Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) Weighs In On House Speaker Nancy Pelosi To Finally Send The Impeachment Articles To The Senate Next Week; Iran Has Admitted Human Error In Shooting Down A Civilian Aircraft; A Very Tight 2020 Primary Race. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 11, 2020 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:28]

S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Welcome to UNFILTERED. Here's tonight's headline. It's go time. Nearly one month after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will finally send the Impeachment Articles to the Senate next week to kick off the trial over there in the Senate.

Republican sources involved in the planning tell CNN that with this development, they think Trump could be acquitted by his February 4th State of The Union address, something Pelosi, according to sources was hoping to avoid, so as to hang a cloud over his televised speech. Don't let anyone tell you impeachment isn't a political act.

But as I've said many times right here, it's also meant to be a disciplinary act. It's meant to constrain a President at the very least, to keep him from doing more bad things.

Well, there's been little evidence so far that Trump has felt chastened at all, by his own impeachment. In fact, he might even have been emboldened. If you need any proof just take a look at the debate on the House floor this week over the War Powers Act sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman and former intelligence analyst, Elissa Slotkin, the measure to limit Trump's use of military power toward Iran unless with congressional approval, passed by a vote of 224 to 194, with the rare help of three Republicans.

One of those Republicans, the quote, "Trumpiest congressman" in Trump's Washington, Matt Gaetz, who said that the need for Congress to approve or disapprove of war is quote, "something I deeply believe in."

His shocking act of rebellion against Trump was met with predictable offense over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, with a senior White House official calling it quote, "super uncool."

Okay, on the Senate side, a Bernie Sanders sponsored bill that would freeze administration funding for hostilities with Iran unless Congress approves has drawn the support of co-sponsor Republican, Mike Lee.

He, along with fellow Republican Rand Paul have lashed out at the administration for seemingly sidestepping the Constitution and the Congress.

So why the sudden bipartisan concern? Well, for starters, Trump didn't tell most of Congress, not even the four Democrats in the Gang of Eight, a group of top congressional leaders including Nancy Pelosi, that he was going to strike Qasem Soleimani. Here's why, he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They want me to call up, maybe go over there, let me go over to Congress.

We had to make a decision. We didn't have time to call up Nancy who is not operating with a full deck.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: And just last night, in a berserk interview with Fox's Laura Ingraham -- but then that's redundant -- he said he didn't trust Democrats not to leak Intelligence reports. Intelligence reports, mind you, that he has often discredited that he has sometimes leaked himself.

But another troubling sign that Trump is unbowed by his own impeachment, he said outright that he will continue to ignore and circumvent Congress on future strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: -- to Congress to take further military action against Iran, would you seek congressional approval?

TRUMP: It would all depend on the circumstance. I don't have to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Finally, there's this ever shifting narrative on what the heck actually happened in Iraq, despite bipartisan requests from lawmakers to explain what justified the timing of Soleimani is killing. He has changed his story repeatedly. This was the story on Thursday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy. We also did it for other reasons that were very obvious. Somebody died, one of our military people died. People were badly wounded just a week before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Then a day later, the imminent threat grew even more grave.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CUPP: Okay, but Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was more than happy to

provide no real answers at all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimani and we don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: But the President said Soleimani wanted to blow up the embassy. Is that accurate? He wanted to blow up the embassy.

[18:05:07]

POMPEO: It was his forces that penetrated our embassy, just a handful of days before that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Here's the deal. Trump might be impeached, but he also seems unleashed, and it's only going to get worse, guys. I don't mean a war with Iran, although I mean, that's certainly a possibility. I mean, more and more going it alone, more and more ignoring Congress, the Constitution, the constraints meant to keep a President from acting like a king.

Expect more of this defiance in both foreign affairs and his domestic agenda. And the scary thing is that, even when Republicans do break ranks, like Matt Gaetz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul did this week, there aren't ever enough of them to pass anything that would meaningfully restrain Trump's unbridled power grab.

So what happens when some members of the Legislative Branch won't do their jobs and other members of the Legislative Branch can't do their jobs? And the President of the United States wants to do everybody's job? Well, then you've got a President on a very dangerous power trip.

OK, here it discuss is Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey. Welcome. Senator. I want to talk to you about the president increasingly ignoring Congress, you guys, and what you can do about that.

But first, Nancy Pelosi, as you know, is reportedly going to send Articles of Impeachment over to you and your colleagues in the Senate next week. Do you feel like Pelosi's gamesmanship, for lack of better word, with the Articles got you anything in terms of setting the arena in which your trial is conducted?

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): Well, S.E., I think that there's no question that if you look at what happened since the Articles of Impeachment were voted on in the House that we've seen a number of things transpire, new information about e-mails that were sent in connection with the aid to Ukraine. Other developments like John Bolton indicating he would testify pursuant to a subpoena. So I think Speaker Pelosi's initial position on this, which was to

seek more information in her deliberation about the managers, because the managers or the prosecutors, they're going to do most of the work in this trial in addition to what the defense lawyers do.

So I think her position was reasonable. And I think it has yielded more information about this question of witnesses. Now, we're seeing even Republican senators saying that we should at least consider a proposal to have witnesses.

CUPP: Yes, I think you're absolutely right, we learned a whole lot more information. But when it comes to setting the terms, the rules, do you think that Mitch McConnell sort of, I mean, he kind of won this battle?

CASEY: Well, we'll see, look, this trial is going to start rather soon. The earliest possible time it could have started was just a couple of days ago. So it will be starting very soon.

But I think the most important thing here in terms of the process is Republican senators have to ask themselves, whether or not they're going to fulfill their oath of office and put our country above politics and fulfill the oath they will take in the Senate trial, which is to quote, "do impartial justice" under the Constitution and laws. They have to answer that question and fulfill that oath.

CUPP: I want to go on to Iran. You said in the Senate briefing that you did not get an answer to the basic question of what evidence showed an imminent threat from Soleimani. The Secretary of State says you guys were given that evidence. What's your response to him? He is essentially calling you a liar.

CASEY: Well, S.E., I think now we know from information that transpired after the briefing on both sides of the aisle, Democratic senators, Republican senators, including me, indicated that we did not get information, specifically detailed information about the nature of the imminent threat. That's number one.

And for the life of me, It can understand why Secretary Pompeo and the administration didn't anticipate, should have anticipated that that was a major question for virtually every senator.

Secondly, what I didn't hear enough about was what was in front of the President when he was making this decision, not only in terms of whether the Intelligence supported the strike and whether the threat was imminent, and whether it was legal, but also was the President briefed and did he consider a series of adverse consequences if you conducted the strike?

[18:10:06]

CASEY: Because every President should consider those before they make this decision. So they're going to give us another briefing. And I hope by the end of that briefing, a lot of these fundamental questions will be answered, not just for senators and House members, but for the American people. CUPP: I want to ask you about the role that Congress must and should

play in our constitutional republic, you know, Trump enjoys defying Congress. He has stonewalled your investigations. He defied your subpoenas. He has ignored members of his own party on domestic legislation. What, if anything, can you do about that?

CASEY: Well, I think there are two things that are happening right now or we're in the midst of right now. One is the question of impeachment, which is one way to check the abuse of power by an executive. And in this case, you have findings of fact now in the House Intelligence Committee which said that the President solicited the interference of a foreign government in the next election and requested that that government dig up dirt about his political opponent, and then secondly to investigate a debunk theory about the last election.

So the impeachment is proceeding -- the impeachment process and the trial in the Senate is proceeding because of the President's inability to constrain his behavior, and then you also see the --

CUPP: No, Senator, I understand that the goal of impeachment is to check the President. Does it seem to you that he feels constrained at all by having been impeached?

CASEY: Well, I think there's some evidence already that he is feeling the pressure of impeachment. I think, at a minimum, when he has a phone call with a foreign leader, maybe he'll think twice before he engages in any kind of political conduct, which is always inappropriate ...

CUPP: I hope you're right.

CASEY: ... always wrong, no matter the circumstances. I think the second thing I'd say, S.E., is in this War Powers Resolution, we're also seeing a process which will help to constrain his actions with regard to going to war with Iran. I think that's a good check on his power as well.

CUPP: But how if he vetoes -- if he vetoes it, how will it do that?

CASEY: Well, even if he does veto, even if we were to pass and he vetoes it, I think the debate that leads up to the passage and the debate that flows from that, not only in Washington, but around the country creates its own momentum and I think, creates its own pressure.

But you're right, ultimately, we need not just War Powers Resolution, but we need a full debate on the grave question of war and the authorization for the use of wars.

CUPP: Well, I'm glad to hear that you are more sanguine than I am, Senator. It's good to see you tonight, and thanks for coming on.

Okay, Iran has admitted human error in shooting down a civilian aircraft this week. Does that make them rational or irrational actors? I'll explain what I mean by that next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:17:00]

CUPP: Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, foreign policy experts have been asking this question: Is Iran a rational or irrational actor? There are competing views. It's not black or white.

On the one side, it's hard to see a regime that wants to wipe another country off the map as a rational one. On the other, Iran is not just the mullahs, but a quote-unquote, "democratically elected government" as well. And its current President Hassan Rouhani is considered a moderate for the region.

So the rational versus irrational argument is usually centered on nukes and whether a country would use them, even if it meant its own destruction.

Trump promised this week that Iran will never have nukes, but it's wanted nukes for a long time, and it's well on its way to getting them.

But what about us? Of course, we have nukes and hope we never have to use them, but more than any other modern President, Trump is very fond of bragging about our nuclear capabilities and his actions in foreign policy over the past few years have seemed at times, far from rational.

A former U.S. Ambassador in the Middle East recently compared Iran's actions to Trump's saying, " ... from a political standpoint, they have behaved a hell of a lot more rationally and predictably than we have."

Look, I'm here to tell you, you can rest assured, it's still safe to say America is a rational actor. But in light of recent events, is our President? Here to discuss is CNN national security analyst and author of Trump and his generals, "The Cost of Chaos," Peter Bergen, as well as Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Peter, I start with you. Iran -- look, is a state sanctioner of terrorism. It's a proxy for Syria's Bashar Al-Assad and his brutal war against half a million innocent people; Qasem Soleimani is head of the Quds Force killed hundreds of Americans and I'm sure would have killed even more had he got the chance. These are bad people with bad intentions. But are they in your view, rational actors?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Short answer, yes. I mean, Henry Kissinger a long time ago, S.E. has asked the question, is Iran a cause or a nation?

And clearly, they have a desire to be more than just a nation that's going to stick within its own borders. I mean, the list of countries that you -- we can also add Yemen, and obviously, they're playing an important role in the war there. So you know, they are looking to export their revolutionary ideology.

But they're not going to behave irrationally on the way to explore that. We just saw that with the response that they did on Al-Asad Air Force Base, it was pretty well calibrated in the sense that they warned the Iraqis who warned the United States and was intended to send a signal.

CUPP: Colonel Wilkerson, you've called the justification for the strike presented by the administration, a bunch of bull. Trump has ignored Congress. He has ignored his own generals in the past, his own Intelligence reports. Do you believe he is acting rationally when it has come to foreign policy?

[18:20:01]

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON (RET), FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLLIN POWELL: Let me tell you first that I've been dealing with Iran first as a military professional for 17 years, four years as a diplomat, and then I've been teaching it for 15 years at the College of William and Mary. They're very rational. Probably I would have to say they're one of the most rational on the face of the Earth given their circumstances and what they've been able to do.

As to your question about Soleimani and what that represents and I have to say, irrational because let's start with the condition with imminence. It doesn't meet the parameters of the self-defense argument because the self-defense argument whether it's Article 51 or it's the more exquisite elaboration of it in international law now says that it has to be somebody setting up a rocket and it's going to shoot at you and you know, with some certainty that it is going to shoot you.

That's not the condition we had here, and what the President and his minions have been doing, particularly, Mike Pompeo, over the last few weeks is destroying any credibility they had with regard to that argument. So it was illegal.

CUPP: Peter, you write about this in your book, people like General Mattis were a counterbalance to some of Trump's impulses, and many of those people left the administration. What effect has that had, do you think on his foreign policy?

BERGEN: Well, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, you know, refused to provide military options on Iran and also on North Korea when requested by the White House. So I mean, I think that speaks for itself.

But I'm going to respectfully disagree with Colonel Wilkerson on the question of imminence. I think the administration would serve itself well, instead of getting hung up on kind of where and when this attack was going to happen, to go back to the Obama administration's justification for the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by a drone strike.

And they said that he posed an imminent threat because he was, quote, you know, "kind of constantly plotting against United States." And if they just pointed to this President that in fact, President Obama put into play, I think they would be on better ground than getting kind of bogged down in the question of, you know where this attack was going to happen and when.

CUPP: Colonel, is that fair? I mean, it's fair to look back at the Obama administration, an illegal drone program, as Peter said, striking American citizens, extrajudicial killings. Did some of that pave the way for Trump's belligerence in this theater?

WILKERSON: Well, of course, it's fair and precedent is precedent that when it's made by the President of the United States, it's a powerful precedent, but I would accuse President Obama and have in the past of violating the law in that respect.

And when his Attorney General said, due process does not necessarily include legal process, I almost fell off my chair.

CUPP: One last question to you, Colonel Wilkerson, before I let you go, do you think Iran is done retaliating or are we going to see more?

WILKERSON: I hope so. If they are really a rational government, they should be done, but their proxies might not be, starting with Hezbollah and going all the way through other characters throughout the region that could with or without Iran's direction, try to take action against U.S. forces.

We've made the region a whole lot more dangerous.

CUPP: Peter Bergen, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, thank you both for coming on tonight. Really appreciate your insight.

BERGEN: Thank you.

CUPP: OK, up next, a very tight 2020 primary race. New polls, one last debate before Iowa and maybe some Democratic voter anxiety. Why not? Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:28:05]

CUPP: It's still anyone's game. If you needed any more evidence that nothing is certain in the 2020 race, the latest CNN poll from Iowa shows a tight four-way race between Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden. That follows the latest polling out of New Hampshire showing in essence, the same thing.

As the candidates prepare for the last debate before the first votes are cast, which airs right here on CNN on Tuesday, what do these polls say about the current state of play within the primary?

With me now is CNN's Senior Political Writer and Analyst, Harry Enten.

OK, Harry, what's your biggest takeaway from these latest polls? Let's start with the one in Iowa.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER AND ANALYST: Yes, I mean, look, my takeaway is what a freaking mess this race is. Oh, my goodness gracious. You know, look, I love looking at history.

And let me tell you, four people at 15 percent or greater, I don't remember the last time I've ever seen that. It's truly a jump all in this situation. Even if this were the polling on the day before the caucuses, I would have no idea who was going to win.

CUPP: Okay, I love, first of all, I love weekend-tary, because weekend-tary is extra and I am here for it. Let's move on. We often hear about the importance of electability. But what does this poll show about what voters want in a candidate?

ENTEN: Yes, I think this is so important, right? This has been a cycle in which voters have said overwhelmingly that they prefer someone that they think is electable than someone they agree with on the issues.

But take a look here. I think this is a key trend line, right? What do we see? We see that even though the electability argument is still winning out over the share your issues argument, that margin is shrinking between the two of them. And I don't think that's very coincidental with the fact that Bernie Sanders is also rising in the polls right now, right? Because his voters are the ones who have generally said that they prefer someone who shares the positions on the issues.

So the fact that those two are going together, that makes a lot of sense and helps to explain part of the reason that Bernie Sanders is rising right now.

CUPP: Well, also that Iowa poll is mirroring a four-way race in New Hampshire. What's your take away from that poll?

[18:30:03]

ENTEN: I mean, look, it's the same freaking thing. I mean, look at this. I mean, basically the same thing is going on there. You know, no clear leader, all within the margin of error. But I think the key thing here, though, right is we've looked at those national polls that have shown Joe Biden continuously leading all along, right, 10-point leads around 30 percent, but what happens to that national lead if Joe Biden comes in fourth place in both Iowa and New Hampshire? A distinct possibility. He may not be able to hold on.

So Iowa and New Hampshire this year and particularly Iowa could really set the course for a very different primary than I think we all thought was going to happen.

CUPP: Harry Enten, thank you so much for joining me tonight. I think you're going to have a great night, wherever you're at.

ENTEN: I'm going to try and you do as well.

CUPP: OK. Thanks. Okay, I want to turn to my panel with me now. Former White House Press Secretary for President Clinton, Joe Lockhart, and former top aide for House Speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner, Brendan Buck. First of all, I'll have what he is having. Joe, a Democratic

Chairwoman in Iowa, told "The Washington Post" just this morning that a lot of voters there are paralyzed by the fear of picking the wrong person to take on Trump. To me that says that electability still is really a motivating factor in this.

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I do you think and the numbers are significant that Harry just showed, but I still think if you push hard Democrats all over the country, it's beating Trump.

And I do think there's some anxiety around who is the best person to do that.

CUPP: To do that, yes.

LOCKHART: And I think, you know, I think Biden started as the ensemble favorite -- as the best candidate. He stumbled. He had a couple of bad debates. I think he's done much better recently. And I think the world -- I think the more we're in a situation of crisis in the world, the more experience matters and that helps Biden, but by no means has he sealed this deal.

CUPP: Well, and Brendan, another way to look at this is that, you know, this field is really consolidated.

I mean, Democratic voters have not chosen their guy or gal yet, but they've eliminated a whole bunch of people, like a hundred of them.

BRENDAN BUCK, FORMER TOP AIDE OF HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN AND PRESS SECRETARY FOR SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: That's exactly right, a hundred.

CUPP: Exactly.

BUCK: I mean, obviously the story out of Iowa is that for the first time, Bernie Sanders is in the lead, and I think what that hopefully should do is start a real conversation about his electability, but also a vetting of him.

I know Joe was talking about this previously, you know, I think a lot of people have sort of a hands-off-you, no one is really throwing punches at him. I think some people generally thought that he would sort of fade away, particularly after the heart attack.

I think maybe now it's time to have a conversation about that. But it seems like everyone to me is -- all of the other Democrats are afraid to go after Bernie Sanders, largely because they know that his voters are so important.

We saw in 2016, they didn't transfer over to Hillary Clinton very well.

CUPP: Yes.

BUCK: That's why I think everybody wants it to be somebody else's problem to take out Bernie Sanders, but nobody is really willing to throw the punch. CUPP: But it's so interesting, because the flip side of that is Joe

Biden. Everyone is really willing to go after Joe Biden even though he's the front runner and might be the best placed to take on Trump and yet, they're completely happy to shoot him.

LOCKHART: Well, just to make this crazier, everyone who goes after him ends up hurting themselves.

CUPP: Biden?

LOCKHART: That's been -- Biden -- when Kamala Harris went after him and got hurt. It hasn't been -- but I think there's real shades of 2016, and I'm going to get flamed on Twitter tonight for the next thing I'm going to say. But the media early on did not take Donald Trump seriously.

CUPP: Yes.

LOCKHART: So they didn't vet him. They didn't say, well, does your plan add up? And you know, what the plan on Iran and getting out? What are you going to replace the Iran deal with? Nobody asked that.

I think up until now, the media has not taken Bernie Sanders that seriously. I mean, it's --

CUPP: He would be saying the same thing.

LOCKHART: Yes, he would. He has complained -- and he has been right. But I do think that one of the things that will happen with this poll or with a victory in Iowa, is we will begin to look at, you know, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Both -- Elizabeth Warren says, I have Bernie's plan.

She has been excoriated for her Medicare-for-All plan for the fact that it doesn't add up. Well, how can her plan --

CUPP: He has admitted his -- we're going to have to pay for it.

LOCKHART: He has basically admitted, I don't know how we're going to pay for it. I'll just raise taxes.

CUPP: Yes.

LOCKHART: So I think there is a little bit of a reckoning but, you know, as someone told me yesterday, just like Trump, Sanders has a hard floor of supporters. It doesn't matter what he does or says, but he has a limited ceiling of supporters also.

So once -- you know, if this narrows down further, when you get to a more diverse population: Blacks, Hispanics, I think it's a little bit tougher. But even the latest poll yesterday on African-Americans showed, he was at 20 percent, which is way higher than he was last time.

CUPP: Well, Brendan, to the point about Elizabeth Warren, what does she needs to do to pull herself sort of out in front of this pack? BUCK: Yes, I think she is the perfect example of someone who sort of

took Bernie Sanders sliding away for granted. I think she thought that she was going to be able to --

CUPP: Out Bernie, Bernie.

[18:35:05]

BUCK: Out Bernie -- and be the progressive champion, you know. There's two lanes here. One is, I'm just here to beat Donald Trump. And one is I'm going to make this our progressive moment and we're going to change the country forever, and she was clearly playing in that lane.

Now, she is sort of trying to flirt with, I'm electable, too. Like, I'm not as scary and what you end up doing there is you can make nobody happy.

And Bernie has been able to stay in that lane and get people fired up and here he is. He is leading in Iowa with four weeks to go.

CUPP: Okay, guys, you've both held the title of Press Secretary, so I want to talk to you about this next story.

It's been 300 days since the White House held an official press briefing. That is starting to get attention, not in a good way. Stay put.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:08]

CUPP: In "The Red File" tonight, do you deserve to hear from your government? It's a pretty big part of being a constitutional republic like America. Our government is answerable to us, the people and not the other way around.

And one of the primary mechanisms by which we hold our government accountable -- the press. It's been over 300 days since the White House Press Secretary gave an official press briefing.

Today, 13 former White House Press Secretaries, Foreign Service and military officials wrote an open letter published on cnn.com calling for the return of regular White House and other press briefings. They write, "In any great democracy, an informed public strengthens the nation. The public has a right to know what its government is doing and the government has a duty to explain what it is doing."

More than that, they claim it is an obligation to our men and women risking their lives overseas for us. "These briefings also have the great benefit of communicating among our soldiers and diplomats around the world who are hungry for information. Talk to any military family here at home, or a family with diplomats serving overseas, and they will tell you how much their loved ones rely on regular information whether the news is good or bad." Now the signatories include Jay Carney and Robert Gibbs, former White

House Press Secretaries under Barack Obama; Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary under George W. Bush; Dee Dee Meyers and Joe Lockhart, former White House Press Secretaries under Bill Clinton.

OK, joining me now to discuss, back with us, former White House Press Secretary for President Clinton, Joe Lockhart; and former top aide for House Speaker Paul Ryan, Press Secretary for Speaker John Boehner, Brendan Buck.

OK, Joe, I think a lot of people think that the job of the White House Press Secretary is just to spin on behalf of the President. But what are in your mind the other more important responsibilities?

LOCKHART: Well, you know, one of the things you've got to do in the White House is be the advocate for the press. There is no advocate inside the building. So you've got to push. You've got to push to make sure the press has access to the President and to senior administration officials.

You're also a referee in the policy process. The briefings force a discipline in any White House on getting decisions made and then communicating those information -- that information out to the rest of the government.

You saw this week with the shifting stories on Iran, they're not coordinated. You know, when you're having a briefing, you have to coordinate. And I think the last point is one that, you know, Admiral Kirby made to me that I added into this letter, which was the idea that there are about a million people who work for the U.S. military and the Pentagon.

CUPP: Right.

LOCKHART: The Pentagon briefing is something that they live on, for what's going on in my job? What's going on in my family? What's going on with my loved ones who are deployed? So there are so many good reasons to do this. And I think, you know, it was the easiest thing in the world to get people to sign up to.

CUPP: Brendan, I don't know if viewers know who this person is, I'm going to put up a picture of Stephanie Grisham. This is our current White House Press Secretary, but we haven't seen much of her.

I know she is doing right by the President by refusing to hold press briefings. Do you think she's doing right by voters?

BUCK: Well, I certainly think there should be regular press briefings. There's a lot of reasons. Joe outlined a lot of them. It's transparency, it's accountability. It's holding people to what they say.

CUPP: All of those good things.

BUCK: I mean, one of the arguments the White House makes and I think it is a legitimate one is that more access to this President probably than any President we've seen in modern history.

I mean, he is constantly available, taking questions. What he says is sometimes off the wall, but he is available. What I don't understand why they don't do it, it isn't in their benefit.

The reason that people do press briefings, one of them, is that it helps them. It helps shape the narrative.

CUPP: Right.

BUCK: It helps put your side of the story out there.

CUPP: Right.

BUCK: That's why I think press briefings will ultimately come back, whoever the next -- whoever holds the White House will have press briefings, because it's to your benefit to do it.

CUPP: Right.

BUCK: But they've made a strategic decision, I think that being the enemy of the press works for Donald Trump. You know, it's part of the brand.

CUPP: Sure.

BUCK: If the press hates Donald Trump, that fires up their voters. So basically all kinds of up sides to it. And you know, frankly, if you're someone standing up there, and you know that Donald Trump is going to change his position, you know, any moment, I wouldn't want to stand up there and try to explain where he is coming from.

CUPP: Well, yes, and that's the point, Joe that you make in the letter that it actually helps an administration because it gives more voters a chance to get on board with your agenda.

But to Brendan's point, we know that Trump is hostile to the press. We know he's used that to his advantage. Now, there's even talk about from Trump that Fox News is not loyal enough to Trump and so there's been talk that is allies are getting together to maybe turn OANN into a Trumpian kind of Fox competitor. Should Fox be worried?

[18:45:05]

LOCKHART: I don't know if Fox should be worried. They've got a pretty strong franchise of Republicans, you know, and, you know, led by the President.

I do think there's a problem, though with a President who believes that he only needs to communicate with those who voted for him, and that's what his strategy is.

Stephanie Grisham is known to Fox viewers because she sits on the couch at "Fox & Friends." And she, you know, does Fox and the President did another interview. I think he's done now 60 or 65 with Fox News since he has been President. He has done zero with CNN. And that tells you something.

You've got to -- governing is different than campaigns. You're governing for the whole country, not just for the people who voted for you. And you know, and to Brendan's point on -- he does have a point that Trump is more accessible than any President since Bill Clinton.

The problem is Trump doesn't tell the truth.

CUPP: Right.

LOCKHART: So briefings could be really important if you could go in and just everyday say, let me dial that back a little bit. Here's what the President meant. But the President can't live with someone saying that.

CUPP: That's not -- but that's not a sustainable cycle.

LOCKHART: It isn't.

BUCK: That's a big if, if they are going to tell truth.

LOCKHART: Yes, no, no.

BUCK: It's part of the culture of the White House.

CUPP: All right, guys, we've got to go. Joe and Brendan, thanks for joining me tonight. Great conversation.

OK, up next, let's talk about the billionaire in the room. One of them anyway, it's Mike Bloomberg.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:51:04]

CUPP: Well, he may have been one of the last to jump in, but it is clear, Michael Bloomberg is using his deep pockets to make up for lost time.

The former New York City Mayor who kicked off his first bus tour today in what he is calling day one of his nationwide campaign has spent a whopping $153 million on TV advertising since jumping into the race at the end of November -- $153 million.

Compare that to Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg who have each spent about $11 million. Joe Biden, the front runner has only spent about $3 million.

Senator Elizabeth Warren slammed Bloomberg's tactic saying he was quote, "skipping the democracy part of the primary." Is there any other way to see his campaign then an attempt at buying the election?

With me now is veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. Bob, Bloomberg will not be in the debates because he is not accepting, you know, donor money. He is skipping the first four contests and pumping money into Super Tuesday states. If I am a voter, Bob, in Iowa or New Hampshire. I'm pretty skeptical

of whether Mike Bloomberg even wants my vote.

BOB SHRUM, VETERAN DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, he doesn't want votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he doesn't want to be in the debates. If he is in the debates, he is going to get asked, why didn't you support George W. Bush in 2004? Why were you against Barack Obama in 2008? Why did you give money to Lindsey Graham?

CUPP: Or stop and frisk? I mean, there are policy questions, too.

SHRUM: Right. But what he is doing is, in a way unprecedented, because the conventional wisdom is that advertising is far less powerful in a presidential campaign than a senatorial or gubernatorial campaign because there's so much free media coverage, and so much conversation.

Now, Tom Steyer has given us a little bit of an indication that if you spend money, you can advertise yourself onto the debate stage. But Bloomberg is not the master of his own fate. His strategy assumes or hopes that the first four contests will either be a muddled mess or that Bernie Sanders will emerge. And then he can then run as the progressive alternative, progressive -- moderate progressive alternative to Sanders, whom he will picture as being further on the left.

CUPP: Well, Bob, I mean, you make a lot of sense, and when you call this unprecedented, I think you're right. But does Warren have a point that this is bad, that Bloomberg's campaign is in a way undemocratic?

SHRUM: Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. It cuts both ways with voters. Some voters will see it that way. Other voters will say, he is not taking money from any special interest, from anyone, so he won't owe anything to anyone but the people who elect him. And that can be a pretty appealing position for Americans.

CUPP: So Jonathan Chait wrote a contrarian piece in "New York Magazine" this week, titled, "Maybe Nominating Bloomberg for President isn't a Crazy Idea." In it, he writes, "If elected, Democrats would have good cause to distrust his instincts. Bloomberg is close to Wall Street, only after announcing his candidacy did he offer belated and patently insincere apology for the stop and frisk policy. But some of these concerns ..." Chait writes, " ... would be resolved simply by dint of Bloomberg running as a Democrat."

Is that true? Would they? Would just running as a Democrat kind of erase all of those otherwise, you know, problems for him?

SHRUM: I think the other problem he'd have to solve would be can he get the Bernie Sanders voters to vote for him against Donald Trump? Donald Trump is the great, unwitting unifier of the Democratic Party, but Bloomberg might put a little bit of pressure on that with some of these people who are farther on the left.

By the way, I should have said his whole strategy also falls apart by the way, if Joe Biden wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, because at that point, there's an acceptable moderate progressive alternative, and there's no room for Bloomberg.

CUPP: Right. Well, Bob Shrum, thanks so much for coming on to break this down.

SHRUM: You're welcome.

CUPP: We'll be following this campaign. We'll have to have you back on to discuss more of those.

SHRUM: Okay. Thank you.

[18:55:00]

CUPP: All right, thanks. Okay. Well, it's the last debate before the first vote. The top Democrats will be in Iowa for a live CNN presidential debate in partnership with the "Des Moines Register." That's Tuesday at 9:00 p.m. It's only on CNN. So please tune in. Ana Cabrera is next with the latest headlines in the "CNN NEWSROOM."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END

[19:00:00]