Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
A.G. Barr: "I'm Not Going To Be Bullied" By Trump; White House: Trump Wasn't Bothered "At All" By Barr Comments; Congressional Black Caucus Member Endorses Bloomberg. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 13, 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]
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
Just when it looks like the President has trumped our democracy, two slap-downs in one day.
Attorney General Barr with a slap right in Trump's pile, saying the tweets make it impossible for him to do his job. Imagine that!
And the Senate then slaps down the President's ability to use the military, eight Republican Senators joining the effort.
We have key players tonight on what happens now. What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Attorney General Bill Barr is selling the story to the media that reducing the Stone sentence, all him. But, he became the first sitting cabinet member to take a whack at the boss in the process.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job.
And I will make those decisions based on what I think is the right thing to do. And I'm not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody, and I said it, whether it's Congress, newspaper editorial boards or the President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Really? What a smack! Such defiance, such that I have to suspect that punch is a ploy. Distract the media with the drama while ignoring the fact that the explanation from Barr about how it happened here with Stone, tough to believe. Another clue to a potential canard, Trump let the disrespect go.
The White House says he wasn't "Bothered" by Barr's "Comments at all. And he has the right," Mr. Barr, "just like any citizen, to publicly offer his opinions. The President has full faith and confidence in Attorney General Barr to do his job and uphold the law."
Never heard him say that about anybody, who said anything close to what Barr just did. Wonder why!
I also wonder, what's scarier, and that's part of our job tonight, to look at this question, Trump telling Barr what to do about this sentence or Barr just having Trump's interests so far in front of anything else that he didn't need to be told, even if it meant undoing a sentence recommendation that his guys OK'ed.
So let's get perspective. Let's bring in two Justice Department vets, former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary McCord, and former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
Good to have you both. Andrew, I see you all the time. Mary, thank you for being with us.
MARY MCCORD, FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: Sure, my pleasure.
CUOMO: Mary, I start with you. You ever see this on your watch that a sentencing recommendation got the OK, got signed off, and then, all the sudden, no good.
MCCORD: Well, I mean, if there was a change in circumstances, the person started to cooperate, or we had made some sort of mistake in our calculations, then maybe, when I was prosecuting, we might have to correct or revise the sentencing memo, but not for reasons that appear to be politically influenced. This is the first time I've seen that.
CUOMO: What concerns you, if anything?
MCCORD: Well, there is a whole lot of things that concern me. I mean, certainly, the fact these prosecutors would not have put a recommendation into a sentencing memo without running that all the way up the flag pole.
Department of Justice Internal Guidance, the Justice Manual, you can look it up, you can Google it, requires reporting up in significant manners and consultation with the Deputy Attorney General's Office and the Attorney General's Office before major developments in cases, including sentencing recommendations.
So, the fact that these four prosecutors made a recommendation in their sentencing memo, that then after the President tweeted his displeasure with that recommendation, that then department leadership, and we now know, it was Barr himself, because he admitted such today, then changed that second - that sentencing recommendation, there is no way you can look at that, and think it was anything other than the political pressure from the President notwithstanding what - what Barr is saying.
CUOMO: Now, to add to Mary's point, all you have to do is read the sentencing memo. It's not that long.
These people are mad at Stone. They don't like how he lied. They don't like how he handled it. They don't like how he trashed the DoJ. And it's all in the menu - in the memo. And they don't like that he took them to trial when they knew they were going to make the case. And it's very clear in there.
So, Andrew, that is the confusing part here, for the A.G.'s story to hold up, "He didn't know. His guy signed off on it, without apparently telling him. And he saw this as crazy out of proportion to what should have been done," how does all that fit together?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, it doesn't fit together. As the - the A.G. said today that he had the conversation with Timothy Shea, who is the U.S. Attorney, the Interim U.S. Attorney in D.C., and they talked--
CUOMO: Who signed the memo?
MCCABE: That's right. And they talked about it on Monday.
It's inconceivable to me they would have had a conversation about the guidelines calculation, and that the Attorney General would have walked away from that conversation without understanding what the calculation actually was.
[21:05:00]
So, it just - it just doesn't make sense. As Mary said, these things are calculated by the line folks. They are pushed up the chain of command. They made it all the way to the U.S. Attorney, himself, Timothy Shea.
U.S. Attorney discussed it directly with the Attorney General. So, it's very hard to believe that the A.G. or anyone else wasn't - was unaware of the recommendation as it stood.
CUOMO: Hey, Mary, let me employ your savvy for a second.
You know, a lot of the Trump supporters accuse the media and other critics of what they call TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. And maybe I have it because I see a conspiracy here, Mary. Here's what I see.
This shot that A.G. Barr just took at the President, you know, "The tweets make it impossible," basically telling him to shut up, nobody talks to this President and stays in the position for long.
And the White House says "He's OK with it. Barr can say whatever he wants. The President has full faith in him." Doesn't make sense. But I'll tell you what it makes. A great headline!
And people will talk about whether Barr is going to last in this shot he took at the President, and ignore what is more intriguing to me where Barr's story doesn't make sense, even if you assume the facts in his favor, "The tweet, I didn't see the tweet. I didn't even know there was a tweet. I was thinking this before."
His guy signs off on the memo either in defiance of Barr or without Barr ever being told, does that ever happen?
MCCORD: Not in a matter of this kind of high profile nature and this kind of significance. And, you know, I'm not about to try to psychoanalyze this President, and why he might have put out the statement that he did.
But I think, you know, Barr's conduct here, in trying to sort of maybe regain some credibility, rings hollow, because this is sort of a piece of everything he's been doing, you know, for the last year, in terms of trying to create a narrative that serves the President's interests, and doesn't always serve the American people's interests, and oftentimes undercuts prosecutors, undercuts the FBI, undercuts the department. Now we're, you know, undercutting the courts, to be honest with you.
So, you know, we don't have to look at this in a silo. We can put it together with what we have seen of the Attorney General, which is very, very disappointing and, I think, will cause long-lasting damage to the credibility and reputation of the department.
CUOMO: And, as you said, except with extenuating circumstances, where there's been a change of condition, and there was none of that here, as far as we know, I can't find any case of Barr, certainly during this tenure, but in his previous one, under President Bush, where he did anything like this.
And Andrew, you know, the idea that "Oh, you know, we want this to be true because it looks bad for Trump," I actually want it not to be true, not just for the integrity of justice.
But I think it's more frightening if the A.G. just knew to do this, just knew that once word of this sentence got out, maybe he was asleep on the job, maybe he didn't know the sentence was coming this way, for him to know instinctively, "Oh, I better fix this," that's more scary.
MCCABE: It is more scary, Chris. And you're right to think about it that way. I mean like, let's face it, you got to look at this in the context of all the other things we have seen the Attorney General do, simply to protect the President over the last year or so, right?
This is not the first time that he has weighed in on a matter, on a DoJ matter, to protect the President. And the fact is, this time it really blew up on him.
He ignited a rebellion, a really - a really kind of emotional response within his own workforce. He cannot afford to lose that workforce. So, I see the statement that he made today as simply a self-serving attempt to somehow rescue this appearance of independence.
CUOMO: Right. MCCABE: When, in fact, the things that he's done have shown the exact opposite. He is not independent from this President. He is executing this President's will, every time he finds himself in trouble.
CUOMO: And the biggest factor that we focused on yesterday, but I haven't brought up yet, and I haven't heard your take on it yet, Mary, so we'll end on this, four people resigned over this.
If it was just business as usual or the A.G. saying, "You know what guys? I'm sorry. I slept on this one. It's just way out of line, or the boss doesn't like it," or whatever it is, they probably don't resign.
You only resign from a case, it's very rare, I was looking for cases of that today, and you have to go back a long way to find one, let alone four, what message does that send to you?
MCCORD: Well, you know, we have one out of entitled - total resignation from the Department of Justice.
CUOMO: Right.
MCCORD: The other three who withdrew from the case. And I think it shows that they felt very strongly about it, and I think were probably felt very undercut by it.
But I will say, and I've got, you know, we've got Andy here with us, you know, not that long ago when it was rumored that Andy, himself, was going to be indicted by a Grand Jury, the two prosecutors that had been on that case, one left the Department of Justice, and one withdrew from that case.
Now, I can't tell you, for sure, what the reasons are. I haven't talked to those prosecutors.
[21:10:00]
But, you know, we have seen prosecutors, and these are prosecutors in the same office, it's my old office, I spent 20 years there, who I think are, you know, showing to stand up for some, themselves to stand up for some principles here.
And I do really fear for that office right now with Jessie Liu now having, you know, had her nomination after she was the U.S. Attorney there, she was nominated for a high level position at Treasury. Then the nomination was withdrawn. And now, today, she has resigned.
So, you know, we've got an office that's now in turmoil, and it's really unfortunate, because it's an important office for the Department of Justice, and they - they investigate and prosecute important cases.
CUOMO: And now, the explanation from the A.G., who knows if it makes it better or worse. Mary McCord, great to have you. Hope to have you back again, and soon. Andrew, always a plus, thank you.
MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.
MCCORD: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, the lawmakers who impeached the President warned that this was the kind of stuff that would happen if the Senate let him off.
And, guess what, they just got fresh proof that Trump was not straight about Rudy Giuliani's role in Ukraine. Here's a provocative question. Would they consider impeaching the President again?
We have one of the seven House Managers, one who prosecuted the case, 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)
[21:15:00]
CUOMO: The President may now think he is unchecked. But you know what? He just forgot to check himself, now admitting what he once denied. Here is what Trump said back in November, about whether he directed Rudy Giuliani's actions in Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O'REILLY, JOURNALIST: So, you didn't direct him--
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes.
O'REILLY: --to go to Ukraine to do anything--
TRUMP: No.
O'REILLY: --or putting heat (ph) on him?
TRUMP: I didn't direct him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: "No, I didn't direct him."
Today, he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GERALDO RIVERA, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, TALK SHOW HOST, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?
TRUMP: Not at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Ah! "Not at all" is the response to was it strange to send him.
When a client tells their attorney to do something or agrees with a course of action that that attorney suggests, that's called giving direction because in either instance the client, Trump here, is showing the lawyer which way to represent his interests, actively or passively.
Therefore, your President lied in November. The question is so what? One of the Democrats who made the case in the Senate, Representative Hakeem Jeffries is here.
Congressman, always a pleasure. Don't mean to be a cynic. But so what? He lied.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Well listen, Donald Trump tried to cheat. He got caught. Then he worked hard to cover it up. The House Managers proved our case decisively before the Senate and the American people with a mountain of evidence.
Donald Trump's behavior was abusive. It was appalling. It was inappropriate. It was wrong. Those are the words that Republican Senators have used.
CUOMO: Yes.
JEFFRIES: But, unfortunately, a majority of the Senate decided that they wanted to let Donald Trump off the hook. And so, we see the behavior, over the last few days, that continues the outrageousness and the corruption.
But it's in the hands of the American people, and I've got full faith, and confidence, in the American people, that they will conclude in November that this is not acceptable.
CUOMO: So, do you spend the time now and then doing the people's work on a number of other issues that are obviously pressing, and leave the investigations alone?
JEFFRIES: Well we certainly are going to continue to do people's business and we've been working on that from the moment that we reclaimed the majority under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi.
I think, as you know Chris, we've sent over more than 400 bills to the United States Senate, 275 of them have been bipartisan.
We've passed legislation to lower healthcare costs, protect people with pre-existing conditions, strengthen the Affordable Care Act, deal with the gun violence epidemic, confront the climate crisis, wage - raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, create a pathway towards citizenship for millions of DREAMers.
Countless bill after countless bill that has been sent over there are being buried in Mitch McConnell's legislative graveyard.
But that's not going to stop us for continuing to try to make progress on behalf of the American people, while at the same time defending our democracy through our oversight responsibilities.
CUOMO: But what can you do? You know it can't wind up going anywhere because the only thing you could do is impeach him again. And, even then, as long as they have the numbers they have in the Senate, or anything close to it, you'll never remove him.
So, do you believe that a better course of action might be if you can really prove a case is to push for censure, so there is on record that something was done, there's a mark by his name for what he did, whatever it is the next time, but not go through that whole process when you know how it ends in advance?
JEFFRIES: Well I don't expect that we'll go through an impeachment process at any point during this calendar year. And I don't necessarily expect it will go through the censure process.
But there hasn't been a discussion about that at the leadership level or amongst the House Democratic Caucus. I do know that we've got to continue to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the Constitution, and present the truth to the American people.
What we see now is that, under Bill Barr, the Department of Justice is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Donald Trump's petty, corrupt, and abusive mind, and that is inconsistent with who we are as Americans.
CUOMO: In terms of power to do anything, well first, let me ask something else. I know, you know, it's very hard to talk about things retrospectively, and whether or not a better path would have been good. I know there's political exposure on that.
But if it had played out where you would ask for a censure, and said, you know, made a deal with the Senate, "Let's all just, Congress, come together, and censure his actions, say it was wrong, not push for the removal, forget the trial, but just be on record that you can't do this," you think we would have wound up in a better place?
JEFFRIES: Absolutely not. First of all, there's no reason to believe that this Republican Party, over in the Senate, would have done anything with a censure but vote with Donald Trump.
[21:20:00]
More importantly, the Framers of the Constitution, as we proved with overwhelming evidence, their views about what was impeachable and what conduct violated the Constitution, and constituted a high crime and misdemeanor, related to an abuse of power, related to betrayal of one's oath of Office by a President, in exchange for something of value or some foreign solicitation, and the corruption of our free and fair elections.
And what we had in this particular instance was that Donald Trump, essentially hit the trifecta of impeachable conduct.
And so, we were left with no choice but to act, to hold him accountable, to vindicate the principle, at least in the House, and before the American people that no one is above the law.
CUOMO: You know, it's interesting, what happened today with his changing the story since November is proof of why they wouldn't let him testify.
It's hard for him to stick to a story. It's hard for him to not embellish and lie. And you could just foresee dozens of those things happening. "Oh, I thought you said you didn't direct him, now you're saying it wasn't a mistake to direct him," that's why he didn't sit in the chair.
Congressman, I appreciate being with you here tonight. And it'll be interesting. Everybody's saying it's about the election now. But imagine if he wins, and what mandate that will give him, and what will mean for your Party. Do you think about that?
JEFFRIES: Well I think about making sure that we are continuing to articulate a vision for prosperity in every single ZIP code for making sure that nobody is left behind, not in urban America, rural America, or small town America, you know, and to advance the causes that we are standing for, as House Democrats, like driving down the high cost of life saving prescription drugs, trying to reach an infrastructure agreement where we fix our crumbling bridges, roads, and tunnels, and push the Senate to enact some of these bills that we've sent over to make life better for everyday Americans.
CUOMO: Right. But if--
JEFFRIES: I think that's the most important thing that we can do.
CUOMO: But if you don't have control of the Senate, it will be really interesting to see what incentivizes this President and to do what, exactly? But always a pleasure to have you on, making the case for your Party. Thank you.
JEFFRIES: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, be well Hakeem.
All right, the President exacts impeachment revenge. He's also trying to take down a rising 2020 threat.
Michael Bloomberg is surging ahead of Super Tuesday. Why is he surging? What does it mean for him and for other parts of the Democratic Party? Some surprising insight from The Wizard of Odds, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, Democrats are split. Period! But especially when you look at the money, one side, you got Bernie Sanders, looking strong after New Hampshire and Iowa, very clear on feelings about billionaires.
Meanwhile, here comes a billionaire, strong and long. Michael Bloomberg's money is a defining feature of his campaign.
He's dropping dough to cater his rallies, building as big a staff as Obama had at the end of 2008, complete with perks for campaign workers. And now, he's dropping big dollars to make memes on social media.
What does it all mean? Wiz of Odds is here for a look.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER & ANALYST: Shalom!
CUOMO: What do you see? Shalom!
ENTEN: So, you know, let's just give you an idea of what is happening in this race. This is the national Dem primary polling average, November of 2019, when Bloomberg gets in the race, he's at 3 percent. 10 days ago, he's at 9 percent. Look where he's up to now, all the way up to 15 percent. And what's key here is--
CUOMO: On ads.
ENTEN: On ads. On ads. And who is he taking away from? I think that's the real question. Look at Biden who was at 27 percent just before the Iowa Caucuses. He's dropped down to 18 percent. Sanders, pretty steady.
So, the one who is getting the bump, after Iowa voted, New Hampshire voted, is not necessarily Sanders. It is Michael Bloomberg who's taking support away from Joseph Biden.
CUOMO: Buttigieg, the purple line, he gets a little bit too.
ENTEN: He gets a little bit too.
CUOMO: Do you think some of that organic and some of that could be this or what do you think? ENTEN: Yes, I think some of it is organic. I think you're exactly right. You know, it's difficult to necessarily know why things are occurring. But certainly, the Vice President dropping, a little bit is going to Buttigieg. But the vast majority of it, in fact, is going to Michael Bloomberg.
CUOMO: Right. I give Buttigieg a little bit more love because we just saw how equal his appeal was in those exit polls.
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: So, he may be doing it on his own. All right, so quantify the money for us.
ENTEN: Yes, I think that this, you know--
CUOMO: Ooh!
ENTEN: --I don't know folks. This is a lot - a lot of money. Look at this.
In the Super Tuesday states, remember, Bloomberg is skipping the first four. In the Super Tuesday states, how much ad money is he spending? $129 million. Oh my God! How much Wendy's and Popeyes could that possibly get me!
No one else is anywhere close, Steyer, $25 million, that's mostly in California, Sanders, at only $7 million. And look at the rest of them, pretty much nada, nil.
CUOMO: Now, what is the mitigation of - I mean, look, you know, the chart you made makes it a very overwhelming point. I think it's his - I don't mean - his head even looks bigger than everybody else.
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: But, look, how much of this is because oh yes, because this is all catch-up and money is not an issue for him. It's his own money. They aren't spending as much because they have all of this momentum coming in. You know what I mean like how much does it matter that he's doing this?
ENTEN: I think it matters a lot because the fact is, you know, if you go back again to that first slide, he was only at 3 percent. Then he jumps up to 9. Then he goes to 15. And the real reason why I think it is, it is this ad money spending, which also gets the attention of the media, right? That's so important.
CUOMO: Right.
ENTEN: Because then we start talking about it and becomes this cycle where all of a sudden Michael Bloomberg's name is in the news over and over and over again.
CUOMO: So, he's in there. He's also, you know, the difference between free advertising, you know, like coming on here. And listen, let's be clear. We invite all of them on, on a regular
basis. All I can do is invite. I've invited the Mayor on. He's welcome to come here. Because he hasn't done these things, we would give him more time to introduce him to you. I'm open to that.
But you know what he doesn't get with advertising? Push back.
ENTEN: That's right.
[21:30:00]
CUOMO: So, so far, he's gotten a free pass. Now, that's starting to change. But you see endorsements as well to go along with the popular culture.
ENTEN: You know - you know, it's one thing if you know you're just buying your way to the nomination. But he actually has support within the Party, right? So, this is endorsements from Congresspersons, governors, from major city mayors.
Look at him. He's actually second to Joe Biden at 22 right here. But more than that look at - at this month right?
The momentum really seems to be on Bloomberg's side. He has nine endorsements this month from Congresspersons, governors, and major city mayors. That is more than the rest of the field combined.
So, clearly something's going on there. And even though Biden is leading overall, he only has one this month, which suggests to me that those endorsement people, who are deciding at the last minute are going in his direction.
CUOMO: All right, now, the tough question is what difference does Bloomberg make? The operating assumption, in part from him and his campaign is "We had questions about Biden."
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: "We were going to stay out because of Biden. Biden's acceptable to us. But he is not going to get it done. So, we're getting in." But what do the numbers of the early analysis support? He may be taking from Biden. But who may he be helping?
ENTEN: Yes, I think he's certainly helping Bernie Sanders, right? Because the fact is if you're at 23 percent here, that's leading the field.
If you add that 18 percent and that 15 percent together, that would beat the 23 percent. But, right now, the moderate to conservative part of the Party is really divided, allowing Bernie Sanders to jump in a little bit (ph).
CUOMO: So, you're getting in because you don't want Bernie, and you're afraid Biden can't get it done.
ENTEN: Exactly. CUOMO: But you may be helping Bernie because you're in now and hurting Biden.
ENTEN: Exactly right, Chris.
CUOMO: Tricky calculus! Thank you, Wiz. Appreciate it very much.
ENTEN: Shalom, be well.
CUOMO: All right, so those are the numbers. That's the analysis. Now, the question is well how are they processed by Team Bloomberg?
And you know the endorsements we were just talking about? Look at this guy. They just got a big endorsement, Congressional Black Caucus Member, Gregory Meeks, Congressman, New York, good to see you.
REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Good to be with you.
CUOMO: We'll take a break. When we come back, we'll go through the pluses and minuses for former Mayor Bloomberg, and why is Greg Meeks with him, 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: Look, can't talk about the Democrats and not talk about Michael Bloomberg. You have to. Why? Because he is surging in polls. Now, is it about him? Is it about indecision for the Democrats? I think the obvious answer right now is it's both.
But with the increase in attention, he is getting negative attention as well, not as much as the other candidates, because he's doing almost all this with advertising.
But the big ticket on him is, in 2015, he defended the stop-and-frisk policy, and how it was being administered, when he oversaw it. And, you know, he's explaining what it is. People hated that policy.
There were 2008 comments that he made where he blamed the end of redlining. Now redlining is a horrible and discriminatory housing practice, OK?
Now, it was where, you know, people of color were being prejudiced by lenders. He blamed that for the housing crisis. So, he's getting smacked for that too. But stop-and-frisk is the top of the hate parade for him right now.
But all this is coming up because he's doing well, especially with African-American voters, and it seems that he is taking from Joe Biden, and with the polls, is coming popularity with electeds, key endorsements from three Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Congressman Gregory Meeks.
It's good to see you, Sir. Thank you.
MEEKS: Good to be with you.
CUOMO: First, why? You were supposed to be a Joe Biden person. I know you didn't officially endorse him. But that would have been the rationale, the logical one. Why not?
MEEKS: There's too much at stake. We've got to go with the individual that is best-equipped to beat Donald Trump. Our democracy is at stake.
And so, when you look at the whole record of Michael Bloomberg, and what he represents, and who could stand up against Donald Trump, in a debate, one-on-one, and move forward, and beat Donald Trump, I am thoroughly convinced that that is Michael Bloomberg.
CUOMO: All right, three checks on the argument. The first one is how do you know when he hasn't been on the stage? He might be on next week. We have to see what happens.
But he hasn't stood up against these other people, and taking shots, and let you see how he does against them, let alone against one of the most, you know, vicious campaigners we've seen in a generation.
MEEKS: Yes, but I have seen how he has responded to, and gets under the skin of Donald Trump.
I do know that he knows Donald Trump better than all because they both come from New York, both business people, and that Mr. Bloomberg knows all of the associates that were around him.
So, there's only one billionaire that's running, as he said. The other one is a con man. He's fake. And the one that can expose that more, so that the American people is clear, and one that and can deliver the votes for him, to defeat this guy is Mr. Bloomberg.
CUOMO: So, the second check is what Harry was talking about over there that you're taking from Biden.
Why? Because you kind of fill that moderate, this was a reasonable person lane, with Bloomberg, as opposed to somebody who has radical progressive ideas, for - for better or worse.
So, you're hurting Biden, which is why he stayed out of the race originally, because he thought Biden would be OK. But you may help get Bernie Sanders the nomination. Are you concerned about that?
MEEKS: No. Let me tell you.
I think that the number of individuals running in the Democratic Party, as we get to Super Tuesday, will really start to narrow, and it will - you know, so there is a number of individuals who are moderates, who are running now, who I believe, at some point, they will not be able to continue.
And Mr. Bloomberg will continue to build the momentum, as we get into Super Tuesday, and the big races that's going to take place in April, and moving on.
[21:40:00]
And so, the momentum is all moving that way because individuals continue to look at how and who is the best person to beat Donald Trump. And reasonable people can disagree. But I think that most Democrats will then say, "It's Michael Bloomberg."
CUOMO: So, you're - what if it's Bernie Sanders, though? Do you think he can beat Donald Trump?
MEEKS: I will say this. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will be a much better President than Donald Trump. And whoever wins, I will support. Mr. Bloomberg has said that no matter what, whether he is the nominee or not, the operations that he put in place will be still there for the winner.
CUOMO: Do you know what kind of brawl your Convention is going to be, if it's Bernie and Bloomberg? I mean, you can't have more opposite people.
You know, Bernie Sanders hates everything that Michael Bloomberg is about, except they are both members of the same faith. But other than that, you're going to have a war at your Convention.
MEEKS: Well I think that, at some point, there will be a winner. And once there is a winner, the Party will come together. I know that--
CUOMO: You think Bernie Sanders' people--
MEEKS: Well--
CUOMO: --and the progressives will come with somebody who's spending $125 million just on one set of primaries?
MEEKS: I would hope that the Bernie Sanders people will see, and they know who Donald Trump is. And that will, if nothing else, cause them to say, "We cannot take another four years of Donald Trump."
CUOMO: I hear the rationale. I can't rebut it. I'm just not seeing huge proof of that in the vote yet. But we'll know next month, because you got 65 percent of the delegates on the table in March. We'll see a lot more about where this Party is and why.
Now, the hard thing for you, as such an honored Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and obviously a leader in all communities, let alone, the African-American, the knock is, you can't back this guy. He was wrong on stop-and-frisk. And he was wrong for too long.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What we did was, we focused on fighting the NRA, we focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system, where they just came out worse than they went in, kids who walked around looking like they had a gun, remove the gun from their pockets and stop it.
And the result of that was, over the years, the murder rate in New York City went from 650 a year down to 300 a year when I left.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, that is the favorable version of this.
You know, he has said things like "Hey, you know, we had to get the weapons out of the hands of those - the Black kids that were committing the crimes. So, the way you did it is you throw them against the wall and you get the gun."
Now, you and I have talked about this with the context of the crime bill before. But he has apologized, and said, "I misapplied it."
But why should African-American people have confidence that Bloomberg gets what matters to them when it matters, not after you've made the mistake, not after you've made a mistake about redlining, and you go back, and I'm sure he's going to clean that up somehow, but why give that person a chance?
MEEKS: Well, you look at the whole body of work. That's what I did. I went and I want to look at because when he was running for Mayor, all three times, I did not support him. I was a big protester against stop-and-frisk.
CUOMO: Yes.
MEEKS: So, when I did, and looking at the seriousness that we have going right now, as far as who's going to beat Donald Trump, I looked at the whole body of work.
And when I looked at the whole body of work, what I saw was, if you look at his philanthropy, and how and what he was doing, for example, with individual young people, whether it was the Harlem Children's Zone with Geoff Canada or with The Eagle Academy with David Banks, and looked at and talked to some of those young kids that are now successful, as a result of what he was doing, when I look at and listen to his plan, and what he talked about in Tulsa, Oklahoma, about making sure that we shrink the wealth gap with African-Americans, that we bring, at least get another a million homeowners, it's because that's where you gain wealth, get equity, when I look and listen to that, when he's talking about where the jobs are going to be created, you know, in the future, because he's done a fantastic job in predicting that, all of those things show away (ph). CUOMO: When Trump comes at him like - about this, as he did today, and says "I did criminal justice reform. This guy was trying to go after you people with stop-and-frisk, you should vote for me, not him."
MEEKS: Donald Trump, listen, I'll tell you that Donald Trump, they said Donald Trump is a phony. Donald Trump keep - he's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. I didn't say that.
CUOMO: His people did.
MEEKS: That was said by Lindsey Graham.
CUOMO: Yes.
MEEKS: They know who he is.
CUOMO: But that was then.
MEEKS: But--
CUOMO: You've never seen anybody have power over his Party--
MEEKS: Yes. But--
CUOMO: --like this guy does.
MEEKS: --I'm pointing out, when he was running, they knew who he was then, and they know who he is now.
CUOMO: Yes, he's their boss.
MEEKS: And, you know, if you listen or read the book by Madeleine Albright--
CUOMO: Yes.
MEEKS: --called Fascism, when she says we are living that now, that tells you the serious times of which we live in because it's when - fascism is when you can fire anybody, anybody that disobeys you, you control the justice system, you control the State Department, that's what we are living.
[21:45:00]
This is - our democracy is at stake. So, this is bigger than anything that we've ever come across with this individual. We cannot have a - this guy be the President of the United States for four more years. It will give us a damaging effect to our leadership, almost forever.
CUOMO: So--
MEEKS: That's what's - why it's so important.
CUOMO: You know, the campaign is reaching critical mass. I mean, he obviously has to get in and start making his case to people. You are welcome here, always, my respect for you is complete, to make the case for Mayor Bloomberg.
Mayor Bloomberg is welcome on this show. I will give him more time than anyone else. He's got to start making his pace - his case to the people.
MEEKS: And he will.
CUOMO: Not just in commercials because you got to get the--
MEEKS: He'll be out.
CUOMO: Because you got to be tested for people to have respected, you know. Thank you very much, Congressman.
MEEKS: Thank you.
CUOMO: A brave decision by you. We'll see how it plays in the papers in the next few days. Be well, Congressman.
MEEKS: Yes.
CUOMO: All right, Congressman Gregory Meeks.
So, it's all so dire, it's all so dire. Not always! Something very unusual happened today and it was a good thing. And I'm going to make an argument about it, 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: Today, we had a remarkable sighting of a political animal thought to be at best on the critically endangered species list, the species known as Republicanatus Non-Trumpicus (ph), GOP Senators who acted in the right interests. They crossed the aisle, and this President, on something that matters.
Eight GOPers voted to rein in President Trump's ability to use military action against Iran without Congressional approval. Three of them even signed on as co-sponsors. Even Rand Paul felt the call to duty.
Look at him there, all golfing. He didn't look too tall either right there. The final vote 55-45. Now, that is not a veto-proof majority, and a veto is definitely coming their way. But still, they did this even after President Subtlety said this.
"Very important for our Country's SECURITY that the United States Senate not vote for the Iran War Powers Resolution. We are doing very well with Iran and this is not the time to show weakness.
If my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day. Sends a very bad signal. The Democrats are only doing this as an attempt to embarrass the Republican Party. Don't let it happen!"
His argument is flawed in the extreme! If someone, God forbid, attacks anyone or any part of this country, the President can respond. But as we just saw, for him to use military power, and not be able to explain the threat.
General Soleimani was a bad guy. He was a terrorist. There's no doubt about it.
But for Trump's strike to be on solid legal ground - and that's what matters - Constitution, the War Powers Act, he needed to articulate an imminent threat. His explanations, zigzagged all over the map.
Listen, January 3rd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He was reading there. It still didn't sound good.
Three days later.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, this should have been done for the last 15 to 20 years. He was designated a terrorist by President Obama. And then Obama did nothing about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Does that sound like imminency?
And here's the very next day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: In our case, it was retaliation because they were there first. They killed - and, look, well I don't have to talk about him for 18 to 20 years. He was a monster.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: Now it's retaliation.
Look, he was making it up as he went along. And he eventually settled on an explanation, even his own people couldn't support.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies, could have been military bases, could have been a lot of other things too. But it was imminent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: None of them would back up any proof of what he just said. And 55 Senators today said the same thing.
And, by the way, the Founders wanted it the way it went today. They wanted debate, careful reasoning, the minds of many, with you in mind, the people they represent, regardless of whom the President may be.
And that duty loomed large for even the GOP Senators today who voted "Yea." Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): We, as a Congress, need to reclaim the power to declare war. Over the course of many decades, we've seen Congress essentially forfeiting its authority to declare war and waiting for Presidents to act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I keep asking Mike Lee to come on this show. Senator, come on. You are so right. Let's talk about the AUMF, the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It's a bigger issue. Come on and let's talk about it. It doesn't have to be partisan. It shouldn't.
Two good signs.
The Senator is right, Senator Lee. They've been passing on this for President after President. Trump actually may have helped this pass by being such a flagrant example of presidential abuse of power with this strike.
Second, this is a cause for hope. Of course, one move doesn't erase having every Republican Senator, except one, fall in line on impeachment. But psychologists say the best way to change behavior is reinforcing when one gets it right.
And they got it right today. Senators Alexander, Young, Lee, Murkowski, Collins, Paul, Cassidy, and Moran, you did the right thing today. You did right by your constituents. You did right by the Constitution. And, most importantly, you did right by our men and women in uniform.
Is there going to be blowback? Maybe. But if so, hold your heads high. That's the argument.
Now, the Senate Majority Leader, not doing the right thing, all right? We call balls and strikes. You got to hear what he's saying now based on what he's preached in the past. It is a BOLO!
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO, Be On the Look-Out. Listen to Senator McConnell now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): If you're asking me a hypothetical about--
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Yes.
MCCONNELL: --whether this Republican Senate would confirm a member of the Supreme Court to a vacancy they created this year.
BAIER: Before November.
MCCONNELL: Yes, we would fill it
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Four years ago, much broader standard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCONNELL: The next Justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country. So, of course, of course, the American people should have a say.
Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, when Justice Scalia passed, rest his soul, McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings, or a vote that year on President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. As you heard, he said it was about the people.
Today, a shift in logic, "It was always about the Senate and the Presidency being of the same Party."
Listen, this man is all about the game. Be On the Look-Out for his next play. It's another reason this election matters so much. Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT, D. Lemon, now.
