Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

NY Times: Trump Considered Firing Inspector General Who Found The Whistleblower Was Credible; Washington Post: Giuliani Associate Parnas Says He And Fruman Talked About Ukraine With Trump In 2018; Buttigieg, Biden, Warren In Top Tier Of New Iowa Poll. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired November 12, 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, ANDERSON COOPER 360: But it's not clear reputation can survive her book tour's endless and kind of sad stops along Sycophant Street. Whether Pence gets the push and she somehow makes it onto the 2020 ticket, or not, she'll certainly always be polling well on The Ridiculist.

And that does it for us. The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Thank you very much, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.

We have a new report that is a new window into how badly this President wants to silence any perceived opposition. Did he want to fire the Inspector General just for following the law with the whistleblower?

We are on the precipice, my friends, of the most telling period of this Presidency. There's only one option. Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Here we are. This day was all but inevitable for months, the eve of the first public impeachment hearings of President Donald J. Trump.

The New York Times reports, on this night, Trump considered canning Michael Atkinson. He is the Intelligence Community Inspector General. But the story is why. Here's the full screen from their source.

"He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson has been disloyal." How? For finding the whistleblower credible, and doing what his job is, to move that complaint to people who can read it, and assess it, and act on it.

This is the backdrop as we begin the most difficult weeks for this President. You will hear for the first time from people, who knew what was going on, describe what happened, and why.

An impeachment hangs in the balance, a permanent asterisk of disgrace next to the name "Trump," if it goes that way. This is heavy. So, let's look at how those loyal to this President will shape what comes next. What do they want you to weigh in his favor?

Matt Schlapp, Head of the Conservative Union.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Also Head of a major Washington lobbying firm called Cove Strategies. Welcome back to PRIME TIME.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION, GOP CONSULTANT & LOBBYIST, COVE STRATEGIES CO-FOUNDER, FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH CAMPAIGN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Good to be with you, Chris.

CUOMO: Matt, let's deal with the news. Why would it be OK for the President to go after the Inspector General for dealing with the whistleblower?

SCHLAPP: Because the Inspector General serves at the pleasure of the President.

CUOMO: True. He can get rid of whom he wants.

SCHLAPP: Whoever he wants. Whoever serves at the pleasure of the President, the President can get rid of them at any time. Matter of fact, at the State Department, during Obama's Presidency, during the whole time Hillary Clinton was at the State Department, he didn't even bother to pick an I.G.

CUOMO: So, does the reason why you get rid of somebody, if it's because he's seen as disloyal for finding the whistleblower credible, which is what the reporting is, does that color your determination?

SCHLAPP: No. When you serve at the pleasure of the President, the President has the right to remove you for whatever reason he wants. It's the reason the President made public the transcript, so that people, every American can read what went down in that conversation.

And he's going to release the first conversation he had with the President of the Ukraine later this week. So, there's complete transparency about what happened in the conversation.

CUOMO: But you don't believe that Mr. Atkinson mishandled the whistleblower situation, do you?

SCHLAPP: I think he did what Rod Rosenstein did. He took the easy path. It was easier to just send it over to DOJ for further action. And I also -- I don't know if he has animus against the President or not. I have nothing-- CUOMO: Versus what? What would've been the hard path?

SCHLAPP: To actually look at the conversation and see if any crimes were committed. And I think for those of us who have read the transcript with a -- with a fair mind, it is not as some of these people made it out to be, including the whistleblower.

CUOMO: Well, just to be clear and fair to Mr. Atkinson, that's not his job. His job is to assess the credibility, see if he can corroborate it, and if so, give it to the DOJ. It is their job, and they passed on this.

SCHLAPP: That's right.

CUOMO: Imagine this, my brother. Imagine if they hadn't, and they had investigated this claim, we may not be here right now.

SCHLAPP: Well if -- if Rod Rosenstein was over at the DOJ, Lord only knows what could happen. I mean, Chris, this is -- one of the problems with public is--

CUOMO: Rosenstein was put there by Republicans, by the way.

SCHLAPP: He was, he was, big mistake. This is one of the problems that Republicans have when they win the Presidency, and I'm a veteran of the Bush Administration, is that, you know, the -- those folks who make up the career ranks of these big white buildings in Washington D.C. are 80 percent for the Democrats. And so, you faced--

CUOMO: You think Rod Rosenstein was for the Democrats after what he did at the end of the Mueller situation?

SCHLAPP: I think Rod Rosenstein was incredibly compromised, and I think he had great animus towards the President. And I think almost every action--

CUOMO: Did he have animus when he tried to help him can--

SCHLAPP: --he took showed that.

CUOMO: --Comey with that letter that was a -- is good--

SCHLAPP: He didn't like--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: --as I've seen.

SCHLAPP: He didn't like Comey either, didn't mean that -- it didn't mean that everyone liked Comey that he liked -- that he was a -- he was a backer of it.

[21:05:00]

Look, Rod Rosenstein was picked by Jeff Sessions because Jeff Sessions believed that he -- if he picked somebody as his Deputy, who the career bureaucrats adored, and respected, it would earn him some street cred.

A big mistake on behalf on the part of Jeff Sessions, and the President should have said no to it.

CUOMO: Yes, but he -- he didn't know that at the time. Jeff Sessions is a complete loyalist.

And the whistleblower, by all accounts of what we've been able to put together from what they put out there, has all been corroborated already. That's why I don't understand this push about, you know, making the whistleblower a boogeyman, and now making the person who assessed his credibility a boogeyman.

SCHLAPP: I--

CUOMO: I don't get the tactic.

SCHLAPP: Well maybe I--

CUOMO: If you have nothing, if everything's perfect.

SCHLAPP: Maybe I -- I'll have the temerity to agree with you. I think we have the transcript.

CUOMO: Don't do that. They'll throw you out of the club.

SCHLAPP: That's right. We have one transcript. We'll have another transcript this week.

The American people can read it. They can, you know, they can, in a fair-minded way, determine whether they think the President committed any crimes with that transcript.

And what I think the problem with this impeachment process is, Chris--

CUOMO: Yes.

SCHLAPP: --is that they just announced something like eight more witnesses next week. And Republicans haven't gotten any of their witnesses.

And so, this is not how we ran when I was a staffer on the Republican side in the House during Clinton's impeachment. This is not how we ran it. Now, they can politicize it.

CUOMO: How so? How's it different?

SCHLAPP: Well the President's counsel had the right to have a -- a role in all of the impeachment process. And Republicans and Democrats--

CUOMO: Not all of it. Henry Hyde had depositions in private.

SCHLAPP: And Republicans -- and Republican--

CUOMO: The first round of hearings he wasn't there. SCHLAPP: If I could just finish my answer? Republican--

CUOMO: Just to clarify the record.

SCHLAPP: Well--

CUOMO: Go ahead.

SCHLAPP: He already had his private part. Let's not talk about that anymore. He did it -- he had all these -- this -- this private depositions. And he had the cameras--

CUOMO: Just like Henry Hyde.

SCHLAPP: I'm just saying. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying from this point forward, as the cameras are there, I think it would accrue to the benefit of the Democrats, if it looked like they were being more even-handed as the Republicans were with Clinton where--

CUOMO: It's the same rules that the Republicans had in Clinton.

SCHLAPP: No. It's not. The Republicans gave the Democrats co-equal subpoena ability, and they're not doing that in this case.

CUOMO: Yes, subject to the vote of the Committee, Matt.

SCHLAPP: In fact -- in fact--

CUOMO: You know that.

SCHLAPP: In fact, the Republicans have been denied every single witness they had put forward.

CUOMO: Wait, hold on, Matt. Let's just flush this out for people. Here's how it worked under Clinton.

SCHLAPP: Yes.

CUOMO: The same way they just laid it out. You can say who you want, and if I disagree with you, if I'm the Head on the Right, and you're the Head on the Left, just bear with me for a second, and you say you want something, but you're in the minority.

And I say, "You know what? I don't want that." Now we go to the Committee for a vote. That's what you did in Clinton. That's what they're doing here. You'll just never win the vote because you don't have the numbers. And that's the same thing that will happen here.

SCHLAPP: The -- the difference is--

CUOMO: I can argue that you shouldn't like the process. But it's the same process.

SCHLAPP: The difference is that the Democrats have the ability to call witnesses. And so far, the Republicans are a bagel.

CUOMO: If the Republicans didn't disagree.

SCHLAPP: Not one single witness that the Republicans want to put forward has been called.

CUOMO: Well, first of all, we haven't had a witness yet.

SCHLAPP: So look, they can't win it this way.

CUOMO: We just -- we're starting tomorrow.

SCHLAPP: No, they have.

CUOMO: And I got to tell you, Matt, I don't get the call.

SCHLAPP: I talked to Jim Jordan today. I've talked to several Republicans--

CUOMO: Yes? Ask him to come on the show.

SCHLAPP: --and of course in the last 48 -- oh, he's a tiger. I think-- I think--

CUOMO: Ask him to come on the show. I love him.

SCHLAPP: I don't know many shows--

CUOMO: I'd love to have him on.

SCHLAPP: --he says no to. The--

CUOMO: This is one.

SCHLAPP: The -- the fact is, is I think it's a mistake. I think that if the impeachment process has looked -- looks like, it's not even- handed, and the Republicans go -- don't get the chance, think--

CUOMO: But I think you're saying that. I don't know that that's the reality.

SCHLAPP: It is--

CUOMO: We'll see how it goes forward.

SCHLAPP: Well we will.

CUOMO: Let me ask you--

SCHLAPP: It is the reality. Let me just--

CUOMO: --let me ask you about something else.

SCHLAPP: Chris, let me just make one point.

CUOMO: Please!

SCHLAPP: No witness the Republicans have asked to be a part of this process will be on people's television sets tomorrow.

CUOMO: But -- but you can't expect to have Adam Schiff or the Bidens put on trial in an impeachment process for this President.

SCHLAPP: How -- OK, so it's not just the question of Hunter Biden's potential illegality. It's also this question about the people that Schiff talked to, and that Republicans did get a chance to cross- examine in the private--

CUOMO: This is about what the President did.

SCHLAPP: --in the private depositions.

CUOMO: You do that in a different proceeding.

SCHLAPP: In -- in the private depositions through witnesses that had exculpatory information.

CUOMO: Have your own proceeding. But let me ask you this.

SCHLAPP: But they're not -- but they're not being allowed to testify tomorrow.

CUOMO: Let me--

SCHLAPP: Just so all your viewers understand.

CUOMO: But I -- well I want all my viewers to understand that that's not how the rules are set up in the way that you get that right a full counsel--

SCHLAPP: It's a bagel. Not one Republican witness will testify.

CUOMO: --and due process, we're starting tomorrow.

And, by the way, you're going to get a bagel if you're asking as witnesses the person who's bringing the proceeding or this, you know, phantom of the Bidens as having done things that you'll acknowledge in the Bidens.

SCHLAPP: Let me be clear. Let me be clear.

CUOMO: But not in the President.

SCHLAPP: Let me be clear. Even if you take Joe Biden's and Hunter Biden's potential wrongdoing out of the equation, just people that are in the NSC bureaucracy, and at State, who had positive evidence to put forward in their depositions, they are not being allowed to testify tomorrow.

CUOMO: We have not had anybody come forward who was part of this process, who has countered the obvious notion that this was wrong, and the President made it that way.

SCHLAPP: What was wrong?

CUOMO: This entire ask of--

SCHLAPP: What was wrong?

CUOMO: --Ukraine that Rudy Giuliani--

SCHLAPP: To look--

CUOMO: --was inserted into the diplomatic process to ensure, much to the horror and fright of career professionals, who are not disloyal to this President.

SCHLAPP: So, Chris, if it was wrong--

CUOMO: He did this for this reason.

SCHLAPP: I don't agree with you. But if it was wrong for the President of the United States to talk to the President of the Ukraine to have him--

[21:10:00]

CUOMO: It was not wrong to talk to the President of Ukraine.

SCHLAPP: --to have him find dirt on a political enemy--

CUOMO: Yes.

SCHLAPP: --was it wrong for -- for Obama and Biden to talk to the Head of the Ukraine government in a way to try to harm Trump in 2016?

CUOMO: If you had proof of that the way we have proof of this--

SCHLAPP: How will we have proof--

CUOMO: --then the answers would be equal.

SCHLAPP: --without having witnesses?

CUOMO: Because just like you guys always say, you don't investigate in search of a crime. You have proof of a crime, and then you investigate.

SCHLAPP: And that's what--

CUOMO: I got to jump, Matt.

SCHLAPP: And that's what Adam Schiff is doing? He has a crime? I'd love someone to tell me--

CUOMO: He--

SCHLAPP: --what that crime is.

CUOMO: Well you're going to hear it starting tomorrow.

SCHLAPP: Because you yourself has said you don't need a crime. CUOMO: I don't think you need a crime. But attempted bribery--

SCHLAPP: Well--

CUOMO: --is certainly a crime.

SCHLAPP: --the Founders had a different idea on the--

CUOMO: And I think you'll hear about that.

SCHLAPP: --Constitution.

CUOMO: We'll talk about that next time. You're always welcome.

SCHLAPP: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: Matt Schlapp, thank you.

SCHLAPP: All right, thank you.

CUOMO: Just quick tutor for the rest of you, go read Federalist Paper 65. It'll take you six minutes. It'll answer that question. And you'll know once and for all that Alexander Hamilton, and no less, said that it was this type of behavior by a politician, not big crimes, big corruption.

Breaking news, Washington Post, two of Mr. Giuliani's Ukrainian associates, the ones arrested at the airport, they spoke to Mr. Trump about the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, way back in April of 2018.

I thought he didn't know these guys! New details, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, we got breaking news from the Washington Post and it is definitely going to bear on the impeachment process. I want to do it together as a team.

Let's bring in Asha Rangappa and Jimmy Schultz. Thank you both and thank you for bearing with me. I want to go through this reporting. I want you to hear it in real-team.

Now, here's the headline. Lev Parnas, OK, one of the Giuliani associates under indictment.

Now, remember his lawyer was chirping, and we were trying to understand why -- why does he keep antagonizing the President saying, "Oh-ho-ho, he knew the President. Oh-ho, the President knows him."

I couldn't make sense of it at the time. But now I get what the play is, and I'll take you through it.

They are going to try to make this man an agent of the President, and say that he wasn't some dirty freelancer. He's working with that fiat with that power of the President, so give him that respect. I don't know how it helps in terms of the indictment for the campaign contributions, but just listen.

So, April 2018, OK, Parnas and his fellow-indicted associate, Igor Fruman, both of them were working with Giuliani, are at this big donor dinner for a Super PAC allied with President Trump.

They promised to make a big donation, so they got to go. We don't know that they gave big money to him. That has been reported. But it's not part of this story.

Now, here's the main part. Parnas says that they get up to the President, OK, and they say that they tell him that they think the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was unfriendly to the President, and his interests.

According to Parnas, think about this for a second, this is the President of the United States. The President reacts strongly to the news, and suggests that Yovanovitch, who'd been in foreign service for 32 years, by the way, should be fired. The sourcing is people familiar with his account.

"Oh, it's anonymous sourcing." Forget that. If it weren't for anonymous sourcing, you wouldn't know anything that happens in our government, all right? So, it's about the strength of the sourcing. And, by the way, Parnas can confirm this story, and that's what his lawyer has been teeing up.

Now remember, why does this matter? Well the small point is "Really? The President relies on some guy he just met at some donor thing about making a move on an Ambassador? It's almost impossible to believe."

But what is very possible to believe, and let's bring in Asha and Jim, is that the President said he didn't know--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: --who this guy is, Jimmy. And yes, he takes pictures with everybody. He took multiple pictures with this guy. And if this conversation happened, how can the President say he doesn't know the man, and what is the impact of that? JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: Chris, I've been in politics a long time, and I've been to a lot of political fundraisers. And I've met a lot of politician at those fundraisers, and a lot of them aren't going to remember me, as good-looking as I am. But there's no way--

CUOMO: Certainly distinctive.

SCHULTZ: --there's no way that, you know -- so I just -- I think it's a far cry to say that the President has a relationship with this person just because he's met him at a fundraiser.

And maybe he said something during that -- during that fundraiser about this individual, and the President already had some preconceived notion about that person, and said, "Yes, she needs to be fired."

And look, it's no secret. The President has the right to hire and fire. And -- and, in this instance, you know, the bureaucracy -- the President doesn't work for the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy works for the President.

CUOMO: 100 percent.

SCHULTZ: And the President works for the people. And the--

CUOMO: A 100 percent.

SCHULTZ: --bureaucrats haven't been elected -- hasn't been elected this President.

CUOMO: A 100 percent.

SCHULTZ: The President of the United States was elected by people of this country.

CUOMO: But why you get rid of someone, Jimmy, matters--

SCHULTZ: But--

CUOMO: --in the context of understanding the bigger situation. Let me bounce it to Asha.

SCHULTZ: We went through this. Chris, we had this debate. This -- this reminds me of -- of Comey, right?

CUOMO: Yes, it does.

SCHULTZ: This is the same argument we had before with Comey.

CUOMO: It does.

SCHULTZ: That all the sudden Comey needed to -- had a right to be in that position. He had no right to be in that position.

CUOMO: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you can get rid of somebody.

SCHULTZ: The President had every ability to fire him.

CUOMO: But why you get rid of somebody--

SCHULTZ: And you know what? That was confirmed--

CUOMO: --matters.

SCHULTZ: --that was confirmed through the process that we just been through. Chris?

CUOMO: But I'm not -- Jimmy, hold on a second.

SCHULTZ: You're missing a point. And -- and -- and to try to say--

CUOMO: Don't filibuster me. I'm not missing the point. I get the point.

SCHULTZ: --"Hey, he took more than one photo, so all the sudden, they're buddies--"

CUOMO: No, no.

SCHULTZ: --that's just ridiculous.

CUOMO: Jimmy, you're missing the context, and I understand why. Well- argued!

But Asha, the point is this. Parnas was part of this process of getting the President's value as he saw it out of Ukraine. They worked with Giuliani.

Giuliani was constantly guiding the President. He says he did everything that he did for his client, and they wanted to get the Bidens, and get people who wouldn't help them to do that out of the way.

[21:20:00]

What is the relevance of a Lev Parnas, saying, "He doesn't know me? I went up to him at this donor dinner, and told him about Yovanovitch, and he was really upset about it," wouldn't that be something you remember?

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. The relevance here, Chris, is that Giuliani was acting in the President's private interests, not in the interests of the United States.

When you bring Fruman and -- and Parnas into the equation, who are even twice removed from the President, that only puts the nail in the coffin that this was all being done for his private benefit. It was not being done through official channels or for foreign policy or for the national interest of any kind.

Further in that reporting, what I found most interesting, Chris, is that it was Parnas who floated the idea that the Ukrainians make this announcement--

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: --about investigating the Bidens, and looking into the basis of the 2016 election interference.

Again, this is twice removed. This is some rando off to the side who has no connection to the U.S. government. And I think this completely undercuts any defense that the President has that what he was seeking, when he had that phone call, was something that--

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: --was fulfilling his duty to--

SCHULTZ: Yes--

RANGAPPA: --to advance the interests of United States.

CUOMO: All right.

RANGAPPA: --as opposed to his own interests.

CUOMO: I got two more questions. And then I have to go.

SCHULTZ: These concerns about -- these concerns about Biden were raised--

CUOMO: Hold on, hold on, Jimmy, Jimmy, I'm going to come to you. Jimmy--

SCHULTZ: --long before any of this.

CUOMO: --Jimmy, I'm going to come to you.

SCHULTZ: It's ridiculous to say that all the sudden Lev Parnas says--

CUOMO: Jimmy?

SCHULTZ: --says it is, and now the President's just doing--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Jimmy, I'm saying -- forget about Parnas. I want to -- I -- I don't know that he's right about that.

SCHULTZ: All right.

CUOMO: I think it was probably Rudy's idea or someone around the President to get the announcement because that would put the stink on Biden.

Because if you really cared about corruption, then you don't want some announcement from a guy that you don't trust in a place that you think is corrupt. You'd want to see the action. But if he really wanted action on Biden, he would have gone to the DOJ. But to my question to, Asha, which is this, you do not have, and we do

not anticipate getting anyone to put the words in the mouth of the President, "I'm not giving them the aid until they give me the announcement on the investigation."

And as long as that remains the case, Asha, can't he argue in good faith, and people who want to defend him argue in good faith, "He didn't mean it that way. That was the other people. He had no corrupt intent. And that could save him."

RANGAPPA: So, Ralph Waldo Emerson once said--

CUOMO: Uh-oh.

RANGAPPA: --you know, "Actions speak so loudly. I can't hear a word you're saying." And so, what we have to look at are the actions that were taking place in the context of this phone call.

And we know that by the time this phone call had taken place, the aide had already been withheld. The people at the OMB say that it came at the order of the President, and the Ukrainians understood that this aid was being withheld.

They were on the brink of actually making this announcement under duress, presumably Bill Taylor's opening statement when he testified states that he had to actually confirm, call them, and make sure that they weren't going to make this announcement. He was so concerned about it.

So, you know, you don't have to have the -- the words right out of his mouth. We very rarely have people, you know, I mean the President does confess to crimes. But, in this case, we don't need him to confess to the crime because there's a lot of context that's taking place in addition to what he is saying in the phone call--

CUOMO: But if you want to make it an attempted bribe--

RANGAPPA: --which is only substantiating that.

CUOMO: --you're going to want to tie it as closely to the President as you can. And I just think that's a threshold to be aware of going into it.

For you, Jimmy, starting tomorrow, do you think you're going to arrive at a point where you guys will have to accept what happened, and why it happened, and then make the argument of consequence that "Yes, OK, we get what all these people say. They're all saying like the same thing. This is what happened. This is why it happened. But it is not worthy of removal, and here is why," do you think you're going to get to that point?

SCHULTZ: I think you get to that point only to the extent that one, you know, you made the -- you made the point succinctly, Chris. There's -- there's no tie to the--

CUOMO: First for everything. SCHULTZ: --words coming out of the President's mouth.

And -- and there's -- and there's -- and there's -- and there's no indication that the President gave that specific order relative to a quid pro quo. And in the transcript itself, I think the -- what the Republicans are going to try and do is bring this back to the transcript itself, which there is no quid pro quo.

And there's also -- there's no indicate -- what he asked for was an investigation. He didn't ask for them to -- to -- to find him guilty without a trial or without due process. He didn't ask them to dig dirt.

CUOMO: That is the dirt.

SCHULTZ: He asked them to conduct an investigation into something.

CUOMO: That is the dirt.

SCHULTZ: And -- and -- and hold on, hold on.

CUOMO: As soon as I hear that Jimmy Schultz is under investigation--

SCHULTZ: Asked them to conduct an investigation--

CUOMO: --he's got stink on him. I got to go, Jimmy.

SCHULTZ: OK. But look, look--

CUOMO: But that's--

RANGAPPA: And he asked them to make an announcement.

CUOMO: --that's the reality.

SCHULTZ: --there's -- there's lot of people--

CUOMO: That's right.

SCHULTZ: --have a lot of problems with what Hunter Biden was engaged in.

CUOMO: That's fine. You should have gone to the DOJ.

SCHULTZ: And -- and that's -- that's not Republicans. That's Democrats too.

CUOMO: You should have gone to the DOJ, and not had your lawyer do a shadow situation.

SCHULTZ: Hey, well Article II says the President has the power to set--

CUOMO: And I don't think Giuliani should be the fall guy--

SCHULTZ: --foreign policy. CUOMO: --for what this President wanted him to do.

SCHULTZ: The bureaucrats--

CUOMO: I know. But this wasn't about foreign policy.

SCHULTZ: --don't set foreign policy. The President does.

CUOMO: This was about personal policy. But I got to jump. I appreciate the arguments.

SCHULTZ: Well we'll see what the American people think.

CUOMO: A 100 percent. A 100 percent. But they're not the ones who are going to have to make the votes. And people have to do their duty, and they have to do it on principle. We'll see how it goes. Asha, thank you so much. Jimmy--

[21:25:00]

SCHULTZ: And they got to win with those votes.

CUOMO: Boy, you've got to get the last word, Jimmy, and you know what? I'll give it to you.

SCHULTZ: I do. I can't help myself.

CUOMO: I'll sit -- I'll rely on you both. I'll see you soon, and thank you.

All right, some crucial movement for one Democrat in the race for President. Polls are snapshots of where you are in a moment in time, and this is some moment. We're also getting the first look at what Bloomberg faces if he jumps in.

The Wizard of Odds deep-diving into the numbers, and the hurdles. What did he come up with? Anybody knows? 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)

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: Hey, look, the Democratic race is no longer about one or two people. It's about a group of four at the top. And Mayor Pete just busted into that, specifically in Iowa. He's up 14 points since August. That puts him alongside former VP Biden, Senator Warren and Sanders. The same names all at the top in New Hampshire as well. But with Buttigieg, the question becomes why. Why is he making this move?

Let's bring in the Wiz himself. He's the one who gives us the answers.

So, what do you see, brother? And how is it going?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER & ANALYST: Yes. So, I think this is rather key in terms of understanding why certain things are happening, and these are the net favorability ratings. That's favorable rating minus unfavorable rating.

And what do we see now? We see that the most popular guy in Iowa is Pete Buttigieg with a plus 63 point net favorability rating. That's up from September.

But here I think is also rather cute (ph). Look at the Warren line here. She was the most popular candidate back in September in our own poll. Now, she's dropped from plus 58 percentage points net favorability down to plus 46.

So, it's pretty clear here, as I look underneath the numbers that Warren's losing some popularity while Buttigieg is gaining.

CUOMO: Sanders also takes a bump. And that's interesting because that -- help me understand this. So, you're getting a bump for Senator Sanders, up 10 points--

ENTEN: In popularity.

CUOMO: --but she's going down. But they're making the same message. Why does she go down and he goes up?

ENTEN: Because she has been attacked much more recently. This, I think, is a good indication to you -- good indication as to why she's sort of dropping is because she basically has what's going on is they're carrying that attack on Medicare-for-All, and it's seeming to have some real emphasis. And you also see Biden going after one on that elitist -- elitist message. That seems to be playing.

CUOMO: Who's lunch is Buttigieg eating?

ENTEN: Yes. So, take a look here. This is very interesting.

So basically, we know that Elizabeth Warren has been doing the best among those with a college degree or more. Now, Buttigieg, in that Iowa poll, is actually slightly ahead, although that's what the margin of error.

But we also know that Biden's been doing best among those moderates or conservatives. Now what we see here is a tie between Biden and Buttigieg.

CUOMO: So, he's taking from both.

ENTEN: He's taking from both. And, in fact, we see that in the New Hampshire poll. What you see is those who say Buttigieg is their first -- first choice--

CUOMO: Right.

ENTEN: --who is their second choice? Basically a dead-even split between Biden and Warren.

CUOMO: So, politics is the snap judgment. "That's it. Warren's in decline. And Biden's done. It's going to wind up being this guy as likely as anybody," you say maybe not, why?

ENTEN: Maybe not. Look, Iowa, New Hampshire, one thing. Of course, there is still those voters outside of those states--

CUOMO: And this is a lot of MOE we're talking about.

ENTEN: This is--

CUOMO: Within the margin of error--

ENTEN: Yes.

CUOMO: --a lot of these polls they're really just--

ENTEN: They're -- Iowa--

CUOMO: --bunched up.

ENTEN: --Iowa -- the best way I would categorize Iowa right now is basically a three-way race between Buttigieg--

CUOMO: Right.

ENTEN: --Warren and Biden, maybe even Sanders also by that.

CUOMO: But you don't see that across the nation?

ENTEN: You don't--

CUOMO: You see something else.

ENTEN: Exactly. You don't see that across the nation. So, this is an average of the top choices for President, debate-qualifying polls. What do we see? We see that Biden is still up nationally. And we see that Warren's at second.

Look at Buttigieg. All the way down here in fourth place behind even Sanders. But there's also something else interesting here. And that is that Warren has fallen back a little bit over the last month or so.

She was at 27 percent, basically tied with Biden from September 20th to October 14th. But over the last month, we see that Biden's basically holding, while Warren's been falling back. CUOMO: Now, skip the next one because, look, the headline is the same as it's always been. Mr. Mayor Pete has problems with African- Americans. You're going to see it here. That hasn't changed. If it doesn't change, he's got a problem.

They spelled it right. It was OK.

ENTEN: Yes, there we go.

CUOMO: We were worried because it was spelled wrong. But look, it's right.

ENTEN: Here we go.

CUOMO: We got it right. Hello?

ENTEN: Hello? We got it right.

CUOMO: Right. This is what I want to focus on.

ENTEN: Yes.

CUOMO: Bloomberg.

ENTEN: Yes.

CUOMO: We finally got a taste of what he's looking at. The tea is bitter.

ENTEN: The tea is very, very bitter. And this is rather key here. Look at this. In Iowa, top choice for nominee, he's getting less than 1 percent. I guess that's better than zero. But it's very, very bad.

And that net favorability rating, that favorable minus unfavorable, minus 31 percentage points. This is in a Democratic primary. This is an awful number.

I rarely ever see this. I think the last time I might have seen a number similar to that was Anthony Weiner in the New York City primary after those scandals for him back when--

CUOMO: Post-scandal.

ENTEN: Post-scandal back in 2013.

CUOMO: All right, quick, we got to go. You think he gets in or not?

ENTEN: I think, at this point, I would lean towards yes. But maybe I tell him "No."

CUOMO: Wiz, thank you.

ENTEN: Shalom, be well.

CUOMO: There it is. Harry Enten, everybody. All right, Michael Bloomberg may not be the only Democrat who suddenly sees an opening. But you just saw what the Wiz showed you about how Bloomberg's looking. Why are these other names popping up less than 90 days away?

Let's put that and what impeachment means to the Democrats to DNC Chair, Tom Perez, 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: The public impeachment hearings, an historic moment for Americans and the world. But what will they mean for Democrats as we approach 2020?

Some perspective from DNC Chair, Tom Perez.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: Mr. Perez, thank you so much for joining us as always.

TOM PEREZ, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Oh, it's a pleasure to be with you, Chris.

CUOMO: It is a big start to a big week tomorrow. Success is what, failure is what, for the Democrats?

PEREZ: Well success is exposing the truth. This President engaged in a -- an abuse of power. And I think we're going to see three things tomorrow.

Number one, we'll see the professionalism of Adam Schiff and others, who are doing, I think, a bang-up job.

Number two, the witnesses, Ambassador Taylor, I -- I -- I think this whole case came down to something he said long ago. And I quote, "I think it's crazy to withhold security for help with a political campaign."

It's not like crazy. It's illegal. It's potentially impeachable. And what you will see with Ambassador Taylor and other witnesses is that they are straight-shooters. And I think the American people will see that for themselves. And then, thirdly, I think, and this is what I don't know the answer to, is will Republicans put country before party or party before country?

CUOMO: Well with the combination of different factors going on politically, I mean there's a good chance we don't know what we don't know, but there's a good chance that the Republicans will say "Putting country first here means protecting this President."

[21:40:00]

And if it -- and at the end of the day, there is no removal because of law -- you know, numbers in the Senate, assuming articles of impeachment happen, and the country stays pretty much where it is, specifically Independents, who are about 50/50 on this, if it doesn't move the needle with the American people, are you worried that it becomes seen as a waste of time, and it hurts?

PEREZ: Well, Chris, for -- for me, and I know for Speaker Pelosi, and every Democrat involved, it's not about polling. It's not about the politics. It's about the principle.

And the principle of the matter is when you have a President of the United States, who is threatening to withhold foreign aid, so that he can get help in a political election interference in the 2020 campaign, that's a principle that transcends anything else. And so--

CUOMO: I hear you. Let me ask you. Let's test the principle, Tom.

PEREZ: --I think that principle is first.

CUOMO: Let's put your very apt and adept legal mind to work. It's not a Republican President. It's a Democrat as President. It's Hillary Clinton as President. And they have this against her.

You went to Ukraine, you tried to get dirt on this person, who was going to come from you, and you think that they were dirty, but the way you did it was dirty, and you inserted your lawyer in there, and you've been ducking us every turn there is, you think the Democrats would be lined up to take her down right now?

PEREZ: Well I think the Democrats understand that the truth matters, and that's why I think -- I -- I -- I think that's a really interesting question you raised.

And I think a variant of that question is if this were Hillary Clinton, who had done that, which she never would have done that because she's a person of integrity, these Republicans -- look at how many hearings we had in Benghazi, Chris. I mean, geez, we'd have, you know, 58 hearings here.

And so, I get the tenor of your question. And -- and I understand that. But actually the American people can walk and chew gum. They understand that the -- the Members of the Congress in the Senate have an obligation to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. And they've seen with Speaker Pelosi, and Democrats in the House, they need to make sure we take care of healthcare that we--

CUOMO: Right. I mean they're passing bills.

PEREZ: --we passed a bill to stabilize the Affordable Care.

CUOMO: But because of the division, we're not passing any laws.

PEREZ: We do, you know--

CUOMO: And the question becomes does this help or hurt that process. But I hear you on it. And I appreciate you taking that question, little bit tricky as it is.

And now let's go back to the meat and potatoes of the election. Why are these people saying they want to get in all the sudden? Bloomberg, Deval Patrick, maybe a third, how do you read this?

PEREZ: Well that's up to them. And if they get in, Chris, one thing is clear. We will welcome them in. Another thing is clear, if they don't get in, we have a great field.

CUOMO: But why do you think they think the need to get in?

PEREZ: I -- I am really proud of our field. I think it's--

CUOMO: A Deval Patrick, a Bloomberg? He said two months ago he couldn't win. What do you think they're picking up on?

PEREZ: Well, again, I -- I think you'll have to ask them that question. We've got a great deep bench now. You -- you look at it, you know, at least three or four of the candidates are already beating Donald Trump in the polling.

If we have additional candidates, I welcome them. And if we don't, I am absolutely confident about the candidates we have right now. They're taking it to Donald Trump. We're leading with our values. We're talking about the issues that people care about.

CUOMO: Right.

PEREZ: And so, I'm not -- and I'm not part of the hand wringing.

CUOMO: OK.

PEREZ: I'm very excited about our candidates.

CUOMO: So, yes, I remember that Clinton situation back there in '92. There was some Italian that nominated him at the Convention, funny guy, big nose, weird smile. I think he was from New York.

PEREZ: Right.

CUOMO: Let me -- let me ask you something else.

PEREZ: Great speech-giver too, by the way.

CUOMO: He -- he could. He wrote him, and he read him, and he really owned him. God rest his soul!

So, the idea of this new bunching up you have in Iowa that what was all about Biden, then it was Biden and Warren, and then it was a little bit Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Now, it's about four at the top.

Margin of error really makes this pretty much dead-even. Yes, the Buttigieg campaign has every right to bang their chests, and say, "Look how far we've come." But -- you know, look at the jump with Buttigieg.

But you basically have a four-way tie in Iowa. What does that mean to you?

PEREZ: Well it means that we're at Mile 9 of a 26-mile marathon. And I used to run marathons. And I have no idea who was ahead at Mile 9 of all the marathons that I ran and watched.

We have a deep field. And when you have a deep field of really talented people, you're going to see these ups and downs.

I mean, this time in 2003, I think John Kerry was 4 percent or 5 percent and -- and Governor Dean was -- was ahead, and -- and things changed.

There is a lot of energy out there. The polling I read says that a lot of the folks, not just in Iowa, but elsewhere, are still kicking the tires.

And the reason I think there's so many people undecided is because every time they go to an event with a candidate, they're super- impressed. And so, they're trying to make a judgment about who among a field of really qualified folks, who's the best qualified, who's the person whose values match mine, and can win?

CUOMO: Can win.

PEREZ: I think those are the basic questions that people are asking.

CUOMO: That's what it is.

PEREZ: And--

[21:45:00]

CUOMO: I really believe more and more for your party this is becoming a criterion, not criteria. It's one thing. Will he or she stand up to the heat in the crucible of an election with this President? And will they come out of it on top?

Tom Perez, I really do appreciate you taking us along different moments in this process. We are on the precipice of a big moment tonight. Be well. PEREZ: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: So, here's the good news. Tomorrow, this impeachment deal finally becomes about you, testimony in real time for the first time. The argument is actually a set of tips for your testing, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Impeachment begins tomorrow. You will finally get to judge for yourself. Here are some tips.

First, both sides are going to say they're acting out of the highest principle. But this is politics. Both are actually pursuing advantage. The Republicans are looking to block. We're going to get to that.

[21:50:00]

Let's start with the Democrats. They have a more defined task. They have to show you a wrong that the President is directly responsible for that is such an obvious abuse of office that it warrants considering the ultimate political penalty.

Here is Chairman Schiff on that today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): But on the basis of what the witnesses have had to say so far, there are any number of potentially impeachable offenses, including bribery, including high crimes and misdemeanors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Let's see if you agree starting tomorrow. Now, an attempted bribe, corruptly soliciting a thing of value in exchange for official action, it's right there in the Constitution. It's about time they stopped speaking Latin.

The defense, the President didn't have corrupt intent, meaning he didn't do any of this for his sake. It was an act of lawful duty.

Tomorrow, first up, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and another official. The first is going to talk to you about how sneaky this all was, how troubling it was that it seemed to be about getting Biden for the election.

The second, Mr. Kent, will say he was on a call when it was announced that the aid to Ukraine was frozen at the direction of the President by way of Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney.

Now, how do you assess? Do you find them believable? Do they remember clearly? Have they been consistent? Have they changed? And what did they say then? Do they have a dog in this fight? Is what they are describing troubling to you? And if so, how troubling?

That is worth dedicated listening, unlike distractions that are going to come when each side has a block of 45 minutes at their disposal.

Exhibit A, the GOP just placed Representative Jim Jordan on the Intel Committee. I ask him on the show all the time. Don't say I freeze him out. It's not true. Ask him. He is fiercely loyal to the President, and he is an attacker of this process. But the process is a done deal.

Takes us to Exhibit B. Their witness list, wish list, they want Joe Biden's son on there. They want the whistleblower on there. It's absurd in an impeachment of this President, especially when they ignore in the President exactly what they accuse Biden of.

But heed their biggest weapon, and it is definitely worthy of attention. The way they come at witnesses, Exhibit C, their treatment of Bill Taylor. He's a career diplomat. He was the senior diplomat in Ukraine. He was brought on by Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo to do this job.

Regardless, the President says he's a Never Trumper. That's probably because, in his closed-door testimony, he confirmed this pressure campaign on Ukraine to announce the Bidens were dirty essentially, before they could get the aid from Congress or a meeting with this President.

This wasn't one conversation. It's not just about this transcript. It's about months of an ongoing theme with a lot of different people and parts.

A source tells CNN, Republicans are going to argue Taylor didn't have a clear understanding of what Trump wanted because everything he knew about Trump and Ukraine is based on a game of telephone.

Dismiss any noise from Right and Left on this score, focus on the real contest. Can you get a sense of the truth? Remember the moments that matter, not the lawmakers. except in big moments like this one, in 1973.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HOWARD BAKER (R-TN): What did the President know? And when did he know it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Remember that, from Baker? Republican, by the way, a Nixon ally. He said at first he thought the whole Watergate thing was a ploy by the Democrats. But as the weeks wore on, he realized there was more to the scandal than he thought at first.

Now, on that score, there are a lot of players here. But the story is actually pretty simple.

As I've argued before, what happened, and why it happened, is pretty evident from the people you're going to hear from this week and next. Here's the hard part. What is the right consequence? Lawmakers are going to decide that.

But those who can still see clear of party, enough to glimpse the power of principle, they may well look to you for what resonated. How bad you think it was, how intentional?

What do you think of why this seemed to happen? And what will happen if a message is not sent that it won't be tolerated? Will it happen again? That's a mindset for you, starting tomorrow, and we'll be with you every step of the way, OK? That's the argument.

I've got a BOLO for you. You got to Be On the Look-Out of what we just learned in terms of who's been added to the witness list, some big names, including one. He's going to have to explain a big reversal, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: BOLO, Be On the Look-Out. You know the three impeachment witnesses for this week. We'll put them up here for you. Thank you.

But now, we know next week, eight more major players, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Kurt Volker, by next Thursday, you will have heard from 11 key players.

Now, we also have a BOLO in a BOLO. Be On the Look-Out for this, special attention to Gordon Sondland. Remember him? U.S. Ambassador to the EU. Why? Well, the Dems are going to jump on his revisions.

He told one story. Then, last week, he confirmed what we've heard from other witnesses, an arguable attempted bribe, linking aid to Ukraine to an investigation into the Bidens. Sources tell us the White House and Republican lawmakers are in

frequent talks ahead of the hearings. How will their defenses hold up against what may seem to be obvious?

Be On the Look-Out. It all begins tomorrow. Thank you very much for watching. And remember, we'll be with you every step of the way at night to make sense of the day that has passed.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: Right now, CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon.

LEMON: I changed -- I had to change my tie because we would have been twins again today.

CUOMO: Why?

LEMON: I had on a dark tie, and I said "I can't do it because I'd look like Chris."