Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Source: McConnell Makes Clear He Does Not Yet Have Enough Votes To Block Witnesses; Senators Prepare For Question Time In Impeachment Trial; NTSB: "This Was A High Energy Impact Crash". Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 28, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, FORMER TEAMMATE OF KOBE BRYANT, FORMER NBA PLAYER: With the loss of my father, my sister and my friend (ph), that's the only thing I wish I could just say something to him again.
Last time I talked to him was when we were here, and I asked him to get 50, and he got 60. It's the last time I spoke to him. And I just wish I could, you know, so it - it definitely changes me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: You can read more about Kobe Bryant, all the victims of the crash at CNN.com. We'll return at 11:00 P.M. Eastern for a special edition of 360.
Let's 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.
So, McConnell is now privately acknowledging he may not have enough votes to block witnesses, at least not yet. So, what does this mean?
Are we going to see the President's former National Security Advisor testifying, you know, the guy who has direct testimony about what the President said and did with Ukraine and why?
The President's own former Chief of Staff, what about him? He told you to your face that this was a quid pro quo. What about what John Kelly is saying now, and why?
We also have brand-new video of Kobe Bryant's helicopter in the moments before it went down. They're still trying to figure out why so much life, so many families were destroyed? Did it have to happen?
Plus, we have new emotional sound from Shaquille O'Neal tonight. And we have the brother of this great coach that was lost in this tragedy, all part of remembering who was lost so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP.
CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: So, the Majority Leader reportedly doesn't currently have the votes to block witnesses from being called because some on his side remain uncommitted.
One little step to the side for a moment. Hold on. The idea that after you learn that the main prong of the President's case, which is what, "Yes, nobody even says he did anything wrong. This is all on the side, and the speculation," pretty compelling.
Now you have a guy who was in the room, hence the name of his book, saying the President told me he was holding up the aid because he wanted to get the Bidens.
Can you really, in good conscience, say that you came to a conclusion without hearing him, really? Even if it's not going to change your vote, how do you sell that to the men and women back home?
"Yes, I came to a conclusion. Yes, you know, they said that they didn't have anybody. Uh, but then they did, but I didn't think it was worth it then," come on. Bolton is only accentuating what should already be obvious, OK?
And what does it say now that the President's former Chief of Staff has Bolton's back? General Kelly says if he said it in the book, I believe him. Hmm! Some rare input from John Kelly there, that he believes Bolton, and thinks there are other people who ought to be heard from.
You know why? Because there are. This is a trial where you're trying to figure out what happened where you haven't talked to any of the people who made the decisions. Doesn't make any sense!
But let's talk to the better people and let's see if they agree with at least some of it.
Preet, it's great to have you. Thank you for being with us tonight.
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Thanks for having me.
CUOMO: I've been arguing all along, and you have been instructive to the audience, there is no such thing as a trial without witnesses and--
BHARARA: I haven't heard of one and - and nor has the Senate ever had one in the nature of an impeachment trial without any witnesses.
CUOMO: Right. And just for a good faith argument, you don't think he should be removed. Great! You can sell that argument. How do you sell it to people back in your district, or in your Senate seat, if you say, "Yes. I didn't need to hear from the people who actually know what happened."
BHARARA: Yes. I mean I think you can't, unless there's a subgroup of people who are tried-and-true fans of the President of the United States and doesn't matter what he does. These are the people he thinks won't bat an eye if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.
But people who are not so beholden and cultish in their admiration for the President, I think, want to hear that. And, by the way, think about how this is going to play out, if you don't have John Bolton. The book is coming out, almost certainly--
CUOMO: Yes.
BHARARA: --in like six weeks. He's going to go on a book tour, maybe he'll be on your show, you know, that will be fun to watch.
And he's going to be saying all these things that are directly relevant to the guilt or innocence of the President of the United States, in these proceedings that are happening as we speak.
And how is that going to look to everyone when every Senator who voted against John Bolton coming to testify has to explain why they didn't want to hear from this person who is now on every network in the world--
CUOMO: Right.
BHARARA: --talking about those very same things.
CUOMO: And, by the way, we want to talk about the popular response to this also.
But just one side point, legally, to what Preet's talking about, is another main argument for them is, "And, you know, by the way, if we call one of these witnesses, you know, they're going to claim Executive privilege."
With Bolton, not only is he no longer in the White House. But how did they not waive privilege by calling him a liar, talking about the back-and-forth, and saying he has it wrong? You're the professor.
[21:05:00]
MICHAEL GERHARDT, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, UNC LAW PROFESSOR: The President did waive Executive privilege by contesting what Bolton was saying. So, the - so - so game over, there's no real legitimate claim at all.
But many of the claims that we're hearing from the White House lawyers are not really legitimate based in the law. They're based on their hopes about the facts.
CUOMO: Right.
GERHARDT: They're hopeful restatements of what they hoped had happened. But the facts and the evidence really seems to be under the sign. CUOMO: Well they're taking a guess that people will believe them. Now, to this, over 70 percent in the most recent poll of people say "I want to hear from more people." That's where the people are. I think it's like 75 - good, 75-20. How does that factor in?
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Even if that means that they want to hear from the Bidens, right, that doesn't necessarily--
CUOMO: Right.
GOLODRYGA: --think that they - they mean that they think the President should be impeached. That having been said, there's a lot of pressure on McConnell because what has he been doing when he's been whipping votes throughout all of this time?
"I got this. We'll make it short. We'll make it sweet. We're not going to have any witnesses." And what happens? He's blindsided by the White House when he finds out that they actually have excerpts and copies of Bolton's book.
CUOMO: Yes, how do you - how do you figure that part?
GOLODRYGA: So - so--
CUOMO: So, they send the book over to the White House.
GOLODRYGA: Right.
CUOMO: Is it that the President is not the only guy who doesn't like to read?
GOLODRYGA: The NSC had it.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLODRYGA: Don't know if his lawyers had it. But to either not tell McConnell or to tell McConnell and for McConnell not to come forward--
CUOMO: Right.
GOLODRYGA: --neither is a good option for him.
CUOMO: Right. But help - help me with this. So, you're serious - I'm - I'm not trying to be sarcastic. So, you know it's in-house.
BHARARA: Yes.
CUOMO: You know they've sent this book over.
BHARARA: Right.
CUOMO: You're preparing for this, and you don't want to get some sense of what's in there that you have to look for it?
BHARARA: Yes, look, I - so, not to unduly plug my own book. But I wrote a book too about my time as U.S. Attorney that I--
GOLODRYGA: It's a good book.
BHARARA: --that I - thank you. And it's called Doing Justice.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: He doesn't matter. It hurts. But I'll take it up very well.
BHARARA: It's out in - it's out in paperback now. My - now my publisher is very happy.
I didn't have any classified information in there, nothing sensitive. I submitted it to the Department of Justice for pre-publication review.
In an abundance of caution, I wrote a letter to the publisher, I mean, to the - to the - to the administration, very similar to what John Bolton's lawyer wrote to the White House, saying "We don't think there's anything classified in here. But in abundance of caution"--
CUOMO: Right.
BHARARA: --"we're sending it to you."
And I was assured, during the process that it - it is - it is looked at, the manuscript is looked at by career professionals who're only trying to make sure that no secrets get out.
And I'm sure he got that reassurance too. But he's in a much different position--
CUOMO: Sure.
BHARARA: --from an ordinary former government employee, where the things that he is claiming in the book go right to the heart of the guilt or the - or the innocence of the President of the United States.
And other people have said, Jack Goldsmith, who is a prominent professor at Harvard Law School, and worked in the government for a period of time in the Justice Department, says you know, from time to time, those manuscripts got out to other people, it would be weird to me had it not gone out.
And if it hasn't before, I'm guessing it is now because as soon as the - and I don't know if you'd agree with me, Professor, if in the next couple of days, through that process, the White House says "We're blessing this publication of this - of this book," then they have doubly-waived, I think--
CUOMO: Right.
BHARARA: --Executive privilege.
If they're saying it's fine to go out, this is their opportunity to say "You can't publish this book." So, that's a kind of interesting thing to see what's going to happen with that in the next couple of days.
CUOMO: Yes. Assuming they reviewed it.
GERHARDT: Sure.
CUOMO: You know, the problem - I think you might have said this to me a few days earlier that, in more eloquent words than I'm about to say it.
But one of the problems with the "Spaghetti on the wall" strategy is that you wind up making yourself vulnerable to things that wind up not sticking, like they don't have anybody who can pin the President to this directly.
Yes, we do. We actually know we have two, three, or four, of them. The idea that when you're looking at this, you know, it's all going to be privileged anyway, now, that's gone.
GERHARDT: Right.
CUOMO: And they have the idea of, you know, even if this happened, you know, this wouldn't be impeachable, even if it were all true. Now they have a problem with that. All of those lead to witnesses. Not that it'll change the whip--
GERHARDT: Right.
CUOMO: --vote count, ultimately. But do you want to get an acquittal for this President if people know the process was light?
GERHARDT: I would assume they don't care. They want an acquittal.
CUOMO: Taking win at any cost.
GERHARDT: They want to win any way they can get it. But to make - to sort of just roll it back a little bit, and use some common sense, we know the book was sent over to the administration.
The only explanations for the White House Counsel's arguments in the trial, so far, not mentioning the book, not taking it into account, neither their comments, and--
GOLODRYGA: Not telling McConnell.
GERHARDT: --not telling McConnell, has to be either incompetence or they're lying. There's no third alternative.
CUOMO: The third alternative is may - maybe it falls under one Subset A is they thought McConnell had them covered that so we're going to kind of fudge over the fact that Bolton may - we don't think he's going to chirp the way he did.
But even if it comes out the book, we'll be OK. He'll still get the votes. And now, it may not look like he will, and I don't think there's any chance that it's just four.
GERHARDT: Right.
CUOMO: If it's four, it's got to be eight or nine, because as soon as people get the advantage to avoid the pre-problem--
BHARARA: Yes.
CUOMO: --of how do you sell at home, they'll jump on the bandwagon.
BHARARA: And - and there's also an ethical question, I believe, that arises with respect to the lawyers for the President.
GERHARDT: Yes.
BHARARA: Did they know they were--
GERHARDT: Yes.
BHARARA: --they were asked today in a - in a - in a briefing where they had a confidant, where they had a source, unidentified, I believe, who was asked the question "Did you review the manuscript?"
CUOMO: Right.
[21:10:00]
BHARARA: And they said, "No. We didn't review the manuscript." They were then asked, "Well were you briefed on the contents of the manuscript?" And they said, "That's all we're going to say."
And so, they made arguments in the well of the Senate, on the Senate floor, that said there's no witness, essentially there's no witness who can say, or who has said, that the President of the United States told them that they were linking aid to these investigations of the Bidens.
And that might be, depending on your view, technically true to the letter, but it's grossly misleading, and I think - and I think a violation of ethical duties.
GOLODRYGA: And it throws McConnell under the bus. I mean, remember, just a few weeks prior, McConnell had said that he's in lock - on television, had said that he's in lockstep with this--
CUOMO: Right.
GOLODRYGA: --administration and with the White House. So, either he's lying, which I don't think is the case, or he also was blindsided, and he had told the Republican Senators "I've got this."
CUOMO: Right.
GOLODRYGA: "It's fine. We don't need witnesses." And now, you've got many saying "Maybe we do."
CUOMO: Here's the good news for the Senate Majority Leader. He's going to have plenty of company underneath the bus that just ran
him over because plenty have gone before, trusted what was going to happen in this White House, and wound up underneath exactly where he's about to be.
All right, so, thank you very much to each and all.
What now for the Democrats, OK? Because this is all about how one side counters the other. You're going to have this phase of 16 hours of questions that the Senators ask through the Chief Justice to either side of the advocates.
How do they play it? We have a Trump juror here. Preview next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:15:00]
CUOMO: Next phase is two days' worth of questionings from the Senators, through the Chief Justice, to the Impeachment Managers and Trump Co., his lawyers. The questions are going to be written on a card like this.
What will the Democrats ask to bolster their argument for witnesses? Let's get some insight from Democratic Senator, Richard Blumenthal.
Thank you, as always, Sir.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Thank you.
CUOMO: First--
BLUMENTHAL: Good to be with you.
CUOMO: --forget about McConnell not knowing whether or not he has the votes. Who knows? Maybe he's putting that out there to - I don't know what that means. I don't care about it.
Do you think, at this point, that if they don't have witnesses, this is going to wind up being something that will haunt the GOP, because you know you need them? You have their own cases laid out, Senator, the need for witnesses, they just didn't expect Bolton to speak up like this.
BLUMENTHAL: They had no idea, presumably, that Bolton was going to speak up. At least, perhaps, Mitch McConnell didn't. But the White House lawyers may well have.
And one of the questions we're going to have in the next two days is what did they know, and when did they know it, and why, apparently, did they hide it from the Senate?
But there's no question, in response to your question, that they will be haunted by history. They're facing 75 percent of the American people, and in many of the states that are involved in tough re- election races, and even higher percentage that want witnesses, and documents, and other evidence.
And they're also facing a vindictive and vicious President.
CUOMO: Right.
BLUMENTHAL: And a master-counter in Mitch McConnell.
But the most important point, and you mentioned it a little bit earlier, was that the truth eventually is going to come out, and not in a matter of years, but in days and weeks, because the Bolton manuscript is there, and more of it will come out.
It'll be published in just a matter of weeks. But also--
CUOMO: Yes, it's like March 17th.
BLUMENTHAL: --other sources.
CUOMO: Right by the Ides of March, by the way, no small coincidence.
Now, forgive me, this nakedly political question for a second. But couldn't you make the argument, Senator, that it is better for your Party in the election for there to not be witnesses.
Don't beat me over the head with the Constitution and the duty to try. I know. I know.
But I'm just saying, if it'll likely not change the ultimate vote count, maybe a couple, but the acquittal seems to be the path that this Party, the GOP, is insisting on, if there are no witnesses, isn't that more helpful to the Democratic cause of saying "Look how they perverted this process, just to get their want here.
Just like they did with Kavanaugh, where they rammed it through, they rammed this through too. And look at all these other things that have come out that they hid from?"
Isn't politically that more beneficial and more the point of what the truth will show?
BLUMENTHAL: There may be a good political argument, Chris, I will grant you. But, in the larger scheme, this trial really is such a serious matter in the history of this Republic we should be searching for the truth.
And I'll avoid beating you overhead with the constitutional argument. But the practical better good government argument and the conscience of the Senate ought to be to seek the truth. That's what we took the oath to do.
I am still listening. The summation today was virtually fact-free, filled with innuendo and insinuation from the President's lawyers. I was listening for some shred or scintilla of evidence.
And what they said in that closing argument, by the way, made the case for John Bolton as a witness. They-- CUOMO: I hear you on that. I hear you on that. But now, what happens, let's say you get the witnesses, OK? And they say, "Fine. You can have Bolton. We want Joe Biden."
BLUMENTHAL: Well Joe Biden, or a Hunter Biden, who is more likely to be requested, they're saying is part of a quid pro quo, I don't think that we can do a quid pro quo trade on witnesses, in an impeachment trial, involving an alleged corrupt quid pro quo, more to the point.
CUOMO: But you don't have the votes, Senator.
BLUMENTHAL: Well they can call Hunter Biden or Joe Biden.
CUOMO: That's right.
BLUMENTHAL: At any point. They have the majority.
CUOMO: Yes.
BLUMENTHAL: And you know the reason that they haven't called them. They don't want them as witnesses because they don't want to prolong the trial, and they don't want, necessarily, to turn it into a circus.
What they have done, in the course of this trial, is try to continue the smear of the former Vice President, and his son. And that's what they're trying to put on the Senate floor, if they insist on this witness trade.
But there's one other point here that's--
CUOMO: Please.
[21:20:00]
BLUMENTHAL: --really important. And that is that we need witnesses who have relevant first-hand knowledge, like Bolton. They refer to Bolton's book as "Un-sourced manuscript, leaks, hearsay." Let's have the witness. You can't cross-examine the manuscript.
CUOMO: Right.
BLUMENTHAL: But we can cross-examine the witness.
CUOMO: Strong point!
Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much. I appreciate it, especially on a big night. Thank you, Sir.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, we got an update, just a short while ago, from the NTSB. They're investigating the crash that killed Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and seven others. We're going to go through what they have learned. Up next, we're joined by one of Kobe's friends, teammates, NBA legend in his own right, Derek Fisher. He considered it a gift, and a blessing, to have played with Kobe. Why? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:25:00]
CUOMO: All right, so the NTSB says it will have a preliminary report in about a week and a half, like 10 days, on the crash that killed Basketball Great, Kobe Bryant, and eight others, including his own daughter, a couple of other kids, and just some great people who are now lost.
Investigators have offered some new information on the final moments before the tragedy. And we're going to have it for you shortly.
But first, I want to bring in someone who knew Kobe, and loved him dearly, Bryant's former teammate turned Head Coach for the LA Sparks of the WNBA, Derek Fisher. He's actually outside the STAPLES Center tonight.
Coach, thank you for being with us.
DEREK FISHER, HEAD COACH, LOS ANGELES SPARKS, WOMEN'S NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION: Thank you for having me, Chris.
CUOMO: I know this is very difficult. I'm sorry to have to have this conversation. But I do think it matters right now, for people to understand who and what was lost.
I keep hearing from his friends "It wasn't the basketball. It wasn't the points. It wasn't the athleticism. That's not why I came to respect him as much as I did." What was it for you?
FISHER: For me, it was, you know, his entire being.
I mean I spent most of my professional career as a player, most of my formative years, as a man, as a father, as a husband, alongside of Kobe, plane rides, bus rides, in the arena, and we grew up together in a lot of ways, even though I'm only a few years older.
I don't think that any of us can achieve the best version of ourselves, you know, whatever our individual greatness is without inspiration from others.
And, for me, personally, he was a gift and a blessing because I - I got a chance to live with in the sense someone that, on a daily basis, was trying to access the greatest parts of - of who he is and who he was.
And I don't know if, you know, we'll ever have someone else like him. And that, you know, that adds to the pain to not get a chance to see him continue on with his legacy.
CUOMO: What did you see in him as a father, especially with Gianna, Gigi, and - and trying to help her be a ballplayer.
FISHER: You know, being fully present is sometimes a hard thing to do in life, for all of us, regardless of what keeps us busy, what our professions are, it's really difficult to be fully present in life.
And, I think, as men for our children, sometimes we're working so hard to provide for them, to create a life for them, we're not actually present in their lives in a way that's meaningful and impactful the way it should be.
And to - to observe Kobe, and - and watch him, and see him spread his love, to try and impact his daughter's experience, as a - a young athlete, was moving.
Oftentimes in like when there is a movement happening that I think is happening in women's sports, and for young girls, people are taken away too soon.
Dr. King was taken away from us too soon. Brother Malcolm X was taken away from us too soon. JFK was taken away from us too soon. And it slows the process of movement down.
And I don't - I don't know if we fully connect yet to possibly the process of - of movement in women's sports to support the dollars, the attention, the notoriety that these women deserve, and young girls like Gianna deserve.
Kobe being gone slows that process down, unless we keep it moving and somehow pick it up.
And that's arguably, and honestly, probably the only reason I'm talking as much as I am about what this is, and what it means to me, because I don't want that part of him and what he was trying to do to - to go away with him.
CUOMO: You know, sometimes people rationalize premature loss of some of the men that you were talking about, and other leaders of communities, by saying that maybe the plan was that they got taken too soon, so that people could recognize what they meant, and carry on their work, maybe they become a catalyst, and maybe that's just wishful thinking. But we'll see.
And having men like you step up and say now the time is to talk about what mattered to him, and how to continue it, maybe that's exactly what will happen.
Let me ask you something else, Coach. I want to know if this is true for a superstar, or a pro ballplayer like you and Kobe, as it is for just regular people, that when a parent sees their kid do something in sports, score a basket, whatever, make a good play, they appreciate it so much more than whatever greatness they achieved on the court.
Did you see any of that in Kobe when he would watch his daughter play? It's tough to see from his face. You know, he always has such a poker face on. But what did it mean to him to see his daughter do things well on the court? FISHER: It's a great question. I wish - I wish he was here to answer it. Honestly, I - the - what I know about Kobe and - and understand, I don't think it was much about the basketball aspect.
[21:30:00]
I think more than anything, he wanted for his children, for his teammates, people like myself, to be passionate about what you want to do in life. And I think he would have been and - and was just as supportive of all of his children, regardless of their passions or endeavors.
For Gianna, it was basketball. For Natalia, it's volleyball. For his younger girls, it will be other things possibly. I think he just loved the idea of seeing Gianna really, really passionate about being great at what she wanted to be in life.
CUOMO: Whatever it is.
FISHER: And that was a great basketball player. Whatever it is, and that - that's what parenting is about. It's not about forcing anything on our children. And I think he was there no matter what.
CUOMO: What will you tell his youngest about her father when she's ready?
FISHER: Anything she wants to know that - that I can offer. The - the tough part about this is how many, you know, people do have stories and moments that they can share with his youngest daughters.
The - the one thing that really pops to mind, honestly, Chris, is conversation he and I had about our children, and life, and navigating, you know, the decisions you sometimes have to make as a man, and the choice he made to look 20 years ahead in his life, and think about where his daughters would be, if his family unit was not together, and how that helped to shift his mindset on being a father, being a husband, and the choice he made to do what he needed to do.
And so, that's what I'll tell anybody that wants to hear is that Kobe was intentional about being a great father and a great husband. And, as men, that's what we all are striving to be. I don't know if any of us will ever be as good at it as he was. But that's what I'll tell them when I get the chance.
CUOMO: Coach Derek Fisher, thank you so much for sharing your pain and your perspective on a friend, and a great player, and a great man, who was lost. Thank you, Sir.
FISHER: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, as I said, NTSB officials are still processing the crash site. They did give new details, actually a fair amount. We're going to analyze what we now understand with investigators.
Could it have been - could it have been, all right, it's a question, a piece of equipment on board, was that a factor in what was happening here? I'll explain next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: "A high energy impact crash," that's how the NTSB describes the crash that killed Kobe Bryant, and eight others, including his young daughter. They say the helicopter hit the hillside here in Calabasas at a speed of about 20 miles an hour.
That has to be taken in context, and we'll do that with the experts.
The issue is the chopper lacked a Terrain Awareness and Warning System, the acronym is TAWS, T-A-W-S, something the NTSB has been pushing for since about 2004. The FAA doesn't require it.
We also have new video of this ship, the Sikorsky S-76B in Glendale, California, at around 9:29, Sunday morning, about 15 minutes before the last radar contact.
So, let's bring in Mary Schiavo and Tom Sater with me. A note, Mary works for a law firm that represents victims and families after aviation disasters. It's good to have you both with us.
First, high energy impact crash, what does that mean to us, Mary?
MARY SCHIAVO, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL, USDOT, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: Well it means that the plane was coming down with a great rate of speed.
And so, speed turns into energy when it impacts with the ground. And you can see that from the crash and where - wreckage site, the harder the impact, the higher the energy, the - the greater dissipation.
CUOMO: And now, when we're talking, Tom, just give us a general sense of conditions, and why this ship would have been flying this low, all right?
TOM SATER, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Well, yes, sure, Chris.
I was here when the tragic news came out. Anytime you hear - get news of an aircraft going down, you got to look at weather right away.
What's interesting though, however, at the same time, reports were that cyclists, mountain bikers, told authorities that they saw this helicopter in distress. So, right away, you think "Well maybe mechanical."
But when it comes to the weather, we had 100 percent humidity. I mean this is fog. We had reports of a soup (ph). The winds were light.
But if you look at the cloud deck, we have also what's called a marine layer. Big storms to the north are bringing in this soup from the Pacific that lowers the visibility, not to mention, even though you can see at the surface, it's two and a half, three miles. But we have a temperature inversion. Cold air aloft is acting like a lid, so it's trapping everything. If you look at the cloud deck, the top of the cloud deck was about 3,100 feet. The base of the cloud deck was around a thousand.
For most of this trek that they made, this - they were about 800 to 900 feet. So, it does vary. I mean visibility cannot - it's not just generally saying "OK, it's pea soup everywhere."
From ridge top to ridge top--
CUOMO: Right.
SATER: --canyon to canyon, the visibility changes.
CUOMO: All right.
SATER: But he stayed below that most of the time.
CUOMO: All right, so he's obviously a highly-trained pilot. The soup, you know we've heard it discovered - described as being inside of a glass of milk. So, obviously, even with the instruments, he felt he had to go low.
He goes so low that now they can't see him on radar. And there becomes a couple of interesting dynamics, Mary, I want your take on, and Tom, as always, brother, just, chime in when you got something to say.
So, the tower says this. "The Burbank Tower. You can expect a few minutes. I've got a special VFR helicopter I need to get transitioning. He's been holding 15 minutes."
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00]
BURBANK TOWER: I got a special VFR helicopter I need to get transitioning. He's been holding for about 15 minutes. Northwest, follow the 5 Freeway. Maintain special VFR, correction, special VFR conditions at or below 2,500 feet.
HELICOPTER: Maintain special VFR at or below 2,500 feet, follow I-5 northbound. 2EchoX.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, now, look, first of all, what - what do we know there? He doesn't sound like he's in a panic at that particular time, the pilot, right? But I want you to understand that in this context, Mary.
SCHIAVO: Well that changed (ph).
CUOMO: So, he doesn't sound like that. He's asking for special VFR rules, visual flight rules because he's low.
And while you're describing it, I'm just going to play through the plight - flight path, so they can see how the helicopter - that 15 minutes probably is this circling around Glendale, where he was going.
We see these loops on the - on the - the route map here, of it going round and round. How - what's your read on that, Mary?
SCHIAVO: Well he was holding because he had the problem of traffic. And then, he also had the - the weather conditions, so he had to get this special VFR.
And what's really important to talk about the special VFR is that's not a way that you fly in just regular operations. I mean, some people say when should you get a special VFR? Never!
But if you're in a situation where you think you can get around the weather, and around the traffic, and you just need a little special - a little special exclusion, if you will, from the minimums that usually have to fly in, you know, for it's usually a thousand feet, but for helicopters, it is lower, and so this is just a way to get you to another place, but you're still supposed to be able to see where you're going, and fly what you see.
CUOMO: Am I wrong to say, at this site, Tom, with all your experience, and Mary, as well, that when you look at the crash site, and what we're told is that basically, it seems like this hill or this mountain came up on this pilot suddenly, because of the conditions, and he wound up misjudging it.
And that 20 mile an hour speed, obviously, that's forward motion, right, that speed over ground, and he was probably trying to go up, and he didn't make it.
SATER: Right.
CUOMO: And wound up crashing into it at that angle.
So, do you think, Mary, that what we're going to look at here is going to be a visit, you know, a combination of factors that went to him not having the warning system, yes, but him being in tough weather, having to hold, trying to find a way out of it, and having a lot of mountains around him, and not a lot of visibility or time.
SCHIAVO: Right. And the decision to take off in the first place where - was it qualified for IFR? Where - did the plane have autopilot? If you're flying commercial air - helicopter, in IFR conditions, usually you have to have two pilots or - or - or autopilot.
And did he make a sharp turn trying to avoid the mountain and cause the helicopter to have a rotor blade stall? So many things the NTSB will address.
CUOMO: Tom, what else can you tell us?
SATER: Well, for the most part, you know, you have to take into consideration he probably took this path dozens of times.
When you look at the elevation, and this was the holding pattern, where they had to clear the aircraft in Burbank, he stayed low, following Interstate 5 to 101. You know you can see by his trek here, he's following right along the highways, so he obviously had a visual.
When he got intact with Van Nuys - in - in contact, he went north of Van Nuys. They said "OK. Do you want now to get in contact with SoCal?" And he said "Sure."
As he came back around, his elevation, Chris, is still the same on the entire highway, until he climbs--
SCHIAVO: That's right.
SATER: --all the way to 2,300 feet.
This is where we calculated, if he would have stayed there, he would have cleared all of these ridge tops. But why, and, of course, we'll find out later, and Mary may know more, why the sudden drop at the last moment.
Again, he would have cleared all of these. And there's that bank to the left that they were talking about in the press conference. So, again--
SCHIAVO: That's right.
SATER: --he had a visual the entire way. But he does get into higher terrain toward the very end. But if he would have stayed to - above it, it looks like they would have cleared this.
So, again, still a lot of questions, medical emergency, or that part you were talking about, mechanical as well. No doubt weather plays a role here, I think though.
CUOMO: All right, Tom, Mary, let's do this. As we find out more information, please, I'm going to lean on you guys--
SCHIAVO: Sure.
CUOMO: --to help us understand this because there was just too much loss for us not to understand, and hopefully learn--
SCHIAVO: That's right.
CUOMO: --something about it to avoid it the next time. Mary Schiavo, Tom Sater, as always, thank you.
SCHIAVO: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, lot of questions to answer. As we get the information, we'll go on it, in terms of understanding the loss.
The questions that are looming large over this impeachment trial also need attention. Now, what should each side be asked? I have three main questions that I believe, I argue, will get to the heart of the matter, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: Time to debate is over. Now we have 16 hours, over two days, of Senators asking questions to both sides.
Here are my top three.
First, for counsel to the President, a major prong of your argument is that no one can tie the President to the plot in Ukraine directly.
And Trump and you say that those in charge would prove he did nothing wrong, especially now with Bolton directly contradicting you, and Mulvaney having contradicted your assertion in the past, aren't witnesses a must?
Now, before you answer that, and say it's an absurd notion that only helps Democrats prolong this process, remember this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would rather go the long way. I would rather interview Bolton. I would rather interview a lot of people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The President said at that time "But I'm worried about privilege issues." You know how privilege works, Senators? You do.
He attacked Bolton and questioned his veracity. His lawyers did the same. Bolton is no longer in the White House.
You take those two together, either the privilege does not extend to Bolton, because he's out, or the President arguably waived it by calling him a liar about exactly this subject matter.
Besides, Executive privilege doesn't mean you can't ask an advisor about anything under any circumstances. It's selective, often by topic, or even by question, and never covers questionable acts of abuse or criminality.
[21:50:00]
Now, I doubt we would get a satisfying act - answer. But here's a runner-up question on this.
Why did they dare to argue that no one can tie this President to wrongdoing directly, when they've had a draft of Bolton's book? Is Trump not the only one in the White House who doesn't like to read?
Question number two, for the Democrats, this time. House Managers, everything you're alleging amounts to a bribe. Why didn't you charge Trump with a bribe? Their answer will likely be concerns about getting bogged down in the elements of recent crime law, case law at the Supreme Court, about what a bribe is with a public official. Did they overthink it?
The law is the bedrock. Bribery is the bedrock of a corruption charge, OK? The Founders included it for a reason. Besides, the President isn't being charged with a crime, since he can't be indicted, so forget about this precise element by element.
He had the corrupt intent. He had the desire to influence an official act. And yes, there was a quid pro quo.
You give me this, quid, the - what was that, the Biden probe announcement, and I give you that, quo, what was that, the aid, the love of - of with the meeting, and being with me, and the new Ambassador.
Now, by not including that charge, you allowed Trump Co. to swing a big stick. "They didn't even have enough to charge him with a crime."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is impeachment-lite.
(CROWD LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: This is the lightest impeachment in the history of our country by far.
There were no crimes whatsoever. There are no crimes. It says it. There are no crimes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Question number three, for Counsel to the President. You intentionally distorted the facts during your argument. Why abuse the record? First, proof of your premise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY SEKULOW, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: No, it wouldn't be a violation, if that's what happened. But, as Trump likes to say, "Look at the transcript."
The Ukrainian President talks about draining the swamp. Trump is focused on the Bidens and CrowdStrike and favors. He wasn't concerned about widespread corruption in Ukraine. He was laser-focused on his rivals.
Then there's this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEKULOW: President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know the security assistance was paused till the end of August.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: One, it doesn't have to be tied to the call.
But also, Pentagon official, Laura Cooper testified that she saw two emails, in late July, about the time of the call, indicating that Ukrainian officials knew that aid had been frozen. That lines up with closed-door testimony from a State Department official.
How about this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY: Former Vice President Biden publicly details what we know happened, his threat to withhold more than a billion dollars in loan guarantees, unless Shokin was fired.
This was the prosecutor investigating Burisma, Shokin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, Ms. Bondi is insinuating that Biden made his demands to save his son. But that argument leaves out some key facts, like the investigation into Burisma was inactive at the time.
What does that mean? There was nothing to stop, and that pretty much everyone in the world agreed that Shokin was ineffective, or corrupt, including the Ukrainian Parliament, Ukraine's Parliament voted him out.
Biden was also acting in line with U.S. policy. Can they say the same thing about Trump?
Let's see if these get asked. And, if so, how do they get answered? That's the argument.
Now, tonight, we heard from a teammate of Kobe Bryant's, right? You heard from Derek Fisher. You heard from lot of his teammates.
But one of the interesting things about how people are processing this loss is how is it they - making them feel about their own lives. I want you to hear from Shaquille O'Neal and some other NBA big shots about what this has done to them, next.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: A solemn BOLO tonight and it comes from Kobe Bryant's friend and former NBA teammates, as they reflect on the loss of Kobe, but also, what it makes them think about how to live their own lives. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DWYANE WADE, FORMER NBA PLAYER: It's OK to feel whichever way you're feeling right now. It's OK to be hurt. It's OK to cry. It's OK to show emotion. It's OK to have laughter. It's OK to talk about to get around people and talk about the moments that you shared with Kobe Bryant.
REGGIE MILLER, FORMER NBA PLAYER: Because we all know when you talk about The Mamba Mentality, he wanted to outwork you, right? I'm going to outwork people. I want to continue to work and celebrate him because I think that's what he would want.
O'NEAL: You know, I think a lot of times we - we - we take stuff for granted like I don't talk to you guys much as I - much as I needed to.
The fact that we're not going to be able to joke at his Hall of Fame ceremony, we're not going to be able to say "Ha, I got five, you got four," the fact that we're not going to be able to say "If we would stay together, we could have got 10." Those are the things which you can't get back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: It's hard. It's hard to lose someone you care about. It's hard to express it. Lot of men don't. That's proof - that's one of the largest strongest men in the world. And vulnerability - vulnerability is strength.
And the message is very clear. There is no guarantee of tomorrow. And the people you love and the people you care about you need to do that now because you never know what happens next.
Thank you very much for being with us tonight. I want to get to Don Lemon, CNN TONIGHT.
This is something that me and D. Lemon have been talking about because we love each other very much, and we cherish having time with each other. But it's occasions like this, the first thing Don said, when we were processing that Kobe was gone was--
DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: First text was to Chris Cuomo. What did I say to you?
END
