Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Key Impeachment Witness Fired By White House; Trump Takes Revenge Against Star Impeachment Witness; Johnson Defends Calling Pelosi's Speech Rip Illegal. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 07, 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": That was the first time since the trial ended that the House Managers got together to discuss their prosecution of the case against President Trump.
That's it for us. Thanks for watching.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Hello everybody, I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
We have breaking news on our watch. Fears are being realized tonight, a modern day Friday Night Massacre by Donald Trump. He's taking out his opponents as promised.
Now, you're going to hear from his side. How do they justify what this President is doing? Can they offer a defense? We have two GOP impeachment players here, plus a warning for Republicans who think that they are in the clear. This revenge has just begun.
So, let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The President told you that when he had a chance, he would go after everybody he felt was against him.
And that doesn't mean enemies. That means people who were telling the truth, people who had the faith in this country to stand up, and take a stand. Now, they're going down one by one.
Gordon Sondland, remember him, "Everyone was in the loop," a big donor to Trump, a personal friend, out. He was a big witness in the Trump impeachment trial. He announced it himself in a statement tonight.
This is what he said. "I was advised today that the President intends to recall me effectively - effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union." One of his main donors, a friend of his, he didn't even talk to him directly. It comes after another star impeachment was - witness was apparently escorted out of the White House. You remember him. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert at the National Security Council. He's been reassigned along with his brother, who also worked at the NSC.
It's like a drug cartel Netflix series. "We're not just coming for you. We're coming for your family." The brother goes too? Both Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Sondland testified against the President under subpoena. That's why they're gone.
Now, you'll hear arguments tonight. "The President has the right. The President has the right." This is not about having "The right." It's about doing what is right.
Vindman's lawyer now says the truth cost him his job. And the President wasn't putting on any poker face about this, earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I'm not happy with him. Do you think I'm supposed to be happy with him? I'm not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: No, but are you supposed to take retribution on anyone who speaks the truth against him? Nobody proved that any of these people lied about the President. It's the truth he's punishing.
A Trump adviser describes the moves as necessary to send a message inside the administration that siding against the President won't be tolerated. "Flushing out the pipes," they said.
Let's bring in the power players for this one, Ron Brownstein, Sam Vinograd, David Gergen, all right?
David Gergen, the Friday Night Massacre, familiar phrase, you heard it from one of the President's advisers. "We can't have people in here who are not on the President's side." What's the implication?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Chris, I must say I agree to an extent about that - that I - to keep Vindman in place would have been very, very awkward. Everybody knows that. Vindman himself understood that.
As in so many things with Trump, it's not what he does. Sometimes, it's how he does it. And I do think there's a classy way to do something like this, and then there's like - become the Trump way.
The classy way would have been call Vindman in, say, "Son, listen, I understood. You - you felt you had to go because of the subpoena.
I understand you told the truth, as you understood - as you knew it. But we just can't operate with somebody. It's going to be too awkward for you and we're going to reassign you." That would have been a classy way. Then there's the Trump way. It's brutal. It's - it's heartless. It is - it's bullying, all the things that and - and I especially wonder Chris, after the President's come-offs, one of the best weeks of his Presidency, why you would do something to step on that and to show the other side of who Donald Trump is, and remind us of his dark side?
CUOMO: Well, David, you know, let me pause it, and answer. Because this is who he is.
GERGEN: Yes.
CUOMO: And this is what he values.
GERGEN: Yes.
CUOMO: Sam Vinograd, I take Gergen's point by definition that this is something that he can do and its style points. But there's a message here, Sam. You worked in that part of the world in government.
And the idea that "Hey, I don't like that you said things about me that were true. But I don't like them.
And I'm getting rid of everybody around you who did the same thing. And, by the way, I'm getting rid of your sister too who works in a completely different department," is that just about "Well we all have to be on the same page" or is that a different kind of chilling effect?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: This isn't just about the President having the right to surround himself with people who are on the same page. The President is doing this solely because he can. He can't be criminally indicted. He's not going to be impeached.
[21:05:00]
And he is sending a clear message to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and to every single other U.S. government account - employee about the risks associated with actually doing their jobs.
Remember, when you are at the NSC, it is your job to uphold the rule of law. It is your job to report wrongdoing to NSC lawyers. That is exactly what Lieutenant Colonel Vindman did.
And by firing the Vindmans, by treating them like criminals, having them escorted off of White House grounds with security, a decorated war hero, the President is signaling that the costs of speaking truth through legally-protected channels are not just physical threats, not just public smearing.
CUOMO: Right.
VINOGRAD: They're also professional retribution.
And Chris, I am deeply concerned about the - the effect that this is going to have on accountability for the President going forward because it's clear that if you do speak up, you're going to run all these risks, including, in this case, losing your job.
CUOMO: Right. It's not like they came out, and said, "We're Biden guys." They told the truth about what they were subpoenaed to talk about.
Now, Ron, there's another layer of implication here. We know who this President is. He told you this is what he wanted to do. Hell, his son is jumping up and down bragging about that this is what they wanted to do.
But this is also on the Senators who believed that they could acquit this President.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
CUOMO: They could not vote for witnesses, and that he'd get the message. Listen to Senator Collins, someone I'm sure we all respect and have dealt with a lot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I obviously am not in favor of any kind of retribution against anyone who came forward with evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, she's not in favor of retribution.
But Ron, isn't that a little bit like saying "Look, I'm going to let the tiger out of the cage. But I really hope that it doesn't go after any of this sheep that are sitting right in front of it."
BROWNSTEIN: Yes, it's hard to look more ineffectual than Susan Collins has during this entire process. I mean, she was the one who said, only a few days ago, "I think the President has learned a pretty big lesson from impeachment."
And in fact, it turned out, she was right, but not the lesson that she thought. What she - what he learned was that the Republicans in Congress simply will not sanction or constrain him, almost no matter what he does.
You know, I like to say that every time he breaks a window, the Republicans sweep up the glass in Congress. And the lesson that he takes from that is that he can constantly push further.
And I think the clear message of today - first of all, I'm in the rare position of disagreeing with David, because I think the brutality, as is so often the case with Trump is the point.
And, as Sam said, it's designed to be so brutal, precisely to send a message to others in the government.
The message it sends to Republicans in Congress is as long as they defend this kind of behavior, and enable it - Marco Rubio put out a tweet tonight defending the President's actions, as long as they defend it, they're going to get more of it.
And it is going to get more extreme over time as he becomes more convinced that he cannot be held accountable in any meaningful way.
CUOMO: And just to remind you of how these Republicans are literally twisting themselves up, I'd say this about no matter what Party was doing something like this.
Marco Rubio said "Even though the President"--
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --"did things that are impeachable, I'm not going to remove him because I don't know that it's the best thing in the world."
He's been silent all along, David Gergen. And I understand your point, and I take it, about wanting people around you where the working relationship is fluid. The matters that these people deal with affect--
GERGEN: Right.
CUOMO: --national security, key foreign policy interests, no question about it.
But this wasn't a policy disagreement. This was about fealty. If you look at the tweet from his son, no disrespect to Don Trump Jr., I know he wants to protect his father. This is just about a window into motivation, OK?
"Allow me a moment to thank - and this may be a bit of a surprise. But Adam - Adam Schiff, were it not for his crack investigation skills, Donald Trump might not have had - might have had a tougher time unearthing who needed to be fired."
Now, again, I give Donald Trump Jr. a pass man. I know what it's like to want to protect family in politics. But this is the mindset. It's not about policy, David. He's using the word "Fired."
The White House is saying they weren't fired. You know, we'll take the White House word that they weren't fired. But this was retribution. This wasn't policy dispute.
GERGEN: It absolutely was.
And - and, listen, what we understand from Vindman's lawyers, he was marched out of the White House. That's what you do to humiliate somebody. And I - and that's why I think this is crass and, you know, it's just - it's beneath the dignity of the President.
And it does, by the way, go back to something that Adam Schiff - you remember, he was quoting CBS, and people were - had been - on a Republican side if you vote against the President, your heads are going to be on a pike. There are two heads on a pike tonight.
CUOMO: Yes. And - and if anybody thinks-- BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --this is where it ends, they're kidding themselves. And if they don't think that the standards is going to change, and that the President is going to get more sensitive about what he decides to punish, there's nothing holding him back.
GERGEN: Yes.
CUOMO: They don't get it. But they will.
GERGEN: Absolutely.
[21:10:00]
CUOMO: The expression "You will rue the day" has never mattered as much in modern politics as it does tonight. Ron Brownstein, Sam Vinograd, David Gergen, thank you for your perspectives on this.
All right, now, any of those, in quotes, disappointed Republicans in Congress, don't be disappointed. You green-lit this. You asked for this. You told the President it's OK to do this.
You just didn't understand what he's capable of, but you're starting to learn, and we'll show you the road forward, 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: Now, a lot of Republicans brushed aside the warning that if acquitted, this President would be very emboldened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I believe that the President has learned from this case.
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): I think there are lessons that can - everybody can learn from it.
SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R-OH): I think the message has been delivered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Look, we argued that people would rue the day that they told Donald Trump that he has nothing to fear, except following his own instincts.
None of the firings or removals or the reorganization, whatever you want to call it, none of this is random. None of this is about switching talent. And frankly, this is not about whether the President has the right to do it.
The answer is yes, he does. But it's whether it's right or wrong that he's doing it.
[21:15:00]
Sondland was his guy, the million-dollar donor, his friend, who he gifted the EU Ambassadorship. He said just enough to keep himself out of jail, but obviously too much for this President to let him keep his post. But he didn't even talk to him directly.
LTC Alexander Vindman - Vindman, answered a lawful subpoena, told the truth. Nobody says otherwise. And for that, a decorated U.S. soldier was escorted out of the White House, like some kind of security threat.
And, by the way, just like some Netflix drug cartel that you'd binge on, they got out his brother too. He didn't even have anything to do with this. He was just another government worker.
The truth is he's gone after every person who told the truth. The President does not seem to care how much you bled for the country, what your record of service is, or what you even paid for the position that he gave you. If you cross him, you're out.
As he so often does, Donald Trump stood in the East Room of the White House, and he told you what he was going to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Dirty cops, bad people.
It was the top scum and the FBI.
Leakers and liars.
Democrats are lousy politicians.
I'm sorry about Mitt Romney.
The media and, you know, the other side.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Anybody who does not side with this President is seen as an enemy. There are no good faith disagreements. Know that. This is just the beginning. Vindman, Sondland, it's not the end.
There are a half dozen key witnesses who testified before the House. They are no longer in a position to speak truth to power, and that's what they were punished for. Our Attorney General, what has he just done? He shut down any chance
that the FBI or DoJ can dig into the President's campaign, an order handed down the same day the Senate voted against removal, specifically making off-limits any case involving illegal contributions, donations, or payments, by foreign nationals to a campaign.
Got to go through him. "Don't even try it unless I say it's OK." Now, lest you think this is about reform, the rules may end after the election in November.
Those on the outside, like John Bolton looking to profit from his perspective, the White House is threatening to block the release of his book, the House of Representatives left with worthless subpoena power, journalists.
Now what? Now what happens? They send us documents with black bars and redactions. We're making calls. We're trying to do FOIA requests. We're trying to get information. They're doing what they can to keep information from you.
Members of his own Party, when he did all this, they said nothing. They didn't even say anything when they went after Romney. You know why? What they wanted was praise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mitch McConnell, I want to tell you, you did a fantastic job.
They love Jim Jordan. And we love you too.
Doug Collins, where is he? Where is Doug?
(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: You have been so great.
Matt Gaetz. Matt?
(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you, Matt. Thank you. Great job!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Mitt Romney was the GOP's choice to be President of the United States.
They said nothing, as he was attacked by this President for doing an act of conscience, as the President mocked him following his faith, saying, "Religion as a crutch" as if that were a bad thing for someone of a member of faith.
Now, the election is coming. Between now and that point, you don't think he's going to go after any other Republican who's not pure enough for him, who doesn't do enough for him, who isn't there when he wants them to? You think there's anything keeping him in check of any kind of Presidential decorum?
Here's the irony. You know the old expression "When they came for this group, I was silent. When they came for this group, I was silent. Then when they came for me, there was no one to stand up."
You know who will stand up for these Republicans because they're not doing it for one another? We will.
The media will hold power to account for what they do to use and abuse their power, whether it's against the opposing Party or their own, because fairness is for both sides. But remember, we told you, you would rue the day.
So, let's take this to one of the big impeachment players. What is another way to look at what's happening right now? How should we understand what comes next and what we should expect from the President of the United States?
Great guest, right after this.
(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: All right, when you're going to go up against a legal mind like Robert Ray, you got to make sure that where you're coming at from is very clear.
I stipulate for the purpose of this discussion the President can absolutely remove an Ambassador. He can remove anybody who works at the pleasure of the President. It's his call, especially when it comes to matters of National Security Council. We wouldn't want it any other way.
It's not about whether he can do it, whether he has the right. It's about whether he has done something that is right, whether or not exacting revenge for telling the truth sends a message that we should not want our President to send.
All right, so, a member of the President's impeachment defense team is here, Robert Ray, friend of show, good to see you, Sir.
ROBERT RAY, MEMBER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEFENSE TEAM: Nice to be with you, as always Chris. CUOMO: So, again, I know he can do it.
RAY: Sure.
CUOMO: I know he can do these things. And I know that there's an argument to be made that if--
RAY: But be careful about the revenge stuff though too.
I mean, look, you know, trying to be as neutral as I possibly can through something like this, after all that we have been through it really strikes me as a situation, where it's in everybody's interest to move on with somebody new.
[21:25:00]
And I, you know, I get the fact that everybody wants to read into this "Well, you know, he has the power to remove Ambassador Sondland but he shouldn't do it because it looks like a revenge," it's time to move on and a fresh start.
And with regard to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, nobody's terminating his military career.
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: He's effectively being relieved and he's going to go on, as I understand it, from press reports, this summer, to go to the Army War College, which parenthetically, by the way, my father went to the Army War College. So, it's not like - which is a real bene in the military.
You know, he - I'm sure he'll go on to a successful military career. It's just not going to be as part of the National Security staff. And that--
CUOMO: And his brother?
RAY: --and - and that's because the President has the right to decide who serves him, you know, and - and those particularly who serve close to him.
CUOMO: And his brother?
RAY: Well same deal. You know, I - is it--
CUOMO: Is it?
RAY: Is it really in anybody's interest, under the circumstances, to have the both of them there, or - or either one of them there? I, you know, I just - before we jump on the revenge bandwagon, it just seems to me it's sort of time for everybody to move on.
CUOMO: Well.
RAY: And it can't be moved on from unless there are, you know, fresh faces. CUOMO: OK.
RAY: That's - that's all I'll say.
CUOMO: OK, fine, but now let's unpack that.
RAY: Sure.
CUOMO: First, the reason it can't be done, at least in part, is because of who we're dealing with here.
If it were you, maybe it could be done. I know you well enough to know you wouldn't remove Vindman's brother, OK? He will, this President, why? Because revenge is right in his wheelhouse of motivations.
So, I accept your argument about points of clarity and fresh starts. But that's not what this is about. He said he would do this. He said why he was doing it. And that is why he's doing it.
And the only problem with it, Robert, is he's punishing people for telling the truth. None of them have been cited for telling a lie. Sondland was a little all over the place. But nobody cited him for intentional mendacity to hurt the President.
What message does that send? "You tell the truth about me. You're out." You like that message?
RAY: Yes, but - again, jumping on the revenge bandwagon--
CUOMO: Just stick with the truth bandwagon.
RAY: --it is just - is just another way of saying "Well, you know, we're - we're going after these people for"--
CUOMO: Telling the truth.
RAY: --"for improper reasons or retaliating against"--
CUOMO: For telling the truth.
RAY: --"witnesses against me."
I just - I think could we try to just, for once, keep things simple and recognize that we have been through a lot, the country has been through a lot, and it's time to move on from this.
And one of the ways to do that, for everybody's interest, not just the President, but also the people who work there, there are those who were, you know, intimately connected to this, and I am - I don't think it would be unusual to expect that - that people would have to move on as a result of that.
CUOMO: I mean--
RAY: It's not in anybody's interest that they remain. CUOMO: But what is the interest in punishing people who told the truth? They weren't out to get this President, and they got caught doing it.
RAY: You know, when - when someone--
CUOMO: Motive matters.
RAY: --ends their service to the President, that's not a punishment. It's a privilege. It's - you're making it sound as if the Vindmans have a right to be there.
CUOMO: No.
RAY: No, they do not.
CUOMO: And you're making it sound like it doesn't matter why he removes them.
RAY: Well but, you know, we just went through an impeachment where an awful lot of what was happening with regard to the Democrats' position, with regard to - to impeachment revolved around what they thought the President's motivations were.
And I have news for you, and I think the American people have news for the Democrats, you know, we don't impeach Presidents for motivations.
And a lot of what I read, for example, in the Democrats' papers that led up to impeachment was an awful lot akin to, you know, they don't like the fact that - that President Trump engages, in their words, an aberrant behavior, you know.
CUOMO: They don't like that he bribes a foreign power--
RAY: Well we--
CUOMO: --in order to get leverage on--
RAY: We - you and I have had that discussion before.
CUOMO: Yes, I know. We don't have to re-litigate it tonight because--
RAY: And that - and that didn't happen.
CUOMO: --because the--
RAY: And it not only didn't happen.
CUOMO: Well--
RAY: It wasn't even alleged.
CUOMO: No, it wasn't completed. I'll give you that. They what - they subtly alleged it in the first act. I feel that they should have come out with it as bribery.
RAY: No.
CUOMO: Just because that's what they were really saying.
RAY: There's no such thing in charging documents as--
CUOMO: Is - that's subtly alleged.
RAY: --as close enough as good enough.
CUOMO: I - I'm not arguing that point with you. I think that he attempted to bribe. I think it was there. Whether or not it was worthy of removal, I think, is a fair argument that I would have been happy to see as long as there were witnesses.
RAY: If it - if it was so compelling, it would have been alleged. It was not alleged because they couldn't prove it. That's--
CUOMO: I don't know why they didn't do it.
RAY: --that - that's - that--
CUOMO: That's not what they say, by the way. But that's not what matters.
RAY: Well I--
CUOMO: I don't want to go back to that. I want to stay because I think the enduring problem is what we're experiencing right now, OK?
RAY: OK.
CUOMO: And it's not just they don't like the way--
RAY: And I'm interested in enduring problems. And I am interested in the fact that I do hope, out of all of this, like President Ford once said that there, you know, there's a time and a place now for healing to begin. I would like to see on a--
CUOMO: He's doing no healing.
RAY: --on a bipartisan - but--
CUOMO: He's doing no healing.
RAY: But it takes two to tango.
CUOMO: No. He is one President.
RAY: Well.
CUOMO: One President, Robert Ray. You know that.
RAY: OK.
CUOMO: One President. What did Clinton do?
RAY: There are two parties involved here.
CUOMO: What did Clinton do, after what you guys did, and you personally saying, "I want to keep investigating," him right, like there's not as much probable cause here to keep investigating, as you had with Clinton. He went to the Prayer Breakfast. He said, "Look, we got to move past this."
RAY: But, Chris, I was--
CUOMO: "What I did was wrong. What everybody did was wrong."
RAY: My task--
CUOMO: This guy is firing people.
[21:30:00]
RAY: My - my task, following impeachment, was to investigate and commission a Grand Jury in connection with an investigation that established that crimes were committed, and what to do about them, and whether to charge them once he left Office.
That's a significantly different situation, as I tried to explain on the floor of the Senate, than what we had here.
CUOMO: But there were no crimes established until the last day. And you were talking about lying in a civil suit about a convention - consensual tryst.
RAY: You weren't--
CUOMO: And here, you talk about a bribe of a foreign power.
RAY: You weren't talking only about that. You were also talking about lying before a federal Grand Jury, which was significant and efforts to obstruct justice in connection with that investigation.
CUOMO: But we don't know if you ever had--
RAY: Which were--
CUOMO: --anything like that here because he wouldn't testify.
RAY: --which were serious. Well we - you know, we do know what we have with regard to that, an effort by Democrats to come up with an impeachment article that alleged obstruction of Congress.
CUOMO: Right.
RAY: And they didn't let the process play out, which is what you do when there is a dispute between two branches--
CUOMO: When every--
RAY: --over Executive--
CUOMO: --person and document is denied, Robert--
RAY: Well--
CUOMO: --you don't see that as a pattern of obstruction?
RAY: No, I don't because that's what - and I don't know the - the right answer with regard to that. What I do know is the only way to get an answer on a final decision is to go to a court, and get one.
And until you had that I, for the life of me, still don't understand how anybody reasonably could have supported Article Two as a - as sufficiently premised.
CUOMO: Look, I'm - I'm fine with the articles.
RAY: In order to remove the President from Office.
CUOMO: All I've been saying is this. When you--
RAY: Even Mitt Romney, by the way, couldn't--
CUOMO: I know. He didn't--
RAY: --sustain that argument.
CUOMO: He voted "No" on - on Article Two. He also got savaged by this President for his vote on Art One - Article One. He savaged him for being an action of his faith, as if faith were a mockable thing, and no Republican stood up for him.
And I tell you, I thought it was weird when you disappeared after the first day. I thought you were very cogent. I thought you would have done very well for the President in answering the questions that came up.
And I believe, and you don't have to say anything, you were the only person on the defense team who said anything other than "Everything was perfect." And all of a sudden you were gone. It's the way he works.
RAY: I wasn't gone--
CUOMO: And if it keeps going that way--
RAY: I actually had personal reasons why I was gone.
CUOMO: I know. And you don't have to talk about that.
RAY: My - my wife had a baby, on Tuesday, which is one of the reasons that I wasn't there. But I was there for the verdict which came in on--
CUOMO: Well, first of all, you didn't even tell me that.
RAY: --on Wednesday.
CUOMO: Congrats. That matters more to me than anything else we'll talk about.
RAY: Well there you go.
CUOMO: God bless you.
RAY: Thank you.
CUOMO: And the baby. What I'm saying is this. This is who he is. We're going to see more of this and it's going to be interesting to see how people defend it going forward because it's not the end.
You're going to see it what he does with us. You're going to see it what he does with your own Party. You're going to see it what he does with anyone who opposes him. But, listen, let's end on a good note.
RAY: No, of course.
CUOMO: God bless you and the family.
RAY: Thanks very much, and good to be with you. And I - I look forward to be, you know, coming back when we talk about these important issues going forward. I hope that's the message that everybody takes home from this.
CUOMO: You are always welcome here, always.
RAY: Thank you very much.
CUOMO: All right, take care.
All right, the President, again, he has a right not to like what Speaker Pelosi did. She ripped up a copy of his speech. Disrespectful! OK? Disrespectful! Maybe a breach of decorum, right, maybe an insult to tradition, but it's illegal.
Imagine the irony that somebody who thought this President was being unfairly looked at for bad behavior that may be criminal, now thinks that Nancy Pelosi is a felon for ripping up a speech. That's an argument worth having, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, let's bring in Congressman Mike Johnson of the Judiciary Committee.
It's good to see you, Sir.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Hey, good to see you, Chris.
CUOMO: I want you to help me understand something on this Friday night.
I just talked to Robert Ray about what appears to be like a Friday Night Massacre of the President firing and, of course, he has the right. But is it right? What will come next? I got his take on that.
I want your take on something that is a little bit more finite, which is one of the main complaints about impeachment, from you and others, on this show and elsewhere, was "You know, look, they don't like what he did. That doesn't mean that they should call him a criminal," right?
JOHNSON: Yes.
CUOMO: OK
JOHNSON: Yes, sure, that's right.
CUOMO: You're now doing exactly that with Nancy Pelosi in almost absurd fashion.
And you are a respected legal scholar. Why would you even suggest that she broke a law by tearing up the President's speech just because you didn't like it? Aren't you doing exactly what you don't like?
JOHNSON: Of course not. No, I'm not calling Nancy Pelosi a felon. I'm answering a big question that's out there. And you have to back up and understand--
CUOMO: Big question?
JOHNSON: --how this came about. Of course, the night of this State of the Union address, everyone saw the antics of her ripping up the State of the Union speech.
She violated the rules of decorum of the House. She violated a long tradition of civility that the Speaker has during the State of the Union and all other times.
But she also broke a federal law. Now, I'm not making that up. It's not a - it's not some sort of attack on her. Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA very astutely observed that that was a violation of a federal statute, and he put it out on social media.
CUOMO: Charlie Kirk is no authority about whether or not she broke the law.
JOHNSON: And he was viciously attacked by liberal law professors and others.
CUOMO: Jonathan Turley--
JOHNSON: No, he's not.
CUOMO: --says it's a silly notion, Mike.
JOHNSON: He's not and - wait.
CUOMO: He says it's a silly notion, and that's your boy.
JOHNSON: Yes. Hey listen, everybody's entitled to their opinion. What I did was put together a little simple legal memo to explain and answer a lot of the questions that were out there.
I saw a bunch of liberal law professors the next day jump on Charlie Kirk, and call it silly. It's not. Everyone can look it up for themselves. And I encourage every one of your viewers Google it right now. Just because--
CUOMO: No, Mike, because I'll tell you why.
JOHNSON: --just pull up 18 U.S.C. Section 2071.
CUOMO: They can Google it of course. They--
JOHNSON: No, Chris, they should.
CUOMO: Mike, of course they should.
JOHNSON: Because you're accusing me of doing something that's silly. It's not silly. It's the law.
CUOMO: I'll tell you why it's silly, OK? And we both know this. And then I want to get to the real point of why you're doing it, OK? This is not an official document.
JOHNSON: OK. Sure.
CUOMO: The whole point of the legislative history of the law, they should read that also, because sometimes laws have legislative history, is that they didn't want people to destroy evidence. They didn't want people to destroy documents, so that they could reshape history, OK?
These were handed out as a courtesy by the President. She's not at the National Archive. She doesn't even equate as an Officer under the statute.
JOHNSON: You're wrong. You're wrong, Chris.
[21:40:00]
CUOMO: And this is not an official document. You cannot find a single case where anything like this has ever been litigated. And you know it. My question is why would you do this when it's just about--
JOHNSON: Chris, wait a minute, wait, wait. CUOMO: --political payback.
JOHNSON: I've got to answer.
CUOMO: Please!
JOHNSON: I've got to answer what you just said.
CUOMO: Please!
JOHNSON: Because everything you just said is absolutely wrong.
CUOMO: Really?
JOHNSON: And - and there's a lot of misinformation out there. There's - there is. Listen, just give me a second, and I'll explain it to you.
CUOMO: You got it.
JOHNSON: You didn't read the legal memo obviously.
CUOMO: Nope.
JOHNSON: I sat down with the House Clerk, sat down with the Parliamentarian. Yes, and it is the quintessential official public document, when the President delivers the State of the Union, this is over two centuries of - of tradition. Of course, the State of the Union is called for in the Constitution. The mechanics are very important.
The President delivers two original signed copies, one to the Speaker of the House, to be held in the possession of the House, the body, one to the President of the Senate, which is the Vice President. Those are the copies that are archived for time in memoriam.
What happens from that point is the Speaker then gives it to the - to the House Clerk. They put it in a safe in - in the House of Representatives for two years until the end of that Congress.
At that point then, it is submitted to the National Archives, and it goes in the big safe, where all the original State of the Unions, delivered by every President, are kept. That is the process.
Now, why is that important? Because under the statute, it's a violation of the law to willfully mutilate or destroy any public record delivered to a Public Officer of the United States. It's - it's punishable--
CUOMO: She's not a Public Officer under the statute.
JOHNSON: --by up to three years in prison, fines. And - and--
CUOMO: There is another copy that was put in the archives.
JOHNSON: She's the quintessential Public Officer of the - of the House. CUOMO: Not under this definition and you know it.
JOHNSON: Look, Chris--
CUOMO: But, look, I think it's even more--
JOHNSON: --your legal argument's wrong. Your legal argument's wrong.
CUOMO: OK. That's - that's why - that's why Larry Tribe--
JOHNSON: But let's talk about the purpose of it. I think it's a good question.
CUOMO: --and Jonathan Turley--
JOHNSON: Sure. Sure.
CUOMO: --have agreed on one thing in their life. And it's that you're doing something that is at the center of a problem in our politics. It's not enough for you not to like something.
JOHNSON: No.
CUOMO: Somebody's got to be a criminal.
JOHNSON: No. No.
CUOMO: You know, and you just complained about it for three years about this President.
You don't want him observed. You don't want witnesses on things that people tell you was criminal activity. But this, "As righteous retribution, you must see prosecuted because she broke the law."
JOHNSON: That's not what it is, Chris. That--
CUOMO: What is it?
JOHNSON: Look, that's not what it is. And everybody could - everybody could go to the social media, everybody can find this memo, and see how it was worded. I'm not calling Nancy Pelosi a felon. It's - it's a question that's been asked. And I did the legal analysis--
CUOMO: What are you calling her if you say she broke the law?
JOHNSON: --to explain the answer.
Now, wait a minute. Wait, Chris. You might not like the answer, but that's what the law is. Now, why are we doing that? Why is that important? Why is it not hypocritical, OK?
Because what we did in defending the President is the rule, the procedure, the due process that's required by the Constitution that he was completely denied in the charade that was the impeachment proceeding in the House.
You and I've talked about this. They did it 20 times faster than they did the Clinton impeachment investigation because--
CUOMO: It's because they were completely stymied on getting any documents--
JOHNSON: --they promised to their base an impeachment by Christmas.
CUOMO: --or witnesses.
JOHNSON: But we won't re-litigate that.
CUOMO: Well, of course, you don't want to re-litigate that.
JOHNSON: Oh, come on! Look, we could debate about that all night.
CUOMO: But you just had a trial in the Senate where you had no witnesses. You are a legal scholar. You've never heard of a trial without witnesses, not one. You can't give me one example.
JOHNSON: Chris, you know that - you know that impeachment - you know that impeachment is a different animal.
You know that - the precedent was that if the Senate did not find a reason for witnesses and documents, didn't find a need, that's their prerogative. It's a political process and a majority of the Senate decided that.
You - the country has to live with it. That's what elections are about. That's what the political system is about. And that was the right result. The reason that we--
CUOMO: It's the only impeachment trial in the history--
JOHNSON: --we pointed this out, the reason that I wanted to set the record straight on that--
CUOMO: --without witnesses.
JOHNSON: Oh, come on! Chris, there's only been three in the whole history of the U.S.
CUOMO: No, there've been lots of impeachment trials.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: And you'd know that.
CUOMO: It's the only impeachment trial.
JOHNSON: Look--
CUOMO: Other people have been impeached.
JOHNSON: Chris, this is an old story--
CUOMO: There's been no trial without witnesses.
JOHNSON: --re-litigate.
CUOMO: Look, Mike, what you're doing is--
JOHNSON: Come on! All those - all those--
CUOMO: --if every time you don't like what somebody does--
JOHNSON: --all those--
CUOMO: Mike, I let you make your case. In fact, I think, you know, even more than most would. What I'm saying is this. If you don't like what somebody does, fine. If you want to say she breached decorum, fine. I think that you got a decent argument there, OK?
I've never seen anybody do anything like what she did, to be honest, and Turley puts that in there. She tore up tradition. She tore up decorum.
JOHNSON: Yes.
CUOMO: But this statute doesn't fit.
JOHNSON: Right.
CUOMO: And this is exactly what you didn't like about what happened with Trump. It's not enough not to like what somebody does.
JOHNSON: No, Chris, you're wrong.
CUOMO: They have to be a criminal.
JOHNSON: You're wrong.
CUOMO: Well but if you think that any--
JOHNSON: No. I'm not suggesting that Nancy Pelosi--
CUOMO: Look, the House wouldn't even take up the question.
JOHNSON: --be arrested, Chris.
CUOMO: But you know no court--
JOHNSON: Come on! No. Because they have--
CUOMO: --no court would ever find her guilty of this.
JOHNSON: --because they have the majority votes in the House to - to put the censure of the thing down. No. And I'm not suggesting that. You - you obviously didn't read the memo that I circulated.
CUOMO: I don't have to read the memo.
JOHNSON: I didn't call for the arrest of Nancy Pelosi or even the prosecution. CUOMO: I read the law. I read the legislative history. And I looked for when it's been applied. And there is not a fact pattern that isn't within a mile--
JOHNSON: Of course, no. That's such an important point.
CUOMO: --of this.
JOHNSON: It's never been applied in this context because no Speaker of the House has ever come close to doing anything like this. And the problem is that decorum that we talk about, the civility that we all long for, the rules that should be followed are important on both sides, OK?
CUOMO: Oh?
JOHNSON: And we have to be intellectual and consistent about it.
CUOMO: Because I haven't - I haven't mentioned you that the President--
JOHNSON: That's what's important and that's what's at stake.
CUOMO: --snubbed shaking the hand of the Speaker. Is that in your memo?
JOHNSON: No. First of all, we don't know that that's what happened.
CUOMO: Oh?
[21:45:00]
JOHNSON: I don't think he saw the - her hand extended like that.
CUOMO: Oh, really?
JOHNSON: He didn't shake the Vice President's hand either.
CUOMO: Really?
JOHNSON: Yes. That - that's my view of it.
CUOMO: She didn't - he didn't extend his hand.
JOHNSON: I was sitting out on the gallery of course.
CUOMO: He didn't extend his hand. And let me give you a little piece of anecdote here.
JOHNSON: He didn't shake the Vice President's hand either.
CUOMO: The--
JOHNSON: Are you suggesting that he snubbed the Vice President?
CUOMO: The Vice President didn't extend his hand, Mike. Look, we're both lawyers. I could play these games with you all night also.
JOHNSON: Oh, come on!
CUOMO: The absence of a fact doesn't mean that you don't have something to analyze.
JOHNSON: It's not a game, Chris. It's important.
CUOMO: The - did the Vice President extend his hand?
JOHNSON: Look--
CUOMO: No. Did Nancy Pelosi extend her hand?
JOHNSON: I don't know. I don't--
CUOMO: Yes.
JOHNSON: I haven't seen the tape.
CUOMO: I have, OK? I didn't read the memo.
JOHNSON: Did he see it? I don't know.
CUOMO: You didn't see the tape.
JOHNSON: I don't know.
CUOMO: He didn't extend his hand. Nancy Pelosi did, and he didn't shook it but - shake it. But that's not a breach of decorum, right? Why? I wonder if it has something to do with who he is and what he is. All I'm saying is this. I think the more you guys stick the--
JOHNSON: No, I'm not - I'm not making that argument, Chris.
CUOMO: --political arguments and not legal arguments, the better. But I also tell you this, as I always do, especially on a Friday night.
I know that it's an uncomfortable conversation. I know we disagree. But I'll always let you make the case. And I always want you on the show so that people can hear what you have to say. I promise you that.
JOHNSON: I appreciate it. I appreciate it, thank you.
CUOMO: Mike Johnson, be well. I'll speak to you again. Congressman, thank you.
All right, the President has impeachment behind him. He has strong supporters, OK? Politically, he's all set up. What's his biggest argument for why you should elect him? It's one thing. It's the economy.
Is he telling you the truth about it? We go into detail about what you must know before you believe anything, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Trump's best number is that 55 percent approve of how he's handling the economy.
Now, the key to the argument is why do people think that? I argue it's largely because of sound bites like the one I'm about to play that Trump pounds into your head repeatedly, hoping it becomes reality.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If we hadn't reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration, the world would not now be witnessing this great economic success.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Saying something a lot doesn't make it true, no more than the refrain of a perfect Ukraine call, wind up getting him impeached, with bipartisan Senators admitting his actions were anything but perfect.
So, to the economy, the problem with the analysis is that you can make numbers look however you like. There's a stat to prove just about anything that you want it to. But while individual data points can be deceptive, trends don't lie.
And the trends show that what this President has done to help the economy are moves that simply continued positive pre-existing trends. And what he's done overall has been a known fact that he put the expansion in jeopardy.
Let's take jobs. During Trump's first 36 months in Office, economy gained 6.6 million jobs. Great! Full stop! During the last 36 months of Obama, 8.1 million jobs added, 23 percent more than Trump.
Another way to slice it, the average monthly gain so far, under Trump, 182,000 jobs. Last three years under Obama, 224,000 jobs a month.
The Labor Department, which is run by the wife of his man in the Senate, Mitch McConnell made some revisions to past data, reducing Trump's gains by 354,000 jobs. His people did it, wasn't done by bad people.
I guarantee it is not a stat you're going to see on Trump's Twitter feed. But remember, it comes from Secretary Chao, McConnell's wife.
How about overall economic growth? Last three years of Obama, 2.4 percent. Trump, 2.5 percent in his first three years. It's basically the same. Why? Continuation of a trend that I just showed you on the graph.
Then we get into the sneaky stuff. Trump tries to sell his economic moves as being good for the worker more than the fat cats. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Our economy is booming. Wages are soaring. Workers are thriving. And America's future has never ever looked brighter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Look at the trends. 3 percent annual growth for wages seems like something to celebrate, or at least it's good, but you got to factor in inflation. That's what the money wonks call "Real wages."
You look at it that way it's just 0.8 of a percent, under Trump. For Obama's last three years, it was 1.3 percent. I don't like either number. But they shouldn't be celebrating, especially Trump.
So, your wages may have gone up. But it doesn't mean much because you can't buy more with it. The wage win becomes more of a whopper, meaning a lie, as you go down the income scale.
The federal minimum wage, federal, has been stuck at $7.25 for a decade. Trump refused to do anything about it, and he railed against the 30 states that have raised minimum wages on their own.
But it is because of those states' moves that the effective U.S. minimum wage is now around $12 an hour. That's why wages are up for low income workers, not because of Trump, despite him. So, you see, Trump is getting credit for what came before him.
So, let's look at what he has done. He's been rolling back regulations. He's been cutting taxes. Who saw the benefit? Not mom- and-pop down on Main Street. Big corporations.
His biggest impact on the economy has been the deficits brought by that cut. That was only permanent for the corporations. It's more than a trillion dollars, $400 billion more than when Obama left Office. The CBO says it will reach $1.7 trillion by 2030, so much for paying for itself.
[21:55:00]
Swallowing an unpaid tax cut was the first major surrender for the GOP. Now, of course, they've swallowed a lot more since, most notably, their pride and sense of purpose in Congress.
Trump supporters do not have to agree with this analysis. But I'll tell you what. I bet you whatever you want. You can't disprove it, not with trends. Economic data, you can twist it more ways than a worm. Trends don't lie.
The best news for the economy has been this continued expansion over 10 years in the making. Here's the challenge. Has what Trump, what he's done in Office, since entering, has it made it more likely that this expansion continues or that it ends?
Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon is next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. Here's our breaking news.
President Trump emboldened by his impeachment victory, firing two key witnesses, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland. The U.S. Ambassador to the EU, a million-dollar Trump donor, recalled from his post, effective immediately, after he reportedly resisted efforts to get him to resign.
