robert: explosive testimony another week of impeachment hearings. >> i followed the dections of the president. we worked with mr. giuliani because the president directed us to do so. robert: top officials speak out. >> aassador bolton said that rudy giuani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. robert: republicans hold firm. >> for the last three years, p it's notresident trump who got caught it's the democrat who is got caught. robert: and democrats press on. >> we are better than that. robert: next ♪ announcer: this is "washington week." funding is provided by -- >> there's a moment, a moment

where everhing is clear. at fidelity, wlth planning is about clarity, knowing who you are, where you've been, and where you want to go. that's fidelity wealth management. >> additional funding provided by -- ku and patricia yuen, through the yuenti foun committed to bridging cultural differences in our commities. th corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again from whington, moderator robert costa. robert: good evening. the impeachment inquiry closed this week with testimony from ofcials detailingival moments in the trump administration pressure campaign joining me tonight are four reporters who know this story. who have been covering it all week. carol len ig, -- leonnigat

invest reporter for the washington -- for "the washington post." abby phillip with cnnn, john bresnahan and susan davis. we learned more about president trump's conduct and the evolion of what gordon sondland acknowledged was a quick pro quo arrangement. >> it wasroper for the president to demand an investigation into a political opponent. mr. giulians requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visitde for pre ze lens i can. mr. giulianith demande ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 eleion, dnc server and barisma. everyone was in the loop.

i then heard president trump say "so he's going to do the advestigation." ng that president zelensky will do anything for him. >> those two this had just diverged. robert: gordon sondland, everyone was in the loop. when you loot ambassador sondland's testimony, what mattered? someone who has been knowing and covering the facts. ambassador sondland w initially tried to say in his testimony that he doesn remember whether or not the president was seeking an investigation of joe biden, on this particular day laid bare everything he thought looki back, piecing it all together. quid pro re was a quo. and he knew it had been at the instruction of the president through his agent rudy giulisoi his pl attorney. the most striking thing about what i view as gordon sondland's

flip flop she finally came clean in describing this is really what it was. i didn't want to say it exactly this wayhiut is what it was. >> he seemed to try to protect himself.s ther key moment in sondland's testimony where the only thing that h disputed about -- about david holmes' reit vacation he had wh -- reiteration that he mentioned at biden came up specifically. he said i d't this that part of it is true. the reason he insists on that is because he wants to claim that he d tn't knowt the investigation into barisma was an investigation intoen joe b until the very end. that's the part that a lot of people screams credulity because it seems to protectd sondl even while it seems that he believed it ended up being a quid pro quo. a lot of people involved in this -- as he pointed out, everyone

was in the loop, there seems to been annvestigation that was being demanded. but a lot of these individuals that want to acknowled that was a politicaler rand as fiona hill put it. robert: one of the peopleg challenge credibility was dr. fiona hill. what was the power of hery, testimohn, when you look at it especially as democrats try to use her as a way to counter what republicans are saying? john: well, shefr cted sondland directly inside the white house. and she has this argument with is wrong and tells him that to his face. that was stunning. think about it, they're having -- it's like acene outfter movie. they're having ant, argum you're breaking the law. she goes and relate this is to then national security director john bolton. and he goes tell the lawyers. he sends her because he knows it's troubling. it's a hugely dra make it mome.

it was like in a movie. robert: it was a culture that was revealed inside the trump administration. was it about predent trump himself did sondland and others really reveal the president in his own involvement? >> in many wayse h did. fiona didn't necessarily apologiz toondland. but she did say after hearing his testimony, it was even more clear to her that he wasn't -- he thought he was doing his job. she understood that because she thought he was orating outside the system. she realized he was operating thin the system. i think the sum total of effect of all of tse testimoni is that with the exception of one ddiefense line st almost every line of defense for the president's decision-making or his behavior rationale tt it was no quid pro quo, it wa a perfect call. he had reason to believe that

there was ukraine meddling, system maticlyas taken apart by these witnesses.nk >> i t it is going to be a movie at one point. [laughter] >> has toe. robert: carol, we need you in the newsroom. [laughter] carol: thank you, but i find this moment the most iuleresting on 10th. you hit on it. fiona hill is sent running aftor n sondland by her boss the national security advisor, john bolton. watch those guys. watch those drug dealers. follow ty'm and see what t doing. she follows them to the basement. she breaks into the room. they'he with ukrainians. gordon sondland is saying you need to do these investigations. you need to give the president e wants. she says what you're doing is wrong. there.e ukrainians are standing and sondland is like let's get them out of the r'rm. th sitting in the basement

of the white house unattended. it an unbelievable -- but the your point about culture. it's about a group of people saying how can i get the king what he wants? robert: you've been talking tot . when you look at the testimony, do your sources iniche democrarty feel like this is broken through to voters on the impeachment front? and what are voters talking about when they hear this testimony? >> theyhi do not it's broken through. not in the same way that you might expect given how dramatic it all is. the problem is that people aren't following it cloly. among democratic voters they care much more about policy issues than they do about what they believe they already know president trump is corrupt. they don't believe all this mountain of evidence in order to make that clearo them. in fact, i was talking to republican pollster recently who was remarking aboutow -- how stable the polling has been, hov

there been so few shifts in publicnion. democrats have solidified and believing that the president needs to be removed. and independents have shifted only a few points. inrepublicans have up behind the president. we're in a remarkable moment in the t sense that evidence is so clear, and yet the polling shows that the electorate still have vhey ball canized in camps and very little that is them. ing right now is moving robert: any cracks in the republican party? you looke at el stepanek. she was seen as a centrist republican, she was out in front for president trump. >> she was out in froll. why there are no cracks.e of he's retiring. he has the freedom to break with the party because he's not seeking re-election. his closing statement he said, basically said i'm a no on impeachment. hear from republicans.going to

i don't like the way the president conducted forgn policy. but there's nothing that i see here warrants removal from office. ifou don't have will hurd willing toe break from the party, you don't have anyone. >> i agree with you. the senate republins are not moving. trump isorking very hard to keep senate repubcans inine. he's taking them into the oval offce. he's meeting wit mitt romney. he's bringing mitt romney into the white house, a guy sitti there and he's trying to make -- trying t be nice to everybody under mitch mcconnell's direction. he said you better start turning around with senate republicans. one thing that struck me this week amazing about this whole scandal is how many people knew. there were a lot of people in washington and keefe who knew dozens -- be : mike pompeo. >> it doesn't break until late august. there are reports on the meetinl being up.

we didn't know right away. i went through it. there are a couple o dozen people who knew whi is stunning, the atmosphere in the white house. robert: that's so te. why aren't democrats waiting to hear from mick mulvaney the chf of staff? ambassador john bolton who has been referenced in so manyth of e hearings? why are they moving forward? and is the puzzle is incomplete? >> i think the puzzle is definitely incomplete. i've had aource tell me that we are only halfway through this everything that happened. what's missing? mulvaney, bolton, pompeo. pompeo may leave office before we get any answers from him. but the truth of the matters is, guys, thoot people are going to testify unless a court tells it's not going to happen. you can see why chairman schiff wants to move forward. doesn't feel likehe he needs testimony. yet, it could come in the snalt rial though. >> let's take them to the republicans side because as chairmanchiff moves forwarde

president was batting. on thursday, dr. hill challenged this rising g.o.p. assertion that ukraine tried to the trump campaign in 2016. >> some of you on this committee, appear to believe that russia a its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country that perhaps somehow for some reason ukraineid. this is a fictionalve narra that is being perpetrated by the russian security service themselves. robert: this has been debunked this idea that ukraine meddled by numerous fact checkers -- >> congress and the intelligence community. >> what's the significance of dr. hill debunking it under oath? >> if you go under fiona hill's background, s came back to work for this administration because of the russian interference, she felt compeled to get back into governnt because of this existential threat of meddling. i this the culmination of her

life work. hearing people in power, people have a responsibility to the public, muddying the waters to the public and had a platform to chastise them. that comment -- she didn't name names but it seemed clear to the devin nunes and other w is entertained the president's concerns about ukraine meddling. republicansid note and accurately that the intelligence committees did recognize that m russiadling in the 2016 elections. what the house republicans did not do was gos a far to say that they did so to benefit donald trump. >> continue to imply that russia's meddling in 2016 was pa for the course. thatt wasn't systemic in nature and that othe countries -- we heard this literally in fiona hill's ttimony that other countries meddled and they included ukraine. it seemed the purpose ofen her g statement was to put on the record that she believed

that it was important that everybody realize that this was part of a russian effort to to destabilize the u.s. destabilize the u.s.'s o to relationship with ukraine. that's eactly what this conspiracy theory achieved. this president had this negative view of ukraine that was based almostn entirely o rumor and innuendo that according toasiona hill planted by the russian intelligence services. robert: it's not goi away any time soon. senator graham has pursued document about hunter biden, vice president biden barisma. where does this go? this ang from the g.o.p.? >> it seems lik they're going to play this card if it t com a senate trial. gram is seeking docks from the state department. -- documents from the state department. wants to speak to alexandria

chalupa. the accusation was there was this big ukrainian, you know, effort to hurtrump. and trump keeps saying it. he's talking about crowd strike. and evenox the news hosts were like ok. can we get fiona hill to do an audio book of fiona hill on >> you're planning a book, a movie. >> i have to chime in and say i couldn't agree more with what abby said about the power of russian intligence forces, you know, our country. to defy, they're succeeding in that regard too.e oints out fiona hill that we are now fighting over objective fact. we are fighting over objective fact -- robert: what about the i.g. report from the department of

justice? they reported the justice partment watchdog finds officials running the f.b.i.'s russia probe but documents other errors. what have you learned about this upcoming i.g. report?ar and this of the g.o.p. counter narrative to impeachment? en is it an indnt document that should be taken seriously? >> i think it's a seriousme do. the i.g. is no fool. he's quite rigorous and serious. i think this is gng to be interested. but they say it's another examplof how the f.b.i. and the d.j. were crook and corrupt in a coup to get rid of the election results of 2016 to try to unseat him and undmine them. that's not really what the i.g. found. t according "new york times" reporting, the i.g. found that a low-level lawyer who has now been dismissed altered an e nail was part of the rveillance effort to get the

warrant, apply for the warrant to surveil carter page, a former ump aide. and that alteration didn't do anything to c the facts that justified getting a warrant for this trum aide who is meeting with quite a few russians during the campaign. >>ice president biden spoke out about his long-time friend graham. >> he feels that graham is living in fear of president trump, which is not wrong. lindsey graham is running for re-election -- robert: he seems pretty convinced by all this, senator grahes. >> somet he does and sometimes he doesn't want to answer questions. it's very telling that he said at varioust points, he was going to listen to any of the he would be willing to listen if he felt he could rebut it. t he chose ao simplyid it. i do think that graham has decided -- and it makes a lot of logical political sense that in

a state like south carolina you cannot be the wrong side of the president of the united states. he needs trump in order to win politically. he put all his eggs in that basket right now. robert: let's stay with that because if you think about when we look ahead as john and his colleagues have rorted, house democrats have discussed the next steps. they received little guidance on how the panel will complete them. based on what abby stated, you have a rublican party with graham and other who is don't want to break from presidenttr p. so this nufse the judiciary committee and to the house floor. what's the outlook for democrats to get a republicane to c along? you've mentioned some of the retiring republicans aren't really tsre. is t going to be a party line vote? >> i see that at this point. i don't know if the republican leadership kevin mccarthy and the othersre going to lose one member. apt this point, i think they're

probly right. if they don't lose someone like hurd or mike turner both who expressed dismay over the call when they first heard about it, iee it very unlikely they're going to pick somebody. this is abby's point. in election cycle.g a president a first-term president which has never happened befo. he runshe party. and this particular president he uses fear and intimidation on his own party in a way tt no president in our memory has ever done it. he's tweeted ivanovich in the middle of her testimony. 's extraordinary. robert: it's republin control. >> the outcome has never beein doubt. i don't think at any point in this process, i don't thi yone believes there are 67 votes to throw him out of office. i don't think that has changed. the white house has some decisions to makli the repns in the white

house have complained about a process. but t rules of t game change. d the white house can send counsel into these sessions inuding closed door briefings. they can offer testimony, ask questions. de how much de they want to engage the process to present a betterase or continue to call ate sham process. louch they going to stand back and how muchle loyalty are they going to don't demand? are they demand calling hunter bite on the the floor of the senate? are they going to give repuicans any room not do that? his ability to jam his own party is much greaterhan democrats right now. >> onef the big moments in clinton's impeachment is when david kdall cross-examined ken starr which could you see what if trump's lawyer tries to cross-examine adam schiff. they talked aboutell, maybe

schiff should billion a witness on the senate side. i don't even know if he's allowed. the dynamics could be fascinating. robert: carol, when you think about don mcgan about the house judiciary committeet' and how supposed to be decided and how it could affect whether john bolton comes before congress. what -- are house democrats' hands tied a bit? >> i think this simp what is it's not impossible that we're going to hear the testimony of senior advisor but basically john mcgann. john bolton, all of them can stand on a v strong legal foundation that past courtsfian if you're a senior advisor to the president. if you are whispering in the president's ears, some of the things you discussed are privileged, executive privilege, there's one exception.

it may be too late for this trial. harriet miers, the supreme court ruled in that case that youave+ to come forward. you can decline to answe certain questions that implicate pr line of scrimmageeaning a whisper about something you actually discussed with the president. when it ces to your own actions, mulvaney's actions, bolton's actions. you shod bellowed to testify and answer those questions. so the court may rule go in, sit for the questions. answers the ones you want. decline the ones you think are privilege. . but it may be ultimately too late because this is going to go to the supremes. the white house is not going to let a trial court judge tell them who goes in to the witness box. >> ando far that strategy has brnings i think incredibly effective. . it's changed the trajectory of this whole impeefment here. y because as pointed oy out, carol we're halfway through about an aual fact finding mission. they can't go get the other half

being provided. ments are not the call logs are not being provided. are not coming forward. as long as that continues to be t it's e and it seems t likely to be the case, democrats can only go so far. they may beto forcerite articles of impeachment only based on really a half knowledge of what'soingn, or what went on over the summer when it came to ukraine. john bolton still has the opportunity to do something. it's not cleermexa exactly he might do. but i think still the absence of documentation is really -- has really ham strung democrats. robert: what duto yes know a the articles of impeachments? ha the specifics we'll see out of the house judiciary committee? >> wwe don't really k a lot. it's going to be what we expect inside the judiciary committ will be based on the clinton model. four difference phases. what is an impeachmentybffense. schiff and the others will present a case.

and the republicans will presen a case. and then the draft the article of impeachment. are they going to use the mueller report? would like to see that. is they feel it plays into the whole pattern of theresident's ttern of behavior instructing congress andnvestigation. there's a danger to that. they may do it if't they d think they're going to get any republicans. >> the only specific article that am schiff has brought again is thit the house is fighting subpoenas. they will be considered for the possible articles of impeachment. it would be shocking if they move forward if obstruction isn't one of them. but how they restructure this about thesk and the withholding of the mill tamplee wee going to get into what specifically they are say rg the smpeachment defense. they think i good one to

say don't look at the decision-making. look atmehe out in the end ukraine got the money in the end he met with president. they think that's theirliest of political defense. robert: we have to leave it there. [laughter] before we go, sharon rockefeller, the preside of weta and a champion of this program was award the national medal of the arts at thee. whit ho >> she helped establish weta aws one of the preeminent public broadcast networks in the nation producing pbs aewshour "washington week" among other programs and now i'll start getting new publicity. could you please start working on that sharon. robert: we will keep reporting. i'm robert costa. good night.

♪ >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provide by -- additional funding isd provi by -- ku and patricia yuen throh the yuen foundation, crit commit -- committed to ra bridging cul differences in our communities. the corporation for publicti broadc and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

[birds chirping] [theme music playing] narrator: after weeks of tacing tempering... oh, jeez! narrator: panicking over petit fours and fighting filo... christine: i am defeating filo. narrator: those left were back in the tent to face more grueling challenges. glenn: i might as well be doing this entire challenge like this because that is how much of an idea i have. narrator: every week, the bakers were set 3 bakes-- the signature bake that showcased their personality and creative flare... oh, i feel sick making this. narrator: dreaded technical, where their intuition and baking know-how were under scrutiny. glenn: oh... of course it says bake. what does that mean, bake? narrator: and the showstopper, where they had to dazzle and the spectacular was rewarded...