Source: Alexander Vindman Believed Trump Personally Withheld Aid As A Way To Force Ukraine To Announce Probe Into Bidens; Donald Trump's Russia Ambassador Pick Confirms Testimony On Rudy Giuliani's Ukraine Role.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: News continues. I want to hand it over to Chris right now for "CUOMO PRIME TIME". Chris?</s>CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, thank you my friend. I'm Chris Cuomo and welcome to "Prime Time". Are Democrats about to snag their biggest impeachment witness yet? We have big news on that front. And we have a key Senate player here tonight with a Ukraine connection of his own. Plus, one of the biggest assaults on a key witness, Colonel Vindman is about to get blown up in this show in just moments. So what do you say? Let's get after it. The President's Former National Security Adviser John Bolton, is he the next big witness. A source tells CNN he was invited for next Thursday. His lawyer said tonight it's not going to happen without a subpoena. That's arranged easily enough these days. Meanwhile, a Bolton top NSC Deputy just resigned on the eve of his appearance before impeachment investigators. Tomorrow Tim Morrison, why would he be important? He can back up what Bill Taylor testified to as to the understanding as to why there was a quid pro quo. And CNN has learned that Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman also tied the President to a Ukraine quid pro quo in his testimony on Tuesday, as was expected. And also, according to sources, he told investigators he was convinced the President was personally blocking $400 million in military aid to force Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens, even before Vindman heard that July 25th phone call. So with that let's bring in Senator Chris Murphy. He was in Ukraine last month. He said he raised red flags to President Zelensky about not getting dragged into American politics. The Foreign Relations Committee Member, Democrat from Connecticut, joins us now. Good to see you, Senator.</s>SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D-CT): Thanks for having me.</s>CUOMO: So what can you tell us about Ukraine's President's mindset towards what we're dealing with here?</s>MURPHY: First of all, I had heard back in the spring from many of my friends in Ukraine and those who go back and forth to Ukraine that Zelensky as a brand new President, someone with no prior political background was very worried about these overtures he was getting from Rudy Giuliani and the demands that were being made of him to get involved in the American election. And of course that just stands to reason, any foreign leader would be concerned if they are getting visits from the President's political operatives asking them to get involved in the President's political campaigns. So part of the reason that I went to Ukraine in early September was to, you are know, raise this with Zelensky and tell him that, you know, he really should stay out of American political campaigns and that he should conduct his business with the State Department. What was interesting about the meeting, amongst other things, was that before we even really sat down and engaged in what a normally diplomatic pleasantries at the beginning of the meeting, Zelensky went straight into the question of the aid, he wanted to know why he could get that aid, why it was being held up, it was of dire concern to him because he knew they were going to be Ukrainians who died on the front with Russia if that aid were not released. At the end of the meeting I recommended that he stayed out of American politics and he agreed with me. Of course it was just weeks later we learned the extent of the corruption but at that moment in early September, he was very focused on getting that aid restarted and seems to be really crying out for help in terms of how he could convince the administration to change their mind.</s>CUOMO: And just so we understand, why did you know at that time to ask him to stay out of American politics?</s>MURPHY: Rudy Giuliani in May was openly bragging about his attempts to try to get Zelensky to investigate the Bidens so this was, you know, not a secret from anyone. I actually wrote a public letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the spring asking for an investigation because it seemed as if there was this shadow foreign policy trying to corrupt the Ukrainians that we needed to ask more questions about. I don't think it was a surprise to anyone. I spoke to Ambassador Taylor as well about this while I was there. And he expressed concern at this back channel again at the time I didn't know that he actually was involved in these conversations, but he clearly was alarmed when we were there in early September.</s>CUOMO: So let's look at the President's state of play. How big a deal with John Bolton be to you, the Former National Security Adviser?</s>MURPHY: So, you know, I don't know that we should expect that John Bolton is ultimately going to be the white knight here. He has a very broad belief of executive power but from Fiona Hill's testimony we know that he was deeply uncomfortable with what he called a drug deal that was being manufactured by Mick Mulvaney and others on the Ukraine beat. So I expect that he will likely just fill out a few more details in a story that is just crystal clear.</s>CUOMO: You don't have any questions. You believe you know what happened and you know why?</s>MURPHY: I think the testimony from Taylor, the statements that Sondland has made, the details that Fiona Hill and Colonel Vindman fill in just make it absolutely clear that this aid was being held up, the White House meeting was being denied in order to get the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens and launch investigations into the Clintons. I think it's clear as day at this point. I don't know how Republicans can deny that after all the testimony that they've seen at this point.</s>CUOMO: Well, if you watch the show, they find new ways every night. I still think the big question is going to come down on your shoulders about whether or not this is worthy of removal. I think there's still reasonable arguments to be made on the side of why it's not worthy of removal but we'll get to this later. Let me ask you two quick things. We're obsessed about the July 25th phone call. What about the July 30th phone call between the United States President and Putin? The President was asked about it and he said we just talked about Siberian Wildfires. That strains credulity. Five days after the Ukraine call that's what he talked to Putin about? How much interested are you in that call and is there any chance of access?</s>MURPHY: So I'm interested in that call. Listen, I think we've got to be a little careful about making demands for - you know a large number of private communications between the President and others. I think when we have evidence from whistleblowers that there has been corruption or illegality committed on a phone call between the President and a foreign leader--</s>CUOMO: That's different.</s>MURPHY: --then I think that's appropriate for us to ask for the transcript. If we're just sort of fishing with some suspicions, even though they may be reasonable suspicions, I just think we want to be careful about the precedent of expecting that all of these private communications be made public.</s>CUOMO: I don't disagree. I think that this question is the better part on that. You want to candor in those kinds of conversations. The question becomes does anybody that's being interviewed in the depositions now or in later hearings bring up that call because may be he had the same people on both and there will be something. Let me ask you something else, today you had Sullivan before your Committee. He's the selection by the administration to be Ambassador to Russia. He gave the President cover on Ukraine. He said, yes, I look, I know what happened in the call. The President said these investigations were relevant and part of policy but there was no quid pro quo. Does that answer make you comfortable with him as the diplomat in charge of Russia communications for the United States?</s>MURPHY: Well, you know, listen, John Sullivan's an honorable guy, I like him but his answers doesn't make sense. The bulk of his testimony was that he was kept in the dark, that he actually had no knowledge of any of these entries into the Ukrainian's and investigations into the Bidens until the whistleblower came forward. So I have no idea that he can now represent that he knows there was no quid pro quo when in fact he has seen the reports of the testimony that make it clear that there was a quid pro quo and he has no present - he has no real time knowledge because he is trying to save himself by suggesting that he was in the dark. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you didn't know anything about it but you're absolutely certain that there was no corruption, especially when all of the testimony from career public officials, from member of the Trump Administration makes it very clear that there was a quid pro quo. And as you know, because I said this before on the show, I think there was a quid pro quo but I frankly don't think that you need to prove it for this to be corrupt. I think a President asking for investigations into his political opponents is corrupt, potentially illegal, even if there isn't a demand on the other side or withholding of support or aid on the other side.</s>CUOMO: After Mueller we had people saying if a foreign power comes to you and offers it, contact the FBI, stay away. Now asking a foreign power for help isn't a problem? Anyway, Senator Chris Murphy, I appreciate your perspective very much, an important time in our history. Thank you for being with us.</s>MURPHY: Thanks.</s>CUOMO: Now, there's one name that keeps coming up in each of these testimonies, even again today. The name that we cannot forget is Rudy Giuliani. I know that's gone quiet, you're not seeing him anywhere and that's with good reason. But we have to remember what he means in this narrative. Prosecution or not, he is completely relevant to understanding what happened here and why. Let's shine a light on what we know next.