Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

DOJ IG: Start Of Russia Probe Justified & Unbiased; Steele Said He Was "Friendly" With Ivanka For Years; Democrats Expected To Draft Abuse Of Power, Obstruction Of Congress Articles Against Trump. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired December 09, 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: --investigation but no bias at the heart of it, no spying on the Trump campaign, no hoax, as the President has been claiming over and over again.

Plenty more ground to cover. I'll return for a special edition, live edition of 360, 11 P.M. Eastern tonight. Right now, stay tuned for more news. CUOMO PRIME TIME starts now.

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

The articles of impeachment are coming tomorrow, we are told. We're going to check in with a player on what to expect.

And two years' worth of Deep State digs from this President were found by his own DoJ to be wrong.

And if he doesn't believe it, he can ask his daughter. Turns out, she is reportedly friends with the foreign former Intel agent, who compiled the dossier, and has been demonized by her daddy. You cannot make this stuff up.

So, what do you say? Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Make no mistake. What the President has been telling you about the Russia probe being a hoax and a witch-hunt is dead wrong. It's not from me. That's according to the Inspector General at the Trump Department of Justice.

Years of ugly conspiracies, up in smoke. No spying on the Trump campaign. The investigation was lawfully started. No political bias.

There were some errors made along the way, and the new FBI Head has a slew of changes to make. But none of the mistakes were judged by the Inspector General as adversely affecting any outcomes. The only arguable Deep State activity today was by this President's Attorney General, attacking the findings of his own agency, and having a hand-picked prosecutor to justify his feelings about spying, doing his own probe, and his prosecutor pulled a Comey, broke protocol, bad- mouthed the Inspector General's findings while talking about his own ongoing investigation.

So, will those accused of treason, and worse, get an apology? The two men I rely on most, about these matters, are in fact in the news tonight. Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director of the FBI, and former FBI General Counsel, Jim Baker.

Gentlemen, good to have you, as always.

JIM BAKER, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Thanks, Chris.

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Good to be here, Chris.

CUOMO: Andrew, what does it mean to you?

MCCABE: You know, it means a lot, Chris. It's - it's not a happy day, quite honestly, because this is something that we have expected, and been waiting for, for two years.

I knew that we had not ever done anything wrong. So, to see the IG embrace the unavoidable facts of no bias in the investigation, investigation that was adequately predicated for an authorized purpose and, in fact, one that we thought we would be guilty of dereliction of duty had we not begun it, it is satisfying to finally see those words in print.

CUOMO: Jim, did you anticipate this A.G. coming out and raining on his own agency's parade?

BAKER: No. I didn't. I probably should have, given the statements he made about the Mueller investigation. But I - I did not see that one coming, quite frankly, and it was disappointing.

Given the - the - the - as Andy was saying, the conclusions are quite clear that the President's statements, over these past several years, were all wrong that there was no hoax, there was no conspiracy to overthrow anybody. There was no sedition. There was no treason, there's no evidence of any of that.

And, as you suggested, quite bluntly, I think the President should apologize to us. I - I - I respectfully asked him to - I would ask him to apologize to me, to my colleagues, because the things he said are just wrong, and I think he should step up and - and do that at a minimum.

It's just - it's just wrong so. Anyway, I didn't see the A.G.'s thing coming. And - and that I found - I found it really quite surprising, and just not appropriate, under these circumstances, given - given what he said, and given the - what the IG had found. CUOMO: Now, you guys, on TV especially, are 100 percent G-Man. You guys are always stone-cold sober. But I have been with you both, and talked to you personally.

Andrew, how hard has it been for you after all the years' of service, not asking you to get mushy, but just to be honest about it, and have this stink on you that you were part of this cabal, this Deep State effort, to take a President down because of your own politics.

MCCABE: Chris, I can tell you, and I feel confident, speaking on behalf of all of the colleagues that I worked with on this investigation, and many others, to spend your life, dedicated to protecting America, and upholding the Constitution, and then to be accused by the President, of treason, and suggest and - and have him further put the suggestion out that the proper penalty for us would be death, I can't describe to you how revolting that is, and - and, quite honestly, terrifying.

[21:05:00]

It is just the exact opposite of who we are as government servants. It dishonors the commitments and the work that we did to try to investigate what we now know is a completely valid investigation. And it's - it's just a - a disgusting level of disrespect for the people who serve this country every day.

CUOMO: You know, Jim, some of the places that you've spoken, since you've been out, I've - I've talked to people who've been there.

And you, at least in the episodes that I've heard about, you miss every opportunity to say anything about this President, and anything about what's going on. And we are all living this perverse reality where we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the President of the United States.

But, you know, what Andrew is talking about, you know, you - the penalty should be death, it's not something that's going to affect you hard. It's your family. The idea that your life of service is somehow a function of perfidy, it's not just about you. It's your family. It's your friends.

How have you handled that?

BAKER: Yes, it's been very hard. I mean and I - I use the word trauma to describe it, and I don't use that loosely. It's - it's been traumatic. It's had a negative effect on - on me, and my family, and my colleagues, my former colleagues and friends.

It's been extremely difficult. But I - I had just resolved that I refuse to get down in the mud with anybody. I just - I just refuse. It's not what's in the best interest of the country.

So, as I've written about, you know, I've tried to deal with the hatred that's come my way, and turn that around, and deal with - deal with it by trying to love other people, by actually trying to love the President, and love his supporters. That's what I've been about. I've written about that on Lawfare. And

that's - that's what I think is - it's more honorable, and it's - it's more likely to help the country, because I love the country so much, and I want to do what's right for it. And dragging us down into the mud is not the right thing to do.

So anyway, that's what - that's what I've been about, Chris. But it's - it's been really hard. It negatively affected my career, it's affected my friends, it's just - it's just been very, very difficult.

CUOMO: And you know it wasn't done out of heartfelt belief. You know it was done out of political animus. We see it time and time again. And here's the problem now, sorry fellas, but you know this. It ain't over.

MCCABE: No.

CUOMO: You know this Durham report.

He doesn't come out today, after all we learned about Comey, and not going out early, during an investigation, and what this Inspector General Horowitz wrote about that, he comes out with an ongoing investigation, and says, "I disagree. We have our own probe going."

You know it is not going to be friendly to this IG report's findings.

So, how do you deal with that, Andrew? On one level, I'm saying to you, "Hey, good for you. You just got an "Attaboy." You're not the bad guy the President says you are." But you know what's coming next.

MCCABE: Of course, we do. And we know that because this false narrative that we've been dealing with, and living under, for the last two years, is very important to the President, politically.

And this Attorney General has shown time and time again that that's his priority, holding up the President's political narrative, not protecting the institution, or trying to make the FBI better, or acknowledging the good work that people in the FBI do, but rather perpetuating the President's falsehoods.

So, I have no doubt that that will continue. They - they - both Barr and Durham made clear today that they have, to some degree, prejudged the result in Barr's investigation. And so, now, we will continue the waiting game to see where that comes out.

CUOMO: Hey Jim, the President sometimes watches this show, has certainly told about it on a regular basis, makes my life a bowl of cherries. What would you like to say to him? What would you like him to know?

BAKER: He should know that we were trying to do our jobs for the country. We were trying to protect the country from Russia. This was always all about Russia. And as shown by the Mueller report, and the indictments, the Russians are trying to hurt the country.

And I call upon the President, to step up to the Russians, and insist that they cease and desist from any efforts to influence - interfere in our elections.

And he needs to put the interests of the country ahead of his own political interests at every turn. He should come forward with respect to the impeachment.

He should let everybody cooperate with that inquiry and get to the bottom of it, let - let the Secretary of State, Mr. Bolton, and everybody else cooperate. Always put the interests of the country first, put your personal, political interests second.

CUOMO: Now, as you guys know, we always play it straight here with you guys. There were things that came out in this report about mistakes. There's a list, I think, of three dozen or maybe 40 changes that the FBI Director, Mr. Wray wants to make.

I want to ask you about the findings, and the fixes, and I want to ask you about the likelihood and the impact of this information that came out about that dossier author, Christopher Steele, the British agent, being friends with Ivanka Trump, and we never heard about it.

And they're saying that he's out to get the President, and he's saying "If anything, I was predisposed to like them."

[21:10:00]

Every time you think you know everything, and it can't get more wacky, it does. So, I need your help on both those things. Stay with me. We'll be back in a second. Stay with CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, let's just be very clear about this Inspector General report. It matters. We're going to get to what the articles of impeachment look like, they're going to size up as, tomorrow. I have one of the players coming on, Congressman Jamie Raskin. But this matters.

We've had two years, OK, of our President, and his defenders, saying "It was all bogus, this Russia investigation. The way it was done was dirty, it was political bias."

The only ugly politics being played are by him, and now arguably, his Attorney General. I'm going to save that argument for the argument. But there are these two things that came out of this report that we

have to deal with, OK? One, totally wacky, would have never believed it, if it didn't come out.

[21:15:00]

Christopher Steele is that former British agent that did the dossier, worked for that outfit that in part was paid by the DNC to do this investigation on Trump with his sources, right?

The President has bashed this guy as pro-Clinton again and again and again. We learned today he's friends with his daughter. The man is friends with Ivanka Trump. ABC News reported it first. We followed it up. We have it now. How do you make it up?

Let's bring back Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker.

I would have bet 50 pairs of glasses like you guys match up with every day that you would never ever get any kind of tie-in like by there - here we are, Andrew.

The guy supposedly out to get you, he's friends with your daughter, and gave her a kilt, or whatever he called it, the Scottish family thing, it's got some - they'll get it for me. What is it called, something with a T? Give me it, so I don't disrespect anybody.

MCCABE: The tartan.

CUOMO: But what do you make of that?

MCCABE: You know, all you can say, Chris, is that now, Christopher Steele has to be added to the long, long list of people who have been unfairly and un-accurately vilified by the President as being supposed political enemies.

The - the simple fact is he has had a long, I - I read in one piece of reporting, 7-year relationship, friendly relationship with Ivanka Trump. That is not the stuff that leads to someone out there plotting to - to overthrow the President or - or to try to drum up bad information for that purpose.

CUOMO: And now - look, even Jim Baker almost smiled there. Do you have teeth? I've - there they are. There they are. How about that?

So, Jim, this is the interesting part about this is that how did it not come up?

You know, your father is out there, beating this man like a pinata, on a daily basis, and it doesn't come up that, "Hey, by the way, dad, I know him. He's a pretty solid guy. You know, he's been good to me. He's a friend. You know, I - I actually we're going to do some business with him at one time," how does it not come up?

BAKER: Because the facts that don't fit the narrative are discarded and - and ignored. And that's - that's what we've been dealing with for - for several

years now that - that the President has a narrative about what happened, and he's pushing that for political reasons. And facts that don't fit it, he discards. That's what - that was his reaction today, I think, he's - to the IG report.

He's still making these statements about how there was this attempted overthrow of the government and so on. And there wasn't. There was - there's no evidence of that. There are no facts to - to support that. And yet, he keeps repeating it.

And so, you know, with Ivanka's supposed relationship with Christopher Steele, it does not fit the narrative, so it was not brought forward.

CUOMO: Right. And look, I'm not making any suggestions about the type of the relationship.

I mean it's just, you know, if you know somebody, and you kind of trust them, and you're thinking of doing business with them, certainly, if anything, as he admitted, Steele, "If I had any disposition, it was to be friendly to the Trump family. I wasn't looking to come after them. I like her."

All right, now, the other thing that came out in this, the exact kinds of concerns about investigators using what they like, and leaving out what they don't like. There are about a dozen to 17 instances in this report, not of making things up, but basically sins of omission, Andrew.

The one that grabs the headline is that a staff lawyer altered a document in a FISA application. Yes, a FISA application is a gazillion pages, they're very thick. They go through all these different levels of review.

But faking a document, he's now under criminal investigation. Do you acknowledge and own the mistakes?

MCCABE: Absolutely, absolutely. That particular mistake you've referred to, that's a very, very serious allegation, changing a document to alter the - the - the substance of what's communicated is something that no FBI personnel should ever be involved in.

So, I'm not going to prejudge the young man. I know that it's currently under investigation. We'll see where that goes.

With respect to the other invent - of inaccuracies in the FISA the 17--

CUOMO: And omissions.

MCCABE: --inaccuracies.

CUOMO: Omissions.

MCCABE: Yes, look, that is not what the FBI should be doing. We should be perfect in the facts that we represent to the court, and the way that we present facts, in a transparent and - and fulsome way.

And it seems that, in this case, we didn't do that. Those mistakes should be rectified, and people should be held accountable, as appropriate.

But, let's remember, even the IG determined that none of those mistakes, he didn't find any indicators that those mistakes were intentional misrepresentations, or omissions, to the court. It was rather a matter of sloppiness or mistakes or--

CUOMO: Right.

MCCABE: --or what have you.

CUOMO: I don't buy it because I'm an investigative journalist. And I'm the guy who's usually fighting with you people.

I'm not usually in the business of having to defend my - democratic institutions. Usually, it's politicians beating me over the head with that because I'm saying "I can't get any answers out of the FBI. I don't like it."

Jim Baker, this is the idea of restoring people's faith in the institution.

[21:20:00]

The argument will be, "Oh, so they left out what they didn't like, and then the IG says it didn't affect the outcomes. How did it not affect the outcomes if they left things out?"

What do you understand about the process that sheds light on that?

BAKER: Well the - the process needs to have the - the highest degree of integrity, and the lawyers, and - and the agents need to have the highest - they need to adhere to the highest duty of candor to the tribunal, to the court, and they need to hold themselves to high standards.

And this, you know, the - the stuff that we've been talking about, it's just completely unacceptable. It should not happen. And obviously, we need to fix the process.

This is a - you know, I've been involved in this battle to make sure that pleadings in front of the FISA Court are accurate. I've been working on this for 20 years or so.

And it's been a problem for - for lots of reasons. And you need - you need good processes. You need good procedures. But you need to make sure that you have the right people in place.

And, you know, I - I share part of this responsibility in terms of management. I didn't know about the facts that - that articulated in the IG report.

But I was part of the management structure there, as was Andy, as was Jim Comey. And I think, collectively, we all take responsibility for that. And I support the efforts by Director Wray to fix this. I - I agree and - and support that and would be happy to help in any way I possibly could.

CUOMO: Yes. We're going to put out an invite to him that he says he has about 40 changes he wants to make to make the process better. I invite him on the show. We're going to do it formally to come on and talk about the changes and why it makes the agency better.

We're all about testing what our agencies do, our institutions do, and how they best secure the rights of the American people.

Andrew McCabe, Jim Baker, thank you very much for being with me tonight.

It's not over for you guys because you're stuck in a political vortex. But I'm sure it's a little validating to get some of the facts out tonight and clear away a little bit of the fog that this President has put over the agency, and over you both, personally. Thank you--

BAKER: Very much so, yes.

CUOMO: --for being with me tonight.

MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.

BAKER: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, it is always an honor for me to have those gentlemen on my show. They are good men. They did a good job. And now, you had Inspector General vouch for that.

Now, another main FBI Trump target has something to say tonight. The name Peter Strzok, right, killed by those text messages with Lisa Page. Look, hey, they had an indiscretion. They made a choice, no question about it, but became a metaphor for this Deep State nonsense.

His lawyer is here next. What is Strzok's take? What does the report mean? What is the reality? 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: The facts and findings in the IG report, the Inspector General, clears a lot of the fog of the farce that was the President's conspiracy theories about that probe. Now, that includes the one salacious detail that Donald Trump, forget about the hypocrisy, he just never tires of this hype.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page.

Strzok or his lover, Lisa Page, the two great lovers.

Look at Peter Strzok and what he said about me.

How about that FBI agent? How about that guy?

Did you read what he said? Ah!

It was a disgrace to the FBI. It was a disgrace to our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That was a disgrace to the country.

I replay these clips because it was so wrong to make their personal problems into something political, and that's what was done, and now the IG report confirms it.

And that last clip, imagine if you ever thought you'd see a President of the United States, standing next to Vladimir Putin, and watching our President go bad on his own. Is that being patriotic?

Aitan Goelman is an attorney for Peter Strzok.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: It's good to see you here, counselor. It's been good to be in touch with you through this process. Thank you for coming here tonight. Let your client know he is welcome. I think it was meaningful for the American people to see Lisa Page.

What does this report mean to your client?

AITAN GOELMAN, ATTORNEY FOR PETER STRZOK: Complete vindication, Chris. I mean we've heard that said by the President about the Mueller report a number of times. It was always false. This time, it's actually true.

You had the IG take 18 months, talk to more than a hundred witnesses, review more than a million documents, and found that there was no evidence that Pete's political opinions had any impact on his work. There was no coup. There was no treason. There was no wiretapping of

Trump. There was no attempt to infiltrate the Trump campaign. All of those allegations false, false, and false.

CUOMO: And, of course, I'm not here to talk about what decisions he made in his life with Lisa Page. It's his own choices. And I understand why the FBI would take action based on their use of corporate texts and all that stuff. That's their rules, and he has to own that.

But for the people who hold out, and say, "Why all that talk about how they had an insurance plan, and how they would stop Trump from being President?" what's your client's explanation?

GOELMAN: Chris, if you look, and for better or worse, the record of texts between Pete and Lisa Page is kind of a real-time commentary of their conscious.

And if you look at them, they talk about all kinds of stuff. They never ever say that they're going to commit a coup. They never say that they're going to undermine democracy.

The "Insurance policy" texts have been completely taken out of context. Pete provided a lengthy explanation, and I think that was in the first Inspector General's report.

And, you know, the - the one thing that if you're looking for someone's state of mind that you can kind of look to is all the surrounding evidence. And here, you have proof positive that they never actually did anything. And Pete, in particular--

CUOMO: Right.

GOELMAN: --never did anything that was motivated by his personal political opinions.

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: Right. I mean, look, obviously there was a play made here to exploit those conversations, and use them as political fodder, and it worked.

Now, now what for Peter Strzok? He testified. This comes out. There was no perfidy in terms of professionalism. What does this mean for his life though?

GOELMAN: Well I mean I think we are looking at kind of a game of Whac- A-Mole here. Every time there is one particular conspiracy theory debunked, another one comes up.

So, for months and months and months, we've been hearing about how this IG report is going to be devastating, and how Pete and McCabe and Comey are going to be, you know, frog-marched away in handcuffs.

Now it comes out that's not true, and we're already seeing the swivel that "Well, just wait, now, the U.S. Attorney Durham, that's where all the real action is."

CUOMO: Well, look, Durham pulled a Comey today.

GOELMAN: So, I think we're just seeing the - the goals moved.

CUOMO: I - I - he pulled a Comey today. You know, they're not supposed to talk about ongoing investigations. You know, lawyers like you, and journalists like me, are constantly frustrated by that rule.

You can never get any information about what's happening with your clients, where you-- and they're a subject of an FBI investigation. They never want to tell us anything. And Comey wasn't supposed to speak.

And now, Durham came out, amazing timing, the day of the IG report, when his benefactor, Bill Barr wants a counter-narrative put out, and he said "We don't agree with the underpinnings of what started this, and how the probe got going."

Is that foreboding for you?

GOELMAN: It's not foreboding because Pete didn't break any law. What it is is incredibly disappointing.

I mean here's a golden opportunity for the Attorney General to say to the American people, "You know, this should be deeply reassuring. This was your FBI doing its job. It wasn't politically motivated."

I mean can you imagine, Chris, can you imagine what an IG report would say, if the FBI didn't open investigation based on the information from the Australians, can you imagine how damning that would be, if they just sat on this?

And instead, you have an attempt by the Attorney General to minimize what the IG has found, and - and his conclusions, and to call him to doubt, and to basically throw his own Department under the bus, it's - it's incredibly disappointing.

And I say that as somebody who got his offer letter from the Department of Justice signed by Bill Barr in 1992.

CUOMO: Well it's an - it's an interesting coincidence.

Counselor, thank you for joining us tonight. It's an important time to get the perspective of your client, Mr. Strzok. Send our best. He's always welcome here. And thank you for coming as well. You're welcome as well.

GOELMAN: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right.

All right, now, we have breaking news, reports of what could be in the articles of impeachment against President Trump. We are hearing you may learn this information in full tomorrow.

But we want to bring in a top House investigator who just got out of a meeting with the Speaker, 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: All right, we have breaking news.

House Democrats are set to announce articles of impeachment tomorrow morning. And the reports tonight are there are going to be at least two, maybe only two, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Now, that second one holds a distinction that we have to discuss, and we have the perfect guest, House Judiciary Member, Jamie Raskin.

Congressman, thank you for joining us tonight.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): I'm delighted to be with you, Chris.

CUOMO: So, we understand that there are discussions ongoing that this reporting is accurate at this point, but there may be an expansion thereof. Is that your understanding, Sir?

RASKIN: Yes, I think there may have been a little bit of fake news in there before. I was not in a meeting with Speaker Pelosi. I was in a meeting--

CUOMO: I never said you were.

RASKIN: --actually with the Judiciary Committee. Not - not you, I bet - OK. I just wanted to be clear about that.

But the - look, the - the Judiciary Committee was pleased with our proceedings today because the evidence that came out was just overwhelming, and unrefuted, and uncontradicted of the President's scheme to shake down the government of Ukraine.

And our GOP colleagues wanted to talk about anything but the facts of the case. So, they were, you know, upset about how long we've been working on this, or how fast it's going, or this, or that complaint. But they didn't - they never laid a glove on the factual case or the legal case for impeachment.

CUOMO: Look--

RASKIN: And I guess my major concern is that we have certain patterns of conduct that are identified as we move forward.

One pattern of conduct is exploiting the public office for personal gain.

A second is inviting in foreign powers, and welcoming in foreign powers to interfere in our elections.

And then the final pattern, I'm interested in, is the obstruction of Congress, as it tries to move forward to investigate all of these things, and so--

CUOMO: OK. Forgive me for pushing. But I got to - I got to push.

RASKIN: --that's - those - that's sort of my focus.

CUOMO: I got to push, Congressman on two things.

RASKIN: You got it.

CUOMO: One, something you said, and one, something that isn't said in the reporting.

First, what you said, a pattern of conduct. Pattern of conduct, as you just said about, whether it's self-enrichment, or behavior, vis-a-vis investigations, that dovetails into additional articles of impeachment that I think abuse of power here would have to be at some point articulated as bribery or extortion by you guys.

I don't see the extortion, but that's up for you.

The idea of bringing in the Mueller probe, and the obstruction there, you say the reporting is obstruction of Congress, not obstruction of justice, which is what Mueller was talking about. Is Mueller going to be left out of this?

RASKIN: Well I don't know the answer to that. And I mean I--

CUOMO: And it's coming out tomorrow?

RASKIN: --so, I can't tell you because I don't know.

Well the - the - I'm not quite sure exactly what's coming out tomorrow. It may just be a statement of what the schedule for the rest of the week is. I just - I just - I'm not quite sure exactly what's on the agenda there.

But let me just refer back to the hearing that we had with the constitutional law scholars. This Ukraine episode embodies all three of these patterns of conduct.

It is the elevation of the President's personal political agenda above the national security, above the Constitution.

It is the enticement of foreign powers into corrupt our elections, and then a total scramble to obstruct any efforts to figure out what happened by blockading witnesses, withholding evidence, and preventing Congress from doing its job.

[21:40:00]

CUOMO: So, here - so let's see. If tomorrow, they don't put out the articles of impeachment, you had a lot of people feeding a lot of us information that they shouldn't have, now, does that speak to how much division is there?

RASKIN: Well I don't think there's very much division at all. I mean, you know, the - the Devil's in the details always in terms of the draftsmanship of, you know, what's finally reduced to paper.

CUOMO: But it's include Mueller or don't include Mueller.

RASKIN: But, you know, essentially--

CUOMO: You got to make a choice.

RASKIN: Well, yes, you know, but - the word Mueller means different things to different people, right? There's a lot that's in the Mueller report. Speaker Pelosi has herself said that all roads lead to Russia, and Russia's fingerprints are all over so much of what's in the Ukrainian episode.

CUOMO: But it's the obstruction counts, Congressman.

RASKIN: As well as what's in--

CUOMO: It's what Mueller seemed to suggest in his testimony, and in his report, he was leaving to you guys.

RASKIN: Yes. And I believe that this is a President who is engaged in a pattern of obstructing any investigation into his criminal misconduct and the corruption of his Administration.

In terms of, you know, what specifically is cited, it really does come down to a question of drafting of the articles, and I'm not involved in the - the, you know, final stages of that process. Lots of us have tried to have input along the way.

But we are - we're waiting to see what, you know, comes back from the people who are doing the - the drafting.

CUOMO: Give me a quick yes/no on this, and then I want to ask you about today.

The idea that the moderates are really worried about this, and they want to keep it very tight, Ukraine, what we have here, don't be expansive.

RASKIN: Well the - I mean, obviously that - there's always a diversity of views about, you know, how expansive to go.

And, you know, to my mind, a lot of the issue is what do we have as sufficient quantum of evidence to go on right now, as opposed to continuing to conduct oversight in - in other areas? So, undoubtedly, you know, look, this President is a one-man crime wave, and we're not going to be able to get all of his crimes into the high crimes and misdemeanors that are identified for the purposes of these articles.

You know, I have not - you know, I've been so caught up in what the Judiciary Committee itself is doing that I'd not had the chance to canvass colleagues about where they are--

CUOMO: All right.

RASKIN: --on different issues. I would say if I had to guess about where the center of gravity is, in our caucus, it's that we should be as comprehensive as possible in describing the criminality and the corruption that pervades the Trump Administration, at the same time that we are very precise and focused in identification of particular criminal acts in the articles themselves.

CUOMO: The division on display in one set of sound bites from today. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): We will now hear presentations of evidence--

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Mr. Chairman?

NADLER: Gentleman is not recognized. We will now hear presentations of evidence from counsel.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): I have a parliamentary inquiry.

COLLINS: I haven't removed my objection yet.

GAETZ: Is this when we just hear staff ask questions of other staff, and the Members get dealt out of this whole hearing and for the next four hours--

NADLER: Gentleman will--

GAETZ: --you're going to try to overturn the results of an election--

(CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER BANGS THE GAVEL)

GAETZ: --with unelected--

NADLER: Gentleman--

GAETZ: --people giving testimonies?

NADLER: Gentleman will suspend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Ugly early, what is the state of play? RASKIN: Well there are obviously two different narratives out there.

I mean, ours is based on 300 - a 300-page report that is chockfull with facts of witnesses, who went under oath, and actually testified as to the President's shakedown of President Zelensky, and it is filled with factual detail, documenting every phase of this scheme.

On the other side, you've got President Trump and the people he's ordered not to testify, like Secretary Pompeo, and Secretary Perry, and so on. And they're basically, you know, throwing stones from the side, saying this is a hoax, and this is BS, and this is a fraud, and so on.

Come under oath, take the oath like all of these witnesses did, people who worked for President Trump, and tell us why it's a hoax. Tell us why it's a fraud. Tell us where the lies are, because this story is perfectly coherent. It makes sense. And it's been totally uncontradicted and unrefuted.

All that we're seeing on the other side, Chris, is a bunch of conspiracy theories. It's really scary because they're conspiracy theories that gel completely with all of the propaganda and disinformation coming out of Moscow from Vladimir Putin.

CUOMO: Well, look, and I keep telling people, "You ain't seen nothing yet," because when there's a trial in the Senate, and that seems, you know, all but a foregone conclusion now, the Republicans are in control. They're going to control what comes in, and it could be a very different set of circumstances that are put out there.

Congressmen Jamie Raskin, thank you for keeping us in the loop. I appreciate it.

[21:45:00]

RASKIN: And thanks for having me, Chris.

CUOMO: Always a pleasure.

All right, the President loves to argue that the deck is stacked against him. Our argument is that I have never seen somebody be dealt the hands that he continue - continues to be dealt by a dealer that is clearly working for him. All on the facts, we'll lay it out, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: The Inspector General report today was good for us, American citizens, and it was validating for the FBI on one level, but it exposed some issues that they need to fix as well. Here are the big takeaways.

One, the FBI properly opened its investigation into Russian elections interference. No more hoax. No more witch-hunt. It's not what it was.

Two, the origins of the investigation were not politically motivated.

Three, this President and his Attorney General have been trashing our government without cause.

[21:50:00]

And, yes, as I said at the top, there were problems, including, on several of the FISA applications made on Carter Page. But here's the key point. They're not perfect. They've never been perfect. Journalists go after them all the time.

The IG says it didn't affect the legitimacy of the surveillance on Page, nor the probe itself. So, the "Deep State, they spied on us," riff from Trump & Co., the toxic hoax hype, it should be dead, but it isn't.

And here's the irony. Trump & Co. are actually now acting like the Deep State that they defined wrongly. How so? I'll tell you.

Attorney General Barr put out a statement about his own agency's IG report, sounding more Trump attorney than Attorney General.

"The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation," I don't know what other kind of investigation there is, "of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken."

Sound familiar? Should. Same dig at his own that he ran with after Mueller.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 Presidential election, but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts.

The evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Same stuff, although Barr is the rare Trump defender, who actually acknowledged Russian interference. That's nice. But it's overshadowed by canned talking points.

Mueller did not exonerate the President. That means he said the President is innocent. He said he could not find enough to sustain charges, not that he found nothing. Big difference.

First, collusion is not a crime, so it would never be charged here. But Mueller did cite several examples of Trumpers doing things they should not do. One got off, thanks to a generous assessment, that they were too ignorant of the law to do wrong, and another just caught seven guilty verdicts.

And, on obstruction, Mueller's team laid out close to a dozen questionable acts, but didn't make a judgment because of an OLC opinion, a legal letter that sitting Presidents shouldn't be indicted.

So, Barr spun his own agency's findings in a way that flatters this President, and then launched his own investigation, with his own handpicked employee, to chase down his own suspicions of lying.

And lo and behold, his guy pulled a Comey today. That means that John Durham addressed an ongoing investigation, which they say they never do, right? It's a no-no, as we learned with Comey. And he didn't do it to reveal facts that could help, just to rain on the IG report.

The statement, "We advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report's conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened." So, you know what that means. More stink is coming. That's very Deep State.

And as for Barr's "Thinnest of suspicions" crack about the basis to start the probe, he's once again going bad on his own agency because the report found that investigators were just following FBI guidelines.

"Yes, but who made them?" Oh, I'm glad you asked. This guy, former Bush Attorney General, and friend of this show, Mike Mukasey.

Now, Barr could change the standards, right? He's the A.G. now. They were put in place after 9/11. The question is why would you take tools from your own people who are trying to keep the rest of us safe?

But he didn't mention that, and he's not going to change them, because his goal is to put stink on his agency, undermine the institution openly, and in obvious political fashion, just to advance a political preference, very Deep State.

So, one thing is now Hundo P, a 100 percent clear. This POTUS is better represented in these proceedings than any other President ever in an impeachment. It's a big statement, and it's a 100 percent true.

Clinton's A.G., Janet Reno, picked Ken Starr to do the investigating. She initiated that Independent Counsel statute. Trump's A.G. has acted more like his personal attorney.

Clinton had Democrats go bad on him - well that's not fair. They did their duty, and they voted against him, twice, to initiate the proceeding, and on articles of impeachment. He had 31 say, "Yes, let's do this," and five say, "Yes, he should be impeached on these."

This President has his whole Party in Congress ignoring their oath, and arguing his side, not once, but twice. Clinton had them go bad on him twice. He's had them go bad on their oath twice.

[21:55:00]

Deep State! People put in place to effect their own political agenda, how do they not meet the definition? Our Attorney General, Bill Barr, and this cabal of former Conservatives in Congress, boy, do they seem to qualify. That's the argument. Let me know what you think about it, but it's just a take on the facts.

All right, BOLO, Be On the Look-Out is next. This DOJ Inspector General report is not going to quash the Russia probe conspiracy theories, not by itself. What's coming next? BOLO.

(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. I know everybody's looking at the IG report as an end, but it isn't.

Reports, forget it, Republicans are going to keep going. The IG report doesn't fit the narrative. They need Deep State. They need that as part of the sell.

So, they're going to pin their hopes on the man, handpicked by A.G. Barr, to lead a separate investigation into what Barr believes happened with the Russia probe, known as spying, U.S. Attorney, John Durham, a man of good reputation.

Listen to Doug Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Bottom line, the report shows the Page FISA should have never been obtained. If you don't have the Page FISA, you don't have a Russia investigation.

If you don't have Russia investigation, you can't knock out the President as a candidate at the time in 2016 election, and you can't hamstring the President's first two years with a Special Counsel investigation. I could go on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)