Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Trump and Republicans False Claim on Ukraine Interfering on 2016 Elections; Attorney General Bill Barr Opposes DOJ Inspector General's Findings on Russia Probe; Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Speaking Out. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired December 02, 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. There is a lot going on tonight and we're going to catch you up on all the headlines in the hour ahead.

The impeachment investigation moving full steam ahead. The House Intel Committee putting the finishing touches on their report. They're going to vote to adopt the report and release it publicly tomorrow.

"Washington Post" reporting tonight that the attorney general, William Barr, disagrees with a key finding by the Justice Department's inspector general that the FBI had enough information in 2016 to investigate the Trump campaign.

The former FBI lawyer who has been targeted by President Trump for two years after sending anti-Trump texts now breaking her silence. Lisa Page is saying Trump's attacks are sickening and that she is done being quiet.

And there is the state of the 2020 race. Tonight, we're going to examine how the race for the nomination will be affected if the president is impeached and the trial is held in the Senate.

Plus, a Democratic candidate courting black voters. Poll show that Joe Biden enjoys big support among African-Americans. Now Pete Buttigieg is reaching out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So, it's so important to me to earn the support of Black voters.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.

BUTTIGIEG: Now, if you look, I mean, last poll that came out, I think there were two candidates who had double digit support among Black voters. All the rest of us were 5 percent or less, but I don't think that's permanent. I think that if we go out there and earn support, answer the questions, share who we are. Look, I'm new on the scene. I get that. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Much more ahead tonight on the Democrats and Black voters. But I want to begin with the false claim by President Trump and Republicans that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections.

Tonight, sources telling CNN that claim was debunked by the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee back in 2017. Let's bring in Max Boot, Wajahat Ali and Charlie Dent. Good evening, gentlemen.

I'll start with Max this time. Max, our Jake Tapper is reporting tonight the GOP-led committee, this was back in 2017, looked into all these allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election they found absolutely no evidence of that. So why is the president, why are his allies pushing this debunked conspiracy theory?

MAX BOOT, COLUMNIST, WASHINGTON POST: Because they're desperate, Don, and they have almost literally nothing else to say. I mean, if you read the 123-page report that House Republicans released today, it's just garbage.

It's a bunch of partisan talking points claiming that Trump was really worried about corruption even though he never really brought up the issue of corruption at all with President Zelensky of Ukraine and so they revert to these conspiracy theories and this is the most popular one.

And what's really disturbing to me here, Don, is the fact that this is not just something that was hatched in right wing twitter. This is something that was actually hatched by the Russians.

This is Russian disinformation that the Republicans are repeating, that their own members of the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted is not true, that our intelligence community has said is not true, that Fiona Hill has testified is not true.

But they don't care about the truth because all they care about is saving the president's skin. If they have to repeat Russian disinformation to do it, they're going to do it.

LEMON: Listen, I heard every word you just said, but why, why, why? I don't -- what the hell is going on?

BOOT: I mean, that's a great and cosmic question, Don. You know, what has happened to the Republican Party? And for me, from my vantage point, I'm somebody who in the 1980s growing up was attracted to the Republican Party at least in part because it was the party of moral clarity, the party of absolute standards, the party of standing up to Russia.

[23:05:05]

It has abandoned all of those commitments. It has become a party that embraces relativism that says there is no truth, that spins conspiracy theories, that promotes Russian disinformation. The Republican Party in order to hold onto power has basically sold its soul and it's a disgusting sight to see.

LEMON: I mean, it is amazing, Charlie, to sit and listen to and just watch some of the folks who, you know, whether it's in the, you know, it's congressmen or senators or it's just -- or just apologist who come on television. I mean, even tonight, Chris Cuomo had on this congressman, Randy Weber, on his show reacting to the story. Let's listen and then we'll talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Was CrowdStrike involved in the DCCC hacking?

REP. RANDY WEBER (R-TX): Yes.

CUOMO: Is CrowdStrike in part owned by a Ukrainian?

WEBER: No.

CUOMO: Really?

WEBER: Yes.

CUOMO: That's not the information -- yes really. That's not the information that we have. And the president is extremely --

WEBER: You have bad information. The man is American born of Russian decent. He's not Ukrainian.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Charlie, even when presented with information showing Ukraine was cleared, there's still falsely pointing the finger at Ukraine. Even when presented with real facts, they still point to conspiracy theories. That's why I ask, Matt, what the hell is going on? Are these people that thick?

CHARLIE DENT, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: They just can't get off of Crowdstrike. You know, Don, I was in the classified briefing in January 2017. When the leaders of the intelligence community came in and briefed the members of the House about how the Russians hacked the election to harm Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump.

They were very clear. There was no discussion of Ukraine. Okay, fast forward a few months. I visited -- I go back a few months actually, in August 2016 I was on a congressional delegation to Ukraine with Chris Coons.

I happen to arrive a day or two after it was revealed that Paul Manafort had been working for Yanukovych who was obviously a Russian sympathetic leader in Ukraine.

And I have to tell you, the Ukrainians reacted viscerally to that. They could not believe, and understandably so, they could not believe that a Republican presidential candidate would have a guy who's doing Putin's bidding, you know, running his campaign. There are -- and so -- I bet some of these members think, oh look,

these Ukrainians were upset. And they were upset and understandably so. But they did not intervene in the elections like the Russians did. They just didn't. Yes, they were upset. Yes, they made noise about it, but they did not interfere. What's so hard to understand about this?

LEMON: Apparently a lot if you listen to these folks. Wajahat, then there is this from Tucker Carlson tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: I should say for the record I'm opposed to the sanctions and I don't think that we should be at war with Russia and I think we should take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Should be on the side of Russia or Ukraine. I don't know.

WAJAHAT ALI, CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER, NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. Did he add this time that he's joking? Mr. White Supremacy is a hoax Tucker Carlson. And let's not forget that Russia attacked our elections and Russia is attacking our ally Ukraine. Over 13,000 Ukrainians have died.

But Tucker Carlson, the Republican Party has made this Faustian bargain that they will burn everything down for Trump. To the point where if Ronald Reagan was alive right now he would be like, what? We're supporting Putin and Russia and anti-Democratic and anti-Western forces that actually attack the U.S. elections that is still attacking us?

He'd say, okay, I'm going to go back to the grave and roll over and become a Democrat. But to answer your question, Don, why they're doing this is very deliberate. They're not stupid. The point is to exhaust us, to exhaust us with disinformation, to leave Americans confused. Its authoritarianism 101, attack the truth. Any enemy of Trump --

LEMON: Wait, Wajahat, let me ask you this.

ALI: Yes.

LEMON: Do you think though -- do you think maybe the people that they're getting their talking points from are that smart and maybe they're not, they're just following the orders because when asked to answer questions, they don't seem so smart when answering the questions because it doesn't follow logical thinking.

I think maybe they're just repeating talking points and they're being used by the people who are giving them the orders because these people come on television and I mean that's not smart what they're saying.

ALI: It doesn't matter. I think John Kennedy of Louisiana is very smart. He's an elitist. He went to Oxford. He knows something about golden milk lattes and avocado toasts. He knows he is either being a willing idiot or a useful idiot for Trump by promoting Russian disinformation. I'll give you one quick example. Trump knows that 3 million undocumented immigrants didn't vote for Clinton.

[23:10:02]

Trump in 2016 said the elections are rigged. Trump has promoted the white supremacy conspiracy theory of, you know, the deep state and QAnon and the replacement theory (ph) and the invasion. They know all of this. They know the source conspiracy theory is debunked.

Why do they do it? To confuse their base. And this is my prediction, and I've said this for a while, 2020 is going to happen and Trump has an out. Everyone's against me. The press is against me. Don Lemon is against me. The law enforcement is against me. The judiciary is against me. The deep state is against me.

It's all a hoax. Who are you going to trust? Me or them? And if the election is close, Don, he's going to say this was invalid eelction. Everyone was against me. Maybe or maybe not I'll leave, but guess what? The Republican base come with me, I'm your leader.

And that's what people aren't really preparing for. What happens if he doesn't leave and how much will the Republicans burn down for Trump? You're seeing it this week.

If I'm crazy, call me out on it. I have been predicting it for a while. You're seeing it now that they are openly promoting Russian disinformation that they know will hurt U.S. democracy and they're doing it for Trump.

LEMON: Oh boy. Thank you all. I appreciate it.

ALI: Thank you.

LEMON: Here's our breaking news. Bill Barr may refuse to accept the conclusions of his own inspector general that the FBI was justified in investigating the Trump campaign. Is he acting more like the president's attorney than the country's attorney? That's the question for the former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

LEMON: New reporting tonight from the "Washington Post" that Attorney General Bill Barr has told associates he disagrees with the DOJ inspector general's conclusion that the FBI had enough information to justify launching an investigation into the Trump campaign.

Let's discuss now. The former director of National Intelligence is here, Mr. James Clapper. Thank you sir. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving and I appreciate you joining me this evening.

So, Director Clapper, critics have accused Barr of behaving like he is President Trump's personal lawyer not the attorney general. What is your reaction of this report that he's reportedly considering breaking from the DOJ inspector general?

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, first, you know, we all need to read the report to see what it actually says. And I guess after the attorney general's -- what I consider a distorted portrayal of the Mueller -- the results of the Mueller investigation before it came out, which Mueller himself took issue with, I guess it isn't too surprising.

What's involved here is a subjective judgment in the end I think. And I will say I don't know the I.G., the Department of Justice, personally, Mr. Horowitz, but I do know by reputation that he is known to be thorough, very thorough, very tough and very fair.

And so, I personally put a lot of stock in what he says. Any I.G. were if it's all, if investigates something long enough particularly when it involves a process, I going to find heirs of what omission or co- omission, which apparently is what happened here.

But as far as motivation and whether it was appropriate to initiate the counter intelligence investigation from what I have read, again, we need to read the report. It comes out, you know, pretty favorable for the FBI, which obviously is not good news for -- and doesn't play to the narrative that the administration would like to hear.

LEMON: Can we talk about Rudy Giuliani for a bit here because federal prosecutors are announcing in court today -- announcing in court today that four of Rudy Giuliani's associates are under investigation for additional crimes and that new charges are likely.

Also learned that federal agents seized 29 electronic devices from those four defendants. While Giuliani's name didn't come up today, we know he is under investigation. How much trouble do you think he could he be in?

CLAPPER: Well, you know, my mom used to say birds of a feather flock together. And I wonder about his associates and his tangled entanglements were done as he intended it in Ukraine, whether on a business basis, some sort of legal representation as the president's personal attorney or some unofficial foreign policy emissary.

And all these things seem to be interlinked and interlead (ph), and so it just makes the plot thicker. And, you know, I had noticed that he is kind of been off the tube of late and I think that's probably from his standpoint a good practice.

LEMON: Yes. You know, in a new interview with "Time Magazine" the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is criticizing Trumps decision to suspend the military aid. This is what he. He said, "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."

That's a pretty strong rebuke don't you think even though the president is saying, you know, well, he is saying that I did nothing wrong. He's defending me. CLAPPER: Yes. Well, you know, when I read that Don, it was almost

heart rending to me. I first went to the Ukraine and I think it was 1992, to open up a military intelligence relationship with them and I have visited since.

And I have great respect regard for the Ukrainian people and what they're trying to do. And when you read that and you -- it's really a profound statement, a very compelling statement I should say about Ukraine's dependence on us.

[23:20:05]

And so I thought that he made a pretty profound point there and, you know, forget the quid pro quo stuff. We need the assistance because our very existence depends on it. And that is why this is so critically serious, so critically important to Ukraine.

LEMON: And again, as I said, you know, this didn't exonerate because the president tweeted thank you President Zelensky, case over. This was not an exoneration. That's a distortion of President Zelensky words.

CLAPPER: Well, yes, of course. I mean, this is kind of standard practice, you know, let's ignore the context here, which is what I think the president did.

LEMON: Yes. Listen, I want to talk about this quickly if you can, responding to a lawsuit from CNN. The DOJ has begun releasing notes from interviews with member of the Trump's inner circle from the Mueller investigation.

Notes from Hope Hicks' interview including her describing an attempt by Jared Kushner to brief Trump after that infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting. She says that Kushner tried to open a Manila folder with documents, but Trump stopped him saying that he doesn't want to know about that. What does that say to you? Is that plausible deniability?

CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it could be. I hadn't heard this. It maybe sounds like it. And I guess this is from one of the inner circle who won't be the first time somebody has tried to protect the president.

So, I guess more to follow if more of these notes are going to be -- are going to come out. I think this is being done against the Department of Justice's wishes.

LEMON: Director Clapper, thank you so much.

CLAPPER: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: Lisa Page says she is taking her power back. The former FBI lawyer who sent those anti-Trump texts breaking her silence and describing attacks by the president as feeling like a gut punch.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

LEMON: Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly has said he doesn't think the FBI had enough information to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign. Joining me now to discuss, Catherine Rampell and Josh Campbell. Good evening to both of you.

Josh, according to "The Post" reporting, Barr's opinion will contradict the findings from the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz that the FBI had enough evidence to justify opening the Russia investigation. He doesn't like the findings. Why, because they aren't what Trump wants. Do you agree with that?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, it's interesting. I mean, in a previous life I worked under six attorneys general and now I've covered two of them.

And in the modern era, I think it's fair to say that we haven't seen any attorney general or Department of Justice so closely aligned to any White House in the manner that we have seen here lately.

I think the Attorney General Bill Barr would probably say that he has firmly held views on the relationship and the powers of the presidency although his critics say that look, you know, this is an institution that has to be kept at arms length.

We just look to his past, you know, actions during the Mueller report seemingly running interference for the president. It's not surprising that he would disagree with any type of findings that isn't positive for the president.

That said, I think it's important for the viewers to understand as we await this report that this is done by an independent inspector general that's apolitical, that's non-partisan. I think his findings are highly credited in and outside of government. We'll have to wait and see what he comes up with.

LEMON: All right. Catherine, let's talk about Lisa Page, because the former FBI lawyer has had enough of the attacks by the president. And here's what she told "The Daily Beast."

She said, "I stayed quiet for years hoping that it would fade away, but instead it got worse. It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back." She feels she had no choice, but to finally speak out.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMPETITOR: Well, I think she said in that interview by Molly Jong-Fast that part of the reason she finally felt like she had to speak out was because it had just gotten so unconscionable, Trump's attacks on her, his regular attacks on her including emulating sexual intercourse it seems like while he was mocking her at a rally.

LEMON: Let's listen to that.

RAMPELL: Yes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESDIENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I love you Peter. I love you dear Lisa. Lisa, I love you. Lisa. Lisa. Oh god, I love you Lisa. And if she doesn't win, Lisa, we've got an insurance policy, Lisa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAMPELL: Well, I mean, it's super-degrading. Trump attacks men and women. He attacks people of all races, of course. But he does seem to -- he does seem to basically use his most degrading and disgusting attacks for women, for people of color, for women of color in particular.

She's a white lady so maybe it could have been worse, I guess, if she had been a woman of color. But it's pretty clear that this was a very sexualized attack in addition to the regular bullying that we often see from this guy.

LEMON: Josh, for the sake of full disclosure, you used to work with Lisa Page while you were at the FBI. And the interview she acknowledges that she made mistakes but stresses she didn't commit any crimes. Still, does what she did warrant this kind of treatment?

[23:30:03]

LEMON: Does this warrant this kind of treatment?

CAMPBELL: Well, I think in a word, no. As you just mentioned about criminal activity, I mean, I don't think there is anyone that has any, you know, knowledge of the law that would say that she is engaged in any type of crime regardless of what the partisans might say.

That said, it is possible and, you know, important to point out that there are two things that can be true at the same time and that is that on one hand, it appears as though she engaged in wrongdoing based on, you know, these text messages that we all have seen for ourselves and, you know, discussing this real deep animus support towards the president of the United States, someone that she and her team had under investigation.

That said, this animus that we have seen from the president, really going after and attacking a career public servant, this isn't someone who is famous, this was someone who went to work every single day protecting the country, working in national security.

For him to then now go after her, attack her in the way that, you know, was just described, you know, this really kind of disgusting ways is not anything that any person in government expects is going to happen. But that's a pattern that we have seen, really targeting people in order to paint the president as a victim.

And she is among a list of names of people that the president has gone after in a way that we haven't seen, going after career civil servants and attempting to again, you know, portray them as part of some deep state cabal that is trying to attack the president.

LEMON: Catherine, she also talks about constant fears of these attacks that they cause her, OK? She says, "If I'm walking down the street or shopping and there is somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I'll walk on the other side and try to put some distance between us because I'm not looking for conflict. Really, what I wanted most in this world is my life back." So --

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, OPINION COLUMNIST FOR THE WASHINGTON POST: Look, he's put a target on her back. It's pretty clear. That's what he's done with her. That is what he's done with other dedicated civil servants including Alexander Vindman, Fiona Hill, various people that he has called "Never Trumpers" or traitors or what have you.

And I think that the bigger picture is not only that he's clearly destroyed this woman's life. Whatever mistake she may has made, she probably does not deserve whatever mortal fear she is experiencing now. It's that he destroyed or he is in the process of destroying much bigger institutions than these individuals, right?

I'm thinking about the impartiality of our law enforcement system, for example. The political nature, one would hope, of our military. He's going after these institutions partly by going after these individuals, scaring them and intimidating anyone else who might have the courage.

LEMON: She has the right to be afraid.

RAMPELL: I would think so given how frequently he tweets about her and mocks her at these rallies, yes.

LEMON: Catherine and Josh, thank you both. I appreciate it. Joe Biden is leading the democratic field with strong support from black voters. Will that support help take him to the finish line? The state of the race, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: As the Democratic presidential hopefuls get closer to the upcoming primary and caucus season, they are increasing their outreach to African American voters. Let's discuss the state of the race now with Keith Boykin, Elaina Plott, and David Swerdlick. Good evening, one and all.

KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi, Don.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. David, you first.

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. LEMON: Joe Biden is leading in the most diverse presidential field in history among black voters. A lot of people have been riding him off. But no Democrat can win without strong African American support. And he's got it.

SWERDLICK: Right. Biden, though he's had some twists and turns throughout this year, he has maintained a strong lead among black voters and that is what has kept him at the top of the pack. You look at an early state like South Carolina, which goes third, in the mid- November Quinnipiac poll of South Carolina, he had 44 percent African American support, and that's in a state where the majority of Democratic voters are black.

I think this can partly be explained by the fact that Vice President Biden has an association with President Obama, who remains popular, and it's particularly because the top line issue for African American voters is beating Trump.

And as long as the conventional wisdom holds that Biden has the best chance of beating Trump, I don't know if it's true, but that's the conventional wisdom, then African American voters for that reason, I think, will stick with Biden at least in the short term.

LEMON: Mr. Boykin, I interviewed Biden a week ago, as you are well aware of, and I asked him about his support from black voters. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (on camera): So, you got our back. You have black folks' back. Is that what you're saying?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They've had my back my whole career. And I hope I have the back of everybody. But I think I understand, presumptuous of me to say this, but I've always been engaged with the community my whole career.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: So, they definitely have his back now. The question is will they have his back long enough for him to start racking up the delegates?

BOYKIN: That remains to be seen. We all know you can't win the democratic nomination without significant black support. He has that right now. Other candidates do not have that and envy that. And I think that Joe Biden is in a good position moving forward.

[23:40:00]

BOYKIN: The question is whether any other candidate can be able to catalyse on the falls that he's made or the stumbles he's made along the way. So far, it doesn't look they have been able to do it. I looked back and looked at the history of the South Carolina primary because South Caroline is very democratic. It's two-thirds are more African American in the democratic primary. I looked at the history. No candidate except for two, Jesse Jackson in 1988 and in 2004 with John Edwards, has actually been able to -- to be able to win the democratic nomination without winning South Carolina. And those two are both natives of South Carolina or North Carolina.

So you have to be able to have a strong showing in South Carolina. You have to be able to have strong showing with black voters if you expect to do well and win the nomination.

LEMON: Elaina, were you agreeing? What were you saying?

ELAINA PLOTT, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE ATLANTIC: I think Jesse Jackson is such a perfect comparison here to Keith's point not just because, you know, he had overwhelming support in South Carolina, but he also did not perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire, as some of you may remember.

So I think that's somebody that Joe Biden is likely looking closely to in terms of historical precedent and moving forward. He's not polling great in Iowa right now and the overwhelming support he holds in South Carolina right now among black voters could be the kind of political surge he needs assuming Iowa and New Hampshire don't pan out necessarily the way that he wants.

LEMON: Elaina, I want to look at the calendar for the early contest. Biden is fighting it out in early states dominated by white voters, right, but once he gets (ph) South Carolina, mentioned Super Tuesday, a lot of black votes at stake there. If he keeps their support, the question is, OK, but can anyone beat him?

PLOTT: I -- I don't want -- I know I'm live but my sense right now is no --

(LAUGHTER)

PLOTT: -- which I'm sure will be played multiple times if I am wrong. Yes, my sense right now is no. I say that because his support among black voters and particularly those over the age of 45 in South Carolina is just unparalleled among the broader field.

I think this would be -- I would say this with less certainty, perhaps, if someone like Warren were maybe right under him in the polling numbers in South Carolina. But they're just not right now. So unless that changes, I think if he can, you know, surge in the way he's expected to in South Carolina, I think the nomination might be his, Don.

BOYKIN: I would make a caveat to that. I think that he could actually not do well if one of the black candidates takes off. For example, if you have a Kamala Harris or Cory Booker who does well in Iowa and New Hampshire or even Nevada, and they go into South Carolina with that momentum, that could actually spring board that candidate to victory or to on their way to better path than they have been in the past.

That's what Obama did. He won Iowa and that got him a second look for black voters who weren't supporting him.

LEMON: Neither of those candidates is looking very --

BOYKIN: At this point, they're not. But, you know, anything can change. We got two months.

LEMON: David?

SWERDLICK: Yeah, Don. I think we're early for predictions, but I do think it is interesting to remember back to late 2007 going into 2008. African American voters were with Hillary Clinton.

LEMON: Right.

SWERDLICK: As Keith mentioned, as Obama showed the ability to actually win the nomination and be viable against the Republican, it did shift black support to Obama. So, yes, I wouldn't predict any particular candidate. But, yes, if a candidate --

PLOTT: Thanks, guys.

(LAUGHTER)

PLOTT: I have the prediction.

(LAUGHTER)

SWERDLICK: OK.

LEMON: Elaina, we'll destroy the tape.

SWERDLICK: You're betting with the House right now.

PLOTT: OK, perfect.

SWERDLICK: I think it's early for predictions. But it is conceivable if someone shows they can beat Trump because that's what Democrats, including black Democrats are looking for.

LEMON: Yeah. Well, I said if he holds the black support, can anyone beat him? Meaning, for the nomination, right, but that was the question. I want to get this Mayor Pete question in -- Pete Buttigieg question in. Can we do it now or are we doing this after the break?

OK. So, listen, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is surging in Iowa and New Hampshire now. He struggled with his appeal among black voters. He's doing this tour through the south now, rolling out $2 million campaign media campaign now in South Carolina tomorrow. Do you think that can be a game changer, Elaina?

PLOTT: I think anything is possible. I guess that's what I should just say now. So --

(LAUGHTER)

PLOTT: But I don't know. I think he's still close to the floor in terms of black support especially in the states like South Carolina, but I'm not sure if $2 million swing through the south will nudge that as much as he's hoping.

LEMON: What do you think, David?

[23:44:56]

SWERDLICK: I think that whether or not it boosts his support in that Quinnipiac poll I mentioned, he had zero black support in South Carolina. But whether or not he gets a big bump, he has to show Democratic voters, not just black, but all Democratic voters that he's trying to reach out to black voters.

LEMON: Let me ask you something. You have your ear to the ground there in D.C. I have heard people say, you know, a lot of folks love Mayor Pete, and then we heard everyone say, well, there's no way because he can't -- he doesn't have black support. So, he can't do it.

SWERDLICK: OK.

LEMON: This is not me saying it. This is what I have heard. But then I have heard people say he has to have something -- someone is playing -- that he is playing the long game. Maybe if someone like the Obama come out and supports him, maybe if someone comes out or something, that he can do it, maybe he can do it mathematically without the black support. Can you speak to any of that? I'll let you do it, Keith as well, but go on, David first.

SWERDLICK: Yeah. This is a little bit of a bank shot. But look, I think the hardest thing right now for Mayor Buttigieg is that he hasn't successfully answered questions about how he handled police and community relations particularly police --

LEMON: In his own community.

SWERDLICK: -- black community relations in South Bend, where he is still the mayor, and I do think he is still going to have to find a better way to address that. The other side for him is that he is probably the best campaigner and the best debater, in my view, in the field.

In that sense, he's like President Obama, if in no other sense. And he has that potential to be a barrier breaker like President Obama was the first African American president. Mayor Buttigieg could be the first openly gay president.

But yes, you would have -- as you say, Don, he'd have to play the long game and sort of gather support as he goes across a bunch of states. He can't bank on just Iowa or just South Carolina. He's got to build it over time. And if his campaign is smart, they'll model after Obama. Gather delegates showily but surely while they were going up against Clinton in --

LEMON: Quick answer, Keith.

BOYKIN: Only way I see it happening is if we have total and utter collapse of Joe Biden's campaign. The black vote has been historically associated with him because they have a long history with him. They have no history with Pete Buttigieg.

You rightly mentioned South Bend. It's not just the question of the police issue but it is also the issue of diversity in the police force. When he was asked in the debate, why he wasn't able to achieve greater diversity in the police force, he said, I couldn't get it done.

LEMON: OK.

BOYKIN: If he couldn't get it done in South Bend, how is he going to get it done for the United States of America?

LEMON: We'll talk more. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So the 2020 race is heating up as President Trump faces the real possibility of impeachment, and that means a trial in the Senate that could knock some candidates off the trail.

Back with me, Keith Boykin, Elaina Plott, and David Swerdlick. Elaina, you're first now. Let's take a look at the early 2020 calendar again. So let's say the House votes on articles of impeachment and the trial moves to the Senate by January.

So Senator Richard Burr has predicted that a Senate impeachment trial could last six to eight weeks. Here is how that time -- look at that timetable, right? It is coinciding with the run-up to Democrats' early races. How does this complicate the campaign, you think?

PLOTT: I think it complicates it greatly. Talk to any strategist right now and they'll tell you that it's kind of a nightmare scenario, six days before the Iowa caucuses, if you are a senator campaigning for president of the United States, to be sort of chained to the upper chamber as a juror.

Now, you're going to have, as we have already seen, people like Senator Amy Klobuchar say this is my constitutional obligation, I have no qualms about doing this. But of course, they do. Everyone does. And I think for somebody like Senator Warren, this has to be, you know, an unwelcome move going forward in this calendar.

LEMON: You say it could actually help the senators running, Keith, like Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar because they'll actually be serving as jurors?

BOYKIN: I think it actually has very positive impacts for the senators in the democratic primary race because the idea that you're missing out on Iowa and New Hampshire to go prosecute the case or potentially help to eliminate, remove Donald Trump from office, that's never going to be seen as a bad thing by Democrats, I think. Democrats will be happy that you were participating in this constitutional process to help to remove Donald Trump.

LEMON: You may not get one-on-one face time with him --

BOYKIN: You may not get one-on-one face time with him. But still, I feel like you also get the opportunity to go and speak to the cameras every day just like we see with the impeachment hearings we've had so far. Those members can go on afterwards and do a press gaggle and talk about what their perception is of each day's events.

That's going to be the driving story of the news in January apparently or whenever the impeachment process takes place in the Senate. And I don't think there's any doubt anybody, especially for Kamala Harris as a prosecutor. I think she has the most potential to gain from this, being in the Senate during the impeachment trial for Donald Trump.

LEMON: She doesn't get to prosecute him. They don't get to have a long --

BOYKIN: She gets to talk about it every day on the news. She gets to be the story. She gets to come on CNN and MSNBC and everywhere and talk about it, hold press gaggles and press briefings about it. That's where the attention is going to be. That actually helps her a lot. I would love to be in that position if I were her.

LEMON: A quick response. What do you think, David?

SWERDLICK: If you're senators Klobuchar or Harris who have fallen in the polls, I agree with Keith. It helps you a little bit stay relevant.

[23:54:59]

SWERDLICK: If you're senators Sanders and Warren who are right on the heels of Buttigieg and Biden and they have a free and clear shot to shake hands and kiss babies in Iowa, I'm not so sure. I'm a little more with Elaina. I think it's going to sort of hem up your campaigning schedule in two small states where people like to see the candidates face-to-face.

LEMON: Guess what? We will all find out soon enough.

(LAUGHTER)

PLOTT: Anything is possible.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Elaina, Elaina, Elaina. Thank you, all. I appreciate it. We'll see you next time. Thank you for watching. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)