captioning sponsored by newshour productionsllc 'm woodruff: good evening, judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight... >> was there a "quid pro quo?" as i testified previously, withe rd to the requested white house call and white house meeting? the answer is ye >> woodruff: ...u.s. ambassador to the european union gordonnd nd delivers explosive testimony that he followed with rudy guiliani and to work implicates secretary of state pompeo and vice president pence in the pressure campaign against ukraine. we break down the highlights of this major moment in the impeachmt inquiry. antaking the stage. withess than three months to go before votes are cast in the first primary contest, what to watch out r in tonight's democratic debate.

all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems--sk ollfoundation.org. >> the lemelson foon.

committed to improving lives through invention, in the u.s. and developing countries. on t web at lemelson.org. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at maound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: >> this program was made possible by the corpn for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank yo >> woodruff: a major moment in the impeachment inquiry-- u.s. ambassador to the european unio, and trump doordon sondland

testifies there was a quid proth quo kraine, as he followed the president's orders to work with rudy giuliani, and implicates secretary of state pompeo and vice president pence in the pressure campaign.e th a lot to unpack. lisa desjardins is at the capitol. yamiche alcindor is at the white house. and nick schifrin is with me at the table. so much to talk about all three of you, but let's start by hearing just ait gordon sondland's opening testimony. first, secretary perry, ambassador volker and i worked with mr. rudy giuliani on ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the united states. we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. simply put, we played the hand

we were dealt.er we all uood that if we refused to work with mr. giuliani, we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the united states and ukraine. so we followed the president's orders. second, although we disagreed with the need to involve mr. giuliani, at the time we did not believe that his role was improper. third, let me say: precisely because we did not think that we were engaging in imprope behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decision makers at the nationalu securityil and state department knew the importantof detailur efforts. t the suggestit we were engaged in some irregular or

false.acy is absolutely i have now identified certain state dertment emails and messages that provide ntemporaneous support for my view. these emails show that the leadership of the state department, the national security council, and e white house were all informed about the ukraine efforts from may 23rd, 2019, untithe security aid was released on september 11th, 2019. fourth, as i testified previously-- as i testified previously-- mr. giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement

announcing investigations of the 20ction/d.n.c. server and burisma. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states, and we knew thaes investigations were important to the president.an fifth, in julaugust 2019, we learned that the white house so suspended security ai to ukraine. i was adamantly opposeny suspension of aid-- i was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid-- as the ukrainians needed those funds to fight against russian aggression. finally, at all time i was acting in good faith. i was acting in od faith. as a presidential appointee, i followed the directions of the present. because the presidrectedani

us to do so. we had no desire to set any conditions-- we had no desire to set anitions on the ukranians.er indeed, my ownnal view, which i shared repeatedly with others, was that the white house and the security assistance should have proceeded without pre-conditions of any kind. >> woodruff: so, nick schifrin, let me start with you. what do you primarily take away frndland's testimony today? >> two big takeaways let's focus one is that soand brought these allegations to the door of the president of the united states, at the very least, if not in the room, by connecting the president through rudy giuliani. very specifically, "we followed the president's orders and worked with giuliani.when the po talk to giuliani, i assume what giuliani says coes from the president." the reason that's iportant is he says giuliani requests aqu "quid pr," as we just heard for arranging the white house

meeting for president zelensky of ukraine. the quid pro quo was meting president trump, and in return, ukraine announces investigations into 2016 and burma, the energy company where hunter biden served on the board. three times.term "quid pro quo" that's a lot farther than he went in the past and a lot farther than any other witness has gone. and the second big point he had to make was ther uknians knew investigations, orast these announce these investigations. and why is that important is that goes against its republican argument that there could be noe quid pro quoause ukrainians didn't feel any pressure. ambassor sondland said, no, the ukrainians knew exactly what they had to do and they tel that pressure. >> woodruff: so lisa desjardins, you were in the hearing room all day long as yor have been for day of this impeachment inquiry. give us a sense of the dyn there? >> i have to say, judy, i have been to many important, high-level harings, it's a

privilege and responsibility of this job, but today was the first time during thisin impeachmeniry where i felt like this was a hearing that was extraordinary, this was a it had that feeling in the room. you could see members, witness, and lawyers sitting on the edge of their seats, very many times. and i think yo also could see what's happened over the lasttw or three days, which is that some members have gotten better at doing this. some of the counsel have gotten better. there's more energy on both sides. deliberate.ittle bit more and i think as a result of, that you also got a little bit more of what exactlyant boiled down messages were today. from republicans what i got, theiargument, judy, essentially, is this was all a big misunderstanding.go on sondland, kurt volker, everyone involved either misunderstood what was happeni happening. from democrats, could not be more different. they say, clearly, the presidenn was ing, if not outright directing that his political opponent should by investigated a foreign power, and he was

withholding aid from that foreign power. of course, the question still is how directly the property communicated that or not. but i'll tell you, being in that hearing ootoday felt different, and you can tell that democrats certainly feel like they made a good case today. republics are trying to also eke out some messages of their own. >> woodruff: soic, yam, to the white house, clearly, they are watching this very closely. what are they saying? >> reporter: the president and white house aides were watching ambassador sondland's testimony very closely. and ambassador sondland said he was not directly told by president trump to hedge this $391 million of military aid to ukraine for an investigation into joe biden and the democrats. however, he said that he felt like he was doing everything at the direction of the president. as a result, th white house is really seizing on the first part of that, which is the property sahd i never directed ambassador sondland to do that. he walked out on the white house lawn earlier in the day as

ambassador sondland was talk. he had handwritten notes, and this is proord, and he oked down and his portsmouth said said,iment" nothing." he said president trump told him there should beo quid pro quo, and i want nothing. you want to play for the viewers what presint trump said on the lawn of the white house. >> i'm going to go very quickly, jume awe quick com on what's going on >> i'm going to go very quickly, just a quick comment on what's going on in terms of testimony with ambassador sondland.ne i just noticedhing, and i would say that means it's all over. what do you want from ukraine? he asks me. screaming. what do you want from ukraine? i keep hearing all these different ideas and theories. this is ambassador sondland speaking to me. just happened. to which i turvid off the teon. what do you want from ukraine? i keep hearing all these

different ideas and theories. what do you want? what do you want? conversation he ha me.d abrupt they said he was not in a good mood. i'm always in a good mood. i n't know what that is. he jt said, now he's talking about my response, so he's going what do you want? what do you want? i hear all these theor what do you want? right? and now here's my response that he gave. just gave. ready? you have the cameras rolling? i want nothing. that's what i want from ukraine. that's what i said. i want nothing. i said it twice. so he goes. he asks me the question, what do you want? i ke hearing all these thing what do you want? he finally gets me.do t know him very well. i have not spoken to him much. this is not a man i know well. seems like a nice guy though, but i don't know him well.

he was with other candidates. hectually supported other candidates. not me. came in late. now if you weren't fake news you'd cover it properly. i say to the ambassador, in response, i want nothing.nt i othing. i want no quid pro quo.sk tell zel president zelensky, to do the right thing. so here's my answer. i want nothing. i want no quid pro tell zelensky to do the right thg. then he says this is the final word from the president of the united states. i want nothing. >> woodruff: so that was some of wt president trump had t say today as these hearings were going on. ant nick schifrin, it was just the president, of course, that ambassador sondland was referring to today. he brought up a number of senio figures in the trump administration-- the secretary

of state, a number of others. what are they saying in reaction? >> yeah, to mix metaphors, thist e escalating ladder of throwing people under the bus.so ety osecretary of state pompeii oh, the vice president, secretary of energy perry, acting chief of staff, mulvaney. let me focus on the secretary of state just for a second. at gordon sondland said is in early september-- sorry-- in early september, gordon sondland came up to the ukrainians and said, "look, you have to do ese investigations before you can get military aid released." right. he said today that he said that because cretary of state pompeo gave him the green light. we hadn't heard that before. he soetailed earlier emawlzpe to po got no objection from secretary of state pompeo, and was asked, "was pompeo aware of the quid pro quo?" so pompeiiee was asked about

this today, didn't really answer. and nohusband spokeswoman, morgan ortaigus released this statement: javust lethat up there for a second. investigations of political opponents. that's not exactly all sondland sahd is he and pompeo talked about burisma and 2016. he does not say that he talked about bouden at all, and that's the disungz that he tried to mach today. >> woodruff: important dist oction. yamicher senior figures in this administration were mentioned by ambndassador nd. what are they saying? >> well, what was extraordinary t out today was it wasust the white house really having a rapid response, responding in sadortime to ambas ndland, but it was a number of agencies. and as nick said, ambassador sondland was really nawming nawms of high-ranking officials. he talg ked about the actief of staff, mick mulvaney. he talked about the former national security adviser john

bolton. he talked about rudy liani. and he talked about vice persident pence. he said on september 1, thisis fore the military aid was released to ukraine, that he went to visident pence in warsaw, while the viewpoint was visiting, and he said, "you have concerns about this aid possiblt being tian investigation into the boudeps." office said.hat mike pen's ooum going to read to you a statement from the chief of staff: >> reporter: so you have the vice president of the united states, through husband chief of staff saying what ambassador sondland testified today never happened. you also had rudy giuliani the personal attorney of president trump, and put out a number of tweets-- again, reacting in real time-- and he said, look, s talking to kurt volker, the

former u.s. envoy to ukraine. i waetalking to thse people about what the president wanted. but i was really sharing my opinion. i was not making any demands, so there was no quid pro quo."u again, aweer of officials pushing back on ambassador sondland in real time. >> woodruff: all of this so interestsg. so les n to another exchange today with ambassador sondland. this is showing that he was grilled by a number of republicans. this one happens to be with congressman mike turner of ohio. >> is donald trump your friend? >> no, we're not friends. >> do you like the president? >> yes. >> well, after you testified, chairman schiff ran out and gave gets to impeach thident ofd he the united states because of your testimony. and if you pulriup cnn today, t now, their banner says, "sondland ties trump to withhohaing aid." isyour testimony today, ambassador sondland, thancyou have evithat donald trump

tied the investigations to the aid,ecause i don't think you're saying that. >> i've said reptedly, congressman, i was presuming. i also said that president trump -- >> so no one told you, not just the president-- giulidn't tell you, mulvaney didn't tell you, pompeo didn't tell you, nobody else on this planet told you that donald trump was tying aid to these investigations. is that correct? >> i think i already testified - - >> answer the question. is it correct? no one on this planet told you that donald trump was tying this aid to the investigations. because if your answer is "yes," then the chairman's wrong and the headline on cnn is wrong. no one on this planet told you that president trump was tying aid to investigations. yes or no? >> yes. >> so. you really have testimony today that ties trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in an exchange for these >> other than my own presumption. >> which is nothing! i mean, that's what i don't.

understa you know what hearsay evidence is, ambassador? hearsay is when i testify what someone else told me. you know what made-up testimy is? made-up testimony is when i just presume it. i mean, you're just assuming all of these things, and you're giving them the evidence that they're running out doing press conferences and cnn's headline isheaying that you're saying president of the united states should be impeached because he ti aid to investigations - and you don't know that! correct? >> i never said the president of the united states shd.ld be impeac >> nope. but you did-- you have left people the confusing impression that you were giving testimony you did not. you do not have any evidence that the president of the united states was tied to witng aid from uaine in exchange for investigations-- i yield back. >> woodruff: it wasn't just republicans with pointed sondland. for ambassador here's an exchange with here now is an exchange with a democratic congressman. he is sean patrick maloneyf new york. >> who would benefit from an investigation of the president's political opponent?

>> well, presumably, the person who asked for the investigation. >> who's that? >> if the president asked for the investigation, it would be he. >> well, it's not a hypothetical, is it, sir? we just went around this track, didn't we? the president asked you aboutns investigat when he asked you about thedens. biden investigation, who was he seeking to benefit? >> he did not ask me about the biden investigation. >> sir, sir, we just wentis through when he asked you about investigations, which we all agree now means the bidens. just did this about 30 seconds ago. it's a pretty simple question, isn't it? i guess i'm having trouble why you can't just say -- >> when he asked about instigations -- >> i know what you assumed. but o would benefit from an investigion of the bidens? >> there're two different questions. fr i'm just asking you one. who would benefi an investigation of the bidens? >> i assume president trump would benefit. >> there we have it, see?

(applause) >> didn't hurt a bit, did it? didn't hurt a bi let me ask you something. >> mr. maloney -- >> hold on, sir -- >> i have en very forthright, and i really resent what you're trying to do -- >> fair enough. you've been very forthright? this is yourhird try to do so, sir. didn't work so well the first time, did it? we had a little declaration come in after you, you remember that? and now 're here a third time, we gotta doozy of a statement from you this morning, a whole bunch of stuff you don't recall. so-ith all due respect, sir we appreciate your candor, but let's be really clear, on what it took to get it out of you. >> woodruff: so mpat's just a ng of what the republicans and the democrats on the committee were saying to ambassador sondland.e lease lisajardins, back to you. what does this say about the strategies that the two parties had? >> reporter: i think for democrats there's increasing confidence about the case that they're making. pretty much behind the scenes they all feel like this is a road toward impeachment. though, obviously, they haven't made that decision , it's

pretty clear that's where their minds are at, at this moment. republicans, judy, i spent a lot of time after that hearg talking to republicans off the floor, off the house chamb floor, and i specifically went after different groups of republicans. it's interesting, wha i heard from and file members was different than what i heard in that hearing, that strategy that you heard about trying to establish that there wasn't a rect link to the president, there might not have been a quid pro quo. that's not what i he rank and file republicans. instead, i heard from representative peter king, who is in a swing district in new york.t he's ring, which is one reason i wanted to talk to him. nothing wrong.the president di but he argues something different. he says it's because the president has the rigto launch any investigation he wants. "i don't have a problem with it." then, judy, i talked a different republican, francis rooney of florida. he is known asa swing member who does not always vote with the president and the rest of he is undecided on impeachment. he said today did feel like a big day to him. rdt he also said he hea conflicting testimony. when i asked what the conversation was like for

republicans at large, he said 's what it is-- we all feel from both sides, from ambassador sondland. we're still working it out. so i think this is a moment where it's not clear where republicans will end up. arguments in the hearing room. but republican mindsets from the rank and file may be somewhere else. >> woodruff: well, crtainly, the democrats are not finished yet. more testimony tonight, and, of course, we know there will be in what i want to doow is share just a little bit of what the closing rerks were today after the questions of ambassador sormland. the ch of the committee adam schiff made his own statement, and here's a part of that. >> i have said a lot of things about president trump over the years. i have very strong feelings about president trump, which are neither here nor there. but i will sayhis on the president's behalf: i do not believe that the president would allow himself to be led by the nose by rudy giuliani or ambassador sondland or anybody

else. i think the president was the one who decided whethe meeting would happen, whether aid would be lifted, not anyone who worked for him. and so the answer to the question: who was refusing the meeting with zelensky that youak believe shouldplace, that ambassador volker believed should take place, and everybody believed should take place? the only question was when. who was the one standing in the way of that meeting? who was the one refusing to take that meeting? there's only one answer to that question and it's donald j. trump, 45th president of the so who was holding up the military assistance? was it you ambassador sondland? was it ambassador volker? no. was it ambassador taylor? no was it deputy secretary kent? no.ry was it secref state pompeo? no.si who had the de to release the aid? it was one person donald j. trump, president of the united

states. now,y colleagues seem to thi unless the president says the magic word"i hereby bribe the ukrainians" that there's no evidence of bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. but let's look to the besten ev of what's in the president's head. what's his intent? what's the reason behind the hold on the meeting and on the aid? let's look awhat the president has to say. let's look at what's undisputed about what the president has to say. and you know how we know what the president has to say? not because what you have represented or others have represented, but because we have a record of hiconversation and with who? the one who really matters. with the other president, zelensky. >> woodruff: so, lisa desjardins, back to you. what did you make of that--os comenlts? >> reporter: well, i think we've known before that chairman schiff is very stralong, espe in his closing arguments, and i think he's been speaking to the more tha peopl

people. as we know speaker pelosi has said all alongthat it'snd of the will of the public here that matters the most. i was talking to a republicaer strategiston the hill, also in the last couple of hours, who said to me-- this is a moderate-- who said, "this really is still a jump ball. it's about 15% of the america public. and the question is are they really paying attention? is this too much tifor and it's distract and overload, or is it so many questions aboutes the prent that it does influenceca ame?" and i think that's what chairman schiff is trying to do. one other quick piece ofote, i just got news from republicans that the two knd of dominant republicans on this committee, ranking republican devin nunes and jim jordan, have now sent a letter to democrats saying they intend to responsibility whistleblower and hunter biden for testimony. that is their lnguage. however, they do not have that subpoena power right now ast

stands. so conflict ahead here. republicans, essentially, just raising the idea that they would like these witnesses to testify. they're using the word "subpoena," t they don't have that power, as far as i understand it right now. >> woodruff: and we heard the ranking republican, nunes, mention that, that that was something th to do in his opening remarks today. miche,uickly to you, ya your reaction from the white said. to what chairman schiff >> reporter: white house officials continue to stress the fact that ambassador sdland never directly connected president trump to this quid pro quo. he said they felt like i was followinthe directions of president trump. but that president never directly told me that th eded to be an exchange, that if we didn't provide this have to do these investigations in order for us to have this milita aid and tis white house meeting with president zl, the president of ukraine. so in some way, thehite house feels even though this might have been damaging and democrats want to quoint to specifiotes from ambassador sork they overall feel like this is still between this alleged bribery,

alleged extortion that democrats are trying to say happened.e her thing to note is that there is, of course, a list of white house officials who area still notting to comply with subpoenas and requests for them to come befs.ore congr and there are some critics of the property who say if the white house really wanted to pke the case that theresident was not directing people to do a quid pro quo, they could allow mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, to come before the committee to, come before congress to say, ook, here's exactly what the property told me." that isn't happening as of yet. the property has said he is open to answering questions, written queseeons. but i'vetalking to white house officials who also say that that's not likely. so at this point, moving t forware white house is going to continue to put out statements that point out tpre ident, when he was talking to ambassador sork said, "i don't want a quid po quo." >> woodruff: and finally, back to you, nick, the hearings are ongoing right now. two more witnesses are testifying the hll. what do we been the individuals who are there right now? >> yeah, the questions for them are what did secretary of state

know and what did ukraine know and when did iow k? so the first official testifying is david hale. he is e under secretary for political affairs at the state department, which makes him number three. he served more than a 30-year career under republican and democratic administrations. republicans called h, judy, because they believe that he's going to testify that there was no linkage, as far as he kne between the suspension of aid and those political investigations. but there are questiabout what secretary pompeo knew and deputy know. andy woo talked about that earlier. gordon sondland made a lot of new allegations. he'll have to answer those. the second official is laura cooper, one of the top officials at the department of defense,us eurasia, long-term strategy for russia and ukraine, has been there almost 20 years. house thatthe whi freezing this aid to ukraine might be illegal. and herht inss into how she tried to persuade the white house to release the aid. and her insight is also into when did ukraine know that the

d was frozen? and she is testifying right now that they knew about july 25. and theeason that's significant is that on july 25, thats when president zelensky talks to president trump. if ukraine really knew that thei military was frozen as of july 25, that undercuts theho whitse argument that the ukrainians couldn't have been asked for a quid prbecause of because they felt no pressure, because they didn't aithe militard had been frozen. so her testimony is july 25, the ukrainians knew already, thata the aid frozen. and just a reminder, judy, these are lethal arms. this is a real policy toward ukraine you're talking about that wasr delayed fo 55 days, essential for u.s. national security, according to u.s. officials. and that was at the heart of the hdelay-- and that's at heart of this impeachment testimony. >> woodruff: all right, and that is ongoing right nowe l be reporting on all that later. thank you to all three of you. a marathon tod. nick schifrin, yamiche alcindor,

and lisa desjardins. thank you. >> thank you. a >> woodrufwe discussed, the trump administration was quick to push back on ambassador sondland's claim that vice president mike pence, secretary of state mike pompeo and chief of staff mick mulvaney were all aware of the ambassador's efforts to get ukraine to open an investigation into the bidens; an inquiry, sondland admitted, would ultimate benefit president trump. kellyanne conway is the counselor to president trump and she joins us now from the white house. kellyanne conwti, so many qus to ask you about today. but my first question is this: we heard the president said this afternoon he was asking nothing of ukraine if that's th case, why was the months? up for several

why was a meeting with the president held up? >> well, the one thing that the president was asking was for prerident zelensky to deln what he had run on successfully, which is to root out corruption. and we've all read the july 25 call transcript, judy, where both pesidents are discussing draining the swamps in hir respective companies. they're talking about rooting out corruption. remember, president zelensky ran successfully in ukraine on an anticorruption platform. >> woodruff: my question is-- >> president trump agrees with .krainian stleertz this is a problem in ukrai so the aid-- they got aid without a meeting. they got the meetinghout a statement. they got aid without a condition. and a couple of thingad amba sof said today were critically important he said he never heard the aids conditioned on anything, thata when he clled president trump, "no quid pro quo.d many times i just want president zelensky

he was going to do."hat he sid >> woodruff: ambassador sondland said he didn't want t work with rudy giuliani, but he said president trump expressly drexed him to do that. why did the president want him to work with h personal pattern? >> i don't know what conversation the president had with ambassador sondland, but i will tell youat-- that ambassador sondland very said-- very clearly said day-- and i quote him-- "president trump never told me dirtly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. the only thing we got directly from giuliani was burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the white hose meeting. the aid was my p ownrsonal guess. d e question of ever asking ambassador sondl work with rudy giuliani-- and i can't confirm or deny that-- it was never to getot the condition the aid on anything. in fact, if people care aboutn ukraine, tey should be thrilled that president trump has given thim nearly $400 million in military assistance

including cyber rifles, including javelins, and other aid to help them fight against russia and other threats. >> woodruff: but, as we know, that aid came later than others in the administration were saying that it should be.ju bust to be clear, kellyanne monway, we did hear fro ambassador sondland that there was a clear quid pro quo froru giuliani reflecting the president's wishes that there not abe white house meeting until there was an investigation of the bidens, 201.c6, the d.. server, et cetera. >> i'm sorry-- other people are in my eerk judy. i apologize. but the meeting happened wyatt statement. the meeting happened for the ole world to see up in the united nations general assembly, in september in th same month. i think what's incredibly smportant for your viewer ton is both the president of the united states and the president ukraine, and their top diplomats have said there was no pressure applied. the aid was delivered.

they didn't know the aid was being held up. i think this is why you see the polling going in the wrong direction for the democrats who insist on this impeachment quiry. the poll releepsed yesterday by morning const clearly said independents have gone down 10% in terms of approval of the impeachment. they're tuning in and they can't understand what's pening. why all these hours of testimony? what are they trying to prove. >> woodruff: excuse me. let me ask you about a couple other things. is the prekident still see an investigation by ukraine into hunter biden and his role in burisma, into what happened in ukraine in that regard? >> remember, the president is seeking investigations into corruption. so if anybody was corrupt or if they may have someto worry then about. but he's seeking investigations into corruption. ambassadorondland testified today "he has no recollection of discussing biden, vice president biden, or his son on that fam 2s

ju call that ambassador sondland also said did nots discy classified information and did not strike him as significant at the time. why that important tonht? because the state department aide who said he overheard such call on july 26 sstifying tomorrow. but today, the man who was on the call with the president said that the president never mentioned vice president biden quote, or after the call ended. >> woodruff: i'm sorry to interrupt. but you're saying the predent still interested in knowing anything about hunter biden and buri >> he's still interested in knowing about corruption, and if burisma is part of tat corruption, then whoever the board members are or were need to be held to account. we cae n't inocule biden and his son because joe biden is running for property now. that's beside the pointth happened when vice president biden had ukraine in his portfolio as enironment. this all occurred in 2015 or '16. >> woodruff: you can saye oday what futlitary aid for ukraine will be conditioned wi?

>> well, i be-- i can say that the future military aid while president trump is in office will be robust, and much more than they go from the previous administration. and, judy, i think that's incredibly importante because yourd, especially yesterday and last week, people who are ukraini experts or people who want to make sure -a-vis tpolicy, vis u.s., is-- is-- is weld,l resours well respected. they should be thrilled that president trump is in offthice, , because the aid not only got there. but it's far more and far more important to the ukrainian than the aid they gotn the previous administration soap i can tell that you, that the aid will continue. but we're watching. we think it's very important that this aid that-- that his promise to be anake good on anticorruption fighter. >> woodruff: the white use put out atements yesterday that were critical of alexander vindman, remember, the colonel detailed to the national security council. is his job secure? and is the job of ambassador

sondland sece? we know there were critical statements made about what he said today by the administration! >> well, those are bote h-- theyth people who still work for the administration. and i will say that ambassador o'brn, the new head of the national security council here, has stated publicly that he wi try to shrink what he sees to bp a blod staff here at the national security council. i'll leave tat up to him and his boss, the prflt of the united states, the commande comn chief. but i will tell you i have never and would never question the patriotism of lieutenant colonel vindman. i do not question his patriotism. what i do question in the testifying for hours and hours and hours judy who have never empty the preside, who have never had a conversation with him about his policies in ukrain their view of ukrainian policy is only important in so far as they are executing on the president's agenda. he sets te policy our foreign policy, ou nationalcurities

interest. and people's assumptions, interpretations, conjecture, insinuation, those are not .mportant. the facts matt the fact is ukraine got its aid. >.>> woodruff: so very, very quickly. you're not saying this his job is secure, that he may be parent of this downsizing. >> i don't know. >> woodruff: you don't know, i understand. >> i don't know who will stay and who ll go. but it certainly will have nothing to do with his testimony. he was here at w rk today. d his twin brother were takingl sees. >> woodruff: finally, very quickly, still the post pore of the white house, individuals in the white house, acting chief of staff, secretary of state shout not cooperate, should n testify. >> our white house counsel said in october 8 letter, judy, that this is an unconstitutional illegal proceeding, and we do feel we should comply with it. the other reason, is in this countr even in circus-like hearing you're seeing in front of you, which is not rooted in the rulnof law, you do have to testify to prove that you're

innocent. that's not the wathis works look, i think if it ever gets to ale senate you will see a re trial, and it will be more familiar to the american people ayo accustomed to trial who s now i get twitnesses, evidence. the president of the united states can't even have attorneys in these hearings. that strikes a lot of americans as unfair, and i think that's why you're seeing the polls go against approval of this impeachment inquiry. >> woodruff: it would be different in a trial. >> thank you, judy. om woodruff: and now to the democratic view apitol hill and a member of the house judiciary committee. they will likely hold hearings on impeachment when the intelligence committee ends its work. representative steve cohen of tennessee joins me now. so, congressman, cohen, you probably just heard kellyanne conway say these hegsarave gone on too long and they've basically proved nothing about the present. >> well, she speaks whathe administrations wants the republicans to speak.

it's like throwing the sonagheti he wall and hoping something sticks. the two major icorruption parts of the constitution are the emoluments clause, and the president has never set one single contract, reward,ntay that he's got from a foreign power to congress to ask for permission to get it and the other is impeachment, misdemeanors, bribery, and treason. and they think that we shouldn't have an impeachment proceeding, probably at all, but certainly, they say in the lt year before a presidential election. trump could write a book on corruption. it could beune, have evrything in it. as far as him not dealing with foreign countries that are corrupt-- afghanistan gets foreign aid, very corrupt. >> woodruff: let's talk about today's hearing. weeard kellyanne coay say at no point was the ambassador sondland, the ambassador to european union, able to say that

president trump himself said that aid to ukraine or a meeting with ukraine is going to be-- or with the leader of ukraine-- is going to be conditioned on whether they do an investigation into joe biden or the democrats. >> well, apparently, he didn't. he said he kind of got it from giulianiut, he made it clear that two and two is four and all of the parts are there, and anybody that can addnybody that can see and anybody that can understand what is going on would know it. he said they're all in on it. it goefrom pompeo, pence, mulvaney, the president, he was told to work with giuliani, and that's what they were looking at. they were conditioning the meeting on those investigations, and obviously, condioning th military aid as well. >> woodruff: but if they don't have a direct link with the president, can they move ahead with impeachment? is that-- does that constitute in any way an impeachable

offense? >> you don't hae to see iomebody commit a murder if there's enough ence and if you get the fingerprints off the was there.ou get the person who nobody saw oswald shoopt president kennedy, but we know where he was. we know who owned the gun gun. we know whose fingerprints were on the guav. you don't to necessarily see it. most crimes don't have put you there.tnesses tha and this is situation where there are enough people that can do it. and they're stopping the firsthand evidence that say trump did tpeople from testifying. trump is not allowing evidence, papers from state deartment, from the white house to be given pursuant to subpoena to the committee, and not allowing mulvaney, the actes that wer there-- both pompeo and others-- to testify. and he's edycouraging every else not to period of time. and that's an impeachable article we saw in the impeachment of nixon is obstruction of congress and the lack of cooperation.t >> woodruff: ts a pretty striking comparison you just made with the asassination of

president kennedy. did you mean to make something so stark-- so stark a comparison? >> well, i was just thinking of a crime where there wasn't a witness to it. but i think most all of us agree and believe that lee rvey oswald assassinated president kenneds but nobody p on the sixth floor of the texas depositoriy to witness. >> woodruff: what else dode crats need to do in your mind to move ahead with what they believe is a case against this president? >> excuse me? >> woodruff: what else do you believe democrats on the intelligence committee, which is now running these impeachment-- this impeachment inquiry-- what else do you believe they need to prove? because as you and i have been oiscussing, still arct this point, there is a solid connection between the president and what happened wih regard to ukraine. >> well, i think giuliani's a solid connection. i think that there's enough

information when he claims an testified to that he was thrilled that they were going to do the investigation. and i think sonundlanerstands trump when he says he didn't care about ukraine. he cared about theti invtion and how it would affect his election. this is what makes the man tick. and i ink that there's-- you can have circumstantial evidence. n have hearsay evidence. you don't have to have direct evidence. you don't have to have an eyewitness. and there are otasr things well. i think it would be nice to have mulvaney and/or pompeo orpeome of thople who were in on the phone call to testify. but the white house istopping them from doing that. there is, obviously, a reason reign why they're stopping them from doing it. because they don't want the don'tto be known and they want them to have to go in there and tell the truth or punlure themselves. yes, ma'am. >> woodruff: i'm sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt. from your constituents in tennessee? we just heard kellyanne conywa say the move the polls are showing the american people are

not being captivated by these hearings. she said, in fact, it's showing a number of people are turning t away ay're not-- in other words, that the case for anq impeachment ry has been dropping rather than rising. >> well, i don't know that, and i haven't seen the polls. and the trump administration is notoriously famous for lying about polls. but people in my dicis- i'm from memphis. memphis n't tennessee. memphis is memphis, and memphis people i hear from on a regular base want trump to be removed fr office and impeached. my city is predomly african american, and the people coming from expletive hole countries, there's been an tip thee here. >> woodruff: steve cohen, representative from the state of tennessee and a member of the house judiciary committee, thank

you very much. >> happy birthday, judy. >> woodruff: thank you for, that i appreciate it. >> sure. >> woodruff: our live impeachment hearing coverage continues tomorrow starting at 9:00 a.m. eaern. check your local tv listings and also find us streaming online, on our facebook, twitter and youtube pages. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, israel is headed toward an unprecedented third election, in less than a year, after a key oprmsition figure failed to a government. center-right leader benny gantz announced he could not secure a ruling majority in parliament.t- ring prime minister benjamin netanyahu had already fallen short. the potential kingmaker, avigdor lieberman, refused to endorse either man for pme minister. >> ( translated ): if we roll

towards election, it's becse of lack of leadership. one, gantz, was not ready to accept the president's plan for unity, and the other, netanyahu, was not willing to separate from his ultra-orthodox.essianic bl >> woodruff: under israeli law, any member of parliament may now try to form a government over the next three weeks. otherwise, the country will have go back to the polls. in neighboring syriaeli air strikes struck dozens of sites used by iranian forces to suort the syrian regime. an activist group reported 23 killed, including two civilians. state tv showed people gathered around crumbled bricks and damaged homes just south of damascus. but syria claimed it shot down most of the missiles. the strikes were retaliation for rocket fire on the israeli- controlled golan heights. the president of iran, hassan rouhani, claimed victory today, afteackdown on protesters. he praised thousands of pro-em

governmentstrators shown on state tv, chanting anti- american slogans and, he told a cabinet meeting that the protests, over gasoline prices, were fomented om outside. >> ( translated ): the rebels we organized and armed and were precisely following a scheme plotted by the backwardth statesregion, as well as the zionists and americans. victorious in differentt incidents and in the face of enemies' plots. this time also, in riots that were the enemy's plot creating insecurity, our people gained complete victory. >> woodruff: amnesty international says more than 100 people have been killed in the crackdown. tehran says that number is "speculative."in britain's andrew says he is quitting his royal duties, over the fallout from his friendship with jeffrey epstein. the financier took his life in a criticism of the prince spiraled srdrew said the scandal had become a "major tion" for his family's work.r

the financok his life in a new york cell, while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. criticism of the prince spiraled after a weekend interview in which he appeared insensitive toward epstein's victims. back in this country, the workers has resigned after being implicated in a federal probof ibery and embezzlement. gary jones stepped down shortly after the union's board moved to oust him. hours earlier, general motors filed a suit claiming that fiat chrysler bribed u.a.w. officials for special breaks in labor agreements. a new wave of forced power blackouts is underway for some 170,000 people across northern and central california. pacific gas and electric began the shut-os today to prevent high winds from downing power lines and sparking more wildfires. it's the latest in a string of mut-criticized outages, and could last into thursday. and, on wall street, stocks fell, amid new doubts about

trade talks with china. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 113 points to close at 27,821. the nasdaq gave up 44 points, and the s&p 500 slipped 11. >> woodruff: turning to today's event: the fifth dtic political presidential debate in atlanta, georgia. our amna nawaz is there now and ins me. so, amnarks as we said, it's the fiftin a number of debates for these democratic candidates. set the stage for us. what should we be expecting? >> reporter: judy, first, i should point out, at even here on the site of the democratic

debate, on all the screens, the impeacyient hearings are pl in the background. so there's really no escaping it for the press. but, tonight, d 10emocratic candidat will face off on tha stage here in atlanta. take a look at the lineup in the order they are going to appea on ste tonight. it's cory booker, tulsi gabbard, amy klobuchar, pete buttigieg, elizabeth war,ren, joe bid bernie sanders, and kamala steyer. andrew yang, and tom since the last time they met, the top tier has remained largely consistent--iden, warren, sanders, and buttigieg. but most notably mayor pete buttigieg had a bit of a surge, a multipoint surge in polls in iowa, giving him a clear lead in that one state. that means he's probably opening himself up to some lines of scrutiny, increased scrutiny from his fellow candidates on theield. 've seen that happen in the past with biden and warren. buttigg's campaign is stickin firm in their predebate messaging, though. they're saying whatever comes his way he will be ready, judy gllg so, amna, when it comes to

that scrutiny what are some of the main policy differences that still exist between these two candidates? what are the other campaigns saying they want to get across tonight? >> yeah, some of the clear lines of attacks we've seen against mayor buttigieg in the past will hold tonight-- that i there is a lack of elective experience thre. also, so far, his inability to really connect with voters of color, who wenow will be crucial who whom ever the democratic nominee ends up being. vice president biden's campaign has say said they areo going be sticking close to their messaging of consistency in the polling, regardless of who is number wooor two in certain states. he will continue to present himself as a exd,perien steady hand at the wheel on day one if he is to become commander in chitoef. if h is a guide, senator warren is going to continue to push her message of big structural change. she's probably going to face some tough questionsarchs she did last time bher medicare for all plan, especially now that she has explained what the timeline wou be for the roll

out of that, and some of the questions could come from her fellow progresve candate, senator bernie sanders. as always, judy, this is an opportunity torsome of the middle-tier and lower tier candates to have a moment. it will not be easy. the debate will only be a twoho s long. they're going to have to make every single minute count, judy. >> woodruff: just quickly, finally, amna, we know these debates always have an effect on what happens in the weeks coming after. are the beam pooem you talk to saying about that,tent since the field is still shifting. >> reporter: we should note, of course, as you mingzed, there is a neatw candin the field, deval patrick. also, may bloomberg has been flirting with the idea of getting in. the candidates say two things are true-- woon, it may be a little late to get some traction. but they say the voters will have to decide. we'll see that unfold on stage tonight, jdy. >> woodruff: amna nawaz, reporting on this debate for us fom atlanta, and we will be looking for your report tonight. thank you, amna.

and another story we want to tell you abo. >> woodruff: and a reminder to check out our new podcast, "broken justice," about e flaws of the public defender system in the united states. the latest episode in the series is out today, and focuses the case of ricky kidd, and how he found himself in prison for decades for a murder he says he didn't commit, and why he blames the missouri public dender system. inu can listen by visiting the "broken justice"that's on our website. you can also find episodes on apple podcasts, stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. anthat's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again here tomorrow morning as we continue our special live coverage of the public impeachment hearings starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern. for all of uhoat the pbs ne, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> consumer cellular understands that not eunryone needs an mited wireless plan. our u.s.-based customer service reps can help you choose a plan based on how much you use your learn more, go toe, nothing consumercellular.tv >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. >> this program was de possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pie station fromrs like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by wmedia access groupbh acce.wgbh.org

hello everyone and welcome to "amanpour and company." here's what's coming up. character attacks on these distinguisond andable -public s reehensible. white house ukraine expert lieutenant colonel vindman and pence aide w jenniferliams quizzed by congress. i speak with president trump's confidant chris ruddy and "new yorker" columnist susan glasser about the strategy. ukraine's leang anti-corruption activist daria kelanyu how this issue is being politicized. the kingmake a new film explores the life of former filipino first lady imelda rcos. the glamorous face of a brutal dictatorship.