Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Washington Post Attorney General Disagrees With Department of Justice's Own Inspector General On Investigation Of Trump Campaign; Power Of Trump Tweet Runs Up Against the Power Of The Constitution; White House Will Not Participate In Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing On Wednesday; Mueller Investigation Witness And Memos. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired December 02, 2019 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: --Parnas' attorney told the court that Mr. Parnas wants to comply with the subpoena from House Intel Committee and ask therefor for copies of materials that had been seized, so that they can turn them over to Congress both the judge and prosecutors said, OK, you should expect to get it. In other words, if the Feds aren't going to stand in a way, that becomes really interesting. Could Parnas or anything that he has become a last minute piece of evidence in the impeachment proceedings? Be on the lookout. Thank you for watching. CNN Tonight with the man, Don Lemon, right now.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Hey, how are you doing?

CUOMO: Hey, happy thanksgiving again.

LEMON: You as well. You ever notice something? Here's what I've noticed.

CUOMO: That you're tan and I look like a chicken leg before it's cooked?

LEMON: I know. It looks good, doesn't it?

CUOMO: It looks real good.

LEMON: It was nice, I got to tell you. I love you, but I didn't miss you at all.

CUOMO: Well deserved. I'm sure I wouldn't miss me either.

LEMON: Thank you. I needed one more week. It takes about four or five days to get into it, you know that, right? And then, you know, and then you got to come back three days after that. So listen, do you ever know -- here's what I noticed about an observation that I've made. Anybody who has this president has gone after pretty much -- I can't think of anybody -- but anyone this president has gone after and his defenders still standing, still standing -- anyone -- most people or many people who are close to this president who have defended this president, not standing. Gone to prison, been indicted, lost their jobs. If they leave the White House, he goes after them. They get in trouble for something. I think that Rick is right. Everything Trump touches dies.

CUOMO: Fealty, not loyalty. Do for him or be gone. That's what it's about. But I got to tell you.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: Even I never thought that I would be listening to what I'm hearing right now.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: Peddling Russian propaganda just to confuse people about the truth and not --

LEMON: Seeing Senators and Congressmen.

CUOMO: I know. It's not like, you know, finding a couple of well- pleased media sources or some fringe rabble rouser. Senators, members of Congress. Look, I like having Randy Weber on the show. It was good to have him on tonight. But I had to like twist him up like a jiu- jitsu match just to get him to say, yes, Russia did it in 2016.

LEMON: Yes, I saw that.

CUOMO: But that doesn't mean that the president isn't truly interested in Ukrainian corruption. Then why did you give him money in the last two cycles? Then why didn't you ask him about any of the corruption that is endemic to their problems there. You know, it just none of it makes sense. If they just admitted the facts, Don, they could still get this president out of removal. They don't have to lie to get him out of trouble.

LEMON: I got an email about you when I was gone, but I didn't read it till I got back and it said, you had Senator Kennedy, from my home state on, Louisiana, I would imagine. And he said, tell Chris -- I'd have to look it up. I'm paraphrasing here.

CUOMO: Better be nice.

LEMON: Tell Chris -- I think the guy -- he changed his mind or show he retracted, he took back something he said on your show.

CUOMO: Yes.

LEMON: And he says, he came on Chris' show. Or he'll come on your show on CNN, and he'll say that. But the folks on Fox News and conservative media will never see it because he will never go on that show or on those platforms and say what he said to Chris.

CUOMO: Yes.

LEMON: And they said it's a trick.

CUOMO: Yes, I saw a lot of that. I don't believe that. I think that Senator Kennedy didn't want to come here peddling something that he knew was going to -- you know, was going to go poorly. But I think that it's what happened after that.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: Who said what to him that made him take another step backwards? And I don't like to see him maligned and called grandpapa from the monsters and whatever it is, and all the staff they are saying useful idiot. I don't like the insults. He's peddling something he knows isn't true, and this president is motivating people to mess with our institutions and what's true just to cover himself, and he doesn't even need to do it.

LEMON: Well, BOLO, be on the lookout for people who come on these programs and lie to us. We got a lot of bolos to deal with.

CUOMO: Right. Look, if they don't come on and you don't get to expose what the lie is.

LEMON: Yes.

CUOMO: What you ignore, you empower, my brother.

LEMON: See you. Good to be back. You didn't see that face.

This is CNN Tonight. I'm Don Lemon. Thank you so much for joining us. So, the House Intel Committee putting the finishing touches on its report, OK? And that report is going to be released tomorrow. This is happening as the House is moving from the impeachment investigation to beginning the prosecution of the president with the Judiciary Committee's first hearing set to begin Wednesday morning.

This is only the fourth time that this has happened in our history. Remember, this is history-making. Only the fourth time. And it raises a question. How far -- we were just talking about -- I was just talking to Chris about this. How far are the president's defenders willing to go?

[22:05:07]

The Washington Post is reporting tonight that the Attorney General, William Barr, the Attorney General who is supposed to work on behalf of the American public, not the president of the United States, he just might be Trump's defender number one. He may be going head to head with his own inspector general, disagreeing with his conclusion that the FBI had enough information to justify launching an investigation into the Trump campaign.

So, is the Attorney General willing to split the Justice Department in two, possibly damaging it for years to come just to make excuses for the president, give the president what he wants? That comes as the president is wielding his own version of the bully pulpit. He is, of course, tweeting.

And what he is saying shows you the power of a Trump tweet. The power to force his defenders to just dance to his tune. The power to relentlessly punish his enemies. Exhibit a, one Lisa Page, the ex-FBI lawyer who has been a target of this president ever since her anti- Trump texts with former agent Peter Strzok were made public.

Now she is breaking her silence, telling the Daily Beast -- and I quote here -- it's like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He is demeaning me and my career. It is sickening.

And this. If I'm walking down the street or shopping and there's somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I'll walk the other way or try to put some distance between us, because I'm not looking for conflict. Really what I want most in this world is my life back.

She wants her life back, and predictably the president's response to that is, of course, a tweet. For about the millionth time, harping on her affair with Strzok and their texts criticizing Trump. But here's the fact. The fact is that -- remember, facts first here. When Page spoke to Congress about those texts behind closed doors last year, Republicans praised her testimony, calling her a very credible witness.

And guess who else is defending Lisa Page? Someone you might not expect, who also has some experience being on the receiving end of a Trump Twitter tirade, and that is Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: It's a little surreal when the president tweets about you having been there, even if he says things that you know are not true. Now, I can tell you that from personal experience except my experience is minuscule compared to what she's been through.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Well, maybe Judge Napolitano knows that because increasingly, he is saying things like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAPOLITANO: The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence in my opinion to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: We've also seen the president use his tweets to try to intimidate a witness. Remember his attack on former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch while she was testifying live on television? Remember this exchange with Adam Schiff?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Now the president in real-time is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?

FMR. AMB. MARIE YOVANOVITCH, AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, it's very intimidating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: But it's not just the president's perceived enemies who have to watch out for his itchy Twitter finger. He uses his tweets to keep his defenders in line too. Republican after Republican demonstrating their willing -- that they are willing to say anything or do anything to get an atta-boy tweet. Here is the person we were just talking about just minutes ago, Senator John Kennedy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I think both Russia and Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Nope, nope, nope, nope. The fact is the entire Intelligence Community is clear it was Russia that interfered in 2016, not Ukraine. Sources telling CNN the Republican-controlled Senate Intel Committee has looked into the Ukraine claims and found there's nothing there. No there-there. Yet Senator Kennedy goes on to say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: President Poroshenko --

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Yes.

KENNEDY: -- actively worked for Secretary Clinton. Now, if I'm wrong.

TODD: Actively worked for secretary, I mean, my goodness. Wait a minute. Senator Kennedy, you now have the president of Ukraine saying he actively worked for the Democratic nominee for president. I mean, now come on. I mean, I got to put up -- you realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is this man, Vladimir Putin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:10:13]

LEMON: That is stunning. A United States Senator pushing false Russian propaganda, ignoring the facts. Turns out facts and your dignity apparently aren't worth much when you can get an atta-boy tweet from the president. That makes it all worthwhile. And lo and behold, thank you to great Republican Senator John Kennedy for the great job he did representing both the Republican Party and myself against -- and well then I says some disparaging things about Chuck Todd and the name of his show. I won't even repeat it. Not one of his better insults, but the message is clear. Defend this president no matter what.

Congressman Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, seeming to get the message too.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): This is a failure of the Judiciary Committee to be able to talk to fact witnesses, to be able to talk to the people that have actually been a part of this and actually have the president viably participate in his own defense, which he's not had the opportunity to do now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: I should point out that if the president wants to participate in his own defense, he could do that by sending his attorneys to the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearing on Wednesday or himself, but I digress.

Congressman Collins, well, you get a good boy pat on the back too. And it looks like his Republican colleagues in the House are taking note, releasing a 123-page report that ignores or downplays every bit of testimony that raises questions about the president's conduct. And guess what? There it is. I think you all see how that goes. Anything for that tweet.

And how about this from the president? Thanking the president of Ukraine and claiming that the case for impeachment is over. Makes you wonder whether he actually read what President Zelensky said in Time magazine -- and I quote. We're at war. If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us. I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying. Not exactly the ringing endorsement the president seems to think it is.

Now, this president is tweeting -- tweeting is nothing new here. You could argue that we should all just be ignoring it. You could argue that, but it's not just the tweet themselves. It's what they represent. Is the president of the United States using his bully pulpit to bully? Be best. And what happens when those tweets run up against the constitutional remedy for abuse of power, which is impeachment?

News tonight that Bill Barr may refuse to accept the conclusion of his own inspector general, that the FBI was justified in investigating the Trump campaign. Is he just giving the president exactly what he wants again? We'll discuss. Shimon Prokupecz is here, Michael Isikoff, John Dean, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:25:00]

LEMON: So, we are just hours away from the next step in the impeachment inquiry when the House Intel Committee votes to adopt its report and to send it to the Judiciary Committee. But first there is some breaking news about the FBI's launching of a Russia investigation in 2016. Here's what the Washington Post is reporting tonight, that the Attorney General William Barr, Bill Barr, disagrees with its own Justice Department I.G.'s conclusion about the investigation. Let's bring in now Shimon Prokupecz, Michael Isikoff, and John Dean. Gentlemen, so good to see all of you.

Shimon, I'm going to start with you because the Washington Post is reporting this. That the Attorney General doesn't agree with his own inspector general's findings. OK. So --

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right.

LEMON: Is he going to go against his own --

PROKUPECZ: I think, when you've listened to the way Bill Barr has consistently described the way the Russia investigation was handled, he's always had issues with the fact that the FBI launched this investigation. It's not necessarily surprising he's publicly made statements saying he had all sorts of questions about why did the FBI go ahead and open this investigation.

I think what's really interesting in all of this that it's coming right now as we await this inspector general's report, what's also interesting is that according to the Washington Post is that he feels that -- Barr feels that the report, the inspector general, has not been critical enough of the FBI in terms of its handling of the investigation.

And also the other thing is that, they may not have had -- the inspector general didn't have all of the information, right. There is this other investigation going on, the derm investigation, which is looking into the CIA and others in the intelligence community.

LEMON: Wait, hold on, hold on. For months and months and months, we heard about this Horowitz report. The Democrats had better look out with the Horowitz they better run. They're just scared. They're doing this. They want the president impeached because of the Horowitz report. It's going to be detrimental to them, the FISA abuses and all of this.

PROKUPECZ: And that's not going to be there, right?

LEMON: OK, so then weren't they pinning all of their hopes on this Horowitz report?

PROKUPECZ: Of course they were.

LEMON: OK. So that was the conspiracy theory and now they've moved on to now it's the Durham report that is --

PROKUPECZ: Well, they're looking to see what Durham comes up with. That is where Barr has perhaps maybe a little more control over what's going to be in that report and what Durham is going to find.

LEMON: So, John, what is it? Is this kick the can, or -- and isn't -- do you understand what I'm saying? There is one -- they moved from one conspiracy theory to another or one excuse to another, and it seems that Barr is clearly a yes man for President Trump rather than the Attorney General for the United States. How dangerous is this?

[22:20:15] JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: You

have nailed it, Don. That's exactly what it is. He wants to please dear leader. He's also -- they have another report they have to deal with. The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report on the origins of the Russia investigation. They went through this material before Horowitz did. Horowitz has now gone through it, and apparently Barr is not happy with either of those reports, and that's an awful lot of evidence to have to get rid of it somehow. And I don't know how Durham can do it and keep his credibility as a U.S. Attorney.

LEMON: Michael, I want to play this. This is from Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano. He gave an interview to reasons Nick Gillespie, and here's -- this is what he's saying about President Trump and impeachment. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAPOLITANO: Well, the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence in my opinion to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president. The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point in my view is overwhelming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So he is saying -- this is what Napolitano is saying, that he thinks the articles will include bribery, election law violation, obstruction of justice and witness interference, possibly lying under oath related to the Mueller investigation. Does that about cover it, you think?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, CHIEF INVESTIGATION CORRESPONDENT, YAHOO NEWS: Well, there's quite a bit of debate among the Democrats about whether they should go that expansive in this. You know, there was reluctance at the highest level starting with Speaker Pelosi with moving forward with impeachment on the basis of the Mueller findings. It was the Ukraine phone call that moved her and moved Chairman Schiff as well.

Remember, he was not onboard with impeachment even after the Mueller investigation. So the question now is you do have a lot of liberals, progressives, on particularly on House judiciary, who really do want to include some of those articles relating to Mueller, particularly on obstruction of justice and I think there's going to be quite intense conflict behind the scenes among the Democrats about whether to go large or go narrow and focused on Ukraine.

My guess is right now it's more likely to be narrow focused on Ukraine than the expansive articles that Judge Napolitano is referring to.

LEMON: John, another question for you. So, the White House is choosing -- and I said this in the opening here. The White House is choosing not to participate in Wednesday's House judiciary impeachment hearing. So essentially they only want to complain about not getting to participate, not actually participate.

DEAN: I think you've nailed it. Nixon had his attorney participate when that was a possibility. He was in the closed hearings that preceded the open debate on articles. Clinton did the same, and I have a vague recollection that Andrew Johnson had good representation as well.

So this is how guilty Trump is. He doesn't -- he also is probably aware that one of the reasons Nixon was forced from office is he lied to his attorney, and his attorney put it to him at the end and said, listen, you forced me to present false evidence to this committee, and I have to go up and clean it up. And that's what indeed happened when the smoking gun tape was released.

LEMON: If we have more time, we'll get back to the impeachment, but -- if we have time. But I want to get to this FBI interview, Shimon. We have notes from the Mueller investigations, the FBI interview notes and we're getting new insight from people like Hope Hicks. What did she tell investigators?

PROKUPECZ: Yes. So, this is all because of a lawsuit. You know, we along with BuzzFeed (inaudible), to get this information and it's all coming now, it's all starting. These are the notes from the FBI agents doing these interviews. And of course when Hope Hicks was interviewed, it was a big moment when we learned of that. She spent a couple of days there, and she tells a story about how when the whole issue surrounding the Trump Tower meeting and how they're going to have to make it public to investigators, Congressional investigators, Jared Kushner discovers that there was this meeting inside Trump Tower.

And what they do is they go to meet with the president about it. They have a meeting at the White House. Kushner, Ivanka, and Hope Hicks, and they have this meeting, and she describes how Kushner had a manila folder with him. He opens this folder, and he wants to tell the president about it, and the president says, I don't want to know anything about it. And then Kushner says, well, it's not really a big deal.

[22:25:06]

Well, it turned out to be one of the biggest deals in this entire Russia investigation. But what's so interesting there is that she gives us this behind the scenes look in how the president, every time they would go to him and say, hey, we may have potentially a problem here, he would say, I don't want to know about it. I don't want to hear about it. And so they never at least in that meeting told him, and of course, it turned out to be a pretty big deal despite what Jared Kushner thought. Kushner there she said told the president, this is not a big of a deal.

LEMON: Plausible deniability?

PROKUPECZ: Perhaps. I mean, you see this throughout these FBI interviews of how the president tries to distance himself from some of this.

LEMON: And we'll talk more impeachment later on in the show. Thank you, gentlemen, I appreciate it.

President Trump clinging to Gordon Sondland's recollection of the September 9th phone call as part of his no quid pro quo defense. There's only one problem. Did that call even really happen? We'll dig into that next.

[22:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland testified about a call where President Trump apparently said he wants no quid pro quo. Well, the president claims this vindicates him in the impeachment inquiry. The question is did it actually happen? I want you to take a listen to Sondland's testimony and how the president ran with it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMB. GORDON SONDLAND, E.U. AMBASSADOR: He said, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on or words to that effect. I still cannot find a record of that call because the State Department and the White House cannot locate it, but I'm pretty sure I had the call on that day.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I say to the ambassador in response, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky, President Zelensky, to do the right thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Hmm, he had to read that. Interesting. President Trump isn't the only one clinging to that line of testimony. Here are his Republican defenders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): On September 9th and most importantly reading from your deposition, you called President Trump to ask him what do you want from Ukraine. He responded, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): No quid pro quo. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing.

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Let me repeat. President Trump said, I want nothing. There is no quid pro quo.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Oh, boy. No other witness testimony by the way has corroborated Sondland's description of that call or if it ever actually happened. Here to discuss, Elie Honig and Aaron Davis. Gentlemen, I appreciate both of you joining us. Thank you so much. Aaron, I'm going to start with you because you've done a lot of reporting on this alleged call. Tell me why you're questioning if it ever really happened.

AARON DAVIS, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: Well, there's a couple, three things we've been looking at. One is that in other parts of Gordon Sondland's testimony, he's talked about how he would wait until the late afternoon to call the president, try to reach him back in the White House. That call if you remember where he's sitting at the restaurant in Kyiv that happens later after lunch.

This is a call that would have taken place earlier. In fact, we've looked at the time. It would have happened somewhere between 12:47 a.m., and 5:19 a.m. in Washington. Even at the very end of that window, that's still dark, before dawn in D.C., well over an hour before dawn, an hour before Trump's first tweet of the day.

And so the time doesn't match up to what Gordon Sondland has told people when he would call the president. And yet the president doesn't remember, as you just noted, doesn't remember this call. He's always phrasing this as, you know, Gordon Sondland just said I said this. He's never said personally, I remember this call.

And thirdly, we heard from White House officials as late as last week and again early this week that there is no White House record of this call. They still have not been able to locate one. And there should have been likely because we understand there's a protocol and a practice that's demonstrated in many other instances when Gordon Sondland when he's trying to reach the president, he would call the White House switchboard. He wouldn't call the president on his personal cell phone.

LEMON: Interesting. Maybe that's why the president had to read it off of a cue card. So, what does it mean for the president if it turns out that the call that Sondland described, Elie, never actually happened?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So it's bad news for the president because what it means is the real call is the one that actually happened two days earlier, September 7th, and we know that because two credible witnesses, Bill Taylor and Tim Morrison, both supported by their own notes they took at the time -- that was the real call, and what those witnesses said the call was according to Sondland was, I want no quid pro quo, but Zelensky needs to get to a microphone and announce the investigations. Otherwise, we're at a stalemate. That is way worse than I want nothing, I want nothing, and it appears that that's really how this went down.

LEMON: Aaron, there may not have been a call on September 9th, but according to the testimony from Tim Morrison and Bill Taylor, as Elie just said on September 7th, there was a call with a different tone. Explain why this call -- that call is so significant.

DAVIS: Well, just what Elie had said, and also this is coming now in that time frame of just a few days after September 1st when Gordon Sondland had already corrected his testimony once and said that he was in fact in Warsaw and did in fact deliver threatening message basically to the Ukrainians that their $400 million in U.S. security aid would probably not come unless they made a statement on these investigations, announcing what basically what Trump wanted. [22:35:11]

And so the thrust that Morrison, that Taylor, everyone leaves this call that happened somewhere around, you know, 6th, 7th, 8th of September before this one that is the very clear message that Trump thinks -- has been talking about -- the thrust that Taylor and all these folks are talking about at that point in time is, what do we do? What are the exact words we need the Ukrainians to say to please the president?

And that's a far more muddled, murky message than just as you've had in all those clips, the Republican saying simply the president said, no quid pro quo. Because obviously, he made have said those words, but in that earlier phone call, he's talking about exactly that.

LEMON: Yes. Elie, this -- according to the testimony, there was this alternate plan to have Ukrainian prosecutors announced investigators instead of making an announcement and said that Zelensky, but they needed the president to sign off on the plan, he wouldn't. Could that be what motivated Sondland, you think, to give the testimony?

HONIG: When you put the time line together as Aaron did in his excellent reporting, it becomes clear that's really what they were talking about. At one point Sondland and the others were trying to sort of appease the president and say, how about if the prosecutor just announces it, and Trump's response was, no, it needs to come from Zelensky itself. There's three things that I think are clear about Gordon Sondland. One, he fudged his testimony over and over again. I'm being charitable. Two, every time he fudged it, he was in Donald Trump's favor. It softened it for Donald Trump. And, three, even with that softened version, he still provided damaging testimony against Donald Trump.

LEMON: So what does that mean for the other people the overhearing the phone call and the date not matching up? What does that mean for the other person to say --?

HONIG: Well, you have to make a credibility assessment.

LEMON: That's a different call.

HONIG: Yes.

LEMON: That's a different call.

HONIG: Well, the question is, is there two different calls or is he really just fudging it on one? It doesn't seem like that September 9th call ever happened. It seems like what he's doing -- what Sondland did was sort of fudge the date and fudge the content just a bit.

LEMON: Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it.

A new biography is shedding light on Melania Trump's life as first lady including the story behind her hospital stay, her relationship with Ivanka Trump, why the president requested a lock for his bedroom door, and why the first lady has a separate bedroom on a separate floor in the White House. I'm going to speak with the author of CNN's -- of that, CNN's own Kate Bennett. She's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:40:00]

LEMON: Melania Trump, the first lady, still a mystery to many, but a revealing biography is uncovering new details about the notoriously private first lady. Kate Bennett joins me now. Kate is the author of Free Melania, which is out tomorrow. Congratulations by the way. Can't wait to read it.

KATE BENNETT, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Thank you. Oh, thanks, Don.

LEMON: So you reveal in your book that the first lady's hospital stay last year was more serious than we're told. What really happened?

BENNETT: I mean, I think we all recall the rumors and the sort of innuendo that came out after she went into the hospital, and, you know, I have to say being able to get a first lady into a hospital to have a fairly significant procedure done on her kidney without anyone knowing until after it was done is a testament to just how private she is and just how loyal her staff is.

It was a pretty serious situation, and although it sort of became a meme of its own and became, you know, grew into rumor and speculation, and to this day is still sort of unclear to the public what really happened, she was fairly ill. She did have a serious condition that had to do with her kidney and required a lengthy hospital stay.

But, again, it's that sort of -- if Melania Trump doesn't come out and say officially what the matter is or update people or sort of let them into her world, the narrative grows on its own. And I think that's been a lot of what has happened with this first lady, who has faced probably more sort of bizarre sometimes bonkers rumors than most first ladies in recent memory.

LEMON: Yes. You also reported that the first lady -- the president and the first lady have separate bedrooms on separate floors in the White House. Tell us what you learned.

BENNETT: You know, it's hard to examine and virtually impossible to examine anyone's marriage, much less the first couple. But certainly this is a couple that has for the past 20 years been together, and she, Melania Trump, has managed to find a way to really have her own independence within the relationship. And that extends to liking to have her own quiet time, her own quarters, her own place where she can be alone and she can, you know, be separated from the president.

We know for a fact from his tweeting habits that he doesn't sleep a lot. This isn't a man who needs or requires a lot of rest, and certainly, like I said, the marriage has -- we've seen it as the public. We've watched these, you know, salacious headlines, these ups and downs. We've seen her, you know, take separate motorcades. We've seen her cancel a trip to Switzerland. And certainly there are things behind the scenes we might not understand, but it is clear that this is a first couple who doesn't sleep in the same bedroom. LEMON: And he wanted a lock on his door? Why?

BENNETT: Yeah. This was one of those things in the beginning, I think it's that transition from private life to being a president where something as simple or as, you know, perhaps out of habit or need or desire, personal safety wants, wanted to do this.

And you know, of course the secret service has all kinds of rules when you live inside the executive residence. It's many, many square feet in size but also feels very small and confining when you live there for quite some time and really don't have control over something as simple as, you know, locking your door at night or opening a window. And certainly, you know, if the secret service needed to in an emergency, they needed to reach the president.

[22:45:05]

LEMON: Before we run out of time, if you can quickly tell me because I found it interesting, your play on words about Free Melania. You would think it would mean that she's trying to get out of there, but you think she's actually the freest person among the Trumps and the folks in the administration, right?

BENNETT: I do. I mean, I think the meme Free Melania that she was somewhat trapped and miserable inside the White House is really not the case. This is the first lady who has demonstrated right from the start when she didn't move into the White House that she can say and do pretty much whatever she wants to without facing the repercussion that other people in the administration or other people within Donald Trump's orbit sometimes can't.

And this is a first lady who will have the schedule she wants to have. She'll reveal to the public what she wants to reveal. She won't campaign if she doesn't want to. She's not beholden to the typical norms that we've seen of her modern predecessors. And in some ways that works for her being an independent woman, and in some ways it works against her, having a country that still is trying to understand and get to know who the first lady is.

LEMON: Kate Bennett, the book is Free Melania. Thank you.

BENNETT: Thank you.

LEMON: Best of luck.

BENNETT: Thanks.

LEMON: House Republicans releasing their own report in defense of President Trump, but it flies in the face of the testimony so far. Why the GOP is ignoring the evidence, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00]

LEMON: The House Intel Committee putting the finishing touches on its impeachment report said to be released tomorrow. That is Republican have released their own report arguing that the president did nothing wrong. And trying to defend his claims about Ukrainian meddling in 2016.

Let's discuss now. Rob Astorino is here, and Rick Wilson. Hello, gentlemen. Thanks for joining. Rick, House Republicans have put out their own report and guess what it attacks the Democrats and exonerates the president. The guess is no surprise, given how they have handled the impeachment hearings. What's happened to your Party?

RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Look, this is a post truth Republican Party. Corrupted in service only to Donald Trump and protecting Trump at all cost. No matter what. So, this report, you know, 100 semi pages I skimmed through it earlier tonight. The initial copy that I saw earlier tonight. It was a farrago of Fox News stories. Breitbart headlines gave way funding conspiracy theories and a whole variety of fantasy claptrap. And you know, much of it sounding like it could have come off R.T. or some other Putin known network.

LEMON: OK.

ROB ASTORINO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD: Rick, you forgot to use the sesame street word of mouth, debunked.

WILSON: Well. You know, that's the D is for debunked and it's also for damn degenerate.

LEMON: Listen, Rob, Republicans argue that -- none of the witnesses had any evidence of bribery or high crimes and misdemeanor. But even their own witness, right, which is E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland admitted that there was a shake down in the meeting in the Oval Office in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens in 2016. How do you dispute that fact?

ASTORINO: Well, getting back to the original question, why would the Republicans who just went through this whole scam, if you want, on this impeachment hearing. Why would they change course when they have seen everything? Is anyone, you know, expecting something different from the minority report? Nothing new.

LEMON: Two things. That wasn't my question. And why you call it a scam. So, first answer, why do you call it a scam?

ASTORINO: This whole thing? This impeachment? Oh, come on, please. Look, they have been looking for impeachment literally since election night. We've heard -- they already filed articles of impeachment. They were tabled, right?

LEMON: Let me rephrased that. Let me do -- answer the first question first. When I said -- my first question was, they said that there was -- Gordon Sondland the E.U. ambassador admitted there was a shakedown in the Oval Office. How do you dispute that fact? And then if you can answer that then you can explain to me how it is a scam.

ASTORINO: What's the shakedown? LEMON: He asked a foreign country to interfere in the election. He

admitted that he asked them to investigate and the president actually admitted it himself.

ASTORINO: Nothing is new. I mean, there's no alert down there. There's really nothing new.

LEMON: So, it's an old scam.

ASTORINO: We have not learned one new thing since the transcripts came out. We all read it. America read it, America has made up its mind. Nobody changed their mind on this, because nobody is being convinced that this is not what the Democrats have tried to do.

LEMON: But does that mean it's not wrong?

ASTORINO: Look, I'll give you this -- much to say it was a perfect call.

LEMON: No, no, no.

ASTORINO: No, no, no.

LEMON: Answer my question. I will let you go on, but does that mean it is not wrong? Does that mean it's not wrong?

ASTORINO: I'm not saying it's right or wrong, quite frankly.

LEMON: That's not what I'm asking. Does that mean it is not wrong?

ASTORINO: I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm not falling for the entrapment.

LEMON: It's not entrapment. I'm asking you to answer a simple question. You are not answering a simple question.

ASTORINO: I don't think it was wrong. I don't think it was wrong.

LEMON: Just because --

ASTORINO: And if it was wrong, it's not impeachable.

LEMON: Just because you can't convince everyone about something. Does that mean it's not wrong?

ASTORINO: Everyone like who? Like half of America?

LEMON: You are talking about a polling. It doesn't matter.

ASTORINO: It does matter. In fact Nancy Pelosi said it matters. She said, we can't do something if it's going to be impartial.

LEMON: Half of America, partial impeach and remove from office, do you think --

ASTORINO: So, what about the other half? LEMON: But do you think he should be impeach and removed from office?

ASTORINO: No, I do not.

LEMON: OK, then fine. Does that mean it's wrong? You can answer that emphatically, but you can't answer the other question emphatically. Why is that?

ASTORINO: What's the other part?

LEMON: I asked you does that mean it's not wrong. Just because you can't --

(CROSSTALK)

ASTORINO: I don't think what he did was wrong.

LEMON: Half of America doesn't believe that.

ASTORINO: I'm part of the half that doesn't think he did was wrong. And if it was wrong, if it was wrong --

LEMON: OK, go ahead, Rick.

ASTORINO: -- it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

[22:55:03]

LEMON: OK, but that wasn't my question. But go ahead Rick.

ASTORINO: Well, that was my answer.

LEMON: But you didn't answer the question.

ASTORINO: It did --

(CROSSTALK)

I did not answer the way you wanted me to answer it.

LEMON: (Inaudible), Rob, you spun. You say you answer the -- but you -- you're spinning.

ASTORINO: No, I'm not.

LEMON: It is a spin. You're not answering the question, Rob. You are not answering the question. Go ahead, Rick.

WILSON: Several things obtained here, Don. First off, you got to give Rob props for the engaging in the (inaudible) version of performative (inaudible), that comprises all the defenses of Donald Trump. This is a, we didn't do anything wrong. If we did something, it wasn't wrong. Oh, we did something, it's still not wrong. We did something wrong so what.

That's the argument string that goes on here. One of the reason since Rob point out, we haven't seen more evidence is because this White House is engaged in pattern of obstruction of justice, stonewalling, withholding witnesses, withholding documents, withholding information in order to try to protect the fact as there's been multiple sources of reporting are now saying, that the White House engaged in a cover up of the cut off of aide to Ukraine that happen minutes after Trump got off the phone and was not satisfied with his extortion plot had worked. So dispatch Mick Mulvaney who did so. Cut off the aide. This is a guy, the evidence is abundant. If Trump is so innocent, if this isn't a problem, why is every witness being stonewalled from the White House?

LEMON: OK, Rick.

WILSON: Every witness being held back from the White House. Why is all the evidence and all the paper work is being held back.

LEMON: I've got to go.

ASTORINO: Rick, the question really is why are the Democrats not going to court or not forcing it for those witnesses who they think are so important. Why, because they want the answers.

WILSON: Because Congress has constitutionally designated powers to the White House.

ASTORINO: They don't have absolute powers. The president as you know, is a separate branch of government. They don't have absolute powers.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: I have to go.

WILSON: Read the constitution.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)