want to encourage everyone to register as a donor because it could save a life. if you want to help, contact your local hospital for donor information. tonight we relaunch "full circle," streaming live at 5:00. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." chris? >> i love you in the mock neck. i love your eyes peering into the distance of where the news will take us. >> who knows where it will take us. >> that's what that look tells me. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "primetime." we have more news dropping on our watch tonight. the state department's inspector general has requested an urgent briefing. why? we don't know. we do know what it is related to within that own department. we'll tell you. could it be a ukraine dimension? there is no indication that it is but there's lots to cover. what do you say? let's get after it. it's going to be a another big,

big day. why? a congressional day calls this request for an urgent briefing, quoting highly unusual and cryptically worded. that's all for sure, just by being looking at it, it was prompted by the inspector general at the state department, in relation to documents about its legal councdow counsel subp. we are told the documents are related to ukraine. can't verify it, i don't have the information. that's what we're being told. we will know tomorrow. it's going to happen in the afternoon in a secure room on the hill. the details will be light but they will be able to talk about it. now, another twist. this mysterious briefing comes as secretary of state pompeo defies democrats on their demands. three house chairmen are warning him to stop intimidating witnesses. they say it is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.

is the secretary of state trying to obstruct the investigation? he says he's being bullied. also happening, two key figures in the whistleblower complaint are getting set to testify. they could further damage the white house attempts to contain the fallout. so in less than 48 hours the state department's former special envoy for ukraine kurt volker, who resigned last week will appear before the house foreign affairs committee. remember, he resigned. so any privilege that would have extended to him should not. and the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, who was forced out has already agreed to talk next friday. there's lots going on. let's bring cuomo's court into session. asha rangappa. jimmy schultz. i know we didn't prep to talk about this. but that's the new part of the news business. we're told it has to do with ukraine. am i right to expect poor form in this?

they had to know it was going to leak. putting out something this urgent, i have to have a briefing tomorrow, it's urgent but i can't say what it's about. >> right now we don't have enough information to speculate about what this could be about. on the one hand, it could be about secretary pompeo's refusal to, you know, turn over information. we know that the icig, for example, kind of blew the whistle on an attempt to block information from going to congress. on the other hand, the state department's job is to maintain diplomatic relations and they have an interest, and i know this from working in the fbi, on not allowing information to get out into the public that could be embarrassing to other countries, that could strain our relationships with them. that could be something that is

of concern here, too. i think right now it's really too early to tell what the motive is and i think we would just be speculating on that at this point. >> that's why i don't know why they put it out like this. jimmy, have you ever heard anything like this? >> no, i haven't. we're in a new place now. i agree with what asha said. there's not a lot to talk about because anything we're going to talk about is going to be speculation. >> there's some reporting that is about ukraine but i have plenty to talk about we do know. with pompeo, we're seeing extension of we don't like what you're asking for, we think this is unnecessary, we're not going to comply. where is this is you're testing things legally versus this is noncompliance? >> i think secretary pompeo made some very good points. it was very much in legalese if you will. he was talking notices of deposition, something that's common in litigation as a lawyer when two parties are in

litigation. secondly, he discusses subpoenas and the necessity for that. to the extent that congress isn't following its own rulings or protocols, he's well within his purview to make those requests and give the warnings he did. there's nothing inappropriate about that. he has a duty to protect certain information that's coming out of the state department, classified information, and he's doing that. i don't think there was anything over the top about what he said today. >> asha, no evasiveness, just by the book? >> yeah, i think that there are a few problems with this. i mean, first we have the boy who cried wolf problem. we've seen that the executive branch has stonewalled in many instances and so an idea that this is a good faith effort to just have more time to prepare i think is, you know, validly doubted by congressional committees. the other thing is that congress

is really -- the house committees here are acting at their zenith of constitutional power. they are conducting an impeachment inquiry into something that may constitute a national security matter. so the urgency time is of essence and i think that they have a stronger case when you balance the interests here. >> zenith. >> hold on. jimmy, she's not talking about the television, by the way, before you jump on zenith. she's saying this is the high point of their powers. you know what you have against you on your side of the argument is the corey lewandowski trick of him saying he has executive privilege when he never even worked in the white house. it sends a message they're just stalling. this isn't good faith as you presented earlier. >> if we want to talk about zenith, the most important thing is the fundamental right to counsel for these individuals. they do have a right to counsel and they do have a right to talk with their lawyers and be

counselled by their lawyers -- >> that's different than blocking everybody, jimmy. >> i get it, but that's not what the letter said. the letter said they need to confer with counsel and they have to follow certain rules, which they do. it's much ado about nothing, he was right to send that letter to talk about the procedural problems associated with the request. the fact that they're going to these folks individually just is out of line and he has to call them on it. >> i remember brad eric sheller at the firm where i worked, sometimes a tactic is always right until it's wrong. i'm reminded of it here, asha because this is working for them. if you don't fall your own procedures, you have a problem. if you want to fight about it in court, due process happens all the time. when it stops is working is when the house didn't working. >> the house ain't playing here, chris. they basically said if you try

to stonewall like you've done before, we're going to consider this evidence of obstruction. and i think where they are able to make their case is that simply on the facts that we know from a primary source, which is the transcript of the call that was made from president trump to the president of ukraine, you have a prima facia case. i think right there you have what is essentially a rebuttable presumption that he was engaging in something illegal. again, i think it's a national security issue, a constitution issue, the house is acting at the highest level of its power and it's time for the state department to put up or face the consequences. >> asha, jimmy, thank you very much for making the arguments tonight. i feel i'm going to need you back this week. there will be plenty more to come. eat's take a quick break. when we come back, we

have a cia and nsc veteran. he worked in the administration. he wants to argue to you that the complaint was orchestrated by democrats and he believes that he can prove it. he's got problems with this and he's willing to be tested. he's willing to be tested. let's get after it.nothing come. that's what happens in golf and in life. i'm very fortunate i can lean on people, and that for me is what teamwork is all about. you can't do everything yourself. you need someone to guide you and help you make those tough decisions, that's morgan stanley. they're industry leaders, but the most important thing is they want to do it the right way. i'm really excited to be part of the morgan stanley team. i'm justin rose. we are morgan stanley. [music (plays throughout):le lack of afro - recipe for love] ♪ whoaahoooo oo ♪ ♪ yeahhh aa aa aye ♪ i've got so much love to give ♪

♪ i've got so much more to give, baby ♪ this is a moment you plan for. to start your retirement plan, find an advisor at massmutual.com [sfx: mnemonic] on a scale of one to five? one to five? it's more like five million. there's everything from happy to extremely happy. there's also angry. i'm really angry clive! actually, really angry. thank you. but what if your business could understand what your customers are feeling...

and then do something about it. turn problems into opportunities. thanks drone. customers into fanatics change the whole experience. alright who wants to go again? i do! i do! i have a really good feeling about this. pain happens. saturdays happen. aleve it. aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. can't imagine doing it any other way. this is caitlin dickerson from the new york times. this isn't the only case. very little documentation. lo que yo quiero estar con mi hijo. i know that's not true. and the shelters really don't know what to do with them. i just got another person at d.h.s. to confirm this. i have this number. we're going to publish the story.

i have this number. behr presents: tough as walls. that's some great paint. ♪ that's some great paint. behr ultra, ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with interior paints. great paint, new low price. starting at $29.98. exclusively at the home depot. ♪ ♪ around here, the only predictable thing about the weather is it's unpredictable. so we make the most of it when the sun does shine. that's why bp is partnering with lightsource, europe's largest solar company. and should the weather change, yet again, our natural gas can step in. to keep the power flowing and the lights shining. no matter the forecast. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing.

look, the whole point of where we are now is that we only know what congress can show. there are going to be arguments made and we have to test them as we go on. that's how you develop perspective. coming from the president's defense side, they're saying this whistleblower report should be eyed with skepticism. >> it's all hearsay. you can't get a parking ticket based on hearsay. someone else told him about the call. >> the whistleblower says i don't have any direct knowledge, i just heard things. up until two weeks before he did that, that wouldn't even have been a complaint. >> once again, the president's counsel is off there. this isn't about a change of any

rule. this is what the rule was. and, in fact, the man you're about to meet is going to say the whistle-blower did say he had some firsthand knowledge and he shouldn't have but the inspector general says the truth is he does have some firsthand knowledge, it's about what? fred flight was deputy assistant to the president and nfc chief of staff. good to have you on the show. >> hey, chris. good to be here. >> let's talk to the audience together. what's your concern here? >> i've seen a number of whistleblower complaints with the cia and house intelligence committee. when i saw this one, i thought it was very unusual, not just that it was extremely well written, but it had legal references and footnotes.

that was a little unusual. i compared that with the fact that adam schiff was talking about the subject matter of this complaint throughout the month of august. he posted a tweet at the end of august almost identically reflected this complaint. i know whistleblowers frequently come directly to the committee. they're not supposed to but it happens all the tile. i put this out on twitter. the day that i did, a senior staffers, a republican, told me we think you're exactly right, this was a group project and my colleagues were involved and a senior member of the seniors intelligence committee, also a republican, said you're right on target, we want to ask the whistleblower how did you put that together and did you work on that with democratic lawyers? >> but you don't know any of that. you're raising it as questions. you know that is meaningless unless you can put some meat on the bones. of course the republicans are agreeing with you. that's the whole state of play. anything you say that's negative about this guy or this woman they're going to pick up on. >> you can say that, chris. i'm an analyst. i looked at the evidence. >> what's the proof? legalese and the writing?

>> it wasn't just the legalese, it was my experience, what schiff said in august, with my discussions with members of staff of this committee. i might be wrong but i gave my opinion based on my experience. >> they said they like what you're saying. they didn't give you any proof of the same, right? >> i gave my analysis. i look at the facts and i draw my conclusions. based on my ix experience, i know how it operates. >> i hear you. i'm just saying i would want to hear more facts about it. the fact about the tweet with adam schiff, i don't know if it echos anything and nor do you. >> it's important to know is this a legitimate whistleblower. some of the things in the complaint are judgments, whether there was a coverup, whether this was an effort to affect the 2020 election, whether there was a quid pro quo. if this came from a legitimate whistleblower, these are more valid. >> sure.

>> if they're from a partisan who is working with democrat attorneys on the house intelligence committee, it's harder to take them seriously. >> you're absolutely right. you just don't know any of that and the inspector general assessed the person's credibility and found them credible and them to be of urgent concern. very serious. so does the i.g. not know what he's doing? >> i came to a different opinion. members of the house intelligence committee share my opinion. >> who do you think has more information, you, a staffer of the republican variety or the i.g.? >> the i.g. is fairly new. i'm not saying he's right or wrong. i'm saying based on my experience, looking at this complaint, which was very strange and other people i know who have looked at whistleblowing complaints they have said the same thing. let's put the whistleblower in front of this committee and find out. >> isn't that the exact opposite philosophy we have when it comes

to whistleblowers? you want them vetted of course. but if you want to blow a whistleblower out of the water the way the president does, aren't you worried about the chilling effect it would have? >> i think if you make a complaint like this, you should put your name on it. >> really? >> i think a person has a right to face their accusers. >> you're going to accuse some of the most powerful people in a democracy and you're working in one of the agencies and you think people should be encouraged if you don't want to put your name forward, you should never come forward? you want that to be the rule? >> i know if i made a complaint like this, i would put my name on it and pay the consequences. i think this country needs to know who this was. is this someone working on patriotism and ethical concern? >> then why do we have whistleblower laws? >> you know, not all whistleblowers are anonymous, chris. they put their names forward and explain why they're making these concerns. this idea of the whistleblower in some kind of danger, this is

such nonsense. this town is full of trump haters. his attorney generals have ginned up this ridiculous story because he wants a book deal and probably wants to work for cnn. >> you are assuming a lot of facts, fred, for an analyst. i don't even think your center would allow it to be accomplished. and you know you want to talk a prime fascia case. the president is coming after him directly, constantly and consistently. you don't think that matters? let me tell you, as somebody who knows the sting of that, it changes your life, friend. >> as i said, this city is full of trump haters. i suspect this person is biding his time, going to come out -- >> this is all just speculation. you don't know anything about it. it's fine to be suspicious, let see what happens. but we protect whistleblowers for a reason. let me ask you something, under the category of people talking smack without basis, you know that people around trump, you say there are a lot of trump

haters, there are a lot of trump lovers also and they say your friend mr. bolton could be behind this. >> that's ridiculous. that's ridiculous. >> there are people around the president who said to me -- wait, wait, i'm not done. i'm just giving you my analysis. hold on, fred. fred, fred. >> it's a stupid thing to say. >> that's stupid but everything you just said about the whistleblower is not stupid. let me give you my experience. >> have you worked with whistle-blowers in the government? >> yes, i have. >> i'd like to hear the details to you. >> i would do that but i don't go bad on sources. i've been doing this 20 years. i've worked with whistleblowers. i'm closer to the trump administration in terms of access than any administration i've been around. isn't that ironic? you know what i say? they're nervous about bolton. they're nervous about how he left and what he might be saying. >> john bolton is not part of the story here. i've known him 20 years. he's not involved here. >> so there's zero chance bolton

would have had anything to do with submarining the president? >> absolutely zero. he would have nothing to do with this. i've known him too long. if you know him, you know that isn't true, too. >> i don't know him that well. that's why i'm giving you a chance to clear his name. >> his name doesn't have to be cleared. >> in my experience, when people like that talk, you listen. i can't put any meat on the bones. >> was he on the phone call? >> i wasn't working for the nsc at the time. >> do you think it was odd with everything that was made public about that transcript that the secretary of state was on the call? >> i wasn't in the nsc at the time. i don't know. i process these transcripts but i didn't process this one. >> i know, but you had nothing to do with what's going on with

this whistleblower complaint but you're drawing on your experience. >> that's a ridiculous connection. based on my experience and consulting with staff and members of the house intelligence committee. there's no comparison, chris. >> did anyone tell you whether pompeo was on the call or not? >> nobody told me about that. >> you don't have any basis for thinking whether or not it was unusual? >> i don't know whether he was on the call or not. >> we're told he was on the call. just interesting thing to note. we'll see if he comes and testifies what he knew about it, fred, i appreciate you making your case here. it's good for the audience to hear and i appreciate you making it. be well. >> 20 years. that's my analysis. the rallying cry of the president and people around him, investigate the investigators. they want to do it now. who is this whistleblower? is he even a real american? is it even a real he? they want to know that with everybody who investigated them. so who better to talk to than two people on that list, andrew mccabe and jim baker. what do they think of this situation? look how hard they're trying not to laugh.

let see how it goes in the interview itself next. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before. with more engineers. more towers. more coverage! it's a network that gives you ♪freedom from big cities, to small towns, we're with you. because life can take you almost anywhere, t-mobile is with you. no signal goes farther or is more reliable in keeping you connected. ♪ work so hard ♪ give it everything you got ♪ strength of a lioness ♪ tough as a knot ♪ rocking the stage ♪ and we never gonna stop ♪ all strength, no sweat. ♪ just in case you forgot ♪ all strength. ♪ no sweat secret. all strength. no sweat.

mmacramé! obviously. wanna go to the gym? uh, it's too expensive. actually, our unitedhealthcare medicare plans come with renew active, a gym membership and more, at no extra cost. i'm not a workout kinda guy. you get a personalized fitness plan. i'm exercising my brain. and an online brain health program. i need workout clothes? they have tvs here too. renew active, only from unitedhealthcare medicare including the only plans with the aarp name. if ylittle thingsate tcan be a big deal., that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss.

your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

sometand with theall screen xfinity stream app, which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are.

keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app today and get ready for xfinity stream tv week. watch shows like south park and the walking dead october 7th through 13th. going after the whistleblower because you don't like what's in the transcript of the actual call makes sense. it is consistent with what defenders of this president have been doing all along. we're now learning just how far attorney general bill barr may be taking his investigation into the investigators in the russia probe. reports have surfaced of this high-level meetings, overseas, italians and brits, as well as

urging this president to press his australian counterpart for help. why? what could these foreign powers offer up we don't know already? we've got the perfect guests to talk this through, andrew mccabe and jim baker. good to have you both. i saw you giggling along. it's just my experience, 20 years, no facts. you go after the person when you don't have the facts that's not new. the idea of. a.g. saying, jim, i want to make sure this investigation was on the up and up, i think there was spying done on the president, i'm going to the foreign powers who are allies and looking for help. what's the plus/minus on that? >> well, the plus is, look, and i've said this before and i've offered to cooperate with the attorney general and john durnan investigation they're doing right now. if some number of the american people have a question about the

origin of the investigation, fine, investigate it. there's nothing they're going to find in my opinion. at least i know what was happening at the fbi and we weren't doing anything improper, in my opinion. so investigate. the down side, the negative, is that this will put a chill -- it already has, i think, puts a chill through the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the united states because people are afraid to could their jobs if they think no matter what they do something will be looking over their shoulder and second guessing them and ascribing political motives to legitimate, lawful, investigative activity. >> andrew, what's your take on these efforts to blow up the whistleblower? >> to blow up the current whistleblower, i think, chris, it's an entirely expected tactic that you could see the president and his supporters using. as you said in the intro, it's a pretty standard practice now to go after the accusers when

anyone steps forward and provides facts or circumstances or criticisms that the president doesn't like. in this case, of course, you have a whistleblower who's done everything correct. he's filed the complaint under the -- >> is it too correct, andrew? is it proof he's been working with lawyers? does your spidey sense tell you that? you have a bunch of years under your belt. >> no. i took a look at the complaint while you were interviewing your last guest. there's only two legal references of any note in the complaint. one is to 50 usc section 2033, which is the whistle-blower law. it's perfectly understandable the whistleblower would have familiarized his or herself before they went down this road. the second is to executive order 13-526 and that is in the portion of the complaint where he's basically arguing the information he's providing is not classified and should not be classified to conceal it after he's made his report. so that's not overanalyzed, incredibly challenging legal work.

it's a complainant that is well informed and going out of his way to file the report consistent with the law. >> if any prove comes out this man or woman was in concerted action with anyone on the left to work this up, i want to know and blow it out of the water. jim, as we go down the road of this impeachment inquiry, the idea of what is the bar looms large. and i know that high crimes and misdemeanors was done this way on purpose, but in terms of the analysis on ukraine, what kinds of potential criminality would the house be looking at with any chance of proving? >> well, the house is going to define what those crimes are. they can define them in terms of reference to federal statutes that are already in existence a they can define them differently. as you said, the constitution doesn't exactly spell that out. >> that's why they keep going on about quid pro quo because you're not going to have bribery without quid pro quo. and now is it the solicitation

statute. doesn't it have to fit some kind of law that the american people will understand? >> it has to be understandable to the american people because impeachment and conviction of political acts conducted by the two houses, but they're not locked in to defining a crime consistent with what's already been passed in the united states code or some criminal statute that exists, right. they can define it differently, they can articulate it differently. s they -- that's why when people talk about obstruction of congress, that's in an effort to obstruct impeachment inquiry, which is different. so you're in a different -- the right way to think about this, in my opinion, is you've got to think about it in terms of the constitution itself and not be wrapped around any particular statute. >> this is just the indictment

the house comes up with a little bit. whether they meet any relevant standard will be decided by the senate. bill barr, you are talk about what trips your instinct after doing something for a while. him being on that call and then the d.o.j. during a review of any criminality without him recusing himself and they say after the fact he didn't oversee the review, it's all fine, what makes it fine or not fine? >> well, i'd love to see the analysis by the internal ethics authorities at d.o.j. of course we'll never see that but i'd love to see how they came up with a finding there was absolutely no reason for the attorney general to recuse here. under the standards of the appearance of impropriety this certainly seems to meet that

threshold. so it's a curious matter you have an issue of such incredible importance that lands with the complaint filed and that d.o.j. hasn't seemed to take the matter particularly seriously. >> gentlemen, thank you so much for your perspective. we'll be leaning on you early and often. >> all right. ahead, someone who can speak to the truth about what joe biden and did not do in relation to ukraine. someone once high up in the obama state department. let's talk right, wrong, reasonable next. a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum. it's specially-designed with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. cascade platinum's unique actionpacs dissolve quickly... ...to remove stuck-on food. . . for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. choose the detergent that lets your dishwasher do the dishes!

cascade platinum. the number one recommended brand in north america. behr presents: tough as walls. that's some great paint. ♪ that's some great paint. behr ultra, ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with interior paints. great paint, new low price. starting at $29.98. exclusively at the home depot. but it's not really something yoyou want to buy.. it's not sexy... oh delicious. or delicious... or fun. ♪ but since you need both car and home insurance, why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%. which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like ah well i don't know what you'd wanna buy cause i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. it's rukmini here from the new york times .

hey, you see this? here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware. a single hub for a consistent operating experience across all your clouds. that should clear things up.

well, the president is in high dugeon. it's cool, fake news, it's a witch hunt. that's a taste of what the president is saying about the impeachment inquiry tonight. he and his allies are pointing to what they see are inconsistencies and problems but the big problem is still on the back of the former v.p. joe biden and his son. the former assistant secretary of state during the obama administration, he was well aware of what biden was doing and why. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> you heard fred, smart guy,

attacking the whistle-blower. one big reason is obviously the enticement of the unknown but also they don't like the transcript. do you care as much about the whistleblower when you have the text of the call? >> no. we're all interested in the human drama of the whistleblower, but we know what the president did. he traded our national security for political favors. and how do we know? they admitted it. they released the transcript. so we have -- it's a rare congressional investigation that begins with most of the facts in hand. obviously we have to take this further, even if you catch somebody robbing a bank in america red handed, you still have a trial and a jury and witnesses and testimony but we basically know the heart of the matter. >> you don't know the people the whistle-blower was talking to flesh out why this was going on

and how. two defenses. first one, president was just enlisting the help of an ally with matters of corruption and william jefferson clinton mentioned that in a treaty. >> he showed no evidence in corruption in ukraine. all he wanted was the dirt on his political opponent, joe biden. >> so that's the second defense. by the way, i'm right about joe biden. joe biden held the money over ukraine's head until they got rid of the prosecutor that was looking at the company that his son was working with. those are all true statements. he was holding up the money. he did want to get rid of the prosecutor. the prosecutor was in charge of a case into the person who owned the company that hunter biden sat on the board of. >> not he, we. there was a crooked prosecutor in ukraine who was not bringing prosecutions on anybody. there was absolutely not a single active anti-corruption prosecution going on in ukraine, including with respect to this

company biden's son was involved in. >> we, the united states and our allies and every international institution that was trying to help ukraine at the time, said you got to get rid of this crooked prosecutor and get somebody who will actually go after these cases. so the irony is, biden who was one of many messengers of this policy was trying to get the ukrainians to do something that would place, if his son had been doing anything wrong, would have placed his son in greater jeopardy, not less. >> by replacing the prosecutor and having somewhat of a say in the new one that came in -- >> we didn't have a say in the new one that came in. what we basically said, all of us, not just joe biden, is you got to get somebody who will actually prosecute corruption across the board. >> what do you think of the notion that it doesn't look good, doesn't look good when you're in charge of something and your son is in the purview

of what you're taking on? >> i wouldn't even say he was in charge of something. i mean, john kerry made this point to the ukrainians. the president of the united states, barack obama, was in charge of this policy. >> but they made biden the point person. >> a point person. >> how many point people can you have? >> we had our ambassador, the secretary of state. we had every single official working on ukraine -- >> joe biden brags he's the one that held the money over their head and that's why he did it. >> we did and it was successful. it was the right policy because we did condition aid, absolutely, on ukraine actually doing something about corruption because we wanted to make sure that our money that we were helping them with loans and loan guarantees wasn't being stolen. >> did you know hunter biden's existence and role at that time? >> no, i did not. >> why not? >> it was not significant. >> well, it was certainly significant. should it have been disclosed? was there anything done you wish had been done differently? >> i think it was disclosed. i don't think it was something i was personally aware of at the time because it was just so obviously our administration,

our national policy. i was not thinking about this as joe biden's policies because it wasn't and it was the right policy. >> you never heard joe biden talking about any concern about his son, you're 100% that biden didn't do it for his son. >> i'm 100% that biden did it as the messenger of an administration policy that was set by dozens of people. in the obama people and in fact, all past administrations, we had something known as a policy process. we met together in rooms and we talked about this stuff and we set strategies and checked each other's notes and then we decided, okay, you're going to go out and deliver the message and you're going to be reinforced by this person and that person. nobody was freelancing. we did not have a rudy giuliani running a shadow foreign policy on behalf of the president and vice president. that's what's going on now.

>> so, what's going on right now, in the government is, you have to have an investigation to make a determination to make the case to the american people that you have a set of accusations that warrant articles of impeachment against the president. abuse of power is what this is going to fall as under the umbrella. i don't see making the treason case because i don't think they have it. abuse of power, what kind of abuse of power in your opinion warrants articles of impeachment? >> i've spent my life working on foreign policy and national security. what offends me about this is that the president of the united states is now apparently basing our country's foreign policy on whether foreign leaders will help him politically, whether they will do him personal political favors. think about what that means. foreign policy is supposed to be about protecting us, our interests, our values.

we have thousands of troops in europe right now there to deter russian aggression against europe, including ukraine. we were selling -- we were providing anti-tank missiles to stop russian tanks from invading ukraine. and to condition that, our national security, our national interests on whether the sordid deal is done where ukraine manufactures dirt against his political opponent? if that is allowed, where does that stop? do we know give china a better trade deal if they cough up dirt on biden or buttigieg or somebody else? >> his defense will be i didn't ask for it to be manufactured. the point is now to make it come -- compelling to people now and no the election around the corner. >> this is about the election around the corner. this is not what donald trump may have done in 2016. this is what it looks like he is doing now to prepare for the

next election in 2020. that's what makes it urgent. >> we look forward to the proffer from the people in the house. you're always welcome to come here, congressman, to talk about what matters to the american people. good luck going forward. >> thank you. >> the president is trying to convince everyone that what is going on, the president says no, no, no, this just about a coup, they want what i have, they are want the presidency, our framers knew this would happen and i am not flying blind here. i have an argument that's a refresher for everybody next. the sleep number 360 smart bed. can it help keep me asleep? yes, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise, prove. sleep number. this is not a bed it's proven quality sleep. from $999.

[music (plays throughout):le lack of afro - recipe for love] ♪ whoaahoooo oo ♪ ♪ yeahhh aa aa aye ♪ i've got so much love to give ♪ ♪ i've got so much more to give, baby ♪ this is a moment you plan for. to start your retirement plan, find an advisor at massmutual.com [sfx: mnemonic] pain happens. saturdays happen. aleve it. aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol.

when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. ♪ ♪ this simple banana peel represents a bold idea: a way to create energy from household trash. it not only saves about 80% in carbon emissions... it helps reduce landfill waste. that's why bp is partnering with a california company: fulcrum bioenergy. to turn garbage into jet fuel. because we can't let any good ideas go to waste. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing.

47% of you believe this president should be impeached and removed from office. that's as high a number that we've ever seen in this period. it's up six percentage points from may. here's my argument. so what? this isn't a direct democracy. this is a republic. we elect people to vote their

conscience. of course the ideal is to have them do what we want and that they agree to doing the same. but the controlling factor should be what he or she in office believes is right, not simply popular. the speaker of the house was right on course when she said in the caucus call, "we have to be prayerful, somber, nonpartisan. the idea that this has anything to do with whether you like him or not, forget that. that's about the election. this is about the constitution." that is the right message, though i do have to say, the speaker had been cautioning to go slow on this process for reasons that surely include political calculations. and she was anxious to see public sentiment behind impeachment before going that way. but the best part of the advice she gave is to follow the constitution. why? not some lofty idea. the framers didn't make the house the last word on impeachment.

they're merely the first word. they come up with the accusations. that's all articles of impeachment are. it's like an indictment. that's why the framers gave them the relatively low standard of a simple majority vote. it's the senate that has the real deal. they have to hold the trial. they need a two-thirds vote for removal and for good reason. and by the way, on that front, senator mcconnell gave us a surprising gesture of good faith today. >> well, under the senate rules we're required to take it up if the house does go down that path, and we'll follow the senate rules. it's a senate rule related to impeachment that would take 67 votes to change. so i would have no choice but to take it up. >> now, he didn't say how long he'd take it up for, but that gets us down into the weeds. we don't really need to deal with that right now. here's the part that matters for us right now, is that we don't want to get ahead of where we are. we don't even know that the house has what it needs to stand

strongly behind articles of impeachment on this ukraine matter. i don't know what happened to everything else. it's all about ukraine now. fine. but even on the vexing question of what is a high crime or misdemeanor, we're not in some morass of the unknown. we have guidance. alexander hamilton wrote about this in federalist 65. also 66 if you want to look at it. "the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or women, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. they are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." can't be more simply put than him. he was the master of being succinct. but this is about findings of abuses of power that force removal, force.

it has to be so plain that a partisan lens cannot render it invisible. the intentions of the president so foul that they must stink to high heaven. so much so that it can't wait until the election. that's the bar. so to congress, your job is to meet that bar or admit you can't and get it done with as little politics as possible. don't look to the people to show you where to go. you'll know by their votes whether they like where you took them. right and left, it is time to be reasonable. do your damn jobs. it's the only thing you've got to worry about. did you know there's another possible whistle-blower? this time it is related to something else related to this president. you haven't heard about it that much, but you will now. bolo, next. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before. with more engineers. more towers. more coverage!

it's a network that gives you ♪freedom from big cities, to small towns, we're with you. because life can take you almost anywhere, t-mobile is with you. no signal goes farther or is more reliable in keeping you connected. this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change.

behr presents: tough as walls. that's some great paint. ♪ that's some great paint. behr ultra, ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with interior paints. great paint, new low price. starting at $29.98. exclusively at the home depot. mmacramé! obviously. wanna go to the gym? uh, it's too expensive. actually, our unitedhealthcare medicare plans come with renew active, a gym membership and more,

at no extra cost. i'm not a workout kinda guy. you get a personalized fitness plan. i'm exercising my brain. and an online brain health program. i need workout clothes? they have tvs here too. renew active, only from unitedhealthcare medicare including the only plans with the aarp name.

here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today. i can worry about it, or doe. something about it. garlique helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally, and it's odor-free, and pharmacist recommended. garlique

i love these bolo segments. it's an acronym for be on the lookout, and it lets us tell you stories that aren't getting the attention. this one involves one of this president's biggest secrets, his tax returns. you already know that the house ways and means chairman, richie neal, is suing the irs and treasury department to get the last six years of returns. that statute seemed pretty clear, but they're litigating it. we're now learning that in an august court filing neal reached out to treasury secretary steve mnuchin claiming the committee received an unsolicited communication from a federal employee setting forth credible allegations of evidence of possible misconduct, specifically potential inappropriate efforts to influence the mandatory audit program. what's the evidence? we don't know yet. neal argues that while he doesn't have to give a reason for wanting the returns, they would help show if the audit program is working properly.

now, a lot of people had said that's kind of a bogus reason to want it. you could just call the irs and see if they're auditing him or not. but now this makes that look a little better. the president and his backers say these efforts are nothing more than politics. neal hasn't said who the possible whistle-blower is or if he wants that employee to testify. but that is one worth watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> look at you, right on time. 10:00 at the nose. >> on the button, baby. >> you've done this a time or two. so this one has to be investigated and dug into a little bit more, but it is certainly interesting. and you think about this, how this president eats up the news cycle, right? everything goes so fast. so we're talking about now there's a second whistle-blower possibly for the tax returns. that gives us much more to do and the american people much more to chew over. but do you think this one is going to get the american people, or at least the people