Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Adam Schiff: No Joy In Voting To Formalize Impeachment Inquiry; Adam Schiff On Possible Delayed Testimonies From Witnesses; House Vote To Advance Trump Impeachment Investigation; New Interview: Donald Trump Says He Wants To Read Transcript Of Ukraine Call On Live TV "Perhaps As A Fireside Chat"; Donald Trump Knows His "Perfect Call", Ukraine Actions Were Wrong. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired October 31, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSROOM: Chris and I where yammering we ran out of time for the ridiculous. The news continues. I'm going to hand it over to Chris for "Cuomo Prime Time". Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, PRIME TIME: We're ridiculous enough but I was looking forward to it. Anderson great interview and thank you and happy Halloween again. I'm Chris Cuomo, welcome to "Prime Time". Big day in a very important week we have the top investigator leading the impeachment push to sum up what mattered most, the rightness of today's votes and his counter to arguments from the other side. It's a new phase we have new evidence so let's get after it.

Here's all you need to know about the current state of play in politics. Zero Republicans in the House voted to investigate evidence of abuse of power that's just piling up. Despite all their cries for a vote to open up the process, they voted against any process at all. Here's the problem in this.

The GOP is ignoring an obvious wrong. It's bad for them. But if the case can't be made that this is a consensus situation and not just a partisan exercise that's about who has more numbers and where, Hamilton warned us Democrats maybe very wary about paying for their own principles come election time.

With this weighing on their head, let's bring in Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for joining us on "Prime Time" on an important night.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D-CA): My pleasure.

CUOMO: And happy Halloween.

SCHIFF: Thank you, to you, too.

CUOMO: Although, everything is pretty spooky these days. All right, so let's start with process. The resolution today passed. Why do you believe it makes this process fair for the minority?

SCHIFF: Well, we followed the process that was available during the Nixon impeachment, during the Clinton impeachment. So we had a model to use and we thought that's probably the best approach, even though I have to say the circumstances now are very different in both those prior peoples.

You had a special prosecutor or an independent counsel doing the fact finding that we've had to do through these depositions. They had a report they were able to present and then Congress took the ball from there. So this is a very different circumstance. It would have been much more like those other impeachments frankly had Bill Barr's Justice Department not turned down the criminal referral, had they been willing to do the investigation they should have done. We've had to do those ourselves.

CUOMO: Isn't it true that in the Clinton impeachment that the House still held depositions in private after they got the Starr report and they interviewed many dozens of officials that way, isn't that the case?

SCHIFF: You're absolutely right. I have to say I would be very surprised if during that impeachment the majority party allowed almost 50 Republicans to participate in those depositions, over 100 members altogether. When my GOP colleagues talk about this secret Starr Chamber, there are over 100 people eligible to be in that secret room.

By a way of contrast when Trey Gowdy was conducting the Benghazi depositions, which he thought was a great model for getting the facts, only 12 members total and on five Democrats - only five Democrats were allowed to be in the room.

CUOMO: So when Republicans say listen, Schiff has too much control here, he's not letting us get our questions answered, he's silencing witnesses, we don't have subpoena power that he does, we can't bring in witnesses, we're not getting the same time, what is your response? Because this is impeachment, Benghazi I remember very well was an impeachment. This is different.

SCHIFF: It is different. Those arguments you've heard are almost completely false with only one exception. And when you see the transcripts and we expect to begin releasing them as early as next week, you'll see that the Republicans have every bit as much time to ask questions as the Democrats.

We would go one hour for the majority and one hour to the minority then 45 minutes to the majority and 45 minutes to the minority.

CUOMO: But they can't call witnesses?

SCHIFF: Until everyone had their chance to answer the questions. Now in terms of calling witnesses, they are in this resolution allowed to propose witnesses if we turn down any of their requests, they can call for a vote, that is exactly the same right they had during Nixon and during Clinton. There was never a unilateral right given to the majority party to control the process by deciding who would testify. This is obviously a serious issue when you consider the stunts the Republicans have been pulling, the storming of the skiff and all the other high jinks that the President concocts with them the show why fundamental lack of seriousness about this--

CUOMO: Do you think the President knew what they were doing or had a hand in what they did in storming the skiff?

SCHIFF: Oh, without a doubt. I mean, that happened the morning after a meeting with these much of the same tea party members who came storming in the next day and by the way about a third of those tea party members were already eligible to be in the room.

[21:05:00]

SCHIFF: When they were done with the protest, they didn't even stick around to hear the witness testify. They left. And I think it shows the fundamental lack of seriousness they're bringing to this.

CUOMO: Is a President - if you were able to show that is a President allowed to help plan a stunt to disrupt a deposition in an impeachment inquiry?

SCHIFF: Well, you certainly would have never seen this I think in the past but obviously we're in a different era when much of the Republican Party has become a - personality around the President. If you look at the press conference that Kevin McCarthy had today, where he was asked are you saying that there is nothing wrong with the President did? Sort of all along a line, they all had to pay fidelity to the President, say what the President wanted them to say.

You heard the President just this week repeatedly say Republicans need to move off the process. I think he's acknowledging it's a losing argument the American people don't buy it. They've been reluctant to go to the substance because they know the substance is damaging to the President but to see that kind of display of - you know I think it shows you what a cult of personality the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress has become towards this President.

CUOMO: But there is strength there. As we saw on the vote today, is it problematic for you, Chairman, as you look at the path forward that the Republicans were 100 percent in line against this effort? As we both know and I'm sure you know the history better than I, the founders didn't want this to be a numbers play.

You shouldn't impeach somebody just because you have the numbers and the majority to do so. It supposed to be an instrument of consensus, if used at all. Do you have any hope that they're going to ever vote with you in any way?

SCHIFF: Well, look, there are certainly some of the members, I have very little hope that they will approach the process seriously, that they will do their duty in terms of being an objective fact finder, but as you know, Chris, this is not something that I was eager to undertake.

For months and months I resisted the call for impeachment and spoke out about it and, you know, frankly, took a lot of flak from some of my supporters for not supporting impeachment because I thought this should be an extraordinary remedy. It not something we should rush to embrace.

But I'll tell you what changed for me was when we learned that, you know, having solicited Russian help during his first election, having obstructed the investigation into that misconduct while President and then on the very day after Bob Mueller testifies about all of this, the President is back at it again on the phone with President Zelensky, asking him to do these political favors and doing so in the context of Zelensky saying we are ready to buy more javelins to protect against the Russians.

That said to me, Chris, this is a President who feels he is above the law, that there is no accountability. And, frankly, I think there's little more dangerous to America than an unethical President who believes he is above the law.

CUOMO: So in making the case, again, you've been in the room, we haven't, we've just seen prepared testimony as it come out in the reporting as it's come out about what happened in the room. But other than I guess Vindman, who said that he was troubled enough by what he understood to be going on, the call and otherwise to go to NSC Counsel, people say, yup, it was holding up the aid to get these investigations, and we thought that was weird and stay away from Giuliani and this is really odd, maybe dangerous for policy, none to my knowledge so far has said and I didn't like it because I knew it was illegal or I knew it was an abuse of his power.

Do you think that hurts you? Because it certainly bolsters the courage of Republicans to say even Mr. Morrison today, yes, they all saw it for what it was but they didn't think it was a crime.

CUOMO: You know, Chris, I can't go into the substance of the testimony. I wouldn't agree with the general characterization you've made of it, but you'll have the opportunity to read the transcripts very soon for yourself and decide what does the evidence show? I think what you'll find is, you know, while there are differences between the witnesses and their opinions, sometimes differences in their recollections, there's a pretty consistent narrative here about what took place.

And, you know, frankly I think the American people ought to hear from these witnesses directly and they will. And I invite them to make their own judgment, even as we in Congress have to make our judgment. I can tell you, Chris, to a person on the Democratic side of the aisle no one took joy in having to vote to continue forward with an impeachment inquiry.

We recognize what a solemn responsibility this is but we all felt that we couldn't shirk this responsibility either. I mean, if a President can abuse their office by jeopardizing our National Security with an ally who was fighting its life with Russia one of our advisories and do so for political gain, if that's not something that needs to be investigated as a potentially impeachable offense, it's hard to know what is?

[21:10:00]

CUOMO: All right. So we're going to take a little break now because there's more here. Why does Mr. Schiff believe that hearings with the big witnesses from this week will make a difference and why he believes this President might be impeached already if it weren't for what Schiff calls his secret weapon? What it is and where this goes next?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: So we've learned a lot this week from two NSC officials who were on that July 25th phone call and cooperated those accusations that this President asked the leader of Ukraine for political favors in this election.

[21:15:00]

CUOMO: You had Colonel Vindman raised flags about a mission from the White House in that transcript and you had Mr. Morrison who said while he had concerns about different parts of this, he didn't think anything was illegal that was discussed on that call. These kind of testimonies are about to be aired on live TV soon, and TV is key, according to House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff. Now, will hearings move the country from where we are now? Let's get back to the interview?

As we move on to public hearings, let's talk about public hearings. Right now the country is set basically along party lines. We keep using a number that is around 50 percent but it's very highly partisan, very high on the Democrat side, pretty low on the Republican side. What do you think will happen during public hearings that will change how people feel about this?

SCHIFF: People will hear from the witnesses directly. They'll have a much better sense of what took place. In the Mueller investigation for example, the public got to hear from Bob Mueller but because of the stone walling by the administration, the public got to hear from almost none of the witnesses who had firsthand knowledge. So this is very different.

Now, I will say this, the present circumstances are also very different than Watergate and I think for a very fundamental reason. And that is in Watergate it wasn't that the existence of tapes made all the difference, was certainly important, you know, in this impeachment proceeding, we have the existence of the call record, but I don't think that's really what differentiates then from now.

I think the main difference is the President now has Fox Primetime and that allows his supporters to live in this alternate fact world and, frankly, I think if Richard Nixon would have had Fox Prime Time, he would have never been forced to leave office. That's what we're up against, an information environment in which you can live in a world devoid of facts and that's a world, frankly, that is very suitable for a President like this who doesn't have much adherence to the facts.

CUOMO: So if you plan to counter that by putting out what you see as the factual record spoken through the witnesses, now we turn to what's happening in court where you've made some progress on some of these decisions and what's coming out of the judges' mouths at least in Washington, D.C. seems to suggest that the President is not going to get absolute immunity for his people but it takes time.

And he is buying weeks and months supposedly you guys want to wrap it up around Christmas and you have an election around the corner, what does time mean to you in terms of strength of this process?

SCHIF: Well, I think you know what we're seeing is the administration and some of its allies using tactics to delay. I think that the court will ultimately rule with respect to Dr. Kupperman's lawsuit just as it did with Harriet Myers, that there is no absolute immunity the witness needs to appear but the whole goal is to stall long enough to avoid doing their duty.

And I wish frankly all witnesses would show the kind of courage and patriotism that people like Colonel Vindman and others that have come forward and not listen to the efforts of the administration to obstruct the investigation. But you know I will say this they may prevent some of these witnesses from testifying and prevent the American people from learning the full facts around the President's misconduct, but even as they do that, they will be building a case against the President for obstructing the constitutional duties of Congress.

CUOMO: Assuming that the court decisions don't go his way obviously.

SCHIFF: Even assuming, Chris, that the stone walling succeeds in delaying it to the point where justice delayed is effectively justice denied.

CUOMO: But if the decisions come out and they say these people don't have to testify, could you still obstruct - could you still try to impeach on the basis of obstruction on the same witnesses?

SCHIFF: Well, it's not just the witnesses first of all no court is going to find that a witness has standing to sue the Congress because they don't like a subpoena. Ultimately that court is going to rule that Dr. Kupperman has no standing.

CUOMO: So for you it's just about time. You don't have questions about the law?

SCHIFF: It's just about time and you know he's well represented. His lawyer knows very well what the court is going to ultimately rule. It's about obstruction. I'm sorry to see witnesses going along with that obstruction strategy by the administration. I will say that the one court that has adjudicated this is the court that said Harriet Myers, you are need to go testify and she did.

I'll tell you this, Chris I did a deposition in that investigation of Karl Rove. George Bush had no closer adviser than Karl Rove and he came in, sat for a deposition and, I'll tell you, it didn't have anywhere near the number of members that are allowed to participate in our depositions, but it shows that other administrations have recognized the limits of this argument.

CUOMO: Do you think you get Mr. Bolton in next week?

[21:20:00]

SCHIFF: I don't know. This is an opportunity for Adviser Bolton to do the right thing, to come forward, explain what he knows. There's certainly been other testimony about what he has said and done. I think this is a patriotic duty that he owes the country and I hope that he will perform.

CUOMO: Is there any indication that he will?

SCHIFF: I'm not going to speak to any specifics but all I can say is there's no doubt that he has very relevant testimony in an impeachment inquiry. The only question is whether he's going to be willing to come forward.

CUOMO: Last question, at this point in your investigation, do you believe there's any legitimate chance that this President would be removed from office?

SCHIFF: Look, I don't want to prejudge even what we decide in the House. We're going to finish our investigation and the public testimony and then as a deliberative body and in consultation with our constituents make a decision on whether the remedy of impeachment is warranted--

CUOMO: Do you think there's a chance that Democrats won't go for impeachment?

SCHIFF: I don't want to speculate about what the decision will look like and I would hope that if it comes to impeachment, that in the Senate, Senators keep an open mind. I think every Senator, if it comes to that, is going to need to ask themselves am I really prepared to bless the actions of a President to withhold military assistance or withhold a vital meeting to a vital ally fending off Russian forces that even now occupy Ukrainian lands.

Am I prepared to condone that and I prepared to say that's compatible with office and what would that mean for our future of our system checks and balances and the presidency I hope they will give those questions the most serious consideration that they deserve.

CUOMO: Have any of the witnesses so far given the President cover?

SCHIFF: You know I don't want to characterize their testimony. You'll have a chance very soon to look at it yourself.

CUOMO: All right. Chairman Schiff, thank you so much for coming on Halloween and all. A very important day be well, sir.

SCHIFF: Thank you, you too. CUOMO: A special thanks again to Chairman Schiff. We're going to bring in a key Republican who sits on some of the other impeachment committees. He voted with his entire party of course today against the resolution. Would anything sway him in this new phase to break from the President? We'll ask him and welcome him to the show next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK0

[21:25:00]

CUOMO: All right. You heard Adam Schiff's testimony and transcripts could be out as early as next week. That's news. And hearings are set to transpire before the American public soon. Are GOPers even open to seeing wrongdoing in this President? Let's bring in our new guest Republican Congressman Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota. He sits on Judiciary and Oversight Committees. Welcome to "Prime Time." It's good to have you.

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG, (R-ND): Thanks for having.

CUOMO: Especially on Halloween all the best to you and the family.

ARMSTRONG: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, so you guys wanted a vote, today you got a vote on the procedures and nobody voted for it. Why even ask for a vote?

ARMSTRONG: In order to start the inquiry in a proper fashion, you ask for a vote. The problem with this resolution is it has the appearance of fairness without any actual fairness in it. The Chairman of the Intelligence Committee and Chairman of Judiciary Committee can still excludes the President's lawyer.

The way it is set up, is still could the Democrats control the entire thing and I think more importantly, this thing should have happened a month ago and we should be dealing with these things right now.

I had the ability to serve on the Judiciary and Oversight committee. So I've been a part of this process since the first day I got in Congress and I can tell you that I've never seen anything that has made a determination before the trial has happened in any way, shape or form that quite relates to this.

CUOMO: What determination has been made?

ARMSTRONG: Well, I started - I told the first media interview I got asked about impeachment on January 3rd and I said there's absolutely no chance they can't do it. I've been in Congress since January and I knew that the day I walked in the door. We started with Michael Cohen, walked through the Mueller report, we had Russia conspiracy, Russia conspiracy, we had concrete evidence of Russia conspiracy from the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. That proved not to be anything and then we moved into Mueller and now we're moving into this and when the President wins reelection and if we don't take back the House, we'll start again. CUOMO: Well, but you're making this sound like this all happened in a vacuum, right? One of the President's lawyers is sitting in jail, the other has two different criminal investigations and a counter investigation going on into him and he also had indictments and people put in jail for other reasons that were in the campaign.

It's not like nothing came out of it and we're not even mentioning the list of ten potential counts of obstruction that Mueller put in there but didn't act on obviously could you can indict a sitting President. So I wouldn't call it a nothing burger exactly. But dealing with Ukraine Congressman, what do you think was done today that hasn't been the standard in impeachments past?

ARMSTRONG: I wasn't alive during the Nixon campaign--

CUOMO: But you can read. You can Google it.

ARMSTRONG: Yes. The absolute answer to this is I can tell you what I've done in my entire adult life. I spent ten years in a courtroom and six years running a committee in the State Judiciary Committee. We would never, ever treat witness this way have questions this way, when you're the prosecutor and the judge and the overruling.

I just want to make a couple things clear. One, when we equate this to a grand jury or a special investigation, let's being honest. If there were this many leaks out of a grand jury somebody would be in jail. So those--

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: But who is equating it or who is analogizing it to those things? You guys are politicians. You're not in the criminal justice business, not anymore.

ARMSTRONG: I'm not in the criminal justice business, but if we're going to do this and have this partisan hearing and continue to move forward, then I think we should be honest about what it is.

CUOMO: But here is what I don't get, Kelly. Help me understand this Congressman with all due respect--

ARMSTRONG: Well, you can call Kelly, I like it.

CUOMO: I like having you on this show but I really do have respect for the office and I want keep the deferens. When you look at different impeachments past, right, Nixon got a special counsel and then they delivered it's a Congress and the majority party ran it largely the way it's been run now.

Clinton, more recent history again independent counsel so different Congress didn't do the investigating. But when Congress got it from Clinton, you guys were in charge then and you did it exactly this way. In fact, all of the different operations of process that were put into this resolution were created by Republican majorities. This is the way it was done in the past, it's the way your party wanted it. Why all this hue and cry now about it being so unfair? ARMSTRONG: If this comes out and they give everybody due process when this comes out, call me really skeptical about that happening, then we'll see how this goes. But I can tell you I've sat in this room - I've been in almost all of the depositions for almost all of the time and there's not a single thing that is going on in there that is classified and there's also not a single thing that is in there that is actually truly secret.

CUOMO: But it's the deposition phase, just like during the impeachment of Bill Clinton when you had Henry Hyde doing it and Lindsey Graham saying depositions should be in private, avoid the circus, get the Committee to get more answers, they did it with over 140 people. It was okay then, right?

ARMSTRONG: If we're going to deal with the Clinton investigation and deal with Kenneth Starr, I'll agree with my friend Doug Collins if Chairman Schiff wants to be Kenneth Starr then he should come testify in front of the committee.

CUOMO: No, no you're ducking my point, Congressman. What I'm saying is this is how Congress did it then. You said you wanted a fair process. It's the same process that you guys allowed in Clinton. Why is it unacceptable today?

ARMSTRONG: I wasn't there.

CUOMO: The idea that you weren't there, Congressman is not that compelling, right? You're now a member of a party. This is about what the past was and what you're saying is now presumptively unfair but it's what you created and used in the past. It just seems to me like you guys don't want to go against the President, the process line was to buy time and today you negated it because you don't want to do this at all fair point?

ARMSTRONG: No, it's not fair. I will agree with Chairman Schiff in the previous interview, I hope they release everything and I hope they have every single one of these witnesses testify in front of an open committee and in front of the American people. The process argument for the sake for the process at least from my perspective isn't the point.

The point is process is trying to get the truth and trying to get fairness and I've not felt a single part of this is about transparency or credibility.

CUOMO: Let me ask you something, do you believe a United States President should be able to ask a foreign sovereign for help in an election?

ARMSTRONG: Do I believe - so I'm going to answer the question but I'm going to start with this - this President did believe that Ukraine was corrupt, he believed the Ukraine was involved in the 2016 election that was abundantly clear. He doesn't like foreign aid in general and he wanted investigations into the 2016 election.

I don't know what that has to do with a 2020 election, but I will say you don't get to dodge an investigation or have your family dodge an investigation because you've been running for President on and off for 30 years.

CUOMO: Wait I'm like dizzy now there too much candy. Do you think the United States President can ask a foreign sovereign for help in an election?

ARMSTRONG: Do I think if the President of the United States can ask to investigate corruption? Yes.

CUOMO: No, no, no. Do you think he can ask a foreign sovereign for help in an election?

ARMSTRONG: You're asking a hypothetical.

CUOMO: No, I'm not. I'm holding the question that sets up U.S. Code Section 30121. We both know that the FEC has made has it a violation to the point of a felony if you accept foreign aid. We all know coming out of Mueller even Lindsey Graham, Trump defender number one said if anybody gets a call from the foreign power, call the FBI. And Christopher Wray said call the FBI, don't do it. Everybody agreed. Now you can't even say it's wrong.

ARMSTRONG: Do you think this President wanted to investigate corruption in Ukraine which we all know exists--

CUOMO: But he came up with no other example of corruption in Ukraine except the Democrats and Joe Biden.

ARMSTRONG: This President's been talking about corruption in Ukraine since he was running for the office.

CUOMO: He mentioned no corruption in the call or any other time except the Bidens and the DNC. He had his lawyer installed as a shadow process to achieve only these two ends.

[21:35:00]

CUOMO: He ignored a sitting agreement with Ukraine to investigate law matters and didn't go to his own Attorney General, which would have been the proper channels if he just cared about the case. Do you really believe this wasn't wrong? If you switched the Rs and Ds and you caught President Obama doing this, you wouldn't have gone crazy?

ARMSTRONG: I wouldn't have gone crazy. This President got elected because he does things in a different way. That's one thing I think globally we can tell by the way not just these hearings but hearing we've had in oversight hearings we've had in judiciary--

CUOMO: He told the American people that when Christopher Wray said if you get approached by a foreign person with information about your opponent, you should go to the FBI and he says that's not the real world, he's wrong. Do you agree with him?

ARMSTRONG: No, I didn't agree with that statement.

CUOMO: But that's what he did. This is exactly what he did here.

ARMSTRONG: I understand the argument and I think - but I think it pretty interesting and the reason I think so is because Democrats are twisting themselves in knots trying to find impure motives on the President when the simple fact of the matter is right now the Ukrainian government is getting lethal aid that they didn't get in the last election--

CUOMO: But just because they got the aid didn't mean he should have held it up to get the Bidens. He didn't need to do that and he shouldn't have done it this way. That's why so many people with no reason to lie or of political anomies were freaked out by it, freaked out by Rudy, worried about the quid pro quo and even went to their higher ups about it because they were so worried.

ARMSTRONG: The two principals on the call did not think anything went wrong. We've seen the opening statement more--

CUOMO: Of course the President doesn't think it was wrong but you just said you disagree with him about what he thinks is right and wrong in this area.

ARMSTRONG: No, I didn't say I disagreed with him.

CUOMO: You said he was wrong when he said if they come to you - yes which the same concept is.

ARMSTRONG: It's not the same thing. It's a completely different conversation. This was about I'm going to say it again, this President in this situation, both him and President Zelensky thought the call was fine. I'm also not going to get into testimony that goes on in the skiff.

CUOMO: I'm not asking you to. We'll see that in the opening hearings.

ARMSTRONG: The opening statement was there today, too. If we're going to talk about opening statements and what was said we should talk about all--

CUOMO: Mr. Morrison thought there was a quid pro quo, he thought it was weird he worried about it threatening the policy relationship. He didn't think it was legal, one, that's not his call and you're not looking for illegality you're looking gross abuses of power that make it incompatible with the presidency.

But Congressman, I don't want to keep you too long on Halloween. You're welcome back as we go along with this. I'd love my audience to hear a strong voice from North Dakota. Thank you for being with us.

ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. I appreciate it.

CUOMO: Congressman is well and thanks you. All right so look, that's where we are. That guy is a skilled litigator. He doesn't want to give in on this, but he says he doesn't agree with the President saying |I don't have to go to the FBI if there's something going with a foreign power helping me with an opponent. That's the point. How can you believe that's wrong but what he did here was right? So going forward what matters most? What are the plusses and minuses for each side? Most importantly, what are the big questions that remain here? I got a treat for you, the one and only Andrew McCabe next sweet as candy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:40:00]

CUOMO: All right, let's bring in Andrew McCabe, Former FBI great to weigh in here. Thank you for coming, especially on Halloween. So the President just gave an interview with "Washington Examiner" in which he said I'm contemplating a fireside chat where I read word for word the transcript of the call with the President so everybody can see that it was a clean call and proof that he did nothing wrong, unlike Nixon and Clinton.

Do you believe this transcripts, even though as we learned from Colonel Vindman, it's not complete, there are a couple of things not put in that would be less helpful to the President. Do you think it helps him to read it to America?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, I think it would be fascinating thing to watch and listen to and I'm setting my DVR now in anticipation. But do I think that it's actually a perfect call? No, I don't. And apparently neither does anyone else who was within earshot or on the call.

I think that Mr. Morrison's statement to Congress which has been released, in which we knew the details of this evening I mean, even from his own statement, Chris, nobody who reads a memo of a call and thinks it's a perfect call then goes running to the Attorney for the NSC and says, hey, we can't possibly let this thing leak because it will cost us bipartisan support on Ukraine.

CUOMO: But he didn't think it was illegal.

MCCABE: He didn't think it was illegal, but that's not really his job. He's a fact witness. Nobody is going to Morrison for his opinion on whether it was legal or not. And actually what he says he did and what he thought about the call I think clearly transmits how disturbed he was by it. And he says not only that it could affect bipartisan support but that it would undermine Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.- Ukrainian relationships.

So in other words, the call was counter to the U.S./Ukrainian relationship we were trying to foster. That is I think particularly damaging.

CUOMO: Do you think there is anything that would force Republicans to acknowledge that this was wrong behavior? That this was an abuse of power? Not necessarily impeachable or worthy of removal but wrong? They won't even say wrong most of the time.

MCCABE: You know, I think you can have a different Republican on the show every night and ask them that same question that you just asked Representative Kelly and they are just not going to answer it because it is an obvious answer and it is also one that directly contradicts what the President - the line the President wants them to hold.

So will they ever be able to kind of cross that Rubicon and publicly admit that what happened here was an abuse of power that's not something that should have happened by a President of United States? We'll see, I think the only chance you have of getting there is through the sort of public airing of the facts by the witnesses themselves as Congressman Schiff described earlier on the show.

CUOMO: What is the big question for you going forward?

[21:45:00]

MCCABE: You know we talked about this the other day. I think that the witness have all provided a consistent and corroborative account of what happened? What they thought about it? The things they did after they found out about the call? The concerns they had with Gordon Sondland's strategy? The concerns they had with Giuliani's involvement?

All that comes down to the simple fact that everyone involved in this call, everyone who knew about these policy calls was concerned about what was happening here. The question is can the Democrats convince the public and the Republicans that there is a problem with a President using his office, using his powers of foreign policy for his own political benefit?

CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, you're a gift on any day, especially Halloween. Thank you very much.

MCCABE: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, so one of the other questions here is if they won't even vote to investigate, why would any Republican vote to impeach, right? We know the facts don't look good. That's why they're arguing in all these different directions around them. But we have something. We're going to shine a Jack-O-Lantern on what proves that even this President knows he did something wrong next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:50:00]

CUOMO: All right. President Trump asked the President of Ukraine to investigate a political rival. He held up aid to Ukraine. He dangled a White House meeting in the exchange. All this we know. And he inserted his Personal Attorney to motivate his personal political agenda over and over his own people in texts and later in testimony have said explicitly, Rudy was to be avoided. He was pushing a whacky agenda and they had concerns about the President proposing this exchange of aid for Biden. In the face of these facts, Trump is doing Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It was a perfect call. An absolutely perfect phone conversation. It was perfect. That was perfect. I made a perfect call. Not a good call a perfect call.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Saying it a lot doesn't make it true. My argument, the President knew it was wrong. Look at that what he said and done, step one the deceptive initial description of the call.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: 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: Creating to the corruption? More like Trump was creating corruption as a topic when he just wanted the Bidens and the DNC. Step two, proof is in the transcript. How many times are the words corrupt or corruption mentioned on that call? Zero. The week after the transcript was released a reporter asked Trump this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have foreign leaders for any corruption investigations that don't involve your political opponent?

TRUMP: You know we would have to look.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Look in the bag. No candy. Even the transcript itself has been manipulated to his advantage. This President told you this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This is an exact word for word transcript of the conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: He says right on it that it isn't. Now we know from Lieutenant Colonel Vindman that it left out things about Biden discussing Ukraine on tape. And when Vindman tried to add things back, they were still left out and then the whole thing was locked way in a secret server.

Step three; we see a more ghoulish effort by Trump to avoid the facts. "POLITICO' headline Trump lures GOP Senators on impeachment with cold cash. What a great time to boost a few Senators and tough for your election bids. And guess what all those ghosts and goblins he gave money to, they all signed Graham's resolution slamming the inquiry as undemocratic.

He's using money to gain leverage over a group of jurors to because he needs them in his corner because he knows he did something wrong. His pals keep saying they want this process to be more like a fair prosecution. Do you know what this would be calling a prosecution? Jury tampering.

So he knew what he did. That's why he's done all the rest. Does a man with a clear conscience do any of these things? And the defense from allies that the President is too dopey to know that he was wrong. First, if that were true, how is he fit to be President if he doesn't know that this is wrong?

And back in reality, to collapse this point, this President already told you all you need to know. He does not believe that it wrong to look to foreign powers. Here's the proof from his own mouth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This is somebody that has information on your opponent. Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesn't work that way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The FBI Director says that's what should happen.

TRUMP: The FBI Director is wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: No. He is right Mr. President. You're supposed to act with integrity and ethics and respect for the law. It is a violation to the point of a felony to accept that kind of help from a foreign power. The only question is who is going to stand up? Especially in the Republican Party and tell this President what is all too obvious already. What you did was wrong?

The rest of the questions about impeachment and removal come after facing the facts. That's the argument. Tonight's "Bolo" is about the man "Time Magazine" now calls Secretary of Offense. Rudy Giuliani but the "Bolo" is he's going down a bad road we've been down before.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:55:00]

CUOMO: "Bolo" means be on the lookout. In a new "Time Magazine" interview Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer and lightening rod for all things Ukraine declares of his most important client, he is 100 percent in my corner and loyal to me as I am to him. Oh, rue the day. It didn't seem like that a few weeks ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, I don't know. I haven't spoken to Rudy. I spoke to him yesterday briefly. He's a very good Attorney and he's been my Attorney.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: What? Maybe the President is more confident in his counsel these days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He's been a great crime fighter. He's always looking for corruption which is what more people should be doing. He's a good man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Also known as the Bidens. But listen to that. Good man. Giuliani is now officially part of the compliment club that ended up clobbering the careers of some of those initiated before him. Like a lot of guys. So for this "Bolo", there might only be one person who should be on the lookout Mr. Giuliani because this President believes in fealty not loyalty.

Thank you for watching. "CNN Tonight" with D. Lemon starts right now. Happy Halloween my brother let me see what you have on?

END