Return to Transcripts main page

CUOMO PRIME TIME

Trump Impeachment Trial Weighs on 2020 Dems; Democrats Use Trump Tapes to Make Their Case; Republicans Uses Trump's Executive Privilege Threat Against Subpoenas. Aired 1:30-2a ET

Aired January 24, 2020 - 01:30   ET

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


[01:30:00]

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: -- even among people who are satisfied with the economy and unprecedented share of them are dissatisfied with Trump on other grounds. The fact that nearly one in three people who say that they are satisfied with the economy still say that he abused his power in Ukraine. About one in four says they disapprove him overall. One in four says they're going to vote for Biden.

That is, I think, unprecedented. We've never seen that kind of resistance to a president among voters who are satisfied with the economy and it is a direct result of the kind of volatile erratic behavior that is being highlighted so relentlessly, I think, in this impeachment trial.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right. So that's what it tells us on one level is that people like me, for example, who suggest it seems that no matter what he says, no matter what he does, it doesn't seem to affect him. This is Ron's case for, well, you're wrong. Here is the effect, he's not getting enough of the share of those who like the economy because of all the other stuff.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

CUOMO: Then you say one out of four of them would vote for, let's say, Biden. How much of the vote is necessary to put this presidency in doubt for Trump?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I mean, look, you can see the difference very clearly, Chris, in the distance between the 55 percent who say in the CNN poll and most polls that they approved him on the economy and the 43 percent who approved of him overall. I mean, the delta, you know, the kind of between a safe re-election for the president. And a very precarious one is precisely that group of voters who are satisfied with the economy but don't approve of him.

I mean, there was polling in Michigan, same -- exactly the same pattern in Michigan, a critical swing state. Something like 62-thirds of college educated white women said the economy was excellent or good and only about 35 percent of them said they approve of Trump's performance as president. That is the challenge. And I think he is on a treadmill. It's precisely because such volatile and polarizing behavior has alienated so many of the voters who are satisfied with the economy, who had normally gravitate to an incumbent president. The way to make up for that is to gin up turnout among his base by being more belligerent, more polarizing, you know, calling Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff a traitor, even though that compounds his problem in the first place with the people who are satisfied with the economy but don't like the way he comports himself as president.

CUOMO: So it's still -- it's very interesting because it still leaves you kind of not knowing which set of factors will matter more. Oh, so then the impeachment can really hurt him because this is airing all the grievances that this 43 percent has even if they like the economy. But on the flip side, it's also really pissing off his base that may make them come out and super charge his turnout and get him what he wants, which is getting an over delivery of his own base.

BROWNSTEIN: That's right. I mean, look, that's absolutely right. But, look, I would say impeachment is not reducing the minority of Americans who have consistently said they approve of his performance. But it is hardening the opposition he faces among the majority of Americans who consistently say they disapprove. You know, in, again, the CNN polling, 97 percent of the people who disapprove of him overall say he abused his power in Ukraine. In the Pew poll that somebody mentioned earlier, that came out this week, 91 percent of the people who disapprove of him said that he is probably or definitely done something illegal as president.

One of the key visions of the Trump re-election is that they're going to convince some people who say they disapprove of him to vote for him anyway because the Democrat is worse. If 97 percent of them say -- are saying that he abused his power, that hill is getting higher. Not to say it can't be done, not to say he can't squeeze out Wisconsin and Arizona and win the Electoral College even if he loses the popular vote. But the fact is that impeachment is hardening -- is cementing, solidifying, whatever word you want to use, the doubts of the voters most uneasy about him have expressed, and that includes those who are satisfied with the economy but don't like his behavior of values.

CUOMO: You know, I read a commentary today that echoed what I had heard from some Republican strategists who said, you know, in my ideal world, what I'd like to see is this end as quickly as possible and the president not pick a fight with anybody no matter who the nominee is from now until November. And if he just talks about the economy and going strong against our enemies abroad and all the good things that he wants to do going forward, that he would be in great shape. The irony is he can't do that.

BROWNSTEIN: I don't think he can put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point. As I said, he has gone so far down the road of maximizing, you know, the energy among his base at the price of alienating centrist voters who are satisfied with the economy. And I don't think -- the roads have diverged. I don't think he can back to the, are you better off than you were four years ago message.

I think ultimately, his fate will be decided by whether he can, as you say, turn out enough new disaffected blue collar, evangelical non- urban white voters to offset the decline that he's going to face in the white collar suburbs compared to 2016, the potential losses among the blue collar white women who don't like this level of kind of confrontation, and the fact that the electorate is going to be several points more diverse in 2020 than it was in 2016 just because of the change in the population and the aging into the electorate of generation Z for the first time.

[01:35:18]

CUOMO: And another obvious x-factor which Ron points out all the time, will the person who runs against him be able to galvanize and energize and bring those people out who oppose this president? We'll see.

Ron Brownstein, as always, thank you for making us better.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: All right. So, look, Democrats are fighting to persuade open minds, they're fighting to persuade you to understand what this is really about with this president and why they've done as much as they have, and also, yes, witnesses. But in the absence of that, they are finding clever ways to bolster their case against the president even without the proof that they won. It's the tale of the Trump tapes, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:40:09]

CUOMO: In less than 12 hours, if you are on the East Coast, that means later today, the Senate will convene to hear the House managers' remaining opening arguments. This is the last chance for the Democrats in this phase.

We don't yet know if they'll be able to call witnesses. That's why I say that. But they've been using the president's own words against him in case it is all they get. Here is Tom Foreman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And let me tell you something, Biden's son is corrupt, and Biden is corrupt.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Republican defenders of President Trump, the opening arguments are a show and tell from hell.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And, Senators, we have today provided handouts that you can follow along in our slides.

FOREMAN (voice-over): Hour after hour, Democratic House managers are not only making the case for impeachment, they are stealing a play from Trump, the master showman himself highlighting quotes, charts, unflattering photos, and a torrent of sound bites they think point the way to a guilty verdict. BILL TAYLOR, TOP DIPLOMAT TO UKRAINE: President Trump, through Ambassador Sondland, was asking for President Zelensky to very publically commit to these investigations.

FOREMAN (voice-over): The showy display seems to have caught the president's defense flatfooted, unprepared to counter during media appearances in a similar manner, so the videos played on. Career diplomats who saw and heard things tied to the central allegation that Trump was strong-arming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating Democrat Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

DAVID HOLMES, COUNSELOR FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE: I then heard President Trump asked, so he's going to do the investigation. Ambassador Sondland replied that he's going to do it, adding that President Zelensky will do anything he asked him to do.

FOREMAN (voice-over): The president himself has been virtually brought in.

TRUMP: Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer.

FOREMAN (voice-over): Pressing other foreign governments to go after his political foes, too.

TRUMP: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.

FOREMAN (voice-over): And even some of Trump's defenders have been put on the spot, Senator Lindsey Graham made the Democratic play list by insisting years ago that a president does not have to break a law to be impeached, contrary to what the GOP says now.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): -- which is when you start using your office and you are acting in a way that hurts people, you've committed a high crime.

FOREMAN (voice-over): Graham was not in the room for that one. It is a widely end run around Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who's been pushing for a fast trial with no witnesses, no potentially damning documents, and it's drawing scathing reviews from conservative critics.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Imagine a movie written and directed by children whose ending you already know, and by the way, it is 20 hours long.

FOREMAN (voice-over): But it's also getting grudging respect from some Republicans who know the president's defense team will soon be up.

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): I would hope that they can provide some of that as well. It's not just about the words but how they're presented.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN: Still, almost no one thinks this Republican-controlled Senate will vote to convict and remove this president. So what do Democrats want from this makeshift reality show? All indications are they want to make it really clear to voters what they think happened and really painful for any Republicans who want to vote for acquittal.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

CUOMO: Our thanks to Tom.

A new excuse for GOP Senators on witnesses, the president is threatening to invoke executive privilege to block that. So, do they want to get caught up in this? And what would be the point if you're going to subpoena and he's going to block it, is that a good legal argument?

Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

01:48:14]

CUOMO: All right, we're hearing a little bit of a shift. The mainline Republican talking point is no more about, hey, the House should have done it already. They should have gotten these witnesses if they wanted them. They rushed it. Now, there's a new argument blending its way in. You'll hear it. Just listen.

What if the president invokes executive privilege? He's saying he will. So even if we subpoena it, it will be dragged out forever. So why even bother?

What about that argument? Will that sell? Will that manipulate voices on the right to say, OK, let's not do this? Let's take it to Cuomo's court right now.

Let's see what our legal minds have to say. Renato Mariotti and Jim Schultz. Look at Jim, still upset from earlier on. Me too, brother. Let's get after it again.

All right. So, let's talk about this, Jim. The merits of this argument, you're going to subpoena somebody, the president is going to invoke executive privilege. Now what? What's the argument?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So it goes back to, Chris, and I'm not going to contradict myself from before. You know, I believe the House made a tremendous misstep in not subpoenaing the witnesses. The fact that a lawyer says, well, we're going to fight it in court so don't bother sending a subpoena, I'm not sure there are too many prosecutors out there that wouldn't send that subpoena anyway. It's not that much work. So I think that was a gross misstep on their part, and I think it's going to come back to bite them in terms of their credibility.

I don't think the GOP should be making a similar argument at this juncture because I think that's a good one as it relates to the House. So I'm going to stick by my guns on the -- on why I think the House mismanaged this from a legal perspective and issuance -- issuing subpoenas and taking it to court. And I don't think the GOP should be making that argument.

CUOMO: All right. Renato, why not?

[01:50:18]

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, look, it's completely contradictory to the point they had before. And I think what we're seeing on the Republican side is a result in search of an excuse. I mean, essentially, now what they're looking at -- you know, looking for is a reason not to seek subpoenas.

Look, if they wanted to, could certainly force the matter. They have the chief justice of the United States sitting there. They are the-- they, you know, have the power over this president.

If, you know, the president couldn't possibly defy the Republican Senate at this point, I think he would potentially do so at his own peril. So really, that argument is a nonstarter. I agree with Jim that I don't think that they should pursue it. I don't think it's going anywhere.

CUOMO: And, Renato, the argument that --

SCHULTZ: A little bit of -- well, yes.

CUOMO: Hold on one second. I'll come right back to you, Jim, I promise.

SCHULTZ: No, that's fine.

CUOMO: The idea that, you know, we don't want to mess with executive privilege, Renato. We don't want to jeopardize future presidents. We don't want to do that. We don't want it where every time you don't like what a president does, you impeach them and get the documents that you want and produce the people you want to yell at. We don't want to do that. Let's keep the Senate out of it.

MARIOTTI: He hasn't invoked executive privilege. This isn't about executive privilege. He hasn't invoked it. I mean, the reality is if they actually try to pursue this stuff and the president did invoke executive privilege, he'd have to specify what documents, what writings, what words he's invoking executive privilege on.

We actually gain some information in him doing so. He hasn't done that yet. This is essentially about just broad stonewalling by the president.

CUOMO: All right. So conceptual aside --

SCHULTZ: That's on silly right. We're still waiting to hear back from the beginning case from the appeals court so that's not necessarily right either. But I do think that it's a mistake. I think they can credibly make the argument, Chris, that the House didn't do their job, and therefore, it's not our job to go subpoena witnesses and do a fact finding expedition here.

CUOMO: You're a trial court too. Senate is a trial court, not an appellate court as Jay Sekulow said the other day.

SCHULTZ: No, no, no. But a trial court, Chris, I don't know how many lawyers, you know, all of a sudden subpoena new witnesses at the time of trial. That just doesn't happen. You don't put a person on the stand that you don't know what they're going to say.

There's all kinds of -- there's investigations that take place in a grand jury in the criminal context. You learn a lot from those grand juries. You know what these witnesses have been saying --

CUOMO: But you do add witnesses -- you do add witnesses when you couldn't get them --

SCHULTZ: -- and you put them on a stand.

CUOMO: You do add witnesses when you couldn't get them earlier, Renato, right? That happens all the time.

SCHULTZ: You might have but only after you've interviewed them and know what they say, Chris.

MARIOTTI: Of course.

SCHULTZ: And then this instance, they just don't have that.

CUOMO: Well, look, Renato, that is -- both things can be true at the same time, which is the Democrats may not know what they're going to get when they put this person on the stand. But if you aren't available but now you are because of a change in circumstance, here that being the Senate's reach, that could be new information that comes into a trial.

MARIOTTI: Yes, there's no question the Democrats are playing with fire. There's a chance that these witnesses could go south. But I will say it's sort of funny, Trump told these witnesses not to cooperate. These witnesses refuse to cooperate in any way and so now the argument goes, well, you can't put them on because we don't know what they're going to say. I mean, to me, that's just, you know, it's essentially, and like I said, an excuse -- a result that's looking for --

SCHULTZ: Look, it's the House's case to put on. And the House -- yes, sorry.

CUOMO: All right. I hear you on that but, Jimmy, let me make a different point.

SCHULTZ: It was the House's case to put on, and they didn't follow through it.

CUOMO: Right. But they say they couldn't, right, that they were stopped by it and they had an urgency --

SCHULTZ: It's going to take too long.

CUOMO: -- of wanting to do this before the election --

SCHULTZ: This is so urgent, yes.

CUOMO: -- because he'll do it again.

SCHULTZ: The world is coming to an end. I get it, right?

CUOMO: I got a different thing.

SCHULTZ: The Russians are going to invade. We heard all that from Schiff today.

CUOMO: All right. But I got -- well, I know, but that's why we're going through it. But I've got a different point. Forget about the big legal brains for a second, pure common sense. We don't have to be a lawyer to process this. But I have you guys and that's -- you look like regular guys anyway.

Jim, the idea is this, you're ready to vote. You're going to acquit. You've heard enough. We don't even have the answer to whether or not this random Belgian guy who was sending detailed information about where our ambassador was when they were trying to remove her to Lev Parnas through this intermediary named Hyde. We don't even know if the information he was sending was real, really monitoring her movements or just some kind of crazed BS. How can you feel you know enough to vote and that you don't need additional information when we don't even know the answer to that, which is a huge question?

SCHULTZ: Look, in that instance, you're talking about two different things here. You're -- in that instance, you're talking about someone. That is a genuine issue that needs to be investigated by the --

CUOMO: Yes.

SCHULTZ: -- appropriate authorities, and I think we've -- it's been reported that they are investigating that. But in the context of this case --

CUOMO: But how can you decide?

SCHULTZ: Now you're getting way afar.

CUOMO: How is it afar?

SCHULTZ: Right? Remember, House had to do their -- because the House needed to conduct a thorough investigation. They didn't do it.

CUOMO: But they didn't know about these guys.

SCHULTZ: They should --

CUOMO: Lev Parnas wasn't allowed to talk to them by federal prosecutors.

SCHULTZ: If we were still taking this through the process, remember, in the Clinton, it was years of investigation that went through and then finally, they found crimes. In this instance, they're making up the crimes as they go because they don't exist. This whole idea of abuse of power --

CUOMO: And it didn't make it with Clinton. They started with Whitewater and ended with a tryst.

[01:55:09]

SCHULTZ: Obstruction of Congress is flat out a fake crime. It's -- that is just -- this is a dispute between two coequal branches of government. It happens all the time. And the fact that someone wants to try to criminalize that is ludicrous.

CUOMO: Renato, just a quick word on the idea that you would be ready to vote about a situation when you don't even know a key piece of information, which is discoverable, and that question is whether or not people connected to Trump were surveilling an ambassador for whatever reason we don't know, how could you vote?

MARIOTTI: Yes, the Senate and the American people deserve to know why people were surveilling our ambassador, whether or not that actually was taking place. And I think we need more investigation. The sad fact of the matter is this trial isn't going to resolve that issue.

CUOMO: All right.

SCHULTZ: Send it back to the House then.

CUOMO: Guys -- send? Boy, oh boy.

SCHULTZ: Send it back to the House then.

CUOMO: Well, who knows, that may happen. But guys, I got to jump.

SCHULTZ: It's not for the Senate to make that determine.

CUOMO: I've got to jump. I'm out of time. Thank you very much.

And thanks all of you for joining us for this special impeachment edition of Cuomo Prime Time. More news, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)