Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Hillary Clinton Speaks Out; Bowe Bergdahl Controversy; Hillary Clinton Book: Precursor to Candidacy?; Former Attorney General Calls Bergdahl Deal 'Ghastly'; What Happens When Bergdahl Comes Home?

Aired June 09, 2014 - 22:00   ET

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

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN Tonight, I'm Don Lemon. Is there anybody out there who thinks Hillary Clinton is not running for president? I don't think so.

And, though, if you need further convincing, there is her just- concluded sit-down interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer. She says Benghazi is more of a reason to run. She says she didn't have a good strategy back in 2008. And she says her health is now very good. So, how did she do?

Well, tonight, some of the best political minds are here, including a former member of the Clinton White House.

And the firestorm over the movement to free Bowe Bergdahl. I'm going to talk to the Bush White House attorney general, who may surprise you. He says President Obama broke the law, but that that law is unconstitutional.

We want to know what you think about all this. Make sure you tweet us using the #AskDon.

But, first, here's my take on Hillary Clinton. She won't say it, but let me just say for you for the record right now that Hillary Clinton is running for president of the United States. Hillary Clinton is running for president of the United States.

The only people who don't seem to realize it are the media. Ask most anybody else and they will tell you that they thought she was running a long time ago. Why?

Number one, her book. In it, she lays out how she's going to deal with possible land mines like Benghazi, telling ABC News -- quote -- again, as I said in the beginning of this show -- "Actually, it is more of a reason to run."

Number two, her interviews, sitting down with prominent women from major news networks. Women were a key voting bloc back in 2012, if not the key voting bloc.

And, number three, her speeches. The Clintons may have left the White House broke, but they are far from it now. So those speeches keep her visible. Someone else pays for them, and she gets to test and hone her voice for the campaign stump. So, for the purposes of this hour, we won't play semantic games with

you. We are going to assume, like just about everybody else out there, that Hillary Clinton is in fact running.

So, let's get right to the interview that just might be the kickoff of the 2016 race for the White House.

Joining me now, "New York Times"' Nicholas Kristof. Nick Kristof is with us, also CNN's Gloria Borger and Brianna Keilar.

So, Nick, Gloria, and Brianna, if she announces later that she is not running, it just means that her campaign is over, because she is already running, all right?

So, listen, any campaign, no doubt, is going to have its problems. Is this the big interview you think that is the kickoff for 2016?

First to you, Gloria.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, I think this is a different Hillary Clinton than I saw in 2007, 2008.

This is somebody who is not sill sitting there and saying, I have a lifetime of experience and trying to say, you know, her experience as a senator, first lady makes it right to be president.

What she did was she talked about her life in this interview. She made it very clear that she's over a lot of the stuff she's been through in her life. At one point, she said, I'm done with that. She emphasized her being a woman, which we did not hear in 2007-2008. When she was asked about Putin, she said I have heard -- it's not the first male leader who's made a sexist comment like that.

LEMON: You are giving away my sound bites, Gloria.

BORGER: Oh, I'm sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: Well, we picked the same ones.

But this was a -- this was somebody sort of like, I have been through it.

LEMON: All right.

BORGER: I have been there, done that. I don't care about Monica Lewinsky.

It's clear she was saying, I can lead because of who she has become.

LEMON: And the question, of course, Brianna Keilar is, will that strategy work? Because any campaign is no doubt going to hinge on what happened of course in Benghazi. Let's listen and then we will talk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I was not making security decisions.

I think it would be a mistake for a secretary of state to sit and say, OK, let's go through all 270 posts, and let me decide what should be done.

That, to me, is inappropriate, where the experience and the expertise lies elsewhere.

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: But the top 10?

CLINTON: Top 10, top 10, but it's a constantly changing scenario.

SAWYER: Are you saying it's just the price of doing business to have people in dangerous outposts, even with less than the adequate security that the review boards have said they needed?

CLINTON: I'm saying that we have to be very thoughtful, as United States of America, where we send people, why we send them, what we expect from them, and how we do the best to protect them. We cannot eliminate every threat, every danger.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So when last we heard this much of her on this subject, it was those hearings, Brianna Keilar, we had. "What difference does it make?"

And now we have her sitting in front of Diane Sawyer.

How will this play?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think when you look right now at polls, they show that her time in the State Department is very much a positive, and that's despite Benghazi and that's despite President Obama's unpopularity.

So, so far, she is doing OK on this, but she is just protecting kind of that flank where she is being attacked by Republicans on this. And I think, really, Don, even though there are some very good questions about Benghazi -- this really does go to leadership and certainly what her role was in all of this -- I also think that the way she is playing it and those around her are playing it is they're saying, they see it as all politics.

In fact, I think, when they think of her accomplishments, when they think of the issues they need to talk about in terms of her State Department experience, I don't think they consider Benghazi to be a part of it at all. They consider it to be a political circus. And that's really how I think she will continue to paint this in the months to come and if she does decide she wants to run for president.

LEMON: Nick, that may be how she sees it, but it's not necessarily how the opposition is going to see it. Before you answer, I want to ask, Brianna said it appears by -- to

most people, even to the polls, that she was a good secretary of state. How did she do as secretary of state? And then continue on about with what you think about what she said in this interview.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Sure.

I think she was actually a pretty good secretary of state in a couple of ways. She didn't have the standard kind of triumph of some kind of a peace agreement. But I think she did two things pretty well. One is that she expanded the diplomatic agenda to include issues of development, poverty, women's rights, in a way that is really going be with everybody for a long time to come.

I think she expanded them in a really important way. And the second was that she expanded the tools of diplomacy, especially emphasized social media, things like that.

But, you know, boy, I got to say, I think you're right that we're looking at a glimpse of what is coming for the 2016 campaign. And if so, I find that depressing, because we're -- this is like Groundhog Day, talking about Benghazi again, about Monica Lewinsky.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Well, I actually feel like it is 1993 all over again. But I'm OK with that, because we were a lot younger then and probably less in debt.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: So, let's -- since you mentioned diplomacy, let's talk -- let's listen to her as she spoke about -- and this is about Vladimir Putin, and she talked about being a group that enforced sanctions on him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I'm a strong supporter of tough sanctions that create an economic cost for Russia and for him personally and his cronies.

SAWYER: Vladimir Putin said in a French television interview, "It is better not to argue with women."

He added, "Weakness is not the worst quality for a woman."

CLINTON: Well, I -- I saw that, and he's not the first male leader who has made a sexist comment like that. He and I, frankly, disagree. And we have done so publicly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Not the first made leader to make sexist comments.

Gloria Borger, you're right. She is playing up the fact that she is a woman this time around. BORGER: How about from Barack Obama during the campaign when he said

to Hillary Clinton, you're likable enough? Remember that?

LEMON: Yes.

BORGER: And when -- and in those clips that ABC showed when people were commenting on her clothes and her appearance.

What I think she is doing in a way by talking about this so much and by writing about it and by saying how she was always under a microscope because of her hair or her makeup -- I mean, women know this.

And I think what she's doing in a way is saying, don't do it again, inoculating herself to a certain degree, because she knows that's what it will be like if she runs.

LEMON: Gloria, you're very smart, because we were talking about. And I think she is sort of inoculating herself against the media. She's inoculating herself against misogyny in a way, and also Benghazi, because she is taking them on head on in this book.

And that's why I say she is already running for president and anticipating what she is going to have to deal with.

Nicholas?

KRISTOF: Yes. I think that you are right that there is an element of politics here.

But I think it's important to note that, for decades, this has really been an issue that she has cared passionately about, since before she went to Beijing and made that famous speech in, what was it, 1993 in Beijing. And I think this is an issue of -- that she really cares passionately about.

LEMON: And one evening not so long ago, we all sat here on television, Gloria, Brianna, and we didn't know what was going to happen. We knew that the White House was going to make a major announcement.

I sat on television for four hours, saying that there was going to be a major announcement, but we couldn't tell you, we didn't know what it was. They were in the Situation Room in the administration. Hillary Clinton was a part of them, and it was about bin Laden. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAWYER: You really didn't tell President Clinton about Osama bin Laden?

CLINTON: No. No. I mean, I take very seriously the obligations of secrecy. And...

SAWYER: But didn't he say, you could have told me?

CLINTON: Yes. Well, no, because he understood.

And when President Obama called to tell him, I think the president started by saying something, "Well, I assume Hillary has told you." And he goes, "Told me what?"

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: She was also saying that picture -- with her hand up, with her mouth open, and she said in the interview that she did it because that is when the tail of the airplane hit the wall of that compound in Pakistan, Brianna, and she's -- and there was also some concern she may share too much with the former president of the United States.

KEILAR: Sure.

This rather struck me as rather interesting, because it was a subtle way for her to show her independence from Bill Clinton. One of the things during his campaign was sort of the joke of, do you get two for the price of one, right?

And I think that this, in a way, when you sort of bring up the Clintons, and is it going to be kind of the '90s all over again, is it the two of them, I this is her way of sort of saying, you know what? I have got my own thing going.

And you talk to people close to Hillary Clinton and they will say, there really are boundaries, and at least it's something that she is really trying to project.

LEMON: I thought it was very interesting -- and I don't know if you did as well -- that she was not defensive at all when Monica Lewinsky came up.

BORGER: No.

LEMON: She said, listen, it's in -- it's in the news now. And we are -- you have every right as a journalist to bring it, up and I have every right either to answer it or not answer it.

But stick around. We will talk about that a little bit more coming up.

Nicholas Kristof, Gloria Borger, thank you very much.

Brianna, make sure you stay with me.

When we come right back, the questions Hillary Clinton would rather not answer, but her critics are asking. Plus, the closed-door Capitol Hill briefing tonight on Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Too little, too late? I'm going to ask a Bush White House attorney general about that.

And we want to know what you think about all of it. Make sure you tweet us using #AskDon. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Hillary Clinton's campaign and book tour for her memoir, "Hard Choices," is about as carefully controlled as it could be.

But there are still plenty of questions that the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state would probably rather not face.

Brianna Keilar is back with me tonight.

Brianna, those questions are?

KEILAR: Well, I think there are a number of them. Some of them obviously have to do with Benghazi.

She probably doesn't really feel great about revisiting the '90s and Monica Lewinsky, but she is prepared to do that. And, certainly, as the Democratic front-runner, she is very much in the Republican crosshairs. She's the front-runner by a mile.

And so this book tour really gives her a chance to flex some of those political muscles that may have atrophied, and also to try out a potential message for a presidential run.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR (voice-over): After decades in the political spotlight, Hillary Clinton comes with an entourage of issues and controversies, and her critics have every intention of keeping them in the spotlight.

She is a regular pinata for conservatives on the talk show circuit and The Drudge Report, Karl Rove infamously raising issues of her health and that fall she took as secretary of state in 2012.

KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I didn't say she had brain damage. She had a serious episode, a serious health episode.

KEILAR: Add to that her age. If elected in 2016, Hillary Clinton would be the second oldest president in history, younger only than Ronald Reagan, a fact Rove is surely mindful of.

CLINTON: I wish him well.

KEILAR: And then there is Monica Lewinsky just last month writing in "Vanity Fair" that she found Clinton's -- quote -- "impulse to blame the woman, not only me, but herself, troubling."

Hillary Clinton recently told "People" magazine: "I certainly have moved on. I think everybody needs to look to the future."

And that "People" cover photo, her 16th, conservatives were quickly questioning whether she is using a walker. She isn't. It's just a patio chair. She is also giving critics some fresh ammunition today, finding herself in the position of defending her wealth, telling ABC News she and her husband were not only dead broke, but in debt when they left the White House.

CLINTON: Struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education.

KEILAR: Houses, plural, not something most Americans connect with. Also not reality for most Americans, she recently revealed she hasn't driven a car in 20 years.

CLINTON: Last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: Politically, at least, Hillary Clinton is very much in the driver's seat. She has so much of the media attention. She is very much the darling of the polls.

And Republicans admit that she is a formidable opponent for sure. And they do hearken back a lot talking about the '90s. We have heard Monica Lewinsky come up. So, it was interesting today to hear Hillary Clinton asked about this in this interview with ABC News.

LEMON: But she is running all alone right now, Brianna Keilar.

So, let's see what happens if there -- if there is some competition to come. Brianna Keilar, thank you very much.

Joining me now is a man who definitely knows his way around White House scandals, and that is Carl Bernstein. Also, Politico's Maggie Haberman is with "New York Times" columnist Ross Douthat, and Lanny Davis. Lanny knows a lot about everything as well. He is the author of "Crisis Tales: Five Rules for Coping with Crises in Business, Politics, and Life." And he is a former White House special counsel for the Clinton administration.

As I said, I feel like it is the 1990s all over again, but I will take it because I'm a lot -- I was a lot younger and a lot thinner as well.

Well, guys, how did she do?

Starting with you, Lanny, how did she do?

LANNY DAVIS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Will I surprise anyone on the panel to say that I think she did great.

LEMON: As easy as that?

Maggie?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, POLITICO: She did very well. She had one gaffe, one very clear gaffe, and she has some questions that she is going to continue to get asked that she did not answer I think sufficiently for a lot of people, especially on Benghazi. That's not going away.

But I think for -- given how long this interview was -- it was well over an hour -- she did very well.

LEMON: What was the gaffe?

HABERMAN: The houses thing was not an answer I think she should give again. And I think she would do it over if she had to.

LEMON: And the questions on Benghazi that you think she is going to face over and over again?

HABERMAN: I think she is going to get asked about security. I think she is going to get asked about whether she did enough. She has taken responsibility, but she has also said she did not make security decisions.

These are -- her answer is legitimate. These questions are legitimate. It's just not going to go away. Whether it's going to be decisive is a very different question.

LEMON: OK.

HABERMAN: But she will get asked.

LEMON: Ross, how did she do?

ROSS DOUTHAT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I think -- I completely agree with Maggie.

I think the only real news-making gaffe is the houses line, and that has been the thing that people have been talking about today more generally, just the issue of the Clintons' really, really extraordinary wealth. And you were talking before about the '90s and Lewinsky and we're talking about Benghazi.

In terms of stuff that really could hurt her in 2016 -- and, to be clear, I think she is obviously a very formidable candidate -- but I think the sort of vague sleaziness of especially her husband's wealth garnering is an actual problem.

LEMON: OK.

DOUTHAT: And she hasn't figured out how to address it.

DAVIS: Oh, for goodness' sake.

LEMON: Carl?

CARL BERNSTEIN, AUTHOR, "A WOMAN IN CHARGE: THE LIFE OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON": Well, I come to this as a biographer of Hillary Clinton.

I spent eight years writing a biography about her. It came out in 2008. And I think we saw glimpses of genuineness and who she really is when she talked about family, about faith, about religion. But there also was a lot of defensiveness. And that's always been a problem for her.

It's a question of tone. But the most important thing to remember, I believe, is that we are in the midst of a huge Hillary Clinton/Bill Clinton-produced production, the likes of which we have never... LEMON: Amen. Thank you, Carl. Thank you.

BERNSTEIN: We have seen anything like this in our history.

And we're watching what they want us to watch and they are perfecting this stagecraft as we go through the next year or two, assuming that she is going to run. And we got a pretty good preview tonight. And she handled a lot of it very well, but there is this kind of aggressive defensiveness on some questions.

And yet we see, as I learned doing this biography, there are genuine aspects of her that came through. And that's what we want to see more of. What we don't see is real introspection.

LEMON: Yes.

BERNSTEIN: And that has always been the point that we want to see and almost never do.

LEMON: Right on, Carl. Right now, we are seeing what they want to produce, the interviews that they're doing. They are running the show.

Until there is some serious competition out there and she is asked some very serious questions on the real campaign trail -- she has already started that. But Carl mentioned that there is some defensiveness, especially about Monica Lewinsky. I would wonder if that is part of her defensiveness.

Let's listen to what she said, Maggie, and the first question will be to you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAWYER: Monica Lewinsky is back in the news.

CLINTON: Well, she's perfectly free to do that. She is, in my view, an American who gets to express herself however she chooses.

But that's, you know, not something that I spend a lot of time thinking about.

SAWYER: Did you call her a narcissistic loony toon?

CLINTON: I am not going to comment on what I did or did not say back in the late '90s.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: OK, so, Maggie, don't hold it against me, but I actually want Lanny to answer this since he was there with her for this.

(LAUGHTER)

HABERMAN: Go ahead. LEMON: So, Lanny, from a crisis management perspective, as a personal friend, how does she handle the more salacious stories, whether it's the "People" magazine walker controversy or Monica Lewinsky resurfacing?

DAVIS: I think she said a respectful opening sentence, that Ms. Lewinsky is entitled to her say, and she also did exactly the correct thing to say, I'm moving on.

And most Americans are going to get that. And I would also like to comment about the sleazy wealth. I have to get my equal time here.

Can you imagine a Republican running against Hillary Clinton on the idea that she favors wealthy people, as opposed to raising the minimum wage? This is going to be a campaign about the future of the country, especially about the economic disparities of the country. And John Kennedy's wealth was not exactly a handicap.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Well, Lanny, I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that it's not going to turn Democrats off as well.

You're looking at what...

DAVIS: I doubt it, Don, because her views on the issues, what she wants to do for the middle class are a lot more important than her ability to now earn and be able to afford two houses.

I'm just wondering how a Republican is going to criticize the Clintons for having too much wealth. That will be an interesting argument for Republicans.

LEMON: OK.

Well, Ross, who is harder on Hillary Clinton, you think? Is it conservative media or mainstream media, to follow up on what Lanny is saying?

DOUTHAT: Well, I think there is just a difference between the way the two medias cover her.

And I think that both of them, though, right now are probably looking at issues that voters aren't going to be focused on. I think -- I agree that I think that she handled the Monica Lewinsky question perfectly well.

I think that terrain is good for her. Her popularity increased during the Lewinsky scandal. It made her a sympathetic figure. I think, again, the problems for her are things that are only just starting to get coverage now, which reality not to the fact of her wealth itself, but, to make a distinction that I think Mr. Davis isn't quite grasping, the way in which that wealth was accumulated.

And there I think it does make a difference that it has been accumulated through essentially her husband, the former president of the United States, making tens and hundreds of millions of dollars basically on the promise of future access to another American administration. There is nothing illegal about it, but it is, like a lot of stuff that attaches to the Clintons, a little sleazy.

LEMON: So, Maggie, what does she need to do? Does she need to change her relationship to the press at all? Because some are saying the press is giving her a free ride. And she seems to think and her camp seems to think that she has a contentious relationship with the press. What needs to change here? How do you put the two together?

HABERMAN: She does not like the press. I have written about this with a colleague. This is not news. This is pretty well-covered terrain. She is not a fan.

She is going to have to have some kind of a media-friendly strategy going forward. Her folks have all said over the course of the last year, you will see a different type of campaign, less aggressive.

We will see. What she needs to do, beyond just coming up with a good strategy for the press, though, she needs a why for her candidacy. That is not something that we have heard the beginnings of in these interviews or in her book yet.

We will have to wait and see what that looks like until early next year. I do agree that the houses issue is not going to be an issue for her because of policies. I absolutely agree with Lanny on that.

But I do think she is going to have to come up with a rationale for why she should be president. She did not have that last time.

LEMON: OK. OK. All right, hang on.

You will get it in, but hang on. Stay with me, everyone, because, coming up, there is one Clinton who is definitely not running in 2016. Well, maybe. But could Bill Clinton end up back in the White House anyway? We are going to talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Well, you have heard that old saying history repeats itself, but the question is, is America ready for another Clinton vs. Bush battle for the White House?

I'm back now with Carl Bernstein, Maggie Haberman, Ross Douthat, and also Lanny Davis.

Carl, I think you were wanting to get in. I'm going to ask you this question. I want to -- I want you -- I want to play this sound bite. She is talking about women, double standards in politics, and then you can say your peace.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: When you're in the spotlight as a woman, you know you're being judged constantly. I mean, it is just never-ending. And you get a little worried about,

OK, well, you know, people over on this side are loving what I'm wearing, looking like, saying. People over on this side aren't.

And how -- your natural tendency is, how do you bring people together, so that you can better communicate? I'm done with that. I mean, I'm just done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Done with it.

So, two big questions. Would she ultimately be running against herself or running against the man? What do you think? What do you think there, Carl?

BERNSTEIN: I think she's going to be running for herself and for her values.

The question is, can she inspire people in this country? After 40 years in public life almost, we still really don't know in many ways who she is internally. You can read my biography and you get an idea of it, what's important to her. But the question is can she convey that beyond a kind of rote -- she's great on the issues. Most Americans agree with her on the issues. Almost every poll shows. The question is can she inspire and lead?

LEMON: You think after all these years that Americans still don't know who the real Hillary Clinton is? Is that what you're saying?

BERNSTEIN: I believe that utterly. It's why -- why I wrote "A Woman in Charge," a biography of her.

LEMON: Do you guys believe that?

DAVIS: Don, can I...

LEMON: Lanny.

DAVIS: First of all, I think Carl has a standard of introspection and getting to know people from within, and that's perfectly valid. But Hillary Clinton is a very popular political leader.

In 1958, Maggie, we didn't know what John Kennedy's program was for the future. We got plenty of time, you're absolutely right. This campaign will be about the future and the economic issues again. I'm going to look forward to Republicans attacking Hillary Clinton for being in favor...

LEMON: Lanny, Lanny, let me jump in here and say it's not 1958. People want to know personal things about their candidates.

DAVIS: Absolutely. I'm just...

LEMON: That was an issue back in 2008. DAVIS: Don, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying it's a little

early, two years away, at least one year away before a campaign begins to start, to raise those examinations.

But I think that the Hillary Clinton you saw tonight and that I've known for over 40 years, you saw the laughter. I think the authenticity. There's a great sense of humor that you saw about the Karl Rove comment.

I wish Karl Rove well. He was known as George Bush's brain. She laughed and gave the kind of personality that I've known through the years. And I certainly agree that that Hillary Clinton did emerge too late in the 2008 campaign. I think she's now going to show us more of herself.

LEMON: She even admitted as much herself. Because she was saying back in 2008, "I really didn't have a very good strategy." She admitted that in an interview tonight. Let's -- I want you to listen to this, because I'm wondering if people are tired of Clinton versus Bush all over again. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAWYER: Barbara Bush has said enough with the Clintons and the Bushes. The Clintons and the Bushes. It's just getting silly, she said. Do you feel some of that?

CLINTON: I don't because this is -- this is a democracy. People get to choose their leaders.

SAWYER: Is the White House yours to lose?

CLINTON: Well, I don't think so. Because if I were to decide to pursue it, I would be working as hard as any underdog or any newcomer. Because I don't want to take anything for granted if I decide to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So it's going to be Clinton versus Bush. Again, the question is, are we going to get Bill Clinton all over again? Because Bill Clinton says, you get two for the price of -- you get one for free. Remember, he said that, Maggie?

It was you get a co-presidency, essentially. Not his exact words.

HABERMAN: I don't think that we are going to see Bill Clinton play the same type of role in this campaign that he certainly did in the last campaign.

And I think he has been very careful while she was at the State Department to be very disciplined. He watched what he said. The foundation was much more careful about certain engagements that it had. It certainly has been since she left.

He has been very on message and very deferential. That doesn't mean that he has given up his interests, and it certainly doesn't mean she's not seeking his advice. But I don't think you're going to see her offering up the Clintons as a co-presidency. She is, however, talking a lot about his economic record and that's not insignificant.

LEMON: The question is, though, Ross, and I think that maybe this has yet to be found out. Right? And we need to do more polling as it gets closer to 2016, obviously. But I think there might be some Clinton-Bush fatigue among the American public.

DOUTHAT: I'm sure there is. But at the same time if you look at the Democratic field, I mean, there are reasons why we're talking so much about Hillary Clinton, and they aren't just her unique status. There's also the fact that nobody -- nobody comes anywhere close to her in the polls, and it's actually hard to imagine anyone coming close to her in the polls.

And the reality is that, yes, she was the favorite in 2008. And she was upset then, but she was upset by Barack Obama, who was a once in a generation political figure. And if you look at the Martin O'Malleys and even the Elizabeth Warrens that people keep talking about, there just isn't an Obama in the group. So Clinton fatigue or no Clinton fatigue, it's very hard to imagine how, if she runs -- and I think we can assume she's running -- she won't be the nominee.

LEMON: You said there isn't a Barack Obama in the group. Well, Barack Obama hadn't even emerged at this point.

DOUTHAT: No, but he had. This is the thing. If you go back, in 2004, he emerged in the Democratic National Convention. His books were selling. People were writing columns urging him to run. I was writing columns as a kid urging him to run. And there just -- I mean, there's a little bit of that with Elizabeth Warren. But nobody looks at Elizabeth Warren and sees someone who can slay the -- slay the giant or the dragon, or if you prefer, some more flattering metaphor.

BERNSTEIN: Let's be real. This nomination is hers if she runs.

LEMON: Yes. But Carl, here's the danger. It's hers if she's run. She's the only man or woman out there. She's the only person out there now. So is she in danger of too much exposure? Is this too much of a roll-out?

BERNSTEIN: She's running against herself.

LEMON: Right.

BERNSTEIN: And how she handles these next two years, it's very much about tone. It's very much about whether she can win over enough independent voters to be comfortable with her as a person, as a leader. I don't think it's just about issues. As I say, she's got the country on the issues. The demographics show it.

But she has got to get people comfortable with her. They're comfortable and have been for a long time, I think, with her husband but not so much with her, and that's what this theater is all about. And she has got a production going on with a cast of thousands.

Everybody taking notes and giving them to her at the end of each day's performance. We've never seen anything like this. And we have to look at her and this campaign and our political process right now as a Clinton phenomenon to some extent.

DAVIS: Can I just...

LEMON: No, you can't, Lanny. I'm sorry.

DAVIS: I was going to agree with Carl for the first time.

LEMON: All right. So you got it in. You can blame my producers for that. All for the sake of time. And we will have all of you back. Thank you all.

Hillary Clinton takes audience questions in a town hall meeting in the town hall at Washington's Newseum. That's on June 17. Christiane Amanpour moderates, and you can see the whole thing live right here on CNN. That's beginning at 5 p.m. Eastern and then again at 9 p.m. Make sure you watch it there.

Again, thanks to all of my guests. Great guests. We will have them back.

When we come right back here on CNN, new details on Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl's five years in captivity, including time literally spent in a cage.

And later, why a lot of people have changed their minds about O.J. Simpson 20 years later.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl is recovering in hospital in Germany. But the backlash about the deal that freed him is far from over. Our next guest calls the prisoner swap, quote, "ghastly."

Joining me now is Michael Mukasey. He's a former attorney general under President George W. Bush.

Good to see you, sir. You know, you...

MICHAEL MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good to be with you.

LEMON: Thank you. You recently wrote an op-ed in "The Washington Post," and it's called "The Ghastly Transaction That Freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl." Do you believe that we should have left Bowe Bergdahl over there in the hands of the Taliban?

MUKASEY: Well, I don't think that was really the choice. The question is whether we had to do it now and whether we had to do it on these terms. And I think the answer to both of those is no.

LEMON: A lot of the controversy over the swap deal, you say the president broke the law in not notifying Congress 30 days in advance of the transfer of those five Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

MUKASEY: That's really the least of it, Don.

LEMON: What should happen now, though?

MUKASEY: What should happen now is that -- that Bowe Bergdahl should be charged and tried for desertion. Whether he deserted voluntarily or not, I think, is something that we'll find out. All the evidence suggests that he did, but that should be the next order of business.

LEMON: So the least of it. You said it was the least of it. What do you mean?

MUKASEY: What I mean is the least of it was not notifying Congress. He apologized for that. I think it's the terms of the deal in which five senior Taliban commanders, five senior Taliban officials who had very close ties themselves with al Qaeda, get released and sent back to the fight. At least one of them has already said that he's going to go back to the fight. And I think it's certainly expected that the other four will, as well.

LEMON: You said he broke the law, but you said that law is unconstitutional. And they said that in that, just...

MUKASEY: That wasn't the basis on which he relied, interestingly. But go ahead.

LEMON: OK. They said -- here's what they're saying. That if it had leaked, that Bowe Bergdahl would probably have lost his life. They would have killed him.

MUKASEY: That's -- that is pure speculation. They also said that his life was in danger because his health was deteriorating. And it turns out, when he got to Landstuhl, he was in good health.

There's been a succession of -- there's been a succession of excuses, each of which has evaporated. The notion of leaks, I think, is also rebutted by the fact they told quite a number of people within the government although not the people in the Congress.

LEMON: What do you think should happen, then, to the administration and to the White House for breaking the law, so to speak, or for trading five very dangerous, you believe, terrorists?

MUKASEY: That's a political decision to be made within the political arena. They will take the consequences in terms of the way the politics shakes out. I'm not a politician.

Legally, should anything with done to them? I can't see that legally anything can be done to them.

LEMON: Let's talk...

MUKASEY: They were within the law. I just think it was a very bad policy decision. LEMON: Let's talk about the flak that happened over, you know, the

sort of ceremony around this, the president in the Rose Garden, the press conference with Bowe Bergdahl's parents. Do you think the White House misjudged the public's reaction to the swap deal? That is the question. I think -- I think that they did. What do you think?

MUKASEY: I think it's pretty clear they did. And it's kind of surprising that you would get that level of misjudgment at the White House level. Those folks are supposed to be in touch with what's going on the outside. And the question then becomes are they operating in a bubble? And I hope the answer to that is no but one wonders.

LEMON: Part of the reason, obviously, we have you here and a big reason is your experience, and you have been there. How would you have advised the president in this particular situation?

MUKASEY: Well, as I would have -- I would have had only a piece of the advice. I think the advice that he should have really looked to would have been advice from the intelligence community and advice from the military. And I don't know that he got that advice from either one.

My understanding is that the military, early on when these negotiations started, was against the deal, that the intelligence folks were against it, and they were simply cut out of the decision. I think I would have advised the president to talk to people in the military, talk to people in the intelligence community before arriving at a final decision.

LEMON: We're told the national security team was in support, if not unanimously in support.

MUKASEY: The national security team are people hand-picked within the White House. I'm talking about people within the NSA, people within the CIA and people within the military. That's not the small national security team that the president works with, and whom he picked, on a day-to-day basis.

LEMON: Former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate you joining us here on CNN.

MUKASEY: Thanks for having me.

LEMON: When we come right back, what happens when Bowe Bergdahl finally comes home?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: What happens when Bowe Bergdahl finally gets home? And can he get back to any semblance of a normal life with his family?

Joining me is retired general, Major General James "Spider" Marks, CNN military analyst, and also Pam Morris. She's the publisher of the "Idaho Mountain Express," which serves Bowe Bergdahl's hometown of Hailey, Idaho.

Good to see both of you this evening. Pam, we're going to start with you. It has been five years since Bowe Bergdahl has seen his family. But despite being freed from his captors, he still hasn't spoken to his parents. And to make matters worse, his family has received threats following his release. How is the community responding to this?

PAM MORRIS, PUBLISHER, "IDAHO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS": The community is responding very defensively, and the community really would like to see the rest of Americans and the rest of the nation extend some patience to a family that has suffered enormously with their missing son over the last five and a half years.

We cannot imagine personally going through the kind of ordeal that these parents have been through. And we very much want the patience extended to them and to their son as this story continues to unfold.

It's been very upsetting. It's been very shocking at the level of vitriol that this story has engendered all around the world. And...

LEMON: Who do you blame for that?

MORRIS: ... we are a -- who do we blame for that? I think people who are rushing to judgment, No. 1.

And also, a world in which we want information now. And we want it quickly. And we think things can be wrapped up and tied up in a bow at the end of a two-hour movie or an hour newscast or a 30-minute news show. And real life isn't like that.

LEMON: Right.

MORRIS: Real life is very gray. We want black; we want white. We want to know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

LEMON: And General...

MORRIS: And Bowe Bergdahl has become a pawn in this situation, both nationally and internationally. And we think that's very, very unfortunate.

LEMON: And General Marks, you know, we are now learning new details about the suffering, the torture and the isolation that Bergdahl endured. And that's according to "The New York Times." Bergdahl told medical staff that he -- he was kept in a box, that it was pitch black, like a shark cage, for weeks at a time. The psychological damage of being beaten and treated basically like a caged animal by the Taliban.

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.), CNN CONTRIBUTOR: John, I think what we need to realize at this point is that Sergeant Bergdahl not only is an American soldier who needs to be reintegrated, this five years of captivity clearly has messed with him in immense ways. And our medical team in Landstuhl, and the continuing care he'll get back in San Antonio, they'll get to the bottom of all of this. But objectively, we need to keep in mind that Sergeant Bergdahl is an

intelligence source. We have to debrief him. We have to get to the bottom of what he knows. So there has to be a path, a linear progression of steps we have to go through so that we can debrief this young man to figure out what he knows and what he went through. This is going to thicken and broaden our intelligence.

So we have this emotional side and I got it. There's a medical side that he must go through so that he recovers fully. But there's an intelligence and a very objective thing that we need to go through. And must that is the debrief of this soldier so that we can better understand his five years and, more importantly, the enemy that had him.

LEMON: Yes. Listen, very quickly, I want you both of you to weigh in on this. I don't have a ton of time here. Let's talk about this is a new "USA Today"/Pew Research poll that talks about the public skepticism over -- over this release today. It says 43 percent say it was wrong for the Barack Obama administration to exchange five Taliban prisoners for Bowe Bergdahl. Are you surprised that they may feel that way? First to you, General.

MARKS: I'm not surprised at all. This presumption is this kid did a bunch of wrong things and, therefore, is being judged accordingly. We need to let the Army play out the 15-6 investigation and figure out what really happened.

LEMON: Pam, are you surprised?

MORRIS: No, not at all. Anyone who's seen comment boards on the web is not surprised at this. We did a local poll on the newspaper which showed very similar results.

But still, we would ask for people's patience in waiting to rush to judgment until all the information is in and until Bowe Bergdahl has a chance to speak to himself or through a trusted representative.

LEMON: OK. That's going to have to be the last word. Thank you very much. I appreciate you, General Marks and also Pam Morris.

When we come right back, it has been 20 years since O.J. Simpson was charged with the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman, but now a lot of people have changed their minds about the case. We're going to talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: It's time now for "CNN TONIGHT Tomorrow," the stories that you will be talking about tomorrow.

Up first, reports that Donald Sterling's attorneys say his client no longer wants to sell the Clippers and will sue the NBA for $1 billion. ESPN is quoting Sterling's attorney, via e-mail; says the deal is off.

Meanwhile, on the fifth anniversary of Michael Jackson's death, just days away, we have an exclusive for you. Now Conrad Murray, the man who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's death, well, he wants to tell his side of the story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONRAD MURRAY, CONVICTED IN MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH: This is the very first time I have made the statement publicly that analyzes the case that was brought against me, Conrad Murray vs. the State of California. A lie unchallenged becomes the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: OK. That's what -- you will see this here. You saw that here first on CNN TONIGHT. That is a video from Dr. Conrad Murray's website. It's called DrConradMurrayTalks.com. It is online now.

I spoke with him tonight and he tells me exclusively, quote, "The purpose for releasing this video to the world is to highlight the injustices, the deception, tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice in the trial that led to my unjust conviction and incarceration. And above all, it is to demonstrate my innocence."

Plus, a big change in attitudes about O.J. Simpson. A majority of African-Americans surveyed now say that the murder charges against O.J. Simpson were true. That's from a new CNN/ORC poll.

Simpson was acquitted in the slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

"CNN REPORTS: O.J. Simpson's Wild Ride, 20 Years After the Chase," premiers tomorrow night at 9 Eastern. And right here I'm going to talk to Nicole Brown Simpson's sister, Tanya. Make sure you tune in.

That's it for me tonight. I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for watching. "AC 360" starts right now.