Return to Transcripts main page

CUOMO PRIME TIME

NY Times: Army Officer On White House Staff Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call To Speak To Congress Tomorrow Out Of "Sense Of Duty"; ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Killed In U.S. Raid; Trump Shares Image Of Hero Dog Hurt In Al-Baghdadi Raid. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired October 28, 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]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

We're just getting some breaking news on the impeachment inquiry. A first-hand witness to the President's phone call on Ukraine is due to testify tomorrow. Brand-new reporting, this man may solidify what should be an obvious point.

What do you say? Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, so now we're expecting a new testimony tomorrow. We're just getting this information in. We are trying to understand what it will mean for us.

But, look, a White House National Security Official, all right, the - the main Ukraine expert, he is called the top ex - expert here, by The New York Times, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman of the Army.

Why does he matter? Well expertise, understands Ukraine, national security, U.S. policy is his domain. He heard the phone call in July, OK? No hearsay, not some political pawn, an expert, a military man on the call.

He was very concerned by what he heard and believes that it was out of an act of "Sense of duty" that he not once, but twice registered complaints.

Now, the key question becomes about what. Here it is. His internal objections went to the fact that demanding a foreign

government investigate a U.S. Citizen was not proper. OK? Now, second level, so he heard it as an ask. He heard it as a specific investigation to a U.S. Citizen, which would have been Biden, and he thought it was wrong.

He then started to be concerned about how that was responded to by people around this President, including his lawyer, that they were pushing a false narrative about Ukraine.

Now the second piece, he will also testify, reportedly, that he confronted Ambassador Sondland. Remember who that is, the President's pal, the Hotel guy who was gifted with an Ambassadorship to the European Union, who was then brought in to help with this Ukraine plan.

OK. Sondland testified too, right, tried to help the President out a little bit, but he too made this point that there was a problem with what the relationship would be, and what was being asked for.

He will testify that he confronted Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, the day the Envoy spoke in a White House meeting with Ukrainian officials about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President.

Now that is known, as we all know the Latin now, quid pro quo. Doesn't have to just be about the aid. You don't even need quid pro quo. But if you're going to make that the political bar, you now have one.

And remember, Ambassador Sondland was very careful, as we understand it, in his testimony, to say he was asked by the President to do this. Bill Taylor, the Ambassador, we are told, said Sondland said the President wanted him to do this. There.

What will it mean to Republican ears? Let's bring in Congressman Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: ONE ON ONE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Good to have you back as this story moves along.

REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: Appreciate your constant taking of the opportunity, means a lot to me.

MULLIN: Absolutely. Appreciate you having me on.

CUOMO: So, this man is unassailable. Nobody is going to throw dirt on him, not unlike with Volker and Taylor and Sondland, if people are being fair. He says he heard it as a quid pro quo. It bothered him out of a sense of duty. Impressive to you, Sir?

MULLIN: Well I have two questions about it.

First of all, if this hearing, supposedly, is supposed to be deemed classified, and not - and not supposed to be getting the reports leaked, until they are considered to be done so, by Adam Schiff, how is that New York already getting this report?

How are they already getting the testimony? Why - why - why is New York hearing about it before Members of Congress?

And then, second of all, if you're really talking about the individual that supposedly heard it firsthand, who is his superior that he put it to? And if - if there was a case--

CUOMO: Good question.

MULLIN: Well and - and that's why we should be having these open and fair hearings. Everybody should hear these cases.

And if this was the case, if he was on the phone call, which he wasn't reported earlier that he was on the phone call, but if he did hear it, what we already heard the transcript said that he didn't ask him to investigate Joe Biden said asked - he asked him to investigate Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden.

CUOMO: What's the difference?

MULLIN: Look into Biden's son.

CUOMO: You can't look at one without - look, you can have your points about, Congressman--

MULLIN: Well because of the relationship. We've already talked about this.

[21:05:00]

CUOMO: You - look, you can have your points about the process. I don't care about leaks unless it is actual national security. And even then, as a journalist, I welcome them. You guys all--

MULLIN: Well then Chris, then you should be demanding those hearings be open then.

CUOMO: You well - but I - we always do. That's not a question for us.

And, by the way, no secret to anybody, you guys all leak. You all play to advantage. You all manipulate processes. Now, you're going to have your vote. I'll talk to you about that in a second.

MULLIN: Well I don't--

CUOMO: But hold on. If it's true--

MULLIN: I - I 100 percent disagree on that.

CUOMO: You can. But when Nunes--

MULLIN: We don't all leak.

CUOMO: --was running up to the White House and giving them information.

MULLIN: Hey but to say we - to say we all leak is different.

CUOMO: When Benghazi was getting leaked to us selectively--

MULLIN: We're talking about an impeachment of the Presidents of the United States that Adam Schiff is keeping held secret in the basement of the U.S. Capitol.

CUOMO: He's not keep - look, we've talked about this before. That is just not a fair accounting of the process.

MULLIN: Chris, I tried to get in.

CUOMO: It's not a fair accounting of our history.

MULLIN: They won't allow us to go in.

CUOMO: Well if you're on the Committee, you can go.

MULLIN: And - and if you want to look at history, look at the history of what - how we handled Nixon and look at the--

CUOMO: It's - but it's not apples--

MULLIN: --history of how we handled Clinton.

CUOMO: It's not apples-to-apples. You got, you know--

MULLIN: It's exactly apples-to-apples.

CUOMO: --you have - you have dozens of Republicans are on - it is not, on the committees. But hold on, I don't want to go backwards.

MULLIN: We're going - we're talking about impeaching the President of the United States.

CUOMO: I know. I know. And I get that you're upset about it.

MULLIN: It already happened three times prior.

CUOMO: Yes, the Democrats were upset about it in '98 when you guys started with a real estate transaction, and ended with a sex act. I get how you guys play the game. Let's just deal with the facts.

If this man is saying what he says, and it is deemed true, was on the call, heard "Investigate Biden," investigating one Biden is investigating all of them, who are relevant in this situation, and said to Sondland, "I don't think you should condition these kinds of things on a meeting with the President," known as a quid pro quo, not that you need one to impeach, but it's very important to you guys, what will you think then?

MULLIN: Well you do need certain things to impeach. You do need treason, bribery, high crime or a misdemeanor committed.

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: And that hasn't happened.

CUOMO: If you have this kind of abuse--

MULLIN: Just because - just because he--

CUOMO: --of power--

MULLIN: Well we - how do we know it was abuse? He said he had concerns.

CUOMO: If he asks a foreign power to investigate--

MULLIN: Listen, we know - we already know the President of the United States--

CUOMO: --a U.S. Citizen for a political advantage, it's an abuse.

MULLIN: --does not make all the decisions like a bureaucrat would. He makes very unconventional decisions. But we hired a businessman to run the United States. That's what--

CUOMO: It is--

MULLIN: --the American people decided to do in 2016.

CUOMO: Markwayne Mullin, I have no problem with the election.

MULLIN: And the Democrats can't get over it.

CUOMO: I have no problem with the Democrats--

MULLIN: Then--

CUOMO: --not getting over it.

MULLIN: Then how can you--

CUOMO: I'm asking you a question.

MULLIN: --support this impeachment?

CUOMO: Can you - I don't have to support or not support. I'm a journalist. You know that. What I'm saying to you is this.

MULLIN: OK. I'll give you that one, Chris.

CUOMO: But here's what I'm saying, Congressman. MULLIN: Yes.

CUOMO: You are not supposed to ask a foreign power to investigate a political opponent. Do we agree?

MULLIN: Biden isn't a political opponent. He hasn't been elected.

CUOMO: Do we agree?

MULLIN: Well I - I would say that's probably kosher. You shouldn't.

CUOMO: Kosher?

MULLIN: I'm not saying it's illegal.

CUOMO: It--

MULLIN: I'm not - I'm not saying - I'm not saying it's illegal to do so.

CUOMO: The - the Founding Fathers went out of their way. And it is illegal because you have laws designed off their intention to keep foreign powers out. Let me give you a hint as somebody who wishes you well. Don't ask a foreign power to look into your next opponent, Congressman.

MULLIN: Hey, I - I completely agree with that, Chris.

CUOMO: You're going to be in legal jeopardy.

MULLIN: I completely agree with that. And that is not what happened here. President Trump did not ask them to look into a political opponent, asked them to look into Hunter Biden's relationship.

CUOMO: That's not what he said in the transcript.

MULLIN: OK. I read the transcript.

CUOMO: He says Biden and his son, Biden and his son.

MULLIN: He said - he said "Do me a favor because it's important to us, to the people," meaning the people of the United States, it's important to the people that we know the truth into what relationship Joe Biden's son had.

CUOMO: Why do you think this President--

MULLIN: That was what was in the transcript.

CUOMO: --cared about Joe Biden's son because it's how it's connected--

MULLIN: Because you had a - you had a seated Vice President--

CUOMO: --to Joe Biden.

MULLIN: --son who had no relationship with Ukraine, sitting on a Board of an oligarch, who is a known tied relationships to--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I know. And all the sudden he cares, right?

MULLIN: --getting paid $83,300--

CUOMO: He's - I know. I know.

MULLIN: --a month. That does not sound good.

CUOMO: That's - that's big - that's big money to Trump. It must really disgust him, not so much that he won't have his daughter work for the U.S. government--

MULLIN: You don't think that's a big deal, Chris?

CUOMO: --while she cuts trade deals for her company. That doesn't bother him?

MULLIN: Chris, you always go to Ivanka. But why don't you ever want to talk about Hunter Biden?

CUOMO: Because it's such a hypocrisy.

MULLIN: Because that's what the--

CUOMO: I talk about him all the time.

MULLIN: --root of this conversation is.

CUOMO: Markwayne Mullin, you've never heard another journalist say what I said to you the last time you were on this show.

MULLIN: Yes. And I--

CUOMO: What Hunter Biden did was wrong. If it looks bad then you shouldn't do it.

MULLIN: Then why don't we both agree that that should be investigated?

CUOMO: Because I feel the same way. It doesn't need to be investigated. You guys were in power at the time. You saw no illegality. You didn't look at it. And certainly, you didn't have a shortage of targets.

MULLIN: We most certainly did bring it up at the time. Why do you think the President is now bringing it up at the time? Every time we tried to bring it up--

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

MULLIN: --the Obama Administration stopped it.

CUOMO: I'm saying back when you guys were in power of the Congress when this happened, when you were in control of the House. MULLIN: We brought it up at that time.

CUOMO: You did not. You didn't investigate it.

MULLIN: Yes, Sir, we did.

CUOMO: And you could have.

MULLIN: As soon as we found out about it, we tried to bring it up, and get answers to it, and it was immediately stopped in - in--

[21:10:00]

CUOMO: Markwayne Mullin, I have no problem talking about Bidens, and what you people should do, and shouldn't do, and ethics. What I'm saying is this. I do not buy this President's good-faith interest in it when he ignores it in his own Administration and his own family.

So now I look at the facts. If the fact is what Taylor said, what Sondland said, what we believe this LTC is going to say, and what the transcript says, at some point, you won't be able to avoid it, and you're going to have to make an argument--

MULLIN: It's - it's interesting how everybody--

CUOMO: --to your constituents about why it's not wrong.

MULLIN: --as soon as - soon as this comes out, everybody starts to jump into conclusions, once again, thinking that this is a new shining star that's going to bring the President down.

CUOMO: No, I'm asking you.

MULLIN: After every - after every different--

CUOMO: How many different ways do you have to hear what the simple fact is?

MULLIN: How many testimonies have you heard?

CUOMO: I haven't - I haven't gotten to hear any.

MULLIN: I haven't either.

CUOMO: Look, I have no problem with it being an open process.

MULLIN: I haven't either.

CUOMO: You're going to get your vote.

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: But I think you're using it as a dodge.

MULLIN: When are we going to get our vote?

CUOMO: I think you're using it as a dodge. If you - if you--

MULLIN: When - you said you're going to get our vote.

CUOMO: Thursday. Thursday.

MULLIN: When do you - when do you think we're--

CUOMO: Thursday, you guys are going to--

MULLIN: No, we're not going to vote on it.

CUOMO: What are you talking about?

MULLIN: We're not voting on it.

CUOMO: On the procedures.

MULLIN: No, no, no, we're not. The - the - Nancy Pelosi already came back out and said that's not what we're going to be voting on. We're not voting on that.

CUOMO: Look, you find me an impeachment--

MULLIN: We're going to be voting on something else.

CUOMO: --you find me an impeachment process where the minority had the same rights as the majority.

MULLIN: When you go back and you look at the way - the way Nixon's handled--

CUOMO: And now you're even more compromised than that because you changed the rules in 2015.

MULLIN: When you want to look at the way Nixon was handled, and the way Clinton was handled, at Nixon there was a Democrat Speaker that had an open inquiry impeachment hearing, setting the rules and gave--

CUOMO: After a Grand Jury was convened.

MULLIN: --the minority the opportunity to call their own witnesses.

CUOMO: It's not apples-to-apples.

MULLIN: And the same thing that happened with Clinton.

CUOMO: They never had the same ability to call witnesses.

MULLIN: That is as closes you can get to apples-to-apples.

CUOMO: I don't understand why you guys can't just tell the truth on this, Congressman. I'll be honest.

MULLIN: What you mean? We're telling the truth.

CUOMO: No, you're not. It's not even - it's not even close. MULLIN: Why can't Nancy Pelosi tell the truth?

CUOMO: All somebody has to do is Google for--

MULLIN: Do you know why we hadn't had the vote on the--

CUOMO: I don't care about it for a second.

MULLIN: Hey, Chris?

CUOMO: Mr. Mullin--

MULLIN: You know why we haven't had the vote on the--

CUOMO: I don't care about the vote.

MULLIN: --on the impeachment inquiry?

CUOMO: Because you don't have to. Because they don't have to do it. And you people play to advantage.

MULLIN: And did we not do it with Clinton?

CUOMO: That's why you changed the rules in 2015. No, you did not.

MULLIN: Did we do it in Clinton?

CUOMO: No, you did not.

MULLIN: Yes. Sir, we absolutely did do.

CUOMO: You had the Starr - you did not. You had the Starr investigation, which was done in private. And then it was given to Congress.

MULLIN: The President - the President Clinton, at the time, lied to a Grand Jury. Once we proved that he had lied, then we proceeded to the - to the impeachment inquiry vote, and we set the rules--

CUOMO: Yes. But after--

MULLIN: --at the time. And the rules--

CUOMO: No, no, no. Look people can--

MULLIN: --clearly gave minorities the right to call their own witnesses--

CUOMO: But you didn't--

MULLIN: --and cross-examine.

CUOMO: You had the vote on it. Hold on.

MULLIN: And allowed Clinton allowed then--

CUOMO: Congressman? Congressman?

MULLIN: --to have representation.

CUOMO: You can't say things that aren't true on this show.

MULLIN: That is absolutely true. Hey, put up--

CUOMO: The minority never had the same rights as the majority, to call witnesses.

MULLIN: OK. Did - did--

CUOMO: Or a subpoena and admit it.

MULLIN: Did Clinton, it - was he able to have representation during the process?

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: OK. Was the minority--

CUOMO: But after the investigatory phase.

MULLIN: --was the minority at the time the Democrats, were they - were they able to call witnesses on their behalf and cross-examine?

CUOMO: Just like you will be able to when you get done with the--

MULLIN: The answer to that is yes.

CUOMO: --investigation. You're not doing apples-to-apples.

MULLIN: You know what you--

CUOMO: But, look, I wanted to give you a chance.

MULLIN: Hey, there is - that is absolutely true. There's not apples- to-apples because, see, the difference was--

CUOMO: I know. Now you're going to spin and say--

(CROSSTALK)

MULLIN: --is Clinton and Nixon committed a crime.

CUOMO: Listen--

MULLIN: And Trump has not.

CUOMO: Look, this very easily could be--

MULLIN: And they're in search of looking for one.

CUOMO: --could be behavior that is illegal. It's an abuse of power. It's asking a foreign power to be involved in an election.

MULLIN: Behavior is illegal?

CUOMO: You're not allowed to do that. It's against the law. OK?

MULLIN: Just because he has unconventional ways to go about--

CUOMO: It's not unconventional. It's--

MULLIN: --things, doesn't mean that they're illegal.

CUOMO: --it's abuse of - I just want to see at what point the facts--

MULLIN: If - if - if they have found something that--

CUOMO: --will say that to you.

MULLIN: --President Trump has done illegal, don't you think Adam Schiff would have already come out, and leaked it because he leaks everything else.

CUOMO: I know. I know. But Nunes was the best, right? Your boy, Nunes, when he ran to the White House--

MULLIN: Nunes was - Nunes was very good at what he did.

CUOMO: --and told them about the information that they had at his counsel. He has an oversight duty under the Constitution.

MULLIN: Give me one thing that Nunes lied to about the American people.

CUOMO: It's not about - it's not about--

MULLIN: I can give you three examples right now that - that--

CUOMO: He lied. He lied when he - I'll answer your question.

MULLIN: --Adam Schiff has.

CUOMO: I'll - I'll answer your question.

MULLIN: OK.

CUOMO: He had to recuse himself. He had to take a break. Why, Congressman?

Because when he raised his right hand and said "His oath," his oath was to Trump, and he went right to that White House, and told them what information he had, as a part of his Congressional oversight.

MULLIN: He didn't had to recuse himself. He did it because he--

CUOMO: Yes.

MULLIN: --felt like he was being a distraction. He did not lie to the American people.

CUOMO: Yes. He was a distraction. He wasn't - he lied when he said he would do--

MULLIN: Give me - give me one thing he lied about because I can give you three examples--

CUOMO: --his job because he did the job for them, and you know it.

MULLIN: --that Adam Schiff has lied about.

CUOMO: You didn't give me any compelling example of anything. You guys will have your vote.

MULLIN: Well I can. Do you want me to give you three examples?

CUOMO: I - listen, I don't want to hear them because I don't want to have to take the time to fact-check you. I'm already out of time.

MULLIN: But I'm - I want you to give me one example that Nunes lied to the American people.

CUOMO: When - when you say that you will do your duty, to defend the Constitution and--

MULLIN: And I do every day.

CUOMO: Not you. When he said that, and then he ran to the White House, and gave them information, that was a function of his oversight, he breached his duty. That was perfidious. It was faithless. And you know--

MULLIN: Has Adam Schiff not breached his duty?

CUOMO: I don't care because in my world I don't care about--

MULLIN: You should care.

CUOMO: --blaming wrongdoing on somebody else to relieve myself--

MULLIN: You - you're blaming it on Nunes right now in this--

CUOMO: --of responsibility.

MULLIN: --in the conversation. Every time I bring up--

CUOMO: Congressman?

MULLIN: --Hunter Biden, you bring up Ivanka Trump.

CUOMO: Congressman?

MULLIN: Every time I bring up Adam Schiff, you want to bring up Nunes.

CUOMO: You have nothing on Schiff like what Nunes did, but you won't own it. You have multiple people from Trump's own team--

MULLIN: Adam Schiff has lied over and over and over to the American people. CUOMO: --saying that he asked for an investigation on Biden, and you won't own it. I respect you protecting the President. But I cannot let you get away with things--

MULLIN: I'm - I'm - I'm--

CUOMO: --that don't make sense on this show. I got to go.

MULLIN: --protecting our Commander-in-Chief. Full stop!

[21:15:00]

CUOMO: Well then you should do it with a sense of responsibility for the facts.

MULLIN: Sir, I would. And I do.

CUOMO: Because that's what the American people demand. And we'll see what this guy says tomorrow, and how you'll find a way to not find it impressive, and I appreciate you coming on to let the American people know how you feel. Thank you very much.

MULLIN: Yes, Sir, Chris, thank you.

CUOMO: Be well.

Look, you got to have these things out. You got to disagree with decency. But not on this show are you going to say that what was done was wrong is OK because somebody else did it on the other side.

If we keep living our life that way politically, where what the Right does is OK, if they can find something in the Left that's wrong also, we will never get to a better place.

More on this breaking news tonight, plus is the case for impeachment strengthened after somebody failed to show today? Well how could that be? Because obstruction becomes part of the story. It was with Nixon. It was with Clinton. Will it be here?

Let's bring in the investigators, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: All right, CNN has just independently confirmed the breaking news in The New York Times about what we expect as testimony tomorrow about Ukraine. Here's what we have.

A White House official and Army Officer who did listen to President Trump's Ukraine call, he says he did. He says who he was with, NSC and Vice Presidential staffers. For him to be lying about this would be absurd, OK?

Look, I know that politicians are going to argue "Everything's doubt. We need better process." If the guy's lying about having been on the call, he's a fool, all right? He will be exposed. It would be immediate. So, I don't buy that, all right?

Now, on the call, we know what he heard because we've seen the kind of transcript. It's how he felt about it. He thought it was so damaging that he reported it to a lawyer, citing a sense of duty. That is from a draft of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman's proposed testimony tomorrow.

He is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council. He plans to tell the inquiry he heard the President appeal to Ukraine's President to investigate Biden, meaning Joe and Hunter.

And again, it is poppycock that just looking into Hunter would be OK. There's only one reason to care about Hunter, especially when you ignore corruption everywhere else.

He also twice registered internal objections about how the President and his inner circle were treating Ukraine. He will also say, "I am not the whistleblower."

Now, do you care about that? No. That's partisan inside politics. We don't even need the whistleblower anymore. Be honest.

Andrew McCabe, Jim Baker, here to discuss what we do need.

All right, Andrew, fact significance here. Assuming that that's - this guy can't be blown up as illegitimate or a--

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Sure.

CUOMO: --a partisan, or something like that. Relevance?

MCCABE: Incredibly relevant, right?

So, we are still working with the fundamental - the underlying problem here is of course the allegation that the President utilized his - his authority to conduct Foreign Relations for his own personal political benefit.

Every single one of the witnesses that we've heard from so far confirms that underlying allegation.

CUOMO: "I have a duty to investigate corruption. It's the only reason I did it. He's not even my opponent, and it's just his son." MCCABE: We have yet to hear from a single person who supports that line of reasoning. Yet, now we have--

CUOMO: You just did with the Congressman.

MCCABE: Well I mean they got to do - all due respect to the Congressman, I don't think he was on the phone call or had much to do with the facts. This is an - yet another person who was in a position to know, well-placed, heard not just the phone call in question, but the one on the 21st, the prior call.

So, it's clearly a part of his normal duties to listen in on these calls with his colleagues on the National Security Council from the Sit Room, as he did in - in both instances.

CUOMO: You know, Jim, Andrew makes a lot of good points there. But one of them that is instructive of things that we've wanted to figure out, we may have an answer now, which is that earlier call, well what happened on that one?

He wasn't as bothered about the earlier call as he was about this one. So, maybe this was the one that's more relevant in terms of quid pro quo, to the extent that that's a relevant part of the analysis.

But here's why I care about what Mullin said. This is not about convincing a jury, you know, and Andrew's analysis would be perfect if we were talking about a jury. "Oh, they'll never buy that."

But it's not about jurors. It's about Mr. Mullin and people like him. And if he refuses to see it as wrong, how does Vindman matter tomorrow?

JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Vindman matters, I think, tomorrow because at the end of the day, Members of Congress in the House and the Senate listen to their constituents.

And what needs to happen is the American people need to convey to Members of Congress that this is wrong, just like the Lieutenant Colonel is prepared to testify "This is wrong."

Why is it wrong? Because it's an abuse of power. How is it an abuse of power? It's - it's seeking a foreign government on an American citizen to investigate them to help the President stay in power, and that should be unacceptable to all Americans. We should not want to live in a country where that's OK.

And I think, quite frankly, I think all Members of Congress understand that. They don't want - they wouldn't want this done against them for sure.

And so, at the end of the day, the American people need to pick up the phone, send emails, and let their Members of Congress know that we don't want to live in this kind of country.

At the end of the day, that's why this - why this witness is relevant because he has the - the credibility, the stature, the - the proven service to the country, the willing - willingness to put his life at risk, and stand up, and do what's right.

CUOMO: All right, let's do this. We're going to take a break.

I'm having the team, we're putting together some of the relevant things from this testimony that are coming out now, and different bullet points about different things that this Lieutenant Colonel in the Army who is our, the United States' top Ukraine National Security expert was worried about.

[21:25:00]

That is going to carry a lot of weight with the politicians who listen to them. But I pause because really it's about whether or not you care.

Jim's right about this. If you don't care, then you're going to give cover to lawmakers to not have to care either, and just play to their own politics, so let's see if we can get the facts straight. I'll have the guys stay. Come back right after the break, thank you.

(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: All right, so we are joined here on PRIME TIME by Andrew McCabe, and Jim Baker. You know them now as part of the CNN family.

[21:30:00]

But they're big-time pedigree with the FBI, very valuable right now, as we try to understand from an objective investigative perspective what things mean because from a political perspective, these - these two guys, I'm like giving them an education in how politics is always not what you expect in the courtroom.

If Markwayne Mullin, a Congressman from Oklahoma, Republican, wants to say, "It's OK if it's one Biden, but not both," you know, "It's OK because the President's supposed to do it, and I don't know who this guy is, and the process stinks, so I don't care about what comes out of it," you know, that's - that's a hard bar because he's the jury on the House side, you know, for articles of impeachment. Then you have the real trial with the Senate.

So, this guy Vindman, I know I said it with Taylor, and I meant it. Taylor was the most impressive guy I've heard to date on the issue.

Now Vindman will be. Why? Because he heard the call, Jim Baker. He is a Ukraine policy expert. He heard the call. And here are his punch points that we made up for you in the break.

First White House official to testify who listened, OK? So, forget about the hearsay BS, OK?

Complained internally twice about how Trump inner circle were handling Ukraine. What does that mean, handling? That they were bad-mouthing the country, they were undermining the policy goals, and they were working to their own political advantage.

We heard that from Taylor, and even a little bit from Sondland, who's Trump's buddy, OK?

Said that Trump's comments about Bidens on call would undermine U.S. national security.

Says Sondland emphasized importance that Ukraine deliver investigations into 2016 election, the Bidens.

You guys feel free to disagree. That last point, I believe, Jim Baker, is the worst from the perspective of the President's perfidy. You held up a meeting, something of value, that Ukraine wanted until they started these investigations.

BAKER: Right.

CUOMO: How do you figure that and how do you get out of it?

BAKER: Well look, I mean it's - so it is a quid pro quo. It's not the money per se. It's not the - it's not the military aid. But it's a quid pro quo. You give me the investigations that I want, and I'll give you the visit that you so desperately want.

But that's not even needed, right, that as you've made this point very many times. What's - what is in existence is an abuse of power. That's - that's the thing.

And look, this witness that's going to come forward tomorrow, and presume - presumably we'll - we'll see him eventually in the - in the public hearings is the kind of witness that you want in front of a jury, for example, in a regular criminal trial, because you do have to persuade the jury made up of regular citizens that something was wrong, that something was illegal, and that these witnesses that the government is putting forward are to be believed.

And, at the end of the day, the jury decides whether or not there was a violation of law, whether the government has proved - proven a violation of law beyond a reasonable doubt, and convict the - the person.

And that's - it's not completely dissimilar to what's going on here with respect to convincing the Members of Congress and ultimately convincing the American people-- CUOMO: Yes, except you--

BAKER: --that something was wrong. That something was wrong.

CUOMO: Except you have two sets of jurors here de facto who have personal interest in the outcome. You know, what you guys spend so much time at a trial to try to strip that away with your potential jurors, here it's the opposite.

Now Andrew, we heard Jim say something there that isn't - is not a point to forget. This is all going to happen again, you know.

MCCABE: Of course.

CUOMO: That's - that's the problem with the Republicans' argument about the process right now.

MCCABE: Right.

CUOMO: Is that they're trying to suggest that it's all over after this investigation.

MCCABE: Yes.

CUOMO: And it isn't. It's just beginning. But when he gets up there, and he says these things tomorrow, here's what I think they hit him with. "You ever talk to the President about this?" "No."

"Oh, but it matter to you so much? Big-shot Ukraine guy, Army Officer, that's the Commander-in-Chief, you never thought to go to him? Who did you go to? You know, why didn't you say anything then? What did you say?"

What about that line of questioning?

MCCABE: Which is exactly why, in his statement, he lays out the Chain of Command. He makes it perfectly clear that he reports to Fiona Hill. She reports to John Bolton. John Bolton, of course, reports to the President.

He took the action that a Military man chain - trained his entire life, over two decades in the military, they follow Chain of Command. He did the right thing by contacting both his supervisors and John Eisenberg, who is the lawyer who kind of oversees legal matters for the NSC.

CUOMO: He doesn't have the aid, either. He only has the meeting.

MCCABE: That's right. He also, you know, the statement, much like Taylor's, is remarkable. It is detailed. Each - each entry begins with a date.

CUOMO: He took notes.

MCCABE: It says who was there, who heard. There are all kinds of other witnesses you could identify from reading the statement that could corroborate the assertions--

CUOMO: Right.

MCCABE: --that he makes.

CUOMO: Andrew, Jim, thank you very much.

Look, here's what's obvious at this point. I'll keep pounding the facts. We'll keep testing the facts. We'll keep testing the arguments on the facts. But when are you going to acknowledge what is obvious here, all right?

Yes, this is big breaking news tonight. It's yet an even more qualified person telling you what you already know. We know what the President did. The only question is what consequence should come because of it?

[21:35:00]

All right, other big, big story going on in the country right now, the world's most wanted terrorist is gone. Now, people should feel good about that politically. The President should brag about it. Fine!

Now what? Let's take that up with a veteran who put his own life on the line, to keep us safe, as Americans, and is doing his duty once again, serving in Congress.

Republican Congressman, Dan Crenshaw, good to have you on the show. Be with you right after the break.

(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: "Bigger than Bin Laden." That's how this President is selling his successful raid in the death of Al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader. Well what does it actually mean in terms of our collective safety?

Let's get some perspective from someone who knows, a Congressman, and a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Republican Congressman, Dan Crenshaw.

Welcome to PRIME TIME. And you're new to this show, so I want to say thank you for your service that you did then, and now. Appreciate you.

REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Thanks, Chris, thanks for having me on. So, you know, to answer your question, it's - it's a great - it's - it's a great moment for America. There - there's no bad news here. He was the - he was an awful terrorist leader, and glad he's gone.

It doesn't mean we can take our eye off the ball, of course. There's going to be mid-level commanders who want to take his spot. There is still an insurgency of ISIS roaming throughout the region that does wake up every single day, and think about how to kill Americans, and build their Caliphate over again.

[21:40:00]

So, glad it happened. Glad the President approved it. And I want to thank my Special Operations brothers for executing that mission.

CUOMO: Absolutely. They're the best of us. There's no question about that. Of course, I include you in their number. The rest of us give you our thanks.

The, you know, you - you touch on something that's, I'm sure, where a lot of your constituents are, which is, you know, "Bin Laden, OK, he was the big bad guy, he's gone. Well now there's Al - you know, there's Baghdadi. Now he's gone."

Well this snake seems to re-grow its heads. It's more of a worm than a snake - a snake in that sense. Why are we safer now? How does this help us? How are we ahead of where we were before?

CRENSHAW: Well the organization is - is naturally going to be in disarray when their leader is gone, so that's - that's a benefit, of course. But the ideology still stands strong. We're going to be fighting this ideology for a long time.

I like to be very honest with the American people about that fact. And - and frankly, I don't think politicians on either side have been very honest about that fact for - for, you know, for years now, which is why we find ourselves in this debate of whether we should leave or whether we should stay.

CUOMO: It's not a debate for you though.

CRENSHAW: No. No. I mean you know what side of the debate that I've fallen on this.

CUOMO: Right. But why is important, you know I'd - so, look, we all do our homework on you, but for the American people, and it's always tough for you guys--

CRENSHAW: Yes.

CUOMO: --who have to go, and sacrifice, and do the fighting, to hear us say, you know, "Enough with it already! Let these people fight their own fights. We don't want to have our Dan Crenshaws and all our great talent over there"--

CRENSHAW: Yes. CUOMO: --"at risk."

You didn't want to leave and you believe that the success with Baghdadi is proof to you that you need to have a mentality of staying and doing more in the region. What do you think taking out Baghdadi--

CRENSHAW: Right.

CUOMO: --indicates about what our policy should be going forward?

CRENSHAW: Right. It's important to note that. So, the - the - the - this good outcome that we all agree is a good outcome was a result of some kind of forward presence out in Syria and Iraq, OK?

You do need an intelligence picture of - of what's going on, on the ground. You need to have your human source network. You need to have your signals intelligence. You need a place to launch your UAVs. You need a place to launch your Special Operations Forces.

You need to maintain alliances. And you need to - so this - I mean, this mission came from Intelligence sharing with our allies, the SDF, in - in this case. So, I mean this is really important stuff, and it's - it's - if we - if we like this outcome, then we have to understand how it took place.

And - and I'll say this - this other thing to your comments about, you know, sending us over there. We can choose to let them fight themselves, and not to - and - and hope that they won't fight us.

But we can't stop that, right, like war is a two-way street, so we go there, so they don't come here. And we can choose not to fight that war. But they don't have to choose that, OK? They can still fight us. And we learned that lesson in 9/11. And I don't think we should ever learn it again.

CUOMO: Now look, I get that it's just politics, and I get you're going to dismiss this. But what the President says is very effective for people.

"I know better than the Generals. These Intelligence people can't be trusted, whether it's military intelligence, or they're wearing suits or uniform, I don't care. I know better.

And look, I just took out Al-Baghdadi, and I'm leaving. So, let me make the decisions. The Crenshaws, he's a great American, but he's got that old institutional thinking, you know, he's one of them. I'm not. I got it done. We're leaving."

CRENSHAW: Yes, and I think - he's responding to a lot of Americans on the Right and the Left. This isn't even a partisan issue anymore. He's responding to a lot of Americans who have this war weariness. And - and I get it, which is why I find it so important to try and explain why we think what we think.

Now, if you find yourself having to - having to call the other side a warmonger or an endless war-lover, it's just, you know, that's dishonest. It's - it's not true. There - there's good reasoning behind this.

The world is a very small place. It's a 12-hour flight from the Middle East. Ideology travels even faster. You know, we - they - they radicalize. They radicalize our own citizens. They've radicalized terrorists in Europe, so this - this does have consequences, and it's important to send guys like me over there to keep pressure on the enemy.

And to be fair to the President he has - he has - he's now decided to keep some Special Operations troops--

CUOMO: Right.

CRENSHAW: --in Syria. So, getting his--

CUOMO: He modified the position.

CRENSHAW: Right.

CUOMO: And that is good. You know, I know politically, it places a "Gotcha" in his weakness. I don't believe in that. I believe that if you're just coursed to do something that's better than you were doing before that's leadership.

Let me ask you something. For those who don't know you, they should Google, and take the time, you're a smart guy. You think about things really critically. You make a lot of videos about it, and I appreciate many of them.

Here's what I don't understand about the ongoing impeachment debate. I don't have a problem with process. I'm a journalist. I'm happy for it to be as open as possible.

I think there's obviously going to be a new phase of this process for the Democrats. There'll be different rules, different assessments. We'll see where that takes us, and the American people will get to see a lot.

What is wrong with this position?

"What the President did here is wrong. He shouldn't have asked this foreign leader to do what he asked the person to do. It could have been terrible. But it wasn't.

They didn't give him the dirt. He didn't hold up the aid. Our relationship is OK and Russia didn't get any advantage. What the President did was wrong, but it didn't ruin us. It didn't ruin them. I don't think he should be removed."

What's wrong with that position for a Republican?

CRENSHAW: It's a little unclear what the position is you - you laid out.

CUOMO: What he did was wrong but he shouldn't be removed.

[21:45:00]

CRENSHAW: OK. What he did was wrong but he shouldn't be removed.

CUOMO: Right.

CRENSHAW: I mean, yes, it's - there's - nuance is important here. Well I'm not sure I agree with the premise that he's done something wrong. I understand that there's a theory about wrongdoing. But there's - the facts do not back that up. We can talk--

CUOMO: You don't think he asked a foreign power to help him with a political opponent?

CRENSHAW: No. See - see there's - there's - there's a part to that question that - that - that departs from the facts that we have, which is the political side of it, OK?

So, did he ask about Joe Biden? Yes. We have the transcript. So, you know, we - we can pretend that this - the - the military officer coming to testify tomorrow is a big bombshell but the reality is we already have the transcript. OK--

CUOMO: I agree.

CRENSHAW: So, we have the transcript. We know he - we know he mentioned Biden. Now, why would that be? The - the question we have to ask ourselves, is - is the President mentioning it because there's some kind of public interest?

Well I would argue in this case there might be because our former Vice President had a clear conflict of interest with his son being on the - being on the - on the - being a Board Member of a company that was being prosecuted by somebody that the Vice President was trying to get fired.

So, there's a clear conflict of interest. Whether it's illegal or not is - is - is up for a different debate. It might not be. But it's an obvious conflict of interest.

It also was coming out in the news around the time of that phone call. So, it's not that crazy that along with the many other issues of corruption regarding the 2016 election that the President was asking about--

CUOMO: Right.

CRENSHAW: --that this is outside the public interest.

CUOMO: Right. But you are making an assumption.

CRENSHAW: And - and that's an important point.

CUOMO: It is. However, the premise of your situation there misses something also. You're assuming the President learned about it when everybody else did, and he didn't. He'd been coached about this largely by Rudy Giuliani for many months. And-- CRENSHAW: Yes.

CUOMO: --he went after Biden because he thought it would be good for him.

CRENSHAW: Well but - but you just - but you just made an assumption there.

CUOMO: And if he wanted to do an invest--

CRENSHAW: You just - you just read his mind, right?

CUOMO: Well the - but no, no, no, listen, look, that's a little bit of a game people play in politics.

You don't need to play that kind of game because you have reason on your side here, which is I think he had a legitimate public interest. Maybe, but it doesn't have to be his only interest. And there's no question--

CRENSHAW: Yes.

CUOMO: --on the facts that Rudy Giuliani was telling people in the State Department what the President wanted him to say, which was, because he would tell people that, "I want to go after Biden. Biden's a bad guy. He is an enemy of the President." Volker, Taylor, Sondland, many others--

CRENSHAW: Yes, well here's the question I have for you.

CUOMO: --all had that message communicated.

CRENSHAW: Here's the question I have for you on that, Chris. So--

CUOMO: Yes, Sir.

CRENSHAW: So, if - if something - if something turns out good for the President, I guess, as you would put it, politically, but it's also in the public interest, then what's - then what's the right answer?

CUOMO: Well under the law--

CRENSHAW: Because - because, in this case, it really is in the public interest.

CUOMO: Under the law, there can be - literally, under the law, you can go look at the FC - FEC guidelines about this, if you have multiple points of interest in something, and one of them helps you in the election, you've got trouble.

CRENSHAW: Yes. Well now you're - now you're trying to press the campaign finance law--

CUOMO: But I think, and this is for people like you and others.

CRENSHAW: --thing and that's-- CUOMO: Well I think it would be.

CRENSHAW: --that's a stretch.

CUOMO: Well I mean--

CRENSHAW: I mean that's a - that's an enormous. It's really difficult to - to make that.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Well those cases do stink. And I think the enforcement of them is even worse. But this is a conversation the country is going to have to have. And men and women like you of goodwill are going to have to vote on it. And that's why I wanted your head on it.

Thank you very much for helping us understand the national security issue. You can be a lot of help to my audience, Dan Crenshaw. I hope you come back on this show soon.

CRENSHAW: Will come on more. Sorry it's taken so long. Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: Hey, Congressman, you're busy. The work of the people comes first. You're always welcome here. God bless and thank you for your service.

CRENSHAW: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, telling you, he's a smart guy. He's going to loom large in that party for a long time if he chooses to. It's good to hear where his head is. This is a big conversation.

Al-Baghdadi, dead on this President's watch. Yes. Should he get credit? Hell, yes, he should get credit. But why is a win never good enough for this President? I have an argument for why I think that is, 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: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. You know the book. But right now, we're certainly in the midst of a Tale of Two Realities. But this isn't just about the haves and have-nots. Facts are forsaken.

Testing power condemned as the stuff of treason by a President intent on creating his own reality where he always wins, and everyone else must lose.

Example, ISIS Leader, Al-Baghdadi, killed by U.S. troops. That's a win. POTUS is right to partly own the success. But listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He was a sick and depraved man, and now he's dead.

(CROWD APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: He's dead. He's dead as doornail.

He should have been killed years ago. Another President should've gotten him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: See, the second part is the problem. His win must also be a loss for Obama.

So now I got to compare, and remind him, and you, what he said about President Obama when it came to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. That will now tarnish this win. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The military did an incredible job. And they called him, and they said, "We have him." And he said, "Go get him." What's he going to say? "Don't get him?" And he gets all this credit. It's a lot of crap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, it isn't? See that leads to this President's contribution in the instant circumstance, which was chiefly is controversial move to not have troops in the region anymore.

That decision led Intelligence officials to tell The New York times, "Mr. Al-Baghdadi's death in the raid on Saturday occurred largely in spite of, and not because of, Mr. Trump's actions."

Another bungled bright spot for Trump. The economy, it's continuing its unprecedented, almost decade of expansion. That's good. But good's not enough. It has to be the very best.

The President likes to point to charts like this one. Look at the Dow. The Dow is hovering around 27,000. Great, if you own stock, but most of you don't. Unemployment, very low. True!

But here's another chart that tells the rest of the story. Wage growth largely stagnant, gains disproportionately going to the highest wage earners. That's according to Pew.

So, more people have jobs, yes, but they're not having a better life. They're not doing more with their wages. And the President used to make that argument when he was still a citizen.

Again, the truth is not enough. The next example reveals why the President does it this way. The manipulation is his best way to win again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k)'s down the tubes, everything's going to be down the tubes, so whether you love me or hate me, you got to vote for me.

(CROWD CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: The proof here is in the prevarication. His latest event reveals how this President must exaggerate reality.

[21:55:00]

Friday, historically Black Benedict College in Columbia, South Carolina, the crowd though, only a few dozen students were allowed in. Most were told to stay in their dorms. "Safety precautions," they were told. The rest, political allies of the President. You see, so if it's actually the best of times, why hide from those kids, and potential criticism? It goes to the heart of the argument. If things are so good, why must this President be so bad to and about people?

It's not the delusion of being a political demigod that threatens as much as his insistence on being a demagogue. He could have cut taxes and regulations, increased security at the Border, any other potential political positive, without his profound draw to the negative.

Divide, distract, deceive, denigrate every process, protocol, every political institution, habits that have him on the edge of impeachment. And so it is, in what this President would have you believe the best of times that it may wind up to be the worst of times for him, and soon.

Now, on the good news front, President declassified a photo today of one of the heroes injured in the Baghdadi raid. Trust me you're going to want to see this picture. That's 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 want a win, Mr. President? Good on you for declassifying this photo of a hero of four-legged fame, a military trained man's best friend that played a key role in taking down the leader of ISIS.

According to the President, military dogs chased down and cornered Baghdadi right before he detonated a suicide vest. This hero dog is believed to be the one injured in the operation. The word is the dog is OK.

But now there's a lot of curiosity about its name. Sharing that can put in jeopardy what this brave animal worked to do. Disclosing a military - military dog's name can reveal the handler. With the handler, you know, what unit, so gets complicated.

But bravo, to the dog, and of course, to the handler, and all the good people that kept us safe.

Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.