Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Putin Ally May Benefit from Trump Administration's Sanctions Deal; Interview with Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi; Giuliani's 'Hypothetical' Statements; Will the American People See Mueller's Report?; Rudy Giuliani Dizzying Statements; Defender of the President Lies Too. Aired 11-12p ET

Aired January 21, 2019 - 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.

We've got a lot of major developments tonight in the Russia investigation. So, we're devoting this entire hour to an in-depth look at all things Russia.

There's President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani trying to change the timeline again on how long President Trump was personally involved in the proposed Trump Tower Moscow during the campaign.

Giuliani quoted Trump himself to the New York Times saying, talks were, quote, "going on from the day I announced to the day I won." Giuliani repeated that in other interviews this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: What did President Trump have to say about the Trump Moscow project?

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: He acknowledged that they had conversations about it throughout 2015, 2016.

The president can remember having conversations with him about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Throughout 2016?

GIULIANI: He can also remember -- yes. Probably up to -- could be up to as far as October, November.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Sounds pretty clear to me. But now Rudy Giuliani is walking back those comments telling CNN that his statements that Trump was in talks about Trump Tower Moscow up until the election were hypothetical. And not based on conversations with the president.

So why did he quote the president if it was hypothetical? Why would he give a quote? But Giuliani's latest clarification doesn't change the fact that when Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a charge for -- from Robert Mueller in November he said those conversations went through June of 2016, so at least until June of 2016. That means Trump was working on a deal in Russia well into the campaign. So why did he say this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there. I have no businesses there.

I don't know Putin. Have no business whatsoever with Russia. Have nothing to do with Russia.

I have nothing to do with Russia, folks. They said maybe Donald Trump is involved in projects with the Russians. The answer is no. No.

I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals in Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia because we've stayed away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Clearly it wasn't true that Donald Trump had no dealings with Russia. This timeline also raises major questions about why Trump repeatedly went out of his way to praise Vladimir Putin and push pro- Russia policies during the campaign.

Jessica Schneider joins me now. Jessica, good evening to you. Walk us through what's going on, what was going on during the campaign while Trump was apparently working on this Trump Tower Moscow deal.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. Don, there was a lot of positive rhetoric related to Russia at that exact same time. Then candidate Donald Trump was apparently contemplating this real estate deal in Moscow.

So, throughout the campaign he repeatedly spoke in highly favorable language when it came to Russia, including raising the idea of really shifting U.S. policy to something that would be more Russia friendly.

So, I'll take you through a few examples. He called for an end to economic sanctions against Russia that were imposed during the Obama administration during the campaign. Donald Trump also questioned the importance and legitimacy of NATO, of course, our most critical international alliance.

And in fact, the president has continued to knock NATO even throughout his presidency. And of course, NATO is an alliance that Vladimir Putin too has frequently criticized.

And then of course, there was that infamous call to action for the Russians when Donald Trump asked them to release hacked Democratic e- mails that at the time were rumored to have been stolen by Putin's government. And of course, our intelligence agencies later came to that same conclusion. Listen to all of this that we've compiled.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.

You know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.

I hope I like him. I hope he likes me because I'd love to get along with Russia. OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:03] LEMON: So, this was all going on, Jessica, as Russia was attacking our election. Did Trump ever address that?

SCHNEIDER: Yes. Certainly, not during the campaign, Don. And in fact, the president has been reluctant to acknowledge Russia's interference in our elections even after the campaign and throughout the first two years of his presidency.

In fact, it was just two months ago at the Helsinki summit when he met with Vladimir Putin and the president did not hold Putin accountable and he even said at one point that he holds both countries responsible, meaning the U.S. and Russia. And you know, the president has repeatedly disparaged even his own intelligence agencies.

So, you add all of that to the recent reports that the president confiscated his interpreter's notes after a meeting with Putin, and that U.S. officials really haven't throughout these meetings been able to get readouts throughout his several face-to-face encounters with Vladimir Putin.

And it really does, Don, add up to mounting questions that have been lingering really for more than two years now, probably stretching even farther back than that into the campaign. Don?

LEMON: I appreciate your reporting. Jessica Schneider. I want to bring in now Susan Glasser, Bradley Moss and Max Boot. Max is the author of "The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I left the Right."

Good evening, everyone. I appreciate you joining us on this Monday evening.

How significant, Max, is it that Trump was apparently negotiating -- it was in negotiations for a Trump Tower Moscow in November of 2016 according to Rudy Giuliani who then walked it back, but when he was elected pretty close, and then Michael Cohen pleading guilty that saying it was up until 2016.

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, you know how significant it was --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: June of 2016.

BOOT: Right. I mean, you know how significant it was, Don, from the fact that Donald Trump worked so hard to conceal this information from the American people. And Michael Cohen was willing to lie to Congress and become a convicted felon to conceal this information from Congress and the American people.

It would have been incredibly damning during the 2016 campaign for Donald Trump to admit that while he was praising the Russians, saying NATO was obsolete, watering down the Republican platform and doing, you know, welcoming Russian intervention in the American election, while all this was going on, he was trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow with help from aides to Vladimir Putin.

That would have substantiated Hillary Clinton's charge that he was a puppet of Russia, which he of course adamantly denied.

So, this is hugely significant. This is a blatant conflict of interest, and it adds to the mountain of evidence suggesting that Donald Trump is not on the level when it comes to Russia, that he has ulterior motives that he's pursuing.

LEMON: Bradley, hello, let's bring you in here. I want to play this before you respond. This is how Trump explained the Moscow deal in November.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: When I run for president, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to do business. There was a good chance that I wouldn't have won, in which case I would have gone back into the business. And why should I lose lots of opportunities?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, OK. If this wasn't a problem then, Bradley, why did he mislead the public about it throughout the campaign? Why did he lie?

BRADLEY MOSS, ATTORNEY, SPECIALIZING IN SECURITY CLEARANCE: That's got to be the $64,000 question that everybody has been trying to figure out this entire time. Think about all the things that we've learned over the last two years that was going on behind the scenes. And Jessica laid out a bunch from the prior segment.

All these negotiations between Cohen and Putin's deputy is trying get this deal made. We've got Manafort giving polling data to Russian intelligence operatives. We've got, you know, different people discussing things about exchanging information from WikiLeaks.

All the different times -- you've got, you know, the Trump Tower meeting with Trump Jr., all these different things going on behind the scenes. What is it? What was Trump so terrified of the public knowing about this if it was such a legitimate thing?

And yes, he could have built a tower there, but why was he scared to let everybody know about it and why was he so willing to take Putin's side unless it was just because he was trying get a tower made?

LEMON: Interesting. Susan, you heard Jessica there. She just out what was happening during the campaign while the deal was going on. Was Trump trying to profit from his presidential run by calling for an end to Russian sanctions and questioning the legitimacy of NATO?

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Look, I think on the clip you just played suggests very clearly that Trump himself is offering the public an after the fact excuse, which was essentially, you know, hey, I'm a businessman and I was still doing business.

The fact that he needed to lie about it and that we're now -- when you put everything else aside that's what we've now discovered from Trump, even from the contradictory fog of comments that seems to flood from Rudolph Giuliani.

Basically, what we see is that the president and his lawyer are admitting to the American public that the president lied to the country in the course of the campaign. Why did he lie about it? There are many possible motives.

But I think it's amazing and frankly, you watch Giuliani over the last week in this incredible blizzard of contradictory statements, lies, half-truths, I don't even know what they are, this is about the most unreliable, incredible narrator you could possibly imagine.

[23:10:06] If he was anyone other than the personal attorney for the president of the United States, you would never have him on CNN or any other news source because he's contradicted himself and lied to us so many times. It's farcical.

The idea that this is a representative paid by the president of the United States, again, it brings discredit upon the presidency and upon the institution in a way that is mystifying to all of us because again, we don't know why he's lying. And he is lying because he's contradicting himself over and over again.

So, either what he said yesterday is true or what he's saying today is true. They can't both be true.

LEMON: Insult to the intelligence I think of the American public that are watching. Don't you agree?

BOOT: I agree. But I think the only conceivable explanation I can think of is that Giuliani just throws so much B.S. out there that nobody knows what to believe and they're just utterly confused and baffled and kind of throw up --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: I've been saying that for months.

BOOT: Yes, exactly.

LEMON: And no one listens to me. And he's like why he says one thing one day and he says another thing the next day and it's like, so what do you believe? And it just keeps going round and round and round.

BOOT: And basically, you just hold your hands up in disgust and say nobody knows what the truth is and that's exactly what they seem to be aiming for in the White House.

LEMON: So then why? I've always said that the question for us is not that, you know, how do you not put what the president says on television but how do you cover this particular administration who lies so much and who tricks the public and says they're going to talk about one thing, and going to have a press conference and do this. How do you do it? It's not how do you not do it. But how do you do it? Because it's not in the same way.

But, Bradley, getting back to the legal part of this. Could the president be in trouble for potentially trying to capitalize on his campaign and make money?

MOSS: No. I mean, in and of itself there was nothing illegal about that, unless it was tied to, unless it was part of a larger criminal conspiracy. And that's what's always been part of this side of the probe of the Mueller investigation, is, was this set of actions, was this part of a larger criminal conspiracy?

It was part of the reason Donald Trump was doing things like praising Putin, like the change in the platform at the RNC convention, was it all tied to a desire to get this deal made? Because if it was, and if anything else in terms of what Trump Jr. did and what Manafort's providing polling data, if that' part of the larger criminal conspiracy, then there's criminal liability. But only if it's part of that larger issues, otherwise, it's Donald Trump being misleading the way Donald Trump always is.

LEMON: Kompromat, Max, knowing that he's working on the deal?

BOOT: Well, I think it certainly adds to that possibility, especially when there are previous dealings between the Trump organization and Russia with both Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump bragging about how much money they've made from Russian investors over the years.

I mean, there is an imperative here for Robert Mueller and for House investigators to get to the bottom of this because it does appear that the president of the United States may well have been compromised by these dealings and you wonder if this is part of the reason why Trump does not release his taxes, why he has not released his business records. He doesn't want us to know what was actually going on here.

And I think it's imperative to know that, to know why he's acting in the way he's acting because it's hard to think of a logical reason why the president of the United States would be an apologist for Russia.

LEMON: Susan, we're going to get you in on the other side, so I want you guys to stick around. There's much more to talk about.

Rudy Giuliani said he was quoting President Trump, quoting, right, when he said "Trump Tower Moscow was in discussion until the day I won." So, how can he change his tune now?

[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Back now with Susan, Bradley, and Max. OK. So, Max, alert to this, as well as the producers to this new, there's a new New Yorker interview. So, let's discuss this, right.

I'm just going to take a question from here. As we go, as we find out more, we will discuss more here. The question is from the reporter at the New Yorker. It says the Times reported that President Trump was involved in discussions with building a skyscraper in Moscow during the campaign and you acknowledged that and then more recently you said you that didn't actually know this was the case.

Part of his response he goes on, he talks about there was no money exchanged, blah, blah, blah. But he says there's much ado about nothing because the New York Times wants to crucify the president and the president had no conversations -- I shouldn't say he had no conversations. He had a few conversations about this early stage proposal that they ended somewhere in early 2016 and doesn't have a recollection of anything. And then there's nothing to support anything else.

This is a story that is completely exaggerated and made up.

So yet, Susan, he has changed his story once again. Now it is early 2016.

GLASSER: Look, clearly, he wants us to be so confused that we throw up our hands and we say never mind. I found three takeaways, very interesting from this interview with my colleague Isaac Chotiner.

First of all, it's clearly a classic of the Giuliani genre. What he said yesterday not only isn't true, but somehow it's the New York Times and other reporter's fault for writing down what he said yesterday and publishing that.

But basically, he is saying three things which are noteworthy here. Number one, I didn't say yesterday that the president had actual conversations. I was talking about hypothetical conversations. OK.

Well, this strikes me as most a very pathetic attempt at spin if not just an outright lie. So yesterday he's saying the president told him, you know, he talked about it up until the end. Today he says no, I didn't say that and the New York Times somehow misrepresented what appears to be a fairly straightforward quote.

[23:19:55] Number two, there's this revealing moment where he tells Isaac that yes, I actually am worried this is what's going to be on my tombstone, Rudy Giuliani, he lied for Trump. I find that to be fascinating.

If you look at the transcript, the interviewer is not asking him did you lie for President Trump. He just volunteers this as if he is practically telling us yes, I am lying for Trump.

And then when he's challenged on it by Isaac in a minute after that he says, no, no, no, no, you know, this is on your mind. I don't know what you're talking about. So that's the second takeaway.

And then you know, the third is simply goes back to this question of President Trump himself and lying about Trump Tower. We're talking before the break about the revelation. And I do think it's a revelation, you know, in recent months with Michael Cohen's decision to cooperate with the prosecutors that not only was Trump actually actively still pursuing the Trump Moscow deal throughout the 2016 campaign.

But for me as someone who lived in Russia and reported on it for years, the fact that Cohen is also everything testifying and testimony's been accepted by the special counsel's office, that he's also testifying to the fact that he reached out to Vladimir Putin's office directly and that they engaged with him and that this is one of the things that he initially lied about, you know, first of all, Russia is not some rinky-dink little country.

The idea that you would engage the president of a country in a conversation about a real estate deal in the capital is unthinkable.

LEMON: Yes.

GLASSER: And it speaks to a level of assumed corruption that is really remarkable. And I've always found that to be one of the most important details that we've learned in recent weeks.

LEMON: Bradley, let me ask you about this because we've been talking about whether it's a hypothetical or not a hypothetical, a quote or not a quote. OK? And this is again from the New Yorker, the question from the reporter, the quote in the story from you is that the discussions were going on from the day I announced to the day I won. Mr. Giuliani quoted Mr. Trump as saying during an interview with the New York Times. And then Giuliani says, "I did not say that."

OK. This is on tape, right? And then he says the Times just made that quote up, the reporter, and then Giuliani says "I don't know if they made it up. What I was talking about was, if he had those conversations they would not be criminal." What the hell is going on here, Bradley?

MOSS: This is classic Rudy Giuliani and it's really sad to watch this. They're going write a case study one day on how not to represent the president of the United States and it's going to be all about Rudy Giuliani.

You don't have these types of on the record discussions and these types of statements unless you know the details. Why is the personal attorney, the personal representative for the president of the United States talking, you know, riffing off the cuff? He should know the timeline backwards and forwards. It's not like this is the beginning of the investigation.

They've already submitted written responses under penalty of perjury to the special counsel's office. They should know every single detail about what went on with this project, how involved the president was, every e-mail, every text message, every memoranda.

But this is Rudy Giuliani going just running, I don't know what I said two days ago to the New York Times, you misconstrued it. I'm sorry, whatever they said to the special counsel, that's what they're stuck with. He can try to change his story all he wants, it's not going to change.

LEMON: This is what Susan was saying. OK, Max? "Saying things for Trump not always being truthful about it, do you ever worry that this will be your legacy? Does that ever worry you in any way?" And he says, "absolutely. I'm afraid it will be on my gravestone," Rudy Giuliani said. He lied for Trump. That is a quote, right?

"Somehow I don't think that it will be. But if it is, so what do I care? I'll be dead. I figure I can explain it to St. Peter. He will be on my side because I am so far, I don't think as a lawyer I ever said anything that's untruthful."

BOOT: Wow. It's hard to know what --

LEMON: Sorry.

BOOT: Yes. It's hard to know what he is saying there. But I mean, in the larger perspective, I mean, this is -- I mean, this is sad and pathetic in a lot of ways. Because remember, this is the man who used to be known as America's mayor. This is the man who helped to make New York City livable before. This is the man who helped New York through the 9/11 terrorist tragedy.

And if he had retired from public life at that point, he would have had a sterling reputation. And I think what he's saying there, as Susan noted, is that he is aware of the fact that his reputation is plummeting by the minute, the longer that he conducts this bizarre untruthful defense of his new client, Donald Trump.

And by the way, there was one other highlight that I thought worth bringing out here because he just says apropos of nothing, I've been through all the tapes, I've been through all the texts, I've been through all the e-mails and none of this stuff existed.

[23:25:00] And the Isaac Chotiner says what tapes? And I said, I shouldn't have said tapes. So, he's like I've been through the tapes but I shouldn't have said tapes. I mean, he's like contradicting himself. This is like day to day. This is like paragraph to paragraph. This is incoherent.

LEMON: Yes. I've got to read this, though, because this is what I just said before when he said it's going to be on his gravestone.

The reporter says "I felt like we were getting somewhere with that St. Peter thing deep down." And Rudy Giuliani says, "me?" "When you brought up St. Peter about you being dead and it won't matter and you can bring in -- you can bring it up with St. Peter" Giuliani, "I was joking."

Reporter, "I know you were partially joking but it felt like we were getting somewhere." Giuliani, "getting somewhere? Where?" And then the reporter. "And you, about you and your legacy and how you see yourself." Then Giuliani says, "I don't think about my legacy. All I think about is doing my job and what I believe in. When I was mayor, I got criticized for a lot of things I was praised for now." And then he goes on to say after he gives that diatribe. And then the reporter says "the Central Park 5? Trying to think of other people treated badly." And Giuliani says, "OK, unfairly, yes, OK." Giuliani says "it's time to go."

BOOT: Yes. I mean, at one level, Don, I would say it's pathetic. On another level it's funny.

LEMON: Yes.

BOOT: I mean, this is like a Marx brothers routine. This is not like serious law lawyering. I mean, this is just a joke from start to finish basically.

LEMON: Yes. And he's reintroduced tapes. But seriously how do you take any of it seriously, how do you have any -- hoes does he have any credibility after all of this? Thank you. I appreciate it. We'll be right back.

BOOT: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00] LEMON: Documents suggest that Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, may actually benefit from the deal he signed with the Treasury Department to lift sanctions on his companies. That's according to The New York Times. The deal could end up freeing him of hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and it could allow him and his allies to retain majority control of his most important company.

That's not what the administration said would happen under the deal. A month ago, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin insisted that "these companies have committed to significantly diminish Deripaska's ownership and sever his control." The Treasury Department defended the deal in a statement to the Times.

Steve Hall is here to discuss. Steve, why would the U.S. -- good evening to you, by the way. Why would the U.S. want to lift sanctions on a Russian oligarch connecting to Putin after all the damaging things Russia has done interfering with the 2016 elections and on the world stage?

STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Don, as we've talked about before, you know, I'm always looking for an innocent explanation. I'm looking for the innocent narrative. And once again here, I just can't see it. I can certainly see why the Russians and why Deripaska himself would want to squirm out of this, would want to offer up some sort of seemingly reasonable solution.

Hey, I don't want to disrupt aluminum markets, that's bad for you, that's bad for me if I get cut out -- I can see why he would make those arguments. What I don't understand is why our own secretary of Treasury, why Mnuchin would agree to that understanding what he must about how the company was sort of fake -- it was a fake restructuring. It wasn't meaningful in terms of isolating Deripaska.

So once again, I'm looking for an innocent explanation for this, and I'm not seeing it.

LEMON: So now it looks like he stands to gain from the deal that he made with the U.S. to lift sanctions on his companies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. What happened to Trump being tougher on Russia than any other president?

HALL: Yeah. I think what's going on here is there's sort of a combination thing. The Russians understand how the west thinks. You know, we're brought up in this, you know, let's be fair to everybody, there's rule of law, all that kind of stuff. None of which exists in Russia.

So the Russians are spinning a story to include Deripaska about no, no, no, how the company was restructured and how it's, you know, he's not really any better off, he's much worse off. And I think the Russians understand that, you know, Americans might say, well, you know, maybe there's something to that.

But again, what I don't understand is why our own government, who must know this, who must understand better than the man on the street as to how this works, why they agreed to this. And, you know, there's dark interpretations.

Is this U.S. government still trying to favor Russia because of something that they have over our president? I don't know. But I just can't find the negative. I can see a lot -- I mean, I can see negative reasons. I can't see any positive reasons why we would do this.

LEMON: Interesting. Let's talk a little bit more about this confidential document. What do you make of the gap between this document and what the administration is saying publicly?

HALL: My guess is they're trying to downplay it because they understand that even regardless of what the economic pros and cons are, and I would leave that to economists who perhaps understand this, you know, better than laymen like me on that, but for sure it sends a really terrible message to Russia.

It basically sends the message to them, look, you guys can get away with all sorts of bad things to include trying to mess with our elections, getting guys like Deripaska, being in contact with senior members of the Trump team, guys like Manafort, and you can get away with all that kind of stuff, and you really won't have to pay much of a price for.

But again, why our government doesn't do something about that, why this president who claims that he's extremely strong against Russia, this is an opportunity to really come down hard on one of Putin's key lieutenants, and he hasn't done it. He's let him off the hook.

LEMON: Steve Hall, thank you very much. Will Congress do anything to get the truth behind Rudy Giuliani's ever changing stories? I'm going ask Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi next.

[23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's lawyer, trying to backtrack from his own comments today, calling what he said hypothetical, and saying the president doesn't remember discussions about his proposed Trump Tower Moscow took place all through the 2016 election. But just yesterday, Giuliani said that talks about the project continued into October or November of 2016.

We'll talk about this now with Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who sits on both the intelligence and oversight committees. Good evening, congressman. Thank you for joining us on this King Day. We appreciate it.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D), ILLINOIS: Happy King Day, Don.

LEMON: You as well. Why can't the president's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, seem to nail down how long the president discussed this Trump Tower Moscow Project?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: It's befuddling. You know, sometimes you have lawyers who need better clients and clients who need better lawyers, but rarely do you see these two at the same time happen. And in this case, Mr. Giuliani says one thing on one day, backtracks and says the exact opposite the next day.

[23:39:56] But this is all the more reason in my humble opinion that the Mueller investigation has to be completed unimpeded and the congressional investigations such as the one in the Intelligence Committee have to be completed and the results shared with the American public.

LEMON: Yeah. If I can, I'd like to play for you something that Giuliani told Jake Tapper yesterday. He says it is possible that Cohen discussed his congressional testimony with the president ahead of time. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: If he had any discussions with him, they'd be about the version of the events that Michael Cohen gave them, which they all believe was true. I believed it was true. I still believe it may be true.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: But you just acknowledged that President Trump might have talked to him about his testimony.

GIULIANI: And so what if he talked to him about --

TAPPER: Is it not --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: And so what? I mean, he's saying so what if the president talked to Cohen about it. I'm guessing that's not how you see it.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: No. Look, I was a former prosecutor here in Illinois and one thing that you don't see is you don't have witnesses talking to each other or coaching each other about their testimony, and that's very troubling to say the least.

LEMON: You're on the Oversight Committee. I'm just wondering, if Cohen is going to testify in front of the Oversight Committee on February 7th, will someone be asking him point blank if the president asked him to lie to Congress?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm not sure. I do think that this is going to be his chance, Michael Cohen's chance to tell his full side of the story unplugged. We don't want to do anything that would interfere with the Mueller investigation. I know that Chairman Cummings and his staff are working closely with the Mueller staff to ensure that happens.

But as you know, there are so many other topics that are going to come up, everything from campaign finance violations to the president's personal finances as well.

LEMON: Yeah. You've also been named to sit on the House Intelligence Committee. Are you confident that Congress and the public will see a final report from Robert Mueller?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm not confident. And the reason is that the other day, Mr. Barr, who is the president's nominee for attorney general, said that he may not be willing to share the contents of the report with the American public if the president is not indicted. Well, we know that the likelihood of Mr. Barr should he become attorney general indicting the president is very low due to prior precedent.

And so we may not see the report from Mr. Barr. Again, I think that's all the more reason why the Intelligence Committee should conduct its investigation and the results have to be shared with the American public.

LEMON: Do you expect Don Jr. will be called back to testify before the House Intel Committee?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm not sure. I think that Chairman Schiff will have to in part give guidance on this particular issue. But to the extent that Don Jr. is a material witness with regard to the dealings between the Trump Organization and Russia or with regard to allegations of money laundering involving Russia and the Trump Organization, then I would expect that he would be called.

LEMON: So congressman, 31 days into the shutdown, the president offered to extend temporary protections for dreamers and those with temporary protected status. Democrats say that he needs to reopen the government first. But didn't you already have a deal that he rejected when it comes to dreamers?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: That's correct. I think a year ago in the January, February, March time frame, that deal was on the table and the president rejected it after he said that he would accept it. And so that's the problem that we have right now with the president, among other things. He accepts something and then he rejects the very same terms the next day. And he keeps moving the goalposts so that people on our side don't know how to negotiate with him because we don't know what is the offer of the day.

And people on his side don't have the authority to negotiate for him because they don't really know where he's willing to go. So, there's a lot of confusion.

LEMON: What is the solution? What is the solution? I know that you think that you had it on the table before. He said no. Then there was another deal. He said no, too.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yeah.

LEMON: Now he's putting things back on the table that already agreed to. OK, so, that's odd. But then, what is the solution here?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think the solution is we've got to open the government and then let's negotiate on specific terms.

LEMON: OK.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think that in my humble opinion, you know, the offer that was made yesterday was pretty weak because it was temporary protections for a group of of people that he endangered in the first place. These are dreamers and people with temporary protective status, TPS folks, in return for a permanent wall.

LEMON: Yeah.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: That's really not a good faith offer in my opinion.

LEMON: You said yesterday but you meant over the weekend on Saturday. I get what you meant. Thank you, congressman. I appreciate it.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Correct. Yes.

[23:45:00] Yes, sir. Thanks, Don.

LEMON: Will we ever see Robert Mueller's report? My next guest argues that it would be a huge mistake for the president to hide or bury the report. He'll tell us why, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Will the American people ever get to see Robert Mueller's report and will it matter? Here to discuss, Matt Lewis, Alice Stewart and Joe Lockhart. Good evening, everyone. So Matt, your new piece is in The Daily Beast, OK? It's called "Hide the Mueller Report? Why Hide Something that Probably Won't be Shocking?" This is just a portion of what you say.

You say, "the Mueller report is already being released to us through the indictments, leaks, and news reports. [23:49:59] No doubt, there are more shoes to drop, and some new information will surely come out of the Mueller report. But ask yourself, have you already gotten a sneak preview? Sometimes the trailer contains the best part of a blockbuster."

Really? No big surprises?

MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, you never know, right? But I think that -- look, there's a lot of reasons why I think Trump should put it out. One obviously is for the good of the country. The political fabric. If he doesn't do that, this story doesn't go away. I think there would be a stigma on his presidency. I think he would look weak. Those are all the other reasons.

But what I wrote about in this column is, I do think that we've become (INAUDIBLE), the media reporting and in some cases misreporting things, I think has actually basically desensitized us to what could come out that's more crazy or scandalous than what we already have heard?

(LAUGHTER)

LEWIS: So, I think that Donald Trump put it out there and spin it.

LEMON: Sometimes, Matt, the truth is often stranger than fiction.

LEWIS: Could be.

LEMON: But, listen, I don't disagree with you. I think both sides are putting way too much stock in this Mueller report. One side is expecting the president, the administration, to be completely vindicated, right? And then the other side is expecting a total indictment and to see the president in handcuffs. I don't think either one is going to happen. I think it's going to be somewhere in the middle. Go ahead, Alice.

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Don, I think Matt uses a great analogy in his piece that I encourage people go to Daily Beast and see it because I'm not going to spoil it. It takes a little bit of time to explain it so go there and read it. But the overall premise is that this administration has clearly decided that they would subscribe to the drip, drip, drip mentality of getting this information out there.

And from a communication standpoint, I subscribe to the rip the band- aid off and get it all out there mentality to the degree they have said there's no there there, there's no collusion, there's nothing to say there, then get it out there. All these questions about what's going on, what happened, was there any collusion, was there any coordination, the only way to answer all those questions and stop being asked those questions is to put it out there.

So, I would like to think that once this report is completed, which I'm not going to prejudge and speculate as to what's in it --

LEMON: Like Matt is doing, but go on. (LAUGHTER)

STEWART: No, he's not. He's saying they would be better served to put it out there. But yes, put it out there. No one will be asking questions. That goes for those on the right and the left.

LEMON: OK.

STEWART: Put it out there and there will be no more questions.

LEMON: What do you say to that? Giuliani is insinuating that the campaign may have colluded, but he said some people in the campaign, but he doesn't think the president. Do you think it's a rip the band- aid? Do you think it's what Matt says, that oh, we already know what's in there?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I don't think they have the option to rip the band-aid, because they don't know. Really only Trump and some people in the Trump Organization know. And it's not like you can walk into the president and say, you know, what did you know, when did you know it? You just can't get the truth out of him.

I have to say, I love the analogy that I'm not going to spoil Matt's piece. It's a good piece and worth reading. But I fundamentally disagree with it for a couple of reasons. One is, I was in the middle of the Clinton impeachment, and that actually had much more leaking going on. And by the time Starr issued his report, except for the sordid details, everybody sort of knew and it was somewhat anti- climactic.

Mueller's held everything close to the vest, and I think there really is, you know. You have Giuliani out there spinning a different story every day. People need something to guide them on what really happened here. Then, you have to remember that the report is just the first step.

Once you get up to Capitol Hill, whether it's in a Judiciary Committee hearing or an impeachment hearing, you're going to see these texts, you're going to see people. People will have to testify to what they know. So, I don't think this will be anti-climactic.

The last point I'll make is, a lot of the criminal, alleged criminal behavior happened within the Trump Organization, and that's being investigated by the southern district of New York. So, Mueller, again, is just a piece of this puzzle.

LEMON: Matt, what do you say to that? Because you do have the southern district. You didn't have that, Joe. You didn't have that arm of it during the Clinton.

LOCKHART: No, no. This was just Starr, yeah.

LEMON: Yeah. Go ahead, Matt. There is that piece.

LEWIS: Yeah. I guess my theory is, I think what Rudy Giuliani is doing, for example, talking about him earlier tonight, seems crazy. And every time he goes out there, people are saying, why is he doing this, it doesn't make sense.

I think it's very strategic. He is basically raising -- he's actually raising the expectations for the Mueller report. He's essentially conceding, well, somebody, maybe somebody was colluding with Russia, but not Trump. He's actually making it more likely that it will be anti-climactic, whatever comes out.

LEMON: OK.

LEWIS: I think it's strategic.

[23:54:58] Now, again, maybe they have the goods on Trump, maybe there's a smoking gun, maybe there are tapes, right? And so that could always happen. But I think that the safer bet is to assume that this is going to be anti-climactic.

LEMON: OK.

STEWART: And Don, I think Matt raises the great point, that Giuliani is here to raise the expectation for Mueller in the court of public opinion. But at the end of the day, Mueller could care less about the court of public opinion --

LEMON: Or what Rudy Giuliani says, right?

STEWART: Exactly. He's concerned about the court of law. That's what he's going to follow.

LEMON: I got to run. I got to run because I have other stuff to do. But just quickly a show of hands, who thinks the Saints were robbed yesterday?

LEWIS: Totally.

STEWART: Totally.

LEMON: That's everybody.

LEWIS: Not even close.

STEWART: Drew Brees, MVP.

LEMON: Robbed. There you go. All right. Thanks, everyone. I appreciate it. And thank you for watching. Before we leave you tonight, though, here's a look at CNN film "Three Identical Strangers," airing Sunday night.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I tell people my story, they don't believe it, but it's true.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): I've always thought, what would it be like if you turn the corner one day and you saw yourself?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my god.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): The first time that the boys met, the three together, it was a miracle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): There was nothing that could keep us apart.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's when things kind of got funky.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Something was just not right. I'd like to know the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): There was always a question mark.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): The parents had never been told.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): They're trying to conceal what they did from the people they did it to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): There's still so much that we don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): How could you not tell us?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): "Three Identical Strangers," Sunday at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)