Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Sources: Indicted Giuliani Associate, Parnas Boasted Of Large Payments From Ukrainian Oligarch; Meadows & Jordan Advising White House Lawyers; CNN Source: Vindman Testified, White House Lawyer Told Him Not To Talk About Ukraine Call. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 01, 2019 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: But I think that the bigger concern is that the House is nowhere near that. And they won't even acknowledge the wrong.
We have, you know, Republicans on this show every night, making people at the professional ballet jealous with how they pirouette it around, the question. But now they have new problems. Rudy Giuliani was in business with some bad guys who say they were helping him try to find dirt on Biden. Why?
And now you have Meadows and Jordan talking after they see these -- these depositions and going to the White House. How can it be OK?
So, we're going to take all of this on. I appreciate seeing you on a Friday night. And I thank you.
Everybody, I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
Turns out, President Trump has a couple of guys on the inside. We have new information. Some big Republican names could be in big trouble.
We got a senior Impeachment Investigator here, and brand-new reporting on a suspicious Ukrainian money trail. Could it lead back to Rudy Giuliani?
A wild week, but you have to see it for what matters, so let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, the way I see it, there are three big headlines.
First, all roads to ruin run through Rudy Giuliani. And tonight, there's a new superhighway of suspicion.
According to sources, indicted Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas was being bankrolled by a wanted Ukrainian oligarch with ties to Russia. His name is Dmytro Firtash, and he was bankrolling private jets, limos, bodyguards, and lots and lots of cash right around the time that Parnas was giving half a million dollars to Giuliani.
Why? We don't know the connection. But this not -- is not good, any way you look at it. And is this why the Feds are examining Mr. Giuliani's financial records?
Second, the height of hypocrisy! CNN has learned, as I said at the top of the show, some of the loudest members of the impeachment resistance, Jim Jordan, the Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee, and fellow Oversight Committee Member, Mark Meadows, they've been sitting in on all these closed-door depositions, now we find out then they're going to talk to the White House.
That's right! They're accused essentially of pulling a Nunes, as in Devin, the former Head of the Intel Committee who had to recuse himself for running to Trump with Committee material.
Now, to be fair, Jordan tells CNN he's never divulged information to the White House that should not be divulged. Meadow says "Jim Jordan and I have tried to abide by the rules as much as we possibly can."
I invite both on the show on a regular basis. The White House has not responded to a request for comment.
But look, lawmakers involved in helping craft the President's defense strategy is not good. What could they tell him that is not in public circulation that would be OK?
Third, a CNN source confirms, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman said he raised concerns about that July 25th call to NSC Lawyer, John Eisenberg, OK, part of the White House -- House staff. Guess what he was told in response? "Shh, stay quiet! Say nothing."
Politico, which first reported the part of the story, says a few days after Eisenberg told Vindman, allegedly, "Shh," his team moved the transcript of the call to the highly classified server. And then, again, he told Vindman, "Don't tell anyone about the call."
Eisenberg was subpoenaed tonight. He's scheduled to testify Monday. Simple question. Why tell Vindman "Shh" and then move the transcript into a secret server if the call was so "Perfect?"
So, what does this all mean in terms of the scope of how the Democrats see impeachment, all right? So, we got a great guest for that tonight. We're going to talk to one of the senior Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York.
Great to have you here. Thanks for waiting for me right at the desk. I hope I didn't bore you. How could you be bored by this! So, let's start with the last.
Vindman says, "I went to the White House, NSC Lawyer, Eisenberg. I said "I got problems with this." And he says, "Shh! Say nothing."
If true, relevance?
REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Very relevant because then you're looking at a cover-up that goes straight to the heart of the matter. And I'm not going to, you know, I've sat in on part of that testimony, so I'm not going to talk about that.
But that's why, soon, transcripts will be let, and the public will be able to see for themselves, and there will be public hearings on that, based upon what we've heard in a private setting.
CUOMO: But is there a good reason from -- for an NSC lawyer to tell someone who says he's concerned about the call, "Shh?"
MEEKS: No, there's no good reason, other than you don't want it out.
[21:05:00]
And what has been consistent is individuals have co-operated what the whistleblower said in the beginning, and what Ambassador Taylor has said that has been consistent throughout the testimony, as known from the facts of those opening statements that have been revealed to the general public.
CUOMO: So, Jordan and Meadows, it seems like a flashback to Nunes, to me. We'll find out through the details what it is. But what is OK to tell the subject of an Oversight Committee investigation about a closed-door deposition in that investigation?
MEEKS: There is nothing OK and that's why--
CUOMO: How about general contours?
MEEKS: There is nothing OK because that's why they have come up with this cover-up scheme. You know, what has happened in any investigation generally, it is secretive, so that one witness could not hear what the other witness is testifying to, so as you try to get a drive at the truth.
CUOMO: But he's the President.
MEEKS: What -- what--
CUOMO: Can't he get a little taste?
MEEKS: No. The President should not, especially when he is a subject to the investigation.
CUOMO: Just a general idea because it's all political, and these guys believe in him.
MEEKS: But, then again, they shouldn't be in the room if that's -- if they want to violate what supposed to happen in the room, then they should not be in the room.
And you know what? Then they go out and try to say that there's no Republicans in the room participating, when in fact, in that room, there are always Republicans, and equal amount as Democrats, and they have the equal amount of time to ask each and every witness a question. CUOMO: And obviously, Jordans and Meadows -- Jordan and Meadows have been in -- in the rooms, and you have 47 Members of the Republican Party who are in the committees that are investigating an impeachment.
You say the cover-up. What are you referring to?
MEEKS: Well it just seems as though, you know, his -- there's two sides that -- that this goes. Number one, we've heard from the President's own mouth that what he did. We heard from his Acting Chief of Staff that there was a quid pro quo.
But then, at the same time, you see, you know, the President says he wants his side out. He wants his witnesses to testify. But who is the one person that's trying to block and asking people not to come to testify?
CUOMO: President.
MEEKS: The President. We're saying we want the President's people to come. We won't have -- we won't -- we're trying to drive for the truth. And it's the President's the only one that's trying to prevent folks and telling folks not to come to testify.
CUOMO: So, how bad is what Jordan and Meadows did given that Nunes did something that's every bit what they acknowledge and then some and nothing happened to him? He voluntarily recused.
MEEKS: Well I think that what's going to happen here is that when we move to -- to unveil what the -- these transcripts say, and have this open testimony, and the American people get a chance to actually see, listen, and verify for themselves, the veracity of these individuals that testified.
You know, I know that -- people that I heard, I want the American people to hear who they are.
CUOMO: People said the same thing with Mueller. And when he came up, he was a dud.
MEEKS: Well look, this case, and then--
CUOMO: No disrespect.
MEEKS: No, no, no. But Mueller--
CUOMO: But he didn't move the--
MEEKS: Mueller -- Mueller--
CUOMO: He didn't move the needle.
MEEKS: --Mueller, I think, we got to look at those that examine and what he did because I think it was substantial when you read his words. When you talk about patriots, like Ambassador Taylor--
CUOMO: He's a great patriot. MEEKS: --like Mr. Vindman, these are people who -- they don't care about Democrat, Republican, or Independent. They don't care about--
CUOMO: So, you think seeing is believing?
MEEKS: Absolutely.
CUOMO: All right.
MEEKS: It's compelling testimony.
CUOMO: The last one, Rudy Giuliani, now, I'm not making any allegations. But the two people that he was paid by that he was undoubtedly working with, and trying to find dirt, for the President, were guys under indictment right now.
Now we learn that one of them was getting a lot of money from a Ukrainian big-shot oligarch, which usually means you got connections to Russia, and we don't know why.
The story with this guy, Firtash and Parnas, Parnas is the guy who's under indictment for working with Giuliani, and shuttling Russian money into elections, is he was paid for an interpreter.
Interpreter getting private jets, limos, private security, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, at the same time, it goes to Giuliani, and the FBI is taking a look at Rudy's money records, what does it mean to you?
MEEKS: It means, again, and I add this, you know, when you look at the President of the United States, who have instructed Giuliani and others, "I want you to talk to this President. I want you to talk to the Ukrainians. I want you to make sure that you get information on Biden," which then goes to show that one, as Nancy Pelosi has said over and over again, all road leads back to Putin.
But, number two, it goes to the President's abuse of power. It goes to the President who withheld those dollars where they've -- thereby hurting our national security by holding dollars that our ally needed to protect against our Russian enemy, as well as the President violating his oath by trying to get a foreign government involved in our 2020 elections. And he's utilizing Giuliani and those individuals who are indicted.
And again, remember, if you just go through the entire Trump Administration, how many of his people are now in jail who have been convicted?
[21:10:00]
It is a criminal conspiracy that you can see that's taking place with the President, up top, trying to say there was no quid pro quo in one hand, when clearly, he says, "Well there's no quid pro quo," using the words, but then says he's demanding that the President comes out, President Zelensky comes out, and make a statement in public record, otherwise he's holding the money. So, it seems clear to me that there is an attempt to cover-up. And I warn folks that's close to the President that don't want to tell the truth, everybody close to Richard Nixon, except for Richard Nixon, went to jail.
And I think that when you start hearing individuals testifying, and if they're not telling the truth, they're in danger themselves of going to jail.
CUOMO: Talking about anybody in particular?
MEEKS: Well one Rudy Giuliani.
CUOMO: Well he hasn't testified yet. We'll see what he says.
MEEKS: Right.
CUOMO: Congressman, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
MEEKS: My pleasure.
CUOMO: Very heady allegations!
All right, if we're going to talk about breaking news and what matters, the Congressman said Nancy Pelosi, he referenced, saying all roads run down to Putin.
But for sure what we know is that Rudy Giuliani is at the middle of all of this in terms of the dividing line between this just being a legitimate interest in corruption by the President.
If it was, why did he try to get this information in such illegitimate ways? What do we mean by illegitimate? This new information about who Rudy Giuliani was working with and who they were working with is a big deal.
We're going to bring in one of our intrepid reporters who broke this story. No one knows more than she. Vicky Ward, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, now we knew already that the President's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is having his financial ties examined by federal investigators.
That probe is sure to look at the half million dollars that Giuliani was paid, we don't know what for, but we know when, in the fall of 2018 by a man named Lev Parnas, one of his two associates arrested last month on campaign finance charges.
Now we have reporting from our Vicky Ward, and it takes a closer look at Parnas, and where his money was coming from that he may have used to pay Rudy. The source, a Ukrainian oligarch suspected of having ties to the Russian mob.
Vicky, thank you so much for coming in on short notice on a Friday night. And Firtash, the man--
VICKY WARD, CNN SENIOR REPORTER, "KUSHNER, INC." AUTHOR: Yes.
CUOMO: --the Ukrainian oligarch is sought by the United States--
WARD: Right.
CUOMO: --on a bribery investigation already having nothing to do with this.
WARD: Right, for five years.
CUOMO: They've been looking for him.
WARD: Yes. So, there are sort of three different threads here. So, you have Dmytro Firtash, Ukrainian oligarch, exiled in Vienna, the number one thing he does not want is to be extradited to America.
So, what he was looking to do this summer, Chris, was change lawyers. His lawyer for the last five years has been Lanny Davis, Democrat. He was looking for a lawyer with ties to the Trump Administration.
He meets Lev Parnas who, as we know, and we've reported, has become very close to Mayor Giuliani, has paid Mayor Giuliani, and in return, has tried to sell access to Giuliani and to senior White House officials in exchange for money from foreigners, a lot of people with ties to Ukraine.
CUOMO: But we don't think Parnas took Firtash to Giuliani. We think he took them to other Trump-friendly lawyers.
WARD: We know -- so what I report is that Parnas says to Firtash, "Let me introduce you to Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing."
CUOMO: His wife.
WARD: Yes. Both great friends of Giuliani, both great friends of the Attorney General, Bill Barr. Thanks to Parnas, Firtash hires Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing.
CUOMO: And gets them a meeting--
WARD: And gets them the meeting with Bill Barr. CUOMO: --with the A.G.
WARD: Now, until now, DiGenova and Toensing claimed that Parnas' only role in this was as a humble interpreter.
But what my reporting shows, with my colleagues at CNN, is that suddenly this summer, Parnas was flushed with cash, and bragging that his new expenses, he had 24/7 bodyguards, he was chartering flights, six flights, up and down the East Coast, one of which Rudy Giuliani was on, and he was saying all these expenses are being paid by Dmytro Firtash.
He starts hustling Energy magnates for deals that he says he's going to do on behalf of Dmytro Firtash. So, the question then becomes, Chris, is Giuliani the pawn now for a -- a Ukrainian oligarch who is using him to buy influence at the highest levels of our government?
CUOMO: And why was Rudy Giuliani using someone like Lev Parnas? We don't know why Parnas was paying him. But why was he using Parnas, Fruman, and a couple of other guys to look for dirt on Biden if it was just a legitimate corruption investigation?
WARD: Well that's exactly right.
So, I think -- I think we've done a lot of reporting that the whole appeal of Lev Parnas, and his associate, Igor Fruman, both of whom were born in Ukraine, was so they kept promising Giuliani information on Biden, and they promised him connections on Biden.
And this -- and it's -- and -- and Giuliani has been driven, you know, I think his circle would say to the -- to -- sometimes to the point of madness over his quest to find dirt on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
CUOMO: Vicky Ward, this is such important reporting because this general notion of pushback to the impeachment allegation says the President was just doing something in the public interest. But boy, did he avoid the normal channels!
Thank you so much for the reporting. I appreciate it.
WARD: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: And let us know when you have more.
WARD: I will.
CUOMO: And have a great weekend.
[21:20:00]
All right, so two of the President's chief defenders, another big headline on our watch, they have been going to these closed-door depositions. Then, they've been going to the White House to talk to lawyers to help craft the President's defense. Is that OK?
Let's put it to Cuomo's Court, and a couple of other big issues, 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: So, we've got Republicans listening to depositions, which is their right, and then, consulting with White House lawyers which seems very wrong.
[21:25:00]
We have several witnesses attesting to the fact that there was a concerted effort to keep the call quiet, amid vast concern of a potential bribe. So, where does that leave the defense strategy?
Cuomo's Court is in session.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Asha Rangappa, and Harmeet Dhillon. Harmeet, welcome to the show, thank you for joining us.
HARMEET DHILLON, LEGAL SURROGATE, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBER, VICE PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, RNC COMMITTEEWOMAN: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: Asha, thank you for coming in on short notice. Let's have a session called "Is that OK?"
Asha Rangappa, let's start with Jordan and Meadows. I call this "Pulling a Nunes." They listen to the deposition, then go to the White House, and they say, "We did nothing wrong." Could they do something that's OK here?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it really violates the integrity of the process if they are coordinating with the President's lawyers.
This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. And just like the FBI or DOJ prosecutors wouldn't be consulting with the subject of an investigation, and his or her legal team, they shouldn't be doing this at all. But Chris, you know, this does undercut the criticism that the President has not had a chance to have his lawyers present in the hearings.
I mean if basically Jordan and Meadows are acting as sort of proxies or extensions of Trump's legal team, then they've been there, and they've been to all the hearings, and they've been there to act on his behalf. So, I think that that criticism goes out the window.
My biggest question is why does Trump not have a real legal team? I mean these are not, as far as I know, Mark Meadows is not a lawyer. Jim Jordan does have a law degree, but he would not be the person I would be depending on, if I were the President.
He needs some serious constitutional lawyers to be advising him, not, you know, Crabbe and Goyle--
CUOMO: Well--
RANGAPPA: --from, you know, Harry Potter.
CUOMO: Good reference! First of all, Rudy's a little busy. And DiGenova and Toensing maybe conflicted out from what we just learned.
I don't want to litigate whether or not the President should have representation because these are depositions. During Clinton, there was no representation by the President. Open hearings were a different question.
My question, from Asha, to you Harmeet, is if Jordan and Meadows go from deposition to White House to consult, how is it OK?
DHILLON: Well, first of all, Chris and Asha, you actually don't know what is being said there. But what we do know is what's coming out of those depositions, is a lot of leaking by Democrats.
And what's been reported, including by your network, is that what these two Members of Congress on the Republican side are doing, to the extent that they can publicly, is pushing back on the false narrative being painted by Adam Schiff and his cronies, and saying, "Well the way that they spun that testimony publicly that isn't quite right, that isn't quite true." And I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
Second, with respect to this being a so-called quasi-judicial proceeding, that's really not true either. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, I mean I was actually in court today, in front of a jury, so I -- I know what one is. And in real life, there are separate roles--
CUOMO: I know what one is and I've never been in front of a jury. Go ahead.
DHILLON: There are separate roles for a Grand Jury that is a jury of people who are not actually sitting and judging, who are not the prosecutor, and who are not a political body. So, the -- the impeachment inquiry is not a court and not a Grand Jury. That's a-- CUOMO: Right. But I think -- but Harmeet--
DHILLON: --that's a false premise. So--
CUOMO: Harmeet, I think this, wait a minute. Hold--
DHILLON: Let me just finish, Chris. So -- so -- no, you let Asha--
CUOMO: No, no, because I got to check you right there.
DHILLON: --you let Asha go on and on and pretend like--
CUOMO: I know. But she didn't say anything that offends the facts. Go ahead.
DHILLON: And -- and pretend like the President is looking for lawyers among the Members of Congress who are sitting there. He isn't. He has lawyers.
CUOMO: I'm sure.
DHILLON: His lawyers are not permitted there. That is correct.
CUOMO: I'm sure.
DHILLON: But it is also illegitimate for Adam Schiff to go out there and leak selectively and spin and tell lies. And so, to the extent that these Members of Congress--
CUOMO: All right, I--
DHILLON: --are pushing back on the political process, totally legitimate.
CUOMO: You're making assumptions about him leaking. I had him on the show last night. He wouldn't tell me anything about any of the testimony, except to say--
DHILLON: You wouldn't have a show if he weren't leaking. All of CNN is full of the leaks that are coming out--
CUOMO: Wait a minute.
DHILLON: --of those rooms.
CUOMO: Wait a minute. You saying these witnesses haven't provided almost all of them testimony before they went in? The answer is yes. So, don't say what you don't know.
DHILLON: That's not what the leaks are.
CUOMO: Now, let me ask you--
DHILLON: That's not what the leaks are. Your -- your--
CUOMO: But you're -- but you're making up leaks. But hold on. Hold on a second.
DHILLON: --your network is full of leak information.
CUOMO: If you want to talk about leaks, then you want to talk about something you don't know. Let's talk about the same point but what we do know. What we do know is this, and I can prove it right now, and you can prove nothing of what you've said except to speculate.
Jordan and Meadows, both admit they've gone to the White House, after depositions, to talk to white House Counsel about the general contours of what's happening in the room. How is it OK?
DHILLON: Nothing wrong with that.
CUOMO: How is it OK for a Congress Member with Oversight responsibilities to talk to the subject being investigated about what they may have on him?
DHILLON: The one on your show last night is talking about what's going on in that room all over Washington, and so are many other Democrats, who are spinning this. So, there's nothing wrong with pushing back--
CUOMO: Then why did Nunes have to recuse himself?
DHILLON: --on false narrative. There's nothing -- that's a different investigation, totally different. Let's not mix apples and oranges. And, by the way--
CUOMO: How? It was the Select Committee.
[21:30:00]
DHILLON: --I don't think Nunes -- excuse me, Nunes did not have to recuse himself. He chose to recuse himself.
CUOMO: Why?
DHILLON: So, let's not tell lies either here, Chris.
CUOMO: I said why did he recuse himself?
DHILLON: That's not true.
CUOMO: And if you accuse of lying on this show--
RANGAPPA: Chris, can I--
DHILLON: You should ask him that.
CUOMO: --you better back it up.
DHILLON: You should ask him that.
RANGAPPA: Can I add something in here?
CUOMO: Go ahead, Asha, get in. RANGAPPA: Yes. So, I mean, courts and scholars have characterized impeachment proceedings as a quasi-judicial proceeding. And it is analogous in many ways.
CUOMO: But even if it isn't, even if it was just Congressional oversight--
RANGAPPA: The crossover fabric--
DHILLON: It isn't. It isn't one.
RANGAPPA: Even -- if exactly.
CUOMO: --since when can the Members of Congress go from Committee to the White House?
DHILLON: The one Adam Schiff is in control--
RANGAPPA: It's -- it's -- it's basically--
DHILLON: --and that's the state of analogy.
RANGAPPA: --it's but, you know--
CUOMO: It doesn't matter. It's not relevant.
RANGAPPA: --I think the bigger, the bigger--
CUOMO: Go ahead.
RANGAPPA: --the bigger question here, Chris, you know, and I'm -- I'm speaking from the perspective of the President, if they're responding to every little leak and, you know, how are you going to defend this, I mean the big legal problem here is that it seems to me that the President does not have a legal theory of the case.
You know, he should be grounding his defense in, you know, some kind of constitutional argument, you know. I mean even President Nixon's argument was that if he's the President, it's -- it's legal. I mean he has nothing like that.
He doesn't have any kind of serious theory that is coming out. It's just throwing spaghetti against the wall. And now you have this, you know, the latest, which is, after there was no quid pro quo, now it's there was a quid pro quo but, you know, it's not so bad.
These are not serious defenses. And I don't think he fully understands the magnitude of the legal jeopardy that he is facing, even if not in this proceeding, in the court of public opinion.
CUOMO: Harmeet, what is the best defense to framing what happened between the United States President and the Ukraine President as a bribe?
DHILLON: The best defense is actually that -- that transcript, and what the Ukrainian President has said about it, there was no quid pro quo. There is no impeachable offense and there's nothing to defend as yet.
CUOMO: The Ukraine President said there was no pressure.
DHILLON: There is nothing -- there's nothing to defend as yet. The Ukraine President didn't even know that the President was considering holding up aid, like he does, by the way, with most countries.
RANGAPPA: That's not true. That's -- that's not true.
DHILLON: That -- well that's you don't -- OK, fine. That is what's -- that is what's out there that I know.
RANGAPPA: Bill Taylor testified--
DHILLON: And in terms of there being a defense, there's not -- there's no defense to be had yet because this is just an investigation. When there's time for a defense, I can assure you that there are plenty of lawyers working on this right now.
CUOMO: All right, I appreciate, Harmeet, it's good to have you on the show.
RANGAPPA: Chris, Bill Taylor's opening statement--
CUOMO: Go ahead, Asha. Yes?
RANGAPPA: Yes. Bill Taylor's opening statement twice mentions that the Ukrainians were incredibly concerned that the aid was being withheld.
They fully understood that it was being withheld as these negotiations for having a meeting and for making a public announcement about an investigation into the Bidens were happening.
CUOMO: But--
RANGAPPA: I mean un -- unless the allegation is that Bill Taylor was lying.
CUOMO: Right. But Harmeet's point is this, and it's a fair one. We're not in the trial phase. This is the investigatory phase. When they open it up to hearings, and we get to hear and see these things for ourselves, and the President should have counsel in there to rebut.
RANGAPPA: But the premise of her defense is wrong.
CUOMO: But she's saying there is no reason for a defense yet.
RANGAPPA: The premise of her defense is wrong.
CUOMO: Which I'm fine with.
DHILLON: There's no defense yet.
CUOMO: Yes.
DHILLON: There's a process. We aren't there yet. CUOMO: I'm -- I'm -- I'm fine with it.
DHILLON: That's not how the courts work.
CUOMO: I'm fine with that. I just don't think that--
DHILLON: OK. Thank you.
CUOMO: --Members of Congress should be walking over to the White House. They have their own job to do. But I appreciate you doing your job here tonight -- tonight, Harmeet. You're welcome back on the show.
DHILLON: Sure.
CUOMO: And Asha, thank you for delaying the vacation. Thank you for coming on the show. Enjoy yourself and be well. All right--
DHILLON: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: Thank you both. Have a good weekend.
We heard from a top Democrat in Congress. Ahead, got to get the other side. A GOP Congressman who's in lockstep with the President, what does he make of colleagues working with the White House? Is he all right with that? What does he make of these latest developments?
You're going to hear it, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, so what do we make of this situation?
The President's proxies, really, in Congress doing double-duty, investigating him as the Constitution provides, and then going to the White House, to give guidance? It has to raise real questions, especially if you're going to scream about the integrity of the process.
So, let's bring in Texas Republican, Randy Weber, back onto the show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Congressman, welcome back to PRIME TIME. But first, I know you had a hard time getting here tonight. I know an accident was involved. Thank God you're OK, and thank you for continuing on your way here. God bless. And I wish you a safe rest of the weekend.
REP. RANDY WEBER (R-TX): Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, so thanks for making the trip.
So, Meadows and Jordan, here's the concern. It doesn't seem right for one of you guys to go from your Oversight capacity to the Executive Branch, whom you are overseeing, and talking about what you saw and heard in a closed-door deposition.
How is that OK?
WEBER: You know, Chris, it's interesting that the President's not allowed any representation in this process. His lawyers can't be in the room. He's not allowed to confront the so-called whistleblower, the witness against him.
And you all want to com -- people want to complain about Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan going to the White House.
You have to trust their integrity, just as much as you, I guess people would say, trust Adam Schiff's integrity, who has leaked a lot of things, spoke to the whistleblower ahead of time, has absolutely controlled the situations to where Republicans can't be in the room.
We had to basically break into one of the rooms a while back. We're not allowed to the transcripts. We can read the transcripts of the -- long as we have a Democrat staffer watching us.
CUOMO: Right.
WEBER: We don't get access to the process. And Mark and -- and Jim, who have been in most of the hearings--
CUOMO: Right.
WEBER: --you -- people assume that they're doing something improper because they speak to the White House, yet, Adam Schiff can do everything he wants, hold up the process, keep Republicans out--
CUOMO: OK.
WEBER: --keep the public at bay. The President doesn't get due process, and he's not questioned about that.
CUOMO: All right, I -- I--
WEBER: You talked about a double standard, Chris.
CUOMO: I hear all of it. I was making notes as we went along because I didn't want to interrupt you.
My rebuttal questions to you are, number one, this is a deposition, not a hearing. The President, nor Clinton, and even Nixon early on, no President has ever had representation inside a deposition. Henry Hyde did over a 100 of these. Clinton never had an attorney in any because it's the investigatory phase. Point one.
[21:40:00]
Point two, you guys have people in all of them. You had people in the room, in the SCIF, when the Gaetz Gang busted in there, you had Republicans in there. So, there are Republicans in all of them.
And you never answered my question. The President's not supposed to have representation at a deposition, at this point. Why is it OK for a Member of Congress to go from their Oversight role to go to advise the White House on a defense strategy?
WEBER: You're making an assumption, Chris, that somehow they're saying, you know, un -- you know, improper things to the White House.
CUOMO: How could they not?
WEBER: You want to restrict their freedom -- freedom.
CUOMO: If they're saying anything, how could it not be improper? They said they're giving general contours.
WEBER: Well you--
CUOMO: But if it's anything beyond what's public, how is it OK?
WEBER: You know, that's the -- the major problem with this entire process in my view is that they're assuming what the President meant on a phone call, although he didn't say it, the Ukrainian -- Ukrainian President didn't believe that it was any kind of quid pro crow -- quid pro quo. People are thinking there was an improper motive.
CUOMO: The Ukrainian President said he wasn't under pressure, Congressman.
WEBER: And they're wanting to--
CUOMO: He never said there wasn't a quid pro quo.
WEBER: They're wanting to -- they're wanting to impeach the President for their interpretation of imposing upon him their belief, their attitude, and -- and now, here you're trying to do, or I should say, people are trying to do it with Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. Look--
CUOMO: No, no, I don't want to impugn them. I asked them both on the show, Congressman, to be honest. I love having you on. But obviously, I'd want to have the people--
WEBER: Well--
CUOMO: --who are the direct subject to the allegation. I'm all about hearing out why they did it.
But they say they went from the Legislative, to the Executive, two separate branches of government, one with oversight over the other, and they say, provided general contours of an understanding of what happened in the deposition, to help the White House defense.
I don't understand. It's certainly not in the Constitution to do that. Why is it OK?
WEBER: Let me ask you this question, Chris.
CUOMO: Yes, Sir.
WEBER: Do you realize that -- that Members of Congress go into classified briefings all the time?
CUOMO: Yes.
WEBER: And, by law, we're not supposed to reveal what's in those classified briefings?
CUOMO: True.
WEBER: I'm sorry?
CUOMO: True, yes.
WEBER: Oh, true? And so--
CUOMO: In the affirmative.
WEBER: --Members of Congress are counted on to do the right thing every single day of their lives basically.
CUOMO: Yes.
WEBER: And just because Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows sat in on these hearings, and they go and sit down with the -- with the President, are they automatically guilty of something wrong?
It's like they're -- that's what they're accusing the President of, he's automatically guilty of doing something wrong. He's assumed guilty, not innocent. He's guilty before being proven innocent.
CUOMO: I think it would be very--
WEBER: That's the problem with this.
CUOMO: I think it would be very wrong to do that. And when politicians do it, unfortunately it's a political process, but it's wrong even then. And this is just the investigatory phase.
And I, and you, and I'm sure a lot of other people are waiting for the hearings, to make our own judgment about whether this even rises to the level of an article of impeachment. But it still doesn't answer my question. Even if other people are leaking-- WEBER: No. I -- I don't agree with your--
CUOMO: Even if they're not leaking, Congressman--
WEBER: Chris, I don't agree with your last comment. I don't agree with your last comment.
CUOMO: How so?
WEBER: That people are going to wait till the hearings. The Democrats have already judged this President is guilty.
They've been looking for a way to impeach him since day one. For Pete's sakes, one of the Democratic Congressman said in a TV interview, "We've got to impeach him he -- because we're afraid he'll get re-elected."
CUOMO: Did they -- did they make the President offer a bribe to the President of Ukraine and insert his President to -- to his -- his lawyer to work with these shady guys who have connections to a Ukrainian oligarch to look for dirt on Biden? Did they make him do that?
WEBER: His -- his President -- this President never offered a bribe. The President of Ukraine wanted help in cleaning up corruption over there. He -- President Zelensky brought up the corruption first.
President Trump said "Here's a couple of things you want to look in." It's not President Trump's fault that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden got caught up in one of Ukrainian--
CUOMO: But if he wanted to look at Biden, you and I both know, Congressman, the proper channel is to go to the DOJ, or the FBI, or through at least diplomatic channels, not to insert your lawyer into a shadow operation.
WEBER: When the -- when the President of Ukraine asked for help, draining the swamp, basically over there, and the President said, "Here's a couple of examples," it's not his fault that the Bidens were part of that in that apparent--
CUOMO: The only corruption you think that Presidents Zelensky's concerned about corruption in his country had to do with Biden and the DNC because he never mentioned it. He said "Giuliani told me--"
WEBER: Did--
CUOMO: --"about your interest in the DNC."
WEBER: Did you--
CUOMO: "And in Biden."
WEBER: Did -- did you read the transcript?
CUOMO: Yes, many times. I think I might even have it. Oh, here it is. WEBER: As I have too, sitting in my notebook on my lap, and I will tell you that President Zelensky mentions it first. He -- he commends President Trump--
CUOMO: Yes.
WEBER: --for dealing with corruption over here.
CUOMO: Yes.
WEBER: He asks for help in Ukraine.
CUOMO: Yes.
WEBER: Now, I don't care if you're Biden running for President.
CUOMO: He asked for help with missiles.
WEBER: I don't care if you're Biden's son.
CUOMO: He asked for help with missiles.
WEBER: You don't get to pay-for-play. You don't get to have -- sell your influence.
CUOMO: Wait, first of all, yes, you do.
WEBER: And that's what's--
[21:45:00]
CUOMO: Congressman, of course you do.
You are allowed, even when you work for the United States government, to cut personal deals for advantage, even while you're doing the job for the U.S. government. It must be legal because the President's daughter is doing it right now. Ivanka Trump--
WEBER: The President's--
CUOMO: --representing the U.S. government, went to China, and got a bunch of patents right when she was meeting with President Xi, and that's OK.
WEBER: Chris--
CUOMO: So, isn't it OK?
WEBER: --just another example -- just another example of anti-Trumpism you just quoted.
CUOMO: How is what -- that OK?
WEBER: The President's family -- the President's family has been involved in business around the world--
CUOMO: Yes.
WEBER: --for a long time. Indeed they've taken salary cut--
CUOMO: So, you can keep doing it while you work in the U.S. government?
WEBER: --to go to the White House.
CUOMO: So, you can keep--
WEBER: So, the -- as -- they can make business, they can do business, they can make money, while they're working for the U.S. government.
CUOMO: Really?
WEBER: They're not selling -- absolutely they can.
CUOMO: So, wow, I didn't know that.
WEBER: If you have business interest -- if you have business interest around the world before you get in office, getting in office doesn't preclude you from making money.
CUOMO: Oh, I didn't know that. So, Congressman--
WEBER: My Gosh what's--
CUOMO: --if you had a business beforehand, so you can take a meeting, and say, "By the way, before I talk to you about this policy, I'd love to get a new contract for my shipping company." I didn't know you could do that.
WEBER: There you go at it -- there you go at it again, Chris--
CUOMO: Be -- I'm being facetious.
WEBER: --assuming that they're guilty.
CUOMO: Because we know you can't do it.
WEBER: You're assuming that they're guilty before they're innocent.
CUOMO: We know Ivanka Trump did it. I got a whole--
WEBER: You are--
CUOMO: --I got a whole read-out on it.
WEBER: You are literally hitting at the heart of what's wrong with this impeachment here.
CUOMO: The hypocrisy of it.
WEBER: The Democrats are assuming guilt before innocent. You're just quoting another talking point from them. CUOMO: Congressman, I'm saying that if you're upset about what Biden's son did, and by the way, I think I'm one of the few people on television who has said, I don't like what his son did. I think it's wrong. I think the VP knows that, and that's why he wants to change the rules, if he gets to be President. I don't like people making money off their family operations.
What I'm saying is the idea that this President was worried about it going on in Ukraine, but he ignored normal channels, he ignores corruption in his own Administration, he ignores it in his own family, and he uses his lawyer to do a shadow operation to get it done with two wise guys who wind up getting indicted, doesn't sound like the most legit thing..
WEBER: None of that's true, Chris.
CUOMO: It's all true.
WEBER: This President was having a conversation with another President. You're assuming he's guilty before innocent. This is a classic example.
CUOMO: He said "Do us a favor" and asked for him to look into the Bidens and talk to Mr. Giuliani.
WEBER: The President of Ukraine asked President Trump for helping to get the swamp.
CUOMO: Not with the Bidens.
WEBER: Chris, you're -- you're -- again, it's not President's Trump's fault that the Bidens were in an apparent pay-for-play scheme--
CUOMO: Only reason the Bidens came up was--
WEBER: --and selling influence.
CUOMO: --because Giuliani asked the Ukraine government to re-open the case.
But Congressman Randy Weber, I appreciate the zealousness, especially on a night where you were almost in a car accident, so God bless you. Thank you for coming here. Have a good weekend. I'll see you again.
WEBER: Chris, it's good to be here, and to hear your opinion, good night.
CUOMO: It's just an observation on the facts.
But listen, got to keep the dialog going because you people are going to have to make two different decisions. Was this wrong? And should it be punished? Now, how hard is that?
You got zero Republicans, Weber is not unusual, zero voted to move forward with the impeachment inquiry even though the rules are the ones they made up for Clinton. Why? Because we've got a tough task, and by "We," I actually mean the Democrats, and I think they're in a hard jam, and I'll tell you why, 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: I see two tasks for the Democrats.
First, they have to show that the President abused his power by trying to bribe Ukraine's President. That is the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.
This is at worst an attempted bribe, as listed in the Constitution, as reasons for impeachment, and at best, a possible felony violation of federal election law.
So, here's the proof. The call transcript is a blatant ask, by Trump, for a favor of investigating Biden after Ukraine asked for more help, and the meeting. The aid being held up by Trump, the meeting being dangled, that's both sides of it.
The Rudy factor screams abuse of power, using that blunt instrument to frustrate normal channels, and insist on poison political benefit for this President, in the form of a public statement, condemning Biden. So, probing the facts of wrongdoing and abuse and even bribery may not be the most daunting aspect for the Democrats.
That takes me to the second task, convincing Americans that this Presidential perfidy warrants removal. Why? There'll be no power in bipartisanship. The impeachment vote shows that. Every interview I do shows that.
Here, we have even more hardened battle lines than there were for Clinton. You know, in that case, 31 Democrats moved to impeach. Goose egg from the GOP yesterday!
And the only factor that might shake fealty to the President on the Right is fear of the voters. But let's think about that. It would seem many people see the wrong, but also see it as part of an industry- standard, sadly.
Look at the last three years, promises, expectations of smoking guns, and gotchas, as implications of the end of Trump, and it never came close to true.
Many see a President who will push the limits to win. But apparently, almost as many, and I'm talking about the half of Independents who don't favor impeachment, not just Left and Right, they see this as just more of the same in a dirty game.
"Dems go low to get Trump. He goes low to get them." So, why should one side use the rules they seem to abuse to get the other side for abuse?
Now, I hear you. You're screaming "False equivalency," and maybe you're right. But if that opposite feeling is so baseless, why are the polls so split?
So, the question becomes, how do you convince people that they should want to see politics cleaned up, especially when the people trying to convince them of that, the Democrats, are seen as part of the problem?
[21:55:00]
Now, the Right may not want to admit it, but the facts are clear, and the Left needs to be clear about their challenge. Of course, the current Ukrainegate is a clear instance of potential abuse of office, and the duty for them is clear to investigate it.
Alexander Hamilton said exactly that in The Federalist Papers. This is what he was talking about being a problem. But how do you get the people to believe in removing a problem when they see both sides of this process as part of the problem? That's my argument, really a question.
Now, to the BOLO. I want you to Be On the Look-Out for Trump's 2020 campaign playbook that may be 2016 all over again, and then some. Why? 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.
Sources tell CNN the President's Administration is considering adding more countries to the travel ban. Yes, same ban that's already been through three iterations because it unlawfully discriminated against Muslims. Why? The play is to boost the base, and hope they forget that they
didn't get the boost of the promised 3 percent growth that that tax cut was supposed to bring, to justify its deficit-busting nature.
Thanks for watching. "CNN TONIGHT" with D. Lemon, now.
