Paul Manafort Sentenced To 47 Months In Prison
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR, ANDERSON COOPER 360: -- Munchkinland in fourth grade. I digress. Maybe he thinks Attorney General Bill Barr was on Cheers. Who cares? The important thing is that the President loves fruit, and by fruit, I mean McDonald's, and Kentucky Fried Chicken, and tacos from his own restaurant. But, I got to say, I agree with him about McDonald's. They - they actually sell apples too, pre-sliced, packaged, they're quite good, and always available. You just got to pull the motorcade right up to the drive-through on The Ridiculist. And that's it for us. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?</s>CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Thank you very much for some levity on an otherwise very heavy night, my friend. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME. Paul Manafort is going to do far less time in prison than Robert Mueller recommended. Why? Now, Manafort still has another case to be sentenced on. Will next week's Judge throw the book at him? And does this sentence mean that Mueller went too far that the probe went too far? Also on the docket, did Michael Cohen lie to Congress again? Republicans say yes. But now Cohen is suing the President for stiffing him on fees. Will he win? We're going to take on all three with one of the best legal minds in the business. He doesn't like me saying that. That's too bad. Former Whitewater Independent Counsel, Robert Ray. Also tonight, Biden, in or out, and what happens if he runs? What do you say? Let's get after it.</s>TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.</s>CUOMO: 47 months is a long time. Now, people are going to tell you about set-offs and programs that may even reduce that further. But it's hard time in prison. However, Mueller wanted Manafort to get 24 years. But, again, the Judge today said 47 months in Virginia, and he's going to get credit for time served, so that means nine months get chopped off, and then there could be something else. Still he's getting prison time. I'm just saying it's nothing like what was anticipated by the Special Counsel. And, look, it's a surprise. The almost 70-year-old face the prospect of spending the rest of his life there if Mueller got what he wanted. It's not over. Again, there'll be a separate sentence next week in Washington, but it was an eye popper. All right, so let's start with this and bring in Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray, good here. Good to see you. So, we have spoken before, and you said, "I got to tell you. Not only did they investigate these matters years ago and come up empty, but I don't know that this is going to stick." It's stuck.</s>ROBERT WILLIAM RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, FORMER SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right.</s>CUOMO: What does this sentence mean to you?</s>RAY: Well a little context is necessary. I don't want to complicate things too much. But, remember, it wasn't that long ago, which is to say within a generation that a four-year sentence in connection with a bank fraud case was thought to be pretty--</s>CUOMO: Harsh.</s>RAY: --harsh and significant.</s>CUOMO: Yes.</s>RAY: What Federal Judges have questioned in the wake of Enron WorldCom, the financial crisis is the big run-up in the sentencing guidelines with regard to the lost calculation, meaning how much money was involved, and the numbers get to be astronomical in a real hurry, which is what happened here. And that's why, principally, he was facing a 19.5 to 24 year sentence.</s>CUOMO: Also because Mueller was pissed off that he broke his deal and lied to them.</s>RAY: Well I think that's right. But I mean there's another component to it. And I think that's the part that remains in the District Court in the District of Columbia.</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: So, I think you can expect, and I think you've already teased this appropriately that there will be incremental punishment that will be added on top of this sentence in all likelihood by the District Judge in D.C., which I guess--</s>CUOMO: You think it will be concurrent or you think it will be additional?</s>RAY: No, there'll be - there'll be a portion of it, which the Judge will have to speak to as to which portion will run concurrent, and which portion consecutive. But you--</s>CUOMO: Concurrent means that that time counts while you're serving. The other time--</s>RAY: Right.</s>CUOMO: --it's not additional.</s>RAY: But because there are other charges--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --I think it's a fair assumption, Chris. I would expect, you know, even give him what otherwise here what, I think, some people have characterized as a lenient sentence. And, by the way, look, you know, my view of these things is, don't criticize the Judge for this. This is what the Special Counsel asked for under the Sentencing Guidelines. They have the right to take that position. But, at the end of the day, the government prevails when justice is served. And this Judge has a lot of experience. You know, he made a determination. He understands there's another case out there. I would expect incremental punishment to be added over and on top of this sentence when--</s>CUOMO: OK.</s>RAY: --he's sentenced next week, but in the - in the other case.</s>CUOMO: So, the political spin is, from the Right, at least, "See, we told you this wasn't that big a deal. We told you that Mueller was overreaching." Do you think that's a fair appraisal of what this sentence means?</s>RAY: I - I think you got to be careful about drawing that conclusion. I can tell you that when I was Independent Counsel, there were judges, particularly in the local, you know, jurisdictions, meaning in the District of Columbia, and in this case, in the Eastern District of Virginia, who were sensitive to the fact that Independent Counsels have a fair amount of power, and can press very hard in the spotlight because of public sentiment shines, you know, very harshly. As I've said on many occasions, and you've heard me say this, I would not wish a Special Counsel or Independent Counsel investigation on my worst enemy. It is a terrible place to be. And one of the things that the judges struggle with, I think, appropriately so, is, you know, how would I treat this case if it were just without that public spotlight--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --shining. And would I give the same sentence in that sort of situation that I'm being asked to do so here?</s>CUOMO: Now--</s>RAY: I think Judge Ellis had some real problems in it. It - it was signaled early on in the investigation about, you know, "Wait a minute, are we talking about a prosecution here--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --that is being used as a means toward an end?"</s>CUOMO: Oh, the Judge said it so in not so many words today--</s>RAY: Right.</s>CUOMO: --without saying specifically that, "Hey, this isn't that bad a guy."</s>RAY: But I well - but I would say also, which is why I think it, you know, Republicans have to be careful about going too far with that. You know, those charges, bank fraud, and the failure to register as a foreign, you know, agent, and - and, you know, tax charges, they independently would have merits.</s>CUOMO: Yes.</s>RAY: And, you know, I think they were worthy of prosecution on their own, separate and apart from the - the political context--</s>CUOMO: Look, I hear you. I actually think the political context--</s>RAY: --though that we find ourselves--</s>CUOMO: --has nothing, obviously, nothing to do with any of that other than maybe a general description of character.</s>RAY: Right.</s>CUOMO: His real problem he was never charged with.</s>RAY: Right.</s>CUOMO: You know, you understand this very well. But collusion is a behavior, not a crime, unless we're talking about Securities Law.</s>RAY: Correct.</s>CUOMO: You'd have to find an act in furtherance of it, actual coordination that equates to a conspiracy.</s>RAY: And I think the Judge was trying to signal that early on, apparently in the proceedings--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --when he said, look, I think more for public consumption or anything else--</s>CUOMO: That's right.</s>RAY: --to say, "Hey, everybody kind of put the brakes on things, and don't, you know, try to read anything--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --into this with regard to collusion."</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: "You know, this - this prosecution, I am going to evaluate independently on whether it has merit, and what I think is a fair and appropriate sentence."</s>CUOMO: That's right. And that's - and that's obviously what they (ph)--</s>RAY: And that's what a Judge is supposed to do.</s>CUOMO: That I have no problem with that.</s>RAY: Right. Right.</s>CUOMO: But I'm saying I think Manafort, as an example, speaks to the need for oversight. What I'm hearing from the Right is--</s>RAY: Yes.</s>CUOMO: --"When Mueller's done, no more. Whatever he does, he does. What he doesn't do, he doesn't do, stop with this oversight, it's harassment." I say, "No," because Manafort--</s>RAY: Well--</s>CUOMO: --is an example of what you need. He met with Kilimnik. He gave him polling data from that campaign. I would argue that behavior is collusion. I'm not saying it's a crime. I don't think it is. But if you're looking for members of the campaign that reached out to the wrong people and did things that Robert Ray would have never done--</s>RAY: Sure.</s>CUOMO: --there you go.</s>RAY: But that, you know, that's troublesome. It warrants legitimate Congressional investigation and oversight. But I think getting too far carried away with, "Wait a second. What we're really talking about here is impeachment," or alternatively to think that once the Mueller investigation ends, you're just going to go off, you know, endlessly with investigations including--</s>CUOMO: I'm just talking about that one thing.</s>RAY: --including in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere to think that that's going to be a stalking horse for the continuation of the Mueller investigation, look, at some point, this needs to, in my view, and I make - you know, it may not be shared with your audience, but I'm just saying. In my humble opinion, you know, there needs to come a - a point where there is closure to this. And if - if in the main, what Mueller ultimately determines is that there's not a provable case with regard to conclusion, and that which would have otherwise been within the core of his mandate--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --I think that portion should be brought to an appropriate end. And I don't think what it means is, "Oh, wait a second, we're going to just have free license to continue on with regard to the Trump Administration--</s>CUOMO: No, but don't you need to know--</s>RAY: --through the end of his term."</s>CUOMO: --did the President know what was going on with Manafort, what was going on with Stone, what was going on with that meeting with his son and Manafort, and his son-in-law, the meetings that Kushner was taking, where his money is, does anybody owe him anything? These are issues this President has created. Nobody had to manufacture them.</s>RAY: No, but</s>I-- CUOMO: We need the answers to them, do we not?</s>RAY: --but we all under - we all understand where politics can be played. And I think what I've tried to suggest all along since when I was Independent Counsel that if what you're talking about is using prosecution as an alternative tool toward politics--</s>CUOMO: No, but this is Congressional oversight.</s>RAY: Well that - that's fine, if - but I think they need to be more candid about what their intentions are. Oversight is one thing if really what they're talking about here is they don't want to, you know, the leadership doesn't want to signal what their intentions are, but really what this is about is--</s>CUOMO: But, Robert, you wouldn't look at (ph)--</s>RAY: --impeachment, that's a problem.</s>CUOMO: --these questions if you change the R and the</s>D. RAY: No,</s>I-- CUOMO: If the guy you knew he was lying to you about things--</s>RAY: Sure.</s>CUOMO: --why you don't know? But you know he lied about what he was negotiating a deal. He lied about what he knew about the meeting with his son and the other people. And you don't know what he knew about Manafort and Stone except that he says nothing. And now, his lawyer comes forward who has been exposed as a liar himself, and says--</s>RAY: Right.</s>CUOMO: --I was there when Stone called him. He knew about Stone.</s>RAY: I think, look, I - I think there's a component to this, which people don't want to fully appreciate and acknowledge. And that is when there is a - a - a partisan line about a position that the Administration takes, for example, we didn't have any contacts or any dealings with Russia--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --and that's the line--</s>CUOMO: Which is exactly what the President said.</s>RAY: --and - and that's the line that you want to put out there. What happens to people, and I've seen this now through, you know, history in Watergate and my own experience with - with Whitewater is that there are a lot of people who will pick up that line, and go with it, because they understand that in - within the Administration that that's the position they're supposed to take. That's fine as a political matter. Where you run into trouble, if somebody puts you under oath, you're bound to tell the truth.</s>CUOMO: That's why the President wouldn't be put under oath, right?</s>RAY: Right. Well and that - but that's also why his people got themselves into trouble. It's the loyalty that is expected. But, you know, at - at some point--</s>CUOMO: Right.</s>RAY: --loyalty has to sort of fall off too--</s>CUOMO: True. But he said it, Robert. He said, "None of my people did anything." He had to know that that wasn't true when he said it. Now, his lawyer, one of them, Rudy Giuliani, who's operating more as a Press Attache, I think, with this public discourse, public court of opinion--</s>RAY: Yes. But I'd be careful about castigating Rudy Giuliani.</s>CUOMO: I'm not at all. But I'm saying his fallback position now is, "No, no, no. I never said that there was no collusion or no contact with anybody. I just said just the President." Now that's not true. And I understand the need for the adjustment. But I also understand the need to ask these questions. I think they matter. I don't think--</s>RAY: No, they're - they're--</s>CUOMO: --any is gratuitous.</s>RAY: I think they're legitimate questions. But when - you know, what my trouble with it is if you spend all the time that they're spending and a lot of time was spent with regard to things involving the Stormy Daniels payment, and whether it's a campaign contribution--</s>CUOMO: Shouldn't have lied about it.</s>RAY: Well, OK. He, you know, I - I think that there's - it was obvious that there was a need to - to, apparently, from the campaign's perspective, to do something with this. But as the John Edwards case showed, which, you know, I think hasn't been given sufficient - sufficient acknowledgement, there's real questions about whether or not you'd be able to prove that the - a crime was committed by--</s>CUOMO: Right, went to trial.</s>RAY: --the principle.</s>CUOMO: John Edwards went to trial.</s>RAY: Yes, I understand that. But</s>I-- CUOMO: He's got acquitted but it went to trial.</s>RAY: --but I have a basic question for you about that.</s>CUOMO: Please.</s>RAY: And that is suppose - suppose the - the campaign had gone to the Federal Election Commission, and it said to them at the time, "We want to make this payment," and they were - they - they fully disclose, "and we want this to be considered and we want to use campaign funds in order to do this, in order to make these payments." And the FEC would have looked at them, and said, "Are you out of your mind? This is a personal expenditure. This isn't a campaign expenditure." You can't have it both ways. If it's a personal expenditure, it's a personal expenditure. If it's a campaign expenditure, it's a campaign expenditure, and they can't be sort of used interchangeably. And I think that was one of the things that came up in the John Edwards thing, which is why I don't think from the President's perspective that it was a crime. I don't think that that would be a sufficient underpinning for an impeachable offense. And there's an awful lot of time that's been spent on that. The core--</s>CUOMO: The problem you have though is that his lawyer admitted to it as a felony--</s>RAY: Sure.</s>CUOMO: --and the President was directing it while in Office. Let me ask you, one other quick things--</s>RAY: But those, but, you know, again, that's his criminal intent, and that doesn't necessarily mean that that criminal intent was shared by the President.</s>CUOMO: True. But it doesn't mean it wasn't also.</s>RAY: Well--</s>CUOMO: So, you know, that's why I think they have to ask the (ph) question. But let me ask you something else. Do you think Michael Cohen wins a civil suit saying to the President, "Hey, I'm your lawyer. You have to indemnify me on these expenses."</s>RAY: I think that's not a chance in the world (ph).</s>CUOMO: Not a chance?</s>RAY: No. I mean--</s>CUOMO: Even though he was doing these things for the President?</s>RAY: Well what is - is this - is this the - is this the retainer now? What are we talking about? I mean I have - I have really no idea what - what's going on with regards to that.</s>CUOMO: Well we will see when we get the papers. Robert Ray--</s>RAY: Anytime.</s>CUOMO: --I'll tell you what. You are not easy to go point from point with, but I think it's really helpful for the audience, and I appreciate it.</s>RAY: Nice to be with you as always.</s>CUOMO: Always a pleasure. All right, so, look, this isn't over. There are a lot of questions to be answered just tonight about, you know, Manafort and, you know, why indict them in the first place, and why as part of the Russia investigation? Why is he been so central in the probe? I think it's the time to dig, because I don't think you're going to get all the answers from Mueller. Now, another question, Biden's time, Biden time, right? We're playing with that entendre, why? Because is he going to get in or not? It's early but it's not that early. We have some news, next.</s>TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.