Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Key Witnesses Tie Quid Pro Quo Directly To Mulvaney; WSJ: Giuliani Associates Urged Ukraine's Last President To Open Biden Probe; Bloomberg Files For Alabama Democratic Presidential Primary. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 08, 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)
SHELLEY ROBERTS, KENTUCKY VOTER: I think it was an issue of personality more than politics with Governor Bevin. He just offended so many people, and he attacked so many people. It was hard to vote for him after some of the things he had done.
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You're a young woman, a first-time presidential voter. How important is that to you?
ALARAH GILLUM, KENTUCKY VOTER: I look for like unity in our politics. I think both Trump and Bevin, their personalities just divide politics.
KAYE: Randi Kaye, CNN, Louisville, Kentucky.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: The news continues, so we'll hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Thank you, J.B. Have a great weekend. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
Was the President framed by his own people? That's what some of his defenders seem to be selling. Some of his best players may be in the crosshairs.
And we have more proof the Ukraine deal was more than a phone call, word of a similar ask to the last Ukrainian President, and we know who's said to have done the asking.
So, what do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Here's what we know.
Two White House officials, Fiona Hill, and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, both implicated Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, in their newly released testimonies, as the coordinator of the quid pro quo or the attempted bribe or whatever you want to call the deal.
Mulvaney was a no-show on the Hill today, defying a House subpoena. But he is increasingly present in a new notion that he or others did this Ukraine thing without the President's knowledge. We're going to test that.
And we learned today of another very similar shakedown attempt, stretching back to the last Ukrainian administration, this one allegedly orchestrated by the arrested associates of Rudy Giuliani.
The Wall Street Journal reports Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman unsuccessfully tried to get then-Ukrainian President, Poroshenko, to announce an investigation into the Bidens, in return for a state visit here.
So, if the idea that this is all about one call, this past July, were not absurd enough already, this new information should put that idea to rest, at least for the reasonable.
And the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, testified Ukraine President Zelensky eventually did agree to make a public statement about investigating the Bidens. And he was going to do so, in an interview with CNN.
Who? Our very own Fareed Zakaria, in September, but then, the aid money was released. The interview was called off. Fareed joins us now with the rest of the story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Good to see you, my friend.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS": Pleasure, as always, Chris.
CUOMO: Now, obviously, you didn't know what was afoot. But once you learned of the context of what was going on, have you ever heard of anything like this before?
ZAKARIA: Good Lord, no. I mean we were trying to get an interview with Zelensky anyway.
I mean, he's a fascinating character, you know, madam - amazing road to victory, then wins the parliamentary election, caught between Russia and the West, so we had been trying for a while. We had had some good encouraging signs. But what I didn't know is just
at the time I was in Kiev, and I was meeting with him to solidify the interview, this whole other story was unraveling, because it was all around the time, September 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, that this is all happening.
And it - the aid is stuck, then it gets released, and then, of course, what happens is the whistleblower story starts leaking. And that's when the Ukrainians probably decided "We don't need - we - A, we don't need to do the interview anymore to announce this investigation into the Bidens because the money has been released."
CUOMO: Right.
ZAKARIA: But, more importantly, "We need - we don't need to - we don't want to get to have anything to do with what is turning into a very big U.S. domestic story." But they were totally professionals throughout.
CUOMO: Right.
ZAKARIA: But, you know, as sometimes happens, they backed off at the end.
CUOMO: So, help us understand some of the context of what was going on here because, of course, Fareed understands world events and geopolitics so well.
So, the idea that Ukraine, Zelensky and his people were in a panic about this that they didn't know how to deal with Rudy. They were so afraid of being involved in American politics, does that square with your understanding of the regime, and why?
ZAKARIA: Oh, completely!
Chris, the thing you have to remember about Ukraine and the U.S., and so when - when Trump says Zelensky says he was not pressured, the core reality here is the asymmetry of power. The U.S. totally dominates this relationship.
Zelensky needs - any Ukrainian President needs the American President's 110 percent support, not just for the military aid, not just for the political aid, for the diplomatic aid, but because there is a real prospect of a Russian invasion of the rest of Ukraine, in which case, Washington becomes your savior.
[21:05:00]
So, there's no question that, you know, Zelensky or any Ukrainian President is going to try very hard to do whatever it takes to - to help the American President.
He understood, however, because he's a savvy guy. I spent a while with him. He understood, and now I'm guessing, that this would cause problems if he would have, you know, choose a Republican over a Democrat-- CUOMO: The testimony says that.
ZAKARIA: --decide to investigate - right, Biden and the Clintons, that would put him in a - in an awkward position.
CUOMO: Right.
ZAKARIA: What if Trump didn't win? So, he was trying his best to play both sides to - to - to delay, to punt, and then when it became absolutely clear, he couldn't do that anymore, apparently, and I'm reading the reporting, he agreed to--
CUOMO: Right.
ZAKARIA: --come on my show and - and he was going to announce it. We had already scheduled the - you know, the - the - the interview was sort of in the works for a while in the sense that we had been trying, we had gotten encouraging noises.
But the key thing to remember is Zelensky cannot say anything now, then, before, and he won't two weeks from now that in any way could annoy Donald Trump. He needs the American President. Any Ukrainian President does.
CUOMO: What do you make of the couple of defenses that have popped up to which, you know, seems to most to be obvious.
The first one is, "Hey, look, it never happened. So, there's no damage. There's no real threat here because they didn't get any dirt on the Bidens, and they got the aid, so everything's fine."
And the other one is, "Hey, it may have happened, the way you guys say it did. But the President may have known nothing about it. And it was just his - the people around him." What do you think of those?
ZAKARIA: What - well you reported it out very well at the start. But these - these last two days, the testimony has been very important because the core defense of the President from Republicans in Congress has been "Look, the - the phone call was ambiguous. It's not entirely clear that it was an actual quid pro quo. Yes, he says "Do us a favor," but it happens three lines after," you know, there was all this parsing of that--
CUOMO: Yes. Except everybody says it was--
ZAKARIA: --transcript. So, if--
CUOMO: --who was involved with it at the time.
ZAKARIA: Right. But that's the point.
So now, what you have is four senior officials saying, A, that there was a quid pro quo, B, we were asked to deliver the same message, very explicitly linking the aid to these investigations, both into - essentially into the Bidens and to - and Hillary Clinton, 2016 and the - the - that company. So, all of a sudden, you know, people like Lindsey Graham, who had been saying, "If you can show me any evidence of a quid pro quo other than this phone call, you know, then I'll take it seriously," well now in the last two days, you have Gordon Sondland, you have Fiona Hill, you have, you know, Kent, all saying it was a quid pro quo.
So, they now have to - they - they're moving to a new defense, which is, "Of course, it was a quid pro quo. We do that all the time, but it's not impeachable."
So, you know, it's very important. It makes you recognize that they see what has happened in the last two days is really big. It's also really fascinating - if I - I can add one thing, Chris.
CUOMO: Please.
ZAKARIA: To read the whole testimony, Gordon Sondland's story is fascinating. He comes, becomes Ambassador to the EU. He's told Ukraine is the - is the price here. We've got to get Ukraine, you know, support--
CUOMO: Right. Obviously not in the EU.
ZAKARIA: --support from the West - right. But - but we have to read - you know, that's why you're involved, Gordon. He gets fired up.
He and Volker go to see Trump, and they say, "We've met this new President of Ukraine. Ukraine is crucial. This guy is great. You've got to meet him." And what they confront from Trump is a barrage of conspiracy theories about Burisma, about Biden, about the 2016 election.
And I wonder where Trump got that - that the 2016 election one is so wacko, I wonder whether that was what Vladimir Putin told Trump in Helsinki in that two-hour meeting. Remember? Nobody was there.
CUOMO: Right.
ZAKARIA: Trump told him, "What about the elections?" And Putin might have said to him, "You know, this is all a Ukrainian plot. There - they did it. And then they're blaming it on," because it's so wacko.
And Sondland and Volker now have to deal with the fact that their whole plan to support Ukraine has been derailed because Trump believes this crazy conspiracy theory.
CUOMO: Right. And Kent, another one of the officials, says exactly that. He answers the question by saying he was listening to Putin, and the Head of Hungary, who's another autocrat.
Fareed, thank you so much. I'm glad you found your way into this story because it gave me the chance to tap into your great intellect on these issues. Thank you for being with us.
ZAKARIA: Pleasure, Chris.
CUOMO: All right.
ZAKARIA: And thank you.
CUOMO: And, as you all know, you can catch Fareed's show, GPS, Sunday 10:00 A.M. Eastern.
So, what do you think of this depiction, "A pants less elderly uncle running around a nursing home?" That's a description of our President, by the author of the upcoming Anonymous book, filled with frightening assessments. Is it to be believed?
Anthony Scaramucci says "Yes." Does he know who the writer might be? Let's ask him. There he is. 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: The new book by Author known only as "Anonymous," for now, isn't out for another 11 days, but it's already making waves with its dark depictions inside the Trump White House.
Of note, how senior officials often wake up in what is called a full- blown panic over the President's wild tweets.
[21:15:00]
"It's like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pants less across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food, as worried attendants tried to catch him. You're stunned, amused, and embarrassed all at the same time. Only your uncle probably wouldn't do it every single day, his words aren't broadcast to the world, and he doesn't have to lead the U.S. government once he puts his pants on."
Former Trump White House Communications Director, now Trump-critic, Anthony Scaramucci is here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Thank you for joining us.
ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Hey, Chris.
CUOMO: So --
SCARAMUCCI: Yes. That's a -- that's a sobering assessment of what's going on.
CUOMO: Do you buy it? Is it hyperbolic? Did you ever see anything like it, hear anything about it since?
SCARAMUCCI: Well I mean -- I mean -- I mean some of that is hyperbolic. But some of it's also prima facie. Just go to the 40 minutes of the President clipping today on the South Lawn.
I mean it's not stable. It's not normal. It's not even inside of a bell curve of what people would describe as real mental health, so he's having a hard time putting sentences together. He's repeating himself. He's lost a lot of the sharpness that he had in '15 and '16.
But if the points being made in the book -- I haven't obviously read the entire book. I've read some of the excerpts, of course.
But the -- the point being made in the book is that the President cannot manage a process, which includes defining a problem, building a consensus with his team, understanding the roles that his team has, and also embracing the processes of the government, whether it's the National Security Council, founded by Dwight Eisenhower, or Elements of the Pentagon founded in the late 40s, none of this stuff is, you know, it's not easy for the President, it's not native to him.
And he has this freewheeling, independent swashbuckling that goes on, and it's overconfidence. And so, all of that, you know, shows up as a perhaps somebody that's living in a nursing home.
I -- I hate to say it that way because I don't want to put down people that are living in a nursing home, to be honest. But -- but with the President, the big issue, Chris, is that those 16 cabinet-level positions, the 190 sub-departments are in complete and total disarray.
And so, I think what the Anonymous book is trying to warn people of is you have a system now, where the administrative processes of the Executive Branch --
CUOMO: Right.
SCARAMUCCI: -- have completely broken down under the President Trump.
CUOMO: So, you agree with the assessment of the book. I don't agree with it being anonymous.
I'm thinking this -- this would probably be another Primary Colors deal, where eventually the Anonymous winds up being a writer there. It was Joe Klein. Because, you know, if you want to say things like this, own them, come
out and say it. If there's a risk to you, it's one thing, but this isn't about passing on classified information, or important information, you know, this is a political commentary.
Let me get to another topic with you about concern right now, Bloomberg. What do you think Bloomberg means to Trump?
SCARAMUCCI: So, I think -- I think the President was very intimidated by a guy like Michael Bloomberg. You could just go back to some of the statements that Corey Lewandowski has made about Michael Bloomberg.
When it didn't seem likely that Mayor Bloomberg would be entering the race, people asked -- people like Corey, myself, Dave Bossie, who would be the number one person that President Trump would be the most worried about, and it would be Mike Bloomberg.
He's a New Yorker. He could withstand the onslaught of the President's bullying. He's worth probably five to eight times the President's net worth. He could spend a fortune defending himself and getting ads up in all the areas of the country that he needed to get those ads up.
And if -- if Mike Bloomberg got the nomination, it's very clear to me that he would beat Trump, because in those 11 swing states, the level of moderation, and Michael Bloomberg, the pro-business nature, about the social progressiveness, that kind of weaving, if you will, would surmise (ph) the President in those states.
So, the path -- the path for Michael Bloomberg, you know, to win that nomination, you'd have to ask a Democrat about that, because it seems like the party has lurched so far to the left.
If Elizabeth Warren has the polling numbers, as she has, by proposing this socialist agenda, one would have to worry about the path that Mayor Bloomberg would have to get that.
But no question, he would be the number one threat.
And, just quickly, I do agree with you on the Anonymous thing. The good news, and the joke this morning, someone said to me, "Well, it's definitely not you because, of course, I would put my name on something, and speak very declaratively about what is going on."
And I really wish more people who agree with Anonymous -- Chris, I can't tell you the number of people that have left the Administration that completely agree with Anonymous as to what is going on.
And I really wish they would start speaking out, so that the American people can hear it from the inside, the lack of competence, and the disarray that's taking place.
CUOMO: But when you see what's being done to the whistleblower, and you see what's being done to veterans, and you see what's being done to legitimate officials, and even his own people now that they're trying to say --
SCARAMUCCI: Yes.
CUOMO: -- maybe it was Rudy, or maybe it was Mulvaney, or maybe it was Sondland doing it on their own, some of his defenders are saying now. It makes you a little cautious about coming forward because the guillotine falls quick.
SCARAMUCCI: Early-stage fascism, Chris. You -- you -- yes, that's what typical people do. They bully people. They frighten them. They intimidate them.
[21:20:00]
We have to be a nation where every individual, including the President, is beneath the law, and the system is secure. What's made the country so prosperous, and so successful, globally, is that system, and people have a lot of faith in that system.
The President is attacking that system. He's impairing that system. And if he wins again, it's going to really hurt our standing around the world because people will be like "OK, wow, here's a lawless guy doing lawless things inside the White House."
How could one of the oldest parties, Lincoln's party, and the leadership in Lincoln's party ignore this level of lawlessness? And so--
CUOMO: Well obviously --
SCARAMUCCI: -- we're going to keep working on it. And we're going to try to stay in there, you know.
CUOMO: Obviously, Bloomberg has his reservations about whether or not the current field can beat him. Otherwise, you know, because he's doing something now that he just said a couple of months ago, he didn't think he could do.
Hey, let me ask you to put your finding -- your transactional finance hat on, for a second. As -- as people should know, but they may not, you know, Anthony's a very sophisticated financial guy. He's got his own company. He's not just Wall Street. He does a lot of high finance.
So, what happened with Rudy, his guys, and the money? Here's what we learned. Here's what created the concern --
SCARAMUCCI: Yes.
CUOMO: -- for Rudy, in terms of financing.
Foreign National number one, who we assume is Firtash, the Ukrainian with the Russian connections, who's wanted in the U.S. for a criminal investigation, then arranged for two $500,000 wires on or about September 18, 2018 and October 16, 2018, to be sent from overseas accounts to a U.S. corporate bank account controlled by Fruman and another individual.
Now, those dates seem to line up, with what we understand from the indictment, seems to line up with what we understand about when Rudy got paid. So, the concern was, "Oh, no, did Rudy get mixed up with these, you know, bad guys, and he got money from a bad source?"
But now we learned something else. Then it's "In September 2018, Mr. Gucciardo stepped in, paying Mr. Giuliani $250,000 on behalf of Fraud Guarantee, according to people familiar with the arrangement. Mr. Gucciardo paid the second $250,000 the next month."
Fraud Guarantee is a company run by Parnas. So, Gucciardo was paying Rudy for Parnas. And, in exchange, he made a loan to Parnas' company that gave him an option on equity like convertible debt.
I mean that -- it's a really convoluted transaction, what do you make of it?
SCARAMUCCI: Well listen, I -- I had the opportunity to meet Charles Gucciardo--
CUOMO: Gucciardo. What'd you think?
SCARAMUCCI: --on that trip that I went on to Israel -- yes, Gucciardo, yes.
So, I -- I liked him. And I think if you talk to journalists that are in and around this case, I think he was a mark in this situation. I think he's an innocent guy.
And I think he got attracted to the notion of working with the Mayor, who he had an enormous amount of respect for. And I think what happened there is they promised him a piece of that business. He probably didn't do the due diligence necessary.
But because the Mayor was part of the business, he probably thought that that was vetting enough. And so, he sent the money in. And, of course, that money got bounced off of those two guys into the Mayor.
And this is a cautionary tale on a number of different things. Something's too good to be true, don't do it. Number two, if you're giving your money to somebody, you have to do a tremendous amount of due diligence.
At SkyBridge, we're not a court. Everybody is guilty until SkyBridge proves them innocent. And so, we run really, really tough background checks on everybody.
But in the case of Mayor Giuliani, you and I know him well. I have an enormous amount of respect for him.
CUOMO: As do I.
SCARAMUCCI: But something there tempted him. And maybe it was a need for money, Chris, I don't know.
But why would he be involved with those guys and why would he make the money that easily? When things are that easy and too good to be true, they often are too good to be true, and we're watching that unfold. But I do believe Charles is innocent here, based on my observation of
him, and what I know from the case.
CUOMO: We have nothing -- we have nothing that indicates differently. We have no reason to believe differently. But obviously, there are two investigations going on of Mr. Giuliani.
I still -- my other concern is that his biggest risk is going to come from his own, and it's going to be a political attack, not a legal one.
Anthony Scaramucci, thank you on a Friday night --
SCARAMUCCI: Yes, no question.
CUOMO: -- coming. I know you're running around (ph) so much.
SCARAMUCCI: OK. Happy Friday.
CUOMO: The best to you, best to the family, and be well.
All right, hour left before the deadline, Michael Bloomberg officially filed the paperwork to enter the 2020 presidential primary in Alabama.
Now, what's his plan because he's ignoring those first hot states. He's making a Super Tuesday play. Can he really win, if he's not in the other ones? Can he even get on the debate stage?
The Wizard of Odds crunches the numbers, explains why he might be getting in, and why he may be forced to get out, 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: Former Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, today officially filed to be on the ballot in Alabama. That means he's skipping the first four primaries. Can you win with that strategy? The bigger question is why is he even getting in, in the first place?
Let's bring in the Wizard of Odds, Harry Enten, good to see you, as always.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER & ANALYST: Good Sabbath (ph), my friend.
CUOMO: Thank you very much, my favorite.
Look, we've never heard of this before, except ironically, a name in the news, Rudy Giuliani did this.
ENTEN: Right.
CUOMO: He skipped the first few, showed up in Florida, didn't turn out well for him.
ENTEN: It didn't turn out well.
I should, of course, point out that obviously, Alabama has this very early deadline, in which to file your papers. So, he -- I think a real test is whether or not he files in New Hampshire coming up, that deadline, I believe, is next week. So that, I think, is the real question.
But you're right. You can't skip the first four primaries and hope to win it. There's just no track record for it to work.
[21:30:00]
CUOMO: Right. But obviously, he's seeing something unconventional. So, what do we believe that Mike Bloomberg sees that creates opportunity?
ENTEN: Right. I think what he sees is this. And that is he sees that Biden, Sanders, and Warren are all having trouble in the battleground states to beat Donald Trump.
These were the six closest States in the 2012 -- 2016 election that Donald Trump won, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, they're all within the margin of error of Donald Trump.
And he believes -- Michael Bloomberg believes that electability is what is selling in this primary. And he has good reason to believe that.
So, what is the one thing that will motivate you to vote in 2020? These are basically the same swing states, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. It was an open-ended question, essentially, you could name anything.
21 percent said, "Defeat Donald Trump." That was number one. Medicare- for-All, which we've had so much attention to this primary season, my goodness gracious, just 1 percent, 1 percent. You and I in a poll together could be 1 percent, so that's a very small number.
CUOMO: Our mothers would hope so!
Now, here's my question. What does Bloomberg think that allows him to believe that he can beat the other people in the field? I mean what's he got that they ain't got? ENTEN: Yes. I think that what he has is he's going to argue that, of course, he's an independent, right? He's a guy who, you know, was an Independent Mayor of New York City. He's crossed party lines before. And he's going to sell it along electability, right?
He's going to essentially say, "Hey, I was an Independent. I can reach out to these voters who are Independents. And the other candidates cannot."
Again, these are in these swing states, and we're talking about the swing states because that is where the election is decided, Christopher. And what do we see?
CUOMO: But he was in low-single digits early-on --
ENTEN: He --
CUOMO: -- when he was thinking about getting in.
ENTEN: Yes. But that's the primary, right? That's the primary. He's going to try and pivot to an electability argument. That's what he's seeing.
He is seeing a hole in the electability argument of Biden, Sanders, and Warren, among those Independent voters who, of course, you got to win those Independents usually to win in the general election.
And, at this point, the three major Democratic candidates are basically breaking even with Trump. And Michael Bloomberg's going to make the pitch, "Hey, I might be at 2 percent. But I can sell you on electability."
CUOMO: But is he as good as they are? When you look at the metrics of where the strength of a Warren, or Sanders, or Biden, Buttigieg, what do we both know as New York City guys?
Bloomberg was popular enough here that they actually changed the City Charter to get him a third term, all right. But he did not do that great with the minority communities here. And that's the stronghold, not just for Biden, but you have to have it as a Democrat to win.
ENTEN: You do have to have it as a Democrat to win. And obviously, we've been pointing out this gentleman right here, who's running 40 percent to 50 percent among African-Americans and they of course make up about 20 percent of the Democratic electorate.
These two have struggled in the primary so far because they haven't been able to reach out to African-Americans, and that's propelling his bid. People talk about "Oh, you know, he's the moderate. He shares the moderate lane with Joe Biden."
But the fact is what Joe Biden's bid is being propelled by is African- Americans. And you know what? I just don't hear that spoken about enough in the press so far.
CUOMO: Well that's why we're doing it right now. ENTEN: I know.
CUOMO: This counts.
ENTEN: We're -- we're part of the process.
CUOMO: Would you put your Chalupa money on Biden or Bloomberg head-to- head Democrat primary?
ENTEN: Look, I would put my Pastrami money on this gentleman right here because he knows how to actually build a coalition within a Democratic primary.
CUOMO: What the -- what was -- do that again.
ENTEN: You want to -- you -- look, we can both get art lessons --
CUOMO: Just do it --
ENTEN: -- from Ms. Tallarico (ph). You can't even do it either.
CUOMO: Well I didn't even have it on. Here we --
ENTEN: Oh, please!
CUOMO: -- here we go.
ENTEN: But the point is, I would bet on Joe Biden in a Democratic primary versus Michael Bloomberg because here's the deal. Mike -- Joe Biden's been a Democrat for the last 50 years. Michael Bloomberg has been a Democrat for like the last five minutes.
So, I would bet on the guy who's actually been a Democrat, who can reach out across the Democratic primary electorate, win with African- Americans, Whites without a college degree, and at the end of the day can say, "Hey, I've been taking the fight to Republicans my entire life."
CUOMO: He thinks he's exposing weaknesses in this field, and he may hurt Biden but, he also may show the strength of who's already there, as a comparison to him. We'll see how it plays.
Thank you very much, Wiz.
ENTEN: Thank you, Sir.
CUOMO: Always a pleasure. Always a pleasure.
ENTEN: Shalom, be well.
CUOMO: You know, this could be, maybe the Battle of Billionaires when you look at the Democratic race, on one level, why? You got Tom Steyer already in the race.
Is he singing the classic from the producers "What's He Got That I Ain't Got?" What does he make of Bloomberg getting in? Does he think it's for real? Does he think anybody needs it? Next.
He loves that song, Steyer.
(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: Paperwork's in. Michael Bloomberg officially filed to run in Alabama's Democratic presidential primary. That means he could potentially face off with the likes of, obviously, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a front-runner who rails against billionaires like Bloomberg, as does Sanders.
Let's get some perspective from another billionaire in the race, Tom Steyer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Welcome back to PRIME TIME. I saw you laughing. But it's a legit context for the question.
When you heard Bloomberg coming in, and people are like, "Whoa! He's got a lot of money. He can finance his own campaign. You know, he's got business savvy," were you like, you know, "What's He Got That I Ain't Got?"
What was the answer to that question for you?
TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No. We're very different, Chris.
Look, I'm running for President because I believe that corporations have bought our government, that we're not going to get any of the policies that the American people so desperately want, until we break that corporate stranglehold, and I believe that inequality is defining America right now.
CUOMO: And Bloomberg?
STEYER: That's why I said "I don't think Michael Bloomberg should run for the Democratic nomination, unless he's willing to commit to a wealth tax."
CUOMO: And where do you think --
STEYER: I called for one over a year ago.
CUOMO: -- he's on it?
STEYER: I think he's against a wealth tax. But I think he should reconsider it.
And I don't think he should run unless he's willing to commit to it because he's -- he's one of the people, like me, who's been incredibly lucky to be in America, who's profited enormously. We have -- we need the money. He has a responsibility to give back.
And more than that, if he wants to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, he's got to understand that he's got to commit to ending this inequality, and he's got to commit to breaking this corporate stranglehold on our government. Otherwise, I don't think he's fit to be the Democratic nominee, he shouldn't run.
CUOMO: Fair advantage over you, and some others in the field, he's actually had Executive experience in government. New York City is one of the biggest economies in the world. He was in there three times. He changed the Charter to get him another term.
Is that impressive?
STEYER: Look, I think my -- don't get me wrong, Chris. I think Mike's an impressive guy.
[21:40:00]
But I think there's a question here about defining what the problem is. And, to me, we've got to -- this election is about defining what it's going to be to get America going forward again.
We have a broken government in Washington D.C. And the question is what are we going to do about it?
I've been talking about things like term limits of 12 years for every Congress person, and Senator, a National Referendum to take away the monopoly Congress has on passing laws, we're going to have to change and get back to government Of, By, and For the People.
I want to see if Mike Bloomberg will commit to that and commit to breaking the corporation's ownership of our government.
CUOMO: You think he's a threat, or you think that there's plenty of potential in the field already that he wouldn't make it through?
STEYER: Look, I think Mike's considering seriously doing this, or doing it, reflects the fact that this election is wide open, Chris.
It's more open than it was three months ago or six months ago. And I think that he's right in thinking that it's going to break late, that people are still weighing their options very much.
And so, my attitude is, as long as you're willing to commit to being a true Democrat, to actually dealing with inequality, to breaking this corporate stranglehold, then I say "Welcome."
CUOMO: You think he's better than any of the people --
STEYER: But if you're not, then I don't think you're right to be a --
CUOMO: -- at the top of the ticket?
STEYER: -- Democratic nominee. Excuse me, say that again.
CUOMO: You think he's better than the people at the top of the polls right now?
STEYER: Look, I think that's a question --
CUOMO: For you.
STEYER: -- for the American people.
CUOMO: What's the answer?
STEYER: If I didn't think that I were the person -- if I didn't think I were the best person to tell the truth, and to take action on that truth, on behalf of the American people, I wouldn't be running.
CUOMO: I hear you.
STEYER: No -- no way.
CUOMO: You know --
STEYER: So, obviously, I think I'm saying something different. I think I'm different. And I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was the best option.
CUOMO: When might you change your mind and use your resources and the infrastructure you've been able to put together to help someone who then has a better chance?
STEYER: Well, let me say this, Chris. All of the grassroots organizations that I've started are still going, and I'm still supporting them, I'm just not running them. But I want to chant -- I expect that my message, when I get a chance to deliver it to Americans, of this corporate stranglehold--
CUOMO: No.
STEYER: -- of our need to take climate as priority one, and that as an outsider, I've been taking on, and beating these corporations for 10 years, I think that's a message that Americans respond to.
And so, I'm going to keep going as hard as I can on that because I think those are the true answers. CUOMO: Now, money is a blessing and it can be a virtue with voters. "Hey, Steyer made his own money. He's the real thing. He's no Trust Fund Baby. Bloomberg, same thing." You point out contrast with Trump that he got a big head-start.
Then, money can also be a problem, especially with how it's used. Your aide has apologized after a report that he offered money for endorsements in Iowa. You guys ran away from it saying it was never authorized. How did that happen?
STEYER: Look, if you start an organization like a campaign, and someone does something that's not authorized -- he actually resigned, Chris. You should know. That -- that -- he put that out tonight that we have -- look, we're running an organization,
I've run, started and built businesses, started and run organizations. Things happen in those organizations. And when they do, you have to assess what happened, and deal with it with integrity. That's exactly what happened here.
CUOMO: Well --
STEYER: So, in fact, look, something happened that wasn't authorized. We examined it. And he resigned.
CUOMO: Right.
STEYER: Case closed.
CUOMO: You know, the -- beyond the campaign, doesn't it kind of make a point that just money in politics, I know they go together, but shouldn't they really be blown apart? You know, isn't it that money just corrupts --
STEYER: Look --
CUOMO: -- everything it touches in politics?
STEYER: Look, I'm in favor of public financing of campaigns. But Chris, I think this campaign is all about ideas, and who can be trusted to bring them about.
I think that that's the case for every single person, including Michael Bloomberg, and definitely including me. I think that Michael Bloomberg has got to explain to Democrats, who he is, and why he's running, and so do I.
And if he -- you know, people are not going to respond to money. They're going to respond to something that they believe is true, important, different, and somebody who they believe will tell the truth, and take action on that. And that's exactly the message that I'm bringing to Americans.
Take a look at my record, Chris. I've told the truth. I've taken action. Two years ago, people in Washington D.C. were saying to me, "You're
crazy to think you can ever impeach this President." But more than 8 million Americans signed on the "Need to Impeach" petition.
And it turns out if you listen to what people are saying today --
CUOMO: Right.
STEYER: -- they're repeating almost word-for-word what we said two years ago.
[21:45:00]
CUOMO: Right, except back then, you didn't have this Ukraine situation, although now we're learning that even under the last President, Poroshenko, they made -- may have been in ask for the Bidens.
So, Tom Steyer, thank you very much for making the argument for your campaign tonight, dealing with what happened with one of your workers, and always a pleasure to have you on PRIME TIME.
STEYER: Chris, thank you for having me.
CUOMO: All right.
All right, look, there's no question that the Democratic field is unsettled. I don't know that it's in crisis. But here's what we do know. Here was what is, was and is, fairly obvious, what happened in Ukraine.
That's why we're seeing not one but two attempts to distract from the obvious, ahead of the all-important -- important impeachment hearings next week.
So, in the argument, we're going to identify, clarify, and demystify, the efforts afoot, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
CUOMO: All right, ahead of impeachment hearings next week, to avoid what has become all too obvious, a fact pattern of wrongful behavior, and arguable abuse of power, GOPers have created two main distractions. Let's call them Thing One and Thing Two.
Thing One is the notion that unmasking the whistleblower is the key to everything. The President pushes the idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Who is the whistleblower? We have to know. Is the whistleblower a spy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: And it rolls off the tongues of his allies on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Frankly, I think the American people have a right to know who this whistleblower is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: One, there's a law that makes that not the case. But the intrigue is very intoxicating. But let's look at it with sober eyes, and see it for what it is, a nontroversy.
Not only is unmasking potentially illegal, and/or proof of witness intimidation, or even obstruction of a Congressional investigation, it's irrelevant, like the whistleblower.
Why? Practically, every tidbit of information we learned about those nine pages from the whistleblower, they've been corroborated or improved upon from the White House call transcript, statements by officials, testimony, and good old-fashioned reporting.
Don't believe the hype. Thing One ain't the thing at all.
And, as for Thing Two, the argument starts with a flashback.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO. Be On the Look-Out for a scapegoat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He's right, more than three times over than we suspected. Giuliani, Chief of Staff, Mulvaney, and Ambassador Sondland, are all being lined up to potentially take the fall.
Here's the play. "OK. OK. What happened there is wrong, all right, maybe it's even obvious. There was a shakedown. But the President didn't know about it. People were freelancing, going rogue, working their own agenda."
Now, what's the upside to this? While a lot of people have testified, and the texts show and, you know, there's a lot of co-ordinated proof that what was going on in Ukraine was wrong, and intentional, to get the President what he asked for, no one has testified or shown the President told them directly, "No aid until I get the Bidens."
Everyone so far has heard it from someone. And all of the testimony so far ends with one of the three potential fall guys.
The downside though, let's start with Rudy. On the call, Trump told Ukraine's President specifically to speak to Rudy twice. He's not some accidental player in this. The President knows he's there and connects him to the Biden ask himself.
Now, skeptics will say "Well that doesn't tie Trump to withholding the aid." But don't forget, the Washington post reported that Trump himself gave the green light to suspending aid.
And then what Rudy says himself, to us, "I don't do anything that involves my client without speaking with my client." That's the Washington Post. Giuliani has some questions to answer about his associates and their dealings together but he did this in Ukraine for the President, by all indications, not for himself.
How about EU Ambassador, Gordon Sondland? Republicans are banking on this part of his amended testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JORDAN: He says it was his presumption.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
JORDAN: So, it's not based on -- on -- on the facts. It -- it was just presumption.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That he offered the quid pro quo. But that ignores the rest of Sondland's testimony, where he says he was doing what Rudy told him to. And who was telling Rudy what to do?
And why else would Sondland want the Bidens, right? And why was this newbie EU Ambassador, European Union, so heavily involved in Ukraine? They're not part of it, right? There is some reporting that he forced his way in, over John Bolton's objection.
But why would Bolton or the Secretary of State or any of the other officials involved allow this newbie to just bull his way in if he was without portfolio from the President?
Now, something Sondland himself said makes more sense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: President Trump has not only honored me with the job of being the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, but he's also given me other special assignments, including Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Ah, once again, he ties it to Trump. The biggest concern for Sondland, who was gifted an Ambassadorship for donating a million or so might be this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Let me just tell you. I -- I hardly know the Gentleman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Whoa! Never a good sign!
That takes us to Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney. Two big witnesses pointed directly to him today, saying that he coordinated with Sondland on getting the message to Ukraine's President, "No meeting with Trump unless the investigations come."
The most damning thing that points to him as the reason this all happened was his own candor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, "Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the -- into the Democratic server happened as well."
MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: We -- we do -- we do that all the time with foreign policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
CUOMO: All right, now, the key part is the fact that he was forced to walk it back. That's the hint that he ain't driving the bus. But he may get hit by it.
As should soon become clear to your own eyes and ears next week with the hearings, this was an obvious wrong. It was part of a long and densely populated plot to leverage an access, to get political ammo against Biden for this President.
The more the Trump defenders fight the obvious, the more powerful it becomes. That's the argument.
Next, we've got a LOCO BOLO or a BOLO LOCO. Is our President really about to go celebrate Vladimir Putin? The new invite he says he would love to accept.
(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. POTUS confirmed today his interest in going to a parade at the behest of Vladimir Putin. He did, however, note one point of hesitation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, I appreciate the invitation. It is right in the middle of political season, so I'll see if I can do it. But I would love to go if I could.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That's his only hesitation? And the Victory Day Parade is outwardly about the Soviet Union's triumph in World War II. But make no mistake. It's a celebration of Russian Military power.
Why? That's the question we keep asking when it comes to this President and Putin. BOLO!
Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with the man, D. Lemon, now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: That is a very good question, a very good question.
