Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Mueller's Team Pressure Roger Stone on Russia Probe; Former MMA Fighter Running for Congress; Fox News Host Under Heavy Criticism; One-On-One Regarding Laura Ingraham; GOP Nervous About Conservative Candidates; Debate Over Efficacy Of Trump's Proposed Wall; Trump's Deepening Crisis With Turkey. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired August 10, 2018 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[22:00:00] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: We have a bonus second hour of Cuomo Primetime on this Friday night.

And we start with Bob Mueller's team seems to be circling President Trump's long tie confidant Roger Stone. Is he target of the investigation? If so, what could that mean for the president? Cuomo's court will reconvene.

Then a Kansas lawyer who's a former MMA fighter, mixed martial arts, is seeking to make political history. You will meet Democrat Sharice Davids running to become the first lesbian Native American in Congress. There she is. Great to have you. Talk to you in a little bit.

And Senate Republicans fearful that a hard right conservative may win the upcoming primary for an open Senate seat in Arizona. What did I say, the GOP is nervous about a conservative? Yes. You'll meet her too. Dr. Kelli Ward. What do you say, it's Friday night. Let's get at it.

All right. Three new names, three new faces for Mueller grand jury if they all show up. They are all associates of Roger Stone, his long time friend. One of them known as the Manhattan Madame testified today. Another Andrew Miller, a former aide of Stone's is now appealing a contempt citation for refusing to testify today.

And radio host Randy Credico is set to testify next month. Now Stone says he's the guy who told him WikiLeaks had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Asha Rangappa and Ross Garber are here for Cuomo's court.

So much intrigue here but let's try to stick with, you know, potential legalities. I don't know if you heard, Asha, in the last hour I had the lawyer for Andrew Miller on. He says it had to be contempt because I want to be able to appeal that there's a special counsel in the first place. This is the process. Fine.

But the judge ruled on it. The president seems pretty clear. Even the Morrison case that he cites they wind up justifying that an independent counsel is fine there as long as you ever someone on top of them who is accountable to the president and here you have Rod Rosenstein. Is this a legit case to you? ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: We already

had this particular issue raised by Paul Manafort and it was struck down. So the difference here between the independent counsel statute that was challenged in Morrison and the special counsel regulations, is that, in Morrison, which was a five to four decision, there was a little bit of contention about whether this was a separation of powers issue.

And this is because the independent counsel was appointed under a statute created by Congress. The question was whether this was intruding on the president's executive function. I think here we've addressed that issue.

Because the special counsel regulations are actually coming out of attorney general himself from the Department of Justice. So there is a direct line, in other words, the president could theoretically fire the special counsel, Mueller in this case. So there's no separation of powers issue. And I don't think that this will go very far. But it is a different district court, so, you know, there is the opportunity to challenge it.

CUOMO: Ross, do you see it the same way?

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Look, Asha makes very, very good. I mean, the fact is till it's still a unusual situation to have a special counsel, independent counsel, you know, anybody outside the norm with this kind of role. Having said that, you know, this is an uphill battle for his lawyer, but that's what we have courts for. We have trial courts, and we have appeals courts and I've lost a trial court in one of the appeals court.

CUOMO: Sure.

GARBER: So, you know, we'll see what happens.

CUOMO: Sure. He was hitting me over the head with that. It's just one judge. It's just one judge. But you know, you had already tried to Manafort. You have the Morrison precedent out here. You have someone who is obviously on top of him an accountable to the president.

It seems like a little bit of a destruction but we'll see how it plays out.

GARBER: Yes.

CUOMO: Now let me ask you something, there's another question we pose for you tonight. Do you believe that Roger Stone is a target as indicated by them bringing in these people around him?

GARBER: Well, it's hard to tell whether he's target or not for sure. The special counsel is interested in Roger Stone. It's likely that he is setting up a process where he is looking to squeeze Roger Stone for information.

You know, as you got Mr. Stone to admit, he's the person identified in one of special counsel's indictments and for sure, this special counsel is going to be interested in Roger Stone's role in the Russia probe.

CUOMO: Your head is nodding in the sense. Rangappa, do you adopt the same position?

RANGAPPA: Absolutely. The question here as, you know, was just mentioned is the nature of his communications with the Russian hackers.

[22:05:01] This indictment against the 12 GRU officers mentioned. And again, this wasn't about Roger Stone so this is kind of more of a passing statement.

But there could be more behind it that these Russian hackers were in contact with the person that I think has now been reported to be Roger Stone in terms of soliciting feedback on the value of stolen information that they got.

And also that Roger Stone separately has -- or in 2016, more or less, boasted that he had contact with WikiLeaks which we now know has or alleged in this indictment have coordinated with the Russian hacker.

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: So this is a big problem for Roger Stone if he helped them in any way he could be a part of that conspiracy.

CUOMO: All right.

GARBER: Well, Chris, you know, one thing I do want to note is that, you know, these Russian hackers they went by Guciffer 2.0. And lots of people, including journalists had contact with Guccifer 2.0. Lot of people have contact with WikiLeaks it's worth looking at but I think we still have to wait to see what the nature of that conduct -- contact was.

CUOMO: Understood. Now just to test the case a little bit. He's not a state official but you don't have to be because under the statute it's a citizen. You can't be helping a foreign power influence an election. But did he help a foreign power influence an election if he did communicate with WikiLeaks.

They're not a foreign power. They're just clearing elsewhere information. They didn't even hack the e-mail themselves. They just got them. And Assange says he didn't even get it from the Russians but nobody who knows anything seems to believe that. Rangappa?

RANGAPPA: Yes. Well, this is the beauty of conspiracy theory. Conspiracy is of course the criminal manifestation of what we are calling collusion.

And in conspiracy, what you need is, you know, an agreement to the objective of the bigger enterprise. In this case to hack into these e- mails and to use it and to simply do one overt act in furtherance of that.

In other words, you don't have to know everything about the conspiracy or be a part of everything. You can be part of -- you can be liable for the entire conspiracy if you help it along and you know that it's happening.

CUOMO: Ross?

GARBER: Yes. But there has to be an underlying crime there. And that's going to -- that really is going to be the question here. Is just receiving information--

CUOMO: No.

GARBER: -- from foreigners, is that enough? I think that's not enough. So the question is, what if anything else was happening and was that a crime. In other words, was a U.S. citizen or anybody associated with the campaign in any way involved in the hacking? Did they request it, did they acquiesce to it, were they involved in it? I think that's going to be one of the big questions here.

CUOMO: Right.

GARBER: Just receiving information I don't think that's enough.

CUOMO: All right. Rudy and Sekulow, they got a radio show.

GARBER: Yes.

CUOMO: Ross, they call you up on the phone. They say hey, we're thinking of doing this. Sean Hannity is going to give us his show for the night. We're going to go on there. We're going to run down the probe and we're going to put out all the arguments about why this is wrong what they're doing with the president. Great idea, right? What do you say?

GARBER: You know, this is a weird situation because it's not just regular law. At the end of the day, this is as much politics, probably more politics than it is law. This is going to be I think when all is said and done and about whether Congress through the impeachment process thinks what the president has done is OK or not if it gets that hard.

And so I think what Rudy and Sekulow were doing is they're getting ahead of that. They're making sure that the Trump supporters and the public at large know what they are doing and that they have a voice.

CUOMO: Hey, Asha, so Michael Zeldin, another legal commentator that we have, a legal expert that we have here, he sent a great response or analysis to what their big argument. Can't have him testify, it's perjury trap. Set him off a perjury trap.

And I want to see you guys if you agree with this. A perjury trap is a legal situation in which a prosecutor calls the witness essentially to catch them lying in a statement not for a previous crime.

Whereas, perjury is just when you materially give an untrue statement under oath in response to a specific question. And Zeldin made an interesting analogy. He said they are afraid of the

latter, the perjury. But they are calling it the former. A perjury trap. But that's not what this is about. They don't know that Mueller wants to just trap the president. They are just worried about perjury in general and trying to make it look like he's a victim. Fair point?

RANGAPPA: I don't think that's a fair point. When you're looking at a crime like obstruction of justice, the intent of the person that may have obstructed justice is really key. So I think there's a very legitimate reason for Robert Mueller to want to get from Trump.

CUOMO: Yes.

RANGAPPA: You know, his own version of what happened. Now, that -- there's a legitimate reason. Now he doesn't commit personal jury if he simply tells the truth. So what I hear from Giuliani and other lawyers--

(CROSSTALK)

[22:10:00] CUOMO: They said no. They'll set up other people like Comey -- right. They'll say they'll set him up by having other people that they decide to believe instead of him.

GARBER: Yes. And that is the problem. I mean, you know--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: So you believe that's a legitimate risk?

GARBER: Perjury trap is shorthand for the perils of any citizen facing the government in an interview. You know, I think our viewers should imagine themselves sitting in front of, you know, a line of -- you know, my friend Asha Rangappa who is going to question them vigorously, is going to write down everything they say.

CUOMO: Right.

GARBER: -- and focus on the nuances. And there are very few people who can survive that even if they are telling the truth. And I found, in particular--

RANGAPPA: But--

GARBER: -- business people who are used to being in charge, they have problems in that setting. Public figures have lots of problems in that setting. It is a very, very difficult thing. And I think perjury trap is shorthand for that notion.

CUOMO: Rangappa, final point.

RANGAPPA: But Chris, let's remember, yes, so far false statements which is what it would be in this case because it probably wouldn't be under oath if he's doing a voluntary interview, is that it has to be an intentional misrepresentation on a material fact.

CUOMO: Right.

RANGAPPA: So it's not just, yu know, you didn't remember and there's some explanation, and I'm sorry but just the fact that you happen to be someone who is large and in charge for a long time and is used to getting away with lies is not really an excuse or reason in my opinion to be able to lie with federal officials.

CUOMO: Garber, high dollar criminal defense attorney. That's what you are. But we need to perspective and the arguments. Thank you very much. Asha Rangappa, I just saying your name. Rangappa, I love to have you. Thank you for being with me on a Friday night.

GARBER: Thanks for having us.

RANGAPPA: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right. So this Kansas Democrat running for Congress beat five opponents and beating people up is nothing new for her. She won Tuesday's primary but it is only part of what makes a very special story.

Sharice Davids, former MMA fighter. And you know she's good because look at her. She looks like she's never been hit. If she wins in November, she will be a first on many different levels. We're going to put her on and put her to the test not on the ring, next.

[22:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Lots of battles going on in this country right now. One of them is for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. The centrist, the establishment crowd versus the progressive liberal and in some cases, socialist wing.

So as the midterms near, one person who could help define the party's future is named Sharice Davids. The nominee for Kansas' third congressional district. Davids beat out five challengers in a district that Hillary Clinton barely won. She's now hoping to unseat Republican Kevin Yoder who is supported, endorsed by President Trump.

Davids is an attorney, a former MMA fighter. She would be first lesbian Native American congresswoman. Sharice Davids, welcome to Primetime.

SHARICE DAVIDS (D), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, KANSAS: Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here.

CUOMO: You represent a lot of potential firsts. What does that mean to you?

DAVIDS: You know, I was raised by a single mom who served in the army for 20 years. Certainly she taught me a hard work ethic. I use that work ethic to go from Johnson County community college right here in the third district in Kansas to Cornell for law school and you know, being -- being a first means that, you know, I'm taking all the opportunities that I was able to have here in the third district and I want to make sure that everyone else has the same kind of opportunities that I have.

CUOMO: OK. So first, let's talk infighting and then out fighting. In fighting, you were not one of the candidates backed by the Bernie Sanders part of party, the Ocasio-Cortez part of the party. I think we're getting ahead ourselves giving her part of your party.

But the idea of ultra progressive, ultra left. Most of your positions are more let's call then traditional centrist Democrat. Is that where you think the party should be? Why?

DAVIDS: You know, I think it's an interesting conversation the national conversation about where the Democratic Party is. Really I'm spending a lot of my time trying to make sure that I'm listening to the people of the third district.

It's really important to me as someone who is trying to be a representative of this place, of my community that I listen to the folks here and that I'm making sure that when I get to Congress that I am a strong voice and a strong advocate for the things that we really feel like need to be addressed.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I hear you on that.

DAVIDS: Like giving access to affordable quality health care.

CUOMO: I get it but like how with the affordable quality. I get the issue. It's an issue everywhere no matter what your demographic is, no matter where your district is.

However, how you do it and how that represents what your party is about matters also and it seems like whether it's you or what we see, you know, with Conor Lamb or you know, Ocasio-Ortez, is that at the end of the day, the Democrats may not all be on the same page about major policy situations.

DAVIDS: Well, the thing that we're really interested here in the third district and what I hear every single time I talk to people is that we're interested in making sure that we have a representative that wants to get things down. And right now we have a Congress that hasn't been doing that.

CUOMO: Right.

DAVIDS: And we have a representative that hasn't been doing that either. So, right now I can tell you that the third district is interested in having a Democrat because, you know, Hillary Clinton won this district as you said earlier, and we really want to make sure that we're electing someone who is going to be a voice for the things that we care about.

CUOMO: Representative Yoder, who will be your opponent, said something about you. Let's play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. KEVIN YODER (R), KANSAS: Right now it looks like the race for the Democratic nomination is down to a two horse race with the two most radical candidates left in the field.

Both of these candidates want to turn back the clock on all of our progress. They think with this growing economy needs is radical liberalism and radical socialism. Neither of them are from here and both want to force their radical ideas on those of us who have dedicated our entire lives to this community and to this state. They don't know Kansas. They don't know our values and neither of them should be our voice in Washington, D.C.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:19:59] CUOMO: What do you think he means when he says you don't know the values of Kansas and that you are not from this place?

DAVIDS: I'm sure you could tell I was laughing while that was playing. It really it's laughable that, you know, someone who really has seen so much opportunity in my life because of the foundation that I've had from Johnson County Community College. We have one of the best community colleges in the country here.

We also have great public schools. And if, I mean, if what he means by rolling back -- rolling things back, if he's talking about the tax experiments and the damage that's done to the school system here, then yes, I want to roll that back. I want to make sure that we are providing opportunity for future generation.

CUOMO: Do you think he's making a more personal statement about what you represent personally?

DAVIDS: No. I honestly I can't tell what he's talking about. You know, I think that all I can do is continue to represent and speak to and listen to the people of this district. And if listening to people and trying to understand their issues and what they are really concerned about, it doesn't strike Kevin Yoder as being Kansas values, then I think he might be confused about what Kansas values.

CUOMO: All right. Now I have to talk about something because it matters to me personally so much. And as you're learning about politics you've got to hit people where they live and what their fashions are. I love the fight game. I love the training. I love MMA. I do mostly self-defense but I love it.

You were good in the ring. You decided to use your head in a different way than to defect punches. But what did you learn in the ring that guides how you are outside the ring?

DAVIDS: I would say discipline. You know -- I'm sure no better than a lot of other people that when you're a martial artist and I'm very proud of the work that I put into being a martial artist, when you're a martial artist the key skill that you learn to harness is discipline. And using the discipline that I've learned from being a martial artist

to, really, to progress through my life and figure out ways that I can take the skill sets that I'm picking up across the board whether it's, you know, educational or professional experience, you know, the discipline that I took from being a martial artist has really helped me not just professionally but in this campaign.

CUOMO: Once a fighter, always a fighter. Sharice Davids, you got a big fight in front of you. We will be following it and we'll be following what happens with your party. It's going to be a very interesting watch. Thank you for coming on the show. You're welcome back.

DAVIDS: Thanks for having me.

CUOMO: All right.

DAVIDS: Thank you.

CUOMO: So, as you know by now there was some fierce blow back after Laura Ingraham trashed immigrants and warned of massive demographic changes in America.

She's trying to walk back her words but was she just taking her cue from the president? We're going to get after it with the head of Women for Trump, next.

[22:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Fox host Laura Ingraham is trying to explain away her controversial and certainly divisive Wednesday night monologue. I want to play you too close. First is how she try to do damage control last night. And then you see what she was trying to fix from the night before. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: I want to start tonight by addressing my commentary at the top of last night's show. I made explicitly clear that my commentary had nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

In some parts of the country it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn't exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people. And they're changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don't like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Let's discuss with Amy Kremer, co-founder of Women for Trump. Thank you for taking the opportunity to come on the show.

AMY KREMER, CO-FOUNDER, WOMEN FOR TRUMP: Thank you for having me, Chris.

CUOMO: So Laura pointed to massive demographic changes. Demographic changes means one thing, people. So if she wasn't talking about ethnic and race, what kind of people was she talking about?

KREMER: Look, I don't know. There are changes going on all across the country. I know she is concerned about immigration. She is an advocate for legal immigration and wants to stop the illegal immigration. She's been focused on the sanctuary cities and the problems that we are having with sanctuary cities. The crime coming across the border with some of these people. That's what she has been focused on.

CUOMO: Right. But two things.

KREMER: Sure.

CUOMO: First she explicitly mentioned legal immigration as a problem and I don't think we can just dismiss with I don't know what she's talking about when she talk about the people involved. Because just because she says she didn't mean it, doesn't mean she didn't mean it, right. The truth is aside also. Left, right, reasonable.

(CROSSTALK)

KREMER: She didn't mean what?

CUOMO: When she says I don't mean race, I don't mean ethnic, she had to mean that, Ms. Kremer, because that's the only thing demographic changes can be, people, right?

KREMER: OK. I mean, yes. I guess that is right. But I mean, what are you saying?

CUOMO: I'm saying that she should own what she said which is that certain kinds of people make her feel uncomfortable. And that she doesn't see them as part of the America that she knows and loves.

And I think that's a problem for her having admitted that because that's what this country is. You can't take the immigrants out of this country. That's all we are, is a mixed up bunch of different types of people.

KREMER: We are. We are a melting pot. I completely agree with you. And I know that she has no problem with that. She has daughter she adopted from Guatemala. In 2008, she adopted her daughter from Guatemala. She actually just took a trip back there, I believe in 2016 with her daughter to feed the poor and the less fortunate. She's done--

(CROSSTALK)

[22:29:58] CUOMO: Why is she so worried about the massive demographic changes if she loves Guatemala so much?

[22:30:02]

KREMER: Well, I can't speak for Laura. I don't, I mean, I can't speak for her. But what everybody -- what you're insinuating is she's a racist. CUOMO: No, no. Let us not put labels on it, because it cheapens the discussion. What I'm saying is, if she doesn't believe that having brown people here and people of different races and from different places is a problem, then she shouldn't have said it, but she did.

KREMER: But Chris, why would she -- if she had a problem with that, why would she have adopted a child --

CUOMO: I think you can certainly do both things. I think that you can adopt a child and to be honest, Ms. Kremer, you brought that up. I didn't. I don't want to bring up personal life in to it. I just want to stick to what she says her policy positions. But, I do think you can in one case see a child and want to love them and give them a better life and at the same time hold general opinions about the people who are coming into your country from that place. And it seems that is exactly the case with Laura Ingraham.

KREMER: You know, I mean, this is the thing, is that, you're entitled to your belief. I am entitled to mine. I mean, we could argue and debate, but Laura Ingraham has shown that she cares about people of color by the work she is done. OK. So, let's -- I like to judge people by their actions, not their words. Maybe she meant something and didn't say it so artfully or so gracefully or politically correct. But the thing is her action shows that she cares about those people. What she is concerned about is the illegal immigration in this country that people are pouring across our borders. You have Kate Steinly, who was murdered in San Francisco.

CUOMO: Terrible case.

KREMER: You have this grandmother who was murdered in front of her grandchild and then her grand child is beheaded by the MS-13 gang. I mean, we can go on and on. In Philadelphia --

CUOMO: Kate, and that is part of the problem. Is that there are certainly horrible cases of terrible crimes performed, committed by illegal immigrants, entrances in this country.

KREMER: Right.

CUOMO: But it's also true that illegal entrance commit less crime than the rest of us. So to make them a boogie man and to suggest that they are in the main gang bangers, homicidal, it is demonstrably --

KREMER: MS-13 is a real problem.

CUOMO: Yes. And so is the Mexican mafia and so is the gangster disciples, and so is the Latin kings. And you can go after all of them, but you don't. You only go after the ones that have to do with immigrants. Why?

KREMER: No, Chris. What we're talking about is legal versus illegal immigration. Follow the law. We are a nation of immigrants.

CUOMO: She said legal immigration bothers her as well and she put out a follow up poll that said people want it cut. It should be cut. The President says the same thing again and again. They are sending us their worst, their bad people, bad hombre coming from over there. Kate Steinly, they are all like that is the suggestion. It's not true. It's poisoning perspective on who we are in this country.

KREMER: Chris, this is the thing, is that when I came in to CNN tonight, I had to go into the strict security process. CNN, doesn't just let anybody in to this building.

CUOMO: Neither does the United States.

KREMER: But they do. They come across our border willing knowing at they want to. Just come through the legal way. If you want to come here, that is great. Apply, go through the process and then come here the legal way. We won't have a problem with it. Why is that wrong.

CUOMO: I don't know that is true, by the way. There's nothing wrong with saying the law should be respected. There's nothing wrong with saying you must secure your borders. I have yet to have somebody on this show who said not me. I'm for open borders. I don't want to secure anything, everybody should come in. You guys love making that argument. I've never had anyone on the left say it.

KREMER: There are some people that believe that. Libertarians believe it.

CUOMO: But I am saying, I've never had anybody on the left, who is an office holder who has come on and been accused of being that way who had admitted it. For whatever that means. What I'm saying is this. You're talking about legal immigration as well. That is why this story about the President's in laws that he wants make out laws is so relevant. He wants to call a chain migration. It's called family reunification for a good reason. Because generations of people have come in here, made themselves established and then help bring other family in. And that is how our country has grown. And now you guys wanted change, what we're all about.

KREMER: No. I mean, the thing is we are a melting pot. We all came here from somewhere else. That is a great thing about this country. But do it legally. That is all we're asking. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. And don't try to make us look bad for those that support legal immigration. That is a thing you should try to make escalate bad. I am sorry, but there is nothing wrong with supporting legal immigration versus opposing illegal. I'm not a bad person, because I want legal immigration.

CUOMO: Amy Kremer, have I called you a bad person?

KREMER: No. But, I mean --

CUOMO: Have I suggested that you're a bad person?

KREMER: No. But the thing is we are being made out to be like we're racists and bad people.

[22:35:05] CUOMO: All right. I understand that you may feel that way. But two points. One, don't to what you're criticizing which is accuse me of something that may be happening with others, but not with me. Because I'm not doing that to you.

And second, it's absolutely OK to be in favor of legal immigration. I would argue that is changing on your side of the ball. You want less people in, you want less exceptions, you want them from less places. The President said he wants less diversity in terms of a kinds of people. More from Norway and that is what raises the criticism. But I appreciate you coming on this show and you are welcome back.

KREMER: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

CUOMO: Amy Kremer, thank you. And have a good weekend.

KREMER: Thank you. You too.

CUOMO: Senate Republicans are fearful that Democrats may take an open seat in Arizona if either of the two conservative candidates in the upcoming primary wins. You heard that right. The GOP is nervous about conservative candidates. One of them is Dr. Kelli Ward. She is here to make the case, next.

[22:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: President Trump has yet to weigh in on the three way battle for the GOP nominations in the race to succeed Senator Jeff Flake in Arizona. Now, Politico says the National Republican Senatorial Committee wants Trump to endorse Congresswoman Martha McSally, who is the establishment favor. Fear is that the alternative, Joe Arpaio and Dr. Kelli Ward, a former state senator are unelectable. That is the reporting. What does Kelli Ward think about? Welcome to primetime.

KELLI WARD, (R), ARIZONA SENATE CANDIDATE: Hi, Chris. It is great to be with you. Well, I mean, I think that is another establishment miss that they try to create fear in the minds of the voter thinking that we have to settle for what we have. I say the status quo has got to go. It is time for big changes in Washington and we need new blood there, new ideas, stronger backbones so that we could continue to move the country in the right direction.

CUOMO: Why no love from Trump to you?

WARD: Oh, Trump, I think Trump likes all of the people in the race, you know I think that is why he is kind of sitting back and watching. I can tell you the people of Arizona are the ones that I really want their endorsement.

CUOMO: More than Trump? He is become the golden ticket from Willy Wonka for people in the primaries and in the elections if he takes a side.

WARD: Well, unfortunately, President Trump doesn't have a vote in Arizona. So, I need those votes in Arizona to come across the ballot box for me.

CUOMO: No question, but I got to check you on this, one more time, Doc.

WARD: Sure.

CUOMO: You know that Donald Trump being behind you and your party right now, especially coming from your perspective on issues is the golden ticket from Willy Wonka, I love that because I just love the movie. You got to want it.

WARD: I do too, it is one of my favorite. Of course. I think that having the support of the President as a Republican in a time when we're going to have a heat wave and bring the heat to drain the swamp, of course it would be wonderful to have the President on board. And you know, but, it's not the most important endorsement. The most important endorsement is the people of Arizona who want a thoughtful, effective, results oriented leader with a proven track record of success. And I'm the only one in the race that has those credentials.

CUOMO: Why are you better than Joe Arpaio?

WARD: Well, because I have a proven track record. When I was in the state Senate, I got 19 bills signed into law based on excellent policy. Not on political pandering or you know, any kind of extreme partisanship. Great policy that I brought forward. And people on both sides of the aisle agreed that it would be good for the people that they represented. And then I was able to navigate that swampy murky process of getting things from the Senate to the House and to the executive's desk. And that is why so many people wanted me to run for the United States senate. They're tired of the gridlock in Washington. They're tired of the partisanship. They are tired of the head butting. They want someone to go there and get things done. And then that is what I am going to do when I get to Washington D.C.

CUOMO: You and Arpaio have been coupled often in different analysis of the race. And you are both attributed with the same potential plus and minus which is they have a tendency to demonize the immigrant population and source them as a huge problem for Arizona. Do you think that is fair treatment of you?

WARD: I don't really. I think that, you know, people who come here illegally and illegal immigration really have -- it has affected every aspect of our society. Not just in Arizona, but across the entire nation. It's not just an Arizona border crisis.

CUOMO: For better or worse?

WARD: You know, it affects education. It affects health care. I've seen as a physician up close and personal. Education as a mom it's affected public safety. It has affected corrections. All of those things are affected by illegal immigration which is why I'm such a staunch supporter of border security and building the wall. I think that --

CUOMO: Do you believe that most of these illegal immigrants are criminals, bad people?

WARD: I don't. You know, I mean, I heard you talking earlier or stuff that you talking about your family and how they got here. My family came the same way. My great grandparents came from Hungary and from Poland. They were fleeing communism. The communist were coming in taking over their farms. They couldn't survive. So they came through this great land, through LS Islands.

They came the right way. And my grandparents, both of my grandfather's became coal miners. They went into the scariest darkest most dangerous profession in order to provide for their families. My grandfather, my dad's side, died in a mine explosion and his body was never recovered, but they did that so that my parents, my mom and dad could both become teachers. And my parents worked hard so that my brother and I could both become doctors. And that is the American dream. And I want people to experience that.

[22:45:00] I want people from all over the world to be able to come here to experience that. I just want them to come the right way. And the reason we need a wall is because we need a symbol of a right and wrong way to come in, not only symbol, a significant deterrent.

CUOMO: Right. It's a pretty expensive symbol.

WARD: But it is also a significant (inaudible).

CUOMO: A lot of people think it wouldn't work. That people would get over just like they got over anything else. Ten foot wall, 11-foot ladder.

WARD: My opponent, Martha McSally, says walls don't work. And we're never going to have one. No matter what she says on the campaign trail?

CUOMO: What is wrong with that?

WARD: What we do know is that not having a wall hasn't work. Back in 1986, President Reagan, one of my favorite Presidents, great American, conservative, happy warrior. He granted amnesty and then trusted Congress to secure the border. It didn't happen then and it's not going to happen now.

CUOMO: But what you said earlier about the dream, you know, a lot of people who come illegally have that same dream. They work themselves to death here and they get paid subpar wages and a lot of industries here and a lot of households here are dependent on them and a lot of the analysis show that they are a benefit as well as how you would define them as a burden.

The second part is that legal immigration is under attack by people in your party as well. Donald Trump, specifically wants to limit immigration legally in way that would have kept his own in laws out of this country. That is not embracing the same spirit of inclusion that we see at the foot of the statue of the liberty. Fair point.

WARD: Well, I think that people need to come here the right way. I think that proposing --

CUOMO: Are you trying to limit who can come the right way. That is what I am saying to you.

WARD: Well, we're trying to change the system.

CUOMO: Limit.

WARD: So it is something that work. It's right now it's so bogged down by the people who have come here illegally. In my state, the federal court dockets are clogged with people who are -- have come back through illegal re-entry again and again and again. And that slows down the process for people who wanted to come here legally. That is not fair. I just talked to a man yesterday. He is going to be -- having his citizenship ceremony next week on the 17th, he came here from Brazil as a teenager, the right way. His parent's came here legally but it took him 19 years to obtain this citizenship ceremony that is going to happen next year. That is too long. We've got to be able to get people to come in who will be assets to our society and our economy as wells as to their own.

CUOMO: Good, then you should be against Trump administration policy they are trying to put through that men like him who are here on a visa that could be approved or not renewed, that if there's any sign that they used the government benefit like the earned income tax credit or anyone related to them has, they can be nixed. What an unfair thing to do. Do you agree with that?

WARD: I don't think that is what he was on. But I think it's something we have to look at. When people come to our country for economic benefit that is paid for by the taxpayer that is something that is unacceptable to most people across the country. They want people to come here, they want them to be prosperous on their own. They want them to have skills to be able to take care of themselves to be able experience the joy and success of having their own job and being able to take care of themselves and their families.

CUOMO: All right.

WARD: And so, you know, we have to look at all of those signs because it's not fair to burden the American taxpayer with people who come into our country.

CUOMO: Remember, as we heard from the CEO's the other day, they just a burden. All right. Not only are immigrants the people that built this country in the first place, but now you have CEO's asking the President to give them more. And he said he would help them in the White House tonight. Dr. Ward, thank you for making the case. We'll be following your race very closely.

WARD: Thank, Chris. It is great to be here.

CUOMO: All right. President Trump ramping up tensions with Turkey and NATO allies. We are going to get after this growing crisis with counter terrorism analyst, Phil Mudd. There's more to it than you may know.

[22:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Trump today announced the doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs on Turkey warning quote, our relations with Turkey are not good at this time. So what does Turkey's leader do? He gets on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin. What does this mean? Is it the right move? CNN counterterrorism analyst. Phil Mudd, what's it about?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I mean, the first question it's about is whether you want to get a pastor who's an American citizen released by the Turks. I think the biggest question is pretty simple, this is about trying to treat -- trying to squeeze a strong man in a world that is the Middle East, Asia and then you can go into Southeast Asia and the Far East where strong men can't show vulnerability. We're trying to isolate President Erdogan in Turkey. He is a strong map. He is looking at us in terms of what is all about and saying I can't afford to show vulnerability by folding in the face of American pressure.

CUOMO: Is it the right move? Is it worth putting sanctions on and straining the relationship with this man?

MUDD: No. It's worth straining the relationship for this one American citizen, but if you want to put pressure on a country whether it's the Iranians, whether it is the Turks, whether it is the North Koreans, you have to ensure they don't have an escape valve. In a case for example of Iran, what is their escape valve? Europe, China, Russia. In the case of Turkey, you just mentioned, what's the first phone call the Turks make? They are going to call Putin and say we want you to help us out.

CUOMO: But that is good for us, right? Because the president says Putin wants to help us with things.

MUDD: Really? It is good for us, did you see what happened next to Turkey and Syria? As soon as we move out the butcher of Syria turns around and says I want the adversary of America to move in. That is Vladimir Putin. What does Putin do, Putin says not only will I support you in Syria, I will move my military in. We move out, Putin moves in.

[22:55:02] CUOMO: So, what happens next here?

MUDD: What happens next is the Turks look for a way out and especially economically to ensure that they don't have to respond to American sanctions, so in addition to calling people like the Russians, they are going to call other adversaries like the Chinese and say can you give us an opportunity for things like trade deal that ensure that we don't have to buckle in the face of American pressure to ensure that Donald Trump doesn't win?

CUOMO: Is this an opportunity for Trump to call Putin and see if he'll help him as promised?

MUDD: Hell no. The first thing that is going to happen is Putin will say I want to restore the Russian sort of -- the Russian power base after the embarrassment of Russia and the fall of the Russian empire in -- in the early 1990s. The way to do that is if the Americans leave a vacuum by pulling out a place like Turkey, the Russians move in. CUOMO: Phil Mudd, thank you very much and have a good weekend.

MUDD: Thank you.

CUOMO: Thank you for watching. I am going to be right back here Monday night and we will get after it. Thank you for joining me tonight. Have a great weekend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)