Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Sondland On Ukraine: "We Followed The President's Orders"; Schiff Dismantles Trump "Anti-Corruption" Narrative; GOP Questions Sondland's Recall Of Events Without Notes. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired November 20, 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: All right, Anderson, thank you. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME, live from Washington D.C.

As one of my guests said, there was this case before today, November 20th, and then a whole new reality after today. So, what mattered, and why? And what happens now?

We have power players and people in power here to take it all on, so let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Today left a mark in this impeachment inquiry. Why? Well, Gordon Sondland, the President's own hand-picked Ambassador, implicated him directly in the shakedown of Ukraine. And, by the way, that wasn't the end of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: At the express direction of the President of the United States.

So, we followed the President's orders.

I followed the directions of the President.

Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.

Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: "Everyone knew. It was no secret." According to the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, million-dollar donor to Trump's Inaugural, that means Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, of course Giuliani, of course, of course, the President himself. The day ended with a different type of meaningful moment. The House Intel Committee Chair reflected on the anti-corruption narrative from the President and his defenders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): And when Ambassador Sondland testified today that he could put two and two together, and so can we, that there was also a quid pro quo on the military aid that that aid was not going to be released unless they did a public statement, Ukraine did a public statement, of these political investigations, the President wanted, that's not anti-corruption. That is corruption.

I want you to do a favor, a -- a favor. Investigate this crazy 2016 server conspiracy that the server's somewhere in Ukraine. And more ominously, investigate the Bidens. That's not anti-corruption. That is corruption.

It's called hypocrisy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: An animated, unusually, Adam Schiff.

Let's bring in our team, Jen Psaki, Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey Toobin?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Yes, Sir.

CUOMO: At the end of today's testimony, largely on the shoulders of Ambassador Sondland, as a synthesis, it was obvious, it was wrong, it was known, it was worried about, it was arguably abuse of power, and certainly the stuff that was supposed to be investigated as potentially impeachable.

TOOBIN: This was it. I mean this -- every suspicion of Donald Trump was confirmed today. This was about abuse of power.

The question at the heart of this inquiry has always been did the President use his power of the Presidency not to commit perjury, not to rob a bank, but to use the power that only he has in a corrupt way.

And today, we know he did, because today we know that the President you -- held back a White House meeting, and nearly $400 million of taxpayer money, to get dirt on Joe Biden.

That's what we learned today beyond any reasonable doubt. And, you know, the Senate and the House are going to have to decide what to do about them.

CUOMO: Yes, no, is it a bribe?

TOOBIN: Oh, absolutely. CUOMO: Other poll of opinion, my head-shaking friend on the outside.

RICK SANTORUM, FORMER U.S. SENATE MEMBER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

CUOMO: How do you see?

SANTORUM: Look, I -- I think the Democrats had a -- had a good -- had a good morning. I don't think they're -- I don't think they had a good afternoon. I think what when -- when the Republicans actually started questioning Sondland about the details, I think it fell apart a little bit, I mean.

CUOMO: How so?

SANTORUM: Well he said, you know, the President never said any of these things to him. In fact, what the President said, he quoted what the President said is, "No, there's no quid pro quo."

And the -- the -- what -- what he says is why -- I'm -- I'm surmising. This is what I'm just sort of gathering, he said, what -- "Did -- did anything come from the President?" "No, it came from Rudy Giuliani." Well I mean--

CUOMO: And Mulvaney.

SANTORUM: Well, I'm--

CUOMO: With the knowledge of Pompeo.

JEN PSAKI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And Pompeo.

SANTORUM: Mulvaney said that, you know, the -- the--

CUOMO: He said exactly that and then hold it back.

SANTORUM: --which he -- which he walked back, as you know.

CUOMO: Well--

SANTORUM: So, the -- look, the -- the reality is that -- I'm just trying to play out what it -- what -- where I think the public is, where I think Republicans are, is this just is another example of someone giving their opinion as to what the President's position was.

But the President's position clearly stated in the May meeting was, and clearly stated, period, which is he doesn't like foreign aid. He thinks the Ukrainians are corrupt. And he's tired of NATO not paying their fair share. And those are all legitimate reasons not to -- not to provide the aid.

CUOMO: Then--

TOOBIN: And -- and if you look at the emails, and the text messages, none of that is mentioned. All that's mentioned are Burisma and the -- and the server. That's the only thing any of these people cared about.

SANTORUM: Well--

[21:05:00]

TOOBIN: I mean the whole idea that the President is -- is--

SANTORUM: That--

TOOBIN: --worried about burden-sharing, which was last week's talking point, yes, it's true. But it had nothing to do--

SANTORUM: It's--

TOOBIN: --with his decision. It was not in any of the--

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: Well, first of all, it's in -- it's in--

PSAKI: And -- and here's what doesn't--

SANTORUM: --Ron Johnson's letter. It's in -- it's in the original meeting in May. It's in -- it's in plenty of places.

PSAKI: Here's what doesn't make sense, I think, about your argument here.

CUOMO: That would be two places. Go ahead.

PSAKI: A couple things. One is if Gordon Sondland who, as we all know, from all of the reporting, has been going around the world to Ukrainians, Members of Congress, people in the Administration, and saying the President were -- we're tying military assistance to these investigations, nobody's argued with him, nobody's refuted him, no -- he hasn't been fired. He's still in his job. He admitted to that today. If that was so wrong--

SANTORUM: Vice President Pence -- you know, Vice President Pence has pushed back saying that there -- established by saying--

(CROSSTALK)

PSAKI: No, no, but I -- I have been a part of carefully writing many statements. That was a carefully written statement where he said they didn't have a private meeting, also that he didn't have a discussion, but he didn't say he didn't know, and he certainly didn't say he wasn't told.

SANTORUM: I -- look, and as I've said many times, I think there were multiple reasons why the President didn't want to release the aid. Was one of them kicking Joe Biden in the teeth? Probably.

But there's nothing illicit about -- about the fact that all of these other things, which are legitimate reasons to hold back aid--

CUOMO: But you only need--

SANTORUM: --were also contemporaneous.

CUOMO: But if you rob a bank because you're hungry, because your mother needs something, and because you want to smash a window, and take jewelry, that's the one that sends you to jail, Rick.

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: I disagree. I -- I don't think what the President did was illegal. I mean I've said that from the very beginning. I think it was inappropriate.

CUOMO: Well Jeffrey Toobin just said he thinks it could be a bribe.

SANTORUM: But I don't think--

CUOMO: But hold on.

SANTORUM: --it's illegal.

CUOMO: Let me bring Michael in here because we saw a lot today or heard a lot today on what the President said his main statement was on this. He even wrote notes about it that I want you to see. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, here's my answer. "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." Then he says this is the final word from the President of the United States. "I want nothing."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, his best defense in there is that he is so unfamiliar with the situation that he can't even spell the Ukrainian President's name. He wasn't even close. But--

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN HOST, "SMERCONISH": If I'm--

CUOMO: --if that's what he says his position is, how do you take it?

SMERCONISH: If I'm committing an act of murder, and shouting, "No homicide," at the same time, I'm not exonerated. Jeffrey's right insofar as all the boxes were checked today for the elements of what Democrats are trying to establish.

Rick is correct in making a political argument that at the end of the day, the House, there's no reason why they will not continue with impeachment, and nothing that occurred today will cause 20 Senators, who are Republican to vote for conviction.

(CROSSTALK) PSAKI: I think that's totally fair. And actually, for Democrats watching today, there were people that I think Democrats were hopeful would be a little more effective, and a little more sympathetic to this.

CUOMO: Zero movement. You will get zero votes for articles of impeachment.

PSAKI: Well--

CUOMO: Do you continue forward?

PSAKI: I think they do because Democrats aren't doing this for political purposes. They're doing this because they don't think a precedent should be set that a President of the United States can bribe another country for a -- dirt on a political opponent.

CUOMO: Rick, do me a favor.

SANTORUM: Well the--

CUOMO: Pick your teeth up, and then answer the question.

SANTORUM: --the -- the -- the reality is the Democrats have been pushing for impeachment from the very beginning. They've been trying to find a reason.

They went through -- they went through Russia. They went through collusion. They went through obstruction. They went -- look, they went through the 25th Amendment. I mean they're trying to do anything to get rid of this guy.

That's what makes this such a hard reach for them. If this was a de novo type of a -- of -- they're -- they're proceeding along, working nicely with the President, they come--

CUOMO: So, if this was the first abusive thing he did--

SANTORUM: This is the first abuse of--

CUOMO: --instead of the 11th--

SANTORUM: Well no, but--

CUOMO: --they'd be better off?

SANTORUM: --but again, the "Abusive things" he did--

CUOMO: Listen, there's more--

SANTORUM: --he was found not to be abusive.

CUOMO: --to discuss in the context of what we heard, and what it means. And look, may not be comfortable for all of you. But the idea of where this goes from now, even though you checked the most boxes of wrongdoing today, than you have to date, is a real question.

So, please, everybody stick around. You guys have no choice, you do, but please do.

The President has a different take on Sondland's testimony. It's all over for him, he says, he was cleared today. We'll test that, 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: All right, everything you need to know happens in the commercial break. I figured out the best way to kind of make this crisis moment make sense. Jen Psaki, Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, and Jeffrey Toobin, are helping me do just that.

All right, let's review. Put up the notes that the President had on him today about how he wanted to explain what he always wanted in this, and what he told Sondland, in this September 9th phone call. Remember that.

Put the notes back up there. I can't read him like that. Put him where I can read him, the other picture.

He said, "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky," whose name is spelled nothing like that, "to do the right thing. This is the final word from the President of the United States," all right?

That's what he says he said. When did he say he said it? September 9th, to Gordon Sondland.

Put up this timeline we put together.

All right, remember, August 28th, the Politico report comes out about the aid, and that's what they want to use as the springboard of Ukraine now being worried about the aid, although when you listen to different testimony, they knew about it before then. But fine. There's a date.

Early September, so right after that, they're supposed to have the interview, where Zelensky is going to talk to Fareed Zakaria about announcing this. Never happens!

September 9th, what happened September 9th? One thing not on this timeline.

At about 4 o'clock in the morning, Congress sends out the presser that they are announcing an investigation into the President's actions in Ukraine, 4 o'clock in the morning.

Go back to the timeline -- I mean, a little bit.

[21:15:00]

Anyway, like about 5 o'clock in the morning, Sondland says, Trump told him no quid pro quo, 4 o'clock in the morning, 5:19 in the morning. Also on September 9th is when they have this phone call where the President gave this very blanket statement, all right?

Now, September 9th is after the Politico, after Congress says they're going to investigate, after the whistleblower has come out, after the White House knows about the whistleblower, that's when he gives Sondland that message.

So, that is now -- now, Rick, that is all fact--

SANTORUM: That's true. That's fact. Let me throw--

CUOMO: --OK?

PSAKI: I can't wait to hear what you would say.

SANTORUM: --let me -- let me throw an additional fact. Ron Johnson called President Trump right after the -- the Politico story came out in August, and asked him, "Hey, is there some," read it, "Is there something going on here?"

And according to Ron Johnson, riddled with expletives, "Hell no!" And -- and he said, he was vehement, he was immediate in his response. This is all he said, "No, there's no -- there's, you know"--

CUOMO: Right.

SANTORUM: --"there's no exchange. And I -- I -- I care about -- the Ukrainians are corrupt."

CUOMO: Right.

SANTORUM: "And NATO is not doing their part." That's what he said in August. So, yes, I agree with your timeline. And it is suspicious that it was an hour after that. But he also said that two weeks earlier with Ron Johnson.

CUOMO: But for this to be true, let me bounce to Smerconish, if this is true, then Gordon Sondland, God help him, he's got delusional schizophrenia, because he's been running around for weeks, and longer, telling people, the President is directing him to do these things, Rudy's directing him to do these things.

SANTORUM: Rudy's directing him to do these things.

CUOMO: Nobody's saying anything. Bolton -- Bolton is so--

SANTORUM: He didn't say -- he didn't say the President directed him.

CUOMO: Well he said he talked to the President plenty. He's in -- on a restaurant, phone with Kiev--

SANTORUM: The President never -- the President never--

CUOMO: --in Kiev with the guy yelling at him. And he's saying, "How's it going with the investigation?"

SANTORUM: The President never -- never -- never established--

CUOMO: What did they think they were talking about? Some of his other corruption interests?

SANTORUM: Come on, you have to admit that--

PSAKI: He's saying it's being directed by the President.

CUOMO: Look, you can give him the benefit of the doubt.

SANTORUM: He's--

CUOMO: You can't give him the benefit of any -- every doubt.

So, what was Sondland doing if he was acting against this express order all this time?

SMERCONISH: Can I say that last night when we sat here together, I told you that what Adam Schiff lacks thus far is a timeline? He needs the timeline that you just--

CUOMO: What do you think, I don't listen?

SMERCONISH: Because -- well I -- I think that it's -- it's being presented in too confusing of a fashion. And the way--

CUOMO: Right. That's pretty straight.

SMERCONISH: --the way that you just raveled it off is very straightforward. I think I can do even better, which is to say that we know that aid and access were being withheld at a time when demands were being made for an investigation.

Are they not related? Is the -- is the whole defense one of coincidence? Because that doesn't pass the smell test.

SANTORUM: But remember, what Ambassador Volker said, which is they were asking for investigations, and Volker was supportive of asking for those investigations, because they were of Burisma, and what Burisma's action were, in trying to influence American policy, which is a legitimate thing for the Ukrainian government--

SMERCONISH: It would be an easier sell if the President hadn't so often said "No quid pro quo, no quid pro quo." Instead he should have said, "Yes, we were holding these up because I was so worried about corruption in Ukraine."

SANTORUM: Again--

PSAKI: I also think when -- when we're talking about Burisma, it strains all credibility that Ambassador Volker and anyone did not know that that meant an investigation into Biden, which they say--

SANTORUM: So, now you're calling Volker a liar?

PSAKI: Well I -- I think he was being dis -- misleading about this particular case.

CUOMO: Well the -- the -- the President knew Burisma meant Biden.

PSAKI: Yes.

CUOMO: Because when he spoke in this -- this telephone call that you guys think exonerates him, he said Biden. He didn't say Burisma.

SANTORUM: No. I -- I agree. Look, I -- as I said before, what I think the President said on that phone call was damaging to him. It was inappropriate for him to say.

It would have been fine if he said Burisma. And I think what -- what you hear from the foreign policy experts, during the time, is they thought it was Burisma, not the Bidens.

CUOMO: What's his best defense?

TOOBIN: The President's best defense?

CUOMO: Yes.

TOOBIN: Is that -- well I -- since I don't think he has a very good one, it's a -- it's a hard question. I think the best defense is this is within the power of the Presidency is that "I have -- I have mixed motives."

I think Rick -- Rick makes the -- the point that -- that "Look, you know, I -- I was concerned about corruption. I was concerned about burden-sharing. I was concerned about Biden. I'm allowed to do this as President. You know, you can't impeach me for it."

Now, the problem with that defense is that he's -- doesn't acknowledge the facts that are clear on the ground, which was he was withholding the -- he was withholding the aid, and withholding the meeting, because at least in part that he wanted dirt on Biden, and that's an abuse of power, and that's what Congress has to take action about.

CUOMO: Well the part that we can't explain is how Sondland got it so wrong. This idea that he's looking through some paint of glass.

SANTORUM: Well he's changed his testimony three times so.

CUOMO: To protect the President.

SANTORUM: Well no, I don't think the last one was to protect--

CUOMO: That first time was to protect the President.

SANTORUM: But the last one certainly wasn't to protect the President.

CUOMO: "There was no quid pro quo. Oh, I forgot. I'm the one who offered it up." Come on!

SANTORUM: Well--

SMERCONISH: I thought it was interesting today. He -- he had a morning that was very advantageous for those who want the President to be impeached.

SANTORUM: Yes.

SMERCONISH: And I think that they were flummoxed. I think Nunes really didn't know how to handle him. Castor, the attorney for the Republicans, didn't know how to respond. It was only in the afternoon--

SANTORUM: Turner.

SMERCONISH: --when Jordan and Turner--

TOOBIN: Yes.

[21:20:00]

SMERCONISH: --and Stefanik seemed to get their sea legs. And, by the way, notice that the President didn't tweet during the morning. I don't think anybody on that side of the ledger really knew how to handle this guy.

PSAKI: Yes. I mean I think his opening statement had so many pieces that Democrats dove into for understandable reasons because they were huge.

I mean, they're -- connected the President directly. They expanded the scope of the inner circle, who knew about this. But then, as it sort of continued, he did -- he did a solid, I would say--

SMERCONISH: Right.

PSAKI: --to President Trump and the Republicans because he didn't connect directly the President to the military assistance quid pro quo. He -- he allowed them to make it about the meeting, which is problematic, but doesn't sound as bad.

CUOMO: It would be nice for us to have somebody say why the aid was withheld. Why was it withheld?

SANTORUM: I -- well you've heard -- again, I think the President and -- and Republicans have said, there were legitimate reasons consistent with what the President has felt throughout his entire Presidency, to withhold that aid. CUOMO: He gives -- he gives aid to Russia to fight fire fires. He's got no problems with corruption with them?

PSAKI: And he doesn't--

SANTORUM: Again--

PSAKI: --he doesn't bring up corruption in a single call.

SANTORUM: But he does -- that's not true.

TOOBIN: Yes.

PSAKI: He doesn't want to do the investigation.

SANTORUM: He does bring up.

PSAKI: He just wants it to be announced.

SANTORUM: He does bring up corruption.

TOOBIN: And his budget that he's and--

SANTORUM: He bring up -- bring up corruption in the original meeting in May.

TOOBIN: The budget he submitted to Congress cuts anti-corruption money considerably. He doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine. All he cares about--

SANTORUM: He--

TOOBIN: --is getting dirt on Biden. Come on, Rick.

SANTORUM: He doesn't--

TOOBIN: You know that's true.

SANTORUM: --he doesn't want to give money to a corrupt government. That is repeated multiple--

CUOMO: Unless it's Russia.

SANTORUM: --multiple times.

PSAKI: Or Turkey.

SANTORUM: Look, what--

PSAKI: Or Saudi Arabia.

SMERCONISH: But why -- but why is--

SANTORUM: Ukraine is the -- Ukraine is the third most corrupt government in--

SMERCONISH: --it a favor?

CUOMO: All right.

SANTORUM: --in the world.

SMERCONISH: But why is it a favor? It's only a favor in that July 25 phone call if the President himself stands to benefit, right, if he's making that assertion for the benefit of the Ukrainian people then it's not a personal favor that he's seeking. How can you explain the use of that one word?

SANTORUM: Again, he asked for a favor with respect to the 20 -- 2016 election.

SMERCONISH: Why is it a favor?

SANTORUM: Well because it's investigate--

CUOMO: No, Biden. He said Biden.

SANTORUM: No. He said Biden, after there was an interlude between him and Zelensky.

CUOMO: No, no interlude. It was one phone call.

SANTORUM: Yes, there was.

CUOMO: Listen, you guys want to depend on the call. You got to keep the call.

SANTORUM: Just read the transcript.

CUOMO: I have so many times that it haunts me.

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: So have I.

CUOMO: It haunts me.

SANTORUM: I know everybody stopped--

CUOMO: Nobody wants this to end more than the people who've been covering it.

SANTORUM: Trump -- Trump--

CUOMO: I got to leave it here.

SANTORUM: --Zelensky, then Biden came up.

CUOMO: OK.

SANTORUM: Just telling.

CUOMO: In the same conversation. SANTORUM: In the same conversation, agreed.

CUOMO: All right, so if I ask you for two different things in the same conversation, are they different conversations?

SANTORUM: Well one is a favor.

PSAKI: And for a favor.

SANTORUM: And one came as a result of what Zelensky had said.

CUOMO: OK. Rick Santorum, thank you very much.

SANTORUM: It's the way I read it.

CUOMO: Jen Psaki, Jeffrey Toobin, Michael Smerconish, it's good to have you all. This will be continued. But we got to figure out what the consequence is going to be.

And by that, I mean, Congress, not polls, not people, not the smartest people here sitting next to me, Congress. What are they going to do now that there are cracks in the wall? Will it last?

A loyalist Congressman is here, next. What's his case?

[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: Ambassador Sondland said there was in fact a quid pro quo, but in a more intelligible way. He said there was always a plan to swap investigations for access to the President, and maybe aid. He said everybody knew it, all the big shots, even the President.

So, let's dig deeper into what this testimony means to a Republican Congressman, Randy Weber, from Texas.

Good to see you in person.

REP. RANDY WEBER (R-TX): Thank you, Chris. Nice to be here.

CUOMO: Thank you, as always, for being on the show.

WEBER: Yes. You bet. CUOMO: One thing that worked against Sondland today, done well I think, by Congresswoman Stefanik, and Jim Jordan, which was, "You know, you don't have the greatest recollections of some of this stuff. You kind of half-remember certain things."

WEBER: And he admitted that.

CUOMO: Yes. And he said, "Well I don't have access to my documents." And that's Part A. Part B is they didn't say, "What? You know, so who told you this? And -- and -- and when did they tell you this?"

And he's like, "Well, you know, it was Mulvaney or it was this one. I think Pompeo knew." "Well you're sure he knew?" "Well I'm not sure." "Well, why not?" That was Part B.

My question is this. Why doesn't he have access to his documents from the State Department? He said none of it was classified. Why aren't the big shots in here to clarify this once and for all, so we can move on?

WEBER: Look, Chris, I'm going to back up a little bit. I've read through this. Of course, I'm not on that Committee. I had my own Committee hearing today that I had to be, and I was in there for as much of the testimony, as I could, this morning.

I read his opening statement. I heard his opening statement. I was struck by a number of things.

It became clear to me for -- a lot of it's opinion, a lot of it's hearsay. You said, "When did he hear so and so, such and such, from so and so?" Lot of it's hearsay. It became clear to me, if you read through this, President Trump has been skeptical of Ukraine for a long time. This is not anything new.

CUOMO: OK.

WEBER: He didn't trust Zelensky. He didn't trust that they would do what they said they would do.

CUOMO: I don't question that.

WEBER: Absolutely! And so, he wanted them to get their act together.

CUOMO: OK.

WEBER: Now, the real question here is was this some kind of exchange for Biden.

If you go back to January of 20 -- of this year -- believe it was this year, Giuliani met with the former prosecutor. I think it's Lutsenko -- Lutsenko -- Lutsenko. And so, they've been looking at this corruption for a long time, long before Joe Biden announced he was in the Presidential race.

CUOMO: There's no question Rudy was looking for corruption.

WEBER: Absolute -- absolutely.

CUOMO: There's no question Rudy wanted the Bidens. He told me that on this show. He met with Mr. Lutsenko. He got Lutsenko to reopen the investigation. They subsequently closed it because they didn't find anything.

My question to you is this. If you want the truth, and you don't want hearsay, or just opinion of seconds, why not argue to have the Number Ones come in, and give the documents to the people, so that we can get the truth? Why hide?

WEBER: Well, look, the President has not had been given due process. He's been presumed guilty before innocent this whole time. They've had impeachment proceedings waiting for him the whole time.

[21:30:00]

You know this. Al Green filed resolution before the Mueller report was out. They're not giving him any say. They're not giving his lawyers access.

And so, if you're under that kind of a, I will call it, a witch-hunt, would you want to release any more documents to those people to use in their witch-hunt?

CUOMO: They're your own people.

WEBER: Well--

CUOMO: Sondland's your guy.

WEBER: Sondland--

CUOMO: He donated a million dollars to your Inauguration. You gifted him with an Ambassadorship. He's coming in to say "Everything's OK" you think. You won't even give him his documents.

WEBER: Sondland has -- is giving his opinion. If you look, he -- he actually says in the transcript "With absence of any more evidence, I came to the conclusion," he tells you in his own transcript, these are his opinions.

CUOMO: Do you remember who he says said to him on all the occasions that he was on calls with other people that "Hey, if you want this aid, if you want this meeting, we need to get the investigations."

WEBER: Well--

CUOMO: Do you remember the person who told him, "Hey, don't say that. It's wrong."

WEBER: Well there was -- there--

CUOMO: No one.

WEBER: Well there was a text that-- CUOMO: No one.

WEBER: Well there was a text stream there. But look, the President was skeptical of Ukraine and President Zelensky for a long time.

CUOMO: Nobody told Sondland, "Don't say this quid pro quo thing because it's wrong."

WEBER: He had--

CUOMO: No one.

WEBER: He had an opinion.

CUOMO: No, no, no.

WEBER: Do you--

CUOMO: I'm saying none of the people around him, not his boss, Secretary of State, Pompeo.

WEBER: I'm -- no I'm--

CUOMO: Not Mulvaney, not the President.

WEBER: I get that. I get that.

CUOMO: Nobody told him, "Gordon, you're wrong."

WEBER: So, I--

CUOMO: "Stop asking for this."

WEBER: Actually didn't Senator Johnson write that in his letter, Ron Johnson?

CUOMO: Senator Johnson wrote in a letter that he had a lot of concerns about corruption that he believed the President did too, and that the President said to him, "I don't want any quid pro quo."

WEBER: So, Gordon could have had his opinion about all he wants. You don't try to go around fixing anybody else's opinion. Do you?

CUOMO: But Pompeo is your boss. He never tells you to stop. The President never tells you to stop.

WEBER: Well how do you know he--

CUOMO: Mulvaney never told to stop.

WEBER: --how do you know he vocalized that to Pompeo?

CUOMO: Because he was in the loop with his guys working for him.

WEBER: He -- well they don't remember that the same, you know. He said that we-- CUOMO: How do we know what Pompeo recognized -- remembers? He won't testify.

WEBER: Well he said that they brought everybody in the loop. Everybody knew what was going on. And Johnson, he -- he didn't agree with that.

CUOMO: But Johnson's meaningless. Of all the people who were in this process, no one ever--

WEBER: Well he's -- he's prosecuting--

CUOMO: They said we don't like this.

WEBER: He's prosecuting counsel. He went over and spoke to the President Zelensky. He had--

CUOMO: I know. And so did Chris Murphy.

WEBER: He had the ear of the President.

CUOMO: I know. But--

WEBER: And the President had his ear.

CUOMO: --but the President was shouting off the ear of Mr. Sondland in a restaurant in Ukraine, saying, "I want the investigations. Nothing without the investigations!" He ends the phone call, says to two of the staffers there, "The President doesn't care about Ukraine. He just wants to get the Bidens."

Why would his friend say that?

WEBER: Well that's his recollection. But look, if you read--

CUOMO: Recollection? It's a phone call.

WEBER: --if you read through this--

CUOMO: Right.

WEBER: --if you follow this from its entirety, in its entirety, President Trump was skeptical of the Ukrainians from the very get-go, before Zelensky got--

CUOMO: I do not question that.

WEBER: All right, so look, here's what he -- in my opinion, he's in charge. He's in charge of--

CUOMO: A 100 percent.

WEBER: --foreign affairs. He makes the decision, right, foreign aid?

CUOMO: Don't give him the aid. Don't give him the money.

WEBER: He makes that decision. CUOMO: Don't give him the money.

WEBER: He was so skeptical long before Biden came along.

CUOMO: Absolutely.

WEBER: You know that President Obama didn't give them any aid--

CUOMO: That's right. Well they gave him aid. But he didn't give them the military aid that--

WEBER: He -- he did not.

CUOMO: --that this President did.

WEBER: He did not.

CUOMO: Right.

WEBER: Why? Because of the corruption? We don't--

CUOMO: But --

WEBER: --we don't know that.

CUOMO: But it all -- but it -- but--

WEBER: But we know there's a history there.

CUOMO: But it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is this.

WEBER: Well--

CUOMO: Well no here's why. You can criticize the Obama Administration. You can say the Trump Administration is better to Ukraine. I have no problem with any of that.

What I'm saying is this. If you don't want to give him money, don't. Congress approved the money. Have the fight with them. Go back to you guys, and say, "Use it for something else. These guys are dirty. Here's why I think they're dirty."

It's not what he did. The money was delayed. Access to a meeting was delayed. And Rudy and all these other people were working in concert to get the Ukrainians to say they would investigate Biden.

WEBER: Chris, Chris--

CUOMO: That's where it gets wrong.

WEBER: --before I read the transcripts, I was talking to my -- my Comms Director today, and I said, "You know what? President Trump had no faith that Zelensky would ask" -- he's -- he said, "Look, until they do something publicly, he doesn't have any faith." He's skeptical of that new President.

CUOMO: But why ask him to investigate Biden--

WEBER: But--

CUOMO: --who's a U.S. citizen, instead of just going to the Department of Justice the way you're supposed to?

WEBER: There -- there was already two investigations, you know this, with CrowdStrike, and also with going back to Burisma. They were already underway before--

CUOMO: Where?

WEBER: People were already talking -- you think this just happened July 25th?

CUOMO: No. But I'm saying, why would you ask Ukraine to investigate an American citizen? Go do it yourself with DOJ.

WEBER: President -- President Zelensky asked for Trump's help in the telephone transcript. I heard you on your last segment.

CUOMO: Yes.

WEBER: You've read the transcript.

CUOMO: Many, many times.

WEBER: You -- you've read it too much, you said.

CUOMO: Too much.

WEBER: That's right.

CUOMO: Haunts me.

WEBER: And so, President Zelensky asked him for help in cleaning up the corruption. President Trump gives him a couple of examples.

CUOMO: The Bidens is a problem of Ukraine corruption?

WEBER: I've said -- I said this to you on the phone from Houston. It's not the President's fault that the Bidens were caught up in--

(CROSSTALK)

[21:35:00]

CUOMO: But it is the President's fault that the only thing he asked for was help with something that benefited him politically. And he never mentioned the Bidens before Biden announced for Office.

WEBER: Look, if Burisma was already being investigated, and you already said they were, and you're -- you know for a fact--

CUOMO: Yes, and they closed it.

WEBER: Well -- hell at Biden's behest.

CUOMO: No, no, no, not true.

WEBER: No?

CUOMO: Not true, because when Rudy went and met with Mr. Lutsenko, they opened it up, and Ukraine closed it.

WEBER: Yes.

CUOMO: Biden was out of Office.

WEBER: Well that's because of the corruption there in my opinion.

CUOMO: Now--

WEBER: And that's the President's opinion, and my opinion, Chris. He didn't trust them.

CUOMO: I'm not--

WEBER: He was skeptical.

CUOMO: Ukraine can be corrupt, and the President could have had corrupt intent, and why he withheld the aid in a meeting until he got what he wanted on political dirt.

WEBER: You just hit the nail on the head. The President could have had corrupt intent. Every--

CUOMO: That's right.

WEBER: The other side is wanting to judge his intent there. And I'm telling you, he was skeptical of Ukraine.

CUOMO: Right.

WEBER: He was skeptical of their corruption. He was skeptical of this new President. He said "You take care of a couple things. You show concrete evidence you're going to clean up your country. And then -- and then, we'll meet."

CUOMO: Congressman, I appreciate you making the case.

WEBER: You bet, Chris, thank you.

CUOMO: Always good to have you.

WEBER: My pleasure. Nice to be here.

CUOMO: All right, I'm going to bring in an investigator to take a look at these arguments, but a lot of these are political. What do we see in the testimony from Sondland today? Is it enough to make a case? What are the weaknesses? What are the strengths?

Andrew McCabe, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:40:00]

CUOMO: All right, House Republicans are coming at one of their own, Ambassador Gordon Sondland. They're saying, "He's not credible." Is pointing to all the times he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SONDLAND: I can't find the records.

If I don't have records, schedules.

There are a lots of notes, records, readouts of calls, can't get to them.

I don't recall, again, without all these records.

Again, based on my lack of -- of records--

I just don't have all the records. I wish I could get them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, let's bring in FBI former Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.

Good to see you. Thank you.

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Good to see you, Chris.

CUOMO: Two things. One, he changed his testimony, all right?

MCCABE: Again.

CUOMO: That's his problem. The first time he did it, it was a real material change.

MCCABE: Sure.

CUOMO: There was no quid pro quo on the guy who asked for a quid pro quo. Now, there was always a quid pro quo, and everybody knew about it. This testimony today's does not go with the first. He's got a credibility problem.

MCCABE: He does.

CUOMO: They don't pick on that credibility problem as much as they go after "I don't seem to know what you're talking about, and you don't seem to be really sure about who told you what."

That's because they won't let him have the documents, and they won't have the big shots come in and testify. How can they complain about what they're complicit in?

MCCABE: Yes, well they can't. You know, we've been a bit spoiled with the witnesses to date, right?

We've had a parade of witnesses who come to the table with incredible memory because they are note-takers. They are people who write things down. They write down who's in the room, what time the meeting took place, where it happened, what they talked about.

Sondland, and by his own admission, is not a person like that. So, he doesn't take a lot of notes or write memos. But what he does have is the same sort of records we all have, calendar entries, readouts from meetings, notes from--

CUOMO: And complete confidence that he's saying nothing controversial.

MCCABE: That's -- that's right.

CUOMO: That it was always this.

MCCABE: That's right.

CUOMO: Everybody knew it was this. The President knew it was this.

MCCABE: That's right.

CUOMO: We were always trying to get this done.

MCCABE: And--

CUOMO: Trying to get these investigations.

MCCABE: And actually, if you look at the record, the chronology of his contacts, he tells that to Senator Johnson. He tells that to Andriy Yermak. He tells that to Morrison.

He -- so, in that period of the beginning of September, that's exactly what he's telling almost everybody he's working with. So, it's -- there's no question about--

CUOMO: And nobody ever tells him don't do it. Now, Ron Johnson says he didn't like it.

MCCABE: Sure.

CUOMO: But he wasn't really in the mix. He said, "Oh, I had the ear of the President." The President wanted this. Here's what I don't get. Usually I ask you to make the case. Tonight, I ask you to judge one.

MCCABE: You got it.

CUOMO: You heard me with Randy Weber, all right?

MCCABE: Yes.

CUOMO: He comes in good faith. We disagree but with decency.

MCCABE: Sure, sure.

CUOMO: What am I missing? He makes the case the President didn't like Ukraine, was worried about giving the money. I say I stipulate. I -- I -- I agree with you.

MCCABE: Sure.

CUOMO: He didn't like Ukraine. He didn't trust Ukraine. Then don't give them the money.

Here -- the part that we don't agree on is but the reason he didn't give them the money isn't just what you're saying.

It's because he wanted these other things, and we know that, because I could show you a graphic right now with all these checks marks through three-quarters of the witnesses we have, saying that that's what it was.

MCCABE: That's right.

CUOMO: They don't accept that.

Look at all the checkmarks. Look at all the checkmarks from all these different people who say "They were concerned about Rudy. They raised red flags about this that this is what the President wanted. They couldn't get away from it."

What am I missing?

MCCABE: Well you're not. I mean look, you've got people who not -- not just are saying after the fact that they were concerned about the call. During -- at that time, they actually took action.

They went and sought out John -- John Eisenberg and reported their concerns. They went to their bosses, whether that's Bolton, or whoever, and told them, "You know, go back, tell us -- Fiona Hill. Go back and talk to Bolton. Report it to the lawyers." Morrison has told that on several occasions.

So, we have a -- we have a clear and well-substantiated record of many different people, some at the White House, some from the State Department, some from wherever, who heard the same phone call, and it -- and it troubled them greatly.

CUOMO: But what are we missing that you would not be able to ignore or deny that shows that the President with corrupt intent was basically bribing Ukraine that you're not going to get what you want until I get what I need.

MCCABE: I'm not sure that witness exists. I mean -- and -- and that is not -- that's not a strange thing. Look, every criminal case doesn't include a videotape of the -- of the accused person committing a crime.

CUOMO: You need it with this group. These Republicans are odd -- them saying he's not represented is laughable. I've never seen someone so well-represented.

MCCABE: Yes.

CUOMO: He -- he's got 15 people in there who were just arguing his case.

MCCABE: He does. He does. And look, if you had access to a few additional witnesses, you might get closer to that point of a 100 percent clarity. The White House isn't giving us access to those people.

John Bolton so far is not testifying. We'll never see Mike Pompeo. We won't see Rudy Giuliani. If we did see him, I'm not sure he'd answer the questions directly to begin with.

So, you -- I don't think we're ever going to get that witness that gives us a 100 percent clarity.

But you know what? We don't need that. We're probably at 90 percent with the witnesses we've had so far. We've got two additional ones tomorrow, who I think will shed additional light on this. I do not expect the story to change at all.

CUOMO: The biggest problem with their defense right now -- feel free to differ, as always.

MCCABE: OK.

[21:45:00]

CUOMO: Is if you really didn't trust Ukraine, and you really wanted them to demonstrate good faith, you wouldn't want just an announcement of an investigation, because they could just lie, get the aid, and then not do it. You would want real results, and he didn't ask for that.

Andrew McCabe, always a pleasure, always a plus.

MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, earlier, I showed you the President's notes that he made to counter the Sondland testimony because I think the picture tells us the story. And I think it fits in to a reality that we must all recognize, even if we don't like it.

The argument, ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: "A picture tells the story." You know that expression. Here's the picture.

"I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky," or whatever the heck that word was supposed to spell -- "to do the right thing. This is the final word from the President of the United States."

Those were the President's notes. Now, I argue that that note tells you everything you need to know with one tweak, and I'll get to that in a second.

[21:50:00]

The note was from what the President prepped to deal with Ambassador Sondland's call from the testimony that took a 180. Remember, Sondland was a source of comfort for the President when he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: But this is the man who said there was no quid pro quo, and he still says that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Not no mo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SONDLAND: Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call, and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, forget the Latin, OK? This is about what was wanted, and why, and what POTUS and pals did to get it from Ukraine. Those are the questions that clearly suggest issues worthy of this inquiry, according to the Constitution, and the Founders.

The President though wants you to see it differently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I just noticed one thing, and I would say that means it's all over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, if the President means that the lame excuses that nothing wrong ever happened are over, OK, or that denying that what he was trying to get done here was so alarming, playing with aid, and access, in order to get Ukraine to spread some stink, by announcing they were looking at the Bidens, then OK, but no.

This picture is the broad set of strokes, literally, in the desperate hand of a man who's spelling about as well as he's telling the truth. What he says he said when he spoke to Ambassador Sondland on September 9th, that's what those notes are about. That's when the Ambassador called for direction. And this is what he says he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, here's my answer. "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." Then he says this is the final word from the President of the United States. "I want nothing."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: When? When was the call? That's the problem, as big and as obvious, as the President's notes.

September 9th. So, what? What does that date mean?

That is after he asked Ukraine to do him a favor on that call. It is after he brought up investigating the Bidens on that call. It is after the whistleblower complained. It is after the White House was made aware that that complaint was out there.

It was after all the other diplomats brought it up to the NSC lawyer as being wrong. It is after reporters started asking questions about what was going on in Ukraine. And it was two days before the aid was all of a sudden released, which no one can explain.

The note is a metaphor for how this President works, raw, basic, repetitive. "I want nothing. I want nothing." Why would you say it twice? Repetition, he believes, increases credibility. Does the opposite here.

There is no one who says the President wanted nothing, including the President. There is no one who says "The President never wanted us to do anything like this, never wanted anything kind of done to exchange to get this guy," no one. And there is a mountain of evidence that says differently.

I have been arguing this for weeks. What happened and why is it not in reasonable question. The question is what's the consequence?

Now, if the President can be shown by the Democrats to have had obvious corrupt intent, that here's the proof that he really wanted this just because he was going to get the Bidens, then they've got a better case for consequence than they do right now.

They have a potential case for bribery. There was a solicitation here of something of value in exchange for something else. It's bribery.

Extortion, I don't know. Extortion is one-sided. "If you don't do it, I'm going to hurt you," I don't see that here.

But the idea that he abused his power, the idea that he did something wrong is as clear, as Chairman Schiff made it sound today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: I want you to do a favor, a -- a favor. Investigate this crazy 2016 server conspiracy that the server's somewhere in Ukraine. And more ominously, investigate the Bidens. That's not anti-corruption. That is corruption.

It's called hypocrisy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:55:00]

CUOMO: Fine! What's the consequence? It's a legitimate form of debate. What is not is whether or not this is fair.

We've never seen a President better-represented than this President is in that room. There's not a single Republican lawmaker looking at all for any facts that don't help the President.

Look, they can deny the charges. Their problem is they cannot disprove them. Let's see what happens next. That's the argument.

Now, when we come back, I have a BOLO that relates to Mr. Sondland. Where's he going to be tomorrow?

(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 for Ambassador Gordon Sondland's future. He looked happy enough catching a flight to Brussels. Question is, was it a one-way ticket? He made the obvious seem obvious today. Everyone knew this was about getting the Bidens or giving Ukraine nothing.

Tonight, our Jim Acosta asked Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway about Sondland's job security.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Ambassador Sondland, he's -- he's still on the job. And I have no indication that he -- he won't be. Maybe he'll choose not to be. Maybe he -- he won't have that post. Who knows?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: I think she said at the end there, "Maybe he won't have that post anymore. Who knows?"

Well, you know who knows? The President. Remember, this President values fealty, not loyalty. The difference? He doesn't take care of you. He just expects you to take care of him. And if you don't, Be On the Look-Out.

Thanks for watching.