Return to Transcripts main page

CUOMO PRIME TIME

President's Team Begins Its Impeachment Defense; New Parnas Tape Increases Pressure for Evidence; Parnas Recording Shows Trump Talking With Indicted Businessman The President Has Said He Doesn't Know; Trump Legal Team Wraps Up Day One Of Opening Arguments. Aired 9- 10p ET

Aired January 25, 2020 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[21:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: That's it for us right. The news continues, I want to hand it over to Chris for Cuomo Prime Time. Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, "CUOMO PRIME TIME": All right Anderson, thank you very. I am Christ Cuomo welcome to special Saturday edition of Prime Time.

The Trump defense if up, they gave up a taste today, a two-hour taste but just a taste nonetheless. Now, you had the Democrats doing the arguing for days, right? The President's team now is going to pick it apart. They say there is no law, there is no real proof of any wrong doing, and there was no real effort by the Democrats to do their job.

We're going to lay out their lines of defense and we're going to have a Trump juror tonight to test them, see what he feels is their best option and what are they looking forward to tomorrow.

Then these Parnas tapes, you haven't heard a lot of the tape. You played about 15 seconds, 20 seconds last night. There's over an hour. It tells us things about who was there, how Parnas was regarded, how the President saw him and proof yet again that this president is lying to you. So, let's get after it.

Tricky day for the President's lawyers, they had a short day. The President didn't really want them on, on a Saturday. And even as they were making their case, new evidence was undercutting arguments that you don't need witnesses. We're going to get to what's going on with Lev Parnas, someone they haven't heard from, the documents he has shown that they haven't reviewed, the tape that no one has mentioned. We're going to take you through that and how dangerous it is to ignore it.

The Trump defense team, however, chose brevity over depth. And that makes sense. They know their audience. These senators are not only tired, but they are looking for a way out of this situation. And the President certainly understands the media reality. Saturday afternoon, not as many people watching, let's not waste our ammo. But four basic key points, OK? First up, dangerous to remove a first-term President this close to an election. Here's a taste. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: For all their talk about election interference, that they're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history and we can't allow that to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: See, that's a very interesting legal tactic, calling -- turning an argument on its head. I'm going to argue something because I think you found it compelling except I'm going to blame the other side of the same thing that they argued that you found impressive. If nothing else, it can cause confusion.

Now, there is no time limit on the truth, however. And the President is likely not to be removed. In fact, the best thing that could happen for our democracy with an election just 10 months away is for you, the voter, to be armed with as much of the truth as possible. So, given what we've seen for the last three years, as ugly as impeachment is, this is the only avenue that can perform that function.

Now, here's the second point. The Democrats don't have the proof.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: They think you can read minds. I think you look at the words.

PATRICK PHILBIN, DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT: Chairman Schiff has made so much of the House's case about the credibility of interpretations that the House managers want to place on not hard evidence but on inferences. They want to tell you what President Trump thought.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: This is interesting. They're playing here the speculation. They don't really know what he said. They don't really know what happened at the top level, so how can they come to a conclusion like they have in their arguments. Well, here's the problem. Why couldn't the House get access to first-hand witnesses and documents? Now that part they have to ignore and turn it. And they turn it on to they were lazy, they went too quick. They wanted us to do it. Now that last one, I think, is going to be the most vulnerable. Think about it? If you're Democrats and have control in the House, are you in any rush to turn it over to the Senate where you don't have control? Where you know they don't want to remove the President? Think about that.

Now, that brings us to the next point. None of this matters. Ukraine got the money. Zelensky, while he didn't get that White House visit, he did get a one-on-one with the President at some point and he never gave any proof of investigation, there was no announcement. So there was no wrong doing and really that's what the President wanted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The security assistance flowed on September 11th and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations. Finally, the Democrats' blind drive to impeach the President does not and cannot change the fact as attested to by the Democrat's own witnesses that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:05:19]

CUOMO: If you give the most money to your local church and then go to the pastor and strong arm them to help you with something or you'll never give them another dime, does the fact that you've given a lot make the pressure campaign OK? Now, putting in that term, it's pretty simple, right? It's all this legalese that messes it up. And that's what they're arguing to you right now. Hey, he gave more money that Obama, so what that he tried to bribe them this time.

The timing matters though on the argument. When did they release the aid? After they knew about the whistleblower, after Schiff and others were asking questions. And remember they released the aid without what they were looking for that supposedly justified holding up the aid. Remember what they've argued to you in the past, the President himself. I just wanted to make sure they fight corruption. Well, they gave you no assurance that they would. And you released it anyway. Tough argument.

Now, the defense team's final point, they did not do this the right way, these Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PHILBIN: Because impeachment is delegated solely to the House of Representatives by the constitution, the full House of Representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment. Here the House Democrats skipped over that step completely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: They did not skip over the step. They were stymied. Now, you can wrap this argument in this arcane legalese of the constitution, look to past precedence for protection. Here's the truth though. There's no right way to do this. It's only been done twice before. The sole power of it is in the House. They can do it anyway they want. This day went too fast argument is what you want to believe. Did they go too fast because they wanted to deliver it to someone else who had more power than they did, who wanted the opposite result than they did, or because they weren't going to get anywhere?

So how does this play into the state of play? Let's ask Democrat from Connecticut, Senator Richard Blumenthal. Senator, always a pleasure.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Great to be with you, Chris. Thanks for doing this on a Saturday evening.

CUOMO: Thank you for doing it on a Saturday evening after the week you've had. So these are the three basic prongs. This is not impeachable even if the Democrats had the proof. They don't have the proof. And they don't have the proof because they did the job too quickly to squeeze it in before the election and now they want us to do their job. How much of that worries you?

BLUMENTHAL: A very little of those arguments worry me on their merits. Here's why. First of all, you've just put it very well. They're complaining about lack of evidence. It's basically lack of direct evidence about what the President said or ordered. And that's exactly why we need the documents and witnesses. They've made a pretty powerful case. Unfortunately for them it is for our contention. We need Mick Mulvaney who was in the room for the President and said there was a quid pro quo, get over it. We need John Bolton who said the President was doing this drug deal and he tried to talk him out of it. We need Robert Blair and Michael Duffey, the President's henchmen in executing the corrupt abuse of power, demanding an investigation of a united states citizen, a political rival in return for release of this money. And so far as the rush is concerned, well, the House moved expeditiously. They're complaining about a rush. But now they're trying to rush this trial. They're saying we can't have witnesses, documents because they would take too long.

CUOMO: Right.

BLUMENTHAL: That kind of argument falls on its own weight. The bottom line here, Chris, is as I would tell my colleagues, you can't put blinders on and complain you can't see.

CUOMO: No, I get the analogy. I have a question about strategy from the Democrats. Why didn't any of the House managers introduce this tape of the President asking Lev Parnas about what was going on in Ukraine and saying to this small group that he was with, got to get rid of that ambassador, got to get rid of that ambassador. And the documents that Parnas has put out. Look, he's a huge credibility issue. His story doesn't make sense. He's indicted for good reason when you read through the indictment itself. His lawyer was just on with Anderson. There's a lot of pieces to this story. They don't size up that well for Parnas in term of why he wanted into this situation. But just on the merits of the documents, Trump was talking to him on that tape, Senator, and talking to a guy he said he didn't know, and he has documents of these crazy text messages with somebody supposedly surveilling the ambassador. Why didn't you guys use any of those as proof that we have to get to the bottom of this?

[21:10:10]

BLUMENTHAL: I think that's a great question, Chris. Remember the timing of the Parnas disclosure is just been the past day or so. And also the net effect of it is really to reinforce the abuse of power in firing this very distinguished and well-respected ambassador in a very chilling authoritarian way. But they give you --

CUOMO: And that the President said he didn't know the guy, Senator. He said I don't know Lev Parnas.

BLUMENTHAL: And the President --

CUOMO: I don't know what he does. He's staring him right in the face having a conversation with him about exactly this.

BLUMENTHAL: That's exactly right. And even more chillingly in a way is the exchange about how long would Ukraine last without America's help.

CUOMO: Right.

BLUMENTHAL: Showing the vulnerability of Ukraine. But here's what's really important about that tape. First of all, I think you raised a very good point, maybe Parnas should be called as a witness if we're permitted to call witnesses. But second, there will be more coming out.

The truth will come out because of more freedom of information, act requests that produce documents about Michael Duffey, because of court orders as produced these Parnas documents, and because frankly the reporting by the press and the other kinds of facts that will come out. And they will haunt my colleagues if they turn a blind eye, if they put those blinders on and say they can't see anything.

CUOMO: If you guys play Trump style politics here, couldn't you look at it this way. You're better off if they don't vote for witnesses because you let them pay the price for letting the truth die in darkness. You carry that into the election. This is the only time we've seen somebody not produce what they said was an alibi, and you campaign on that. I mean, you may be better off that way than if you do get witnesses.

BLUMENTHAL: I'll be very blunt, Chris. That's a pretty good political argument. But I'll tell you, I have been struck by the gravity of the feeling of responsibility that I have. I mean, truly, nothing I do in the United States Senate is likely to be more important than taking this oath to be an impartial juror. I think the case for impeachment is overwhelming on the evidence so far.

I think we need those witnesses and documents who have direct knowledge, the black and white documents don't lie. As a prosecutor, I would rely on them and demand them. But my point is I don't know exactly what's in them. I'm still listening. I want to be impartial. I want all the evidence.

And my colleagues have approached this sitting in that chamber hour after hour and the solemnity and seriousness of our responsibility has really, I think, hit many of us. And so it's more than just about the politics of the moment. It really is about the historic moment we have here.

CUOMO: Well, we'll see soon enough what hits them hardest, especially on the right side of that aisle. Senator Blumenthal, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. CUOMO: All right. Next, the video I'm talking about with Parnas and Trump and this other very -- it wasn't some big fund-raiser, it was an intimate group. How do we know? Because I can show it to you. And oh, you know, we can't assume that the President really knew who this guy was. You know, it could have just been a passing along in a photo line. No, it wasn't. How do I know? Because I can show it to you.

Vicky Ward is here. She's going to take us through the video. She knows the players. She's been following the entanglements with this President. We'll give you the full story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:17:58]

CUOMO: Now here's why we keep talking about this tape, all right? Lev Parnas is not just some Giuliani stooge. He is a full fledged member of Trump co. But the President wants you to believe this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know who Parnas. I don't know him at all, don't know what he's about. Don't know where he comes from. Know nothing about him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lev Parnas has come forward and said that you knew everything he was doing in Ukraine --

TRUMP: He's a con man. OK. Let me answer that one --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. So you say that's not true?

TRUMP: I don't know him --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. You don't know him.

TRUMP: -- other than he's sort of like a groupie. He shows up at fund- raisers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Listen, that's not true, OK? There is video taken by Lev Parnas' buddy and it is of an intimate affair. The President is taking pictures. It's one of the things that people pay a lot of money for. But it's one table. It's like 15 people at this dinner. OK? That's not a groupie.

I've been in this business a long time. That's a lot -- and truth, that's not that much money to get that kind of intimacy with the President, by the way. But he doesn't just take a picture with him and say I love you Mr. President, I love you too. That's not what it is. He has a conversation with the President about the threat to him in Ukraine posed by the Ambassador, what would happen if Ukraine didn't have U.S. support, how long they'd last against Russia.

Listen to this. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, UKRAINIAN BUSINESSMAN: That's why you're having such -- I think if you take a look, the biggest problem there I think where we -- where you need to start is we got to get rid of the Ambassador. She's still leftover from the Clinton administration.

TRUMP: What? The Ambassador of Ukraine?

PARNAS: Yes. And she's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's going to get impeached. Just wait. I mean, it's incredible. It's like --

TRUMP: She'll be gone tomorrow.

PARNAS: Oh yes.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't remember seeing him --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't have a name of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So one of the things that will be now that we have a Secretary of State that's --

TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excellent.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

[21:20:05]

CUOMO: He knows him. He's talking to him about the same thing. He knew he was working in Ukraine.

CNN'S Vicky Ward has been following this story from the very beginning. And one of the first things she told me about why this mattered is this isn't just about what the President knew Parnas was doing for him but it's what Parnas and his friend Fruman were doing for themselves.

VICKY WARD, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Right.

CUOMO: This was before they were even rejoined purpose with Rudy. That's why it's even more need to know what's happening.

WARD: Right. And I think that this is what this tape so clearly shows, if you read the transcripts and listen to it, watch it very closely, that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman wanted to get into President Trump's circle for business reasons. You have to ask why was Igor Fruman even recording that evening -- that event. There's a question in the indictment facing these gentleman that asks were they working with an official in Ukraine. Lev Parnas talks about Ukraine in a business context. He's talking about liquified natural gas, he also -- and pipelines and his trouble. And he says at one point, you know, I'm trying to buy a Ukraine energy company.

In that room are Tommy Hicks, Jr., happens to be working at RNC now. He's the son of an energy magnate. Roy Bailey, Jr., you know, I don't think it's coincidence, Chris. We've reported a week after this dinner Lev Parnas has a meeting with Pete Sessions who is then the congressman for Texas. He's -- Pete Sessions' constituents were in the energy space.

Pete Sessions writes to Donald Trump and asks for the removal of the Ambassador of Ukraine. This is before Rudy Giuliani and his mission to dig up dirt on the Bidens even gets anywhere near Parnas.

CUOMO: So if you could speak to the GOP senators, why would you tell them that they need to know more? What would be your questions for them that demand answer?

WARD: Well, clearly, Lev Parnas does have recordings and a lot of documentation, both about -- both concerning the President and concerning Rudy Giuliani and concerning government officials in Ukraine. And I would say, you know, the whole focus of this impeachment is what quid pro quo is done, it's about a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine. Clearly, he has documentation as does, it seems like his associate Igor Fruman to back it up. We want to see more of that. His lawyers come on CNN tonight and says he has more video recordings, and we need to see them.

CUOMO: And look, and this is why it's so dicey for the senators to ignore it. This guy Parnas is playing to advantage. He's got a case hanging over his head and it's a scary case.

WARD: Fine.

CUOMO: His lawyer is dribbling things out a little bit here and a little bit there.

WARD: Yes.

CUOMO: They're no angels either. So it just all leads to what should be curiosity that right now is being shared by you and --

WARD: Right.

CUOMO: -- it should be shared by our senators. Let's leave it there for now. As we get more pieces to the puzzle, I know who's going to help me put them together, it'll be you. Vicky Ward, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

WARD: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: Amazing that they are not reviewing what you just saw and these documents that we've been telling you about. We'll keep drilling on these because we don't know what happened and why. And what we do know already is obvious enough, but what we don't know is even scarier in some ways.

So, how did the team do today? How did they set themselves up? We'll take a look at where we know they're going on Monday. The power team is here with their take. Not easy to say. Try it yourself next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:28:20]

CUOMO: I don't know Lev Parnas, says the President. Sure does talk to him a lot in intimate settings. And a businessman himself, Parnas, says the President was lying about that. He just put out more proof.

So let's bring in Andrew McCabe, Shan Wu, and Kaitlan Collins. Good to have you all here.

Kaitlan, let me start with you. What is the White House response to the context of this tape?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, they have really been dismissing it. When we first just not had the audio, we just had a transcript of what the President was saying about the former Ambassador to Ukraine, they really weren't saying that they were concerned about it at all. But of course it directly contradicts the main thing we've heard from the President that he didn't know Lev Parnas, he had never associated with him more than just taking photos, dismissing him as a groupie. But, Chris, what you really see from this is that not only was he not just a groupie, he's someone who had an intimate dinner with the President with not very many other people because you can see at the beginning of the tape just how small the room is that they're in but also that the President took this person at their word when he said Marie Yovanovitch was bad mouthing the President, saying she believe he was going to be impeached, which we should know she testified she did not say any of those critical things of the President.

Trump took Lev Parnas at his word and said, OK, well, let's fire her. And he was in the room with other aides at the time of that conversation according to Mr. Parnas who is in the room. And not only that, he was also asking him other things about Ukraine, seemingly trying to get information from him that typically a president in that situation would get from a National Security Adviser or the Secretary of State, someone like that, not just a random associate of your outside attorney.

CUOMO: You know, weird thing to ask someone you don't know, how long do you think Ukraine would last in a war against Russia if we weren't there for them?

[21:30:04]

WARD: Yes.

CUOMO: Kind of a very familiar thing to say to someone you don't know. Kaitlan, thank you for that. So, Andy, ordinarily, when you go to somebody and ask, hey, do you have anything to do with this guy, Lev Parnas, and what he was doing? Nope, I have nothing to do with it. Then you get a tape like this. The next thing is a knock on the door and a set of cuffs.

The President is not telling the truth about the association. Relevance in this context.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's yet another bold faced lie on the part of the President, and that last count we're over 16,000 or something according to "Washington Post." So how significant that is, I'll leave that to your viewers to figure out. I think the real significance of this video though, Chris, is it goes a long way to bolstering the credibility of Lev Parnas on this whole story.

Parnas is a guy with deep issues in his credibility. He's got the outstanding indictment, which includes the count of false statements, so there's all kinds of problems. But he is able to bring this sort of documentary, or in this case, video to the table that shows that at least in terms of these events, Lev Parnas has been telling the truth and of course the President has not been.

CUOMO: Always odd, Shan Wu, when the indicted guy seems more truthful than the President of the United States. But here's the good news, the House managers didn't bring it up and therefore the President's defenders didn't bring it up. In fact, they did the opposite and said these guys have no proof of anything. The President supposedly liked it. What did you think?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I thought that they did a weak job. They did what they had to do. Strategically, you don't want, as the defense, to leave that evidence from the prosecution sitting with the jury, the American public, the senators, over the weekend unanswered. So they had to open with something. But, you know, when you look at the advocacy scorecard, House managers won hands down.

I mean, Cipollone's opening started with the right point, which is you got to go with factual innocence first but he merely rambled in the process. So generally, I thought they did what they could but really, Chris, their performance reflects lawyers who have a very difficult micromanaging client that they had to satisfy. You can see the particular talking points that the President wanted them to do. That really interfered with their ability to put on a strong coherent defense.

CUOMO: Hey, Andy, you know, and he's got a reason to feel good. I mean, the Republican senators were talking today. And yes, we had Romney and the media has been running with Romney saying, I will maybe likely vote for witnesses. But there are a lot of senators coming out saying nope, no need.

They blew holes in them. In just two hours today, they blew all these holes. They told us the other side. Very different feeling today.

MCCABE: Yes, I think that was no surprise there whatsoever, right? We talked about this the other night that essentially what the defense has to do here is provide those Republican senators some sort of talking points that they can use to justify their vote against witnesses or justify their vote of acquittal. And it seems some of them have already found a few nuggets they can cling to in today's presentation.

I did think though, Chris, it was notable that what we -- now we've only heard a few hours of their presentation. They certainly have a long way to go. We'll see if maybe this comes up. But what you did not hear today was anyone make the defense that this President did not do this, would never violate the Constitution, respects the powers granted to him and the other branches under the Constitution, and would never do such a thing. You didn't hear that, that sort of moral patriotic defense that any innocent person would put on under these circumstances. I thought it was really a noticeable decision on their part not to do that.

CUOMO: So, I need to know from Kaitlan what the White House is putting out about how the Republicans feel about it in the Senate. I need to hear from Shan what he believes the defense is going to have to come out with on Monday. And I need to hear from Andy about what they have to be worried about in terms of questions from the senators.

[21:34:08]

So, you know what that means? Stick around. I've got to take a break, and we'll get to that right after. There's a lot of wood left to chop in this process. We'll get after it right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Are we here because of a phone call or are we here before this great body because since the President was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed?

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: They're not here to steal one elections, they're here to steal two elections. It's about time we bring this power trip in for a landing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Day five of the Trump trial was a flip of the tables. It's what the defense now trying to accuse Democrats of interfering with elections. Let's discuss the impact and what it means about where we're headed, Andrew McCabe, Shan Wu, and Kaitlan Collins.

Kaitlan, what's the White House saying about how Republican senators were affected by today?

COLLINS: So far, they feel pretty good. They feel like so far the essential message they've gotten from these Republican senators is that they're inclined to acquit the President. And now they just need to make sure they give them enough so they feel comfortable doing so and that's why you see that their goal is going to be to poke holes in the Democratic narrative that you saw laid out for this three days.

They really were so doubt about this and that's why it was questionable why they only went for two hours today. Some people were wondering why they didn't offer a little bit more of a defense with more of a framing of exactly what this was going to look like.

But we've spoken with the President's legal team. They say that's coming on Monday though, of course, that's still going to be a question whether or not they answer enough to satisfy those senators to keep witnesses out of the trial. And right now that's essentially been the White House's number one goal. They are not a 100 percent confident they're going to get there but they feel pretty good about it.

[21:40:04]

CUOMO: I'm surprised they didn't have Dershowitz go today, because you know of all the stuff the President wants to hear --

COLLINS: Yes.

CUOMO: -- that bookish stuff about what the Constitution is, you would think he'd want that last. But let's say they do come out fists of fury on Monday, Andrew. I know that it sets up to people at home like, well, this is it. They can say whatever they want. But they really have to be careful because after they present, then the Chief Justice will ask questions as processed through the parliamentarian, but they come from the senators. And what is the concern there?

MCCABE: Well, the concern is that that's essentially a rebuttal hiding in plain sight. So the question period, which can go as long as 16 hours, I believe, it's not actually an information-gathering, you know, function. It's more of a point-making function.

So each side will strategically place questions that they want to address with senators from their respective parties so that it will essentially give the House managers an opportunity to get up and address some of the points from the defense presentation that they disagree with. It'll also give the defense the same sort of opportunity to get up and respond to those Democratic questions.

CUOMO: Shan, do you think it's going to be death by a thousand cuts or are they going to swing one big stick?

WU: Well, you know, I agree with Kaitlan, they've been trying to poke holes in it. But, you know, as a defense counsel, you can't just sit back and poke holes hoping to sow reasonable doubt. You have to offer a theory of innocence. What they really need to do to give those Republican senators really a good hook to hang their coats on is to present a coherent theory of what the President was legitimately doing.

Spend a lot of time talking about what he wasn't doing wrong. They need to talk about what he was doing right. Now, that may be challenging for them, but the answer would be something along the lines of he's conducting foreign policy in his unique Trumpian way. You may think it's incompetent, you may think it's too unconventional but that's what he was trying to do, that he was not corrupt. They've got to offer that coherent theory of innocence.

CUOMO: I still have to believe, you know, Andy and I have talked about this a lot, and I get it. I've done my homework. I understand abuse of power, read the founding father stuff. But Andy, you and I still believe if they had the word bribery written all over that first article of impeachment, they would've had a more compelling case. And now they've allowed the defense to argue, you know, all master's degrees aside who are out there listening, you know, no crime, Andy. That's going to be a problem or it's going to be an advantage for the defense.

MCCABE: I think you'll hear a lot of that on Monday, Chris. And I agree with you, I think the House managers certainly had a lot of grounds that they could have hung their bribery reference or bribery charge on. They decided for whatever reason to do that. It's fundamentally changed the conversation around that article to become one of the lofty, what does the, you know, Constitution really require rather than a nuts and bolts, was this bribery or was it not?

I think there's plenty of reasons you can say what the President did was both soliciting and offering a bribe, both of which are of course illegal. But yes, I think that was an opportunity missed.

CUOMO: Andrew and Shan, thank you so much on a Saturday night. Kaitlan, nobody's been working harder than you. I appreciate you doing this for us tonight. Have a good night. Have a rest of the weekend to the extent it exists.

All right, our Secretary of State, what did we see with him and this reporter from NPR? Boy, it sounds familiar, doesn't it? You don't like the question. You attack the person who's asking it. You try to shame them.

[21:43:35]

Well, here's an argument that I find equally as shaming of what's going on. We have a big problem going on right now in this process, and it's not what you think. The coronavirus in our midst, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. We're supposed to be in a process of exposing the obvious, right? That's what this impeachment trial is supposed to be about, so let's do that. What we know about this President and Ukraine is troubling, and what we have yet to review and those at the top who have yet to reveal what they know is arguably more troubling. No one hides an alibi. No one hides helpful information and you know it.

But while we wait to see if there are witnesses, we've already witnessed what this is really about, haven't we? Certainly, if you switch Trump's R's Republican to a D, the GOP will be in full Benghazi mode. Heck, they were willing to trash the FBI and the entire Intel Community just to save a President of their own party. Sure, Democrats fought the process when it was Clinton, but Trump presents far more daunting facts and questions than Clinton did and we all know it. Still, there are good faith arguments to be made here about whether what Trump did while wrong warrants removal from office. Two problems. One is proof of sickness. The other is of true malignancy.

And I would say what we're about to argue matters more than anything happening in this trial. But first is what we're seeing the GOP do, right, party over principle. We know they impeached the Democrat for a hell of a lot less than they're dealing with right now, right? And now they're defending a President who's withheld more information and witnesses than any other ever and they know it. Capitulation that decapitates the notion that they are arguing in good faith that the President shouldn't be removed, because if you don't support witnesses, if you hide them, you neuter the process and it's nothing like a trial so you can't be in good faith.

Why do these senators fight so hard for their office, spend so much time and money promising what they'll do in office, honoring their oath only to work even harder once they get in to avoid doing the job they were so desperate for in the first place and ignoring the oath they swore to God not to do, the jobs that they seem to want so badly at any cost? That leads to the malignancy, even worse than what I've just argue, even than what we've seen in the trial. This flagrant favoring of party over principle is bad but it's just a symptom.

[21:50:34]

The true disease, the virus, the cancer that is killing us are these poisonous punches that Trump co. throws at the process, the players, the press. It is a cheat against any real integrity and argument on the facts. Lie, deny, defy. You don't like the questions? Attack who asked them.

Press ways to expose what you hide. Try to get people to heat those who are asking. Witness the latest sign of the contagion.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: I have defended every State Department official. We've built a great team. The team that works here is doing amazing work around the world.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, NPR ANCHOR: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?

POMPEO: I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on this team.

KELLY: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?

POMPEO: I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you.

(END AUDIO CLIP) CUOMO: Not that bad you say, right? Well, after the interview the reporter, NPR's Mary Louise Kelly, says Pompeo got profane, petty, asking if Americans even cared about Ukraine. And then he had his staffers bring in a blank world map and tried to shame her. He said, find Ukraine. She says she did, which would not be surprising.

Now, does Pompeo deny this? No. But in a statement on official -- look at the paper, put the paper up. He says, it's worth noting that Bangladesh is not Ukraine. Just throw up a map for a second.

You think someone as seasoned as she is, you think someone who went to fifth grade thinks that where Bangladesh is, there, right, part of old Pakistan, 1980 separated, you see Ukraine? You think you're going to mix those two up? Bangladesh isn't even connected to Russia. Why did he say that? Because they don't give a damn about the truth. What they care about is shaming people who try to expose the truth. All right?

Now what's the source of the virus? The obvious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: What a stupid question that is. What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, there's so much more. That's not the point to showcase it again. It has become contagious because they think it works for him, and he tells them to do it. He does it by his example, he does it by prodding.

Now we see it with all the Trumpers. Whenever they don't like something, whatever they don't agree with, they wind up attacking. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I know it's hard for you to understand, even short sentences, I guess.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Because she was a genius, right? In response to a question about separating children from their families at the border, you get cheeky like that, right? Another example, Republican Senator Martha McSally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R-AZ): Man, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not going to comment, Senator, about this? MCSALLY: You're a liberal hack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: For asking whether or not you support witnesses? And look, we've all said it, McSally's got an amazing pedigree, all right, but you want to be is sitting in John McCain's seat, and you disrespect the process and the press that way? It is beneath the office and you guys have started to think it's the highest bar you can find. And you know how we know? McSally was fund-raising off that moment within hours.

We don't allow this kind of behavior with our kids or our kin. We say it all the time. Hey, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you can't deal with the argument, just shut up and walk away because it's already over for you.

And here's the problem with it, it's worse than the politics of party over principle because it is our surrender to anything to do with the facts, anything to do with the law. It's literally this in official form. It's not just attacking the messenger, it's trying to kill the message and pretend it never existed. And that is the most dangerous thing we can face. That's my argument.

[21:54:38]

Now, one of the largest veterans groups wants the President to apologize. Why? Diminishing the injuries some of our heroes in Iraq. Why should he? Will he? BOLO next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: BOLO, be on the look-out. Thirty-four U.S. service members with traumatic brain injuries after Iran bomb our bases in Iraq. That's bad for the President, right? So he spins it like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I heard that they had headaches, and a couple of other things. But I would say, yes, and I can report, it is not very serious. Not very serious.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you don't consider potential traumatic brain injury serious?

TRUMP: They told me about it numerous days later, you'd have to ask the Department of Defense. No, I don't consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I've seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:00:05]

CUOMO: The veterans of foreign wars demands an apology for that --