Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
President Trump's Message After his Acquittal; Some Democrats Not So Excited About New Hampshire; CNN's America's Choice 2020; 2020 Dems Debate Ahead Of New Hampshire Primary; Interview With Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) About Their Debate. 10-11p ET
Aired February 07, 2020 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Breaking news. President Trump emboldened by his impeachment victory firing two key witnesses Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland. U.S. ambassador to the E.U., a million-dollar Trump donor recalled from his post effective immediately after he reportedly resisted efforts to get him to resign.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman fired from his White House job and ignominiously escorted out of by security. His twin brother Lieutenant Colonel Yevgeny Vindman, a National Security Council attorney who did -- did not testify was fired as well.
So, there's a lot to get to right now. I want to get to CNN's Kaitlan Collins for the story on this that she has been reporting. Kaitlan, good evening to you. How did this go down? What's going on?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's a striking night, Don. And I should also note right off there at the top, that the White House is not putting forth any pretenses to say that this isn't connected at all to the impeachment inquiry. They're not even pushing back on that.
When it's making pretty clear from these attorneys they are drawing a direct line between the president's impeachment and why they now no longer have these jobs.
I want to start with how this first began today in the first person who was fired. And that's of course Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman. Someone we had an inkling that he was going to be on his way out of the National Security Council. He did as well and was telling his colleagues that he was likely going to leave his post months before he was expected to.
And the president all but confirmed that reporting this morning. When he said why should I be happy with him in that job? Of course, this afternoon we found out that Alex Vindman was escorted off of the White House grounds by security. He was told that his services were no longer needed.
And in a statement right -- shortly after he was escorted off the White House grounds, his attorney drew a direct line between his testimony in front of Congress which of course, as you know, was one of the most crucial and the reason why he was fired.
But, Don, then moments later we found out not only was he escorted off the White House ground, so was his twin brother who goes by Eugene inside the National Security Council. He's an attorney there. And he is also someone who after his brother testified saw his duties significantly reduced in the wake of that. Even though he himself was not subpoenaed he never spoke publicly about this.
He never went and testified either in public or behind closed doors. Yet, he was also fired, and according to his attorney they say that was without explanation. He was just also escorted off the grounds along with his brother.
Now we weren't that surprised. We had a pretty good idea that that would likely come because the president had been complaining about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman behind the scenes mocking him for wearing his uniform to go and testify. Making fun of, essentially what he had said.
But Don, we found out that someone who donated a million dollars to the president's inauguration was also fired. And of course, that is Gordon Sondland who phrased his firing in a little bit of different terms. It wasn't as stark as the picture you saw from the Vindman brother's attorneys where they were saying this is because Vindman came forth and testified that he believed the president was innocent undermining national security.
Instead, Gordon Sondland thanked the president and Secretary Pompeo for his time in that job. But we also know that that comes as behind the scenes. A lot of diplomats have been telling us that they essentially believe Sondland didn't have a lot of power left in Brussels in that position he was in. Because they knew he was on the outs with the president and it really doesn't do a lot of good with your diplomats.
The question going forward, Don, is going to be is anyone else susceptible to being of course, essentially a victim of the president's retribution here. Because the president has made clear he wants pay back, he thinks he needs to be vindicated in this sense that he wants to get essentially retribution for what he says he's gone through for the last five months. So far --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Well, let me ask you this. When you mention that, because the other, some other folk's impeachment witnesses for people like George Kent, Laura Cooper --
COLLINS: Yes.
LEMON: David Holmes. I'm guessing that they could be right -- they could be next, right?
COLLINS: Well, that's the question. We know that Sondland and Vindman irritated the president the most. So, they were essentially right off the bat because that's who he keeps talking about. But then you see these other three officials. The question would
mostly likely be around David Holmes who of course was the one who overheard the president's conversation, spoken pretty blunt terms about what he thought the president thought about Ukraine.
But so far, Don, we have not gotten any indication that their jobs are not safe at this point. So, whether or not it ends here or the president tries to take retribution elsewhere with Democrats and beyond, that's what we're looking for tonight.
LEMON: Let's get back to Sondland. As I understand, Gordon Sondland resisted efforts to get him to resign, is that correct?
COLLINS: Yes. He is not someone who wanted to be leaving this post. He made pretty clear he wanted to stay in it. And Don, in a sense, he kind of thought he could. After he testified, he immediately went straight back to the airport and got on a plane to Brussels was smiling and we've been told was just kind of living his life, you know, in that position. What a limited position it was. But he did not seem to be increasingly, you know, someone who is going to accept the fact that he is being pushed out of this job. But he has been fired. He longer has this job.
[22:04:58]
LEMON: So Kaitlan, Trump actually asks about Vindman this morning. He said that he wasn't happy with him since he testified in the impeachment trial. Was that -- was that a tell of what was coming, what was to come?
COLLINS: It seemed to be pretty clear. And you know, I've gone to a lot of those, you know, departures with the president where h talks. And it wasn't totally clear that Vindlan was on his way out until the president said you'll be hearing. And then, it kind of just trailed off, you know, a dot, dot, dot.
And that to me seemed to be the surest sign that this was going to be coming sometime soon. But we should note the president seemed to distance himself from this decision saying they'll make a decision. They'll make a decision. Not saying he would be the one.
But of course, Don, we should make pretty clear that it was the president who wanted Vindman out of the National Security Council after he testified.
LEMON: What a day. Kaitlan Collins, thank you. I appreciate that. Let's bring in now Andrew McCabe. Andrew McCabe is the former FBI deputy director, also CNN contributor Frank Bruni is here, political commentator Catherine Rampell, contributor Michael D'Antonio, and presidential historian Timothy Naftali.
Everyone is here in the room except McCabe. So let's start with him since he maybe at a little bit of disadvantage. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you joining us. The Trump --
(CROSSTALK) ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Sure. No disadvantage at all.
LEMON: Yes. Listen, the Trump adviser described this as a flushing out the pipes. Sending a message to those in the administration that siding against this president that it won't be tolerated. You know what this feels like. It is chilling when this happens.
MCCABE: It is. Don, it's chilling, it's disruptive. It's kind of terrifying for the people involved. I know that all too well. But it's also chilling for everyone around them, you know.
So, to be perfectly clear, this is absolutely sending a message. And the message is not to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and his brother. The message is to everyone else on the staff. And I would argue everyone else across the federal service.
That if you stand up and tell the truth in a way that this president disapproves of, he is going to come after you. He is going to derail your career. He is going to vilify and humiliate you publicly.
It is a very effective way to keep people in line. And to essentially bend the will of the federal work force to the whims of this president.
LEMON: Frank Bruni, let's bring you in now. You said this sends a chilling message to the intelligence community and other agencies. Is this the Friday night massacre?
FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's his version of it. And the chilling message I think is to the entire administration. I mean, he's creating or he's trying to create a very particular culture in his administration and his White House. And that's a culture of fear and complete deference and submissiveness.
You know, he -- there are various ways to lead. If we want to call what Trump is doing that. And one way to do it is by fear not by inspiration. He just learned from his Senate acquittal that if you make people afraid enough of you as he did with all of the Senate Republicans, you can actually profit from that.
He just got validation that to make people scared of him works to his advantage. He is now taking that, he's taking that lesson, he's applying it more widely and this is the next act.
LEMON: Listen, Michael, Vindman is a Purple Heart recipient to have him escorted out of the building. The only reason to do that or off the property is to embarrass him. Why would the president -- I mean this is something out of a gangster movie. This is like having an enemy's list.
MICHAEL D'ANTONIO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it is. This is actually the kind of murderous rage that has always animated Donald Trump. Going back to his early life. If you disagree with him, and in fact, it's not just being loyal to him, you have to be loyal to his lie. You have to reject reality in the way that he does. And if you don't do that, if you stand up for yourself, if you stand
up for what is categorically true, he wants to kill you. And this is the closest that he can get to expressing this murderous impulse. It's to destroy your reputation, humiliate you as much as possible. I don't think he understands that he looks very small in the process. And he's the one who is diminished by it.
LEMON: Tim, I want your response to this. This is the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi putting out a statement from a deputy chief of staff. Saying in part, "President Trump is impeached forever. The shameful firing of Colonel Vindman was a clear and brazen act of retaliation that showcases the president's fear of the truth. The president's vindictiveness is precisely what led Republican senators to be accomplices to his cover-up."
What do you think of that, is she right?
TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, she's right. I think tonight President Trump has declared war on professionals in the United States government.
Let's not forget that the reason there was a case, a persuasive case, not just to Mitt Romney but to other Republicans. The reason there was a case is that professionals in our country's government, in our government said this is wrong. And we just -- we just think we have to do things the right way in foreign policy.
Those people are scared now. And we have had this happen before. Richard Nixon declared war on the domestic government. Not on foreign policy establishment. There are ways to protect these people.
But I think we have to be very serious now. This isn't just about retribution against a few people. This is, as Frank said, the creation of a culture.
[22:10:03]
So, there are ways to have. One is the American Foreign Service Association collects money to help members of the foreign service defend themselves. It's very expensive to have lawyers. The Freedom of Information Act will allow you -- public should use it to freeze documents so that people will be held accountable for any effort to implement the president's abuse of power.
LEMON: All right. Standby everyone. I know you want to get in on this. We got to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: And we're back now with Andrew McCabe, Frank Bruni, Catherine Rampell, Michael D'Antonio, and Timothy Naftali.
OK. Catherine, I promise we get to you. So, listen, presidential historian Jon Meacham tweeted this out. He said, "to the victor go the spoils which means all those who supported the president's acquittal are complicit in everything that to come and there will be more." Republicans are complicit.
CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Absolutely. They are complicit in every head that he puts on a pike. They are complicit in every way that he weaponizes his office as he has done in the past many times before.
[22:15:01]
This is nothing new for him. We don't know what he will do in retribution against those he believes have crossed him whether they are Republicans like Mitt Romney, the few with consciences or Democrats for that matter.
But we've seen him weaponize antitrust against, for example, AT&T and Time Warner because of Time Warner's then ownership of CNN. We've seen him weaponize procurement contracts against Amazon because Amazon own -- Amazon CEO owns the Washington Post.
We've seen his weaponize law enforcement. You know, he tried to appoint a second special counsel to go after Hillary Clinton. You know, we've just seen him use every authority at his disposal or at least attempt to, to exact revenge in ways that, you know, clearly suggest that this administration, this, the executive branch is not acting in the interest of the public. They are acting in the interest of Donald Trump. And we don't know in what way he might feel emboldened to take that further.
LEMON: Well, and speaking of Republicans being complicit, can we talk about Susan Collins? Because when I saw her response today to these firings I was -- I had to read it like five times to make sure that I was reading -- because of what she said why she said that she was going to acquit the president.
She said that she believed that Trump learned a lesson. Then earlier today she said that she is not in favor of any kind of retribution. But she's concerned.
RAMPELL: She is going to furrow her brow.
LEMON: Yes, what is --
D'ANTONIO: She is worried, she is going to clutch her pearls.
RAMPELL: Yes.
D'ANTONIO: This is a woman holds the seat that Margaret Chase Smith held. She famously stood up to Joe McCarthy. What does Susan Collins do? She enables the most unethical, the most dangerous president we've ever had. And then suddenly shocked, shocked I say, that he is taking the license that she gave him and now abusing all the people around him. This is so predictable.
BRUNI: You know, Don, Susan Collins politically was in a hopeless place. So, if you're in hopeless place do the right thing. If you can't do the right thing when can you do the right thing? She didn't do the right thing. LEMON: But do you think any of these Republican Senators are sitting
around going, Lord, what did we do? Or especially when you --
(CROSSTALK)
BRUNI: Yes. I actually --
LEMON: -- when you escort a Purple Heart recipient out. Do you think they are --
(CROSSTALK)
BRUNI: I think -- I think several of them are. And I guarantee you, a lot of these people 10 years from now, Martha McSally, to name one, are not going to like themselves 10 years from now. They're going to really feel awful about the way they behaved and why that didn't give them more pause in real-time will always confound me.
RAMPELL: I mean, it might be 10 years from now, it might be whenever John Bolton's book comes out.
LEMON: Yes.
BRUNI: But they didn't -- they didn't better because they were afraid of Trump. Why were afraid of Trump? Because he acts in the way he just acted tonight.
LEMON: Mark my word, if we're still sitting, if we're around here, you know, in the same positions and there's a Democratic president, and that Democratic president wants to get away with something or that they may think is an abuse of power then they are going -- then they'll feel the dangerous precedent that they set with this president. And they'll sit there, this president -- he shouldn't have -- the president shouldn't have that much power. Well, how can you say that because look what you did with the former president.
(CROSSTALK)
NAFTALI: Well, one of the things that Newt Gingrich taught that whole generation was that partisanships was a good thing, and it isn't. It's a poison. And a lot of them don't realize that it's a poison. But I'm not -- I'm afraid that not all of them 10 years from will feel bad. They will continue to blame Democrats for giving them a poor case. I'm - I've seen this for Nixonian --
(CROSSTALK)
BRUNI: You know what --
LEMON: How can you say giving them a poor case but they say they believed it.
NAFTALI: Let's say he did. I have seen it with Nixonians. I've seen it with the data is still there about Nixon's crimes against this country, and they still 40 years later come up with reasons why they didn't do the right thing then and they still can't believe that he was guilty.
BRUNI: And there is a noun for that. And it's delusion.
LEMON: Yes. Andrew, let's talk about the folks that are left. I talk to Kaitlan about this a little bit. There are -- there are three impeachment witnesses who remain at their posts. George Kent -- George Kent sat at the State Department. And there is Laura Cooper at the Defense Department. David Holmes at the embassy in Ukraine. Do you think they're next?
MCCABE: I mean, I think we have every reason to believe that they absolutely could be. I mean, once you have been identified as an enemy of this administration, they will stop at nothing to not just remove you from your job but to destroy you personally.
It starts with kicking you out of your job. Maybe it land -- it leans into an internal investigation and the next thing you know you're under a criminal investigation for years on end. I think all of these folks the Vindmans included should not be surprised if this retaliation continues.
LEMON: All right. Andrew, standby. Everyone else, standby. We're going to take a quick break. We'll continue this conversation right on the other side.
[22:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Thank you, everyone, for joining us for this condensed version of CNN Tonight. Our live coverage of the New Hampshire Democratic debates starts right now with Chris Cuomo.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right. Thank you very much. I'm Chris Cuomo.
Welcome to our special coverage. We heard the final answers from the members of the Democratic Party just days before the New Hampshire primary. There's a whole different calculus now. This is what happens as you start to get results, that's when the race really begins. I know that sounds simple. But think about all the hype that happened before Iowa. OK?
Now you have the Iowa results, basically. You got Pete Buttigieg now is basically in every political conversation that you're having. Elizabeth Warren you started to hear a lot less about her this week. Why? Because of the result. Joe Biden you're hearing less and a lot of is negative.
So, let's bring in the brain power for how we believe this debate tonight made a difference. Joe Biden, David Axelrod was coming out trying to continue this idea of being spunkier.
DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
CUOMO: More jolted Joe. How did it go? AXELROD: Uneven. I would say there were times when it worked, there
were times than it was a little, it got a little bit like the get off my lawn kind of thing where you just want to move back from the TV set. He got in a weird exchange with Tom Steyer of all people who didn't really warrant an angry rebuttal but got one anyway.
So, the oddest thing -- I thought he was much more energetic than past debates. But he started off and this was a tell by saying we took a hit in Iowa and we're going to take a hit here too.
[22:25:02]
Announcing -- usually you have your staff go out and spin expectations.
JESS MCINTOSH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right.
AXELROD: But and you don't do it from the stage of a debate. So, I think that gave you a little window into the mindset of the campaign. And they're looking to South Carolina. A lot of these debates sounded like it was a South Carolina debate --
GLORIA BORGER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Exactly.
AXELROD: -- around issues of racial justice and equity. But I think Biden clearly is indicating that he wants to get out of New Hampshire and past New Hampshire and trying to get on to South Carolina.
CUOMO: And Gloria, so if we think about why would Joe say that? They said he prepared he thought about the message. Is there an upside to Biden owning let me tell you what's going to happen now to kill the headline and let me try to explain it my way.
BORGER: I guess lowering expectations nationally. Which again, as David points out is usually what your staff does for you. But I think he just went out there and said he took a hit, probably going to take a hit again. That's why South Carolina is so important to me.
And I think a lot of this debate was about positioning for South Carolina. You saw Tom Steyer talking about African-American vote. You know what that's about. It's about South Carolina.
And also, I saw Biden used to be in the early debate everybody was punching at Biden. Now they don't have to punch at Joe Biden anymore. He didn't do well in Iowa. He's not going to do well in New Hampshire.
So, it was Biden taking on Bernie Sanders on Medicare for all. And you know, taking on Pete Buttigieg the mayor of a small city who has done some good things. So, Buttigieg and Sanders were his -- were the people he was taking on tonight.
CUOMO: How about Buttigieg and Sanders? What did you observe in that dynamic, how did it look?
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all this debate was way better. This was like the espresso debate. You know? They woke up there and they're trying to win something. I'm like, thank God. I think this week terrified every Democrat that we're going to get slaughtered. So, they came out, this was actually a good debate. It was good television.
Pete Buttigieg, tale of two cities. He was commander in chief, he was so impressive at the beginning of this thing. I mean, hitting Kennedy- like tones. He just -- I mean, this guy can be president. Then you get to the social justice and racial justice issues and he just starts sliding off the pavement again.
He has got to figure this thing out. He's got one more state when he can get these answers kind of wrong and botched on race. And then he is going to be in real trouble.
CUOMO: Why was it wrong and botched?
JONES: He just doesn't have the feel of the man. When he asks a tough question, why the heck are they putting more black people in jail the minute you walk in office. And he sounds like Scooby-Doo.
That is not going to work. You've got to be able to answer the question in way that. I did that because I was scared of black kids killing each other. I was doing the best that I could. Just come out with it, man. He cannot deal with those questions.
But the person who is not getting any attention but should. Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren tonight, I'm terrified that we don't have anybody that has the ceiling and the breath. She can grow, man. She was awesome on every issue. And she was reaching on race and gender in ways that actually work.
I think this party needs to give her a second look because Elizabeth Warren did the whole thing. She did it well. She made no mistakes. I think she's going to probably going to get the least attention but she deserves the most.
MCINTOSH: She did a uniquely female thing which was that she did more with considerably less. By the last counts that I saw of speaking time she was coming in at about 50 percent of what Biden who came in after her in Iowa got.
You know, this is the third-place candidate coming out of Iowa, and usually we can consider the third-place candidate out of Iowa very much still in the race.
CUOMO: You have Biden.
MCINTOSH: Especially in a race this fluid.
CUOMO: Right.
MCINTOSH: We're considering a man who has yet to receive any votes or be held accountable at any national stage as very much part of this race.
So, the idea that Elizabeth Warren would be erased especially after a night where she put in another a game performance --
JONES: Yes, she's great.
AXELROD: you know --
MCINTOSH: -- on gun violence prevention, on reproductive freedom, on race.
AXELROD: So --
MCINTOSH: I think it would be a mistake --
(CROSSTALK)
AXELROD: So, Tom Steyer got more time than she did.
BORGER: Right.
MCINTOSH: Yes.
AXELROD: And you know why Tom Steyer got more time than he did? Because he demanded it.
MCINTOSH: She had her hand up. And if she had jumped in, she would have been called out for being --
(CROSSTALK)
AXELROD: And I think here's the problem for -- here's the problem for her. We haven't mentioned Bernie Sanders yet. Bernie Sanders is an extraordinarily consistent performer. And you know, he speaks with great moral conviction. We've heard it all before. But the fact that we've heard it all before adds some authenticity.
MCINTOSH: Look, all of those guys were yelling so much. It was like they were trying to prove that there was a double standard between --
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: Klobuchar had the same problem.
MCINTOSH: -- how women are allowed to present themselves in debates in man hour.
JONES: Yes.
BRGER: Klobuchar --
MCINTOSH: And if had she jumped in like Steyer did, I think we would be talking about how she pushed it too far tonight.
JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think there's still too many people on the stage. If you look at how many people --
(CROSSTALK)
AXELROD: This stage or that stage?
LOCKHART: Maybe both. And I'll be making a decision about that.
Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang had a year to turn out voters in Iowa. They turned out hundreds of voters. Not thousands or tens of thousands. And that did squeeze.
[22:29:59]
Tom Steyer was so aggressive tonight and he has no chance of winning the nomination. And I think that hurt, particularly Elizabeth Warren who disappeared a little bit, but these debates are really about moment. They are not about who wins on points over two hours or two and half hours. And there really weren't a lot of, you know, standout moments.
I think Pete Buttigieg answer on commander in chief was a standup moment. But there was a little cognitive dissidence, he gave the strongest answer on that stage and he's 38 years old. So, I don't know how effective it is. I thought Biden gave a great answer when he talks about Vindman should get the medal instead of Rush Limbaugh. And that was very strong. And I think there was -- then there was a lot of -- there was a very weak moment I think from Sanders when he talk about gun control. When he said, you know, in 1988 I was for gun control but I lost the election.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No --
LOCKHART: In 1993 I was for the NRA and I won. And I think that really --
DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's not what he said, but that what it is sounded like.
LOCKHART: That's what it sounded like.
AXELROD: So what I was thinking about that was one person who was obviously watching the debate tonight was Mike Bloomberg. And one point of contention you can predict will happen if Bloomberg is in the mix come super-Tuesday as he expects to be, and Bernie Sanders is still where Bernie Sanders is, I think one issue that he's going to come right after Sanders on is this issue of guns which is you can see that's one place where Sanders doesn't have that surety that sense of --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The connection.
(CROSSTALK)
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: When Bernie Sanders will know though, I think, you know, tell me if you disagree. He knows what is vulnerability is on that. I agree with you guys. I don't think he -- what he said and what he meant to say I think got a little botched on the NRA and why he did what he did. But when Bernie who is no passive fighter turns to Bloomberg and says you're going to talk to me about what kind of criminal policies make a difference when you did stop and frisk and you're dancing around like it's a broad way show. You know, how does Bloomberg deal with that? Is there imparity of problems there?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think, Bloomberg probably loses on that one. I think there is imparity. I think Bloomberg has a tough argument to make from Bernie.
CUOMO: What do you think?
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think Bloomberg has a problem because of what he did. You know, stop and frisk (inaudible) people may not even remember, it was a horror show to be black, Latino in New York City for years. Because you were constantly being stopped and harassed by the police. Whether you are doing anything wrong or not. And Bloomberg defended it until 20 minutes ago. And then came out and gave a little nothing apology for it and wants to move on. He'll get hit on that.
One thing you saw tonight, Steyer, though he has no shot at the nomination by (inaudible), is doing very well with black voters in South Carolina. And you saw him trying to eat into Biden's base. You saw Warren trying to eat into Biden's black base on -- by talking about all these different issues. This is going to be a very interesting election. Because you have Trump trying to move in on the black vote. And you have Democrats trying to figure out, you know, how to not just assume you are going to get the black vote. You got to actually say some real stuff.
And you get a chance to see people make some real mistakes and also make some real breakthroughs. I think the most sure footed person on race on that stage was Elizabeth Warren. I have to say it. She brought issues of race into issues, you know, even talking about, you know, domestic workers. That kind of stuff. She made sure to talk about the fact the usually women of color are doing at work. So, she's not somebody who just brings it up when you ask the question. She moves with it, she owns it. Pete has got to get better on this. Because everything else he did was great. I mean, Pete was great. And he keeps blowing the same tire on the same spot.
AXELROD: You say it's a tale of two cities. The challenging thing for him is one of those cities is South Bend. And that's what keeps coming up. And he hasn't yet developed a good answer to that. I think in the Maine, he helped himself tonight. There's no doubt that that was a weak point for him. But you know, to get-- to be in South Carolina, and be competitive in South Carolina, you have to still have a viable candidacy. And so one of the questions is if you finish way back in the pack here, in New Hampshire. What kind of shape are you when you arrive in South Carolina?
JONES: Biden?
AXELROD: I'm talking about Biden and I'm talking about Elizabeth Warren. I think they both need to have a good day here. That was what mystified me about what Biden said. He has to do passively well here. And if they're just surrendering, I think that's -- you know, I don't think you can just park that and say, well, I'm the front runner, but ignore the first two fourth place finishes. I'm going to come on strong. CUOMO: But that's a narrative that's been built in for him is that,
he would under perform in the first couple states and then he really start to kick it in.
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: Not badly.
CUOMO: So, he's getting some benefit to that. To your point about Elizabeth Warren, she is being treated as though she's only as good as her finish. So, she finished third. Right. Everybody is in love with Buttigieg right now. We know that this is design curve of his campaigns. If he doesn't somehow match expectations in New Hampshire, he'll be ghost next week and maybe Warren is the one they are talking about all the time and she finishes second.
[22:35:05]
JESS MCINTOSH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS OUTREACH: I would hope that that happens. That if -- that the conversation moves to her if she brings in a strong finish.
CUOMO: First or second, you think it has to be?
MCINTOSH: No, I think it depends on how close the top three are frankly. Is there a top tier cluster or is there some distance between -- I mean at this point, you can't say who won Iowa. We don't know and might not know by the time we elect the nominee.
BORGER: But we know who didn't win Iowa.
MCINTOSH: We do. I thought, Biden's energy was really erratic tonight. Sometimes he was really -- he was exactly the guy I wanted. The Vindman moment followed by the hug of Bernie just sort of reminded you that Joe Biden is a natural state is liking everybody. And what a delightful alternative that is to what we have now.
JONES: We are all our children.
MCINTOSH: And then he went to our children and then he would turn to yelling at us again. And I didn't understand which Biden that he's trying to bring.
BORGER: Don't you think he was told to be energetic? Because he hasn't been energetic, and sometimes people tell you to be more energetic.
(CROSSTALK)
LOCKHART: He mistakes energy for angry. And I don't think that angry plays. But what I think the Biden -- I think Biden people backstage blanched when he said I think I'm going to lose here too. But I think they wanted to say was the second part of that sentence which is, he views this -- this is what his campaign is saying, the first four as a package.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a marathon.
LOCKHART: And remember this is a marathon and it's going to be, you know, a lot of the races get settled, you know, by the time of Nevada or South Carolina. This one won't be. Under any circumstance. Even if Bernie Sanders wins the first three, you know, tied for first. It's still not going to be settled, because we have so many moving parts. And I think, you know, we just don't know at this point. We are so (inaudible).
AXELROD: I agree with you. But you have been in politics.
LOCKHART: Yes.
AXELROD: And you understand that if you can't raise money, then you can't -- then it's not a marathon. Then it's out. And that's his problem. IS that he's not raising money. He has to cancel (inaudible) in some of the South Carolina and so just to fortify what he's doing here. For whatever reason. He hasn't been able to -- he doesn't raise money online like some of the other candidates do. He doesn't inspire that kind of loyalty. I think that it is a problematic deal for him if he comes in fourth again. Nobody ever fourths their way to the presidency.
LOCKHART: I totally agree. I just think fourth, whether we are talking about Biden or we are talking about Elizabeth Warren, whether we are talking about Amy Klobuchar, who I think consistently was the best.
AXELROD: We didn't talk about her.
(CROSSTALK)
LOCKHART: Because things are so volatile, and because they will change and because this is a longer race, I don't think you should count anybody out at this point.
And I would say Warren is the one who is at the top of the list of why are we counting her out? I agree with (inaudible), but I would say the same for Biden and I'd say the same for Klobuchar. You know, there's just -- there's not going to be clarity the night of South Carolina.
BORGER: No, and I was thinking about this as I was watching the debate. Because this was a week that clearly wasn't good for the Democratic Party. It was their no good terrible rotten week. And I was watching this debate thinking, why aren't they talking about how bad they think Donald Trump will be on entitlements? On cutting your entitlements. How bad they will be on preexisting conditions. To reduce drug prices. How they have been trying to reduce drug prices.
AXELROD: You mean like all the issues that Democrats went on in 2018?
BORGER: All the issues. Why?
AXELROD: She's been reading my notes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly right. BORGER: No, I mean -- I was watching this debate thinking of - really
it was awful this week. But tell the American public what you're about. They're so into fighting each other over Medicare for all.
CUOMO: Really it's only that. And I think this is something that I observed most consistently. And maybe you can explain. All of you can explain or none of you can which is why do you keep getting caught in a loop of a granular discussion about a policy that will only be two lines deep in the general election?
JONES: And Steyer was --
BORGER: You mean, Medicare for all.
CUOMO: Anything about healthcare is going to be two lines deep in the general election.
BORGER: When you have a bigger better plan. Right? I mean --
JONES: I thought Steyer was brilliant in that moment. After another 17 minutes of the same conversation we have every debate. He just said enough. This is not -- this is irrelevant. How do we beat Trump? And he did it twice. And he started trending on Twitter. This is the first time that Tom Steyer wasn't staring into the camera and the first time he trended. So, maybe he could stop staring into the camera and he'll trend more.
But I thought it was really important. I think a lot of people were where he was. This is about Donald Trump. This is about how to stop Donald Trump and how you beat Donald Trump and he was trying to make the argument that it's the economy, stupid. And I thought that was a really great moment for him. It was the first time that you saw him taking up all the space.
Now, to your point, you might think why is he up there? He is up there, because he still -- he thinks he got a shot. He thinks he can surprise people in South Carolina with his black support. And by the way, people don't know Tom Steyer. I have known Tom Steyer 15 years. His commitment on racial justice and social justice is rock solid.
[22:40:10]
I mean as soon as he made his money he turned to putting money to the caucus. He built a bank to help people. I mean, he's the real deal and it shows. And his numbers show that in South Carolina.
LOCKHART: But to that point. I think, to beat Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
-- as a party we got to be hard headed about this. I don't disagree with Tom Steyer's commitment to racial justice or to any issues. He's not going to be the nominee. And the sooner we narrow it down to three or four and we can really get in and then give someone the opportunity to stop talking about Medicare for all and start talking about preexisting conditions. You know, lowering prescription drugs. As David said, the reason we won in 2018 were those issues the better we'll be.
CUOMO: But what's the incentive for someone to drop out when they look at the field and don't think anybody is that strong?
LOCKHART: Well, I think a party we got to decide --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: You know what I'm saying? Let's say you go to Andrew Yang. And you're like, listen, you have some great ideas. Boy, you have lit people on fire online and you built a real coalition, the Yang gangs a real thing, but it's not going to be you. Why would he get out?
LOCKHART: We had an exercise in democracy in Iowa. And I think Steyer --
CUOMO: That's a loose definition.
(CROSSTALK)
I thing we want to sure on is (inaudible).
LOCKHART: Steyer spent a year in there and he got about 200 people to the caucuses. That tells you something that should matter.
AXELROD: I mean, you know, but he has less of an incentive to get out, because he's got renewable resources of his own. If you're one of these other candidates you have to have the resources and if you begin to look like a candidate who isn't going to make it, it is very hard to raise that money. And that is what everybody is going to be looking at after Tuesday. Like, who has the -- where with all to go on? It's not just a matter of hanging out. You have to be able actually run a campaign. And it's going to be become more serious come super-Tuesday when you got a guy who is spending a billion dollars right in his wallet.
CUOMO: We've got to get a break in. and when we come back, remind me of this, because we've all been doing this for 7,000 straight hours, but have we ever seen a before where the presumptive leader of the nomination process which is supposed to be Biden is like the most cash starved of anybody in the top echelon? This is a weird one that we're all living through. We will talk about that right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
CUOMO: All right, welcome to our special coverage tonight. I'm back with our A team. And I want to tee up a piece of sound that was a moment at the debate. Amy Klobuchar going at Mayor Pete Buttigieg about what he said about impeachment. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You said it was exhausting to watch. And that you want to turn the channel and watch cartoons. It is easy to go after Washington, because that's a popular thing to do. It is much harder as I see Senator (inaudible), in the front row such a leader. It is much harder to lead, and much harder to take those difficult positions. Because I think this going after every single thing that people do because it's popular to say and makes you look like a cool newcomer. I just -- I don't think that's what people want right now. We have a newcomer in the White House. And look where it got us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right. So let's assess.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ouch.
CUOMO: Everybody agree this was a good moment for Amy Klobuchar?
BORGER: Good moment and a good debate.
CUOMO: And then the question becomes, why? Axe?
AXELROD: Well, I mean, it goes to her core -- first of all there was a sobriety around this impeachment proceeding and she tried to reduce him and using the word cartoon sort of made her point. She's been on this for debate after debate trying to rebuff his kind of I'm not from Washington, I can do it better thing. And you know, the line she landed on the end was a very strong line. He came back -- I mean, the question is at the end of the day, who gets the better of the argument?
She got the better of the point. Who gets the better of the argument as to whether people are so disgusted with what they say that they want somebody who is not part of that (inaudible). And that's what he's betting on. We don't know the answer. But look, I think Amy Klobuchar was a consistently strong performer in this whole debate. She is funny, she's very colloquial, she has a very clear message which is I'm from the middle of the country and I can speak to the broadest swath of the country. And you know, she did -- she grew a little in Iowa. But she really does need to do well here. There are a lot of people crowding around that number two and three spot here.
CUOMO: You know, not to reduce it to something that cheapens politics. But if you do look at it, just for a second, through like a (inaudible), metaphor. I really think you can make the argument that Warren and Klobuchar and I'm not making a gender play. I think they are the best athletes on the team.
JONES: Agree.
CUOMO: I'm not saying they're playing the best plays.
MCINTOSH: The game is debate 100 percent.
CUOMO: Right, but in terms of like, oh, this person is fierce. But they're not off putting. And man, she's smart, but she's not telling me I'm stupid.
JONES: That's right.
CUOMO: And boy, she's thought this through two or three lines down. And they really know how to disagree without being indecent. I mean, I think, they maybe you guys best athletes. But I don't know about the team that they're on.
BORGER: Well, they don't attack. Attack, Attack.
CUOMO: Unless you mess with them. I know Elizabeth Warren, even in the town halls I try a little bit. She does something a lot of the guys don't do, Gloria. She turns, she looks at you right in the eye. Takes half a step towards you and then comes at you like -- you said it. Now you say.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The death stare.
CUOMO: Yes. She's real.
BORGER: Unlike Biden, she's not yelling at you.
CUOMO: Yes. I never felt being scolded.
BORGER: She's not yelling at you and I think both of these women have a way of disagreeing with you without yelling at you. And particularly tonight I think Amy Klobuchar had a way of making the points that she needed to make. And even when they were asked about Hillary Clinton and what he had said about Bernie Sanders and they all kind of demurred without mentioning Hillary Clinton's name.
[22:50:19]
Klobuchar took the opportunity to say, look, I have worked with Bernie Sanders. We worked together on a bill on (inaudible) right.
(CROSSTALK)
But she found way to do both. It's clever.
JONES: I think what's important to me about Klobuchar is, she's actually trying to make an important point, which is that getting stuff done, not over promising, really trying to figure out how you might actually govern and not let your base down. She had value. It's not all showmanship. It's not all, you know, flowery post. Now, she's got -- she's grown so much now, she can tell the story, she can stick the landing on her stuff. But she's actually trying to bring this party back to some kind of rationality. It's not just as she's folksy, she's trying to actually make this party be connected to something that feels more real than just a freak show.
AXELROD: Well, let me ask you a question which is, if you were Donald Trump and watching this debate, how would you feel about it? Because my guess is, he would feel fine about it. I don't know that he saw stuff on that stage, I think a lot of the debates that were going on, the Medicare for all being one of them, were ones that he would welcome the absence of discussion of him trying to kill the affordable care act, were something he would welcome. The competition, around -- and look, I feel deeply about these issues, but, you know, about reparations, and so on. He probably -- because that plays into his --
BORGER: Sure.
AXELROD: -- his argument. So you've got a group that is speaking to the Democratic base. But he's looking at it as fodder he can --
(CROSSTALK)
JONES: That point --
CUOMO: Go ahead. I want to hear your take on this. But isn't the answer to the question a lay-up, when he hear the question, who here has a problem and have a socialist Democrat at the top of the ticket, and like, nobody raise their hand right away. Wasn't that the best thing he could ever hear?
LOCKHART: I'll tell you. The first person who raised their hand was Amy Klobuchar. Let me make a different point about Amy Klobuchar, if you look at those people on the stage and you think, how would they match up against Donald Trump? I saw Amy Klobuchar as someone who could take him on and beat him. I saw the men as people who would probably lose a shouting match. So, I think to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren. But I saw the way Klobuchar, the way she's got a soft touch, and a sharp knife.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
MCINTOSH: Always be concerned about the focus in how people are going to stand up against Donald Trump, because I think it is very unlikely that he will ever agree to be on a debate stage with any one of these people going toe to toe.
JONES: Why do you say that?
MCINTOSH: Because he's a coward. Because he's not going to want --
JONES: Donald Trump ain't going to miss no show, man.
LOCKHART: He's also so eccentric that he won't miss a chance.
CUOMO: As long it is not under oath, he may show up.
(LAUGHTER)
MCINTOSH: He's already going around the presidential debate commissions to see if he can set up some other reality TV type debate so he can get people to come to that. And if the Democrat doesn't agree to it, we're not going to see it. I think that it's important though that we go after him with something that is different with the energy that he is bringing to the table. And that is why I agree with you about what the women are doing -- CUOMO: Well, let's do this. You guys are all mentioning Klobuchar in
a way I haven't heard after any other dates. Guess who's waiting to be interviewed by CNN about tonight and what it means going forward? Senator Amy Klobuchar will get that interview, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
CUOMO: Welcome back to our special coverage, we're talking about how the big debate went tonight right before the important vote in New Hampshire. Senator Amy Klobuchar has been getting a lot of attention from the A team here, she's with Erin Burnett and Dana Bash in New Hampshire right now.
(BEGIN LIVE VIDEO)
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And we were listening to you guys talking about Senator Klobuchar. You heard, I believe it was Joe Lockhart, say you were out there with a soft touch and a sharp knife.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, that was memorable.
BURNETT: How did you feel?
KLOBUCHAR: I thought it went well. I think one of you jots here and remember this is in New Hampshire. And so, I tried to focus on that as well as differentiating with some of my opponents up there. I wanted to make the case as The New York Times has pointed out, and three newspapers in New Hampshire, the big ones, Manchester Union's keen newspapers as well as the Sea coast newspaper that I can unite our party and lead. And so part of what I can do is bring people together and I think you saw that up on our stage. But it's also, as I guess the knife part is that I'm willing to take them on. When they said as anyone has a problem with the socialist leading the ticket? I was the only one that raised my hand and said yes.
BURNETT: Let me play that moment. In case so we would all remember. So, that was -- it was you know, does anyone have a problem or is anyone uncomfortable with a socialist being on top of the ticket and there was a kind of an awkward silence and then there was you, let me play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is anyone else on the stage concerned about having a Democratic socialist at the top of the Democratic ticket?
KLOBUCHAR: Bernie and I work together all the time, but I think we are not going to be able to out divide the divider in chief.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right. So that was that pause and then there was you.
KLOBUCHAR: Yes.
BURNETT: Why were you the only one who said I have a problem with that?
KLOBUCHAR: I don't know. I think sometimes people don't want to piss other people off on the debate stage. And I think I have a job and that is to make the case to our Democratic Party and to independents that vote with us and are increasingly voting with us that I have different views than Senator Sanders, even though we get along. I have different views.
