of miles away to a region dominated by arabs who may not exactly welcome them with open arms. military experts say the syrian democratic forces, a mixture of kurdish and arab fighters, do have a presence in that area. however, relocating the entire syrian kurdish population is something that has never been previously suggested. the president's tweet came after two defense officials told cnn that the pentagon is considering plans to deploy tanks to those oil fields. other officials said it is possible that lighter-weight armored vehicles like bradley or striker fighting vehicles could be sent because tanks could require an extensive number of troops to operate. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris and "cuomo prime time." chris? >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." we have more breaking news on our watch. another one of the president's top guys is about to tell all. he could back up most damaging impeachment testimony to date. what does it mean? what do you say? let's get after. it. all right. here's what we have to get into tonight. bill taylor's testimony may be about to get some backup. a current white house official named morrison is about to

testify before house impeachment investigators next week. his testimony would be the first from someone who heard what the president said on that july 25th call directly. not just through that transcript that the rest of us got to see. now, sources say morrison, who is a top russia and europe adviser on president trump's national security council, will corroborate key elements of taylor's account, namely, the president with ukraine was pressing for that president, that government to publicly announce investigations into the bidens before he would greenlight u.s. security assistance. what does this mean? will this be enough to have some consensus on wrongdoing? let's bring in another team trump member, former deputy assistant to the president fred fleitz, in studio. good to have you here. >> good to be here. >> thank you for coming on the show. >> pleasure. >> before we get into the substance i want to see if we agree on a point of civility. the idea that if someone in your

party is against the president, argues against them all the time, do you believe that person is scum? >> well, i provide material to the president sometimes he disagrees with and i've never -- he's never thrown me out of his office. i think the president is prepared to take other points of view. >> but when he calls never trumpers as he calls people in his party who aren't for him scum, do you think that's right? >> i think that mr. trump has a certain way of talking that we all love him for. it's a salty way of talking. you and i may have a different way of explain things but that's the way the president is. >> would you call somebody like that scum? >> i wouldn't, no. >> okay. let's leave it at that. we agree that that's not the way we should talk. the way we disagree matters. >> i think mr. trump has a different way of talking. and look, he's under a lot of pressure right now. we have an impeachment process that is a fraud, that's violating precedent, that is trying to destroy him. he's a human being. we're going to have him make statements like this once in a while. >> every impeachment can be looked at as personally destructive to the focus of it. that's not what makes this different. as we both know, history shows we are where these things always are.

the only difference is congress is doing the investigating -- >> not at all. we're not -- >> how is it different? >> we're not following precedent. we know what the precedent was for '98 and '74. >> what's the difference? >> we know that special rules were set to make sure that the president and the minority had certain rights. >> not at this phase. >> that's not true. >> it is true. >> the only difference is there was a formal inquiry with a special counsel -- >> that's right. it's a huge difference. >> during that process mr. clinton repeatedly exercised rights of privilege. now, the president -- >> he is the president. >> he's trying to. every time he does he's told he's trying to obstruct. >> because instead of it being just with the special counsel this is through congress. what i'm saying is the argument that this is more secretive than usual, not fair. starr did his work in private. >> over years. >> jaworski -- >> right. it started with land fraud -- >> during the years of that

process clinton repeatedly engaged in lengthy legal objections which mr. trump is being denied -- >> but they weren't done in private? >> the investigation by starr was. but that's not comparable to what adam schiff is doing -- >> of course it is. >> adam schiff isn't an investigator. he's not a special counsel. >> but he doesn't have to be. once he does the job, once you guys in congress, not you, congress does the job, because republicans are in there, they are then going to have hearings and at that point all the arguments apply. transparent, due process -- >> the democrats don't plan on giving any of those -- >> they absolutely do. they said they're going to have open hearings. >> they said they're going to have open hearings. they're not going to give the rights to the minority. they're not going to gift rights to the president. first of all, the president's counsel should be asking questions right now in schiff's hearing. why aren't they doing that? >> no way. >> why not? >> because those situations are depositions. they're not even hearings. you've had trey gowdy, pompeo, and lindsey graham all confirm when it suited them politically that those things are better done in private. >> different process. that was impeachment.

that was benghazi. this is different. impeachment has different rules because it is such a grave matter, to remove a president. >> lindsey graham said it about impeachment in 1998. >> i don't know what lindsey graham said in 1998 but -- >> i'll play the sound for you. >> i'm telling you the process is different for impeachment. a whole different set of rules set up to make sure it's absolutely fair and objective to -- >> no. with nixon -- >> in '74 and '98 it did happen. >> nixon and starr both had investigations in private, then handed off to congress. to be fair, henry hyde and clinton and even in nixon then had their own rounds of private depositions. after they got it from starr. and then -- >> no. >> -- there was confrontation. >> the house process gave certain rights to the minority every step of the way in the house in '74 and '98. >> no. only when they got to hearing level. >> that's not true. >> yes. >> the attorneys to the republican minority -- >> in the hearing phase. >> there was even a joint objective staff established. >> because there were special committees put together after they had the investigation done. you are right, this is different. but it's about what the distinction is in that difference. and you also have to add in

this, fred. the idea of majority and minority right now, that balance is out of whack. why? 2015. you guys changed the rules. >> again, that wasn't for impeachment. that doesn't matter. >> you changed the rules, period. you didn't say not for impeachment. >> not for impeachment. >> you said period. >> the impeachment rules are changed so dramatically -- >> there are no rules for impeachment. >> there are rules for impeachment. they were set in '74 and '98. >> but each one was different. >> they give equal access to the minority for subpoena, for cross-examination -- >> in the hearing phase. >> they give access to the president's counsel. >> the majority still had to approve everything that happened. but let's do this. those are our points on process. fine. in terms of the substance of testimony so far, did you find what we read from mr. taylor and what we've heard about as the product there as impressive in any way? >> well, i can't evaluate what mr. taylor has said because i don't know what was said in closed hearing. >> it's a sworn statement. >> i understand that the republicans destroyed him in closed hearing. but the republican questions haven't been provided. so i'm going to do something the

democrats aren't doing. i'm going to give the president the benefit of the doubt until i see the entire testimony. i haven't seen it. >> but this is what i'm saying. what basis would you have to not believe bill taylor? how is he -- he's not a never trumper. >> i'm not making any judgment. i'm saying i haven't seen -- >> but a sworn statement from a man you have no reason to disbelieve is not impressive to you? >> i haven't seen the transcript of the entire hearing. i haven't seen how he defended that statement. that is part of the whole process here. what i've seen are successive selective leaks by adam schiff and democrats on that committee to -- >> taylor is not a leak. sondland is not a leak. volker is not a leak. their texts aren't a leak. the transcript isn't a leak. this guy morrison if -- a white house official whom you know. >> i know tim well. >> and you respect. comes forward and says i heard on the call, it bothered me. what taylor's saying, we talked about it because it bothered me. because it seemed very clear that the president was

pressuring ukraine to give him these political value objects before they got what they wanted. how will you feel? >> there's four things going on right here. >> wait a minute. how will you feel? >> i haven't -- i'm not going to speculate on things that haven't happened yet. i haven't seen -- >> if he says -- >> i've seen selective leaks -- >> it's not a leak when the guy puts out a sworn statement. sondland isn't a leak. these aren't anonymous. they aren't leaks, fred. you know. these are real people saying real things. >> there was a statement by this fellow, but we don't know what happened in closed-door testimony. we hear from the republicans that this guy was destroyed -- >> what does that tell you? let's be fair. both sides leak like a sieve. so this guy gets destroyed and yet nothing comes out about what was destroyed from his testimony. >> well, it seems to me that there's two sides here. we have to see the whole testimony. >> of course. you're going to have a set of hearings after this just as happened in the past. >> no. they're not going to be the same.

they say they're going to have open hearings. they're not going to give the rights to the minority. >> you don't know that. >> okay. well, let's -- >> you just said you're not going to prejudge when it suited you with morrison. but you are going to prejudge what the democrats are going to do at the hearings. >> 50 bucks that they won't get equal rights in the hearing. >> i'm not allowed to bet. just kidding. done. >> they're not going to get the equal rights. >> well, first of all, they don't get equal rights because minority and majority have been skewed by your own reckoning in 2015 when you had the power. >> impeachment's different. impeachment has to be different. >> at what stage? >> that's what senator graham made clear today. >> at what stage? this is about bringing articles of impeachment. the majority always has the power. in every case. we've only had three. they were all very different.

andrew johnson, obviously one, two, three, to here. this is being the fourth. the majority have the power. then you'll get to a trial. okay? this is just the indictment. just to use an analogy. that's where these arguments should be made -- >> no. >> you are fighting the process because you can't fight the facts and you can't beat down these sources because they're your own people. >> four points. the democrats have been asked why aren't you providing the republicans the same rights as '98? one is we don't have to. on the constitution. i understand that. the second one seems to be -- >> i get that it's a talking point. but i'm saying i don't agree that they're not giving them the same rights because you're not there yet. >> okay. they are saying we can do this under the constitution. >> that's right. >> i understand that. they're also saying we're not going to change the rights of the republicans and the president because they would abuse them. this has been said repeatedly. they'd made a circus out of it. >> same thing trey gowdy said. same thing pompeo said. lindsey graham said. >> you don't deny someone rights because they'll accuse them -- >> republicans said we want to keep it closed because it's not a circus, we want to keep it closed -- >> this is not a valid argument. >> you guys made the same argument when it suited you. >> they're not giving the president these rights or the republicans -- >> it's too soon.

>> whenever an objection comes up to this process all they do is complain about things the president's said. they complain about his sweets. >> he doesn't comply. he attacks them personally. >> irrelevant for the impeachment process. the worst thing in this whole process, the democrats do not want to grant equal rights because they -- >> there's no trial, fred. >> they've already decided that trump is guilty. >> when they say that -- when people in the house say i'm ready to impeach now, i totally get the political argument of man, they're doing this soon. we don't even know everything yet. here's the problem with impeachment. it's political. as president gerald ford said, congress can -- an impeachable act is whatever congress says it is. so you're right to be upset about it. they seem early on with this. but that's politics. but in terms of due process, i don't think it's fair to be making these arguments until you get to the trial. and you're saying, well, i think they won't do it. but i ask you about morrison, a man you know, and you say, well, i can't judge it right now. >> i don't know what he's going to say. >> you don't know what the democrats are going to do. >> i just see leaks about what he's supposed to say.

i don't know what he's going to say. >> a leak -- a leak is when someone tells me something and i can't say who it is. not when taylor goes and puts his name in a sworn statement. but i've got to go. i'm out of time. >> the cia whistle-blower. can we talk about that? >> i don't think he's necessary. i think he's irrelevant. >> i've heard the name. cnn has the name. the white house has the name. house intel the can committee has the name. who's this guy being protected from? the american people -- >> statute. we protect whistle-blowers for a reason. he's also being protected from the president. >> president knows who he is. >> i don't know that. >> cnn has the name. american news has the name. breitbart has the name. we should talk about this right now. >> i don't know. here's what i'll say. i'm out of time. i'm not running from this. you're always welcome to come back. i don't think you need the whistle-blower. it's a red herring. >> they're hiding him because he has political bias. >> i don't know that he has political bias. i know the guys who are going there now are your team and they should be believed because they certainly can't be a function of bias. let's see what morrison says. come back. let's talk about it. >> sounds good.

>> always appreciate it. thank you for making the case on my show. >> good to be here. >> the president's own aides, this is what fred and i are talking about, i get questions about the whistle-blower, i get questions about anonymous sources, i'm a journalist, i rely on them heavily, but these are the president's aides. and they have been confirming what is at the heart of this impeachment investigation. another one is about to do that. so if it can't just be about the process, you heard that argument, i'm going to lay out next what this needs to be about and why. next. 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. my moderate to severe i ulcerative colitis.ing but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep, uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,

serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. oh no,... ...a cougher.

welcome to flu season, karen. is a regular flu shot strong enough... ...to help prevent flu in someone your age? there are standard-dose flu shots. and then there's the superior flu protection... ...of fluzone high-dose. it's the only 65 plus flu shot... ...with 4 times the standard dose. and it's free with medicare part b. fluzone high-dose is not for those who've had a severe allergic reaction... ...to any vaccine component, including... ...eggs, egg products,... or after a previous dose of flu vaccine. tell your healthcare professional if you've ever experienced severe muscle weakness... ...after receiving a flu shot. if you notice ...other problems or symptoms following vaccination,... ...contact your healthcare professional immediately. side effects include pain, swelling... ...and redness where the shot was given. other side effects may occur. vaccination may not protect everyone. if you're 65 plus, don't settle for a standard-dose flu shot. influenza...going down. move up to fluzone high-dose. see your doctor or pharmacist and ask for it by name.

oh! you got a fast one there just can't get him to slow down this class will help with that we get it... you got it! we're petsmart! first i want to make something clear to you. the reason you protect a whistle-blower is because there is a law that protects whistle-blowers from whatever it is that they reasonably have a fear of.

that's why we protect their name. cnn does not have any position on knowing the name of the whistle-blower. i like many people in journalism have heard names, one specifically, about who this is supposed to be. we don't report it because i respect the law. that's why we do it. and we're not going to use the unknown as a cudgel to say, well, he must be bad, she must be bad if we don't know who they are. there are plenty of people we do know about, named, part of trump's team, who are saying a corroborated and coordinated message. that should be our focus. two things to pay attention to as we go through this process. and again, my focus is what those close to this president say and what they don't. case in point. white house trade adviser peter navarro. he's been on the show. he was asked whether potus went to china for political assistance. his answer -- >> i'm asking you a direct

question. did you bring up investigating the bidens as part of the negotiation? >> -- in my judgment. >> why not? >> you're asking me what happens in the white house behind closed doors -- >> i'm asking if politics have entered the sphere of international relations here. >> jim, asked and answered. >> no. asked, not answered. the answer is easy here if it didn't happen. this is all about not wanting to say what did happen because there are real concerns about president trump's june 18th call with the chinese president. the call's transcript also wound up on that secure server. it's so concerning that when the president said this on camera -- >> china should start an investigation into the bidens. >> hmm. guess who took the high road by asking to stay out of this. china. now, if this president is serious about investigating corruption involving u.s. citizens, china not a bad place to start.

here's my suggestion. we know of at least one current government employee, that means someone working for you, has secured not one but two rounds of highly lucrative chinese chinese trademarks in everything from sunglasses to semiconductors. keep in mind they've gotten these while they were supposed to be working for you, the american taxpayer. guess who? ivanka trump. and those trademarks, by the way, came after she said she shut down her company. there's another part of navarro's answer that matters here. the part where he tries to drive jim sciutto away from what he doesn't want to talk about. >> let me answer this. the problem i've seen over the last three years in washington is that there's just too many stories that are reported based on anonymous sources. they inevitably get it wrong.

i don't know. do we want to spend this time doing that? >> the white house has used anonymous sources when it suits them. it's a talking point. all right? this is when they don't like the facts. listen to it. >> it's always a source who decided to remain anonymous -- >> unsubstantiated anonymous sources. >> rogue anonymous sources. >> unnamed sources. >> we're constantly having to compete with anonymous sources. >> look, if you stand on that, what you just saw is a litany of liars. do they not know this? volker, taylor, hill, sondland, now morrison we expect. these are real people. not anonymous. and they're your people, mr. president. part of your administration. many put in place by you and the people around you and some

pleaded with to take the job. okay? so the idea that it's anonymous is silly. in fact, these people walk right past the official line of non-cooperation to tell their truth under oath. those are the facts. ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? can't imagine doing it any other way. this is caitlin dickerson from the new york times. this isn't the only case. very little documentation. lo que yo quiero estar con mi hijo. i know that's not true. and the shelters really don't know what to do with them. i just got another person at d.h.s. to confirm this. i have this number. we're going to publish the story.

performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) i have this number. there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪

so we know that republicans decry the process being used by house democrats. but is it really any different? are they just distracting from a too strong case? that's the start of tonight's great debate with ana kasparian and david urban. good to see you both. thank you for joining me tonight.

david, make the case. why is it unfair? >> well, chris, look, obviously i'm not going to relitigate what you just had on earlier there. let me just make the point there -- >> then you're going to lose the debate. >> no, chris, listen. here's where the debate needs to be had. the debate needs to be had for the american people. this is ultimately a political process. right, chris? at the end of the day. whether to impeach the president or not. and then ultimately whether to remove him via trial in the senate. so if i were the democrats i would want this to be held open in very fair, very transparent because they've got a lot of convincing to do. earlier this week -- this weekend, actually, michael smerconish had on a gentleman from the swing voter project which did kind of verbatim took people in a focus group in swing districts. youngstown, ohio had ten voters who voted for obama first time, both times actually, and then voted for trump this time. got them in a room and asked them did the president commit an impeachable act? and all ten of those folks said i don't know if he did. and even if he did i don't think

this is actually impeachable. i don't think he should be removed. so democrats -- >> i've got the point. >> -- have a lot of convincing to do. >> that's about the outcome not the process. >> it is about -- chris, it is about the process because it's about whether they bring it to a vote. pelosi's been dragging their feet -- >> there's absolutely no reason for the democrats to -- why -- i am so tired of democrats constantly caving to the type of framing that republicans demand. finally for the first time you have democrats standing their ground. they have absolutely no obligation to hold that vote. i believe the way they're conducting this investigation is

not only legal, it's the correct way to do it. and the reason why they're not holding open hearings is number one, in 2015 john boehner pushed for and successfully accomplished a law that indicated that they could do these closed hearings. >> true. >> more importantly, we don't need a circus right now. what we need is to get down to the facts and figure out exactly what's going on. >> chris, listen, just like the republicans were blinded by their hatred of clinton back in the day, democrats are blinded by their hatred of this president. and they're running off a cliff like lemmings. they can't help but follow themselves. >> i'm actually a lot more concerned about the type of corruption that goes on within this administration and the constant violations of the emoluments clause, the constant -- >> this isn't about the emoluments clause -- >> no, it is about the emoluments clause. and it's also about donald trump using the office of the president to enrich himself. that is unacceptable. and he should be -- >> could be part of it. i don't know what they're bringing the articles on. >> chris, that's exactly the

problem with the democratic caucus. nancy pelosi faces people like this who just want to have an expansive -- an incredibly expansive impeachment proceed. and then people who want to have a very narrow focused impeachment proceeding. >> party that went from a land transfer deal to a sex act has a problem with that? >> chris, i'm just saying that -- i'm talking about facts. you want to talk about facts? >> no, you're not. >> nancy pelosi has a problem with the facts -- >> the fact is you have the most unprecedented litany of named sources who work in your administration and are republican team members of trump -- >> chris -- >> -- saying he abused his power. >> chris, guess what? jeff toobin, our colleague on the show previous, on anderson's show, said most of this stuff is hearsay based on top of hearsay. okay? >> this is not a lawyer. it's not a legal process. >> chris, you're a lawyer. would you take hearsay upon hearsay? you're better than that, chris cuomo. come on. >> i'm not better than anything and -- >> come on. >> you have members of trump's administration testifying against him. you have a u.s. ambassador, bill taylor, under trump's administration testifying that there was quid pro quo. >> right. >> based on hearsay. >> it's not hearsay based on hearsay. you know that. not in every case. >> we do quid pro quo all the time. you have members of his own administration saying it. and then you have -- >> chris, you're better than this. >> hold on a second. dave, don't make it about me being good or bad.

and listen, i've got to tell you, you don't have any right for high dungeon. you've got people running around. you stalk about lemmings. you just had 20 of your caucus members run into a secure room with their devices, violating the rules, to distract from what was going on in the room. >> chris -- >> don't shake your head with disgust. it's going to fall off. >> i'm not shaking my head with disgust. you know what's right here, chris. you know you would not as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, as someone who is after the truth -- >> it's not a legal process -- >> chris, you know you would not bring a case based on hearsay. you would not proceed forward with a case -- >> hold on. how is it hearsay if bill taylor -- >> are text messages hearsay? >> text messages are not hearsay. bill taylor -- >> gordon sondland hearsay? >> this guy morrison listened to the call. and now has his own things to come on and say. let's listen to it. let's have a round of hearings after the depositions and then let's have a trial. >> i think it's great. let's have a public hearing where people get to cross-examine witnesses -- >> of course they're going to do that. it just never happened in the investigatory phase before. >> then people in america aren't going to believe it's fair before. >> then it wasn't fair with andrew johnson.

then it wasn't fair with nixon. and it wasn't fair with clinton because it happened the same way all three times. >> then donald j. trump will not be removed from the presidency. >> i'm not saying -- i'm not saying any of this is worthy of removal anyway. ana certainly thinks it is. i think arguments could be made -- >> i mean, he just -- >> -- but i've got to hear them. >> he sounds concerned that donald trump will be removed from office. >> i'm not the least bit concerned. >> i've got to leave it there. >> i'm not the least bit concerned. >> listen, let's be honest. ana, david, we all have to be concerned because this process has got to be respected. it's got to be reflective of what the people want done by their servants. and people have to have faith in the outcome. >> go to the swing voter project, look what these people have to say. >> i believe it. i don't usually base my judgments on rooms of people. but david, ana, thank you for making the case on this show. i appreciate you both. >> thanks, chris. >> thank you. >> here's what i don't appreciate, and i don't think dave or ana would either. they obviously oppose each other but you see how they did it? with decency. the president calls republicans who don't back him "human scum." and his press secretary goes over to state tv and says yep, those people deserve to be called that.

i want to bring in anthony scaramucci. what's going on with his party? how is this an okay way -- i had to beg fred fleitz to say yeah, that shouldn't be said. is this the strategy? is this where we are? former white house communications chief. 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. no matter what life throws down ♪ roomba is up for the challenge. only roomba uses 2 multi-surface rubber brushes that powerfully clean up debris on all your floors. and only the roomba i7+ system empties its bin into allergenlock™ bags that trap 99% of allergens. forget about vacuuming for months. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™

here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware. a single hub for a consistent operating experience across all your clouds. that should clear things up.

all right. so the message from republicans today for president trump on impeachment -- do what bill clinton did. senators urging the president to focus on governing while the inquiry process continues to unfold. savvy advice or foolish thinking? certainly not happening. the president gave us his response to that today, used the ugliest words to date for his own party. let's bring in anthony scaramucci. we all know him from the white house and from friend of show. anthony, thank you. they are scum. people like you, people in the party that oppose him. stephanie grisham goes on fox news -- >> right. >> -- sits and the people on the couch politely nod yes as she says yeah, that's what you deserve on called. >> well, there's a lot to unpack there. but first is i feel bad for her in some ways. she's a good person. but she's doing what president trump does to everybody.

the goalposts have been moved. she's past where she wants to be in terms of how she feels about civil discourse in this society. but he's the leader. and so what's happening is everything's gravitating to his verbal jiu-jitsu, street fighting -- >> she's not 11. she's an adult. >> i understand that. but it's very hard. >> why? >> because he's the president of the united states and you want to please him. you're walking into the oval office. he's the leader of the free world. he's telling you what to do. somebody said to me -- unfortunately, i should have gotten that information in the 11 days i was there. they said hey, you can only listen to 10% of what he's saying. and my advice to stephanie is if he's telling you to do something or telling you to go out and say something that you don't want to say don't say it. because it makes her look bad frankly.

and it's also bad for the country. he wants to call me human scum, i wear it as a badge of honor. okay? because i'm a guy that wants to honor the constitution, the structure of the government, the rule of law, and i recognize what cicero once said, 2,000-plus years ago, that we are subordinates to the law in order to be free. okay? and ultimately that's what we have to be. and this guy wants to be above the law -- >> you're thinking cicero. he's thinking ground zero. okay? what he wants is to make this a fistfight where it's us versus them and ugly versus less ugly -- >> this guy's never been in a fistfight. >> i'm not talking about that kind of stupid. >> a verbal fistfight. i have no problem with the verbal fistfight.

but i think we have to call it out, shine a light on it. okay? he's projecting. he feels that way about himself. >> he's shone that light onto the caucus and they ran like rats into that scif. >> and many of those people are human scum because behind his back they're deriding him and they're saying, geez, what a quote unquote handful he is and how damaging he is and how are we going to survive him as the head of the gop. >> and lindsey graham says he has 44 senators ready to sign a resolution saying that the impeachment process is -- >> okay. so let's see senator graham do that. but i think at the end of the day we need to hear more testimony. and i think what you're finding is and what i would have loved to ask david on the show is you know the president pretty well -- >> david urban. >> yeah. there's one phone call with zelensky. we've got the transcript. david, do you think there are more phone calls like that with other world leaders? knowing the president's personality, do we think in three years there's only one phone call like that with the president of the ukraine? i suspect that there's tons of them. and i think that's why mulvaney's having a hard time because he's looking at these transcripts, he knows that they

are very odd, they're unpresidential -- >> mulvaney's got to be done, right? he went out there, he said something he's trying to blame on us for his own mouth. his credibility's got to be shot. >> i met him a few times. but for me as a guy, from a guy to a guy, i would say mick, you've got to go. just resign and get out of there. you're a young guy. you can rehab your career. you can own some of the mistakes that you made supporting this lunatic and you've got to go. if he's not willing to do that, it has to do with those elements that go on in your personality. you're under siege, stockholm syndrome -- >> where does this optimism come from? it seems to me it's moving the other way, anthony, not the way you suggest it. >> meaning what? >> these people are going to somehow decide to stand on kind of principle? look at lindsey graham. this is one of the best minds in the senate. he is now saying things that are the complete opposite of what he said in '98. >> so -- so chris, that's the issue of our time. this is -- where's margaret chase when we need her? the senator from maine that rebuked joe mccarthy. that is the reason why when john kennedy said i wrote three books, "profile in courage" was the thinnest book because there's no courage out there. what are these people doing? they know what they're doing is wrong. they know that ten years from now someone's going to reflect back on this like they did the mccarthy era and say trumpism is ridiculous. it's like if roy cohn and joe mccarthy had a baby and it turned out to be donald trump and he's now the president of the united states. it is a disgusting thing that's going on in the country. and by the way, i'm a republican, they want to disavow me as a republican, i would like to stay in the party and figure out a way to rebuild the party as an entrepreneur and as a

businessperson. these people -- >> he's at like 90% in your party. you see how they ran into the scif the other day -- >> the numbers are lower. the rasmussen numbers are were a disaster for him. >> we don't go with that poll. >> that's the poll he goes with. i'm just pointing out the poll he goes with was a disaster for him. >> you really believe that republicans -- >> it gets worse -- >> right now i'm saying -- >> they should stand on principle but they're not. they're standing on self-interest. and i know i'm going to get attacked for this but that's okay. you know i like to argue both sides. i could see a republican senator and even a democrat in good conscience saying this was wrong, it was abuse of power, i think he's going to do it again so, we've got to figure that out, but i don't think it's worthy of removal because ukraine never gave him anything, he didn't stop the aid, it didn't hurt them versus russia, it didn't hurt our relationship and he's a first-term president and there's an election around the corner. >> but you went to law school. i went to law school. but that's not enough. the investigatory question is

it's three years, how many phone calls did he have like that? >> but i don't have proof of those. >> let's see what's in the server. procedurally they can't -- >> they can't even get him to answer subpoenas. by the way, lindsey graham says that was enough to impeach nixon, just not complying. >> i think they're going get it. because i think there are brave men and women -- >> you hear republican men and women saying to you -- >> i hear republican men and women that are working inside that bubble that are very scared, but i think each day that goes on with this nonsense continuing they're going to cross over the line and they're going to find their bravery, they're going to find their patriotic courage. and i think you're going to get the stuff that's in that server. i think people have had enough. i think guys like ambassador taylor who i think is a valorous guy and primarily apolitical -- >> they dismissed him as a radical bureaucrat, it's all hearsay -- >> of course -- >> what are they going to say about morrison? >> of course they have to do that. but i'm saying it's a stain on our country, it's a stain on our

party, please step back and think about what you're doing and clutch your patriotism. go beyond the partisanship and your self-preservation and your political interests. you have a life outside of politics. you have a life outside of doing something wrong. and so listen, that's my point with dave. i love dave. without dave urban president trump does not win pennsylvania. the first republican president to win pennsylvania in 32 years. without dave urban. and i love dave urban and i respect his loyalty to the president. but he knows and i know that there's more than one zelensky-like call. and so the question right now is where are those calls? what were said on those calls? you reported that he probably said some stuff like zelensky-like to president xi. so my bet is -- >> he said it on television. >> my bet is there is rank illegality. i think the guy personally is a traitor. >> you think he's going to resign before the election. >> i do. let me ask you this. when i came on -- okay. when i came on in august, i said this is a disaster, heading for a disaster. is it worse now than it was in august? >> yes.

>> okay. so i predict it's going to get way worse over the next two months. >> anthony, thank you very much. always appreciate your perspective on the show. >> thank you. all right. lindsey graham, i keep talking about him. why? because you've got to respect his mind. you've got to respect his personal story. and you have to look at him as a metaphor for what this president is doing to people like lindsey graham in his own party. i'm going to argue using his words against him. not mine. next. it's either the assurance of a 165-point certification process. or it isn't. it's either testing an array of advanced safety systems. or it isn't. it's either the peace of mind of a standard unlimited mileage warranty. or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through october 31st. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. mom you've got to [ get yourself a new car.g ]

i wish i could save faster. you're making good choices. you'll get there. ♪ were you going to tell me about this? i know i can't afford to go. i still have this car so you can afford to go. i am so proud of you. thanks. principal. we can help you plan for that. start today at principal.com. man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: 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. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action.

-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. -i do. 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. the reason of the show is to show you where the situation is. battle lines have been drawn. the sworn statements and texts offered by republicans on team trump corroborate what seems to be an obvious abuse of power as reflected by this president's own words so when you don't like the facts and the proof comes from your own people, the only way to defeat the process is to fight the process itself. enter senator lindsey graham.

>> the purpose of a resolution is to let the house know that the process you're engaging in regarding the attempted impeachment of president trump is out of bounds, is inconsistent with due process as we know it. it's a star chamber type inquiry and it's a substantial deviation from what the house has done in the past regarding impeachment of other presidents. >> first, graham was active in the clinton impeachment. he never criticized starr then nor the fact that that probe started with a real estate transaction and ended with a sex act. the ugly part is that senator has to know that his argument is bs. why? he knows that with nixon and clinton lawmakers weren't doing the investigating, it was an independent counsel or special prosecutor who both used closed

door depositions and in clinton graham was then party to a second layer of secrecy. lead prosecutor henry hyde said tuesday that two days of closed depositions have strengthened the case against president clinton. and he said the opposite then of what he says now. proof. >> the depositions, i think, will determine whether or not we go forward with hearings. i think it's a very smart thing to do is to depose these people and find out what they've got to say and not drag this thing out unnecessarily. >> same thing the democrats say now. now graham says it's a lynching. then it was a very smart thing. but then he sprinkles a little fact with his farce today. listen. >> i'm not here to tell you that donald trump's done nothing wrong. >> really? so that's reverse speak for you know he did do something wrong

and you think you can sell that now because the bar is very major crime so impeach. that's graham now. but back then -- >> you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. >> senator graham is right to point out president trump's potential impeachment as being different from others but not in a way that is his new found deference. here's the difference. president nixon said this. >> our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home, therefore, i shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. >> in the face of wrongdoing, he

resigned. when it was clinton's turn, he apologized a lot. >> i am profoundly sorry for all i have done wrong in words and deeds. mere words cannot fully express the profound remorse i feel for what our country is going through and for what members of both parties in congress are now forced to deal with. >> why does it matter? contrition is what you just saw. that's a key indicator of potential change and a draw for potential leniency. trump is a toxic opposite to presidents past. >> that call was a great call. it was a perfect call. i made a perfect call. an absolutely perfect phone conversation with the president of ukraine. >> no remorse. then he went on tv, asked china to investigate the bidens as well. the same guy who asked the russians, wikileaks and ukraine to help him out. the same guy who told you he's

never even needed to ask god for forgiveness and somehow graham, who once argued the test was presidential conduct being out of bounds now said it's not trump but congress who's out of bounds. graham is at war with his own words and why? the reason is as ugly as it is obvious. graham and all the others on the right who know their past proclamations of principle are now anathama to what they're doing. their mobbish attacks to what they once embraced. you're not acting like lawmakers but as legal counsel. this hypocrisy would be hysterical if the situation weren't so heavy. here's the proposition. if you don't want to assess what is obvious and ensure that the presidency isn't a constant

prophecy for patronage, honoring your constitutional duty, then resign and join the president's legal team because you know this process is no less fair than impeachments past. what has changed is you, sir. now the president thinks that he has a solution to keep his own government from finding out the facts during this impeachment inqui inquiry. what is it? it's our bolo next. geico's hels pretty fun too. ahhhh, it's a tiny dancer. they left a ton of stuff up here. welp, enjoy your house. nope. no thank you. geico could help you save on homeowners and renters insurance. geico could help you save on homeowners 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. saturpain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

bolo time. be on the lookout. first president trump said he would terminate the white house's subscriptions to the "new york times" and the washington post. the white house is urging all federal agencies to do the same. the press secretary put out this excuse calling it a cost savings for taxpayers. censorship. it's fake news, he says, except

when he quotes those periodicals. here's the reality. he only accepts flattery as a fact. case in point, conservative fox news commentator tweeted this displaying an auto graphed thank you note she received from the president yesterday signed on top of a list of positive ego enforcing tweets from this and other conspiracy pushing supporters. this is the kind of information he seeks and wants distributed at the expense of truth. america's a democracy. that means we have the right to hear what we do and don't like. be on the lookout for kren krorship. thank you for watching cnn tonight with the man, d. lemon. >> so the white house will be less informed, ill-informed, so they will only know their alternative reality. >> they only have a source of one, my brother. if you oppose this