Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Democrats Laying Ground Work For Impeachment; President Trump Admits Bringing Up Investigation Of Joe Biden To Ukraine's President; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Sounding Out Dems On Impeaching President Trump; New CNN Poll: Warren And Biden Neck-And-Neck In Iowa; Kids On Extreme Ends Of Law; Activist Greta Thunberg Blasts World Leaders On Climate Action Summit. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired September 23, 2019 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Hey, I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to a special bonus hour of PRIME TIME.

And guess what? Breaking news on our watch. The Hill is very active tonight. The whistleblower scandal may be changing the calculus for Democrats and particularly Speaker Pelosi when it comes to impeachment.

They're about to hold a big meeting tomorrow as the president now admits discussing his political opponent on that Ukraine call.

So, what are we going to do for you? We're going to bring in one of Joe Biden's top aides for new reaction from the campaign. The president claims Republicans would get the electric chair if they did what he claims Biden did.

We'll put that to the test in our great debate.

And Biden has now got some very big competition in Iowa. Razor close numbers in the state that votes first. So, what do you say? Let's get after it.

How big a deal is the president's behavior and that of his lawyer by extension in Ukraine to Congress? Is this the tipping point for impeachment? Why even suggest that?

Because the House Democratic caucus is going to meet tomorrow afternoon, and the Washington Post is reporting tonight that Speaker Pelosi is now quietly feeling out top aides and lawmakers about whether this is a tipping point.

And now just to put it in context of what happened today, the president admitted again today that he talked about Joe Biden in his suspicious call with the Ukrainian leader.

In fact, he's doing a lot of talking, and the Biden campaign is listening closely. On that, let's bring in Biden 2020 Senior Adviser, Symone Sanders.

Good to have you on the show.

SYMONE SANDERS, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR BIDEN CAMPAIGN 2020: Nice to be here, Chris. Thank you so much.

CUOMO: All right. So, the V.P. has said that he doesn't like how the president is handling this, and he said that he has done nothing wrong. How big a deal do you believe this current president's behavior is in terms of impeachment?

SANDERS: Look, Chris, our posture is this is a very big deal. President Trump admitted that he pressured a foreign government to open an investigation into his political opponent.

Let me just repeat that. President Trump admitted that he pressured a foreign government to open an investigation against his political opponent, and that political opponent is Joe Biden.

You know, look, I want to be very clear. These allegations are smears, and they are completely unfounded. Every credible media outlet has debunked these claims and found that there is no there, there.

Even Glenn Kessler, the ultimate fact checker at the Washington Post. So, I encourage folks to look it up. The president is trying to smear Vice President Biden, because he knows that in Vice President Biden's word, he beat him like a drum in the general election. And so, look, --

CUOMO: All right.

SANDERS: I know you had -- I was watching the other night, Chris. You had Rudy Giuliani on. He said before he would lie for President Trump, and that is what he's doing now, lying to the American people.

CUOMO: How much of this is self-inflicted wound because Hunter Biden was working for a company in Ukraine when the V.P. was going to be active there in a big role that he was involved with China at a time when the president -- the V.P. had a big role? How much of that is inflicted from an ethical standpoint?

SANDERS: None of it, Chris, because guess what? Everyone with the Obama/Biden White House said there was no issue with this. Every credible media outlet has looked at this and said there is no there, there. This is a smear.

And you know what, we have put out memo after memo, we've put out videos. We've been very active in the press and online because what we don't want is for folks to repeat the mistakes of 2016.

And right now, we believe that the press is failing at this. Look, we have to remember the lessons of 2016. We cannot take Donald Trump's bait. What he is positioning as a credible story is a smear. It is a smear and a baseless allegation that should be treated as such. CUOMO: The idea of the Democrats setting themselves up for making the

same mistake, do you have concerns as a Democrat that if you go down the road of impeachment on the basis of this as an abusive power claim or as a collection of other actions, you're going to wind up coming up short because there won't be removal? Republicans aren't going to go against this president. And it will make you look like you swung and missed right before the election.

SANDERS: Chris, I'm going to leave that for your great debate and Democrats in Congress. What we are focused on, though, is making sure we are calling out Trump's lies as they come and not letting anything slide here.

This is unprecedented. The president of the United States is admitting that he is inviting foreign interference into the 2019, 2020 election, and I don't think folks are as fired up about it as they should be.

[22:05:04]

Instead of folks out there positioning this as does this spell trouble for Vice President Biden, I think we need to be looking at what this means for President Trump.

This is -- this is about President Trump. This is about his misconduct and his abuse of power, and that's what we're going to continue to talk about.

House Democrats, we think, are going to do their job, and we are going to continue to do ours.

CUOMO: Why is Elizabeth Warren catching up to you in Iowa?

SANDERS: You know, Chris, it's too early --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: That's your problem. That's a real problem. That's all you, Symone. Congress has got nothing to do with that.

SANDERS: I don't know if it's a problem. Chris --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: It's not a good thing.

SANDERS: I don't know if it's a problem. But what I do think it is, is it shows that, look, it's early in the process. Polls are going to go up and down. I said before, you live by the polls, you die by the polls.

But we're very confident about the operation we're running in Iowa. We were just there this weekend. We will be back very soon, and we look forward to waging a very aggressive campaign.

But we've also said before, Chris, and we'll say it again, that this race isn't going to be over in Iowa, and it won't be over in New Hampshire. We think this primary is going to go well into Super Tuesday and beyond, so we are hunkering down for the long fight here because we are definitely in it to win it, and you know, we believe that Vice President Biden will in fact be the Democratic nominee.

CUOMO: You see a scenario where you don't win in Iowa and New Hampshire and you win the nomination?

SANDERS: Well, Chris, I think that first of all I want to remind folks that this is all about delegate numbers. I don't know if some people out there can count, but we sure can.

And in a Democratic presidential primary, you have to reach at least 15 percent to be awarded any delegates. That is how you win a Democratic presidential primary, delegates.

So, you can come in first in Iowa and still be awarded the same amount of delegates as the person that comes in third. So, we are playing to win here. We are traveling all over Iowa, all over New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina.

Super Tuesday states and beyond because we want to meet the people where we are, Chris, and earn the votes of folks across this country. And we're playing the long game. That means a delegate game.

CUOMO: Does it make you think about adjustments in the campaign, what is giving excitement to other campaigns and how you have to adjust in your own?

SANDERS: No. I mean what it makes us think about is that, look, we know we have to earn the votes of folks on the ground. We have to be there, and that's why we have invested a substantial amount of not only resources but Vice President Biden and Dr. Biden's time in Iowa.

But also, in places like South Carolina where I am today and also Nevada and New Hampshire. We're not leaving anything up for grabs, Chris. We think we're running a very aggressive and bold campaign, and we look forward to taking that message to every person in the country.

Again, we're in this for the long haul, and we're in it to win it. We know this isn't going to be over -- definitely not going to be over in January because folks haven't voted yet. But it won't be over in February, Chris. This is the long haul. We're ready. I don't know about some other campaigns, but we're here for it.

CUOMO: It's Congress' job to decide whether or not to investigate and come up with articles of impeachment if they reach a certain level of sufficiency. But it is the responsibility of everybody who wants to be president to have an opinion on it.

Does Joe Biden believe that this president is worthy of impeachment?

SANDERS: Vice President Biden believes that there's a process to go through, and part of that process is Donald Trump releasing the transcripts. Another part of that process is Congress exercising their role as a co-equal branch of government and investigating.

So, we're going to let Congress go through their process, but in the meantime, --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: You know, in Watergate, one of the articles of impeachment --

SANDERS: -- we are not going to take this hit from Donald Trump lying down.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I know, but, you know, the reason I ask is one of the counts or the articles of impeachment against Nixon was that he wasn't cooperating with Congress. So, on that basis alone, you could think that. That's why I'm asking what the V.P.'s judgment was on it.

SANDERS: Well, Chris, we don't have any new judgments to assert here. We think Congress is doing the right thing. They are doing their job. As you noted in your opening, the House is going to meet tomorrow.

And look, we have confidence in leader Pelosi that they're going to do what they need to do. But in the meantime, we are forcefully taking our fight to President Trump and the Trump campaign. We're not going to take these baseless smears lying down, and if the Trump campaign wants to come up with lies and accusations about Vice President Biden and his family, we stand ready to refute and rebut them because we are not going to take this lying down.

And we hope -- again, I want to reassert, we hope that the press has learned the lesson of 2016 and they're not going to fall for the Trump campaign's bait and assert that this is some type of both sides' situation.

There's one side to this, and one side is Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America, admitted that he has asked for foreign help to influence this 2020 election. That should alarm us all.

CUOMO: Symone Sanders, thank you for making your case to the audience. I appreciate it.

SANDERS: Thank you so much, Chris. Good to see you.

CUOMO: All right. Just during that one interview, more breaking news. President Trump, Ukraine, the money that was held back, we have new information for you. I'll give it to you right after the break.

[22:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. More breaking news on our watch. I'm working through the crucial details right now with the team. But it's really about shaping up a time line for that Ukrainian aid.

The argument is that it was held up by the White House. If so, why so? About a week before President Trump urged Ukraine to investigate

Hunter Biden, the president told acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and others to put a hold on that money. That's the latest reporting from the Washington Post.

Philip Bump, also of "The Washington Post" -- he does not own this reporting -- is here. It's great to have you.

PHILIP BUMP, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON POST: Happy to be here.

CUOMO: Perfect night. Karoun Demirjian, and Josh Dossey, Ellen Nakashima and Carol --

BUMP: Leonnig.

CUOMO: Leonnig.

BUMP: Yes.

CUOMO: They're on it. So, you know, obviously we've all come to know them in the business.

BUMP: Sure.

CUOMO: They're on this. All right. Let's talk about what's going on here --

BUMP: Right.

CUOMO: -- from the Bumpian perspective. How do you see what is playing out?

[22:15:03]

BUMP: I think the key thing for people to keep in mind here is there's been a lot of focus on this phone call in recent days, in part because we've learned the most details about that, in part also because we have direct evidence including from Trump today that he was involved in this conversation.

But it's important to remember that the early reporting suggested there's part of a pattern here, and I think that this reporting bolsters that idea, that there was a pattern of behavior potentially within the administration which led to both the Ukrainians and apparently a whistleblower within the administration itself to get a certain perception about what was expected of them and what they were expected to do on behalf of the president.

CUOMO: Now, do you agree -- and you're always free to disagree. One of the reasons I love you. My theory about Rudy Giuliani was he may have been off his game at points, but there was a game.

BUMP: Yes.

CUOMO: Afoot. He wanted to put the Biden stuff out there because if the president really believes that Biden was corrupt, then everything he did in furtherance of that belief is fine.

BUMP: No, I think you're exactly right. But I would go so far as to say I don't think that President Trump really cares that much whether or not the Biden stuff is correct. He sees Biden as a political component --

CUOMO: Right.

BUMP: -- in the same way that he would attack Hillary Clinton for a myriad of things in 2016, I think he's prepared to do the same to Biden.

But you're absolutely right, I think that Rudy Giuliani had two outcomes from his interview with you. The first was he got to sit there and bash Joe Biden repeatedly despite your efforts to redirect him in the conversation.

And then secondarily, he got to bash CNN for not behaving in the way that he thought was appropriate. I'm not surprise at all that President Trump came out today and said Giuliani did a great job. Giuliani did exactly what Donald Trump hopes everyone will do when his defense on TV which is, echo his rhetoric and then bash the media.

CUOMO: What's the risk of performing for an audience of one, as it would seem Corey Lewandowski did before Congress and Rudy as his lawyer did that day? The president literally the irony of being at the U.N. and next to a leader in Poland that is trying to chill press freedoms there.

BUMP: Right.

CUOMO: He says, he took them apart. What's the risk in that?

BUMP: I think there's a broad risk in terms of undermining the media which obviously you and I are probably more sensitive to a lot of people in the country.

But I think there's a specific risk of trying to appeal to President Trump specifically, which is that Trump has insulated himself with a lot of people who agree with him, a lot of people we've seen early in the cabinet who were seen as sort of the bulwark against his worse tendencies are now gone.

There isn't necessarily the same sense that he is surrounded by people who are willing to say, actually, I'm not so sure about that. That has risks of its own. But of course, the risk in this case was that Giuliani dumped a bunch of stuff which wasn't really on anyone's radar, and very quickly the story moved forward from there.

And I think there's probably the case that people were more willing to open up doors because Giuliani had started to spill some of this stuff.

CUOMO: Right. The problem is he was wrong about a lot of stuff, more so than even in the Mueller set of facts and Russian interference vis- a-vis the campaign's defenses. That's why we had Lutsenko on tonight, who was the former parliament member who he was accusing of most of these things.

So, here's the risk analysis on each side as I see it, I want you to take. For the president, the main risk to this strategy is you don't ask a foreign president to investigate one of your own citizens.

If this was -- if there was integrity of his interest here, he would be looking into it. He'd have the DOJ looking into this. It's not what he did. So that's his risk, is that it doesn't make sense.

But on the Democrat side, are they setting themselves up for disappointment again as they did with the Mueller probe? I'm not saying that this isn't arguably abuse of office, of power, but where does it go for them?

BUMP: Well, I would just challenge your assertion on Trump in one way, which is that I think he also recognizes that he may be able to get the Ukraine to give him the sort of narrative that he wants simply by putting pressure on them, which is different potentially than asking DOJ investigators to go out there --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: You think he thinks he will get Zelensky or Ukraine to look at this.

BUMP: I think that may be the case of why Trump thought he could put this pressure.

CUOMO: OK.

BUMP: As he may get the response he wanted to see. Right? That said, I think the Democrats are in a tough spot. I think Nancy Pelosi is in a tough spot. The impeachment math is still not great for them.

I mean, they still need to gain most of the majority of their caucus. I mean, you know, they only have about 20 Democrats to spare if they want to actually pass an impeachment vote, which I think is very important to them.

But at the same time, the base is increasingly frustrated by this, and she certainly doesn't want -- at the same time that she doesn't want to have moderate Democrats at risk next fall in the House, she also doesn't want to have Democrats sitting at home because they're mad at Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for not acting in Trump.

CUOMO: That's actually a step I haven't even thought. That's why I love -- you got to read Philip Bump. He's always thinking about things in a way that you would like to but can't. That's interesting.

I keep jumping to we'll never remove him. You'll never remove him.

BUMP: Right.

CUOMO: But this is a much more urgent concern. If they go through the process of -- well, they are, right, if they get to try to pass articles of impeachment or whatever the operative verb is and they don't in the House, what would be the implication of that?

BUMP: I mean, you see how Trump responds when he has the tiniest of victories on this stuff. And now that would be hailed by him as a definitive proof that he has been validated. Right?

[22:20:02]

I mean, this is a huge political risk. I mean, there is certainly an argument out there that Democrats will all fall in line once the thing comes down. But I actually looked at the numbers today and there are a lot of Democrats in Republican-leaning districts who have not yet said, hey, I'm down with impeachment.

The reason why is because that is a potential electoral risk for them. I mean, we've got 235 Democrats sitting in the House, all of them up for re-election next year. A lot of them just won in 2018 in Republican-held districts because of how the winds were blowing in the country.

They're going to be nervous about this and not necessarily going to jump on board that train. And the margin for the Democrats is so narrow. They can only give up 17 votes from their own members in order to have this thing pass, and I think Pelosi is very aware of that math.

CUOMO: Well, I'll tell you one benefit of this. You know, the Biden people say he's just collateral damage in this. I think a fair reading of it is there are questions there. The answers, I don't believe, are as satisfying as the president wants them to be.

BUMP: Right.

CUOMO: But they now know what's coming their way. This will not be the last time they hear about this if they are fortunate enough to make it to the nomination. Brother Bump, thank you so much.

BUMP: Of course.

CUOMO: Thank you for putting our heads in the right place. I appreciate it.

BUMP: Of course.

CUOMO: All right. Lots of fast-moving developments tonight on Ukraine and Speaker Pelosi reportedly feeling out colleagues about whether this is the tipping point for impeachment. A lot to tackle. Great time to debate. So, let's have a great debate next.

[22:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. Here is the latest. "The Washington Post" reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is quietly asking House -- not that quietly, we found out, right? But she's talking to Democrats about whether now is the time to impeach President Trump. Here to discuss and debate, Ana Navarro, and director of strategic

communications for the Trump campaign, Marc Lotter. Good to have you both.

MARC LOTTER, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN: Thanks for having me.

CUOMO: Ana, do you believe that what we know to this point about what the president said to the president of Ukraine is enough for a case of abuse of power?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's enough for a case of abuse of power. I don't know that it's enough for a case for impeachment. What I do know is that it is enough for the American people and for our elected officials to demand to see all the information, to get a hand on the documents, on the whistleblower's complaint, and I think there should be an "I" word, investigation, before the "I" word impeachment. The facts need to line up.

Look, there's been a lot of talk about impeachment, which hasn't panned out. About two weeks ago, we were talking about -- folks were talking about impeaching Brett Kavanaugh. I think that helps Donald Trump.

And so, as somebody that wants Donald Trump out of the White House because I think he is a national security risk and he threatens American values on a daily basis, what I want is something that does not help Donald Trump. Every time the words Biden, corruption, and Ukraine are mentioned, it helps Donald Trump. He loves to create this murkiness and muddy the waters.

CUOMO: So, look, rigging the game, which, Marc, would be the benefit to President Trump if they were to try to impeach him. Look what they did. They used the system against me for bad reasons, for political reason. They never had a case.

That works the other way, that he will not comply with these investigations. He will not -- he keeps saying he's transparent, but he keeps not being transparent. If you guys have high ground on the Ukraine assertions, why not release the whistleblower complaint and the transcript of the call?

LOTTER: Well, I think there's two things that are at play here. One, the president will decide if the transcript will come out or not. But you have to worry about creating precedent.

If every single call that -- not just this president but any future president may now be subject to release, you're not going to have candid conversations with other world leaders.

And on the whistleblower side, if you have a bunch of unfounded claims and in this case, there is reporting from other networks that suggest that this is not even a firsthand account. It's somebody who heard somebody say something who might have heard something.

So, we don't even know the veracity of any of this information. But if just the mere filing of a complaint all of a sudden then goes to Congress and creates all these, you're going to limit future presidents and this president from being able to do their job.

CUOMO: Why wouldn't you have the inspector general then testify about it because an inspector general that you picked found it of urgent concern. Does that sound like third-party hearsay?

LOTTER: Well, we don't know what the report says, and if I recall, we do have the I.G. who is going -- or the DNI are going to go before Congress. What they reveal is completely going to be governed by the law, and there is a lot of legal discrepancy right now in terms of whether this law with the special -- with the inspector general even applies to something that might involve the president of the United States.

The law says it has to fall under the guidelines of activities in the office of the director of national intelligence. The president of the United States does not fall under the director of national intelligence.

CUOMO: Jim Clapper was on the show earlier, and he said he never read it that way. But it is a point of dispute. But, Ana, the question is where does it leave you? At the end of the day, as we showed tonight, we had Mr. Lutsenko on the show, one of the people that Rudy Giuliani was fingering.

He was at the center of his conspiracy theory, but he couldn't remember the guy's name. The guy rebuts every single allegation of Rudy Giuliani, and there are facts to back him up on every single one of them.

[22:30:00]

But at the end of the day, you can, even if you were to get the votes in the House, Ana, this does not end in satisfying fashion for the Democrats.

NAVARRO: No, it doesn't and it's 14 months away from an election. Four months away from the first votes being cast in Iowa. It's going to suck up a lot of political capital and resources and attention. And, look, I have an internal struggle with this, right? Just me personally.

On the one hand, I'd like to see Donald Trump held accountable, but I know Republicans are not going to do it. Their silence on this issue is so telling, but for people like Mitt Romney.

And I also know it's not going to end up in anything like you say, but on the other hand, there's the principle of the issue of the constitution being violated, of there being abuses of power, of Donald Trump getting away with lawlessness, of Donald Trump getting away with activity that should not be allowed in a co-equal government, in a government like the United States.

And you know what? What I am going to do is implore with Republicans, elected Republicans particularly in the Senate, to for once during this administration put your damn country over your damn party. You know, we're talking about the Ukraine. This is -- this is a country where Republicans invested so much. I remember all the times that John McCain went there.

There's a street named for him, because the U.S. was with the Ukrainian people, against the invasion of Russia in Crimea, because the U.S. was such an integral part of wanting to build a democracy and a strong government in Ukraine. And so now for Republicans to look the other way and play dumb is absolutely grotesque.

CUOMO: Mr. Lotter, the Washington Post has new reporting on this point, and Chris Murphy, who is obviously a Democrat, right, Senator from Connecticut -- he says that there is a question. I want to read it to you.

The Ukrainian leader was apparently left with a different impression after the phone call with the president. Murphy spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine. He said, the Ukraine president directly expressed concern at their meeting that the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence of the Ukraine president's unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens.

Two questions. One, have you ever heard of a U.S. President asking another nation to investigate one of America's citizens?

LOTTER: No, but I do know of Joe Biden saying if you don't fire the prosecutor in question, we're going to withhold, you know, a billion dollars in loan guarantee.

CUOMO: He was operating as the V.P. of the United States of America, not personally, and he was joined by a parliament vote in Ukraine and the U.N. and several western democracies who were all trying to remove the prosecutor. Where is the personal animus link?

LOTTER: Well, and what I would also continue to say is that this shows you that Ukraine has had a problem with corruption for some time, and the story that I'm seeing tonight is that the president -- and he said it again today -- was raising questions with the new election of this new administration. Were they going to be pro-western or pro-Russian?

He wanted to put a hold on the aid going to the Ukraine until we could figure out, a, what side they were on and to make sure that corruption in a general sense was being addressed. The country has had a very long problem with corruption and --

CUOMO: Do you think the president had anything to do with even holding the money back? You're asserting that as if you know.

LOTTER: I'm basically going off of a Washington Post report that was coming out here just a few moments ago.

CUOMO: So you're running the campaign communications, and you don't know whether or not the president had anything to do with the aid to Ukraine going or not going? LOTTER: The campaign stays away from national security issues. We

leave that to the experts at the White House.

CUOMO: So you do acknowledge that it would be a national security issue to America if that aid was being played with?

LOTTER: I would say that anytime the president is on the phone with a world leader or discussing foreign aid that would be an issue of national security. It's one of our standard practices, but what I'm going to tell you is that this is a president whose responsibility is to make sure that our money is not being wasted or being given to a government with corrupt intent, a history of corruption that has been called out by many before, and the president was making sure that that was going to be addressed.

NAVARRO: Listen, fighting corruption is something that the U.S. has done for decades. It's part of the history. We do it in all sorts of countries, but what we don't do, what we don't do is dangle the promise of foreign aid in exchange for dirt on your opponent.

The only one that does that and gets away with it is Donald Trump, and it is wrong, and it is unacceptable, and Republicans need to act the same way they would be acting if it was Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who had done that because it is wrong regardless of who does it. It is un-American. It is unethical, and it is unacceptable.

[22:35:05]

CUOMO: Well, it's also -- I'm out of time, but it's also to Mr. Lotter's, I think eventual point, it's also unknown. We need more facts. We need to know what happened in the call.

NAVARRO: Agreed.

CUOMO: We need the whistleblower complaint. Let's see where it takes us, but it was interesting to hear you acknowledge, Marc, it is an issue of national security what happened on that call and how it was handled is as well. Ana Navarro, Marc Lotter, thank you for debating tonight. I appreciate it.

LOTTER: Thank you.

CUOMO: So for the first time ever in a major new poll, Elizabeth Warren has caught up with Joe Biden, and it is happening in a very crucial place. Question, whom does it hurt more? Biden or Bernie? You know who's got the answer? That guy, the wizard of odds, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:40:00]

CUOMO: So many people say the Democratic race is a three-way race right now. Maybe it's a two-way race. That matchup, Biden versus Warren, is getting more serious by the day. Look at the new polls. This is from CNN and the Des Moines register show, all right? It shows that two Democrats are separating themselves. Warren is

slightly ahead of Biden, but within the MOE, the margin of error in Iowa. She's surging or is this struggling. Let's bring in the wizard of odds to break it all down. Within the margin of error, but still.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER AND ANALYST: It is a top tier. It is the top two of the two of them, 22 and 20, Sanders and Buttigieg way back, but I think the important thing here, Chris, is look at the trend. Warren was at 9 percent in March, 15 percent in June, 22 percent now. Biden is going the other way, 27, 23, 20. And the trend for Sanders, even worse, 25 in March, 16 in June, 11 percent now. He is basically falling off the map.

CUOMO: So the argument of where is she getting the voters, who is this bad for -- is it fair to say it's Sanders who has got the most to be worried about?

ENTEN: I would think so. So, our poll asked who did you caucus with in 2016? Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders? Among those who caucused for Bernie Sanders, look at this. Elizabeth Warren at 32 percent, beating Bernie Sanders among his own former supporters. He's only at 25 percent, which I think tells you that Elizabeth Warren has gone into Bernie Sanders' house and taken his honey.

CUOMO: Are you comfortable at this point saying Sanders can't win if Warren is in the race, but Warren might be able to win if Sanders is in the race?

ENTEN: I think that these numbers indicate that she could very well win with Bernie Sanders in the race. Look, it's still early days yet. Things can change, but Bernie Sanders has near universal name recognition, and as this slide is showing, he is going in the wrong direction. 25, 16, 11 with universal name I.D. that is not a comfortable trend.

CUOMO: All right. So now let's look at what this means for Biden. In terms of enthusiasm, why does enthusiasm matter? What does that tell you about a number?

ENTEN: Well, yeah, exactly right. So, you know, caucuses tend to have lower turnout, and so our poll asked how enthusiastic about -- are you about the candidate that you're backing? And what this finds, among those who say they're extremely enthusiastic, Warren is well out in front, 26 percent. Bernie is actually in second at 19 percent. Biden's all the way back at 16 percent, which could be a bad sign, but here's the thing.

I think a lot of times people conflate enthusiasm with being, I really love that person. I'm definitely going to vote for him. We asked it a different way. Is your mind made up about the candidate that you're supporting? And on this measure, Biden's actually out in front with 26 percent. Warren's all the way back at 14 percent. They might be enthusiastic about her, but they're saying, you know, we can change our minds. We like her right now. We might not like her down the lane.

CUOMO: What else? Give me something else. ENTEN: Yes, I think this is a very important question. Medicare for

all, like it, want it, implement it is a plurality, but this group right here, like it and fear will hurt you in the general election. Warren right now is beating Biden by four points on that question, but if they are trying to go after an electability, it's going to be very interesting to watch this question going forward, because this is the group that Biden needs to win if he wants to win Iowa.

CUOMO: Like it, but fear it will hurt in general election.

ENTEN: Yes, sir.

CUOMO: That is an electability question.

ENTEN: That's exactly right.

CUOMO: Well done, wiz. Thank you as always.

ENTEN: Shalom.

CUOMO: There it is. All right. Two states, two very different cases of kids -- and I'm talking young kids -- in trouble with the law, and I'm talking bad trouble. In one, we have a child who may have committed a hate crime. Can a kid commit a hate crime? In the other, two kids were arrested. They were 6 years old. I'm not kidding, and this is no joke. What's going on? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:45:00]

CUOMO: All right. These are two that are tough to hear, but we got to talk about this. A school resource police officer is out of a job tonight. Why? They arrested two six-year-olds at their Orlando Elementary School. This is Kaia Roll. She is in first grade, OK? She was arrested after throwing a temper tantrum apparently. Her grandmother says she was told by the school that Kaia kicked someone and was being charged with battery, OK?

She says Kaia was fingerprinted, handcuffed, and had mug shots taken. Kaia's grandmother also says she has sleep apnea and side effects from that. Officials stopped things before the girl was put through the booking process, and today Florida's state attorney shared her outrage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARAMIS AYALA, FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY: When it comes to little elementary-age children, we will not negotiate justice ever. Today the healing can start. I can assure you that there will be no criminal prosecution for misdemeanor battery for these elementary children in my name or on my watch. Unlike some, I will not presume guilt or dangerousness of a child based upon any demographic.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Misdemeanor, battery? I mean it's good that it's not

happening, but they were hitting each other in class. I mean that is a misdemeanor battery? We don't know anything about the other 6-year-old arrested by the same officer except that it happened on the same day for something unrelated. So that was a different 6-year-old arrested in the same day.

Let's bring in a much better legal mind, Laura Coates. Look, I get what the state attorney was trying to do. She was trying to make this better, but how do you get to a place where you consider criminality against a 6-year-old?

[22:50:06]

LAURA COATES, CNN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYST: I have no idea, Chris. I mean, you called me the attorney, but right now I'm a mother in this moment. I have 6 year-old son, I have a 5 year old girl, and I can only imagine that I cannot imagine somebody calling me and telling me that either of my children had a tempered tantrum at school and they were arrested and fingerprinted and all, but booked.

I mean, hell would have no fury, like this particular mother's scouring. And I tell you why. There is absolutely no justification for a school contacting police in the circumstance. Let alone for a school resource officer to say, you know what, the best course of action here is to arrest a child. What is it --

CUOMO: Two children. Two children. Same day.

COATES: It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable to me. Talk about the prison -- school to prison pipeline. You're looking at it. And cheers to the prosecutor for saying not on my watch. There's other ways to handle it.

CUOMO: Well, so let's talk about that from one quick second. Then I have this other case I want you to take on. The idea of -- is this just Florida? Or is there no operative law in states where you say below this age you cannot be a criminal. You have to deal with it. With the psychologist, the doctor. Because we don't form criminal intent anything near that age. Is that in place? Or is it discretionary?

COATES: It's in place all across -- first we have a juvenile justice system. Number two, you also had the idea of consent based rules. And talk about the age of somebody. And you have testimony in court about whether somebody understands the difference between right and wrong. We use that in courts for testifying witnesses all the time. But we certainly have a threshold under prosecutorial discretion here to say, is the court the appropriate remedy to actually address this behavior?

And it's far too often we know the schools in our country, Chris, are asked to do so much. They have to be everywhere and everything for people. And the idea of using a school in almost like a local imprentes (ph) in lieu of the parents or the courts in that way. Is a part of a greater problem? CUOMO: Yes. And local parentis (inaudible), in place of the parent.

Upstate New York. OK? An 11 year-old charged with a hate crime. Under lying facts as we understand them. Punched a 10 year-old in the eye. Gave her a black eye and subjected her to racially motivated language on a school bus. Victim not identified. But again, that is how it goes. The idea of the facts would be fine if this were a case of two adults. I get it, but again, the idea of an 11 year-old forming the intent for a hate crime. What's the analysis on that?

COATES: Well, first, I remember. If it's on a school bus, you do have the idea the intent of a child and its consistent in that children at that age being prosecuted is a greater problem in our society. But remember who is also on that bus as far as accusations, a bus driver who apparently did nothing to stop or intervene.

CUOMO: Also charged.

COATES: And rightfully so. I mean, you're talking to someone Chris, personally speaking who was bullied. Who was called racial slurs on the school bus growing up. It's partly why my kids don't ride school buses today. That is perhaps I want them in the car longer. But the idea of having adults who are in the room who are allowing it to go on that is the focus, a child has to be addressed differently.

CUOMO: Tiffany Spicer, 28 years-old. Bus driver on that, charged with three counts of endangering the welfare of a child because she didn't make an effort to stop or prevent the incident. That is an important standard of conduct too. That is an adult. Different judgments about that. Laura Coates, thank you for helping us through this. I appreciate it.

COATES: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right. So, our president is taking part in the U.N. general assembly this week. Lots of tension with nations like Iran showing up. But what maybe the most powerful moment so far. Involved the president and the leader of a movement who's still a teenager. Did you see it? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:55:00]

CUOMO: All right. It is bolo time. Be on the lookout. Greta Thunberg spoke at the U.N. Climate Action Summit. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETA THUNBERG, SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet, I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. And entire eco- systems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?

(CHEERS) (APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That sound is going all over social media. All over the world. That 16 year-old is leading a movement of young people. Who want action on the climate crisis? She and other children filed a complaint today against five of the world's leading economies. They say the country has violated their human rights by not taking enough action to stop the climate crisis.

And if her forceful words aren't enough, check out this moment. When she sees President Trump walking by. It's one heck of a glare. Look at her face. All right. Thank you for watching. "CNN TONIGHT" with Laura Coates is in for D. Lemon. Also known as the upgrade. And it starts right now.

COATES: The upgrade. Thank you. It's Greta, first of all. I have to reassess my life choices, Chris. That is a force to be reckoned with. More power to her.