Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Sources: House Democrats Meet Tomorrow On Whistleblower Controversy & Other Matters; Trump On Releasing Ukraine Call Transcript: "Perhaps You'll See It, Perhaps You Won't"; Washington Post: Pelosi Sounding Out Democrats On Impeaching Trump. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 23, 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: That happened a lot. And plenty of people are being treated badly in the White House. I'm not sure - I'm not sure it's the reporters who are to blame for that.
I think - think there's a lot of nastiness going on in the White House. And it's not have - it has nothing to do with reporters. Ms. Grisham might want to ask her boss about that one tonight and ever more. They can find each other on The Ridiculist.
All right, Trolley to Hell continues. Let's go over to Chris, CUOMO PRIME TIME. Toot Toot.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Anderson, thank you very much.
COOPER: OK.
CUOMO: I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
We have breaking news on our watch once again. It involves the next steps for Democrats as this whistleblower mess widens. Have Democrats finally crossed the Rubicon? Is Speaker Pelosi starting to soften her stance on impeachment?
We also have former DNI, James Clapper, here tonight, for the first interview on the scandal. What does this mean in his experience? How would he handle the whistleblower complaint? Does he support or condemn the Acting DNI's move to withhold it from Congress?
We also have a very valuable guest. Giuliani's allegations about what was done by that Member of Parliament in Ukraine, we've got him. You'll hear from him directly about each of the things that Rudy tried to sell.
And Senator Cory Booker may only have days left to stay in the 2020 race. And he is here with you to help keep him at it. What is the situation really?
What do you say? Let's get after it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we just got word. Tomorrow, there's going to be a big meeting of House Democrats. This is according to three sources. The Caucus is going to gather at 4:00 P.M. Eastern. The topic is likely the next steps on investigations.
What does that mean? Well a statement from a Democratic leadership aide says, "A second caucus has been added to ensure adequate time for member discussion on the whistleblower matter and a number of other pressing matters."
President Trump's admission that he discussed Joe Biden in a call with Ukraine's President is only adding to Democrats' case for potential impeachment. And his loyal lawyer, today, once again, didn't seem to help the case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA BARTIROMO, ANCHOR, MORNINGS WITH MARIA & MARIA BARTIROMO'S WALL STREET, FOX BUSINESS: Did the President threaten to cut off aid--
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: No.
BARTIROMO: --to the Ukraine.
GIULIANI: No. No that was a false story.
BARTIROMO: 100 percent?
GIULIANI: Well I can't tell you if it's 100 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: There is a game afoot. But sometimes, this man is just not on his game. It's a false story. But you can't say that it's a 100 percent untrue? Either he was playing with the aid or he wasn't.
Let's bring in Cuomo's Court, Asha Rangappa, Jimmy Schultz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Asha Rangappa, let's cut through a little bit of BS here to practicalities, OK?
Other than the "Well it's in the Constitution. And this is Congress' job. They're supposed to impeach if they feel the things they say they feel," what I don't understand is, where does this go? What is their case? Abuse of power?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, abuse of power, self-dealing, inviting foreign influence, basically the trifecta of evils that the Framers of the Constitution sought to defend against when they created separation of powers. So, you know if - if there's ever been a case for impeachment, this is it.
The problem is if they don't get unified behind this, they're essentially enabling the defense, which is there's no there there, or we need to litigate this, you know, create some kind of constitutional separation of powers argument.
This is a prima facie case of exactly the kind of thing that would warrant high crimes and misdemeanors, which is, you know, beyond the criminal code, and what, you know, a violation of the oath of office.
CUOMO: Jimmy, here's why you should be having that smile on your face. If this were a trial, this is like having five of the 12 people sitting on the jury being your cousins. It doesn't matter what they're going to bring.
You know members of your party aren't going to vote against this President, no matter what it is that's there. He could throw a bag of puppies off a bridge you're not going to get Republican Senators to remove him in the House.
I mean, do you dispute any of that?
JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So, there's no indication that he abused his power here. There's no indication that there was any quid pro quo like there was with Biden. There's no indication that the Democrats--
CUOMO: Hold on, hold on, one step at a time, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: --even know what they're talking about here.
CUOMO: Jimmy, hold on a second. Jimmy--
SCHULTZ: And now all the - now all the sudden--
CUOMO: --Jimmy, when I speak, you stop.
SCHULTZ: --now all the sudden - all right, go ahead.
CUOMO: Listen, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: I'll let you talk.
CUOMO: What is the--
SCHULTZ: You got it.
CUOMO: --indication that there was a--
SCHULTZ: For now.
CUOMO: --quid pro quo with Biden?
SCHULTZ: Well we've heard that - we've heard publicly him say that - that - that - that he - that they - they - he was going to hold up foreign aid, OK?
[21:05:00]
CUOMO: For the United States government in coalition with the U.N.--
SCHULTZ: And that's more than we - but that's more than we--
CUOMO: --and other Western authorities.
SCHULTZ: --know about the President--
CUOMO: Jimmy?
SCHULTZ: --of the United States, Chris.
CUOMO: It's--
SCHULTZ: That's more than we know.
CUOMO: Jimmy, it's the same exact thing as we know about the United - the - this President. And I'm not saying it was wrong.
SCHULTZ: No, no, no, there has been--
CUOMO: He is accusing Biden of the same thing he did, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: There was no indication that that Ukraine even know that we were holding up aid.
CUOMO: Jimmy? Asha, Asha, you referee for a second.
SCHULTZ: There's been no indications that Ukraine even knew--
RANGAPPA: Yes.
SCHULTZ: --that we were holding up aid.
RANGAPPA: So, yes, let me just--
CUOMO: Hold on, Jimmy.
RANGAPPA: --let me just--
CUOMO: For - hold on. Hold on, one second, just for the record.
RANGAPPA: --let me just put this out there because--
CUOMO: --just for the record, just for the record. I got to correct the record. We have no proof that there was a quid pro quo with Biden. We have no proof of what Jimmy just said, which is that "Hey, we don't
know anything was wrong with the aid." We know the aid was upheld. We know that it was released only--
SCHULTZ: We knew that he said - we knew that he said something.
CUOMO: --after Schiff asked for the whistleblower complaint.
SCHULTZ: About withholding aid.
RANGAPPA: That's correct.
CUOMO: But he--
RANGAPPA: And, Chris?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: --with this President.
CUOMO: He was working--
SCHULTZ: We don't even have the--
RANGAPPA: Can I make my argument?
CUOMO: --with the government. Asha, what is different between what Trump did with the President of Ukraine and what Biden did with Ukraine?
RANGAPPA: There are many things that are different. And I think you've covered them, Chris. But I'm going to make a lawyerly argument to you right now, which is let's stipulate the facts.
Let's - let's assume that what Jimmy is saying is true, and I don't think they are true.
Here's the problem is that if - if the President is arguing, and his supporters are arguing, that he has the Presidential authority to do what he did, which is to pressure a foreign government to do something, even if it might confer a personal benefit to him, the problem is - is that--
SCHULTZ: You're making an assumption on pressure there.
RANGAPPA: --that - that theory applies to anyone who is sitting in that seat. And in the previous administration, that power also belonged to President Obama, which means he could delegate that to Biden.
In - in other words, if what the President did is OK, there is literally nothing to investigate with - with former Vice President Biden. If you are saying what - what Vice President Biden did is wrong--
SCHULTZ: Except there's been no facts, Asha. RANGAPPA: --then you believe that there are limits to Presidential power and that that can be abused, in which case you are opening the door to grounds for impeachment. So, pick your poison, Jim. You cannot have it both ways.
SCHULTZ: OK. And I'll say the same thing to you. Now you're making an assumption that there was actual pressure placed on the Ukrainian government by this President. There's no indication that there was any pressure. There's no indication that there was a quid pro quo.
RANGAPPA: He admitted it. He literally admitted on national television.
SCHULTZ: Nothing, whatsoever at this point.
RANGAPPA: What are you talking about?
SCHULTZ: No. He - he admitted on national television--
RANGAPPA: He was like O. J. like he--
SCHULTZ: --that he asked them to look into it. That's not pressure. How is that pressure? Come on! Asha, you know--
RANGAPPA: He did it.
SCHULTZ: --better than that.
RANGAPPA: Here's the problem.
SCHULTZ: There's not - there's not--
RANGAPPA: Here is the problem, Jim. He did it secretly.
SCHULTZ: Foreign leaders ask each other--
RANGAPPA: And he did it with a private emissary.
SCHULTZ: --to do things all the time. It's not necessarily saying--
CUOMO: Don't talk over each other. Don't talk over each other.
SCHULTZ: --"Hey, I'm going to hold up your foreign aid."
CUOMO: One at a time. One at a time. But Jimmy--
SCHULTZ: OK.
CUOMO: --just as a point of reference to advance Asha's argument on this one point, this should be what you counter. Can you give me another ex--
SCHULTZ: Of course, you're going to advance Asha's argument.
CUOMO: Well hold on, Jimmy. I give you fair time all the time. You know, you're slipping these little sneaky things, I got to stop you. That's the way the game is afoot here. But let me ask you this.
What example do you have of a United States President ever asking the Head of another state to investigate an American citizen because that's what you're saying Trump did, right?
SCHULTZ: I don't know. It's--
CUOMO: He said, "You know, you really should look at Joe Biden and his son--
SCHULTZ: The interesting thing here is that--
CUOMO: --because I hate corruption."
SCHULTZ: No. Phil Mudd - Phil Mudd said that's - Phil Mudd said this the other day that like the - the purpose of having people on those calls is not to spy on the President of the United States, and the - and the - and the discussions he's having--
CUOMO: Well what's the answer to my question?
SCHULTZ: --with foreign leaders so that then they could go - so they can go talk to Congress about it.
CUOMO: What's the answer to my question?
SCHULTZ: That - that's not the purpose of the folks to be on the call.
CUOMO: What's the answer to my question? When has a--
SCHULTZ: We don't the - my--
CUOMO: --United States President--
SCHULTZ: I'm getting to the answer to the--
RANGAPPA: Chris?
CUOMO: Hold on.
SCHULTZ: --question, Chris.
CUOMO: Well good because that was completely off point.
SCHULTZ: We probably don't know, Chris.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: You know - you - you know what? We probably don't know, Chris because we didn't - because you don't have leaks and things like this occurring in prior administration.
RANGAPPA: Chris?
CUOMO: Yes, Asha. RANGAPPA: Listen, a huge distinction here is when the - an official of the United States takes a public position on behalf of the United States government as its own policy, and it - it states it out loud, which is what happened in the Biden situation.
When you do it secretly, when you're being sneaky, when you're sending a private emissary, like your personal lawyer, that is not an official position of the U.S. government.
SCHULTZ: Hold on a second.
RANGAPPA: These are two big distinctions that are here.
SCHULTZ: Well there are probably 10 people on that call, Asha.
RANGAPPA: And if you think that--
SCHULTZ: You know it.
RANGAPPA: --if you think that the public one is wrong, then you know that the private one is wrong too.
SCHULTZ: It's sneaky?
RANGAPPA: And if you think the private one is OK--
SCHULTZ: There were - there were probably 10--
RANGAPPA: --then having an official position, it can't be any worse than that.
CUOMO: Look--
RANGAPPA: So, again, he's hoisted by his own petard--
SCHULTZ: So, so, Asha, do we--
RANGAPPA: --by his argument.
SCHULTZ: Can we agree - so Asha, can we agree that there were a number of people on that call most likely?
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: OK.
RANGAPPA: There is one call.
SCHULTZ: So, how are we doing that in secret? The President of the United States--
RANGAPPA: But the compliant encompasses more than the call.
SCHULTZ: --knows that--
RANGAPPA: You know that, right? SCHULTZ: The President of the United States knows - knows there are all those people on the telephone call. And we're talking about the President - the conduct of the President of the United States.
CUOMO: Jimmy, hold on.
RANGAPPA: Then let's see it.
CUOMO: Jimmy, yes--
RANGAPPA: Show me the money, man.
CUOMO: --first of all, he's the most transparent President ever--
RANGAPPA: Where's the beef? I mean, let's see it.
CUOMO: --he says, the most transparent administration ever. Turn over the transcript of the call. Turn over the whistleblower complaint. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide.
[21:10:00]
And Jimmy, to your point, he also knew he was standing next to the Head--
SCHULTZ: Again, and everybody says--
CUOMO: --you also knew where he was standing today, next to a guy--
SCHULTZ: Yes.
CUOMO: --who's trying to break down on press freedoms, and he decided to denigrate the American media.
He also knew where he was when he was in Helsinki, on the international stage, in public, with a camera in his face, next to Putin, when he said he believed Putin, and not his own Intelligence agencies. So, your idea that he's way too smart--
RANGAPPA: And Chris?
CUOMO: --to do something like this, we've seen him do worse in front of the world.
SCHULTZ: Hold - and I also--
RANGAPPA: He--
SCHULTZ: --I also think that the - that the news media and the Democrats here--
RANGAPPA: He has also lied about what he has done.
SCHULTZ: Are you going to talk over me, Asha? Or you're going to let me finish my point? So the--
CUOMO: Go ahead.
SCHULTZ: --the - the news media and the Democrats here have said - have, once again, the sky is falling. The President of the United States is all of a sudden committing high crimes and misdemeanors, and they don't have any facts to back it up, at this point. They're talking about impeachment again.
CUOMO: Well they do have facts. But they don't have the proof that they need.
SCHULTZ: Because they couldn't, you know what--
CUOMO: They don't have the proof they need. They don't have the proof they need but - because you won't turn it over.
SCHULTZ: They don't have the proof they need.
CUOMO: You won't comply with the investigations.
SCHULTZ: And well--
CUOMO: You won't give them any of this.
SCHULTZ: So, what - what's the obligation to turn it over, Chris?
RANGAPPA: Chris, can I just add something?
SCHULTZ: Everybody just says it's a foregone conclusion that this - that this thing needs to be turned over. That's not a foregone conclusion.
CUOMO: Yes, not for you.
SCHULTZ: This is - this was a conversation with the President of the United States. It's much different - much different than some - than member of the Intelligence Community.
And under the - and the law recognizes that, and the Office of Legal Counsel, which has been around for a number of years and--
CUOMO: Well the Inspector General disagrees with you.
SCHULTZ: --passing materials to (ph) rely up on the same advice--
CUOMO: And so does the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
SCHULTZ: --time and time again.
CUOMO: Asha, your point?
RANGAPPA: Yes. Let me--
SCHULTZ: OK. Well the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee--
RANGAPPA: --let me just said this. So--
CUOMO: You're breaking your own rule. Let her talk.
SCHULTZ: --also - also blows up-- blew - blew the last--
CUOMO: You're breaking your own rule.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: You're breaking your own rule. Let her talk. Go ahead.
RANGAPPA: Here's what we know.
SCHULTZ: OK.
RANGAPPA: The President has lied to the American public. And if he knows that everyone else's hands are tied, yes, there might have been people listening to that conversation.
But if they are not free to speak, and if they were whistleblowers, and their comments are blocked by the Justice Department, and can never see the light of day, he can literally say whatever he wants about that conversation.
And what you're asking, Jim, is for us to take him at his word. And unfortunately, he has lost the benefit of the doubt on that front. So, you know, it doesn't matter that there are people listening on--
SCHULTZ: Well--
RANGAPPA: --on the call. Let's hear what they have to say or let's hear what someone who saw the transcript--
SCHULTZ: Well--
RANGAPPA: --has to say. Otherwise, it - I don't think it really matters.
SCHULTZ: So--
CUOMO: All right, listen, let's--
SCHULTZ: Well let's talk political - politically about losing the benefit of the doubt. I mean I think Adam Schiff in - in - in his actions, on the Russiagate, certainly lost the - lost the--
CUOMO: That's a-- Jimmy--
SCHULTZ: --the confidence of the American people.
CUOMO: --Jimmy, fair - fair argument, and fair criticism.
SCHULTZ: I mean, come on, Chris.
CUOMO: I have to leave it there. But one, let's be very clear, being given the benefit of the doubt and guilty until proven innocent, which is military justice, that's how it works in public life. In a courtroom, you get the benefit of the doubt. In the courtroom,
you're innocent until proven guilty. We're not in a courtroom. We'll never be in a courtroom because you can't indict a sitting President. So, it's not felony or fine.
RANGAPPA: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: If you have nothing to hide, turn this stuff over, and you wind up having high ground, because let's be honest. Asha's making legal arguments. She's the law professor and she worked at the FBI. She's not a politician.
The Democrats don't have any slam dunk case for an impeachment. And they'll never get the second part of the removal. So, this is all politics, Jimmy, and I'm treating it that way.
Thank you for making the arguments. Asha, you as well, as always.
When we return, to the aspect of one part of this debate, which is, "Hey, they didn't have to turn this over. It's not that clear with whistleblowers. If the person's not talking about the Intel Community, the law changes," is that true?
James Clapper knows. He was in that job as DNI. What does he think of how this was handled and what the law demands? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: So, this President says there's nothing to see when it comes to Ukraine. He also won't let you see anything when it comes to Ukraine. So, you can't prove or disprove what he's talking about. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Perhaps you'll see it. Perhaps you won't see that. It depends on what we want to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I mean, look, there's just one basic common sense notion at play, which is if you have nothing to hide, you don't hide. So now we get to the next level of intrigue.
The President's Acting Director of National Intelligence is sitting on the whistleblower complaint, as if this were somehow a legal dispute. His own Inspector General says this is an urgent concern, which is supposed to trigger Congressional review.
So, let's get somebody now, who was a Director of National Intelligence, and had to understand how to apply this very law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: James Clapper, it is a blessing to have you tonight.
JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, RETIRED UNITED STATES AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT GENERAL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: Help us. The idea that "It's not that simple, Jim. You know, if it doesn't deal with the Intelligence agencies, and what's happening there, Congress really has no say in reviewing a whistleblower complaint."
CLAPPER: Well, first of all, I don't agree with that. The way I interpreted the law during the 6.5 years I served as DNI was that if a whistleblower submitted a complaint, I interpreted that but - if it was within observation range, I'll call it that, of - of that person, that Intelligence Community employee.
And - and I never considered whether is the wrongdoing limited to just the - what is defined legally as the Intelligence Community? I - I never split those hairs.
[21:20:00]
Moreover, I never thought - I even - I actually had the option to refuse to forward a valid, credible whistleblower complaint. And I also don't recall one being submitted that was characterized by my I.G., my Inspector General as urgent.
So, I'm very sympathetic to Joe Maguire, the Acting DNI. I think he's, you know, got caught up in - in the politics of this. And it's true that the Office of Legal Counsel and the Department of Justice is supposed to be the final arbiter about legal issues across the Executive Branch.
But the point for me, the bigger point here, is the observation of wrongdoing, and this employee attempted to use the "Prescribed by the Congress" procedure for protecting classified information, or potentially sensitive information, and also protect himself or herself. And I really worry about the employee because that person now is kind of hanging out there in limbo. So, for - for me, I never - never had a case that was characterized as
urgent by my Inspector General, and I never interrupted or any way delayed, in the interest of transparency, the processing of whistleblower complaint that came up during my tenure.
CUOMO: Next level of the analysis. "Doesn't matter, Jim, because the President can say whatever he wants. And even if he said to Ukraine's President, "Listen, you know, you guys, you have a problem with corruption, and I hate corruption. You should look into lots of different types of corruption. You know, look at what happened with Biden and his son. You got to look at that."
CLAPPER: Well the first thing that - that bothers me about this is, you know, the Congress already had appropriated the funding, and approved the provision of $250 million in military assistance, which the Ukrainians and, you know, and this has been going on since the Russians' incursion in 2014.
So, this is fundamental to the defense of the Ukraine, and they've become very dependent on it.
Yes, I got it. Corruption is an issue there. But, to me, that should be - that's separate from protecting the country, and particularly thwarting the will of Congress, which goes - doesn't bother this Administration.
CUOMO: But what if the President didn't mention the money?
CLAPPER: I'm sorry?
CUOMO: What if he didn't mention the money?
CLAPPER: Well even if he didn't, if there wasn't a - I mean, a direct connection here, it certainly is implied.
And, you know, whether there was a direct discourse here where, you know, "If you don't do something about investigating former Vice President Biden, you're not going to get the aid," I don't think it would - I doubt it was that overt. But I think the message--
CUOMO: Well yes, I mean he says--
CLAPPER: --the message--
CUOMO: --he says it wasn't overt that he never mentioned the money. And--
CLAPPER: Well--
CUOMO: --that, you know, if you get the call, you'll see that we were talking about it, but only because it's corruption, which leads to a very basic question. Have you ever heard of the U.S. government asking another government to investigate its own citizens?
CLAPPER: No. I - I - I don't know of a case, certainly in my incumbencies, in the Intelligence business, I - I - I can't recall a case of that.
CUOMO: Right. I mean if you had a legitimate question about, you know, a Member of Congress, you know, let alone a Vice President, and what he was doing in another country, you would get - you guys would take it up yourselves, right?
I mean you would either make it a counterintelligence question or you - it would be a reference to the--
CLAPPER: Well that's--
CUOMO: --DOJ.
CLAPPER: Exactly. That should be done internally, you know, with our own investigatory apparatus, not ask another country, which, by the way, you're - if you're concerned about their corruption, to go investigate. I mean, on its face, it's - it's kind of ridiculous.
CUOMO: You know, but at the end of the day, Jim, let's say they wind up turning over the call, and it's gray, it's gray about what happened with the money--
CLAPPER: Right.
CUOMO: --vis-a-vis this call, and he just seems to be saying, "Ukraine, you got to clean it up." Why are the Democrats putting so much - so much pressure on this, as a--
CLAPPER: Well--
CUOMO: --determination for the American people?
CLAPPER: You know, that's a great question. And what would really be edifying here is - is actually know the facts. First of all, we don't know the actual content of the whistleblower complaint.
CUOMO: Right.
CLAPPER: I mean that there's - there's all the media hype about what it's about. But we don't actually know that.
And I think that's - that's very important to know the content of that because this was actually - this was done - submitted by a mature seasoned employee, not some junior person.
CUOMO: Right.
CLAPPER: Moreover, the I.G., the Intelligence of the - the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community found it credible and urgent. Now this is a - this is an appointee of this administration, Senate- confirmed, and all that.
[21:25:00]
So that, to me, attaches importance to the actual content of the - of the complaint. You know, and I hate to suggest this, but I - it's crossed my mind that even if we got a transcript, well can we be assured that's actually what was said?
CUOMO: That's--
CLAPPER: So, getting the transcript may not be such a great thing either.
CUOMO: James Clapper, it is invaluable to the audience to know how the job is done by somebody who did that job. I appreciate it very much. Best to you, Sir.
CLAPPER: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: Right.
And just so you get that point right, it's not about what I think is the right thing for this to mean politically. I don't know where the Democrats are going with this. We'll talk to Democrats about it.
I just don't like when people are lying to you. And that was my perspective with Rudy Giuliani.
So, we found the person who he was talking about, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post. Now, Mr. Leshchenko is going to come on, and he's going to tell you his answers to Mr. Giuliani's allegations about him.
Former Ukrainian government official, and journalist, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Again, impeach, not impeach, it's a political consideration, and we're going to test people about that tonight. For us, it's about whether or not people in power are telling you the truth. And Rudy Giuliani was not telling you the truth on things that matter.
So, we wanted to check the holes in the President's theory several times on this show. It's not just about the Biden family. It's about other things that Rudy Giuliani's calling out, and we went to the source.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: --Manafort. GIULIANI: --December 16th, 2018, there is a finding by a court in the Ukraine that a man named - Lesh - Telchenko (ph) - Leshchenko, something like that that he produced a phony affidavit that was given to the American authorities and an FBI agent named Greenwood, and they found him guilty of that. Nobody reports that--
CUOMO: All right--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, if you're going to put somebody at the center of your theory, know their name, OK?
The man's name is Serhiy Leshchenko. He's a Ukrainian journalist. He's a former Member of that country's Parliament. We spoke exclusively with him tonight, and we covered a lot of turf, including what Mr. Giuliani just left out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SERHIY LESHCHENKO, UKRAINIAN JOURNALIST, FORMER MEMBER OF UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT: This was decision of Administrative Court in Ukraine, which was never in active status because we went to Appeal Court, which stopped, and then canceled this decision of the Administrative Court. And, for today, there is no decision stating that I violated any law in sense of intervention in American elections or something like that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CUOMO: Look, here's the reality, OK?
In the Ukrainian Justice System, having this initial administrative decision is not the end, just like we have appeals here. He did appeal. He won. Then there was another level of review, and he won.
Mr. Giuliani didn't know this? So, either he was ignorant or he knew that what he was making the crux of the complicity here was a false allegation. You can decide which it is, but there is no judicial decision that says that Leshchenko did anything wrong.
Then there's the central question that the Right has been pushing about the 2016 election, and who it was that really interfered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: Several people in Ukraine knew about a tremendous amount of collusion between Ukrainian officials, and Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CUOMO: You were a Member of Parliament during this period. Do you know about collusion between members of your government at that time and the Clinton campaign in order to hurt Donald Trump, and help her?
LESHCHENKO: Not at all. Just conspiracy of Mr. Giuliani, which he constructed, and maybe he believed in. And, in reality, this collusion does not exist, did not exist.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CUOMO: When you start unraveling the threads of what the President, and his supporters are pushing, you find they come back to a favorite Left-wing boogeyman, George Soros. Leshchenko laughs that one off.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LESHCHENKO: Maybe I would be happy to have such relations with Mr. Soros, but it's not true.
So, as a Member of Parliament, I was working in Parliament, before I was Investigative Journalist, and when we established our online news outlet called Ukrayinska Pravda, we received some small grants from Ukrainian Foundation called Renaissance, which was founded by Mr. Soros.
But the last payment we received from this Foundation was year 2004, maybe 2005. That's it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CUOMO: Right. That brings us to a key flaw in the logic that Joe Biden personally wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LESHCHENKO: Mr. Shokin, you mentioned this name. Remember the time when Mr. Shokin was Prosecutor General, and he sabotaged this investigation.
American Ambassador, Mr. Pyatt, made a public statement with a request to Ukrainian Prosecutor General to investigate this case, and it's very strong argument to deny the whole conspiracy theory of Mr. Giuliani because he's saying that Biden blocked this investigation.
[21:35:00]
But why Ambassador argued to continue this investigation? It's a nonsense. Also, the last Prosecutor General from previous regime--
CUOMO: So, you're saying - so just to be clear, Mr. Leshchenko--
LESHCHENKO: --Mr. Lutsenko--
CUOMO: --just to be clear--
LESHCHENKO: --he just closed this case.
CUOMO: Just to be clear, you're saying that Mr. Shokin, the prosecutor that the United States, and others, wanted to push out, actually didn't want to look at this investigation. He wasn't running after Mr. Biden - Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden's son. You're saying that he was being pressured to investigate it, not that he was applying pressure to investigate it.
LESHCHENKO: Mr. Shokin was very weak as a prosecutor. He did not deliver with investigation. And that's the reason why Ukrainian Society, Members of Parliament, we campaigned to resign him from this position. We started to collect signatures of MPs in Ukrainian Parliament.
We collected more than 120 signatures of MPs to initiate the procedure of his resignation. And it was not just the issue for American Ambassador. It was issue for the whole Society to have transparent and unbiased Prosecutor General.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CUOMO: So, just to review, Giuliani says, this man and others were trying to hurt Trump in the 2016 campaign. Leshchenko says "No, I was trying to root out corruption in my country."
Giuliani says, "Oh, yes? Then why were you convicted of making it up about Manafort?" Giuliani's making that up. That case went away. And you just heard it from the man who was there. And you can Google it, and you'll find the procedural history on the case.
And then Giuliani says, "Oh, yes, but look, Biden wanted to get rid of this prosecutor who was coming after his kid. That makes sense to all of us, right? That would make sense."
Except this guy, they wanted him out. His own party, 298 - or 89 votes in the Parliament to get him out, Western democracies wanting him out, the U.N. wanting him out because he wouldn't take up cases. No evidence that he had taken up a case against Hunter Biden.
So, now you know those are the facts. What do they mean here politically? It's an open question.
Senator Cory Booker is breathing fire about impeachment. He's also simultaneously trying to pump air into his Presidential campaign. Very troubling message came out of the campaign. We're going to take up the reality of the situation for Cory Booker and the political reality for this country, 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: More breaking news that just came in. This is from the Washington Post.
The newspaper is reporting just tonight, citing multiple Democratic officials that House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is quietly feeling out colleagues about whether it is time to impeach President Trump, specifically asking about the significance of this Ukraine situation.
Sources tell the Post that she is asking about the President's words about the conversation with Ukraine's President and whether or not it is a tipping point. The Post says Pelosi has been making calls this evening to gauge support.
Democratic Senator, Presidential Candidate, Cory Booker--
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: --started calling for impeachment long before Ukraine, and he's with us now on PRIME TIME. Good to see you, Senator.
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Chris, always good to be on. Thank you for having me.
CUOMO: All right, so first, let me just deal with your campaign, and then we'll get into these politics. Message comes from the campaign like "This is it. Either get on board with us right now, or the campaign is going to end." Is that a reality? Are you thinking about dropping out?
BOOKER: Well, look, we built a campaign. We told people this is not an Eagle Exercise or a vanity experiment, we wanted to win. And we were building a campaign until now that is really a winning campaign.
Remember, the polls this far out have never predicted from our party who would become President of the United States. What predicts it is the strength on the ground. And we have inarguably, according to The Des Moines Register, and others, for example, in Iowa the strongest team on the ground, us and Elizabeth Warren.
And we just knew that if we were going to stay competitive as the campaign that has the most endorsements from state and local officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, that we had to continue to grow, and we didn't have the resources to do that.
And so, we've been very honest. We have until the end of the quarter, till a week from now, to raise about $1.7 million, and we wanted to be candid. We should not be in this race if we can't grow to win.
Now, the good news is we're three days into it, and we've had the three biggest fundraising days of the campaign online.
The momentum of people, and I've been hearing from folks all across the country, even people who aren't all in for me, just asking me to stay in this race, because of the value of our voice and our perspective.
So, we got to keep pushing. It's been incredible. We're almost at $700,000 of that $1.7 million we need to raise. And we hope that people who want me in this race, and want my voice out there, will go to corybooker.com, and keep us in it.
CUOMO: I get the pitch. I get the need for money. Is there anything about this that opens it to criticism as being a stunt, creating a little false urgency, getting people into your tent?
BOOKER: No, we - look, we've been very open and transparent with people. And, in fact, this was a risk because we were saying plainly that up until the fourth quarter, we've been raising the money we needed to be competitive, and inarguably we are.
But we just did not have the fundraising trajectory necessary in order to continue the campaign in the way that we thought we should do it. And I think it's - I think if - at least my values are, if you don't have a trajectory to win, you should not be in this race.
CUOMO: No, I hear you.
BOOKER: And yes. And so, we - we - we needed help. And, right now, a lot of people are responding, and it is exciting to me. Thousands and thousands of people are making small dollar contributions, our best days of the campaign.
We have seven more to go. And we really need the help. And I'm just being straightforward with folks. If we don't hit our goal, we're going to have to make some very tough decisions.
But God, this has been three of the more affirming days, not just of this campaign, but in politics, because the notes we're getting from people, even people who are neutral in this race, saying, "I'm not endorsing people," they've been shooting out tweets, and texts, trying to get folks to help us out. And the - the surge is coming. And - but we got to keep it up for seven more days.
[21:45:00]
CUOMO: All right, let's talk some party politics here, for a second. Do you believe this situation with Ukraine and the President, and our President, adds or is standalone worthy of impeachment?
BOOKER: Look, as you said earlier, I've already called for impeachment proceedings to begin. And one of the reasons I did was because this Administration was stopping information from getting to Congress, for Congress to do its job, which is to provide a check and a balance on this President.
And so, he's not acting, when it comes to a Congressional investigations, subpoenas and documents, he's not acting like the Leader of the Free World. He's acting more like a dictator - dictator.
And so, here's another example where this Justice Department has stopped - really subverted or even undermined the Whistleblower Law that says that if this is something, as the Inspector General found it, something that is credible and urgent, it should have gone to Congress.
And so here - this is not a partisan issue. I mean, this is a President of the United States withholding information.
I've been to Ukraine. I've been to the Donbass region where the Russians are conducting military operations. I met with courageous Ukrainian military folks whose comrades were dying in trying to fight against Russian aggression. Crimea was annexed.
This is - this is - this is deeply real and profound that our country, Congress, bipartisan said we should get support to them, and defend them against Russian aggression, and this President allegedly is withholding those resources, in order to go against a political--
CUOMO: Right.
BOOKER: --opponent.
CUOMO: But Senator--
BOOKER: It is--
CUOMO: --as we know now--
BOOKER: Please.
CUOMO: --the - the money's moved over there.
And my question for your - for you, and as an extension, to the party, is are you guys setting yourself up again, like you did on the Mueller thing, which is there may be acts there that would play a big role in someone's decision in an election?
But you're not going to get any Republicans to vote to remove this President on the basis of what happened in Ukraine, even if he did hold the money at, even if that's clear in the transcript, which I don't think it's going to be, you're not going to remove him from office.
So, if you go down a road that you cannot satisfy, where is the political advantage in that? Or is it about something else?
BOOKER: So Chris, it is about something else. Politics be damned. This is our country. This is our Constitution. 20 years, 40 years from now, people are going to look back, at moments like this, what did we do to hold a President accountable?
I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Forget politics for a moment. He is violating our constitutional mandates. He is not - saying he is
not subject to the checks and balances of our government, which undermines the very ideals of our nation.
This is not about politics. This is a moral moment. And we should do the right thing, and hold this President accountable.
CUOMO: Senator Booker, I appreciate you being with us tonight, clearing up what's going on in the campaign, and clearing up where your party is on this. These are going to be very interesting days ahead. It's good to have you here on the show.
BOOKER: Thank you, Chris, always good to be with you.
CUOMO: Good luck to the campaign going forward.
All right, we have a rare glimpse of the President's Press Secretary today. She gave a lot of excuses for why White House briefings have gone the way of the Dodo, extinct. Are they ever coming back to life?
The interesting part is the explanation, and it has spawned an argument for you, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Stephanie Grisham, can you place the face? She's the White House Press Secretary, almost three months now. Many of you may not know that.
She's never stood behind the podium in the White House press briefing room to take questions from reporters. A Press Secretary who does not take questions from the press!
And today, over on state TV, she gave several excuses for the moratorium. Number one, the briefings are useless, she says, because the press can just ask the President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANIE GRISHAM, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He's the most accessible President in history, as all of the media knows.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: This is approaching another example of Orwellian doublespeak because of this President's what he wants you to believe, he just keeps saying it. He rarely does an interview with anyone but a pal, and constantly attacks the media. That makes him accessible?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm the most transparent President, probably in the history of this country.
In the history of our country, there has never been a President that's been more transparent than me or the Trump Administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Keep saying it, and saying it, until the base starts parroting - parroting it, the way the Press Secretary is. That is the goal of doublespeak, accessible, transparent, OK.
Where's the transcript of the call with Ukraine's President? Where's the whistleblower complaint? Where are the White House visitor logs? Why didn't you testify, like you promised, in the Mueller probe? Why not release your taxes? Why do you fight every effort of Congress to investigate?
During the first year of the Trump Presidency, did you know that more FOIA requests, Freedom of Information Act requests, were denied or censored than at any time in the past decade?
And not only are there no White House press briefings, the Pentagon barely holds them anymore, same with the State Department.
And again, when the President does talk to the press, take a look at the numbers, more than 40 interviews with Fox News. That's why we call it state TV. That and the way they treat him when he's there.
That's more than all other networks combined. And only once has he talked with Chris Wallace over on Fox. Who's second-highest? Fox Business. That's not accessibility. That's plausible deniability.
Grisham's second excuse for lack of press briefings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
GRISHAM: They weren't being good to his people. And he doesn't like that. He's very loyal to his people. And he put a stop to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You can tell she's new because this is way too close to the truth. You heard that right. This President will punish the media if they cover people that are close to him in ways he doesn't like. But she lost it on that last part about the loyalty. Name me one person that this President has stuck by when things got bad for them. He is about fealty, I would argue to you, not loyalty.
But be clear, President Trump is welcome on this show any time to make his case to you, same with Ms. Grisham, and we wish her well in the job. It is a standing invitation.
It won't be the Courtesy Couch you were on this morning over there at state TV. But I promised you this. We will never treat you the way our President treats us in the media, and a lot of other people in this country. There may be disagreement, but there will always be decency. That's the Argument.
Ahead, we've got a big shot on Joe Biden's campaign with new reaction to the President's new admissions today on his efforts to get Ukraine to investigate his opponent.
Right back with that, and big 2020 news, a special two-hour PRIME TIME, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: Hey, I'm Chris Cuomo, and welcome to a special bonus hour of PRIME TIME.
END
