professional ballet jealous with how they pirouette around the question. but now they have new problems. rudy giuliani was in business with bad guys who say they were helping him find dirt on biden. why? now you have meadows and jordan talking after they see these depositions and going to the white house? how can it be okay? we're going to take all of this on. i appreciate seeing you on a friday night and i thank you. everybody, i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." turns out president trump has a couple of guys on the inside. we have new information. some big republican names could be in big trouble. we've got a senior impeachment investigator here and brand-new reporting on a suspicious ukrainian money trail. could it lead back to rudy giuliani? a wild week but you have to see it for what matters, so let's get after it. the way i see it, there are three big headlines.

first, all roads to ruin run through rudy giuliani. and tonight there's a new superhighway of suspicion. according to sources, indicted giuliani associate lev parnas was being bankrolled by a was being bankrolled by a wanted ukrainian oligarch, dmytro firtash. lots and lots of cash right around the time that parnas was giving half a million dollars to giuliani. why? we don't know the connection but it's not good any way you look at it. is this why the feds are examining mr. giuliani's financial records? second, the height of hypocrisy. cnn has learned some of the loudest members of the impeachment resistance, jim jordan, ranking member of the oversight committee and fellow oversight committee member mark meadows. they've been sitting in on all

these closed door depositions. then we find out they're going to the white house. they're accused essentially of pulling a nunez, as in devin, the former head of the intel committee who had to recuse himself for running to trump with committee material. to be fair, jordan tells cnn he's never divulged information to the white house that should not be divulged. meadows says jim jordan and i have tried to abide by the rules as much as we can. i invite both on the show on a regular basis. the white house has not responded to a request for comment, but, look, lawmakers involved in helping craft the president's defense strategy is not good. what could they tell him that is not in public circulation that would be okay? third, a cnn source confirmed lieutenant colonel alexander vindman said he raised concerns about that july 25th call to nsc lawyer john eisenberg, okay,

part of the white house staff. guess what he was told in response? shhh, stay quiet. say nothing. politico who first reported this part of the story said a few days after eisenberg told vindman, allegedly, shh, his team moved the transcript to the highly classified server and again told vindman, don't tell anyone about the call. eisenberg was subpoenaed tonight. he's scheduled to testify monday. simple question. why tell vindman shhh and then move the transcript into a secret server if the call was so the perfect? what does this all mean in terms of the scope of how the democrats see impeachment? all right. so we got a great guest for that tonight. we're going to talk to one of the senior members of the house foreign affairs committee, congressman gregory meeks of new york. great to have you here. thanks for waiting for me right at the desk.

i hope i didn't bore you. how could you be bored by this? let's start with the last. vindman said, i went to the white house to see eisenberg and said i have big problems with this and he was told say nothing. if true, relevance? >> a big problem. because then you're looking at a cover-up that goes straight to the heart of the matter. i've sat in on part of that testimony so i'm not going to talk about that, but that's why soon transcripts will be let and the public will be able to see for themselves and there will be public hearings on that based upon what we've heard in a private setting. >> is there a good reason for an nsc lawyer to tell somebody who says he's concerned about the call, shh? >> no good reason, other than you don't want it out. and what's been consistent is individuals have cooperated. what the whistle-blower said in the beginning and what ambassador taylor has said that

has been consistent throughout the testimony as known from the facts of the opening statements that have been revealed to the general public. >> so jordan and meadows, it seems like a flashback to nunez to me. we'll find out through the details what it is. but what is okay to tell the subject of an overnight committee investigation about a closed-door deposition in that investigation? >> there is nothing okay -- >> how about general contours? >> there is nothing okay. that's why they've come up with this cover-up scheme. what has happened, in any investigation, generally it is secretive so that one witness cannot hear what the other witness is testifying to so that you try to get a drive at the truth. can get a drive at the truth. >> but he's the president. can't he get a taste? >> no, especially when he is a subject to the investigation. >> it's all political and these guys believe in him. >> then again, he shouldn't be in the room. if they want to violate what's supposed to happen in the room, then they should not be in the room.

and then they go out and try to say that there's no republicans in the room participating when in fact in that room there are always republicans, an equal amount as democrats and they have the equal amount of time to ask each and every witness a question. >> and obviously jordan and meadows have been in the room and 47 members of the republicans party who are investigating the impeachment. you say the coverup, what are you referring to? >> it seems there's two sides. number one, we've heard from the president's own mouth what he did. we heard from his acting chief of staff that there was a quid pro quo. but then at the same time you see the president says he wants his side out, he wants his witnesses to testify. but who is the one person that's trying to block and asking people not to come to testify? >> the president. >> the president. we're saying we want the president's people to come. we're trying to drive for the truth. the president is the only one

trying to prevent folks, telling folks not to come to testify. >> so how bad is what jordan and meadows did given that nunez did something that's every bit what they acknowledge and then some and nothing happened to him. he voluntarily recused. >> i think what's going to happen here is that when we move to unveil what the transcripts say and have this open testimony and the american people get a chance to actually see, listen and verify for themselves the voracity of these individuals to testify. the people that i heard, i want the american people to hear it. >> people said the same thing with mueller. when he came up, he was a dud. no disrespect but he didn't move the needle. >> mueller, i think we got to look at that and what he did. i think it was substantial when you read his words. when you talk about patriots, like ambassador taylor, like mr.

vindman, these are people who they don't care about democrat, republican or independent. >> you think seeing is believing? >> absolutely. it's compelling testimony. >> the last one, rudy giuliani. now, i'm not making any allegations, but the two people that he was paid by that he was undoubtedly working with and trying to find dirt for the president were guys under indictment right now. now we learn that one of them was getting a lot of money from a ukrainian big shot oligarch, which usually means you got connections to russia and we don't know why. the story with this guy firtash and parnas, who is under indictment for working with the guy with giuliani was paid for an interpreter interpreters get private jets, security, hundreds of thousands in cash. at the same time it goes to the giuliani and the fbi is taking a look at giuliani's money records, what does it mean to you? >> it means again -- i add this. you look at the president of the united states, who has instructed giuliani and others,

i want you to talk to this president, i want you to talk to the ukrainians, i want you to make sure that you get information on biden, which then goes to show that, one, as nancy pelosi has said over and over again, all roads lead back to putin but, number two, it goes to the president's abuse of power, the president who withheld the dollars that hurt national security by holding dollars that our ally needed to protect against our russian enemy, as well as the president violating his oath by trying to get a foreign government involved in our 2020 elections and is utilizing giuliani and those individuals who are indicted. again, remember, if you just go through the entire trump administration, how many of his people are now in jail or have been convicted? it is a criminal conspiracy that you can see that's taking place with the president up top trying to say there was no quid pro quo on one hand when clearly he says, well, there's no quid pro

quo using the word but then says he's demanding that the president comes out, president zelensky comes out and makes a statement and public record, otherwise he's holding the money. so it seems clear to me that there is a coverup. i warn folks that's close to the president that don't want to tell the truth, everybody close to richard nixon, except richard nixon, went to jail. and i think that when you start hearing individuals testifying and if they're not telling the truth, they're in danger themselves of going to jail. >> are you talking about anybody in particular? >> well, one rudy giuliani. >> he hasn't testified yet. we'll see. >> congressman, thank you so much. appreciate it. very heady allegations. all right, if we're going to talk about breaking news and what matters, the congressman said nancy pelosi, all roads run down to putin. but for sure we know rudy giuliani is in the middle of all of this this in terms of the

dividing line between this just being a legitimate interest in corruption by the president. if it was, why did he try to get in information in such illegitimate ways? this new information about who rudy giuliani was working with and who they were working with is a big deal. we're going to bring in one of our intrepid reporters who broke the story. no one knows more than she. vicky ward, next. the new $3 little john from jimmy john's is just like our original sandwiches...only littler...so we bought a little ad...on lil jon. little johns, yeah! $3, what?! 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. my bladder leak underwear.orried someone might see so, i switched. to always discreet boutique. its shape-hugging threads smooth out the back. so it fits better than depend. and no one notices. always discreet.

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. they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

when insurance is affordable, i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪

♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ all right. now we knew already that the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, is having his financial ties examined by federal investigators. that probe is sure to look at the half million dollars that giuliani was paid, we don't know what for, but we know when, in the fall of 2018 by a man named lev parnas, one of his two associates arrested last month on campaign finance charges.

now we have reporting from our vicky ward. it takes a closer look at parnas and where his money was coming from he may have used to pay rudy. the source? a ukrainian oligarch suspected of having ties to the russian mob. thank you for coming in on short notice on a friday night. and firtash, the ukrainian oligarch, is sought by the united states on a bribery investigation. already, having nothing to do with this. >> for five years. >> they've been looking for him. >> yes. >> you have firtash, ukrainian oligarch, exiled in vienna. the number one thing he does not want is to be extradited to america. what he was looking to do this summer, chris, was change lawyers. his lawyer for the last five years has been lanny davis, democrat. he was looking for a lawyer with ties to the trump

administration. he meets lev parnas, who, as we know and we've reported, has become very close to mayor giuliani, has paid mayor giuliani and in return has tried to sell access to giuliani in exchange for money from foreigners with ties to ukraine. >> we think he took them to other trump-friendly lawyers. >> i believe that parnas says to firtash let me introduce you to joe and victoria. >> his wife. >> yes. both great friends of giuliani and great friends of the attorney general, bill barr. thanks to parnas, firtash hires joe and victoria. >> and gets them a meeting. >> and gets them the meet with the ag. >> now, until now, they claimed that parnas' only role in this

was as a humble interpreter. but what my reporting shows with my colleagues at cnn is that suddenly this summer, parnas was flush with cash and bragging that his new expenses, he had 24/7 bodyguards, he was chartering six flights up and down the east coast, one of which rudy giuliani was on. he was saying all of these expenses are being paid by firtash. he starts hustling energy magnates for deals he said he's going to do behalf of firtash. so then the question becomes, chris, is giuliani the pawn now for a ukrainian oligarch who is using him to buy influence at the highest level of our government? >> and why was rudy giuliani ution someone like parnas.

we don't know why parnas was paying him but why was he using parnas, frumman and a couple of other guys to look for dirt on biden if it was just a legitimate option? >> that's right but said they kept promising giuliani information on biden and they promised him connections on biden and giuliani has been driven. i think his circle would say, sometimes to the point of madness over his quest to find dirt on joe biden and hunter biden. >> vicki ward, this is such important reporting because this general notion of pushback to the impeachment allegations is the president was just doing something in the public interest, but, boy, did he avoid the normal channels. thank you so much for the reporting. appreciate it. let us know when you have more. >> oh, i will. two of the president's chief

defenders. another big headline. they've been going to these closed-door depositions. then they've been going to the white house to talk to lawyers to help craft the president's defense. is that okay? let's put it to cuomo's court and a couple of other big issues next. ♪ born to be wild... born to be wild...♪ 25 cent boneless wings at applebee's. get 'em while they're hot. introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear, with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy. 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. 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.

is just like our originalhn sandwiches...only i have this number. 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.

so we've got republicans listening to depositions, their right, and then consulting with white house lawyers, which seems very wrong. we have several witnesses attesting to the fact that there was a concerted effort to keep the call quiet amid vast concern of a potential bribe. so where does that leave the

defense strategy? cuomo's court is in session. asha rangappa and harmit dylan, let's have a session called "is that okay?" asha, let's start with jordan and meadows. i call this pulling a nunes. they listen to the deposition, then go the white house and say we did nothing wrong. could they do something that's okay here? >> i think it really violates the integrity of the process if they are coordinating with the president's lawyers. this is a quasi judicial proceeding. just like the fbi or doj prosecutors wouldn't be consulting with investigators or a legal team, they shouldn't be doing this. this does undercut the criticism that the president has not had a chance to have his lawyers

present in the hearings. if basically jordan and meadows are acting as proxies or extensions of trump's legal team, they've been there and they've been to all the hearings and they've been there to act on his behalf. so i think that criticism goes out the window. my biggest question is why does trump not have a real legal team? i mean, these are not -- as far as i know mark meadows is not a lawyer, jim jordan does have a law degree but he'd not be the person i would be depending on if i was the president. he needs some serious lawyers not crabbe and goil from "harry potter." >> rudy's a little busy. i don't want to litigate whether or not the president should have representation because these are depositions. during clinton there was no representation by the president. open hearings are a different question.

my question from asha to you, if jordan and meadows go from deposition to white house to consult, how is it okay? >> first of all, chris and asha, you actually don't know what is being said there. what we do know is what's coming out of those depositions is a lot of leaking by democrats and what's been reported and including by your network is what these two members of congress on the republican side are doing to the extent that they can publicly is pushing back on the false narrative being painted by adam schiff and his cronies and saying the way they spun that testimony publicly isn't quite right, isn't quite true. second, with respect to this being a so-called quasi judicial proceeding, that's really not true either. in a quasi judicial proceeding, i was in court today in front of a jury, i know what one is. >> i know what one is and i've never been in front of a jury. >> there are separate roles for a grand jury who are not sitting

and judging, who are not the prosecutor and are not a political body. the impeachment inquiry is not a court and not a jury. that's a false premise. >> harmeet, i've got to check you right there. >> you let asha go on and on. >> but she didn't say anything that offends the facts. >> and pretend like the president is looking for lawyers among the members of congress who are sitting there. he isn't. he has lawyers. lawyers are not permitted there. that is correct. but i'm sure it's illegitimate for adam schiff to go out there and leak selectively and spin and tell lies. to the extent these members of congress are pushing back and the political process, totally legitimate. >> you're making assumptions about him leaking. >> you wouldn't have a show if he weren't leaking. all cnn is full of the leaks -- >> are you saying these witnesses haven't provided testimony before they went in? the answer is yes.

so don't say what you don't know. >> that's not what the leaks are. >> your network is full of leak information. >> you want to talk about leaks and talk about something you don't know, let's talk about the same point but what we do know. what we do know is this, i can prove it right now and you can prove nothing of what you've said except to speculate. jordan and meadows both admit they've gone to the white house after depositions to talk to white house counsel about the general contours of what's happening in the room. how is that okay? >> nothing wrong with that. >> how is that okay with a congress member with oversight responsibilities to talk to the subject being investigated about what they may have on him? >> the one on your show last night is talking about what's going on in that room all over washington and so are many other democrats who are spinning this. so there's nothing wrong with pushing back on false narratives. >> then why did nunes have to recuse himself? >> that's a different investigation. let's not mix apples and oranges. >> how? it was the select committee. >> nunes did not have to recuse himself. he chose to recuse himself.

let's not tell lies here either. >> why did he recuse himself? >> if you accuse him of lying on this show you better back it up. >> asha, get in here. >> courts and scholars have characterized impeachment proceedings as a quasi judicial proceeding. it's analogous in many ways. >> even if it was just congressional oversight. >> exactly, it's basically -- >> it doesn't matter. it's not relevant. go ahead. >> the bigger question here, chris, you know, and i'm speaking from the perspective of the president, if they're responding to every little leak and how are you going to defend this, i mean, the big legal problem here is that it seems to me that the president does not have a legal theory of the case. he should be grounding his defense in, you know, some kind of constitutional argument. i mean, even president nixon's argument was if you're the president, it's legal. he has nothing like that.

he doesn't have any kind of serious theory that is coming out. it's just throwing spaghetti against the wall, and now you have this -- the latest, which is after there was no quid pro quo, now it's, there was a quid pro quo but, you know, it's not so bad. these are not serious defenses and i don't think he fully understands the magnitude of the legal jeopardy that he is facing, even if not in this proceeding, in the court of public even. >> harmeet, what is the best defense of framing what happened between the united states president and the ukrainian president as a bribe? >> the best defense is that trance crypt and what the ukrainian president has said about it. there is no quid pro quo. there was no impeachable offense. >> you ukrainian president said there's no pressure. >> the ukraine president didn't even know that the president was considering holding up aid, like he does, by the way, with most countries. >> that's not true. that's not true. >> fine. that is what's out there that i

know and in terms of there being a dfrefense, there's no defenseo be had yet because this is just an investigation. when there's time for a defense, i can assure you that there are plenty of lawyers working on this right now. >> all right. i appreciate -- >> bill taylor's opening statement twice mentions that the ukrainians were incredibly concerned that the aid was being withheld. they fully understood that it was being withheld as these negotiations for having a meeting and for making a public announcement about an investigation into the bidens were happening, unless the allegation is that bill taylor was lying. >> but harmeet's point is we're not in the trial phase. this is the investigatory phase. when they open it to hearings and we get to hear and see these things for ourselves and the president should have defense in there -- >> but the premise of her defense is wrong. >> which i'm fine with. >> there's no defense yet. there's a process we aren't there yet. >> i'm fine with that. i don't think the members of congress should be walking over to the white house.

they have their own job to do. i appreciate you doing your job here tonight, harmeet. you're welcome back on the show. asha, thank you for delaying the vacation and coming on the show. enjoy yourself and be well. >> thank you chris. >> thank you both. have a good weekend. we heard from a top democrat in congress. ahead, got to get the other side. a gop congressman in lock step with the president. what do he make of colleagues working with the white house? is he all right with that? what does he make of these latest developments? you're going to hear it next. the in-laws have moved in with us. and our adult children are here. so we save by using tide. which means we use less. three generations of clothes cleaned in one wash. anybody seen my pants? #1 stain and odor fighter, #1 trusted. it's got to be tide.

oh! you got a fast one there just can't get him to slow down this class will help with that we get it... you got it! we're petsmart! they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. 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. i must admit. i had a few good tricks to help hide my bladder leak pad. like the old "tunic tug". you know it, right? but i don't have to, with always discreet. i couldn't believe the difference. it's less bulky. and it really protects. watch this. the super absorbent core turns liquid and odor to gel, and locks it away. so i have nothing to hide. always discreet. for bladder leaks.

it takes a village to raise to build a bridge. to throw a baseball... to throw yourself into the unknown. to lose fear, to create hope. we believe that it takes a village of over 200-thousand dedicated, passionate, driven medical and non-medical professionals to deliver on our belief in total health for all. we are kaiser permanente. thrive.

so what do we make of this situation, the president's proxies in congress doing double duty? investigating him as the constitution provides and then going to the white house to give guidance? it has to raise questions, especially if you're going to scream about the integrity of the process. let's bring in texas republican randy weber. welcome back to "prime time." i know you had a hard time getting here tonight. i know an accident was involved. thank god you're okay and thank you for continuing on your way here. god bless and i wish you a safe rest of the weekend. >> thank you, chris. >> thanks for making the trip. so meadows and jordan. here's the concern. it doesn't seem right for one of you guys to go from your oversight capacity to the

executive branch, whom you're overseeing, and talking about what you saw and heard in a closed door deposition. how is that okay? >> you know, chris, it's interesting that the president's not allowed any representation in this process. his lawyers can't be in the room. he's not allowed to confront the so-called whistle-blower, the witness against him, and you all want to -- people want to complain about mark meadows and jim jordan going to the white house. you have to trust their integrity just as much as you, i guess, people would say trust adam schiff's integrity, who has leaked a lot of things, spoke to the whistle-blower ahead of time, has absolutely controlled the situation to where republicans can't be in the room. we had to basically break into one of the rooms awhile back. we're not allowed transcripts. we can read the transcripts, as long as we have a democrat staffer watching us. we don't get access to the

process and mark and jim, who have been in most of the hearings, you people assume that they're doing something improper because they speak to the white house, yet adam schiff can do everything he wants, hold up the process, keep republicans out, keep the public at bay. the president doesn't get due process and he's not questioned about that. talk about a double standard, chris. >> i hear all of it. i was making notes as we went along because i didn't want to interrupt you. my rebuttal questions to you are, number one, this is a deposition, not a hearing. the president, nor clinton and even nixon early on, no president has ever had representation inside a deposition. henry hyde did over a hundred of these. clinton never had an attorney in any because it's the investigatory phase, point one. point two, you guys have people in all of them. you had people in the room, in the scif when the gates gang

busted in there. you had republicans in there. you never answered my question. the president's not supposed to have representation at a deposition at this point. why is it okay for a member of congress to go from their oversight role to go to advise the president on a defense strategy? >> you're making an assumption that somehow they're saying improper things to the white house? >> how could they not? if they're saying anything, how could it be anything proper? if it's anything beyond what's public, how is it okay? >> that's the major problem with this entire process in my view is they're assuming what the president meant on a phone call, although he didn't say it, the ukrainian president didn't believe it was any kind of quid pro quo. people are thinking there was an improper motive. >> the ukrainian president said he wasn't pressure. he never say there wasn't a quid pro quo. >> they're wanting to impeach

the president for their interpretation of imposing upon him their belief, their attitude and now here people are trying to do it with mark meadows and jim jordan. >> i don't want to impugn them. i asked them both on the show, to be honest. i love having you on, but obviously, i'd love to have the people who are the direct subject of the allegations. i'm all about hearing why they did it. they say they went from the legislative to the executive, two separate branches of government, one with oversight over the other and they say provided general contours of an understanding of what happened in the deposition to help the white house defense. i don't understand. it's certainly not in the constitution to do that. why is it okay? >> let me ask you this question, chris. do you realize that members of congress go into classified briefings all the time? >> yes. >> and by law we're not supposed to reveal what's in those classified briefings. >> true. >> i'm sorry? >> true. in the affirmative.

>> and so members of congress are counted on to do the right thing every single day of their lives basically. >> yes. >> and just because jim jordan and mark meadows said it on these hearings and they go and sit down with the president, are they automatically guilty of doing something wrong? it's what they're accusing the president of. he's automatic guilty of doing something wrong. he's assumed guilty, not innocent. he's guilty. >> i think it would be very wrong to do that. when politicians do it, it's a political process, but it's wrong even then. this is just the investigatory phase. i and you and a lot of other people are waiting for the hearings to make their judgment of whether this even rises to the level of an article of impeachment. but that still doesn't answer my question. >> i don't agree with your -- chris, i don't agree with your last comment. >> how so? >> that people are going to wait to the hear,s. the democrats have already judged this president as guilty. they've been looking for ways to

impeach him since day one. one commentator said we've got to impeach him because we're afraid he'll get reelected. >> did they make the president offer a bribe to the president of ukraine and insert his lawyer to work with these shady guys who have connections to a ukrainian oligarch to look for dirt on biden? did they make him do that? >> this president never offered a bribe. the president of ukraine wanted help in cleaning up corruption. here's a couple things you want to look into. it's not president trump fault that joe and hunter biden got caught up -- >> if he wanted to look at biden, you and i both know the proper channel is to go the atf or dea, not give them a shadow. it's not his fault in a the bidens were part of that. >> it's not his fault the bidens

were part of that. >> the only corruption that you think president zelenskiy is concerned about corruption in his country had to do with biden and the dnc? he said giuliani told me about your interest in the dnc and in biden. >> did you read the transcript? >> yes, many times. i think i might even have it. oh, here it is. >> as i have, too, sitting in my notebook on my lap. i will tell you president zelensky mentions it first, he commends president trump for dealing with corruption over here. he asks for help in ukraine. >> yes. >> now i don't care if -- >> he asked for help with missiles. >> you don't get to pay for play, you don't get to have -- sell your influence. >> first of all, yes, you do. congressman, of course you do. you were allowed even when you worked for the united states government to cut personal deals for advantage, even while you're doing the job for the u.s. government. it must be legal because the president's daughter is doing it right now.

ivanka trump representing the u.s. government went to china and got a bunch of patents right when she was meeting with president xi. so isn't it okay? >> just another example of anti-trumpism. >> how is that okay? >> the president's family has been involved in business around the world for a long time. >> so you can keep doing it while you work in the u.s. government? so you can keep -- >> so -- they can make business, they can do business, they can make money while they're working for the u.s. government. >> really? >> they're not selling -- >> absolutely they can. >> wow, i didn't know that. >> if you have business interests around the world before you get in office, getting in office doesn't preclude you from making money. >> so being congressman, if you had a business beforehand, so you can take a meeting and say, by the way, before i talk to you about this policy, i'd love to get a new contract for my shipping company. i didn't know you could do that. >> there you go at it again. i'm being facetious.

we know you can't do it. we know ivanka trump did it. i got a whole read out on it. >> you are literally hitting at the heart of what's wrong with this impeachment process. >> the hypocrisy of it. >> the democrats are assuming guilt before innocence. >> congressman, i'm saying if you're upset about what biden's son did and i think i'm one of the few people on television who said i don't like what his son did. i think it's wrong and i think the vp knows and that's why he wants to change the rules if he gets to be president. i'm saying the idea that this president was worried about it going on in ukraine but he ignored normal channels, ignores corruption in his own administration, ignores it in his own family and uses his lawyer to do a shadow operation to get it done with two wise guys who wind up getting indicted. doesn't sound like the most legit thing. >> none of that's true, chris. >> it's all true. >> this president was having a

conversation with another president. you're assuming he's guilty before -- >> he said, do us a favor and asked for him to look into the bidens and talk to mr. giuliani. >> the president of ukraine asked president trump for help in cleaning up the swamp. >> not with the bidens. >> again, it's not president trump's fault that the bidens were in a pay for play -- >> only reason the bidens came up is because giuliani asked the ukraine government to reopen the case. i appreciate the zealousness, especially on a night you were almost in a car accident. so god bless you. thank you for coming here. have a good weekend. i'll see you again. >> chris, it's good to be here and to hear your opinion. good night. >> it's just an observation on the facts. but, listen, got to keep the dialogue going because you people are going to have to make two different decisions. was this wrong? and should it be punished? now, how hard is that? zero republicans. weber is not unusual.

zero voted to move forward with the impeachment inquiry, even though the rules, the ones they made up for clinton. why? because we've got a tough task. and by we, i actually mean the democrats. and i think they're in a hard jam and i'll tell you why, next. macramé!

macramé! 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. 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. at bayer, we're more than we help farmers like john. by developing digital tools, so he can use less water to grow crops. at bayer, this is why we science. whwhat do you see?he world, we see patterns. relationships. when you use location technology, you can see where things happen,

before they happen. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ i see two tasks for the democrats. first, they have to show that the president abused his power by trying to bribe ukraine's president, that is, the offering, giving, soliciting or receiving any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. this is at worst an attempted bribe, as listed in the constitution as reasons for impeachment and, at best, a possible felony violation of the federal election law. so here's the proof. the call transcript is a blatant ask by trump for a favor of investigating biden after ukraine asked for more help and a meeting. the aid being held up by trump.

the meeting being dangled. that's both sides of it. the rudy factor screams abuse of power. using that blunt instrument to frustrate normal channels and insist on poison political benefit for this president in the form of a public statement condemning biden. so probing the facts of wrongdoing and abuse and even bribery may not be the most daunting aspect for the democrats. that takes me to the second task, convincing americans that this presidential perfidy warrants removal. why? there will be no power in bipartisanship. the impeachment vote shows that. every interview i do shows that. here we have even more hardened battle lines than there were for clintons. you know in that case 31 democrats moved to impeachment. goose egg from the gop yesterday. and the only factor that might shake fealty to the president on the right is fear of the voters. but let's think about that. it would seem many people see the wrong but also see it as part of an industry standard

sadly. look at the last three years. promises, expectations of smoking guns and gotchas as implications of the end of trump, and it never came close to true. many see a president who will push the limits to win, but apparently almost as many -- and i'm talking about the half of independents who don't favor impeachment, not just left and right. they see this as just more of the same in a dirty game. dems go low to get trump. he goes low to get them. so why should one side use the rules they seem to abuse to get the other side for abuse? now, i hear you. you're screaming false equivalency, and maybe you're right. but if that opposite feeling is so baseless, why are the polls so split? so the question becomes how do you convince people that they should want to see politics cleaned up, especially when the people trying to convince them of that, the democrats, are seen as part of the problem? now, the right may not want to

admit it, but the facts are clear. and the left needs to be clear about their challenge. of course the current ukraine gate is a clear instance of potential abuse of office and the duty for them is clear to investigate it. alexander hamilton said exactly that in the federalist papers. this is what he was talking about being a problem. but how do you get the people to believe in removing a problem when they see both sides of this process as part of the problem? that's my argument. really a question. now to the bolo. i want you to be on the lookout for trump's 2020 campaign playbook that may be 2016 all over again and then some. why? next. super emma just about sleeps in her cape. but when we realized she was battling sensitive skin, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it's gentle on her skin, and dermatologist recommended.

tide free & gentle. safe for skin with psoriasis and eczema. 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. oh! you got a fast one there just can't get him to slow down

this class will help with that we get it... you got it! we're petsmart! 25 cent boneless wings at applebee's. ♪ born to be wild... born to be wild...♪ get 'em while they're hot. saturpain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. says they can save you dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. cheerio! esurance is built to save you dollars. and when they save dollars, you save dollars. so get a quote. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, - 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. 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. 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. be on the lookout. sources tell cnn the president's administration is considering adding more countries to the travel ban. yup. same ban that's already been through three iterations because it unlawfully discriminated against muslims. why? the play is to boost the base and hope they forget that they didn't get the boost of the promised 3% growth that that tax cut was supposed to bring to justify its deficit-busting nature. thanks for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon now. >> what's happening, sir? >> how are you? >> i'm good. you're right. a lot of things are going to happen. he's going to go back to old tricks. he, you know, does it -- there's a big rally tonight, doing the same thing. the lock her up thing backfired on him, so let's see what else he's going to pull out of his you know what. arsenal. >> look, he's