Return to Transcripts main page
CUOMO PRIME TIME
Sources: House Democrats Considering Wave Of Subpoenas; Trump Hedges On Cooperation If House Votes On Inquiry; Turkey Sends Forces Into Syria After Trump Pulls Troops. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 9, 2019 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: --other reporters even weighing in, back in the Epping (ph). He said it on the White House lawn.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Right.
KAYE: He doubled down on the White House lawn and still it was not accepted.
COOPER: All right, Randi, it's a thankless task. Thanks very much, appreciate it.
Before I hand it over to Chris, don't miss Full Circle, our digital news show. You can catch it streaming live, weekdays 5 P.M. Eastern at CNN.com/FullCircle, or you can watch there later, on-demand.
That's it for us. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
Looks like a subpoena storm is about to head down Pennsylvania Avenue. What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The White House is now officially stonewalling the impeachment inquiry. Several Democratic sources tell CNN that means it is likely time to stop asking and start demanding witnesses make their way to the Hill.
That could include associates of Rudy Giuliani, State Department officials, including the former Ukraine Ambassador who was forced out.
She's still on the State Department's payroll. That could get little tricky. There could be pressure to stay home, just as Ambassador Sondland was ordered not to testify, earlier this week.
Meanwhile, for the first time, former VP Joe Biden called for the President's impeachment, did that today.
Yet, we're seeing rumblings from a small but influential group of Democrats who think it would make sense for Speaker Pelosi to do what some Republicans want, and hold a formal vote on the impeachment inquiry, to help defuse GOP claims of unfairness.
And as for the President himself, he danced around how much his people would comply, even if he got the vote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they held a vote - a vote in the full House, and the vote were to--
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well yes, that sounds - yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --authorize, would you - would you cooperate?
TRUMP: Well we would if they give us our rights. It depends.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Yes. He also said he was going to testify no matter what and he couldn't wait for it, right?
So, is it the right thing to do or not? It certainly isn't required in the Constitution. And there are no House rules that say that. And the idea of precedent, I don't know that it's there.
But let's discuss with a freshman Democratic Congresswoman, Elissa Slotkin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, she serves in a swing district. She's got a really rich pedigree in the law and Intelligence. She worked at the Pentagon. Syria, and the risks there, we must also address as well. But let's start with this instant issue of whether or not to have a vote.
Do you see it as a distraction or should it get some traction?
REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): I mean I think - I think it's a delay tactic. But I don't think the House of Representatives would have a problem passing a vote.
I mean I think some of what happened in the past couple of weeks was a bunch of folks coming out who hadn't come out before, like myself, saying that they would support an impeachment inquiry because of that very basic idea of the President reaching out to a foreigner, and asking for information on an American citizen.
So, I don't think a vote is a hard thing to do. I think it's a delay tactic. But if they need to have it, I'm not - not against it.
CUOMO: But you know why they want it. A little bit is time.
It's also design, right, that as soon as you announce the vote, now I stand up as a Republican, and say, "Hey, what about my rights? Who can I subpoena? Can I call any witnesses here? Is it just a Democrat show? This is totally unfair."
And the President Counsel will chirp up, and say, "And what about us? Can't - can't we get involved the way Clinton was involved in '98?"
How do you handle that?
SLOTKIN: I mean I think it's important that the process is objective. I think it is important, and I have expressed this to other fellow Members in the House, in the past couple of weeks.
I think it is important that we actually look at the facts and that we answer to the public that wants to understand what is happening. It can't just be a Washington conversation.
This is a big deal to take the country through this. So, it's got to be we bring the public along. And so, for me, it is important that we do everything we can to demonstrate to people that it's about the facts, and objectivity, and not about some political, you know, grudge.
CUOMO: You guys don't have any rules on this in the House, except that it says impeachment - by my reading. You tell me if you got something else. But it says that impeachment will follow the ordinary course of Committee investigations.
Now, the catch here for Republicans is they're the ones who changed the rules, in 2015, to box out the minority, so now they're paying the price for their own change, as you - as you kind of go down that road of Committee investigation here.
How many of you do you think would want to change that to make it "More fair?"
SLOTKIN: I don't know. I mean, you know, we're all home in our districts. And so, everyone's scattered and back home, so we haven't, that I know, have had a conversation, as a Caucus, about it.
I do think though. I mean I've had a - three Town Halls in three days this past week. And I heard from people over and over, and I took the feedback that it's important that they feel like it's an objective process. So, I'm open to ways to make it more objective.
CUOMO: Let's play a little bit of what you've been hearing in the Town Halls.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SLOTKIN: The issue that got to me was this idea that the President, the most powerful man in the world, reached out to a foreigner, a foreign leader, and asked him to dig up dirt on an American on a political opponent.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not true. Fake news.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not true.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fake news.
SLOTKIN: This is--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He did not do that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't lie.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fake news.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You got a little taste of what it's like to be one of us these days, Congressman.
[21:05:00]
Look, just for the record, for people, the idea of one of your constituents said, "He never said "Favor," put up the transcript of the call.
This is from the White House, OK? They gave us this. "I'd like you to do a favor." You see the second clump of yellow? It's the first line. It's from the President. That is not a legitimate concern.
But people aren't reading the transcript. That's the problem you're dealing with, Congresswoman. This isn't about the facts. It's about feelings about fairness.
And, as you know, a lot of people believe you're all the same, what this President did is the industry-standard, and who has the right to judge him when you all do the same stuff?
SLOTKIN: Yes. You know, I think - listen, obviously there's people who see both sides of these issue and - issues, and feel very, very strongly one way or the other.
What was interesting is, in my Town Halls, they're not as sexy for the media to pick up, is a lot of people who, you know, were there legitimately. They probably didn't agree with me, but they wanted to understand how I had made this decision.
And they asked respectful and civil and decent questions. There's actually one woman who raised the specific issue, saying, "Hey, he didn't say "Do me a favor," and the - I said, "Ma'am, that's what is in the transcript." And she said, "OK. I stand corrected."
So, it may not get as much media attention, but there are a lot of people who are just seeing what the country is going through, trying to sort of understand why we're doing this, and why it's important, and that's the - those are the people that I'm interested in having a conversation with, even if we disagree.
CUOMO: Hamilton warned us this can't be just about numbers. Impeachment has to be so big, so--
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --so flagrant that it draws bipartisan support. Otherwise, maybe impeachment isn't the right route.
Now, let's talk about something else that is getting bipartisan upset right now in Congress--
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --and in the different agencies around this President.
He said, "I'm getting out of Syria. I promised I would. People want their boys and girls back home." Right after he announced it, Turkey said "We're moving in." We now expect a bloodbath.
You know this situation so well. You worked on de-confliction in the area. How big a deal--
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --was the message the President sent, and what happens now?
SLOTKIN: Yes. It's a very big deal. I mean as someone who was at the Pentagon, working on these issues, there are short-term issues, and there are long-term issues.
And the short-term issues are, what's going to happen with the fight against ISIS, you know, there's still thousands of ISIS fighters running around that area.
What's going to happen with all the ISIS fighters we have detained that are being held by these forces in Northern Syria, you know, are they going to be broken out of jail? Are they going to be running around?
What's going to happen to all the people who are leaving their homes and walking and running away from these towns and villages? That's the short-term impact.
The long-term impact, for me, frankly, is just as big a deal. And that's that the American Handshake has to mean something, right? We went in there, Four-Star Generals, Colonels, we went into Northern Syria.
We talked to these Syrian Democratic Forces, Kurds and Arabs, and said, "Hey, we have a common enemy. It's ISIS. And we want to work with you to root them out, particularly if they're capital of their Caliphate. And we're going to give you, you know, military support, and advice, and counsel, but we are going to need you on the frontlines." And we shook their hands, and they accepted, and they went, and they fought. And while Americans lost their lives in Syria, the number is less than 10. I believe it's six Americans, which is tragic. But compare that to them, they lost 10,000 people or upwards of 10,000 people.
So, to me, you know, the next time we go to fight somewhere, and we don't want American men and women on the frontlines, we want to work by, with, and through a partner force, what is that partner going to say, when they go, and we out - you know, reach out our hand, and say, "Come with us. Fight with us. Let's do this together."
If you're that partner force, you're thinking twice now, because you've seen what happened in Northern Syria.
CUOMO: What's the chance of a fix given that after the President did this, you know, he's making calls to McConnell saying, "Hey, all our boys and girls are in line, right? Everybody's got my back?" The Republicans have been angrier with him about this than anything I've ever seen him do.
SLOTKIN: Yes.
CUOMO: We can talk about whether or not it warrants it. But bad timing for him, do you think that increases the chance that this policy changes?
SLOTKIN: I mean he's already changed it once.
And I think it's important to remember, you know, General Mattis, our Secretary of Defense, at the time, resigned over this very specific issue, when the President, back in December, said, "I'm going to pull back, and let the Turks go into Northern Syria."
He then reversed his decision because of bipartisan pressure, right? We had Democrats and Republicans vocally coming back to the President, and saying, "No."
And I think the Republican voice had a huge impact on him. I was part of a group that wrote a bipartisan letter. And he reversed the decision. And here we are, you know, less than a year later, in the same moment.
I don't know what's changed. But the - the same impact is there. I think that Republicans see the impact that this will have on future conflicts just as Democrats do, and it's a national security issue.
[21:10:00]
CUOMO: It's hard to see why he did this other than the idea that people want people to come home. But no one had been talking about it. But they sure are now.
Congresswoman, thank you so much for your perspective on two very pressing matters to the American people. Be well.
SLOTKIN: Thanks. Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, so if the House does do this, vote on an impeachment inquiry, again, not in the Constitution, not in their own rules, and the idea of precedent, squishy, what would the White House want?
You know, what - what do they want out of this? What are the goalposts right now? What are the Republicans wanting? Why aren't we hearing more Republicans standing up for protecting this whistleblower? Isn't that what whistleblower protection is all about?
One of the President's most vocal supporters is here to make the case. What is the perspective of brother Schlapp? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00]
CUOMO: Republicans now insist that the rules that they wrote to force compliance with Congressional subpoenas are no longer fair. They want a vote. They want things to be more fair. They want changes, so does the President. Let's hear the case from Matt Schlapp. Good to have you, Sir.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION, GOP CONSULTANT & LOBBYIST, FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH CAMPAIGN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Great to be with you, Chris.
CUOMO: So, help me understand what is wanted now, and why it is the fair and right thing to do?
SCHLAPP: What is wanted now is that we would have a Congress that would focus on the policies they ran on, to get the majority in 2018. And that's what we should be focusing on. Instead, I think Congressman Green said it - said--
CUOMO: But in terms of impeachment.
SCHLAPP: Yes. I think Congressman Green said it the best, which is if they don't impeach him, Trump just might win again. And I think when it comes to impeachment--
CUOMO: Might win even if they do impeach him.
SCHLAPP: --that when it comes to impeachment, I think the question is let's get it started.
If that's what they want to do, you go down to the floor of the House of Representatives, just like Republicans did with Bill Clinton, with some Democrats voting for them by the - by - voting with them, by the way.
And they started - why is it that vote so important that the Republicans took against Bill Clinton on the floor of the House of Representatives? Because it sets up the process, because the Constitution tells us, this is a legal way that you - that you can take a President, and actually put them through a legal process about claims of that - they violated the law. And a--
CUOMO: It's not a legal process.
SCHLAPP: It is.
CUOMO: And the Constitution doesn't say that.
SCHLAPP: Yes, it does because--
CUOMO: It is not a legal process.
SCHLAPP: It is.
CUOMO: It is a political process.
SCHLAPP: It is--
CUOMO: It is not a legal process.
SCHLAPP: Let me - let me - let--
CUOMO: It is a political process.
SCHLAPP: Let me just say.
CUOMO: Go ahead.
SCHLAPP: I believe that there're - impeachment is imbued with politics. I agree with that.
But the reason it's in the Constitution is because there has to be a remedy for a President, who's the most powerful person in our government, when there is wrongdoing, and it's course for impeachment of all federal officeholders.
CUOMO: Yes, for anybody, not just Presidents.
SCHLAPP: And - but let me answer--
CUOMO: The President isn't even mentioned.
SCHLAPP: But let me try to answer the question, which is, the reason why you need the vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, it sets up the process, by which the person who's claimed to have broken the law, also has rights, and has the ability to call witnesses, to subpoena, to - to call, to - to subpoena documents.
So, just like Bill Clinton had the ability to have that process to cross-examine those who were making charges, a whole legal process is established with that vote.
What Nancy Pelosi is doing essentially--
CUOMO: All right, but hold on one second. Let's take it - let's take it a step at a time, Matt.
SCHLAPP: --not allowing to have that process.
CUOMO: Let's take it a step at a time.
SCHLAPP: Of course.
CUOMO: One, you're early, OK? Unlike with Nixon, and with Clinton, here, Congress has to do the investigating to figure out.
SCHLAPP: That's not right. No.
CUOMO: Absolutely. Hold on. What--
SCHLAPP: Why did Joe Biden say--
CUOMO: Hold on. With Nixon, you had a Grand Jury in place. With Clinton, you had the Starr investigation. When those were over, they both turned to the House.
That's when - to use something that's more recent for people, with Clinton, once Starr was done, that's when they had their vote, and then Starr came in, and that's the only person Kendall & Co. was able to deal with. They didn't--
SCHLAPP: Right.
CUOMO: --call their own witnesses. That was for the Senate, not the House.
SCHLAPP: Let me - let me try. Let me try to explain why this is different.
CUOMO: OK.
SCHLAPP: The reason this is different is you just showed a clip, and Anderson Cooper just showed a clip, of Joe Biden saying the President should be impeached. Nancy Pelosi--
CUOMO: I didn't show it. It was Anderson, right.
SCHLAPP: --Nancy Pelosi has said over and over again, "The President needs to be impeached."
These Democrats aren't saying, "Oh, we need to start a process by which we consider whether the President should be impeached." Nancy Pelosi said that for a year and a half. She's now saying "He should be impeached." They're all saying "He should be impeached."
Nobody - nobody in the Democratic Caucus is saying, "Look, my mind is open. I don't know whether he should be impeached. But let's start a process to investigate him." They're not doing that.
CUOMO: You have a - you have a handful of holdouts.
SCHLAPP: They don't want that. They've made up their minds.
CUOMO: And you have a lot of people who say that they're open, and they want investigation. And frankly--
SCHLAPP: Not - not in the leadership.
CUOMO: --what's - what's holding up the investigation is your side.
SCHLAPP: That's not true.
CUOMO: They won't comply.
SCHLAPP: No, no, no. This is--
CUOMO: Well it's absolutely true, Matt.
SCHLAPP: No, no.
CUOMO: They won't comply.
SCHLAPP: There's never been a President who's been investigated absolutely every minute of his Presidency like Donald Trump. And on--
CUOMO: Doesn't mean that he's complying. He's not complying.
SCHLAPP: He's completely complying.
CUOMO: What are you talking about? They just--
SCHLAPP: He's completely complying.
CUOMO: --they just recalled the Ambassador. They won't give people up. They had Corey Lewandowski playing--
SCHLAPP: Would you--
CUOMO: --claim that he had Executive Privilege.
SCHLAPP: Did you--
CUOMO: They're not complying.
SCHLAPP: The - let's take them step by step. CUOMO: Yes.
SCHLAPP: The Ambassador was not allowed to testify because there's been no vote on the floor of - of the House of Representatives. That Ambassador--
CUOMO: But that's not a legitimate basis.
SCHLAPP: Let me finish. That Ambassador had no ability to bring a counsel with him. That Ambassador - Ambassador had no idea what the rules of the road would be for this investigation.
Look, the Democrats won the majority. They have the right to play the politics. As you said, impeachment is politics, OK? Let's go there. They have the right to do this. But if they do it in a way--
CUOMO: Who gave them the right?
SCHLAPP: The American people.
CUOMO: Who gave them the right to do it this way?
SCHLAPP: The American people.
CUOMO: No. Who gave them the right to do it this way?
SCHLAPP: The American people gave them majority.
CUOMO: No. No.
SCHLAPP: Yes, they did.
CUOMO: The Republicans gave them the right to do it this way when you changed the rules--
SCHLAPP: That's not right.
CUOMO: --in 2015.
SCHLAPP: That's not right.
CUOMO: It's absolutely right.
SCHLAPP: No, it's not right.
CUOMO: You got sick of Obama--
SCHLAPP: No.
CUOMO: --delaying your requests.
SCHLAPP: No.
CUOMO: And your subpoenas.
SCHLAPP: No. No. I'm sorry. CUOMO: So, you changed the rules.
SCHLAPP: I'm sorry.
CUOMO: This is a matter of fact.
SCHLAPP: I'm sorry. Those rules can be changed by a majority of the House.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHLAPP: And so, Nancy Pelosi can setup the ground rules--
CUOMO: Wait, hold on, Matt. Are you saying they--
SCHLAPP: --by which--
CUOMO: --can be changed? Yes, are you saying they were not changed--
SCHLAPP: Yes.
CUOMO: --by the Republicans?
SCHLAPP: I'm taking your word for the fact that the Republicans after they had to--
CUOMO: They were changed in 2015.
[21:20:00]
SCHLAPP: --after they had to hold Obama's Attorney General, Mr. Holder, in contempt of Congress because he failed--
CUOMO: And so, it's the same situation.
SCHLAPP: --to turn over documents.
CUOMO: So now you have a--
SCHLAPP: Look--
CUOMO: --White House that won't comply.
SCHLAPP: Let's get--
CUOMO: But you want the Democrats to change the rules--
SCHLAPP: Chris, I love to battle with you.
CUOMO: --to make it easier.
SCHLAPP: But let's get to the bigger picture. The Democrats just are in a position that the Republicans were in with Bill Clinton.
The American people perceived that the Republicans were being too aggressive and too partisan. And so, what ended up happening in the next election, in 1998, is the Republicans lost a lot of seats. If the Democrats look like they're being too partisan--
CUOMO: That goes both ways.
SCHLAPP: --and there's not a fair process.
CUOMO: But then they wound up winning the election.
SCHLAPP: And the second--
CUOMO: They wound - they wound up winning the--
SCHLAPP: --and the second piece.
CUOMO: --Presidential election. Some say that was payback for Clinton.
SCHLAPP: The - and the second piece is that both Nixon who was not impeached, but would have been, and Clinton who was impeached, they had just won their second terms. There was not another time for them to be on the ballot.
We are literally right in the heart with a year away of a Presidential campaign. And these Democrats want to beat Donald Trump, just beat him. You're a year away. Why would you put the country through this? The answer is it's the only way they can beat him.
And you have Congressmen who are honest enough to say that over and over and over again.
CUOMO: Who?
SCHLAPP: It's the scandal--
CUOMO: What Democrats say we have to do this--
SCHLAPP: Congressman Green.
CUOMO: --otherwise we'll lose to him?
SCHLAPP: Congressman Green, I - I'd - I'd love to show you the clip. I'll send it to you right--
CUOMO: You got one--
SCHLAPP: --when we're done with this.
CUOMO: You got one Member of Congress. You have Nancy Pelosi, you say she's been wanting to impeach, she was slowing them down.
SCHLAPP: She--
CUOMO: She was slowing them down. Nadler and she had all these--
SCHLAPP: She - she--
CUOMO: --conflicts about whether or not to do this. SCHLAPP: She - look, she seemed reasonable for a period of time. And now, I think she seems hell-bent on impeaching the President, no matter what has turned up.
If you say they have to go through these invitations, in these committees, and they're waiting for something to turn - to turn up, why are they all saying he should be impeached?
Every leader, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, all these Presidential candidates are like "We must impeach the man."
CUOMO: But they don't have to - look, I hate to use your own argument on you. But the Constitution doesn't say it.
SCHLAPP: Give it a shot.
CUOMO: And there is no law or procedure that says they have to do what you want. And--
SCHLAPP: No. No. No. No.
CUOMO: --so they don't have to do it just like the President's saying--
SCHLAPP: That's right. And--
CUOMO: --"I don't have to turn over my taxes."
SCHLAPP: Chris? Chris?
CUOMO: And he's saying, "I don't have to comply with Congressional investigations," which may get him impeached, by the way.
SCHLAPP: I'll let you ask your question and I'll - and I'll give my answer. The Democrats were given the majority by the American people.
CUOMO: Yes.
SCHLAPP: They can handle themselves in office any way they want. My only point is, is that if it looks like they're being too partisan, and they're not allowing Ambassadors to be deposed with lawyers, and such, that - to me, that's almost un-American.
CUOMO: Well having counsel is--
SCHLAPP: And the - if I could finish now.
CUOMO: Having counsel is a good issue.
SCHLAPP: If - if I--
CUOMO: No, let's take it one by one.
SCHLAPP: OK.
CUOMO: Having counsel is a good issue. The idea of due process during an investigation, no defendant gets to have a hand in their own investigation, you know. And you do have--
SCHLAPP: No. No. No, that's not--
CUOMO: --Republicans present--
SCHLAPP: --what we're asking.
CUOMO: --in all these Committees.
SCHLAPP: We're not asking for the defendant to be able to set up what the process is. But the defendant needs to know what the process is. I'll give you an example.
Nancy - the normal place where impeachment would go would be the Judiciary Committee. For some reason, Nancy Pelosi has issues with Jerry Nadler. I do not know what they are. They're both - they've been in the House for a long time.
In her latest iteration of where who would look at this process of impeachment, it was the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was the Judiciary Committee--
CUOMO: Yes. She didn't want to take--
SCHLAPP: --and the Intelligence Committee.
CUOMO: She didn't want to because they think it's going to be more expeditious if you let the Committees--
SCHLAPP: I think, look--
CUOMO: --who have been looking to continue to look.
SCHLAPP: I - I understand. They're trying to - this is impeachment in pursuit of a crime. I do agree with that. But the question is this.
CUOMO: But they're investigating.
SCHLAPP: Why not allow - why - if - if you - why not just pick one Committee, it could be a Special Committee, it could be a Select Committee, pick one Committee, right, with a dedicated staff.
That staff will have plenty of lawyers. Those lawyers will work out these subpoenas and what (ph) information flows back and forth with the White House. That is the way it worked with Bill Clinton. Nobody likes it.
CUOMO: It was nothing like this with Bill Clinton.
SCHLAPP: They'll run up against each other.
CUOMO: You had an Independent Counsel.
SCHLAPP: Nothing like it. You're completely right. Nothing was--
CUOMO: You had an Independent Counsel. SCHLAPP: So did we.
CUOMO: You had an investigation going on.
SCHLAPP: For 2.5 years, we had a--
CUOMO: Not on this.
SCHLAPP: Yes - that's untrue.
CUOMO: Not on this.
SCHLAPP: That's untrue. I can tell you--
CUOMO: What do you mean, "Untrue?"
SCHLAPP: That is un--
CUOMO: Mueller didn't look at this.
SCHLAPP: That is untrue.
OK. So, Chris, if you say that this has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, and the Russia hoax, what is the crime they're specifically going to write an article of impeachment on? You tell me what the crime is.
CUOMO: Listen, here's what I'll tell you.
SCHLAPP: What's the crime? Tell me.
CUOMO: There is no need--
SCHLAPP: There's no crime.
CUOMO: --for a crime. There's no need for a crime.
SCHLAPP: There's no crime.
CUOMO: You know who tries crimes? Prosecutors and courts.
SCHLAPP: Not for Presidents.
CUOMO: You know what impeachment is?
SCHLAPP: Not for Presidents.
CUOMO: There is no carve-out.
SCHLAPP: Read the Constitution.
CUOMO: No, it's not in the Constitution.
SCHLAPP: It is. It is. The President--
CUOMO: It's in one legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that says--
SCHLAPP: Which is a very important opinion.
CUOMO: --a sitting President can't be indicted.
SCHLAPP: That's a very important--
CUOMO: But it's not in the Constitution, Matt.
SCHLAPP: Do you know who wrote that opinion?
CUOMO: Don't confuse the two.
SCHLAPP: Do you know who wrote that opinion? A Democrat Obama- appointed Judge--
CUOMO: I know. But it's never been tested.
SCHLAPP: --on the D.C. Circuit.
CUOMO: Impeachment is for political--
SCHLAPP: It has been tested.
CUOMO: --crimes of abuses--
SCHLAPP: Look, either way--
CUOMO: --of power.
SCHLAPP: Either way if you want--
CUOMO: Why didn't they list murder? Why didn't they list kidnapping--
SCHLAPP: I'll - I'll answer your question.
CUOMO: --along with treason and bribery?
SCHLAPP: I'm going to answer your questions.
The reason why our Founders, in their wisdom, thought this was the right way to handle this was because when you are elected, and Donald Trump was elected just a couple of years ago, and he's going to be on the ballot--
CUOMO: Yes, I remember.
SCHLAPP: --again in a year. So, the American people are going to get to have their say.
CUOMO: True.
[21:25:00]
SCHLAPP: If you don't like Trump, you get to write checks to his opponents, you get to vote against him. CUOMO: If it's about not liking him, it's for an election.
SCHLAPP: You get to do all these things. But if you--
CUOMO: It's for an election.
SCHLAPP: But the problem they have is that even if you're right that the President could be tried in court, there is no crime. Name the crime.
CUOMO: If there were a crime, it would be--
SCHLAPP: I try "If."
CUOMO: --prosecuted in the criminal justice system.
SCHLAPP: "If." There is no crime.
CUOMO: Impeachment is for removal of people in office in a position of trust--
SCHLAPP: For crimes.
CUOMO: --for abuse of their power.
SCHLAPP: For crimes.
CUOMO: Read Federalist Papers 65--
SCHLAPP: I have. I have.
CUOMO: --from Hamilton. He says in caps--
SCHLAPP: It's rusty. But I've read it.
CUOMO: --"Political crimes."
SCHLAPP: My--
CUOMO: "Political crimes," he says.
SCHLAPP: My copy is dusty. My point is this. What you're trying to do is say to give cover for the fact that the Democrats can be as political as they want because our Founders thought that was fine. That is not true.
CUOMO: No. They thought the opposite.
SCHLAPP: What they're--
CUOMO: The Founders said--
SCHLAPP: What - what - what--
CUOMO: --if this is just about raw numbers, then it's a mistake.
SCHLAPP: What - what the--
CUOMO: And if it's just about the majority forcing it through, it's a mistake. Impeachment is not the path for political disagreement.
SCHLAPP: Which is why it was smart for the Republicans--
CUOMO: All right.
SCHLAPP: --when they voted on the impeachment on the floor of the House of Representatives, which Nancy Pelosi's refusing to do, to have Democrats along with them for the vote.
Nancy Pelosi said all along, "We will not do this without Republicans in the House." She doesn't have those Republicans in the House.
CUOMO: They haven't done it yet. They're still investigating. But Matt Schlapp--
SCHLAPP: They are not investigating.
CUOMO: --I appreciate you making the case.
SCHLAPP: There's no investigating going on.
CUOMO: They - they're definitely investigating. That's what they're calling it.
SCHLAPP: And there is no crime.
CUOMO: We'll see what they have.
SCHLAPP: I want you to tell me. Tweet me later, what is the crime? There is no crime.
CUOMO: I don't have.
SCHLAPP: You name it.
CUOMO: I'll - I'll call you on the phone. I don't believe you need a crime. But they have to reach a very high bar, otherwise--
SCHLAPP: I like this.
CUOMO: --this is not worth it.
SCHLAPP: You're admitting they don't have a crime and they can impeach him anyway.
CUOMO: No, I'm saying--
SCHLAPP: That's honest.
CUOMO: I - I would argue that all day long. I think that's what impeachment is about. I think that courts in - in the criminal justice system are for crimes. I think this is for abuses of public trust. They may be crimes. They may not. Matt Schlapp, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
SCHLAPP: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: Be well.
SCHLAPP: Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, the President - I'm going to argue more about this in the Closing. I anticipated this would come up.
The President said today, no one respects the FBI more than he does.
I don't think Andrew McCabe is going to buy that. What does he see in these latest developments? And investigatively, what's the through line for the Democrats to keep in mind, and for all of us? Next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, all this talk about having a vote, and resisting, could come with a price. The President and his team could see more subpoenas coming. But it's important to remember, they're different than criminal subpoenas.
Person who knows the difference is Andrew McCabe of FBI fame.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Good to have you with us. What's the difference?
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well the difference is it's highly unlikely that anyone who refuses to comply with a Congressional subpoena is going to be locked up and hauled off to jail. That's basically the difference between the two.
CUOMO: And that's why it's a better gamble for this President.
However, could wind up being the basis for an article of impeachment against him. But that's not his play. His play is to delay this, and blow it up into something else, and that takes us to the big question.
They like this. And it's a good political tactic. But I think that, with time, it will weather. "You don't have a big enough crime, Andrew. You don't have a big enough crime to - to advance impeachment. And that's the standard, high crime."
Your take?
MCCABE: I'm not so sure that's true, Chris. I think that we have a very, very serious allegation in front of the President.
It hasn't changed over the course of this - the scandal so far, right? It is that the President used his powers of - of foreign diplomacy for his own benefit by soliciting campaign dirt on his - dirt on his campaign rival.
With every witness that they end up talking to, every piece of evidence, whether it's the memo from the phone call, or it's the transcripts of the diplomats that were involved in it, everything that they've seen so far supports that central allegation.
Now we have a second whistleblower, now we have reason to believe there are people inside the White House who are just as concerned by the call.
The further they go into this investigation, they may not uncover any new core allegations, but they will further support, and shed light on, that thing that we've been pursuing from the beginning, and that makes it a much stronger case.
CUOMO: Here's the difference between this world and the world you were in though. This ain't legal. This is political. I don't know why Matt Schlapp kept saying it's legal. It's not legal. It's an entirely political process with some legal trappings.
MCCABE: Right.
CUOMO: But even if you get it over to the Senate because the House is only responsible for basically an indictment, the trick here, Andrew, is if you don't have a big crime to hang it on, you're not going to get buy-in from people.
Even though this new Fox poll came out, saying that he's over 50 percent, in terms of people thinking that the inquiry - inquiry is justified, but if they don't have a big crime, you're not going to get bipartisan buy-in, you're not going to get removal. And then, it asks the question that the Founders asked. "Is
impeachment the right path if you're not going to get bipartisan buy- in?"
MCCABE: All good questions, Chris.
And you are absolutely right that the Democrats have a huge burden to carry right now, in terms of convincing the American people that they are on to something righteous, and real, and proven, and also convincing their colleagues in the Senate. I think the odds of them convincing the Senate to remove the President, even if they pass articles of impeachment, are incredibly long, under any circumstances.
But it seems that the Congress is taking the principled stance that is they think that this President has placed our Constitution under assault. He has challenged their oversight. He's challenged the subpoenas. He's challenged their ability to move forward and hold him accountable.
And they are going to do their job, and go forward with its inquiry, and return those articles of impeachment, if in fact they think they're there. At that point, they've met their responsibilities, under the Constitution, and good for them.
[21:35:00]
CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, thank you very much for giving us a little clarity in a very foggy process.
MCCABE: Sure. Pleasure to be here.
CUOMO: Look, you know, that's the way you see it, right, at home? Not Andrew. He's smart as hell. He gets it all.
But, for the rest of us, impeachment might wind up helping the President. Why? Because this is about politics, and the perception is often the reality. Is it fair? Is it not? Is it big enough deal or is it not?
Independent Senator Angus King is wrestling with exactly this. He would be a juror in any trial in the Senate. How does he see the stakes here? And how does he see the stakes in Syria? Why did the President do this now?
He'll explain his take, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: In case you're wondering what President Trump's defense is, for pulling troops out of Syria, and ignoring bipartisan outcry about abandoning our allies, here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: They didn't help us in the Second World War. They didn't help us with Normandy, as an example. They mentioned names of different battles. They were there. But they're there to help us with their land.
With all of that being said, we like the Kurds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: What!
Let's get to Independent Senator from Maine, Angus King.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Maybe that makes some more sense to you. I don't know what he's - was talking about there, our President. I mean, how big--
SEN. ANGUS KING (ME): Sorry, I can't help you, Chris.
[21:40:00]
CUOMO: You - that's the first time. We've known each other a long time, Senator.
The stakes in Syria, he has never had Republicans come at him the way he is right now, over this. Are you hearing about any potential change in posture? He went back and forth on this before with Mattis.
KING: I haven't heard of anything. You know, Lindsey Graham, and a lot of the Republicans have been very strong this week, and I think correctly so. Lindsey said he had 95 votes. I'm one of those votes. But I haven't heard any indications.
The President's kind of waffled over the last couple of days and indicated if Turkey does something bad, he'll respond. But this is one of the worst decisions that I've seen one of our leaders make, I - I can't remember when.
It was procedurally sloppy, morally reprehensible, and strategically dumb. I mean there's nothing good about this decision. This is a gift to Putin, to Iran, to Turkey, to Assad.
CUOMO: Well--
KING: And to ISIS.
CUOMO: Well let's talk about that because why he did it is hanging out there as a big question mark. Why do this right now?
We hear that there is an idea in the air that Iran made a deal with Putin, and - I'm sorry, Turkey made a deal with Putin, and that now President was - Trump was on the phone with Erdogan, and maybe there was a deal there as well, and that's why this is happening.
Do you know anything about any of that?
KING: Not - nothing whatsoever. And, you know, this is the second Presidential phone conversation that is of intense interest. We don't know what was said.
What we do know is that's virtually the only input that the President had to this decision. I haven't heard of anybody in the Administration, the State Department, the Defense Department that knew this was coming.
People from the Defense and State Department were talking about the policy of maintaining this kind of buffer zone and American Presidents - presence in - in Northern Syria, on Saturday.
The phone call came on Sunday. And now we're in the mess that we're in, leading, hopefully not, but quite easily to a massacre. And, if that happens, the blood is on our hands.
And, you know, who, Chris, is going to answer the call the next time we - we need help in the world? This isn't America First. It's America Alone.
And the Kurds died for us. They lost a 11,000 people in the fight against ISIS. They were the point of the spear of this coalition. And to turn our backs on them, and leave them to the tender mercies of the Turks, is just - it's just unbelievable.
But it's going to have ramifications. As I said, it's morally reprehensible, because we turned our backs on people that put their lives on the line for - for this country in the fight against ISIS.
CUOMO: You say 95 votes in the Senate. What if you have--
KING: Secondly though, long--
CUOMO: Senator, what if you have a 100 votes in the Senate? What can you guys do?
KING: Well we could impose - one thing that Lindsey is talking about is imposing severe sanctions on Turkey, if they indeed overplay their hand. Now, you know, they came in today with artillery and--
CUOMO: Yes.
KING: --and air power. That's not exactly something that's going to discriminate between fighters and - and civilians. So, that's not very encouraging. I mean that's one possibility.
Whether that would slow Erdogan down, I really don't know. I kind of doubt it. He's been itching to go after the Kurds in Northern Syria for years. And what bothers me, I said at the beginning, sloppy process.
As I say, the President, as near as I can tell, the only person he consulted with on this was Erdogan, you know, and that's not a good way to make American policy. We're going to have to live with the ramifications of this decision for years.
CUOMO: Of course, then if you pass some sanctions, the question is what if the President refused to have them put into effect? What if he were able to play a role there?
And how all of this will cascade into what you're looking at with Ukraine, because if you think about it, the Republicans are much more angry at him now when he needs them most? He's supposedly been making calls to Senator McConnell to say, "Hey, do we have all our ducks in a line there?"
Do you think that the disgust and the outrage at the decision with Syria may redound to being against his interest in the Ukraine impeachment matter?
KING: I think it possibly could. I - I - I don't know. I think Republic - I mean, I can't read the minds of my colleagues. But I think they'll try to distinguish between the two. But I think this may wake up--
CUOMO: Both are about abuses of power.
KING: --some people that - that's right. And I - and I think some people may say, "You know, this is a dangerous situation."
Chris, you know, the - the airwaves have been full of this discussion. You had your - Mr. Schlapp talking about politics and everything.
But this is a really grave situation. I've been a conservative on impeachment. For two years I've been saying, "Let's do the election. Let's not go through this thing that will divide the country."
[21:45:00]
But on the Ukrainian thing where you have a President of the United States using the awesome power of that office, and in effect, our country, to enlist a foreign country in his re-election campaign, I got to the point where I said, "I just can't blink at that."
I can't in - to - to honor my own oath to the Constitution, I can't just say, "That doesn't justify at least being investigated."
And there's a lot of confusion. The word "Impeachment," the impeachment in the House is, you mentioned it earlier, it's like an indictment by a Grand Jury. It's not the final determination. It's not the due process.
The trial is in the Senate. That's where you have combating witnesses or depositions. They used depositions in the - in the Clinton case. But the idea now is for the House to gather the information.
And the President basically is taking, as far as I'm concerned, a novel legal position. On the one hand, they're saying "A President can't be indicted and tried." And now, they're saying, "But he also can't be impeached because we don't like the process."
CUOMO: Right.
KING: Well if you go to the Constitution, it's basically two sentences. It says the House has the sole power of impeachment. Period! Doesn't say anything about witnesses or how it's supposed to work.
And then, later on, in Article I, it says the Senate shall try impeachments. The Chief Justice, if the President's the one being impeached, the Chief Justice is the - is the - is the Chief Judge of the impeachment trial in the Senate.
And, by the way, impeachment is for any federal official who is - who misuses their - abuses their power--
CUOMO: Yes.
KING: --abuses their office. And the Framers were obsessed with the idea, the concern of foreign interference in our affairs.
The Federalist Papers are full of it. Madison's notes of the Constitution, the Constitution itself, no - you can't have a title, the emoluments clause, all about trying to be sure foreign interests weren't engaged in our - in our campaign.
And here we have the President, on the record he produced, asking the President of the Ukraine to do his bidding, on an investigation of what, at the time anyway, he thought was his principal opponent.
CUOMO: A damning--
KING: I don't know how you can't just--
CUOMO: --situation on its face.
KING: You got to say - you got to have that - somebody's got to investigate that. Some--
CUOMO: And that's what's happening right now.
KING: We've got to get to the bottom of it.
CUOMO: We'll see where it goes, Senator.
KING: That's what's happening right now.
CUOMO: And when it comes to your lap that will be a true moment in history.
The Senator has an op-ed about it right now with a reminder from Abraham Lincoln that these are the times that will light our way to the next generation. What we do now is how we will be remembered.
Senator, thank you very much for being on the show. It's great to have you. KING: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: All right.
KING: I'm glad to chat with you.
CUOMO: All right, the Senator just gave us a great idea for what the Closing Argument is about, all right? This is so confusing. I know it is. There are arguments coming at you from all these different directions.
Let's make an argument that clarifies the things that matter here and a factual basis for the same. What do you say? Let's get after it, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CLOSING ARGUMENT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: We now know this President's argument for bucking almost every request from Congress, and here it is in the letter.
"The current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater." Unconstitutional?
This is what the Constitution says, Article I, Section 2, all right? "The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." That's it. Congress can do it in the House, and they do it the way they want.
And then there is this. "Your contrived process is unprecedented in the history of the Nation, and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding."
Well we just told you the Constitution is the source, and there is no requirement in the House rules, and there really is no past precedent. Why?
The other cases were very different. Specifically, there were investigations ongoing. There was a Grand Jury in Nixon. There was the Starr investigation in Clinton, so that all went on before the House took over, and had their vote.
Here, the House is doing the investigating. So, during an investigation, what defendant gets rights to be part of that investigation?
"What about confronting your accuser?" Sure, that's in the Constitution. But it would come at trial. And that comes in the Senate, not before.
As for the Republicans, and what they want, their real enemy is them. The only relevant mention of how to impeach in House Rules says that the ordinary rules of Committee investigation apply.
The reason the minority in Congress doesn't have subpoena power, as they would like, is because the Republicans changed the rules when they were in power in 2015. Schlapp didn't know or he didn't want to respond to it. But it's the truth.
Also this, "Where is the big crime that you need for impeachment?" It's a great political argument, but similarly unfounded in the Constitution.
Article II, Section 4, "The President, Vice President, all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason - Treason, Bribery, other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
What does that mean? Hamilton told us in Federalist Papers 65 this is about political crimes of those in positions of trust.
Look, the point of impeachment is to punish political offenses that abuse power to such a degree that removal is unavoidable.
And that is the smart part of the President's attack. It makes it look like the Democrats aren't being fair. And that should be a concern to Democrats, even if the President's bases are flawed.
Hamilton warned that impeachment must be based on abuses so flagrant that it inspires bipartisan appeal. It's a high bar. And Democrats should think about how they proceed because the Senate trial is not the only place where fairness matters.
This idea that you don't have to do something so you won't do it, that's the same disposition of recalcitrance that Democrats oppose in this President, when it comes to transparency, on his taxes, and compliance with their investigations.
[21:55:00]
So, for them, they should have a guide of being better than what they oppose. And lucky for them, the bar has been made decidedly low. That's the argument.
Now, the U.N. is facing its worst cash crisis in nearly a decade. Did you know that, the United Nations? Guess who owes a lot of money? It's biggest member. Guess who that is?
BOLO. Be On the Look-Out for a fresh round of hypocrisy, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: BOLO time, Be On the Look-Out. President Trump loves to take digs at other countries for not paying their fair share. And now, the United Nations is in big financial trouble.
And guess who owes the most? Us, more than a billion dollars, and our debt goes back years. Things are so bad the U.N. nearly ran out of money to open the General Assembly Debate last month.
So, Be On the Look-Out to see if this President leads by example, and pays up. Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT with D. Lemon starts right now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST, CNN TONIGHT WITH DON LEMON: What do you expect him to pay for - from that? What are you talking about?
