Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
House Judiciary Report Alleges Trump Committed "Multiple Federal Crimes" Including Bribery; Rep. Houlahan, Moderate Democrat In Swing District, Announces She Will Vote To Impeach Trump; New Poll: Voters Split On Impeaching & Removing Trump. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 16, 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: With that in mind, she wore her hair natural in a short style for the competition. She'd actually had ignored calls for her to wear a wig during her pageant career. Here's why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOZIBINI TUNZI, MISS UNIVERSE: These people are asking me to - to change my hair because they don't feel like my hair is beautiful because that's what it said to me.
And I thought if I did - if I did put on, you know, artificial hair, then that means I believe that I'm not beautiful, then I believe that women who look like me are not beautiful, which is why I thought I'm just going to go full-on, you know, the way that I am because I see myself as beautiful as any other women, and so--
COOPER: Yes.
TUNZI: --that's why I went on the swing. Thank you.
COOPER: I mean, look, I'm gay. But yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: She is awesome in so many ways. You can watch more of the interview on demand at CNN.com/FullCircle. Catch the program there live, weekdays 5 P.M. Eastern.
Want to hand things over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. That was great. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME on this eve of the eve of the President's impending impeachment.
We have a House newsmaker with us who, just moments ago, revealed her upcoming vote. She'd been on the fence until now. Why?
And we have brand new numbers on where we all stand as a country on impeachment. And a tough question for the Republicans, how can you not stand for a fair trial if you want to prove the President's innocence? Big questions, let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You know the toughest question, the toughest situation, here for us, is the unknown. Will we ever hear from the people with the most direct knowledge of this Ukraine fiasco, Mulvaney, Bolton, couple others?
They should know a lot about why aid to Ukraine was held up, and they've all been silenced by this President, and they may be kept quiet by Senate Republicans, who seem intent to hold the trial with no witnesses.
Nevertheless, the House Judiciary Committee found enough to send up two articles of impeachment. And in their new 658-page report, out just today, they described the behavior underlying the alleged abuse - abuse of power as part of a criminal plot, involving this President, and crimes of bribery and wire fraud.
Now, the big vote in the Full House on both articles of impeachment is just days away. And tonight, another moderate Democrat in a swing district announced what her vote will be, "Impeach."
Let's bring in freshman Chrissy Houlahan from Pennsylvania.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: A Foreign Affairs Committee Member.
Good to have you.
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): Nice to be here. Thank you for having me.
CUOMO: So, let's check some of the boxes of the obvious. Why declare tonight, why did it take you so long to decide?
HOULAHAN: Sure. And it took me a long time to decide because I certainly - and I know a lot of us here in Congress understand the gravity of this situation, and none of us wants to be here making this decision.
For me, I'm a veteran, and I'm also an engineer, so I take my oath of Office very, very seriously, and I'm very, very deliberative, and make sure that I have understood all of the evidence or the scientific evidence in front of me. So, it took me quite some time to kind of get through all of the data, all through - all of the testimony, and make a good choice, and it got to the - to the end of the line, where there was no other choice other than to impeach this President on these two articles, particularly, the evidence is overwhelming, and it is my constitutional responsibility to make that difficult vote.
CUOMO: All right, now your district is it was redrawn, you won it. Clinton won it by a point. She could have won, they say, by maybe as many as nine, if it had been drawn the way it was when you won it.
So, you're not as vulnerable as others, specifically in Pennsylvania. But a lot of your fellow Party members came out sooner than you.
HOULAHAN: Sure.
CUOMO: To what do you attribute the difference in timing?
HOULAHAN: So, my community is 40 percent Democrat, 40 percent Republican, and 20 percent Independents. So, we are one of those purple places. And you're right, you know, we're an interesting part of the community.
But, for me, this was a decision that I needed to make, representing everybody in our community, and I needed to make sure that I had taken all the time that I needed to - to make that decision.
And I shouldn't feel pushed. You - you - you should want me to make the best decision that I can. And this was the time that I needed to make it.
CUOMO: So, when they say to you, when you're home, like you were recently, and like you will be again soon, and they say, "Why? I didn't send you there for this. What a mess! You're not getting anything done."
Or they say, "What took you so long? What are you that much of a scaredy-cat? You're looking at the polls, and you see that the nation is divided, and you take your sweet time?"
How do you deal, because it's all about feel, how do you address those polar opposite feelings in one district?
HOULAHAN: Sure. And we just had our 14th Town Hall, I've been in office for about a 11 months now, just this evening we had it. And it was an online or telephone Town Hall, although most of the vast majority have been in person.
We had 4,000 people on the line, and we were talking about these pressing issues, and some of them, of course, had questions about impeachment, and agreed or disagreed with me on that very important decision.
But we were also able to talk about the hundreds of bills that we've pushed forward in this Congress, and many, many of them have been bipartisan. [21:05:00]
The vote that we'll take just this week on USMCA, the vote that we took last week on farmers, and making sure that they had visa availability, we also made sure we push through the NDAA. I'm on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I'm also on the Armed Services Committee.
We were able, and this office, my office was able to be very instrumental in pushing forward parental leave as a result of the Armed Services bill that we pushed forward. And that is where I think a remarkable example of bipartisanship in the face of this situation might have.
CUOMO: In the House. In the House, you've gotten some things half done. And I don't mean it as criticism, I'm saying as a function of process. But this permeates everything.
HOULAHAN: So, I - I--
CUOMO: This division and the President who does that, so McConnell's not giving any votes. USMCA, you'll get a vote. But a lot of these things won't get votes because of the political environment.
HOULAHAN: So, I - I beg to disagree. And certainly, there are a large number that I'm disappointed will never see the light of day, and we will continue to push on those. But with - and USMCA is one, the NDAA--
CUOMO: It is another.
HOULAHAN: --defense approach it's--
CUOMO: Right.
HOULAHAN: --is another. The farm bill, I believe, will be another that was supported by--
CUOMO: The budget extension will be one.
HOULAHAN: Exactly, three dozen Congress - Republican Congressmen. So, there is progress, there is work being done.
And the vast, vast majority of our everyday existence in Congress is pushing forward the people's agenda, what we worry about healthcare, jobs, education, the planet, gun safety, community safety, and those are what I call sort of our NODA (ph) agenda that everybody should agree that we should be working on those.
CUOMO: Right. But there is no functional progress on any of those last ticket items that you just named there, and they do matter, every one of them gravely.
HOULAHAN: They do.
CUOMO: Certainly in the campaigns they do. HOULAHAN: They do, absolutely.
CUOMO: But nothing is happening on any of them. I'm not blaming you.
HOULAHAN: Oh absolute--
CUOMO: I'm blaming the atmosphere.
HOULAHAN: It is our responsibility to work bipartisan only.
And some of the things that I've personally done is work to create bipartisan caucuses. I - I am a Founder of something called For Country, nine Democrats, nine Republicans, who all are working together to find the common ground with all our veterans.
And we have worked to push forward things like the parental leave, that I just talked about, were advocated for by the nine Democrats and nine Republicans. And, as a consequence, 2.1 million people will have family leave available to them.
CUOMO: That's a - it's - it's a huge deal. It's important.
HOULAHAN: Parental leave.
CUOMO: You got the President's daughter on your side as well. That's helpful in this particular White House. One more question for you.
HOULAHAN: Sure.
CUOMO: And I appreciate you being with us on such an important night where you made such an important decision for your constituents.
Would you be OK, and I know this is a Senate decision, but I, you know, all Democrats matter. If you were to trade Bolton and Mulvaney for Biden and Schiff, would you make that deal?
HOULAHAN: So, of course, I look to the Senate to make those decisions. And I believe that my responsibility is what I have effectively done or will do this week, which is to deliver the preponderance of evidence to the Senate. It will be their responsibility to run--
CUOMO: No question.
HOULAHAN: --a - a fair trial.
CUOMO: But the voices matter because this is about energy. This is about, you know, that kind of momentum.
And there is a potential chance here that you'll have no witnesses in a trial, as silly a suggestion as that is to anybody who considers justice fairness. A trade could be the only thing that gets the people that the Americans haven't heard from who know the most.
HOULAHAN: So, in - in my opinion, the Senate's responsibility is to weigh the evidence for the Commander-in-Chief, for this President.
CUOMO: Right.
HOULAHAN: It is not their responsibility to dig into these other areas. That is the responsibility of the FBI, as a result, and - and the Judiciary of the nation as well. If there is corruption, if there is something to see, then we should definitely see it. But I don't necessarily believe that the place to see it is in the Senate.
CUOMO: Strong point. Thank you very much, Representative, for being with us tonight, appreciate it.
HOULAHAN: Thank you. Have a good evening.
CUOMO: All right, it's an interesting take that some of these things will continue to be investigated. It's not all going to be over and done with in just this impeachment process. It's also a little bit of a daunting idea as well.
So, we know where most Members of Congress are. How about us as a country? Divided, we know that.
But there's a way to look at the most recent polls in the all- important court of public opinion. And you will see some truths in there about who we are, and where we are, heading into the next phase.
The Wiz of Odds, 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: CNN's latest poll suggests 45 percent of voters favor impeachment and removal, 48 percent against it.
Now, I know that Trump takes this as a win, but what a situation! Almost half the country thinks the President should go out like this.
The question we need answered is why? Despite all that has been learned are people in the same place because the polls have looked like this for a while. How do I know? The Wiz.
Harry Enten, the Wizard of Odds.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER & ANALYST: Shalom, brother.
CUOMO: Thank you, brother, shalom as always in advance of Hanukkah and the Holy Days for you.
So, let's look through the numbers, and what they tell us, and what they don't.
ENTEN: Right. So, you know, one of the things, I think, is so important, is that we've had a number of polls that have come out over the last, say, 24 to 36 hours, and they all basically show the same thing, CNN SR - SSRS, 45 percent support, Fox News was at the higher end, 50 percent support, Quinnipiac University, 45 percent.
But overall, that average, right, of where the nation is so evenly divided, the electorate, these are all among voters, so evenly divided, 47 percent to 48 percent, it's basically split dead-even.
CUOMO: And it's been like that for a while.
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: Very unusual in polling that people stay looking the - stuck in the same place despite developments.
ENTEN: Yes, despite.
CUOMO: Right? Even before - before Ukraine, post-Ukraine, about the same place. Why?
ENTEN: About the same place. And I think, you know, one major reason why, is what is a major or minor reason we asked in our poll for that you support your certain impeachment position.
[21:15:00]
Among those who support impeachment, 72 percent say a major or minor reason is because Trump's done a bad job running the country. So, this is very much in line with their partisanship. Among those who oppose impeachment, 78 percent say Trump's done a good job running the country.
So basically, what we've seen this entire time is people are choosing their impeachment positions, based upon how they already feel.
CUOMO: Although that's always true with Presidents. Obama had that too, but it's only about in the 30s for most Presidents. This guy, it's much, much higher. But he's in a much more serious state of affairs.
ENTEN: Sure.
CUOMO: Apples to apples versus Clinton--
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: --when he was getting impeached.
ENTEN: Yes. So, you know, you were pointing this out in the beginning of the segment of just how important it is, how historic it is that 45 percent--
CUOMO: Right.
ENTEN: --say yes to impeaching and removing Trump from Office.
Clinton at his high watermark in December of '98, only 40 percent said yes, 59 percent said no, in an ABC News/Washington Post poll.
So, this number is significantly higher, and that's something we've seen all along. Even if the numbers are static, it's still really, really high.
CUOMO: It's also a reflection of, one, he's got a much higher negative index, and two, this is a much more serious set of facts than we were dealing with there. That was like a culture war. This is literally about national security.
All right, now, now the likely to change, this is the most impressive one to me about why we are where we are.
ENTEN: Yes, yes, yes.
So very likely that the Senate trial changes your mind on removing Trump from Office, among those who support impeaching and removing him, only 11 percent say that the Senate trial's likely to - very likely to change their mind on that. Among those who oppose impeaching and removing, just--
CUOMO: Right.
ENTEN: --5 percent say it's very, very likely that in fact the Senate trial will change it. So, voters are really set in their ways. If anything, these numbers suggest that perhaps the support for impeaching and removing may drop a little bit, but overall very, very steady.
CUOMO: And this also tells you, other than the President's pressure, this is why Mitch McConnell's saying "Let's rush through this and get past it. You're not going to change any minds anyway. The exposure can only hurt us. Let's go." But it's not going to be easier - early - easiest sell as he thinks.
Party?
ENTEN: Yes. I think this is rather important also. So, you know, if Democrats are going to move the dial of the 45 percent who already favor impeach and remove, the vast majority of--
CUOMO: Right.
ENTEN: --Democrats or leaning Democratic Independents, 85 percent.
But of those 12 percent, this is perhaps the swing group they can get after, who don't favor impeach and remove, but disapprove of the job that Trump is doing, just 55 percent are leaning Democratic.
CUOMO: Right.
ENTEN: So, if Democrats are going to change the numbers, change the ballgame, they really do have to reach out to those Independents and those few Republicans who don't like Trump, but aren't in the "Impeach and remove" camp at this point.
CUOMO: But to take yourself now, from McConnell, inside Nancy Pelosi's head, don't favor impeach, but do disapprove, that's why she went so slowly.
ENTEN: That's exactly right.
CUOMO: Because this is a dicey proposition. And we're hearing even from Houlahan, in Pennsylvania, at her Town Hall where she was going to announce her impeachment vote, it wasn't the main topic of discussion.
Wiz, as always, thank you for taking us inside the numbers.
ENTEN: Shalom! Go Buffalo Bills!
CUOMO: Senator McConnell - he's no Tim Russert!
All right, Senator McConnell was so straightforward about basically letting the White House run the President's pending trial in the Senate. He made it sound routine. Is it? What about the separation of powers?
We have President Obama's White House Counsel here. He's got valuable insight on what's right and wrong, next.
Go Buffalo Bills!
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Both articles of impeachment are likely to be defended on the basis that the President was within his powers to do what he did and that he didn't go rogue. He was advised about how to leverage the aid and how to push back against Congressional subpoenas and requests, specifically by his White House Counsel.
So, what's right, what's wrong? One person who held that job, for some perspective, Bob Bauer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He was in the White House as Counsel under President Obama.
It's good to have you.
BOB BAUER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, PROFESSOR, NYU LAW: Thank you very much. Good to be here.
CUOMO: All right, let's talk substance then we'll talk process.
Obstruction of Congress, the President's defense is, "Listen, administrations always push back against Congress. They don't like a lot of the requests. And it should be settled in the courts. And if they don't want to take the time, that's on Congress, not on the Executive."
BAUER: That's somewhat of a significant misstatement of the position that the Administration actually took.
It wasn't going about quarreling with particular subpoenas, or agreeing to cooperate, but then sort of picking its battles, if you will, over particular testimonies or documents. It launched a broadside attack on the process.
The White House Counsel wrote an extraordinary letter saying, in effect, that the impeachment process in the House was itself unconstitutional, a sham, a betrayal of the House's constitutional responsibility, and that the President wouldn't cooperate with it at all.
So, to treat the President's conflict with the Congress as sort of an organ - relatively ordinary course tug-and-pull is a real misrepresentation of the position the Administration, in fact, took here.
CUOMO: All right, but even if it's going to be about what the premise was versus how the performance came from it, it would still be the same basic point, wouldn't it Counselor, which is that they don't believe this is a righteous ask? This is a bad ask. And they're not going to indulge it unless the courts say so.
One argument against that is "Well now you're making the judiciary co- equal with Congress in its oversight of the Executive, and it should not be," but that doesn't really matter to people. What should matter to people and why this is wrong?
BAUER: What you would expect is that a President takes a constitutional process seriously.
Obviously, no President, and there haven't been many in our history, relish the thought of an impeachment battle. That is for sure. And it's certainly perfectly open to Presidents to defend themselves vigorously.
[21:25:00]
The question is, however, are they going to engage with the Congress? Are they going to recognize Congress' power to impeach, and address it responsibly, by offering, if you will, accommodations on some testimony, and fighting vigorously over others?
This Administration took the extraordinary position. Nixon didn't take this position. Clinton didn't take this position that it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the impeachment process.
It simply swept it off the board entirely. And that, I think, is what led to Article Two, and it is what distinguishes this impeachment case from others in the past.
CUOMO: The impeachment overall, I want your head on this Bob, the idea of impeachment fundamentally was meant as a process where Left and Right come together because they are overwhelmed by what the Executive is doing to them.
In the case of a President, especially, that what's ever happening is so bad that there're going to be two-thirds of you in the Senate that see it that way, and that that is not this situation.
There will be zero buy-in from the Republicans. They don't accept the premise. They don't accept the facts. So, this can never be an effective mechanism of impeachment for the Democrats, no matter how good faith they are acting in.
BAUER: It's possible to decide that an impeachment process shouldn't be launched, an impeachment debate shouldn't be conducted, unless the House is certain that the Senate will convict, but that doesn't seem consistent with the constitutional process at all.
The House makes a determination of whether the President is fit to retain Office, and I'll come back to that in a minute, and the Senate is obligated to try the charges. And that's in fact what Mitch McConnell has indicated he would do. What form that trial takes, of course, is open to question.
But I want to stress something critical about impeachment, which raises the constitutional stakes. It is often falsely believed to be a punitive act by the House. In fact, it's a prophylactic measure.
The whole notion behind impeachment is that the President has disqualified himself or herself from holding Office, and something in the President's behavior, or character, pattern of conduct of the Office, raises the threat that that President will continue to misuse his or her powers.
And that is, by the way, a pronounced point in the House Judiciary Committee report on impeachment.
CUOMO: Right.
BAUER: That the President, if not stopped here, could do it again.
CUOMO: Well he said as much. I get you on the continuing threat point. I don't get you on the Senate point.
Mitch McConnell has said not that he's going to hold a fair trial. He says he's going to do what the White House wants. And he has a beautiful way of saying things that are completely radical, but saying them with a straight face, and somehow making them acceptable.
I've never heard of this before. We actually went back to the Democrats to see what Daschle would say about this and, of course, they weren't in power, but the idea of letting the White House decide how the trial of the White House, in essence, goes, how is that fairness?
BAUER: If Mitch McConnell meant in that statement that the White House was in effect going to run the majority programming here--
CUOMO: He said it three times, Bob.
BAUER: --decide not just to--
CUOMO: Three times he said it.
BAUER: Well and I'm not - and - and I'm - I'm not disputing it.
I am going to the question of what is appropriate for the Majority Leader to say, and what is not. It would be one thing for the Majority Leader to say that the Republicans will consult with the--
CUOMO: Sure.
BAUER: --Administration on process and consult with the White House Counsel. It's another to turn the Senate into a vessel into which the President pours whatever it is that he chooses.
The latter is clearly an abdication of the Senate's independent responsibility to try this case, no question about it.
CUOMO: Can you have a fair trial with no witnesses?
BAUER: Pardon me?
CUOMO: Can you have a fair trial--
BAUER: Can you have a trial with--
CUOMO: --if there are no witnesses?
BAUER: The House, of course, conducted - the - well the - the House conducted a trial and built a record. And much like 1999, the better part of the trial could be conducted on the basis of the House record.
CUOMO: But the Senate in Clinton-- BAUER: However, as we know, Senator Schumer has suggested--
CUOMO: The Senate in Clinton had witnesses, Bob.
BAUER: The Senate in Clinton conducted three depositions. It was a very limited fact-finding. The better part of the case rested on Ken Starr's Independent Counsel record.
Now, as we know, Senator Schumer has said that there is a limited number of witnesses and a limited number of requests for documents that he believes is necessary to supplement the House record.
So, he's already made that clear in the letter that he put forward, at least that's his opening proposal to the Senate Majority Leader.
CUOMO: Right. It's just interesting that the way this is supposed to size up is that what the House does by impeaching is bring forward an indictment, and the particulars of it are supposed to be tried in the Senate.
And I just don't see how they do that without witnesses. I don't see why they'd want to. I don't know why they have an expect - expectation that Bolton and Mulvaney wouldn't be very positive for the President's position.
I don't know what Bolton's lawyer is saying but they are trying to sell a book. You know, the idea that he would have an axe to grind with a man who gave him the most exalted position he's ever held, I bet - I bet on Bolton doing the right thing by the President.
And, in trade, the Senate could say "Well good, then give us Biden, and give us Schiff." And if I'm the Democrats, I'd make that trade to the extent I control it.
BAUER: Let me speak to the constitutional issue here for a second. The Senate--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Well that's much easier, Bob, go ahead.
BAUER: --in a variety of ways.
[21:30:00]
Well - well I just want to speak to what I know. And that's what I'd like to do here--
CUOMO: Go ahead. Go ahead.
BAUER: --if at all possible.
It can conduct a trial on the basis of the House record. It can trial - conduct a trial or - with a limited number of witnesses or a good number of witnesses. It can depose witnesses and not bring them to the floor. Perhaps they
can depose witnesses and bring them to the floor. The Senate has constitutionally an enormous amount of flexibility.
As for the Administration witnesses that Senator Schumer has discussed calling, you may be confident that in the end of the day they will "Do right," or however you put it by President Trump, President Trump may have real doubts that that's the case.
And we heard Senator McConnell and Senator Graham just in the last couple of weeks put out the word that they're not a 100 percent certain it's necessary to have witnesses, so they may have a sense that calling those witnesses would not redound to the President's benefit quite as much as some might think.
And I might add this impeachment record in the House that's been built has been built on the testimony of Administration witnesses. I don't know that--
CUOMO: Yes.
BAUER: --that was anticipated at the time. So, it may be that the President is not eager, this President is not eager, to have an encore of that performance.
CUOMO: You must be right because he has kept them from testifying to this point. And if there's one thing we know about this President, it's if he thinks it's good for him, he'd be pushing for it.
Bob Bauer, thank you so much for bringing to bear your understanding of the law--
BAUER: My pleasure.
CUOMO: --as it applies in this situation, thank you.
BAUER: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, so the President made really ugly comments, I know you're shocked, about another woman, I know you're shocked. This time, it's Nancy Pelosi. I know you're shocked. And he made an age crack about her teeth.
Now, that's something you haven't heard of before. But here's the troubling thing for me. We know what this President's capable of or not capable of. What are his defenders thinking by never calling him out for what he does? Time to test, 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: One of the reasons it's hard to defend Trump is that he demands you defend everything he does and says.
And that raises what we call the "Defenders Dilemma." Should you be defending a man when you know it will force you to own the ugliness that he spits out so often that you can't possibly agree with?
For example, attacking Nancy Pelosi with a tweet about her teeth falling out, "Unorthodox," they say, and "He's frustrated," they say.
What they don't say is what they would say immediately if anyone else said anything like this. So, the question becomes how do you keep your credibility with this kind of silence?
Let's bring in former Republican Congressman Sean Duffy.
Blessings for Christmas for you and the family. Thanks for being with me.
SEAN DUFFY, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You too, Chris. Have a Merry Christmas.
CUOMO: So, you get the question, you know.
DUFFY: Yes.
CUOMO: Telling the President he's right is being a follower. Telling him he's wrong is being a leader. And nobody seems to want to do that in your Party.
DUFFY: Well I think if you look at the whole picture though, Chris, I mean so you can focus on President Trump, and say, he says some pretty rough-and-tumble things, right, and - and we don't like it.
But if you also look at Nancy Pelosi, she's called him an imposter. She's called his manhood into question.
And if you're sitting in Donald Trump's seat, you'll say, "Listen, people have been coming after me from the point I ran for Office." I mean Snoop Dogg did a video with a gun to his head.
And - and you have Democrats who are going through impeachment, they call him a racist, a sexist, a Nazi. They did a two-year impeachment. They said he colluded with Russia.
So, I think you put all those things together, and I come from a place that we fancy ourselves, maybe unlike New York, we kind of think we're nice in Wisconsin and Minnesota. But what I see people saying there, Chris, is "Yes, I - I might not love all of the fights that he's in. But I love that he's fighting and pushing back against people, whether it's the media or Democrats, who are unfair to him."
CUOMO: Well here's the thing, Sean.
DUFFY: Otherwise he just gets railroaded.
CUOMO: I - I hear you.
DUFFY: Yes.
CUOMO: I don't think he gets railroaded. He's the most powerful person in the world. He pulls the strings, which is why we haven't even heard from the people who know most about the Ukraine situation. So, he's doing fine, OK? He's President of the United States.
Two things. One, I don't believe in this equivalency that a President has to act like who his critics are.
The President is the biggest man in the room. The biggest man in the room does not behave like the people who are coming at him, right? You ever hear the expression "The lion is not concerned by the complaints of the sheep?"
The second thing is, Sean, you guys will say, "Well, we don't like everything he says." No, you never say that you don't like what he says. None of you will say--
DUFFY: Listen--
CUOMO: --"He should not have said that about Nancy Pelosi. It was an ugly remark that is beneath the Presidency," none of you have said it.
DUFFY: But Chris, I think what - what you - you don't recognize is the fact that many Republicans feel like this is a one-sided conversation. And frankly, the media and Democrats are the lion, and they're going after the President non-stop. He hasn't had one break. And so I - so I--
CUOMO: So, why don't you say Nancy Pelosi's teeth are falling out?
DUFFY: So in the - in a - in a Christmas spirit though, Chris, I think when do we stop pointing the finger - when do I stop pointing the finger at liberals or them - or - or the - or - or media that's not fair to him, and you know liberals stop saying "It's Donald Trump's fault?"
When do we all say it's our responsibility, whether we're in our homes, or our communities, or in our conversations, to be more respectful with one another? I think that's what--
CUOMO: But why - because--
DUFFY: --what it really comes down to. CUOMO: --because why would I take that message from you when you refuse to call out the person who says--
DUFFY: So--
CUOMO: --the ugliest things most constantly?
DUFFY: So, I would - I don't know if you called out Maxine Waters when she said "Go after them in gas stations and in restaurants," or when they went after Ted Cruz or--
CUOMO: Of course, we did.
DUFFY: --Sarah Sanders or I mean I look at Conservatives who have been chased out of restaurants. I mean liberals were banging down the doors of the Supreme Court.
I mean you look at the - I mean a Conservative can't speak on a college campus. I think when you take the picture as a whole, Republicans and Conservatives are angry with the way they've been treated.
And so that the President is fighting back against what - at least a perceived unfairness, we - I mean - they're happy about it because if you don't fight back, you just get punched in the head, day after day after day.
CUOMO: Listen.
DUFFY: And you lose.
CUOMO: Sean, we're not in a bar.
DUFFY: So let's--
CUOMO: OK?
DUFFY: No, we're not in a bar.
CUOMO: I know - you're the - you're the nice Wisconsin guy.
DUFFY: Thank you.
CUOMO: I'm the tough guy from Queens, OK? And I don't have a guy - three guys coming at me in front of my kid every day. When you're on television, when you're in office, you're supposed to be trying to be your best.
[21:40:00]
And I can't believe that your argument is "There are people who support the President who feel that he's taking too much criticism, so they are OK with him saying that Nancy Pelosi's teeth are falling out." Where is your high ground--
DUFFY: But - but do you think that's it's OK for Nancy Pelosi-- CUOMO: --morally if you won't call it out?
DUFFY: But do you think it's OK for Nancy Pelosi - Pelosi to call into question his manhood, or to call him an imposter?
CUOMO: She says she prays for him every day.
DUFFY: No, no, is that what - come on!
CUOMO: And doesn't hate him.
DUFFY: Come on. And so--
CUOMO: Oh why? Why can't he say something gratuitously nice?
DUFFY: But - but - but - but so now - now but--
CUOMO: Then?
DUFFY: But now you're - but now - but now - but now you do--
CUOMO: To balance it out?
DUFFY: But now you're doing what you're saying I'm doing, which is you're--
CUOMO: What?
DUFFY: --you're giving her a pass.
CUOMO: No, I'm not giving her a pass.
DUFFY: She called him an imposter.
CUOMO: I think if people say ugly things--
DUFFY: She called him an imposter.
CUOMO: --you take it out.
DUFFY: She called his manhood into question. And if you're President Trump, that's offensive, maybe every man it's offensive.
CUOMO: But let me ask you this, Sean.
DUFFY: So, when do we - when do we say, "Hey, hey, hey, well we're going to - we should have started with Nancy Pelosi because," if you - if you recall, when she first won the Speakership--
CUOMO: Sean, I have the answer to your question when you're ready for it.
DUFFY: Wait. When she won the Speakership, President Trump was generous, and extended an arm, and said really great things about - about Nancy Pelosi, and she responded by punching him in the head with comments like I just referenced. CUOMO: Yes. OK.
DUFFY: That--
CUOMO: Remind me, Sean, are you a Christian?
DUFFY: I think I am. Yes.
CUOMO: And your Party by--
DUFFY: I'm a Catholic.
CUOMO: Your - your Party basically wants to make Christianity the religion of this country, but certainly the guiding light--
DUFFY: No. No.
CUOMO: --of its Party. And this is my point.
DUFFY: We want the freedom of - from the - the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose, Chris.
CUOMO: Yes. Well which - which often gets translated into the ability to discriminate against others.
DUFFY: Not at all, I mean, come on.
CUOMO: What I'm saying is this, if you want to hold yourself as a Christian, you can't make any of the arguments you're making right now. Now, I'll give Trump a break.
DUFFY: But--
CUOMO: I don't believe that his faith is that important to him. But for the - for the Republican Party to say, "Hey man, they're coming at him. He's got to come back same way. Knuckle up, baby."
DUFFY: But--
CUOMO: "It doesn't matter if it's an 80-year old woman."
DUFFY: No, no.
CUOMO: "He should talk about her teeth falling out. Yes, it's all good."
DUFFY: No, no, no, but--
CUOMO: That's not a Christian way to look at the world.
DUFFY: But - but - but - but let me be clear. I don't think anybody likes how this conversation has evolved in America.
CUOMO: You have not said anything about what he said about Pelosi being wrong, by the way. DUFFY: But - but - but you know what? I - I - I haven't. But I also say if you are fair about looking at the whole picture, the totality of - of what President Trump--
CUOMO: It's still wrong to say what he said about Nancy Pelosi.
DUFFY: But - but I would love to come on and say let's do a segment on all the negative things they've done on President Trump and how horrible they're.
CUOMO: But how does it make what he said OK?
DUFFY: Maybe it - it doesn't. But we'll do a segment--
CUOMO: Hey, there's one President, one, Sean.
DUFFY: I - I know. I know. But it's the President who's been under attack. I mean they did a - they did a protest the day after he was inaugurated. And - and they were--
CUOMO: But doesn't how you fight matter?
DUFFY: --calling to blow up the White House?
CUOMO: Doesn't it - doesn't it mean something to you that I'm told consistently by members of my profession, and my bosses, "Remember, I know what he said. You got to be better than him," that a journalist has to have as a constant practice to be better than the President of the United States, what does that tell you about how he behaves?
DUFFY: So, but what - what - what would I say though is, Chris, if we're going to say things about Donald Trump, and call him out, it should be calling out everybody.
CUOMO: But you do call out--
DUFFY: Look, I don't know - but I--
CUOMO: --all the others.
DUFFY: I don't see - I don't see the Left getting called out on some of the outrageous and violent things. They're chasing - they're chasing Republicans and Administration folks out of restaurants. This stuff has become--
CUOMO: And it's wrong when it happens.
DUFFY: --insane. And I - and I--
CUOMO: And if it's Antifa, then they are not protestors.
DUFFY: That's right. I agree with you.
CUOMO: They are rioting thugs and criminals.
DUFFY: They're - right. They are. CUOMO: But Sean, this is the difference.
DUFFY: And what I - what I tell you is--
CUOMO: If Nancy Pelosi said something like that about Donald Trump, she made a joke about his hair, when comedians do it, when they made fun of Sarah Sanders' weight, on this show, and shows all over the media, it's wrong, it's too far.
DUFFY: I maybe--
CUOMO: It's not funny. Listen--
DUFFY: I think you have, Chris.
CUOMO: There's no--
DUFFY: I think you have. But you--
CUOMO: --there's no question we have.
DUFFY: But - I know you have. But I don't think if I look at the other networks, and other shows, they've done what you've done.
CUOMO: But Sean, all I'm saying is this.
DUFFY: I think you're a standout who has - who has been a straight shooter on this stuff where the others have turned a blind eye to it.
And I mean - and my point too is I don't like any of this. I'm a - I'm a Catholic like you are. I like peace and civility. My mom is a Bernie Sanders' supporter. I love her to death. We disagree on politics. I don't have to hate her.
CUOMO: Absolutely.
DUFFY: The hate that has come around politics today is outrageous.
CUOMO: I'm just telling you this.
DUFFY: But we have to be able to bust through that and call out all sides both sides.
CUOMO: I'm a 100 percent in agreement, except for one thing. You are a much better Catholic than I am. I guarantee that.
DUFFY: I'm not.
CUOMO: You're a better person. All I'm saying is this.
DUFFY: Well I - I have more kids than you, Chris. But that's all - that's what I'm beating you on.
CUOMO: You - you - you've been - you've been more blessed. The - I just think that the credibility comes with saying what's wrong, not just why it's OK. That's my argument. DUFFY: Yes.
CUOMO: I hear yours. And I appreciate it.
DUFFY: I hear you.
CUOMO: Sean Duffy, the best for Christmas.
DUFFY: Merry Christmas.
CUOMO: All right, the latest hypocrisy we must all suffer is Senate Republicans saying no to the need for witnesses when their House Members were screaming about not having witnesses. The politics of power are ugly and obvious, often on both sides.
But I think the loser is the President. If the big boys don't testify, I think it's bad for him. In fact, I think all sides lose. And I'm going to make that argument to you, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Can a trial be fair if it allows for no witnesses? That should be a rhetorical question.
But for all the cries, about what the Constitution demands, the reality is raw power plays, and that's why after a dozen live witnesses in the House, the Senate may want none. Bad? Yes. For whom? Everybody. Prove it? OK.
We need them because we need the information. The House duty was to dig and deliver accusations, not conclusions. They did that. The Senate job is to hold a trial on the same, a trial. The Senate burden is much greater.
So, this is where the most information will be needed. You all say you want the facts, and the truth. You can't get it without hearing from the people who know the most.
The Democrats want the people at the top, who do know the most, and who have been hidden from this process by Trump, Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We don't know what kind of evidence they will present. They might present exculpatory evidence that helps President Trump. It may be incriminating against the President. But they should be heard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He's right. But we do have some pretty good clues. President Trump reportedly gave the order to hold the military aid to Ukraine. He gave that order to Mick Mulvaney.
[21:50:00]
Did that happen? What were the understandings? What was the President told about the decision? Mick Mulvaney likely knows the answers to each and all, better than anyone else.
And we know ex National Security Advisor, John Bolton, objected to pressuring Ukraine.
How do we know? Several witnesses testified he sent them to ring the alarm with lawyers about the "Drug deal" being cooked up to aid political investigations. And Bolton's lawyer says his client has information that has not been shared.
So, it's good for justice, which is fairness under law, good for you, truth, facts, good for the Democrats, who see these players as key to their findings of abuse of power, but here's the big part of the argument.
I think the person it could be the best for is Trump, and he may get that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'd love to have Mick go up, frankly. I think he'd do great. I'd love to have him go up. I'd love to have almost every person go up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, his credibility is in question. Full-stop! But on this specifically, he's twice bluffed about wanting to testify himself. In fact, he backed off that statement. He said "But it's a witch-hunt and a sham."
Look, here, his credibility is especially so because he's the one keeping all these people from the process. All of that House GOP bellyaching about the lack of firsthand witnesses was fugazi. And the reason I said it is because they knew their boss was the one pulling the strings.
Mitch McConnell made it clear what the President wants, he gets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Well exactly how we go forward, I'm going to coordinate with the President's lawyers, so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this. You raise the issue of what if you have witnesses. The President's counsel may or may not decide they want to have witnesses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He has a gift of saying things bold-faced that make it seem OK. You're letting the White House decide how it gets tried, think about that, what a gross violation of separation of powers. Put it aside.
Now, the best that they can do here is listen to what the President wants. The best what we can do is listen to what he just said in this piece. There are two arguments for witnesses that help the President and therefore his proxies in his Party.
Schumer's right. We don't really know what Mulvaney and Bolton will say.
In fact, I argue that Mulvaney, despite his little slip of the truth, earlier this year, would be totally on Team Trump, and cover in a way that would be unprovable that he's doing that, and that's good for the President.
Bolton may have a book to sell. But does he really have an axe to grind? Trump gave him a front row seat, a title he can earn off for years, and he may not know anything more that matters.
Second, this is a great chance to give to get. If the White House did decide to want to have witnesses, as ridiculous as that is that they'd be in control, we know who they want, the Whistleblower, House Intel Chair, Adam Schiff, maybe Hunter Biden.
If the President's best defense is that the younger Biden was at the heart of corruption in Ukraine, and was trying to root it out, that's all he wanted to do, look, I argue I don't believe that justifies how this President went about pressuring Ukraine. But if his lawyers slice up Biden, it would help the politics of acquittal.
And final, the hypocrisy of the current situation is going to be part of the stain of this event on history. McConnell will be haunted by what he's saying now based on what he said the last time.
Remember this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCONNELL: It's not unusual to have a witness in a trial. It's certainly not unusual to have a witness in an impeachment trial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You see what I'm saying? Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, Sidney Blumenthal, they all testified for the Senate trial. And while I'm talking about the Clinton impeachment, there's an entire universe of information separating what we knew then versus what we know now.
We had that Starr report, 453 pages. Bill Clinton handed over his DNA. And he did something that Trump apparently doesn't have the stones to do. Clinton testified himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It depends upon what the meaning of the word "Is" is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, that reminds you that this was basically about a sex act, but it reminds me of something else. This current situation is about national security and election security. It's a much bigger deal in terms of the worries of abuse of Office.
But what you just remember from that "Is" is that's the reason that you're not going to see witnesses and likely never see Trump anywhere near taking an oath to tell the truth.
It can hurt you. It hurt Clinton. And Trump is about finding ways to beat the truth, not admitting it. That's the argument.
Now, this President's predecessor is dropping hints of who should be leading the country. It's a BOLO, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO means Be On the Look-Out.
Former President Obama is making the case for a new kind of leadership, "More women."
This is according to the BBC. He told an audience in Singapore, women are, quote, pretty indisputably better leaders than men. He wasn't saying that about Hillary Clinton - Clinton, when he was running against her, that's for sure.
He continued, "I'm absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on Earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything. Living standards, outcomes."
And if that wasn't clear enough, he also said that if you look at the world and its problems, it's, quote, usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way. Whoops, what is that supposed to mean?
All right, let's get to CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon right now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: Who used to say this all the time? "Come on, man."
CUOMO: No, they say it now. Deion Sanders started saying it.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: And now they have a whole segment on it, about football game.
LEMON: That was - that was President Obama. He used to say it all the time. The only reason I'm saying that--
CUOMO: Well he took it from Deion.
LEMON: --is because he must have been watching me when TMZ caught up with me. And I said that to them, I think it was like a year ago, and I got eaten up by the Right. "CNN Host says more women should run for President because they are the smartest of the sexes." I have been saying that forever. Did you see that headline?
CUOMO: You think that you are the originator of the idea--
LEMON: I'm the origin--
CUOMO: --that women have advantages in leadership over men?
