Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Will Mitch McConnell Move to Acquit Trump?; Trump Stewing in Private Over Impeachment; Articles of Impeachment Senate Trial. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired December 12, 2019 - 00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[00:00:20]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Hello, everyone. To more of our live, continuing coverage of an historic event in our country. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIMETIME LIVE at a special time because we wanted to watch history unfold in full. And now we have to see what has happened and where it leads us.

Now, you could say this is only the fourth time that the House Judiciary has begun considering Articles of Impeachment against a sitting president. But really it's even more precious than that because with Nixon this didn't really go anywhere because he resigned. You have to look at Clinton, and you have to look at this, and it's important to do so not because of equivalencies but because of some really intriguing sameness, all right?

We're going to look at what today meant and what the challenges ahead are. What do you say? Let's get after it.

Individually it was five minutes a pop today. One by one, members of the committee with jurisdiction over impeachment, the Judiciary, fired off their takes on the two articles leveled against President Donald J. Trump -- abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. It was long, and it was really painful proof of the division of where we are at this time. Here's a sample.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): You didn't swear an oath to Donald Trump. You swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Honor that oath.

REP. GUY RESCHENTHALER (R-PA): Let's not forget that this is a political hit job.

REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): There's no allegation of bribery in these articles. There's no allegation of extortion.

REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): Our president put his personal interest above the interests of the nation. And we only have one option, and that's to hold this president accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Now, what this was supposed to be was some kind of debate about what should be in the articles. It wasn't that. Like everything else, the sides are clear and they are in complete contrast to one another.

Next, more fireworks likely to come tomorrow. The panel is going to start considering what they call an official markup. Likely that will be maybe a couple of Democrats will ask for some more specificity, include some more things, and you should expect members of the Republican Party to strike all of it, to ask to have all of it struck.

Now, after that markup, you're going to have the vote soon thereafter and maybe a full House vote next week.

So let's bring in our power impeachment team to help walk us through what is coming and what today meant. You got Catherine Rampell, Philip Bump, and Michael D'Antonio.

So, good to have all three of you. Philip, in terms of what today was, no surprise, but what does it tell us about what is likely to be true every step of the way?

PHILIP BUMP, WASHINGTON POST NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean it tells us exactly what you pointed out, which is that the Democrats and Republicans are at loggerheads. We saw absolutely no real discussion this afternoon, this evening, of what the articles should contain. There was no sort of nuanced discussion of I think that this point isn't made as effectively.

We saw Sensenbrenner there actually point out some of the concerns that he had about what might be in there, but beyond that, it really was just a lot of people giving speeches that were very political speeches and really focused at highlighting the divide between the two parties.

CUOMO: Sensenbrenner is an interesting one to bring up because if you want to do just a little touch of homework, go look at what he said during Clinton versus today.

BUMP: Yes. I mean, I think, though, that that's going to be in short supply to your point. Tomorrow there's going to be a lot of amendments by Republicans that are trying to submarine it. Both sides are really strongly entrenched as is the American public and I think that's going to define how we see the next week and next month.

CUOMO: In terms of progress made, moving the needle, and these other measures that are relevant in a political process, where are we?

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think the needle has moved terribly far at this point. If you look at the polling, it doesn't seem like there's been much of a change really over the last month or so at this point. Both sides, as Philip points out, have kind of dug in their heels. The reasons why I would say Republicans have dug in their heels have evolved over time and I think that they were very disciplined at staying on message tonight about how if you listen to speech after speech after speech, it was all about how well, Democrats have been wanting to impeach the president from day one. It wasn't really defending him on the merits.

CUOMO: They attack Democrats about evolution.

RAMPELL: Right. Right.

CUOMO: You've been looking for different ways.

RAMPELL: Right.

CUOMO: The Democrats say this all extends from foreign interference. We've been in the same field of thought all along. Which is better and more compelling?

RAMPELL: Between what?

CUOMO: Those two arguments on display today. You just hate him? No, we hate what he did. Which worked out.

RAMPELL: I think it's no, we hate what he did. I mean, look at the facts, look at what the witnesses have said.

[00:05:03]

Of course tonight's hearing was not about witnesses. It was just speechifying unfortunately. I think it actually would have been more compelling if there had been evidence brought in. If there had been testimony but that's not what this was a forum for. But I would argue that if you actually look at the evidence, what Democrats are concerned about is about the violation of the president's constitutional duties. And they are -- members of Congress are upholding their own constitutional duties in trying to hold him accountable.

CUOMO: For Trumpologists like us, there is no surprise to this other than one, and I want your take on this. This involves -- happy to have you tonight. They learned quickly the school of Trump. They didn't get it for about a year or so. Deny everything. Admit nothing. Attack anyone who says differently. Right out of the book of Roy Cohn. What the president has always followed.

We didn't see this during Clinton. The Democrats, you had 31 of them, said impeachment inquiry is right. Five of them in the House said that they agreed with at least one of the Articles of Impeachment. Here very different story. Classic Trump counterargument.

MICHAEL D'ANTONIO, DONALD TRUMP BIOGRAPHER: Well, it's classic Trump. It's classic Roy Cohn as you said. It's classic Roger Stone. So it's deny, deny, deny, attack, attack, attack. Now the president takes it another step. What he does is he boldly declares the thing that he did wrong and insists that you believe it's correct. That's why he released the memo or the rough transcript of the call.

It wasn't that everyone could see that it was a perfect call. It was not a perfect call. It was what appeared to be extortion. But he says that it's perfect and puts it out there and defies you to recognize it for what it is. So I think the Republicans have come along. I think that's a terrific point. They're now -- he's hovering over this proceeding, so the president is always on their minds.

But I think another person who is hovering over the proceedings is Nancy Pelosi, and she has played this extremely well. I think we have to remember she kept saying, I don't want to do this.

CUOMO: Sixty percent of the country in the recent polling says he did something wrong.

D'ANTONIO: Yes.

CUOMO: But at best, 50 percent, and that's over-weighted greatly with Democrats, think that this is the right course. So we'll see how it turns up.

A weakness on each side. For the Democrats, Philip, lack of specificity in these Articles of Impeachment. I have never argued for impeachment. It's not really my place, but in pushing the Democrats, it was if you're going to talk the talk, that this is impeachable and that's impeachable, and this is -- and the whole list from Mueller, then walk the walk. Stop doing it because it's unfair to the president. Either, you know, do what you think is right here or do nothing.

Lack of specificity. Abuse of power, nobody gets the history lesson. They happen to be right that abuse of power is exactly what the founders were worried about, but people buy into the crimes thing. They had one with bribery. I don't buy extortion. I didn't see a threat of force. But loosely speaking you're in the same genre of activity. Why not put bribery in here? Why not include Mueller in the obstruction?

BUMP: It's a great question, and you're exactly right that we've sort of been attuned to talking about these things as whether or not they're criminal acts. Part of that is a carryover from Robert Mueller and the collusion coordination question. Right? We're so used to talking about did Trump break the law that I think that's sort of how mindsets have sort of framed of it. My guess is if you look at the Articles of Impeachment, if you read through them, you see what they are laying out.

CUOMO: Yes.

BUMP: They're first of all laying out that this is a pattern. They tied both of the articles back to what was alleged or uncovered by Robert Mueller, which I think is very pointed. But both of them also play to something we were talking about shortly before the show went on, which is an appeal to the House as a body of power itself, right? And so think what they're trying to do is they're trying to reach out to Republicans, and say, hey, this isn't even just about Donald Trump's relationship with the Constitution. It's about our collective relationship with the Constitution and the extent to which the House needs to hold on to the power that it has.

The second article is very specific in saying --

CUOMO: Right. BUMP: Donald Trump is seizing power that was given to the House, and

we need to stop him from doing that.

CUOMO: Right.

BUMP: But the first one is similarly framed that same way. It is not specifically about what he did with bribery. It's about his treatment of the Constitution and the powers that are allotted to him.

CUOMO: All right. I owe you one. Let's take a quick break and then we'll come back because we have to talk about what the weaknesses are in being in this all-in strategy that the Republicans are. It's got an upside, but it's got a downside, too.

And for sure we're getting a better idea of what's going to happen when the House likely kicks this to the Senate. If they vote to impeach as an overall chamber, then you're supposed to have a trial in the Senate. But what can that look like can mean so many different things, and how the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is going to try to make it look versus what the Democrats want, versus what the president wants.

Oh, what an alchemy there. So we're going to go live to Capitol Hill for a deeper look with the man, Phil Mattingly, next.

[00:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. Welcome back to our continuing live coverage of an historic process in the making. Impeachment is pending. The man in charge of the Senate is signaling he wants this tried with a final vote to acquit rather than hold a vote to dismiss the articles.

Is that in the weeds? A little bit, but it matters in terms of how long this takes and what it looks like.

Even though it's after midnight, we got two of our brightest up on this. Let's start with Phil Mattingly on Capitol Hill.

Help us understand, Phil, the intrigue of who wants what out of the Senate.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So I think what's important is where the majority leader stands on this, right? He controls what happens in the United States Senate, and the impeachment rules kind of make it a little bit more of a majority and minority-led process. But Mitch McConnell will dictate how this goes. And Mitch McConnell behind closed doors, I've been told by several people involved, has made clear one thing. He wants this as short as possible to still be considered a legitimate trial.

[00:15:02]

And what that means is he wants the House Democratic managers to present their case, the president's defense team to present their rebuttal or their defense, and then put an end to it. Hold the vote. Now what does that mean won't happen if Mitch McConnell gets his way? Witnesses. Obviously the president has been very upfront about the desire to have Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, the whistleblower, anybody and everybody come in, and not just come in but come in and testify live.

What McConnell and a lot of his Republicans are moving towards right now is the idea that in the words I'm told McConnell said behind the scenes earlier this week, that would be a mutually assured destruction path. And here's why. There are moderates in the Republican Senate conference who aren't as comfortable bringing in somebody like Hunter Biden or any of the other witnesses the president wants. So if they tried to vote to bring those witnesses in, they might not actually have the 51 vote necessary to do it.

CUOMO: Right.

MATTINGLY: However, Democrats would say, all right, fine, you want to do this, we want Mick Mulvaney, we want John Bolton, we want other people who haven't come in the House. They may actually the 51 votes to get that done. And so what Republicans are moving towards right now is keeping that from happening, keeping the trial short, having it long enough so those moderates feel comfortable they've at least heard the case and then calling a vote, putting an end to it.

And Chris, as you know as well as anybody, they need 67 votes to remove the president. They are nowhere near that. Twenty Republicans would have to join every Democrat. McConnell knows for a fact they don't have the votes to remove, so he wants to put an end to it as quickly as he can.

CUOMO: And something else that this would mean. I just want to make sure I get this right because I hate when Phil has to correct me. If -- in terms of simple majority and process, you can vote or hold a motion to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment. That is a simple majority vote. So you could think, oh, that's easy. They've got enough numbers, this goes away. But there's a political price that they're worried about with that, which is actually leading McConnell away, which I'm sure doesn't make Trump very happy either, but why?

MATTINGLY: They don't have the votes. And you're right, it's simple majority.

CUOMO: For a simple majority to dismiss?

MATTINGLY: Fifty-one votes is all it takes. There are 53 Republican senators. In fact, McConnell could put a resolution on as soon as the House delivers the Articles of Impeachment to dismiss it right away.

CUOMO: So why don't they have the votes?

MATTINGLY: Because moderate Republicans have made clear, people like Susan Collins, people like Lisa Murkowski, folks in that area, and also some frontline Republicans who face tough races in 2020 saying, look, this trial needs to look legitimate. We're not necessarily going to vote to remove the president, but we at least want to be able to go back home and say, look, we agreed. We had some issues with some of the conduct here and while we may not vote to remove, at least we feel like we had a fulsome process.

And that's why the idea of dismissing either right out of the gate or even towards the end is simply a nonstarter. They don't have 51 votes to do it. That means they're going to have at least some length of a trial and the final vote won't be to dismiss will be whether or not to remove or acquit the president.

CUOMO: Right. Imagine already that tells you that you have a different personality in the Senate than you have in the House, although I got to tell you, when I watched what the inspector general today, didn't look that much different. But this is interesting reporting.

Phil, thank you very much on late watch. Appreciate it. All right?

So the president. He has been publicly trying to say this is nothing. This is easy. I'm happy they're impeaching me. This is great. I'm going to win because of this. But privately and as he tweeted to all of you, he never thought that his name would be connected to anything as ugly as impeachment. So what is going on inside the White House and how does that help control what happens in the Senate? We know he has control of the House. We see that every day.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now. What have you learned?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Chris, as you said, the president publicly has been criticizing these Articles of Impeachment, really downplaying them in fact, calling them flimsy and pathetic and saying that this is essentially impeachment-light. That was the language that he used last night at his political rally in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.

But privately, Chris, we're told that the president has been griping about these Articles of Impeachment, really unhappy about the fact that he is likely all but certainly to become the third president in American history to be formally impeached by the House of Representatives. That is not a stain on his legacy that he is relishing at all.

At the same time, Chris, we're also learning from the Office of Management and Budget their latest official explanation for why in fact that security aid, that nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine was indeed frozen. Let me read you a portion from this legal memo that we obtained.

CUOMO: Please.

DIAMOND: From the general counsel for the Office of Management and Budget. He writes, "It was OMB's understanding that a brief period was needed prior to the funds expiring to engage in a policy process regarding those funds. OMB took appropriate action in light of a pending policy process to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the president's foreign policy." And so -- CUOMO: What does that mean?

DIAMOND: So essentially what OMB is trying to say here is, look, this was all a routine policy process that was taking place, and so we as OMB, as the agency that is responsible for either doling out these funds or holding them back, we held them back, consistent with the president's directive.

CUOMO: But we had testimony counter to that. And a testimony counter to that, and isn't this something you would have said as soon as someone asked about it as opposed to in the last hour?

[00:20:07]

DIAMOND: Well, this is coming in response to a letter from the Government Accountability Office, which is essentially a nonpartisan congressional watchdog.

CUOMO: Sure.

DIAMOND: But as you mentioned, Chris, we have heard testimony, including from Mark Sandy, one of the senior officials, career officials at OMB.

CUOMO: Right.

DIAMOND: That this was anything but a routine policy process, that this was extremely unusual the way that this was all carried out.

CUOMO: And he asked about it, the oversight of it was taken from him, that there was another employee that there was a similar situation with and a Trump political appointee wound up taking it even though he was new to the situation from those who would had years of experience doing exactly this. And this explanation was not offered at that time according to Mr. Sandy. Again, it may be clarifying for their position, but is it a little too convenient?

DIAMOND: Yes. Yes, that's right. And Sandy also testified that for weeks he was unable to actually get an explanation.

CUOMO: Right.

DIAMOND: For why this funding was being withheld. So again this is the explanation that we're hearing now from OMB but it does raise the question, of course, Chris, of how much more information we could actually learn about this aid being withheld if only the administration would allow key folks like the acting head of OMB, like the Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to actually come forward and testify in this impeachment inquiry.

CUOMO: Jeremy Diamond, thank you very much.

Look, if what we're seeing to this point is any indication, they're going to give as little information as late as they can? Why? Because they want to be able to keep calling this impeachment light. That's what the president came up with. That's his genius in politics, right? What can you say and keep saying so that it sells.

Now, in some ways, you got to give the president his due. He's right. The Democrats could have come at him much harder than they did with these Articles of Impeachment. Philip Bump is right, too, that if you read the language, the context, the nuance, it's all there, but it's not there in the big way that he'd sell it to you, that's for sure.

So what's the plus-minus of where things stand? Power team is back, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:26:31]

CUOMO: The one thing that's clear is that both sides see one set of circumstances completely differently. The left says the president was wrong to do what he did but, more importantly, how he did it. The right says the left hates the president.

So what is the right consequence here? It's deep but now's the time to have the conversation because we're living it. Let's bring back great minds, Philip Bump, Catherine Rampell, and Michael D'Antonio.

Let's start where we left off with the upside for speaking with one voice is just that, power on the right. We are all in lockstep, not like the Democrats were in '98. It's got -- as Michael and I were saying, it's got Trump's imprimatur all over it, and it's effective. The downside is you're running away from the facts and the facts are pretty clear.

What's the plus-minus for you on this strategy?

RAMPELL: Well, I think it looks pretty damning. Right? I mean, no matter what Trump does, these are always Trumpers, right? We hear Trump talking about the never Trumpers all the time. That's his preferred epithet for anyone who says anything critical about him or accurately attest to the facts. Sometimes people he's appointed himself. But these are basic -- these Republicans who are standing by him, which at this point is basically all Republicans, at least all elected Republicans, are proving themselves to stand by him no matter what he says or does.

And the downside of that, I would say, is twofold. One is you don't know what the next shoe to drop is. You don't know what other damning piece of evidence might come out. And over the last several months, a lot of more and more damning stuff has come out. You know, things that Trump thought was going to exonerate him, including the rough transcript. Did not arguably. And Republicans are having to sort of re-entrench themselves and further commit themselves to defending whatever it is he does.

And the second consequence of that is related, which is that you are emboldening Trump to potentially have more shoes drop, right? If he feels like come hell or high water, come hell or high crimes, that Republicans will, you know, stand by him, will prove their unconditional love and loyalty, then why not shoot someone on Fifth Avenue effectively, or why not enlist another foreign country to help him the next election? And I think those are sort of the unknown unknowns at this point for the Republican Party.

CUOMO: So practical -- let me bounce to the philosophical, then we're going to come back to the practical. Philosophical, chance that Donald John Trump says to Mitch McConnell, I'm coming in in the Senate. We're going to have a set of rules where I'm going to be asked one set of questions. Whatever, they come up with a deal, but that he wants to come in and put the candle on top of the cake.

D'ANTONIO: Oh, boy, he would love that, wouldn't he?

CUOMO: I don't know. What do you think?

D'ANTONIO: Well, I think he was hoping that this Senate trial would be a performance, and yet he looked at the Senate. I don't think he sees a leading man who could top Donald Trump. So who's going to go in and make the case? I think in his dream that's what he would do, and he would vanquish the Democrats. You know, that cartoon meme that was produced that showed him as a superhero and he was wiping out --

CUOMO: Rocky. Rocky (INAUDIBLE)?

D'ANTONIO: Yes. Yes. Yes. And he was wiping out all the Democrats. He once said to me, my life is a comic book, and I love living in it. So I think if he could pull that off, he would.

CUOMO: You think he won't testify?

[00:30:00]

D'ANTONIO: Oh, no. I think not. I think he is scared now. I mean this humiliation that looms on the horizon. This idea of being stamped with impeached. That's a terrible thing. And even Donald Trump can feel that as a terrible thing.

CUOMO: Not enough to cut a deal though. If he would have gone to the Democrats and said, I will say I did this the wrong way. I have deep mistrust of the State Department. I think you guys are out to get me, I believe in the deep state. I did not have the reasons to do this that you think I did, but I know I did it the wrong way. I get it. I don't want foreign interference. Don't impeach me. He might have gotten a deal for censure, if he would have given that, but he never will admit anything.

D'ANTONIO: But one of his foundational political thoughts that he shared with me was that Nixon was too weak. He told me Nixon should have hung in there. He should have denied even further. He should have fought it. So, I don't think he was ever going to do it--

CUOMO: That's why he's not getting the deal, but now he is where is. All right. The philosophical problem here is this. Let's say, Rampell is right about all of this that on the face of the facts, this is a no-go zone for a President. He shouldn't have done it and he shouldn't have done it the way he did it. But philosophically, from a political philosophical perspective,

impeachment was meant for things that are so overwhelming that there is going to be a degree of consensus. They put in the two-thirds Senate provision, but it was that this is so big that we need to come together to fight against the potent person at the top of the food chain and you don't have that here.

So, as a political mechanism, impeachment is not made for this, it's made I guess for the next election. Counter.

PHILLIP BUMP, WASHINGTON POST NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the way the Democrats are viewing impeachment at this point, especially Speaker Pelosi who is sort of late to the game on this through calculus. But also, I think probably some will.

I think the way they're looking at this is not only are they holding Donald Trump to account, they're holding their peers to account. I think they are to some extent trying to say to Republicans, this is a moment in which you are being asked to do a particular thing and we are going to see whether or not you do that. I think that's part of the calculus.

I think that they - there is an element of this absolutely which is partisan. That's the overwhelming part of this is, they really don't like Donald Trump, they really don't think he's good President, they think he should be out of office, but part of it too really is trying to establish what should be done in situations like this under the Constitution of the United States of America.

And I think that part of their pushing forward with this. You're right, it would be ideally a consensus. It is certainly the case that the Republicans are being obstreperous in how they're responding to this. And I think the Democrats are trying to say, OK, we are establishing too that this is how you are responding in this moment. I think that's part of it.

CUOMO: You win if you can hold together, if you want to keep the President who is in your party from being impeached, if you hold together because whoever has two-thirds of the control.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, if you hold together and if there is a state media apparatus effectively--

CUOMO: To help with the messaging.

RAMPELL: To help with the messaging.

CUOMO: I think the pressure point is the President. But you made a good point in the break, which is no, because you will be inviting what comes next and you will be ignoring as a party. But then the bet is that he won't do something else.

RAMPELL: I think that is not a good bet to take. I think again and again we have learned that is not a good bet to take. Of course, during the 2016 election, Trump said Russia if you're listening, I would really like your help in this election and then-- CUOMO: He thinks there is nothing wrong with a foreign power giving you--

RAMPELL: Right and Republicans kind of ignored it and didn't do anything about it. And then earlier this summer of course Trump did an interview where he was asked if he - I forget exactly what the framing of the question from George

Stephanopoulos was--

CUOMO: He said if they came to you, I've got some dirt would you call the FBI. And he said no, that's not the real world and he said, well, that's what the FBI Director said. He said, he's wrong.

RAMPELL: Right. And there was like some sort of light criticism from Republicans, well, I wouldn't do that. You know no, that's not something normally Republican or normally politicians rather would do. But they were unwilling to overtly condemn those comments from the President.

And surprise, surprise, he basically repeats the same thing that he did in 2016 to a grander scale. Now this time using taxpayer resources as leverage, saying Ukraine, please not actually investigate my domestic political rival, but please announce an investigation of my domestic political rival.

From the White House lawn said he wanted both Ukraine and China to investigate his domestic political rival. So, yes--

CUOMO: And he's held to it, because he's had Lavrov here twice from Russia and he still hasn't had Ukraine here I guess it was the real deal, if you don't give me something on the Biden's, you're not getting a meeting.

RAMPELL: I think this is the guy who in some ways he doesn't learn, right.

CUOMO: Right.

RAMPELL: His aesthetic tastes and ideas about trade are sort of based on the 80's, but in some ways, he does learn, right. He learns that his party is going to stand by him no matter what so he might as well do whatever he wants.

CUOMO: All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Especially at this hour for the - helping the live coverage, you guys are invaluable. Philip Bump, Catherine Rampell and Michael D'Antonio.

Look, the big moment on the Hill today for me was not what happened with impeachment because that's part of a process. The Justice Department, IG testified before the Senate Judiciary on his Russia probe findings. They are bad for the FBI. They are bad for our trust of how they do their job. Politics or not. So, we have.

[00:35:00]

In-house experts who are there at the time. I'm going to take Andrew McCabe and put to him the suspicions that these 17 mistakes suggest. How does he answer the questions? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: So, in this major hearing in the Senate today there was no break from the partisan divide and an equally troubling fact pattern when the DOJ's Inspector General testified about his Russia probe findings.

How significant are these 17 different problems? What window did they provide into why the Russia probe was handled the way it was specifically with Carter Page? No one better to ask than Former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Andrew, thank you. Always a pleasure. So, you handed it to him. This executive summary, this list of 17 wrongs from the Inspector General makes the case for the President and his defenders that the FBI was out to get him. Now.

[00:40:00]

One of the pieces of it is the Attorney General feeling the same way. I want you to hear his reckoning of why the FBI didn't give the President a defensive briefing the way they did Hillary Clinton. Listen to this.

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: OK.

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: They didn't do. I think what would normally be done under those circumstances which is to go to the campaign and there certainly were people in campaign that could be trusted including a member of the judiciary, Senate Judiciary Committee and the Governor of New Jersey, former U.S. attorney.

CUOMO: His case is clear. You didn't like him. So, you left him out there hanging, but you took care of Clinton. Fair criticism?

MCCABE: Not a fair criticism. So, here's how that works. This was far from the normal situation that you would brief, give a defensive briefing to a campaign about. If you had heard that a campaign was being targeted by a foreign enemy and you had no reason whatsoever to believe that the campaign knew about it or that there was someone in the campaign coordinating with that foreign enemy, you would go and do a defensive briefing.

CUOMO: That was Clinton.

MCCABE: That was Clinton. So, in this case what we learned. We knew the enemy was targeting us. We knew they'd been coming at us from the cyber realm. We knew they had weaponized the material they'd stolen about Clinton and then we heard that months before that happened.

An individual associated with the campaign tells a friendly foreign government that the Russians had basically offered to assist them with the release of damaging material against Clinton. So, what we came together to investigate was whether or not someone in the campaign might be coordinating with the Russians. We didn't know who that would be. We didn't even know if that person, if there was such a person was aware and witting of the fact that they were being manipulated by the foreign power. So, you have to go into that investigation very quietly, very discreetly to figure out where the national security threat might be.

CUOMO: Second criticism, too thin, you didn't know anything, you're worried about the Russians doing what they always do. Then you find about a guy talking to somebody in a bar.

MCCABE: Right.

CUOMO: And boom you open a case, too thin, didn't have enough.

MCCABE: Not too thin. And here's why. The Russian activity had been well-established for months and months, even years. Right. So, we knew what they were doing. Now we find out from an absolutely reliable source, the friendly foreign government that an individual in the campaign had four knowledge, may have had four knowledge of this cyber-attack of this weaponization of the material about candidate Clinton. That is a very, very concerning thing. That tells us that this foreign power that we are most interested in the Russian government may be working with a domestic political campaign.

CUOMO: Too thin a standard to start an investigation/

MCCABE: I don't believe so. I don't believe so. If you want to - look, we've been through this right. With the 9/11 Commission report. We've been through this and rethinking the way that we approach national security work and the FBI. The desire and the demand by our presidents and our administrations and our citizens is that we get out front and prevent threats to the country. You don't do that by sitting back and waiting for a complete case before you open your investigation.

CUOMO: 17 counts. Let's call them from the Inspector General.

MCCABE: Right.

CUOMO: You say that's more than you've ever been familiar with before. Seven of them in the first application. When you read them as a list, it reads as a menu of you took care of your side and you disadvantaged Carter Page political animus bias in its own existence. This is the proof of it, 17 times. You took advantage of this guy to keep it going, because you wanted him and the reason you wanted him was politics.

MCCABE: So, the first part of your statement I would agree with. The finish, I would disagree with, and here's why. So, the FISA process is unique. It's not like any other court hearing, it's not like each side advocates for themselves. In a FISA process, it's just the government going to the court asking them if there is probable cause to believe that the target of this, of the application is an agent of a foreign power.

The court has only the FBI's information to rely upon. So, it is incumbent upon us to provide all of the derogatory information that would basically argue that the person is--

CUOMO: But they did--

MCCABE: Agent foreign power and mitigating information. So, if we have information that cuts against the argument, we're supposed to provide that as well. In this case, we didn't and shame on us. That was a mistake.

CUOMO: Why they did. Now, he doesn't get to that in here. He says the answers he was offered were unsatisfying, but they're all admitted. CIA says this guy, we find him to be credible, he's a contact source or whatever they call it. They don't put that in. How do you ignore something like that?

MCCABE: That should not have been ignored.

CUOMO: But why was it ignored.

MCCABE: Well, we don't know the answer to that. What I can tell you is--

CUOMO: Can be a simple mistake like I forgot that the CIA said, he's OK.

MCCABE: It absolutely can be simple mistake. It can be lack of training. It can be lack of awareness or adherence to rules and policies.

[00:45:00]

There is all kinds of things that happen in big organizations and particularly on big cases. I've seen a lot of mistakes in FBI work over my 21 years there. This is a unique lineup of mistakes in a FISA, but nevertheless people are human beings. Mistakes happen.

CUOMO: Mistake means there's something accidental about it. That lawyer then changing the document. They're investigating him. But you put those two things together. How is it not animus?

MCCABE: That is a different situation. Let me just comment on your last statement. So, mistake can be just purely that, not unintentional. You made a mistake. Or there could be a lack of training or lack of competence or incompetence.

CUOMO: But you didn't mean to hurt the guy. That's what I am saying.

MCCABE: That's the difference here. And nowhere does the IG find that any of these errors were the result of intent.

CUOMO: What about the lawyer changing the document that may investigating him as criminal.

MCCABE: That is the one exception. So that's an unbelievably serious allegation against that young man. If it's true that is certainly conduct or activity that no FBI employee should ever be involved in. It's also the subject of a criminal referral, so I don't want to get involved in saying whether he did it or he didn't do it. That's for other people to figure out.

CUOMO: Last question, the idea, the argument that happened in the Senate, it's going to happen in the impeachment.

MCCABE: Of course.

CUOMO: They went after Carter Page because that's as close to Trump as they could get with the FISA application, they were able to keep examining who he was talking to, when he was talking to people in Trump world. That's why they did this to get the President.

MCCABE: Preposterous. As I've said many times before, we had the predication to open the Russia case, so that predication is we think that the government of Russia might be coordinating with the campaign. We have no idea who. So, once that case is open, the question is who are candidates within the campaign who might be interacting with Russia.

So, we look at those people who we know have established relationships with Russia or Russian intelligence figures. Carter Page is the first person on that list. He was already the subject of a counterintelligence investigation for his repeated interactions with Russian intelligence agents' overtime. So that's why the case was opened on him.

Of course, the rest, Papadopoulos obviously that's the person who brought the information to us. Paul Manafort was already the subject of a criminal case, because of his dealings in Ukraine and with the Russian backed political groups. And then of course Michael Flynn because of his high-profile interactions with Russians.

That's why we started investigating Carter Page. And the reason the FISA went down was because we ultimately determined that he was not a conduit or operating as an agent of a foreign power. And that's why the much broader, much more significant Russia investigation than being run by the special counsel went in some very different directions.

CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, thank you for dealing with these allegations.

MCCABE: Absolutely happy to.

CUOMO: Appreciate it. Thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That is a conversation that's going to keep going because it's going to be part of this impeachment battle. You will see. Now, apart from declaring war, impeachment is the most serious decision that Congress is entrusted with. The final arguments were just made hours ago. We're going to play them to you in context for your consideration. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:50:00] CUOMO: What happened with Ukraine and why is fairly clear. But which side of the aisle is more compelling? Here are some of their arguments for your consideration. First on the founding fathers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): It's as if our founders could see into 2019 and when they did, they saw Donald Trump corrupting our democracy.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): Indeed, like Jefferson I tremble that God is just, and his justice won't sleep forever. But the abuses, the obstruction of Congress have come from Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: The air was thick with warnings about what impeachment will mean going forward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): President Trump will not be President forever. When his time has passed with his grip on our politics is gone, when our country returns as surely it will to common times and stronger leadership. History will look back on our actions here today. How would you be remembered.

REP. KEN BUCK (R-CO): Well, I tell my colleagues go ahead, vote to impeach President Trump tomorrow. But when you walk out of this hearing room, call your freshman colleagues and tell them they're not coming back and you hope that had their fun, say goodbye to your majority status and please join us in January of 2021 when President Trump is inaugurated again

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Republicans didn't dive into the facts preferring to make this about how Democrats feel about the President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): They don't like us. They don't like the 63 million people who voted for this President. All of us in flyover country, all of us common folk in Ohio, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Texas, they don't like us.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): House Democrats aren't clarifying that no one's above the law they're just clarifying that none of them are above partisanship in politics. This is the quickest, thinnest, weakest most partisan impeachment in all of American presidential history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: And Democrats argued that the Republicans are favoring the President and ignoring the precedent that would be set by ignoring what they call a crime in plain sight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): The President is the smoking gun. The smoking gun is already reloaded and whether or not it gets fired, that's up to us.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): This is a constitutional crime spree. That's why courage is so badly needed.

[00:55:00]

Right here, right now. Our national security and democracy are depending on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, look, we have the transcript where Trump asks for a favor. We know that aid to Ukraine was held up on the President's order. We know that a White House meeting was dangled, multiple diplomats told you both the aid and the meeting were contingent upon Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Biden's.

So, if those are the facts, the question becomes what is the right consequence. You could leave it to the election. You could censure a deal like that would require GOP members to admit wrongdoing and this President will never allow that and certainly never admit wrongdoing himself.

Or is it worth the extraordinary step of impeachment. Those are the questions; the answers are coming, and we'll see what you think about it all. Thank you for watching. Stay with CNN's continuing coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END