Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

House Judiciary In Recess Until 10 AM When Votes Will Be Taken On Articles Of Impeachment; After The House, Impeachment Enters Unknown Territory; Trump Tweet Mocking Thunberg. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired December 13, 2019 - 00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[00:00:14]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Hey, I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to a Special Live midnight edition of PRIME TIME. We were on impeachment vote watch, but there's been an unexpected delay.

So the historic votes on Articles of Impeachment against President Donald John Trump will happen just hours from now. Yes, on Friday, the 13th. Where will history take us? Where will it leave us? Let's get after it.

10:00 a.m. Eastern on Friday morning, the 13th, that's the new time for this phase of the reckoning for this President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. There was no consulting from the Minority Ranking Member on your schedule for tomorrow. Well, you've just blown up schedules for everyone? You chose not to consult the Ranking Member on a schedule issue of this magnitude. So typical. This is the -- this is the Kangaroo Court that we're talking about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Republicans, feigning shock. Chairman Nadler announcing less than an hour ago, the Committee would recess after they delayed the hearings with a long string of amendments.

Let's bring in our power impeachment team to unpack what happened and what it means going forward. We've got Michael Gerhardt, Elliot Williams and Amanda Carpenter.

Amanda, just sticking to the political sphere, the Republicans were drawing it out, making it as divisive and long and possible, and as we just heard from Congressman Jamie Raskin, they were going to get it both ways. When the vote happened at like 2:30 in the morning, Eastern Time, they'd say, and in the middle of the night, in the dark, and when everyone was asleep, that's when they did it.

So Nadler tried to cut that off. It's pretty much their only move, isn't it?

AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I mean, that would have been a smart move for Republicans. It's great messaging, right? Like, the message the whole day was that the Democrats couldn't prove their case, they don't really want to do this. They're just a piece in the base.

And so forcing them to do that into the middle of the night would have played into that perfectly, but you know, Nadler cut it off, and so we'll all be back tomorrow morning.

But you know what the good thing is? You know, a lot of people ...

CUOMO: No, I don't.

CARPENTER: ... complained about how long this was and got repetitive.

CUOMO: What is the good thing?

CARPENTER: Everyone got to say their piece. Right? You had as many chances to make that case in the hearing today, as you want it. We heard it ad nauseum, and so, I choose to see the silver lining. I like this stuff. I live for it. Wrapped at midnight. That was great.

CUOMO: Yes, I'd like it more for like a convention or something like that and not this existential potential crisis. Counselor Gerhardt, let's look at what the weaknesses on the right and then we'll take to the challenges of the left.

The right is ignoring the facts here. They keep saying there is nothing to impeach. There is nothing to impeach. But they never argue why. They keep saying that there's no fact witnesses, but they keep ignoring. Why? Because the White House won't allow anybody in. How big a deal? How persuasive to American people?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It may be persuasive to the base, particularly to their base, of course. But the other thing, of course, that's happening here, and we've talked about this a little bit throughout the day, is that everybody is also playing to history.

And I think in terms of history, you know, 50 years, whatever down the road, those arguments made by the Republicans are going to look awfully weak, because the misconduct here is clear. There's evidence supporting it that set forth the House Intelligence report, among other things, and it's perfectly permissible to have an impeachable offense that is not actually a criminal violation. And that's exactly what the Democrats have put forward.

And the Republicans basically kind of danced around it, but they couldn't really weaken the constitutional foundation for the Democrats' actions today.

CUOMO: Now, Elliot, I have Laurence tribe, the esteemed, the redoubtable Professor who helped draft these Articles of Impeachment. We'll have a conversation with him about why they look the way they do later. But you know where I'm going with this.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do.

CUOMO: You made it easier for the Republicans to vote. You don't have the goods by not including specific crimes, because most Americans don't know this stuff the way you do.

WILLIAMS: Most Americans don't understand the Constitution the way Michael Gerhardt next to us on the panel does. The simple fact is, Chris, the Constitution does not require that a crime be committed for there to be an impeachable offense.

I know that's somewhat an unsatisfying answer because people want to know, what was the crime? Bill Clinton committed a criminal act of obstruction of justice, yes, many people believed and therefore he could have been impeached.

CUOMO: No, it's the perjury.

WILLIAMS: Good point.

CUOMO: They say he did the perjury.

WILLIAMS: Perjury.

CUOMO: Nixon did the burglary.

WILLIAMS: Right.

CUOMO: That's what it takes in the mind of common political persuasion.

[00:05:07]

WILLIAMS: But as we've worked -- but again, it's not just about common political persuasion, it's about what the law says and what's on the face of the Constitution.

And throughout history, the dozens of individuals who have been impeached not, you know, again, only three Presidents. But, you know, you're talking about multiple Federal judges. There was a Secretary of War, I believe, who was impeached as well.

CUOMO: Right.

WILLIAMS: Often not for criminal offenses. Remember, the concept of criminal offenses was written into law and many of them are written into law long after the Constitution.

CUOMO: Right, I hear you on that.

WILLIAMS: Yes, so --

CUOMO: Go ahead. Go ahead. Finish your point.

WILLIAMS: No, no, so I am just making the same point. It's just not all crimes are impeachable, and not all impeachable offenses are crimes. And again, we should focus on what is the standard of conduct we wish to hold a President -- future Presidents of the United States to.

And if we want to open up the door to future Presidents soliciting the aid of foreign actors in our elections, then have at it, House Republicans. Let's do that. And let's set the floor there.

CUOMO: That's an interesting pivot point. So Amanda, we actually heard Congressman Ratcliffe say not interfere, but be involved. That of course a foreign power is going to be involved in our elections. It happens all the time.

We heard A.G. Barr say that the other day. You know, more and more you're seeing them potentially, illegal, may be contributions, but they're involved more and more.

There is this subtle shift of this suggestion of wake up, this is how it works. That echoes the President saying, what do you mean? If a foreign person -- entity -- comes to me with dirt on my opponent, I'm going to take it. I'm not going to call the F.B.I.

Mike Mukasey, no less than Mike Mukasey, former A.G. under Bush said, listen, this is who he is and how he does things. There's this new push of this is how it is. Wake up, Amanda. Let the game be dirty, because that's how it's played.

CARPENTER: Yes, I think this does set a dangerous precedent, but let me explain where I think where the Republicans do have a point. It is significant that the Democrats abandoned the bribery charge.

This is what made everything different than the Russia investigation and the Mueller report, because this time, you had accusations that the President withheld, paused the aid in exchange for X. And somehow that just went away. That was the most important part.

CUOMO: Well, it's still in the language.

CARPENTER: That is the place where could have had a money trail. You had O.M.B. involved.

CUOMO: But it's still in the language.

CARPENTER: You had the White House involved. Excuse me, what?

CUOMO: It's still in the language.

CARPENTER: Right.

CUOMO: They just don't hammer it home the way they had been during the hearing.

CARPENTER: Right. Right. And that's a vulnerability. Right? It seems like the Democrats weakened their case.

And then on the second point, which I think Turley did a good job pointing out in the hearings, is that the obstruction charge, obstruction of Congress will be most well-resolved through the courts. I understand the timing in all of that, but it seems like if it were

that important, you would pursue it through the courts. And so I do think the Republicans have an argument there. Although, there's a dangerous precedent being set here giving a signal that we will allow foreign intervention in our elections.

CUOMO: Well, it's also -- you're also sending the signal Michael Gerhardt, that it's okay for the Judiciary to become a co-equal branch in oversight of the Executive of Congress, which is not how it's supposed to be.

Congress sends you a subpoena, you're supposed to follow it. They have power the same way the President can compel Members of Congress before him. He can't compel -- Congress can't compel members of the Executive, but you have to respect the demands otherwise, so this running around that.

But they're making a good case that even I'm playing into here. They're treating these House Democrats like they were supposed to make the case and win it now when Articles of Impeachment, correct me if I'm wrong, Counselor, they're just the allegations. They're not -- this isn't making the case. This is just adding up the charges, is it not?

GERHARDT: That's right. And the basic function of the Articles of Impeachment is to set forth the charges against, in this case, the President of the United States.

I also think you're right about what you were just talking about, and I really wanted to sort of re-emphasize that, and it's the point about the fact that the Democrats here are focusing, as we said before, on non-indictable offenses. There's nothing wrong with that.

But the obstruction of Congress charge is based on the failure of the President to comply with at least 10 subpoenas and orders to other people in this administration not to comply. And that's enough, those are lawful orders.

The failure to comply is illegal, and the remedy for that in this context is not judicial review, it is impeachment. Judicial review does exactly what you just said. It means that the House -- the Constitution says the House has the sole power of impeachment.

But if the House has to depend on courts to enforce that subpoena, then it turns out the courts have the sole power or control over this process.

CUOMO: Elliot, the advantage for you guys is that the Republicans are playing the short game, right? Because you know, I'm old enough, unlike all you guys to remember what happened in '98. And in '98, they were jumping up and down, the Republicans, Lindsey Graham, most notably that -- and Sensenbrenner also -- by the way, who is still, you know, is active on the Committee today -- that you don't need a crime. You don't need a crime.

[00:10:16] CUOMO: This is about moral cleansing. And that's all it is and the

perjury is more than enough because the lying about sex is more than enough. So they're playing the short game here that people won't remember what they were there and reveal that kind of two-faced capacity that they're having.

But you guys are playing the long game on the left. You're not even making this point. When they say you don't have the proof, you know, you can't prove to any real standard that this happened. This is a probable cause standard. That's all you're looking for with an Article of Impeachment. It's almost a more likely than not, is it -- do we have any reasonable basis to believe that this may have happened? Now, go try it. That's all it is in a criminal trial, let alone a political one.

WILLIAMS: So a couple of things and I'll push back on myself as being characterized as part of the left. I am not.

CUOMO: That's what you're playing tonight, Elliot. That is your role.

WILLIAMS: I am playing on the --

CUOMO: As appointed.

WILLIAMS: I am playing on the side of the Constitution.

CUOMO: All right, go ahead. Decide whatever you want.

WILLIAMS: But let's be clear -- but I think the problem Republicans have right now was actually seen the interview you did earlier tonight with Attorney General Mukasey who, like you said, Chris, framed it in terms of, you know, this is just the way the President is. And that's actually a toxin that is being put on our government. And here's why.

Do you remember the Pottery Barn rule, sort of, you broke it, you bought it. The President has broken --

CUOMO: I hate that rule. Especially with three kids.

WILLIAMS: But here's the thing.

CARPENTER: You buy the store.

WILLIAMS: The President. I've got two, I got it. The President has broken the modern Republican Party. And frankly, this predates impeachment. The fear of the nasty tweet has clouded the minds of pretty much every Republican in the House and I think we'll soon see in the Senate.

So even in these places where the allegations are clear, now, we can dispute as to whether bribery ought to have been added in or not. There are places where these people should have been stepping out of line with the President of the United States and they are just not going to, and it's because of the grip the President has on the Republican Party right now. And that's unquestionable. CUOMO: There is no question. In the House, in the House. We'll see

what happens in the Senate, but Amanda --

WILLIAMS: I'm not with you on that, Chris.

CUOMO: But we'll see. We'll see what happens.

WILLIAMS: I think you're not going to get that much in the Senate, too.

CUOMO: This is the beautiful thing about this world. If you wait, it will happen. And when we'll see. There's no reason to get ahead of it. But Amanda, you guys have always owned character, right or wrong. You know, I know Democrats aren't going to like me saying that, but you did.

When I see trucks with American flags on it, I assume the person is a Republican. That idea of patriotism and character and constitutionality. This is a big gamble going on here right now, which is they hate us. Us versus them will replace the high ground you used to have. Any concern?

CARPENTER: Yes, absolutely. I mean, this phenomena is called negative partisanship. It's not so much about what you believe in your own team, it is how much you hate the other guy. The last election was a negative partisanship election.

Hillary is terrible. Trump isn't as terrible. So we're going to fall in line behind him no matter how terrible of a personal character he may have. And so yes, it's awful. We're sacrificing a lot of things in the name of winning, but it does come from a place of fear and anger that we can't trust the other side. There's no way we can do that. There's no way we can vote for socialism, and so fall in line behind Trump.

CUOMO: My regret is that I think that the Republicans could accept what is obvious here and say, okay, maybe it was wrong the way he did it, he shouldn't have done it this way. But it's not worthy of impeachment, and I think they had arguments for that. And it would have given them a lot more high ground than they have right now and otherwise now, it's just a scorched earth policy of us or them.

Michael Gerhardt, Elliot Williams, Amanda Carpenter. Thank you one, and all.

All right, coming up. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He is making some news tonight on what may happen if this does get to a Senate trial, which is likely at this point. Let's go deep on his words and the implications, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:18:10]

CUOMO: So what happens tomorrow with key impeachment votes? Why didn't it happen tonight? Let's bring in two of our top political reporters, Phil Mattingly, Kaitlan Collins. They've been following all the developments. First to you, Phil, what do we know?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. You're letting me talk about markup procedure tonight. Cuomo is like that man after my own heart. Here is what matters about what happened.

When you saw Chairman Nadler gavel out tonight before the final vote. That was unexpected. We didn't know that was coming. But it had been playing and the way Nadler gaveled that was actually rather clever.

What he did is basically, he set up tomorrow. The only option is not more amendments, not more debates, not more striking of the last word, but essentially to vote on the final two Articles of Impeachment.

There may also be a vote on the substitute amendment that they agreed upon towards the end of the night, but Republicans don't have a lot of other options. Why Democrats did this is twofold.

One, they were frustrated that it went so late into the night. They say they thought they had an understanding with Republicans that this would end around 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. and it ended up going to 11:00 p.m. and multiple Democrats have spoken to tonight and said, look, we want to do this in broad daylight. We don't want it to be done in the dead of night. We're going to do it tomorrow morning.

Republicans, obviously they are furious. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Committee saying that it was the most bush league thing he's ever seen in his career, but the reality is, the endgame is the same. These two Articles of Impeachment will pass with Democratic votes tomorrow morning. We'll see how long it takes.

But the way Chairman Nadler did it tonight, Chris, it'll be queued up to move rather quickly, depending on what procedural efforts the Republicans make.

CUOMO: That was the most bush league thing. The guys who stormed the skiff, this is the most bush league thing. One other thing, because you understand all of this at such a granular level.

We understand that you make an amendment and everybody gets to talk about it. They kept using that phrase that you use, I move to strike the last word. What does that mean?

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's the nightmare for anybody who has been covering markups when you hear a member say that. Basically, what it does without getting too technical is it allows a member to take whatever the amendment that's currently in place essentially, put their own pro forma amendment over the top of it, and they can talk for five minutes.

[00:20:10]

MATTINGLY: What it also allows is any member on the Committee who hasn't yet spoken has that opportunity. So technically, you're only supposed to have five minutes on each side to debate an amendment. Basically, it opens it up to all 41 members of the Committee to keep talking. And that's why you saw, Chris, we only got through five amendments

tonight. We only got through one procedural motion vote tonight as well. So six actual votes tonight and it took more than 14 hours. It's because everybody kept striking the last word, which gives everybody another five minutes to talk, which is why we saw a lot of speechifying. You saw a lot of talking points. You saw a lot of the arguments you've seen over the course of the last three or four weeks, over and over again, because of that procedural effort.

CUOMO: Phil Mattingly, thank you very much for being on top of the game, no matter what time it is.

Kaitlan Collins at the White House. Now our President was at a Congressional Ball tonight, but his proxies in the House are clearly following his playbook. You know when I heard Gaetz go after an ill- advised attack, Hunter Biden, his struggles with mental health and addiction, it sounds like it was right out of the President's mouth.

So what do you know about how closely involved the President is with what we're watching in the House?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the President feels that he's been unable to really properly defend himself here. So of course, when it's something like this, he feels that his strongest defenders are those Republicans you saw the most today on the Judiciary Committee pushing back on those Democrats. Those are essentially extensions of the President.

They know very well what his mindset is, because he has made it pretty clear to them over the last several weeks. And that's what's interesting about this fight that's happening over what the Senate trial is going to look like and how Senate Republicans are advising the White House, you're not going to want to have these live witnesses, because we don't exactly know what that could lead to.

But the more that the President watches things like what he did today, seeing Doug Collins there at the end, so angry with Chairman Nadler over abruptly ending this, going into recess until the morning, the more the President feels like he wants to fight back and he needs to be vindicated.

So that'll be a really interesting area to watch. It is exactly how they're going to try to resolve those differences, and this is still a President who wants this aggressive, combative defense.

CUOMO: What is your best sense in terms of reporting about how close he is to the players?

COLLINS: How close the President is? He is very close to a lot of them. I mean, the questions of --

CUOMO: In terms of like controlling what they do, and giving them advice about what to say and who should say it.

COLLINS: I think the President essentially usually based on the conversations we have with those around him makes clear that he wants something to happen. He doesn't always necessarily telegraph what, but he'll say things like, look at what Nancy Pelosi is doing, look how aggressive they're being. Why aren't we being on offense? How are we going to respond to this? That's really the dynamic you've seen play out in the White House, even with the White House counsel.

The President really wants them to be aggressive here to be able to go forward and make their own calls here, and he struggled with that over the last several weeks because Republicans have said if they downplay this, if they minimize this, that's what's going help them in the end with this.

And you saw Republicans kind of today trying to make it seem like this was a very boring process that was happening and playing out repeating those same arguments over again.

But that's not what the President wants. He wants something really aggressive. And he makes that very clear to a lot of these Republicans.

CUOMO: What's your sense as to whether or not he has the same kind of control with McConnell and that crew that he has in House?

COLLINS: McConnell is a whole different beast because he controls the Senate pretty well. Even if you talk to McConnell's detractors, they will tell you he's got a pretty tight grip on his conference. And that's the reason he doesn't want this to be this long drawn out trial, because he doesn't want it to potentially damage some of these senators who are going to be up for reelection. He wants to protect them from taking any kind of votes like that.

So that's the question when it comes to the President and McConnell. And you heard McConnell tonight saying that he thinks that he is going to be listening and taking his cues from the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, who we've reported they've been in very close contact with.

CUOMO: Right.

COLLINS; But he's also telegraphing a message to the President saying that he thinks by the time they get to those opening statements of the impeachment trial, it will be so clear that the Democrats have this thin argument that they won't need to call any witnesses.

That's him signaling to the President, this is what he thinks they should do. In the end, we'll see if cooler heads prevail if McConnell gets his way here, or if the President gets to have the live witnesses in person that he has called for.

CUOMO: It's really interesting to watch play out. It's already so different than it was back with President Clinton when the senators were scrupulously avoiding any sense of interchange with the White House.

Now, it's right out in the open. It's like Nunes, Part 2. You know, they're supposed to be individual in their oversight and holding them to account and yet they're basically accounting to the White House. Very interesting to see. Kaitlan Collins, thank you. Phil Mattingly as well.

All right, so at this point, impeachment is all but certain. We still have a couple of steps, but that's the way we're moving. But what is uncertain is what will this look like in the Senate? What do you do? The majority leader has options. You just heard Caitlin Collins outline them to you. What's most likely? We will discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:29:28]

CUOMO: If the President is impeached, what we will have is this set of allegations. See for all the talk by Trump's defenders about how this case is incomplete, impeachment is just about finding the charges, not making the complete case. That is the job for the Senate.

The question becomes how will the senate approach their job? What we do know is that the Senate Majority leader has not yet been swayed to go full Trump. Now removal is unlikely because of the votes, but how it is handled matters.

[00:30:01]

CUOMO: Not for the diehard Trumpers and the fringe, but for the most precious voters, those who are still undecided according to the research about what the right consequences for this President's foibles. Two to one, those voters are independent.

So the reality show that Trump likes to see is not playing well with McConnell. One, there isn't precedent for theatrics like that. McConnell reportedly doesn't want witnesses flying conspiracy theories that could cause embarrassment to vulnerable members.

Last time, we lived this with Bill Clinton. The Senate they're also G.O.P.-controlled, they went heavy low key. Executive sessions for the full Senate. No media present. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRENT LOTT, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: As has been the case all the way along, we will be understanding each other and try to make these deliberations genuine deliberations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, after arguments concluded, deliberations -- what you heard Lott talking about were held behind closed doors, certainly kept media and messing around to a minimum. But that allowed sober minds to struggle with the prospect of removing a President over an affair, especially with Clinton reaching epic heights of popularity for cutting major policy deals while in the midst of also being in a foreign military engagement, U.S. airstrikes against Iraq.

Now, you compare that with the tweet dominant master of mayhem and executive time of Trump under facts that are far more damning than with Clinton and you see why the popularity numbers were so obvious.

Clinton's approach to the reproach, plus the fact that the thin basis for impeachment that Trump complains about now was actually present back then, and though the right, where every bit is righteous as the Democrats are today, even a 10-member advantage in the Senate back with Clinton wasn't enough.

In fact, 10 Republicans voted against perjury charges. The obstruction count wound up split, 50/50.

But no matter how it's handled, this is not a good place for any President. Trump will be the fourth to face this, but really, he is the second in modern history to likely have impeachment stain their name and with that stain, always come some stick.

As far back as Andrew Johnson, his own party saw him as damaged goods after the process, didn't even nominate him for reelection. Nixon, of course conceded. Then Ford did this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERALD FORD, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States do grant a full, free and absolute pardon under Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now most agree that cost President Ford against Jimmy Carter. Yes, Clinton beat it. But his party got beaten the next White House election.

So that leaves us with Trump. He has managed to break all the rules and norms and right ways to get ahead. Can he find a way to the ultimate loss into a win? We'll see.

Now we're going to pick it up with a big leaguer ahead. Constitution authority Laurence Tribe gave input to the team that crafted the Articles of Impeachment. So why are they the way they are? Why is this the best case? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:37:12]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): And even Mueller and Weissmann as much as they hated Trump, they couldn't find anything to use against President Trump. So we had to drop the Russian collusion. We had to drop the treason. Oh, what about obstruction of justice? Well, it's not obstruction of justice when you know you're innocent and you know, the Department of Justice is trying to set you up and you're trying to expose the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Now, Representative Gohmert there is wholly mischaracterizing

what the Mueller report said, and what the law is on obstruction. But it was a debate among House Democrats, whether or not to include an obstruction of justice Article on the Russia investigation against the President.

In the end, sticking to Ukraine for Articles of Impeachment was not a decision that House Democrats made alone. One distinguished constitutional scholar in particular, helped convince them that narrowly crafted Articles would be the best way to go. Why? Let's bring in the man himself, Professor Laurence Tribe, also the co-author of, "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment."

For some perspective, why tailor the Articles of Impeachment in such a narrow fashion? Why not say bribery, not being more explicit?

LAURENCE TRIBE, ADVISED HOUSE DEMOCRATS ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT: Well, this is very explicit, and it's a much more serious crime than bribery. It's a crime against the Constitution. Bribery, and extortion could have been charged, but they would involve getting into the weeds of legal technicalities.

The idea of using the power of the presidency for one's own private benefit to help oneself get reelected, that was the core danger that led to the inclusion of the impeachment power in the Constitution.

CUOMO: Right.

TRIBE: There was a big argument, you know, at the framing. Do we need an impeachment power? After all, the President will stand for reelection. And the main answer was, yes, but he might steal that election, especially dealing with foreign powers.

That's why this is so important, and it would be distracting to go off into legal capillaries and arteries like bribery and extortion, although that would have been a possibility.

CUOMO: But it is given a vulnerability -- to stick with your analogy -- it's pumps blood through the arteries and capillaries of the Republican pushback, which is you can't even articulate a crime.

And remember, you know, I don't have to remind you, but this is not going to be a jury. This isn't a trial. This is about persuasion with the American people, and they have come to expect crimes even if that is not the constitutional nor historical measure.

[00:40:02]

TRIBE: Well, it's going to be the task of the Democrats to convince the American public that the most serious crimes is using public office for private gain, that that is itself a crime.

People have to be reminded that the Constitution is law. It's the Supreme Law of the land. And when you break the Constitution and break your oath to the people, to use your office, only to carry out the law and to advance the interests of the American people, you are a law breaker, much more serious than a statutory crime.

You know, it's a felony in the District of Columbia to deface a Post Office box. That's a crime.

CUOMO: But it's not impeachable.

TRIBE: But it's not a crime against the Constitution and surely not impeachable.

CUOMO: Right. I understand that not all crimes are impeachable, and not all impeachable acts may be crime, but for purposes of persuasion, I asked, because leaving it out obviously gave an opportunity that they're exploiting again and again.

Now, I want to talk to you about the Senate aspect of this. Is it true that it would be a post procedural vote, 50 plus one to dismiss these charges, but that the Senate doesn't feel they have those votes, so they're going to have a trial? How much leeway does Mr. McConnell have in terms of what that trial looks like? Complete? Near total? Some?

TRIBE: Very substantial, but it's going to take 51 votes to establish any particular rule, and so the starting point is the rules that applied in the most recent impeachment in the 1990s, and there are going to be suggestions for changes.

Some people suggest that it should be not a real trial, but I suppose you could call it a Potemkin trial, a fake trial, a trial with no witnesses, no real evidence, but I don't think that McConnell will have 51 votes for that.

I don't think he will have 51 votes to bring in the whistleblower. I don't think he will have 51 votes for any number of things. But I also don't think the Democrats are going to have 51 votes for a lot of what they want. So this is going to be a very tough negotiation, laying down the ground rules of the trial.

And I think it remains to be seen what the trial will look like.

CUOMO: Right.

TRIBE: But there will be a high price to pay if the Republicans insist on having really no real trial at all, no witnesses -- that will be the strongest confession of guilt possible. Because if they were not afraid of a real trial with the evidence that the Intelligence Committee has gathered being displayed before the country, and there's really no dispute about what the President did, if they weren't afraid of it, then they would not try to shut it down and make it a quickie procedure.

CUOMO: It's interesting, the only guest they called or the only witness they called in the last hearing was of course Professor Turley and he argued back in '98, to encourage his Republican colleagues in the House to impeach even though it wasn't sure what would happen in the Senate, although people forget, the Republicans were in control of the Senate back then, not the Democrats. They just didn't vote pure Republican lockstep as we see now.

And he encouraged to impeach even if acquittal was likely because of what he called the precedent of exclusion showing what can't go. Do you see value in that still today?

TRIBE: Right. And if -- well, I think there's enormous value in saying if the President could do this, if the President can use his power, his public power, in order to help himself get reelected by shaking down a vulnerable ally, and helping our major global enemy, then anything goes.

And if the President kind of basically shut down the impeachment process, as this President did by taking unto himself the power to decide whether to provide any evidence and effectively to say, no evidence. We're not going to cooperate with you at all. If the President can do that, then the impeachment power is basically gone.

And their argument that until you have a Supreme Court decision, forcing the President to turn over some evidence, he has no obligation to do it basically says that the power of impeachment is shared between the House and the Judiciary. That's not the way the Constitution is written.

CUOMO: Professor Tribe, thank you so much for putting your head to these all important matters. This conversation is to be continued.

TRIBE: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: Thank you, sir.

TRIBE: Thanks.

CUOMO: You want to know how smart Tribe is? There's this book. Tribe co-authored, "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment." He said a Potemkin trial. That is a reference that goes way back. It means a fake trial. That it only looks good on the outside, but listen to where the reference comes from.

[00:45:00]

CUOMO: It was done by a Prince in Crimea, which was part of Ukraine until Russia annexed it and it was part of a ploy to impress a Russian princess.

I bet you, he didn't even know that he was drawing such an interesting analogy of a fake trial but with a Crimea/Ukraine reference. The guy is a genius.

All right, now to the argument. Be Best. That's what the Trump White House tells us and it is a good reminder and cue, but the President is once again showing us him at his worst. He attacked a kid again, Greta Thunberg.

Now, you know her. You probably know he did that. But it's what you didn't hear that tells us all the most. The argument is on that, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:49:57]

CUOMO: One tweet from POTUS is a metaphor for our mess. Here, it is. "So ridiculous, Greta must work on her anger management problem, then go to a good old-fashioned movie with a friend. Chill Greta. Chill."

[00:50:09]

CUOMO: He is talking of course about 16-year-old climate activist, Greta Thunberg, "Time" magazine's Person of the Year. This teenager who is on the autism spectrum, and he knows it. Her combination of youth, passion, vulnerability makes her the embodiment of the notion that wisdom can come out of the mouths of babes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETA THUNBERG, CLIMATE ACTIVIST: The eyes of all future generations are upon you, and if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: "Time" magazine's decision to pick her is going to make sense to many even those who disagree with her about climate change, which is also known as science.

But then comes Trump. Forget the obvious jealousy. Remember, this is the guy who faked being on a "Time" magazine Person of the Year cover. And to make it clear, this was no misunderstanding. The campaign doubled down. They put his head on Greta's slight frame like some kind of bullied blow pop.

But by now, we expect our President to ignore all precedent of presidential behavior. The troubling development is this.

You hear that? That's Trump's defenders saying nothing. My brothers and sisters on the right, how can you expect people to believe you are offended by Democrats arguments about abuse of power or anything about integrity when you stand by with this President's constant abuse, and you've provided the evidence against yourselves just last week, when you cared so much about how we treat kids in politics? Remember this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAMELA KARLAN, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL: So while the President can name his son, Barron, he can't make him a Baron.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Whoa, whoa. First lady went right into Be Best mode tweeting, "A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. You should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it." Now I don't think the professor had the animus that the President had

with what he just said. But you know what? The First Lady was still right. All of you, especially on the right who exploded and echoed her outrage. You were right. Because we don't go at kids even as a joke, or as an aside or as an anything.

But here's the question. Where are you now? You suddenly cared about decency? It was wrong to mention Barron, right? He is a kid and requires special consideration and sensitivity, like Greta. But where are you now? Where's Be Best? Where's FLOTUS?

They defended the President the first time he went after Thunberg, and you're silent now? What? Only his kids matter?

You who are silent are just like the Greek actors ages ago, wearing masks of duty, and constitutional consternation, if masks could be that. Underneath it all though, you're just doing as you're told. That's where the word hypocrite comes from, and you wear it well.

If I were to say what Trump said, I would be crushed, and rightly so. I may even lose my job in today's cancel culture. But that's because most of us are concerned about how what we say affects those around us.

But now we have a man who should have that concern most acutely, and yet he ignores it in full knowledge that he has a cast of men and women willing to play the fool in his act of the absurd.

The party of character counts of cleansing the office contamination with Clinton. No need for a crime right, Lindsey? But your silence now, more troubling than all the rest that's happened, I argue.

Your tongue only works to spread his message of attack at all costs. Your blind devotion to the President has blinded you to your own vulnerabilities on display.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): And I don't want to make light of anybody's substance abuse issues. But it's a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz Rental Car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car.

REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA): I would say that the pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: What was Gaetz doing there? He had to know his DUI arrest and other rumors about him were going to come up? But he didn't care. Why? Because all he cares about is what the boss is going to say.

[00:55:01]

CUOMO: Making fun of addiction? You pretend to care about mental illness, you should be ashamed. All of you. He's just a symptom of a problem.

Running from the facts is one thing. That's about strategy. Embracing conspiracies, attacking frailties, like illness and vulnerable kids -- are you part of the government or the goon squad? Without fear or favor, right? That's the phrase about applying the law, and you act out of fear and only to earn favor with one man.

You took an oath to check the President in situations like this. So two questions. If fear of the President and a related desire for his favor drive you, what will you do when he realizes --if he hasn't already -- that he could take you for granted? When he decides you're no longer worth catering to? You're just going to do what he says. You need him. You're afraid of him.

Second, many have posed the profound question of how do you want to be remembered at this historic time? And to be sure what is said and done now, it's going to be remembered. But there's more specific question for you.

Forget what others are going to say, what are you going to tell yourself? What are you going to tell yourself about why it was okay to excuse behavior you know is wrong? Even when it came to making fun of a kid, a vulnerable kid -- you said nothing when you just cared about the same thing a week ago. You know what that is? It's situational ethics.

And you know what those are? That's no ethics. What are you going to tell yourself? You're going to have to answer that question -- and sooner than you think.

All right, that's all for us tonight. We're going to stay in coverage as long as it counts. The news continues on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:00:00]