Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Source: Witness to Ukraine Call Characterized White House Rough Transcript as Mostly Accurate; White House Gives Firsthand Account of Alleged Quid Pro Quo; White House Official Who Was on Trump-Ukraine Call Testifies; House to Vote Thursday on Process For Impeachment Inquiry; America First Becomes Trump First For Self Defense. Aired 9- 10p ET

Aired October 29, 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, CNN NEWSROOM: --a new show, you can catch it streaming live weekdays 5:00 pm eastern @CNN.com/full circle. We have a lot of stories you can see on this program on any given night a lot to cover. That's online. The news continues right now. I want to hand it over to Chris for "Cuomo Prime Time." Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, PRIME TIME: Hey, thanks Anderson. Friedman's is fired up and I know why. He is right about the behavior. So let's get after it. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to "Prime Time".

Congress has finally heard from someone who was on that damning phone call between the U.S. President and Ukraine's President. We're getting new word on what he disclosed. But is there any real question remaining about what happened here? We're going to ask an impeachment player and our investigators on another big night. What do you say, let's get after it?

All right, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman is the man of the moment. Who is he? He's National Security Council's top Ukraine expert, he's been in service to this country for 20 years, he is a veteran, a Lieutenant Colonel in the army. He did ten hours of duty today before Republicans and Democrats, and according to our sources, he told lawmakers the White House rough transcript of the call was mostly accurate.

Good. And he said he was concerned that the President should not be asking a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen. Also turns out one person he raised his concerns with were his twin brother. This guy Vindman has a twin brother who works at the NSC's Ethics Office. We also know from his opening statement he also reported the concerns to the NSC's lead counsel.

Now here is what we know here. His testimony has to matter a lot if for no other reason than this President and his proxies have been savaging Vindman and questioning his patriotism and his loyalties. The GOP's were desperate for power in this process spent a bunch of their time today with asking if he knows who the whistleblower is.

Who needs the whistleblower accept it as a distraction, we have the call. We have the people who were on the call and who knew about the call. It is as ugly as Friedman suggested to Anderson. So where does Vindman put us in the march to impeachment?

Let's bring in our top investigators. Former top Brace at the FBI McCabe and Baker. Sounds like a law firm but not tonight. All right, so let's try and keep you guys clear the politics here. They're going after Vindman because he matters. They're quiet when they're not worried about something.

We've talked about this from the beginning, when with will they come at Volker. Sondland they're not going to come over because he gave them a cover story. So Jim I'll start with you, how does Vindman fit in to the matrix of what we need to see on an impeachment march?

JIM BAKER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Well, he - I'm thinking of the evidence now as a series of concentric circles, and he is, you know, a little bit out from the center but he's right near the center. At the center, as you were saying, we already have the transcript. We already have the admission by the focus of the investigation, the President.

He's admitted that he made these statements. He's not hiding from it and went on the White House lawn and made other statements similar with respect to China. And so the core allegation is there for all to see. What Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and other witnesses are adding is context; they're adding how people thought about it at the time?

They're adding their sense at professionals working in this area directly that this was wrong, that this was improper and importantly, as the colonel testified, it was contrary to the National Security interests of the United States because it was going to damage the relationship with Ukraine and make Ukraine a political football in domestic politics and that's bad for the National Security. So he's adding context, he's adding additional detail but the core allegation is there.

CUOMO: Gotcha. So I should have heard that concentric circle thing before it really helped me. We were already trying to figure out, make more sense on the wall Andrew, I don't know if you can it where you are, but show people the wall what we put together here. Would you please? Thank you.

So we have these things broken into four facts - five facts - that this was a political situation that the money and meeting were withheld, right that's your quid pro quo? That the President knew about it and was directing it was more than one call that people were worried about it, just too kind of give the different layers of what Jim is calling concentric circles. So Vindman, can you see this Andrew where you are?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: I can see that, Chris.

CUOMO: So I'm just putting it in terms of icons, the number of people who are players in this, the phone with the text is what it suggests, it's the text that Volker gave us about the dialogues, the phone call obviously, the phone call between the two Presidents and TV here is what we've heard from the President's mouth himself or from Mulvaney himself, there's Mick Mulvaney, the guy with like five different jobs in the White House.

So Andrew, why should it matter to people that we have this many layers of different people making who are making these different points?

MCCABE: Chris, I'm going to simplify it for you.

CUOMO: Please.

[21:05:00]

MCCABE: One witness who was there, who heard things directly, who was involved in events is really good for a case. Two witnesses are even better. Three witnesses are incredible and just keep going on and on because that's what we have here.

Each one of the witnesses that have come in has provided some key piece of testimony that confirms the central allegation and that allegation is ultimately in its most basic form that the President used his office to benefit himself. He used his powers of foreign relations to gather dirt on a political opponent and that is improper.

The job of the Democrats, of the folks pushing the impeachment here is not to prove a legal case, they're not trying to prove elements of an offense in the way that we would in federal court, they are simply trying to make a convincing argument.

So having all those witnesses that you've laid out on the board there just helps them make that argument in a more convincing way each time someone else comes in and tells the same story.

CUOMO: Jim, do we need the whistleblower anymore?

BAKER: I don't think so. I mean, I don't think we've needed the whistleblower honestly since the President admitted to the core allegation that the whistleblower made about what was said on the call. As soon as the President released that, that was it. I've been thinking about why did they release that transcript so quickly, why did he make those admissions?

One of the things I've been thinking is that he's trying to normalize the behavior. He put it out so quickly that there wasn't really a buildup of everybody looking for it and fighting about it and making it a big thing. He's just got it out there and he is tried to normalize this behavior to convince ultimately the American people that this is okay, this is normal, this is what people do, this is what politicians do?

CUOMO: And just as important, it's what's being done to him, this guy Vindman, shady. He's not really American. He only came here when he was 3. He's from Ukraine, you know. And Volker, he's a McCain guy, you know? Sondland, him you can trust, he's one of ours, but these others, they're deep state. That's why the whistleblower matters, Andrew, because it's shady. And who is he and what are they and what's going on in the process is shady and everybody's out to get me. The President works this very well to great effect and everybody's got to be very aware of it.

Now, there's another layer to Vindman. Yes, I know "The New York Times" has reporting, Andrew, that he had supposedly drafted a memo that sought to talk about the aid but he didn't put it in his opening statement and we were only told that he would say that Sondland was talking about holding the meeting, which would still qualify as a quid in this quid pro quo not necessary analysis.

But I'm not giving him the benefit of "The New York Times". He can't connect the aid to being withheld in exchange for the investigations so the argument would be, Andrew, you still have nothing.

MCCABE: Well, I don't know that we have nothing. I think what you have here, if you think about this in terms of like a Rico prosecution, you have to collect predicate acts to form the basis of a Rico prosecution so the request for assistance in return for the White House meeting is one predicate act, and the request for assistance in return for the release of the aid is a separate predicate act.

So Vindman might have good information about the sort of pressure that was being placed on the Ukrainians to get their meeting that they wanted at the White House. He might not have as good of information about the withholding of the aid but that's okay because you have other witnesses that provide that testimony for you.

CUOMO: Jim, the argument that listen, they are real questions about ethics if not legal impropriety involving the Former VP and his son, the President has a duty to look into these kinds of things it's not wrong for him to want to rude out corruption. And this was not about politics because he wasn't even really running when this happened, right?

He was the VP and we really weren't even made aware of what was going on when this phone call happened. So it wasn't in the political dialogue. So for the President, it was just a matter of public interest. That argument's being made more and more. What's its salability to you?

BAKER: It's baloney. The way it works in America under the rule of law is if somebody thinks that something has been done that's illegal, you refer that to the appropriate investigative authorities--

CUOMO: Even the president?

BAKER: Yes. Refer it to the FBI. Task the Attorney General to delegate it to the FBI and ask them to investigate it. That's what should have been done, not this ridiculous trying to get a foreign government to investigate an American citizen to help the President stay in office. That's an abuse of power, it should be unacceptable to every American and I think frankly to my Republican friends and colleagues, I think they know that. They know in their heart that this is unacceptable.

CUOMO: They may know it in their heart but it's not coming out of their head.

BAKER: They need this to come out their mouth and need to speak up now's the time.

CUOMO: They've got some time but once they get into the hearings, then it's going to be crunch time for them. Andrew you can - last word to you.

[21:10:00]

CUOMO: Give us a sense of this, what remaining question is there, not for you but in the realm of just reasonable thought in terms of what happened here and whether it was wrong, is there anything remaining that needs to be known?

MCCABE: Well, I'm not sure that - we already know so much about the facts, about what actually happened? About we have solid pieces of evidence to back that up. The question that remains is how individuals think about this activity?

At the end of the day, if you think that - you know, the Democrats need to put on a case to convince people that this is not the way a President should conduct himself, an office that he has so diverged from his oath and from his responsibilities that he should be impeached. There is an opposite argument to that, which says I understand what he did, I wouldn't have done it myself, I don't approve of it, but we are close to an election and I think the American people should decide.

That is what you are likely hear from many members of the Senate and it is not an unreasonable argument. It's a range that every person, every House member every Senator and every person in this country should think about where they fall out on that range of conduct.

CUOMO: Well, clearly right now this is only playing in heavy fashion to the Democratic Party. The linking thought for the Democrats would be the hardest one to make. If you don't stop this President now, he will continue to do this and worse very hard case to make because it's completely speculative.

Andrew, Jim, thank you very much appreciate it. Baker and McCabe. All right, the testimonies are corroborating what we knew as obvious from the call. Something wrong happened. How wrong? Let's do this another attempt at the wall. We're going to go back and connect the facts of what we know and the questions that remain. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:15:00]

CUOMO: There's a lot of noise in that calls for poise and we get our calm from the facts. Here are five things that we know for sure. The President of the United States used the power of his office to get investigations of political rivals. He didn't succeed. It doesn't make the ask okay. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is only the latest to point out that investigating Biden and his son had nothing to do with National Security.

How else do we know? The texts from Volker, the testimony, the transcript of the call itself, television interviews, including on this show and, by the way, you know who the real whistleblower is here? Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy Giuliani was everywhere and without portfolio pushing an agenda that he made clear here and elsewhere. I want the DNC, I want the Bidens, I'm working for the President and, by the way, I'm also working with these other guys who are under indictment for moving Russian money into elections.

We haven't even found out about that part of the story yet. But Rudy was all over this and with malignant cause and everybody knew it. You don't need the whistleblower. You do need Vindman and Volker and Taylor and even Sondland, okay, because none has ever named a corruption case in Ukraine other than what this President saw as politically beneficial.

So the idea of just rooting out corruption is hollow. The vitally important White House meeting and congressionally approved funding were withheld explicitly to get a statement this President could use to go after his opponents. Every person whose testimony that we have seen spoke of the value of those two things to the Ukrainians a point President Zelensky himself made clear and with good reason.

Of course it mattered to them. That's why it was used at leverage. Something the White House Chief of Staff openly admitted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. That's why we held up the money. We do that all the time with foreign policy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: And then he at the direction of people in this White House lied to your face and said he didn't say that and tried to blame it on us. Surprised he didn't blame it on the whistleblower. That guy seems to be a repository for everything else they can't explain.

Taylor put this directly at the feet of this President. Oh, he wasn't on the call, it's all hearsay. By the way, a lot of intelligence work is hearsay. So how do they deal with Vindman, one of at least eight people we know who heard the actual call? Volker and Sondland testified they were in direct contact with the President. When nothing else got what he wanted this President went this on TV and said this to your face--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: And how many times you have heard Republicans say, yes, he never asked for an investigation of the Bidens. He didn't really want one. And it not just that one cell call because obviously you just heard the President there on TV in all his glory, witness after witness lays out a systemic effort.

Again, think Rudy Giuliani. And Mr. Taylor asked by our Secretary of State, the United States Secretary of State to do the job saying there were parallel paths of dealing with Ukraine, Rudy and the ordinary one. That includes a July 10th White House meeting that went so badly the National Security Adviser had to shut it down which brings us to this point, a black screen.

Just let you know how dark all this is. Trump's own people thought this was wrong and said so repeatedly. Not to me, not in some article to each other out of concern. Vindman followed the chain of command.

[21:20:00]

CUOMO: Bolton, Taylor spoke up directly to Sondland. Fiona Hill twice went to White House lawyers. They're not leakers, they're Americans. We now have more than a dozen of the President's own people who refuse to follow official policy of noncooperation. Why? Why would they do it?

So far the only outlier to the story that they have presented here is the multi-million dollar donor-turned Ambassador Sondland. He's the only one that gives the President protection. Why isn't there scrutiny on him for Republicans?

A story, not one call, text messages, notes, on-camera admissions what I laid out are five facts that are just that. The question is how bad is it? Is it worthy of removal? Why do we keep arguing about what happened when it's clear? So let's keep following the facts from someone who heard directly from the Lieutenant Colonel Vindman today, a prominent Republican in the House, proud to have him on the show. Let's get his assessment next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:25:00]

CUOMO: How many times do you to hear, read and see people in the Trump orbit in relevant positions tell you that this President said and wanted what you think he said and wanted from the phone calls, give me the Bidens, give me the DNC and then the message that echoed from all the different points of contact, that's how, Ukraine, you get what you want.

Let's see where the GOP mindset is on the facts after today and listening to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. As well as points about fair process and a boogey man whistleblower. Republican Chris Stewart Congressman, good to have you back on the show. Thanks, it's an important day. What did you think of Vindman? REP. CHRIS STEWART, (R) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, I got to tell you first I'm not the GOP mindset. I'm just one guy, right. Appreciate the chance to be with you, Chris. I got to correct one thing.

CUOMO: Please.

STEWART: At the top of the show you and some others were saying those of us in the GOP were trying to identify and reveal who the whistleblower was and that's just simply not true. I don't care at all who the whistleblower is--

CUOMO: Nobody asked Vindman if he knew who the whistleblower was?

STEWART: Absolutely not.

CUOMO: Really, in the whole hearing nobody from the Republican side ever asked Vindman if he knew who the whistleblower was.

STEWART: We asked him many times who he had discussed his concerns with and I think some of our Democratic colleagues assumed that we were trying to surmise from that that the whistleblower was. Just not true again we don't care who the whistleblower is. I don't care.

CUOMO: You may not care but, Congressman, you know Republicans care. They bring it up on this show all the time, who is it? Why is he being protected? Why don't we hear from him or her?

STEWART: That's the key, though, Chris the thing I care about is I want to hear from him. I think we can protect his identity and if he wants to remain anonymous.

CUOMO: Why do we need him at this point?

STEWART: That's a good point actually. Why do we need any of these witnesses? You and I, as you pointed out previously, you and I have all the information. We have the transcript of the phone call. Every American can read it and they can make their own judgment from that.

CUOMO: The transcript is not enough.

STEWART: That depends. That's the essence of the case here.

CUOMO: You don't know the motivations. You don't know why he was asking for the Bidens and what was the exchange and how long had this been going on and how many people were trying to create pressure for this President to create that outcome? That all matters in terms of abuse of power.

STEWART: At the end of the day though, Chris, it comes down to the President saying one sentence in one phone call.

CUOMO: I don't agree with you on that, Congressman, but continue.

STEWART: I love to come on your show because you and I can have a conversation at the end of the day agree to disagree on some things. Many of these individuals come in and here's good question for you, Chris. Do you know anything really of substance now that you didn't know six weeks ago?

CUOMO: Yes.

STEWART: Because almost all of these witnesses come in and they say the same thing and tell us like the Colonel did today, yes, I listened to the phone call, here are my concerns but at the end of the day it's just his opinion. Just like we hear from others it's their opinion on this. And you ask these witnesses did you feel like you were witnessing a crime? Every single one of them have said no, I didn't think this was criminal, including this witness today.

CUOMO: But that's not the bar for us. I don't see it and I know you don't either Congressman believe that felony or fine is the standard for governance. That's not how you conduct yourself.

STEWART: You're exactly right. Our founding fathers said it had to be a high crime--

CUOMO: It had to be an abuse of power by a person in a position of public trust. And what I want to know is who knew what they were doing there? Why were they doing it? To me it seems very clear on the facts. I needed to hear from all these people. I need to really hear from them not just in depositions I don't disrespect the process.

You guys do it that way but when there are hearings, I want to hear did because if we're talking about removing a President from office and that's the goal of impeachment, I need to know what kind of abuse of power it was, how do I find out without hearing the people who are part of the process?

STEWART: Chris, but you're making the point that many of us have objected to from the very beginning. Here is the truth you haven't heard a single word of this.

CUOMO: I never heard it during the Starr investigation, never heard it during the grand jury of Jaworski and Nixon.

STEWART: You can't say that you heard from these witnesses. You haven't.

CUOMO: I know but I just saw their opening statements in the text. That's a lot.

STEWART: You can't impeach - no, Chris. Its 15 minutes out of what are sometimes, six, seven and eight hours. You can't impeach a President in secret.

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: I don't think we should. I think you're right. I think that would be terrible.

STEWART: Let me ask you this, do you think that if these hearings - by the way, there's not a word of these hearings that is classified. We begin every single hearing by saying or the depositions by saying you cannot discuss anything classified in here. There's no secrecy required of all because of classified informing.

Do you think that if these were going to convince the American people to remove this President that they would not be in open? Because I promise you they would. There's a reason why they're conducting these in secret

CUOMO: I know, I mean, they were done the depositions with Henry Hyde were done in secret also. And then you had open formal hearings on Clinton and we are expecting to have that here. What I want to know from you, because you were there today and you say that this is just more confirmation of what you gleam from the call. Do you really believe that Mr. Vindman - I'm sorry not Mr. Vindman that LTC Vindman is betraying the American people by testifying?

STEWART: Of course not.

CUOMO: Because I have in here that you said on Fox last week these people in the State Department are not betraying the President, they're betraying the people and the trust and the constitution, which has sustained us for more than 200 years.

STEWART: Yes, look, that's just nonsense. What I said was it had nothing to do with them testifying. I said if you have some of these individuals who are undermining the President. If you've got people in the administration in whatever agency, whether it's in state or CIA or at the military, if you have any one of these agencies that are undermining the President that is betraying the American people.

CUOMO: But do you think that Vindman, Volker, Taylor or Sondland falls in that category?

STEWART: I want to be really clear on this because the media has just botched this. I never and I would not say that for them to appear is betraying their country. I was talking about if they were undermining the President by their actions, which had nothing at all to do with them appearing before our committee. I want them to appear before our committee - to subpoena them if necessary.

CUOMO: Do you want to take this opportunity to call out the President for questioning the patriotism and the loyalty of Colonel Vindman and his proxies who are accusing him of espionage?

STEWART: I haven't - I'm not aware of what the President has said.

CUOMO: You want me to show you his tweet? He calls him a never Trumper. I don't think it came up in the hearing today. You don't have any reason to believe that he's a partisan against the President, do you?

STEWART: I really don't. I really don't think his politics is--

CUOMO: Do you think that's the right thing to say about a Colonel who gave 20 years of his life to servicing his country?

STEWART: I'm not here to defend the President and I'm not here to justify everything he tweets. Oh, my God, if I did that, you and I would be would be here very often, every day.

CUOMO: I invite you all the time, Congressman.

STEWART: Look, I know but I'm just saying look, it's not my job to defend the President or his tweets. My job is just to find out the truth and to try to come on your show and other shows and tell people the truth.

CUOMO: But how at this point with what we understand can you not see that something was done here that was wrong? I'm not saying it's worthy of impeach or removal, I'm just saying wrong in as you wouldn't have done it.

STEWART: Well, okay, help me understand what specifically do you think was wrong?

CUOMO: Asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent.

STEWART: Oh, my God, Chris, we do that all the time.

CUOMO: Really?

STEWART: Attorney General Barr is doing it right now. He's working with the intelligence--

CUOMO: To investigate a political opponent of his.

STEWART: They are investigating the genesis, the beginning of the FISA warrant of the 2016 election.

CUOMO: That's not the same thing as this.

STEWART: But it's exactly what you're saying. They're in Italy. They're working with Australia.

CUOMO: That's the Justice Department Congressman. Come on give me break here. When have you heard of a President saying to another country do me a favor, get some dirt on who's going to run against me.

STEWART: Chris, it makes no difference if the President says and asks those question or if he does through his Attorney General.

CUOMO: It makes every difference Congressman. He asked for Biden, he could have gone to the DOJ. He could have gone to the FBI. He didn't have to have Rudy Giuliani running around him with the shadow operation.

STEWART: So if Attorney General Barr had asked those questions, you'd be okay with that?

CUOMO: It depends why he was doing it? If he was doing it because the President told him to get dirt on Biden, he'd be in the same suit.

STEWART: Or because if the President said I want to understand before we give these guys $400 million, a country that's steeped in corruption for generations I want to understand where they are and their deposition, the new attitude?

CUOMO: With all the corruption that's gone on in Ukraine, he's asked those about two things, the DNC and the Bidens. Congressman Chris Stewart though, I appreciate you pushing back and making the case. You're always welcome.

STEWART: Thanks you, sir.

CUOMO: Be well. All right, ahead celebrity turned political activist working on turning out the vote for the next election and now a big new distinction for Alyssa Milano. What is it? Find out next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:35:00]

CUOMO: Actress and activist Alyssa Milano has not been shy about calling for impeachment proceedings against the President. She's also host of the "Sorry/Not Sorry" podcast and guess what big new book. Welcome back to "Prime Time."

ALYSSA MILANO, ACTRESS AND ACTIVIST: Thank you so much for having me, Chris.

CUOMO: I must step out of the realm of objectivity for a second to say, I am so proud of you for being a "New York Times" best seller. I love what the book and hope Roberts are about I love who you are targeting. It is great and I want to talk to you about it. But before we get to you trying to save the world, let's talk about what has the world in crisis in politically here at home. Do you like or are you are satisfied as a Democrat with how Democrats are proceeding down the avenue of potential impeachment of this President?

MILANO: Yes and no. I mean, I think like most Democrats that have the privilege to be concerned about what this President has done, you know, I'm very impatient. I wanted this vote to happen last week. But for me, I can totally rationalize and really objectively look at how brilliant the Democrats have handled the situation up till now with a very steadfast strategy.

[21:40:00]

MILANO: What I mean by that is everything has progressed in a way that it has given the American people time to digest what is going to happen as far as this impeachment hearing. So I'm satisfied and yet I'm very anxious to get these open hearings under way so that we, the American people, can really see what's going on.

CUOMO: As a journalist, I join you in that. It would be great for this all to be in the open so that the politics of process could go away. But if we look down the road and if everything stands as we understand it now because some of these key witnesses have put out these statements before we went there so while we haven't seen the depositions, we see what the main thrust is, there is no question about what the President did vis-a-vis Ukraine? What was done that was arguably wrong, arguably an abuse of power? Here is the problem, we do not see Republicans even open to that as a possibility and we're not hearing anything from Republicans in the Senate not really. So if there is but maybe a remote chance of removal, is impeachment still the right course of action?

MALINO: I think so, absolutely. I think as far as we have to protect the constitution. And this President was playing partisan politics with military aid. So I think that we have to hold him accountable. And I also want to remind people that the Mueller report did in fact show ten counts of obstruction of justice, which is also an impeachable offense.

So I think that we have to really as unfortunate as this timing is, is it ever really the right time politically to impeach a President? It's not about removing him from office, it's really about not only seeing what else is there so that the American people are aware it's about protecting the constitution but it's, you know, it's also about due process, which the President keeps screaming about that, you know, which is ridiculous that there's been no due process but President Trump, that's actually what impeachment is, it is due process.

CUOMO: Obviously the me-too movement very important to you, very important in our country. Congresswoman Katie Hill decided to resign once there was an ethics investigation announced into her alleged or inappropriate or whatever you want to call it relationship with a staffer. She denied that it was Congressional staffer, was the resignation the right move and what does it mean for the me-too movement?

MALINO: I don't feel it was the right move. I feel that there is incredible hypocrisy goes on and if Katie Hill were a man who was in a consensual relationship with another man and a woman that this would be a very different outcome. There's indicted criminals in Congress on the Republican side.

People like Duncan Hunter who still have a seat and we have accepted a resignation from a really, really good Congresswoman, a really bright woman for what she does in her private time that was consensual. So I don't feel it was fair and I really - I really appreciate Katie Hill and where she was coming from in resigning but I do wish that she would have fought a little harder. I would have fought by her side.

CUOMO: It's interesting how you see the politics of gender at play there. Once the pressure's on you and once they're beating the drum that you have to go, it gets very difficult, man or woman apparently, to stay the course.

But I wanted to ask you about that. So thank you. Now, the big new headline in your life. Hope Roberts. She's young, she's smart, she's fighting against the boys in middle school, hogging up all the attention, taking too much time in science club, she gets stuck with the bad part of the report but on she must persevere.

Why did you do this book? I know you have young kids. What do you want as a message for them and for others? MALINO: I do have young kids. And the thing that they have taught me is that children have this innate beautiful sensibility to want to make a difference, to want to help. They have this moral compass that allows them to know the difference between right and wrong.

And somewhere along the way I think us as adults because we don't cultivate that innate goodness, they lose sight of wanting to help and wanting to give back to their community. So Hope Roberts is a little girl who leads with her heart and she wants to change the world but she has to get through middle school first.

And I'm just so proud the book and it's a four-book series. There will be three more books and I'm just really, really proud.

[21:45:00]

MALINO: Hopefully I just want to encourage more people to be humanitarians and to go out there and fight for what they know is right. And I think we need to start doing that at a younger age and middle school is hard for kids anyways. So I think this was the right - the right time to set it for her.

CUOMO: No feeling about having her name be like Hope Ronzoni or Hope Albert Sony or something like that you know try to bring a little built more Italian flavor to that? Hope Roberts, it's a beautiful name but it not like Robert Cellior or something like that, you know?

MALINO: No, although that would have made my grandmother proud, my grandmother and you.

CUOMO: That's a very formidable pair right there. Alyssa Malino, good for you. I'm congratulating you on the success, trying to help kids understand that they can make--

MALINO: Thank you.

CUOMO: --a big difference who can't get that message out enough and always a pleasure to have you on "Prime Time."

MALINO: Thank you so much, Chris. Thank you for the opportunity.

CUOMO: All right, Milano, actor and activist, now the "New York Times" best seller. Good for her. All right, in the closing argument, we have to look at what they're doing to bring down the witnesses in impeachment. Going after a decorated army officer's patriotism? Questioning him why because he didn't swear allegiance to the President? What happened to America First? The argument about what's happening all around us in this next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK0

[21:50:00]

CUOMO: "America First" says this President. Here he is, hugging a flag. Now, whatever that is and his slogan, whatever they're about, his oath to you is all that matters. This man put his hand to God that he would do to the best of his ability what he could to put the country first. Has he kept that oath?

Refuses to sever ties with his properties, he's used more tax dollars than ever to support golf trips and chaperone his adult kids on vacations and business trips. His businesses have raked in nearly $20 million from Trump's campaign committees and other federal political committees. Hell, he even planned to spend your tax dollars to hold the G7 at his Doral club until the outcry even from allies grew too loud.

But the real argument against his honoring his oath isn't just his helping himself financially. It's his insistence on destroying anything and anyone who opposes him. He must always be first. Intel agencies say Russia interfered in the election. They're corrupt, and he'll seen side with Putin on the world stage in Helsinki against America.

FBI is looking at his campaign, deep state. His own staff testified to his corrupt actions bad bureaucrats. But now when things are hardest for him we're seeing his worst sense of self-protection. Supposedly according to the corrupt media, the Ukraine call concerned today's never Trumper witness.

You see, there is no evidence the Colonel is a never Trumper. He is, however, a decorated war veteran with shrapnel still in his body from being hit by a roadside bomb in Iraq. But because of how damning the testimony may be from Colonel Vindman, not that the facts aren't already clear, he's got to go down. And now we hear another layer of this.

It's not just that he's a never Trumper. He's one of them. He's not us. Vindman is a Jewish refugee who fled Ukraine with his family when he was 3 years old. So, you know - you know what? Look what he went on to achieve. He is the definition of American success. But in Trump world, if you're not for Trump, you're suspicious.

The man at the top's not suspicious even though he's doing the one suspicious things but to help this President, he enlists everything he can, so here comes the helpful, hateful people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Here we have a U.S. National Security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the President's interest, and usually they spoke in English. Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?

JOHN YOO, FORMER ASSISTANT A.G. UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I find that astounding and, you know some people might call that espionage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Espionage? What some people would call it that? Why is Dershowitz smiling at that kind of thing with what he's supposed to represent? This is anathema to what his cause was supposed to be about. Then we have Former Congressman Sean Duffy wondering something similar aloud on CNN today, repeatedly referring to the Colonel's affinity for his homeland.

Look, I know Duffy. Duffy is better than that, and he should show it. Our President is not. He says he loves the troops. He says I gave you a raise when no one else did. That's a lie. They got raises every year. Yes, he gave them a raise. That's good. He should do a hell of a lot more for them, and he should do none of this.

Let's not forget where this all began for this President in terms of who has to lose when he has to win. Remember him saying this about Senator John McCain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He's not a war hero.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a war hero.

TRUMP: He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, okay? I hate to tell you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That's who he is. That's how he feels, okay? He doesn't hate to tell you. He loves to tell you. He needs to tell you, and you need to see it for what it is. This President cannot fight the facts in this situation, and neither can his friends. What he did asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the DNC was wrong, arguably illegal, obviously abusive of his power. The only real questions that remain are what should the consequence be for what he did, and what will he do to avoid that outcome.

[21:55:00]

CUOMO: And the big question for me, we've seen that this President will put himself before any principle of good government. Will those defending him now continue to put him before everything else as well? That's my argument. Now, the Trump defenders, you've got to see what's coming your way. The reports out of this hearing and others, I got a bolo for you. You got to be looking out for a scapegoat. Why? I'll tell you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Bolo. Be on the lookout for a scapegoat. I asked Congressman Stewart about pushing Vindman on the whistleblower because we're told a shouting match erupted with the Democrats today in that Vindman deposition, accusing Republicans of just that.

They keep doing this, and so does trump. Show the tweet. Why because the facts are damning. The furor about process, the whistleblower, attacking Colonel Vindman, see it for what it is and get ready for more. Bolo. Thank you for watching. "CNN Tonight" with D. Lemon starts right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT: There's a lot of that to go around.