Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
WSJ: Trump Urged Ukrainian President About Eight Times In Call To Work With Giuliani On Investigating Biden's Son; Biden: If Trump Reports Are True, There Is Truly "No Bottom"; Trump: "Somebody Ought To Look Into Joe Biden's Statement". Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 20, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANIEL MCKENNA, FATHER OF FINNEGAN MCKENNA: --sharing that and, you know, it - it seems to have made a lot of people happy.
VAN JONES, FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, CNN HOST, THE VAN JONES SHOW, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. But - but this should just be normal.
MCKENNA: It should be normal.
MICHAEL D. CISNEROS, FATHER OF MAXWELL HANSON: Yes, exactly.
JONES: Two beautiful kids.
MCKENNA: Yes.
JONES: Like each other.
CISNEROS: Yes.
JONES: They play and--
CISNEROS: And they were just being themselves like they hug all the time like it wasn't anything.
MCKENNA: Yes.
CISNEROS: You know, they hold hands walking down the street, and they dance together, and--
JONES: Yes.
CISNEROS: --they get in trouble together.
MCKENNA: Yes, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: They're so adorable. They're just being themselves. See more of that interview with Maxwell and Finnegan, and their dads, tomorrow night on The Van Jones Show, 7 P.M. Eastern, right here on CNN.
His other guest will be Andrew Yang, a Democratic contender, of course, for the White House. Hard to compete though with Maxwell and Finnegan!
The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you very much, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME. What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: For all the noise, there is one central question.
Is President Trump actively pressuring a foreign power to help in his re-election bid? After three years of investigation, and one Mueller report, to prevent future meddling, is the President really taking us down this road again?
Here's the latest. CNN confirmed tonight that President Trump did pressure the President of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son, in a call, earlier this summer.
The Wall Street Journal, owned by a Trump pal, also reports that pressure was applied, about eight times, in that one call, in hopes Ukraine would work with the President's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani was pushing for Ukraine to look into Biden's son, Hunter too, as he shared last night, in a denial turned admission, that was like something out of a Few Good Men.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Did you to ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: No. Actually, I didn't. I asked the Ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016, by the Ukrainians, for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, for which there already is a court finding--
CUOMO: You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden--
GIULIANI: The only thing I asked about Joe Biden--
CUOMO: --and his role with the prosecutor.
GIULIANI: --is to get to the bottom of how it was that Lutsenko who was appointed-- CUOMO: Right.
GIULIANI: --dismissed a case against Antack (ph).
CUOMO: So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?
GIULIANI: Of course, I did.
CUOMO: You just said you didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You see how - you have to see past the passion, and see the purpose. Giuliani came with a plan, to provide cover for the President, which we will deconstruct for you tonight, in detail.
And how do we see the proof of it? Well, just today, the President followed his lead. He did not deny that he too personally asked the foreign government to probe his political opponent. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It doesn't matter what I discuss. But I will say this. Somebody ought to look into Joe Biden's statement because it was disgraceful, where he talked about billions of dollars that he's not giving to a certain country, unless a certain prosecutor's taken off the case. So, somebody ought to look into that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: We will show you why what the President discussed does matter, and why he discussed it matters even more.
And the facts and questions that are driving both concerns, we will lay out, especially now that this President has to explain the same action that he's calling out Biden for, withholding aid to Ukraine.
Why did this President release $250 million in Ukraine aid only right after Congressman Schiff asked for information about the whistleblower?
As for Biden, he's coming out swinging. "If these reports are true, then there is truly no bottom to President Trump's willingness to abuse his power and abase our country."
All right, so let's start filling in the blanks with two top investigators. We have Preet Bharara and Andrew McCabe. Gentlemen, thank you both.
So, Preet, when we are looking at this situation, and we're trying to understand what matters, what pops out to you first?
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR, NYU LAW SCHOOL, HOST, "STAY TUNED WITH PREET" PODCAST: Look, you have, as you discussed in the intro, a repeat situation. You have someone who has taken the country through whatever you think about the results, whatever you think about Bob Mueller.
We've had two years in which there's been an amazing amount of scrutiny and discussion about the sitting President of the United States, when he was a candidate, and then thereafter, trying to gain an advantage, electorally, against an opponent, by - with open arms, asking for help from a foreign power.
At the end of the day, there wasn't a crime. At the end of the day, the Office of Legal Counsel says "You can't indict a sitting President." But that's what we've been talking about.
Now, here you have a situation where, if the facts are true, and they're - they're unfolding in a rapid rate over the - over the last couple of days, and will continue to do so, at bottom, you have a sitting President, once again, who is acting like a recidivist.
I don't mean that in the legal, you know, at - you know, technical term. But he's once again seeking assistance from a foreign power to harm a political rival, the person who might be his opponent in the general election next year.
[21:05:00]
That's crazy, given what he's already put the country through. And, you know--
CUOMO: Is it illegal?
BHARARA: So, I knew you were going to ask that. And - and I've been thinking it over the last couple of days about how to talk about this.
And it's natural for someone who's a former - former prosecutor - my expertise is in proving cases beyond a reasonable doubt, and figuring out what evidence you need to meet the elements of a crime.
But I want - I want to make sure that we don't go down the same road that we have in the past. And that is, to create a culture and an atmosphere, in which, the only thing that matters is did he commit a crime, right? And--
CUOMO: If it's not a felony, then it's fine.
BHARARA: Yes. And - and sometimes, you can get to that place when all we talk about is - because it's, you know, it's the most sensational thing.
If you commit a crime, then that's a big deal. Although, as we understand, and everyone understands now, they didn't two years ago, you can't indict a sitting President. So, whether it's a crime or not, for purposes of - of immediate accountability, does it mean a whole hell of a lot?
So, I want to make sure that people understand whether or not, for - for technical reasons, or substantive reasons, you can make out the elements of conspiracy to commit campaign finance fraud, or extortion, or bribery, some of which elements seem to be-- CUOMO: Could still be wrong even if it isn't.
BHARARA: It is an abuse--
CUOMO: Yes.
BHARARA: If it is true that he is doing these things, it's an abuse of power, and Congress can act because the - the question to ask is not limit yourself solely to "Well, was this OK based on the particular facts of the case?"
If this is OK, if the President of the United States can call up foreign leaders, and withhold aid, or threaten, you know, various sanctions or other things, in exchange for having them do something to harm a political opponent, then what can he not do?
CUOMO: Right.
BHARARA: Do we really want Rudy Giuliani to be flying around the world, and figuring out what buttons to push, on the part of foreign leaders, whether it's in Russia, or China, or Japan, or anywhere else, to - to figure out a way to harm a political opponent.
That's not what we do in America, whether or not you can make out a criminal case.
CUOMO: So, Andrew, that takes us to Rudy Giuliani and my suggestion that he came last night with an obvious agenda. It wasn't just distraction. "I don't want to talk about the President. And I want to talk about Joe Biden."
He needs you, me, and everyone listening, to believe that they have a deeply bona fide conviction, deep and bona fide, that Biden was corrupt, his son was corrupt, and their legitimate questions of interest to United States' national security, because then, if the President asked about it, even if he withheld aid, because of its concern about it, well then it's not about his personal agenda, or just wanting to hurt an opponent.
Let me give an example of what happened last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: --the President of Ukraine.
GIULIANI: If the President of the United States said to the President of any country, I have - I - I am not going to give you money because your country is corrupt, you got to straighten out these problems.
CUOMO: We don't know that--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: And sure enough, Andrew, today what did the President say? "Doesn't matter what I talked about. But somebody should look into Biden. That was terrible what he said." See, it's about the corruption, not about the advantage.
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: That's right, Chris. I mean there's clearly so much to unpack here.
But part of it is a return to the time-honored Rudy Giuliani's strategy, that we all saw, employed so effectively, in the defense of Donald Trump, under the Special Counsel investigation.
And that strategy is, "Don't look at this. You know, look up here. Look at this other thing up here. Don't - let's not talk about what I did. It's about what you did."
And so, again, as you've said, Mr. Giuliani came on television last night, and laid out a conspiracy theory, that if you actually parse through the information that we know, about the actions that were taken in Ukraine, and the - the - the previous corrupt prosecutor, and the fact that he's been - you know, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that either Biden did anything improper, and that - in the earlier investigation of Hunter Biden's activities with respect to that energy company, were basically cleared before any of this stuff happened.
But put all that aside, Mr. Giuliani threw out some very compelling and inflammatory conspiracy theories, and those are the things that will capture the attention of Mr. Trump's supporters, and will carry them through, hopefully, if you're Rudy Giuliani, this period, rather than suspecting the President of having done something improper.
They've given them a inflammatory and salacious story to point to, and say, "No. It's not what - about what the President did. It's about what the other side did." So, this is just what we've been watching and going through for two years.
But I should say one thing, as well, just to tack on to what - some of Preet's comments.
This simple fact that we now have, quite possibly, we're not sure because we don't have all the facts yet, but we may have the President of the United States, and his personal emissary, exhorting, or in fact, possibly extorting, a foreign government to commence a criminal investigation of a United States citizen is remarkable.
[21:10:00]
I don't know that I have ever seen, or heard, any such thing from a President or any other Head of Agency, you know, in my 21 years in government service.
Yes, do - do U.S. law enforcement officers, and the FBI work with foreign partners? Absolutely. But that is when we have an ongoing, fully, lawfully authorized criminal inquiry, we've reach out to other governments through mutual legal assistance treaties--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --and we ask for information.
We don't have the President of the United States get on the phone, and put pressure on a foreign country, to start, you know, essentially persecuting a U.S. citizen. That is remarkable.
CUOMO: So, there are a couple of boxes, I need you guys to stay around, to check.
One is, you got to explain to me the difference between exhort and extort. Only Preet knows the difference between those things. We have to get the whole audience up to speed. But that's why I have you guys with the bigger brains.
Two, I want to game out what else we need to know that would matter, and why?
And third, unpacking a little bit about the Biden considerations. We know the Ukraine situation. Rudy also brought up allegations about China.
What do we know? What are the open questions? There are facts to report and there are questions to ask. So, let's take a break. We'll lay out more information. And then, we'll be back with Bharara and McCabe, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, more new information. A source close to the White House tells CNN, the President has been angry about Ukraine and Biden for months. The source went on to say that Giuliani has been egging the President on.
Now, that all fits with the timeline of what we know, to this point. The call with the Ukrainian President happened on July 25. We know in August, Giuliani says he was talking with people close to the Ukrainian President.
On August 12, the whistleblower filed their complaint. At the end of August, President Trump effectively put a hold on military aid money. On September 1st, the VP met with the Ukrainian leader.
Eight days later, House committees started investigating. And by September 12th, right after Adam Schiff was start - started to ask questions, about the complainant, the aid was lifted.
And that's where we are now. And we're back with Preet Bharara and Andrew McCabe.
So, what makes it wrong? What doesn't make it wrong? My suggestion is if the President believes that there is real corruption, then he is clear to ask the Ukrainian President about it. He is arguably clear to say, "I'm not giving you money if you're corrupt."
BHARARA: You have to look at all the circumstances. You know, we live in an actual world where people apply common sense, and there are consequences to what you do, and there are motivations, strategic and otherwise, for taking certain actions.
There are a lot of countries that have a lot of corruption. And I want to know what Donald Trump is saying to those leaders of those countries.
What's unique about Ukraine, as far as I understand it now, is that there was a unique benefit to Donald Trump, not to talk generally about corruption, but to talk about a specific case, a specific person, who - whose last name happens to be Biden, which in the context of a run-up to a general election, means that it would be a favorable thing politically for - for Donald Trump.
You know, the funny thing about all this stuff is we have all these debates and conversations on television, and in people's living rooms, and around the water cooler, but there's no courtroom, there's no judge.
At the end of the day, you could, whether it's a criminal case or not, you had reasonable people to sit and - and decide what was the motivation of Donald Trump to make this call, and to pressure eight times in the course of one conversation, do this thing with respect to Hunter Biden.
Every ordinary rational thinking American with common sense would say, he did it for one reason only, not generalize corruption, given how much he cares about corruption, by the way, in his own cabinet, and within - within his own agencies, within his own foundation, and within his own company, that the only reason to do that thing was to get an electoral advantage against a person who very credibly could be his opponent.
That's how you think about it. You can't get distracted by generalized nonsensical statements that they make because that - that - it defies logic and common sense.
CUOMO: Yes.
BHARARA: Sometimes we have to actually apply common sense.
CUOMO: Right. Well no, it's - it's good. It should be a first step.
BHARARA: Right.
CUOMO: Not a last step.
Andrew, it also applies equally, or greater, to the secondary argument of Giuliani, which is about Hunter Biden in China, because the idea that the President, or his Counsel, would feel that it's outrageous that somebody, who is a child of a high office-holder in the United States, would be doing business with China, when they're negotiating with China, well this President has a daughter, who works for him in the White House, who went as an emissary of the United States government, to China, while she was working on the business side with China, literally, getting trademarks, at the same time that she was sitting down with the Chinese President.
So, why does it bother them in one case, and not the other?
MCCABE: Well Chris, consistency has never been this Administration's strong point. I mean you've pointed it out perfectly.
There's absolutely - there - there - they seem to be throwing out the allegation about some sort of inappropriate relationship between Hunter Biden and China, although not backing it up with any proof that I'm aware of, I don't - I haven't seen a credible allegation of fraud, or corruption, or anything like that, and then completely ignoring the interactions, the business dealings of the President's own family members.
So, it's - it's not--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: I can't explain it for you rational--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: But the question is, Andrew, did he - did Giuliani give him the cover he needed because, you know, Preet's obviously right. When - this isn't going to be a trial. This isn't about felonies.
This is, at most, about something that gets added to an impeachment situation, where you're never going to get the Senators who are in the Republican Party to go against the President anyway.
[21:20:00]
But the idea of, if people believe that this President says, "You know what? There're real questions about Biden. I'm the President. I'm allowed to ask other Presidents about whether or not they're cleaning up their house. It doesn't matter if the guy's running against me or not. There is a legitimate question of corruption," is that enough?
MCCABE: Well, you know, we'll see. I think it probably will be enough for Mr. Giuliani and President Trump. I mean their strategy is to just launch the theory into the wild, and have it create some sort of an effective distraction.
CUOMO: Right. MCCABE: That's worked for them in the past. There's no reason to believe it won't work in the future. I would guess they're probably concerned about the information from the whistleblower--
CUOMO: Right.
MCCABE: --or maybe the whistleblower, his or herself coming out in public.
CUOMO: But they're already - Giuliani already set up, going after the whistleblowers, how they often lie, maybe they were Clinton holdover, and all that stuff.
Preet, last question to you. What do you want to know going forward?
BHARARA: I want to know what's in the complaint.
You know, there's this - there's this legalistic back-and-forth between the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, and the Acting DNI person, in which there's a debate about whether or not the statute requires that complaint to be delivered to the Intelligence Committees.
And so, you know, sometimes we have to, the same way I said we have to think about common sense, not just what happens in a courtroom, those things overlap, you also have to cut through the legal nonsense a little bit, when you're talking about stuff like this.
So, the Inspector General has said that what - what is in the complaint goes to the very core of the responsibility of the DNI to the American people. It's very strong language.
I don't know what's going to happen with respect to those arguments back and forth. What I do know is the President of the United States, and Andrew is - is - is completely correct that - that consistency is not a strong point for this Administration.
The President said over and over and over again, today and yesterday, I think, no bad conversation, everything was fine. It's all swell. But, at the same time, doesn't want to be transparent about what's in the complaint.
It's - it's a little bit like, "You know nothing to see here. But then, you can't see it. Trust me." And the time for trust, with respect to representations made by this President, and this White House, are long over.
CUOMO: Preet, Andrew, thank you very much, Gentlemen. You made the audience smarter on questions that matter. Appreciate you both, have a very good weekend.
All right, ahead, more deconstruction. What the President's lawyer put out into the universe about Biden, and his son, last night, he may have said it in a new way, but it's not new information, so let's do this.
What's legit? What are the open questions? What are the facts? We've laid it all out for you, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we stayed focused through the fog of Rudy because we knew this was a premeditated attack. And we see today that what some mistook for ramblings are now the refrain of the Rabid-Right and the President himself.
The problem with this new line of attack is that it's not new, and it is largely untrue. But, for the sake of clarity, let's focus on the facts, and leave the insults, attacks, and supposition to others.
Here is the crux of Team Trump's argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: Yes. You know what the proof is? Joe Biden, 2018, January, in front of the Council on Foreign Relations, saying the whole thing.
CUOMO: He said--
GIULIANI: He just--
CUOMO: --I'm going to give you this money if you get rid of this prosecutor?
GIULIANI: 100 percent, exactly.
CUOMO: Send--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Watch the tape for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I looked, I said, "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money." Well, son of a bitch.
(CROWD LAUGHTER)
BIDEN: He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I guess Rudy's right. Wrong! Why?
Because as the late Paul Harvey said, the rest of this story is what you need to hear. The facts are, in 2014, Joe Biden was not only the Vice President of the United States. He was also the Administration's point-person for a major international crisis.
Remember, Russia had just annexed Crimea. News cameras were with Biden as he traveled to Ukraine. It wasn't some dark conspiracy. He was there to represent the U.S. government.
Around the same time, Hunter Biden, the Veep's son, took a position on the Board of Directors for a Ukrainian natural gas company.
To our knowledge, he had no experience in that industry, or working in that country, in that way. The optics were, and are, bad. That's not just with the advantage of hindsight. Even at the time, it was a story, one that came up at a White House briefing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CARNEY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens. And where they work is not - does not reflect an endorsement by the Administration or by the Vice President or President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Except, it presented an apparent conflict of interest that was a point of scrutiny here, and there.
That brings us to this guy, Viktor Shokin, former top prosecutor in Ukraine, a guy with a reputation for turning a blind eye to corruption, and the guy Biden bragged about bullying into them getting rid of them.
Again, it wasn't Biden acting on his own. Context is key. An overwhelming 289 members of Ukrainian Parliament voted him out. Western institutions, like the IMF and the E.U., were part of the call for his removal.
And yes, there had been an official investigation into Hunter Biden's company. But even Shokin himself said it was over before his removal in 2016, and there were no charges filed against Hunter Biden.
[21:30:00]
If Mr. Giuliani, or anyone else, has proof of payoffs, or wrongful conduct, by either Biden, we welcome it. That goes for Giuliani's other point as well. Here's that one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: These are crimes of major proportions. And because they're Democrats, you won't cover it. $1.5 million investment by China in Biden's private equity fund.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Again, just because you yell doesn't make it true. It's not new. It was covered. And again, the facts are not on Giuliani's side.
A President whose family does business in many other countries that matter to the United States, and often have a direct role in those dealings, should not be something that this President is getting upset about, because that's exactly what happens in his own family.
However, Hunter did fly with his father to China in 2013, reportedly, on Air Force Two. And days later, he and a business partner had a deal with the Bank of China for a new massive investment in their fund.
A lawyer for Hunter Biden told The Times he didn't have any equity in the fund. But later, after his father was out of office, he did get a 10 percent interest in the entity that oversees the fund.
For comparison, as I referred to before, remember how Ivanka Trump landed Chinese trademarks the same day she sat for dinner with President Xi? And she was working for the government.
Things may look bad, and warrant investigation, and that's fine. But you need proof to make it more than just the angry talk of a zealot.
So, what about the President? Was he involved in any quid pro quo? And what would it mean if he were? Let's debate it.
Cuomo's Court in session, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The President has made no secret of his desire for the Bidens to be investigated. He urged it again today.
But the possibility that it was part of a quid pro quo, to give himself an upper hand in 2020, now, that is a different matter, and that is the matter that brings us to Cuomo's Court in session. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Asha Rangappa, Jimmy Schultz, thank you both for being here on a Friday night. But, of course, after the big interview, this is the place to be, so you're the lucky ones, not me, this time.
However, one stipulation, before we get it on. This is not about criminal conduct. It is about whether or not what he is doing, or has done, as President of the United States, is right or wrong, and why.
That's it. I don't want to hear about what crimes or it's not a felony. That's not our culture. It shouldn't be felony or fine. With that, Asha, prosecution, Jimmy, defense.
What's your situation about what is wrong, Asha?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: What's wrong here is that the framers of our Constitution clearly wanted to prevent a situation where the President was using his powers, and his authority, for self-dealing, to - to gain something personally.
We see this in a number of different parts of the Constitution, the emoluments clause, bribery is a grounds of impeachment. They were very worried about this.
And what we see in this situation is exactly that, is using the cloak and authority of the Presidency, to pressure a foreign government to engage in actions that will provide him with assistance in his personal campaign to the President.
CUOMO: But what if that's the byproduct, Asha?
RANGAPPA: And I'll add here--
CUOMO: What if it's the byproduct, and his main concern, which we'll only know, by what he tells you, is "No. I think the guy was really corrupt. And I think Ukraine really covered it up. And I'm not going to give them money. And I'm not going to work with a corrupt company - country, and they should look into it."
RANGAPPA: Then his role is to do it in his official capacity.
The way that that works in the United States is that, you know, the DOJ would submit a request to the State Department, which submits a request to the legal attache, in the Ukrainian - U.S.-Ukrainian Embassy, which then works with local law enforcement. And I'll just add here that typically that wouldn't happen unless
there is already an open investigation in the United States, where U.S. authorities are seeking assistance.
I have literally never heard of a situation where a U.S. government is trying to get a foreign country to investigate, and prosecute, a U.S. citizen, under their laws.
I - I am open to hearing of any precedent on that front.
CUOMO: No. Fair point. Fair point.
RANGAPPA: I have never heard of it.
CUOMO: I'll make it even more simple though.
RANGAPPA: But in any case--
CUOMO: I get you on that. When - and I read--
RANGAPPA: Yes.
CUOMO: --your op-ed today in the Washington Post, very strong.
Jimmy, let's make it easier for you on the bounce, which is, can you give me any other example where this President has pointed out corruption in another country, as a concern of his, in their dealings going forward?
JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So, I don't think you can look at this in a vacuum, right? We don't know what we don't know.
CUOMO: Vacuum?
SCHULTZ: We don't know what--
CUOMO: I'm saying any other example of--
SCHULTZ: --whether--
CUOMO: --him having said that.
SCHULTZ: No, no, no, fine, I'll - I'll concede to. We - we have - we don't know - have any public information that this has happened any other time.
CUOMO: OK.
SCHULTZ: But let me make my point, Chris.
CUOMO: Please.
SCHULTZ: So, you can't look at this in a - in a vacuum that where, in this particular instance, that this was the only thing going on at that time. A lot of that's going to be classified. We're not going to have the ability to know what's going on.
And the President is likely put in a box here, in terms of how he can defend himself on this, because of the class - classified nature of other things that may have been going on.
So, I think we have to caution ourselves. We've seen the petulance in the - in the sky is falling, and the breathlessness from Adam Schiff before, as it related to Russiagate, and we saw what came of that. There was a lot of breathlessness and no substance at the end of the day.
CUOMO: Nobody has been more breathless than Rudy was last night though--
SCHULTZ: So, I think we have to be very, very careful to--
CUOMO: --Jimmy. And what his point was--
SCHULTZ: No, I - I get it. Look, I - I get it.
CUOMO: --is that this is just about their legit concerns.
SCHULTZ: You can make the Rudy Giuliani comments.
CUOMO: No, no, no. Look, it's not about insulting Rudy Giuliani.
SCHULTZ: It's "One guy louder than the other one's" not a good way to make an argument. I get it. And that - that's a good point, Chris. But, in this instance, I think we have a lot of - a lot of thunder here, but not a lot of substance because--
CUOMO: What would be abuse of power?
SCHULTZ: --you know, this is - excuse me?
CUOMO: What would be abuse of power?
SCHULTZ: Well, like I said, we don't know all the facts.
CUOMO: What would be abuse of power?
SCHULTZ: So, you - you speculating as to what could have been abuse of power--
CUOMO: Yes.
[21:40:00]
SCHULTZ: --I mean the fact that the President of the United States is engaging in diplomatic discussions with the Ukraine, and corruption comes up, and perhaps - perhaps the corruption of the Vice - former Vice President, and his son, come up, you know, doesn't necessarily point to that there - that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, or that it's connected to the campaign.
Preet acknowledged that himself earlier tonight. I think we have to wait and see what the facts are before --and reserve judgment--
CUOMO: I'm - I'm all for you with that.
SCHULTZ: --before we get to that point.
CUOMO: I hope they release the compliant. RANGAPPA: Chris?
CUOMO: Because once again, Asha, as a point of transparency--
RANGAPPA: Chris, Can I?
CUOMO: --the President says "There's nothing to see here. Don't worry about it." But he won't show us the proof of the same, whether it's the taxes, or here, the complaint.
Asha?
RANGAPPA: Yes. And to - to Jim's argument, and I have to say, he is - he's an excellent debater, and I think, he has the harder side of - of this debate so, you know, he's doing the best he can.
But this is exactly what the Whistleblower Protection Act for the Intelligence Community is designed for that if there is classified information, there is a mechanism, by which it can reach Congress, if it does potentially concern misconduct.
The - you know, no one's saying that this has to be made public or that it has to be leaked to the media tomorrow, you know, for us to debate, or something, again.
The question is, and this is a Trump-appointee who has determined that even if it involves classified information, it - it creates an urgent concern that should be reviewed by Congress. That's the whole point here.
SCHULTZ: So--
RANGAPPA: And, you know, so I think that this--
SCHULTZ: So let's talk about that legal issue.
RANGAPPA: --argument that Jim is making is addressed by the statute, which the White House is choosing to violate, at this moment.
CUOMO: So, if there's nothing to hide--
SCHULTZ: See, I don't think - I don't think you have the--
CUOMO: --why not show us the complaint?
SCHULTZ: So - so let me - let's talk about that legal issue that Asha raises. And I - I think she, with all due respect, I think you have it wrong there, Asha.
The - the DNI went to the Office of - of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, and asked them for, and purportedly asked them, for an opinion on this.
And it relates to whether this involves a member of the Intelligence Community, and that it's not necessarily cut and dried that this report automatically goes to Congress, where a Member of the Intelligent Community is not involved, President of the United States, OK?
So, you look at - you look at that piece of it, OK, let's - let's start - let's - let's - let's look at that, and then look at it in the context of, OK, you have a legal battle between Congress and the Executive Branch, which happens all the time, and that's going to get flushed out.
And I think Schiff, you know, with - threatening to withhold - threatening to withhold funds for the DNI, that's a lever that he has, going to court is another lever that he has, to say that this is nonsensical legal mumbo-jumbo, is irresponsible--
RANGAPPA: But - but Jim, then let's see--
SCHULTZ: --I think it needs to get flushed out.
RANGAPPA: --let's see the opinion of the Office--
SCHULTZ: But--
RANGAPPA: Let's see the opinion of the--
SCHULTZ: But - but let's go - also going--
RANGAPPA: --Office of Legal Counsel. The Office of Legal Counsel also justified torture like, you know, if they're justifying things that does not mean that it's actually a valid legal argument. So, you know, we're speculating here--
SCHULTZ: Of course, Asha. But - but I think--
RANGAPPA: --that this was about non-Intelligence activity?
SCHULTZ: Right, no--
RANGAPPA: Is it about privilege? Is it about Article Two?
SCHULTZ: Well--
RANGAPPA: Because you - you can't--
SCHULTZ: Right, getting back to my point that we're speculating about everything here.
RANGAPPA: --Congress, you're - it's intruding of their--
SCHULTZ: Because we don't know what we don't know.
RANGAPPA: --their institutional functions.
CUOMO: Well but hold on a second, Jimmy.
SCHULTZ: Thank you for backing my point.
CUOMO: You can't have it both ways. You're using it as a sword and a shield here. If there's nothing there and you know you have a mechanism to have
anything that is classified, which we don't have any reason to believe it is classified, but even if it were, you have a mechanism in place, and if the President says there's nothing there, once again, then have it go to Congress, let them see what the basis was.
We know Rudy definitely had one thing wrong. He said the I.G. has no way, no skill or ability to determine the credibility of anyone who comes forward with a complaint. So, you know, that's obviously absurd. The I.G. made a reckoning of credibility. The I.G. made a recommendation of urgency.
SCHULTZ: Look, the--
CUOMO: Why? Let them look at it.
SCHULTZ: The - the--
CUOMO: And then we'll know what it is.
SCHULTZ: The DNI seems to be trying to do things by the book, and doing the right thing, and asking the Department of Justice for an opinion, as to whether it goes to Congress, or not. That will likely get flushed out very, very quickly.
And yes, the drip, drip, drip, and the leaking, and everything else now that's happening is, you know, is - is going to be the "Death by a thousand cuts" strategy that the Democrats have tried to employ in the past, unsuccessfully, on Russiagate.
CUOMO: Listen, I - I respect the debate on both sides. I just believe the cleansing light of transparency makes the questions and the cuts go away. Nothing in the taxes? Show the taxes. Nothing to worry about in this complaint? Show the complaint.
Asha, Jimmy, thank you for making the case, on a Friday night especially, appreciate it.
All right, if you were among those surprised, when Rudy Giuliani did an about-face last night, in about 30 seconds on the program, don't be. This is part of a game, not always well-executed.
But I handled it like a game because I know it is, because I've seen it before, and I will deconstruct it for you, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about your CNN interview?
(RUDY GIULIANI LAUGHS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That is the laugh of a man with a plan. You know, images like this, from last night's interview, are all over the place, and people are obviously having fun with them. But don't get caught up in the passion, and miss what's really going on.
The reason I seemed unaffected by the heat is because I've seen this act before. The rage and the rabid reposts are just to get attention to what Mr. Giuliani wants you all to take in.
So, let me break down the act. Tactic one, pre-empt a story before it breaks, to soften the blow. You saw that last night here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Did you to ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: No. Actually, I didn't.
CUOMO: So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?
GIULIANI: Of course, I did.
CUOMO: You just said you didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, he bungled that part because he didn't like being tested.
But, in fact, he wanted you to know, and he said many times, that he went to Ukraine about Biden, because it is very important that you believe that Mr. Giuliani, and much more importantly, this President, deeply believe that Biden and his son were, and are, corrupt.
[21:50:00]
Why? You'll see in a second. But just to prove the first point of his intentions that this is what he does, remember this on the Stormy Daniels' payments?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation. So-- SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST, HANNITY: They - they funneled it through the law firm.
GIULIANI: Funneled through the law firm. And the President repaid it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Just laid it out there, once again trying to take the sting out of the news that Trump knew, Trump paid. It's almost as if he's saying "It all out in the open, so it couldn't possibly be wrong."
Now logically, that doesn't make sense, but you can catch people on this, and hope they fall for the idea that if there's no secret, if he's the one revealing it, it must be OK, which there and here, is what he's doing.
The actions, however, were arguably not OK, and he likely knew it. Takes us to tactic two, move the goalposts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: I never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign.
CUOMO: Yes, you have.
GIULIANI: I have no idea if there - I have not.
CUOMO: You've--
GIULIANI: I said the President of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You hear that? That's the sound of everyone on the campaign getting thrown under the bus.
He's saying the only person he can vouch for is POTUS, no one around him. Why? Because he's giving cover to one person. That's his job. So, it seems wild and outrageous, delivered with bombast, but intentional.
Tactic three, argue in the alternative. Even if the President did do, insert questionable act, there's nothing wrong with that.
From last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: He had every right to do it as the President of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Heard the same thing right after the Mueller report was released.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Arguing that something is not prosecutable against a sitting President is very different than saying that these behaviors are not an abuse of power, or are not wrong. An abuse of power is an impeachable offense, maybe not a crime.
But felony or fine is not our standard of conduct. But Mr. Giuliani is hoping you'll stay in the legal context. He purposefully conflates the two, in order to confuse and excuse.
Now that you get that while Giuliani may not always be on his game, the game is always afoot. The reason he needed to go hard and heavy last night that both he, and this President, really believe, really believe that Biden is corrupt.
And remember, that's why he gets hot, that's why he insists we won't cover it, because he's trying to convey to you how deeply convicted he is about this.
If you believe that, then you will believe that the President had a legit purpose in pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden that it wasn't about political advantage and self-interest, so even holding back money from Ukraine, if they don't investigate Biden, is OK, because why would you give money to a country that won't root out corruption?
And, once again, proof of the contrivance is in the copying. Just 13 hours after Giuliani was on this show, saying all that about Biden, the President himself said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It doesn't matter what I discuss. But I will say this. Somebody ought to look into Joe Biden's statement because it was disgraceful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The statement being that Biden said he held back money from Ukraine to get rid of a prosecutor, which this President, and his trusty counsel, want you to think was personally-motivated.
Now, here are the ironies. First of all, the idea that this President now cares about corruption, have you ever heard about talk about corruption in any other place, or in his own government? He's ever done anything but defend people accused of corruption?
More so, they're upset at Biden for doing exactly what this President is accused of, and they reject Biden's defense, which is that he was acting in the national interest, in rooting out corruption, even though it's the same defense Giuliani laid out for the President, right here, last night. George Orwell could not have created a more maddening dystopian existence where the same proposition is true or false based on what works for the person saying it.
Now, while I argue that Giuliani's play is obvious, that does not make it ineffective. He got a ton of attention with his outbursts. But his Biden bombs went out too.
And while he was tested here, and was exposed for being tricky with the truth, many outlets are just repeating his side. Helps his cause and helps the President to play to defend against the reported efforts to have Ukraine attack his potential opponent.
The only question is what is the next move? And when we learn more about the whistleblower complaint, we will see that soon enough.
So, you hear about the climate crisis strike today? I hope you did. When people come together, when they think, and act globally, it can be big.
[21:55:00]
Look at this. Young Afghan woman on the streets of Kabul fighting for all of us. But up next, Be On the Look-Out for who's not stepping up. BOLO.
(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: We bring you these BOLOs on this show, BOLO is an acronym, means Be On the Look-Out. And today, it wasn't hard to see this, in many big cities, all over this world, young people calling attention to the climate crisis, all right?
You've heard about Greta Thunberg, right, the 16-year old Swedish student leading this movement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRETA THUNBERG, SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: Why should we study for a future that is being taken away from us?
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
THUNBERG: That is being stolen for profit. We need to do this now.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: She's here as the U.N. gets ready to hold the Climate Summit, beginning Monday. Several global leaders are going to join that session.
You know who won't? Our President. And it's not the first time. Here is the empty chair at the Climate Meeting at the G7.
Let's bring in D. Lemon. Two takeaways for me, D. First one is love to see people organize.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: Young or old, there's never been a major movement--
[22:00:00]
