Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

President Trump Being Implicated By Prosecutors For The First Time In A Campaign Finance Violation; Trump Is Looking To Put Some New Blood In His Administration; Republican Legislatures In Wisconsin And Michigan Are Working To Kneecap Incoming Democratic Administrations; Number Of Democratic Contenders Are Making Some News; Trump And Senior Administration Officials Have Refused To Hold The Saudi Crown Prince Directly Responsible For The Murder Of Jamal Khashoggi. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired December 08, 2018 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:17] S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Welcome to UNFILTERED.

Here is your headline. Nothing to see here. President Trump has weighed in on three briefs filed by federal prosecutors late Friday implicating Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and the President himself in criminal activity. That's right, criminal activity. Now, despite the four bodying implication of these briefs, and I will get to those in a minute, Trump is hailing the revelations as a victory.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On the Mueller situation, we are very happy with what we are reading, because there was no collusion whatsoever, there never has been. The last thing I want is help from Russia on a campaign. You should ask Hillary Clinton about Russia, because she financed the fake dossier, which I understand they tried to get some information and help from Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: All right. Hear from the latest on the President's reaction to stunning legal findings is CNN political correspondent Sara Murray.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Well, S.E., it's kind of hard to envision why the President feels so positive after seeing these filings. I mean, we know, for instance from the Michael Cohen filing that this is the first time that prosecutors are directly implicating President Trump in federal crime which is of course Michael Cohen doing and making these hush money payments at the direction of then candidate Trump.

The other thing we learned from Michael Cohen from his cooperation with the southern district of New York as well as special counsel Robert Mueller's team, is that of course the Moscow-Trump tower project went on much longer than he was previously willing to divulge congressional investigators, that he kept Donald Trump in the loop about that project, including about his conversations with the Russian government regarding that project. And this is just kind of scratching the surface because when you dig

into the filings surrounding Paul Manafort, you discover that one of the things Paul Manafort lied about was his interactions with man named Konstantin Kilimnick, who is a Russian national who prosecutors believe has ties to Russian military intelligence.

So you are left with, first of all, President Trump being implicated by prosecutors for the first time in a campaign finance violation. And secondly, with yet another signal there were so many members of Trump's orbit, whether it was his campaign or his inner circle, who were somehow in touch with Russian nationals. Obviously, this is a far cry from what we heard from candidate Trump or even President Trump who insisted he had no business deals with Russia, no possible business deals with Russia and that no one on his campaign was in touch with any Russians. Obviously none of that entirely accurate, S.E.

CUPP: Sara, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

And now tonight's other headline. There's plenty to see here. Friday night's court filing suggests the Mueller investigation is nearing its end game and that the President himself is now in pretty serious legal jeopardy. The trio of briefs, two from the special counsel's office and one from federal prosecutors in the southern district of New York, document the many lies of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump's long time personal attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen.

The filings alleged that alleged that both men sought to conceal the extent of contact that they had with Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign. And in the case of Cohen's lies to Congress regarding Trump tower Moscow, that some of those lies were carried out with the knowledge and approval of people within the Trump administration.

In addition the filings indicate that Cohen then repeated those same lies publicly, perhaps indicating an effort to have everyone get on the same page. The defendant amplified his false statements by releasing and repeating his lies to the public including two other potential witnesses.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but that seems fairly obstruction-y, to me. The briefs tells to alleged that over the course of 12 meetings Paul Manafort lied about his contacts with the Trump administration before he pleaded guilty to a number of crimes back in September, long after he left the Trump circle. He also lied about contact with an individual believed to be a Russian intelligence agent. The frequency of that contact and the subject of that contact are redacted, but the filings seem to suggest Mueller has substantial evidence to back up his accusations.

But the most notable revelation at least as far as the White House should be concerned has to do with Cohen's payments to Trump's mistresses, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. According to prosecutors, Cohen's efforts were direct violation of campaign finance laws and were undertaken at the direction of Donald Trump. So this the first time that prosecutors have directly implicated the President of the United States in a crime, two of them, in fact. Here is the deal. Earlier today the President tweeted after two years

and millions of pages of documents and a cost of over $30 million, no collusion. He also told reporters, we are very happy with what we are reading in the Mueller briefs.

Two things. Yes, this investigation could definitely still find evidence of collusion with Russians. It could already be in these very findings. They are heavily redacted. And trouping being giddily about no collusion is a little like Al Capone bragging, but see they couldn't get me for murder when he has just been convicted of tax fraud. He still went to prison for a very long time.

But secondly, we are very happy what we are reading. Are we reading what I'm reading in particular? The words that accuse you of crimes. Look. Trump is only kidding himself, when you are the President of the United States and you have just been implicated in criminal activity, things are not OK in your world.

But hey, hope he enjoyed the Army-Navy game tonight.

All right. Here to discuss this further, let me bring in CNN legal analyst Paul Callan and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

Renato, I want to go to you first. So the President wants us to believe this is all fine. No big deal. No collusion. I'm not a lawyer. You tell me, is he right?

[18:06:15] RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I could not with a straight face tell one of my clients that he had nothing to worry about if federal prosecutors told a judge that he directed someone to commit a federal crime. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that's a very, very big problem for you.

So there's an active investigation. They have come to this conclusion. And just to be clear, it's not just based on the say so of Michael Cohen. They have other evidence as well and they cited in that brief too the U.S. probation department which found the same thing, made the same conclusion.

So that's got to be concerning. If Donald Trump was my client, I would tell him, you know, you have very, very serious criminal liability and you are in serious jeopardy. And anyone who says otherwise is really either lying or trying to deceive somebody. It's just that simple.

CUPP: Well, Paul, what do you think his attorneys are telling him? I mean, Renato brings up a great point. He has advisers, right? I mean, he is presumably surrounded by some smart people telling him or should be telling him, this is a big deal. What do you think they are saying to him?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, I really don't know, because if Rudolph Giuliani is giving the advice, he is all over the map in terms of things that he says. Anybody who has been named as individual number one in a federal indictment --

CUPP: Chills. I just got chills. You don't want that.

CALLAN: You are reading the indictment, you find out you have been specified as individual number one, and the guy who is being indicted is your lawyer, I think that something that gives you double chills.

CUPP: Yes.

CALLAN: He has been linked directly now to a campaign finance violation, which is a felony, which his own personal lawyer has pled guilty to. So I think he has a lot to worry about.

Now, as Renato said, there's so much that has been redacted that we don't know about. And we know that Mueller is very, very thorough in this investigation.

CUPP: Well, so Paul, sticking with you. People are split on whether you can actually indict a sitting President. It's not in the constitution ensemble, but it is sort of a DOJ guidance. What happens next with these criminal implications?

CALLAN: Well, I think we would have to ask the Democrats in Congress when they take over in January. He can be impeached even if he can't be charged criminally while he sits as President. And that has happened in the past.

CUPP: So political consequences for now.

CALLAN: That's right.

CUPP: Renato, we are all trying to read between the lines of these findings here. Do you get the sense that Mueller is going down a road that ties Trump business dealings to Russian election interference. Is that where he's sort of targeting?

MARIOTTI: Well, it certainly appears that way, S.E. If you look at the filing that Mueller made, they talk about the synergy, right? There's this political synergy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government that Cohen was having conversations about. There is a discussion of, you know, multiple Russians who are trying to make contact with Cohen and offer help from the Russian government. He turned one down because he already had a different Russian was helping him. And you know, Mueller was very clear that Cohen had provided him with a lot of information that he did not specify. He did not go into detail about.

Look, taken together, either one of those documents, I think in another era, in the 70s or 80s, might have potentially brought down a presidency. Taken together, they are very devastating. And I think anybody, no matter what your political stripe, has to take both those pieces of news pretty seriously.

CUPP: I don't think you even have to go back decades. I think a couple of years ago that would have taken down a President. Republicans would have made sure of that.

Paul, there's an argument Cohen, Michael Cohen, in lying to the public, which is not illegal, was trying to help Trump obstruct justice.

[18:10:01] CALLAN: Yes.

CUPP: Is there a legal underpinning to that?

CALLAN: There most definitely is. And through the years, politicians who have been indicted on a variety of charges, that's frequently a claim that's made in press conferences and so forth, they have made statements to throw the investigators off by making false statements.

CUPP: Right.

CALLAN: And circling back even to your Al Capone analogy, we don't know where Mueller is going with this investigation. But I know that when people like Al Capone were prosecuted in recent days under racketeering statutes, they make a claim that a business enterprise is a racketeering enterprise. I wonder if Mueller is looking at the Trump campaign as a racketeering enterprise. That theory can often be used to get the guy at the top when you only have underlings in custody or making statements. So it wouldn't surprise me down the road to see if that's a theory that's been looked at by Mueller.

CUPP: Renato, the SDNY filing interestingly makes it known that Michael Cohen's cooperation, in their opinion, was overstated by Michael Cohen. Now he will be sentenced on Wednesday. What should we expect from that?

MARIOTTI: What I would expect is a prison sentence, but a sentence that's significantly below the guideline range. So somewhere or maybe in the range of, you know, one to four years. Something in that range. You know, significant prison sentence, certainly going to be a change of life for Michael Cohen, but you know, it's not like he's going away for the rest of his life or anything like that.

CUPP: So Renato, what do we still not know? There's a lot, right, I mean, still going in a lot of directions. But crucially for you, what do you think we still don't know, despite the release of this trio of briefings?

MARIOTTI: On the New York side, what we don't know is how far up the Trump organization that investigation is going. We know Allen Weisselberg and others have been cooperating with the southern district of New York investigation. There could be others, including Trump's family members who are implicated in that. One of them appears to be an unnamed individual who was also mentioned in the indictment.

And on the Mueller side, there's a lot we don't know. I think the big question is, next what happens to Roger Stone. And then beyond that, you know, were there others that are involved in the conspiracy relating to those emails and other help from the Russians?

CUPP: Everything is fine. Don't worry. Everything is fine. This is all great.

Paul, Renato, thanks for coming on and breaking it all down. I appreciate it.

All right. Next I will speak to a Democratic congressman about all this White House turmoil and what it means for House Democrats.

And a bit later, a look at who is looking behind the scenes to mount a challenge to Trump in 2020.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:16:39] CUPP: In less than a month, January 3rd to be exact, Democrats will take over the leadership of the House and all the power that comes with it. That includes subpoena power. Now that alone should have the President reaching for pep-to abysmal. Then add the fact that the Mueller investigation is closing in on Trump thanks to former loyalists turned snitches like Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn. And add to that, after a midterm (INAUDIBLE) by Democrats, Trump is looking to put some new blood in his administration announcing yesterday the nominations of state department's spokeswoman Heather Nauert as U.N. ambassador and William Barr to attorney general. And this afternoon, that his chief of staff John Kelly will be leaving the White House at the end of the year.

Next few weeks are going to be interesting. Trump is presumably hoping Barr will be a more willing ally at the DOJ when it comes to the Mueller investigation. But can anyone save him from what's coming?

For more on this, let me bring in Democratic member of the House intelligence committee Connecticut, Congressman Jim Himes.

OK. Let's start with Mueller findings because we another chance to talk about it. Nothing to see here or a big problem for the President?

REP. JIM HIMES (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, it is a huge problem for the President. It is not just the Mueller findings, of course. I mean, the Cohen sentencing memo provided something that we have not seen in this long ordeal, which was the direct implication of the President in a crime. And of course, the Mueller investigation goes to this individual Kilimnick that Manafort was talking to, a Russian who seems to have connections to the intelligence community in Russia. Yet another undisclosed and lied about link to the Russians. So that's a big deal.

CUPP: What do you think Democrats are going to do come January 3rd?

HIMES: Well, that's a good question because we don't know what else Mueller has coming. And again, you know, there has been as you know, a really aggressive back and forth in the Democratic Party about the I word, impeachment.

CUPP: Right.

HIMES: And the leadership has said, and I think they have been right in this, which is you do not talk about impeachment until there are really clear grounds to do it. And now we are getting a taste of the possibility.

CUPP: I mean, aren't you getting there? These are crimes?

HIMES: Well, certainly, that's the implication of the Cohen memo.

S.E., here is the issue, you know. We were handed the majority. If we go that route, that is the most consequential thing that Congress can do next to declaring war. If we do that, remember, the Senate is a long way from convicting an impeached Donald Trump. A long way from that.

CUPP: Right.

HIMES: The other thing it does is, and I'm very conscious of this, I think part of the reason that Democrats were handed the majority of the House of Representatives, was that families all over this country said, hey, I'm worried about wages, I'm worried about health care, I'm worried about my retirement, about educating my kids. Democrats, please make some progress. And of course, if we go to the big I, to the possibility of impeachment, that progress is stalled or stopped. And that's a serious consideration.

CUPP: And the country hates that process. I mean, it has been disruptive. In fact, you know, it was actually good for Clinton. It made his approval numbers go up when it happened then. But it would certainly be destabilizing.

On this subject, David Axelrod interviewed Rahm Emanuel, Chicago mayor, earlier this week and that's coming up after our show, so people should stay tuned. But Rahm said that Democrats should leave Trump to Mueller. And that instead they should first focus on possible ethics violations in other departments like EPA, interior, take your pick.

I assume, like you just said, you think Democrats' first priority should be legislating. But do you agree with Rahm also that the focus should be on probing these other areas of ethics violations and sort of leaving Trump to Mueller?

[18:20:15] HIMES: No question, no question. I mean, again, you know, there's two things that we must do. One is actually make some progress for the American people.

CUPP: Right.

HIMES: That's why I think they gave us the majority in places we never expected to get votes like Oklahoma, like Kansas, like South Carolina. The other thing, of course, we need to do, and you know, you shouldn't be a Democrat to believe this, you should be an American. The constitution sets up Congress to be a check and balance on the president. It has not been that in the last two years.

I see this on intelligence committee. Devin Nunez at some point, the chairman of that committee decided that he would become, you know, the nation's, the Congress, the chief advocate for Donald Trump. That is not the role for congress. So we have got a lot of work to do. Yes, as you say, on the agencies where there is, you know, you remember Scott Pruitt.

CUPP: I do.

HIMES: You remember, you know, any number of individuals who are no longer serving in places like HHS because of the ethical questions. We are talking about American taxpayer money. The Congress has a role to play in making sure that it's being used wisely.

CUPP: Yes. And you point out Republicans in particular have not been doing that job, being a check on the executive. Do you think that starts to change with some of the early findings of both Mueller and the SDNY briefings? Does that sort of lead some Republicans to say, wait a second, wait a second, it might be time to bail on this?

HIMES: Well, that's a really interesting question, S.E. You know, the Republicans who come from districts where Donald Trump is unpopular, most of them lost a month ago.

CUPP: Yes.

HIMES: So now, this country is so polarized, now most of the Republicans who are still --.

CUPP: Left.

HIMES: In the Congress of the United States, come from a place where the President is pretty popular. What changes that? My guess is that it is stuff like tariffs hammering farmers.

CUPP: Right.

HIMES: So now, all of a sudden in rural areas Trump is not popular. Or maybe it's the fact he promised to bring back coal mines. And of course, the coal mines, you know, we are burning less coal than we ever have. I think it is those people in very red areas saying, wait a second, we have got sold a bill of goods. And it's hard to know how fast that happens.

CUPP: What do you -- a lot of news today. What do you think of Bill Barr's announcement to nomination to A.G.? What do you think of that?

HIMES: Well, it's funny. He is a little before my time. I was just getting out of college when he was, and this is important, he was attorney general. By the way, he was attorney general. Let's celebrate the fact that he got confirmed once and clearly has the stature to occupy that position considering who the active attorney general is. The bar is pretty low given the active attorney general.

CUPP: OK.

HIMES: You know, here is the thing about the justice department, and of course, so important, so attacked by President Trump. You know, Barr is going to have a problem because the President is only ever going to love somebody who is willing to break the rules, to go against protocol, to violate the long held independence of the department of justice. If you are not the President's man in that role, and of course the attorney general is not the President's man, you are going to come under the kind of fire that Jeff Sessions came under.

CUPP: I wonder if that's why he was a little reluctant -- according to reports, he was reluctant to take the job because he probably knows that. Probably knows it's going to be tough.

HIMES: And that was before the President opened up on Rex Tillerson and called him lazy and stupid. Why would you take this job?

CUPP: Why would anyone?

Congressman Himes, I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

HIMES: Thank you, S.E.

CUPP: OK.

Coming up next, a look at the last minute power grabs by some of the GOP before they leave office in January.

And later, I will speak to a senator about the mounting pressure lawmakers are putting on Trump over his handling of Saudi Arabia.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:43] CUPP: CBS has a Me Too problem. That much we know. The question is how long has CBS had this problem? Well, according to a new investigation, a long time. This year, after network head Les Moonves was forced out over sexual misconduct allegations and "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager was fired after getting hit with his own accusations, the board of directors hired two law firms to investigate the scandals.

According to the "New York Times," they found that you can add "60 Minutes" creator Don Hewitt to the list. The times reports that in the '90s CBS settled with an employee who accused Hewitt of sexually assaulting her on repeated occasions and quote "destroying her career." That settlement has been amended multiple times including this year for a payout reportedly totaling $5 million. In other words, CBS was aware of this kind of behavior three decades ago.

We will be back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:29:01] CUPP: In the Red File tonight, in the wake of the defeat in the midterm elections, Republican legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are working to kneecap incoming Democratic administrations.

In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers have already passed bills that would limit the ability of the state's newly elected Democratic governor and attorney general to act on all sorts of issues including gun control and the affordable care act. Republican lawmakers in Michigan are preparing to introduce similar legislation that would limit the power of incoming Democrats. So are Republicans just sore losers or is it worse than that?

For more on this, let me bring in CNN senior political commentator, former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm.

So I don't have to tell you this, Jen. Republicans in Wisconsin lost every statewide election while the governor's race was very close. I think 1.2 percent. Wisconsin voters, I think, sent Republicans a very clear message and clearly Republicans didn't receive that message. Instead they are, in my opinion, trying to subvert the will of the people. Will that backfire?

[18:30:19] JENNIFER GRANHOLM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, this is really a way for the Republicans in the legislature to overthrow the will of the people. It is a vote heist.

CUPP: Yes.

GRANHOLM: And it's true in Michigan as well. And you know, in Michigan and in Wisconsin, voter turnout in this election, where people were sending a message to the legislature and to the executive branch that they wanted a change was a record turnout. It was a record turnout for the past 50 years in Michigan. It was a record turnout of all time in a midterm in Wisconsin. So yes, I think there is going to be a significant backlash on the part of citizens who are ticked off, that their representatives, Republicans and Democrats, by the way, are not listening.

CUPP: So you mentioned Michigan and some critics are suggesting in Michigan that Republican lawmakers maybe actually violating the state constitution. Obviously, you were the governor of that state. Do you think the Republicans' move will actually collapse under legal scrutiny?

GRANHOLM: Yes. I think in both states there's significant legal challenges. I was the attorney general as well of Michigan. And this kind of stuff would clearly end up in court in Michigan.

Just as one example, S.E., I mean, the voters approved by 67 percent an amendment which allows for citizens to have greater access to the ballot box. Same day voter registration. That kind of thing. And the legislature is coming behind adding onerous voter ID requirements, which is exactly the opposite of what the citizens said they wanted.

Yes. So that to me, that is something that is going to end up in court as well as this whole series of separation of challenge arguments in both states that are going to end up in court. I just think the legislature has to get it, and they clearly don't.

Citizens don't want this. In Michigan, another quick example, 400,000 citizens signed a petition to raise the minimum wage, 400,000. The legislature is going behind them trying to undo that. That is a complete violation of what citizens demanded. And you better believe that those same people are going to organize and put it back on the ballot. So there is your backlash. You are going to see legislative backlash - I mean, citizen backlash against these legislative moves. CUPP: Yes. I mean, I don't, you know, I don't like some of the

policies that, you know, that voters push through but it's not up to me. It's up to them.

GRANHOLM: I mean --.

CUPP: Just to play devil's advocate for a second, though, what would you say to someone who said this is within their legislative authority, they were elected to and they had the right to protect their legacy policies?

GRANHOLM: Well, I would say, first of all, it is fine to do stuff that is within your purview. But if you are doing things that clearly are violations of the state constitutions, then that is a problem.

And also, like Tony Everest, he campaigned on pulling out of the lawsuit that challenges the affordable care act. He wants to be able to have citizens have access to health care. Now, can they, you know, circumscribe his ability to do that? That would be taking away gubernatorial power by a legislative branch. That is a separation of powers question that will be answered in court.

So whether you like or don't like on what they campaigned on, citizens get the last word and they voted. And this not supposed to be a legislative coup, which is what the legislature in both states are attempting to do.

And can I just say one other quick thing, S.E. is you are seeing, this happened in North Carolina a couple years ago, right, with Roy Cooper. And they circumscribed his ability to make appointments and all of that. That went to court. You are seeing another, you know, --

CUPP: It's a pattern.

GRANHOLM: It's a pattern. But you know what, you can suppress the vote on the front side by saying we are going to deny people access to the ballot box in North Carolina. You can steal their votes literally like what they are doing in North Carolina, the ninth congressional district by taking away, engaging in voter fraud, or you can steal the vote after the fact, expose facto, and that's what's happening in Michigan and Wisconsin. And that's almost worse because the voters have spoken.

CUPP: And it's no wonder why people don't trust the process, don't trust Congress, don't trust their lawmakers. This is why. And it's a huge perversion of democracy.

GRANHOLM: It is a huge perversion.

CUPP: Thanks, Jen.

GRANHOLM: You bet.

CUPP: Yes. I appreciate it Governor Granholm. Thank you.

Democrats are off to the races but is anyone actually pulling ahead? We'll see.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:39:12] CUPP: Believe it or not we are off to the 2020 races. And a number of Democratic contenders are making some news.

Just this week, former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick announced he will not be running due to the quote "cool nature of our electoral process." I feel you.

Also not running, get your Kleenex out, Michael Avenatti, so sad.

But Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who by all accounts is planning to run got an unexpected rebuke from her hometown paper, the "Boston Globe," telling her to back out. The Thursday editorial read, while Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a divisive figure. A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics of Donald Trump. Yikes.

Also earlier this week we learned that Texas heartthrob Beto O'Rourke met with Barack Obama in November. Wonder what they talked about. And today, we learned from "Washington Post" one of the architects of Elizabeth Warren's rise to national prominence is planning to meet with him soon as well.

Former New York City mayor, Mike Bloomberg was in Iowa on Tuesday and vice president Joe Biden was in Montana on Monday where he told the audience he was the most qualified person in the country to be President.

What do all these moves mean? There's so much.

Joining me now is former Republican congressman, CNN political commentator Charlie Dent and the former executive director of the New York state Democratic Party Democratic strategist Basil Smikle.

I could talk about this all day. It is the super bowl for us. I just love the horse race conversation.

So Basil to you, what do you make of this stunning editorial in the "Boston Globe"?

[18:40:52] BASIL SMIKLE, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT PARTY: It was stunning. But, you know what? I understand it. You know, when this - when Elizabeth --.

CUPP: I don't disagree with them. I'm just shocked it happened.

SMIKLE: No, I'm not so shocked. You know, there was such widespread rebuke about for what she did.

CUPP: The DNA test.

SMIKLE: And to me - the DNA test. It actually to me smacked of privilege, quite frankly, to be able to claim something that you are tangentially attached to and then you got benefited from it and the use of it in some way, shape, or form. That actually bothered me a lot, bothered a lot of folks. And so, I agree with it.

CUPP: Yes. "Boston Globe" essentially told Elizabeth Warren to take all the seats.

Charlie Dent, do you think that she is done? Do you think her Presidential career aspirations are over?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, that decision is up to her. Look. I think it would be a gift to Republicans if she did run because she is so divisive. There are a lot of Republicans out there and a lot of Americans that want someone other than Donald Trump. But they will say, but I can't do that.

CUPP: No. That is what they will say.

DENT: So I think that's a problem for her. She is just too divisive. You know, hard left. And I think that would actually -- if she became the Democratic nominee, I suspect there would be a serious third party movement. And that would actually help Donald Trump because it could split anti-Trump vote.

CUPP: Well, and also, you know, Donald Trump benefited in 2016 from having this huge cast of people running. He could distinguish himself by not being like all of them. Do you think Democrats running will also need to find ways within the party to distinguish themselves, you know, to be quote-unquote, "the Donald Trump," the person that emerges out of it.

SMIKLE: I think - and we talked about this. I think it's important for the party's process to play itself out.

CUPP: Yes.

SMIKLE: We shouldn't be in the business of picking, choosing one, number one. And number two, I also don't want the spectacle of like the happy hour debate because there are 20 people in the race. I don't want that either.

CUPP: Spoiler alert. You are getting it.

SMIKLE: I don't want that either. Because I do think there are a handful of folks. When I say a handful, I mean seven or eight, that are actually pushing to the forefront. And by the time we get to March, I think you will see half of those folks take a step aside.

CUPP: Charlie, you have met with the President. We all watched him campaign. We have seen him swipe at his opponents. It's very effective. What Democrats can survive those withering blows? That is going to be an important part of this.

DENT: I'm not sure which one survives the blow. My sense is the Democrats want to fall in love. You know, we have all these lanes. You know, you have the governor lane, the septuagenarian lane, the women lane, the African-American lane. CUPP: Yes.

DENT: But I think - think this is not about race. I don't think it's about gender. I think it's about the next generation. Is it going to be Kamala Harris? She checks a lot of boxes, or Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke. I think that's where many Democrats want to go in that lane. But I don't know which one has the best personality to confront Donald Trump. I think sometimes boring is good.

(CROSSTALK)

SMIKLE: But you know what is interesting and I agree with you in a sense. Presidential campaigns are about creating social and political movements. Great campaigns have been able to do that. Certainly Barack Obama did, even Bill Clinton in 1982.

CUPP: Yes.

SMIKLE: So I do think you will see that kind of movement emerge. The question is does it look more like the sort of Joe Biden parts of the party or does it really represent this new generation that is younger, more diverse.

CUPP: Right. Well, that's -- I think that's a really important point. Because in 2016, one of the criticisms of the Hillary Clinton was that she was a corporation, Bernie was a cause. And I don't know if he can recapture that again. The magic was probably --

DENT: Well, it was about change, too.

CUPP: Yes, right.

DENT: I mean, let's face it. Hillary was running for Barack Obama's third term. The American people so desperately wanted change that they were willing to take a great risk on Donald Trump. I mean, I think that's what it's about. And same with the - well, in this coming election it's certainly going to be about change.

CUPP: Yes.

DENT: People, you know, they are tired, they are exhausted of Donald Trump, and so who is the best vicar? Who is the best messenger? And who can, you know, withstand the jabs and the shots are going to be taken every day.

CUPP: Well. And so Deval Patrick's message that like this process is too cool, I get. In fact, why would any Democratic rising star from Beto to Cory to Kamala, why would they do this now? Because it's going to be brutal.

[18:45:11] SMIKLE: Well, this is what is interesting. I had -- there was a time maybe a year or so ago when u felt anyone could beat Donald Trump. But now I hear from just voters not political people at all that feel that Donald Trump may actually get elected. But I still think there are a lot of really great Democrats that can do that social political movement to take him out. CUPP: We will see. Thank you so much, both of you, for joining me.

I could do this all day, all night.

Basil, Charlie, thanks.

Next I will speak to a senator about growing course of lawmakers confirming Trump of his handling of Saudi Arabia.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:20] CUPP: A new report today from the "New York Times" suggests that senior presidential adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner has used his cozy relationship with Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman to help him quote "weather the storm that has followed the murder of a "Washington Post" columnist."

But that may not be enough to keep congressional lawmakers from calling out President Trump's response to the brutal and state sponsored killing of Jamal Khashoggi, not just Democrats either. Republicans too.

Trump and senior administration officials have refused to hold the Saudi crown prince directly responsible for the murder, despite the CIA's conclusions that he personally ordered the assassination. And something we haven't seen too often, the GOP-led Senate is preparing to confront the White House with floor votes, likely this week, on the U.S.' involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has been, by all accounts, disastrous. This was South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: If you get in the orbit of the United States, if you want to buy our weapons and integrate your economy into ours, there's a certain price to be paid. Don't chop somebody up in a consulate. That's not too much to ask.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: All this is complicated by reports of Saudi business ties leading back to Trump prompting some to wonder if U.S. foreign policy is essentially up for sale to the highest bidder. And at what cost? A human life? Perhaps even thousands?

Joining me now is Democratic senator Ben Cardin of Maryland.

Senator, let's first discuss the Yemen resolution or the Lee Sanders resolution, as it's being called, for cosponsors Mike Lee and Bernie Sanders. One problem I see with it, off the bat, is it will need to pass the House and then the President will have to sign it. That seems unlikely. Two, tell me how this resolution is more than just symbolic.

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: Well, first of all, it's very important message and a very important action that the United States Senate, a majority of the members of the United States Senate tell this administration that we do not support America's participation with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Yemen. That means the President does not have the support of the United States Senate in regards to those actions. It's a message about our -- the campaign in Yemen, that our involvement is not adding to a solution as part of the tragedy of that region, and that we need to reevaluate it.

CUPP: So, is the symbolic message to the President or is it to Saudi Arabia?

CARDIN: I don't think it's a symbolic message. I think it's a clear indication that the support is not in the Senate to continue this campaign. It's clearly aimed at the Saudis to understand that we will not participate in the way they are conducting this campaign, but it's also to the President of the United States to say, it's time to reevaluate America's role.

CUPP: And I want to get to that in a second. But as you know, the Yemen resolution is basically directing the President to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities in or affecting the republic of Yemen. And Senator Bob Corker, your colleague, said, though, what's this actually changing on the ground? We are already not refueling jets, for example.

CARDIN: Well, that is -- there's been a suspension of U.S. fueling that could start up again at any time without congressional action. There's also other ways in which the United States is participating with the Saudis in regards to Yemen, including advising. So there's been a role of the United States here and clearly the -- the tragedy in Yemen has to change.

CUPP: Right. So, would you support a resolution that calls to an end to U.S. intelligence gathering and intelligence assistance, end to arms deals to Saudi Arabia with regard to Yemen explicitly?

CARDIN: I think that those two issues need to be considered. I am not for ending our relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but there has to be accountability for the crown prince's actions. America's strength is in our values, and the action of the crown prince, there needs to be accountability.

CUPP: So, and I agree, and I think a lot of people on both sides of the aisle agree that we need a relationship with Saudi Arabia, that they are too important a partner in that region, especially when it comes to dealing with Iran. How does -- what does that look like, maintaining a relationship but holding them accountable, ideally, for you?

[18:55:05] CARDIN: Well, understand that Saudi Arabia needs the United States. Their economy is changing. They know that the American economy is one that they want to be part of. Our military is the best in the world, most reliable in the world. They want to relationship with us, so it's in their interests.

This isn't one-sided transaction. There's mutual benefit. But our strength are in our values and the Saudis need to understand that they can't have a close relationship with our country unless they hold accountable of those individuals who were responsible for this brutal murder.

CUPP: Senator Cardin, thanks so much for joining me tonight. I appreciate it.

CARDIN: Good to be with you. Thank you.

CUPP: That's it for us tonight.

Next, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel joins David Axelrod for "THE AXE FILES." Don't miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END