0 how about this boy? he is only a toddler. look at his golf swing. is it perfection? >> bill: that's good. what do you think? 2 years old? >> dana: wearing a diaper. he is out there let me hit this for you, dad. you think dad is proud? real proud. all right. here is harris faulkner. >> harris: we beginning with breaking news. senate democrats are ready to move forward with their multi-trillion legislative agenda and your tax money, of course, is on the line. i'm harris faulkner. you are in "the faulkner focus". moments from this moment the senate will vote on a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that appears to have enough republican votes to pass as well. once that wraps up schumer will open debate on a 3 1/2 trillion budget resolution. first on the docket is that infrastructure bill. we scroll because it's a doozy of cash. though it has some gop support, critics still have a lot to say about what is actually in the fine print. here are senators john kennedy, mike lee, marsha blackburn, and ted cruz. >> i realized pretty quickly that if you look up stupid stuff in the dictionary, there is a picture of this bill. >> 1.2 trillion inflation bomb being dropped on an already carpet bombed economy. >> wait a minute. i thought it was a infrastructure bill. >> the democrats want to give billions of dollars to unelected bureaucrats in the biden administration to spend as they please. as admiral ackbar said in star wa, it's a trap. >> a "new york post" op-ed sums it up this way. one awful bill. one terrible bill. hope the dems double dealing dooms them both. florida senator rick scott is in focus to weigh in. first let's get the latest on all of this from peter doocy live outside the white house. peter. >> more than a dozen republicans are expected to support this infrastructure bill later on today. once it leaves the senate and goes over to the house it is not really an infrastructure bill at all. speaker pelosi is planning to combine it with 3 1/2 trillion dollars worth of democratic priorities in her budget using the process called reconciliation. >> the budget reconciliation bill will do more to combat climate change than any legislation ever, ever in the history of the senate. that is a promise. >> zero republicans in the house or senate support the 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation package. the only support the trial -- they only support the trillion for roads and bridges and lead pipe replacement. the president is spoke using on the thing today tweeting one in five miles of our highways and 45,000 bridges are in poor condition. it is dangerous. the bipartisan infrastructure deal will change that. republicans are warning of inflation ahead if democrats tack trillions onto this bill. today's vote doesn't signal the end of the process. >> the tragedy is that democrats want to inflict all this pain on middle class families. here is the comedy. they won't let republicans have any say in this monstrosity but they want our help raising their credit card to make it happen. >> president biden aboard marine one now expected to touchdown on the south lawn shortly before this vote that democrats in congress are hoping will give him the okay to spend a few trillion taxpayer dollars. harris. >> harris: peter doocy. thank you very much. rick scott republican senator from the great state of florida is in focus now. senator, always great to have you on the program. i will start here. i understand that republicans are against much of what joe biden is trying to do with his liberal agenda. why this bill? why is this one in particular getting republican votes? >> i don't believe it should. i believe in roads, bridges, airports and we spend $85 billion eight years on roads, bridges and sea ports. fiscally responsible. i paid down debt, cut taxes. this is not responsible. less than half of it is roads, bridges and airports. and it is not paid for. we were told that the thing was fully paid for, the congressional budget came out on thursday and said a quarter of a trillion of deficit spending in one bill, a quarter of a trillion dollars. we shouldn't run a quarter trillion budget deficit in a year ever. and in one bill we'll do that? and all we're doing is helping the democrats pass their bernie budget. it is a 5.5 trillion. it's 5.5 trillion and at the end of 10 years we'll have $45 trillion of debt. $45 trillion. who will pay for this? they will raise everybody's taxes, they'll cause more inflation. >> harris: when i look and see senator kevin cramer republican out of north dakota explaining it this weekend of the 1.2 trillion, there 450 billion is roads, bridges, specifically. i mean, the way you laid it out, is this just the only thing you guys will get together on? maybe you try to do something bipartisan and then you let biden try to do everything else? is that the strategy? >> i don't support wasting money, none. it is your money. somebody is going to pay for this. if there is a quarter that's wasted money i won't do it. let's do what we should do. do roads, bridges, airports and sea ports and do what we can pay for. that's what i did. you can do it. why don't we start by focus on how to improve the economy, cut people's taxes, make sure this is the best play to get a job in the world. revenues will grow. they aren't doing it here. they make it harder for families, poor families, this will make it harder on them. >> harris: senator rick scott of florida, breaking news now. i will ask you to stand by. andrew cuomo's attorney holding a virtual news conference amid calls for the new york governor to quit or they will impeach him. watch this. >> to present the other side. the report concluded on page 24 and on page 142 affirmatively concluded that the governor groped miss commisso in 2020. concluded it definitively. and that the attorney general's press conference on august 3, one of the investigators, ann clark said it definitively to the world that governor cuomo groped the breast of an executive assistant in the mansion during the workday. but what was so apparent when i read the report is that the investigators didn't bother to collect or review evidence about november 16th to determine if their conclusion was correct. and everyone has to ask themselves why didn't they do what? why didn't they get all of the emails from that day? why didn't they get the records about when ms. commisso entered and left the mansion? why didn't they speak to any of the witnesses, and there were many in the mansion that day. they didn't collect the documents that proved the most serious allegation was false. records from the mansion reflect that senior members of staff were present there on november 16th and the investigators did not ask -- they did not ask any of those people about what they saw, what they heard, what miss commisso was doing that day. her version of events, which conveyed to the times union in an april 7th anonymous interview about the time she was in the mansion and what she was in the mansion for, they don't match it up with the documentary evidence. in the investigators didn't get that. and now we are in a situation where, as of yesterday, i read the albany times union and it says the governor groped her around november 25th is what she is saying. as i've said before, my team has looked through the records for november and we're aware of no record indicating that brittany commisso was at the mansion in november on any other day than november 16th and miss commisso has consistently said this occurred in november. why did the investigators not get the records and why did they not include them in the report? what else is so bothersome and hard for me to take as a lawyer for the governor is that the report suggests that the governor testified falsely about that day. it suggests that when the governor said others were present, including maybe up to 10 staff members in the mansion, the report just discredited him. but i now know that they did not bother to get -- >> harris: if you've been following the story of new york's governor and with all the sex scandals and nursing home allegations of people dying here in new york city and throughout the state because of the decision that he made at the top of the covid pandemic to put covid positive patients into those facilities, if you've been following the trail on all of this and you are wondering what would the governor do now that he could be facing impeachment based on that sex scandal that's breaking out with allegedly 11 victims coming fought for inappropriate behavior now you know the part of the story is he will try to defend himself. we do know reports from just this morning splashed all over papers here in the region that he is trying to cut a deal to not be impeached. i don't remember that ever being given to other people who have been impeached, right? the democrats want to cut a deal with him, not to mix apples and oranges but was president trump given an opportunity to cut a deal? this is a deal-making situation. so the attorney comes out and she lays out the case where she is poking holes in the state's case. the attorney general, when she came out and said they have a case against this governor, there were receipts with that, right? these women didn't just come out and say stuff. they have receipts and evidence. and so now you are looking at a situation where they are going to try to defend, they will try to poke holes. if you are trying to make a deal, that builds more leverage on your side. i don't know. we haven't all seen the evidence. let's keep watching. his attorney defend him. >> and the attorney general has stated that miss commisso's claim of a sexual assault on november 16th or november 25th or another day in november was independently corroborated. that's not true. the only corroborated fact is that she first made her claim in march after the investigation began. the independent corroboration corroborates the governor. the simultaneous emails and documents corroborates governor cuomo. there was also testimony by several witnesses about potential motives and what was going on with miss commisso in late 2020 and early 2021 and concerns she had about her job, that she had been turned down for a raise, and concerns that there was a possibility that because her work hours might change she could be transferred. that was not reflected in the attorney general's report. another aspect to the attorney general's report deals with a referral to the albany police department about miss commisso's claims. now i'm sure a lot of you have seen over the last several days that miss commisso made a complaint to sheriff, the albany county sheriff. well, what no one is talking about is that it was actually the executive chamber that referred miss commisso's complaint when she first made it when she was out with friends for drinks on march 6th and then a lawyer called the executive chamber on monday, march 8th. and when that lawyer called to make the allegation, the lawyer indicated that he did not want to pursue this criminally. but it was the executive chamber that referred the allegation to the albany police department. and as further evidence of the bias of this report, look at page 147 buried in footnote 1,239. the report won't even credit the executive chamber for this. it said, quote, we understand certain criminal authorities including albany police department had been alerted to the most egregious allegations of touching including executive assistant one. i ask you why couldn't the report say the executive chamber promptly reported it to the albany police department? and it's because every inference was going to be drawn against the executive chamber and governor cuomo. the report got key facts wrong. it omitted key evidence. and it failed to include witnesses whose testimony did not support the narrative that was clear that this investigation was going to weave from day one. and i want to talk about that. this began in december of 2020 with lindsey boylen. lindsey boylen made some tweets december 5th and december 13th that talked about her departure from the mansion and accused the governor of sexual harassment. one of the things that she said in an article she published on media in february a couple months later that she was on a plane with the governor and he made a comment about let's play strip poker. there were several other staff members on the flights with ms. boylen and every single one of them said that didn't happen. and after that came out that they said that didn't happen, one of the people on the flight was howard zem ski. he testified he received a disparaging message from ms. boylen that he found jarring and threatening and the report mentions this but they in the don't include it as an exhibit. why not? that is the equivalent of witness tampering. and if any member of the chamber or the governor himself had engaged in that conduct, that would be another 10 pages of the report and i'm sure i would have received another subpoena from the assembly. they also did not deliberately choose to investigate communications that occurred between lindsey boylen's campaign in december 2020. she first made these allegations about two weeks after she announced she was running for manhattan borough president. in that time period there were communications between the attorney general's chief of staff and ms. boylen's top campaign consultant. there were a number of conversations about what ms. boylen was saying and what was going on in the campaign. one of ms. boylen's top media consultants resigned when she made these allegations. did the attorney general's investigators talk to all of those people, subpoena the records from the campaign in the same way they have subpoenaed the executive chamber and my client for anything and everything having to do with sexual harassment with lindsey boylen? the complainants needed to be -- scrutinized as much as the governor in the chamber and that didn't happen here. the investigators credited lindsey boylen, despite the fact that they knew she had threatened a witness to get him to change his story, and he did. and one thing that has been missing through this is that there was a signal about seven or eight months before ms. boylen made her tweets in december, a signal that she was out for some type of revenge against the governor's office. you see, ms. boylen had ran in a primary against congressman jerry nadler. in march of 2020 when covid started, the governor issued an executive order which narrowed the time frame for people to get petitions so they could get on the ballot. ms. boylen was very unhappy about this and felt that that had been directed at her. and she sent two threatening messages to members of the governor's staff. one of them said quote, absolutely not helpful. please relay that while we're okay. you see what the point is here. i'll find ways to respond. life is long and so is my memory and so are my resources. her second message, absolutely not helpful. specific response to a tragedy but please relay while we're okay, i see what the point is here and i will try to find ways to respond to the message. the future is coming after. i will leave the expletive out. ms. boylen was unhappy that the governor wouldn't support her and her campaign. she blamed the governor's office and sent these threatening texts promising retribution and sure enough come december two ekes after announcing her campaign she did a series of tweets and talked about why she left the chamber. she was not honest about the circumstances of her departure and so three memos were released because a public figure running a political campaign was making statements misleading the public about what had happened and why she left. and the chamber felt a duty to correct that record. there were also witnesses that the attorney general's investigators interviewed that told them that lindsey boylen was not to be trusted and that they did not find her credible. not just based on what had happened in the tweets, but based on their professional interactions with her when she worked in the chamber. investigators didn't include that in the report and they credited ms. boylen wholesale. what perhaps i think was most bothersome, and there was a lot, but out of interviewing 179 witnesses, the investigators made a choice not to include what a lot of people had to say. and buried at the end at the page 121 is a sentence that should scare everybody. scare everybody if you are being accused of something, and this is all you get about what people have to say that's good about you. here is what it said. it said a number of former and current executive chamber staff, particularly the senior staff, as well as state troopers with the protection detail denied having witnessed or experienced any conduct by the governor that could be characterized as sexual or otherwise inappropriate. that sentence is buried at the end and of the over 1,000 footnotes, why didn't they cite the transcripts? why didn't they quote from those people? did what those people have to say bear upon any of the allegations that they included? the governor deserved to have a full and balanced report that laid it all out. but the report doesn't identify who the witnesses were, what they said, and what they were asked. i want to talk also about trooper number one. the report does corroborate that the governor supported trooper one's transfer to his detail to increase diversity among the detail members. please read that portion of the report at page 35 because when you read the narrative of the report, it makes it sound as though he wanted this trooper on his detail to sexually harass her and that just was not true. there is another member of the state police that corroborated the governor was very interested out of a detail of 60 troopers who were mostly white male to have diversity. the governor has great respect for trooper one. and he didn't touch her in a sexual manner. none of his contact with trooper one or for that matter any of the troopers was meant in any way to be inappropriate. he does greet them. he will pat them on the back. he will pat them on the side when they are opening the doors for him coming in and out of cars, on the elevator the trooper stands in front of him. the governor will tap the trooper on the back and say hello as he is walking out of the elevator. he has read what trooper one had to say and he feels very badly and he apologizes for anything that he did that caused her to feel that way. he is sorry. with respect to charlotte bennett, the governor addressed in detail in his video statement on august 3rd is important to know that any claim that he was grooming this young woman, who is a sexual assault victim, or had a romantic interest in her could not be further from the truth. his experience with a very, very close family member who is about the same age as charlotte bennett, that provided crucial context to the conversations that he had with ms. bennett. the governor testified in detail about this to the attorney general's investigators but they did not include his detailed testimony in the report. he has and he continues to apologize to ms. bennett for anything that he said in the conversations that he had with her that made her feel the way that she did. he certainly did not mean that and because of her experience and what he went through with someone very close to him, he in no way, shape or form wanted to hurt her. there are now other series of allegations that were in the report and the media keeps saying 11 women, 11 women. and i watched cbs this morning yesterday and i thought it was actually a good interview of ms. commisso. i thought the interviewer was fair. but what was bothersome to me afterwards is they then had a round table discussion about two of the men sitting there and they just kept pointing to 11 women and it was quite clear to me that they didn't know what the actual claims were. and then it just gets repeated over and over again by the media when they haven't done their homework and rolled up their sleeves and learned the facts. that's what journalists are supposed to do. not cast judgment and not give us their opinions. let's talk about some of the other allegations. state entity employee number two. this is what the attorney general's report included as another form of sexual harassment by the governor. this event, this photo. the governor made a joke to the doctor in the hospital gown protected against covid while she gave him the test and he said in front of the whole world, you make that gown look good. that's not sexual harassment. i don't know why that was included in the attorney general's report except to say it was to add another number and to make the governor look bad. there was also state entity employee number one and what she claimed is that she was at an event with the governor and as her photo was being taken and the governor was standing between herself and her superviseor, she claimed that the governor touched her butt at the public event while the photo was taken. no pictures from that event were included in the attorney general's report and presumably this picture is there and we haven't been provided with that picture. if the governor may have touched her rear end while he has got his arm around the supervisor and this woman at a public event he certainly did not mean to do it in a way that was sexual. he takes thousands of pictures. and then it goes to another one of the women who have come forward. ms. leah meatis. she is not a state employee. she works for an energy company. the governor was at a public event and working at a rope line. dozens of people and reporters were there. she claims as he went through the rope line he touched the logo on her shirt, which was her energy company logo, as he was greeting her. the governor did not mean to grope her and certainly there were pictures from this event. those pictures haven't been provided to me and they were not part of the attorney general's report. but this particular instance to say that the governor would try to grope somebody working a rope line with cameras around, he certainly would never have intended to do that. and i don't mean to take away from how this woman felt, but we do need to think about qualitatively what each of the women are saying and whether these are the types of things that are impeachable offenses. there is another allegation and it was by analysts on the report that starts at page 82. she talks about being at a party and that the governor sought her out. he kissed her and then put his arm around her and took this photo. that's the photo. that photo is included in the report as evidence of some type of sexual harassment because miss liss talks about being uncomfortable and the thought about this photo later on that the governor had put his arm around her and then she talked about her experience working with him. and the governor has said yes, he has called people darling and sweetheart. he has had to change with the times. yes, he hugs and he kisses his staffers. he has had to change with the times. and as he said on august 3rd, after the attorney general's report, that he slips and he does. but this does not rise to the level of sexual harassment or groping or fondling as has been portrayed in the press during this feeding frenzy of the last eight days. there is there alisa mcgrath and this photo was included as part of the attorney general's report. it is a photo of the governor at a holiday party and ms. mcgrath is wearing the black and britney commisso is on the other side. how the report portrayed this photograph is that the governor put his hands around the rib cage just below their breasts as though there was something wrong with this photo. and i just simply ask everybody to look at this. is this something that you think is evidence of improper behavior by the governor? yes, he joked with miss commisso and miss mcgrath, yes, he would hug them as he does many of his staffers, and yes, he would give them a kiss. the governor has said over and over he did not grope, he did not fondle. he understood his relationship with them to actually be what's reflected in the photo, that they liked him very much and he did not have a sense that either of them was uncomfortable with him. there has also been made much about the selfie picture with miss commisso. i was asked about it yesterday on cnn by erika hill. what what commisso alleged, new year's eve she was at the mansion and claims the governor wanted to take a selfie. what the governor told the attorney general's office is no, he actually remembers this and he said ms. commisso asked me if she could take a selfie with me. and what miss commisso is now saying is that when she took the selfie, that the governor put his hand on her butt and rubbed it for at least five seconds. that's what she testified to. and that she was so nervous that it became blurry, the pictures. and she had to delete them. and so they moved and sat on a couch and then took this selfie instead. i'm not going to say any more than that for me as a lawyer, former prosecutor and former defense lawyer i often use pictures as exhibits at trial. the governor did not violate brittany commisso, he did not rub her rear end before this photo. she asked for a selfie with him. i think that this picture demonstrates a comfort level and someone who wanted a selfie with the governor and she sent this selfie to her friend and there is a footnote. her friend, her very good friend melissa mcgrath, who actually said i'm so jealous of the picture. then we go to this photograph. and this is also included amongst one of the 11. this was at a wedding. the governor officiated the wedding of one of his staffers. and at the wedding, he greeted this young woman, anna ruch and did put his arms around her -- hands around her face. he asked her if he could give her a kiss. that is something that he does. she clearly was not comfortable with that. he understands that. he particularly understands it when he saw this photo on the front page of the "new york times." this does not rise to the level of sexual harassment that we impeach a sitting governor. i want to talk about caitlin. she met the governor at a reception that was sponsored or hosted by a lobbying firm. she was recommended, he was told she was a superstar. he met her at the reception and in front of dozens of people he joked with her. he did a dance pose. he meant no disrespect. he was thinking, you can say whether it's right or whether it's wrong, that this was fun. and that he was trying to be playful. and as we now know, it doesn't always work out that way. and the governor knows that. and appreciates that. and during the time that she worked for him, he did banter with her. he did ask her about her life. that's something he routinely does with his staff members. what's going on? are you married? do you have kids? are you dating anybody? that's something senator schumer asks his staff. it's normal when you are working closely with people in political environments that are high pressure to learn about their lives. he did not mean to make her feel uncomfortable. he does the same thing with the men that work with him. he hugs them, he kisses them, and a number of them testified to that. but the investigators didn't include any of that in the report. and he asks the men about their personal lives. didn't include any of that in the report. what happened was that from day one it became building a case against governor andrew cuomo. they started with the presumption that he had done some terrible things. and it went from there. it didn't become scrutinizing each one of the allegations, talking to everybody about what the environment was in chamber. and the governor has said and has no doubt that working for him is tough. i think people will say that going back to his time at hud. in political environments dealing with serious issues, you want to get the best out of people. tempers can flare, there is high demands on getting it right. but what happened here was this investigation took every possible negative thing that could be said about the governor and they put it in and they disregarded the positives, the things that would balance it, and the things that would undermine what some people were saying about the governor. it's not right. the two investigators that were charged with this report certainly -- and it comes through when you read it -- they brought their own biases and a predisposition to this investigation and the manner in which the report was written. mr. kim is a long-time former federal prosecutor from the southern district, my old office. mr. kim had pursued and supervised criminal investigations against the governor for years at that office. and he actually personally interviewed him. personally interviewed governor cuomo in one of the criminal investigations. of course he brought to the table certain views about the governor, feelings he had about how the chamber operated. how could he not? and with respect to ms. clark, as an attorney her practice is focused on bringing sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits on behalf of employees. of course that colored how she viewed what complainants told her versus what other people told her. she could not -- that was the lens they brought to the case and those backgrounds certainly influenced how they went about the investigation and drafted this report. but what we do know is that report got facts wrong, it omitted favorable evidence that didn't support the narrative. there were 179 witness interviews and they only transcribed where we get the actual q and as, 41. so what did the other 138 say? because there are not 179 people mentioned in that report. so here is where we are. because of what has happened since august 3rd, with the press conference and a report that there is no question in my mind was designed and meant to devastate governor cuomo and his chamber. and for the last eight days it has been a pile-on with people judging facts when they didn't have all the facts. and as we sit here today, the investigators have not provided me, the lawyer for the governor who is being asked to give a submission to the assembly, a single transcript to allow him to respond. they haven't even given him his own. they have not responded to my letter of last week asking to get access to the evidence. and i'm willing to do it under an agreement that protects confidentiality. this is commonly done in civil matters and criminal matters. the senate judiciary committee and attorney general's office have not agreed to our request for access to evidence. we're being asked to make a submission on behalf of the governor of the state of new york by friday addressing the allegations. how are we going to be able to do that in a fair, meaningful way? this hasn't been and it is not going to be a fair process. and in fact the governor has been given no process. i think that women should be believed and they should be treated fairly. i also believe that men should be believed and treated fairly. all people should be given that. and everybody should have the chance to respond and everybody should be scrutinized with what they say by facts, context, and evidence. that hasn't happened here. our country has a rule of law. i believe in the rule of law. not mob mentality and not media mentality. the governor deserves to be treated fairly and that did not happen here. thank you for listening. thank you for your time. >> harris: and that was nearly a half hour of defense of the man you see on the screen right there, new york's governor andrew cuomo who is under intense pressure right now to resign or face impeachment. and those in his own party in new york say that they will do that. they will put this through for impeachment proceedings against him because of the alleged 11 women who have come forward with inappropriate sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual touching, and more. and his attorney just then several times went down a list and she specifically used these words, the governor is sorry. she would lay out how the governor had put his hand on the back side of another woman. the governor didn't mean it. i don't know what that means. i need some legal guidance on that one. leo terrell, civil rights attorney and fox news contributor is with me now. so leo, i mean several times i wrote it down. he didn't mean it. touched her logo on her shirt. another alleged victim. which we all know is the breast area. he didn't mean it. is that a legal term? what does it mean? >> no, it is kind of funny, harris. here is on attorney declaring due process. i do believe the governor needs new process but she is telling us to believe that she knows what the governor meant by doing those things. she wasn't there but y*et she wants us to believe her. let me answer your question. it's not an affirmative defense for his misconduct. he didn't mean it. didn't know it was offensive. she is not in a position to tell us what the governor meant because sthe is not in the governor's head. so you have her basically advocating for the governor. i do believe in one aspect, harris, due process requires all the evidence that the state attorney general has should be in the hands of cuomo's team so they can make a rebutable argument. that's what she was trying to do. i thought it was disingenuous to tell us to believe the governor's intentions. >> harris: she would say that because it was he would tell her. she would have to have evidence of it. unless she is a mind reader and there contemporaneously to be the other person being touched. he had his arm around one person and had his hand on another person's derriere. she would almost have to be one of the people she was touching to know what he was thinking. she also said -- i want to get to your point of due process. she said investigators have not given her or the governor any evidence or interview transcripts. you say that needs to happen expeditiously. why hasn't it happened? >> you know what? i've said this last week on "outnumbered" and last week on fox. this is not a legal case. it is a political trail, a legal case and that's what is being played here. this whole impeachment process is political. gamesmanship is being played by democrats who don't like the governor, politics and it is wrong. as a lawyer they are entitled to the evidence in order to do a rebuttal. one other point we're always taught-in-law and in court that attorneys' words are not evidence. when you listen to her she is an advocate and attorney's words in a court of law never evidence. disregard it. they are advocates and not the trier of facts. >> harris: we have a little bit of highlighted blurbs from the attorney. the governor himself is set to speak at any moment. as soon as governor cuomo steps up and says whatever he is going to say. we don't know what it is going to be. his attorney spent the better part of a half hour defending him and there are calls from even members of his own political party for him to step aside as governor of the state of new york. i will ask my team to let me know what we have that we can listen to. there were a couple of things that stood out to me. and i got to tell you, it's been a long time since i've seen this kind of a dog fight. but this is what you do in a dog fight. you bring out another dog. >> political dog fight. >> harris: here is what this attorney did. you know, even senator schumer asks some of the same questions of the people around him as women and staffers. as governor cuomo. well, just watch and we'll come out and talk about it. look at this. >> during the time that she worked for him he did banter with her. he did ask her about her life. that's something he routinely does with his staff members. what is going on? are you married? do you have kids? are you dating anybody? that's something senator schumer asks his staff. >> harris: leo. >> harris, she threw schumer under the bus. schumer called for cuomo's resignation so of all the democrats who are after cuomo she throws him under the bus. schumer is not on trial here. no allegations but she threw him under the bus to make a point. that's why lawyers cannot be trusted. schumer has nothing to do with allegations of these 11 victims against governor cuomo but it's a political strategy and what i'm talking about the political track. >> harris: look, to my knowledge, senator schumer -- he left the floor because they were voting on the bipartisan infrastructure bill and he was speaking at the same time she was saying that. i clocked it. he was like still on the floor. it was unbelievable. how desperate is cuomo that you have your attorney go after the highest ranking member of the democrats in the senate? that sounds like a man who needs a life jacket, a life ring, a boat. >> and harris, let me be clear. attention all democrats. there will be more democrats being thrown under the bus. cuomo has made it very clear to his attorney if he is going down, there will be a lot of other democrats going down. be aware. and that's the political track. i can't stress it enough. it is purely politics. >> harris: i want to bring in the alleged victims. let's face it throughout all of this you will never hear cuomo say anything about these women the way his attorney did today. she was laying a case out for apology and how wrong he was. i didn't hear her say his hand wasn't exactly where she said it was. it was someplace else. no, it was where all the victims have said his hands were. she just wanted to apologize and say he didn't mean it. then she said there weren't as many victims. fewer than 11. was there more than one? what are we doing here? okay, lindsey boylen, the first to openly accuse governor cuomo of sexual harassment. just tweeted this. when will enough be enough will you caring more about self-preservation than your state and your people? one minute later. when will enough be enough with the rampant abuse of power and intimidation? two minutes later, when will enough be enough with the victim blaming and smears? leo terrell. >> what better way to have a female attorney representing the governor to try to give you the optics that she feels that hey, i'm working with the governor, i'm a woman. i wouldn't be representing him as a lawyer. what they are doing from an optics standpoint is trying to basically trash the victims by using a female attorney, harris, to trash the victims. so she is doing the dirty work of governor cuomo right now and she is using the media to basically trash the victims. i find that shameful, absolutely shameful as a lawyer. >> harris: does he quit, does he try to fight this off real quickly? >> oh, very simply he is going to fight. the attorney good just tells you right there it will be a dog fight to the end and there will be a lot of democratic casualties. >> harris: wow, political dog fighting and they called out schumer's name today. all right, i mentioned that senator schumer was on the floor. here is why that happened just moments ago. the infrastructure bill has passed with enough votes and now at the same time the governor of the state of new york andrew cuomo. >> that was the headline people heard and saw and reacted to. the reaction was outrage. it should have been. however, it was also false. my lawyers, as you just heard from, have reviewed the report over the past several days and have already raised serious issues and flaws that should concern all new yorkers because when there is a bias or a lack of fairness in the justice system, it is a concern for everyone. not just those immediately affected. the most serious allegations made against me have no credible factual basis in the report. and there is a difference between alleged improper conduct and concluding sexual harassment. now, don't get me wrong, this is not to say that there are not 11 women who i truly offended. there are. for that i deeply, deeply apologize. i thought a hug and putting my arm around a staff person while taking a picture was friendly. but she found it to be too forward. i kissed a woman on the cheek at a wedding. i thought i was being nice but she felt i was too aggressive. i have slipped and called people honey, sweetheart and darling. i meant it to be endearing. but women found it dated and offensive. i said on national tv to a doctor wearing ppe and giving me a covid nasal swab you make that gown look good. i was joking. obviously otherwise i wouldn't have said it on national tv. but she found it disrespectful. i take full responsibility for my actions. i have been too familiar with people. my sense of humor can be insensitive and off putting. i do hug and kiss people casually. women and men. i have done it all my life. it is who i've been since i can remember. in my mind, i've never crossed the line with anyone. but i didn't realize the extent to which the line has been redrawn. there are generational and cultural shifts that i just didn't fully appreciate. and i should have. no excuses. the report did bring to light a matter that i was not aware of and that i would like to address. a female trooper related concern she found disturbing and so do i. please let me provide some context. the governor's trooper detail had about 65 troopers on it. but of the 65, only six women and nine black troopers. i'm very proud of the diversity of my administration. it is more diverse than any administration in history and i'm very proud of the fact that i have more women in senior positions than any governor before me. the lack of diversity on the state police detail was an ongoing disappointment for me. in many ways, the governor's detail is the face of state government that people see. when i attend an event, people see the detail that's with me. i was continuously trying to recruit more to diversify. on one occasion, i met two female troopers who were on duty at an event. both seemed competent and impressive and i asked the state police to see if they were interested in joining. i often meet people, men and women, and if they show promise, i refer them to be interviewed. the state police handled the interviewing and the hiring, and one of the two troopers eventually joined the detail. i got to know her over time and she is a great professional. and i would sometimes banter with her when we were in the car. we spent a lot of time driving around the state. this female trooper was getting married and i made some jokes about the negative consequences of married life. i meant it to be humorous. she was offended and she was right. the trooper also said that in an elevator i touched her back and when i was walking past her in a doorway, i touched her stomach. now, i don't recall i don't recall doing it but if she said i did it, i believe her. at public events, troopers would often hold doors open or guard the doorways. when i walk past them, i often