Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, Interviewed; House Intel Chair: Acting DNI Illegally Withholding Whistleblower Complaint, Possibly To Protect Trump; Trump Yesterday: "I Don't Like Vaping" & Trump Today: "I Like The Vaping Alternative To Cigarettes"; GOP PAC Ad Compares Ocasio-Cortez To Cambodian Genocide. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 13, 2019 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --just feel like just be done with it now. We are only as sick as there are secrets, as they say.
And it's not every day, or every year, you hear President Trump making a crack about himself. You got to give him a little bit of credit, just like Halley's Comet, only happens, you know, however often Halley's Comet happens.
So -- I don't really remember because I didn't look it up.
So, don't hold your breath though for anymore self-deprecation from 1600 Diet-Sunkissed Avenue.
As for those loathsome light bulbs, who knows what the President might do, Executive Orders, national emergencies, he's never shied away from flipping the switch or throwing some shade on The Ridiculist.
And the news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Halley's Comet, every 75 -- 76 years.
COOPER: I knew too.
CUOMO: I will text you about the rest.
COOPER: I knew--
CUOMO: And there is plenty to work with. Anderson, have a beautiful weekend.
COOPER: Thank you.
CUOMO: I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: We have breaking news right now. The House Intel Chair has just issued a subpoena, and he's also making a very serious accusation against the Acting Director of National Intelligence. This is big, and it's happening right now.
Also, why all this confusion about what's happening with the investigation of this President in Congress? Impeachment, or not, does it matter, or not, we have the one person who would know.
Boy, did we get lucky on a Friday the 13th? We have the House Judiciary Committee Chair, Jerry Nadler, here to help us make sense of that, what's going on with the DOJ's latest suit, and with what we just heard from Congressman Schiff.
We also have the GOP PAC leader behind that shocking new ad that was shown with Democratic Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's face on fire. The ad was made to get attention. It ran during the debate, and it worked. But let's see if it's the kind of attention that party should want.
And the Head of the American Vaping Association says he's ready to prove vaping saves lives. I would say he'd better be ready to take on the President. But on this Friday, the 13th, a spooky shift by this President on this topic, so it is time to test.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, so look, this is just coming in to CNN from the Head of the House Intel Committee, that is Congressman Adam Schiff of California, and he issued a subpoena to the President's Acting Director of National Intelligence. Here's the accusation. Joseph Maguire is the Acting.
And he says, Schiff, that Maguire is illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint, possibly to protect -- to protect President Trump, and he is taking extraordinary steps, says the Congressman, to withhold the complaint from Congress, which he says is where it is supposed to go.
Schiff says, "The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community found that complaint not only credible, but urgent. More than 10 days since the Director was obligated to transmit the complaint to the Intel committees, the Committee has still not received the disclosure from the Director, in violation of the law.
The Committee can only conclude that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials."
Now, we just happen to have the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jerry Nadler here tonight. Thank you for being with us. We got a lot to--
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Thank you.
CUOMO: --talk about. One, this is not your bailiwick. This is Schiff doing this. We spoke before. You did not know anything about this. But what else could it be? What it could that -- what could the DNI say in response to why they're not delivering it to the House Committee?
NADLER: Well to say, I don't think he could say anything reasonable. I mean the reason he might be doing it is because who knows what damning facts it may show.
CUOMO: But on the flip side, Congressman--
NADLER: And I'm not going to -- I'm not going to--
CUOMO: --could he say, "You -- you got it wrong, Adam. It's not about you. It has nothing to do with the White House. It has nothing to do with anything."
NADLER: I don't -- well, no. The -- this fits into the pattern of the Administration behavior in withholding information, in conducting complete cover-ups, and -- and -- and being contemptuous of the law.
The President said he would -- he would disobey all subpoenas from Congress. And they've done that. That was Article III of the Nixon impeachment, by the way, for doing less than that.
The law says that the Internal Revenue Service shall give anyone's tax returns upon request to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The request was made. They simply refused to do it.
So, they're contemptuous of the law, and they're withholding information from Congress, from the American people that they're bound by law to supply. This is just another instance of their being contemptuous of the law and -- and -- and conducting a cover-up.
CUOMO: The press release cites the Watergate era, and says, you know, an agreement was made at that time that when something like this happens, Congress would get it. They promised to handle the type of information that can be of national security level confidentiality the right way.
But what does the law say about what's supposed to happen in this situation?
[21:05:00] NADLER: Well certain information, I'm not an expert in that part of the law, but certain -- certain information must be shared with the Intelligence Committee and only the Intelligence Committee, some information has to be shared with the so-called Eight leaders, the -- the--
CUOMO: The Gang of Eight.
NADLER: --the Gang of Eight, which is a smaller group. But certainly, this information, apparently has, whatever it is, has -- has to be shared with the Intelligence Committee.
For that matter, I'll give you another example. The President annually sets the number of refugees to -- to be admitted to the United States. So, by law, after consultation with the appropriate committees in Congress, he hasn't done that.
They've haven't -- in fact, Zoe Lofgren, the Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Immigration, and -- and I assume, of the Committee, we sent the letter today, demanding adequate consultation within the parameters of the law, which is to say a couple weeks in advance of their setting in or the new fiscal year.
They didn't do it last year. They just -- they just are -- are trying to operate in the absence of information to anybody.
CUOMO: All right, so you are creating an abundant premise for my next question.
If a Head of a Committee, such as yours, believes what you obviously believe, your duty in the Constitution is to start investigating to see if you have the facts for grounds for impeachment, and it is called an impeachment inquiry.
Is that what you are doing right now?
NADLER: It is not necessarily called an impeachment inquiry. And that's a made-up term without legal significance. It is, however, what we are doing.
And we've been very clear for the last several months, in filings with the court, and public statements, and official statements, in -- in the Committee, that we are conducting an investigation with the purpose, among other things, of determining whether to report articles -- articles of impeachment to the entire House.
That's exactly what we are doing. And whether you want to call it an impeachment investigation, or impeachment inquiry, or anything else, I'm frankly not interested in -- in a nomenclature.
CUOMO: I know.
NADLER: That's what we're doing.
CUOMO: I've -- I've -- I've heard you say that. And--
NADLER: That's what we're doing.
CUOMO: --and I'm with you on that. I don't care what you call it either, as long as you call it one thing. But it seems that different--
NADLER: Well we have made--
CUOMO: --people say different things within your own party and leadership. NADLER: And -- and some people don't understand that -- that there is no significance to these terms. You can call what we're doing an investigation, you can call it an -- an inquiry, you can call it anything you want.
The fact is we are doing what is our job under the Constitution, which is to say to conduct a series of hearings, an investigation, into whether to recommend -- to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.
CUOMO: One reason that articulating the exercise can matter is when you look at this--
NADLER: I just articulated it. So--
CUOMO: I know. But I'm saying in terms of--
NADLER: Yes.
CUOMO: --being specific and being all with one voice about it is what the DOJ said in its pleadings today was, you know, they haven't even decided if they're going to impeach or not.
And as you know, much better than I, but the audience should know, while operating under the guise of impeachment does not outwardly give you more powers, it does give a suggestion of importance to the courts potentially.
NADLER: Well I think you have to be careful. I'm not sure that's exactly what they said, the Article -- the -- the DOJ. They had a 40- page submission today, which they denied.
I'm told, what they denied was that we are conducting an investigation into whether to report out of -- report in articles of impeachment. Now, it's certainly not the case that we have decided to report articles of impeachment. That's done at the end of the investigation.
We're investigating whether we have adequate grounds and then whether it's advisable to do that or not. We'll make that determination. We will vote articles of impeachment or we'll decide not to. That's what you do--
CUOMO: Do you have the time to do this before the election?
NADLER: Oh, yes. We -- we do. I think we do. That's what we're doing. And there is ample precedent, I mean the -- we will answer them in court next week.
But in the pre -- in the preamble to the -- and the whereas clauses of the procedures that the Committee adopted yesterday with which to conduct the art -- the -- the further hearings in the -- in this investigation of whether to report articles of impeachment, we -- we went through the history of the statements in Committee, and the -- and -- and -- and the -- in the court filings detailing exact -- exactly what we're doing. And the fact -- actually we didn't do this in the preamble. We did it in -- in the statement in the Committee. The fact that most impeachments handled by the House have not begun with the House resolution, they've begun in the -- in the Judiciary Committee, exactly as this one has.
CUOMO: All right, so let's do this. The idea of timing, efficacy, and impact, matters. Let me take a break.
Please stick around, Chairman. Let's talk about that, and let's talk about where your party is, and where both parties are with any chance of getting something done on gun control. Thank you for being with us.
A lot of news here. We're going to continue to follow this explosive accusation from Chairman Schiff against the Acting DNI about an alleged cover-up of a whistleblower's concerns.
Plus, as you just heard me refer, Beto O'Rourke, last night, made his moment by saying "Hell, yes, we're coming for your AR-15s," sparked a threat from one lawmaker and a lot of nerve -- nervous gun owners around the country.
What does that mean for the debate? Next.
[21:10:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: What a night!
Chairman Schiff is saying that the Director of National Intelligence is wrongly withholding a legitimate allegation of some type of Intelligence issue from his Committee. We don't know what it is.
We have Chairman Nadler here. He says that he believes that they have time to bring articles of impeachment, if they find a reasonable basis. That is a very provocative idea.
We also want to talk guns.
Thank you for sticking around, Chairman. It's good to have you.
NADLER: You are welcome.
CUOMO: So, timing wise, they're fighting you in court every step of the way. This DOJ set of papers today about Grand Jury testimony, they say you haven't -- you haven't argued any requisite need, which is somewhat of the soft standard for getting Grand Jury testimony of this kind from a President.
And this is about time also. If they fight you in court, all steps of the way, how do you get this done before the election? [21:15:00] NADLER: Well, hopefully, we could get a decision from -- by the end of October in the District Court, hopefully, by the end of -- before Thanksgiving, from the Circuit Court, and hopefully, the Supreme Court won't take the case.
Law is -- the law is very clear on -- on most of this, established by the Nixon case, among others, number one.
Number two, there are any number of possible grounds for impeachment. We are going well beyond the Mueller report.
Most of those witnesses and the Grand Jury information is relevant to -- to an article of impeachment, referring to obstruction of justice, in -- in trying to suppress the Mueller investigation.
But collusion with the Russians, profiteer -- personal profiteering, violations of the emoluments clause, corruption in many number of ways--
CUOMO: Enough to satisfy the standard of high crime and misdemeanor.
NADLER: Oh, yes. If you can -- one article of impeachment, Article III of the Nixon impeachment was the President, President Nixon that is, improperly defied Congressional subpoenas.
This President, Trump, not only has defied all Congressional subpoenas. He said, in advance, he was going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. That's a--
CUOMO: But you had a felony that took the country by surprise that directly--
NADLER: But--
CUOMO: --implicated the President of the United States.
NADLER: You may very well have felonies here too. And -- and defying the subpoenas are -- are ways of covering it up. And the -- what Nixon was impeached for, it wasn't for the felony. It was for the cover-up.
CUOMO: Right.
NADLER: It was for -- it's for the cover-up. These crime -- these -- these abuses of power go very much not to, particularly the crimes, although there are crimes too.
Paying off women in order to keep -- in order to -- to keep the information away from the public before the election, which is procuring the election by fraud, it is very impeachable offense, obviously.
But beyond that, you -- impeach -- the central purpose of impeachment was to prevent the aggrandizement of power by the President, the destruction of liberty, the destruction of the -- of -- of the separation of powers. That's exactly what this President has been doing through all of this. The fact that he -- he -- he -- he denies information to Congress to make decisions, the fact that -- you can even say the fact that he -- he -- he uses the power of the Presidency to get foreign governments to or -- or even the United States Air Force to patronize his personal properties, and put money into his pocket, that's a -- that's why -- that was why the emoluments clause of the Constitution was put there to prevent this kind of personal corruption.
CUOMO: A case--
NADLER: And to prevent the President from being influenced by a foreign power, who's putting money directly into his pocket.
CUOMO: A case that will be compelling to the American people because this is a political judgment.
NADLER: Yes.
CUOMO: It's not a law exam, even for someone professorial like yourself. It's not in court. It's got to be compelling. You have confidence on timing and substance.
NADLER: I think there's a very good chance that we -- that -- that very understandable case will be made--
CUOMO: Right.
NADLER: --that the American people can understand.
CUOMO: I appreciate your candor on this. It's very important, obviously, to the audience.
Another thing, Beto O'Rourke says, "We're coming for your guns." It sounds like confiscation. I haven't heard him move off it yet. He's in no particular position of power.
But it got huge applause, and it's being weaponized, no pun intended, by people who want to protect the Second Amendment right as they see it.
Do you want any law that says "We're going to come and confiscate weapons you now have?"
NADLER: Well I -- I -- I think we have to put this into context of where we are.
We reported, the Committee reported, and the House of Representatives passed, back in February, very strong universal background checks legislation. That's sitting on Moscow Mitch's desk.
He won't allow a vote in the -- in the Senate. I know that people on the new -- on some of the news programs say that Congress hasn't acted. The House has acted. The Senate wants to act. And that said--
CUOMO: Checks everything except private transfers--
NADLER: --the other day--
CUOMO: --between family and intimates, right?
NADLER: Basically, yes. The--
CUOMO: Why isn't that included?
NADLER: The question was how far we were going to go. And we also went -- we added -- we -- we passed -- and, this past week, just this past week, we reported three more gun bills to the floor of the House.
I, 2, which is a very important one, to ban high-capacity assault weapons, not -- not an assault -- it was high-capacity magazines, magazines with more than 10 rounds. That is what -- those are -- go a long way toward making assault weapons--
CUOMO: But you're not calling for confiscation in--
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: --are.
CUOMO: --any of the bills?
NADLER: No. We have not called for confiscation of that. Second, we -- we passed the bill to -- a red flag bill that you can get--
CUOMO: Right.
NADLER: --all right, a third that you can get these weapons away from people who would exhibit dangerous conduct. Third, to -- to deny the ability to get guns to anyone when the background check shows was convicted of a hate crime misdemeanor.
Next week, 25th, like two weeks from now, we're going to have -- we're going to have a hearing on the question of assault weapons, and what we should do about assault weapons. That will be the hearing--
CUOMO: Do you want confiscation of assault weapons?
NADLER: We will -- we will look at that. We will look at the question of -- of--
[21:20:00] CUOMO: Confiscation? You think that's legal? I mean I know there's no law right now. But you think it would pass constitutional muster if you would have come and take it?
NADLER: I don't know. I haven't studied that. And -- and I know--
CUOMO: But it's on the table?
NADLER: No one has put -- no, I wouldn't say it's on the table.
People -- we're going to have a hearing on -- on -- on -- on assault weapons. And the witnesses and the Members of the Committee can raise whatever they want with respect to assault weapons. The -- the primary focus is to -- is to have an assault weapons ban.
And that's where we'll be -- but -- but people can raise whatever they want about that.
CUOMO: Chairman, I threw a lot at you tonight, but I appreciate it, very edifying for the audience.
NADLER: You're welcome.
CUOMO: Friday, the 13th, living up to its name. Thank you.
NADLER: You're welcome.
CUOMO: And I look forward to having you on, going forward. Have a good weekend.
All right, another battle, looming in this country, may come over vaping, e-cigarettes. And the companies behind it are not taking these concerns well.
The Head of the American Vaping Association is here. We will get reaction to the President's confusing tweet tonight that seems to contradict his own red flag move from just 24 hours ago. What's the state of play? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00] CUOMO: We're hearing far too many stories like that of Adam Hergenreder. Adam is 18. Doctors say he has the lungs of a 70-year old. Now, at least Adam is alive. Six people are not. And there are hundreds of cases being investigated across this country.
And it seem the President was leading the effort to check vaping and e-cigarettes by saying this, just yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Don't vape. We don't like vaping. I don't like vaping.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now he says he does like vaping, as an alternative to cigarettes. Here it is, in his own words. "While I like the Vaping alternative to Cigarettes, we need to make sure this alternative is safe for all."
So, he doesn't know if it's safe, but he likes it as an alternative?
My next guest is Greg Conley. He is the President of the American Vaping Association.
Welcome to PRIME TIME.
GREGORY CONLEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN VAPING ASSOCIATION: Thanks for having us.
CUOMO: So, give me some inside scoop to start. Who got to the President?
CONLEY: It wasn't us. Someone on Twitter actually suggested it was us. It was not.
What I think happened is that a huge portion of the 10 to 13 million American adults who use vaping products lit up the White House switchboard line as well as conservatives, libertarians, liberals, on Twitter, pointing out that President Trump could end up losing in 2020 because of disaffected voters because of a decision like this.
We're not out of the clear, by any means. A Trump tweet doesn't actually mean much unless it's followed by making sure the policy FDA institutes does not remove these products from the hands of adults.
CUOMO: All right well let's -- let's talk about what's the right thing to do here, and why, and when. Do you think kids should vape?
CONLEY: No. Absolutely not. Period!
CUOMO: Then why do you market to them?
CONLEY: No youths should vape.
The industry does not actually market to youth. And you can give examples. But the fact is that there have been mistakes by people trying to market to adult Millennials.
But that does not justify removing every single product from the market, besides tobacco flavors, especially when we know, from the Yale School of Public Health, the National Bureau of Economic Research, other institutions have said banning flavors will increase smoking, and that's the last thing we want to do.
CUOMO: Well -- but this, look, hold on, when we're talking about smoking, you're talking about choices. Neither -- but to say one is good is not really what it's about. It's about how harmful. Less harmful is not the same as good. And when you say you can--
CONLEY: If you are an adult smoker, it is good.
CUOMO: --you can -- hold on. One -- one step at a time, Greg.
When you say -- well if you're an adult smoker, it's not as bad as tobacco because it's not burning tobacco, and the 7,000 chemicals that are in it, but that doesn't mean that it is good.
You certainly wouldn't argue that vaping is better than not vaping, right?
CONLEY: No. But that's not the choice that most--
CUOMO: Of course, it is.
CONLEY: --smokers face. About 50 percent of smokers are on the trajectory to smoke until it's too late, until they have contracted a smoking-related disease or death or can't reverse what is already going on in their body. That is the fact.
CUOMO: But it's still not the same thing--
CONLEY: So, the idea that we can just say quit or die--
CUOMO: But -- no, no, no, no. Look, there are lots of ways to get off cigarettes.
CONLEY: That's the message that many are sending to smokers.
CUOMO: Many in my--
CONLEY: Quit or die.
CUOMO: --many in my family have done it. It's not easy.
It's so hard that even when you go to a lot of rehabs, they'll let you keep smoking cigarettes, even while you're getting off something like heroin. So, there's no question that the addiction is so pernicious, which is why that industry got hammered the way it did over time.
But you said earlier, you can find examples of marketing to kids. Yes, you can.
CONLEY: No, no, no.
CUOMO: Companies go on high school campuses.
CONLEY: I said inappropriate marketing.
CUOMO: I just put one up there.
CONLEY: I did not say marketing to children, let's be clear. Let's be clear.
CUOMO: You've got college scholarship programs.
CONLEY: I did not say marketing to children. The--
CUOMO: How is that not marketing to children, a college scholarship program?
CONLEY: Small little web companies that represent about 0.01 percent of the market doing goofy things for SEO does not show that this entire industry or a large portion of the industry is doing bad things. You can come up with better examples, if you'd like.
CUOMO: I have. I have a ton of examples. That's the whole point.
I don't understand why you would argue that vaping is something that's very popular with kids and the flavor, different cartridges that they can use, are things that work specifically for kids, in terms of enticing them to get into the habit.
CONLEY: Once again, Yale School of Public Health, National Bureau of Economic Research, Public Health England, if you ban flavors, you're going to increase smoking.
And the most popular flavors, among adults, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric, are sweet and fruits. And when you look specifically at the 2.5 -- 3 million ex-smokers created because of vaping, overwhelmingly, they are using non-tobacco fruit and sweet flavors.
CUOMO: So, your argument is our kids--
CONLEY: So, we should come to a solution.
CUOMO: --will smoke unless they vape. That's what you're trying to say?
CONLEY: What we have seen actually, as vaping has increased, and we don't want any youth to vape, but the reality is youth experiment, we just saw from 2018 to 2019, the largest decrease in teen smoking that we've ever seen, about a 28 percent decline.
CUOMO: Yes. But the question is, is what they're doing now, killing them because what goes into your devices--
CONLEY: They--
[21:30:00] CUOMO: --is causing a lot of problems around this country. And how do you not have responsibility for that?
CONLEY: Excuse me.
CUOMO: Yes, Sir.
CONLEY: What is going into the devices are products sold by drug dealers, contaminated THC oils. The team that you mentioned earlier, he admitted in your piece that he vaped THC, and multiple stories--
CUOMO: But it's not the only thing that's making people sick.
(CROSSTALK)
CONLEY: --one day.
CUOMO: Right now, the only thing they know that joins--
CONLEY: There is -- there remains--
CUOMO: --these cases is that they all used e-cigarettes or vaped. CONLEY: There remains no evidence, after 44 days -- by the way, 57,000 adult smokers have died from smoking in those 48 -- in this 44 days. In those 44 days, some of the best national health reporters as well as multiple state health departments have been investigating this.
Still, Reuters put out a piece tonight on a company, a fake company, called Dank Vapes that is responsible for many of the illicit THC oils that have sent people to the hospital. And two--
CUOMO: Why does your device--
CONLEY: --and two of those, six deaths.
CUOMO: --why is your device compatible with those? Why don't you make your device so that it can't be bogarted by these other companies and things that may be killing people?
CONLEY: That's -- if you have a 510 threading, which is the standard in the industry, if you have a tank--
CUOMO: Why is it the standard?
CONLEY: --and you can screw it on, that's how the technology works.
CUOMO: But why -- why don't you do it differently? Look what Apple does every time they put out a new product. They have all new--
CONLEY: Why doesn't--
CUOMO: --adapters for it. Why don't you do that because you're well aware of the risk? You're articulating it with great eloquence right now.
CONLEY: How about the FDA require that rather than ban the products? We can talk about that. We can talk about marketing restrictions. We can talk about flavor name restrictions, even where the products can be sold.
CUOMO: They're banning the flavors right now.
CONLEY: But just banning them is a bad solution.
CUOMO: They already came after you for the marketing because that's the way companies work. You do what's good for your bottom line. You don't do what's good for the health of people. You know you're not selling a health product, right?
CONLEY: Well I come at this as a consumer advocate, someone who quit smoking with the products, and I'm enjoying a healthier life because of it. And about 2.5 -- 3 million Americans are just like me. They quit with flavors, and they value them.
And we don't want to end up in a situation where we're forced to go to black market products that will be to no safety standards, and the black marketers, of course, will sell to any youth--
CUOMO: But you don't know if--
CONLEY: --who wants one.
CUOMO: --it's safe now.
CONLEY: Public Health England, Royal College of Physicians, both have stated through great research that vaping, they have estimated, at least 95 percent less dangerous than smoking.
And even the Food and Drug Administration came out and said that an adult smoker who switches to vaping is greatly benefiting their health. And, by the way--
CUOMO: The studies--
CONLEY: --the FDA released a specific warning about vaping THC.
CUOMO: Right.
CONLEY: They did not release any specific warnings pointing to nicotine products.
CUOMO: Right.
CONLEY: It is contaminated THC oils.
CUOMO: This is new territory. There are studies that are inconsistent. Nobody says vaping is safe. They're comparing it to one of the most deadly addictions in the history of mankind. It's like saying--
CONLEY: A deadly addiction that has killed 57,000 people--
CUOMO: --this is a smaller rock. If you hit yourself in the head with this--
CONLEY: --in the last 44 days.
CUOMO: --small rock, it won't hurt you the way a big rock will. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do.
CONLEY: You can draw whatever -- you -- you can draw whatever silly analogies you want. But the fact is, is that--
CUOMO: Silly analogy!
CONLEY: --this year, 480,000--
CUOMO: Is it safe?
CONLEY: --480,000 adult smokers will die. We need solutions, not just prohibitions on safer products.
CUOMO: Well how did people get off smoking before this?
CONLEY: Some did through the nicotine gum, patch, lozenge, cold turkey. But the reality is, is that from 2003 to 2009, before vaping products
came to the market, the adult smoking rate stagnated, even through a recession with a cigarette tax hike enacted by President Obama.
CUOMO: You have kids?
CONLEY: The smoking rate barely went down.
CUOMO: You have kids?
CONLEY: No, I do not.
CUOMO: If you did, would you--
CONLEY: And you can point to that--
CUOMO: --would you let them--
CONLEY: --if you'd like.
CUOMO: What -- I don't care if you have kids or not. I'm saying would you let your kids vape? No, right? Why if it's so good for you?
CONLEY: No. Just like I would not let them smoke, just like I would not let them use marijuana in any form. I would parent them if I had children. And that does not mean just because some parents are not preventing their youth from--
CUOMO: So you don't think--
CONLEY: --vaping. Some parents are even buying them for their youth.
CUOMO: --so do -- you don't think everything that I see on social media all the time, I got a 16-year old, a 13-year old, and a 9-year old, they all know what vaping is, they all see it online, they all see it running through companies that are marketing them -- products that go through devices like your own, if not Juul marketing outwardly, that is made to seem cool, just like we saw with tobacco.
And there are reasons that we've put the prohibitions on tobacco we did, and you don't have them. You guys can throw concerts.
CONLEY: We did not put -- we did not prohibit tobacco.
CUOMO: You guys can front things that tobacco can't
CONLEY: Let's talk. Let's talk about restricting marketing, fine, let's talk about restricting flavor names, restricting packaging, fine, where they can be sold. But why are we talking about prohibiting a product, while menthol cigarettes and Marlboros--
CUOMO: Because left to your own--
CONLEY: --remain freely available and killing people?
CUOMO: Let -- but let -- and that's bad -- that's a problem too. And we put warnings on them. You don't have any warnings on yours. Why do you have to be forced to--
CONLEY: Yes, we -- actually we do.
CUOMO: --do things that you should do?
CONLEY: We do have warnings.
CUOMO: Do you have a warning on there that--
CONLEY: We do have warnings. What do you know about this topic?
CUOMO: --says vaping can kill you?
CONLEY: If you vape with THC oils, perhaps. But again, the warning on the package is an accurate scientific statement from the FDA--
CUOMO: It is a completely limited--
CONLEY: --that the product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
[21:35:00] CUOMO: --minimum that you have to do. That's why government has to come in because they had to tell you not to market the way that you were because you wouldn't do it on your own.
They have to tell you that they may have to stop it because you won't stop it on your own because until somebody makes you have to stop, you want to keep selling it. And it's not because it's safe. Your argument is it's less bad than tobacco. Am I right?
CONLEY: Not less bad. Far, far less harmful. Again, Public Health England, Royal College of Physicians, no connection whatsoever--
CUOMO: Johns Hopkins has a study that's inconsistent with those findings.
CONLEY: --to the tobacco industry.
CUOMO: It's not about the studies. It's about the realities.
CONLEY: What the menthol study?
CUOMO: Why are these kids dying?
CONLEY: Let's talk.
CUOMO: Why are there these hundreds--
CONLEY: They're dying, again--
CUOMO: --of cases across the country?
CONLEY: --contaminated -- contaminated THC oils. The Health Departments in Oregon and another state where there was a death--
CUOMO: So, you believe at the end of the day-- CONLEY: --both came out and said--
CUOMO: --we will never learn that -- that we will never learn that putting something with hot steam that you suck into your lungs with all kinds of chemicals in it are not bad for you that someday someone's going to say "You know what? It's OK."
CONLEY: Once again--
CUOMO: "Knock yourself out."
CONLEY: Once again -- once again, this is a product for adult smokers to get off of cigarettes, the most deadly habit known to man, and the--
CUOMO: If that's all it's for, why does it get marketed to so many young kids?
CONLEY: --Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England have said at least--
CUOMO: If that's all it's for?
CONLEY: --at least 95 percent less harmful than smokers. And smokers need to know that.
CUOMO: I get the "Less bad" argument.
CONLEY: And you can come on, and make whatever accusations you want.
CUOMO: But what I'm saying is, you got teen vaping ads, you got scholarship ads, you're throwing concerts. That's not for adult smokers, and you know it.
CONLEY: Concerts aren't for adults.
CUOMO: There are kids concerts that they're throwing it for.
CONLEY: Have you ever been -- have you been to a concert in the past 20 years?
CUOMO: I've been to a lot of concerts. I'm very--
CONLEY: Please name what kid concert--
CUOMO: --I'm very hip. But this isn't something that I want to mess around with.
CONLEY: --that was sponsored by a vaping company?
CUOMO: And it's not something I want to be cute about because you got kids laying in hospital beds all over the country, and what they have in common is that they're using your product, and you don't seem that concerned about it. You're looking about doing the minimum--
CONLEY: What they have in common-- CUOMO: --standard that you can.
CONLEY: According to the New England Journal of Medicine, 84 percent of the patients in Wisconsin and Illinois admitted to THC vaping. And the journalists, the great national journalists that have been covering this story, and focusing almost exclusively on the THC oils--
CUOMO: And they don't know the answers.
CONLEY: --they have interviewed--
CUOMO: And there's a kid sitting in a hospital bed--
CONLEY: --multiple doctors.
CUOMO: --with a lawsuit against you, saying that your marketing hooked him in, like it did a lot of other kids, and it wasn't about THC for him. So, we're going to have to find the facts.
CONLEY: First, there's no lawsuit against us. Let's be clear.
CUOMO: That's true. He's going after something else.
CONLEY: Let's be clear. Yes.
CUOMO: But, you know, eventually, we'll see what happens here. But I wanted to know where your disposition was in terms of whether you're going to do things or you're going to have to be forced to do things. That's why I had you on.
CONLEY: If you want to legalize marijuana, you can combat illicit THC cartridges. But there's not a darn thing that I can do--
CUOMO: We don't know that it's just the THC.
CONLEY: --to stop drug dealers.
CUOMO: And that's why the President was concerned.
CONLEY: Just wait.
CUOMO: Until he wasn't. But we'll stay on this story. I promise you that. And Mr. Conley, I appreciate you coming on to make your case.
CONLEY: Thank you. Great debate.
CUOMO: All right, if you were watching last night's debate, you might have seen a different kind of ad that might be equally as obnoxious to people.
A Republican PAC ad, lot of people upset, and that is what the ad was supposed to do. It shows the face of a Democratic Congresswoman, this one, AOC, as she's known, bursting into flames.
What good can come from that? We'll take it up, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I screwed up my show timing a little bit by going long with the vape company guy. But I needed to. I needed you to see where their arguments are and where they fall short. So, stick with me a little bit here, OK?
Last night, during the Democratic debate, there was a political ad that has drawn so much fire. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: NEW FACES GOP PAC.
ELIZABETH HENG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, "NEW FACES GOP" PAC: This is the face of socialism and ignorance. Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know the horror of socialism?
My father was minutes from death in Cambodia before a forced marriage saved his life. That's socialism.
Forced obedience, starvation.
Mine is a face of freedom. My skin is not White. I'm not outrageous, racist, nor socialist.
I'm a Republican.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, that is Elizabeth Heng. She is here. We've been waiting on her. She wants to defend the ad, and she will. But I need to take a break. So, do me a favor. Stay with the show. When we come back, we'll give Ms. Heng her say, and she will be tested here, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we have Elizabeth Heng, the Executive Director of the New Faces PAC ad with us right now.
Thank you for joining us on the show. You may have to change the name of the PAC to "New Faces With A Hole Burning Through Them" PAC packed because that's what you did to AOC. During your campaign, you said no petty politics, no bickering. Why do this?
HENG: Absolutely not. The only thing -- the thing is, is Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the face of socialism.
Throughout history, socialism has killed lives, including those in my very own family. And so, I was merely wanting to force the discussion of talking about what true socialism is in our country, and to force that debate.
CUOMO: I understand that. And I just want people to know.
HENG: Because I believe it's an important topic for us.
CUOMO: I'm with you. But Elizabeth, I want people to--
HENG: I believe it's an important topic for us to have that discussion.
CUOMO: Understood! And I want to have it because, first, I want people to do a little research. They can find out more about your family. I, in no way, want to disrespect what they went through under Pol Pot.
I'm very happy that you guys stand as testament to America's welcome, coming here from oppression, making the life that they've made, for your brothers, and now you--
HENG: Thank you.
CUOMO: --with your amazing education and what you've done with it. Let's just talk about how you're putting it to use.
You are so well-educated. You know that, you know, you can talk about socialism any way you want. Pol Pot was a brutal autocrat and dictator. That wasn't about socialism. That was about him being an evil human being.
You know, you can go to Scandinavia or Denmark, and see socialism. They're not killing people. Why paint with that kind of brush against a set of ideas coming from a Democrat in your own country?
HENG: And that's the thing is Pol Pot learned socialist ideologies in France, and wanted to create this utopia. And -- and quickly, that evolved into the murderous regime, in which it became.
And we need to have that conversation in this country of what socialism has become. Throughout history, time and time again, we have seen how that doesn't work.
And so, you know, right now, you talk about, you know, Canada, and Denmark, and some of those other places like, and the -- the -- they have -- they have become capitalist nations.
And to implement the ideas in which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad continue to do that are not real concepts that can be implemented (ph)--
CUOMO: But what are they asking for--
HENG: --United States without having a government taking.
CUOMO: What are they asking for that would be anything like what that kind of brutal oppressor did to his people? I just don't get the comparison.
HENG: No. If you look at it, it's -- they are -- they represent socialism. Socialism--
CUOMO: But socialism doesn't mean shoot you dead--
HENG: --has not worked. I believe--
CUOMO: --in the streets.
HENG: It has evolved. You know, when Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was talking about socialism in that country, he was promoting many of the same ideologies, and look at what it has evolved into.
[21:50:00] And so, the point of this is to record -- not to -- force a discussion because I do believe that through freedom and economic opportunities that this country has provided to myself, my family, and many others, is what we need to hold on to, to strengthen for our country, so that people have opportunities.
CUOMO: A 100 percent.
HENG: And to radically transform it --and to radically transform it, let's even just say, the Green New Deal at $93 trillion, to radically transform our country, where we don't have a way of actually getting these things done, it will lead to--
CUOMO: But it's not going to wind up in genocide.
HENG: --the devastation that we've seen.
CUOMO: Not genocide though. Here's what I don't get is that, you know, I get that you want to make political points with this.
But, you know, people like your family, and what you represent which, again, I believe is part of the blessing of this country, your fight is with the President that you support.
He's the one who talks about people, like your parents, like they're some other that shouldn't be in this country, because they came here with nothing, except the hope in their heart, and wanting to make it. He doesn't want those people in this country now.
AOC isn't your enemy. You can go after her policies.
HENG: I -- I -- I don't believe that, Chris.
CUOMO: And say they don't fit in a capitalist society.
HENG: Like, Chris--
CUOMO: But if -- you may not believe it. But it's the truth, Elizabeth. He's the one who's going after people like your family.
HENG: Chris, I don't believe this because he's the -- I stand by the President. And the thing is with the President, he defend -- he fights against socialism in every turn that he can because he does believe--
CUOMO: But he embraces dictators everywhere he finds them.
HENG: --as I do, to freedom and economic opportunities. Look, he's working -- you know, I'm not going to talk -- I'm not here on the show to talk about some of what the President is doing, from a foreign policy standpoint.
CUOMO: Why not?
HENG: My main point for creating this PAC -- well I -- I want to talk about my main point for creating this PAC is that we can provide people--
CUOMO: But if you are going to say that your fear is that we're going to have an autocratic regime that winds up killing people in the name of a political ideology, you have a President who, I don't believe, has any capability like that.
But you look at a Duterte, he says favorable things, Putin, favorable things, Kim Jong-un, favorable things. That is what should -- you should be scared about--
HENG: Look--
CUOMO: --is that him saying we don't want Bahamians in there--
HENG: --you know, I--
CUOMO: --because they're drug dealers. We don't want people coming across our Southern border because they're a Brown Menace. That should concern you. But you're likening AOC wanting a Green New Deal to somebody who tried to commit genocide in Cambodia?
HENG: Look, socialism has always been disguised in these pretty top -- these topics of making life better, etcetera. But, in reality, they don't work, and we've seen that time and time again.
The more that you implement government into our lives, the less freedoms and economic opportunities we have to succeed. And that is what I'm going to work as hard as possible. And that's why I created the New Faces GOP PAC to recruit the future
generations of the next Republicans that are going to be the antidote to the AOCs and--
CUOMO: That's fine.
HENG: --and the Squad because--
CUOMO: That's fine. But to paint them as genocidal maniacs--
HENG: --it is so important to have this discussion.
CUOMO: --and say that you want a better brand of politics. I'm fine with you having the PAC. That's America. I'm fine with it being funded by a lot of venture capitalists. I don't know how that makes it a middle-class machine. But you do whatever you want to do.
But the idea of saying "If you want a Green New Deal, if you want single-payer healthcare, you're going to wind up killing people in the streets, like happened with my family and people they knew in Cambodia," I mean that is toxic politics. You must know that.
HENG: I -- I -- and I just disagree with you on that. I was merely making the point of--
CUOMO: You set her face on fire.
HENG: --I was merely making the point -- I was merely making the point, Chris that it is that's if -- do you want to know what incites violence? That's socialism. We've seen that in history and--
CUOMO: I think ads like that incite violence.
HENG: I -- I disagree with you on that.
CUOMO: All right, we'll let's do this, Elizabeth.
HENG: I was just merely -- the--
CUOMO: I get what you -- what point you're making. Let's do this. Let's see where the issues go.
I understand where you are with the PAC. I want you to be part of the conversation when you're not burning somebody's face up, on ads like that, because that's kind of provocation I don't think we need.
But I wanted you to make your case to my audience, and I appreciate you did.
HENG: All right, well thank you for having me on your show.
CUOMO: Elizabeth Heng, thank you.
All right, I want you to Be On the Look-Out for something, a BOLO, something that this Administration is trying to do. You need to be aware of it, all right? #BOLO, Be On the Look-Out, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: New segment called BOLO. It's an acronym for Be On the Look- Out. Police look -- use it all the time. And here's what we're going to do.
We're going to be on the look-out for things that are happening beyond the President's tweets, like another blow to Environmental Protections from this Administration, this time on clean water.
Here's what happened. On Thursday, the Administration repealed an Obama-era rule that enhanced protections for wetlands and streams.
It's now a lot easier for farmers to plow and plant what they want, without worrying about run-off, chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers. And polluters no longer need a permit to discharge potentially harmful substances into waterways.
Now, this should come as no surprise. After all, this Administration has, among many other things, eliminated many environmental protections. They pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord. They relaxed restrictions on power plant emissions. They opened up public lands and waters to offshore oil and gas drilling.
This President sometimes seems like he's living in his own reality. But he knows when he's spinning the facts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Today, we have the cleanest air, we have the cleanest water that we've ever had in the history of our country. Right, Louie?
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And just for the press, because they'll get me on that one, I'm thinking, let's say, the history of our country over the last 25 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Of course, we're going to get you. You're not telling the truth. We don't have the cleanest. And now, you made it less likely that we will get cleaner.
So, Be On the Look-Out for changes like this. They're every bit as important as the tweets.
Thank you very much for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: And it is very important.
We all want clean water, and clean air, and we want a very healthy earth, not just for us, but for our children, and our children's children, and beyond, and it's very concerning that they're rolling back all of the -- this one is a roll-back from 19 -- 1974, I mean--
CUOMO: Right. And it well -- but then, the Obama Administration--
LEMON: Right.
CUOMO: --had boosted these protections, see, and this is the quiet stuff that may have the longest legacy.
LEMON: Like the Judges.
CUOMO: The Judges--
[22:00:00]
