Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Washington Post: Trump Wanted A.G. Barr To Hold News Conference Saying He Broke No Laws On Ukraine Call; Top U.S. Diplomat In Ukraine Details Shakedown Effort In Newly-Released Testimony; Trump Supporter Flips, Gives Details Of Quid Pro Quo. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 06, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --think it's such a stupid word.
MITCH ALBOM, "FINDING CHIKA" AUTHOR: It's open and it stays open.
COOPER: Yes.
ALBOM: And to -- it's a festering wound--
COOPER: Right.
ALBOM: --your whole life.
But if you have to get to a philosophy with it, so for us, you know, we realized well there are children with DIPG who die at four. She lived to seven. There are children with DIPG die at three. She lived to seven. Seven was her amount of years. That's what she was given.
We had that. And that's what we had with her. And there is no matter how families are put together, and no matter how families come apart, this, I have come to believe is true. You cannot lose a child.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: If you want to watch the full interview, go to CNN.com/FullCircle. You can watch Full Circle every weekday, streaming live, 5:00 P.M. Eastern.
Let's go to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME -- PRIME TIME.
Opening day of this impeachment inquiry is just one week away. We know who's going to testify and when. But that's not what matters tonight. We have a good taste of what the first public witness is going to say. We have the transcript from his closed door testimony.
We also have breaking news on something that this President reportedly asked of the Attorney General, and it was a big ask, and it got a no.
What do you say about that? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, big news tonight. You may recall that I called the Attorney General Bill "No-holds" Barr during Mueller because he went all-out to protect this President, not this time.
The Washington Post reports, this President wanted Barr to hold a news conference declaring he didn't break any laws with his Ukraine call. And Barr reportedly declined.
Now, we have more proof of why such a claim would be untenable by this Attorney General. We have the transcript of what Bill Taylor, the top diplomat in Ukraine told lawmakers in his closed-door testimony on October 22nd.
This is no longer about what people tell us that he said. We know what he said. And I'm going to take you to the wall right now. We're going to give you some of the highlights.
The big deal is that Taylor corroborates the idea of a corrupt exchange, which Democrats argue could be an attempted bribe. What's the proof? The release of military aid to Ukraine was contingent on a public announcement that the country would pursue an investigation against the Bidens and the hacking of the DNC.
"That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President committed to pursue the investigation." Taylor also confirms it was all about politics. "I understood that the reason for investigating Burisma was to cast Vice President Biden in a bad light." Cast Biden in a bad light, that's the key part.
What was the condition to investigate Burisma coming from? Who was telling him? "What I know is that the direction was coming from Giuliani," he says.
Now, in testimony, or under cross, really, he said that "Well I think I read it in The New York Times about what Giuliani," that's not compelling, but here's the thing.
The President's personal lawyer tweeted today that he did all of this on behalf of President Trump. "The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges."
Now, back to Taylor. He's the one who called the quid pro quo "Crazy" in those texts that we got from Volker, another name in the mix, further explaining to investigators why he thought that was wrong.
What did he say? He said "If the United States were to ask Ukraine to investigate an apparent violation of Ukrainian law, that would be improper." "Improper," "Wrong," "Crazy," we're hearing that from a lot of people in the President's own Administration. So, what do we have now? At least four witnesses have corroborated
what they call a quid pro quo, which is really just a corrupt deal, all right?
You got Taylor, you got Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the NSC's top Ukraine expert, who was on that July phone call, July 25th, between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.
You have another National Security official who heard it from the President's mouth, Mr. Tim Morrison. And last, but certainly not least, you have Gordon Sondland. Remember him? He just revised his testimony after his memory was, quote, refreshed by other witnesses.
[21:05:00]
So, what does he admit now? Oh, yes, there was this exchange. "I now do recall," he says.
Sondland revealed he personally delivered the demand to one of Zelensky's aides that Ukraine would not get military money unless it committed to investigating one of the President's top political opponents.
Sondland is the farthest thing from a Never-Trumper there is. He's not a Deep Stater. He's none of those things. You cannot wave him off. He's a Trump pal, a mega donor turned U.S. Ambassador to the EU. That was the speculation about why his testimony seemed a little light compared to the other ones.
And it's another reason why you do these things in quiet, right? He didn't have a chance to know what was said about him until it came out, and then he had to change. What if he had had time to prepare?
Now, what does this all say about the President's impeachment defense? For that, let's bring in our big-time investigators, McCabe and Baker.
Andrew, what jumps out to you about this?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, Chris, there's so many things that jump out here. It's almost daunting to try to keep up with the revelations that are coming out of the transcripts every day.
I think the Sondland transcript yesterday was remarkable. His rethinking his prior testimony, and providing the direct connection that he in fact conveyed the demand to the Ukrainians about that no -- no security money would be provided until the investigations were publicly announced.
The big question for me with Mr. Sondland is we still haven't pinned down exactly on whose direction was Sondland acting, so Sondland is taking active steps as early as June 27th, in conversations and meetings, laying out that certainly, at that time, the White House meeting was going to be held up until the investigations were announced publicly, and then they start working on the statement of what they wanted that to look like.
So, as early as the end of June, Sondland is kind of the pointy edge of the spear--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --in terms of pushing this strategy with the Ukrainians. And I'm not sure that anyone, if they have, I didn't read it yet, and I'm not sure that anyone has pinned him down to say "Where did you get that strategy?"
CUOMO: Yes. We went through it, and there's space there, and we're going to talk about that right after the break.
But before we go, Jim, the idea of the President asking the A.G., if the Washington report -- Washington Post has it right, goes to him and says what we know he said before. "Put out a statement. I didn't do anything wrong here."
What's the implication?
JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Well the implication is I think that the President saw the -- the difficulty that he was in, and he was looking for help.
He was quite aware that the, I think, everybody knows about it, that the Attorney General had come out with his press conference right after the Mueller report was released, and that had a very significant impact on how the public perceived the Mueller report. And so--
CUOMO: But is it wrong to ask?
BAKER: Is it wrong to ask? Is it criminal? Is it unethical? Is it unmoral? No, I don't think so. Is it breaking norms? Yes, substantially, because he's asking the A.G. to publicly clear him of something in order to--
CUOMO: Right.
BAKER: --have an effect on the public. So--
CUOMO: I think that what's indicative is that you have Barr saying "No," reportedly, and also saying "No" to the lawyers, DiGenova and Toensing, who were friends, certainly of the President, that Giuliani or someone else may have hooked up with Parnas to help the Russian, Firtash.
Look, I know, people at home, I'm throwing so many names are you -- at you, but get used to it, because this is our new collective vocabulary. I'll explain who everybody is, what the implications are, and what the big questions are coming out of what we now understand.
The two FBI big-shots are going to stay with us. Let's take a quick break. When we come back, there's more new information.
The missing link who was critical to the plot is this guy, Sondland, because he's a Trump pal. How did he suddenly remember that he's the guy who said there was a quid pro quo? What does that mean about what's going on here for the President? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:10:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we're back with McCabe and Baker of FBI pedigree. But, you know, our job here is to simplify things, so let's just do that for a second. I'm throwing all these names at you. I get that it becomes soup.
Bill Taylor, all right, is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. He was one of the first big pieces to fall here about insight into what was going on here in the collective concern. The hit on him was that it was all hearsay, he didn't speak directly. But we have some new advance on that.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, OK, he's the guy that people in Trump World started to attack as not a patriot, and then quickly pulled back, NSC Ukraine expert. There's the suggestion that he was working both sides. It's all BS.
NSC Russia Adviser, Tim Morrison, very important with Taylor, because Taylor believed a lot of what he did, because of his discussions with Morrison.
And then there's the big man, Gordon Sondland. Beyond reproach as someone who would go after the President because he's his friend, a donor, and was basically gifted, which is not to say that in a cynical way, but as the Ambassador to the EU, and asked to come in, and help with this.
Now, the name Firtash that I used, OK, that is a Ukrainian big-shot. They say he has ties to Russia. He's wanted in the U.S. right now for a criminal investigation.
Parnas is one of those two guys who was working with Rudy who got indicted the other day. Parnas hooked up Firtash with these two lawyers, high-powered lawyers, Joe diGenova, and his wife, Victoria Toensing, and they actually got a meeting with the Attorney General. How? Why? I don't know that it had anything to do with Rudy Giuliani. But it's certainly part of the mix. Those are the names.
All right, now, Andrew and Jim, the big change here that we want to start with is Sondland, right?
Sondland winds up changing his testimony. Now, what is the chance, in your experience, Andrew, that you forget that "Oh, yes, yes, there -- there actually was a straight deal here, and I'm the guy who offered it."
[21:15:00]
MCCABE: You know, look, it's not unusual for people to give testimony. And then, after the fact, review that testimony, and make minor changes to it.
CUOMO: Minor? Is this minor?
MCCABE: I don't know. You know, that's the question here. This is a pretty direct matter that he was questioned about thoroughly.
And -- and he comes in, and his recollection has been refreshed apparently by hearing the other witnesses testify, and he remembers having this conversation with Andriy Yermak, in which he essentially conveyed the quid pro quo that we've all been talking about for weeks.
It's -- it's remarkable. But I think what it shows us, Chris, is as the pressure builds on these witnesses, and p -- more and more people are put under oath, more and more people are put on the Hill, people will start to have to testify in public, you're going to see folks testify more protectively, and -- and be potentially more forthcoming in their recollections--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --about what they did because nobody wants to get caught--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Well that's why they do the depositions in private, right?
MCCABE: That's right.
CUOMO: Assuming there aren't going to be leaks. It's hard to coordinate testimony. This was proof of that. And, let's be honest, no small coincidence that the person closest to the President is the one that forgot to testify to the most important factor.
Jim, let me ask you this. Taylor, everybody's talking about how this is going to be a big deal when he testifies. Why?
He didn't have direct evidence or any kind of direct dealings with the President about this. He goes to the concern. He goes to how unorthodox this was. He goes to the Rudy problem. But really, Rudy bails him out, because Rudy says, "Yes, I was over
there investigating these people, and I was doing it for my client, and that's why I was there."
And he said on this show, "Yes, I had them ask about Biden." So, really, Taylor is only as good as Rudy has already been. Fair point?
BAKER: Well, so the way I'm thinking of Taylor right now -- and again, we still need to see more of these facts, we still need to see the testimony from next week. He seems like the linchpin to all this. That's why I think he's critical.
He links kind of everything together, the two pieces, and he's seeing a lot going on, on both sides, and trying to figure out exactly what it all means. And -- and I think just he has this credibility and this -- this background that makes him so believable, so anyway. So, I see him as a -- as a critical piece in all this.
CUOMO: Right. You have high-end issue of credibility with all of these. They all keep leading back to Rudy--
BAKER: Yes.
CUOMO: --every bit as much or not more than the President.
To be honest, Andrew, we don't have anybody yet putting the words in the President's mouth of "They don't get the aid, they don't get close to me, until I get what I want," nobody puts those words in the mouth of the President. A lot of people put them in the mouth of Rudy.
MCCABE: Yes. That's the -- that's the really interesting question here, Chris. There is no question that Sondland and Volker knew what the strategy was.
They knew what they had to get from the Ukrainians in order to deliver the meeting, and the -- and make sure the aid gets freed up. So, how did they know that? All indications so far is they were likely getting that direction from Rudy.
The problem is based on his own comments to you and in -- and his Twitter comments, Rudy is basically saying that everything he did, he did at the direction or for the behest of the President. He was acting as the President's personal representative.
So, I don't see how the Democrats will have a hard time attributing Rudy's direction, if in fact he gave that direction to Sondland and Volker back to the President.
CUOMO: Now, you take everybody pointing at Rudy, as now becomes more clear in the transcripts, and obviously Rudy keeps saying, Mr. Giuliani, that he was acting exclusively as an agent for his client, a.k.a. the President.
You combine that with this, the A.G. saying "No" reportedly to the Washington Post, "I'm not going to say that you didn't do anything wrong on this," and those are big movements in the state of our narrative.
Andrew, Jim, always a plus. Thank you very much.
MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, so--
BAKER: Thanks.
CUOMO: --from the beginning, the White House has been talking about transparency. "Let's get it out. Let's forget about the quiet depositions." You saw with Sondland why we needed them.
Let's -- where are the transcripts? Now the transcripts are out. Are they good for the President? It's hard to argue that. Is this really best debated as whether nothing here was wrong? Isn't there a better way forward?
Let's talk to somebody who knows the President well, the Head of Newsmax, Chris Ruddy.
Thank you for joining us.
Take a quick break -- break. We come back. Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, our next guest comes at this situation two ways. He calls the impeachment inquiry nothing more than a "Political act."
But he is one of the only Trump supporters to acknowledge that the President did something wrong in this situation. How do we reconcile the two? What is the way forward here?
Chris Ruddy is back with us tonight, close friend of President Trump, CEO of Newsmax.
Good to see you as always. Thank you for taking the opportunity.
CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, CLOSE FRIEND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, NEWSMAX MEDIA CEO: Glad to be here. CUOMO: So, what is the answer to that? You believe that what the President did on the call or with the President of Ukraine was wrong/inappropriate. Why?
RUDDY: Well you used the word "Wrong." I never used the word "Wrong."
But I do think that it was not the best political good thing to do. I don't think he committed any crime. But I don't think he should have mentioned Biden's name in the -- in the -- in the call.
[21:25:00]
I have defended the President because I believe he's been a victim of these investigations where people think somebody committed a crime. The whole Mueller thing, $50 million, 500 witnesses, they cleared him. It was all because somebody claimed they thought there was Russian collusion.
So, I've always been very consistent, Chris. I don't believe that people should be investigated criminally unless there's evidence of a crime. There's no evidence that Biden committed a crime.
But I have said the President has a legal right as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the nation to say he would like something investigated. There's nothing wrong with that.
CUOMO: Right. Not to walk too far backwards.
RUDDY: But I just think it's not politically appropriate.
CUOMO: I hear you. Not to walk too far backwards. But the reason we had Mueller was the result of a process that was investigative of what they saw as very suspicious activity that worried them on a criminal and on an intelligence level. The Special Counsel was appointed by someone that Trump had put--
RUDDY: What was the evidence?
CUOMO: --in office.
RUDDY: What was the evidence? There was no evidence the President--
CUOMO: There are over 400 pages of evidence.
RUDDY: There was no Russian collusion.
CUOMO: Well--
RUDDY: There was 400 pages going on--
CUOMO: Again, I don't want to get steeped in what people can read for themselves now. But we know Russia interfered.
We know that there were very ambitious contacts, attempts, to get close to the campaign, and some by the campaign to get into the Head of WikiLeaks, and to figure out who in Russia could help them, all right? So, that is not what a campaign is supposed to do. We both know that.
RUDDY: Well one of the things I totally agree with the President, he was asking, he said, "Why was this whole DNC server hacked? Why don't you investigate if there was any angle from the Ukrainian side?"
CUOMO: But why? There's no proof--
RUDDY: Well--
CUOMO: --of any angle from their side.
RUDDY: Well there's been some chatter that there wasn't -- the Ukrainians certainly leaked things in the middle of the campaign--
CUOMO: Russian Intelligence put out--
RUDDY: --on Trump's Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort.
CUOMO: --propaganda.
RUDDY: So, he's saying--
CUOMO: Look, Manafort put it out -- hold on, hold on. Manafort put out the word, Chris.
RUDDY: No, no, no.
CUOMO: That maybe Ukraine was involved.
RUDDY: Do you remember the ledgers that came out of the Ukrainian government?
CUOMO: Yes.
RUDDY: All of that was leaked to hurt Donald Trump. And he's saying, "I want to know why all of this was happening in 2016." I think that's perfectly fine.
When I look at that transcript, the President gave, it's not really that bad of a transcript, because at the end, Zelensky actually raises the issue of investigations at the end of the call.
And then the President says, "You know, I'd really like you to look at Joe Biden's influence or -- in the firing of the prosecutor who was trying to uncover corruption in the Ukraine."
CUOMO: It's not -- that's not how it happened.
RUDDY: He did not say -- he did not say I want to investigate Joe Biden criminally.
CUOMO: It's--
RUDDY: He said, "I want you to find out what Joe Biden"--
CUOMO: Well, look-- RUDDY: --"was doing."
CUOMO: Chris, I hear you.
RUDDY: So, I think that's fine.
CUOMO: I hear you. But there are two things. You got a problem with Biden, you're not supposed to ask Ukraine to look at him. He's an American citizen. You go to your DOJ. In fact, with Ukraine you have an express agreement--
RUDDY: Well this is why--
CUOMO: --for -- for cooperation on corruption.
There was a right way to do it. He inserted his lawyer. It made everybody nuts because they knew that they were promoting an agenda that was just good for this President.
The Ukrainian President had been told before that call, and after, "This is what you need to do if you want to get close to this President." That's why he brought it up. He mentioned talking to Rudy.
The President then says, "Talk to Rudy. I'll get Barr involved," after the Ukrainian President says, "We want to work together. I want more Javelins," which are missiles, he brings this stuff up.
RUDDY: So, I loved your four guys, the officials, Taylor there, and others, Vindman, and I'm not here to criticize any of them.
But every single one of them has said that they did -- never had contact with the President, where he suggested a quid pro quo, on the Javelins, in relation for any investigation, whether in the DNC servers, in the 2016 election, or for anything else related to--
CUOMO: Right. They put it on Rudy. And--
RUDDY: Well Rudy--
CUOMO: --couple of them say that that was coming from Rudy because he was working for the President. And the President wanted this. And Sondland goes that far, and he's the one closest to this President.
But what I don't get is this. You said "Inappropriate, shouldn't have mentioned Biden." You can't think it's inappropriate to mention Biden and not see the consequence of that feeling, which is because it was wrong to do this. "You were making it about your politics."
RUDDY: So, you keep using the word "Wrong."
CUOMO: Yes.
RUDDY: I would say Alan Dershowitz has described this as a political sin. I think it was a political--
CUOMO: No. He thinks impeaching the President-- RUDDY: No. No. He said--
CUOMO: --is wrong because the President can't be criminally investigated.
RUDDY: Alan has said that this would be considered a political sin, making a call, saying somebody should be investigated in political, right. And--
CUOMO: He wrote the same book about Hillary Clinton that he wrote--
RUDDY: And--
CUOMO: --about Donald Trump.
RUDDY: And--
CUOMO: His rationale is the same.
RUDDY: So, you guys -- look--
CUOMO: He does not see this President as sin-free.
RUDDY: The AP did a poll last week. And the poll showed that two- thirds of Americans do not believe that impeachment should be a high priority of Congress. We are spending 24 hours of the 24-hour news cycle talking about this.
I believe it's a giant diversion because the President has an A-plus record, as President, managing the domestic economy, dealing with foreign affairs on a whole host of issues.
You probably agree with him on that he should hold China accountable. You probably agree with him that he should hold Iran accountable in stopping their nuclear weapons.
CUOMO: He freed them from the only accountability--
RUDDY: So--
CUOMO: --mechanism we had with them.
RUDDY: He's the only guy doing--
CUOMO: And now they're running all over the world creating havoc.
[21:30:00]
RUDDY: Well and the -- he's -- he's holding NATO accountable. All over the place, he's got very high ratings. You know, you look at these swing states where the Democrats law -- lost last night.
CUOMO: He looked good in some of those polls.
RUDDY: Yes.
CUOMO: He did. State-by-state, he looked good.
RUDDY: Yes.
CUOMO: His rating is not that good. He was at 40.
RUDDY: And I think that Democrats should--
CUOMO: He never gets above 50. The country is split on impeachment. And look, I argue all the time, is this the right mechanism.
But I think that you guys are in better shape if you get closer to where you are in terms of saying the President shouldn't have mentioned Biden, he shouldn't have made this about his political opportunities.
RUDDY: I agree with you. I absolutely agree with you.
CUOMO: It was wrong.
RUDDY: I agree with -- well I don't like to use--
CUOMO: I get why they looked at it.
RUDDY: --use the word "Wrong."
CUOMO: But how is it now wrong?
RUDDY: I think it was politically inappropriate.
CUOMO: What's the difference?
RUDDY: Well I think wrong suggests that it might be criminal, and it's not criminal.
Tom Brokaw just came out with a book on the Nixon Watergate situation. Great book! I just started reading it. But he's been on shows saying the Democrats don't have any evidence of an impeachable crime here.
Why would they start an impeachment inquiry if there was no evidence of a crime? This is what's crazy--
CUOMO: This is arguably an attempt to bribe--
RUDDY: --about this whole process.
CUOMO: --the President of Ukraine.
RUDDY: What is the bribe?
CUOMO: If you do not--
RUDDY: Quid pro quo?
CUOMO: If you do -- quid pro quo is Latin. Here, look, it just means this for that. A bribe is this. I have corrupt intent when I ask you to do something in exchange for something else. RUDDY: Chris, you come from a very political family. If Senator Smith asks Senator Jones, "I want to build a bridge in Minnesota. I need funding. And I'll give you funding in Florida"--
CUOMO: Right.
RUDDY: --that's a quid pro quo. It's a--
CUOMO: No corrupt intent.
RUDDY: Well he's going to get reelected--
CUOMO: Corrupt intent is get--
RUDDY: --if he gets the bridge funding.
CUOMO: --get me dirt on my opponent--
RUDDY: He's going to get elected--
CUOMO: --and I'll give you the bridge, corrupt intent, it's a bribe.
RUDDY: So, look at the transcript. The transcript is Zelensky raises the issue about corruption and investigations.
He says "We're going to clean up this country." He says "We're going to clean the swamp just like you're doing in Washington." And the President says, "You should take a look at Joe Biden's"--
CUOMO: The President mentions Biden. It had been said to Zelensky and his people before.
RUDDY: --"effort to fighting -- fire the prosecutor."
CUOMO: You have at least half a dozen people and a bunch of texts where people are saying "Why are we holding up the aid until they get this announcement that they're going after Biden?" It was wrong, Chris. Doesn't mean it's impeachable.
RUDDY: Well--
CUOMO: Doesn't mean it's worthy of removal.
RUDDY: Here's my--
CUOMO: But you can say "Inappropriate." You mean wrong, you just don't want to say it.
RUDDY: No, well, I'm afraid what you're trying to imply is the President committed a crime. And I don't believe he did.
CUOMO: Something can be wrong--
RUDDY: And so--
CUOMO: --and not be a crime, and not be impeachable. RUDDY: So, here's my view--
CUOMO: And not worthy of removal.
RUDDY: --is that Congress should do Congressional oversight, I think, very vigorous Congressional oversight. But they should, at the end of that process, decide if there's an impeachable crime or activity that needs impeachment.
CUOMO: That's what they're doing.
RUDDY: They started this without having any evidence of a crime. They didn't even interview the whistleblower. They didn't see the complaint. They didn't see the transcript. They started this process--
CUOMO: They started the investigation because of what they heard about this call.
RUDDY: And--
CUOMO: They got the transcript to -- confirmed what they heard. In fact--
RUDDY: And they--
CUOMO: --almost everything that whistleblower said has been confirmed by what we now know.
RUDDY: Chris?
CUOMO: So, they started to investigate, and now it's an inquiry, because they believe they have reasons to proceed, and so do you.
RUDDY: Think about what a farce this is. They say it's classified information, the House Intelligence Committee, has nothing to do with Intelligence anyway, and they start bringing the witnesses in. They said it's so secret we can't have them in public.
CUOMO: Just like Henry Hyde did--
RUDDY: And then they start leaking--
CUOMO: --with Clinton. And now you have Sondland--
RUDDY: --every single day--
CUOMO: What if it hadn't been--
RUDDY: --anything that's damaging to the President.
CUOMO: Do you think if it hadn't been in private that Sondland--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: --would have gotten caught and had to reverse his testimony. RUDDY: The Morning Consult poll out today shows a 10 percent drop for support in the impeachment of the President. I think the public's seeing through it.
CUOMO: I think that you were right.
RUDDY: And I appreciate you admitting some of this that--
CUOMO: I think that -- I think--
RUDDY: --they're going too far.
CUOMO: --the country is split. I think there's a question as to whether or not this mechanism will make us better or worse. But they have to figure out what their duty is. I see the argument on that. I do not see the argument on saying this isn't wrong.
But Chris Ruddy, I appreciate you taking the opportunity as always.
RUDDY: Glad to have you.
CUOMO: We'll always be fair.
RUDDY: Glad to be here.
CUOMO: You always have a place here.
RUDDY: Thank you.
CUOMO: Be well.
RUDDY: All right, another familiar face on the Trump Train, former Congressman Sean Duffy is here. He left the House just before this whole inquiry lit up, so he thought he got away clean, but he didn't, because he lit up the conversation from the sidelines.
We'll talk about that, and talk about the state of the race, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, I want to remind you of the moment on television, happened here at CNN, it was about Colonel Vindman, and it seemed to be proof of a shame campaign of unfair attacks by Team Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN DUFFY, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense.
I don't know that he's concerned about American policy, but his main mission was to make sure that the Ukraine got those weapons. I understand that. We all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Obviously that was former Wisconsin Congressman, Sean Duffy, joins us now on PRIME TIME, his first appearance since becoming a CNN, what do they call you, wait, a Contributor, right?
DUFFY: Contributor, yes.
CUOMO: It is good to have you. God bless the family.
DUFFY: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: Welcome to the team.
How dare you? How could you say that about Colonel Vindman? Did you mean to question the man's loyalty?
DUFFY: Listen, I -- I didn't. And I apologized for, you know, making that latter part of the statement. I think Lieutenant Vindman is -- is -- he's a hero. He has, you know, he's got a Purple Heart. I respect his service.
But -- but one of the things that have happened from these transcripts, Chris, and what you see whether it's from Sondland, or the -- the whole crew, all of them, Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters, they're all advising the Ukrainians.
They work for America. And I do have a frustration on that for everyone involved. I want them to advocate for our positions.
But the point in that interview, I was trying to say, listen, advisers don't set policy. The military doesn't set policy. Bureaucrats don't set policy. The President sets policy. And he has a lot of people around him--
CUOMO: Right.
DUFFY: --who have different opinions, and that's a good thing, but he does get to set the policy, and people have the right to disagree with him.
CUOMO: All right, look, this is not about the setting of policy. This is about political opportunism that shanghaied policy. And just one point back, Sean.
DUFFY: Yes.
CUOMO: The idea of they're all helping Ukraine, the guy's job is to be the NSC representative that goes between Ukraine and the United States. This guy is a United States Military Officer.
DUFFY: You know--
CUOMO: They all do that.
DUFFY: So--
CUOMO: Here's what you're missing, and why I think it was wrong to smear this guy the way you did.
DUFFY: I didn't mean to smear him, Chris. That was -- that was not my intent.
CUOMO: Look--
DUFFY: You know, listen, I respect him. And so, I -- I want to be clear on that point.
[21:40:00]
CUOMO: I said when it happened, "Sean Duffy is better than this." I said it as soon as you said it.
DUFFY: I appreciate that.
CUOMO: Because I didn't think you would mean it.
DUFFY: I don't.
CUOMO: But in supporting the President, you guys, you know, team -- seem to trend that way. And here's why it matters with this guy. The reason that Ukraine and he were talking about this was because they were in a panic.
They didn't know what to do with this Rudy Giuliani making these demands on them, and the aids not coming through, and they're being told that they have to get involved with an American election, so they--
DUFFY: Yes.
CUOMO: --they go to the guy whose job it is to interface with them to say "What are we doing?" That's not him helping them. He's helping us out of a jam.
DUFFY: Take -- take Vindman aside for a second. Look at Sondland and -- and Volker. They too in their testimony have said they're advising the Ukrainians on how to deal with the situation. And again, I don't know that is their role--
CUOMO: Because the situation was cuckoo, Sean.
DUFFY: No.
CUOMO: That's why they were doing it.
DUFFY: But -- but they were--
CUOMO: Sondland's your boy.
DUFFY: But I know. And that's--
CUOMO: He's a donor to Trump.
DUFFY: --that's why. But they work for the United States of America.
CUOMO: Right.
DUFFY: They should be advocating the United States of America's position to the Ukraine, not--
CUOMO: Even when the United States' position is ostensibly "Give him the Bidens or you don't get the Congressionally-authorized aid?"
DUFFY: But -- but -- so but let's -- let's talk about that for a second because I do think you're mischaracterizing what President Trump has done. You can -- you can talk about conditional aid or a quid pro quo, however you want to classify it.
But if we say Donald Trump was doing two things, one, "Let's investigate the 2016 foreign influence in our election," and you'd agree that's OK to get help on that. We spent two years on this. You and I have gone back and forth on it.
You would agree that's an OK thing for the President to ask help on with Ukraine, right?
CUOMO: No.
DUFFY: No?
CUOMO: I think you go to the DOJ.
DUFFY: OK. I--
CUOMO: And you investigate it. If it concerns Americans, you do it the right way.
DUFFY: And we--
CUOMO: You don't insert your lawyer--
DUFFY: We would--
CUOMO: --in a shadow diplomacy deal.
DUFFY: We would disagree on that. But -- but then to the big -- the big issue is the Bidens. And Donald Trump wasn't saying, "I want you to dig up dirt on Joe Biden." The -- the facts are that Joe Biden acknowledged there was corruption
in the Ukraine. He didn't say you got to fire a 100 guys in the Ukraine and you'll get our billion dollars, or you fire 50 guys, or 25 guys.
CUOMO: He said one guy.
DUFFY: He said one guy.
CUOMO: Yes, the same guy--
DUFFY: And the -- and the one -- wait, wait--
CUOMO: --the Ukrainian authorities wanted gone.
DUFFY: Wait -- the one -- wait.
CUOMO: And all the Western democracies.
DUFFY: It is the one guy that was investigating the company for which his son was--
CUOMO: He wasn't investigating the company.
DUFFY: --on the Board.
CUOMO: That was the problem.
DUFFY: He was.
CUOMO: In fact, Democratic Senators suggested--
DUFFY: And so -- hold on a second.
CUOMO: But -- but you're getting it wrong, Sean.
DUFFY: No. That -- that -- I'm not getting it wrong.
CUOMO: You are.
DUFFY: No. I--
CUOMO: The guy wasn't investigating Burisma. That was part of the problem with him.
DUFFY: He said he's--
CUOMO: Democratic Senators said you should look at Burisma.
DUFFY: He said he was investigating. He said he was investigating--
CUOMO: He's lying.
DUFFY: --Burisma.
CUOMO: That's one of the reasons that-- DUFFY: Well you could -- you can say he's--
CUOMO: Well why did Ukraine--
DUFFY: You could say this--
CUOMO: --Parliament vote to kick him out?
DUFFY: So the -- but -- but you would agree -- well how did -- how did -- how did Joe Biden come up with this -- this one person of all the corruption in the Ukraine--
CUOMO: He was told to do it by the United States government.
DUFFY: --how did he come up with one guy?
CUOMO: That was our position.
DUFFY: Chris? Our position--
CUOMO: He's not the President. He was put into this.
DUFFY: No. Our position is to root out corruption in the Ukraine.
CUOMO: Sean?
DUFFY: Right? So but -- but here's my -- but here's my -- my broader point is this, Chris.
My point is, is it inappropriate, and if the President believes, and yes, we -- we might disagree on the facts on this. But if the President says Donald -- that "Joe Biden potentially was corrupt in having this prosecutor fired, I want you to look at it," I think that's legitimate.
CUOMO: Go to the A.G.
DUFFY: I don't think that's impeachable.
CUOMO: It's an American citizen.
DUFFY: Yes, but so--
CUOMO: You go to the A.G.
DUFFY: Look--
CUOMO: And here's the problem with the argument, Sean.
DUFFY: Tell me.
CUOMO: I wanted to talk about the election.
DUFFY: All right, yes.
CUOMO: But the election is going to be about this on one level, so we'll do it next time.
DUFFY: Right.
CUOMO: Here's the problem. You show me this President caring about corruption anywhere else in Ukraine, anywhere else in the United States, anywhere else in his own family. He's pissed off about Hunter Biden working for the family. Really? This guy had all this--
DUFFY: What--
CUOMO: --corruption in his own Administration. He never spoke up about it. He never did anything.
DUFFY: Chris?
CUOMO: But Joe Biden bothers him so much that he doesn't go to the DOJ. He doesn't--
DUFFY: But he--
CUOMO: --go to his own Attorney General. He goes to Ukraine?
DUFFY: But you admit--
CUOMO: None of it makes sense.
DUFFY: --you admit he's not asking Ukrainians to make up information on -- on Joe Biden. It was a specific tie, Joe Biden, one prosecutor. We might disagree on the facts.
CUOMO: The dirt is the investigation.
DUFFY: But there's been -- there's been evidenced presented -- wait. There has been evidence presented that that prosecutor was investigating Burisma, and his son sat on that Board.
CUOMO: No.
DUFFY: So, I mean--
CUOMO: I disagree with that.
DUFFY: --there is evidence to that, in fact.
CUOMO: And then they reopened it under Lutsenko, maybe because of Giuliani's influence.
DUFFY: So--
CUOMO: And then they closed it again. And if you--
DUFFY: Chris--
CUOMO: --if you are running against somebody who has an investigation and corruption against them, that's dirt. That hurts. And we both know it. DUFFY: Listen, but -- but you know what? You -- we -- we had -- we had an election -- we had an election in 2016 where there was an investigation into Hillary Clinton and an investigation into Donald Trump. It hurt them both. That's true.
CUOMO: Yes.
DUFFY: But then you -- you should -- if you're not afraid of the investigation because he did nothing wrong, should Joe Biden be that freaked out about it? He could use that as a political bludgeon on Donald Trump.
CUOMO: Listen, all I'm saying is--
DUFFY: If Donald Trump was getting this wrong.
CUOMO: --I don't care who -- who uses it, what way politics. Sean, I'm just saying as President of the United States you don't use your power with another country--
DUFFY: So -- so -- so--
CUOMO: --to start an investigation against your opponent. That's all.
DUFFY: So, I--
CUOMO: But I'm out of time.
DUFFY: So but -- but I'll just say.
CUOMO: Make your last point.
[21:45:00]
DUFFY: Is it impeachable? And I would say it's -- there's a -- there are facts behind both 2016 election and Joe Biden. I don't think this is impeachable at all. And I think the American people will probably see that as -- as the evidence is presented in the House over the next couple of weeks.
CUOMO: The way you go about it is what got him in trouble. Is it impeachable? The country is divided. Is it worthy of removal? I think you guys have a good case if you stop ignoring--
DUFFY: Yes.
CUOMO: --the obvious.
DUFFY: Good, you're right.
CUOMO: In fact, I'm going to make that argument.
DUFFY: Good point. Good.
CUOMO: Sean Duffy, God bless you and the family.
DUFFY: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: Welcome to the team. Get ready for some beatings on this topic.
DUFFY: I'll put my helm -- put my helmet on.
CUOMO: Always a pleasure, be well.
DUFFY: Thanks.
CUOMO: Now, honestly, to this point, this is a little serendipitous, the Republicans are using a "Give no ground" strategy here. Even Ruddy, he's gone farther than he wanted to go tonight. Obviously they're saying "Stop with the "We did something wrong."
I have an argument for you that if they stop doing something they shouldn't, and start focusing on what they should be doing, they will be in better position.
Look, if you don't want to hear their side, that's fine. You still need to know what's going to be coming your way. And if you're on that side, please pay attention, tell me if the argument works. Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, here's the argument. If the GOP stops ignoring the obvious, there's a stronger case they can make, one all must consider. First, here's the problem, ignoring the obvious.
They created a false standard of proof. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine, it was incoherent. It depends on who you talk to. They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: No. It was not incoherent. It was not unclear. It was very clear.
"Help Trump get an investigation into the Bidens," which we all know is dirt in a campaign. It's bad for Biden, if he's under investigation. And Ukraine gets the aid and closeness to the American Presidency it craves.
And by asking for this standard, they now have to own the texts, and half dozen officials that suggest or outright say there was a quid pro quo.
We got the full transcript of Bill Taylor's testimony today. The top diplomat in Ukraine said there was a quid pro quo, linking military aid in a White House meeting to investigation into Trump's political rivals.
Similar story from EU Ambassador, and Trump donor, and pal's, Gordon Sondland, who revised his testimony to admit this. "I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks."
That's explicitly something for something, OK, maybe even attempted bribe. Why? An attempted bribe would be this. "Whoever corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence any official act."
So now, will defenders own what they said early on? Remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: Show me something that -- that -- that is a crime. If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Disturbing indeed! You have proof of what arguably was an attempted bribe outside the phone call. Are you now going to ignore that? The answer unfortunately is yes, by way of this demonstration of remonstration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: I've written the whole process off. I'm written him off. I think this is a bunch of BS.
The phone call, I made up my own mind, is -- is fine.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you plan on reading these transcripts that were released?
GRAHAM: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Why do I keep using Senator Graham? Because he's the point man for the President, and because he's smart, and savvy, and respected by his peers. But he's ignoring a better way to defend the President. My argument, own what's obvious. It was wrong to ask Ukraine to look at the Bidens, arguably even abusive to do so looking for an investigation in exchange for aid.
Now, if you support the President, "Forget it. This is way too much," wrong, because there's a big but here, OK, literally like a Don Lemon sized butt that I'm talking about here.
Here's the "But." You argue it's not worthy of removal, probably not worthy of this time and expense of this process. Why?
It was thwarted. There was no damage done. Ukraine got the aid. Russia didn't beat them up, while the aid was on hold. We are on good terms with Ukraine, may be better than even during Obama.
Two, while plenty of the diplomats have testified to a quid pro quo, maybe even attempted bribe, none has directly pinned it on Trump. Some say they heard it from Sondland.
Sondland says in his new testimony that the condition of a White House meeting was communicated by Rudy. Others triangulate around Rudy, and that Sondland says he presumed the aid had become linked to the anti- corruption statement. So, you don't have it directly from the President.
And in light of that, it's better to let the consequence be with the people in the upcoming election because this process that we're going through, it's going to end with no removal, and people more divided, and less done for the public.
Now, here's problem with my argument. Principle, if they don't impeach, there's no message that this is not acceptable, and that seems mandatory here because this President won't stop saying he was perfect, and promising to do more things like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with -- with Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: President doesn't ask other countries to investigate American citizens. He goes to the DOJ, not to his lawyer, and not to this kind of scheme.
If the GOP can get this President to understand that the law against foreign interference matters, and to acknowledge the same, they may have a way out of this that a split nation may well accept. But that is a big if right now.
That's the argument. What do you think? Let me know.
[21:55:00] Republicans do have something to celebrate during this impeachment era, a giant mark that could be the most important thing this President has done. It's our BOLO, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO time, Be On the Look-Out. Ironically, something this President mentions very rarely may matter the most.
Today, the Senate neared confirming the 44th Appeals Court Judge of his Presidency. That milestone means one quarter, one of every four of Appeals Judgeships have been filled under President Trump.
In all, he's already gotten a 157 judicial nominees through. That tops his recent predecessors, who all but one were two-term Presidents. Going to be a big deal in 2020 for Conservatives!
By confirming scores of Conservative judges to lifetime appointments on federal courts across the country, President Trump will have a fingerprint on legal cases for generations to come. So, Be On the Look-Out. You may see the impact of that and soon.
Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
END
