Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Judge Kavanaugh Faces More Questions About Personal Conduct As A Student; Russia Investigation Hanging By A Thread; Rosenstein To Meet With President Trump Thursday; Brett Kavanaugh Accuser To Testify At Hearing On Thursday; Patti Davis' Op-Ed On Sexual Assault; Fate Of Attorney General Up In The Air; Meet CNN Hero, Abisoye Ajayi- Akinfolarin. Aired 11-12a ET

Aired September 24, 2018 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. A little past 11:00 here on the East Coast. Live with all the new developments for you tonight.

The President's pick for the Supreme Court looking less and less certain right now. Judge Brett Kavanaugh going on TV tonight, trying to fight back against accusations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct when he was a student. Plus questions tonight about the fate of a man regarded as the firewall between the President and the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, and the Russia investigation.

After "The New York Times" reported on claims that Rod Rosenstein had suggested secretly recording the President and discussed the 25th amendment. Many thought the Deputy Attorney General's days were numbers. Well, this morning Rod Rosenstein met with the Chief of Staff, John Kelly, reportedly expecting to be fired. White House officials say Rosenstein will stay in his job for now.

President Trump, who is in New York for the U.N. General assembly, says he is planning to meet with his Deputy Attorney General on Thursday when he returns to D.C. So the clock, well, it is ticking.

I want to bring in now Eric Columbus, a former senior official in the Obama Justice Department, and CNN Counterterrorism Analyst, Phil Mudd, a former FBI senior intelligence adviser. Good evening to both of you.

So Phil, is Rosenstein safe?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I don't think he is safe, but I mean, I find it amusing that we sit here and say "The New York Times" and CNN are fake news and then people are saying, well, Rod Rosenstein should be fired just because the fake news reports something. So what is it, Don? I can't figure that out. I mean, obviously, one of the aspects that we have to consider here is whether the President is actually strategizing saying I can't afford chaos, particularly on Capitol Hill when we're doing -- when in the midst of the Kavanaugh hearings. I don't think he is going to be fired unless potentially he sits there

and admits what the "New York Times" says to the President. In that case if I were the President you'd have no choice, but to remove him. I don't think Rosenstein did what the "Times" said, but if he did and he tells the President I think he is gone.

LEMON: Well, maybe he has no intention of firing Rod Rosenstein and he knows it's a distraction away from Kavanaugh.

MUDD: I mean, that is what I think is what's going on. Clearly people including John Kelly are walking in to the President saying one of your signature, one of your signature gains which the President has repeatedly talked about in political rallies was the nomination of one Supreme Court justice already.

And the President's got to be saying this will be a huge victory if I get him. I don't want Kavanaugh to divert attention -- pardon me, I don't want Rosenstein to divert attention.

LEMON: Well, here you go. So, Eric, sources telling CNN that Rosenstein overestimated the President's anger over the situation, which is what led Rosenstein to offer his resignation to the White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly. Is it possible that he makes out -- that he comes out unscathed with all of this?

ERIC COLUMBUS, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: That Rosenstein comes out unscathed?

LEMON: Yes.

COLUMBUS: Well, I think no one ever comes out unscathed with Donald Trump. The best case is you can muddle through. And Trump may well calculate that his least bad option is to leave Rosenstein in place rather than move on him. I mean there's -- people talk about the hot stove theory of Donald Trump, that he is like a young child who will -- touches things until he gets burned and it happened to him when he fired James Comey. And that he may be far more restrained now to do anything that will lead to an uproar on Capitol Hill and beyond. Especially with midterms approaching.

[23:05:05] LEMON: Yes, so if -- listen -- if Rosenstein does get fired or he resigns, supervision of the Mueller investigation falls to the solicitor general Noel Francisco. With the Russia probe do you think it would be vulnerable, Phil, if that happened?

MUDD: When you look at me, I don't think it would be vulnerable. I've seen the stories through this morning about vulnerability. Tell me what's going to happen here. You're going to have somebody who's sitting in a temporary seat looking at the most volatile investigation since Watergate. Typically, somebody who's sitting in that seat is a caretaker. They're going to do a U-turn and say despite what the Congress has said, despite what my predecessor said, despite what the views of the next person to hold this seat might be I'm going to U- turn on the investigation and shut it down?

I don't think that would happen. I think obviously the Attorney General despite the recusal would have a role in saying slow down, son, you're just a caretaker in that seat. Washington is talking about this today. I don't buy it, Don.

LEMON: Noel Francisco, Eric, he was appointed by President Trump. A long-time conservative lawyer, has argued in the past in favor of executive authority. How do you think Francisco would approach the Mueller investigation if he had to deal with it?

COLUMBUS: Well, first I don't think he would be very happy to have to deal with it and he need not deal with it as much as some might want him to. He could well just let Robert Mueller do his thing and play a very minimal role except insofar as Mueller --

LEMON: Doesn't he end up becoming Jeff Sessions? Meaning the President constantly criticizing him and saying, hey, why do I have an Attorney General who's not going to do what I want him to do?

COLUMBUS: It's quite possible. And yet Jeff Sessions is still there and is living his best life. Living the dream. Fulfilling every conservative priority he is ever dreamed of. And that is not a bad outcome for Noel Francisco if he wants it.

LEMON: Yes. One of the things that Mueller is looking into is whether President Trump obstructed justice by firing the FBI Director, former FBI Director James Comey. Do you think -- could firing Rosenstein, Phil, bring about more questions of obstruction of justice? Because that is what Adam Schiff is saying. Go ahead, make him fire you know, Rosenstein, and then it becomes obstruction of justice.

MUDD: I think that hinges on one really simple question. If I were the President -- I'm sure he won't do this, but if I were him I'd have Rosenstein in and say can you please explain to me what the origins of that report were? As I mentioned earlier, if Rosenstein says they're actually accurate, then the question is not that the President is trying to obstruct justice. He is dealing with somebody who is insubordinate.

In my world that is easily -- if that report from "The New York Times" is true, easily reason to remove Rosenstein. I don't think that conversation will be that easy. And then I agree, that we might have a Deputy Attorney General who sort of faces the Tillerson treatment. He gets abused in the media and on Twitter all the time until the President decides actually now it's not that sensitive, I'm going to dump him.

LEMON: Interesting. Let's talk about what's happening with lawmakers. OK? Because Eric, Republican leadership has put the brakes on a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller, but the Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, saying he wouldn't even introduce it, because it wasn't necessary. Do you think congress, do you think they need to act to protect Robert Mueller and this investigation?

COLUMBUS: I think it would be great if they did. I don't think it's going to happen. I think that focus on the bill may be a little bit misplaced, because for political reasons I think the greater danger is not that Trump will do something drastic as shut down the entire investigation, but rather that he might try to find ways to limit it. Try to get Francisco to box in Mueller in various ways, try to make him hurry up his investigation. That all carries its own risks, but it's easier for Trump to try to pull off than something far more drastic like firing Mueller and it's harder to prevent via legislation.

LEMON: I want to play this for you, Phil. This is Trump attorney Jay Sekulow talking about the possibility of Rosenstein being fired or quitting. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP' LAWYER: I think it's really important that there be a step back taken here and a review. And I think it's a review that has to be thorough and complete. And the review that has to include an investigation of what has transpired with all of these statements and all of these allegations going back to Strzok and Page and Bruce Ohr and basically a time out on this inquiry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Time out. I mean, what do you think of that, Phil?

MUDD: What the hell is he talking about? Let's be clear here. Can you explain to me what's changed in the Mueller team after Mueller's been around since the spring of '17? He is had a couple of lawyers change, but the guy in charge of it, Robert Mueller, has stayed in place. Why would we change this now to slow down and furthermore, hey, Jay. Jay, talk to me, brother. You told us we need to accelerate the end of the investigation.

[23:10:00] You're now saying, well, because the general manager changed we need to stop the investigation. So if the general manager on a football team changes, I guess we need to skip a few games. That is one of the dumbest things I've seen from what appears to be a smart lawyer in some time. I don't get it. That is just ridiculous.

LEMON: Why don't you say what you really feel next time, Phil? Thank you very much. Eric, thank you. I appreciate it. You know, it's a chaotic day in Washington today. As the White House deals with crisis, the crisis on the Russia investigation, the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. So I'm going to bring in now the Chief White House Correspondent for CBS News, Mr. Major Garrett. It's good to see you, sir.

MAJOR GARRETT, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: Good to see you. Thank you for having me.

LEMON: By the way, he is the author of this new book. This book is called "Mr. Trump's wild ride, the thrills, chills, screams and occasional blackouts of his extraordinary first year." I appreciate you joining us here this evening.

GARRETT: Today, we had all of those today. LEMON: Yes. Right on. OK, then, so then my question is, does Rod

Rosenstein, does he survive the end of the week -- by the end of the week?

GARRETT: It feels like he will. I really do think the White House preoccupation of the weekend was entirely about the fatal of Brett Kavanaugh, working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and the Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell on doing whatever is humanly possible. And there may not be much left to do humanly and politically possible to keep Republicans linked arms about a process and eventual vote to try to see if Brett Kavanaugh can be confirmed before the midterms.

I think Rosenstein and the story of "The New York Times" caught the President's attention, but only momentarily. And he may have thought and the White House may have perhaps engineered this entire fire drill this morning, if you will. To take our attention away understandably from the Kavanaugh scenario.

LEMON: I'm glad you said that.

GARRETT: Because it felt that way, because of the rapidity with which the firing, resignation spread across Washington. Quick confirmations on something that is typically not rapidly confirmed by this White House. So it had the feeling to me -- and look, I've been doing the book tour thing. I am a little buffered from this, I've not been in the trenches hour to hour day to day. But that is how it felt to me. I do believe and I know for a fact that the White House preoccupation has principally been about the fate of Judge Kavanaugh, not Rod Rosenstein.

LEMON: But you've been doing this long enough to have a gut feeling about it and I think your gut maybe right on because I thought the same thing and I know others thought the same thing as well.

So, listen, speaking of Kavanaugh, this is left-wing activists confronting Senator Ted Cruz, I want to put this up and his wife at a restaurant in Washington tonight. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: We believe survivors. We believe survivors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me.

CROWD: We believe survivors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So you can see the emotions are running high. You know throughout the country tonight. "We believe survivors." Do you think the Senate is going to confirm Kavanaugh after all of this?

GARRETT: Well, it feels very, very shaky right now, but it is, Don, and I write about this in great detail in the book, an imperative of this White House and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, and the White House counsel Don McGahn to see this through if politically possible, but the next 72 hours are going to depend entirely on three Republicans. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Jeff Flake. Possibly also Bob Corker, but I would list the first three that I mentioned before Bob Corker of Tennessee.

And what you saw all last week as the Senate Judiciary Committee kept moving in response to Dr. Ford's request and her attorney's request. They had to move because they had to continue to build a process acceptable to those three Republicans and keep them on board for the absolute necessity of voting to approve and confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

If those Republicans back away or slip away, then the White House is going to have to go through a shakedown crew, it's never had to contemplate, replacing Brett Kavanaugh with another nominee and knowing that fateful decision -- and I'm not predicting it, but should it be made. Puts this nomination in a lame duck session after a midterm and a completely turbulent political environment. That is why they feel if they can possibly achieve it to push this through even if it creates enormous backlash of the kind Senator Cruz and others are already experiencing.

LEMON: Let's dig into that a little bit more. Because you mentioned the book and that you write about the importance of the potential of nominating Supreme Court justices. And getting Trump elected. That is how he won over some Republican voters, by releasing a list of possible Supreme Court nominees during the campaign. And here's what you write. You say, "The list bound uneasy Republicans to his cause, if for no other reason than to invest in his hands and not Clinton's the future of the Supreme Court. I met countless Trump supporters who with no prompting identified the Supreme Court as the reason they would live with Trump's volatility and lack of political experience." In retrospect it seems like a pretty smart strategy, doesn't it?

GARRETT: It was. And it's unique to Trump. And whether you're a fan of the Trump presidency, many Americans are, or despise the Trump presidency, many Americans do, this was an act of political originalism brought to him through the auspices and the offices of the federal society.

[23:15:09] No doubt I talk about that in great detail in the book, but nevertheless the idea of putting a list out there and identifying potential Supreme Court nominees and then right before the general election saying this will be the list and I will choose from this list the President gave social conservatives, other conservatives interested in the future of the court something to hang their vote on. Separate from everything else that kind of either disturbed them or gave them some measure of anxiety. And in that respect you have to acknowledge that at minimum and maybe appreciate it as an act of political originalism.

LEMON: I've got to ask you about this. And it's disturbing to most journalists. In the month of September there's only been one White House press briefing. Just 14 of them since June. Just 14. Has it mattered in terms of getting truthful answers from this White House?

GARRETT: Well, certainly it matters because that is the public's forum, to test the White House and watch it respond. Look, I've been fortunate enough to cover directly for Presidents. I know the briefings can sometimes be tedious. I know there are sometimes legitimate criticism about a sort of play acting that goes on. I understand that, but it is nevertheless an important public forum where questions are asked and they are answered and follow-ups can dislodge truths the White House would otherwise rather not deal with.

And the absence of briefings deprives the public of that, and it reflects something that I think is important to note, Don, which is this White House feels increasingly defensive about defending itself in public. That is a fact. When you have fewer briefings, you are announcing that to the world. Because if you were confident about your ability to answer these tough questions, you would be out there. Frequently.

LEMON: Do you think the former Fox News executive played a role in that, with less information coming out, fewer press briefings, control cutting off there?

GARRETT: I know -- the direct answer to that is I know late spring this became an active topic within the White House, why are we doing, this why are we getting pummeled so much, why is it such a negative experience? That comes with the territory. You're the President of the United States. You speak on behalf of the country through the White House. Tough questions are part of your daily existence. Dealing with those tough issues and answering tough questions and explaining yourself to the American public is part of your job application.

When you run for nomination of a major party and then you land yourself in the White House, it comes with the territory. Shirking that responsibility, backing away from that, is your way of telling the country you feel defensive about what you may have to defend.

LEMON: Major Garrett. Thank you, sir. Here's the book. Everybody should read it. The book, again, is "Mr. Trump's wild ride, the thrills, chills, screams, and occasional blackouts of an extraordinary presidency." Wow. All in the first year. Thank you.

GARRETT: As I love to say, I love to say you don't need to read it. Just buy it.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Thank you, sir. I appreciate you joining us. Hope to see you soon. Write another book so you can come back.

GARRETT: That is right.

LEMON: Thank you. All right. So, listen, after the break I'm going to share a story with you. It's my own story and the story of someone close to me. It's why the accounts of the women who allege assault or sexual misconduct against a SCOTUS nominee hit very close to home. And I hope you'll watch and listen.

[23:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: So as many of you probably noticed, I wasn't here last week.

I was on vacation. A bittersweet one. I'm going to explain that in a moment, but while I was gone, the story about Brett Kavanaugh and alleged sexual abuse became the big story. And even though I tried to ignore the news, this one was hard to avoid. So tonight I feel compelled to share with you something that is very personal to me.

There is no standard way survivors talk about sexual assault. It isn't always a police phone call and a rape indicate or a report filed with H.R. Sometimes they don't talk at all. For years, even decades. Sometimes a little comes out in a conversation with a friend, partner, or a doctor. And sometimes it comes out all at once. Why is it so hard to talk about?

Well, part of it is fear. And part of it is doubt. Will I be believed? Will I be blamed? Will I have evidence? Do I have to relive what happened? Will everyone judge me? And if I speak out will it even matter? Well, I've been open about my experience with sexual assault, and I know firsthand that no one ever wants to come forward. Even to family, friends, or loved ones, let alone the entire country.

My own family didn't know what happened to me. I didn't tell my mother till I was 30 years old. And it was something that happened when I was very young. One of my abusers, while a lot older than me, was also young, in his teens. So it has been really frustrating to me to hear people ignorantly excusing a 17-year-old possibly committing sexual assault as boys will be boys, teenage hormones, and testosterone at work here.

Well, let me tell you, in my life it hasn't mattered if the person was 17 or 70. The pain and the damage are real, and it never goes away. I first spoke about it on the air on CNN eight years ago this week. Wow. Time flies.

[23:25:00] And only because in that moment I was so moved by an interview I was doing with young members of the New Birth Church in Suburban Atlanta. They were on CNN defending Bishop Eddie Long, who was accused of abusing young men. And it was during that interview that it just came out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Let me tell you what got my attention about this, and I've never admitted this on television. I am a victim of a pedophile when I was a kid, someone who was much older than me. And those are the things that they do. The language. This doesn't make you gay if you do this. So when someone starts to say that, you start to perk up and go --

I have never admitted that on television. I didn't tell my mom that until I was 30 years old. The things these young men are talking about, men don't want to -- especially African-American men don't want to talk about those things or don't want to admit them.

(END VIDEO CLIP) LEMON: I hadn't watched that since it happened. And it's tough to --

even now it's tough. I did later write about it in my book, and I've talked about it since, but it's never easy. So here's my message then and now and today. People aren't always who they present themselves to be in public. A molester doesn't have an "M" on their forehead. Or an abuser doesn't have an "A" on their forehead. Rapist doesn't go around with an "R" on their forehead. People are tricky characters. Innocent until proven guilty must remain the law of the land, but at the same time, some guilty people do cloak themselves in innocence.

Remember, after all, Bill Cosby was America's dad not so long ago. Think about that. So two women have come forward with allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Both allege deeds that they say happened decades ago. He insists that they didn't happen at all. I don't know what happened. I don't, but we need to hear them out. And have an honest investigation into whether there is truth to their stories. Some have called these women brave, courageous, even patriotic. Others have called their revelations a shameful smear campaign, a political conspiracy, and unfair and unjust.

People including the President question why wouldn't they have talked about it sooner. Well, the answer is different for everyone. Which brings me to why last week was bittersweet and the news hard to ignore. As I said, I was on vacation trying to have a good time, but then I got this news. Someone extremely close to me, a family member, told me just this past week about her own experience. Out of the blue she texted me and she said, this is a quote, "I believe her because I am a product of the "metoo" movement.

And I texted right back and I said, what? No way. Why didn't you say anything? And she replied, "Shame. I thought he loved me." So much more to story. And then I called her and we talked. And yes, I did ask her if I could share this. She told me that she was assaulted by a boyfriend years ago. And even though it happened then, there is still pain now. And it still matters now. So I've been thinking about why she told me this and about why she didn't tell me sooner.

And I've been thinking about why these women are coming forward to tell the whole country what they say happened. Knowing that they will be judged. And Judge Kavanaugh will be judged. And someone will be believed and someone won't.

My last question, please, I want you to really think about this as we consider their accounts and the judge's denials for the sake of everyone involved. Are we interested in truth? Are we interested in healing? Or is there, as there always seems to be these days, a political game being played with people's lives? And we're talking about a lot of lives across the country, because according to the rape abuse and incest national network, every 98 seconds someone in the United States is sexually assaulted.

One out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. About 1 in 33 men are survivors of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. And about 2 out of 3 sexual assaults go unreported. If you have experienced a sexual assault and are looking for help, please know that there are resources available to you. Call the National Sexual Assault telephone hotline to speak with a trained staff member to find help in your area. Their number is 800-656-hope.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So the president is questioning why Christine Blasey Ford didn't report her allegation of sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh more than 30 years ago when she says the incident took place. And he is challenging her to name the date, time, and the place. But as I said in the previous segment, most victims of sexual assault don't report what happened.

So I want to bring in now Patti Davis. She has written an op-ed for "The Washington Post" that's entitled "I Was Sexually Assaulted." Here's why I won't remember many of the details." Patti is the author and the daughter of Ronald Reagan, President Ronald Reagan. She joins me now. Thank you so much for joining me --

PATTI DAVIS, DAUGHTER OF PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: Thank you.

LEMON: -- this evening. How are you doing?

DAVIS: I'm good. Thank you. Thank you for having me.

LEMON: So, in your piece, you talked about a horrible assault that happened to you about 40 years ago.

DAVIS: Yeah.

LEMON: But you don't remember many details. What do you remember?

DAVIS: I remember every detail of the actual assault.

[23:35:01] I couldn't tell you what month it was. I couldn't tell you if when I got to the man's office if his assistant was still there. It was, as I said in the piece, it was sort of after work hours appointment, which in retrospect should have made me suspicious, but didn't at the time.

So there were a lot of things I don't remember, but I remember in detail when he crossed the room and when he was on top of me. I remember how his breath smelled. I remember how the leather couch stuck to me. I remember the things that matter. And that's what happens in a trauma.

You know, it's kind of miraculous really. It's sort of your brain's survival instinct. You remember -- you take pictures of what is important and what is dangerous. And the rest that doesn't matter falls away. And when I hear people --

LEMON: You block it out. A lot of it you just -- you block out. Even things that happen around that time, even if it's not directly connected to that. And people will say, don't you remember such and such and such and such? And you go no, I don't really --

DAVIS: Right. LEMON: -- remember that. I'm sorry for interrupting. Go on.

DAVIS: No, that's OK. I just -- I was going to say that when I've heard people criticizing her, Professor Ford, for not remembering where the party was or what month it was or whose house it was, I want to say have you never been through a trauma? Forget sexual assault. Have you never been in a car accident or an attempted robbery or watching your kid fall off the jungle gym?

I mean, in any kind of trauma, that's how the brain works. And I suspect that all the people who are criticizing her have actually been through some kind of trauma. They just don't want to acknowledge it and give her the same grace that they give themselves.

LEMON: When you hear people say, well, this happened so long ago and this is boys will be boys and what 17-year-old, you know, that hasn't done that and his hormones and testosterone, what do you say to that?

DAVIS: I remember one of the women who was interviewed by somebody on CNN said, oh, 17-year-old boys do this all the time. And I thought, lady, I don't know what town you live in or how you raised your kids, but I know a lot of teenage boys who were sons of my friends.

I don't know anybody who piles on to a girl, puts their hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming and tries to rape her. I don't know any boys who do that.

LEMON: And we don't know exactly if that's what happened, but I understand the sentiment of what you're saying. You know, let's just say that it does happen. We should not be perpetuating that behavior and condoning it in some sense by saying boys will be boys.

Can we move forward because I want to talk about Thursday. She -- Christine Blasey Ford is set to speak with the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. What do you think senators should ask her, Patti?

DAVIS: Well, I think they should ask her about her experience. But more importantly, I think that they should really listen to her. If you have listened to what they've been saying, that's probably not going to happen. You know, Mitch McConnell said, we're going to plow through it. It. Like she is a piece of flotsam in the road and she's in his way.

Lindsey Graham initially said, oh, very flippantly, I'll listen to the lady. And then more recently said, there's nothing that she can say that will change my mind, which doesn't really comport with the whole listening thing, right?

You know, if you want to -- if people wonder why women don't report sexual abuse or why they keep quiet about it for years or even decades, this is why. Because that's what they get on the other side of it. And we've made a lot of progress in this country. We have a movement now.

But in a lot of ways, we haven't moved at all. And what is going on right now at this moment in time and this moment in history is illuminating all of that. This is obviously about the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, but it's about a lot more than that.

LEMON: Yeah.

DAVIS: It's about how we treat victims of sexual abuse.

LEMON: Yeah. Patti Davis, listen, I am sorry that you had to experience what you experienced.

[23:39:58] But I thank you for writing this piece for the "Washington Post" and I thank you for coming on.

DAVIS: Thank you.

LEMON: Thank you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, is set to meet with President Trump on Thursday. So he may be just days away from finding out his fate as a top official at the Justice Department overseeing the Russia investigation.

Here to discuss, CNN Political Commentators, Alice Stewart and Charles Blow, and CNN Contributor, Michael D'Antonio, who is the author of "The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence." But also, he wrote "The Truth About Trump." Am I right?

MICHAEL D'ANTONIO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: There's a lot of truth going around.

(LAUGHTER)

D'ANTONIO: Or not.

(LAUGHTER)

[23:45:00] LEMON: Alice, good evening. Good evening, everyone. Alice, I'm going to start with you.

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi, Don.

LEMON: Throughout the morning, it was unclear if Rosenstein still had his job. The president, who is in New York, is said to have spoken with Rosenstein this morning, and he said -- he also said this. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'll meet with Rod Rosenstein on Thursday when I get back from all of these meetings. We will be meeting at the White House. We will be determining what's going on. We want to have transparency. We want to have openness. And I look forward to meeting with Rod at that time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Alice, what's going on here? Some uncharacteristically caution -- uncharacteristic caution there by not immediately firing Rosenstein. Do you agree with that?

STEWART: It is the best move he could have made. It's a good thing he took a breath, let cooler heads prevail, and really thought about this. Because look, my view, this story was planted by disgruntled former FBI head, Andrew McCabe, and Lisa Page. They wanted to do something to cause the president to make -- take a knee-jerk reaction.

Fortunately, he took a breath. Look, there's two ways to look at this. If the president were to fire Rosenstein, there's the political lens, which would be bad if he did that. It would look as though he was trying to obstruct justice and obstruct the Mueller investigation.

But also from an investigative oversight standpoint. It wouldn't have any impact on the investigation. Mueller's going to continue to do what he's going to do. So, it's best for the president to sit back, let cooler heads prevail, have a conversation.

I think he should keep him on there because it's not going to affect the outcome of the investigation and we need to let the Mueller probe play out. We need to see how Russia interfered in our election and if there was any coordination between them and the Trump campaign.

LEMON: So, Michael, even with all the bluster and the bullying, you said this before, but you also said it in your column in "The Atlantic" today. You said, "President Trump loathes face-to-face confrontation and rarely fires anyone."

D'ANTONIO: He is a coward. He fires people on T.V. when it's a reality T.V. show. But when it's reality reality, he is very uncomfortable with confrontation, especially with someone who is also powerful. So this is a president who is very comfortable talking trash at a rally.

When he was a businessperson, he was very comfortable firing maintenance men who were accused of stealing from Johnny Carson. But when it comes to a direct confrontation with someone with some reputation and some heft, he is not so brave.

LEMON: Yeah. Charles, I want to talk about your latest column. And it's called "Thomas, Kavanaugh and Race." You called out a distinct difference between the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

And here's what you said, "Indeed, many people have drawn attention to the numerous parallels between the two cases, but I would like to draw attention to one difference. One that could bode well for Ford. The absence of a racial element in a heated racial environment."

So, what do you mean by that? Because the racial element existed in the -

CHARLES BLOW, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right.

LEMON: -- with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas but it doesn't exist now.

BLOW: Well, you have to understand what was happening in 1991. So, in March of 1991 was the Rodney King beating, which was probably the first time amateur video was used to demonstrate police brutality. Maybe you could argue that it was the first "Black Lives Matter" case. And it was enormous. And it consumed television.

Bush was so nervous about it that he called the attorney general to the White House, had a press conference in the White House about the beating. This is not the person who had died.

Just the fact that it was captured on television was big enough that the president of the United States called the attorney general into the Oval Office and condemns it from there at an extended press conference where that was the only thing they were there to talk about. We don't have that when people are killed in the street on video these days.

So, you have to understand, in that context, it was enormous. And towards the beginning of the summer, a judge rules that the jury pool is so tainted in L.A. You have to move it out -- the trial out of L.A. They hadn't figured out where to move it yet.

But while they're waiting to figure out where to move it -- they eventually moved it to Simi Valley where there's almost no black people -- while they're waiting for that, the seat comes open and Thomas is nominated.

And you have Thurgood Marshall going out, liberal lion, incredible civil rights kind of megastar, and you have this guy. And now black people are having to choose, do you support this guy who has a sketchy record to replace him -- to replace Thurgood Marshall, or do you stand on principle and don't support him and risk there having no black representation in the court?

[23:50:05] And it's really touch and go. Civil rights groups don't really even make a stand because they are so nervous about how we deal with this. And when you get to the hearing, Anita makes her very credible accusations.

But black people see this image that is the echo of the image they have seen in March, which is this panel of all white men sitting high -- these things are -- sitting high, encircling this black man, which is almost a mirror image of what had happened in the Rodney King hearings.

The circle, kind of wolf pack of white men around this man. And trump -- and Clarence Thomas -- this is a race card when he says, this is high stakes election, and it turned everything. And it gave cover for people to say, I support him because now 70 percent of black people support this guy so he can't be that bad.

LEMON: I have to go because we are overtime. But there won't be that element this time. So it may bode well for the victim this time.

BLOW: Now is just -- it's not the struggle about the racial -- LEMON: I got to go. Thank you all. I appreciate it. We'll be right back.

STEWART: Thanks, Don.

[23:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The city of Lagos is known as Nigeria's Silicon Valley with both Facebook and Google opening offices there within the last year. But with the technology sector so dominated by men, one successful computer programmer is determined to help her country's most disadvantaged girls fill that gender gap. And her crusade has taken her to one of the city's poorest slums. Meet CNN's hero Abisoye Ajayi- Akinfolarin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ABISOYE AJAYI-AKINFOLARIN, CNN HERO: When I went to Makoko for the first time, I was surprised to see the living condition of human beings. Most girls are trapped in (INAUDIBLE) cycle of poverty. Many of them are not thinking education, a plan for the future.

I believe girls should be given opportunities.

What you can't see, you can't aspire to. They need to be shown another life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: To see how one 17-year-old girl is using technology to solve a problem in her community, go to CNNHeroes.com.

Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)