Return to Transcripts main page
CUOMO PRIME TIME
Republicans Furious Over Trump Abandoning Allies In Syria; Judge: Trump's Tax Defense Strategy Is "Repugnant"; Jay Sekulow's Views About Trump's Tax Returns. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 7, 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]
BETO O'ROURKE (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I want to make sure that we - we come through with flying colors. So, I'm grateful for that.
But I also know, from listening to people around the country, that we can still work on guaranteed high-quality universal care for all. We can address gun violence, and follow the lead of Moms Demand, and March for Our Lives, and have real gun laws in this country.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes.
O'ROURKE: And confront climate change before it is too late. We are capable of this as Americans while still ensuring that we hold the President accountable.
COOPER: Beto O'Rourke, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you and I want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson. I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.
The President referred to his own great and unmatched wisdom in connection with his decision to let Turkey have its way with the Kurds. And yet, his own party is coming at him like never before.
This is not a time for him to lose his friends in the face of potential impeachment. We have news on that front.
And the President's personal lawyer is here on what the case is for this President on impeachment and that big case over the disclosure of his taxes.
This is a big week. What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Boy, you know, the irony cannot be lost. Republicans have done everything they can to close their eyes to obvious problems with this President. And yet, not this time! When it comes to this new foreign policy controversy, about taking
U.S. troops out of the region around Syria, you got Senator Graham, Senator McConnell, coming at him, big words, hot words, on wanting to withdraw troops from that area.
Their concern is obvious, two-fold. One, wrong message to our allies. Who's going to fight beside us if they know we won't stay beside them? And if Turkey goes after the Kurds, and starts a slaughter, is that blood on American hands?
Let's bring in a perfect guest to talk about both big issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: We have Congresswoman Elaine Luria, is a Democrat in a swing district. She's also in the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committee, and served 20 years in the Navy, retiring as a Commander.
As we say to all veterans, thank you for your service, Congresswoman, and welcome to PRIME TIME.
REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): Well thanks, Chris, thanks for having me.
CUOMO: Help us understand the weaving of politics and policy on the Syria troop withdrawal. The President says, "I campaigned on this. Americans are tired of this. We want our boys and girls back home. And I'm doing that."
LURIA: Well Chris, I really wish I could understand. And I think my colleagues, and my colleagues on both side of the aisle are - are very stupefied. I mean where did this come from?
You've seen Senator McConnell, Liz Cheney, who's also serves with me on the Armed Services Committee, as well as Speaker Pelosi, Eliot Engel on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I mean, everyone is just incredibly concerned.
I mean there is no indication that this was coming that we would pull troops out of Syria, and just leave our - our allies of the Kurds, who've been our biggest allies in fighting against ISIS, in the lurch with no solution.
So, you know, really, it's just yet another unpredictable episode that - that really we didn't see coming. And, you know, the American people are not sure how to react to this unpredictability from the President.
CUOMO: Well on the "We didn't see it coming," I hear you on that. We've heard the same - similar has been reported by different outlets.
But CNN is told by a couple of people at the Pentagon that the people in command around the President were not taken by surprise. There have been multiple calls about this. But help the American people understand, what is the problem here?
Everybody wants the troops to come home, not in endless wars around the globe. Why not have this group of people come home from this region?
LURIA: Well I think it lies in the fact that, you know, we need to stand by our allies. And we can't do things in an unpredictable way, pull out with no notice, and leave our allies of the Kurdish forces, who fought alongside us.
They've lost tens of thousands of people in a - a battle against ISIS. And, you know, we want to say that ISIS is wiped out. But truly, they're still a threat. And we pull out, and we leave a situation where Turkey could potentially invade.
I think that, you know, having U.S. forces there maintained a certain level of stability. And the reporting that I've seen, like you have, I'm sure says that, you know, even the Secretary of Defense was unaware that this was coming, and he himself was on the phone with the Minister of Defence from Turkey, very recently, and had agreed on situations where there would be safe zones.
And we would understand, you know, the - the relationship that we had along the - the border with Turkey, to keep Turkey and Syria essentially separated, and not at odds. And - and now, we're going to pull out with - with no clear plan.
CUOMO: Well we'll see what happens here. Just because the President says something, doesn't mean that's actually what happens. And he certainly got more pushback than he's used to. We'll see what that means in terms of process.
[21:05:00]
Let me ask you a couple other process-related questions. You - you can't miss the contrast that you have Republicans saying how wrong, and they're in high dudgeon, and they're angry, and they're using angry words about wrong decision-making, and this was bad what the President just did with Syria.
How can they not feel the same way about an obvious abuse of his power in asking the President of Ukraine to investigate a political opponent? Where is their high dudgeon there, in your opinion?
LURIA: Well, you know, I'm trying to figure that out myself.
Thinking about my background, and having served 20 years in the Navy, you know, I didn't serve 20 years in the uniform to watch our Constitution be trampled on. And - and this is just, you know, inexcusable.
It seems like a very clear abuse of the President's power, use of his power and his position for his own personal gain to malign a future potential political opponent, you know, by requesting a favor from a foreign country. And, you know, it just - it's really hard for me to understand how this has become a partisan issue because it seems like a very clear issue to our U.S. national security.
CUOMO: You know, in terms of moving forward and galvanizing any kind of consensus on this, do you think the Democrats made a mistake in going down - look, I know that so many were arguing that this should have been an impeachment process long ago.
But now the criticism is from those on the Right that "You went down there too fast. You didn't even see the transcript yet. You didn't even have the whistleblower complaint yet. And it makes it look political and only political. You didn't even have a vote."
I know it's not in the procedures that you have to have a vote. But the optics that this had been deliberate, do you think that this was done the wrong way on any level?
LURIA: I do not. So, I would have to say that, you know, I never went to Washington to impeach the President. This is the last place that I would like to see us, and I'd like the country to be.
And I joined with six other of my colleagues. This was a clear and distinct instance where the President, you know, used his power inappropriately to ask for a foreign leader to, you know, conduct an investigation, to find dirt on a political opponent, and could have altered the outcome of our next Presidential election.
And I don't feel like I jumped on this at all. I've been somebody who has never been overtly critical of the President. I truly respect the Office of the President, as someone who served for 20 years in the military. I really just wish that he respected the office the same way that I do and my colleagues do.
CUOMO: Are you behind the Democratic efforts to get the President's taxes? That's part of a big decision today in federal court.
A District Court Judge said that the President is not immune to all criminal process and this request from the Ways and Means Committee should go forward. It was then stayed that decision pending appeal.
Are you behind those efforts to get the taxes?
LURIA: You know, Chris, I'm behind all efforts that lead to transparency, and for the American public to understand what the President's associations are, his business dealings, and the more of these intertwined things that we're finding with Ukraine, potentially Turkey, calling on China, his, you know, relationship with Russia, you know, it all becomes more and more concerning.
So, every amount of transparency that we can find and provide to the American public is very important to me.
CUOMO: You have any sense of what kind of timeline you guys are looking at when it comes to impeachment? Do you see this as months or not even before the election there being enough to have a vote? LURIA: I think that we're trying to do this in a very methodical way and a very expeditious way. So, I would like to see something happen, and us move forward with some action before the end of the year.
CUOMO: Hmm! Congresswoman, thank you very much. Before the end of the year, that would be ambitious.
All right, there's another vet on the other side of the aisle, but on the same page tonight, as his Democratic colleague, when it comes to Syria. He's also not afraid to stand up to President Trump - Trump.
Will Congress do anything to stop the pull-out? Republican Adam Kinzinger is here next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:10:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The President is getting bipartisan backlash tonight because of his decision to withdraw troops from Syria's border with Turkey.
Why? Well they say the job isn't done. But, more importantly, if you abandon our Kurdish allies, there may well be a bloodletting by the Turks.
Even Mitch McConnell and Senator Lindsey Graham are condemning the move, and using hot language about this being wrong, and a wrong exercise of Presidential power, even calling it irresponsible, unnerving to its core.
Republican Congressman, Adam Kinzinger, served in Iraq, now serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. He joins us now with his take on PRIME TIME.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Congressman, thank you very much. The President pushing back with a lot of determination to critics within his own party and without - about his new policy about Turkey and Syria.
He has two lines of defense. The first one is "This is what I promised. I'm getting Americans out. This is what Americans want." What's your take?
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): Well, first off, you know, President has to lead.
And that's where a lot of the times when people look at public opinion polls, it's America's knee-jerk reaction to want to get out of any war, I understand that, because they have to have leaders that explain why we're doing it. We're actually generally a pretty peaceful country.
And so, when the President says, you know, look, I'm getting out because of all these reasons, and he talks about endless war, and he talks about that kind of stuff, and the reality is - is terrorism is real.
And the decision to end a war is not really ours to make when you have a whole group of folks that say, "You know, look, we're going to go, and we're going to create a terrorist attack, whether it's in Iraq or in the United States," that's not our choice.
They haven't changed their mind on it. And so, yes, it may have been a campaign promise. But when you become President, I think it has to be more than a campaign promise.
[21:15:00]
And secondarily too, what we're talking about is the exact kind of fight that those that were against, for instance, the Iraq War, and everything else, were - were talking about, you know, a small group of American soldiers that can empower local indigenous forces to fight that fight.
That's exactly what our troops are doing there. And now to say this is an - now this is an endless war, I just have to vehemently disagree.
CUOMO: The President says "Turkey's our friend. This is his land. Turkey's got concerns. They say these people have terroristic intentions against them. I don't want to get in the way."
KINZINGER: Yes, look, I mean, look, there - there's no doubt there have been real tensions between Turkey and some of the Kurds, some of that Turkey is legitimately upset about. But that is painting the Kurds with a broad brush.
Now, this is the group that we determined, back under the last President that, we were going to empower, to push back, and be what we weren't willing to do. We weren't going to put a lot of ground troops on the ground to occupy territory, so we asked the Kurds to do it. They did it willingly. They took a lot of casualties and a lot of death.
And then, now to abandon them because Turkey's still upset, it's going to send another message again. I mean too many times America, in the past, has left our allies behind because we just didn't want to be there anymore.
What's going to happen in the next war that inevitably will come in our future history when we have to ask locals to fight with us? Are they going to trust us? I don't know. CUOMO: The Pentagon says they were surprised. People and military leadership around this President say they were surprised. The President says "I consulted with everybody like I always do." Do you believe the President on this?
KINZINGER: It's kind of hard to see. I don't think he would have consulted with everybody. He may have asked Rand Paul and - and maybe a few others, and maybe did talk to some in the military, but they were surprised.
And I think the thing to keep in mind, you know, the military wouldn't want to have a 100,000 troops in Syria, right? In fact, we hear that there are many in the military that wanted to pull back on the strikes in Iran.
But they understand the importance of having a few hundred troops that can get intelligence from the ground that you can't get from the sky.
CUOMO: Right.
KINZINGER: That can empower local forces, which you can't do from the sky. And so, yes, it's important.
CUOMO: So segue, here's what I don't get. We all know the President has the power to do this. You guys are taking issue because you don't like the choice. In fact, you think the choice is wrong.
And Republicans are hot. They're using hot language about this President, in fact, the kind of language I've never heard them use before. Is this some kind of projection from all the emotion that's not being used on the Ukraine matter?
If this is so wrong, and worth getting hot about, how can you look at a President asking a President of another sovereign, Ukraine, to investigate his opponent, and not say it's wrong, and not get hot about that?
KINZINGER: You're asking the wrong Republic that question because I think, you know, what he asked of the Ukrainian President, and what I read in transcript certainly leads to a lot of questions that need answered. So that's that.
CUOMO: Was it wrong?
KINZINGER: There may be some - what's that?
CUOMO: Was it wrong what he did?
KINZINGER: Yes, I think so. I mean I think - look, it's - it's - if there's a lot that the Democrats are going to find out in this inquest they're doing, but if you found out that he held that - if he held the aid, contingent upon that, that's one thing.
I think it's just wrong for a President to talk to a foreign leader about anything regarding our domestic politics. Period! Now, the question, which we all get into is, does that rise to the
level of impeachment? And unfortunately, I think we're doing a disservice by saying either have two options, either you want to impeach the President, or you're defending him in everything he can do.
I think there's something in the middle there, which is "This can be wrong." I don't think it rises to the level of impeachment. The Democrats are going to find out everything they will though.
CUOMO: You can argue all day about whether or not it's worthy of removal of office. But that's not where your party is. With a few exceptions, and you're one of them, Congressman, they won't even say that it's wrong what he did.
They'll say, "Oh, yes, but what about Joe Biden? Oh, yes, but what about Obama with Medvedev? And what about when Santa Claus didn't come on time?"
They have something to say instead of acknowledging. You know it's wrong. It has to be wrong. How wrong? How abusive? What does it mean? That's a separate question. But we can never get to the second one, if we can't agree on the first. Fair point?
KINZINGER: Yes. I think it's a fair point. But it's also fair to say, to my colleagues on the other side that are pushing this, that are saying if you're not for - I mean, look, I've read all the comments. I don't really look at Twitter actually though anymore. But you see people--
CUOMO: Good for you.
KINZINGER: --that say, "Well if you - if you're going to attack - if you're going to attack the President, you're never doing enough if you're not going to impeach him." Well that's the problem then. Then everybody basically has to go to their corner.
So, I think if we're going to have a real discovery of - my view on it is this. There's going to be a day when President - President Trump is no longer President, maybe in a year, and maybe in five years.
And then, as Republicans, there will be another Democratic President at some point in the future. We have to be able to - when we call out any bad behavior, we have to be able to say that we did it equally.
Now, you can have your partisan leanings, of course. And I do too. But I think when it comes down to things like calling out bad behavior, we have to do it. And we have to be fair--
CUOMO: True.
KINZINGER: --all the way around them.
CUOMO: Congressman Kinzinger, thank you for coming on to speak truth to the American people.
KINZINGER: You bet.
CUOMO: Appreciate it, as always.
KINZINGER: You bet.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[21:20:00]
CUOMO: All right, so this is very interesting on two levels because, yes, how we treat our allies, what we do in that region of the world, vis-a-vis terrorism, is very important.
But you can't get away from the surprise of seeing Republicans so outspoken, so disrespectful, even arguably, about the President about that issue, but nothing on Ukraine.
Why aren't there more cracks in the GOP's Ukraine firewall? It's certainly every bit as worthy of attack as the Syria decision.
A former Republican House Intel Chair is going to help us understand the policy in that region, and in this other foreign region, known as Washington D.C., next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Why are Republicans willing to come out against the President on Syria, but not on Ukraine?
And, in fact, they continue to twist themselves up in knots when it comes to owning an obvious wrong there, just to say it, it's not their responsibility. Maybe we're missing something!
Let's bring in someone who misses very little, former Congressman, Mike Rogers knows the stakes, knows the inside game, understands what matters in Syria, and in our nation's capital.
Good to see you, my brother.
MIKE ROGERS, FORMER HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: Great to see you, my friend. CUOMO: So, help the American people understand. "We want our boys and girls home. We don't want to waste money and blood in these foreign places. You said we've beat ISIS. Why can't they come home?"
ROGERS: Yes. And - and, listen, I think there's nobody other than the military and the - and the national security establishment would love to come home. Here's the problem.
ISIS is a very real problem, and it still is today. We can wish it away. We can want it to go away. It's still there. And it has the chance to metastasize again, across different borders.
So, the reason we have a small contingency there is to help and coordinate with the troops who have done most of the fighting, and candidly, most of the dying, in defeating ISIS.
Remember all of that land that they held, Chris, and then that was pushed back. And, by the way, President should get a lot of credit for that. He's the one that kind of said to, you know, "Put your - put your foot on the gas, go get them."
And the way we went to get them is we allowed our Special Forces community, and others, to leverage up the capability of these Kurdish fighters.
We trained them. We gave them Intel packages about where to target. We provided certain logistics package. We gave them medical treatment, all the things they needed to do to be successful on the battlefield.
CUOMO: Right.
ROGERS: And we said, "We're going to be with you."
And, by the way, they've got some powerful enemies. They had the Turks that didn't like it. They have the Russians, the Iranians, the - the Syrians, Assad, all don't like them, and would like a pound of flesh.
And what we just did is we turned right around, and walked away from them, and said, "You know, hey thanks for helping us push back ISIS. I hope this works out for you."
CUOMO: Which is what we've been accused of by others in the region who are once friends or not. All right, I hear you on that.
ROGERS: Yes.
CUOMO: Now help me translate it into another problem that we're dealing with right now.
They are going after the President, on Syria, saying, "You made the wrong call here. It's unnerving. It's all these bad things." They say none of that about Ukraine when the case is much more demonstrable there that he did something that's wrong than in Syria.
You might not like what he did in Syria. But certainly, he's got the power. Certainly, it's fine for him to make that kind of call. Whereas in Ukraine, they know what he did is wrong, Mike. I'm not saying it's impeachable. That's - that's a political discussion.
ROGERS: Right.
CUOMO: It has to go on, on a basis of understandings we don't yet have, from the Democrats.
But who can look at that call, and the surrounding circumstances of the texts, and Mr. Volker's testimony, as understood at this point, and not think it was wrong to do what he did?
ROGERS: Yes, right. And - and - so bear with me. There are Republicans who have come out, and said, "Hey, this is inappropriate. It's wrong."
CUOMO: Few.
ROGERS: Elected Republicans. I certainly have done it. But if you look at Porter, if you look at - if you look at Romney, excuse me, having a - having a - having a senior moment--
CUOMO: Portman, Romney.
ROGERS: Portman, sorry.
Portman, Romney, Kinzinger, there have been others who have come out as well. They just don't - haven't been as public. So, what you're seeing is - what you're - you're just not seeing this mass rush to the microphone to condemn him. And, in a way, I get it.
Remember, a lot of these folks are saying, "OK. No, I don't like it. Yes, it is inappropriate. I do want to see the facts."
And the - on contrary to that, remember what the American people are seeing back home, Chris. They're seeing this rush of Democrats to the microphone saying, "Impeach him, put him in solitary confinement. I want a very fair and quick trial, so we can have a very quick hanging."
All of this is happening there. "He's guilty! He's guilty! It's impeachment! Let's get him!" All of that confuses people. And I think Members are saying, "OK, listen, I do think it's inappropriate. Let me find out what the facts are here."
Is it impeachable? I think that's a big question. I don't think the Democrats have proved that yet, including the folks who are doing the investigation. I mean they released the whistleblower report. To me, that was a highly partisan act, and - and I think dangerous to the whistleblower.
This, you know, the same Committee came out, you know, months ago, and said, "I have seen and - you know, information that - that proves collusion."
Well it just it confuses people, it looks partisan. And the longer this looks partisan, the more you're going to have people kind of reserve back saying, "I'm just going to find out what's going on before I say something I'm going to regret in six months." CUOMO: It will never be non-partisan. Anytime you got politicians involved, this is like saying that human beings can get anything completely right.
ROGERS: Are you saying there's politics in Washington D.C., Chris?
[21:30:00]
CUOMO: I'm saying that human - it is human to err. And you're going to have agenda find its way into something that's already an inherently political process.
But here's our dinner bet. You will never have the Democrats make a compelling case to Republican ears that this was an abuse of power that rises to the level of impeachment.
ROGERS: I'm an eternal optimist. If they find crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors, I think you will see Members move that way. If you don't, it's going to be a political manure show, as my mother would say.
CUOMO: Your mother would never say that. Mike, thank you very much, I appreciate it, as always.
ROGERS: Thanks.
CUOMO: All right, so like everything else, through the looking-glass, the President lost in District Court today. Is that a loss? "No," says his attorney, "It's a win," because they got a stay of the decision, pending appeal. By the way, that happens a lot.
But one of his main counselors says "No." I got it wrong. And what we're trying to do on taxes, we want to see them, "That's wrong." And what's happening with impeachment, "That's wrong." So, the case from Counsel, 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: All right, so we had a decision from a Federal District Court today. This was between the Department of Justice, on behalf of the President, going after the Manhattan District Attorney, saying, "You can't have his taxes either."
[21:35:00] Now, the Federal District Court Judge agreed that the District Attorney can have the taxes. He rejected the arguments on behalf of the President. But that decision was stayed, pending appeal.
"Big win," says the President's attorney, Jay Sekulow, and he says impeachment will be a big win as well. Counsel joins us tonight.
Thank you, as always, Sir.
JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYER: Thanks, Chris. Thanks for having me.
CUOMO: All right, help me understand this. How is the--
SEKULOW: OK.
CUOMO: --District Court saying, "I reject all of your arguments, turn over the taxes," a win?
SEKULOW: Well it's a win because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit immediately, within literally, Chris, within about 10 minutes, of us filing the application for stay, granted it, and noted, and I'm reading from the opinion, "The unique issues raised by this appeal," because it's the constitutional issues--
CUOMO: Right.
SEKULOW: --that we raised here. This is not - I - I want to say something here. I want you to think about this. Could you - there are 5,000 D.A.s and Assistant District attorneys throughout the United States.
Could you imagine, if the President of the United States was subject to individual investigations by D.A.'s, for whatever reason they so choose, you--
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: The Founders were concerned about that. They say they didn't want local magistrates impacting the President's role as under Article II, not only Commander-in-Chief but Chief Executive of the United States, and the--
CUOMO: Right.
SEKULOW: --unique constitutional role the President plays--
CUOMO: Right.
SEKULOW: --in our constitutional structure.
CUOMO: Look, I mean, look--
SEKULOW: Yes.
CUOMO: --we know that all of this grows out of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion. You know the District Judge today rejected the idea that the President of the United States could be immune from all criminal legal process, pending his term, or her term.
Now, just to be clear, Jay, for the audience at home, getting a stay--
SEKULOW: Yes.
CUOMO: --is not a statement by the Appellate Court that you're going to win.
Yes, this is novel, and arguably unique issues, because it is the President. It hasn't been tested before. And we're seeing something different. But that's why you got this stay. You didn't get the stay because you - it's a win.
SEKULOW: Well hold it. You know, there's - there's - there's multiple reasons why you get stays, including is there a likelihood of success on the merits, is there irreparable harm, is the decision raising, or the opinions, or issues that are raised, in the petition for a stay, significant? So, for the court to issue a stay--
CUOMO: Yes. They gave you unique issues.
SEKULOW: Hey, look, the District Court Judge wasn't going to give us another 10 minutes. But the Court of Appeal - which I think is also a little bit absurd, frankly, to argue that these are not significant constitutional, frankly, is ridiculous. So, what did the Court of Appeals do?
CUOMO: Wait. Why is it so--
SEKULOW: They issued a stay.
CUOMO: Why is it so ridiculous, Jay? Let's go slow because remember you've got this high--
SEKULOW: Well let me ask you - OK.
CUOMO: --you've got this highly-developed legal mind.
SEKULOW: Yes.
CUOMO: For the audience, they're not mostly lawyers. They - the question is this.
Show us the taxes. The Manhattan D.A. says, "Show me the taxes. I'm looking at a state potential charge for how these women were paid by your lawyer Michael Cohen, and possible state crimes as a result of that. I want the taxes"
Congress wants the taxes for different reasons. But this is about turning over your taxes, not just throwing you in jail.
SEKULOW: Let me well quote what the U.S. District Court Judge did in California. When the State of California passed a - a piece of legislation, became a law, that said to be on the primary ballot, you had to provide five years' worth of your tax returns--
CUOMO: Right.
SEKULOW: --if you're running for President. What did the Court there say? "It's not constitutional." Why? Violated freedom of association and the Presidential qualification clause of the United States Constitution.
CUOMO: Well the Judge - hold on a second.
SEKULOW: Now, what would you have, you - you--
CUOMO: Hold on, hold on, Jay, Jay. The Court its--
SEKULOW: Yes. Yes.
CUOMO: --major part of the holding was we don't like the slippery slope of states being able to create their own tailored qualifications for national office. That's what it was.
SEKULOW: Because it violates the Constitution.
CUOMO: And, by the way, that may be--
SEKULOW: No. Because it violates the Constitution.
CUOMO: --appealed also.
SEKULOW: No. Actually, Chris, to be specific, the Court said that the actual law itself was unconstitutional.
CUOMO: Right. They did say that.
SEKULOW: Unconstitutional because--
CUOMO: Right.
SEKULOW: --it violated the Constitution.
CUOMO: But they can appeal that too.
SEKULOW: Well good. We're going to - I mean I think--
CUOMO: But I'm saying--
SEKULOW: --we'll leave that in the Ninth Circuit.
CUOMO: Yes, but what I'm saying is--
SEKULOW: But let me go with the tax returns for a moment.
CUOMO: Hold on, hold on, hold on. Just so--
SEKULOW: OK, sure.
CUOMO: Just for people at home, Jay, you getting to-- SEKULOW: Yes. Yes, yes, yes.
CUOMO: --appeal this decision is not a big win because when they appeal out there, does that mean they won? No. But the bigger issue for people at home, Jay, is--
SEKULOW: Well hold it. Hold it.
CUOMO: --why not just turn over the taxes?
SEKULOW: This wasn't just an appeal.
CUOMO: Why not just--
SEKULOW: Hey, Chris. This wasn't--
CUOMO: --turn over the taxes?
SEKULOW: Well we're not required to. When the people elected the President to become the President, he had not issued his tax return. It's not required in the Constitution.
CUOMO: So, what?
SEKULOW: You think we should have an - why don't we say we - because the Constitution doesn't require it, Chris. But let me talk to you about--
CUOMO: But that doesn't mean the Constitution says you shouldn't.
SEKULOW: --you pointed a very important point.
CUOMO: Go ahead. Make whatever point you want.
SEKULOW: No, wait, now, Chris, the Constitution is negative inference. The Constitution is a set of positive rights--
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: --that exists and set out the structure--
CUOMO: And responsibilities and duties.
SEKULOW: --of our government. You don't get to do that.
[21:40:00]
OK. So, let's talk about this. You - you mentioned that the D.A. is asking for the same thing that the Congress is asking for. You're a 100 percent correct. You and I agree. We're friends, we'll agree. We're friends, we don't - disagree. But on this one, we'll agree.
Yes, the Congress is asking for exactly what the D.A. is asking for. In fact, their subpoena was word-for-word, with commas, one or two additional words added, exactly what the House of Representatives asked for. That was their subpoena. They didn't even bother to draft their own one.
CUOMO: So what?
SEKULOW: So, what is this? This is Congress - this is like Cy Vance is like the extension of the United States Congress. They couldn't get the returns because guess what, we got those stayed too.
CUOMO: Listen, if they had made the pay-offs--
SEKULOW: And I want to go back on the stay here.
CUOMO: --to the women the way they would, they wouldn't have Cy Vance crawling up their backside. And remember--
SEKULOW: Hey, hey--
CUOMO: --this isn't some frivolous--
SEKULOW: --hey, look, look--
CUOMO: --attempt to put the President in jail. They're just asking for his taxes. He keeps saying he has nothing to hide. Then show the taxes, and all this goes away. And I think--
SEKULOW: Well, Chris, hold it. I got to--
CUOMO: --I'm probably paying for all of it.
SEKULOW: --I got to ask you a question. I got to - I got to ask you a question here. The - you're acting as if the, you know, I was on another program on another network earlier today.
CUOMO: Called Fox? Sean Hannity?
SEKULOW: And they said the same things.
CUOMO: I heard you, Brother.
SEKULOW: No. It was called Ari Melber. It's MSNBC.
CUOMO: Oh, that one earlier? Yes, I saw that.
SEKULOW: To be specific. OK, Yes.
CUOMO: I saw that one too.
SEKULOW: So, we - yes, so we had a conversation, not quite as - as interesting as this, I'll say.
But we had a conversation where we talked about some of the issues that you're raising. And one of the things he said was "Why don't you just put - why doesn't everybody just waive their privileges? Why - who cares about Executive Privilege? Just have everybody testify," as if that does not impact--
CUOMO: No, I don't agree with that. SEKULOW: --the way our Constitution.
CUOMO: Yes, I don't agree with that.
SEKULOW: OK. Why don't you--
CUOMO: But this is different.
SEKULOW: OK. So, why do you - you'd say you don't agree with it. Why do you not agree with that? Why do you think that, in that case, you should not just waive your constitutional privileges?
CUOMO: I think the--
SEKULOW: Or Executive Privilege?
CUOMO: --Executive Privilege - first of all, it exists. You have no privilege to not show your taxes. And the privilege exists for--
SEKULOW: You don't have any requirement that you do show your taxes though.
CUOMO: Yes, but so what? Just be--
SEKULOW: Where's the requirement--
CUOMO: There are a lot of things--
SEKULOW: Show me the law that says you--
CUOMO: --that you do because it's right, not just because you're forced to, especially in politics.
SEKULOW: Well hold it. Hey, hey, Chris. I'm the lawyer.
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: What is my job? My job is to look at the Constitution, see what's at play, see what the issues are, you take the facts, you apply it to the law. Is there a positive requirement requiring tax returns to be produced if you're running for President?
CUOMO: Does it say anywhere in the--
SEKULOW: No.
CUOMO: --Constitution that the President can't be prosecuted?
SEKULOW: The entire structure of the Constitution presupposes that.
CUOMO: It didn't--
SEKULOW: That's why we have separate branches of government.
CUOMO: Look, one of them was--
SEKULOW: That's why we have what's called a--
CUOMO: --fundamental understandings is no one's above the law.
SEKULOW: What about the Supremacy Clause?
CUOMO: And then you guys walk into--
SEKULOW: Well--
CUOMO: --Federal Court, and say, "Except him?"
SEKULOW: Hold it. No one - no one's above the law. But no one is below the law. And you're not required to show your tax returns for your job. The President wasn't required to show his tax returns for his.
And what are they looking for in New York? They want to say "No one else could get the tax returns. We did." So, the background--
CUOMO: No. They have a case there that happened in their state that arguably violated the law. He was related to it. He lied about being related to it.
SEKULOW: Can - can - can I - can I ask you?
CUOMO: Now they know he was related to it.
SEKULOW: So--
CUOMO: And they want his taxes. Hold on. I want you to make your argument.
SEKULOW: Yes.
CUOMO: I need more time. Let me take a break.
SEKULOW: Got it.
CUOMO: We'll finish this.
SEKULOW: Always.
CUOMO: And we'll talk impeachment. President's Counsel--
SEKULOW: My pleasure, yes.
CUOMO: --Jay Sekulow, right after the break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, quick recap. We're getting after it with President Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow.
On the political side, I'm arguing with him about the taxes, its transparency. He's saying, from a legal perspective, if we don't have to, then we should do it when we want to, not when we're being forced.
So now we were talking about the legal, where this is going to go from here. Jay Sekulow says, "We won. We got a stay." I say, "No. That's not a win. We'll see what happens. These are unique issues."
Now, something that I want you to defend, from the District Court, and here's why I think you will lose on appeal.
The - the District Court Judge, Jay, said this is repugnant to the Constitution, what you are arguing that the idea of federal supremacy and Presidential immunity from judicial process is unqualified and boundless in its reach. It cuts across the grain of constitutional precedent.
In other words, it comes from the Office of Legal Counsel, not Case law, not legislation, certainly not from the Constitution. I think you don't have basis. And you--
SEKULOW: I disagree.
CUOMO: --don't have good application.
SEKULOW: Yes.
CUOMO: "You're going to lose." What's your argument?
SEKULOW: Oh, I think, first of all, I think it's exactly in the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the whole idea of separation of powers, so I think it's clearly in the Constitution.
I think - I think we're going to win. It may go to the Supreme Court, ultimately. I think we win there as well. I don't think so. We're going to win this.
Here's why. You cannot have a President subject to 5,000 local District Attorneys who have a bone to pick with the President of the United States. Or else, as the Founders said, the President would be interfered with by Logie (ph) called them - they called him in those days, local magistrates.
So, I think we're going to win. I saw the District Court's opinion. You know what I think? I think he's wrong. He's going to be reversed. Now, is it--
CUOMO: And I think what we've seen in the courts before with Clinton--
SEKULOW: --reversed in the Second Circuit? Is it--
CUOMO: --they're not asking for him. They're asking for documents--
SEKULOW: But, you know, but--
CUOMO: --that could be relevant to an investigation.
SEKULOW: You - you know, you mentioned - you mentioned Clinton versus Jones, Supreme Court case.
They specifically reserved this issue saying it did not raise that issue in Clinton versus Jones, the idea of a State proceeding interfering with the Office of President of the United States in a criminal process.
So, I - I completely disagree. I think that's the--
CUOMO: Well it was - it was off-point.
SEKULOW: --question that was left open.
CUOMO: But the premise--
SEKULOW: I think we carried the day.
CUOMO: Look, we'll see--
SEKULOW: But - but can I ask you a question, Chris?
CUOMO: --we'll see what happens.
SEKULOW: Chris?
CUOMO: Go ahead. Go ahead.
SEKULOW: Chris, all right, go ahead, let's go. Your show, what's next, go ahead.
CUOMO: Look, I'm always have you - happy to have you weigh in on the dialog. Let's transfer from the legal to the political.
SEKULOW: Yes.
CUOMO: You can conflate the two though, as needed, when it comes to impeachment. Here's what I don't get, Jay.
I don't see a fair reading of that phone call and the surrounding context, as we understand it from Mr. Volker, who I say every night, this President has never bad-mouthed Volker, no one around him has ever disparaged the strength of his integrity or his testimony.
And Volker made it clear, in his testimony, as far as we understand it, and the texts, people around the President, who care about him, thought it was wrong that he shouldn't do it, and they tried to fix it, including people in Ukraine.
[21:50:00]
How can you look at what he did there, and not say it was wrong? I'm not saying illegal. I'm not saying impeachable. But wrong!
SEKULOW: Well my job is the lawyer. So, my job is not to weigh in on the political aspect of this. I will tell you I think this is political theater that's going on right now.
But, first of all, none of us know. You don't know what Volker actually said behind closed doors. We've heard bits and pieces of that come out. We don't know what - what he said. But I think--
CUOMO: I don't know all of it.
SEKULOW: I look at the transcript.
CUOMO: True.
SEKULOW: No, no, no, true. We didn't. None of us do. So, I look at the transcript. And I look at the transcript, and I say, is there anything in that transcript that rises to the level of an impeachable offense?
And if you look at the entire transcript, and even look at the conversation with about my colleague, Rudy Giuliani, or - or Vice President Biden, or his son, it is about five lines of a - a - supposedly a 30-minute conversation, I'm sure it was being translated, was being translated, let's say it was, you know, 50 or 60 minutes, so probably a minute and a half.
To make that an impeachable offense is absurd. But let's talk about you - you mentioned the politics of this.
CUOMO: Well but it's not just about the phone call.
SEKULOW: Let me tell you what--
CUOMO: It's about the months-long planning that went into it. Let me ask you this. What is this standard of an impeachable offense to you, Counselor?
SEKULOW: Well I mean the Constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors.
CUOMO: But what does that mean?
SEKULOW: So, I don't know see - well, you know, here's what it means.
It means that a conversation from a Head of State to another Head of State that exactly what that transcript shows never could reach the idea of a high crime or misdemeanor. What is the high crime or misdemeanor involved in there?
CUOMO: Such a gross abuse of office--
SEKULOW: You said it yourself, Chris.
CUOMO: Such a gross abuse of office that you use the State Department--
SEKULOW: And where is exactly--
CUOMO: --the White House and the Department of Justice to try to secure relief in your election by finding dirt on an opponent--
SEKULOW: That--
CUOMO: --that Ukraine had to deliver--
SEKULOW: You know--
CUOMO: --or risk not getting valuable aid to fight off the Russians.
SEKULOW: That's very interesting, except it's not true. So, that's not what the transcript says.
CUOMO: Which part of it?
SEKULOW: That's an interesting comment. Which reminds me of the Adam - well let's go - let's - let's compare it. Why don't you actually read the transcript?
CUOMO: Many times.
SEKULOW: I'd like someone to read the actual transcript.
CUOMO: I have.
SEKULOW: Just from the top to bottom.
CUOMO: Many times.
SEKULOW: OK. Well Adam Schiff was some--
CUOMO: I read it top to bottom in my radio show.
SEKULOW: --Adam Schiff was - Congressman--
CUOMO: I've read it a 100 times.
SEKULOW: Yes. Congressman Schiff was supposed to read it. But instead of that, he made up a story. That was after, by the way, and this is why I want to talk about - you said you wanted to talk about the politics, let's talk about for--
CUOMO: All right.
SEKULOW: --that for a moment.
CUOMO: Go ahead.
SEKULOW: First of all, the politics of impeachment. First it was Russia, no collusion. Then it was obstruction, no obstruction. Then remember Robert Mueller, which everybody's basically forgotten about--
CUOMO: He didn't say "No obstruction."
SEKULOW: --because that was a disaster for--
CUOMO: He didn't say "No obstruction." He said "I'm not looking at obstruction because I can't indict a sitting President."
SEKULOW: The Department of Justice said--
CUOMO: Then he gave us a list of 10 things.
SEKULOW: --there was no obstruction. They said - and Robert Mueller--
CUOMO: Bill Barr said it? And that's what--
SEKULOW: --you saw his testimony.
CUOMO: --you think the American people are going to rely on his word--
SEKULOW: Hey--
CUOMO: --at this point that that's dispositive?
SEKULOW: You think - you think the American people are going to buy the Robert Mueller report as the basement of impeach - basis of impeachment? Of course not.
CUOMO: They're not using it.
SEKULOW: So, what has it become now?
CUOMO: Which I think--
SEKULOW: Now it's a hot--
CUOMO: --hurts them politically.
SEKULOW: That they're not using it?
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: They're not using it.
CUOMO: I think it's a problem. They said it was so important.
SEKULOW: They're not going to use it.
CUOMO: And now they're not using it.
SEKULOW: Because we talked about that. I was on your show the day of that testimony, Chris, and you and I both said it, and so were the commentators on CNN saying it. That was an abysmal performance or whatever that was.
Now, let's take it a step further. Now in the Judiciary Committee, if it's - by the way, there's been no articles of impeachment or--
CUOMO: Not yet.
SEKULOW: --voted on the full floor of the House.
CUOMO: They don't have to do that.
SEKULOW: No. OK. So what happens? So right now, in the Judiciary Committee--
CUOMO: They don't have to do that--
SEKULOW: --we don't get to call the--
CUOMO: --by the way.
SEKULOW: I - I don't think that's correct because it says "The House"--
CUOMO: It is.
SEKULOW: --in the Constitution, "The House."
CUOMO: Well the House has the power.
SEKULOW: Not a Committee. It says--
CUOMO: It has - the House has the power. How they administer that power is up to their own rules. And it is not an House procedure that they have to have a full--
SEKULOW: Oh, so you - you think the - you think the--
CUOMO: --chamber vote.
SEKULOW: --House's rules - let me get to - let me give you a little Constitution 101.
You're - you're a smart lawyer. Guess what? House rules can't override the Constitution of the United States, so they can't make a rule that's not - that goes against the Constitution. But let's assume where it is right now.
CUOMO: There is no rule that goes against the Constitution.
SEKULOW: We're in this impeachment.
CUOMO: They just started in the Committee. They'll have to have--
SEKULOW: The Constitution--
CUOMO: --a vote, as the Constitution requires, on whether or not there are actionable articles of impeachment.
SEKULOW: Which leave--
CUOMO: If they get a simple majority there--
SEKULOW: Yes. Which they have - which they--
CUOMO: --it goes to the Senate.
SEKULOW: --which we all agree--
CUOMO: That's it.
SEKULOW: --they have not had. OK.
CUOMO: Not yet. No.
SEKULOW: So, we - we all agree they've not had.
CUOMO: Not yet.
SEKULOW: And so far in the Judiciary Committee, I don't get to - the White House Counsel does not - we don't get to ask questions. We don't get to call witnesses. We can't take depositions. This is - this is - you talk about a lack of due process.
CUOMO: It's a political process.
SEKULOW: This is a farce, Chris. Chris--
CUOMO: And this - the trial's in the Senate.
SEKULOW: --it's a farce. It's like it's political theater.
CUOMO: The trial's in the Senate.
SEKULOW: It's political - no - yes, but the impeachment process who - so who are they going to call as their witness? Let's talk about this for a moment, Chris. Who's the witness going to be? We've got a whistleblower that we can't identify because of the whistleblowers statute, right?
CUOMO: Good.
SEKULOW: So, we don't get to cross-examine that individual, right?
CUOMO: Why should you?
SEKULOW: But there's going to be a basis of an article of impeachment?
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: So, oh that whistleblower, they don't want to use anymore though, remember, because that whistleblower forgot to tell the Inspector General that they were in conversations with Adam Schiff--
CUOMO: No, no, no.
SEKULOW: --who forgot to tell the American people--
CUOMO: First of all--
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: Hold it. Hold it.
CUOMO: --first of all, Schiff--
SEKULOW: Now they've got whistleblower number two.
CUOMO: --Schiff got early word on this guy.
SEKULOW: We've got the--
CUOMO: Hold on, hold on, Jay, Schiff got early word, so did the White House, when the whistleblower went to their Agency's Counsel, and the Counsel went to the White House and the DOJ, so everybody got early word. That's fine. But just make this very clear to the American people.
SEKULOW: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Adam Schiff said he did not get an early word.
CUOMO: The - he--
SEKULOW: So, that's not true, Chris.
CUOMO: Of course, he did. The guy - the guy came to him.
SEKULOW: You talk about that on--
CUOMO: So, I - I call that early word.
SEKULOW: --your own broadcast.
CUOMO: I call that early word.
SEKULOW: No, he did get an--
CUOMO: If somebody comes to you about it.
[21:55:00]
SEKULOW: He said he didn't - buy, hey, Chris, he said he did not get an early word. He is the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and he said he did not get an early word. He said that on national TV--
CUOMO: I'm not - I'm not disagreeing with you about that.
SEKULOW: --he did not get an early word.
CUOMO: I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying--
SEKULOW: OK.
CUOMO: --I think he did get early word on the whistleblower. What he said is for him to justify. SEKULOW: Well the whistleblower didn't bother to put that--
CUOMO: I'm telling you--
SEKULOW: --in the Inspector General's report in the--
CUOMO: That's fine. I say then discount the--
SEKULOW: --complaint which is supposed to be in there.
CUOMO: --whistleblower. Discount the whistleblower. We don't need it. We have the transcript.
SEKULOW: Go back to the transcript.
CUOMO: And we have the context of the texts from Volker.
SEKULOW: Right.
CUOMO: And just to be clear, this is a political process.
SEKULOW: How do you have the transcript, Chris?
CUOMO: You don't get to have a lawyer come in--
SEKULOW: Chris, my friend.
CUOMO: --and argue before Congress for you with articles of impeachment. You don't do that.
SEKULOW: Chris, Chris - well that's right. If you remember - do you remember the Clinton impeachment proceeding?
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: Well do you remember--
CUOMO: Unfortunately.
SEKULOW: --what happened in the House of Representatives during the Starr Report?
CUOMO: Yes, I do.
SEKULOW: OK.
CUOMO: And?
SEKULOW: Well so - that was a hearing. The lawyers--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: No. I know those are hearings.
SEKULOW: --lawyers were asking questions.
CUOMO: But I'm saying that it's up to them and their rules.
SEKULOW: They had their Starr Report. It just ended up being the Bob Mueller report, and didn't work out so well.
CUOMO: Well hold on a second.
SEKULOW: So now we have - now we've got Ukraine so.
CUOMO: That was - that was an actual--
SEKULOW: By the way, how do you have the transcript?
CUOMO: --impeachment process. It wasn't a Special Counsel. It wasn't extension of the DOJ. It's exclusively political.
SEKULOW: It was an Independent - Independent Counsel.
CUOMO: And then it goes in the - Starr was, the last one. Then, you go to the Senate.
SEKULOW: Right. But he lost.
CUOMO: And they have the trial. My point is this. High crime and misdemeanor--
SEKULOW: So, Chris, how do you have the--
CUOMO: --doesn't exist--
SEKULOW: --how do you have the transcript?
CUOMO: --outside of politics.
SEKULOW: Chris, how do you have the transcript of this conversation? How do you have it?
CUOMO: The President.
SEKULOW: Elect - elected to release it.
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: So much for the - that - by the way, it was - remember, it was quid pro quo. Then it was cover-up, except the transcript was released. Then it was Whistleblower 1. Now we've got Whistleblower 2. It doesn't matter what Whistleblower 2 says. That's the opinion of some--
CUOMO: You don't need any of it.
SEKULOW: --you know, whoever it--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: You've got the transcript.
SEKULOW: And I--
CUOMO: And you've got the texts of the people--
SEKULOW: We gave you the transcript.
CUOMO: --who are around him.
SEKULOW: The White House released the transcript.
CUOMO: Yes, but that's what you should do. You didn't do me a favor, brother. This is the President of the United States.
SEKULOW: You think - by the way, do you think we had any authority--
CUOMO: I shouldn't have to beg you for transparency.
SEKULOW: You think we had--
CUOMO: You should offer it up.
SEKULOW: Let me talk to you about something.
CUOMO: Your taxes.
SEKULOW: Chris?
CUOMO: The transcripts.
SEKULOW: Hey, Chris, do you think - do you - hey, do you think it's really a good practice to start giving out transcripts of Head of State conversations? You think that's a good practice?
CUOMO: When you--
SEKULOW: Something to be excited about?
CUOMO: --are not telling--
SEKULOW: No.
CUOMO: --the truth about asking a foreign power to investigate your--
SEKULOW: We released the transcript.
CUOMO: --political opponent, you surrender the deference of that type of confidentiality.
SEKULOW: You never--
CUOMO: We need to know.
SEKULOW: --surrender the deference of the United States Constitution, my friend, never.
CUOMO: It's not the Constitution.
SEKULOW: Never surrender.
CUOMO: The Constitution doesn't protect that transcript.
SEKULOW: Oh so--
CUOMO: And, by the way, it didn't protect Corey Lewandowski.
SEKULOW: Of course, it does.
CUOMO: When the White House said--
SEKULOW: Oh, hold it, hold it, hold now--
CUOMO: --he's got Executive Privilege.
SEKULOW: --Chris?
CUOMO: He never even worked in the White House, Jay.
SEKULOW: Hold.
CUOMO: You guys are playing--
SEKULOW: Chris, you don't have to have these--
CUOMO: --games too.
SEKULOW: You don't have to--
CUOMO: Fair point?
SEKULOW: You don't have to - you don't have to work in the White House to have Executive Privilege.
CUOMO: How? That's where it extends to.
SEKULOW: The courts have already interpreted that.
CUOMO: What are you talking about?
SEKULOW: No. It extends to people giving advice to the President.
CUOMO: But that wasn't his capacity.
SEKULOW: I mean because the President has the function as the--
CUOMO: They only use it with people--
SEKULOW: --as it--
CUOMO: --who work in the White House in that capacity for the President.
SEKULOW: That's not--
CUOMO: And I think he should have that-- SEKULOW: Well that's--
CUOMO: --that privilege. But that's not what Corey Lewandowski was.
SEKULOW: Well good.
CUOMO: That's game-playing. And you released the call, good for you.
SEKULOW: No, come on, Chris.
CUOMO: Release your taxes too.
SEKULOW: You know what you're - you want - you know what you're asking? You - you - you want to cut and peace the - the Constitution to suit the end game here.
CUOMO: None of is--
SEKULOW: And you know what the problem with that is? That's dangerous for the entire country.
CUOMO: People are using the Constitution as a sword and a shield.
SEKULOW: So we gave the transcript out. We gave the transcript out.
CUOMO: You gave the transcript out or what of it exists. It wasn't transcribed really from like a--
SEKULOW: Well I mean it's what they--
CUOMO: --recorded call. But--
SEKULOW: OK. That's what - OK.
CUOMO: --but it's what they have. And I don't love their protocols. And I don't love how they put it in this password-protected place either. I don't like that either.
SEKULOW: Hey, look, that's not my - that's not my zone, OK? That's not--
CUOMO: Yes.
SEKULOW: I'm the - I'm the President's Counsel. I am not the White House Counsel and you know that.
CUOMO: I'm not blaming you for it.
SEKULOW: You know that. But let me be very clear here.
CUOMO: I'm saying I - I don't like it.
SEKULOW: No.
CUOMO: And I'm saying that high crimes and misdemeanors, Jay, it only exists in politics. And it's about, according to our Founding Fathers--
SEKULOW: So, Chris, can I ask you a question? Do you know how--
CUOMO: --it's about people in positions of public trust--
SEKULOW: --how does this end? How does this--
CUOMO: --abusing that power.
SEKULOW: OK. Chris?
CUOMO: Yes, Sir.
SEKULOW: Chris, you're a smart guy. How does this end? How does this end?
CUOMO: I think--
SEKULOW: You really believe the President of the United States will be impeached and convicted in the United States Senate based on that phone call with Ukraine? Do you really believe that?
CUOMO: I don't think it's--
SEKULOW: You do not.
CUOMO: I don't think that's a fair representation. The - the phone call--
SEKULOW: Well that's what the Constitution requires.
CUOMO: Hold on, hold on.
SEKULOW: You're the one who said Senate in--
CUOMO: The phone call is a window--
SEKULOW: --Senate makes the trial.
CUOMO: --into a months-long effort--
SEKULOW: We--
CUOMO: --by this President, his counsel.
SEKULOW: Wait - wait a minute.
CUOMO: Not you. Rudy Giuliani, State Department officials, the White House, and the Department of Justice to help this President promote--
SEKULOW: You don't get to impeach by a window.
CUOMO: --his own personal political agenda. Well but the call--
SEKULOW: You don't - you don't impeach a--
CUOMO: I'm saying the call is just a piece of evidence.
SEKULOW: --President of the United States for a window.
CUOMO: It's a window into all these things he did.
SEKULOW: So what - what's the rest of the evidence?
CUOMO: Look at the text - the texts.
SEKULOW: What's the rest of the evidence?
CUOMO: The texts.
SEKULOW: Prove your - prove your--
CUOMO: He - the texts.
SEKULOW: What do the texts show?
CUOMO: He wants--
SEKULOW: What did they show?
CUOMO: --the deliverables. We - in the - into--
SEKULOW: Who does?
CUOMO: The President. That's what his guy, Sondland, who's testifying tomorrow, said.
SEKULOW: Did you forget--
CUOMO: He wants the deliverable. Taylor, the Ambassador he put in, says, "I don't think we should have Ukraine assistance"--
SEKULOW: You think the President - by the way, do you think the President has the authority--
CUOMO: --"predicated on how they do in our election."
SEKULOW: Do you - you don't think though that the President--
CUOMO: Not me (ph).
SEKULOW: You don't think that transcript violates the law, though, right? I mean you don't think it's a - a legal violation?
CUOMO: I think abuse of power--
SEKULOW: Right?
CUOMO: --is a very significant thing for these proceedings. I don't see treason or bribery.
SEKULOW: But you said - do you think that--
CUOMO: But I don't think it's an exhaustive list. But I got to go.
SEKULOW: Yes, well OK.
CUOMO: I'm out of time, Jay.
SEKULOW: It's not a high crime or misdemeanor, there you go.
CUOMO: I understand your take on it.
SEKULOW: It's not.
CUOMO: We'll see what the Democrats can make as a case.
SEKULOW: Thanks.
CUOMO: And I always appreciate you sussing it out for us from the--
SEKULOW: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: --President's perspective.
SEKULOW: My pleasure.
CUOMO: Be well. I'll see you again soon.
SEKULOW: Thanks.
CUOMO: Thank you for watching. CNN TONIGHT, we'll digest what happened here and so much more news with D. Lemon right now. There's his laugh.
