tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN January 17, 2020 6:00pm-7:00pm PST
on his very first meeting, but to rather listen to what he has to say, to listen to his response to what their briefing is rather than be demeaned. so i don't fault them for that and according to the book it was secretary of state rex tillerson who raised, mr. president, you can't talk that way. >> secretary cohen, thank you. >> i want to hand it over to chris cuomo. >> tonight, more about the depth and perception and ugly intentions about then-ambassador of ukraine maria yovanovitch. and ken starr, who trump once called a lunatic and a whacko.
did the president assemble his legal team based on part on the people he likes to see on fox news? let's get after it. >> one thing is clear, whatever his flaws and credibility issues as someone who is indicted and kind of shady, lev parnas is a firsthand witness to everything senators have to evaluate. he's also putting out documents to back up his claims. that can be what they call in the law a cure to credibility issues. now, the people working on his behalf, texts, emails, pictures, lev parnas had a way all through trump co and now there are more of them to pore through. some of them pertain to the possible surveillance of former ambassador marie yovanovitch. they clearly, and maybe the guy was making it up, he's a shady
guy, too, hyde, but they're back and forth on where she is and what's going on with her and what can they do and what needs to happen and when is she out and there's communication to devin nunez who said he didn't know parnas, now he said he just had one call. it's kind of weird. now the communication show, i'll tell you what, nunez has a real problem on his staff if he doesn't know anything about parnas and what he was doing because one of his staff members was setting up meetings for parnas with different union crani -- ukrainian officials including rudy giuliani and others. was this guy reallying doing this and nunez didn't know? the impeachment document dump comes as new lawyers are named for the president's defense team, including former clinton impeachment players ken starr and robert wray who you've seen on this show. this announcement prompted this tweet from monica lewinsky.
this is definitely an r -- f'ing kidding me kind of day. remember, what starr and his team, what they put her through, those are hard memories about a time that if you compare it what's happened here, this is child's play compared to what the ken starr investigation was about. they started with land deals and whitewater and ended with a tryst. so for those who complain, boy, they just keep searching for something on trump. you started with foreign interference, you ended with foreign interference. by comparison, it's not even close. also named to the trump defense team, alan dershowitz and let break it all down with asha
ran ranga rangappa and jimmy schultz. do you think the president said, yeah, i like him now, i saw him on fox, he's good. you called him a lunatic once. i saw him on fox once, he's good. >> i know robert wray, i know they're all accomplished, dershowitz is a personal friend. i'm saying these are not the natural selection of guys you put in there. starr and wray were in favor of prosecuting the president for abuse of power. >> they're going to make the case this isn't abuse of power and they have the wherewithal to do it and the intelligence to do it and the experience to do it. they're all well respected members of the bar, very good
legal team. the president probably wasn't the only person picking his legal team. he had advisers helping him pick them. this is a team i would want to assemble in my defense if i was president. >> i don't know, asha. i don't think it's a coincidence that they're all on fox news a lot. >> well, it's not judge janine, so it's definitely a step up. these are real lawyers. they have experience. as jim said, they can make legal arguments. and what i would say, chris, is, you know, lawyers do defend principles, and they will often go to the other side party-wise. ted olson, a very conservative lawyer, argued in favor of same-sex marriage. you can get somebody who may have argued the other side before. i think the issue here is on the facts, what some of these people
argued were an abuse of power on the facts were such a low threshold that it is very difficult to see how they could, like, legitimately argue that what is here is not. but that is the job of a lawyer. i would say what is more problematic is whether the senate will buy these arguments and i'm a little bit concerned about alan dershowitz's claim earlier today that he is actually not a formal member of the legal team but he is somehow coming in to present a legal argument as some kind of, i guess, expert witness, which seems to me to be a procedural issue in terms of fairness. >> i hope, jimmy, i think de dershowitz is trying to have it both ways. all due respect to the professor. i listened to anderson tonight.
he has his arguments. but this idea i'm basically working for the constitution, i'm going to lay out the case -- he's working for donald trump period. i hope he's right, jimmy. i hope that he's right that he isn't working for the legal team, though everybody i've talked to on the team says he is. that means they're okay with witnesses. i hope that he is just a witness. >> he's also said he's going to make an argument as to why donald trump should not be removed and should not have be impeached. he's going to be there representing donald trump. >> he says he's not doing that, by the way. he says you're wrong. >> okay. he can say i'm wrong. >> not me. he says it. >> he can say i'm wrong. but the fact of the matter is he's going to be making a legal argument on behalf of donald trump and he's going to be making a very sound -- constitutional legal arguments relative to the case and i'm not going to walk through them chapter and verse because he did it so well on anderson's show a few minutes. but he's not going to be arguing
facts. that's the line he's working here. he's not going to get involved in trial strategy, involved with what witnesses if there are witnesses to call and he's not going to get involved in the factual piece of the trial. >> no, i get it. i get what he's saying. it just odd. again, to asha's point, i think it opens the door to the existence of witnesses because if his only role is to make an argument to the court about what impeachment is supposed to be and why impeachment basically should never be used, he's a witness. he's not just an advocate for the president. >> i completely agree with you, chris, and, you know, that ship sailed. the house actually had testimony from legal scholars who gave, you know, the full set of views on whether or not the facts, as a matter of law, constituted an impeachable offense. and i feel like this is a you snooze you lose situation, because not a part of that.
if the senate were calling witnesses, he could be one of many expert witnesses who could testify, but what the senate seems to be suggesting is that it wants to act as some sort of appellate court, where it is only going to review what the house investigated and that this is some kind of closed record. if that's the case, too bad, so sad, i don't understand why alan dershowitz gets the special privilege of coming in and introducing additional legal arguments. if that's the case, the house should be able to present also a legal scholar to rebut his argument and that dershowitz should be able to be cross-examined on his views. >> so fact of the matter is, though, he's not coming in as a witness. he's not going to be sworn in as a witness. they're not going to vote on him as a witness. he's going to make a legal argument before the tribunal that what is has happened to donald trump is not constitutional.
and that this doesn't meet the threshold of what the framers of the constitution had intended. and that in and of itself is an argument before the tribunal like any other court. we can argue back and forth as to whether this is a court or a -- >> it's never been -- >> it's a political process. they also have dershowitz coming in and making a legal argument. it not a snooze you lose. he didn't have to testify before congress to come in as a member of that time. he should just say he's a lawyer for the president. >> he says he isn't, but the team says he is and he's listed as part of the team. they asked him tonight if he's getting paid. he said if i do get paid, i'm going to give it to charity. i don't know why you'd pay a guy if he's not doing something for you. i think the bigger question before them, i think dershowitz want to have it both ways because he doesn't want to be seen as partisan. the bigger problem they're going to have is evidence and how that leads into witnesses.
i don't know how you ignore what is coming out from parnas. and the idea that, well, it's going to come out in the house, you tell me a trial that never allowed new evidence that came after the investigation phase and we both know the answer is never. thank you very much on a friday night. best to you both. we're going to take a closer look at the messengers that the president has picked to make his case because there's some very interesting contradictions in what they represent that feed my argument to you that, yeah, it is about optics he has seen these guys on tv. he thinks you're impressed by that because at least he is. all right? starr and dershowitz in their own words that i don't think the president has heard before next. paradise, o you take a little paradise with you. lash paradise from l'oréal paris voluptuous volume. intense length. no wonder there's one sold every five seconds. only one mascara can take your lashes to paradise. lash paradise mascara from l'oréal paris.
america's getting sicker. sick of donald trump, there are one million more uninsured americans every year under trump. and he's repeatedly tried to repeal obamacare. mike bloomberg will make sure everyone without health coverage can get it, and everyone who likes theirs, keep it. while capping fees to lower costs. as mayor, he helped expand coverage to seven hundred thousand more people. and championed women's reproductive health. as president, he'll give access to everyone. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.
but since they bought their new house... which menu am i looking at here? start with "ta-paz." -oh, it's tapas. -tapas. get out of town. it's like eating dinner with your parents. sandra, are you in school? yes, i'm in art school. oh, wow. so have you thought about how you're gonna make money? at least we're learning some new things. we bundled our home and auto with progressive, saved a bunch. oh, we got a wobbler. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. that's what the extra menu's for.
the president has lawyered up. ken starr, robert wray, alan dershowitz added to a roster of seven lawyers. oddly, the president hasn't always thought highly of the lawyers he just picked. >> i think ken starr is a lunatic. i really think that ken starr is a disaster. >> so what changed? well, one of the main metrics for the president, now he likes him. he's on state tv mostly defending him. but the arguments of these lawyers in the past don't exactly help his case. >> the president and his administration asserted three different governmental
privileges to conceal relevant information. those acts constitute a pattern of obstruction that is fundamentally inconsistent with the president's duty to faithfully execute the law. >> starr has aggressively chased impeachment in the past. remember, it was for a sex act. in fact, it was seen as such an extreme position that his own ethics adviser quit and clad that he, quote, unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment. robert wray refused to let the senate get the last word. he used a grand jury to try and indict clinton and kept the case open until the very last day of his presidency. now, why does that matter, argues both sides? because this isn't a criminal trial. in past impeachment, senators got to question the lawyers as well. it's a process that lasted three full days in 1999.
imagine these guys being asked why did you argue that then but this now? as for dershowitz, he's been consistent. during clinton and earlier tonight with anderson, he argued abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense, not what the founders intended. he also said answers of what is a crime shouldn't come from politics. >> and the american public is craving an objective analysis rather than the partisan analyses we've been getting. >> i think his problem in trump's eyes is that he is so anxious to not be seen as part of the legal team when he clearly is. he keeps saying, no, no, no, i just represent the constitution, and the third-party beneficiary of that will be donald trump but i'm not here, i don't represent donald trump, i'm not part of that. why does he want to stay away from donald trump so much when the guy's representing him? the idea there's nothing here like that, we got the nonpartisan gao report that
found faithful excuse of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities, okay? that sounds like he violated that law according to a nonpartisans objective nanalysi. the krademocrats did themselves favor with the drafting of these articles of impeachment because they could have included the word bribery. that's what it is if you have corrupt intent under the law, let alone in the political sphere when you leverage something like aid until you get what you want, something that is not for the public benefit, not for the country, it is for you. that's called a bribe. starr's record includes being removed from president of baylor following a series of sexual assault lawsuits against the university. dershowitz is in the middle of active legislation as part of
the jeffrey epstein mess. and then celebrity legal scandal, patty hearse, leona helmsley, jim baker, mike tyson, sim o.j. simpson, harvey weinst. >> my job is to defend both the guilty and the innocent. that's my only job. >> so your team reflects your values. so in a court of law, that kind of vigorous defense matters, but we're not in a court of law. this is a court that has to impress politicians and directly and indirectly you, okay? now, at least republican senators are perfectly willing to ignore the oath, according to mr. mcconnell, right? i'm not impartial, you took an oath to be impartial and sacrifice their duty to keep this president where he is. how will this play if all the
president wants is a good show? also, on trump defense team, pam bondi, seen here in a picture with guess who? lev parnas, the man everybody stands next to but nobody knows. there is new evidence that he put out. it does not look good, not just for the president but for devin nunez. we'll bring in one of his former house colleagues for his take next. ♪ don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade.
they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. with your dna results from ancestry®. i was able to discover one cousin,
reached out to him, visited ireland, met another 20 cousins. they took me to the cliffs of moher, the ancestral home, the family bar. it really gives you a sense of connection to... something that's bigger than yourself. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com.
in the meetings arranged to help nunez's investigative work. >> nunez said at the time, parnas? doesn't ring a bell. then did an about face this week just as parnas threw him under the bus, but still made it sound limited. >> you know now that he it called my cell phone and i didn't know his name, i didn't remember the name. >> the big example of it is take a look today at congressman nunez's interview on fox. he all of a sudden have an epiphany and remembers our phone call exactly. now he remembers speaking to me about nothing. >> it was just a phone call. is that that big deal? it wasn't just a phone call. we now have some of the conversation between nunez's top aide and parnas. what about? setting up meetings, some of which the aide attended. with whom? ukrainian officials and guess who else would be involved?
rudy giuliani, clearly things that nunez wouldn't know anything about or forget, right? what does former republican congressman sean duffy think of this? now, my sarcasm is clear because, sean, come on! i know you know him, party aside, you don't know who he is, then you get busted for having a phone call with him, then you suggest that's all it is, then your top aide is setting you meetings for the guy with ukrainian officials and rudy and you don't know anything? >> hold on a second, chris. we also have to go back and look at adam schiff from people he thought were russians. >> i'll let you talk about schiff but, come on, we got to stop this, brother. it doesn't matter what schiff did. things that are wrong are wrong all on their own. i'm asking you about nunez. do you believe him, that his on aide set up all this stuff with lev and he doesn't know his name, doesn't know anything about him? do you believe that if adam
schiff said it? >> i know in the intelligent committee they come across a ton of people. i haven't talked to devin on this so i can't speak for him on this issue, but i will tell you that for devin nunez to take a look at corruption of joe and hunter biden in the ukraine or adam schiff to say i'm going to talk to russians about naked pictures of donald trump, they're both advancing their investigations that they think can lead to crimes. >> why deny it? why do you deny knowing the guy? >> you'll have to ask devin that. >> he won't come on. you know they only go on state tv. he wouldn't come on here. he knows better than that. we ask real questions here. >> i don't know that schiff has gone over to the other networks as well. everyone goes to their camps. >> this isn't a camp, sean. come on, brother. you know what i'm saying here. u you want to go after schiff for what he was doing, fine. i'm saying it doesn't defend what nunez did. that's all i'm saying. him saying he doesn't know
anything about this guy makes no sense, sean, and you know it. >> but we're talking about lev parnas, right? you have a guy who says i have some really great hearsay. >> no, no, no. he's got documents. documents. documents. >> now he says i guess i didn't meet with donald trump. i didn't strategize with donald trump. i had a picture with him but we didn't strategize together. i never met him but for a picture. you and i know presidents take thousands of pictures. >> he's in a dozen pictures and video with him. he worked with his personal attorney as his main guy. listen, sean -- >> you can't lie, chris. >> he's got a cred iibility problems, 100%, but documents don't lie. documents don't lie. >> but, but -- but you have to have documents for the president. there's no documents with regard to donald trump. donald trump or -- >> no, you are don't. >> why? >> because it's hearsay, chris. >> no, no, no. if he wants to say he met with donald trump and he can't prove
it, dismiss it, rule it out. this is about what the president motivated. how do we know he motivated it? the omb emails. he put a stop to aid. why? parnas, written notes, get them to investigate, make zelensky say it, the rudy giuliani engagement letter, speaker conversations with rudy giuliani saying listen to lev like it was me for the president. >> let me tell you -- so when you look at this, if you want -- we could put all this stuff behind us if adam schiff and nancy pelosi said we are going to call joe and hunter biden. now, republicans say that hunter biden worked for a ukrainian gas company owned by a corrupt oligarch. hunter knows nothing about gas or ukraine. his dad, the vice president was in charge of foreign policy in the ukraine. if you think you can put a nail in trump's coffin by brings them in and saying we were doing nothing wrong, donald trump was
going after me for political purposes. i think hunter and biden weren't allowed to testify because they would have lend credibility to what donald trump was trying to do. >> they had nothing to do with the president's abuse of power. the people you bring in -- sean, what is a witness to be competent in a court of law? you know something relevant about the matters at hand. hunter and joe biden don't know what the president and his lawyer were doing with ukrainian officials. >> did the president have a reason to believe that joe and hunt aer biden were engaged in corrupt activity? >> it's not the question. >> yes, it is. >> it your question, it's not the question. >> trump is right on all of this. >> i get your argument. here's the counter. no, because the main question is why did he want just an investigation announced, not an investigation completed, why did
he want it just announced? the why. and did he have corrupt intent in that why. very high bar. could he have had it? yes. what's the best indication of that? because he did this in a way that only worked to his political advantage when he could have got i don't knten it political reasons easier. call your friends in the senate, investigate it. >> we've had this conversation. we're on two sides of this issue. we disagree on the facts. >> can't disagree on the facts. >> we don't have the facts because joe and hunter haven't testified. >> they have nothing to do with it. >> did the president have a reasonable belief that there was corrupt activities in the ukraine with hunter and biden and they can shed light on that. >> then why did he do it this way? if you want to ignore the fact that they've been looked at by the ukrainian officials and in the united states and nobody
found any wrong doing of the biden, if you want to dismiss that, fine, even though those are facts as well. why did the president -- >> you have the best evidence. you have the best evidence, ukraine, take a look at it for me. >> ukraine did take a look at it again for giuliani. lutsenko did it and closed it and said there's nothing there. that's a fact. >> so but what we're trying to do is say what i want is i don't want to bring joe and hunter in, i want to protect them. >> they're irrelevant. why don't you bring me in? >> i don't want to let trump call witnesses. >> why don't you bring me in? >> i disagree. i think they're absolutely relevant. >> how are they relevant to the president's abuse of power? if they didn't have anything to do with him abusing his power, how are they relevant? >> you're stringing things along. i look at donald trump and go if he is right that joe and hunter are involved in corruption in the ukraine, american corruption by an american vice president to
enrich his family, we have every right to look at it. you might not like the process, buffer i want my president to look and see what the heck are our officials doing to enrich their family? >> you think he cares about corruption? you think donald trump cares about corruption? he's trying to get to change the law so american companies can bribe foreign governments and you think he cares about corruption? come on, sean. come on. >> i've heard the president on countless occasions talk about how much money he's saved the american people and as the economy grows and people go back to the work and usmca and a new trade deal with china and the stock market is at 29,000 -- >> what does that have to do with corruption? what corruption has he rooted out? he's had more members of his cabinet leave in disgrace than we've ever seen before. he has doing nothing but encourage corruption, arguably. look, i got to go. i'll take your argument. >> donald trump is spending your
money like he spends his own. he doesn't want to waste it. >> on golf. on golf and protecting his kids. so much they won't even tell us, sean. come on. i appreciate the argument. >> this has been amazing. >> you can have a great economy and not be a lying abuser of power you can have both. you can have both. >> we disagree on that. >> i hope not. i hope you can have a good economy and not be a lying abuser of power. have a good weekend and thank you for making the case. >> you, too, chris. >> the president is being accused of hurting bernie sanders campaign. man, you've got to respect him being on message. this guy is trying to disrupt and divide 24/7. are the democrats ready for this? let's take it to the politicos next. yah, it's just a cold.
it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. infallible up to 24hr demand morfresh wear.wear. by l'oreal paris. excellent coverage with no weigh down. a breathable formula for fresh skin hour after hour. defies transfer, no excess. infallible up to 24hr fresh wear. by l'oreal paris. this one's for you. the heroes who won't let your disease hold you back. you inspired us to make your humira experience even better with humira citrate-free. it has the same effectiveness you know and trust, but we removed the citrate buffers, there's less liquid, and a thinner needle, with less pain immediately following injection. if you haven't yet, talk to your doctor about humira citrate-free. and you can use your co-pay card to pay as little as $5 a month. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma,
have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. the same humira you trust with less pain immediately following injection. ( ♪ ) hey there! i'm lonnie from lonnie's lumber.
if you need lumber wood, lonnie's is better than good. we got oak, cherry, walnut, and more. and we also have the best selection of plywood (clattering) in the state... hey! (high-pitched laughter) man: dang woodchucks! (wood clattering) stop chuckin' that wood! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. it helps to have someone in your corner. that's why there's covered california. we're the only place where you can get financial help to pay for your health insurance. new this year, almost a million people could receive additional financial help from the state to help lower the cost of health insurance... more for those already getting it,
well, they're bringing him out of so important iowa so that he can sit through the impeachment trial. that's why they're doing this trial. nothing to do with his gross abuse of power allegations. his latest salvo comes as another prominent democrat, though, former vermont governor peter shumland slammed his home state senators, bernie sanders, accusing his camp of playing dirty. how about this? bernie cast as both victim and villain in like the same day. what does this tell us about what's going on in the democratic party and what the pressure points are here? anna kasparian and karen fine are he y are here. do you think the president is susceptible that this is anti-bernie, not anti-klobuchar.
>> you can extrapolate that he doesn't think klobuchar can win. i don't think democrats are going tock fooled by anything that donald trump has to say and we'll see right past it. >> all right. anna, let's do a little clean-up work on this back and forth between warren and sanders. so shumland comes out and says bernie's attempt here is to hillarize warren. i guess that's hillary. what's the ultimate takeaway for you are and what this has meant? >> i would like to know more about this sexist attack on hillary clinton. seems like he has some issues with hillary clinton and he's arguing that bernie sanders is trying to characterize elizabeth warren as hillary clinton, which he certainly has not done. and his piece also doesn't reference any evidence to back
up the argument that he's making. >> mmm -- >> finney, go ahead. >> go ahead, ana, finish your thought and then, karen, you have it. >> there's a lot of defamatory comments about how bernie sanders is allegedly running a dirty campaign, however there isn't a single example of him talking about someone's character in a negative way or attacking someone's personality or doing any character assassination. all of his emphasis has been on policy and we're in the middle of a primary. in a primary you are supposed to emphasize the differences in policy proposals. the mere fact he has done that has gotten him in trouble for some reason, when in the past actual dirty poll titics on the left have been dismissed. >> stop. >> hillary clinton released a picture of barack obama in 2008
where he's wearing a turbin and it was during his trip to kenya. she perfectly did that as an effort to paint him as a muslim. i bring that up because bernie sanders would never, ever do something like that but he still gets characterized as someone who plays dirty politics. >> finney, counterpoint and then i have something else. >> quickly, let's remember the democrats actually did change the rules for bernie so that he could run as a democrat in 2016. and again this time he's running as a democrat and an independent. >> who cares what his labels are? >> ana, ana -- >> yes, yes. >> here's what i do think is relevant. clearly senator warren, there was an exchange between senator warren and senator sanders after the debate in which she felt like he was calling her a liar. that is part of their personal relationship they're going to have to figure that out. but this is politics and it is -- i would say that there is a difference between, sure, how
do we get to medicare for all and she has one timeline and he has another, but it is not the same thing to then say -- basically calling her a liar. and then on we saw the bernie bros attack the same way they did in 2016, calling warren a snake. that's where i think the senator's campaign can show some leadership and say, let's disagree on policy but let's not go into callingy other names. >> all right. >> are you arguing that bernie sanders is responsible for every random person who happens to be on social media? because the fact of the matter is every single candidate has a base that's pagsassionate. i've been attacked by tulsi gabbard fans, by andrew yang fans and pete buttigieg fans. that's part of the game. i'm not going to hold the candidates responsible -- >> i get what your point is.
the senator could come out and say something about his. his base is very vociferous. you guys are in the minor leagues when it comes to getting attacked by people's bas bases hillary clinton says i hope you pick a winner. now, one, i think that's a little ironic because i do think i know all due respect i think there's an argument to be made that the party never fell in love with her and she's the only person trump could have beaten. this time do you have concerns, karen, and then we'll end on ana, that you don't have someone that can definitely beat trump? >> no, and i'll tell you why. number one, let remember hillary clinton did beat donald trump by 3 million votes in the popular vote, not the electoral college. i don't think the democrats are going to let that happen again. i think people took it for granted that hillary was going to win. and i think we understand now and people thought there's no way donald trump would be the nominee on the republican side,
no way he's going to win. so i do think -- i hope what we've all learned in the last three to four years is you cannot take anything for granted when it comes to the future of our country. and i do believe that a majority of americans believe that donald trump is a danger to this country and should not be in office. i would vote for any one of the people who are running now to beat donald trump and i think a majority of americans would do the same. >> we'll see. ana, give me a quick button. >> i think that the focus on economic policy, i know that you disagree with this, is really key. there are many americans who are frustrated because they're struggling to put food on the table for their children, they're struggling to pay their bills, housing is unaffordable. that need to be the focus and i think that will help a democrat win. that's the reason why bernie sanders is really rising in the polls. he is now in a statistical tie with joe biden. >> amen, amen, i say with one comma. you have to connect with that
frustration and pain and convince people who went for trump that you will deliver where he hasn't. it a tough passion bond, it's a tough trick but you're right. thank you both, especially on a friday night. this president's pitch to you as you just heard from sean duffy is, man, he hates corruption, he'll do anything to root it out. that's going to be the crux of the defense next week, right? i have an argument based on something that's surfaced. you want to test his interest in corruption, i'll do that for you and quickly next. ing cream has 4 active ingredients to fight pain 4 different ways. get powerful relief today, with thermacare. dthen you have a reasons to go to jackson hewitt today. you could get up to $3,200 the day you file with an express no fee refund advance loan. that's money fast. like, today fast. don't wait weeks. go to jackson hewitt today.
thenot actors, people, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems,
such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent. of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice." tickets not available now or ever.
at "progressive on ice." 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. all right. so, here's the starting point. the big sell in the defense of president trump is likely to be that donald trump is an anticorruption crusader. he pitches himself that way. so do defenders. all his perceived enemies because they're corrupt. democrats and fbi. obama and clinton. now the bidens. all very corrupt. and that's what ukraine is
about. he begs you to believe im all about rooting out corruption. >> conversation i had was largely congratulations. largely corruption. all the corruption taking place. >> his. perfect, he says. just that pure interest in making sure everyone plays fair. gosh darn it. i'm being sarcastic because this is laughable proposition. history alone shady moves in business. his campaign. and wouldn't call the fbi if a foreign agent illegally passed information about an opponent. that's reality. what he clearly orchestrated and ep dorsed with ukraine is proof of it again. the consequence is up for debate. for those who aren't sure about how trump truly seeing corruption, listen to this quote from his mouth. it's just so unfair that
american companies aren't allowed to pay bribes to get business over seas. we're going to change that. that was trump in spring 2017. he wasn't misquoted. there was no allegation of that. it's in a new book a very stable genius from two "washington post" reporters. i ark trump doesn't believe he should be impeached for abuse of power. he believes power by definition should be abused. he thinks bribes and whatever you can get away with is okay. his life is testament to that proposition. the reporters in the book explain that he was frustrated with the foreign corrupt practices act. because it restricted his industry buddies or companies from paying off foreign governments. now, maybe he was just spouting off.
messing with the mind of those of us who value integrity and office. here's trumps top economic adviser today. >> i would say we are aware of it and looking at it. we have heard complaints from some of our companies. i don't want to say anything policy wise. >> okay. again, this is about trump's desire to get things done any way he can. he hasn't burdened by principles, morals and ethics. we are. america is a model for the world because we don't do what the worst places and people do. that's why the lady with the lamp lights the way to the place. it is seen as a beacon of hope. and a chance for better. be clear, this is not just about business and financial advantage. trump's believes about morality are at odds with american value.
here he is less than two weeks ago with tensions hot with iran. >> they're allowed to kill our people. maim our people. roadside bombs and blow up our people. we're not allowed to touch a culture site? it doesn't work that way. they're not allowed to do it. if you find out they're doing it and go to congress and get a strategy. you're allowed to do tshl terrible things. it's about might and when to use it and how. to be held to the same standard as terrorists? war crimes are okay? because others do them? that's making america great again? no, i argue that is negating why america is great. again and again. you would never teach what he just said to your kid.
you would fire anyone who approached their job the way he does. now, we'll have a trial. about what we will allow in our leader. we know what trump thinks is okay. but what i just showed you and so much more that he's said and done. here's the question. what are we about? senators, think about it. that's what the trial is about. that's what you will be judged on and reflect the feelings of the voters about you. the president thinks impeachment will help him win the next election. had should be looking out for a crucial voting block that he thinks he'll do really well with. what a bolo for a friday. from maybelline new york. precision tip. up to 8-hour wear. draw on all-day matte intensity. superstay ink crayon. only from maybelline new york.
says they can save you dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. cheerio! esurance is built to save you dollars. and when they save dollars, you save dollars. so get a quote. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wherever we want to go, we just have to start. autosave your way there with chase. chase. make more of what's yours. i had no idea that my grandfatherfe changing moment for me. was a federal judge in guatemala. he was an advocate for the people... a voice for the voiceless. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com
disapprove op trumps job performance. 83% believing he's racist. blaming both sides for violence in charlottesville and so much other ugly talk matters. some things matter more than money. thank you for watching. have a great weekend. before you party, "cnn tonight" with don lemon right now. >> i'm breaking down that poll that is. it's a "washington post" poll. we'll break it all down. what happened to all the polls that they're pointing out saying the president numbers among african-americans are growing. he's 35%. we know better than that. >> here's what he's got going. if he can get like 19 african-americans to vote for him. it will be a boost. it's a relative assessment. the idea that nobody has been better for the blacks than i have. they know -- >>