Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Trump Does A 180 On Kavanaugh Investigation, Forced Into It By Senator Jeff Flake; Key Witness Mark Judge Says He Will Cooperate With Investigation; Kavanaugh Testified, Drinking Age Was 18 Not True In Maryland; President Trump Orders New FBI Probe of Kavanaugh; Another Kavanaugh Accuser Speaks Out; Who Does the Senate Really Represent?; CNN Hero Susan Munsey. Aired 11-12p ET

Aired September 28, 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 a little past 11:00 here on the East Coast. We're live with new developments for you. Whiplash could be a good description of what went on in Washington today. Remember how President Trump insisted over and over there was no need for an FBI investigation of the charges against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh? Nothing to see here. Let's just vote.

Well, that was before Republican Senator Jeff Flake, Trump's nemesis had a change of heart and demanded the very FBI investigation that the President was trying to avoid. Since every Republican vote in the Senate is crucial, the President he had no choice, but to go along with the investigation of what's being called current credible allegations. Listen to what Senator Flake says about that tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When we talk about credible allegations, can you explain what that means, what you're looking for from the FBI?

SEN JEFF FLAKE, (R) ARIZONA: Obviously, that includes Ford's allegations so to interview people there and also I'm sure that the New Yorker piece and its allegations, but of that will be the FBI to decide how far that goes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So let's talk about how this investigation might shape out with CNN national security analyst, Juliette Kayyem, also Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant Director for the criminal investigative division and CNN legal analyst, Renato Mariotti.

I say we got it covered here. You guys would know how this works. So thank you so much for joining us. Chris, we know that Senators Flake, Collins, Murkowski set the terms of these investigation. The Republican sources telling CNN that the Senators believe that a key FBI focus should be on Mark Judge. So walk us through what all of this means. CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE

DIVISION: Yes, these are called special inquiries. SPINs. They're background investigations. What's happened here is the SPIN has been reopened or is being supplemented. There will be interviews of the logical people, they'll interview Kavanaugh again. They will interview Dr. Ford again if they can get access and they will interview anyone that is a potential witness. They'll do record checks and they might even go back to the Safeway records that Dr. Ford alluded to, anything that corroborates or contradicts statements that key witnesses are saying or key facts they'll do the best they can to uncover some records. I don't think it will take a week. I bet they can do it in about five days.

LEMON: All right. Renato, would an investigation be credible if it didn't also consider the accusations of Deborah Ramirez or Julie Swetnick.

SWECKER: It depends on the scope.

RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I don't think it would be.

LEMON: Renato, sorry.

MARIOTTI: I don't think it would be, but my understanding is that the Senators have left it to the FBI to determine what allegations are credible or not. My expectation is that the FBI would interview Miss Ramirez, would interview Miss Swetnick and determine themselves whether they thought the allegations were credible enough to investigate further. And if they determine that, then they would do exactly like was described for the other allegations and you know, it seems to me like you might be a challenge, but I think they could do it within a week or very close to that. And it would involve mostly interviewing witnesses.

LEMON: Yes. Juliette, the President tweeted tonight, he said, just started tonight our seventh FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He will someday be recognized as a truly great justice of the United States Supreme Court. And the New York Times, Maggie Haberman is reporting that Trump has been anxious behind the scenes and at times he had intensely angry discussions with McConnell. So far, he hasn't let most of that air publicly.

[23:05:00] What are your thoughts?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I mean there's always tomorrow. I don't know what his plans are this weekend. And I think, I think you know, his -- I think at this stage, and I'm really pleased today as someone who has not been involved at all with the nitty gritty of the discussion who is right and who is wrong and he said, she said. I just think that institutions have meaningfulness. And institutions survive on process. And I think today ends whether you're a he said or she said or somewhere in between, I think that the reassertion of a process that seems reasonable to people that aren't experts like this panel here that you would do more investigation and maybe it might be inconclusive. Maybe there's a smoking gun, maybe there's not a smoking gun, not just

help the Senate and obviously not just help the judiciary, but also probably the FBI. I was taken with the ABA statement last night whether it meant anything -- whether it had impact or not.

LEMON: American Bar Association.

KAYYEM: The American Bar Association and even Yale law school's Dean Heather Gerken. Just talking about the profession itself. And I just think in this crazy time where you know, everyone seems divided just sort of you know, this nurturing or protection of institutions is really important. And I think that is a good thing coming out of today. I know there's a whole week ahead of this madness, but it's not a bad day.

LEMON: Right. You don't know the depending -- how this President is going to feel just, you know, if he feels one way, just give it a -- protect the weather. It's going to change. Just give it a little time.

KAYYEM: Like New England weather.

LEMON: Yes. So, Chris, a key witness of Kavanaugh's close friend -- Kavanaugh's close friend, Mark Judge, he says that he is willing to cooperate with the FBI. His name did come up in two of the three allegations. If that happens, what kind of questions do you think they're going to ask him?

SWECKER: Well, they're going to test -- they're going to go back to his first acquaintance with Judge Kavanaugh. They're going to get the context around their relationship. They'll hone in on these specific day if they can. They'll test his memory and see if he remembers what happened, if it happened. They'll do a very comprehensive interview of him. And they'll -- they're looking for details, they're not looking for generalities, they are going to be mining for as much detail as they possibly can get out of him. And then look for corroboration one way or the other.

LEMON: Yes. You know his former girlfriend, Mark Judge, his girlfriend says she will talk to the FBI. She told "The New Yorker" that Judge admitted an incident where he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunk woman, but does not implicate Kavanaugh in that. How significant could that be, Renato?

MARIOTTI: Well, it could be very significant, because it corroborates the testimony of Miss Swetnick who talked about that sort of behavior involving both Judge and Kavanaugh. So, here you would have an independent person corroborating that by saying the Judge talked about doing that exact activity with her. And just to be clear, that -- those statements by Mark Judge would be admissible against him in court. They would not be hearsay for purposes of the rule. And it's possible that it might be admissible against Judge Kavanaugh, as well.

So that is I think very useful testimony. It's the sort of thing that the FBI would be looking for when talking to different witnesses. Seeing, for example, who Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge spoke to, what other details they can have as was said earlier that would corroborate, in other words back up the testimony of the accusers.

LEMON: Let me ask you an FBI question, Chris. There's a lot of talk in the Senate about Kavanaugh's yearbook and his calendar. How do those factor in for the FBI?

SWECKER: These are contemporaneous records. They're probably some of the better records that I've seen in this context. So contemporaneous records have some credibility. You don't think that somebody's going to make up things they put in their calendar or the yearbook. The yearbook sets sort of the environment they were operating under both that yearbook and the yearbook of the other prep school, as well. I've seen passages from the female prep school. So I think all of that sets the context around the allegation.

LEMON: So Juliette, there are also tools the FBI has to look at, text messages Kavanaugh may have exchanged with Mark Judge or any possible witnesses and on and on. What do you think of that?

KAYYEM: You know, it's hard to know how fast the FBI will work, but I think this is feasible. Just listen, it's just a limited number of people and a limited number of times. This is not a, you know, a mafia case over 30 years or a complicated terrorism case. So I think I know you know, some people have been arguing you know, the FBI should take as long as it can.

[23:10:11] I think that this was an important compromise to let the institutions get back from the brink, not just the Senate as I said, but many institutions that will benefit from this. And so then they'll look at all this evidence. This is -- I think this is pretext messages. I may be wrong from their high school, but certainly other evidence that would help.

And I think -- just one other thing I wanted to add. You know, we have been in this cocoon of everything that is going on. But you have to remember the week started with Donald Trump with (inaudible) with the world laughing at him and the week ends with the world looking and feeling you know, that this is a United States and maybe we all owe it to each other to try to come back from whatever cliff we find ourselves on.

I think it's really important given not just who we are as individuals, but also what we represent to the rest of the world. The BBC ended their news tonight with a line that everyone should just know. It is just outside the U.S. Capitol stands this monument, it depicts grief of holding her covered face from her shoulder of history and weeps in the morning. It has been a painful week for a dis-United States. That is how the BBC national news ended. So to the extent that we can take care of ourselves, I think the rest of the world would probably like us to do the same.

LEMON: Interesting.

Chris, if anything incriminating comes out of this new FBI, investigation, Chris, how will that information be handled? Will this report be public? Will we hear all of it? What? SWECKER: I think we'll hear most of it. I mean, I think just an

outside chance that someone could perjure themselves or lie to an FBI agent. I am not saying who, the potential exists whenever an FBI agent goes out and questions somebody that you would -- if they lied you would have a potential 1001 violation. This is not a criminal investigation. That would be sort of incidental. We'll see most of the report. You can ask for confidentiality. People can be granted confidentiality when they're interviewed by FBI agents in the context of a background investigation. So, no subpoenas, no grand jury.

LEMON: What's the peril in this for Kavanaugh, Renato?

MARIOTTI: Well, I think Kavanaugh has taken a very aggressive position. You know, for the most part, it's not just that you know, for example, you could imagine him taking the defense that hey, I drank a lot. I don't remember everything that happened, but I certainly don't remember ever assaulting someone. And he took a very aggressive stance. He never blacked out. Never did anything like this. Never remembers anything of the sort. So since he was so aggressive, you could imagine potentially the FBI finding something that contradicted to him on a small point. I think that is -- in terms of his career and being on the United States Supreme Court that is the biggest problem for him.

In black and white in an FBI report, there's a statement that contradicts something he said to congress, you know, I don't know whether that would ever be prosecuted. It could be, but the bigger issue is I think that could potentially give some of these wavering Senators who are trying to make up their minds, a reason to vote against him.

LEMON: Thank you all. I appreciate it.

When we come back, we've seen -- we have said it before here. You can't believe both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. Their stories don't match-up. So who is telling the truth and who isn't? We're going to look at the facts. That is next.

[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So the fate of Judge Brett Kavanaugh very much up in the air tonight. Kavanaugh releasing a statement saying in part, I answered questions under oath about every topic the Senators and their counsel asked me. I've done everything they have requested. And will continue to cooperate, but did he really answer every question about every topic? Remember, was he truthful and has he been truthful? That is really the question here.

So I want you to look at your screens now. I want you to check out this graphic. It is from Voxx. OK? It shows every single time a question was asked of Ford and Kavanaugh. You see every time that they answered. Said that they didn't know or dodged a question. Only Ford, she was the only one who made an effort to answer every single question. You know how you know that? Those pink lines that you see there. They show every time that they didn't answer a question. And the blue lines show when they answered. No pink lines for Ford. A lot of pink lines for Kavanaugh.

Let's bring in CNN legal analyst, Jack Quinn, former White House counsel to President Clinton and also CNN national security and legal analyst, Susan Hennessey. I think it's pretty there if you were watching, I think depending what side of the aisle you were on, you may have thought when they asked a specific question about something and then he said I was a good student, I was a captain of the basketball team. That didn't answer the question really. So anyway, good evening to you. Jack, this graphic is so interesting to me. He either dodges a question or refuses to answer the question quite a few times. What does that tell us? We talked about this last night, but now that you starkly see it there in this graphic, what does this tell us?

JACK QUINN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: It tells us that Brett created a persona he thought was necessary to get himself elevated to the Supreme Court. And the evidence is that that persona is at odds with Brett's reality.

[23:20:05] And he is being contradicted by people with whom he went to high school, by classmates at Yale, and you know, it's problematic. I mean, look, does any of this amount to perjury before the Senate committee? I'm not going to say that at this point. That is something that others can conclude with the help of this FBI investigation, but his answers were just breathtakingly evasive, at times untruthful, for example, as you've pointed out earlier in the show, his insistence that others involved in this party situation have said that it didn't happen when in fact they didn't say that at all. And he knows that. It's mystifying to me how somebody with his experience in the White House, in politics, and as a judge could have put himself in this corner.

LEMON: Susan, you also say like Jack just said. Although you don't think that it was perjury, right, his explanations did defy common sense and should be disqualifying.

SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I think that is right. The chart we just looked at was talking about him being evasive. You know, it would be interesting to also see a chart on those questions that he did answer, how many of those sort of seem to be false on their absolute face. You know, a lot of things that Brett Kavanaugh talked about were about petty matters. Drinking in high school or naming a female friend in this yearbook. The problem is by lying about these little issues it undermines his overall general credibility. So I do think that it's not too much to expect for a Supreme Court justice especially one who is testifying under oath or someone who aspires to be a Supreme Court justice talk about under oath to be completely honest and to be convincingly honest. I just don't think that Kavanaugh met that standard by a long shot yesterday.

QUINN: It's not just that he didn't.

LEMON: Hold on, Jack. I am going to get your response to this. You'll get to respond now. Since Susan asked for it, we have it. So, we are going to go through some of Kavanaugh's statements that aren't true. So, here he claims that he didn't break the law when he was drinking in high school at 17. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRETT KAVANAUGH, NOMINATED AS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all my time in high school. The drinking age as I know was 18. So the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink. Yes, we drank beer and I said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers. And sometimes other people had too many beers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So Jack, that is false because Kavanaugh was never a legal drinker in Maryland when he was in high school, when he was a high schooler. He was still 17 when Maryland's drinking age was increased to 21, July 1st, 1982. Anyone who turned 18 after that date including Kavanaugh's classmates also would not have been able to drink legally in the state.

QUINN: I can promise you one thing, that is one thing that 17-year- old kids know whether their drinking is legal or not.

LEMON: OK. All right. So, let's move on. Here's another one of Kavanaugh's referred to Christine Blasey Ford's witnesses several times during the hearing. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAVANAUGH: All four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn't happen including Dr. Ford's long-time friend Miss Keyser.

All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn't happen including Dr. Ford's longtime friend Miss Keyser who said that she didn't know me and that she does not recall ever being at a party with me with or without Dr. Ford. It's been investigated. All four witnesses said it didn't happen and they said it under penalty of felony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, Susan, that is false. Because Keyser said she doesn't remember the gathering. She was never told about the attack and she was downstairs while it allegedly took place. She also said that she believes Mr. Ford, Mark Judge, Miss Ford, Mark Judge said he doesn't remember and Patrick Smith said he has no knowledge of the party. None of them refute that it happened.

HENNESSEY: Right. And I think that is right. This is a good example of a statement that maybe is certainly doesn't meet a perjury standard and maybe is not even technically false sort of depending on how he phrases it, but it is misleading, right. He is attempting to cast these individuals at corroborating his story and instead what they're saying is I don't have a memory of that event. Now, there's a reason why Dr. Ford would remember that event, one of

the most traumatic events of her life allegedly. There's a reason why nobody else we would not expect anyone else who attended that party to remember something that was in no way particularly notable that occurred over 35 years ago.

[23:25:02] And so I do think that sort of his attempts to offer this talking point or this evidence that really doesn't hold up to any kind of examination, it undermines the broader credibility here, because anyone who has been following the story, anyone who has seen the actual statements of these individuals, individuals who will now be questioned by the actual FBI, you know, know that they are not refuting it and that Brett Kavanaugh is being fundamentally misleading in (inaudible) testimony.

LEMON: So, Jack, there was a lot of talk in the Senate about Kavanaugh's yearbook and his calendar. Here's Senator Sheldon Whitehouse today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I did not find him credible. I don't believe boof is flatulence, I don't believe the devil's triangle is a drinking game and I don't believe calling yourself a girl's aluminous is being her frienAd. And I think drinking till you ralf or fall out of the bus or don't remember the game or need to piece together your memory the next day is more consistent with Dr. Ford's and others' testimony than his own.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: One question for me is, why didn't they say it in real-time? Because that is what I was thinking in real-time. But Jack, you can look up some of these terms yourself online, but let us just say --

QUINN: I'll asked my kids.

LEMON: It's nowhere near the kinds of things that you would expect to hear from that squeaky clean presentation that we saw on Fox News just a few days ago. I walked little old ladies across the street, I got grandmas off the railroad track, rescued them from an oncoming freight train. That is completely opposite of what (inaudible).

QUINN: The remarkable thing, Don, is that he did this consistently. Time after time after time. He couldn't tell the truth about anything that he thought was even mildly embarrassing. Not to mention things that were mightily embarrassing. Look, there's one really terrible witness for Brett Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh. All of these things he did in that hearing are going to come back to haunt him.

And that is a problem. I don't know how he cleans it up between now and then, but he should have been prepare for this. He should have known better. He should have been willing to say, like others, there were times when I drank to excess. There were times I'm sure when we partied and the next day I couldn't remember what happened. He seemed absolutely incapable of confessing human error. He wanted to make himself perfect.

LEMON: You're used to getting your way, then maybe you think that.

HENNESSEY: These were the kinds of explanations you would expect a teenager to offer their parents, right? Whenever I said I'm part of the beach week Ralf club. No, no, no, that is not because I drank till I vomited. It's just because I have a very weak tummy. It's not the kind of stuff that you would say to get out of being grounded, it is not the kind of things you would expect United States Senators, much less the Americans people to actually believe.

LEMON: Yes. Thank you, Susan, thank you, Jack. Have a good weekend I appreciate it.

QUINN: You too.

LEMON: When we come back, Mark Mckinnon breaks down the complete circus of the week we have been having. He was on Capitol Hill yesterday and he is got an interview with another Kavanaugh accuser. We are going to talk about all of that and more. That is next.

[23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President painted into a corner forced to call for an FBI investigation, one that he didn't want. A week delay now on the confirmation process. The gut-wrenching testimony of Christine Blasey Ford and so much more. What a week.

So let's discuss with Mark McKinnon, the former adviser to George W. Bush and John McCain, and the executive producer of "The Circus" airing Sunday nights on showtime. Man, good evening. You are a genius for this show. That's all I have to say because this is a circus. And so I welcome you to the show.

There's a lot I want to get to because you were on Capitol Hill yesterday, right? You saw the emotions running high. Now, tonight, we're in an entirely different scenario. So, what do you think about this?

MARK MCKINNON, FORMER ADVISER TO GEORGE W. BUSH AND JOHN MCCAIN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, THE CIRCUS: Well, I mean, it was just a complete meltdown of everything we've seen. We thought the partisan boundaries couldn't go any further and this was just epic this week. It was just a car crash of the worst type.

And thank god for Jeff Flake and Coons and Klobuchar and the others who put together this agreement. There are two things. Listen, I know Brett Kavanaugh. I worked with him. I think he would make a great justice. And I think this allegation -- but I also believe Christine Ford. So that leaves people like us saying, what in the hell do we do?

It's been a mantra of mine with all my Republican friends including Senator Kennedy who was on the committee when I talked to him for the show last week. I said, we kept saying we want the fact, and so if you want the facts, why not investigate it? There are two outstanding issues. The FBI investigation, why not get more facts when all we have is he said, she said. And also why can't we get the testimony of the one corroborating witness, Mark Judge? And so now we have both of those.

And I think that's good for everybody. I think it's good for democracy. I think it's good for the country. I think it's good for Christine Ford. And I also think, most importantly, it's good for Brett Kavanaugh. I think it's quite possible --

LEMON: I know where you're going and I think you're right and I said this earlier. It's possible that he can be vindicated. So, then why not do it? What do they say to you when you said why not?

MCKINNON: Well, I mean, John Kennedy said that he wanted a Supreme Court justice seated by the next term which starts October 1st. But, you know, the Republicans remember are the ones who, you know, went eight months with not a full-court during the Merrick Garland situation.

So, I don't know if Kennedy was there at the time but that doesn't hold water. So, I'm not really clear. I mean, I respect Senator Kennedy. So, I'll take him at his word.

LEMON: Yeah.

MCKINNON: But listen, I think it's in Brett Kavanaugh's interests for his reputation.

[23:35:01] LEMON: Right.

MCKINNON: If he had been voted through on the committee today and voted out, it's bad for Brett Kavanaugh. He's got all these horrible things hanging over him including outrageous allegations by Michael Avenatti's client. I would want to clear that up.

And by the way, I've heard from a very good source today who has been working with Brett Kavanaugh that he wanted the investigation all along. It was the White House that didn't. So, I'm glad to hear that.

LEMON: Why didn't he say that to people yesterday then, because he didn't want to tick off the audience of one that he was speaking

to?

MCKINNON: That would be my guess.

LEMON: OK. You mentioned Michael Avenatti. Let's talk about this because your co-host on "The Circus," John Heilemann, has an interview Sunday with Julie Swetnick, one of Kavanaugh's accusers. She claims that Brett Kavanaugh and his friends assaulted her in high school.

So, let's -- I'm not sure that's her exact claim. She said his friends did, not that Brett did, his friends were part of -- and she witnessed some of the bad behavior of the friends. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JULIE SWETNICK, ACCUSER OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH: It wasn't that I wanted to come out one day before the hearings. Just circumstances brought it out that way. This is something that occurred a long time ago, and it's not that I just thought about it. It's been on my mind ever since the occurrence.

As far as it goes, Brett Kavanaugh is going for a seat where he's going to have that seat on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life. And if he's going to have that seat legitimately, all of these things should be investigated because from what I experienced firsthand, I don't think he belongs on the Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So a week investigation, the president said to go ahead. I think she's part of that investigation. What do you think about this?

MCKINNON: Well, yes, she is and she ought to be because there's some really outrageous claims. You can understand why Brett Kavanaugh or Republicans say she came out the day before the hearing with these allegations?

There's lots of questions that I think that a lot of people have about her testimony, about these 10 parties and why did she go 10 times if there was this outrageous behavior, why didn't anybody else report anything, why these 60 friends of Brett Kavanaugh went to that party who never even met her, never heard of her.

So, listen, like I said, it's in Kavanaugh's best interest to knock that down. I wouldn't want to be a Supreme Court justice with that hanging over my head. And so I think it's quite possible it will be exculpatory for Brett Kavanaugh to investigate those claims and to find out, you know, and to fill in the holes and gaps.

Yes, we know the FBI doesn't make conclusions, but for all those senators and everybody else in America who said they want more facts to help make a decision, it can only help, Don.

LEMON: I'm glad you said that. I think you're right on with that. For this week's episode of the show, you also sat down with Ralph Reed. He is the president of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Let's watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RALPH REED, PRESIDENT, FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION: When you have people like Michael Avenatti and Brian Fallon who was a former Clinton operative, who is running one of the organizations opposed to Kavanaugh's confirmation saying that the playbook is to kill his nomination and then to win the midterms in order to deny President Trump an additional Supreme Court pick, it looks like a political campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So revenge? Does this seem like coordinated messaging here? MCKINNON: Well, you know, I talked to both. I talked to Reed and I talked to Fallon. They've both been through a lot of this. But Fallon was very direct with me when I said -- I said, so your intent here doesn't matter the quality of the Republican judges. You're going to knock down any judge, play out the clock, go into overtime, double overtime, and stretch this out until you get a Democratic president and you can get a judge of your choice.

He was very candid about it. He said, yeah, we want to knock down anybody that's on Donald Trump's list. So, you know, Ralph Reed has a point. It is political but so is everything else in Washington these days. This was, you know, this was -- this was what we saw this week.

And I think it's really an aching emotional, torrential, soul breaking moment in American politics when we -- we clawed our way to the bottom this week, Don. God help us if we can't start going up again.

LEMON: Yeah. Hey, listen, I got to run. No, I'm not even going to ask the question. I would say, do you think that there are people who regret what happened to Merrick Garland? But no, that's a no. I don't know why I even thought that.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: I was thinking on the Republican side, no, Don. Thank you, sir.

MCKINNON: That's quaint. That's very quaint, Don.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: You have a great weekend. Enjoy Austin, Texas. I'm looking forward to "The Circus." Mark McKinnon --

MCKINNON: I always love Austin, Texas. Keep kicking it, man.

LEMON: Keep kicking it. "The Circus" airs Sundays on showtime. When we come -- nice hat.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: When we come back, I'm going to talk about the Senate and whether they're actually representing you, their constituency.

[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: In the aftermath of yesterday's dramatic Senate hearing, a tweet from David Wasserman of the nonpartisan "Cook Political Report" is really interesting. He said, "To Dems who can't believe what they're watching, remember a majority of the Senate now represents 18 percent of the population and answers to a subset of voters that is considerably whiter, redder and more rural than the nation as a whole. That's the reality of our time."

So, here to discuss, Philip Bump, national correspondent for "The Washington Post," and Adam Serwer, senior editor at "The Atlantic." I'm so glad you guys are on. Thank you so much. I'm going to be referring to my cards a lot because there are a lot of numbers here. So let's look at Wasserman's follow-up to the first tweet.

PHILIP BUMP, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yeah.

LEMON: Here's what he said.

[23:44:59] He said, 24 percent -- 24 most populous states have 82 percent of the U.S. population and control 48 percent of the Senate, 28 Dems, 20 Republicans. Twenty-six least populous states have 18 percent of the U.S. population and control 52 percent of the Senate, 31 Republicans, 19 Democrats, two independents. That's the reality of our system and this gap likely to widen in November.

Philip Bump, you've studied this issue. A majority of the Senate only represents 18 percent of the population. Can that really reflect America's cultures and values?

BUMP: I mean, that's the key question. I think it's important to remember some historical context which is if you look at 1820, you look at 1920, you had the same proportion. The half the states had about 80 percent of the population. The was the same thing.

The challenge is, the difference is, that the cultural differences now between the states are much starker than they were in say 1820. In 1820, everything was agrarian. There weren't a lot of urban centers so on and so forth.

Now we have these very populous states, most of which are pretty blue because they have a lot of urban centers because that's where everyone lives. And then to Wasserman's point, you have a lot of rural states that are smaller and less populous.

You do have some like Texases and Floridas that are mixed in among the more populous states, and you have some Vermonts that are mixed in among the less populous ones. But you're absolutely right. Wasserman is absolutely right when he makes the point that there is a bifurcation culturally that lines up with these states that isn't the case in the past, as well.

LEMON: OK. So, Adam, to make this a little easier to digest, we broke it down even further. So, take a look at this and then we'll discuss. The 10 senators from the top five most populous states represent 121 million people. That's according to data from the United States Census Bureau.

We are talking about California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania. And the 10 senators who represent the five least populated states, Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas have just over 3.5 million constituents. So when you see it laid out like that, look at all those people, do you think it's fair to say that in America the majority rules?

ADAM SERWER, SENIOR EDITOR, THE ATLANTIC: No, I think it's very clear that the majority doesn't rule. You know, it didn't even rule in the last election. But obviously, the system was designed that way. I don't think that the founders anticipated the extent to which the structure that they had created would cause this kind of polarization.

I mean, look, even -- I think the red state, blue state shorthand can be misleading. You know, there's a lot of blue voters in red states and a lot of the red voters in blue states. You know, upstate New York is not Brooklyn.

But I do think that there is a way in which the populations who have a disproportionate influence on our politics are therefore treated as though they are the majority population. And the actual majority is treated as though they are somehow living in a bubble and out of touch and not really representative of the country.

LEMON: Yeah. Yes. The people who think that, well, this is what the country is like, this is what most people in the country want, that's not true. And so everyone wonders about the divide, right? And oh, this is -- Democrats are doing this. It's because of that, because the majority of the country is frustrated.

And then you have the other part of the country who wanted to go a certain way which is the minority of the country which is really who is kind of running the country right now. There's a frustration on their part.

But that's not where most people want America to go. So, listen, let me put this up. This is for Philip because you broke it down when looking at this from the perspective of the confirmation process.

This is from your piece in "The Washington Post." You said, based on what we know of how each senator will be voting if Kavanaugh makes it to a vote on the Senate floor, Republican senators representing just 44 percent of the country are expected to yes votes.

Democratic senators who are expected to vote no represent 56 percent of the country. And the crucial undecided senators who could tip this for or against Kavanaugh, they represent just 2.3 million people.

BUMP: Right.

LEMON: So how does that -- how is that fair?

BUMP: That's the Senate, right? I mean, we have the thing that you see there, those bars each represent the population of the state obviously. You see how much more heavily weighted it is toward the blue in part because you've got California there at the end which is 12 percent of the nation's population just by itself.

This is how the Senate works. And I think the best representation we sort of gloss over because we're so used to it by now is the electoral map. People see the electoral map. They see and say, look how red America is. It's so not representative. That made a very good point which is there are a lot of people in red states who are very blue.

[23:50:00] You look at Austin Texas, you look at various cities in other red states, as well. There are 10 million more people who live in states Trump won who voted for Clinton than there were voter for Trump in Clinton states. So it was 10 million more people that are blue people in red states than there are red people in blue states. And those are people who are sort of subsumed within this wave that is created by the Senate.

LEMON: Adam, you recently moved to Texas. Is that how you see it?

SERWER: I mean, I would say that Texas has reinforced for me in a sense that the shorthand that we use, that states are like mono- cultures, and if you live in a red state, you drive a pickup truck and you hunt, and if you live in a blue state, you have a New Yorker tote bag and you like chai lattes.

It's almost stupid. I mean, there's a reason it exists. But, you know, when we talk about it that way, we really are erasing millions and millions and millions of people as Philip pointed out. I don't live in Austin, I live in San Antonio, and this is a very blue area. I see Beto signs all over the place. I see rainbow flags. I see rainbow Beto signs. Obviously, you know, it's not like that everywhere in Texas.

(LAUGHTER)

SERWER: But these places exist. And it's weird that we talk about them as if they don't.

LEMON: All right. Thank you, guys.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: You can have a pickup truck and hunt, and you can like chai lattes. Who knows, maybe you have a New Yorker tote bag.

SERWER: Yeah.

LEMON: I have no idea. I don't have one. But if you have one, send it to me.

SERWER: There's a reason that Obama's like launch to stardom came from a speech that made that point.

LEMON: I got to go, guys.

SERWER: I mean, people -- people like it.

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

SERWER: Thank you.

[23:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: In the United States, young minors are being lured, threatened, beaten, and sold every day. They are sex trafficking victims, forced to have sex for money. This week's CNN hero was one of them. Trafficked at 16, now she is speaking out and offering safety and a new life to women who have escaped sex trafficking. Meet Susan Munsey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN MUNSEY, CNN HERO: Nobody wakes up and just decides one day I'm going to sell my body and give the money away. Traffickers know exactly what they're doing. Much of it is on the internet now. They're going on dating websites, they're gaming, they're looking for young, vulnerable women anywhere where young women might hang out.

My vision was to have a home where women could come and find safety and find themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: To hear Susan's personal story and from the incredibly courageous women who have survived sex trafficking and sharing their painful stories with us, some for the very first time, you can go to CNNheroes.com.

Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

[00:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)