tv PBS News Hour PBS November 20, 2019 6:00pm-7:01pm PST
judy: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. toght -- >> was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white housens meeting, ther is yes. judy: u.s.mbassador the european union gordon sondland has explosive testimony that he to work with rudy giuliani and implicates secretary of state pompeo and vice president pence in the pressure campaign against ukraine. we look at the highlights of this headline making moment in the impeachment inquiry. and taki the stage. with less than three months to go before votes are cast in the first presidential primary contest, what to w tch out for inonight's democratic debate.
onall that and more tonight's "pbs newshour." announcer: major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by -- ♪ ♪ announcer: moving our economy the engine, bnsf, that connects us. consumer cellular. supporting social entrepreneurs and their solution to the woobd's most pressing prms. skoll foundation.org.
the lemelson foundation. on the web at level.org. -- lemelson.org. supported by the john d and kathryn foundation. more information at mac found.org. these institutions.support of th program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like y. thank you. judy: the most anticipated moment yet in the impeachment. inquiry u.s. ambassador to the european union and trump campaign dor gordon sondland testified there
was a quid pro quo with ukraine as he followed the president orders to work with trump's personal attorney, rudy giiani. sondlali ites secretary of state pompeo and vice president pence in that pressure campaign. there is aot to unpack from today. lisa is at the capitol. yamiche alcindor is at the white house. nick schifrin with me at the table. so much to talk about with all three of the -- you. let's start with hearing a bit of gordon sondland's opening testimony. >> first, secretary per, ambassador voelker, and i worked with mr. 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 were playing the
the hand we were dealt. we understood if we refuse to work with mr. giuliani, we would lose an important opportunityo cement relations between the u.s. and ukraine, so weesollowed the ent's orders. second, although we disagreed with 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 we re engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decision-makerse at tional security council and the state department knew the impornt details of our efforts. the suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely
false. i have now identified certain state department emails and messages that provide contemporaneous support for my view. these emails show that the leadership, that the state department, the national security council, and the white house were all informed about the ukraine efforts from may 23, 2019 until the security aid was released on september 11, 2019. fourth, as iestified previously, as i testified previously, mr. giuliani's requestser a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. imr. giuli demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing the invesgations of the 2016 electionse, dner,
and burisma. mr.in giuliani was exprethe desires of the president of the united states and we knew these tainvestigations were imp to the president. 2019, we learned that the white house had also suspended t security a ukraine. i was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid. was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as though ukrainians needed those funag to fighnst russian aggression. finally, at alles ti was acting in good faith. i was acting in good faith. as a presidential appointee, i followed the directions of the president. we worked with mr. giuliani because the president directed us to do so.
we had no desire io set any cond. we had no desire to set anyit cons on the ukrainians. indeed, my own personal view, which i shared repeatedly with others, wa that the white house and security assistance should have preceded without preconditions of any kind. judy: nick schifrin, let me start with you. what do you primarily take away from his testimony? reporter: two big takeaways. e is that sondland brought these erations to the door -- allegations to the door of the president, if not in the roo by connecting the president to rudy giuliani. we followedsi the pnt's orders and worked with giuliani, when the president tells us to work wit giuliani, i assume what he says comes from the present -- president. he said giuliani requested ad "qo quo," as we just
heard, for requesting a white house meeting. the quidro quo was meeting president trump, of ukraine announces an inveigation into 2016 dnc and he used the term quid pro quo three times, a lot farther than any other witns has gone. the second point to make was the ukrainians knew that they had t make these investigations or at least announce these why is that important? that goes against the republican argument that there could be no quid pro quo because ukrainians didn't feel any pressure. ambassador sondland said no, ukrainians had to do exactly what they had to do. judy: lisa de chardin, you were in the hearing room. give us a sense of the dynamics there. lisa: i have to say, i've been to many important high-level this job, but tod theilege of
first time where i felt like this was a hearing that was extraordinary, that migh be historic. it had that feeling in the room. you could see members, witnesses, and lawyers on the edge of their ses many times. you also could see what happening in the last two or three days, which is that some members have gotten better. some of the council has gotten better. there's more energy young both sidetl they are a lmore deliberate. as a result of that, you got a little bit more of what exactly the boile dow messages were today from republicans. from what iot their argument is this was all a big misunderstanding. gordon sondland, kurt volker, everyone involved either w misunderstoot was happening or misunderstood or miscomnicated. democrats could not be differen they say clearly the president was signaling if not outright directing his political opponents should be investigated by a foreign power and he was eithholding aid from the f
of course, the question still is how dictly the president communicatedtehat or not. you, being in that hearing room today felt different. you can tell the different -- democrats felt they made a good case today. republicans are trying to eke out judy: yamiche, to the white this very closely.y are watching what are they saying? yamiche: the president and white house aides were watching this very closely. ambassador sondlan said he was not directly told by president trump to hedge this $391 million of military aid toai u for an investigation into joe biden and the democrats. however, he said he felt like he was doing everything at the direction of the president, as a result, t white house is izing on the first part of that. he also walked -- the president walked out onto the white house lawn earlier today. he had handwritten notes.
it's kind of extraordinary because they president didn't take questions, bg he was look down andd his paper sai "i want nothing." sondland's -- i want to play for the viewers t what presidemp said on the lawn of the white house. >>ng i'm g to go very quickly, just a quick comment on what's going on in termof testimony with ambassador sondland. ti just noticed oneng. 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 hapned. to which i turned off the television. what do you want fro ukraine? i keep hearing all these different ideas and ts.
what do you want, what do you want? it was a very scort and abrupt ersation he had with me. they said he was not in a good mood. odi'm always in a mood. i don't know what that is. he just said, now he's talking about what is my response, so he's going, what do you want? what do you want? and now here is my response that 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 asked me the question, what do yan i keep hearing all these things. he finally gets me.i don't know him very well. i have not spoken to him but this is not a maow well. seems like a nice guy though. but i don't know him well.
he actuallyed suppother candidates. not me. came in late. if you weren't fake news, you woulcover it properly. i say to the ambassador in response, i want nothing, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo. tell president zelensky to do the right thing. so there's my answer. i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tellelensky to do the right thing. then he says, this is the final word from the president of the united states. i want nothing. dy: that was some of what president trump had to say today as these hearings were going on. nick schifrin, it wasn't just the president. of coulae, ambassador so was referring to, he b up a number of senior figures in the trump administration. the secretary of street and --
secretary of state and another's. nick: secretary of state pompeo, the vice president, secretary of energy. , acting chief of staff mulvaney. focus on the secretary of state for a second. what gordon sondland said is in early september -- sorry. in early september, gordon ukrainians and said, "you have to do these investigations before you can get military aid released." he said tay that he said that because secretary of state pompeo gave him the green light. we hadn't heard that before. earlier emailed to pompeo in august on gust 11, august 22. got no objection from the secretary of state. was asked, "was pompeo aware of the quid pro quo? answ, "yes." pompeo was asked about this
today and his spokeswoman has released thistatement. "gordon sondland never told secretar pompeohat he believed the president was linking aid to investigations of political opponents. any suggestion to the contrary is flat out false." investigations of political what sondland said today. all he said is that he and pompeo talked about burisma in 2016. he does not say he talked about biden. that's the distinction he made. judy: other senior figures were mentioned by ambassador sondland. what was that? yamiche: what's extraordinary is that it wasn't just the white house having a rapid response, but it was a number of agencies. ambassador sondland talked about acting cef of staff mick lvaney, the former national security advisor john bolton, he
ialked about rudy gi, and vice president mike pence. he set on september 1, before the aide was released to ukraine,nt that he o vice president pence in warsaw while he was visiting an said, i have concerns about this aid possibly being tied to an inveheigation intoiden's. here is what mike pence's chief of staff says. "the vice president nevehad a conversation with gordon sondland aboutnvestigating the biden's, burisma, or the conditional release of financial gad to ukraine based upon potential invesons. this alleges discussion recalled by ambassador sondland never happened." so you see the vice president's chief of staff saying this never happened. then you have rudy giuliani. he put out a number of tweets reacting real-time. he said he was talking to kurt
volker, the former u.s. envoy to ukraine, i was talking to these people about what the president wanted, but i was sharing my opinion. i was not making there was no quid pro quo. a number of officials pushing back on ambassador sondland in judy: interesting. let's listen to another exchange with ambassador sondland this is showing he was grilled by a number of republicans. this happens to be with congressman mike tner of ohio. is donald trump your friend? >> no, we are not friends. >>yo d like the president? >> yes. >> ok. after you testified, chairman schiff went out and said he can impeach. right now if you go to cnn, it says sondland ies trump to withholding aid. is that your testimony today, that you have evidence that donald trump tied the investigation to the aid? because i don't think you're saying that.
>> i have said repeatedly, congressman, i was presuming. i also said president trump -- >> so no one told you. giuliani didn't tell you,ey mulvidn't tell you, nobody else on this planet told you that donald trump was trying aid to these investigations. is that correct? >> i think i already testifyo > answer the question. is it correct? no one on the planet told you donald trump was trying this aid to the investigations. if your ansr is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on cnn is wrong. president trump wa trying aidu to investigations, yes or no? >> yes. >> so you really have no testimony today that tries president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in exchange for these >> other than my own presumption. >> with she is notng. you know what hearsay evidence
wh? that' i testify what someone else told me. you know what made-up testimony is? that is when i just presume it. you are just assuming all these things and giving thee evide that they are running out and doing press conferences, and cnt's headline is sayin you are saying the president of the united states is being impeached because he tried aid to investigations and you don't know that, correct? >> i never said the president of the united states should be impeached. >> but you have left people with the confusion -- confusingon impres i yield back. judy: and it wasn'sjust republic who had pointed questions for ambassador sondland. here is an exchange with democratic congressman, sean patr >> who would benefit from an vestigatn of the president's political oppone? >>su pbly, the person who asked for the investigation. >> who is that?
>> if the president asked for the investigation, it would be he. >> it's not a hypothetical. we just want around this track. the president ask you about he was talking abo biden's. when he ask you about the biden investigation, who was he seeking to benefit? >> hdid not ask me about the biden investigation -- >> when he asked -- sir, we just went through this. when he asked about investigations, which we all agree means the biden's, we just did this about 30 seconds ago, it's a simple question, isn't it? i'm having can't just say --u >> when he asked about investigations, i assumed he meant -- >> i know you assumed it.ou but who benefit from the investigation of the biden's? >> there are two different questions. >> i'm asking you one. who would benefit? p i assume president trum would benefit. >> there we have it. see? [applause]
didn't hurt a bit, did it? let me ask you something. >> mr. maloney, excuse me. i have been very forthright and really resent what you are trying to do. >> fair enough. you have been very forthright? this is your third try. didn't work so well the first time, did it? we had a little declaration. member that? now we are here third time and we have a doozy of a statement. there's a lot of stu you cannot recall. wi all due respect, sir, we respect yourandorut it took a lot to get out of you. :juhat's what some of the democrats and republicans on the committee were saying. lisa, back to you. what does this say aesut the strate there'or democrats increasing confidence about the case they are making. pretty much behind the scenes, they feel this is a road toward, impeachmlthough they haven't made the decision yet. 's pretty clear that is where their minds are
republicans, i spent a lot of timeer a talking to republicans off the house chamr floor. i specifically went after different republicans. what i heard from rank-and-file members was different from what i heard the hearing, the strategy about trying to establish there wasn't a direct link to the president. that's not what i heard from rank-and-file republicans. d,inst i heard from representative peter king in a swing district in new york. he's retiring. he does think the president did nothing wrong, b he argues mething different. he says it's because the presid launch any investigation he wants, i don't have a problem with it. that i spoke to a different republican. francis rooney of florida. he's not as a swingo member does not always vote with the president. he's undecided on impeachment. he said today felt like a big day but also h saidheard conflicting testimony. iken i asked what the
conversation was fort republicans at large, he said that's what it is, conflicting ontestimonoth sides, we are still working it out. i think this is a moment where it's not clear where rep ulicans will e a lot of different arguments in the hearing room, but republican mindsets from the rank and file may be somewhere else. will be more in the coming days. what want to do now is share a little bit of what the closing remarks were today after the chairman adam schiff made his own statement. here's a part of that. >> i have said a lotou of things president trump over the years. about president t which are neither here nor there. i will tell you this. i do not believe the president would allow himself to be led by the nose by truly -- rudy giuliani or ambassador sondland or anybody else. isi think the pnt was the
one who decided whether a meeting would happen, whether aid would be lifted, not anyone who worked for him. and so the answer to the qution, who is refusing the meetinwith zelensky? that you believe should take place, ambasdor ful volker leaves should take place, whef was the oneing to take that meeting? thane's only one answer it's donald j. trump, 45th president of the united states. so who was holdi up the military assistance? was it you? no, it wasn't. was it ambassador volker? no. was it ambassador taylor? no. was it deputy secretary kent? no. was it secretary of state pompeo? no. who had the decision to release the eight? it was one person, donald j. trump, president of the united states
thinkleagues seem to have unless the president stays -- says the magic words, i hereby bribe the ukrainians, that there's no evidence. but let's look to the best evidencef what is in the president's head, what is his intent? what is the reaso behind the hold on the meeting and the aid? let's look at whates the ent has to say? let's look at whats undisputed about what the president has to say. we know how we know what the president has to say? not because what you haveth represented ors have, but because we have a record of his conversation. with who? the one wholl reay matters, with the other president, zelensky. judy: so lisa desjardin, what did you make of those comments? lisa: i think we've known before that chairman schiff is very strong, especially in closing arguments and ink t he has been speaking to the american
pelole. speaker said all along it is the will of the public. iin was speto a republican strategist who said to me, this is a moderate, who said this really is still a junkball. it's about -- jump ball. it's about 15% of the american public. the question is, are they paying attention? is it too much information? they on overload? or is it sony questions about the president th it influences americans? another note. i got news fromepublicans that the dominant republicans on the committee,anng republican devin nunes and jim jordan have sent a letter to democrats saying they intend to subpoena the whistleblower and hunter biden for testimony. that is their language. however, they do not have that subpoena power right now as t conflict ahead here.
republicans essentially just raising the idea they would like these witnesses to testify. they are using the wordbp na, but they don't have that power as far as i understand it. judy: and we heard the ranking republican mentioned that, that that was something they tory much wanteo. quickly to you, yamiche. your reaction from the white house as to what chairman schiff said. yamiche: white house officials continue to stress the fact that ambassador sondland never directly connected president trump to this quid pro quo. he said i felt like i wasin follthe directions of president trump but that president trump never directly tolde this needeo be an exchange, that if we didn't they would have to do thesehat investigations for us to have military aid in this white house eting with the president of ukraine. in some ways, the white house feels like even though bhis might han damaging and democrats want to pointsp to ific quotes from the ambassador, they feel this is still the president having distance from this alleged
bribery the democrats are sayin happened.the other thing to note is a list of white wouse official are still not wanting to comply with subpoenas and requests to come before congress. some crics of the president say if the white house wanted to make the case the president was no directing people to do a quid pro quo, they could allow mick mulvaney to come before the committee and congress to say here is exactly whto the presiden me. that isn't happening yet. the presidentaid he was open to answering written questions, but i have been talking to white house officials who say that's not likely. at this point, the white house will continue to put o statements that point out that the president saidwa when h talking to ambassador sondland, i don't want a quid pro quo. judy: these hearings are ongoing right now. two more witnesses are testifying. what do we know about these individuals? nick: the questions are what did secretary of state pompeo no?
the first official site -- testifying is david hale. he served with a 30 year career under republican and emma craddick administrations. they believe he will testifyse there was no linkage as far as he knew between the suspension of aid and political investigations, but there are questions about what secretary pompeo knew and didn't know. gordon sondland made a lot of new allegations are the second is laura cooper, one of the top officials at the department of defense workingn russia, ukraine and eurasia. ng-term strategy, almost 20 years. she warned the wte house that freezing this aid to ukraine might the illegal. her insight is into how she tried to persuade the white house to release the eight. her insight is als, when did ukraine know that the aidas
frozen? right now that ey knew about july 25. the reason that is significant is on july 25, that's one president zelensky talks to president trump. if ukraine really knew the military aid was frozen,hat undercuts the white house argument that the ukrainians couldn't have been asked for a quid pro quo becausehey felt no pressure, because they didn't know they'd had f beenzen. w r testimony is july 25. the ukrainians kready the aid was frozen. and just a reminder, these are lethal arms. these are real policy toward ukraine that was delayed for 55 days essential for u.s. national security according to u.s. officials. that was at the heart of delay and this impeachment testimony. judy: and that is ongoing right now. we will be reporting on all that later. thank yo a marathon today.ou. nick schifrin, yamiche alcindor,
and lisa desjardins, thank you. as we have been discussing, the trump administratio quick today to push back on ambassador sondland's claim that vic president mi pence, secretary of state mike pompeo, and white hoe acting chief of staff mick mulney were all aware of the ambassador's efforts to get ukraine to open an investigation into the biden an inquiry sondland acknowledged would ultimately benefit president trump. kellyanne conway is he counselor toresident and she joins us now from the white house. so many questions to ask you about today. my first question is this. we heard the president say this afternoon he was asking nothing of ukraine. h's the case, why was the aid held up for several months? why was a meeting with the president held up?
t>> the one thit the president was asking was for president zelensky to deliver on successfullrun on which is to root out corruption. we already july 25 calltr script. both presidents are discussing draining the swamp in their respective countries. they are discussing rooting out corruption and how it has been a problem in ukraine. president zelensky ran successfully oan anticorruption platform -- judy: my questi was -- >> president trump agrees with voters that this was a pr.lem in ukrai they got the aid without a meeting. they got the meeting without a emstt. they got the aid without condition. couple of things ambassador sondland said were critically important. he never heard the aid was conditioned on anything. men he called president trump, the president say times no quid pro quo. judy: let me ask you about something else but ambassador sondland said.
he said he didn't want to workni with rudy giulbut he said president trump expressly directed him to do that. why did the president want him to work with his personal attorney? i don't know what conversation the president had with ambassador sondland, but i will tell you that ambassador sondland said president trump told me directly that the aide was conditioned on the meetings. the only thing we got directly from giuliani was that the burisma investigation was conditiol. to the extent of the president ever asking ambassador sondland to work udy giuliani, and i can't confirm or deny because i'm not sure, it will never get them to conditioned the aid on anything. if people care about ukraine, they should be thrilled president trump has given them nearly $400 million in military assistce including cyber
rifles, a javelins, and oer aid help them fight against russia and other threats. judymebut as we know, that later than others in the administration were saying it should be. but just to be clear, we did hear from ambassador sdland clear quid pr a quo from rudy giuliani reflecting the president's wishes that there not be a white house meeting until there was an investigation of the bidens, 2016, the dnc server, and so on. >>ti but the m happened without a statement. the meeting happened for the wh ae world to sthe united nations general assembly in september. i think what'sre ibly important for your viewers to note is the president of the united states and the president of ukraine and the top imts -- diplomats say there was no pressure applied, the aid was delivered, they up.n't know it was being held alhis is critically
important. think this is why you see the polling going in the wrong direction for the democrats. the poll released yesterday clearly said independence have go0% downn terms of improving in the impeachment. reason for that. they can't understand what's happening. e hours of testimony? judy: let me ask you about a couple of other things. an investigation by ukraine into hunter biden and his role in burisma, into whaened in ukraine in that regard? >> remember, the president is seeking investigations into corruption. if anybody was corrupt or if their company was corrupt,hey may have something to worry about, but he is seeking investigations into corruption. the ambassador testiedoday "he has no recollection of discussing biden, vice president biden, or his son and
ambassador sondland also said did not talabout classified information. why is that important? the statdepartment aide who said he heard c such al is testifying tomorrow. but today, the man who was on the call with the president said the president never mentioned vin president biden or his -- judy: but you are saying -- i'm sorry to interrupt, but you say the president is still interested in knowing anything about hunter biden and burisma? >> he's still interested in knowing about corruption. if burisma is tied to that, whoever the board memre should be held to account. we can't inoculate joe biden and hise' son just becaus's running for president. that's beside the point. this happened when vi president biden had ukraine in his portfolio. this occurred in 2015 or 2016. judy: can you say today what future military aid for ukraine will be conditioned on? >> i can say the future military
aid while president trump was an -- in office will be robust and much more than the previous administration. you heardec elly yesterday and last week, people who are ukrainian experts or people who want ukraine policy vis-à-vis the u.s. is well resourced, well respected. th should be thrilled president trump is in office because the aid not only got important to the ukrainian aid than they got in the previous administration. i can tell you that the aid will continue, but we are watching. we think it's important that president zelensky make good one his promise tn anticorruption fighter. judy: the white house put out statements yesterday that were critical of alexander vend men, the colonel detailed to the national security council. is his job secure and is the job ofmbassador sondland secure?
we know there were critical statements he made. >> those are both people who still work for the administrationd i will say ambassador o'brien, the new head of the national security council, said publicly he will try to shrink what he sees to be a bloated staff. i will leave that up to him and his boss, but i will tell you i have never and would never question the patriotism of lt. col. alexander vindman. i don't know him, bu what i do question is why we have people testifying for hours and hours who have never met the president, who have never had a western abo his policies in the ukraine. eir view of ukrainian policy is only important insofar as they are executing on the president's agenda. he sets the policy and pple's assumptions, inferences,
interpretations, conjecture insinuations, those are not important. the facts matter. the fact is ukraine got its aid. judy: very quickly, you are not saying his job is secure, that he might be part of this downsizing? >> no, i don't know. i don't know who will stay and whwill go. it certainly will have nothing he was here at wor today. . he and his twin brother were judy: finally, still theosture of the white house that individuals like the white housc actief of staff, secretary of state should not cooperate? >> number white house counsel said in the october 8 letter that this is unconstitutional and illegal,nd we don't feel we should comply with it. another reason is in this country, even in a circus like hearing your sing in of you, not rooted in the rule of law, you don't have to testify to prove you are innocent. i think if it ever gets to the
trial., you will see a real it will be more familiar to the american people who are accustomed to trials, who can look at that and say now i get it. the u president of tted states can even have his -- can't even have his own attornee in tearings. that strikes the american people as unfair. uljudy: it be different in the senate. kellyanne conway at the white ouhouse. thank now we have a democratic view that's a member of the house judiciary committee. they would hold hearings on impeachment if the intelligee committee were to end its work and pass it on to judiciary. congressman steve cohen of nbc joins me. you probably just heard kellyanne conway say the hearings he gone on too long and basically proved nothing about the president. >> well, she speaks th thead nistration and wants republicans to speak in their
line. it's like throwthg spaghetti on wall and hoping something sticks. the major anticorruption partsut of the constn are the emoluments clause, and the president has never sent one single contract, reward pment he's gotten from a foreign power to ask for permission to get its the othe impeachment, which is highme crimes, misors, bribery, and treason. they think we shouldn't have an impeachment at all, but certainly in the last year before a presidential election. it is just corruption, trump couldoo what -- write a on corruption. it could have everything in it. as far as him not dealing with foreign countries that are rrupt, and afghanistan, its foreign aid, very corrupt. judy: let's talk about what came out today. we heard kellyanne conway say at dono point was the ambas sondland, the investor tohe european union able to say that
that aid to ukraine o a meeting with ukraine is going to be -- or the leader of ukraineill be conditioned on whether they do an investigationornto joe biden he democrats. >> apparently,hee didn't. but he made it clear that two plus two is four, and anybody who can add, anybody whoan see, anyone who could understand would know it. he said they were all in on it. pompeo, mikeence, the president, giuliani, all of them. he was told work with giuliani. that'shat they were looking up your they were conditioninghe meeting on the investigations. there were conditioning the military aid as well. judy: but if they don't have a direct link with the president, can they move ahead with impeachment? es that constitute an anyway and impeachable offense? >> you don't have to see somebody commit a murder
there's enough evidence and you get the fingerprints off the arifl if you get the person was there. nobody saw allidalt shoot prt kennedy, but we know where he was, we kn who owned the gun, we know whose fingerprints were on the gun.ve you don't o necessarily see it.most crimes itn't have necessarilysses that can put you there. this is the situation where there's enough people who can do reit.they stopping the first-hand evidence that can say trumpeted it from people -- trp did it, from people from testifying. trump is not allowing mulvaney, pompeo, and others to testify. he's encouraging everyone else not to testify. that it's animpeachable article we saw in the impeachment of nixon with the lack of cooperation. judy: that was a striking co-op -- comparison you made with th assassination of president
kennedy.did you mean to make something so stark? >> i was just thinking of a witness to it, but i think most all of us agree and believe thai lee harvey a walt assassinated -- osld assassinated presit nt kennedy. one was on that floor to see him do it. judy: what else do democrats need to do in your mind to move ahead with what they believe is a case a >> excuse me?sident? judy: what else do you believe democrats on the intelligence w mmittee, which is nning these impeachment inquiry, what else do you believe they need to prove? you and i have been discussing, still at this point there is not a solid connection between the president and what happened with regard to ukraine. >> i think giuliani is a solid connection. i think there'enough information as testify to that
he was thrilled they would do the investigation. i thin sondland understands trump when he says he didn't care aboutai u, he cared about the investigation and how it would affect his investigate -- campaign. you don't have to have direct you don't haveve an eyewitness.there are other things as i think it would be nice to have mulvaney and/or pompeo or some of the people who were inn o the phone call to testify, but the white from doing that.them there is obviously a reason why they are stopping them from doing it because they don't want the truth to be known and they don't want them to have d go in dy: i didn't mean toelves. interrupt, i want you to finish ur thought, butongressman, what do you hear from your constituents inss ten? we just heard kellyanne conway saying the newest polls are showing the american people are not being captivated by these hearings.
she said in fact they are showing that a number of people are turning away, in other words that the case f an impeachment inquiry has be dropping rather an rising. >> i don't know that and i haven't seen the polls. the trump administration is notoriously famous forying about polls. the people in my district -- i'm from memphis. memphis isn't tennessee, memphis is memphis.people that i hear from on a regular basis want trump to be for removed from office and be impeached. ey have thought that for long time. my city is predominantly african-american. the things he said about people from expletive-hole countries, the way he's treated people, the few people of african-american origin in his administration, there has been antipathy. they know what this man is about. judy: steve cohen, representative from the state of tennessee and member of the house judiciary committee, thank you very much. judy: thank you for that, i
appreciate it. and oulive impeachment hearing coverage continues tomorrow morning starting at 9:00 eastern. check your local tv listings and find us streaming onlinceon our ok, twitter, and on youtube pages. stephanie: good evening fro "pbs newshour west," i'm stephanie sy. the impeachment hearings have concluded for the day, but late this evening, the house committee leadg the inquiry voted down a republican request to subpoena the whistleblower and hunter biden. other news, the house of representatives voted overwhelmingly tan a a bill supporting pro-democracy protests in hong kong today. having already passed the
senate, the hong kong human rights and democracy act heads to the president's desk. with regards to ongoing trade talks with china, president trump said that the chinese are not "stepping up to the level" he wrets. on wall , stocks fell. the dow jones lost nearly 113 point close at 27,821.the ppsdaq gave up 44 points and the s&p 500 index s 11. protesters are blaming bolivian state security forces for the deaths of at least eight protesters as political turmoil following the ouster of esident evo moralrips the country the violence started when antigovnment protesters cked of fuel plant. the interim defense minister says the emmiser traders attempting to blow up the facility. in israel, a stalemate in the complex political system means the nation is headed toward its aird election in less tha year. benny gantz announced he could not secure a ruling majontty in
parlia last month, right wing pme minister benjamin netanyahu was also unable to form government. the potential kingmaker, the longtime politician lieberman refused to endorse either man. e esident of iran, hassan rouhani, claimed victory after a he praised thousands of. pro-government demonstrators shown on state tv chanting anti-american slogans. he told a cabinet meeting that the protests over gasoline prices were fomented from outside. >> the rebels were organized and armed whense pre following a scheme from the backwards states of the region as well as the zionists and americans. our people have come out victorious in the face of the enemi' plots, this time also in riots that were tmies plot for gaining security. our people gained complete victory. stephanie: britain's prince andrew is giving up public
duties amid an outcrhi ove friendship with jeffrey epstein. thed prince s today this has become a major disruption to the royal family's charitable work. epstein was charged with sex trafficking in the u.s. before he committed suicide in jail. andrew was widely accused of appearing insensitive towards epstein's victims in anw intervis past weekend. the president of the united auto workers has resigned after being implicated in federal probe of ibery and embezzlement. gary jones stepped down today, shortly after the union moved to in a separate case, general motors filed a lawsuit claiming fiat chrysler brought uaw officials for special breaks in labor agreements. announcer: this is the "pbs newshour" from w eta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. judy: turning now to today's
other major televised political event, that is the fif democratic presidential debate. this one being held in atlanta. our am not know was -- amna is there. what should we be expecting? reporter: first, i should point of the democratic debate, on all the screens, the impeachmela hearings ared. 10 democratic candidates will face off on that stage here. take a look at the lineup. it is cory booker, tulsi gabbard, amy klobuchar, pete bernie sanders,, let harris,den, andrew yang, and tom steyer. thnce the last time they met, top-tier has remained consistent. most notably,ayor pete
buttigieg had a bit of a surge in iowa, giving him a clearea . that means he's probably opening himself to some lines of scrutiny from fellow candidates. nhis campa is sticking firm in the pre-debate messaging. they say whatever comes his way, he will be ready. judy: when it comes to thatat scrutiny, re the main policy differences that still whetherates?n the of the other campaign saying they want to get across tonight? reporter: some clear lines of attack we have seeagainst the mayor will probably hold tonight. his lack of elted experience, as the mayor of south bend, indiana, and also his inability to really connect with voters of color weru know beal to whomever the democratic nominee and being. vice president bid's campaign
ys they will stick closely 1 messaging of consistency in the polling regardless of who is number one or number two. also think he will continue to present himself as an experienced and steaee hand at the on day one if he is to become commander-in-chief. live history as a guide, senator warren will continue to push her message of structural change. will probably face tough questions about her medicare for all plan, especially now she has explained how the timeline would be for the rollout. some of thoseio que could come from fellow progressive candidates, senator bernie sanders, as always, thisan i opportunity for the middle tier and lower tier candidates to have a moment. the debate is just two hours long, meaning a few minutes of speaking time. they have to make every minute count. always have an effect on what happens in the weeks coming after. what are people you talk to saying about that? especily since the field i shifting? reporter: there is a new
candidate, deval patrick. also, mayor bloomberg has been flirting with the idea of getting it. i will say two things aree. t one as it might be a little too late for some candidates to get traction, especially because some existing candidates are stillht fg, but they say the voters will have to decide. we will see that unfold on the age. judy: none o reporting on the de stage in atlanta, we will be looking for your report. thank you. another story to tell you about. a reminder to checkpo out our nw ast that amna posts, about the flaws of the public defendeh system i u.s. the latest is ouestoday. it focn the case of ricky kidd and how he found himself in prron for decades for a mur he says he did not commit and why h public defender system. you can listen by visiting te broken trus link on our website. you can also finpides on
apple podcasts, stitcher, and wherever you get podcasts. and that n is "pshour" for tonight. i'judy woodruff. tomorrow morning we continuen special live coverage of the public impeachment hearings starting at 9:00 a.mte e. for all of us at "pbs newshour," thank you and we will see you soon. announcer: major funding has been provided by. >> when it comes to wireless, consumer cellular gives its customers the choice. our no contract plans gives you as much or little talk, text, and data as you want. and our customer service team is on hand to help. to learn more, go to consumercellular.tv. announcer: bnsf railway. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions.
♪ announcer: this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its racaption content and accucy.] announcer: this is "pbs newshour west," from w eta in washingtont and walter cronkite school of journalism in arizona state university.
lidili buon giorno. i'a bastianich, and teaching you about italian food has always been my passion. i want to taste it. assaggiare. it's all about cookg together... hello. ...ad i recreate childhmories... good to the last drop. ...restaurant classics, and new family favorites. isn't that everybody's favorite part? whatever you're baking, lick the spoon.ta tutti a la a mangiare! venite!un anr: funding provided by... annouthe culinary heritageoods, weof authentic italian foods by offering over 100 specialty italian products for the american kitchen. cento. trust your family with our family. grana padano -- authentic, italian, rich in tradition, yet contemporary. locatelli pecorino romano cheese from italy --