Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Giuliani Claims He Has "No Financial Interest" In Ukraine, Reports Indicate He Sought Business From Ukrainian Officials; Fired Navy Secretary Slams Trump In Scathing New Op-Ed; New CNN Poll: Biden Leads, Sanders & Warren Battle For Second. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 27, 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]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Right.
SELLERS: Bet on Bloomberg if you choose. But if he doesn't win the first four, that ain't going to happen.
KAREN FINNEY, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON, CLINTON 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: He's going to - first--
BERMAN: Bakari Seller, Karrie--
FINNEY: --he's not competing in the first four.
BERMAN: --Karrie Finney, let's have a happy Thanksgiving.
FINNEY: Yes.
BERMAN: Thank you very much--
FINNEY: You too.
BERMAN: --for being with us tonight. Bakari, I'm going to see you tomorrow morning on NEW DAY.
Time now to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: J.B., you're the man. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
We have new information that raises real new questions. A former Ukrainian prosecutor who is central to the impeachment story says money may have been in the mix with Rudy. Was he trying to get favors from Rudy in return for paying Giuliani, and agreeing to help to take down Joe Biden?
Now, is this a chance for this President to step away from another ally in a time of crisis? Will it work any better than it did with Cohen?
We also have a lot of TNT ready to blow apart the President's four main Ukraine conspiracy theories. What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we got to look at it as a trifecta of troubles for the President, and certainly his lawyer.
Among them, here's a quote. "Giuliani was in talks to be paid by Ukraine's top prosecutor as they together sought damaging information on Democrats." Now, we need to look deeper.
What actually happened? What was discussed? What were the boundaries at play legally, ethically, factually? But remember this, in context. Over and over, Mr. Giuliani has denied he's ever had any financial motives in the Ukraine game.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, PERSONAL LAWYER TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I have no financial interest in the Ukraine. I'm not going to financially profit from anything that I know of in the Ukraine.
ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: OK.
GIULIANI: Let me make clear.
HENRY: Yes, real quick.
GIULIANI: I have no business interests in the Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Look, he was very clear about that.
But now The New York Times broke this story that does cast doubt on that idea, reporting that Mr. Giuliani privately sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in business from Ukrainian officials while trying to wage a public campaign for dirt on the Bidens.
Among those officials, Ukraine's former top prosecutor, a name that you've heard, Yuriy Lutsenko. Did they have documents written up? Was there a signature on one of them? What does all this mean?
Let's take it to the Court. We have Cuomo's Court now in session.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO'S COURT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Jennifer Granholm and Shan Wu.
Shan, we have ethical, we have campaign finance, we have potential lobbying or FARA, take me through from least to greatest. So, ethical, campaign finance, FARA, where's the line on each?
SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER COUNSEL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO, FORMER LAWYER FOR RICK GATES: Well they're all sort of equally situated, Chris.
Let's start with campaign finance. Obviously, if he is seeking the help of a foreign country to help in a domestic issue, to help with a campaign, thing of value, that's the campaign finance problem, the violation.
With regard to FARA, a little more nuanced, if he actually concluded these deals where he was trying to work for the Ukrainian government, then he would have had to register as a foreign agent for them.
Possible even if he didn't conclude the deals themselves that other documents would show that he really was working for them since he apparently likes to work for free.
CUOMO: Shan, when do you have to register? Let's - let's roleplay it for people to make it a little bit more accessible.
WU: Sure.
CUOMO: So, I'm the Ukraine guy. "Rudy, help me. I want to get some meetings. I'm a big shot Ukrainian former prosecutor. I'm big in Ukrainian politics. I'm Mr. Lutsenko. Go hook me up with Barr and these guys. You're - they're your friends."
WU: I need to register.
CUOMO: What if I'm not going to pay you?
WU: You know, that's really interesting because there's a lot of the focus, and Giuliani likes to talk about he's not being paid, it's not necessarily the payment. It's your loyalties, as a lawyer, who are you working for, and that can trigger the FARA requirements as well.
CUOMO: All right, so we have what this means for Mr. Giuliani, which has to be a little bit gray right now, in terms of fairness. We got to have more facts. The idea that they had a signature on an agreement, well look, that doesn't sound good, if you had a signed agreement.
WU: Right.
CUOMO: But did you act on that agreement, that would be the key fact, we'll see.
Jennifer, now it's what does this say about the situation? Well, if nothing else, it makes it look shady, which is what it has looked all along. What does it mean for the politics of impeachment? JENNIFER GRANHOLM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, (D) FORMER MICHIGAN GOVERNOR: Well, first of all, let's be clear that this, if this were consummated, and we don't know.
Obviously, these are documents. We're not exactly sure if they were from the Southern District of New York, where he's be - under investigation, but we don't know exactly what it is.
If it was, then it would show a huge conflict of interest. From the perspective of impeachment--
CUOMO: But hold on, Jennifer. Again, help people understand--
GRANHOLM: Yes.
CUOMO: Jennifer was Attorney General and Governor of Michigan. Shan Wu is obviously a big defense attorney. "Ethical conflict of interest so what? Do I go to jail for that?" You know what I mean? Where is the line where it becomes a problem--
GRANHOLM: Well--
CUOMO: --for Rudy, other than with the - a Bar Association.
GRANHOLM: Well - yes, I mean - well clearly there's a Bar Association problem. You cannot have - who's your duty of loyalty to? If you have a loyalty to the Ukrainian officials, whether it's Lutsenko or any Ukrainian government officials, then you're supposed to have loyalty to them.
[21:05:00]
You're not supposed to be double-dealing. You're not supposed to be doing something on behalf of the President that they, you know, that is a question about whether you can have loyalty to two of them.
CUOMO: OK.
GRANHOLM: So - so that's - it's an overall conflict, which is not - you know, to me, this issue about a conflict is less of an issue because--
CUOMO: Right.
GRANHOLM: --we don't know that he signed it yet.
CUOMO: Right.
GRANHOLM: But certainly it's a question about the Southern District of New York.
If in fact Rudy Giuliani is under investigation, and if in fact, you know, depending on what the President does, so he sends out these signals, saying that he wants to - that "Rudy is a warrior, but he has other clients. He wasn't - I didn't send him out." I mean he said that repeatedly. "I didn't send him." But you can look in the phone call with--
CUOMO: Right.
GRANHOLM: --Zelensky to see that the President told Zelensky to talk to Giuliani.
CUOMO: Right. The President created a problem--
GRANHOLM: The - the bottom line--
CUOMO: --for both of them. But give me your bottom line.
GRANHOLM: Yes. Yes, yes, but the bottom line is what happens in the Southern District of New York. What if he is indicted? What happens to Bill Barr who is over - obviously this is Department of Justice, and the Southern District of New York is underneath Bill Barr.
Bill Barr is implicated in this too because he's been sent across the world to be able to try to dig up dirt on the Bidens, and - and so, does he recuse himself? Does he stay out of it?
And then, what does Rudy Giuliani do, if he's indicted? Does he drop a dime on the President or does he take a bullet for the President? And some of that will depend on how the President faces him.
CUOMO: Well--
GRANHOLM: If the President throws him under a bus, you better believe Rudy Giuliani is going to be--
CUOMO: All right, so on that point--
GRANHOLM: --less than kind to take a bullet.
CUOMO: --the President created a problem for both of them, Shan, because when he said, "I don't know what Rudy was doing. I didn't send him over there," first of all, he created a problem for himself because--
WU: Sure.
CUOMO: --that's not what he said in the past. That's not what Mr. Sondland said. That is not the aggregate understanding of the testimony from last week. That's not what the President said, as Jennifer referred us back to.
Again, the perfect phone call, he clearly had knowledge of what Rudy was doing, and he instructed Mr. Zelensky to be in contact with Rudy. Why would he do that if he didn't know what Rudy was doing?
But in saying so, not only does he create another situation of truth abuse for himself, but he puts Rudy in trouble, because what if the President is believed? "So, wait a minute. You were the President's lawyer, but you were over there doing things that he didn't know about?"
Were you operating in the interest of your - of your client or not, Shan, it's a problem for both, isn't?
WU: Oh, absolutely. I mean obviously Trump's trying to distance himself from Rudy. But back on the ethical front that creates big problems for him because what is - exactly is he doing?
Maybe he's just doing business for himself with the - with the Ukrainians. That's the ethics issue. If he is doing business with the Ukrainians, he is right back in the hot seat on FARA.
And if he's trying to get them to help with dirt on Biden, then he's back in the hot seat with the campaign finance violations. So, he's really in kind of a trick box there.
CUOMO: Also, it reveals the President's hand a little bit, Jennifer. If he thought it was also good, he wouldn't deny knowledge of Rudy. Not only is that absurd, just like it was with Michael Cohen.
You know, the only reason that the President had to kind of change his story, other than it's obvious silliness with him, is that we got the tape on this show of him talking to Michael Cohen about the deal, and it was - the idea that he didn't know about it became an impossibility.
Here, similarly, it becomes an impossibility that he didn't know, Jennifer, and what does that do for his defense?
GRANHOLM: Right. I mean, like the impeachment hearing, all of his defenses are falling away for those who rationally look at this. And we know that his base may not be rationally looking at this.
But believe me, the - the women are looking at this. From your poll today, the CNN poll that was released, women, by 60 percent, want Donald Trump impeached and removed, by 60 percent. That is a huge number. Independents, which he needs desperately, by two points, they want him impeached and removed.
So, I just think all of this, including the impeachment hearings that the Judiciary Committee will move on to next week, this is all - you've got to play this. If I were Donald Trump, I would be playing this totally differently.
But, you know, you - if you don't show up, and defend yourself, then you're allowing people like Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan to defend you, and they are the chest - chest thumpers, and the hand wavers, and they are not going to be the people who will be persuading the audience that you need in the election to come your way.
CUOMO: You also can't complain about process--
GRANHOLM: So, all of these defenses--
CUOMO: --when you're getting--
GRANHOLM: Yes.
CUOMO: --basically two bites at the apple--
GRANHOLM: Yes.
WU: Yes.
CUOMO: --and you refuse to take it.
Jennifer Granholm, Shan Wu, thank you for spot analysis on breaking information. I'm thankful for you both, the best to you and your families--
GRANHOLM: Right.
CUOMO: --for Thanksgiving. All right.
WU: Same to you, Chris.
CUOMO: Now, a big part--
GRANHOLM: Yes. Happy Thanksgiving.
CUOMO: --of the defense for the President is, "You know, this Ukraine thing, you know, we got to look at it." Even the Secretary of State Pompeo says, "Hey, look, if there's information about Ukraine messing in the election, we - we have a duty to look at it."
There are four basic theories that they peddle. All have been debunked. And I will point each out to you and the ammunition that blows them down, next.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Big facts first.
Republicans used the public impeachment hearings for two purposes. One, to push conspiracy theories, two, rail about how the President wasn't represented.
Now, here's the first fact. The President had a team of representatives in the form of these 10 Congressmen. But now we're hearing the White House may not send a lawyer to next week's hearing, even though he's been given basically two bites at the apple. Why would he, when he's got people like these guys, who've made it
their mission to cover, confuse, and conflate? Congress is doing the work for him when they're supposed to be looking at him.
Now, the main stick they're swinging, four separate conspiracy theories, all of which have been debunked.
[21:15:00]
First up, "Maybe Russia didn't have the DNC. Ukraine did." The President brought this up in a phone call with the Ukrainian President. The notion is demonstrably false.
How? Every Intel Chief there is saying the same thing, "Wasn't Ukraine." Ditto for an investigation by Senate Republicans, "Wasn't Ukraine." Mueller spent 30 pages detailing how Russia did it.
So, who says Ukraine? Trump allies, and this guy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): Do you know, for example, that in Ukraine, following the elections, some people, and these were public officials, sent congratulatory telegrams to Hillary Clinton, even though Trump had won? Look, what do we have to do with it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You have everything to do with it, except the President doesn't believe that. We'll get to that in a second.
Now, the server, "Where's this server?" There never was a server. The DNC used a cloud-based email system. CrowdStrike is the company the FBI hired to make a copy and analyze it for them.
CrowdStrike, by the way, is based in California. One of the co- founders was born in Russia, not Ukraine, and he moved to the U.S. as a teenager.
Conspiracy theory number two, this idea that as Vice President Joe Biden bribed Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was pursuing an investigation of his son by withholding aid money, basically what the President just did.
But what Hunter Biden did, you can argue it was wrong, but he was never the subject of a criminal investigation.
The VP, along with the governments of most Western nations, and an overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian Parliament, all wanted the prosecutor out. Why? Because he wasn't investigating enough corruption.
Conspiracy number three, the Black Ledger. The idea here is that Ukrainians doctored some books to make Trump's Campaign Chairman, Paul Manafort, look crooked, and to hurt Donald Trump. Strike one, Manafort's sitting behind bars right now, for exactly the
kind of work detailed in that ledger.
Strike two, they keep saying "And Ukrainians don't believe it was real," where's the evidence of that? Where's the evidence that it was forged? We haven't seen it.
Strike three, Russia did far worse to help Trump, and he's never had any problem with anything they've done, not even when standing on the world stage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: That was tough to watch!
The fourth and final conspiracy, a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, a former DNC consultant accused of working with Ukrainians to hurt Manafort, and by extension Trump.
The timeline is the problem for Trump here on this one. She started looking into Manafort on her own before Trump even announced his run.
Now, Trump can't have a problem with that, right, because he's OK with what Rudy's doing. While she may have later tried to get info on him from Ukraine, nobody at the DNC seemed to care. As for the validity, ultimately, she was right.
Manafort's activities were criminal, and as Trump himself points out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: --where they go back 12 years. But Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: So, then why does he care?
These are four separate theories. But the President's supporters are counting on you not to be able to tell them apart or not being able to keep track of who worked for which Ukrainian President and when.
What's the goal? Distraction, confusion, to create doubt, and that's the problem. That's why we have to check it because when it comes to something as serious as removing a President, clarity is key. So, those are the facts.
Now, the President's ousted Navy Secretary not going quietly. Richard Spencer is slamming the President's, "Shocking and unprecedented" intervention in a Navy SEAL's misconduct case tonight. Wait until you hear his real criticism, and think about how often
we've heard it from military men, next.
[21:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Ousted Navy Secretary Richard Spencer is not going quietly into that good night. He's just written a scathing op-ed unleashing on the President's efforts to protect a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes. But the case is only part of his concern.
He writes, in part, in The Washington Post, "This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention at a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the President has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.
Our allies need to know that we remain a force for good, and to please bear with us as we move through this moment in time."
Let's bring in the President's former Deputy Assistant, Fred Fleitz, for reaction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Thank you, Fred, for joining us.
FRED FLEITZ, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON, PRESIDENT & CEO, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Hey Chris, good to be here. Happy Thanksgiving.
CUOMO: So - to you as well and your family.
FLEITZ: Thank you.
CUOMO: Why do you think it is that Richard Spencer seems to echo what we've heard implicitly or explicitly from General Mattis, General Kelly? Why do military men seem to find this President so lacking in ethics and character?
[21:25:00]
FLEITZ: Oh Chris, I don't think that's true of all military men. Politics can get into the military, just like any other element of government. Let me tell you three things.
First of all, I've known Mark Ester - Esper for over 20 years. He's an ethical and - and courageous guy. And if he thinks the Secretary of the Navy has to go, I trust him.
I note that the Navy Secretary mentioned in his op-ed that he had gone behind the back of the Navy Secretary. No matter whatever - what else he said, I mean that's a big deal. It's why Esper let him go. But let's--
CUOMO: Well he was the Navy Secretary.
FLEITZ: This is what the Navy Secretary said.
CUOMO: Right.
FLEITZ: In his op-ed.
CUOMO: Right.
FLEITZ: But, look, if we had a General or an Admiral as a Commander- in-Chief, this would not have happened.
But the - our Founding Fathers wanted us to have a civilian Commander- in-Chief to keep the military in check. And that civilian Commander- in-Chief is sometimes going to question the military bureaucracy. That's what happened here. This represents the system working.
CUOMO: But you're making it sound like a high-minded thing when it was a low-level review that seemed to be a political play. And the knowledge of military, there's only one aspect of it.
And Fred, just to be clear, Mattis, Kelly, both guys I'm sure you respect, and Spencer, someone who was deserving of respect by both sides of the aisle, before this, have all made the same kind of comment about the President that he's ethically challenged that he doesn't know how to lead.
And these are people that we often refer to as the best leaders in our society. Doesn't that concern you on any level?
FLEITZ: Look, I - I watched Admiral Kirby in the previous hour saying that there was obviously prosecutorial misuse - abuse in this case. There was a lot going on in this case that went wrong. I think it was fairly complicated.
But this is an instance of a civilian Commander-in-Chief making a decision, bucking the military bureaucracy. They clearly didn't like it. They tried to get around what the President wanted to do. That's what's really going on here. CUOMO: But they're talking about his character also, and they're not the only one.
Your friend, and former work colleague, John Bolton, right, he left, insinuating the same kinds of things, telling people, as we learned in testimony, that he thought this was like a drug deal what was going on in Ukraine with Rudy, and others, and he didn't want to be a part of it, and you got to go tell the lawyers, and you got to get away from it.
And now, he's sending these cryptic tweets about how national security is "Under attack from within." What is he getting at?
FLEITZ: I don't know. I haven't discussed it with him. But I haven't seen Mr. Bolton criticize the President.
CUOMO: He has not done so yet, at least not outwardly. The question is why won't he testify?
FLEITZ: Well I mean there's a variety of reasons that Mr. Bolton has not testified. My guess is he would like to see the Democrats subpoena him, and then this will go to the courts.
The courts will say that you can't force a National Security Advisor to testify because of Executive privilege. And I think Mr. Bolton would like to see this process dragged into the Democratic primaries. The Democrats--
CUOMO: Well a Court was just found that there is no absolute immunity. You're supposed to answer to a subpoena. The question then becomes--
FLEITZ: That - that decision--
CUOMO: --not immunity, but privilege.
FLEITZ: --that decision is going to be thrown out.
CUOMO: Really?
FLEITZ: That decision is a piece of political theater. It's going to be thrown out.
CUOMO: Wait, Fred. That - with all due respect, right before Thanksgiving, that opinion is completely consistent with every piece of jurisprudence on the subject.
It is true, this President and Presidents past have tried to flex on Executive immunity, but the law has always made it clear that Congress is not a "Maybe," it's a "Must," when it comes to oversight. A President can't wave his hand, and say, "Forget the subpoena."
FLEITZ: Of course that's true. But Presidents have to have the ability to confide in confidence with their closest advisers.
CUOMO: Yes. FLEITZ: And I believe the Supreme Court is going to respect that. This opinion was a piece of political theater. It was a 130-page report by an Obama-appointee. It's going to be thrown out.
CUOMO: Every legal expert I have heard discuss the subject say the legal opinion was a no-brainer. Everybody knew it was going to come down to this.
FLEITZ: Not every expert, Chris. Not every expert.
CUOMO: Well I'm sure you can find some who want to play to the other side. But I'm saying the people who should be respected on this. The case was not the question. It's what will happen when someone does have to go.
With Mr. McGahn, what questions will he say are privileged or not. But the idea of just protecting all your people because you say so won't fly with this President or any other.
Other question for you. The Rudy Giuliani headlines that came out, do they give you concern that there were things going on with Rudy Giuliani that may compromise the efforts here?
FLEITZ: Yes, they - they do give me concern. I - I see this story, and I think you covered it early - earlier fairly well.
From what I read, it looks like Mr. Giuliani was in discussions with the Ukrainian government to investigate money that had been taken out of the country, maybe stolen, at the same time he was representing the President.
Now, from what I read, it - he has not necessarily done anything illegal or unethical. But I think Mr. Giuliani has some serious questions to answer.
[21:30:00]
CUOMO: Now, the President, I argue, made a problem for himself, and his lawyer, when he said, "I don't know what Rudy was doing over there. You have to ask him."
Now, not only is that a problem for Rudy because Rudy's supposed to be acting in the interest of his client. That's his ethical obligation. So, if the - if the President didn't know what he was doing, when Rudy says he did, that's a problem if that comes to pass.
But secondarily, we know from the telephone call, we know from Sondland, we know from the collective conscience of the people who testified, the President knew very well what Rudy was doing there, because he was the one who wanted him to do it.
FLEITZ: Look, I - I can't speak for the President. But concerning this conflict with the Ukrainian government, I think the optics are very bad. And - and - and Mr. Giuliani has to explain what he was up to.
CUOMO: No, no, no, I think the President's got a problem too. Do you think the President didn't know what was going on when he said to the Ukrainian President, "Talk to Rudy?"
FLEITZ: Yes. I - I don't know what that comment meant. It could mean he didn't know exactly what Giuliani was doing.
CUOMO: What else could it mean?
FLEITZ: Well you'll have to ask the President.
CUOMO: Well I don't have to. He gave us the transcript. And when they're talking about what he wants, he says, "Talk to Rudy. Talk to Barr." Zelensky says, "Thanks for Rudy. Good to get the information from Rudy."
How can the President plausibly deny knowledge?
FLEITZ: Look, it could be he does not know exactly what negotiations Giuliani was involved in. Chris, I don't know what the comment meant. I'm just telling you my opinion.
CUOMO: But the call was perfect. How is it not perfectly clear to you, Fred?
FLEITZ: I don't know. Let's - let's just move on. I - I--
CUOMO: No way--
FLEITZ: --I've told you - I've told you I don't know about it.
CUOMO: --can we just move on, Fred. You were an Intelligence expert. This is what you looked at. The idea of somebody in an - in an interview with you said, "Yes, I really don't know what was going on."
But you said you directed the activity in there. Your guy who you spoke to on the phone about this says he was doing it at your direction through Rudy. I mean isn't this open-and-shut he's not telling the truth? The only question is why.
FLEITZ: Look, as I said, you'll have to ask the President what that comment meant.
CUOMO: I can't ask the President. He won't come on this show. And when we ask him this, he calls us the enemy of the people in five not-so- clever nicknames, and moves on.
You I'm asking because I'm hoping you'll be an honest broker.
FLEITZ: Well I've told you what I know. I haven't asked the President either.
CUOMO: Does it concern you that the President says that he doesn't know when all indications are he did know and wanted it done?
FLEITZ: I wanted to raise something with you, Chris, the American Cancer Society. I would like you to send the $50 you owe me on the--
CUOMO: What $50? FLEITZ: Well we bet--
CUOMO: Yes.
FLEITZ: --when I was on the air before that the - the impeachment hearing, if there were public impeachment hearings, they would not be fair to the Republicans, and they clearly weren't fair.
CUOMO: How were they not fair? You had half the room arguing the President's case when they were supposed to be there in an oversight capacity.
FLEITZ: Untrue. Unlike '74 and '98, the - the President didn't have his counsel. There was - the Republicans were limited on who they could subpoena. Their questioning was strictly limited. Adam Schiff--
CUOMO: Fred?
FLEITZ: --even interfered with the questioning.
CUOMO: I'll tell you what. I'll give money to the American Cancer Society every day.
FLEITZ: Extremely - it was extremely unfair.
CUOMO: But as a matter of fact, the rules here were the rules that you guys passed in '98 plus--
FLEITZ: No. No, they - no, they weren't. They weren't.
CUOMO: --two bites at the - oh yes.
FLEITZ: It's not true.
CUOMO: Dime for dime. Plus--
FLEITZ: It's not true. It's not true at all.
CUOMO: --the only way they're not true is the Congress did the investigating here, not an independent body that did it--
FLEITZ: Where was the President--
CUOMO: --in private.
FLEITZ: Where was the President and his counsel? The President's counsel--
CUOMO: Here. He - he gets an opportunity in the Judiciary Committee, which Clinton did not get the way he can, and then you get it in the trial, which Clinton got.
FLEITZ: Look, we don't - we don't know what rules this second hearing will have.
CUOMO: All right. FLEITZ: But when the hearings began, the President's counsel wasn't there to--
CUOMO: It was the investigatory phase.
FLEITZ: --question these witnesses.
CUOMO: Does Rudy Giuliani get to go into the DOJ office right now and work with the FBI--
FLEITZ: That's completely irrelevant in this.
CUOMO: --and the Southern District on his case?
FLEITZ: It was an open hearing.
CUOMO: It's the same level.
FLEITZ: And the President's counsel wasn't allowed is exactly the same. And I hope you'll send this - this - this check to my - to the American Cancer Society.
CUOMO: I will send money to the American Cancer Society. I will do so in your name.
FLEITZ: Thank you.
CUOMO: But you did not win that bet. Fred Fleitz--
FLEITZ: I did. I did win.
CUOMO: --have a very good Thanksgiving. I'll talk to you soon.
FLEITZ: Happy Thanksgiving.
CUOMO: All right. He didn't win the bet. I'll argue it all day.
We have new numbers on the state of play in the race to take on President Trump. And we have a Democrat running to fill the House seat left open by Katie Hill.
Cenk Uygur, you know him as analyst, but now he's got to be tested as a candidate, next.
[21:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, we got a new poll, CNN conducted by SSRS. What do we see? Former VP Biden still leading the pack, Senator Sanders and Warren vying for second, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg breaking into the double-digits.
Of course, it's anyone's race. You got 60-something days until the first voting. But Biden keeps staying up front, even though people keep saying he shouldn't be up front, but he is. And it becomes about centrist versus progressive.
Let's talk. Progressive firebrand, Cenk Uygur, joins me now.
It's good to have you.
CENK UYGUR, CEO & HOST, THE YOUNG TURKS, (D) CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: Cenk is running for Katie Hill's open House seat. We'll talk about that.
But first, Warren seeing a little bit of a slip, Sanders pretty much stays in the same place, Buttigieg moving up, Biden stays solid, the analysis is yes, that's because going too far-Left, not even close to where you are by the way, is not the way to get this nomination.
UYGUR: Well, I don't think that makes any sense at all. The reason is you see Sanders moving up, and he's even further Left than Warren.
The main mistake that I think Elizabeth Warren made, who's a wonderful candidate, but she equivocated on Medicare-for-All. She didn't mean to. But when she said it's going to be two steps, and we're going to do the public option first, that cost her a lot of progressive activists.
CUOMO: But Medicare-for-All is dropping in popularity polls.
UYGUR: Well I mean you guys attack it non-stop, and it's totally bad.
CUOMO: You guys?
UYGUR: Yes, the mainstream media does. Jake Tapper does. Washington Post does. And none of it is true.
CUOMO: Jake Tapper is one of the most honorable men. He's the best.
UYGUR: He - he's wonderfully honorable.
CUOMO: Every poll--
UYGUR: But he's not correct on this issue.
CUOMO: Every Democrat poll says "Do I want healthcare fixed? Yes. Do I want to lose my insurance? No. Do I like Medicare-for-All?" UYGUR: But you see, Chris, that's exactly--
CUOMO: "Mm."
UYGUR: No, no, no, no, first of all, Medicare-for-All polls excellent. Second of all, when you guys say, "You'd lose your insurance," that is terribly wrong.
CUOMO: How?
UYGUR: You - you have insurance. Even Michael Bennet who doesn't like--
CUOMO: You lose your private insurance.
UYGUR: OK but you have better insurance. Chris, you've got to--
CUOMO: Maybe.
UYGUR: No, no, no, not maybe.
CUOMO: Maybe.
UYGUR: Definitely. I asked Michael Bennet, Senator Michael Bennet who does not like Medicare-for-All. He said it's the - Medicare-for-All would be the Cadillac plan. He said, "Yes, you'd get everything with Medicare-for-All." You get better insurance. There's no question about that.
CUOMO: Maybe. Maybe.
UYGUR: No question.
[21:40:00]
CUOMO: It's - it's about how you pay for it, how long it takes, and what you can actually sell in Congress. But I take your argument.
Now to you, bigmouth, no. So, you're running for Katie Hill's seat?
UYGUR: Yes.
CUOMO: First problem, it's purple.
UYGUR: Yes.
CUOMO: That seat.
UYGUR: Yes.
CUOMO: You are not purple.
UYGUR: That's right.
CUOMO: How do you run for a seat where you're going to get hit with two sticks right away, you're not purple, and two, you're a carpetbagger.
UYGUR: Yes.
CUOMO: You're not from there.
UYGUR: Yes.
CUOMO: Overcome them.
UYGUR: So, first of all, the - I'm going to prove that this mythology that progressives can't win in purple districts is totally wrong. We represent the voters way better. So, for example, strong progressives run uncorrupted.
So, I'm going to run against bribery. All the corporate campaign contributions are bribes. That's what they are. And you know what? Democrats know that. But Republicans know that as well. That's part of the reason that Trump won. He said "Drain the swamp."
People hate the corruption. And progressives are clearly against corruption. When the Nancy Pelosis of the world say "No, no, no, and we've - we've got to run as corporate Democrats in purple districts," who are they trying to appeal to? The people in 25th District don't want big corporations running them.
CUOMO: What about the you're--
UYGUR: They've been screwed by that.
CUOMO: What about the "You're not us?"
UYGUR: Yes. So, I'm going to move to the district, and it's a fair point. Hey, they say you got to come here to represent me. That's right.
My wife's a saint. She's got a job near where we live now. But she said, "Yes, we're willing to move." So, I can't wait to go there. It's a wonderful community. I've been all over the district. I love it. Can't wait to move.
And got - and you have to think about it this way, Chris. Who do you want? Someone that is going to move in a couple of months, and agrees with you completely, or someone who doesn't agree with you at all, and happens to be there right now?
CUOMO: All right, let's see if you can sell to people. Now, there's going to be character analysis. You're not a commentator anymore. You're a candidate. You've written things in the past--
UYGUR: Yes.
CUOMO: --that were ugly. You've said they were insensitive and stupid. People say, "No. You're doing it out of convenience now." You said misogynistic things.
UYGUR: Yes. CUOMO: You want to run as a far-Left candidate. They want to protect women's empowerment. You are the enemy.
UYGUR: So, first of all, I wrote that stuff eight - now 19 years ago. I deleted it 15 years ago, not because I got caught, or because I thought somebody was going to find it. I deleted it because I didn't believe it anymore.
So, I'm not one of those guys who found Jesus on the way to "Oh my god, I got caught." I - no, no, no, no. I said "This is not me." I was trying to be as stupid, politically incorrect Republican, so I wrote these things that I knew were offensive. And so, when I saw it with my eyes again, I was like "No. I'm getting rid of these."
The Right wing, the Alt-Right found them, and surfaced them two years ago. Now, a lot of the Democrats who are part of the Democratic machine go "Hey, I like that Right-wing tactic."
CUOMO: Oh, and a lot of progressives.
UYGUR: "Let me resurface that."
CUOMO: A lot of progressives, they have zero appetite for a man saying anything about women being inherently inferior.
UYGUR: No. As well they should because that is totally wrong. The question isn't whether I said that. The question is did I disavow it, and did - did I disavow it now that I'm running for office? Hell no!
15 years ago - Chris, I've been on the air now 18 years with The Young Turks. And would anybody argue that I'm not progressive enough? No. I fought for women's rights, minority rights. Every kind of person you could find, I have fought for. That's why all the top progressives back me. And - and it's because I've proven it.
Would millions of progressives across the country, including millions of women, support me if I was that guy? No. They support me--
CUOMO: Well--
UYGUR: --because I'm a firebrand on the side of the Left, on the side of rights for all of those folks.
CUOMO: The questions will come. You'll have to address them. I hear your argument here. The audience does as well.
The other big stick, the name of your show, "The Young Turks," there is a suggestion that until very recently, you didn't believe in the Armenian Genocide, and that it's not a good faith historical thing. It's a bias.
UYGUR: Yes.
CUOMO: And that the name of the show suggests where you are on it.
UYGUR: Yes. CUOMO: And that you are basically ignoring genocide.
UYGUR: No, absolutely false.
So, is it true that I was wrong about that, again, earlier in my life? Yes. I wrote a college paper - not a paper, but an editorial about that. I've disavowed that over and over again, not just now, for a year upon year upon year. So, it's just not true that it's recent at all.
And so, why did I believe that when I was younger? Because I grew up Turkish, and I only heard one side of the story.
CUOMO: Why didn't you change the name of the show?
UYGUR: So, the name of the show has absolutely nothing to do with it. My two co-Founders are Jewish. When we got together, they weren't Turkish at all. Young Turks, the - the literal definition in the dictionary is young progressives looking to overthrow--
CUOMO: Right.
UYGUR: --the established system.
CUOMO: But when you Google "The Young Turks," you're going to get a history of that term. It's like why now Trump and his guys want to call themselves nationalists. When you look at how nationalism has been used, very ugly--
UYGUR: Wait, Chris, are you--
CUOMO: Young Turks was used back in Turkey--
UYGUR: No, no, no, wait, are you saying--
CUOMO: --as--
UYGUR: --that Rod Stewart - are you saying that Rod Stewart called - called the song Young Turks because he - it was an ode to the Armenian Genocide?
CUOMO: No.
UYGUR: Of course not. When Michael Ovitz did it at CAA, of course not.
CUOMO: Why did you do it--
UYGUR: And say--
CUOMO: --as someone who was saying the Armenian Genocide wasn't real?
UYGUR: No. But as I explained, I already disavowed that. It had absolutely nothing to do with that. So, it was about literal definition, young progressives looking to overthrow the established system. Now, you know our show a little bit.
CUOMO: I know it a lot.
UYGUR: So, isn't that nearly a perfect description of what we are?
CUOMO: Absolutely.
[21:45:00]
UYGUR: So, there you go. That's why we named it that.
CUOMO: But I'm saying there's a convenience out of it now that's going to be criticized. You're a candidate. You got to answer for it.
UYGUR: But Chris, all of these things, look, I don't come as the accused. I come as the accuser because all these are distractions from the issues.
They don't want to talk about Medicare-for-All because I'm the only person in the race that's for Medicare-for-All. They don't want to talk about the corruption because they take giant corporate PAC money.
CUOMO: Right.
UYGUR: My Democratic opponent, you know what her average contribution in this year has been so far? $2,700. My average contribution is $28. Her - she's got about a 130 or so people--
CUOMO: Right.
UYGUR: --that contributed to her or organizations. Only 22 of them appear to be real people. I've got 13,000 real people who donated to me.
CUOMO: I saw the numbers. I'm not questioning them. I'm just saying you're going to put yourself out there. You're going to have to answer for all of it. And that's why I asked you the questions.
UYGUR: All right.
CUOMO: I'll continue to do so.
UYGUR: cenk2020.com, OK? We're going to win this race, and we're going to show that progressives are super strong.
And we could win anywhere because everyone hates the bribery, and everyone can't stand that corporations have taken over our government. I'm going to fight for those folks in that district, and we're going to win together.
CUOMO: And you are welcome to make the case here, as always.
UYGUR: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: Happy Thanksgiving to you.
UYGUR: You too.
CUOMO: Cenk Uygur.
All right, T minus a few hours until Thanksgiving, my favorite time of the year. It means more to me than any other holy day or holiday on the calendar. Why? Next.
[21:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: When people ask me how I'm doing, I most often say better than I deserve. My pop used to say that, and I always thought it was his modesty, but I don't think that anymore. It's the truth.
Blessings aren't a given. Life can go either way, and we all know it. We've experienced it. We've seen it in those we love and those we learn about. It is all so precious.
"There, but for the grace of God, go I," right? And this is the time of year that reminds us to be the way we should be every day, thankful.
I want to show you the guys in the shadows. You see them there? I don't show them that much because they're all better-looking than I am. These are the people who bring me into the light. They make the show possible. I am thankful.
You see these guys, the CPT team? They make "Let's get after it" more than words. They're the mind. They're the machine that allows me to do this job for you. They're the smallest team in PRIME TIME, and they deliver in the biggest way.
And the tribute to their efforts are the moments that we've had on this show, and the impact we've already made.
Most recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
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: This interview was a surprise to a lot of people, but not to us. We suspected that this was the President's play, and we hoped Mr. Giuliani would eventually express his true intentions, along with his animus at the media, and the Democrats, and he did, and it was a major catalyst in this process.
I also thank Mr. Giuliani for choosing to come on here as often as he does, and to all the people of consequence, Left and Right that see this show as a relevant forum.
The leading Democrat in the field.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: How do you beat him?
JOE BIDEN (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'd beat him by just pointing out who I am, and who he is, and what we're for and what he's against. This guy's a Divider-in-Chief. This guy is acting with racist policies. This guy is moving to - to just foment hate, to split. That's the only way he can be - sustain himself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The man leading the impeachment inquiry.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): This is a President who feels he is above the law, that there is no accountability. And, frankly, I think that it's little more dangerous to America than an unethical President who believes he is above the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: And they both came on in critical moments. That means everything in this business.
But mainly the show's about testing power. And that means most often this President and his defenders, and I'm grateful for the chance to test arguments, to expose arguments, evasion, sometimes outright lies, but to disagree with decency.
And I'm thankful that this show has become known by the President and his defenders as being a place for that with people like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN DUFFY, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: But listen, I love you, brother. And I - listen, I appreciate our debates. And you know what? You can disagree and debate fervently, but you don't have to hate each other. And I think you and I have done that really well together.
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): I consider you a friend. I think you'd consider the same. We don't necessarily agree on everything. But we know how to take our political opinions and make that kind of business, something we're passionate about, but still like each other on the other side of that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I'm thankful that we're free here to talk, and get after it, even when the talk is tough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: --media organization.
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, TRUMP 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY, FORMER RNC SPOKESWOMAN: He doesn't lie. Guess who lies? The press lies.
CUOMO: You don't think this President--
MCENANY: And don't take it from me. Take it--
CUOMO: --has ever lied?
MCENANY: Take it from Jim Comey who literally called out a New York--
CUOMO: You don't think this President has lied to the American people?
MCENANY: Let me finish, Chris.
CUOMO: You--
MCENANY: No, I don't think the President has lied.
CUOMO: --have to answer that question, first.
MCENANY: I don't think the President has lied.
CUOMO: He has never lied to the American people?
MCENANY: No, I don't think the President has lied.
CUOMO: Kayleigh McEnany, your credibility--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Like I said. And there are so many others, who add to the stewing controversies, and they bring clarity, they all deserve thanks, the investigators, the lawyers, the Wiz, The Wizard of Odds.
Look, and here's the point. Gratitude is not just words. It's defined as a readiness to show appreciation and to return a kindness. Being given this platform at CNN is an awesome opportunity, and I am thankful.
So, we do all we can to make the most of it, even when it's far-flung places or fierce or just really hard to bear. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Look what one of the women here gave me. She saw me on TV. She thought that we could use some help that this was heavy, and she knew people who were lost at Walmart, she painted Our Lady of Guadalupe, The Mother of Mercy, on a rock, and she came here and gave it to me. These - this is who these people are.
LEYLA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She's scared to talk about what happened in Honduras because she's afraid it will get back to the people over there.
[21:55:00]
CUOMO: You know, the story is so common that they're leaving something at home that they're afraid of so much that they'd rather live like this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I'm thankful to go there, to show you, so we can all remember to be grateful for what we have, and grateful for what we can give to others.
And no one has given me more and gotten back less than my family. None of them signed up for this maelstrom, this Thunderdome political dynamic that has become my reality on- and off-camera. I'm so thankful to our three jewels, and to my wife.
Everything they bring into my life, I try every day to be worthy of it. I fall short too often. And I'm even thankful for that uncomfortable truth because it motivates me to keep trying.
So, as we head into Thanksgiving, allow me to give thanks to all of you for giving us the incredible gift of your interest and attention. It means everything. And I and the team will do whatever we can to return that kindness.
Happy Thanksgiving, the best to all of you.
All right, that's it for us tonight. We're going to have a blessed Thanksgiving. I hope you do as well. Tonight, we have special reporting, "All The President's Lies," next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The following is a CNN Special Report.
