Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

House Democrats Release New Parnas Evidence; Trump Adds Clinton Impeachment Players To Defense Team; Trump: Democrats Are Rigging The Election Against Sanders. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired January 17, 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: They just continued to do their jobs despite what the President was saying.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: They are trained to obey the chain of command. The President of the United States sits at the top of that chain.

And so, by their culture, and tradition, and obligation, they are - they are not to challenge the President, and to criticize him, on his very first meeting, but to rather listen to what he has to say, to listen to his response to what their briefing is --

COOPER: Yes.

COHEN: -- rather than be demeaned. So, I - I - I don't fault them for that.

COOPER: Yes.

COHEN: And, according to the book, it was Secretary of State, Tillerson, who raised the issue.

COOPER: He did.

COHEN: "Mr. President, you can't talk that way."

COOPER: Yes. Secretary William Cohen, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

COHEN: Sure.

COOPER: News continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Anderson, thank you, and have a good weekend. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.

Fresh out tonight, new Parnas evidence, released by Democrats, indicating more about the depth of deception and potential ugly intentions regarding then-Ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch. Our Court will test its value. And the President's legal team has been assembled. Two are impeachment-era prosecutors from Clinton, who argued in favor of prosecuting abuse of power.

One of them is Ken Starr, who Trump once called a lunatic and a wacko. Did the President really assemble his legal team based, at least in part, on the people he likes to see on Fox News?

Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, one thing's clear. Whatever his flaws, and credibility issues, as someone who is indicted, and kind of shady, Lev Parnas is a first-hand witness to everything Senators have to evaluate.

He's also putting out documents to back up his claims. That can be what they call in the law "A cure" to credibility issues.

Now, the people working on his behalf, texts, emails, pictures, Lev Parnas had a way all through Trump Co. And now, there are more of them to pore through, some of them pertain to the possible surveillance of former U.S. Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.

They clearly, maybe the guy was making it up, and he's a shady character too, this other guy, Hyde, but they're back and forth about where she is, and what's going on with her, and what they can do, and what needs to happen, and when is she out.

There are also communications between Parnas and a top aide to Devin Nunes. Devin Nunes is the Ranking Member of the House Intel Committee, who said he didn't know Parnas originally.

Now, he says, he just had one call, "It's kind of weird, boom, boom, boom, sent him to my staff."

Now the communications show - I'll tell you what, Nunes has a real problem on his staff if he doesn't know anything about Parnas, and what he was doing, because one of his staff members was setting up meetings for Parnas, with different Ukrainian officials, including meetings with Rudy Giuliani, and some others.

Was this guy really doing this, and Nunes didn't know? Do you believe that?

The impeachment document dump comes as new lawyers are named for the President's defense team, including former Clinton impeachment players, Ken Starr, as I told you, and Robert Ray, who you've seen on this show.

Now, this announcement about Starr, in particular, prompted this tweet from Monica Lewinsky. "This is definitely an "are, get it, effing kidding me?" kind of day." And also, look, that's a little bit of comedy there.

But remember, what Starr, and his team what they put her through, those are hard memories, about a time, that if you compare it to what's happened here, this is child's play, compared to what the Ken Starr investigation was about.

They started with land deals in Whitewater and ended with a tryst. So, for those who complain, "Boy, they just keep searching for something on Trump," you started with foreign interference, you ended with foreign interference. By comparison, it's not even close.

Also named to the Trump defense team, Alan Dershowitz, Pam Bondi, you remember her, A.G. of Florida, and Jane Raskin, largely credited with doing the President very well in terms of good lawyering advice to not testify, to help him, during the probe.

All right, so let's break it all down in Cuomo's Court with Asha Rangappa and Jim Schultz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: One, a little bit of a petty interest, first, and then we'll get deeper and deeper, as we go.

Jimmy, do you really think the President said "Oh, yes, I like him now. I saw him on Fox. He's good that guy Starr. He's good." "Yes, well you called him a lunatic once." "Yes, not anymore. He's good."

JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY: What --

CUOMO: Him, Robert Ray, Dershowitz, these are just people from TV. Is that what he's putting them on there?

SCHULTZ: They're - they're also very accomplished lawyers, Chris. And I think that's - that's why they're on the team, right? And I'm sure --

CUOMO: No, I don't know that.

SCHULTZ: I'm sure the White House --

CUOMO: I know Robert Ray. I know they're all accomplished. You know I've had him on the team.

SCHULTZ: Right.

CUOMO: You know Dershowitz is a personal friend.

What I'm saying is these are not the natural selections of guys you put in this, and for no other reason, Jimmy. Starr and Ray were in favor of prosecuting a President, best they could, for abuse of power.

SCHULTZ: Well I don't think - I think this that - and they're going to make the cases why this isn't abuse of power, and that's their job.

[21:05:00]

And they have the - and they have the - the wherewithal to do it, and the intelligence to do it, and the experience to do it. And they're all well-respected members of the bar, very good legal team.

You know, the President probably wasn't the only person picking his legal team. He had advisers helping him pick them. You know, this is a team that I would want to assemble, in my defense, if I were the President.

CUOMO: I don't know, Asha, to me, I don't think it's a coincidence that they're all on Fox News a lot.

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well it's not Judge Jeanine, so it's definitely, you know, a step-up. I mean these are real lawyers. They have experience. As Jim said, they - they can make legal arguments.

And what I would say, Chris, is, you know, lawyers do defend principles, and they will often go to the other side, Party wise. I mean Ted Olson, who's a very conservative lawyer, actually argued in favor of same-sex marriage.

So, I think that one benefit of having, you know, a principled lawyer is that you can get somebody who may have argued the other side before. I think the issue here is on the facts.

What they - the - what some of these people argued were an abuse of power, on the facts --

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: -- were such a low threshold that it is very difficult to see how they could in - like legitimately argue that what is here is not. But that is the job of a lawyer. I will say what is more problematic is whether the - the Senate will - will buy these arguments.

And I'm a little bit concerned about Alan Dershowitz claim, earlier today, that he is actually not a formal member of the legal team, but he is somehow coming in to present a legal argument, as some kind of, I guess, expert witness, which seems to me to be a procedural issue in terms of fairness.

CUOMO: I'll tell you what. I hope --

SCHULTZ: Well --

CUOMO: -- I hope, Jimmy, that Dershowitz - look, I think Dershowitz is trying to have it both ways, all due respect to the Professor. We - you know, I listened to him on Anderson tonight. He knows what he's talking about. He has his arguments. You can like him or not like them.

But this idea that "I'm basically working for the Constitution, and I'm going to lay out the case, I don't have anything," he's working for Donald Trump. Period!

I hope he's right, Jimmy. I hope that he's right that he isn't working for the legal team, although everybody I've talked to, on the team, says he is, because that means they're OK --

SCHULTZ: But - but he's also --

CUOMO: -- with witnesses, Jimmy.

SCHULTZ: Yes. But he's also --

CUOMO: So, I hope that he is just a witness.

SCHULTZ: He's also said, Chris, that - that he is going to make an argument as to why Donald Trump should not be removed and should not have been impeached. So, yes, he's going to be there representing Donald Trump, and making a legal argument.

CUOMO: Yes. He doesn't like that.

SCHULTZ: I think - I think what he's - where --

CUOMO: He says he's not doing that, by the way, Jimmy.

SCHULTZ: -- what he's trying to parse here --

CUOMO: Just so you know, he says you're wrong.

SCHULTZ: -- which --

CUOMO: He says you're wrong.

SCHULTZ: OK. You can say I'm wrong. But - but what he's trying --

CUOMO: Not me. He says it.

SCHULTZ: He can say. He can say I'm wrong.

CUOMO: OK.

SCHULTZ: But - but - but the fact of the matter is he's going to be making a legal argument on behalf of Donald Trump, and he's going to be making very sound legal - constitutional legal arguments relative to the case.

And I'm not going to walk through them chapter and verse because he did it so well on Anderson's show just a few minutes ago. But I have to tell you that he's not going to be arguing facts. And that's - that's the distinction, that's the line he's working here.

He's not getting involved in trial strategy. He's not going to get involved with what witnesses, if there are witnesses, to call. And he's not going to get involved in - in the factual piece of the trial.

CUOMO: Yes. No. I - I - I get it. I - I get what he's saying. It's just odd. And, again, I think, to Asha's point, Asha, I think it opens the door to the existence of witnesses because if his only role --

RANGAPPA: Exactly.

CUOMO: -- is to make an argument to the court about what impeachment is supposed to be, and why impeachment basically should never be used, he's a witness. He's not just an advocate for the President.

RANGAPPA: That's - that - I completely agree with you, Chris. And, you know, that ship sailed.

The House actually had testimony from legal scholars who gave, you know, the full set of views on whether or not the facts, as a matter of law, constituted an impeachable offense. And I feel like this is a "You-snooze-you-lose" situation because he was not a part of that.

Now, if the Senate were calling witnesses, it would be one thing. He could be one of many expert witnesses who could testify.

But what the Senate seems to be suggesting is that it wants to act as some sort of Appellate Court, where it is only going to review what the House investigated, and that this is some kind of closed record.

Well if that's the case, you know, too bad, so sad, I don't understand why Alan Dershowitz gets the special privilege of coming in and introducing additional legal arguments.

If that's the case, then I believe the - the Democrats, the House, should be able to present also a legal scholar to rebut his arguments, and that Dershowitz should be able to be cross-examined on his views --

SCHULTZ: Fact - fact of the matter is though he's not --

RANGAPPA: -- which, I think, personally are historically and constitutionally problematic.

SCHULTZ: Sorry. So - so fact of the matter is though he's not coming in as a witness. He's not going to be sworn in as a witness. They're not going to vote on him as a witness.

[21:10:00]

He's going to go in and make a legal argument before the tribunal that that - that that - that the - that - that this, what has happened to Donald Trump is not constitutional, and that this doesn't meet the threshold of - of what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

And that - that, in and of itself, is an argument before the tribunal like any other Court.

CUOMO: Yes, that's fine.

SCHULTZ: We can argue back and forth as to whether this is a - this is a court or whether it's a Senate. The fact of the matter is --

CUOMO: Yes. It's just that there's never been acceptance.

SCHULTZ: -- it's the United States Senate. It's a political process.

But they're also - they also have, you know, Dershowitz coming in, and making a legal argument. It's not a snooze - you-snooze-you-lose. He didn't have to go in and testify before Congress to come in as a member of that team, not as a witness --

CUOMO: Yes, that's fine. He should just say he's a member of the team.

SCHULTZ: -- to make an argument. You're right.

RANGAPPA: He's not a member of the team.

SCHULTZ: He should just say he's a lawyer for the President.

CUOMO: Look, I think there are bigger - well he says he isn't, but the team says he is, and he's listed as part of the team.

And they asked him tonight if he's getting paid, and he said "If I do get paid, I'm going to give it to charity." I don't know why you'd pay a guy if he's not doing something for you.

I think the bigger question before them though, look, I think Dershowitz wants to have it both ways because he doesn't want to be seen as partisan, and I don't know how you get anywhere near this President, and not be partisan, in your endeavors of advocacy.

The bigger problem they're going to have is evidence, and how that leads into witnesses. I don't know how you ignore what is coming out from Parnas.

And the idea that "Well it should have come out in the House," you tell me a trial that never allowed new evidence that came after the investigation phase, and we both know the answer is "Never."

Asha Rangappa, Jimmy Schultz, thank you very much on a Friday night, best to you both.

SCHULTZ: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, we're going to take a closer look at the messengers that the President has picked, to make his case, because there's some very interesting contradictions in what they represent that feed my argument to you that yes, it is about optics.

He has seen these guys on TV. He thinks you're impressed by that because, at least, he is, all right? Starr and Dershowitz, in their own words, that I don't think the President has heard before, 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: The President has lawyered up Ken Starr, Robert Ray, Alan Dershowitz, added to a big roster of seven lawyers. Oddly, the President hasn't always thought highly of the lawyers he just picked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think Ken Starr is a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, what changed? Well one of the main metrics for the President, "Now, he likes him." He's on state TV mostly, defending him. But the arguments of these lawyers, in the past, don't exact - exactly help his case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN STARR, INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: The President and his administration asserted three different governmental privileges to conceal relevant information.

Those acts constitute a pattern of obstruction that is fundamentally inconsistent with the President's duty to faithfully execute the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Starr has aggressively chased impeachment, in the past. And, remember, it was for a sex act. In fact, it was seen as such an extreme position that his own Ethics Adviser quit, and claimed that he, quote, unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment.

Robert Ray refused to let the Senate get the last word. And though he now says "A sitting President can't be indicted," he used a Grand Jury to try and indict Clinton, and kept the case open until the very last day of his Presidency.

Now, why does that matter, argues both sides, a lot of lawyers do, because this isn't a criminal trial.

In past impeachment, Senators got to question the lawyers as well. It's a process that lasted three full days in 1999. Imagine these guys being asked, "Why did you argue that then, but this, now?"

As for Dershowitz, he's been consistent, during Clinton, and earlier tonight with Anderson, he argued that abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense. It's not what the Founders intended.

He also recently said answers about what is a crime shouldn't come from politicians.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: And the American public is craving an objective analysis rather than the partisan analyses we've been getting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: I think his problem, in Trump's eyes, is that he is so anxious to not be seen as part of the legal team, when he clearly is.

He keeps saying, "No, no, no, I represent the Constitution. I'm just arguing constitutionality, and the third-party beneficiary of that will be Donald Trump. But I am not here. I don't represent Donald Trump. I'm not part of that."

Why does he want to stay away from Donald Trump so much when the guy's representing him?

All right, so the idea that there's nothing here like that, we got the non-partisan GAO report that found "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities," OK? That sounds like he violated that law, according to a non-partisan objective analysis.

And, look, the Democrats did themselves no favor with the drafting of these articles of impeachment because they could have included the word "Bribery" OK?

Because that's what it is if you have corrupt intent, under the law, let alone in the political sphere, when you leverage something like aid, until you get what you want, which is something that is not for the public benefit, it is not for the country, it is for you. That's called a bribe.

The fact is the President is sending a message with this choice of messengers.

Starr's record, post-Clinton, includes being removed as President of Baylor, following a series of sexual assault lawsuits against the University.

Dershowitz, as we all know, is in the middle of active legislation, as part of the Jeffrey Epstein mess. Then, there's his client roster, a Who's Who, of celebrity legal scandals, Patty Hearst, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson, O.J. Simpson, Harvey Weinstein.

You know, they all made for "Can't-miss TV" right? But they also proved how much Dershowitz cares about his clients in terms of their guilt, or innocence, or character.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DERSHOWITZ: My job is to defend both the guilty, and the innocent, and that's my only job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, your team reflects your values. So, in a court of law, that kind of vigorous defense matters, but we are not in a court of law. This is a court that has to impress politicians and, directly and indirectly, you, OK?

[21:20:00]

Now, at least Republican Senators are perfectly willing to ignore the oath, according to Mr. McConnell, right, "I'm not impartial," then he took an oath to be impartial, and sacrifice their duty, to keep this President where he is. But how will this play if all the President wants is a good show?

Also, on Trump defense team, Pam Bondi, seen here in a picture with guess who, Lev Parnas, the man everybody stands next to, but nobody knows. There is new evidence that he put out. It does not look good, not just for the President, but for Devin Nunes.

We're going to bring in one of Nunes' former House colleagues, for his take, 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: You remember when Congressman Eric Swalwell shifted the impeachment inquiry spotlight from the President to the House Intel's Ranking Member, Devin Nunes?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put into the record The Daily Beast story "Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes' Investigations."

[21:25:00]

Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes' investigative work.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Nunes said, at the time, "Parnas? Mm doesn't ring a bell." Then, did an about-face, this week, just as Parnas threw him under the bus, but still, made it sound limited.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): You know, you know now that he had called my cellphone, and I didn't know his name, I didn't remember the name.

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED GIULIANI ASSOCIATE: And a big example of it is take a look today at Congressman Nunes interview on Fox. He all of a sudden had an epiphany and remembers our phone call exactly. And, all of a sudden, he remembers speaking to me about nothing. But he remembers exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: So, it was just a phone call, right? I mean is that that big a deal? No. It wasn't just a phone call. We now have some of the communications between Nunes' top aide and Parnas.

Well what about? Setting up meetings, some of which the aide attended. With whom? Ukrainian officials. And guess who else would be involved? Rudy Giuliani. Clearly things that Nunes wouldn't know anything about or forget right?

What does former Republican Congressman Sean Duffy think of this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, my sarcasm is clear because, Sean, come on. I know you know him, Party aside.

You don't know who he is, then you get busted for having a phone call with him, then you suggest that's all it is, then your top aide is setting up meetings for the guy, with Ukrainian officials, and Rudy, and you don't know anything?

SEAN DUFFY, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: So, hold on a second, Chris. We also have to go back and look at Adam Schiff, who took a prank phone call from --

CUOMO: No, no, no, no, no, no.

DUFFY: -- people who he thought were Russians.

CUOMO: John - Sean, don't do that.

DUFFY: No, no, no, but let me get to that. But let me answer.

CUOMO: Sean, hold on.

DUFFY: But both - no - no - no - Chris, OK. Go ahead.

CUOMO: I'll let you talk about Schiff. I'll let you talk about Schiff.

DUFFY: It's your show.

CUOMO: But, Sean, come on. We got to stop this, brother. It doesn't matter what Schiff did.

DUFFY: So --

CUOMO: Things that are wrong --

DUFFY: It was --

CUOMO: -- are wrong, all on their own. I'm asking you about Nunes.

Do you believe him that his top aide set up all this stuff with Lev and he doesn't know his name, he doesn't know anything about him? Do you believe that if Sean - if - if Adam Schiff said it?

DUFFY: So, I know on the Intelligence Committee that they come across a ton of people. I haven't talked to Devin on this, so I can't speak for him - for him on - on this issue.

But I will tell you that for Devin Nunes to take a look at corruption of Joe and Hunter Biden in the Ukraine, or Adam Schiff to say, "I want to talk to Russians about naked pictures of Donald Trump," they're both advancing their investigations that they think can lead to crimes.

CUOMO: But why deny it?

DUFFY: Or at least to some foreign power holding power.

CUOMO: Why do you deny --

DUFFY: I - I don't know. I haven't talked to --

CUOMO: -- knowing the guy?

DUFFY: You'll have to - you'll have to ask Devin that.

CUOMO: No, no, no, he won't come on.

DUFFY: I don't know. You have to ask Devin that. I - I don't know.

CUOMO: He won't come on, Sean.

DUFFY: Well I haven't talked to him --

CUOMO: Come on. You know they only go on state TV.

DUFFY: -- so can't tell you.

CUOMO: He won't come on here. He knows better than that.

DUFFY: Well --

CUOMO: We ask real questions here.

DUFFY: I don't know that - I don't know that Schiff has gone over to - to the other networks as well. I mean I think everyone goes to their camps and --

CUOMO: This isn't a camp, Sean. Come on, brother.

DUFFY: -- they like easier interviews, I guess. You're right.

CUOMO: You know what I'm saying here. You want to go after Schiff for what he was doing? Fine! I know - I'm not that. I'm just saying it doesn't defend --

DUFFY: What --

CUOMO: -- what Nunes did. That's all I'm saying.

DUFFY: But - but I thought - I don't --

CUOMO: And him saying he doesn't know anything about this guy makes no sense, Sean, and you know it.

DUFFY: But he put - but - but we're talking about - about Les - Lev Parnas, right?

CUOMO: Yes.

DUFFY: I mean you have a guy who says "I have some really great hearsay." Now, one point he said it really struck.

CUOMO: No, no, no, he's got documents. Documents.

DUFFY: This guy's with Donald Trump, and I talked to him. He knew.

CUOMO: Documents.

DUFFY: Now --

CUOMO: Direct.

DUFFY: -- now he says, "I guess I didn't meet with Donald Trump. I didn't strategize with Donald Trump. I had a picture with him. But yes, we didn't strategize together. I never met him but for a picture."

And you and I both know Presidents take thousands of pictures, as the President mentioned.

CUOMO: He's in a dozen pictures and video with him.

DUFFY: So, I don't see Lev's --

CUOMO: He worked with his personal attorney --

DUFFY: -- I don't see - I don't see Lev as relevant.

CUOMO: -- as his main guy. Listen, Sean.

DUFFY: But you can't lie, Chris.

CUOMO: Listen, he's got credibility problems.

DUFFY: Why would you lie, and say, "I strategized and met with the President."

CUOMO: He's got credibility problems, 100 percent.

DUFFY: But - and --

CUOMO: The documents don't lie.

DUFFY: But if then I didn't meant to do that (ph). Right.

CUOMO: Documents don't lie.

DUFFY: But - but - but you have to have documents for the President. And there's no documents with regard to Donald Trump.

CUOMO: No, you don't. No, you don't.

DUFFY: With Donald Trump or - or - yes, you do.

CUOMO: Why?

DUFFY: Well it's hearsay, Chris.

CUOMO: No, no, no, no.

DUFFY: This is - this is --

CUOMO: There is no hearsay.

DUFFY: Well it is.

CUOMO: If he wants to say he met with Donald Trump, and he can't prove it, dismiss it, rule it out. This is about what the President motivated. Well how do we know he motivated it? The OMB emails, he put a stop to the aid. Why? Parnas, written notes.

DUFFY: Speaking --

CUOMO: "Get them to investigate."

DUFFY: No.

CUOMO: "Make Zelensky say it."

DUFFY: Right. So - so --

CUOMO: The Rudy Giuliani engagement letter, speaker conversations with Rudy Giuliani -- DUFFY: Can --

CUOMO: -- saying "Listen to Lev like it was me for the President."

DUFFY: Let me tell you - so - so, when you look at this, if - if you want - we could - we could put all this stuff behind us, if Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi said, "We are going to call Joe and Hunter Biden."

Now, Republicans say that - that - that Hunter Biden worked for a Ukrainian gas company, owned by a corrupt oligarch. Hunter knows nothing about gas or Ukraine. His dad, the Vice President, you know, was - was in charge of foreign policy in Ukraine.

CUOMO: Yes.

[21:30:00]

DUFFY: If you think you can put a nail in Trump's coffin by bringing these two in, and said, "We were doing nothing wrong. Donald Trump was out in left field. He was going after me for political purposes."

I think Hunter and Biden weren't allowed to testify because they would have lend credibility to what --

CUOMO: They have nothing to do --

DUFFY: -- Donald Trump was trying to do, which is say, "You are corrupting the Ukraine."

CUOMO: -- with the President's abuse of power. The people you bring in --

DUFFY: So, Chris, this is - no, no, no, no.

CUOMO: -- do you --

DUFFY: That's not true.

CUOMO: Sean, what is a witness --

DUFFY: Chris, Chris, the --

CUOMO: -- to be a competent in a court of law --

DUFFY: -- the --

CUOMO: -- what makes a witness competent? You know something relevant about the matters at hand. Hunter and Joe Biden don't know --

DUFFY: So now - so - so --

CUOMO: -- what the President and his lawyer were doing --

DUFFY: Does the --

CUOMO: -- with Ukrainian officials.

DUFFY: Did the - did - did the President have a reason to believe that Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in corrupt activity?

CUOMO: It's not the question.

DUFFY: And therefore, I'm not going to send them aid because --

CUOMO: It's not the question.

DUFFY: Yes, yes it is.

CUOMO: No, it's your question.

DUFFY: Because - because if Trump is right on that --

CUOMO: It's not the question.

DUFFY: -- Trump is right on all of this.

CUOMO: Nope. No. no, here's why.

DUFFY: Right? He's got - I mean --

CUOMO: I get you.

DUFFY: Yes, he is.

CUOMO: I - no, I get you. I get your argument. Here's the counter. No, because --

DUFFY: Sure.

CUOMO: -- the main question is why did he want just an investigation announced, not an investigation completed? Why did he want it just announced, the "Why?" And did he have corrupt intent in that "Why?" Very high bar!

Could he have had it? Yes. What's the best indication of that? Because he did this in a way that only worked to his political advantage when he could have gotten it done for legitimate reasons easier. How? Call your friends in the Senate.

DUFFY: So --

CUOMO: Investigate him. Call Barr.

DUFFY: Right.

CUOMO: Investigate him. He didn't do that. Why? He didn't want his hands on it.

DUFFY: So - so --

CUOMO: He wanted it to be bad for Biden.

DUFFY: So, right, we - we - we --

CUOMO: That means through Ukraine.

DUFFY: We've had this conversation. We are on two sides of this issue. We - we disagree on the facts. And the way we get credit --

CUOMO: Can't - no, can't disagree on the facts.

DUFFY: -- on the facts is you bring those two in. And here's the problem. And here's what - we don't have the facts because Joe and Hunter haven't testified. And what frustrates me is --

CUOMO: But they have nothing to do with it.

DUFFY: -- now we have Democrats - they - yes, it - did the - did the President have a reasonable belief that there was corrupt activities in the Ukraine with Hunter and Biden? And they can put - shed light on that.

CUOMO: Then why didn't he do it this way?

DUFFY: And you're going to hide Hunter and Joe --

CUOMO: Why do you - if you want to ignore the fact that they've been looked at --

DUFFY: Well you might - you might disagree with --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: -- by the Ukrainian officials, and in the United States --

DUFFY: Because --

CUOMO: -- and nobody found any wrongdoing of the Bidens, if you want to dismiss that, fine, even though those are facts as well --

DUFFY: But he said --

CUOMO: -- why did the President --

DUFFY: You have the - you have the best evidence.

CUOMO: -- do it this way?

DUFFY: "You have the best evidence. Ukraine, take a look at it for me." I think that's completely fine.

CUOMO: Ukraine did take a look at it.

DUFFY: And legitimate. But here's where it's --

CUOMO: Ukraine did take a look at it again for Giuliani. Lutsenko did it, and closed it, and said there's nothing there. That's a fact.

DUFFY: So, you - so what - what we're trying to do is say "What I want is, I don't want to bring Joe and Hunter in. I want to protect them."

CUOMO: They're irrelevant.

DUFFY: But - and that's in the House. And I don't want to let Trump call witnesses.

CUOMO: Why don't you bring me in?

DUFFY: I don't want to let Trump call witnesses.

CUOMO: Why don't we bring me you in?

DUFFY: I don't want - but then Chris there - we disagree on it. I think they're absolutely relevant. We won't bring the whistleblower in.

CUOMO: How are they relevant to the President's abuse of power?

DUFFY: Republicans can't call witnesses. Trump can't be there.

CUOMO: If they didn't have anything to do with him abusing his power --

DUFFY: Because it's no abuse of power, Chris. Chris, you're --

CUOMO: -- how are they relevant?

DUFFY: -- you're - you're stringing things along. I look at Donald Trump, and go, if - if - if he is right that Joe and Hunter are involved in corruption in the Ukraine, American corruption, by an American Vice President, to enrich his family, we have every right to look at it.

You might not like the process. But I want my President to look and see --

CUOMO: The process is --

DUFFY: -- what the - what the heck are our officials doing to --

CUOMO: Look, come on!

DUFFY: -- enrich their families. That's wrong.

CUOMO: You think he cares about corruption?

DUFFY: And I'm going to send them money --

CUOMO: You think Donald Trump --

DUFFY: I'm not - yes, I do. I'm --

CUOMO: -- cares about corruption?

DUFFY: I absolutely. You know, I think he's --

CUOMO: He - he just - he - he's trying to get people to change the law --

DUFFY: I don't think he wants to waste money.

CUOMO: -- so American companies can bribe --

DUFFY: Chris?

CUOMO: -- foreign governments.

DUFFY: No. Listen --

CUOMO: And you think he cares about corruption?

DUFFY: What - I think he --

CUOMO: Come on, Sean, come on.

DUFFY: You know what? I - I - I - I've heard the President on countless occasions --

CUOMO: Yes?

DUFFY: -- talk about how much money he saves the American people.

CUOMO: All right.

DUFFY: And as the economy grows, and people go back to work, and you have the USMCA --

CUOMO: Yes.

DUFFY: -- and a new trade deal with China, and the stock markets at 29,000, he has done a great job of making things actually work in the country.

CUOMO: What does that have to do with corruption?

DUFFY: And part of that is rooting out corruption.

CUOMO: What corruption has he rooted out?

DUFFY: And not giving away taxpayer money.

CUOMO: He's had more members of his cabinet --

DUFFY: Because you know what?

CUOMO: -- leave in disgrace than we've ever seen before.

DUFFY: You - what - what you might say is --

CUOMO: He has done nothing but encourage corruption.

DUFFY: -- Donald --

CUOMO: Arguably. Look, I got to go. DUFFY: Donald Trump is spending --

CUOMO: I'll take your argument.

DUFFY: Wait, wait, one moment.

CUOMO: Please.

DUFFY: Donald Trump is spending your money like he spends his own. And he doesn't want to waste it.

CUOMO: Yes, on golf.

DUFFY: And that's what he was doing in - in Ukraine and Joe Biden.

CUOMO: On golf, and protecting his kids, more than we've ever seen --

DUFFY: Oh, come on, Chris.

CUOMO: -- so much they won't even --

DUFFY: No.

CUOMO: -- tell us, Sean. Come on.

DUFFY: You have a better economy, Chris.

CUOMO: I appreciate the argument.

DUFFY: This has been amazing.

CUOMO: It's got nothing to do with the economy.

DUFFY: You can't get better when we have --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: You can have a great economy.

DUFFY: Yes it does.

CUOMO: And not be a lying --

DUFFY: And a great President.

CUOMO: -- abuser of power. You can have both. You can have both.

DUFFY: We disagree on that.

CUOMO: Well, I hope not. I hope that you can have a good economy and not be a lying abuser of power. I think we can both agree on that. Sean Duffy, have a good weekend, and thank you for making the case.

DUFFY: You too, Chris.

CUOMO: All right. The President is now accusing Democrats of using the impeachment trial

to hurt Bernie Sanders' campaign. This, I'm laughing at, why, because man, you've got to respect him being on message. This guy is trying to disrupt and divide 24/7.

Are the Democrats ready for this? Let's take it to the politicos, next.

[21:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: President Trump says Democrats are rigging the election against Bernie Sanders.

How? Well they're bringing him out of so important Iowa so that he can sit through the impeachment trial. That's why they're doing this trial, nothing to do with his gross abuse of power allegations.

His latest salvo comes as another prominent Democrat though, former Vermont Governor, Peter Shumlin slammed his home state Senator, of course Bernie Sanders, accusing his camp of playing dirty.

How about this, Bernie cast as both victim and villain, in like the same day? What does this tell us about what's going on in the Democratic Party, and what the pressure points are here?

Ana Kasparian and Karen Finney are here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: PRIME TIME PRIMARY.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: First, Finney --

KAREN FINNEY, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yes.

CUOMO: -- do you think your Party is susceptible to the President's ploy here that this is anti-Bernie. I guess it's not anti-Warren or anti-Klobuchar, who are also Senators.

FINNEY: Right. [21:40:00]

CUOMO: "But that's why they're doing it."

FINNEY: Oh.

CUOMO: Any buy-in on that?

FINNEY: Well I think you can extrapolate from what the President said. He doesn't think either Klobuchar or Warren can win. So, thanks for that. Thanks for reminding us, Donald Trump, why we are here, and why we need to defeat you.

I don't think Democrats are going to be fooled by anything that Donald Trump has to say. And we'll see right past it.

CUOMO: All right, Ana, let's do a little clean-up work on this back- and-forth between Warren and Sanders. So, Shumlin comes out, and says, that Bernie's attempt here is to hit - hill - Hillarize, I guess that's Hillary, Hillarize Warren.

What do you take of this? What's the ultimate takeaway for you in what - what this is - what this has meant?

ANA KASPARIAN, HOST & EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "THE YOUNG TURKS": I would like to know more about this sexist attack on Hillary Clinton.

Seems like he has some issues with Hillary Clinton, and he's arguing that Bernie Sanders is trying to characterize Elizabeth Warren as Hillary Clinton, which he certainly has not done. And his piece also doesn't reference any evidence to back up the argument that he's making.

FINNEY: Mm?

CUOMO: What? Finney, go ahead.

KASPARIAN: Not a single one.

FINNEY: Well - hold on - hold on --

KASPARIAN: There's a lot of talk about - about --

FINNEY: Ana? Ana? Ana?

KASPARIAN: Yes.

FINNEY: Hold on.

KASPARIAN: Well let me - let me finish my thought. Let me finish my thought.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

FINNEY: OK.

KASPARIAN: OK?

CUOMO: Ana, finish the thought.

KASPARIAN: So there --

CUOMO: Karen, then you have it.

KASPARIAN: There's a lot of emphasis, a lot of, in my opinion, defamatory comments about how Bernie Sanders is allegedly running a dirty campaign.

However, there isn't a single example of him talking about someone's character in a negative way, or attacking someone's personality, or doing any type of character assassination. All of his emphasis has been on policy.

And we are in the middle of a primary. In a primary, you are supposed to emphasize the differences in policy proposals. And the mere fact that he has done that has gotten him in trouble for some reason, when in the past --

FINNEY: What?

KASPARIAN: -- actual dirty politics on the Left have been dismissed.

FINNEY: Oh, stop, stop.

KASPARIAN: I mean - I mean - I mean --

FINNEY: Stop, Ana.

KASPARIAN: Come on. Hillary Clinton --

FINNEY: No.

KASPARIAN: -- Hillary Clinton released a picture of Barack Obama in 2008 where he's wearing a turban, and it was during his trip to Kenya. She purposely did that in an effort to paint him as a Muslim. What --

FINNEY: What does that have to do with Bernie Sanders?

KASPARIAN: I bring that up because Bernie Sanders would never ever do something like that. But he still gets characterized as someone who plays dirty politics.

FINNEY: So --

KASPARIAN: It's disgusting.

CUOMO: All right. Finney, counterpoint.

FINNEY: OK.

CUOMO: Then I have something else. Go ahead.

FINNEY: OK. Quickly, here's what I love about the - the - all of this about Bernie.

Let's remember, the Democrats actually did change the rules for Bernie, so that he could run as a Democrat in 2016. And again, this time, he's running as a Democrat and an Independent. Here - but here's what I think is --

KASPARIAN: Who cares what his labels are?

FINNEY: Hold on. Ana? Ana? Ana?

CUOMO: Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

FINNEY: Hold on.

KASPARIAN: Yes, yes.

FINNEY: So the - my --

CUOMO: Go ahead, go ahead.

FINNEY: But here's what I do think is - is relevant.

I mean, clearly, Senator Warren, I mean there was an exchange between Senator Warren and Senator Sanders in which - after the debate, in which she felt like he was calling her a liar.

Now, that is part of their personal, you know, relationship. They're going to have to figure that out.

But this is politics. And it is - and I would say that it is - there's a difference between sure, how do we get to Medicare-for-All, and she has one timeline, and he has another.

But it is not the same thing to then say call - basically calling her a liar, and - and - and then, online, we saw the Bernie Bros attack in the same way they did in 2016 calling, you know, "Warren is snake."

That's where I think the Sanders' campaign can show some leadership, and say, "You know what guys? Let's disagree on - on policy. But let's not go into calling each other's names."

CUOMO: All right. You go --

KASPARIAN: Are you arguing that Bernie Sanders is responsible for every random person who happens to be on social media? Because the fact of the matter is every single candidate has a base that's passionate.

I know that. I've personally been attacked by Tulsi Gabbard fans. I've been attacked by Andrew Yang fans. I've been attacked by Pete Buttigieg fans. And that's OK. That's part of the game.

But I'm not going to hold those candidates responsible for the behavior --

CUOMO: You're right. Now, listen, let me -- KASPARIAN: -- of some of their supporters.

CUOMO: Let me close on this one. I get what your point is. The Senator could come out and say something about it. But you're right.

His base is very vociferous when it wants to be. It's not the only base that's like that. You guys are both in the minor leagues, compared to me, when it comes to getting attacked by people's bases.

FINNEY: Fair.

CUOMO: Let me ask you something else though that's a good way to end this. Hillary Clinton says "I hope you pick a winner."

Now, one, I think that's a little ironic because I do think - I know, all due respect, Finney, I think there's an argument to be made that the Party never fell in love with her, and that she was the only person that Trump could have beaten that you guys could have put up.

But, this time, when you look at who you have, do you have concerns, Karen, and then we'll end on Ana, that you don't have someone that can definitely beat Trump?

FINNEY: No. And I'll tell you why. Number one, let's remember Hillary Clinton did beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes, in the popular vote, right.

CUOMO: Yes.

FINNEY: And not the Electoral College. But I don't think that Democrats are going to let that happen again. And I think one of the mistakes that was made - there's a whole host of them. We're not going to get into it here.

[21:45:00]

But I think people took it for granted that Hillary was going to win. And I think we understand now. And people thought that there's no way Donald Trump would be the nominee on the Republican side, no way he's going to win.

So, I do think what we - I hope what we've all learned in the last three to four years is you cannot take anything for granted when it comes to the future of our country.

CUOMO: Right.

FINNEY: So, I and - and I do believe that a majority of Americans believe that Donald Trump is a danger to this country, and should not be in Office. And I would vote for any one of the people who are now - who are running now --

CUOMO: Well that's the proposition.

FINNEY: -- to - to beat Donald Trump. And I think a majority of Americans would do the same. CUOMO: We'll - we'll see. Ana, give me a quick button.

KASPARIAN: I think that - I think that the focus on economic policy, I know that you disagree with this, is really key.

There are many Americans who are frustrated because they're struggling to put food on the table for their children. They're struggling to pay their bills. Housing is unaffordable.

CUOMO: Yes.

KASPARIAN: That needs to be --

CUOMO: Yes.

KASPARIAN: -- the focus. And I think that that will help a Democrat win. That's the reason why Bernie Sanders is really rising in the polls. He is now in a statistical tie with Biden - with Joe Biden.

CUOMO: "Amen, Amen," I say with one comma, you have to connect with that frustration, and pain, and convince people who went for Trump that you will deliver where he hasn't. And that's a tough passion bond. It's a tough trick. But you're right on the ground rules.

Ana Kasparian, Karen Finney, thank you both, especially on a Friday night.

All right, this President's pitch to you, as you just heard from Sean Duffy, is, "Man, he hates corruption. He'll do anything to root it out." That's going to be the crux of the defense, next week, right?

But I have an argument based on something that's surfaced. Do you want to test his interest in corruption? I'll do that for you, and quickly, 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. So, here's the starting point. The big sell, in the defense of President Trump, is likely to be that "Donald Trump is an anti-corruption crusader." He certainly pitches himself that way, and so do his defenders, as you heard tonight. All his perceived enemies, well it's because they're corrupt, Congressional Democrats, the FBI, the Obama administration, the Clintons, now the Bidens, all very corrupt, and that's what Ukraine is about.

He begs you to believe "I'm all about rooting out corruption."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Yes, his.

"Perfect, in fact," he says, just that pure interest in making sure everyone plays fair. Gosh, darn it!

Now, here's my argument. I'm being sarcastic because this is a laughable proposition.

Look at his history alone, shady moves in business, his campaign, his admission that he wouldn't call the FBI, if a foreign agent illegally passed him information about an opponent, because that's reality, and what he clearly orchestrated and endorsed with Ukraine is proof of it again. The consequence, that's up for debate.

But for those who aren't sure about how Trump truly sees corruption, listen to this quote from his mouth. "It's just so unfair that American companies aren't allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas. We're going to change that." That was Trump in spring 2017.

No, he wasn't misquoted. There's no allegation of that. It's in a new book, "A Very Stable Genius," from two Washington Post reporters.

I argue, Trump doesn't believe that he should be impeached for abuse of power because he believes power, by definition, should be abused. He thinks bribes and whatever you can get away with is OK. His life is testament to that proposition.

The reporters in the book go on to explain that Trump was frustrated with what's called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, "Ostensibly," here's the quote, "Because it restricted his industry buddies or his own company's executives from paying off foreign governments."

Now, "Maybe Trump was just spouting off," you say, "He's just messing with the minds of those of us who value integrity in Office."

Well here's Trump's top Economic Adviser today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KUDLOW, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISER: I would just say we are - we are aware of it, and we are looking at it. And we've heard complaints from some of our companies. So, we're - I don't want to say anything definitive policy-wise. But we are looking at it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: OK?

Again, this is about Trump's desire to get things done any way he can. He is not burdened by principles, morals and ethics. But we are.

America is a model for the world because we don't do what the worst places and people do. That's why the Lady with the Lamp lights the way to this place because it is seen as a beacon of hope and a chance for better.

Be clear, this is not just about business and financial advantage. Trump's beliefs about morality are fundamentally at odds with American values. Here he is, less than two weeks ago, with tensions hot with Iran.

"They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture, maim our people. They're allowed to use roadside bombs, and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn't work that way."

First of all, they're not allowed to do it. If you find that Iran is doing it, and you go to Congress with a strategy, you - they'd let you do terrible things, as Hillary Clinton said, she would obliterate Iran.

This isn't about America's might. It's about when you use it and how. Suggesting that America should be held to the same moral standard as terrorists? Torture is OK? Murder and maiming are OK? War crimes are OK? Because others do them? That's making America great again? No.

[21:55:00]

I argue that is negating why America is great, again and again. You would never teach what he just said to your kid. You would fire anyone who approached their job the way he does.

But now, we're going to have a trial about what we will allow in our leader. And we know what Trump thinks is OK by what I just showed you and so much more that he has said and done.

Here's the question. What are we about? Senators, think about it. That's what this trial is about. That's what you will be judged on, and that's what will reflect the feelings of the voters about you. That is the argument.

Now, the President thinks impeachment is going to help him win his next election. He should really be looking out for a crucial voting bloc that he thinks he's going to do really well with. What a BOLO for a Friday, 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: BOLO! Be On the Look-Out for a new Washington Post-Ipsos poll that shows 90 percent of Black Americans disapproving of Trump's job performance, 83 percent believing he's racist.

Now, Trump thinks the economy will boost him with those voters, but blaming both sides for violence, in Charlottesville, and so much other ugly talk, matters. BOLO, some things matter more than money.

Thank you for watching. Have a great weekend. But, before you party, CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon right now.