4. she lived to 7. 7 was her amount of years. what she was given. we had that and that's what we had with her and there is, no matter how families are put together and no matter how families come apart, this, i have come to believe is true. you cannot lose a child. >> if you want to watch the full interview, cnn.com/fullcircle. watch it every day streaming live 5:00 p.m. eastern. go to chris cuomo for "prime time." >> thank you. welcome to "prime time." opening day of this impeachment inquiry is one week away. we know who's going to testify and when but that is not what matters tonight. we have a good taste with the first public witness, that they will say. we have the transcript from his closed door testimony. we also have breaking news on something that this president reportedly asked of the attorney

general and it was a big ask, and it got a no. what do you say about that? let's get after it. big news tonight. and no holds barred during mueller because he went all-out to protect this president. we have the transcript of what bill taylor the top diplomat in ukraine told lawmakers in his closed door testimony on october 22nd. this is no longer about what people tell us that he said. we know what he said. i'm going to take you to the

wall now and give you highlights. the big deal is it that teller corroborates the ideas of a corrupt exchange which democrats argue could be an attempted bribe. the proof? release of military aid to ukraine contingent on a public announcement the country would pursue an investigation against the bidens and hacking of the dnc. "that was my clear understanding. security assistance money would not come until the president committed to pursue the investigation." taylor also confirms, it was all about politics. i understood that the reason for investigating burisma was to cast vice president biden in a bad light. cast biden in a bad light. that's the key part. what was the condition to investigate burisma coming from? who was telling him to? what i know is that the direction was coming from giuliani. he said, now, in testimony,

under cross, really. he said that, well, i think i read it in the "new york times" about what giuliani -- that's not compelling. here's the thing. the president's personal lawyer tweeted today that he did all of this on behalf of president trump. "the investigation i conducted concerning 2016 ukrainian collusion and corruption was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges." back to taylor. he called the quid pro quo crazy, in those texts we got from volker. another name in the mix. further explaining to investigators why he thought that was wrong. he said, "if the united states were to ask ukraine to investigate an apparent violation of ukrainian law, that would be improper." wrong, crazy. we're hearing that from a lot of

people in the president's own administration. what do we have no you? at least four witnesses corroborated with what they call a quid pro quo. which is really just a corrupt deal. all right? you got taylor. you got lieutenant colonel alexander zinman. the nfc top expert on that july 25th phone call between presidents trump and zelensky. another national security official who heard that from the president's mouth, mr. tim morrison. last, certainly not least, gordon sondland. remember him? he just revised his testimony after his memory was "refreshed" by other witnesses. so what does he admit now? oh, yeah. there was this exchange. i now do recall, he says. revealing he personally delivered the demand to one of zelensky's aides that ukraine would not get military money unless it committed to investigating one of the

president's top political opponents. he's a trump pal. turned u.s. ambassador to the e urks, that was the speculation as to why the testimony seemed a little light. and there is another reason you do these things in quiet, right, he didn't have a chance to know what was said about him until it came out. and what if he had time to prepare? what does this all say about the impeachment defense? let's bring in big time investigators. what jumps out? >> so many things. almost daunting to keep up with the revelations coming out of the transcripts every day. him rethinking his prior testimony and providing the direct connection that he in

fact did the demand to the ukrainians that no security money would be provided. the big question for me with him was we still haven't pinned down exactly on whose direction was he acting. so he is taking active steps, as early as june 27th, in conversations in meetings certainly saying the white house would be held up until the investigations were announced publicly. then they started looking on the statement. as early as the end of june, he is kind of the pointy edge of the sphere in terms of pushing this strategy with ukrainians. and i'm not sure that anyone, if they had, i haven't read it yet, if any one has pinned him down

to see where did you get that strategy. >> we'll talk about it. but before the president asking the ag, goes to what we said before, put out a statement, i didn't do anything wrong here. what's the implication? >> well, the implication is, i think, that the president saw the difficulty that he was in, and he was looking for help. he was quite aware, i think, everybody was aware of it, the attorney general had come out with the press conference right after the mueller report was released and that had a very significant impact on how the public perceived the mueller report. >> but is it wrong to ask? >> is it wrong to ask? is it criminal? is it unethical or unmoral? no, i don't think so. is it breaking norms, yes, substantially. because he's asking the ag to publicly clear him in order to have effect on the public. >> i think what's indicative you have barr saying no, reportedly

and also saying no to the lawyers who are friends certainly of the president, that j giuliani may have hooked up with him to help the russian. look, i know people at home i'm throwing so many names at you but get used to it because this is our new vocabulary. let's take a quick break, when we come back, there is more information. the missing link critical to the plot is this guy sunlen because he's a trump pal. how did he remember there was a quid pro quo. >> what does that mean what's going on for the president, next. [sneeze and sniffles] are you ok? yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure.

most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure.

♪'cause no matter how far away for you roam.♪ys.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

for all of the heroes who serve us, t-mobile is here to help serve them. that's why we're offering 50% off family lines for military, veterans and first responders. so they can stay connected, on our newest, most powerful signal ever. and now, we are also offering half off our top samsung phones for military, veterans and first responders. our service is just one way we say thank you... for theirs.

performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ [ soft piano music playing ] mm, uh, what do you do for fun? -not this. ♪ -oh, what am i into? mostly progressive's name your price tool. helps people find coverage options based on their budget. flo has it, i want it, it's a whole thing, and she's right there. -yeah, she's my ride. this date's lame. he has pics of you on his phone. -they're very tasteful. all right.

we're back with mccabe and baker of fbi pedigree. but our job here is to simplify things. i'm throwing all these names at you. i get that it becomes soup. bill taylor, all right, is the top diplomate in ukraine, one of the big pieces to fall into in sight what's going on and collective concern. but we have some new advance on that. lieutenant inmain. trump saying not a patriot and then pulled back. nsc russia adviser tim morrison very important with taylor because taylor believed a lot of what he did because of his discussions with morris. and then the big man gordon sunlen. beyond reproach as someone going after his friend, which is a donor, but as the ambassador to

eu and asked to come in and help. the name fer tash, that is a ukrainian big shot. wanted in the u.s. right now for criminal investigation. parness is one of those two guys working with rudy who got indicted the other day. parness hooked up fer tash with these two lawyers, high powered lawyers, and they actually got a meeting with the attorney general. how? why? i don't know that it had anything to do with rudy giuliani but certainly part of the mix. those are the names. now, andrew and jim, the big change here that we want to start with is sunlen. right. sunlen winds up changing his testimony. now, what is the chance, in your experience, andrew, that you forget that, oh, yeah, yeah, there actually was a straight deal here and i'm the guy who offered it? >> you know, look, it's not

unusual for people who give testimony and then after the fact review that testimony and make minor changes to it. >> is this minor? >> i don't know. this is the question. this was a direct manner was questioned about thoroughly. and he comes in and his recollection has been refreshed, apparently, by hearing the other witnesses testify and he remembers having this conversation with andrew in which he essentially conveyed the quid provo we've been talking about for weeks. it's remarkable but i think what it shows u chris, chris, as the pressure builds on these witnesses and more and more people are put under oath, you'll see folks testify more protectively and be potentially more forthcoming in their recollections what they did because nobody wants to get

caught. >> that's why they do the depositions in private, assuming there won't be leaking, it's hard to coordinate testimony this was proof. no small coincidence the one closest to the president is the one that forgot to testify to the most important factor. jim, let me ask you this, taylor, everyone is talking about this will be a big deal when he testifies. why? he didn't have direct evidence or any kind of direct dealings with the president about this. he goes to the concern, he goes to how unorthodox this was. he goes to the rudy bails him out and said on the show yeah i had to ask about biden. so taylor is only as good as rudy has been. fair point? >> so, the way i'm thinking about taylor right now, and we still have to see more of these facts and testimony from next week. he seems like the lynch pin to

all this. he links everything together the two pieces and sees a lot going on on both sides and trying to figure out what it all means. and i think he has this credibility and this background that makes him so believable. so, anyway, so i see him as a critical piece in all this. >> right. you have. >> that's really interesting question here, chris. they knew what the strategy was. they knew what they had to get from the ukraine ands in order to deliver the meeting. so how did they know that? all indications so far is they were likely getting that

direction from rudy. the problem is, based on his own comments to you and his twitter comments, arudy is saying he di at the behest of the president. acting as the president's personal representative. so i don't see how the democrats will have a hard time attributing rudy's direction, if in fact he gave that direction to them, back to the president. >> now, you take everybody pointing pointing rudy now becomes more transparent in the transcripts and he keeps saying mr. giuliani he was acting for his client the president. you combine that ag saying no, i'm not going to say you did anything wrong on this, and those are big moment ns the state of our narrative. andrew, jim, always a plus. thank you very much. >> thanks, chris. >> all right. >> thanks. >> so, from the beginning, the white house has been talking about transparency.

get it out. forget about the quiet depositions you saw with sondland why we fwheneeded them. where are the transcripts? are they out. is it good for the president? that's hard to argue that. is this really best debated whether nothing here was wrong? isn't there a better way forward? let's talk to someone who knows the president know. take a quick break. let's come back. let's get after it. by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. and get your interest rate right. so you can save big. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k. 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. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ 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. ♪

>> this is cnn. the most trusted name in news. all right. our next guest comes at this situation two ways, calls the impeachment inquiry nothing more than a political act. but he is one of the only trump

supporters to acknowledge that the president did something wrong in this situation. how we reconcile the two? what is the way forward here? chris ruddy is back with us tonight. close friends of president trump and ceo of news max. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> what is your answer? you believe the president did on the call or with the president of ukraine was wrong,/inappropriate? why? >> well, you use the word wrongmewrong. i never use the word wrong. but i don't think it was the best political thing to dochlt i don't think he committed any crime. but i don't think he should have mentioned by den mention mentioned b i.d. mentioned by dens name in the kaurl. the whole witnesses they cleared him all because they claimed there was russian collision. so i've always been very

consistent, chris, i don't think people should be vetted criminally unless there is an evidence of a crime. there is no evidence that biden committed a crime. but i have said the president has a legal right as the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, to say he would like something investigated. there is nothing wrong with that. >> right. >> i don't think it's politically appropriate. >> i hear you. not to walk too far backwards. but the reason we had mueller was the result of a process they saw that was suspicious activity. >> what was the m.s.? there was no evidence? there was no russian collision. there was 400 pages going on. >> i don't want to get caught up in what people can read for themselves. we know russia intd feared. very ambitious contacts in attempt to get close to the campaign and some to get into

wikileaks. that is not what a campaign is supposed to do. >> one of the things we agree with the president why was this whole dnc server hacked? why don't you investigate if there was any angel from the ukrainian side? >> why. there is no proof from their side. >> well, there has been some chatter there was. and either ukrainian certainly leaked things in the campaign. >> russian intelligence. >> campaign manager paul man fort. >> look, manafort put it out there. hold out, he put out the word, chris. >> do you remember the ledgers that came out? >> yes. >> all of that was leaked to hurt president trump. i think that's perfectly fine when i look at that transcript the president came, it's not really that bad of a transcript. because at the end zelensky actually raises the issue of investigations at the end of the call pt and the president says, you know, i really like you to

look at joe biden's influence and the firing of the prosecutor who was trying to uncover corruption in the ukraine. >> it's not -- that's not how it happened. >> he did not say i want to investigate joe biden criminally. he said i want you to find out what joe biden was doing. >> chris, i hear you. >> i think that's fine. >> two things of the you have a problem with joe biden, you are not asked ukraine to look at them. he's an american citizen. you have an express agreement for cooperation on corruption. there was a right way to do it. he inserted his lawyer. made everybody nuts because they knew they were promoting an agenda just good for this president. ukrainian president had been called before that call and after, this is what you need to do if you want to get close to this president. that's why he brought it up. he mentioned talked to rudy giuliani. the president says talk to arud i'll get barr involved after the

ukrainian president says we'll get missiles and brings this up. >> i love four officials there, and i'm not here to criticize any of them, but every single one of them has said that they never had contact with the president where he suggested a quid pro quo on the javelins in relation for any investigation, whether in the dnc servers in 2016 election or for anything else related to that. >> they put it on rudy. and a couple of this tem say it came from him because he was working for the president and he wanted that and sondland goes that far and one closest to the president. this is where i don't get. inappropriate. you can't see it's in appropriate to mention biden and not see the consequence of that feeling because it was wrong to do this. you were making it about your politics. >> you keep using the word wrong. >> yes. >> i would say allen described this as a political sin. i think it was. >> he thinks impeaching the president is wrong because the president can't be criminally

investigated. >> allen has said that this would be considered a political sin making a call saying somebody should be investigated in political. >> he wrote the same book about hillary clinton as trump. his racial is the same. >> the ap did the poll last week and showed two thirds of americans do not believe that impeachment should be high priority of congress. we are spending 24 hours of the 24 hour news cycle talking about this. i believe it's a giant diversion, because the president has an a plus record as president managing the domestic economy and dealing with foreign affairs. you probably agree with him he should hold china accountable. you probably agree with him he should do that. >> only one creating havoc. >> he has very high ratings.

you look at the swing states where the democrats lost time. >> he looked good in some of those the country is split on impeachment. i argue all the time is this the right mek nizle. i think you guys are in better shape in terms of the president shouldn't have mentioned biden. >> i agree with you. i absolutely agree with you. >> it was wrong. i get why they -- >> i don't like the use of the word wrong. >> how was it not wrong? >> i think it was politically inappropriate. >> what's the difference? >> i think wrong suggests it might be criminal, and it's not criminal. tom brokaw just came out with a book on the nixon/watergate situation. great book. i just started reading it. but he's been on shows saying the democrats don't have any evidence of an impeachable crime here. why would they start an impeachment inquiry if there was no evidence of a crime? this is what's crazy about this whole process. >> -- an attempt to bribe the president of ukraine.

>> what is the bribe? >> if you do not -- >> quid pro quo. >> quid pro quo is latin. it just means this for that. a bribe is this. i have corrupt intent when i ask you to do something in exchange for something else. >> chris, you come from a very political family. if senator smith asked senator jones, i want to build a bridge in minnesota. i need funding, and i'll give you funding in florida, that's a quid pro quo. >> no corrupt intent. >> well, he's going to get re-elected if the gets the bridge funded. >> get me dirt on my opponent, and i'll give you the bridge. corrupt intent. it's a bribe. >> so look at the transcript. the president is zelensky raises the issue about corruption and investigations. he says, we're going to clean up this country. he says, we're going to clean the swamp just like you're doing in washington. and the president says, you should take a look at joe biden's -- >> the president mentioned biden. it had been said to zelensky and his people before. you have at least half a dozen people in a bunch of texts where people are saying, why are we holding up the aid until they

get this announcement that they're going after biden? it was wrong, chris. it doesn't mean it's impeachable. it doesn't mean it's worthy of removal. but you can say inappropriate. you mean wrong, you just don't want to say it. >> no. well, i'm afraid what you're trying to imply is the president committed a crime, and i don't believe he did. >> something can be wrong and not be a crime and not be impeachable and not worthy of removal. >> congress should do congressional oversight, i think very vigorous congressional oversight. but they should at the end of that process decide if there's an impeachable crime or activity that needs impeachment. >> that's what they're doing. >> they started this without having any evidence of a crime. they didn't even interview the whistle-blower. they didn't see the complaint. they didn't see the transcript. >> they started the investigation because of what they heard about this call. they got the transcript to confirm that they heard. in fact almost everything that whistle-blower said has been confirmed by what we now know, so they started to investigate. and mnow it's an inquiry becaus they believe they have reasons to proceed, and so do you. >> think about what a farce this

is. they say it's classified information. and they start bringing the witnesses in. they said it's so secret we can't have them in public. >> just like henry hyde did. >> and then they start leaking every single day anything that's damaging to the president. >> do you think if it hadn't been in private that sondland would have gotten caught and had to reverse his testimony? >> the morning consult poll out today shows a 10% drop for support in the impeachment of the president. i think the public is seeing through it, and i appreciate you admitting some of this, that they're going too far. >> i think the country is split. i think there's a question as to whether or not this mechanism will make us better or worse. but they have to figure out what their duty is. i see the argument on that. i do not see the argument on saying this isn't wrong. chris ruddy, i appreciate you taking the opportunity as always. you'll always have a place here. be well. another familiar face on the trump train, former congressman sean duffy is here. he left the house before this whole inquiry lit up, but he thought he got away clean, but

he didn't. he lit up the conversation from the sidelines. we'll talk about that and talk about the state of the race next. it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? look, it's just like when i tell people abbe confident.th geico. stand up straight. and speak with purpose. yeah? go on, give it a practice run. kelsey. kelsey. marriage? oh. okay. look maybe you should just show her this beautiful helzberg diamond ring? that's a better idea.

yeah, maybe not in the bathroom. oooh! oh my word! geico. it's easy to switch and save.

all right. i want to remind you of the moment on television, it happened here at cnn. it was about colonel vindman, and it seemed to be proof of a shame campaign of unfair attacks by team trump.

>> it seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about ukrainian defense. i don't know that he's concerned about american policy, but his main mission was to make sure that the ukraine got those weapons. i understand that. we all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from. >> obviously that was former wisconsin congressman sean duffy. joins us now on prime time. his first appearance since becoming a cnn -- what do they call you? a contributor? >> contributor, yes. >> it is good to have you. god bless the family. >> thanks, chris. >> welcome to the team. how dare you? how could you say that about colonel vindman? did you mean to question the man's loyalty? >> listen, i didn't, and i apologize for making that latter part of the statement. i think lieutenant vindman, listen, he's a hero. he's got a purple heart. i respect his service. but one of the things that have happened from these transcripts and you see whether it's from sondland or the whole crew, all of them, trump supporters and

non-trump supporters, they're all advising the ukrainians. they work for america, and i do have a frustration on that for everyone involved. i want them to advocate for our positions. but the point in that interview, i was trying to say, listen, advisers don't set policy. the military doesn't set policy. bureau crates doesn't set policy. 9 president sets policy, and he has a lot of people around him that have different opinions and that's a good thing. but he does get to set the policy. >> this is not about the setting of poillicy. this is about political opportunism that shanghaied policy. the idea of they're all helping ukraine, the guy's job is to be the nsc representative that goes between ukraine and the united states. this guy is a united states military officer. they all do that. here's what you're missing and why i think it was wrong to smear this guy the way you did. >> i didn't mean to smear him, chris. that was not my intent. listen, i respect him so i want to be clear on that point. >> i said when it happened, sean duffy is better than this. i said it as soon as you said

it. >> i appreciate that. >> because i didn't think you would mean it. but in supporting the president, you guys, you know, seem to trend that way. and here's why it matters with this guy. the reason that ukraine and he were talking about this was because they were in a panic. they didn't know what to do with this rudy giuliani making these demands on them and the aid's not coming through, and they're being told that they have to get involved with an american election. so they go to the guy whose job it is to feinterface with them say what are we doing? >> take vindman aside. look at sondland and volker. they too in their testimony have said they're advising the ukrainians on how to deal with the situation. >> because the situation was coo c cuckoo, sean. >> but they work for the united states of america. >> right. >> they should be advocating the united states of america's position to the ukraine. >> even when the united states

position is ostensibly give him the bidens or you don't get the congressionally authorized aid? >> leeths talk about that for a second because i do think you're mischaracterizing what president trump has done. you can talk about conditional aid or quid pro quo, however you want to classify it. but if we say donald trump was doing two things, one, let's investigate the 2016 foreign influence in our election, and you would agree that's okay to get help on that. we spent two years on this. you and i have gone back and forth on it. you would agree that's an okay thing for the president to ask help on with ukraine, right? >> no. i think you go to the doj, and you investigate it if it concerns americans. you do it the right way. you don't insert your lawyer in a shadow diplomacy deal. >> we would disagree on that. the big issue is the bidens. donald trump wasn't saying, i want you to dig up dirt on joe biden. the facts are that joe biden acknowledged there was corruption in the ukraine. he didn't say, you got to fire 100 guys in the ukraine, and you'll get a billion dollars. you fire 50 guys or 25 guys. >> he said one guy. >> he said one guy. >> the same guy the ukrainian

authorities wanted gone in all the western democracies. >> it is the one guy that was investigating the company for which -- >> he wasn't investigating the company. that was the problem. >> he was. >> in fact, democrat senators suggested -- >> you're getting it wrong, sean. >> i'm not getting it wrong. >> you are. the guy wasn't investigating burisma. that was part of the problem with him. >> he said he was investigating. >> he's lying. that's one of the reasons that. >> why did the ukraine f-- >> how did joe biden come up with this one-person -- of all the corruption in the ukraine -- >> he was fold to told to do it united states government. that was our position. he's not the president. he was pushed into this. >> no. our poogs is to root out corruption in the ukraine, right? >> sean -- >> my broader point is this, chris. my point is, is it inappropriate, and if the president believes -- yeah, we might disagree on the facts on this. but if the president says that joe biden potentially was

corrupt in having this prosecutor fired, i want you to look at it. i think that's legitimate. >> go to the a.g. >> i don't think that's impeachable. >> it's an american citizen. you go to the a.g. here's the problem with the argument, sean. i wanted to talk about the election, but the election's going to be out this on one level, so we'll do it next time. >> right. >> here's the problem. you show me this president caring about corruption anywhere else in ukraine, anywhere else in the united states, anywhere else in his own family. he's pissed about hunter biden working for the family. really? this guy had all this corruption in his own administration. he never spoke about it. he never did anything. but joe biden bothers him so much that he doesn't go to the doj. he doesn't go to his attorney general. he goes to ukraine? >> you admit he's not asking ukrainians to make up information on joe biden. it was a specific tie, joe biden, one prosecutor. we might disagree on the facts -- >> the dirt is the investigation. >> there's been evidence presented that that prosecutor was investigating burisma and his son sat on that board. >> no. i disagree with that. then they reopened it under

lutsenko maybe because of giuliani's influence. then they closed it again. and if you were running against somebody who has an investigation in corruption against them, that's dirt. that hurts, and we both know it. >> but you know what? we had an election in 2016 where there was an investigation into hillary clinton and an investigation into donald trump. it hurt them both. that's true. but then if you're not afraid of the investigation because you did nothing wrong, should joe biden be that freaked out about it? he could use that as a political bludgeon on donald trump. >> listen, all i'm saying is i don't care who uses it what way in politics, sean. i'm just saying as president of the united states, you don't use your power with another country to start an investigation against your opponent. that's all. but i'm out of time. make your last point. >> i wanted to say is it impeachable? and i would say there are facts behind both 2016 election and joe biden that i don't think this is impeachable at all. and i think the american people will probably see that as the

evidence is presented in the house over the next couple of weeks. >> the way you go about it is what got him in trouble. is it impeachable? the country's divided. is it worthy of removal? i think you guys have a good case if you stop ignoring the obvious. >> no. in fact i'm going to make that argument. >> sean duffy, god bless you and the family. welcome to the team. get ready for some beatings on this topic. >> i'll put my helmet on. >> always a pleasure. be well. >> thanks. honestly to this point, this is a little sarin dip tus. the republicans are using a give no ground strategy here. even ruddy, he's gone farther than he wanted to go tonight. i have an argument for you that if they stop doing something they shouldn't and start focusing on what they should be doing, they will be in better position. look, if you don't want to hear their side, that's fine. you still need to know what's going to be coming your way. and if you're on that side, please pay attention. tell me if the argument works, next. for the holidays.♪

♪'cause no matter how far away you roam.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home. dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

when you look at the world, ♪ what do you see? ♪ where others see chaos, we see patterns. ♪ connections. 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. ♪ so, you bought those "good enough" paper towels? [daughter laughs] not such a bargain. there's only one quicker picker upper. bounty, the quicker picker upper.

what do you charge for online equity trades? um ah, i'll look into it. lisa jones! hey carl, what are you charging me for online equity trades? laughs/umm.. and do i get my fees back if i'm not happy? like a satisfaction guarantee? ugh. schwab! oh right, i'm calling schwab. thanks carl! wait, lisa! lisa... are you getting commission free trades and a satisfaction guarantee? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. for all of the heroes who serve us, t-mobile is here to help serve them. that's why we're offering 50% off family lines for military, veterans and first responders. so they can stay connected, on our newest, most powerful signal ever. and now, we are also offering half off our top samsung phones for military, veterans and first responders. our service is just one way we say thank you... for theirs.

all right. here's the argument. if the gop stops ignoring the obvious, there's a stronger case they could make one all must consider. first, here's the problem, ignoring the obvious. they created a false standard of proof. listen. >> what i can tell you about the trump policy toward the ukraine, it was incoherent. it depends on who you talk to. they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo. >> no. it was not incoherent. it was not unclear. it was very clear. help trump get an investigation into the bidens, which we all know is dirt in a campaign. it's bad for biden if he's under investigation. and ukraine gets the aid and closeness to the american presidency it craves. and by asking for this standard, they now have to own the texts and half dozen officials that suggest or outright say there was a quid pro quo. we got the full transcript of

bill taylor's testimony today. the top diplomat in ukraine said there was a quid pro quo linking military aid and a white house meeting to investigation into trump's political rivals. similar story from eu ambassador and trump donor and pal gordon sondland, who revised his testimony to admit this. i said that resumption of the u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. that's explicitly something for something, okay? maybe even attempted bribe. why? an attempted bribe would be this. whoever corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official with intent to influence any official act. so, now will defenders own what they said early on. remember this? >> show me something that -- that is a crime. if you could show me that, you know, trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing. >> disturbing indeed.

you have proof of what arguably was an attempted bribe outside the phone call. are you now going to ignore that? the answer unfortunately is yes, by way of this demonstration of remonstration. >> i've written the whole process off. i've written him off. i think this is a bunch of b.s. the phone call i made up my own made is fine. >> do you plan on reading these transcripts that were released? >> no. >> why do i keep using senator graham? because he's the point man for the president and because he's smart and savvy and respected by his peers. but he's ignoring a better way to defend the president. my argument, own what's obvious. it was wrong to ask ukraine to look at the bidens, arguably even abusive to do so, looking for an investigation in exchange for aid. now, if you support the president, forget it, this is way too much. wrong because there's a big but here, okay? literally like a don lemon sized but that i'm talking about here. here's the but.

you argue it's not worthy of removal. probably not worthy of this time and expense of this process. why? it was thwarted. there was no damage done. ukraine got the aid. russia didn't beat them up while the aid was on hold. we're on good terms with ukraine, maybe better than even during obama. two, while plenty of the diplomats have testified to a quid pro quo, maybe even attempted bribe, none has directly pinned it on trump. some say they heard it from sondland. sondland says in his new testimony that the condition of a white house meeting was communicated by rudy. others triangulate around rudy and that sondland says he presumed the aid had become linked to the anti-corruption statement. so you don't have it directly from the president. and in light of that, it's better to let the consequence be with the people in the upcoming election because this process that we're going through is going to end with no removal, and people more divided and less done for the public. now, here's the problem with my

argument. principle. if they don't impeach, there's no message that this is not acceptable, and that seems mandatory here because this president won't stop saying he was perfect and promising to do more things like this. >> china should start an investigation into the bidens because what happened to china is just about as bad as what happened with ukraine. >> the president doesn't ask other countries to investigate american citizens. he goes to the doj, not to his lawyer and not to this kind of scheme. if the gop can get this president to understand that the law against foreign interference matters and to acknowledge the same, they may have a way out of this that a split nation may well accept. but that is a big if right now. that's the argument. what do you think? let me know. republicans do have something to celebrate during this impeachment era, a giant mark that could be the most

important thing this president has done. it's our bolo, next. 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. ♪ i recently discovered that a good source of protein. that's why they're my go-to snack while i get back in shape. that one's broken.

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.

bolo time. be on the lookout. ironically, something this president mentions very rarely may matter the most. today the senate neared confirming the 44th appeals court judge of his presidency. that milestone means one quarter, one of every four of appeals judgeships have been filled under president trump. in all, he's already gotten 157 judicial nominees through. that tops his recent predecessors, who all but one were two-term presidents. going to be a big deal in 2020

for conservatives. by confirming scores of conservative judges to lifetime appointments on federal courts across the country, president trump will have a fingerprint on legal cases for generations to come. so be on the lookout. you may see the impact of that and soon. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> i think we've talked about that before. that's probably going to be the lasting legacy, one of the longest lasting legacies of this president. and it shows you that elections do have consequences. you know, when people say, oh, they're all the same. everybody does the same thing, not really. appointing those judges is a very big deal. >> and he's nowhere near done. >> no. >> if he wins another four years, he's already ahead of everybody. >> yeah. >> and they were all two-term presidents. he may get another supreme court nominee. he may get two. it's one of the reasons that mcconnell has been so accepting of him, and that's why the new