Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Michael Cohen Faces Jail Time; Trump's Long-Time Friend Flipping on Him; Adam Schiff Wants Department of Justice to Re-examine Indicting a Sitting President; Donald Trump Very Upset at Former Attorney Michael Cohen. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired December 12, 2018 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

[22:00:00] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Thanks for all of us tonight. Thanks for watching. "CNN TONIGHT" with Don Lemon starts right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: My mom says, she texted me. Tell Chris, your sister - I won't say her name - my sister who does -- who does hair by the way - your sister is a re-gifter with gifts she gets from her clients. So there's a lot of re-gifters out there.

CUOMO: I think it's fine.

LEMON: You do?

CUOMO: I think as long as you're giving, it's all good.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: I thought she was going to say something about my hair.

LEMON: No. Not everybody is obsessed with you as you are, Chris. So, listen, let's talk about Michael Cohen.

CUOMO: Yes.

LEMON: Michael Cohen gets to go to prison for being, according to the prosecutors -- for doing what Donald Trump told him to do.

CUOMO: There's no question that if Michael Cohen weren't connected to the president of the United States, he would not be in this situation today. It's not to say that he didn't do things that are wrong. He admits that. It's not to say that he didn't do things that are wrong that are unrelated to his role with the president.

But there was a hyper focus on him. They were harsh with him. They wanted him to cooperate. He didn't give them what they wanted, at least not soon enough, and he's paying a big price.

LEMON: Yes. Can you imagine, though, being the -- you're the attorney. You're being guided by your client, well, whatever you do whatever you think is right, or what have you. And then you do it, and then all of a sudden you end up going to jail, but your client does not end up going to jail, or the person who directed you to do it doesn't end up going to jail, or doesn't really not even that. Doesn't face any repercussions for it except for people talking about him or wondering how he's going to -- what he's going to do to avoid this or if he, in fact, can be prosecuted.

I mean, I would -- that would probably be more upsetting to me than actually serving the time.

CUOMO: And look, you know, Michael Cohen, those who know him as you do, he's got a pain dynamic here that we haven't seen the president exhibit.

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: His family is everything to him.

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: And he has been in prison for months--

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: -- since this has been going on. He may be hold up in a fancy hotel to outside observers, but what this has done to his wife, to his kids, to his family--

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: -- he is so ashamed. That's not something we've ever seen the president worry about. As a private individual, he was always worried about himself. Whatever at fallout there was with the family that was.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: This is killing Michael Cohen, and I think in a way what he said today is true, Don. This is the beginning of a better time for him--

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: -- because this is off his back.

LEMON: You know, I was talking to Tim tonight as I told you I went to the RFK thing. I was talking to him and Tim said, man, I just think that I would rather just go right away because imagine the next couple months. You're going to be thinking about that. I said, well, Tim, at least you get to spend the holidays with your family. You get to hug them and be with them for a little bit longer. But, I mean, Michael Cohen, as you said, he's been in jail really for the past six months.

CUOMO: He's got until March to report.

LEMON: Right.

CUOMO: If I were he -- if I -- no, forget about it. Yes, if it were me, I would late until the very last second.

LEMON: You would?

CUOMO: I don't want to be in jail a minute longer than I have to be, let alone prison. He's not going to be with his kids. His kids, you know, at really important ages. He's really close to them. His wife, you know, they're tight. It matters to him. His family matters. I wouldn't want to be away from them a minute sooner than I have to.

LEMON: Yes. We've got someone from AMI who's worked for AMI who is going to give us some insight right now on--

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: That's a really important thing to do. I was late on that angle. It's important to the prosecutors, and I was surprised by that.

LEMON: Who was the guy you interviewed at about 40? I was in the makeup room. I didn't--

CUOMO: The former -- Trevor Potter, the former FEC chair, commissioner.

LEMON: That guy's voice, I was like, man, he's got a voice for radio. I mean, did you notice that?

CUOMO: Yes. He sounds authoritative.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: What he's saying is pretty insightful also. He knows the law, and he was really cutting off the wiggle room that we've been hearing from the president's attorneys. And that's no lefty. This is a man who did it in a Republican administration.

LEMON: He reminded me of the former Chicago anchor and I can't remember his name that used to do the police and the investigative things. I can't remember his name. He had a voice like this. Somebody will send it to me, and then I'll tell you tomorrow. Hey, Chris, always a pleasure.

CUOMO: Pleasure is mine.

LEMON: See you.

CUOMO: See you on the TV.

LEMON: Don't regift.

CUOMO: I'm regifting you.

LEMON: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

So, let's take a step back just for a moment. Look at the big picture. This is the big picture, OK, of what happened today. I know sometimes we feel maybe we're inured to this or we sort of get used to it, right? But this is stunning. This was not just a bad day for the president. Frankly, he's had plenty of those. He's had plenty of bad days.

This is the day that we learned the president's former personal attorney, the man who kept his secrets for years, the man who once said that he would take a bullet for his boss -- I'm talking about Michael Cohen -- going to prison for three years. His crimes, they're felonies. They include paying for the silence of women who say they had affairs with Trump. And he says he did that at the direction of none other than Donald Trump.

[22:04:56] So, in a sign of just how serious these crimes are, Cohen's sentence is the longest yet for anyone connected to the president or stemming from the Mueller investigation. So, I just want you to listen to what he said in court today, OK?

This is a quote. He says, "Time and time again, I felt it was my duty to cover up for his dirty deeds. Cover up his dirty deeds."

One official telling CNN that behind closed doors, the president is seething while in public, he's dodging questions from reporters including our very own Kaitlan Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Mr. President did Michael Cohen cover up your dirty deeds?

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, your reaction?

COLLINS: What did dirty deeds is he talking about, Mr. President?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, everybody.

COLLINS: Mr. President, did Michael Cohen cover up your dirty deeds?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Wow, crickets. Mr. President -- keeps walking, keeps moving, doesn't hear anything. This is just not so-called coffee boy, OK? This is not someone the president can claim only worked for him for a short time.

Michael Cohen worked for Donald Trump for more than a decade. The keeper of secrets. That's what he was. A key surrogate for the Trump campaign. That's what he was. You know what he is now? He's a convicted felon, and he's not the only one.

Three key members of the campaign, Cohen -- first one on your left there -- another Michael, Michael Flynn in the middle, and Paul Manafort, all been convicted on felonies. That is stunning too. And there's more bad news for the president today.

Just moments after Michael Cohen's sentencing, we learned that another longtime Trump associate has flipped on him. Never thought you'd see that coming, right? The company that owns the "National Enquirer" , a company run by Trump's longtime friend Mr. David Pecker, will not be charged by federal prosecutors after admitted -- after admitting being part of a so-called catch and kill scheme to silence Playboy model Karen McDougal working, quote, "in concert." OK. This is important. Working in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign.

Pecker admits that he met with Cohen and another unnamed member of the campaign, another unnamed member of the campaign in August of 2015. Guess what they were doing. They were offering to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate's relationship with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided. Catch and kill. Catch and kill. Catch and kill.

Another member of the campaign was in that meeting with Cohen. Cohen and Pecker. We don't know who, but in 2015, there weren't a lot of people working on the Trump campaign who would have been called into a meeting like that. And in what could only be a pretty ominous sign for this president, the agreement required the company to continue cooperating in the future.

You know who else is continuing to cooperate? Michael Cohen is. The prosecutor from Mueller's team said today he is continuing to give the special counsel credible information, and Cohen's adviser -- you know him. He's the attorney, Lanny Davis. Lanny Davis says Trump's former attorney is open to testifying publicly before the House after Democrats take over in a matter of weeks.

Talk about must-see TV. Can you imagine that? I think it will probably happen. People have said that the biggest risk that this, to exposure that this president has is Michael Cohen. I don't disagree with that. Imagine him testifying in public in front of Congress for the world to see. He's got to answer all the questions too.

The president, a source says, was glued to the TV coverage of Cohen's sentencing and repeatedly claimed that Cohen was lying, claiming he lied about plans to silence women like Karen McDougal. Lying? Roll the tape, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David, you know, so that I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up and I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with--

(CROSSTALK)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, what are we going to pay, a check?

COHEN: Yes. And it's all the stuff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:09:55] LEMON: Yes, yes, yes. Lying. But that was a conversation between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump about the plan for David Pecker and the "National Enquirer" to silence Karen McDougal. But he's lying.

So, don't be distracted by the president's phony claims that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt no matter how many times he says that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a total witch hunt. I've been saying it for a long time. It's a witch hunt. That's all it is.

They have phony witch hunt. The witch hunt continues. The entire thing has been a witch hunt.

I call it the rigged witch hunt. The witch hunt as I call it should never have taken place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Yes. He's going to keep saying that, and some people will believe it. Even with the evidence, even with the tape, come on now. The Mueller investigation is no witch hunt. Four people have now been sentenced to prison. This is serious. Seven have pleaded guilty. Thirty-six people and entities have been charged. Witch hunt? OK.

This is not normal. None of it is normal. None of this is politics as usual. None of this is anything as usual. Can you imagine? Imagine in any business that you had someone who operated like this, even just in your regular job if you had someone who operated like this, they'd be out the door in two seconds.

The president's longtime attorney is going to prison. His longtime friend who was involved in hush money payments is cooperating with investigators. And if this president feels as if the walls are closing in tonight, he's right because they are.

So just how worried should President Trump be now that the company that owns the "National Enquirer" is telling prosecutors about the catch and kill deal to silence Karen McDougal? I'm going to talk to former senior executive, a former senior executive at the company who says the president should be very worried.

[22:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, Michael Cohen's prison sentence wasn't the only bad news for the president today. As the president was behind closed doors in the White House seething over his former attorney, we learned that the parent company of the "National Enquirer" run by Trump's longtime friend David Pecker admitted to cooperating with members of the campaign to silence Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had an affair with Trump.

So, let's talk about this. This is going to be. This is Stu Zakim, he is the former senior vice president of corporate communications at AMI, which owns the Enquirer. Good evening. STU ZAKIM, FORMER SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS,

AMERICAN MEDIA INC: Good evening, Don.

LEMON: What do they have?

ZAKIM: They must have lots of stuff because otherwise Pecker wouldn't have made the deal that he made today.

LEMON: You worked there. Do you remember this whole thing about all of this information that they had on Trump?

ZAKIM: Sure.

LEMON: And all the files had disappeared. You think those files are somewhere and they have them?

ZAKIM: I would imagine that they're somewhere where if David needs to get access to them, they're available to him. I don't think they disappeared totally.

LEMON: OK. Why not?

ZAKIM: Because it's about protection. When you have information, you have power. This is what this is all about, who's got the power? Trump or Pecker? In this case, I would imagine it's Pecker.

LEMON: Should he be worried, meaning Trump?

ZAKIM: Yes, I believe he should be for a lot of reasons. First, these guys were friends for a long time. So, you have a long-term personal relationship with stories I'm sure they have told each other that haven't gone anywhere else. And then you take it to the Enquirer levels where there's reporters out there who are constantly searching for hot stories. And also, they pay for their stories. You have people phoning in tips.

So, between what's out there and what they have hidden, I would imagine there's a lot of stuff the president needs to be concerned about.

LEMON: And so, he has every reason to be seething tonight as they say.

ZAKIM: Well, look at things. Why would the deal be cut with Pecker if they didn't have a lot of information that would help their cause against Trump? It's not just because Pecker alludes to it. He must have some kind of substance that they found, that he testified to.

LEMON: Stu, back in August, you say you never thought David Pecker would turn on Trump.

ZAKIM: But at the same time, David Pecker is a survivor. And when his best interests are threatened, he takes care of himself. The reason he's lasted all these years, he's got amazing radar for when things go south. And he must have sensed this was going to happen and knew it was in his best interest because that is really at the end of the day what David Pecker cares about is David Pecker.

LEMON: Cut from the same cloth.

ZAKIM: They are identical. If you were to look the two of them together from body language, how they manage their staffs and how they make up things as they go along, they really are the same person.

LEMON: Tell me about their relationship.

ZAKIM: It goes back to when magazines when running the world in the '80s and the '90s. And Pecker was at another company called Hachette. And they were very popular. They had a big title I'm sure got Trump's attention which was called George. It was launched with JFK, Jr. And Trump is, you know, kind of a smart guy about the market--

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Gosh, I remember George. I remember when it launched.

ZAKIM: Yes. It was a big deal.

LEMON: Right.

ZAKIM: Cindy Crawford was on the first cover.

LEMON: Right, right, right.

ZAKIM: It was pretty big. And here's a publishing company, a publishing icon, making a political magazine. So, if I'm Donald Trump and thinking, I want someone who is going to take care of me as my career goes whichever way it's going to go -- I'm not saying he thought about being president way back then. But the guy loves publicity.

LEMON: Right.

ZAKIM: And what better way to control your publicity than being friends with a magazine owner?

LEMON: Right.

ZAKIM: On Pecker's side of it, you get access. Also, you're with someone who is in the columns all the time. As you're building your business, it's a mutual beneficial relationship.

LEMON: So, having had this experience, working at this media company, he loves the media. He tries to say it's fake, but there's no bigger love affair than Donald Trump and the media. He loves it.

ZAKIM: Absolutely not. I mean, the guy lives for being in the press. Always has, way before he was president.

LEMON: Yes.

ZAKIM: I mean he courted it. He was in the Post all the time, always on page six. This is what he lives for. LEMON: Yes. So, do you think that Pecker and Michael Cohen would be

coordinating on something this sensitive, right? Maybe they didn't understand that, you know, the ramifications of it. But do you think they'd be -- leading up to 2016, you think they'd be coordinating something this sensitive without Donald Trump knowing?

ZAKIM: No way. I mean, we saw from the tapes Trump definitely knew what was going on, and as we see with what happened today, giving guidance and direction to how to make it work out.

LEMON: Yes. So, we--

(CROSSTALK)

ZAKIM: You have to (Inaudible), you know.

[22:19:59] LEMON: So, we talked about the safe, right, that contain -- that contained all these damaging stories. When you worked there, did you know about the safe?

ZAKIM: No.

LEMON: Was there a safe.

ZAKIM: No, I never heard about the safe.

LEMON: You never heard about the safe. Do you doubt that it exists?

ZAKIM: I don't doubt that it exists because David Pecker knows how to protect himself. And whether it was a physical safe or an allegory of a safe, definitely there was stuff there they have that keeps him safe.

LEMON: OK. So, tell me about this catch and kill tactic.

ZAKIM: Yes.

LEMON: How prevalent was it? How did it work?

ZAKIM: It was pretty prevalent, not only when connected to Trump. David Pecker has a lot of celebrity friends who are usually in situations where the Enquirer might be doing a story about it.

When you want -- when you own a media company, you do have the luxury of taking care of what's put out, what is published. And if you're a friend of his and there's something in there that might embarrass you, he's going to make sure that they buy it and kill it. And when they it off -- when they do it and buy it, it takes it off the market so no other publication can get access to that story. So, it's really taking it and see you later.

LEMON: But something mutually beneficial had to be part of their relationship. Ok. So, Trump gets something because he's friends with someone who owns a media company, right? What does David Pecker get out of it?

ZAKIM: Favors, number one. You get access. And once again, any media guy needs access to power players.

LEMON: Right.

ZAKIM: So, one hand washes the other.

LEMON: This tape, right, this tape between Cohen and Trump, I played it a moment ago, but I want to play it for because I want it know what you think about it.

ZAKIM: Sure.

LEMON: Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David, you know, so that I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up on both--

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Give it to me.

COHEN: And I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with--

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: So, what are we going to do? A check?

COHEN: Yes. And it's all the stuff. All the stuff because, you know, you never know where that company, you never where he's going to be.

TRUMP: Maybe he gets hit by a truck.

COHEN: Correct. So, I'm all over that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: You're laughing. Why? You were listening intently and then you laughed.

ZAKIM: What if he gets hit by a car? I mean, that's what Trump was worried about. You know, where is that information going to go? Who is going to know, where is it going to be kept?

LEMON: Is this how business is done, everybody records everybody?

ZAKIM: Perhaps in the world they live in. Not in the world I live in. Perhaps to those guys, yes.

LEMON: So, as you're sitting at home watching all of this, you're like, yes, yes, yes. Everybody is wondering if this is real and he's saying it's not true, and you're sitting at home saying what. And you know what? There are many people like you who are sitting at home, and it's frustrating I'm sure because there are people out there who won't believe you.

ZAKIM: Who would? I mean you can't imagine this being scripted. Look at the elements here. You've got Trump with his personality, you got Pecker and his personality, and then the Enquirer with what it means. You know, it has a salacious approach to things. So, it's kind of a perform storm of whatever he wants to hear. The insatiable appetite for this kind of stuff.

LEMON: Yes. He should be worried.

ZAKIM: He should be worried and we'll find out more.

LEMON: Thank you, Stu.

ZAKIM: Thank you.

LEMON: I appreciate it.

ZAKIM: Thanks for having me.

LEMON: Court documents revealing today another person from the Trump campaign met with David Pecker and knew about the hush money payments. Who else knew about the efforts to silence damaging stories about then-candidate Trump? So, who could it be?

[22:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, the parent company of the "National Enquirer" has flipped on President Trump, and today we learned that federal prosecutors in New York, these prosecutors have struck a non-prosecution agreement with American Media Inc.

Here's what that means. That they won't press charges over the company's role in securing hush money from President Trump's longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen. And there's something in that agreement that really stood out to me, OK? And it says this.

That in or about august of 2015, David Pecker, the chairman of the AMI, and longtime friend of then-candidate Trump, met with Michael Cohen and at least one other member of the campaign, at least one other member of the campaign.

According to the statement of fact from that agreement, at that meeting with Cohen and the anonymous campaign staffer, Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about Trump's relationships with women by assisting the campaign in identifying those stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.

So, it's not just Cohen who knew about the deal. There was at least one other member of the campaign who did, and that's all we know. So, who could that person be?

OK. So, let's think about this, right? When that meeting happened, the 2016 campaign was just getting started. It had only been two months since Trump floated down the escalator at Trump tower to announce his candidacy. And over the summer of 2015, the campaign was trying to get its

footing in key primary states. Remember, Trump was playing catch-up because he was the political outsider. So, it was a very small group of people around him. Remember that? Right? Family business.

Who were the big players in the campaign at the time? Well, Trump was still working with his first campaign manager. That was Corey Lewandowski. Hope Hicks was there as the campaign's spokeswoman. Dan Scavino was an adviser to Trump. He's now the director of social media at the White House. Then there's Roger Stone, also involved in the campaign then but was on his way out.

CNN is reporting from August of 2015 points to Trump's children, OK? Look at this. Particularly his daughter Ivanka and his son Eric as advisers offering unique insights to the campaign. There were, of course, many other people working for Trump, working for the organization.

But the campaign was a small unit. So, you have to think who at the time was close enough to Cohen and Trump to go to a meeting like this? We don't know, but it seems like the prosecutors certainly know. And some of those people must be very concerned right now.

So, let's discuss all of this with legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers and Jack Quinn. Also, Chris Swecker, FBI -- former FBI assistant director of criminal investigative -- of the criminal investigative division.

Good evening. So, I think I did a pretty good job of showing the people, listen, we don't know. It could be none. It could be one. No one knows. Jennifer, the other person at the campaign at the time who met with Cohen and Pecker -- who do you think it could be?

[22:30:01] JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I have no idea. But I think you're right that the prosecutors know. And, you know, it's not just the missing people on this side of it, but with the Stormy Daniels payment, we also that there were people in the Trump organization who were involved in covering up that payment with the checks and the so-called retainer to Michael Cohen.

So there are a lot of people in a lot of places who now are concerned, because prosecutors are honing in. And there's a reason they signed up the media company. And it's not, you know, they're not being charged. So they're gathering witnesses. They're gathering targets, and you're either going to be one or the other if you're involved in this.

LEMON: Do you think that person has already spoken to the southern district of New York or to Mueller, because that opens a whole new can of worms?

RODGERS: I mean I have no way of knowing. But, you know, listen. They -- you know, you have your targets. You have your witnesses. Everyone who is involved is going to be one or the other, right? And that's why they're tying up these loose ends. They're getting David Pecker. They're getting Allen Weisselberg. They're getting (Inaudible). These are on the witness side of the House. The other folks are the targets, and that's who we're waiting to find out about.

LEMON: It's just kind of weird. I didn't know, I didn't know. I didn't know, and all of these people around him are being -- excuse me, sent to jail. Jack, so the SDNY, they have Cohen now, and now a deal with AMI. What does it say about the case that they're building? Are the President's defenses crumbling?

JACK QUINN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The President's defenses are definitely crumbling. What you outlined there was a potential conspiracy involving AMI, the Trump campaign, perhaps the Trump organization to violate campaign finance laws. I mean any argument that might have been seriously waged earlier to the effect that these payments were not meant to influence an election.

It seems to me have completely been shattered. There's not a chance that -- since he involved the campaign staff in helping to organize this scheme with AMI, that they can't -- they cannot with a straight face any longer maintain that this was to protect the family or protect his reputation generally. All of this was clearly aimed at his candidacy and bolstering it.

LEMON: Mm-hmm. Chris, last week, we were talking about the Flynn, Cohen, and Manafort filings, right? Then today, we get more from Cohen. It's the latest blow for the President to say the least. Chris?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION: Yeah, it is. I mean, yeah, definitely. You're looking at a whole spectrum of what happens at varying levels of cooperation. Manafort gets no consideration because he didn't really cooperate. He's going to get hammered. Flynn on the other end of the spectrum did cooperate, clearly was very helpful, got a resounding endorsement by -- in the sentencing memorandum from the Special Counsel.

And Cohen, as far as the Special Counsel is concerned, is in the middle. They were pretty -- they made no recommendation on his sentencing. He apparently has much more value up in the southern district of New York. And they're clearly driving towards a campaign finance-type violation. I would be concerned about the machinations behind the, you know, sort of disguising these payments as something else.

LEMON: Yeah.

SWECKER: I think that's where a more serious violation might exist.

LEMON: Jack, let me ask you because both you and Chris brought up the campaign finance violations, and I hear it all the time. Campaign finance violations, oh, well, what about when such and such did it and such and such did it? And people who are trying to make a defense for this President are talking about clerical errors, oversight.

That is very different than asking someone to create a shell company, so to speak, to pay off a porn star, to directing someone to do something illegally, correct? QUINN: Yes. And look, I think that they will always be able to say,

well, what about John Edwards. He made the same kind of payments and so on. There are definite factual differences here. And, you know, I am not one frankly who thinks that the rise and fall of Donald Trump and his presidency should be on the basis of campaign finance violations.

But right now, the southern district has staked out a very clear position that these were felonies and that he was involved -- more than involved in them. He directed them. So this is wholly different from the Edwards case factually. And it is -- and look, every indication is that the Special Counsel is building this case. I don't think we should think we have seen the end of the campaign finance aspect of this.

LEMON: Mm-hmm. Let's talk more, Jennifer, because -- all right this -- AMI, this is the parent company of the Enquirer admitting the hush money paid to Karen McDougal was to suppress her story so that it wouldn't influence the 2016 election. That's very specific and very damning.

[22:35:01] RODGERS: It is. It is. And the law doesn't require that it has to be the only reason. You can have concerns about your reputation. You can worry about your wife getting angry, right? It just has to be the primary reason. And so the language that they used in this agreement is very telling, because, you know, again, you don't have to completely get rid of all those other things.

But if the primary reason is that, which this agreement says, he's done. It's a violation. And that's what makes it different from Edwards. Because Edwards ultimately was found that it was really more about his family and less about the election.

LEMON: And they also say that well, Obama did the same thing. Obama did not do the same thing.

RODGERS: Completely different sort of thing. Obama filed things late. It was more paperwork technicalities. This is different.

LEMON: When they say this was the largest fine, it was because they raised more money than anybody else had raised in that. So they had to pay a huge fine.

RODGERS: It's just a completely different -- technicality has nothing to do with this. This is purposeful. This is a lot more like John Edwards, but again the facts here are much more damning. And one other thing, you know, at trial John Edwards put forward this defense. This is a matter of fact for the jury to decide. So this is not a legal barrier.

So, you know, if Trump wants to say, oh, it wasn't about the election. It was about Melania, OK, but that happens in front of a jury way down the road. So you're now talking about, you know, what happens with the trier of fact, not you can't bring this case because there's some sort of legal barrier to it.

LEMON: Got it.

QUINN: And by the way, there's an illegal corporate contribution here, which you did not have in the Edwards case.

LEMON: Yeah. Chris, I want to ask you about the President using your words as a bludgeon against Comey. He quotes you as saying I don't care what you think of the President. It cannot bleed over to the FBI. Comey is confirming there is bias in the FBI. Chris Swecker, right? So, Chris, the President...

SWECKER: Right.

LEMON: Right. You slammed Comey. Are you cool with the President repeating what you're saying, because you separately talked about Mueller clearing away the controversy.

SWECKER: Yeah. I mean there's no doubt that I am a Comey detractor at this point. And I am someone who supported him when he was named Director. And I liked him a lot when he was the Deputy Attorney General. But clearly, he went off the rails. That statement -- I got to go back and review it. What I was trying to say was that his -- he was not reflective or his inner circle was not reflective of the FBI, not that the FBI entirely was biased.

I was trying to draw that distinction. I am not sure that came across in that tweet. But the distinction is that Comey is not the FBI, and that's -- he's wrapping himself sort of in the cloak and mantle of the FBI when, in fact, his own agents are disassociating themselves with him as we speak.

LEMON: So the President should not be using the Swecker defense is what you're saying. It doesn't apply.

SWECKER: Not the way it came out in that tweet, no.

LEMON: All right. All right, stand by, everyone, stay with me. There is a lot of talk about whether or not a sitting President can be indicted. But what if he loses re-election? Could he be indicted if he leaves office?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:40:00] LEMON: Tonight, a top Democrat in the House, Congressman Adam Schiff, says it's time for the Justice Department to re-examine its position that a sitting President should not be indicted. Back with me now, Jennifer Rodgers, Jack Quinn, and Chris Swecker, so Jack, to you, we often talk about the DOJ office of legal counsel's position that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

This was issued back in 2001. And it says the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity to the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. Despite that guidance, Mr. Quinn, you do believe that a sitting President can be indicted. Why is that?

QUINN: Yeah. I wrote -- co-authored a piece on this about six months ago. Three reasons, one, the founders knew how to immunize people. They immunized the legislative branch of government in two different respects right in the constitution, in the speech and debate clause. Members of Congress are free from arrest and from legal jeopardy while in session.

Number two, I have all the respect in the world for the office of legal counsel. But those two opinions were written by -- under the supervision of people who were political appointees of the President, whose misconduct was in question at the time. That had to have colored or could have colored their judgment. Lastly, the argument is made that indictment might interfere with the President carrying out his or her duties.

Well, number one, we have a 25th amendment which provides amply for dealing with presidential incapacity during the time of a trial. And secondly, you know, the President could be, if necessary, subject to a sealed indictment so that the statute -- that would have the effect of tolling or not allowing to run any further the statute of limitations so that he could be prosecuted after his term in office. And it would maintain a veil of secrecy over the fact that he had been indicted.

LEMON: So -- but then having that hanging over his head, you know, well, I am going to be indicted. I am going to jail possibly after -- well, it's hanging over his head anyway so I mean...

QUINN: Not publicly.

LEMON: Not publicly. OK, so speaking to what Jack said. Let me ask you this, Jennifer because the former acting solicitor general, Neal Katyal, he's been on this program. He put out a long thread on Twitter, and he says there are -- there may be a few limits to this guidance, OK? One, he says they do not necessarily apply to crimes that go to obtaining the presidency.

Two, there is a difference between indicting a President and forcing them through a trial. And, three, the DOJ opinion doesn't apply to state crimes. What do you think?

[22:45:00] RODGERS: Well, I think it definitely doesn't apply to state crimes. There's no question about that. So there is a whole universe of things that could theoretically be charged by state attorneys general or district attorneys. You know the problem is while if you took a fresh look at it, I agree there are good reasons to say that that shouldn't be the view of the Department of Justice.

But is the Trump Department of Justice really going to take a fresh look at this guidance and overturn it while Trump is the President? I just don't think there's any chance.

LEMON: You don't think it's going to happen.

QUINN: No way.

LEMON: Chris, is there any doubt in your mind that President Trump, if he was a regular citizen, if he wasn't President, that he'd be in court right now. SWECKER: You know, I don't know. And on a pure campaign finance

issue, I mean I still think there are some thoughts that go back to the Edwards trial, and whether a jury -- there's enough evidence there for a jury to convict or will a jury convict. But I will say that any indictment, all roads to an indictment lead through the main Justice Department.

QUINN: Right.

SWECKER: Regardless of the finer legal points there, this Justice Department is not going to indict this sitting President.

LEMON: Thank you, all.

SWECKER: I think, I think...

LEMON: Go on. Finish your thought.

SWECKER: No. I just think from a practical standpoint, he's going to run out the clock.

LEMON: All right. Chris, Jack, Jennifer, thank you. I appreciate your time. The President trying to dismiss his team's contacts with Russians during the campaign and transition period as just peanut stuff, I am going to ask Phil Mudd what signal is that sending to Russia.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00] LEMON: So the President is reportedly seething and privately referring to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, as a liar. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison despite word from the Special Counsel that he had helped the Russia investigation. All this comes just a day after the President, in an interview with Reuters, dismissed his campaign and transitions many contacts, at least 16 by CNN's count as peanut stuff. Phil Mudd is here to break it down, Phil, good evening.

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Good evening.

LEMON: So CNN has counted -- by our count 16 Trump associate who had contacts with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or that transition. That includes his son, his daughter, his son-in-law, his campaign chairman, and deputy chairman. It is the subject of a Special Counsel investigation. I just -- so considering all the people that had contacts, the people who have been sentenced to prison, the people who have been convicted, how is this peanut stuff?

MUDD: Explain that to me, Don. Let me give you my perspective as a national security guy. Within 48, maybe 72 hours of coming into office, any President looking at Russian intervention in the election, which was as you knew, something that every intelligence agency agreed upon. That is what Russia did during the election.

Any President looks at his national security adviser and says look, the FBI can speak, the CIA can speak in terms of talk together American people. There is one microphone, and that's the President of the United States. That President turns around within a couple days of coming into office and tells his national security adviser bring everybody in the room.

Defense, State, CIA, FBI, Treasury and asks them how can we ensure that we protect ourselves, how can we ensure that we give a message of clarity and toughness to the Russians. And what message do I need to transmit to the American people. Bottom line, Don, I suspect that the President has never, in almost two years, directed the full National Security Council to meet on how to counter Russian interference in American elections, amazing.

LEMON: How alarming to you, Phil, you said as a security guy, right? How alarming is it that the nation's Commander-In-Chief is so blase about the Russians.

MUDD: The alarming part is not what the Russians can do. Look, the Russians are a third world economy. We can beat them military wise. The question is what everyday American who are looking at Facebook and Twitter, how they interpret going into the 2020 elections, how to read what they see on social media, how they interpret Russian efforts to make sure that there are social divisions in America.

Look. We can defend voting boxes. We can defend state elections against Russian interference. What we need is somebody beyond the FBI Director, the Director of Homeland Security or Secretary of Homeland Security. What we need is somebody to speak to the American people about how they need to protect themselves.

My concern is not about what the Russians are doing. My concern is whether everyday Americans know that they're at risk every time they turn on their Facebook account. And the answer is today they think it's a big lie. It's not.

LEMON: Yeah. Sorry for coughing in your ear. I tried to hold it, but...

MUDD: Please do.

LEMON: Didn't get there. Hey, old man. I'll tell you why I said that in a moment. So listen, let's talk about Maria Butina, which is a Russian spy, OK, having a plea hearing tomorrow. The Russians are making the ludicrous claim that she is a political prisoner and is being tortured. Give me your reaction to that.

MUDD: Sorry, can I -- let me control myself. That's a joke. The questions I would have inside the business, she's not a political prisoner. Look, she's someone who met directly, as far as I can see, with Russian intelligence operatives, presumably to talk about who she was speaking with, who was politically important in the United States.

The questions I would have on the inside, who paid her? I want to look at her bank accounts. Who did she speak to before she asked that famous question to the President of the United States in a press conference? Who did she speak to afterwards? She has a volume of information about how Russia operates in this country with people who are not formal spies.

She's not a political prisoner. She's a source of a lot of information people like me would want to know about.

[22:55:02] LEMON: Phil, we know the Special Counsel is not handling the Butina case. But I mean she tried to infiltrate the NRA and she even got access to Trump and Donald Trump Jr., her case is just one more example of Russians meddling in our politics. Does it relate do you think to the Mueller investigation?

MUDD: I don't think directly. I think there's a secondary relationship in the spy business that I would look at. And that is if you're looking at all the people in the Trump campaign who either had contact with Russians or who the Russians wanted to have contact with. In my business, we call those people targets, targets of foreign intelligence interests.

She knows who the Russians were interested in potentially, and more important how somebody who was connected with Russian intelligence or the Russian Embassy might want to talk to somebody affiliated with the campaign. How do you get close to him? Who are the people who the Russians were interested in? What do you want to ask them about?

So in terms of what we call in my business trade craft, how do you interact in the American political sphere, she might not have the interacted with anybody who is of interest to Mueller, but she knows how the Russians work. That's what I want to know, Don.

LEMON: All right. Old man, the reason I said that, you just celebrated a birthday.

MUDD: Twenty seven.

LEMON: What did you say, 84, 27?

MUDD: Twenty seven. I just got my drinking license. So that's what's going to happen after that.

LEMON: I always tell people -- I told people I am celebrating the 25th anniversary of my 25th birthday.

MUDD: Fifty seven yesterday, Don.

LEMON: Happy birthday to you.

MUDD: Thank you.

LEMON: See you next time.

MUDD: Yeah.

LEMON: How President Trump went from completely denying having anything to do with paying out hush money, to claiming there was nothing wrong with doing it. We're going to break down the evolution of a lie, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)