Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Trump: We Will See What Happens, As Evidence Of Khashoggi Murder Mounts; "New York Times:" Saudis Consider Blaming Top General; Radio Ad In Arkansas House Race Says White Democrats Will Be Lynching Black Folk Again; Trump Claims Democrats Produce Mobs, Republicans Produce Jobs; Former State GOP Official Warns Trump Protesters; Fourth Arrest Made in Far-Right Group "Proud Boys" Brawl; Trump More Involved in Stopping FBI HQ Move Than Previously Known, E- mails Show; What Joe Biden Says About Impeaching Trump. Aired 11-12a ET

Aired October 18, 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. Pressure building as more and more evidence points to the Saudis involvement in what happened to Jamal Khashoggi as United States resident. This is a foreign policy crisis that can't be swept under the rug. But here is how the president responded when ask what consequences that Saudis would face if they are proven complicit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, it will have to be very severe, I mean, it's bad, bad stuff, but we'll see what happens. OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: We'll see what happens. Decisive statement of condemnation, nothing about the mounting pile of gruesome and terrible evidence. The only person who seems willing to accept the Saudi government's denial in the face of international outrage is President Trump. And when there is a failure of leadership, there's only one place to look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top. The President's the leader and he is to get everybody in a room and he is got to lead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: America first may play well with some at home, but a case like this calls for more. It calls for decisive Presidential leadership. Lots to discuss. Fareed Zakaria is here. Fareed, thank you very much.

So it looks like he is saying it looks like Jamal Khashoggi is dead. But he is saying wait and let's see what comes out of the Saudi investigation. Is he leading from behind? What kind of investigation is this? What kind what kind of leadership is this?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: Well, the whole thing is a little puzzling, because the Saudis are as somebody pointed out, investigating themselves. Investigating actions that they took. So, it's not entirely clear what you would investigate. It all happened within the Saudi consulate on authority by Saudi government employees. Enough of them that this could be pretty quickly figured out. I think that the mistake the President is making is, he seems to be colluding with the Saudis to come up with a cover- up. That is not the role for the United States. That is not a role for the president of the administration.

The Saudis should do what they need to do. Let them figure out what they need to do. They're grown-ups. And United States should decide how it will then respond, but there are these many, many reports that the Trump administration and the Saudi government are jointly trying to come up with a plausible story. This is not the role of the United States government to cover-up some you know, foreign government's misdeeds.

LEMON: The reason I said the leading from behind, remember the conservatives it used to enrage them. They would say this President is not being strong and decisive enough. Talking about President Obama. He is leading from behind. This seems like leading from behind. Where is the outrage? What happened with that criticism?

ZAKARIA: You know, on this -- if you broaden this out, this is a signal area where the United States under Donald Trump has really been not just -- I think leading from behind is an exaggeration. I think the better way to put it might be abdicating leadership, has been AWOL.

If you look at the climate for journalists, if you look at the climate for political opposition, if you look at the climate for all those hallmarks of liberal democracy around the world, they're in bad shape around the world. And one reason is that the country that was usually at the forefront of protecting them and talking about them, calling governments out is AWOL.

Under the Trump administration, you really have had a very relaxed attitude toward whether it's Duterte in the Philippines doing extra judicial killings by the dozens, whether it is Erdogan in Turkey jailing people, whether it was Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia locking up you know, businessman. Whatever it was, the Trump administration simply abdicated the role that the United States has played for decades which is to call these things out. To call them to attention, to put them on the international agenda.

As a result, this is one of the most dangerous times in the world to be in history to be a journalist, to be a member of political opposition, to in any way voice any kind of opposition. For people who think that those things don't matter, they do matter. When Donald Trump calls the press the enemy of the people and journalists scum or whatever it is he has called them, Duterte in the Philippines is listening. You know, other dictators are listening. And it's not implausible that the Saudis heard that and thought no one's going to care. After all these people are the enemies of the people.

LEMON: What does this do to our moral authority around the world? Since you said what you just said?

ZAKARIA: Well, think about it this way. When President Trump wants to make a tough case against a country like Iran, like Venezuela, he always uses the moral authority, he talks about how Venezuela is repressive, how Iran arrests dissidents.

[23:05:05] Well, you can only have that moral authority if you call it out universally. If you don't selectively use it against the one or two countries that you have some foreign policy beef with. And that is where I think the President doesn't seem to realize that he can't all of a sudden invent it when he wants it and put it aside when he doesn't want it. These values are universal.

LEMON: Yes, you mentioned, you said that the President was it seems like he was essentially colluding with the Saudis to come up with some sort of explanation.

ZAKARIA: well, that is the reporting one gets. They're going back and forth to figure it out.

LEMON: Let me ask you about the "The New York Times." They are reporting that Saudi rulers are considering blaming top -- a top general with close ties to the crown prince. Nothing happens without Mohammed bin Salman knowing. So, is blaming a general, would that be enough, is that plausible, do you think?

ZAKARIA: Look, I think the Saudis should come up with whatever investigation they want. And I think, we shouldn't be, as I say colluding. Let's hear what they have to say. Let's let them lay out the evidence that suggests that the buck stops where it does. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. It is a highly centralized system.

The people involved were in some cases were the personal guards of Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince. Others were members of the royal guard. One of the people who went there was the head of the Saudi council of forensics, a doctor who actually has published an article called mobile autopsies.

LEMON: Is it like two hours or less or something? One of them said, that they can -- there was someone there reportedly who came up with this thing about dismembering a body and getting rid of it within two hours or something like that.

ZAKARIA: I read that, as well. It hasn't been confirmed. But my point is, it's very difficult to imagine that this was not centrally directed. Secondly, these will come out. There are too many people involved. You know, the way I think that the United States should think about this is President Trump, if he were interested in history, should get a briefing from some of the people who were involved in the George H.W. Bush administration, when the Chinese dealt with Tiananmen Square. There was a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests in China. What President Bush did, was he immediately announced sanctions against China. He condemned them, he criticized them. He immediately announced sanctions against China.

But then, a little bit later he sent his national security advisor to Beijing and said look, we want to maintain a strategic relationship. You're too big a country for us to isolate. You got to understand, you guys did something that was unconscionable, but this is not the end of the relationship. That is leading. You know, that is taking the moral high ground, condemning the -- and President Bush got a lot of heat for sending his national security adviser. But I think that balanced approach makes some sense. Here it seems to me you know, we're behaving like the P.R. agency for the Saudi government. We don't need to do that. Let them come up with their story. We have to do what we think is in the interests of the United States.

LEMON: I'm wondering how much of this, because sources are telling CNN that Jared Kushner is advising the President. Saying basically don't act too fast. There are wider ramifications and repercussions that could happen in the region. Saudis neighbors, what are they thinking about this? How do they see all of this?

ZAKARIA: Everybody watches what Washington is doing. I mean, this is a region of followers, not leaders. I think that if the United States took a firm stand and as I said, you do not have to be unbalanced about this. You can recognize Saudi Arabia is the central banker of oil for the world. There's a long security relationship with the United States. But you have to make clear it is not all right to lure somebody, an American resident into your consulate and chop him up into pieces.

That is simply not, you know, civilized behavior in 2018, particularly not for a government that wants to see itself as reformist. I think the President has gotten himself into a trap where he views foreign policy almost entirely through the prism of personalities. He likes Mohammed Bin Salman. He doesn't like Angela Merkel. He doesn't like Justin Trudeau. He likes Kim Jong-un.

This is frankly, I mean, foreign policy is not psychotherapy. The United States has deep complicated interests in these parts of the world. Germany is one of the most important allies the United States has, vital to the stability of the Western Europe. It doesn't matter what you think of Angela Merkel. You have to find a way to make that relationship work. Kim Jong-un presides is over probably the most repressive regime in the world right now, maybe one of the most repressive in history. The fact that you have good energy with him does not change that reality.

You know, this is where I feel as though the personal likes and dislikes of the President are shaping the long-term grand strategy of the United States in crucial parts of the world. These are not real estate deals. You know, this is the foreign policy -- the most important country in the world.

[23:10:18] LEMON: Foreign policy is not psychotherapy. That is indeed a good assessment. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Fareed Zakaria, host of Fareed Zakaria GPS, seen right here on CNN.

All right, just released political ad making claims so outrageous and racist, the candidate, it aims at to support swiftly is disavowing, just about it.

Well, I hesitated to give oxygen to something like this. I think it shows just how toxic our political climate is becoming.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So the midterms are just 19 days away. 19 days away and counting. I thought politics in this country couldn't get net uglier. I was wrong. A PAC called black Americans for the President's agenda has released this ad in support of Republican Congressman French Hill, who is running for re-election in Arkansas. Here's part of it. It is outrageous.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[23:15:13] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our Congressman French Hill and the Republicans know that it's dangerous to change the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt especially for black men. If the Democrats can do that to a white justice of the Supreme Court with no evidence, no corroboration and all of her witnesses including her best friend say it didn't happen, what would happen to our husbands, our fathers or our sons when a white girl lies on them?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm voting to keep Congressman French Hill and the Republicans, because we have to protect our men and boys. We can't afford to let white Democrats take us back to bad old days of race verdicts, life sentences and lynching's when a white girl screams rape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Seriously, for real? That happened. That is not even the full ad. Congressman French Hill was quick to denounce that he tweeted, I condemn this outrageous ad in the strongest terms. I do not support that message and there is no place in Arkansas for this nonsense. But the PAC that played for the ad is standing by it.

CNN spoke with the group's controversial co-founder, Vernon Lucius Robinson who claimed the #metoo movement overreached and the biggest threat with switching the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt is to black men. When asked about the mention of lynching in the ad, and the fact that the Hill campaign condemned it, Robinson said he didn't care adding Republican consultants have told the candidates the party and their allies do not communicate with black voters. It is hard to make a sale if you don't ask for the business.

So this is how they think the -- that you court black voters. By bringing up lynching? It's disgusting. The President and the Republican Party ought to condemn it. Let's discuss. Ryan Lizza, Symone Sanders, Alice Stewart. Symone?

SYMONE SANDERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That was terrible. It's terrible. That was a terrible ad. It was factually incorrect. I'd like to remind people that testimony is evidence. That there are many people that corroborated parts of Dr. Ford's story. If we had a full and thorough and not rushed investigation perhaps we would have found more information.

But all that set aside, bringing -- it seems to me that bringing up lynching for -- that some people on the right, I mean folks on the far right seem to want to bring up lynching and even folks who want to be black people that would like to be associated with this White House like to make lynching synonymous with anything that is happening in the mainstream media of the moment in a way I think to scare and gin up very real feelings for black people in this country. And I just think that is dangerous. There's nothing -- there's nothing happening currently in America that is synonymous with lynching.

LEMON: But Symone, the PAC behind this ad says it's supposed to appeal to black voters. There was a black man behind this ad, right? Do you think it's effective?

SANDERS: No, no, not lynching, no.

LEMON: All right, go ahead Alice.

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I know French Hill. I've known him for almost 15 years. And I can tell you he is not someone that would ever condone this. I reached out to him tonight.

LEMON: The problem is not with him, Alice.

STEWART: I know, but my point is, look, I reached out to him. As he tweeted he condemned it. Says it's awful. It is the language in that is -- there's no place for that and in Arkansas or across the country. And he says it certainly should be pulled down. I also reached out to the Republican chairman of Arkansas. And he also condemned it and says it needs to be pulled. They're seeking legal counsel to see what steps they can do moving forward.

This is on Mr. Robinson, this is on him and his idea that this is some way to go back courting the black vote and it certainly it is not. And this is also on the Democrats in Arkansas and around the country that are race-baiting by tweeting this around and making it seem as though French Hill has something to do with this when he doesn't. So, shame on him and shame on the Democrats for pushing this. Because this is deplorable and disgusting and should not even be on the air and shouldn't be pushed around and the Internet.

LEMON: I'll take you at your word. I have not personally seen Democrats -- if they're doing it is wrong. But this is, you know, I like to stick with subject on hand. This is awful message that they're sending out. Ryan, why do you think this Republican PAC felt empowered to release an ad like this?

RYAN LIZZA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think there are two things going on. One thing and Alice can speak to this, correct me if I'm wrong, Alice, but Arkansas hasn't sent a Democrat to Washington in over a decade now?

[23:20:10] STEWART: Right.

LIZZA: The house or senate. And Representative Hill is actually in a surprisingly difficult race so there's a lot of money being spent on the race by outside groups. And let's be clear, the ad is not intended to gin up black support for Hill. It's intended to suppress black turnout for his Democratic opponent.

LEMON: Good point, Ryan.

LIZZA: That is the message of the ad. And you know, frankly I think what we're seeing in a lot of races right now is people are on the right are having are saying things about on race that were not said in political campaigns a few years ago pre-Trump. And the kind of tactics and messages that are being used are a throwback to sort of, you know, --

LEMON: Willie Horton?

We've always had horrible campaign ads. Think about Willie Horton. But I was just wondering, again, French Hill, this is not about French Hill. He is denounced it. I'm just wondering if he is going to reap the benefits from it though Ryan, or if it's going to damage his campaign, because people are going to associate him with it.

LIZZA: Yes, as a candidate, you make a decision. I think he did the right thing by condemning this. Because there are frankly not enough Republicans condemning this kind of speech and other similar situations. So you can't criticize him for condemning it. Of course, it also has the effect of turning it into a bigger issue. We're talking about it on national TV right now. And I think, I read they spent about $50,000 on this ad. They've probably gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of publicity.

LEMON: They did. It's running on stations in Missouri, as well where Josh Holly is trying to unseat Democrats Senator Claire McCaskill.

STEWART: We also have to keep an eye on the Democrats pushing this out there and trying to attach Republicans' name to this. They'll overreach just like they did with the Kavanaugh situation.

LEMON: The guy doing it is a Republican though, Alice.

STEWART: And I'm talking about those pushing it out there. If you go online, you'll see the Democrats pushing this out, they are still trying to make it seem as though French Hill had anything to do with this which he did not. They are going to over reach and this will backfire on them if they continue to push it out there.

SANDERS: I like to know, again, I know folks in the Arkansas Democratic Party. I don't know anyone who had pushed that out on social media. I will also double-check. But I think this speaks to a bigger issue. The reason we're talking about it and the reason I think some Democrats even across the country are highlighting this is because it seems like the closing argument for many folks in the Republican Party whether they be super PACS or actual candidates are fear tactics and scare mob tactics.

That is why you hear some Republican candidates and even Republican super PACs talking about the mob. That is why Laura Ingraham was on television last night or two nights ago, talking about the fear of these immigrants, they're going to come in and take your jobs and don't vote for the Democrats. That is exactly what this is. I think if that is the closing argument that the Republican Party at large is making in the final 19 days of a midterm election, that screams to me that they think they're in deep trouble and can't run on the issues. So multiple people had decided to run on fear.

LEMON: All right. We got a lot to talk about. Don't go anywhere. Everyone will get their voices heard here tonight. So, all of you, stick around. The former GOP state party chair and Trump supporter issuing a statement it's hard to see as anything, but a threat. Warning would be protesters hoping to disrupt the President's rally quote, this is a concealed and open carry state, and we know how to use them.

[23:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So we're back with Ryan, Symone and Alice. So Ryan, it looks like the President has a new line heading into the midterms. Take a look on what he said in Montana.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The choice could not be more clear, Democrats produce mobs. Republicans produce jobs.

(APPLAUSE)

(CHEERS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Do you think the Republicans strategy of painting Democrats as an angry mob, do you think it's resonating with voters?

LIZZA: It's probably resonating with a lot of Republicans. I mean, let's be honest, he has 90 percent approval among Trump has 90 percent approval among Republicans and what he says is often treated as gospel among his voters. I would say it's the kind of rhetoric that you don't often see in this country. It's the kind of rhetoric we're used to seeing among leaders of autocratic societies and it's another dangerous sign of Trump crossing a line that modern American politicians at that level just refuse to do.

LEMON: Do these folks on the left and the right do they get together and all have like a meeting and say OK, this is going to be mobs. We're going to say this? Do they have like strategy for talking points that everybody gets on some big conference call?

LIZZA: Well, Trump has said his tweets and his one-liners are the things he is been reported he spends an enormous amount of time coming up with that stuff. I think he is his own focus group. Yes, he spends a lot of time on these stuff. It's not just off the top of his head.

STEWART: Don, I don't know what the word of preference is here, but if you look what we've seen over the last several months, some those on the left to those on the right, it's angry activity.

If you want to call them bullies or whatever you want to call them, they're going after Republican elected officials. It happened again to congressional candidate in North Carolina. His wife was shouted out because of her husband's support for pro-life issues. So, we repeatedly have those on the left --

LEMON: She's not a political player.

SANDERS: Let me --

STEWART: Her husband is running for Congress.

LEMON: Shouldn't be doing that to someone's wife.

SANDERS: They shouldn't be doing that to somebody's wife. But let me just interject here. What we have seen on the left over the last couple months has been organized like -- has been organized disobedience, has been organized protests, has been what it is folks' right to do frankly in this country.

And I think a lot of lawmakers particularly those who serve in Congress are uneasy about being confronted about their positions particularly Republicans because they haven't gone home to face their constituents. Many Republican lawmakers have stopped having town halls. And so folks that feel some type of way about what their elected officials are doing have to come to Washington, D.C.

LEMON: Symone, you shouldn't be yelling at someone's wife.

SANDERS: No, and I condone the yelling at the wife, but frankly --

LEMON: Condemn. Condemn.

SANDERS: I condemn -- goodness --

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Interchanging the words tonight. I condemn it. We cannot -- like these are one off instances, everyone. The one off instances of yelling at wives and what not -- those are one off instances. But what is happening in this country is folks are concerned and they are raising their voices. That's something they're allowed to do, frankly.

LEMON: Ryan, what do you want to say?

LIZZA: I was going to say when someone describes a group of people protesting as a mob because maybe it's get a little agitated or angry, and I'm talking about a nonviolent group of people, I think everyone agrees that violent protest is beyond -- beyond bounds. But protesters who get mad, that is a pretty strong American tradition of protesters getting mad.

LEMON: In the constitution, right?

LIZZA: Right. And people criticize the form of protest when they don't like the content of the protest. That's been happening for hundreds of years. Look at the NFL protests during the national anthem. They're taking a knee.

LEMON: The violent ones where people are taking a knee and being --

LIZZA: It's the most unmob-like thing you could imagine and President Trump condemns it every chance he gets. He doesn't care about the kind of the tactics or the kind of protests. He cares about the content.

LEMON: Yeah. I want to talk to you guys about this because a former Montana GOP chairman, Will Deschamps Sr., put a message on Facebook leading up today's rally that read like this. He said, "For all the prospective attendees to the Trump event. Come early. Also you protesters, show up as well. This is a concealed and open carry state and we know how to use them."

He says he was concerned about Antifa. Alice?

SANDERS: He just threatened to shoot. He just threatened to shoot protesters that show up at a rally to exercise their -- what is their right -- their right in this country to raise their voices. He just threatened to shoot them. That should not be OK.

LEMON: OK, so Alice, hold on, before you respond, he did say today that his post wasn't meant as a directive. So then what was the point of it? Does he think violence is a joke? Go on, what is your response?

STEWART: It's stupid. It was dumb. It was uncalled for. It was something that shouldn't happen. For him to try and explain it away as anything other than that is ridiculous. Look, I think any kind of violent protests on either side as we can all agree is uncalled for and inciting it on any side is certainly uncalled for.

For him to even hint that these people are going to be carrying guns and they know how to use them, that sends the complete wrong message and incites some type of violence. It shouldn't happen. It's uncalled for.

LEMON: Ryan, a quick last word, please.

LIZZA: By the way, you can't take a gun into a Trump rally. Secret service is there with metal detectors. So, I hope those people who wanted to go see Trump drop their weapons because they would have been turned away.

LEMON: Thank you all. Appreciate your time. We have an update for you. A story we brought you earlier this week, a fourth arrest tonight in the so-called "Proud Boys" brawl here in New York. It happened last week. This is NYPD video of the far-right group, the "Proud Boys," attacking masked anti-fascist protesters. OK?

Tonight, police say 38-year-old Geoffrey Young has been arrested and charged with riot and attempted assault. The brow broke out as the "Proud Boys" were leaving an event at the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan. That GOP club is still standing by the group even though the Southern Poverty Law Center labels them a hate group. A lot of questions surrounding the president's decision to keep FBI headquarters in D.C. only one block away from his hotel. We are going to delve into how he could benefit financially while costing taxpayers.

[23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: How involved was President Trump in the decision to keep the FBI headquartered in Washington, D.C. instead of moving it to the suburbs? According to e-mails released by House Democrats, a lot more than previously known. Here's why that matters.

A financial analysis by the General Services Administration found that knocking down the current FBI headquarters and building a new one will cost more of your tax dollars than relocating to the suburbs. The critics say the president could stand to financially benefit from the decision because the Trump Hotel is located just one block away from the J. Edgar Hoover Building.

[23:40:04] Let's discuss how. Juliette Kayyem is here and also Walter Shaub. There's always something. Good evening. Walter, why do you think the president wanted to keep the FBI from moving and is about -- I'm wondering if this is about minimizing competition for the hotel as Democrats say or something else?

WALTER SHAUB, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I mean, only in the Trump administration could this be a relatively minor story. This is actually terrible and it's an example of his conflicts of interest leading to concerns. His hotel is, you know, they say one block away, but you can actually see the Trump International Hotel from the FBI building and vice versa.

And the concern expressed by a Trump Organization executive in 2015 is that if some hotel or other competing business were to move into that site, it could compete with the Trump International Hotel at the old post office pavilion.

LEMON: Yeah.

SHAUB: And so it has all the earmarks of him having intervened to try to, you know, protect his profits.

LEMON: Walter, let me -- OK, I have to read this. I think it is really important. This is a portion of the letter the Democrats wrote to the GSA.

It says, many years before becoming president, Donald Trump expressed interest in the FBI headquarters moving out of Washington, D.C. so he could acquire the land on Pennsylvania Avenue and redevelop the property which is directly across the street from the Trump International Hotel.

However, after he was sworn in as president and became ineligible as a federal employee to obtain the property, he reportedly became dead opposed to the government selling the property which would have allowed commercial developers to compete directly with the Trump Hotel.

He wanted the land for himself.

SHAUB: What's astonishing is if you have lived in D.C. as I have, you've seen the FBI working on this headquarter relocation for a decade. When you walk past the FBI building, there is wire cages to catch the crumbling concrete that would otherwise fall onto the street and hit you on the head.

This is a major operation that has been under way for years and years and suddenly Trump rolls in and shuts it down abruptly. And then of course we have the General Services Administration's inspector general reporting that the head of that agency which is responsible for all of this was actually taking directions from Trump.

And then she went in and misled Congress about it saying that, you know, leaving out that she worked with the White House and dodging their questions when they asked if the president had been involved. You know, that should be career ending for the head of the GSA, Emily Murphy, and it should be a major scandal for the president.

This is exactly what I was worried about when I complained about him keeping his financial interests and breaking with the tradition of modern presidents of resolving those conflicts.

LEMON: Juliette, it's time to get in. Let me read this, Juliette. This is how the White House respond, saying, "Once again, House Democrats have it all wrong. The president wanted to save the government money and also the FBI leadership did not want to move its headquarters."

But Juliette, the GSA concluded that staying in D.C. will cost taxpayers about $200 million more.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yeah, the White House's response is just a series of lies, and because you have to think about these decisions not in just in the context of money. We were dealing with this at the Department of Homeland Security which was changing its headquarters. It's money, it's location, it's traffic patterns, it's environmental issues, it's whether a campus is needed.

It is -- hundreds of calibrations go into an assessment of where in particular a law enforcement or national security building should be. One thing I have out there is, is it smart to have your primary law enforcement agency in the middle of D.C.? No. Most people would think that the reason why we have the CIA outside, that it's sort of smart to locate important areas outside of potential targets.

But you know what, I don't know anything, in the sense that all of these calibrations are made by experts at the GSA who had decided that it should be placed outside of the D.C. area. And then Trump comes along and changes it. I was thinking when I was coming on -- I've been on three times with you this week, each a different issue, but they're all the same, right?

It's Saudi Arabia, it's Mueller and now is this. What is the connective tissue? It is that the president is making these decisions based on his monetary interests whether it's with another country, whether it's with his campaign or whether it's having to do with his hotels.

It's the connective tissue of the last two years. That's what's so frustrating about this. This may seem like a small issue. FBI building. Who cares? Right? It's a huge issue if you put it in the context of almost every decision made by this president.

LEMON: Is this bigger than actual money or is it just currying favor?

[23:45:03] KAYYEM: So what always amazes me with the people around Trump is, he does these things and it's not just Donald and -- the president and Ivanka and Melania and Jared and all the cast of characteristics, it's the network that just lies for him consistently.

We saw this in the GSA case. The head of the GSA, I don't even know who it is. I mean, no one should know who it is. And the fact that she is willing to lie about Trump's influence just shows why his pervasive corruption has been so successful over the last two years.

LEMON: That's got to be the last word. Thank you both. I appreciate it. Joe Biden was asked if Democrats should impeach President Trump if they win the House. We're going to tell you how he answered, next.

[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the most influential voices in the Democratic Party, says he hopes Democrats don't move right away to impeach President Donald Trump if they take the House in the midterm elections.

I want to talk about this now with CNN presidential historian Timothy Naftali, the co-author of "Impeachment: An American History." Looks to be a fine book. I want to talk to you about this book but first, I want you to listen to former vice president, Joe Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And if Democrats win the House, do you believe that they may move forward with articles of impeachment?

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I hope they don't. I don't think there's a basis for doing that right now. I think we should wait until a report comes out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: What do you think? Would moving forward be a bad move for the Democrats?

TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: It would be a huge mistake.

LEMON: Ahh! NAFTALI: As we noted in the book, we give really a blueprint of a successful impeachment process and we give examples of that. The worst thing we could do right now is to respond to a divisive president with a divisive partisan action. The American people don't want impeachment at the moment.

LEMON: Right.

NAFTALI: The impeachment process against Richard Nixon which now seems so inevitable, it only started after the Saturday night massacre. It only started after Nixon fired Archibald Cox. And then Republicans as well as Democrats said we've got to investigate the president. We haven't reach that --

LEMON: You don't think we've reached that tipping point even with Comey --

NAFTALI: We can have a discussion about technically whether obstruction of justice occurred, but impeachment is a political --

LEMON: Got it.

NAFTALI: -- action and the American people are not ready for it. They have to be behind this. Two things have to happen. They have to be behind it and you got to have Republicans in Congress who are willing to have a fair, credible investigation and that's not --

LEMON: The environment is different than it was with Nixon, now especially. CNN hosted a town hall with Beto O'Rourke. And you know Beto O'Rourke is running against Ted Cruz. He said that he would vote to impeach President Donald Trump. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETO O'ROURKE, TEXAS SENATE CANDIDATE: I would liken impeachment to an indictment. There is enough there to proceed with a trial, for a full vetting of the facts and to make a best informed decision in the interest of this country and our future. As you know under the constitution, as a member of the Senate, it's a far different bar.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So almost every president pushes the boundaries of acceptable presidential behavior. Almost, I should say, but not the way that this president is doing. What are the legal grounds for impeachment and should the president be guilty of anything?

NAFTALI: Once again, we see the genius of our founders. They did not define high grounds of misdemeanors. They said you could be impeached and convicted for a bribery treason or other high crimes of misdemeanors. But we have president. We know how previous generations have defined high crimes of misdemeanors.

Just look at the Nixon period. Abuse of power, obstruction of justice. If you can show that the president did either one of those two things or more importantly he did both, then you have the grounds. But in the end, the jurors are members of Congress. If they want to turn a blind eye to abuse of power or obstruction of justice, a president can survive despite misconduct.

LEMON: Do you think that if the Democrats take the House after the midterms, do you believe impeachment is a real possibility?

NAFTALI: No. I think it would be -- well, it's a -- I think it would be a horrific mistake because what we need is unity right now in our country. We know already that most Americans do not support Donald Trump.

The reaction to that is not to do something that would continue to divide us. There are lots of things that the Democrats could do with their subpoena power. Impeachment might happen in the House but will not be followed by conviction in the Senate.

So what you'll end up having is a rerun of 1998, 1999 when folks looked at the attack on Bill Clinton as a partisan political act. We don't need that right now. We have to move away from partisanship.

LEMON: My gosh. That's going to be tough to do in this environment. All right. This is your book, right? Three historians and reporters wrote the book, right?

NAFTALI: Yes.

LEMON: And it's called "Impeachment: An American History." Only two presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson and Bill So, tell me about this book and that. Clinton. Nixon resigned --

NAFTALI: Right.

LEMON: -- before he was impeached. And I just want to read from your book. You said this about Nixon. You said, the Saturday night massacre, which was inescapably Nixon's doing, awoke presidential impeachment from a century-long slumber. In the week following the firing of Cox -- Archibald Cox we were talking about -- twenty impeachment resolutions were introduced in Congress. For the first time, the Nixon administration requested a congressional head count of those for and against impeachment.

NAFTALI: Listen, my point there was it was going to be a surprise to people that even after John W. Dean had testified about Nixon being in the cover-up, after all the information coming about the enemy's list, the leadership, the Democratic leadership in Congress didn't want to push for impeachment.

[23:55:07] They didn't think the American people were ready for it. It's Nixon's abuse of power. It's Nixon's misuse of his authority in the Saturday night massacre that pushed the entire country over --

LEMON: So what's the point of this book now?

NAFTALI: The point of this book is if Donald Trump pushes us over some kind of psychic barrier like the Saturday night massacre, that we know how to follow through on our constitutional authority, on the constitutional remedy of impeachment.

It's to show people that not every impeachment was partisan, to show people there is the possibility in our country of people who think not as partisans but as constitutionalists --

LEMON: Yeah.

NAFTALI: The heroes of the Nixon story are conservative Democrats have Republicans who decided to put nation above party. I hope that can happen again if the need arises.

LEMON: Timothy Naftali, thank you. "Impeachment: An American History."

NAFTALI: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: Thank you. Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)