Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

Trump Assembles His Legal Team; Senate Prepares For Showdown Over Witnesses And New Evidence; Impeachment Trial Forces Senators Off The Campaign Trail. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 18, 2020 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[18:00:21]

S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Welcome to UNFILTERED. The President has just filed his formal response to the impeachment summons, "The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election -- now just months away."

"The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day. The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face."

We'll have more from that report. I literally just took it off the printer. But here is tonight's headline, "See No Evil Hear No Evil."

There they were one by one every, United States senators save for one Democrat and Republican on the Senate floor on Thursday, signing an oath to uphold, "impartial justice" before President Trump's impeachment trial begins this week.

Only Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma missed the signing for a family medical issue. What exactly did the senators swear to when they signed this document? "That in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws, so help you God."

That's interesting, because most Republicans who have publicly weighed in on the trial, the one that they're supposed to treat impartially have already admitted they have no plans to do so. More on that conundrum in a minute.

Opening arguments begin on Tuesday, and in advance of that, Trump has assembled his legal Dream Team. A handful of high-profile attorneys you may have heard of. There's Alan Dershowitz, whose former clients include OJ Simpson, Claus von Bulow and Jeffrey Epstein, earning him the reputation as the devil's advocate.

And there's Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment. They join lead attorneys, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow. In the weeks between the House Impeachment and the Senate trial, a lot

of new information has come out. A new Government Accountability Office report shows the White House broke the law by withholding funds from Ukraine.

White House e-mails state there was clear direction from Trump on the Ukraine aid hold. We saw a letter from Rudy Giuliani to Ukrainian President Zelensky saying he was acting with Trump's knowledge and consent.

We saw texts from indicted Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas and Ukrainian officials about getting Ukraine to announce a Biden probe and text suggesting an effort to spy on U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

State Department and Ukraine have launched investigations of their own into that matter. We also now know that congressman Devin Nunes and his staff were in contact with Parnas.

The torrent of new details culminated this week with the Lev Parnas media blitz. Here's what he said about the Ukraine scheme on MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED RUDY GIULIANI ASSOCIATE: President Trump knew exactly what was going on. It was never about corruption. It was never strictly about Burisma which included Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Trump maintains that he doesn't know Parnas despite photographic and video evidence showing Trump with him on multiple occasions and in various non-ceremonial picture locations. Parnas also claims there was a prior quid pro quo attempt in which Trump offered to endorse then Ukrainian President Poroshenko in his reelection bid in exchange for a Biden investigation announcement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PARNAS: First quid quo pro again was when we met with President Poroshenko. If he would make the announcement that he would get -- Trump would either invite him to the White House or make a statement for him, but basically, will start supporting him for, you know, President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Poroshenko ultimately lost the election to Zelensky. So with all this new information, you'd think Republican senators who will serve as both judges and jurors on the impeachment trial would want to hear more in the form of witnesses and documents.

After all, they signed an oath to remain impartial, according to the Constitution and the laws, so help you God. Well you be wrong. In fact, Republicans are adamant about keeping that new information buried, hidden out of the official record. [18:05:04]

CUPP: Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is actually threatening his Republican colleagues. According to POLITICO, if any plan to vote to hear more evidence saying you're voting to lose your election basically.

When asked by CNN's Manu Raju if she'd support new evidence in the trial, here was Senator Martha McSally's totally normal composed reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R-AZ): Manu, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you.

RAJU: You're not going to comment, Senator? About this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: And here was Senator Lindsey Graham sounding totally impartial on Wednesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): The best thing for the American people is to end this crap as quickly as possible, to have a trial in the Senate, bipartisan acquittal of the President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Here's the deal, See No Evil Hear No Evil is a pretty damn corrupt strategy by the Republicans to ignore their constitutional duties. The ones, I'll remind you again, they just swore to this week, but it's also pretty damn cowardly.

Imagine being this afraid, afraid of witnesses who may further implicate the President in crimes, afraid of documents that may reveal the President has been, you know, lying this whole time, afraid of the President himself and what childish, bad name he might conjure up for those who dare to break ranks, afraid of losing their elections, because keeping the job is so much more important than doing the job.

Well, you don't have to imagine Republicans being that afraid. You're witnessing it in real time in Rand Paul's threats, in Martha McSally's petulance and Mitch McConnell's paranoia. It's a pretty pathetic display if you ask me.

We'll talk more in a minute about the Republicans' cowardly calculus. But first, let's get the latest on the trial and the President's response to it with "Washington Post's" congressional reporter, CNN Political Analyst, Rachael Bade. Rachael, the House has met its 5:00 p.m. deadline to file their trial

brief today and the President's deadline to offer his first formal impeachment response hit just a couple of minutes ago. What's your response to Trump's filing?

RACHAEL BADE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, a couple of points and S.E. thanks for having me on tonight. Just to sort of read some of these, forgive me, if I look down, I've been sort of jotting notes as I've been reading these filings.

The first one, this sort of argument that the impeachment is not constitutionally valid on its face, because it's abuse -- it's allegedly abuse of power, and that is not a crime.

You know, that's really interesting because Republicans themselves, remember 20 years ago charged Bill Clinton, with abuse of power and that ultimately failed on the House floor, but back then they certainly saw it as an impeachable offense.

Also, they say, you know, it's not a crime. It can't be sort of, he can't be impeached for this, but misdemeanors is not defined specifically in the Constitution when they talk about high crimes and misdemeanors, so that's interesting on its face.

I would also say, they say that the impeachment would be lasting damage of the separation of powers. I think that that in particular is kind of rich, because, you know, we have seen the President, not just over the past few weeks, but over the past few months when Democrats first started investigating him, has completely ignored the power of the Congress to have its oversight duty, not just not letting a couple of people testify, but not letting anybody testify, ignoring subpoenas for witnesses, and for documents.

But I think the really interesting thing is, is what we're not seeing in this opening briefing or this opening statement, and that is they don't mention anything about alleged election interference in 2016. Remember, that has been debunked.

CUPP: Right.

BADE: That has been a top talking point for Republicans in the House. That obviously makes a number of Senate Republicans nervous. We don't hear anything about that. We also don't hear anything about Hunter Biden, and that is something else that Republicans particularly in the White House, Trump allies are saying they want to use the trial to go after Hunter. We don't see anything in this statement.

CUPP: And Rachael, as I mentioned, the House has filed its brief as well. It does include the new evidence that's come up since the impeachment vote. How do you expect that will be received by the Senate?

BADE: You know, so far, still picking through the House Democrats' a hundred and -- I think it's 110 pages, a lot of the stuff we've seen before, basically, they're alleging that the President abused his power, not just by trying to get Ukraine to do these investigations, but by going out of his way to sort of use military aid to get them to do this.

A lot of this is going to be sort of a recap of what we've seen in the hearings over the past couple of weeks in the fall and into the winter. But again, the question is, really it's not at this point about whether Republicans are going to vote at all to impeach him, it's a question of whether or not they see this evidence and say, is there enough here that I need to hear more, is there enough, right that we need to call a new witnesses? And I think it's TBD at this point if this briefing will move anybody.

CUPP: Rachael, thanks so much for joining me tonight. And with me now to talk about Senate Republicans in the spotlight is Bill Kristol, Director of Defending Democracy Together.

[18:10:00]

CUPP: Bill, first, let me just read you another part of this report, and if you if you haven't seen it, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Part of this response says the President's actions on the July 25, 2019 telephone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, as well as on the earlier April 29 telephone call and in all surrounding and related events, were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate and taken in furtherance of our national interest. What do you expect Democrats to respond to that with?

BILL KRISTOL, DIRECTOR, DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: We've had that argument the House, we will have it again in the Senate, and the question is whether Senate Republicans -- enough of them -- are going to say maybe it'd be nice to have some firsthand testimony about what the President actually did over those months, both before June 25th and after the phone call from someone like John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney, who was there to see the President say certain things, order certain things and do certain things.

So, I mean, they can all --

CUPP: Do you expect that there will be witnesses? You think that's likely?

KRISTOL: I actually do. I think there are enough Senate Republicans, not a whole number, not a huge number, but enough to say it's just too embarrassing. It's just too ridiculous to pretend that we're going to have a trial and not have witnesses. We've had them in the past. But maybe I'm being wishful, and God knows I've been wishful over the last few years that Republicans would finally, some of them, a few of them would stand up in some minor way.

We're not really -- I'm not asking them -- I would like it if they would consider voting, actually to convict if the evidence is there, but at least to sort of put on something that looks like a trial.

I'm very glad, S.E., you focused on oath. It's a separate oath. People really haven't you know -- they swear, this is in the rules of the Senate. It's been down in the different impeachment trials. They swear a separate oath to do impartial justice as senators sitting as a Court of Impeachment. And there is a kind of solemnity there and one would hope that fine,

they've all had opinions, a million opinions. They've said a million times they already made up their mind, but you know, you'd hope that they take that oath and think, you know what, of course, I'm not pretending I'm a blank slate, and they're not pushed to it at all.

CUPP: Right.

KRISTOL: But I am going to try to step back and say, let's hear the arguments. Let's see whether we need more and produce more evidence, and let's be serious about this or at least dignified in the way we deal with these arguments. It's important for the country. It really is important for the country.

And so far, the behavior of the Republicans in the House, and unfortunately, many of them in the Senate, including the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has really done a disservice, I think, to the whole constitutional system.

CUPP: Well, I'm not frankly sure why they bothered signing it. They've already decided they do not plan to be impartial. And, you know, I mean, Republicans have been talking a big game. Trump has been talking about a big game. That phone call was perfect. This is all partisan.

But I think Rand Paul and Martha MCSally's you know, temper tantrums this week really show just how scared Republicans are of all of this. What do you think?

KRISTOL: I mean, yes, I agree. They seem to be feeling some pressure. I don't know if they're scared or they're embarrassed. Maybe they still have a little sense of shame. People don't like being told you are behaving really, really badly, and it's really obvious how badly you're behaving. And once upon a time you've behaved better in all kinds of ways.

And you say that to your kids, and they don't like it and you say it to a senator, or you apply it to a senator, well, some of us have been saying in ads to these senators, and they don't like it. I agree with that.

So there's a kind of -- maybe that shows that there's some chance that they'll -- a few of them will say, well, wait a second, can the whole party just -- are they literally going to vote not to hear from someone like John Bolton who has volunteered, who has said he's willing to testify?

Now, the President may try to stop him incidentally, that in itself would be very interesting argument when it goes to the Chief Justice.

I do think, the one thing I would say is once the trial is constituted, things do change, and the House Managers make their case, the President's lawyers make their case, the Chief Justice presides. You don't have kind of a Majority Leader and a Minority Leader and people whipping votes, at least you shouldn't. You have questions from the floor, some objections. And I do think at that point, it becomes a little less predictable

once the trial begins, as opposed to a normal, you know, vote where we count the votes.

CUPP: Well, that's a really interesting point and we'll be watching, obviously, and we'll have to have you back to talk about it all when it's over. Bill Kristol, thanks so much.

KRISTOL: Thanks, S.E.

CUPP: All right, up next, what did we learn from Lev Parnas and will Republicans care? And a little later, there's been too much panic about the Sanders-Warren rift. I'll explain why their inevitable breakup is a good thing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:18:10]

CUPP: House Democrats released a trove of documents this week from Rudy Giuliani's indicted associate, Lev Parnas relating to the President's push for an investigation of the Bidens in Ukraine. Parnas has used the media to tell his story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI: It was all about 2020 to make sure he had another four years, and that is --

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: But that's still how you personally viewed it, that this is about 2020 to help him get the next four years.

PARNAS: That was the way everybody viewed it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: It was eye opening stuff from an eyewitness who says he was very involved in the Ukraine pressure campaign. But for Republican lawmakers, Democrats were somehow to blame here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): They had a chance to call the witnesses they are requesting today, they chose not to because they were in such a rush to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Senator Susan Collins told reporters, "I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it's only now being revealed. Doesn't that suggests that the House did an incomplete job then?"

And Senator Thom Tillis, when asked about bringing in new witnesses said, "I really wish the House had done their job, so you weren't having to ask me that question. They seem to have done a lousy job." Wow. That's a pretty scathing indictment of House Democrats, except

the House did subpoena Parnas, but a judge only just now ruled that he could turn over his information to Congress and as a result, talk about it.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good deflection. Joining me to discuss, former Democratic senator from California Barbara Boxer.

Senator, Lev Parnas, as you know has been indicted on charges of funneling money from foreign entities to U.S. candidates to buy political influence. He's out on bail. Prosecutors have also argued that he tried to conceal his assets. Tell me why you think he should be a credible witness.

[18:20:00]

BARBARA BOXER (D), FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA: Well, I'm not saying he is a credible witness. What I am thinking to myself at this point is that he is believable when you listen to him in both his interviews on CNN and MSNBC, and he has a lot of documentation.

And everything he says, you know, is when compared to what other witnesses have said, they match up. So, it's not just him. It's John Bolton. It's other people. It's Mick Mulvaney, who said, this is how we do things. It's the G.A.O., which I think is the biggest bombshell. No one could say anything bad about the G.A.O., the Government Accountability Office, both sides trust them. They said the President broke the law.

So when I look at my Republican friends, and a lot of them are still my friends, what I see is a lot of panic about getting to the truth because they really want to get through this and run to something else.

CUPP: I agree. I think that G.A.O. report was really scathing and hard to run from, and yet here, Republicans are doing just that. They're also threatening to call Hunter Biden as a witness if Democrats try to call their own witnesses, like John Bolton.

Would a Hunter Biden, you know, testimony, would that be bad for Democrats?

BOXER: Well, Hunter Biden has nothing to do with this. He's a victim, not a witness. So in my mind, you know, I think that would just -- that won't go anywhere. Any Republican that votes to call Hunter Biden, who is a victim of this, I don't get it. So if they --

CUPP: Well, Senator, I mean, with all due respect --

BOXER: They were saying that would going to call Joe -- they were saying they were going to call Joe Biden, too.

CUPP: Sure, sure.

BOXER: These are the people that -- these are the people that were, you know, that Trump wanted to get. This is the reason --

CUPP: No, I understand the politics of it.

BOXER: That Biden that he shoot down Zelensky.

CUPP: But with all due respect, Senator and I don't mean to cut --

BOXER: Yes, that's not politics.

CUPP: No, but I don't mean to cut you off. It's hard to argue --

BOXER: That's the facts.

CUPP: -- that Hunter Biden is a victim. I mean, he took a job he admits he only got because of his father. He admits it was poor judgment to take that job. Other Democratic candidates for President have said they would never allow their Vice President's kids to take those kinds of jobs. What makes him a victim, exactly?

BOXER: Well, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. And that's all fine. So let me try again.

CUPP: Okay.

BOXER: The reason -- the reason -- that Donald Trump shot down Zelensky and I don't think there's any doubt about it, was to get dirt on the Biden family.

CUPP: Right, correct.

BOXER: And they are victims. Because guess what? If there's a problem with the Bidens, you go to the U.S. Attorney General. You don't go to a foreign leader.

CUPP: Sure.

BOXER: You know, Mr. Zelensky, if you're listening, do the investigations. I need to hold my seat. And by the way, China, if you're listening, please, go ahead and help me here. Go after the Bidens. So of course, the Biden family is the victim of this.

And I think that Joe has shown -- Joe Biden has shown, he is a pretty tough character. He can take it. He can dish it out, too. But it is not a pretty picture.

CUPP: I want to turn to the 2020 campaign. This will feel like a hard turn. But I really want your particular take on the Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders feud because it's turned pretty ugly.

BOXER: Sure.

CUPP: We saw Warren confront Sanders after the debate and accused him of lying about her on national television. He said the same. Some of his supporters in turn have been viciously attacking her online.

And you've had some experience with that. I really just want to know your thoughts.

BOXER: Well, to be really honest, if you look at Bernie's last campaign, people who supported Hillary Clinton, boy, did they -- they went after us, hook, line and sinker. It's all in the history books.

But you know what I think happened here and this is -- I am not working with either campaign -- but I think in Elizabeth's mind, she may have thought herself as the one to take over that progressive wing of the party, and Bernie was not ready to give it up.

So I think it's inevitable that there would be this type of a clash. It's very ugly. It's something I don't like to see happen. But it is there, and so be it.

And now I think voters are going to have to just put that aside and say, who's going to beat Trump? And to me, that's the biggest issue here, you know.

CUPP: Senator Barbara Boxer. Thanks so much for joining me tonight. I really appreciate it.

Okay, we have just two weeks until the first votes of this election are cast, four presidential candidates are sidelined because of the Senate impeachment trial. How will that change the course of this race? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:29:26]

CUPP: With just about two weeks to go until the first votes of 2020 are cast in the Iowa caucus, most candidates are barnstorming that state with some urgency today and this weekend.

For four of them, it's likely the last full weekend they'll be able to do that before Iowa, because an impeachment trial is derailing them from the trail.

Senators Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders and Michael Bennet have to serve as jurors in the trial of President Trump, a trial that could last two weeks or more.

That's plenty of time for the top tier non-senators, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg to take full advantage, and it's still a very tight race there. The most recent Monmouth poll of Iowa shows Biden at the top with Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren very close behind.

So is impeachment happening at the worst possible time for some candidates? Joining me to discuss former D.N.C. Chair and former Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe.

Governor there is no clear front runner in Iowa and it's getting very close. Can Warren and Sanders afford the time off the trail?

[18:30:29] TERRY MCAULIFFE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this is very

inopportune time for them because we're two weeks from Monday. The last debate is over. TV ads are going for all the candidates. But what really matters now is organization and having that organization on the ground.

We still have 45 percent of the caucus goers who haven't made up their mind. So the last two weeks, a lot of personal interaction. Iowa loves that personal contact. So they are at a real disadvantage. It's very unfortunate for those candidates.

You know, I think in my own races, when the last couple weeks, you're motivating your volunteers, you're in doing get out to vote rallies, they're not going to be able to do that.

Now, they'll have surrogates, but you know, surrogates are not as good as the actual candidate doing it. So for these candidates, it makes it hard in a state like Iowa where they want to hear you and touch you and feel you. It's a very interactive state. And they're going to be at a disadvantage.

If I'm Joe Biden and I'm Pete Buttigieg, you know, I'm going to spend the next 14 days doing 10 events a day all through Iowa, and that will really help them.

CUPP: Who do you think it hurts and perils the most? Is it someone like Amy Klobuchar who needs you know, every last, you know, second of attention, really? Or is it is it Warren or Bernie? I mean, who's really imperiled by this of the senators?

MCAULIFFE: Well, right now, the polling data has four at the top. You know, it's Biden and Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg, so those four have been clustered at the top. So two of those will now be taken out, will not be able to be in Iowa campaigning, meeting with those undecided voters to do that final sort of push. The final reason why you need to vote for me and go caucus for me.

So -- but I think also for Amy, you know, she needs to make a move. She's very good on the stump and her not being able to be on the stump, I know she'll have other surrogates, I know her husband and others will be there.

But you know, as I say it's a very inopportune time for these candidates at the final two weeks to go that they are not in making their closing arguments to all of these potential Iowa caucus goers.

CUPP: Well, so seven of 10 Democrats who won the Iowa caucus have gone on to be the party's nominee, 70 percent, that's pretty good. But how predictive do you think this year will be? Is this a different kind of year in Iowa?

MCAULIFFE: I do think this is a different kind of year. So we've got the first four, obviously, Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada and then South Carolina. But the big question out there for us this time, S.E. is a month later on March 3rd, is we're going to have 16 contests. You know, 38 percent of the delegates chosen on one day and this is

the big issues so, you know, if Biden can come out with a win in Iowa, that is a big boost for him heading forward.

CUPP: Right.

MCAULIFFE: If he doesn't win it, then he's got to say I'm going to win Nevada and South Carolina. And who is moving? Is it Warren? Is it Sanders? Is it Pete? And then you've got Michael Bloomberg sitting there on March 3rd, with unlimited resources to buy in all of those states.

These candidates are going to spend all their money in those first four states. Then can they raise the money get out and do what they need to do in order to compete and all these March 3rd states? So it's different this year.

CUPP: So Trump tweeted yesterday, and he has tweeted again today, but I think this one's a little more relevant. He said, "They (Democrats) are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders just like last time, only even more obviously. They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that as a senator he sit through the impeachment hoax trial." What's your response to that?

MCAULIFFE: You know, crazy Donald Trump. You know, he always wants to interfere in our, you know, I hope not one Democrat ever pays attention to a tweet that Donald Trump actually does.

I think Trump is very nervous. S.E., I've said on the show before, I think he has a very difficult time winning reelection. You look at those three states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. We only lost by 77,000 votes.

CUPP: Right.

MCAULIFFE: And 92 million people did not vote in 2016. Many of them are coming out. You've seen it. Turn out in 17, 18 and 19 for the Democrats, extraordinary numbers. So I think Trump's panicked right now as he should be. I think his pathway very difficult. You look at 19 in Virginia, when we swept everything. We won Republican counties. Prince William County, overwhelmingly flipped to the Democrat. That is suburban women saying we are sick and tired of Trump and all of his antics.

CUPP: Yes. Governor McAuliffe, thanks so much for coming on. I appreciate it.

MCAULIFFE: Thanks, S.E. You bet.

CUPP: Okay, by now you're familiar with the non-handshake that rocked the Democratic Party this week. Panic ensued. But everybody calm down. This was inevitable. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:39:21] CUPP: In The Red File tonight, the non-handshake heard around the

political world. You've seen it by now, I'm sure. CNN's debate cameras catching the final moments of the last presidential debate between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

They looked nonplussed, and you've heard it by now two. The hot mics revealing the final breaking point of the non-aggression pact between the campaigns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?

WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SANDERS: Let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

WARREN: Anytime.

SANDERS: You called me a liar. You told me -- all right, let's not do it now.

TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't want to get in the middle, I just wanted to say hi, Bernie.

SANDERS: Yes, good. Okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:40:03]

CUPP: My favorite part of that is Tom Steyer, going, sorry, just, hi. Okay. That was the crescendo in a week of escalating tensions between the two progressive, one time allies who have long stuck two pact of mutual protection through the Democratic primary. That's clearly over, causing some serious stress and panic amongst Democrats.

But loyal viewers of UNFILTERED can probably guess, I do not think this is a bad thing. In fact, I think it was a necessary thing. Warren and Sanders were never going to be able to remain friends till the end for one simple reason. They can't both win the nomination.

This isn't after all a twin sister double wedding. So is it good that the gloves are finally off? Here with me to discuss it, our Democratic strategist, CNN political commentator, Aisha Moodie-Mills and republican strategist and Shermichael Singleton. I mean, Aisha, I don't understand.

AISHA MOODIE-MILLS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Did you just say that a double sister wedding. CUPP: Yes, two people are walking down this aisle when it's over.

They are going to have to take each other on. I don't get, but sort of naivete over this, you know, this feud. This was inevitable. Do you think?

MOODIE-MILLS: Well, I'm not sure that this particular, you know, you called me a liar. Did you say it? No, I didn't say it kind of thing, was the piece that was inevitable. But yes, it's a competition. So at some point, they're going to have to distinguish themselves from one another.

CUPP: Thank you. It's a competition.

MOODIE-MILLS: On policy. And I think that they have, I mean, you know, to some degree, Bernie Sanders really leans into being more socialist in his thinking about his policies. Elizabeth Warren says, hey, I want to be a conscious capitalist, and has an explanation for how she wants to do that.

So I think that they have been trying to create some space for themselves.

CUPP: Who do you think's winning this latest -- this battle?

MOODIE-MILLS: Which battle?

CUPP: This latest one.

MOODIE-MILLS: Well, according to the Iowa polls, and it is interesting and surprising to me that Bernie Sanders is actually leading and that to me is a testament of the money that he has to put people on the ground to really get his message out there in Iowa. But at the end of the day, I don't think that that translates beyond that.

CUPP: Shermichael, you wrote this week that this was hurting the Democratic Party?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes.

CUPP: Why?

SINGLETON: I mean, look, I think when you think about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, a lot of their support comes from the same place, and at some point to the point that you opened the show on with one of them is going to have to go. And I'm not exactly sure if it's a healthy debate among some voters in the Democratic Party, because let's say it's Bernie Sanders and not Elizabeth Warren, will all of her supporters naturally gravitate to Bernie Sanders.

Let's say it's Warren over Bernie Sanders, I'm almost certain his supporters won't naturally gravitate towards Elizabeth Warren.

CUPP: They did the last time.

SINGLETON: So whomever becomes nominee, I think that sort of creates a brokered group of voters who may either stay home or potentially vote for a third candidate.

CUPP: Aisha, before you jump in, let me just -- let me just say, I agree. Wouldn't you rather get to that earlier than later?

SINGLETON: No, and you would --

CUPP: And then you sort of -- you have time to sort it out.

MOODIE-MILLS: Here's the frustration for me is that as a progressive, the only people who win out of this are the moderates and that becomes problematic because in reality, many of the folks who like Bernie Sanders also like the kind of bravado and pushiness of a Donald Trump type of figure and character.

They're more likely to be these kind of working class, you know, anti- establishment white men, too, that then would go to say, a Biden, as opposed to a Warren.

So it's not just a simple progressive swap for progressive swap. At the end of the day, it becomes aggressive versus moderate wing that's the challenge.

CUPP: What about the attacks by Sanders supporters? And look, you are not responsible for everything that your supporters do, right? But the attacks on Warren, the snake emojis that some of my friends have been getting, you know --

MOODIE-MILLS: This is not new.

CUPP: That doesn't help.

MOODIE-MILLS: So one of the biggest critiques of the Sanders campaign, even in 2016, is that the so-called "faction of Bernie Bros" on the internet are absolutely relentless and problematic, and frankly, I've had very deep issues and run-ins with them as well.

I think that anytime you have a group of supporters who are just so rabid and nasty and evil and ignorant, who does this sound like? Trump supporters, right? They're just opposite sides of the same. You're not really supporting and helping your candidate or anybody else. And I would like to see Bernie Sanders actually come out more vocally and say, guys, this isn't the way that we behave with regards to our campaign.

CUPP: There's an idea. Shermichael, Trump has been tweeting his support for Bernie.

SINGLETON: Yes. Yes.

CUPP: Text is support. There could be some trickery in that.

SINGLETON: Of course.

CUPP: It could be self-serving. But no, do you think he'd prefer to run against Bernie or Elizabeth Warren? SINGLETON: Oh my god. Absolutely. Because I think if you look at most

data, Bernie Sanders could not do well beyond in very small pockets of states in a General Election. I actually think you have folks who are Democratic-leaning, who probably would vote for Trump over a Bernie Sanders if it ultimately came down to it.

But it's something that's interesting about Bernie Sanders, when you think about populism, the word, the term in a neutered sense, sort of many of the Sanders messaging and also Trump's messaging is very similar. The grievance is different.

But when you compare it by the definition of populism, it is similar and I think that's why you see similar characteristics and behavior of some of Bernie Sanders supporters that could easily be compared and contrasted to some of Donald Trump's supporters.

[18:45:10]

CUPP: You know, it's so funny, Aisha, I remember back to 2016 and there on this flip side kind of a reverse sexism levied against Bernie. I think you will probably remember, Gloria Steinem saying that, well, women are only Bernie supporters because they want to meet boys.

And then Madeleine Albright saying there's a special place in hell for women who don't support women, meaning if you're not -- if you're a woman supporting Sanders, you kind of going to hell. Have you seen any, you know, remains, stains of that this time around?

MOODIE-MILLS: No, and to clarify, Madeleine Albright, she is not saying oh, if you're supporting Bernie, that you're going to hell. She's making a strong feminist point about women showing up for women generally and supporting women and we've been talking about this for --

CUPP: It didn't go over very well for Bernie supporters?

MOODIE-MILLS: But no, I think that there is a real point that we all need to acknowledge and discuss about the fact that there's a lot of people in America who don't think that a woman can be President or should be President, and that transcends party.

And so that has been really the underpinning of this whole spat, if you will, is are we in America in a place where we are ready for a woman to take the leadership role?

SINGLETON: Really quickly. Elizabeth Warren, you know, why didn't she bring this up a year ago? When reporters questioned her about this, she said, oh, I don't want to talk about it. But why I bring it up at all if you don't want to talk about it?

CUPP: Well, it's unclear. We don't know who did it. She says, she did not.

MOODIE-MILLS: This was a leaked video that we got of her.

CUPP: Thank you, guys.

SINGLETON: Thanks, S.E.

CUPP: Aisha and Shermichael, thank you so much. OK. Hillary Clinton had the endorsement of 57 major newspapers in 2016. Trump, just two. We know how that turned out. So two endorsements matter. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:51:26]

CUPP: In a tradition stretching back to 1860 with its first endorsement of Abraham Lincoln, "The New York Times" is about to make its Democratic nomination endorsement tomorrow on its FX and Hulu series, "The Weekly," and online shortly thereafter.

"The Times'" deputy editorial page editor, Katie Kingsbury said the decision to open up the process to readers is about pulling back the curtain on the tough questions candidates field.

But interestingly, she went on to acknowledge, "Over the past 160 years, the impact that newspaper endorsements have had on elections hasn't been entirely clear or consistent."

Here now to dish on whom "The Times" is likely to select and whether it will matter is CNN Chief Media Correspondent and Host of "Reliable Sources," Brian Stelter.

First, Brian, any thoughts on who you think might get the nomination?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Anyone but Donald Trump, right? Of course, this is the Democratic primary that "The Times" is focused on. But they've brought all of these candidates in.

The one thing we know for sure is that it's not going to be Mike Bloomberg, because Bloomberg turned down "The Times" and decided not to go in for an interview. He said he'll go in in the fall when he's the General Election candidate.

CUPP: Okay. So that's one down.

STELTER: But you know, he also knew was going to face some very hard questions from "The Times" Editorial Board about stop and frisk and other issues.

CUPP: Also, that his own media decision to bar Bloomberg reporters from and investigating him.

STELTER: Yes, investigate or other Democratic candidates. So I think "The Times" tends to have very progressive editorial page. You know, it's worth reminding people that the Editorial Board is separate from the newsroom.

CUPP: Right.

STELTER: But you know, when it's just "The New York Times" endorsement, it does it does carry some weight more so than other papers.

CUPP: Do you want to do odds right now?

STELTER: No, I do not. Do you?

CUPP: Well, yes. I think it's like 70 percent Biden, maybe 30 percent Warren.

STELTER: You know, I was literally saying when I read the transcripts of these interviews, the questions toward Bernie Sanders were very difficult, perhaps, even hostile that you got the sense from some of the editors, a lot of skepticism of Sanders, for example.

But I was grateful they published these transcripts, in the same way, I'm grateful CNN has been holding these Town Halls.

CUPP: Yes.

STELTER: You'd think every question has been asked at this point, but actually, they haven't. There actually are still a lot of questions to ask of these candidates. And it's valuable to have this editorial boards challenge and scrutinize the candidates, even though as "The Times" acknowledged, endorsements probably matter less over time.

CUPP: Do you think local newspapers' endorsements, maybe union endorsements matter more than like a big national newspaper?

STELTER: In some of these key markets, in Iowa and New Hampshire and the other early states, they can matter. Yes. There's also unfortunately, fewer staffers that are working on this, you know, in this day and age.

You know, I think it is, you know, one of the most valuable things these papers can do and "The Washington Post" has 20 question quiz out this week on their website, which candidate do you agree with the most?

I think that kind of thing is even more valuable. Because just helping people understand the issues that are at play is the most valuable thing that these newspapers can do.

CUPP: While I have you, I know you're dying to weigh in on the latest news out of the U.K., Harry and Meghan.

STELTER: I have are pretty obsessed with this, S.E.

CUPP: Well, I know. They're no longer working members of the Royal Family. That's the breaking news today. I'm interested in this story from a media perspective because as you know, the U.K. tabloids are notoriously very aggressive and tough.

Do you think that media scrutiny follows them no matter where they go, right? There's no geographical boundaries now keeping the press --

STELTER: That's true. But there's less of a sense of ownership outside of the U.K., right? I think readers in the U.S. or Canada, they don't feel like they own the Royals to the same degree or that the Royals owe them much to that degree.

CUPP: Yes.

STELTER: This relationship in Britain between the Harry and Meghan at the time was absolutely toxic and damaging and is a factor for why they're deciding to take this action.

[18:55:10]

CUPP: Well, I just think, you know, becoming private citizens as it were, I think my just increased the risk.

STELTER: Increase the scrutiny? Well, then maybe that, too, but they're going to have tens of millions of ways to rack it, to rake in on this now, to make money out of this.

CUPP: Yes, they will. It's so fascinating.

STELTER: With the Netflixes and the book deals and all of that.

CUPP: All right, Brian, thanks as always. I appreciate it. Beginning this Tuesday, CNN has special all day coverage of the impeachment trial of President Trump, so you won't miss a moment from the Capitol. "CNN NEWSROOM" is next. Ana Cabrera.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]