Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
New Evidence Emerges For Trump Impeachment Trial; Text Messages Shed Light On Indicted American Businessman Working With Giuliani Associates; Giuliani Tells New York Magazine That George Soros Controls U.S. Ambassadors And The FBI. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 23, 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]
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR & NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It'll be interesting to see. Apparently, he's only saved (ph) at the backing of the President. We know that he will keep talking.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Which he says he does.
HILL: He says he's got it, for now. But wait and watch. And your phone may be ringing again soon. Dana, thank you, good to see you.
BASH: Thanks Erica, you too.
HILL: The news continues. So, I will hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Have a great night. Chris, it's all yours.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, Erica, thank you very much, and again, Merry Christmas.
I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
New evidence of what I hope is getting to be pretty obvious by now, a clear timeline of what happened to aid to Ukraine, and when.
We also have a PRIME TIME exclusive on a central player in the investigation into these rogue players around Rudy Giuliani. We have a newish name and a scary game afoot.
Now, this is it for me, until after Christmas, so happy Hanukkah, blessed nights for you all, blessed Christmas. Show the love to everyone around you. We need it now. And we here, at CUOMO PRIME TIME, we thank all of you for the gift of your time and attention.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, tonight, we can clearly say that we know that the decision to withhold military aid money from Ukraine was made at practically the same time that this President was working the phones to get what he wanted from Ukraine.
How do we know? Look at this email officially ordering the money to be frozen. It was sent just 91 minutes after trunk - Trump hung up with Zelensky.
Fact and context, Trump's own people sent signals at the same time that they were doing this that the situation was dicey. How do we know? His political appointee, Mike Duffey, wrote, "I appreciate your keeping that information closely held."
Why? Why be so quiet about withholding aid to Ukraine?
Fact! Just days after Congress found out about the whistleblower, the White House, which was informed about the whistleblower, remember the timeline, even before Congress came asking, they knew.
There's reporting that even the President was aware of the whistleblower. What do they do? When Congress comes, they abruptly make the decision to release the money. Why then? Why such a quick turnaround?
Folks at the DoD, the Department of Defense, were asking what happened? We don't know what Mr. Duffey's answer was. But we know he was "Glad to have this behind us."
Why would you be glad to have something behind you that happens all the time, according to the White House?
Now, the OMB spokeswoman argues, "To pull a line out of one email and fail to address the context is misleading and inaccurate." Fair enough! But help us. These people won't tell you anything about the facts.
Now, by the way, I don't think there's anything misleading about this analysis. I think it's leading right up to where they missed. They missed the opportunity to keep this clean because it wasn't.
Requests for testimony, requests for documents, tell us about the process that went into freezing the money, they won't. The White House wants none of it out even as our President says he's the most transparent.
Think about this. How likely is it that you, let alone a President, would keep people and papers hidden if they were helpful to your cause? They thought the call summary was perfect. Clearly, their idea about that call being perfect is a con.
We're only seeing this now, by the way. You know, don't say "Well look, they put it out finally, let's argue about timing." No! Journalists used the law, the Freedom of Information Act, to get it released. This wasn't done voluntarily. They had to do it. They were compelled.
And here's the thing. There are more documents like this coming in January. Again, whether it's the President, or Mr. Giuliani, or any of the defenders, if you have evidence that makes what you did OK, this alibi that the President suggests, give it to your pals in the Senate for the trial.
Come on this show. I'll give you all the time you want to lay it out. Why? We only know what you show. And so far, the body of information here is neutral to negative, and the facts matter.
All right, that's the new information tonight.
House Armed Services Committee Member, John Garamendi, led a bipartisan Congressional delegate - delegation to Ukraine soon after the impeachment inquiry was announced.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): Right.
CUOMO: The California Democrat is going to join us now to get some perspective on the state of play.
Welcome to PRIME TIME.
GARAMENDI: Good to be with you, Chris.
[21:05:00]
CUOMO: So, when we look at the current situation, one step towards the facts first, my supposition, Garamendi, whether it was when he was overseeing insurance for the state, or now in Congress, you say to me "Cuomo, I don't like that you did this, this, and this."
I say, "Hold on. It's not how it happened. I can prove how it happened. In fact, I have somebody who will tell you Congressman, you don't have it right."
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: What is the chance that that is ever not produced when it's helpful information?
GARAMENDI: Well if you're being charged for something, you're going to do everything you can to put out the information that will exonerate you from whatever you're being charged about.
Keep in mind, this President, as you just said so very, very well, a moment ago, has done exactly the opposite. He has hid every piece of information. He has put the muzzle on anybody that could provide information.
Fact of the matter is he's hiding because there is no exoneration. He's as guilty by his own words, by his transcript, incomplete as it is. This man is guilty as charged.
CUOMO: Look, the situation we argue here all the time, the facts line up to create a pretty clear--
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: --picture of wrongdoing. What the consequence of that should be is politically debatable. We welcome that debate on the show all the time.
GARAMENDI: Sure.
CUOMO: A couple of points, strategic and a little bit substantive--
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: --on the Democrats' side.
One, the first stick you're going to get hit with at the Senate level will be, "You know, you guys have been such a rush. You know, there's a litigation about whether or not we find this to be a rightful impeachment, whether or not these people will come forward. You're not even waiting for it."
Was that a mistake to pat - bypass the litigation phase?
GARAMENDI: I don't think so.
If you go back and review what the President has done, the subpoenas that he's ignored at every level, the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, the State Department, as well as the Department of Defense, they've simply ignored all the subpoenas.
How do you get those enforced? Well you got to go through the courts. That could take forever and a day.
But the information that was available, and the witnesses that did testify, both in the evidentiary process of the Intelligence Committee, and then before the full Judiciary Committee, it is very, very clear that the President engaged in an extortion, in a bribe, trying to get Ukraine to put information forward, false as it might be, to somehow help him in the campaign.
That's very, very clear.
CUOMO: But when you--
GARAMENDI: Those are the charges.
CUOMO: But when you know that--
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: --the country is divided, clarity is at a premium, that if you had the big voices--
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: --who had to know what happened, testify, it would be very hard to argue what one of the main arguments is now, which is incompleteness of record.
GARAMENDI: Well the record actually is quite complete in and of itself. You know, are there more facts to be forthcoming? Absolutely. And that's what the trial is.
Keep in mind the role of the House of - and the - in Congress--
CUOMO: Fair point.
GARAMENDI: --our House is to lay out the charges--
CUOMO: Yes.
GARAMENDI: --the best we can. And we did, not only in the - in - in the indictment or in the impeachment itself, but also in 600 pages of additional testimony that went along with that.
CUOMO: Fair point. The articles of impeachment--
GARAMENDI: It is the trial--
CUOMO: --are just the allegations. I get you.
GARAMENDI: Exactly.
CUOMO: But then, how about this one? Withholding them looks like gamemanship at best, and a little bit of a cynical overreach at worst. I get the arguments of being--
GARAMENDI: Yes.
CUOMO: --unsure about the Senate. But that's their duty. Is it the House's duty to oversee whether the Senate does its duty?
GARAMENDI: Given what we have found out, given the evidence that was in the testimony, in the hearings, it is absolutely essential that the Senate conduct a fair and thorough trial.
You would not want to go to any court in the United States charged with whatever it is, and as a prosecutor, and simply have the defense say, "Oh! It's over. He's not guilty. Let's go home."
No. You want the facts in the trial. And that's what Nancy Pelosi is attempting to lay out, a fair process in the trial taking place in the Senate.
CUOMO: What do you say to the folks in the home district? They've known you a long time--
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: --in that state. When they're like "Geez John! You know, was this really that big a
deal that you had to impeach the President? I mean you guys did - do you just hate him? Is that what it is?"
When you get a new fact, like, "Hey! 90 minutes after he got off the phone with Zelensky, they froze the aid. This is what it was about," how do you make people care about something that we see all the time they are divided on, and arguably, a little disinterested?
[21:10:00]
GARAMENDI: Well I will tell you that one of the most conservative fellas I know, a police officer, came up to me in the grocery store, just yesterday.
And he came up, and he said, "Haven't seen you for a while. How are you doing? Yes." And then he whispered to me, "Your vote was right. Impeach him!" So, you know, this is a very conservative fellow.
Out there, people understand, and that's why the polls are saying you've got to have the evidence presented at the trial. Yes, the allegations have been made. The charges are there. That's the impeachment. Now, the trial.
Nobody - nobody can imagine a trial without evidence being presented. Either exculpatory evidence, he's not guilty, or yes, he's guilty as could be.
CUOMO: The helpful fact--
GARAMENDI: That's what the trial ought to be.
CUOMO: The helpful fact is that we've seen 60 percent to 70 percent of Americans and a pretty decent amount of crossover, relatively speaking--
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: --on the Republican side that we think something here was wrong, and we think we should hear from other people. The American people--
GARAMENDI: Exactly.
CUOMO: --do not like things being hidden from them, and nor should they.
However, what else do we see? Could be the economy, could be. May not be though. Trump's moving up. He's doing better and better against your top--
GARAMENDI: Right.
CUOMO: --candidates who are running for the nominee. Does it give you concern that people see this as overreach? GARAMENDI: Well I'm reminded of a certain Presidential - a Vice Presidential candidate some time ago that said "You give me the credit card, and I'll show you a good time too."
We're looking at a trillion dollars being pumped into this economy this year and just under that last year, an enormous fiscal boost from the federal government. It is all debt being pumped into the economy, and the interest rates being dropped to an all-time low.
All of that, yes, you're going to have a great economy. Will it last forever? No. Every economist will say you it isn't. And there are things that may cause us, not in the short-term, but in the days ahead, maybe the months ahead, to see this coming down.
But clearly, this economy is being boosted by deficit spending at a level that we've not seen since the Great Recession or the Great Crash in 2008-2009. So here we are. Yes, Trump is going to benefit from that, but so are Americans.
However, do keep in mind that it is an uneven economy. It's one in which the rich get richer and the working men and women continue to struggle to keep a roof over their head and food and their kids going to college.
CUOMO: But, as we know, politics is often, when it comes to economics, it's about your own wallet and green arrow, red arrow.
GARAMENDI: Yes.
CUOMO: And if they think it's going the right way--
GARAMENDI: Yes.
CUOMO: --it - it's a tough case. But Congressman, I appreciate you--
GARAMENDI: Yes.
CUOMO: --making it on this show. The best--
GARAMENDI: Always.
CUOMO: --to you and your family for Christmas. Thank you for being a gift to the show.
GARAMENDI: Thank you and Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Have a great week.
CUOMO: I celebrate them all. John Garamendi, thank you very much.
GARAMENDI: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, Rudy Giuliani is talking to the media. We're going to talk about what's getting put out there. However, we stick on this show to where the facts are taking us. I know the politics is crazy. But let's just stick to the facts. We have more information, new information, about a criminal suspect
who may have been messed up with Rudy. What the ties are? What it tells us? A PRIME TIME Exclusive with Vicky Ward, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: OK. So, by now, you know the name Lev Parnas. You know one of his associates, Igor Fruman. Now, these two men, we know, are linked to Rudy Giuliani, and they had involvement in what was happening in Ukraine, which is certainly a scandal at the minimum.
But there's another name you may have heard, you may not, but you should know it now, and the name is David Correia.
Who's he? Businessman, indicted in that same complaint as Parnas and Fruman, had nothing to do, as far as we know, with Giuliani. It was about money they gave to campaigns on the Western part of the United States that we're going on.
They've all pleaded not guilty.
Correia is facing one count of illegally funneling foreign money into Republican political circles. What we want to know is where did the money come from? What was it supposed to be used for? Where else may it have been used?
Vicky Ward is here, exclusive new information about this situation.
So, David Correia--
VICKY WARD, CNN SENIOR REPORTER, "KUSHNER, INC." AUTHOR: Yes.
CUOMO: --why do I care?
WARD: Why do you care? Because he's the money guy. He's also, to what you just said, been invisible kind of until now because he - there was only one count in the indictment against Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman against him.
But David Correia, according to texts that I have seen, was involved in using the political operation that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were conducting for Rudy Giuliani, the dirt-digging in Ukraine. David Correia's job was to commercialize all of that.
The - I have a text that shows him setting up business meetings, in Ukraine, for a trip that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman took, last winter, with David Correia, to do - dig up dirt on Joe Biden at Rudy Giuliani's request.
CUOMO: So, help us understand how does that work? So, they're looking for dirt on Biden. That gives them some cache because they're working - they're telling people, at least, "I'm close to Rudy Giuliani. I'm close to the President. I matter."
WARD: Exactly.
CUOMO: And what did they use that to do?
WARD: Well they're using that - their main objective, it would seem from the texts, was to sell - they wanted to try to find a way to sell liquefied natural gas into Ukraine - into Ukraine via Poland. That was the main objective.
They actually would take meetings with - with other people too. There was a - a Libyan scheme as well. But it was all about using their new political contacts for business purposes. So, David Correia, if you like, shows us the hidden agenda.
CUOMO: Do we know that like who was aware of this and why is it wrong? Do we think - we have no reason to believe Rudy knew what they were doing on the side.
WARD: Well we do. There is a connection actually between David Correia and Rudy Giuliani. So, I have reported, for CNN, that this spring, Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, and the journalist, John Solomon, who would propagandize--
CUOMO: Right.
WARD: --the - the anti-Biden stuff from the interviews.
CUOMO: Lot of time on Fox.
WARD: Exactly.
CUOMO: Putting out what Rudy told.
WARD: That Lev Parnas was arranging. They would have these meetings in the Trump Hotel, in Washington, in a private room in the BLT restaurant there.
[21:20:00]
What one of the texts shows us is that David Correia had the inside track on what Solomon was going to say. He actually sent a link of one of Solomon's columns to a friend of his, and said it's starting, and the column was headlined "Joe Biden's 2020 Ukraine Nightmare."
CUOMO: So, the - the fact of Correia knowing about the effort to get dirt on the Bidens--
WARD: Right.
CUOMO: --that matters? Why?
WARD: Well because, until now, it seemed that he was somehow separated--
CUOMO: OK.
WARD: --from this whole geopolitical sort of--
CUOMO: "I'm just a businessman."
WARD: Yes.
CUOMO: "I don't have anything to do with it."
WARD: Right. And he was the - he was the only sort of American-born, university-educated.
He was the plausible - he was the one who kind of got these, the meetings, you know, somebody who was in a meeting with Dmytro Firtash, his - his lawyers, this is the Dmytro Firtash, the Ukraine oligarch who--
CUOMO: With the connections to Putin.
WARD: --with the connections to Putin, who - who is facing extradition to the United States for bribery charges that his lawyers, you know, took a meeting in Washington. And David Correia gave Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman plausibility because of his sort of appearance, his education, his formality.
Interestingly, Dmytro Firtash is the one sort of time when all the business scheming that David Correia was planning that actually paid off to some extent.
CUOMO: All right, so two important boxes to check. One, Correia's got counsel. Obviously, he's dealing with this. What is his response--
WARD: Well he's - he's--
CUOMO: --to the idea that he was connected more to this political part than before understood?
WARD: Well his - his lawyers are not commenting, have - to any of the allegations. We've put them the not commenting on any of - any of the text messages. He obviously pled not guilty along with - with the others.
I think what's super interesting is that he sent a text, in October, right around the fact - time that the whistleblower, the reports were all coming out that he was in Dubai. He's - he told two sources he was in Dubai to close a deal with Dmytro Firtash. In his text messages, he says that the phone starts to ring and ring,
it's becomes extremely stressful for him. And, as we know, two days later, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman were indicted, as was he. He came back to JFK and turned himself in.
CUOMO: Now, the big issue becomes what is his connection to Firtash in terms of the money that was trickling down to Fruman and to Parnas. And did any of it go to Rudy? And did Rudy know its sourcing? So that part of the story continues.
WARD: Yet to come.
CUOMO: And you have been our guide all along the way. Vicky Ward, thank you very much. The best for, as you people say, Happy Christmas, where you grew up.
WARD: And you, Chris.
CUOMO: Merry Christmas, the best to you and the family, and thank you for the gift of the reporting.
WARD: Thank you.
CUOMO: Appreciate it.
All right, so what's this state of play? Well, look, one of the problems with this process is you keep learning more information, but the process has moved past the investigatory phase.
Now, look, the Democratic Congressman is right. Articles of impeachment are just a set of allegations that are supposed to be tried in the Senate. Now, that's gotten a little cloudy here because of Pelosi holding back the articles, and people arguing about that.
But look, Congress has opened the door, all right? They've opened the door to the analysis of what's the right thing to do and when.
Let's bring in Cuomo's Court, and have it out, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: One of the main defenses to the Ukraine scandal is "Look, this was just business as usual. This happens all the time." It can't be true.
Look at this New York Magazine interview with Rudy Giuliani where he goes off on the former Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch. He alleges that she is "Controlled by George Soros." And that Soros "Put all four Ambassadors there. And he's employing the FBI agents."
Giuliani also insists "Soros is hardly a Jew," and that he's "More of a Jew than Soros is."
We need to ask why the President had Giuliani do these things, and didn't use the official channels, and why they're spreading this kind of toxic propaganda?
Jennifer Rodgers and Jim Schultz in Cuomo's Court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Thank you both. Best for the Holy Days.
Jimmy, I love you, and I feel bad that I'm about to beat you about the head and neck with this allegation because you have been clear on this show that you don't understand why Rudy Giuliani's been involved, you don't understand why he's been saying what he says. You have never said anything like what he is reportedly saying now.
But to have the President's lawyer saying this is part of the Soros' conspiracy, and that's what's going on in Ukraine, and that's why they had to be involved, do you buy any of that?
JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY: Look, the only - the only thing that he said in that interview that I can confirm is that George Soros did put in a number of District Attorneys across the country in places like Philadelphia with a large - District Attorney here, and it's been a complete disaster.
But as it relates to Ukraine scandal--
CUOMO: When you say put him in--
SCHULTZ: --I don't see--
CUOMO: --you mean supported his election.
SCHULTZ: Well yes overwhelmingly--
CUOMO: Yes, called donations.
SCHULTZ: --he supported his election. And - and he's doing--
CUOMO: It's not like he's got a velvet glove--
SCHULTZ: Right. Through-- CUOMO: --that he uses to manipulate reality.
SCHULTZ: No, no, no, but--
CUOMO: Right.
SCHULTZ: --but when you put enough - when you drop enough money in, it's going to happen right?
And, in Philadelphia, no doubt we were going to have a Democratic District Attorney, but we certainly weren't going to have a District Attorney that's doing what he's doing here in Philadelphia, which is just tearing the city apart.
But, that being said, I don't think that has any bearing on - on what's going on, as it relates to Ukraine scandal. And - and, you know, I just don't get the argument there the - I don't get why he did the interview where he did. I don't get why he's having drinks during the interview.
None of that makes sense to me. But, you know, there's not much to say there.
CUOMO: Well there's not much to say to justify it. I'll give you that.
And just to be clear, I have invited Mr. Giuliani on repeatedly to show any proof he has of any of his allegations. I'll give him more time than anybody. I make it to all the people who are defending the President's actions here.
Jennifer, now here's the - the genius of it, right out of the book of Trump, and I mean that as a compliment, "Soros isn't a Jew. He's more of a Jew than him. This is ugly. We hate this stuff. Let's talk about that."
No. Let's talk about 90 minutes after you got off the phone with Zelensky, you had a - a chain of communications in the Office of Management and Budget, stopping the aid to Ukraine.
Materiality?
JENNIFER RODGERS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Oh, of course. I mean, look, this is - this is exactly what is happening.
Every piece of actual evidence and information that's coming out is more and more damaging to the President, and there's a lot more yet to come because, of course, we haven't heard from some of the critical witnesses.
[21:30:00]
So, what Giuliani is out there doing, trying to spin these false, alternative narratives, "Oh, I've got evidence. Oh, I won't show you. But, you know, it's all coming. Everyone stay tuned," if it existed, we would have seen it. We would have seen it before impeachment.
CUOMO: And, just to be clear, you know, Rudy Giuliani, I've known him most of my adult life. We come from the same place.
You don't talk like that about people of any faith, of any persuasion, and he knows it, and it's ugly. I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying it doesn't matter in this investigation, because it's a distraction, and it leads us to the big question.
Jimmy, both you and I know, and Jennifer too, God forbid any of us ever has a malicious question put out about us, and you have proof that it's not true, and you have someone that you can have come in, and tell people, "Hey, Jimmy didn't do what you say. It didn't happen like that. And I know it for a fact," everybody provides that information except in this situation, where all the top people--
SCHULTZ: Chris, I disagree - I kind of disagree with that.
CUOMO: --and all the important papers can help the President, but none of them are put out. Where's Bolton? Where's Mulvaney? Where's the chain of communications? Where's the proof of the September 9th call?
SCHULTZ: So - so, Chris, so, first of all, let's talk about the 90- minute issue. You know, all we have is the fact that the - yes, fine, let's take for a - take - take for, at face value, that that happened.
OK. So it happened. The President made - there's been no discrepancy the aid was withheld here. So, the timing of it, who really cares?
Again, I go back to the transcript.
CUOMO: Well they have said that they didn't withhold the aid.
SCHULTZ: The transcript or - or the - or the report--
CUOMO: The have argued that.
SCHULTZ: --the report--
CUOMO: They have argued that.
SCHULTZ: Look, there was - there - certainly, there was with - there was aid that was withheld here. But - but - but tying that directly to this, they haven't done.
And, Chris, you know, you're a lawyer. You get it.
CUOMO: 90 minutes.
SCHULTZ: So the - it's - the burden's on the prosecution--
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: --to prove their case. The burden isn't on the President to prove his innocence.
CUOMO: But this isn't a court of law.
SCHULTZ: And - and - and with what - with - OK, well the Democrats want to call it a court of law.
CUOMO: It's not a court of law.
SCHULTZ: And - and invoke the court of law.
CUOMO: I don't care what they want to call it. They can call it a tomato.
SCHULTZ: At every chance--
CUOMO: It's not a court of law.
SCHULTZ: --they want to take. But the - but that's the arguments they're making. That's the argument--
CUOMO: No, they're not.
SCHULTZ: --that you're making here.
CUOMO: No, I'm making an argument of--
SCHULTZ: Your claim is to a court of law.
CUOMO: --we want the truth, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: The burden here no matter--
CUOMO: We want the truth.
SCHULTZ: --no matter how you look at it, it's incumbent upon the - the House, at this point, to get enough votes in the Senate to convict. And they didn't put on a case that's sufficient--
CUOMO: Well, but first of all, they haven't put on a case.
SCHULTZ: --to get a - to get a conviction.
CUOMO: Jennifer, one of the things, Jimmy knows this, and I give him points for rhetorical flourish.
SCHULTZ: None on the facts - none on the facts. They haven't put on a case yet.
CUOMO: First of all, they're not supposed to put on a case.
SCHULTZ: But - but they have - but they have put facts out there.
CUOMO: They're not supposed to put on a case.
Jennifer Rodgers, what is the duty of the House in this situation, common-speak for people?
RODGERS: Well they need to present the evidence that they collected during their phase of these proceedings--
SCHULTZ: Right. RODGERS: --which was substantial, 17 witnesses, a bunch of documents and text messages that were turned over voluntarily. The problem is, as we all know, as lawyers, evidence continues to come in. Even through the trial, you're still investigating, adding evidence if you get it.
And there's a lot of evidence that's missing here, because unlike in a criminal trial, you know, normally, you don't have the defendant in a position to withhold meaningful evidence from the prosecutors. You're usually able to get that information pursuant to lawful subpoena.
Here, those lawful subpoenas were blocked in a complete stonewall by the Administration for the first time ever. So, we're really in an unusual situation.
SCHULTZ: So--
RODGERS: And the House is going to present what they collected. But they're also entitled to push for more evidence that the President has been unlawfully--
CUOMO: Right. But they're just the charges.
RODGERS: --withholding. And I think they should continue to do that.
SCHULTZ: Well - well within--
CUOMO: Putting on the case, Jimmy--
SCHULTZ: Well within the right of the Administration.
CUOMO: --is supposed to happen by design in the Senate. That's where it's supposed to happen.
SCHULTZ: So - so they put together. I - I heard a Congressman just calling an indictment a couple of minutes ago on your show. I also heard him mention bribery a couple of minutes in your--
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: --a couple of minutes ago in your show.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: That's what Congress is saying. There was no charge of bribery here, not even close.
CUOMO: It doesn't have to be. It's not a criminal trial.
SCHULTZ: Yet a - yet - yet a United States Congressman--
CUOMO: They accuse him of something worse.
SCHULTZ: The United States Congressman--
CUOMO: They say he abused his power. SCHULTZ: --who - who - who voted for impeachment is now claiming that there was bribery, but that was never charged.
CUOMO: But they don't have to charge anything.
SCHULTZ: It was never in the impeachment papers.
CUOMO: And it is in the impeachment. See, Jimmy, you're better than this.
SCHULTZ: Where?
CUOMO: If you read Article One of the--
SCHULTZ: Where's the charge of bribery or treason?
CUOMO: I'll give you - I'll answer.
SCHULTZ: Or any of the things - any of the things--
CUOMO: I'll answer.
SCHULTZ: --that they were claiming.
CUOMO: I'll answer.
SCHULTZ: During the time.
CUOMO: I'll answer.
SCHULTZ: That didn't appear.
CUOMO: Jimmy?
SCHULTZ: They have abuse of power and obstruction.
CUOMO: Jimmy?
SCHULTZ: Those are the only two things--
CUOMO: You are like me. You are like me. I can't believe we're not brothers.
SCHULTZ: --they went up with.
CUOMO: What I'm saying is this. I love when you ask me a question, then you don't let me answer it. That's my technique. What I'm saying is this.
In Article One of the impeachment, if you read it, they describe the solicitation of a bribe, a leverage scheme. Now, they don't charge it. But again, don't play games. We're not in court.
SCHULTZ: But they don't - they don't call it a bribe, Chris.
CUOMO: He isn't charged with anything. This is a political trial. SCHULTZ: They just called that on TV.
CUOMO: This is a political trial.
SCHULTZ: Because they could say whatever they want on TV.
CUOMO: Yes, and - and the President says--
SCHULTZ: When it come down to when - when the rubber hit the road, they knew they didn't have it.
CUOMO: That's not true.
SCHULTZ: If they thought they had it they would have charged it.
CUOMO: It's not true. If they--
SCHULTZ: They didn't do it here.
CUOMO: We've had all of them say the same thing--
SCHULTZ: Oh, Chris!
CUOMO: --on this show, Jimmy. If we had said bribery, then guys like you, who are clever and educated, would have picked apart the case in the elements of bribery. They wanted to keep it to the--
SCHULTZ: And rightfully so.
CUOMO: --Constitutional crimes.
SCHULTZ: Because they - they don't have it.
CUOMO: Right. I'm hearing you. But this is all I'm saying.
SCHULTZ: Because they don't have it. And--
CUOMO: This is what we should all agree on, Jennifer, Jim, and I, we should agree on this.
[21:35:00]
The people deserve to know who and what explains what happened here. And if you have the people at the top that supposedly exonerate the President, let them come out, so people can see--
SCHULTZ: OK. So they're not--
CUOMO: --what happened, that he's clear.
SCHULTZ: --so the - so the President doesn't have a right, Chris--
CUOMO: And we move on. But he's stopping that happening.
SCHULTZ: So, Chris--
RODGERS: And that President can contest that with his own witnesses--
SCHULTZ: --I'll let you go. The President has a right here.
CUOMO: Yes.
RODGERS: --and his own lawyers.
SCHULTZ: Hold on, right.
RODGERS: It's a fair process.
SCHULTZ: And - and the - and the President has a right to object to subpoenas, and that's what he's done here. And you know what? There's a process that goes through the courts, if they want to. It was big "Hurry up, we've got it. This is urgent."
CUOMO: There's also--
SCHULTZ: Now she puts the brakes on everything.
CUOMO: There's also a concept in the law called frivolous lawsuits.
SCHULTZ: Right now, she's putting the brakes on everything. It makes--
CUOMO: Frivolous lawsuits.
SCHULTZ: --it makes no sense. This is not a--
CUOMO: To--
SCHULTZ: --frivolous lawsuit. He has a colorable claim and an argument to be made before the courts. And you know what?
CUOMO: How do - how is it a colorable claim?
SCHULTZ: The Democrats didn't even take - take that to the courts--
RODGERS: He has made no such argument.
SCHULTZ: --to have that.
CUOMO: Listen to Jennifer.
RODGERS: He has made no claims.
CUOMO: The Judge laughed at it.
RODGERS: He's made no claims.
CUOMO: And with McGahn, they said "Don't go for the courts."
SCHULTZ: They didn't even try.
CUOMO: Now, they're arguing "Don't go for the courts."
SCHULTZ: And now they're saying "We have to get McGahn." CUOMO: No.
SCHULTZ: Oh because now it's impeachment, they want to pull McGahn into it now.
CUOMO: No, no, no, no, no, hold on.
SCHULTZ: So now they're going to bypass--
CUOMO: No, that's not, that - no--
SCHULTZ: --all the court proceedings.
CUOMO: No.
SCHULTZ: Saying now they want McGahn.
CUOMO: No, no. You can finish it. But I'm - I'm striking it from the record.
SCHULTZ: You know, come on! This is - this is all contrived--
CUOMO: And here's why. You guys--
SCHULTZ: It's a contrived--
CUOMO: --arguing that the court should--
SCHULTZ: It's a contrived political show.
CUOMO: No, hold on.
SCHULTZ: That's all it is.
CUOMO: This is going to be the last word on this.
The Republicans and defenders of the President are arguing right now that courts shouldn't make a decision about McGahn, and by extension, other cases, because they would be in fact weighing in on an impeachment argument. They're having it both ways. It's not fair.
But you are fair, Jimmy, to be on the show, and make your case. I love you for it. Thank you, Jennifer Rodgers, always a pleasure to have you. Thank you for being here, the best for your families for the holidays.
Tricky Jimmy!
SCHULTZ: You too, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, could the impeachment of the President actually help him politically? We are seeing suggestion of that in numbers, OK? It's worth looking at. What are the risks? What is the exposure? How do these three fine minds see it? We'll get the breakdown, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we have a new poll, CNN. This is what it finds.
Biden leading Trump 49-44, head-to-head, national number, OK? But couple things, one, that's a national number.
When you look state-by-state, especially the important states, very tight to Trump looking better, and Biden's national number narrowing, also true in other head-to-head polls with other top-tier Democrats.
In other words, even as this President is about to go on trial, I guess, in the U.S. Senate, he may be getting stronger. Why?
Wajahat Ali, Karen Finney, Errol Louis, good to have each and all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: PRIME TIME PRIMARY.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The best and blessings to your families for the Holy Days. Thank you for all you do for the audience on this show, appreciate it.
Brother Louis, what's your read on the poll contraction?
ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, POLITICAL ANCHOR, SPECTRUM NEWS, HOST, "YOU DECIDE WITH ERROL LOUIS" PODCAST: Well listen, the - I'm sure, Joe Biden and his team would love to be up 10 points, up eight points to where they were during the summer. But the reality is you take a pounding in some of these debates.
You take a pounding when your name is being flung around in the course of an impeachment, when the unified Republican message is "Investigate Joe Biden," which was, of course, the intention of the President, to try and weaken him, and knock him down a little bit. So, I think it's - it's natural to see this kind of thing.
Of course, what really matters is will the Democrats unite around a candidate. If that candidate is Biden, I suspect those numbers will look a little different.
CUOMO: I agree with Errol's analysis in part and his central question absolutely.
But Finney, it's not just Biden.
KAREN FINNEY, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON, CLINTON 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
CUOMO: It's not just Biden, Karen Finney.
FINNEY: Right. Yes, Sir.
CUOMO: That it's happening across the board, and state-by-state even closer, especially the states that you all need to win. What is your take?
FINNEY: Couple of things. I think, number one, there's a lot of volatility. Every poll that we've certainly done here at CNN, we see that with the voters, in terms of they're undecided between the various candidates.
I think once we have our nominee, the numbers will, regardless of who it is, it'll start to look different.
I do think the Democratic Party is going to unify behind then - whoever the nominee is because I think people recognize the mistake of 2016 thinking "Oh, Hilary's going to win, so I can go ahead and vote for somebody else."
It is a dangerous thing to think. And look, I think it's also the case that we're - we're in December, and we don't yet know what kind of impact the President will have once we start this proceeding in January.
And once he is back out there tweeting day after day and, frankly, stepping on his own positive message, although I don't agree with him about the economy that the economy is doing better, I would never underestimate his own ability to do that.
CUOMO: Waj, I've sat with you on set many times and seen you shake your head at the state of play in the Democratic Party. And now, with these numbers moving, what is the message it sends to you?
WAJAHAT ALI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I don't buy that Trump is strong. I think he barely won with 77,000 votes - votes.
There was a Blue wave in the midterm elections. If you look at these special elections in Louisiana, and Kentucky, what happened? Republicans lost.
He's only the third President in this nation's history to be impeached. Nearly half of America wants him impeached and removed, which is stunning.
If you look at the crosstabs, I said this before Chris, 61 percent of women want him out. And I will state - say this again on your show. I will eat halal crow if I'm wrong. I think women will be the force that take him out in 2020.
I think, like what Karen said, impeachment drives him nuts. If you don't believe me, look at his Twitter account, just from today. He's attacking windmills like Don Quixote. He's attacking women. He's attacking Congressman Dingell.
This is going to linger on. And--
CUOMO: It has--
ALI: --from the top of your show, there's more evidence.
CUOMO: Listen.
ALI: There's more evidence that will make him look bad.
CUOMO: I hear you. You've all argued this to me. And it's just hard for me to accept it, Errol Louis, that his mouth causes trouble.
The two best metrics have - I've had presented, one, I think by Waj, and one by Professor Brownstein, is that you don't find a President who has as low a number of voters who believe the economy is good as you do with Trump that Obama and Bush had 90 percent or better of voters who say the economy is strong, and this President has around 50 percent of those voters.
But I don't believe that the mouth matters. It doesn't seem to hurt him. Where am I wrong?
LOUIS: That's right. I - I think you're right, actually.
I mean, look, one thing that he's doing, you know, we - we look at it, and we say, "Oh, he attacked the - the memory of John Dingell. He attacked Debbie Dingell. Oh! What a terrible thing!"
[21:45:00]
Think about it though. He's rallying in Michigan. It's a state that he needs to have. It's a swing state. It's one that helped win him the victory 4 years ago, and he's already jumping to a - a general election strategy.
He's holding rallies in Pennsylvania. He's holding rallies in Florida. He's holding rallies in - in Michigan. He has the luxury to do that. As the incumbent, he's trying to sort of shore up and nail down his base.
So, I wouldn't be all that confident that the impeachment, the - the inexplicable gap between how the economy is actually doing, and how people seem to think the economy's doing, I don't think all of that is necessarily going to be fatal to him.
And clearly, they've got a strategy that they're running very aggressively, to go to the swing states now, not later, lock in their base, and then maybe see what can happen later on in - in 2020. CUOMO: 48 hours after the impeachment vote, a Trump campaign official says, you know, whether it's true or not we'll seeing in the reporting, that they raised $10 million.
There was talk about how evangelicals get behind this President. Karen, I thought that was a really interesting test. And to see how Fox jumped on that as if, you know, naming people like me as people who hate Christians - that made my mom really happy, by the way.
FINNEY: Yes.
CUOMO: The idea that they then lined up though.
FINNEY: Yes.
CUOMO: That one periodical came out, Christianity Today, Galli, the Editor in Chief, who's retiring or leaving.
FINNEY: Right.
CUOMO: Evangelicals lined up strong behind the President in the wake of that, and said, "He is our guy," the base effect real. How does that resonate?
FINNEY: Yes. So, couple of things. I want to say I agree with Waj in that as the majority of this - of our population and the majority of voters, as a woman, and a Black woman, we aren't buying what Trump is selling.
And if you look, I think that is part of what we've heard from the midterms, I can tell you from work that I'm doing, White college- educated suburban women are sick of this guy, and they are sick of the drama.
Now, to - to Christianity Today, I agree with you. I thought that was incredibly powerful. And here's where I think we don't know what impact it will have. And I think this is something we have to remember as we think about 2020. America now understands what life under Trump is like.
ALI: Right.
FINNEY: In 2016, he was able to paint this picture, and you really didn't know, and remember, we were waiting for the pivot, do you remember that in the beginning?
We all know there's no pivot coming. There's no rational human being coming. This is what it would - it is like. And so, I think you can't underestimate that people are mulling it over.
And certainly, I think having Christianity Today say to people - I mean I am a Christian, and I'm a Democrat, because I'm a Christian, right? I believe in being a good steward of the Earth and all of those tenets of Christianity.
So, I think as people look deep in themselves, as Christians, and say, "Do I - maybe I don't agree with him on everything, maybe I'm happy about judges"--
CUOMO: I get it.
FINNEY: --"but I don't - but it - but the immoral behavior bothers me."
CUOMO: We'll see. We'll see soon enough. Look, each of you have been so good to me. I thank you very much, not just because it's the holidays, but for every day.
And Waj, nothing we're talking about now matters to me even close as much to the good news about your daughter.
ALI: Thank you, Sir.
CUOMO: Thank God for the family. Blessings to your girl and the rest of the kids, you, and the wife. Finney, Louis, thank you very much for being who you are every day, not just today. God bless.
LOUIS: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, why did the highest-ranking Republican in the House just look in the camera and really say things that he knows aren't right. Why? Why are we letting lies become the norm? Why when you're told something is a fact, do you only think about whether you'll agree because you like the way it feels?
The argument of what they're saying, and what the reality is, side by side, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, how about this? A little Holy Day helping of facts versus fugazi, starring a Member of GOC - GOP leadership. We're going to go blow for blow with the balderdash. Roll the sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): Well if you pause from one moment and you read this IG report by Horowitz.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Now, before we even get to the meat of the matter, "Read the transcript, read the report," be clear, they're betting you won't read it. Why can I say that? Because both that call summary and this report say the opposite of what McCarthy and Trump's defenders suggest.
More sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCARTHY: Here's the FBI, they broke into President Trump, at the time candidate Trump's campaign, spied on him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: OK. No one from the FBI broke into President Trump's campaign, or tapped the wires in Trump Tower. Full stop!
The Horowitz report actually says this. Ready. "All of the witnesses we interviewed told the OIG," that's the Inspector General, that's Horowitz, "that the FBI did not try to recruit members of the Trump campaign as confidential human sources.
They didn't send those sources to collect information in Trump campaign headquarters or Trump campaign spaces. They did not ask sources to join the campaign or otherwise attend events as part of the investigation."
"All" of the witnesses said no one was sent into the belly of the campaign, "All of them."
So, what did happen? The FBI opened individual cases into four people associated with the campaign. That is true.
Paul Manafort, convicted, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty, Carter Page, not accused of a crime, not really part of the campaign either, according to the campaign, and to the President himself.
So, those are the facts. Now, let's go a step further. Did the FBI use people to work Page, Papadopoulos, and another high-level Trump official?
According to the report, and the reporting, yes, yes, they did. Is that spying? FBI Director, Chris Wray says "No." Remember, he is Trump's guy. And he says it was all legit.
So, why is the Minority Leader, a member of the Gang of Eight, by the way, which means he has a special process, a special amount of Intel coming to him, why say it this way? Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCARTHY: And then they covered it up. It is a modern-day Watergate.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Watergate? Five burglars connected to Nixon's re-election campaign broke into the DNC to bug the phones and steal documents. They got caught. The President infamously covered it up.
None of that happened here, no cover-up. McCarthy is trying to say that the FBI legally surveilling four people, three of whom turned out to be criminals, is somehow akin to what happened at Watergate?
You know, when I say some of this, I'll smile, and you guys mention it. I don't know why I do that. I guess it's a perverse sense of satisfaction that this play must be so obvious to you that this is BS.
He goes heavy on this. But he says nothing about our President believing Putin over our own Intelligence, asking Russia, Ukraine, and China, to help with dirt on Biden?
Look, listen to this last piece of sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCARTHY: It's a modern-day coup, the closest this country's ever came to, but the only way you can compare this to is Watergate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: A coup is a violent overthrow. Look, it's hyperbolic at best, all right? It's toxic at worst. And be very clear, Mr. McCarthy, the President, any defender, is open invitation on this show at all time.
[21:55:00]
McConnell hasn't been on CNN in 2 years. Van Drew just changed parties. He'll go on Fox. They'll all go on Fox. They won't come here. You need to make your case to people with open minds. And that is the opportunity.
We welcome you here, not to be nice. That's the job. The job is fairness and the facts need to be argued because they seem very clear. That's the argument.
Now, the BOLO, the President igniting a new war with an old foe. What is it? And here's a hint. Who plays Sancho Panza? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: President Trump drawing comparisons to Don Quixote tilting at windmills at a Young Conservatives Conference in Florida this weekend. Here's a taste.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We'll have a - an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I've studied it better than anybody. I know it's very expensive.
You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You'll see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He understands - forget it. He - this is all wrong literally.
Windmills made into a monster just as happened with the deranged man of La Mancha, Don Quixote. A bird graveyard!
Supposedly, cats kill more birds, OK? Not to mention the fact that windmills are arguably among the cleanest energy sources. Trump is making windmills into monsters. The question is why. I actually have two questions.
Thanks for watching tonight. CNN TONIGHT with the Upgrade, Laura Coates, starts right now.
I'll ask you the questions because you are the better mind. One, how do we know how many birds cats kill? I've seen that quoted all over the place from all these official sources. Who counts that? And two, if Trump is Don Quixote, who is Sancho Panza?
END
