Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
NY Times: Second Intel Official Weighing Whether To File Whistleblower Complaint On Trump/Ukraine; Interview with Rep. Jim Himes, D-CT; Interview with Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY; Volker's Testimony Reveals Giuliani's Role In Ukraine Policy; Top Diplomat: "Crazy" To Link Ukraine Aid To Biden Probe. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 04, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: --classified government material to the media and a documentary filmmaker.
EDWARD SNOWDEN, FORMER CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY EMPLOYEE & NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CONTRACTOR, WHISTLEBLOWER: The more you're ignored, the more you're told it's not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public.
KAYE: Snowden, a former CIA employee and NSA contractor shared documents from the National Security Agency about far-reaching surveillance programs.
JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, RETIRED UNITED STATES AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT GENERAL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: People's lives are at risk here because of data that Mr. Snowden purloined.
KAYE: Among other things, Snowden was charged with giving national defense information to someone without a security clearance and revealing classified information. He's living in exile in Russia.
Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR, NEW DAY: Thanks to Randi.
The news continues. So, we'll hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thanks, J.B. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
Breaking news, a report of a second possible whistleblower on Ukraine.
It's hard to know what more is needed because tonight we'll show that people put in place by this President thought what he was asking from Ukraine was wrong, proof of an obvious expectation by Ukraine that investigating Biden would get them the relationship desired with Trump.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: This breaking news is from The New York Times, a report that there could be a second potential whistleblower on Ukraine. The Times says it's a second Intel official, one who was also alarmed by President Trump's dealings, and may have more first-hand information about the situation.
However, tonight, we don't have to wait. We have the truth in front of us. It comes from the President's former Special Envoy to Ukraine. He told Congress, nothing anonymous, he was there in person.
He is real and bona fide. You haven't even heard the President badmouth him. And he gave Congress his testimony and the proof of the same, which all directed the idea of a pressure campaign for Trump's political gain.
The key aspect, apart from the texts, Kurt Volker detailed how Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer, demanded Ukraine release a public statement committing to investigating the 2016 election, and the firm tied to Joe Biden's son.
The key part is Volker and a Ukraine official both making it clear they think that's a bad idea for the country because it would be openly interfering in an American election.
Says Volker, "I then discussed with Mr. Yermak." That's the Ukraine President's person. "He said that for a number of reasons they don't want to mention Burisma and 2016." Burisma is that Biden-connected firm. "I agreed and further said I believe it is essential that Ukraine do nothing that could be seen as interfering in 2020 elections."
So, the idea that you have to be fake news, or an enemy, to see that what the President was asking is wrong is demonstrably false. Ukraine, Trump's own officials, plural, all saw it for what it was, and saw it as wrong.
Here's our question tonight, not the facts, but the consequence. Is this abuse of power enough to warrant impeachment and removal by the Senate?
Let's bring in House Intel Committee Member, Jim Himes, in the thick of all of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He was in the briefing today with the Intel Community's I.G. He heard what Volker had to say.
Congressman, great night to have you, and thank you.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Hi, Chris.
CUOMO: So, what can you tell us, that is of importance to the audience, about what you learned from the I.G. today?
HIMES: Well I - I can't get into the details of what we learned.
And this was sort of a follow-up meeting because, remember, we heard from him when the so-called transcript had not yet been released, so he wasn't able to talk about the substance of this. All he would talk about was the process that he followed.
But look, what's coming clear here is, you know, I - I sort of chuckle watching my Twitter feed as the President attacks Adam Schiff over and over and over again. The problem that the President has, of course, is not with Adam Schiff.
It's with the people around him, including the whistleblower, including and - and I don't know anything that - more than you do on this possibility of a second whistleblower.
But as - of course, you know, there were leaks to The New York Times and leaks to the Washington Post from people that were clearly very close to the action in the White House.
So, well I'm getting the sense, Chris, from everything I know that the national security apparatus, the foreign policy apparatus, has finally said "Enough, enough of this corruption, enough of the damaging of American national security interest."
[21:05:00]
And yes, to your earlier question, look, this - those texts read like a script for The Godfather where, you know, the Ambassador, who isn't being cooperative in Ukraine is, quote - if I may quote the President of the United States, "Going to go through some things."
So, of course, this stuff is - is - is an egregious abuse of power, an egregious misuse of - of American resources. And yes, if it proves to be true, impeachable.
CUOMO: Volker, on the face of his testimony, believable?
HIMES: Yes. Remember, he resigned. He's lost his position at the McCain Institute, not a man with an incentive to lie for his boss anymore. And look, even if you don't care about the Volker testimony, the texts that he produced are just devastating.
And again, you know, this is a weird situation because we're not - I remember when we were arguing over the veracity of the Steele dossier, remember the dirty dossier, "Well we still don't know what in there was true or false," we're not arguing about the facts, Chris.
The facts are all out there, many of them admitted by the President, many of them from White House documents that have been released.
CUOMO: And in the irony of ironies--
HIMES: The facts are all established.
CUOMO: --you have a new dirty dossier, and this one seems to have been at least, in part, supplied by Rudy - Rudy Giuliani, by his own admission. The irony is lost on no one.
Let me ask you two questions. One thing that seems strange about Volker, I want your take on this, is that he says in his statement, "Hey, I was never about this Biden thing. I never heard Biden mentioned. I - I didn't - I wasn't there for the call, so I wasn't about that."
The texts tell a different story. It seemed to be pretty clear that they knew what the "Deliverables" were, and what they called the "Pretext" for Ukraine getting the meeting and other things that they wanted.
Do you believe that Mr. Volker wasn't aware of it or do you think that this is a little bit of a convenient clean-up for him to justify being there and - at all?
HIMES: Well I would just point to that one text, which you've seen, that he texts to the EU Ambassador, who of course is a Trump appointee, a Trump supporter, he texts, and he says, "Trading American military aid for," I - I won't get the words quite right, but for "Political purposes is insane."
There was - it's something along those lines. You can pull it up. But, of course, you know, if he's not thinking Biden, he's thinking this weird Ukrainian company, Burisma.
So, of course, he's - of course he's talking about--
CUOMO: We'll put it up for the - we'll put it up for the audience, Congressman.
HIMES: --what everybody in that group knew.
CUOMO: We'll put it up there.
This is - I have it as Taylor, the Ambassador who replaced the - the - the woman who was Ambassador because Rudy and others trash-talked her to the President, Bill Taylor who was replaced as Ambassador said, is this what you're referring to, Congressman that "I think"--
HIMES: Yes.
CUOMO: --"it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." And Sondland quiets him down.
HIMES: That's it - that's exactly right. I misquoted. It wasn't Volker.
CUOMO: Right. So, we didn't have it from Volker.
HIMES: It was - that was Taylor.
CUOMO: Yes. That's the only reason I asked.
Here's the other question for you, Congressman. What else do you need? Or do you believe that texts are enough for Jim Himes from Connecticut to vote "Yes" on articles of impeachment about this activity, and on what basis?
HIMES: Well I - I - I don't want to, you know, we haven't seen any articles. We've seen a fact pattern here. And again, it's not a disputed fact pattern. It's a really ugly fact pattern.
There's one piece, Chris, though that - that we need to know more about, and I think we'll learn more about next week, OK?
So, you had the apparent withholding of - of - of $400 million of military aid to a country that is under attack by the Russians.
You have the - the compromise of the - the particularly classified server in the White House. I don't know if that's illegal or not. It's pretty ugly because it looks like a cover-up.
The third thing, just to answer your question here, is it looks like an Ambassador may have been fired because she wasn't going along with the con, and that's a piece of it that we need to know a lot more about.
And - and - and again, if this Ambassador was fired because she didn't go along with what Rudy Giuliani wanted, number one, that's appalling in and of itself.
Number two, I'm just back from Pakistan, where I spent five or six days with our State Department people who are doing really, really difficult work.
And if - if all over the world in North - you know, in Korea, and Japan, and Europe, people - State Department diplomats are worried that if they don't tow the President's line or Rudy Giuliani's line, their careers are at risk, that is a catastrophe for American foreign policy, and we need to learn more about that.
CUOMO: The pushback from the White House will be "Oh, she's still there. She's still working in the State Department. She was just relieved of the Ambassadorship," but the point stands.
I asked - asked you this because I think that the more people get a clear picture of what was wrong, the more they're going to want to know what the argument is about the consequence.
And that's why I asked you, Congressman. And I appreciate you being candid tonight about it, thank you, Sir.
HIMES: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, be well.
All right, we're going to be staying on this breaking news. You got this other potential whistleblower on Ukraine. But what we already know is a lot. And it now involves not just the President but the Vice President.
[21:10:00]
The Vice President said he didn't know anything about the call. Now, we have reason to believe he did know about the call. He and the White House today slapped with new documents, subpoenas.
Lots to discuss with one of the Chairman of a Committee, asking for that subpoena, and delivering the same, Chairman, Congressman Eliot Engel, 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, this potential second whistleblower, we hear about it from The New York Times, it's a developing story, someone else who says, "I have first-hand information about what the President did with Ukraine."
The New York Times says they may come forward. We'll wait on that because what we already know is more than enough.
Let's bring in one of the top Impeachment Investigators, Eliot Engel, Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Congressman, New York.
Good to see you.
REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D-NY): Good to see you too, Chris.
CUOMO: Why subpoena - why subpoena Pence? Why is it worth that level of confrontation?
[21:15:00] ENGEL: Well he hasn't been subpoenaed. He's been asked to come in. I asked us to speak. We're trying to do in every which way with we asking people just to come in. We're - we're hopeful.
We - we do have Ambassador Yovanovitch coming in next week. And we think we're going to get some more cooperation. And we just want to find out what everybody has to say because we think that there are a lot of things that just don't make sense.
But one of the things that does make sense is that the - the President attempted to use the resources of the United States to settle a political fight. And that's something that just cannot stand.
CUOMO: "Attempted," do you see it as an incomplete act? Or does Volker and the texts suggest that it was a complete act? The request was made. The solicitation was made. What is attempted?
ENGEL: I think the texts corroborated what was done. There's - there's no - there's no doubt, after seeing those texts that there was an attempt to essentially blackmail the - the - the President of - of Ukraine.
What - what makes it all more aggravating to me, as I'm someone who for years has advocated a closer Ukraine-U.S. relationship, because Ukraine obviously came from part of the Soviet Union, they didn't want to look West, we need to have an outreach, an outstretched hand for them. And instead, we are kowtowing to Russia, and doing this is just disgraceful.
CUOMO: It was a concern of the Acting Ambassador, Taylor, who replaced the Ambassador, who you want to have on next week.
Let me ask you. There is a deadline for one set of the subpoenas that are out there already. How close are you and Members of your Committee to being ready to vote that this lack of compliance is something that you believe is worthy of an article of impeachment?
ENGEL: Well we're - we're hoping that things are still going to be forthcoming. We - we - we hope that that will happen. There are some indications and we'll - we'll just, you know, leave it at that.
But the three committees are working closely together. The Committee, which I chair, Foreign Affairs, the - the - the Committee of - that does investigations, Elijah Cummings and--
CUOMO: Oversight and Reform.
ENGEL: Oversight and Reform.
CUOMO: And with Permanent Intel with Schiff.
ENGEL: Right.
CUOMO: You're all three on the letter.
ENGEL: All three. CUOMO: But the President says "Witch-hunt, more tactics, waste of time, not going to happen." At what point--
ENGEL: Well--
CUOMO: --do you say "Well then this gets added to what we see as abusive of office to the extent that is worthy of impeachment?"
ENGEL: Well you know what's interesting? We're not that poignant. But what's really interesting is - is yesterday the - the President yelling because he is annoyed that we think that he did - he did wrong, by trying to withhold the money from Ukraine.
So now, he's yelling things out loud about Joe Biden, somehow thinking that it's better if - if he yells it out loud that somehow people won't hold it against him. I think the President, right now, is unhinged. I think he's coming--
CUOMO: Well that's the word of the moment, right?
ENGEL: Yes.
CUOMO: That's - that's what everybody throws around.
There are two burdens. The first one is do you believe that you need to be able to attach an identifiable, understandable crime to the President's behavior, in order for the country to say, "Well now I get it.
With Clinton, lied under, you know, under oath with the Grand Jury, OK. Nixon, burglary. Andrew Johnson, nobody remembers. But in those two, there was a crime that I get that happens in everyday life. It's not just some political thing."
Do you need that here? And if so, do you have it?
ENGEL: Well I don't think we have it yet. But I think it's, you know, when - when the - when - when the cat is out, I think it's hard to get it back - back in. And I - I think that--
CUOMO: Meaning what, Chairman?
ENGEL: Well, meaning that I - I think you - we now have another - another potential whistleblower. The person is going to say--
CUOMO: But you have to avoid the perception that you are an impeachment, looking for a crime, as opposed to an investigation that saw a crime, and it led to impeachment.
ENGEL: This is correct. This is an investigation. And, you know, let the chips fall where they may. But I believe where there's smoke, there's fire, and I think the American people believe that too.
And as we have more and more people as witnesses, and more and more people coming to - to talk to us, I suspect there'll be a lot more smoke, and a lot more fire. CUOMO: Any indication that with the deadline being tonight that the Secretary of State will comply?
ENGEL: No. But we're - we're hopeful that we will get things that we need from--
CUOMO: Like in the next 2 hours and 41 minutes?
ENGEL: Well maybe - maybe not in the next 2 hours, but we're - we're hoping with some of the discussions we're having--
CUOMO: Maybe near (ph).
ENGEL: --that we're going to get some answers.
CUOMO: Now here's your other big hurdle that I'd love your take on.
[21:20:00]
There are a lot of people in this country, who look at what is before us, with what I think is plain fact, and they say, "OK, yes, it's wrong what he did. But this is the industry standard. This is what these people do.
And if you switch the Rs and the Ds, we're having the same fight again that the people who were calling coup now, it was Engel saying coup, under Clinton, and Graham saying now, "Where is the crime?" During Clinton, he was saying, "You don't need a crime."
And this is what these guys do. And I don't want to see somebody removed from office from a game that they're all playing."
What do you say to those people?
ENGEL: Well I would say that it's - it's our duty to make sure that the President of the United States adheres to the Constitution and what he is supposed to do. Impeachment was given to - to - to us as a way that - that Congress can - can check what the - what the Executive Branch is doing. I think--
CUOMO: The warning was don't make it about numbers that when the power is in the majority on one side that that's when impeachment becomes effective.
ENGEL: Well but, you know, this - this President doesn't think that there is a Legislative Branch or that the Legislative Branch should check anything. Remember, when we were kids, we learned checks and balances, and we learned that each part of the - of the - each part checks the - the next.
And the - the - the Legislative body, which is the Congress, can check the President. This President doesn't think he - he should be checked at all. He thinks he should be a king. He should rule by fear.
I'm not saying that he's not - he's not - certainly not guilty until he's proven innocent. But I certainly think that - that he thinks that Congress has no right to question him, and no right to - to want to investigate. That is up - precisely our right. That is what we're supposed to do.
So, it's not a matter of just trying to get someone out of office. I have no desire to get him out of office. But if things were - were done that were wrong, it's our duty, as the legislature, to - to come out, and - and say it.
And - and we're given this - this impeachment way of doing things. I didn't write it. It's there in the Constitution. And it's really all we have to make sure that the President doesn't do what he shouldn't be doing.
CUOMO: Well it's certainly the highest power that you're given at your discretion, and you've chosen to use it to this point. We'll see how far it goes. Chairman, thank you so much--
ENGEL: Chris, thank you very much.
CUOMO: --for helping us along the way, so the audience can understand which way the democracy is headed. Thank you, Sir.
ENGEL: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: Have a good weekend.
ENGEL: You too.
CUOMO: All right, so we're going to stay on this breaking news from The New York Times about a possible second Ukraine whistleblower. What are the gaps that could be filled, and what can it mean? What do the texts and the testimony of Mr. Volker mean already?
That is the subject for Cuomo's Court, in session, 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: So, first, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, stonewalls Democrats, despite subpoenas for documents that are due tonight. Now, the Vice President, Mr. Pence, seems to be walking the same line.
At what point does defying Congress wind up putting them in the same jeopardy as they were in before, which is a potential article of impeachment?
Two great investigative and legal minds, Andrew McCabe and Jim Baker are here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: McCabe, I gave you credit for both of those. You owe me on that.
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I do.
CUOMO: Now, answer my question for me, Counselor, on this, the idea of what we've seen in history, at what point does a decision to not comply wind up getting added to the wrongs you have done in an article of impeachment? Brother Baker?
JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY & CYBERSECURITY, R STREET INSTITUTE: Ah, OK, very good.
So, look, it was what - it was one of the articles of impeachment with respect to President Nixon, and it is - it is something that Congress can say is unacceptable, because it's obstruction of Congress, right, not obstruction of justice per se.
It's not a violation of a statute. And that's one of the important things to remember here, Chris, is that we're in the - in the realm of violations of the Constitution directly.
So, that - I think that's where people need to focus on, and think about whether the President, through his actions, through his words, and through the actions and words of his subordinates, have violated the Constitution itself with their behavior. So, that's what the focus is on.
And yes, the - the more they stonewall, the more they refuse to cooperate, the more likely it is that there will be an article of impeachment with respect to obstruction of Congress.
CUOMO: And on, you know, on one hand, it would seem to be a substantiation of a consequence for their action. But on the other side, Andrew, it's more mushiness, more what seems to be political flagrancy, and that's the pushback right now on this stage for the Democrats.
Even Volker, who I think is a real problem for the President, that he didn't even take the time to trash this guy, you know, he's a real person. He's not anonymous. He was put there by Trump or by, you know, Rex Tillerson, for Trump.
His texts say what they say. But you know what people say. "Show me the crime, Andrew. Don't talk to me about this abuse of this and constructive that, constitutional this, where's the crime?"
MCCABE: Yes. So, you know, that is a - that is a high hill that the Democrats are going to have to get over during the course of this inquiry.
And just to tail on to Jim's comments, the obstruction of Congress is an add-on. That's dessert. That's the - that's the side item. That is not your entree.
They need to be able to make a convince - a very clear and convincing case, based on fact, not on interpretation, that the President has abused his authority, has acted corruptly in his office to enrich, or advance, his own interests rather than those of the - of the country.
[21:30:00]
It's going to be harder to do that without a specific crime to point to. They, of course, do not need a specific crime to - to impeach him. But to make that case, in a convincing way, for the American people--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --they're going to need to lay it out the facts.
CUOMO: This is--
MCCABE: And they have plenty to work with.
CUOMO: This is politics. If you're running this case, and you get Volker's texts, do you believe you see a quid pro quo in that?
MCCABE: Oh, Chris, I mean, as an investigator, if I had these texts to work with, on top of the - the - the Memorandum of the President's phone call, I feel very, very confident, when I walk into my U.S. Attorney's Office, and say, "Look what we got. Let's - let's start talking about who gets charged here."
You never ever get a conversation, in which somebody lays out specifically, "OK, here's the quid pro quo. I'll give you this. You give me that." But this is about as close to that as you're ever going to get.
And the texts show knowledge on the part of the President. They show Mr. Sondland, who is obviously aware of the concerns about having a text record of these conversations. He's consistently saying, "Call me. Let's stop texting."
CUOMO: I hear you. I think I have a defense--
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: --Jim.
MCCABE: OK.
CUOMO: And I'll try it out on you and both can bounce on me because this isn't a fair court.
BAKER: OK.
CUOMO: You guys are coming at me in the same way. Jim, here's my defense.
"Look, Rudy told me, these guys did me dirty in 2016 that they're bad people there. They were part of the set-up on me. I don't completely understand it. But I know it's bad. And I trust Rudy.
And he tells me that Biden was playing these games, and he got away with, and his kid got this crazy pay-off. He doesn't even know anything about natural gas.
And now you want me to give all this stuff to Ukraine and treat them like they're my buddy? I'm not treating them like they're my buddy until they show me that they've cleaned up their act because I'm not going to give money to somebody who's coming to get me."
That's the way this President thinks. Now, if that is his disposition, what did he do wrong?
BAKER: So, the President does have broad authority, under the Constitution, to conduct the Foreign Relations of the United States. That's true.
However, he crossed a line here when he reached out to a foreign government for assistance in investigating one of his political rivals, Vice President Biden, and his family, in order to help defeat him in the next election that will enable President Trump to stay in power. So--
CUOMO: "No. I wanted them to prove that they were clean now, and that they would do the right thing that they"--
BAKER: No but--
CUOMO: --"didn't do before."
BAKER: Yes. But that's not what he said, and that's not what those texts reveal. That's the key thing here, right? I mean--
MCCABE: Right.
BAKER: --in theory, yes, you can make that argument. But the facts do not - do not support that anymore.
CUOMO: All right.
BAKER: And so, with every passing moment, with all these things that are coming out, that kind of a case, I think, gets weaker and weaker to the extent it was existent in the first place.
CUOMO: And the second layer of it, Andrew, is, we'll end on this, is, "You can't come at me for this, you Democrats, because Biden did the same thing. You're coming at me for what he did. And you're trying to pretend that you guys don't play these same games
when you're in power that we're playing now. This is how it always works. Now someone's going to get a thrown out of office over it?"
MCCABE: It's another very, very hard argument for the President to make. And I - I agree with you. That's what he's going to say. But he's going to have a hard time convincing anyone.
And the difference is what Jim just pointed out. Look, Presidents, forever, have been calling foreign leaders, and trying to influence them to do things that they believe are in the best interests of the United States of America.
This President, it appears, had that phone call to influence the foreign leader to do something that is in his personal political best interest. That's where he went awry.
CUOMO: Andrew, Jim, on a Friday night, bless you both. Thank you very much for helping the audience.
MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, now look there's a couple of great minds on this. But we need more. You need insight that is banging on this from different sides, so that you understand all the possibilities of where we're headed.
Former Whitewater Counsel, Robert Ray, friend of show, sharp as hell, what does he see and not see in the text? What questions matter for him that have yet to be answered? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, you got texts now, and you have direct testimony from somebody who is a Trump appointee, who was present for these negotiations with Ukraine. They seem to paint a picture of a problem.
Let's get some more perspective. Let's bring in Robert Ray.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE. (END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Thank you, Counselor, on a Friday night, from remote, on the job, thank you, Sir.
ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, FORMER SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: You're welcome. Good to be with you.
CUOMO: All right, so Volker, you're not going to question his credentials. No one from the Administration has. One of the few people we have not heard this President pillory, even though he left at a terrible time, and you could argue, in a bad way.
He comes forward, and he says, "Look, I didn't have anything to do with the Biden stuff. I didn't know this was about Biden. Maybe that's true. Maybe that isn't."
But he puts forward these texts that shows multiple Trump-friendly officials saying "We don't like what's going on here. Let's try to soften this. Let's try to make this not happen this way," expressing concerns, being told it's OK, what does it mean to you?
RAY: It means that the bureaucracy is at work. Obviously, there are efforts to protect the President.
And when you say that these are matters of concern, remember, the only concern that is relevant for impeachment is that ultimately it has to be a high crime or misdemeanor.
So, I beg to differ, you know, with the trail of - of, you know, of positions, and the shifting positions of - of Democrats about the fact that abuse of power is sufficient.
You may think so. And I understand, you know, at some level that Congress can decide what an impeachable offense is, in its own discretion.
But if you are looking for bipartisan support, which is what impeachment requires, it really does have to be the exceptional case that both constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor as well as abuse of a position of public trust.
CUOMO: So, Robert--
RAY: And I think at best, you know, Chris, honestly, at best, my take on it is that those text messages, at best, are ambiguous.
CUOMO: Oh, I don't think that they're ambiguous. I think that they're proof of something wrong definitely happened. What is ambiguous, I'm with you on this, maybe it's a distinction without a difference, how big a deal it is, how bad--
RAY: Right. Well--
CUOMO: --it was. And what to do about it-- RAY: --when I - when I say ambi--
CUOMO: --I'm open on. But what he did--
RAY: Right.
CUOMO: --was wrong.
RAY: Well when I - when I say ambiguous, you know, I'm talking about not as an investigator. You've had guests formerly with the FBI--
CUOMO: Right.
[21:40:00]
RAY: --to talk about that. Look, I - I understand the investigative value of things--
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: --that I'm not saying there ought - not to be a fulsome investigation. And I take Chairman Engel at his word. He sounds responsible to me. I have no problem with that.
But you're asking me, really, what I think is the ultimate question, as a former Independent Counsel. And the only thing that's relevant here, investigations aside, is whether or not it's sufficient to rise to that high level that constitutes a crime.
If it doesn't, then you're never going to have bipartisan support to do the rather extraordinary thing, which is to remove a sitting President from office, short of an election.
CUOMO: Now, their constructive case will be "He abused his power and asked somebody to do something that was good for him in exchange for a certain relationship with the United States." And what--
RAY: Right.
CUOMO: And now, here's - here's my - I - here's I think where people are really frustrated. "Robert Ray, he's probably right. You really got to have the goods on somebody to do something like this."
And then, we all lived through Clinton. And if you switch the Rs and the Ds, the case was made the same damn way by the opposite teams. Clinton was lying in front of a Grand Jury about an affair.
And I don't know that any Founding Father ever contemplated that as a high crime or misdemeanor. But it worked just fine when the Republicans wanted it to. Now, it's got to be bribery or treason.
And the Democrats, during Clinton, "Oh, this is a nullification of the election. It's a coup." Now they say, "No. No."
RAY: But, Chris, I - I didn't say that it had to be--
CUOMO: "This is the Constitution at work."
RAY: --bribery or treason.
CUOMO: People get upset.
RAY: It has to be bribery, treason, or other high crime and misdemeanor. So, that's the standard. I don't think--
CUOMO: But lying about an affair--
RAY: --too many people--
CUOMO: --is a high crime and misdemeanor.
RAY: Well too - not too many people disagreed that the President of the United States that there was a case to be made that he obstructed justice, and he perjured himself.
The only question was, was that really - even if that were so, was that really sufficient to remove him from office, meaning that he had used the powers of his office--
CUOMO: Yes.
RAY: --to abuse the public trust.
CUOMO: And the vote went - went against him.
RAY: And - and the public went against that. And that's why he remained in office. This is a situation, again, where the best case scenario is - is it's Democrats saying "Well, you know, this is unseemly and we don't like the way he's conducting his office."
CUOMO: No, they say it's extortion.
RAY: "And that's abuse - and that's abuse of power."
CUOMO: Or extortion.
RAY: But they - they - they skip - they skipped right over the fact that that's not a - that'll - that by itself is not a sufficient showing to meet the high bar, which is the one that is in the Constitution, which says, you know, treason, bribery, or other high crime and misdemeanor.
CUOMO: Right. But, as we know, the Founding Father who had the most to do with it, along with Madison, said, "Look, this is about invasions of public trust. This is about people in positions of public trust who do something that is injurious to the community and the society at large."
They didn't have the kind of statutory laws that we have now. Most of it was common law, and that's where they got this standard from. And I think if you make the--
RAY: Well I get that. CUOMO: --a case of abuse of power--
RAY: But--
CUOMO: --where the guy put his own political interests first before the country's, and used the State Department apparatus to make it happen, I think that he's got a problem on his hand, if people believe the integrity of the pursuit by the politicians involved.
RAY: Chris, look, I would agree with you that it - you know, rather than going back-channel, this would have been preferable to have been done directly through the ordinary processes of the Department of Justice and the FBI. So, we're in agreement on that one. And I think that, in retrospect, that's an error in judgment.
But, you know, ultimately, the worst that you can say about that is that that's maladministration, which is again, the Framers recognized themselves that that's well short of an impeachable offense.
And I guess my second question to you, you asked about my questions, would you feel differently about this, if ultimately it's determined that there is merit to a Biden investigation?
And we're going to find out the answer to that because that's where the Justice Department is going through appropriate channels.
CUOMO: I would feel a lot better, personally.
RAY: Well--
CUOMO: Because, right now, the hypocrisy is suffocating to me that we have people on the Right saying, "Biden has to be looked at," but they don't think the President has to be looked at when he did the same damn thing, except we have proof of it. And we're upset about Biden's kid, but not Ivanka? The hypocrisy is suffocating.
RAY: Right. Well Chris, I'm not--
CUOMO: So, I'd like to know if there was something there.
RAY: --I'm not pre-judging that outcome. I mean I think that's what you have investigations for.
CUOMO: Because, right now, it looks like a distraction.
RAY: We shouldn't be afraid of them.
CUOMO: Where you don't want to deal--
RAY: Well--
CUOMO: --with the exact same fact pattern, but you want to deal with it on the other side. And I think that's why people hate politics. But Robert, I get the point of speculation. I think it's an important instruction. And I appreciate you making it--
RAY: And I think we have to be--
CUOMO: --especially on a Friday night.
RAY: --we still have to be careful here. And I know you are. But I, you know, that's what I think the country expects of us.
CUOMO: Yes.
RAY: This is a - this is an important thing to get right in the best interests of the country.
CUOMO: I don't disagree. It's got to be compelling and, somehow, free of something other than just partisan favor. Thank you, Robert Ray, for making the case, always welcome.
All right, so look--
RAY: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: --where - so where are we?
On the merits, what is a quid, what is a quo? Where do you have it? What is impeachable? What is not? What is the bar? What did they mean? What do we mean this time? Those are all legit.
The Biden stuff, I don't know. I haven't seen any proof of it. But here's the thing. What we can't debate is what we see in front of our faces about what was done.
[21:45:00]
I know why there's so much division on this. It hit me today during my radio show. I will give you some clarity about what our problem is. I don't know what to do about it. But I know the problem, 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, do me a favor. I've been thinking about this a lot. I'd love your feedback on this one.
I think we've got two problems right now. Figuring out what happened with our President and Ukraine is not one of them. If you take away the politics, the situation has become clear. This President was led to believe dirty guys in Ukraine had it out for him - had it out for him in 2016, and that Biden worked a deal for his son. Rudy Giuliani is certainly connected to why he thinks this. But he does.
[21:50:00]
So, in this President's mind, it is OK for him to ask Ukraine to go after Biden, and his distorted notions about 2016, in order to get on his good side, which just happens to include the favor and resources of America.
The call makes the solicitation clear. His lawyer clumsily revealed the motive for the same. Ukraine was aware of it and concerned about it. And now, Trump's own people, saw it for what it was, and rejected it. The proof are the texts and the testimony from Trump's own guys.
Volker, you've never heard the President say a bad thing about him. What a small class is that?
"From White House, assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate, "get to the bottom of what happened" in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."
They want the visit. The give is "Look at Biden."
Sondland, President's Ambassador to EU, big donor. "I think POTUS really wants the deliverable." The deliverable are the investigations.
Taylor, Trump's guy, who replaced the Ambassador they threw out, because she didn't like that this was going on, reportedly, Taylor says, "Are we now saying security assistance and White House meeting are conditioned on investigations?"
Sondland, "Call me."
Taylor, "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
Why would he say that? This is Trump's guy. What the President did was clear.
The key, the concern is obvious. Then comes the cover.
After reportedly conferring with the White House about the concern from Taylor, the Trump donor, and now EU Ambassador, says, "Bill, I believe you're incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear. No quid pro quos of any kind."
He then asks to take the conversation offline. Odd! Nothing to hide but you want to go offline?
Look, showing the President's wrongful behavior is not our problem. It's clear. The problem is that some of us refuse to accept it. That is one of our two problems. And I argue, you don't refuse to accept it because it's not obvious to you. It is because something else is equally obvious to you.
If you switch the Rs and the Ds in this mix, you'd be hearing this same passion to impeach from GOPers, and Democrats would be wailing about the miscarriage of justice in it all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Are there possible criminal violations as well? That can be looked into. But you don't need that for an impeachment.
ENGEL: We are not going to sit idly by and allow the Republicans to stage a bloodless coup detat to remove our President from office.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST, TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT: Well that's an administrative coup detat.
GERALDO RIVERA, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, TALK SHOW HOST, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This attempted coup, another attempted coup.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You change the names, same game. Hypocrisy never changes, just the roles. I get it.
Would the Democrats be arguing to take a President down with these same set of facts if it were Obama?
Would the GOP think that "Yes, got to have bribery, got to have treason. It's got to be a real high crime," if it was Obama? Where was their high standard when it was lying about an affair with Clinton?
Look, can we change politics? I don't know, maybe not. But we don't have to echo its errors. We have to agree on facts.
You cannot reasonably say that these texts from Trump's guy, and that source being his guy, when you read them, you know that they knew that what the President wanted to do with Ukraine was wrong.
That takes us to the second problem. "Well, how wrong, and what do you do about it?" Fair point of confusion and conflict. And let's build in that first problem. You don't want to punish one side for what you think exists on the other. I get it.
But here's where we got to come together. If we don't call out what we know as a matter of fact is wrong, is something we reject, how can we ever expect to get anything better?
We can't only have it be the way Hamilton warned it not to be. Impeachment goes the way of the majority. That's not what it's about. It's not supposed to be about numbers. It's supposed to be about bipartisanship.
I know it wasn't with Clinton. I know it wasn't with Andrew Johnson. And we don't know what it would have been with Nixon because he resigned. There's supposed to be - this is supposed to be so big that we can't avoid it, and it's so real to everybody.
[21:55:00]
Look, I don't know that this President should be removed for what he did. That's for the House to charge, and the Senate to try, and the rest of us to judge their decisions at the polls. But I do know this.
What this President did was wrong, and you know it too. It was wrong because it's something that no President should do. They should not put their own political interests before our own.
Right and Left should never win out over right and wrong. If you only acknowledge the facts when they suit you, then the facts cease to exist. They have no more meaning than fiction.
And if we get there, we have a problem that no election, no impeachment process can fix. That's my argument. What do you think?
I've got some new developments in that other Trump investigation, the one into the President's taxes. It's a BOLO. Be On the Look-Out, 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: BOLO. Be On the Look-Out for a new investigation, an off-shoot of the battle over President Trump's tax returns.
The Acting Treasury I.G., yet another one, the Inspector General, says his office will now look into how the IRS has handled requests for the President's taxes from the House Ways and Means Chair. He is suing to get a look at the last six years of returns.
Now, this comes after an IRS career official reportedly filed a whistleblower complaint. The employee claims he was informed that at least one political appointee at the Treasury tried to interfere with the audit of either Trump or Pence.
Where does this go? Be On the Look-Out. Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
[22:00:00]
