Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

House Progressives Signal They'll Vote For Infrastructure; Kavanaugh, Barrett Raise Concerns With Texas Abortion Law; New Court Filings Reveal Trump Wants 700-Plus Pages Of Memos, Call Logs, White House Visitor Records Tied To January 6 Kept Secret. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired November 01, 2021 - 21:00   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And the City Department of Sanitation vaccination rate is up to 83 percent, from 62 percent.

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

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, thanks, Coop.

I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.

Here's our first question. How could President Biden say this?


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I believe we'll see, by the end of next week, at home, that it's passed.


CUOMO: When he had to know that Senator Joe Manchin would say this?


SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): Political games have to stop.

Holding this bill hostage is not going to work, in getting my support for the reconciliation bill.

What I see are shell games, budget gimmicks.

None of us should ever misrepresent to the American people, what the real cost of legislation is.


CUOMO: Doesn't sound like he's ready to vote "Yes!"

And I say the President had to know because, to be fair, Joe Manchin, you may not like his position, you may think he's holding up the party, but he's never said anything else, in this process.

In fact, Manchin didn't even get a lot of pushback, this time, from the progressives. Listen.


REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): The President said he thinks he can get 51 votes for this bill. We are going to trust him.

We're tired of, you know, just being, continuing to wait for one or two people. We trust the President that he will get 51 votes for this. And we will pass both bills, through the House, as soon as we have, these final negotiations wrapped up.

I would just urge everybody to keep tempers down. Sometimes, this happens in final negotiations.


CUOMO: Not really. Not within the same party. This is somewhat unique to the Democrats.

Now, to be fair, once again, the media loves the hype of deadlines. And "Will it be now?" and "Will it be then?" But the Democrats don't have to play into it. And they keep being doing it. Look, I see all of this brinkmanship as hype.

But the infrastructure and spending bills will pass. It's just about when, and about how it looks, for the Democrats. All this deadline drama is definitely bad for them. And it puts the President in the odd position of touting spending achievements that don't exist yet.

He did it in Scotland, today, playing up the $555 billion that are in, to plan and fight climate change. He called it the quote, most significant investment any advanced nation has ever made.

Now, bragging about something being the greatest, when it hasn't happened yet, ironically, made him sound a lot like the man that he apologized for, today, at the Summit.


BIDEN: I guess I shouldn't apologize, but I do apologize for the fact that the United States - the last administration - pulled out of the Paris Accords and put us sort of behind the eight ball.


CUOMO: Well, Biden's now behind the eight ball at home as well.

Forget the hype. What is the reality of action, this week? Let's ask the Deputy Whip, of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representative Ro Khanna.

Good to have you back once again, sir.

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Always great to be on.

CUOMO: So, this week, yes or no? KHANNA: Most likely this week, but definitely, yes. We're going to vote on both bills. Our Chair, Pramila Jayapal's made that clear. There's a lot of good things in there. Then it goes to the Senate. I'm convinced it will pass the Senate. But let's not put an exact date on it.

CUOMO: So you believe it passes the House, this week? Not necessarily, both houses?

KHANNA: Correct. And I believe that the President will deliver the House version with the key priorities. It will have universal preschool. It's going to have the biggest investment in climate ever.

And Chris, here's the thing. Look, President Clinton had almost 57 senators. President Obama, 60 senators. Biden is doing this with 50 Senators. I mean, it's a pretty remarkable thing.

CUOMO: It's not said often enough, that having these kinds of thin margins, don't make it that easy.

And yes, I was getting beaten up by one of your sisters, the other day, for not being fair, to the Democrats, and going after you guys, for your process, when the numbers are so thin.

But you know what? Too bad, because this is the hand you've been dealt, and you're going to be judged, for how efficient, you guys are, within your ranks.

Now, in terms of what happens here, you guys vote "Yes," on infrastructure, "Yes," on spending. It goes to the Senate. They vote "Yes" on infrastructure, and say "Now, let's send that to Biden." But they do not vote "Yes," on spending.

What is your reaction?

KHANNA: Chris, my understanding is actually as soon as we vote "Yes," on infrastructure, it goes to the President, because, we're going to vote on the Senate Bill.

CUOMO: On the Senate's Bill.


KHANNA: Without amendments. So, that is the risk that we vote on that, we vote on that reconciliation bill, it goes to the Senate. Now, the Senate has to act. I am convinced that the President will ensure that that bill passes the Senate. Now, if they make any changes, it's going to be back-and-forth.

But the key commitment that the President has made to us is that he has the 51 votes, for our key priorities. And he didn't make that commitment for months. He only made it, after he thought he could get those votes. And that's why many of us are confident in that commitment.

CUOMO: If Terry McAuliffe loses the governor's race, in Virginia, do you think it's your guy's fault?

KHANNA: No, I think it's the fault of the fact that the entire party couldn't come together quicker. I mean, obviously, it would have been better, if we had these deals done.

And we have to, as a party, think about how we can be more concerted, and active, more quickly. But I don't think it's any one individual's fault, I think that would be highly unfair, or one caucus' fault.

CUOMO: A question that if answered, honestly, will add much more gray hair to your head, do you believe the Democratic Party would be better-served, in its current constitution, without Pelosi and Schumer as the leaders?

KHANNA: No, because there is no way that anyone could navigate these slim majorities, without the Speaker's experience, Schumer's experience, or Biden's experience.

I'll tell you why, Chris. I've been in Congress, three terms. Pramila has been in Congress three terms. You know so many people. Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, they know a lot of people, with relationships. Those relationships matter.

So, are there things that I believe a new generation are better-suited for? Yes, on understanding technology, and understanding new jobs.

But when it comes to passing things, with a slim majority, in Washington, they know what, they're doing.

CUOMO: You guys are all talking about taxing the rich. And that that's where the moneys come from.

Now, I'm hearing that you guys are also planning on "Fixing," and that word should be in quotes, OK, "Fixing," the state and local tax deductions, also known as SALT tax deductions that Trump took away from big states, like Jersey, California, and New York.

And the concern is, if you do that, that until that, you know, the SALT taxes will net to neutral, the taxes on the rich. Are you considering doing them?

KHANNA: We are. But it would be capped. And it would help the middle- class and upper middle-class.

Here is the basic point, Chris. You can raise taxes on people making over $10 million. And those are the ones who've had the most wealth game. You don't have to raise taxes on people making $200,000, $250,000, especially when their tax money is going to fund public schools, going to fund public health.

And so the Democrats are for the working-class, middle-class and upper middle-class. And we're for taxing people, over $400,000, particularly the ultra-wealthy.

CUOMO: But, for it to be accurate, the scoring isn't done yet. They need to see what is exactly in the bill. But if you do the SALT tax, they say, the way it's anticipated, right now, the CFSB (ph) that, you know, the scoring agency, that - what's the scoring agency?

The people, who are measuring what the impact of this bill, would be, in terms of positive and negative tax burden, says if what is planned, to be in the SALT bill, is in there, for the next two years, for those two years, you guys would not be taxing the rich. You would in fact be giving them a break.

KHANNA: I don't know how they're defining the rich. I mean, with the surtax, certainly, millionaires will be taxed, with the increase in the tax, on enforcement. Certainly, the wealthy will be taxed.

Now the SALT deduction should not extend to people making over $1million. It has to be capped what that deduction is. If we do it that way, we'll still increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, but won't hurt the middle-class and upper middle-class. And that's fair. I mean, the people, who need to pay the taxes, are the billionaires or the ultra-millionaires.

CUOMO: I understand where you're coming from. I'm just saying that you better make sure that's the way it works.

Otherwise, you guys are going to have some explaining to do. Because if this isn't about having the people, basically like me, carry their fair share, then you guys are going to get beat up on it. So we'll see what happens.

Now, another thing, that I don't understand why it's fair. Why is it fair to put this at Biden's feet? When I was listening to Pramila Jayapal, her saying, "Look, we trust Biden. He says he can get the votes. Fine. We'll vote."

Why is it on him?

KHANNA: Because he came to Congress, and he said, "This is the framework I've negotiated." He's known Senator Manchin for a long time. And he's had hours and hours of conversation with him.

I've spoken with Senator Manchin. I have a good relationship. And I've probably spoken to him for 30 minutes, my whole life. And he's not going to tell me exactly where his lines are.


The President came. And he said, "Look, on $1.75 trillion," which is half by the way, of what the progressives wanted, "On these priorities, I'm convinced I can get Senator Manchin, and 50 senators, to vote for it."

And I believe he can. I don't think he will shirk from that responsibility. And I believe he will deliver it. Now, is there a tweak here or there? Are some of the procedures going to be - have to be flexible? Sure.

But, at the end of the day, Chris, here's what people are going to remember. Democrats got every kid in this country, preschool. Democrats got childcare finally covered. Democrats made the largest investment in climate. That's going to be what the people remember.

It's not going to be what did Khanna say, on Cuomo's show, or Jayapal say, or Manchin say? That's all going to be forgotten.

CUOMO: Well, I don't know about that. This show is really - no, no. Yes, I--

KHANNA: Well your show may - your show may stand out.

CUOMO: Your - no, your point--

KHANNA: All the others.

CUOMO: Your point is well-made. Although, I would say this, in the most recent polling, only 25 percent, so one, in four people, think, that these two bills will help people, like them.

Something in the messaging of this didn't go right. Because if, and when these pass, these bills may create over a million jobs, and will help a cut of people, in this country that haven't been helped the way these policies are designed, to help them, since the New Deal. And it's interesting.

Give me a quick explanation of why you think people don't get what these bills could do.

KHANNA: Because we haven't done a good enough job talking about what's in them. We can't blame the media. It's not your job to sell the bills. It's our job. And we should say, "This is the biggest investment of the working-class, for decades."

Working-class families are going to get a tax cut. They're going to get $300, every month, for every child, in their family. They're going to get money back, if they're working-class, in their taxes, from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

They're finally going to have relief for childcare. You're never going to have to pay more than 7 percent of your income. Every kid, who is 3-year-old or 4-year-old, is 4-years-old, now is going to get to go to preschool. And you're going to be able to do that.

And, by the way, billions of dollars of new jobs, in solar and wind, electric vehicles, and they're going to be all, over the country, in the heartland, in the South.

So, we need to talk more about that. And we haven't done a good enough job doing that.

CUOMO: Congressman Ro Khanna, always appreciate the candor, always welcome on the show. Good luck, doing the work of the people.

KHANNA: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right.

Now look, Ro Khanna is right. This, it may not sound like "Hey, I'm voting for Governor in Virginia. What do I care about what's happening in Congress? I care about my pocket." True, true, gas prices, your home budget, true, true.

But everything's kind of been nationalized, now, if you think about it. Local politics, kind of, has been morphed into this big existential battle that everybody's in, this battle of division about, you know, what feels right, and what feels wrong.

And this vote in Virginia will be the first measurement we see of how a significant slice of this country feels about the new administration. So, we're going to talk about it.

And we're going to bring the Wizard of Odds in, to look at the numbers that make exactly this point, how it's been nationalized, and what people are voting on, in Virginia, next.









CUOMO: Why is the Virginia governor's race so close? Terry McAuliffe, Republican Glenn Youngkin.

McAuliffe was a popular governor there, in Virginia. Biden won it by 10 points. The suburbs are huge deal there, and they're breaking Blue. And they hate Trump. So, why?

Let's get some insight from our Wizard of Odds, Harry Enten.

Tell us the story, brother.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: The story is simple. Glenn Youngkin has momentum, in the final month of this campaign. You can see it very clearly, in the polling average.

Look, if a month ago, Terry McAuliffe was leading. He was leading by about 4 points in the average of polls. Now look at it. What do we see? We see McAuliffe's lead got sliced in half, to 2, in the middle of October.

Now, Glenn Youngkin has a 1-point lead. Now, that's within the margin of error. But the momentum is clearly on his side. And if I were to make little prognostication, while it wouldn't be surprising to me, if either candidate will win, I would put a little bit more money on Glenn Youngkin, at this point.


ENTEN: Why? Well, here's one reason why. If you look at right now, who are the voters, who are looking most likely to turn out, what do you see? You see that Republicans are more likely to turn out than Democrats are. Republicans are more enthusiastic than Democrats.

So, if you look at the likely voters versus the registered voters, what you see on average, among likely voters, is you see that Glenn Youngkin holds a 1-point lead. Look at all registered voters. Terry McAuliffe has a 3-point advantage.

Now, the question is why does one side have enthusiasm versus the other? You might make the argument it's what's going on in Washington D.C. right now.


ENTEN: You might make the argument that Democrats haven't passed very much of anything.

I would also point out, though, that this fits a historical pattern. That is that the party out of power tends to have more enthusiasm, on its side, because they're looking to punish the Party of the President.

CUOMO: So Vaughn, my producer, just said to me, "When you said the suburbs are breaking Blue, did you mean Red?"

No, I meant Blue, because that was the story of why Biden won, was that Fairfax, Loudoun, Manassas, as you get in the big suburban communities, they went very bad on Trump, versus his first campaign, which was the big swing for Biden.

Why don't we believe that will happen again? And even though the base for Trump, in all of those smaller counties, may go Youngkin, he won't make it up in the population centers.

ENTEN: Here's the reason why. There's no slides on this. But I'm going to give you the reason why. I'm going to pontificate a little bit to you.

And that is essentially that if you look among White voters, with a college degree, what you see is that Donald Trump is still quite unpopular with them.


But Glenn Youngkin, at least according to latest Fox News polling, what you see essentially is Youngkin's net popularity, among White voters, with a college degree, is about 15 points higher, than Donald Trump's is.

They're about basically even among White voters, without a college degree. But Youngkin has been able to connect, or at least limit the losses, among White voters, with a college degree, in a way that Donald Trump simply could not.

CUOMO: We had been analyzing this race, as a window, into the national picture, because we had seen early metrics that people were looking at their vote, in Virginia, through the lens of how they felt about Trump, or Biden.

Terry McAuliffe seized on that, made this race largely about Youngkin being another Trump. Youngkin went hard on the culture issues. "What are they teaching your kids in school? What's going on with the masks?"

Who made the better bet?

ENTEN: I think, at this point, you got to make the argument that Glenn Youngkin made the better bet, because he's the one, who's been closing in the polls. And more than that, look, he's tying this to national issues, in some ways.

And, right now, Joe Biden is the President United States. And if you look at Joe Biden's popularity, in the State of Virginia, and you look at it nationally, what do you see?

Look at this. Now, Joe Biden's approval rating, in the State of Virginia is averaging about 45 percent. Compare that to his favorable rating, on Election Day 2020, it was just 52 percent.

That's basically the same trends that we see nationally, right, where now Biden's down to about 43 percent, versus on Election Day, he was at 52 percent. And this is the thing that I think is so important, when we're talking about why does Virginia have national implications?

If you look at the last three cycles, 2009, 2013, 2017, look at the approval ratings, of the presidents, on those days. Look at that. They were all in the 40s. Some were in the low-40s. Some were in the high- 40s. But all in the 40s. And in all those cases, in the following midterm?

CUOMO: They lost seats.

ENTEN: They lost House seats.

CUOMO: Yes. Now look, they usually lose House seats anyway.

ENTEN: Sure.

CUOMO: In that first term. You've had a couple of exceptions to it. It's usually a referendum. And the American people tend to like balance. We don't know about how that's going to play out, traditionally, now, in such an untraditional time.

I like Slide five, because I think that it makes a very important point, about the true risk for Democrats, which is enthusiasm, and who's going to come out. Explain this.

ENTEN: Yes. So essentially, this is a poll done by Monmouth University. It said, "How motivated are you to come out and vote?" And what we see is White voters, very motivated, to come out, in Virginia.

Black voters make up about 20 percent, of the electorate, in Virginia. If Terry McAuliffe is going to win, he is going to need Black voters, to turn out, in high numbers, tomorrow, right, basically turn around that registered voter, likely voter gap, get it closer to a presidential year electorate. And what we see right now, in the polling, is Black voters are not anywhere near as motivated as White voters are.

So, that's basically the one thing I might want to look at, tomorrow, is whether or not the Black voters show up in those heavily African American areas, of Virginia, like in the Southeast part of the state. If they do, then Terry McAuliffe may win, when the polling suggests perhaps the opposite.

CUOMO: See, that's the one basis, where I think McAuliffe, may be struggling, because of his party. And I'll tell you what. It even resonated in Italy, Harry, the idea of people saying, "Ah, you Democratie (FOREIGN LANGUAGE)."

Don't make me laugh.

ENTEN: Sorry.


"Why doesn't his party, why don't they like him?" And that is what I don't think the Democrats really picked up, in this process.

It's demoralizing, to a fraction, or a slice, or however you want to break it up, or apportion it, of people who voted for you, when it seems like you don't even want to do, what they put you in there to do. And I think that's going to be a wake-up call for them, in this election, because it's got to be close.

ENTEN: Yes, I think that's right. And I think what we've seen, all along, is that there are a lot of Democrats, right now, who have this low enthusiasm, who don't think that the folks in Washington, have delivered what they wanted to accomplish.

Yes, they did not want Donald Trump in office anymore. But that wasn't that they just wanted Trump out. They wanted someone to actually do something.

And we know, from the polling, over and over and over and over again, there are a lot of Democrats, who, at this point, feel that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party has not accomplished a great deal.

And this is going to be the first real test that will show whether or not that keeps Democrats from home. And more than that independent voters turning against the Democrats, because that was the one real vote that switched from Trump, in 2016, to Biden in 2020.

CUOMO: Now, McAuliffe could be hurt by this, and the Democrats could still be OK in the midterms, if they pass these two bills, and people forget the process, and they do a much, much better job, like a 200 percent better job, selling, what is in these bills, for people.

Because, as we just said in the last segment, a number, you know, well, only one in four Americans believe that these two bills will help people like them. That's bad messaging!

Harry, I got to jump.

ENTEN: All right, goodbye.

CUOMO: I love you.


CUOMO: I'll see you back in the office.

ENTEN: See you.

CUOMO: How much could the setbacks, to Biden's agenda, hurt McAuliffe and beyond? That's the question we're teeing up.


We're going to bring in the good minds. Look at them, come on, the intelligence is just flying off them. Then again, it's all basis of comparison, right? They got the meathead in the middle! Next.








CUOMO: Now, the question should be, "Will the Democrats deliver Biden a win?" But now the question has become "Can Biden deliver the Democrats a win?" Is that fair? Jess McIntosh, Michael Smerconish here, to discuss.

Ordinarily, I would start with you, Jess. But I'm going to put you on the defensive here. So, I'm going to start with Smerconish.

The fact that Biden's got to find a way, to close this deal, that they keep setting these deadlines, that they're not sure that they can meet, that they have one in four Americans, believing these two bills that are the most epic policy moves, since the New Deal, only one in four Americans think that they're good for people like them?

What did the Democrats do wrong, Michael?


CUOMO: You say that to me, every segment, you say that, by the way.

SMERCONISH: This is all theater. And I maintain that--

CUOMO: You need a new insult!

SMERCONISH: I maintain - OK.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

SMERCONISH: It's not an insult. I just want to close the loop for you.

CUOMO: Please?

SMERCONISH: Joe Manchin is the best thing to happen to Joe Biden.


I don't believe in coincidence. You've got the NBC survey that comes out, this weekend that says 71 percent, of the country, nearly half of Democrats, think we're headed in the wrong direction.

Here comes the ABC survey, where 32 percent, a plurality say "This is going to hurt people like me," same poll that you've been talking about all night.

Do you really think it's a coincidence that, one day later, Joe Manchin comes out, and puts the brakes, on the big spending bill? Because I don't. Manchin is forcing Biden, to take a win, for the $1.2 trillion, because they've so poorly sold the bigger bill. That's what's going on.

CUOMO: Jess, do you think that the House will allow?

They'll get a little trapped here, right? If the House votes for the infrastructure bill that's already passed the Senate, without amendments, then it's going to become law. And they will be boxed out, on the spending bill. What happens then?

JESS MCINTOSH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMS OUTREACH, HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN: Look, I think, at this point, everybody has worked too hard, and come too close, to meet - to let this go.

So, if the House decides, to vote on the infrastructure package, I believe that is because they believe that the second bill, the social bill is secure. So, I'm not going to be too concerned, if I see that happening.

I think this has been a really long and messy process. But these are the absolute worst hours, of trying to pass historic legislation. Eventually, this will be an outcome story. This will not be a process story.

I want everybody to remember how frustrating it was, to try and pass Obamacare, and how many times it was declared a failure, because it didn't have the public option. And now, it's recognized as one of the most powerful social safety net expansions, we've ever seen.

In a few years, that is how we will be talking about this. Every plank of the agenda, being considered, right now, is wildly popular, reaching the kind of numbers that you can't get with just Democrats. It's also Republicans, and most of Independents.

So, I think once American families can actually see, what's in the package, and then see it hitting their checkbooks, their inboxes, their ability to take their kids to daycare, and care for elderly relatives, that's where you're going to see the American people move on, "Oh, yes, this really does affect me and my family."

CUOMO: Why isn't what Jess is saying, how it's been sold, all along, Michael?

SMERCONISH: They try to blame the media for this, that the media has been fixated on the bottom line. But the legislators have been fixated on the bottom line.

It hasn't been a debate, about any of the component parts. It's been a debate about $3.5 trillion, $2.0 trillion, $1.75 trillion. And don't overlook the fact that Joe Manchin, today, is relying on Penn Wharton Analytics that say it is not $1.75 trillion. It's $3.9 trillion. And that analysis is not going to go away.

And I think that the climate now, is just one of where, Americans believe this is all too hurried, to spend too much money, and there's got to be too much waste, baked into it. So, I don't see this as resolving anytime soon.

And I believe what I told you, Chris, I think that Manchin is doing Biden a favor, forcing a $1.2 trillion win, where 19 Republicans, in the Senate, including Mitch McConnell, were on board. Joe Biden gets a much needed notch in his belt.

CUOMO: Jess, response?

MCINTOSH: I mean I've seen polls that suggest most Americans think that this bill is either the right size, or not big enough.

I think, at this point, we have to start talking about what's in it, I mean. And Joe Manchin knows what's in it. He probably spent more time negotiating this bill than any other senior - than any other single senator.

He knows that it meets all of the demands that he laid out today. He knows, because he was part of those negotiations. And he knows that waiting for a CBO score is something that the Senate needs to do anyway.

So, it seems like this press conference, didn't do anything, to slow down the momentum, with other Democrats, on the Hill. It's just Joe Manchin being Joe Manchin. It's hard to make sense of what he's doing, unless you assume that he just loves the attention, in which case, this is a master-class, in how to get it.

Now, when I advise candidates, I don't tell them to gain national notoriety, by acting like they're standing in the way of one of the most popular agendas, in recent memory.

But he apparently is listening to other advisors, and he is making his own choice. But I think this gets done and it gets done soon.

CUOMO: Word choice will be, key, here. You say "Notoriety." It's all about how it plays, at home, for him. Will it be notoriety, or will be fame? We'll see.

Last word, Michael?

MCINTOSH: And West Virginia needs these packages--

CUOMO: Go ahead, Jess.

MCINTOSH: --more than most states.

CUOMO: Go ahead. I cut you off. Go ahead.

MCINTOSH: Sorry. I was just, saying, West Virginia actually needs these packages more than most states.

There aren't any billionaires in West Virginia. So, I can't imagine that this is - there are a lot of West Virginians, who are cheering for Joe Manchin, taking down important social programs that they need, while we're facing multiple crises.


CUOMO: I mean polling shows the same. But sometimes, it's more feel than fact, right? That's why Trump ran away with that State.

Last word, Michael?

SMERCONISH: I think he's asking a question that all Americans, including those in West Virginia, can understand, which is, "Can we afford it? How much is it going to cost?"

CUOMO: Jess, appreciate you.

Michael, you connect the dots. How do you like that? Why don't you connect the dots? Huh? You try connecting the dots a little bit better. No, I'm kidding!

Thank you both very much. Take care.



CUOMO: Every time he tells me, I can't connect the dots. Maybe he's right!

The Supreme Court considered challenges to the most restrictive abortion law, in the country, today.

Now, I have to tell you, sometimes, and this is rare, especially with the Supreme Court, now, many say that the law that they're looking at violates Roe v. Wade. Many say it was designed to violate Roe v. Wade. But I'll tell you what's unusual, is to have Supreme Court justices seem to signal, where their heads are, the way we saw.

We have someone, who argued before the justices, on behalf of reproductive rights, in Texas. Let's get his take, on what I think was made, frighteningly obvious, in court, today, next.









CUOMO: The Supreme Court heard arguments, in the most significant case, on reproductive rights, to come before, let's say, in the last two decades.

Now, here's the part, to pay attention to. Two key conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, grilled lawyers, defending the Texas law that essentially puts a bounty on doctors.

There was a key moment when even Justice Kavanaugh equated the right to reproductive medical care to that of the First and Second Amendments. Listen to this.


JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT: It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights. If this position is accepted here, the theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights.


CUOMO: My next guest, Marc Hearron, was in court, today, making the arguments, for reproductive rights, in Texas.

Counselor, good to have you on PRIME TIME. What did you make, of Justice Kavanaugh's response?


As we've been saying, all along, although SB 8 is an abortion restriction, and it is the most extreme abortion restriction that we have ever seen, the questions today, in front of the Supreme Court, were not just about abortion. Everyone, it seems like all the justices agree that this is a patently unconstitutional law.

The question really is can a state, just aside, the Supreme Court's precedents, and the Bill of Rights, just don't apply in our state? And a state can just nullify a right that has been recognized by the Supreme Court, for 50 years, a fundamental right, by allowing anyone to sue, anyone who exercises that right, or provides care, to allow someone to exercise that right?

And that doesn't apply just for abortion. It could apply for guns. It could apply for freedom of religion. Every single constitutional right is at stake, if Texas arguments succeed, and the federal courts can't do anything, when a state tries to nullify a right, like Texas is doing here.

CUOMO: Now, the real concern though, for Roe v. Wade, isn't this kind of, punitive civil measure that they read into the, or wrote into the Texas law. It's viability, and that's where the Mississippi law is going to come.

Are you hearing anything from Barrett, and from Kavanaugh or any of the others that you take as a signal on that other issue?

HEARRON: I didn't hear anything today Chris, that, signals what the court's going to do.

So, as you note, one month from today, the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization, which is a challenge to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban.

It's the first time the Supreme Court is considering a ban, before viability. And really, the State of Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court, to overrule Roe, to overrule Casey, and to allow states, to just ban abortion outright.

So, the right to abortion is at stake, in that case, that's going to be heard one month from now. I didn't hear anything today that really signals how the court's going to rule in that case. But--

CUOMO: What about with Kavanaugh saying - what about with - and I'll give you the final point, obviously.

And congratulations, on today being your first day before the Supreme Court. That's something to remember.

When Kavanaugh was talking about, he was saying, "You know, but we may change the law, in the future." And what would that mean, in terms of everything that had been done, while we were waiting, in this period, before we change the law? What would that expose people to?

Now, on one level, you could say, "Well that's an ex post facto argument," obviously anything, before something has changed is fine. And it seemed like a gratuitous point, from someone, who's obviously, a legal scholar.

So, what was that about?

HEARRON: I think he was honing in, or honing on one of the worst provisions of this law, which is that it's retroactive.

CUOMO: Right.

HEARRON: So that even if an abortion provider is providing, in reliance, on an injunction, and later, that injunction gets overruled, or the law changes, that they could - that they could face retroactive liability.


And that's - it's one of the many, many, many pernicious things about this law, where Texas has created special rules, solely, in order to be able to turn the courts, into a weapon, to nullify constitutional rights. So, I think, he was really concerned about that.

There were other parts of the law that the justices were really concerned about, as well, you know? So, I don't know. I'm not - I'm not going to try to read too much into any tea leaves into that particular question.

CUOMO: It is a pivotal moment, in our jurisprudential history. And you're part of it.

Marc Hearron, thank you very much. And, again, congratulations, on facing, the court, today.

HEARRON: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: All right. Good luck.

Ahead, new court filings reveal what Trump is trying to keep secret, from the January 6 committee.

Look, you can have any feelings, you want, about the situation. That's your right, OK? It's also a privilege, to have a feeling that is free from fact. People don't hide things they're not worried about, OK?

Plus, a former Homeland Security official, who says he was ringing every alarm bell, he could, think of, before the insurrection. He says he doesn't need the Trump documents. He knows what it was about, and so should you. Next.










UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is the name of the person, who told you to buck the President Trump's plan and certify the votes?




CUOMO: Former Vice President Pence, just a short time ago, in Iowa, vocally defending his role, in certifying, rather than delegitimizing, the election results, on January 6.

And in a new court filing, The National Archives revealed, for the first time, what Trump is trying to keep hidden, from the January 6 Select Committee.

It is more than 700 pages, of files, from his closest advisors. Visitor records, memos from senior White House staff, handwritten notes, draft documents, and call logs with Pence, all of which may tell us more, about his role, in the lead up to the attack.

Remember, a document can't fail to recall. A document can't take the Fifth. A document can't spin what it says

187 minutes, the former President watched these scenes, but did nothing.


CUOMO: This comes, as "The Washington Post" reports incredible new details about that day, and the numerous people, who saw the violence coming.

How? It was just spontaneous, right? Just a couple of kooks online, talking about it, but they never expected they'd be that successful, right? Right?

Donell Harvin, the Head of Intelligence, at D.C.'s Homeland Security Office, not only notified, multiple agencies, about the violent chatter online, two days before the attack, but he also alerted the City's health department, to call up D.C.-area hospitals, to prepare for a mass casualty event.

"Empty your emergency rooms, he said, stock up your blood banks."

Donell Harvin joins me now.

It's good to see you, sir.


CUOMO: What did you know?

HARVIN: Well, it's not what we knew. It's the threat picture that we had seen. And so, leading up to January 6, we started seeing a lot of concerning information, surrounding the events that were planned.

Information from particular actors that we hadn't seen before, specifically looking at what we call, TTPs, tactics, techniques and procedures, that indicated that they would be intent on performing acts of violence, interpersonal violence, and possibly even smuggling weapons, into the District.

CUOMO: So how come we weren't more prepared?

HARVIN: Well, like you and other Americans, I'm looking forward to seeing the conclusion, of multiple investigations, into that.


HARVIN: I can't speak to why what happened at the Capitol actually happened. Our job, from my team's standpoint, was to collect, analyze, and disseminate threat information, to as many people as possible. And that's the role of the Fusion Center. And that's exactly what we did.

CUOMO: So first, let's get a sense of what it was. And then, we'll get to what it meant to you.

When you look at what you were seeing, do you believe that this was about disparate sets of groups that were just equally pissed off about things? Or do you believe there was coordination of intent and purpose?

HARVIN: I think it's a little bit of everything.

So, we found, even leading up to the January 6, what made us really concerned was we saw a core group, or several groups of individuals that were well-organized, and had articulated specific, as I mentioned before, tactics, techniques and procedures, that would bring to bear, a lot of violence, in our estimation, if they came to the District of Columbia, using a large amount of people, who were there, for their First Amendment-protected activities, as shields, or even as a force multiplier, for their more nefarious activities.

CUOMO: So, do you believe that what happened on that day was just a chain of things that couldn't have been anticipated that, "Well, the guards kind of let them go because there was too many of them, and the Capitol police weren't set up for it. And people started to enter the Capitol. But it was benign at first. But there were just some bad actors."

Or do you think it was more intentional than that?

HARVIN: Well, I'll be honest with you. Everyone's focusing on January 6, Chris. But the seeds of what happened on January 6 were planted long time ago. And we've seen this fomenting in American society, well, before January 6.


And I know everyone's focused on January 6. And there'll be an autopsy, and it's ongoing right now. But while that autopsy is occurring, we can't lose sight of the fact that the elements that made January 6 possible are still there in our society.

Even after January 6, we started seeing threat information for individuals, who didn't go to D.C., who lamented that they hadn't been here, and had articulated that it would have gone differently, had they not - had they been here.

And so, there's a lot of people out there, not just who you saw, on January 6, that are of like mind. And I think that's probably the broader picture.

CUOMO: Percentage chance you think it could happen again around another election event?

HARVIN: Well, I don't predict the future. I will tell you that there are individuals, out there, who have mobilized, from radicalization, and they're mobilizing to violence. And those individuals, we need to identify and connect with.

Chris, these aren't some foreign fighters that are coming over to our country, to do us harm.

CUOMO: Right.

HARVIN: These are our neighbors. These are our school teachers, bus drivers, first responders.


HARVIN: And so, we really need to get to the bottom of how people are mobilizing, from radicalization, into violence, and get to the bottom of that.

CUOMO: You are going to say "These are our brothers and sisters." I don't know that we can say that anymore. We're in a weird place in this country.

But I'll tell you this. Donell Harvin, thank you for keeping us safe.

HARVIN: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, we'll be right back.