Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
State Department I.G. Requests "Urgent" Hill Briefing; House Committee Chairs Warn Pompeo To Stop "Intimidating" Witnesses, Claim Actions Are "Illegal" & "Obstruction"; Two Key Figures In Whistleblower Report Getting Set To Testify Before Congress. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired October 01, 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: One more note. There were more than a 113,000 people in America on transplant waiting list as of January of this year. So, Wajahat wanted to encourage everyone to register as a donor because clearly it could save a life. If you want to help, contact your local hospital for donor registry information.
Before I hand it over to Chris, today we re-launched Full Circle, our digital news show. It's streaming live, weeknights at 5 Eastern at CNN.com/FullCircle, or you can watch it there later, on demand.
Let's hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: I love you in the mock neck. I love your eyes peering into the distance--
COOPER: Mock neck!
CUOMO: --of where the news will take us. Anderson?
COOPER: Who knows where it will take us!
CUOMO: That's - that's what that look tells me. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME. We have more news dropping on our watch tonight.
The State Department's Inspector General has requested an urgent briefing. Why? We don't know. We do know what it is related to within that own Department. We'll tell you. Could it be a Ukraine dimension? There is no indication that it is.
But there's lots to cover. What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, it's going to be another big, big day. Why? A Congressional aide calls this request for an urgent briefing, quote, highly unusual and cryptically worded. Well that's all for sure just by looking at it.
It was prompted by the Inspector General at the State Department in relation to documents from its legal counsel. We are told they are related to Ukraine. Can't verify it, I don't have the information. That's what we're being told.
We will know tomorrow. It's going to happen in the afternoon in a secure room on the Hill. The details will be light. But they will be able to talk about it.
Now, another twist! This mysterious briefing comes as Secretary of State, Pompeo defies Democrats on their demands. Three House Chairmen are warning him to stop intimidating witnesses. They say it is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.
Is the Secretary of State trying to obstruct the investigation? He says he's being bullied.
Also happening, two key figures in the whistleblower complaint are getting set to testify. They could further damage the White House attempts to contain the fallout.
So, in less than 48 hours, the State Department's former Special Envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who resigned last week, will appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Remember, he resigned. So, any privilege that would have extended to him should not. And the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who was forced out, has already agreed to talk next Friday.
There's lots going on. Let's bring Cuomo's Court into session.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Asha Rangappa and Jimmy Schultz, both of you, I know we didn't prep the talk about this, but that's the new part of the news business.
We're told, Asha, it has to do with Ukraine. But am I right to suspect poor form in this?
They had to know it was going to leak, and putting out something that is this loaded, "I have to have an urgent briefing tomorrow. It has to be with all the big shots. It has to be in a SCIF. But I can't say what it's about."
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. I mean I think that, right now, we don't have enough information to speculate about what this could be about. On the one hand, you know, we - it could be about Secretary Pompeo's
refusal to, you know, turn over information. We know that the IC IG, for example, kind of blew the whistle on an attempt to block information from going to Congress.
On the other hand, the State Department's job is to maintain diplomatic relations. And they have an interest, and I know this from working in the FBI, on not allowing information to get out into the public that could be embarrassing to other countries, that could strain our relationships with them, so that could be something that is of concern here too.
I think that, right now, it's really too early to tell what the motive is. And I think we would just be speculating on that, at this point.
CUOMO: Yes. That's why I don't know why they put it out this way, Jimmy. You ever heard anything like this?
JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: No. No. I - I haven't. But, you know, we're - we're in a new - new - new place now.
And I agree with everything Asha said. And that - well there's not a - there's not a lot - there's not a lot to talk about because, you know, any - anything we're going to talk about is going to be speculation.
CUOMO: No. We don't know.
SCHULTZ: So, we'll wait and see what he has to say more.
CUOMO: There's some reporting that it has to do with Ukraine. But I don't have that. So, we'll see.
SCHULTZ: I mean, things that we can learn then.
CUOMO: I have plenty to talk to you about that we do know. So, with Pompeo, we're seeing an extension of White House practice of "We don't like what you're asking for. We think this is all unnecessary. We're not going to comply."
Jimmy, where is the line for you of where you're testing things legally versus it's just a pattern of obstruction, of non-compliance?
SCHULTZ: So, I think Secretary Pompeo made some very good points. And obviously, there were lawyers that looked at this because they were, you know, it was very much in legalese, if you will.
[21:05:00]
We're talking to - he was requesting notices of deposition, which is something Congress was required to do, and quite frankly, something that's common in litigation, as - as a lawyer when two parties are in litigation.
Secondly, you know, he discussed the subpoenas and necessity for that. So, to the extent that Congress isn't following its own rules, or
isn't following the protocols, or reaching out to these folks individually, to get information that they already asked for from the State Department, he's well within his purview to make those requests, and - and give the warnings he did.
There's - there's nothing inappropriate about that. He has a duty to protect certain information that's coming out of the State Department, you know, classified information, and he's doing that. I don't think there was anything over-the-top about what he said today.
CUOMO: Asha, "No evasiveness. Just by the book."
RANGAPPA: Yes. I think that there are a few problems with this. I mean, first we have the "Boy who cried wolf" problem.
We've seen that the Executive Branch has stonewalled, in many instances. And so, an idea that this is a good-faith effort to just have more time to prepare, I think, is, you know, validly doubted by Congressional committees.
The other thing is that Congress is really - the House Committees here are acting at their zenith of constitutional power. They are conducting an impeachment inquiry into something that may constitute a national security matter.
So, the urgency, time is of essence. And I think that they have a stronger case when you balance the interests here. You know, and then I think the other thing--
CUOMO: Zenith!
RANGAPPA: --is--
SCHULTZ: Hold on. Can I--
RANGAPPA: Zenith.
CUOMO: Zenith.
SCHULTZ: OK. Go ahead.
RANGAPPA: Yes.
CUOMO: Jimmy, she's not talking about the television, by the way, before you jump on zenith.
SCHULTZ: Yes, right.
CUOMO: She's saying it is the high point of their powers.
And look, you know what you have against you, on your side of the argument, is the Lewandowski trick, of them saying "He's got Executive Privilege," when he never even worked in the White House. It sent a message that they're just stalling. This isn't good faith the way you presented earlier. SCHULTZ: And look, if we want to talk about the zenith, the most important thing here is a fundamental right to counsel these - for these individuals, and they do have a right to counsel, and they do have a right to talk with their lawyers, and be - and counsel - and be counseled by their lawyers before they go in.
CUOMO: That's different than blocking--
SCHULTZ: And the State Department has the same right--
CUOMO: --everybody, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: --to review that information.
I get it. But that's not - that's not what the letter said, Chris. The letter said that they - he - they needed to confer with counsel and that the House needs to follow certain rules, which they do. So, again, I - I think it's much ado about nothing.
I think they're talking about he was right to send that letter to talk about the procedural problems associated with the request, the fact that they're going to use folks individually after they asked for the - asked for the information from the State Department, just as out of line, and I think he has to call them on it.
CUOMO: I remember a partner named Brad Eric Scheler, at the firm where I worked, telling me, you know, sometimes a tactic is - it's always right until it's wrong, and I'm reminded of it here, Asha, because this is working for them.
If you don't follow your own procedures, you got a problem. If you want to fight about it in court, due process allows it almost all the time. But when it stops working is when the House comes up with an article of impeachment, as they did with Nixon, two of the three really dealt with exactly this.
RANGAPPA: Yes. House ain't playing here, Chris. I mean they've basically said that if you try to stonewall, like you've done before, we're going to consider this evidence of obstruction.
And I think where they are able to make their case is that simply on the facts that we know from a primary source, which is the transcript of the call that was made from President Trump, to the President of Ukraine, you have a prima facie case of abuse of power. That's it.
I mean, you know, you can't argue with that. That's not hearsay. That is a recording of - of the transcript that took place. And I think that, right there you have essentially what is a rebuttable presumption that he was engaging in something illegal.
So, again, I think it's a national security issue. I think it's a constitutional issue. The House is acting at the highest level of its power. And it's time for the State Department to put up or face the consequences.
CUOMO: All right, Asha, Jimmy, thank you very much both for making the arguments tonight. I feel I'm going to need you back this week. There's going to be plenty more to come.
All right, now let's take a quick break. When we come back, we have a CIA and an NSC veteran who's been unloading on this whistleblower complaint. He worked in the Administration.
He wants to argue to you that the complaint was orchestrated by Democrats, and he believes that he can prove it. He's got problems with this. And he's willing to be tested. Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:10:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Look, the whole point of where we are now is that we only know what Congress can show. And there're going to be arguments made. And we got to test them, as we go on. That's how you develop perspective.
Now, coming from the President's defense side, they're saying, "This whistleblower report should be eyed with skepticism."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): It's all a hearsay. You can't get a parking ticket conviction based on hearsay.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): This guy wasn't on the call. Someone else told him about the call.
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: The whistleblower says, "I don't have any direct knowledge. I just heard things." Up until two weeks before he did that, that wouldn't even have been a - a complaint.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, once again, the President's counsel is off there, OK? This isn't about a change of any rule. This is what the rule was.
And, in fact, the man you're about to meet is going to say that the whistleblower did say he had some first-hand knowledge, and he shouldn't have. But then the Inspector General said, the truth is he does have some first-hand knowledge. It's about what.
See? So, everyone can play to advantage. Let's bring in someone right now, a Trump defender, Fred Fleitz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He served the Trump Administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and NSC Chief of Staff. Good to have you on the show.
FRED FLEITZ, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON, PRESIDENT & CEO, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Hey, Chris. Good to be here.
CUOMO: Good. So, let's talk to the audience together. What's your concern here?
FLEITZ: Well I've seen a number of whistleblowing complaints from Intelligence officers in my time with the CIA and the House Intelligence Committee.
When I saw this one, I thought it was very unusual, not just that it was extremely well-written, but it had legal references and legal footnotes. That was a little bit unusual.
[21:15:00]
But I compared that with the fact that Adam Schiff was talking about the subject matter of this complaint throughout the month of August. He posted a footnote - a tweet at the end of August, almost identically reflected this complaint.
Now, I know, from my time on the House Intelligence Committee, whistleblowers frequently come directly to the Committee. They're not supposed to. But it happens all the time. So, I put this out on Twitter.
The day that I did, a senior staffer with the House Intelligence Committee, a Republican, told me, "We think you're exactly right. And this was a group project. And my colleagues were involved."
And also, that evening, a senior Member of the House Intelligence Committee, also a Republican, said, "We think you're right on target. And we want to ask this whistleblower, under oath, how did you put this together, who did you work on with it."
CUOMO: OK.
FLEITZ: "And did you work on this with House Intelligence Committee Democrat lawyers?"
CUOMO: All right, but just to be clear. At this point, you don't know any of that. You're raising it as questions. But as a guy who worked in the Intelligence business, you know that - that is meaningless until you can put some meat on the bones. Of course, the Republicans are agreeing with you. That's the whole state of play right now. Anything you say that's negative about this guy, or this woman, they're going to pick up on.
FLEITZ: Well you can say that, Chris. But I'm an analyst. Analysts draw conclusions. I looked at the evidence.
CUOMO: But what's the proof?
FLEITZ: I looked at my--
CUOMO: Legalese in the writing?
FLEITZ: No. I - I gave you my case.
CUOMO: The Schiff tweet doesn't angle with the complaint.
FLEITZ: I said it wasn't just a legalese. It was my experience. It was what Schiff said in August. It was my discussions with Members and staff of this Committee. I might be wrong. But I gave my opinion, based on my experience.
CUOMO: I hear you. I'm just saying they said they like what you're saying. They didn't give you any proof of the same, right?
FLEITZ: As I said, I gave my analysis. I'm an analyst. I look at the facts. I draw conclusions. Based on my experience - based on my experience, working on the House Intelligence Committee--
CUOMO: I hear you.
FLEITZ: --I know how it operates.
CUOMO: I hear you. I'm just saying I would want to hear more facts about it because the part about the tweet with Adam Schiff, it's such a short tweet. I don't know that it echoes anything in the complaint because I haven't seen it, neither have you.
FLEITZ: Well the - the House Intelligence Committee Republicans want to put this whistleblower under oath. And, you know, it's important to know is this a legitimate whistleblower.
Was he working with others? Because some of the things in the complaint are judgments, whether there was a cover-up, whether this was an effort to affect the 2020 election, whether there was a quid pro quo.
Now, if this came from a legitimate whistleblower, you know, these assertions have, you know, more - these are more valid.
CUOMO: Sure.
FLEITZ: But if they're based - they're from a partisan who is working with Democrat attorneys on the House Intelligence Committee, it's harder to - it's hard to take them seriously. CUOMO: Yes. You're absolutely right. You just don't know any of that. And the Inspector General assessed the person's credibility. He found them credible, and he found this to be of urgent concern.
FLEITZ: Well good--
CUOMO: Very serious.
FLEITZ: Sure.
CUOMO: So, does the I.G. just not know what they're doing?
FLEITZ: Well this was his opinion. I came to a different opinion. Republican Members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee, they share my opinion.
CUOMO: Right. But who do you think had more information about who this whistleblower is, and what backed up their complaint? You, a staffer of the Republican variety, or the I.G.?
FLEITZ: The I.G. is fairly new. You know, I'm not saying he - I'm not saying he's right or wrong.
I'm saying, based on my experience, looking at this complaint, which was very strange, and other people I know who have looked at whistleblowing complaints, they have said the same thing, "Let's investigate. Let's put the whistleblower in front of Members of this Committee. Let's find out."
CUOMO: You have no problem about doing that to a whistleblower? Isn't that kind of the exact opposite philosophy that we have when it comes to whistleblowers?
You want them vetted, of course, because then anybody come forward and just say whatever they want. But if you want to blow a whistleblower, out of the water, the way the President does, aren't you worried about the chilling effect that would have?
FLEITZ: I think if you make a complaint like this, you should put your name on it. I think the President--
CUOMO: Really?
FLEITZ: --has a right to face his accusers.
CUOMO: You're going to accuse some of the most powerful people in a democracy, and you're working in one of the agencies, and you think--
FLEITZ: Oh, give me a break!
CUOMO: --that people should be encouraged that if you don't want to put your name for it, you should never come forward? You really want that to be the rule?
FLEITZ: I know if I made a complaint like this, I would put my name on it. I would pay the consequences because I think this country needs to know who this was. Is this someone who's acting on patriotism and a legitimate ethical concern or is this a partisan who's collaborating--
CUOMO: But then why do we have--
FLEITZ: --with Adam Schiff?
CUOMO: --whistleblower laws?
FLEITZ: You know, not all whistleblowers are anonymous, Chris. A lot of them come forward. They put their names forward. They explain why they're making these concerns.
And - and look, I mean this idea that this whistleblower in some kind of danger, this is such nonsense.
This town is full of Trump-haters. I think what's happened here is his attorneys have ginned up this ridiculous story because he wants a book deal, and frankly, he probably wants to work for CNN.
CUOMO: Boy, you are assuming a lot of facts, Fred.
I got to tell you, for an analyst, you know, I don't think that this would ever pass muster with any - I don't even think that your Center would allow it to be published on the basis of your basis of proof that you have right now.
And you know you want to talk a prima facie case that you don't know that he's in under threat, the President is coming after him directly, constantly, and consistently. You don't think that matters?
Let me tell you, as somebody who knows the sting of that, it changes your life, friend.
FLEITZ: As I said, this city's full of Trump-haters. And I suspect that this person, he's just biding his time, he's going to come out.
CUOMO: But this is all just--
FLEITZ: He's going to get a big--
CUOMO: This is all just speculation, that's all I'm telling you, is that you don't know anything about it. It's fine to be suspicious. Let's see what happens. But we protect whistleblowers for a reason.
[21:20:00]
Let me ask you something on the - under the category of people talk and smack without basis.
You know that people around Trump - you say that there are a lot of Trump-haters. There are a lot of Trump-lovers also, and they say that your friend, Mr. Bolton could be behind this that he--
FLEITZ: That's ridiculous.
CUOMO: Well--
FLEITZ: That's ridiculous.
CUOMO: Well let's look at the--
FLEITZ: Nobody's saying that.
CUOMO: Let me give you my analysis.
FLEITZ: No.
CUOMO: There are people around the President who have said to me, "You know"--
FLEITZ: There's people who think the moon--
CUOMO: --"we don't know that it wasn't Bolton."
FLEITZ: There's people who think we didn't go to the moon.
CUOMO: And - wait, wait I'm not done. I'm just giving you my analysis.
FLEITZ: Or that the world is flat.
CUOMO: This is my--
FLEITZ: That's just so - it's a stupid thing--
CUOMO: Hold on, Fred.
FLEITZ: --to say, Chris.
CUOMO: Fred, Fred, wait, wait, that's stupid? But everything you just said about the whistleblower is not stupid?
FLEITZ: No. It's not.
CUOMO: Because of your experience?
FLEITZ: It's based on my experience.
CUOMO: So, let me give you my experience.
FLEITZ: Have you seen any whistleblowing complaints?
CUOMO: Let me give you--
FLEITZ: Have you worked with whistleblowers in the government?
CUOMO: Oh, yes, I have.
FLEITZ: Have you really worked--
CUOMO: Yes, I have.
FLEITZ: Well I'd like to hear the details of that.
CUOMO: I will gladly give them to you. FLEITZ: And how their complaint's different from this one.
CUOMO: Except I don't go bad on sources. I've been doing this over 20 years, Fred.
FLEITZ: I don't think you know what you're talking about.
CUOMO: Of course, you don't because it doesn't serve your purpose. I've been doing this 20 years. I've worked with whistleblowers.
I'm closer to the Trump Administration in terms of access than any Administration I've ever been around. Isn't that ironic? And you know what they say? They're nervous about Bolton. They're nervous about how we left. They're nervous about what he might be saying. And--
FLEITZ: John Bolton's not part of this story here. I've known John Bolton 20 years. He's not involved here. This is just an attempt to--
CUOMO: So, there's zero chance--
FLEITZ: --drag a good man through the rug.
CUOMO: Oh, listen, not me!
FLEITZ: Through the mud.
CUOMO: I want to clear his name. So, you're saying zero chance Bolton would have had anything to do with submarining the President?
FLEITZ: Absolutely zero. He - he would have nothing to do with this. I've known him - I've known him too long. If you know him, you know this isn't true too.
CUOMO: I don't know him that way. That's why I'm giving you a chance to clear his name. That's what the show is about.
FLEITZ: His name doesn't have to be cleared. Nobody's making this accusation.
CUOMO: It's - it's in - it's in reporting. And I have been told it directly that there is a concern. And in my experience, 20 years doing this, you know when people like that talk, you got to listen. I can't put any meat on the bones. But that's my analysis.
Let me ask you. Was he on the phone call?
FLEITZ: I don't know. I wasn't - I wasn't working for the NSC at the time.
CUOMO: OK. Did you think it was odd that we didn't know with everything that was made public about that transcript that the Secretary of State was on the call?
FLEITZ: I wasn't in the NSC at the time. I don't know. I process these transcripts. But I didn't process this one.
CUOMO: I know. But you had nothing to do with what's going on with this whistleblower complaint, but you're drawing on your experience.
FLEITZ: That's a ridiculous connection.
CUOMO: In your - in your experience--
FLEITZ: I've made it through a conclusion based on my experience and consulting with staff and Members of the House Intelligence Committee. There's no comparison here, Chris.
CUOMO: Did anybody tell you about whether they knew that Pompeo was on the call and whether that was odd or not, not to be told?
FLEITZ: No one's talked to me about that.
CUOMO: Do you - so you don't have any basis for thinking whether or not it was unusual?
FLEITZ: I - I - I - I don't know whether he was on the call or not.
CUOMO: We're told that he was on the call, just the interesting thing to know. We'll see if he comes and testifies what he knew about it.
Fred Fleitz, I - I appreciate you very much making your case here. It's good for the audience to hear it, and I appreciate you making it.
FLEITZ: Good to be here, thank you.
CUOMO: Be well.
My 20 years, that's - that's my analysis.
The rallying cry of the President and the people around him, "Investigate the investigators." They want to do it now. "Who is this whistleblower? Is he even a real American? Is it even a real he?" They want to know that. They want to do that with everybody who investigated them.
So, who better to talk to, to two people on that list? Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker? What do they mean - think of this current situation?
Look how hard they're trying not to laugh. Let's see how it goes in the interview itself, 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: Going after the whistleblower because you don't like what's in the transcript of the actual call makes sense. It is consistent with what defenders of this President have been doing all along.
We're now learning just how far Attorney General, Bill Barr, may be taking his investigation into the investigators in the Russia probe. Reports have surfaced of this, high-level meetings, overseas, Italians, and Brits, as well as his involvement in urging this President to press his Australian counterpart for help.
Why? And what could these foreign powers offer - offer up that we don't know already?
We've got the perfect guests tonight to talk this through, Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Good to have you both. I saw you giggling along. You know, it's just my experience, 20 years, no facts, that's fine. But they don't like what's in the transcript, so you go after the person when you don't have the facts. That's not new.
The idea of the A.G. saying, Jim, "Look, I want to make sure that this investigation was on the up-and-up. I think there was spying done on the President. I'm going to the foreign powers who are our allies. And I'm looking for help," what's the plus/minus on that?
JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Well the plus is, look, and I've said this before, and I've offered to cooperate with the Attorney General and John Durham investigation that they're doing right now.
And like, look, if the American people, if some number of the American people have a question about the origin of the investigation, then fine, investigate it.
There's nothing they're going to find, in my opinion. I mean at least I know what - what was happening at the FBI, and we weren't doing anything improper, in my opinion. And so, investigate.
The downside, the negative, is that this will put a chill, it already has, I think, puts a chill through the law enforcement, Intelligence agencies of the United States because people are afraid to do their jobs, if they think no matter what they do, somebody's going to be looking over their shoulder, and second-guessing them, and ascribing political motives to legitimate lawful investigative activity.
CUOMO: Andrew, what's your take on these efforts to blow up the whistleblower?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The - to blow up the current whistleblower, I think, Chris, it's - it's a - it's a entirely expected tactic that you could see the President and his supporters using.
[21:30:00]
It's, as you said in the intro, this is a - it's a pretty standard practice now, to go after the accusers, when anyone steps forward, and provides facts, or circumstances, or criticisms that the President doesn't like.
In this case, of course, you have a whistleblower who's done everything correct. He's filed the complaint under the--
CUOMO: Is it too correct, Andrew? Is it proof that he's been working with lawyers? Does your Spidey Sense tell you that? You've got a bunch of years under your belt.
MCCABE: No, Chris. I took a look at the complaint while you were interviewing your last guest. There's really - guest. There's only two legal references of any merit - of any note in the complaint.
One of them is to 50 U.S.C. Section 3033, which is the whistleblower law, and it's perfectly understandable that the whistleblower would have familiarized his or herself with that law before they went down this road.
The second legal reference is to Executive Order 13526, which lays out the requirements for classification, and that is in the - in the portion of the complaint where he's basically arguing that the information he's providing is not classified, and should not be classified, to conceal it, after he's made his report.
So, that's not over-analyzed, incredibly-challenging legal work. That's just a complainant who's well-informed, is going out of his way to file this complaint in a way that's consistent with the law.
CUOMO: And look, to be very clear, if any proof comes out that this man or woman was in concerted action with anyone on the Left, or anybody at all, to work this up, I want to know, and I want to blow it out of the water.
Jim, let me ask you something. As we go down this road of this impeachment inquiry, the idea of "What is the bar" looms large. And I know that high crimes and misdemeanors is this amorphous thing, and it was done like that on purpose, and I've read The Federalist Papers that cross-reference it.
But in terms of what you see right now with the analysis on Ukraine, what kinds of potential criminality would the House be looking at with any chance of proving?
BAKER: Well the House is going to define what those crimes are. And they can define them in terms of reference to federal statutes that are already in existence or they can define them differently because, as you said, the Constitution doesn't exactly spell that out.
CUOMO: But that's why they keep going about quid pro quo. They keep going on about quid pro quo because you're not going to have bribery without quid - quid pro quo.
And then they - now is it - well is it the solicitation statute that's in the election laws? And that's why they're defending on that. Doesn't it have to fit some kind of law that people will understand?
BAKER: Well - look, I agree with completely. It has to be understandable to the American people because, at the end of the day, this impeach - impeachment and conviction are political acts conducted by - by the two Houses.
But they do not have - they're not locked in to defining a crime consistent with what's already been passed in the United States Code or some criminal statute that exists, right? They - they can define it differently. They can articulate it differently.
That's why when people talk about obstruction of Congress in the way that they're talking about it now with some of the Executive Branch officials, that - that's in - in an effort to obstruct impeachment inquiry, which is different, right?
So, you're - in a different - the right way to think about this, in my opinion, is you've got to think about it in terms of the Constitution itself, and not be wrapped around the axle with - with respect to any particular statute.
CUOMO: And this is just the indictment that the House comes up with anyway. I'm giving away my closing a little bit. But they're just putting together the accusations, whether or not they--
BAKER: Exactly.
CUOMO: --meet any relevant standard will be decided by the Senate. Let me ask you something quickly, Andrew, before I lose you guys.
Bill Barr, you talk about, you know, what trips your instinct after doing something for a while, him being on that call, and then the DOJ, during the review of any criminality, without him recusing himself, and they say, after the fact, "Well he didn't oversee the review. It's all fine."
What makes it fine or not fine?
MCCABE: Well I'd love to see the analysis by the Internal Ethics Authorities at DOJ. Of course, we'll never see that. But I'd love to see how they came up with a finding that there was absolutely no reason for the Attorney General to recuse here.
I mean under the standards of the appearance of impropriety, this one certainly seems to meet that threshold.
So, it's a - it's - it's a curious matter that you have an issue of such incredible importance now that lands in DOJ's lap, both through the internal paperwork that was filed at the CIA, and with the complaint that was filed with the IC IG, and that DOJ has - hasn't - it hasn't seemed to take the matter particularly seriously.
CUOMO: Gentlemen, thank you so much for your perspective. We'll be leaning on you early and often. Thank you.
BAKER: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, ahead, someone who can speak to the truth about what Joe Biden did, and did not do, in relation to Ukraine, someone once high up in the Obama State Department.
Let's talk right, wrong, reasonable, 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: Well the President is in high dudgeon. "It's a coup! Fake news! Witch-hunt!" That's just a taste of what the President is saying about the impeachment inquiry.
Tonight, he and his allies are pointing to what they see as inconsistencies and problems. But the big target is still on the back of the former VP, Joe Biden, and his son. So, let's get some perspective here.
We have Democratic Congressman, Tom Malinowski.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, he knows firsthand, all right? He was the former Assistant Secretary of State during the Obama Administration. He was well aware of what Biden was doing and why. Thank you for joining us.
REP. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-NJ): Thank you, Sir.
CUOMO: Now, just to hit a couple of points of where we are in the state of play. You heard Fred Fleitz, smart guy, attacking the whistleblower. One big reason is obviously the enticement of the unknown, but also they don't like the transcript.
Do you care as much about the whistleblower when you have the text of the call?
MALINOWSKI: No. We're all interested in - in the human drama of the whistleblower.
But we - we know what the President did. He - he traded our national security for political favors. And how do we know? Because they admitted it, they released the transcript.
So, we have - it's a rare Congressional investigation that begins with most of the facts in hand. Obviously, we have to take this further.
Even if you catch somebody robbing a bank in America, red-handed, you still have a trial, and a jury, and witnesses, and testimony. But we basically know the heart of the matter.
CUOMO: You certainly know - you don't know the people that the whistleblower was talking to, the kind of flesh-out the different aspects of why this was going on, and how.
MALINOWSKI: Sure.
CUOMO: But you do know that it's not made up out of whole cloth because you had the call.
[21:40:00]
Two defenses. First one, President was just enlisting the help of an ally with matters of corruption. And, in fact, William Jefferson Clinton signed a treaty on exactly that with Ukraine, and that's all this is.
MALINOWSKI: He did not mention corruption in this phone call. He - he has shown no evidence of any interest in corruption in Ukraine. All he wanted was the dirt on his political opponent, Joe Biden.
CUOMO: So now, that's the second defense, "By the way, I'm right about Joe Biden. Joe Biden held the money over Ukraine's head until they got rid of the prosecutor that was looking at the company that his son was working with."
Now, those are all true statements. He was holding up the money. He did want to get rid of the prosecutor. The prosecutor was in charge of a case into the person who owned the company that Hunter Biden sat on the Board of.
MALINOWSKI: Not "He." "We." This is the key.
There was a crooked prosecutor in Ukraine who was not bringing prosecutions on anybody. There was absolutely not a single active anti-corruption prosecution going on in Ukraine, including with - with - with respect to this company that Biden's son was involved in.
We, the United States government, and our allies, in Europe, and the International Monetary Fund, and every international institution that was trying to help Ukraine, at the time, said "You got to get rid of this crooked prosecutor and get somebody who will actually go after these cases."
So, the irony is Biden, who is just the messenger, one of many messengers of this policy, was trying to get the Ukrainians to do something that would place, if - if his son had been doing anything wrong, would have placed his son in greater jeopardy, not less.
CUOMO: By replacing the prosecutor and having somewhat of a say in the new one that came in, why isn't that reasons of suspicion?
MALINOWSKI: Well we didn't have a say in the new one that came in. What we basically said, all of us, again, not just Joe Biden, was that "You got to get somebody who will actually prosecute corruption across the board."
CUOMO: What do you think of the notion that it doesn't look good? Doesn't look good when you're in charge of something, and your son is in the purview of what you're taking on.
MALINOWSKI: Yes, I don't - I wouldn't even say he was in charge of something. I mean, John Kerry made this point to the Ukrainians. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, was in charge of this policy.
CUOMO: But they made Biden the point-person, we're told.
MALINOWSKI: A point-person. He was not--
CUOMO: How many point-people can you have?
MALINOWSKI: We had our Ambassador. We - we had the Secretary of State. We had every single official who was working on Ukraine at the time.
CUOMO: But Joe Biden brags that he's the one who held the money over their head, and that's why they did it.
MALINOWSKI: Well we did, and it was successful, so I can understand why he would say, "I was involved in a successful policy."
But it was the right policy because we did condition aid, absolutely, on Ukraine actually doing something about corruption because we wanted to make sure that our money, that we were helping them with loans and loan guarantees, wasn't being stolen.
CUOMO: Did you know Hunter Biden's existence and role at that time?
MALINOWSKI: No, I did not.
CUOMO: Why not?
MALINOWSKI: It was - it was not significant.
CUOMO: Well it was certainly significant. Should it have been disclosed? Was there anything done that you wish had been done differently?
MALINOWSKI: Well in - in ret - I think it was disclosed. I don't think it was something that I was personally aware of, at the time, because it was just so obviously, our Administration, our national policy.
I was not thinking about this as Joe Biden's policy because it wasn't. And it was the right policy.
CUOMO: You never heard Joe Biden talking about any concern about his son? You're a 100 percent that Biden didn't do it for his son?
MALINOWSKI: I'm a 100 percent that Biden did it as the messenger of an Administration policy that was set by dozens of people. You know, in the Obama Administration, in fact, all past administrations, we had something known as a policy process.
We met together in rooms, and we talked about this stuff, and we set strategies, and we checked each other's notes, and - and - and then we decided, "OK, you're going to go out, and deliver the message, and you're going to be reinforced by this person, and that person."
Nobody was freelancing. We did not have a Rudy Giuliani in the Obama Administration who is running a shadow foreign policy on behalf of the President or Vice President. That's what's going on right now.
CUOMO: So, now, what's going on right now on your side of the ball, and in the government, is you have to do an investigation, to make a determination, to make a case to the American people that you have a set of accusations that warrant articles of impeachment against the President.
Abuse of power is what this is going to fall under as an umbrella. I don't think - you know, you just heard me talking to Baker and McCabe. I, with all due respect, don't see you making a bribery or a treason case. I don't think you have it.
Abuse of power, what kind of abuse of power, in your opinion, warrants articles of impeachment?
MALINOWSKI: I - I've spent my life working on foreign policy and national security.
What offends me about this is that the President of the United States is now apparently basing our country's foreign policy on whether foreign leaders will help him politically, whether they will do him personal political favors, think about what that means.
[21:45:00]
This is - foreign policy is supposed to be about protecting us, our interests, our values.
We have thousands of troops in Europe, right now there, to deter Russian aggression against Europe, including Ukraine. We were selling - we were providing anti-tank missiles to stop Russian tanks, from invading Ukraine. And to condition that, our national security, our national interest,
on whether the sordid deal is done, where Ukraine manufactures dirt against his political opponent, if that is allowed, what - where does that stop?
Do we - do we now like give China a better trade deal if they cough up dirt on - on Biden, or Buttigieg, or somebody else, what?
CUOMO: His defense will be "I didn't ask for it to be manufactured." But I hear what your theory of the case is.
The point now is to make it compelling, overwhelming, to the American people so that it's something they think has to be dealt with now, not in an election, that's around the corner.
MALINOWSKI: Well it is about the election that's around the corner, right? This is not about what Donald Trump may have done in 2016. This is about what it looks like he is doing now to prepare for the next election in 2020.
CUOMO: Well--
MALINOWSKI: That's what makes it urgent.
CUOMO: And that's what the line still has to be that we know what you're able to show, and we look forward to the proffer from the people in the House, and you're always welcome to come here, Congressman--
MALINOWSKI: Thank you, Sir.
CUOMO: --to talk about what matters to the American people.
MALINOWSKI: Thank you.
CUOMO: Good luck going forward.
MALINOWSKI: Thank you.
CUOMO: Important job!
All right, the President is trying to convince everyone that what is going on, what you just heard from the Congress, about his concerns, the President says, "No, no, no. This is just about a coup. They just want what I have. They want the Presidency."
Our Framers knew this was going to happen. And we are not flying blind here. And I have an argument that is a refresher for everybody, 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: 47 percent of you believe this President should be impeached and removed from office. That's as high a number that we've ever seen in this period. It's up 6 percentage points from May.
Here's my argument. So what? This isn't a direct democracy. This is a republic. We elect people to vote their conscience.
Of course, the ideal is to have them do what we want, and that they agree to doing the same. But the controlling factor should be what he or she in office believes is right, not simply popular.
The Speaker of the House was right on course when she said in the Caucus call, quote, "We have to be prayerful, somber, non-partisan. The idea that this has anything to do with whether you like him or not, forget that. That's about the election. This is about the Constitution."
That is the right message. Though, I do have to say, the Speaker had been cautioning to go slow on this process for reasons that surely include political calculations. And she was anxious to see public sentiment behind impeachment before going that way.
But the best part of the advice she gave is to follow the Constitution. Why? Not some lofty idea.
The Framers didn't make the House the last word on impeachment. They are merely the first word. They come up with the accusations. That's all articles of impeachment are. It's like an indictment. That's why the Framers gave them the relatively low standard of a simple majority vote.
It's the Senate that has the real deal. They have to hold the trial. They need a two-thirds vote for removal and for good reason. And, by the way, on that front, Senator McConnell gave us a surprising gesture of good faith today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Well under the Senate rules, we're required to take it up, if the House does go down that path, and we'll follow the Senate rules.
It's a Senate rule related to impeachment that would take 67 votes to change, so I would have no choice but to take it up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, he didn't say how long he'd take it up for, but that - that gets us down into the weeds. We - we don't really need to deal with that right now.
Here's the part that matters for us right now is that we don't want to get ahead of where we are. We don't even know that the House has what it needs to stand strongly behind articles of impeachment on this Ukraine matter.
I don't know what happened to everything else. It's all about Ukraine now. Fine!
But even on the vexing question of what is a high crime, or misdemeanor, we're not in some morass of the unknown. We have guidance. Alexander Hamilton wrote about this in Federalist 65, also 66, if you want to look at it.
"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men," or women, "or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Can't be more simply put than him! He was the master of being succinct.
But this is about findings of abuses of power that force removal. Force, it has to be so plain that a partisan lens cannot render it invisible. The intentions of the President so foul that they must stink to high heaven, so much so it can't wait until the election. That's the bar.
So, to Congress, your job is to meet that bar, or admit you can't, and get it done with as little politics as possible. Don't look to the people to show you where to go. You'll know by their votes whether they like where you took them.
Right and Left, it is time to be reasonable. Do your damn jobs. It's the only thing you got to worry about.
Did you know there's another possible whistleblower? This time, it is related just something else, related to this President. You haven't heard about it that much. But you will now.
BOLO, 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: I love these BOLO segments. It's an acronym for Be On the Look- Out. And it lets us tell you stories that aren't getting the attention. This one involves one of this President's biggest secrets, his tax returns.
You already know that the House Ways and Means Chairman Richie Neal is suing the IRS and Treasury Department to get the last six years of returns. That statute seemed pretty clear. But they're litigating it.
We're now learning that in an August court filing, Neal reached out to Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, claiming the Committee received an unsolicited communication from a federal employee, setting forth credible allegations of evidence of possible misconduct, specifically potential inappropriate efforts to influence the mandatory audit program.
What's the evidence? We don't know yet. Neal argues that while he doesn't have to give a reason for wanting the returns, they would help show if the audit program is working properly.
Now, a lot of people had said, "That's kind of a bogus reason to want it. You could just call the IRS and see if they're auditing him or not." But now, this makes that look a little better.
The President and his backers say these efforts are nothing more than politics. Neal hasn't said who the possible whistleblower is, or if he wants that employee to testify. But that is one worth watching.
CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: Look at you, right on time, 10 o'clock at the nose. You've done this--
CUOMO: On the button, baby.
