Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Biden On Summit: Putin Knows "There Are Consequences"; Fox's Tucker Carlson Pushes Baseless Conspiracy Theory That FBI Organized January 6 Capitol Riot; Power Problems Return As Texas Grid Struggles With Heat. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired June 16, 2021 - 21:00   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Fourteen House Republicans voted against the bill. Once President Biden signs it, June 19th will be known as "Juneteenth National Independence Day."

The news continues. Let's hand it over to Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME." Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Question, great Mr. Cooper.

What is the significance of Juneteenth, if at the same time that we pass into law, that it must be, recognized, we see the same body failing to protect some of the signature rights that go along with freedom of the same?

COOPER: It's a good question there, Chris.

CUOMO: Deep, man! Deep! That is the hypocrisy that we're dealing with these days. And that's why we have to depend on good minds, like yours, to keep calling it out. Thank you, my brother. Good to see you, as always.

I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

He laughs, but not because he finds it funny!

President Biden returns to America tonight, after his historic summit with Vladimir Putin. Here's the upshot. How did the trip go? It wasn't Trump's Hel-stinky.

But Biden wasn't Reagan commanding Russia to act either. He said he did what he came to do with the Russian, worked on advancing mutual interests, but warned about threatening our vital interests with cyber-attacks and election meddling.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He knows I will take action, like we did when - this last time out.

He knows there are consequences.

They are not able to dictate what happens in the world.


CUOMO: Does he? Hasn't Putin gotten used to no consequences, after Trump told the world, he trusts him more than his own Intelligence agencies?

In no small irony, President Biden actually confused the pair earlier.


BIDEN: I caught part of President's Trump - Putin's press conference.


CUOMO: Gaffe? Doesn't really qualify. On purpose? Of course, not. Funny? A little.

Of course, Putin's work of weakening our country is being done for him, right, by the rabid-right.

Another sign of how pathetic our politics are, Trumpers, who said quiet, while Trump tossed this country, under the bus, with Biden - with Putin, well, there's a little Freudian, with Putin, in Helsinki. He threw us under the bus. They said nothing.

Now, they say Biden isn't being tough enough on Putin.


MIKE POMPEO, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: He is a trained propagandist. And you didn't have an American president standing there saying, "Wait a minute. That's not right," and confronting him.


CUOMO: Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

I hope he runs for president. I really do. I hope he runs for president, because I want to see somebody, who's going to have an amazing pedigree. And Pompeo does. Pompeo does, from West Point on, OK, CIA, Secretary of State, top diplomat.

Are you kidding me? You want to be a leader, and you're going to lie to Americans' faces like that, about how Biden didn't say anything strong enough, when you let Trump say that he believes Putin more than his own Intel? And you said nothing!

Come on! I mean, come on! When is it enough for you guys? When are you going to say this game's got to stop? We all know it's a game. We all know it's BS. And we don't allow it in any other part of our life. We're not going to allow it in this part, because this part matters.

You remember Pompeo saying, "I have seen proof of the origin of COVID. I have seen what happened in the Wuhan lab." And then, what? He dummied up. Where was the proof? But now he believes in tough! Now he believes in follow-through!

They are doing Putin's work of division. They're even spewing some of the same talking points now, Putin, and these pawns of Trump. "Black Lives Matter movement, arrests of Capitol rioters, same thing."



VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): America just recently had very severe events, after well-known events, after the - after the killing - killing of an African American. And an entire movement developed known as "Black Lives Matter."

What we saw was disorder, destruction, violations of the law.

We don't want that to happen on our territory.

People came to the U.S. Congress with political demands. 400 people, over 400 people had criminal charges placed on them. They face prison sentences of up to 20 years, maybe even 25 years. They're being called domestic terrorists.

It's unclear on what grounds.

Some people died. And one of the people that died there was simply shot on the spot, by the Police, although they were not threatening the Police with any weapons.



CUOMO: Don't miss the point. The point here is in his hypocrisy, because he's a butcher, and he treats his own people like dogs. That's not the point.

It's that he is saying the same things we've become accustomed to here, by the Trumpers. "BLM, bad! Biden, bad, for rounding up innocent people, who attacked the Capitol. They had no weapons. They were sweet, like sugar."

Where have we heard that before? Here.


REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): If we had prosecuted BLM and Antifa rioters across the country with the same determination, these last six months, this incident may not have happened at all.

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): We've seen plenty of video, of people in the Capitol, and they weren't rioting. They don't - it doesn't look like an armed insurrection.

REP. ANDREW CLYDE (R-GA): There was no insurrection.

If you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the 6, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.


CUOMO: Same stuff, same language, we call it trumpery. Nothing to do with Trump. It's a real word, derived from the French, "Tromper," to deceive. Hmm, what a coincidence!

Biden said, before his trip, democracy is in peril. He's about to return to a democracy in peril, after confronting someone, who helped put us in that state. But again, we're doing a lot of the work ourselves.

So, other than confirming that political poison abounds at home, and abroad, why did this summit matter? Let's take that question to a much better mind, former Clinton Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.

Good to see you, Madam Secretary.


CUOMO: Always a pleasure. Do me the favor of engaging a skeptic. Why meet with this guy?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think this was a very important summit, actually, because what it does is make clear our views, and that we have a very different president from the one that he met with before, and a country where President Biden is making clear that we're back, that he understands our value system, that we believe in human rights, and freedom, and that we know that we have responsibilities. And he knew what message he was going to deliver. And he delivered it very clearly.

And I think there are a number of angles to kind of look at what happened here, because there are several steps that President Biden took that really explain how he will and does operate in a world where he believes that America is back, and that we need to protect our interests.

And so, bilateral diplomacy is basically the working tool for how to deliver messages, how to really know what you're going to say. And nobody is better at that than President Biden, because he understands the importance of human relationships, of talking straight, and being prepared. That's a very, very important part.

He knows the history of Russia. He knows about Putin. And he does something that's very difficult, but important to do, is to know who you are, but also to be able to put yourself into the shoes of the other party.

Now, you brought this up, and I think this is a whole new world, which is the whatabouts. And Putin is very good at the whatabouts.

And I think that we have to be able to dispute them, and just make very clear that Putin is speaking to his own audience, his own people, because they are deluded into thinking that he is doing a good job. But I do think it's ridiculous.

And I think that we have to make clear that the comparisons, the whatabouts, are - make absolutely no sense at all.

CUOMO: Well?

ALBRIGHT: So, that bilateral angle is very important.

CUOMO: In our Orwellian reality, I think Putin's actually also speaking to the white fright, Trump contingent, in our country, as well.

I want to ask you another question about the utility of Biden's move, but you raised something that I don't want to let get away too soon.

What do you think of former Secretary of State Pompeo saying that Biden needed to be stronger with Putin, about what he's been doing in this country, when he sat silent, after that mockery, of what happened in Helsinki, when Trump threw this country under the bus, saying he believed Putin over U.S. Intel?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I am appalled at what Pompeo did, when he was in office, by the way, I'm no longer a diplomat, and the kinds of things that he did, or didn't do, or what he supported Trump in doing. And so, it's an outrage.

And we need to call it out, when somebody is really saying things that bear no resemblance to reality. But it does show that we have to deal with some of the issues that have been left over, from what was, I think, a tragic period in American history.


CUOMO: All right, back to Biden. Help me understand why it is useful to say, "We discussed our mutual interests," and the fact that, to paraphrase, "this guy keeps breaking into our house, and trying to ruin the democracy."

Why work on mutual interests, instead of just sending the message, "Look, you know, and I know that you did this. And it's going to stop, or you're going to have trouble that you've never imagined. See you next time."

Why go into this mutual interest part?

ALBRIGHT: Because I actually do think that it is realistic to know that there are certain aspects, about Russia's behavior, that we do have mutual interests.

And that has to do with the fact that, of the nuclear arms, what they possess, and that the fact that we do have to have some strategic stability, in dealing with the issues, and with the New START extension and dealing with that.

And I think it is worth always, in diplomacy, to try to find something that you have in common, while at the same time, you make very clear that you have certain issues that you will not agree with, and you state very clearly what you do believe in. And so, I think that that part is very important, in terms of understanding that there are some mutual things.

The other part, though, Chris that I think is very important about this summit is that the U.S. was not alone. I think, actually, the build-up to it was brilliant, of President Biden going to show that America is back, but also that we have partners that believe in the same things we do.

So, he's got the G7, NATO, the E.U., all of whom agreed with the kinds of issues that he raised, in terms of moral values, in terms of the direction we have to go in, the problems that we have. We have partners. Putin is alone, in his delusional view, of what the world is. So, I think that that part of the summit was also very important.

And then, by the way, what I think was a very smart move, Toria Nuland, who is the number three person in the State Department, and very knowledgeable about Russia, Europe, and NATO, is on her way back to Brussels, to brief the partners, about what really happened, so that we are not alone in this, and that there are areas, where we can find ways, to cooperate, but mostly that we have to be true to our values, of human rights, of telling it like it is, and understanding.

And then I think, Chris, another part of this that is very important is that there - this is but the beginning. And there is a work program that is set out, where they are going to work on the strategic stability, but they also are going to work on a new area that is causing so many issues. And that is the whole cyber warfare, hybrid warfare, that there - the rules are not set out.

And so, I think that having our partners be able to help, in developing this area, and being very clear that if Putin takes steps, in those areas that President Biden outlined, he said, 16, that there will be repercussions, there will be a way that we will make our stand very clear.

We are not alone. We have a work program. It is realistic. And this was a very useful summit.

CUOMO: Last word to you. What is the next move that Biden needs to do, to cement the success, of what was laid out during the trip?

ALBRIGHT: I think the next move is he does have to spend time, at home, explaining to American people, how we proceed, that the whatabouts are something that are dangerous, in terms of dealing with somebody who, in many ways, is willing to believe things about us that are not true, and that the importance of how our domestic and foreign policy go together, and how he needs the support of the American people, and the support of our allies, and that we are really at a really, very important point in our own history, and that America is back, and can only be back, when the American people are supportive of how we answer questions, how we understand our values, and that we are true to what America is about.

CUOMO: Two things. One, Secretary Madeleine Albright, when people watch this, they're

going to flood me with messages saying, "Why don't you have Albright on more often?" One, all I can do is ask. I want people to know that now.

And two, I love your pin. I always ask you about your pins. But I don't like the imagery, because while it is Uncle Sam, you are anything but an empty hat. I want you to know that right now. But I love - I love the pin.


And I appreciate your insight. Nobody comes before you, in my book, for insight on these matters. So thank you, Madam Secretary.

ALBRIGHT: Delighted to be with you, Chris. I'm happy to come anytime. Thank you.

CUOMO: Thank you. I'll be asking, and soon.

All right, the irony, of Trump folk, trying to spin Biden, as being too soft on Putin, when they said nothing, after Helsinki, I covered it there. We were desperate for something. Pompeo, all of them, shh!

So, we're going to look at what Biden actually set out to achieve, whether it worked. We have an insider who helped get him ready. Is this what she expected? Next, Gottemoeller.








CUOMO: Man, it's sad, I got to tell you. I am - I believe you got to live your life as an optimist. You can be a realist, but you got to be an optimist.


And I am - I was really hoping that Biden could go, take on a true bad guy, and that America would just stand behind its President.

And I have to tell you, that's what you Re-Trump-licans did, when Trump threw us under the bus in Helsinki. I'm telling you, international members of the media apologized to me, as an American, after that. They said, "I'm so sorry for you." That's how bad it was. So now, you're going to have these same puppets, pigeons and pawns, say, "Biden needed to talk tougher," when they said nothing, when Trump took Putin's side, over American Intelligence? Give me a break! You got no legitimacy. You got no leverage. You have no credibility.

And yet, here we are, Senator Tom Cotton, calling Biden's meeting with Putin, "Ill-advised." Pompeo, former Secretary of State, CIA, West Point, "Biden should do more than meet. He should have held a joint press conference to blast Putin on the public stage." Like Trump did?

"Oh, you only go by. What happened to the false equivalency?" It's not a false equivalency. It's apples-to-apples. It's not whataboutism.

It's the basis for your analysis. If you're going to say that he wasn't strong enough here, why did you say nothing about that? Come on! He's doing, they are doing, exactly what Putin wants to do.

So, let's bring back an expert, who helped prep Biden for the summit, to see if she feels the plan went the way it was supposed to, former NATO Deputy Secretary General, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Rose Gottemoeller, is back, as promised.

Good to have you.


CUOMO: From what you can tell, execute the plan, as expected, and if so, why satisfied?

GOTTEMOELLER: I've been having a good laugh about all the criticism too, because actually, for me, Biden showed the most subtle skill as a negotiator.

People were saying, "Well, didn't you threaten him?" He said, "Well, I didn't need to issue threats. I just made simple assertions, like, what would you think if suddenly your pipelines came under attack?" To me, that is the perfect sign of a strong and subtle negotiator.

You don't need to pound the table, and jump up and down. You just make it very clear what you can do, if behavior doesn't change. And so, that's what I saw President Biden doing today. I thought he did a really good job, frankly.

CUOMO: I will not dignify the critics on this one. I usually do, because I think it's good for discourse. But not when they sat quiet, during Trump, in Helsinki. You don't get the right to get it wrong twice.

So Rose, I don't understand. Madeleine Albright tried to explain it to me. So, I have two very smart women try to explain it to one dumb guy. I don't understand the pretense of "We have mutual interests," when you know the man is inimical to your cause, in trying to destroy your democracy. What is the upside of that kind of suggestion that there are things to

work together on when you know he's trying to destroy you?

GOTTEMOELLER: Well, of course, it's a tough argument. But I remember the days of the evil empire, in the USSR, and they were always trying to destroy us.

But yet, but yet, we felt that it was necessary, and Ronald Reagan felt it was necessary, in the end, to talk to them, about reducing and limiting nuclear weapons, because they could blow us up, and blow up the whole world as well. They're an existential threat.

So, to me, there are some no-brainers that are mutual interests of the United States, and the Russian Federation. We just got to keep working on them, no matter what. Other things are more questionable.

But I was interested today that Putin actually offered to Biden that Russia could help on Afghanistan. Now, that's a big deal. You know Russia had, or the Soviet Union had their, own big failure in Afghanistan.

I'm not saying that NATO policy and U.S. policy has been a big failure. But we do need to keep working hard, to ensure that a peace process becomes stable, and that we get the Afghanistan people the continuing access to their rights. So, if Russia is willing to help with that, great, if they're willing to put some money behind their words, all the better. So, we will see what that means.

But I thought it very interesting that here, Putin offered to help. He also offered to help on Iran. So, that could be very much to our benefit, because we are concerned about the threats that the Iranian state poses to the United States.

CUOMO: In terms of primacy of concern, is anything more pressing, more threatening, than cyber, if only analyzed on the metric of what's happening here at home, right now? I haven't seen anything--



CUOMO: --be as, as effective. And it is no coincidence that Putin is parroting the same attacks, as what we saw during the disinformation campaigns, of the election, and what we hear from Trumpers. Nothing's hurt us the way that has. Shouldn't that be priority one?

GOTTEMOELLER: Absolutely. Well, I still will argue Chris that nukes should be priority one, but that's me speaking.

But I thought the other big deliverable here, actually there are deliverables, and the other big deliverable was they are going to get down to work, two teams of cyber experts, on how we begin to deal together with cyber-attacks, and these particular cases that are of such concern to the United States, the ransomware attacks that are going on. Putin's going to have to do some heavy-lifting, because in many ways, the criminals are deeply embedded in his state. So, he's going to have to do some heavy-lifting to shut those guys down. But let's see what can be accomplished in that regard.

And it seems to me that Biden here, again, was very clear. He said, "I'm not taking that man's word for granted. I'm giving three months or six months. Let's see what kind of progress we're making. And then we'll make a judgment, is this in our interest or not?"

But it's good to have that kind of deadline set too, for us to be sure that the President will keep his eye on, on what's happening.

CUOMO: Rose Gottemoeller, thank you very much, for taking us inside, why what needed to be said, and what it means, and where it may lead. Appreciate you.

GOTTEMOELLER: My pleasure.

CUOMO: All right, update ahead. One of the many investigations surrounding President Trump, did Trump's Inaugural Committee misuse non-profit funds to enrich the family business? That would be a crime.

We have one of the lead witnesses in the case. She says she doesn't lie. And even if she does, doesn't matter, because she's got proof. Next.









CUOMO: You can believe what you want, when it comes to assessing or figuring out the meaning of all the different Donald Trump scandals. Time and again, you can read the emails, you can hear the tapes, you can see a signature on checks.

It is true that there was a serious attempt going on to profit. And that's a problem. And it is true with absurd stuff as well, like this planning document, from the Inaugural saying the then-President Elect, and his daughter, quote, "Confirmed they would like a full Military parade as well as tanks and helicopters."

But when it comes to the Inaugural, there is new evidence showing just how Trump's team worked to profit off the presidency. And that is a violation of the Constitution.

We have the documents, and an insider, to help us make sense of it, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. You've seen her on the show before. You know she worked on the Inaugural. You know she was close to Melania. You know she's the Author of the book "Melania and Me."

Good to have you back on PRIME TIME.


CUOMO: By the way, I wasn't calling you a liar, in the tease. I was saying it doesn't matter what people think of your credibility because you have proof. And that is the most credible thing that we can offer. We only know what someone can show.

And you say that there is proof that there was profit motive here, and that you talked to then-President, and his daughter, about the same. Is that all accurate?

WOLKOFF: That is all accurate.

And I'd like to also add, Chris that the investigation into the Presidential Inauguration Committee is just beginning, so many people think it was so long ago, but the investigation to the missing funds, into Ivanka, into Donald, into Rick, into Don Jr., all those involved.

And, at the end of day, as you said, in the beginning, about telling the truth, rest assured, the documents and the testimony speak for themselves. And so, that is where we will see who is innocent, and who is guilty.

CUOMO: Rick Gates, when you say Rick, you're talking about Rick Gates. Put up the email from Rick Gates to Ivanka--


CUOMO: --about an initial proposal to build the Inaugural Committee, $3.6 million for the Presidential Ballroom at the Trump Hotel.

Is it true, one - did you put the email up? Did I miss it, when I was reading what it was about? Oh, yes, good.

They're going to put this up, so people can see it. Give us context. $3.6 million, you said that's way too high. It wound up being about $175,000 a day.

Take us through that about what you think was behind the numbers that were offered? What was the motivation? And who did you talk to about it? And what was the response?

WOLKOFF: Well, to start out with you're in Washington D.C., where you have the most incredible landmark historical buildings, so it should have never even been considered to be doing anything at the Trump Hotel, especially since it is the President-Elect's hotel, and they would be self-profiting.

When the price did come, across my screen, which was forwarded to me, I was in shock. And I did raise red flags. And I did call out the - almost the audacity of even thinking that a price like that could be subjective, in a conversation.

In doing so, I did have a conversation later, a few weeks later, with President-Elect, with Donald Trump, and Ivanka, in Trump Tower, in Donald's office. And I raised all those concerns.

My meeting notes are very clear. I happen to make sure to keep them after every meeting. And they are sent around to every person that is in charge of each division within the Inaugural Committee, so everyone has a chance to respond to them.

And the responses were slow, and far from coming in, because I don't think anyone knew how to respond to that. So, Rick Gates took the lead, as he did with most of the Inaugural financing.


He was given the power of the purse. He had the power of the safe. The tickets and the funds were in his hands. And he was very close in his, you know, I don't know now, but he was very close to the family, very close to Ivanka, and to handle things one-on-one.

CUOMO: What do you recollect, in terms of what then-President Elect and his daughter's response were, to your concerns that this was hyper-inflated?

WOLKOFF: Donald felt that Ivanka would deal with me later, on the subject. It was sort of we were going through an entire presentation of the entire Inaugural layout. And so, he didn't seem to think anything of it, nor did he want to have a conversation about it.

He flicked off, "You know, Ivanka, and you will talk about it later." And Ivanka was very clear to me, that she and Rick would have that discussion, when I spoke to her later that evening.

CUOMO: So, what this comes down to is, did they want to profit? And did they know that it was wrong?


CUOMO: Do you believe there is proof that they used their own property when they didn't have to, and they didn't do it to be nice, they did it to make money?

WOLKOFF: They really didn't do it to be nice. And they did do it to make money. And the documentation and the evidence really is strong in this case. And it does tie all back to the finances, right? We say "Follow the money."

Allen Weisselberg being involved, at the end of the audit, to make sure that the finances were properly accounted for, when the Trump Hotel was rather, you know, institutionally, it should - nothing should have ever happened there.

We had the landmark buildings that we could have used. They were available. Some of them were rent-free, some for non-profit. They split their costs in half.

Trump Hotel inflated their costs. They also charged the same amount of time for a function, instead of $175,000, they charged, $5,000, to another organization, on the same day. So, we do have precedents as to what is the proper amount to be charging for space rentals.

CUOMO: All right, we can still hear Stephanie. Her - your camera froze. But we can still hear you, so let's keep talking.


CUOMO: The Inaugural Committee was tasked with trying to upsell rooms at the hotel. How so?

WOLKOFF: I can't give you the accuracy of the conversations that took place there, because I was not a part of them. Again, Rick Gates, wasn't charged--

CUOMO: There's another email that we can put up while we're waiting to get Stephanie's camera. Sorry to interrupt you.

You're back. You look great. Thank you.

Put up the email of - from Trump Hotel staff to Rick Gates. And it says, while we're waiting for that element, "We can use some more big rated rooms. Especially big and highly rated signature suites."


WOLKOFF: Significant because the Presidential Inauguration Committee should have no contact whatsoever with the Trump Hotel, and spending at the hotel, nor should have organized any rooms, on behalf of any of the donors, whether donors that were contributing $5 million or $1 million packages.

But it was hand-picked. It was controlled by the Trump Organization, which we know is the operating organization that controls every entity under Trump.

And Rick Gates, having control of that, working with the other executives, in charge of the Presidential Inauguration Committee, had the ability to place people in the Trump Hotel, charged them exorbitant rates, when there were other hotels that were available.

And actually money, and it's been reported, I think approximately $6 million was spent, by the Presidential Inauguration Committee, on hotels, that didn't get used. So, that's been something that I've been curious about, because I haven't seen that talked about enough.

And I also want to mention that the Trump Hotel, we had a friends and family rate, while we were staying there, $345. For the Inauguration, that price was inflated to $3,000 an evening. No other hotel, five star, four star, no matter what star, had any comparable raise in price, like the Trump Hotel did.

CUOMO: Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, thank you very much for bringing us proof of the suggestions. Appreciate it.

WOLKOFF: Thank you for having me.

CUOMO: Now, you at home, you don't have to care about this. But the proof is the proof. And it is a strong suggestion that they were looking to profit, and you're not allowed to do that. Simple point! Simple proof!

A new conspiracy theory is emerging, about the attack on the U.S. Capitol. You hear this, directly from hate TV? So, why would I repeat it? Because now you have elected officials, once again following the lead of the Fox fop, OK?

A former top FBI official will take it apart, and this matters, next.









CUOMO: Trump supporters are in an endless quest to deflect blame for January 6. It can't be as bad as we all saw, because then it's bad for him, and bad for them.

Remember, they first blamed Antifa. Then they said it was pre-planned, that there was no way that Trump incited it. Then they insisted "There was no riot. These were peaceful tourists."

Now, a new bold-faced lie is being pushed by the Fox fop.


TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Strangely, some of the key people who participated, on January 6th, have not been charged.

The government calls those people unindicted co-conspirators. What does that mean? Well, it means that in potentially every single case, they were FBI operatives.


CUOMO: No, they could just as well be pizza salesman. He is getting something wrong, and he probably knows it is.

Here's what should bother you. His employer said in open court that he is not to be taken seriously. Did they put that on that screen, when he's putting out that BS? No.


It's one thing when he's going to show video of me working out, as if that's a problem. I've never heard a man insult another man by saying, "This guy's too jacked." I've never heard of it. I take it as a compliment. It's nice to be mentioned on Hate TV.

But why aren't they telling you "Don't take this man as truthful, because we said in open court he is not to be believed, by reasonable people." They said it.

What's his source? A site run by this guy, Darren Beattie, former Trump speechwriter, left his post in 2018, after attending a conference with white nationalists. But forget about what kind of dirtbag he's getting his information from.

Let's talk about what is true, and not true, in this scenario. Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

"Person one, person two, unindicted co-conspirator, those are you guys. Those are - those are Feds, undercover." What's the reality?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI: The reality, Chris, is that we're going to - we're going to go into, very briefly, a little law lesson here, because I am convinced that your viewers are smarter than Tucker Carlson.

So, here's how it works. When an indictment is written, at the time the indictment is written, and signed off by the judge, there are people who need to be referred to, in the indictment, just to make it a coherent story, so it makes sense, but who the government is not prepared to charge at that time.

There may be all kinds of different reasons that they're not prepared to charge that person at that time. I'll give you a great example.

When the indictment against Michael Cohen was sworn out, the government couldn't charge the President, Donald J. Trump. So, he was referred to, in that indictment, as "Individual-1." You could have also explained or referred to him as an unindicted co-conspirator. It's the same thing.

CUOMO: So, wait, does the guy with--

MCCABE: He very clearly was not a government agent.

CUOMO: --so does the four-named anti-elitist, on Fox, think that Trump is an undercover Fed?

MCCABE: He might. He just might. It's not--

CUOMO: Deep State, baby!

MCCABE: It's not clear.

CUOMO: Deep State!

MCCABE: I think that's a conversation they should have.

CUOMO: Deep State! So, he is doing--

MCCABE: That's right. That's right.

CUOMO: --a little correlation as causation or a seminal (ph) mistake, which is sometimes, the government, will carve out its own people.

In my experience, they rarely call you guys, I don't mean to put you, you know, to put in, undercover federal agents, as unindicted co- conspirators because by definition, you can't be a co-conspirator, if you're working for the government, because you can't have criminal intent. That's the whole point of being an undercover.

But the alleged "Oath Keeper" that was charged in the Capitol riot, the indictment, "CALDWELL and PERSON TWO took "selfie" photographs of themselves on the balcony and in other areas on the perimeter of the Capitol." "CALDWELL sent a Facebook message, stating, "Us storming the castle. Please share. Sharon was right with me! I'm such an instigator!"

What's the relevance of this?

MCCABE: It's not hard to figure out who "PERSON TWO" is there. Pretty good guess is it's probably Sharon. But the point is, for whatever reason, the government wasn't ready to charge her in that same document.

Maybe they need to collect additional evidence, or maybe she's decided to cooperate, and is providing information, and needs to be protected, for this period. There's all kinds of different reasons.

But the one reason that does not exist is the one that he suggested. "PERSON TWO" is not an agent of the government. It's not a cooperating witness. It's not an undercover officer, because you cannot refer to those people as unindicted co-conspirators.

CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, thank you very much.

MCCABE: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: Look, it's OK to attack the government. But you got to have cause. And it's got to be good cause. And it's got to be based on proof. It can't be because you want to undermine confidence in our democracy, so that it somehow helps you, and the political people that you like.

That guy should have on his screen that he is not to be taken as serious. That's what they argued in open, in court. They should own it. They are a disgrace for not doing it. Now, another potential disgrace, hopefully, it doesn't come to this. In Texas, it's hot. The agency that runs the State's electrical grid is also feeling the heat. Same power operator responsible for the winter storm blackouts, led to deaths, now asking Texans to conserve energy, in a really harsh way.

There's a problem here, and it's a BOLO, next.









CUOMO: All right, I have a BOLO that stands for Be On the Look-Out.

And this should be a common concern. Politicians in both parties are going to play the suffering in Texas for advantage. And it's not right.

The same power grid that failed to handle winter is struggling to deal with summer. Hundreds died, as you may remember, due to the failures we saw in February.

Back then, remember what the excuse was, right? The State's Republican politicians in charge said, "Look, the system's built to deal with the heat of the Texas summer, not frigid winter storms." Remember?


REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): We're not used to this kind of weather.

DAN WOODFIN, ERCOT SENIOR DIRECTOR, SYSTEM OPERATIONS: Here, our peak demands and primary need that our - the most of our generation is during the summer.

JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNN BUSINESS EMERGING MARKETS EDITOR AND ANCHOR: They were prepared for peak demand in the summer with the humidity and the flooding that comes in those months as well. Not for arctic cold.


CUOMO: True, but. That doesn't mean that the system can handle the extreme heat either.

It is now in the high-90s in Dallas and Houston. And for Texas, that's nothing for what the summer can become. And yet, the state is already looking at so many unexpected plant failures.

They are short of electricity to power nearly 2.5 million homes already. People are being told, imagine this, it's 90 out, "Set your thermostat to 78, turn off the lights and appliances." What they're not being told is why this is happening.


Now ERCOT, that's the acronym for the State's power grid manager. They say answering requests from the media about why, listen to this, would reveal, quote, "Trade secrets," or would, quote, "cause substantial competitive harm."

Really? What competition? ERCOT manages the whole State's power grid. It is the only statewide grid in the country. There is no competition.

Look, before we see a repeat, of the righties, falsely blaming the Green New Deal, keep in mind, more than 70 percent of the plants now offline are thermal-powered. In Texas, that means natural gas. It's not a green issue.

Politicians, on the Right, like Ted Cruz have been quick to call up problems in California. What about now? Can't run off to Cancun this time, can you, Ted, or can you?

Meanwhile, Biden's Cabinet Secretaries, Buttigieg, Granholm, they've held up Texas as a selling point for their infrastructure plan. They don't tell you nowhere in the $2.3 trillion that they're asking for, is money for the Texas grid. Come on!

The winter problems saw people get fired, and some legislation got passed, but it's going to take years, for those fixes to take place. We don't have years. Now is the time for you to see past the game. Demand better, not blame, not bloviating about the future, better.

We'll be right back.