Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Witnesses Tie Trump's Personal Agenda To Shadow Ukraine Shakedown; Fiona Hill: Bolton Warned That Rudy Giuliani Was A Hand Grenade; Schiff: Trump's Actions "Beyond Anything Nixon Did". Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired November 21, 2019 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: That's all from us. We'll be back at 11 O'clock Eastern for another edition of 360. The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: It maybe all, but it's also everything we're about, Anderson.
That poem was put at the base of the Statue of Liberty to capture what this country was, is, and must always be about. Great reference for you to make on this night, especially. Thanks, Anderson.
I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME, live from Washington D.C.
The facts have been drawn out. Tonight, we will be able to put together the evidence, and test the case for impeachment.
We have the best investigators to weigh the pluses and minuses. And we'll see whether there's any chance of buy-in from anyone in Trump's Party. We now know where this is all headed and why.
So what do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Two weeks, hearings, dozens of hours of testimony, names and titles. And for all the confusion of who was where, and did, and heard, and saw what, one thing is now clear to anyone who is looking clear-eyed at the facts.
The President wanted Ukraine to look into issues of political interest to him, namely a conspiracy theory about Russia not being who interfered in our 2016 election, and an announcement that Ukraine was looking into Biden for corruption. In exchange, there was aid and there was access. And that was the deal. Today's final witnesses, former top Russia Adviser, Fiona Hill and David Holmes, a State Department official at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, they came ready. Hill, especially, came ready to confront the smears, to confront the conspiracies being floated by many of the Republicans in the room.
Today was a very big day, again, especially for Dr. Hill. She was certainly without equal when it came to confidence, clarity, and complete inability to take any crap.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FIONA HILL, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER TOP RUSSIA ADVISER: And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, "Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up." And here we are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: She outlined the problems that Giuliani and others created, the disturbance that it caused with Ukrainian officials, and laid the foundation for what may result in the impeachment of President Trump.
Now, while Hill was probably the star witness, if you need a phrase like that, many combined to answer many questions. The case against the President is about more than a single call. Know that.
But this inquiry was prompted by that July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukraine's President, Zelensky. As it has been referred to by Mr. John Dean, unlike Nixon, we start here with the smoking gun.
We now know for sure, that call was not perfect, as the President claims. How do we know?
People who were listening to it in real time were real alarmed, including two current White House officials, who just testified about it, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and Jennifer Williams.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, U.S. ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL, TOP NSC UKRAINE EXPERT, DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS FOR THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I listened to - on the - in on the call in the Situation Room with White House colleagues. I was concerned by the call. What I heard was inappropriate. And I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, AIDE TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I found the July 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other Presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: They didn't think it was a perfect call. And we now know another imperfect call came the very next day. David Holmes told us just today about it. He overheard the President's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, talking to the President of the United States, from a restaurant in Kiev. The President followed up with him after his own call with Zelensky.
Here's what Mr. Holmes says he heard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID HOLMES, AIDE TO TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE BILL TAYLOR: I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece of the phone.
Ambassador Sondland replied, "Yes," he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelensky, quote, "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So he's going to do the investigation?" Ambassador Sondland replied that, "He's going to do it," adding that President Zelensky will "Do anything you ask him to do."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: This was not U.S. diplomacy on the regular or on the up and up. It was a shadow operation. The difference was spelled out succinctly by the current top diplomat in Ukraine, Mr. Bill Taylor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL TAYLOR, TOP U.S. DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE: There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
CUOMO: One of the main players to help carry it out came clean to Congress yesterday, and not only pointed fingers at those high up in the White House, for their involvement in the scheme, remember, he said "Everybody knew about it," but Trump donor and Ambassador Gordon Sondland directly implicates the President in the scheme.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: So, we followed the President's orders.
Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.
Everyone was in the loop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: At the center of this plot, along with the President, according to Mr. Sondland, and almost everyone else, who's testified, of course, it's the President's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Sondland says, he and the other two, "Three amigos" as they call themselves, were forced to work with Rudy on Ukraine policy, despite their concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SONDLAND: We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani.
I followed the directions of the President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: What was the goal of this operation that Rudy was apparently at the helm of?
To get Ukraine to say it was going to investigate a 2016 election conspiracy that has been widely debunked. Perhaps, most importantly, to get the country to announce an investigation, announce an investigation, not necessarily do an investigation.
What's the difference? Because if you care about corruption in Ukraine, and you want to make sure that they're now on their game, you don't just want an announcement, because that's meaningless, unless you just want it for political advantage about Mr. Biden and his son.
Another amigo, Kurt Volker, the former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine, testified he was unsettled by Mr. Giuliani's pursuits to smear Biden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Sondland exposed one of the core issues at play. The President did not care if Ukraine actually investigated Burisma. I'm saying it twice because it is at the core of the defense of this.
This idea of Burisma was just code for the Bidens. That's what the testimony says. He just wanted the public to think it was happening in the name of anti-corruption.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): He had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?
SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn't actually have to do them, as I understood it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Sondland was the U.S. Ambassador to the EU. Ukraine's not in the EU. So, why was he involved?
People had reported "He muscled his way in." Why would he have done that? He's never even been in diplomacy before. He says he was carrying out the President's orders, and Mr. Giuliani's directives.
Dr. Fiona Hill says she heard Sondland telling Ukrainian diplomats in the White House what Zelensky had to do to get an Oval Office meeting with the President that he was seeking.
What would that be? "Announce the investigations the President wanted." But not everyone in the room was on board, including Hill, and National Security Advisor, John Bolton.
Bolton gave Hill a warning, she said. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Ambassador Bolton had looked pained, basically indicated with body language that there was nothing which we could do about it. And he then, in the course of that discussion, said that Rudy Giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Dramatic, but accurate. It did blow up. Look where we are.
The President's defenders have been trying to argue that however irregular the methods that this is really just a good-faith policy dispute, and this is about how to fight corruption, and the way the President sees it is the way it should go.
Was the President trying to get rid of corruption? No. How do we know?
Well he and Giuliani were trying to sideline the Ambassador to Ukraine who was there to try to help rid corruption. And how they did it? They could have just removed her.
But it wasn't good enough. Smeared her, and then got her out, pushed her out, one of the biggest anti-corruption crusaders in Ukraine, known as such, why? Because she didn't like their scheme.
That former Ambassador, Yovanovitch, gave her testimony last Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Ukrainians who preferred to play by the old, corrupt rules sought to remove me. What continues to amaze me is that they found Americans willing to partner with them and, working together, they apparently succeeded.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: And so, the giant corrupt elephant hanging all over these impeachment hearings is not Ukraine. It's Russia, once again.
[21:10:00]
Fiona Hill warned that hyper-partisan politics of today, which we're all living through in a state of dread, is playing right into Mr. Putin's hands, schooling those parroting Russian propaganda in Congress that Ukraine was to blame for 2016 election meddling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian Security Services themselves.
Russia's Security Services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Hill's message to Congress, and the country, was simple, and clear. An errand that pushed America's foreign policy aside was to Russia's delight. Those are the facts. What do they mean? What are the pluses? What remain as minuses?
The investigators, McCabe and Baker, are here 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)
[21:15:00]
CUOMO: Dr. Fiona Hill summed up the entire mess we're dealing with in this impeachment situation in a single sound bite today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: And I actually said to him, "Who put you in charge of Ukraine?" And, you know, I'll admit I was a bit rude. And that's when he told me, "The President," which shook me up.
I've actually realized having listened to his deposition that he was absolutely right. That he wasn't coordinating with us because we weren't doing the same thing that he was doing.
He was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Nobody was able to dispute what she just said, as a matter of fact. What it means, we'll get into now. Andrew McCabe, former FBI Deputy Director and, Jim Baker, former FBI
General Counsel, Director of National Security & Cyber Security at the R Street Institute, both join us.
Gentlemen, Evan Perez had news in the last hour that the Inspector General found what we believe to be a problem made in one of the FISA applications for Carter Page. What I want to know from both of you - my understanding is this.
Andrew, you can't talk about it. You're restricted from discussing the report of the investigation, right?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: That's right. I am currently - I've reviewed the report. I'm in the process of that. And I've agreed not to speak about it in any way until that process is over.
CUOMO: All right, I'll respect that.
Jim, you have not seen the report. Is that accurate? You haven't reviewed it?
JIM BAKER, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: That's correct.
CUOMO: All right, so there is no - I'm not going to mess with the NDA. And if you haven't seen it, I'm not going to talk to you about it.
But, as you both know, when anything comes out that is of importance to the audience that has to do with either of you, we'll come right at it. You know that. And that's why there's mutual respect.
Thank you for dealing with that with me about that. Let's get into what we do know now.
Andrew, how close did the Democrats get after Fiona Hill, after everything they put forward, to what you see as the bar they need for a legit impeachable offense?
MCCABE: I think they are clearly over the bar. I think they were over the bar before Fiona Hill.
CUOMO: Impeachable.
MCCABE: Absolutely. Look, it all comes down to what you think about the phone call on July 25th, right?
Everything else we've heard from all these witnesses tells us a lot about what led to the phone call, what was happening behind it, what was happening in Ukraine, who else was involved in it, who knew about it, who told who what.
But essentially, everything you need to know is in that phone call.
And if you think what you heard in that phone call, there's no problem with it, then if you're a Congressperson, you're not going to vote for impeachment. If you're a Senator, you're not going to vote to remove him. And if you are a - an American, you are probably going to vote for him in the next election.
If you think what you heard was objectionable, you see all those things very differently.
CUOMO: Jim Baker, how do you see it in terms of the hurdles with a potential defense of what the Democrats laid out?
BAKER: Well I think, as Andy was saying, look, we were - we're kind of back to where we were, when we got the transcript. And you look at that, and it's clear to me, at least, that the President abused his power in order to stay in power. That's what this is all about.
I think what the witnesses have done, over the past couple of weeks, you know, question by - answer by answer, question by question, is to really introduce substantial evidence to the country that undercuts all of the defenses that the - that the President and the Republicans have put forward about the President didn't know what was going on, that the three amigos were kind of running a rogue operation, that the Ukrainians didn't know what was going on, that there was no quid pro quo, all of these defenses that have been brought up over time, the witnesses introduced substantial evidence, as I say, to undercut all those.
And so, where the - the Members of Congress are, I think, is whether you think this is impeachable or not, and - and whether you want your guy out of power, and whether you think a vote against the President is going to get you kicked out of power.
CUOMO: Well that's the--
BAKER: I think, at the end of the day, where we are is, this is about - this is about power. This is about the President trying to stay in power. This is about the Members of Congress trying to figure out how they can stay in power.
CUOMO: Right.
BAKER: And - and, at the end of the day, that's what this is about. That's where it comes down to.
CUOMO: All right, it's always been that.
BAKER: Everything else is kind of been swept away.
CUOMO: Right. It's always been that. It was always going to come down to politics because it's a political thing. And so, that's why the Founders wanted this to be a clear-cut case.
MCCABE: That's right.
CUOMO: Or this is the wrong mechanism. You and I have talked about this a lot.
MCCABE: Yes. CUOMO: To the chagrin of some in the audience. We don't want to hear about limitations in this process.
But let's talk about limitations on the defense. What they say is good-faith disagreement here. "He doesn't like corruption. He doesn't trust Ukraine, so he wasn't crazy about giving the money in the first place."
He says "Fine, you're - you're going to be different with corruption? Well I've heard about this 2016 thing, where it was your guys in Ukraine trying to get me, and I believe it, and I think you guys covered up for the Bidens. So, if you're not about corruption anymore, show me that."
If it's a good-faith meaning no corrupt intent, which is necessary for a bribery charge--
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: --I know we're in politics--
MCCABE: OK.
[21:20:00]
CUOMO: --not in the law. Why doesn't that wash?
MCCABE: Because as you get into the details of those two requests that he made, the logic falls apart.
So, on the first side, the 2016, the great conspiracy theory that the Ukrainians were involved in there - in meddling in the election, and not the - the Russians, nobody destroyed that theory any more effectively than Dr. Hill today. She exposed it for exactly what it was.
CUOMO: But what if he still believes it?
MCCABE: I - you know, Chris, I don't think that's good enough.
He is the President of the United States. He has the - he has the access to all of the best Intelligence on earth. He has an entire community that supports him, to show him exactly what we think happened, what we know happened. We know that his own advisers have tried repeatedly to dispel this--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --flawed notion. That just doesn't stand up. It doesn't pass the smell test.
CUOMO: Now, Jim, the other big defense that I think is compelling, is politically unappealing, which is, "You know, you guys only know little fragments, even you, Hill.
You may be a genius, and you've been there for a long time, but you only knew what was trickling down to you. None of you were calling the shots. None of you can own these decisions you say you know about."
The problem with them is it's their side that are keeping those people from testifying. So, it's not as politically satisfying. But does it give cover?
I know you're not a politician, but just reasoning it out, does it give you cover? I didn't hear from any of the main people, why would I vote for impeachment?
BAKER: Well those are opinions, and those are assertions, but there's no evidence that was introduced, in my view, to support that. I mean with - the witnesses are sitting in front of the Committee are providing, through their testimony, evidence.
And so, Members of Congress want to make these arguments about what the President didn't know, and - and so on, and so forth. But they're just going on what their opinions are, and - and trying to be hopeful about that.
If - if they want to make a counter-argument, then the President needs to allow some of these other witnesses to show up, and he needs to cough up these documents that can shed light.
And if this is actually what the President thought at the time, and there's evidence of that, then fine. The - the Congress can consider that both with respect to impeachment, and if they impeach them with respect to the trial.
Maybe that'll - maybe that's where this will come out, maybe the - in the trial setting, they'll have to come forward with some of this - some of these witnesses and some of those evidence in order to make the case.
CUOMO: Well we've seen--
BAKER: If we get that far.
CUOMO: We're headed that way. Jim Baker, Andrew McCabe, appreciate it as always.
MCCABE: Thanks.
CUOMO: And thank you for addressing the other issue.
MCCABE: You got it. I'm happy to do it.
CUOMO: All right, so the question now for Democrats is do you fight, what we were just talking about, do you keep fighting for the big guns, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney?
You just heard Jim Baker say, "Hey, the President may need them." Well no, because we're not in trial, and everyone in his party is on his side. But do the Democrats need them? Do they need to put to rest any doubt about what the testimony comes from?
We'll get to that 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: President Trump says, "I never in my wildest dreams thought my name would in any way be associated with the ugly word, Impeachment!"
But it is! And now the question is, are the President's actions worthy of impeachment, even worthy of removal?
Congressman Peter Welch, Virginia - Vermont, Democrat, Member of the Intel Committee, one of the fact-finders, distinguished himself with his questioning in a lot of the testimony.
Welcome to PRIME TIME. Good to see you.
REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Good to be here.
CUOMO: So, the best conversations are always before we go on air.
You watched this testimony, Fiona Hill. "Wow! Boy, what a great servant!" Vindman, Taylor, Yovanovitch, "Wow, I'm proud to be an American. It's great to have them in service." They seemed credible and good.
Sondland, little sideways, has trouble sticking to his story.
But people watch the spectacle, and they shake their heads, Congressman, and they say, "These guys can't agree on two plus two equaling four." What's the message to the American people?
WELCH: No. That's true. I mean, and it's - it's a lament of mine that everybody is really feeling entitled to their own version of facts. That's a challenge in this social media world.
It's a challenge when Russia so interfered in our 2016 election that even aside from whether tip the balance in favor of Trump, it really sowed discourse among people, because it just pitted people one against another. So, it - it's - it's the context that within which we're all living.
And - and - and, frankly, President Trump is not the cause of that. He's very smart about exploiting that. So, that's the environment we're in. We're in an - as you remember,
Adam Schiff said, "This is not the same Congress as it was during the Nixon time."
CUOMO: Nor during Clinton.
WELCH: And it's not the same country now as it was then. So, this is a real challenge whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.
How do we have a common set of facts and have a debate where at least we agree on what the facts are? And that is very, very difficult. And it's being played out, to some extent, in this impeachment debate.
Now, I think the facts and the evidence is overwhelming that the President put the squeeze on President Zelensky and the Ukraine to demand that he do an investigation, dig up dirt on Biden, in exchange for getting the White House meeting and the aid.
CUOMO: And the 2016 Ukraine conspiracy theory.
WELCH: Yes.
CUOMO: That mattered to him too.
[21:30:00]
WELCH: Yes. It mattered to him a lot. And that's, you know, in a way, that's really bizarre about President Trump because, you know, in July 24th, Director Mueller gave his report, where he said it was the Russians, not the Ukrainians, and actually debunked the Ukrainians.
That was our Intelligence Agency agreed with that. The FBI agreed with it. And Director Mueller agreed with it. He expressed a fear that Russian interference, foreign interference is a new normal.
The day after, President Trump was on the phone with President Zelensky, and he asked Ukraine--
CUOMO: Right.
WELCH: --to interfere in our election.
CUOMO: And everyone, I guess, there are nine of his Republican Party Members in that, they all agree with him. They accept nothing.
I mean, the only thing that they're absolutely wrong about is they say this isn't a fair process to him. I've never seen a party get behind their President in one of these hearings the way they did. They were all--
WELCH: That's right.
CUOMO: --defense counsel for him. There was not a single Republican looking to find any fact that was to the disadvantage of the President. So, he was well-represented.
But do you think you have any chance of having any Republicans vote for any article of impeachment against President Trump?
WELCH: And, frankly, I'm not optimistic about it in the House. It could change.
And the only thing that'd really change it is public opinion. And, you know, the challenge for us is not just to get the facts out, but to get them out in a way that's accessible, and relatable for everyday Americans. And, in fact, I think we've done as good a job as can be done.
CUOMO: Was this good for the country what happened over the last week?
WELCH: It's not good for the country that the President invited the Ukrainians to get involved in our election.
CUOMO: With this process.
WELCH: This process is necessary. Is it good? That's a different question because it's not good to have impeachment. It's not good to be having in - to be fighting on things that are, by definition, divisive. And impeachment is. And Adam Schiff was a very reluctant person to proceed with this.
CUOMO: They don't say that.
WELCH: Well they - they don't. But he was. And I was pretty reluctant. And Nancy Pelosi, of course, was reluctant because, you know, there were members of my party who the day after President Trump was elected, or sworn-in, they wanted to impeach him. And that's not right.
CUOMO: That was a mistake.
WELCH: That was a--
CUOMO: You guys are all colored with that now.
WELCH: Well--
CUOMO: That people say this is always where you want to be. But the reason I wanted you here was you've been really reasonable in your questioning here.
And you're often offset with Jim Jordan. Jordan would go, and then you would go, and it really showed the two faces of the two parties right now, but though - the testimony was strong. These people were patriotic and they were credible.
WELCH: Well--
CUOMO: We'll see where it goes.
WELCH: Yes. But the - that was the inspiring thing that I hope all Americans - these folks are patriots.
CUOMO: Yes. WELCH: They are committed to the Constitution, to serving our country, and to doing their - doing their duty. And a number of them were immigrants, like Vindman, and like Dr. Hill today.
You know, think about it. Her grandfather fought in World War I. He was gassed. He was shot and - and he survived. And then, her father was a coal miner. She's a coal miner's daughter. And--
CUOMO: That's--
WELCH: --here she is, serving our country.
CUOMO: --that's what this country has always been.
WELCH: It's so wonderful.
CUOMO: Hopefully, people remember that.
WELCH: Thank you.
CUOMO: Congressman, thank you.
WELCH: Thank you
CUOMO: And I appreciate you coming in tonight after such a long day.
WELCH: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: Appreciate it.
All right, Republicans - that's Democrats' side. Republicans.
Tactic was, "Hey, look, this isn't what they say it is. These people don't know. And even if it's right, it's not that big a deal." The strategy has to be tested. Would it be easier to admit what is obvious, and just fight about the consequence?
We'll bring on a top Trump supporter and have exactly that conversation, 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: What an odd situation we find ourselves in! The testimony part of the impeachment inquiry appears to be over. And yet, we seem to be in exact same place we were before we started.
We heard from very impressive people today. Dr. Fiona Hill's got everybody talking here in Washington D.C., President Trump's former top Russia Adviser. She slammed GOP conspiracy theories on Ukraine, warned how those fictional claims play right into Putin's hands.
But where are we? Is Right any closer to moving anywhere near where the Left is?
Let's bring in Oklahoma Congressman, Markwayne Mullin.
Always good to have you on the show.
REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Thank you. Good to be on with you.
CUOMO: It's good to be with you in person. The only question is whether or not you are open, you or any of your brothers and sisters in the President's Party are open at all to anything that was testified to being proof that something done was wrong?
MULLIN: Well Chris, first of all, I was sworn to uphold the Constitution. Full stop!
And in the Constitution, it's very clear what powers we have when it comes to impeaching the President of the United States, because there's a clear separation of powers, also inside the Constitution.
So, our Founding Fathers were very smart about that. And as we've discussed this before, it's got to be treason, bribery, high crime, or a misdemeanor.
When you're listening to the testimony, there are no one - not one single person, when asked the question, "Was there - has there been a quid pro quo, bribery, or extortion?" Everyone that testified that asked that - we got to ask that question said, "No."
CUOMO: No. Not on quid pro quo.
MULLIN: Everyone, when asked the question, said point-blank "No." Now--
CUOMO: Sondland--
MULLIN: --they would say they--
CUOMO: --said yes.
MULLIN: They said - he believed. But when asked by--
CUOMO: Well.
MULLIN: --by Congressman Turner, he said, did anyone in the world, quote, direct you to do that? He said, "No." He said, "No." So, he made the assumption the whole time that that's what someone was wanting. And he's the only one--
CUOMO: Why was it never corrected?
MULLIN: And he's - and Sondland was the only one that asked the President on September 9th, "What do you want from this?" And the President was very - very clear when he said, "I want nothing. I want nothing."
CUOMO: I know. But--
MULLIN: "I want no quid pro quo."
CUOMO: September 9th.
MULLIN: "I just want them to do what's right."
CUOMO: Yes, all right, Mark - Markwayne, I accept the arguments. September 9th was after people were chasing after the President and everybody else--
MULLIN: Sure.
CUOMO: --for what was going on. The day after this September - the July 25th call, where the President asked for things expressly--
MULLIN: Sure.
CUOMO: --he was on the phone with Sondland. He was overheard on the call with Sondland, asking about the investigations. Here's been our discussion all along.
I don't know how you can watch this testimony, and not think that what was going on is what was apparently obvious. The President had doubts about Ukraine, didn't want to give them money.
MULLIN: So did Obama.
CUOMO: Thinks - thinks they're dirty. Yes. And he didn't even give them the aid that Trump has.
MULLIN: Absolutely.
CUOMO: But I'm not comparing the Administrations.
MULLIN: He actually - he actually with - withheld aid.
CUOMO: I know.
MULLIN: The same way.
CUOMO: But - and that's - that's great checkmark for the Trump Administration politically.
MULLIN: Right.
CUOMO: But it's not relevant to the analysis. He didn't trust Ukraine. He didn't like Ukraine.
MULLIN: It is a little relevant. But I get what you're saying.
[21:40:00]
CUOMO: He didn't want to give them money. He says, "I want to test them out." "To get this money you're going to have to show me something." Now, you have to build into the analysis, this President has never been about fighting corruption.
MULLIN: No, that's actually not true. He made it very clear upfront and even people that testified here had said, I think it was - I think it was Kent that said that the President said he didn't want business as usual. He had irregular who - and it was Taylor that said he had irregular channels the way that he - he handled things.
But, my goodness, Chris, we elected a business guy, not a regular do- business-as-normal politician.
CUOMO: A businessman who has been known his entire career for shady business dealings.
MULLIN: I disagree with that.
CUOMO: It is - it is demonstrably true.
MULLIN: And he has - he has--
CUOMO: I've done the investigating.
MULLIN: He has - he's been known--
CUOMO: He can't even tell the truth about his net worth.
MULLIN: Well--
CUOMO: He won't even show his taxes.
MULLIN: He - he has been known to be a very aggressive business person.
CUOMO: He doesn't pay people.
MULLIN: Just - just--
CUOMO: He's had lots of problems in business.
MULLIN: Well not - that's a lot of people that are out there saying. Did he - did he - did he admit--
CUOMO: Yes.
MULLIN: --that he - that he filed bankruptcy? Yes. But that doesn't mean that what he did on this case was illegal. That doesn't mean that there was any bribery.
CUOMO: What I'm saying is--
MULLIN: And every single person that's came up and testified--
CUOMO: --he doesn't have a history of fighting corruption. He's had an--
MULLIN: Well--
CUOMO: --Administration that's ripe with corruption.
MULLIN: That's absolutely not true.
CUOMO: He hasn't done anything about it.
MULLIN: He's been tough on corruption.
CUOMO: How many members of his cabinet have left?
MULLIN: He - he has been tough - tough on corruption, and even - every - and, in fact, almost every person that has brought that up has said, "Yes, they knew that President Trump was taking in a hard stand against corruption"--
CUOMO: In Ukraine, he thought--
(CROSSTALK)
MULLIN: --out against Ukraine.
CUOMO: --Ukraine was dirty because he thought - he believed Rudy that they were out to get him in 2016. But this is--
MULLIN: That is - no. You're - no, you're tying those two in together, and you're making the assumption that that's the only reason why that he was being tough. But he's been tough on other countries for corruption too.
CUOMO: Who?
MULLIN: And when you start going back to this out here--
CUOMO: Russia? Turkey?
MULLIN: He's been tough on Russia. He's been tough on - on China too.
CUOMO: How's he been tough on Russia? He stood next to Putin, and said "I believe, he didn't interfere in our election."
MULLIN: He's put more sanctions - he's put more sanctions and harder sanctions--
CUOMO: Congress puts the sanctions.
MULLIN: The President - you know - you know--
CUOMO: You guys voted together. MULLIN: --as good as I do that President is the one--
CUOMO: He executes the sanctions. You voted for them.
MULLIN: --that was brought - brought this up the first time against this region.
CUOMO: He didn't want them.
MULLIN: He - that is absolutely not--
CUOMO: Oh, Markwayne Mullin, you know this.
MULLIN: Chris, you're going--
CUOMO: You guys voted for them, and the President didn't want to do it.
MULLIN: The President was the one that started the corruptions on Russia. However, let's go back to what we're talking about when we start visiting about--
CUOMO: Fine.
MULLIN: --did the President commit bribery? Because remember, this whole thing started with quid pro quo. You got to change the subject. You changed--
CUOMO: Not for us. Not for us.
MULLIN: Since the first time I came on, you started talking about quid pro quo.
CUOMO: And I said I don't like the Latin. It doesn't mean anything. They have to find a crime.
MULLIN: Well it was - and everybody changed--
CUOMO: And they have to say that it's an abuse of power.
MULLIN: And everybody changed to bribery. There has been not one single thing that has been said that the President directed or--
CUOMO: He doesn't have to.
MULLIN: --anybody directly directed, there - there would be bribery.
CUOMO: First of all--
MULLIN: Well if we're talking about impeaching the President of the United States.
CUOMO: --fact witnesses--
MULLIN: If it's true.
CUOMO: Now, that's a different - that - that's - I agree with you.
MULLIN: OK.
CUOMO: Now, but hold on. Let's just divide where I agree and where I don't.
Fact witnesses don't tell you what the law is, OK? They tell you what they know. They don't tell you what law it fits into.
MULLIN: Right.
CUOMO: If you withhold aid, and access to a meeting, until you get what you want from them in the - in way of an investigation--
MULLIN: Sure.
CUOMO: --you can say that's a solicitation of something for value. And if you have corrupt intent, and you're doing it for you, not America's national security interest, it will be a bribe.
But I'll tell you what, that's one argument.
You can say, "Yes, I think what he did here was wrong. He was trying to get investigations on Biden. He should have gone to the DOJ. He shouldn't have used Rudy this way. But it is not worthy of removal. It's not worthy of impeachment."
You can accept what is clear from fact from Hill and others, and still make the argument you want to make.
MULLIN: So, the first time we visited, you were talking about specifically the transcript. And every - every--
CUOMO: Well that's what I had at the time.
MULLIN: And yes, and everybody was saying, "Well that's not an accurate transcript." But then we had Lieutenant - Lieutenant Colonel Vindman that came out and actually said, "Yes, that is an accurate transcript." So we - so we have to--
CUOMO: In substance. He wanted to make a couple of changes. But good enough.
MULLIN: --so we have to start - so we have to start with it because this thing - this impeachment inquiry started on two things, the whistleblower, who for some reason won't come out, and testify. They won't allow him to come testify, even though we want him to come testify.
CUOMO: He's legally protected.
MULLIN: Because it is - well I know, but don't you think if this whole thing started with a whistleblower that had 37 times that said he was told, and it was never ever firsthand experience. You had nine times that said he was - he didn't know.
CUOMO: I think they're completely irrelevant because-- MULLIN: But--
CUOMO: --you've had all the other testimony.
(CROSSTALK)
MULLIN: Nancy Pelosi--
CUOMO: I think you should get Pompeo and Mulvaney and Bolton.
MULLIN: Nancy Pelosi stood up and said on the - what was it? September 20 - am I - I get my dates - I won't start on the dates because I'm thinking - getting them messed up. But it when - I think it was September 26th, I don't know.
But anyways, when Nancy Pelosi stood up, and said, that we're doing this based on new accounts on the phone call with the President, and a whistleblower that - that we're going to start an impeachment inquiry, even though it never happened, we're going to start an impeachment inquiry into the President of the United States, the whistleblower's never came through. And that - the so-called transcript--
CUOMO: But it's all been corroborated.
MULLIN: --that everybody was debunking--
CUOMO: It's all been corroborated.
MULLIN: No, everybody that was debunking was saying, "It's not accurate. It's not accurate. What don't we know," and then Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said it is accurate.
Now you have two pieces that have been shown to the American people. One, which is the conversation with the President and the President of Ukraine--
CUOMO: Right.
[21:45:00]
MULLIN: --that was no quid pro was in at, no bribery, no pressure.
CUOMO: The--
MULLIN: And then the other person that's claiming as the whistleblower--
CUOMO: Well yes, I don't agree with that assessment.
MULLIN: --that comes out.
CUOMO: You have the President saying--
MULLIN: Well you--
(CROSSTALK) CUOMO: --"Do me a favor. Get the Bidens."
MULLIN: He didn't say "Get the Bidens."
CUOMO: He literally used the word.
MULLIN: He did not say get--
CUOMO: "Investigate the Biden."
MULLIN: Yes, but he didn't use the word "Get."
CUOMO: "Biden has been saying that he did all this stuff to get rid of the prosecutor," which wasn't true.
MULLIN: He said, "Do me a favor. The people - I think the people want to know the truth."
CUOMO: All right.
MULLIN: Because Biden had been on in 2018, and had been openly bragging that he got that--
CUOMO: That he got rid of Shokin.
MULLIN: --investigation stopped.
CUOMO: Not that he helped his son. But, look, the people now know the facts. They'll be out there in putting to a report.
MULLIN: That is true.
CUOMO: I need you to come back and we have to discuss--
MULLIN: Anytime, Chris.
CUOMO: --what the votes are and the implications going forward.
MULLIN: Appreciate it, absolutely.
CUOMO: And it's important to note. Congressman Welch was on here last. He said "Oh, Markwayne Mullin's coming on? I like him. He's a good guy."
MULLIN: Yes. The feeling's the same.
CUOMO: "We don't often agree. But"
MULLIN: Yes.
CUOMO: And I think that's important.
MULLIN: Right.
CUOMO: If you guys can disagree with decency, we're moving in the right direction, all right? And that's why I appreciate having you here.
MULLIN: Thank you, Sir, appreciate it.
CUOMO: All right, be well.
All right, we got a closing tonight. It's going to be a little bit shorter. But you know what? That was a good conversation to have. And we will take a look at what is going on, and what it means, 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)
[21:50:00]
CUOMO: Nine witnesses, 30-plus hours of testimony. We know the President believed Ukraine was corrupt, especially out to get him, and he empowered his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to figure out if it was true, and to help him out also with a look into the Bidens.
The question now is what does it mean, what should be the consequence? Well, to hear it from the diplomats, and the Democrats, the situation amounts to a bribery scheme, all of it to help Trump more than to help this country.
The Intel Chair calls it worse than Watergate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: What we've seen here is far more serious than a third-rate burglary of the Democratic headquarters. What we're talking about here is the withholding of recognition in that White House meeting, the withholding of military aid to an ally at war. That is beyond anything Nixon did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: So, why aren't Republicans reeling right now?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: The difference between then and now is not the difference between Nixon and Trump. It's the difference between that Congress and this one.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: We have never seen the Party of the President to be more partisan in a process like this than we're seeing right now. Just remember this - remember this stuff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): The American people understand that this has been a partisan process from the start.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): We got to stop this, but they're not going to, and they're doing it all 11.5 months before the next election.
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): And like any good show trial, the verdict was decided before the trial ever began.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, I often go at both sides of Congress for not doing their job enough, and for naked political plays. But that's because I know they can do better than this.
Trump has brought in a new mentality for his Party. "Scorched earth. Kill or be killed. Ride or die."
Now, it's measurable. And I'll show you. Look back at Nixon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HOWARD BAKER (R-TN): What did the President know? And when did he know it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, you remember who that was? Republican Senator Howard Baker. He had the hardest-hitting question.
And here's another one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LAWRENCE HOGAN (R-MD): Richard Nixon - Nixon has beyond a reasonable doubt committed impeachable offenses.
No man, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That was Representative Larry Hogan. They were both Republicans. And it was eventually a GOP delegation that went to the White House to tell Nixon it was over. Next day, he resigned.
Clinton too dealt with Party - with people in his Party that he was in disfavor with. After reading the Starr report, 31 Democrats, 31, crossed the aisle and voted in favor of setting up an impeachment process. What's more? Five Democratic House Members actually voted to impeach him. And what Nixon and Clinton were accused of was certainly nothing on the order of the scheme that's been outlined here.
Yet Trump has already clearly won one fight. And it is the fight to have complete control of his Party. Supporters are loud and proud, defiant in the face of fact, operating exclusively as defense counsel for the President, in a manner that we have never seen.
Dissent? Minimal, muted. Why? Fear of toxic tweets, punishing primary challenges. There could be no question that Republicans are ignoring the facts for favor. They've charged after Democrats for so much less than this, and they know it.
The Constitution gives them a duty of oversight over the Executive. Yet, almost every question from the 10 Members of their counsel were designed to shield, you know, nine Republicans and then their lawyer, they were shielding. They were trying to protect the President.
There was not one question asked to elicit any negative information. That is not their job. Or maybe, now it is. If they're putting their own personal and political fortunes ahead of their duty, well it may seem just as obvious as what the President did to any reasonable onlooker.
And here's the shame. You saw me argue it to Markwayne Mullin. You see me argue it with lots of Republicans. You can own what is obvious here, and still argue that the consequence of impeachment, let alone removal, is too severe.
You may not like that argument. But it can be argued in good conscience. Ignoring facts, facilitating conspiracy theories about Ukraine interference, that cannot be done in good conscience.
But they are right to argue one point. An election is right around the corner. And what happens now will be fresh in the minds of voters, especially undecided ones, all over this country.
[21:55:00]
There will be another quid pro quo in play. Will the voters give you their vote in favor of what you're offering them right now? All right, that is the argument.
Here's the BOLO. Tease. Senator McConnell said today, "If impeachment makes it to the Senate, they'll be ready." What does that mean? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO. Be On the Look-Out.
If the House impeaches, next comes a Senate trial. Obviously, the Republicans control the Senate. A group of Republican Senators huddled with White House officials today to map out the road ahead. They're weighing the length of proceedings.
Some want to dismiss it right from the start. Others believe doing that might hurt their ability to keep the Senate, and maybe letting the Democrats draw it out in a trial may help them. So, how much longer will this last? We'll probably know soon. So, Be On the Look- Out.
Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: The question is how much longer can we take?
END
