Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

FBI Warns Of Other Devices As Manhunt Intensifies; Feds: All 10 Packages Went Through U.S. Mail System; President Trump And The Politics Of Division. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 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 HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. The FBI intensifying its search tonight for a suspect or suspects responsible for at least 10 packages with explosive materials inside. All share some common traits. We're learning tonight all 10 packages were sent through the U.S. Postal System, Manila envelopes with bubble wrap lining. Six American flag forever stamps. A Florida return address marked with the misspelled name of Congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman- Schultz. All have targeted people or organizations who had been critical of President Trump.

The secretary of Homeland Security says at least some of the packages were processed at the mail facilities in Florida. New York's police commissioner says all packages are being treated as live devices. A key question remains unanswered though. Why have none of the pipe bombs detonated? Let's bring in now senior White House Correspondent, Pamela Brown, and National Security Analyst, Juliette Kayyem, and Shawn Turner. Good evening to all of you.

Pamela, let us start now with the investigation, to what we know, at least 10 packages found so far. Now authorities believe several were processed at a mail facility near Miami, Florida. Give us the latest on the manhunt tonight.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is right. Part of this investigation is heavily focused on Florida. This processing facility is believed to be where several of these suspicious packages with these pipe bombs went through. So what investigators are trying to figure out right now, Don, is whether the perpetrator or perpetrators, plural, lives in Florida or whether this was just a facility where some of the packages moved through. That is a key question.

Right now, investigators are trying to figure out still who was behind this. The manhunt is intensifying and the concern, Don, is there could be more packages out there. Right now we know of 10. And of course, there could be more. I will say that one law enforcement official, law enforcement officials I spoke with today said some of the forensic analysis that they have done has yielded important information, helped narrow down the leads in terms of the hunt for who was behind this. This official said the investigation is progressing.

LEMON: All right. Pamela, Shawn, let's bring you now, because a key question in all of these, is why the devices did not explode? What is your read on that?

SHAWN TURNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, you know Don, there's been a lot of discussion about the crude nature of these devices and whether or not they were actually designed to explode or to just invoke fear and intimidation. One of the interesting things about this, what these devices tell us is that some individual took the time to do the research to actually figure out how to make a device that could potentially cause significant harm. I've been told with minor adjustments to these devices that these devices absolutely could have been catastrophic.

So, either way it doesn't really matter whether or not the devices were actually triggered to explode as we would say in the business. What really matters is that this individual was sending a message they had the ability and the potential to make devices that could have been absolutely catastrophic. Now, I think we've got to figure out you know, who did this and how to get to the bottom of it. The big concern that we still have in law enforcement is that this individual could take this to the next step and actually create devices that would be triggered when they're being handled by just about anyone.

LEMON: Yes. Juliette, let us talk about the planning now. Because how much planning would go into an operation like this? The bomb making plus sending these packages all over the country?

[23:05:03] JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So it wouldn't be a day. This is not something someone wakes up in the morning like maybe like an active shooter case or something like that. This obviously had to be well orchestrated just given the quantity of bombs and devices, the different mailing addresses.

You know, how he knew where George Soros lives, how he knows where the exact addresses are. And then of course, the courier aspect to this in terms of the mailing, purchases of items to both build the bomb and then to transport it. So this would have taken some time, maybe a month, six weeks. That is actually kind of a good thing, because in that period, it is very likely that he talked to people, people now will wonder, why did I sell something like this to someone a couple weeks ago?

So actually, the buildup to what happened over the last 48 hours may have disclosed some clues. The one question we don't know is the person's background. In other words, if it's a military background, if it's a law enforcement background, if it's a scientific background, that would make the creation of devices maybe easier than someone like me, who doesn't deal in that space.

So part of what they're looking at is profile of you know, the person determining how much knowledge they had beforehand as they built and constructed these devices.

LEMON: So let me ask you this, Pamela, because you know, we've been told I think a lot about the actual devices, but law enforcement they don't tell you everything, right? How much are authorities divulging about the actual devices and the information that they are disseminating? BROWN: I've noticed today, Don, they're a lot more tight-lipped. I

don't know if you saw the press conference earlier with the FBI. They kept saying look we have to limit the information we give you. And there are two key reasons why in these stages of the investigation. First of all, you want to keep a lot of this evidence close hold and not out in the public sphere so that if and when you find the suspect, you can use that is information as leverage during an interview.

Another reason is, you don't want to get to the point during prosecution where because the evidence leaked out to the media it's then inadmissible in court. So there are some reasons why we're not learning more about these devices, these pipe bombs as the FBI called them, but also they're walking sort of this fine line of asking for the public's help saying this is what you should look out for, but also not releasing so much where it could jeopardize the investigation.

LEMON: Sean, leadership is so important in this situation, situations like this. And we're talking about an ongoing threat. How do you feel Trump has handled the bombs sent to two former Presidents, the Vice President, former Secretary of State and on and on?

TURNER: You know, I think it's unfortunate when we look at the way the President has handled it. And you know, Don, you know, I've been on your show before. And I try very hard not to be unnecessarily critical of the President. But look, I think about what Sarah Sanders said today and you know, this idea that there's likely someone who has some mental instability that is responsible for this and that it's not the President. It's the person who sent these bombs. And while I acknowledge that I think we all have to acknowledge that, it takes a degree of mental instability to make a decision to do something like this, what we have to ask ourselves is, what was the trigger?

Every time someone wakes up and decides they're going to do something to -- they're going to do something like try to assassinate former President of the United States or go after other high level government officials, something caused them to make the decision to do that. And so we have to be -- you know have some honesty here, some intellectual honesty here and ask ourselves whether or not the current kind of vitriolic nature of our political rhetoric and some cases the violent nature of our political rhetoric may have actually have been the trigger.

So, it is the case that you could have someone who is mentally unstable and they're absolutely responsible for this, but it's also the case that the political rhetoric and the political environment right now actually may have been the trigger for something like this.

LEMON: Juliette, I've been wanting to talk to you about this. Because you actually addressed this false flag theory at length on Twitter today. Please explain the reasons why it could be a legitimate theory, but also how it needs to be weighed against other possibilities out there.

KAYYEM: Right. Thank you. Thank you. I got into a little trouble for that. Look, of course, a lot of sort of right wing or others are promoting a really, really dangerous false flag theory that Democrats and even the Party itself planned this to make Trump look bad and to incite sort of anti-Trumpism. So what -- people need to know is the theory of the case is not known yet. So it is possible that this was a black flag or a hoax operation by someone with political sentiments that align with anti-Trump sentiments. That is possible.

Do I think that is probable at this stage? No, I'm looking at the rest of the evidence. And to me as someone who knows something about these cases, I'm looking at this saying it is more probable than not that this is someone who has anti-Democratic animus. But we shouldn't just dismiss the black theory only because we don't want investigators to dismiss it.

[23:10:05] In other words, good investigators right now are looking at the totality of the information. They should keep an open mind. If all the information leads in one direction, follow it. So it's just a question of probability versus possibility.

Of course, it's possible it's a black flag operation. The proponents of that theory though of course are using it as a way to suggest that we're all making this up and it's not a big deal and these weren't real bombs. That is not true. Someone tried to scare or intimidate or terrorize you know two former Presidents of the United States and their families. We just stop there, that is enough in my book.

But I think it's important we recognize information can lead in many directions. And to keep an open mind about that, but there's a difference between possibility and probability.

LEMON: Thank you all very much. I appreciate your time. After facing mounting criticism over his mixed response to the mailed explosives, a source tells CNN the President believes he is being treated unfairly and he plans to double down and continue attacking the media.

[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump digging in tonight believing that he is being unfairly tied to the bomb, pipe bomb scares. Sources are telling CNN he has no immediate plans to take responsibility for the angry political discourse in this country or own up to his own heated political rhetoric which may have created a climate where his critics are attacked.

So is the President missing a moment here? I want to bring in now Douglas Brinkley and also Michael D'Antonio. Michael is the author of "The Truth about Trump."

Gentlemen, good evening to you. So, Doug, I want to start with you. Because I played in the other hour about how other Presidents have handled these moments. Other Presidents have taken moments like these or moments much worse, worked to unify the country. Has Trump failed to fulfill that part of his job as President?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, he is completely failed to unify the country around this crisis. I mean, this is not Harry Truman and the buck stops here. As soon as these reports of these bombs hit the media, he has been just constantly trying to blame everybody else, feeling sorry for himself. Trying to scapegoat the media which is extraordinary stunt when you think that CNN had the bomb threat and he is trying to turn it back on the media that it's their problem.

He just couldn't rally, because he is in campaign mode right now. I think that he felt that if he started you know, he was perhaps feeling secretly culpable for some of this, that these are his enemies list, the people he has been mocking in a brutal fashion since he is become President. And that he is decided to just try to call it kind of you know, an overblown story by the media and trying to say we're blaming him. We're not blaming Donald Trump in America for the incident. We're saying he needs to take some responsibility and play a role of educator. And a public information officer. His -- the way he is dealt with this is yet another low ebb in his White House tenure.

LEMON: I want to read this, Michael, because this is what the President said to news anchors at a private event just hours before his first state of the union address earlier this year. OK? He said I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity without a major event where people pull together. That is hard to do, but I would like to do it without that major event, because usually that major event is not a good thing. OK. So we have a major event now.

MICHAEL D'ANTONIO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.

LEMON: Is he -- is it even in him to bring people together?

D'ANTONIO: No, it absolutely is not. And I think, I admire Douglas' optimism and I think he is idealistic when he imagines that the President might recognize that he has some responsibility here, but this is a man who has never taken responsibility for a single offense he has ever committed. It's really not in his point of view. It's not in his frame of reference to ever say I'm responsible for something.

And we all know that he is the chief promoter of fear, antagonism, alienation in our country. He is been a divisive figure for 40 years, not just the three years that he is been in politics. If you've been listening for three years and you still have some doubt about this man's intentions about his lack of fitness for the office that he holds, I wonder if you've been paying any attention at all, because at case has been made. We have the proof of who he is.

LEMON: This is what -- Doug, I want to read this. This is veteran journalist Dan Rather who is on this show frequently. He says about Trump's response. And he tweeted this, he said every President I've ever covered spent at least some days acting or at least talking about being the President for all-Americans. This President hasn't done that for a nanosecond. So is this what we're seeing now, what happens in a leadership vacuum when the President won't lead and no one is stepping into that void?

BRINKLEY: Absolutely. I mean, where's Paul Ryan been? Silent. So few Republicans are speaking out right now. So few sending concern and condolences to people. It's astounding to me that President Trump didn't call Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. Perhaps I shouldn't be astounded as Michael is saying after some watching Trump in action, but it still startles me that you wouldn't make the 30-second phone call the minute phone call that you wouldn't see that would make you look large in the public sphere to have pulled together and seen this as a serious moment.

Two predecessors having assassination attempts on them, bombs coming to their homes and the President acts like it's not that big a deal. The media is exaggerating it. And I thought he was at times through this crisis starting to track a little, but there was the tweet blaming the fake news, blaming the media and trying to flip this 180. I know Michael as a biographer knows that is what he does.

[23:20:13] But once in a while you keep thinking that in a true crisis like this he will turn a kind of corner that he just doesn't do. I think he is maybe -- I always thought there was one Donald Trump. Maybe there is, but I think he is the entertainer Donald Trump at rallies and I keep waiting Don, for this Presidential Trump. We see it in bits and pieces, but then he reverts back to scorched earth style and representing his base not ever trying to unite the American people.

LEMON: You mentioned Paul Ryan. I watched he did mention it and condemned it in the rally. He also thanked the men and women of law enforcement. I don't recall him when I saw it -- reaching out to the media thanking the media for staying on and doing their job or condemning the President's words directly. So Michael listen, you wrote a piece to CNN.com saying Trump that has divided us so he can't unite us. He built his political career on being divisive. It's not just his brand -- it is not in his brand to unite.

D'ANTONIO: No, it's not in his brand. And I think one of the things that we lose track of is that he has been devoted to destroying trust for his entire life. He doesn't think that reality benefits him. He thinks that we should all mistrust each other. So we're now at the point where half the country won't believe the truth if the FBI shares it with us or the -- there's a perpetrator caught, some will think there's a conspiracy afoot and that there's some paranoid reality that they should it be adhering to instead of the truth, because Trump has destroyed the foundation of trust in our country. He doesn't believe in the truth. He doesn't believe in a shared reality.

So he could sit here and look you in the face and tell you well, everyone is to blame. Everyone has equal share in responsibility. When he is the prime mover when it comes to distrust in our country. And his whole enterprise has been to destroy credibility and so now no one has it. And he can go to his followers and say, I am the source of information. No one else counts. Listen to me and then he issues thousands upon thousands of lies.

LEMON: It's very cultish.

D'ANTONIO: It is incredibly cultish. It's dangerous and scary. LEMON: Thank you very much. Thank you, Douglas, thank you Michael.

I appreciate your time. Can the President claim his rhetoric has nothing to do with the pipe bombs if all the targets are people he has attacked repeatedly? We're going to discuss that next.

[23:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So this is a time when you might expect a President to call for us to put aside our differences to call for unity. President Trump did at least in his prepared remarks yesterday, but his actions and words don't match those scripted remarks. Sources tell CNN that Trump believes it is wrong to discuss his rhetoric in the context of the explosive devices sent to prominent Democrats, Trump's critics and CNN. The President feels he is being linked unfairly to these acts of potential violence, but let's get the facts straight. What do the targets of the pipe bombs all have in common? They've all been verbally attacked by President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: But if you want the fake news to finally investigate Hillary Clinton, we'll just have -- man.

(APPLAUSE)

(CHEERS)

Don't worry. I don't like them either, OK? Good old Maxine. Low I.Q. individual. Low I.Q.

Biden I hear Biden wants to take me to the back of a barn. He would be in big trouble.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, let's not forget, Trump has created an environment where accidents like this can happen. Just listen to his explicit praise of violence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself or if other people will. Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my kind of -- all right. Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. I've been going around lately saying the Democrats are the party of crime.

Laughing, I'd like to punch him in the face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Proof that this President is a divider in chief and uses division as a weapon. So let's bring in now the former Pennsylvania Congressman Charlie Dent, Scott Jennings and Keith Boykin. They're also with us, as well. Good evening, everyone. Congressman Dent, no one here at CNN has said that Trump is

responsible for these bombs, but there are discussions about whether the rhetoric the President uses has contributed to the tense political climate that we're living in. There is a distinction between those two thoughts. What are your thoughts?

CHARLIE DENT (R-PA), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, I would certainly say that the President's incendiary and inflammatory comments over the last few years have led to a degradation, a civil discourse in this country. I would agree. Of course, he is not responsible for these pipe bombs just as Bernie Sanders wasn't responsible for his supporter who went to shoot at the congressional baseball team and injured Steve Scalise. But the President has to accept some responsibility for the state of political discourse. He has made those comments you just showed on your screen that's basically celebrating or encouraging violence in limited circumstances but it is sad state of affairs.

There's a lot of anger in this country. I think part of the job of the president is to try to, you know, turn the temperature down, speak to the better nature of our angels. He just doesn't do that. He tends to divide more than he does unite.

LEMON: Scott, it's interesting to hear President Trump decry political violence even though we've all heard him stoke violence at his rallies and in interviews. How can he have it both ways?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, as you know, I don't particularly care for the stoking of rhetoric that would indicate it's OK to commit violence against anybody. I don't like the idea that you should body slam a reporter. I don't want to hear people talking about punching other people in the face.

I do want to hear more about what the president said at his rally as it relates to us voting to resolve our differences. I do agree with Congressman Dent that until we know who did this and why they did it and what kind of persons they are, it's highly irresponsible for anyone to blame President Trump for it, just as it is irresponsible for people to run out and say some kind of a false flag operation.

The reality is we don't know who did it. We don't know why they did it. And it would behoove all of us to find those answers out before we then go out and discuss the motivations for that person. But again, we shouldn't be promoting violence against anyone. Even if we think it's funny, even if we think it fires up a crowd, it's not good for our discourse. I don't agree with it.

LEMON: So you're saying -- I mean, it sounds like he is trying to have it both ways. Are you saying that he needs to tone it down and stop?

JENNINGS: Yeah, look, I don't want the president to say attack a reporter. I don't want the president to say punch an enemy in the face. I don't want the president to imply that we should take away a secret service protect this detail and see what's that. I don't like any of that. At the same time, I don't like people who go on television and insinuate that the president caused this bombing plot. And I also don't like people who go on television and claim it's a false flag. I think all of that is extremely irresponsible. And everybody who is participating in any of those three buckets should stop.

LEMON: OK. Keith, listen, the left has recently used heated language, too. OK, let's put it. Hillary Clinton saying you can't be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for. Eric Holder saying when they go low, we kick them.

Is it unfair to equate some of this, you know, the sustained vitriol that we heard back to some of the sustained vitriol that we heard from Trump? Some people say it's a false equivalent because he does it, you know, it's just on auto play over and over almost every day.

KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I think there's a sort of asymmetrical warfare going on right now or has been going on for some years where Donald Trump can say whatever horrible, incendiary thing he wants. And if the left -- anyone on the left or a Democrat responds and they say anything that even teeters on the border of being a little bit too much, everybody jumps up and screams bloody murder.

It can't be a fair fight if you're going to talk about it in terms of a conflict. If one person gets to do whatever he wants and no accountability, the other side can't respond. That's I think what Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder were trying to say. They weren't trying to say we need to engage in violence. Nobody was saying that, but President Trump does.

LEMON: We certainly can't call them out when they do say that and people did. I think Democrats were not happy with Hillary Clinton's response about that and also with Monica Lewinsky. I don't think that they were too happy with Eric Holder because they though he was giving ammunition to his enemies.

BOYKIN: I think, you know, Democrats like Republicans have differences of opinions about a lot of different issues. I think the difference though is that the Democratic Party doesn't have a leader in the president of the United States who is on a regular daily basis going out and attacking groups of people, attacking individuals, attacking people who are different, attacking people and calling them worst names, horseface and all these other things, he is talking about people who aren't political enemies of his.

The fish rots from the head. I say this all the time. Donald Trump is the leader of the free world and the president of the United States. It is incumbent upon him to exercise the responsibility to show some leadership.

LEMON: OK, here is the thing. So let me ask you this, Congressman Dent, since we are on this vein. There is -- you cannot compare the how much, right, one does it or the other one does it. I mean, President Trump does it almost every single day. And, you know, I think that he's right here, that Keith is right every once in a while, and it's not to say it is right, it is certainly wrong and deserve to be called out.

Someone will say something that is a bit untoward the people are uncomfortable with and everyone jumps on it. But every day, every day, on auto play, the president says something awful about the media, about a political opponent, about someone.

And now seems to want it both ways. We've got to stop doing this, but he continues to do it. He said that last night. We go to stop doing this. And then this morning, we wake up to a negative tweet about the media.

[23:35:03] DENT: Don, you're right. All of use from time to time may use a metaphor we regret or may use an analogy that is a little bit over the top. When you're president of the United States, you have a special responsibility and duty, I believe, to be measured.

Because the words of the president are seen as policy. And unfortunately with President trump, he has often said things that his staff has contradicted, that people had to walk back on his behalf, that the president must show greater restraint.

It's that simple. He has to turn the temperature down. Tone it down. He has got a responsibility. I guess what I'm trying to say is he's got to be better. He is supposed to be better than the rest of us when it comes to use of language, I think. That's always been my view. But again, his words matter. They're supposed to matter.

We've been told time and again by so many people who at times apologized for this president that, you know, you don't have to take his words literally. Well, most people do.

LEMON: Yeah. That's how most people -- that's what most people do, is take words literally. OK, listen, we have a lot to discuss, so don't go anywhere. What the former vice president, Joe Biden, said on the campaign trail just today.

[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Former Vice President Joe Biden weighing in on the heated and divisive political discourse in the country. Back now with me, Charlie Dent, Scott Jennings and Keith Boykin. So Congressman Dent, this is what Joe Biden, the former vice president, said while campaigning in upstate New York today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We've got to turn off this hate machine. We've got to come together. The American public have been all over the nation. People want us to be more civil. People want us to choose hope over hate. They want us to choose for real. I mean, it's guttural. People understand that and words matter. Words matter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So what can -- Charlie, what can the president do or say to deescalate some of the political tensions?

DENT: Well, I think what former vice president said was largely correct. I'll tell you, it's -- there's an issue though. People I think do want a more civil discourse. But as a former elected official, I can tell you, there were people who would come up to me and give me an earful because I was talking in too measured a way.

You know, you're not angry enough, you're not yelling loud enough, which means you're not fighting hard enough. They really want to see not just passion but anger, almost to go to extra constitutional means to get things done.

They were that upset. There were some people -- I would actually turn to them and say, if I set myself on fire for you, you would complain that the temperature of the flame is not hot enough.

(LAUGHTER)

DENT: We had a lot of that out there. I'm serious. On both the left and right. Neither side has a monopoly on this. There's a lot of anger on both sides. Politicians on the left and right at times will try to inflame these passions. I've always said that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, I always thought, were two different sides of the same coin in term of both of them appeal to an anger.

Bernie in economic anger, it's the banks, it's the pharmaceutical companies that screwed you. Donald Trump appealed to a cultural anger, you know, it's immigrants and trade and other things that have caused you all this harm. And I think that doesn't help the discourse when people try to demonize people, you know, pick villains and get us all riled up.

LEMON: Scott, I've got to ask you, I mean, has this president painted had himself into a corner? I don't mean that in a negative way. Because how can he scrap the division, the rhetoric is what helped send him to the White House, and now people are saying hey, he's got to tone it down. I mean, how do you do that?

JENNINGS: I think there's a way to be tough in politics without talking about people that you don't like in violent ways. I found it interesting by the way that Joe Biden was calling for civility as it relates to politics today when in the past he has said he wanted to "beat the hell" out of Donald Trump and "take him behind the high school gym."

I mean, I hear you, I think it's a good message today. He should set a better example by not saying he wants to beat the hell out of the president of the United States. But the reality is the president does have responsibility to lead us.

I think you can be tough with opponents. You can joust with the media. You don't have to go as far as saying you want to punch people in the face or body slam people. And I think on the other side of the divide, you don't have to say you can't be civil with a political party that wants to destroy everything that you stand which is what Hillary Clinton said on this network just a few days ago.

It would behoove everybody to tone it down a little bit. And I think the president could get away with it because the Republicans trust the president, they believe in the president, and they'll follow his lead. They'll follow his lead. So if he chooses to do that, I think the party will follow him.

LEMON: Listen, I don't have to -- I'm not taking up for Joe Biden, but if you an check, I think he apologized for that. He should not have said it. It was a terrible thing. I think he apologized. The difference is though, has Trump ever apologized for any awful thing that he said about anyone in any vein?

BOYKIN: No. Even after he admitted that -- he spent five and a half years lying about President Obama's birth certificate, he didn't apologize for it. He just said President Obama was born in America and moved on. This is typical Donald Trump.

I think the only time I ever remember Trump apologizing in the past two and a half years was about the Access Hollywood tape. It was so desperate, he was forced to apologize.

LEMON: He says he doesn't believe it's now --

(CROSSTALK)

BOYKIN: He doesn't apologize for it. I mean, the tone starts from the president of the United States. People used to complain about Obama. They would say he was no drama Obama. He was too calm, too cool, too collected.

[23:45:00] LEMON: That's what Charlie just said, yeah.

BOYKIN: Exactly. But people -- that was actually a good thing in hindsight in terms of his presidential duties. He understood his job was not just to be the president of blue America but to be the president of all America. Donald Trump has never stopped campaigning.

On election day, most presidents what they do from the time they become president-elect, they stop campaigning and start governing. Trump never did that. He continued the campaign. He's never stopped doing that. He never tried to govern. He never tried to be president of all of America.

LEMON: OK, I want to save some time for this. I think it's an important subject. So tonight -- thanks, guys. Tonight, voting rights advocates in Georgia are celebrating a big win amid the neck and neck race for governor. We're going to break down what happened, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:49:58] LEMON: A big win for voting rights advocates in Georgia. Federal judge ruling that hundreds of absentee ballots cannot be disqualified due to signature mismatch issues. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is a Republican candidate for governor against Democrat Stacey Abrams, by the way, has filed an emergency motion for a stay, claiming that the ruling will introduce uncertainty and confusion and undermine the integrity of the election process.

Back with me now, Charlie Dent, Scott Jennings and Keith Boykin. My goodness. Where is Mark McKinnon when you need him? We just had this conversation and he had some pretty specific things to say, interesting things to say as a Republican. How big of a victory, Keith, this is for Stacey Abrams?

BOYKIN: I don't know if it's a victory. I think it's important for the voters of Georgia, especially for the 53,000 people who were being purged from the voter rolls by Brian Kemp, 70 percent of whom are African-Americans. It's a part of a pattern, I think, by Republicans in state after state.

You see it in North Dakota, they're trying to -- they've imposed voter regulations there to make it harder for native Americans to vote which is designed to unseat Heidi Heitkamp. In Texas, they're going after black voters, black students in particular.

All across the country, Republicans are engaged in voter suppression efforts. Rather than trying to compete to win in a fair contest, they'd rather change the rules so they don't have to compete in a fair contest.

LEMON: In no uncertain terms just moments ago on this program, Charlie, Mark McKinnon said the same thing, that he believes that these are all voter suppression tactics. He's a Republican. Democrats and others think that it's Kemp who has undermined the election by unfairly freezing names or removing people from voter rolls. How do you see it?

DENT: Well, I guess I have a little bit different perspective on this. Having come from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Don, you were in Philadelphia years ago. I remember massive absentee ballot fraud in the city of Philadelphia during the Bruce Marks-Stinson race where a federal judge had to step in and unseat a sitting state senator because of massive fraud.

I'm not saying that's what happened here in Georgia, by the way. I've had some bad experiences. Absentee ballots are easier to manipulate than in-person voting --

BOYKIN: Charlie, can I ask you something?

DENT: Yeah.

BOYKIN: Isn't Pennsylvania the state where Mike Turzai, who is the leader of the state legislature, who said publicly that voter I.D. laws were put in place to help Mitt Romney win the election? He said that on tape.

DENT: He did. He did. Now --

BOYKIN: That's telling the whole game right there.

DENT: Well, he did, and I have voted for voter I.D. I always thought it was -- I never thought it was an imposition. Now, I think you should be flexible with what type of I.D. you're showing. But, you know, we have to show I.D. to cash a check, for all sorts of purposes, which I don't object to, by the way. I never thought it was a terrible thing to impose that.

But I will say, on absentee ballot, I had a very bad experience in Pennsylvania. We had to go to federal court. We couldn't even go to a state court. We couldn't get a fair hearing to try to correct this. But a federal judge had to step in and unseat a state senator after massive fraud.

I mean, on a -- and "The Philadelphia Inquirer" wrote about it. Pulitzer Prizes were won on this. It was the only election in town. That's the only time people noticed. I'm not saying we see this all the time, but we do have to be somewhat vigilant.

LEMON: Scott, I want to get your take on this because Abrams has called for Kemp to resign his position as secretary of state. That's unlikely, but is it fair that he is a candidate for governor, and he also has the power to influence who votes?

JENNINGS: Ah, I don't think he should resign. I don't think it's been proven that he's done anything wrong.

LEMON: Should he recuse himself, maybe?

JENNINGS: I'm sorry? Ah, well, again, I don't think -- I think you have his political opponent saying that he's done things wrong but no one's proven that he's done anything wrong. And I also think that there's been some exaggerations about what he's done as it relates to so-called suppression.

A fair number of these people that were purged from the voter rolls, in fact, their social security numbers didn't match up with their names and they took no action to try to correct the record. That's not to say they can't go to the polls and cast a provisional ballot. They absolutely can do that.

As it relates to this lawsuit tonight, I basically believe something very simple. Every legal voter should know how to vote and every legal ballot should be counted and no illegal ballot should be counted. That's the bottom line for me.

So, if that is the ultimate achievement of whatever happens here, I think that would be fine. I think Brian Kemp would be fine with it. Abrams should be fine with it. Everybody in Georgia should be fine with it if that's the outcome.

BOYKIN: But if you want to protect the integrity of the process, you want to make sure there's not even a question of dishonesty. And by doing that, by recusing himself or resigning, he would remove that question. Staying in office and presiding over an election where you are on the ballot raises too many questions of conflicts of interest.

LEMON: I want to play this moment. It's from the -- I got to get this in. I got to get this in, Scott. I want to play this moment. It's from the Florida gubernatorial debate last week between Democrat Andrew Gillum and Republican Ron DeSantis.

[23:55:04] This is last night, yes, sorry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW GILLUM, DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: My grandmother used to say, a hit dog will holler.

(APPLAUSE)

GILLUM: And it hollered through this room. Mr. DeSantis has spoken. First of all, he's got Neo-Nazis helping him out in this state. He's spoken at racist conferences. He's accepted a contribution and would not return it from someone who referred to the former president of the United States as a Muslim N-I-G-G-E-R. When asked to return that money, he said no. He's using that money to now fund negative ads. I'm not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I'm simply saying the racists believe he's a racist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Oh, OK, so that was last night, by the way. I have a short time left, Charlie. That's what you call landing a good punch, is it?

DENT: Well, that's a pretty hard hit. That's a pretty hard hit. I wasn't aware that one campaign contribution. I certainly would have returned it. I know Ron DeSantis. I served with him in Congress. I never knew him to engage in that, but, you know, if he's getting contributions from people who have this type of history, I would certainly just send it back. I don't understand why he would --

LEMON: We're out of time, you all. That was low.

BOYKIN: That's what he said.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Thanks, everybody. Have a good night. Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)