Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Source: Zelensky Felt Pressure From Donald Trump And Rudy Giuliani To Launch Public Investigations As Far Back As May; Giuliani Associate Attorney: Executive Privilege Could Apply; Source: Ukraine's President Felt Pressure From Trump Administration, Giuliani Weeks Before Taking Office; GOP Lawmakers Interrupt Secure Impeachment Testimony; Donald Trump Allies Can't Argue Facts, So They Fight Process. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired October 23, 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]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, PRIME TIME: All right, thank you my friend. I'm Chris Cuomo, welcome to Prime Time. New evidence tonight suggesting Ukraine was concerned about being dragged into U.S. elections even before the infamous July phone call. That's bad for Trump but this may be worse. Did you these, what were these Republicans doing storming the castle? What do you say? Let's get after it.

We have new information and here it is. CNN confirms that months before that notorious July phone call with Trump and Zelensky Ukraine's President. Ukraine's President talked to Trump and after that first call, Zelensky reportedly met with his team and discussed these concerns that they were being dragged into a U.S. election.

Where is the transcript of that call? Obviously they were aware. The White House readout only says they spoke about working together to root out corruption. Now we know corruption was basically code for the Bidens and the DNC. So what would the GOP response be to this news?

Here it is this travesty a mockery, a travesty of a sham of a mockery. Two dozen House Republicans storming the room where Pentagon official Laura Cooper was set to give a deposition to testify. The GOP lawmakers went through three different doors carrying electronics. Why do I say it that way? You're not supposed to carry electronics into a skiff, a secured room.

They were shouting they demanded to watch the classified deposition because they were being locked out. Oh, wait, no they weren't. There was a handful of Republicans colleagues already inside free to ask their own questions. So what was the move? What made this okay? Ohio Representative Bill Johnson was one of those Republicans who raided the skiff. Congressman, welcome to "Prime Time".

REP. BILL JOHNSON, (R-OH): Good to be with you Chris thanks.

CUOMO: Sir did you bring a phone in there?

JOHNSON: Chris, let me make something very clear. "The Washington Post" and I don't agree very often but I like their "Mast". On their Mast it says "Democracy dies in darkness." When we headed down that hallway to demand to be able to do our job that's what we were there for. There is no classified information being discussed in that room. It is a classified facility, if classified information is being discussed, but there was no classified information being discussed there.

CUOMO: How do you know? That's an Assistant Secretary to the Defense Department talking about how aid gets brought and effectuated.

JOHNSON: That person was not in the room at the time and when we asked to get access to that room, it was simply to do the job that the American people have sent us here to do. We have every right to hear the testimony, to see the evidence. You know, a Republican Speaker gave that due process and fairness to President Clinton. A Democrat Speaker gave that fairness and due process to Richard Nixon. So what do they have to hide, Chris? Why hide it?

CUOMO: I got you. I understand the argument. Just answer my question just like when you have it for the record. Did you bring a phone in there?

JOHNSON: My phone was turned off.

CUOMO: Did you have it on you.

JOHNSON: Yes, I had it on me.

CUOMO: That's a violation.

JOHNSON: There was no classified - you don't set the rules there, Chris. The House does.

CUOMO: Right. It's a violation of House rules, not my rules. I don't care where you bring a phone.

JOHNSON: Do you want to talk about how many House rules have been violated?

CUOMO: Does that make it okay for you to violate them? I'm just wondering from a consistency standpoint.

JOHNSON: Look, this is - where was the outcry in the last session of Congress when Democrats did a sit-in and took control of the House floor?

CUOMO: Was that in a secured facility?

JOHNSON: I don't remember there being that kind of an outcry. We had to do what we had to do because we were being denied access to the information--

CUOMO: But how are you being denied access? There are Republicans in the room and you just made an incorrect analogy from this process to those past. Correct me if I'm wrong Congressman.

JOHNSON: Well, I'm not sure what that incorrect in my analogy was.

CUOMO: Here it is with Nixon, you had a special prosecutor who looked at a grand jury in private and then gave the case to Congress. You do not have that here. With Clinton you had an independent counsel, Ken Starr that did his investigating in private and then gave it to Congress. You do not have that here. Here you have Congress doing the investigating. So--

JOHNSON: No, Congress is not doing the investigating, Chris. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are doing the investigating.

CUOMO: That's your spin on it. But Congress is doing it and they're doing it the way the laws allow.

JOHNSON: You can't say that. They're not doing it--

CUOMO: Are there no Republicans in that room, Congressman?

JOHNSON: They are Republicans in the room Chris but those same Republicans are being denied access to the information that you and I are talking about.

CUOMO: Wait, wait the one - they have access, they can ask questions and they get equal time.

JOHNSON: No they do not. Go ask some of those members. Go ask Jim Jordan and Devin Nunez,--

CUOMO: What are they being denied?

[21:05:00]

JOHNSON: --go ask them if they have been given copies of the transcripts of testimony.

CUOMO: Maybe they're not ready yet. They're supposed to be present at the deposition and they're supposed to get transcripts when they're ready.

JOHNSON: The information that is being collected in that room is supposed to be available to everybody member of the U.S. House of Representatives. There are 435 of us here.

CUOMO: Do you know whether the transcripts have been made?

JOHNSON: That's what we're being told.

CUOMO: By whom?

JOHNSON: By the majority, by Adam Schiff.

CUOMO: So he has said the transcripts are done and I won't give them to you?

JOHNSON: No, I haven't talked to Adam Schiff myself because he won't speak to me. When I walked in the room this morning, he got up and walked out.

CUOMO: Here is the point one of the reasons that Trey Gowdy said that these things work better in private, the way he conducted most of Benghazi, I don't remember you guys complaining about that. I don't remember you complaining in 2015 when you guys changed the rules to empower the majority with subpoena power to suppress the minority--

JOHNSON: Let's talk about the Benghazi hearing. Let's talk about - that was a select committee it's not the same thing that's happening here.

CUOMO: This is a select committee.

JOHNSON: --an impeachment - no, it's not. It's not a select committee.

CUOMO: But this is the House Intel Committee.

JOHNSON: It's a combination of committees.

CUOMO: All right, I'll give you that continue.

JOHNSON: It's a combination of committees and there has been no vote by the House to pursue an impeachment inquiry.

CUMO: There's no need for one.

JOHNSON: There certainly is.

CUOMO: Where?

JOHNSON: Read the constitution, Chris.

CUOMO: No, it's not in the constitution.

JOHNSON: It is in the constitution. What constitution are you reading?

CUOMO: It says the House shall have a full chamber vote to start an impeachment inquiry.

JOHNSON: It says the House has the sole responsibility for impeachment, not the Speaker, not the Chairman of the Intel--

CUOMO: But it doesn't say you have to have a full chamber vote to start an inquiry.

JOHNSON: That's what the House refers to Chris.

CUOMO: That's your interpretation. Look all I'm saying is this, they're doing the investigation right now and Republicans are part of it. You're not running it, you're not in the majority but you changed the rules that took away power from the minority, now you got to deal with it. Once that's done, if they want to bring articles of impeachment, everything about transparency that you're arguing for will happen.

You'll get to bring in counter witnesses and be cross-examining even more than you do you in committees right now. You're just early and it makes it look like a distraction and a circus play.

JOHNSON: It is a distraction, it is absolutely a circus what Adam Schiff and Speaker Pelosi.

CUOMO: Not what you guys did today, rushing into a skiff violating the rules by having devices--

JOHNSON: Nobody rushed. We went to the door and we asked for access to the information we're entitled to do our job.

CUOMO: All right. So, process a side, let me ask you Congressman, I appreciate for having you here and you're always welcome.

JOHNSON: You bet.

CUOMO: The information now seems pretty clear, I'm not saying it is impeachable, I'm not saying it's worthy of removal, part of that is for you guys and part of it is for the Senate. But it seems very clear on what we understand at this point sworn testimony from these depositions that something wrong happened here.

The President asked a foreign power to get involved in U.S. election. Not saying it worthy of removal. Are you open to that suggestion that what the President did by asking was wrong?

JOHNSON: I've only heard that you're reporting that and that Adam Schiff has said that. I read the testimony - I mean, I read the transcript of the telephone call--

CUOMO: That one call--

JOHNSON: --between President Trump and President Zelensky. There was no quid pro quo.

CUOMO: You don't have to have a quid pro quo for it to be abuse of asking him to get involved in the election and even investigating the DNC and Biden.

JOHNSON: President Zelensky said that he felt no pressure and no quid pro quo--

CUOMO: We have a reporting right now that Zelensky met with these guys Sondland and Taylor said - these are sworn statements from Republicans who were put in place by Trump. For you guys to try to say now that they're suspicious, you know, that seems a little bit of unfair to be honest with you.

JOHNSON: Well, okay, let's talk about fairness. Let's shed some light on this. Let's bring it out in the daylight so everybody can see it because for two years we heard from Adam Schiff that he had irrefutable evidence about the Russian collusion delusion and there was no evidence. We've heard from Adam Schiff that he had not met with the whistleblower--

CUOMO: So you're saying you don't believe the President's own people?

JOHNSON: I don't believe anything that comes out of Adam Schiff's mouth, no, I do not.

CUOMO: What about Taylor's mouth, what about Sondland's mouth, what about Volker's mouth, what about the President's mouth?

JOHNSON: I haven't had access to that information. I could have a better--

CUOMO: The President said on television I want Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

JOHNSON: He has a responsibility to investigate corruption.

[21:10:00]

CUOMO: He's not investigating it. He's asking them to investigate it of a U.S. citizen.

JOHNSON: There was suspicions of corruption throughout the Ukraine. And we were about to give them financial aid. The President of the United States--

CUOMO: Name another case.

JOHNSON: --has a responsibility to investigate that corruption.

CUOMO: Other than DNC and Biden, name me one other case they wanted looked at?

JOHNSON: We knew there was corruption in the high offices of the Ukraine. Again, I don't sit on--

CUOMO: That was never discussed.

JOHNSON: --I don't sit on the Intel Committee. You'll have to go ask to Adam Schiff to give you that information.

CUOMO: What they did talk about the Bidens and the DNC and that doesn't bother you?

JOHNSON: Well, don't you think it suspicious that the Vice President's son who has no background in energy was given a contract in the Ukraine making $50,000 a month?

CUOMO: I think it was arguably unethical and wrong and that's why I think Biden wants to change the rule if he's President again. What I don't like--

JOHNSON: Why didn't they want to change the rules when he was Vice President? Because he said then he was going to withhold aid.

CUOMO: Fair enough. If you're bothered by that and you don't include what this President's family is doing at the same time when one of them works for the United States government and goes to China and gets intellectual property deals done while meeting with the Chinese President on our behalf, I don't put a lot of weight behind your argument about the Bidens. I'm sorry, sir. JOHNSON: I understand that. But we have to deal with facts, not with innuendo.

CUOMO: That's a fact. Ivanka Trump got patents at the same time that she was meeting with China within days, but, Congressman, I got to go. I'm out of time for this particular segment but you're welcome back. And I encourage you to take the opportunity. I enjoy having you on the show.

JOHNSON: Democracy dies in darkness, Chris.

CUOMO: And my show is all about light except for the suit. So please come back on, Congressman Bill Johnson. I appreciate it.

Now look, we're going to lay this out. You have to understand what their tactic is, what they're upset about and what the truth of the situation is? And I'm going to do that in the show. But I mentioned something that I want to make sure we follow up on.

When the President said I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and get away with it, we took it as a joke, as a Trumpy exaggeration. His lawyers are arguing the same thing in court. Mr. Johnson wants to talk about democracy dying in darkness his lawyers are saying you can't even investigate him. Facts first next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:15:00]

CUOMO: You'll have to listen to what the President's lawyer said to three judges today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE CHIN: Your position as you said a moment ago is that the immunity is absolute. So if the President were to commit a crime no matter how heinous, whether he did it before he took office or whether he did it after he took office, he could not be the subject of even an investigation? That's the position?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: He can't be charged, can't even be investigated. So a President doesn't have to give you anything you ask for in that regard. Like, say, the Manhattan District Attorney asking for Mr. Trump's taxes. And the argument, the President is above the law. Another federal judge already called this idea, "Repugnant to the nation's governmental structure".

And in their own lawsuit Trump's lawyers concede, "No court has had to squarely consider the question". But in court today his lawyer said, yes, the immunity would even cover murder.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHIN: What's your view on the 5th Avenue example? The local authorities couldn't investigate, couldn't do anything about it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think once a President is removed from office, any local authority - this is not a permanent immunity.

CHIN: Well, I'm talking about while in office.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

CHIN: That's the hypo nothing could be done. That's your position?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: This argument that you can't even look into whether a crime was committed by the President is so far beyond what has ever even heard offered. There is simply no case law that's anything like it. So how do you even make this argument?

Okay, there is a little bit of a background for what you can do with a President while in office? We have guidance memos to or by the OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel, one by then Solicitor General Robert Bourque. They say a President can't be indicted. Keep in mind, those were all written by lawyers working for Presidents.

There is one that says, yes, but that one was written by a lawyer for Ken Starr, who was investigating a President. You see what I'm getting at here? As for the Supreme Court, where this case is most certainly headed, there's no clear answer. The Paula Jones case against President Clinton dealt with a civil suit, Nixon V. Fitzgerald dealt with whether the President could be liable as a result of an official action.

And the U.S. versus Nixon dealt with the question of executive privilege and impeachment. But look, you don't have to be a lawyer here, there a couple of things to keep in mind. There was an underlying crime then this case with the Manhattan DA, Michael Cohen serving time for it right now, rightly or wrongly.

Tax records are regularly subpoenaed for these types of investigation and by law the DA can't release them. So finally, Trump did not sue to two other criminal investigations involving the President, Mueller and the SDNY investigation of the Trump Organization. It just when it comes to his taxes that he is willing to fight this all the way.

So here's another legal question. Does being a client of Rudy Giuliani give you a ticket out of trouble even if you're not the President? That's being offered up as well. So look who I have, the best minds in the business to help us separate the light from the heat, right after I take a break. It's tired standing up like that, to sit very tired next.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right, new information but not surprising. Sources tell CNN Rudy Giuliani is looking for a Defense Attorney just a week after he said he wouldn't be shopping for a lawyer unless he felt he needed one. He needs one.

Meanwhile, two of his associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were back in court and Parnas's lawyer raised a couple of unusual arguments saying some evidence gathered in the case should be subject to attorney/client privilege or executive privilege. Why? What does this mean?

[21:25:00]

CUOMO: Let's get a good take on the state of play from Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker. Even better looking in person. It's good to have you both. All right, so here is the first part of the argument here. This comes from John Dowd that will be a name familiar to everybody here, now representing these people in private practice.

Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his reputation of President Trump. That's just a pause right there. Can you believe guys like this had access to working with an American President? They've also been represented by Giuliani in connection with their personal and business affairs.

Thus certain information you seek could be protected by attorney client, attorney privilege and other work practices. So that is Jim that Rudy was their lawyer. You can't mess with that privilege. That's doable, right?

JIM BAKER, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL: Yes. That makes sense.

CUOMO: All right. So that's the - the real interesting step here is other than that okay, so Giuliani has a real arrangement with these guys, he had a real business arrangement. It wasn't just figurative executive privilege. What argument is there for Parnas and Fruman getting executive privilege?

BAKER: They would have to be arguing if they were conducting the official business of the United States government on behalf of the President of the United States. That is what they would have to claim. The President's personal activities, whether representing him as part of Giuliani's efforts to be his personal lawyer that would be not by executive privilege that might be attorney/client privilege but not executive privilege.

These guys would have - they appeared to be claiming that they were doing the official business of the United States which is consistent with some of the testimony we've heard about sort of this shadow diplomacy that was going on. So in a strange way this sort of supports some of the stuff that we've been hearing coming out of Congress.

CUOMO: Andrew, as we all have learned by now, executive privilege, that's got to be invoked by the White House, you can't claim it yourself, but the idea to the investigators' mind say that these guys say, yes, we were working for the President, we were helping him.

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: It's amazing. So if you think back about the indictment that these two are currently facing, that indictment doesn't touch upon any business of the President, doesn't refer to the President or refer to Rudy Giuliani in any way. So by throwing this theory out there, they are actually grabbing Mr. Giuliani and the President and drawing them into in, to some degree, the criminal allegations that are currently outstanding against them. It's a remarkable strategy that could have negative impact on both the President and Mr. Giuliani.

CUOMO: So now another discovery today. We've seen moving goalposts by the Republicans. You're not politicians so there's no reason to debate what their duty is he or not. First there's no quid pro quo. I believe that's a red herring. This is a political prosecution I don't think you're checking boxes.

But even if you wanted one, it seems pretty clear. This idea, Ukraine didn't know, Jim. This idea you have of a pressure campaign, they had no idea. Now it comes out after a first call, which they have not released the transcript of, they released the transcript of the second call between Trump and Zelensky but after the first one, Zelensky met with his team reportedly and said we're getting dragged into an American election here, I don't like this. Significance?

BAKER: It's immensely significant because they were - they were trying to get Ukraine to get involved in the American political process and they were withholding aid and withholding other benefits to them and honestly making a hash out of the relationship between the United States and Ukraine. It was just - it was improper in any number of different levels.

CUOMO: Bill Johnson's Congressman's pushback Andrew is it's the President's job to root out corruption.

MCCABE: Absolutely not the President's job to enforce the anti- corruption laws of another country. That's absolutely not his job and that appears to be what he was soliciting in this case. He's telling the President of Ukraine to initiate an investigation of American citizens for violating Ukrainian laws that is just not how we work.

If the President was that convinced that the Bidens were involved in some sort of criminal activity, the way to handle that is to make a referral to the Department of Justice, have the Department of Justice review it and then if they thought there was something there, they'd ask the FBI to investigate it.

CUOMO: And you know they haven't been able to offer up any suggestion yet of any other corruption they were asking Ukraine to look at other than the DNC and the Bidens. You'd think if your argument is I want to help them they're corrupt and don't want to give them money, they're going to waste it because they're just going to be corrupt with the money.

You'd think you'd be talking about what they do, not what your own citizens do. Lastly, - but I think part of that stunt today, Jim, by Republicans I don't think they have a great argument about democracy dying in darkness. We've never had Congress being the investigative arm of an impeachment before.

Right, you had Starr and you had Jaworski before that. They're conducting it as their rules go you got Republicans in it.

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: They run into the skiff today with phones. I think some of them had phones because they wanted to record and put it on their social media. How big a deal? They say it's just a violation of House rules. It's not a big deal.

BAKERS: Not it's a violation of security requirements as established by the Director of National Intelligence with respect to what can happen in a secured compartment at information facility or a skiff.

CUOMO: Same thing as a sit down in the middle of a floor, Congressman.

BAKER: No, that's simply false. That's not correct. It's a skiff where you can have classified information, where you can have classified discussions and the rules say you can't have electronic equipment in there. If there's a violation, it should be reported.

CUOMO: She wasn't in there yet. It was an empty skiff.

BAKER: Doesn't matter who is physically present or whether the door was shut. You're not supposed to have these type devices in there.

CUOMO: Phone was off, Andrew.

MCCABE: Well, you know that doesn't matter either. The reason you don't allow electronic devices into a skiff is because electronic devices can easily be co-opted by foreign intelligence services whether they are turned on or off and used as recording devices or in other ways that undermine our ability to review and discuss and contain top-secret material. So there's very important reasons why we don't allow them in to skiffs and taking them in their despite no matter who does it is a violation of law.

BAKER: Normal people working in the government who did that would get written up and it would go in their security file. It's a violation.

CUOMO: That could affect your clearance, right?

BAKER: Exactly.

CUOMO: Let's see what happens. Andrew and Jim, it's great to have you in person. Thank you for helping the audience. It's evaluated every night. Thank you.

BAKER: Thank you.

MCCABE: Thanks, great to be here.

CUOMO: All right, so Democrats are clearly not anywhere near done with this impeachment inquiry, but what happens if Republicans aren't done trying to literally stand in the way? We have one of the Congresswomen who flipped a red district to blue. She is also a brilliant legal mind. What does she think about the state of play, about the transparency of play with the process and where to go from here? Congresswoman, great to have you Katie Porter next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:35:00]

CUOMO: So you just heard a Republican, Representative Bill Johnson, argue he had every right to storm that secure room today because the American people, his constituents, told him to do his job and that's what he was doing with these other two dozen or so Republicans, a couple women in there also.

Let's get the Democratic perspective from a brilliant legal mind. California Congresswoman Katie Porter. I'll only call you that because you beat me up every time I take the opposite point from you but tonight maybe different.

We know that the Republicans obviously - that was an attack. They shouldn't have done it, they shouldn't have their devices. I think there could be some problems on that but maybe not in this environment. The bigger considerations be more open, be more transparent, this is so serious, don't close it off, and let everybody see everything. Why don't you accept that argument?

REP. KATIE PORTER, (D-CA): Look, the President - what we're trying to do here is investigate the President's conduct and the particular conduct at issue involves national security. So when we were conducting impeachment investigations that had to do with other kinds of allegations, there was more transparency.

The entire purpose of having it in a secured facility today was because the witness was a Pentagon official. We've had witnesses come in who were Ambassadors and they are addressing matters of national security. The most important thing the American people need to know is that both Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle who serve on these committees are present, able to listen and able to do the work that the American people sent them to do.

It's not a one-party process, it's a two-party process and both parties were there in those rooms doing the hard work which was interrupted frankly by just antics.

CUOMO: The Republican answer to that is in the constitution it says impeachment is supposed to involve both sides so you should have had a chamber vote to start the inquiry that would set the rules that were fair for both sides. I guess that's not in the constitution and there is no requirement but what would be wrong with doing that?

PORTER: I think that the constitution doesn't give us a really high level detailed road map about what to do with regard to impeachment. It says this is the standard, this is the process, but it doesn't tell us exactly do this and then do that, then proceed this way, then proceed that way.

It really just gives us the basic framework, which is the House, is to conduct the initial investigation and make a decision about whether or not there's enough evidence to go forward.

CUOMO: And they say it's just the House. As they say its Pelosi and Schiff, it's not the House.

PORTER: I think that's very incorrect and factually incorrect. And so just to be pointed about it there are Republicans and Democrats who sit on the Committees that are conducting the investigations and, in fact, today when that group of Republican lawmakers entered the secured facility, broke the rules by taking in their devices, broke the rules by using those devices, many of those very lawmaker are on the Committees and could have lawfully been there listening.

Instead of listening to the witness instead of trying to understand what she was saying and determine how that fed into whether or not there was a violation of the law here that constitutes an impeachable offense, they were running around breaking the rules for secured facilities, bringing pizza and chicken nuggets into this room.

CUOMO: When you look at the state of the case right now, do you think you need a quid pro quo, and even if you don't need one, do you think there is one present?

PORTER: Right now I don't have - right now what I'm doing is what I think the American people should be doing, which is allowing Congress to do its work in gathering the facts and information. So each day we've had very important witnesses come in.

We had the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine; we've had the U.S. Ambassador to the EU. Until this information has been gathered, once it's gathered, then the House will begin to make that information public. Once we determine what is and is not a potential threat to national security to reveal.

CUOMO: But you don't have a sense of the gravity of the situation at this point?

PORTER: I came out for impeachment back in June. So for me the Mueller report and--

CUOMO: You didn't know you had anybody like Taylor coming back then in June.

PORTER: Correct. So as we hear what Mr. Taylor has to say, as we're able to make those - that information available to the American public, I think the American public will then get that transparency.

[21:40:00]

CUOMO: Did you hear about Taylor having any big holes blown in his story?

PORTER: I did not. CUOMO: Because that's the Republican side, of the tails that man, he got ripped up in there under cross-examination.

PORTER: Well, we will get this information to the American public but there's procedures and protocols to do so. It's designed to protect our national security. It isn't the job of every single American to be acting as impeachment investigators. It's the job of Republicans and the Democrats who sit on that Committee to collect this evidence and what happened today was a violation of that process.

CUOMO: I think one of the difficulties going forward is that impeachment, and you know this very well, Congresswoman, but for the American people, this was supposed to be a consensus mechanism, that if you're going to go down this road, someone is going to get removed from office, it will be because two out of three people in the Senate see it the same way.

So it's about consensus and it's hard to see how these two bodies get there at this time. But all of this is supposed to have an eye on how to protect us better in the next election. You were in this hearing today with Facebook. I still don't understand where we are with these guys.

They control our information. We all know they use our information and know a ton of what we talk about. How many times that people like you and me been on there talking about something with somebody and all of a sudden you get an ad for whatever that subject matter is and my understanding is in the hearing today, Mr. Zuckerberg was like not really sure that was supposed to be in the business of protecting the election.

PORTER: Mr. Zuckerberg was clearly very well coached but nonetheless despite his sixty plus lobbyists and all the coaching he really struggled to answer some of the questions. He affirmed that Facebook is committed to privacy but couldn't explain then to me why his lawyers are arguing in federal court that Facebook has no duty to protect people's privacy.

CUOMO: What's that about? Why is he saying one thing if they're fighting for another one? What's the play?

PORTER: He was pressed by other people other of my colleagues who they ask him things like do you collect information from non-Facebook users? He acknowledged to some extent that they do. He really struggled today - one of the things I think that's really important for people to understand is the normal mechanism when you have a large corporation, how we hold CEOs accountable is through the shareholders.

The shareholders make the decision about the governance. 68 percent of Facebook share holders said they wanted to remove Mr. Zuckerberg as CEO. The way he set up this corporation, he controls ten times the power of the rest of the shareholders. So there is simply in accountability mechanism for him.

We're attempting to provide some of that today in Congress and give both shareholders and Facebook users and the American public generally some of the accountability that they deserve.

CUOMO: I mean, look, we've reached a new reality in terms of our culture. Social media is as big a part of ads and everything else as almost television and cable. We have rules about what can be out there and what you have to say about it and what you have to do about tracking the money? I just don't understand how they don't have to be subject to the same at this point. Congresswoman Katie Porter, always appreciate the intelligence. Thank you for being on the show.

PORTER: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, be well. The President's allies in the House, this is a play what they did today running in there. The Congresswoman's right. But they don't fight that. They wanted to grand stand. They wanted to show they don't like what this is.

But it's our job to expose what that tactic is about and how they've been moving the goalposts and why but most importantly how what they're doing now is completely hypocritical about what they've done in the past? I will lay that out for you in the closing argument next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:45:00]

CUOMO: All right, through all the noise, I hope you just see what's going on. Voters in this path keep changing what's lacking in this investigation. First, there's no quid pro quo. You don't need a quid pro quo. This is not a criminal prosecution. It's about as Lindsey Graham used to say not about a crime but a consensus to determine whether your conduct in office was clearly out of bounds.

But even if you did have to have one, you do. Actually, you have two quid's and two quos - aid and a meeting on the side of what they were going to give the U.S. to Ukraine and the get was the DNC and Biden. That's what Trump wanted. It's clear, so when that became clear, changed.

Well, Ukraine didn't know so it couldn't have been a pressure campaign. There is ample proof they had problems with the aid delay and asking for interference in a U.S. election for a while. So now that's gone. Now it's, well, none of that proof matters because this process stinks and it's made in high Dijon, as we see here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The opening statement says very clearly this is--

REP. MO BROOKS, (R-AL): The opening statement doesn't make any difference.

RAJU: Let me finish what I'm saying. Let me finish my question. He says very clearly--

BROOKS: You should not be relying on it. RAJU: Why should I not be relying on this public testimony?

BROOKS: If you were in a court of law, would you rely just on the opening statement of attorney?

RAJU: I'm asking about the substance of what he said.

BROOKS: Did it make any difference. We don't know whether what he said is true or not because of the sham process being used.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Facts first, okay? This isn't a prosecution. This isn't even a trial. That may come later. It's not even a hearing. It's a deposition. So this isn't about it being an open thing. It's not an opening statement. It's a sworn statement by a Republican. Republicans are present at this deposition and they were allowed to question.

Nevertheless, the Republicans decided to storm the gates, literally crowding into the skiff, a room for confidential matters, and they had phones, clear violation of security rules. But, boy, oh boy, you saw me with the Congressman tonight, rules only matter if they work in your favor and that's why people hate this process.

[21:50:00]

CUOMO: Look at them. It's like a men's wear house sale where everything had to go if their efforts echoed by the source that this President leans on most.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Nothing is transparent. No transcript, no hearing, no nothing. No rights for the President. No rights for Republicans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right. With all due respect, let's do a steel man on this argument, not strongman, not weak, at its best. You should want an open process. There should be debate. There should be cross- examination. There should be counterevidence and witnesses, but not now. That's when you're arguing articles of impeachment.

That's not where they are, and they all know it. This is the investigation. No, Congress didn't do it differently in past impeachments because we never had Congress doing the investigation. Starr, the Independent Counsel, worked the Clinton case in private. Jaworski, the special prosecutor, ran the jury - the grand jury in Nixon in private.

And here the GOP are in every deposition with equal time to question. And to the extent that the majority works the rules - and they do - who changed them? The GOP changed the rules when they were in the majority to quiet the minority. Remember Benghazi? Most of that took place in private too. Why? Just ask Trey Gowdy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TREY GOWDY, (R-SC): You don't see the bickering among the members of Congress in private interviews. You don't see any of that. The private ones always produce better results.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Where is that now? So what we saw was a stunt, all right? And by the way, that stunt is another reason to keep it private as they investigate. No circus when no cameras. Intel Chair Adam Schiff laid out another really good reason to hold the hearings behind closed doors for now.

Think about this. It's of paramount importance to ensure that witnesses cannot coordinate their testimony with one another to match their description of events or potentially conceal the truth. And once the investigating is done and there's a case to be presented for articles of impeachment - and there likely will be - the three House Committees leading the probe plan to hold public hearings.

All of their witnesses have been behind closed doors. Now they will not. Plus the Committees say they'll release transcripts of their depositions, some of which have gone as long as ten hours. And that process obviously can take time, weeks or longer to complete.

So what we saw today and these objections to process is all heat, not light. But beware. They can complain all they like, but when it becomes about saying the White House should not comply and the White House, in fact, does not comply, listen to the ghosts of impeachments past. 1998 Lindsey Graham, now we've got the new coke Lindsey. But classic coke warned impeachable includes obstruction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SE. LINDSEY GRAHAM: When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply, and the Congress back in that time said, you're taking impeachment away from us. You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Where you gone, Lindsey? Where you gone? You used to say you don't need a crime. Now you say you do. You used to say it was okay to investigate in private. Now you say it isn't. You used to say Potus must comply. Now you don't. It is obvious what you're doing. But also it is a collective obstruction of what the right says it holds most dear the constitution.

So my question is this. If the law matters so much, why do you act in ways that respect it so little? That's my argument. Now, tonight we have a good BOLO for you. The call between President Trump and Ukraine's Leader that is not at the center of the impeachment inquiry, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:55:00]

CUOMO: BOLO, be on the lookout. Trump's July 25th call with the President of Ukraine was not only not perfect, it wasn't the first call about the same subject. We now know way back in May, Zelensky, the Ukrainian President, expressed concern to his advisers about pressure he felt from the Trump Administration and Rudy Giuliani to investigate Burisma, the company that hired Joe Biden's son.

Could that pressure have been part of their first phone call that they had together in April? Remember, the White House readout of that initial April call included a reference to working together to root out corruption. Where have we heard that before?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Time and again, the only corruption in Ukraine this president seemed to be concerned with centered on 2016, the DNC, and the Bidens. President Trump has promised to release the transcript of that first call a month later, still waiting. Be on the lookout for that. Thank you very much for watching tonight. "CNN Tonight" with D. Lemon, the man, starts right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT: Wait a minute. I wasn't ready. You're early.

CUOMO: I know, you know what--

LEMON: Usually you're trying to eat into my show by late.

CUOMO: --worries about getting the show to you on time more than anything I said.

LEMON: I appreciate that.

CUOMO: I could have the cure to cancer and I would have to cut it in order to get the show to you on time.

LEMON: We know who runs that show.

CUOMO: I know. I'm complaining about it right now.

LEMON: And the brains behind it--