Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
WSJ: SDNY Prosecutors Have Been Questioning Witnesses in Giuliani Probe Since at Least August; Sources: Trump's Former Top Russia Adviser Raised Concerns About Giuliani's Role in Foreign Policy During Deposition; Associates of Trump Lawyer Rudy Giuliani Charged With Campaign Finance Violations. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 14, 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: --are yet to be clear.
A reminder, don't miss Full Circle, our daily - our digital news show, daily. You can catch it live streaming weekdays at 5 P.M. Eastern at CNN.com/FullCircle, or you can watch it there anytime, on-demand.
Again, tomorrow night, the action takes place right here in Westerville, Ohio. It's going to be a historic night, 12 candidates going to take the stage for the CNN New York Times Democratic Debate. There's never been a debate with 12 candidates on the stage at once. We hope you tune in, starting 8 P.M. Eastern Time.
The news continues. And I want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: I'm proud of the job you'll do, in advance. Thank you very much, Anderson. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
We have new information on the criminal investigation surrounding Rudy Giuliani. This is the worst situation this President has had to deal with. Why? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You know, the irony, the same federal office Rudy Giuliani once led is leading a criminal investigation into him.
According to The Wall Street Journal, prosecutors in Manhattan are examining Giuliani's business dealings in Ukraine, and elsewhere, along with his personal finances. The Journal reports investigators have been talking to witnesses since at least August. Now, one question is how will the DOJ wind up dovetailing with
Congress? They're looking at the same situation.
A short time ago, Fiona Hill wrapped up more than 10 hours of testimony on Capitol Hill. Two sources say President Trump's former top Russia adviser raised concerns about Giuliani's so-called shadow Ukraine policy, during her deposition.
We have someone who heard directly from her at those closed-door impeachment proceedings. Let's bring in House Oversight and Judiciary Member, Jamie Raskin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Congressman, thank you for coming on PRIME TIME.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Thanks for having me, Chris.
CUOMO: What do you want us to know about the value of testimony today?
RASKIN: Well there was extraordinary value to Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony. She was a remarkable witness, totally poised, in control, in command, of the facts. She had a remarkable memory and recall.
Unfortunately, I cannot relate to you right now the details of her testimony. But let's just say that she was a very powerful and effective witness.
And the Intelligence and Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees are gathering a far more detailed and fine-grained portrait of everything that was taking place in Ukraine with Giuliani and with, you know, his henchmen that the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
CUOMO: OK. I was anticipating that kind of answer, so let's stay away from the specifics, but let us find out how today informed your state of mind, which is allowable, even at trial, Congressman.
When you're looking at potential abuse of office, by this President, where are you now in terms of your concerns, after today?
RASKIN: Well again, apart from the particulars of what we heard today, what - all of the testimony that I've seen, and everything that I've read, about what's been going on there, suggests to me that Rudy Giuliani and Parnas and Fruman were engaged in a shadow foreign policy with their own goals for the President.
And it all came to light, of course, when we discovered that the President was on this July 25th phone call with President Zelensky, in which he essentially shook Zelensky down for--
CUOMO: Do you believe this President knew what Giuliani and others were up to, in his name, or to his benefit?
RASKIN: Well certainly with respect to the core allegations, you know, the - withholding of $391 million in military and security assistance to Ukraine, and so-- CUOMO: Do you believe you can show that this President withheld that aid on purpose because of his interest in getting Ukraine to do his bidding with Biden?
RASKIN: In order to gain coercive leverage over the government, of course, we don't have to show that.
But I think it's quite demonstrable just from the texts that have been released, involving all the State Department employees, and from the contemporaneous telephone memorandum made by White House staffers themselves, I think it's perfectly clear but--
CUOMO: Well you don't have to, Congressman. You know, there is no legal threshold. This is a political process. But--
RASKIN: That's right.
CUOMO: --you know the - even the Founding Fathers anticipated such a blow-away case of abuse of office that even the other side might buy in. Do you think you're anywhere close to that?
RASKIN: Well I think we are.
Of course, Justin Amash has already left the Republican Caucus because he read the Mueller report, and determined that there were multiple episodes of obstruction of justice there. There are several other Republicans who have voiced kind of muted support for the impeachment inquiry.
[21:05:00]
But if you look at what's happened with Syria, I think it's shaken loose a lot of Republicans, to try to exercise a little more intellectual independence and voice.
CUOMO: You think that what they might see as abuse of power, in terms of why the President kind of, you know, spontaneously listened to the Head of Turkey, and after he had met with Russia, the Head of Turkey, and did this situation that now they're trying to undo, but it's too late, obviously.
You know, there's already been countless human costs because of Turkey feeling, you know, basically free rein to do what they want--
RASKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --in this area. You think that might influence impeachment?
RASKIN: Well the mood has definitely changed. And if our Republican colleagues can denounce the President, for ruthlessly betraying the Kurds, certainly they can denounce the President for ruthlessly betraying the Americans because we got the same treatment.
He sold out our Presidential election. This is the current election that's going on, where he tried to get Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors being involved. And, you know, I don't agree with pretty much anything that Donald
Trump does or some of my Republican colleagues. But I will defend with my life their right to participate in our politics.
But that's not true of all these foreign agents and actors that they want to bring over to participate in our politics. It's just an intolerable situation. So, we've got to reclaim the integrity of American democracy.
And the bottom line, Chris, is this is not like an Agatha Christie mystery, OK? It's not whodunit. We know precisely whodunit.
The President brags about the facts of everything that took place in the phone call. They withheld the money, and then they showed total consciousness of guilt by covering up, and putting all the records of the phone call into the secret computer server.
CUOMO: So--
RASKIN: So, all we're really doing now is filling in the portrait of what was an orchestrated campaign to undermine Ambassadors Yovanovitch, and they did, and they recalled her, after really--
CUOMO: Right.
RASKIN: --scandalous propaganda and conspiracy theories--
CUOMO: But the "Why" matters, Congressman.
RASKIN: --directed at her.
CUOMO: The "Why" matters. I'm not saying that there's some legal threshold. Again, you know, that's political pushback non-sense. But this does have to be overwhelming because it is political.
And if it's seen as just partisan, Hamilton, you know, said expressly - Alexander Hamilton, if this is just about numbers, and you guys can get it done because you're the majority, that's not the purpose of impeachment. But we'll get to that down the road.
What Rudy Giuliani is being investigated for right now, by The Wall Street Journal, and our own sources, this is the closest that criminal activity has - potential - potential criminal activity has come to this President, in my observation.
Because, you know, what you saw with Michael Cohen, campaign finance, what you saw with Flynn, and Manafort about what they were doing and who they might be compromised abroad, that's both at play with Rudy right next to the President.
RASKIN: That's right. And Parnas and Fruman are basically like the Haldeman and Ehrlichman of this situation. I think it - it opens people's eyes to the criminal underworld or underbelly of this political operation. And it's a very ugly thing to see.
But understand that we had the official U.S. foreign policy that the real diplomats and State Department officials were trying to execute, and then you had this shadow effort by Rudy Giuliani, with the support of some other actors, like Ambassador Sondland, and Donald Trump.
And they were undermining the official U.S. foreign policy in pursuit of totally illicit objectives like shaking down the--
CUOMO: But which was - how - why is it shadow?
RASKIN: --the Ukrainians.
CUOMO: Why is it shadow? If the President is saying, in one way or another, explicitly, implicitly, "You do what Rudy says," there's nothing shadow about it.
He was out in broad daylight. He had his text messages. He's talking to all the different players. He's walking into the Oval Office when Rex Tillerson was still Secretary of State before he was even the President's attorney, asking for--
RASKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --prisoner swaps. There was nothing shadowy about this. It was all done in plain daylight.
RASKIN: Except that Rudy Giuliani was never a public employee. And so, he was acting as the President's private lawyer, and he was perhaps acting also as an independent businessman, seeking certain kinds of business deals.
But you're absolutely right. He appeared to speak with the authority of a delegation from the President of the United States. And that - that will be one of the fascinating things to figure out how much he implicated the President, and how much he purported to speak for the President.
But at least, with respect to the big shakedown, it's very clear that Donald Trump was behind it, and Rudy Giuliani was following his orders.
CUOMO: Are you at the point yet where there is nothing you could learn that would change your opinion of the President's use or abuse of his office?
RASKIN: Well I - I wouldn't say that. I mean that's why we're bringing all these witnesses in.
And, you know, one witness talks about other people who have very serious material information that's relevant to the Committee. And they talk, you know, they mention others, and so we're trying to bring them all in.
[21:10:00]
Unfortunately, President Trump and his team are doing everything in their power to, what do you know, obstruct the investigation. They're trying to shut the witnesses down, and keep them from coming, and prevent documents from being turned over, and so on.
The good news is that in the last week, federal courts, like public opinion, have swung dramatically on the side of Congress, in terms of being able to obtain the information we need, to get a clear picture of what happened.
So, I think that there is overwhelming evidence. I don't want to deny that. On the other hand, I'm open to all evidence that anybody brings forward that can show what was shown in that contemporaneous telephone memorandum--
CUOMO: Right.
RASKIN: --wasn't true, or the texts didn't really happen.
CUOMO: In--
RASKIN: They were fabricated or whatever.
CUOMO: Just I'm doing a running tally here, just a yes/no, if you would, Congressman, for time, and also it's just a yes/no question.
Are you open to the suggestion of having a vote, you do not have to, I'm not saying it's about must, in order to get bipartisan support for the impeachment process. Yes or not?
RASKIN: Sure. I'm open to that. I - I think we can discuss that. And, you know, look, we've got great leadership in Nancy Pelosi, and she'll have a great sense of whether or not we need to do that.
CUOMO: Congressman Jamie Raskin, a really important day, such important matters going on, thank you for weighing, and I appreciate it.
RASKIN: Thanks so much for having me, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, now look, again, I was clear during the Mueller probe. If you expect some prosecution implicating this President, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Now this time, I cannot wave away what we're learning about this investigation as quickly or as easily. This is not about political practice. This is not about impeachment. This is about law and fact.
And the more we learn about Rudy Giuliani, and this President, and the people that they put into practice for their position, the more trouble it could mean.
We have laid out the road ahead, and all the forks that are in it, and we got lucky. Top law enforcement officer, from the FBI, who knows the law, and know what it takes, to make a case, the way forward, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: President and, you know, people who want to defend him can say any questions about Ukraine are just political. It's not true. It's about potential criminality.
Ask the federal investigators in the Southern District in New York. You think it's easy in the DOJ, right now, to go after the President's lawyer even with an investigation? They must have facts that are pointing to Rudy Giuliani, and we know they do.
How important, how relevant, where they lead, those are the questions. Andrew McCabe made these cases, OK? So, he is an invaluable resource.
Thank you very much. Now, feel free to push back, Andrew, on my assertion of importance. Impeachment's political. This ain't political.
I have not seen the nexus of campaign finance and potential greater criminality, in this point, FARA, you know, having to register as a foreign agent, this close in proximity to the President.
You know, Flynn, that was remote, Manafort, that was a long time ago. Cohen, that was just campaign finance. Here you have the two big sticks in someone that this President can't deny knowledge of efforts.
How do you see it?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well I think you're exactly right, Chris. It's not required to make the case for impeachment.
But it sure does make it a lot convincing, a lot more convincing, when you have people like Mr. Giuliani, who were inextricably intertwined in the President's actions that have now drawn the impeachment inquiry, at the same time Mr. Giuliani is tied up with folks who we know - well who the allegation is were involved in criminal activity in Ukraine.
That looks a lot like what we're talking about in the impeachment inquiry. It is--
CUOMO: So potential criminality, forget about impeachment. Let's say it goes somewhere. It doesn't go anywhere.
If you're running this case, SDNY, and you're looking for potential criminality, what are the potential crimes involved, with what we know about Rudy so far, and where questions might lead?
MCCABE: Yes. So, we don't know about any crimes with Rudy so far. But from the few facts that we have, and I might add that the Southern District, no doubt, has many, many more facts than we have, at this point.
But from the few facts we have, I think one of the things you would have to consider with respect to Mr. Giuliani is a possible FARA violation. So, that's a Foreign Agent Registration Act.
And that Act requires any person, who is acting as an agent of a foreign principal to file a very detailed registration with the Department of Justice. It's--
CUOMO: So that means if you're working for somebody, outside the country, and doing work for them inside the country, you've got to register. So Rudy says, "I wasn't doing that. I was only working for the President."
MCCABE: Yes. So no, lots of people who are contacted by DOJ say the same thing. One possible theory of a FARA problem for Mr. Giuliani here, and again, this is just a theory, is that you look back to Parnas and Fruman.
So, their - in their indictment, it is alleged that they received money from a Ukrainian political figure, which they then used to donate to a Congressional campaign.
CUOMO: They're Americans though, those two guys.
MCCABE: They are.
CUOMO: You know, they're Soviet-born, but they're American naturalized. We don't know who they were - that their - have their own accusations, obviously, you know this, Andrew.
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: But that they were funneling Russian money into some elections out west. So, where's the analysis go from there?
MCCABE: Well the problem is the Ukrainian political figure that was the source of some of these donations. There - that is your - that's your foreign principal for the terms under the FARA - for the FARA statute.
[21:20:00]
So, if Mr. Giuliani was participating in that effort, to have the Ambassador removed, which we know that Parnas and Fruman were doing, by their lobbying of then-Congressman Sessions, who wrote a letter to the State Department, seeking the Ambassador's removal, that could provoke a Foreign Agent Registration obligation, which Mr. Giuliani may have not have seen through on.
CUOMO: And on the campaign finance side, he has the issue of - he says, "I was working for the President. I was working for free." Well die he mark that as a donation? Was that donation recorded by the campaign? Those become relevant considerations.
MCCABE: It does. And it also becomes relevant if Mr. Giuliani was participating as a co-conspirator or a counselor to Parnas and Fruman in their FEC - alleged FEC violation.
CUOMO: How does Rudy Giuliani, as smart as he - I mean people don't even really remember, you know, the genius that was ascribed to him, as a prosecutor, and a tough guy--
MCCABE: That's right.
CUOMO: --and a savvy guy with like a bloodhound's nose for fugazi people, like these two guys.
MCCABE: Yes.
CUOMO: How does he get into cahoots with him? What would have been the - the tonic for him because he doesn't need the money?
MCCABE: You know, it's really hard to say, Chris. I mean you're absolutely right. This is a guy who has a storied reputation, as a Crime Fighter, in New York, in the organized crime area.
And to go from that background, of course, serving as, you know, America's Mayor of New York City, and now, really rubbing elbows with some very questionable figures over in Ukraine, having these two gentlemen as clients, who were clearly involved in a lot of campaign shenanigans, both here and - and in the west of the country, as you've noted, it's just - it's unfathomable to me that someone of his legal background wouldn't have seen the - the potential potholes here.
CUOMO: Do we know that he - whether he registered or not when he was working for the Turkish guy who he tried to get, you know, subject of a prisoner swap? I mean that - that could be - that's representing a foreign power.
MCCABE: Not to my knowledge. But it's interesting you bring that up because the FARA registration has an exemption for people who are lawyers, and who are working on behalf of a foreign principal, who's engaged in an ongoing legal issue like, for instance, his client was indicted, at that point, was being - was charged by the Southern District, so that's likely the sort of situation that would lead to an - an exemption.
CUOMO: Very good to know. Thank you for that nuance. It'd mean everything in investigation. Andrew McCabe, thank you. The more we learn more I'm going to lean on you.
MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, so with that as a starting point, what are the questions that surround Mr. Giuliani with a closer look at his words and actions? Take a look at it. Take a look for what kind of exposure there is. And remember the exposure for this President as well. We have not seen
someone this close to the President working with the President in ways that are now being investigated.
Let's go down the road together, 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: Yes, look, we could be talking about political implications, but you could be talking about a lot more. What did Mr. Giuliani do? What did he know when he was doing it? Who paid him? What did he know about where that money came from?
The answers create potential legal avenues for jeopardy for him, and for this President, by implication. This President has never been this close to someone involved with these kinds of questions, as President.
It starts with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, OK? Rudy met with them before they tried to flee the U.S. Is that true? If he did, did he know what they wanted to do? Did he help? We don't know.
But these are the kinds of questions. It's not speculation. This is the kind of legal analysis. It'll be pure speculation if there weren't an investigation going on. They're legitimate questions. The answer may be very satisfying for Mr. Giuliani. But we have to learn them.
Was he part of the efforts of these two guys to get rid of the U.S. Ambassador? She says "Yes." Is there proof of the same? Well, if so, then Giuliani could be a party to the conspiracy charges that Parnas and Fruman are facing.
Then comes the potential road to ruin for Mr. Giuliani. Giuliani told The Washington Post, "Nobody's paying me a single thing. I'm doing for Donald J. Trump."
Two questions. If his work for Mr. Trump was as personal lawyer, as he says, if that's true, so he was doing it pro bono? Did he report that? Did the campaign? You're supposed to. So, the answer matters.
The SDNY believes it knows the money trail here. Prosecutors say Parnas and Fruman were being bankrolled by an unnamed foreign national. Did Rudy know that? Did he think these guys had that kind of money to
put into his pocket? Why would he take money from guys like this? Did they promise him that they could get the dirt on Biden? You know, did he kind of like lose sense of good guys and bad guys for that political purpose?
Then there's the first part of Rudy's disclaimer quote, and keep in mind, the trip to Madrid, the one the whistleblower described as a direct follow-up to the July 25th call.
That's where Giuliani met with representatives of the Ukrainian President, of Ukraine's President, he said, "That trip was paid by clients other than President Trump."
Who? Because if other clients include like the City of Kharkov, in Ukraine, well did it dovetail over into anything that he was doing in the United States because that could be FARA, or FARA, whatever, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. That becomes relevant.
But in Giuliani's own words, "I never registered to lobby." So, if he was doing that kind of work that can pass the test he's got a problem unless he gets the exemption that it was only see his legal work in an ongoing case. Did it check that box? Important to know.
[21:30:00]
Giuliani however says he was only serving one client, Donald Trump. And if that is true, and nobody else is involved in any of this that has to do with this Ukraine matter, maybe he will get the lawyers' exemption.
Why am I shading it towards him? Because I want to be fair. I have no interest in seeing Rudy Giuliani or anybody else be in legal jeopardy in this situation. So, I want to be fair. Maybe he'll get that lawyers' exemption. We've got to find out the answers. And they are investigating it.
Now, the lawyer is working to educate U.S. policymakers, all right? Now that's another definition under the law.
That could include advising POTUS on whether the new Ukrainian President will play ball, or promoting the public interest of a foreign country, say like striking a deal for the military assistance. If you're doing those things, then you have to register.
Well then does that jam up Giuliani - Giuliani that you were doing exactly that you say by your own depiction - depiction - depiction that you were trying to get this President information to make him more savvy about corruption in Ukraine.
Comes down to what Mr. Giuliani was offering up in the meetings that he had with those people. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act says a U.S. citizen can't offer anything of value to a foreign official.
So, we'll have to see if Giuliani discussed ways to unfreeze the aid money. That could be a problem, legal exposure, it's not about politics. At the same time, you can't solicit, ask for, anything from a foreign government, which brings us to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Court finding--
CUOMO: You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden--
GIULIANI: The only thing I asked about Joe Biden--
CUOMO: --and his role with the prosecutor.
GIULIANI: --is to get to the bottom of how it was that Lutsenko who was appointed--
CUOMO: Right.
GIULIANI: --dismissed a case against AntAC.
CUOMO: So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?
GIULIANI: Of course, I did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, now, that wasn't just a silly "Gotcha" session. But it wound up putting a light bulb on. All right, then it's out there.
Rudy was there to get dirt on Biden for the President. The President's defenders point to the Mueller report as proof that dirt on Biden doesn't count. That is not what Mr. Mueller said. Check it. Check it for yourself.
Mueller says oppo research could constitute a ban to contribution. It's right in the report.
That part of the reason that Don Jr. wasn't charged is not because it wasn't a thing of potential value, is because they weren't sure "The Namesake" knew it would be a crime. Mueller seemed to accept that Trump Jr. could be that ignorant.
But no one will accept ignorance as an excuse for Giuliani, which brings us to the text messages, the ones Giuliani has been reading on TV to show he was working for the State Department, despite him telling me this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: No, I did what I did on my own.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, clearly at this point, I don't know what he meant by "On my own," because he was working with the State Department. He was working with these other two guys who just got indicted. If Giuliani was officially part of the State Department, right, even unpaid Executive Branch officials have to follow financial disclosure rules. Oh, man, you say it's penny ante, fine. But that's the law.
Each answer creates a responsibility that Rudy must satisfy or justify. Each answer from the two men in custody could be key to a case on Rudy. Do you really believe the SDNY went after tea - these two guys just for what they have on them, so far, or for where they could lead them?
This might be the most serious legal jeopardy for any Trumper to date. That's how I see it, based on the facts, and the questions that could take us forward. Let's take it to better legal minds. What do these two believe are the questions and concerns, if any?
Cuomo's Court, 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: Now, let's be very clear. Mr. Giuliani's explanation, at this point, is that his push for investigations in Ukraine is all about defending Mr. Trump, our President.
But as federal prosecutors dive into his bank records, and interview whom they believe are potential key witnesses to his business dealings in Ukraine, and who knows maybe somewhere else, raises new questions, about whose interests he worked towards, and why is the law on his side?
Let's put it to Cuomo's Court, Asha Rangappa, Jimmy Schultz, both here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Traditional split here of Asha making the case. Jimmy, you defend it.
Asha, when it comes to legality, let's put impeachment aside. I know this has implications for impeachment. That's politics. On the law, do you see exposure?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well they're definitely looking at something. I mean, you know, the Southern District of New York has gotten Giuliani's bank records, and --- and finances, and they're following the money.
What potential criminal liability he has? I just don't think that we know enough facts, you know, to - to discern.
You mentioned the Foreign Agent Registration Act before. I think that the facts are a little thin to - to come to that conclusion. But I think that facts could emerge that would potentially substantiate that.
CUOMO: You know, one of the concerns for him, Jimmy, as they saw - you saw with Manafort, is they get you on the FARA side, not just based on what they're looking at now, but before.
This guy that he came to, this Turkish gold guy that he came to the White House to negotiate for, he says, "You know, I'm exempt. That was legal." You know, that exemption isn't as generous as it sounds.
Do you have any concerns about potential exposure?
JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I - I think any time the United States government's looking into you - the, you know, Rudy Giuliani would have cause for concern. It doesn't really matter what I say, whether I'm cause for concern.
But if I'm Rudy Giuliani, I have some concerns, and because they're asking questions. But, at the end of the day, he felt very confident that - that - that the exception for lawyering, if you will, under FARA, applied to that, and it may very well apply, we don't know yet.
CUOMO: You have to be doing certain things--
SCHULTZ: I think Asha's right. We haven't--
CUOMO: --in furtherance of a case--
SCHULTZ: We - we don't - right - right.
CUOMO: --that is active.
SCHULTZ: No, I get it.
CUOMO: Go ahead.
SCHULTZ: No. I understand the - the law on that.
RANGAPPA: Yes. Chris?
SCHULTZ: And I don't - and I don't know that we know the answers to that in terms of what he was doing. And I think Asha's right. I think there's a lot of questions that need to be answered before we can jump to any conclusion. [21:40:00]
CUOMO: Well here's the bigger problem for him as legal exposure, Asha. These two guys that just got indicted, I'm telling you these guys are going to wind up being known commodities that someone like Rudy Giuliani would never get near.
Why was he near them here? Why did he let them put money in his pocket? What did he know about where that money came from? You know, those questions matter - yes, here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(TWITTER/@ADAMPARKHOMENKO VIDEO - RUDY GIULIANI WITH LEV PARNAS AND IGOR FRUMAN)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I mean look, this is, you know, not innuendo and speculation. These cats have pictures, you know, an obvious intimacy with Giuliani and the President. It's not just like they got him at a Christmas party, you know. So, what do--
RANGAPPA: No. I mean--
CUOMO: --you see there?
RANGAPPA: Yes. So, look, these two guys have been indicted for a conspiracy for acting, essentially as straw donors for foreign funds, in violation of our federal election laws.
You know, did Giuliani know anything about this scheme? Was he doing anything in furtherance of that scheme? That could make him liable for the conspiracy.
Now, we also know that part of what they were doing for these foreign donors is advancing their interest, one of which was to get this U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine recalled. You know, this was also one of Giuliani's goals.
CUOMO: Yes.
RANGAPPA: Now, is it possible that Giuliani had this goal independently of these two people? Yes. I will say though that to the extent that there is any Foreign Agent Registration Act liability, I don't think the lawyer exemption would cover him.
That only extends to representation in front of a court or agency or committee or proceeding, and cannot extend to trying to influence policy. In fact, Paul Manafort's law firm had to settle because--
CUOMO: Right.
RANGAPPA: --of a FARA violation.
CUOMO: Good point. RANGAPPA: Because they were trying to do things beyond the scope of the - the lawyer exemption.
CUOMO: Right.
RANGAPPA: I'll also say just the - the other defense that Rudy can put out there is that he was acting at the direction of the President.
I don't think this is so great for the President because it means that if Giuliani has any criminal liability, he's basically suggesting that the President not only knew about it, but was somehow directing him to do it.
So, I don't see, you know, I - I don't think things look good for Giuliani. I don't think he's making the President - putting the President in a particularly good place either by his defenses.
CUOMO: Jimmy, at this point, or - is the biggest thing for us to watch the connection of Mr. Giuliani to these two guys because you know the Southern District, you know, isn't so excited about making this kind of case. It's got to be about what they think these people can tell them.
SCHULTZ: Well, right. I mean that's - that's the whole thing is to seeing what the connection is between Rudy Giuliani and these two folks, what capacity everyone was acting in, is going to be centered to those questions.
And I'm sure the New York - the - the Southern District of New York is going to sort it out.
When we were talking about FARA earlier, just to clarify, I was talking about the prisoner swap.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHULTZ: Not as it relates to anything to this particular matter.
I think Asha's right on that to the extent that he was, you know, to the extent that they - that Giuliani was doing something on behalf of a foreign government or a foreign official, yes, then FARA could come into play, remains to be seen whether that happens or not.
CUOMO: You know, friends that I share in common with the Mayor, and again, you know, I have no personal interest. I don't care what kind of argument I have with the Mayor on television. I have no personal interest in seeing him deal with any negativity.
But people don't understand why Rudy Giuliani would get close to guys like this, Jimmy, that he's the guy who would tell you not to get near guys like this, you know, "Be careful be careful."
Is that one of the things that's kind of tripping your Spidey-sense in terms of what doesn't add up here?
SCHULTZ: I don't know that it's tripping my Spidey-sense or not. But certainly, you raise a good point, why he's involved with these
individuals remains to be seen. You know, it's not characteristic of the Rudy Giuliani that we all knew. But, you know, we don't know all the facts yet either.
CUOMO: No. A 100 percent. But, you know, Asha, look, the reason I'm going down this road, and I asked you guys to come in tonight, is speculation of "Are they going to impeach or not, and here's why, here's what it means to me," I get that - that speculation.
I get why we do a minimum of that on this show. This not that for me. These avenues have to be satisfied with answers. That's why they're investigating.
And, let's be honest, no disrespect to the DOJ, no one's opening a case, Asha Rangappa, on Rudy Giuliani, on a whim, not in this Administration.
RANGAPPA: No. I think that the bar would have been high for them to go down this road. And, you know, to answer your question on why he would be cavorting with these people, I think we've seen this happen in other contexts.
I mean, you know, General Michael Flynn was - was respected, at one point. I mean he was, you know, I - I think--
CUOMO: Right. No, very respectable guy, known for loyalty.
RANGAPPA: --well-regarded and, you know, he--
CUOMO: But he was getting paid, Asha, in a way that Giuliani didn't need. I don't know what happened in his divorce. But he's been making a ton of money for a long time. 500 grand from guys like this doesn't make sense.
I got to go. I'm out of time. As we get more facts, I'll come back to you for more of your brilliant insights, both of you, thank you very much.
[21:45:00]
Mr. Giuliani is not the first person in this President's close circle to come under scrutiny for dealings with foreign powers, right? We need a reminder of why those laws matter so much. This is not penny ante.
From the Founding Fathers on down the line, you can't let foreign powers mess with our politics, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Look, right now, we all know that impeachment is about politics. That is good and bad.
These questions about Rudy Giuliani and our President are not exclusively about politics. Many are about fact and law. And they may reveal criminality, and certainly expose real problems, for both.
This may be the biggest legal exposure to date. It matters, in part, because once again this President has a personal lawyer, doing potentially illegal and certainly shady things for him, this time with a foreign power.
[21:50:00]
And this road with Rudy takes this President closer to ruin than ever. Here's the argument.
Rudy says he was working for the President, for free, all right. Now, there're going to be campaign finance issues there. But he was doing this President's bidding with shady guys who were paying him.
What was he doing for them? And who knows who else and what else that these people wound up knowing about our President, and what he and Rudy were trying to do, and what they were willing to do for it.
The scary thing here is not that Rudy and Trump had their intentions exposed. The real fear is what it would have meant if they weren't exposed, if they were successful, and undiscovered.
Feds are looking into Rudy and his money because they are guessing greed must have clouded his judgment, to expose himself, and this President, to shady players with shady connections, leading to Russia, who would have had serious leverage on both of them, if anything of value that passed for dirt on Biden had been delivered.
This is why laws like FARA exist, why there are strict rules about foreign contributions in campaigns, and why the Founders saw soliciting foreign interference as a major abuse of office.
And it's not just Ukraine that calls the cahoots of this POTUS and his pal into question.
Now, why do I say pal, instead of lawyer? Because before he was hired by President Trump, during the Mueller probe, Rudy Giuliani represented an Iranian Turkish gold trader.
He used his relationship with POTUS from the campaign to get into the Oval Office with the President, and then Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and he pressed for the release of his client, as part of a prisoner swap with Turkey. Now, does that exempt him as legal services from FARA? I don't know. I don't know. I don't think it's a no-brainer though that he gets the exclusion.
But even bigger, Tillerson said, "No way. It'd be inappropriate." Not the President. Why? There was an open criminal case. The prisoner swap didn't happen.
You heard Andrew McCabe say that it was probably OK under FARA's exception. Who am I to question him? I'm not. But we're talking to a lot of experts. And some read the law more strictly, saying it only covers official courtroom proceedings.
Either way, it's an example of our President being leveraged by his lawyer for profit, which exposes both to foreign players, and puts the judgment of both of them in serious question.
Rudy Giuliani was once known as America's Mayor, and I argue, for good reason. But this latest chapter casts him as someone really different, maybe using diplomacy as a tool for personal gain.
What did Rudy know about his close associates, this alleged illegal activity, and how they got the money to pay him? Where did it come from? Why would he put our President and his client in any kind of loop with people like this?
Look at this. This isn't conjecture and innuendo. There they are. These are the guys who were just indicted, next to Pence, and Trump, and Rudy, all parties - you know, party picture. They happen. Doesn't mean you know the people.
He knew the people. He was working for the people. Is it President - you know, is it - is it possible this President leveraged the power of his office for people like this, and their pursuits?
This is not about hunting Trump, and his people, and using any little thing. It's not a Gotcha game. Rudy was doing the hunting for Trump. And Trump knew about it and wanted him to do it.
And we're just finding out what shady money and men were involved, what pressure, what avenues of our own government, and the intentions of Congress were put on the shelf, in exchange for this President's political interests? They put themselves in the position, no one else.
And if, as Rudy says, it wasn't done for money, but out of loyalty to POTUS, and nothing else, look where that got him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is Rudy Giuliani still your personal attorney?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well I don't know. I haven't spoken to Rudy. I spoke to him yesterday briefly. He's a very good attorney and he has been my attorney.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Wow! "I don't know."
Now, Trump later said Rudy was still his lawyer. But the first answer showed this President's priority always, "Protecting himself." It's not about loyalty for him. And it can't be about politics for us. Our priority must be facts and law. It has never mattered more.
That's my argument.
Now, anticipation building for the first debate of the impeachment season, it's less than 24 hours away right here on CNN. We're going to tell you why a lot is different this time, and the proof is in the numbers, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: PRIME TIME PRIMARY.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we're going deep on the law tonight, but you can't forget politics.
8 P.M. Eastern tomorrow, 12 Democratic candidates will be facing off in the fourth primary debate right here on CNN. We'll be co-hosting with The New York Times. It's a lot of ground that shifted since the last one. And you can expect the "I" word to stir heated debate.
Now, sometimes the nuance is in the numbers. Look at this national poll from Quinnipiac. It shows voters are divided over whether asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival is good enough to impeach and remove a President from office. 44 percent say it is. 47 percent say it ain't.
How will the Democratic candidates play to this? Look, politics is persuasion. Impeachment is about politics, OK? Now, they all say they support the impeachment inquiry. Can they make that case to the American people?
Meantime, it's increasingly looking like a two-way race, Warren and Biden. Biden slipped. I mean, look, within the margin of error, you could say it's dead-even race.
But, you know, Warren, I guess, is doing a consolidation game from Bernie Sanders, now at a 11 percent in the poll. Tomorrow makes that much more of an impact on the state of this race. Which one will have the night that gets all the talk? Because you get
the talk, you get the headlines. You get the headlines, you get the buzz, you get momentum, you get donors. That is the set of stakes that make the CNN Debate so big.
[22:00:00]
