Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
House Set To Vote On War Powers Resolution Tomorrow; GOP Senator: "Worst Briefing I've Had On A Military Issue"; Plane Crash Outside Tehran Kills All 176 On Board. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 08, 2020 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hostilities towards Iran unless the - came back to Congress will pass, and it will pass overwhelmingly, but, at this point, keeping it separate from impeachment, Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Phil Mattingly, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
News continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
The question, is it really over? The President still hasn't provided you a stitch of proof this country had to take out a General right now, not a scintilla of proof. We have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who got the Intel. Why are so many so appalled by the quality of the briefing?
And we're going to take on the great mystery in the sky over Iran. A 176 killed, just after takeoff in Iran, on the way to Ukraine. Forget the chatter. What does the evidence show so far?
Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, the House says it's going to vote tomorrow to rein in the President's war-making powers. Why? Well, in large part, because of wild dissatisfaction with briefings from the Administration today about this strike that got U.S. bases bombed.
Here's a taste.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Probably the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate.
To come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran, it's un- American, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: "Oh! Those Democrats, they won't shut up." "Oh! It was a Republican!" "Oh! Well he just hates Trump." No, he doesn't. That was Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, standing alongside fellow Republican, Rand Paul, enraged and insulted, he said, to be told by Trump officials "Don't debate the merits of taking military action against Iran." Does that sound like a clear-cut case is being offered?
Now, House Democrat, Gerry Connolly says he left the room more troubled than he went in. The Foreign Affairs Committee Member joins us now.
Thank you, Sir.
REP. GERRY CONNOLLY (D-VA): Great to be with you.
CUOMO: Happy New Year to you and the family.
CONNOLLY: You too, Chris.
CUOMO: So imminent, thanks to the DOJ, basically means anything a President wants it to mean with such a broad explanation. How was the briefing still unsatisfied?
CONNOLLY: Well, you said it a little earlier there was not a scintilla of evidence presented to justify the so-called imminent threat that was asserted.
We got a compilation of the past sins of a very bad actor, namely Qasem Soleimani, who was assassinated, but we got no evidence to justify why now, and what put us over the edge into making that very fateful decision. And that was very--
CUOMO: So there main argument is, Congressman, is--
CONNOLLY: I'm sorry?
CUOMO: Their main argument is "You know he's a bad guy. Iran's a bad actor. He's one of the worst.
He's been responsible, arguably, for millions - millions - hundreds of American deaths in the region. And we believe he was just behind the planning of what happened at the Embassy that took out an American contractor. What else do you need to know?"
CONNOLLY: To decide to assassinate a leader in another government is a very consequential decision. And it's fraught with ramifications. And Iran is not a pushover. Iran is a very sophisticated country with enormous capabilities, both military and asymmetrical, and certainly in the cyber field.
And you - if you're going to take that kind of action, it needs to be thought through, planned through, and carefully vetted. None of that happened, based on what I heard, or didn't hear, in the classified briefing today.
CUOMO: Now, we single out Mike Lee and Rand Paul because any dissension in the ranks on the Republican side is very rare, let alone from people who are not set up to be inimical to this President's cause.
However, in general, almost all Republican lawmakers, and a few Democrats, say, "Look, you know, the President can do this when he wants. And this is an extension of the 2002 author - you know, Authorization for Use of Military Force. So, you know, we have to just go on the basis from point to point."
How? How is this, an extension of something that was designed in 2002 as a reaction to 9/11?
CONNOLLY: I think that's a really important question, Chris. I - I - and the answer to me is very clearly it's not.
To fight a resolution after 9/11, adopted after 9/11, for a very different set of circumstances that is now 17 years old is an absurd and Orwellian interpretation of language and intent.
[21:05:00]
Clearly that AUMF was designed for a different time, and a different set of circumstances, and a different set of threats. It was not designed to justify the assassination of a foreign leader, however malign a - an actor he was.
And that's why I favor repeal of the AUMF, and a broad and thorough debate about War Powers, and what decisions we want to make, as a country, with respect to our relationship--
CUOMO: Right.
CONNOLLY: --with Iran.
CUOMO: Now, as you know, Gerry, this is something that I've been arguing about for a long time. You've made similar arguments. I don't see Trump as the problem here. This, to me, is on Congress. You guys have been giving Presidents your power, administration after administration.
I can't tell you how many times Members of Congress have argued "No, no, it's OK. You know, I get it. There's no need for a new AUMF. I know all the circumstances have changed and everything is different. But, you know, he's the President. He should have some latitude," in direct contravention of what the Constitution has laid out.
Is this the proof that you gave off too much power, for too long, and now you've lost it?
CONNOLLY: I think again you have a very good point.
I think Congress, for decades, has tried to have it both ways. They wanted - they want the freedom to criticize decisions made by the Commander-in-Chief. But they don't want the - the responsibility to make those decisions in lieu of the Commander-in-Chief.
And I take a pretty strict view of the Constitution. Today - you know, today, the justification was both that AUMF we talked about and Article Two.
Well Article Two simply states that the President is the Commander-in- Chief after, and only after, Congress has decided that a state of war exists, and then directs that Commander-in-Chief to direct the armies.
And, over the years, we've allowed imputed and inferred powers to Article Two, and apparently, no imputed or inferred powers to the absolute power granted by the Constitution--
CUOMO: Right.
CONNOLLY: --to the Congress to declare war.
CUOMO: There's been a steady erosion. Now, the vote tomorrow, I've been told it is, does that stand? It's still tomorrow?
CONNOLLY: Yes, I believe it is.
CUOMO: All right, so that's about the War Powers Act. People can Google it for themselves at home, came out in 1973, I think November 7th they passed it, and it was to better define these powers.
And it plays on this idea of imminency, which has been given the most expansive definition of the word, that I have ever contemplated in my life, consistently by lawyers for the Department of Justice, working for Presidents that wanted it expanded.
And basically, imminent means you can look back at what this guy has done, ever, and put that together with what he might be planning now, based on some kind of Intelligence, and that's enough for it to be imminent. Now, that's never been challenged.
Do you think there is any chance of any type of bipartisan political will that this vote will pass, it will pass as a Party vote, but is there any chance of bipartisanship among Congress to take back their power lest we live through something like this again without a "Lucky miss" by Iran.
CONNOLLY: I wish I could tell you that there was. During the Nixon years, in fact there was.
But the behavior, the herd behavior, of enabling, and rationalization, and cover-up, we've seen across the board, without any exceptions, among my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the House anyhow, has been breathtaking, but also something that has - remains unbroken. So, I - I don't hold out a lot of hope for any kind of serious bipartisan effort. That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect the Constitution and reassert the powers of the Legislative branch, even if my friends on the other side of the aisle want to take a hike.
CUOMO: Gerry Connolly, Congressman, thank you very much for making the case tonight.
CONNOLLY: My pleasure, Chris.
CUOMO: Appreciate it, be well.
CONNOLLY: Anytime.
CUOMO: All right, the big questions now. Is it really over? If not, what may come next? Does it come here or just abroad? We have two people who really know the region and the realities, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:10:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, this talk that Iran may have intentionally missed U.S. Forces is being downplayed tonight by top Pentagon leaders.
Now, you may remember, last night, I kept talking to everybody about this because it's - it's so hard to accept that they could be that targeted, that they would have that type of benign interest.
The Defense Secretary is backing up the top U.S. General, Mark Milley, in his assessment that Iran did intend to kill American personnel. So, what does that mean as a window into their intentionality? And what does it tell us about what may come next?
Let's bring in State Department veterans, Aaron David Miller and Nayyera Haq.
First, thank you very much for last night and thank you for now. I was questioning a lot about this last night. Do they have the capabilities? Can you really come close, but miss, and why would they do that?
Now, we had a flood of people saying, "Yes, yes, yes, it could have been that." Now they're backing off. Nayyera, do you think it is unlikely that they shot missiles 800, 900 miles, hoping to miss?
NAYYERA HAQ, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT SENIOR ADVISER, SIRIUSXM PROGRESS RADIO HOST: Listen, I - I think they were looking to resolve this most immediate cycle of escalation, and that was to target American infrastructure in Iraq. It's the first time that we've seen the Iranian government actually cross the border that way versus the proxies that we're used to them seeing.
CUOMO: Yes.
HAQ: So, I think that was a very intentional way of doing it. And it's a good thing, frankly, that there was no loss of civilian--
CUOMO: Absolutely.
HAQ: --or a loss of life. I think that makes a huge difference and allowed both sides to kind of step back and - and take a moment to--
CUOMO: Right.
HAQ: --save face and - with both of their publics.
With that said, this is - Iran is going to serve revenge as a cold dish. They are - they are not - they are in this for the long haul. Losing Qasem Soleimani is a very big deal for them.
And this is - we should be expecting that there will be further activity throughout the region, and that'll be in the form of either cyber-attacks, either something the proxies that they have, these militia groups that they claim they don't have direct control over, could be oil infrastructure for our allies, or even worst-case scenario, the Quds Force that Soleimani used to train and head.
[21:15:00]
They have shown capabilities of having civilian attacks and taking out targets in Europe and throughout Africa. So, clearly something that needs to be monitored--
CUOMO: Right.
HAQ: --over the next several months because, again, this is part of a pattern of behavior for Iran.
CUOMO: Yes.
HAQ: They may have resolved this one moment. But they're still in it for the long haul.
CUOMO: But that's what I'm saying. We don't have another example of them shooting to miss. And they did put out there that they're contemplating attacking here at home as well. What does that to - do to inspire people who want to impress these malefactors, lone wolves, and etcetera?
Now, ADM--
HAQ: Well certainly - it's certainly they do not want a conventional war.
CUOMO: Right.
HAQ: Like that does not put them on the right footing. So, the idea of like missile attacks on airbases--
CUOMO: Right.
HAQ: --and then we bring in Air assault, that does not--
CUOMO: Yes because they'd lose.
HAQ: --play to their advantage.
CUOMO: I get it.
HAQ: Right.
CUOMO: I get it.
It's just I don't buy this, ADM, that they missed on purpose. And I also don't buy how the Ayatollah is satisfied with this? Thank God no U.S. troops, and nobody else for that matter, was hurt. But I just don't buy that they were trying to miss, which is why I kept asking.
Now, in your tutoring, you said, "This is over. It is not over." Why not? The Foreign Minister said "We're good. We're good."
AARON DAVID MILLER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT: Well that's the Foreign Minister, Chris.
The Soleimani file is - is very much still open. I mean the second - arguably, the second most powerful important man in Iran, close to the Supreme Leader, you know, this file is open and the Iranians have just begun.
Nayyera makes a good point. You know, we measure our lives, or I do, in terms of administrations. They think in terms of generations. And this, frankly, is the long game, and it's their neighborhood.
And nobody wins. The President talks about victory. Nobody wins in the Middle East. I mean the - the - the region's littered with the remains of great powers who wrongly believed they could impose their will on smaller ones.
We're just the latest to arrive, and it's not our neighborhood, and they have a lot of asymmetrical advantage, and we're going to begin to see it.
CUOMO: How so in terms of what killing Soleimani meant as a catalyst to what you believe comes next? Connect the dots.
MILLER: Well I just don't think that the administration had a - had an objective and a set of aspirations tethered to a strategy. And the reality is the Iranians enjoy advantages of geography, history, demography, particularly in Iraq.
Well we are now frankly disadvantaged. 17-year-old investment, thousands of American lives, scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, a trillion dollars expended, and we're now on a back foot, in large part, because the Iranians managed to change the channel. And I think that's just the beginning.
You had - had Andy McCabe on last night, talking about cyber. He's already picking up indications that we need to be extremely vigilant. And I don't think the Iranians have even started what it is they intend to do. But--
CUOMO: But the counter is - the counter is, Nayyera, to bring you back in, is "No, no, no, no, no. Iran is really bad. Nobody had sent the right message. Sanctions isn't enough.
Obama gave them back the money. The deal was a joke. So, we punched them right in the face, took out one of their big guys. Trump's no joke. That's why the Foreign Minister said shooting and missing is good enough. This helped."
HAQ: That's a very easy Middle East word salad to toss at the American public when they're not really tracking how things work in the Middle East on the day-to-day, right?
The 2015 marker, really when it goes back to 2003, with the United States invasion of Iraq, the continued destabilization of the region with the Civil War in Syria, in which Iran is on the wrong side. The - you have a Civil War in Yemen.
All - all of this, and now, fast forward to the administration having made this really consequential decision without any evidence of a cost-benefit analysis of why now? Why think that--
CUOMO: He's a bad guy. He's killed Americans in the past.
HAQ: He's been a bad guy for a while. He's been--
CUOMO: He wants to kill more.
HAQ: Right. He's been a bad guy for a while. If you're going to take him out, do it in a way that the public, or at least Congress, is aware. There's a longer-term plan. You have an end game in sight, and you have everything positioned in the region.
Unfortunately, it was done in a way, in which, now, the Iraqis are not willing to cooperate and work with us. The countering ISIS campaign, in which we were actually allied with the Iranian militias there, that's falling apart.
So, it's actually put us - it may look on the surface, rhetorically, like we really punched him in the nose. But, at the end of the day, we've lost a lot of ground and potential goodwill in the region.
CUOMO: Cut the head off a worm. It may grow a new one, ADM.
HAQ: It's a hydra. It's a hydra.
MILLER: I mean--
CUOMO: But it doesn't move as fast when you cut its head off. "Soleimani has got - gone. Bad guy. Iran knows that the United States isn't a joke and we're better positioned."
MILLER: Yes, but military power, Chris, untethered from attainable, realistic, and sustainable political goals.
I give you Iraq and Afghanistan, a preponderance of power, weighted in our favor. And after 17, 18 years of conflict, there - the standard for victory was never can we win conventionally, but when could we leave, and what we - what would it leave behind.
And Iran is a much - look, there are three - there are three functional powerful states in this region today. They're the three non-Arabs. The Arab stated - the Arab states are melding down, Iran, Turkey and the Israelis.
[21:20:00]
Iran is a not 10-feet tall, but a formidable power. And now, they've opened the file. We've opened the file against them. "Bad actor, no - no tears shed for Soleimani." But the question is where does this go and can we even compete?
And I don't think - we're like some modern-day Gulliver wandering Iran in the part of the world where Trump would net - would rather not be, tied up by tinier powers, whose interests are not our own, and by the President's illusions. I just think it's not smart. And I think we're in for a very bad patch in the months and years ahead.
CUOMO: Well I'll tell you what's helpful. You guys dealing with what the arguments are that are being put out there by the administration, and its defenders, so the audience can process the information through logical analysis.
Nayyera, thank you. ADM, thank you, as always.
HAQ: Thank you.
CUOMO: Appreciate it, all right?
MILLER: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: All right, so--
MILLER: Take care.
CUOMO: --this coincidence that we need to take a look at. Same night missiles were flying from Iran this passenger plane bursts into flames, just after takeoff, in Tehran. There was video of it, there it is on the screen, not something you see very often.
We still don't know why. People were shy to report it because it may be connected to what else was going on. But a 170-plus people are gone. What do we know? Forget about the chatter.
We have a top aviation expert who literally wrote the book on why planes crash, 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, there are lot of questions surrounding this Ukrainian airline jet that crashed outside Tehran, killing all 176 people on board.
Yes, it was happening at about the same time that Iranian missiles were attacking U.S. airbases in Iraq. Maybe that is a reason why a lot in the media shied away from it because they didn't want to make a connection.
But I don't think we can avoid it either, a 176 people died. Let's talk about it. Let's talk about what we know. CNN's Safety Analyst, David Soucie, is with us.
Thank you very much. You're always my first choice here. Thank you for being available. Now, you've taken a look at it.
DAVID SOUCIE, FORMER FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR, AUTHOR, "WHY PLANES CRASH", CNN safety analyst: Hi, Chris.
CUOMO: Let's deal with the main proposition. Do you believe, from what you've seen, at this point, there's any easy indication that this was done to this plane, that this was shot down?
SOUCIE: Chris, I don't see any evidence of that right now. In accident investigation, you have to try to avoid the web of speculation, and being drawn into that parlor, if you will, because the fact is there's nothing that says there was no witness of a missile. There was nothing that says that it was.
And, in fact, if you look at the evidence on the ground, the photos from - which there are many, photos from the site, I don't see anything in there that would give you a firm indication of any kind of missile attack at all.
CUOMO: Help us understand some of the speculation. You don't usually see a plane like that in fire, on fire, as it's flying. No Mayday call. What could that mean?
SOUCIE: Well, at this point, if you look at that fire and the flame, you notice that the flame and the trailing - it has trailing pieces, trailing speculations, fly - flaming fire coming out from behind the - the aircraft.
Now, when you look at the accident site, you don't see melted or burnt wings or aluminum. This aircraft is made out of aluminum fiberglass. So, it's not something that's going to just burn and not show any evidence of that.
And I don't see any of that other than the post-accident type burning. So, I would not start there with my investigation. I would look more towards the engines.
CUOMO: All right, one more general point here. In terms of an engine fire, or some type of internal combustion, that caused this, what, what kinds of things might have happened?
SOUCIE: Well, if you recall, we had a rupture of the engine, an uncontained failure of an engine, not too long ago. It was Southwest. And that, unfortunately, took the life of one person.
But these uncontained failures can cause problems and - and actually bring aircraft down with fire. So, that's something that I looked at when I looked at the photos.
And again, Chris, I want to make sure that I'm not saying that this is problems or these are what's happening. What I'm saying is this is where I would start my investigation. These are the things I would look for.
So, in those photos, I found some pretty compelling evidence that there were some engine issues.
CUOMO: Yes. Let's start.
One of them, let's go to the first photo here, this is of what appears to be a damaged engine itself. Now, you circled three different things with color coding, pre-impact damage, post-impact damage, trailing scorching.
Is trailing scorching what you were talking about that the fire that was going, as we saw it in the sky, and it sending things back, that created marks on matter?
SOUCIE: Exactly. If you look closely at this, you can see, in this particular picture, it's a picture of the rear of the engine, which in the rear of the engine is where the turbine is. That's where all the power comes from.
20,000 - up to 25,000 pounds of thrust come out of this little section of the engine. And that's what's pushing the aircraft forward. You have two of those going on. So, you look at the power that comes through there--
CUOMO: Right. So, what's the difference between pre-impact and post- impact?
SOUCIE: --those blades.
CUOMO: Help us understand that.
SOUCIE: Well so, if it's pre-impact, that means that the fire was there, and it's - and the trailing scorching indicates that it was in the line of flight that after that rupture happened that you see there's flames coming back across scorching the metal. And that happens pre - pre-accident.
Now what you look for post-accident are the things that are scratches, and dents, and holes in the wings.
And after the aircraft hits the ground, it breaks into pieces, it starts flipping, and it starts hitting rocks, and scraping and cutting itself. And those are post-accident marks. And you can see some of those because you can see the fresh metal scraping on those - on that metal at that point.
CUOMO: Which of them are instructive, if at all, in terms of whether this was done to this plane or it happened within the plane?
SOUCIE: Really, at this point, I don't - again, I don't see anything.
[21:30:00]
If we - if this was a missile like we - like an MH17 when that SAM missile, the Buk missile blew the aircraft up, the - you would see a pattern. These things break up and they come in to some sort of pattern on the skin.
I'm not seeing any of that. Of course, I'm not there. But we do have hundreds and hundreds of pictures of this accident site, and I've gone through every single one of them that I have access to, and I haven't seen anything that would be anyway - anything similar to what we saw with MH17.
CUOMO: We'll put up another picture here of one of the turbines, and you circled pre-impact damage as proof of what happened to this plane, in and of itself. And again, it does not look to you as the type of damage that would have been caused by ammunition.
The black boxes though are always the Bible on this. Are they something that would tell the story of how this plane lit on fire?
SOUCIE: Most definitely, it would, Chris. You have fuel - there's - there's as many - you can get as many as 10,000 pieces of information out of those boxes.
Each dataset tells you, and then you put that over time, and you can get a lot of information about this aircraft, from vibrational analysis that is recorded, to the fuel pressures, to the oil pressures, everything you need to know to solve this crime - this incident is in those boxes.
CUOMO: Now the question is Iran is probably going to be the one to recover it. Whom will they give it to, if anybody? They're not going to give it to us. And we can understand that in terms of what our right is to have them.
But the company's supposed to get them. Boeing's supposed to get them. The carrier is supposed to get the information. And certainly, they both have every interest in saying what happened to this plane and to these 176 lives, and by extension, their families.
David Soucie, thank you so much for helping us understand what this is, and what is not, at this point.
SOUCIE: Certainly, Chris.
CUOMO: Appreciate it.
All right, let's turn back to the crisis with Iran. Are we better off from the actions taken by the President? You heard Gerry Connolly, Democrat, not happy. You heard Republicans, couple of them, not happy.
Well how about one who is happy, not happy that we're in this at all, but feels it was right? He nearly gave his life defending this country. Valuable perspective, smart guy, new voice in Congress, Mr. Crenshaw, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, let's clear some of the chatter here.
Iran is a bad actor. It's inimical to the United States. It's a bad actor in the region, period, for a long time. This General that America took out was considered a terrorist for good reason.
The question is was this done the right way, and does that matter going forward?
Congressman Dan Crenshaw knows the importance of clear Intel, and he knows the reality of war in the region, OK? He is a veteran who served with honor. The Republican from Texas joins us now.
Happy New Year.
REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Hey, Happy New Year, Chris. Thanks for having me.
CUOMO: It's good to have you. I wish I had you on for a better reason. But, in truth, you know what, this matters. This is good reason. Thank you for making the time.
You heard me off the top. There is no discussion about whether Iran is inimical to the cause, is a danger to America, nor with this individual. My question is about process here.
Especially as someone who has to pay the price, in the past, for political decisions, right, you were a fighting man, do you have any concerns about the President, and the people around him, doing this the way they did, without Congress, on the basis they've provided so far?
CRENSHAW: Yes. Well that's an important question to ask. I certainly don't deny that.
But upon looking at the facts, and being in the briefings I've been in, yes, I do believe it was the right decision.
And I think they - they - they made it as - as well as they could, OK? We - we have to look at this in context - in the context of history, and the escalation in violence that has occurred against the United States over the past few years.
So, even as the Iran deal was getting signed, the - the - the Iran - the Iranians were embarrassing U.S. Navy sailors by capturing them, boarding their vessel, and putting those pictures all over the Internet. Then we move into putting limpet mines on oil tankers, bombing Saudi oil facilities.
CUOMO: Yes.
CRENSHAW: Downing a U.S. drone, rocket attacks on our bases, all--
CUOMO: Exporting and funding terror, helping Hezbollah.
CRENSHAW: Absolutely.
CUOMO: Helping screw with Yemen, doing stuff in Syria, even feeding into the North African problems, all true.
CRENSHAW: Right.
CUOMO: My question to you is that also informs us that this was a long-standing thing that marries to the idea that the Secretary of State reportedly--
CRENSHAW: Yes, well--
CUOMO: --was working the President on this for a long time.
CRENSHAW: Well - well like culminated them.
CUOMO: That does not suggest imminency.
CRENSHAW: No but it - well it was imminency. But it also culminated into in attacks that killed an American citizen.
CUOMO: Yes.
CRENSHAW: And then, I think, and then orchestrated an attack against a U.S. Embassy. So, the - the escalation had occurred, and then there was good Intelligence that showed that it was going to continue to escalate, and that escalation ladder needed to be disrupted.
When - so when I hear somebody like General Milley, and - and the CIA Director, and the - and the DNI Director say that this is some of the best clearest Intelligence that they have seen, I think we should take that into account, and - and - and believe what they're saying.
CUOMO: Well we would believe it more quickly, by the way, if we hadn't had a President for 2.5 years pounding on us that you can't trust U.S. Intel. But let's take your point because I want people to trust Intel, but I want them to trust, but verify. We should have proof. That's the media's job.
Senator Mike Lee had a different take, Republican, Utah, not set up to be against the President for no reason. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEE: Drive-by notification or after-the-fact lame briefings like the one we just received aren't adequate.
Every time we got close, they'd say "Well, we can't discuss that here because it's really sensitive." We're in a SCIF. We're in a secure underground bunker where all electronic devices have to be checked at the door, and they still refused to tell us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Rand Paul went on to say "They couldn't give me the details. They couldn't give me the proof of imminency that they had to do it now. They're relying on an AUMF that has no bearing to what's going on right now."
I blame Congress for that, not the Executive branch, by the way. But why does this Senator come to, or two Senators, come to such a different conclusion than you?
[21:40:00]
CRENSHAW: Yes. Well, first of all, the A - the 2002 AUMF is sort of an added justification. It's meant to demonstrate that the - the attack happened in Iraq, and the counter-attack happened in Iraq. We already have an operational presence in Iraq. The real justification is Article Two of the Constitution, and the War
Powers Resolution, which clearly states that the President can take immediate action to protect U.S. Forces, especially when we just had two significant attacks on U.S. Forces.
CUOMO: But then why was Pompeo--
CRENSHAW: Because that's - that's the first thing.
CUOMO: --working him for so long to do this? And why wasn't it worth bringing in Congress, and trying to get people like you into the leadership position--
CRENSHAW: Yes, I--
CUOMO: --who have such expertise to talk about whether it's right, the way they're doing it, because really, this is your job in Congress.
CRENSHAW: Yes. I'm not aware of - of Secretary Pompeo's conversations with the President.
But - but the - but the other part about the Intelligence that - that Senator Lee was - was complaining about is, listen, I understand it. I do. But having come from the - the world of Intelligence, I also understand that these are extremely sensitive sources and methods.
CUOMO: Yes.
CRENSHAW: And when you say what you know, you - you - you, by nature, are revealing how you got it. And that is of extreme concern, especially if we're still getting that Intelligence.
And, you know, and I don't think it's out of the question to say, or - or out of bounds to say that the, you know, the - the - the Director of the CIA is not sure whether these Members of Congress will go out and say what they're saying.
The easiest thing in the world, by the way, is - is - is just to know that that say the CIA and the DNI can't reveal those Intelligence sources, and then go say, "Well, we don't believe it."
CUOMO: I know. I hear you. But - but, again, these aren't--
CRENSHAW: You know that that's - that's not fair.
CUOMO: --these aren't Democrats. They're Republicans. So--
CRENSHAW: Yes.
CUOMO: --it's not like it's a political play. The Gang of Eight wasn't even talked to before this happened, which is a mechanism that's in place for a reason. The President who has said again and again, and again, I'm not blaming you for this, Dan.
CRENSHAW: Yes.
CUOMO: I'm bringing you on to talk reason to it.
CRENSHAW: Yes.
CUOMO: He's said so many times, "U.S. Intel can be Deep State nonsense. Confidential sources, and classified, forget it, declassify it all. It should all be out there should you know."
Now, he doesn't want to do that. Now, he's told the American people nothing. Why should we believe it was such a clear case?
CRENSHAW: Well because we have so many - again - again, we have General Milley. We have the Director of the CIA, Director of the DNI, saying the same things as well.
So, you know, the - valid criticisms, you know, you can make a valid critique that - that Members of Congress could have been notified, at least as the strike was happening. But that doesn't take away from the - the overall picture here, which is that this is a good thing. It's a good strategic decision. And - and - and the--
CUOMO: It was a good tactical decision. See, and--
CRENSHAW: And strategic decision.
CUOMO: Well why because they say they--
CRENSHAW: I would say the strategic - strategic decision.
CUOMO: But they haven't articulated a strategy.
CRENSHAW: Based on the last 24 hours.
CUOMO: But they haven't articulated a strategy yet. And, in fact--
CRENSHAW: I'll articulate a very--
CUOMO: --the President said he didn't one.
CRENSHAW: I'll articulate a strategy right now, which is we are the United States of America. And when people attack us we - we can't not respond. We have to respond and we have to disrupt the escalation ladder.
What's happened in the last 24 hours is, I believe that has happened, I believe we have restored deterrence in an effective way because you look at the type of--
CUOMO: How do you know?
CRENSHAW: Well because you look at the type of attack that happened last night, you - you look at the indications that the Iranians actually let the Iraqis know beforehand, so they were complete - completely prepared for it that there so - so that there would be no casualties.
The Iranians can tell their people that they did this great thing where they - where they - where they took out Americans. In reality, that didn't happen, and we don't have to escalate it anymore.
CUOMO: You think it's over?
CRENSHAW: The off-ramp has - has occurred.
CUOMO: You think it's over?
CRENSHAW: This--
CUOMO: Do you think there was and off-ramp?
CRENSHAW: This current - there - there was definitely an off-ramp. Now, as far as the - the long-term skirmishes with surrogate forces, say, you know, Shia militias, I think smaller things like that will happen.
But we have clear indications that - that the Iranians wanted to escalate this dramatically, OK? And - and that is - that is fundamentally true.
CUOMO: And you don't think--
CRENSHAW: And that has stopped.
CUOMO: --that will happen now?
CRENSHAW: No. It's - it's already stopped, as - as it appears right now. As - as before--
CUOMO: Well, appears right now, it's been a day, Dan. How do you know what's going to happen a week from now? What will they do with their proxies--
(CROSSTALK)
CRENSHAW: Well, of course, I can't - of course I can't know what's going to happen--
CUOMO: But then why would say with certainty--
CRENSHAW: --a week from now.
CUOMO: --that it stopped?
CRENSHAW: Of course, I can't know what's going to happen a week from now. But it certainly appears that way based on all of the information we have now, based on what the Iranians have said, with the Iranian Foreign Minister and what he tweeted out.
CUOMO: Secretary Pompeo says he's a liar--
CRENSHAW: "We want to stop this right now."
CUOMO: --and can't be believed.
CRENSHAW: Yes. Well as a - as a - as of before, the Iranians were - were committing attacks where they actually took credibility. You have to understand how different that is from years past, where they used--
CUOMO: Yes.
CRENSHAW: --surrogates and they - and they tried to make - and they tried to make their role in it unattributable, OK?
CUOMO: Understood.
CRENSHAW: And that - that - and that changed recently.
CUOMO: Understood.
CRENSHAW: That changed recently. And now, they're walking that back. They're in a much weaker position. And the President has outlined exactly what his red lines are.
And - and - and more importantly than that, the light at the end of the tunnel wants to renegotiate the JCPOA, go back to the table. He - he's - he's setting out a path for peace, but he's also set out red lines, and deterrence, whereas before we never had that.
[21:45:00]
And that is really important to note. And I think we - there is - there is a - there is more reason to be hopeful than there was before.
CUOMO: Well, listen, I'm all about being hopeful. I don't want to see any escalation. I'll be very clear. I am biased here. I don't want to see men and women, like you, fighting fights for political decisions that may not make the most sense. I'm all about keeping it about talking.
He set red lines. Iran crossed it. Thankfully, that didn't trigger any further action. He wants to go to the table. Every expert says this made going to the table less likely.
But Dan Crenshaw, I'm with you. I hope this cools it down. I hope this allows for more. I just hope that people like you and Congress fight for your right to have a part in decision-making processes that may lead to war, and the sacrifice of blood. Forget about treasure.
CRENSHAW: Yes.
CUOMO: So, thank you for being with us.
CRENSHAW: Yes, thanks for having me, Chris.
CUOMO: Dan Crenshaw, please, come on early and often. I love having you on the show. Happy New Year to you and your family.
All right, tonight feels a little different from last night, right? I mean that was a hard night. It was scary. Missiles flying at our troops. We don't know what's going on. But let's not run away and just be happy with the relief. Three lessons to learn from, or have a fear of a repeat, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
CUOMO: Feeling some relief? Me too. Kind of. But I argue there are three lessons that we must learn to avoid being here again this way.
Lesson one, declaring victory because we just got bombed, and nobody died, that is proof of no strategy. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy. No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He seems more nervous than when he was talking about that he had to attack. Now, thank God, nobody was hurt. But this shouldn't be about getting lucky.
Trump, as just we saw, while inclined to avoid conflict supposedly, nevertheless was convinced, at least in part with suggestions of how he would look, not only to put more troops back into danger, but to kill a powerful General, in a sovereign nation, and he hasn't explained why.
Congress has to put duty before Party. This is their power to give. Not watch. Do we really want to repeat this process and hope the enemy just misses again? Is that about caring about our troops and our safety?
Be clear, Congress has the power to declare war. The President, except in an emergency, is supposed to have Congressional authority or at least buy in. He has yet to prove it was an emergency.
Lesson two, President Trump has to own what he does. He read something to you that was likely written by someone else today. But it was also certainly not true. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Iran's hostility substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.
The missiles fired last night at us, and our allies, were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He doesn't know that and he misled you about the money by some $90 billion. But you know what? Give it to him.
Let's say we shouldn't have given back their money because they're bad people and they do bad things with money often to try to hurt us. No matter. The money didn't get us here. And neither did the deal.
The proximate cause wasn't the deal. It was Trump cutting the Iran deal loose, so there was no more control and he burned our allies, and it's about Iran's bad acts before, and since. And the direct cause, let's be clear, was killing the General.
Now, to hide from the above, he names Obama, all the time, like three times a day. But here with Iran, especially, this is about this President's decisions. All we know for sure is the decision about killing the General got us bombed and had nothing to do with Obama.
Final lesson, we have to trust our institutions, if we verify their information. We should be able to rely on what our President and Intel says as long as they offer proof.
More importantly, we should be able to come together because we all bleed the same way if attacked. Crude, but true! But we can't, why? President's a serial liar. He spent his entire Presidency bashing the very Intel agencies he now says are great and we must trust without proof.
He won't even follow the rules that he demanded when convenient. "Show proof. Forget about confidential, forget about classified, put it out there, it matters." But not now.
He kept warning - we kept warning that these self-serving attacks of his on truth and the institutions would come back to bite him, and now it has.
And he's got a lot of people in Congress, and the country, not behind what he did, not for good reason, but because they don't have any reason, but they have good reason not to trust him, and why he did it.
So, that's the problem. How do we fix it?
I argue Congress has to put country before Party, at least when it comes to what may get us killed. Stop defending the President for lying and deceiving. If you can't say that you would say what he said, then say it's wrong.
And stop saying we live in a post-fact society. No, we don't. Facts are facts. There have always been facts. Thank God, there will always be facts. Now, what you do with them is a separate question. Lastly, let the past few days be a reminder. My brothers and sisters, we are all in this together. You know you felt it last night, our troops are in harm's way, Left, Right or reasonable.
[21:55:00]
If something happens here, God forbid, in the aftermath of all this, and you better believe it's likely, whoever gets hit will bleed, no matter their politics. We are all susceptible to terror.
And we are all capable of disagreeing without hating the opposition. We have real enemies. They're just not members of the opposing party. We were reminded of that last night. You know you felt it. Please, don't forget it. That's the argument.
Now, something else we should not forget. Americans are in need of help. The island of Puerto Rico, once again, suffering from silence, after another disaster. Why has our President said nothing? BOLO, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO, Be On the Look-Out. Worst earthquake to hit Puerto Rico in over a 100 years, not a word from Trump. Forget they're part of this country again? Still upset they weren't happy enough with your tossed towels?
Now, to his credit, POTUS did approve federal relief - relief on Tuesday. But the job is not just to pay. It's not his money anyway. It's to give comfort and to alert the rest of us to the need to show he cares to help the people there cope. And he knows it.
Hundreds of after-shocks, dozens of homes, buildings, in ruin, two- thirds of the island still without power, two-thirds, and for those hit hard by Maria, this second blow is worse.
Would he be silent if it were Texas, God forbid? Then why now? Compassion counts, especially from him. But you know what matters more? It's to be careful, to know about the need in Puerto Rico from our countrymen and women. Be On the Look-Out. We will not forget them.
All right, thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT, D. Lemon, starts now.
END
