Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Interview with Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-MI; Washington Post: Trump Told Russian Officials In 2017 He Wasn't Concerned About Moscow's Interference In U.S. Election; Sources: White House Also Restricted Access To Trump's Calls With Saudi Crown Prince, Putin; Sources: U.S. Special Envoy To Ukraine Resigns. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 27, 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: --Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Thank you very much, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME. We have breaking news on our watch. So, let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right big news - big news.
The Washington Post just reported - remember that weird meeting at the White House with President Trump and the Russians and Rex Tillerson where the Russians kind of laughed at the American media as they sauntered in to this meeting with the President and other officials?
Well The Post reports that our President told the Russians in that meeting that he wasn't concerned about Moscow's interference in the U.S. election because, his reasoning went, the U.S. did the same thing in other countries.
Let me quote directly from the Post reporting. Here's what we're - well look, that's the gist of the story, all right? Now, why does this matter now? Here's how it fits in.
It's part of the bigger story. It seems that it's not just the call with Ukraine that the White House tried to keep secret. The memo and the readouts about what the President said to these Russians was also something that was secreted away.
So, you can add it to calls between President Trump and the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammad Bin Salman and between the President and Vladimir Putin. Why? These are certainly unusual moves that must be explained.
It's not clear if those calls were given the same level of super- secrecy that we now know came with the call to Ukraine's President, where the President asked for an investigation of the Bidens. But it is another crack in a wall of silence.
There was an even bigger blow, I would argue, today, shedding light on mounting concern in the White House. The U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker resigned today, just one day after the whistleblower report came out.
Why? Also, not clear yet. But he is mentioned in that whistleblower complaint. And we're going to look at how Volker fits into this evermore tangled web around this President and his lawyer in just a little bit.
But, right now, I want to get to a Congresswoman whose words may have helped drive Speaker Pelosi's decision to conduct an impeachment inquiry.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Representative Elissa Slotkin joins me now on PRIME TIME.
It is good to have you.
REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Thanks for having me.
CUOMO: And I would ask you to exercise judgment that has two hats, one, your experience working with the government, in the Intelligence field, and as a lawmaker now with responsibility to your constituents.
When you hear this first report, give me your reaction on two fronts, one, the idea of the President saying that to the Russians, and two, that type of information being kept somewhat secret.
SLOTKIN: Yes. I mean, listen, I also worked at the National Security Council under both Presidents Bush and President Obama, so I'm - I'm aware of kind of how normal procedure goes. And I think there's no way around it just the breaking of norms and traditions that has gone on from the very beginning is just it's a little hard to take.
And, you know, I think the President, back in 2017, clearly didn't understand what we do and do not do in other people's elections, and was flippant about it. And now, of course, many, many things, many months have gone by, and we know a lot more about the story.
But, to be honest with you, I think a lot of this stuff that we're talking about now, it's - it's - there are details that are part of the story, but it - it sort of gets caught in the details when we don't focus on the big picture. And the big picture--
CUOMO: I agree with you. I agree with you.
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: So, let's transition to that.
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: Because his statements to the Russians write it off to ignorance or flippancy, as you say.
But the arrogance of creating a two-tiered system of how you protect information, you know, it's no coincidence to me that the Washington Post is finding out what happened in that meeting now that there's all this exposure about this other system.
Now, have you heard about this other system, the password system--
SLOTKIN: Sure.
CUOMO: --that the Ukraine call was in? Is that something that you guys do in the Intelligence world or they do at the NSC?
SLOTKIN: So - so, again, at the NSC, there are multiple types of systems, some for unclassified information, some for classified, and then some for what's called codeword, which is really exceptionally classified, compartmented information that even people with a top secret clearance don't necessarily get to see.
And what, you know, breaks with, you know, some Executive Orders is anyone taking information from the unclassified system that has no reason to be classified, and putting it in one of those higher-level systems.
Because I learned on my first day as a CIA officer, there are many, many different strict ways you can classify information. But embarrassing information, politically-sensitive information that is not classified information. So, what they did by moving it wasn't right.
[21:05:00]
I still think, you know, the - that - it keeps us in the weeds a little bit from the bigger story, which is what the President did to use his leverage to get dirt on a political opponent.
That is the story that is the big thing here that was different enough for myself, and my fellow national security freshman, to come out for an impeachment inquiry.
But, you know, we're - we're doing a methodical process now. I'm really glad to see that a number of the Committee members are staying behind. They've been asked to stay behind, here in Washington, to follow through with some of the--
CUOMO: Instead of recess.
SLOTKIN: Yes, instead of recess, because it shows a different process.
But I - I just - I think that one of the things that we've been losing, you know, in the past couple of months on this, is we're not bringing the American people along with this story, you know.
The drip, drip, drip of information on this thing, or that thing, it's all - it's important. But we got to be able to bring people along, so it's not a Washington Insider baseball story.
CUOMO: Fine. But, you know, you guys have a challenge because you're telling a new story now. I get that this is new information about Ukraine.
But, you know, but for months, Democrats were saying "We already have enough. This is already obstruction. And we're - we're fighting with ourselves to figure out what to call it, but we already know we have enough."
Now, you don't even want to talk about any of that stuff anymore. It's only about Ukraine. You know, that could send a message to people as well, Congressman. You worried about that?
SLOTKIN: I think it's - I - I think that putting the country through something like an impeachment inquiry is such a serious thing that we shouldn't do it lightly.
For me, this was not something I ever came to Congress to do. It's not something I go into gleefully or lightly at all. So, for me, it just it crossed a certain threshold that has to do with national security. It is different. And--
CUOMO: Explain that because here's what people are saying to me all the time.
SLOTKIN: Sure.
CUOMO: And look at it in this context because you're new to this particular world even with all the Intel experience. Now, you're in the world of complete perfidy, where nobody expects any integrity on any level from anybody, sadly, and I hope that changes.
SLOTKIN: So sad.
CUOMO: But they say they all do what he did. Look, Biden did it with his son. And we course-correct as much as we can where the facts tell us. But people say, "This is what they do, and now you're going to throw somebody out of Office for doing what the industry norm is in Washington?"
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: What do you say?
SLOTKIN: I say it's not the industry norm. It is not the industry norm for the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful man in the world, to reach out to a junior partner nation, and leverage that for dirt on a political opponent. That is not normal.
Imagine a Democratic President reaching out to China or North Korea and doing the same thing. The precedent that's being set here, it just is different.
And it's also about the future, not about the past, right? It's about the 2020 elections, not 2016, so there's an urgency about it. It is different. And that's why even though it's not something that I ever wanted to do, we and, you know, a - a number of us came out this week. It is different.
And we have to remember that there's strategically important and there's tactically important. Keep it at the strategic level.
CUOMO: Are you equally concerned, as others, in the Caucus now, that the call is not all, they keep saying to me.
It is just a window into something that was a year in the making, many months in the making, involves the State Department, people in the White House, on multiple levels, and what they were telling people in Congress about why funding was being held, how they were changing different standards of classification to protect, what access Mr. Giuliani was being given, as we saw with the texts that he released about Mr. Volker, who just resigned.
How many different layers are you considering in making your case to the American people about what this rises to as an abuse?
SLOTKIN: I think that we need to do a thorough investigation. We are starting that next week.
I think we need to look into the details and we need to be methodical about it. We can't be jumping the gun on anything. That doesn't mean the whole kitchen sink goes into this conversation.
CUOMO: Some in your party say you want to vote next month. You think that's possible?
SLOTKIN: I think that we should let the investigation play out, and let the facts drive the conversation. And - and I'm not - I'm not foreclosing anything. I do think the process needs to be strategic, clear, and efficient.
CUOMO: What's the standard? How bad does it have to be to justify saying that this President should lose what the - what the people gave him?
SLOTKIN: I think that if the President has put his own personal or political gain above the security of the country that meets the criteria of an impeachable offense, to me.
And - and, listen, I - I - no one wants to be going through this. But we are pushed to a point where to preserve the - the Constitution and our democratic elections, we need to do this, and we need to inquire and figure out what happened. And I think that we have to have certain standards and norms. I - I - I don't think that it's a crazy thing to look into this as a very different matter. And I think only this and only something that challenges my oath to protect and defend the Constitution would have brought me to this place.
CUOMO: So, you believe it is a legitimate question as to whether or not this President jeopardized the national security of the United States in doing what he did with Ukraine?
[21:10:00]
SLOTKIN: I think that is what is on the table and we need to figure that out, yes.
CUOMO: What does it mean to you that Volker stepped down, the Special Envoy to Ukraine? He was working as a volunteer. He's also at the McCain Institute there, wearing two hats. This is somewhat atypical.
He kind of stepped in to a - there's a big hole there in Ukraine diplomatic corps. So, he steps down right after the whistleblower complaint comes out that he was mentioned in.
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: Doesn't look good.
SLOTKIN: I mean, for me, I think it's important, I think it's interesting that he's stepping down because I think it allows him to be freed up, to have a real conversation.
I think he will undoubtedly be called in to give his side of the story, to talk about what he knows in front of the, you know, U.S. Congress, and I think it's better to do that as a private citizen than someone who is still in the employ of this Administration who's--
CUOMO: Although, you know, that - with Corey Lewandowski, as you know, Congresswoman, they tried to - you know, Lewandowski said they're exercising their Executive Privilege. He never even worked in the White House.
If they did it with Lewandowski, they could do it with him, but the rule's always been clear. I guess you could litigate it. But the rule has been clear. If you're not working there anymore, you're not under the privilege anymore.
SLOTKIN: Well let's all hope that not every witness is like Mr. Lewandowski. I - I think that Ambassador Volker is a serious professional, and he understands that this is a crisis right now, and that he owes his clear and objective responses to Congress.
CUOMO: What do you make, in your analysis, with your experience in the Intelligence Community, of Mr. Giuliani?
Now, one problem is he told me he was doing this on his own, and I asked him specifically, "Are you working under color of authority of the President," certainly the State Department would fit into that, he said "No." Then later, he said--
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --"Yes," he is working with the State Department. He seems to be telling the truth. Those texts he put out with Volker seemed to suggest he was working.
Is there a situation or a circumstance where that is OK for a civilian to be working with the State Department, doing these types of things with Ukraine?
SLOTKIN: It's - it's highly unusual. I - I don't know if it's been done in the past, but it is highly unusual, not something I've seen in 15 years in government.
And again, I think, mixing political and personal with professional and national security issues is always a dangerous game, and never worth it. And I think that it's been cloudy at best, starting with your interview with Mr. Giuliani.
And I think he's acknowledged the very basic topline fact here, which is that the President used his leverage on Ukraine to get them to provide some dirt on a political opponent. He acknowledged it, in front of you, in front of everyone else.
And - and that's what's changed for me is that they were open about it. They didn't seem to be shameful about it. And I just cannot accept that as an Army wife, as the mom of a - of a stepdaughter in the Army, the Commander-in-Chief can't be doing that.
CUOMO: It is interesting how many of you heard Rudy Giuliani lay out the Biden case as flagrantly as he did, treat the facts the way he did, use the tone that he did, and it started to make you think differently about what you had to do in this situation. That certainly was not his intention.
Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, thank you so much for offering your perspective. You have an open invitation to come here. The American people need to know. As you said, they have to be brought along every step of the way.
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: Thank you for doing so tonight, especially on a Friday.
SLOTKIN: Thank you.
CUOMO: Although, to be honest, there are no more Fridays. It's like every night is a big night now. Tonight, we're learning a lot about the lengths the White House went to, to conceal details of the President's calls and conversations.
You just heard someone who worked in the Intelligence Community, and at the NSC, she said, "I - I - I wasn't aware that people were doing this kind of stuff." She'd be aware!
The question is why are they doing this? Two reporters, who are all over this story, with some insight, 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: Look, we all know the basic axiom. "If you have nothing to worry about, you don't hide."
So, why are we learning about things being hidden, among the many questions being raised tonight, as we learn about the White House's efforts to limit access to President Trump's calls with a lot of people, not just the Ukraine President, but with Putin, and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and what the President told Russian officials in the Oval Office in 2017, while dismissing their election interference.
So, let's bring in Jim Baker and Jim Sciutto.
Obviously, you guys know Jim Sciutto, Anchor here. Jim Baker, you know he is not a journalist. He's obviously someone with legal acumen in the exact area that we're dealing with.
Jimmy, you were on top of this early on, the significance to the audience, why does this news matter?
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, CNN CO-ANCHOR, CNN NEWSROOM: Well, listen, let's start with the Oval Office meeting here. There's no other way to describe it but as a betrayal of U.S. national security interests.
Russia has just interfered in America's political process. And the President tells senior Russian officials, "He's fine with it, it's OK," which excuses the interference in 2016, but you could say reasonably welcomes interference in elections to follow. That - that is an enormous betrayal.
So, you have the behavior and the comments and then you have the cover-up, where officials knowing that that statement to Russian officials is something that should not be known by the public, so they take extraordinary measures to keep it not just from the public, but from other members of Trump's own Administration.
And, as we reported tonight, Chris, my colleague, Pamela Brown and I, that it was not limited to that meeting in the Oval Office. It was not limited to the steps they took after the call with the Ukraine President.
They took similar steps after the President spoke with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to conceal those records--
CUOMO: Right.
SCIUTTO: --and after he's - after he spoke to the Saudi Crown Prince. So, it is a pattern of troublesome conversations with foreign leaders, followed by extraordinary steps to conceal those conversations, not just from you and me, but from other members of his own Administration.
[21:20:00]
CUOMO: All right, so, Jim, point/counterpoint.
Their argument is, "Hey, we have all different types of ways of classifying things. It's up to us and our discretion. If you don't like it, complain or vote us out. But it's certainly not something that you could see as an abuse of power."
What's the counter?
JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL: It is an abuse of power. It is an abuse of power because it's not - things are supposed - let me back up.
The President has authority, as Commander-in-Chief, and - and the Head of Foreign Relations for the United States, to classify information. That's true under the Constitution. But it has to be for that purpose.
It cannot be for the purpose of protecting him and his Administration from embarrassment because he says things that are actually contrary to the national security interests of the United States, or unlawful.
And I mean unlawful in the sense of unconstitutional, in dereliction of his duties as Commander-in-Chief, and in dereliction of his oath - oath of office. So, he - he - he gets to classify information, but only to protect the national security.
CUOMO: All right. What if the--
BAKER: That's what he can do.
CUOMO: What if the national security risk is "There are too many leaks, Jim, too many leaks."
BAKER: Well leaks--
CUOMO: "I have to keep this quiet. They're killing me in here. We have to protect these things. Ukraine is a sensitive situation. They're a fragile place. MBS, fragile. Putin, they're trying to expose me as a Russian agent. Have to keep this stuff quiet, away from the leakers."
BAKER: Well, look, leaking truly classified information, obviously, is unlawful, right? That should not be done. But this stuff, again, it is not - it is not properly, in my mind, not
properly classified when it's done just to protect the political interests of the President or other people or to preserve them from embarrassment, and in the Executive Order that governs classified information, it says that.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BAKER: That's what the rules say. You cannot classify information just to prevent embarrassment or to cover up violations of law, including violations of the Constitution.
SCIUTTO: And Chris, to that point--
CUOMO: Jim - yes, Jim.
SCIUTTO: --we - we know, based on past Administration's use of this codeword-protected system, they did not use that for politically- embarrassing information. And I'm talking about Republican and Democratic administrations that preceded this one.
They used it solely, or at least principally, for conversations that included the most sensitive Intelligence, sources and methods etcetera. For instance, the Osama bin Laden raid, information about that, secret negotiations at the time with Iran about a nuclear deal.
They did - they - they used it for those kinds of--
CUOMO: Right.
SCIUTTO: --conversations, not conversations that are politically- sensitive.
CUOMO: So--
SCIUTTO: So, this - this was, at a minimum, and I'll let Jim speak to the legal aspect, but in terms of how classified information was handled in this system, it was a clear break with the norm.
CUOMO: I mean, look, I think in terms of legalities, the biggest problem that this President has right now is if this stuff is true, about all the different aspects that went into working Ukraine to get to Biden, you're going to have misappropriation of federal assets for political purposes. He's going to - he's going to have a problem with that.
But I want to turn our - our - our attention to Volker because, you know, working sources around the President--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
CUOMO: --it's the first time guys I've ever had them not trash someone who was leaving. No one is trashing Volker. They're saying, "He's a good guy. He left. We don't know why you say it looks bad. It looks the way you want it to look."
How does it not look bad? Jim Sciutto, what could I be missing about him leaving the day after the whistleblower complaint--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
CUOMO: --that he's mentioned in, the Special Envoy to Ukraine resigns?
SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, listen, he is, by position, meant to be America's primary official dealing with Ukraine affairs.
In fact, we saw from the President's use of his own personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that - that from the President's perspective, it appears he was using someone else, in effect, outside of the government--
CUOMO: That's a key point.
SCIUTTO: --doing an end-around.
CUOMO: That's a key point, Jimmy.
SCIUTTO: Right?
CUOMO: Jim Baker, pick up on that. Help us with the legalities. We saw the texts from Volker to Rudy Giuliani.
Did Rudy Giuliani have to register as a foreign agent? When is it OK, if ever, for a private citizen to work with the State Department this way? What are the legalities involved?
BAKER: Well so it's a bit tricky. But like - let's back up, generally speaking, under the Constitution, the President does have authority to select what envoys or emissaries that he wants to engage with, or have engaged with foreign leaders, on his behalf.
He can do it through the official channels of the State Department or he can do it through others. That, to me, doesn't - doesn't freak me out. Let me just put it that way.
But he does have to be careful about how he's spending U.S. government funds, exactly what's happening, if he's putting State Department people out there, saying something different, con - contradicting what Giuliani might be - be saying behind closed doors.
I mean, look, the way this has come out, it does not look like a professional and well-thought-out strategy--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
[21:25:00]
BAKER: --by the President to effect the Foreign Relations of the United States in a comprehensive and cohesive way. It looks like Amateur Hour with - with the former Mayor going around and saying the things that he does. It just it looks terrible. So, we'll see what Mr. Volker has to say.
CUOMO: Right. I got to leave it there. SCIUTTO: Well--
BAKER: Yes.
CUOMO: But I appreciate it, guys. I thank - I thank you for jumping in, especially on a Friday night. I appreciate it. You both got families. Thank you for doing this. Amateur Hour's bad. But the abuse of power that this has to rise to--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
CUOMO: --to make impeachment unavoidable much higher. Jim Sciutto, Jim Baker, thank you so much for bringing us the news and explaining it to us, appreciate it.
So, big question, how could so many people possibly know what we're only reading now in the whistleblower's claims? We can't understand the state of play here without knowing the players.
And also, Mr. Giuliani is at the center of this. I don't know that he's going to turn out to be a hero the way he thinks. But he certainly catalyzed Democrats and created a tipping point on impeachment. He told us things that now are being seen in a different light.
Who's involved? What did he say? How did we get here? Where do we go? It's all broken down in a tangled web that I can't believe we weave, 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: More big news, the U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine is out, Kurt Volker. His name was in the whistleblower complaint. He left the day after it came out.
Democrats in the House are still going to want to talk to him. And now, access to him got a little bit easier, if he left the White House. He's also just one of dozens of people who either knew about or actively participated in a concerted effort to benefit one man, President Donald J. Trump.
The whistleblower cites more than a half dozen U.S. officials who know the facts, and a dozen White House officials who listened in on the call. The Acting DNI's testimony gave us even more names.
So, as you push in, closer to the President, you see some big names personally in this. Volker's right there with some of the most powerful men in the government, which is why his resignation and possible testimony certainly matter.
At the heart of this, we get to two people, the President, and a man who hasn't held Elected Office in over 18 years. It was last week right here that Rudy Giuliani tried to create so much smoke, he may have choked on it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Did you to ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: No. Actually, I didn't.
Court finding--
CUOMO: You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden--
GIULIANI: The only thing I asked about Joe Biden--
CUOMO: --and his role with the prosecutor.
GIULIANI: --is to get to the bottom of how it was that Lutsenko who was appointed--
CUOMO: Right.
GIULIANI: --dismissed a case against Antack (ph).
CUOMO: So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?
GIULIANI: Of course, I did.
CUOMO: You just said you didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: In the days since then, it hasn't gotten much easier to pin down Mr. Giuliani's version of events.
It's gone from "He was acting as a private lawyer" to "He was following orders from the State Department." He's painted himself as the real whistleblower and the true hero. But that's - that's about style.
No matter what he calls himself, the actions are hard to discern, especially because the Administration refuses to answer whether he ever registered as a foreign agent. Look, maybe he needed to, maybe he didn't.
But, under federal law, you're supposed to, if you are a U.S. citizen, engaged in negotiations with a foreign government. Now, that brings us to the results of his work.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: --when I watched the introduction to your show--
CUOMO: But now you won't give me the proof.
GIULIANI: I'm not going to give you proof.
CUOMO: What?
GIULIANI: What can you do? You can't indict anybody.
CUOMO: I'm - so what?
GIULIANI: Believe me. The proof is in the right hands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The right hands! Can you imagine if this President with his Attorney General opened up an investigation into Joe Biden, on the basis of what they're talking about right now?
Now, on that, you got to keep in mind the President's own words and the whistleblower's logical conjecture. The DO - the dots still need to be conducted - connected here.
But they line up in a straight path to the A.G., which is why I asked that question about "Can you imagine that?" Bill Barr is currently marshaling the resources of the DOJ without any success to hunt for his own facts in the hope that they work to the political benefit of his boss.
The fact that so many in power were actively involved in a full- fledged operation to recruit foreign election interference shows there's no secret cabal lurking in the shadows. This isn't about Deep State.
This is a window into how this Administration operates in the light of day. They are the nine pages that everything changed in this White House when this complaint come out.
The former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray has heard everything we're saying here. What makes sense to him? What doesn't? What matters and why? What is different about this? What is here that the Mueller report didn't have? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You know, one of the interesting things about the dynamic we're all living together here is, you know, the President has yet to take any issue with the facts that the whistleblower laid out.
You know what he usually says, right? He usually says "That's all untrue. It's all fake." Now, his hands are a little tied because this is a transcript of this call that came out with, you know, we guess, the blessing of the White House, right?
So, let's stick with the facts here, and let's bring in, Robert Ray.
Good to see you, thank you.
ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, FORMER SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good to see you, my friend.
CUOMO: Such an important time. We are literally living history together.
RAY: I'll take issue with you on the first thing though, in terms of the President--
CUOMO: That you're happy to be here?
RAY: Yes.
CUOMO: No, go ahead. What does he take issue with?
RAY: I - I think the President takes issue with the portion of the whistleblower complaint, which attempts to allege that there was a cover-up, and therefore an obstruction of justice, I think he clearly takes issue with. That didn't happen.
CUOMO: When is it--
RAY: So far as I know.
CUOMO: When is it OK to take certain things and put in a password- protected, put it in a password-protected classification place that is done for political purposes, not national security purposes?
RAY: Well let's - but let's divide it up and sort of in the universe of three that I think would apply. There were diplomatic implications. There were legal implications. And there were political implications.
I, you know, it's very easy to say, "Well it was all about politics." I mean I - you know, that's really not true, is it?
When you think about there's a - you've already mentioned on your broadcast, legitimate concerns about leaks, which may explain with regard to other foreign leaders why--
CUOMO: Yes. I think that's his best argument.
RAY: --why certain things were cabined because of the concern that if you have--
CUOMO: Yes. I think that's his best argument.
RAY: I mean you even - have been in Washington. You know, anybody who's been in Washington knows the more people you tell, the more likely it is--
CUOMO: Yes.
RAY: --somehow or another, that's going to leak out. I had the same problem in Independent Counsel's Office.
CUOMO: Right. I don't say it was a problem because I'm a journalist.
RAY: Well but - but--
CUOMO: But I get why inside there were.
RAY: --but there were some decisions where I literally told, maybe two people in the office, because I knew that if I told them, I didn't have to worry.
CUOMO: Is it OK if it comes down to, you know, they bring you and a bunch of other big brains to argue on his behalf, in an impeachment--
RAY: Right.
CUOMO: --situation, and you say, "Look, he was afraid of leaks. Word was getting out. He didn't want these negotiations screwed up. It's in his discretion. You could say whether that was a good call or not."
RAY: Right.
CUOMO: "But that made it OK." Is it?
RAY: Well there's a - the other part I was going to mention was the legal part. We know now, I think, from the reporting from The Wall Street Journal and others, I think today, that the Justice Department was involved very early on in this.
[21:40:00]
And as you might imagine, the Intelligence Community apparently gave a heads-up to the Justice Department. It went through where it should have gone through, which is the National Security Division of the Department.
CUOMO: The whistleblower complaint, you mean?
RAY: Well they knew about even before the whistleblower complaint that-- CUOMO: Supposedly he went to the CIA--
RAY: --currently he had filed.
CUOMO: --Counsel's Office, right?
RAY: I don't know what happened. But somehow or another, the - the Justice Department got a heads-up. And, as a result of that, the person who heads the National Security Division of the Justice Department went over to view the transcript.
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: So, you know, and then, after that, they reported back to the - the Chief of the Criminal Division.
CUOMO: Now, what happens--
RAY: And the Deputy Attorney General got involved.
CUOMO: What happens--
RAY: So, again, all those things you would expect to happen--
CUOMO: Yes, but it's about--
RAY: --and that's - and that's why - and the reason for that is because there are legal implications.
CUOMO: Right. But the question is whether or not that rises to the level of making this OK to put under password protection. But that's the issue. We'll see how it plays out.
RAY: And I think, just so it's clear for the viewers, I mean what you're talking about, I mean not - we're not talking about "OK." What we're talking about is did that constitute a rise to the level of obstruction of justice?
Just because things are shielded from access, or public-viewed, it does not--
CUOMO: Why does it have to be an obstruction of justice?
RAY: --it's not - it - it's not--
CUOMO: Why can't it just be an abuse of power?
RAY: It's - that's not the same - that's not tantamount to obstruction of justice or abuse of power.
CUOMO: But I didn't say it was. Well I--
RAY: Well--
CUOMO: --don't know about the abuse of power.
RAY: Every time--
CUOMO: If you did it for political purposes, if that's the - the fair reckoning of it, then you could say it was an abuse of power.
RAY: I looked all the headlines in the - in the - the morning newspapers this morning. Everything was about trying to characterize all of this in terms of how this came out, which is a process issue, as concealment, suggesting that--
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: --the White House did something wrong.
CUOMO: It does - it does look like that though. That's why they have to explain it. They have to explain why it was OK.
RAY: I - I don't have any problem with explanations and don't have any problem with hearings in order to - to understand exactly what happened.
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: But don't jump to the conclusion that that's--
CUOMO: No. I'm not. I'm saying I'm identifying it--
RAY: --that that's obstruction of justice.
CUOMO: --as an issue. I'm identifying it as an issue also--
RAY: Fair enough, fair point.
CUOMO: --that if the DOJ knew about this, in advance, before it even went through the whistleblower process--
RAY: Right.
CUOMO: --it then raises the issue of, is that why you were so reluctant to have this complaint go to Congress because you knew what it was about. You had looked at the transcript of the call. You knew it was bad for the President. And you decided to sleep on that statute, which makes it pretty clear--
RAY: But it - but - but--
CUOMO: --you're supposed to deliver it over.
RAY: --but again--
CUOMO: Is that an abuse of power?
RAY: No. But again, Chris, there are - there are legitimate Executive Privilege issues.
There's legitimate issues with - in connection with diplomatic implications, about making sure that there's not disclosure, public disclosure of a private conversation between two world leaders, you know, they're - it's not just one thing.
I mean I understand everybody's now excited about "Oh, the White House sat on this, and the Justice Department was involved"--
CUOMO: No. But--
RAY: --"in trying to conceal it from"--
CUOMO: Right. But I'm--
RAY: --"from Congress and the American people."
CUOMO: Right. But I'm reversing the point as a - as a - a question of perspective, which is right, but just because it's complicated doesn't mean you can't explain it. You know, you have to explain--
RAY: Sure.
CUOMO: --why it wasn't an abuse of power. I'm not saying that the burden of proof is on the President. But you have to help us understand--
RAY: And then ultimately--
CUOMO: --this situation.
RAY: I mean I still get back to what we talked about two days ago, which is, at the end of the day, what was this hearing about yesterday on - before the Intelligence Committee in the House? Mostly, it was about process.
CUOMO: It was "You didn't want us to see this because you knew it was bad for him."
RAY: Well--
CUOMO: "And that's not what you're supposed to be doing."
RAY: OK. And the Justice Department made a call on this with regard to Executive Privilege and - the White House did with regard to Executive Privilege. And the Justice Department made a call in connection with whether or not it satisfied the particulars of the statute.
You may disagree with the answer. But there's a 10-page Office of Legal Counsel opinion--
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: --that represents the--
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: --the view of the - of - of the government about what the law is with regard to the issue.
CUOMO: Right. RAY: And, in any event, after all of that, and all this process, the whistleblower complaint has been released, and the transcript of the call has been released. So, what you're left with is a process argument about trying to hunt for--
CUOMO: The process matters. Because look--
RAY: Well--
CUOMO: --look what we're learning now.
Do I care in a vacuum that this President was reckless enough to say to the Russians at a meeting "I don't care that you interfered in the election. We do the same thing?" No.
But that someone saw, and I don't think it's a coincidence that we're finding out about it now, that someone tried to keep it quiet, because they thought it fit into this category of political exposure they didn't like, that's what feeds understanding.
And remember, you say it's not about process. It has to be, Robert, because what we're trying to examine is, was there many months long process here of engineering political advantage for this President with Ukraine with the State Department, with the White House that was working over Congress with insinuating Giuliani into the State Department to work with this President, and give him expectations in Ukraine that if you don't do the right thing with the Biden matter, you don't get to the President that all culminated in this--
RAY: You're - you're making - you're making it--
CUOMO: --telephone call.
RAY: --sound though like it's a many month process. It really wasn't. The phone call was in July.
CUOMO: I know. But it was going on for many months before that.
RAY: The - the - the whistleblower--
CUOMO: Biden was talking about it in March, April.
[21:45:00]
RAY: I know. I remember talking to him about it in a Green Room, you know, long before this became public, and then it clearly was public, at least by May, maybe even earlier.
CUOMO: Yes, that's a lot of months.
RAY: Right? So--
CUOMO: It wasn't one phone call, that's what I'm saying.
RAY: OK. But I'm talking about the President's conversation now and the process that we're talking about, which is really I mean I don't know every day is a new day that the - the Democrats decide to focus on something else, which is the scattershot approach, which I think undermines--
CUOMO: I mean, look--
RAY: --the high bar that they're about--
CUOMO: But Robert, you don't have to go anywhere else.
RAY: --to show for people.
CUOMO: The President talks to the other President, and says, look at Biden for me, with money hanging in the balance, and reciprocity hanging in the balance, that's all you need.
RAY: It doesn't.
CUOMO: He's got to explain why that's OK.
RAY: Well he - he doesn't have to explain why that's OK. If those two things exist in one conversation, that's well short of being able to show that that's a quid pro quo. And I - and--
CUOMO: You don't have to show it's a quid pro quo.
RAY: Well the--
CUOMO: You know the statute--
RAY: The - the--
CUOMO: --just says solicit.
RAY: The Democrats have tried four things.
CUOMO: I'm not the Democrats. I'm right here.
RAY: OK.
CUOMO: I'm just asking you what the issue are?
RAY: I'm telling - what are the other issues.
CUOMO: You can't solicit.
RAY: OK. The four issues are this. Is it treason? No.
CUOMO: No. One issue. Can you solicit--
RAY: Ukraine is--
CUOMO: Can you solicit--
RAY: The Ukraine is an ally.
CUOMO: Can you-- RAY: Is it bribery? No.
CUOMO: Can you solicit--
RAY: The bribery statute doesn't apply to foreign government officials.
CUOMO: Can you solicit political benefit from a foreign entity?
RAY: Is it - is it - is it extortion? No. There's no quid pro quo.
CUOMO: No (ph).
RAY: Last one, your point.
CUOMO: Yes, thank you.
RAY: OK. Is it a violation of the camp finance - campaign finance law? The Justice Department has said through OLC. The answer is no. Now--
CUOMO: You can solicit a foreign government for political advantage. You believe that that's anybody's read on that statute?
RAY: Stop.
Asking for an investigation in - in the words of the Justice Department OLC memo is not a thing of value. Therefore, it is not an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Period! End of story!
Now, you know, you may not like that. You may not agree with it. That's fine. People - reasonable people can disagree. But you have some of the finest minds in the country at the - at the Office of Legal Counsel making a judgment about that.
CUOMO: But it's not asking just for an investigation. Here's how we know. They already investigated it. You know that and I know that. Frankly, they've - they investigated it twice, right?
So, Shokin is looking at it. That's why this farce about Biden is so silly. He had this corrupt guy looking at his son's business--
RAY: OK.
CUOMO: --who he knew was sleeping on it. He gets rid of him.
They put in Lutsenko, who's a good prosecutor, who turns the screws up on it, eventually says there's nothing here, closes it. Then he talks to Rudy Giuliani, and reopens it. That's not an investigation. That's going back to something you already--
RAY: Well that's - that's--
CUOMO: --investigated that the President made clear--
RAY: All right, that--
CUOMO: --he wants a certain outcome.
RAY: --that's very convenient to be able to say that. And what was the--
CUOMO: Facts.
RAY: And what was the result of all that? Any untoward investigation lead to anything that was--
CUOMO: We don't know.
RAY: --was harmful to--
CUOMO: We don't know.
RAY: --to the Vice President.
CUOMO: We don't know yet.
RAY: Other than the fact that the Democrats have now made this a big issue, the only end result of which will be that they'll sink--
CUOMO: No. The President manufactured this with the call.
RAY: --they'll sink - they'll sink the Vice President's campaign?
CUOMO: That--
RAY: That--
CUOMO: I won't give you that. The reasoning is always strong. That's why I love having you on this show.
RAY: Anytime.
CUOMO: But this is about him making that phone call, where it leads, what it means, I need you here to help us understand.
RAY: But it's got to be two things, I would suggest you. That's why you say high bar. And I will define--
CUOMO: Absolutely.
RAY: --high bar for you. I believe it requires, based upon history and practice, both a high crime and misdemeanor or treason or bribery, and an abuse of power, and one or the other is not good enough.
CUOMO: It has to be a high bar. It has to be unavoidable or it should be avoided in the subject of an election. I'm with you on that.
RAY: Well and we're going to very clearly be in very short order within a little more than a month, to November of this year, which means we're - we're actually literally in an election year.
CUOMO: I hear you.
RAY: How is that in the best interest of the country to travel down this road rather than have the people decide?
CUOMO: I hear you.
RAY: And that's what the American people have to decide now over the next several months.
CUOMO: I hear you. But our leaders have to make choices too.
RAY: Sure.
CUOMO: Thank you very much, especially on a Friday.
RAY: Nice to be with you, of course.
CUOMO: Thanks, appreciate it. I have to have you back soon.
All right, we're going to go beyond the words of Politico's and look at the Trump and Ukraine versus Biden and Ukraine. Look, I know it's a big deal out there. Don't get mad at me, and say, "They're not the same."
Everybody is bringing them up in the same sentence, so let's look at the facts on both sides. That's the argument, 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: So, the troubling news tonight about Trump's Ukraine Envoy resigning, and more calls with leaders being unusually restricted, one thing's pretty clear.
You're going to hear this President and his proxies coming after Biden to cover this up, and excuse it, and soon. But saying something a lot doesn't make it true.
What this President clearly did with Ukraine is nothing like what Biden did. It is true both did pressure the Ukrainian government about prosecutions. But that's where it ends. The why and the how could not be more different.
Here, Biden acted publicly, at the direction of the President, as part of an international effort, to assist Ukraine in removing a rogue prosecutor. Trump acted in secret, without even the backing of Congress, in fact,
to opposite effect of Congress, encouraging Ukraine to take action that would help him, and hurt a political rival.
Now, what about Hunter Biden, Biden's son? He was on the Board of Burisma. Are there ethical questions to be asked? Yes. Are there standards we could pursue? Yes.
But when you sit on the Board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, whose owner is under investigation, you got to look at the legalities. First the U.K. was looking at it, before Biden even joined the board.
Then Ukraine picked up the investigation, even before this rogue prosecutor came in. And remember, the rogue prosecutor was in trouble and rogue, first - ignoring cases like this, and many other corruption cases, to the dismay of his government, and others.
So, to help force a change in that fragile regime, Biden, acting on the official of the United States, went to Kiev, announced $1 billion loan to the government, but there was a catch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I looked, I said, "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money." Well, son of a bitch.
(CROWD LAUGHTER)
[21:55:00]
BIDEN: He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, why would you get rid of a weak guy and put in a solid guy if you wanted to help your kid who was being investigated?
Allies of this President will point to his bravado there as somehow proof that he's dirty. "See? Biden was using American funds to pressure Ukraine too, and trying to kick out and end that prosecution," they say. No! Prosecutor.
Wrong for two reasons, here's why. One, you're mixing up prosecution and prosecutor, and you're doing it for advantage, and it's cheap, but here are the two real reasons.
The prosecutor's deputy told Bloomberg there was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against that Burisma owner. It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.
Second, this weak prosecutor wasn't even actively investigating the company at the time. In fact, U.S. officials called him out for not looking at Burisma more. Why would Biden allow the U.S. government to go after his own kid that way? And even stronger point. Why fight to replace a weak guy, looking at
your son, with a strong guy, looking at your son more? And that's what happened. The new guy came in and stepped up the probe before ultimately closing the case.
Now, when we look at what was behind that damning July call that this President made, and manufactured, the intention has always been clear, right from the mouth of his lawyer.
"Rudy Giuliani plans Ukraine trip to push for inquiries that could help Trump." It's way back in May.
The months since, there were drips about this, and then, the tsunami. Trump ordering his Chief of Staff to put a hold on hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid.
The call transcript, Trump asking Ukraine's President to do us a favor, talking about a lack of reciprocity with all we give them, in the next breath, asking to investigate Biden and his son.
Remember, they had been investigated. They had already done it. What was he really asking for? Advantage.
The Whistleblower report. The White House officials were directed to remove the electronic transcript of the call from the computer system where they were typically stored and move it to a separate system that stores classified information.
Why limit the access to it? Those two pieces of information aren't all. There's a whole universe of events that we're only scratching the surface of. And no real denials from Trump, not about that call. It's not fake. He's given us a string of contradicting explanations about why he held up the money, right?
"Innocent! I just wanted to fight corruption. I wanted Europe to get involved." But the call itself, holding up the aid money, covering up the call, none of that screams of being on the up and up.
In contrast, Biden's always been open about what he did because there was nothing to hide. And remember, this President has no problem accepting foreign campaign interference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS CHIEF ANCHOR & CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Your campaign, this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You want that kind of interference in our elections?
TRUMP: It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You're not supposed to take it. Turns out, he wouldn't just take it. He'd ask for it as well.
This President and his proxies can accuse Biden of doing something, but they do that without proof. This President actually did what they accuse Biden of, strong-arming Ukraine for personal advantage, and there is proof.
The two actions are no more equal in character or nature than the two men are. Where it leads for this President, we don't know, but we must make sure that we don't advance on the basis of false equivalencies. This must be about facts first.
So, how does the Biden camp feel about this? Is this hurting them? We have a voice in Congress, also a key voice on the Biden campaign. He is next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
