Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Taylor: Sondland Said Trump Cared More About Investigations Of Biden Than About Ukraine; Representative Jim Himes On Trump's Abuse Of Power; Key Witnesses Kick Off First Public Impeachment Hearing. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired November 13, 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: That's it for us all for now. Join us again, a special edition of 360 tonight, 11 P.M. Eastern. The news continues right now though. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

The first public impeachment hearings bring a surprise, and the biggest test yet for Democrats trying to prosecute their case against the President. What mattered and why?

Let's test the players and hear from the best minds about where this process goes from here, and what will history say about what happened today.

What do you say? Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: We have some new facts.

Top of the list, something Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine says he didn't even know about when he testified behind closed doors last month. Turns out, one of his aides came forward, to tell him about a call the aide overheard between President Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

Now, that's important for one reason because it shows a connection between the two men that the President kind of disavowed. The timing matters more. It came the day after the infamous July 25th call with Ukraine's President Zelensky.

Chairman Schiff believes Taylor's words today show that the instructions for Ukraine came "From the President on down." Here's why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL TAYLOR, TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE: In the presence of my staff, at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv.

The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about "the investigations." Ambassador Sondland told President Trump the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.

Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: And be clear, as you heard at the end, the investigation is being discussed as of interest to the President were being pushed by Rudy Giuliani, OK?

Taylor said today that Giuliani's work created an irregular policy channel. Who else was in it? Sondland, Rick Perry, Kurt Volker, and Mick Mulvaney, and that that channel ran counter to longtime U.S. policy goals.

The aide who heard that call with Sondland is going to testify behind closed doors on Friday. It's another new fact.

The Republicans' defense of the President went from the obvious that there was no real harm done here, we'll get into more of that later, to the arguably oblivious that Ukraine may have attacked our 2016 election, not Russia.

But they also made the point that neither Taylor nor George Kent, who testified alongside Taylor, saw or heard anything firsthand. And they again demanded to hear directly from the anonymous whistleblower, and yet, ignored the absence of key players who were ducking all the hearings at the request of the President.

So, let's now get a take on what today meant. We have Democratic Congressman, Jim Himes. He sits on the House Intel panel.

Congressman, always good to have you on PRIME TIME. Let me get back to the desk here.

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Hey, Chris.

CUOMO: What do you think moved the needle most for the case against the President today?

HIMES: Well I think the big thing today was two spectacular witnesses, people who have devoted their entire career to serving the country, under Republican and Democratic Presidents, both of whom repeatedly said that even if you just take the transcript, which the President is all incur - is - is - is encouraging us all to read, that that was not right, that that was illegal, that that was an abuse of power. So, I know the Republicans have mounted two defenses. One, "Yes but you heard that from people. You actually didn't talk to the President." Well they're also not saying that the facts are - are contested here. Nobody is saying the President didn't do this stuff. They're just saying "Well you weren't in the room."

And the other sort of more interesting argument, which I saw that had some people scratching their heads, and you alluded to it, was "Well eventually the aid was restored," or "But the President has the absolute power to dismiss an Ambassador."

And I saw people scratching their heads. But when you pull those arguments apart, it takes you about 10 seconds to explain that that is just a really shabby defense.

CUOMO: All right, let's talk about the defense, but one step back to the witnesses. Are you curious at all how Ambassador - Ambassador Taylor didn't know about this phone call with his staffer when he was originally deposed?

HIMES: Well, as he told us today, he only learned about it, I guess, last week. So, when he came and was deposed by the Committee, he apparently didn't know about it.

CUOMO: Right. That's what he said. But boy, I got to tell you, I don't know how his staff could have been caught that asleep. You know he's going in to talk about exactly this, and you hide this - whatever, you just neglect to tell him about this?

HIMES: Well, Chris, I mean, come on, there's - there's no evidence that he was hiding anything. I mean I--

CUOMO: No, no, no, I don't think so. I do not mean to suggest that at all.

HIMES: Yes.

[21:05:00]

CUOMO: I'm saying his staff needed to step up here because this would have been good to know sooner. But it's out there now.

HIMES: Oh, yes.

CUOMO: And the implication is going to be obvious. It's hard for the President to say he doesn't know Sondland, when he was on the phone with him about something as intimate--

HIMES: Right.

CUOMO: --as these actual investigations.

Now, to the defense, I think you're going to hear more and more of what you just outlined that "Nothing happened. They got the aid. They didn't give us the dirt. So, we're OK." The counter that you guys have met - made is, you know, when you attempt a crime, but you fail, you don't get to walk away. But you don't get the death penalty either.

Does it give you concern about a case for removal if it winds up that well what here was done that was so bad, what do you argue is that?

HIMES: Well so let's take both cases. Let's take both the abuse of power with respect to the Ukraine and the Ambassador.

And - and again, this isn't hard. And I don't think about - of it as you are committing a crime, but you didn't follow through. You didn't - you didn't complete the crime.

Chris, as you know, the withholding of aid, when it is Congressionally-mandated that it be put off, and remember that aid was withheld from probably early July until September 11th, several days after the White House learned that Congress was going to look into this.

Chris, let me give you an - let me give you an analogy. If - if - if somebody is abusing their spouse for months, and then when they hear the police cars coming, they stop, and they say, "But look, I - I've stopped. I've stopped," that is no defense.

A crime is not defined by its successful completion. It can be ongoing. And this crime was without question in an undisputed way ongoing.

With respect to the Ambassador, the Republicans are saying, "He has the absolute power to dismiss an Ambassador." And we're all looking to each other, and says, "Yes. The President has the power to dismiss an Ambassador."

But Chris, as you know, and as Americans can figure out, if they think about it, power is power, and then there is abuse of power.

I'll give you a silly example. But - one little piece of power I have is I get to nominate people to the Military Academies, right? I get to do that, and nobody gets to challenge my ability to do that.

But if I do that because some parent pays me a quarter of a million dollars to nominate their child to the - to the Military Academy, that is a, you know, prosecutable abuse of power.

So, yes, he has the power to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch, but he did it for corrupt purposes, which means that it is an abuse of power.

CUOMO: Well, if nothing else, it's a window into the animus into what he wanted, and what he would do, to keep people out of his ways, so that he could get it, so it certainly helps inform the picture.

Now, going forward, I do wonder - you know, if we can put up the list of all the things that Mr. Nunes brought up in his opening statement today, where they were really throwing a lot of things out there, a lot of spaghetti against the wall, so to speak, and that's part of this process.

But it became pretty aware today, I don't know how they sustain a meaningful defense of this President without the people who are being kept from the Committee.

They need Mulvaney, they need to have Pompeo, and they need to have Bolton, for people to be able to sit down, and say, they're wrong about what this President wanted, and what he was willing to do it.

Don't you think at some point they'll have to rely on the people that they're holding back?

HIMES: Well I don't think there's a lot of doubt that the President gave the order to suspend military aid.

The alternative, of course, is that Mick Mulvaney, you know, over a slice of pizza and a root beer decided, "Hey, I'm going to - I'm going to - I'm going to stop aid to Ukraine," right?

I mean it's sort of absurd on the face of it. And, by the way, there's all sorts of circumstantial evidence that the President ordered this. You know, John Bolton would be an interesting witness. It's unclear to me exactly what he's doing.

I'll tell you the person I would like to hear from, and the whole half of this story that has not been told to the American people is what the heck Rudy Giuliani was doing in Ukraine because I can only imagine the conversations that he had.

And remember, the firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch had as much to do with Rudy Giuliani. And - and - and - and people need to think that through. You know, how--

CUOMO: He was the elephant in the room today because he kept coming up. And, very interestingly, the GOP kept staying away from him.

You know, there'd been this anticipation that Rudy Giuliani may be made a scapegoat, which I think is very dangerous for Republicans to do to Rudy Giuliani with everything he knows, and how strong a force he can be. But he was the elephant in the room.

Congressman Jim Himes, well identified, and thank you for your take on the first day of an historic process.

HIMES: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, be well. The case against the President, all right, it's going to come down to the evidence, but also the credibility of the witnesses.

So, even though this is a political process, we need our investigative big brains to tell us what they see, what the vulnerabilities are, what the strengths are, to let us see where this goes.

Andrew McCabe, Preet Bharara, next.

[21:10:00]

(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: Look, if you're paying attention, you got all the players at the hearing, you got all the pundits on TV, but I still think the final judgment of these hearings, while it's going to be voted for in Congress, it's going to be largely based on what you say you believe, and whom you say you believe.

That's why the Democrats started with the two people they did today, Bill Taylor and George Kent.

Taylor, I mean just look at the pedigree, all right? He's got a career service. Remember, this guy was done, retired. Secretary of State, Pompeo, recruited him, asked him to come.

And he's no - you know, he's no creation of some Deep State machine. They asked him to do this, OK? And he did that even knowing Rudy Giuliani & Company had just run out the last Ambassador to Ukraine.

Then you've got Kent, an expert on corruption in Ukraine, a guy who actually raised concern about Hunter Biden when it was happening, all right?

So, let's talk about what this means, the credibility of these two people, how that stands up in the case, what that tells us about the strength of it going forward.

[21:15:00]

I couldn't ask for two better people to do it, investigative genius minds, Andrew McCabe and Preet Bharara. Don't smile at your own success. You guys earned the acumen.

So, when you look at who was up there today - that's my suggestion. You don't start - you guys never did an investigation or a case where you put out your two biggest people right off the bat, if you're building a case.

But, in terms of credibility, what did you see with these two?

PREET BHARARA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR, NYU LAW SCHOOL, HOST, "STAY TUNED WITH PREET" PODCAST: I mean they're about as credible as you get, both in terms of demeanor, command to the facts, being calm and measured when being attacked in various ways by Members of the Republican side.

So, you know, I can't recall a time that I've seen either in Congressional testimony, and I worked in the - in the Congress for 4.5 years, and helped to oversee hearings there, and obviously I was, you know, U.S. Attorney for 7.5 years, they're about as good as you get, in terms of being measured, credible.

They didn't overstate. At - at multiple junctures, both of these men were asked, "Do you see something impeachable here?" And some people thought well the fact that they wouldn't say it's impeachable is a point in the President's favor.

I think it's a point in the favor of the credibility of these two witnesses.

Bill Taylor said over and over again, "I'm here simply to tell you what I saw, what I heard, what I knew, and that's it. These judgments are for you folks to make." I think that made for a very credible testimony.

CUOMO: And neither one fueled speculation of either side there. Both sides tried to "Wouldn't you say or wouldn't you have thought?" They backed off both times.

In fact, I thought it looked cheap when Jordan said "I can't believe you two are the best they have out of the box." He did make a good point though of saying "Neither of you though spoke to the President, neither of you know anything firsthand," how big a deal?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: That's a substantive point, and it's a valid one for the Republicans to make.

They have - look, they have very little ground to stand on, to attack these gentlemen, for the reasons that Preet just said, also because, particularly in the case of Taylor, he is backed up assiduously by a contemporaneous record.

He's got his handwritten notes, and he's got the text messages that he sent at the time. So, when he tells you, "I was shocked by what I heard on the phone call," you know that's true because at the time he sent a contemporaneous text.

CUOMO: And his staff that forgot to tell him probably the most important thing that he supplied today, which was--

MCCABE: Yes.

CUOMO: --"Oh, I - I heard the President on a phone call, with Sondland, right after the phone call, saying what's going on with the investigations."

MCCABE: Yes.

CUOMO: I don't know how they missed telling him that for the last round. MCCABE: It's - it's strange. But I don't know that any of us has ever, you know, not been surprised by something we learned from our staff after the fact. So, I'll give the staffer a pass on that one.

BHARARA: But they - they - they didn't fight with the questioners.

MCCABE: Yes.

BHARARA: They didn't embellish. They didn't give their opinions on things. They just talked about what happened. And that, in the long run, creates credibility.

CUOMO: Now, we learned some things about the arguments that are going to be made in defense today. We don't know where they're going to go, the Democrats. We know they have a big sheet next week in terms of who they're bringing on.

But the defense was, "Was," "This is all about one phone call." I don't think they can make that argument very well anymore. There's too much that happened before and after.

So, the new defense is "Nothing happened, Preet. Sure, sure, there"--

BHARARA: Yes.

CUOMO: --"there was a confusion over intent. What you saw as corruption was his really just the desire to direct foreign policy against corruption. But let's leave that to the side. They got the aid. They didn't give us any dirt. No harm, no foul."

BHARARA: Well that, you know, in criminal cases - in criminal cases, that doesn't work.

CUOMO: No. But we're not there.

BHARARA: If - yes. And this is - by the way, it - it's worse for them because you don't have to prove every element of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think there's an abuse of power, that's kind of all that matters here.

So, in the ordinary case, it still doesn't matter that the crime wasn't completed. There's a crime of attempt.

There's a crime of conspiracy, which is essentially, if a group - if we sat here, right now, and agreed to rob a bank, and took a - a step or two in connection with the robbing of the bank, even if at the end of the day, the - the bank wasn't robbed because for various reasons, the plot was foiled, which by the way law enforcement loves to do.

When Andy and I were in law enforcement, the greatest thing you could accomplish was to make sure the crime was not completed, whether a terrorism crime, a bank robbery or anything else, that's a wonderful thing to accomplish. Those folks--

CUOMO: For you to stop the bad guys.

BHARARA: --but they still went to prison.

CUOMO: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: But here's the thing. But they don't get the death penalty. And I think that's the argument we're going to hear going forward.

BHARARA: It's not the death penalty. I don't believe anyone's planning to hang the President of the United States.

CUOMO: But removing him from Office is the political death penalty.

BHARARA: Yes.

CUOMO: And you are going to do it - even look, I'm not saying this is my argument. It certainly isn't. I've been poking holes in it for weeks. But I think that today it was announced you're going to hear this, Andy.

MCCABE: Sure. You're going to hear that. But look, the - the core message that the Democrats have to convince the public, and of course, the Senate is that this President abused his foreign policy power for his own benefit, for his own political benefit.

And the way they're going to do that - the - on the Republican side is to throw out anything they possibly can to distract from that message. So, that's why you heard about "Well you - this is all second-hand."

CUOMO: That Ukraine interfered in the election, and not Russia.

MCCABE: That's - that's why you heard about CrowdStrike. That's why you heard about the Mueller report and - and somebody looking for nude pictures of the President.

[21:20:00]

It's all nonsense. But that's their job right now, to muddy the waters, and distract people away from that core message, which is this President abused his authority for his own benefit.

CUOMO: Friday, you got Yovanovitch, and you've got the staffer who told this stuff to Taylor--

BHARARA: Yes.

CUOMO: --a little bit late in the game. You think Sondland is going to be the most important early witness?

BHARARA: Yes, potentially, depending on what he has to say.

But I want to say one point for the - what you said a second ago. You're actually presenting the best defense of the President that I've heard, so far, which is a concession, it seems, the President did something bad.

CUOMO: Yes.

BHARARA: Maybe he abused his power. But really?

CUOMO: Yes.

BHARARA: Are you going to kick him out of Office and undo an election?

CUOMO: Yes.

BHARARA: That's actually - I don't think it wins the day at the - at the end of, you know, the testimony potentially.

MCCABE: But it's a reasonable argument.

BHARARA: It's a reasonable argument. It has--

CUOMO: It's better than what they're doing now.

BHARARA: --it has a concession. You - you play upon people's reasonableness. And that's not an argument the people are making, in part because the President won't allow them to make it.

CUOMO: Right.

BHARARA: The President keeps saying, "Don't talk about process. Don't talk about the - the - the nature of the punishment. It was a perfect and beautiful call."

So, I think that's good. So, with respect to Sondland, it depends on whether he revises his testimony again. He's done it once before.

MCCABE: Yes.

BHARARA: And I think the President's allies are very excited about Sondland coming to testify because the President has relied on - on a number of things that common sense tells you shouldn't be relied on as much as they are.

For example, the President keeps relying on the fact that President Zelensky said, "Hey, there was no pressure." Meanwhile, we know in the real world, Andy especially--

MCCABE: Yes.

BHARARA: --that victims of extortion, in the presence of the extortionist, on whom they still rely--

MCCABE: In front of the cameras.

BHARARA: --in front of the cameras--

MCCABE: Yes.

BHARARA: --sometimes deny being extorted.

CUOMO: Yes. BHARARA: And the same might be true with Sondland. Sondland gets asked the question, you know, I don't think - "I think it's crazy," in this text exchange with Bill Taylor, "I think it's crazy for conditioning this on that."

And five hours go by, and then Sondland writes back, "I think you completely mischaracterized the"--

CUOMO: Yes.

BHARARA: --"position of the President" etcetera.

CUOMO: He's been - he'd been coached. And so have I by two of the best in the business. Andrew, Preet, thank you very much.

I'll tell you this much. You know what would make my argument more saleable for the Republicans? If the President said, "Look, what I did was wrong. I'll never do it again." Without that, any defense is pretty weak.

All right, so you hear what the concerns are from today. Why are they not concerning to Republicans? Why do they dismiss the argument I just put out that even Preet said is reasonable? He's never said that to me in years.

I'm going to put it to a Congressman who is so interested in what the witnesses had to say before now, that he stormed the SCIF to find out early, next.

[21:25:00]

(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: I know there were a lot of speeches today about how the process is no good, but I'm not really covering it because there's no more stopping the process. We are on the road to impeachment or not. But we're not going to get off the road.

And for all the talk today about witnesses, and the rights, finding today's lackluster, there was a big question that came up, and I think it's the key to what happens going forward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, let's bring in a Republican from Oklahoma, Congressman Markwayne Mullin.

Good to see you, Sir.

REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Hey Chris, good to be back on with you.

CUOMO: So, you know, I was listening very closely to Mr. Jordan today. I miss him being on the show. When you talk to him, please ask him to come back.

Come home, come home, Brother Jordan.

And he was saying, you know, these guys, they didn't have direct knowledge. Taylor doesn't have direct knowledge. Kent--

MULLIN: That was true.

CUOMO: --you know, you're good guys, but you don't have direct knowledge. And, you know, it seems pretty obvious. You know what we need, Congressman.

You've got to get Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Bolton, the guys who dealt with the President directly, who know the whole situation, who are at the top of the food chain, have them come in, tell the Democrats what happened, and how they have it wrong. Let America hear it.

MULLIN: Well when - Chris--

CUOMO: Isn't that your best bet?

MULLIN: Well when they allow the President to have counsel, yes. When they allow us to actually call witnesses, yes. That'd be great. When they actually open this up--

CUOMO: Well Schiff gave you witnesses.

MULLIN: No, he didn't.

CUOMO: Schiff gave you some witnesses.

MULLIN: Schiff did not give us the witnesses.

CUOMO: And remember, under Clinton--

MULLIN: Because what we asked for is the--

CUOMO: --they only got one.

MULLIN: --whistleblower. Remember--

CUOMO: They only got one under Clint, Ken Starr.

MULLIN: --the whistleblower - the whistleblower is what started this, Chris.

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: And the whistleblower still hasn't been - came in and testified. And the only person that knows who the whistleblower is, out of 435 Members of Congress, is Adam Schiff. That's it.

CUOMO: Right.

MULLIN: And so, and people want to say this whistleblower--

CUOMO: I - I get the politics of it.

MULLIN: No, it's really not politics. They say that - that - that - that Adam Schiff gave us people to - to come in, and - and testify, they really didn't. These individuals already came in, in the SCIF and testified. These aren't new witnesses.

CUOMO: Well but--

MULLIN: These are Democrat witnesses.

CUOMO: Well but you got to pick - you got to pick your poison though, right?

MULLIN: Well--

CUOMO: You asked - you - you - first you say--

MULLIN: --if we're going to have a - if we're going to have a fair inquiry--

CUOMO: Congressman?

MULLIN: --into this--

CUOMO: Yes, right.

MULLIN: --and you want - and you want Mulvaney, and you want Pompeo, and you want Giuliani--

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: --you want other people to come in, then allow--

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: --like allow the President to have counsel, just like Nixon was allowed counsel, and just like--

CUOMO: Not at this stage.

MULLIN: --Clinton was allowed counsel.

CUOMO: Not at this stage. They got Ken Starr, the Clinton people. You said they won't let us have any of our witnesses. You got Morrison and Volker coming in. They were--

MULLIN: Is this considered an impeachment inquiry?

CUOMO: Hold on. Let me - you made a point. Let me make a point.

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: You got Volker, Morrison, and who else did they want that they're getting, and Fiona Hill. You wanted them, you got them - oh Hale. There are three.

MULLIN: Actually we didn't - no, that was witnesses that the Democrats had previously - had previously brought in.

CUOMO: But they're on your list.

MULLIN: What we said it - what we said is that we wanted their testimonies released. What was on our list is the whistleblower. Let's bring the--

CUOMO: But the whistleblower--

MULLIN: --whistleblower in.

CUOMO: --the - the whistleblower has legal protection. You have what they have said--

MULLIN: The - no, the whistleblower didn't have legal protection.

CUOMO: --completely corroborated.

MULLIN: The legal - the whistleblower only has whistle protection, if they would have handled it in the proper channels. The proper channels was not--

CUOMO: It was handled the right way.

MULLIN: No. The proper channels was not going to meet with the Intel Community first, and - and sitting down, and babysitting--

CUOMO: Nowhere is it written that a whistleblower can't do that.

MULLIN: --the individual. Well if you're going to have--

CUOMO: And what the IG did was right.

MULLIN: --whistleblower - if you're going to have whistleblower protection--

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: When you guys say they changed the rules that's not true.

MULLIN: --that is the path to go down.

CUOMO: And the IG did what he was supposed to do. And now, we hear the President was thinking about firing him because of it. But here's my point to you. You guys complain that you're not--

MULLIN: Firing him?

CUOMO: Yes. That's one of the reports that he was thinking of getting rid of Atkinson because he doesn't like how he handled the whistleblower.

MULLIN: And that was a report that was told by somebody that was told somebody--

CUOMO: Well but you know what?

MULLIN: --that was leaked?

CUOMO: The reporting has turned out to be pretty damn good, Markwayne Mullin, let me be honest with you. Look where we are right now, right?

MULLIN: Chris, there's still no been quid--

CUOMO: Yes?

MULLIN: --no quid pro quo, zero quid pro quo.

CUOMO: First of all--

MULLIN: There's been no crime committed whatsoever, and they're still trying to impeach the President of the United States--

CUOMO: Well but hold on a second.

MULLIN: --because of why.

CUOMO: Hold - hold - you can't say either of those things because you don't know either of those things. And, first of all--

MULLIN: Have you heard of any of it?

CUOMO: Yes. Here I'll - I'll give you a quick briefing.

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: The Democrats are wrong to use the word extortion. I don't see a threat of force.

MULLIN: I agree with that.

CUOMO: This was an attempted bribe, and not just because it's in the Constitution.

MULLIN: Bribe how?

CUOMO: I'll tell you how. Because the President says to Ukraine, "I know what you want. You want me. You want access to the President."

MULLIN: He didn't say that. He did not say that.

CUOMO: Listen--

MULLIN: You cannot make the assumption of something that the President said.

CUOMO: Well so you can - so you can assume there was no quid pro - quid pro quo.

MULLIN: There was two people - there was two people on that phone call.

CUOMO: And there's no crime.

MULLIN: There was the President of Ukraine and President Trump. And we--

CUOMO: And there were dozens of conversations before and after.

MULLIN: --got the transcript released. And the transcript was released--

CUOMO: Dozens of calls before and after.

MULLIN: --before it. You cannot make assumptions to--

CUOMO: I don't have to.

MULLIN: --impeach the President of the United States.

CUOMO: You're going--

MULLIN: Well that's what you're doing right there.

CUOMO: I've read the transcripts. I don't know if you have. Let me tell you what's in it.

MULLIN: I have read the transcripts. Was there any of that in there?

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: Did the President of the United States ever say that to the President of Ukraine? No.

CUOMO: Gordon Sondland is going to say, if he sticks by what he said before he fixed it, because he tried to protect the President a little bit, when he first appeared--

MULLIN: He - so you--

CUOMO: --then he revised.

MULLIN: --make an assumption again, Chris.

CUOMO: No. He's in--

MULLIN: That - that Sondland is--

CUOMO: --what he said when he came back.

MULLIN: --going to say something.

CUOMO: It's what he said already. If he says what he said already, which is, OK, and now you coordinate it with what Taylor's staffer said, and you get something that I don't think you guys have to disown. The President wanted the Bidens, and he didn't want them to get the aid in Ukraine.

MULLIN: It was - it was Kent--

CUOMO: Hold on a second. I'll let you make your case. Hold on.

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: So, that's what he wanted. He thinks Biden is dirty. He believes it deep in his heart. I'm not even saying it's a corrupt belief. He believes that.

MULLIN: You know, what did Mr. Kent say--

CUOMO: And he didn't want to give them that.

MULLIN: --in 2016?

CUOMO: Who?

MULLIN: In February 2016, Mr. Kent, what did he bring up to Vice President's own office? Was he not concerned with the - with the situation with Hunter Biden going on and the corruption going on with the company he in?

CUOMO: Oh, Mr. Kent. Yes, he was. And you know why?

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: Because he thought that it had an appearance of--

MULLIN: Did he not - was he not--

CUOMO: --a conflict of interest. It looked wrong.

MULLIN: Had the conflict of interest. So, was there not anything wrong with that? He asked--

CUOMO: I think there is something wrong with it.

MULLIN: --then to be looked into that at that time. In 2016, that was underneath the Obama Administration.

CUOMO: Right.

MULLIN: It was - it was Vice President himself who went out--

CUOMO: Right.

MULLIN: --and bragged that he stopped the investigation.

CUOMO: Yes, so clearly--

MULLIN: He said that.

CUOMO: --he's not a Never Trumper, right?

MULLIN: So, now it's all the sudden wrong?

CUOMO: So, we - wait a minute.

MULLIN: That President Trump simply asks that--

CUOMO: So, Markwayne Mullin, it was--

MULLIN: --a - a country that is riddled with corruption, and we know the--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: A country's riddled with corruption so you only ask about--

MULLIN: --that the President of the United States doesn't say look into this.

CUOMO: --Joe Biden. In a country riddled with corruption--

MULLIN: No. He - he - he asked about Clinton servers too.

CUOMO: --you ask about Joe Biden, a person who under law you're supposed to go to the DOJ to investigate--

MULLIN: He - he--

CUOMO: --as President or anybody else. But you go to Ukraine, and you don't even ask for an investigation. You know what you asked for? An announcement of an investigation. Why would you--

MULLIN: Was there any quid pro quo anywhere in that conversation?

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: No, there wasn't.

CUOMO: The - the - hold on. The conversation is a window into a world that existed before and after it, OK? Why did Ukraine--

MULLIN: It's full of assumptions that you and the rest of the--

CUOMO: Well hold on but that's what the process is about.

MULLIN: --Democrat Party is trying to impeach the President.

CUOMO: Here's the difference between the two of us. I never said it's impeachable.

MULLIN: This is why when the question was asked today, Chris--

CUOMO: See, no, no.

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: Markwayne Mullin, you have to listen to what I'm saying to you because there is some wisdom for you in it. You can admit that all this happened.

MULLIN: I'm trying - I'm looking for that.

CUOMO: Here it is. Here it is.

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: This is what I would say if I were you, OK?

"OK. He shouldn't have done it this way. You're right. Rudy shouldn't have been involved. You're right. They should have gone around the process. If he thinks Biden's dirty, he should have gone to the DOJ.

But you know what? Nothing bad happened at the end of it. And he didn't do it for bad reasons. He did it for good reasons. So, I don't see how you'll remove him from office because of this."

MULLIN: Is there any one thing in there--

CUOMO: Admit what's obvious.

MULLIN: --worth impeaching the President?

CUOMO: There was an attempted bribe.

MULLIN: There was no bribe.

CUOMO: There was an attempted bribe.

MULLIN: You cannot say that.

CUOMO: Why didn't they get the aid?

MULLIN: Chris? There--

CUOMO: Why didn't they get the aid?

MULLIN: If it was - if it was attempted bribe, then the day when the conversation was asked, is the President - has the President done anything that's impeachable, and Taylor and Kent both was as silence as crickets because there's been nothing--

CUOMO: No. They--

MULLIN: --that the President has done.

CUOMO: No, no, no, no, no, no.

MULLIN: That's exactly what happened today.

CUOMO: No, they're - no, they're not there to give that opinion. They had some actual dignity--

MULLIN: Their testimony - they're testifying--

CUOMO: --and integrity.

MULLIN: --based on impeaching the President of the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Their job is not to decide whether or not to impeach. They're not like you guys--

MULLIN: --in evidence.

CUOMO: --who just play to personal advantage.

MULLIN: They brought in evidence.

CUOMO: They told you what they knew.

MULLIN: Is it not evidence?

CUOMO: No.

MULLIN: Is that not evidence?

CUOMO: Whether or not somebody should get impeached--

MULLIN: When you bring somebody to testify--

CUOMO: --is way beyond what they're supposed to testify to.

MULLIN: When you're - when you're bringing someone in to testify in a criminal case--

CUOMO: It's not a criminal case.

MULLIN: --is that person not in - oh, we're talking about try - treason, bribery, high crime or misdemeanor. That's a - that's a criminal case, Chris.

CUOMO: It's not a criminal case. And, in fact, if you read--

MULLIN: 100 percent it is.

CUOMO: --Federalist Papers 65, which I've--

MULLIN: I have.

CUOMO: --asked you to do three times.

MULLIN: I have.

[21:35:00]

CUOMO: Then you know Alexander Hamilton put the words political in all-caps. Do you know why? Because it's not a criminal action.

MULLIN: This--

CUOMO: That's why.

MULLIN: And do you know also what he also said?

CUOMO: What'd he say?

MULLIN: He also said he was afraid one day that this would be - this - I'm paraphrasing this in The Federalist Papers, but basically said that he was afraid one day that this would be used for political reasons.

CUOMO: Not - I'll make your point--

MULLIN: Now, I didn't put the English spin on that.

CUOMO: --I'll make your point one more time.

MULLIN: But that's what it is.

CUOMO: I'll do it one better. He didn't say one day. He said every time that it will be partisan every time and that it will encourage the worst.

MULLIN: It wasn't with - it wasn't with Johnson. It wasn't with Clinton.

CUOMO: Of course, it was.

MULLIN: And it wasn't with Nixon.

CUOMO: It was so political--

MULLIN: It was bipartisan.

CUOMO: --with Johnson that they made up a law to catch him doing what they didn't like. It was so political with Clinton that you started with a land deal--

MULLIN: Was it not a bipartisan vote?

CUOMO: --and you ended up with a sex act. I mean--

MULLIN: To remove, to impeach the President--

CUOMO: --because you had Democrats who had the integrity to go against one of their own.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: And now we have a bunch of Republicans who sit through something like today, Markwayne Mullin.

MULLIN: Because there's been no crime committed.

CUOMO: And say "Nothing bad happened." I hear you.

MULLIN: There has been - did you hear anything today.

CUOMO: Let's see if you feel like that a week from now?

MULLIN: Did you see anything or hear anything today, Chris that would cause you to want to overturn the American people's vote for Donald J. Trump--

CUOMO: Me? No.

MULLIN: --in 2016?

CUOMO: It's not my job. I'm not in to the business of impeachment.

MULLIN: Well you're putting--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I'm into the business of testing what you're saying.

MULLIN: --accusing him of everything right now. You're making assumptions of everything that President Trump said.

CUOMO: No, no assumptions.

MULLIN: And we're talking about--

CUOMO: Only based on the record.

MULLIN: Then there's nothing in the record that you can make the assumptions of saying--

CUOMO: That's not true.

MULLIN: --that there was quid pro quo committed.

CUOMO: Yes, I can.

MULLIN: You say there was bribery.

CUOMO: And quid pro quo is just Latin.

MULLIN: There's nothing in there that's bribery.

CUOMO: It was an attempted bribe. You haven't answered why the aid was held up.

MULLIN: The aid wasn't held up.

CUOMO: You haven't answered why they kept asking for Biden.

MULLIN: The aid was never held up.

CUOMO: You haven't answered why they kept telling the Ukrainians you won't get the aid until--

MULLIN: You - you've said - you've said--

CUOMO: --you give them the Bidens.

MULLIN: --that the Ukrainians didn't even know their aid was held up until August 29th.

CUOMO: They knew. They just didn't know then.

MULLIN: They didn't know.

CUOMO: But they knew. And they were concerned enough about it to reach out--

MULLIN: They have testified - they have - they have put out there--

CUOMO: --to our own representative to ask about it.

MULLIN: --the President of Ukraine put out there that they didn't even know.

CUOMO: Then why did they go to - why did they go to--

MULLIN: Even the testimony, even Taylor said--

CUOMO: --Vindman?

MULLIN: --Ambassador Taylor - Chris, even--

CUOMO: Why did they go to Vindman, the liaison, and say--

MULLIN: --Chris--

CUOMO: --"How do we deal with this?"

MULLIN: Chris, even Ambassador--

CUOMO: "We don't want to do this."

MULLIN: --Taylor said that they wasn't aware of it, and that he didn't even know that it was held up until he read it in The New York Times.

CUOMO: It's not "Even Taylor." Taylor was on the outside. Once you get closer to the inside, it's all they were talking about--

MULLIN: So, but you're making the assumption that you--

CUOMO: --were these investigations. But Congressman, I got to go.

MULLIN: --were all in the inside. Not one single person has ever said anything that you said that the Ukraine's knew that their aid was held up. CUOMO: That's not true.

MULLIN: That's absolutely not factual.

CUOMO: That's not true. Volker's going to say it.

MULLIN: It absolutely is.

CUOMO: Sondland's going to say it.

MULLIN: Volker's going to say it. Sondland's going to say it

CUOMO: Vindman's going to say it.

MULLIN: No one said it yet.

CUOMO: They've all said it. They've all said in their transcripts. So, you're betting that Americans aren't going to do their homework. And I know that they will.

MULLIN: No. They've all said they heard. They all that they--

CUOMO: And that's why we're here.

MULLIN: --said they heard. There was zero--

CUOMO: No. Well by the - by the way--

MULLIN: --firsthand knowledge, and still no firsthand knowledge.

CUOMO: --there are a lot of good men and women sitting in jail right now because of what people heard. The idea that hearsay means nothing is silly--

MULLIN: There's got to be somebody to corroborate that story.

CUOMO: --especially in a political forum. But Congressman, I got to jump.

MULLIN: And there hasn't been anybody to corroborate.

CUOMO: I ate up time I didn't have. But you know what? It's worth it because this is the--

MULLIN: All right, Chris.

CUOMO: --this is the conversation America is having. Thank you for having it with me.

MULLIN: Thank you, appreciate it.

CUOMO: Be well.

All right, keep your eye on the facts. Take a look at those transcripts. If you can't, pay attention to the testimony because I'm telling you, you're going to be told things that are in political interest, not the interest of simple truth.

Now, we're going to bring in experts back in, as I go through, and destroy the rest of the show, because I took so much time with Markwayne Mullin, and we're going to take a look at why what happened today mattered, and this discussion with Mullin processed through their legal and investigative and journalistic eyes, next.

[21:40:00]

(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: All right, let's bring in Asha Rangappa, Robert Ray, and Errol Louis, journalism, law, and politics all wrapped up into one.

So, Markwayne Mullin is the hot talk right? That's the - that's the hot talk back and forth about what the state of play is. But in terms of seeing the merits of the case, as where the Democrats want to get and the resistance from Republicans, what do you see so far in today?

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well I thought that the Democrats really did a good job hammering home through these witnesses that one of the main defenses, as it were, doesn't hold water.

And that's that Trump was fighting corruption, or somehow defending the national interests because you both - you had these two civil servants saying this was not only in the U.S. national interest, but it undermines our ability to fight corruption, and establish the rule of law in these other countries.

And the very fact that these Republicans kept emphasizing how corrupt Ukraine is only begs the question, if Ukraine is so corrupt, why would the President of the United States want to hand over the investigation of two U.S. citizens for corruption?

I mean it makes no sense. And I think that came through and really obliterated that defense.

CUOMO: So, even if one defense is weak, it doesn't mean that you're lined up for impeachment. What do you think the main challenge is, Counselor Ray, going forward?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, FORMER SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: The narrative keeps shifting as far as the legal theory that the Democrats are relying on. You apparently dispensed with extortion because there's no pressure. We've gone--

CUOMO: Force. You know, force or threat - you know how you use extortion.

RAY: Sure.

CUOMO: It's "Do this, or I'll break your legs."

RAY: Right.

CUOMO: You know, that's not what this is.

RAY: So, and they don't like talking about apparently quid pro quo anymore because I guess I don't know the country's had a two-month education about Latin. But now, we're going back to what Adam Schiff apparently said yesterday, which was in - in the lead-up to the beginning of the--

CUOMO: Attempted bribe.

RAY: Well the - no, I think what he was saying is, you know, the Founders intended bribery to be much more expansive than what federal statutory law would suggest bribery has to be.

CUOMO: Well why wouldn't it be an attempted bribe?

RAY: Because, first of all, you're now relying on what amounts to an attempt to prove an implicit quid pro quo with regard to an official act that has alternately been, is it foreign assistance, is it military aid, is it a meeting with President Trump, or is it simply just merely the announcement of an investigation.

CUOMO: Aid and meeting versus announcement of investigation.

RAY: Three of the--

CUOMO: That's what it is.

RAY: Three of the four of those don't qualify as an official act under the Supreme Court's definition of Official Act.

And despite - and I - I suspect that the reason that Adam Schiff is trying to get away from federal statutory law with regard to extortion and bribery is he knows that that's weak, so let's try one better, suggesting that the Founders didn't understand what bribery is, which I think is a ridiculous notion.

But anyway, so, you know, you - you're left with a lot of nebulous stuff in the air there.

[21:45:00]

You're going to try to impeach a President over an implicit quid pro quo with regard to something as shifting as the - the theory that asking for an investigation is the equivalent of a personal benefit that can constitute the quid pro quo necessary to be attempted or actual bribe.

CUOMO: Well one thing we would all stipulate here at the table is if--

RAY: And I think - I think - I think--

CUOMO: --a message comes out--

RAY: --that's a long way away.

CUOMO: --that Errol Louis is under investigation, and he's running against me, I just got a big step-up in the - in the race. That's why it would be something.

But Errol, I loved your coverage on New York 1, where you were covering. Am I calling it the right thing?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, POLITICAL ANCHOR, SPECTRUM NEWS: Yes. That's right.

CUOMO: All right, where, you had people on giving these kinds of assessments. But you kept going back to "Will people understand? Will they get this? Will they grab on to this?"

LOUIS: Yes.

CUOMO: Tell us about that.

LOUIS: Yes. Well I mean, look, the - much of the - the political framing of it, which does spillover into some of the journalistic coverage is about whether or not this is going to educate the public.

From what I remember, both from the Clinton impeachment, and the Watergate hearings that I am old enough to remember, it was - it sort of played out like a - like a soap opera.

You know, there were characters that were brought in, some were more memorable, some were less, some were more credible, others were less, but it was cumulative.

It took time. You - you - it was dense information. And the impact on the audience, in this case, the public, the voters, this is their chart - this is their chance.

We - the - the public is very much part of this. This isn't just about a bunch of bickering politicians. It's not even necessarily about the President, exclusively. This is about the public. This is the whole country trying to figure out what happened here.

I should mention though that, you know, look, if you're looking for a statutory crime, it is absolutely against the law to solicit a thing of value from a - a foreign government to help your campaign.

RAY: No.

LOUIS: You know, is the invest - is the investigation worth something? I think the investigation was worth something. You know, there - there - there are a number of different problems here that we're trying to sort through.

And here again, because it's in this odd space between what's political, what's legal, what's moral, it'll be up to the people ultimately to make the case.

RAY: Well I think that's a really hard sell though because the Justice Department has already opined with regard to that, both through the - the Public Integrity Section and the Criminal Division.

So, you know, you can say that you disagree with the, you know, Trump Justice Department led by Bill Barr that you don't think that's a proper interpretation of law.

CUOMO: Right.

RAY: But I got news for you. I mean that's a rather thin read--

CUOMO: Well but at--

RAY: --to be hanging to for impeaching--

CUOMO: Go ahead, last - last word.

RANGAPPA: Yes. I mean, weeding through the weeds of--

RAY: --when you have the very Justice Department saying it's not a crime.

RANGAPPA: --of federal statutes and, you know, when the Constitution was created, there was - the federal criminal code was pretty much non-existent.

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: So, I think getting into that as, you know, the basis for this, whereas abuse of power, which does not mean an official act, it means using the authority of your Office.

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: And implicit quid pro quos are things that we recognize in the law all the time.

For example, in sexual harassment law, we - we recognize when there was a power differential, which is what was happening here that one does not need to say what they want back or what they're willing to give when they're making a request.

RAY: Not in the context of a campaign finance contribution, which is--

CUOMO: Right. But here's the thing.

RAY: --what it's alleged to be.

CUOMO: But here's the thing. Except, it's not a crime. It's a political argument. That's how the Founders expected it to be. They also expected it to be as ugly as this is definitely going to get.

Asha, Robert Ray, Errol Louis, thank you very much--

RAY: Thanks for having us.

CUOMO: --for helping the audience think about it a little bit better. Appreciate it.

All right, talking points, look, we try to break through it on the show. But I think you have to look at what moves the needle and doesn't, all right? That's what this process is going to be about.

Both sides are trying to play to advantage. It's politics. I'm sorry. But that's what it is. I'll point them out to you, next.

Thank you.

[21:50:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, first battle today was over the worth of these witnesses, Taylor and Kent. And, to be honest, they were credible, consistent, non-partisan in their appraisal. They were strong enough that this salvo by Representative Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You didn't listen on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call?

TAYLOR: I did not.

JORDAN: You've never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

TAYLOR: I never did.

JORDAN: You've never met the President?

TAYLOR: That's correct.

JORDAN: This is what I can't believe. And you're their star witness. You're their first witness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: It was rude. And it was echoed by other Trump defenders, and it was absurd every time. No one puts their most important witnesses first. And these were men of credibility, and Jordan knows it.

Everybody builds from the inside out, and you'll see that here. Look at the list of witnesses next week. You're going to see they're going to get closer and closer to the inner circle.

Jordan rightly pointed out that these two were long on worries and short on direct knowledge of what was done by whom, and why, and no conversations with our President.

But they were not promised as anything else. They thought conditioning military aid on getting the Bidens was dangerous, and jeopardized relations with Ukraine. They never got tripped up in five-plus hours of testimony.

And you know who did speak directly with the President? Gordon Sondland.

The big bombshell from today is Taylor testifying that one of his staffers overheard a call between the EU Ambassador Sondland, and the President, and POTUS was heard wanting an update on the Biden investigation.

Better believe that call is going to be a hot topic when Sondland testifies in a week. And, by the way, the staffer for Taylor is there Friday.

The big takeaway, you now know the main defense for Trump. "Nothing happened. Ukraine got the aid. They never delivered on dirt. And this was all about getting to the bottom of Ukraine's role in the 2016 election meddling."

That's right. Multiple Republicans today pretended this was about investigating whether Ukraine, and not Russia, was to blame for 2016 interference, meaning they're once again trashing the findings of our Intel agencies.

Here are the big questions we do need to answer. Can Democrats get the President saying to someone that he basically wanted to bribe Ukraine? Today's bombshell from Taylor gets him closer. We'll see what Sondland says on Wednesday.

In court, you rarely get the top of the food chain. It's usually those who were directed by them, who reveal the top's role. But to remove a President, "Close" shouldn't cut it.

Two, will we actually hear from any of the people in Trump's inner circle who could definitively answer the big questions? You know, Republicans say "We don't like the witnesses." Well how all the best ones are being kept from us, Mulvaney, Pompeo, right, Bolton.

[21:55:00] Are they going to be allowed to speak because the President's the one holding them back? And all - after all, he and his defenders keep complaining they want the truth, they want direct access. Those are the guys. Schiff isn't your problem. Trump is.

Last thing we need to know is whether the two sides can act like the two witnesses today. Taylor and Kent handled hard questions thoughtfully, stayed away from rank speculation. They acted without animus, and were clearly driven by a sense of duty to the rest of us.

Taylor and Kent should make us proud of the people who serve us in government. Let's see if Congress can do the same.

That's the point for today.

What's the BOLO? Be On the Look-Out, a big development coming, 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, Be On the Look-Out.

Something we learned today is going to matter a lot next week. This Taylor staffer, right, the Ambassador staffer who heard a phone call that Ambassador Sondland was on with the President, where the President was asking about the investigations, that came out today in the hearing, that staffer is testifying Friday.

That makes the testimony of Sondland so big next week. Is he going to protect himself, or the President, because I don't think he can do both. Does he say the President told him what to do? BOLO.

All right, thank you very much for watching us. So much news, let's get to CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: David Holmes is that staffer's name, the aide, the aide's name.

CUOMO: It'll be in private on Friday.