Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Sources: Trump Directed Perry & Two Top State Department Officials To Talk To Giuliani On Ukraine As Early As May; White House Refuses To Cooperate With Impeachment Inquiry; Sources: White House Officials Scrambled Right After Ukraine Call. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired October 08, 2019 - 21:00   ET

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


[21:00:00]

RYAN NOBLES, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: He does know that voters are going to look at him a little bit differently now. He is a 78- year-old man who still had a heart attack.

But he told me today he hopes they view him in totality as a fighter. He's going to fight through this. And he still believes he can win the race for President.

Anderson?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Ryan, thanks very much. Wish him the best.

The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

The White House declares war on impeachment, as yet more proof comes out that this President had his personal attorney directing policy on Ukraine. What happens now? Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, here's the latest. Sources tell CNN when Ukraine's President sought to meet with President Trump, sources say the United States President directed his Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, and two top State Department officials to go to Giuliani for his blessing on the meeting, go to Rudy for the President's blessing.

The quote, "If they can satisfy Rudy, they can satisfy the President," that from a person familiar with the meeting.

Meanwhile, the White House is refusing to cooperate with what it calls a quote, illegitimate effort to overturn the results of the election, referring of course, to the impeachment inquiry, laying down the gauntlet in a loaded eight-page letter from the White House Counsel.

One of the main arguments, the President's due process rights have been curtailed without a vote to formalize the impeachment process.

Now, if a vote is held, what could happen? Republicans would have the right to argue for more subpoena power. Speaker Pelosi knows this. She responded this way.

"The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the powers - the President's abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction. Mr. President, you are not above the law. You will be held accountable."

Let's see what the Court thinks. Let's bring into session Asha Rangappa and Jim Schultz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Good. Flip the script. You're going to be on defense tonight, Asha, with this proposition.

Nixon, Clinton, they voted with the full Chamber. This is what we're going to do with impeachment. And, in that vote, there was a delineation of duties and powers that both sides could access. Why don't they do that here?

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well the House can create its own rules.

And, I mean, impeachment is so rare that I think these, you know, few instances don't constitute the kind of precedent that this letter tries to delineate. I mean, honestly Chris, this letter is kind of a legal embarrassment.

I would - I would not be proud if one of my undergraduate students produced this because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the impeachment process, and what actually takes place in a House inquiry versus in a Senate trial. It conflates the two.

The House is conducting an investigation.

CUOMO: What's the downside to having a vote, Asha?

RANGAPPA: Just like--

CUOMO: Let's assume what we know to be the true motivation, OK? If you hold a vote like that, the Republicans have a chance to say, "What about us? What do we have the ability to do during this?"

And if nothing else, the optics would be in play of "So, you're not going to give the President any rights in any of this? He can't interview anybody? Clinton's people got to interview people during the Ken Starr thing. Why not do it?"

RANGAPPA: I don't know what the political motivations are at play. I mean, right now, what they are trying to do is to conduct most of this investigation through the House Intelligence Committee, which has the purview over this.

It could be that by formalizing it, it would then, you know, transfer it to the Judiciary Committee. But I - I'm not sure if that's necessarily the reason. I - I think that either way, they've invoked this power. I don't think it really makes a difference in terms of--

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: --the grounds on which they are pursuing this. And, you know, if - if Trump really wants a forum, in which to, you know, clear his name, that's what the Senate trial is for.

What he's really arguing for is that he wants a full-fledged trial, not that, you know, the House has any obligation, just like a prosecutor wouldn't have an obligation to afford a prospective defendant--

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: --the opportunity to--

CUOMO: So--

RANGAPPA: --you know, present witnesses--

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: --in front of a Grand Jury.

CUOMO: So, Jimmy, the - the legal constructs aside, there are two practical problems with the request, arguably three, but I'll save one for the follow.

The two for you to deal with are this. One, even if you had that subpoena power, the way it works in Committees is that the majority can overrule whatever the minority wants to subpoena.

[21:05:00]

And the reason they can do that is because your party changed the rules in 2015, during the Obama Administration, to empower the majority, and silence the minority. And they did it because they said they were sick of the Obama Administration delaying and denying their requests.

So, isn't this a problem of your own creation?

JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. They have to live with that. But to a certain extent, right, I think Asha has it wrong. The reason - well she doesn't have it wrong. She just didn't had it complete. The reason why the Democrats are doing what they do, because they can

do it under the cloak of secrecy, and then leak out information that they want to leak out, as they see fit, so they don't have to tell both sides of the story.

The information doesn't come out to the public in a - in a way that's - that's - that tells both sides. That's why they're doing what they're doing.

CUOMO: But the Republicans are present for all these hearings.

SCHULTZ: They're not doing it for any other reason.

Plus, let's face it, right? They - they didn't want these Democrats to - that are in Trump - popular Trump districts to have to take that vote. So, they're - they're trying to protect the folks in Trump districts from having to take a vote on impeachment because it's going to hurt their majority down the road.

CUOMO: Right. But here's the thing.

SCHULTZ: It's all politics, Chris.

CUOMO: They don't have to take--

SCHULTZ: That's all they're doing.

CUOMO: They don't have to take the vote. There is no real precedent. You've only had a couple of cases. There's nothing in the Constitution and there's nothing in any procedure to do it.

But, even if they did do it, do you know how many people President Clinton's Counsel got to interview during the House impeachment process?

SCHULTZ: I don't. Tell me.

CUOMO: One. You know who it was? Ken Starr. You know why that was? Because they did it all through the Independent Counsel.

They did - so they gave him this power. They never got to exercise it. And that's the point. The Republicans are saying they were fair before. But they had their own game afoot.

SCHULTZ: No. Look--

CUOMO: But--

SCHULTZ: And - and look--

CUOMO: Jimmy, yes?

SCHULTZ: --Adam Schiff--

CUOMO: What's the answer to that?

SCHULTZ: In addition, let me - let me - let me add to that.

CUOMO: Yes.

SCHULTZ: Adam Schiff is trampling all over the rights. And let's - let's put the President aside for a second.

CUOMO: What did he trample over?

SCHULTZ: The potential wit--

CUOMO: Give me an example here.

SCHULTZ: --witnesses.

First off, he's trampling all over the truth when he stood up, and even the Washington Post agreed, that he didn't tell the truth as it relates to what actually went on in that phone call, number one, damaging his credibility.

CUOMO: Wait. Which phone - which phone call? Which phone call?

SCHULTZ: Number two, so--

CUOMO: Be straight. Which phone call?

RANGAPPA: Chris, come on!

SCHULTZ: The Ukraine phone call.

CUOMO: The Ukraine phone call? Come on!

SCHULTZ: Right, Chris.

CUOMO: He read it. Word for word, he read it.

SCHULTZ: The - the--

CUOMO: It was just dramatized.

SCHULTZ: Come on, Chris. He made it up.

CUOMO: But it was real.

SCHULTZ: Oh, he dramatized it.

RANGAPPA: Yes, come on!

SCHULTZ: When he does it, it's drama.

RANGAPPA: That's a lame argument.

CUOMO: Come on! It was a bit--

SCHULTZ: When the President does it, it's lying.

CUOMO: He paraphrased it. Come on! SCHULTZ: Come on, Chris!

CUOMO: Look, when the President does it, it is a lie.

SCHULTZ: That's like if the President did what--

RANGAPPA: Yes.

CUOMO: And you know what you do?

SCHULTZ: --Adam Schiff did--

CUOMO: You never answer it.

SCHULTZ: --you call him a liar.

CUOMO: You know what you would say? You know what you--

SCHULTZ: He's a liar.

RANGAPPA: Chris--

CUOMO: You wouldn't.

SCHULTZ: That's what you say.

RANGAPPA: Chris, can I--

CUOMO: Jimmy, you wouldn't call the President a liar.

RANGAPPA: --can I get in here?

CUOMO: Asha, go ahead. Go ahead.

RANGAPPA: Yes, I mean, listen, what we have right now is, again, and I've said this before, a prima facie case that the President has abused his power. We have this, you know, primary source transcript of his conversation.

If he has exculpatory evidence, it would be from the witnesses who were either on this call or who are working on behalf of this call, including Ambassador Sondland that who - who was ready to testify today.

In other words, he has the opportunity to present--

CUOMO: Right.

SCHULTZ: Well--

RANGAPPA: --you know, exculpatory evidence if he has it. And the fact that--

SCHULTZ: You know--

RANGAPPA: --he is preventing witnesses from testifying kind of tells you where they are right now.

CUOMO: Well they're making a push to try to say that--

SCHULTZ: No, no, the witnesses that - that Schiff doesn't--

CUOMO: --this is all - hold on a second, Jimmy.

SCHULTZ: Let me - let me respond to that.

CUOMO: They're trying to make a point that this is illegitimate.

The problem you have with that, Jimmy, that argument is, let's say you're right, and some judge were to say that "You didn't start the impeachment inquiry the right way, you got to have a vote." I don't think there's any chance of that. But let's say they did.

SCHULTZ: No judge is ever going to see that.

CUOMO: But let - but let's say they did.

SCHULTZ: Chris, you know it.

CUOMO: Let's say they did.

SCHULTZ: This is a political process.

CUOMO: Let's say they--

SCHULTZ: That's why the subpoenas - when we start talking about House subpoenas, they don't carry the same weight that court subpoenas do.

CUOMO: But then - but see that's where you're wrong that--

SCHULTZ: It's a political process by nature.

CUOMO: --but that's where you're wrong. Your oversight capacity under the Constitution of Congress is real and righteous. And the idea--

SCHULTZ: Oh, it's real.

CUOMO: But, hold on, Jimmy. You can't--

SCHULTZ: But the subpoena power--

CUOMO: --you can't have it both ways.

SCHULTZ: --isn't as powerful as that of a court of law.

CUOMO: But Jimmy--

SCHULTZ: And it's designed that way.

CUOMO: But Jimmy, here's the thing. You guys put in a lot of these subpoena powers. You did it because you wanted them to be followed. You're now saying, "We don't have to follow any subpoenas unless it's an impeachment." SCHULTZ: Hold on. But then you have - then you have Schiff--

CUOMO: Since when does Congressional oversight not matter?

SCHULTZ: The - the - then you have Schiff demanding that folks come in within a certain amount of timeframe, without the ability to go to counsel, which is certainly something that's fundamental--

CUOMO: That's not true.

SCHULTZ: --in our Constitution. And--

CUOMO: Nobody wasn't allowed to have counsel.

SCHULTZ: --they're not giving him time. They're - they're bullying witnesses to come in that they know there's a process.

RANGAPPA: Chris, can--

SCHULTZ: They're failing to follow the process for one reason, and one reason alone, so that they can do this all under secrecy, and leak out information as they go.

CUOMO: It's not secret when Republicans were there.

SCHULTZ: Then it helps their case.

CUOMO: It's not secret. Asha--

RANGAPPA: Chris--

CUOMO: --last word.

RANGAPPA: --can I just break this - yes, the break - the breakdown here is what - what the Trump Administration is arguing. I mean, they're already arguing in court that the President can't be, you know, investigated, let alone, you know, charged with any kind of criminal, you know, crime--

CUOMO: Immune from all criminal process.

RANGAPPA: --in - in a regular course.

They're now also - they're now also saying that, you know, they just kind of don't like the Constitution, and they're not really - they don't want to cooperate with it because, you know, it makes the President look bad, is really what the argument is.

It's not a legal argument. It is a sad, you know, kind of toddler-like argument that they're making.

[21:10:00]

SCHULTZ: It's not a legal argument?

RANGAPPA: And I think it tells you-- CUOMO: Well--

RANGAPPA: --that they're really at--

SCHULTZ: You know, the separation of powers--

CUOMO: Well we got--

RANGAPPA: --kind of a desperate place.

CUOMO: No. Separation of powers is a real argument.

SCHULTZ: We know. Separation of powers--

RANGAPPA: Because they can't articulate.

SCHULTZ: --and the delineation of the separation of powers is--

CUOMO: --is a real argument. And it is in court right now before--

SCHULTZ: --certainly a legal argument.

CUOMO: Absolutely. And it is in court.

SCHULTZ: And Cipollone made a pretty good one.

CUOMO: It's in court right now in terms of getting Grand Jury testimony. We'll see how that case comes out. But there are larger questions that have political questions attached to them, and answers will be political as well.

Asha Rangappa, Jimmy Schultz, thank you for the arguments, appreciate it.

All right, we're going to pick this up with someone who could be one of the President's jurors, if the House does vote to impeach.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, what does she think about the Democrats' responsibility in this? What does she think about what we've learned thus far about this President, and Ukraine, and non-compliance? Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: The White House has drawn a big line in the sand. They sent this letter today, all these footnotes and stuff, to the Democrats.

[21:15:00]

"We're not going to comply. This is a sham! You Democrats didn't follow the rules. You're not respecting our due process. You're not being fair. So, that's why we're not complying in any way."

And right after the letter got sent, then a report came out that once again reminded why this is being conducted the way it is.

Turns out that when the Energy Secretary, Rick Perry who, for some reason, wound up becoming part of the Ukraine dynamic, came back to the U.S., and went to the President, and said, "I think you should work with this guy. I think he's the real deal. He wants to bring real change," the President said, "Go to Rudy. If you can convince Rudy, I'm in."

Really?

Let's bring in Presidential Candidate, and Senate Judiciary Member, Amy Klobuchar.

Senator, welcome back to the show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well it was great to be on that last segment. It seemed like you had turned into some kind of judge yourself.

CUOMO: No.

KLOBUCHAR: So that was something to watch. But I - I - I have to--

CUOMO: Only in a kangaroo court!

KLOBUCHAR: Yes. Well I - I meant - as I was listening to your lead-in here, thinking about if I was President, the thought that you have your Energy Secretary come to you, and say, "Hey, you know, we should work with this person," and your answer is not "OK. Let's talk to the Secretary of State. Let's get working on this," instead the answer is "Go to my private attorney," this just smells from the very beginning.

And I think it's part of the pattern that we have seen here, Chris, where this President is putting his own private attorney, his own private interests, his own partisan political interests, in front of the interests of our country.

Instead of talking to the new Head of Ukraine, about Russian invasions, and the annexation of Crimea, and what we should do, he's talking about him - to him about digging dirt on an opponent. Or how about the President of China, where - where he's in the middle of a big trade war, everything should be the focus of getting the negotiations back on track. And instead, again we hear that he's talking to him about digging dirt up on an opponent.

So, that is really at the core what this is about. And I am shocked by this letter and their obstructionism.

I think George Conway, Kellyanne Conway's husband, said it best. He said this letter was pure hackery and garbage, and that no member of the bar should have signed their name onto it.

CUOMO: Well, look, they're making largely political arguments. But what about taking the teeth away from them? Why shouldn't the Democrats say, "Look, we'll hold the Chamber vote."

The rules were changed by the Republicans after Clinton, so that even if the minority had subpoena power, the majority has to approve it, by Committee, in each Committee, so you're not going to get what you want anyway.

And that would - the Republicans could only blame themselves. They changed the rules. So, why not have a vote?

KLOBUCHAR: You know, that's going to be up to the Speaker. I know that they are working through this evidence. We are just at the very beginning.

We have all seen the partial transcript, the summary of that call, which was shocking, and new information about another whistleblower potentially coming forward, there's a lot out there.

My concern is I'm not that surprised that the Administration is afraid to have these Ambassadors come forward and testify. But it is just wrong. You cannot do that. They're withholding evidence from the House of Representatives.

And I would also add I'm concerned--

CUOMO: You don't have any concerns about how the House is--

KLOBUCHAR: --about the former--

CUOMO: --conducting it? I mean you guys will have to deal with it if it actually gets to you--

KLOBUCHAR: I won't--

CUOMO: --what your own procedures are.

KLOBUCHAR: Exactly.

CUOMO: But you don't have any concerns about this--

KLOBUCHAR: I think that the--

CUOMO: --not being open?

KLOBUCHAR: No. I don't have concerns. I may have concerns in the future. I certainly don't, right now.

And I think, at some point, we got to remember, the trial would be in the Senate. That is where the President makes his case. And it appears they're confusing these two, trying to make the case in this letter.

But I just want to say one thing. They can try to stop their Ambassadors from testifying, I guess, and it'll go up to court, and we'll see what happens.

But there's going to be former White House officials that are no longer in that Administration that knows stuff, people that have been in the room with the President, and that's what I'm most interested in, in hearing what they have to say. And the White House, I don't think they can stop them from testifying.

I'm real concerned about the former Ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch - Marie Yovanovitch, someone who I found to be a very credible person, she is still with the State Department, I believe.

So, are they going to try to block her testimony? There - some thought, after seeing this letter, that that could happen.

And I've seen her interact with Republican Senators, when I've been in Ukraine. She was very well-respected.

She actually piped in, Skyped in to a Town Hall meeting, for me, with my Ukrainian community, hundreds of people there, during the Trump Administration, simply to talk about what was going on. It wasn't one bit partisan.

[21:20:00]

And so, I am really interested to see if they're actually going to try to block her. And also, there's going to be tons of other witnesses that are not currently employed by the White House, since so many of those people who were in the room with the President--

CUOMO: Right.

KLOBUCHAR: --even over the summer, Dan Coats, and Bolton, and some of the other leaders and generals are no longer there.

CUOMO: Senator Lindsey Graham said that he would invite Rudy Giuliani, assuming Mr. Giuliani wanted to take such an invitation, what'd be the main thing you'd want to hear from him?

KLOBUCHAR: Well I would say "Bring it on!" Him - I know he's trying to put that out as some kind of a smokescreen to bring in some other conspiracy theories that they have.

But I would ask him endless questions about his interactions with the President about the tie-in with the freezing of the foreign aid, about what he was doing over there, acting like he was some kind of a State Department official, when he was actually there as a private attorney.

I have a feeling that there would be a lot of questions from the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee. And it's ironic because Senator Graham should be conducting more investigations into what happened here, and we should be having more hearings, but that hasn't happened.

And so, the only witness he's put forward so far is Rudy Giuliani. And I'd love to ask him questions.

CUOMO: Senator Graham, the man who said back during the Clinton impeachment, "The reason Richard Nixon got impeached was because he didn't respond to subpoenas."

Senator Amy Klobuchar--

KLOBUCHAR: Yes.

CUOMO: --thank you very much for joining us, as always.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. It's great to be on, Chris. Thank you.

CUOMO: Always a pleasure.

All right, so if there's nothing wrong with the "Perfect call" to Ukraine, why did so many people around this President engage in this mad scramble when he hung up the phone?

We're going to break down that brand-new CNN Intel on the behind-the- scenes drama, with Mr. Andrew McCabe, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: If the President's call with Ukraine was as perfect as he says, why do half a dozen sources, familiar with what happened after he hung up, tell CNN that there was this scrambling in all directions to contain the damage?

Let's get perspective from the mind of former FBI Deputy Director, Mr. Andrew McCabe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Good to have you back on the show.

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Thanks, Chris, good to be here.

CUOMO: So, what do these mean to you?

After the call, Trump aides scrambled to alert lawyers of their concerns. At least one National Security Council official alerted the White House's national security lawyers about the concerns.

The White House's lawyers thought that they could deal with the situation. But then, those same lawyers later ordered the transcript moved to that highly-classified server.

MCCABE: Yes. So, this is really troubling for, I think, the President, and the Administration, on a couple of levels.

First, as you pointed out, in your lead-in, it really undercuts their argument that this was a perfect call, and that nothing, you know, there was no problem here. Essentially what you have now is what started out as a one-car collision has now turned into like a three- car major pileup.

The White House knew about concerns with this call first from the General Counsel of another Intelligence agency, who called and put them on notice that a complaint had come to their attention, second, from the IC IG when they found out that there was an official whistleblower complaint.

And now we find out that their own people, inside the White House, were so concerned about this. They raised those concerns with the National Security Council attorneys.

These are folks who are not Democrats. They can't be written off as, you know, Obama people, or partisans. They are their own folks in their own infrastructure there. And that is - that's a particularly - that's a tough hit, I think, on the - on the Administration today.

CUOMO: Now, people will say, "Oh, you and your anonymous sources. Who are these people?"

Bring up the text messages from Volker, from Acting Ambassador Taylor, the guy who was put in to replace the woman they didn't like, for pushing back on this kind of stuff, and Ambassador to EU, Sondland, who was supposed to testify today.

Taylor says, "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance to help with a political campaign." This was the second time Taylor had said this, in this thread, by the way.

And then Sondland says, "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear. No quid pro quo of any kind."

Now, the reporting is, Andrew that Sondland went to the President. There's a gap. The text - sorry, that's enough. Those will go. The - there's a gap between - in the text thread, where Sondland went to Trump reportedly, and was told that.

Anonymous sources, you want to dismiss them, that's the heart of journalism, but that's fine. The Acting Ambassador had the same concern about this.

MCCABE: That's right. That's right.

So, as an investigator, Chris, this is what you hope for when you start down the investigative path that each step that you take uncovers another witness, another text message, another piece of evidence, and that's what we've seen today.

Like every day, there's been a steady drip of developments along the investigative line. I think that text messages are some of the toughest pieces of evidence that the President and the Administration are going to have to deal with.

They start out with references to Rudy Giuliani that are - are remarkable. He plays such an influential role in these two diplomats' lives, and what they're going to be doing with the Ukraine.

[21:30:00]

They talk about him as if they need to get his approval before they set up calls with aides of the President of Ukraine, that sort of thing. And then, of course, they - they - they kind of top-off with the references that you pointed to and it--

CUOMO: Investigatively, Andrew, when does it become more than style points where the President could defend by saying, "All right, I get it. You don't like what I did. I understand. You think I shouldn't have done it this way.

You don't like how I used Rudy. I get it. That's my discretion about how I do the job, and how I feel about the countries that I'm going to give a lot of our money to. If you don't like it--"

MCCABE: Right.

CUOMO: --"vote me out. But this is not a high crime."

MCCABE: Well that's a good argument for the President to make. He has enormous authority to conduct foreign policy and these sorts of interactions with foreign leaders, you know, Presidents have a lot of leeway there.

Where it falls apart is in his intent with this particular exchange with this leader. And that appears to have been to collect detrimental information on his domestic political rival from a foreign source.

That is clearly illegal. That's where it gets very hard to write this off as just typical diplomatic, you know, elbow-banging that sort of thing.

CUOMO: Andrew, I got to go. But I want to ask you one quick thing. What would it mean to you, the Andrew - the - the Adam Schiff situation, where he said, "We didn't speak to the whistleblower. We would like to."

The whistleblower reportedly went to a Member of the staff of the Committee. I include that as "We" and that makes it a misleading statement at a minimum by Schiff.

MCCABE: Yes.

CUOMO: What's your analysis?

MCCABE: You know, that's the classic self-inflicted wound. You don't want to make these mistakes as you're conducting an investigation. You want everything you do to be perfect. You want every piece of evidence to be absolutely pristine.

But frequently, people say things that are impertinent or poorly constructed. And it appears that the - that the Chairman has done that in this instance.

It's unfortunate because I think the President will use this to be, you know, become kind of a distraction from the main point. It's just something he's going to have to deal with as he goes forward.

CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, thank you for your take, appreciate it as always.

MCCABE: Thanks, Chris, appreciate it.

CUOMO: All right, I want to bring in another Intelligence vet, who's coming at it in a very different way. This one's held some big jobs in this Administration and others.

What does he think about this internal calamity? What's his analysis on it? What are his concerns about the Democrats in this process? I know that's not Intelligence. But he knows a lot about politics as well.

We'll bring in Mr. Fleitz, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, we know for context that the President says his call with Ukraine was perfect. And yet, the White House refuses to let anyone, still in the Administration, talk to Congress. Instead, they're arguing over the process.

Here to make their case on that, and also his perspective on this new development that we have, the President's former Deputy Assistant and NSC Chief of Staff, Fred Fleitz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Welcome back to PRIME TIME.

FRED FLEITZ, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON, PRESIDENT & CEO, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Hey, Chris, good to be here.

CUOMO: You feeling better?

FLEITZ: I am. Yes, I was up late last night. I was at the CACI Asymmetric Threat Conference yesterday, and I was sort of wiped out.

CUOMO: Of course. I can't even - I can't even spell that, let alone be at the conference. But, thank you, we wanted to have you back. I'm glad you're here now.

So, put on your investigator hat for a second, the idea of, after the call, people scrambling, talking to lawyers about how to clear it up basically evidencing what we saw from Acting Ambassador Taylor, in terms of, "Hey, are we really conditioning this aid on this deal with Biden?"

And then, we know that moves forward to a point where the Energy Secretary comes back from Ukraine, says to the President, "I think you should work with this guy in Ukraine. I - I think he's legit. I think he wants to do right."

And the President says to him, "Go to Rudy. Convince him. You get my OK."

What's your take?

FLEITZ: Well I think a lot of this is based on anonymous sources that we can't confirm. I see a very biased process here that is not following precedent.

But I'm more concerned that the Democrats are trying to impeach a sitting President, using a secret witness that the American people will not be allowed to hear from, and a secret hearing, where his appearance and voice will be obscured, so the Republicans cannot learn who this person is. And this person may even testify in a secret location.

You know, Chris, this is what we see in banana republics or Communist China or the Soviet Union. This is not the way the American system of government is supposed to operate. I think it's an outrage.

We have to have an open process. The Republicans--

CUOMO: Right.

FLEITZ: --have to have the same rights that happened in 1974 and 1998 for an impeachment process.

CUOMO: Well but a couple of points. One, a lot of that would be reserved for the Senate trial. That's when you have the need for this kind of exchange.

We never had a process really in 1974, like the one we have now, nor did we have it in 1998, because what you had with Clinton was an Independent Counsel.

And when it came time to have him in the House, they only presented one witness. I know you remember all this, Fred, but for those at home. So, the Democrats, the counsel for then President Clinton only got to deal with one witness, and it was Ken Starr.

And the biggest problem, procedurally, if you want to go down that road, but I want to go back to your analysis of what these developments are, the reason that the majority has subpoena power, right now, and the ability to call the shots is because your party gave it to the majority in 2015.

They changed the rules coming out of Clinton. They changed it again with Obama. And the reason they changed it saying, "The majority has the right. The minority, in every Committee, you get a majority vote. And if the minority doesn't have the votes, they don't get the subpoena. And the reason is the Obama Administration has delayed and won't deal with any of our requests."

FLEITZ: OK. OK. Now, look, I thought your first guest, Asha Rangappa (ph) had trouble answering this question when you asked her.

CUOMO: Asha Rangappa.

FLEITZ: Well - well she couldn't answer why is Pelosi not using the same rules of '74 and '98? Now the fact that the Democrats didn't fully take advantage of subpoena rights doesn't mean that they should give them to the Republicans now.

And your argument that the Republicans changed the rule in 2015, that's irrelevant Chris. The House makes its own rules. The rules could be set the way they were in 1998--

CUOMO: But why should the Democrats--

[21:40:00]

FLEITZ: --for this - for the impeachment inquiry.

CUOMO: --have a different perspective on how to deal with delays than Republicans did?

FLEITZ: I'm just saying that the process should be the same as was established in '74 and '98. It doesn't matter what happened in 2015. It doesn't matter what the rules are now. The House can make whatever rules.

And look, this is a very grave matter. We have to have fairness. We have to make sure that--

CUOMO: Was it fair when the Republicans changed the rules so that Democrats couldn't--

FLEITZ: That's irrelevant.

CUOMO: --have subpoena power.

FLEITZ: It's irrelevant.

CUOMO: Really?

FLEITZ: That - and that's wasn't an impeachment process either. This - we're talking about an impeachment process--

CUOMO: But I'm saying that in '98, there was no real subpoenaing by Democrats in that process. It was all done by an Independent Counsel.

FLEITZ: But they had the right to do so.

CUOMO: And in '74, it was a totally different process.

FLEITZ: They had the right to do so. They were given these rights. They were given subpoena. And, you know, this is not just for a trial. This is for an investigation.

A lot of people have been on TV today saying, "Well, you know, the Republicans don't need all these subpoena rights, rights to call witnesses because it's - there's not going to be a trial in the House."

They do need these rights because there will be an investigation in the House. That's why. And, you know--

CUOMO: But they're present on all the Committees, Fred.

FLEITZ: Yes. But they don't know the right to call witnesses. And that's something Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to do. And you know why. Because the Republicans will call Hunter Biden. They want to know why was he getting $50,000 a month--

CUOMO: But even if--

FLEITZ: --from the Ukrainian--

CUOMO: But even if they did call Hunter--

FLEITZ: --from some shady Ukrainian gas company.

CUOMO: Hold on. Even if they did call Hunter Biden, because of the rules established by your party, they could still just knock it down with a majority vote.

FLEITZ: I just told you that rule can be reset as it was in 1998. The House can set its own rules.

CUOMO: So, it was OK for the Republicans to change the rule--

FLEITZ: I worked - I worked for the House staff.

CUOMO: --for advantage. But the Democrats should change it back to advantage Republicans again.

FLEITZ: The Democrats should change it so we have this grave process handled fairly. Set the rules that were in '98 and '74. It doesn't matter what was done in 2015.

CUOMO: Right. But it also doesn't really matter what happened in '74 and '98 because each one was a one-off. They were distinguishable from one another. There is no precedent. There is no guidance in the Constitution.

And it seems like what you don't like is the party in power playing to advantage. And I understand that. The Democrats felt the same way in '98. And this is what makes the American people so frustrated about the process.

But I don't think you have a good legal argument or even a good political one.

FLEITZ: I don't have a legal argument, you're right. The Constitution only gives the House the right to conduct an - an impeachment investigation.

CUOMO: Right.

FLEITZ: But we have a precedent from '74 and '98. Nancy Pelosi can't explain why she won't use the '98 precedent. The only reason she doesn't want to do it is because she wants to keep the ability of the Republicans from calling witnesses down. She doesn't want them to do that.

CUOMO: Well why would you be in a hurry to open it up so that Republicans could have their own parallel investigation into everybody who's investigating the President right now?

You want Hunter Biden on. Should they have Ivanka Trump on about why when she represents the United States, she's cutting deals with China, for intellectual property, while still in official capacity?

If you're going to have a private citizen on, like Hunter Biden, and ask why he was doing business, when his daddy was in office, shouldn't you have Ivanka on too?

FLEITZ: I'm sure that that really has nothing to do with this. Ivanka--

CUOMO: Really?

FLEITZ: --Ivanka Trump isn't involved in anything illegal. I'm simply saying what--

CUOMO: And what - was Hunter Biden?

FLEITZ: What's the reason for not using the '98 precedent? The reason is Nancy Pelosi wants a long drawn-out process, where the Republicans have almost no rights--

CUOMO: The '98 precedent, Fred--

FLEITZ: --to do maximum political damage to the President.

CUOMO: --the '98 precedent was to have an Independent Counsel, so you don't have it as apples-to-apples on this. What you don't like is that you're being closed out.

And, by the way, I don't disagree with you. I think this should be as open and fair, as is allowable with the offsetting interest of expediency. I don't mean to be too wordy about it.

But I'm saying you guys are in such a mode to go down different rabbit holes right now to stop this because, Fred, if we change the names, it would change the game for you.

If I said Obama called up this President, and said, "Go get dirt on this person running against me, and that's what I want," you would have a totally different analysis than you do right now.

FLEITZ: No, I wouldn't. I think there has to be a fair process. We have to go the extra mile when we're talking about the impeachment of a President to make sure that we have a completely fair process where the President's concerns get weighed fairly, where the minorities does not get--

CUOMO: I hear you. But as this--

FLEITZ: --rolled over by the majority.

CUOMO: But as a former Intel official, you had no comment about the Energy Secretary going to the President being told to go to Rudy. You have no comment about this mad scramble that echoes what we saw in the texts.

It's not about anonymous sources. We saw it in the texts about everybody trying to cover-up for this. As an Intel person, you have no comment on either of those.

FLEITZ: I think you're changing the subject here from the process. Nancy Pelosi can't answer why she will not-- CUOMO: She doesn't have to.

FLEITZ: --use the process from 1998.

CUOMO: The same reason you guys always use.

FLEITZ: Of course, she doesn't. She doesn't have to. You're right. She doesn't have to. But she should use the precedent, so the American people can be sure that this is a fair process that the President is not being railroaded, and he is being railroaded, Chris.

CUOMO: I don't know that that would guarantee fairness when what it's going to be is just competing interest.

[21:45:00]

But Fred, I take your argument on it, and I take your concerns about fairness. That is something everyone should share, and it's good to have you back on the show. I hope to do it again soon. And I hope your health stays in check.

FLEITZ: Right. Thanks - thanks for having me on, thank you.

CUOMO: Be well, Fred.

All right, I wonder what one of America's political trailblazers - you know, we've been here before, you know. You could take someone saying what Fred just said, and even someone what I'm arguing back right now, we've had this argument before.

And we had somebody tell us the right way through it. And we have forgotten what she told us to do. A champion who never gets enough credit, who did the right thing, during a much harder time than now, and I have the argument, next, all factual.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: You have to remember, we have been here before. The Democrats made the same arguments during Clinton, as the Republicans now, about how unfair impeachment is.

[21:50:00]

The Republicans want more subpoena power in the oversight of Trump. But, during Obama, they changed rules to take subpoena power from the minority. And their rationale, oh the irony, the Obama Administration employed unprecedented delay, and refused to comply.

Be clear. Impeachment has always been political, and it has been about correcting, and punishing abuses of power, not crimes. That's for the courts.

But that is not our biggest problem right now. It's the tactics of division. That's what we're all recoiling at the most, the division, the attackticks, the smears, the lies, by this President, especially, and those around him, because from him, the most should be expected.

But we've seen that before too. And just as now, there were calls for self-respecting, real Conservatives, real Republicans, to get up, and say, "You know what? I don't want to win this way. I don't want to see the Republican Party win like this.

While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.

It is high time that we stop thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom.

I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny, fear, ignorance, bigotry, smear."

Doesn't that sound perfect? It should. Those words were perfect when spoken by one brave woman. She never gets enough credit for chopping down Senator Joe McCarthy.

We always think about the "Have you no decency, Sir" quote, right? That was Joseph Welch, Chief Counsel for the U.S. Army. He wasn't an elected. That was not the seminal moment that turned it all around.

It was the declaration of conscience by Senator Margaret Chase Smith, first woman to hold seats in the House and then Senate.

She was from Maine. She even got six Republicans to sign on to the Declaration with her, 1823 words, less than that transcript of that perfect Ukraine call. But wow, did she resonate! Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR: I believe with all my heart that we must not become a nation of mental mutes blindly following demagogues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: "Mental mutes blindly following demagogues."

She reminded those in office, people are sick of the exaggerations and hallucinations in the name of crushing opponents, and just finding advantage, she reminded them "Your duty was to the people, not to party alone." And, you know, they were faced with a real enemy back then, communism. The irony is you could argue Russia has never had a greater effect on our society than they did, in infecting the mind of McCarthy, and his lot, except for 2016, when they seemed to find a way to poison all of us, to the point that we're in right now, fighting each other, over so little.

Remember the words of Margaret Chase Smith. This is a moment that will always be remembered. It must reflect our best efforts. An impeachment cannot be about irresponsible sensationalism or smears of those on any side.

The people remain divided on the prospects for this impeachment, not so much because of questions about what this President did, but questions about whether the rest of those in power are really in a position to judge him.

Are they really better than what they seem to oppose? Or are politicians just switching jerseys in the same game we've seen before, power and advantage.

Please give the people a reason to believe again Mr. and Mrs. Officeholder. If you are not man or woman enough to say it out loud, like Margaret Chase Smith, then listen to her words and let it guide your actions.

Now, if you've been on social media, in the last 48 hours, you've seen a lot of chatter about President George W. Bush and Ellen DeGeneres catching some football together. Ha!

But I got a BOLO for you, Be On the Look-Out for someone who looked at everything going on, and inspired civility, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, I got a BOLO for you, Be On the Look-Out.

President Bush and Ellen DeGeneres sat together at the Cowboys Game. "What? They don't agree on key political issues. They should hate each other."

"Wrong," says Ellen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELLEN DEGENERES, THE ELLEN DEGENERES SHOW HOST: Here's the thing. I'm friends with George Bush. In fact, I'm friends with a lot of people who don't share the same beliefs that I have. We're all different. And, I think that we've forgotten that that's OK that we're all different.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Hmm! Refreshing!

And you know what I liked even more, no disrespect to Ellen, but this was closer to home for me, somebody who took that, and wanted to remind people, listening to his show, and shows like his, that they got to be nice to people, you got to disagree with decency.

Who was it? My mentor, and friend, on Fox News, Neil Cavuto. He said something that everybody needs to hear. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL CAVUTO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ANCHOR & MANAGING EDITOR OF BUSINESS NEWS, FOX NEWS CHANNEL & FOX BUSINESS NETWORK: Though I don't know them all personally, I can personally vouch for how good Rachel Maddow is to her staff, because they tell me, or how funny Don Lemon can be making fun of himself, or how even funnier Chris Cuomo can be making fun of Don. That's why I bristle when colleagues anywhere are called fake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Well he's dead-right. I mean, you know, my foot is funnier than Don is. But you see what Neil was trying to do, and this is why he's always been great at his craft, no matter where he works, OK?

You got to be good to people. You've got to be kind. Even when you disagree, you've got to do it with decency. And we need that more from the people in high places, like Neil Cavuto. I mean he's a legend over there and rightly so.

Rush, one of my favorite rock bands, they had a song, OK, called Closer to the Heart. And one of the lyrics is "The men who hold high places," men or women, "must be the ones who start. Mold a new reality closer to the heart."

We are at our best when we look for what brings us together. Even in impeachment, even at a time like this, be your best, and that means being good to others.

Thanks for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon right now.