Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Trump Officials To Brief Congress On Iran Wednesday; Trump: U.S. Is "A Lot Safer" After Soleimani Strike; Judge Judy Endorses Michael Bloomberg For President. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 06, 2020 - 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: Yes, they are that. They are human scum. It's funny how Ms. Grisham has gone from "We are human beings" to "They are human scum." And it's like in no time. It's funny and it's not funny at the same time. It's actually really kind of sad.
Of course, these are all things that reporters would be able to ask Ms. Grisham about it, if she ever actually did what every one of her predecessors have done, which is stand up and answer questions from reporters.
But look it's 301 days and counting. So, for now, we'll just have to make do with her occasional appearance here on The Ridiculist.
And that's it. The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME. This is our first show of the new decade.
The United States just killed a bad man. It is the most provocative act of this Presidency. The question is why did we have to do it now?
He's a bad guy, no question, but that's not enough. The answer could be a matter of life and death. That's not an exaggeration. So, why won't this President who always questions U.S. Intelligence give us the answer?
We have a top Homeland Security hawk in the House to test on this. And if this move is to be seen as part of a strategy we can trust, how much confidence can you have when the Pentagon just botched something as big as pulling out troops from Iraq?
And how about this for a big start to the New Year? Judge Judy is here. She's getting political after 50 years of staying out of the fray. Why? Her ruling on this President and why Mike Bloomberg is the better billionaire.
Happy New Year. Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Look, I know a lot of people are arguing about good and bad and right and wrong. Be clear on the position of me on this show. Soleimani was a bad guy. He did bad things.
He was considered a terrorist for good reason, including arguably causing the death of Americans, many, recently in Baghdad, and perhaps over the past decade or more. And he didn't really hide. So, why did President Trump have to take him out now in this way?
Wednesday, his Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, and other Trump officials, we are told, will brief lawmakers behind closed doors.
But what about you? The President told us all repeatedly, "You can't trust U.S. Intelligence." Now, I don't agree with his assessment. But now, how does he do something like this, and say, "Just trust the U.S. Intel." How?
People are arguing, "This was good. It was bad." They are all doing it from a position of ignorance because we don't know why the U.S. felt it had to act this way, and now. How can we know if the President had the right to do this unilaterally?
Speaker Pelosi says the House will vote to limit this President's War Powers. I don't think it'll get anywhere. So, let's bring in one of the Members standing by this President, Homeland Security Committee Republican, Mark Walker.
Congressman, great to have you on the show. Happy New Year.
REP. MARK WALKER (R-NC): Chris, my privilege. Same to you.
CUOMO: And no disrespect about the House.
WALKER: Sure.
CUOMO: I think you should argue and debate AUMF. I've just heard it before. I've never seen it go anywhere. Let's put it to the future. We'll see what happens.
WALKER: OK.
CUOMO: No argument about Soleimani being a bad guy. I don't see how you could make the argument that he wasn't a threat to the United States--
WALKER: Sure.
CUOMO: --for a long time.
WALKER: Lot of evidence to support that.
CUOMO: The question is this was an imminent threat. You know what that means.
WALKER: Sure.
CUOMO: Should this President explain to the American people what that means?
WALKER: I think that's the perfect question, Chris. And I think as much as he can, without putting in danger some of our assets throughout the Middle East, I think he can, and I think he will.
If you look at Soleimani here, why was this an imminent threat? Well here he is the General of Iran. He's over in Iraq, in Baghdad, meeting out with al-Muhandis and Mohammed Reda.
Now, who are these two guys? These two guys led the Mobilization Forces that attacked our Embassy.
CUOMO: Right.
WALKER: So, we have every reason to believe, as well as our Intelligence, that something else was being put in the pipeline. And I think that's when the President felt the time to act was now.
CUOMO: I don't question the suggestion. I question the specificity for two reasons. One, there's a legal reason here. To avoid you in Congress, all right, the Constitution is very clear, you declare war.
The President can defend when it's an imminent threat. "Had to do it now. Had to, Congressman. Sorry, couldn't come to you. I'm supposed to talk to the Gang of Eight before." He didn't. "I'm supposed to come to you within a certain period." He did, but in a general way.
So, this is about your power in Congress. The President is saying to the American people, "Had to do this." A meeting with a couple of guys does not mean I didn't have time to go to Congress.
This President, especially Congressman, he's told us "Don't trust U.S. Intel." I know that's insulting to you. I know you respect the apparatus. You're in charge of oversight with him. You're on the Committee. He doesn't believe the way you do.
"Don't believe him. Show the proof. Show it now." He showed us nothing.
WALKER: I - I believe the President acted within his rights and his authority. It - and here's why. If you look back historically, we have given - I voted for the President Obama to have some unilateral pattern - power when it comes to these kinds of events.
[21:05:00]
The reason why this was so important now is because we believe that there were some other threats that were happening that he needed to act now. This was important to us. And I believe that did not overstep the boundaries or needed an AUMF. I - I just don't believe that. And I believe most Americans will see if you're - if you're looking at
something that could potentially be happening over the next weeks or months, it was the right thing to do. This was a General. We don't need to re - reiterate his past.
CUOMO: Bad guy.
WALKER: Cory Booker said there's blood on his hands. It was time for him to go.
CUOMO: Bad guy! But imminent, as we all know, it means like soon, because why does it matter?
It matters - I listened very closely to Secretary of State, Pompeo, "Doesn't matter if it's weeks or months if you're in the region." But it does legally because when he was supposed to go to you.
But the bigger question is this, Congressman, not to get in the weeds. This President said "Don't trust U.S. Intel. Make them show it to you." Why isn't he telling us already why we had to do this?
WALKER: I believe he will share the proper information.
CUOMO: But why hasn't he?
WALKER: Because I believe with the assets that we had on the ground giving us the Intelligence we needed to move now. And here's where I - I get a little concerned about some of what I would call the hypocrisy.
There were 2,800 Obama strikes with drone attacks, OK? Killed thousands of terrorists, unfortunately, hundreds of civilians, there was not the same pushback on the - on from the Right.
We gave the President - to President Obama, the unilateral authority to make sure that if he felt like was something it was imminent, we said, "Go," and we supported him.
CUOMO: But he's supposed to prove it to you.
WALKER: But it's--
CUOMO: I've never been in favor of this, by the way, just so you know, all the way back to Clinton.
WALKER: I know you've been--
CUOMO: I think you guys have been abdicating power and letting Presidents take more and more. And why is it an issue? Well one, the Constitution says "It's your job. Don't pass it on."
I know you got burned on the war in Iraq. You got bad information. Now, this could look like the same playbook. This was imminent. But they won't tell us why.
WALKER: Well I'm - I've tried to give you-- CUOMO: Same thing with Yellowcake.
WALKER: Well I've tried to give you a couple of reasons why. We - we--
CUOMO: Do you know the Intelligence that they acted on?
WALKER: When - I do not know the full Intelligence. But I have in good bits--
CUOMO: But then why do you have confidence?
WALKER: Well here's why is because what we do know, and let me reiterate this, you've got General Soleimani.
CUOMO: Bad guy.
WALKER: All right. In Baghdad, Iraq--
CUOMO: Bad place.
WALKER: --meeting with those who had--
CUOMO: Bad people.
WALKER: --just attacked - all right, and if you remember, they even spray-painted "Soleimani is our leader."
CUOMO: Right.
WALKER: There was a growing connection there. If they're willing to attack the Embassy, what's the next step they're going to make?
CUOMO: I am totally with you. But that's why he should be coming out and telling us what it was because here's why. Is this Usama bin Laden? I think General Petraeus said, "No, He's bigger. This is a bigger."
I agree. Iran is no joke. People can say on television "We'll take him out in three, four days." You and I both know this is not a country to go into lightly. This was a very provocative act.
This President has a duty to the American people to put us on the same page and say--
WALKER: He does.
CUOMO: --it's worth the risk.
WALKER: He--
CUOMO: He said he wanted to get out of the region.
WALKER: He--
CUOMO: He's now sending in people. WALKER: He does. And I'm not trying to pivot too much. But I was on the House floor when nearly 20 Democrats pushed back against Obama on the Iranian deal because of their concern that hundreds of millions of dollars would get to these people like--
CUOMO: Right.
WALKER: --al-Muhandis and Mohammed Reda. It - that money did take place. Now, I would say this as well.
CUOMO: Please.
WALKER: You and I are both Americans. I believe we're both Christians.
And I - I think it's fair to say that we - our faith says that God loves the Muslim as much as the Jew as much as the Christian. But there are some bad people every day of our lives waking up, plotting our destruction.
CUOMO: Yes.
WALKER: And sometimes, that creates a reaction on the Commander-in- Chief with the Intelligence to be able to push back.
CUOMO: I'm with him. I'm saying this President owes us an explanation.
He told us not to trust U.S. Intel. He told us he wanted to stay out of there. He said that Obama was stupid to do what he did. He said Bush was stupid to do what he did that that war was stupid. Now he's done the most provocative act of any of them.
WALKER: So, you want the very specifics as far as why you felt like they had the trigger now.
CUOMO: Yes.
WALKER: As opposed to just some of their ramifications--
CUOMO: Yes.
WALKER: --that this was what was being plotted.
CUOMO: Yes because this is a big deal. People are going to have their lives at risk. Iran is a dangerous group of people--
WALKER: Chris, we have never--
CUOMO: --with zealotry guiding.
WALKER: We have never shared every specific Security and Intelligence detail with the American people.
CUOMO: And look where it got us. Look where it got us with the - with the world.
WALKER: Well that - that - that puts Members of-- CUOMO: Look at the war on terror. It never ends.
WALKER: --of - of Navy SEALs, CIA. That puts people in danger when we give those kinds of locations and that kind of specificity and detail.
CUOMO: I agree. And I would never want to do that. But I will say this.
That was not a barrier to entry for a lot of people in your Party when it came to Russian interference and the FBI probe of other assets. "Let him out," they said, "Forget classification. This President could declassify anything he wants."
WALKER: He can.
CUOMO: If it was OK then--
WALKER: He can.
CUOMO: --this is a question that has a matter of life and death.
WALKER: And I believe he's had a pattern of declassifying more information that we've even seen from other Administrations. And I think more will come.
CUOMO: I hope so.
WALKER: Yes.
CUOMO: Congressman, thank you.
WALKER: My pleasure.
CUOMO: You are welcome on this show to argue the case to the American people. This can't be partisan because Blue and Red will bleed the same way--
WALKER: Absolutely.
CUOMO: --after a terrorist attack.
WALKER: No question.
CUOMO: Be well. God bless.
WALKER: Thank you, my friend.
CUOMO: All right, so look, let's start with this as a premise. We have to be able to trust our President, and his people, in times like this.
How do you get trust? Well obviously by proof of performance. You need to see and hear things that inspire trust. That's why I'm harping on explaining why you needed to do this, not generally, specifically, because the ramifications will be specific.
[21:10:00] Now, the Defense Department, they sent a letter to Iraq saying the U.S. is leaving by mistake? An official letter! I have it. What's going on here? This is something that calls for Rangappa and Rieckhoff, 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: All right, two pressing questions. Did the President have the legal right to take out this Iranian bad guy, when and how he did? And what does adding more troops to the region mean for their safety in future?
Two questions, two folks. Veteran and Potent Podcaster, the Angry American himself, Paul Rieckhoff, is here with me for what it means about the battlefield. But first, Asha Rangappa is here for the question of law.
And Asha, you know, you heard there with the Republican. "Ah, imminent means, you know, it's going to happen. It's - it happened in the past. It could happen again."
They don't define it well in the War Powers Act. But it's got to mean something pretty specific, does it not, to cut out Congress?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well the Department of Justice has actually defined imminence very broadly in the context of drone strikes on al-Qaeda and its affiliates when - when they've conducted that. And I actually have the definition right here.
The White Paper that the DOJ released in 2013 says that imminence does not require that the United States have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons or interests will take place in the immediate future.
[21:15:00]
So, it's a very broad definition of imminence. Now, that is for targets who are clearly authorized under the 2001 AUMF. And I think that that's a difference here in that this target doesn't fall under that Congressional authorization.
CUOMO: Why? RANGAPPA: So, I think what - well the 2001 AUMF specifically authorizes all appropriate and necessary force against al-Qaeda and its affiliates for the planning of the 9/11 attacks.
It has been interpreted very broadly. But I think you would have to make a very tenuous connection to Soleimani to bring it under that though the - the White House may try to do that.
But I think that because it is more tenuous than what has usually been the targets of drone strikes, you know, against ISIS or al-Qaeda, I think what you're saying Chris is that there is a higher onus on the White House to justify this than perhaps what has been typically used as a legal basis for targets that have been clearly authorized.
CUOMO: All right, thank you for that. All right, so, P.J., it's good to see you, Brother, as always. Happy New Year.
PAUL RIECKHOFF, IRAQ WAR VETERAN, VETERANS ADVOCATE, PRESIDENT AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, RIGHTEOUS MEDIA: Happy New Year.
CUOMO: We - you go after a terrorist organization, that's bad. You go after a country, like Iran, that's worse.
This President says "Had to do it. Won't explain why." Says, "I want to stay out of the Middle East," is now you're hearing every day more and more units being deployed into the region. What's the reality we're dealing with?
RIECKHOFF: I think the reality is that there's no clarity here. And - and there's nothing more sacred, nothing more serious, than sending American men and women to potentially die at war.
We deserve clarity. We deserve a strategy. And we deserve the truth. And right now, we're not getting an - any information about the justification or about a strategy for what's next, so.
CUOMO: They say, "Oh, you can't disrupt those sources and locations. You'll put people at risk."
RIECKHOFF: Yes. Well you can give us the basics.
I mean, right now, there are - there are troops from the 82nd Airborne that found out on New Year's Eve they were going to the Middle East, right? They weren't prepared for it.
Their families thought they were going to get congratulatory calls on New Year's Eve. They got deployment calls. And they're on ships and planes right now going to the Middle East. And they don't really know why. They don't know what to expect.
And the Pentagon is not even doing briefings. You didn't see the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doing the rounds on Sunday. You saw Pompeo. You don't see Secretary of Defense, Esper, out there explaining what the military is doing.
The families of our troops deserve an explanation about what this is all about and what to expect next. They're real human beings that are - that are potentially going to die.
In Kenya, this weekend, Henry Mayfield, 23, from outside of Chicago was killed. Most people don't even know we're even in Kenya. And that's - that - that young man was killed this weekend, and his family got that news. That's going to be a whole lot more of what we see if we do anything with Iran.
CUOMO: So, they say trust, which we hear from leadership all the time, except this President has said "Don't trust U.S. Intel," and now he's going back on that. That's his problem. The bigger problem is, is it part of a strategy?
You get this letter from the Department of Defense to Iraq saying, "Yes. We're pulling out. I hope you don't mind the noise of the helicopters." "Oh, we were just making a mistake." That's got to worry people who are going to put their blood on the line.
RIECKHOFF: Yes, it's a mess. I mean, this entire Administration has been a mess. But the stakes have never been this high.
Now we're talking about sending people potentially into Iran, nukes are in play, the stakes couldn't possibly be higher. So, something that might normally be a typo is now going to a Head of State where we might accidentally be telling them "We're pulling out our troops."
This letter got to the Iraqi people. The - this letter got to the Iraqi media. They thought we were pulling out.
CUOMO: Right.
RIECKHOFF: And they could tell us it's a clerical error. The margin of error on situations like this is zero. They can't say "Whoops! We screwed up!" because men and women are going to die if that's the case.
CUOMO: And it's very different when you're dealing with Iran versus the biggest, and worst, the ISIS, al-Qaeda, whatever. Having a sovereign attached with the capabilities they have, you got to have a plan.
RIECKHOFF: Yes.
CUOMO: P.J., thank you for--
RIECKHOFF: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: --keeping focus on the men and women who--
RIECKHOFF: Good to be with you.
CUOMO: --pay the price for the political decision.
RIECKHOFF: Thank you, man.
CUOMO: Appreciate it as always.
RIECKHOFF: Appreciate you.
CUOMO: All right, Asha Rangappa, P.J. Rieckhoff, thank you very much for helping us understand this.
This is going to be a road. And look, right now, it's being led by ignorance. We have a President who ran against exactly what he's doing right now. So, shouldn't he explain why it was so important, right?
He attacked Presidents past for saying "You know, you didn't tell us. You had bad Intel. You didn't say enough. How was this in our interest? Why is this worth blood and treasure?"
Now, he's doing the most provocative thing that we've seen in our lifetime since the Gulf War. We're supposed to get out, now in, why?
Let's get after what the President isn't telling us from someone who knows the reality of Iran, next.
(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: Here's my suggestion. Taking out a leader of a terror group is a big deal. Taking out the General, arguably the main General, for Iran, is exponentially bigger, and more provocative, and not what was contemplated in the authorization for use of military force way back in 2001.
Now the President wants you to believe it was the best move because of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And he should have been taken out a long time ago. And we had a shot at it, and we took him out. And we're a lot safer now because of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, look, that's too little and way too casual of an answer for this. Is it even true? The President won't tell us. This is the man who told you "Do not pay attention to U.S. Intel without proof." He told you that dozens of times. Why won't he follow his own advice now? So, let's talk to someone who knows the reality of messing with Iran. Vali Nasr, former State Department official, Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University.
Thank you for being with us on the show.
VALI NASR, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT SENIOR ADVISER, PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, MIDDLE EAST SCHOLAR & FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER, AUTHOR, "THE DISPENSABLE NATION": Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, so the idea do - is my suggestion correct that it's one thing when you mess with the Head of ISIS or al-Qaeda that a sovereign like Iran presents an entire different menu of challenges for the United States?
NASR: Yes, that's correct. I mean it's actually not good to compare a country to a terrorist organization. Terrorist organization does not control territory necessarily. It - it doesn't represent the people. It doesn't have a constituency.
[21:25:00]
When you're a General of a country, whether you're a good guy or a bad guy, you're a bureaucrat in the machinery of that government. And if countries around the world went around killing people they didn't like in another country, we will have the law of jungle.
Every country has a Soleimani in another country that they don't like. And in the past, the United States has had grievances against Generals in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Russia, in China.
And if the United States or any other country took it upon itself to just eliminate any - any leader in another country that it didn't like, you know, the entire international order would become a mess.
CUOMO: True. Now look, I can't argue on a factual basis because they won't give us the information for why they had to do this.
However, as I know, and you know, much, much better, General Soleimani, bad guy. The organization that he was the Head of, The Quds Force is designated by the U.S., as you know, as a terrorist organization.
He was doing bad things. They believe he was connected to the bombing in Baghdad recently where an American life was taken. Is that enough, in your opinion, to do what the United States did?
NASR: Well the question is, is the United States only out to punish somebody who has done harm to it, or there is a strategy here? If the strategy here is to get Iran to cooperate, or to come to the table, or to negotiate as the President wanted, this kind of action does not help. And the--
CUOMO: Why not? Because just so you know--
NASR: Well-- CUOMO: --the Administration argues "You're wrong, Professor, that this shows he's no joke, and he doesn't bluff, and he'll take out a big deal, so you better make a big move toward him."
NASR: No. I don't think you - you're sort of expecting that necessarily the Iranians would react as he's done.
Two years ago, he - he came out of the nuclear deal. He put enormous amount of economic pressure on Iran believing that Iran would come to the table without any need for military action.
He was proven wrong. In fact, by killing Soleimani, he's admitting that his policy of - of economic pressure didn't work.
I mean let's not forget that - that this crisis was created by President Trump. Even if Soleimani was an imminent threat, it's an imminent threat that President Trump created.
When he took Office, relations between United States and Iran were fairly stable. In fact, Soleimani was tacitly cooperating with the U.S. military in fighting ISIS. Militias loyal to Iran were not lobbing rockets into American bases in 2016.
This is all a consequence of a policy that President Trump has followed. And every time he fails, he just doubles down on the policy further.
And now, he's got to a position where the - the way Iran reads this is that the United States is now an existential threat. There's no room for talking. There's no point talking to him. And they're willing to defend themselves.
And the very fact that they were able to bring millions of people into the streets gives them the confidence to believe that they have their country behind them in order to stand up to the United States.
And that actually puts the President in a bit - in a pickle. What is he going to do next now?
CUOMO: But what can that look like?
I mean he doesn't have to do anything if Iran doesn't retaliate because the U.S. posture, at least politically, is "We had to do this. We were defending ourselves. This was an imminent threat. So, there is no onus on Iran to do anything."
The question is what do you think Iran does in a situation like this?
NASR: I think they're thinking about what's the right response right now. They weren't expecting this to happen, so they don't have a response off the shelf.
But, first of all, the President should know that no political leader could - could basically sit back, and be punched in the face, and not react, and not lose face, and - and not - not - not sort of lose power. So, Iranians will have to react. Iranians also would want to react in order to tell President Trump
that there's a cost to what you're doing because they feel that if they don't answer, he's going to do more things. Next time he's going to take out another Iranian leader in a drone attack.
So, I think the Iranians are not locked into some kind of a reaction. When you see that kind of passion in the streets in - in Tehran the past few days you can't say that "You tell the people OK, it's all done. Go home. We're not going to do anything about it."
And then what's the next step for the President? He's going to hit him again and hit him again? And ultimately, is he going to invade a country of 80 million people where the capital city is about 2,000 miles and two mountain ranges away from the closest port?
I mean, has he thought about what Iran would look like, a war with Iran? It will make Afghanistan and Iraq, added together, multiplied by two, look like child's play. I mean he's playing by fire. I mean bravado and talking tough, it's - it's not a strategy, and it puts the United States' interests in jeopardy.
CUOMO: Vali Nasr, thank you very much for your perspective. Hopefully, cooler minds prevail. Hopefully, the international community gets involved. And we don't have to play this out. If we do, I'll rely on you for your expertise--
NASR: Thank you.
CUOMO: --and your perspective going forward. Thank you.
NASR: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, big deal for you tonight, big show of the new decade, a PRIME TIME first.
The political stakes are so big in this country that those who have avoided the fray for decades are now putting it on the line, and that includes Judge Judy. Can she sway the court of public opinion on the 2020 election? The TV legend on the law and politics at play in our country, next.
[21:30:00]
(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: I don't have to tell you who Judge Judy is. You know Judge Judy Sheindlin. She's been so big for so many decades, on top of the game, on top of the business of explaining to the American people what's right and wrong in situations.
Now, the question is why take that experience out of the courtroom, and into the Presidential race. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDY SHEINDLIN, "JUDGE JUDY": Mike Bloomberg has done amazing things and will be a truly great President.
No one comes close to Mike Bloomberg's executive achievement, government experience, and impactful philanthropy. His steady leadership will unite our country and bring us through these very challenging times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, obviously that's an ad. But it's just one part of her support for the former Mayor. The Judge has taken her support for Michael Bloomberg out on the campaign trail starting this weekend.
Judge, pleasure, it's good to see you.
SHEINDLIN: Thanks so much, yes.
CUOMO: So, the obvious question. Why are you getting involved in one of the ugliest periods of our politics? You've stayed out of it scrupulously for so long. Why now?
[21:35:00]
SHEINDLIN: We're a very young country, 250 years old, still cutting our teeth. I don't think we need a revolution.
I also think that we need someone who can bring this fractured American family back together again, when you can't go to a dinner with old friends or even with your family without open warfare and hostility over politics.
I just got tired of the anger. You know, I'm senior. I have children and grandchildren. I want them to grow up in the country that I think is the greatest country in the world. And I think that the greatest country in the world should have the greatest President.
Sadly, when you go into politics these days, I said to somebody, it's like having a daily colonoscopy, you know, it's--
CUOMO: Without that nice drug that puts you to bed--
SHEINDLIN: Well the propofol, yes, right.
(CROSSTALK) SHEINDLIN: But - but every aspect of your life is explored and dissected, so you have to be brave in order to do that. So, I actually give credit to the entire Democratic field for getting out there and exposing themselves.
But I looked at that field, and I said, "I don't see greatness there. And I don't see someone who can stand toe-to-toe with the incumbent, and be successful."
CUOMO: Let's look at both sides of the case. What's wrong with this President? You know the case that he'll make.
"Look at the economy. It's good. I'm supporting American values in a way that so many in this country have been desperate for. I'm strong. Look what I just did to this bad guy in Iran. I don't talk. I act."
SHEINDLIN: Well I'm not going to tell you what's wrong with this President because I want to change the emphasis. I will tell you that I like somebody in Washington who is not divisive.
And I think there's enough blame to go around after the November 16 election. I do. I really do. And I know that we would probably get into it if I - if we had more time. But I think it was a little bit of everybody's fault.
However, I do think that the President had the capacity to calm down the rhetoric. There were many - you know how many people were disappointed on that election night in November. And some, other than the President, reacted, I think, badly.
And I think that the last 4 years should have been spent, or the last 3 years, should have been spent finding the best possible candidate to run against him. If you lose a race, you're supposed to spend the next couple of years training for that race.
CUOMO: And you don't see it in this field? You don't see someone who can beat the President other than Mike Bloomberg?
SHEINDLIN: I - that is correct. I--
CUOMO: Joe Biden can't do it?
SHEINDLIN: Well I will ask you, you've covered politics for a long time, Chris.
CUOMO: For someone who hasn't been in politics, you are very politic in your answers, Judge.
SHEINDLIN: I'm--
CUOMO: I have to tell you.
SHEINDLIN: I'm going to ask you.
CUOMO: Go ahead.
SHEINDLIN: I'm going to ask you, you've been following politics more than I--
CUOMO: My whole life.
SHEINDLIN: Your whole life. Do you see greatness?
CUOMO: Listen, you are supporting a candidate.
SHEINDLIN: Do you - do you? So--
CUOMO: I see greatness in the process.
SHEINDLIN: No.
CUOMO: I see greatness in the prospects. It's not my place to judge the different--
SHEINDLIN: Right.
CUOMO: --candidates.
SHEINDLIN: Right. Well--
CUOMO: But it's yours.
SHEINDLIN: Well I - no, I don't necessarily have to judge them other than to say that I don't think that anybody matches Mike Bloomberg's experience. Being number two wasn't being number one. The buck--
CUOMO: What about Federal versus just a Mayor?
SHEINDLIN: Well federal - you mean you're talking about the two Senators.
CUOMO: He was Vice President of the United States.
SHEINDLIN: Oh.
CUOMO: These are Senators. They deal with big issues, big scale.
SHEINDLIN: Well.
CUOMO: He's a Mayor.
SHEINDLIN: I will respond to your question in a, what I consider, a moderate tone. Joe Biden is a very nice man. I'm sure he is. He wasn't great for 40 years, wasn't great, you know. You took jabs at him. That's--
CUOMO: That's the job.
SHEINDLIN: That's the job.
CUOMO: We got to hold power to account.
SHEINDLIN: You did. But - but you did. So, nothing's changed except he's gotten older. CUOMO: So, he wasn't great then. What makes him great now? What makes Bloomberg great?
SHEINDLIN: The question.
CUOMO: He's really wealthy. He did it himself. He came up from nothing. Another guy from-- from Brooklyn.
SHEINDLIN: He knows how to govern. He--
[21:40:00]
CUOMO: How does he know how to govern on this level with these kinds of issues and players?
SHEINDLIN: Well, first of all, he's been out there. Since he's been out of office, he's been out there internationally, climate change. He's been involved in world health through his philanthropies. He's been out there.
CUOMO: He's big on gun control also.
SHEINDLIN: And he's big on gun control - gun safety. He's - you know, if - if you think about it, everybody, not everybody, I'm sure you didn't, smoked in restaurants, bars - and bars, we'd be used to it, you know, sort of used to it. That said--
CUOMO: I smoke now with all the stress that I'm under.
SHEINDLIN: Right. If you--
CUOMO: I'd smoke right here, right now, if I wouldn't get fired.
SHEINDLIN: Mike Bloomberg said it's unreasonable.
Well and he said it's unreasonable, you can't smoke in bars and restaurants anymore, New York City thought it was going to collapse. It didn't. And his standard, that standard, became the standard in the United States.
And if you travel internationally, with the exception of certain countries, people don't smoke inside restaurants anymore. They don't. And that's because there was a vision that this is the right thing for people, just like buckling up for safety.
CUOMO: My father paid a big price for that, by the way.
SHEINDLIN: Well.
CUOMO: New York State was big on that.
Let me ask you one other policy issue, and then a personal issue about Bloomberg, and I appreciate this. And I know this isn't your space. And I know you're trying to be fair. But you should prepare yourself.
This is a little different court that you're going to enter into once you start supporting Bloomberg out on the hustings because you're going to be persuasive for people, you're going to matter a lot, so they're going to come after you. But you know that. A policy, stop-and-frisk, now he's in what is seen as the Democratic
apology mode, everything he's ever done that was offensive to anybody is wrong, wrong, wrong. He didn't think it was wrong when he was there. He pointed to it all the time as something that helped bring down (ph) crime.
And now, the suggestion is political correctness. He's going to say he did the wrong thing because that's what it takes to be a Democrat. He's no different than the rest.
SHEINDLIN: OK. So, let's - let's talk about stop-and-frisk because I know that it's an easy phrase.
CUOMO: Mm-hmm.
SHEINDLIN: Terry versus Ohio--
CUOMO: Yes.
SHEINDLIN: --was a case that was decided in 1968 by the Supreme Court of the United States. One dissent. Every city, every major city in the country, standard of policing changed after Terry versus Ohio. I was a prosecutor for a period of time. Terry stops were commonplace.
CUOMO: Yes.
SHEINDLIN: They were commonplace under David Dinkins. They were commonplace under Ed Koch. They were commonplace under Rudy Giuliani.
I think that his motivation for allowing the Police Commissioner to up the ante and to make it a more aggressive policy in New York was a question of Public Health. He hated the idea that people were being killed by illegal guns. That's the motivation.
CUOMO: It wasn't race?
SHEINDLIN: Oh, absolutely - absolutely, it was people being killed by guns, mostly minority people being killed by guns. I mean, after all, I knew that this issue would come up not only with you but throughout the campaign trail.
33,000 guns were taken off the street, illegal guns, were taken off the street during stop-and-frisk. Let's say only half of them would have been used in the commission of crimes. Well that's 15,000 or 18,000 people that whose lives were either saved or prevented from being in some tragedy.
However, and now I'm going to put the however, the "However" is I think that Mike's talking to people, since, has persuaded him. That has persuaded him because I've thought about it since the issue came up.
And as a parent and as a grandparent of teenage kids, being stopped by the police, when you've done nothing, is a potentially life-altering moment for a young person who's 15, 16, 17 years old.
And I think, in his heart, he was persuaded that while the intentions were pure, and the intention was to protect the citizens of the city, after all, Chris, the most important thing that the leader can do, whether it's a Mayor or a Governor or President of the United States, your primary responsibility is to protect the citizens that - that elected you.
CUOMO: How confident are you? Let's leave the audience with this. You do not do politics, OK?
SHEINDLIN: No.
CUOMO: You have scrupulously avoided it, except for voting. And how sure are you that you're doing the right thing because Mike Bloomberg is the right choice for this country?
[21:45:00]
SHEINDLIN: I'm 100 percent positive that Mike Bloomberg is the only person that should be a standard-bearer for the Democratic Party in 2020.
CUOMO: Judge, thank you very much for making the case on the show.
SHEINDLIN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
CUOMO: I appreciate having you. It's an honor to have you on the show.
SHEINDLIN: Thank you.
CUOMO: Good luck entering the world of politics.
SHEINDLIN: Politics.
CUOMO: And I mean that. Good luck--
SHEINDLIN: Thank you.
CUOMO: --going forward. Thank you very much.
SHEINDLIN: Thank you. Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, we're a lot safer now, different context from the Judge, the President saying that as well because of what he just did. And we're supposed to believe him, but why? His track record for telling the truth? All right, that's not it.
It's about the evidence, right? And what has he told us about proof that we should demand from the Intel community? And how is he dealing with his responsibility to give us the proof now in a matter of life and death?
An argument to start the new decade, and maybe the new war, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
CUOMO: I argue to you, everything has changed in holding this President to account because of what he just authorized.
No longer is it the President who's attacking our institutions and leaving the media in the unfamiliar role of countering a President's wild characterizations of our Intelligence and Justice apparatus. No!
He is asking you to trust the same people and institutions he maligned, and to trust him. And it is our job to push back with two words that he's used to advantage and often without cause, since he was elected, "Prove it."
And the proof has never mattered more. This isn't about how many seats his Party's going to lose. This isn't about how many votes he may or may not get. It's about how many lives we may lose.
So, here we are. Our President says "Believe, believe this."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel but we caught him in the act and terminated him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: We don't know that he caught him in the act. We don't know anything. Two problems.
First, this President has lied so much, he makes the boy who cried wolf look like the poster boy for honesty. 15,000-plus false or misleading claims over the course of his Presidency, he lies more than he even golfs, more than the Rock is in the gym, OK?
And he has spent the most time bashing the very institution he now wants you to trust with your life. Remember this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I've dealt with some people that aren't very intelligent having to do with Intel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He has said their findings were a hoax, Deep State, their own agenda. He embarrassed our Intelligence administration on the world stage. He said he believed Putin more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: My people came to me. Dan Coats came to me, and some others. They said, they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Did he ask Soleimani if he was guilty? Now, after he orders the most provocative and dangerous act of his Presidency, he says we should trust his call, and you know why, because of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have the best Intelligence in the world. If Americans anywhere are threatened, we have all of those targets already fully identified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now the same Intelligence is the best in the world. Takes us to the second problem, which frightening as it is to say, is a bigger problem than this President's lying. He and the rest of Trump Co. won't show us the proof.
Think about it. After years of arguing to you that all kinds of classified, and then confidential sources and information, you have to reveal it about Russian interference, about the probe into Russia, and what they might mean, but now we should go on faith.
Well now that he has gotten religion on our Intel community, he needs to testify, and get us all to an Amen!
What is the proof of the quid pro quo? What is the imminent threat that justified his taking a step so radical, taking out a guy who almost guarantees that one of the most powerful nations will do something to hurt us?
His Secretary of State, he didn't help. He said this when asked about how imminent the threat was, days, weeks, listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: If you're an American in the region, days and weeks, this is not something that's relevant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: No, but it is relevant, OK? Imminent means about to happen. I know that it is explored broadly by lawyers who largely were trying to defend Executive action.
But it matters because not only do they have to justify that this mood may - move made sense, but they did - they didn't have to go to Congress, OK? They won't justify the decision.
So, how can we avoid asking this question? Was the imminent threat to us or to his political future? Now, you're going to say that's cynical, that's unfair. No!
It's exactly the conclusion that Trump came to about then President Obama in 2011. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I believe that he will attack Iran sometime prior to the election, because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That was in his head. Obama never did anything like this, by the way.
The biggest reason we need the proof is not because this is about impeachment. It's not about an election.
There's no difference between Trumpers and conservatives and progressives and Democrats when it comes to the threat of terror. You will all bleed the same way. Terrorists do not care if your hat is red or blue.
And people like me will go and watch our Warriors fight and fall. And it may lead back to this moment, God forbid.
[21:55:00]
It may be a righteous cause. This country may be justified in any actions that follow because this country was right to take out this General the way it did, the reason it did. But we better be sure! We always have to be sure.
He is the one, this President, to be judged for what he did and why. And him hiding the proof is unacceptable.
Did he just make a decision to keep himself alive politically that put us and our families at mortal risk? Or did he do something to keep us safe? You can argue all you want either way. But until we know what they know, you don't know. And here, and at this time, ignorance can be deadly.
Mr. President, you can declassify in - any information you want. Do what you demanded for yourself. Tell us. Bring us together on a basis of fact of why this was the right move, and do it now. That's the argument.
Now, one of the President's backers in Congress has been caught pushing phony photos online. It's part of the problem. BOLO, 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: BOLO, Be On the Look-Out.
You see this picture of former President Obama meeting with the Iranian President Rouhani? Republican Congressman Paul Gosar captions "The world is a better place without these guys in power."
That, fake photo, even the flag in the background was wrong. The real picture, taken in 2011 with India's Prime Minister.
This Congressman Gosar should be ashamed. But he isn't. He said "I never said the picture was real." Condemned his critics saying the point of his post remains to "All but the dimmest." Well his play shows him to be the dumbest. Look out for this crap.
Thank you for watching. Welcome to the new decade. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon right now.
