Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Four Firsthand Witnesses Raise Impeachment Stakes; Volker: Allegations Against Biden Are Not "Credible"; Lt. Col. Vindman: In America, "Right Matters". Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 19, 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]
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Four firsthand witnesses means they saw, they heard, that's how they know, they've just raised the impeachment stakes.
Republicans may now be starting to regret calling two of them, particularly the former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, here's a taste of why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE: But the accusation that Vice President Biden acted inappropriately did not seem at all credible to me.
Mayor Giuliani raised, and I rejected, the conspiracy theory that Vice President Biden would have been influenced in his duties as Vice President by money paid to his son.
He is an honorable man and I hold him in the highest regard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, he has an interesting spin, Mr. Volker that when he was talking about Burisma, the company that had Hunter Biden on its Board, which is no question controversial decision.
He said "Oh, I didn't know that Burisma meant Biden. If I did, I would have said something at the time." Hmm! We'll see how people take that.
All eyes were also on a Purple Heart recipient, this morning, who was forced to fight back against Republican smears on his loyalty, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
In his opening, he thanked his father for moving his family here from the Soviet Union, when he was just a child, and reassured his father, "Don't worry, I'll be fine. I'm telling the truth in America."
And then, this powerful follow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (D-NY): And why do you have confidence that you can do that and tell your dad not to worry?
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, U.S. ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL, TOP NSC UKRAINE EXPERT, DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS FOR THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I've served and defended. That all of my brothers have served. And here, right matters.
MALONEY: Thank you, Sir. Yield back.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Not a lot of applause in that room today. It was something Left, Right and reasonable could all hold onto with meaning. Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney was the Congressman questioning Vindman there. The Intel Committee Member's with us now.
MALONEY: Appreciate it.
CUOMO: Hey, thank you so much for doing this after a day of that kind of battle. Appreciate it.
MALONEY: My pleasure.
CUOMO: So, going after witness credibility is always an aspect of any confrontational setting.
But to go after a guy wearing a Purple Heart, and then to bring in his Superior Morrison to suggest he went outside the chain of command, what did that mean to you as a tactic that Vindman isn't just the uniform, he may have ulterior motives?
MALONEY: It means they couldn't talk the - about the substance of what he said.
If you noticed, the Republicans didn't lay a glove on him about any of the substantive testimony he gave, which is that he heard the President say something wrong. He knew it was wrong. And he went and he reported it.
And instead, what they come up with is they come up with "Oh, maybe you're not loyal to the United States," because he immigrated here as a - as a 3-year-old, and his dad learned English at night - had put three kids in the military.
And - and - and maybe you're - maybe you're not loyal, even though he went to Iraq, and earned the Purple Heart in combat.
He's got a Combat Infantry Badge on the uniform, and one of my colleagues says, "What are you doing wearing your uniform here today?" as if there's something inappropriate with that.
So, you know, look, and this is what the Republicans are left with when they can't talk about the facts. CUOMO: 3-years-old, he was here, three brothers in the military, the three that mattered to the Republicans, "They asked this guy three times to be the Defense Minister of Ukraine. Who does that?" The President re-tweeted that from somebody's account.
He wasn't tweeting himself this morning. You know, hopefully everything's good with him. But he just decided to stay quiet.
But what did you mean - what did you take from that, "Three times they asked him."
MALONEY: Yes. Well, of course, it was a - it was a half-baked joking offer we now know from the Ukrainians because he was - he has a - he has a connection to the country.
And they were so impressed with him they made this joking offer that he become the Defense Minister of Ukraine. But, of course, it's a way to insinuate that maybe he's not loyal. And this dual-loyalty smear, well that's an old one in American politics.
But look, you heard the applause when he talked about his dad that I think you couldn't look at this guy without saying "Thank God for guys like Colonel Vindman - Lieutenant Colonel Vindman," excuse me, who know right from wrong, who - who when they see wrong, have a larger sense of duty to the country, not just to covering up Donald Trump's wrongdoing.
CUOMO: Sticking with the theme of three, three big questions.
One, why do you think today was such a big day for the case of this President having done something wrong?
MALONEY: Well, you said it. These are their witnesses. These are witnesses they asked for, of course. And, you know, they got them.
And here's - here's Volker, who previously had said, "Well, you know, I was - just thought these were general corruption investigations."
He comes in today, and says in hindsight, "I was wrong that in fact Burisma meant Biden. And if - if I had known it meant Biden, I would have objected at the time."
CUOMO: How did he not know?
MALONEY: Well that's a great question. I mean he's--
CUOMO: How come you didn't ask that one, Maloney?
MALONEY: Well he's--
CUOMO: I'm kidding, I'm kidding, well - well--
MALONEY: I mean I - look, he was neck-deep in it.
And I - you saw at the end of the day, I did ask him, "You know, gee, you missed it on about a half a dozen different occasions." But we appreciate him coming in now, and saying in hindsight, having heard all the testimony.
I mean, look, it was Giuliani who was feeding these things to him to change the - the statement that the Ukrainian President was supposed to say.
[21:05:00]
Point being, we appreciate that Ambassador Volker came forward, and - and made clear that he knows it's wrong to ask for an investigation of the Bidens.
CUOMO: Big moment with Volker, with another New York Member of Congress, but from the other side, Congressman Stefanik. Here's a little bit of their exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Was there any reference to withholding aid?
VOLKER: No, there was not.
STEFANIK: Any reference to bribery?
VOLKER: No, there was not.
STEFANIK: Any reference to quid pro quo?
VOLKER: No, there was not.
STEFANIK: Any reference to extortion?
VOLKER: No, there was not.
STEFANIK: And I presume you also got feedback from your Ukrainian counterparts as to how the call went. Did they mention the withholding of aid?
VOLKER: No, they did not.
STEFANIK: Did they mention any quid pro quo?
VOLKER: No, they did not.
STEFANIK: And did they mention any bribery?
VOLKER: No, they did not.
STEFANIK: And, in fact, the day after the call, you met with President Zelensky. This would be on July 26th.
VOLKER: That's correct.
STEFANIK: And in that meeting, he made no mention of quid pro quo?
VOLKER: No. STEFANIK: He made no mention of withholding the aid?
VOLKER: No.
STEFANIK: He made no mention of bribery?
VOLKER: No.
STEFANIK: So, the fact is that Ukrainians were not even aware of this hold on aid. Is that correct?
VOLKER: That's correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, do you accept that?
MALONEY: Well, no, of course.
What they're doing, and this is their tactic, is they try to get these fact witnesses to jump to these ultimate legal conclusions. "You know, did anybody say I'm now going to try to bribe you? Did anybody say I'm now going to try to extort you?"
And - when in fact the witnesses' testimony, the factual testimony, which is all they can do, paints a very serious picture of President Trump using taxpayer-funded military assistance to pressure a foreign leader to get help in his reelection. That's soliciting a bribe.
They're not supposed to make those conclusions. But their testimony is clear about Burisma and the investigations really meaning Biden about - about - you just heard Mr. Morrison talk about, "Hey, you know, I ran to NSC legal when I heard the call," in his own words, the President.
You saw Vindman talking about "I knew it was improper."
And - and - and the fact is the Republicans are trying to jump to the end, and - and get these guys to make a legal conclusion they can't make because they can't talk about the facts. They can't talk about the devastating evidence that the President abused his Office.
CUOMO: The idea that the President honestly believes that Ukraine had something to do with 2016, if that's true, that he honestly believes that the Bidens were dirty, if that's true, does that remove the wrongdoing?
MALONEY: Well, look, it's - you heard them all say. They would consider it inappropriate, improper to - for an American President to pressure a foreign leader to investigate a political rival. You can just stop right there.
I mean the - the President can want help in his campaign all he wants. He can want it for whatever reasons he wants. But he can't use taxpayer dollars in a corrupt scheme to get a foreign leader to help him in that campaign. We got laws against that. It's a felony to seek foreign help in an
American election. And you can't go out and - and - and exchange an official act for a thing of personal value. That's soliciting a bribe.
So, the President has all kinds of crazy ideas. But we don't excuse criminality or wrongdoing because - because somebody has such an unusual idea of what's OK and what's not.
CUOMO: Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, from New York, thank you so much, especially after such a long day.
MALONEY: My pleasure.
CUOMO: We will all be watching tomorrow. This is such a big week for the country.
MALONEY: My pleasure.
CUOMO: Thank you very much.
All right, so that is the perspective of somebody who was in the room, all right? The President, now what does this mean for him today? Where is that room? Where is this country in terms of the threshold for impeachment?
Let's bring in investigative minds to look at what's there, what needs to be there, where are we in all this, 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: You know, it's our job to keep count not yours. But more than a dozen witnesses have now testified as part of this impeachment investigation. There are people from across different government agencies, stationed on different continents. Yet, there is a lot of similarity among their stories.
So, we came up with this chart. We're trying to help with all these names, and all these different things that are being thrown at us in this.
If you look along the left-hand column, those are all the people. Now, I'm not giving you all their titles because, frankly, it's not relevant. They were all in the mix one way or the other.
And then, across the top are the columns of different types of things that matter. The first thing I want to flag for you is despite all the histrionics in that room today, look at the last column, "Clears Trump."
Nobody has come in, and said, "I heard the call. I knew what was going on. I was with the President. And he did nothing wrong. And everything he wanted to do was without corrupt intent, and exactly the way we want it done." Nobody is coming in that way.
Now, one big reason for that is this President won't let any of the people who can come into that room - room, and say it with the most clear voice, "Do it." Remember that.
For all the calls that "We need firsthand experience" from those on the Right, firsthand wit - the people who have it, they haven't asked for once because they're going with the President, keeping Pompeo, Mulvaney, and keeping - who else did they want?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Eisenberg.
CUOMO: Mr. Bolton and Eisenberg, keeping them quiet.
See, that's why we have him here. Let's bring in the investigators, Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker.
And, of course, by now, you know them. But Andrew McCabe was, of course, former Dep - former Deputy Director of the FBI, Jim Baker, former General Counsel of the FBI, Director of National Security & Cyber Security of the R Street Institute, all right?
Gentlemen, appreciate it. So, I put up the chart because I'm trying to simplify--
MCCABE: Sure.
CUOMO: --that a lot of people say, "Yes, there's something here that it shouldn't happen this way. And yes, it became aware to me that they were asking for this Biden stuff."
Volker says he didn't know Burisma meant Biden. I don't know. But that's what he says. And he said if he did know he would have felt differently. They're all kind of lined up. What's missing?
[21:15:00]
MCCABE: What's missing is, as you said before, anyone, a single witness, to step forward, and say, "I was aware of what happened. I heard what the President said. I understood what he meant by it. And I think it was totally fine."
CUOMO: To clear him.
MCCABE: That's right. For sure.
CUOMO: What's missing on the side of saying "Well this is clearly impeachable?"
MCCABE: Well they - so the - so the witnesses that they've put forth so far aren't in a position to be able to say that, right? These are fact witnesses. These are people who will come in and simply say where they were, when they heard something, and what they thought about it.
And you got that from the two witnesses earlier today, very simple stories. They talk about being on the phone call. And they talk, most importantly, about how they reacted to what they heard. Both of them thought it was objectionable. Both of them thought it was inappropriate.
And, of course, Vindman went and reported it to Counsel right away, first of two reports to White House Counsel.
CUOMO: That's an interesting point. Jim, let me tee up some sound for you that seemed to play pretty relevantly today with Mr. Morrison, OK.
So, here is Morrison talking about a call or an experience with Ambassador Sondland, who's, of course, testifying tomorrow, and it shows just why there's so much heat on Ambassador Sondland.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL GOLDMAN, DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL: Did you tell Ambassador Bolton about this conversation as well?
TIM MORRISON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: I - I've reached out to him as well and requested his availability for a secure phone call.
GOLDMAN: And what was his response when you explained to him what Ambassador Sondland had said?
MORRISON: Tell the lawyers.
GOLDMAN: Did you go tell the lawyers?
MORRISON: When I returned to the States, yes.
GOLDMAN: And did he explain to you why he wanted you to tell the lawyers?
MORRISON: He did not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, this shows one thing right away, Jim. Boy, do we need Bolton! Because I don't want to hear why this guy was told what - I want to know why Bolton saw it that way, why he felt the need that this needs to be reported, and what was this.
This was Sondland saying on a phone call that Mr. Morrison heard, "Hey, if you want this aid, if you want to get the meeting, you need to give us this announcement on these investigations." Significance?
JIM BAKER, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Well Ambassador Bolton knew that it was inappropriate. I think that's why he told everybody around to go see the lawyers. And the lawyers then had an obligation to figure out what to do.
And honestly, as a lawyer, I think it's incumbent upon us, in those kinds of situations to try to - to try to stop this. And in a - stop what is obviously inappropriate, in an effort to protect the President.
I mean if they are there, presumably they agree with the President's agenda, and they want him to succeed. And so, they need to help him by saying, "Mr. President, no, you can't do this. This goes too far."
I think policymakers, people like Mr. Bolton or Ambassador Bolton, in those kinds of situations, are looking for the lawyers to help them steer the client, in this case, the President, in the right direction.
That's what we're supposed to do. That's what I, you know, I did at the FBI to try to help people like Andy make tough decisions because they need assistance. Those are very, very hard and demanding jobs. And the lawyers need to step up.
And I - and I have to say, I don't think that this whole event has been a red-letter day for the legal profession in terms of the - the folks who have touched this, the - the lawyers who have touched this problem, and how it's turned out.
CUOMO: All right, then let me get your take on - on this from both of you here, to end the segment.
First one, let's say you're right, Jim. Let's say it wasn't a red- letter day for the legal community.
And let's say the President says, "You know what? That Jim Baker he's a genius.
I was not well-advised. I'm new to all this. And I think Biden was dirty. And they told me Ukraine helped him out. So, I didn't want to give money to a corrupt place. So, that's the only reason I asked. And nobody told me it was wrong."
What becomes the - the bar between inappropriate and impeachable?
BAKER: Well the - the House has to decide that. The House ultimately is the one that decides based on all these facts, as Andy was saying, all these fact - fact witnesses can't be expected to make the ultimate determination.
They're saying what happened. They're saying their assessment of it that it was improper. They're saying that they thought it was hurting the - the national security of the United States because it was interfering with an ally getting military aid promptly.
And so, you know, the President, actually, if he were to say something along lines of what you just described, that's not a terrible defense. I mean like "I thought I was doing OK. I thought it was the right thing to do. These people around me didn't say no. Nobody had the courage to tell me, you know the"--
CUOMO: Andy liked and--
BAKER: --yes, go ahead.
CUOMO: McCabe likes what you're saying so little, he's literally waving out of the frame.
MCCABE: I - I'm out of--
CUOMO: He's moving in and out, Jimmy like--
MCCABE: I'm falling off my chair over here.
CUOMO: Why?
MCCABE: I have to disagree with my eminent colleague.
BAKER: It wouldn't be the first time we disagreed, so.
MCCABE: It's - it is absolutely not the first time we've disagreed. I don't think that Trump can possibly come in and make that defense. He can't walk in, and say, "Yes, I was pushing the Ukrainians to investigate my political rival. But I didn't know that was wrong."
I mean, look, we all know that in criminal law - this is not criminal law. It's impeachment. But in criminal law, ignorance of the law is no defense.
CUOMO: But he swears, "I don't care that he's my political opponent. I'll kill Joe Biden. I don't need any help beating him.
I'm going to beat him all day, Lazy Joe, Sleepy Joe, 15 different adjectives Joe. I didn't do it for that. I just thought I don't want to waste your tax dollars on a place that won't even look into what we know they did wrong."
[21:20:00]
MCCABE: If that were the reason behind his appeals to the Ukrainians, they should have been appeals to the Department of Justice. There is--
CUOMO: The "How" you think gets him.
MCCABE: That's - that's absolutely right.
CUOMO: So, then don't you need, if you're on the side of making the case that this is impeachable, you need to prove that the reason the aid got removed is not just coincidental to when the House started to ask questions, but you have to get someone to prove that that's why they released the aid, and that the President knew damn well that not a dollar would be released until he got the Bidens.
MCCABE: Somebody gave the order, somebody told OMB, "The aid goes no further." So that - that line of - of - of direction, we know, goes back to Mulvaney, and it ultimately lands on the President's desk. They need a witness to come in and establish that.
CUOMO: Tomorrow they have Sondland.
BAKER: Yes, but, hey, Chris, like Chris--
CUOMO: And - yes, go ahead, Jim. You get the final word because Andrew was so rude with the shaking of the head.
MCCABE: He's going to come after me now.
CUOMO: Go ahead.
BAKER: Well yes, I - and I - I disagree back with Andy on this one because I think that--
CUOMO: That's right.
BAKER: --I mean I agree. Look, that would - that would really be strong evidence. I agree completely on that point.
But I think in the absence of that, in the ref - in the face of the refusal of the President to allow these key witnesses to come forward, the - the House of Representatives is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony that they do have.
And given the number of people that knew exactly what was going on that the aid was being withheld, and that there was a connection to the Bidens and Burisma, the House is able to, I think, this would be in a - in a criminal case and - and certainly in a - in impeachment setting, they are allowed to draw reasonable interest - inferences from the facts.
And I think they can do that. And if this is what the evidence is that they have then they can decide whether it's strong enough. But it's not - it's not--
CUOMO: Well--
BAKER: --necessary absolutely from a legal perspective, in my view, to have like, you know, this - the smoking gun witness like Ambassador Bolton come in and - and - and put the nail--
CUOMO: Right.
BAKER: --on the coffin.
CUOMO: No. It would just be nice if you want firsthand information that you have the people who haven't come in--
BAKER: Sure.
MCCABE: Sure.
CUOMO: --instead of saying nothing about them being kept from you, if that's your complaint. But in the sillage (ph) of thesis, antithesis, then we have synthesis. Synthesis is Sondland tomorrow. When Sondland - Sondland explains why he thought this is what he needed to tell Ukraine, and where it was coming from, and why it was such a priority, that's going to give a very different picture of the complexion of why this happened the way it did.
Andrew McCabe, Jim Baker, thank you for bringing your expertise to the benefit of the audience. Appreciate it as always.
All right so, look, one interesting way to mark this is about whether it gets you closer to impeachment or not. I mean that's what this is all about, right?
So, we have a Congress Member here who is in no hurry to see this President get impeached. And he was surprised by Volker's testimony, or not. We're going to get GOP perspective, 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: All right, you had four witnesses today. But the last two, Ambassador Volker, and Mr. Morrison, were ones that Republicans asked for. And Republican Tom Reed from Western New York, Congressman joins me now.
It's good to see you Sir, as always.
REP. TOM REED (R-NY): It's good to be here with you, Chris.
CUOMO: We were talking before we started this segment, trying to simplify where we are in the state of play. So, we have two visual aids.
The first one, take a look, here are all the people on the left who have testified so far, OK? I don't have their titles because, frankly, no disrespect. They're all doing the work for our government, and us, but they're not relevant, the title. We're getting lost in alphabet soup.
Across the - the - the columns, you have knowledge of alleged bribe, because that's what the Democrats are calling it, instead of the Latin phrase. They were on the July 25th call. They heard the Trump-Sondland call.
That's huge for tomorrow with Ambassador Sondland, what was he told to do, where did he come up with doing this, it's big.
"Concerned about Giuliani," "Raised red flags," "Clears Trump," now, to be fair, "Clears Trump" is empty, not because all these witnesses have been killing them. It's because the people who can do it, at the top of the food chain, are being kept from testifying.
So, you can't complain about not getting firsthand information as a Republican, if you're not fighting back against the President keeping the big shots from you.
But now we narrow it to two columns. They knew about Rudy, and they were like, "What is going on with this?" and raised red flags.
That seems to be the biggest problem is for the President to explain, or his defenders, which is half that room, why was Rudy doing all this stuff, and why was he so in the mix, creating a situation that made so many people uncomfortable?
REED: Well, you know, Chris, and I - and I think I'm a voice that's coming at this, you know, not on the Committees that are hearing this testimony 24/7, have been at this for months, I think I'm more like the American people.
I mean I'm spending most of my day, trying to get Mexico-Canada agreement passed, lining up votes for other issues that are impacting people on a day-to-day basis.
And your point about the chart is very well taken in the sense of the American people have to digest this, at some point in time. And the information that's coming out or people are raising concerns about activity of the President.
But I think the fundamental question is where the American people will come down. Is this impeachable? And does it require the removal of a duly-elected President of the United States?
And I just don't see that here. You can criticize the President. You can disagree with what he did. But when we're talking about impeachment, the history of our country should teach us impeachment is something reserved for those extreme situations.
And what Rudy did, or what this individual did, I think impeachment is such a high level offense that you - you better have clear evidence to overturn the duly election of the American people that put him in Office.
CUOMO: So you got two - you got two obstacles to people buying into your argument.
[21:30:00]
One's from the past, one's from the President - present, one - that was not - unintentional pun. And you are not to blame for the past with Clinton because you weren't in the game, weren't even thinking of the game at that time. It was not such an extreme horrible, terrible high crime and
misdemeanor, and all the Republicans that are in the game now that were in the game then are making the opposite argument they made then.
Lindsey Graham, "You don't even need a crime."
REED: Yes.
CUOMO: You know, if you - you know, Mike Pence, the Vice President of the United States, wrote then, "It's just about morality. Was it the right thing or the wrong thing?"
And now, they've totally changed tune. Why should people accept your argument?
REED: Well because I think the lessons of history should teach us. And as a Member who wasn't here, during the Clinton impeachment, and don't - and do not support the Clinton - Clinton impeachment, looking back historically, that should teach us a lesson.
We put the country through hell during the Clinton impeachment. We're putting the country through hell today, Chris, in regards to this polarization that is happening between the country, and we should learn the lessons of that.
Even with Nixon, and - and prior to that, in the Jackson years, the - the - the - the - the use of impeachment is such a - a limited tool that the Founders were so sensitive to that they put the standards so high to remove an election.
CUOMO: This situation--
REED: So, we should learn from the Clinton impeachment.
CUOMO: This situation shows the best and the worst of their intentions. As written in Federalist Papers 65, Alexander Hamilton--
REED: Amen! Now, you're talking.
CUOMO: --"This is a political crime where someone in a position of trust may have done something for their own benefit instead of for the national interest."
I think it is the definition of what was supposed to be investigated though curse, what they were worried about is that if it's just about numbers, then impeachment's not the right vehicle.
And that room today, there is not a single Republican - this is not Clinton. You're not getting 31 Republicans to go against this President.
REED: I know.
CUOMO: So, it then raises the question for you guys.
If this isn't wrong, if this isn't something that is worthy of being called out in Presidential action, and saying, "You're not supposed to use what we in Congress authorized you to give to somebody, and hold it up until you get something on an opponent," then what is worth calling out?
REED: So, I think your point is well-taken. If you're talking about oversight and - and - and calling out the - the President in regards to Congressional oversight powers versus impeachment, that, to me, is something completely different.
CUOMO: No Republican in that room has said he did anything wrong.
REED: And that is where oversight versus impeachment - because we're talking in that room about impeachment. And impeachment is such a drastic tool--
CUOMO: But can't you say it's wrong?
REED: --that I would just say this cannot--
CUOMO: Say it was wrong.
REED: --this cannot be standard.
CUOMO: "He shouldn't have done it like this. It was wrong. He shouldn't have done it."
REED: I am not--
CUOMO: "Shouldn't have mentioned Biden. It was wrong."
REED: And that's where I think the Founding Fathers also had the wisdom of trusting the American people. The American people are going to see this testimony. They're going to make the determination for themselves. And that's what frustrates me about this D.C.
CUOMO: But no, you have to make the determination. You have to vote.
REED: Yes.
CUOMO: Your - your - your constituents are--
REED: Yes.
CUOMO: --going to say, "Look, I wish you would do another - other stuff, Congressman Reed, not just this. But do you think what he did was wrong?" What are you going to tell them?
REED: You know, as I see it, as I see it today, I see he had a legitimate basis for an inquiry about corruption in Ukraine. That is something--
CUOMO: About the Bidens?
REED: About the Burisma, about the whole investigation in regards to corruption in Ukraine. And that, to me, gives the credibility to what is being argued here about the basis for the phone call-- CUOMO: But if you wanted Biden--
REED: --and information (ph).
CUOMO: --go to the DOJ. That's your path.
REED: I understand that.
CUOMO: Not to get an announcement of an investigation from a foreign power about an American. You wouldn't do that.
REED: No. I understand what your - the concern is. And obviously, what I do and what the President do are completely separate things.
CUOMO: But that's how you got to judge it.
REED: But the bottom line - but the bottom--
CUOMO: You're a public servant.
REED: Yes, I - and I understand that. But I - but I believe in the American people. I believe the American people are the ones to make this judgment, at the end of the day because you're talking about--
CUOMO: No, you have to make the judgment.
REED: No, but we're talking about removing the President, and impeaching the President.
CUOMO: But you vote. The Senate votes. They don't vote.
REED: And - and that's where--
CUOMO: They vote for you on the basis of what you do.
REED: And what I see here is a legitimate basis of Executive power in order to investigate corruption. I believe that's the--
CUOMO: So, you don't think he did anything wrong?
REED: I - I see what he has done as a legitimate exercise of Executive authority and so--
CUOMO: Calling for a foreign power to investigate his political opponent.
REED: That's not how I see it, Chris. I don't see that. I see him calling for an investigation in corrupt activity in a country that's going to get hard-working taxpayer dollars. That is my interpretation.
Other folks are going to disagree with that. They're going to vote that way. Now, will new evidence come out, and will there be other information? I'm always looking for new evidence.
CUOMO: Maybe not. But the polls--
REED: But I will tell you this.
CUOMO: --you got over half the country--
REED: Well--
CUOMO: Only 23 percent of this country thinks he did nothing wrong.
REED: Half the country--
CUOMO: Just so you know.
REED: --didn't vote for this President.
CUOMO: Well but - but--
REED: Exactly.
CUOMO: --you got to be the President for all of them.
REED: So, we're not looking at - at - at votes. We're not looking at polls.
CUOMO: Right.
REED: We're looking at - let's leave it to the American people.
CUOMO: Right, as a reflection of what you guys do. And as we go through the process, I welcome you here to make the case every time.
REED: Chris, I appreciate it.
CUOMO: Thank you, Congressman.
REED: It's always good to be with you.
CUOMO: Appreciate it. Appreciate it, all right, Congressman Tom Reed, Western New York.
All right, let's put it to some shrewd minds in our house. Did we learn anything from today's hearings that puts the President in a different state of jeopardy than before it, and how big does that make tomorrow, his Ambassador, his friend, his donor, saying to Ukraine, "You want it? You got to give the Bidens."
Where do we go from there? Next.
[21:35:00]
(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: Lots to unpack. This was definitely a big day whether you're Left, Right, or just plain reasonable. The President just tweeted "A great day for Republicans, a great day for our country!"
But witness after witness expressed concerns about how the President's point men, namely Sondland and Giuliani, handled things, most of them raised red flags about the same.
Let's bring in some top political minds, Susan Glasser and Michael Smerconish.
Good to have you both. I wish it were a great day for the country. It's hard to see it that way.
Michael, when you looked at the state of play today, where do you think we are in terms of how compelling a case for impeachment is out there?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN HOST, "SMERCONISH": Too confusing. The jury here is the court of public opinion. It is not the House. It is not the Senate. The only way that the Senate will be swayed is if there's some brushfire out in the country.
And I'm not saying that the underlying facts and allegations, you've done a nice job at a sound bite form, and so did Vindman today, Colonel Vindman, in laying it out, in nine words or less.
But the presentation of this case, Adam Schiff needs, you know, the - the trial lawyer technique, a timeline, give me a blow-up, lay it out, and routinely go back to that diagram, and remind people that "Yes, there are a lot of players, and confusing names, but here are the very five or so critical items on the timeline."
They're not doing that. And I think it's a wash.
[21:40:00]
Listen, I spent the whole day today, watching and/or listening, and I get confused as to who said what. How in the world can people who are out there in real jobs, putting food on the table, worried about their kids, and so forth, keep track of all this?
CUOMO: Well you got the polls, less than 25 percent of people say he did nothing wrong.
SMERCONISH: OK. People believe--
CUOMO: And then you're about 50-50.
SMERCONISH: --people believe he did something wrong. I - I think there's a consensus that he did something wrong. Whether it rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor--
CUOMO: Something else.
SMERCONISH: --totally different
CUOMO: All right, so, Susan, let's now take that as the segue into tomorrow because Sondland, I say, and please, feel free to disagree, one of Michael's favorite things to do, is this is all on his shoulders tomorrow because he's the deepest one in the soup that they have, and because of this piece of sound that we heard today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDMAN: What did Ambassador Sondland say to - tell you that he told Mr. Yermak?
MORRISON: That the Ukrainians would have to have the Prosecutor General make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, Mr. Volker's text that he kind of like half forgot, you know, before he revised his testimony, other than those texts, Susan, no one has had those words put in their mouth the way Sondland has. What does that make the stakes for him tomorrow?
SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Well, look, he is the connection directly to President Trump. He was the key liaison between Trump and the other officials of the U.S. government, who were trying to figure out what to do about this.
It was a - the sinking feeling, that was another line from Morrison's testimony, when he heard about this, and he understood there was this linkage that he hadn't realized there was this linkage between $400 million in Congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine, and opening the investigations.
Sondland has changed his testimony already. He's now been contradicted further by the revelation the other day of the phone call.
He's talking on his cell phone, you know, in a restaurant, unsecured in the middle of Kiev, and the President of the United States, according to this testimony, he was on the phone.
CUOMO: And he's holding the phone out here.
GLASSER: So, we've never heard--
CUOMO: So other people hear it.
GLASSER: --we've never heard Sondland's testimony.
CUOMO: Right.
GLASSER: How do you forget about a phone call like that? He is in some significant legal jeopardy. And so, for that reason, he's a crucial witness.
But because he's dug himself a hole in his previous testimony, we don't really know is he going to be focusing on getting himself out of legal jeopardy. How much is he going to be a reliable witness, at this point?
But, you know, to - to Michael's point, it's an important point. I'm also exhausted at the end of this day. I've watched every word of it. I watched every word of the previous two days last week.
It's not the Senate trial, right? That's when you would have a prosecutor lay out a case in the way, you know, that you're suggesting Adam Schiff should do.
SMERCONISH: Seats are being sold out (ph). Seats are being sold out (ph).
GLASSER: Absolutely.
CUOMO: It's got to be obvious.
SMERCONISH: Yes.
CUOMO: This has to be obvious. How big is Sondland tomorrow?
SMERCONISH: Huge. He is the biggest witness thus far. Thus far, we have had a number of spokes, but no one axle, nobody who brings it all home together, who has a zero degree of separation and connection to all these different parts.
He can be that individual. Now, when he first testified, I would have said he's going to take a dive on all of this. Then he filed the addendum. And then what happened, Roger Stone happened.
CUOMO: That's right.
SMERCONISH: Right? If you're Sondland, Ambassador Sondland, you got to go to bed tonight, thinking about what just happened to Roger Stone.
CUOMO: And Roger Stone, arguably, argue - you know, they found him guilty on all counts, you know.
SMERCONISH: Right.
CUOMO: And he calls himself a dirty trickster. But arguably, he knew that they were going to find his communications. He was just making a bet that what they were going to find was bad for the President, and he wasn't going to have that come out of his mouth.
And you know what we haven't heard come out of the President's mouth? "He's getting pardoned." And you know those words have to be rattling around in Sondland's head, "What will happen for me?"
But, you know, I just had Congressman Tom Reed on, Western New York, Republican, he's in the Problem Solvers Caucus. It's good to have him on the show. And I was chasing him. "No, no, no, it's not for the American people to decide."
GLASSER: Yes.
CUOMO: "You have to vote. You have to decide."
GLASSER: No, you were--
CUOMO: Yes, but on the basis of how they feel about it, which is your point. I reject that, Michael.
GLASSER: Yes.
CUOMO: This is a republic, a democratically-elected republic. You vote your conscience. You were put there to do that. Don't wait for me to tell you what to do. He has to do it. What does that mean to you?
SMERCONISH: Well there is no standard, right? I mean there - there is - go look for the burden of proof in an impeachment process. It's whatever the Senators choose it should be.
CUOMO: President Ford said that.
SMERCONISH: Yes. And - and - and--
CUOMO: What's an impeachable offense?
SMERCONISH: And it was right.
CUOMO: Whatever Congress says it is.
SMERCONISH: And - and he was absolutely right. So, there's a lot of leeway as to where it goes. One last thought if I may.
CUOMO: Please, Sir.
SMERCONISH: What's most objectionable to me is that it looks like this thing could run its course without hearing from the most critical witnesses. You might not hear from Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, or John Bolton, and there's something wrong with that.
CUOMO: A 100 percent.
Susan Glasser, thank you so much. Mr. Smerconish, a pleasure, as always.
SMERCONISH: OK.
[21:45:00]
CUOMO: All right, impeachment investigators, they're begging to get this close to the truth as they can, they - especially on the Right, "We want that firsthand information. We want it." The President says "Everything I did was perfect."
Then where are the people who can prove it? Let's see if I can make Smerconish's argument, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: We now know that the Ukrainians eventually became aware that they would not get what they wanted from the U.S., if they did not announce investigations into the Bidens. The witnesses today and last week ping pong between getting that right away, or at some point, or not really, or not at all.
And while on some level, every witness has testified that investigating the Bidens was not typical policy objective, or just outright dangerous, there will never be any such consensus in this Congress.
[21:50:00]
Every single Republican in that room is there for one reason, defend the President, period! Every Democrat is trying to elicit damaging testimony about the President, period!
For something that this President has described as perfect, the ability to understand what was up with Ukraine and this President has proven to be anything but, and now we know why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLKER: I did not know about the strong concerns expressed by then- National Security Advisor, John Bolton, to members of his NSC staff, regarding the discussion of investigations.
BILL TAYLOR, TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE: Ambassador Bolton recommended that I send a first-person cable to Secretary Pompeo directly, relaying my concerns. I wrote and transmitted such a cable on August 29th, describing the "folly" I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine.
REP. ANDRE CARSON (D-IN): Ambassador Sondland made clear that he was requesting an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden's son. Isn't that correct, Sir?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: And he stated that he was asking these requests in coordination with Chief of Staff - White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, correct, Sir? VINDMAN: That is what I heard him say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Everybody heard it, thought it, was told it, because they all work for somebody else.
You know, and while all these men and women are significant, and honorable, and certainly patriotic, no matter what the Republicans say, they're not calling the shots. They're there to implement decisions made by people who won't make the same choice that they did, to ignore the President telling them not to speak, and do their duty.
If everything is so perfect, then why hide the key players? If the Republicans are so desperate for firsthand knowledge, so frustrated that people can't give them the straight truth, then why don't they ask for the main players?
You are so desperate that you would like to expose the whistleblower, someone whose identity is protected by law, even though you know they have no firsthand information, but you don't call for the people at the top of the food chain.
You want firsthand info, but you don't want to question Bolton? You don't want Pompeo? You don't want Mulvaney? Bolton called it a drug deal. That's not firsthand information? You say nothing.
Whose lawyer said he had personal knowledge about many relevant meetings and conversations? Bolton's lawyer did.
You don't want the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo? You don't want the Energy Secretary, Rick Perry, the Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, and, of course, the man in the middle, the man everybody talks about, but you won't talk to, Rudy Giuliani?
Do you understand the hypocrisy at play here? All of them are defying subpoenas for either documents or testimony at the White House's direction. Why? Why would this President keep his inner circle from testifying robustly in his defense?
If this is all just a witch-hunt, if it was all perfect, they should be able to come in, and convincingly just dispose of all of this. Let me cover something else. Anyone beneath them who says otherwise could, absent hard corroboration of their contradiction, be dismissed.
"Vindman didn't know. He was wrong. Volker's wrong. Sondland's wrong. They got it wrong. I'm in charge. This is what I wanted them to do. The President was fine."
This odd disconnect becomes obvious when they discuss - discuss the decision to basically hide the call, right? They hid this phone call. Morrison helped hide this phone call by going to the lawyers.
Representative Jordan, Presidential Defender number one in this hearing, says it's prophetic. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You were prophetic, Mr. Morrison, because you said in your statement today, as I stated during my deposition, "I feared at the time of the call on July 25th how the disclosure of the contents of the call would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Really? It didn't leak, by the way, and Jordan knows that. But he's in the business of coloring reality these days, isn't he?
Was it prophetic or pathetic? He can rely on psychic ability - Congressman Jordan - or a divine hand. I argue for facts.
And the people who have them, who guided the decisions, who dealt with the aid, who decided to hide that call with an ask by Mr. Trump for the Bidens and Giuliani's desires, they are not here.
It's as ugly as it is obvious, why they're not screaming about that as they are everything else on the Right. They would rather deceive you about this process being unfair and incomplete.
Think about how pathetic it is to watch these men and women pick apart the inches of insight that these men and women who've testified so far have about the decisions that others made, instructions other gave them, and yet leave yards of truth untouched.
[21:55:00]
Jordan sees the decision to hide the call because of how it played prophetic. Well, that's a fool's guess compared to the Cassandra-esque prescience to limit a hearing like this, of this importance, to the people who know the least.
You cannot complain a process is unfair. You can't insist, as Ranking Member Nunes did today, that people must answer because they're under subpoena, like he did with Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, "You must tell me what I want you to say. You're under subpoena, or plead the Fifth," when you're complicit in the decision that necessarily makes it unfair, and you say nothing about the big shots that you're too afraid to go against.
The men and women on the Right say nothing about the most important players being kept from this consequence. And until they change that, no matter how righteous they sound, they are part of the problem.
Now, that's the argument.
What's coming up tomorrow could blow everything else away. Why? This is the guy, Ambassador Sondland. He's the only one they look to, and say, "He's the one who told them. I heard him say it. He told me he told them. You're not going to get the money if you don't get the Bidens."
That's our BOLO, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
