Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

CNN Projects Cindy Hyde-Smith Wins Senate Runoff In Mississippi; Manafort Denies Ever Meeting With Assange; President Trump Dismisses CIA Assessment That Saudi Crown Prince Ordered Jamal Khashoggi's Murder; Trump To "Washington Post:" I Don't See Climate Change As Man-Made; NACCP Calls Trump Judicial Nominee 'Vote Suppressor-In-Chief,' Nomination A 'Slap In The Face' To Blacks; Clintons Back In The Spotlight With Speaking Tour Across North America With Plenty Of Ire For Trump; How To Help 2018 Top 10 CNN Heroes Continue Their Very Important Work. Aired 11-12a ET

Aired November 27, 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. And we've got breaking election news to tell you about. CNN projects Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith is the winner in Mississippi Senate runoff election. Hyde-Smith defeating Democratic challenger Mike Espy, a former Congressman and agriculture secretary in this the last Senate race, just to be decided in 2018. That is on the big revelation, a big revelations tonight about the Mueller investigation.

The President, his attorney Rudy Giuliani says that Paul Manafort kept Trump's lawyers updated on developments with Mueller. We've also learned that Manafort is denying ever meeting Julian Assange following a blockbuster report he had met with the WikiLeaks founder at least three times in previous years.

So let's discuss now. Renato Mariotti is here, as well as Josh Campbell. Gentlemen, good evening. Thanks for joining us. So Renato, what's your reaction to Manafort sharing information from Mueller with Trump's legal team?

RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I'm absolutely shocked. It's something that I have never heard of or seen in my time. Both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney. So I was a prosecutor for almost a decade. I've been a defense attorney on the other side.

I have never heard of somebody flipping, in other words, being on the government side in a case, cooperating against everybody the government asks and then sharing information with other people who are under investigation about what the prosecution is doing. It's highly unethical. And I think the communications between Trump's team and Manafort's team are not privileged. Those are communications that Mueller could obtain.

LEMON: Was he essentially the President's spy.

MARIOTTI: It seems so based upon the reporting that we've seen. Essentially what he was doing, was getting information from Mueller's team when they were asked him questions and assuming that they were assuming, because that is what Manafort said and what him and his lawyer agreed that they were on the government's team and that they were agreeing to cooperate and assist Mueller in any way and then they were taking that information and providing it to one of the people that he was investigating, and knowing full well that Trump and his team would spread it to others. It's completely unethical and could potentially become part of an obstruction of justice case that we might see down the line.

LEMON: Let us bring Josh here now, so, Josh, the fact that Manafort would lie to Mueller, report back to Trump, does this mean his ultimate goal was a Presidential pardon?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Of yes, I certainly think so. This whole think is stupefying. And y, those of us on the outside looking in, we thought this group was going to come in and drain the swamp. I don't about you, but I think we still see the glistening sheen the pond scum here, because every single day there's some new developments of duplicity and you know just malfeasance coming at us left and right.

I think this is another example as Renato mentioned. I mean, to have this person essentially reporting back on what is taking place within the government that it signals something is highly unethical. And to your point, I think that is the ultimate goal. I talked to a lot of people in my former business in national security who think that the all along the goal here was for Manafort to obtain a pardon. I can tell you, I was in court during his trial. He didn't appear to be a man who is really concerned about anything.

You know, you saw some of his actions I think at the end of the day, if the end goal was a pardon, this was just something he had to get through. And then now the fact this revelation we are hearing that he was actually gathering information allegedly and then reporting it back to the White House, again it shows you that signal, that pattern and possibly endearing himself to the President with the ultimate goal of getting that presidential stroke with the pen.

LEMON: I also want to get your response to this "Guardian" report that is Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange multiple times during the 2016 campaign. You say if true, this is a complete bombshell. Why do you say that?

CAMPBELL: It is absolutely and again, we don't know 100 percent if that is true. That is some of the reporting we've seen. We had been in something to gather our own report, but if it is true, that signals this idea of collusion wasn't just some fairy tale or some fantasy because there would be no reason other than collusion for Paul Manafort to be meeting with Julian Assange or his associates. Because it all came back to these Hillary Clinton e-mails, the DNC e-mails, John Podesta's e-mails. And these were the people who are doling them out and getting pushing them out on behalf of those who stole them.

So, again, if he was actually in communication and involved with that team, then it is a bombshell. I say one last thing Don, on that point, you know, this shows you the importance of having a good reputation. Now, if someone were to say that you or me or Renato were out doing these kind of things and all this activity, people would shake their heads and say, no, that is not those kind of people.

I got to tell you, when I heard this from Paul Manafort, my first reaction was, yes, I can see that. And the reason why that is important, because these were people that where in the President's orbit. These are the people that had access to him and possibly would have had you know, high level jobs in government had he stayed on and not been arrested.

[23:05:05] So again, it kind of shows you that level of just malfeasance that surrounds this group. And you know what, what is going on that we don't know about. It's very concerning.

LEMON: Well, he is denying it meaning Manafort. Renato, he is denying it strongly through his lawyers that he ever met with Assange, but if it's proven that he did, what would that mean to the investigation?

MARIOTTI: Well, it would take Mueller somewhere down the path of being able to prove that there was an involvement in a conspiracy to hack the servers in the United States that contained those Democratic e-mails and to use and distribute those. So ultimately what, Mueller would be trying to prove there would be you know, there's a hacking of U.S. server that was, of course, a federal crime.

And then some U.S. individuals were participating in that conspiracy. Now, just to be clear, merely knowing that those e-mails were going to be hacked, merely knowing that they were going to be distributed on WikiLeaks, that itself is not a crime, but it certainly begs the question, criminals do not usually tip off people who aren't involved in the scheme about what they're going to do or what they're in the midst of doing.

So, why the heck is Julian Assange talking to Paul Manafort on that topic or for that matter to people who are talking to Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi which we've also learned about today? So, you know, that really is very hard to explain for those people. If I were them, I would exercise my right to remain silent on that question.

LEMON: Renato, I have something else for you. Because this is Trump -- former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski speaking to Chris tonight. Chris asked him about this report. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Do you think if he had met with Assange back in March right before he got made campaign chairman, that you would have heard something about it or did he keep to himself in a way that you can't say that he would have disclosed it.

COREY LEWANDOSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I wouldn't have heard about it. Paul did a lot of meetings that we found out about later, that I had no knowledge of whatsoever. He took a lot of meetings in his apartment in trump tower and didn't work out of the campaign office. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Renato, it's not exactly a denial, is it?

MARIOTTI: No, absolutely not. And we also heard today Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the President said that Trump cannot recall having conversations about WikiLeaks with Roger Stone or Jerome Corsi. He is not flatly denying it.

He is not saying he didn't have those conversations, just he doesn't recall. And here we've got Lewandowsky saying well, you know, Paul Manafort was doing things on his own. You know, whenever somebody gets -- there's proof they're involved in criminal activity, suddenly those people appear to be hermits and they're not talking to anyone, no one knows anything about those people.

But of course at the time, Paul Manafort was the chair of Donald Trump's campaign. He was a very important person connected to everyone.

LEMON: The former FBI Director, James Comey, who is now a witness in the Mueller investigation weighed in today on the acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. Josh, I want you to listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To what extent do you think he can derail the special investigation?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I think it's a worry, but to my mind, not a serious worry. He may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer, but he can see his future and knows if he acted in an extra legal way, he will go down in history for the wrong reasons. I'm sure he doesn't want that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: He worked closely with Comey. Is he right?

CAMPBELL: Well, I won't comment on his intelligence, because I don't know the man, but I think his general point is correct. Should he act now, as this representative Swalwell was on CNN talking about him as the assassin who was brought in to really take out the legs out from under Mueller and make this whole thing go away, if he were to act in that matter and do this on behalf of the president, not only would he go down in history in a very bad way.

But he would possibly face additional consequences now, with this new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives coming in and actually being able to have subpoena power and to go after what discussions were under way. Why was he put in place? I think that he knows he is now boxed in. If his original goal was to comment and try to make this whole thing go away, it's gotten a lot harder and I think he is probably aware of that.

LEMON: Renato, Matt Whitaker has publicly slammed the Mueller investigation multiple times. A lot of people say that is why he is the acting A.G. Do you think that he is concerned about how history will remember him?

MARIOTTI: I hope for the sake of this country that he is. And really, I can't read Mr. Whitaker's mind. He may be more concerned about how people who are Trump supporters view him, how the folks who watch Fox News view him and if that is the case, if he is concerned about you know, having a book tour and being on Fox and friends when this is done, he could have a very different perspective.

So, let's hope for our nation that he is concerned about how history will regard him because he is the acing Attorney General at least at this moment. And there is no question that history will judge his actions in one way or the other.

[23:10:06] LEMON: Well, since you put it that way, not so much. Thank you. Remember, he wanted to be on national TV. He wanted to come on CNN, because he wanted to get the President's attention according to someone who is on the show with him, on this show in the green room. That is what he reportedly said to the guest on with him. Thank you. I appreciate it.

The president is doubling down on his defense of the Saudi crown prince, ignoring his own CIA's conclusion that Mohammed bin Salman personally ordered the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. Fareed Zakaria weighs in next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump again tonight, ignoring his own CIA's assessment that journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by Saudi agents on the orders of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The president in an interview with the Washington Post claiming that assessment is not definitive.

[23:15:00] So, I want to talk about this now with Fareed Zakaria, he is the host of "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS." Good evening sir, good to have you on this evening. So, again tonight, President Trump brushing off the CIA's assessment of the Saudi crown prince that he ordered the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.

This is what he told "The Post," maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but he denies it and people around him deny it. And the CIA did not say affirmatively he did it either by the way. I'm not saying that they're saying he didn't do it, but they didn't say it affirmatively.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: We'll let grammarians figure it out the --

LEMON: I know, it is kind a hard to read. It's incredible to hear that from the President of the United States, isn't it?

ZAKARIA: What's sad about it is, I don't understand why the President is you know on his knees withed Saudi royal family. It's perfectly understandable and Americans are adults. If you were to say look, this was a terrible thing, you know, we have to hold them accountable. Here's what we're going to do, but we're not going to destroy the relationship. We've got a serious strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia.

For some reason, he wants to buy the Saudi cover-up for some reason, he wants to affirm the Saudi cover-up. For some reason, he wants to participate in the Saudi cover-up. And for a President of the United States, that is demeaning.

The larger question, of course, is why are we subcontracting U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East to Saudi Arabia? Leave the Khashoggi matter aside. Why have we supported a Saudi war in Yemen that has now created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, a million and a half people are on the verge of famine.

You go to Yemen. There's a brilliant "New York Times" report out of Yemen. You go to Yemen. They believe this is an American war against them because they look at the bombs, they're made in America. They look at the planes are made in America.

They look at the intelligence comes from America. The logistics comes from America. And we're being implicated in this war that are most Americans don't even know we're participating in. Why?

What are American interests does it -- what American interests does it help in the Saudis kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon and tried to shake him down. That they blockaded Qatar. These are all Saudi goals. Why is the U.S. implicated in them?

LEMON: Well, I mean, that is a good question, because is anyone that ignorant of what's going on, especially the leader of the free world? Is it just that he didn't really care?

ZAKARIA: Well, there are a whole bunch of theories. One of them to be honest is there's some -- is there some reason why Donald Trump is being so nice to the Saudis. I mean, it is not -- there are people who have speculated the Gulf Arabs provide an enormous amount of the investment capital for real estate. Who the hell knows whether that is it?

But again, as with Russia, there is a puzzling pattern where you say, why do this? This is not in America's interests. Why are we getting ourselves implicated in the middle of a very complex Middle East situation consistently on the side of a very dangerous Saudi foreign policy that has not succeeded anywhere?

LEMON: But that very weak response, my grandmother had a saying here, he come se, come sa, like you know, maybe this, maybe that. That is basically least, maybe this, maybe that. It seems like a "U.S. President should be more definitive. I mean, that just doesn't, so obviously, he is like I really don't -- basically what he is saying is I don't really give a crap.

ZAKARIA: And there's also a level of frankly a lack of sort of seriousness to the foreign policy. If you look at George Bush Senior, he was the President during Tiananmen Square, this is when the Chinese cracked down pretty brutally on student and pro-democracy demonstrators.

The Bush administration did hold the Chinese accountable, did impose sanctions, did suspend important some relationships. But then a couple months later, they sent is the national security advisor to Beijing and said look, we regard the U.S.-China relationship as too important. We want to restart it, but we can't pretend you didn't do what you did.

So that seems to be an adult serious way to have this. Again, why are we participating in a Saudi cover-up? Why can't we say what is plain for the world to see with regard to this particular case and say, that doesn't mean we have to upend the whole relationship.

LEMON: That is the big question. The unanswerable question I believe. So jaw dropping moment today. Were you watching John Bolton live?

ZAKARIA: I saw that.

LEMON: I didn't even listen to it.

ZAKARIA: I don't speak Arabic.

LEMON: I mean, what kind of answer is that?

ZAKARIA: Well, you do have to say to yourself if you're national security adviser and you're only going to listen to the intelligence that comes to you in English, you're going to have a very limited.

LEMON: You're in big trouble.

ZAKARIA: But in a sense that doesn't matter. I mean, Franklin Roosevelt didn't probably hear the Japanese you know, saying tora, tora, tora when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

[23:20:05] The point is, the policy. Why is, American policy become captive to Saudi foreign policy? It should be is the other way around. When President Trump keeps talking about how it's important for us to keep the Saudis happy, he gets it fundamentally wrong. It is important for the Saudis to keep America happy.

We are the big brother in this relationship. We are the ones who are protecting this regime. We're the ones that support -- the Saudis after 75 years of buying American military hardware cannot turn around and on a dime say oh, we're just going to get Russian stuff from now on. It doesn't work like that. It's not like having an iPhone and then getting an android.

LEMON: Right.

ZAKARIA: This is a much more complicated deal. And it seems that Trump doesn't understand he is the guy with leverage, not the Saudis.

LEMON: So, let's talk about climate change. All right? Because he -- the President telling "The Washington Post" one of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence, but we're not necessarily such believers.

Then he added this, as to whether or not it's manmade and whether or not the effects that you're talking about are there, I don't see it. People with high level intelligence, don't they accept their own administration's report about climate change and experts and hundreds of scientists and the scientific community?

ZAKARIA: This is in some ways the most troubling shift that is taken place in the Republican Party under Trump. People forget that in 2008, John McCain ran as a Republican as the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party in favor of a cap and trade, in favor of a carbon tax, in favor of massive subsidies for renewable energy. This was the Republican position.

Ronald Reagan enacted policies to help the environment with regard to the ozone layer. George H.W. Bush was you know, much more green than any Republican is today. If you think about Republican governors like Christine Todd Whitman, who later become the EPA administrator, the Republican Party has had a long tradition of environmental activism. What we now have is people who are saying two plus two is equal to six.

I mean it is really denying basic science. And you wonder to yourself, do you take that approach with other stuff? You know, when you're ill, do you decide you're not going to trust the experts, you're going to go to your local witch doctor? No, you trust the experts. Why on this issue do they get to pick and choose? This is of course, the fundamental issue facing the planet.

And on that issue, they say no, we don't trust -- you know, who knows about the science. It is like, the next time you have to get an operation, I'd like to hear you dispute the views of the three surgeons who tell you, you need to get an operation.

LEMON: Or the next time you're touting the advances of NASA being able to send a rover to the moon, I mean to Mars, right? That is science.

ZAKARIA: And it's the same science, by the way. You know? It's not like that is a different science. Climate science is not some kind of voodoo stuff that left wingers are doing. No, this is just two plus two.

LEMON: Yes. So let us talk about -- you have the special, the special called "Presidents under fire, the history of impeachment." And you dug into -- you say that impeachment has been cheapened over the last years. Explain that.

ZAKARIA: You know, if you look at impeachment over the course of American history, it was something that was viewed as a kind of nuclear option. This was the thing you did. Because in any democracy what you want to do is change governments when you don't like them, when you think the President is doing a terrible job, when you think a congressman is doing a terrible job by voting him or her out of office. Impeachment was meant to be the thing you reserve for the really special, the rare case. LEMON: As they call it the nuclear option.

ZAKARIA: In a sense like the Nixon case. The Nixon case is a textbook example of impeachment working. Over the last 20 years, we have had massive sustained calls for the impeachment of everybody.

I mean, it was true for George W. Bush. It was true for Obama. Bush and Obama both ended their presidencies with 33 percent of the American public calling for their impeachments. Some large number I think in that range called for the impeachment of Hillary Clinton which she wasn't even President.

LEMON: Well, in some places she is President. She is President in people's minds.

ZAKARIA: And of course, you have it with Trump. And the danger of this kind of rhetoric is we now have the case where you really do want a serious analysis of what exactly the charges are, what is the evidence, but it has become the sort of the tool that will everybody uses just you know, instinctively.

[23:25:00] So, when we decided to do was go back to the history, go back to the founding, go back to -- look at the Nixon case. Look at the Clinton case which are fascinating examples, by the way, two very different cases of how impeachment worked. And what lessons can you draw from it?

LEMON: You got what I meant, right. If you watch some networks you would think that Hillary Clinton is President.

ZAKARIA: Absolutely. I totally (inaudible), I mean she is still being attacked. People still talk about locking her up. And so it's only one step from there to impeachment.

LEMON: Impeach her. Oh my gosh, thank you, Fareed. Always a pleasure. Make sure you tune in. CNN's special report, Presidents Under Fire: The History of Impeachment. It airs Sunday night at 9:00 Eastern. Our thanks again to Fareed Zakaria.

Democrats looking to block one of the President's judicial nominees from the bench. We're going to tell you who Thomas Farr is and why the NAACP calls him the vote suppressor in chief.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Democrat Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum are calling on the Senate to reject President Trump's nomination of a federal judge in North Carolina, saying that he has supported measures that disenfranchised black voters. They joined all 49 Democrats who say they will vote against Thomas Farr's nomination, as well.

How did President Donald Trump's judicial become such a lightning rod for civil rights advocates? Well, Farr is currently a Raleigh-based employment attorney. But it's his past political work which is raising those concerns.

Here are some of those instances. Back in 1990, Thomas Farr was the lead lawyer for former Senator Jesse Helms' election campaign. In that campaign, the Department of Justice filed a complaint against the Helms' campaign and the North Carolina Republican Party for sending over 100,000 postcards largely targeting black voters.

The DOJ said the intent of the postcards was to suggest black voters were not eligible and to discourage them from going to the polls. Farr denies knowledge of the postcards, saying he attended a meeting about ballot security.

Farr also worked on defending a 2013 voter I.D. law, which included a controversial provision requiring residents to show I.D. before they could cast a ballot. It also eliminated same-day voter registration and voting on Sundays, a day where black voters show up to polls in significantly greater numbers than white ones.

In its ruling, one of the federal appeals judges wrote this. He said, "the general assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African-Americans."

After a federal judge in 2016 struck down the legislature's 2011 map as a racial gerrymander, they passed another map with many of the same districts in place. They argue this time lawmakers were motivated by politics and not race. Farr was hired by the North Carolina Republican Party to defend those proposed boundaries.

So I want to discuss now. Joining me is Congressman G.K. Butterfield from North Carolina. He is the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. So good to have you on. Thank you so much for joining us.

REP. G.K. BUTTERFIELD (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Thank you, Don. Good evening.

LEMON: All 49 Democratic senators, the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus, they all oppose Thomas Farr's nomination. Why do you think President Trump nominated him?

BUTTERFIELD: Here's what we have in North Carolina, Don. We have three federal judicial districts in the state, the eastern, the middle, and the western districts. The eastern district has never had an African-American judge in its history nor has the western district.

And so during the Obama years, we tried to persuade President Obama to appoint an African-American to the federal bench. He did everything within his power to integrate the court but each time he would nominate an African-American to the eastern district, it was blocked by the Republicans in the United States Senate.

And, of course, after Obama's second term, then President Trump came along and instead of nominating an African-American to the position, chose to nominate Thomas Farr, probably the worst choice he could make in the state of North Carolina. LEMON: Yeah.

BUTTERFIELD: Thomas Farr has been very divisive. He has led the charge on behalf of the Republicans to set us back in voting rights and disenfranchising African-American voters. He is the worst choice that President Trump could choose.

LEMON: Let me read this, because the NAACP called Farr the voter suppressor in chief. And then they said, they said, "even among dangerous Trump nominees, Farr stands out for his decades-long crusade to disenfranchise African-Americans. He learned how to intimidate black voters from segregationist Senator Jesse Helms and helped turn North Carolina into ground zero for voter suppression. His nomination is a travesty. His confirmation would be heresy."

Talk to us about his role, specifically in voter suppression.

BUTTERFIELD: Thomas Farr started with Senator Jesse Helms many years ago and he was part of the effort to disenfranchise African-American voters when Helms was challenged by Harvey Gantt in the Senate race of 1990. They sent out 125,000 postcards targeting African-American voters, suggesting that they could be arrested when they came to the polls. It was challenged.

I remember it so well and they reached a consent decree in the Helms' campaign, suspended any further postcard deliveries. But Thomas Farr has been involved in voter disenfranchisement for years. He has represented the North Carolina legislature.

He's been the one that gone in court and has defended voter I.D. and the discriminatory election systems and district maps that have been drawn. He is the worst choice that President Trump could have chosen for the federal district court.

[23:34:59] LEMON: It certainly seems to be a thing there in the south with voter suppression because voter suppression played a role in both governor's races in Florida and in Georgia as well as ugly racist robocalls.

Both Democratic candidates Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams issued a statement today on Farr. Here is what they said. They said, we call on all U.S. senators who revere our democracy, who put that democracy above party loyalty to reject this nomination and deny Thomas Farr the platform to continue his crusade against voting rights. What's the message, representative to African-Americans if Farr takes the seat?

BUTTERFIELD: We have been asking for years to integrate the eastern district in North Carolina. The public depends on a fair judiciary. To have an all white judiciary in the eastern district of North Carolina is unfair to the voters and unfair to the administration of justice.

We are calling on the United States Senate to reject Thomas Farr and let's just start over. Let's just wait for this Congress to expire, come back into the 116th Congress, and let's find a consensus candidate, someone who can be fair and impartial and who does not bring the baggage that Thomas Farr brings to this process. LEMON: Let's talk about someone now who played such a big role in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, because our Manu Raju is reporting that Senator Susan Collins, a potential swing vote, says that she will likely vote in in favor of Farr. But Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina isn't on board. Senator Jeff Flake says that he will decide on the merits. How do you see this playing out?

BUTTERFIELD: Well, all of the Democrats in the United States Senate are united in opposition to Thomas Farr. We believe that Senator Flake is going to be voting no, and hopefully we can get Senator Scott or one of the other Republican senators who really understands the importance of the judiciary to vote against this nomination.

We need to start over. We need to wait until next year. Let all of the senators settle down and find a consensus judge for North Carolina and not try to ramrod Thomas Farr through at the last moment before the session expires.

LEMON: Representative Butterfield, thank you for your time.

BUTTERFIELD: Thank you.

LEMON: Bill and Hillary Clinton kicking off their big speaking tour tonight. And Hillary Clinton took a shot at President Trump's claim his gut tells him more than anybody else's brain. You're going to want to hear this.

[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the spotlight tonight in the form of a big speaking tour in cities across the U.S. and Canada. It's called "An Evening with President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." And tonight, they're in Toronto, so as our Suzanne Malveaux. Suzanne, good evening to you. So, what do the former first couple --

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Don.

LEMON: -- have to say about the current president?

MALVEAUX: Sure. Well, it was fascinating actually. This is the first stop of the Bill and Hillary show, if you will, Toronto being the first of 13 cities across North America. Essentially it's being promoted by live nation. They normally handle these big music superstars like Beyonce and Justin Timberlake.

It was billed as an evening that was going to provide something fresh, something new and intimate here. There are a lot of skeptics, Don, that I talked to earlier. Democratic allies essentially who say that they want Bill and Hillary to go away. But we did see in this crowd, a very enthusiastic crowd, that there's so very much an appetite for the Clintons.

Now, it started off and there really weren't any zingers, if you will. There was no real controversial questions. It really was a lot of policy kind of wonky things. There are also a lot of zingers when it came to Trump. A lot of criticism for Both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

So the first thing out of the gate was the elephant in the room that was addressed. People wondering if this was a tee up for Hillary Clinton going for 2020. Here's how she responded, Don.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): You're on a 13-city tour, the two of you, President Clinton, Madame Secretary. Is that because you guys just want to hang out together?

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Or is it because you're testing the waters for a run at being president of the United States?

(APPLAUSE)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, actually, Frank, I'm thinking about standing for parliament here.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Don, it was notable that just over the midterms, neither one of the Clintons was called really to participate and campaign for a lot of the Democrats who were really trying to paint a fresh face for the party and are hoping that the Clintons take a back seat.

So there is kind of the struggle seeing them re-emerge now and what that means. But both of the Clintons really stressed a real emphasis, criticizing the Trump administration for pulling out of the agreements, whether it is Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Accord, all kinds of things. A great deal of frustration.

And then also quite a startling accusation from the former first lady, Hillary Clinton, about how Trump has really denied or refused to believe that the crown prince, Saudi crown prince had anything to do with the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Here's what she said this evening about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: We have a president who is part of the cover-up as to what happened in that consulate or embassy when Mr. Khashoggi was murdered.

[23:45:06] And we have a president and those closest to him who have their own personal commercial interests.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: So Don, not only did she accuse the president but also the family of really having those ties with the Saudis and being one of the reasons that they would not hold the crown prince responsible. We also heard from Bill Clinton today, very frustrated about climate change and saying how this was -- didn't make any sense that the president didn't believe the scientists and wasn't willing to believe the scientists.

And so both of them taking quite a sharp aim at this administration and also hoping to move their party in a forward direction.

LEMON: Suzanne, I understand that Hillary Clinton also took a shot at President Trump tonight. What did she say?

MALVEAUX: So the comments that were made earlier, she talked about the fact that he mentioned something about his decision making process, when he said he had more -- that he went on with his gut than people have with their brains and kind of how that got a little bit convoluted.

She used to refrain over and over throughout the evening, kind of teasing him about, you know, what was this gut thing that was going on and what did that have to do with real things that were based, in fact, and part of that was climate change and part of that was what they argued was working in the Iran deal and all kinds of deals that had really both of them, both Clintons, had promoted at some point.

Even NAFTA, Bill Clinton saying it was 25 years ago. It needed some changes but it didn't need to be dismantled in the way it was. And then ultimately it was renamed. We saw Bill Clinton almost apologize really to the Canadians for the way that Trump treated them in those NAFTA negotiations.

It was a fascinating conversation and at the end, they ended up talking about the first time that the two of them met at Yale as students and really kind of a refreshing change from some of the things that you hear on the 20th anniversary of the affair with Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment that has been so prevalent in the news lately.

LEMON: All right. Suzanne Malveaux, Toronto, thank you very much. We appreciate that reporting.

MALVEAUX: Snowy Toronto.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: So I want to bring in now Hilary Rosen and Scott Jennings. Good evening to both of you. Good to see you. Scott, it's good to have you back, by the way.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: So listen, so Hilary -- let's talk about this. The Clintons are controversial. You know, they're launching this speaking tour right now after the midterms. Is it the right thing for Democrats right now? Is this a distraction for the party?

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, I don't think -- look, Democrats just won 40 seats in the House of Representatives. I don't think Bill and Hillary Clinton are any harm to the Democratic Party. I think --

LEMON: Is it distraction they need right now, the party? Maybe. I don't know.

ROSEN: I don't see anybody being distracted. I think that, you know, it's actually good to have people as smart as Bill and Hillary Clinton out there talking some truth about Donald Trump. I think that they are distant enough from the presidency to be able to feel comfortable saying things that perhaps Barack Obama is the most recent president can't say.

Some things need to be said. I'm OK if the Clintons want to say it. It's tame compared to the things that Donald Trump has said about Bill and Hillary over the last several years.

LEMON: What do you think -- Scott, you heard the crowd. I mean, this is Canada, right? Remember, they don't vote in our elections and they sort of screamed. I don't know. Did you hear? I can't hear with my lower earpiece a definitive no. What did you think of that? What do you think if she actually does decide because a lot of folks are saying.

ROSEN: She's not going to run, come on.

LEMON: OK, all right. Scott?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'll be honest, I understand her impulse. I mean, she is looking around at a field of Democrats, a bunch of has beens and never will be, thinking I got more votes for president than anybody not named Barack Obama in U.S. history and you're telling me I can't run?

Why does Joe Biden get to run and I don't? Why does Bernie Sanders get to run and I don't? I am a proven vote-getter. I beat this guy once. That's what she is thinking.

So I understand the impulse. I think she clearly wants to run. I think she believes that the country may have buyer's remorse and that she is the antidote to giving people a chance to have their vote back.

The thing about folks with egos like this, they can talk themselves into anything. I think she would lose to Donald Trump again. I understand the impulse. It's clear to me she's not done with this yet.

LEMON: Hilary, you said she's not going to run.

ROSEN: There's a difference between wanting to be president and wanting to run for president. I think Hillary has been very clear that she wishes she were president, and I think that majority of the country actually wishes she were president right now.

[23:50:02] But that' very different from wanting to run for president. I don't think Democrats are chasing Hillary away from running for president. I think Hillary doesn't want to do this again. She has done it twice and that's enough. But she still got a lot to contribute. I think she doesn't want to be told that she can't speak, and that's more common from Republicans than from Democrats. She had got a lot to offer. In foreign policy, she was the most popular secretary of state in history. When Donald Trump does what he does to our relationships abroad, you know, she does take that personally.

LEMON: Yeah. Let me ask you one more question, Hilary, because this is about "Me Too." You know this is the rise in the "Me Too" area. Bill Clinton really has gotten a lot of criticism and so has Hillary Clinton, right?

Many people feel that they're out of touch and that he really hasn't atoned for his part in what happened with Monica Lewinski. Do you think they're out of touch with the mood of the country?

ROSEN: Well, you know, I do think that he has not responded well, effectively, or you know, even kind of as compassionately as people would like to hear him do. He has I think not matched the authenticity that Monica Lewinsky has demonstrated in the last several months on this issue. You know, I'd be surprised if they can get through this entire tour without him having to address it more thoroughly.

LEMON: That was a very good answer, a very honest answer. What do you think, Scott? Final thoughts.

JENNINGS: You know, I think Hillary is right. I think that Bill Clinton has fallen short on this. And he's fallen short since the moment it happened all these years ago. I think if I were Hillary Clinton, I were serious about the next run. I wouldn't be on the book tour with him, I would be on a book tour by myself, saying, I'm out here speaking in my own voice. I don't need this guy.

Honestly, he has done some things that I don't like and he has handled some things in a way that I didn't like. To me, that's what people are craving. I think authenticity, a word that Hillary used, is the exact right word. People are craving that in our politics and she's probably better able to do that with him not sitting right next to her. So I think if she's serious, she's going to break away from this guy at least as a public matter.

LEMON: Thank you both. I appreciate your time. We'll be right back.

[23:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: It's Giving Tuesday. We want to show you how you can help our 2018 top 10 CNN heroes continue their very important work. Here's Anderson Cooper to tell you more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: I'm Anderson Cooper. Each of this year's top 10 CNN heroes really proves that one person can make a difference. Again, this year, we're making it easy for you to support their great work. Just go to cnnheroes.com and click "donate" beneath any 2018 top 10 CNN hero to make a direct contribution to that hero's fund-raiser. You'll receive an e-mail confirming your donation, which is tax deductible in the United States.

No matter the amount, you can make a big difference in helping our heroes continue their life-changing work. CNN is proud to offer you this simple way to support each cause and celebrate all these everyday people who are changing the world. You can donate from your laptop, your tablet, or your phone. Just go to cnnheroes.com. Your donation in any amount will help them help others. Thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: All of our top 10 CNN heroes will be honored at the 12th annual CNN heroes all-star tribute hosted by Anderson with special guest Kelly Ripa, live Sunday, December 9th. Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)