robert: back from t brink o war but the debate rages in congress. >> it was very clear. qassemsome mannyas plotting a large attack against americanin rests. >> he was looking very serious at our embassy and not just the embassy in baghdad >> the trump administration insists the killing of the general was a response to eminent threats. but on capitol hill, members of bo parties are furus about the lack of information and how >> it is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch to come in and tell us that we can't debate. it's un-american. it'sut unconstional. and it's wrong. >> bottom line is, we did not hear that there was any eminent tack being planned against the

united states, period. robert: and the president senate trial draws near aspe ser pelosi prepares to send over the articles of impeachment, next. announcer: this is "washington week." funding is provid by -- >> before we talk about your investments, what's new? >> well, audrey's expecting. >> twins. >> 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 twithe tns. >> chang plans. >> ok. >> mom, are you painting again? you cou sell these. >> let me guess. change in plans? >> atit fid a change in plans is always a change in plans. >> additional funding through the yuen foundation committed to bridging cultural differences in

our communities. theorporation for public broadcasting and by contbutions to your pbs station from viewers like you. ank you.on again from washington, moderator robert costa.oo robert: evening. congress is simmering tonight with mounting anger in both parties. quesons continued to raised with new urgency about the president's decision t kill iran's tom general last week. while thedministration firmly soleimani was involved on an eminent threats, details are scarce. >> i support the president. butor engaging in another fever war in the middle east will be the wrong decision. >> they he justified the killing of anranian general is something that ngress gave them permission to do in 2002. that's absurd.

that's an insult. >> it was utterly unconvincing. >>stne of the qns i raised just right after this i came ou doeshis have anything to do that donald trump was right on theve of an impeachment hearing? >> most republicans have remained supportive the prident especially the party talks. >> i tnk a third grader could eminent threat coming from the man that weilled because the man we killed was a walking mareat. >> the infon that was shared was both compelling ands de. i tnk it leaves little doubt in my mind. robert: the rumblings, nationals, continue. and the house passed a war powers resolution to limit t president's ability to approve hrther military engagement with iran that nowds to the senate. and joining me tonight to discuss these development

what's next are four of the nation's best reporters. ashley parker, white house reporter f "the washington post" who was in the white house briefing room today as the s secretary ofte announced new sanctions against iran. jake sherman senior writer for politico and co-author of blaybook" who hasn tracking speaker pelosi and members of the house. carl hulse, chief washington correspondent for the "new york times" who in she bestse seems to live near the senate chamber, pen and pad in hand. d nancy yousef, national court for the "ll street journal" who has spent years reporting from the middle east. let's start with this congressional outcry. what aent, jake and carl. you have senator lee,nd senator paul, not interventionist speaking out against president trump. you were at theapol. what have you heard about what went on in that room an whyon lawmakeroth sides are so

unhappy? >> i think there's a convention carl would agree for administrations to share information inome sense with congress either before an attack or shortly after and not have to ge dragged kicking and screaming to share information. this adminisation doesn beliefed based on evidence that congress deserves the 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 beat fo ou're doing. it's s it's not difficult to get people on your side. buthis administration has chosen not to do it. >> it's quite a moment for mik lee who is not quite outspoken guy. you know when he was saying, there was a real problem. they were condescended to. that there was an arrogance on the part of thed a minutes administration. they didn't have the iormation interesting.heir this was not the first time an administration has gone into ai

ng like this and say oh, don't question us, youe only going to help tne. but i think it was sort of refreshing that some of the people were able to come out and say with crebility this isn't sufficient. president trump, he went on fox news earlier today and talked about the threat. he said there was a threat on four embassies. does thete wouse feel any pressure to provide more information on the congress andp thelic? >> you have an administration and by that i mea a president who exacerbates the frustration. he sends his top national security officials to congress to brief senators in a secure room. that is precisely the sort of plac where you are supposed to share those classified details. they don't share them. the lawmakers are frustrated. and you have a bhoot just shares it on fox news but i was in his rally itow ledo and shared it with 10,000 maugapp ters in toledo. and so you can see where the

frustration comes when you have these administration officials say wesi couldn't py say and the president sharing it in every conceivable veen you? robert: so what can the pentagon share?ee we hearing the word "eminent" but beyond that phrase "an eminent threat" why did the u.s. attack seimani?as >> itt just an eminent threat. there were sort of three things that they were trying to lachieve. to dith the eminent threat. also deterrence against iran, remeer that the u.s.as seen an increased attacks by iran sinc may on u.s. forces there, increased rocket attack, the downing of a drone in the persian golf. and it hadn not b met by u.s. response up to this point. the third wants to take someone who they consider very dangerous off the btlefield. this is someone who has been influential in the battle feel for the past years. one official described it this was a target of opporfnity.

parthe confusi we saw this week is the focus on an eminent threatidn't g at the trifecta of reasons that led to the strike. when the administration came out and say things like this was a form of deterrence, it was hard to reconcile that whenou couldn't answer what the eminent threat wase they w trying to use three justifications but hadn't explaine the strike was the message. and they didn't necessarily consider the messaging that you had to give to the american public to the alls t the world populations it outsidethf strike itself. >> you have the executive branch, the trumpdmistration 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 --

>> you mean the sate won't do i. -- it. >> the congress has seated power for a long time to thead nistration not only this administration but the last two administration and s 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 hasn'teen a resolution since world war ii for war. >> right. the big problem is, by and large, this is turning into tribalism. if you talk to some republicans off the record, they will say the president exercises power in which headn't done that he do. people will say they need to write a new authorization for the useil ofary force, but they don't want to pass it. it's too politically difficult. a whole host of problems that are tou to recon snile an election year. >> i'm so glad you brought previous administrations up. we've seen more aggresive strikes and fewer and fewer

people iolved in the decision-making process. and that's one of the reasons why this strtie inlar evokes so much reaction on capitol hill and from the president's opponents and critics. >> yeah.'s robert: lurn back to get back into this executive branch ussion. the decision to pull back from the brink of war from iran. >> the amecan people should be extremely grateful and happy. no americans were harmed i last night's attack by the iranian regime. iran y pierce to be stand -- iran appears to be standing down, which is a very good thing for all parties vofled and for the world. robert: ashley wrote, trump's handling of this is epitomizing his presidency and remaining open to interpretation. his unyielding in

rhetoric against iran building a nuclear weapon while open to talks with its leaders and pushing nato aies in diplomacy. what does it tell us about him at this moment? is it mike pompeo hovering over his shoulder? is he now a hawk? or is hen interventionist? >> the president i whatever people want him to be. different people can listen to that speak from secretary pompeo to world leade parsing every single world and hear what they want to hear. i do want to stress the president's speech it was written from a number of people. if you watch it, many things were striking toe. he sort of silhouetted i golden light. and he says while i am presidenr

iran will n gate nuclear weapon that's the tough talk. at's what he wants to convey. he pauses. and straightens his arm into the of his speech and gets offers someilt 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 ians could take away was there was nothing in that moment that they absolutely had to respond to. he had not escalated it in a w where they felt to save face or for any they would have respond. >> well, this is the dichotomy of this president. he wants to be the tough guy, but he also doesn't wt to get -- you know, his promise was t not get into these tpwhars the middle east. he's stuck in this situation. and part of the -- the twist on this is that folks on the hill,

indsey graham. there's a lot of people who want him to be more aggressive.ey hink 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 difficu juggling act for the president. and -- those remarks, ihink h 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 responded to p asident tmpnd what's next for them? so it -- it depends on whether they intende when they missiles at. installations stic whether they intended to kill americans and cause significant stru damage or not. i've heard the united states say theyended to do so. if you do -- regardless, we're at a opponent where that didn't happen and it hasn't escalated.

they were criticized that they weren' r able topond in a more aggressive way. robert: will they respond aggressively to the new sanctions? >> there are the response from penly litary acknowledging i. and it could be a sfrons their pamilitary forces. those are the response we have to look for. they're under incredible internal pressure because of the economic sanctions that have been imposed and in part because this was monthsfter protest asking for reforms in their country. and so if it's saying that they 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 mreilitary onses through their military paramiliry forces. >> and the question is what does the president want? wh h is larger strategy? we're in a negotiation wit and got a pretty robust global

agreement from iran. and it seems like the internal plet political dynamics were not going to allow for another litical negotiation. but the deal that america got last time while imperfect in my respects did achieve many of the goals that he says he wanted to achieve. they were winding down their 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 showed senator warren earlier. we see the democratic race somewhat scramble by this entire episode. senar sanders in the latest des moines register poll. vice president biden underscoring his>> experience. ome of the candidates have gone to the wag the dog line. the one thing -- derobert: saying the pre did this on purpose to distract from

impeachment. >> i think it may wl have had that effect. we came back from the holiday break focused on being on the prisspiss of war on y -- precipice war. trdon't think he's a master of strategic dtion. >> just a master of distraction. >> not as intentional as people like to give him credit for. but what was bt interesting was the preside is generally anti-intervention. right? that was something he ran on. does have this fine line where a lot of hisupports feel that way as well. a lot of people at his rallies, sons and daughters w are serving overseas. in talking to voters last nightn they said we want to go to war again in the middle east. we don't want another messy foreign entanglement. but a person, we support the president, we think he's being tough. we think he's -- >> sounds like matt gaetzfl fro ida.

>> it will be interesting how the president finesses thats we move forward. >> part of the reason people are sket cal of this -- because without the explanation a gd explanation, i thought you gave the explanation the administration should have given and stuck with it. but with that, peopleik are why now? thout having a good reason for why now, everyone is skeptical. >> they don't want toe see for doing it for deterrence reasons. >> i think the strik was the message. and there just didn't seem to be a layout in terms of how to explain this to the american public. wasecisive, overt, this was done in baghdad. th wasn't done through a c.i.a. strike. this was designed to send a message. i d't think there was a thinking of it. what you heard were several explanations. at one point they stopped using the wordt "emin threat." it reappeared today. it's a reminder that when you're doing things based on

intelligence and you can't talk about it, the messaging becom all the more important, that strike was not the way to speakt it mave spoken to iran but you needed an explanationehind it i thihe is take this week. robert: and as ashleyays, all these thiems extent to impeachment. amid the standoff, nancy pelosi d mitch mcconnell overtrhe sfer of the two impeachment articles to the upper chamber. >> there willing n haggling with the house over senate procedure. we will not seed our authority to try this impeachment. the house democrats turn is over. >> at some point we would that we would see from them what the termsf engagement will be. >> then on friday, the speaker released a statement that seemed to end the log jam saying she ii forward and has asked jerry nadler to aoint managers

and appoint the articles of impeachment. many of this will be unresolved including if there will be witnesses. with thena formerat serity advisor john bolton now volunteering to testify in the trial, the circumstances of the toxic 2018 kavanaugh showdown could provide a template for at o expect as senators extend their clash over the ground rules for opening the proceeding. testify?oing to see john bolton ell, i don't know. jake and i disagree on this a little bit. i do think that it's going to be hard for them to not calls. witnes they're entire argument is let's follow the clinton precedent. every senate impeachment trial witnesses. going to be hard as is goes forward to argue. but are there numbers t it's going to take four senators from the republican side two we all know who three of them

are. it's hard to figure out who that fourth person is. but i still think -- the public is going to watchhis and say john bolton wants to testify. why are you not hearing from john bolton? i'm leaning towards witnesses now than i was earlier in the week. jake, you said you disagree. >> yeah, i do but not vehemently orss aggely. i had trouble finding the fourth person. and only thinking that after two weeks of trialnd just a lot of being in the senate and not being at home, senators are gog to wset to c up shop. it's really tough to be the deciding vot carl and i were talking about the decidingbe set, m it's 10 people. i just think the president is testimony.ry to block the 's going to be an ente mess. >> real quick, why did speakerl move now? was it pressure from senator time to bring these over. 's >> nancy pelosi had no leverage.

mitch mcconnell needed nothing from nancyelosi, so he wasn't going to give into anything nancy pelosi wanted. she wanted to change the rule to have a say in the senate rules. he said no, she then want today see the rules. mitch mcconll said no to that. he had his votes locked you. he had the power -- lockede up. andad the power on a string we wondered what was up and why she was doing this? it's notaro me what she achieved beyond what her people r aids say was a weeks' long discussion over witnessesha if that's you wanted, then you got that at least. i'm not sure how much impilt that 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

leader mcconnell? >> l's start more broadly and what the president wants and what the presint wants is what he always wants, which he wants fighters who quote/unquote look the part out there on tv or out there in the hal of congress on the floor of the senate defending him in sort of the most fiery feisty way possible. yes, does president tru want jim jordan or a matt gaetz h ev thous frustrated with him now for his juarez lution bill making the case in the court of public opinion? absolutely if you go back to the mueller probe, heki wasn't l for the best legal expertise and flip through the documents and look for the best strategy. he wanted for someone to make their case onat tv. one of the reasons why he ended up with rudy giuliani. that's what the president wants. it's not what leader monnell

was. it's unclear where that will end up. robert: when you're at theag pe and they see a president about to face an impeachmental t does north korea, iran do they see a weakened president trump or a minor matter? >> it's why officials had to answer the question was this a wag-the-dog-scenario? there was a fear because of because ikes independent wasn't well understood because this wasn't a wag-the-degree-moment. i think because of that it races the questions abo i you could argue that northkorea is conducting itself the way it is little bit more brains than perhaps one would have expected because they see a president too distrabblingted by impeach velopment really challenge them. so the intersection as i see it pe dle makingisions to

challenge americans's foreign policy or military strategyca e they a bed bething on a president to too distract -- bettinon a president too distracted. robert: jake, you live at house. essentially, you do. i'm curious about the process of transfering the articles from chamber to chamber? how is itng go work? what do you know about the timing and how this is going to play out? >>n tuesday, the house comes back monday. tuesday, the house democrats are going to meet. we expect some time tuesday or wednesday they aree. v now, senate procedures when it comes to impeachment ondicate th 1:00, the day after the articles are transmitted and they're transmitted in a cedar x in a very kind of strange -- robert: a cedar box? is that true? >> there will be a ceremonial

walking over -- robert: did that have that for clinton's trial in 199 ? >> i thinkhey did. i don't really remember. but i think they did. >> there's a lot of procedure. but they have voten the rules. robert: do they need 51. >> they need 51. mitch mcconnell says he has it locked up. theyeed 24 hours to present their case. rvice hour first the senators to question. and we get going. nibert: what a show. thank you for j us. what a week. make sure to join our " "washington wextra. we will disss the foreign policy on the einl trail. it airs later. i'm robert costa. good night. ♪

corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- ♪ >> additional funding is provided by ku and patricia yuen through the yuen foundation committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities, the corporation for public broadcasng and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

masters: american history is often told looking from the east, from tantic to the pacific, a triumphant march westward from plymouth rock and independence hall, but by 1776, the roots of rcalifornia history alrea deep. who was here before america's borders reached the pacific? who laid the foundation for the los angeles to come? let's explore our city's history from a new perspective, not as the end of america's journey west, but as anthe center of global ex for hundreds of years. i'm nathan masters, and thiis "lost l.a." many people see l.a. as 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 history run deep. ople have called this land home for thousands of years, and their a stories give usicher understanding of where we are w now andre we're headed in the decades to come, so let's look bacuncover some of these forgn