chris and i whyere yammerin. we ran out of time for the ridiculist so we'll go to chris cuomo. >> we're ridiculous enough. big day in a very important week. we have the top investigator leading the impeachment push to sum up what mattered most, the rightness of today's votes and his counter to arguments from the other side. it's a new phase, we have new evidence so let's get after it.

here's all you need to know about the current state of play in politics. zero republicans in the house voted to investigate evidence of abuse of power that's just piling up. despite all their cries for a vote to open up the process, they voted against any process at all. here's the problem in this. the gop is ignoring an obvious wrong. it's bad for them. but if the case can't be made that this is a consensus situation and not just a partisan exercise that's about who has more numbers and where, hamilton warned us democrats may be very wary about paying for their own principles come election time. with this weighing on their head, let's bring in chairman of the house intelligence committee adam schiff. mr. chairman, thank you so much for joining us on "prime time" on an important night. >> my pleasure. >> and happy halloween. >> you, too. >> everything is kind of spooky

these days. the resolution today passed. why do you believe it makes this process fair for the minority? >> well, we followed the process that was available during the nixon impeachment, during the clinton impeachment. so we had a model to use and we thought that's probably the best approach, even though i have to say the circumstances now are very different in both those prior peoples. you had a special prosecutor or an independent counsel doing the fact finding that we've had to do through these depositions. they had a report they were able to present and then cog tongres took the ball from there. it would have been much more like those other impeachments frankly had bill barr's justice department department not turned down the criminal referral, had they been willing to do the investigation they should have done. we've had to do that ourselves money. >> isn't it true in the clinton impeachment that the house still head depositions in private after they got the starr report and they interviewed many dozens of officials that way, isn't that the case? >> you're absolutely right.

i have to say i would be very surprised if during that impeachment the majority party allowed almost 50 republicans to participate in those depositions, over 100 members altogether. when my gop colleagues talk about this secret starr chamber, there are over 100 people eligible to be in that secret room. when trey gowdy was conducting the benghazi depositions, which he thought was a great model for getting the facts, only 12 members total and on five democra -- only five democrats were allowed to be in the room. >> so when republicans say schiff has too much control here, he's not letting us get our questions answered, he's silencing witnesses, we don't have subpoena power that he does, we can't bring in witnesses, we're not getting the same time, what is your response? because this is impeachment. be

benghazi was an impeachment. this is different. >> it is different. those arguments are almost completely false with one exception. we expect to begin releasing the transcripts as early as next week, you'll see the republicans have every bit as much time to ask questions as the democrats. we would go one hour for the majority and one hour to the minority and 45 minutes to the majority and 45 minutes to the minority. they are allowed to propose witnesses if they turn down any of their requests, they can call for a vote, exactly the same right they had during nixon or clinton. there was never a unilateral right given to the majority party to decide who would testify. this is obviously a serious issue when you consider the stunts the republicans have been pulling, the storming of the scif and all the other highjinx that the president concocts with

them. >> do you think the president had a hand in what they did in storming the scif? >> without a doubt. this was after the morning of a meeting of the tea party members and about a third of those members were already eligible to be in the room. when they were done with the protest, they didn't even stick around to hear the witness testify. they left. it shows the fundamental lack of seriousness they're bringing to this. >> is a president allowed to help plan a stunt to disrupt a deposition in an impeachment inquiry? >> well, you certainly would have never seen this i think in the past but we're in a different era where much of the -- if you look at what kevin mccarthy was asked today, all along a line, they all had to

pay fieldity to the president, say what the president wanted them to say. you heard the president just this week repeatedly say republicans need to move off the process. i think he's acknowledging it's a losing argument, the american people don't buy it. they've been reluctant to go to the substance because they know it damaging to the president. it shows you what a cultive personality the leadership of the republican party has become towards this president. >> but there is strength there. is it problematic for you, chairman, as you look at the path forward that the republicans were 100% in line against this effort? as we both know and i'm sure you know the history better than i, founders didn't want this to be a numbers play. you shouldn't impeach somebody just because you have the numbers and the majority to do so. it supposed to be an instrument of consensus, if used at all. do you have any hope they're going to ever vote with you in any way? >> well, look, there are certainly some of the members, i

have very little hope that they will approach the process seriously, that they will do their duty in terms of being an objective fact finder, but as you know, chris, this is not something that i was eager to undertake. for months and months i resisted the call for impeachment and spoke out about it and, you know, frankly, took a lot of flak from some of my supporters for not supporting impeachment because i thought this should be an extraordinary remedy. it not something we should rush to embrace. but i'll tell you what changed for me was when we learned that, you know, having solicited russian help during his first election, having obstructed the investigation into that misconduct while president and then on the very day after bob mueller testifies about all of this, the president is back at it again on the phone with president zelensky, asking him to do these political favors and doing so in the context of zelensky saying we are ready to

buy more javelins to protect against the russians. that said to me, chris, this is a president who feels he is above the law, that there is no accountability. and, frankly, i think there's little more dangerous to america than an unethical president who believes he is above the law. >> so in making the case, again, you've been in the room, we haven't, we've just seen prepared testimony as it come out in the reporting as it's come out about what happened in the room. but other than i guess vindman, who said that he was troubled enough by what he understood to be going on, the call and otherwise to go to nsc counsel, people say, yup, it was holding up the aid to get these investigations, and we thought that was weird and stay away from giuliani and this is really odd, maybe dangerous for policy, none to my knowledge so far has said and i didn't like it because i knew it was illegal or i knew it was an abuse of his power. do you think that hurts you?

because it certainly bolsters the courage of republicans to say even mr. morrison today, yeah, they all saw it for what it was but they didn't think it was a crime. >> you know, chris, i can't go into the substance of the testimony. i wouldn't agree with the general characterization you've made of it, but you'll have the opportunity to read the transcripts very soon for yourself and decide what does the evidence show. i think what you'll find is, you know, while there are differences between the witnesses and their opinions, sometimes differences in their recollectio recollections, there's a pretty consistent narrative here about what took place. and, you know, frankly i think the american people ought to hear from these witnesses directly and they will. and i invite them to make their own judgment, even as we in congress have to make our judgment. i can tell you, chris, to a person on the democratic side of the aisle no one took joy in having to vote to continue forward with an impeachment inquiry. we recognize what a solemn

responsibility this is but we all felt we couldn't shirk this responsibility either. i mean, if a president can abuse their office by jeopardizing our national security with an al lie w -- ally who is fighting for their life, it that's not a potentially impeachable ablable, i don't know what is? >> there's more here. why does mr. schiff believe that hearings from the big witnesses from this week will make a difference and why he believes this president might be impeached already if it weren't for what schiff calls his secret weapon. what it is and where this goes 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... with coverage from big cities, to small towns. introducing t-mobile's 600mhz signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. and it's built 5g ready. ordinary tissues burn when theo blows. so dad bought puffs plus lotion, and rescued his nose. new puffs have more lotion... and soothing softness to relieve. a nose in need, deserves puffs, indeed.

only roomba i7+ uses two multi-surface rubber brushes. ♪ and picks up more pet hair than other robot vacuums. and the filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™. is just like our originalhn sandwiches...only littler...so we bought a little ad...on lil jon. little johns, yeah! $3, what?!

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.

fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com. you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain?

so we've learned a lot this week from two nsc officials who were on that july 25 lt photh p call and cooperated that this -- colonel vindman raised flags about a mission from the white house in that transcript and mr. morrison who said while he had concerns about different parts of this, he didn't think anything was illegal that was discussed on that call. these kind of testimonies are about to be aired on live tv soon, and tv is key, according to house intel chairman adam schiff. now, will hearings move the country from where we are now? let's get back to the interview? as we move on to public hearings, let's talk about public hearings. right now the country is set

around party lines. we keep using a number around 50%. it's very highly partisan, very high on the republican side, pretty low on the democrat side. what do you think will happen during public hearings that will change how people feel about this? >> people will hear from the witnesses directly. they'll have a much better sense of what took place. in the mueller investigation, the public got to hear from bob mueller but because of the stone walling but the administration, the public got to hear from almost none of the witnesses who had firsthand knowledge. so this is very different. now, i will say this, the president's circumstances are also very different than watergate and i think for a very fundamental reason. in watergate it wasn't that the existence of tapes made all the difference, was certainly important, you know, in this impeachment proceeding, we have the existence of the call record, but i don't think that's really what differentiates then from now. i think the main difference is the president now has fox

primetime and that allows his supporters to live in this alternate fact world and, frankly, i think if richard nixon would have had fox prime time, he would have never been forced to leave office. that's what we're up against, an information environment in which you can live in a world devoid of facts and that's a world, frankly, that is very suitable for a president like this who doesn't have much adherence to the facts. >> so if you plan to counter that by putting out what you see as the factual record spoken through the witnesses, now we turn to what's happening in court where you've made some progress on some of these decisions and what's coming out of the judges' mouths at least in washington, d.c. seems to suggest the president is not requesting to get absolute immunity for his people but it takes time. supposedly you guys want to wrap it up around christmas and you have an election around the corner, what does time mean to

you in strength of this process >> what we're seeing is the administration and some of its allies using tactics to delay. i think the court will ultimately rule with respect to dr. kupperman's lawsuit just as it did with mayharriet myers, t there is no absolute immunity but the tactic is to stall doing their duty. i wish all witnesses would show the patriotism that people like colonel vindman did and not listen to the efforts of the administration to obstruct the investigation. they may prevent some of these witnesses from testifying and prevent the american people from learning the full facts around the president's misconduct, but even as they do that, they will be building a case against the president for obstructing the constitutional duties of congress. >> assuming that the court decisions don't go his way obviously. >> even assuming, chris, that

the stone walling succeeds in delaying it to the point where justice delayed is effectively justice denied. >> but if the decisions come out and say these people don't have to testify, could you still obstruct -- could you still try to impeach on the basis of obstruction on the same witnesses? >> first of all, no court is going to find a witness has standing to sue the congress because they don't like a subpoena. ultimately that court is going to rule that dr. kupperman has no standing. >> so for you it's just about time. >> he's well represented. his lawyer knows what the court is going to ultimately rule. it about obstruction. i'm sorry to see witnesses going along with that obstruction strategy by the administration. i will say that the one court that has adjudicated this is the court that said harriet myers, you are need to go testify and she did. i'll tell you this, chris, i did a deposition in that investigation of karl rove. george bush had no closer

adviser than karl rove and he came in, sat for a deposition and, i'll tell you, it didn't have anywhere near the number of members that are allowed to participate in our depositions, but it shows that other administrations have recognized the limits of this argument. >> do you think you get mr. bolton in next week? >> i don't know. this is an opportunity for adviser bolton to do the right thing, to come forward, explain what he knows. there's certainly been other testimony about what he has said and done. i think this is a patriotic duty that he owes the country and i hope he will perform. >> is there any indication he will? >> i'm not going to speak to specifics but all i can say is there's no doubt he has very relevant testimony in an people inquiry. the only question is whether he's wlg to come forward. >> at this point in your investigation, do you believe there's a legitimate chance this president would be removed from office.

>> look, i don't want to prejudge even what we decide in the house. we're going to finish our investigation and the public testimony and then as a deliberative body and in consultation with our constituents make a decision -- >> do you think there's a chance democrats won't go for impeachment? >> i don't want to speculate about what the decision will look like and i would hope if it comes to impeachment, that in the senate senators keep an open mind. i think every senator, if it comes to that, is going to need to ask themselves am i really prepared to bless the actions of a president to withhold military assistance or withhold a vital meeting to a vital al lie fending off russian forces that even now occupy ukrainian lands. am i preed pared to condone tha and that's compatible with office and what would that mean for our future of checks and balances and the presidency and

i hope they will give those questions the most serious consideration they deserve. >> have any of the witnesses so far given the president cover? >> you know, i don't want to characterize their testimony. you'll have a chance very soon to look at it yourself. >> all right. chairman schiff, thank you so much for coming on halloween and all. a very important day. be well, sir. >> you, too. >> a special thanks again to chairman schiff. we're going to bring in a key republican who sits on some of the other impeachment committees. he voted with his entire party of course today against the resolution. would anything sway him in this new phase to break from the president? we'll ask him and welcome him to the show next. man: sneezes skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! - what are you doing?! myles udland: isn't it obvious? - nah.

alexis christofouros: we're delivering live market coverage and offering expert analysis completely free. myles udland: we're helping you make sense of the markets without cable or a subscription from anywhere you are. - i get that. but what are you doing here? myles udland: nice "pa-jah-mas." alexis christofouros: really? i say "pa-jam-as." myles udland: pa-jah-mas, pa-jam-as, whichever. - yahoo finance live. stream free. anywhere. alexis christofouros: welcome to the show. myles udland: let's make finance make sense. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine.

it's not small. but it's not just big either. it's the kind of big where you'll never have to ask, "should i scooch up?" it's big that looks at a sunroof and wonders why it can't just be most of the roof. it's big that's better because we built it that way. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space ford expedition. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space 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.

all right. you heard adam schiff's testimony, transcripts could be out as early as next week. that's news. and hearings are set to transpire before the american public soon. are gopers ever open to seeing wrongdoing in this president? let's bring in kelly armstrong of north dakota. welcome to "prime time." especially on halloween. >> thank you for having me. you guys wanted a vote, today you got a vote on the procedures and nobody voted for it. why even ask for a vote? >> in order to start the inquiry in a proper fashion, you ask for a vote. the problem with this resolution is it has the appearance of fairness without any actual fairness in it. the chairman of the intelligence

committee and judiciary committee can still exclude the president's lawyer. the way it is set up, the democrats control the entire thing and i think more importantly, this thing should have happened a month ago and we should be dealing with these things right now. i had the ability to serve on the judiciary and oversight committee. i've been a part of this process since the first day i got in congress and i can tell you i've never seen anything that has made a determination before the trial has happened in any way, shape or form that quite relates to this. >> what determination has been made? >> the first media interview i got asked about impeachment on january 3rd and i said there's absolutely no chance they can't do it. i've been in congress since january and i knew that the day i walked in the door. we started with michael cohen, walked through the mueller report, russia conspiracy, russia conspiracy, we had concrete evidence of russia conspiracy from the chairman of the intelligence committee. that proved not to be anything and then we moved into mueller and when the president wins

reelection and if we don't take back the house, we'll start again. >> you're making this sound like it's in a vacuum. one of the president's lawyer is sitting in jail, the other has two investigations and a counter investigation going on into him and he had indictments and people put in jail for other reasons that were in the campaign. it's not like nothing came out it have and we're not even listing the ten potential counts of obstruction. so i wouldn't call it a nothing burger exactly. dealing with ukraine, what do you think was done today that hasn't been the standard in impeachments past? >> i wasn't alive during the nixon campaign -- >> but you can read. you can google it. >> yeah. the absolute answer to this is i can tell you what i've done in my entire adult life. i spent ten years in a courtroom and six years running a committee in the state judiciary committee. we would never, ever treat witness thes this way, have

questions this way, when you're the prosecutor and the judge and the overruling. i want to make a couple things clear. when we equate this to a grand jury or a special investigation, let's being h honest. if there were this many leaks, somebody would be in jail. >> you guys are politicians. you're not in the criminal justice business, not anymore. >> i'm not in the criminal justice business, but if we're going to do this and have this partisan hearing move forward, we're should be honest about what it is. >> kelly -- congressman -- >> you can call mich me kelly, e it. >> nixon -- clinton, more recent history. independent counsel so different. congress didn't do the

investigating. but when congress got it from clinton, you guys were in charge then and you did it exactly this way. in fact, all of the different operations of process that were put into this resolution were created by republican majorities. this is the way it was done in the past, it's the way your party wanted it. why all this hue and cry now about it being so unfair? >> if this comes out and they give everybody due process when this comes out, call me really skeptical about that happening, then we'll see how this goes. i've sat in this room -- i've been in almost all of the depositions for almost all of the time and there's not a single thing that is going on in there that is classified and there's also not a single thing that is in there that is truly secret. >> but it's the deposition phase, just like during the impeachment of bill clinton when you had henry hyde doing it and lindsey graham saying depositions should be in private, avoid the circus, get the committee to get more

answers, they did it with over 140 people. it was okay then, right? >> if we're going to deal with the clinton investigation and deal with kenneth starr, i'll agree with my friend doug collins. >> you're ducking my point, congressman. what i'm saying is this is how congress did it then. you said you wanted a fair process. it's the same process that you guys allowed in clinton. why is it unacceptable today? >> i wasn't here. >> the idea that you weren't there, congressman is not that compelling, right? you're now a member of a party. this is about what the past was and what you're saying is now presumptively unfair but it's what you created and used in the past. it just seems to me like you guys don't want to go against the president, the process line was to buy time and today you negated it because you don't want to do this at all. fair point? >> no, it's not fair. i will agree chairman schiff in the previous interview, i hope they release everything and have every single one of these witnesses testify in front of an open committee and in front of

the american people. the process argument at least from my perspective isn't the point. process is trying to get the truth and trying to get fairness and i've not felt a single part of this is about transparency or credibility. >> let me ask you something, do you believe a united states president should be able to ask a foreign sovereign for help in an election? >> do i believe -- so i'm going to answer the question but i'm going to start with this -- this president did believe that ukraine was corrupt, he believed the ukraine was involved in the 2016 election, that was abundantly clear. he doesn't like foreign aid in general and he wanted investigations into the 2016 election. i don't know what that has to do with a 2020 election, but i will say you don't get to dodge an investigation or have your family dodge an investigation because you've been running for president on and off for 30 years. >> i'm like dizzy now. too much candy. do you think the united states president can ask a foreign

sovereign for help in an election? >> do i think if the president of the united states can ask to investigate corruption? yes. >> no, no, no. do you think he can ask a foreign sovereign for help in an election? >> you're asking a hypothetical. no, i'm not. i'm holding the question that celts up u.s. code section 30121. we both know that the fec has made it a violation to the point of a felony if you accept foreign aid. we all know coming out of mueller even lindsey graham, trump defender number one said if anybody gets a call from the foreign power, call the fbi. and christopher wray said call the fbi, don't do it. everybody agreed. now you can't even say it's wrong. >> this president wanted to investigate corruption in ukraine -- >> he came up with no other example of corruption in ukraine except the democrats and joe biden. >> this president's been talking about corruption in ukraine

since he was running for the office. >> he mentioned no corruption in the call or any other time except the bidens and the dnc. he had his lawyer installed as a shadow process to achieve only these two ends. he ignored a sitting agreement with ukraine to investigate law matters and didn't go to his own attorney general, which would have been the proper channels forecast he just cared about the case. do you really believe this wasn't wrong? if you switched the rs and ds and caught president obama doing this, you wouldn't have gone crazy? >> i wouldn't have gone crazy. this president got elected because he does things in a different way. that's one thing globally we can tell by not just these hearings but oversight hearings we've had -- >> he told the american people when christopher wray said if you get approached by a foreign person with information about your opponent, you should go to the fbi and he says that's not the real world, he's wrong.

do you agree with him? >> no, i didn't agree with that statement. >> but that's what he did. this is exactly what he did here. >> i understand the argument and i think -- but i think it pretty interesting and the reason i think so is because democrats are twisting themselves in knots trying to find impure motives on the president when the simple fact is right now the ukrainian election is getting aid they didn't get in the election -- >> but just because he got the aid didn't mean he should have held it up to get the bidens. he shouldn't have done it that way. that's why so many people who lied were freaked out by it, freaked out by rudy, worried about the quid pro quo and even went to their higher ups about it because they were so worried. >> the two principals on the call did not think anything went wrong. >> of course the president doesn't think it was wrong but you just said you disagree with him about what he thinks is right and wrong in this area.

>> no, i didn't say i disagreed with him. >> you said he was wrong when he said if they come to you -- >> i didn't like the prior -- it's not the same thing. it's a completely different conversation. this was about i'm going to say it again, this president in this situation, both him and president zelensky thought the call was fine. i'm also not going to get into testimony that goes on in the scif. >> i'm not asking you to. we'll see that in the opening hearings. >> the opening statement was there today, too. if we're going to talk about opening statements and what was said -- >> mr. morrison thought it was a quid pro quo, he thought it was weird, he worried about it threthe threatening the policy relationship. you're looking for gross abuses of power that make it incompatible with the presidency. congressman, i don't want to keep you too long on halloween. you're welcome back as we go along with this.

i'd love my audience to hear a strong voice from north dakota. thank you for being with us. >> that's where we are. that guy is a skilled litigator. he doesn't want to give in on this, but he says he doesn't agree with the president saying i don't have to go to the fbi if there's something going with a foreign power helping me with an opponent. that's the point. how can you believe that's wrong but what he did here was right? going forward what matters most? what are the plusses and minuses for each side? most importantly, what are the big questions that remain here? i got a treat for you, the one and only andrew mccabe next. sweet as candy. [daughter laughs] not such a bargain. there's only one quicker picker upper. bounty, the quicker picker upper.

when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. try new pepto liquicaps for fast relief and ultra-coating. nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. get powerful relief with new pepto bismol liquicaps.

all right, let's bring in andrew mccabe, former fbi great. thank you for coming, especially on halloween. the president just gave an interview in which he said i'm contemplating a fireside chat where i read word for word the transcript with the president so everybody can see that it was a clean call and proof that he did nothing wrong, unlike nixon and clinton. do you believe this transcripts, even though as we learned from colonel vindman, it's not complete, there are a couple of things not put in that would be less helpful to the president. do you think it helps him to read it to america? >> it would be fast and interesting to watch and listen to and i'm setting my dvr now in

anticipation. do i think it's a perfect call? no, i don't. and apparently neither do anyone else who was within earshot or on the call. mr. morrison's statement to congress which has been released, even from his own statement, chris, nobody who reads a memo of a call and thinks it's a perfect call then goes running to the attorney for the nsc and says, hey, we can't possibly let this thing leak because it will cost us bipartisan support on ukraine. >> but he didn't think it was illegal. >> he didn't think it was illegal, but that's not really his job. he's a fact witness. nobody is going to morrison for his opinion on whether it was legal or not. and actually what he says he did and what he thought about the call i think clearly transmits how disturbed he was by it. and he says not only that it could affect bipartisan support

but that it would undermine ukrainian perceptions of the u.s.-ukrainian relationships. so in other words, the call was counter to the u.s./ukrainian relationship we were trying to foster. that is i think particularly damagi damaging. >> do you think there is anything that would force republicans to acknowledge that this was wrong behavior? that this was an abuse of power? not necessarily impeachable or worthy of removal but wrong? they won't even say wrong most of the time. >> you know, i think can you have a different republican on the show every night and ask them that same question you just asked representative kelly and they are just not going to answer it because it is an obvious answer and it is also one that directly contradicts what the president -- the line the president wants them to hold. so will they ever be able to kind of pros thcross that rubic publicly admit what happened here was an ai bbuse of power a

shut n should not happen by the president of the united states? the only way of getting there is the public air of the facts by the witnesses themselves as congressman schiff described earlier on the show. >> what is the big question for you going forward? >> you know, we talked about this the other day. i this i thnk that the witnesse all provided a consistent and corroborative account of what happened, what they thought about it, the things they did after they found out about the call, the concerns with gordon sondland's strategy and with giuliani's involvement. all that comes down to the simple fact that everyone involved in this call, everyone who knew about these policy calls was concerned about what was happening here. the question is can the democrats convince the public and the republicans that there is a problem with a president using his office, using his powers of foreign policy for his own political benefit. >> andrew mccabe, you're a gift

on any day, especially halloween. thank you very. >> thank you, chris. >> so one of the other questions here is if they won't even vote to investigate, why would any republican vote to impeach? right? we know the facts don't look good. that's why they're arguing in all these different directions around them. but we have something. we're going to shine a jack-o-ljack-o jack-o-lantern that shows even the president knows he did something wrong next. ures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. introducing new vicks vapopatch

easy to wear, with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy. 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. fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com. corrupt president in our nation's history. when i called for his impeachment two years ago, washington insiders and every candidate for president said it was too soon. but i believed then, as i do now, that doing the right thing was more important than political calculations. and over eight million people agreed.

we proved that there is no challenge that americans can't meet when we work together. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before... with more engineers, more towers, more coverage. it's a network that gives you... with coverage from big cities, to small towns. introducing t-mobile's 600mhz signal.

no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. and it's built 5g ready. 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. all right. president trump asked the president of ukraine to investigate a political rival. he held up to ukraine. he dangled a white house meeting in the exchange. all this we know. and he inserted his personal attorney to motivate his personal political agenda over and over. his own people. in texts and later in testimony have said explicitly, rudy was to be avoided. he was pushing a whacky agenda

and they had concerns about the president exchanging aid for biden. in the face of these facts, trump is doing trump. >> it was a perfect call. an absolutely perfect phone conversation. it was perfect. that was perfect. i made a perfect call. not a good call. a perfect call. >> saying it a lot doesn't make it true. my argument, the president knew it was done. step one. the initial description of the call. >> the conversation i had was largely congratulatory, largely about the corruption taking place, largely the fact that we don't want our people like vice president biden and his son creating the corruption already in the ukraine. >> creating to the corruption? more like trump was creating corruption as a topic when he just wanted the bidens and the

dnc. step two. proof is in the transcript. how many times are the words corrupt or corruption in the call? zero. a week later trump was asked this. >> anything that doesn't involve your opponent? >> you know, we would have to look. >> look in the bag. no candy. even the transcript itself has been manipulated to his advantage. this president told you this. >> this is an exact word for word transcript of the conversation. >> it says right on it that it isn't. now we know from lieutenant colonel vindman that it left out things. when vindman tried to add things back, they were locked out. step three. we see a more ghoulish effort by trump to avoid the facts. politico headline. trump lures gop senators on

impeachment with cold cash. what a few time to boost a few senators. and all those ghosts and goblins he gave money to, they all signed the resolution slamming the inquiry as undemocratic. he's using money to gain leverage over a group of jurors to his corner because he knows he did something wrong. his pals keep saying they want to it be a fair prosecution. do you know what this would be called in a prosecution? jury tampering. he knew what he did. that's why he's done the rest. does a man with a clear conscience do any of these things? and the defense that the president is too dopey to know he was wrong. if that were true, how is he fit to be president if he doesn't know this is wrong? and back to reality, this president already told you all you need to know. he does not believe that it wrong to look to foreign powers. here's the proof from his own

mouth. >> this is somebody that has information on your opponent. oh, let me call the fbi. give me a break. >> the fbi director says that's what should happen. >> the fbi director is wrong. >> no. he is right. you're supposed to act with integrity and ethics and respect for the law. it is a violation to the point of a felony to accept that kind of help from a foreign power. the only question is, who will stand up? especially in the republican party and tell this president what is all too obvious already. what you did was wrong. the rest about impeachment and removal is after facing the facts. that's the argument. it is what "time" magazine calls secretary of offense. rudolph giuliani. the bolo is, he's going down a bad road we've been down before.

but when your team is always dealing with device setups, app updates, and support calls... you can never seem to get anywhere. that's why dell technologies created unified workspace, powered by vmware. ♪ a revolutionary solution that lets you deploy, manage, support and secure all your devices from the cloud. so you can stop going in circles, and start moving forward. my moderate to severe i ulcerative colitis.ing but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep, uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers,

including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. 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. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside

from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today. annoepidemic fueled by juul use with their kid-friendly flavors. san francisco voters stopped the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. but then juul, backed by big tobacco, wrote prop c to weaken e-cigarette protections. the san francisco chronicle reports prop c is an audacious overreach, threatening to overturn the ban on flavored products approved by voters. prop c means more kids vaping. that's a dangerous idea. vote no on juul. no on big tobacco. no on prop c. bolo means be on the

lookout. rudolph giuliani, the president's lawyer and all things ukraine declares of his most important client, he is 100% in my client and loyal to me as i am to him. oh, rue the day. it didn't seem mike a few weeks ago. >> well, i don't know. i haven't spoken to rudy. i spoke to him yesterday briefly. he's a very good attorney and he's been my attorney. >> maybe the president is more confident in his counsel these days. >> he's been a great crime fighter. he's always looking for corruption which is what more people should be doing. he's a good man. >> also known as the bidens. but listen to that. good man. giuliani is now officially part of the compliment club that ended up clobbering the careers of some of those initiated before him. like a lot of guys. so for this bolo, there might

only be one person who should be on the lookout. mr. giuliani. this president believes in fealty. not loyalty. thank you for watching cnn tonight with d lemon starts right now. happy halloween, my brother. let me see what you have on. >> i came dressed as someone asked me tonight. >> don't tell me. dazed and confused. before picture from a picture catalogue. >> i'm going on start calling you kodak. >> i'll take it. kojak. >> no. tonight someone said i went to grab dinner and someone said it's you. i said yes, i'm dressed as don lemon tonight. i was laughing when you came to me because i had the picture of air force one backing up over rudy. if someone said to me, hey, don,