Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

NYT: President Trump Knew of Whistleblower Complaint When he Released aid to Ukraine; Trump, his Lawyers Invited to Take Part in New Hearings; House Judiciary Sets First Impeachment Hearing for Dec 4. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired November 26, 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]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Max, great to have you with us tonight, Thanks so much, Have a happy Thanksgiving.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You too John.

BERMAN: All right, the news continues. So it's time to hand it over to Chris for Cuomo Primetime.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, thanks JB. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to Primetime. Why did they release the Ukraine aid to them when they did? Why? More than ever the answer seems to be because the people involved knew that Congress was onto the scam. And by they, we can now definitely include President Trump. Why?

Reportedly the President was briefed about the whistleblower complaint before he released the Ukraine aid. You know right when he started saying no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo, I want nothing when he had just said the opposite before that.

We also have two other pieces of the puzzle that make the picture of potential impeachment even more clear. So what do you say? Let's get after it. All right, this comes from the New York Times just tonight. Sources say President Trump already knew about the whistleblower complaint when he released the hold on military aid to Ukraine on September 11th.

The Times reports, lawyers from the White House counsel's office briefed the President in late August. Remember, I'm going to lay out the whole timeline for you again in detail in the next segment but July 25th is the call, right? Then August he finds out about the whistleblower. September, they released the aid out of nowhere. This is a vital piece of information to develop the truth of why the aid was suddenly released.

And remember why that matters because if this wasn't about leveraging Ukraine, well, they can - what's their defense? Well, we gave him the aid but why did they do it then? If they did it then because they thought everything was about to be exposed, they're in trouble. Let's bring in Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen.

Now he sits on the House Judiciary Committee which is of course going to be the next instrument of a potential impeachment. This is where it really becomes a serious confrontation.

Congressmen, we'll talk about the process in a second. Let's start with the headline. What does it mean to you, that the President, not just the White House was well aware of the whistleblower complaint to some degree of detail, just weeks before they released the aid?

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): It's obviously why he did it. If the whistleblower didn't file his report, the President of Ukraine would have gone on television on your network at Trump's request and announced the investigation of the Bidens so he would get the military aid.

He was scheduled to do it because he did no different. Trump had it, he loved him according to Sondland, would do anything for him, but Trump found out about the whistleblower, the fact that was going to become public, he knew what he did was wrong and so he released the aid. Put the genie back in the bottle.

CUOMO: There are other pieces. Mark Sandy, senior official at OMB, hears about the hold on the aid, says this doesn't seem right. He goes to the political appointee on top of him, says, I think this might be illegal. We should look at it. He winds up resigning over the situation. Significance?

COHEN: Well, there were people that were on the inside who heard what was going on and knew that it was not about corruption in Ukraine or corruption in the other country that we have to give foreign aid to like Afghanistan and Iraq, which are much more corrupt to get much more aid.

It was about political, it was about using the powers of the presidency and the funds authorized by Congress to benefit yourself with political dirt on your opponent. That is a danger to national security. It's abuse of power. They knew it and it was recognized. They fact that people saw it there--

CUOMO: Bear fact that I want to hear argued in front of the committee, Congressman, if I could get your take on this is, this President had given aid to Ukraine in two budgetary cycles before now. He never raised the issue of Biden and those to our knowledge. The only thing that changed ostensibly is that the former VP decided to run for office.

COHEN: Well, the fact is in previous times that aid was given, there was no connection at all to "corruption" and Ukraine was a very corrupt country but they didn't have a President who had been elected who was a corruption fighter. They had a President who was corrupt and yet that wasn't even questioned.

All of a sudden it became important about corruption. They don't care about corruption. The fact is they wrote the book.

CUOMO: The idea of corrupt intent, the constructive analogy for you guys in terms of what the wrong was seems to be, this was basically a bribe or at least an attempted bribe even though a bribe in and of itself can only be a solicitation but that's lawyer talk. You're going to have to make the proof to the American people against

counsel now at the Judiciary Committee level that this was a scam all along to lever Ukraine. One of the major defenses will be but he believed it, Congressman.

He believed Ukraine was involved in the 2016 interference and he believed that the Bidens were up to no good so he had a good-faith interest in doing it therefore he could not form corrupt intent.

[21:05:00]

COHEN: I don't think that that could be seen. It's - you have to have a willing suspension of disbelief, not even Aristotle would buy that argument, that he really all of a sudden found that to be true and that Ukraine was involved. Comes right out of Moscow and now that the President hasn't agreed with Moscow and other things. When he was in Helsinki, he was saying I don't see - Putin says he didn't interfere with our elections, I don't see why he would and basically agreed with Putin.

Trump is a very - a man of conveniences, his is the most shifting morality and shifting ethics but it's clear from anybody looking with an objective eye that he wanted dirt on the Bidens to help himself politically and was fearful of the Biden said Joe Biden being his opponent.

CUOMO: Secondary defense is going to be I didn't know what Rudi was doing. You know yes, I trust Rudy so he went out there but I didn't know what he was doing. Now, we've heard in the past that Rudy has said I was doing this for my client. My client was aware of some of it and he knew before some of it after but I was working as his attorney.

Is there any credence to that theory? Does it give any clearance to the President if this was about what Rudy did, not what the President knew about what he did?

COHEN: I think there's information that's come out that Pompeo had talked to Rudy.

CUOMO: Yes.

COHEN: Unfortunately Pompeo won't testify nor has Giuliani to our committee but that Pompeo and Giuliani had talked, Giuliani and Sondland had talk. Ambassador Sondland was a key, I wouldn't put him to the level of John Dean but he had Giuliani and Pompeo and Mulvaney and the whole cast of characters as totally in the loop and plotting it.

And there's no question, that's what was going on and then all the sudden Mulvaney tries to find a way to say how can we rationalize this when they found out that the gig was up.

CUOMO: If you could get one guy, who would be the one guy that you want to come in and may I make a suggestion of Bolton given what he tweeted today, what does he mean by saying that the policy aims were being you know, subverted from within? COHEN: Well, Bolton encouraged people that were working underneath him

and I think it was a the Fiona Hill and there was another person to go, testify and to take action which they did and they did testify but Bolton won't do it because Bolton wants to sell his book.

You don't know why Bolton's doing these things. I suspect to selling his book. One of the guests on the previous show was saying how Bolton is such a strong Republican and he is and that's his whole social ties. He's not going to want to cut those just like McGahn's probably not going to want to cut them either.

He's tied into the Federalist Society and the Republican game. That's where their bread is buttered and that's what's going to make a difference and they're not - they're not caring about America, they care about their future and their contacts and their abilities to sell what they've learned from government, either in a book deal or in clients at Jones Day.

CUOMO: Now something that we've been arguing a lot with defenders of the President is going to be made manifest when the proceedings start in your committee. This has been the investigatory phase up until now. Was done with Clinton by Ken Starr. It was done under Nixon by a couple of different people running a grand jury.

You guys did it yourselves here. They kept saying this is so unfair. The President doesn't have any representation. You never get representation in the investigative phase and even for the extent that they weren't supposed to have any, they had half the room and the Intel committee was fighting for them tooth and nail.

They did nothing but the Republicans except try to find clearance for the President but now in Judiciary Committee, that changes. Counsel can be there. They can question witnesses. What will that dynamic look like?

COHEN: Resolution 660 to set out the rules gives the Republican President more rights in the Judiciary Committee than either Nixon was given or Clinton was given.

CUOMO: Why?

COHEN: There are more defense rights because we - we're bending over backwards. The Democrats do that. Speaker Pelosi wanted to do that and make it clear that we're giving due process and try to de-minimize the argument but no matter what we'd had done, they just said it wasn't enough.

I'd like to see Donald Trump appear. Donald Trump likes to talk to the American people. He claims there's nothing to it. He today he called it BS in his rally. He likes to use you know, vulgar terms and they love it. I'd like to just have him come to Congress, sit down in a chair and answer questions that's what he should do if he's truly innocent, if he really didn't have malevolent intent and if he really thought it was simply corruption and truly believed that the Ukrainians were the people that were involved in getting up dirt in the 2016 election. Come and tell the American people. If you don't, you're a coward,

Donald Trump.

CUOMO: Congressman Steve Cohen, heavy words just before Thanksgiving. Thank you very much and the best to you and the family.

COHEN: Thank you Chris. Happy Thanksgiving to you.

CUOMO: All right, Steve Cohen basically calling the President a Turkey just a couple of days before Thanksgiving. Will that move him? Looking at what happened with Mueller, I doubt it. What the President says is just a taunt. What he does is play it safe. This new reporting tonight though shows just how important the timeline is here.

[21:10:00]

Just like in all investigations, when did things happen and in what sequence. Now, we're starting to see just like this image on your TV, one big ugly face but millions of little pixelations, little pieces.

Now we can lay out a timeline that will give us a much better sense of why things happened and when. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right, tonight's New York Times is helpful and it forces us to take a fresh look at what the President knew and when he knew it. This is not a cliche. It is a key to understanding what matters here. So let's lay it out in a simple timeline and you'll see reality come into focus.

The call with the Ukrainian President around 9:00 in the morning, that's not so interesting, July 25th.

[21:15:00]

But that's when the President specifically asked for a favor of Ukraine's President to look into a conspiracy theory which has been dismissed by that by everybody but to look into Ukraine's role in any interference of 2016 and the Bidens. He says Bidens, OK?

Some of you want to imagine that that didn't happen. Look at the transcript. He also tells him talk to Rudy showing that he knows what Rudy is doing. That same day an official at the budget office OMB, another acronym in the alphabet soup that we've all had to learn about this, signed the first documents officially putting DoD, Department of Defense money for Ukraine on hold.

Now that official is named Mark Sandy and he spoke with impeachment investigators. Why? All right, we'll get into that in just a bit but the timeline is what matters. Tonight, The Times is reporting that in late August, OK? July 25th, now we're in the late August before it was known to the public, that's key, White House lawyers told the President about the whistleblower complaint.

Now we had heard that there'd been communication interagency about the whistleblower on what to do and what they had but not this far, that the President himself knew. They didn't yet know what the information would come to, whether it would go to Congress or not.

It wasn't until September 9th when Congress launched the investigation. That same day Trump's million-dollar donor turned EU ambassador called the President. Remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORDON SONDLAND, UNITES STATES AMBASSADOR TO EU: I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theory and this and that. What do you want? And it was a very short abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood and he just said I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Does Donald Trump seem to be the man kind of man to you that throws around the term quid pro quo? Think about that for a second why? OK, there's the call. He hears about the whistleblower complaint. What does the whistleblower talk about? Concerns of a quid pro quo, right?

Then what happens Congress starts asking questions. Then Mr. Sondland who said everybody knew what was going on. We were working with Rudy at the expressed direction of the President. Everybody knew. Everybody knew. All of a sudden Sondland doesn't know any more so he calls the President, I don't know what to do and the President says exactly what he needs to do to see why aid, interesting when you look at it that way.

It's a whole different story here if the President already knew the whistle had been blown when he took that call from Sondland. Two days later the military aid is released, why? No one can tell us. How interesting? You think you'd have a story for why you were going to do something like this when you knew it would be the critical move, right?

Because releasing the aid is the only clarity for this President to get past the conceit of this scam. He had to release the money before anything happen. Now, back to Mark Sandy's testimony from the Office of Management budget, the budget official.

He shares new details about who was pulling the strings when it came to the money. Let's rewind the timeline and look at what else we learned today about the freezing of aid. So Sandy says, even before the call with Zelensky, OK? He was telling his bosses, what's up with this money being withheld? I'm sure he didn't sound like that.

But he's suggesting maybe it's illegal. Then on July 30th his boss very important here not a deep stater, which means a conscientious person who's sacrificed years and years to their duties but a political appointee from Trump. He took immediate control of the aid process. We know during all this, two people left their jobs with the OMB. One

did leave because they had another job somewhere else in the government. Put him to the side but both - but I'm still I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one, moving that one to the side but both Sandy and that person expressed concerns about how the money was being withheld and why?

Now, when you take all this together, any question of what was in the President's mind is gone. Why? Because you know what you can show. They can't say why the aid was released. They've offered no other explanation. He knew there were questions about the call. He knew Congress was on to it. He knew what the whistleblower had.

He was even using the operative phrase. What does it mean? It means these questions are getting harder and harder to answer. Facts first. Now tonight, the President is also facing a new round of impeachment hearings. That's what we were talking to Cohen about.

The judiciary is where the game gets real and he has to deal with yet another recent conviction of one of his trusted advisers and why Roger Stone got convicted matters.

[21:20:00]

Michael Caputo and I, we share a theory about Roger Stone. He is a friend and he's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Now just looking over that timeline we went through, there are big problems with when things happened and they're going to have to answer those questions. That's what the next part of the impeachment process will be about. It's going to be much - well, I shouldn't really say that because this in the Intel committee, that was pretty combative but it's not supposed to be by design.

It's supposed to be about Congress fact-finding but really, it was completely disputatious, right? It was about Right defending the President and Left going after him. Now that's what this is really about in the judiciary except at the end of it, you'll have articles of impeachment or not.

[21:25:00]

So before all this began, Republicans complained that the process was unfair, that he should have been able to be in there cross-examining which is just BS. I mean that never happens in the investigatory phase. You think Giuliani's lawyers are going to get a chance to get involved with the investigation right now?

No but now in the Judiciary Committee they will do just that and they will start on December 4th. The President and his legal team are invited to take part. They're invited to question and argue. OK? The President says maybe I'll testify. I'm taking - I'm taking the under on that. Now let's talk about some things that make sense that some things that

don't. Former Trump Advisor Michael Caputo is here right now. I should mention Caputo signed an NDA stating that he won't defame Trump, his businesses or the Trump family. You've never done that anyway. Welcome back to Primetime. Happy Thanksgiving to you and the family.

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP ADVISOR: Happy Thanksgiving to you Chris.

CUOMO: Let's go from the what makes no sense to the what should make a lot of sense. Starting at the outer pole. Have you ever heard of - Michael's spent a lot of time in Russia. He worked in that part of the world. He knows people there. He knows the connections back here in the U.S.

Did you ever hear of Parnas? Because everyone I can find who knew about him was like that was a stay-away guy.

CAPUTO: I never heard of Parnas. The first time I heard him was when reporters were calling me and asking me if I had heard of him. I spent a lot of time in Ukraine, Chris. I think you know, I'm married to Ukrainian woman. We have family there. I'm very close with my family in Ukraine. I spend time there. I've never heard of Parnas.

But that doesn't mean a great deal. It just means we run in different circles.

CUOMO: No, I hear you. It's just that for Rudy Giuliani you know, we've both known him forever and even though he's angry about the interview. He's blaming me as part of this media conspiracy, I have a tremendous respect for him. I don't want to see him in trouble.

But for him to associate with people like this guy and his partner with all their connections doesn't seem like him, does it?

CAPUTO: I don't think that Rudy knew a lot about these guys and perhaps he should have checked them out a little bit more but at the same time, we don't really know a lot about him ourselves. Do we?

CUOMO: Not yet.

CAPUTO: We're going to find out more and more about these folks but remember Rudy Giuliani comes from New York. He was mayor of the toughest city in the world and was a U.S. Attorney for that same area.

CUOMO: Prosecutor.

CAPUTO: Yes, prosecuting Mafia. He's been around a lot of different kinds of people. People, you and I probably wouldn't want to be spending time with either.

CUOMO: Yes, so all right, that's one. Now we move down the spectrum. This Ukraine did it, everybody debunks this theory. People have invested time and money in trying to figure it out. Bossert says it's been debunked. The CrowdStrike thing has been debunked.

CrowdStrike, yes, they have part of their ownership as Ukraine but they are a California company. Do you really believe that Ukraine, not Russia was to blame for the 2016 interference?

CAPUTO: No, I believe as you know, when the emails, the Democrat emails were leaked before the convention, I came out immediately and warned the Obama administration that this was Russia and something had to be done about it. In fact, I've always thought it was Russia.

I'd love to see the FBI prove it was Russia and prove that I was right but just because Russia did it doesn't mean Ukraine didn't do it. I don't believe Ukraine was messing around on the internet or doing cyber warfare like the Russians were. I know for a fact that they were - that the leadership of the Ukraine government at the time, the Poroshenko government was working through their embassy with Hillary Clinton and DNC operative, Alexandra Chalupa.

And at the same time a Member of Parliament, very close to the President Poroshenko was messing around with that black ledger as they call it which was never proved to be real or not real and in fact just disappeared in Ukraine.

CUOMO: Well, but the federal--

CAPUTO: I could tell you, all the time I spent in Ukraine--

CUOMO: I know you know a lot of stuff but the federal prosecutors felt pretty confident about the information with Manafort and again Tom Bossert who worked for the--

CAPUTO: But they didn't use the ledger--

CUOMO: Well, they didn't need it. They had their own sufficient piece of evidence.

CAPUTO: That's not why they didn't use it. You don't know that's why they didn't use it. I can tell you--

CUOMO: That's what they said in the papers.

CAPUTO: - in Ukraine, they don't believe that the ledger is real and I can also tell you that the top law enforcement officers, those who have a law-and-order background in a corrupt system intend to get to the bottom of the Burisma scams and the Poroshenko regime meddling in the U.S. election. There's going to be investigations in--

CUOMO: But what meddling exactly?

CAPUTO: - here. It's going to happen.

CUOMO: What meddling? The DNC says it never happened. Chalupa says it never happened, Mueller says it never happened.

CAPUTO: Maybe Chalupa's lying.

CUOMO: The Intel community says it never happened. The Senate Intel committee says it--

CAPUTO: That's not true. CUOMO: - never - of course it does.

CAPUTO: That's not true.

CUOMO: Of course, it's all true.

CAPUTO: Chris, it's not true.

CUOMO: What's not true?

CAPUTO: There are a lot of people very curious about at what Alexandra Chalupa--

CUOMO: I know there are. They're all defenders of the President.

CAPUTO: - and Ambassador Chally in Ukraine were doing.

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: But why does Bossert say--

CAPUTO: Well, listen Chris.

CUOMO: Hold on Mike because I had the same discussion last night.

CAPUTO: Let's just agree on one thing.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

CAPUTO: There's more afoot with Chalupa and with Lysenko, the MP that released that fake black ledger than was ever afoot, that led to the investigation of the Trump team.

CUOMO: Oh, I don't believe that at all.

CAPUTO: I say if we investigate the Trump team, let's investigate this team. I'll tell you--

CUOMO: I don't--

CAPUTO: It's really funny that--

CUOMO: I don't, I don't believe that you investigate both sides if that's fair.

CAPUTO: It will be funny in the end Chris.

CUOMO: You go where the evidence is.

CAPUTO: And it'll be really funny in the end Chris when Ukraine, this uber-corrupt organization on this planet is more willing to investigate allegations of corruption than the United States is.

CUOMO: Well, first of all, we've been investigating corruption all over the place.

CAPUTO: What does that make of us?

CUOMO: But look, back to the central.

CAPUTO: Then let's investigate this.

CUOMO: No, because you go where the evidence is.

CAPUTO: What are you afraid of?

CUOMO: I'm not afraid of anything. I'm a journalist.

CAPUTO: But the evidence is there.

CUOMO: What I'm trying - there is not evidence there and here's my proof.

CAPUTO: Yes, there is, there are members of the staff of the Ukrainian Embassy--

CUOMO: Then why would Tom Bossert say that again, just for all of you, Tom Bossert was one of the heads security analysts for this President. He's a friend of the President. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BOSSERT, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR TO TRUMP: Not only a conspiracy theory, it's completely debunked. Let me just again repeat that it has no validity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Why? Why would the Senate Intel committee run by a Republican say the same thing? He was talking about the CrowdStrike rumors and them having this server--

CAPUTO: I don't believe CrowdStrike--

CUOMO: But that's what the President said he wanted investigated.

CAPUTO: Well, then we- let's - let's debunk that but it's - I'm talking about the real in plain sight evidence--

CUOMO: Hold on Michael.

CAPUTO: - that Ukraine's President Poroshenko had ordered his people to meddle in the United States election.

CUOMO: Michael, I hear your question.

CAPUTO: Nothing to do with CrowdStrike.

CUOMO: I have - but see, that matters and here's why. One, will see what they do about the other thing that's Ukraine's business. Two. the President has a hundred times more reason than you to know that the CrowdStrike thing is BS, a hundred times more because these people all work for him, the Intelligence Community, Burr, the Senate intelligence committee.

They all came to the same conclusion. He knows it. He was briefed on it. They were briefed on it. He says no, I think it happened how is that not all by itself a potential abuse of power? If you are so incompetent that all these people telling you something that isn't true except Putin and you believe Putin?

CAPUTO: Well Chris, I can tell you that I believe the President would like to see proof that CrowdStrike laid out their--

CUOMO: He has the proof.

CAPUTO: - that the Russians. Nobody's seen it. I understand that the FBI says they have it.

CUOMO: They can't give him proof.

CAPUTO: But they've showed nobody.

CUOMO: They can't give him proof that CrowdStrike didn't take the server when a server wasn't taken. The DNC has said no server was taken.

CAPUTO: No, no, no, listen.

CUOMO: Tons of people said no server was taken.

CAPUTO: That's not what I'm talking about. That's not what I'm talking about.

CUOMO: But that's what he's talking about. That's what he's talking about.

CAPUTO: Listen. I believe you.

CUOMO: That's what he talked to Zelensky about.

CAPUTO: Let me tell you. I believe the President like many of us would like to see the proof that the FBI has that Russia hacked the DNC.

CUOMO: They have the proof.

CAPUTO: I believe--

CUOMO: They indicted 12 different people and entities.

CAPUTO: Chris, I understand what you're saying but CrowdStrike's proof has not been made public and that's a fact.

CUOMO: But that's different than the President not knowing it.

CAPUTO: And CrowdStrike has a mixed reputation.

CUOMO: I'm out of time, look, I'm out of time but I got to ask you one other thing. I have to ask this. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. You and I, I believe share a theory, Roger Stone is too smart a guy to not know that they were going to get his communications. This is a savvy guy. It's a little different when you're in the crosshairs but he knows the game.

For him to play the game out the way he did to me suggests taking one for the team because he had to know this was going to go bad on him. Now, he's facing all of these convictions and the President is silent about it. Are you surprised that a guy who arguably has been his longest advisor, who arguably took convictions out of some misplaced sense of loyalty is getting the silent treatment?

CAPUTO: Well, I think you know, Roger Stone is by court order still not allowed to talk to me. We haven't spoken in 10 months. In fact, he's not allowed to talk at all.

CUOMO: I know.

CAPUTO: So I don't know exactly what's going on in Roger's head or what his defense is talking about but I do know that that the President is looking at the one person that was dragged into the mud of this bogus Russian investigation, who did take one for the team.

That's one thing the defense got right, I'm sorry the--

CUOMO: Prosecutor.

CAPUTO: - the prosecutor got right when they opened and closed this trial. I was there every day and they said Roger Stone did what he did because he was afraid to embarrass the President. I believe that's true. I believe the prosecution got that right.

I think there's room for an appeal here. I don't really understand it because I'm not an attorney but I think there's room but the President needs to look at this. I don't expect the President to do anything about it right now but I got to believe he's thinking about it.

[21:35:00]

CUOMO: So much for loyalty. Michael Caputo, thank you for coming on the show. The best to you and your family for Thanksgiving. We don't always agree but we always agree that you have a place here to make your argument.

CAPUTO: Thanks Chris.

CUOMO: Be well. All right, the President may have a last chance to avoid impeachment. Instead, he's relying on a strategy that includes making you believe he's a victim. Now, there are a couple of things that are said all the time and we're going to play them out in the closing but first, where are we in terms of the pluses and minuses?

Beautiful legal representatives on that. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: So Chairman Nadler, he's the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, right? That's where the impeachment process moves next and he has given the President, a chance to offer up a defense at next week's hearing.

If you know, it's unclear if the President wants to do that but they have the ability and by the way, that's more than Clinton was given. If the President's claim of a perfect call is to be sustained and no wrongdoing, then the question becomes well, then why aren't you coming in?

We know why the President's not going to come in. We know that's hot talk but why not come in and mount a defense. If you're getting this opportunity, you're really getting two bites at the apple. Cuomo's Court is in session with Harry Litman and Jim Schultz.

Harry, I'm saying two bites at the Apple because we know President council can come in if there's a trial in the Senate so they've given him a you know, they've given him one for free here. What is your take on the strategy?

[21:40:00]

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Yes, exactly right, they haven't given it before. My best guess is he's going to stay away. It's a - it's a - it's a sort of interesting question for him but I think he doesn't want to validate the proceedings at all but it really takes away a talking point from him, right?

Oh, you've just railroaded me, no due process, etc. Why not have you know, a lawyer or representatives on the different points to make his claims? It should only be to the good. It's something that Clinton and Nixon didn't have a chance to do but it means he is integrated in a process that he wants to pretend is completely corrupt and I think that's why he winds up staying away.

I'll be interested what Jim thinks on that.

CUOMO: Jimmy, what's up with the poker face? You're not thinking of taking a job and going in there, are you? I need you on the show.

JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY: No, I won't be going back but Chris, I don't think, I don't think there's any chance that they go in and mount the defense in this case.

So this thing started in the Judiciary Committee with Nadler and Nadler got embarrassed by Corey Lewandowski. He said whoa, OK, we're going to send this over to Schiff's committee in the House Intelligence Committee and then they did that in the basement.

They did it in secret and they leaked out information and then they - and then they started releasing transcripts. Now all of a sudden, now the transcripts are released, everything's been out in the open.

Now we're going to have another hearing over in judiciary. When the cake is already baked and they're saying, hey, come on in and help us with the icing at the end. If I'm the President's legal team, I'm saying no way to that. This was not a fair process from the beginning.

We're going to continue to fight this fight the way we've been doing it. We're going to get to the Senate where the rules of evidence apply and where you're going to get a hearing that's - that's managed much like much like the court of law--

CUOMO: It may apply. We have to see what the procedures are.

LITMAN: You have Judge Mitch McConnell doing whatever he wants to do. Look, first--

CUOMO: Well, you need a simple majority though but Harry, to the main assertions of Jimmy, I want you to respond to them semi-auto in order here. Lewandowski embarrassed the judiciary by pretending he got to exercise executive privilege and the Ken Starr report that started with a land deal and ended with--

SCHULTZ: Chris, they couldn't even ask a question.

LIMAN: Well, let me talk about Lewandowski--

CUOMO: Well, first of all, I will pose it anyway I want, this is my court. I'm the judge, Jimmy. But you've got Lewandowski, you've got Ken Starr that he got to do his whole report, is this fair or is this not compared to them?

LITMAN: Oh yes more so. Starr did it all in secret and then he went to the Senate. By the way Lewandowski, yes, he was high-handed and arrogant when he was talking to the congressman but when Barry Burke, a good lawyer questioned him, he was quickly reduced to showing that he was a liar and that's what it would be like in in the House.

You'd have competent professional counsel questioning, that makes a big difference. That is what we had in Watergate.

CUOMO: So you know--

SCHULTZ: Well, in this case, all we heard was a rant in the first hearing Chris.

LITMAN: Really? A rant?

SCHULTZ: That's all we got. It was a Democratic rant.

LITMAN: You see - you see no evidence? You see this as just a rant Jim?

SCHULTZ: No, I'm talking about the first Judiciary Committee. That first Judiciary committee hearing was a joke, flat-out and they--

LITMAN: I'm not sure what you mean but here we have a real one.

SCHULTZ: They couldn't ask a question. They couldn't ask a question and now we're going to come back after they've done all their work in the basement in secret and now--

LITMAN: It wasn't in secret.

SCHULTZ: - all of a sudden, hey, come to the party, now you can ask questions.

LITMAN: And why wouldn't they. Why wouldn't they try to--

SCHULTZ: If I were the President's lawyers, I would say we're not - we're not playing on this one.

LITMAN: Oh because it was - it was - you don't like how it was before. Here's your chance to tell the American people and participate in a process where everyone's looking and you want to say, we don't like how it was before?

SCHULTZ: It's not going to be 218 Democrats that are going to vote for impeachment here, the ones we have to look at are those 31 seats where the President won and we have Democrats sitting in those congressional seats and those are the ones that everybody's going to be watching in these votes.

Folks like Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey.

LITMAN: That's true, yes.

SCHULTZ: And Tom - and Conor Lamb here in Pennsylvania and those are going to be the ones that--

LITMAN: But what about the American people.

SCHULTZ: - people are going to watching to see what they do on this.

CUOMO: What about the 50 percent of the population?

SCHULTZ: The members of the Congress represent the people.

CUOMO: Hold on, I can't understand. Hold on a second.

SCHULTZ: And I'm interested to see.

CUOMO: Jimmy, hold on a second, Jimmy, let's get some context. Let's get some context. Hold on a second. I got something on the screen right now. Can you see it? There's a poll that says 50% say impeach and remove so you're worried about people sitting in red districts, fair point.

What about this statistic? You worried about that?

SCHULTZ: Look, there are other polls that are showing this thing's going backwards on the Democrats at this point in time and I think that it is especially in those districts. You have folks like Van Drew in New Jersey who said look, I don't want any part of this impeachment to begin with, you know why because he's paying attention to his constituency.

Folks like Conor Lamb, silent in western Pennsylvania on this issue because you know why? He's taking a look at saying look and saying, I might take a pass.

CUOMO: Clinton had 31 go against him in the impeachment proceedings. SCHULTZ: And you know why? Because their constituents aren't for it, Chris.

LITMAN: Can I make a note? A quick one.

SCHULTZ: The folks in those districts, they are swing districts, their constituents--

[21:45:00]

CUOMO: All right Jimmy, I got your point about the politics. Harry, last point.

LITMAN: Yes, quick point, politics, fine. What about the American people and actually finding out what happened here? What about Trump and his and his - and Pompeo and the rest actually letting us know what happened? It's not just politics.

CUOMO: Right, Harry Litman, Jimmy Schultz, appreciate you making the arguments. If I don't speak to you, I'm thankful to you both. Have a great Thanksgiving.

LITMAN: Thanks Chris. Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, now, a lot of this is politics, a lot of this is persuasion. Some stuff in that vein is going to be fine even if you don't like it. Some of it is not and we have a situation here that must be addressed on two fronts.

When you can't fight the facts, you attack the person stating the facts but there are two attacks that have to stop because they are poisoning this process for real. I'll lay it out, you decide. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:50:00]

CUOMO: Two things need to stop tonight like now. First, the idea that anyone who disagrees with the President hates him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they hate this President more than they love their country.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I know you hate Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did they love America more than they hate this President?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: This is cheap this is destructive and they know it and do it anyway. A Washington Post count in April found 21 of the judges who've ruled against this administration were put on the bench by Republicans. Big cases, DACA, Mueller's special counsel appointment, family separation, sanctuary cities.

All handed down by Republican appointed judges, OK? Why? The problem is not the judge. It's the constant violation of the law by this President. In fact, the only person in this mix who uses animus in place of any legitimate dispute is our President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Shifty Schiff.

Little pencil Adam Schiff.

Elisabeth Pocahontas Warren.

Sleepy Joe.

Crazy Bernie.

Crying Chuck. Crazy Nancy.

These are maniacs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Not just politicians. He says about us in the press. They made fun of my mother last week. I would laugh if it weren't so embarrassing. The second thing that needs to stop is the idea that this President is a victim of anything other than his mouth, his motives and his moves.

The last almost three years have been filled with investigations. They are right about that but why? His mouth, his motives, his moves and those around him. Examples, the taxes, he wouldn't put him out. He says, he's under audit but he won't prove it. He keeps sheltering Putin in a way that raises questions about being compromised.

The Russia probe started by what his people said and what his people did and by this President's constant solicitation of help to and denial of the obvious Russian interference to this day.

And this whole Ukraine mess, it's about what he and his personal lawyer planned to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY: Of course, I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That's fine. Again, I don't think this is about Rudy. I think this is about Rudy do wind what his clients wanted him to do the way he allowed him to do it. This President is making his own mess, further to the point. Mueller outlined instance after instance of obstruction by the President himself. So why didn't they move on it? Democratic leadership chose not to move

on impeachment. You would say it was a political thing. They didn't think they had the votes or whatever but they didn't do it. Add them, now all of a sudden if you look at everything that has happened there's no need to make it up. They're all of his own making. He plays the system and when caught, this President plays the victim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a shame that your President has had to go through this. No President has ever have to go through this again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: I hope he's right. God willing, we will never have a President who calls is this much chaos again and you know what? The chances of that may be better if the man responsible for the chaos right now does get impeached. Why? Look, I think you can argue it either way.

I have on this show, some of you like that, some of you don't. That's the show but for people with open minds but if he gets impeached, that is a permanent stain. It will be the first thing people will know about his presidency for ever. Trump said in a tweet, he never imagined his name connected to the word but I believe that and it may be his worst fear and it will be realized.

His name will be glued to being impeached for eternity. Now he can complain to the red hat rallies of thousands who agree with him no matter what he says but the country has made their sympathies clear, a majority doesn't just say this is a good process.

Doesn't just say he should be accused or impeached. They say he should be removed. I don't see that as being likely politically and as for those who support him most, you see how he is already making any loss that happens here about you, not him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: And if you lose, they're going to say, Trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. This was the greatest. You can't let that happen to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: He created the mess but you will take the loss and yet, you are not the victim if that happens, he is and you must help him when he has done nothing but help himself and in doing so, he has gotten himself exactly where he is.

This is not about hate for the President, God protect him and keep him and his family well but we must love the presidency more than any president.

[21:55:00]

Our loyalty and that of our lawmakers is not to him but to the country and the countrymen that our politicians service. They're servants for you, not surfs for the President. Whatever happens next with impeachment, know this, this President can blame the person who's always apparently foremost in his mind, himself.

That's the argument. Tonight Bolo, a democratic presidential front runner's numbers suddenly running low, could it shake up the race? Bolo.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Bolo, Be On The Lookout. Joe Biden remaining steady at the top in the latest polls from Quinnipiac. Still a pack. But look at Warren, 28 to 14 percent. Why this drop in this moment? Electability. 10 percent say, she's the one to beat Trump. Same number for Sanders by the way. Biden much higher than that. It's 69 days from the first votes in the Iowa caucuses but this isn't what Warren wants.