Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Trump Rails Against Mueller In Twitter Tirade; Acting Attorney General Has Been Critical Of Probe; Nancy Pelosi's Speakership Battle; Mississippi GOP Senate Candidate Appears to Say That Making it Harder to Vote is 'A Great Idea'; Would Effort to Impeach Trump Succeed or Fail?; Subpoena Issued for Unaired 'Apprentice' Footage, Trump Denies the Outtakes Exist. Aired 11-12a ET

Aired November 15, 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. President Trump launching an unsubstantiated attack on the Mueller investigation claiming investigators are threatening people to get the answers they want and ruining people's lives. We now may have some insight on why, because CNN is confirming that Trump has spent the last three days meeting with his attorneys over responses to the Special Counsel's written questions.

The Washington Post is reporting tonight that Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani says some of the questions pose possible legal obstacles and some possible traps for President Trump. And what role is the new acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker playing here, now that he is overseeing the Mueller investigation?

We know Whitaker has publicly criticized the Special Counsel's probe on multiple occasions before he started working at the Justice Departments including on this show where he also told me how the Mueller probe could be ended.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW WHITAKER, U.S. ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: So I can see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment and that Attorney General doesn't fire Bob Mueller, but he just reduces the budget so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Let's discuss, shall we? Because Matthew Rosenberg here, national security correspondent for the "New York Times." Philip Lacovara, is a former counsel to Watergate special prosecutors and Chris Swecker, is a former FBI assistant director on the criminal investigative division.

I'm so glad to have all of you gentlemen on this evening. So thank you for coming on. Good evening to you. So, Philip, let's get right into it. You saw the reporting that we have that CNN is reporting that the President met with his lawyers three days in a row talking how to answer these written questions. Rudy Giuliani telling the Washington Post, I just want to get it correct quote here, that Mueller's questions could create more issues for us legally than others. So he is admitting there are some legal landmines for the President. What is he saying there?

PHILIP LACOVARA, FORMER COUNSEL TO WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS: I think he is saying that the President gives truthful answers he is going to get himself into deeper quick sand and if he doesn't give truthful answers, he is going to be creating other problems either with the Special Counsel or now with the House Judiciary Committee about to be in the hands of Democrats who have made no secret of the fact they want to investigate what's going on in this investigation.

LEMON: So, what about these quote says he says, Mueller's question may be quote, possible traps? Based on the questions, he answers them, if he is telling the truth then --

LACOVARA: That is why this whole notion of a perjury trap is so fanciful. It's only a trap if you're asked a question to which you don't want to give a truthful answer. If you give a truthful answer, it may be incriminating, but it's not a trap. And if you don't want to incriminate yourself, you can claim the Fifth Amendment, but you can't lie.

LEMON: Stand by. I just want to get the FBI guy in here quickly. Chris, you were assistant Director to the FBI. Giuliani says some of the questions are irrelevant. Mueller clearly doesn't think so. Do you think Mueller has something up his sleeve here?

[23:05:00] CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION: No, I served directly under Mueller for two and a half years. If he know Mueller and this whole thing about a trap implies that he is going to frame somebody. Mueller's not going to frame anybody.

Robert Mueller is an honorable person. He is going to do his job. He has a mission. He is going to do that fairly and within the bounds of the law. He is going to be proactive, but he is not going to frame somebody. I've been saying this all along. Nobody really knows what he is doing behind the scenes, because he is not leaking and he is just quietly going about his work.

Rudy Guiliani, god bless him he has not had an unedited thought since he became Trump's attorney. So he is probably not the best attorney for Trump at this point.

LEMON: So, Matthew, what do you think of this? We've got lawyers, he is been meeting, he is got the questions. You've got "the Wall Street Journal" reporting that came out. You've got Michael Cohen in D.C. I mean, he is not there to have dinner, let's just be honest. What's going on here?

MATTHEW ROSENBERG, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: I mean look, it looks like there's movement and it looks like the President fears something is coming down the pike. Is he worried about his son, about Don Jr.? Is he worried that you know, he suddenly has one hostile branch of Congress that is going to be unloading on the investigation, digging in both to the Mueller investigation, but to other aspects, beyond the scope of that investigation?

Or is it all that plus the fact that the midterms didn't go well for him, he went to Europe and found out none of the European leaders wanted him around or had very nice things to say about him, he thought it was OK, to skip going to a cemetery for thousands of Americans are buried for dying in a war for our country and surprised people are upset about this. I don't know. But he clearly is deeply, deeply out of sorts.

LEMON: Listen, he is calling the reporting -- the "New York Times" and other places, this is fake news. You know, I'm not upset, but then he is rage tweeting. Isn't that proving exactly your reporting?

ROSENBURG: I think every time he says fake news, we get more subscribers. So, I would encourage him to keep doing that. But yes, I mean, every time he sees a story he doesn't like, its fake news. You know, it's an utterly meaningless phrase at this point.

LEMON: So, listen, these questions, reportedly only deal with things from before the election, right? Which would mean they had nothing to do with possible obstruction of justice. So where do you think that stands now?

LACOVARA: Well, I am one of the many people who thinks that Mueller made a strategic decision about whether to press the obstruction case or just focus on the Russia collusion case, but even so, I think what Trump fears is that the people around him like Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and others who were involved in the campaign are the people who are by their own words likely to face indictments soon in connection with collusion with Russia. So Trump's main story over the last 18 months that there's been no collusion proved is exactly what is about to collapse on him I think. That is what he is worried about.

LEMON: Say that again plainly and clearly for people like me who are a little.

LACOVARA: OK. Trump has been saying all this time there's been no proof of collusion and all these other indictments and guilty pleas don't have anything to do with the activities during the campaign, but some of Trump's key campaign advisers are the people who are now saying themselves that they will expect to be indicted by Mueller in connection with Russian collusion and they've said that within the past couple of days.

And we know that Manafort and Rick Gates who have pleaded guilty or are cooperating have been actively in there along with Michael Cohen just on the last few days. I think that is a sign that this is coming to a climax and I think Trump knows that. He either gets the information from Whitaker about that or he at least has the intuition that the walls are closing in on him on Russian collusion.

LEMON: Mr. FBI sounds like cue to ominous music here, no?

SWECKER: Yes, this is another thing I've said all along, is that former Director Mueller was not going to do anything before the midterms just because you don't want to interfere with the election in any way, but clearly he doesn't make a deal with the people he is made deals with there isn't something coming down. Something's in the chute right now. Whether it's a very detailed report or whether it's another indictment, I think that is up in the air. I personally think it's another indictment. We don't know who's in those crosshairs for that indictment, but he is -- these are the building blocks of a conspiracy case. You make deals, you flip the middlemen or people further up the chain so by definition, that means there's somebody further up the chain.

LEMON: Interesting.

LACOVARA: Don, just one more point to make. There an apparently are about 50 sealed indictments on file in the district court in Washington, a bunch of them were filed in September right before the silence period that Mueller had to observe.

[23:10:06] So, I think a lot of court watchers are saying there are more shoes just about to drop.

LEMON: So Matthew, you talked about possibly members who are his family are close to him. He is worried about his own son.

ROSENBURG: Definitely. You know, his son Don Jr. was the essential player in a meeting in Trump tower in July of 2016 in which Russian lawyer showed up, the connection to the Russian government allegedly bringing dirt on Hillary Clinton.

LEMON: Willingness to collude already proved in that case.

ROSENBURG: They certainly were collusion curious, but I mean, the other thing too is look, during the campaign, if all these questions Trump is facing are about the campaign, during the campaign they didn't open an investigation, none of us knew about an investigation. There was no obstruction to be had then.

There could only be focusing on some kind of collusion conspiracy type situation. That is what would worry the President. I don't want to go too far speculating here. But what else are you looking at if you're looking at during the campaign except for, were you cooperating with Russia, was somebody in your circle, camp, associates, whatever?

LEMON: The thing is the one thing that the President specifically tweeted about here, he said that the inner workings of the Mueller investigation was a mess, right. All these things about oh, they're a mess. He is looking for answers that he wants specifically. They're ruining people's lives and on and on. He may be just bloviating. But didn't he just appoint a new acting A.G. to oversee this investigation? Is that a coincidence?

LACOVARA: I think that is likely to be the source of what Trump is construing as being efforts to wreck people's lives and Don Jr. might be one of the people that he has foremost in his mind. I think Whitaker as the acting A.G. would know what Mueller has up his sleeve including any sealed indictments that may be just about to be released.

LEMON: Fascinating conversation. Thank you all, thank you, Chris, I appreciate it.

Nancy Pelosi says she is the best person for the job of House Speaker as the newly minted Democratic majority assumes control. Not everybody in her Party agrees. Is this a case of sexism? We'll talk about it next.

[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi wants to have a second go at being the house speaker next year, second go to gavel, but at least 17 Democrats are standing in her way. In a letter they vow not to support her bid to become speaker.

Let's discuss now with Charlie Dent, Hilary Rosen and David Swerdlick. Hello, everyone. Always drama. Always drama. So Hilary, you first. Democrats won the house and picked up 33 seats. They might win a few more, but now some in this caucus they want to get rid of their leader. What's going on?

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I mean, Nancy Pelosi was key to winning those 33 and maybe four or five more seats. So, I think the majority of the Democratic caucus knows that and wants her to serve as speaker. Look, I think there's a bunch of moderate Democrats who have decided that the Republicans are, you know, are going to pick on them if they support Nancy Pelosi. And I just don't think it makes any sense for Democrats to let Republicans pick their leader.

The reason they do that, the reason they try and demonize Nancy Pelosi is because they know she is effective. So why would we buy into that?

LEMON: OK. That is a good question. Let's talk about that. Congressman, because Republicans have made Pelosi a punching bag in just about every race, every national race even state races. Did they succeed in making her too politically toxic do you think? They still won a lot of it.

CHARLIE DENT (R), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, PENNSYLVANIA: Well yes, I do think that the Republicans were effective at turning Nancy Pelosi into a pinata. Sure, they were able to damage her, but I don't think that her problems though are simply the cause of Republicans. It's clear that many Democrats in the house I served with them, I think many of them want a new generation of leadership.

You know, Republicans I believe went through changes in leadership at least four or five times since I've been in Congress. I could go list them. Nancy Pelosi has been the leader of the house Democrats now since 2003.

And when Republicans would lose, we lost the majority in '06, Dennis Hastert step ad side, John Boehner was forced to step aside. There tends to be some consequences when there's a perceived to be a failure in an election. When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats lost in 2010 and 2014, they maintained the same leader. I think a lot of Democrats were frustrated by that.

LEMON: I want to read something David, this is from Dan Pfeiffer, and he is a former Obama adviser. He says I'm very sympathetic to the desire for a new generation of Democratic leaders, but the main argument against Pelosi seems to be the Republicans like to attack her in campaign ads with seems like a dumping to factor into picking a Democratic leader, does he have a point?

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Dan Pfeiffer has a point. I think Hilary had a similar point. And look, I agree with Congressman Dent that there is some restlessness on the Democratic side.

But Democrats need to ask themselves this, which model has worked better for Republicans, sticking with Mitch McConnell nondescript inside player an elitist maybe who has marched the Republican agenda through the senate, got Kavanaugh over the hump without raising his voice, without breaking a sweat, got the 2017 Trump tax cut through without breaking a sweat, do they want that model which is what will Pelosi former leader -- former speaker Pelosi would be on the Democratic side or do they want to go with a new jack speaker who will be like Speaker Boehner or Speaker Ryan.

Ineffective, besieged by their own constituencies and ultimately leaving with their tail between their legs. I don't think they want that. Speaker Pelosi has raised between $120 million, $130 million just this last cycle and she has kept her caucus together from the Iraq war till now. Why would you -- and she just won back the House? Why would you switch horses now? It makes no sense.

[23:20:15] LEMON: OK. That was effectively a mike drop, but go on.

ROSEN: I would just make one quick point. Because I think David is exactly right. You know, if those folks who oppose Nancy being speaker actually came up with some fresh strategy or some new message or something that is going to kind of unite the caucus in an effective way, that would make some sense, but now they seem to be putting forward Congresswoman Marcia Fudge who frankly is not much younger than Nancy Pelosi and you know, is not even a true progressive.

I mean, she is against the gay rights bill for god's sakes. You can't be against the gay rights bill and be a successful Democrat in the House caucus. So there's just -- it makes no sense. The strategy is flawed. I think that is because really thoughtful members are not going to look this gift horse in the mouth of having Nancy.

SWERDLICK: Not disagreeing with Hilary. But just real quick Don, I don't even think it's the job of the speaker regardless of Party to be a progressive or to be a staunch conservative or to be ideological. It's to hold the caucus together and move it forward, keep it together to be effective.

LEMON: To be effective.

ROSEN: But you have to stand for -- you have to at least let you know, the caucus know that you believe in the values that they bring. LEMON: Go ahead, Congressman.

DENT: Well, look, I've always been a great Steny Hoyer fan. I always thought he would be an ideal speaker if I were a Democrat. That is just me. That said, the reason I say that is because Steny Hoyer is somebody that any Democrats -- you could take him anywhere in the country. I think a lot of the Democratic House members and candidates are concerned they can't take Speaker Nancy Pelosi into a lot of districts around the country.

SWERDLICK: But Congressman Dent, that is because Republicans have vilified her for the past decade. If I can just make that point. Look, you serve be in the house, Congressman Dent. I defer to you on what's really going on behind the scenes. But I just want to make this point. The days of taking Steny Hoyer -- Congressman Hoyer anywhere as if there are still Reagan Democrats out there to be won, they all belong to Trump. So the idea that you're going to win back these working class Reagan Democrats, I think Democrats are starting to move on from that idea.

LEMON: But -- Congressman, before you weigh in, does it matter if perception is reality? I'm not saying that Nancy Pelosi actually is toxic. I mean, it may be messaging on the Republicans' part. Does it matter if it's working and that is the perception out there? Go ahead, Congressman.

DENT: My point was Steny Hoyer not that he would bring back Reagan Democrats is that he can go into progressive districts, he can go into moderate districts. It's very hard to demonize him and say whether you like it or not, Nancy Pelosi is toxic.

ROSEN: I'm sorry. Steny Hoyer is the same age as Nancy Pelosi the same age as Jim Clyburn.

LEMON: I got to go. All right. We'll be right back. We'll be right back.

[23:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: There is one more race left in America where votes haven't been cast. It is a runoff to decide who will be Mississippi's next Senator. And with just two weeks to go before the election, a new video shows Republican candidate Senator Cindy Hyde Smith appearing to say that making it harder to vote is a great idea. It's a little hard to hear, but it's subtitled. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(Inaudible)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So her campaign released a statement saying obviously Senator Hyde Smith was making a joke and clearly the video was selectively edited. Back with me now, Charlie Dent, Hilary Rosen and David Swerdlick. OK, everyone. So sorry I had to get to the break. Hilary, Hyde Smith's campaign says she was making a joke. But this is Mississippi we're talking about here, the state with a history of voter suppression. What's your response?

ROSEN: My response is it's not funny. And she didn't actually look like she was joking in that video. She looked like she was dead serious and when we've seen the history we've seen with these Republican secretaries of state in Mississippi and in Georgia that you know, it is believable. That is what they are trying to do is stop people from voting.

And we've seen it time and time again and in this election, it is heartbreaking because these races are so close. There's a huge upswing in turnout from low voting public and these Republicans just want to stop people from voting as much as they say that they think that you know, they're living in a great democracy, they don't really like this democracy very much.

LEMON: David, when she says this is a quote liberal folks in those other schools, who is she talking about?

SWERDLICK: Well, she is definitely talking about liberals and look, we know there's a track record of Republicans using voter suppression efforts to try and tamp down the Democratic coalition which relies heavily on voters of color, younger voters in some cases, seniors.

There have been other to Hilary's point, even if she was joking it's not funny, because there have been other Republicans caught on tape saying things like this, like in 2012, the Republican House Leader Mike (inaudible) was said that voter suppression or voter I.D. rather would let Romney win. It didn't and there have been other cases of this. So the idea that this is OK, I mean, it's beyond the pale for an elected official.

LEMON: Charlie, with all the controversy over voter suppression and selection, why would voters even believe that she was joking?

DENT: Well, a comment, look, I don't understand the entire context, but it certainly was a bad joke. It was insensitive. I don't think it's going to affect her race. I take her on her word that it was a joke. It was a bad joke. It was a dumb thing to say. She said something also that was very inartful a few weeks ago about attending a public hanging. Same kind of thing. Just mistakes. But I don't think it's going to affect the outcome of that election.

LEMON: I want to play the one that you're talking about where she praised a man that she was out campaigning with, talking about public hangings. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CINDY HYDE-SMITH (R), MISSISSIPPI: If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be on the front row.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: I mean, Hilary, this election is less than two weeks. Do you think these -- Charlie says he doesn't think these gaffes whatever will affect the outcome. What do you think of this?

ROSEN: Well, look, Mike Espy running against her has gotten more votes than anybody thought he would get. He's actually always been a fairly popular politician in Mississippi. Who knows? I think the voters of Mississippi really pay attention to their senator.

They're not going to elect this woman. She was appointed to this office. She hasn't won yet on her own statewide. And so I think that, you know, this -- this is a race worth watching. I don't think we should give up on it.

LEMON: Yeah.

ROSEN: I think we should -- we should keep our protests out there.

LEMON: Yeah. You mentioned her African-American opponent which is former Representative Mike Espy. And, you know, do this -- is this a deeper problem -- these remarks highlight a deeper problem with the Republican Party? Quick answers, please. David first and then I'll go to the congressman.

SWERDLICK: Yeah, they definitely do. As Congressman Dent said just a few days ago, she made that comment about attending a public lynching which isn't even an expression, right? A few days before that, Governor Perdue made the comment about cotton picking in reference to the Florida race. At least that's an expression, even if it's one that a politician shouldn't use.

This is just out of nowhere, makes you wonder what Senator Hyde-Smith is thinking. So, you know, just to wrap it up, I think that we're -- it's unfortunate that Republicans can't get a handle on this.

LEMON: Charlie?

DENT: Well, look, I would have to say this. If you're running for office for Senate or governor, you have to choose your words very carefully, particularly if you're down south and, you know, using certain terms like those, you know, public hangings, voter suppression, you got to be careful and you should know better.

Like I said, I don't think these are -- I don't think these are huge issues to be quite honest. These are gaffes.

LEMON: Public hanging even in the context -- congressman, a public hanging even not in the context of race is not really, you know.

SWERDLICK: Right.

ROSEN: I mean, I hope that --

DENT: Yeah, something to say.

ROSEN: -- this brings out African-American voters in a way that we haven't seen yet in Mississippi. And just like in Georgia where, you know, there's such a low voter turnout for potentially unregistered or registered voters that if African-Americans voted in the same proportion as their population, actually we would have more leadership, more African-American leadership in both of those states.

LEMON: I got to run. Thank you all. I appreciate it.

SWERDLICK: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: My next guest wrote a book on how to get rid of a president, and he says any effort to impeach Trump would likely fail. I'm going to ask him why, next.

[23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump making unsubstantiated claims of chaos in the Mueller investigation while telling us the White House is running very smoothly. But there are multiple reports of pending staff turnover in the administration and the president's foul mood while hanging over the West Wing.

David Priess is a former intelligence officer who spent over a year as a daily intelligence briefer to then FBI Director Robert Mueller. This is his new book. It is titled "How to Get Rid of a President." Certainly a very interesting title. Good evening. Welcome to the program. Good to have you on in person.

DAVID PRIESS, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Good to be here.

LEMON: Let's talk about the president, some of the tweets, some of them were in caps, a total witch hunt like no other in American history. He has lashed out on Twitter about the supposed inner workings of the Mueller investigation, saying that people are being screamed at and threatened. Number one, how does he know about that?

Number two, as I said, you spent over a year, right, briefing Robert Mueller when he was the FBI director. Does this sound like the way he works, Robert Mueller conducts himself?

PRIESS: The first part I think is projection. This is what Donald Trump does, this is what Donald Trump behaves like. So I think he's putting some of that on to Mueller.

But it may be that people are going in and talking to the special counsel and then they're going ahead and coming back and telling Trump what they think he wants to hear.

It wouldn't surprise me if we have a situation where Trump is hearing what he wants to hear and it's not exactly reality. So that's that part of it.

I briefed Bob Mueller every working day for a year, and I never saw him lose his temper in a way that I would call it yelling, that I would think he was angry.

In fact, he only raised his voice with me once and he promptly apologized for it when he did need to. It was something worth getting angry over. But it wasn't yelling. That's not the guy that I got to know. LEMON: So Democrats are going to take control of the House. Some in the party have brought up impeachment, right? So you have this book and it's called "How to Get Rid of a President," but then you write in a Washington Post. You said, even with evidence of 'high crimes,' impeaching Trump would probably fail.

PRIESS: Uh-huh.

LEMON: Why do you think that?

PRIESS: Impeachment has a really high bar, and that's by design. The founders did not want to make it easy to overturn the will of the people. So to impeach, you got to get the majority in the House of Representatives which is a cakewalk.

[23:39:59] I mean, that could happen within days of the Democratic majority coming in, but the conviction in the Senate, two-thirds, that's a high bar.

LEMON: So even if there are -- you said you don't -- you don't use the term "collusion," right?

PRIESS: Right.

LEMON: You want -- you call it criminal.

PRIESS: Collusion, talking to the attorneys who do this stuff, they will say collusion has no specific legal meaning.

LEMON: Right.

PRIESS: So they end up going to criminal conspiracy or issues like that. Now, if the Mueller investigation turns up actual criminal conspiracy, well then we've got an interesting thing going on because then that might move the ball forward a little bit.

Based on what we've seen so far, any Democratic impeachment resolution would not reach a conviction in the Senate. They just don't have enough to convince Republicans that there have been violations of the constitution.

LEMON: But here's the thing though, David. When you say impeachment, impeachment doesn't -- even if he's impeached, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to --

PRIESS: Right.

LEMON: -- have to leave office. Remember, Bill Clinton was impeached.

PRIESS: That's one of the things I write about in "How to Get Rid of a President." The idea that impeachment originally was designed to be a stern rebuke in and of itself. That's not the lesson of the Clinton impeachment. The lesson of the Clinton impeachment is, if you fail to convict the president, the president wins. Clinton's ratings went up during the impeachment trial.

LEMON: OK, so, criminal conspiracy. Let's just say, you know, for the -- for -- just for the sake of argument, OK, they find that. Still doesn't mean that he has to leave office, right? Is that what you're saying?

PRIESS: That's right. You can be impeached and stay in office. Bill Clinton did. Andrew Johnson did in the 1860s. That can happen. If you're convicted and removed, of course, then you're out.

LEMON: Right.

PRIESS: But the most likely scenario is that an impeachment resolution would pass the House and fail to convict.

LEMON: Yeah.

PRIESS: That's most likely.

LEMON: So you write about, you know, successful and unsuccessful attempts to remove presidents and then you quote this, it's from a now defunct New York independent newspaper about Johnson. OK, you said, "the people have been witness to the mortifying spectacle of the president going from town to town, accompanied by the prominent members of the Cabinet, on an electioneering raid, denouncing his opponents, bandying epithets with men in the crowd, and praising himself and his policies."

Sounds a lot like that -- you know, that you yourself could have written that two weeks ago about the current president.

PRIESS: Uh-huh.

LEMON: What did end up being Andrew Johnson's legacy?

PRIESS: Andrew Johnson's legacy is not a good one. He was a racist. He was a boar. He was stubborn. He was obstinate. He was a difficult man to get along with in every way. And he alienated the very people who could have helped him.

So the legacy of Andrew Johnson is help yourself because he can really close to being removed, one vote short of being removed from office. The quote you just showed is really interesting because Andrew Johnson's behavior going out on essentially a campaign rally while he's president, talking bad about his political opponents, that was not the norm. That actually was changing the norms.

It was so different for the time that that was an impeachment article against him. We're used to impeachment articles being things like obstruction of justice, being things like abuse of power against Andrew Johnson, they had some of those, but they had one article of impeachment that was he's saying bad things about Congress.

I can't imagine that happening now constitutionally. Is that a reason to remove a president from office? Probably not, but there are a whole bunch of other methods that you can do to weaken or remove a president that aren't impeachment.

LEMON: Don't ask me that question. I think there are a lot of ways that a president should conduct himself in office. If they don't, then --

PRIESS: Right.

LEMON: -- impeachment should be considered. But that's just me.

PRIESS: It's an option that anyone in Congress can interpret how they want. High crimes and misdemeanors is very vague.

LEMON: And it has nothing to do with ideology. It is just the way that the office deserves a certain level of respect, right?

PRIESS: The issue is whether that is an unfit president or whether that just makes him unpopular one that should be voted out.

LEMON: "How to Get Rid of a President." That's it. Also, you can read The Washington Post article saying -- that says even with evidence of high crimes, impeaching Trump would probably fail, by Mr. David Priess. Thank you very much. We'll be right back.

PRIESS: Thanks, Don.

[23:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The existence of outtakes from Donald Trump's tenure as host of "The Apprentice" has been debated since he announced his candidacy for president. They are rumored to contain footage of Trump using offensive language.

Well, Trump claims the outtakes don't exist. Now, a court case filed by a Boston-based civil rights group has resulted in a subpoena for the tapes. I'm going to speak to one of the lawyers behind that suit in a moment. But first, CNN's Athena Jones on how we got to this point.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's a tape that may or may not exist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Money, money, money.

JONES: And a story that just won't die. The mythical recording has never been released publicly, but a former White House aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman, says she has heard the outtake from "The Apprentice" and that in it, then reality star Donald Trump uses the N-word when referring to contestant Kwame Jackson.

It's an allegation the president strongly denies, tweeting the show's creator, Mark Burnett, called him to say "there are no tapes of "The Apprentice" where I used such a terrible and disgusting word as attributed by wacky and deranged Omarosa. I don't have that word in my vocabulary and never have. She made it up" Jackson himself said in 2016, he never Trump use the N-word, but said Trump's actions like touting the false claim that President Obama was not a U.S. citizen suggests Trump held racist views.

KWAME JACKSON, FORMER APPRENTICE CONTESTANT: He never used the N-word or said something racist to me. What I did get from Donald Trump was what I saw through the birther movement.

[23:49:57] JONES: Still rumors of such a tape or tapes surfaced in 2016, after the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape on which Trump is heard bragging about grabbing women's genitals. A former "Apprentice" producer tweeted, "as a producer on seasons one and two of "The Apprentice," I assure you, when it comes to the Trump tapes, there are far worse."

And Trump critic, comedian Tom Arnold, told Seattle radio station KIRO in late 2016 --

TOM ARNOLD, ACTOR (voice-over): I have the outtakes to "The Apprentice" where he says every bad thing ever. Every dirty, every offensive, racist thing ever.

JONES: But Arnold hasn't backed up his claim by releasing the supposed tapes in his possession. And despite intense public interest in "Apprentice" outtakes, when Clinton supporter David Brock promised $5 million to cover the legal cost of anyone who would leak the tapes, he found no takers.

While not answering the question directly, White House counsel Kellyanne Conway seemed to acknowledge discussing the rumors with Trump during the campaign.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: I talked to him about it during the campaign. It was my job to tell the president every rumor, innuendo, fact, fiction.

JONES: In her new book, Manigault Newman writes about an October 2016 conversation she says she had with fellow campaign staffers Lynne Patton, Jason Miller and Katrina Pierson about how to handle the fallout should such a tape be released, though no one on the call had heard the alleged tape at the time. Pierson said on Fox that call never happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Katrina cursed and said, he said it. Did that happen?

(LAUGHTER)

KATRINA PIERSON, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: No, Ed, that did not happen. It sounds like she's writing a script for a movie.

JONES: Manigault Newman sharing with CBS a snippet of what she says is a recording of the conversation.

PIERSON (voice-over): I'm trying to find at least what context it was used in to help us maybe try to figure out a way to spin it. JONES: Lynne Patton says on the call that she had a conversation with Trump about whether he had ever used the racial slur.

LYNNE PATTON, EVENT PLANNER (voice-over): I said, wow, sir, can you think of any time this might have happened and he said, no.

OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, WRITER (voice-over): Well, that's not true, so --

PATTON (voice-over): He goes, how do you think I should handle it, and I told him exactly what you just said, Omaraso, which is well, it depends on what scenario you're talking about it. And he said, well, why don't you just go ahead and put it to bed.

(CROSSTALK)

PIERSON (voice-over): No, he said it. He is embarrassed.

JONES: In a new statement, Pierson acknowledged there were rumors of such a tape during the campaign, but said they were "always being circulated by Omarosa and her alone." And that she was nearly trying to placate (ph) Manigault Newman to move the discussion along (ph).

Athena Jones, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Oh, boy, what a mess. The Trump administration has sought to end the program that allows people from certain countries to live in the United States. Immigrants from countries like Sudan, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua are at risk of deportation.

Last month, a federal judge granted an injunction temporarily halting the deportations in a suit filed in Boston by a group of lawyers for civil rights. It claims the decision to end the protected status of these countries is racially motivated.

In an attempt to make that point, a subpoena has been issued to Trump productions and MGM, seeking unaired footage from Trump's days of hosting "The Apprentice." I'm joined now by Oren Nimni, a civil rights fellow at Lawyers for Civil Rights. Oren, so glad to have you on. So, there's a lot to talk about. Good evening, by the way. There's no hard evidence --

OREN NIMNI, CIVIL RIGHTS FELLOW, LAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: Good evening.

LEMON: -- that these tapes actually exist, and even if they do, what does it have to do with your case?

NIMNI: So last spring, Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to challenge the terminations of temporary protected status on behalf of Haitians, Salvadorians and Hondurans.

As part of that case, we're asserting that those terminations happened as a result of racial bias, coming directly from the president and affecting the Trump administration.

We're now seeking these tapes to bolster those claims that there is racial bias present. We've already seen that racial bias from public statements --

LEMON: All right, got it. You said bolster the claim, because that was my question. There's ample evidence, Oren, of the president saying racially charged --

NIMNI: Exactly.

LEMON: -- and insensitive things, so I'm just wondering why you need the tapes. You want to bolster your argument.

NIMNI: Exactly. I mean, it's our job to represent our clients to the best of our ability.

LEMON: OK.

NIMNI: If these tapes exist, you know, we need to bolster that evidence as much as we can.

LEMON: OK. So, MGM and "Apprentice" producer Mark Burnett have been fighting efforts to produce the outtakes of the show for years, even releasing a joint statement back in 2016, saying, "they don't have the right to release the footage." And there's the statement there up on the screen. It seems likely that they're going to fight this. Can they be compelled to do it?

NIMNI: If the tapes are relevant to our case, MGM and Trump Productions will likely oppose the production of those tapes, but we think that we have a good case that those tapes should be produced. Whether that's to us under a confidentiality agreement or not, it remains to be seen.

[23:55:03] But we think that there is a good case, that they should come forward in this matter.

LEMON: MGM and Trump Productions have until December 13th to comply.

NIMNI: That's correct.

LEMON: What happens if they refuse?

NIMNI: If they refuse, then we would go to the court and the court would decide what and when MGM and Trump Productions have to produce.

LEMON: OK. A number of legal experts say about this, if Trump were found to have made anti-immigrant remarks, it would be relevant. They still stay, you know, comment 10 years ago isn't relevant. Quickly before I run out of time, how do you respond to that?

NIMNI: All of those comments are relevant. They all built upon this bias that we know is infecting the Trump administration, and any piece of evidence just adds to the overwhelming sum of evidence that we already have. LEMON: Oren, thank you for your time. I appreciate you coming on. Have a good evening.

NIMNI: Thanks so much.

LEMON: Thank you. And thank you for watching. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)