Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Senators Sworn In As Trump Impeachment Trial Begins; Senator McSally Insults CNN Reporter, Calls Him "Liberal Hack"; Government Agency: Trump Administration Broke The Law. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 16, 2020 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And you know what? The President is now asking people to donate to her, because she was rude and unprofessional to a reporter. So, big, long, slow clap for you. A reporter was just doing his constitutionally-backed job.
And so, congratulations, appointed-Senator McSally. I'm sure the money is going to flow in, and you may get a bump in the polls, and you may win. But look at the company you're now in, and look how far you have come. You were once a profile and courage. You're now a profile and politics.
The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Well said, and thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
We are living history, my friends. President Trump is now on trial. The Senate took an oath to do its impartial best today.
The question is, can they honor that oath, if they don't have witnesses, and examine the record of fact? Let's take a look tonight at what they may try to avoid, the damning details offered by Trump Co. member, Lev Parnas.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, for better or worse, today it begins.
Senators took an oath, swearing to God, to do their best to be impartial in trying the case against Trump. I'm sad to say that, for many, that oath is suspect already, and for several reasons.
The leader of the Right, McConnell, sees himself as there to exonerate the President. He said as much, in fact. He went further negating the oath before he took it. Remember this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: But today, he took an oath saying exactly that. He raised his hand to God. I wonder if his fingers were crossed, when he took that oath. You know what? I bet you, they probably weren't. You know why? He was fine telling you to your face that he is not impartial.
There is no shame in Trump Co.'s game. No matter how shameful their words and deeds, they want you to know they don't care about anything but staying on message.
That's why today was such a perfect example with this new Senator. You can't see this enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?
SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R-AZ): Manu, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you.
RAJU: You're not going to comment, Senator, about this?
MCSALLY: You're a liberal hack, buddy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Senator McSally, veteran, amazing record of service, makes this stunt that much more pathetic. Did she really swap all that good faith for fealty to Trump, someone she hasn't even backed in the past?
We see the play now. This question was obvious, so was her dodge, so was the disrespect, it's all textbook Trump. It's more proof of what this is all about. And here's more proof, just from her, of playing from the Trump playbook. Forget about apologizing, she's trying to raise money off the mockery.
And look, if you people in Arizona, if you're looking for someone to replace McCain, OK, to take the seat that he held, McSally checks a big box, man, amazing military service, also a pilot.
But, after today, and after this, she bears no resemblance to McCain's dignity, decency, discretion. I can't believe people would vote for her to fill McCain's seat.
As obvious as her, and McConnell's, antics are, we get the reason. What can't Mc -- McSally really handle? What can't McConnell handle? The facts. In fact, there's a chance that this Senate will be the first to refuse
to accept the facts delivered from the House, but they also may refuse to access the facts themselves through witnesses. How can you do your job then?
What are their criticisms of the case? There are two, all right? Now, we will take a look at them, and we will see what it's really about.
A senior Member of what's really The Resistance, which is people on the Right, insisting on resisting their duty, under law, Representative Mark Meadows. I ask him on this show all the time, and he is welcome to make his case.
But today, he took to Twitter, saying "No underlying crime, no firsthand witnesses. Game over."
No firsthand witnesses? Representative Meadows, meet Lev Parnas. If you're looking for allegations, crimes, from someone who was there, who says he was part of all the wrongdoing, there's your boy. He says he was part of everything that was wrong that the President knew, the Vice President knew.
You don't know him? Oh funny! That's what the President said. Remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know Parnas, other than I guess I had pictures taken, which I do with thousands of people, including people today that I didn't meet. But -- just met them. I don't know him at all. Don't know what he's about. Don't know where he comes from. Know nothing about him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You believe that? Here's what Parnas says.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEV PARNAS: I welcome him to say that even more. Every time he says that I'll show him another picture.
COOPER: He's lying?
PARNAS: He's lying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Credibility issues? Absolutely, credibility issues on both sides. You got a guy with a shady past, investigated for messing with foreign powers, and political contributions, now suspected of strong- arming Ukraine for dirt on the Bidens.
And then, you've got the other guy, Lev Parnas, who is not protected by his position, like Trump is, and has been indicted for the same kind of activity, regarding donations. So, whom do you believe?
The main difference is Parnas admits his role. And the biggest difference, he's got documents to show what he says is true.
The other firsthand witnesses that Meadows and the GOP seem to crave, how about Mulvaney? How about Pompeo? They're firsthand witnesses, why don't you bring them in?
They've been blocked by your Master, Mr. Trump, the man who insists he has nothing to hide, and yet refuses to offer anything, and anyone, that can shed light. Seems to be a situation tailor-made for exactly what the Senators just swore an oath to God to do.
So, why not question them? Why not put on witnesses, expose Parnas' issues, expose his credibility, expose his offerings? The Senate can command Mulvaney, and Pompeo, to come, Bolton too.
These guys literally can't say "No" in this forum. The Sergeant-of- Arms will go, and get them, and bring them here. It's different than the House. It's odd that all the good guys are hiding, and the guy with questionable credibility is asking to be tested.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PARNAS: I'm here to help the Senate, Congress. And hopefully, I want to look at the GOP Senators and to let them know that I'm here, you know, not just the Republicans, the Democrats, you should know the truth. You can validate it. You have all my information. Call me. We could sit down, and I'll tell you everything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: So, no firsthand witnesses? No, not true. The truth is you don't want the firsthand witnesses.
All right, so the other point of Resistance. And you got to focus on this now, because now we're in it, OK? They say "There are no underlying crimes here." All right, let's discuss this part. Two points.
First, the standard for impeachment has never hinged on the President being caught in a criminal act. In fact, all three Presidents who've been impeached have faced the specific charge that they abused their power.
Abuse of power is the crime, a political crime. Hamilton put the word in all-caps, political, why, because that's what it is. And, look, if you really do need crimes attached, (INAUDIBLE) the U.S. Code, OK, you need to call witnesses.
Why? Because Parnas states as a matter of fact that this was not about rooting out corruption. It was about being corrupt. It was about bribery.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PARNAS: Make the announcement basically, there would be no relationship, not just, it was no specific military aid. There was no aid. There was going to be assisted -- there was going to be no Inauguration. Pence wouldn't be at the Inauguration, and there would be no visit to the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Who told him that? He says, "Rudy Giuliani," after he met with the President, who doesn't know him, at the White House.
Wait until, later in this show, when I show you all the proof of connections between Parnas and the people who say they don't know him. You'll be blown away.
Now, on top of that, you want more illegality (ph)? Fine. Again, it is not the standard. Abuse of Office is, OK?
The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, right, non-partisan, says the White House violated the Impound Control Act. What is that? It governs how you're supposed to deal with Congressional appropriations for money as the Executive, as the President.
That $400 million from Ukraine, this summer, all right, Congress allocated the funds. The President was supposed to execute that allocation.
And the quote is "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law." In other words, you can't bribe Ukraine that unless they give you the Bidens, you're not going to give them the money, because that's about you, not about us.
"Oh, well, it's only a violation." You know, just like that violation of potentially lying about paying off the Playmate, and the porn star, to help his campaign, that was just a violation, arguably too, of campaign donations.
[21:10:00]
And what about the potential bribe? That ain't a violation. It's in the Constitution of one of the main things to look at. How can they not care enough about any of this to actually try the case, meaning witnesses, of course? You can't find me a trial without witnesses.
Believe -- be clear here. It is not just President Donald John Trump who is on trial. It is the Senate itself.
The facts and circumstances surrounding what happened in Ukraine, and why it happened, are basic and obvious. Any effort to ignore them will be equally obvious to us all, all right?
Now, what does this mean in the Senate right now? What is the state of play right after the oath? We have a juror who's just been sworn in. He says all it's going to take is four votes to assure a fair trial.
Will this new GAO finding make an impact? Will Parnas? Will anything? Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, 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: The Chief Justice of the United States is ready, Senators, in this case, the jurors, kind of the judges, as well, in addition to the Supreme Court Justice, they're sworn in, except for one who will be sworn in next week.
But what will this trial look like? Will it be a trial at all? Because if there are no witnesses, how is it a trial? That is the question that hangs over the process that unraveled today, the trial of Donald John Trump.
So, let's bring in one of the jurors from Connecticut.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Senator, Democrat, Chris Murphy.
Senator, good to have you with us.
[21:15:00]
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Thanks for having me.
CUOMO: These are heady days and a big task in front of you.
First, what is your sense at the outset of what it meant to see Senator McConnell, raise his hand, and swear to God, to be impartial, when he told us to our face "I am not impartial," what did that mean to you?
MURPHY: Well, I mean first of all, let me confirm that this was an incredibly sad day.
That was the emotion, I think, that most of us were feeling, that the country has to go through this that we've gotten to the point where we have to talk about removing a President for this kind of massive corruption. And we all swore an oath today. We swore an oath to get to the bottom of the case being presented by the House. And you cannot do that with so much evidence hanging in the balance, with so much unknown.
Remember, this is fundamentally different than prior impeachments. Never before has a President outright refused to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry. Never have we had such key witnesses and such key documents remain hidden from the United States Congress.
And so, the Senate has an obligation, as the fact-finders, to go find the facts.
CUOMO: But McConnell has said to you--
MURPHY: And so, I am very nervous.
CUOMO: I know. But let's talk about why you're nervous.
McConnell told you, don't be nervous, you understand why, Senator, we all do, "I'm not impartial. I am going step for step with the White House Counsel. Our positions will have no daylight."
How do you, honor your oath faithfully, and honor fealty to this President?
MURPHY: So, listen, you cannot coordinate with the White House on an hour-to-hour, day-to-day basis, as the Majority Leader, overseeing an impartial trial.
That being said, it is understandable, that Senators on both sides of the aisle already have some opinions about whether the President's conduct is worthy of removal, because this is not like a -- a criminal trial, in the sense that all the jurors have seen much of the information beforehand.
CUOMO: Right.
MURPHY: So, I don't think it's unnatural for -- for Republicans or Democrats to have opinions. What is unnatural is the person in charge of the trial, the Senate Majority Leader, to be openly coordinating with the White House.
CUOMO: And the idea of witnesses, do you think there will be witnesses, after this first round of arguments by both sides? Then there's going to be another vote, you know, supposedly, about whether or not they're witnesses.
Do you believe there will be such a vote? How do you think it goes?
MURPHY: I think Senator Schumer has done an incredible job of keeping the heat on Republicans, both in Washington, and back in their districts. And so, I think momentum is moving towards witnesses.
I think it's harder for Republicans today, than two weeks ago, to vote against any and all witnesses. But the question is whether they are going to be the witnesses that really will make a difference to finding the truth?
And are we going to go after the documents that are literally sitting in the White House today, the emails that may prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the President of the United States was orchestrating this entire conspiracy?
So, it's not just about witnesses. It is about getting the right witnesses, Mulvaney, Bolton, Parnas, and also requesting documents. And I think Senator Schumer has got us to the point where Republicans are -- it's really hard on them, today, to continue to say no.
CUOMO: You got a big hand today, a big -- a big helping hand, let's say, from Congressman Meadows. He tweeted today, "Here's the problem with the case. No firsthand witnesses, no underlying crimes."
You now have Lev Parnas who is absolutely a firsthand witness. I can't believe I called him a "Rudy Giuliani associate," as long as I did. I did that out of deference to everyone who said they didn't know him, you know, Nunes, and Trump, and everybody else, saying "We didn't know."
They all know him. And that's not because Parnas says it. The proof shows that. So, he's a firsthand witness. Bolton's a firsthand witness. Mulvaney's a firsthand witness. Pompeo is a firsthand witness.
So, him saying he wants them, that you should have them, well there they are.
MURPHY: Yes. It's not a coincidence that all the people who refused to testify before the House were the most likely firsthand witnesses, right?
Everybody who would have taken the specific direction from Donald Trump were the ones that refused to testify before the House because guess what? They would have testified that the President was directing all of this.
Now, Gordon Sondland did have communication with the President. And Gordon Sondland told us that the President was in on all of it.
The Office of -- of Budget and Management in their -- attested in their emails that were disclosed say that the direction to hold the aid came right from the President. And so, there already is firsthand accounts.
[21:20:00]
But the most important firsthand accounts, not coincidentally, have chosen not to bring themselves before Congress. That's why the Senate needs to force them to come and give that testimony.
CUOMO: Also, somewhat of a -- an odd coincidence that the one phone call that Sondland says he had with the President, where the President said all the right things, he doesn't have a record of it. The White House doesn't have a record of it. The State Department
won't provide a record of it. We don't even know if that call even ever happened.
Do you believe Parnas?
MURPHY: Listen, I don't know, you know, whether Lev Parnas is completely credible, except for the fact that everything that he has said is consistent with the testimony, given by the witnesses, in the House.
We have known for a long time that everyone involved in U.S.-Ukraine policy was working towards the same goal.
And that goal was to get the Ukrainians to interfere in the 2020 election, and to withhold their access to the White House, and their access to taxpayer-funded aid, until they agreed to it.
Lev Parnas fills in some of the details about how that was operationalized, but nothing he has said is inconsistent with the testimony from the House. And so, in that regard, he looks like a very credible witness.
CUOMO: I think it's likely that if he's on the stand, he gets sliced up like cheese, given what else he is accused of, but the documents will stand on their own. I just don't know how you guys, you men and women, can honor the oath, and ignore testing all this stuff. It seems to be, by definition, the job.
Senator Chris Murphy, obviously, literally, the world is watching. Good luck in discharging your duty.
MURPHY: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: All right.
All right, so, again, nobody has any responsibility put on them in a criminal trial to prove their own innocence, all right? We are innocent until proven guilty.
This ain't a criminal trial. And, as we both know, if you had proof that the charges against you, the investigation against you, was wrong, everybody puts that proof up, but not here.
Why doesn't the President, and how can anyone, not want to see this information tested, knock down what's not true, what -- knock down what doesn't stand up? But isn't that the job?
A Republican in Congress makes the case, 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: Look, you don't need a crime to impeach. That's not just true now. It's not a new reckoning. It has always been that way. It also doesn't really matter here. If criminal activity is what the bar is going to be, you have it.
This was potentially bribery. This was potentially a violation of what the GAO identified today, the President putting his politics ahead of the Mandate of Congress with respect to aid. That violates the law.
Now, the biggest problem is abuse of power. We know now -- again, all of this has come up since the impeachment ended.
The OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, they have emails that show it was our President that directed that the aid be held up. I know he's been saying other things. It's not true. The emails rule in this situation.
We also have a pair of firsthand witnesses, Mr. Bolton, and Mr. Parnas, willing to testify. Can you try a case if you don't accept the facts as given to you by the House, and you refuse to develop the facts yourself? Is that a trial?
Let's bring in Congressman James Comer from Kentucky.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Congressman, thank you so much for joining us on this show. Appreciate it.
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Thank you for having me.
CUOMO: Let's leave all conclusions and what everything means, just put it to the side for a second. The idea of a trial having witnesses seems common sense to me. What am I missing?
COMER: No. I think that's common sense.
But you go back to the House, and ask the question, why didn't the House subpoena witnesses? They could have done that. They could have gone through the court process. And they could have subpoenaed anyone they wanted.
CUOMO: They did. COMER: So, I think that -- I think that we're asking now the Senate to -- to take care of the House's shoddy work with impeachment. And, you know, I'm not sure that the Senators are going to do that.
CUOMO: I--
COMER: We'll -- we'll all find out very soon.
CUOMO: I get the talking point. But what I'm saying is they did subpoena, right?
People fought the subpoena, which I would argue doesn't have a lot of legal sufficiency. They went to court on one of them. They realized this is a delay tactic that is being, in part, motivated by the President, and they decided not to waste the time.
And even if, let's accept your argument for a second, the House should have done it a different way, and didn't. They did a lousy job. Let's stipulate to that fact. The Senate--
COMER: Yes, I agree with that.
CUOMO: --the Senate -- I'm -- I'm sure, great.
The Senate has its own job to do. And there is no standard that "Well we don't like the way they did their job, so we're going to do our job in a lousy way also." If you're not going to accept the fact record from the House, how can you try a case against the President without developing your own facts?
COMER: Well I've always said I would love to see witnesses like Hunter Biden. I think most Republicans would like to know what exactly Hunter Biden's qualifications were to get to--
CUOMO: Does Hunter Biden know anything about what the--
COMER: --serve on that Board of that Ukrainian company.
CUOMO: --President is charged with?
COMER: Well the genesis of the whole Ukrainian investigation is the question of what did Hunter Biden have to add to that Ukrainian energy company? Was there a quid pro quo with then Vice President Joe Biden?
CUOMO: Right.
COMER: That's the question that, you know, at least 50 percent of Americans have right now.
CUOMO: Right, well look, 50 percent of Americans are divided on everything, frankly, because of--
COMER: Right.
[21:30:00] CUOMO: --a dialog, the direction you're coming from. Hunter Biden has nothing to do with the allegations against the President. You want to investigate Hunter Biden, if the President wanted to investigate Hunter Biden, go ahead.
Go to the Attorney General, and ask him to do it, which the President could certainly do, so could you, or you're not in control in the House, go to the Senate, and have them investigate Hunter Biden. He's a U.S. citizen.
What you don't do, Congressman -- this is the question. Do you ask a foreign company -- country with a foreign company to investigate a United States citizen?
COMER: Well I think it's the President's--
CUOMO: Has that ever been done before?
COMER: I would hope that it's been done before--
CUOMO: It's never been done before.
COMER: --if you're giving foreign aid to a country, and you suspect that there's been corruption involved.
I strongly support President Trump trying to determine if there was corruption committed by then Vice President Joe Biden. Was there corruption on behalf of Ukraine for particular companies, energy companies that -- that are -- that are paying Americans for Intelligence?
CUOMO: But why would you ask the corrupt country--
COMER: And that's a -- that's a legitimate question to ask.
CUOMO: Here's what doesn't make sense. You don't ask the corrupt guys to help you find the corruption.
And even if you were silly enough to ask that, you certainly wouldn't give them the money for just an announcement, right, because if you don't trust me, why would you trust an announcement? You'd want to see proof of performance.
The only way this makes sense, Congressman, is if what the President wanted was the stink on Biden. He didn't put these strings on aid before Biden was running, only after.
But my question to you comes this. Let's say we have a good-faith dispute. I'm not sure who's right, you or me.
COMER: Right.
CUOMO: Shouldn't there be witnesses besides Hunter Biden? What about Lev Parnas? He says "I did this for the President through Rudy Giuliani. Here's the letter. Here's all the emails. Here's what we were doing." You're not curious about that at all?
COMER: Well that's a very serious allegation by Parnas. The problem that the Democrats have with Parnas is the same thing -- problem they had with Michael Cohen. They're both felons.
And when your star witness is a felon, who is probably trying to make some type of deal, for a plea bargain, for reduced time, it really de- legitimizes your witness.
CUOMO: Makes it way easy for you to test them then, doesn't it? And, first of all, he's indicted. He's not found to be a felon.
I guarantee you, he does have credibility issues, so does the President of the United States, so does the fact that you guys say you want firsthand witnesses, but now, in the Senate, you can call them, and compel them.
You can't hide, like the President hid them in the House, can't do that in the Senate, why wouldn't you want to talk to Mulvaney? You want to talk to Hunter Biden who has nothing to do with it.
Why don't you want to talk to Mulvaney, Bolton, and Pompeo, who have everything to do with it?
COMER: I don't have a problem if -- if they do talk to Bolton, in particular. But the question remains why didn't the House do that? You mentioned that Pelosi decided--
CUOMO: They tried. They were blocked.
COMER: Well -- well they were blocked, you said. But they would have eventually, probably been successful in court. They were in a hurry--
CUOMO: But you don't know.
COMER: --to get this impeachment done.
CUOMO: And--
COMER: And then they sat on the impeachment for a month.
CUOMO: But we having an election--
COMER: So, were they really in that big of a hurry?
CUOMO: Well they didn't sit on it for a month. There's always a delay. And again, I stipulate to you, just for the sake of argument, let's say the House didn't do their--
COMER: Right.
CUOMO: --job the right way. I don't think it's fair to say they could have gotten these people as witnesses, and didn't. We both know that's not true. But I'm saying, regardless, you can get them now. The only person who
doesn't want you to have them is the President, which is odd, seeing how he says they'll all prove he didn't do anything wrong.
Let me ask you something. God forbid, Congressman, you are accused of something, doing something wrong, and you had somebody who could prove you weren't where the investigators say you were, and yet, someone else, who could prove you didn't do what they were investigating, would you hide those people?
COMER: No. I -- I would not. But I think--
CUOMO: Why is the President?
COMER: Well I think the President's been very forthcoming through this whole process. The President is very frustrated. You know, this all started with--
CUOMO: Congressman, I get it's frustrating. It's frustrating to be impeached.
COMER: --allegations -- I know.
CUOMO: It's frustrating to be impeached, Congressman.
COMER: But it -- it started with collusion with Russia. It started with collusion with Russia.
CUOMO: It started with messing with foreign powers--
COMER: Then--
CUOMO: --and all of you agreeing, at the end, you shouldn't do that. The day after Mueller testified to that, and everybody said it's true, he made the call to -- to Zelensky, and did exactly that.
And the only thing I have to push back on, Congressman, we both know this President has not been forthcoming. He has hidden the witnesses. He has hidden the documents. And he has never even come close to testifying himself.
That's not forthcoming. Do we agree?
COMER: I think the President -- well, no. I think the President's been very forthcoming with the -- with the media. I don't ever remember a President--
CUOMO: He won't do a single interview about these things.
COMER: --having as many one-on-one opportunities.
CUOMO: He won't do a single press conference with the Press Secretary.
COMER: I see the President doing interviews.
CUOMO: He only goes to state news. He won't come on here and be questioned fairly. How is that being forthcoming?
[21:35:00]
COMER: Well this is a hard place to do interviews.
I -- I enjoy watching CNN. I tell people I watch CNN and Fox, an equal amount of time, and take that information, and average them together, and get a pretty good analysis of what's -- what's going on. But with respect--
CUOMO: Has this been a fair interview, Congressman?
COMER: It has been a fair interview. And I -- I watch your show.
CUOMO: It's like this all the time.
COMER: Well I mean--
CUOMO: If the President wanted time, I'd give him the entire hour to make his case to the American people.
COMER: All right.
CUOMO: But he hasn't done that.
COMER: Well I'm going to say he probably--
CUOMO: He hasn't allowed others do it.
COMER: Yes.
CUOMO: He won't do it.
COMER: He probably won't -- won't--
CUOMO: I know. He--
COMER: No. He probably won't come on this show.
CUOMO: --he enjoys to spend--
COMER: But--
CUOMO: He enjoys to spend his time, getting people to attack me, and my family, instead. What I'm saying is this, Congressman--
COMER: But the -- but -- but the President does --
CUOMO: --thank you for coming on this show.
COMER: Well thank you. And I'll -- I'll close by saying this. The President does do more interviews than I've ever seen any President do. And I think he's very frustrated with this whole process.
It is partisan. The vote in the House was without a single Republican and -- and even a couple of Democrats joining the Republicans. So, I understand the President's frustration. And -- and, hopefully, this -- this trial will -- will come to a quick conclusion.
CUOMO: If there are no witnesses, that is not going to help this country come to any kind of source of consensus about what happened here. We can differ about the President.
But what we both know matters, is trying to get the best obtainable version of the truth. Let's hope that happens. And Congressman, you're always welcome here to make the case. Thank you.
COMER: Thank you for having me, Chris.
CUOMO: All right. So, one of the -- the things that we have to look at here is the President told you "I don't know Parnas. I take lots of pictures with lots of people." Fair point! But this ain't just some picture at some random party.
Lev Parnas says, "Oh, no, no, no, he's lying to you," and that he was part of something the President knew, developed, and directed that was all about getting Biden.
Now, what does Parnas really have to offer? What are the challenges to it? What does it mean to the case? Let's get real investigators in here to look at it, McCabe and Baker, 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: 24 hours! That's how much time Lev Parnas says he gave the newly-elected Ukrainian President to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens. Can you believe that this guy was representing your interests, supposedly, in Ukraine?
Parnas says he delivered the message to a top aide of Zelensky, made clear, that if Ukraine didn't do it, Vice President Pence would be a no-show at Zelensky's Inauguration.
The next day, when there was no Biden announcement, guess what happened? Pence's trip was canceled.
Let's dig into what this guy has to offer, and what are the limitations, and what does it mean to this case? Andrew McCabe, and Jim Baker, gentlemen, thank you. Andrew, on the upside, when you look at the package of documents, and the potential testimony, in the form of interview, from Parnas, what's the plus/minus?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Plus/minus is, of course, the documents. Anything that he has that can substantiate or corroborate the story that he's telling, that's really the lane that you want to keep Parnas in as a witness.
He's got a lot of credibility issues, not the least of which are the federal charges he's currently facing, which include false statement charges. But the pieces of his story that you can tie back to documents, or even that handwritten note, from the Ritz-Carlton in Vienna, you should be able to take that note--
CUOMO: Why does that note matter? Why isn't it just scribblings that could have meant nothing, he could have gotten wrong, he could have been lying about?
MCCABE: Because it's a contemporaneous recollection of what he was hearing on a telephone conversation, according to him.
You could then match that note up to the booking record of proving that he was, in fact, in the hotel at that time. You could also compare it to his phone records from the days he was there, and show how many times he talked to Rudy Giuliani, during that stay.
So, there's different ways that you could begin to bolster that testimony. And it makes that records speak more clearly.
CUOMO: And Jim, what do you think the -- it speaks to in terms of the record? What does he help establish?
JIM BAKER, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Well he can -- he -- he provides additional corroboration to the main story that the House is telling, through the articles of impeachment, and through the various hearings.
He's corroborating the story that other witnesses talked about. He's not contradicting them in -- in major part or really any -- in any way that I've heard so far that's significant.
And so, all of the evidence continues to point in the same direction. And so, that lends credibility, and is in corroboration to all of the witnesses, because they're all, the -- the ones who are testifying against the President, they're being generally consistent.
And that's something that, in a normal trial, jurors would take into consideration, in evaluation -- evaluating the -- the credibility of the evidence, and how much weight to give it.
CUOMO: By the way, Jim, you ever heard of a trial with no witnesses, and no testimony put on?
BAKER: Not that I can think of, no, no. Yes.
CUOMO: I keep being told by Republicans, "No, you can do that. It happens. You know, it's just quick."
BAKER: What -- you have--
CUOMO: Have you ever heard? I've never heard of that. I can't even find one.
BAKER: Not without a witness, right? You've got to -- you -- evidence is not always through the mouth of a witness, right?
CUOMO: Right.
BAKER: You have documents and physical evidence--
CUOMO: True.
BAKER: --and tests and all this kind of stuff. But you've got to have evidence. You got to have witnesses in there to explain what it all means, to explain it to the jury. Sometimes, you have agents summarize that kind of thing. But I've never heard of a trial without witnesses.
CUOMO: I told you guys, when you were making the transition from what you used to do, into this world, there would be certain things that are just crazy to your ears.
The idea that they're going to reject the fact record from the House, OK, never been done before, but OK, and say, "Well we're not going to establish our own either," that's something that doesn't exist in your world, but it does in this (INAUDIBLE).
All right, so I actually think once you got the emails from the OMB saying that the President said "Hold the aid until this gets done," I think the analysis is over. I think all that's left is to talk about the consequence.
But let's say Parnas becomes relevant. This guy has credibility problems out the wazoo.
MCCABE: He does.
CUOMO: Coop asked him "People aren't going to believe you about this." And, he said, "Well I just want to tell the truth." That's the only question he's been asked, OK?
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: This has been one of those situations--
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: --where if you want Parnas, the questioning is going to go a certain way. If he's in front of this tribunal though, they're going to slice him up about why he was doing this stuff with these donations.
And what does that mean? Because we -- we know what the indictment shows about why he was involved over there. The guy's sinister. He's out for his own pocket.
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: He's got a lot of dirty friends. Does that kill him or do the documents save him?
[21:45:00]
MCCABE: I mean that's -- that's the question in the minds of the jurors, right? That's -- it's -- that's part of their responsibility is to assess the truth and veracity of the witnesses.
There is no doubt that if he testifies, they will go after him. They have got tons of information to use against him, the current charges, of course, of being part of that. He has an illustrious business history with all kinds of litigation issues, problems with -- with other business interests, and things, along those lines.
So, he is going to get beaten up bad. The things that save him are those things that corroborate his testimony, the documents. And I would also say, the fact that some of the things that Parnas is saying happened we know did, in fact, happen.
So, when he shows up the day before, and -- and lays out that threat that if there's no announcement, Pence isn't going to come to the Inauguration. And he doesn't get the announcement he's looking for, and then next day, Pence is canceled, that is a powerful series of events that I think goes, to some degree, to bolster his credibility.
CUOMO: One thing's for clear, for -- for now, pretty clear. He's not just Rudy's associate. He's not just some guy who was used for side things. He was part of the main dish.
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: Andrew, thank you very much. Jim, we will wait and watch. Hopefully, they do their job seriously, have a real trial, and we'll bring you guys in help us understand it, through the way.
Thank you, gentlemen.
BAKER: Sounds good.
CUOMO: All right, moving forward, there is one thing we have to stop doing where Lev Parnas is involved, and create a new understanding of what we now know is the reality. I will argue that to you why, what it means, 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, we don't control all that much in this business, but there's something that I do, that I'm going to stop doing right now, referring to Lev Parnas as an associate of Rudy Giuliani.
I'm never saying that again because it's way too limited. He is a full-fledged member of Trump Co. Need to see it for yourself?
On the wall, we'll play through, as long as I talk, pictures of him with Trumpers. It's so long, there's so many, that I had to leave pictures out. They're just going to keep scrolling through, big player after big player, fundraisers -- yes, that happens.
The President's right. He takes a lot of pictures with people he doesn't know. True. But this is not just one picture. It's not just with one person. It's not just as one time?
Why? Because, as Parnas told Anderson, his relationship was a lot more than that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PARNAS: I went from being a top donor, from being at all the events, where we would just socialize, to becoming a close friend of Rudy Giuliani's, to eventually becoming his ally, and his asset, on the ground in Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: "Asset." We kept tying him to Rudy, why? Because the President, Nunes, and Kellyanne, and all these other people, said, "I don't know him. I never heard about this guy. I don't know who he is. So what, he has a picture?"
But now, that's all been exposed. POTUS knows him. Nunes knows him. Kellyanne is even in a pic with him. Even the Vice President was supposedly aware of his efforts, according to Parnas, listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: You're saying Vice President Pence knew?
PARNAS: Of course, he knew. Everybody knew.
COOPER: Bolton?
PARNAS: Bolton.
COOPER: Mulvaney?
PARNAS: Mulvaney.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, does he have credibility problems? Yes, and frankly, more so than you've seen in these first interviews. He's got to be tested about why he did what he's charged with doing, and how that stands up.
In fact, I argue it's a reason that the Senate should want him in. They'll slice him up like cheese. The documents, they'll have a problem with, because he says things that aren't different than we've heard before.
Remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Same thing Parnas says.
But, unlike Sondland, right there, his perfect call that he had with the President, where the President said "No quid pro quo," right, he had no record of it. The White House has no record of it. The State Department either doesn't have a record of it or won't turn it over.
Parnas has documents that stand alone, and substantiate his role, and what this was about. Like what? Notes about the objective, "Get Zelensky to announce the Biden case will be investigated."
The stated price "Get rid of the U.S. Ambassador." By the way, that could be a bribe all by itself, just so you know, and that is a price our President willingly paid. And the "Why" matters.
The only way to get that answer, witnesses. And when you dig through the pages of the texts, you see names, names of the President's closest confidants, in exchanges with Parnas, the guy nobody knows.
Who? The President's son, Don Jr., namesake. Parnas says he was feeding Don Jr. garbage for his Twitter tantrums. Jay and Rudy, the President's personal lawyers, Parnas says he was riding with them to the White House.
This is the kind of evidence that does wonders for the memories of even the most loyal lapdogs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): I remember that call, which was very odd, random, talking about random things. And I said, "Great, you know, just talk to my staff" and boom, boom, boom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Yes, "Boom, boom, boom," you know what that's the sound of? The truth beating down his door.
Parnas' version is "Oh, there were calls," and they were helping the top Republican on the House Intel Committee dig up dirt on the President's political rivals.
But, be clear, Parnas for all his flaws is not just some Giuliani associate. He's a first-person witness to everything that the Senators have to evaluate. And sure, he has everything to gain by being seen as helpful.
But is that any more suspicious than people who swore an oath to serve you, and they're ducking the duty to testify, and tell you what they know, that a President refuses to let them go?
If you want to question -- question his credibility, and you should, test him at trial.
[21:55:00]
But Senators, especially you four, who are being looked at with extra scrutiny, by many, can you ignore all we've learned about this President's direction, and knowledge, and all the attempts to advance his political welfare over our own, arguably bribing Ukraine with money allocated by you, what was done to a sitting Ambassador?
And if you do ignore it, do you think voters will think you honored your oath, to them, to the Constitution, the oath that many of you made to God? Your answer is going to be known soon, and it's going to follow you for a long time. That's the argument.
Now, there was another strange thing. It was on the desk of the President today. Why was it there at a school prayer event? BOLO.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO, Be On the Look-Out. Picture tells the story.
President is holding an event in the Oval Office -- Office to celebrate new initiatives protecting religious freedom. Look at the center piece. A map of the 2016 election results by county, all red. That's good. But it's about land mass, OK, including lots of areas of the country with small populations.
But look, the point is clear, and he's sending it all the time, especially to the Senators, and it's making them gulp. "Be with me or be against me." What will they do? Be On the Look-Out.
Thank you for watching very much. It is time now for CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon.
