Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
CNN Exclusive: Giuliani's Sources Are "Deeply Corrupt" According To Former Ukrainian Official; Trump Openly Asks China To Investigate Bidens; CDC: 19 Vaping-Related Deaths, 1,000-Plus Injuries. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 03, 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: As you know, House Democrats are launching the ongoing legal battle with Trump Administration officials over release of the President's tax - tax returns for the past six years.
Before I hand it over to Chris, don't miss Full Circle. It's our new digital news show. You can catch it streaming live weeknights, or weekdays, 5 P.M. Eastern Time at CNN.com/FullCircle, or you can watch it there later on-demand anytime.
All right, the news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: You are a workhorse. Feel better, my friend. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
Once again, there's news on our watch. And the devil is in the developments. What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: This day started with a power play from POTUS.
But the power shifted quickly in a flurry of reporting, fueled by Trump's own Special Envoy to Ukraine, revealing just how many were troubled by his solicitation of political advantage from Ukraine, the solicitation, and how much damage control was going on.
So, let's get perspective on both sides and what the day's events mean. First, Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill from New Jersey is here.
Representative, welcome to PRIME TIME. Good to have you.
REP. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): Thanks so much for having me, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, you got a benefit and a burden. First, the benefit. All this new information on how troubling the call was to people, in
key positions, reporting that multiple officials prepared a statement for the Ukraine President, announcing the investigations this President wanted, our President wanted, the implied deal, sign it or no meeting with Trump, the concern from others that he was asking Ukraine to interfere in an election, Volker, the Special Envoy and others trying to slow it down, trying to dissuade Giuliani, the Ambassador getting tossed for trying to do the same, reportedly, what matters to you and why?
SHERRILL: Well what matters to me is what's mattered to me from the start, the fact that we have a President of the United States who withheld critical security aid from an ally, shortly thereafter called that ally, the Ukrainian President, to pressure him, to investigate someone who was trying to run against him for the Presidency.
So, in other words, you have a President of the United States that's not using his office to advance the goals of the United States of America, but instead his own personal agenda.
CUOMO: All right, so let's walk through the analysis.
I have a wall up here. I was going to stand in front of it, and read the headlines. And I realized there was too much information to relay to people, and I just wanted to get talking straight to you.
But, for all the power of these headlines, all of the obvious wrongness of what the President did, do you say - see anything in here that is illegal?
SHERRILL: Well, certainly. You cannot use a foreign power to corruptly investigate somebody running against you. You can't pressure a foreign power. He's certainly going against our election law.
You also just are undermining - he - we have a President who's undermining our democratic elections, and - and really going against the Constitution of the United States.
CUOMO: Listen, I've been making the case all week. Read your Alexander Hamilton, you know, that this has always been about abuses of public trust and political crimes.
But do you think that when you look at impeachments past, what was the linchpin on Clinton? He lied under oath. What was the linchpin on Nixon? They had him in involvement in a felony.
Do you believe that you need some type of tangible crime that people can understand in order for them to buy into the idea that this is bad enough to impeach?
SHERRILL: Well, Chris, I certainly think that we have that tangible crime. I think this is easily explainable to the American people.
We all know that the President is trying to undermine our 2020 elections by having a foreign power investigate his rival. That's simply not acceptable. Furthermore, to have a foreign power violate the civil rights of an American citizen is also egregious.
If the President had concerns about what was going on in Ukraine, he should have gone to our FBI. I think you see numerous public servants, people who have served this country, for their entire careers, who were very uncomfortable with all of what was going on.
We've seen report after report after report, today, showing how unusual, how abnormal, how wrong what the President is doing is.
CUOMO: Do you think that what we saw today and what you know so far is already enough?
SHERRILL: Well we certainly have the evidence. But, as a former federal prosecutor, the best cases are made when you have as broad a picture as you can have.
[21:05:00]
So, I think we are doing the right thing by continuing this investigation, continuing to put all of the pieces together, as we've been doing, and - and that's what I think we'll continue to do right now.
CUOMO: Do you think that it is a mistake for the Democrats to forget about everything that happened during Mueller because, you know, the whole second part of that report had fueled, not with you, by the way, and that Group of Seven that was waiting on things, you know, you wound up writing the editorials, all right, now this Ukraine thing, now this is something I understand that is truly problematic.
But, you know, so many in your party in positions of leadership had been saying "Well there's your crime. It's obstruction," and all these tortured analyses of all the different things the President did, now nobody's talking that about that anymore.
You worried that the - that the American people will read that as something that was really important isn't anymore, do we believe you now?
SHERRILL: Well Chris, as you pointed out, I long said we had not made our case to the American people. And that's why I did not want to go forward with this.
However, this new evidence, this new conduct, I think, makes the case to the American people. I think it's very clear that the President has violated his office, and what he should be doing for the American people, using it for his personal gain.
I think it's very clear he was trying to undermine free and fair elections in 2020. And I think it's very clear that he is trying to use a foreign power to do so. So, I think the American people understand this on a very basic level.
That's why too all of us came together, as veterans, and national security professionals, to write that op-ed, because to us, it was very clear what the violation is right now, and that's what we're pursuing.
CUOMO: So, here are the President's most offered defenses by the better minds around him. One, we got a treaty in place with Ukraine to deal with corruption. That's all this was. It was an exercise of the treaty.
Two, nothing ever happened. They didn't do anything to Biden. So, there's no completion of this crime. It was just a suggestion.
And the third one is "I care about corruption, and that's what I'm doing. I'm asking an ally to look at something that should be a legitimate concern. And hell, I'll ask China too, and I'll do it right on camera."
Are you swayed by any of that?
SHERRILL: No. None of those, if you - you know, if you dig into the evidence make any sense.
For example, just one of those that he cares about, corruption, well the reason that this official was removed was because he would not investigate corruption, so none of these defenses hold water.
But I think what we really have to examine and we really just have to focus on is the fact that - that we have a President really putting our national security in jeopardy. We have a President withholding critical security aid from an - from a security partner who's really trying to--
CUOMO: Even though they--
SHERRILL: --control Russia. We have a President--
CUOMO: --ultimately got the aid?
SHERRILL: Well they ultimately got the aid, I think, after Congress started to look into it.
I mean this was, you know, this was not because the President had suddenly decided not to try to undermine our 2020 elections, by trying to get a foreign power to pursue an investigation into his rival.
CUOMO: Congresswoman, thank you so much for offering your perspective at this point. We know we have a lot of wood to chop here. And I'd love to have you back to explain it to the American people all along the way. I can't think of anything that matters more.
SHERRILL: Well I really appreciate you having me tonight. Thanks so much.
CUOMO: Absolutely. Mike - Mikie that people have to hear from the people in power about why this matters so much to the Democrats, and frankly, why it doesn't matter at all to the Republicans, and we'll balance out both sides. Thank you very much.
So, as I was just suggesting to the Congresswoman there, you know, Republicans, not all, we don't know where people are on this. This is new today. But some are looking at it, and saying, "It's not enough to impeach. And, by the way, these sources, I don't even know if they should be believed."
Let's test that with a crucial Member of the House, next.
(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: OK. So, we just heard from a Democrat about why everything we learn today supports a case for impeachment. Now, let's hear the argument against. We have Republican Congressman from Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin.
Good to have you on PRIME TIME.
REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Hey Chris, thanks for having me.
CUOMO: All right, so to summarize what, I'm sure, you already know Congressman, but we had this former Special Envoy, Kurt Volker, come out today and basically express, according to the reports, that there were a number of people involved with the diplomatic efforts in Ukraine, concerned about what the President had done in that phone call, and taking steps to try to tamp it down because they thought it was wrong.
Are you at all responsive to that?
MULLIN: No. I read the transcript. I - there's nothing inside the transcript that's - that was wrong.
He simply said, "Hey, there's some people, there's a lot of people, in fact, that want to know the truth. Did - did - did Biden interfere with your guys in investigation? What happened with Hunter Biden?"
And - and I'm paraphrasing that. Also, he didn't say Hunter Biden. But he said Biden's son. There's nothing in the transcript, which I would encourage everybody to read. It's - it'll take you less than five minutes to read. There's nothing in there that's wrong.
It was a conversation between two leaders. And there's nothing impeachable. There's no high crime. There's no misdemeanor. It was just, "Hey, let's get to the bottom of this. And, by the way, would you speak to our A.G. and - and Rudy Giuliani?"
CUOMO: So, let's go through it a little bit, if you would. We don't know that it is a verbatim - we know it's not a verbatim transcript.
MULLIN: Sure.
CUOMO: It's about 2,000 words of a 30-minute call, but it's the best we're going to get, at this point. It wasn't recorded.
[21:15:00]
So, when you look at it, the idea of the President being asked for military assistance, following up the request by asking for a favor, which includes working with his personal attorney, to take a look at his political opponent--
MULLIN: That didn't happen during that transcript.
CUOMO: How not?
MULLIN: What we read, it did not say anything about the - it - read the transcript. Did it say anything in there that it was - that even had the conversation about military aid? It was nowhere in that transcript.
CUOMO: No, I'm - I'm sorry. I'm not being clear.
MULLIN: That was not part of that conversation.
CUOMO: I'm not being clear, Congressman. You're talking about the 200 or 400 million.
MULLIN: OK. I'm sorry.
CUOMO: I'm not talking about that. When they said we want the Javelins, we'd like to do more with the Javelins, he, our President, followed by saying, "Do me a favor," and then went into the discussion about Giuliani and the Bidens.
And simple logic suggests that that was a conditional. And, in fact, we have reporting now, and Mr. Volker reportedly testified today, the Ukrainians were confused about what it meant. And we know that there was a statement drafted by U.S. officials to codify that the Ukraine President--
MULLIN: It - it was - it was very clear, Chris.
CUOMO: --would do those investigations.
MULLIN: When you read the transcript--
CUOMO: Go ahead, Sir.
MULLIN: Sure - Chris, when you read the transcript, which is, once again - when you read the transcript, it's very, very clear. The conversations were completely separate. And he - they went from congratulating each other to say, "Hey, thank
you for - for - for being a good friend. We appreciate it. Hey, Mr. President, we just followed your blueprint."
CUOMO: Yes, that was the top of the call.
MULLIN: "And I'd like - I'd like you to do me a favor." This is President Trump. "I'd like you to do," - yes, "I would like you - I would like you to do - do me a favor. I hear your - your - your prosecutor's a good - good prosecutor, but he wasn't allowed to do his job. Can you look into something because it's important to a lot of people?"
CUOMO: Right. But now the premise is flawed, right?
MULLIN: "Biden has been going around bragging that he held you guys off."
CUOMO: The premise is flawed, right?
MULLIN: Yes. And so - and so, if you read the transcript--
CUOMO: Because nobody said Shokin--
MULLIN: --for what it - for what it's--
CUOMO: I am. Look, we disagree on our reading of the transcript. If the Control Room can pull it up--
MULLIN: He - there is not one thing--
CUOMO: --if the Control Room can pull it up, I can't believe I didn't have it ready, Congressman.
MULLIN: Yes--
CUOMO: That's - that's on me. But after he asks for the Javelin missiles--
MULLIN: And I can't - I can't see it. But I've got to--
CUOMO: I know. I got you. I got you, Congressman.
MULLIN: --I got to be siding with you (ph).
CUOMO: If I get it, I'll put it up, and I'll read it to you. There's no tricks on this show.
But after he asked for the Javelins, the missiles, the next thing the President of the United States says, in response to that request, is to go into these investigations.
The idea that the prosecutor wasn't allowed to do his job, as you know, is a flawed premise. He was actually removed for not doing his job of looking into corruption. That's why the United States, and a number of other international entities, including the Ukraine Parliament, wanted the guy out.
But even the simple suggestion that you should look at my political opponent, as the President of the United States, to the President of Ukraine, how can you think that's OK?
MULLIN: Is this not - Chris, is this not something that the President - that the Vice President was going around and bragging at the time? Is it not important to find out actually what happened? I mean it used to--
CUOMO: We know what happened.
MULLIN: --we used to follow the money to get to the truth. The truth is - the truth is that - that Hunter - Hunter Biden was paid $83,300 a month.
CUOMO: He was a private citizen.
MULLIN: Possibly by Ukraine and China, according to some reports.
CUOMO: But he was a private citizen.
MULLIN: While the Vice--
CUOMO: Ivanka Trump got trademarks from--
MULLIN: --while his dad was Vice President?
CUOMO: Yes. But Ivanka Trump is working for us right now.
MULLIN: Do - you don't think there's a conflict there?
CUOMO: Ivanka Trump is--
MULLIN: There is no--
CUOMO: Hold on, Congressman.
MULLIN: There is a no conflict there.
CUOMO: If you care about--
MULLIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --that kind of conflict and, by the way, I'm open to the discussion. I think that Hunter Biden--
MULLIN: Absolutely.
CUOMO: --working for that company, I think Hunter Biden being involved with anything as a family member of a sitting VP, creates ethical considerations. No question.
But I don't understand how this President, or you, can claim to be bothered by that, and not bothered by the fact that his daughter, who represents the United States of America, gets intellectual property grants from China, at the same time she's representing the United States, and sitting down with the Chinese President?
How can Hunter Biden bother you and that doesn't?
MULLIN: Their - their business - their business was well-established before the President became President Trump.
CUOMO: How does that make it OK that she's doing business--
MULLIN: Joe Biden's son did not have--
CUOMO: --from the White House?
MULLIN: --any relationships.
Well but - but how is it OK that - that Hunter Biden was OK? And his only connection was between - between his father and Ukraine, and he received $83,300 a month, and he then - then Vice President Biden--
CUOMO: But--
MULLIN: --at the time, goes around and brags--
CUOMO: The amounts - the amounts don't shock me. Biden never bragged--
MULLIN: --that they held off the investigation?
CUOMO: As you well know, Congressman, the Vice President - former Vice President never bragged--
MULLIN: Then how did we know about it?
CUOMO: --about getting rid of anything to help his son. He bragged about getting what the United States--
MULLIN: OK. Then how did we know about it, Chris?
CUOMO: --wanted to do, get done. But what I'm saying is if you care about both, you should care about both, and disqualify them both, Joe Biden shouldn't be able to run for President.
MULLIN: We do. So, so if - if Ivanka--
CUOMO: And this President should - this President should resign.
MULLIN: --if Ivanka is doing something illegal then fine.
CUOMO: Well so illegal is the bar now?
MULLIN: Our President should resign?
CUOMO: Well I'm saying if you think what Joe Biden's son--
MULLIN: Our President should resign? Tell me something that he's done illegal.
CUOMO: Congressman, if you think-- MULLIN: All I'm saying, how this conversation--
CUOMO: --what Joe Biden's son did isn't illegal--
MULLIN: --started, Chris--
CUOMO: Hold on, Congressman.
MULLIN: How this conversation started, Chris, was - yes.
[21:20:00]
CUOMO: Keep your arguments straight. We're not - you're not saying that Hunter Biden did anything illegal. You have no proof he did anything illegal. There's been no suggestion he did anything illegal by anyone who's looked at it.
MULLIN: No, I'm not saying he is.
CUOMO: So, it's not about illegal or not. It's that it's improper.
MULLIN: Nope. And neither is the President.
CUOMO: So, if what he did is improper, then what Ivanka is doing is improper, the President should resign, Joe Biden shouldn't run, get rid of all of it.
MULLIN: It's - it's funny - it's funny that you're - it's funny that you're pivoting to Ivanka when we're - when this whole conversation is about did the President of the United States do something illegal by asking Ukraine--
CUOMO: No, it's did he do something wrong?
MULLIN: --to look into this.
CUOMO: Did he do something wrong in asking--
MULLIN: Did he do something wrong?
CUOMO: --a foreign power to look at his political opponent?
MULLIN: The answer is, is no.
CUOMO: So, you think it's OK. You're up in 2020. If you got a--
MULLIN: It wasn't a political opponent. He didn't - he didn't say it was a political opponent.
CUOMO: Joe - I don't care if he said it.
MULLIN: Where in that conversation did he ever say my political opponent?
CUOMO: Joe Biden is his political opponent. The only reason I would argue that he cares about this is-- MULLIN: Do you really think Joe Biden's going to win the primary election--
CUOMO: --because Biden's running.
MULLIN: --in the Democrat Party?
CUOMO: I think the President does.
MULLIN: No. But do you - no, he doesn't. It's about getting to the truth.
CUOMO: Then why did he go after him?
MULLIN: It's about treating people fairly. If you're going to look at his--
CUOMO: Then why did he go after him?
MULLIN: --family then you should look at everybody's family.
CUOMO: But if this President is so worried about corruption--
MULLIN: Because he's about doing things right.
CUOMO: --why is he--
MULLIN: The media has been--
CUOMO: Hold on, Congressman.
MULLIN: No.
CUOMO: I don't understand your logic. If the President's worried about--
MULLIN: He - the par--
CUOMO: --Biden because of corruption, why didn't he care about any of the corruption in his own Administration? Why didn't, you know, why didn't Speaker--
MULLIN: Tell me - tell me some corruption that's happened inside his Administration?
CUOMO: --in the GOP go after Biden when this happened?
MULLIN: It's funny how, Chris, how you--
CUOMO: Go ahead, Sir.
MULLIN: --and everybody else on MSNBC and CNN go out and say "The President's corrupt. The President's corrupt. The President's corrupt."
CUOMO: I actually have never said that. MULLIN: And yet you can't point to one single thing of corruption.
CUOMO: Asking the President of Ukraine to look into your political opponent--
MULLIN: You just said--
(CROSSTALK)
MULLIN: --you're saying if he's so big into corruption, then why don't he look into his own Administration?
CUOMO: I don't know. Why - why doesn't--
MULLIN: He didn't say "Look into my political opponent."
CUOMO: --why doesn't this President look into his own Administration?
MULLIN: Chris, you're putting words in the President's mouth.
CUOMO: The President doesn't have to say "Look into my political opponent."
MULLIN: I think you guys - your job - if you guys could find something wrong with what this President has done--
CUOMO: Hold on, hold on, Congressman.
MULLIN: --you guys would have already done it.
CUOMO: Congressman?
MULLIN: You have been trying to impeach the President since he got - since he won the election.
CUOMO: Congressman, couple of points. One, you're sitting here staring at my face--
MULLIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --right now--
MULLIN: Sure.
CUOMO: --which is testament to the fairness on this show. Two, I just had Mikie Sherrill on.
MULLIN: I can't see it but there's--
CUOMO: And I said--
MULLIN: OK.
CUOMO: -"Do you think you can impeach if you can't point to an actual crime that people can understand like they did with Clinton, like you did with Nixon?" So, I see the issues on both sides. On your side, the issue is you don't have to call Biden "My political
opponent." There's no talismanic phrase necessary. The only reason Biden is relevant to a President who has ignored corruption everywhere--
MULLIN: Words matter.
CUOMO: --is because he's running for President. Otherwise, this President wouldn't mention Biden, and you know it.
MULLIN: Joe Biden doesn't have a chance to win the Democratic nomination anyways.
CUOMO: That's irrelevant though, Congressman.
MULLIN: And you and I both know that.
CUOMO: If - if you - if - if you're so sure about that--
MULLIN: On the other side of it--
CUOMO: --why did Trump bring him up?
MULLIN: On the other side of it, it was two leaders of two countries - Chris, it was two leaders from two countries wanting to get to the bottom of it. Guess what he also brought up that everybody forgets to talk about, where's the server? Before he asked about--
CUOMO: Yes, but that's--
MULLIN: --Joe Biden, he asked about the server.
CUOMO: --that's a conspiracy theory. There is no missing server.
MULLIN: "Can you look in and see if the oligarch actually has the server?"
CUOMO: There is no missing server.
MULLIN: No. That's - that is absolutely - that's actually not true. We have been briefed on that. They're - they're not sure if they have found everything with the server.
CUOMO: Well--
MULLIN: And so, we had been told and so is the Democrat--
CUOMO: --were you told there's a missing server?
MULLIN: --on the other side of the aisle had been told that.
CUOMO: Was there--
MULLIN: No, there may not be--
CUOMO: Look, I - I've never heard that from a Democrat. MULLIN: --all the servers.
CUOMO: Or anybody involved with the investigation that there's a missing DNC server.
MULLIN: Because no one wants to talk about it. Here's the deal. Everybody wants to point at everything but themselves. Here's the fact of the matter. Give me one thing of one piece of evidence that we have that says the President has committed any crime. It doesn't exist.
Let's talk about Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson tried to remove the Secretary of War under Tenure Act.
CUOMO: He did it.
MULLIN: That was illegal. Nixon tried to use the Intelligence service to gain political advantage. That was illegal. Clinton - Clinton--
CUOMO: Lied under oath.
MULLIN: --tried to - or he lied to a Grand Jury. That was illegal.
CUOMO: Yes.
MULLIN: All three had committed crimes before an impeachment inquiry took place.
This inquiry is about looking for a criminal act because they hate the President, and they're wanting to do anything they can possibly do to impeach him, just like they said since he's won the election.
CUOMO: Well he made it very easy--
MULLIN: There is no crime here. Full stop!
CUOMO: --for him by having his phone call because it is clear proof of abuse of power. Whether it rises to the level--
MULLIN: It's not illegal.
CUOMO: --of impeachment, I don't know. That's for the Democrats to make the case. But I like very much--
MULLIN: It's not illegal--
CUOMO: --having both sides represented.
MULLIN: --Chris.
CUOMO: Well I don't know that an abuse of power--
MULLIN: Well, Chris, I do too.
CUOMO: --an abuse of power can be illegal. The standard for impeachment is something that is open to political debate. As President Ford said, an impeachable offense is anything that Congress says it is.
And we'll see what kind of case the Democrats can make. But part of the calculus--
MULLIN: But it should never be--
CUOMO: --has to be hearing from the other side. That's why I had you on.
MULLIN: --politically-motivated.
CUOMO: It's always politically-motivated.
MULLIN: Chris, and I agree--
CUOMO: It's a political process.
[21:25:00]
MULLIN: --I agree with that. But in - well I guess you can say that. But the other three incidents, it wasn't because the crime was committed--
CUOMO: Oh, come on! Going after--
MULLIN: --before the inquiry took place.
CUOMO: --going after Clinton--
MULLIN: --And the process was fair and open.
CUOMO: --for an affair? Come on! Nixon, he committed - he was part of a felony with that burglary. Fine.
MULLIN: He lied under oath.
CUOMO: Andrew Johnson, they went after him because--
MULLIN: He - he lied under an oath.
CUOMO: --they didn't like him.
MULLIN: Is that not a crime?
CUOMO: Clinton, they went after him because they didn't like him. That's why a town full of people who were running around went after somebody who was running around. Yes, he lied under oath when they were chasing him for it--
MULLIN: He committed a crime.
CUOMO: --and they caught him.
MULLIN: Period!
CUOMO: Which is why this President was smart enough not to testify under oath.
MULLIN: He lied.
CUOMO: No question.
MULLIN: It's against--
CUOMO: No question, he did.
MULLIN: It's against the law.
CUOMO: He get--
MULLIN: It's against the law.
CUOMO: No question.
MULLIN: And Clinton broke the law.
CUOMO: No question.
MULLIN: It was that simple.
CUOMO: And the Democrats have to make that case that this abuse of power is against the law as well. Congressman Mullin, thank you for making your argument here tonight.
MULLIN: What about the whistleblower account?
CUOMO: What about it? We don't need it.
MULLIN: All right, Chris, thank you for having me on.
CUOMO: We have the transcript to the call.
MULLIN: Well - well--
CUOMO: We have the transcript to the call. I don't need him.
MULLIN: Yes, but even the whistleblower account--
CUOMO: I got Volker. I don't need him.
MULLIN: --there's not one single - well but the whistleblower account was - was a big deal.
It was a big deal because they were saying that it was a big issue because the whistleblower was going to blow. But yet, there was one - not one single firsthand piece of knowledge. 37 times, I think the--
CUOMO: I haven't seen it.
MULLIN: --whistleblower account, the whistleblower said--
CUOMO: I haven't seen it. But I'll tell you what. You got Volker.
MULLIN: --it's total reform (ph).
CUOMO: He's got all the first-hand knowledge we need. There was clear concern by a number of people. There was an Ambassador who was removed. There was a statement that was drafted to get this done. They believe there was a quid pro quo. They spoke about it.
MULLIN: The Ambassador was an Obama-appointee.
CUOMO: That doesn't matter. So, you're allowed to fire him for bad reason? Anyway, I appreciate you making the case. I got to go.
MULLIN: It does too. Tell me--
CUOMO: You're welcome back.
MULLIN: Tell me how many - tell me - tell me how many Obama - Bush- appointees stayed in place as an Ambassador underneath Obama?
CUOMO: I don't know. I don't know that it's relevant. But I thank you for making the case here. I do. And you're welcome back again. Congressman Mullin, thank you.
All right, so Volker, I believe, vitiates, takes care of the need for the whistleblower. I'm happy to hear from the whistleblower. I think it would be helpful.
But you have a guy who was this Special Envoy who was there. And the reports are coming out. And hopefully, we'll get the documents. So, the question becomes how much did he mean today, from an investigative perspective?
We've got a Big-Shot Investigator, Andrew McCabe. Does he see through the noise to something of substance? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: A former Ukrainian Official tells CNN, in an exclusive interview, that the theories that Rudy Giuliani was pushing are based, in part, on two sources, whom he calls "Deeply corrupt."
So, how does this type of Intel get anywhere near the Commander-in- Chief? Well that's easy. It came from a friend. Let's bring in Andrew McCabe, to try to figure out what matters here.
It's good to see you, Sir.
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be back.
CUOMO: Let's do it a little dialectically.
MCCABE: Sure.
CUOMO: You've heard both sides. You've digested all this stuff.
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: So, you make the case that this is a problem, and I'm going to give the counters that we've been given, as appropriate.
The main counter is "There was no quid pro quo. This was a President of the United States. You may not like his style. But it is not a crime for him to ask another President to look into something he believes is corrupt, even if it's an American."
MCCABE: OK. So the - the answer that I have to that is, first, it's not absolutely necessary to prove a crime to pursue an impeachment inquiry. That's first.
Second, and having reviewed many, many transcripts of telephone calls, and conversations between co-conspirators, over the years, I can tell you that very rarely do you ever hear an explicitly laid-out quid pro quo.
One party brings up one thing, and the next party says, "Yes, sure, but before we do that, I'm asking you to do this." That's exactly what happened on this call.
CUOMO: What's the line for you? What do you need to see?
MCCABE: You need to see a relationship between - between those two ideas.
When some - when someone is asking for something, or proposing something, and the next person comes back with "OK, yes, but before we start talking about that or thinking about that, there's something I'd like you to look into."
CUOMO: My defense to that is "I never withheld anything from Ukraine. They got the aid money. And they never did anything for me. They never looked at Biden."
MCCABE: Well in - in - to keeping it on criminal law terms, the fact that you're not successful in committing the crime that you tried to commit is not a defense. And secondly, he was actually retaining and holding back that defense money at the time of this call.
I don't think there's any way that the President and his supporters can - can effectively walk away from the negative implications of that call. That is the nugget at the center--
CUOMO: Not after today.
MCCABE: --of this entire thing.
CUOMO: Because Volker hurt them there.
MCCABE: That's right.
CUOMO: And they made a mistake of not trash-talking Volker before he got on the stand. It's the only person--
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: --I've ever heard leave in a situation like this--
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: --where he was left completely clean. They still haven't said anything about him. In fact, even the Congressman tonight, the Republican, he didn't trash Volker.
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: And Volker makes a very clear case. People were worried about this. They thought it was wrong. They said it was wrong. They tried to stop Ukraine from following the road.
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: We tried to stop Rudy.
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: They drafted a statement in furtherance of--
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: --what the President wanted.
MCCABE: And he's got documents. He's got text messages between himself and other people who are aware of this thing like that is essential corroboration to prove intent, what people were actually thinking, what did they intend with these otherwise vague and - not just--
CUOMO: So, just that they hurdle (ph).
MCCABE: --for the conversations.
CUOMO: Now, you are no politician.
MCCABE: No.
CUOMO: But they - I'm sure you had times when you were investigating something, and before you were the boss, when you would go to the bosses, say, "All right, here's what we got. I got this, and this. And these are crimes."
And you were told, "Not big enough. I get it. I think it's there. But I don't think it's worth this prosecution."
MCCABE: Sure.
CUOMO: The bar here for the Democrats, I think you're right--
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: --in terms of your history study, and the conflation here of law and politics.
MCCABE: Sure.
[21:35:00]
CUOMO: If they don't have to show a major felony.
MCCABE: That's right.
CUOMO: But it is persuasive to show. With Clinton--
MCCABE: Undoubtedly.
CUOMO: --they had him lying under oath.
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: With Nixon, they had the burglary. Even with Andrew Johnson, they had him breaking that law that they only passed to catch him.
MCCABE: Sure.
CUOMO: Here, what will they show, abuse of power?
MCCABE: That's essentially what this comes down to, right? It's--
CUOMO: Is that enough?
MCCABE: Is it enough? Well we'll see. We'll see how convincing a case they put on. If they have a parade of witnesses like Volker, and documents that those witnesses bring to the table, that could make a very convincing case.
If all they can talk about, at the end of the day, are nebulous conversations that they could never pin down, that's going to be a tough - tough hill for them to get over.
CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, you can't beat the perspective of someone who's made the cases.
MCCABE: Thank you.
CUOMO: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, like I've said, and as Andrew just said much more eloquently, and probably accurately, it doesn't have to be about illegality to impeach.
But what does our Court see? Are there crimes? How comparing - how competitive is it - how compelling? Let's bring it into session, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The President's defenders say the Democrats are wrong to see that Ukraine call as wrong. Well we now know, reportedly, a number of people around this President shared those feelings, strongly. But is it enough to impeach or not?
Cuomo's Court is in session, Asha Rangappa and Jenna Ellis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I am in the role, not of judge, but of skeptical American citizen.
Asha Rangappa, "All right, I get it. The people around him didn't like it. They thought it was wrong. They didn't like how he did it. But enough to impeach? Why should it be enough to nullify my vote?"
[21:40:00]
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: When we come to impeachment, and particularly for this kind of behavior, Chris, we have to look at something that you've already noted, an abuse of power, but also a violation of a position of public trust.
We need to remember that people in these positions, especially the President, has a fiduciary duty. This was an idea that was actually embodied by the Framers.
It's - it's in the oath to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to faithfully uphold the Constitution of the United States that you are using your powers and authority for the benefit of the United States, as a whole.
And that means that when you use that authority to - to confer a private benefit to yourself, you violated that trust.
CUOMO: I got no benefit.
RANGAPPA: And that is an abuse of power.
CUOMO: What benefit did he get?
RANGAPPA: That's self-dealing.
CUOMO: What benefit did he get?
RANGAPPA: Yes.
CUOMO: I didn't see a benefit. What benefit?
RANGAPPA: Well he was looking for a benefit.
I think, as Andrew McCabe just said, you don't actually have to complete the - the transaction. You have to be using the authority and the leverage and the power that your office holds, in order to be inducing someone.
This is, you know, we have this in the law, the attempt, the solicitation, the - basically asking someone for a private, you know, reciprocal favor, in return for doing something out of the official duties of your office.
CUOMO: All right, so Jenna--
RANGAPPA: I mean just it--
CUOMO: --let me--
RANGAPPA: It violates the bottom line of the Constitution.
CUOMO: Let me bounce to Jenna.
So, you look at the transcript, the most jaundiced reading, "Boy! He asked for those Javelins. And the President did start talking about Giuliani, and Biden, and the people around him were nervous, and it seems like this was the wrong thing to do," what is the best defense against impeachment?
JENNA ELLIS, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY: Well so everything that Asha just said, I actually agree with, but you need to actually put that on Biden. He was the one that was looking for a benefit to himself, and to his son, and was violating his public trust as the then Vice President.
And so, for President Trump, on behalf of the American people, and the United States of America, to ask Ukraine, to ask China, to ask these other countries to look into the corruption of a former Vice President is absolutely working in the fiduciary interest of the United States of America.
There was no crime here for President Trump to do that. And - and - and to say that this was somehow a campaign-related activity is simply trying to pass the buck, and is trying to put the burden of proof, back on the President, to defend his actions, when really, this is the burden of proof that's on the Democrats to show that this is actually legally and constitutionally substantive, and not something that is just merely a political partisan attack.
And what I'm wondering, Chris, is why aren't the Democrats concerned about the fiduciary responsibility to the United States of America of Joe Biden?
CUOMO: Well, Asha, what are you going to do with that? "It's all about Biden. The President did nothing."
RANGAPPA: Well I think it's already been established that Biden was representing an official foreign policy of the United States. And what we've learned from Kurt Volker's, you know, deposition today is that Trump was not representing the official position.
There was actually quite a lot of debate within the State Department itself, his own officials, on whether he was abusing his authority, and undermining what was effectively the decision of the Congress to give this aid to Ukraine.
I mean he was - he was holding that back. He's - I mean I think there's also a separation of powers, you know, issue here that he was contravening the intention of Congress, again, for his own private benefit. This is very different than whatever you want to say about Biden.
I'll also add that we have official channels that if Biden was doing something that was so illegal, then there - we have channels like a criminal referral to the FBI.
We typically don't ask other countries, authoritarian countries, like China, to investigate our own citizens. That's really weird for a President to do that when he's actually entrusted with protecting the United States.
CUOMO: I think the--
RANGAPPA: We have a first-class law enforcement agency, who could do that, if - if there were any basis to do so.
CUOMO: I think that outside the base, I don't think the Biden thing is going to be too helpful to this President because I think, at the end of the day, Jenna, you wind up with them at worse than the exact same position.
If you want to argue that what Biden did is wrong, I think you get caught almost with the same stick.
But I think that the bigger concerns in terms of what you'll see is the defense for this President, and I want your take on this, is "OK, now I care about corruption." That's what the President is telling us. What you'll have to defend is then why have you never done about anything about corruption before?
"Well this is about what the guy did with his son. I don't like it." Then why do you let Ivanka Trump do business when she's in the White House?
If these kinds of things bother you - I'm not saying Ivanka Trump committed a crime. I'm saying if this kind of thing bothers you--
ELLIS: Yes, that's an assumption.
CUOMO: --why doesn't it bother you when it happens in your own family? Why doesn't it bother you when it happens in your own Administration?
[21:45:00]
ELLIS: I would put that back on the Democrats, and say, why aren't you concerned about Joe Biden's corruption? And so, there's absolutely no evidence that there's, you know, corruption or any sort of criminal activity going on within the Trump family. But--
CUOMO: But nobody ever suggested that Biden did anything wrong, Jenna.
ELLIS: But--
CUOMO: You had Republicans asked for the removal of the prosecutor also.
ELLIS: And so but - but you have here, Joe Biden, when he's acting as the Vice President, he is trying to confer a benefit on his son, and he is removing himself from--
CUOMO: But how is it a benefit to get rid of a prosecutor who isn't looking at the Son, for one who will look at the Son?
ELLIS: Well no, that's not actually the facts. The facts were that he wanted this prosecutor to be removed, so that no one would look into his Son.
CUOMO: But the guy - wait, but hold on a second.
ELLIS: I mean that's really the allegation.
CUOMO: But that goes against the facts because U.S. lawmakers called out this particular investigation as something that demanded attention. And when the new guy--
ELLIS: It should.
RANGAPPA: --came in, he said, "And I'm going to look at this particular case," and he did look at it, and then closed it, and only re-opened it for a hot minute. You know when? After he met with Rudy Giuliani.
ELLIS: And this - but this is where, again, we have to look at the context here, and we have to look at the full scope of what's going on, because when President Trump - and I would push back on Asha to say he - President Trump did task Bill Barr with this.
He is tasking the resources of the official capacity of the United States of America to look into this and--
CUOMO: Bill Barr says nobody ever told him to do it.
ELLIS: Well but that's - that's, again, Bill Barr was tasked with that, and then Rudy Giuliani, as a private attorney, to - to mount a full-throated vigorous defense for his client, which is Donald J - J. Trump, not the President of the United States that was--
CUOMO: Wasn't acting as a private attorney though.
ELLIS: Yes, he was.
CUOMO: He was working with the State Department.
RANGAPPA: Exactly. He's acting in a--
ELLIS: No, he really--
RANGAPPA: --private capacity. That's--
ELLIS: But he's - but he's acting as a private--
RANGAPPA: That's not an official capacity, Jenna.
ELLIS: He's acting as a private defense attorney. Your - you can have a representation of a private attorney while you are a federal officeholder. You don't give up your rights to a legal defense just because you are a federal officeholder. And so nothing--
CUOMO: But what - what legal defense?
ELLIS: So - that was during the context of the Mueller probe--
RANGAPPA: What is the--
ELLIS: And so that's--
RANGAPPA: Chris, can I get back?
ELLIS: So, again, that is where--
CUOMO: No, I'm out of time. I'm out of time. I like the arguments. I appreciate the arguments. As we get more facts, and we see the cases being made--
ELLIS: Context matters.
CUOMO: --then we'll come. I got you. I don't know.
ELLIS: Thanks.
CUOMO: But I'm happy to hear it out, happy to have you back on the show. Asha, as always--
RANGAPPA: Chris, can I just get--
ELLIS: Thanks.
CUOMO: Yes.
RANGAPPA: --one--
CUOMO: Go ahead.
RANGAPPA: Yes. So, back here on Earth - yes, back here on Earth--
ELLIS: You know, the personal attacks--
RANGAPPA: --Joe Biden isn't the President. He's not the one that's being impeached.
ELLIS: --aren't really necessary, Asha.
RANGAPPA: Well it's - you're - you're off in like La La Land with, you know, whatever's happening--
ELLIS: No. That's your opinion. We can have a reasonable discourse.
RANGAPPA: --with Joe Biden. He's not the President. We are talking about--
ELLIS: And up till now we have. But this isn't necessary.
CUOMO: All right, no, no, no insults.
RANGAPPA: --whether there is a basis for impeachment.
CUOMO: Just make your point, Asha. You get the close, go ahead.
ELLIS: Thanks, Chris.
RANGAPPA: We are looking at whether there is a basis for impeachment of this sitting President of whether he has abused his power for private gain.
And the facts - what he admitted himself today on, in front of the press, only corroborates the fact that he has been doing this in a pattern of behavior, repeatedly, and that is an impeachable offense.
CUOMO: All right, look, I have to go.
And yet, the task remains the same for Democrats. You have to show that "It's not just wrong. It's not just bad. We just don't not like it." It's got to be that it rises to a level that is worthy of impeachment. We'll see if they can make that case.
Asha, thank you. Jenna, thank you.
ELLIS: Thanks. CUOMO: The only rule is you can't insult each other. You can always insult me. Everybody seems to like doing that.
All right, the President is playing to advantage again. And I'm going to make an argument that you must not be played for a sucker.
Don't fall from one of the political standby arguments that are made about why you should believe what this President is selling. Take a look at the facts. Take a look at what we know, and then take a look at what he's saying.
That's the argument, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: President has a real problem, and it's one entirely of his own making. And his effort to make it better today, I argue, turned out worse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with - with Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, let's just get rid of the noise. The play was, here, to show that it's OK to ask a foreign power to do it because the Bidens are bad, and this President hates corruption.
It's laughable two times over. One, any ethical questions raised by Biden's son pale in comparison to the questions about this President's own kids, and his own personal profiting while in office.
And two, just the silence of this President to all the corruption in his own Administration makes it curious that he cares about Biden all of the sudden.
He's using the same "Little bit of fact" and a lot of fantasy to play you for a sucker, again. Birtherism, "That's an odd birth certificate. I guess Obama's from
Africa." He gets audited for being a strong Christian. You remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You think you being - get audited for being a strong Christian?
TRUMP: Well you see - you see what's happened. I mean you have many religious groups that are complaining about that. They've been complaining about it for a long time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Today, he even offered that he's under the impeachment inquiry because the drug companies don't like him for doing so much to hurt them. Look, these are all gambits. They got upstaged today by the antidote to conspiracies, facts and good reporting.
Officials and diplomats around this President knew what he did on that call was wrong. Starting with The New York Times reporting that it was no mere suggestion, U.S. officials actually drafted a statement for the Ukraine President saying they would launch the investigations this President wanted. It never came to be. But now we may know why.
Volker, the Special Envoy to Ukraine made his witness today. Remember, before this day, no Trumper, including the President, said a bad word about him. Let's see what happens in response to what reportedly he said today.
He told us that Ukraine, after the call, needed to be told by him, "Don't mess with American politics. Don't - don't do that," that Ukraine was confused about why the aid was being held up, that he had no good answer for that, that they didn't get why the meeting that Trump had promised in the call never happened, that Volker had concerns about Rudy, warned him that the sources he was using for dirt on Biden could not be trusted.
He said the Ambassador to Ukraine had same similar concerns that drew Rudy's ire, led to her outster, that Taylor, the lead player for the U.S., on Ukraine, sent a text to the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U., just happens to be a Trump pal, and a huge donor, that it's "Crazy to withhold security assistance," made it obvious that he thought this was about a campaign. It's right there.
Trump's buddy denied it, said "I spoke to the President. Let's take this conversation offline." Wonder why!
And, of course, Volker's strongest testimony may have been his immediate resignation after the whistleblower's letter came out, so he could testify today, without the burden of Executive Privilege.
[21:55:00]
And, even today, after the President postured about China, China reportedly followed up with a Trump ally about whether he was serious. You see, when a President asks you to do something, it's not a mere suggestion, and it's certainly not just a favor.
There's no question this President used leverage, used government assets, made a power play with an ally in an arguable abuse of power. We know it was wrong.
The only question is whether or not it warrants articles of impeachment. That's for the Democrats to make the case. We already know this situation is a hell of a lot more than this President bargained for.
All right, that's the argument.
Another important story, we also have to watch closely, I know it's not getting attention, but it should. That makes it a BOLO, Be On the Look-Out, vaping, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, BOLO, Be On the Look-Out. We have new details in the vaping health story.
The CDC today reported two new deaths linked to e-cigarettes. That takes us to 19 in the states you see on your screen. We also learned today that the number of vaping-related injuries is now at over 1,000.
The New Jersey Governor said today he's going to work to ban the sale of flavored vaping devices and products. Ohio's Governor also made that vow this week. That follows action in San Francisco, Massachusetts and Michigan. In New York, a ban on flavored vaping products is set to begin tomorrow, but that is on hold.
A vaping industry group got a restraining order calling the ban an overreach. The same group is suing in Massachusetts as well. You have to be on the look-out for these legal battles, OK? We've been through this before.
And, by the way, there're interesting policy arguments on both sides. And more importantly, there has to be a race to figure out what is the danger in vaping, specifically, why does this keep happening?
Thank you for watching tonight. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now. DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: I don't know how to
feel about the - the vaping thing because I know that it has helped a lot of people get off cigarettes, right?
END
