Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

O'Reilly Sexual Harassment Accusations; Protester Sues President Trump for Inciting Violence; Undocumented Immigrants Afraid to Report Crimes?; Aired 11-12a ET

Aired April 03, 2017 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:37] DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: New accusations of harassment at FOX News.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

FOX superstar Bill O'Reilly at the center of a new sexual harassment scandal. Payouts totaling $13 million to five women who over the years agreed not to go public with their accusations of sexual harassment and verbal abuse. That's according to the "New York Times."

I'm going to talk to Wendy Walsh, a former "O'Reilly Factor" regular who says she was a victim, too.

Plus the protester who is suing President Trump. She says he incited a riot during one of his campaign rallies leading to an assault by two Trump supporters. A judge saying she may have a case with all of this.

Is FOX News the Bill Cosby of corporate America? That's what attorney Lisa Bloom says. She's representing Wendy Walsh, a psychologist who was a regular on Bill O'Reilly's show, and accuses O'Reilly of sexual harassment and retaliation, and they both join me now.

Good evening to both of you. Thank you so much for coming on.

LISA BLOOM: Hello.

WENDY WALSH, CNN HUMAN BEHAVIOR EXPERT: Thank you.

LEMON: So, Wendy, let's be honest about this. You know, we've known each other for years but the first I learned about this encounter with Bill O'Reilly was when I read it in "The New York Times" this weekend and I was just -- I was just flabbergasted. Tell me what happened.

WALSH: Well, in a nutshell I was asked to be on his show as a regular guest and three weeks into it I got a -- you know, kind of an exciting e-mail from his secretary, saying, Mr. O'Reilly is coming out to Los Angeles and he'd love to have dinner with you, I said absolutely because I wanted to talk to him about my career prospects. Often being brought on as a guest is kind of an audition process and I wanted to be a paid contributor.

I didn't have to bring it up because he brought it up at the beginning of the dinner, basically said Roger Ailes is a good friend of his and they plan on making me a contributor. And I was very happy. The dinner went on to include a lot of small talk as people -- adults do at the dinner table about life, love, et cetera. And then at the end of the dinner, he simply said let's get out of here and as we walked out of the restaurant at the Bel-Air Hotel, he walked to the right towards the hotel rooms, I walked to the left towards the bar, and there was this awkward moment where we couldn't find each other and then he caught up with me and said no, no, come back to my suite. And I simply said I'm sorry, I can't do that. And he said, what, you think I'm going to attack you? And -- so anyway, at that point he became hostile and then he spent some time weaning me off the show and getting his executive producer to cancel me.

LEMON: So you continued speaking with him that night, right?

WALSH: Yes. So we went into the bar and he complained that the soda water I ordered was too expensive and my purse was really ugly. I guess he's --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: So that's how he treated you for the rest of the evening. Were you ever on the show after that evening, Wendy?

WALSH: Oh, yes, he made a point of keeping me on. And I had his e- mail so I -- you know, I did what every woman does in sexual harassment situation. We try to save the gig. We try to stroke the dog, as it is, and I should tell you that FOX released some of my cringe worthy, suck-up e-mails today because I thought well, you know, if I can just be professional, if I can just be polite, if I can talk through his -- his assistant, then he'll understand that I'm not a threat, I'm not going to sue him, and he will give me the job he promised.

LEMON: So OK. We'll get to the e-mails because I have one of those e-mails. When he said he wanted you to go back to his suite, what did you think he meant? What did he want?

WALSH: You know, I wish I knew his mind, I wish I knew what he really meant. Maybe he just wanted privacy in a hotel suite to talk to me about my career prospects but that's very inappropriate and maybe he's just clueless. In my case, I'm a grownup woman. It's not the first time I've been to this rodeo and I knew to say, I'm sorry, I can't do that. And when he said, oh, what do you think I'm going to attack you? I said, you know, we're both raising teenage daughters. You know, don't you think we should model good choices for them? Hoping to connect with him on that parenthood level.

LEMON: And?

WALSH: So, anyway, instead we went to the bar and he immediately became angry and hostile.

LEMON: All right. Lisa, stand by. Have a couple more questions for Wendy, then I'll bring you in here.

So, Wendy, this is -- this incident was in early 2013. You mentioned the e-mail so I'm going to bring -- I'm going to --

WALSH: Yes.

LEMON: So on September 4th, 2013, you wrote an e-mail to someone at FOX News saying in part, quote, "I wanted to send a thank you to Mr. O'Reilly and the staff at the 'O'Reilly Factor' for all the help in promoting my book.

[23:05:05] Specifically please convey to the boss that I am deeply grateful for his professional kindness. His media power is immeasurable. Can't thank him enough." OK. And then -- so there was -- you know, and then it went on to about other pleasantries and what have you. Why were you --

WALSH: It went on to me asking in that e-mail, can we get our segment up and rolling again as was promised to me?

LEMON: So why were you praising Bill O'Reilly and thanking him for his kindness after he treated you in the manner that you described?

WALSH: Because that's a classic suck-up e-mail. This is what you do. This is what plenty of women do in a situation like this. I didn't even realize that as an applicant for a job, you can be a victim of sexual harassment. So I thought I was just like in this no man's land of let me just -- let him think I'm not a threat, let him think everything is going to be OK, and I can get the job I want.

LEMON: Why didn't you come forward sooner, Wendy?

WALSH: First of all, I did not come forward. You should know this. This has been a story that I've told quite openly around -- to many friends for years but a "New York Times" reporter contacted me and I believe it was October. And she said she was doing an investigation and I was like, look, I'll talk off the record. There's no way I'm going public with this. There's no reason to. I don't need this.

And after she brought me all the evidence and showed me how many women were silenced, how many women are under gag orders and can't talk, and the fact that she suspected there are other women at FOX who are afraid to come forward, and as my attorney, Lisa Bloom, said to me, come on, you're a big grown 50-year-old woman with a big mouth and you can't be brave enough to come out? So these girls set me up big time.

BLOOM: I didn't say big mouth.

LEMON: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: So, Lisa, you called -- and I heard you say this on CNN yesterday I think. You were on Sunday. You called FOX News, quote, "The Bill Cosby of corporate America." What did you mean by that?

BLOOM: Well, there are dozens and dozens of women who accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. There are dozens and dozens of women according to published reports who have accused FOX News people of sexual harassment. Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, other executives, and yet it never goes anywhere. It never changes anything. That's why today in my press conference with Wendy, who I adore, I called for an independent investigation because this is not acceptable that over and over again FOX News seems to just think that paying millions of dollars in settlement is the cost of doing business.

The women are driven out or in Wendy's case they don't do get the job in the first place and the men who are engaging in this illegal behavior get to continue. It's against the law. We have the right to a workplace free of sexual harassment. We have the right to complain and we have the right to respect and our jobs really everywhere in America except apparently at FOX News.

So I ask the State Department and human rights in New York to do an independent investigation. They have the legal authority to do it. Step in and protect the women who are working there.

LEMON: Yes. So I'm going to ask you, I'm going to give Bill O'Reilly's statement. But I want to ask you about the letter that Wendy wrote. And I remember similarly -- I don't know if FOX released it but also I have a copy of Wendy's e-mail which Wendy authenticated. But I remember an e-mail or e-mails praising -- Gretchen Carlson praising her boss or thanking her boss for giving her an opportunity.

BLOOM: Yes. Literally every case there is e-mails like this.

LEMON: So what do you say to that, Lisa?

BLOOM: What I'd say is I've been doing sexual harassment cases for 30 years. Usually the man is the powerful one, and the boss, and the woman is the one who's trying to get a job, or she's in a subordinate position. There is this weird myth that we're sexually harassed one day and then we just ran away, run out of the state, maybe to another country and never to contact him again. It doesn't work that way.

Wendy was trying to get a job. Wendy is a professional. Wendy has had other men make inappropriate comments to her like I have, like every woman has, and we just kind of shrug it off and think, you know, we're going to go home and behave well and they'll probably come around, too. There's nothing wrong with her filing up. She was entitled to have a job that she was qualified to have. He is the wrongdoer here. Let's stop blaming victims and get real about sexual harassment.

LEMON: So, Wendy, here's Bill O'Reilly's statement. He's saying in part, quote, he said, "Just like other prominent and controversial people, I'm vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity. I am more than 20 years -- in more than 20 years at FOX News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department. Even on the anonymous hotline. But more importantly, I am a father who cares deeply for my children and who would do anything to avoid hurting them in anyway. And so I have put to rest any controversies to spare my children. The worst part of my job is being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the FOX News Channel."

What's your response, Wendy?

WALSH: My response is, Bill O'Reilly, I'm so sorry you're going through a stressful time right now and I hope you're able to hold it together so that your children are not affected.

[23:10:05] But I want to be clear. I'm not after money. I am not suing you. I just want nontoxic work environment for my daughters and their generation. We need to change the system.

The workplace is not a mating market place and if you're looking for a date, do like everyone else and go on Tinder.

(LAUGHTER)

BLOOM: You know, Don, can I just say something else, too? It is not true that all powerful men have six complaints of sexual harassment against them. In fact, I'm not aware of any sexual harassment complaints against you or Anderson Cooper or Sean Hannity, or Matt Lauer, or George Stephanopoulos or other men who are prominent on television. It's Bill O'Reilly and not one, or two or three, but six sexual harassment complaints. It's not because his wealthy and famous. It's because of his behavior. And it's time for him to be held accountable for it.

LEMON: My question to you is, and tell me if I'm wrong, Lisa, isn't it the same thing that Cosby's defenders or attorney said that because he was a wealthy, powerful man that these women were after his money?

BLOOM: Very good observation. And you know what, it's what every wealthy person says. As if they could never do anything wrong because anytime they do, they're always saying well, it's just because I have money. Even when somebody like Wendy is saying, I'm not asking for a dime. I mean, that really undercuts the whole rich guy argument. You know, he should use some of that money to get some counseling and some sexual harassment training. And learn how to treat women with respect. It's not too late.

LEMON: Wendy, I have to go but how are you?

WALSH: I'm good. I'm good. Tomorrow I'm going to go back to life as usual, driving carpool, taking my kid to cheer practice. Teaching at Cal State Channel Islands, it's one day in my life. And I hope other women can use this as a model for what they can do, too.

LEMON: Wendy, thank you. Lisa, thank you as well. I appreciate it.

WALSH: Thank you.

BLOOM: Thank you.

LEMON: I want to bring in now CNN's Dylan Byers, a senior reporter for media and politics.

So, Dylan, you have reached out to FOX. Do they have anything to say about Wendy Walsh? DYLAN BYERS, CNN SENIOR MEDIA AND POLITICAL REPORTER: No. Nothing to

say specifically about Wendy Walsh, nothing to say specifically about the press conference that she gave today. What they have issued -- and I want to be very clear, this is 21st Century FOX, not FOX News, so it's the parent company of FOX News.

What they have done is issued a sort of blanket statement saying that they take issues like these very seriously but effectively that they're continuing to stand behind Bill O'Reilly. Both O'Reilly and 21st Century FOX in their statements made reference to this hotline, there's anonymous hotline that employees can call. What you're likely seeing there is the set up of a sort of legal defense that accusers did have some outlet through the company structure, but look, there's a reason perhaps that a lot of these women didn't want to pick up an anonymous hotline and make this call.

It might have something to do with the fact that the guy who used to run the company, the former chief executive, Roger Ailes, of course had a litany of sexual harassment allegations against him and because there was a fear among many staffers that Ailes, who ruled with a sort of iron fist, might have even been monitoring their phone calls. So it was not exactly the sort of where women felt comfortable bringing this to the attention of the top brass.

LEMON: There's a new Ailes allegation today. How many lawsuits are they facing?

BYERS: Well, they're facing a lot. So in addition to all of the allegations that Ailes has faced in the past, you have a new one coming out today through the reporting of NPR. You also have --I would say that this is most significant. You have the federal investigation which is moving into a grand jury about how 21st Century FOX handled the complaints that the accusers made and whether or not it misled its investors by shielding the money paid out to those accusers. And so that was an investigation that was headed up by Preet Bharara. Obviously Preet Bharara is no longer in his position. Thanks in no small part to the president of the United States.

But there is a hope among many of the staffers at FOX News today who still feel uncomfortable in the environment that they're in that this federal investigation might shed some new light on details involving these sexual harassment claims and that it therefore might force 21st Century FOX to take this issue more seriously than it has up to date.

LEMON: Dylan, I have to ask you this. Mercedes Benz said tonight that it has reassigned its advertisements on the "O'Reilly Factor" following "The New York Times" report. Is it likely other FOX advertisers will follow that?

BYERS: Well, you can never be sure. I would say it's hard to see that not happening, although I would -- I would caution here. Mercedes Benz reassigned its advertising. So it pulled its advertising from the "O'Reilly Factor" because it said it was uncomfortable.

LEMON: But not from FOX. BYERS: With the nature of the accusation. But no from FOX. So at

the end of the day how much is FOX actually losing there? But what you have now is you have reporters from CNN, you have reporters from "The New York Times" calling up other advertisers saying, OK, we've seen the Mercedes Benz reassigned its advertising, do you have a plan?

[23:15:09] There's effectively public pressure here, there's a narrative out there, and if people start paying attention to who's deciding to stay with the "O'Reilly Factor" and who's not, you know, that -- we've seen in the past in cases like this that can sort of be the tipping point at which all of a sudden this sort of drip, drip, drip, becomes a torrent and an exodus among advertisers.

LEMON: Thank you, Dylan. I appreciate it.

Our legal experts will weigh in right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Multiple women accuse FOX News host, Bill O'Reilly, of sexual harassment. Here to discuss Alan Dershowitz, defense attorney and the author of "Taking the Stand," and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin. Also with me, Mark Geragos as well.

Good evening to all of you. So you heard, I just spoke to Wendy and her attorney and also our media correspondent here on CNN. "New York Times" points to five other women who have received settlements from O'Reilly or FOX totaling $13 million. And again that's according to "The New York Times." Would he still have a job with any other company, Areva?

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely not. This is really appalling, Don. You have someone that has caused this company or himself included to pay out $13 million in settlements and of course paying out a settlement doesn't mean that you're liable. But look, I've been doing sexual harassment cases for many, many years and typically if someone is not responsible for the conduct, they're willing to go to trial and to have an adjudication of the issues and to have the case tried on its merits.

[23:20:09] So you're not going to see settlements in the high numbers such as the ones in the Bill O'Reilly case. One of the settlements was $4 million. That's been reported by "The New York Times." So you can't imagine that someone would pay out $4 million or a company would pay out $4 million unless there was something really harmful, there was damaging evidence that would come out in this lawsuit.

The reality is Bill O'Reilly makes FOX a lot of money so there's a reason to keep him employed and it has to do with the bottom line.

Alan, you're shaking your heard no.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, that's the point. $13 million is a pittance. It's a chump change for FOX to pay out. It doesn't prove he's guilty. Look, there are enough charges against him. And enough settlements to warrant an independent investigation. When I was falsely accused a couple of years ago I immediately had an independent investigation. I got Louie Free, the former head of the FBI. I turned over all my records. I said let the chips fall where they may. I wasn't afraid of an independent investigation. Ultimately of course the lawyers withdrew, the judge struck. But nonetheless people still believe -- some people still believe a false accusation.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: You came on the show and you actually -- after it happened and you had your say on this show.

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

LEMON: So then -- and so again, you fought it and you came out the victor.

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

LEMON: Right? So you were proven that you're -- that you were right and it was false. But let me put the statement then I want you to respond, Alan.

DERSHOWITZ: OK.

LEMON: Because representatives from the 21st Century FOX responded to "The New York Times" that O'Reilly settlement saying this in quotes. He said, "While he denies the merits of these claims, Mr. O'Reilly has resolved those he regarded as his personal responsibility." His personal responsibility. How can he believe that this is his personal responsibility if there are no merits to these claims?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, remember, these are all people he knew. So there are gray areas here. In my cases, I didn't know the woman, never heard of her. So of course there was no personal responsibility. But you know it's a matter of degree. But these are serious charges and I think it's in FOX's interest to have an independent investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

I think every woman who makes a claim of sexual harassment should be taken seriously and she is entitled to investigation. She is not entitled to a presumption of guilt against her person she accuses. But yes, an investigation.

LEMON: The accused I should say.

DERSHOWITZ: Right.

LEMON: What do you think, Mr. Geragos?

MARK GERAGOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, it's a tough situation. I've been on both sides of those. I've defended those who have been accused. I've represented those who have been victimized. Part of the problem I think in this specific case is you probably got a statute of limitations in California or in New York that has run already and in addition to that while the behavior is boorish, it probably is not actionable to the point where you're going to have a whole lot of damages in this case.

Wendy is a strong personality and a woman who -- as she said this is just one day. I'll go on tomorrow, doing carpool and everything else. That's usually the earmarks of somebody who can brush it off.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: But she's not --

MARTIN: I think that's what's so important --

DERSHOWITZ: I don't agree with that. OK. I think that sexual harassment didn't occur at the hotel room. She's a strong person. The harassment occurred if in fact --

GERAGOS: Right. She never went up --

DERSHOWITZ: That's right. If in fact --

GERAGOS: She never went up to the hotel room.

DERSHOWITZ: She lost economic opportunities as a result of saying no, that is the gravamen of the sexual harassment.

LEMON: Go ahead, Areva.

MARTIN: I think what's important about Wendy's case is she has not filed a lawsuit and she's been very emphatic that she is not going to file a lawsuit. She's not seeking monetary damages. She has called for an investigation by an outside agency like Alan said, which would go in and look at the pattern and practice of behavior on the part of Bill O'Reilly and make a determination about whether these allegations are credible or not. And that's important in this case.

GERAGOS: That's right, but Areva --

MARTIN: Because we don't have any evidence that there's been an investigation.

GERAGOS: The -- we don't have any evidence of that but I could probably spot you 5-1 that they have done an internal investigation or they have one being done. But nonetheless, the problem is that in real time she didn't make a complaint to the HR hotline or anything else and the statute of limitations have probably run. So I understand she hasn't filed anything.

MARTIN: Oh, Mark, come on.

DERSHOWITZ: She did one very --

GERAGOS: But the statutes have probably run.

DERSHOWITZ: Bill O'Reilly did a very smart thing.

MARTIN: I would agree with you on the statutes but this hotline, that's just subterfuge. So many women never contact the hotline. There's $13 million paid out in settlements. Need we ask about calling the hotline? That's just a red herring if I may believe.

LEMON: I mean, seriously, if there's something -- let's just say that I was treated unfairly here at work, the last person I'm going to contact is my employer. I'm going to talk to, you know, an ombudsman or someone that I hired, or get advice from an outside party. I'm not going to go right to my company given --

DERSHOWITZ: No question. Look --

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Bill O'Reilly didn't have a press conference.

LEMON: Press conference at the White House, yes.

GERAGOS: Three or four years later.

DERSHOWITZ: Bill O'Reilly did one very smart thing.

LEMON: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: That is he hired Mark Fabiani who was Clinton's lawyer, a liberal Democrat lawyer. A brilliant, brilliant crisis strategist.

[23:25:06] And I suspect we're going to see a very, very good defense put forward.

LEMON: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: By Fabiani to this man.

LEMON: So if this didn't happen in -- Mark, in a vacuum because there's so many allegations at FOX News. You know, Roger Ailes is -- you know, send him away after he bilked FOX News Channel because of so many accusations. And there are, with Bill O'Reilly, it's Roger Ailes, and I think there are others. But does this not -- does this not point to a culture possibly at this news channel?

GERAGOS: Mind you the prior incidents in the allegations in the priors if you believe what's been printed about it, yes, obviously. I mean, if you're going to make the point with a -- if there's a current allegations, it's within the statute of limitations then you're going to make the point, look, this is a culture here, this is a Petri dish for harassment.

DERSHOWITZ: We have to remember one --

GERAGOS: Not with this particular complaint.

DERSHOWITZ: We have to remember one thing. There are unscrupulous lawyers out there who will get other women to join and jump on the bandwagon. So we have to be careful about the copy cat aspect of it, too. As I said every woman's complaint should be taken seriously and investigated. But I certainly know and many lawyers know that there are unscrupulous lawyers out there who will try to find a second accuser and a third accuser. LEMON: I want to ask you something real quickly.

MARTIN: I agree with you, Alan. Let me say this, I agree that there are copycat lawyers but there are also lots of women who are fearful and these kinds of lawsuits embolden those women and give them the courage that they need to comfort and report that conduct.

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely.

LEMON: OK. I got to get this in. The Justice Department is already investigating whether FOX News failed to inform shareholders about settlements related to Roger Ailes? Does he -- does this play into that? And, I mean, just -- how does this affect them?

DERSHOWITZ: There's no question that the Justice Department investigation will have a big impact on FOX's decision. They have to be very, very careful now because they, as an institution, have been accused of creating this kind of culture and they are going to be sued independently of the individuals and they have to be very careful.

LEMON: OK. All of you stay with me because you're going to be back in just a little while to discuss that. Our next guest's lawsuit. This woman pushed and threatened at a Trump campaign rally in Kentucky. She is suing the president. She's here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:31:22] LEMON: Did candidate Donald Trump incite violence against protesters at a campaign rally in Kentucky last year? Three protesters claimed that he did. They are suing his campaign as well as two Trump supporters they accused of assault. A federal judge is allowing the lawsuit to go forward, denying motions to dismiss it. See for yourself what happened at the rally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Get out. You know, in the old days, which isn't so long ago, when we were less politically correct, that kind of stuff wouldn't happen. Today we have to be so nice, so nice. We always have to be so nice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So joining me to now is the protester in that video, Kashiya Nwanguma, and her attorney, Daniel J. Canon.

Good evening. Thank you so much for coming on.

KASHIYA NWANGUMA, PROTESTER SUING PRES. TRUMP AND TRUMP SUPPORTERS: Hello. Thanks for having us.

DANIEL J. CANON, ATTORNEY, CLAY, DANIEL, WALTON, AND ADAMS: Hi, Don. Thanks.

LEMON: So, Kashiya, we just saw the video showing you being pushed around and shoved by Donald Trump supporters at his rally. It was in Louisville. It was last March. You say you attended the rally with the intent to protest peacefully and as we just saw the president -- you know, he can be heard yelling, get them out. So walk us through what happened to you.

NWANGUMA: So I get there, I went there to protest peacefully, and I definitely did remain peaceful the entire time that I was in the rally. I pretty much worked my way through the crowd and got to a position toward the front of the stage. I held up a sign that I had made that day and as soon as I held up the sign, Trump said, you know, get them out of here, get her out. And then the mob essentially turned on me and attacked me. They shoved me, they punched me, they cursed at me, they yelled racist and sexist slurs at me the entire way until I was ejected.

LEMON: What were they saying to you?

NWANGUMA: You know, calling me names, like I said, racist slurs. Sexist slurs. Telling me that -- calling me scum, you know.

LEMON: So what was going through your mind as all these men surrounded you, pushing and shoving you, while the president is shouting get out?

NWANGUMA: I was completely taken back and obviously not expecting that reaction at all. I was just really shocked, honestly.

LEMON: Yes. So, Daniel, lawyers for President Trump filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. They claimed the president didn't intend for his supporters to use force, and according to the lawsuit, his lawyers say Trump's statement, "get them out of here," is protected by the First Amendment. The judge rejected that motion. So what's your response to -- is this his free speech defense?

CANON: Yes -- no, obviously we think it's the right decision and if you look at the history of free speech jurisprudence in this country, there is no case decided by the Supreme Court or any to my knowledge any other court that would allow for a political candidate to turn an angry mob against peaceful protesters and say that that's somehow protected by the First Amendment. That's never been contemplated by any of our free speech jurisprudence and, you know, there's a reason those cases don't make it to the Supreme Court because they rarely happen.

You know, as I look at the history of political campaigns, you know, to have somebody that is in the position where they want -- they are asking people to vote them in as the leader of the free world and then to have their supporters essentially turn on a dissenting voice, simply in retaliation for peacefully protesting, that's unprecedented.

[23:35:14] LEMON: Yes.

CANON: And so we think that the court's decision reflects the idea that the First Amendment doesn't tolerate that kind of behavior and we as a society aren't going to tolerate that.

LEMON: So you said -- you mentioned peacefully protesting, Daniel. Kashiya, you said that you went there to peacefully protest. What do you say to those who claimed that you were looking for trouble because you did go to a rally to protest a candidate, and you were holding a sign depicting the president's head on a pig's body?

NWANGUMA: Sure. I mean, just like his supporters had a right to be there to show their support, I had every right to be there to show that I'm opposed to the Trump administration or at the time the Trump campaign and everything that they stood for.

LEMON: Yes. So, Daniel, according to the court documents the judge writes, this is -- "It is plausible that Trump's direction to get them out of here advocated the use of force. It was an order, an instruction, a command."

So the case is now moving forward. What's the outcome you want here?

CANON: Well, I think more than anything else, we want to send a message in this case. The plaintiffs in this case want to send a message that for somebody who claims to be a political leader, somebody who would be a political leader, to show that kind of tolerance for peaceful dissent and for peaceful protest which is an American tradition, is simply not going to be tolerated. And I mean, to ask a mob to turn against somebody simply for making their voice heard in the context of a campaign rally, something that's this important, something that would determine the president of the United States of America potentially to turn a crowd against a dissenting voice in that context really undermines the core principles of our democracy.

LEMON: Kashiya, if the president is listening right now, what do you say to him?

NWANGUMA: I mean, I don't really have much to say to him, to be honest. Mostly just that, you know, as much as he wants to get across his -- or implement certain legislation, there are going to be who will be there to resist him every step of the way.

LEMON: And what do you say to the supporters in the crowd?

NWANGUMA: I would say that they should, you know, think for themselves and not, you know, participate in mob mentality.

LEMON: I meant, the crowd that you were in. Not just the general. Yes. The crowd that you were in. Yes.

NWANGUMA: Yes. Not participate in mob mentality and, you know, think critically and don't believe everything you read, pretty much.

LEMON: Yes . Kashiya, thank you. Daniel, thank you.

NWANGUMA: Thank you.

CANON: Thanks.

LEMON: When we come right back, I'm going to get my legal experts to weigh in on this case. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:42:10] LEMON: Federal judge has ruled a lawsuit against the Trump campaign and two Trump supporters can proceed saying it's possible that the candidate, candidate Trump, incited a riot. Back again, Alan Dershowitz, Areva Martin and Mark Geragos.

So what do you think after hearing her story?

DERSHOWITZ: The judge's decision is very dangerous to civil liberties. Look, she had a right of free speech. But Trump had a right of free speech. The people who pushed her and shoved her had no right of free speech. Every civil libertarian should be appalled at this decision. If the ACLU doesn't get into this case on behalf of Trump, it's only because it's Donald Trump who's the defendant.

LEMON: What about the people pushing her around?

DERSHOWITZ: They should go to jail. You know, Thomas Jefferson in 1801 wrote a letter about a similar situation, a preacher was inciting violence and in his letter he said don't go after the preacher, go after the people who are engaging in the. That's the American way.

LEMON: Areva, what do you think? Because you just heard her story. We've all seen the video. But I think you said that President Trump was playing to his base and stoking fears of racism and misogyny? Explain that.

MARTIN: We saw that in the video of Kashiya and we saw it in lots of Trump rallies during the campaign. Trump knew that he could rile up his base, he could get these crowds, and work them to a frenzy when he used certain language. Some of them was code language and some was more blatant racist, misogynist rhetoric, and in this case, he did this, and the judge says, look, you had an obligation to provide a safe environment. You sponsored this event you owed her a duty of care as you did everyone that was at this particular rally and potentially you failed.

Now the judge hasn't ruled on the merits of the case. He just said that enough allegations have been made at this point for this case to move forward. I think the judge made the right decision, although Trump does have a right to freedom of speech, he doesn't have a right to incite violence with his speech. He can't yell fire in the middle of a crowded theater and you can't in this case yell something when you know that the room is crowded with white nationalists, which is what has been reported, and you have an African American peaceful protester, which is what the allegations of this complaint are.

So this is going to be an interesting case moving forward. We're all going to be watching it and maybe Trump has to be deposed and we get to the bottom of what he meant by that statement.

LEMON: OK. Mark, I want you to weigh on this. But first, I want to play something because violence was a repeated theme during President Trump's campaign. Some of the examples of the president making statements that condole violence at his rallies. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK. Just knock the hell -- I promise you I will pay for the legal fees I promise.

I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were at a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. Get out.

[23:45:05] You know, in the old days, which isn't so long ago, when we were less politically correct that kind of stuff wouldn't have happened. Today we have to be so nice, so nice.

Get them out. Hey, are Trump rallies the most fun, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Mark Geragos, I mean, this is part of why the judge allowed this lawsuit to proceed. They looked at all -- this is like the travel ban almost. All the comments that he made that he said in the past and decided that it was valid to go on with this case. What do you think?

GERAGOS: Well, I think the judge's decision was right. At this stage, based on the level of scrutiny that he has to give it, this case goes on. That doesn't mean it's ever going to necessarily get to a jury. But there's going to be discovery and in fact this judge referred it to the magistrate to do further discovery and after they do the discovery, then they'll come back and make another motion yet again and say it was covered by speech and part of the package you just showed, I don't think all of those sound bites were going on contemporaneously with this particular incident.

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: If they have been then that would be a much stronger case.

DERSHOWITZ: Discovery is exactly what's wrong with this case because it then chills the exercise of free speech. If we had a case where he said knock the crap out of him, and then somebody immediately knocked the crap out of somebody, that would be a classic incitement case, but what he said which led perhaps to the pushing and shoving was so ambiguous that it's completely protected by free speech and this is the time for the judge to throw it out, not to allow discovery.

LEMON: More specifically, you say, and I understand you say that politicians are allowed to stimulate the crowd. But when you watch these videos you see President Trump repeatedly -- he is the candidate then yelling knock him out or he will pay for the legal fees, or get them out. Is that not implicitly encouraging violence?

DERSHOWITZ: No. Get them out again can mean get them out lawfully or get them out in another way. But I want to throw a challenge out to the Americans Civil Liberties Union. If this were not Donald Trump, the ACLU would be in there fighting for the right of that person to express his views to a crowd. But because it's Donald Trump, the American Civil Liberties Union will not get into this case.

LEMON: Areva, you agree with that? Because you say President Trump was negligent because as a person who was sponsoring the event, that it's his duty to provide adequate security and control the crowd when violence is foreseeable.

MARTIN: Absolutely. And that was what was pled in this lawsuit and the judge looked at the allegations in the lawsuit and said, look, at this point there are enough callable claims, there are enough plausible claims for this lawsuit to move forward. Now after discovery is completed, if the plaintiff cannot connect the statements that Trump made to the actions of these third parties, then the lawsuit may be thrown out, but when I look at that video and I look at what Trump did repeatedly throughout the election, which is to rile up his base and to encourage them to engage in activity that was violent.

DERSHOWITZ: You can't look at these things --

LEMON: I've got to jump in quickly, though, because I want to get Mark because I have just very little time. What about the other people in the crowd? Are they in more legal trouble than possibly the president?

GERAGOS: Yes, there's no reason in the world why the guys in the crowd who were actually doing the assault and battery shouldn't be criminally charged. I mean, it's on tape. If they've got a defense that's fine. They claimed that she hit them first or something else. But that's criminal -- that's a criminal case.

DERSHOWITZ: But remember the judge said they were not his agents. That's what dooms the case. If they were not his agents and the judge made that as a finding, then he cannot be held responsible for making vague and general protected First Amendment statements. That's classic First Amendment --

MARTIN: All the judge did was, Alan, was throw out the vicarious liability cause of action. The judge allowed the negligence and inciting riots, causes of action to move forward.

DERSHOWITZ: Those were only words. The First Amendment trumps them.

LEMON: I've got to go. I've got to go. Thank you. Thank you all.

When we come right back, why some police say a decrease in crime reports may actually be dangerous.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:53:06] LEMON: The Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants appears to be having an unintended side effect that's worrying law enforcement officials.

CNN's Sara Sidner reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It is almost unheard of for a police chief to tell the public a decrease in crime reports may actually be a dangerous trend. But that is exactly what's happening in one of America's biggest cities.

CHIEF CHARLIE BECK, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPART: In Los Angeles, domestic violence reports are down 10 percent in the Hispanic community, 10 percent. Imagine somebody being the victim of domestic violence and not calling the police because they're afraid that their family will be torn asunder because of immigration enforcement.

SIDNER: What's even more alarming, he said, reports of rape dropped 25 percent in the Latino community compared to the same time last year. The fear is crime isn't actually dropping but victims are too scared to report it, noting the drop came after Donald Trump, with his tough stance on immigration, took office.

BECK: There's no direct nexus to it, but there is a strong correlation.

SIDNER: But in Denver, the city attorney says she has seen a direct link. Heightened fears of deportation has so far scared away four domestic violence victims.

KRISTIN BRONSON, DENVER CITY ATTORNEY: All four were Latina and all four contacted our office to let our office know they weren't willing to proceed with the case for fear of deportation.

SIDNER: The women were not so much afraid to face their alleged attacker, but instead afraid of this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you here with immigration enforcement?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

SIDNER: ICE agents, in plainclothes, waiting right outside courtrooms to detain undocumented immigrants. This video, taken by a private law firm, shows their fears are not unfounded.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you coming here to make an arrest?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

SIDNER: Local law enforcement worried about the potential impact of ICE's presence on witnesses and victims.

BRONSON: We are worried that crime will go unpunished. And if crime is unpunished and there are no consequences, obviously crime can rise.

[23:55:06] SIDNER: According to ICE policy, courts are fair game. But ICE officials say detaining people at courthouses is often a last resort, aimed at violent criminals. Still, their actions are having a chilling effect on victims, too.

(On camera): Where are you afraid to go now?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (Through Translator): The courts. It frightens me to think that just by going there immigration will get me.

SIDNER (voice-over): This undocumented mother of two American born daughters says she used to live in terror inside of her home because of her abusive spouse before fleeing. He was never charged. But now she's even more terrified when she leaves her home.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (Through Translator): Every single day I think about this. My daughter said, mom, I'm afraid when you pick me up from school immigration will be there.

SIDNER (on camera): There are a couple of important things to note here. One is that statistically speaking there's only a very small bit of data because we're only talking about the first three months of the year, so hard to tell if there's a larger trend here. Secondly, ICE agents did end up in courthouses making arrests during the Obama administration, but they largely stopped the practice sometime after 2013 when there was a huge backlash after ICE agents arrested some women who had gone to court to get restraining orders.

Now ICE is clearly back in courts and the clash between local law enforcement and victims' advocates is, too.

Sara Sidner, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Thank you, Sara.

Don't miss the premier film "UNSEEN ENEMY," the story of how a deadly disease could turn into the next global pandemic. That's Friday night at 9:00 Eastern and Pacific.

That's it for us tonight. Thanks for watching. I'll see you right back here tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)