Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Navy SEALs Call Ex-Platoon Chief Absolved By Trump "Evil" & "Toxic" In Videos Obtained By NYT; Trump Fumes Over Impeachment Standoff; Biden Says He Would Defy Subpoena To Testify In Trump Impeachment Trial. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 27, 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]
DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: --about the - what happened in the State of Michigan 10 years ago, and yet, he - he has done so over and over again, starting in 2016.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Daniel Dale, always appreciate it, today, and we know you're working overtime pretty much every day, thank you.
DALE: Thank you.
HILL: Thanks to all of you for joining us tonight here on AC 360. The news continues. So, I will hand it over to Chris Cuomo for CUOMO PRIME TIME. All yours.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Erica, pointing out the President not telling the truth is easy. The mystery is what it will take for someone to beat him. We're going to get into tonight why he's still looking very good for the upcoming election.
Thanks to you. Best for your family for the New Year. I'll see you soon.
HILL: Definitely.
CUOMO: I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
Now, we also have new video tonight of the Navy SEALs who turned in their own platoon leader.
We're going to take it on with two combat veterans tonight to assess what does it tell us, not so much about the case, because he was acquitted, we know the adjudication, but the politics around it, the President's choice specifically?
This is our last show of the year. In fact, it's the last show of the decade. So, be on the lookout for a special 2020 BOLO ahead, and a warning about resolutions.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: These are interviews obtained by The New York Times of Alpha Platoon, SEAL Team 7 members, breaking an unwritten code of silence, in 2018, by taking on their Chief of their platoon, who was eventually tried for war crimes. Here's a taste.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a psychopath.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The guy got crazier and crazier. The guy was toxic.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can't let this continue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's (BEEP). Guy's freaking evil, man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, these are not from now. These were not sworn. They were not cross-examined. It was an early part of the investigation. But they're still going to hold relevance.
What is also relevant is that Mr. Gallagher was acquitted of multiple war crimes, including killing a young ISIS prisoner. He was only convicted of a single and lesser charge in July, posing for photos with the body of that dead ISIS fighter.
Now, after the trial, Gallagher was demoted in rank because of the photo. That's when the President intervened. Why? He reversed the demotion, and let Gallagher retire honorably.
Navy Secretary, Richard Spencer, strongly objected. Some say it cost him his job, but it did not silence him.
He wrote in the Washington Post, this "President has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices."
Now, Gallagher responded to news of the release of the tapes, and here's the response.
"My first reaction to seeing the videos was surprise and disgust that they would make up blatant lies about me, but I quickly realized that they were scared that the truth would come out of how cowardly they acted on deployment.
The videos also gave me confidence because I knew that their lies would never hold up under real questioning. The jury would see through it."
Gallagher recently photographed with President Trump, just last weekend, at Mar-a-Lago, and that's as much of this story, although that may be unfair to Gallagher, right, because Gallagher didn't do what he did for political reasons, as far as we know, but he has become a political chess piece.
Let's bring in CNN Military Analyst, Major General James "Spider" Marks, and Phillip Carter, an Iraq War Vet and Senior Policy Researcher at RAND Corporation.
Thank you both. Spider, as always, thank you for being of such use to my audience all year long.
MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, HEAD OF GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY, ACADEMY SECURITIES: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: You are a gift, and I wish you the best for the New Year. Phillip, you're new, but I thank you in advance.
PHILLIP CARTER, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR DETAINEE POLICY: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, so, these videos, again, timing matters. They're not new. These aren't people adding to what we've already known. But in terms of context, what do they raise as you for issues, Spider?
MARKS: Well the big thing is this really demonstrates a break in terms of the cohesion, specifically within this - within this team.
I don't know that I can extrapolate and say, look, across the board the SEALs have got a real challenge. Let's be frank. The entire service has been at war for 18 years. There's going to be stresses.
And especially, in the Special Ops community, I mean, these young men and women just rotate in and out. They go back in. They continue to stand back up. They go back in. So, you have these - these pressures on these teams.
But when you look at that video, I have to assume that our priority, any mission, that there was a conversation inside the platoon that said "Look guys, we've got some challenges. Less - let's address those."
If those conversations were heated, I got it, it sounds like people didn't follow that input, in terms of execution on the mission.
But if they didn't have those conversations, you have more than just a fractured cohesion within that team. You've got a real breakdown in terms of leadership challenges.
And again, as I said, I can't extrapolate out to the force.
CUOMO: Sure. To keep--
MARKS: But this needs to be addressed.
[21:05:00]
CUOMO: To keep it specific, Phillip, you know, look, we're not used to hearing SEAL team members talk about one another this way. We're not heard - we're not used to hearing them challenged as to being cowardly.
Of course, this was a piece of litigation. The lawyer's response is pretty obvious for Mr. Gallagher. He says, "Look, these guys weren't sworn. And these are the same kinds of statements that I cut up like cheese at the trial. So, these are of no meaning."
What's your take?
CARTER: So, we don't often see the inside of a SEAL team room. This is the inside of a dysfunctional SEAL team's room. And it shows, as Spider said, the breakdown of unit cohesion.
I think we should also take these videos seriously because these SEALs would have paid - faced pretty serious repercussions had they lied to NCIS investigators here. They may not have been formally sworn or under oath or cross-examined. But these SEALs weren't cavalierly making these statements.
And you can imagine what it takes for such professionals, such well- trained elite service members, to get to the breaking point, where they're going to go, seven of them, are going to go to NCIS, and tell them these kinds of things about their Chief.
CUOMO: Now, then it becomes political. So, Gallagher is acquitted. He is found guilty of taking the photo in front of the dead body. They want to demote him. The President says "No."
What did you make of that decision then, and what do you make of it now, Spider, in terms of what may have motivated, why it was right or wrong?
MARKS: Well we're talking about this now, Chris, and we've taken our eye off the other 8,000-plus soldiers, sailors, airmen that - that continue to deploy in Afghanistan.
We're talking about this, and I must say frankly, the President got involved way too soon.
He could have waited for this thing to entirely wrap itself up, tied with ribbon, legally gone through the entire UCMJ process, and the administrative process, those kind of run in parallel, could have been presented to the SecDef through the Secretary of the Navy, could have been a done deal, and the President says "Thank you very much," then he can take action.
The fact that he reached in so soon, he clearly has the authority to do that. I mean the President is cloaked in immense power. We know that. But that just kind of got this thing spinning.
And then the Secretary of the Navy, as you've indicated, ended up having to resign because he was trying to walk a line both between the, you know, kind of, what I would call, honor to the Navy, and also trying to--
CUOMO: Right.
MARKS: --honor the direction of the President.
CUOMO: It's--
MARKS: He - he - he - he was ill-addressed (ph). He didn't make that happen.
CUOMO: Now, we can assume it is not a coincidence that Mr. Gallagher wound up in a photo op with the President down at Mar-a-Lago, Phillip.
There is obviously some thinking that helping this man, Mr. Gallagher, the Platoon Chief was of benefit to the President because there's - there's no other basis for any other reckoning.
We have no reason to believe he understood anything about the case. He has no connection to the military. He has no connection to this branch of service. So, there's no reason for him to have been invested.
What do you think was the political plus-minus for the President?
CARTER: It's hard to judge other than I think what you've said. But it - but it is more broadly about the civil military relationship between the President and the military, and what do we want that to be.
In this case, you had the - the - reportedly, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Army, in other cases, recommending one thing, and the President did another.
Now, that's clearly his constitutional prerogative. But just because you can doesn't mean you should.
And one has to wonder how fractured that civil military relationship is now, going forward, on Afghanistan, on Russia, on the budget, and everything else that comes through the Oval Office.
CUOMO: And is it a nod to the President endorsing harshness, even if it is just about the photograph?
You know, we have rules. I know people will debate this over, you know, war is war. But, you know, Americans try to do things differently. Is this a nod that maybe not anymore?
Now, Spider, to your point, about - we're talking about this, not other things, I wanted to get your guys take on a situation that I really believe we've ignored at the peril of far too many.
235,000 people, the latest count of the number displaced as a result of an escalation of violence over the last two weeks in Northwest Syria.
Now, you get quick disclaimers from the military, and defenders of the President, say, "Whoa! We were never there. This has nothing to do with our decision to leave the United States. This is just stuff that happens."
What's your take? MARKS: Yes. We were - we were the - the sinew that held all those loose parts together in terms of our relationship with the Kurds.
Again, you can be very agnostic, and you can say, "Look, the Turks are our ally through NATO." We've got a long-standing relationship - relationship with them. It dates back to the early 50s, albeit it's a troubled relationship, in many cases.
The Kurds was that was a marriage of convenience. What we didn't do was establish what the pre-nup was going to look like before that marriage. And we suddenly ended it, and we didn't give them any opportunity to better position themselves and get ready for this.
So - so the fact that we've had that type of displacement that main thing in my - my mind is Turkey now is taking advantage of this vacuum, and they've created a buffer zone.
[21:10:00]
And look, I'm not a lawyer. But the issue is you don't create a buffer zone unless there's some type of a recognition on the multiple sides that that buffer exists.
CUOMO: Right.
MARKS: This is called - this is called taking land.
This is an invasion of sovereign land, albeit Syria is a pretty screwed up place, but trying to create this - this strip of land so that Erdogan can now displace refugees in Turkey into this - into this strip of land in Syria.
CUOMO: Right. It's not--
MARKS: That's a major problem.
CUOMO: Right. It's not 23. It's not 2,300, you know. It's 235,000 people, as you guys know much better--
MARKS: Right.
CUOMO: --than most of the audience. The conditions are not great this time of year there. The services aren't going to be great. The safety is not going to be great.
We got to keep watching it, General Spider Marks, to your point, best for the New Year to you. Phillip Carter, welcome to the show. I hope that we have you back soon, best for the New Year.
CARTER: Thank you.
MARKS: Thank you, Chris, and to your family as well.
CUOMO: Thank you.
All right, topic shift, one point of frustration for many of you is the sense that the two political parties are reading from the same script when it comes to impeachment. They just change roles from when it was Clinton's impeachment to Trump's.
Well there is new tape being circulated of Senate Minority Leader Schumer that plays on this point. In fact, it's being used by the President, and his defenders, to do exactly that, because he was saying something very different, Mr. Schumer, decades ago from what he's arguing now.
What is its relevance? Let's take it on with an influential House player, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: This President's Christmas message calling for more Christ-like behavior aside, he continues railing against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
One of his latest offerings, "So interesting to see Nancy Pelosi demanding fairness from Senate Majority Leader McConnell when she presided over the most unfair hearing in the history of the United States Congress!"
[21:15:00]
As we say often on this show, just because the President says it a lot does not make it true. In fact, this statement has never been close to true.
The procedures in this situation are those echoed from the Clinton situation. The obvious difference is that the House did the investigating here, and not a Special Secret Counsel like Ken Starr or a Grand Jury like with Nixon.
But, you know, in politics, reality is often about perception. And that makes the question of how this plays for the Democrats a real one, especially in an election year. So, let's bring in Democratic Congressman, Lloyd Doggett here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Best to your family for the holidays, the Holy Days, and the New Year.
REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): And to you, Chris. Good to be with you on this final show of the decade.
CUOMO: That's right, of the decade, sounds so big!
So, the idea of this state of play, the idea that Nancy Pelosi is negotiating with McConnell over the rules of the Senate trial, is that true to your understanding?
DOGGETT: Well I think what she has done is to take a little time to thoroughly look at this and to recognize what Mr. McConnell said.
Each of these Senators takes an oath, like raise their hand and swear that they will do impartial justice in accordance with the Constitution. And Mr. McConnell has said, instead of that, he'll do and a cover-up in accordance with Trump.
And in view of that, the - the House, as the sole authority for impeachment, has every right to take its time in forwarding these articles to the Senate, to - in an effort to try to ensure that precedent has followed, that witnesses are called, and that there is an impartial justice that is done there.
CUOMO: So, one of the reasons we pleaded with you to come on this show is some people won't know, but it's an easy Google search away, you're also a Judge. You were a Judge at Texas State Supreme Court, so it's interesting to get your idea of fairness in this process.
Of course, it's political. It's not a judicial process, but still. One - there are two salvos being used against your side in terms of the legitimacy of your desire for fairness. One of them is from Senator Schumer from back during the last iteration of impeachment with Clinton.
Let me just play it for you because it's making the rounds.
DOGGETT: Surely.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The Republican Leader said, proudly, "I'm not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all." That is an astonishing admission of partisanship.
LARRY KING, TELEVISION & RADIO HOST: Anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion. It's not a jury box.
SCHUMER: Many do.
This is not a criminal trial. But this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, people are using this to say, "You see, they're all the same Lloyd, you know. It's just about what works for them in the moment. You know, then, the Democrats were saying impeachment is so bad, now they're saying it's OK. Impartiality was bad. Now it's OK or vice versa."
What's your response?
DOGGETT: Well I think there are inconsistencies on both sides. But it's important to look at the precedent that was set by the Clinton trial.
Majority Leader - Republican Majority Leader Lott and Minority Leader Daschle agreed on the process by which the Senate would proceed. It was approved unanimously by the Senate, not with the Republicans saying "We'll have it all our way."
CUOMO: Fair point.
DOGGETT: Second, and even more important, is the fact that witnesses were summoned, not the 40 witnesses that testified in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, but three witnesses.
And it was Senator Lott who said that he wanted it done by deposition rather than live testimony. So, those are the precedents that I think are really significant here. Certainly, these Senators will come with their own views.
CUOMO: Right.
DOGGETT: But it's critical that they comply with the oath and attempt to engage in impartial justice. And they cannot do that if this is the first trial in American history of impeachment where there are no witnesses even summoned.
One wonders what is the purpose of the gathering perhaps just to hear another round of inconsistent speeches. You would think that this President, if he really made a perfect call, would want people, all the President's men, to come there and testify about the level of his perfection.
CUOMO: That is the weakness.
DOGGETT: Instead of course--
CUOMO: That is the weakness of the argument, which is if everything was good--
DOGGETT: Yes.
CUOMO: --and everybody can defend him, and excuse him, and exonerate him, why is he keeping them from testifying?
All right, but then we bounce back to the idea of what is being asked for versus what is being offered on the Democrats. So, you brought up the issue of witnesses. It's the perfect pivot.
Former VP Joe Biden, obviously now running for the Democratic nomination in 2020 for President, he was asked about "Well what if you're called," you know, because that's one of the horse trading arguments here.
[21:20:00]
The Democrats are going to have to give if they want to get anybody. They don't have the numbers. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAROL HUNTER, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE DES MOINES REGISTER: Do you stand by your earlier statements that you wouldn't comply if you were subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment trial before the Senate?
JOE BIDEN (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Correct. And the reason I wouldn't is because it's all designed to deal with Trump doing what he's done his whole life, trying to take the focus off him.
The grounds for them to call me would be overwhelmingly specious.
Let's say I - I voluntarily just said "Let me go make my case," what are you going to cover? You guys are just going to focus - I mean you're going to cover for three weeks anything I said. And he's going to get away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: First, your honor, the idea of what Joe Biden is arguing here is exactly what you just impeached the President for, his feelings about the subpoena process and Congressional oversight made him feel like not complying because he didn't like why you were asking.
How is that any different than what Joe Biden is saying?
DOGGETT: Well it's significantly different. First, I think that Joe Biden or anyone else would be subject to subpoena power, and could be compelled to come to this proceeding.
But there's nothing that Joe Biden or any of the other witnesses Republicans have talked about have to say about what the President is being impeached for. The only purpose of bringing them is for distraction, urged by the Master of Distraction, Donald Trump.
CUOMO: But why? If - if his - if their argument is you can't say the President had corrupt intent, which you would need for abuse or any type of, what we call in the law, scienter, some kind of malice aforethought, he didn't have it because he has a legitimate belief that Biden raises significant issues that Ukraine and the servers, I think that's a weaker argument, raises issues, so we want to put on testimony to prove that there's something there.
DOGGETT: Well I think the President's corrupt intent is shown by his conduct. This was not just one phone call, though we now do know from one of
the documents that has been discovered, that they began their action to terminate aid within an hour and a half of the phone conversation.
But this was a pattern of conduct, perhaps as your earlier shows have demonstrated, perhaps over two Presidencies in the Ukraine.
So, we have plenty evidence of this pattern of conduct and of his intent and his desire to "Do me a favor though." There's no need and no justification for calling Joe Biden or any of the other witnesses that have been discussed.
But they're all subject to subpoena, so that would be up to the Senate. Better to have more witnesses than to have no witnesses.
CUOMO: All right. And quickly, Congressman, take off the Judge hat, and put back on the politician hat for a second, just a straight Texas card player. Would you give a Biden to get a Mulvaney?
DOGGETT: Oh, I - I - I would not begin to engage in that kind of horse trading. I think that the Senators will have an opportunity to consider the witness list.
It strikes me as a very - a very poor trade in that regard to get the President's Chief of Staff to come out and tell what actually happened instead of to hide, and in this case, to hide behind the call for Joe Biden.
CUOMO: The strong part of the argument that they'll have to overcome, two things. McConnell is going to have to explain how he can take the oath after what he said. And two--
DOGGETT: Right.
CUOMO: --what does Biden have to do with why he was impeached to the specific facts of the instance. That's going to be the tricky part for them. But it is politics.
DOGGETT: Yes.
CUOMO: It's not a court of law. Congressman, thank you for arguing compellingly and cogently as always, appreciate it.
DOGGETT: Thank you. Happy New Year, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, Happy New Year, best for the New Year.
The Presidential candidates are now fanned out in the early voting stage. Remember what I keep telling you, "Everything starts when the voting - starts when the voting starts." Yes, it's what makes sense.
I know that sounds silly, but no. The whole narrative is going to change by who does well there, who does better than expected, does worse than expected.
38 days away, we probably have a ton of data to go through about Iowa and the state of play, right? Wrong! Why do we know nothing about Iowa? The Wizard of Odds will have to explain to all of us, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Biden, are you feeling the pressure here in Iowa?
BIDEN: No. I'm feeling good in Iowa. I'm feeling the heat now. Look at the weather.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: And that's "No Malarkey!" The former--
HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER AND ANALYST: Ha-ha.
CUOMO: That's the Wiz.
The former VP making his way around the Hawkeye State, 38 days until the Iowa Democratic Caucuses, Joe Biden says he's feeling no pressure. He's got to be feeling pressure. They all do. The polls tell a different story to the point that they tell a story at all.
Harry Enten, Wizard of Odds, enlighten us.
Harry, how the heck do we not know with like crazy precision the state of the race in Iowa? And it's the first state.
ENTEN: Sure. Look, the fact is there have been only two polls conducted over the last month in the State of Iowa. I've gone back since the 2000 election. That is the fewest of polls that we've had at this point in the race, since 2000.
I think there are two key reasons for that. Number one, the costs of polls have been skyrocketing as news media budgets have been shrinking.
And number two, let's think about this, right? What has been the big news story over the last month? It's been impeachment. The fact is you're not going to spend a ton of money on polls that you're not going to frequently be discussing. CUOMO: Well those two reasons stink, so let's try to find a third, which is what do we know about polls in Iowa, in general, that inform us as to why you got to be careful about doing any horse race?
ENTEN: Yes. I think this is rather important. So, take a look at where the Iowa Caucus winners were polling one to two months before the Iowa Caucuses. So, we have the polling averages here. We have the results here. And
we have the difference between the two in this column.
I think this is the key point because the difference between where the person ended up winning Iowa was polling and their result, 9 percentage point, the median, since the election in 2000, in the 2000 Caucuses.
CUOMO: So, the polls were off almost 10 points?
ENTEN: On - on the median, yes. The average is in fact a little bit higher.
There are some years where it's closer. But there are many years - look at this. Look at this, 2004 and the Democrats, John Kerry was only at 18 percent. He ended up getting 37 percent in those Caucuses.
CUOMO: Now, is Iowa different that way? Or do we have that kind of variability in state to state polls? Or because it's first, it doesn't get the benefit of any momentum from any other elections?
ENTEN: Primaries are very difficult to poll, generally speaking. But an Iowa Caucus, where trying to guess the turnout model is particularly difficult, and there is no doubt that this may be one of those years.
CUOMO: This should have been your first point, but never mind, let's go to approvals.
[21:30:00]
ENTEN: It's up - look, the one - I just want to point out one thing just in - in the State of I--
CUOMO: Harry does not like constructive criticism, by the way, just so you know.
ENTEN: I don't like criticism from you necessarily.
Look, here's the deal. I just want to point this out that in Iowa, part of the - another reason why we don't know what's going on, look at how close these guys are, right?
CUOMO: Yes.
ENTEN: Buttigieg, 21, Biden, 19, Sanders, 19, a very, very tight race right now.
CUOMO: Now, you made a great point the last time you were on that one of the things to be of concern for Buttigieg and Warren fair - fans is the durability of the support.
So, if people who say they want Pete or Elizabeth Warren are like "Yes, but there's a good chance I'd like somebody else," how do you read that into his standing at 21 in Iowa?
ENTEN: The way that I would say it is both these two candidates have been the ones who have been switching the most, right? So, Warren was up in Iowa a few months ago. Then she dropped all the way down now to only 15 percent.
Buttigieg was way down. Now he's jumped up. And the fact is with so few polling, it could be the case that Buttigieg is lower now or even higher, we just don't know with just two polls over the last month.
CUOMO: You wanted to talk about unfavorables.
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: You see that as part of the read, how?
ENTEN: So - so, yes. So, you know, I just want to talk about jumping ahead to 2020, and one of the key things, you know, in terms of looking where the President's going to be going in terms of--
CUOMO: Oh, good, good.
ENTEN: --his reelection campaign, I think this is rather important. Look, we've spoken a lot this year about the President's low approval ratings.
But we also know that generally speaking the year-out doesn't really mean much. But in the mid-March before the election that's when those approval ratings really begin to mean something.
Take a look at this. This is where the Presidents were polling and whether or not they got reelected. The green is yes, they won the election. The black is no, they didn't win the election.
Look at this. If you're polling at 47 percent or above, you - normally, those people win reelection, right? Or win election in the case of a few of these folks like Lyndon Baines Johnson.
But if you're polling at 47 percent or below, those people, Ford, Carter, Bush, all those did not go on to win that full term.
CUOMO: Throw out the highest, and the lowest, and that's more than random here, because they were both dealing with huge exigencies that were outside, right? He had the War and he had the tax issue.
ENTEN: Sure.
CUOMO: Johnson had, you know, civil strife, like nowhere else, and he was dealing with the Civil Rights Act, which really helped because that was such a momentum builder for the administration at that time.
You really don't have a huge sample. ENTEN: We don't have a huge sample. But the fact is when you're looking at this, and the President's been polling down in the low 40s--
CUOMO: Right.
ENTEN: --I think that is a very, very bad sign, given that is where the two people who didn't end up winning those elections were generally polling, even a little bit above there.
CUOMO: So, do you read more into approval? And then, how does that play with unfavorable?
ENTEN: So, I think one of the key facets of the 2016 election, remember, Donald Trump was not a popular guy back in 2016.
CUOMO: Right.
ENTEN: But Hillary Clinton was also not a popular candidate. The key thing was he won by 17 points among the 18 percent of the electorate who liked neither one of them. You see that right here.
So, I basically looked at among those who have an unfavorable view of both candidates, I also looked at the Biden versus Trump matchup in our latest polling, and I want to point out, this is the key difference.
Remember, Trump won those voters by 17 points who had an unfavorable view of both candidates. But in our latest polling, Biden is leading among those voters by 63 points.
The fact is if the President has an approval rating in the low 40s, and approval ratings are becoming more predictive, as we head into the New Year, the big question is can he win those people who don't like Biden or - Biden or Trump, because he's going to try and drive up - Trump - Biden's negatives?
This polling suggests he'll have a very difficult time doing so. It will not be a repeat of 2016.
CUOMO: Now, if we had more appreciation for the President's sense of strategy, someone would think "Well this is exactly why he's attacking Biden.
It's exactly why he did what he did in Ukraine. He knows the vulnerability in this particular way with this particular person." But sometimes we don't know why he does anything.
Harry, this was very helpful, especially going into Iowa, the unknown is going to take people by surprise. But if you watched the show tonight, you won't be so surprised.
ENTEN: Maybe you won't be so surprised. I want to wish you a Happy New Year. Becoming a friend with you this year has been a highlight of my year.
CUOMO: You are the best. I believe you said that on the morning show also. I want you to know that.
ENTEN: I didn't say that to them about that. No, I knew them long before that. I've only gotten to know you this year.
CUOMO: You are the best. Thank you for being with me for this last show of the decade.
ENTEN: Shalom.
CUOMO: You know, we share an office. It's a whole thing that's going on. I'll tell you about it later.
ENTEN: Oy vey.
CUOMO: 2020 is going to be a big year, not just elections. Some more soothsayers are coming in for a special BOLO, Be On the Look-Out. What do they say you have to watch for in the upcoming year? Look at these smart people, 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: 2020 is going to be a huge year. So, what are the main things to look out for that you may not be looking for? Let's bring in the experts, Wajahat Ali, Nayyera Haq, and Charlie Dent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: PRIME TIME PRIMARY
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: To each and all, the best for the New Year. Thank you for helping me out on the show. I appreciate it.
So, Charlie, let's start with you. Your take is a Brexit warning.
CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It is indeed. There - there is a Brexit warning.
CUOMO: Oh, hold on, Charlie. How am I messing this up already? It says Charlie goes first. Oh, OK, I screwed it up. Sorry, Charlie. Everybody, let's start over again, they'll never notice. Waj, yours is the death rattle of White supremacy. How so?
WAJAHAT ALI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: All right, so because we YOLO, we have to - we have FOMO, so BOLO for the death rattle of White supremacy.
And what I mean by that is the death rattle of White supremacy in the United States and Europe has turned into a death march. And specifically, we're talking about an ideology, and system, Chris, that says that White men are superior and must be at the top.
[21:40:00]
And what we saw from 2016 with the election of Trump, every study has shown that the predominant factor for Trump voters was not economic anxiety, but racial anxiety, which was exploited by Trump.
So, what we'll see in 2020, and I want to say this out loud, up front, is the mainstreaming, and further popularization of White supremacist conspiracy theories by the Republican Party.
We already saw in 2018 with the midterms, invasion funded by George Soros, the Jewish globalist, and we've seen this mainstreaming by now Right-wing politicians and Fox News.
This will increase. We already saw Matt Shea, Republican legislator, being accused of domestic terrorism in Washington.
CUOMO: Right.
ALI: And finally, we'll see the increase in White supremacist terror plots as Christopher Wray, Trump's picked FBI Director warned about that happened in 2019. It was a record number. It's going to happen in 2020.
CUOMO: Before I put it--
ALI: We all have to look out for it.
CUOMO: Before I put it to the panel for a vote as whether or not they are equally concerned, how is it a death rattle, if you are worried about the increase of this malignancy?
ALI: Because the death rattle has caused a death march because of the anxiety, because people are feeling replaced, because of the emancipation and elevation of women, and people of color, you're seeing this reaction.
Just like Trump was a reaction to Obama, just like we're seeing the reaction to more men of color and women emerging, you're seeing this anxiety. And this anxiety has been exploited by the Republican Party, by Donald Trump, "Mexicans are rapists and criminals. The Muslim ban, they're coming to get us, invasion."
So, what we're seeing is this violent death rattle, which I think will get louder, it'll get more toxic. It'll be more mainstream before it's finally put to bed. CUOMO: So, it's going to get worse before it's going to--
ALI: It's going to get worse.
CUOMO: --where it's going to get better.
NAYYERA HAQ, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR: Hey?
CUOMO: So, Nayyera, what do we do about something like that?
In terms of, you know, this is actually part of the subject of the Closing Argument that I have tonight is what we learned about what is real in this country, not that it's a terrible country, it's the opposite of that, but how you deal with your ills. Insight?
HAQ: Well you have to name it, right? Name it, and shame it, and acknowledge it. Pretending and giving it terms of economic anxiety and pretending it's not - it's not what it is isn't going to help anybody.
The challenge we're seeing is that in the Trump Administration, this has become part of government policy as well. We know that we have a rising domestic terror threat in the United States.
But in 2017, the Department of Homeland Security shut down a division, the Interagency Task Force, that was dealing with inter - interagency domestic terror networks, specifically Right-wing extremism.
CUOMO: Right.
HAQ: So, the government is no longer targeting this. And you have to wonder. I heard an FBI agent, a former Domestic Terror Supervisor say, part of the challenge they're facing culturally is they don't feel comfortable going after people that might be of the President's base.
CUOMO: Right. So, your point kind of dovetails into this, which is forced inequality. Nayyera, you say Be On the Look-Out for voter suppression. Where and how so?
HAQ: Oh, it is becoming increasingly apparent that as we try to figure out whether or not you're going to vote for a Bernie or a Biden or a Trump, we need to also make sure that we can actually vote when we get to the polls.
17 million people were purged from voter polls records in the last 2 years alone. You look at Georgia, which just today announced that a 100,000 people would not be allowed back on.
Florida, where the entire state voted, 1.5 million people, who paid their debt to society, former felons, they wanted them to have the right to vote, and the Republican state legislator said "Mm, we need to actually put some other restrictions on them."
You know, they should like poll taxes, which is what it used to be in the Civil Rights era, but now they call it you have to pay all of your fines. So, the - it comes up as states looking to make sure that their records are-- CUOMO: Yes.
HAQ: --all clean and accurate. But it's much more insidious. It tends to focus on areas that are democratic, that are minority, and it puts restrictions on voting that frankly we haven't seen since the 1960s.
CUOMO: And, you know, look, some of this, and especially when we talk about gerrymandering and all their - talk about voter IDs, and what's misunderstood about that, there's an argument that goes back and forth.
Felons voting, not so easy an argument. We saw at one of the Town Halls, Bernie Sanders said on the spot, "Yes, I think even if you're in jail for the worst things, I think that you got to be able to vote, because you're either for it or you're not," tough sell, Nayyera.
HAQ: And it is.
CUOMO: So, how do you focus on what matters without getting into the realm of where people are going to push back?
HAQ: I would say two things. Voting is a fundamental right as a citizen of the United States. So, it has to be a very low threshold to deny somebody the ability to do that because that is the way that you get to determine who represents you in your government.
CUOMO: Right.
HAQ: Second, the people of Florida, these are state rules, they spoke. They said this is how they want their state to be constructed, and the legislator tried to override the will of the people.
So, I think the state by state, the will of the people, people need to mobilize, and activate, and if nothing else, check your registration, make sure that you're still able to vote.
CUOMO: Now, Charlie, I knew I was right to get to you at some point here. All right, so you say Brexit. Why? Why should people here in America be thinking about Brexit at all?
[21:45:00]
DENT: Well, there is a Brexit warning, Chris, I'll tell you why. Look what happened there. They - they - you - Boris Johnson came out with a pretty simple expression, you know, "Get it done. Get Brexit done." Donald Trump says "Keep America Great."
Very simple expressions, but I think there's a lesson for the Democratic Party, in particular, a revolutionary candidate, and angry, in this case in Jeremy Corbyn, socialist, some would call Marxist, anti-Semitic, this type of rhetoric is not what people are looking for in the U.K. They're not looking for it here in the United States.
So, I warn people, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, if your goal is to beat - defeat Donald Trump, they're not going to - lot of Americans don't want to replace a Right-wing culturally-based populism with a angry Left-wing economically-based populism. Big message there. I think voters are much more interested in
incremental change. They're more measured statements. This country, I think, does better that way, rather than some type of a revolutionary movement.
CUOMO: I hear you on the--
DENT: So Britain send us - send us a warning.
CUOMO: I hear you on the hunger for normal.
But Trump is the one who is doing a lot of the baiting that you caution about in terms of playing with race, playing with divisions, playing with diversity. Do you see that on the Left? Or do you see that as a warning for him and his?
DENT: Well, look, see, for Donald Trump, he - he's simply going to say, "Yes," he - he won't say it himself, but people who will support him will say, "Yes, he has many faults that I don't like, but I cannot accept that," pointing to this type of, you know, Warren or Sanders populism.
I think that said, and this is not excusing any of Trump's incendiary - racially incendiary rhetoric, which is despicable. But I - I tell you, it'll make it easier for people to justify their votes for Donald Trump, if they see an angry Left-wing populism--
ALI: If - if Boris Johnson--
DENT: --trying to fill the brief to replace Trumpism.
ALI: If Boris Johnson actually run on killing the national healthcare program of the U.K., he would lose, so just something to think about.
CUOMO: All right listen, you gave us all a lot to think about. Thank you very, very much. Waj, the best to you and the family.
ALI: Thank you.
CUOMO: Nayyera, thank you so much. Charlie, always a pleasure. Best to all of you for the New Year. Thank you for helping us on the show.
DENT: Thanks.
HAQ: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, this is the time of year, right, we make resolutions. Not a fan! But it's not as simple as me just saying "Don't do it." I argue that you have to be careful about making a mistake that I hear a lot of us about to make, all right?
It's the last argument of the decade, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME. (END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right. We know what time this year, you know, it's resolution time. That's OK. We often wish for the obvious, better financial fate, fitness, all good, whatever works for you.
But it is the wishing away of things that I'm really talking about, and I'm concerned about. People tend to want to forget what happened, to wish for a fresh start. It's not always the right thing.
[21:50:00]
We learn little from success. Think about it in your own life, about what doing well helped you do the next time. Failure, however, is an excellent teacher. Hardship is an excellent teacher.
Things that we don't like are often instructive. So, we ignore them at our own peril. And if the goal is to get better, then you got to get square with the past.
Like what? All right, some of you on the Left, including on TV, assumed way too much would come of the Mueller probe. Now, Congress isn't really even including all they argued was impeachable during that probe.
Why? Don't wish it away. Don't pretend it didn't happen. Learn from it. So, what do we see with impeachment? It's gone differently. However, there's a lot more information that points to the President.
But the lesson of the importance of bipartisan buy-in, has that been learned? Not a single GOPer crossed the line to vote for either article of impeachment. I know you can put it on the Republicans, if you want, this odd cohesion to this President.
But you can't just wish the whole situation away because you have to look for ways to create some semblance of bipartisanship in the Senate. Otherwise, you're just going to prepare for more of the same of what you saw in the House. Do you want that?
Another low that you should not lose in the New Year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We can't take you. Our country is full. Our area is full. The sector is full. Can't take you anymore, I'm sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: First, we know Trump wasn't sorry because he was in favor of the harshness, in words, and in actions, where immigrants are concerned. He misled you about only limiting illegal immigration. He took legal immigration levels back to what we felt was a bygone era.
But we were able to counter his false information. We were able to expose what he call - what I call the Brown Menace BS, what they were going to do, what - who would come here, what would happen, what they did to kids by choice. Because we exposed it, because we dealt with it, a lot of it had to stop.
So, don't wish that away, or it's going to happen again. Keep the frustrating realities fresh, or they will come again when the hiring season comes again. How do we know? Because of guys like this, Steve King.
He told The New York Times in January, "White nationalist, White supremacist, Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?" Then he said we got him wrong. And then he called himself an American nationalist.
The GOP stripped him of Committee seats, but the President said nothing. He knows King. He may have gotten some of his rhetoric for certain parts of his base from King. So, as painful as it is to hear this trash offered as truth, don't wish it away. Don't pretend it didn't happen.
The point is not that bad things are actually good. I don't even believe in that. Tests faith, to be honest. But it defies reason when we see things like Hurricane Dorian, it bothers us. Remember that? 70 people killed in the Bahamas.
What good is there from this? This is unmitigated tragedy. So many are still missing, billions in damage. Life is nowhere near back to normal. But as we heard from many down there, those who survived, they were thankful at least for that.
And many here who never felt connected to people there gave and gave. They're traveling there this holiday season, if they can, to feed that economy. There is a gift in that, not in the storm, not in the hardship, but in what we did after it.
Reminds me of this kid, I love so much. I miss him so much, Mattie Stepanek. Please Google his poetry.
He wrote with such poignance after 9/11, "We must remember to play after every storm." That means we have to use tragedy as a reminder of the must of relishing life when you can, the ability to go on, appreciate what we have.
But then my argument's going to take a hit because the idea that hardship can birth heroics and change, that we can live and learn, and - it's defied by the plague of mass shootings in this country.
22 killed in El Paso. More than two dozen injured by a hateful man with access to weapons. Now, that community there, El Paso, wowed me, their ability to come together and to reach out after being targeted themselves.
You know, this woman gave me a phrase there (FOREIGN LANGUAGE). "We hold each other a lot," she was saying, when there's trouble. We hold each other. She gave me that stone.
When times are tough, you hold on. You remember the connection. But do we learn from it? Dayton, Ohio, nine killed, tons of others hit after a gunman fired 41 shots in 30 seconds.
New Zealand, 51 killed, two Islamic houses of worship, another 49 injured. As of last week, officials there had collected about 56,000 firearms as part of a gun buyback program.
[21:55:00]
Not here! Not even a dialog really.
The stories blend together, these shootings. Be honest. The sickness of the sameness, it's never been met with a real response, even a dialog. Look, I pray we can get to a better place.
But the stubbornness of the resistance, this false standard that they use with only mass shootings, think about it, "If you can't name one thing that will stop them all, then do nothing."
And yet, I cling to the need to remember, to not wish away even the worst that you experience. And this isn't just advice. This isn't even professional. For me, it's profoundly personal.
I fight with more than I can express when it comes to this. Every New Year is as much a marker of who and what is gone as it is about what's to come in the year.
This year is 5 years that my Pop left this earth, and I thought that because I've been around so much death, so much loss, I've seen so many cope with so much, that I got - I got what this was about. And he had a good life, and we were great to have him in our family.
But I was wrong! And I learned the lesson that you don't really become an adult until you lose a parent. I cling to memories now of my Father, what he said when he was angry, you know, what he wrote, how he corrected me. I stare at pictures trying to find that connection, desperate for his counsel and even his corrections.
But it's not there! And yet, the loss has made me hone in on what my Father taught me like I never could or at least never did when he was alive.
So, for 2020, I wish you all the best and only the best. I thank you again for the gift of your attention and allowing us to report for you and to you. And I wish that you'll remember the bad along with the good because that is the way to make sure this year will be better than the last.
All right, that's the argument. Thank you for watching.
Now, CNN Special Report "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S LIES" airs next, 15 hours long.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
