Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
FEC Rebukes Trump On Foreign Election Interference; Federal Watchdog Calls For Kellyanne Conway's Removal; Sarah Sanders To Leave The White House. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 13, 2019 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00] COMMANDER KIRK S. LIPPOLD, U.S. NAVY (RET.): --putting those mines into the water that we then had the proof that we took to the United Nations--
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes.
LIPPOLD: --that caused us to take action.
COOPER: Commander Lippold, appreciate talking to you always. Thank you.
The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
The President opened the door for Russia to mess with our next election, and that gives our first guest a bad case of deja vu.
He is Andrew McCabe here tonight. You know him. He took over for the FBI when Comey was fired. He launched the obstruction and counterintelligence investigations into the President, remember why, fearing he could be a Russian asset.
How does he weigh the President's latest words? And what does he think Russia could try next if we do nothing to harden the election? And that was Mueller's most pressing warning, "Fix the system. This will happen again."
So, why has Congress done almost nothing about it? Is the Senate's Majority Leader intentionally trying to let Russia interfere again? If not, why does he do nothing? We're going to pull back the curtain on Mitch McConnell.
And the curtain is about to drop on Sarah Sanders. A government watchdog calls for the firing of the President's most effective mouthpiece, Kellyanne Conway. Tough day for the President! Who will be left around him?
Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, so the Head of the Federal Election Commission has just delivered a scathing rebuke to President Trump. This is new. It's an unprecedented reminder. Here's the quote.
"Let me make something 100 percent clear," Ellen Weintraub says, "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." She also put out a tweet saying, quote, "I would not have thought that I needed to say this."
Former Acting FBI Director here tonight, Andrew McCabe says the latest comments from the President reaffirm what raised red flags for him back in 12 - 2017. He is the Author of "The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump."
Good to have you back.
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Thanks, Chris, good to be here.
CUOMO: So Andrew, there is a big division between what the President and his people want the message to be on this.
The President says it's OK to take information. Rudy Giuliani says it's OK to take information from the Russians. Jared Kushner says, "I don't know if I got solicited again for information from the Russians whether I would tell the FBI."
What is the line for you? And why do you believe they deal with it this way?
MCCABE: Chris, the line for me, the line for investigators in the FBI, the line for experienced people in politics, campaign after campaign after campaign, the line is very clear.
It is not acceptable to take anything from a foreign power, certainly not a hostile foreign power, certainly not the government of Russia. The reason we have such clear lines about this sort of activity is because of the importance of keeping foreign influence out of our elections.
So, when the President gets on television last night, and tells the world that he thinks it's perfectly fine to sit down with foreign agents, to sit down with representatives, possibly even from Russia, to hear what they have to say, and to receive what they are offering, is just absolutely wrong. The President and his supporters are wrong about that.
CUOMO: Now, we have to assume they know what the law is. I know that Don Jr. got a pass from Mueller because they couldn't prove that he did know that he was breaking the law, one of the rare instances that mistake of the law works in your favor. But why do you think they flout what is a pretty obvious standard?
MCCABE: You know, I don't - I don't know that I can answer that conclusively for you, Chris.
It did seem to me, as I listened to the President's comments last night, that what we are witnessing is yet another example of the President's efforts to try to normalize his own aberrant behavior, to try to normalize his departure from precedent, and in this case, possibly even violations of law.
And he does that by tossing off these comments in an offhanded way and then couching them with phrases like "Well it's OK because everybody does it." It's clearly not OK. We've heard that from the Federal Election Committee leadership - Commission leadership today.
And it's - it's - it's well within the understanding of anybody who's ever been involved in this business, it's just not something that you do because the stakes are so high.
CUOMO: Does the argument that "Yes, OK, you shouldn't have Russians giving you anything, and you shouldn't have been paying Russians for information to amass a dossier the way Clinton did," do you see these as analogs?
[21:05:00] MCCABE: Not at all, Chris, there's no equivalence between those two examples.
To say - to openly invite foreign intelligence officers, representatives from a hostile foreign government to - to steal information, to acquire opposition research in any way, in any illegal way that they might do that, and to present it to you is one thing.
To - for a campaign to hire a law firm, an American law firm, who then turns around and hires an American research company, who then contracts out with a foreign individual, that is not illegal. Campaigns are allowed to hire--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --individuals - foreign individuals, and to pay those individuals for the services that they provide.
And it would add too, Chris, that in the example of the Clinton campaign, it was that very foreign individual who stepped forward and provided the information he had collected to the FBI, simply because he was so troubled by what he was seeing.
So, it's - it's odd that a foreign individual involved in the campaign process was familiar enough with the threat, and with the - with the concerns that that information posed that he stepped forward and provided it to the FBI, not something obviously that the President and his staff would be willing to do.
CUOMO: Let me ask you something. If it happens again, God forbid, and we see proof that it was once
again designed to help the Trump campaign, do you have any concerns about whether this Attorney General, this DOJ leadership would even open an investigation, if it were going to be into the President?
MCCABE: I think that's a great question, Chris.
I don't have any concerns that the men and women in the FBI, the folks who watch Russia every single day, spend their careers trying to hold back Russian aggression, I don't have any doubt that they would make the same recommendations that when they have information that indicates a threat to national security exists that an investigation should be pursued.
Whether or not the leadership at the Justice Department--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --would support an investigation like that, right now or in the future, is a very good question. I sincerely hope we don't have the facts to find out the answer to that question.
But from all indications, from the lack of activity that Congress and others have focused on protecting our election systems, it is, I think, the - the future for our elections, and the possibility of foreign influence and foreign meddling is one that we better start confronting in a serious way.
CUOMO: We are told that the A.G. wants to investigate the investigators. Do you have anything that you regret?
And what do you think the chances are that in that investigation they find that people at the top, whether it was you or somebody else, let's say somebody else, not you, did things that they should not have done or did them in a way they should not have done them, what do you think the chance is that comes up?
MCCABE: I'd be very surprised to hear about anything like that emanating from the decisions that were made or the actions that were taken within the FBI. I'm very familiar with those actions and those decisions.
I wouldn't make any of the decisions I made any differently. And I know that we've been down this road before. We've been under investigation about the events of the - of the Russian investigation and, of course, the Clinton email investigation since January of 2017.
And so far, the efforts of the I.G. and others who have looked into it have found repeatedly no indication of bias, no indication of improper considerations in any of the decisions we made. So, I'd be surprised to hear anything different coming from this investigation.
CUOMO: Put on a different hat for a second.
You're working as counsel for Congress now, and they come to you and say, "What's your opinion on this? Should we impeach or not? Do you think we have what we need for an impeachment inquiry?" because clearly, they're stuck.
But I think they're looking at it through a political lens of consequence more than anything else. Do you believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted based on what you understand and what has come out in the Mueller report?
MCCABE: Absolutely. Chris, I'm not a political person. I'm not a political operative.
I respect the House leadership, and the fact that they may be considering, you know, a lot of polls and - and political strategy, in the way they're figuring out what to do next. That's not my business.
My business is investigations, evidence, finding information, and exposing that information when - when the American public has a right to know it. I think we are clearly there with the results of the Special Counsel team.
There are so many witnesses who could provide important essential testimony to Congress that can only be done in the scope of an impeachment inquiry, I think that action should be taken immediately, and I think people should finally hear for themselves exactly what those witnesses have to say.
Whether or not that results in articles of impeachment and a trial in the Senate--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --and all those sorts of things is beside the point.
[21:10:00] I think the American people have a right to hear from the witnesses and understand exactly what actions the President engaged in, and they have the opportunity to factor that information into their decisions, their voting decisions, whatever that might be going forward. The time has come to get that information out.
CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, thank you very much. As we understand more, and we need more understanding, I welcome you back on the show. Thank you, Sir.
All right, so this is getting complicated in terms of trying to figure out how to stop Russia. The President is making it more complicated. But it's not just him. His main man on the Hill is running interference of his own.
We have the facts of what is and is not happening, and likely, why, especially where Mitch McConnell is involved. Facts first, 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 irony. There is basically one fact that everyone accepts, except this President, about Russian interference, and it is the most important fact, and it is this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL COUNSEL: There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: And those in the business of figuring out what happens next all believes it will happen again. It deserves so much attention that Mueller put it on page one of his report.
The FBI, CIA, even Barr, and the President's Secretary of State, the Head of DHS, Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Advisor, they all agree. And yet, stopping the interference from happening again seems to be no one's priority.
Democrats in Congress, they have some 30 active investigations underway, all are about the President in one way or another. There's so many we had to build it on a scroll to list them all.
This is in addition to the Attorney General's investigation of the investigators, and his own Inspector General's investigation of the same thing.
The Right is dogged about the dossier, and Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, and spying, but what's been done to harden the election security? Punishment for what was done in 2016 sanctions on Russia. We remember that story. The Administration's slow-walked those.
But they didn't really make it harder to interfere the next time. There was also a check cut to some states to help with the midterms, but that's not about 2020. There's been nothing.
We don't even have the social media folks on board with a set of parameters for all to follow or else. There's not even a real plan that we know about to harden the ballot infrastructure. How when you know they want to do it again?
But doesn't mean everybody's just sitting on their hands. There have been a flurry of bills dealing with election security, some with bipartisan sponsors.
They're about 14 of them in the House. Now there's 16 in the Senate. But none of it is going anywhere because Senator Mitch McConnell would have you believe everything's already OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Thanks to efforts across the federal government, in 2018, we were ready.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Were we? That nothing-to-see-here attitude is a recurring theme from Mr. McConnell.
You'll remember when President Obama wanted to go public with Russian meddling before the 2016 election - now look, there's criticism there about just going it alone. You were the President, it's your administration.
But he went to McConnell to make it a joint effort, and he was the one who reportedly refused to make it a bipartisan message. That would wind up motivating an arguably poor decision by the administration to keep it quiet anyway. The bigger question is why does McConnell balk?
He claimed First Amendment objections when he shot down legislation that called for a disclosure of who's buying political ads or donating to certain groups. But even standalone measures, backed by his own caucus, have gone nowhere.
The answer may simply be because he and his side benefited in 2016. Could he even be counting on benefiting the same way in 2020? If not, if he hates that suggestion, there's only one way to prove it. Do something to secure the elections.
Now, when we return, what should be done about Kellyanne Conway? The Office of the Special Counsel appointed by this President recommended something we have never heard before, removal from government for violations of the Hatch Act.
A great dilemma, and a Great Debate, next.
(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)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Anytime I express a feeling about a candidate, people who want to make themselves relevant get air time and Twitter time, so I won't go there. They're going to have to find--
CUOMO: Well you got to be careful about the Hatch Act.
CONWAY: But, Chris, let me - let me tell you - let me tell you what I--
CUOMO: You have to be careful about observing the rules of ethics there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The fallout of her remarks, which she just called feelings are being felt today.
The Special Counsel's Office appointed by this President, has nothing to do with Bob Mueller, it's just the same title, they found her in violation of the Hatch Act by, quote, "disparaging Democratic Presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media."
The OSC is now calling for her removal. Right line of action? The start of tonight's Great Debate with Cenk Uygur and Kayleigh McEnany.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: THE GREAT DEBATE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Let's do it this way. For the prosecution, Uygur, should Kellyanne Conway, should the President follow the OSC's recommendation?
CENK UYGUR, CEO & HOST, THE YOUNG TURKS: Of course he should.
Here's another Trump administration official who doesn't care about the law, brazenly violates the law. In fact, one of the things that they mentioned was, "Look, we kept telling her she's violating the Hatch Act, and she did it repeatedly."
But this is no longer an administration. It's a criminal cartel. Donald Trump's former National Security Advisor is a criminal, his former Campaign Manager is a criminal, his former personal attorney is a criminal, now Kellyanne Conway, and, of course, as Scaramucci said, the fish rots from the head down.
CUOMO: Before we get into the "No, no, all the Clintons are criminals" push back, let's - spare me that for a second.
Kayleigh, why doesn't she just say what Julian Castro said, and what Kathleen Sebelius said? "All right, I see what you don't want me to do. I won't do it anymore. Thank you very much for pointing it out. Let's move on."
They didn't have any action recommended against them. This isn't a Obama person. This person was appointed by this President. Why doesn't Kellyanne, why doesn't the President come out and say, "She won't do this anymore?"
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, TRUMP 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY, FORMER RNC SPOKESWOMAN: Because this is politically motivated. You look and this was given a 17-page--
CUOMO: It's his appointee.
MCENANY: --memo was given to the White House at 5:00 P.M. on May 29th. They were given until 9:00 A.M. to respond, the very next day.
And you look, read the Hatch Act. It says it must be narrowly construed and expressly prohibited for it to be a violation. And there are no expressed prohibit - prohibitions against social media accounts, especially personal ones that have been open, in the case of Kellyanne Conway since 2012.
And where, by the way, was O - OSC's memo or response and recommendation that Josh Earnest be fired for excoriating President Trump from the White House podium--
CUOMO: Under the Obama administration--
MCENANY: --in the White House press briefing room?
[21:25:00] CUOMO: --you had two different cabinet officials called out. This is President Trump's Special Counsel. He appointed this person. How can it be politically motivated against him when it's his person?
MCENANY: Well it's politically motivated when you're giving it at 5, and said "Give a response by--
CUOMO: But it's his person, Kayleigh.
MCENANY: --9 A.M. to 12 counts."
CUOMO: Help me understand that.
UYGUR: No, but, Kayleigh--
MCENANY: To 12 counts.
UYGUR: Kayleigh, you're not addressing the main issue, which is that she did it. And it wasn't just on social media. It was all over the television.
MCENANY: But what she did was not a Hatch Act violation.
UYGUR: And it was, as the Office of Special Counsel pointed out, repeatedly and brazen. So, are you ever going to say, "Hey, we're going to follow the law?" You guys break the law non-stop.
MCENANY: What? No. Straight--
UYGUR: And you claim that you're in favor of the rule of law.
MCENANY: Really? Really?
UYGUR: And this is now--
MCENANY: Straight from the mouth of someone who can't--
UYGUR: --countless times.
MCENANY: --get over the 2016 election, who ignores the mass violations and criminal activity of the Obama administration, the FISA warrant used to spy on the Trump campaign, the perjury of Andy McCabe, the guest you just had on, you continually ignore the--
UYGUR: Deflection.
MCENANY: --misdeeds of the Obama administration and you can't get over the 2016 election.
UYGUR: No, not true.
MCENANY: So you scream criminal cartel with no facts--
CUOMO: Also but--
MCENANY: --and just baseless accusations.
CUOMO: No, but listen, hold on.
UYGUR: I just told you the facts.
CUOMO: But look, and also, look, Kayleigh, let's - we got three law degrees here, OK? You can push back and make political arguments that "Everybody's bad, so why are you only picking on us?"
The problem is you represent the current administration. And you want to talk about Andrew McCabe, I just had him on, fine. Those are allegations that he didn't tell the truth. He denies them.
I know you would respect that because you say it all the time about this President. When there are allegations made about him, you say "Well they're just allegation." He denies them.
That takes us to the next topic. What he said he would be OK doing, all three of us know you're not supposed to do. You talk about narrowly construed, the law about not taking anything of value from a foreign person, forget about a government, is clear.
Again, why not just say "Of course, I wouldn't do that. I was just saying that going to the FBI about everything is silly." Why doesn't he own that he gave an indication of something that shouldn't be done?
MCENANY: Well, number one, I would say, the President said I would likely both go to the FBI and listen to the information.
CUOMO: I know. But you can't do both.
MCENANY: Number-- CUOMO: You can't do the wrong thing and the right thing.
MCENANY: Number two.
CUOMO: You have to pick.
MCENANY: Volume one page 187 of the Mueller report, it literally says there is no judicial opinion saying a thing of value is opposition research. And finally, the ultimate point is no one cares about the Steele dossier, a foreign spy, paid by the Clinton campaign--
CUOMO: That's exactly right.
MCENANY: --and the DNC who roved - who roved the world it got--
CUOMO: He was paid by the campaign. The--
MCENANY: --Russian misinformation.
CUOMO: But hold on a second. You get the legal analysis. You went to Harvard, for God's sake. They paid Steele. He didn't give them anything. It has to be a contribution. Not an expenditure.
And Cenk, Mueller said this type of information in the report can be construed as value. The reason he let off Don Jr. were two things.
One was a real pass. One was, "I don't think this was that valuable. He put some monetary value, has to be at least $2000. He didn't think this made it."
The other one was "I think the guy was too dumb to know that he was breaking the law," and I think he gave him a break on that. If these comments from the President had come out before, I think Don Jr. would have been in trouble.
But what do you think of that strategy? If the President came out, you're never going to vote for him, but if he said, "Hey, look, I shouldn't have said it that way. If anybody offers us anything like that, we're going to blow it up. We want no part of that. We don't need it to win?"
UYGUR: So, Chris, the reason he never admits to any faults, even though they're obvious and brazen, is because he's incredibly weak and insecure. And so, a strong and confident person knows when they did something wrong and says it. But the reason Donald Trump said "I never go to the FBI" is because he's a lifelong criminal.
MCENANY: He didn't say that.
UYGUR: And he always covers up. He--
MCENANY: He didn't say "I would never go to the FBI."
UYGUR: --he said I will--
CUOMO: He said I will do both. MCENANY: That is a lie.
CUOMO: He said I will do both.
MCENANY: That is all a lie.
UYGUR: No, no, no, no, no, no. "We can go to the court," he said, "My whole life, I haven't gone to the FBI."
CUOMO: That's true. He did say that.
UYGUR: And --- and that's because--
CUOMO: But he said--
UYGUR: Absolutely.
CUOMO: --I think I would do both.
UYGUR: OK.
CUOMO: I would listen and then maybe I'd go to the FBI. But then, to be fair to Cenk, after that in the interview--
UYGUR: And, by the way, wait, wait, wait, Chris--
CUOMO: --he contradicts it and says--
UYGUR: --let me--
CUOMO: --people don't go to the FBI. Congress does this all the time.
UYGUR: Yes. He absolutely contradicted it. But also, think about that. He says, first, I would break the law. Receiving something of value, which is clearly value, they had to put money and time--
MCENANY: Not according to your beloved Mueller report.
UYGUR: --into doing the opposition research.
CUOMO: You're wrong about the Mueller analysis.
UYGUR: And then he says, yes, after--
CUOMO: Keep going, Cenk.
UYGUR: That's not true. Yes, and so, once he receives that information, he's already broken the law. It's like saying, "Well I would rob the bank then I would go to the police, and told them I robbed the bank." Well then you'd still go to jail.
MCENANY: So, do you not care--
UYGUR: But the reason he's not going to jail, of course, is because--
MCENANY: Cenk, Cenk, do you not - since-- UYGUR: --Nancy Pelosi continues to protect him.
MCENANY: Cenk, Cenk, since you're obsessed with criminal activity--
CUOMO: Ooh!
MCENANY: --that doesn't exist in the Trump administration, do you at all care about the Russian misinformation from a Russian Kremlin official, paid for by the DNC, or you just not care because it's the DNC?
UYGUR: So, you know what you guys love to do is deflection.
MCENANY: Right. You don't care. I didn't think so.
UYGUR: You're attacking people - no, no, hold on, hold on. You're attacking people that are not in government right now, and you're going after Steele--
MCENANY: Oh, so they're not in governments, they can buy foreign misinformation.
UYGUR: --and Hillary Clinton who are not in power.
MCENANY: Oh, my Gosh!
[21:30:00] UYGUR: We're talking about the President of the United States of America, who said in the past that maybe working with law enforcement should be illegal, and he talked about rats. He talks about him in a context of a mob boss. Maybe that's why his name is Don. It's not Don Corleone. It's Don Trump.
MCENANY: You are deflecting.
UYGUR: And he runs a criminal enterprise.
MCENANY: Christopher Steele, the DNC--
UYGUR: He went on national TV--
MCENANY: --you don't care.
UYGUR: --and said, "You shouldn't work with the FBI. I never worked with the FBI." The FBI Director says "This is criminal activity." He says, "I think the FBI is wrong." You know who says that? Criminals say that. I thought you guys believed in the rule of law.
MCENANY: You clearly don't care about--
UYGUR: I thought you guys respected cops.
MCENANY: --Christopher Steele, and a Russian Kremlin official who gave information to the DNC.
CUOMO: Doesn't fit the definition of the statute.
MCENANY: You don't care because it's Clinton, not Trump.
UYGUR: The--
CUOMO: But it doesn't fit the definition of the statute, Kayleigh. Let's put aside the argument.
MCENANY: So, it's better if you buy Russia misinformation--
UYGUR: Deflection.
CUOMO: Let - let--
MCENANY: --than receive information or listen to it from a--
CUOMO: That's the whole point of the law. If you were going to say that they did something fraudulent, and they bought fake information, they had something made up on purpose, fine. That's one case.
But if you want to fit it into this area, you have to show that a foreigner provided value as a contribution to the campaign. You don't have it on the fact.
MCENANY: Chris, what you're literally saying is it's better to pay for--
UYGUR: And, Chris--
MCENANY: --Russia misinformation, than listen to a foreign power, and also inform the FBI. I would argue paying for Russia misinformation is pretty darn bad, and that's exactly what the DNC did.
CUOMO: You can argue it. But one, you're assuming it's misinformation--
MCENANY: We have one party that's done this.
CUOMO: --and two, you're arguing that the law says something it doesn't.
MCENANY: It is misinformation.
CUOMO: OK?
MCENANY: Comey said it's salacious and unverified.
UYGUR: Yes. And - and - and look at--
MCENANY: His words.
CUOMO: Some was.
UYGUR: --what she's doing, Chris.
CUOMO: Some was not.
UYGUR: Chris? CUOMO: But listen, guys--
UYGUR: Look--
CUOMO: --I got to leave it there. Here's the good news.
UYGUR: Chris, listen--
CUOMO: Go ahead, make a final point, and I got to go, Cenk.
UYGUR: Yes. Final point is, look, look at what she's trying to do, is shift a debate. We're talking about how the President of the United States said "You shouldn't work with the FBI." And she's going "Squirrel."
MCENANY: Providing a relevant analogy that you can't answer for.
UYGUR: No, we're not going to look somewhere else.
MCENANY: You have no counterarguments.
UYGUR: We're looking at the President and his law-breaking.
CUOMO: Here's what we do.
UYGUR: Law-breaking by the President. Nancy Pelosi, do something about it.
CUOMO: All right, we're going to take that up also. But this is also something that I'll focus on in the closing because this is a pretty easy legal analysis. You don't have to be a big-shot lawyer to know this one.
Kayleigh, Cenk, thank you for making the arguments.
MCENANY: Oh, it's good to join you guys.
CUOMO: Appreciate it, appreciate it. All right--
UYGUR: Thank you.
CUOMO: --an assault on our democracy. Cenk is saying Pelosi should do something about it, especially if she's going to call it that, and that's what she said that the President just put an assault.
This is the latest of a string of really heavy condemnations of this President. So, if they feel like this that he clearly abused his Office that he may have committed crimes, doesn't the Constitution give them one path to follow?
What am I missing? I have the Head of the Democratic Party here to set me straight, 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: So here's where we are. The Constitution suggests if the House believes the President abused his Office, and/or committed high crimes and misdemeanors, they should start an inquiry. Is that decision being held up by fear of political fallout? And should that matter?
The Chairman of the DNC, Tom Perez is here. Welcome back to PRIME TIME. Always good to have you, Sir.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TOM PEREZ, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Great to be with you, Chris.
CUOMO: So, I get it. I get it as a political calculation. Let's go slow. Let's see when the people come along. Let's see when there's consensus. But is that doing the job of Congress?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it says if popular, then do this. It's this is your job. If you feel that way, and even Nancy Pelosi keeps saying things that are clearly in line with what would require that duty.
PEREZ: Well, Chris, I had the privilege of working in at the Justice Department for over a decade, and I prosecuted a lot of obstruction cases. I know Title 18, United States Code 1512, all these statutes pretty well. And what you have to do is gather the facts.
And I understand the sense of urgency that people feel. This is the most dangerous President in American history. And there is - there's - there are - there's such a mountain of serious allegations. And then you have the President today or yesterday saying "Hey, I'd accept foreign help, you know, more help from an adversary," I get that.
But what you have to do, and what I learned as a prosecutor, is you got to gather the facts. And frequently, when I was doing these cases, the - the subjects were obstructing.
They - they made it really hard. They put up roadblocks. They didn't comply with subpoenas. And you can't just throw up your arms and say, "Well I'm just going to go ahead and indict or - or - or move forward." You've got to methodically work through it. And there - there's been at least two court cases where we've won
recently. And I think that's exactly what we have to do. And it's important to remember also, Chris, that there's a five-year statute of limitations on these statutes, and some of them actually could go possibly longer.
And what we also know is the only way to defeat this - to remove this President is going to be at the ballot box.
CUOMO: Look, that's fine.
PEREZ: So, I think what we're doing is a - it - they're - we're - we're operating on two tracks here.
CUOMO: I'm with you.
PEREZ: We need to continue to amass--
CUOMO: I'm with you. But here's my pushback.
PEREZ: --the evidence.
CUOMO: Here's my pushback. One, the reason I wanted you, but one of the reasons tonight is because you wear both hats. You understand the politics well, and you worked at the DOJ.
Two, it is not the job of Congress to beat the President at the ballot box. That is a decision for the American people, what they want, what they don't want. Their job is to follow their duties. You know this.
Everything that you're describing about amassing the facts, that's what an impeachment inquiry is. I didn't say to impeach the President. I didn't say to bring articles of impeachment. They'll have to figure out if they have it. But clearly, they're being stymied in a way because they're not at maximal power.
So, I see it as binary. Either you say, "Look, they're stalling us. We know what he is. We know what he did. Let's just take it to the election. Our candidates will make the case," or go all in, don't dither because you're worried about political consequence. That's my criticism.
PEREZ: Well I, yes, and I don't see it as binary because I've - I've been involved in a lot of these investigations, and they take time.
I - I used to have so many frustrated stakeholders because we were methodical. You open up one door, and you realize there's four more doors that you got to go through, and - and that's exactly what the Chairs of the relevant committees are doing.
And it isn't easy. And it's not fast because they're having to go to court a lot, and they're going to win these court cases. And again--
CUOMO: Courts, they're going to take time.
PEREZ: --and - and we all know right now-- CUOMO: And you're not getting the maximal deference from the courts that you would.
PEREZ: --based on the Mueller memo--
CUOMO: You'd get more deference from the courts--
PEREZ: Well--
[21:40:00] CUOMO: --President suggests, if it were as part of an impeachment inquiry. But I want to beat this to death. I just wanted to get your take on it, and I appreciate it. I want your take on something else--
PEREZ: Well--
CUOMO: --as well. We had Bill Maher on this show, blew up Twitter with what he was saying, blew up social media. I want to play one piece for you, get your take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER HOST, HBO: Some of them are I - I don't even know what their raison d'etre is for running. I've - I've asked them. They've been on the show. I'm like "Why you?" Right off the bat, we're stumped.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He said two things that I wanted your take on.
One is that there're too many people. And what President Obama once said about the Republicans is that their firing squad is going to turn into a circular one, and that's no good for the Democrats.
The other one is, is they got to be careful about political correctness because they wind up punishing their friends. The only people they wind up punishing are people who care about the standards, and those are people who are already with them, and the Right doesn't give a damn, and it works to your disadvantage.
Those two points, too many, and too much PC--
PEREZ: Sure.
CUOMO: --do you agree with either?
PEREZ: Right. Well I don't think it's the place of the - the role of the DNC Chair to say there's too many, there's too few. I think we have a bumper crop of spectacular candidates, and there's 23 in. 22 aren't going to make to the mountaintop.
And my job is to make sure that everybody gets a fair opportunity to communicate their vision. And we are methodically moving through this debate cycle. And, in September, we're going to be raising the threshold. We've given people notice. And so, they understand that you have to
continue to make progress. And what I think is exciting about this process, Chris, is that there are so many engaged people because these candidates all have a base of support.
And we have to play what I call a long game here because if - if we're perceived at the DNC as saying, "No, Candidate A, you shouldn't be in," well then we're going to be committing a lot of the fouls that got us in trouble four years ago.
And so, I firmly believe that we need to make sure we give everybody an opportunity because I believe the definition of success is to make sure that all the candidates who don't make it to the mountaintop believe and their supporters believe because it's true that they got a fair shake.
CUOMO: Hey, would you ever think--
PEREZ: That way, our nominee will sprint across the starting line.
CUOMO: Would you ever think about doing something different? Let's say you get closer there, and you still have, let's say, 10 that are doing somewhat well as you get close to convention time.
Would you ever think about talking to them, and say, "Listen, most of you, you don't have a shot. The delicate (ph) counts, it's not going to work that way for you. But what if we put together a slate, where we work together as a party, and people take different cabinet positions?"
Of course, they still have to be vetted by the Senate. But you would present as a team. "Here's the government that we're going to bring in. Here's going to be - this one's going to be hard, this one's going to be this, this one's going to be that, and it would be a number of talented people who would have been vetted by the voters in this country like no other cabinet ever had before," is that even a possibility?
PEREZ: Well there - there may be a time and a place in the spring when the field has narrowed to have conversations similar to that. But what I think is important for viewers to understand is I think there are a number of factors that are going to result in the field narrowing with nothing from the DNC.
And that is we're going to come up in the near future on ballot access requirements in order to get on the ballot, the number of states, you've got to do a lot of work. That requires resources. In order to run for President, you need a fair amount of money.
CUOMO: Yes.
PEREZ: And so, if - if you can keep that money coming in, then you can sustain your campaigns. But it's hard for 23 people to sustain a national campaign. We also have a very compressed schedule, Chris.
When people are voting in Iowa on - in early February, they'll be getting their - their ballots in California for--
CUOMO: Yes. No, I saw it.
PEREZ: --Super Tuesday. And so--
CUOMO: There's no question.
PEREZ: --you can't simply win this nomination by planting yourself exclusively in Iowa. That's going to be very hard.
CUOMO: I got you.
PEREZ: You've got to build an infrastructure elsewhere. And so, I actually think - thing - forces will end up resulting in candidates who decide--
CUOMO: Right.
PEREZ: --that it's time for them to get out.
CUOMO: Well--
PEREZ: But that's not for me to say, and that's not for me to say--
CUOMO: I got you.
PEREZ: --when.
CUOMO: I got you.
PEREZ: And that's why I - again I - I really think that we have to play a much longer game here and understand that we've got to give everybody that fair shake.
CUOMO: Well they're getting it.
PEREZ: There's some remarkable candidates who are known in their state or their--
CUOMO: Right.
PEREZ: --municipality but they're not known by the nation. And a debate like the ones coming up in June and July, and I'm looking forward to CNN in July, they could catch fire.
CUOMO: Well we'll see what happens.
PEREZ: I want to give them that shake.
CUOMO: Tom Perez, appreciate you always weighing in on what matters through our audience. Thank you.
PEREZ: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, we're going to take a quick break. Sarah Sanders is out, announced she's leaving. What does it mean? Why did it happen? D. Lemon, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, so the White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders is on her way out. Her tenure has seen gross controversy, real questions over her credibility, and the death of the Daily Press briefing. We are in a new record of being shut out.
D. Lemon, POTUS hinted she may run for Governor of Arkansas. Her father was Governor of Arkansas. Your take?
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: Well she's going to have to wait a while because the Governor was just elected last year, Asa Hutchinson, and he's not done until 2023.
So, it would be a bit, if she would still have the platform and the level of celebrity, if you will, or notoriety, or name recognition then, is yet to be seen.
But she has definitely got some obstacles to overcome, not only the mistruths or lies, as we say, that she has told may come back to haunt her, and her credibility.
And - and also, it is documented, she said it for herself in the Mueller report that she was not truthful with the press. So, I think she has - she has some issues there. But you never know in this new normal or new whatever it is, you want to call it.
CUOMO: Nothing new about it. Lying is as old as language itself.
LEMON: But not to this degree, man. I got to tell you. It's not - everyone says, "Oh, politicians always lie." Yes, but this is on steroids. This is a whole new chapter in our history when it comes to, you know, the - at least the folks who are at the White House.
CUOMO: We've never seen anything like--
LEMON: Never seen anything like it.
[21:50:00] CUOMO: --this on any level. True enough, one more reason why open hearings with these people from the Mueller report is so important because nobody's going to read it. What do you got coming up? LEMON: Well I'm going to talk about this, and - and I'm going to ask this question early on in the broadcast. Would you even notice that she's gone if I didn't tell you she's going?
CUOMO: Well we haven't been having any briefings.
LEMON: 94 days.
CUOMO: Yes.
LEMON: 94 days without a briefing. So, Mister, you don't want to miss this. Fareed Zakaria--
CUOMO: Ooh!
LEMON: --one of the best, guess who he interviewed?
CUOMO: Let me guess.
LEMON: Nancy--
CUOMO: Nancy Pelosi?
LEMON: Nancy Pelosi. And he's going to share it. And you won't believe what she said. That's all I'll say.
CUOMO: I was wondering why I was embargoed. We tried to get it on this show. They said, "No, I got to some - deal with somebody." I said, "Who?" Wouldn't tell me.
LEMON: Right here.
CUOMO: Now I know.
LEMON: You'll get to hear all about impeachment, how she feels, is she evolving, who knows? But we'll - we'll - Fareed Zakaria will ask all those questions, and she will answer them, and you'll hear it on this program.
CUOMO: An exclusive look with Fareed and Captain Ugly. I'll talk to you in a second.
LEMON: You--
CUOMO: Hyper-partisan times, no question about it. There's a lot of selective outrage from Republicans when it comes to the unethical antics of this President. For all those crying "But Hillary, but Hillary," listen, there are certain things that we can break down, and know, as a matter of fact. Let's get them straight, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Once again, too many Republicans are too quiet when it matters. What they ignore, they empower.
And certainly this President has seized on their silence, and only increased his appetite for flouting norms, rules, and even laws. This statement about welcoming foreign interference is a low point, and even now they're quiet.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ignored the questions. And when the big voices do speak out, their words are often worse than the silence.
Take Senator Graham of South Carolina. He forcefully says "No, don't take information from a foreign government about your opponent," but then says this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I hope my Democrat colleagues will be equally offended by the fact that this actually did happen in 2016, where a foreign agent was paid for by a political party to gather opposition research.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: If this President is bad, Hillary Clinton must always be worse. But instead of just squeezing up your face, and turning it off, let's unpack it.
Look at the law. Here it is, very simple. Do not have to be a lawyer or any kind of sophisticate to get it. "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value in connection with any election."
So, there needs to be a foreigner giving for free a thing of value in connection with an election. Now listen again to what the President said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, "We have information on your opponent," oh, I think I'd want to hear it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Of course, you'd want to hear it, but you're not supposed to. But that is pretty much exactly what his son did. He was excited by a meeting in which he'd meet with Russians who,
quote, "Offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary," that was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," to which Trump Jr. responded, if that's what you say I - "If it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer."
Just opposition research, says POTUS. Wrong, says Mr. Mueller. "There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a thing of value."
Two things saved this President's son. One, Mueller found that the information itself wasn't that valuable. There's a $2,000 threshold for it to be a crime. Two, it was unclear if Jr. knew he was breaking the law. So, he caught a break.
But Clinton doesn't need a break here because the Steele dossier does not fit the felony. Clinton's campaign lawyers contracted with an American Oppo research company, Fusion GPS, OK?
They subcontracted with a former British spy, Christopher Steele. That he was a foreigner doing this work is not prohibited. They paid him. He didn't give them anything for nothing, for free. Campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution.
Foreign sources that he used, we don't even know if they had any idea what the purpose was behind his requests. And there is no indication they approached the campaign, let alone with anything of value, let alone for free.
Now, I lay this out because the farce needs to be exposed. What the President said is wrong. What his son tried to do was wrong. That's probably why they lied about it, and put out a false explanation.
There is no need to try to mitigate the impact by casting blame on others. The energy should be on calling out what is wrong and then fixing the system.
The Right going quiet about this President is expected. But how can the Senate not want to require people to report foreign solicitations? How can Congress not be working together to harden the elections against known and expected future interference?
They all agree, except this President, that Russia did it, is doing it now, and wants to do more of it in the next election.
In this environment, and with this Attorney General, let's be honest, we don't even know for sure that if the Russians did try to help his campaign again. Do we even know that this Attorney General would allow an investigation?
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, and expecting different results, the definition of dereliction of duty is, knowing that something is going to happen, and it's going to be bad, and doing nothing to stop it, and that's where we are.
Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
END
