foremost a republican partisan. he is part of this republican infrastructure. he benefits from it. he's been on fox news. he's got the superpac, so i don't think he wants to do anything that would contribute to donald trump's impeachment because that would then burn his social networks, his financial networks, the entire infrastructure that supports john bolton. >> we only have about ten seconds left, but do you think he will say things publicly critical of the president on twitter? >> i don't know about on twitter, but he's certainly saying it behind closed doors, and i suspect he will in his book. >> but not for free, under oath, before congress and the american people. thanks so much. have a happy thanksgiving. >> you too, john. the news continues. it's time to hand it over to chris for cuomo prime time. >> thanks, j.b. i am chris cuomo. welcome to prime time. why did they release the ukraine aid to them when they did? why? more than ever the answer seems

to be because the people involved knew that congress was on to the scam. and by they, we can now definitely include president trump. why? reportedly the president was briefed about the whistle-blower complaint before he released the ukraine aid. you know, right when he started saying, no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo. i want nothing, when he had just said the opposite before that. we also have two other pieces of the puzzle that make the picture of potential impeachment even more clear. so what do you say? let's get after it. all right. this comes from "the new york times" just tonight. sources say president trump already knew about the whistle-blower complaint when he released the hold on military aid to ukraine on september 11th. the "times" reports lawyers from the white house counsel's office briefed the president in late august. remember, i'm going to lay out

the whole time line for you again in detail in the next segment. but july 25th is the call, right? then august he finds out about the whistle-blower. september, they release the aid out of nowhere. this is a vital piece of information. to develop the truth of why the aid was suddenly released. and remember why that matters, because if this wasn't about leveraging ukraine, well, what's their defense? well, we gave them the aid. but why did they do it then? if they did it then because they thought everything was about to be exposed, they're in trouble. let's bring in tennessee congressman steve cohen. he sits on the house judiciary committee, which is of course going to be the next instrument of a potential impeachment. this is where it really becomes a serious confrontation. congressman, we'll talk about the process in a second. let's start with the headline. what does it mean to you that the president, not just the white house, was well aware of the whistle-blower complaint to some degree of detail just weeks

before they released the aid? >> it's obviously why he did it. if the whistle-blower didn't file his report, the president of ukraine would have gone on television on your network at trump's request and announced the investigation of the bidens so he would get the military aid. he was scheduled to do it because he didn't know different. trump had it. he loved him according to sondland, would do anything for him. but trump found out about the whistle-blower, the fact that it was going to become public. he knew what he did was wrong, and so he released the aid. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. >> there are other pieces, mark sandy, senior official at omb, hears about the hold on the aid, says this doesn't seem right. he says, i think this might be illegal. we should look at it. he winds up resigning over the situation. significance? >> well, there were people that were on the inside who heard what was going on and knew that it was not about corruption in

ukraine or corruption in any other country to give foreign aid to like afghanistan and iraq, which are much more corrupt and get much more aid. it was about political. it was about using the powers of the presidency and the funds authorized by congress to benefit yourself with political dirt on your opponent. that is a danger to national security. it's abuse of power. they knew it, and it was recognized. the fact that people saw it there -- >> bad fact that i want to hear argued in front of your committee, congressman, if i could take your case on this, is this president had given aid to ukraine in two budgetary cycles before now. he never raised the issue of biden in those to our knowledge. the only thing that changed ostensibly is the former v.p. decided to run for office. >> well, the fact is in previous times that aid was given, there was no connection at all to, quote, unquote, corruption and ukraine was a very corrupt

country, but they didn't have a president who had been elected who was a corruption fighter. they had a president who was corrupt, and yet that wasn't even questioned. all of a sudden it became important about corruption. they don't care about corruption. the fact is they wrote the book. >> the idea of corrupt intent, the constructive analogy for you guys in terms of what the wrong was, is this was a bribe. you're going to have to make the proof to the american people against counsel now at the judiciary committee level that this was a scam all along to lever ukraine. one of the major defenses will be, but he believed it, congressman. he believed ukraine was involved in the 2016 interference, and he believed that the bidens were up to no good. so he had a good-faith interest in doing it. therefore, he could not form corrupt intent. >> i don't think that that can

be seen. you have to have a willing suspension of disbelief, not even aristotle would buy that argument that he really all of a sudden found that to be true and that ukraine was involved. it comes right out of moscow and not that the president hasn't agreed with moscow on other things when he was in helsinki he was saying, i don't see -- putin says he didn't interfere with our elections, i don't see why he would, and basically agreed with putin. trump is a man of convenience. his shifting morality and shifting ethics, but it's clear from anybody looking with an objective eye that he wanted dirt on the bidens. he was fearful of joe biden being his opponent. >> secondary defense is going to be, i didn't know what rudy was doing. yeah, i trust rudy, so he went out there, but i didn't know what he was doing. now, we've heard in the past that rudy has said, i was doing this for my client. my client was aware of some of it before, some of it after, but i was working as his attorney. is there any credence to that theory? does it give any clearance to

the president if this is about what rudy did, not what the president knew about what he did? >> i think there's information that's come out that pompeo had talked to rudy. >> yes. >> pompeo won't testify, nor will giuliani to our committee. but that pompeo and giuliani had talked. giuliani and sondland had talked. ambassador sondland was a key -- i wouldn't put him to the level of john dean, but he had giuliani and pompeo and mulvaney and the whole cast of characters as totally in the loop and plotting it, and there's no question that's what was going on. then all of a sudden, mulvaney tries to find a way how can we rationalize this when they found out the gig was up. >> if you could get one guy, who would be the one guy that you want to come in? and may i make a suggestion of bolton given what he tweeted today? what does he mean by saying that the policy aims were being, you know, subverted from within? >> well, bolton encouraged people that were working underneath him, and i think it

was fiona hill, and there was another person to go testify and to take action, which they did, and they did testify. but bolton won't do it because bolton wants to sell his book. you don't know why bolton is doing these things. i suspect it's selling his book. one of the guests on the previous show was saying how bolton is such a strong republican, and he is, and that's his whole social ties. he's not going to want to cut those just like mcgahn is probably not going to want to cut them either. that's where their bread is buttered and that's what's going to make a difference. they're not caring about america. they care about their future and their contacts and their abilities to sell what they've learned from government either in a book deal or in clients at jones day. >> something we've been arguing a lot with defenders of the president is going to be made manifest when the proceedings start in your committee. this has been the investigatory phase up until now. it was done with clinton by ken starr. it was done under nixon by a couple of different people running a grand jury.

you guys did it yourselves here. they kept saying, this is so unfair. the president doesn't have any representation. you never get representation in the investigative. >> no. >> and even to the extent they weren't supposed to have any, they had half the room, and the intel committee was fighting for them tooth and nail. they did nothing but the republicans except try to find clearance for the president. but now in judiciary committee, that changes. counsel can be there. they can question witnesses. what will that dynamic look like? >> resolution 660 that sets out the rules gives the republican president more rights in the judiciary committee than either nixon was given or clinton was given. >> why? >> there are more defense rights because we're bending over backwards. the democrats do that. speaker pelosi wanted to do that and make it clear that we're giving due process and to try and minimize the argue president. no matter what we had done, they'd say it wasn't enough. i'd like to see donald trump

appear. donald trump likes to talk to the american people. today he called it b.s. at his rally. he likes to use, you know, vulgar terms, and they love it. i'd like to have him come to congress, sit down in a chair and answer questions. that's what he should do if he's truly innocent, if he really didn't have malevolent intent and if he really thought it was corruption and truly believed that the ukrainians were the people that were involved in getting up dirt in the 2016 election. come and tell the american people. if you don't, you're a coward, donald trump. >> congressman steve cohen, heavy words just before thanksgiving. thank you very much and the best to you and the family. >> thank you, chris. happy thanksgiving to you. >> all right. steve cohen basically calling the president a turkey just a couple of days before thanksgiving. will that move him looking at what happened with mueller, i doubt it. what the president says is just a taunt. what he does is play it safe. this new reporting tonight, though, shows just how important the time line is here, just like in all investigations. when did things happen, and in

what sequence? now we're starting to see just like this image on your tv. one big ugly face, but millions of little pixelations, little pieces. now we can lay out a time line that will give us a much better sense of why things happened and when. next.

apparently we come from a long line of haberdashers. we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so we're in this little town near salerno and everyone has dad's eyebrows. help your family discover their unique story, with a gift from ancestry. heskip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus., now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! 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. and your mother told me all her life that i should fix it. and now it reminds me of her. i'm just glad i never fixed it.

listen, you don't need to go anywhere dad. meet christine, she's going to help you around the house. the best home to be in is your own. from personal care and memory care, to help around the house, home instead offers personalized in-home services for your loved ones. home instead senior care. to us, it's personal. all right. tonight's "new york times" is helpful, and it forces us to take a fresh look at what the president knew and when he knew it. this is not a cliche. it is a key to understanding what matters here. so let's lay it out in a simple time line, and you'll see reality come into focus. the call with the ukrainian president around 9:00 in the morning, that's not so interesting, july 25th. but that's when the president specifically asked for a favor of ukraine's president to look into a conspiracy theory which has been dismissed by that by everybody, but to look into ukraine's role in any interference in 2016 and the

bidens. he says "bidens," okay? some of you want to imagine that that didn't happen. look at the transcript. he also tells him, talk to rudy, showing that he knows what rudy is doing. that same day, an official at the budget office, omb, another acronym in the alphabet soup that we've all had to learn about this, signed the first documents officially putting dod, department of defense money for ukraine on hold. that official is named mark sandy, and he spoke with impeachment investigators. why? all right. we'll get into that in just a bit. but the time line is what matters. tonight the "times" is reporting that in late august, before it was known to the public -- that's key -- white house lawyers told the president about the whistle-blower complaint. now, we had heard that there had been communication interagency about the whistle-blower and what to do and what they had, but not this far, that the president himself knew. they didn't yet know what the

information would come to, whether it would go to congress or not. it wasn't until september 9th when congress launched the investigation. that same day, trump's million dollar donor turned eu pa ambassador called the president. reeve this? >> i believe i just asked him an open ended question. what do you want from ukraine? i keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. what do you want? it was a very short, abrupt conversation. he was not in a good mood. he said, i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing. >> does donald trump seem to be the man -- kind of man to you that throws around the term "quid pro quo"? think about that for a second. why? okay. there's the call. he hears about the whistle-blower complaint. what does the whistle-blower talk about? concerns of a quid pro quo, right? then what happens?

congress starts asking questions. then mr. sondland, who said everybody knew what was going on, we were working with rudy at the express direction of the president, everybody now. all of a sudden, sondland doesn't know anymore. so he calls the president, i don't know what to do. and the president says exactly what he needs to do to cya. interesting when you look at it that way. it's a whole different story here if the president already knew the whistle had been blown when he took that call from sondland. two days later, the military aid is released. why? no one can tell us. how interesting. you think you'd have a story for why you were going to do something like this when you knew it would be the critical move, right? because releasing the aid is the only clarity for this president to get past the conceit of this scam. he had to release the money before anything happened. now, back to mark sandy's testimony from the office of

management and budget, the budget official. he shares new details about who was pulling the strings when it came to the money. let's rewind the time line and look at what else we learned today about the freezing of aid. so sandy says, even before the call with zelensky, okay, he was telling his bosses, what's up with this money being withheld? i'm sure he didn't sound like that, but he's suggesting maybe it's illegal. then on july 30th, his boss, very important here, not a deep stater, which means a conscientious person who has sacrificed years and years to their duties, but a political appointee from trump. he took immediate control of the aid process. we know during all this two people left their jobs with the omb. one did leave because they had another job somewhere else in the government. put him to the side. but both -- still, i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one. i'm moving that one to the side. but both sandy and that person

expressed concerns about how the money was being withheld and why. now, when you take all this together, any question of what was in the president's mind is gone. why? because you know what you can show. they can't say why the aid was released. they've offered no other explanation. he knew there were questions about the call. he knew congress was on to it. he knew what the whistle-blower had. he was even using the operative phrase. what does it mean? it means these questions are getting harder and harder to answer. facts first. now, tonight the president is also facing a new round of impeachment hearings. that's what we were talking to cohen about. the judiciary is where the game gets real. and he has to deal with yet another recent conviction of one of his trusted advisers. and why roger stone got convicted matters. michael caputo and i, we share a theory about roger stone. he is a friend, and he is next.

you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. yeah, i could see that. 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. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. 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. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. select chuckit launchers are november 22nd$4.99!tsmart! 25 ounce beggin strips are only $9.99! and don't forget - our black friday deals start online thursday at petsmart.com! petsmart!

now, just looking over that time line we went through, there are big problems with when things happened, and they're going to have to answer those questions. that's what the next part of the impeachment process will be about. it's going to be much -- well, i shouldn't really say that because this in the intel committee, that was pretty combative. but it's not supposed to be by design. it's supposed to be about congress fact-finding, but really it was completely dispute asiaous. it was about right defending the president and left going after him. that's what this is really about in the judiciary except at the end of it you'll have articles of impeachment or not. before all of this began, republicans claimed that the process was unfair, that he

should be able to be in there cross-examining, which is just b.s. that never happens in the investigatory phase. you think giuliani's lawyers are going to get a chance to get involved with the investigation right now? no. but now in the judiciary committee, they will do just that, and they will start on december 4th. the president and his legal team are invited to take part. they're invited to question and to argue, okay? the president says, maybe i'll testify. i'm taking the under on that. now, let's talk about some things that make sense and some things that don't. former trump adviser michael caputo is here right now. i should mention caputo signed an nda stating that you won't defame trump, his businesses or the trump family. you've never done that anyway. welcome back to prime time. happy thanksgiving to you and the family. >> happy thanksgiving to you, chris. >> let's go from the what makes no sense to what should make a lot of sense. starting at the outer pole, have you ever heard of -- michael spent a lot of time in russia. he worked in that part of the world.

he knows people there. he knows the connections back here in the u.s. did you ever hear of parnas because everyone i can find who knew about him was like, that was a stay-away guy. >> i never heard of parnas. the first time i heard of him was when reporters were calling me and asking me if i had heard of him. i spent a lot of time in ukraine. chris, i think you know i'm married to a ukrainian woman. we have family there. i'm very close with my family in ukraine. i spent time there. i've never heard of lev parnas. but that doesn't mean a great deal. it just means we run in different circles. >> no, look, i hear you. it's just that for rudy giuliani, we've both known him forever. he's angry about the interview. he's blaming me as part of this media conspiracy. i have tremendous respect for him. but for him to associate with people like this guy and all their connections doesn't seem like him, does? >> i don't think rudy knew a lot about these guys and perhaps he should have checked them out a

little bit more. but at the same time, we don't really know a lot about them ourselves, do we? >> not yet. >> we're going to find our more and more. but remember rudy giuliani comes from new york. he was mayor of the toughest city in the world, prosecuting mafia. he's been around a lot of different kinds of people, people you and i probably wouldn't want to spend any time with either. >> now we move down the spectrum. this ukraine did it, everybody debunks this theory. people have invested time and money in trying to figure it out. bossert says it's been debunked. the crowdstrike thing has been debunked. crowdstrike, yes, they have part of their ownership is ukraine but they're a california company. do you really believe that ukraine, not russia, was to blame for the 2016 interference? >> no. i believe, as you know, when the emails -- the democrat emails were leaked before the convention, i came out immediately and warned the obama administration that this was

russia and something had to be done about it stat. i've always thought it was russia. i'd love to see the fbi prove it was russia and prove that i was right, but just because russia did it doesn't mean ukraine didn't do it. i don't believe ukraine was messing around on the internet or doing cyberwarfare like the russians were. i know for a fact that they were -- that the leadership of the ukraine government at the time, the poroshenko government, was working through their embassy with hillary clinton and dnc operative alexander chalupa, and at the same time, a member of parliament very close to president poroshenko was messing around with that black ledger as they call it, which was never proved to be real or not real. in fact, it's disappeared in ukraine. i can tell you -- all the time i spent in ukraine -- >> i know you know a lot of stuff. but the federal prosecutors felt pretty confident about the information with manafort. and, again, tom bossert -- >> but they didn't use the ledger. >> they didn't need it. they had their own sufficiency

in terms of evidence. >> that's not why they didn't use it. you don't know that's why they didn't use it. >> it's what they said in their papers. >> they don't believe that the ledger is real. i can also tell you that the top law enforcement officers, those who have a law and order background in a corrupt system, intend to get to the bottom of the burisma scams and the poroshenko regime meddling in the u.s. election. there's going to be investigations -- >> but what meddling exactly? >> in kiev. gts going to happen. >> the dnc says it never happened. chalupa says it never happened. mueller says it never happened. the intel community says it never happened. >> that's not true. >> of course it's all true. >> that's not true. chris, it's not true. >> what's not true? >> there are a lot of people very curious about what alexander chalupa and -- >> i know they are. they're all defenders of the president. why does bossert -- >> let's agree on one thing. >> go ahead.

>> there's more afoot with chalupa and the m.p. that released that fake black ledger than was ever afoot that led to the investigation of the trump team. >> oh, i don't believe that at all. >> i say if we investigate the trump team, let's investigate this team. i tell you, it's really funny that -- >> i don't. i don't believe you investigate both sides. you go where the evidence is. >> it will be really funny in the end, chris, when ukraine, this uber corrupt organization on this planet, is more willing to investigate allegations of corruption than the united states is. >> well, first of all, we've been investigating corruption all over the place. but, look, back to the -- >> then let's investigate this. >> no, because you go where the evidence is. >> what are you afraid of? >> i'm not afraid of anything. i'm the journalist. >> there's evidence there. >> there is not evidence there. here's my proof. >> yes there is. there are members of the staff of the ukrainian embassy that say this happened. >> again, for all of you, tom bossert was one of the head security analysts for this president. he's a friend of the president.

here's what he said. >> mm-hmm. >> not only a conspiracy theory, it is a completely debunked. let me just again repeat that it has no validity. >> why? why would the senate intel committee run by a republican say the same thing? he was talking about the crowdstrike rumors and them having this server. >> i don't believe crowdstrike. >> that's what the president said he wanted investigated. >> then let's debunk that. i'm talking about the real, in plain sight evidence. >> hold on. >> that ukraine's president, poroshenko, had ordered his people to meddle in the united states election. >> michael, i hear your questions. >> it had nothing to do with crowdstrike. >> that matters. here's why. one, we'll see what they do about the other thing. that's ukraine's business. two, the president has 100 times more reason than you to know that the crowdstrike thing is b.s. 100 times more because these people all work for him. the intelligence community, burr at the senate intelligence committee. they all came to the same conclusion. he knows it.

he was briefed on it. they were briefed on it. he says, no, i think it happened. how is that not all by itself a potential abuse of power? if you are so incompetent that all these people telling you something that isn't true except putin, and you believe putin? >> well, chris, i can tell you that i believe the president would like to see proof that crowdstrike -- >> he has the proof. >> nobody's seen it. i understand the fbi says they have it, but they've showed nobody. >> they can't give him proof that crowdstrike didn't take the server when a server wasn't taken. the dnc says no server was taken. >> that's not what i'm talking about. >> that's what he's talking about. >> let me tell you, i believe the president, like many of us, would like to see the proof that the fbi has that russia hacked the dnc. >> they have the proof. they indicted 12 different

people and entities. >> chris, i understand what you're saying, but crowdstrike's proof has not been made public. that's a fact. >> but that's different than the president not knowing it. i'm out of time but i got to ask you one other time. i have to ask this. i'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. you and i, i believe, share a theory. roger stone is too smart a guy to not know that they were going to get his communications. this is a savvy guy. it's a little different when you're in the crosshairs, but he knows the game. for him to play the game out the way he did, to me, suggests taking one for the team because he had to know this was going to go bad on him. now he's facing all of these convictions, and the president is silent about it. are you surprised that a guy who arguably has been his longest adviser, who arguably took convictions out of some misplaced sense of loyalty, is getting the silent treatment? >> well, i think you know roger stone is by court order still

not allowed to talk to me. we haven't spoken in ten months. in fact, he's not allowed to talk at all. >> i know. >> i don't know exactly what's going on in roger's head or what his defense is talking about. but i do know that the president is looking at the one person that was dragged into the mud of this bogus russia investigation, who did take one for the team. that's one thing the defense got right -- i'm sorry -- the prosecution got right when they opened and closed this trial. i was there every day, and they said roger stone did what he did because he was afraid to embarrass the president. i believe that's true. i believe the prosecution got that right. i think there's room for an appeal here. i don't really understand it because i'm not an attorney, but i think there's room. but the president needs to look at this. i don't expect the president to do anything about it right now, but i got do believe he's thinking about it. >> so much for loyalty. michael caputo, thank you for coming on the show. the best to you and your family for thanksgiving. we don't always agree, but we always agree you have a place here to make your argument.

>> thanks, chris. >> be well. the president may have a last chance to avoid impeachment. instead he's relying on a strategy that includes making you believe he's a victim. now, there are a couple of things that are said all the time, and we're going to play them out in the closing. but first where are we in terms of the pluses and minuses? beautiful legal representatives on that, next. fan noise) (children playing) ♪ (music building) experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. 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. ♪ for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur.

talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.

so chairman nadler, he's the chair of the judiciary committee, right, that's where the impeachment process moves next. he has given the president a chance to offer up a defense at next week's hearing if, you know -- it's unclear if the president wants to do that, but they have the ability. by the way, that's more than clinton was given. if the president's claim of a perfect call is to be sustained and no wrongdoing, then the question becomes, well, then why aren't you coming in? we know why the president's not going to come in. we know that's hot talk, but why not come m and mount a defense if you're getting this opportunity, you're really getting two bites at the apple. cuomo's court is in session with harry litman and jim schultz. we know president's counsel can come in if there's a trial in the senate. they're giving him one for free here. what is your take on the strategy? >> yeah, it's exactly right they haven't given it before. my best guess is he's going to stay away.

it's a sort of interesting question for him but i think he doesn't want to validate the proceedings at all. but it really takes away a talking point from him, right? oh, you've just railroaded me, no due process, et cetera. why not have, you know, a lawyer or representatives on the different points to make his claims? it should only be to the good. it's something that clinton and nixon didn't have a chance to do, but it means he is integrated in a process that he wants to pretend is completely corrupt. and i think that's why he wiend up staying away. >> jimmy, what's up with the poker face. you're not thinking of taking a job and going in there, are you? i need you on the show. >> no, i won't be going back. but, chris, i don't think there's any chance that they go in and mournt a defense in this case. this thing started in the judiciary committee with nadler, and nadler got embarrassed by corey lewandowski. he said we're going to send this over to schiff's committee. they did that in the basement. they did it in secret and leaked

out information. then they started leaking transcripts. now everything's been out in the open. now we're going to have another hearing over in judiciary when the cake is already baked and they're saying, hey, come on in and help us with the icing at the end. if i'm the president's legal team, i'm saying no way to that. this was not a fair process from the beginning. we're going to continue to fight this fight the way we've been doing it. we're going to get to the senate where the rules of evidence apply and where you're going to get a hearing that's managed much like a court of law. >> it may apply. >> you have judge mitch mcconnell doing whatever he wants to do. >> to the main assertions of jimmy, i want you to respond to them in order here. lewandowsky embarrassed the judiciary by pretending he got to exercise executive privilege, and the ken starr report that started with a land deal and ended with a sex act. >> chris, they couldn't even ask a question. >> let me talk about lewandowsky. >> i will pose it any way i want. this is my court.

i'm the judge, jimmy. you got lewandowsky. you got ken starr that he got to do his whole report. is this fair, or is this not compared to them? >> oh, yeah. more so. starr did it all in secret, and then he went to the senate. by the way, lewandowsky, yeah, he was high-handed and arrogant when he was talking to the congressmen, but when barry burke, a good lawyer, questioned him, he was quickly reduced to showing he was a liar. that's what it would be like in the house. you'd have competent, professional counsel questioning. that makes a big difference. that is what we had in watergate. >> so, you know -- >> in this case all we have is a rant in the first hearing. that's all we have is a democratic rant. >> you see no evidence? you say this is just a rant, jim? >> that first judiciary committee hearing was a joke, flat out. >> i'm not sure what you mean. but here we have a real one. >> they couldn't ask a question, and now we're going to come back

after they've done all their work in the basement in secret, and now -- >> it wasn't in secret. >> hey, come to the party. now you can ask questions. >> and why wouldn't they? why wouldn't they try to -- >> i would say we're not playing in this one. >> because it was -- you don't like how it was before? here's your chance to tell the american people and participate in a process where everyone's looking, and you want to say, we don't like how it was before? >> there's not going to be 218 democrats that are going to vote for impeachment here. the ones we have to look at are those 31 seats where the president won, and we have democrats sitting in those congressional seats. those are the ones that everybody's going to be watching in these votes. folks like jeff van drew in new jersey. >> that's true. >> and conor lamb here in pennsylvania. those are going -- >> what about the american people, jim? >> what about the 50% of the population? [ overlapping voices ] >> jimmy, hold on a second. let's get some context. jimmy, let's get some context.

let's get some context. i got something on the screen right now. can you see it? there's a poll that says 50% say impeach and remove. so you're worried about people sitting in red districts. fair point. what about this statistic? you worried about that? >> look, there are other polls that are showing this thing's going backwards on the democrats at this point in time. i think that it is, especially in those districts. you have folks like van drew in new jersey who said, look, i don't want any part of this impeachment to begin with. you know why? because he's paying attention to his constituency. folks like conor lamb, silent in western pennsylvania on this issue because you know why? he's taking a look -- >> clinton had 31 go against him in the impeachment proceeding. >> the constituents aren't for it, chris. >> i got your point about the politics. harry, last point. >> quick point. politics, fine. what about the american people and actually finding out what happened here? what about trump and his -- and

pompeo and the rest actually letting us know what happened? it's not just politics. >> right. harry litman, jimmy schultz, appreciate you making the arguments. i'm thankful to you both. have a great thanksgiving. >> thanks, chris. all right. now, a lot of this is politics. a lot of this is persuasion. some stuff in that vein is going to be fine even if you don't like it. some of it is not. and we have a situation here that must be addressed on two fronts. when you can't fight the facts, you attack the person stating the facts. but there are two attacks that have to stop because they are poisoning this process for real. i'll lay it out. you decide. next. most powerful signal. and we want to keep you connected to those you love, with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, or up to a family of four. keep your family connected,

and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to four iphone 11's on us. only at t-mobile. it's time to make mopping history. braava jet, start mopping. introducing the braava jet m6 robot mop. with an adjustable precision jet spray and advanced pad system for mopping or sweeping, braava jet breaks up messes and gets deep in corners. a better way to mop. without any effort. the braava jet m6 robot mop. only from irobot. when we were looking he wanted someone super quiet. yeah, and he wanted someone to help out with chores. so, we got jean-pierre. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with renters insurance. ♪ yeah, geico did make it easy to switch and save.

♪ oh no. there's a wall there now. that's too bad. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be. skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

select chuckit launchers are november 22nd$4.99!tsmart! 25 ounce beggin strips are only $9.99! and don't forget - our black friday deals start online thursday at petsmart.com! petsmart! the argument. two things need to stop tonight like now. first the idea that anyone who disagrees with the president hates him. >> i think they hate this president more than they love their country. >> i know you hate trump.

>> do they love america more than they hate this president? >> this is cheap. this is destructive, and they know it and do it anyway. a "washington post" count in april found 21 of the judges who have ruled against this administration were put on the bench by republicans. big cases, daca, mueller's special counsel appointment, family separation, sanctuary cities -- all handed down by republican-appointed judges, okay? why? the problem is not the judge. it's the constant violation of the law by this president. in fact, the only person in this mix who uses animus in place of any legitimate dispute is our president. >> shifty schiff. little pencil neck adam schiff. elizabeth pocahontas warren. sleepy joe. crazy bernie.

cryin' chuck. crazy nancy. these are maniacs. >> not just politicians. this isn't about us in the press. they made fun of my mother last week. i would laugh if it wasn't so embarrassing. the second thing that needs to stop is the idea that this president is a victim of anything other than his mouth, his motives, and his moves. the last almost three years have been filled with investigations. they are right about that. but why? his mouth, his motives, his moves, and those around him. examples. the taxes, wouldn't put them out. he says he's under audit, but he won't prove it. he keeps sheltering putin in a way that raises questions about being compromised. the russia probe started by what his people said and what his people did. and by this president's constant solicitation of, help to, and denial of the obvious russian interference to this day.

and this whole ukraine mess, it's about what he and his personal lawyer planned to do. >> so you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden? >> of course i did. >> that's fine. again, i don't think this is about rudy. i think this is about rudy doing what his client wanted him to do the way he allowed him to do it. this president is making his own mess. further to the point, mueller outlined instance after instance of obstruction by the president himself. so why didn't they move on it? democratic leadership chose not to move on impeachment. you can say it was a political thing. they didn't think they had the votes, whatever. but they didn't do it. add them. now all of a sudden if you look everything that has happened, there's no need to make it up. they're all of his own making. he plays the system, and when caught, this president plays the victim.

>> it's a shame that your president has had to go through this. no president should ever have to go through this again. >> i hope he's right. god willing we will never have a president who causes this much chaos again. and you know what? the chances of that may be better if the man responsible for the chaos right now does get impeached. why? look, i think you can argue it either way. i have argued it on this show. some of you like that, some of you don't. that's the show. it's for people with open minds. but if he gets impeached, that is a permanent stain. it will be the first thing people will know about his presidency forever. trump said in a tweet, he never imagined his name connected to the word, but i believe that. and it may be his worst fear, and it will be realized. his name will be glued to being impeached for eternity. now, he can complain to the red hat rallies of thousands who agree with him no matter what he says. but the country has made their sympathies clear.

a majority doesn't just say this is a good process, doesn't just say he should be accused or impeached. they say he should be removed. i don't see that as being likely politically. as for those who support him most, you see how he is already making any loss that happens here about you, not him. >> and if you lose, they're going to say trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. this was the greatest. you can't let that happen to me! >> he created the mess, but you will take the loss. and yet you are not the victim if that happens. he is. and you must help him when he has done nothing but help himself. and in doing so, he has gotten himself exactly where he is. this is not about hate for the president, god protect him and keep him and his family well. but we must love the presidency more than any president. our loyalty and that of our

lawmakers is not to him but to the country and the countrymen that our politicians serve. they are servants for you, not serfs for the president. whatever happens next with impeachment, know this. this president can blame the person who is always apparently foremost in his mind -- himself. that's the argument. tonight's bolo. a democratic presidential front-runner's numbers suddenly running low. could it shake up the race? bolo.

-excuse me. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour?

-i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

bolo. be on the lookout. joe biden remaining steady at the top in the latest polls from quinnipiac. but look at warren, 28% to 14%. why this drop in this moment? electability. 10% say she's the one to beat trump. same number for sanders by the way. biden much higher than that. it's 69 days from the first votes in the iowa caucuses but this isn't what warren wants to see, especially with bloomberg now in the race and looking to