Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Top U.S. Diplomat Testifies He Was Told Trump Wanted Aid Withheld Until Ukraine Said It Would Investigate Bidens; Top Diplomat Testifies: Quid Pro Quo Was Trump's Call. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired October 22, 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]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: President Trump says it is all to the good. He tweeted like today, good news seems to be happening with respect to Turkey, Syria and the Middle East. Further reports to come later!

Not especially good news of course for the Kurds, but very good news for Russia and Iran and the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

News continues, I want to hand over to Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME."

Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, thank you Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to Prime Time. So many see this as a very dark day for the President, maybe but that's not my perspective.

We have finally seen the light of truth. We know what happened and that light shone brightly today from an unlikely source, Team Trump. The top U.S. Diplomat to Ukraine said a quid pro quo was clearly in play.

The President was orchestrating a shadow effort to manipulate Ukraine to get dirt on the DNC and the Bidens. People with power to decide the President's fate are here tonight to answer the real only question that remains, what should the consequence be? It's a big day. There are big questions. Let's get after it.

Now look, the White House is doing what it does worst, it's attacking the source, but they can't do that here. This comes from their own, the President's top diplomat in Ukraine, the man asked by Trump Secretary of State, of course he's for every citizen, but I'm saying it's his team, Pompeo went to Taylor, asked them to do the job. This is their team.

And Mr. Taylor confirmed in painstaking detail what happened in Ukraine and he details it as wrong and abusive of power. The release of aid to Ukraine was contingent on what, on the country pursuing an investigation against the Bidens, against the DNC and saying it in public. And if they didn't, they wouldn't get to have a meeting with this President, which they wanted very much for legitimacy and that aid was frozen. Remember, Bill Taylor, if you don't want to take him from his word, you can take him from his texts, because we have them. Sondland, you don't want to take him at his word, and there are questions he has to answer about, a little bit of inconsistencies of what we've heard from Volker and Taylor, but it's all in the text.

Taylor is the man who said, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. He said he believed that then and still believes it today. And earlier, he answered the key question of what happened on the phone with the President's Ambassador to the EU, Sondland, after he asked him to take it offline. Remember?

Taylor says Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky, the Ukraine President, to state publicly Ukraine will investigate Burisma, that's the company where Hunter Biden was on the Board, and alleged Ukraine interference in the 2016 election, that's this crazy DNC server conspiracy.

Sondland said, "Everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance." He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a public box. The President's own people have by and large been telling the same story for the last two and a half weeks to Congress, and it is damning.

The only one who appears to be spinning is the top Trump donor turned Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and what he said is bad enough. But now they're saying you've got to come back, because he has been spinning it a little bit and we need as little discrepancy on what is certifiable as fast as possible.

So, let's bring in someone who is calling for Sondland to come back, who heard from Taylor with his own ears today, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committee Member Gerry Connolly, Democrat from Virginia.

Congressman, such an important night. Thank you for being on PRIME TIME.

REP. GERRY CONNOLLY (D-VA): Good to be with you again, Chris.

CUOMO: You are relieved of the ordinary cat and mouse where I try to get you to tell me what happened in the testimony and you say you can't tell me because it was closed, because we have his statement and that is all we need.

When you heard that today, do you believe there can be a good faith dispute about whether or not the President did something that is wrong and abusive of his power.

CONNOLLY: No, I don't think that's in dispute at all, Chris, and I think you outlined it just before I came on. I think we have prima facie evidence in the transcript, in the whistleblower complaint, in the text messages provided by Ambassador Volker and now in this - well this statement, very lengthy and very methodical and meticulously done statement of 15 pages by a man who takes really meticulous notes from both phone conversations and meetings. [21:05:00]

I think it's very damning and I think it puts a politically mortal peril at this Presidency.

CUOMO: I think that's the only question is, what is the consequence? I don't see good faith argument on the facts because these are all Trump's guys. I think it's silly to attack anonymous sources--

CONNOLLY: That's right.

CUOMO: --but these are anonymous sources. You want the whistleblower, go get him, we don't need him. This is all about--

CONNOLLY: That's right.

CUOMO: --what people who are in place by this administration, for this administration has said. Do you believe that this is - you said mortal peril, do you believe this is worthy of removal from office? I know the Senate handles that, but what's your take?

CONNOLLY: Yes, absolutely. I'm certainly prepared to vote for articles of impeachment. I believe the evidence we have in front of us, combined with the Mueller Report, we shouldn't forget that--

CUOMO: I agree.

CONNOLLY: --about obstruction of justice and cooperation with the Russians. I believe this is overflowing in terms of meeting the Constitutional threshold for impeachment and conviction, removal from office.

CUOMO: I think that that's something the Democrats have to deal with, is that where's the Mueller analysis gone? You found something that's an easier sell in Ukraine, I get that, and politics is persuasion. But you've been telling us for months you had enough then, and then you went silent on it, so I'm glad you brought that up.

Now, in terms of what are you waiting for, what else do you need to vote on articles of impeachment, to basically bring up an indictment? You heard enough today.

CONNOLLY: I think that's right, but I think that the Speaker and the leadership of the impeachment inquiry panel want to be extremely thorough. They want to cross every T and dot every I so that nobody can say this was a bum's rush job.

CUOMO: Well, the Republicans say you haven't brought anybody up yet who says Trump said it was a quid pro quo. Now, just my audience knows this, we are just - you've been busy to watch, I'm sure - I don't believe you need a quid pro quo. I don't think this is a legal analysis. I don't think there are elements that have to be checked like boxes in some type of law exam. This is about a political judgment. But, even if you did need a quid pro quo, how did you not get it today? CONNOLLY: Yes, I think we did. But you know what, that's there - they are throwing up a red herring. Who said we need to prove there's a quid pro quo? But by the way, the transcript the White House itself released clearly shows extortion is going on.

If you want military aid resumed and you want to have a meeting with me in the White House, you need to do a favor for me, though. And that favor, what was it? It was to collect political dirt on a prospective political opponent and to try to track down this elusive DNC server that some conspiracy theorists says is still running around in the Ukraine.

And unfortunately, Trump actually followed through on that multiple times, including the one you cited in the report just now, which is that he actually said I want to see President Zelensky of Ukraine go on public television and I want to see him myself commit to this investigation before military aid can be resumed.

CUOMO: So if the idea of no strawman - if the idea of no quid pro quo is a strawman argument and it is in my take, the steelman argument is, Congressman Connolly, it never happened, I didn't get the dirt on the Biden, I didn't get the dirt on the DNC, I didn't keep the aid from them, they weren't compromised by any of this, our relationship wasn't compromised by this, so there is no damage, therefore removal is excessive this close to an election with a first-term President.

CONNOLLY: The abuse of office, the obstruction of justice and I'm, by the way with you, I think we cannot forget the Mueller Report, we can't just focus on Ukraine, though that might be our primary focus. We have to look at the other actions of this President, which absolutely rise to the threshold of impeachment. I believe President Trump is a clear and present danger to the future of our democratic norms and way of life.

CUOMO: You believe if he's not removed, he'll just keep doing this. I know Democrats are arguing today, well look at Syria, look that he spoke to Putin and he spoke to the head in Hungary before he spoke to Turkey and he never dealt with Congress, he just talked to those two men and then came up with policy. I get that, I do think though that removal is a very high bar.

Articles of impeachment, that's the indictment. I don't know what you're waiting for on that. But in terms of removal, that's not your bit of business, you are in the House, that's the Senate, but I think that's a very high bar. Congressman, thank you so much for being with us on this night tonight.

Please, I give you the last word, is there anything else you want the audience to know? Or are you good?

CONNOLLY: I was just going to say, it is up to the Senate, but remember, we also help provide management (ph) on the floor of the Senate--

CUOMO: Yes.

CONNOLLY: --to try that case.

[21:10:00]

CUOMO: Yes. Do you know who those will be yet? No, too early in the process?

CONNOLLY: I don't but I'm looking forward to it.

CUOMO: Congressman Gerry Connolly, thank you very much for keeping us in the loop. Thank you sir.

CONNOLLY: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right. So, Taylor's testimony, it has to be setting off alarm bells. I don't know what else you need to hear to see that this is wrong. It even implicates the President for the actions at the heart of the impeachment inquiry and he's not a Never Trumper. He's not some radical guy that's code, strawman, it's fakery.

We will lay out all of the lines that were laid out today that have not been and I argue cannot be rebutted that lead directly to the top. You want to know what's wrong, we will lay it out next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. So here what's we now know. The top diplomat to Ukraine asked to do the job by Team Trump, just placed the President of the United States at the head of an actual conspiracy.

[21:15:00]

Now the White House is referring to him with this other group of people as a radical. He is their guy. Pompeo, Secretary of State, asked him to take over for the Ambassador they didn't like, all right? So enough with the noise, let's stick with the facts.

In his sworn testimony, Bill Taylor erased any doubt about who was calling the shots, what the stakes were, and the intent for this clear abuse of power that all knew about who were involved. Taylor testified, the call to freeze the military aid was made by the President himself. "The President doesn't want to provide any assistance at all."

It was President Trump who demanded a foreign leader produce political propaganda on his behalf. It was the President who saw official foreign policy as a business transaction that could be profited because as Taylor quotes Sondland, the businessman asks that person to pay up. What was the profit? Political advantage.

This was about erasing the stink of how he got elected and getting the Bidens. The cost of that, political ammo, human lives. When it comes to Ukraine, you have to understand the stakes at play here.

Now, I've been to Ukraine. I've seen the cost. So the decision to withhold military aid matters. Did you know that 13,000 Ukrainians are dead? Who knows how many more will be. So the urgency is there. Remember, the first order of business the Ukrainian President had on that July 25 phone call was to ask for Javelins. Those are missiles. Obviously, they're fighting a war. We have seen witness after witness deliver sworn testimony to Congress, the President's own people.

Many of them still work for him. Yet they've ignored the official policy of hiding behind privilege. And it is telling that only one, Gordon Sondland, rich hotel guy, Trump political donor, he's the only one who tried to soften the blow.

Sondland himself now has to answer some other questions. But even his testimony showed that this is what it looks like. There can be no question of whether there was a quid pro quo. And by the way, my question is whether or not you are need one. We're not checking off elements of a crime. This is about abuse of political power, it's about common sense.

But if you want one, there were two, security assistance and a White House meeting. That's what Ukraine wanted. Both were used and withheld to maximize leverage. The demand explicit, everything was dependent, says Taylor. Nothing changed until the President got what he wanted.

And you can't pass this off as Rudy Giuliani just creating issues. Today's testimony is a window into a coordinated effort involving cabinet officials, a Senator, ambassadors. That's in addition to the Vice President, the Acting Chief of Staff and who knows who else.

They all got their orders and their idea of the intentions from the President of the United States. Nowhere in any of the testimony, in the texts, in the White House transcript, is there mention of any other case, is there mention of any other example of corruption.

No other changes they needed to see from Ukraine. It was only and always about hitting the Democrats and Biden. To get that, they used the highest office in America and money Congress had already approved, neither of which Mr. Trump has any right or any power to withhold in exchange for his own political gain.

We have our investigators here to tell us how does what Taylor told us today fit into the boxes of the investigative analysis. McCabe and Baker on the case next.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: One question a lot of people are asking about Bill Taylor, why did he take so many notes? Why was he so detailed? Because he was worried about what was going on around him and what he had unfortunately become a part of.

The other big takeaway, this idea of there's no quid pro quo here. They don't need one to make a political judgment that this was abusive of the President's office. But if you want one, you've got two from Taylor's testimony today. In just his opening statement, I don't even know what he said in the testimony, but you heard Congressman Connolly say that it just reinforced the same message. Administration officials were wrapped up in what he sees as a parallel diplomatic effort to benefit this President. If you want the aid, if you want a meeting with this President, you give us the DNC and the Biden information. Nothing else was ever mentioned.

Andrew McCabe, Jim Baker, FBI vets are here. Andrew, what do you see in that statement that ends the analysis for you?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, Chris, as you mentioned, like they don't need proof of a quid pro quo. We are not trying to show the elements of an offense here, it's not a legal case.

But the hurdle that the Democrats have to get over here is presenting a convincing case, a convincing argument about the malfeasance and the bad acts that the President and his supporters were engaged in.

[21:25:00]

Taylor helps them enormously. His statement is incredibly detailed, it's got dates, it's got phone calls, it's got meetings.

CUOMO: What else do they need?

MCCABE: It's hard to imagine what else they need. Every witness they've had now has kind of outdone the witness before, but Taylor takes them to a new level and he obliterates a lot of the defenses that we've seen coming from the Republicans about, well there was no real quid pro quo and that sort of thing. Taylor eviscerates those defenses.

COUMO: Would you ask for an indictment on these facts if they were delivered to you?

MCCABE: Confidently. Confidently. If I were the investigator running this case, I would assume that the gods were smiling on me. Bill Taylor is the kind of witness that you are happy to go into a court with.

CUOMO: OK, so now if we start looking at what this is going to mean, I want to make sure I have the order right. All right, so Jim, the idea of - just so you know, this stuff doesn't come out of my head, I have all this paper on the desk, because we study all day to make it easy for you. It's got to be hard on us to understand it, to make it more relatable.

So Jim, here's the relatable pushback, OK? We're going to attack the source, that's not going to work here. This man's resume is too tough and they begged him to do the job, so they have a problem here.

But, what harm was done, Jim? Ukraine got the money, they never gave us dirt on the DNC or Bidens, they never really therefore interfered, they didn't even make a public statement, they didn't even do the interview that they were supposed to do with CNN, which is always a crime in and of itself, and our relationship is as good as ever. So how can you remove from office for this?

JIM BAKER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: It's what he tried to do. And what he tried do clearly was to abuse his power in order to stay in power by trying to get the Ukrainians to do these investigations of the Clinton server and of the Bidens in order to help him stay in power.

And he withheld the money for a period of time, the military aid, for a period of time in order to try to see what he could do to get the Ukrainians to do his bidding. That, in my view, was a violation of his oath of office, because he is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. And by withholding that money that had been appropriated by law, by Congress, for his own personal interest, he was acting corruptly and he was not faithfully executing the laws as he's required to do under the constitution.

CUOMO: All right, but let me take a second - that didn't go that well. Let me try this again with you, Andrew. The idea of a good faith argument that you're right, Baker's right, they withheld the money, shouldn't have done it, wrong. But they did give it eventually.

And so they did deliver the money, so you don't have me on withholding the money permanently, because I gave it to them, and everything wound up fine and Zelensky loves me. So removing me from office, nullifying an election in my first term with an election right around the corner, too big a stick.

MCCABE: Look, Chris, the Constitution doesn't say you can only be impeached for a successful high crime or misdemeanor. So there's no question he is in the hot zone of being looked at for impeachment and removal. Now that's a question, the one that you raise, is that that's a question every Senator and particularly Republican Senators will have to grapple with.

And they might very well look at the situation and say, you know what, I don't approve of what he did, I think he probably abused his office, but I don't think it was enough to remove him from office, and that's a decision that we will have to see play out on the Senate floor.

CUOMO: Andrew, what's the biggest problem with making that argument?

MCCABE: It just completely ignores the standard that we try to hold our Presidents to. It's not, were you a successful criminal, it's did you live up to the - your oath, did you live up to what the Constitution requires of you? And if you have engaged in a high crime or misdemeanor, that is the indicator for us you have not and that you should be impeached. And I think that's clearly happened here.

CUOMO: The real problem with the Taylor testimony for them is you have Sondland telling Taylor that the President wanted it done a certain way, which is give me what I want or you're not getting anything.

And then Sondland told the Ukraine official that. He later regretted that, according to Taylor, which by the way was a nice thing for Taylor to add in there for him. But you have these two layers of it. The one missing piece that they're relying on in defending the President, Jim, is - but Ukraine didn't know it was being manipulated the way you lay it out. They were just curious as to why they weren't getting the aid and how to get a better relationship. And if they didn't know that they were being manipulated with this quid pro quo, then it's not really extortion.

BAKER: Well, it's not about extortion and it's not about being successful, it's what they tried to do in secret until they were found out and there was a whistle-blower that came forward and announced this to the whole world.

[21:30:00]

So the fact that they didn't get away with it at the end of the day shouldn't excuse this kind of behavior. Furthermore, this has - I mean, I hear what the President and others have said about what the Ukrainians think, and I see what the Ukrainians are saying publicly and so on.

But, look, all of this cannot be what they wanted to have public with respect to the U.S./Ukrainian relations. They can't be happy with being drawn in and pulled into our political debate and discussion in this way. It does not make Ukraine look good, it's not the kind of foreign policy they would imagine that they wanted to have executed at this time, in the middle of a war as Ambassador Taylor so thoughtfully pointed out today.

CUOMO: So, let's end it on this. In the past, we've all shared questions about what we still want to know here before we start seeing what a question of consequence could be. Do you both now believe you know what happened, you know enough to say that it was wrong and actionable? Yes?

MCCABE: Yes, absolutely.

BAKER: Yes, absolutely, yes.

CUOMO: The underlying allegation has not changed at all. Each of these witnesses has just given us a better look at it. Taylor gives us incredible clarity today, hasn't changed anything but has made the case a lot stronger.

And as you guys know, even better than I ever will, someone who keeps notes like this, does so for a reason. And this was a day it seemed that Mr. Taylor knew was going to come. Thank you very much, Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker, appreciate it. Very important night to have you, thanks for being here.

All right, now, those are the facts as we see them from Mr. Taylor. What is the argument for the President? Now you see me making it to the member of Congress from the Democratic side to these two big shot investigators.

We'll see it made to you by a member of Congress. How do you see that nothing wrong happened here, how do you see this is not just a question of consequence? What is the best defense? Next.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: If you read the opening statement from Mr. Taylor today, you will see that what the President wanted and what was done to try to get that for him are clear. They are also clearly wrong as evidenced by the need for Mr. Taylor to take notes, the need to keep it quiet, the need to be disruptive to people stating what was obvious.

So if you see it as obvious and wrong, the question is, does it move supporters in Congress to think this is something worthy of removal? And although that's specifically a question for the Senate, it's something that should be in our conversation of leadership right now.

Republican Markwayne Mullin returns to the show. Congressman, thank you for coming back.

REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Absolutely, Chris. Thanks for having me.

CUOMO: So Mr. Taylor today, did you find what he put in his opening statement compelling in any way?

MULLIN: No, absolutely not. What this was, was an opening statement with no cross-examination. Unfortunately, you have Adam Schiff that still refuses to open up these hearings. I mean, we're talking about impeaching the President of the United States, and so there's no transcript that goes along with this.

And what I was told by my Republican colleagues is that John Ratcliffe, he absolutely tore this thing apart piece by piece in less than two minutes. But, we don't know that because this is not open and transparent. This is simply a statement.

CUOMO: Well, it's the investigation - this is the investigation, though, all right. Just to make it clear for the audience.

MULLIN: Sure.

CUOMO: You don't usually get as the defendant, a team in there to help you in an investigation. But Republicans are there and you just said one of them did a good job on this, so let's talk about that. How do you tear this apart?

MULLIN: Well, I don't know.

CUOMO: Mr. Taylor has no reason for animus, he's your guy. You asked him to take the job, he is a life-long Republican and a veteran.

MULLIN: Well, Chris, I don't know. They haven't opened the transcript. If they would open the transcript, we would be actually able to see it. If they would just open the process - they won't allow me into the hearing room. I mean we're talking about impeaching the President of the United States and it's all behind closed doors, and Adam Schiff is choosing what he releases and what he doesn't. CUOMO: But it's the Intel Committee, that's how you always do it there.

MULLIN: In the Intel, but not in an impeachment inquiry. This isn't the way we proceeded with Bill Clinton, this isn't the way we proceeded with--

CUOMO: But that's not a fair comparison, Congressman, you know it. You had Ken Starr.

MULLIN: It is too. It's about impeaching the President of the United States. What do you mean it's not a fair comparison?

CUOMO: Here's what I mean, with all due respect sir, you had Ken Starr as a Special Counsel there or whatever you wanted to call it then by statute.

MULLIN: Do you know what the difference between the two is? Richard Nixon had committed the crime by using the intelligence community to try and play political games, and you had Bill Clinton who lied to a grand jury. They also both committed crimes prior to the impeachment inquiry moving forward. Here, they are in search--

CUOMO: There is no requirement for any specific finding of criminal activity.

MULLIN: There is a specific requirement--

CUOMO: You started Whitewater in a closed - no, there is not. High crime as a demeanor does not mean felony.

MULLIN: --talking about what is impeachable, Chris. What is impeachable.

CUOMO: A high crime or misdemeanor.

MULLIN: Treason, high crime or misdemeanor, what is taking place here?

CUOMO: I'm sorry, I thought you asked me a question. You're like me, you ask a question and then you answer it.

MULLIN: Oh true, I got you on that one.

CUOMO: This is what - Congressman, what it says in the constitution. High crimes and misdemeanors like - but why didn't they list murder, why didn't they list kidnapping? Because--

MULLIN: Well, that is a crime.

CUOMO: Of course they are crimes, but they expect prosecution of those things. This is about removal of politicians for political crimes.

Abuse of power is--

MULLIN: This is about removing a politician for political motives. Underneath Andrew Johnson, underneath Richard Nixon, and underneath Bill Clinton, they had all committed crimes prior to the impeachment inquiry taking place. It had already been shown.

CUOMO: But arguably that's true here also.

MULLIN: No, it's not.

(CROSSTALK)

Tell me what he has done. No, they're in search of a crime.

CUOMO: No, that's not a - that's a political talking point.

MULLIN: That crime hasn't been committed.

CUOMO: If I ask you--

MULLIN: No, it's not. Point me one thing, tell me what he's done.

CUOMO: And if we switched the Rs and Ds, you'd be making this argument to me.

MULLIN: No, I wouldn't.

CUOMO: Oh yes, you would. Because if you want to say that Clinton did something so wrong because he under oath--

MULLIN: I was asked on a weekly basis by my base to try to impeach Obama and I said show me a crime that he's committed and I'll run it to the top of the flagpole.

CUOMO: But you didn't have anything like this, and you started with--

MULLIN: We still don't have anything, tell me what he's done that's impeachable.

CUOMO: --you started with Clinton with a Whitewater investigation and you wound up with an affair.

[21:40:00]

It's not exactly the most high-minded probe. Here with Ukraine--

MULLIN: What has the President done?

CUOMO: Here's what he did - he asked a foreign power to get involved in an American election by getting dirt on his opponents.

MULLIN: He is - you are adding to that. That is not what the transcript said. He said it's important to the people that we find out the truth of what happened, one, with the server and two, with the connection with Joe Biden.

CUOMO: He said do me a favor, look at the DNC and look at the Bidens.

MULLIN: He didn't say DNC.

CUOMO: And then everyone around - then why did everyone around this President put in place by him say, oh my God, I can't believe he's doing this, how we do stop this from happening?

MULLIN: If we are going to talk about the facts and talk about actually what the President said--

CUOMO: Those are the facts.

MULLIN: No, it's not. Tell me one point to where that is a fact. That was not in the transcript and that's not even what the fake whistleblower even said happened.

CUOMO: We don't need fake whistleblower, we don't need anonymous sources. You have your own guy.

MULLIN: Well that's what this (inaudible) impeachment is all about.

CUOMO: Ambassador Sondland said that the President said to him, I want the Bidens and I want DNC and I want it public, or they get nothing. He then said that to a Ukrainian official and then regretted it.

And when Mr. Taylor heard it--

MULLIN: Because who said it, because Mr. Taylor told you that second- hand, that's not what the Ambassador said.

CUOMO: Why would Taylor lie, he's your guy, he was so worried about this that he took meticulous notes. And he kept trying to stop it through legitimate channels.

MULLIN: Listen, I don't know people's political motives. Chris, I don't know people's political motives, but they have political--

CUOMO: Your own guy has political motives?

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN: This is about fact-finding. He wasn't our own guy, he was a career bureaucrat, that was assigned to this.

CUOMO: Pompeo didn't go to him and ask him to do the job?

MULLIN: Was you there? I mean, he did ask him to go do the job, but that doesn't mean that he's our guy. That means that we put him in place.

CUOMO: What defines your guy if not you went to him and ask him to do the job?

MULLIN: But that doesn't mean that he is - you're using a term like this is a Republican, and he is appointed by the President.

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: That's not it.

CUOMO: That's exactly it.

MULLIN: This is a guy that has served the country. I'm not taking anything from Taylor.

CUOMO: You kind of are. You're trying to paint him as he might have some animus and you have no basis for that.

MULLIN: I'm painting it on the fact that we don't know the facts.

CUOMO: You do know the facts.

MULLIN: You and I are both sitting here making assumptions, but the truth is--

CUOMO: I'm not making any assumptions.

MULLIN: Yes we are, because have you got the true transcripts from the whole hearing today?

CUOMO: First of all, I don't even have the true transcript from the call, because you guys wouldn't let it be transcribed and then you hid it.

MULLIN: No, we gave the President's transcript out.

CUOMO: That's not a transcript.

MULLIN: You have it. You've already said - that's exactly the transcript.

CUOMO: It's a recitation of certain people it. It says right on it, Congressman, this not a verbatim of the situation, it's the collective response of people who were there. Come on.

MULLIN: And what are you talking about with William Taylor, is that not the same thing?

CUOMO: But you vet him. You were in - not you, but Congressman--

MULLIN: The American people already vetted the President, too, and they chose that they wanted him to be President. And what has happened is the Democratic Party hasn't accepted it. And they've been trying to impeach him ever since he's been in office.

CUOMO: That's a political argument. And look, you should not impeach somebody as political payback and it should not be--

MULLIN: That's true, so we both agree on that one.

CUOMO: --hundred percent. And it should not be just a numbers play. The only reason this happens is because the Democrats have the numbers--

MULLIN: OK, so I go back what crime did the President

CUOMO: --then that's not what impeachment was supposed to be. But your--

MULLIN: Chris, but fact of the thing is, what has the President done that's impeachable?

CUOMO: He abused his power by asking a foreign sovereign to interfere in the election.

MULLIN: He didn't ask for them to interfere in the election.

CUOMO: Of course he did.

MULLIN: We've already said that.

CUOMO: Of course he did, Congressman.

MULLIN: Because you and I both know that how?

CUOMO: Because everybody who has testified and the text and the transcript--

MULLIN: Oh and you've seen everybody's transcript--

CUOMO: Come on Congressman--

MULLIN: --because this has been so open and transparent.

CUOMO: You guys saw a text between from two lovers and you thought that there was a deep state conspiracy against the President based on two lovers' useless conversation. Now, you have these texts--

MULLIN: That isn't a conversation you and I had - you keep turning away the conversation. If we're going to sit here and assume and you're going to pass to the American people that this is actually factual, then why don't we have the facts? Why don't you call on Adam Schiff to say open the transcript--

CUOMO: They are the facts. They all testified.

MULLIN: --open a hearing.

CUOMO: You said nothing to counter anything they've said.

MULLIN: You and I don't know what was in the hearing because they won't let either one of us in it.

CUOMO: The President said on TV I wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. That is only asking for political advantage.

MULLIN: Yes, he said let's know the truth. Well, the truth is Hunter Biden even said the fact his only connection to the Ukraine to be able to be paid $83,200 a month was his father being Vice President.

CUOMO: Congressman, so you're worried about that, you are worried about Ivanka Trump cutting IP deals in China while she's representing our country?

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN: There was already a well-established business connection there.

CUOMO: Oh come on, Congressman--

MULLIN: We always want to talk about - Chris, you always want to talk about everybody else about the Trumps, but you won't talk about the obvious, the obvious would be the word suspicious activities to which Hunter Biden was dealing with Ukraine as the President - as this father was Vice President?

CUOMO: I'll tell you what, I have no problem saying something that Mr. Mullin you can't say. What Hunter Biden did was wrong, he shouldn't have done it. And we know what we--

MULLIN: So we both agree on that.

CUOMO: --we know that his father thinks it's wrong, because they want to change the--

MULLIN: Let's talk about--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: But hold on a second, hold on, I'm out of time, but you see what I just did?

[21:45:00]

You see what I just did? If you can't look at this situation with this President and say you see obvious wrongs, then you're not telling the truth to the American people.

MULLIN: We haven't seen obvious wrongs.

CUOMO: Oh come on. Congressman, I got to leave it there. We'll see what the next step is. You are always welcome here to make the case.

MULLIN: Chris, appreciate it. Thanks for having me on.

CUOMO: Always, be well and God bless.

MULLIN: Thank you.

CUOMP: Listen, reality is hard to ignore, man. I do not envy the case that has to be made. So, everybody's lying, I got to see everything now verbatim. Texts were fine in the past, but they're not fine now. Listen, we know what happened. You should not surrender principles for political convenience. The argument about what we know, but just as importantly what we don't know, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Breathe a sigh of relief. We now know what happened and why. A meticulous tapestry of turpitude by Trump's own choice to be the top Ukraine diplomat, Mr. Bill Taylor.

[21:50:00] In just his opening statement, it clearly indicates an orchestrated, intentional wrong, a clear abuse of the President's power. Period.

There can be no good faith argument made otherwise. Trump told the President of Ukraine to look at the DNC and the Bidens. He told Ambassador Sondland that he wanted Ukraine to announce those investigations, that everything was tied to that.

It was known by all that there would be no aid nor any meeting with the two Presidents until Trump got what he wanted. Sondland told Taylor that the President told him what he wanted, which is the definition of a quid pro quo, right after saying that the President says no quid pro quo.

Look, this President may be unethical and abusive of his power, but he's not stupid. See for yourself. Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. That is as quid pro quo, that's all it is, that's all it will ever be.

And when Taylor said to him in a text, you've seen it, OK, he didn't like aid being upheld for help in an election, Sondland took it offline, then admitted that was what was going on, as you saw above.

What did he then do? He tried to keep this conspiracy secret. He didn't want the call with Ukraine where he relayed those terms transcribed. Why, why did he keep the circle of parties small? Why did they have this parallel diplomatic effort? Because they knew it was wrong.

Mulvaney even admitted the DNC was a give for the aid before being walked back by Team Trump. You have named sources; Taylor, Vietnam vet and Republican, Sondland, Trump donor and friend, Volker, hand-picked by Team Trump. Where are the nicknames and the nasty degrading of these guys, Mr. President?

The only thing you can do is say radical unelecteds? They're your people and your silence about them is confirming of the same. The only question is what the consequence should be and that's where the picture takes a turn for the worse.

The latest proof, Republicans supporting with silence or spewing nonsense in defense of this President, saying he's being lynched, insensitive, inaccurate. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here, a lynching but we will win.

Blacks were lynched by bigots. Any President should know better. Trump doesn't, that's ignorance, and it's correctable by apologizing and stating the insensitivity. But he doesn't do that. That's arrogance and that's more dangerous and not correctable. And worse, on his team, it's contagious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): This is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American. What does lynching mean? A mob grabs you and they don't give you a chance to defend yourself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That's not what it means. It means you get attacked by a bunch of bigots, because you're black and you're murdered for that and only that, and you know it. Senator Graham, you're not ignorant. Your state bears the stain of the savagery, close to 150 that we know about. Shame on you for ignoring what's obvious, shame on you for supporting in this President what you once decried on the floor of Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic. If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role, then impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Where is your honor and integrity? If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds, if this isn't, what is? And now, his words should haunt him and all the other hypocrites. When you're asked to dismiss likely articles of impeachment, will Graham and gang once again do what they reviled in their opponents?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: The only way to avoid impeachment is to leave your common sense at the door, defy the way the world works, and ignore the facts and talk about something else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Hence the fake news, the lynching, the silly straw man arguments that fall away as easily as their name suggests, when soaked in facts. Refusing to face the facts does not make them any less true.

[21:55:00]

There is one question, is what this President did worthy of removal to you? And that question remains. The facts are not in dispute. What say you, men and women on the left and right, weigh your words, they will be remembered. That's my argument.

Now, a BOLO, where do the roads lead here? Not just to this President, someone arguably much more dangerous. BOLO on that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Be on the lookout from Taylor today. "If Russia dominates Ukraine, Russia will again become an empire, oppressing its people, threatening its neighbors and the rest of the world." Putin apparently convinced our President to adopt a hostile view on Ukraine. Today, Putin and Turkey's Erdogan make a deal to take over vast swaths

of formerly Kurdish held territory. Trump was on the phone with Putin before deciding the pullout in Syria. Now Russians are in our bases. Be on the lookout. Why is this president always benefiting Putin?

Thank you for watching us. "CNN TONIGHT" with D. Lemon starts right now.