Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
Trump's Inaugural Committee Under Investigation; Cohen Charged With Campaign Finance Violations; Heavy Load Being Lifted Up From Kelly; The Past Month Has Been Hectic For The President; Investigators Are Closing In On President Trump; The Scrutiny Surrounding Donald Trump's Family. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired December 13, 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: They did look at it.
AMY KREMER, CO-FOUNDER, WOMEN FOR TRUMP: And go after--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: They didn't see as anything worth investigating. They did this.
KREMER: Right.
CUOMO: This is all a distraction.
KREMER: Right.
CUOMO: But Amy, your voice is always welcome.
KREMER: Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: Van, you--
(CROSSTALK)
KREMER: You are going to have me back to talk about Ivanka's work. She's doing on human trafficking to stop it. I mean, let's talk about that.
CUOMO: Listen, I'm open to all policy discussions. We'll talk about it.
KREMER: I wish you have it.
CUOMO: E-mail me. Amy, thank you. Van, I appreciate it. That's all for us tonight. I do want to give the show to Don Late. "CNN TONIGHT" begins right now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: My God, Chris. So, you know, let's talk about this.
CUOMO: I was anticipating this, this afternoon. LEMON: Why?
CUOMO: I'll tell you why. I believe in exposing what the White House wants the American people to believe. I believe in testing it and I believe when you do that with their best defender, that's what Kellyanne is, no question about it, she runs over interviewers all the time. And she does it with cleverness, she does with information, she does it with tactics. And she can also do it with personal invective when it soothes her. She used all of them on me tonight.
But it exposes the reality that they cannot explain away the lies of this president. Maybe it's criminal. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it matters the Mueller probe to the presidency, maybe it doesn't. But the lying has to matter.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: And I lay it out example after example of what it is, and I keep her on task about it the best I can. And it to the extent that she varies, to the extent that she redirects, it's all evidence of what they want to avoid and I think it's instructive to the American people.
LEMON: OK. And you know I don't want to beat you up, right? Because this is--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: No, you do.
LEMON: No, I don't.
CUOMO: I know you don't think she should be on TV. I don't believe in silencing the other side.
LEMON: It's not silencing the other side. It is not a right for someone to come on CNN and lie and deflect. This was a defective--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: People do it all the time.
LEMON: -- dismissive and histrionic display of no answers.
CUOMO: But people do that all the time.
LEMON: At a time -- please, please, please. At a time when the American people need to be reassured that we are in good hands, when all of the evidence shows that the president is lying to the American people, what Kellyanne Conway does and what the apologists do, they, how do I say this nicely? I don't want to be rude. They take up your time, our time, on national television, when we could be learning something that's important to us.
CUOMO: Yes, but Don, come on. Let's be honest--
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: No, no, no.
CUOMO: What the programming is, you have a bunch of voices on every night.
LEMON: This is not -- this is not--
CUOMO: You think people learn from that?
LEMON: Hang on. This is not about -- people think this is about ideology. If Kellyanne Conway wanted to come on, and apologists want to come on and they want to talk to you about policy, I think that's a completely different thing. But what they're coming on to do is distract you. Distract the American people. Chris, I learned nothing from that. She told me nothing about the--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: I think you learned.
LEMON: She learned nothing about--
CUOMO: That they don't have good answers to these questions.
LEMON: She learned -- we learned nothing about why the president lied. We learned maybe that they--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Yes, that's the point. They don't have--
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: -- that she had she had no answer. She deflected--
CUOMO: -- any answer for any of it.
LEMON: And then she comes on, and instead of answers, she wants to hit you which really ticks me off--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: I think that shows something too.
LEMON: Because you're allowing -- because you're allowing her to come on, you're giving her a platform which is a privilege, OK? So, and I think that that's great. OK. So, I think you're allowing her to come on, but then she doesn't respect you or the platform. She hits you personally.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: But that's on her, Don.
LEMON: And none of it's true. At all. CUOMO: But that's on her.
LEMON: I would rather have someone come on who can explain to the American people with a sense of reality and based in some sort of fact and reality about what's going on. Sorry. Go on.
CUOMO: No, no, no, listen, I hear what you're saying. I hear it all the time. What I -- my pushback is, you know, to the left, nobody is acceptable. They don't want anybody from the right on.
LEMON: True. Absolutely.
CUOMO: A senator, congressman, any pundit, anybody. They don't even want the president on. I don't believe any of them, I don't want them on. I don't believe in that. I think you got to keep an open mind, I think you hone your own arguments by hearing the other side.
And I tell you something, if this is the best they had to put out for the president of the United States, it tells you a lot. Insulting me, that is like, to me, that is like ice cream. Because it proves you've run out of insights and arguments. All you got is cheap shots. And I think it reveals something to people.
And I think it's an important part of a dialogue. Now look, so I wish it could be different and more constructive? Sure. That's why I have a Robert Wray on as well, you know, I have other people on. I'm not going to close off the other side, though, Don. And if that's who they want to put out that's who the people--
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Because you keep saying it's the other side. That's why -- and maybe for you, you feel that way. This is not about the other side. People who are conservative have brains. They understand what's right and what's wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: A lot of people believe what she believes.
LEMON: They understand facts from alternative facts.
[22:05:01] CUOMO: I know. But a lot of people believes what she believes.
LEMON: But that's not ideology. A lot of people -- listen, honestly, a lot of people believed in the whole Kool-Aid thing if you know what I'm talking about.
CUOMO: Right. But a lot of people believed that the president wasn't lying. Look, you just had Robert Wray and you're saying you don't know for sure.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: How can you believe-- CUOMO: That guy is a genius, you know, and he's a real rock conservative.
LEMON: OK. Chris.
CUOMO: So, you've got to have the conversation.
LEMON: If I told you the president wasn't lying about knowing about payments and then you show me a video--
CUOMO: Right.
LEMON: -- of you on your show when you first started the show, right--
CUOMO: Right.
LEMON: -- breaking the news and playing the recording of the president talking to Michael Cohen about payments.
CUOMO: Right.
LEMON: OK. So, he's not lying, that's not a lie?
CUOMO: Right. So, then they say, OK, so you heard that he had knowledge of it but what he said was he didn't know anything about the actual payment. And the actual payment isn't discussed.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: He said we'll pay in cash.
CUOMO: And you never heard him direct to Michael Cohen. See, so there's nuance and you've got to attack that part of it.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: He said he didn't know about it. He said he didn't know about it.
CUOMO: I understand that.
LEMON: And then he said talk to my attorney. If someone came on -- here's the thing. If someone said, well, we're going to have a debate about whether cigarettes cause cancer, you would say, why do we need a debate about that?
CUOMO: True.
LEMON: OK. So then why do we need a debate about what are facts are.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: It took us years to get there, Don. It took us years to get there and a huge trial.
LEMON: Didn't we learn?
CUOMO: It took us years to get there and a huge trial.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: But would you waste your -- but would you waste your time with people who come on to argue the other -- to argue that cigarettes don't cause cancer?
CUOMO: I don't think we have that kind of consensus in this country on this fundamental questions--
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: On a fact, the video, you played the video.
CUOMO: I know, but it leaves--
LEMON: Or the audio.
CUOMO: It leaves room -- yes, the audio with their voices. People get it. But look, all I'm saying is I hear you, and I respect the thing. That's why I don't do panels on the show. I don't want a panoply of heads giving me their opinions on things. I want people who are players and I want to test them. That's what Cuomo Prime Time is all about, that's the only reason I left the morning.
I didn't come here, you know, to do more of what I was doing in the morning. So, I get it. I get it. I'm saying that's their best. She is their best on this. That's why they sent her out to come after me. And I want the American people to see what the president considers his best defense. And they saw it.
LEMON: OK. So then, what do you think they got?
CUOMO: I think they saw that she has a hard time justifying what the president has said. That she tries to use cleverness in place of certainly concession (Ph) -- but also having real arguments and real facts. They're not on her side.
And that if you test this White House, you immediately become a target of it. And that's really important for people to see. You cannot watch an interview -- like you'll say I interrupt. I interrupt everybody. But I'm interrupting for a reason. I'm never personal. I'm never insulting. I always stick to what I know and what I can show.
LEMON: But she was.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: They don't.
LEMON: I know you guys know each other.
CUOMO: That's another thing.
LEMON: I think but she was -- but she is -- it gets personal to her because she doesn't have an answer she wants to describe.
CUOMO: That's the point.
LEMON: And that's how she distracts you.
CUOMO: People get to see it.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: Now I will tell you what will happen. On the radio show tomorrow when I'm walking the dogs, when I -- people are going to say, boy, she really came at you, you know, you really kept your cool because she wasn't making good points, you know? That's the point of the interview.
If she makes good points, she makes good points. If -- and you know, sometimes she does sometimes she finds space and gaps that we don't know and she can expose it. She's very smart. But often she doesn't. And I think that's what tonight was about. Did I let it go too long? I always do.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: I don't know how long it went.
CUOMO: I'm into it, you know, once I'm into it I want people to experience that. if they don't want to watch, they don't watch. You know, I went down to Tijuana because I thought it was right. I knew people weren't going to watch.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: They aren't going to watch. I get that.
LEMON: Well, that's--
CUOMO: But sometimes I put things on because I think it's important.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: And this is the best the president has. If you're out there and support the president, if you're out there and you're a conservative or open minded on it, you're not sure, you just saw what their best case is and you showed what happened when I tested it. I got attacked. It's important for people. Is it completely satisfying to you? No. I get it and plenty of people agree with you.
LEMON: OK. We could go on.
CUOMO: I don't want to eat up too much of your show.
LEMON: We'll do it, excuse me--
CUOMO: We'll do it this weekend. Hopefully I see you.
LEMON: We'll do it this weekend. I just got to say, you have more patience than I do. Thank you, Chris.
CUOMO: I love you, Don. I'll see you tomorrow.
LEMON: You, too, buddy. I'll see you later. This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.
So here's where we go from here. He was in the room, this is exactly what I'm talking to Chris about. He was in the room. The room where it happens. The room where it happens. You know that, it's Hamilton. The play. Google it.
President Trump who is trying to dance around the facts, the facts about payments to silence women who claim to have had affairs with him was in the room for that August 2015 meeting with Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. So, when the president says this--
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let me just tell you about the tabloid. I don't think -- and I have to go check, I don't think they even paid any money to the tabloid. OK? I don't think we made a payment to that tabloid.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:10:04] LEMON: Whether or not they made a payment to that tabloid, to AMI, remember, Michael Cohen did pay Stormy Daniels to keep quiet. And when the president tries to muddy the waters on what happened in that meeting in August of 2015, remember, he was right there in the room where it happened.
Prosecutors describe that meeting in their agreement with the parent company of the Enquirer, an agreement which became public yesterday. They say that Cohen, Pecker, and, quote, "one or more members of the campaign, were in the meeting."
And a source familiar with the matter now tells us that unnamed member of the campaign was Donald Trump. So, prosecutors go on to say that Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign and identify such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.
In other words, catch and kill. That's what it's called. Catch and kill.
Michael Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations. He said in court that hush money payments were made at Trump's direction and the president, again, tries to dance around the facts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Number one, they say it's not a campaign finance violation. Number two, or it's not even under campaign finance. Number two, if it was, it's not even a violation. Number three, it's a civil matter. You know, President Obama had a really big one from 10 times more money, much more money, and you know what, he paid a fine. I'm the only one that this happens to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: My God, there's so much fact checking right there on spot. Do it. It's not the same thing. So, I didn't do, and if I did, it's not a violation, and it's not criminal, it's civil, also Obama was worse. None of that is true.
I've explained all of that on this program this week. All of that. And in that interview, so easy to just check him with that. It's not the same thing. It's not the same thing that what Obama did. You were directing someone to make payments to a porn star. It's not that you missed a deadline to tell people about donors and how much they did. You were directing someone to do something, allegedly, that is illegal.
Prosecutors called this a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws to help Trump win the presidency. And yes, the Obama campaign paid a $375,000 fine for failing to disclose the identity of big money donors in the final two weeks of the 2008 race. OK? That was wrong. They paid the fine.
But that is not remotely comparable to working with the National Enquirer to buy the silence of women, threatening to go public with what they say were affairs with Donald Trump. Affairs while he was married to the current First Lady Melania Trump.
Yes. Obama didn't do that. Because if he did, I guarantee you we would have heard about it. Don't you think?
There's more bad news for the president tonight. A source is telling CNN that his inaugural committee is under criminal investigation by federal prosecutors in New York for possible financial abuses related to more than $100 million in donations.
The investigation first reported by the Wall Street Journal which says prosecutors are looking into whether the committee accepted donations from individuals looking to gain influence with the Trump administration.
The presidential inauguration committee put out a statement staying this. "The PIC's or PIC's finances were fully audited internally and independently and are fully accounted."
And we're learning more tonight about what is going on behind the scenes in the White House after all this. Here's what a source is telling CNN, that lame duck chief of staff John Kelly is relieved to be leaving his post. He's ready to get out of there, which can't come as a surprise to anybody. Remember when Kelly joked that God was punishing him when he left homeland security to take the White House job?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) [22:15:00] JOHN KELLY, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: The last thing I wanted to do is walk away from one of the great honors of my life, being the secretary of homeland security, but I did something wrong and God punished me, I guess.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And apparently things went downhill fast. Bob Woodward writes in his book, "Fear," the book is called "Fear" that Kelly told colleagues, quote, "This is the worst job I've ever had."
You know, it's supposed to be an honor to work at the White House. The people's house. It's certainly supposed to be an honor to serve the people of this country as president of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Public service is a noble calling. Serving others is what a lot of life ought to be about.
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I am profoundly grateful to you for twice giving me the honor to serve.
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your president. I have been blessed to represent this nation we love.
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It has been the honor of my life to serve you. I won't stop. In fact, I will be right there with you as a citizen for all my remaining days.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: You heard his predecessors, but what is President Trump saying?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's a nasty job because I get hit so hard, so unfairly, by so many, and, I mean, really unfairly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: To be president of the United States is a nasty job, the president of United States of America, leader of the free world. Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
The Trump inaugural committee under investigation, Donald Trump, himself, relieved to be, revealed, I should say, to be in the room for that August 2015 meeting about hush money payments.
We got a lot to talk about. Evan Perez, Anne Milgram, and John Dean, next. [22:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Tonight, a source telling CNN that President Trump's 2017 inaugural committee is under criminal investigation by a federal prosecutor for possible financial improprieties. But the committee says its finances were audited and it was in full compliance with the law.
Let's bring in now Evan Perez, Anne Milgram, and John Dean. Good evening to all of you. Thank you so much for joining us.
Anne, I'm going to start with you. What is this reporting, you know, about the Trump inauguration spending under criminal investigation, Southern District of New York, right? Not by Mueller. Southern District of New York. What does this mean for President Trump?
ANNE MILGRAM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, I think it means a couple things, the fact it's southern district, and not Mueller's teams means that it can't be as directly influenced by someone like Matt Whitaker, which means it's an independent investigation that will go on.
The second piece is that we know already that Gates cooperated, who is Manafort's deputy on the campaign, and then he became the deputy of the inauguration, and that there's even been conversations about him having stolen money from that inaugural committee.
LEMON: Right.
MILGRAM: So, we know he's a cooperator. We also know now that Michael Cohen is a cooperator and may have provided information on this. So that's a lot of potential information they're getting.
The thing I would say having done a lot of political corruption cases is this a lot of money that was raised really quickly and when you do political correction cases, you always follow the money. And so, the question will be who paid the money, were there favors in exchange? There's been, you know, conversations about Russians and other people from foreign governments putting in a huge sum of money, and so, if you're a prosecutor, you want to know all of that.
LEMON: Evan, let's talk -- we have learned so much.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right.
LEMON: From Michael Cohen. Right?
PEREZ: We have.
LEMON: And we're still -- I mean, Michael Cohen is like the ever- ready bunny of information.
PEREZ: He's really a treasure-trove.
LEMON: Yes. So, there's the Moscow deal, we learned that the Moscow deal was being discussed way longer in the campaign than we thought. A guilty plea about hush payments to women. His assistance to Mueller. One thing after another after another.
PEREZ: No, look, Michael Cohen does a number of things for these investigations. And that is, he ties up a lot of things. I mean, think about this, right. The president's former personal lawyer also knows about this proposal to build a Trump tower in Moscow. He knows somehow about the inaugural committee.
And, look, a lot of people are going to say and the president's lawyers and people close to the president say who's going to believe Michael Cohen? Here's the thing. Michael Cohen has tapes. Lordy, there are tapes. And secondly, there's also Rick Gates. You know, who is Paul Manafort's deputy who people forget he stayed on after Manafort was fired. He was part of the transition. He was in part of this inaugural committee.
He knows a lot of information. He's been probably one of the most successful, one of the most fruitful cooperators as part of this investigation. I think we don't know the full story of what Rick Gates has done behind the scenes and they have seemed to have embraced him and I think that is driving a lot of this investigation.
LEMON: I just want to give you -- do I have it in my e-mail, everyone? OK. So, let's put this up on the screen. This is new. This is from George Conway. OK? Yes. There, here we go. "Given that Trump has repeatedly lied about the Daniels and McDougal payments and given that he lies about virtually everything else to the point that his own former personal lawyer described him as a f-ing liar, why should we take his word over that of federal prosecutors?"
I needed him in that -- with Chris Cuomo just moments ago. Considering we were talking about his own wife. John, please weigh in. What do you think of that?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, that's quite amazing. I think he was responding to the prior interview, maybe undercutting his wife a little bit.
LEMON: A little?
DEAN: And made some of your points, Don, with Chris. But I -- you know, it's remarkable the witnesses that are available on this inaugural committee issue. With Gates and Cohen, you virtually are going to know everything that went on.
And since they're both cooperating, some with corroborating material like recordings we understand were in Michael Cohen's cache when the FBI raided his home, hotel, and office, so this is -- and it's not surprising, I mean, this is so much money they raised. They've been talking about having an accounting for months that they have never produced. They refused to produce it when the A.P. first raised it. They still haven't produced it.
[22:24:56] LEMON: Yes. Listen, John, I want to talk about the president's interview with Fox News today. Before we go on, let's wait for that. Do you guys want to respond to George Conway? PEREZ: Look, I mean, I think that's the -- that's the problem for the
president, right? Is the fact that his statements have shifted over time, and now he's not even trying to clean up the previous ones. He's just kind of, like, forgotten it. And the problem is, all of those comments are on tape and by the way, prosecutors are collecting every one of those because that's going to be in every -- that's going to be in the report.
Every one of those statements every shifting comment is going to be in Mueller's report because he hasn't sat down for an interview and so, therefore, all they have to go on is those comments.
LEMON: Written. And the comments.
PEREZ: Right.
LEMON: OK. Speaking of shifting comments, right, what the president said today in an interview with Fox News on the other side of this break. You don't want to miss it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: So, we're back now with Evan Perez, Anne Milgram, and John Dean. OK, so, John, this is what the president -- the president is insisting that the campaign finance charges against Cohen weren't criminal. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What he did was all unrelated to me except for the two campaign finance charges that are not criminal and shouldn't have been on there. They put that on to embarrass me. They put those two charges on to embarrass me.
What happens is either Cohen or the prosecutors in order to embarrass me said, listen, I'm making this deal for reduced time and everything else, do me a favor, put these two charges in. They're not criminal charges.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: OK. So, let's start, John, with facts here. Let's start, there is no evidence to back up what Trump is saying but this thing about being embarrassed, what's your reaction?
[22:30:03] DEAN: Well, that's a new line. We haven't heard that. Other than the recent charges about Cohen being out to embarrass him. Well, the truth does embarrass him apparently. He can't handle the truth. But Don, you know, history is going to look back on this period, and we're going to have trouble explaining it to future generations the unbelievable dissembling this President has done.
He's in the 6,000 misstatements, false statements, misleading statements now. And it will probably be 12,000 by the time his -- hopefully first term is over. LEMON: I think you're right. And the studies show that younger
people have an easier time seeing through the BS and figuring out what the facts are than older people do, because they're more influenced by ideology, which is interesting to me. So we're going to have a lot of explaining to do to the people coming up behind us.
And I think most of us want to be on the right side of history, so that when my great -- or my nieces and nephews and their children, when they look back on this, they'll say, oh, Uncle Don was on the right side of history rather than an apologist for lies and alternative facts. Evan, the SDNY and Michael Cohen are implicating the President in felonies.
There's evidence of wrongdoing, and yet Justice Department guidance is you can't indict a sitting President, though. Is that actually correct?
PEREZ: Yeah, it is. It is the current guidance.
LEMON: But there's some question about that. Some are questioning that.
PEREZ: You could -- you could be a prosecutor who says, you know what, I think that guidance is outdated. And the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who as you know the President is not a big fan of, could overrule that. He could simply say I don't agree with that, and he could over-- he could essentially overturn that.
Matt Whitaker, who's the ultimate boss of this investigation, obviously will have a final say on that. So that we don't know, Don. But keep it mind, it's not so much about the President at this point, because what we've learned from the facts in the last few days shows that the prosecutors have information about the Trump organization.
They certainly have information about members of the Trump family who are leaders of the organization, who may have been involved in the conspiracy here to make these payments, to violate the law. So we don't know everything that the investigators have learned. And so you could, by the way, you may not be able to indict the President.
You could indict Trump organization. You could indict people around him. And by the way, that is part of why the President is so animated. We've heard from people close to him, certainly people working on this case, who tell us part of the reason why he gets so angry about this, and why it's so much at the front of his mind, is the idea that he fears they're going to go after his kids.
And they're going to go after his company, the company which is everything to him.
LEMON: There was an easy way to deal with that. Divest and don't bring your children on to work in the administration or as part of the campaign.
PEREZ: Right. LEMON: So listen, I want to ask you this. The SDNY is saying, Anne,
that the President -- they implicated the President into a crime, right?
MILGRAM: Yes.
LEMON: But it says a President can't be indicted or prosecuted. So if Republicans don't want to act in any way, lawmakers, is the President essentially above the law?
MILGRAM: So there are a couple points that are worth talking about. The guidance is that a sitting President should not be indicted. And that is largely because based on the fact that it is widely agreed that a sitting President will not be tried. And so the idea is like why indict someone, you're not going to try them during the course of their tenure.
Now, it doesn't say anything. There's no bar on indicting someone who's a former President. So for example, in 2020, if the President lost the election, charges could be brought against him for something like a campaign finance violation. I don't know whether or not they will be. And you know, we really can't speculate.
But there is a considerable amount of evidence that you have Michael Cohen. You have AMI with that non-prosecution agreement, and you have the southern district saying we have evidence that this transaction was done to influence the election. So I think it's important to remember I don't think charges are totally off the table.
And it's almost the sort of (Inaudible) for the next two years, there's this possibility that the President could be charged.
LEMON: You're a former attorney general for New Jersey.
MILGRAM: I am.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: OK. So do you see a scenario where the President could be?
MILGRAM: I think...
LEMON: Not while he's sitting.
MILGRAM: Not while he's sitting. And I don't think Mueller would do it anyway. And I think we have to be honest about -- even if Rod Rosenstein could overturn it, he's not going to. Nobody is going to change the rules in the middle of the game. It wouldn't be right or fair, candidly. So that's not going to happen. So the question is will the President -- you know, would the southern district indict the President after he leaves office.
Let's say the statute of limitations is going to run -- would they go to the President and say, look, we waived the statute until you're out of office, because we, you know, we can't charge you now? And it would be bad if... (CROSSTALK)
[22:35:00] PEREZ: By the way, you could also use the whole conspiracy thing, the fact if a President or if a defendant is part of a conspiracy that continues, you could essentially extend the statute of limitations. So even though it tends to run out in five years, you could continue going, because the President and people around him are part of this conspiracy to obstruct the investigation, for instance.
LEMON: Yeah.
MILGRAM: Right.
LEMON: Just looking at this, the tweet that we put up -- can we put that tweet back up before we go to break? George Conway, given that Trump has repeatedly lied about the Daniels and the McDougal payments, and given that he lies about virtually everything else to the point that his own former personal attorney described him as a f-ing liar, why should we take his word over that of federal prosecutors.
Conservative, an attorney, husband of Kellyanne Conway who had just appeared, he sent this, which should go -- not go unnoticed at 10:09, which was about the time that Chris and I had finished our conversation. He's watching. Thank you, John. Thank you, Evan. Thank you, Anne. I appreciate it. The President's family coming under more and more scrutiny, we're going to break down the troubles the Trumps face, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:00] LEMON: OK. This is going to take a while, and I want you to really absorb it. So will you just sit for a moment with me and watch, because it's a lot of information. Oh, what a month it has been, and we're not even halfway through December. We still haven't even finished all of our Christmas shopping. It is now clear from all of the filings that we have received from Mueller's team and Manhattan prosecutors that investigators are closing in on President Trump.
We are told that he is becoming very isolated. And when this happens, we know that he relies closely on his family. That may be a problem, because his family is now under more and more scrutiny. Court filings show that one area where Michael Cohen, where he was very helpful, was the investigation of the Trump organization, which could mean trouble for the Trump family.
Let me explain, because that investigation has been going on for months. It's also the subject of an ongoing grand jury investigation. It all comes back to the original campaign finance charges against Cohen for making or orchestrating payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to silence them during the 2016 campaign.
Prosecutors referenced several unnamed Trump organization executives and employees who directed or participated in a scheme to reimburse Cohen for those payments. We know that he received, meaning Cohen. He received a total of $420,000 from the company, including a $60,000 bonus. The company falsely recorded those payments as legal expenses.
So the question is who was involved in these payments. We know from a 2015 Trump University deposition, that there are only five people who have the authority to make financial decisions or sign checks for the organization. Only one of them isn't a Trump, OK? I'm talking about the President of the United States. His children, Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric, and the Trump Organization's Chief Financial Officer, Allen Weisselberg.
Excuse me. But there's one very important note about Weisselberg. Prosecutors gave him immunity. If one of the President's children was involved in writing these checks to Cohen, and therefore involved in trying to silence women before the 2016 election. That would be the beginning of their troubles. So remember this list of at least 16 Trump associates who had contacts with Russia during the 2016 campaign or transition.
Remember that? There it is right there. Well, Don Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner are all on it. Donald Trump Jr. was very involved in his father's Presidential campaign. Attended the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian lobbyists. When the New York Times first reported the story, Trump Jr., Don Jr., put out an initial statement claiming it had nothing to do with Clinton or the campaign.
But then he had to revise his statement several times after it was revealed he agreed to the meeting when offered dirt on Clinton. Remember the e-mails, right? Here's how he explained it on Sean Hannity in the summer of 2017. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP JR. SON OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: This was sort of nonsensical and garbled and quickly went on to, you know, a story about Russian adoption and how we could possibly help. I think Jared left after a few minutes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She said that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So around the time of the Trump Tower meeting, Don Jr. also had at least three phone calls with Emin Agalarov, the Russian pop star who helped arrange the meeting. Trump Jr. also was briefly introduced to Russian banker, Alexander Torshin (ph) at the NRA convention. Torshin was the handler of alleged Russian spy, Maria Butina. I know it's a lot, so follow along with me.
Butina we've reporting on. Butina just pleaded guilty today to attempting to infiltrate Republican political circles and influence U.S. relations with Russia before and after the 2016 election. Don Jr. also met with Butina. Now to Ivanka Trump, she is, of course, a White House Adviser, White House Adviser, who always seems to be a part of the important meetings and decisions.
[22:45:00] But we know before she was in that role, Ivanka was in contact with the wife of the Russian who claimed to have influential connections and offered political synergy to Michael Cohen. Her spokesman confirmed that. She received an e-mail and passed it along to Cohen. Ivanka was also involved in trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Check out these pictures, Ivanka, Don Jr., Eric in Russia 2006, working towards their father's goal of eventually building in Moscow.
We now know these efforts still, were still under way when Trump was running for President, and of course, praising Vladimir Putin any chance he got. And then just this week, a new controversy involving Ivanka Trump and her husband and fellow White House Senior Adviser, Jared Kushner, yesterday, the President signed an executive order establishing the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council designed to boost investment in low-income communities through a tax break passed last year.
But there are reports that both Jared and Ivanka could make money off this program. If so, that is a major conflict of interest, considering they both pushed to get it passed. Kushner has his own contacts with Russians, of course, significant ones at that. He attended that 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr. And during the transition, he met with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Russia state banker Sergei Gorkov.
There are also a lot of questions surrounding Kushner's ties to the Saudis. He as a close relationship with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and routinely spoke with him even after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. My colleague, Van Jones, asked him about that in October.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What kind of advice have you given MBS in this whole situation?
JARED KUSHNER, SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Just to be transparent, to be fully transparent. The world is watching. This is a very, very serious accusation and a very serious situation, and to make sure you're transparent and to -- and to take this very seriously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So we do not know. We don't know why Kushner is so close with the Crown Prince. But some Democrats want to look into it. Does it all come back to business? We don't know. But we do know President Trump's businesses have accepted a significant amount of money from the Saudi government in the past. There is still so much we don't know.
But it is clear. The scrutiny surrounding the President's family isn't going anywhere. Lot to break down with this, Michael D'Antonio, Olivia Nuzzi will help me with that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00] LEMON: So with prosecutors closing in on the Trump organization, how worried should the President's inner circle be? Here to discuss Olivia Nuzzi and Michael D'Antonio. Michael is the author of "The Truth about Trump."
Good evening. I'm so glad to have both of you on. I wish you were here on set with me. But I'll take it this way, as well.
So Michael, you know, you just heard me lay it all out in the last block. Should the President's family be worried?
MICHAEL D'ANTONIO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, I think they should all be consulting with attorneys and considering making deals with prosecutors. This is a very perilous situation. When I was dealing with the Trump family, the children explained to me that they knew everything about the business that they were intimately involved with every decision, that there wasn't a project that they didn't each touch.
So this was the thing that surprised me, was that everybody worked on everything. So I think it's very unlikely that any of them were exempt from some of the treacherous legal situations that now are looming over both the presidency and the Trump organization and the campaign. And what was done then and even the inaugural committee and the money that they raised that doesn't seem to have been accounted for. So this is a very, very perilous moment for all of them.
LEMON: Olivia, I want to remind you and our viewers of what Rudy Giuliani said back in May. He was on Sean Hannity's show. And he discussed what would happen if Robert Mueller decided to go after Ivanka Trump or Jared Kushner. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: If they do, do Ivanka, which I doubt they will. The whole country will turn on him. They're going after his daughter.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about her son-in-law. They talked about him.
GIULIANI: I guess -- Jared is a fine man. You know that. But men are, you know, disposable. But a fine woman like Ivanka, come on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: I'm sure you remember that. I mean there's a lot of scrutiny around both Jared and Ivanka here. I mean is Jared disposable and Ivanka somehow exempt?
OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK MAGAZINE": Well, I don't want to get into talking about who is disposable and who is not based on their gender like Rudy Giuliani did. But I think it's interesting that his argument is not about whether or not it would be fair for the prosecutors to go after Ivanka Trump, but whether or not the optics would be good for them.
I think that kind of tells you all that you need to know about the strength of their argument against investigators looking into the children. And I want to just remind you. The New York Times reported just a couple days ago that investigators had renewed their requests for documents from the Trump organization from earlier this year.
[22:55:01] So even after the investigation into Michael Cohen has come to a close, the organization itself and other people there and the children were obviously there during the campaign and several of them continue to be there is ongoing. And I think that's really noteworthy. And if I were a member of the Trump family and worked at the Trump organization, I would be concerned.
LEMON: That's -- so Michael, with that said, you say that the Trump children should consider making deals. Why is that?
D'ANTONIO: Well, I think that they could find themselves not too far into the future being prosecuted or perhaps convicted of something, and their father may not be President any longer. So then who would pardon them? There's also the matter of state claims. The Trump Foundation is especially vulnerable there. Eric Trump was very involved in all those charitable activities.
And the state charges would have nothing to do with a Presidential pardon. The whole organization is vulnerable to the new, New York attorney general's interest in prosecuting absolutely every crime that she can identify. So I think that these people should look to themselves. Rudy Giuliani could say that there's a line that a prosecutor would cross by going after his children or Ivanka specifically.
But I don't think that's the way the law works. And there I think Giuliani must be forgetting the role that he played as a prosecutor in New York so many years ago.
LEMON: Olivia, I want to get a key person in the President's inner circle, and that is the First Lady, Melania Trump, right? A new CNN poll shows her favorability is at 43 percent, down 11 points from just two months ago. What is behind that drop?
NUZZI: Well, I think that -- I don't think that you can ever make a judgment based off of a single poll. But I do think that it's pretty remarkable. First ladies are typically not very controversial figures. But obviously, this First Lady being associated and married to the man that she's married to. It's a different story.
Obviously, this year, she's had a number of controversial news cycles. Her I don't care, do you, jacket stands out. And I don't know if she's fully recovered in terms of the public perception of her. This poll obviously would suggest that she hasn't. But I want to just go back really quickly to the family more broadly.
It is just remarkable to me. And I think it's important that we zoom out and consider how unusual it is, how remarkable it is that we're even having these discussions about the President of the United States and his family. I think sometimes that gets lost in the daily coverage, because it is so difficult to keep up with. And as you did that intro there, expertly explaining the nuances here, you pointed that out. There's a lot to take in. But I think as we take it in everyday, we
kind of need to remind ourselves that this is not typically what happens in an administration.
LEMON: Yeah.
NUZZI: And this is not typically what the news cycles are about. And I think that we just need to kind of keep that in perspective.
LEMON: As has been said, this is not normal. Thank you, both. I appreciate your time.
NUZZI: Thank you.
LEMON: We'll be right back.
