Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Trump Challenges Claims Of Second Kavanaugh Accuser; GOP Chooses Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell To Ask Questions At Thursday's Kavanaugh Hearing; President Trump Accused Dems Of Masterminding A Con Game Against Brett Kavanaugh. Aired 11-12m ET

Aired September 25, 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 TONIGHT NEWS SHOW HOST: This is "CNN Tonight." I'm Don Lemon. It is 11:00 p.m. here on the East Coast. And we're live with new developments tonight. Including this, President Trump lashing out over sexual misconduct allegations against his Supreme Court pick. He is directly challenging claims of inappropriate sexual behavior coming from a second woman against Brett Kavanaugh saying she has nothing. Kavanaugh denies both claims.

So just a short time ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced Arizona sex crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell serve as outside counsel to ask questions at Thursday's hearing. A vote on Kavanaugh is already scheduled for Friday morning at 9:30.

So we have a lot to discuss here. So, I want to bring in now CNN political commentator, Scott Jennings and Margaret Hoover as well as Catherine Rampell. Thank you all for joining us. Again, a lot to get to. This is such a serious complicated story.

Margaret, to you. He is making it out like he was a perfect sort of catholic school or choir boy or however you want to say it, but you know, there's other evidence including his yearbook and whatever. I am not sure, yearbook's comment or whatever, you know, it's just -- but does it all add up when you listen to the interview? Are you buying?

MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, I think evidence, your word evidence is a bit of an overstatement. I think what we're lacking here is a real fact finding mission, an independent fact finding mission. I have been very clear about saying that this is not a metoo incident. Metoo and metoo ought to be careful about over reach here. Metoo is about men in powerful positions in the workplace asserting their power over women in subordinate positions and using that superiority to be able to perpetrate a sexual predation on women and stymie their career.

LEMON: So you're saying this is void behavior?

HOOVER: This is not what I am saying, this is not metoo. At the same time, in every metoo incident, in Roger Ailes case at Fox News and many cases there have been independent law firms or entities that are qualified to discern what the facts are that are separate from the actors in the case to determine what the facts are. And absolutely I think there's a fair case to be made and I think in some senses is Republicans haven't handle this as well. Put the FBI in case, or put somebody else who is independent of the political process in charge of discerning what the facts are in this case so that everybody can deal with the same set of facts.

LEMON: OK, so listen, let me -- because you said you don't see it as evidence, right? I'm not sure how much stock we should be putting into yearbooks and to what people write. Because sometimes it's coded so that adults don't understand. Sometimes it is just people say crass things. I don't even remember what I said in my yearbook and I am sure I have said some stupid things.

HOOVER: I'm glad you're not a Supreme Court justice.

LEMON: Having said that -- that is exactly my point. That is one reason I'm not running for office and to have or running for President to all of this come out. Because I think that is what you sign up for, but Catherine, so, let me ask you this. Let's talk about the yearbook. On his yearbook page, he says there was a Keg City Club treasurer, 100 kegs or bus. He also mentioned Renata an alumnus which his classmates told the New York Times that he used to boast about an encounter with a girl named Renata Schroeder. And then the L.A. Times reports that he talked about getting drunk in high school and college recently in speeches at Yale Law School, Catholic University. These some of the allegations aside, what is worse, boorish behavior or that? In his own pass statements or to be believe, a potential Supreme Court Justice is not telling the truth about that.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: I think it is the letter frankly. Look teenagers, particularly drunk teenagers sometimes do awful sometimes even criminal things. What matters and what I think is a much more important measure of a person's character and I'm not saying that the things that he is accused of we should be completely dismissing, but if we're talking about a person's character what matters is how they handle the sense that they may have committed with the maturity of age. Right? And if in fact he is not owning up to what he did, you know, assuming that he actually did some of these things that he is accused of doing it and we don't know, because we don't have any sort of independent investigation going on, if he is not owning up to those kinds of things, if he is not expressing responsibility or contrition, I think that is frankly a much more damning reflection on his character.

[23:05:07] And beyond that, it's not only about his character, right? It's about his credibility. If we can't trust him to tell the truth about forgotten parties, if we can't trust him to tell the truth about the forgotten stolen e-mails or forgotten -- excuse me, forgotten stolen memos from Democrats or forgotten e-mails sexually implicit e- mails from a circuit court judge that he clerked before that he had to resign because of those emails, why should we trust him when he tells us how he characterizes his jurisprudence?

LEMON: I want to bring in, -- you're looking into the camera. I'm sure you cannot see the person's face sitting next to you. Margaret -- HOOVER: There is a series of allegations here that are all

hypothetical and the problem I have hearing this is because there's no independent fact finding mission, you have the hypothetical on the hypothetical not just.

RAMPELL: So have an independent fact finding mission.

HOOVER: Precisely, but every hypothetical that has been stated assumes Brett Kavanaugh's -- assumes he is -- there is no presumption of innocence here.

RAMPELL: That is because Congress is not serving the role of advice and consent. They're serving the role -- no, no, this has to do with the fact that had the Senate is not serving the role of advice and consent. They're serving the role of block and tackle.

They are circling the wagons.

HOOVER: This is inherently political. What you're admitting is that Brett Kavanaugh doesn't deserve a presumption of innocence.

LEMON: OK. OK. OK. Let me ask you this, --

RAMPELL: I am saying that there should be an investigation into his credibility at this point.

LEMON: Why -- explain to me.

HOOVER: Why not just into the facts and the truth?

RAMPELL: Those are the same thing. Those are very much the same thing. If he is not telling the facts, if he is not telling the truth and there are certainly credible allegations that he has not done so, that speaks to his credibility.

LEMON: We are talking about politics here. So, I'm just wondering when people say this is all political, is that a bad thing? Because, I mean, we're not talking about somebody who is trying to become you know an actor or for a role in a movie. We're talking about the whole essence of this politics.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We're also talking about someone who already is a circuit judge on the most important circuit. Everything Catherine said presumes that Brett Kavanaugh is going to put his hand up and take the oath to tell the truth and look at those Senators and lie. She is already presuming he is going to lie. And alleging he is going to lie. This has more to do with his current job in my opinion than going on the Supreme Court. You're saying that a circuit judge for 12 years is going to put his hand up and lie? I dispute that.

(CROSSTALK)

RAMPELL: I'm saying that he is an incredible evasive -- he has been incredibly evasive at best when answering these other kinds of questions. JENNINGS: That is your political opinion, but other people don't

agree with you.

RAMPELL: No, no, read the transcript. Excuse me, read the questions. The questions for the record that were posed to him when he was asked, for example, about whether he got sexually explicit e-mails from Alex Kozinski, he said I don't recall. The next question was did you check your e-mails to see if in fact you got these messages from these judge? He said I don't recall whether I got these messages. He did not actually answer the question. That is evasive.

I am not saying he deliberately lie, he is too smart to deliberately lie. The question is are we trying to get to the truth here. It doesn't seem that Republicans are. If Republicans were trying to get to the truth here, we would have an independent investigation by professionals who are not politically motivated. For example, the FBI, if Republicans were trying to get to the truth here, they would call witnesses which they have not done.

JENNINGS: You're saying the constitution is obsolete. The constitution grants the Senate the power to do these confirmations to advice and consent and do these vetting.

RAMPELL: Which they are not doing.

JENNINGS: So you are saying that the constitution is obsolete and we have to go extra constitutional, because you don't like this nominee?

RAMPELL: I have not said that in any sense. I said they have failed their constitutional duty.

JENNINGS: How? We haven't had the hearing yet. We're having a hearing on Thursday.

RAMPELL: They've already scheduled a vote. They have somehow already scheduled a vote.

JENNINGS: Why wouldn't they.

LEMON: Also, they're not calling relevant witnesses like Mark Judge. I mean, there is, if you're going to say it's political, Margaret made the point, both sides I think have, you know, have issues with this, but you cannot say that Republicans meaning lawmakers in Washington have been on the up and up about all of this. And you can't, just as you're saying and I think everyone agrees with you, we have the presumption of innocence first, but also they don't believe this woman at all. What is her presumption? Why do they presume that she is lying?

HOOVER: I don't hear any presumption of guilt or lying on behalf of her. I mean, honestly --

LEMON: They already scheduled a vote.

HOOVER: What are you talking about? [23:10:00] JENNINGS: They have to vote. I mean, they're going to

schedule a vote. They have to vote no matter how it turns out Thursday, there has to be a committee vote.

LEMON: Some Senators have said nothing that she will say will change their minds. What does that mean? They think she is not telling the truth?

HOOVER: Don, that is on both sides. There are also people on the other side of this calling Brett Kavanaugh a rapist, right? And saying you know, and presuming that.

LEMON: That is wrong. That is not the point we are making. That is obviously wrong. And that is an extreme. They should not be doing that.

RAMPELL: There should be an independent investigation. They should wait until the facts come out. The very fact that they have scheduled this hearing -- excuse me, the scheduled a vote before they've even learned what they would learn at the hearing suggests that they don't care what's going to come out.

LEMON: You were talking about. How he answered questions and one is also how he answered questions in an interview, as well. Whether he was evasive or what he said about his past. This is what he said about his high school behavior and college behavior last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT KAVANAUGH, NOMINATED AS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: I went to an all-boys catholic high school, a Jesuit high school where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects and friendship. I did not have any sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter. And the girls from the schools I went to and I were friends.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you're saying through all these years that are in question, you were a virgin?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school.

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Through what years in college since we're probing into your personality test?

KAVANAUGH: Many years after. I'll leave it at that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Listen, I don't know why that matters why he is going into that kind of detail. HOOVER: Look, it is a non-Secular. Look, I think -- you know, first

of all I'm deeply concerned that isolated, unprovable, uncorroborated, experiences from people that are their real experiences, but can become the new standard for disqualifying people from public service. That concerns me. But what I do think that would have helped Brett Kavanaugh in that interview is if he had at least demonstrated a degree of empathy for the real experience that Professor Ford had.

JENNINGS: He said that though.

HOOVER: Wait. Because it would have demonstrated a more sensitivity towards the moment and it's not to say that he is right and she is wrong or he is wrong and she is right, but I'm sorry that she he had this experience and that is not my experience. That would have demonstrated a little more empathy towards the moment --

LEMON: I think the reaction -- before you answer -- I really need to run, I think the reactions on that interview has been sort of a political Rorschach test, because there are people who look and say oh, my god, this guy is you know, slippery, he is robotic, he keeps repeating the same thing. I want fairness. What I want is fairness. He seems rehearsed. Then on the Republican side, I hear people saying, oh my gosh, this is great. They sounded like they -- you know, like that they were honest and sincere. Almost like a choir boy.

JENNINGS: One person in this engagement is unequivocal in their statements and one person in in engagement is having trouble with the when, the where and even the who, have who was in this house during the alleged incident.

LEMON: That also has to do with.

JENNINGS: That is what the committee is going to hear Thursday, they are going to hear Brett Kavanaugh unequivocally state under oath what he said on television and they are going to hear Dr. Ford say it's true just as I told "The Washington Post" there are things about this that I'm not sure about. And the witnesses that I produce, I admit say this didn't happen. That is the evidence the committee is going to hear.

RAMPELL: The witnesses have not been called.

JENNINGS: They have been contacted by the judiciary committee.

RAMPELL: They have not been subpoenaed. They have not subpoenaed.

JENNINGS: Statements they make in the judiciary committee are under penalty of perjury.

RAMPELL: If the committee were trying to get to the bottom of this, if they were trying to uncover the truth, they would call witnesses. Why would these women make up these stories and put witnesses in.

JENNINGS: I actually don't have a problem, if the committee wants to bring the witnesses, I think that is perfectly fine, because if they said what they already said that corroborate Kavanaugh.

RAMPELL: So, why haven't they? What's your theory about why they haven't subpoenaed them?

JENNINGS: Because of what they've said on the record is what exactly what they would say in a hearing and it's irrelevant to make them do it twice. I guess, I wouldn't have a problem if they brought them in.

RAMPELL: Why is it not irrelevant to have Brett Kavanaugh come speak?

LEMON: I got to go.

RAMPELL: I mean, there's a reason why you have a hearing about this.

LEMON: Thank you all. Thank you, thank you. Again, this will happen on Thursday. So stay tuned, everyone. When we come back, we are going to talk to a woman who knows Debora Ramirez, the latest Kavanaugh's accuser, and she will tell me why she believes the accusation.

[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The attorney for the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh of inappropriate sexual behavior in college says Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee blew off their scheduled phone call. Didn't take it. So, here is what John Clune, who represent Deborah Ramirez, just told Anderson Cooper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CLUNE, DEBORAH RAMIREZ'S ATTORNEY: We finally had a phone call scheduled for 7:00 Eastern this evening. We got on the phone and only the minority party showed. So, there's a lot of game playing that is going on right now by the majority party. We just want to be able to talk to them and find out what is it they're contemplating how this would be investigated or how Debbie could provide her information to the senate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So this comes as President Trump tries to discredit Ramirez and the story she told "The New Yorker" about Kavanaugh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let's not make him a Supreme Court Judge because of that? The second accuser has nothing. The second accuser doesn't even know -- she thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. She admits that she was drunk. She admits time lapses. There are time lapses. This is a person and this is a series of statements that is going to take one of the most talented one of the greatest intellects from a judicial standpoint in our country going to keep him off the United States Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP) [23:20:05] LEMON: So CNN so far has not spoken to anyone who is

willing to corroborate Ramirez' story as reported by the "New Yorker." So, joining me is Lisa Calderon. She worked with Deborah Ramirez at the Colorado non-profit that helps victims of domestic violence. Lisa it is good to have you on. Thank you for coming on.

LISA CALDERON, FORMER COLLEAGUE OF KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DEBBIE RAMIREZ: Thank you for having me, Don.

LEMON: So you know Deborah Ramirez. What's your reaction to what you just heard the President say about her?

CALDERON: You know, unfortunately, it's what we hear quite often when victims come forward with their stories. You know, I would expect that the President of the United States actually has more nuance and balance toward addressing someone who is coming together, coming forward with a story that is -- it is disturbing, but there should be a fair process. And I think that making statements like that fundamentally taints the process.

LEMON: Were you able to hear the conversation we had before the break?

CALDERON: Just a little bit.

LEMON: Is it frustrating for you listening to the back and forth and the political especially the political back and forth about the Republicans are doing this, the Democrats are doing that? Because as far as I know, there are no Democrat or Republican victims or survivors. It's just survivors or victims.

CALDERON: Well beyond that, regardless of your political affiliation, if it were your daughter or your mother or your spouse, how would you want them to be treated? You know, regardless people should have a fair process. You know, Debbie is someone that I work with. I was her supervisor. She was a victim advocate. And walked through the court system with women. Went to the scene of domestic violence incidents. And unfortunately, this was part of what we saw is people questioning their credibility. And I think that it sends the wrong message to victims that you know, that they should just stay silent. And I think that is the wrong message to be sending.

LEMON: Judge Kavanaugh was asked about Deborah Ramirez's allegations last night. Here's what he had to say about this. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAVANAUGH: I never did any such thing. I never did any such thing. The other people alleged to be there don't recall any such thing. If such a thing had happened, it would have been the talk of campus. The women I knew in college and the men I knew in college said it's inconceivable that I could have done such a thing. And "The New York Times" just reported that just last week, the person making the accusation was calling other classmates saying she was not sure that I had done this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Lisa, why do you believe Deborah's story?

CALDERON: Because having worked with her for a few years, having trained her, she started off initially as a volunteer. So that tells you this is someone who you know, didn't require money to do community service for folks, be a public servant. In the most intensive circumstances.

So she was responsible for a crisis intervention team and you know, under often very difficult circumstances with victims, right after they had been assaulted. And so seeing her compassion out there with victims and survivors, listening to their stories, I know Debbie to be a very diligent person, a very thoughtful person. She is not someone who would -- in fact, she is not even a public person. So for her to come forward and tells me a lot about her sense of obligation in getting these facts out there to the American public.

LEMON: I just -- something that I heard, there are -- I heard a commentator earlier saying it was incumbent upon people like Miss Ramirez and Miss Blasey Ford, it was that they were obligated to come forward because if they didn't, then they were somehow responsible. They were somehow -- they somehow caused other victims or they needed to come forward to protect other victims. What do you say to that?

CALDERON: You know, every victim's story is going to be different. And they're not under any obligation to do anything. They are the experts in their own lives. Every option has consequences. So if you choose one avenue, you know, there can be benefits, but there could also backlash.

[23:25:00] You know, these kinds of judgments are another form of victim blaming. And instead of blaming victims what we need to ask is, why, what, are the barriers that keep you know folks who have experienced violence from coming forward and what can we do to reduce those barriers. And certainly shaming people for their decisions just because someone says that is not what I would do, you know, it's not helping any. So we really need to understand and exercise much more compassion than moving to a point of automatic discrediting.

LEMON: Lisa Calderon, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

CALDERON: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: When we come back, with all the speculation about whether the President will fire Rod Rosenstein, a lot of people are worried about the drama derailing the Russian investigation. But Robert Mueller's recent moves have shown HANKS: his investigation can't be derailed.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: As the President prepares to meet with Rod Rosenstein, the big question is whether the Deputy Attorney General will be out of a job soon. If Rosenstein is fired is, many people fear it could be the end of the Mueller investigation, but is that true? Just how far along is the Special Counsel? There have been a number of significant events and just within the last month alone. So let us go through them and then have our experts talk about what they may mean. The president's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, got the word that he will be sentenced this December for lying to investigators about his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Investigators are zeroing in on long-time Trump adviser Roger Stone and his contacts with WikiLeaks and hackers. The special counsel has called over half a dozen of Stone's associates to testify in the investigation already.

After being convicted in one trial, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort pled guilty to reduce charges in the next one and is cooperating now with the special counsel. After pleading guilty to a series of criminal charges, President Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is also cooperating with Mueller's investigators.

ABC News reports that he has has cooperated with multiple interview sessions lasting for hours. Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was sentenced to prison for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russian intermediaries during the 2016 election.

All told, 35 people or business entities are facing 191 criminal charges. Despite what you may hear from the president and his allies claiming there is some unfounded witch hunt, Robert Mueller's investigation is producing results. Look at your screen. There they are right there. But how close is he to wrapping this up?

So let's discuss now. Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Laura Coates is here. Also, Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director for the Criminal Investigative Division.

So, there's no disputing -- good evening, everyone -- there's no disputing that there are some results there. Facts are facts. So Chris, looking at the series of events, where do you think his investigation stands at this point? How far along is Robert Mueller?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, FBI: Yeah, I think he's very far along. I think the die is cast, because of all the things that you just mentioned. These are the building blocks of an indictment, in my opinion. And having served directly under the special counsel, Mueller, for two and a half years, I know that he goes off of evidence. He follows where the facts lead him.

So -- and I don't think he's going to do anything before the midterm elections for fear that it would have some impact on the midterm elections. So I see something happening in late November, early December. And much of the information that you just provided, I think, supports that.

LEMON: So late November after the midterms. OK, that's good to know. Laura, from a legal perspective, what do these moves mean? What do you think the biggest outstanding questions are? What are they to you?

LAURA COATES, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, these moves essentially tell you that he's been methodical, that he hasn't operated or thinking about what everyone is saying about his investigation, namely the president of the United States. There are two people in particular that we should focus on.

Number one is Michael Cohen and also Michael Flynn, the two Michaels in this scenario. The reason they're so important is because they have delayed sentencing until as my colleague suggested after the midterm elections, both of them in December, suggesting that they are still worthwhile to the investigators, they are providing information in some form or fashion that will lead them to getting more insight and more information, potentially more indictments.

And so, pay attention to what it looks like in terms of why they chose those particular dates for sentencing. It's a point in time when they're no longer on the hook for the special counsel or the members of the SDNY to figure out what they know and how they're useful.

In terms of lingering questions, though, the biggest question of all is, what direction is Mueller's probe going in terms of the president of the United States or is his focus simply on those who were in a very key position in the campaign? Not anyone is higher than the chairman of the campaign. We already see the results for that.

The lingering question will be whether or not there is any allegation, particularly during midterm elections, that Russia was able to affect the outcome in terms of tallies of the 2016 election.

And number two, has there been some other coordinated effort that persisted long after the 2016 election that will impact what's happening in November, and who knew about it and when? That's all going to be what we're waiting to hear about.

LEMON: If Trump were to fire Rosenstein on Thursday, which many people are saying this looks less likely to happen, that this was all -- I don't know. What's the word that you -- I forgot the word that you used.

COATES: Deflection, distraction --

LEMON: Deflection, distraction -- no, I'm trying to think of the word that you used on the show before. So, what would happen to the work that Mueller's seem -- that they have already done? Were these findings ever be released?

COATES: Well, of course, he has responsibility, Mueller, to report only to Rosenstein or the person acting in that particular position. The report is handed over to that person.

[23:35:00] If there's any question about where to go from there, the indictments, the grand jury, subpoena issues, they're all centered around the ultimate clearance of Rod Rosenstein or his figure.

But remember, they have been criticized, the Mueller probe, largely because they have acted mostly autonomously away from what the oversight should be perhaps of Rod Rosenstein. So, I think that he has been under fire since the day he appointed Robert Mueller and will continue through the rest of his tenure. They have been able to independently act. That will probably continue and not be able to derail fully.

LEMON: So Chris, here's what the "Washington Post" is reporting tonight, that President Trump is unlikely to fire Rosenstein until after November's midterm elections. You just said that you expect something big late November which will be after the midterm elections.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he may go then, too. So, where will the investigation potentially be at this point? That would be another six weeks or so from now, maybe a little longer.

SWECKER: Yeah, I really don't see that happening. I think if there were an indictment in late November, early December, that would be -- it would be absolutely suicidal for the president to fire the person that appointed the special counsel and oversees the special counsel.

I think he would lose the support of many Republicans who are on the record, Grassley and many others, in saying that the special counsel needs to finish his work. We need to step back and just let him finish his work.

Let's see what Russia actually did. We know they're up to no good. We know they're trying to undermine our entire government. Were there any U.S. citizens who cooperated with them in exchange for dirt on Hillary? Whatever.

I think all of that needs to play out. I don't think the president -- I think he will rattle his saber and try to create some fear that he's going to fire Rosenstein. I don't see that happening at all.

LEMON: All right. Chris, Laura, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

COATES: Thank you.

LEMON: When we come back, Bill Cosby led out of court today in cuffs. How he went from being known as America's dad to facing three to 10 years in prison.

[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: A stunning moment that just a few years ago most of us never would have imagined. Bill Cosby, the man once known as America's dad, escorted out of a Pennsylvania courtroom in handcuffs. Sentenced today to three to 10 years in prison for sexual assault.

The judge ruling that Cosby, who is 81, will be classified as a sexually violent predator for the rest of his life. And this is his mugshot. As he was processed following his sentencing. Tonight, Bill Cosby spending his first night inside a minimum security state prison.

Joining me now, CNN political commentator Marc Lamont Hill, also defense attorney Joe Tacopina, and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin, the author of "Make It Rain." Maximum security, not minimum. So, guys, can you please put that mugshot up again? Your face when that -- good evening, everyone. Marc, when you saw that, what did you think?

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's jarring. I mean, as critical as I've been of Bill Cosby for years particularly since the pound cake speech, as disgusted as I've been by the reports and the stories, the very accurate and true stories of these --

LEMON: The handcuffs and the chain around his waist.

HILL: Right.

LEMON: Shackles, but I know he had a chain on his waist.

HILL: When I see that, I'm disturbed, not because -- I'm disturbed because it's an awful story. Those women deserve justice.

LEMON: Right.

HILL: Bill Cosby needs help. Both of those things need to happen. We have to ask the question, what does justice require? And when I see that, it reminds me that justice requires intervention, help, and it requires us to think about this whole conversation a little bit differently. I saw too many people celebrating Bill Cosby going to jail and not focusing on the victims. And I saw other people defending Bill Cosby from these awful things as if those victims' lives didn't matter. We have to focus on the victims and not focus on celebrating Bill Cosby being locked up or protecting him, almost saying he should be free to escape from this the way Kavanaugh might, which is the other conversation we see happening. LEMON: Yeah, celebrating -- taking glee in someone else's downfall. HILL: Right. LEMON: Not that he didn't deserve what happened, but there's something -- HILL: Right. But I move from a restorative place, not from punitive place. I don't ask who did it and how do we punish him. I ask who was harmed and how do we make them whole again. It's a different conversation. LEMON: After the sentencing, Joe, it was quite a scene outside of the courthouse. Cosby's spokesperson, Andrew Wyatt, spoke with reporters saying wild things about the prosecution. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDREW WYATT, BILL COSBY'S PUBLICIST: I believe I think it's important to point out that this has been the most racist and sexist trial in the history of the United States. They prosecuted Jesus and look what happened. I'm not saying Mr. Cosby is Jesus, but we know what this country has done to black men for centuries. (END VIDEO CLIP) JOE TACOPINA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Don, I don't even know. I mean, he

should get a job in the White House, clearly.

(LAUGHTER)

TACOPINA: I mean, we -- by the way, the United States did not prosecute Jesus. I just want to make sure the record is clear on that. And to call this the most racist trial in the history of United States is an incredible slap in the face to the victims of racism in the justice system, and there are plenty.

I mean, I don't know, he's certainly not on the Amnesty International unfair trials list. Bill Cosby isn't and will never be Leonard Peltier, the Rodney King trial, many others, the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling. I mean, racism in the justice system. There's plenty of it.

[23:45:00] Real racism. Don't say something. But this is a spokesperson for Cosby who clearly is lacking intelligence and has really absolutely offended the true victims of racism in this justice system. That was a ridiculous statement.

LEMON: He also called, Areva, the trial a public lynching. Cosby received a fair trial. Sixty women came forward with accusations. How can he possibly make the case that this was tainted and that this was the most racist -- I don't know. What do you think?

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Don, I don't think he can make that case credibly. I think what's happening is the sentencing occurred during the same week that we are watching women come forward and tell their truths and talk about accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

Marc talked about the people that were celebrating Cosby going to jail and sentencing. Some of those same people that were celebrating Cosby are also supporting Kavanaugh. So I don't know how you can celebrate Cosby without holding Kavanaugh accountable. I don't want Kavanaugh to receive anything less than what Bill Cosby received.

Bill Cosby didn't deserve a break. He committed a crime. He was convicted of that crime. And now he must face the punishment for that crime. I don't want him treated any better, but I don't want him treated any worse.

And I'd like to think that that was some of the sentiment that was being expressed today. Maybe it wasn't articulately expressed. But I think people in this country are angry. I know women are angry.

TODD: But the circumstances are different. I mean, you know, not that any of them is right. I mean, what Cosby is accused of, the number of women who have come forward, he's accused of rape.

TACOPINA: Don, Cosby is convicted. Cosby is convicted. Come one. Let's not compare the Kavanaugh situation to Cosby. Cosby is convicted.

MARTIN: Well, I think we can compare. We need to.

TACOPINA: Really?

LEMON: OK, we'll compare them right after the break. I'm just saying the circumstances are different. But we'll compare them after the break.

MARTIN: Legally they are different.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: OK, so we're back now with Marc, Joe, and Areva. OK, so we were talking about the circumstances of comparing Kavanaugh to Cosby. I said the circumstances are different. Obviously, one is way more severe. One is convicted, as Joe said. The other one is accused. Go ahead. What did you want to say, Areva? You want to respond?

MARTIN: I just -- obviously, before your Twitter followers, the audience goes crazy and says Areva somehow compared Brett Kavanaugh who has not been convicted to Bill Cosby, that was not the comparison I was making. The frustration I think people have today is that women still today despite the time, the "Me Too" era that we're in, women still have such a difficult time when they come forward and tell their stories.

And what we're seeing in the Brett Kavanaugh case the same way we saw in the early days of Bill Cosby is that women are not being believed. They're not able to tell their stories. That's the frustration that I think we're seeing especially social media.

HILL: And that's what makes them equivalent. Again, from a legal standard, no, they're not the same thing, they're not in the same place. But the question is, at the core, do we believe the stories of women with regard to sexual violence? And too often we don't.

And when it comes to men in power, particularly white men in power, we don't want to believe it. Someone like Kavanaugh, oh, he was 17, we don't want to do anything about it. We don't want him to have his future --

MARTIN: Youthful indiscretion.

HILL: Youthful indiscretion. That's how we talk about it. And with Bill Cosby to some extent because of his wealth and his power --

LEMON: People didn't believe them at first. People didn't believe it at first.

HILL: Absolutely. Partly because he's Bill Cosby and we love him, he's America's dad. But there's also the question of not believing women's stories. And many of the people right now who are upset over Bill Cosby's incarceration, they're upset because he hasn't been able to escape incarceration the way privileged white men have.

LEMON: OK, what do you say to people like Harvey Weinstein? What do you say to people like Matt Lauer? What do you say to people like --

HILL: Well, Matt Lauer -- I mean, losing your job --

LEMON: Roger Ailes is not here.

HILL: Losing your job is one thing. But what people are saying is -- scan the internet. People are saying that Bill Cosby is being held to a higher standard than white people. And I'm saying --

LEMON: And they're saying to this president and to Brett Kavanaugh. And by the way, guys, it was Cosby's team that made the connection --

HILL: Absolutely. But I got to make this point because I don't want people to misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't want Bill Cosby --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Let him finish and then I will let you --

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: What I'm saying is we need to raise the bar so that privileged white men are held accountable for sex assault. We shouldn't be trying to get Bill Cosby off. We shouldn't be trying --

TACOPINA: I think we're there, Marc. Marc, I think we're there.

MARTIN: We're not there at all, no.

TACOPINA: We're there now. We're not there at all? Privileged white people are not now being held responsible for sexual assault. Harvey Weinstein, any actor in Hollywood who gets accused, loses their job and career's gone without a burden of proof being established. No due process.

MARTIN: Joe, you're totally --

LEMON: Hold on, Areva. Just to push back, as I said earlier, all of the people I just mentioned except for Roger Ailes is not here, they are crying on their piles of money right now. Bill Cosby is in prison. Go on, Joe. Or go on, Areva.

MARTIN: Those are high profile celebrities. No doubt there have been --

TACOPINA: Harvey Weinstein is indicted. That day's coming.

MARTIN: Joe, no doubt there has been a slew of high-profile white men that have been held accountable for sexual assault. It's taken way too long. Let's start with that point. But there are thousands of white men who benefit from white privilege who are still in positions of power who are not held accountable.

And the sentiment that people are expressing. And I wanted Bill Cosby to be held accountable just like I want any sexual predator to be held accountable.

LEMON: Right.

MARTIN: It doesn't matter what your race is, it doesn't matter what your ethnicity is. If you are a sexual predator, you should be prosecuted and you should be in prison. No doubt about that.

But we should not be having a conversation about Brett Kavanaugh using words like youthful indiscretion and giving him the benefit of the doubt and not allowing the women to be believed in this situation if we're going to hold men like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein --

[23:55:05] TACOPINA: Who's not allowing her to be believed, though? Why are we saying we're not allowing her to be believed? Many people believe her. Many people don't. I personally don't know what happened. I don't know anyone with a brain who say she's telling the truth or he's telling the truth. You look at corroborative evidence.

HILL: Here is the issue though -- within the context of a society that promotes rape culture, our default position is to not believe women, and the issue is that we have to change that orientation. Studies show, statistics show that most women do not lie about sexual assault. An infinitesimal (ph) women do.

So the point here is that we have to move that default position that men are naturally innocent and women are naturally lying about sexual assault, and that's what we often do. We particularly do that when people have power and privilege. That is why we have to away from this especially in the Kavanaugh case.

LEMON: Thank you all. I appreciate it.

TACOPINA: I agree.

LEMON: Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)