Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Roger Stone Pleaded Not Guilty Over Charges; President Trump Contradicts Intelligence Community; Christie Warns SDNY Poses Bigger Threat To Trump Than Mueller Investigation; Interview with Rep. Jackie Speir (D-CA); Interview with Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX); 'Sex Coach' Who Claims Evidence of Collusion Speaks To CNN. Aired 11-12a ET

Aired January 29, 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 have major developments tonight in the Russia investigation tonight to tell you about. So, we're devoting this entire hour to an in-depth look at all things Russia.

Roger Stone pleading not guilty in court today after being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He is facing seven criminal charges of making false statements, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. But Stone on info war of all places, the conspiracy theorist internet show, calls Mueller's case a legal lynching and has this message for the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER STONE, FORMER TRUMP ADVISER: This isn't about me, Alex. It's about the president.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

STONE: They are coming for him and they want to silence me because I see the big picture. I lived in 1974. I worked for Richard Nixon. I saw that takedown. It was very, very similar. The president needs to wake up, this is a speeding bullet heading for his head.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Stone is now the 34th person charged by Robert Mueller and one of six Trump associates accused of lying about Russia. The question is why? Why were they all lying and what does this all mean for Robert Mueller's investigation?

Shimon Prokupecz joins me now. Shimon, good evening to you, sir. There are new signs tonight that Robert Mueller is nearing the end of his investigation, true?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes. There --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Can you tell us?

PROKUPECZ: Well, so there were some clues today that we saw in court where Roger Stone appeared. The U.S. attorney for the Washington, D.C. U.S. attorney's office here in the district spoke. He told the court he sort of took the lead here at the arraignment. The prosecutors from the special counsel's office who were there said that they would be trying this case jointly with the Washington, D.C. U.S. attorney's office.

So, this could possibly suggest that the special counsel's office does not expect to be around for very long, certainly when this case finally goes to trial and so they've been working with the U.S. attorneys in Washington, D.C. on this investigation. It could also suggestion that there are possibly more charges that are coming for Roger Stone as the grand jury continues to hear from witnesses.

LEMON: So, what does that mean for the future, for future indictments?

PROKUPECZ: Well, it means, basically, that a, that the D.C. district here, the U.S. attorneys here would take over any pending indictments, anything still going on that perhaps may have started with the special counsel, but is now outside of their purview, as we've seen in other situations like the Michael Cohen.

And that basically as we were told yesterday but the acting attorney general the things are winding down, that things are coming close to a finale here. It could mean that a, that they are done pretty much and that there are loose ends that will be over seen by the Washington U.S. attorney.

LEMON: So, Roger Stone as you mentioned pleading guilty -- pleading not guilty today. What's next for him, Shimon?

PROKUPECZ: So, he'll be in court again on Friday where he's going to for the first time and this is crucial. He's going to be in front of the judge that will be overseeing his entire case that will be overseeing the trial. It's Judge Amy Berman Jackson. She's known to a lot of us because she's been overseeing the Paul Manafort case.

LEMON: Right.

PROKUPECZ: So, she has a lot of knowledge about the special counsel's investigation. Also important for Roger Stone, obviously, is whether or not she puts in place a gag order preventing him from speaking any more.

Obviously, he's on TV every night. Whether it's info wars or whether it's somewhere else on Fox News certainly, he's appearing. The judge here has already instituted a gag order against Paul Manafort and his team and obviously the prosecutors. Whether or not she does that in this case is going to be crucial certainly for Roger Stone. So, we should know that by Friday by the time he's done with his court appearance.

LEMON: Always appreciate your reporting. Thank you, Shimon. PROKUPECZ: Good to be here.

LEMON: Now I want to bring in Steve Hall, Susan Glasser, and Matthew Rosenberg.

Good evening to you. Thank you all for joining us.

Susan, there is so much to talk about when it comes to this investigation. Robert Mueller wrapping up and then there is this dog fight how much of his report that we're going to see. How do you see this all playing out?

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, you know, my crystal ball is murky when it comes to knowing what exactly is going to happen. Let's just say that I'm looking forward eagerly to read this report whenever it does come out.

[23:05:01] You know, I'm not yet convinced I know enough what to make of these sort of Kremlinology signs of the last couple days except that a, there is an enormous amount of evidence the Mueller investigation gathered that we've seen the individual shards of. We haven't been able to put together the mosaic yet, if you will, in that Roger Stone indictment, for example. It's, you know, just under 30 pages.

There is tantalizing glimpses of a bigger picture that involved not only WikiLeaks named only as organization number one but the direct connection to the Trump campaign itself is still murky to me.

So, you know, I'm curious to see whether in fact, as Shimon reported that this U.S. attorney's involvement means that the Mueller team won't be around to try this all the way through or whether it indicates some further developments that we're only getting a whiff of.

LEMON: Matthew, Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader had something to say about the report. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I would like for as much as possible the Mueller report to be open. I don't know enough about Justice Department regulations to know what part of that, you know, might not make sense not to be disclosed.

So, but let me just say, I think it ought to be as fully open and transparent, whatever the recommendation is as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, I didn't hear him say that he hold a vote on the legislation, though. Will we ever really know what Mueller's investigation finds?

MATTHEW ROSENBERG, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: We're going to find out sooner or later. I mean, that's a kind of neat trick by Mitch McConnell there. He wants it open. But hey, you know, let the DOJ decide. I think we all -- let's step back for --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: That non-answer answer.

ROSENBERG: Pretty much.

LEMON: Yes.

ROSENBERG: We didn't hear Roger Stone kind of site 1974. He was there for the Richard Nixon takedown as kind of like the warning of what's coming. I don't know --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: He didn't say Nixon was guilty of a lot of stuff and it was caught on tape.

ROSENBERG: No, not at all. And I don't know if I were the president that I would want my allies out there kind of comparing it to '74 and Richard Nixon. Not where I'd want to be.

LEMON: Yes. You are correct with. Steve, you know, this back and forth on whether we'll see Mueller's Russia findings comes on the day that the director of national intelligence is warning Russia, that Russia wants to target the 2020 U.S. elections. Is the Trump administration doing enough to protect us against this increasing threat against Russia?

STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I don't think so, Don. It begs the question as to whether or not any administration could. What we saw with the intelligence community is presentation today and their annual threat assessment is open session was an acknowledgement and indeed, I would say, probably highlighting of the fact that Russia and China are able to conduct this cyber warfare which we saw, you know, in our own backyard right here in the United States in the 2016 election.

And it's going to keep going. The indications today, again, from the intelligence community leadership were that the Russians not only are going to keep doing this but that they are getting better at it, that they are learning from our reactions and the Chinese, of course, were designated as the most significant counter intelligence threat.

So that means the Chinese, you know, have sort of jumped on this band wagon, and you know, the Iranians and other rogue nations are going to do the same thing.

So, you know, quite apart from our own little, you know, focus, little, it's not little, it's the president of the United States for God's sakes, but there's other bigger threats out there, you know. People are looking how to conduct cyber warfare against this. The intelligence community has focused on it. I hope the administration has too.

LEMON: Yes. Susan, Russia really just one of the areas that most senior U.S. intelligence officials contradicted the president today. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this, I don't see any reason why it would be.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FBI: Not only have the Russians continued to do it in 2018 but we've seen an indication they are continuing to adapt their model.

TRUMP: We have won against ISIS. We've beaten them and we've beaten them badly.

DAN COATS, UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria.

TRUMP: Chairman Kim we have a great chemistry and we're well on our way. You know, we signed an agreement. It said we will begin the immediate denuclearization.

COATS: North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities and i's unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, you know, he said he misspoke in Helsinki - "I don't see why it would be." That what he laid there. Remember we discussed that. But give me your reaction to this disconnect between the president of the United States and intelligence community.

GLASSER: You know, it's like they dumped a bucket of cold water over, you know, the entire, you know, Trump hot air of its foreign policy. And it's not just President Trump but also the national security advisor John Bolton.

[23:10:01] At times, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has essentially had to contradict reality in order to pursue a false theory of the case when it comes to the North Korea talks.

And remember, the president is now scheduled to have another summit meeting with Kim Jong-un pursuing a theory of the case that his own intelligence agencies say is deeply flawed. He's just announced the pull out of U.S. troops from Syria, again after having falsely asserted the total defeat of ISIS. On Russia he's repeatedly contradicted the intelligence agencies.

And again, you know, this is just not the way any president in the past has treated policy differences are one thing, to go to war against the facts and the facts as produced by your own government, a great expense, by the way, and an effort to provide this kind of non- partisan information.

You know, many people I talked to in the national security world they say that Dan Coats is increasingly, you know, a lone example of the kind of public service that in the past we relied upon in this kind of national security position.

I've long wondered how long is he for this administration now that all the others like him, Secretary Mattis, for example, a DOD are gone. You know, you got to wonder after something like today where they are such a pointed contrast.

LEMON: Yes.

GLASSER: How long will President Trump put up with it?

LEMON: Yes, and there were so many on so many things that they contradicted him. But I've got to ask you, I mean, Matthew, you know, I know more than the generals, nobody knows more about this than me. I know where -- do you believe president -- that the president is deliberately ignoring the country's top intelligence chiefs?

ROSENBERG: I mean, it certainly it looks like that, you know. I mean, take Iran, for example. The intelligence assessment is very clear. Iran is not doing anything of building a nuclear weapon. Yet, Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal.

You know, forget "Jason Bourne." Forget all the spy movies you've seen. Steve here can tell us the main job these intelligence agencies is to go out and find out what's going on in the world and tell policy makers so they can make decisions and give them the information they need.

If they're not -- so the president and his policymakers aren't listening to information, what information are they listening to? Is there any information they are listening to or these are all just their beliefs or what they want to believe? And I think there's a question we really need to consider here.

LEMON: What kind of message does a disconnect between the president, Steve, and the intelligence committee send to adversaries like Putin?

HALL: Well, it's a good news message for guys like Putin, it's a really bad news message for our allies and actually, that was eluded to in the introduction to the written statements that were made today by the leadership of the intelligence community.

The concern that, you know, this administration's policies might be distancing ourselves or distancing itself from our allies, which would be very dangerous indeed. But Yes, I mean, you know, the rule to elude to an often-famous quote, the president is entitled to his policies but he's not entitled to his own facts.

And the United States intelligence community's job is to bring him facts and then the assessment of those facts. I've seen many times where decision-makers, senior policy leaders and even the president of the United States have said, OK, intelligence community, I understand what you're saying but I'm going to go in this direction. That's fine. That's the president's prerogative to do that as the executive.

LEMON: Yes.

HALL: But when you say things like, you know, Yes, Iran is not paying any attention to us and the intelligence community says well, actually they are. And when the facts are refuted by your own, you know, systems, your own civil servants who you pay and spend a lot of time and effort to get this information for you, you can't just turn around and say well, no, I've got a different set of facts and they are going to drive my policy.

So, it's, you know, it's really -- we haven't seen a situation like this that I can think of in my time in the intelligence community.

LEMON: Matthew, we're also learning a lot more tonight about that private Trump-Putin discussion at the G-20 just two months ago. According to the Financial Times, the only other American present was the first lady, not a translator or any note taker to record what was discussed. How concerning is that?

ROSENBERG: I mean, look, we also learned that the meeting was about 15 minutes. It was hardly a quick kind of chat. And talked about foreign policy issues, they talked about Syria.

I think it's incredibly concerning the president is sitting down having 15-minute discussions with foreign adversaries about various substantive issues and nobody in this in administration that even has a reliable kind of record of what went on there. You know the Russians know what went on there. They had a translator. The Americans, they had Melania.

LEMON: Interesting. Thank you all. I appreciate your time.

Roger Stone seems to be in a fighting mood. But will his public antics work against him, against him in court.

[23:14:58] Plus President Trump just weighing in on whether he might offer Stone a pardon. We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump asked the Washington Post whether -- by "The Washington Post" whether he would consider pardoning Roger Stone saying today quote, "I have not given it any thought."

So, let's discuss. John Dean and Harry Litman both here.

Good evening, gentlemen. John, the president says he hasn't thought about a pardon for Stone. Do you buy that?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, he thought about it as soon as the question came, obviously. So, he's thinking about it now. Given the prompt. You know, I think he knows that it's going to be very dangerous. He's certainly before 2020 and the election campaign and if he's reelected, which I hope it doesn't happen, but if that would happen, he might consider it or if he's defeated, he might do it during his lame duck period, and that's what George H.W. Bush did. [23:20:00] LEMON: Interesting. So, Harry, listen, Roger Stone looks

set to fight these charges. That's what he's saying. He was on that conspiracy theorist thing, the info wars. What do you think? Does he have a chance?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: No, he doesn't have a chance of winning the charges, and he says that it might be so, you know, he was flamboyant yesterday. And today, introduced to jaws of the law, he was sober in his blue suit and no antics outside the courtroom.

I think he's sobering up pretty quickly. He may or may not cooperate. That's a big question. But he can't beat the charges. They have him letter and verse line flagrantly to Congress.

LEMON: Interesting. But Harry, Stone is the 34th person charged. He is one of two defendants to be currently fighting the charges. Seven people have pleaded guilty, the special counsel has a pretty solid track record, don't you think?

LITMAN: Probably best in history and add to that the professionalism, the absence of any leaks and the like. Yes. And for Stone, to John's point, the pardon dynamic is tricky because Trump, I don't think can pardon him before the election. That means Stone either has to plead and somehow cooperate or go through the trial with the evidence that will come out, that will obviously be damming to him and probably to Trump.

It's kind of like the Manafort issue. He can't just simply lay down. He's got to either fight with the harm that occasions or else cave completely with the harm that occasion.

LEMON: Got it. John, I mentioned info wars to Harry, this is what Roger Stone had to say after his court appearance to them. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STONE: This is a lynching. This is a legal lynching of me because I appear on info wars, because I'm friends with Alex Jones. Because I support Donald Trump and I supported him for president and I still support him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: OK. I mean, at the end of the day his fate will be decided in court. Is he really helping himself with this?

DEAN: Well, he's not, and I wouldn't be surprised if the judge, when he goes back to court on Friday, either warns him or puts in place a gag order because Roger is known for his antics and while he didn't do any today, he was just before a magistrate judge who instructed him don't break the law and don't leave the country and turn in your passport and be willing to give DNA if asked and so on and so forth.

It was a fairly informal but yet stayed proceeding that is regular order. But I think he's got to stop this nonsense and the kind of charges he's making on info wars, he's obviously getting somehow paid for or selling books for it or something.

LEMON: Yes. And who cares? Because I'm friends with Alex Jones and -- nobody cares. Harry, listen, all this -- what did you say?

DEAN: Nobody listens to that that I know.

LEMON: Maybe as entertainment. Listen, all this is happening as Stone his associate Andrew Miller has been told by the special counsel that they want more witness testimony from him. Miller's attorneys think -- thinks that means more indictments for Stone are in the works. What do you think, Harry?

LITMAN: It sure feels like it to me. That's been the question of the day since Friday but you look at the kind of predicate that Mueller laid out in the indictment, the many lines of communication from Stone to others from the campaign to Stone.

There is some argument that maybe Mueller is still developing things and who knows what riches await him in the e-mails and Twitter and even the coded messages of Stone, which they'll probably be able to decode forensically.

But, yes, I don't see his stopping here and there is the famous paragraph 12 now in the indictment about the whoever ordered the higher campaign official in general, this indictment links up U.S. behavior with the grew indictment from July of last year and I see more charges coming.

LEMON: Fascinating. There are signs, John, that Mueller will -- is going to let U.S. attorneys in D.C. handle the Stone case. Does that tell you anything?

DEAN: Well, it -- when I first read that and heard it again today it sounded like one, he might need some aid on his staff, he's running a very lean operation.

[23:24:59] He might have bigger fish to fry, and this is a pretty solid case he's put together that good trial judges like they have in the U.S. attorney's office can handle.

So, I don't read into that that that's the beginning of the end. It's rather that like he turned things over to the southern district, he knows they are competent. He knows they're competent in the district of Colombia. So, I don't want to put a lot of meaning into that as to the future or longevity or lack thereof of his investigation.

LEMON: Harry, on Monday we heard acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker say that the Mueller investigation is close to being completed. But you're out with an op-ed in the Washington Post that's saying that there are just too many loose ends. Can you explain to me what that means, what do you mean by that?

LITMAN: Sure. There are so many things we don't -- that Mueller hasn't completed yet and that are integral part of his commission. So, all the things I just laid out with Stone and the things we do already know, Manafort, Cohen, Gates, they're not even sentence and they just had status hearings in mid-March.

But what about Kushner and Trump Junior and Ivanka, what about the Seychelles -- excuse me -- episode. There are many loose ends. And the big point is that even if there were not that many, they are time consuming.

Stone is the perfect example of that we're all that were left, we'd still be looking at the fall. I think Manafort, a, spoke out of school, a terrible blunder to say anything like that about a pending investigation because you never know what will happen and witness the Clinton investigation and Comey in 2016 and be, he just doesn't know.

The things that are still out there are time consuming and that's just the things we know about. With Mueller, there is often more.

LEMON: All right, everyone, hold your thoughts because we have a lot more to talk about. Stick around. I want to talk about who Chris Christie thinks the president should be even more worried about than Robert Mueller.

[23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Chris Christie who once headed up the Trump transition team has a stark warning for the president tonight. Back with me, John Dean and Harry Litman.

So Harry, this is Governor Chris Christie on MSNBC earlier today. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I think that the Mueller investigation is not the president's biggest problem and that the southern district of New York investigation has always been much more dangerous and had much more hazard to it than does the Mueller investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So what do you make of that? Christie was a U.S. attorney for New Jersey, has experience dealing with the southern district. Is the SDNY investigation a bigger threat to Trump than Mueller?

LITMAN: There is a lot to that. Right, as U.S. attorney, I did it, too. Anyone that goes toe-to-toe with SDNY knows they're formidable. Look, culturally, they are much more aggressive and they are not bound by the restrictions in the regulations, they can push on things. But probably the biggest point here, their bailiwick is all the things that happened with Michael, through Michael Cohen and the like in the years before Trump was a presidential candidate and even half trying to at least act somewhat sensibly.

We're talking about the walking crime organization that was the Trump Organization and Trump Foundation. SDNY has the chief financial officer cooperating. They really have the possibility of quite a grab bag of assorted fraud charges against Trump. Yeah, they are very dangerous. They are still bound by the indictment policy. They won't indict him while he's president. Bill Barr will tamp that down. But come January 2020, if he hasn't won, he's looking at very serious threats there.

LEMON: Interesting. So, the SDNY is not just investigating the hush money payments that Cohen made, they are also investigating spending at the Trump inauguration. They are not limited to the scope of Russia and Russia-related issues, are they, John?

DEAN: No, they are not. As Harry said, they are very aggressive. I recall when the U.S. attorney for the southern district called me as counsel to the president. I happen to know him. It was Whitney North Seymour at the time. He wanted to make very clear to the White House that he was differing with the Department of Justice on some policy and that was by long tradition.

And so I think that tradition has continued. And so Trump -- his attorney general might have to wrestle with a problem. Harry says he doesn't think they would breach the policy agreement on no indictments. I'm not sure if there is any place that it will ever be tested if it would be out of the southern district.

LEMON: John, Christie also weighed in on the former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, who he says is a friend cooperating with Mueller. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIE: I will tell you this. That was forced by the lousy legal advice that the president got to waive privilege as to the White House counsel. And I think it was dumb advice at the time. It put Don in the position where he had to give all that testimony. And it just was dumb advice from a C-grade legal team.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Dumb advice from a C-grade legal team.

[23:35:01] Do you agree with that?

DEAN: It was stunning when they gave him permission, Dowd and Ty Cobb, to go ahead and talk almost contemporaneously with events that were unfolding to the -- probably the grand jury at maximum and at minimum, at the top investigators and the special counsel's office.

So he unloaded as it was all going along, 30 hours. And they did not claim privilege. They did waive it. So Christie nailed that. They could have at least -- if they wanted to block the testimony, they could have fought it. I'm not -- attorney-client privilege is a tricky thing for White House counsel.

Ken Starr back during the Clinton administration broke right through that privilege when Hillary Clinton claimed it. And that's the president in the district of Colombia that there is no privilege for White House counsel.

LEMON: Harry, what do you make of Christie's interpretation of events? Wasn't McGahn protecting himself by cooperating with Mueller?

LITMAN: I mean, I think McGahn, unless he was legally prescribed, would have to talk. He's sort of an establishment in Washington figure. In that sense, he was protecting himself. But as John said, they could have at least launched a legal battle to try to prevent it.

But McGahn is illustrative at a broader point. There are all these names that have surfaced. We hear about them for a couple days. They go away, but they have given chapter and verse to Mueller, McGahn, Steve Bannon, Gates still cooperating, and there is probably a dozen people who have given testimony and documents.

And when Mueller goes face-to-face with subjects, he's got that arsenal from them. And McGahn, especially on the Comey episode, will be very valuable. I agree with John. I was -- they were cavalier about waiving and that's one of the other reasons, by the way, that Trump's public statements are so asinine because they frequently amount to a legal waiver, as well.

LEMON: Yeah. Thank you, gentlemen, I appreciate it. Congressional Democrats are asking questions tonight about the Trump administration lifting sanctions on three companies with links to oligarch Oleg Deripaska and whether Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has a conflict of interest. Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Congressman Lloyd Docket are next.

[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: New questions tonight about the Trump administration lifting sanctions on three Russian companies with links to oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a Putin ally.

Earlier this month, 11 Senate Republicans voted with Democrats for a measure that would have stopped the Treasury Department from relaxing the sanctions. That effort failed in the Senate and the sanctions were formally lifted on Sunday.

But now, some Democrats are raising questions about whether the Russians got off easy and about whether Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has a potential conflict of interest.

Let's discuss now with Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Congressman Lloyd Doggett. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. We appreciate it. Congresswoman Speier, I'm going to start with you. The Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, led the effort to lift these sanctions, but you say he should have recused himself from the deliberations. Why is that?

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: Because he was engaged in selling a part of his Hollywood studio to a man by the name of Len Blavatnik. Blavatnik is one of the Russian oligarchs that has a significant interest in Deripaska's RUSAL. So, for that reason alone, he should have recused himself.

What's more concerning, however, is that the whole effort to first impose sanctions and then lift them, I think, was a whole sham. It was extended which is highly irregular to extend the period of time before imposing the sanctions. And then when you look at how much Deripaska still has an interest, if you count his wife, his father-in-law, his foundation, it's still over 50 percent.

LEMON: Since you mentioned Blavatnik, let me read this. This is the spokesman for the Treasury Department responding to the letter that you wrote Mnuchin. Here is what they say, OK? They say, "we received the letter from Representative Speier. Her concerns are premised on false information. As our response to her letter will make clear, Steve Mnuchin had no direct business relationship with Mr. Blavatnik and any suggestion of a conflict of interest is baseless." What's your response, congresswoman?

SPEIER: Well, the words, I think, there is quite interesting. We were talking about Blavatnik's company. And in fact, there was a direct purchase by Blavatnik's company. And if you went to the Hollywood reporter, you would see it displayed there very accurately.

LEMON: Yeah. To you now, Congressman, Doggett, the central question surrounding a whole debate about lifting these sanctions is why. Why is the administration working so hard to benefit Russia and Oleg Deripaska? What do you think?

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D), TEXAS: Don, as you mentioned, they did this Sunday afternoon. I think they work seven days, eight days if they could to show favoritism to the Russians.

(INAUDIBLE) got involved with this last summer when three days after Trump surrender to Putin in Helsinki, they dug out thousands, literally thousands of applications for exemptions from Trump tariffs, mostly from American businesses, and they pulled out RUSAL, this Deripaska company, and they granted it an exemption.

[23:45:00] After they got caught at that, Treasury blamed Commerce, Commerce blamed Treasury, and they backed down. The whole purpose of the sanctions is to deter Russian misconduct.

LEMON: Let me ask you this.

DOGGETT: I don't see the evidence they've done that.

LEMON: I was looking down because I just want -- because there is a response to RUSAL that you mentioned. Mnuchin says that they forced Deripaska to give up substantial control of the company you mentioned, RUSAL.

This is what The New York Times reports about the contents (ph) of the document outlining the deal, OK. They say, "the deal contains provisions that free him from hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while leaving him and his allies with majority ownership of the most important company." Is Deripaska, is he laughing all the way to the bank on this one?

DOGGETT: Absolutely. It's a real shell game. He continues to have substantial influence over what this business does. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin sent an arbitrary 50 percent rule (ph). That is if Deripaska went below 50 percent of the shares, he no longer exercised control.

It's very ironic, indeed hypocritical that his paid lobbyist has pointed in other documents to effective control of RUSAL by a company that only owns 48 percent.

So, yes, he may have less than 50 percent of the shares, but given the kind of brother-in-law, sister-in-law, ex-wife, family foundation, he is exercising influence.

But, you know, that's what we wanted to explore. We wanted the congresswoman's committee, the Intelligence Committee, to have an opportunity to do an assessment, hear from the intelligence agencies as to whether there was affective control by gathering on Sunday and putting out this lifting of sanctions. Putin got a favor, but the American people did not.

LEMON: OK. Listen, this is taking place against a backdrop of U.S. intelligence agencies today saying Russia is still interfering in America's electoral process and that 2020 will be a prime target. Congresswoman, what is your reaction to that?

SPEIER: I think it's a stunning exposure once again of how Russia has been very successful at intervening in our elections, getting into our electrical grid, and I think as yet another example of how we are asleep at the switch. The president of the United States has a far too cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin.

And the sanction relief is just yet another example of how they felt they had to -- they had their hands in the cookie jar. They had to show that they were putting some sanctions together. They then lift the sanction which is unprecedented unless there is national security interest. I think we're going to see more of it.

LEMON: Congresswoman, Congressman, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

DOGGETT: Thank you, Don.

SPEIER: Thank you.

LEMON: The so-called sex coach who claims to have evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is speaking out. We're going to tell you what she is saying about her claims now.

[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: A Belarusian model who calls herself a sex coach, claiming to have information about Moscow's attempts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, is speaking out. She says Russian agents told her to keep silent about her dealings with the Russian billionaire linked to the former chairman of Donald Trump's campaign. Here's CNN's Senior International Correspondent, Matthew Chance.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is remarkable this self-styled sex coach is still willing to talk. But 11 months in a Thai jail that she describes as hell has made Nastya Rybka even more convinced of the value of publicity.

Do you regret making those claims that you made about the evidence you said you had of Russia and the Trump campaign colluding? Do you regret that?

ANASTASIA VASHUKEVICH, BELARUSIAN ESCORT: I think it saved my life. How can I regret about that? Because if journalists not come at that time and that story not come to newspapers, maybe I will die now.

CHANCE: These were the images that got her into trouble, her and a Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, on his yacht in 2016. There was another figure photographed too, a Russian deputy prime minister, sparking allegations this was a secret meeting to pass on Trump campaign briefings.

Did Manafort owe you millions of dollars?

The oligarch had already been offered private briefings by his former business associate and Trump campaign chair, Paul Manafort. Manafort is now behind bars, convicted of financial crimes in the special counsel's Russia investigation. Meanwhile, in Thailand, the sex coach promised even more details.

You said I'm ready to give you all the missing puzzle pieces, videos and audio, regarding the connections of our respected lawmakers with Trump, Manafort and the rest. Why did you say that?

VASHUKEVICH: After that, I was almost one year in prison, for me really enough. I understand mostly of your question is about Oleg Deripaska, about connection of America and something like that, but I cannot answer. You should understand me.

CHANCE: This was the welcome waiting for the 28-year-old when she finally returned to Moscow earlier this month. Forced into a wheelchair and dragged away, terrified. All the evidence she once had, she told me, was confiscated. And once behind Russian bars, she was given a stark warning before being unexpectedly reached.

[23:55:03] VASHUKEVICH: I had some talk when I was in jail, in Russian jail.

CHANCE: Yeah.

VASHUKEVICH: And they explained to me very clear, what should I do, what should I say, and what should I -- shouldn't I say, something like that.

CHANCE: Who explained that to you?

VASHUKEVICH: Russian agent.

CHANCE: What did they say to you?

VASHUKEVICH: They said to me, don't touch Oleg Deripaska anymore.

CHANCE: Don't touch him, she added, or risk replacing that Thai prison with a cell in Russia.

Matthew Chance, CNN, Moscow.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Matthew Chance, thank you so much. Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)