tempest tossed, to me. i lift my lamp beside the golden door." that's all from us. we'll be back at 11:00 eastern for another live edition of "360." the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> it may be all but it's also everything we're about, anderson. that poem was put at the base of the statue of liberty to capture what this country was, ais, and must always be about. great reference for you to make on this night especially. thanks, anderson. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time live" from washington, d.c. the facts have been drawn out. tonight we will be able to put together the evidence and test the case for impeachment. we have the best investigators to weigh the pluses and minuses. and we'll see whether there's any chance of buy-in from anyone in trump's party. we now know where this is all headed and why. so what do you say? let's get after it.

two weeks. hearings, dozens of hours of testimony, names and titles. and for all the confusion of who was where and did and heard and saw what, one thing is now clear to anyone who is looking clear-eyed at the facts. the president wanted ukraine to look into issues of political interest to him. namely, a conspiracy theory about russia not being who interfered in our 2016 election and an announcement that ukraine was looking into biden for corruption. in exchange there was aid and there was access. and that was the deal. today's final witnesses, former top russia adviser fiona hill and david holmes, a state department official at the u.s. embassy in ukraine, came ready. hill especially came ready to confront the smears, to confront the conspiracies being floated

by many of the republicans in the room. today was a very big day. again, especially for dr. hill. she was certainly without equal when it came to confidence, clarity, and complete inability to take any crap. >> and i did say to him, ambassador sondland, gordon, i think this is all going to blow up. and here we are. >> she outlined the problems that giuliani and others created, the disturbance that it caused with ukrainian officials, and laid the foundation for what may result in the impeachment of president trump. now, while hill was probably the star witness if you need a phrase like that, many combined to answer many questions. the case against the president is about more than a single call. know that. but this inquiry was prompted by that july 25th conversation

between president trump and ukraine's president zelensky, as it has been referred to by mr. john dean. unlike nixon, we start here with the smoking gun. we now know for sure that call was not perfect, as the president claims. how do we know? people who were listening to it in real time were real alarmed, including two current white house officials who just testified about it. lieutenant colonel vindman and jennifer williams. >> i listened in on the call in the situation room with white house colleagues. i was concerned by the call. what i heard was inappropriate. and i reported my concerns to mr. eisenberg. >> i found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls i had observed it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. >> they didn't think it was a perfect call. and we now know another imperfect call came the very

next day. david holmes told us just today about it. he overheard the president's ambassador to the eu gordon sondland talking to the president of the united states from a restaurant in kyiv. the president followed up with him after his own call with zelensky. here's what mr. holmes says he heard. >> i could hear the president's voice through the ear piece of the phone. ambassador sondland replied yes, he was in ukraine and went on to state that president zelensky, quote, loves your ass. i then heard president trump ask, "so he's going to do the investigation?" ambassador sondland replied that he's going to do it, adding that president zelensky "will do anything you ask him to do." >> this was not u.s. diplomacy on the regular or on the up and up. it was a shadow operation. the difference was spelled out succinctly by the current top diplomat in ukraine, mr. bill taylor. >> there appeared to be two channels of u.s. policy making and implementation, one regular

and one highly irregular. >> one of the main players to help carry it out came clean to congress yesterday. and not only pointed fingers at those high up in the white house for their involvement in the scheme -- remember, he said everybody knew about it. but trump donor and ambassador gordon sondland directly implicates the president in the scheme. >> so we followed the president's orders. was there a quid pro quo? the answer is yes. everyone was in the loop. >> at the center of this plot along with the president according to mr. sondland and almost everyone else who's testified, of course. it's the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. sondland says he and the other two three amigos as they called themselves were forced to work with rudy on ukraine policy despite their concerns. >> we did not want to work with mr. giuliani.

i followed the directions of the president. >> what was the goal of this operation that rudy was apparently at the helm of? to get ukraine to say it was going to investigate a 2016 election conspiracy that has been widely debunked. perhaps most importantly to get the country to announce an investigation, announce an investigation. not necessarily do an investigation. what's the difference? because if you care about corruption in ukraine, you want to make sure that they're now on their game, you don't just want an announcement because that's meaningless. unless you just want it for political advantage about mr. biden and his son. another amigo, kurt volker, the former u.s. envoy to ukraine, testified he was unsettled by mr. giuliani's pursuits to smear biden. >> mayor giuliani raised and i rejected the conspiracy theory that vice president biden would have been influenced in his money paid to his son.nt by -

>> sondland exposed one of the core issues at play. the president did not care if ukraine actually investigated burisma. i'm saying it twice because it is at the core of the defense of this. this idea of burisma was just code for the bidens. that's what the testimony says. he just wanted the public to think it was happening in the name of anti-corruption. >> you had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct? >> he had to announce the investigations. he didn't actually have to do them, as i understood it. >> sondland was the u.s. ambassador to the eu. ukraine's not in the eu. so why was he involved? people had reported he muscled his way in. well, why would he have done that? he's never even been in diplomacy before. he says he was carrying out the president's orders and mr. giuliani's directives.

dr. fiona hill says she heard sondland telling ukrainian diplomats in the white house what zelensky had to do to get an oval office meeting with the president that he was seeking. what would that be? announce the investigations the president wanted. but not everyone in the room was on board. including hill and national security adviser john bolton. bolton gave hill a warning, she said. listen. >> ambassador bolton had looked pained, basically indicated with body language that there was nothing much we could do about it, and he then in the course of that discussion said that rudy giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. >> dramatic but accurate. it did blow up. look where we are. the president's defenders had been trying to argue that however irregular the methods that this is really just a good faith policy dispute and this is about how to fight corruption in

the way the president sees it is the way it should go. was the president trying to get rid of corruption? no. how do we know? well, he and giuliani were trying to sideline the ambassador to ukraine, who was there to try to help rid corruption. and how they did it. they could have just removed her. but it wasn't good enough. smeared her and again got her out, pushed her out. one of the biggest anti-corruption crusaders in ukraine, known as such. why? because she didn't like their scheme. that former ambassador, yovanovitch, gave her testimony last friday. >> ukrainians who preferred to play by the old corrupt rules so the to remove me. what continues to amaze me is that they found americans willing to partner with them and working together they apparently succeeded. >> and so the giant corrupt elephant hanging all over these

impeachment hearings is not ukraine. it's russia once again. fiona hill warned that hyperpartisan politics of today, which we're all living through in a state of dread, is playing right into mr. putin's hands. schooling those parroting russian propaganda in congress that ukraine was to blame for 2016 election meddling. >> this is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. russia's security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. we're running out of time to stop them. >> hill's message to congress and the country was simple and clear. an errand that pushed america's foreign policy aside was to russia's delight. those are the facts. what do they mean? what are the pluses? what remain as minuses?

the investigators mccabe and baker are here next. t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. on that. so you can post this... ...score this... ...be there like this... ...and share all of this... ...with that. so do this, on that, with us. now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free. well you remember what happened last year. you can't bring a backup thanksgiving to my sister's house. it's not like we're going to walk in with it. we'll bring it in as we need it. ...phase it in. phase it in? yeah, phase it in.

phase it in? of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

dr. fiona hill summed up the entire mess we're dealing with in this impeachment situation in a single sound bite today. >> i actually said to him, who put you in charge of ukraine? and i'll admit i was a bit rude. and that's when he told me the president, which shut me up. i actually realized, having listened to his deposition, that he was absolutely right, that he wasn't coordinating with us because we weren't doing the same thing that he was doing. he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. >> nobody was able to dispute what she just said as a matter of fact. what it means we'll get into now. andrew mccabe, former fbi deputy director, and jim baker, former fbi general counsel, director of national security and cybersecurity at the r street

institute. both join us. gentlemen, evan perez had news in the last hour that the inspector general found what we believe to be a problem made in one of the fisa applications for carter page. what i want to know from both of you, my understanding is this. andrew, you can't talk about it. you're restricted from discussing the report or the investigation. right? >> that's right. i am currently -- i've reviewed the report. i'm in the process of that. and i've agreed not to speak about it in any way until that process is over. >> all right. i'll respect that. jim, you have not seen the report. is that accurate? you haven't reviewed it? >> that's correct. >> all right. so there is no -- i'm not going to mess with the nda. and if you haven't seen it i'm not going to talk to you about it. but as you know when anything comes out that is of importance to the audience that has to do with either of you we'll come right at it. you know that. and that's why there's mutual respect. thank you for dealing with that with me about that. let's get into what we do know now. andrew, how close did the democrats get after fiona hill,

after everything they put forward, to what you see as the bar they need for a legit impeachable offense? >> i think they are clearly over the bar. i think they were over the bar before fiona hill -- >> impeachable? >> absolutely. it all comes down to what you think about the phone call on july 25th. right? everything else we've heard from all these witnesses tells us a lot about what led to the phone call, what was happening behind it, what was happening in ukraine, who else was involved in it, who knew about it, who told who what. but essentially everything you need to know is in that phone call. and if you think what you heard in that phone call, there's no problem with it, then if you're a congress person you're not going to vote for impeachment. if you're a senator you're not going to vote to remove him. and if you are an american, you are probably going to vote for him in the next election. if you think what you heard was objectionable, you see all those things very differently. >> jim baker, how do you see it in terms of the hurdles with a potential defense of what the democrats laid out?

>> well, i think as andy was saying we're kind of back to where we were when we got the transcript. and you look at that and it's clear to me at least that the president abused his power in order to stay in power. that's what this is all about. i think what the witnesses have done overt past couple of weeks, you know, question by -- answer by answer, question by question, is to really introduce substantial evidence to the country that undercuts all of the defenses that the president and the republicans have put forward about the president didn't know what was going on, that the three amigos were kind of running a rogue operation, that the ukrainians didn't know what was going on, that there was no quid pro quo. all of these defenses that have been brought up over time, the witnesses introduced substantial evidence, as i say, to undercut all those. and so where the members of congress are, i think, is whether you think this is impeachable or not. and whether you want your guy out of power and whether you

think a vote against the president is going to get you kicked out of power. at the end of the day where we are is this is about power. this is about the president trying to stay in power. this is about the members of congress trying to figure out how they can stay in power. and at the end of the day that's what this is about. that's what it comes down to -- >> it's always been that. >> everything else has been swept away. >> it was awl always going to come down to politics because it's a political thing. that's why the founders wanted this to be a clear-cut case where this the wrong mechanism. you and i have talked about this a lot to the chagrin of those in the audience who don't want to hear about limitations in this process. but let's talk about limitations on the defense. what they say is good faith disagreement here. he doesn't like corruption. he doesn't trust ukraine, sew wasn't crazy about giving them money in the first place. he says fine, you're going to be different with corruption? i've heard about this 2016 thing where it was your guys and ukraine trying to get me. and i believe it. and i think you guys covered up for the bidens.

so if you're not about corruption anymore, show me that. if it's a good faith, meaning no corrupt intent, which is necessary for a bribery charge, i know we're in politics, not in the law, why doesn't that wash? >> because as you get into the details of those two requests that he made, the logic falls apart. so on the first side, the 2016 conspiracy theory that the ukrainians were involved in meddling in the election and not the russians, nobody destroyed that theory any more effectively than dr. hill today. she exposed it for exactly what it is. >> but what if he still believes it? >> chris, i don't think that's good enough. he is the president of the united states. he has the -- he has the access to all of the best intelligence on earth. he has an entire community that supports him to show him exactly what we think happened, what we know happened. we know that his own advisers have tried repeatedly to dispel this flawed notion. that just doesn't stand up. it doesn't pass the smell test. >> now, jim, the other big

defense that i think is compelling is politically unappealing, which is you guys only know little fragments, even you, hill. you may have been a genius and you've been there for a long time but you only know what was trickling down to you. none of you were calling the shots. none of you can own these decisions you say you know about. the problem with them is it's their side that are keeping those people from testifying, so it's not as politically satisfying. but does it give cover? i know you're not a politician. but just reasoning it out, does it give you cover? i didn't hear from any of the main people. why would i vote for impeachment? >> well, those are opinions and those are assertions. but there's no evidence that was introduced in my view to support that. i mean, the witnesses are sitting in front of the committee, are providing through their testimony evidence. and so members of congress want to make these arguments about what the president didn't know and so on and so forth. but they're just going on what their opinions are.

and trying to be hopeful about that. if they want to make a counterargument, then the president needs to allow some of these other witnesses to show up and he needs to cough up these documents that can shed light. and if this is actually what the president thought at the time and there's evidence of that, then fine, the congress can consider that both with respect to impeachment and if they impeach then with respect to the trial. maybe that'll -- maybe that's where this will come out. maybe in the trial setting they'll have to come forward with some of this -- some of these witnesses and some of this evidence in order to make the case. >> we'll see. we're headed that way. jim baker, andrew mccabe, appreciate it as always. and thank you for addressing the other issues. so the question now for democrats is do you fight -- what we were just talking about. do you keep fighting for the big guns? pompeo, bolton, mulvaney. you just heard jim baker say hey, the president may need them. well, no because we're not in trial and everyone np his pain

is on his side. but do the democrats need them? do they need to put to rest any doubt about what the testimony comes from? we'll get to that next. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward.

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. 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. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis.

that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪

president trump says i never in my wildest dreams thought my name would in any way be associated with the ugly word impeachment. but it is. and now the question is are the president's actions worthy of impeachment, even worthy of removal? congressman peter welch, vermont, democrat, member of the intel committee, one of the fact finders, distinguished himself

with his questioning in a lot of the testimony. welcome to "prime time." good to see you. >> good to be here. >> so the best conversations are always before we go on air. you watched this testimony, fiona hill. wow. boy, what a great servant. vindman, taylor, yovanovitch, wow. i'm proud to be an american. it's great to have them in service. they seemed credible and good. sondland a little sideways, has trouble sticking to his story. but people watched the spectacle and they shake their heads, congressman, and they say these guys can't agree on two plus two equalling four. what's the message to the american people? >> no, that's true. it's a lament of mine, that everybody is really feeling entitled to their own version of the facts. that's a challenge in the social media world. it's a challenge when russia so interfered in our 2016 election that even aside from whether it tipped the balance in favor of trump it really sowed discourse among people because it pitted people against another.

so it's the context within which we're all living. and frankly, president trump is not the cause of that. he's very smart about exploiting that. so that's the environment we're in. you remember adam schiff said this is not the same congress as it was during the nixon time. >> nor during clinton. >> and it's not the same country now as it was then. this is a real challenge. whether you're a republican, democrat, or independent. how do we have a common set of facts and have a debate where at least we agree on what the facts are. and that is very, very difficult. it is being played out to some extent in this impeachment debate. now, i think the facts and the evidence is overwhelming that the president put the squeeze on president zelensky and the ukraine to demand that he do an investigation, dig up dirt on biden in exchange for getting the white house meeting -- >> and the 2016 ukraine conspiracy theory. that mattered to him too. >> yeah. it mattered to him a lot. in a way that's really bizarre

about president trump. because you know, on july 24th director mueller gave his report where he said it was the russians, not the ukrainians, and actually debunked the ukrainians. that was our intelligence agencies agreed with that, the fbi agreed with that, director mueller agreed with it. he expressed a fear that russian interference, foreign interference is the new normal. the day after, president trump was on the phone with president zelensky and he asked ukraine to ip interfere in our election. >> and everyone -- i guess there are nine of his republican party members, they all agree with him. they accept nothing. the only thing they're absolutely wrong about is they say this isn't a fair process to him. i've never seen a party get behind their president in one of these hearings the way they did. they were all defense counsel for him. there was not a single republican looking to find any fact that was to the disadvantage of the president. so he was well represented. but do you think you have any chance of having any republicans

vote for any article of impeachment against president trump? >> frankly, i'm not optimistic about it in the house. it could change. and the only thing that would really change it is public opinion. and you know, the challenge for us is not just to get the facts out but to get them out in a way that's accessible and relatable for everyday americans. and in fact i think we've done as good a job as can be done. >> was this good for the country, what happened over the last week? >> it's not good for the country that the president invited the ukrainians to get involved -- >> but this process. >> this process is necessary. is it good? that's a different question. because it's not good to have impeachment. it's not good to be having -- to be fighting on things that are by definition divisive. an impeachment is. and adam schiff was a very reluctant person to proceed with this. >> they don't say that. >> well, they don't. but he was. and i was pretty reluctant. and nancy pelosi was reluctant.

there were members of my party who the day after president trump was elected or sworn in they wanted to impeach him. and that's not -- >> that was a mistake. you guys are all colored with that now. people say this is always where you wanted to be. but the reason i wanted you here was you've been really reasonable in your questioning here. you're often offset with jim jordan. jordan would go and you would go. and it really showed the two faces of the two parties right now. but the testimony was strong. these people are patriotic and they were kribld. we'll see where it goes. >> that was the inspiring thing that i hope all americans -- these folks are patriots. they are committed to the constitution, to serving our country, and to doing their duty. and a number of them were immigrants like vindman and like dr. hill today. you know, think about it. her grandfather fought in world war i. he was gassed. he was shot. and he survived. and then her father was a coal miner. she's a coal miner's daughter. and here she is. >> that's what this country's --

>> it's so wonderful. >> and hopefully people remember that. congressman, thank you. i appreciate you coming in tonight. >> thank you, chris. >> appreciate it. all right. republicans. that's the democrats' side. republicans. tactic was hey, look, this isn't what they say it is. these people don't know. and even if it's right it's not that big a deal. their strategy has to be tested. would it be easier to admit what is obvious and just fight about the consequences? we'll bring on a top trump supporter and have exactly that conversation. next. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis,

little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

what an odd situation we find ourselves in. the testimony part of the impeachment inquiry appears to be over and yet we seem to be in the exact same place we were before we started. we heard from very impressive people. today dr. fiona hill's got everybody talking here in washington, d.c. president trump's former top russia adviser. she slammed gop conspiracy theories on ukraine, warned how those fictional claims play right into putin's hands. but where are we? is right any closer to moving anywhere near where the left is? let's bring in oklahoma congressman mark rain mullen. always good to have you on the show. it's good to be with you. >> it's good to be with you in person. >> the only question is whether or not you are open, you or any of your brothers and sisters in the president's party, are open at all to anything that was testified to being proof that something done was wrong.

>> well, chris, first of all, i was sworn to yun hold the constitution. full stop. and in the constitution it's very clear what powers we have when it comes to impeaching the president of the united states because there's a clear separation of powers also inside the constitution. so our founding fathers are very smart about that. as we've discussed this before, it's got to be treason, bribery, high crime or a misdemeanor. when you listen to the testimony, no one, not one single person when asked the question was there -- has there been a quid pro quo, bribery or extortion, everyone that testified that got asked that question said no. >> not on quid pro quo. >> everyone when asked the question said point blank no. >> sondland said yes. >> they said he believed but when asked by congressman turner said did anyone in the world, quote, direct you to do that? he said no. he said no.

so he made the assumption the whole time that that's what someone was wanting -- >> why was it never corrected? >> and sondland was the only one that asked the president on september 9th what do you want from this and the president was very clear when he said, quote, i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. >> september 9th -- >> i just want them to do what's right. >> i accept the argument. september 9th was after people were chasing after the president asking what was going on. the day after the september -- the july 25th call where the president asked for things expressly. >> sure. >> he was on the phone with sondland. he was overheard on the call with sondland asking about the investigations. here's been our discussion all along. i don't know how you can watch this testimony and not think that what was going on is what was apparently obvious. the president had doubts about ukraine, didn't want to give them money -- >> so did obama. >> -- thinks they're dirty -- yeah and he didn't even give them the aid trump has. >> absolutely. he actually withheld -- >> i know. that's great.

check mark for the trump administration politically. but it's not relevant to the analysis. he didn't trust ukraine -- >> it is a little relevant. but i get what you're saying. >> he didn't want to give them money. he says i want to test them out. to get this money you're going to have to show me something. now, you have to build into the analysis this president has never been about fighting corruption. >> no, that's actually not true. he made it very clear up front and even people that testified here had said, i think it was -- i think it was kent that said that the president said he didn't want business as usual. he had irregular -- and it was tail they're said he had irregular channels the way that he handled things. but my goodness, chris, we had elected a business guy, not a regular do business as normal -- >> a businessman who has been known his entire career for shady business -- >> i disagree with that. >> it is demonstrably true. i've done the investigating. he can't even tell the truth about his net worth. he won't even show his taxes. >> he's been known to be a very

aggressive business person. >> and he doesn't pay people. he's had lots of problem in business. >> no, that's a lot of people that are out there saying -- did he admit that he filed bankruptcy? yes. but that doesn't mean that what he did on this case was illegal. it doesn't mean there was any bribery -- >> what i'm saying is he doesn't have a history of fighting corruption. he's had an administration that's rife with corruption -- >> that's absolutely not true. >> how many members of his cabinet have left? >> he has been tough on corruption. in fact almost every person that has brought that up has said yes, they knew that president trump was taking a hard stand against corruption -- >> in ukraine. he thought ukraine was dirty because he believed rudy they were out to get him in 2016. >> no. you're tying those two in together and you're making the assumption that that's the only reason why that he was being tough. but he's been tough on other countries for corruption too. >> who? >> and when you start -- >> russia? turkey? >> he's been tough on russia. he's been tough on china too. >> how's he been tough on russia? he stood next to putin and said

i believe you you didn't interfere in our election. >> and he put more sanctions -- >> congress puts the sanctions. you guys voted together. >> you know as good as i do -- >> you voted for them. >> the president was the one that brought this up the first time -- >> he didn't want them. >> that is absolutely -- >> oh, markwayne mullin, you know this. you guys voted for them and the presidential didn't want to do it. >> the president was the one that started the corruptions on russia. however, let's go back to what we're talking about when we start -- did the president commit bribery? because remember, this whole thing started with quid pro quo. you've got -- >> not for us. not for us. >> the first time i came on you started talking about quid pro quo. >> i sxad don't like the latin it doesn't mean anything they have to find a crime and they have to say it's an abuse of power. >> and everybody changed to bribery. there has been not one single thing that has been said that the president directed -- >> he duntoesn't have to. first of all, fact witnesses -- that's a different -- i agree with you. but hold on. let's just divide where i agree and where i don't. fact witnesses don't tell you

what the law is. okay? they tell you what they know. they don't tell you what law fits into it. if you withhold aid and access to a meeting until you get what you want from them in the way of an investigation, you can say that's a solicitation of something for value. and if you have corrupt intent and you're doing it for you, not america's national security interest, it will be a bribe. but i'll tell you what. that's one argument. you can say yeah, i think what he did here was wrong. he was trying to get investigations on biden. he should have gone to the doj. he shouldn't have used rudy this way. but it is not worthy of removal. it's not worthy of impeachment. you can accept what is clear from fact from hill and others and still make the argument you want to make. >> so the first time we visited you were talking about specifically the transcript. >> that's what i had at the time. >> yeah. and everybody was saying, well, that's not an accurate transcript. but then we had lieutenant colonel vindman that came out and actually said yes, that is an accurate transcript. >> in substance. he wanted to make a couple of changes but -- >> we have to start with it. this impeachment inquiry started on two things. the whistle-blower, who for some

reason won't come out and testify. they won't allow him to -- >> he's legally protected. >> i know. but don't you think if this whole thing started with the whistle-blower that had 37 times that said he was told and was never, ever firsthand experience, you had nine times that said -- >> i think it's completely irrelevant because you've had the other testimony. i think you should get pompeo and mulvaney and bolton -- >> nancy pelosi stood up and said on what was is it, september 20 -- i won't start on the dates because i'm getting them messed up. but i think it was september 26. i don't know. but anyway, when nancy pelosi stood up and said that we're doing this based on new accounts on the phone call with the president and the whistle-blower. that we're going to start an impeachment inquiry even though it never happened, we're going to start an impeachment inquiry into the president of the united states. the whistleblow-blowers never c true and the so-called transcript -- >> it's all been corroborated. >> everybody was debunking was saying it's not accurate, it's not accurate, what don't we

know. and then lieutenant colleonel vindman said it is accurate. now you have two piece that's have been shown to the american people. one which is the conversation with a president and the president of ukraine. >> right. >> that was no quid pro quo was in, it no bribery, no pressure. and then the other -- >> i don't agree with that assessment. you have the president -- >> well, you've seen the -- >> -- saying do me a favor, get the bidens. >> he didn't say get the bidens. >> he literally used the word investigate the bidens. biden has been saying he did all this stuff to -- >> he said do me a favor, the people -- i think the people want to know the truth. because biden had been there in 2018 and had been openly bragging -- >> that he got rid of shoekin, than he helped his son. the people will know the facts. i need you to come back and -- >> anytime, chris. >> it's important to note, congressman welch was on here last. he said markwayne mullin's coming on? i like him. he's a good guy. >> i feel the same. >> and i think that's important. if you guys can disagree with decency we're moving in the right direction.

all right? and that's why i appreciate having you here. >> thank you, sir. >> we've got a closing tonight. it's going to be a little bit shorter. but you know what? that was a good conversation to have. and we will take a look at what is going on and what it means. next. giving? well you remember what happened last year. you can't bring a backup thanksgiving to my sister's house. it's not like we're going to walk in with it. we'll bring it in as we need it. ...phase it in. phase it in? yeah, phase it in. applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. phase it in? now starting at $9.99. 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™.

i am royalty of racing, i am alfa romeo. hi susan!) honey? yeah? i respect that. but that cough looks pretty bad... try this robitussin honey. the real honey you love... plus the powerful cough relief you need. mind if i root through your trash? robitussin honey. because it's never just a cough.

i didn't have to shout out for i didn't have to get you a lift. and i didn't have to call your wife to meet you at the doctor. because you didn't have another dvt. not today. we discussed how having one blood clot puts you at risk of having another,... ...so we chose xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, is proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical trials, almost 98% of people did not have another dvt or pe. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor,... as this may increase your risk of blood clots. while taking, a spinal injection

increases the risk of blood clots, which may cause paralysis - the inability to move. you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve... ...or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment - and help protect yourself... ...from an unexpected one, like another dvt or pe. are you doing enough? ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. 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. nine witnesses, 30-plus hours of testimony. we now the president believed ukraine was corrupt, especially out to get him, and he empowered his lawyer rudy giuliani to figure out if it was true and to help him out also with a look into the bidens. the question now is what does it mean, what should be the consequence. well, to hear it from the diplomats and the democrats the situation amounts to a bribery scheme, all of it to help trump more than to help this country. the intel chair calls it worse than watergate. >> what we've seen here was far more serious than a third raitt burglary of the democratic headquarters. what we're talking about here is the withholding of recognition

in that white house meeting, the withholding of military aid to an ally at war. that is beyond anything nixon did. >> so why aren't republicans reeling right now? >> the difference between then and now is not the difference between nixon and trump. it's the difference between that congress and this one. >> we have never seen the party of the president to be more partisan in a process like this than we're seeing right now. just remember this. remember this stuff. >> the american people understand that this has been a partisan process from the start. >> we've got to stop this. but they're not going to. and they're doing it all 11 1/2 months before the next election. >> and like any good show trial the verdict was decided before the trial ever began. >> now, i'll often go with both sides of congress for not doing their job enough and for making political plays. but that's because i know they can do better than this.

trump has brought in a new mentality for his party. scorched earth, kill or be killed, ride or die. now, it's measurable. and i'll show you. look back at nixon. >> what did the president know and when did he know it? >> now, you remember who that was? republican senator howard baker. he had the hardest-hitting question. and here's another one. >> richard nixon has beyond a reasonable doubt committed impeachable offenses. no man, not even the president of the united states, is above the law. >> that was representative larry hogan. they were both republicans. and it was eventually a gop delegation that went to the white house to tell nixon it was over. next day he resigned. clinton too dealt with party -- with people in his party that he was in disfavor with. after reading the starr report, 31 democrats, 31, crossed the

aisle and voted in favor of setting up an impeachment process. what's more, five democratic house members actually voted to impeach him. and what nixon and clinton were accused of was certainly nothing on the order of the scheme that's been outlined here. yet trump has already clearly won one fight. and it is the fight to have complete control of his party. supporters are loud and proud, defiant in the face of fact, operating exclusively as defense counsel for the president in a manner that we've never seen. dissent minimal, muted. why? fear of toxic tweets. punishing primary challenges. there can be no question that republicans are ignoring the facts for favor. they've charged after democrats for so much less than this and they know it. the constitution gives them a duty of oversight over the

executive. yet almost every question from the ten members of their council were designed to shield -- nine republicans and then their lawyer. they were shielding. they were trying to protect the president. there was not one question asked to elicit any negative information. that is not their job. or maybe now it is. if they're putting their own personal and political fortunes ahead of their duty, it may seem just as obvious as what the president did to any reasonable onlooker. and here's the shame. you saw me argue it to markwayne mullin. you see me argue it to lots of republicans. you can own what is obvious here and still argue that the consequence of impeachment, let alone removal, is too severe. you may not like that argument but it can be argued in good conscience. ignoring facts, facilitating conspiracy theories about ukraine interference, that cannot be done in good conscience. but they are right to argue one point. an election is right around the corner.

and what happens now will be fresh in the minds of voters, especially undecided ones, all over this country. there will be another quid pro quo in play. will the voters give you their vote in favor of what you're offering them right now? all right. that is the argument. here's the bolo. tease. senator mcconnell said today if impeachment makes it to the senate they'll be ready. what does that mean? next. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver--

--can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad.

that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

bolo. be on the lookout. if the house impeaches, next comes a senate trial. obviously, the republicans control the senate. a group of republican senators huddled with white house officials today to map out the road ahead. they're weighing the length of proceedings. some want to dismiss it right from the start.

others believe doing that might hurt their ability to keep the senate and maybe letting the democrats draw it out in a trial may help them. so how much longer will this last? we'll probably know soon. so be on the lookout. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d-lemon starts right now. >> the question is how much longer can we take? how much longer can the american pblic take on this? i think, you know, maybe they're rung up against fatigue. it's important stuff. >> as you and i talk when we're not on tv, people aren't focusing on this the way we do. democrats aren't even campaigning on it in the race as round the country. it maters. but it doesn't matter to everybody the way it does to us. i just wonder what message they take from it. >> well, i think people are focusing on -- they're starting to look at this now. i think people are tuning in. and i do think that over the holidays will be a big difference