Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Taylor told Holmes "They're Insisting Zelensky Commit to Probe"; Fiona Hill Rebukes Belief Ukraine Interfered in 2016 Elections Not Russia; David Holmes: Rudy Giuliani's Political Agenda Overshadowed U.S. Priorities; David Holmes: Gordon Sondland Told Me Trump Only Cared About "Big Stuff" That Benefits Him, Like The Biden Investigation. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired November 21, 2019 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: -- is a way for the President to behave or is it something that the President is allowed to do in his discussion? But I think you know argue - the facts are so overwhelming at this point. When you combine all the witnesses together they give you an unmistakable conclusion that the President wanted to use the leverage of his office, meetings, almost $400 million in aid to damage his political opponent. That's what happened. Now, what the implications of that are --

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Right, the consequences. Just to get the analogy, Dave, I don't know why you want to be susceptible to this Ukraine conspiracy theory, but the idea of denial over reality, imagine if the President was not giving aid to a country because he wanted them to find out whether Obama was a citizen or not once and for all. Wouldn't you see that as an abuse of power itself?

DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Let's unpack this. Jeff saying about, he didn't hear the whole call? He only heard one sentence, is what he said. Let's be clear about this. He heard one sentence. We don't know that's all he talked about on the call.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I don't know if he heard one sentence.

URBAN: He did, he said, I only heard one portion. The only thing he said is that, I heard that one party. Didn't hear anything? He said I heard him talking about -

TOOBIN: What about the conversation after they got off the phone?

URBAN: Okay, that's fair. He said I only heard one portion of it. Let's complete everything and make it. We know what David Holmes, we know - because David Holmes heard the President telling Sondland that.

CUOMO: No, it's not about what's in his mind, it's about what he -

URBAN: I mean he didn't hear that part. CUOMO: All he heard was the President saying I want the investigations and people kept saying the President doesn't know anything about the investigations. The two things don't go together. But just on this, it's okay because he believes that Ukraine did it, isn't that grounds for impeachment all by itself? You're going to not give aid to an ally who is in a war against Russia because you want to chase a conspiracy theory?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, certainly it can be an abuse of power to misconstrue one's power or to undermine the Intelligence Community's assessment anyone else who rely on per actual reliable information. If you are truly going rogue and using conspiracy theories as your guide as opposed to well articulated in substantiated position, then yes, that's a problem.

But the also the issue here for me is the phrase political rival and this is really an addition to the idea of may be not impeachable conduct and what they're going to awfully do if I can give you some lighter sand on because your argument thus far are not persuade -- is this notion of political rival, his argument is going to be not only that you didn't hear the comment but the notion that, I wasn't trying to investigate my political rival and that wasn't my goal.

The goal was my views on corruption in general with the statement about Burisma and other things. If that is the course of action he'd like to take, then perhaps there could be more arguments made to support it.

But it will come down to make arguments but also speaking here, I think one of the problems they're going to have in the eventually phase this whole thing with they are right now is trying to unpack the loaded statement of wasn't the reason the President did this because he was going for political rival as opposed to, well, he was doing it because he had no interest in Ukraine. He had no interest in trying to actually soft corruption he simply wanted to have some dirt on someone unrelated to national security interest.

Now, that's part of the argument that needs to be made to really convince the American people I believe. But the idea of well, he didn't deny actually saying it, he denied that anyone could have heard him say it is the least persuasive of all.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Issue with that is to borrow the President's own words, read the transcript. Read his own phone calls where he says "Biden" three times. So you're right, and Republicans are smart and defenders of the President are smart. David Holmes doesn't have a complete story. Mr. Holmes didn't hear the whole conversation, that's absolutely right and Republicans smartly political want to take those little snippets.

Sondland couldn't recall this, Dr. Hill wasn't in that fifth meeting - however though, if you just add up what we've heard from all of these the cumulative effect of what these witnesses have told us, that all fix together. They all got alarmed, they all got annoyed. Someone thought it was illegal one of them thought it was troublesome. They started asking questions, they couldn't good answers and then read the transcript. Take the President's advice where he tells the President of Ukraine Joe Biden.

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: John, Dave and Chris also conclusions can be drawn from his behavior in his refusal depend on his witnesses. The willing of his potential article of obstruction well, that is not a particularly popular item in Congress. They voted favorably -- it was a very close vote with Nixon, same with Clinton.

So it's not a powerful case except for the fact it tells us he doesn't want this evidence out. That leads us to the belief he has a very guilty mind about what's going on, which supports all these inferences that are being drawn.

DANA BASH, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Can I ask one question?

DEAN: Please.

[12:05:00]

BASH: So during your era your testimony which changed the course of history in the Nixon Watergate situation. If that was happening today -- let me ask you it this way, actually. Looking at the way the Republicans, our friends David Urban and, more importantly, all the Republicans on this Committee and more broadly on Capitol Hill, could you see the Republican Party of your time doing what they're doing now? Does it surprise you because impeachment is, and at that point, the push to convince a President to resign is inherently political?

DEAN: No. What happened -- the Republican Party has changed dramatically from those days. It's moved further and further to the right.

BASH: But this changing and then there's dealing with the facts presented before them and ignoring them.

DEAN: There is also the fact of social media fox which do change venues for the arguments. But what I see is more of an ability today to deny reality. That didn't happen back then.

BASH: Would Nixon have had to resign in today's times?

DEAN: It's a close question, because when people look at Nixon today through the lens of all we know about him, which was so much more than he resigned on, it was much worse than everybody thought. So I'm not sure he would have had to resign.

COATES: Interesting about that point you raised, had they known then what they know now, was a common refrain from the witnesses of Sondland and Volker alike this week and their notion of, listen, I didn't realize that Rudy Giuliani was doing all that he was doing. I also didn't realize that perhaps two and two equals four, as the magical numbers - talks about or the idea that Burisma equal Biden as if apple didn't equals to jobs, it was that frankly, faint in my mind. But the notion here that that is the only available defense in the one

CYA mode and number two, try to distance oneself from being implicated in this overall scene into distance themselves with Rudy Giuliani. It is interesting, your question Dean, the idea that, that simply is being repeated right now.

Now whether that's actually going to persuasive to the Senate after what's probably a foregone conclusion that have been article of impeachment being drafted remains to be seen, but it can't be the idea of, oh, had I only been privy to information that we're seeing over the course of testimony was available at any reference point. It was corroborate by additive witnesses. I witnesses, ear witnesses and allied, I wonder if that will possibly stand up.

KING: You made a key point though about where we're going here and if you listen to the Speaker again today, the House is going to impeach the President of the United States. That is likely to happen by Christmas. The House is going to impeach the President of the United States that's a big deal.

The question is did they get any Republican votes as - as of today -- but the issue -- the issue is, when we get to the Senate it's a very different Republican Party in the Senate than in the House. Do I think this they're going to convict the President, no not as of anything before as today. But they are not going to defend the President like you have - like you hear in that committee room.

You're going to have Republicans Mitt Romney is at the White House today. Susan Collins is at the White House today, they're going to get up and they're going to say partner with Giuliani was a big mistake. This is bad. I don't like this. This was ugly, this never should have happened. We have an election in 10 months or 11 months, we're not going to impeach a President over this.

That's what the Republican Party is going to get. They would be there today if the President would let them get there. He keeps tweeting don't do that. Say it was perfect. Defend my conduct but the Senate Republican Party is very different, than the House Republican Party. Again, I'm not saying they're going to convict the President of the United States. There is zero evidence anywhere near that by having enough Republicans break. But it will be a very different conversation. And my question is how does the President react?

CUOMO: If the Democrats loose people in the articles of impeachment that's a big blow, you don't know, I mean, you had a couple on this vote do it, but they've heard a lot since then but that would be politically that would be one optic. Let me ask you something, Dave, do you think there's any chance that people around this President or the President himself could get him to say you've got to give up Rudy? You've got to say Rudy did things I didn't know, I didn't authorize and now that I know about them, I don't like them? Is there any chance he would ever do that?

URBAN: No.

CUOMO: And what's his other way out other than explaining? URBAN: Well, I don't think that's the case. I mean, do I believe that Rudy Giuliani was doing things that President didn't know about? Yes, do I think the President will say that's the case no?

BASH: There are lots of reasons I think if I may that I agree with you in the short term? The answer is no. Lots of reasons lots of history, decades of friendship, decades of secrets but more recently two words "Access Hollywood". He was the only guy to come out on TV after the "Access Hollywood" tape came out and defend him. I'm not saying that Donald Trump is Mr. Loyal and loyalty is a two-way street for him, but that was big --

CUOMO: Roger Stone just may have taken a conviction -

BASH: I'm not -

TOOBIN: I actually disagree that that's the motivation.

[12:10:00]

BASH: I'm not saying it's the motivation but it's a factor.

TOOBIN: It's a factor but I mean Donald Trump does believe loyalty is a one way streak. For few I think -- I agree that he's never going to sell Rudy out, but the reason why I think is not loyalty it's that the President never retreats. He never acknowledges that he made a mistake and that would involve saying I placed my trust --

BASH: But he sold out Michael Cohen.

URBAN: To John's point, that's a clear path to non-conviction quickly. Look, it's a mistake, I shouldn't have done it, it's not impeachable. Let's move on. These hearings have been over pretty quickly. Senate would be -- the vote would be pretty overwhelming. Collins, Gardner, all these people who were on the fence would say, sure.

COATES: Let's play it out, though. Say Giuliani is the consummate fall guy, for lack of a better term in this way. What would prevent him from being able to testify and try to retaliate about the law of loyalty. But here is the thing, well, then he has some problem because up till right now he has been saying he's the President's lawyer.

And there is although we know there are reasons to believe he's not acting under legal counsel, or at the role of what his own lawyer would be. The notion that he has up till now been saying he is the attorney has perhaps shielded the privilege about what the coherent would have been -

CUOMO: I thought you would lose the privilege if you accuse the lawyer of a crime?

COATES: You would lose that privilege - number one, but remember, Trump's issue is a political issue, but there is an OLC opinion that will protect the sitting president. There is none to protect Rudy Giuliani if there were a criminal court. But for the notion of the privilege, he would have to actually explain and substantiate why he would have that privilege and why it was never actually available to him which would be frankly the first time he would admit that I wasn't acting as the President's lawyer most like Michael Cohen who right now - that had to do.

KING: Well, Giuliani is under investigation as we speak by the Southern District of New York. So he has - in a somewhat related issue meaning two guys from - two Ukrainian Americans he was dealing with who were peddling these conspiracy theories, and trying to get business and access in Ukraine were working with him at the very time he says he was doing this for his client the President.

CUOMO: I mean look, I don't buy the idea that Rudy did anything wrong I think he did everything right by this President. Roger Stone I think makes the same exact case soon they are going to find us communications. He felt that what was in those communications was going to be true and bad for the President, and he literally turned the wheel of chance and now he is in jail. You haven't heard the President. He has got plenty of time to tweet not a word about saving his longest time adviser. He doesn't believe in loyalty believes in fidelity.

I have got to take a break. We're moments away from testimony continuing. All right, and when we come back, I'm going to speak to Fareed Zakaria. Remember, he was mentioned several times in this hearing, not because he did anything wrong but because that's who this big interview was supposed to be with the Ukrainian President announcing investigations coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAL)

[12:15:00]

CUOMO: All right, we're back with our special coverage of the impeachment hearings. Testimony is set to resume for two key witnesses in Ukraine pressure effort issues. Let's get right to Manu Raju. Manu, you're hearing from lawmakers in that room what's the vibe?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the vibe from Democrats is that they believe that they have more than enough evidence to move forward on an impeachment proceeding with - in the coming days and weeks.

They believe that even though some of the key fact witnesses some of the firsthand witnesses, including Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, as well as John Bolton, why they have not come forward, because the administration has essentially prevented them from coming forward with key documents has not turned over to Committee.

They're saying they're not willing to wait this out fight this in court that could actually strengthen their case. I asked one Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, whether or not they should wait? Why shouldn't they wait because if they would, wouldn't that make their case stronger to the American public? She said their case is strong enough right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): I think we have been hampered in our ability because the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense has all withheld documents from us. But even with our hands tied behind our backs, we've been able to present to the American people a compelling argument for moving forward with a review of whether or not we should have articles of impeachment brought to the floor of the House.

RAJU: It would be the risk of trying to fighting this out, I mean, you're trying to make the case very clear to the American public that there was -- the President abuses office shouldn't you get that fight it on court and get that key testimony where they will be - this will be beyond a shadow of doubt what the President did?

SPEIER: Well, actually, the President helped us out immeasurably by releasing the summary of his telephone call. We have the whistleblower complaint file that was an effort to prevent us from accessing that. He then releases the summary of his conversation which establishes the elements of bribery where someone in office requests from someone else something of value, the investigation, and then withholds the White House meeting and the military aid.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

RAJU: And that's what the Democratic message has been right now, that they believe that they are in a strong case, and Nancy Pelosi just moments ago also making clear that she would not fight this out in court.

[12:20:00]

She said that's going to be an issue for the Senate. If they want to get some of these witnesses, that's something they can worry about on the Senate side and on the House side, she feels fine with the case that they have right now, her strongest language yet that they're ready to move forward.

So Chris, today probably last day of public hearings before the House Intelligence Committee next week expect the same committee to write it's report offering recommendations followed by House Judiciary Committee action in early December that could ultimately lead to that historic vote on the floor of the House before Christmas potentially, and likely that the President could be impeached before Christmas. Chris?

CUOMO: You know it's interesting, Manu, because so much of this has the flavor of a trial, but it isn't a trial. This isn't a prosecution. So they feel good, but by what metric? What the poll say whether they're going to have any Democrats defective there are articles of impeachment? You know, it's little bit of a guess work here. Manu Raju, thank you so much. Great for you to get that interview with Jackie Speier, I appreciate it.

Jeffrey Toobin, so Monday I scared everybody by saying, so there is more testimony on Monday? No. But Monday there is a big ruling expected involving Don McGahn. What is the issue and what would it mean?

TOOBIN: Well, just step back. When the Democrats retook control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, they began to try to do oversight of the Trump Administration, and they have been met with a great deal of resistance. Some cabinet members, some White House officials have refused to testify, and the Democrats have gone to court to try to force them to testify.

William Barr, the Attorney General, who has been found in contempt of Congress. Don McGahn, the Former White House Counsel, the Democrats have gone to the House of Representatives to get a ruling on whether he can cite executive privilege and refuse to testify. That's the ruling that will be due on Monday in the district court.

But the key point to remember is whatever the evolution is of the Don McGahn case on Monday in the district court judge there, it's going to be appealed. And what the Democrats have said, and Jackie Speier said moments ago, if the Democrats decide to go to court to get Bolton or Mulvaney or Pompeo, they feel, I think correctly, it will be months of delay.

Now, it may be worth it, but they've decided to proceed regardless of -- that anyone who has refused to testify, they're not going to go to court. I think it's only going to be on Election Day that we learn whether that was the right strategy or not. I don't know.

BASH: And if -- add that to the obstruction charge on the articles of impeachment.

CUOMO: Thank you for that. John, I want you to weigh in, but I want to ask you, will you fill in that question with damages put out there? Thank you for that. Is it worth taking an article of impeachment for obstruction of process in order to keep Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton or McGahn out of the Chair?

DEAN: No. First of all, that was the weakest vote for articles against Nixon. They didn't even carry all the Democrats on the Committee. It was a 21-17 vote on the obstruction of Congress. For some reason, Congress doesn't really get excited and try to defend and protect itself.

On Jeff's point on the McGahn case, the White House and the administration made over-the-top arguments. They said there is absolute immunity. Witnesses don't even have to appear. A very strong, well laid out opinion, I think, could influence some of these decisions as to whether some witnesses appear or don't appear.

TOOBIN: But it's over. But that's the thing. The hearing is over as of today, as far as we know.

DEAN: No, there is the Judiciary Committee might decide to call witnesses.

BASH: Then they would have a Senate trial.

TOOBIN: They could. URBAN: I would just say this. You're going to have a two-week break coming up here, right? Today is the last hearing. The House doesn't come back until December 3rd. They're going to go home at respective camps it's very tribal. Republicans are going to be bolstered by their team and Democrats will be bolstered by their team.

20 or so House Democrats and Republican control -- Trump won one districts going to hear a lot from their folks. They're going to come back they're going to vote on this, it's going to move to the Senate. I was a Chief of Staff in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. By the time it got to the Senate, there was a lot of fatigue about this --

CUOMO: I bet you were making a lot of the same arguments you're making now.

URBAN: No, I wasn't. Believe me, I was against impeachment.

BASH: But you love Scottish law.

URBAN: Yeah, exactly. The Senators back then, I could tell you the Republican Senators, they with the Democratic impeachment - they just wanted to get off the plate. There was so much antipathy amongst the American people just wanted to move on.

[12:25:00]

URBAN: During an election year, it's even going to be bigger, I think.

COATES: Well, that's what so interesting about this strategy here, because remember what the elephant in the room for a lot of this is whether this is all been exercise in futility when it comes to the conviction or removal of the President of the United States.

And as much as the calculus for the members of the House has been about who is going to truly be added and whether they want to go with your protected litigation and appeal process. It's also about it here's the story these are the facts they have not been undermine than anybody. No one has got a clean-cut or a punch at this point about these things to attack it, then how many more people do we need to present evidence that saw the light was red when you went through it.

And so for them you're looking and saying if this is not actually going to ultimately end in perhaps a conviction and removal, then we need not go through the process of this and perhaps the biggest grand stand they had was to say Congress does take issue with people who are undermining their power and they're at least doing what they have committed to do in election.

CUOMO: Well, we'll see what the break does. I can't imagine how many Turkey legs are going to get toasted around in the room with different families with mixed ideas about this. Those stories will come remember I said now.

We'll take a quick break. We're awaiting the resumption of testimony. It's taking a little bit longer than we thought but that's because members of Congress -- there's no drama -- members of Congress were taking votes and they're now coming back. When we come back, as we're waiting for it, we'll reset what was going on right before the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:31:26]

CUOMO: All right, back with our special coverage of the impeachment hearings. One name mentioned several times today, our own Fareed Zakaria. Why? Because witnesses say the Ukrainians were set to do essentially what the president wanted them to, announcing an investigation into the Bidens. How? An interview on CNN.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID HOLMES, COUNSELOR FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE: On September 8th, Ambassador Taylor told me, quote, now they're insisting Zelensky commit to the investigation in an interview with CNN, which I took to refer to those three amigos. I was shocked their requirement was so specific and concrete. While we advised our Ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally investigating credible corruption allegations, this was a demand that President Zelensky personally commit on a cable news channel to a specific investigation of President Trump's political rival.

On September 11, the hold was finally lifted after significant press coverage and bipartisan congressional expressions of concern after the withholding of security assistance. Although, we knew the hold was lifted, we were still concerned that President Zelensky had committed in exchange for the lifting to give the request in CNN interview.

We had several indications that the interview would occur. First, the YES conference in Kyiv was held from September 12th to 14th and CNN's Fareed Zakaria was one of the moderators. Second, on September 13th, an embassy colleague received a phone call from another colleague who worked for Ambassador Sondland. My colleague texted me regarding that call that, quote, Sondland and the Zelensky interview -- Sondland said the Zelensky interview was supposed to be today or Monday, and they planned to announce that a certain investigation that was on hold would progress. Sondland's aide did not know if this was decided or if Sondland was advocating for it. Apparently, he's been discussing this with Yermak.

Finally, also on September 13th, Ambassador Taylor and I ran into Mr. Yermak on our way to a meeting with President Zelensky in his private office. Ambassador Taylor again stressed the importance of staying out of U.S. politics and said he hoped no interview was planned. Mr. Yermak did not answer but shrugged in resignation as if to indicate that he had no choice.

In short, everybody thought there was going to be an interview and that the Ukrainians believed they had to do it. The interview ultimately did not occur.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Fareed Zakaria joins us now. Remind people, I've asked you about this before, so many have. Now, you didn't know what was going on at the time. You had been in contact about getting this interview because it was an important time of political transition in Ukraine. What was the reason that you were given, Fareed for why the interview wouldn't happen?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: We weren't given a reason. Once the whistleblower report came out -- I mean, now I'm obviously looking at it in retrospect, but if you'll do the timing, once the whistleblower report came out, once Schiff demanded it to be made public, when in the sense the story breaks open, the Ukrainians that we had been dealing with in President Zelensky's office that had been very professional and very cordial throughout just sort of went quiet. And then after a few days we were told the interview was not going to happen and that happened really around the time the Washington Post broke the story wide open.

So we were never told, of course, that President Zelensky was planning to say anything about these investigations on the interview. It wouldn't be unusual for a political figure to have in his or her mind that the idea to say some things in an interview but, of course, they wouldn't tell CNN.

[12:35:10]

But the cancellation of the interview does time pretty closely with the point at which everything -- the story broke wide open.

CUOMO: Well, they're going to keep mentioning your name because two things happened where that sequence of events will keep coming up in the little bit more with the hearings today, but really the arguments to come. And the first one is, why did they release the aid? What's the good reason for them having released the aid at that time if it wasn't just because they have been exposed?

And the second question is going to be, why did Zelensky not do the interview if it's true what the defense says for the president which is well, they wanted to do these investigations? You know, they thought this was good. They were cleaning up corruption. Well, then why didn't they go ahead with it after they got the aid?

So, let me ask you something else that you can answer which is the idea that what happened here with Ukraine jeopardized the national security of the United States. How so?

ZAKARIA: I'm not sure. What exactly do you mean?

CUOMO: The idea that, hey, what the president was trying to do here, this was -- you know, this jeopardizes America's national security. We keep hearing that from witnesses. How?

ZAKARIA: Well, it jeopardizes it in several ways. First of all, what you're doing is denying an ally crucial aid in a fight --in an ongoing war with Russia. But the much, much bigger deal, I know that that has been the thing that witnesses have talked about. To me, it completely compromises America's credibility and standing around the world.

We go around the world. The United States goes around the world telling foreign governments not to be corrupt, not to engage in politicized investigations, not to persecute their political opponents, not to have, you know, a selective prosecution. We tell these to countries in the Middle East. We tell it to countries like China, we tell it to countries in Latin America. And here, the United States is, the president of the United States specifically asking for a politically-motivated investigation.

You know, all of a sudden, the entire edifice of America's, you know, rule of law foreign policy, human rights foreign policy comes crashing down when countries will say, what about you? You guys are doing exactly what you're telling us not to do.

CUOMO: And we heard about exactly that in the testimony where, you know, allegedly one of President Zelensky's handlers or staffers said to an American diplomat, oh, so you don't want us to be investigating our own, Poroshenko, you want us to leave that alone but you do want us to look into the Clintons and the Bidens? That's OK? And then Fiona Hill today gave a warning to the GOP about conspiracies and investing any credibility in the idea that Ukraine not Russia was to blame for 2016 interference, noting that Russia loves conspiracies because they achieve their end of political division.

ZAKARIA: Yes. This is really important, and I'm so glad Fiona Hill made this point. Because this gets to the idea, Chris, that there is no -- there are no such thing as facts, everything is opinion, anyone can believe whatever they want. The Republicans on the committee are embracing, you know, as a kind of backbone of their argument this wild conspiracy theory that really makes no sense, that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 election then blamed it on Russia. It comes out of, I think, you know, Russian propaganda, and it seems to come out of President Trump's frustration with Ukraine over an entirely separate matter which was that it was the Ukrainian Government that in a sense outed Paul Manafort as being very corrupt.

If you remember, this is the kind of beginning of the downward spiral of the Trump campaign, you know, in terms of corruption charges. It was Paul Manafort who had been taking a lot of money from the pro- Russian-Ukrainian oligarchs and president. So, in a sense, Trump seems to have never forgiven the Ukrainians for outing his campaign and his campaign manager on that front and this is payback.

And in order to achieve that, Republicans have embraced this really bizarre conspiracy theory, it's so bizarre that George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary say of the (INAUDIBLE) said he only heard about crowd strike when he read the transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. He was not even aware that this was, you know, this was a conspiracy theory and nobody believed him.

CUOMO: It must not get info wars over there to where he's based.

ZAKARIA: Exactly.

CUOMO: All right, so, Fareed, thank you so much. It's always interesting to have this kind of role in this historical setting. Your name comes up, it's great to have it explained, and we'll see how it all winds up and appreciate your perspective on the national security implications.

All right, we're still waiting for testimony to resume.

[12:40:02]

The Democrats have had their 45 minutes, now it's the GOP's turn to question the witnesses. What holes can they poke? How can they turn this back to advantage? Because remember, they may complain the president doesn't have any counsel in that room, but he's got that whole side of the aisle looking for nothing but ways to defend him. Let's see how well they do, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:20]

CUOMO: All right, we are awaiting testimony. The Congress members are taking votes. We were told they're going to be back. They're not. Welcome to Washington.

We're going to listen right now though to Dr. Fiona Hill. One of the key parts of her testimony describing Ambassador John Bolton's growing concerns about Rudy Giuliani with the former national security adviser, comparing Giuliani to a hand grenade.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FIONA HILL, TRUMP'S FORMER TOP RUSSIA ADVISER: I had also brought to Ambassador Bolton's attention, the attacks, the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and expressed great regret about how this was unfolding. And in fact, the shameful way in which Ambassador Yovanovitch was being smeared and attacked. And I asked if there was anything that we could do about it. And Ambassador Bolton had looked pained basically indicated with body language that there was nothing much we could do about it. And he then in the course of that discussion said that Rudy Giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you understand what he meant by that?

HILL: I did, actually.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did he mean?

HILL: Well, I think he meant that, obviously, what Mr. Giuliani was saying was pretty explosive in any case and he was frequent on television making quite incendiary remarks about everyone involved in this. That he was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would, you know, probably come back to haunt us. And in fact, I think that that's where we are today.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: So, let's talk a little bit about how powerful the witnesses have been from a credibility standpoint. John Dean, I think Fiona Hill winds up being in Yovanovitch territory, and just solid as a rock, knows what she thinks, and has no problem with you asking questions. And we'll see under what is effectively cross-examination when the Republicans come. But how would you assess the witnesses' credibility?

DEAN: I think all of these Foreign Service officers have been remarkably credible. They have not been partisan, they have tried to tell it the way they saw it, the way they understood it, and straight down the middle. The star witness, Sondland, I didn't think went as far as he might have gone. As I described yesterday in the Watergate vernacular because they were calling it a John Dean kind of appearance as a modified limited hangout from the Watergate era, meaning that he was pointing the finger at others, he was protecting the president and protecting himself. And I think he did not go as far -- for example, when I testified, I didn't spare anybody including myself. So I think that was missing in the greater picture although he was a very important witness. He did move the story much further and give us a lot of information.

CUOMO: Anybody, is he picking this for the Republicans to say, well, this is a deep state right here, this person hates Trump?

KING: Very hard especially in the sense that -- and Mr. Holmes is maybe because he's less known in Washington. He's been a career Foreign Service official all around the world, I think the Republicans there to David's point earlier are going to say, you didn't hear the entire conversation, you think you heard the president, but come on, you know, a cell phone conversation. I think that one -- if you could see, you know, again, he adds to a narrative. If you add up the other witnesses, he's very compelling from the Democrats' perspective. But if you're a Republican trying to pick him, that one is easier.

Fiona Hill --

CUOMO: Which is fair, that's not a credibility point it's a sufficiency point. He didn't like my telephone demonstration either. They think I made the president's point for him. And that's OK, that's a legitimate across but in terms of whether or not he's spinning a tale because he doesn't like the president, that's what the president is alleging.

KING: That's a tougher argument. In Fiona Hill's case though, she is so well-regarded and well-respected in the Republican Party as a Russia hawk, as a standup to Putin. That one is dangerous because in a sense she's two witnesses. She is herself and she is John Bolton. She is saying, I saw John Bolton, John Bolton has refused to testify so far, but John Bolton, for those of us who know Washington knows how to communicate a message in the news media if he so chooses.

A long-time commentator on Fox News, knows people at this table.

CUOMO: And he brought Hill in.

KING: Knows how to get a message out if so.

CUOMO: So if you beat up on Hill, you may get something from Bolton.

KING: But if he thought that she was misrepresenting him in any way, we would know that.

CUOMO: OK.

TOOBIN: Can I just make a point about credibility? The one moment in Sondland's testimony and Volker's testimony, Ambassador Volker who was the special envoy to Ukraine, both of them claimed that they did not know that Burisma, this company, employed Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son. That to me, to this moment seems just bizarre if not outright false.

[12:50:00]

I mean, that was not an obscure fact. People who don't follow these issues carefully knew that the vice president's son worked there under frankly, suspicious circumstances. And I mean, it was a controversy that wasn't new to this moment. I mean, the fact that Hunter Biden who appears to have no qualifications for that role other than being the vice president's son, that was a story, right? And the idea that Volker and Sondland -- Sondland just didn't know that is to this -- it just seems bizarre.

CUOMO: Looks unethical now, looked unethical then.

All right, we just saw Dr. Hill re-entering, confident, candid, as she has been this morning. So that is as good an indication as any that this is about to resume. So as they take their places, let's take a quick break and come back and hopefully we'll get to testimony time perfectly.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:55:31]

CUOMO: All right, we're waiting on the resumption of testimony, but why should today be any different? Whatever you expect, you must always prepare for disappointment when it comes to process in D.C. We watched Dr. Fiona Hill walk into the hearing room, and then she walked back out.

Let's go to Manu Raju who is there. What did you do, Manu? How did you scare them all out of the room again?

RAJU: Well, we're not entirely sure exactly what's happening but we do expect this to reconvene in just a matter of moments. The witnesses entered the room, they saw the members had not returned, they left. The members have actually had -- who were having votes just now. We caught up with a number of them.

A number of Democrats, of course, believe that this case is a slam dunk against the president. It's time to move forward in impeachment in their eyes. And Republicans that I've talked to during this break, Chris, have started -- they are disputing what Fiona Hill has said in her statement so far that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 elections and that that theory, in her words actually helped Russia. I talked to a several Republicans who have been involved in this impeachment proceedings, they are rejecting that notion altogether, saying they don't believe her, that's her opinion. And now on their view, Ukraine had some involvement and that that needs to be investigated.

They are taking the line of the White House and aligning themselves with the president because, of course, this is center to the inquiry because the president had raised that with President Zelensky of Ukraine, and also, there's been part of that conditions that were set to at least have the White House meeting with the Ukrainian president that never materialized. So, you're hearing that even though some testimony from someone who is respected in the foreign policy establishment, someone raising serious concerns about the impact to national security that the talk about Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election could have, they're saying they don't believe her. And it's bit interesting to hear that from Republicans. So expect this next round of questioning when the Republican counsel takes over for 45 minutes. That question to try to undercut her assessment that Ukraine had no involvement in 2016, Chris.

CUOMO: Really? All right, Manu Raju, thank you very much, appreciates it. That's good food for thought.

John Dean, the idea that the Republicans are going to come out hot attacking Dr. Fiona Hill for assuming Ukraine had nothing to do with 2016.

DEAN: Wonderful. We have a preview of this, it happened during the closed hearings. She literally pinned the ears back on counsel when he went -- as she called it down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. She's very strong on this. So, this is going to be a really interesting set of exchanges if they go this route.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think they're going to have better than that political article you ripped out there?

CUOMO: Listen, I read the article before (INAUDIBLE). I have read it. It's two years ago when it came out.

No, it's great. Right, exactly, two years ago. It doesn't talk -- it doesn't discount Russian involvement, it doesn't discount that Russia was a prime mover, it just says Ukraine had played a role as well.

CUOMO: Listen, the president heard from Rudy and others that people in Ukraine went after them and tried to help Clinton and he wanted to see if he could flush them out before this next election and he held up congressionally --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the part -- that's the jump.

CUOMO: Why did they release the aid? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the jump because it's going to expire in the end of the year, fiscal year.

CUOMO: Oh, so they did it --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because it's fiscal year, the money expires, it'd be re-appropriated.

CUOMO: What a coincidence. Jeffrey Toobin, what do we expect --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not a coincidence.

CUOMO: It's a hell of coincidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's reality, Chris.

CUOMO: You can't go from the world of denial into reality. It's the reality that easily.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you can't assume that that's the reason.

CUOMO: You have to give me another reason other than everything that makes sense.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But why?

CUOMO: Because when you are flagged and people are asking you questions about what you've done and all of a sudden you release the aid --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So again, I point to the $2 billion of U.S. aid funding was held around the same time with no issue -- no reason given --

CUOMO: Because there was no big cabal of foot to make something --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So there has to be a cabal --

KING: The only on the record statement about this from the White House was Mick Mulvaney in the briefing room.

CUOMO: King has been hammering you with this but you've got nothing every time he says it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're right, I have nothing.

KING: He did take it back. He did take it back.

CUOMO: Which made it worse by the way.

KING: He said he didn't say what he said.

CUOMO: Yes, I know. He said that he said it and then we played back his words and he was like, see, I'm right. That's where we are in terms of truth. So GOP, what do you think?

TOOBIN: Well, the single --

CUOMO: There's Mr. Holmes walking in, but we now know that means nothing.

TOOBIN: The single hardest thing to do for any member of Congress in my experience is to sit the hell down and shut the hell up. But I think that would be good advice for most circumstances. Now, certainly one thing you want that that Republicans will want to do, particularly with Holmes --

[13:00:00]