tv Washington Week PBS January 10, 2020 7:30pm-8:01pm PST
7:30 pm
robert: back from the brink of war but the debate rages in congress. >> it was very clear. qassemsome manny was plotting a large attack against american interests. >> he was looking very seriously at our embassy and not jus the embassy in baghdad >> the trump administration insists the killing of the general was a response to eminent threats. bu on capitol hill, members of bo partiesur areus about the lack of information and how lawmakers were bypassed. >> it is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch to come in tell us that we can't debate. it's un-american. it's unconstitutional. and it's wrong. >> bottom line is, we did not hear that there was anyne e attack being planned against the
7:31 pm
united states, period. robert:ndhe president senate trial draws nears speaker pelosi prepares to send over the articles of impeachment, next. announcer: this is "washington week." funding is provided by -- >> before we talk about your investments,s wha new? >> well, audrey's expecting. >> twins. re>> grands. >> we want to put money aside for them, so change in plans. >> all right. let's see what we can adjust. >> we'll be closer to the twins. >> change in plans. >> ok. >> mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. l >> me guess. change in plans? >> at fidelity, a change in plans is always change in plans. >> additional funding through the yuen foundation committed to
7:32 pm
bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corporation for public broadcasting and by t contributionyour pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again from washington, robert: good evening. . congress is simmering tonight with mountingot anger in parties. questions continued to be raised with n urgency about the president's decision to kill iran's tt general l week. while the administration firmly stance by its claim thatle ani was involved onn a eminent threats, dails are arce. >> i support the president. butin eg in another forever war in the middle east will be the wrong decision. >> they he justified t killing of an iranian general is something that congress gave them permission to do in 2002. that's absurd.
7:33 pm
that's an insult. >> it was utterly unconvincing. >> one of the questions i raised ju right after this i came out, does this have anythinto that donald trump was right on theve of an impeachment hearing? >> most republicans have rein supportive of the prident especially the party talks. >> i tnk a third grader could have believed that there was ai t threat coming from the man that weilled because the man we killed was walking threat. he information that was shared was both compelling and decisive. i think iteaves little doubt in my mind. robert: the rumblings, nationals, continue. and the house passed a war powers resolution to limit the president's ability to approve further military engagement witr that now heads to the senate. and joining me tonight to discuss these developments
7:34 pm
what's next are four of the nation's best reporters.ey as parker, white house reporter for "the washington post" who was in hie house briefing room today as the sanctions against iran. nced new jake sherman senior writer for politico and co-author of w "playboo has been tracking speaker pelosi and members of the hou. carl hulse, chief washington correspondent for the "new york times" who in b thet sense seems to live near the senate chamber, pen andad in hand. and nancy yousef, national court for the "wall street journal" who has spent years reporting from the middle east. let's start with this congressional autcry. wh moment, jake and carl. senator paul, not ee, and interventionist speaking out against president trump. you were at the capitol. what have you heard about whatn went on that room an why lawmakers on both sides are so
7:35 pm
>> i think there's a convention carl would agree for administrations to share information i some sense with congress either before an attack or shortly after and not have to get dragged kicking and screaming to share information. this administration doesn't beliefed based on evidence that information, can't be trusted with the information. they are a co-equal branch of governments. if you don't build coalitions, people are not going to be for what you're doing. it's s it's notifficult to get people on your side.bu this administration has chosen not to do it. >> it's quite a moment for mike lee who is not quite outspoken guy. yousnow when he saying, there was a real problem. they were condescended to. that there was an arrogance on the part of thed a minutes -- administration. theyidn't have the iormation to back up their decision. interesting. this was not the first time an administration has one into a
7:36 pm
briefing like this and say oh, don't question us, youe only goin to help t enemy. but i think it was sort of refreshing that some of the people were able to ce out and say with credibility this isn't sufficient. robert: the white house and news earlier today and talked x about the threat. he said there was a threat on does the white house feel any pressure to provide more the public? on the congress and >> you have an administration and by that i mean a president who exacerbates the frustration. he sends hisop national security officials to congress to brief senators in a secure. ro that is precisely the sort of place where you are supposed to share those classified details. they don't share them. the lawmakers are frustrated. and you have a bhoth not just shares it on fox news but i was in his rly in tow ledo and shared it with 10,000 mauga supporters in toledo. and so you can see where the
7:37 pm
frustration comes when you have these administration officials say we couldn't possibly say and se presidentring it in every conceivable veen you? robert: so whatan the pentagon share? we keep hearing the word "eminent" but beyond that pase "an eminet" thr why did the >> it wasn't just an eminent threat. there were sort of three things that tere trying to achieve. to deal with the eminent threat. also deterrence against iran, remember that the u.s. has seen an increased attacks by iran since mayon u.s. forces there, increased rocketac a the downing of a drone in the persian golf. and itot had been met by u.s. response up to this point. the third wants to take someone who they considerery dangerous off the battlefield. this is someone who has been influential in the battle feel for the past 20 years. one official described i this
7:38 pm
was a target of opportunity. part of the confusion we saw this week is the focus on an ement threat didn't get at the trifecta of reasons that led to the strike. wh the administration came out and say things like this was a form of deterrence, it was hard to reconcile that whenou couldn't answehat the eminent threat was. they were trying to use three justifications but hadn't explained it well. the strike was the message. and they didn't necessarily consider the messaging that you had to give to the american public to the allies to the world populations it outde of the strike itself. >> you have the executive branch, the trump administration making its own moves and we saw the house democrats along with a few democrats pass a war power resolution. any insight as to how that vote unfolded and whether congress will make a move on asserting its own power? >> i'll take that backwards --
7:39 pm
>> you mean the senate won't d i. -- it. >> the congress has seated powen for a time to the administration buthe last two administration and has not been eager to ress back that power. they don't want to own some of the military decisions that the white house or any white house -- >> and there hast been a resolution since world war ii for war. the big problem is, by and large, this is turning into tribalism. if you talk to some republicans off the record, they will sth have huge problems with how the president exercisesower in which headn't done that he done. people will say they need to write a new authorization for the use of military force, but they don't want to pass it. it's too politally difficult. a whole host of problems that are tough to recon snile an election year. >> i'm so glad you brought previous administrations up. we've seen more aresive
7:40 pm
strikes and fewer and fewer people involved in the decision-making process.s and thane of the reasons why this strike in particular evokes so much reaction on capil hill and from the president's opponents and critics. robert: let's turn back to get back into this executive branch discussion. the decision to pull back from the brink of war from iran. extremely grateful and happy. be no americans were harmed in last night's attac by the iranian regime. an y pierce to be stand -- iran appears to be standing for alles vofled and for thing the world. robert: ashley wrote, trump's handling of this is epitomizing his presidency and remaining open to interpretation. he was unyielding in his
7:41 pm
rhetoric against iran building a nuclear weapon while open to talks with its leaders and pushing nato allies in diplomacy. what does it tell us about him moat thint? is it mike pompeo hovering over his shoulder? is he now a hawk? or is he an interventionist? >> the president i whatever peop want him to be. different people can listen to that speak from secretary pompeo to world leaders parsing every d single worldear what they want to hear. i do want to stresshe president's speech it was written from a number of people. if youch wt, many things were striking to he sort of silhouetted in golden and he says while i am president
7:42 pm
iran will never gate nuclear weapon that's the tough talk. that's what he wants to convey. he pauses. and straighte his arms. and says good morning which geto he meat of his speech and fers some silt simultaneously while talking very tough on iran, he said we look forward to fighting isis and i look for peace and psperity. he addresses them directly. the final key thing is what the iranians could take away was there was nothing in that moment that the absolutely had to respond to. he had not escalated it in a way where they felt to save face or for any the would have to respond. >> well, this is the dichotomy he wants toe the tough guy, but he also doesn't want to get -- you know, his promise was t not get into these tpwhars the middle east. he's stuck in this situaaron. and of the -- the twist on this is that folks on the hill,
7:43 pm
you hadra lindseym. there's a lot of people who want him to be more aggressive. they think he'll held back too much. they were happy to see this. you have that whole wing of the party who is happy seeing him more assertive. it's a difficult juggling act for the presidentse and -- t remarks, ihink he seems somewhat, you know, anxious about how this was being interpreted. robert: what about iran's response? what do you make of how iran has respondedo president and what's next for them? >> so it -- it depends on whether the intended when they launched about a dozen ballistis es at u.s. installations whether they intended to kill americansnd cause significant structural damage or not. 've heard the united states say they intended to do so. if you do-egardless, we're at a opponent where that didn' happen and it hasn't escalated.
7:44 pm
they were criticized that they o weren't able respond in a more aggressive way. robert: will they respond aggressively to the new sanctions? >> there are the response from the military openly acknowledging i. and it could be a sfrons their paramilitary forces. those are the response we have to look for. they're under incredible internal pressure because o economic sanctions that have been imposed and in part because this was month after protest asking for reforms in their country. and so if it's saythg tha didn't respond in a way that was in kind for what they saw as -- as the act of killing qassem soleimani we may see military responses through their military or paramilitary forces. >> and the question is what does the president want? what is his larger strategy? we're in a negotiati with ira and got a pretty robust global
7:45 pm
agreement fromra and it seems like their internal plet politicalynics were not going to allow for another political negotiation. but theeal that america got last time while imperfect in my respects did achieve many of the goals that he says heanted to achieve. they were winding down the nuclear program. they had eyes on their nuclear facilities. so what does he want. that's not clear to me still. what does it mean for how the president sees his re-election strategy, message? we shodenator warren earlier. we see the democratic race somewhat scramble by thisntire episode. senar sanders in the latest des moines regter poll. vice president biden underscoring hisnc exper >> some of the candidates have gone to the wag the dog line. the one thing -- robert: saying the president did this on purpose to distract from
7:46 pm
impet. >> i think it may well have had that effect. we came back from the holiday break focused on being the precipice of war. n y -- i don't think he's a masterst o tegic distrtion. >> just a master of distraction. >> not as intentional as peopl like to give him credit for. but what was best interesting anti-intervention.is generally right? that was something he ran on. he does have this fine line where a lot of his supports feel that way as well. a lot of people at hisli r, sons and daughters who are sersing os. in talking to voters last night, they said we don't want to go to war again in the middle east. we don't wa mnt anothersy foreign entanglement. but to a person, we support the president, we think he's being tough. wee' think-- >> sounds like matt gaetz from
7:47 pm
florida. >> it will be interesting how the president finesses thats we move forward. >> part of the reason people are sket cal of this -- becau without the explanation a good explanation, i thought gave the explanation the administration should have given and stuck witht. but with that, people are like why now? why now, everyone is skeptical. >> they don't wanto beee for doing it for deterrence reasons. >> i thinkas the strike the message. and there just didn't seem to be a layout in terms how to explain this to the american public. this was decisive,rt othis was done in baghdad. this wasn't done through a this w designed to send a message. i don't think there was a thinking of it. what youer heard several explanations. at one point they stopped using the word "eminent threat." it's a reminder that when you're doing things based on
7:48 pm
and you can't talk about it, the messaging becomes all the moreta imp, that strike was not the way to speak. it might have spoken to iran but sou needed an explanation behind it i think i the take this week. robert: and as ashley says, all these thiems extent to impeachment. amid the standoff, nan posi d mitch mcconnell over the transfer of the two impchment articles to the upper chamber. >> there willing no haggling wi the hou over senate procedure. we will not seed our authority tos try impeachment. the house democrats turn is over. >> at some point we would hope that we would see from them what the terms of engagement will bee >> on friday, the speaker released a statement that seemed to end the log jam saying she is moving forward and has asked jerry nadler to m appointagers
7:49 pm
and appoint the articles of impeachment. many of this will be unresolved including if thereill be witnesses. with the formerational serity advisor joh bolton now volunteering to testify in the tria circumstances of the toxic 2018 kavanaugh showdown could provide a template for what to expect as senators extend their clash over the ground rules for opening the proceeding. are we going to see john boltont y? >> well, i don't know. jake and i disagree on this a little bit. i dt think tha it's going to be hard for them to not call witnesses. they're entire argument is let's followon the cli precedent. every senate impeachment trial has wadnesses. going to be hard as this goes forward to argue. but are thers num there? it's going to take four senators from the republican se two potentially make that happen. we all know who three of them
7:50 pm
are. it's hard to figure out who that fourth person is. but i still think -- the public is going to watch this and say john bolton wants to testify. why are you not hearing from john bolton? i' leaning towards witnesses now than i was earlier in the week. >> jake, you said you disagree. >> yeah, i do but not vehemently or aggressively. i had trouble finding the fourth person. o and myy thinking that after two weeks of trialnd just a lot of being in the senate and not be,ng at h senators are gog to want to close up shop. it's really tough to be the deciding vote. carl and i were talking about th,deciding s maybe it's 10 people. i just think the president is going to try to block thest ony. it's going to be an ente mess. >> real quick, why di d speaker pelosi move now? was it pressure from senator feinstein when she said it's time to bring these over. >> nancyelosi had no leverage.
7:51 pm
mitch mcconne needed nothing from nancy pelosi, so he wasn't going to give into anythingy na pelosi wanted. she wanted to change the rule to have a say in the senate rules. he sai no, she then want today see the rules. mitch mcconnell said no to that. he had his votes locked you. he had the power -- locked up. and he had the power on a string which wasn't play at all. we wondere what wasp and why she was doing this? it's notlear to me what she achieved beyond what her people say her aids say was a weeks' if that's what you wanted, then you got that at least. impact ure how much that will have. robert: and the managers,hat does the white house want? these are the defense attorney type. what do they want? do they want matt gaetz or
7:52 pm
leader mcconnell? >> let's start more broadly and what the president wants and what the president wants is what he always wants, which he wants fighters who quote/unquote look the part o there on tv or out there in the halls of congress on the floor of the senate defending him in sort of the most fiery feisty way possible. yes, does p wsident trumpt even rdan or a matt gaetz though he's frustrated with him now for his juarez lution bil making the case in the court of public opinion? absolutely if you go back to the mueller probe, he wasn't looking for the best legal expertise and flip through the documents and look for the best strategy. he wanted for someone to make their case on tv. that's one of the reasons why he ended up with ry giuliani. that's what the president wants. it's not what leader mcconnell
7:53 pm
was. it's unclear where that will e up robert: when you're at the pentagon and they see a president aboute to f an impeachment trial, does north korea, iran do they see a weakened president trump or a minor matte >> it's why officials had to answer the question was this a wag-the-dog-scens io? there fear because of these strikes because independent wasn't well understood because t wasn't a wag-the-degree-ment. i thinkecause of that it races the questions about it. you could argue that northkorea is conducting itself the wayis a little bit more brains than perhaps one would have expected because they see a president too distrabblingted by impeach development really challenge them. soinhrsection as i see it people making decisions to
7:54 pm
chal angericans's foreign policy or military strategy because they are bed bething on a president to too distract -- bettinon a president too distracted. robert: jake, you live at house. essentially, yo. i'm curious about the process of transfericg the as from chamber to chamber? how is it going to work? what do you know about the o ming and how this is going play out? >>n tuesday, the house comes back monday. tuesday, the house democrats are going to meet. we expect some time tuesday or wednesday theare vote. now, senate procedures when it comes to impeachment indicate that on 1:0 the day after the they're transmitted in a cedar box in a very kind of strange -- robert: a cedar bt? is tha true? >> there will be a ceremonial
7:55 pm
walking ortr -- ro did that have that for clinton's trial in 199 ? >> ihink they did. i don't really remember. but i think they did. >> there's a l of procedure. but they have vote on the rul. robert: do they need 51. >> they need 51. mitch mcconnell says he has it locked up. theyeed 24 hours to present their case.ur service first the senators to question. and we get going. robert: what ath show. k you for joining us. what a week. make sure to join our ashington we" extra. we will disss the foreign policy on thexal trail. it airs later. i'm robert costa. good night. ♪
7:56 pm
>> corporate funding forhi "wngton week" is provided by -- ♪ >> additional funding is provided by ku and patricia yuen through the yuen foundation committed to bridging cultural diffences in our communities, yhe corporation for public broadcasting and contributions to your pbs station from viers like you. thank you.
8:00 pm
masters: american history is often told looking from the east, from the atlantic to the pacific, a triumphant march westward from plymouth rk and independence hall, but by 1776, the roots of h liforntory already ran deep. who was here before america's borders reacd the pacific? who laid the foundation for the los angeles to come? let's expre our city's history from a new perspective, not as the end of ica's journey west, but as the center of global exchange for hundreds of years. i'm nathan masters, and this is many people see l.a city of the future, a place without a past, a freeway metropolis that sprang up fully formed in the 20th century, but the roots of southern california historrun deep. people have called this land home for thousands of years, and their stories give us a richer understanding of where we are now and where we're headed in look back and uncover some of these forgotst
146 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
KQED (PBS)Uploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=1607907027)