraine, who was fired byp. president tr marie yovanovitch will be at the witness table then. ♪ frstephanie: good evenin newshour west. i'm stephanie sy with the latest headlines. the tense alliance between the u.s. and turkey was on display he washington. just last month,resident of turkey brushed aside u.s. objections and invaded part of syria. today, he was welcomed at the white house. amna: with impeachment hearings dominating the capital, a

maseparate dlayed out at the white house. outside,urdish americans and others protested the visit by turkish psident erdogan. inside, president trump gave his guest a warm reception despite deep tensions most recently over siria. >> the pnt and i have been very good friends, friends for long time. amna: that overlooks disagreements between the longtime allies. last month, mr. trump announced a withdrawal of u.s. troops from the northeastern syria. >> turkey, syria, let them take care of it. let them take care of it. we want to bring our troops back home. amna: that cleared the way for a turkish military offensive against kurdish fighters in syria. they help the u.s. battle isis butki t officials consider them terrorists. trump warned erdogan to restrain his operation.

erdogan ignored him but the nations reached an agreement. >> the u.s. and turkey have agreed to a cease-fire in turkey. amna: turkey turned to russia and now tkish-rushing patrols are policing the syrian border. erdogan stood by his policy at a press conference. >> we are fighting terrorists. they don't have a nationality. tomorrow you will have to pay a hefty price. amna: the two leaders spoke about rkey sending cap j -- cap devices fighters captive isis fighters bac to home countries. >> foreign fighters should be accepted by untries of origin. amna: turkey, purchasing russian missile defense systems and the stealth jets as result. f-35

trump said, i expect we will work it out. the president ao called the in publican senators to meet with erdogan and voice for -- their concerns. lindsey graham denounced erdogan . >> the purpose of the meeting is to have a civics lesson for our there is a pony in there somewhere ifame can find it. : the top republican in congre expressed his worry. >> i share my colleagues' uneasiness in seeing erdogan hono amna: a bipartisan bill imposing sanctions on turkey i in the house. they approved a similar measure last month. stephanie: a u.s. appeals court can order presidenp'st congress accounting firm to release his financial records, but that may not be the final word. an earlier ruling, which stand

affirmed congress's authority to subpoena the duments. the presdient's lawyer, jay sekulow, says he plans to ask the supreme court to step in on what is another test of theon separaf powers. he has seven days to do so. israeli airstrikes continued to blast gaza, bringing the death toll in the territory to at least 30. lestinians said most wer islamic jihad fighters, backed by iran, but at least 3 were minors. in a pre-dawn strike thursday morning, a missile killed six members of one family, all of them civilians, according to local officis. the air assault left buildings in ruins, in the heaviestng fighn months. meanwhile, the militants fired hundreds of rockets into israel. they caused no casualties. the fighting started tuesday, when an israeli strike killed a top islamic jihad commander. meanwhile, protests in lebanon resumed full force. they came after the country's president warned of more delays in forming a new government, an after a soldlled a man

during overnight protests, the first fatility in the unrest. tires on fire to b majors set roads and highys. they vowed to stay until a new govement takes over and attacks corruption and economic distress. in bolivia, a political crisis and protests continued, a dayte a senator, jeanine anez, took power. supporters of oued president downtown la paz, cg withugh police. anez called for an end to the violence, and repeated her promise to hold new elections. in hong kong, it's thursday morning, and police are preparing for a fourth straight day of confrontations with protesters. on wednesday, demonstrators, using umbrellas as shields, clogged the main busins gear made arrests.lice in riot at night, police patrolled in armored cars. officials in afghanistan have postponed releasinresults from september's presidential election for a second time. the election commission cited

unspecified technical issues. the tally had been duerow, but incumbent president ashraf ghani and challenger abdullah abdullah are locked in a dispute over a planned recount. most of veniceitaly, was underwater today, inundated by the worst flooding since 1966.r wavels in the famed city of canals reached more than 6 ntet above avera sea level, and historic sai mark's basilica suffered serious damage business owners accused the city of ill-conceived efforts to build offshore barriers. >> resources have been invested for completely useless structures. these structures have made things worse, because with the enlargement and the cleang of the port entrances it brings more water to the lagoon. dsephanie: the city's mayor blamed intense wnd rising sea levels caused by climate change. wildfires in eastern australia have killed at least four people and forced hdreds of people to

evacuate, some for the second time in a week. e danger increased today in queensland state, fueled by drought conditions. and fires kept burning in new south wales, where more than 200 homes have been destroyed since friday. back in this country, southern california edison agreed to pay $360 million to local governments for previous wildfire damage. two major fires were sparked by the utility's equipment in the last 2 years. they led to 23 deas, and destroyed more 1,600 homes and other buildings. the settlement does not cover private lawsuits.mo the atic 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 2 and, a japanese spft is on its way back to earth with precious cargo, the first soil a samples frasteroid. the unmanned hayabusa two left

its orbit around the space rock today. it will need a full year to travel back across 180 million miles to earth the samples could shed new light on the origins of the solar system. ♪ >> this is the pbs newshour from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. judy: and a reminder to check out our new podcast, "broken justice," about the aws of the public defender system in the united states. the last episode in the series is out today, and focuses on the landmark supreme court case that earned americans the right to a lawyer, even if they couldn't afford one, and how that played out for n in missouri. u can listen by visiting the "broken justice" link that's on our website. you can also find epises on ple podcasts, stitcher or

wherever you get your podcasts. all that and more is on our web site, pbs.org/newshour. 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 see you soon. un >> major fng has been provided by -- >> consumer cellular allows you to do things you enjoy. ouba u.s. d customer service team is here to find a plan that fits you. go to consumer cellular.tv. >> bnsfaiay. and with the ongoing support of these indivutuals and instns.

♪ >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to youbs station from viewers like you. thank you. wsthis is pbs nehour west romm weta studios in washington and our bureau at the walter cronkitechool of journalism at arizona state university. ♪

lidia: buon giorno. i'm lidia bastianich. and teaching you about italian food has always been my passion. i want to taste it! assaggiare! it's ath about cooking to... hello? ...as i re-create childhood memories... good to the last drop. ...restaurant classics, and new family favorites. isn't that everybody's favorite part? whatever you're ba.ng, lick the spo tu i a tavola a mangia! ♪ announcer: funding provided by... the culinary heritage of authentic italian foods by offering over 100 specialty italian products for the american kitchen. cento. trust your family with our family. rich in tradition yet contemporary.