Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Speaker Pelosi Launches Official Impeachment Inquiry Into President Trump; Sources: White House Preparing To Release Whistleblower Complaint; Trump Authorizes Release Of Ukraine Call Transcript Tomorrow. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 24, 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]
STUART STEVENS, POLITICAL CONSULTANT & WRITER, ADVISER TO AMERICA UNITED, A PRO-WELD SUPER PAC: --like this is the world's going to end when he's President. If these things become norms, it cuts both ways. It's - we're seeing that with the whole filibuster thing. You know, that this - this is a thin--
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: And - and Executive Orders and all sorts of those.
STEVENS: Executive Orders. And this is why, you know, this idea that there was this sort of thin thread that held democracy together, in civil society, there's actually truth to that. And I think, you know, we've just lost that.
COOPER: Yes. Stuart Stevens, thank you. Appreciate it.
STEVENS: Good to see you.
COOPER: Coming up, the news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME during a pivot point for the Presidency. There's new information on our watch. So, what do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: THIS IS CNN BREAKING NEWS.
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Nancy Pelosi has launched an official impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The President has admitted to asking the President of Ukraine to take actions, which would benefit him politically.
The action of the Tru - the actions of the Trump Presidency revealed dishonorable fact of the President's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.
The President must be held accountable. No one is above the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, what does that mean?
It means that the Democrats are all now on the same page. It took a long time. But there's no new process that started. This is about the politics of coming together for one side of the aisle.
Also tonight, an unusual development. Our sources say the White House is preparing to cooperate that they are going to release the whistleblower complaint at the center of this as early as tomorrow.
Also tomorrow, we are told from the President that he says he will release the unredacted transcript of his call with the President of Ukraine. That call was only one of multiple alleged matters of concern.
Now unredacted transcript, the call, to our understanding, was not recorded. There are people who transcribe it. It can be reviewed. It can be changed. So, it is good to have, in fact, necessary to have it with the complaint.
Now, the House Intel Committee may actually hear from the whistleblower directly at some point this week, according to Chairman Schiff. That's not that easy.
The General Counsel for the DNI is saying they don't think that should happen. So, we'll have to see. If the complaint comes out, what would be their objection, we'll be watching that.
Then what? What kind of case will they be able to make against the President? Enough to persuade Democrats? Yes, they're already close. They have like a 180-something. They only need like 217. They'll probably get there.
Will they persuade you? Well then what? Is a Senate trial a given? We're going to go deep on that. You may be surprised.
We have a lot of important voices here on both sides of the aisle to war game where we're all headed. Let's begin with someone who may have helped prompt this major
decision by Pelosi today, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger from Virginia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: One of those seven freshman House Democrats in competitive swing districts who could no longer hold out and just joined the Impeachment Train. She is on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Welcome to PRIME TIME.
REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): Thank you for having me.
CUOMO: To be clear, in reading the letter, to people that you put out, with your fellow Members of Congress, you're not saying you're ready to impeach. You're saying you're ready to look at the facts with an eye toward impeachment. Is that a fair clarification?
SPANBERGER: That is exactly correct, yes.
CUOMO: And when you give the different ideas of why, all of the bolded phrases here have to do with the instant circumstance surrounding Ukraine, why?
SPANBERGER: So, these are the allegations that have recently surfaced in the past week that are deeply, deeply concerning to me, and to the colleagues, who I joined with to create this letter.
We deem that these allegations, as standalone allegations, demonstrate a - a grievous presence of potential corruption, a violation of the oath of office.
And what is really troubling here is the notion that we have a President who potentially pressured a foreign country to provide information about a political foe, and his family, and allegedly sought to use military assistance, and security assistance dollars, taxpayer dollars, as leverage in - in that - in that quest. This--
CUOMO: Allegedly is the key word. Just so the audience knows, if you Google Congressman Spanberger, you'll see she was a Case Agent for the CIA, OK? So, she's not coming at this blindly.
What would be your threshold, because to be fair, unless I'm wrong--
[21:05:00]
SPANBERGER: Yes.
CUOMO: --you don't know what happened on the phone call yet.
SPANBERGER: That's right. CUOMO: You don't know what the sum and substance of the complaint is yet. That's why I said, let's be clear, you're not ready to impeach, you're ready to look. What would be the threshold? What would you have to see in the call and in the - the complaint that would get you to what point?
SPANBERGER: Yes, evidence. Evidence and information related to what happened, what the President's motivations were explicitly, what his engagement with the President of Ukraine in - in those conversations, what happened, any other facts and evidence that might be available.
You mentioned I'm a former Case Officer with the CIA. My whole job used to be to collect information that would allow informed policy. Before that, I was a federal agent.
This is about potentially building a case to determine if there is something to charge the President with.
And - and - but what I thought was important, what - what those of us who entered into this op-ed thought was important is that we had to clarify that these charges that these allegations against the President are of a different nature, are of a distinct nature.
And frankly--
CUOMO: Yes, why?
SPANBERGER: --if they are true--
CUOMO: Because--
SPANBERGER: --they're impeachable.
CUOMO: And that's what I want to talk to you about, Congresswoman--
SPANBERGER: Yes.
CUOMO: --a little bit because, to me, I see irony in this that what the Mueller probe was all about was did anybody work with the Russians in their efforts to interfere in the election?
And obviously, there was a spotlight on the President and his campaign. There was no criminal behavior, some shady behavior, but no criminal behavior.
Now, that's exactly what this is. Did the President go to a foreign power for help with his own election?
So, let's say the call is squishy. He talks about "You guys didn't look at Biden. I can't believe that. You know, you got real problems with corruption over there." But money isn't mentioned.
Let's say the idea of him withholding the money, while it seems plausible, and let's say--
SPANBERGER: Yes. CUOMO: --he even gets some people to testify, but it doesn't seem like a straight quid pro quo, and what's in the complaint is a pattern of behavior where this President says things that this Intelligence Officer has never heard before that just sounds bad, is that enough to impeach?
SPANBERGER: Well I think it depends. And - and, frankly, the whole purpose in beginning this investigation is to determine if these allegations against the President are true or false.
And, you know, I - I think that it would be a false line to walk down to assume that everybody wants it to be true. It would be devastating for this country, if these allegations, in fact, are true.
But we, as the American people, we, as lawmakers and legislators, we, as those who were sworn to protect our Constitution, need to know definitively yes or no where - is this what happened, or these allegations, do they - do they bear truth, so that we can move on as a country in whichever direction is necessary, pending - pending the outcome.
CUOMO: Are you open to anything not related to Ukraine? The efforts, you know, everything that you guys - your party has been talking about for the last year and a half. You know, often on this show, I say to--
SPANBERGER: Yes.
CUOMO: --big-time Democrats, you know, if you believe what you're suggesting you believe, the Constitution makes it clear that you are--
SPANBERGER: Yes.
CUOMO: --supposed to be going down the road of impeachment a long time ago. Are you open to anything else?
SPANBERGER: If there's evidence to be presented, you know, I have always been open to evidence that would speak to potential impeachable offenses.
But thus far, I have not heard anyone describe specific allegations, specific articles that would potentially be put forward, apart from those that have been put in the past and - and never made it to the floor.
CUOMO: So, all the firing of Comey, and how the President handled the investigation, and what he may have done that obstructed or not, you're not moved by that?
SPANBERGER: It's not that I'm not moved by that. But I have - when the - my colleagues on the Committees of Jurisdiction are ready to bring those before the larger House, I will weigh those facts and evidence, as it's presented.
But, as of right now, there has not been a - a clear, concise allegation leveled against the President about what did happen or what didn't. People mention, obstruction, people mention other allegations, but the actual case is not clear.
With - with this circumstance, it is cut and dry. The President allegedly sought to influence a foreign leader, and he sought to use security--
CUOMO: If the proof is there.
SPANBERGER: --assistance to our detriment - if the proof is there.
CUOMO: Let me ask you one last question, Congresswoman.
SPANBERGER: Front - in front of it (ph).
CUOMO: You are not in a homerun district for you.
SPANBERGER: That's right.
CUOMO: And that's why the - one of the reasons this needed to be a deliberative process makes sense pragmatically. If you go down this road, as a party, and you do not impeach, how bad do you think that is?
And if you go down the road, and you do impeach, but you do not remove, and you don't have a shot, and there isn't even a trial, how worried are you about that?
SPANBERGER: The voters in my districts elected me, I hope and presume, because they trusted me to do my job with integrity, and with principles, and with them in mind.
And I have been focused, pretty much non-stop, since I got here, on healthcare, and infrastructure, and education, and gun violence prevention. But I also have a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect everything that is important in this country.
[21:10:00]
These allegations are so profound, I wanted to make it clear to my constituents and, alongside my colleagues, to the rest of the country, that these allegations do represent impeachable offenses.
Congress should take them very, very seriously, focus on our duty. And when we are going through that process, in tandem, focus on the things that are important to the people back home, healthcare, infrastructure, trade, environment, gun violence prevention.
We - we can do both. That's what I'm going to be focused on. But it is vitally, vitally important that we also ensure that we are protecting the - our democracy that we are advocating for our democracy.
I've sworn an oath multiple times in my life to protect the Constitution. And this most recent - this most recent oath when I was sworn into Congress is - is no different. It's one I take very seriously.
And I believe that my constituents respect that, and respect that I will go through this process, in a thoughtful way with the best - with the best intentions, and with the best interests of the country in mind.
CUOMO: I hear you. And, in the op-ed, you guys say the "Flagrant disregard for the law cannot stand." Will there be meat on the bones of that speculation remains to be seen. But one thing's for sure, doesn't look likely to get a gun control deal done anytime soon if--
SPANBERGER: We've passed a great bill in the House already.
CUOMO: --if this moves forward. I know. But we know what's happening in the Senate. And now--
SPANBERGER: That's right.
CUOMO: --you have to believe resistance may be redoubled.
Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, thank you very much for making--
SPANBERGER: Thank you.
CUOMO: --your case to the audience.
SPANBERGER: Thank you so much.
CUOMO: All right.
Tomorrow is going to be another dizzying day because, as we said at the top, the President says, we'll see if he sticks to his word, that he's authorizing the release of the transcript of that call.
Now remember, it wasn't recorded. So, this is going to be a written- down reckoning with some review of what was said. That's why the whistleblower complaint still matters a lot, and news that it may get that to Congress. That matters.
So, what are the questions that you need to answer in order for that proof to be there. Let's take that on, 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: Soon, it looks like we'll know what is in the whistleblower's complaint. But how this situation has been handled and manipulated by the President, and his lawyer, to this point, already raises serious concerns.
The conflicting explanations coming from the President, whether the money was held back from Ukraine, because of corruption, or to increase European pressure, so we need the context.
Two reasons. One, because accountability and the constitutional check on POTUS by Congress demands no less, and because this involves a lot more than a suddenly corruption-conscious Commander-in-Chief and a single phone call.
When you go step by step, through what we already know, you see that multiple moves were made by at least half a dozen government and private offices to achieve the President's desired political pressure on Ukraine, despite the will of Congress.
Remember, this all started as a rare bipartisan stand against Vladimir Putin. This time, last year, we saw a combined vote in the House and Senate of 454 to 68. It was about defense appropriations and including military aid for Ukraine to fight back against Russia's intervention.
Twice this year, Congress was told the money was about to be released, and then nothing came of it. The White House line, the delays were part of a "Inter-agency process."
In May, POTUS, and his personal lawyer, started pushing their conspiracy theory over on Fox, and another Conservative media. As we've shown, multiple times, here on the show, they have yet to produce proof to back up their talk.
The facts do not support a connection between the U.S. government withholding aid to Ukraine and any investigation of then VP Biden's son. You got the proof? Put it up.
Back to the month of May, that is also when the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine was abruptly removed. That came after the President's namesake and others on the Right called her out as part of their anti-Biden narrative.
Then, we know around July 18th, POTUS ordered his Acting Chief of Staff to freeze the aid money. Then, National Security Advisor, John Bolton, and Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, were reportedly in on that conversation. On July 25th, POTUS talked with the Ukrainian leader on the phone.
We'll hopefully see specifics in the transcript. But we know that Biden came up perhaps more than once. Then, things started picking up speed in August.
That's when Giuliani announced that he'd met with a Ukrainian Rep. Now, he has suggested two things that counter each other. He did it only as counsel to POTUS. But then he said it was at the direction of the State Department.
Ask yourself. Exactly why would or how could the U.S. government ask a President's personal counsel to do such a thing?
It's also when someone in the Intelligence Community filed their complaint, which made it to the Acting DNI. The complaint reportedly involved several actions, in other words, more than just one phone call.
August also saw Bolton travel to Kiev, in Ukraine, where the made - he made news there by being out of sync with his boss, calling for more money to be spent. That's about the same time word broke that the President was moving to effectively block the money. This time, it was despite the objections of Bolton and the Pentagon.
[21:20:00]
So then we get to September - September 1st. Our Vice President had his own meeting with the Ukrainian President where, yes, the topic of corruption came up. We don't know if Biden was discussed by Pence.
If it seems curious to you that this POTUS and his staff were suddenly really interested in corruption, in Ukraine, much more than they ever were in their own Administration, remember, this President has never shown much interest in any of these scandals, among his own picks, in his own Administration.
Congress felt the same way and started investigating. September 9th that was. Three days later, the money gets released to Ukraine. What a coincidence!
We need to know what was said and why because none of the President's and his lash-out, prone lawyer's excuses seem to make sense.
The question is this. Did this President subvert the will of Congress to fund Ukraine in order to pressure our ally into digging up dirt on a political opponent? If the answer is yes, that abuse of power could provide a lot of fuel to the flames of potential impeachment.
Now, we're going to bring in someone trying to end what he calls all of that a "Witch-hunt." One of his backers in Congress, Lance Gooden, he says he's fed up, and that the person to move on is Chairman Nadler.
What's his case? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT. (END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, so what was the President's motive for withholding aid from Ukraine? He keeps saying that he did. He just keeps giving different reasons. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is a - is corrupt?
But my complaint has always been, and I'd withhold again, and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine, because they're not doing it. Just the United States, we're putting up the bulk of the money. And I'm asking, why is that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I wonder if the First Lady was thinking there, "Hmm! That wasn't your complaint yesterday, when you said you were holding it back because they're corrupt."
Now he says he's holding it back, so Europe puts money in. Let me ask you. Does that make sense? Would you keep money out as a way of incentivizing someone else to invest in a place that you say matters, or would you put money in to that effect?
Logic may not be the best part of the case. Politics and numbers will be. Republican Congressman Lance Gooden is here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Welcome back to PRIME TIME. As you've probably--
REP. LANCE GOODEN (R-TX): Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: --heard me say many times, Congressman, I just don't see the reality in the Senate. I don't even know if there's going to be a trial. I'll explain that to the audience later.
Let's put the pragmatism aside, and let me ask you about this. The fundamental question of "Did the President put pressure on Ukraine to look at Biden, and if they didn't, was there any type of suggestion they wouldn't get aid," do you believe that that question has value?
GOODEN: I believe that the question you're asking will be answered tomorrow based on what we've learned in the last hour and a half.
And that is that the White House is going to turn over the whistleblower complaint, they're going to turn over the transcript of the call, so the speculation that I've watched back and forth on this network for the last two hours will all be put to rest in about 12 hours, if the White House does as they're saying they're going to do tonight.
CUOMO: Why?
GOODEN: Well because the last 12 hours, or rather the last 72 hours, have been about what was discussed between these two Presidents, what is in this whistleblower report.
It sounds like, based on what we're hearing, in the last two hours, lot of time going on here, that tomorrow morning, both the whistleblower complaint, and the transcript of the call, are going to be released, so all these great questions can finally have an answer, and the speculation can stop.
CUOMO: Why does it end? The - the idea that - let's say the President didn't really mention money in the call with the Ukrainian President.
GOODEN: Yes. Let's - let--
CUOMO: I have to believe they wouldn't release the call--
GOODEN: Sure. Let's say.
CUOMO: --if they thought it was damning.
GOODEN: Let's speculate.
CUOMO: And let's say the compliant isn't that--
GOODEN: Let's guess.
CUOMO: --isn't that specific.
GOODEN: Or let's go to bed and wake up tomorrow and have answers to these questions.
CUOMO: But why do you think it will answer the questions? If the complaint says--
GOODEN: Well because the - the question is - the--
CUOMO: --I don't like what he said to the Ukraine President--
GOODEN: --the question is--
CUOMO: --how does that answer?
GOODEN: --what happened between the two of them, and what's in the whistleblower complaint. Those are the two primary questions that we don't have answers to. Everything you've seen happen today on Capitol Hill is all based on speculation.
I'm saying that the speculation of what took place between the two Presidents should be answered tomorrow morning. We can end speculation about what took place between the two.
Maybe what happens next is still under consideration. But at least we can stop questioning what happened between these two gentlemen.
CUOMO: So, you have no problem that the President gave two different explanations in two days for why he withheld the aid, and that they have nothing to do with one another?
GOODEN: I've often done things and had multiple reasons for doing them. I don't know why he withheld the aid. But I believe that, tomorrow morning, we'll have answers to questions that I've seen speculation run rampant on, across the weekend, these last few days.
CUOMO: But speculation suggests that you haven't known anything except that fundamental question. We keep learning more and more.
You'll remember, I think, Rudy Giuliani was on this show, and he went both ways on whether or not Biden was even in the offing, when he went to Ukraine. And he said that the President, he didn't know what he knew, and that he knew nothing about what he did.
And then we find out that the President was forwarding the same goal by withholding the money. Surely--
GOODEN: Sure.
CUOMO: --that's got to raise your ears a little bit.
GOODEN: The questions that I've heard the most, over the last 72 hours, are what's in the whistleblower complaint, what happened between--
CUOMO: Yes.
GOODEN: --these two gentlemen.
CUOMO: Fundamental.
[21:30:00]
GOODEN: Fundamentally, we'll have answers to those questions tomorrow, and then let's talk.
CUOMO: And - so, you want to say let's see what's in there.
GOODEN: Sure.
CUOMO: Do you have any reason to know what's in there, by the way? You got any scoop for us?
GOODEN: That's above my pay-grade.
CUOMO: Too bad! So, if there are open questions after tomorrow, are you in favor of pursuing them?
GOODEN: I'm in favor of coming back on this show, and talking with you about it, and let's move forward from there.
I have a feeling that no matter what comes out tomorrow, just like with - we go back in time to the Mueller investigation, and the hearing, no matter what Democrats find out, we're going to still be talking about it.
So, I'm confident that this time, tomorrow, you'll still be talking about it, no matter what we learn tomorrow morning.
CUOMO: I would congratulate you for your benign outlook on all of this, if it weren't for the fact that you are moving to remove Chairman Nadler, because you're so frustrated by the process.
What is the legal basis, or you don't need one, this is politics, why--
GOODEN: No, actually--
CUOMO: --do you think you should get rid of him?
GOODEN: Oddly enough, it may surprise you. We're not just making this stuff up. The House Rules say that the House determines whether or not there's an impeachment inquiry. We have to actually vote on that.
What's been happening since July, when Chairman Nalder just went forward for this investigation, was he was doing this on his own. He said, his words exactly, "We are in the middle of impeachment. I am investigating. This is an inquiry."
None of that's legal. House Rules, which are determined via the Constitution, the rule of law says that the U.S. House of Representatives--
CUOMO: No.
GOODEN: --has to vote on that.
CUOMO: No.
GOODEN: And that's not happened. If you go back to July, we actually had a vote on impeachment, and it failed. Democrats didn't like that. And so, now they're saying--
CUOMO: Yes.
GOODEN: --let's just investigate, investigate. What Nancy Pelosi said today--
CUOMO: Well you're supposed to investigate.
GOODEN: --what Nancy Pelosi said today--
CUOMO: Yes.
GOODEN: --was no different than what's been happening this whole entire Congress. CUOMO: I don't disagree. Here is what the Constitution says. I don't know if you can see--
GOODEN: Appreciate that.
CUOMO: --Congressman. But you see these bags under my eyes? I've been reading about this ad nauseam recently.
GOODEN: Your makeup covers them well.
CUOMO: Not well enough. I got to get on it.
The idea is this. The Constitution says the sole power to impeach rests with you guys, and the sole power to try for potential removal deals with the Senate. There are no procedures.
You are correct. You must have a majority vote for there to be articles of impeachment. And you--
GOODEN: Then let's have one. Let's have one.
CUOMO: No, no, wait, hold on, hold on, hold on--
GOODEN: If Democrats want to impeach the President--
CUOMO: --I'm trying - hold on.
GOODEN: --grow a spine.
CUOMO: You said you--
GOODEN: Let's throw it out there and vote on it.
CUOMO: You said you weren't making it up. I'm just saying there are no procedures in the Constitution, there is no right way and wrong way to proceed with impeachment. There isn't even anything called an impeachment inquiry in the Constitution.
GOODEN: I will - I will email - I will--
CUOMO: All you need is the majority vote. So, what did he do wrong?
GOODEN: --I will email to your producer the House Rules that spell it out. And that's not how it's being done right now.
And that's why I'm saying, if we're going to actually move forward into this impeachment process, which it sounds like we're going to get there, if you talk to Nancy Pelosi, and the far-Left Caucus that's driving the agenda, if we actually get to that point, we need someone to at least be fair.
Chairman Nadler has not been. He's gone on his own and said this is how we're going to do it. That's just not how the House Rules say. We've talked to Parliamentarians. We've talked to former Members, both parties. And I'll be happy to share with you the actual rules--
CUOMO: No, no, I'm not saying that there--
GOODEN: --that spell it out.
CUOMO: --aren't procedures. But I don't know that that gets you to lose your Chairmanship, and the Judiciary is where you're supposed to be doing this contemplating, although you don't have to.
GOODEN: Oh, the Judiciary, absolutely.
CUOMO: You could create a special panel.
GOODEN: But let's have someone that's actually fair and is going to follow the law that's not going to say--
CUOMO: Well--
GOODEN: --we're impeaching the President. We're not in the middle of an impeachment process.
CUOMO: Well I don't believe that Nadler has ever said--
GOODEN: We haven't voted on it.
CUOMO: --he's impeaching. In fact, I've pushed him on it.
GOODEN: Absolutely he says.
CUOMO: I've pushed him on it--
GOODEN: I will - I will send you the tape--
CUOMO: --several times.
GOODEN: --before I go to bed tonight. He said we are--
CUOMO: And he says they're doing the investigating.
GOODEN: --we are in impeachment now. I'll send you the quote.
CUOMO: Because his point is that it's all the same body of investigation that anything you want to call it, you can call it.
But until you call for a vote of the entire Chamber, you're investigating, as you should, and they better be able to make one hell of a case, if they're going to bring articles of impeachment against a President. It better not--
GOODEN: And here's - but here's the thing.
CUOMO: --seem on just politics.
GOODEN: Democrats don't really want to impeach the President. They want to be under an impeachment process throughout the next election cycle.
Democrats know that if they vote for impeachment, even if they are able to muster up the votes, which by the way, they can't, because they have 31 Democrats in districts that went for Trump in the last election cycle, they know they don't have the votes for impeachment.
But let's just assume for a second they did. When that goes to the Senate, the Senate will acquit the President. They know that. So--
CUOMO: I don't even know that they'll try him.
GOODEN: Maybe not. I'm - I'm with you. They may not. My point is, is why waste all these time - this time and these resources? Why not get to work for the American people?
All I hear from Democrats--
CUOMO: Because--
GOODEN: --all I hear from Democrats--
CUOMO: --because the Senate won't do anything.
GOODEN: --when we took office, I'm a freshman, all my freshmen colleagues, across the aisle, said, "Lance, I want to work with you. We want to get to work for the American people."
CUOMO: Yes. And you guys have passed a ton of stuff.
GOODEN: "We want to put all this, all of this--
CUOMO: And the Senate won't put any of it on the floor.
GOODEN: --partisanship behind." But now we're talking about--
CUOMO: Go call Mitch McConnell.
GOODEN: --impeaching the President. It's outrageous.
CUOMO: Why don't you call Mitch McConnell and say that?
GOODEN: I will call Mitch McConnell, and ask him, "Do you think it's wise for the Democrats to take up--
CUOMO: That's--
GOODEN: --the next three months--
CUOMO: That's not what I'm asking. I'm just asking--
GOODEN: --pursuing the President." I'll call him.
[21:35:00]
CUOMO: --why didn't you ask him to put some votes on the floor on some of the bills that your House passed?
GOODEN: Some of these bills - most all of them actually, are bills that Republicans wanted to work with Democrats on. But Democrats know that if we work across the aisle, and actually have a bill that we're all in unison on, then the President might actually sign it.
God forbid the President signs something that the House passes because then we'd have to give the President a victory. Democrats won't go for that. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, they won't even take it up because they know it's bipartisan, because they know the votes are there.
And if it passes the House, it sells through the Senate, and the President signs it--
CUOMO: Well the sad--
GOODEN: --and then the President can declare victory, which--
CUOMO: The--
GOODEN: --that's something that the Democrats won't allow.
CUOMO: The sad reality is, Lance, that they say the same things about the other side. And you know what? I'll agree with you on this, as I did the last time I saw you. And you're welcome back again.
GOODEN: Thank you.
CUOMO: The more you guys can figure out how to do things together, the better. Will this move help that? I doubt it. But I appreciate you being here to make the case.
GOODEN: I want to make a quick prediction.
CUOMO: Go ahead.
GOODEN: Quick prediction.
CUOMO: You got it.
GOODEN: On Election Night, Donald Trump gets re-elected, and today, today, today is a milestone that Democrats will regret.
CUOMO: Noted. I'll talk to you soon.
GOODEN: Thank you.
CUOMO: Be well.
GOODEN: Thanks.
CUOMO: All right, how well - will all this impact the 2020 race, prescient notion from Congressman Gooden? We heard from Joe Biden today. Are his Democratic opponents uniting around him? How did they feel about this? What are the stakes?
Mayor Pete Buttigieg is here. Where is his head? Where is his heart? 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)
[21:40:00]
CUOMO: The impeachment move in the House changes the equation for everyone, the Left, the Right, you guys, the reasonable ones, and certainly the people who want to be President, including the man sitting next to me, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Always a pleasure, good to have you.
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IN) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Glad to be with you.
CUOMO: Surprised?
BUTTIGIEG: A little bit. But we knew that, at some point, we would hit a breaking point, and we are there. This is a moment of truth for the country. I think this is a moment of truth for the Republican Party.
Sooner or later, it had to come, because any one of these abuses that we've seen, over recent years, any one of them could have been career- ending for any other President.
The issue is they all came at once, and it shocked the system, the system couldn't figure out how to deal with it. Now, the system is kicking in. And the Constitution is kicking in. And there's going to be a process that leads to some kind of accountability on this.
CUOMO: You're worried that you haven't seen the call, haven't seen the complaint?
BUTTIGIEG: It's not just about the call. It's not just about the complaint. But we do know that we have seen in plain view the President of the United States confess to wrongdoing. He didn't look very guilty when he did it. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a confession.
And, right now, we see strong evidence that the American President may have sold out U.S. national security interests, to go after a political opponent. That's just the latest in a number of things, any one of which might be impeachable.
But the real question is what standard are we going to hold the Presidency to? This isn't just about this President. This is about the American Presidency, because if a line is not drawn now, then future Presidents, even long after our lifetimes, will have a different and lower bar for what they think they can get away with.
CUOMO: Now they - opposite in the reverse, right, that if you - we've learned from Andrew Johnson that precedent that you're not supposed to go out after a President with impeachment for political disagreement.
BUTTIGIEG: That's right.
CUOMO: And that if you set this as the precedent that just because you don't like what he was saying to somebody else, you try to impeach him--
BUTTIGIEG: Absolutely.
CUOMO: --then impeachment will become every cycle.
BUTTIGIEG: Absolutely. And this impeachment should be bipartisan. I say should be because I've--
CUOMO: Yes. Good luck!
BUTTIGIEG: --I'm not getting my hopes up. But look, this is also a moment of truth for the Republican Party.
Every Republican in elected office, from Representative Jackie Walorski, back home in South Bend, all the way up to people like Mitch McConnell, need to decide what they're going to go down in history for, because this is one of those moments, one of those pivotal moments, where Republicans can decide whether to defend, not just this country, but their party, from actions that fly in the face of their own values, not just mine, or whether they were going to make excuses for this President, like that fellow who's just on now.
CUOMO: Really poignant you reconnecting in Iowa with the 16-year-old who said "Pete, you know, you helped me feel good with who I am."
BUTTIGIEG: Yes.
CUOMO: When you're out on the hustings that kind of stuff resonates - resonates with you. What are you hearing from people about this about how important this is, accountability, sure, but impeachment as the mechanism?
BUTTIGIEG: So, I have been one of the candidates who has really not loved getting into this discussion because there are so many things on the ground that need attention, from healthcare, to an economy that's not working for most of us.
And I think if we hadn't failed, as a country, to handle those issues, over recent decades, we never would have got a President like this one within cheating distance to the Oval Office in the first place. So, I'm the last one to be enthusiastic about this topic.
But we have been forced into it. And what I'll say is, having just wrapped up a four-day bus tour of Iowa, it used to be the number of times I would hear about this is approximately zero per day.
Now, it's about once per event. It's still not the top thing on the minds of most of the people that I meet.
People want to know if their kids are going to be OK in school with gun violence. They want to know how they're going to be able to afford healthcare. But it is coming up more. And I think it's on people's minds more.
Now, I don't know what this will mean politically. This is one of those moments that comes along where I think you just have to state what the right thing is, and then figure out the politics around that, rather than the other way around.
But I will say this is - I was struck in my appearances the last couple days, how much more this is starting to be on the minds of voters who in communities where I don't usually hear very much about this.
CUOMO: I think one of the things that worked for the President, and for Mr. Giuliani, is that they put Biden on the table.
One of the things that didn't work was the hostility. And the recklessness with the facts made people look at the situation. And you've seen momentum building that this is not what they sold it as originally. Be that as it may. We'll see where that leads.
As I said to Congresswoman Spanberger, you're not going to get gun control done now. You're not going to get anything done once you go down this road.
This man is not Bill Clinton. He cannot compartmentalize and start cutting deals that will get him higher job approval numbers after he gets impeached than before. You're making a trade here as Democrats.
BUTTIGIEG: Well if the thing we're trading away is this President's capacity to get things done on a bipartisan basis, that the American majority want, we're not trading much.
[21:45:00]
None of the things, even the things we thought he might do on a bipartisan basis, that brief moment where he pretended to be for gun safety, the original - you remember a couple years ago, us thinking for - for just a minute that may be something would at least happen on infrastructure, because it would benefit him politically, in addition to being the right thing to do.
But other than a tax cut for corporations, this President has delivered on nothing, even the things he promised that some - a majority of Americans might have been for. We're not losing much when it comes to the idea that this Presidency won't be doing deals.
What we are, I think, though going to have to do, as - as a party, on our side, is to do two things at once. Maybe this President can't do two things at once. We'll see if this Congress can do two things at once.
But, right now, the American people are deciding who our next President is going to be. And the issues that got us here are going to be issues when this President comes and goes, from gun safety, to climate change, to immigration, to wages, to healthcare.
CUOMO: Are you open to questions about the VP's son, and what the VP did, and why, in China or Ukraine, do you believe any of those are open issues?
BUTTIGIEG: No. And I don't think we should allow this kind of Whataboutism that allows what was clearly a - an egregious pattern of behavior by this President, to turn into an excuse to - to allow them to say "Look over there. Look at this thing that happened."
We are talking about an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented, breach of the oath of office by the American President. And if they try to change the subject, we've got to make sure that that can't happen.
CUOMO: Very interesting to hear, right now, a political opponent close the door on something that could be damaging to - to Joe Biden, you don't even want to go there.
BUTTIGIEG: I'm going to use the word--
CUOMO: Very interesting.
BUTTIGIEG: --"Competitor" rather than "Opponent," because among Democrats, there are all - we're competing for the same job, but we also know what's at stake for the country.
And this is a moment, again, where if things were working properly here, Republicans would be right alongside the Democrats, demanding that there be accountability, and that the rule of law be applied to this President, the way it is to everybody else in this country.
CUOMO: If ifs and buts were cherries and nuts, we'd all have a beautiful Christmas. We'll see what happens on this. They've 13 months to go before anybody starts the vote, so a lot can happen in the race. We welcome you here all along the way.
BUTTIGIEG: Thank you.
CUOMO: Mayor Pete, thank you very much.
BUTTIGIEG: Good to be with you.
CUOMO: All right, it is a big gamble for Democrats, and we'll lay out why. An impeachment inquiry doesn't even really exist. It's all about the end goal and how you get there. What is the plus/minus politically, all right?
And we're going to take a trip back in time because you learn where you are today by where you have been before, 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: Remember the day, September 24th, 2019, a day that will live in info - well let's see, let's see how it's remembered.
The Speaker of the House announced a formal impeachment inquiry against this President, making him only the fourth to face a serious impeachment threat.
What a club to be a part of! Think about it. Andrew Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, now Trump. And remember, Nixon resigned before the full House had a chance to vote on articles of impeachment, so only Johnson and Clinton were actually impeached, neither removed.
The argument is this is a massive test for both sides. For the President, the irony that after all the Russian interference concern, and all the insistence that this President would never go to a foreign power for help in his election, he's now potentially accused of exactly that.
But the Constitution sets out this power, not merely for political payback, or push-back against policies. Google the "Johnson Impeachment" for the true precedent.
He was impeached on a 11 counts. It was a laundry list of all the things they didn't like about him, a racist, a bully, he went after people. But the Senate came up one vote short of removal, twice. The message, this can't just be about politics.
Clinton, also a cautionary tale, for both sides. Certainly informs why this President was so wary of sitting under oath with Mr. Mueller because that's what led to Clinton getting caught in the Lewinsky trap.
But Congress may also have misfired there. It's no doubt one reason the House Speaker was so cautious about declaring an impeachment inquiry here, the prevailing logic had backfired on Republicans with Clinton. He wasn't removed.
And second, Democrats picked up five House seats in the next election, but a Republican won the White House in 2000, in a controversy of its own, so maybe the outrage helped both sides.
We may see a new wrinkle in the potential Trump impeachment, a non- compliant Senate. Not only are Republicans loath to move against this President, but experts suggest that while a Senate trial is contemplated in the Constitution, it doesn't have to happen. McConnell might just hold a vote, cancel the trial.
But the ultimate test here is how each side views its duty to the people in the Constitution as captured in their oath of office. Principle must win out over pragmatism, facts over farce, high crimes over hype, the interests of the people over politics.
Easy to say, but as we've all seen, hard to do.
They may hold a vote in the House, less likely in the Senate, but all will be measured by what they do now in a vote next fall.
So, how many votes do they need to impeach? Where do the numbers stand? What about removal? What would even work in the Senate? I have a special BOLO for you about where we're headed, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO! That means Be On the Look-Out. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi officially on board with an impeachment inquiry. So, what is that, and what does it mean going forward?
Well the Constitution gives the sole power, to impeach, to the House. But it doesn't really tell it how to do it. And there is no such formal step as an inquiry. There are House Rules. But basically they're going to do it the way they want.
It is necessary to do one thing, a simple majority vote on the ultimate accusations or articles of impeachment generated by a Committee. Six House Committees are now formally investigating President Trump on potential impeachable offenses.
The Constitution states the bar is high crimes or misdemeanors. But the standard is whatever gets a majority vote.
So, here is the BOLO for the next steps, more hearings, more opposition from POTUS, which opposition may not be treated as well by judges, in light of the specter of impeachment.
Once the investigating is done, articles of impeachment can pass out of the Judiciary Committee, or whatever Committee does them, by majority vote. But that doesn't have to happen. The only must, again, is the majority vote of the entire House to impeach. The numbers, about a 195 out of 235 Democrats are already on board with the inquiry. They would eventually need 218 to pass the vote in the House.
As we argued earlier, there may be no trial in the Senate. But if there is, House Representatives would prosecute, lawyers for this President would defend, and then the full Senate votes. It takes two- thirds to give Trump the "You're fired."
But again, at this point, that is unlikely because 54 of the 100 are GOP, and you need 66, and you've seen their willingness to go against the President. So, the next big step is how good a case can the House Democrats make, and we're going to see that sooner than later.
Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
