Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Trump Punts On What He Asked Ukraine To Do About Bidens; 10 Days Later, Pompeo Admits He Was On Ukraine Call; Key Figure In Whistleblower Complaint To Testify Tomorrow. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 02, 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: Just a short time ago, we learned that Jane Sanders, wife of Senator Bernie Sanders, is now with her husband in Las Vegas.
Supporters of the Presidential candidate and practically every one of his opponents have wished Senator Sanders a speedy recovery after he experienced, what a senior adviser described as, chest pains, Tuesday night.
The Sanders team says doctors found a blockage in one artery and that two stents were successfully inserted. He has suspended campaigning, quote, until further notice.
We surely wish him the best. The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you very much, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
I can't believe it. But there is another dossier in the mix. The irony is staggering and troubling. We have new information and people to test about what they're going to do about it.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Another crazy day! The President happy to answer all kinds of questions about how bad the whistleblower is, how bad the Democrats are, all the things that they did, and all you need to do is look at the perfect call.
But when he got asked about that call, listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about - what about Mr. Biden?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you want about Biden? What did you want them to look into on Biden?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Look, Biden and his son are stone-cold crooked. And you know it.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THOMSON REUTERS: The question, sir, was what did you want President Zelensky to do about President - Vice President Biden, and his son, Hunter.
TRUMP: Are you talking to me? Haven't you finished with me?
MASON: Yes, it was just a follow-up of what I just asked you, Sir.
TRUMP: Listen, listen, are you ready? We have the President of Finland. Ask him a question.
MASON: I have one for him. I just wanted to follow up on the one that I asked you, which was--
TRUMP: Did you hear me?
MASON: --what did you want in this?
TRUMP: Did you hear me?
MASON: Yes, Sir.
TRUMP: Ask him a question, please.
MASON: I will. But--
TRUMP: I've given you a long answer. Ask this gentleman a question. Don't be rude.
MASON: No, Sir. I don't want to be rude. I just wanted you to have a chance to answer the question that I asked you.
TRUMP: I've answered everything. It's a whole hoax. And you know who's playing into the hoax? People like you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: It's a hoax. But you can't answer the damn question because you know where the answer takes you. There's only one answer that makes sense. So, the call isn't that perfect, is it?
And you know what? The man standing to the side of our President on yet another international stage actually commented after that "I hope the tradition of democracy in America continues." Oh, I wonder why he's saying something like that.
What we got today was this President's obvious line of defense, OK? "I did nothing wrong. And I will attack anyone who dares to expose anything like a misdeed."
And listen to this. This led to a State Department Inspector General coming today to Congress and unloading what sounds like a new dossier, what he called misinformation bundled up to discredit people in the State Department, who wanted to come forward, and maybe the whistleblower, and maybe the Bidens.
And then Rudy Giuliani, you - you can't make it up, Rudy Giuliani admitted to offering up at least part of the information in that dossier.
And then, he says that he got a call from the Secretary of State who agreed to investigate what he gave them. He is the gift that keeps giving. I don't know who it's good for.
Let's take that question to the Court in session.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Cuomo's Court, Laura Coates, Jenna Ellis.
Laura Coates, let me ask you. Rudy Giuliani says, "Yes, I gave him information that the Inspector General of the State Department is calling a bundle of misinformation about State Department officials, and the Bidens, and the Secretary of State said - told me that he's going to look into it," is that OK?
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No. You really can't make - it's almost the opposite of saying it wasn't me. He's saying, "Oh, yes, that was me too, and that was me too," and things that are obviously inappropriate, it leads you to ask a couple of questions.
Number one, who does Rudy Giuliani work for that he is able to tell the Secretary of State to go investigate certain claims that he has, based on propaganda-esque information, about conspiracy theories.
I thought that Pompeo served at the pleasure of the President of the United States, not somebody who's not in the federal government, and is not actually a White House Counsel, rather the personal attorney of the President.
And also, it just completely - it's confounding to think that somebody who's aware that although perhaps a sitting President could not be indicted, it is absolutely odd to me that he thinks he's somehow immune from the scrutiny, or perhaps, even - even an investigation to his own conduct about why he feels entitled to do so, and to perpetuate this sort of thing.
CUOMO: All right, but let's not do it, Jenna, in terms of like a matching column of potential illegality. Let's just deal with transparency.
Rudy was transparent. He said on this one, "I gave them some of the information. The Secretary of State said he'd look at it." Is that the right move for the Secretary of State? [21:05:00]
JENNA ELLIS, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY: Well, absolutely, Chris. I mean here I - I find it shockingly hypocritical that suddenly, you know, the - the position of the Liberal Left is--
CUOMO: Is that me?
ELLIS: --we're going to believe this--
COATES: Is that me?
ENNA ELLIS: --what this whistleblower that--
CUOMO: It's definitely you.
ELLIS: Well no it's - well--
CUOMO: Is that me?
ELLIS: And it maybe. It may be, Chris.
CUOMO: Go ahead, Jenna.
ELLIS: At the end of the segment, you can tell me if you agree with me.
CUOMO: We try not to use names here.
ELLIS: But--
CUOMO: We don't use insults. We use insights.
ELLIS: But the Liberal--
CUOMO: Try that.
ELLIS: No. But the Liberal Left though is - is coming out saying that this is somehow so blatantly wrong of Giuliani to put forward information that goes to potential corruption of a former Vice President, yet they are staking--
CUOMO: The Inspector General said it was misinformation--
ELLIS: They--
CUOMO: --done to malign State Department officials--
ELLIS: But--
CUOMO: --and the Bidens--
ELLIS: If I can finish though, context--
CUOMO: --who worked for the Bush Administration. ELLIS: --context matters here because the whistleblower when we actually have the transcript of the phone call with President Trump and the Ukraine President, there's nothing there. And so to say that the whistleblower--
CUOMO: No, wait. What do you mean--
ELLIS: --is fine to bring forward--
CUOMO: --there's nothing there?
ELLIS: There's nothing - tell me what crime there is. I mean everyone is saying--
CUOMO: Who? First of all - first of all, Jenna--
ELLIS: --what legal defense--
CUOMO: --you're the constitutional lawyer.
ELLIS: There's nothing there.
CUOMO: Does there need to be a crime committed for there to be impeachment proceedings?
ELLIS: There needs to be a sufficient legal and constitutional basis that goes to treason, bribery--
CUOMO: Where does it say you need a legal and--
ELLIS: --or other.
CUOMO: --constitutional basis for a non-legal--
ELLIS: In Article II--
CUOMO: --transaction.
ELLIS: In an Article - In Article II, Section 4--
CUOMO: Yes.
ELLIS: --of the U.S. Constitution--
CUOMO: Yes.
ELLIS: --everyone should look that up. It should not be--
CUOMO: And it says?
ELLIS: --political. This should be absolutely legal and constitutional--
CUOMO: It doesn't--
ELLIS: --because due process matters. CUOMO: It does not say that in there. What it says is--
ELLIS: It's--
CUOMO: --high crimes and misdemeanors.
ELLIS: Crimes and misdemeanors
CUOMO: And in - in Federalist Papers 65, Alexander Hamilton denies - explains that explicitly as crimes of a political nature done to society at large.
ELLIS: And what you're forgetting are two very important words, "or other" high crimes and misdemeanors, so it goes back to the entire context of the Constitution. And Alexander Hamilton's word and usage of political does not mean that it can be partisan gain. It still has to be--
CUOMO: Not about partisan gain. I'm saying that the idea--
ELLIS: --something that is against to - against--
CUOMO: --that it has to be law. Here's what he did in the call. And we--
ELLIS: So, are you going to keep interrupting me or can I--
CUOMO: Yes, a little bit because when--
ELLIS: --can I actually finish my statement?
CUOMO: --whenever somebody filibusters--
ELLIS: Because--
CUOMO: --I cut them off. That's how it works. Coates will get the same.
ELLIS: But it's--
CUOMO: So, let me come back to you, Laura, on this.
ELLIS: Well but she - you didn't.
CUOMO: Well because she didn't filibuster. So, Laura, here's the--
ELLIS: No. But you let her finish her statement.
CUOMO: --here's the point. Well you finished a little while ago would be my supposition.
Here's what I'm saying is if you look at the situation of the call, the President says it's there. He has never denied any of the occurrences in the call, where they ask for Javelins, he says first a favor, here's what I want, and he talks about the Bidens. They're going after the whistleblower, here's what I don't get. We don't need the whistleblower. You have the call. You have the texts from Rudy, about Volker, who then resigned, right after it, why do you even need the whistleblower?
COATES: Well a couple of points here. One of the biggest parts you're missing in the idea of impeachment is the word "Bribery" that's actually explicitly outlined in the impeachment section of the Constitution, which is defined essentially as getting something of value in return for the performance of an official act.
Because of that, you have the discussion in the actual transcript, it's not verbatim, the President has provided through the White House, essentially says, in exchange for your discussion about either the dirt on Biden, and I need a favor from you, I will provide to you the funding that is already earmarked and appropriated by Congress.
That's what is the "There" that people are investigating, not convicting yet, but investigating about that particular aspect. But you're absolutely right here, Chris.
ELLIS: That's absolutely false.
COATES: Excuse me. You're absolutely - well I'm - I'm not sure how it could be false if I cited a section of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution.
ELLIS: Well--
COATES: But I'll finish my point because you demanded--
ELLIS: Sure.
COATES: --the same in return. The - the other point I wanted to say--
CUOMO: You'll get the last point, Jenna. Go ahead.
COATES: --other point I wanted to say was the idea of the Whistleblower Act, and why we had this protection and the anonymity there.
You're absolutely correct in saying that it is imperative for people to investigate the allegations of a whistleblower complaint. And if the underlying substance is being investigated, "To shoot the messenger" is really antithetical to what we stand for.
It doesn't mean that the allegations alone will lead to a conviction. But it - what that it does mean to say if you have the allegations there--
CUOMO: All right.
COATES: --don't focus on the actual messenger, focus on the investigation.
CUOMO: Jenna, where do you take issue? ELLIS: Yes so, with - with bribery.
And so, here, you don't have a quid pro quo, or anything remotely related to bribery, by a President asking another Head of State, who by the way is our ally, to look into potential corruption.
If that were the definition, then every single allied move of the President of the United States with any country would be considered bribery. You don't have that.
And also, if it - this were some insulation for Biden, then anyone who is an opposition opponent would simply sign up to run for President to be insulated from any sort of investigation.
And so here, you don't have a legal constitutional basis. You don't have bribery that falls under either of the federal bribery statute or anything remotely related to the intention of the Constitution in terms of treason or bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.
CUOMO: High crimes or misdemeanors--
ELLIS: There is no legal basis.
CUOMO: --was not a legal standard.
ELLIS: There is no legal basis there.
CUOMO: It was never meant to be. That's plain for anybody who wants to read it.
ELLIS: It's a crime against the sovereignty.
CUOMO: I don't know why you're ignoring the request for Javelins and his immediately saying to "Do me a favor," and the fact that he was holding up the aid--
ELLIS: That's--
CUOMO: --that the White House may have misled--
ELLIS: He wasn't. You think--
CUOMO: --Congress about.
[21:10:00]
ELLIS: Ukraine didn't even know that for a month. And this was not an exchange. And "Do me a favor" is parlance of just saying, you know, "Hey, why don't you look into this?" which is absolutely legit--
CUOMO: Oh, that's what "Do me a favor" means to you?
ELLIS: --legitimate for the President of the United States.
CUOMO: That's what "Do me a favor" means?
ELLIS: Well and that's what - look at - look at President Trump's track record of using that phrase in context.
CUOMO: Give me another--
ELLIS: This was not--
CUOMO: Give me another example of him using the phrase in context.
ELLIS: And if you actually go online there's an entire--
CUOMO: No, no, no, I'm asking you because you say that you know you can make the point. So, make it.
ELLIS: Yes, absolutely. And so - and so what I'm--
CUOMO: Give me an example.
ELLIS: --and so what he's said that in numerous conversations that are recorded.
CUOMO: Give me one.
ELLIS: And so - in press conferences, in other - two other--
CUOMO: Give me the context of one, time that he ever used it.
ELLIS: So, he used it--
CUOMO: Not where, how.
ELLIS: He's used it just - of do - do me a favor by saying like, you know, "Hey, why don't we do this," not as an exchange for information, but just like I would say, you know, "Hey why don't we go to, you know, go to dinner tonight."
That's not something that's saying I'm trying to bribe you for anything, but just saying, "Hey, why don't you do this?" And that is a legitimate ask from the President of the United States that does not constitute a quid pro quo.
Again, you have to look at it in context. Go back and look at how President Trump has used that phrase recorded in context over the last--
CUOMO: No.
ELLIS: --three or four years.
COATES: Well--
CUOMO: Look, I would have given you--
COATES: Excuse me. If I--
CUOMO: --I would have--
COATES: --if I may. If I may-- CUOMO: Go - go ahead.
COATES: Just one point.
CUOMO: Quick though, quick though.
COATES: I think you're - you're conflating the investigation process with the assumption that Congress has already gone through a full investigation. They are in that impeachment inquiry, number one.
And number two, I think you're missing the idea of context in about Presidential leverage and why it's very different for a civilian to talk about a dinner chat as opposed to somebody with an earmarked over - over a quarter of a million dollars--
ELLIS: The President of Ukraine said that he--
COATES: Excuse me. Excuse me. I - I find it--
ELLIS: --that he wasn't pressured.
COATES: --I do find it odd that you would demand that people would respect your opinion and your time, and then you interject when I'm making a point about 1.5 sentences in.
The reason it's important not to conflate and not to accelerate it beyond this is because it's disingenuous to the American people to suggest that Congress has already done this. They are investigating.
And if there is a quid pro quo, they will act appropriately. If there is not, well then, perhaps you would rule the day. Either way, it's not about dinner. It was about a leverage based on taxpayer dollars.
CUOMO: No, look, and I--
ELLIS: And I'm interjecting because clearly Chris won't.
CUOMO: --I take the argument.
ELLIS: And so, I'm making sure that - that your points are being pushed back on--
CUOMO: All right, anyway.
ELLIS: --just as much as mine.
CUOMO: Yes. But there's no reason for a style discussion--
COATES: Well this is exhausting.
CUOMO: --about how you two debate. What I'm saying is the reason - I'll take you on the point. I asked you for an example. You didn't have it. But as we all know--
ELLIS: No, I did.
CUOMO: --you're going to take it--
ELLIS: Of course I did.
CUOMO: No. You have not - a single example of how he's used it in the past--
ELLIS: Yes, I did.
CUOMO: --that would give us a different meaning.
ELLIS: In press conference and also--
CUOMO: No, not in--
ELLIS: Yes, I did.
CUOMO: You said in a press conference is not an example of--
ELLIS: And I said, do me a favor--
CUOMO: --how he used it.
ELLIS: Do--
CUOMO: And you know it.
ELLIS: Yes - no. Do me a favor is saying I'm asking you to--
CUOMO: No. That's not an example.
ELLIS: --follow up on something. That's it.
CUOMO: That - that is your opinion--
ELLIS: What else do you want?
CUOMO: --of how he may have--
ELLIS: No. That's an example--
CUOMO: --meant it without giving us an example of using it. To give an example, Jenna, means here's what he said in the context of this conversation, and here's why it was OK. You didn't do that. That's fine. We'll look at this call. We'll see them--
ELLIS: Go back and look at all of the media reports.
CUOMO: I don't have to. You said you did. You said you could offer it up.
ELLIS: Yes.
CUOMO: And you didn't. But I appreciate you making the argument here tonight. Laura Coates, Jenna Ellis, appreciate it.
ELLIS: Thanks. CUOMO: I'm just saying, if you're going to say there's an example of something, show me the example. Don't tell me "You go find the example."
All right, how does one of the President's chief defenders in Congress explain what seems like a new dossier that his lawyer admits has his fingerprints on, and that involves the Secretary of State, who didn't bother to tell us until he was kind of pushed on it that he was even on that phone call.
Oversight matters. Congressman Clay Higgins takes oversight seriously. He knows what's going on. He'll make his case 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: Swear words and tweets, threats of Civil War, calls of treason against a political opponent, this is the state of play in our politics right now, as motivated by the President of the United States.
Democrats are saying that he's unhinged. Look, their job is to put meat on the bones of why what he did rises to the level of an abuse of power that requires impeachment.
How do the Republicans see it? Let's hear from one of them right now, Congressman Clay Higgins.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Good to see you on this show, Sir.
REP. CLAY HIGGINS (R-LA): Chris, it's wonderful to be with you brother. You're certainly in the heat of this very important narrative. And, as an American, I - I appreciate your perspective, and your calm approach to this thing.
CUOMO: Thank you very much. So, help me understand some things from your perspective as in a position of oversight as an elected official in the U.S. Congress.
The Secretary of State had several chances to acknowledge that he was on the phone call. I'm not ascribing any wrongdoing. But he was on the phone call with Ukraine's President and our President. He had multiple occasions to mention it. He didn't until pressed.
Does that raise any questions for you?
HIGGINS: Not exactly. I mean that - at the cabinet level, there's a - there's a great deal of confidentiality.
And, of course, the Secretary of State has a right to - to come forward with his - his personal interaction of a phone call that the President engaged in, according to - as - as he sees best for the - for the - the office that he holds and - and true to his oath. So, I don't question the Secretary of State and his actions there.
I think, you know, you mentioned meat on the bones, my friend. And I think that's where we are right now. It - it's - the impeachment proceedings have moved forward, you know, not necessarily within the parameters of normal procedure, historically.
However, the - my Democratic colleagues have moved forward with impeachment proceedings. So, let's see the articles of impeachment. Let's see the probable cause. Let's see the meat on the bones. That's what the Constitution calls for. Let's take it from there.
[21:20:00]
CUOMO: And that is a good express - for those who don't know. The Congressman was in law enforcement before he did this job. And probable cause really is the only bar they have to meet.
I mean the hard job is in the Senate, no disrespect to you in the House. Obviously, this is going to weigh heavy on your hearts and your heads.
HIGGINS: Exactly.
CUOMO: But this is just the indictment. So, it's whether or not they can put meat on the bones of a set of accusations will then be tried in the Senate.
And in terms of probable cause, when you have the President in a conversation, which he acknowledges, he does not question the facts that are presented in that call at all. You couldn't question whether or not there's more to the call, 30 minutes, only 2,000 words, but he's never pushed back on it.
He says to the President in response to a request for missiles, "OK, of - but do me a favor," and then it winds up being about Rudy Giuliani, and looking at the Bidens.
What is that is - in terms of a concern for you?
HIGGINS: Oh, it's - it's quite complex. I've been to Ukraine. I - I went to Ukraine in 2017, and met with
their highest officials. There was questions at that time. There was a moving target regarding the actual Russian military occupation of their country and what the battlefield looked like.
The Appropriations, as approved by Congress, it's - it's - not only is it the President's legal, you know, within his legal parameters, as Commander-in-Chief, but it's his duty to question exactly how these - this assistance, especially military assistance would - wouldn't be made manifest--
CUOMO: Fair point.
HIGGINS: --to, in this case--
CUOMO: Fair point.
HIGGINS: --a newly-elected government.
CUOMO: But what does that have to do with Biden?
HIGGINS: We're not sure, are we? That's what we want to know.
We - we must keep in mind that we should have a calm approach to this thing. We should recall that this - that the - that the attempted influence of our elections - first of all, just ongoing through - throughout the Cold War since World War II by Russia.
But it really came to a point in 2016 in the Digital Age. And apparently, Ukraine has something to do with that. Now, Russia was occupying Ukraine at that time militarily. And the United States was assisting that nation.
CUOMO: But what does that have to do with the Bidens?
HIGGINS: Oh, we're not sure. You know, we--
CUOMO: Well I don't know how it has anything to do with their--
HIGGINS: I think that these are - these are--
CUOMO: --the use of their military of funds or what that has to do with Russian interference. The President said "I want you to look at Biden because," we do know the answer though, Congressman, with all due respect.
He said everywhere - that people are saying that he removed the prosecution to help his son. Now, he meant prosecutor. But the transcript says prosecution.
HIGGINS: Not just people saying that. The - the former Vice President said that. But that doesn't mean that the former Vice President--
CUOMO: The former Vice President never said he removed or stopped a prosecution or did anything to help his son.
HIGGINS: Well there's some audio about that. But listen--
CUOMO: Not about that.
HIGGINS: --I'm not suggesting that the former--
CUOMO: But go ahead.
HIGGINS: --Vice President is guilty of a crime.
I'm saying that within the - the totality of circumstance, of looking at potential impeachment of the President of the United States, all things must be considered with a - with a great deal of calm and - and - and measured prudence.
And this will include anyone that could be involved in - in that - that certainly doesn't - doesn't absolve the Bidens in any way, the former Vice President nor his son--
CUOMO: Well--
HIGGINS: --as to - we should move forward very carefully, my friend.
CUOMO: As long as it's on the basis of fact, I see one small irony right now that what the President is accusing Joe Biden of, he must also necessarily be guilty of.
The only two - the only difference between the two scenarios, holding back of something, in order to get something from Ukraine, is that we have proof that the President did it to play to political advantage, and we don't have that proof with Biden.
But you're right. We must go with deliberate concern and see what meat can be put on the bones. Congressman Clay Higgins, thank you for being part of that conversation. You're always welcome here.
HIGGINS: Yes, thank you, Chris. And we should just move forward very carefully here. It's important for our country.
CUOMO: Done! Be well. Thank you for the help.
All right, you know what? Guess who's having a good time with all of this? Comrade Vlad, all chuckles about 2020. Guess what he joked about doing today?
And why did it take more than a week for our Secretary of State to fess up on that call? I hear the Congressman saying he didn't have a duty to. But if he's going to talk about the Democrats, and bullying, and why he doesn't like the process, when was he going to mention that?
Our top Intel Insiders are on both cases, 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: President Trump wants to know who the whistleblower is. He's using words like "Civil War" and "Treason" and "Spy," dark words that could have a big impact on who is willing to speak up within the federal government, and he knows that.
Now, let's talk about what we already know about the state of play, and what it means to people who understand how the Intelligence Community works, Phil Mudd, Mike Rogers.
Mike, great to have you. Phil, as always.
So, the Secretary of State gives a number of interviews, never mentions that he was on the phone call.
That's all.
PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST, FORMER CIA COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIAL, FORMER FBI SENIOR INTELLIGENCE ADVISER: I'm sorry. Are you asking me or him?
CUOMO: No, I'm asking Mike. I'm waiting.
MIKE ROGERS, FORMER HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: Oh!
CUOMO: He knows I'm talking to him.
ROGERS: Oh, you're talking to me. Oh.
MUDD: I'm trying to let him off the hook.
ROGERS: No, listen, I - I don't really believe that the Secretary of State had a duty to disclose.
[21:30:00]
Those calls are classified for a reason. And so, I'm not sure he - it was his responsibility to disclose. It would have been, in a broader sense, if he was talking to the Committee, or other things, it certainly would have been his duty to disclose.
Again, I don't like what they did politically. But this thing is such a mess, Chris, I - I can't tell you. I just talked with ambassadors and Intelligence officials, both who are apoplectic about the way this - this thing is going, and they don't like either party's presentation on this thing.
CUOMO: What is the Democrats' side doing? I should be saying the House side. But let's be honest. It's completely partisan. We have no reason to believe that anyone on the Right has anything to do with working with Democrats to this point on the inquiry.
What are the Democrats doing that's wrong, Mike?
ROGERS: I - I - I don't think that's fair, Chris, honestly. I think there are Members. If you're going to do this correctly, you do it in confidence.
A whistleblower complaint, and I on-boarded these as Chairman, should be a confidential conversation, classified, non-disclosed inquiry inside of the Committee. Period!
And I - and I did these. And, by the way, eight out of 10 of these things proved out to be probably not worthy of a - of any further action. Two - two of 10 did.
But I'm telling you, the way this thing has become so public, they're trying to say, "Listen, I - I really want you to have a fair hearing, and a quick hanging," and I just don't think that's appropriate.
Listen, I do not think, and I've said it very publicly, I do not agree with what the President did and said on the call. But you're talking a whole different animal. You're going to undo an election if you go through with an impeachment. You better do this exactly right. And I don't think--
CUOMO: No, absolutely.
ROGERS: --I don't think doing--
CUOMO: Absolutely.
ROGERS: --it publicly, and press conferences, and leaking information, and all of those other things are just not appropriate.
CUOMO: I'm with you with one qualification, which is they couldn't get the complaint from DNI originally, so it was a little bit--
ROGERS: But they--
CUOMO: --of a protracted process.
ROGERS: If you really believe you were going to protect the whistleblower, Chris, you would never ever release the whistleblower complaint, ever. I would never have done that.
If he's - even if it's you believe every - 100 percent of it is exactly true, if you believe about protecting whistleblowers, and I do, by the way. I think there needs to be a system to do this, so they don't run to the press with very secret and classified information.
CUOMO: No, I'm with you, but-- ROGERS: You don't release this thing.
CUOMO: It's--
ROGERS: You do an inquiry inside the Committee. But they couldn't wait. They were so excited. They can't wait to use the impeachment word. And I just think that's a dangerous way to - to try to get a fair determinant of the facts.
CUOMO: Right. Except that they just didn't have access to the complaint. But I - I take your point on it, and protecting the whistleblower should certainly be of paramount importance here.
So Phil, now we get to this other point of intrigue that another Inspector General comes forward, and says, "I was given this bundle of what reportedly was referred to as misinformation about potentially the Bidens, potentially other State Department officials, who were somehow involved in this."
Rudy Giuliani comes forward, and says, "Yes, I gave them some of that, and I talked to Mike Pompeo, and he said, it'll be investigated."
Feelings about this new dossier?
MUDD: Boy! First, if you look at - at the new dossier that - that - so far today, that's a big nothing burger.
When you heard - there was a Democratic Congressman who came out of the hearing, and said, "I haven't actually reviewed the whole thing yet. It's not clear that - that - there was an immediate need to have this briefed to the Congress. It's not clear that this relates to the investigation. But let me talk to the media about it."
To the Congressman's point, slow your roll. Let's get to the significant pieces here. And if you have, in this case, a dossier, where you don't even know who sent it, and you're talking to the media about it, slow your roll.
That said, let me tell you one really fascinating piece here, Chris that nobody's talking about, Rudy Giuliani, and the comment you just made that Mike Pompeo when he got this stuff from Giuliani referred to it for investigation.
I spent a lot of time in government. There are State Department officials who will testify, Intel guys, DoD, Department of Defense people, all of us are sort of a brotherhood and sisterhood.
Rudy Giuliani parachutes in from Mars. The people who will testify are going to look at him, including State Department officials, and say, "I don't have to protect that guy. He didn't operate by the rules. He didn't do what you're supposed to do in government. I suspect he's worried about what the Congress will do."
If I were him, I'd be worried about whether people in government stick a shiv in his back. He's in trouble. CUOMO: We actually have new information, Mike, that what Rudy Giuliani is saying now is "I gave what I had to the White House. And the White House gave it to the State Department," the Secretary of State maybe, we don't know specifically, "To look into it." I don't think that makes it better.
ROGERS: I'm not - candidly I'm not sure it does either. I - listen, if there is any forum for investigation that needs to be through the Attorney General of the United States.
CUOMO: Right.
ROGERS: And, by the way, I'm not sure that the Attorney General should be looking overseas before looking into - you know, this needs to be a solid domestic investigation. Probably 90 percent of what you need is here domestically.
[21:35:00]
I just never believe it's a good idea to engage our international partners, friends or foes, into a domestic investigation, political or non-political. I just don't think it's a great idea. As a matter of fact, I think it's an awful idea.
And so, I - I just - I'm not sure that makes it better. You know, was he acting as the, you know, the attorney to the President? Was he acting in some other capacity?
He keeps claiming that somebody from the State Department told him to do it. Well we probably ought to know who that is and under--
CUOMO: He dumped texts.
ROGERS: --what circumstances.
CUOMO: He - look, you know, the - Rudy's getting a new nickname, which is like the Bus Driver, because he's throwing everybody under the bus.
He threw Volker under the bus. He put out texts that he says are from Volker where Volker is like, "Great conversation! Can't wait to follow up! Can't wait to introduce you to this one and that one!"
So, he's not exactly protecting the home team with what he's doing here, unless Rudy is doing what he's always done, when he did it on this show, saying, "I never said there was no collusion with anyone, just the President."
If that's the eye that he has, and only on that, just to protect the President, what he's doing makes more sense. Phil Mudd, Mike Rogers, thank you very much--
MUDD: Thank you.
CUOMO: --for making the case. Appreciate it fellas.
ROGERS: Thanks, Chris. CUOMO: All right, this Ukraine story could take another turn tomorrow because it seems to take one every day.
But tomorrow, we have something to look forward to. We have former Special Envoy, Kurt Volker. He's going to testify. Why did he resign so abruptly? Why did Rudy have those texts, assuming that they're real, and we have no reason to believe that they're not, at this point?
We have somebody who knows Mr. Volker, and who knows a lot about foreign policy, and the right way to conduct it. Let's get some insight from an insider, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we're finally going to get to someone who's an actual party to all of this.
The Democrats are going to hear from someone named in that whistleblower complaint, Kurt Volker, former Special Envoy to Ukraine. He resigned a day after the complaint's release. He is set to appear for a closed deposition before three Committees tomorrow.
That brings us to our guest. Thomas Wright, Brookings Institution. He knows Mr. Volker. He knows policy, specifically in that part of the world. And we join - we welcome him now.
Thanks for joining us, appreciate it.
THOMAS WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, CENTER ON THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you.
CUOMO: So, we'll get to Volker in a second. The idea of this state of play between the United States President and the Ukraine President, all right, you understand this dynamic much better than we ever will, so thank you for the help in advance.
The idea of that request being made along the lines of "Well we're just trying to deal with corruption there," does that make sense to you?
WRIGHT: No. I mean it would be the first time that we know of that President Trump has raised corruption with any other leader.
I mean he - it's never something he's been interested in before, in fact, his entire history, over 35 years, as supporting authoritarian regimes, turning a blind eye to corruption.
So, it's awfully convenient that in this one particular case, where he mentions Biden, that it's - it's about, you know, corruption. I think it doesn't really, you know, stand up that this was his motivating factor.
And it's clear in the call, he moved straight to Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden, and - and that's why he brought it up.
CUOMO: And then you have the State Department component. Clearly, Rudy Giuliani, he didn't tell me the truth the first time on this show.
He said he was working on his own, you know, and he only told the President about it afterwards. Now, it does seem that he was working with the State Department. He put out texts that he says are from Kurt Volker.
And the Secretary of State seem to have some interchange with him, same Secretary of State who didn't tell us that he was on that phone call, until he was pressed about it, after many interviews.
What are your concerns about the State Department here?
WRIGHT: Well my concerns mainly are about Secretary Pompeo because he hasn't been sort of upfront about this from the beginning.
And we know that he succeeded as Secretary of State because, and previously a CIA Director, because he's always tried to be close to Trump, right? He's never ever stood up for anything over a protracted period of time that may cause Trump to turn on him. So, that's been his raison detre. That's been his main sort of driving
force. And - and I think it is possible that he's involved in this. And so, we wait for him to - to speak publicly about it, and he's obviously been subpoenaed.
I think Kurt Volker is a very different case. I mean--
CUOMO: Why did he resign right after this? It looked terrible.
WRIGHT: Well I think he - he resigned, so he could speak openly about this tomorrow.
I mean this is somebody who, I would say firstly - I mean I don't know him particularly well, but everyone who works on Europe or U.S. foreign policy in Europe knows him, because he's been a fixture and a true sort of expert and professional for many decades.
CUOMO: And he runs the McCain Institute.
WRIGHT: He runs the McCain Institute. He was a Foreign Service Officer for many decades. He's served in--
CUOMO: So, he - he resigned the day after because he wanted to testify?
WRIGHT: I think he - I mean I don't know, and I haven't spoken to him. But I suspect that the reason he resigned is because he's not a - a - a partisan or political figure because he is--
CUOMO: But it - he knows that that's--
WRIGHT: --he is testifying tomorrow. We know that--
CUOMO: Right.
WRIGHT: --Secretary Pompeo and President Trump don't want officials to testify.
So, I think, you know, he - I'm sure it came to an understanding that given everything that's happened that he wouldn't be able to continue in the position, and I think it's - it's a great thing that he is actually going to speak--
CUOMO: Yes.
WRIGHT: --openly about this tomorrow. And I think he--
CUOMO: Because the big question is those texts--
WRIGHT: Yes.
CUOMO: --assuming they're his, why would he be working that way as a State Department official, Special Envoy, with the President's personal attorney?
WRIGHT: Well I think that we'd - we will hopefully find out the specific answer to that tomorrow. But I can only guess. I mean my guess is that he was trying to limit the damage that Giuliani was doing, you know, that he was trying to basically fix the problem--
CUOMO: Do you think that there's any chance--
WRIGHT: --that Giuliani was creating.
CUOMO: --that Giuliani is telling the truth that Volker went to him, and said, "Help us out with Ukraine. We heard you've got good information and contacts. I'd like to help you."
WRIGHT: I think if the President of the United States, in this case, President Trump, makes it clear to the State Department that, you know, that Giuliani is this point-person on Ukraine, I think it's unrealistic that the Ukraine Envoy wouldn't talk to that person.
I think what really matters is what actually happened between them. And I think we'll find that out tomorrow.
But, as I said, I mean this, you know, what we - the person in this case is someone who was a Foreign Service Officer for many decades, served under multiple administrations, went into the Administration as, you know, a true professional to serve, I think, and not for partisan reasons, or because he was a Trump person, or anything like it.
[21:45:00]
So, I will sort of give him naturally the benefit of the doubt over somebody who seems like they were running their own sort of rogue diplomatic sort of operations, somebody who obviously wanted to be Secretary of State at the beginning of the Trump Administration and seems to be pursuing it on an individualistic basis here.
CUOMO: Well, if you speak to him, let him know he's welcome to come on, and make his case to the audience. We look forward to what he says today.
WRIGHT: Thank you.
CUOMO: Tomorrow. Thomas Wright, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
WRIGHT: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, the President angry, very angry. Not unusual! But is his tactic that he shows today, the Attacktics, is that going to help him?
An argument of what not to do, and what to do, to wind up on top through this process, an explainer, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, look, so now we know the defense for this President. "It isn't me. It's Biden. It isn't me. It's Schiff. It isn't me. It's the Democrats."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
TRUMP: I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further. I think he probably helped write it, OK? That's what the word is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That's the President attacking the House Intel Chair after news did break that the whistleblower spoke to Schiff's aides before the complaint was filed.
"Word is," the President says. "Word is" also that this Intel person went to the Legal Counsel in their agency first. That Counsel reportedly went to the White House about the whistleblower claim, so they knew in advance too.
But the bigger point is this analysis does not depend on the whistleblower. And you know who knows that, ironically? The President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The only thing that matters is the transcript of the actual conversation that I had with the President of Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Today, he was unable to say what he wanted Ukraine to do, vis- a-vis the Bidens.
Now, his defense of what he clearly asked for just fails. He says it was really just about fighting corruption in Ukraine. Then why did his DoD, the Department of Defense, shoot that down, with a letter saying Ukraine was already taking substantial actions to fight corruption?
Another line. "The rules were changed for this whistleblower. They're not credible. They had no first-hand knowledge."
The Trump-appointed Intel I.G. called that line of attack "Incorrect." The I.G. stated the complainant does have some first-hand knowledge. And you know what? A lot of Intel is gathered from what someone else tells you.
And again, Trump's guy vetted the source, and the claim, and found it credible and urgent.
Now, those on the Right have claimed this was merely the continuation of a valid DOJ investigation. That's all the President was talking about. Except, remember what the Attorney General said his investigation was about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think there was a - spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Well if he's talking about spying, spying is not even in the transcript of the Ukraine phone call.
Does this mean that Barr is investigating Biden? Is that going to come out like the presence of Secretary of State Pompeo being on that Ukraine call that he only admitted when pressed?
Now, the Inspector General of the State Department comes forward with a dirty dossier about the state officials involved, and maybe the Bidens. And Rudy Giuliani comes forward and admits he supplied some of it. He gave it to the White House and they may have given it to the Secretary of State.
And we wonder why so many just shake their heads at the state of politics, especially with this President going full war mode today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN KAREM, PLAYBOY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Can you compartmentalize that and still continue to work with them for the benefit of the rest of the country? Are you--
TRUMP: No.
KAREM: --are all bets off?
TRUMP: No. If they do that, then it's just - all it is, is a warlike posture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Brian Karem asking that question. And that is the truest thing this President has told you because he will never surrender the "Me" to the "We."
But my argument is, make a different move, take another page from the past. I say "Another" because this President already took a page from the Clinton situation. He learned not to testify under oath. So now, take another.
Clinton did compartmentalize. That's where Brian got the reference from. He cut deals during his drama. He got more than a billion dollars to repair schools, Head Start expansion, help with college prep, Community Learning Centers, better nursing homes, a Patient's Bill of Rights for Federal Workers.
He was also working with Senator McCain, may he rest in peace, on an anti-tobacco bill that fell just short, all during the drama. Why did he do that?
The genius was not only did he give the voters something else to judge him by, other than the drama, but he made it harder for his political opponents to dig in, because they were working on the deals too. Oh, and by the way, he was actually doing his job, as if that still mattered.
Now, rather than this President embarrassing - embarrassing himself, arguably, as he did today, or just posturing about guns, to avoid impeachment, he could see pay-off in approvals if he does deals.
Look with Clinton. Look where he was. Look where he got. Trump has never been in the same zip code as those numbers. He's always stuck in the 40s.
Imagine though doing background checks, infrastructure, during this period, he would be calling the Democrats' bluff on whether they can do two things at once. He'd be showing that he's the President that he says he is.
Keep going this way and look forward to more days like today. And this cannot be what you call winning.
Now, we can't let all this noise distract from other stories that you got to keep an eye on. We have a two-pronged BOLO alert, 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: All right, BOLO, Be On the Look-out.
I know there's a lot of noise. And look, impeachment matters, and how the President is handling himself is going to take up a lot of oxygen, because it's indicative of where we're going.
But two potential areas of concern are also worth watching, markets and missiles.
First, North Korea, just a day after entering into an agreement with Washington to resume nuclear talks, they did this, another missile test. A new type of ballistic missile fired, one that's medium-ranged, and designed to be launched from a submarine.
It's the first time since 2017 the country has launched a medium-range missile, heightening the threat to our allies and troops in the region. The President said nothing.
Then, we have the markets. Stocks closed lower today, finishing at a five-week low, Dow down nearly 500 points. But the point is why, all right? Yes, you'll see the indexes. They posted one of the worst one- day drops since about August.
But why? China threatened to impose more tariffs. This is about the President. He says the market is falling because of impeachment. There is no proof of that. You see no analysts on the Street, who are respected, saying that.
America's factories just suffered their worst month in a decade, due in part to the ongoing Trade War with China. Keep an eye on this. It's of the President's making.
CNN TONIGHT, D. Lemon, right now.
