Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Trump Aware Of The Whistleblower Complaint Prior To Ukraine Bombshell; Testimony Of OMB Official Undercuts Trumps' Impeachment Defense; Melania Trump Booed At Youth Opioid Summit In Baltimore; Lindsey Graham Doubles Down On Push For Investigation Into Bidens After Joe Biden Says He's Embarrassed For Graham; Three Men Released From Prison 36 Years After Being Wrongfully Convicted Of Murder. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired November 26, 2019 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Ten percent say she's the one to beat Trump -- same number for Sanders by the way. Biden much higher than that.

Its 69 days from the first votes in the Iowa caucuses but this isn't what Warren wants to see, especially with Bloomberg now in the race and looking to make a lane. So be on the lookout. Thank you for watching.

Want to get you quickly to "CNN TONIGHT" with Laura Coates, the upgrade for D. Lemon. And tonight especially, Laura, this timeline, you cannot like it, and it's one reason that the president may keep his defenders out of this judiciary proceeding because they have to have an answer.

Why did you release the aid when you did because it looks like you released the aid because you knew you had to?

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: If it looks like a green cheetah print blouse, it is in fact a green cheetah print blouse. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.

It looks like that, Chris, we're seeing more and more because you have eyes, you have ears, you have observational skills and we've got a great panel of people today to talk about why precisely this might in fact be an Achilles' heel.

The obvious turn of events here. All this and that you got to wonder how much longer are people honestly going to be able to say it's pure coincidence, right?

CUOMO: And also, they kept complaining about the process. Now they have more rights than Clinton ever had. Still at this basic investigatory indictment basic phase and they're not going to take the option? Perfect show for you tonight.

COATES: Well, thank you and thank you for being a part of this experience in my green python dress. This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Laura Coates sitting in for Don Lemon. And we're learning a whole lot more tonight about the shakedown on

Ukraine and how all these dots are now connecting. The "New York Times" reporting that the president already knew about the whistleblower complaint, that complaint that set off the impeachment inquiry, before he ever released the aid to Ukraine.

That's right around the time the president told Ambassador Gordon Sondland there was no quid pro quo, using that term, before people started using that phrase even publicly.

It's in one of his favorite talking points ever since. He brought it up at his campaign rally in Florida this evening, the crowd chanting "no quid pro quo" along with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want nothing. This is a quote. I want no quid pro quo. I want nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We're also getting brand new information tonight from never- before-seen transcripts including this new detail. The White House never actually asked its own budget office about other countries contributing aid to Ukraine until September, which doesn't exactly jive with the president's claims that he held up the aid because he wanted other countries to pony up.

We'll tell you what else is in those transcripts in a moment. But you've got to wonder, with all this new information still coming out, would it be smart for Democrats to slow down and see where all of this takes us? That as the House Judiciary Committee is taking over and holding its first hearing next Wednesday.

And it sounds they're calling the president's bluff here, I mean, inviting him and his lawyers to participate and to question witnesses. You remember that's been an obsession for the president and his defenders, demanding to be able to question witnesses.

A senior administration official telling CNN that the idea is under consideration and "likely to come up for discussion during the president's trip to Florida for Thanksgiving." I'll bet it will. Listen to this from the president tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They're pushing that impeachment witch hunt and a lot of bad things are happening to them because you see what's happening in the polls? Everybody said that's really bullshit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Not exactly presidential language, we know. And frankly, the fact is half of the American people think the president should be impeached and removed from office. You see it right there in the new CNN poll. And that comes on the day First Lady Melania Trump was booed by an

audience of mostly middle and high school students at a youth opioid summit in Baltimore. A mix of boos and cheers as the First Lady finished her speech and left the stage.

And she did respond later that everyone's entitled to their opinion, but let's remember this -- this is Baltimore, the city the president called, "a disgusting rat and rodent-infested mess" and going on to tweet, "no human being would want to live there."

So, is it really any surprise that civility is losing out? We've got a lot of news on impeachment tonight and joining me now, Frank Bruni, Philip Bump, and Elie Honig. I'm glad that you're all here right now.

[22:05:04]

Elie, I've got to start with you here because this new "New York Times" reporting is giving us a timeline that essentially says the jig is up, that you didn't just coincidentally insert the words quid pro quo in a conversation with Gordon Sondland, did he?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So much for no quid pro quo, so much for I want nothing. I mean, I think it was five days ago that was what Donald Trump seemed to think that was the silver bullet defense, game over. He just said it in the rally.

But now we know, as Adam Schiff told us by the way. Remember, Adad Schiff said he only said that after he got caught. Now it seems we're getting confirmation of that. That kind of denial after the fact carries no weight. If anything, it tends to be incriminating.

COATES: I mean after the fact conversations here, Frank, I mean, the idea of saying, hold on, let's figure out a way to make what has happened look good. Listen to what Ambassador Gordon Sondland had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORDON SONDLAND, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: I finally called the president. I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can't find the records and they won't provide them to me. But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman.

What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want? And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood, and he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right. We got a bad mood. We got the no quid pro quo. Do we think we might know why he was a little bit angry?

FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Well, he's doing damage control by (inaudible). To your point, Elie he's doing damage control when he's saying no quid pro quo. He believes that he's been found out. You know, he believes that the scheme has been unveiled.

He knows Congress may be getting involved at some point. He's probably turning to the news every day wondering when it's going to come out, and so he needs to be able to say, oh, I said to Gordon Sondland no quid pro quo. But this is directly contradicted by the transcript of the July 25th phone call.

COATES: That they provided of course, right.

BRUNI: So nobody -- that they provided. It's contradicted by so much other evidence. You talked about connecting dots before. We're at a point now where you don't need to connect dots. You need to just let the dots wash over you. The picture is very clear.

So, I mean, that no quid pro quo, that is damage control. That is because we now know that in late August, he had been told about the whistleblower complaint, and he knew that this was ultimately going to bubble into the public light.

COATES: You know, Philip, I want to read this from the "Times" reporting. They talk about how the intelligence I.G., Michael Atkinson, concluded the complaint needed to be sent to Congress.

He said this, "But the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone and his deputy John a. Eisenberg disagreed. They decided that the administration could withhold from Congress the whistleblower's accusations because they were protected by executive privilege.

The lawyers told Mr. Trump they planned to ask the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether they had to disclose the complaint to lawmakers. A week later, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the administration did not have to hand over the complaint."

So, Philip, are we thinking that they were trying to get ahead of it and just wanted to nip it in the bud before it ever got out?

PHILIP BUMP, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON POST: Yes, I mean clearly. I mean, this is actually how this all came to light, was there was -- it was known there was this whistleblower complaint that was actually being held back from Congress.

Congress found out about it and then Adam Schiff actually sent a letter demanding that this be released. And that was all shortly around the time they actually ended up releasing the aid.

I mean, I think that there are a couple points I'd make on that. The first is that Eisenberg himself had twice already been contacted with concerns about this by Alex Vindman. Alone he had been contacted twice, including immediately after the July 25th call, saying, hey, I'm concerned about this conversation that has happened --

COATES: That was the lieutenant colonel who said, look, I have a problem with what is being asked of here --

BUMP: That's right. COATES: -- a quid pro quo. You might have a bipartisan issue for financial support for Ukraine. I mean, he was up on it immediately.

BUMP: That's right. Yes, and that was his second time going to Eisenberg with concerns about how the administration was handling Ukraine. The second thing I'd say is to this new timeline with President Trump having known, the "Washington Post" editorial board actually on September 5th came out and said we are hearing from reliable sources that there is a connection between this aid and the fact that Donald Trump wants these investigations in Ukraine.

So Donald Trump was already, no matter when he spoke with Gordon Sondland, it's not clear if it was the 7th or the 9th. Donald Trump was already aware and he was already public and out there that this was something of concern to him. So I think this is just sort of a complication factor.

COATES: Elie, where does Attorney General Barr come into this, because, I mean, he is somebody who essentially weighed in through the Justice Department about the idea of handing over the complaint.

HONIG: Yes. Let's not forget the legal contortions they went through to try to keep that complaint under wraps. The law says if the complaint is found to be credible and urgent, which the I.G. did find, it shall be submitted to Congress -- shall, not negotiable, mandatory.

Shall -- and so they went through this whole legal wrangling, and Laura, you and I know something -- lawyers -- unscrupulous lawyers can reach any conclusion that they want. It seems like that's what Bill Barr did here.

Surprise, surprise. Guess how he came out the way of suppressing information that might damage the president? Oh Barr, could you delete it?

[22:10:00]

COATES: I'm going to move past the word unscrupulous as you looked me in the eye because I am not unscrupulous. How dare you --

HONIG: No, in contrast to us.

COATES: Of course, now that's clear. But Frank, why is this story not clear to other people? I mean is it a matter of people not understanding the nuanced timeline here, or is there something more to it? People's inability or refusal to say these dots are connecting or they're washing over us?

BRUNI: Well, first of all, people are not paying nearly as close attention to the fine grain analysis of this as we are, right. A lot of people are tuned out. But I think the big thing to remember is we live in a time of such sharp political tribalism that most people decide what they want to believe before any of these hearings begin, and they do their level best to cling to that belief.

And it becomes easy for them in our current news media ecosystem because they can watch, say, Fox news if they only want to hear stuff that flatters the president.

They can set up their twitter feeds and their Facebook, everything they can do to curate information so that their beliefs are validated and echoed back at them. And so, we may be living in this sort of age of fixed opinion that's nothing like what the situation was in previous impeachment scenarios.

COATES: So, that's a great point. If he's right, Philip, I mean the idea that people have this entrenched tribalism when you need public opinion going forward in an impeachment inquiry, what are they to do now?

Is that the reason we're going to have these hearings on next Wednesday to essentially illuminate and define what impeachment is about and how you define a high crime and misdemeanor?

BUMP: Well, I don't want to get too ahead of the CNN poll results today but they were very illustrative of this exact point. Obviously, we saw the numbers up a little while ago saying that 50 percent support impeachment or removal. But what wasn't shown was that it was exact same number that we saw in October before the public hearings actually began.

COATES: Why is that so important?

BUMP: Because the entire point of the Democrats holding these public hearings -- not the entire point, but a large part of the point was they wanted to move public opinion and what they saw is they didn't really move public opinion.

They certainly got Democrats slightly more onboard. Republicans moved slightly more away. But I think one detail of the CNN polling that is really, really telling is CNN also shared past polling data from November 2014 when they actually asked the same question, should Barack Obama be impeached and remove from office.

Now, Barack Obama in November 2014, nothing even close to this Ukraine issue. I mean, on the same page, Republicans were five times as supportive of impeachment in November 2014 as they are now.

COATES: At your same point, of course you got to think about the idea that we're talking about the Senate as jurors and the founding fathers said that they thought they'd be more sophisticated than the average juror, who you and I both know, Elie, are going to be a little bit fickle and not particularly precise in how they do the issues.

But we have to keep going forward. I'll have you guys another day. I certainly hope because your minds collectively are great for this topic in particular. Thank you all. Appreciate it.

New revelations in just the past few hours in the impeachment investigation, including testimony that despite the president's claims, the White House never actually asked its own budget office about other countries contributing aid to Ukraine until September.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:15:00]

COATES: You know one big development on top of another in the impeachment inquiry tonight. In just the last few hours, we've learned that President Trump knew of the whistleblower's complaint before he released the aid to Ukraine.

And testimony released from a senior official at the Office of Management and Budget appears to shoot down some of the defenses of the president and his allies. Joining me to discuss, Manu Raju and Michael Isikoff, I'm glad you're both here. Thank you gentlemen.

You know, Michael, let me start with you here. We are still learning new information about events at really the heart of this impeachment inquiry. There were big developments in the last couple hours alone. Is there an argument now for taking a little more time to dig into all of this before moving on to the next phase of the inquiry?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT, YAHOO NEWS: Well, certainly there's an argument for it.

COATES: Is it a good one?

ISIKOFF: Whether it's politically wise for the Democrats to do at this point is a little unclear. You know, yesterday there was all the talk in light of the ruling by Judge Jackson involving Don McGahn, whether that was grounds for holding off to try to get testimony from people like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney.

I don't think that's likely to happen if only because the appeal, you know, we saw the appeals filed today in the McGahn case. That's going to delay things.

And as far as the Ukraine testimony in and of itself, I don't know that the Democrats are in a position to get much more useful testimony on this because some of the key questions that are still on the table, exactly what prompted the president to reinstate the Ukrainian military assistance.

It is probably -- probably only come from him himself. It's not clear that there are a lot of other people who have a great deal of insight into what his thinking was.

COATES: It's a good point. I mean, how many more puzzle pieces do you need to see the entire jigsaw puzzle if only one or two are missing, you might have enough to go forward. You know

But Manu, let's talk about these new transcripts that have been released by the House Intel Committee. The OMB official, Mark Sandy, says that no one asked them for information about how much money the European Union gave Ukraine until just September, a few months ago. Talk about why that's so important here.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's the only official from the White House Budget Office to go behind closed doors and testify before House impeachment investigators. He's a career official in charge of this process, and what he describes is what he says is a highly unusual process in delaying this military aid to Ukraine.

That he, in June, he heard from a senior political appointee that the president apparently had concerns about this aid being withheld because the president read some press report about it. And this set up a whole series of events that occurred -- that led to discussions internally and that led to this hold being placed in July.

[22:20:06]

And then Sandy had multiple questions because he wasn't getting answers to those questions. A top political appointee, Mike Duffey, came in and then he took control of the authority to hold that aid going forward after Sandy initially placed that aid.

So, he was asking why did that happened. Now, the answers weren't particularly clear until September came along when Duffey, the political appointee, sent him an e-mail and said the reason why the aid had been withheld is because the president wanted more European countries to provide security assistance to Ukraine.

But the questions of the timeline raise -- the raise a lot of questions because during that duration of those several weeks and months, many people were asking questions about why that aid was being withheld.

And of course we know the president was pushing for Ukraine to announce those investigations that could help him politically all along at that same time. So, it ultimately leads to, you know, what was the president thinking and who else could shed more light on that?

COATES: Who, what, where, when, why. All of it is important. Michael, you know, Sandy also testified that two OMB officials, including one in the legal division, left after expressing concerns over the hold on the Ukrainian aid.

And a senior administration official actually disputing this and we know that one of them went to the Government Accountability Office, the GAO. How significant is all of this now?

ISIKOFF: Well, look, apparently these people resigned over concerns about the budget and impoundment act and whether the White House was following that, which is an interesting technical legal question, but it's not what the impeachment debate is all about.

President Trump is not -- there's not going to be an article of impeachment accusing the president of violating that particular statute. That's not what it's about.

And I do have to say, I think that the Sandy testimony is a little more muddled than some of the coverage tonight is suggesting because the fact that his superior at OMB, the political appointee, Mike Duffey, did come back with those questions about what other European countries were spending in terms of aid to Ukraine. Go back to the transcript of the July 25th call and it's the first thing that President Trump raises with Zelensky. Before he ever gets to the 2016 election interference and the Bidens, he's talking about whether Germany and other European countries are spending enough.

So it's likely that was part of the mix and that's why this makes it not quite as clean a case on the military aid suspension as the Democrats have presented so far.

COATES: You know, of course on that point, Manu, the idea that the president made that statement in terms of asking for a favor and reminding about essentially the reciprocity that needed to happen and the leverage was all being, you know, set up at that point in time.

But we're also learning new information today about the timeline of events on July 25th, the day of the now infamous call. Take a look.

So Trump-Zelensky's call happens at 9:03 a.m. Trump says he wants Zelensky to do us a favor on the investigations. Then at 2:31 p.m., the Ukrainians and the House Foreign Affairs Committee have begun to start asking the State Department questions about the security assistance.

And then at 4:25 p.m., a second e-mail from the State Department, asking about the foreign military financing situation. And then today, we learned that Trump officially put a hold on the aid to Ukraine later in the evening. This is all in one day. Manu, what's your takeaway from all this?

RAJU: Yes, and the aid had been withheld -- at least there was an announcement that this aid would be withheld for the week before in an interagency conference call that the notice came from an official at the White House Office of Management and Budget saying that the direction came from the president to place this hold on this aid.

And the people who were in that call testified that they were alarmed by that, they were stunned by that decision. And then the following week, the discussions continued, and then that evening of July 25th, that infamous phone call officially for the first time, the White House Office of Management and Budget places a hold on the aid.

But what's significant too in all of this, there are still questions all along about why that aid had been withheld. There are questions from the Ukrainian embassy. There are just -- people were asking questions, what was going on with the security assistance.

It was unclear if they knew exactly precisely why that aid would have been withheld or someone tipped them off that there was something going on that they needed to be concerned about. But what's clear from all of this, and that there were a number of questions that were happening all around the president's own government.

And so when the president says it was just all about one phone call, it wasn't just about one phone call. It set up a whole series of events where there were a lot of people alarmed, concerned, major implications to national security were being raised and that's what we're hearing from these testimonies.

[22:25:05]

COATES: And, Manu, after all this, I mean, everyone thought it was a perfect call. I hope you can see my sarcasm through the screen. Thank you, gentlemen.

RAJU: Thanks.

ISIKOFF: Thank you.

COATES: You know, the First Lady was booed in Baltimore today by an audience full of high school and middle school students.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: -- to join you today for such an important event centered on opioid awareness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is civility dead? And if so, who killed it? We'll discuss that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:29:59]

COATES: First Lady Melania Trump was booed by an audience in mostly middle and high school students while speaking about the Opioid crisis in Baltimore.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S WIFE: -- Thank you for the warm introduction and for inviting me to join you today for such an important event centered on opioid awareness. Thank you.

(CHEERS AND BOOING)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you so much, first lady. I appreciate it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now this is the first time she has been publicly booed at a solo event. The first lady responding in a statement saying, we live in a democracy, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the fact is we have a serious crisis in our country, and I remain committed to educating children on the dangers and deadly consequences of drug abuse.

Joining me now to discuss all of this, Tara Setmayer and Scott Jennings. Welcome to you both. I'm glad you're here. Thank you. Tara, I'll start with you. I mean, first of all, first ladies don't often get booed. It was almost uncomfortable to watch. TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, it was. I want to know

whose decision it was to decide that she should go to an area outside of Baltimore, a place where the president of the United States has insulted, calling it rat-infested when after the beloved Elijah Cummings from that area, who has now passed away, never apologizing for those comments. I mean, what did they expect? It was a hostile environment.

Now, the other side of it is these are high school and middle school students. They shouldn't be acting that way. It is still the first lady of the United States. But this -- what do you expect in this politically in civil environment that we're in that it comes straight from the top. It's difficult to take Melania Trump seriously on a be best campaign when her husband is the bully in chief from the bully pulpit of the presidency. He's disrespectful. He does everything that she's allegedly supposed to stand against, yet she's supposed to represent this and people take her seriously. It's incongruent, and you see the result.

COATES: Well, Scott, I mean is Tara right? After comments like that, shouldn't the White House have taken some sort of backlash or should this have been compartmentalized given the topic of the speech?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think, Tara raises a good question about the scheduling process. I mean, I wonder if someone raised a flag internally about putting her in a situation where she was going to have to face, you know, essentially problems --

COATES: Right.

JENNINGS: -- you know, P.R. problems in a city that she didn't make. Now, I applaud them on the other hand for having the courage to go do it because the topic is so important. The White House does have a lot of legislative and policy success on opioid crisis that we face in this country, opioid addiction and overdose deaths are down. So it's good that they're out doing this.

You know, when I was watching it, I heard some cheers. I heard some boos. And I was thinking about the civility angle you brought up. But then, I thought Melania's statement on the back end of it is just right. It's a democracy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But we have to keep speaking out on this important issues.

I also wondered about the crowd, you know, I heard, again, cheers and boos but obviously the kids who were booing the first lady of the United States didn't fear any reprisals. It makes me wonder if the adults, you know, in their life, the teachers and parents had obviously given them, you know, negative feedback about the president and the first lady of the United States.

COATES: That would be shocking for parents to talk to their kids about the nature -- that would be shocking, Scott. I mean, you know, that issue, but Tara, Melania Trump was trying to raise awareness about the nation's opioid crisis. She, she personally never trashed Baltimore. So in a way, is the first lady responsible for her husband's behavior? Are people no longer able to distinguish the two? SETMAYER: Well, she's an extension of him, and at this point you just

cannot separate the two, particularly given what she has chosen to be her signature issue.

COATES: The be best program.

SETMAYER: To be best program, right. It has multiple pillars is my understanding. Now, opioids were added to that, obviously because the online cyberbullying part of it was so asinine coming from her given who her husband is and the environment we live in. I guess they figured we (inaudible) to expand this a little bit more, but, you know, she was supposed to be a moderating force, right?

Her and Ivanka, people thought, OK, you know, she can be his whisperer and we're looking to her to do that, and she hasn't. She hasn't really come out and spoken out against her husband when he's done things that are completely unacceptable and against what her alleged campaign is.

So, no, I think at this point you can't separate the two. She's a willing accomplice whether she wants to be or not. She is by not speaking out against it. Let me say something about high school students. UCLA did a study that came out in the spring about the incivility environment that we're in and how it's affecting high school students. And they studied 505 high schools and they surveyed principals and 89 percent of those principals said that the political incivility climate that we're living in has negatively affected their environments in school. And they said it was not only that, it was also racially charged.

COATES: Yes.

[22:35:05]

SETMAYER: And it was also for misinformation on the internet that has fueled this. So this is something that is certainly, you know, happening in the environment of Trump, in the age of Trump.

COATES: Certainly and Scott, I got to bring you in here for the last word here, because obviously what Tara is explaining is the idea that students and children are not immune from the conversation of their parents.

SETMAYER: Correct.

COATES: What's your last word?

JENNINGS: Yes. They're not, and it's unfortunate that the conversations being had by the adults in this country are now being -- and the behavior of the adults are being emulated by our children. I did want to push back on something Tara said about, you know, first ladies and presidents being, you know, linked. She called her an accomplice, which is a word you use when somebody is engaged in criminal behavior, so I don't think that's an appropriate thing to say about the first lady of the United States.

COATES: Yes. JENNINGS: I worked for George W. Bush in the second term, and you

know, he was not popular. In fact, his approval ratings were much lower than Donald Trump's are now. And I went on trips with the first lady. She did a lot of political events, a lot of public speaking and I don't ever recall her being treated this way. Certainly, when Barack Obama -- during the parts of his term, where he wasn't popular at times, Michelle Obama was always loved and revered.

COATES: That's true.

JENNINGS: I do think it's a little bit unusual. It's a sign of the times, and it's unfortunate --

COATES: Wait.

SETMAYER: Their husbands did not behave the way Trump did.

COATES: Wait -- I hear both of you. I'm out of time. Your points are valid. Thank you for making them. We'll be right back.

JENNINGS: Thanks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:40:00]

COATES: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham doubling down on pushing a false claim against the Bidens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): As to Joe Biden, he's a fine man. I've known him for a very long time. But to those who say that the Biden connection to the Ukraine has been thoroughly looked at, nothing could be further from the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Graham also talking and taking to Twitter saying, I love Joe Biden as a person, but we're not going to give a pass to what is obviously a conflict of interest. I believe Hunter Biden's association on the Burisma board doesn't pass the smell test. If a Republican was in the same position, they'd certainly be investigated.

Now, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. Graham's comments coming after Joe Biden spoke with Don Lemon about the attacks from his longtime friend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am disappointed and quite frankly I'm angered by the fact. He knows me. He knows my son. He knows there's nothing to this.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Joining me now to discuss all of this, Michael D'Antonio, and

Olivia Nuzzi. I'm so glad that both of you are here, thank you. Michael, let me start with you, because the obvious question is, if Senator Lindsey Graham was so interested in conflicts of interest, wouldn't he be pursuing that of the president and his family even though he's his golf buddy?

MICHAEL D'ANTONIO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, just as you might have imagine the president would actually pursuing issues of corruption in Ukraine, which he never did. You know, with a guy like Lindsey Graham, he's talking about how he liked Joe Biden very much. He really admires him.

Well, I think he's disqualifying himself from anybody liking him. He abandoned his friend John McCain when Trump was attacking him. Even after his death. Now he's piling on to Joe Biden when he knows it isn't true. He's not a stupid guy. He understands the facts here, and he's just playing partisan politics in its meanest form.

COATES: You know, Olivia, speaking of conflicts, Rudy Giuliani -- conflicts of interest specifically.

OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Right.

COATES: He's contradicted himself over Ukraine in media appearances, accidentally dialed reporters and had some bizarre text exchanges. You actually wrote a piece about it. Here's one that you had with him that included a stop sign emoji. How effective can he be as a lawyer if he acts so erratically and really off the cuff like this?

NUZZI: Well, in some sense, in terms of him deflecting attention from what the president is saying and doing, maybe he is being effective. I think overall he's been a tremendous distraction, and we see that text exchanges from October 11th, I believe. And it was when the president first started to try to sort of put some distance between himself and Giuliani.

He said some things that echoed language that he's previously used before he has fired somebody. And so it called into question whether or not Giuliani was long for this world in Trump's orbit. And of course he stayed on and remained close to the president since then.

But then today this came up again, where the president seemed to put some distance between himself and Giuliani, said that he had other clients. He never directed him to go to Ukraine to launch this investigation on his behalf, and of course he ended up not going after I believe it was Ken Vogel reported on a trip that he was going to take there.

But I think overall Giuliani has been a big problem for the president. He's now under investigation. Several of his associates have been indicted, and one wonders how long this could go on this way.

COATES: I mean, you think about that. Has he had a response to your piece? Giuliani?

NUZZI: He has.

COATES: Shocking, Olivia. What did he say?

NUZZI: Well, I would also point out he said that he was not going to talk to me any longer, and he's continued to talk to me for the duration of the afternoon and evening. He's not happy about the story. He's pretty disappointed. He said that I'm biased, and he didn't like it.

COATES: Well, hence the stop sign emoji, right?

NUZZI: He also did that thing where he said, I'm not going to talk to you anymore and then continued to talk to me. So, maybe it will continue.

COATES: Well, I got to put the stop sign emoji up here, although I hate doing it with both of you. Thank you for being a part of the show. I appreciate both of you so much. Thank you.

D'ANTONIO: Thank you.

COATES: Thirty-six years, that's how long three newly freed men spent behind bars for a crime they didn't commit. Who is responsible for this outrage? I'll make my case next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:45:00]

COATES: This thanksgiving is going to be an extra special holiday for three Baltimore men and their families. But don't mistake it for a victory. Their story is a tragedy that should outrage us all. Yesterday the men were released from prison after spending 36 years behind bars for a murder they did not commit. You heard that right, 36 long years for a crime they were not responsible for.

And what's worse is that the prosecutors actually had reason to believe they were innocent. Here they are. I want you to hear their names. The names that were replaced by prisoner I.D. numbers for over three decades. From left to right, Mr. Alfred Chestnut. Mr. Andrew Stewart. And Mr. Ransom Watkins locked up as teenagers. They are now in their early 50's.

[22:50:14]

They insisted on their innocence for all of these years and there was jubilation as they tasted freedom for the first time in three and a half decades.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALFRED CHESTNUT, WRONGFULLY CONVICTED OF MURDER: This is the day the lord has made. You know, what I'm saying. He has set the cat us free. I'm always dreaming of this day. I have been dreaming of this.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, that man you saw there, that's Alfred Chestnut. And it

was his action that led to their freedom. The Washington Post reports he uncovered new evidence which he sent to city prosecutor Marylene Mosfit's (ph) office and what he uncovered is heartbreaking. Evidence that was never turned over to defense attorneys decades ago. As teenagers back in 1983, high schooler. They were arrested, ripped from their beds on Thanksgiving Day morning, coincidentally and charged with a murder of a 14 year-old middle school student.

Baltimore police said the boy was shot and killed for his basketball jacket. While they were skipping school with their old high school or junior high school teachers. At the time, police claimed their smoking gun was a similar jacket found in Mr. Chestnuts home. But that jacket didn't contain blood or gunshot residue. And Chestnut's own mother had saved the receipt from when she bought the jacket. A store clerk was even able to vouch for the purchase and there's more.

Teenage eyewitness were questioned by police without their parents being present. And were told to get their stories straight. The Baltimore D.A. now admits that anonymous calls identified another shooter. One who was seen wearing what appeared to be the victim's jacket and who apparently confessed to the murder. Now that alleged shooter was killed 20 years later. While three children, now men, languished in prison.

I bet the boys wished they never missed their school that day. I bet one of the boys mothers wished, she had never bought even a similar jacket for her own son. When I really wish is that prosecutors had been ethical or at the very least, humane. And I wish that justice wasn't some after thought that plays second fiddle to prosecutorial notches on ones belt.

You know, when I stood up as a federal prosecutor and announced myself as being on behalf of the people of the United States, I knew the people of the United States of America included the defendants. It's every prosecutor's responsibility to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. But not at the cost of justice. Not at the cost of humanity. Prosecutors actually must give over any evidence to the defense that may prove -- suggest even the defendant's innocence.

You give people a fighting chance at the presumption of innocence meaning something, anything, and that wasn't done here. Instead, three children were locked in a cage for 36 years, because the prosecutors couldn't be bothered to tell the truth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANSOM WATKINS, WRONGFULLY CONVICTED OF MURDER: It's been rough. Inside the walls. But on the inside we went through hell. It wasn't easy. You see us out here we're smiling. We're happy that we're free, but we got a lot to fix.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: A lot to fix indeed. And here is the sad truth. They may have been released to love ones. But to a world they don't recognize. They have no money, no homes of their own. No cars or licenses. No medical insurance. And no immediate job prospects. It's an outrageous injustice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW STEWART, WRONGFULLY CONVICTED OF MURDER: The journey is just beginning. I have to learn how to live right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And to call this unfair would be the understatement of well, 36 years. An absolutely none of that is their fault. It is a societal fault that will continue if greater reforms are not implemented in our criminal justice system. We cannot continue to rejoice after each exoneration. Without calling for a reformation of the very system that perpetuates these tragedies.

[22:55:00]

Reactive justices is hardly comforting to three children robbed of their lives, it is also hardly comforting for the family of the young 14 year-old boy killed over a jacket. That now knows that their child killer was never even punished. It's about as comforting as offering thoughts and prayers after tragedy instead of an actual legislative solution. 13,140 days, 432 months, 36 years, three children. One apology. That doesn't add up to justice. Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)