employee and nsa contractor shared documents from the national security agency about far-reaching surveillance programs. >> people's lives are at risk here because of data that mr. snowden exposed. >> he was charged of giving national security information to someone without a security clearance. he's living in exile in russia. randi kaye, new york. >> we'll hand it over to chris for cuomo "primetime." >> i am chris cuomo. this is "prime tootime." tonight we'll show that people put in place by this president thought what he was asking from ukraine was wrong. proof of an obvious expectation by ukraine that investigating biden would get them the relationship desired with trump.

what do you say, let's get after it. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> this breaking news is from "the new york times." a report that there could be a second potential whistle-blower on ukraine. the "times" says it's a second intel official, one who is also alarmed by president trump's dealings and may have more firsthand information about the situation. however, tonight we don't have to wait. we have the truth in front of us. it comes from the president's former special envoy to ukraine. he told congress nothing anonymous, he was there in person, he is real and bona fide. you haven't even heard the president bad mouth him and he gave congress his testimony and the proof of the same, which all directed the idea of a pressure campaign for trump's political gain. the key aspect, apart from the

text, kurt volker detailed how rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, demanded ukraine release a public statement committed to investigating the 2016 election and the firm tied to joe biden's son. the key part is volker and a ukraine official both making it clear they think that's a bad eyity for the country because it would be openly interfering in an american election, says volker. i then discussed with mr. yerm yack. he said they don't want to mens burisma and 2016. i agreed and further said i agreed it is essential that ukraine do nothing that could be seen as interfering in 2020 elections so the idea that you have to be fake news or an enemy to see that what the president

is asking is wrong is demonstrably false. ukraine and officials all saw it for what it was and as wrong. is this you a babuse of power eo warrant impeachment and removal. let's bring in our guest, he heard what volker had to say. congressman, great night to have you and thank you. >> hi, chris. >> so what can you tell us that is of importance to the audience about what you learned from the i.g. today? >> well, i can't get into the details of what we learned. this was sort of a follow-up meeting because, remember, we heard from him when the so-called transcript had not yet been released so he wasn't able to talk about the substance of this. all he would talk about was the process that he followed. look, what's coming clear here

is i sort of chuckle watching my twitter feed as the president attacks adam schiff over and over and over again. the problem that the president has of course is not with adam schiff, it's with the people around him, including the whistle-blower, including -- and i don't know anything more than you do on this possibility of a second whistle-blower, but of course there were leaks to the the "new york times" and leaks to "the washington post" from people that were clearly very close to the action in the white house. so i'm getting a sense from everything i know that the national security apparatus, the foreign policy apparatus has finally said enough, enough of this corruption, enough of the damaging of american national security interests and, yes, to your earlier question, look, those texts read like a script for the "god"godfather," if i m quote the president of the united states, going to go through some things. so of course this stuff is an

egregious abuse of power and misuse of american resources and, yes, if it proves to be true, impeachable. >> volker on the face of his testimony, believable? >> yes. remember he resigned. he's lost his position at the mccain institute. not a man with an incentive to lie for his boss anymore. and even if you don't care about the volker testimony, the texts that he produced are just devastating. and again, you know, this is a weird situation because we're not -- i remember when we were arguing over the voracity of the steele dossier. we're not arguing about the facts, chris. the facts are all out there, many of them admitted by the president and from white house documents released. >> and you have a new dirty dossier and this one seems to have been at least in part

supplied by rudy giuliani, by his own admission. the irony is lost on no one. let me ask you two questions. one thing that seems strange about volker, i want your take on this, he says in his statement, hey, i was never about this biden thing, i never heard biden mentioned, i wasn't there for the call so i wasn't about that. the texts tell a different story. it seemed to be pretty clear that they knew what the deliver rabbl ab do you believe this was a bit of a clean-up for him being there at all? >> i would point to that one text which you've seen that he texts to the eu ambassador, who is a trump appointee, a trump supporter. he texts training american military aid -- i won't get the words quite right -- but for political purposes is insane.

something along those lines. can you pull it up. if he's not thinking biden, he's thinking this weird ukraine iia company burisma. >> we'll put it up for the audience, congressman. i have it as taylor, the ambassador who replaced the woman who was ambassador because rudy and others trash talked her to the president. bill taylor, who was replaced as ambassador said is this what you're referring to, congressman, that i think it crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign and sondland quiets him down. >> that's exactly right. >> here's the other question for you, congressman. what else do you need or do you believe that texts are enough for jim himes for connecticut to vote yes on articles of impeachment about this activity and on what basis? >> well, i don't want to, you know, we haven't seen any articles, we've seen a fact

pattern here and it's not a disputed fact pattern, it's a really ugly fact pattern. there's one piece, chris, though, that we need to know more about and i think we'll learn more about next week. you had the apparent withholding of $400 million in military aid to a country under attack by the russians. you have the compromise of the particularly classified server in the white house. i don't know if that's illegal or not. it's pretty ugly because it looks like a coverup. the third thing just to answer your question here, it looks like an ambassador may have been fired because she wasn't going along with the con, and that's a piece of it that we need to know a lot more about. and, again, if this ambassador was fired because she didn't go along with what rudy giuliani wanted, number one, that's appalling in and of itself. number two, i'm just back from pakistan where i spent five or six days with our state department people who are doing really, really difficult work.

if all over the world, you know, in korea and japan and europe state department diplomats are worried that if they don't toe the president's line or rudy giuliani's line, their careers are at risk, that is a catastrophe for american foreign policy and we need to learn more about that. >> the pushback from the white house will be she's still there, still working in the state department, she was just relieved from the ambassadorship. the point stands. i is you this because i think the more people get a clear picture of what was wrong, the more they'll want to know what the argument is go the consequence. i appreciate you being candid tonight about it. thank you, sir. >> thank you, chris. >> we're going to be staying on this breaking news. you got this other potential whistle-blower on ukraine. but what we already know is a lot. and it now involves not just the president but the vice president. the vice president said he didn't know anything about the call. now we have reason to believe he did know about the call. he and the white house today

slapped with new document subpoenas. lots to discuss with one of the chairmen of a committee asking for that subpoena and delivering the same. chairman, congressman elliott engel next. 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.

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.

but she wanted someone who loves with the cats.ng. so, we got griswalda. dinner's almost ready. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with our renters insurance. yeah, switching and saving was really easy!

drink it all up. good! could have used a little salt. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be. this potential second whistle-blower, we hear about it from "the new york times," it's a developing story. someone else who says i have firsthand information about what the president did with ukraine, "the new york times" says they may come forward. we'll wait on that because what we already know is more than enough. let's bring in one of the top impeachment investigators, elliott engel, chair of the house foreign relations committee, congressman, new york. good to see you. >> good to see you, too, chris. why subpoena? why subpoena pence? why is it worth that level of confrontation? >> well, he hasn't been

subpoenaed. he's been asked to come in, to speak. we're trying to do it every which way, asking people to come in. we're hopeful. we have -- we think there are a lot of things that don't make sense but one of the things that does make sense is that the president attempted to use the resources of the united states to settle a political fight and that's something that just cannot stand. >> attempted. do you see it as an incomplete act or does volker and the text suggest it was a complete act? the request was made, the solicitation was made. what was attempted? >> i think the text corroborated what was done. there's doubt after seeing those texts that there was an attempt to essentially blackmail the

president of ukraine. what makes it all more aggravating to me is i'm someone who for years has advocated a closer ukraine/u.s. relationship because ukraine obviously came from part of the soviet union. they didn't want to look west. we need to have an outstretched hand for them and instead we are kowtowing to russia and doing this is disgraceful. >> it was a concern of the acting ambassador taylor, who replaced the ambassador who you want to have on next week. let me ask you, there is a deadline for one set of the subpoenas that are out there already. how close are you and members of your committee to being ready to vote that this lack of compliance is something that you believe is worthy of an article of impeachment? >> well, we're hoping that things are still going to be

forthcoming. we hope that that will happen. there be some indications and we'll just leave it at that. but the three committees are working closely together. the committee which i chair, foreign affairs, the committee that does investigations, elijah cummings -- >> oversight and reform. and with permanent intel with schiff. >> right. >> you're all three on the letter? >> all three. >> the president says witch hunt, more tactics, waste of time, not going to happen. at what point do you say, well, then this gets added to what we see as abusive to office that is worthy to the extent of impeachment? >> we're not at that point yet but what was interesting yesterday that the president was yelling because he's annoyed that he thinks we did wrong by trying to withhold money from ukraine, so now he's yelling things out loud about joe biden, somehow thinking that it's better if he yells it out loud that somehow people won't hold it against him.

i think the president right now is unhinged. i think he's coming -- >> that's the word of the moment. that's what everybody throws around. there are two burdens. the first one, do you believe you need to be able to attach an identifiable, understandable crime to the president's behavior in order for the country to say, well, now i get it. with clinton, lied under oath with the grand jury. okay. nixon burglary. andrew johnson, nobody remembers. but in those two there was a crime that i get that happens in every day life. it n it's not just some political thing. do you need that here and, if so, do you have it? >> well, i don't think we have it yet. but i think when the cat is out, i think it's hard to get it back in. and i think that -- >> meaning what? >> well, meaning that i think we now have another potential whistle-blower, the person is going to say -- >> but you have to avoid the perception that you are an impeachment looking for a crime

as opposed to an investigation that saw a crime and led to impeachment. >> this is correct. this is an investigation and, you know, let the chips fall where they may but i believe where there's smoke there's fire and i think the people believe that, too. and as we have more and more people as witnesses and more and more people coming to talk to us, i suspect there will be a lot more smoke and a lot more fire. >> any indication with the deadline being tonight that the secretary of state will comply? >> no, but we're hopeful that we will get things that we need from -- >> like in the next two hours and 40 minutes? >> maybe not in the next two hours but we're hoping we're going to get some answers. >> here's the other big hurdle i'd love your take on. there are a lot of people in this country who look at what a before us as i say plain fact and say, okay, it's wrong what he did but this is the industry standard, this is what these people do, if you switch the rs

and ds, we're having the same thing now, the people saying coup now, during clinton he was saying you don't need a crime. and this is what these guys do and i don't want to see somebody removed from office from a game that they're all playing. what do you say to those people? >> well, i would say that it's our duty to make sure that the president of the united states adheres to the constitution and what he is supposed to do. impeachment was given to us as a way that congress can check what the executive branch is doing. >> the warning was don't make it about numbers, that when the power is in the majority on one side, that that's when impeachment becomes effective. >> you know, this president doesn't think that there is a legislative branch or that the legislative branch should check anything.

remember when we were kids we learned checks and balances, we learned that each part checks the next and the legislative bo body, which is the congress, can check the president. this president doesn't think he should be checked at all. he thinks he should be a king, he should rule by fear. i'm not saying that he's not -- he's certainly not guilty until he's proven innocent but i certainly think that he thinks congress has no right to question him and no right to want to investigate. that is precisely our right. that is what we're suppose to do. it n it's not a matter of just getting someone out of office. i have no desire to get him out of office. but if things were done wrong, it's our duty as the legislature to come out and say it. and we're given this impeachment way of doing things. i didn't write it. it's there in the constitution. and it's really all we have to

make sure that the president doesn't do what he shouldn't be doing. >> it's certainly the highest power that you're given at your discretion, and you've chosen to use it to this point. we'll see how far it goes. chairman, thank you so much for helping us along the way so the audience can understand which way the democracy is headed. thank you, sir. have a good weekend. >> you, too. >> we're going to stay on this breaking news from the "new york times" about a possible second ukraine whistle-blower. what are the gaps that could be filled in? what can it mean? what do the texts and the testimony of mr. volker mean already? that is the subject for cuomo's court in session next. panera's new baja warm grain bowl is full of good. full of tasty, good for you ingredients.

fresh and filling. so that you too will be full of good. try our new warm grain bowls today. order now on grubhub.

pain happens. saturdays happen. aleve it. aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans come with a lot to take advantage of. like free dental and vision care and so much more. can't wait till i'm 65. free dental care and eye exams, and free designer eyewear. go ahead, take advantage.

. so first the secretary of state, mike pompeo, stonewalls democrats, despite subpoenas for documents that are due tonight. now the vice president, mr. pence, seems to be walking the same line. at what point does defying congress wind up putting them in the same jeopardy as they were in before, which is a potential article of impeachment? two great investigative and legal minds, andrew mccabe and jim baker are here. mccabe, i gave you credit for both of those. you owe me on that. the idea of what we've seen in history, at what point does a decision to not comply wind up getting added to the wrongs you have done to the articles of impeachment, brother baker? >> very good. it was one of the articles of impeachment with respect to

president nixon, and it is something that congress can say is unacceptable because it's obstruction of congress, right, not obstruction of justice per se. it not a violation of a statute. that's one of the important things to remember here. we're in the realm of violations of the constitution directly. so that's where people need to focus on and think about, whether the president, through his actions, through his words and through the actions and words of his sub ordinates have violated the constitution itself with their behavior. and, yes, the more they stonewall, the more they refuse to cooperate, the more likely there will be an article of impeachment with obstruction of congress. >> on the one hand, it would seem to be a substantiation for the consequence of their action, but on the other side, it more mushiness, more what seems to be political fragrancy. even volker, who i think is a

real problem for the president, he's a real person, he's not anonymous, he was put there by trump or by rex tillerson for trump. his texts say what they say. but you know what people say, show me the crime, andrew. don't talk to me about this abuse of this, construct of this, constitutional this. where's the crime? >> yeah, so that is a high hill that the democrats are going to have to get over during the course of this inquiry. and just to tail on to jim's comments, the obstruction of congress is an add on. that's dessert. that's the side item. that is not your entree. they need to be able to make a very clear and convincing case based on fact, not on interpretation, that the president has abused his authority, has acted corruptly in his office to enrich or advance his own interests rather than those of the country. it's going to be harder to do that without a specific crime to point to. they of course do not need a

specific crime to impeach him but to make that case in a convincing way for the american people, they're going to need to lay out the facts and they have plenty to work with. >> if you're working this case and do you believe up syou see quid pro quo in there? >> as an investigator, if i had these facts to work with, i'd feel very, very confident when i walk into my u.s. attorney's office and say look what we got, let's start talking about who gets charged here. you never, ever get a conversation in which somebody lays out specifically, okay, here's the quid pro quo, i'll give you this, you give me that, but this is about as close to that as you're ever going to get. and the texts show knowledge on the part of the president. they show mr. sondland, who is obviously aware of the concerns about having a text record of these conversations, he's consistently saying call me,

let's stop texting. >> i hear you. i think i have a defense. i'll try it out on you, jim. this isn't a fair court. you guys are coming at me in the same way. jim, here's my defense. rudy told me these guys did my dirty in 2016, that they were bad people there, they were part of the setup on me. i know it's bad and i trust rudy and he tells me biden was playing these games he got away with, his kid got this crazy payoff and now you want me to give all this to ukraine and treat them they're my buddy, i'm not treating them like they're my buddy until they show me they've cleaned up their act. that's the way this president thinks. if that's his disposition, what did he do wrong? >> the president does have the broad authority to conduct the foreign reeg laglations of the

states. however, he crossed the line in investigating one of his political rivals in order to help defeat him in the next election to enable the president to stay in power. >> i wanted them to prove they were clean now. >> that's not what he said and that's not what those texts reveal. in theory you can make that argument but the facts do not support that anymore. with every passing moment, that kind of case gets weaker and weaker to the extent it was there in the first place. >> and the second is you can't come at me, you democrats, because biden did the same thing. you're coming at me for what he did and you're trying to pretend you guys don't play these same games when you're in power that we're playing, that's how it always works. >> it's another very hard argument for the president to

make. he's going to have a hard time convincing anyone. the difference is what jim just pointed out. presidents forever have been calling foreign leaders and trying influence them to do things that they believe are in the best interests of the united states of america. this president, it appears, had that phone call to influence the foreign leader to do something that is in his personal political best interest. that's where he went awry. >> andrew, jim, on a friday night, bless you both. thank you very much for helping the audience. >> thanks, chris. >> there's a couple of great minds on this but we need more. you need insight banging on this from different sides so you understand all the possibilities of where we're headed. former whitewater counsel robert ray, friend of show, sharp as hell, what does he see and not see in the texts? what questions matter for him that have yet to be answered? next. 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.

did you know you can save money by using dish soap to clean grease on more than dishes? try dawn ultra. dawn is for more than just dishes. with 3x more grease cleaning power per drop, it tackles tough grease on a variety of surfaces. try dawn ultra.

you got texts now and you have direct testimony from somebody who is a trump appoi appointee who was present for these negotiations with ukraine. they seem to paint a picture of a problem. let's get some more perspective. let's bring in robert ray. thank you, counselor, on a friday night from remote on the job. thank you, sir. >> you're welcome.

good to be with you. >> so volker, you're not going to question his credentials, no one from the administration has. one of the few we have not heard the president pillary. he comes forward and says i didn't have anything to do with the biden stuff, i didn't know it was about biden, maybe it's true or isn't. but he puts forward these texts that show multiple trump-friendly officials saying we don't like what's going on here, let's try to soften this, make this not happen this way, expressing concerns, being told it's okay. what does it mean to you? >> it means that the bureaucracy is at work. obvio obviously there are efforts to protect the president. when you say that these are matters are concern, remember the only concern that is relevant for impeachment is that ultimately it has to be a high crime or misdemeanor, so i beg to differ with the trail of, you know, of positions and the shifting positions of democrats about the fact that abuse of

power is sufficient. you may think so and i understand, you know, at some level that congress can decide what an impeachable offense is in its own discretion, but if you are looking for bipartisan support, which is what impeachment requires, it really does have to be the exceptional case that both constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor as well as abuse of a position of public trust. and i think at best, chris, honestly, at best my take on it is that those text messages at best are ambiguous. >> oh, i don't think they're ambiguous. i think they're proof something wrong definitely happened. maybe it's a distinction without a difference. how big a deal it is, how bad it was and what to do about it. but what he did was wrong. >> when i say ambiguous, i'm talking about not as an investigator. you've had guests formerly with the fbi to talk about that. i understand the investigative

value of things and i'm not saying there ought not to be a fulsome investigation and i take chairman engel at his word, he sounds responsible to me. you're asking me what i think is the ultimate question as a former independent counsel and the only thing that's relevant here, investigations aside, is whether or not it's sufficient to rise to that high level that constitutes a crime. if it doesn't, then you're never going to have bipartisan support to do the rather extraordinary thing, which is to remove a sitting president from office short of an election. >> their constructive case will be he abused his power and asked somebody to do something that was good for him in exchange for a certain relationship with the united states. and now here's my -- i think where people are really frustrated. robert ray is probably right, you really got to have the goods on somebody to do something like this. and then we all lived through clinton. and if you switched the rs and ds, the case was made the same damn way by the opposite teams.

clinton was lying in front of a grand jury about an affair. and i don't know that any founding father ever contemplated that as a high crime or misdemeanor, but it worked just fine when the republicans wanted it to. now it got to be bribery or treason. the democrats during clinton, this is a nullification of the election, it's a coup. now they say, no, no, this is the constitutional -- >> it has to be bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors. >> living about an affair is a high crime or misdemeanor? >> not too many people disagree that the president of the united states, that there was a case to be made, he obstructed justice and perjured himself. the only question was, even if that were so, that was really sufficient to remove, meaning he had used the powers of his office to abuse the public trust. and the public went against that and that's why he remained in office. this is a situation again where the best case scenario is

democrats saying this is unseemly and we don't like the way he's conducting office and that's abuse of power. >> or extortion. >> they skip right over the fact that that by itself is not a sufficient showing to meet the high bar, which is the one that is in the constitution, which says, you know, treason, bribery and other high crime and misdemeanor. >> but as we know, the founding father who had the most to do with it along with madison said this is about invasion of public trust, about people in positions of public trust who do something that is injurious to the community and society at large. they didn't have the kind of statuary laws we have now, most of it was common law. >> i get that. >> if you make the cause of abuse of power where a guy put his own political interests first before the countries and used the state apparatus to make it happen, i think he has a problem on his hands if people believe the integrity of the pursuit that's involved. >> i agree with you rather than

going back channel, this would have been preferably to be done directly between the ordinary processes of the department of justice and the fbi. we're in agreement on that one. i think that in retrospect that's an error in judgment. but ultimately, the worst that you can say about that is that that's mal is mal administration. that's short of an impeachable offense. would you feel differently about this if ultimately there is merit to a biden investigation? and we're going to find out the answer to that because that's where the justice department is going through appropriate channels -- >> i would feel a lot better. personally, because right now the hypocrisy is suffocating to me saying biden has to be looked at but they don't think the president has to be looked at when he did the same damn thing and we're upset about biden's kid but not ivanka? >> i'm not prejudging that outcome. that's what you have

investigations for. right now it looks like a distraction. you don't want to deal with the exact same fact pattern, but you want to deal with it on the other side. that's why people hate politics. i think it an important instruction. i appreciate you making it. >> we still have to be careful here and i know you are. that's what i think the country expects of us. this this is an important thing to get right in the best interest of the country. >> i don't disagree. it got to be compelling and somehow free of something other than just partisan favor. thank you, robert ray for making the case. always welcome. >> thank you, chris. >> so where are we? on the merits, what is a quid, what is a quo? what is impeachable, what is not, what is the bar, what do they mean, what does it mean this time? the biden stuff, i don't know. we don't have prove of it. i know why there's so much division on this. it hit me today during my radio

show. i will give you some clarity about what our problem is. i don't know what to do about it but i know the problem. next. [ slow dance music plays ] ♪ sfx: record scratch music (plays throughout): [ 'watch me walk' by spencer ludwig ] yo dj, can i put in a request? ♪ don't have no sass about this ♪ ♪ i'm on my way i'm on my way ♪ ♪ can't take no class about this ♪ ♪ i'm on my way i'm on my ♪ like this! ♪ this is a moment you plan for. to start your investment plan, find an advisor at massmutual.com sfx: [ mnemonic ] this fall, book two, separate qualifying stays at choicehotels.com... ...and earn a free night.

because when your business is rewarding yourself, our business is you. book direct at choicehotels.com that's what happens in golf nothiand in life.ily. 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. imagine a world where nothing gets in the way of doing great work. where an american icon uses the latest hr tools

to stay true to the family recipe. where a music studio spends less time on hr and payroll, and more time crafting that perfect sound. where the nation's biggest party store can staff up quickly as soon as it's time for fun. this is the world of adp. hr, talent, time, benefits and payroll. designed for people.

if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock

on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. . do me a favor. i've been thinking about this a lot. i'd love your feedback. i think we have two problems right now. figuring out what happened with our president and ukraine is not one of them. if you take away the politics, the situation has become clear. this president was led to believe dirty guys in ukraine had it out for him in 2016 and that biden worked a deal for his son. rudy giuliani is certainly connected to why he thinks this, but he does. so in this president's mind, it is okay for him to ask ukraine to go after biden and his distorted notions about 2016 in order to get on his good side, which just happens to include the favor and resources of

america. the call makes the solicitation clear. his lawyer clumsily revealed the motive for the same. ukraine was aware of it and concerned about it. and now trump own people saw it for what it was and rejected it. the proof are the texts and the testimony from trump's own guys. volker. you've never heard the president say a bad thing about him. what a small class is that. from white house assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. we will nail down date for visit to washington. they want the visit. the give is look at biden. sondland, the president's ambassador to eu, big donor. i think potus really wants the

deliverable. the deliverable are the investigations. taylor, trump's guy who replaced the ambassador they threw out because she didn't like that this was going on reportedly. taylor says, are we now saying security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? sondland, call me. taylor, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. why would he say that? this is trump's guy. what the president did was clear. the key -- the concern is obvious. then comes the cover. after reportedly conferring with the white house about the concern from taylor, the trump donor and now eu ambassador says, bill, i believe you're incorrect about president trump's intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind. he then asks, to take the conversation offline.

odd. nothing to hide, but you want to go offline? look, showing the president's wrongful behavior is not our problem. it's clear. the problem is that some of us refuse to accept it. that is one of our two problems, and i argue you don't refuse to accept it because it's not obvious to you. it is because something else is equally obvious to you. if you switch the rs and the ds in this mix, you'd be hearing the same passion to impeach from gopars, and democrats would be wailing about the miscarriage of justice in it all. >> you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. >> are there possible criminal violations as well? that can be looked into. but you don't need that for an impeachment. >> we are not going to sit idly by and allow the republicans to stage a bloodless coup d'etat to remove our president from office.

>> well, that's an administrative coup d'etat. >> this attempted coup, another attempted coup. you change the names, same game. hypocrisy never changes. just the roles. i get it. would the democrats be arguing to take a president down with these same set of facts if it were obama? would the gop think that you got to have bribery, you got to have treason. it's got to be a real high crime if it was obama? where was their high standard when it was lying about an affair with clinton? look, can we change politics? i don't know. maybe not. but we don't have to echo its errors. we have to agree on facts. you cannot reasonably say that these texts from trump's guy, and that sort being his guy -- when you read them, you know that they knew what the president wanted to do with ukraine was wrong. that takes us to the second problem. well, how wrong, and what do you do about it?

fair point of confusion conflict. and let's build in that first problem. you don't want to punish one side for what you think exists on the other. i get it. but here's where we got to come together. if we don't call out what we know as a matter of fact is wrong, as something we reject, how can we ever expect to get anything better? we can't only have it be the way hamilton warned it not to be. impeachment goes the way of the majority. that's not what it's about. it's not supposed to be about numbers. it's supposed to be about bipartisanship. i know it wasn't with clinton. i know it wasn't with andrew johnson, and we don't know what it would have been with nixon because he resigned. there's supposed to be -- this is supposed to be so big that we can't avoid it, and it's so real to everybody. look, i don't know that this president should be removed for what he did. that's for the house to charge and the senate to try and the rest of us to judge their decision at the polls.

but i do know this. what this president did was wrong, and you know it too. it was wrong because it's something that no president should do. they should not put their own political interests before our own. right and left should never win out over right and wrong. if you only acknowledge the facts when they suit you, then the facts cease to exist. they have no more meaning than fiction. and if we get there, we have a problem that no election, no impeachment process can fix. that's my argument. what do you think? i've got some new developments in that other trump investigation, the one into the president's taxes. it's a bolo. be on the lookout, next. here and even here? with new bounce rapid touch up spray, you can fight wrinkles anywhere. spray smooth and you're fresh and ready to go wherever you are.

new bounce rapid touch up spray. bounce out wrinkles anywhere. 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. full of flavor. color. full of... woo! full of good. so you can be too.

try our new warm grain bowls today. order now on ubereats. pain happens. saturdays happen. aleve it. aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. sleep number 360 smart bed. numbers fall sale on the can it help keep us asleep? yes, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed

is now only $1,399. plus 0% interest for 24 months. only for a limited time.

what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing. bolo. be on the lookout dpfor a new investigation, an off shoot from the battle over president trump's tax returns. the acting treasury i.g., yet another one, says his office

will now look into how the irs has handled requests for the president's taxes from the house ways and means chair. he is suing to get a look at the last six years of returns. now, this comes after an irs career official reportedly filed a whistle-blower complaint. the employee claims he was informed that at least one political appointee at the treasury tried to interfere with the audit of either trump or pence. where does this go? be on the lookout. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. i got a special treat for you, d. lemon. >> what you got? >> take a look. come on down. ♪ here she is, mrs. cha cha >> oh, wow. >> she loves don the most. >> what's happening, cha cha? she can't hear, can she? >> she can hear. you're like the voice of god in here. >> tell her i said