Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Trump's Attorney General Pick, In A Memo To The Department of Justice, Excoriated The Mueller Probe; Giuliani Admits Trump Signed Letter Of Intent; President Trump Abruptly Orders U.S. Withdrawal From Syria; Many In GOP Furious Over Trump's Syria Decision; Paul Ryan's Legacy Tied To President Trump; America In Black And White. Aired 11- 12a ET

Aired December 19, 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. Here's our breaking news. President Trump's pick for Attorney General, William Barr, sent a memo earlier this year to the Justice Department that harshly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. We got a lot more to come on what could be a really big development tonight.

That as Rudy Giuliani is backtracking about that Trump Tower Moscow project. Giuliani had told CNN, quote, "It was a real estate project. There was a letter of intent to go forward, but no one signed it."

Well, that's not true. CNN obtained that letter showing the President's signature. And that's not the only issue that team Trump has to worry about tonight. The "Wall Street Journal" reporting that sworn statements by Donald Trump dating back decades could come back to haunt him because they show he had a pretty clear understanding of campaign finance law.

The investigators looking into the hush money payments made by Michael Cohen might be really interested in that. It's actually no secret that the President knows about campaign finance law. He is even bragged about it on television back in 1999.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I wouldn't run if I didn't think I could win the election. I wouldn't run just to get 21 percent of the vote and say I've got more votes than anybody.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

TRUMP: You wouldn't do it for me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How about campaign finance reform?

TRUMP: I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do because I'm the biggest contributor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about reforms? TRUMP: Well, it's a very complex -- you know what? It's a very complex thing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does it need reform? You have the reform body.

TRUMP: As an example, I'm allowed to give $1,000 to every Senator, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

TRUMP: You know how little that is and say -- and this was 20 years ago, $1,000. Now, I love it because, you know, I'm capped out at $1,000 per Senator and they will love for it. You know, I give them a $1,000, its great.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) -- soft money, hard money?

TRUMP: No, you have other things -- you have other ways.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: You can't write this stuff. Tim Weiner, Laura Coates, you're back with me. They were with us during the last segment. Also joining me is Jack Quinn, Renato Mariotti and Juliette Kayyem. There is a lot to get to. I'm so glad to have all of you.

So, the new folks who just joined, I'm going to bring you in first, Jack, let's start with the news on Barr and the memo he wrote that Mueller's obstruction probe was based on fatally -- on a fatally misconceive theory. What is your reaction to the view -- the views that Barr is expressing in this memo?

JACK QUINN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it sounds like an echo of Rudy Giuliani. I mean, the argument is essentially the President can do anything that touches on the enumerated powers in the constitution for a President, and he is above the law, nobody can question him, nobody can indict him and so on.

The fact is that argument is not going to stand. No one is above the law. The President is not above the law. Donald Trump is not above the law. And most importantly, he cannot carry out the powers of his office in a corrupt manner.

So, for example, I mean, it should be obvious to everyone that it would be prosecutable if the President of the United States were to sell an ambassadorship or a cabinet position or any other position in the executive branch, taking a bribe and appointing someone to that office. The constitution just does not contemplate that.

LEMON: Right. Yes.

QUINN: The Oath of Office requires him to swear that he will faithfully execute the Office of President. And look, I think at the end of the day, all these issues may have to be decided by a court, and I'm confident that a court will rule that, like Richard Nixon, the President, in this, case is not above the law. LEMON: All right. Let's stick to it right now, because, Renato, this certainly puts Trump's nomination of Barr in new light.

[23:05:05] RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. First of all, I think the first question is, Don, did Trump know about this memo and other views of Barr's when he nominated him? In other words, was this nomination in part because, just like he wanted with Sessions, he wanted somebody in Sessions who was going to quash the Mueller probe, did he find a new guy who is willing to do the same thing?

And I got to tell you, from my perspective, this action by Barr really raises some questions about, you know, how the intensity of views that he has about Mueller, his temperament and his judgment. You know, first of all, when you're a former government official, you don't just on a whim write a 20-page memo and send it to your former colleagues. It's pretty weird.

It's something that expects you -- you would actually spend a lot of time doing, timely you could otherwise spend making a lot of money for your clients in private practice. So it's very unusual. And the language that he uses to me is intemperate.

LEMON: Yes.

MARIOTTI: And it's totally in called for. It's possible that you could have a different view of the law than Jack and me and Juliette and frankly most people on the legal community. I respect people who have different points of view.

But to say that Mueller is grossly inappropriate, that he is so outside the bounds, you know, to use the sort of language that he uses here, you know, makes me think that he has a very -- you know, he has an agenda here, that he has a very, very strong feeling that would make it improper for him to be moderate and is appropriate in his supervision of Mueller.

LEMON: Well, this was certainly an unsolicited memo, Juliette, sent to the DOJ, no doubt. But Barr, he describes Mueller's approach as grossly irresponsible, right --

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes.

LEMON: -- the misconceived and all of that. What would an Attorney General Barr mean for this Mueller investigation?

KAYYEM: Oh, I mean, it would likely be a disaster in terms of him having the authority to at least restrict the Mueller investigation. I view this memo as a cover letter to a resume. I mean, I think there is no question in my mind now that Barr was --

LEMON: Tim just said that, yes.

KAYYEM: Yes. Sorry I missed it, but -- that Barr was doing what a lot of people on the outside do. They're on TV. They're saying the right things. Trump likes to step, so he sends it. And what I have -- you know, thinking about what Renato was saying, this is the former Attorney General writing to the Deputy Attorney General. And I'm very curious, did the Department of Justice reply and what was their reply?

I know when I was in government, I worked at an agency, the former Secretary of Homeland Security wrote something, we would have to reply, because it's just something that you have to do.

LEMON: Yes.

KAYYEM: And so, I'm curious whether there is a reply about what they think. But just going back to Barr very quickly. You know, I take the view, and I know others do, too, that it's probably too late to restrict everything that Mueller has unleashed. And that's including the State A.G.'s, who are obviously very active as well as the New York courts -- federal courts, but nonetheless, he can make life very difficult for Mueller, and this should go straight to his ability to be Attorney General at this stage.

LEMON: OK.

KAYYEM: And I think it is right for Republicans and Democrats to raise serious concerns at this stage.

LEMON: You're getting to where I want to go with this because I think it's really important. I want to bring back in Tim and Laura. So Laura, does these mean recusal?

LAURA COATES, CNN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know what? It could. Think about this, the reason that Jeff Sessions had to recuse which was really --

LEMON: (Inaudible) not be happy about it.

COATES: -- which was the biggest problem for Trump. The reason why he antagonized him for as long as he did, his decision based on the ethical rules and said listen, you've got a substantial and vested interest in this actual investigation. You got to recuse yourself, you're disqualified, because there is going to be impartiality problems with this and you may -- and because you're a surrogate, you may have -- maybe a part of the actual investigation.

Now this is a little different for this person, Barr, because although he has inserted himself into the controversy and the discussions, he doesn't have the same type of relationship that Jeff Sessions had that may compel the ethics group to say, listen, you may be a part of the investigation.

However, he still does have the really big conundrum of you can't possibly be seen as impartial in this case. We don't like injustice to have even the hint of impropriety, let alone a 20-page memo that says that you are not appropriately overseeing this.

And finally, you know, Barr, he's talking about exactly what Mueller has done wrong. Barr thinks that he knows precisely what Mueller is actually investigating. Mueller has never actually defined the full parameters of his mandate. He simply has gone about investigating, so he has assumed, which makes him ask, like you and me, obstruction is the only end game here, another problem.

LEMON: I haven't heard that in years. I love it.

COATES: I'm old soul.

LEMON: You always bring it back, bring them all (ph) everything. You bring back everything. So, let me ask you this, Tim, and I want you to weigh in on whether this means -- what this all means. Because the memo reportedly also says that Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submits to interrogation about alleged obstruction. That would certainly make team Trump happy, but what do you -- do you think that this means -- we've seen this movie before.

[23:10:11] TIM WEINER, AUTHOR, LEGACY OF ASHES: With this memo, Barr was clearly applying either to be the President's lawyer in the White House or the Attorney General?

COATES: Yes.

WEINER: Knowing the place would be vacant. OK. And Trump knowing that Barr thinks and says, great, I finally got my road cone. I can get somebody in as Attorney General who is going to put it to Bob Mueller. Trump thinks the Attorney General is his lawyer. He is the people's lawyer. He is the lawyer for the citizens of this country. Trump doesn't get that.

If Barr is confirmed, and he is confirmable, he has already been Attorney General back a quarter century ago, OK? He will certainly be grilled on why he has this vicious animus toward Robert Mueller. And if he is confirmed, the ethics folks and main justice are going to have a talk with him and say, general, how can you presume to oversee Bob Mueller when you think that Mueller has been out of bounds?

When you think that Mueller doesn't have the power to investigate this person, to investigate what happened during the campaign with links to Russia, to investigate obstruction of justice when he fired Jim Comey and to investigate money. We know Trump. We're New Yorkers. We've been knowing Trump for a long time. It's always about money with this guy.

LEMON: You don't know how many times I've said that on this show. We know. Come on everybody. We know this guy.

WEINER: Oh, my God. And Bob Mueller is looking at his money.

LEMON: Yes. And he doesn't like that.

WEINER: No, he does not.

LEMON: He does not like that.

WEINER: No, he does not. LEMON: So speaking of money -- following the money, that is what everyone says, following the money, right? So, Renato, let's talk about the President's past comments about campaign finance that have resurfaced now. The President didn't show an understanding of campaign finance law. In an affidavit, he even bragged about it on TV. So, give me -- what's the legal significance of this?

MARIOTTI: So in order to prove Trump's guilt of a campaign finance crime, prosecutors would actually have to prove that he knew he was doing something unlawful at the time. Now, ordinarily, you would think, OK, that is -- that's going to be very challenging to prove that an ordinary citizen knew this. But look, you literally just showed the tape, Don. Here, he is bragging about it.

On other occasions, he is also, you know, suggested that he knew something about it. And of course, you know, the mere structure of these transactions and the way he went about hiding it shows that he was trying to escape the law.

You know, don't forget I was talking recently to some election lawyers, prominent ones, who reminded me the President had one of the most prominent election lawyers in the country on his campaign, Don McGahn. He had a whole compliance staff, and instead of going to them, he went around them to Cohen and structured these transactions in this very bizarre way to hide these payments. It certainly suggested an evidence of wrongdoing.

LEMON: Everybody's head is shaking here in the studio and I would imagine everybody in other places as well. We have so much to talk about. I'm sorry, we're out of time. Thank you all. I really appreciate you two staying over. And thank you so much for joining us folks, who are via satellite.

The President ordering American troops out of Syria and he is getting pushback from the Pentagon, U.S. allies, Congress, even his own administration. Fareed Zakaria is here next.

[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The President abruptly ordering all U.S. troops out of Syria, falsely declaring victory against ISIS despite a report from the Department of Defense that there could be as many as 30,000 ISIS fighters still in Iraq and Syria. The decision stunned Congress as well as allies in the region, and tonight there is pushback from within the administration.

A senior official telling CNN that the decision is, quote, "A mistake of colossal proportions that will recklessly put American and allied lives in danger around the world. Take the pressure out of ISIS, allowing them to reconstitute and hand a strategic victory to our Syrian, Iranian and Russian adversaries."

Fareed Zakaria is here to discuss. Fareed, thank you very much. This colossal mistake is what they are saying. What do you think?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: Well, I think -- the way to think about this is a feud, remember what Donald Trump said on the campaign trail, he attacked Obama very hard, because he said, you withdrew troops from Iraq and that allowed ISIS to occupy the space in that no man's land and that political vacuum, and you created ISIS.

Now, that's not entirely clear whether that's accurate, because ISIS didn't even exist and some of the forces that allowed it to form were not related to Obama, but here for sure ISIS exists. It has been beaten down, but if you withdraw, then the pressure that has kept it down is released and it's quite possible that ISIS will be able to come back up.

On the other side of it, it's 2,000 American troops. It's not a large commitment. You have a lot of support from Kurds, from Kurdish forces. You have others in the region who have been supporting it. So, the puzzle here is you had a pretty low-cost American strategy that was yielding some results. ISIS was being destroyed. It was being supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, all the neighboring countries.

The only country -- I have to bring this up -- the only country that was resolutely opposed to the American presence was Russia. So the whole thing feels weird, a very impulsive sudden decision, it didn't, you know, it wasn't costing us a lot to stay there and the first country to congratulate the United States for withdrawing -- even though we haven't yet done it, is Russia. The Kremlin sent out a message saying, this is great.

LEMON: All right. So you are saying Russia -- do you agree with the senior official that said, it was a big win for Russia, for Syria and for Iran?

[23:20:05] ZAKARIA: I think, look, those are the forces that have been supporting the government of Assad and this takes the pressure off the government of Assad. Yes, I mean, if you're trying to get to a negotiated solution where you want a new government in Syria, you would taking over your leverage by taking your troops off the ground.

You know, you are taking -- we had relatively little leverage in Syria. This was the leverage we had. As I said, it wasn't costing us a lot, it was achieving some results. Obama had actually been quite cautious about how much he put into Syria. And so, this was, in many ways, a continuation of the Obama strategy.

All I can think of is either Donald Trump decided, I'm going to fulfill my campaign pledge of saying I'm going to get us out of Syria, or as I said, for some reason he feels like it's worth doing something that sends a good signal to the Russians. It certainly isn't true that ISIS is defeated, so the prima facie rationale for it is just false. I mean, ISIS is no more defeated today than it was six months ago.

LEMON: Is this a mission accomplished moment you think?

ZAKARIA: It feels like a mission accomplished moment, but it feels worse than that, because in the mission accomplished moment, I think Bush genuinely believe that Iran -- you know, that they had turned a corner. I think here, Trump is just either got fed up with it, lost interest. It may also be as often happens with Donald Trump, it's all about people, it's not about policy. He doesn't think very hard about policy.

He used to like Mattis, his Secretary of Defense. He used to call him his mad dog, you know, this is my general. Something about the relationship has soured. Mattis may have pushed back at too many meetings. Trump now doesn't like Mattis that means he doesn't like the advice Mattis gives him. Mattis wants to stay in Syria, so Trump wants to get out of Syria.

LEMON: He wants to get out. It is the same thing.

ZAKARIA: It is maybe as simple as that.

LEMON: Why are you getting rid of this? Well, because Obama put it into place.

ZAKARIA: Right.

LEMON: And that is really the only rationale that he can come up with. As I mentioned, his administration and members of his own party are furious. Senate Republicans are really furious on the decision. This is Senator Lindsey Graham on the Senate Floor tonight, watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I'm shocked by this. I think this is a decision that is against some military advice, and I intend to do our part as a Congress and make sure that history records how this decision was made. We have betrayed our Kurdish allies, if this decision stands. If it's reversed, I'll be the first one to applaud the President because that is true leadership.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: A group of bipartisan Senators sent a letter to the President urging him to change his mind, and you know to not do this. I haven't seen this much pushback from members of the President's own party since Jamal Khashoggi.

ZAKARIA: Yes, I think part of the problem is it's so sudden, it's so impulsive. It's sends a weird signal about the continuity of American policy. Once Trump got into the White House, after a few months he came to the conclusion it was important to stay in Syria, it wasn't costing us a lot, it was keeping pressure, it was giving us the opportunity to try to forge some kind of political settlement.

And then suddenly with no explanation, with no telegraphing, as you say, all the allies are shocked. European allies are shocked. Nobody seems to understand what's going on. One more piece of this which is interesting, it's a little complicated, but our closest allies in the fight against the Assad regime are the Kurds in Syria.

The Turkish government doesn't like those guys. We just concluded a big arm sales to Turkey. Is it possible that part of what Erdogan asked for in return, you know, I'll buy these arms from you, but in return you have to get out of Syria? It's possible. Nobody knows. Partly I think I'm trying to find a reason. It's because it's been so impulsive, it's been so unpredictable and it doesn't seem to follow any particular strategic rationale.

One of the things the Senate should do, I think, is call in some people and say, what prompted this? Where is the evidence that ISIS is destroyed? What resulted in -- three months ago the administration, including the President, I think, were saying, you know, we're in Syria, we're going to stay in Syria, we're going to beat these people up. Suddenly it all changed. What changed?

LEMON: So people just -- you don't think he ran this by anyone, right?

ZAKARIA: Oh, God no. I mean I think part of the problem that a lot of people are having, from the Chinese who are trying to negotiate with him, to the Europeans, to what's going on, is nobody understands how policy is made. Nobody understands, you know, what is the way in which you figure out what's going to happen, what's not going to happen, when are policies going to be continued, when are they going to be reversed?

And you know, you have a National Security staff that is not fully staffed, a council that is not fully staffed, you have a National Economic Council that is not fully staffed. You know, it just adds to this feeling of amateur hour in the White House.

[23:25:00] LEMON: Thank you, Fareed Zakaria, I appreciate your time. Don't miss "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" Sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Eastern.

The House Speaker Paul Ryan, giving his farewell address today and giving himself a pat on the back for a job well done. But is his legacy really anything to brag about? (Inaudible).

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is leaving Washington. Today he gave his farewell speech. He boasted about all the bills he passed, recounted his life in office.

So now looking back on his career on the Hill, he can -- we can ask, I should say, what is Paul Ryan's legacy? He wanted it to be about tax cuts and entitlement reform, but like it or not, his legacy is tied to President Donald J. Trump and all of the scandals, the drama and issues that Paul Ryan had to deal with as speaker, or rather, not deal with.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: I think he is trolling people. Honestly, I'm not going out there and justify and defend (ph) every tweet that is out there. The President is new at this. He is new to government. And so he probably wasn't steeped in the long-running protocols that established the relationships between DOJ, FBI and White Houses. He is just new to this.

Like I said on the Charlottesville thing, it was -- there were like, three comments. One of them was great, two of them -- no, four comments, I think. Two good. Two bad. You know? I think, like you say, like I said before, he's learning.

It's what he does and we've kind of learned to live with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: That's a lot of excuses. Remember how not so keen he was to get on the Trump train?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: You have said throughout this process that you will support the Republican presidential nominee. Now you have a presumptive nominee, Donald Trump. Will you support him?

RYAN: Well, to be perfectly candid with you, Jake, I'm just not ready to do that at this point. I'm not there right now. I hope to and I want to, but I think what is required is that we unify this party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, it didn't matter how ready or not Speaker Ryan was, because Trump became president. And the two men, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, well, they got a big tax cut mostly for corporations.

The tax cuts led to more than $1 trillion in stock buybacks, helping shareholders and corporations. The cuts were meant to put more money in the pockets of the middle class and kick start the economy.

But since the law was signed, deficits, which Paul Ryan is supposedly against, are soaring. The stock market is now falling and the bulk of the benefits have not trickled down to workers' pockets.

Remember when Speaker Ryan tweeted, touting the story of a secretary at a public high school in Pennsylvania? Because of the cuts, her pay went up $1.50 a week. A $1.50 a week. That adds up to $78 a year. Ryan quickly deleted that tweet after critics called him out for appearing out of touch with reality. Maybe Washington does that to you.

I want to bring in now former Republican Congressman Charlie Dent and Alice Stewart as well.

Thank you both for joining us. Good evening. Charlie, Paul Ryan is out. Do you think he wanted to speak out more but felt he couldn't, you know, because, I don't know, maybe he would get criticism or what, but isn't that leadership?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'll tell you what, I do believe that Paul Ryan wanted to speak out more. If you remember what happened during the Access Hollywood issue, when that story broke, there was a conference call among all House Republicans that Monday after the weekend.

And at that time, Paul Ryan said that he was only going to campaign for House Republicans and that the president was on his own. I was one of the 11 people who spoke in that call, and I agreed with Paul, and he got no support from anybody else. Everybody else who spoke in that call said you need to stand with the nominee.

After that moment, I always felt that Paul Ryan was kind of chastened. He is always looking over his right shoulder, always concerned a rearguard action. If he ever was too critical of the president, I believe that he might have lost the speaker position over it. So I think that's really the main reason why he didn't push back more.

LEMON: Why would it matter, because he didn't want to be speaker in the first place. That's what he said.

DENT: Well, you know, look, if he knew he wasn't going to run again, why not push back more, I guess. And -- so I mean, look, I felt he should have pushed back more. He had every opportunity to. There were times, you know, he spoke up, but I felt it should have been stronger.

And frankly, I think more of the leadership should have been speaking out more because look what happened in the midterm, by simply embracing the president and not condemning some of his more outrageous incendiary comments, I have to tell you, it hurt us --

LEMON: Yeah.

DENT: -- because the election was a referendum on the president of the United States, his conduct in office, and it didn't go well.

LEMON: All those people who thought if they criticized the president, then they would, you know, get kicked out of office. Maybe the strategy was wrong. Allison, things are going to be a lot different in the new year for House Republicans. Are they ready to be the minority, do you think?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's going to be an uphill battle. Look, I think Speaker Ryan did accomplish a lot of things when he was here. The tax reform bill has some positive aspects, the first major tax overhaul in 31 years.

Look at the overall economy. We have 2.3 million jobs created this year. The unemployment rate, 3.7, the lowest in 50 years. All of this goes for a strong economy which I think Speaker Ryan has a lot to hang his hat on with that regard.

But yes, could he have gone and fought against Trump at every turn? He certainly could have. There was probably a lot in him that wanted to do that, but they would have never gotten anything done. He realized, at the end of the day, President Trump won, the will of the people, certainly the Republican base supported him.

And in order to move the ball down the field on issues that he was concerned with and he was behind, he needed to support the president. We heard a lot in his speech today on what his next chapter will be. I don't think his legacy has been set yet.

[23:34:58] He indicated a lot of things about the current discourse in Washington and the critical nature of it, how it's important to look at solutions instead of this criticism that we currently have, and I think that's what he's going to do.

LEMON: Alice, I have to run. But I think as speaker and his life as a lawmaker, pretty much done unless he decides to run for president or decides to run again. And I think this is going to be a big part of his legacy.

And I'm not sure if he was thinking about that when he got on the Trump train, or he didn't push back as much as he should have. I think his legacy would have been stronger had he done that. Listen, I got to run. We're out of time. Thank you both.

STEWART: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: My next guest has a story that you have to hear. He's a black physician, rejected from membership at a rifle club in Charleston, South Carolina, whose members all happen to be white. He says he was embarrassed and disappointed. He joins me, next.

[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Tonight, I want to tell you the story of Dr. Melvin Brown, a respected African-American emergency room physician in Charleston, South Carolina. Dr. Brown is also a military veteran. This fall, he applied for membership in the all-white Charleston Rifle Club. His membership was sponsored by white friends.

Members vote by dropping marbles in small boxes. A white marble means a yes vote, a black marble means no. Dr. Brown, the only black applicant, got 11 black marbles in his box. His bid for membership rejected. Dr. Melvin Brown joins me now. Good evening to you, sir.

MELVIN BROWN, DOCTOR DENIED MEMBERSHIP IN CHARLESTON RIFLE CLUB: Good evening to you.

LEMON: It's interesting -- in 2018, you would have been the first and only black member of the Charleston Rifle Club. Talk to me about what happened and how you learned you were rejected by members.

BROWN: I'll try to be as brief as possible, but basically I've known some friends who have been members of the club for close to 10 years. I'm from Charleston but I was still serving in military service. I visit from time to time, we go there, bowling, have some beers. And they said, hey, man, you would love this club, when you come home, you need to join it.

And I knew the history of the club. I knew that the history of club had an exclusive membership. I grew up in that neighborhood. And I decided, not right now. So years go by, I retired from the navy, I'm back at home, we're there again bowling, having some drinks.

They tell me, you got to open your mind. Times have changed. Neighborhood has changed. Let's do this. I said, OK, let's go ahead and do it, and so I put my application in. Well, you know, the big snowball effect of different things happened. They froze membership, they tried to change the rules.

When they finally were unsuccessful, it was my time to get voted. I went. I was presented before the group. It was me and 13 other applicants. We stepped out of the room for the vote. They kind of talked to us like we're all going to be in because for the most part, it's pretty much assumed you're going to get in.

They came back and call us all back in and kind of tapped me on the shoulder and moved me to the side and said, hey, I'm sorry, but you didn't get in, you can stay for the meeting if you want. I said, no, I'm OK.

LEMON: You were the only one?

BROWN: I'm going to stop there and see -- yeah, there was 14 people up that night, I was the only applicant who didn't get voted in.

LEMON: OK, so they tried to change the rules. You're the only who didn't get voted in. One of your friends who co-sponsored you called the whole process disgusting and despicable. Is there any doubt in your mind that this is because of racism?

BROWN: Well, I've been trying to stay away from making proclamations about why I didn't get in. When your name is submitted, people have a chance to voice objections. Nobody voiced any objections. Then I didn't get voted in. No one offered an explanation.

When I looked at the applicants, I tried to see what -- what it was that was different between them and me. They were from all walks of life. Some of them were veterans. Some of them were maybe physicians like I was. But I didn't get in. So, one only has to come to one conclusion.

LEMON: So you had been a guest though at the club on several occasions before you applied to be a member.

BROWN: Oh, yeah.

LEMON: So, give me your experience.

BROWN: Several occasions.

LEMON: Do you think it was -- was it a case of being nice to your face as long as you weren't trying to belong or become a member?

BROWN: Well, again, you're talking for -- I can't talk for people who voted against me because I don't know them. When I would go, I was a guest of friends of mine from growing up in Charleston, friends of mine from med school and different people in the neighborhood.

So as far as I knew, I was accepted and having a great time and enjoying my time with my friends. But, again, I knew the history of the club and it has a huge membership, and they can't represent the entire membership.

LEMON: Yeah. Maybe you might have thought that times have changed, as your friends have said, because during your last military posting in Jacksonville, Florida, I understand you had been accepted into a nearly all-white yacht club and it was a good experience, right? Maybe that is --

BROWN: Yeah. I'd be lying if I didn't say that gave me momentum. I mean, that happened shortly before I retired and moved back to Charleston. I mean, Charleston has always been -- I love my city and it's always been kind of an island in a red state.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: And I was in Jacksonville which to me was the deep south. When I was approached about joining the Florida Yacht Club, I said, oh, heck no, that's not going to happen. Again, friends were saying, no, this is different.

LEMON: Yeah.

BROWN: I applied, I got in. So that gave me a little momentum going in, so I thought maybe I need to give my own city --

LEMON: I got 10 seconds left. I hate to (INAUDIBLE). How do you explain this to your children?

BROWN: Oh, sorry.

LEMON: I know that's a big question, but how do you explain this to your children?

BROWN: I try not to push the negative. I push the positive. The best way to get to know people better and get over this border is just to engage, be there, be involved, just make friends with people.

[23:45:03] That's what's worked for me in the military and my professional life, just engage and meet people. Most people are kind of warm but there are some who make almost a decision before they meet you, and you can't change that sometimes.

LEMON: The producer guys (ph) have granted us a little more time, so I'm going to ask you another question if I can.

BROWN: OK.

LEMON: Do you believe that this is an attitude of an isolated group of men at this club or do you think there is a wider problem itself in Charleston or maybe beyond?

BROWN: In my particular case, I think it was a few people who are holding the club hostage. But in general, I think that this is one of the last bastions to try to -- I hate to -- I don't want to sound like an advocate, but I guess I am -- level the playing field.

You have programs like affirmative action, you have corporations with diversity officers. What's really left is parody and public education and also social settings. A lot of my friends get these jobs, but if you're not able to socialize with everyone, you're kind of left out of the pot.

And I think that if we overcome the social barriers, if we're all hanging out after work or outside of work, (INAUDIBLE) much better and it makes the playing field much more even. That's the important thing I guess we can take away from this.

LEMON: I enjoyed speaking to you and thank you so much for coming on. Merry Christmas to you.

BROWN: Thank you. I appreciate you having me. I can't believe I'm on TV.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Well, you are.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Thank you, sir.

BROWN: Thank you.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: We just heard a very personal story from Dr. Melvin Brown, the African-American emergency room physician whose application to the all-white Charleston Rifle Club was denied.

So I want to pick up the discussion with Nina Turner and Andre Bauer. Good evening. What a nice man we heard from. And Nina, Dr. Brown was the perfect candidate, impeccable resume, navy veteran, a respected figure in the community with deep Charleston roots, people advocating for him. Does this case just show you how hard it is to overcome institutional racism?

NINA TURNER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It is, Don. It also shows that he was a very nice man, very humble, very accomplished in every way. But it shows that black folks always got to have somebody to vouch for them. You know, how many more accomplishments did the good doctor need to be accepted into a club?

And I just can't get over the visual of people picking up white marbles and black marbles and the white marbles means that you're OK, angel food cake all the way, and the black marbles means you're not going in there, devil food cake all the way. I mean, there's just something insidious about this and it is just yet another reminder that we have many more miles to go in this country and that all is not well.

LEMON: I don't mean to laugh at you, but you caught me off-guard with that angel food cake.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: That was pretty good. Listen, his friends are outraged and rightfully so, calling the incident despicable. The town is embarrassed, organizations are shunning the club. Is that enough? Will any of this lead to real change, you think?

ANDRE BAUER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think they're seeing a huge blow back. Look, they're a private club. They have a right to refuse anyone they want. But just because they have a right to --

LEMON: And you live in Charleston, by the way.

BAUER: Yeah. It doesn't make it the right to do by any stretch of the imagination. No question this guy has accomplished no question. I think he had been a good fit. As a matter of fact, I have 20 acres on the inter coastal, he's welcome to come shoot with me any time he wants, and it won't cost him a dime (ph).

But I don't think, Don, truly after seeing what happened when my good friends recommend (INAUDIBLE) and the way Charleston handled that, I don't think this is indicative of Charleston or the vast majority of the people that live there.

It is a very diverse community and we have joined hands through some very difficult times, and there's still a few of these folks that think like this, but the vast majority of people in Charleston are not like this at all.

LEMON: He seems to think there was a larger indictment on a larger society there. That's his words. I know you think it's different. But what do you mean by this blow back in town?

BAUER: As I read more about the story, you've seen a lot of the schools that were associated with the club, a lot of the groups that were associated with the club have 100 percent withdrawn from their involvement whatsoever. Social events that took place at the club from other clubs have now removed themselves. I saw the private school had withdrawn from it.

So several things that they had done with other groups, the other groups have now backed off and said we don't want any involvement with you. So they are getting some repercussions that may eventually cause change, positive change.

LEMON: Nina, I want to talk about -- can I talk about another story because you actually tweeted about it today, OK?

TURNER: Yes.

LEMON: I want to talk about another case of living while black. This is Cleveland. Paul McCowns tried to cash his paycheck from a new job, ended up in handcuffs because bank tellers thought that he was cashing a fraudulent check, called 911. You tweeted today that this one hurts. Give me your reaction.

TURNER: Yeah. First of all, it's my hometown, you know, greater Cleveland area, but you can't even bank while black. I want people to wrap their minds around this. He went in there, his first paycheck. He gave his two IDs. He also gave his fingerprints. The teller suspected the check. OK, suspected it was fraudulent. Called over other people.

We need to put ourselves in his position. He's embarrassed. They ultimately say, we can't cash this check. They tried to call his employer. Employer didn't answer. We can't cash this check, sir.

So instead of just letting him go on his merry way, Don, they decide to call the police. We know that so many times in this country, calling the police on a black man, especially -- or a black woman in this country can get you dead.

[23:55:05] So instead of just letting him go on his merry way, they call police. He's handcuffed, he's arrested, put in the back of a cruiser, and then the police officers tried to contact his employer, finally gets a hold of his employer who vouches for him.

Again, it goes back to my point that far too often in this country, black folks have to have other folks verify whether or not they're working.

LEMON: I'm running out of time. I want Andre to respond. Two IDs, a fingerprint, and then his job vouched for him. I mean, what else could he have done, Andre? Quickly, please.

BAUER: Nothing. This person should be fired. This is absolutely ridiculous. And what he should ask him, are they going to allow him deposit his money when he wins a gigantic lawsuit against them which he should engage in. This was ridiculous. This is poor judgment. Another reason why banks have began such a pain in the tail feather to keep it clean on the show. But, it's gotten to ridiculous point, some of the decisions these banks are making.

LEMON: All right.

TURNER: Amen. Can't drive while black, can't bank while black, can't breathe while black, can't exist while black. God, we got a problem.

LEMON: We are commenting while black on national TV and anchoring while black.

TURNER: We are.

LEMON: Let's hope that continues.

TURNER: Amen.

LEMON: Thank you very much. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)