Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Kurt Volker Resigns Amid the Whistleblower Controversy; Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) Was Interviewed About His take on President Trump Going After the Bidens; White House Restricts Access to Specific Conversations; Ukraine Scandal And National Security; The Number Of The Week With Chris Cillizza; New Report's Findings On NRA And Russia. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired September 27, 2019 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[22:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Hey, I'm Chris Cuomo.

There's so much news I have to welcome you to a bonus hour of Prime Time this Friday. We're going to need every minute. Let's get after it.

Following the three major new developments on President Trump's dealings with foreign leaders. First, the Washington Post tonight reports that President Trump told two senior Russian officials in 2017 that he wasn't concerned with Russian interference in our election because, he said, the U.S. did the same thing in other countries.

Second, the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine resigned today, and so far, the reason isn't clear. What we do know is that his name, Kurt Volker, comes up in the whistleblower complaint five times.

The third big story, sources tell CNN the White House restricted access to two calls between this president and other foreign leaders, not just the Ukraine president, one with Vladimir Putin and one with Saudi Arabia's crown prince.

So, let's bring in Congressman Cedric Richmond, a national co-chair of the Biden campaign. Welcome to the show.

REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND (D-LA): Thanks for having me, Chris.

CUOMO: So, the president's big stick is this. Let's be very clear. Whatever I did is OK because I'm the president. The bad guy is Biden because he tried to hook up his son by getting rid of that prosecutor. What's the response of the campaign?

RICHMOND: First of all, the Biden/Obama, Obama/Biden administration was the most ethical administration in the history of the country. We could never, ever try to compare Donald Trump to the Obama administration.

The second thing is the investigation of Hunter Biden was over a year before any of the action of president Biden, and they have been cleared of all wrongdoing. So, what I want the American people to know is that there has never, ever been a hint of impropriety on Vice President Biden's part, and that we should be clear about. But the actions of this president are very troubling.

[22:05:00]

CUOMO: What did you make of Mr. Lutsenko, the former prosecutor now of Ukraine, but the one that followed Mr. Shokin, who was the prosecutor that Joe Biden helped get removed, when he reopened an investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden after meeting with Mr. Giuliani?

RICHMOND: Well, I think the telephone call lays it out unfortunately. Look, this has nothing to do with me being the co-chair of the Biden campaign, not a lot to do with me being a member of Congress.

It has a lot to do with me being an American citizen and listening to a president withhold funds to a foreign country, then call the foreign country and say, hey, I need a favor. My guy is going to come see your guy, and by the way, I need you to investigate my political opponent, who is beating me in the polls.

And he mentioned Rudy maybe four or five times in that short excerpt that we have. And by the way, it was a 30-minute call, and we have a 2,000-word excerpt. There's a lot missing. But the president over and over again said, my guy, Giuliani, Rudy, and my attorney general are going to come see you, and they need to talk to you.

By the way, I need you to also investigate Biden. We know what that is, and I just want Americans, whether you're Republican or Democrat, to understand that this has nothing to do with politics. This has everything to do with our future, our Constitution, and protecting the lives of American citizens.

CUOMO: But tell me why it's wrong enough to warrant impeachment. The counter argument is what you heard Robert Ray say a few minutes ago, that, you know, some legal experts say that asking for an investigation is not asking for a thing of value. So, the solicitation doesn't trigger the campaign finance law. Is that what this was, just asking for an investigation?

RICHMOND: Chris, with all due respect, I would say that is B.S. from the top to the bottom. All he needs -- this president, all he needs is the hint of an investigation. He wore Secretary Clinton out with an investigation. He said, she's so bad because she was under investigation.

This president and the truth don't live on the same planet, and we need to be honest about that and admit that. He will take the word investigation, and he will draw the conclusion and tell the American people, he will look into the camera, he will do rallies and say that Vice President Biden's been convicted by now.

This president lies, and he lies a lot. So, all he needed was the hint of an investigation so that he could draw his own conclusions and lie to the American people.

CUOMO: So, what do you think should happen here next? You are a member of Congress. What do you -- you know, some in your party are saying, yes, we can vote next month? Really? There's so many different things to track down here to make the mountain of evidence, I think, everybody should agree you need to impeach a president. It can't just be a law school argument, it can't just be a 50/50 proposition, right? I mean, this has to be overwhelming to nullify an election, no?

RICHMOND: Well, what I think the mature thing to do is to make sure you present the evidence to the American people and that they buy into it. You can't just impeach a president because you have 218 votes in Congress, and I don't care if it's the Republicans or whether it's Democrats.

We have a responsibility to the American Constitution and to the American people to make sure that we follow the Constitution and the guidelines of impeachment.

Saying that, this is a real problem, and we need to get down to the facts of it. So just looking at it on its face, this is an impeachable offense. But what we need to do is to do our investigation, lay out the facts, call in witnesses, subpoena people, make sure we get documents, and lay out to the American people that this is not sour grapes about losing an election. This is about protecting our Constitution and our future.

And I believe that our chairman, our speaker, and all six committee chairs are going to do that job because this is the real deal. And I believe we have an obligation to act whether it's politically expedient or not. whether it hurts us in the elections --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: If it's --

RICHMOND: -- we just have to do this.

CUOMO: Well, you don't have to do anything. But you are looking at it in the right way in that ultimately it should be unavoidable. If it can be avoided, you should avoid it and you should just take it up in the election.

But let me ask you. If you think you have enough to impeach right now, what's the crime to point to?

RICHMOND: Well, one, asking for and soliciting help from a foreign country to interfere in our presidential election is one. Two, holding a foreign country hostage to get them to do your political bidding is another.

And then let's just think of this overall. In terms of international relations, you are sending someone who is not affiliated with the United States at all to conduct foreign policy with other governments whether it's good, bad, or otherwise. Rudy Giuliani, no matter how much I may think he's a joke or how much

other people may think he's unstable, the president cannot send him or me for that matter to represent the United States in foreign matters. I just think that the American people should be --

[22:10:08]

CUOMO: Why not? Can't a president pick any envoy he wants?

RICHMOND: -- so alarmed. No, he can't, and he should not. First of all, you need to have security clearance. Second, you need to be speaking with some authority besides the fact that, you know, the president gave me a wink and a nod to come over here, ask you to investigate Joe Biden, and by the way, we're going to send you those couple hundred million dollars that Congress has already approved.

At some point we have to go back to the America that has high moral standards, that we obey the law, and that we don't skirt around the law. And, look, this is not as partisan as it appears.

Let me just ask you, Chris, if this was Barack Obama, what do you think the Republicans would be saying right now? And that's the major question. We have some Republicans who show a little backbone in saying this is concerning. But when you ask them, do they want to get to the bottom line, do they want to get to the facts, do they want to have an investigation, that's when they back up.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Yes. But the frustration's got another level, Cedric. I hear you on that, and I'm not going -- I'm not going to push back because it's true. But there's another part to the truth also, which is if it were the other way around, you guys would be screaming that this is the worst violation of an election in history just like you did back with Clinton, where the same people now who are in charge were saying, I can't believe they're going after Clinton for what he did here.

Boy, what a subrogation of our rights. They're taking our vote. We had an election. They're going to undo an election. That's what frustrates people, and that's why you have such a high bar. You got to lay out the proof --

RICHMOND: Well, Chris --

CUOMO: -- so that it is unavoidable for people.

RICHMOND: Well, Chris, I would just tell you that I was in high school when that happened.

CUOMO: I'm not blaming you, Cedric. I'm just talking about the frustration with the system, but thank you for pointing out how much younger you are than I am. I'll never have you back on the show now.

RICHMOND: No. But you're in better shape than me. But let me just say what I think it all boils down to.

CUOMO: Please.

RICHMOND: I think the bottom line is, and Vice President Biden has said it before. Vice President Biden believes and knows that he is the best person to beat Donald Trump. The polls show that he's the best person to beat Donald Trump. And now I think that Donald Trump's actions are showing that Donald Trump believes that Joe Biden beats him, so he's asking for assistance from foreign countries, all the king's horses and all the king's men.

So, at the end of the day, this is about the country and how we unify the country. We have never been so divided as we are today. Even if you look at the Clinton impeachment --

CUOMO: Right.

RICHMOND: -- today is much worse, and we have so much more on the line in terms of world peace, in terms of our election security, in terms of our internet security, our corporations losing their trade secrets.

CUOMO: I hear you.

RICHMOND: So, this is just not about Joe Biden. This is about America. I just hope that people would rally around, and I'm trying to be as objective as I can to make sure that I get the facts. But there's no hiding the fact that this is alarming, and it should be alarming to every American citizen.

CUOMO: Alarming, absolutely. To the level of impeachment? You got to make the case. That's the job. Cedric Richmond, thank you very much for being on the show. I appreciate it.

RICHMOND: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right. Another piece to the puzzle. The U.S. special envoy to Ukraine just up and resigned the day after the whistleblower complaint came back. What is that about now? And it gets complicated because what about executive privilege?

Usually you work in the White House, you don't have to talk about what you told the president. Now he's not in the White House. Cuomo's court will take that up next.

[22:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Another big headline falling on a Friday. Kurt Volker, the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, is out. He resigned. What's that to do now with executive privilege?

We've got two very good legal minds, Michael Zeldin, Jenna Ellis here in Cuomo's court. Michael, you're a regular. Good to see you. Jenna, welcome to the show. It's good to have you.

JENNA ELLIS, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER: Thanks so much, Chris. Great to join you.

CUOMO: I got two issues, one discrete, one more broad. Let's start with the discrete. Executive privilege. I'll start with you, Jenna. You're new here. So, Volker leaves. We don't know why. But he's gone. So now is he free to testify and is the White House excluded from saying executive privilege he can't talk about it.

ELLIS: Well, so executive privilege belongs to the president.

CUOMO: Right.

ELLIS: And so, it would be the same thing as if I am, as an attorney, representing a client that privilege belongs to the client. And so, the reason that we have executive privilege in this country is not so that any administration, regardless of whether you're Republican, Democrat, independent, so that you can hide anything or that you can conceal information.

It's so that you can do your job and make sure that certain things that are of course very sensitive as the president of the United States and the executive branch, you can do things and make sure that you can have full confidence within the operation of the legal in terms of your office.

CUOMO: Understood.

ELLIS: So executive privilege does not belong to the Ukraine envoy. It belongs to the president of the United States.

CUOMO: Understood.

ELLIS: And I have to say, Chris, though, that this president, President Trump has been so fully transparent, he did not have to waive executive privilege in releasing the transcript. But he did. Why? Because he is fully transparent although that may have a chilling effect for presidential value later on phone calls --

CUOMO: Maybe.

ELLIS: -- between any president and a foreign leader. This is a very, very dangerous road for Democrats to be treading.

CUOMO: On a different night, I would argue transparency with you or the lack thereof for a long time, but it takes us off issue here. He did release the transcript.

ELLIS: Well, have me back to discuss that.

CUOMO: I would. I would.

ELLIS: Right.

CUOMO: But, Michael, with Volker leaving, of course Jenna is right, the privilege flows from the president. But can you exercise it if the guy doesn't work in the White House anymore? MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he can agree to testify, and

the president can assert the privilege and seek to prevent him from testifying.

[22:20:02]

There's a subpoena outstanding for his testimony, and so the subpoenaing party, the House, would go to court and say it's an inappropriate assertion of executive privilege, and the court would then have to decide who's right.

CUOMO: Who usually wins, Mike?

ZELDIN: In this context, I think the House usually wins. In the context of an impeachment proceeding. If it was just legislative oversight, it may not be as clear. But in the context of an impeachment proceeding, I think they have the upper hand.

CUOMO: All right. Now the big issue, OK? The macro. That's the discrete one. We'll see how it plays out. Michael, when you're looking at what happened as we understand it to this point, where do we even start to approach a level of impeachable action by the president?

ZELDIN: When it is determined that the conduct of the president was an abuse of the powers of his office, that he engaged in activity that, as Hamilton described it, was an abuse of the powers that are given to him by virtue of his authority in that office. It does not require a crime.

Robert Ray's determination that it needed to be a crime first, I don't think is a majority opinion. So really it stems from the abuse of office. It's been known in English law since the mid-14th century as such, and that's what I think is the standard, Chris.

CUOMO: Jenna is ready to go. What is the counter? What do you think it takes?

ELLIS: Well, it takes exactly what the Constitution specifies, which is treason, bribery, or other, and that phrase or other, high crimes or misdemeanors. This is not politically partisan. This is not just because the Democratic left hates President Trump. That is not an impeachable offense.

And so, yes, it has to be an abuse of your office, but essentially going against the sovereignty of the United States of America. Nothing President Trump has done yet we look in contrast that to Joe Biden, who used his vice-presidential office to favor -- to curry favor for his son.

CUOMO: How do you know?

ELLIS: That is an abuse of power, and so that is --

CUOMO: How do you know?

ELLIS: We don't. That should be an inquiry. Why is no one looking at that. However, --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Well you just assumed it.

ELLIS: No, and I'm making the argument. I'm contrasting that on the allegation of Biden. And so, what's going on with Donald Trump is that nothing -- that he has done nothing in that transcript remotely rises to the level of treason, bribery, --

CUOMO: OK.

ELLIS: -- or other high crimes or misdemeanors. This is a constitutional issue, not a political one.

CUOMO: Well, Michael -- Michael?

ZELDIN: So high crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase that's been, as I said, known in English parliament since the mid-14th century. It is well known to be that which is an abuse of the powers or the authority of your office. That is the allegation --

(CROSSTALK)

ELLIS: Where's the abuse of power?

ZELDIN: Excuse me.

ELLIS: Where is it?

ZELDIN: Excuse me. I'll try to answer it, Jenna. The authority that is alleged to be abused is leveraging his authority with the president of the Ukraine for personal benefit, that is, the investigation of the Bidens to help him in his 2020 campaign. That's what is at the heart of the allegation.

ELLIS: See, but the counter to that is that the president of the United States, even when he is seeking office for re-election, does not stop being the president of the United States. And we have an agreement with Ukraine that they can -- we can ask them for assistance looking into corruption. This is entirely proper. Nothing in the transcript remotely rises to this --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Why would improper have been -- have the DOJ look into it?

ELLIS: And so --

CUOMO: Which is what I wonder if that's what Giuliani meant when he said, I'm not giving you the proof. It's already in the right hands. Shouldn't the president have said to Bill Barr, you look at Biden.

ELLIS: Well, and so, but the president can. He's the leader. Remember the A.G. works for him. He's the head of the executive branch.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I know. He can investigate anybody.

ELLIS: And so, to ask for assistance and investigation is perfectly within the scope of his official duty as the president of the United States.

CUOMO: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: That's not --

CUOMO: But asking the Ukraine president to investigate an American citizen, I think, is a little bit different but we need --

(CROSSTALK)

ELLIS: But we have an agreement with Ukraine that we can ask for help.

ZELDIN: Not --

ELLIS: So, it's perfectly legal.

ZELDIN: Not in respect of your personal campaign for re-election. That is not in the nature of one's official responsibilities as president.

(CROSSTALK)

ELLIS: How are you connecting that? How are you connecting that?

ZELDIN: Well, how am I -- because it's in the transcript --

ELLIS: This is corruption regardless of whether Biden is a candidate or not. Then the president of the United States can ask for --

CUOMO: Right.

ELLIS: -- assistance in a corruption investigation.

CUOMO: I know, but here's the problem. We didn't have an open investigation. They didn't have an open investigation. They had already cleared Hunter Biden and never said Joe Biden did anything wrong.

ELLIS: Well, they fired the prosecutor.

CUOMO: And then they wanted it again. Well, because he was going too easy. They then brought in a guy who went harder. He closed it until he spoke to Rudy Giuliani, and then he reopened it before saying to Bloomberg, really, Hunter Biden did nothing wrong.

ZELDIN: And that, Chris, is exactly in the nature of what the founders had in mind when they said abuse of the powers of one's office.

CUOMO: But we need to know a lot more because to impeach, 's got to be so high.

All right. I'm already running late in the show just started. Jenna Ellis, well argued. Welcome to the show. Michael Zeldin --

ELLIS: Thank you.

CUOMO: -- always a pleasure and thank you especially to both of you on a Friday night.

ELLIS: Thanks much.

[22:24:59]

CUOMO: All right. Republicans are trying to hammer home this whistleblower didn't even hear the call, man. But the phone call and the complaint about the phone call, very consistent. We're going to look past the distortion to what matters to you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Really interesting new details about an infamous meeting that took place between the United States president and two Russian officials at the White House in May of 2017. You'll remember it.

Remember Lavrov laughing at us in the media and him kind of walking, ha, ha, ha, ha, with Rex Tillerson? Remember that?

[22:29:57]

So, we have now learned that something was being kept from us. Why, we're going to get into in a second. But the president told the Russians, I don't care about your elections in our -- interference in our election because you know what? The United States does the same thing in other country. Garrett Graft, Jim Baker, and Susan Glasser join us now. Jim Baker, legal significance to the subject matter let alone what we're learning about this memo having been secreted?

JAMES BAKER, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL: Yes. So, the two things. One, I mean, Chris, honestly it's just hard to look at those pictures for me. I mean, that was the day after Jim Comey was fired and then the president made all these disparaging statements about Jim Comey in that same meeting.

CUOMO: To the Russians.

BAKER: To the Russians and on a personal level, that was a very challenging time for us back at the FBI to say the least, right? OK. So backing up from that, look, the president has a solemn obligation to protect the country from foreign adversaries, from foreign enemies. And in the Mueller report, what Director Mueller said -- I believe it was in his press conference. He said that the Russians had engaged in a concerted attack against the United States elections system, and it was done by military and intelligence elements of the foreign -- of the Russian intelligence and military services, right?

And so, oh, my goodness, I mean the president is supposed to protect us against that kind of thing exactly. It's not that they just did some namby-pamby meddling in our election. It was a concerted attack by these types of organizations. The president has to defend us from that. And when he's not doing it, then he's not fulfilling his constitutional obligations. That's the legal significance of it.

CUOMO: Susan, in terms of how this story is hitting, I don't think the timing is a coincidence, that as we learn about this special classification of the Ukraine call and other calls with controversial leaders, it comes out that this too, maybe not in the same way, but this too was kept extra quiet. Relevance?

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, THE NEW YORKER: Absolutely. I think what we're going to see now -- first of all, it's a lot of information coming out. You know, to a certain extent the dam is breaking as the House Intelligence Committee and others begin to investigate the facts around this. I think what we're going to find is that this gets to the heart of the dysfunction in the overall Trump foreign policy and that this is very much a foreign policy scandal of the Trump administration.

The Ukraine call is not an outlier. It's not some crazy exception. It's very consistent with the way the president of the United States has transformed American foreign policy into a personal arm of Trump Inc. And I think that, that's been true from the very beginning. You know, that meeting was actually in the spring of 2017 at the very beginning of Trump's presidency, the meeting with the Russians.

And, again, it suggests that from the beginning, his aides and advisers knew that there were things that were, at a minimum, wildly politically inappropriate and that they sought to keep from the American people and sought to keep from coming out. And then of course the question is where there other things that were beyond politically inappropriate, but come up to the line of legally inappropriate or possible abuses of power?

CUOMO: So touch on that, Garrett. You know, for the people who are trying to follow along here, you know, why do I care? What are we talking about? How the president does things? This is about style? Isn't that about elections? Why should I care about this in any bigger way?

GARRETT GRAFT, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, and I think Susan is absolutely right that one of the things that is becoming clear is that, you know, when Donald Trump says that he thought that this conversation with the Ukrainian president was a perfect conversation, well, that is one of the reasons that it appears that, he's probably had a lot of conversations that were like this, that mixed his personal interests above and beyond the national interests of the United States.

And so, he didn't necessarily see anything wrong with what he was doing, but as Jim was saying, at the most basic level, the thing that we ask a president to do is to defend the United States against foreign adversaries. And here we have more evidence that the president is putting his own political interests and his own personal interests above our national security.

And, moreover, that he is willing to compromise, you know, foreign policy goals of the United States, that longstanding foreign policy goals of the United States when they conflict with his personal desires.

CUOMO: All right. Do this for me. You guys have given me more to think about than I expected. Let me increase the reason that you hate me for having you here on a Friday night, but please stick around after the break, because for all that we're learning about the president's actions, you can't lose sight of what the focus is here.

National security, whether or not the president lived up to his duty and responsibility or not, what is the proper analysis about where we are and where we need to go? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:35:00]

CUOMO: All right. We're back now with Garrett Graft, Jim Baker, and Susan Glasser. Let's do a little bit about the state of play given all this new information. So, Jim Baker, I had Robert Wray, OK, redoubtable legal mind. He says high bar for impeachment. We should all agree about that. The idea that the Democrats want to vote next month, I think that is suspect, but he said, you don't have it on this Ukraine call, because you need a high crime or misdemeanor. You need extortion, bribery, treason, and you don't have it. And asking for an investigation is not asking for a thing of value. Jim Baker?

BAKER: Well, it doesn't have to be a crime as defined by Congress in a particular statute like in the campaign election law that I think he was referring to. That's just not what's at issue here. This is an issue that sounds in -- what I mean is, it comes from the constitution itself. And so it's Congress enforcing the constitution itself. That is what it has to think about. And what it needs to think about is whether the president has violated the constitution in some significant way.

[22:40:04]

I agree this is a very big deal. I agree it shouldn't be done lightly or easily, but in a situation where the president has abused his power to try to stay in power by investigating or urging a foreign power to investigate his main -- his likely main political rival, that, to me, is certainly something that Congress should consider as an impeachable offense and proceed accordingly to investigate it.

CUOMO: Susan, what is our understanding about how far-reaching these efforts may go in terms of what the congressional investigators are trying to piece together?

GLASSER: Well, this is a good question, Chris, because I think, you know, to a certain extent, people could be misled to thinking that it's simply a textual analysis of the phone call and the transcript that is at issue here. The transcript was really a major disclosure this week, but there's a fact set that goes along with it that is very striking, and some of the commentary is sometimes misleading, it seems to me.

First of all, we're talking about the president having apparently personally ordered the holdup of several hundred million dollars' worth of aid eight days before that phone call, and that is according to what his own advisers told other senior officials in the Defense Department and in the State Department.

So that directly bears on the question of what he was doing in that phone call. Congress needs to investigate why the president held up that aid. Is there a paper trail? Are there other witnesses who heard the president say why he was holding up this aid? Is that in and of itself, by the way, a potential abuse of authority and power that has nothing to do at all with the question of federal election law? Congress designated that aid. If the president lied about it or held up that in an arbitrary way, that potentially is an abuse of power. So that is number one.

Number two, the president and his advisers withdrew the American ambassador to Ukraine. Why did they do so? That is something they need to investigate. She will be testifying, as I understand it, or being asked to give a deposition to the House Intelligence Committee next week.

Number three, this was a months-long campaign by Rudy Giuliani, your guest --

CUOMO: My guest. You're giving me full ownership of Rudy Giuliani. All right, thank you very much.

GLASSER: You are going to forever be famous for that interview. That was an incredible moment in American politics, and it really pre-- figured all of this. But you know, this was a scandal in open view except none of us knew what would happen with it. I mean, you know, in my wonky world of Russia watchers and Ukraine watchers, we knew for months that something very bizarre and unusual was going on here with Rudy Giuliani obsessing about Ukraine, forcing out the U.S. Ambassador, a well-respected woman for no apparent reason. Don Jr, the president's son, involved in a public campaign to oust her.

Again, they were openly saying -- not in secret. They were openly saying, we demand an investigation for political reasons. So there is an enormous number of facts. There's an enormous number of witnesses too here by the way.

CUOMO: Right. But, you know, Garrett, when you're looking at these types of issues, why you did things may not be enough to rise to the level of impeachment, because the American people must feel that it is overwhelming. You're going to nullify an election. So what categories of activity have to be involved in this in terms of on the State Department level and coordination level to make this more than a bad phone call and political acumen?

GRAFT: Well, I think one of the clearest pieces of evidence that we have so far of just how over the line this was is the panic inside the Trump White House after this telephone call. You know, the people who were involved in this, the people who saw that memorandum of conversation afterwards reacted, realizing that something very bad had gone awry in this telephone call, you know, that you have these calls to the CIA general counsel.

You have calls to the Justice Department. You have the Attorney General -- the Assistant Attorney General for National Security reviewing this and then bringing in his colleagues from the criminal division. You know, there was no shortage of people who looked at this and said, this is trouble.

CUOMO: Garrett, thank you very much. Jim, Susan, I appreciate it, especially on a Friday. Be well.

A wave of House Democrats came out in support of impeachment this week, but there's still holdouts. Chris Cillizza weighs in on that with the mysterious number of the week. What is it? What does it mean? What's up with his face?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:45:00]

CUOMO: All week long we've been watching the number of House Democrats joining the call for impeachment tick up. Out of 235, how many are holding out, and how significant is that? Chris Cillizza is here with the number of the week. What have you got, handsome?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: All right. Here we go. The number is 12, and its 12, Chris, because there are 12 House Democrats who are still not in favor of an impeachment inquiry slash impeachment more generally. Now, that is a small-ish number. When I started this out earlier today, it was 17. So it shows you there's been movement, and there continues to be movement, but I do think it's worth noting out of that dozen, 11 of them represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016.

[22:50:02]

Only one, Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is in Texas in a very, very Democratic district, only she is the lone holdout in a district that Hillary Clinton won. So it is important to note her I think amid this rush, vis-a-vis impeachment and the Ukraine news and all the news about Russia. I think, it's important to note, that the last time there was significant polling done, we had a significant majority of people in the country opposed to impeaching Trump and those polls showed, Chris, that Donald Trump was in terribly low-liked.

You know, low 40's approval, 57 to 65 percent approach impeachment. That will change. That number of impeachment we've seen this in a couple of early surveys that number will move more towards impeachment given this week. The question is, how long does it hold? Now, it's important to remember that yes, the vast majority of Democrats in the Democratic caucus are for it. But 11 of those 12 represent Trump district and they represent constituencies that voted for Democrat in 2016, 2018, but are still skeptical broadly speaking about impeaching this president.

CUOMO: So, what's the press mind on impeachment?

CILLIZZA: The numbers in terms of the passing?

CUOMO: No, like you know, you know, the potential, OK, you did it, I'm happy with that versus I can't believe you did that.

CILLIZZA: I think it's -- so, the analog we always heard on the run- up with the Nixon impeachment inquiry. That when they started it, it wasn't all that popular. But as things went on, the news came, it became something more people's put it. I think you'll see some of that. I do think you cannot read that Ukraine transcript, you just can't read it, and think this seems all about board, no problems here.

CUOMO: You know what people say. You talk to people all the time.

CILLIZZA: There was no quid pro quo.

CUOMO: Well, yes, but they say -- this is what they do, Chris. This is what they do. This is this industry standard. They're all shady and they play to the advantage and he is the president. He can ask this things. Should he? Probably not. But he can. I mean, are you going to impeach all of them? How do get pass that?

CILLIZZA: I think that that's a real question. And let's -- I would say that I still think on everything in, all in, impeachment is very much a toss-up in terms of -- I do think it's very likely that the House impeaches this president. I think Nancy Pelosi understood that when she said, let's have a formal inquiry. There's no way that doesn't end for full floor House vote. It's seems very likely if you have a full House floor vote the impeachment doesn't happen. I think it's equally unlikely that the Senate impeaches him, 53 Republicans in the Senate, remember they needed two-thirds majority --

CUOMO: Do you think, they even have a trial?

CILLIZZA: Yes. I do think they have a trial. McConnell is, I think McConnell is institutionalist --

CUOMO: There's the wager. There's the wager.

CILLIZZA: And I don't think he'll walk away from it.

CUOMO: There's the wager. I bet you he has a vote on the floor about whether or not they want to have a trial. And it only needs a simple majority.

CILLIZZA: Yes, I mean, look, we have seen this, I remember writing they'll never get rid of the two-thirds majority to end a filibuster. That will never happen. Well, it's basically gone now. So, history doesn't change until the second it changes and that everything is different. I do think it will be a trial, I do not think he will be convicted of impeachment. He'll be like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate.

CUOMO: Well done, Chris Cillizza.

CILLIZZA: Thank you my friend, always good to see you.

CUOMO: Have a great weekend.

CILLIZZA: You too.

CUOMO: One report out tonight that you haven't heard much about, but it matters. It's about the NRA and Russia. Were things too cozy between them? Did you know that had been investigated by our Congress? It was. What'd they find out? BOLO, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:55:00]

CUOMO: It's BOLO time. That's an acronym for be on the lookout. President Trump met today with NRA chief, Wayne LaPierre. The New York Times is reporting that the two discussed how the NRA could support the president during the impeachment inquiry. And in exchange for the support, LaPierre reportedly quote, asked that the White House stop the games over gun control legislation. And then the president of course said to him, no, I just went to Pelosi and said I want to do guns right now.

No, I'm kidding, he didn't say any of that. That's not the only NRA news to be on the lookout for however. A new report from Senate Democrats says the NRA acted as a foreign asset for Russia ahead of the 2016 election. It says, the group openly fostered relationships with Russians tied to the Kremlin. Who want to get closer to whomever won the 2016 presidential election.

Among those Russians, Maria Butina. Remember her? She pleaded guilty to being a foreign agent. Now serving prison time. The reports says, Butina enticed top NRA officials to visit Moscow in 2015. How? She dangled big promises. Lucrative business opportunities, even a sit down with Putin himself.

However, there's no evidence any sit down like that happened. The NRA claims the trip was an unofficial event. But documents show it footed some of the bill. Could risk costing the group its tax exempt status. The NRA brushing it all aside says quote, the report goes to great lengths to try to involve the NRA in activities of private individuals and create the false impression that the NRA did not act appropriately. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Republicans argue the report shows quote little to nothing, but in an environment where foreign interference is a real danger. Even a little can mean a lot. So, be on the lookout. Thank you so much for watching. CNN Tonight with Laura Coates in for D. Lemon. The upgrade starts right now.

[23:00:00]