Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House Managers Close Three-Day Case For Trump's Removal; Trump Reportedly Caught On Tape Calling For Ambassador's Firing: Take Her Out; Schiff Calls On Senators To Show Moral Courage. Aired 12-1a ET
Aired January 25, 2020 - 00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[00:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Our impeachment trial coverage continues. I want to turn things over to Chris Cuomo.
Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Thank you very much, Anderson. Hello everybody. I am Chris Cuomo. This is a special midnight coverage edition of the Trump impeachment trial. Well, we have seen the House managers make their case. They are the prosecution in this process.
So now, about ten hours from now, the Trump defense team will have its turn. Will they go as long? Probably not. They can but they may not. Their goal is to convince senators of the opposite of what you heard from the managers. The managers said there's so much here, they're going to say there is nothing here.
Now, the first challenge for them is to contend with the powerful closing argument from House leader or lead manager, Adam Schiff. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), LEAD IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: Whether you like the president or you dislike the president is immaterial. It's all about the constitution and his misconduct. If it meets the standard of impeachable conduct as we have proved, it doesn't matter whether you like him. It doesn't matter whether you dislike him. What matters is whether he is a danger to the country because he will do it again. And none of us can have confidence based on his record that he will not do it again because he is telling us every day that he will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: So even though it wasn't mentioned by the managers, Adam Schiff and all the others, as he was making his closing, there was a story breaking that has major relevance not only to this trial, but the central idea of whether or not these senators know what they need to know.
What is this story? It is proof of this president's perfidy. Tape of him reportedly talking to Lev Parnas, remember him, was working with Rudy Giuliani, part of the Trump inner circle when it comes to Ukraine, and they are having a direct conversation, Parnas and Trump, about firing former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
Now, remember, why does this matter? The president can fire ambassadors. That can get a little bit tricky as an analysis, but he can basically get rid of them. But he told you to your face he does not know Parnas. He does not know what Parnas was doing. Now, there is tape that exposes that as untrue. I will play it for you. But first, let's bring in our power players, OK?
You see I'm here at the table. It's good to have everybody here. They'll put your names up as you go. We don't have to waste time on introductions.
First, Jimmy, I'll start with you. You defend the president' proposition. The idea of, I don't know Parnas. I don't know what he was doing. Jim Schultz, you now have a tape where he obviously knows Lev Parnas. He's consulting with Parnas about getting rid of the ambassador and he is giving Parnas instructions about what to do with the ambassador. How is that not a lie that he doesn't know Parnas?
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Do we know where that conversation took place, Chris?
CUOMO: Maybe. It's in --
SCHULTZ: Do we know --
CUOMO: -- it's in some event of 2018.
SCHULTZ: It was an event --
CUOMO: 2018, like that.
SCHULTZ: So there was political people there --
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: -- probably a lot of people there --
CUOMO: Yes. We believe it was an assistant secretary of state, maybe his son --
SCHULTZ: -- could have been -- could have come through the line and said the things he said, and in a political event he had a reaction to that, to what Parnas said. That does not mean he knows Lev Parnas.
CUOMO: Wait a minute. Lev Parnas says to the president, there they are having a conversation about Ukraine and you'll --
SCHULTZ: How long was that conversation --
CUOMO: You'll hear it in the tape?
SCHULTZ: -- Chris?
CUOMO: You'll hear it in the tape, we'll play it for you. But just contextually, he says here's the problem Parnas does with the ambassador in Ukraine. It's not hike a, hi, nice to meet you, here's the problem, that's not what it is. And you'll hear it for context. And the president laughs and said, I'm going to get impeached, that's what she say, get rid of her, just -- I don't care, just do it. You're going to say that that --
SCHULTZ: With a little chuckle like that in a political event, with other people present, and other big donors present --
CUOMO: ABC says --
SCHULTZ: -- is he putting on a show or --
CUOMO: Intimate dinner with special donors.
SCHULTZ: Intimate dinner with special donors, right.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: That could be 40, 50, 60 people in the room. I've been a lot of political fundraisers, Chris. Is it four people around the table or is it a group of people? This is -- this -- until we know all the facts, we can't speculate as to what that dinner looked like. Was it a clique, was it -- meaning a clique, meaning a Photoshop with the president?
CUOMO: No.
SCHULTZ: Or was -- or were they sitting around the table and talking about this --
CUOMO: Do we have the tape?
SCHULTZ: What were they doing?
CUOMO: Do we have the tape ready? Soon as you have the tape ready, let me know.
Contextually, it is not what he imagines. Here's the tape. Watch it for yourself and don't throw anything at Jim afterwards.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
[00:04:57]
LEV PARNAS, UKRAINIAN BUSINESSMAN: The biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador. She's still left over from the Clinton administration.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES: What, the ambassador to Ukraine?
PARNAS: Yes. She's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's going to get impeached, just wait. It's incredible.
TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out, OK? (END AUDIO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: So let me seize on something.
CUOMO: Please, seize on something, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: What do you mean the ambassador to Ukraine? So they're not having some moment where they're talking about the Ukraine and something serious about the Ukraine. It's like you got to get rid of that ambassador to Ukraine.
CUOMO: Why would he tell that --
SCHULTZ: She's saying bad stuff about you. It could have been anybody in line to get a photo with him. This could have been a couple of minute conversations. He said, what, the ambassador to Ukraine? It's not like they were having a conversation about the Ukraine and how they were going to take out the ambassador to Ukraine. This is an off the cuff conversation and everyone is laughing in the background. It sounds like a party.
CUOMO: All right. What do you think?
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's a piece of direct evidence that the president did get rid of Marie Yovanovitch, but we already knew that because Rudy Giuliani told us that. I mean, we knew that from way back when that the president was intimately involved with Rudy's behind the back of real US officials' effort to get rid of Yovanovitch. So it's not really news that the president did it, but now we've actually heard it with our own ears which should make a difference to the court.
CUOMO: And to add to it, Lev Parnas, before this tape came out, huge credibility issues. Nobody here's going to doubt that.
SCHULTZ: No, no, no.
CUOMO: But here's what he said about this before this tape ever came out, maybe Lev didn't even know about the tape when he had this interview with Anderson. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PARNAS: I told the president that here are our opinion, that she is bad-mouthing him and that she said and he's going to get impeached, something like that. I don't know if that's word for word, but that she was --
COOPER: And you said that at the table.
PARNAS: Correct.
COOPER: Where the president was.
PARNAS: Correct, correct. And his reaction was he looked at me, like he got very angry and basically turned around to John DeStefano and said fire her, get rid of her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: John DeStefano is an Assistant Secretary of State. This is an intimate dinner. This is people he knows, ostensibly people he trusts. Parnas is saying something that, with all due respect to Jimmy, is not what you say on a PhotoLine. He turns to DeStefano who he knows, would have this within his ambit of action and says get rid of her, this person we're talking about. Your take?
MICHAEL GERHARDT, UNC LAW PROFESSOR: Well, I agree. I think this is confirming something we already knew. This is not new news or new information.
CUOMO: How so?
GERHARDT: Because we have all the other witnesses that know about the ambassador's fate, who have already sort of shared their testimony and given us some insight into what's happening. So we know at some point, we can just infer at some point the president does fire her, that all happens.
There's some path he follows to reach that conclusion. Parnas appears to be, based on this tape and other evidence, to -- in the loop with the president. And so we just have more confidence that the president has heard bad-mouthing or bad information about this ambassador, and that has led him at some point to fire her.
I might just add one more thing, and that is keep in mind most of the other evidence we know about this ambassador is she is exemplary.
SCHULTZ: Regardless of whether she's exemplary or not, it's his choice as to whether he wants to remove her or not.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: And I don't think you can't glean from that conversation that that conversation at that moment in time he decided she was a bad actor and wanted to get rid of her. There's no way.
You heard the laughing in the background. You heard the jovial activity going on in the background. This was something that happened off the cuff. And if you know the president, he does things off the cuff all the time. There was more to it than just this. To say that Lev Parnas somehow in that conversation influenced the president's decision --
CUOMO: No.
SCHULTZ: -- is absolutely is ludicrous.
CUOMO: I'm saying --
SCHULTZ: -- and that he turned around --
CUOMO: -- I never said that. SCHULTZ: -- and looked at John --
CUOMO: DeStefano, yes.
SCHULTZ: DeStefano --
CUOMO: Right.
SCHULTZ: -- that that's something he wanted to do, that's probably who was staffing the president that night.
CUOMO: But that is what he wanted them to do. That is what they did. That is exactly what they did was go out and get her.
SCHULTZ: OK. And he can still do that.
CUOMO: So you think it's a coincidence?
SCHULTZ: I don't think that has any bare --
CUOMO: No, no, no.
SCHULTZ: -- the fact that Lev Parnas says --
CUOMO: Hold on.
SCHULTZ: -- she was staying bad stuff about you, maybe that's what --
CUOMO: We're going to take a break. But let's go one --
SCHULTZ: -- maybe not this confirm --
CUOMO: -- step at a time.
SCHULTZ: -- time and time again. We have no idea.
CUOMO: But here's the point, you're evading the point, which is --
SCHULTZ: I'm not evading.
CUOMO: -- does he know Parnas? The answer is clearly yes.
SCHULTZ: No.
CUOMO: Let's take a break. When we come back, I will give you what the president said about this tape before he heard it. You'll hear his excuse and you'll see how the excuse holds up. Stay with us.
[00:09:39]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: All right. So as they are arguing on the floor of the Senate that we need more information because there's more information to this situation than is known to this date, a story breaks. With a piece of tape that appears to have a conversation between the president and Lev Parnas, a man he says he doesn't know, talking about getting the ambassador to Ukraine, which is a plot the president said he had nothing to do with.
Now, this is from ABC News. The president responded to reports about the tape before the tape was out to Fox News. Here's what the president said to Fox News about the ABC report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are quoted as saying of Marie Yovanovitch, the Ukrainian ambassador, get rid of her, take her out, OK, do it. Were you relying on Lev Parnas --
TRUMP: No, no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- to get rid of your ambassador?
TRUMP: No, but I have a lot of people. And, you know, he's somebody that, I guess, based on pictures that I see goes to fundraisers. But I am not a fan of that ambassador, just so you understand. From what I understand and I heard this a long time ago, she wouldn't put my picture up. She was an Obama appointee, I believe, and she wouldn't put my picture up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But were you telling Parnas to get rid of her? I mean you have a State Department.
TRUMP: Well, I wouldn't have been saying that. I probably would have said it was Rudy there or somebody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You got to hold up the question. Would you have asked, you know, Lev Parnas, like why would you do it.
[00:15:04]
Yes, that is what he did. It's exactly on the tape that you just heard. We have Jim Schultz, Jennifer Rodgers, and Professor Michael Gerhardt here.
So what is the point of this? There are two issues, Professor. Can he get rid of the ambassador?
GERHARDT: Yes.
CUOMO: Yes. I don't like her. I'm not a fan. I heard bad things. Check every box. Yes, yes, yes. What could make it not OK, that he got rid of her?
GERHARDT: Well, it's interesting to note that when the framers we're talking about the impeachment power, the Constitutional Convention, one of the examples they use for an impeachable offense was if the President removes a meritorious officer. And it would have been done in as part of a scheme to undermine or hurt American interests. That's what we get from the Constitutional Convention. And presumably, that's what happened here. She is somebody he -- the President is just said that we heard, well, I've heard bad things about her. Well, from who, who is telling him bad things about her.
At the same time, while he's got the right to remove her, he doesn't have the right to remove her for the wrong reason.
CUOMO: What well could be a wrong reason?
GERHARDT: To further a scheme, let's suppose, to try and pressure a foreign country to open up an investigation and really say its open investigation against the political rivals.
CUOMO: So if it's true that the former prosecutors said to Rudy Giuliani, which has been reported, I'll help you, but you got to get rid of her. She's killing us. She's keeping us out. She's policing what we do. She's very difficult on us. She's got to go.
If that were part of a bargain, I hope he would bite. You got to get rid of her. Does that change the analysis?
RODGERS: Well, I think it confirms what the House managers have been arguing. I mean, it's another piece of evidence in that analysis for sure.
I mean, again, we knew that this had happened before because we've heard about it from a variety of sources, including the witnesses who testified, and including from Rudy Giuliani who's been spouting off about it on TV and on Twitter for weeks and weeks now. So we knew it happened, but this is another piece of evidence an incontrovertible piece of evidence because it's the president's own voice on a recording that says that this is exactly what happened to him.
CUOMO: I think that this is an unnecessary problem for the President to deal with. Instead of saying you don't know, Parnas, say, yes, I know him. He's working with Rudy. They're trying to help me. I think the Bidens are dirty. They're trying to get me the dirt because I don't trust anybody in the State Department. Nobody does anything. Everybody hates me.
Why did he deny knowledge so completely in a way that was going to be discovered?
SCHULTZ: So he might not know -- he might know who Lev Parnas is, right? You get to political fundraisers, you see people with people that you know, all the time in this business, right? People go to political fundraisers. There are folks that show up. And the president said, well, there's a lot of groupies that show up at events. He's right about that, right?
People come to these political events because they want to be around it all the time.
CUOMO: But he's working with Rudy.
SCHULTZ: And he might be with Rudy. The president needs people all the time. To say that he sits down with Lev Parnas and consult Lev Parnas, is just ludicrous based upon --
CUOMO: But that's what he just did on the tape.
SCHULTZ: No. You can't make that assumption. In passing, Lev Parnas says probably because he's with someone that president knows. He says you have to get rid of this ambassador. President's probably already heard a lot about this ambassador, probably negative things about this ambassador to say that he's now like that's the sole reason he got rid of them because Lev Parnas at some political event --
CUOMO: No, no, no, no, I'm not saying that's why. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let's get the analysis, right. One --
SCHULTZ: But if you're going down the road of impeachment based upon, right, that this was in furtherance of some type of scheme. You know, he can get rid of the ambassador just because he doesn't believe that she's going to carry out his foreign policy.
CUOMO: That's fine. That's fine. I think that that is the lesser part of the analysis. I think that if you were able to show, and it's a high bar, that this quid pro quo that I posed to Jen, that that's what it was. This former prosecutor said, I'll help you with the Bidens if you get rid of her. Now, he's got a problem.
That hasn't been established. In fact, we didn't even really hear the House managers arguing. I'm saying something else.
You say, oh, the idea that he would be consulting with Lev Parnas because Lev Parnas is part of this job to get rid of the ambassador. That's exactly what it is, Jimmy.
He is consulting with Parnas because Parnas has been in Ukraine, working sources for Rudy through the Ukrainian government, telling them that this is going to happen if they don't give the president what he wants. They're not going to get the aid. And that's exactly what he's talking to him about. It lines up completely. What do you mean, assume?
SCHULTZ: No, I think you're wrong about that. This is a political event. You're assuming that this is maybe the four of us or a few other people around this table discussing the Ukraine. That's not something that was going on.
CUOMO: But Lev was in Ukraine working with Rudy and you know it, and so does the President.
SCHULTZ: OK. So he was in Ukraine --
CUOMO: It wasn't a random groupie saying, hello at a fundraiser. He's the guy that you saw with your lawyer.
SCHULTZ: But he shows up with other people all the time. Right, the president -- you think the president gets in the weeds on those issues?
CUOMO: Yes. SCHULTZ: You really think that?
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: You tell me he doesn't get in the weeds on anything, any policy decision.
CUOMO: I never said that.
SCHULTZ: All the folks in the news media say, oh, this president doesn't say --
CUOMO: I'm saying the opposite.
SCHULTZ: Right. We hear it all the time that the President is not paying attention. He just makes decisions off the cuff. He doesn't listen to his advisors.
[00:20:00]
But only when it's to the benefit of folks that are trying to attack the president, now he pays attention to everything.
CUOMO: No. Oh, you had it almost right until the end when it is in his personal interest.
SCHULTZ: Right. That's always --
CUOMO: He is focused on --
SCHULTZ: China. He wasn't focused on China.
CUOMO: Evidently.
SCHULTZ: He wasn't focused on the USMCA. He wasn't focused on tax --
CUOMO: Both things, both things can be true, is that you care about getting these deals done.
SCHULTZ: But everyone else says, this has nothing to do with --
CUOMO: Hold on a second. You're dealing with me now. Stare at the nose. What I'm saying is, he can be interested in getting deals done and also helping himself out by taking a bite out of Biden's ass, by getting Ukraine to say to go to investigate him. And this guy is that guy.
SCHULTZ: And you keep saying --
CUOMO: Step for step.
SCHULTZ: -- about getting a bite out of Biden's ass.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: You know what? No, that has never been -- that issue has never been investigated.
CUOMO: Why they released the aid?
SCHULTZ: OK. That issue --
CUOMO: Why they released the aid?
SCHULTZ: -- has never been investigated. The aid went --
CUOMO: Why they released it?
SCHULTZ: The aid went out timely. And it went out --
CUOMO: No. It was delayed so much that it was found to be illegal by the GAO. But why are they releasing at all?
SCHULTZ: Oh, the GAO that works for the Congress that happens --
CUOMO: Oh, now, you don't like the GAO. Come on, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: Come on. Come on. The Congress GAO works for the Congress. There's this push and pull between the executive branch and the legislative branch all the time. GAO typically is going to side on the side of Congress just like --
CUOMO: That's not true.
SCHULTZ: -- the Office of Special Counsel protects the interest --
CUOMO: All I'm saying is the facts that there are -- I don't know why you have to deny them.
A quick word from each of you guys and we'll go to break. What do you think of the situation? Well, how much exposure to the president? How much does it affect the analysis?
RODGERS: Well, I think it is important, like I said before, because we have the President in his own words now doing something that we knew that he had done. But now, it's more meaningful because people can hear him doing it. And hopefully, that breaks through some of the noise, right?
If they haven't listened to all of the arguments and all of the pieces of puzzle being put together, maybe they at least listen to this piece because they can hear it straight from the president.
CUOMO: I'm exercising Jim because he is a good look at what we'll hear from the defense. How does it hold up?
GERHARDT: Well, I agree that this is further evidence is simply reaffirms or what we already know, which is important. Another revelation is consistent with a story that's being told, the narrative that the House manager has put on.
And one thing I would just say about the response or criticism of it is that at some point, you just can't shoot every messenger. Every messenger that's reported on this in one way or another can all be bad. Most of these people were, in fact, appointed by the president, work with the President were Republicans.
And so at some point, you'd have to lose some confidence from somebody who's defenses. I'm going to shoot every messenger that brings me bad news.
SCHULTZ: Yes. I don't think you're going to see that from the defense --
CUOMO: Well, hold on. You're going to come back next hour. We're going to argue about the defense. I appreciate it, Jimmy, thank you for that.
SCHULTZ: Thank you.
CUOMO: We always manage to do what needs to be done more there, which is, we go at it all the time. But we do it with civility as the chief justice instructed, all right.
We're going to take a break. When we come back in, we're going to bring someone who's been working on this story from the start. Vicky Ward knows about Parnas, knows about where he fits in and how and why, and how he found his way to this place and what he means to the President and his lawyer. So we'll have Vicky Ward's take on this new tape, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:25:00]
CUOMO: Now look, one thing we know for sure is that this president likes to attack messengers, whether they're a lawyer or someone who is faithful to him. Once they say something that's against his interest, they get it. Lev Parnas who supposedly loved the president, love Rudy Giuliani, now he's saying things that are against the president's interest. He's getting both barrels.
A groupie, a con man, that's how the president continues to characterize Lev Parnas despite the pictures of them together, the money that was given and promised, the relationship with Rudy Giuliani, with Lev Parnas has proof that he was doing for the president and Rudy in Ukraine. As well as with his associate Igor Fruman to "take out the ambassador."
What is the potential incriminating nature of this tape? What does it mean about what we know about the story, and what does it mean legally? We have them both covered perfectly for you, Vicky Ward, Michael Zeldan.
First, the facts and the story in the background.
VICKY WARD, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Right.
CUOMO: The president, I don't know this guy. I would have never talked to him about something like this. I would have talked to Rudy and I don't like the ambassador. Save the ambassador part, how does the other square with your understanding of the story?
WARD: Well, I think that this tape right really serves to kind of corroborate what Lev Parnas has been saying. And what is so interesting is that that dinner, according to Lev Parnas and according to all our reporting was a very small dinner, 15 people interestingly Rudy Giuliani was not there.
CUOMO: So the idea that the president would have been talking to Rudy about it that night is impossible?
WARD: No, in fact -- well, I've reported in the past for CNN that really Rudy and Lev Parnas only come together and start working on Ukraine six months later after Lev Parnas has found a way to get Rudy paid by this company Fraud Guarantee. What's really interesting about that tape is also that it -- it doesn't -- it didn't come to ABC News from Lev Parnas, according to his lawyer.
The person who made the tape and who's not commented about it was actually Igor Fruman. According to Joe Bondy, who's Lev Parnas' lawyer, there was a general discussion among the very small group of people. The tape is an hour and a half long, and the subject of Ukraine in general came up, now Lev Parnas has said that he had problems with the ambassador. She was an Obama appointee.
[00:29:56]
I think it's worth remembering that in the indictment that Lev Parnas is under from the Southern District of New York, they do talk about Lev Parnas' business ties and, you know, there's a notion that maybe the ambassador, was an obstacle to Parnas and Fruman's business ambitions in the Ukraine. And I think that it's important to remember that in the context of this dinner.
CUOMO: So now legally, Michael, we have a couple of different boxes here. One is, the president said I don't know Parnas. I wouldn't -- I don't know what he was up to. I would never talk to him about anything like this. First, what does this tape mean on that score?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That he is not telling the truth. It's pretty straightforward that you cannot participate in the 15 person high dollar donor dinner, where you're talking policy and disclaimed knowledge of that person. That to me is just an untruthful statement.
CUOMO: Especially when what you're talking about isn't some, let me tell you what I think of Ukraine, or you know, here's why we need to get the price of oil down. And one of those things that donors sometimes pay to be able to talk about with someone in power like the President, this was a specific ambition about the ambassador.
And when the president refers to, well that's something I would have talked to Rudy Giuliani about. Even thought he wasn't at the dinner, what does it tell you?
ZELDIN: That it is the beginnings of, or somewhere in the timeline of the scheme that is laid out in article one of the articles of impeachment which say that there was an effort to get dirt on the Bidens that at the time that Yovanovitch was there and Zelensky took over, they lost their context and that they needed new context. And that she was an obstacle to them making progress on their Biden dirt scheme.
This is, seems to me evidence of that collective scheme toward the end that is -- what is part of article one.
CUOMO: How is it an abuse of power to get rid of an ambassador that he has power to get rid of?
ZELDIN: So this is the debate that we've had for some time, Chris, about whether or not a person who has the power to do something properly can be do so with corrupt motive. We talked about this in the context of firing Mueller, can you fire Mueller, yes, because he is not doing a good job. Can you fire Mueller to cover up the investigation that he is undertaking of you? Maybe not because it's with corrupt intent.
The same thing would apply to the ambassador. Can he fire and hire ambassadors? Yes, can he do it with corrupt intent to protect himself from inquiry from Congress? Probably abuse of power.
CUOMO: In terms of what you understand, Vicky, of the facts and conversations that were going on, the President has two options here, in terms of how this could be understood. One is he didn't like her.
He heard that you said bad things about him. She didn't hang his picture up when he wanted her to, she's out. That protects him, that insulates him from any other scrutiny, versus if we want to get the Bidens.
The former prosecutor in Ukraine tells me he wants her gone, that she is an impediment to their progress their, what he wants to do with the new president. She's got to go for him to help us. That's something different, what was the understanding from your perspective?
WARD: Well, from my reporting, Chris, I would tell you that both things could be true. That he could discuss Ukraine with Lev Parnas in April of 2018 at a small dinner. And that Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani could come together in late 2018 that interest could align over Joe Biden and dirt digging.
And, you know, we've reported all along that this was about dirt digging on the Bidens, but it was also a business scheme for Lev Parnas. He's actually being very candid about that. I mean, I will say that what has been very interesting in the last few weeks is that everything Lev Parnas has asserted, has -- seem to be backed up. I mean the tape is the latest, you know latest example.
CUOMO: He has the documents. His problem is, obviously I don't think they're going to call him, which could be good for the president and good for those who want to prove abuse of power. Parnas to have credibility is going to have to answer why he did the things he is indicted for. And only then will people start to believe him about anything else, the documents help, this tape helps.
Vicky, I know you have more. I know more is coming on this story. I will get inline as one of the people soliciting your affections on this story to come with us when you get it. Michael Zeldin as always, thank you for helping us understand something a little bit better appreciate it.
ZELDIN: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: Vicky Ward, Michael Zeldin, thank you.
The battle for witnesses and documents, this is a big part of this for the Democrats. Every Democrat we had on tonight says as strong as they thought the managers were, they don't believe the votes are there to convict or remove. It's about getting the full story out. We have one of jurors, what she thinks of tonight and what she thinks lies ahead, next.
[00:34:55]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: I mean, what irony that as they are arguing on the Senate floor about whether or not we truly have enough information to understand what happened with this president in Ukraine, a new tape comes out with the president talking in serious terms about the ambassador to Ukraine with a man he says he doesn't know.
Yet, you haven't heard a word about it from the House managers today. Maybe they didn't have time. Maybe they think they needed it. But what you did hear was a final push from the managers that this president is taking power from the very senators who have to decide his fate.
One of those senators is a Democrat from Hawaii, Senator Mazie Hirono. Here's her take. Senator, thank you very much for joining us on "PrimeTime."
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Certainly.
CUOMO: So where do you believe things stand now in terms of the case that was made by Adam Schiff and the rest of the House managers?
HIRONO: The House managers presented a really powerful case for both articles of impeachment, the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress which was pretty much all day today. They made a very powerful case. It was a fact-based case, and I'd like to see the Trump team rebut on a factual basis as opposed to calling people names and talking about the process.
[00:40:08]
CUOMO: Well as you know, this is the first time we've seen a party in control prosecuting one of its own in terms of the president being in the same party that's in control right now in the Senate. Do you think that they will be able to avoid the proof and find their way to not voting for witnesses? HIRONO: I think that that's what's going to happen because --we have a president who's very vindictive and he'll go after anybody who doesn't agree with him. He has every expectation that Mitch McConnell will hold his caucus in line, and so I would not be surprised at all.
They may be going through some angst, and especially as Adam Schiff was so powerful in calling on us to do the right thing based on the facts as opposed to all these distracting kinds of arguments that we know that the Trump team will come up with, including discredited conspiracy theories and all kinds of other things.
And he's really called on us to do the right thing. And I think it's really hard because they're under a lot of pressure to stick with the president.
CUOMO: If he were a Democrat and he was saying to you, Hirono, or he or she said, you go bad on me, this is the last time you're going to be sitting in this chamber. You're done. I promise you that. Would you still vote for witnesses?
HIRONO: Yes. You know, I mean, it may be easy enough for us to say, but I think all of us have to ask ourselves if it were a different name, a different party, would we be responding in the same way and that's why we have to look to our moral code and what we know to be the right thing to do.
CUOMO: Right. And now, look, on some level, I think for the people who are watching, some of this is heavy stuff. They're big concepts, they're constitutional concepts, there's a lot of information over a lot of time, but some of it is very basic.
The president told you, told us, told everybody. I don't know this guy Lev Parnas who was doing all this work with Rudy Giuliani for him.
I don't know him. I don't know what he does. I don't know what he's about.
Now, there's a tape out of him in direct communication with Lev Parnas and others at an event where Parnas is telling him about the problem with the ambassador in Ukraine as he perceives it. And the president is heard to say get rid of her, get her out of there, forget it.
(START AUDIO CLIP)
LEV PARNAS: The biggest problem there, I think, where we need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador. She's leftover from the Clinton ambassador.
Yes. She's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's going to get impeached, just wait. I mean, it's incredible.
TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK?
PARNAS: Excellent.
TRUMP: Do it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CUOMO: He is obviously lying about not knowing who Lev Parnas is, and what is about.
HIRONO: Yes.
CUOPMO: He's lying about that. How can the senators avoid learning more about the situation if the president's lying about the central issue?
HIRONO: I think they have their marching orders. They know what they're supposed to be doing. And so regardless of what factual information is out there. Because we know that there's a lot of evidence out there that Mitch McConnell doesn't want the senators to either see or hear. That is very obvious, in all of this. And he doesn't want us to have witnesses or our documents.
You know, all the other presidents, they produced thousands of documents. And meanwhile, this president has totally stonewalled and not a single page as he produce because he thinks he can do anything he wants as president under Article 2 of the Constitution
And he said that. He could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue, you can't touch me. That is his perspective. He wants to be king.
So here he is. He just can do anything he wants. And the sad part is, he expects all of the Republicans to go along with him. And there's a lot of pressure, I'm sure, on all of them to do just that.
Now, the tape that you are referring to, it just corroborates what Parnas was saying that Donald Trump was in the thick of all of this. He knew everything that was going on. In fact, he was the circus master in all of this.
So and here's the president who lies every single day. He's lied 16,000 times. When his lead lawyer, Cipollone said at Midnight Hour on Tuesday that the president is a man of his word, if I was drinking something, I had to spit up.
Come on. How can you -- learn credence to somebody who says that when we know that the fact it is a president lies every single day.
CUOMO: What is your biggest concern if there are no more witnesses? If this results in a final vote that is an acquittal, the president is not removed. What is your concern?
HIRONO: This is already so much overwhelming evidence that the president did what he did. He abused his power. He obstructed Congress. That if we don't convict him, then you have a president who believes that he can do anything under Article 2 and he will be doing more.
[00:45:06] My concern is who is he going to pick on next, what country, a vulnerable country is he going to pick on, what pool of money is he going to find to try to bribe somebody with it? Because we know as Adam Schiff said, we know this president is going to keep doing it.
And I tell you, anybody who doesn't look at the facts and vote their conscience, I think we are going to be responsible for what this lawless president does because he truly believes that he is above the law.
CUOMO: Senator Hirono, thank you so much for joining us on such an important night.
HIRONO: Thank you, aloha.
CUOMO: What an interesting test for all watching in real time? What are the Republicans more concerned about? The potential of this president to abuse power and do things in an election year that we know he has want to do, or to abuse them? What motivates them more? We'll see.
Now, Adam Schiff within this context was imploring Republicans tonight to show courage. But is there enough courage to take up the politics of impeachment? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:50:18]
CUOMO: Adam Schiff made a very interesting argument, really a sell at the end of his argument tonight. He was talking about Robert F. Kennedy, and talking about how Bobby Kennedy argued that moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle. And how the congressman struggled to understand that and appreciate that 1966 quote from Senator Kennedy. And his point was that at a time like this, you have to have the strength to stand up even to Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: Few he said, are willing to brave the disapproval the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, and the wrath of society. And then, I understood by that measure just how rare moral courage is. How many of us are willing to brave the disapproval of our fellows, censure of our colleagues, and the wrath of our society?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: How will this play in that room? Let's discuss are Hilary Rosen and Ron Brownstein.
Ron, help us understand why Republicans feel pinched by this president the way they do.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, they are -- they share the same constituency with him. I mean, he is -- he represents the core of their base. There are 53 Republican senators, 51 of them are from states that voted for Donald Trump. I mean, they're down only two Republicans left, Cory Gardner in Colorado and Susan Collins in Maine in the states that voted for Hillary Clinton. So they have kind of largely, you know, the Republican coalition is becoming in many ways a close circle.
You see it in the way they have brushed off this enormous amount of evidence that has been marshaled by the House impeachment managers this week. You see it in Martha McSally's attack on our colleague, Manu, you know, in this kind of set up saying, you know, get away you liberal hack. And then immediately raising money on it, or Mike Pompeo today throwing a rage when a reporter asked him about Ukraine.
I mean, so many Republican legislators at this point are not comfortable with dealing with interests or challenges from beyond their coalition. And within that coalition, Trump reigns supreme.
CUOMO: Now, Hilary, we are both able to remember when then President Bill Clinton was impeached, and a lot of democrats were mad at him for putting them in that position whether they liked the case or not. But he did not have a hold like this on them. How did you see the difference?
HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think two things. First is that, I honestly think that, you know, Will Rogers was right, that, you know, the Democratic Party is, you know, made up of factions and it's never really changed. And so we are our own worst enemy in that way. Republicans are much better at sticking together.
And secondly, I think the difference is that there was actually a real middle during the Clinton impeachment years and that has shifted. We are a much more divided country where, you know, both sides have gotten closer to 50%. So, the middle used to be maybe 25% of kind of getable persuadables. And I think that window has narrowed. That's Ron's area of expertise. He can affirm that.
And so, I think we're at this place where people have decided that their best chance at political success is to keep their base energized as opposed to try and take the risk of stepping outside their comfort zone to a place where they may get other support.
Arizona will be a good test. Martha McSally is actually behind in that Senate race to Mark Kelly who's a Democrat, who's more moderate. But he's not out there talking about impeachment. I think Democrats are going to have a bad week this week in Washington.
The Republicans are going to throw the mud against the wall. They're going to be, you know, aggressive and mean, and have a very loud megaphone amplifying what they say on the Senate floor with Donald Trump. And Democrats are going to have to be smart like we were in 2018 and bring politics back to local.
CUOMO: How do you do that, Ron? How do you deal with making this such a big deal and then finding a way to not campaign on it?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes. I don't think it's going to be an essential issue in the fall. I mean, healthcare, prescription drug cost will be, you know, as I wrote the week of the House impeachment vote that HR 3 which passes at the same time was going to be a bigger issue in the fall of 2020, and that's the bill to lower prescription drug costs.
I would add the contrast to Clinton is really striking in a couple of respect. Don't forget that, yes, every Democrat voted not to remove Bill Clinton from office.
[00:55:03]
But all -- but one of them, Chris, also voted to bring to the floor a resolution of censure. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, bitterly criticized Bill Clinton's behavior even as he said it did not justify his removal from office.
Contrast it with what we are seeing from the Republicans despite all of the evidence that's been brought to bare. How many of them have even criticized, you know, any aspect of what the president has done. And in fact, they've gone in the opposite direction.
I think we're -- from people like Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley, you're getting closer to saying explicitly what I think has been implicit through this entire process that they reject, they kind of fundamentally reject the legitimacy of a Democratic controlled body trying to scrutinize or much less sanction a president representing red America.
I mean, it's an ominous moment, a kind of separatist vision that they simply do not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic House to challenge him. And going to the point of allowing the president to stone wall Congress in a manner they know will set a president that would weaken the institution that they serve going forward with a president from the other party.
CUOMO: Well, then, you know, quickly here maybe it is better for the Democrats politically, if not for the process, to not have witnesses, to fight the good fight, to show that we obviously need it. The tape that came out tonight with the president talking about Ukraine policy with the guy that says he doesn't know helps that. There's so much we don't know.
But then they don't get the witnesses. This ends. You can get back to the business of the House and the Senate and they campaign on the other things. Maybe that's the best situation even though right now. It would just feel really, really wrong.
Hilary Rosen, Ron Brownstein, thank you very much to you both.
All right, we're hours away from the Trump team countering the Democrats. What can we expect? The strategy next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
