Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
President Trump Commutes Rod Blagojevich's Sentence And Grants Clemency To 10 Others; Trump To Name U.S. Ambassador To Germany As Next Acting DNI; Sanders Tops Democratic Field In CNN Poll Of Polls. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 19, 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]
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I think regardless of what the sentences are for both Flynn and Stone, they're going home by the end of the year.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yes, Jeff Toobin. Jeff, thanks very much.
The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME."
Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right. Thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
We are seeing right now, in real time, what a President can do when his Party refuses to check him. He just named a Head of National Intelligence who is not a day of experience in the field, think about that, not in Intelligence, not in National Security, not in the Military.
He also pardoned political friends who are clearly corrupt, and he may do the same for Roger Stone. But we have a juror from that case who's here to set the record straight.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The President who once agreed no one is above the law, now, post-impeachment, says he is in control of all law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm actually I guess the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: He has to guess? And guess what? He guessed wrong.
The Attorney General is our country's Chief Law Enforcement Officer. But you didn't hear Bill Barr say anything about the President taking his control because Trump is right in this way.
He controls this Attorney General in a way that we have not often seen, from softness on Stone, to stonewalling on Mueller, to accusing his own agency of spying on Trump.
Don't believe this noise about Barr's frustration. He is all about loyalty to one man, President Donald J. Trump. And you know what? Now, it seems like Trump doesn't even need Barr, because he just showed us he can just pardon obvious corruption.
A 11 pardons or commutations to a string of white-collar criminals and political allies, including the American poster boy for corruption, Rod Blagojevich. And guess what? Today, Blago kissed the ring.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROD BLAGOJEVICH (D), FORMER ILLINOIS GOVERNOR: We want to express our most profound and everlasting gratitude to President Trump. How do you properly thank someone who has given you back the freedom that was stolen from you?
I'm a Trump-ocrat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A Trump-ocrat, that's right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: "Fealty" says Blago, "The Trump-ocrat." What is that? That's like a breed more rare than a jackalope. The Trump-ocrat is the one on the left. The jackalope is the one on the right.
Now, this Governor, remember, was impeached a 114-1. Talk about bipartisan approval!
Then, he was prosecuted for straight-up corruption. Why? He was trying to shake down a Children's Hospital charity. He literally wanted to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLAGOJEVICH: If I get nothing back from Obama, then, uh, I'm going in another direction. You know what I'm sayin'?
I got this thing, and it's (BEEP) golden.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
BLAGOJEVICH: And I'm just not giving it up for (BEEP) nothing.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CUOMO: So Trump today argues via tweet that "Blago, he didn't sell the Senate seat. Nothing happened." Yes, nothing happened, because he was caught in the attempted bribe. Sound familiar? Of course, it is.
Trump doesn't see this as corruption by Blago and others. And if he does, that doesn't mean it's wrong. And yet, he wants you to think he's the world's greatest Anti-Corruption Crusader.
And his next cause, Roger Stone. First, Trump said the sentence was too harsh. Guess what? The Attorney General lessened it. Now, he's hinting that the case was rigged. But you know what? We have someone here tonight to tell you "No way."
Juror Number Three, speaking out for the first time about the President's stone-cold attack on the case he helped decide.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CUOMO: Mr. Cousins, thank you for joining us.
SETH COUSINS, JUROR, ROGER STONE TRIAL: Thank you. Glad to be here.
CUOMO: So, you guys deliberated for eight hours on the Roger Stone case. What was your sense in the room? I've read your op-ed, but for the audience, was this a very hard decision for the jury on these seven counts?
COUSINS: I would say, in general, it was not.
There was one particular count and one particular element of one count that we spent probably half the time debating. But I would say, for the most part, we came to unanimous conclusion on each element and each charge pretty quickly and pretty easily.
CUOMO: Now there's a new debate.
The President says "Something funny here, funny way this was prosecuted, funny the way. The jury was -- one of the jury seems to be a Democrat who was the foreperson." You seemed to not like the President in your op-ed.
Was this rigged?
COUSINS: This was not rigged. No, Sir.
[21:05:00]
CUOMO: How can you make people confident of that fact? The President says it was. "There's no way that he should have been convicted for what he did." What do people need to know?
COUSINS: Sure. Well, Chris, I think the most important thing that people need to know is that we followed a very rigorous process. As a group, as a jury group, we looked at every element of every single charge. And we looked into the evidence. We tried to construct reasonable alternative explanations. And only
when all of that failed, did each of us individually make the decision to vote guilty, and to decide that each element and each charge had in fact been proven.
CUOMO: Did you pick up on the foreperson's political proclivities in terms of how they handled the position and the deliberations?
COUSINS: No, absolutely not.
The -- the irony here is that Tomeka Hart, who we elected as our foreperson on a secret ballot, Tomeka actually was perhaps the strongest advocate in the room for a rigorous process for the rights of the defendant, and for making sure that we -- that we took it seriously, and looked at each charge.
Without her in the room, we would have returned the same verdict, and we would have returned it more quickly, and without looking as deeply into the evidence. I'm firmly convinced of that.
CUOMO: It's an interesting counterpoint. In general, how does it make you feel that the President is basically questioning the motives of a jury of peers?
COUSINS: Chris, I'm appalled, honestly. I think it's appalling for the President to be attacking American citizens for fulfilling their duties to our Republic.
And further, I think the -- the actions of the President and of the Attorney General called, I don't know, they cast doubt on the -- the bedrock of the equal administration of justice that is just so -- so important to our country. I think he damages our democracy by attacking this way. And I wish he would stop.
CUOMO: What's your sense, right now about, having learned about Roger Stone and his relationship with the President, do you have an uneasy feeling that this wasn't about justice that he's going to get out of this?
COUSINS: Well my understanding is that the President has the ability to pardon anyone--
CUOMO: Yes.
COUSINS: --for anything at any time.
CUOMO: Pretty much.
COUSINS: So if, honestly, if that's the endgame, I wish he would just go ahead and do it now, rather than continuing these baseless attacks.
CUOMO: If he were to pardon Roger Stone, would that meet any definition of fairness to you?
COUSINS: No, certainly not fair. Legal perhaps, but not fair.
CUOMO: Why?
COUSINS: Well, Roger Stone -- we -- we convicted Roger Stone, not of his politics. We didn't convict him of acting boorishly.
We convicted him of obstructing a Congressional inquiry, of lying in that inquiry, and of -- of tampering with a witness, who was also meant to -- to participate in that inquiry. The getting -- getting at the truth of things is a very important thing.
And that's one of Congress' fundamental oversight responsibilities, as I understand it. Tampering with that -- that responsibility and -- and Congress' ability to -- to fulfill that responsibility, it just feels like a dangerous road to me.
CUOMO: You sat in that trial and you watched what happened between the parties and the Judge. This is now left on Judge Jackson's plate what sentence to give. What was your sense of the Judge?
COUSINS: My sense of the Judge, Chris, is that she was firm, fair, ran a -- ran a very good process through the courtroom. Of course, we only interacted with her in the courtroom. Other than, after the verdict was rendered, she came back to the jury room to thank us for our service.
But through the whole process, from the beginning of jury selection, through the -- the conduct of the trial, and through the conclusion, I felt like she was doing a, from my perspective, a very fair job, of making sure that the defense was heard, that the prosecution was heard, and that we, as the jury, were getting the information that would help us understand the facts and render a verdict.
CUOMO: Seth Cousins, I appreciate your perspective, and I thank you for your service on the jury. It's not easy to get people in there to do the job. Thank you for doing it.
COUSINS: Thank you, Sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CUOMO: All right, so there you have it, from somebody who was in the room, the truth about the Stone verdict.
So, here's the proposition. If you want to support Trump, you have to accept that the man who said Ukraine was only about fighting corruption, just freed or pardoned a bunch of clearly corrupt guys, and is talking the same way about Stone.
And guess what? All of this isn't even his most extraordinary move of the week. Wait until we get into his latest appointment with a top GOP watchdog on the Hill, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP) [21:10:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Loyalty to the President, front and center today, after commuting the sentence of Rod Blagojevich who has now declared himself a Trump-ocrat. And he's not the only one being rewarded by the President.
Tonight, Trump announced that Richard Grenell, he's the current U.S. Ambassador to Germany, and staunch Trump loyalist, will replace Joseph Maguire, as Acting Spy Chief, the Director of National Intelligence. They actually don't like being called spies. But this is a stunning change.
Let's get some thoughts from Kentucky Republican Congressman James Comer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Good to have you back on PRIME TIME, Sir.
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Thanks for having me.
CUOMO: I have no problem with the President picking people who are loyalty -- who are loyal to him. Why would he, or she, if we ever have a female President, why would you want someone in any position close to you who is disloyal?
That's not the issue. The issue is the pedigree. Joe Maguire, all right, you don't want to like him. But he's 30-plus years Navy experience.
This is the first time we've ever seen somebody with absolutely no experience, except with being loyal to the President, in a job as important as this. How do you support it?
[21:15:00]
COMER: Well the Ambassador has more experience than you state. He's served several Presidents. He's -- he's been an adviser to people like Mitt Romney, certainly served well in his position as Ambassador to Germany. But the President has the authority to -- to pick any one he wants.
CUOMO: Yes. COMER: And I think if you look at what's happened with the -- with the Intelligence Community, over the past three years, this is an entity that needs to be disrupted.
And what the President signaled today is he's going to send someone in, on a temporary basis, to evaluate it and -- and try to begin the process of disrupting it. We at once had one of the most respect--
CUOMO: What does that mean, disrupting it though, Congressman, because, you know, I -- I want to understand what you mean by what you think his job is.
COMER: Well what we've had with the Intelligence Community is -- is just, for example, the FISA abuses.
This is something that a lot of Americans are concerned about. This was something that, when this was granted, when this ability was out there that -- that many Members in Congress and many Americans were concerned that this would be abused.
And I think we saw during the Mueller investigation and the genesis of the whole Russia investigation that the FISA warrants were unwarranted, and there has been abuse within the Intelligence Community. The President feels like--
CUOMO: Well people can read the Inspector General's report for themselves. But he certainly didn't find that the warrants were unwarranted. And we must all remember, Congress passed and created the FISA Courts as an insulation--
COMER: They did.
CUOMO: --and as a way, a mechanism of seeing things transparently. But let's not get too in the weeds.
Grenell is going to go into a place where he knows nothing about it. You're right. He worked for Romney. He worked for Governor Pataki in New York. He's never been in the field of Intelligence before.
And he now is in the job of coordinating all the Heads of Intelligence? That sounds like a good pick for you?
COMER: Well I don't think the President's going to put a career Intelligence bureaucrat in that position.
The President's going to put an outsider in that position, as clearly, he's had a difficult relationship with the intelligence Community, clearly a lot of Members of Congress, myself included, have a certain bit of distrust with respect to the Intelligence reports that we get.
CUOMO: He can't find anybody who likes him who has experience in the Intelligence Community or in the Military--
COMER: Well--
CUOMO: --or in National Security? COMER: You know, the--
CUOMO: Or in anything?
COMER: This -- well I think the President has a right to pick Grenell. And I think Grenell's done a great job as Ambassador to Germany. And I think he'll do a good job on a temporary basis in this new position.
CUOMO: Why temporary? Why would the President keep skirting the need to confirm somebody? Is it as simple as Grenell would never get confirmed?
Members -- and obviously, Congressman Comer is in the House. Even your colleagues in the Senate are talking to reporters and saying this is an issue. So, is it as simple as--
COMER: Well it's--
CUOMO: --you can't get him confirmed, so you make him Acting? Is that a good use of power?
COMER: It's so polarizing in the Senate and in the -- in the House, but in the Senate where they do confirmations that the Senate's becoming a Personnel Agency, you know, the -- the confirmation process is taking weeks--
CUOMO: It's your agency.
COMER: --for each position--
CUOMO: It's run by your people.
COMER: --a week.
CUOMO: McConnell runs it.
COMER: Well--
CUOMO: All you need is a simple majority to get him through.
COMER: You need a simple majority. But every Senator wants to speak and every Senator has an opinion. And it's taking a week--
CUOMO: So, you don't trust your own Party?
COMER: No, I do trust my own Party. And I think Senator McConnell's done a great job through the whole confirmation process. He's confirmed a lot of judges and a lot of people in Kentucky are happy about that. But with respect--
CUOMO: So, he's done a lot of judges. But he hasn't done enough that you can let him do this?
COMER: No. He can do it.
It will -- he will tell you, I'm sure, that it will take a long time to confirm all the vacancies that the President has. And the President, quite frankly, is having a hard time filling the vacancies because of what each Cabinet Secretary and each Conferee has to go through.
Once they get confirmed, not only is the confirmation process brutal, once they get in Office, and serve as a Cabinet Secretary, it's a non- stop barrage of negative media reports, non-stop barrage of accusations from Democrat politicians in Washington.
It's basically the swamp fighting against the people that the President's put in there to drain the swamp. And--
CUOMO: So, you -- hold on a second.
COMER: And I understand that--
CUOMO: You are -- hold on, that's a good segue, Congressman.
COMER: --he's having a difficult position.
CUOMO: I don't understand--
COMER: Right.
CUOMO: --how without a big broad smile on your handsome face you can talk about draining the swamp when this President just let some of the biggest alligators in recent political history back into the waters around D.C. How can you say--
COMER: He only had--
CUOMO: --that he's about draining the swamp after he lets go Rod Blagojevich?
COMER: Well he's -- he is about draining the swamp. He has been draining the swamp. Of all the pardons today--
CUOMO: How?
COMER: --the only -- of all the pardons today, Chris--
CUOMO: Yes, Sir.
COMER: --the only pardon that -- that I would consider a swamp creature would -- would have been Blagojevich.
CUOMO: Really?
COMER: But if you look at Blagojevich, what he did--
CUOMO: Yes?
COMER: --he served a long time in prison. And many people, myself included, even the Politico story today, by the reporter who covered the whole Blagojevich trial, said that that was an excessive sentence. And I think that-- CUOMO: Who cares what a reporter says about the sentence?
COMER: --if you listen to the cries--
CUOMO: It was a 114-1 to impeach him. He tried to sell a Senate seat and play with a Children's Hospital charity. Why, if you were about corruption--
COMER: And he served--
[21:20:00]
CUOMO: --and draining the swamp, would you--
COMER: --he served eight years in prison.
CUOMO: But why would you send the message that you will forgive--
COMER: But I -- with the--
CUOMO: --someone who did something so corrupt?
COMER: Right.
CUOMO: Why?
COMER: I think the message the President's sending is he's serious about criminal justice reform.
And sadly, it takes a high-profile pardon, like Rod Blagojevich, to demonstrate the fact that one of the problems with the justice system in America is there are excessive sentences being handed out.
CUOMO: For people like Rod Blagojevich?
COMER: Excessive sentences for minorities. Well for minorities--
CUOMO: Come on! He's not the poster boy of the problem.
COMER: --there have been excessive sentences--
CUOMO: Ed DeBartolo Jr.?
COMER: --and oftentimes for high-profile.
CUOMO: If there's one thing you hear about--
COMER: Well for high-profile--
CUOMO: --especially when you go to the inner cities, you know, the people there, they're so upset that DeBartolo got busted for paying that 400 grand to the Governor for that Riverboat license. They scream "No justice! No peace!" every time you bring up Ed DeBartolo Jr. or one of these other politicians that got caught for graft.
Come on, Congressman! These people have nothing to do with the problem of sentencing standards. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people rotting in jail for offenses that are nothing compared to what these men were just forgiven for.
COMER: I think that the pardons that the President gave today were -- were just. You know, Blagojevich was the one that I would consider a political swamp creature. But, at the end of the day, he -- he got an excessive sentence. And that's created--
CUOMO: The lobbyist wasn't a swamp figure? DeBartolo who had--
COMER: The -- the lobbyist--
CUOMO: --two other big football bigs come to plead his case wasn't one? Bernie Kerik, a man I know and admired for many years.
COMER: Yes.
CUOMO: Worked for Giuliani, worked for the government, he's not part of that circle? Come on, congressman! They're all part of the same dynamic--
COMER: Well I think that that--
CUOMO: --that you said he would be better than. And he's just the same, at best.
COMER: No. I think that the good thing the President has the authority to do pardons.
CUOMO: Yes.
COMER: The President is serious about criminal justice reform.
The pardons today will continue the conversation about criminal justice reform. And if the American people are offended by these pardons, they're going to have the ability to choose a new President in November.
And the one good thing about these pardons today, compared to previous pardons, from previous Presidents--
CUOMO: Yes.
COMER: --is the President's transparent about this.
CUOMO: Oh, yes.
COMER: And he didn't wait until after the November election.
CUOMO: That is true. That is true.
COMER: He did it today. He's -- he justified his pardon.
CUOMO: That is true.
COMER: And if he -- if the Democrat candidates for President think that they can run a successful Presidential campaign based on a pardon of--
CUOMO: That is true.
COMER: --Blagojevich, after he served eight years in -- in prison--
CUOMO: He hides nothing.
COMER: --I think they -- they have more than--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: You are absolutely right. Congressman James Comer, you and I agree about that.
This President hides nothing. He does it all in plain sight because he has been completely empowered to do so by your Party. He's got nothing to fear. So, you're right. We'll see what happens in the election.
But one thing for sure, you're always welcome here to make the case. Congressman, thank you.
COMER: Thank you, Chris, for having me.
CUOMO: All right. Now, my take is this President can be hard to defend. But be aware, he may also be hard to beat. That's what the Congressman was talking about.
Is Senator Bernie Sanders the man to do it? He now has a double-digit lead. There are two paths to this answer. We have the best on both, the Professor and the Wizard of Odds, yes, together, yes, next, it's true.
(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: Senator Bernie Sanders is leading the pack of Democrats at 28 percent in CNN's Poll of Polls. What is that? It's the average of the five most recent national surveys on the race.
And with Sanders running strong in Nevada, heading into Saturday's caucuses, what can stop him? Is he the only candidate leading a movement? Yes. Could that be the big difference? We'll see.
The Wizard of Odds, Harry Enten, is here, along with our Professor Ron Brownstein. Gentlemen, thank you both.
Harry, make the case that Bernie could be the man.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER & ANALYST: OK. So, you know, there's all this talk of a ceiling. And I get why there's this talk of a ceiling, right? Those late deciders in both Iowa, New Hampshire, he got a much lower vote share of them than he did of the overall electorate.
But here's what I think is key, right?
Yes, he's in that first place with that 28 percent, and he's sort of been hovering in the mid-20s. But add those first, and second choice together, right, you get all the way up to 41 percent. That's not the sign, to me, of someone who has a ceiling.
But I think there's one other very key nugget here. You know, NBC News essentially tested Sanders versus two of the leading moderate candidates, Bloomberg and Buttigieg.
And what happens when you get down to a Sanders versus Bloomberg matchup? Sanders blows Bloomberg out of the water 57 percent to 37 percent, and against Buttigieg, he leads 54 percent to 38 percent.
That, to me, is the sign of someone who doesn't necessarily have a ceiling, and it's not the sigh that's, to me, of someone, if say, all the moderate candidates got together and added their support together, that type of math doesn't really work to me.
CUOMO: A quick note. Notice, they didn't even do a matchup with Biden. What does that tell you?
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: Professor, the idea of a ceiling is now--
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
CUOMO: --looking more like a church cathedral ceiling, very high, very high, or not.
BROWNSTEIN: You know, I'm less convinced that -- that there is 40 percent on a routine basis for Senator Sanders.
I mean, the pattern in the first two races have been very clear. He is consolidating the groups that support him to a greater extent than anyone is consolidating the groups that resist him, right?
So, I mean, he is winning a very high share of young people in polling here and in California, the very liberal voters. He's going to do well among Latino voters. That's an asset for him. He has a bigger piece of the pie than any other Democrat at this point.
But whether he can really get this to a position where enough of the Party is comfortable with him that he is a kind of odds-on favor to acquire a first-ballot majority, I'm still not convinced. I will say to you this. When I go to events for the other candidates, it is still rare to see anyone, who is actively considering Sanders. I mean there's the -- his audience is--
CUOMO: Right.
BROWNSTEIN: --deep. It is the most passionate in the Democratic race. But I still think there is concerns beyond his audience that he's going to have to see but you can just -- you know, it's going on right behind me, this debate here tonight--
[21:30:00]
CUOMO: Right.
BROWNSTEIN: --you know, the other Democrats are trying to focus on some of those issues more than we've seen before.
CUOMO: Yes. But you know what else you notice when you go to the rallies for the other candidates? Nowhere near as big as his. Are we sleeping on a movement?
BROWNSTEIN: Exactly.
CUOMO: Bernie is the only one with a movement. Trump was the only one--
BROWNSTEIN: True.
CUOMO: --with a movement. Can that be the main factor in pushing him forward?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes. I mean, look, it is different. It is -- there's no question that Sanders is leading a movement.
And -- and if the Democrats nominate him, and they will be placing a very large bet on that movement because essentially what you're doing is trading known voters for non-voters.
I mean, the promise of the Sanders campaign is that he can bring in a lot of young people, including non-White young people, who are not regular voters or haven't voted at all.
And the risk is that you drive away a certain portion of those suburban White-collar White voters who are doing fine economically, but don't like Donald Trump, and delivered the House to the Democrats in 2020. It would very -- I think a Sanders nomination would be very much an explicit expression of that precise wager.
CUOMO: And -- and the trade on that, Ron, is the point that you were making to me before the show, Harry, that yes, he's got a movement, but a movement of how big a part of the Party? It may be only 24 percent, 25 percent of the Party. That means there's a lot of pie left.
ENTEN: Yes. That means there's just a lot of pie left. And I will be honest with you. I think Ron makes a great point, which is I'm not sure that there's really any candidate who could get a majority of the delegates, after all the contests are done.
But it seems pretty clear to me that Sanders has the clearest path to a clear plurality of the delegates. And let's say he goes into Super Tuesday, right?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
ENTEN: And let's says the national polls are representative of what might happen. Remember, there's that 15 percent threshold. He'll probably end up with about 40 percent of the delegates on Super Tuesday.
And, to me, going forward, as he gets those delegate -- big delegate leads, right, and all the contests are proportional, it's going to be very difficult to take that delegate lead away from him.
So, even if say, you go into Milwaukee, right--
BROWNSTEIN: Right.
ENTEN: --and he doesn't have a majority of delegates, I can't believe the Democratic Party is going to take away the nomination of someone who say has 40 percent or 45 percent of the delegates.
CUOMO: Boy oh boy, I'll tell you one thing we know for sure. If that's how we go in, what a Convention that is going to be!
Ron Brownstein, thank you. I know you're busy. Harry Enten, you're not as busy, but thank you for being here.
BROWNSTEIN: Thank you.
ENTEN: Hey!
CUOMO: Now, veteran newsman Sam Donaldson is taking fire. Here's the question. Did Sam cross an uncrossable line by backing Bloomberg? He knew this question was coming. He has an answer and an argument to be tested, 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: The stakes are so high in this election that people, some people, who see the idea of a second term of President Trump so threatening that they are willing to go to extremes.
In fact, we have a man about to join us, who is going somewhere that no journalist has ever really gone, especially, and here's the qualifier, a high-profile, highly-respected, highly-known journalist, like my friend, ABC News colleague, and my mentor, the Venerable, Sam Donaldson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Welcome, Sir.
You hear me Sam?
Mm-hmm, the old "I can't hear you" trick! All right, we can't hear him right now. Here's what we'll do.
SAM DONALDSON, FORMER ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: No.
CUOMO: Sam, can you hear me or no?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sam, can you hear?
CUOMO: All right, let's get Sam -- let's get Sam's mic working. I'll take a break. We'll do it on the other side.
DONALDSON: Now I -- now I hear you.
CUOMO: Now you hear me? All right.
DONALDSON: Now, I hear you, Chris.
CUOMO: Boy, that was--
DONALDSON: Where have you been?
CUOMO: --that was a clever filibuster.
DONALDSON: I was waiting for you.
CUOMO: You taught me that trick when I was anchoring with you many years ago, the old "I can't hear you" trick, huh?
DONALDSON: Oh, my!
CUOMO: Well that's going to get you--
DONALDSON: Right, right.
CUOMO: --nowhere here, friend. So, Sam, let's-- DONALDSON: So, what did you ask me? I'll give you an answer.
CUOMO: Take a guess! Look, you knew this question was coming. You knew that you were doing something controversial--
DONALDSON: I hope so.
CUOMO: --as being a respected newsman and journalist, going all over--
DONALDSON: My!
CUOMO: --and working with a campaign. You knew it would get criticized. You did it anyway. Why?
DONALDSON: Well, you know, Brit Hume, a good friend of mine, I hope he still is, said the other day "I never thought I'd see this," when he saw that I'd done what I've done, which is to sign on as an unpaid volunteer to work in the sense of trying to elect Mike Bloomberg to President of the United States.
Well Brit, I never thought I was going to do anything like this either. I've retired from the news business, 52 years in Washington, never did and -- never gave any money, no, not a bit, member of a Party, and I went home to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and sat around.
But I believe, this is melodramatic, Chris, this is the most important election since the Civil War, and one on which the country's future, whether we maintain the values, we maintain the kind of freedoms that we've enjoyed, maintain the constitutional freedoms that we have, we'll either continue to have or not.
So, I'm sitting around saying, "Now, I'm out of the fray. But why don't I let the next-door neighbor do it? Well why -- why the guy down the street after all?"
Maybe my colleagues, former colleagues in news business think I'm some big-shot that should maintain in my Cathedral, the credibility of them.
CUOMO: Yes.
DONALDSON: I'm not there yet. I mean I'm not there anymore. I'm me. I'm a private citizen. And I'm going to work hard for Bloomberg because I think he's best-suited to beat Donald Trump and would make a very good President.
CUOMO: I get the conscience.
DONALDSON: That's it.
CUOMO: But then, you have the aspect of the conscientiousness of it, as a journalist. You didn't have to join the camp -- oh you've gone again every time I say something you can't hear me?
DONALDSON: I can't hear you.
CUOMO: Kenny (ph), you can hear him? You want to open the phone for him so he can hear it? Can we get it so he can hear it?
All right, let me take a break. We got to do this the right way because otherwise it's not going to be fair to Sam. It's not going to be fair to the issues. Take a quick break, come right back, and find out why Sam had to do it this way. He could have just argued what he thinks is right. Join the campaign, why, next.
[21:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we're back with Sam Donaldson.
Sam, the audience heard your argument. The counter to your argument is this. You could do everything you say you need to do, but you didn't have to join the campaign, even as an unpaid volunteer.
You could have kept your credential as a former journalist, you could have argued the facts, and what you think is right, and stayed out of the campaign, and spared this apparent conflict of ethics.
DONALDSON: Yes. I guess I could. I could have gone down to the street corner in Albuquerque and tried to get a crowd to listen to my message for Bloomberg.
But I thought it's not easier if the Bloomberg people get a crowd, and say, "Hey, these guys say they want to hear you. We got 400, 500 people or whatever it is, go talk to him." I'm like yes--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Sam Donaldson gets his own crowd on TV. You're on this show right now because you're Sam Donaldson, not because you're a surrogate for Bloomberg. You're going to get your time on TV. People want to hear what you have to say. Now--
DONALDSON: Yes, yes, well that's very nice.
CUOMO: --would you do it differently if you could do it again?
[21:45:00]
DONALDSON: Oh, no! You mean would I go back now, I've heard a little criticism about my, having done what I've done, and send the word to the Bloomberg people, "No, I'm -- I'm sorry. I just I made a mistake," no that's not -- I didn't make a mistake.
CUOMO: And the journalists who say, "Sam, you're killing us."
DONALDSON: I can take the criticism.
CUOMO: "They always say we're on the Left. They always say that we're for candidates, and we're partisan, and we hide it. Now, you've given them reason to say it's true about all of us."
DONALDSON: I'm killing them? Listen to me, my good friend, and I'm not asking you to confess anything.
But if you think reporters in Washington or anyplace else have no idea what's going on, I don't know a -- should this healthcare plan, I don't know, because if I had an idea, and I kept it secret, and then someday they found it out, "Oh, you have betrayed journalism!" that is nonsense.
Everybody worth his salt in this country, and has been following things, knows what's going on, and has made up their mind. Differently, that's true, that's what makes an argument a horse race, and a political season.
But to think that somehow because if I just not -- if I'd come on your program, and I think I did before I've signed on with Bloomberg--
CUOMO: You did.
DONALDSON: --and said, "You know, I think this guy -- I think this guy may be the guy. And I -- I think he's got good," then I'd be OK.
But once I say, and yes, I say it again, I am an unpaid volunteer with the Bloomberg campaign. You should know that. And you can weigh my view against that, if you want, of course.
CUOMO: All right.
DONALDSON: Well it's the same thing. My -- my view is the same.
CUOMO: All right, we've handled your decision and how you argue it. Good! Now the decision that you made and the person that you say is the right choice, so Bloomberg is on the stage tonight. He's taking some hits.
Why do you believe that he is better than a Bernie Sanders, a Joe Biden, a Buttigieg, a Klobuchar? Just because he's rich?
DONALDSON: No. Not because he's rich at all. Because I think he's very solid.
I think he's run this City of New York pretty well, has that kind of record. And I think he, by making that great Empire of his, there's all that money legally and ethically, shows that his determination could get it done. I really do.
Look, on that stage tonight, in Nevada, early in the debate, they all took a shot at Bloomberg. Of course, they have to try to take him down. You know, someone painted him to the left -- just a little bit to the left of George Corley Wallace, standing in the schoolhouse door against minorities.
Someone else brought up women, and said, well he's not -- he didn't say in so many words, but they painted him as just not quite as bad as Harvey Weinstein. And somebody else pointed him as a big, bloated, they called him arrogant billionaire.
Then, it was interesting, Chris. They turned on themselves. And the last that I saw it, they were savagely knowing that the real problem was someone is going to have to stand up to Bloomberg, I think it's probably going to be Bernie.
CUOMO: But what do you think if happens? If you go to the Convention--
DONALDSON: I think I agree with the polls not because--
CUOMO: --and it's a brokered Convention, what they used to call a brokered Convention, and you have Bernie Sanders, who's got a real movement behind him, and a plurality of the delegates hypothetically, how does that Party come together, when Bloomberg and he are like oil and water?
DONALDSON: That is very good question and very difficult. I watched in 1968, McCarthy -- Senator McCarthy take his very passionate people, like the passionate people for Bernie Sanders, away from that Convention in Chicago.
We all got tear-gassed. And they didn't work for Hubert Humphrey. There weren't going to do that. Their man had lost, and Hubert Humphrey lost, and we have Richard Nixon, thank you very much.
Now, this is all logical, and I know we're talking emotion. How could we get Sanders people, his army, the Bros, to back Michael Bloomberg, or anyone else for that matter?
It's not just Bloomberg. They feel that way about Pete. They feel the way -- now you heard what -- Joe Biden certainly. I think it's a big question.
But I think, at the end, it's going to be Sanders versus Bloomberg at the Convention, and the one thing that could bring the Party together is who can beat Donald J. Trump. And I think it's, going away, Bloomberg.
CUOMO: Well I'll tell you what.
DONALDSON: And I'm -- I'm just an unpaid volunteer for Bloomberg folks. I don't want you to forget that.
CUOMO: I -- I understand. Look, it's not the unpaid part, Sam. It's just being part of the campaign that certainly raised a lot of hackles. But I respect you owning it, and giving your answer here on the show, and you are welcome always to argue the case for Bloomberg or for anything else. DONALDSON: Only if you invite me. I can't handle the gatecrashers anymore, so I have to have an invitation.
CUOMO: You will be invited. Just don't try that IFB trick again, Sam.
DONALDSON: OK.
CUOMO: That is an old trick, the "I can't hear the tough question thing." Be well, Sam Donaldson.
DONALDSON: I know. I know.
CUOMO: Thank you.
All right, Closing Argument is coming up, and that's that people should stop saying that Trump is normalizing corruption with his recent acts, accented by these pardons. You are missing the reality. I argue 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: All right, first part of the argument is that we should agree with the obvious. This is corruption.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLAGOJEVICH: I got this thing, and it's (BEEP) golden.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
BLAGOJEVICH: And I'm just not giving it up for (BEEP) nothing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That is the signature sound of former Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, former because he was impeached a 114-1, for talking about the Senate seat that used to belong to Barack Obama, as a commodity.
Profanities aside, is it so different from "I would like you to do us a favor though," and everything that came after it? And when a lot of you then heard Blagojevich, and the other powerful
and political figures who were either freed, or forgiven, by Trump, the media screamed, and so many of you echoed, "Trump is trying to normalize corruption."
[21:55:00]
No, he isn't. I argue, Trump absolutely thinks corruption is already normal. He's not trying to make it into anything. He believes it is that already, something to be played to advantage, the same way he played so many of you with this idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Do you want America to be ruled by the corrupt political class, or do you want America to be ruled, again, by the people?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He had to read most of that. Then, Pence, the great echo, intoned the following echo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The American people are sick and tired of pay-to-play politics in Washington D.C. And Donald Trump and I are going to bring it to a crashing halt.
(AUDIENCE CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I argue Trump has done only the opposite. He asked Russia to interfere in our elections.
Now, Assange is saying he was promised a pardon, if he said Russia wasn't behind it. Now, I don't know that we should believe Assange, but you know who did? Donald Trump.
Remember, Trump said, when he was after corruption with Ukraine, and then he tried to blackmail its President, Stone convicted of lying about his efforts to mess with corrupt foreign players, to help who? Trump. His campaign was cited for attempting to do the same thing.
The list goes on and on, why? Because this is who Trump is. More proof? Remember what he said about Blagojevich back in August? Here it is.
"He's been in jail over a phone call where nothing happens. I would think that there have been many politicians, I'm not one of them, by the way, that have said a lot worse over the telephone."
For the record, the call was the crime. See, the fact that you don't complete a bribe doesn't make it OK. And the reason he didn't complete it is because he got caught. See, Trump sees that, I argue, as no big deal because he did the same
thing. He wouldn't say anything like that over the phone? He was impeached for doing the same thing, attempting a bribe.
But I also argue that Trump is not trying to get you to see abnormal things as normal. He actually sees things like corruption, obstruction of justice, perjury, tax fraud, even bribery, as part of the game.
And it's only wrong if you get caught. Maybe. So, he grants clemency to about three dozen people, and they have overwhelmingly been people with a direct line to the White House or who served as political chits, Kerik, Milken, Arpaio, D'Souza.
What's the big difference between them and Trump? You know what the one thing is? Trump can't be prosecuted, at least not right now. In fact, his Party has made it clear he can do whatever he wants.
So, is someone guilty of normalizing the abnormal? Yes, but it's not Trump. It's the GOP. Here's Exhibit A.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I'm saying, Mr. President, the phone call was OK with me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Exhibit B.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You really think he was serious about thinking that China's going to investigate the Biden family?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Exhibit C.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Because Russia interfered the media pretends nobody else did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All the main GOPers are willing to blame the scrutiny of Trump on anything but the obvious. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Because you just don't like the guy. You haven't liked him since November of 2016.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: No. He's got it backwards. You guys are the ones who didn't like him back then.
Cruz, without the beard, Graham basically called Trump "Thoroughly corrupt," when they were campaigning, and worse. Your whole field, and their elected friends, called him a cheat, and a fraud, and promised that Donald Trump would bring disrespect to the Office.
So, what changed? Trump hasn't, not a bit. What changed is the Party is now feeding off the teet of fealty. I argue, the GOP is no longer Grand. The Mighty Pachyderm is packing it in.
In fact, Trump is not a member of the GOP. You are all now part of the Trump Organization. You sound more like representatives of his failed casinos than people elected to check his power. That is my argument.
Thank you very much for watching. It is time now for "CNN TONIGHT" with D. Lemon.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Welcome back.
You call it fealty, which you're -- you're right, I'm sure. I'll -- I just call it hypocrisy. It's a Party of -- of hypocrites now. And I know that sounds harsh. And people are going to say that I'm being partisan. But I'm not. It's the truth.
It's the Party -- you are exactly right when you say Donald Trump has not changed. What changed are the lawmakers, are the people who somehow came over to his side because they want power or because of fear. They're afraid of him.
The people who remain the same and are not afraid of this President are called -- they're called, what is it? Trump Derangement -- they have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
CUOMO: Never-Trumpers.
LEMON: Never-Trumpers. It's like no, Donald Trump has not changed. You changed.
