Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Four Legal Experts Stand Witness Before The House Judiciary Committee; Role of Powerful Women In The Impeachment Hearings; Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Shooting Leaves Three People Dead; Calls Between Rudy Giuliani And A Mysterious Number Raise More Questions For House Democrats; Is Rudy Giuliani In Ukraine Right Now? Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired December 04, 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]

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: We'll also look at the role of powerful women at the hearings who have stood up to badgering by some Republicans and testified in stark terms against the president's words and deeds.

Plus, one favorite Republican tactic and we saw it time after time today, is yelling at and berating witnesses. Is that working for them? We'll discuss tonight.

Also ahead, we'll look at the phone logs revealed in the House Intel report showing Rudy Giuliani's numerous calls to the White House last spring including to a mysterious unidentified number designated simply as one.

And with the impeachment hearings in high gear, is Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine meeting with former prosecutors in an effort to defend the president? Tonight, we'll see what he is telling CNN.

But first we have got to update you on some breaking news. It's out of Hawaii tonight. Two civilian employees shot to death and one wounded by a U.S. sailor on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu. The shooter also dead.

Joining me now on the phone is Lydia Robertson, the spokesperson for the Navy Region in Hawaii. Thank you so much commander. We appreciate you joining us. Two civilian shipyard workers were killed. What can you tell us about this?

LYDIA ROBERTSON, SPOKESPERSON, JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM (via telephone): Well, I can tell you that within minutes of hearing shots our security forces responded immediately and we put the base into a lock down and a shelter in place. Security responded very quickly.

We were able to team with local law enforcement as well to ensure that we could get the situation in hand and keep as many people as safe as possible. The base was in lock down for a period of time, but it is now open again while the investigation continues.

LEMON: What more -- do you know anything more about the shooter? What can you tell us about? ROBERTSON: I can tell you that he has been identified as a U.S.

sailor who was assigned to USS Columbia which is a submarine, and that's all we have. We're not going to provide identities of individuals involved until next of kin have been notified and the investigation continues.

LEMON: Okay. So again, we have Lydia Robertson on the phone and this information is just coming in to CNN, two civilians dead after a shooting at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. And I just want to -- Lydia, if you can stand by, I just want to listen to this and then I'll get you on the other side. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) and I heard like loud pops and I kind of recognized that and, you know, gunshots and I looked out the window and saw three people on the ground and I looked out in time to see the shooter who I assume was a sailor because he was in uniform (inaudible) shoot himself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So Lydia that was a witness to this. I would imagine obviously we're looking at the video during the time this happened earlier today, complete chaos. What is it like now? What is the mood like now there?

ROBERTSON: The mood is somber, right. It's serious. We have family here. This is ohana. These are people who have worked here for generations. The dry dock is renowned for the amazing work that they did in World War II to help our forces, our ships, get back to the fight after the damage of Pearl Harbor.

And we're about to commemorate the 78th anniversary of that attack in just a few days. These are people who work at the shipyard. They are generations that have been there. So, it's somber here. It's serious.

People hear about these things in the news and you don't expect it to happen to you, but we have a great security force who responded quickly. We teamed with the local law enforcement and we have a great relationship with them. And we're confident that we'll work together on this investigation as we go through this.

LEMON: And, listen, I just want to tell the viewers to bear along with us. We're just getting this information. I am getting it right along with you. So Lydia, we heard the tentative information that we had here as the shooter was identified and I think that you said it as well, as an active duty U.S. sailor assigned to USS Columbia, right, which is in dry dock --

ROBERTSON: That's true.

LEMON: -- at the base. Did this person display any sort of behavior before? Was there suspected of any sort of behavior, any disciplinary problems? ROBERTSON: I don't have any information on that right now, but I know

the investigation will look at every possible piece involved in this. We're also paying attention to other people who were witnesses like you referenced earlier.

We have counselors, we have chaplains available. We want to make sure that we provide the support to people that they need in the aftermath of something like this.

LEMON: Do you know when you'll have the next update?

ROBERTSON: I don't but we will certainly post information on our Facebook page when we do have more information and we'll let media know when we're able to provide more information.

[23:05:03]

LEMON: Lydia, I know it's a very busy and trying time for you. We appreciate you joining us. Thank you so much.

ROBERTSON: Thank you.

LEMON: Lydia Robertson, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam where there has been a shooting. Two civilians dead after a shooting there and the shooter according to Lydia Robertson, an active duty U.S. sailor assigned to USS Columbia, which is in dry dock at the base for standard maintenance. As soon as we get more information on the shooting we will bring it to you.

Now, we want to get to that contentious hearing today from the Judiciary Committee in Washington. I want to bring in now Michael Gerhardt, one of the constitutional scholars who testified today, also, journalist A.B. Stoddard and Shane Harris.

Thank you so much all of you for joining us. A very busy day and a very busy night as you can see here on CNN and in the country. Boy, let's take a breath. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Michael, let's play -- this is a key moment from today's hearing. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORM EISEN, DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL: Professor Feldman, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings?

NOAH FELDMAN, LEGAL SCHOLAR: Based on that evidence and those findings the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office.

EISEN: Professor Karlan, same question.

PAMELA KARLAN, LEGAL SCHOLAR: Same answer.

EISEN: And Professor Gerhardt, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, LEGAL SCHOLAR: We three are unanimous, yes. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So you three strongly agree the evidence for impeachment is there. The GOP's witness, Professor Turley, disagreed. How do you think that went today?

GERHARDT: I think we're still trying to figure that out. I think we were able to get our answers out. We were able to be as honest as we could. I hope we were helpful and civil for the most part.

I think the committee was asking us questions. Republicans tended to make speeches and a few instances attacked the witnesses. But I think we were trying to talk about the history of impeachment, which a lot of people don't know.

We were talking about why it's in the Constitution and what difference it makes what it's there for and how it's designed to protect against tyranny and also abuse of power. It's primarily designed to address corruption in government.

And so we tried to get all of that out and I think we have to feel pretty good we did that. And now, really, the question is going to be did it help educate the public and how did it affect the future of the hearing?

LEMON: I think you partially answered my next question here, but I'm just curious, why do you think house Democrats started this new phase with constitutional experts?

GERHARDT: I think they started it with the three of us and Professor Turley as well because they felt that the report from the Intelligence Committee, the fact gathering by that committee built a strong evidentiary record that showed abuse of power in different ways, and then the question becomes, how does the law apply to those facts?

LEMON: Shane, I want to bring you in now. The Republican witness made the case that this process should -- it should slow down, get more evidence. But that's not what Republicans actually want. They want this over and Trump continues to deny any wrongdoing.

SHANE HARRIS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. I mean, it's an interesting argument. Is this actually going super fast? I mean, sometimes as a journalist covering it, it feels that way. There was a very short period of time between the whistleblower story breaking and then the transfer to the phone call coming out and the facts being in evidence.

I think you're right to say that the Republicans might like to see this, you know, extended out. I could see the Democrats perhaps wanting to extend it too. Maybe they want to have more time to find information.

I'm not really sure how much though the idea that this is being rushed is so much of a counter argument to the facts that are in evidence. I mean, the fact of the matter is that the great bulk of evidence in the case against the president came out in large measure because the White House released it in the form of that transcript and the complaint itself came out.

LEMON: And they're arguing process the whole time.

HARRIS: So, maybe we're rushing because we're already here.

LEMON: Yes. You know, and they are arguing process all the time and not any of the evidence or the witness testimony. A.B., it's good to see you again and I love what you wrote here and I read it. So, thank you for coming on. You say Republicans were desperate to avoid prosecuting the argument on facts, which I just talked about. They were arguing process.

A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR & COLUMNIST, REALCLEAR POLITICS: Remember when they pretended that they weren't in this basement they keep talking about? Forty-nine Republicans were invited from three committees to come and join in all the depositions.

[23:10:00]

But they would come out and tell the public that it was all being done in secret under lock down so that many Americans believe the Republicans weren't even a part of the depositions where they were allowed equal time to ask questions.

Then Stephanie Grisham, the press secretary for the president of the United States was tweeting today about how he doesn't have rights in this process. The White House turned down the offer from the Democratic majority on the judiciary committee to have their lawyers come and offer their own perspective on the history of impeachment leaving Jonathan Turley to do it instead.

So, there's a lot of deflection and defiance and distraction and screaming but you don't see a lot of debating the facts. Everything was in secret. The minute there were hearings it was a show trial.

No matter what the Democrats do, if it's too fast, they'll say, you know, they're rushing it for a calendar. If they go on too long it will be a grinding on witch hunt, you know, that they're obsessing about.

They do this because they really don't want to stand up as people who took an oath to the Constitution and not the man and say this is acceptable and normalize it for all of history and for future presidents to say what he did was fine.

So they're really going to stay in process as long as humanely as possible. And the faster it goes, I think the better it is for Republicans because they can, you know, have a lot of drama about tactics and when are we going to get a minority witness day and, you know, you guys are being mean to us. But if this goes on and on, I think it will be more clear to the public that that's just what it is.

LEMON: And speak very loudly and yell. There was a lot of yelling going.

STODDARD: There was a lot of screaming. LEMON: Listen, I want to profusely apologize to you guys that this is

cut short because of the breaking news. I'm sure you understand. You guys have done this before.

A.B., I wanted to talk to you about the bulworth (ph), the 12 Senate Republicans who might vote to remove Trump that you wrote about, but I don't have the opportunity. We will have you all back. Thank you Michael Gerhardt, thank you Shane for joining us this evening. You guys have a great evening.

The impeachment hearings have featured some really strong women and today's hearing was no exception.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARLAN: I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts so I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don't care about those facts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: The powerful women at the impeachment hearings, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

LEMON: It has been an impeachment inquiry full of people trying to grab the spotlight, hijack the process and distort the facts, but the most effective people had been those who have held strong and firm in the face of all that distraction and many of them have been women. Athena Jones has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. GERRY NADLER (D), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Do you swear or affirm --

ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Stanford law school professor, Pamela Karlan, was fired up right from the start.

KARLAN: -- and here Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing --

JONES (voice-over): Pushing back at the suggestion by the House Judiciary Committee's top Republican that she had not followed the impeachment testimony and the evidence laid out so far.

KARLAN: Because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts, so I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don't care about those facts.

JONES (voice-over): Karlan, the latest in a line of women to deliver a powerful message to lawmakers, part of a panel testifying about the constitutional grounds for impeaching President Trump. Using analogies to make the case to viewers in plain English that Trump abused his power.

KARLAN: Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that's prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for?

What would you think if that president said, I would like to you to do us a favor. I'll meet with you and I'll send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal. Wouldn't you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office?

If you conclude that as I think the evidence to this point shows that the president is soliciting foreign involvement in our election, you need to act now to prevent foreign interference in the next election like the one we had in the past.

JONES (voice-over): Before Karlan, it was former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill who turned heads, blasting the debunked conspiracy theory the president and his allies continue to promote that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

FIONA HILL, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER TOP RUSSIA ADVISER: This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

JONES (voice-over): Hill, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on what she viewed as an irregular second channel of policy for Ukraine lead by U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland.

HILL: He was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in national security foreign policy and those two things have just diverged. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up and here we are.

JONES (voice-over): But it was Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine and the first woman to testify in public hearings that marked one of the most memorable moments so far.

A longtime diplomat known for her commitment to fighting corruption who was suddenly recalled by the president after a month's long smear campaign lead by his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: How could our system fail like this? How is it that foreign corrupt interest could manipulate our government? Which country's interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been criticizing is allowed to prevail?

JONES (voice-over): Her testimony sparking this remarkable response in real time from the president on twitter prompting Democrats to accuse Trump of witness intimidation.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[23:20:00] JONES (on camera): Now, President Trump did not tweet about Karlan or any of the witnesses during their testimony today but First Lady Melania Trump did tweet in response to a comment Professor Karlan made invoking the president's youngest son.

Karlan argued that Trump was wrong when he said Article II of the Constitution gives him the power to do anything he wants and said one example of the difference between him and a king is that the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son Barron, he can't make him a Baron.

The First Lady tweeted, "A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it." Late in the hearing after this tweet, Karlan apologized for having mentioned the president's son, Don.

LEMON: Athena, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Let's bring in Ana Navarro now. Ana, thank you so much for joining us. Good evening here. You tweeted today, the women who have testified in the impeachment hearings are amazing and no nonsense and made you want to stand up and shout yes, girl, yes. First of all, did you?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, because I was -- well, I have a cold and was in bed with my dog watching the hearings transfixed and getting a constitutional law lesson, which I think of all America is getting.

I was really responding to that clip, to that part in the hearing where Professor Karlan told Doug Collins -- told Representative Doug Collins that she had actually read the transcript which, you know, is a refreshing thing to hear.

Because do you remember how many members of Congress told us after the Mueller report got released that they had not read it? That they had not -- have time to read it? And still so many of them haven't read it?

So this woman said look, I wouldn't come here and do this and testify had I not been prepared, had I not read it. I think that's a hell of a lesson for most members of Congress who have the constitutional duty to read these things and are not doing so.

LEMON: What's the message are these women are sending not only to President Trump and Republicans, but to everyone who is watching these hearings?

NAVARRO: Man it's just, you know, conviction, principle, patriotism and they're just bad ass. They don't get pushed around. They're not afraid to speak truth. They have been attacked. They have been attacked viciously.

The ambassador has, you know, has been the target of a conspiracy theory which was promoted by people like Roger Stone, and yet they show up and they take it because they're there to defend the country and defend American interests. I think they're showing a badge of courage, profiles in courage. These

women and I, you know, and I think they have done so much to advance the cause of equality, seeing women as equals when it comes to the professional fields of diplomacy and such.

LEMON: Yes. I want to change topics now, Ana. This is about Joe Biden. His new ad released about 30 minutes after President Trump returned from London. Let's watch it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: World leaders caught on camera laughing about President Trump.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: I watched his team's jaws just drop to the floor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Several world leaders mocking President Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're laughing at him.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESDIENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country. I didn't expect that reaction but that's okay.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: World leaders mocking and ridiculing him for being completely off balanced.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Allies are deeply worried about him. They say he's becoming increasingly isolated. Something is very wrong.

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (voice-over): The world sees Trump for what he is. Insincere, ill-informed, corrupt, dangerously incompetent and incapable in my view of world leadership, and if we give Donald Trump four more years, we'll have a great deal of difficulty of ever being able to recover America's standing in the world and our capacity to bring nations together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Wow, Joe Biden's wheel house, American leadership on the world stage. Is it effective?

NAVARRO: I think so. I think it's effective for several reasons, first of all, because as you say, this is his expertise. Let's remember he was chair of foreign relations and he feels very much at home talking foreign policy.

Second of all, because instead of playing a circular firing squad within the Democratic primary, he is aiming at the general election opponent. He is taking on Donald Trump.

And look, part of the reason this has become such a big issue and we're still talking about it 24 hours later is because of Donald Trump's infantile, childish, kind of petty and stupid reaction. His ego got bruised so boo hoo. [23:25:00]

He cancelled the press conference and he threw his toys on the ground and left the game and left early. If he had just shrugged his shoulders and said, okay, so what. You know what, yes, I talk a little too long sometimes and I get carried away. It is what it is.

If he had poked fun of himself, if he had been a little self- deprecating and not given a great importance, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. We're talking about it right now because he, you know, stormed off.

LEMON: Yes. Ana Navarro. Feel better, okay?

NAVARRO: Thank you.

LEMON: Thank you.

Well, if you have ears you probably noticed something about today's hearing. Why Republicans are using yelling as a tactic, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- when the president calls --

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): Excuse me. You don't get to interrupt me on this time.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Four key facts will not change, have not changed, will never change. We have the transcript. There was no quid pro quo on the transcript.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Is the GOP trying to yell its way out of impeachment? It seems that way. Republicans have been screaming throughout these hearings. Take a listen to just today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): You couldn't have possibly actually digested the Adam Schiff report from yesterday or the republican response in any real way. The clock in the calendar is what is driving the impeachment, not the facts.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Four key facts will not change, have not changed, will never change.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You don't get to interrupt me on this time.

JORDAN: Sixteen Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had already voted to move forward on impeachment. Yet today, we're talking about whether the positions they have already taken are constitutional? It seems a little backward to me. But when the president of the United States is clear, you try to change his word.

And when the context is clear, he is talking about the two years that this country went through because of the Mueller report, somehow that standard doesn't apply to the president. That is ridiculous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: It's a tactic. The question is does it work? Here to discuss, Ben Zimmer. He is a language columnist at The Wall Street Journal. Also, Amanda Carpenter, she is a regular here on the show. We love having both of them. Thank you so much.

Ben, I'm going to start with you. If this was how to yell in a hearing 101, how would you grade the Republicans in this impeachment inquiry?

(LAUGHTER)

BEN ZIMMER, LANGUAGE COLUMNIST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, we certainly did hear a lot of yelling from certain members of the committee, but you have to keep in mind that public hearing like this, it's kind of an elaborate political performance and everyone is playing their parts.

And so it's interesting to see the rhetorical strategies that get used and that amping up the volume was certainly one technique that was favored by a few of the members. And usually if you're trying to get your point across, you might modulate your speech a bit in terms of the volume and other vocal qualities like tone and pitch. But we saw these members just come out of the gate amped up going to 11 straight away.

LEMON: Does it work? That's the question.

(LAUGHTER)

ZIMMER: Well, if you were watching the hearing in real time, it might make you sort of jump up and turn your volume down a little bit. But I think that it was a more calculated approach. We have seen Jim Jordan do this in the past. This is kind of the stick (ph) to the extent that he gets parodied (ph) for it on "Saturday Night Live."

LEMON: Yeah.

ZIMMER: And other members who are doing it, they're not thinking about people watching this in real time. They're thinking of the sound bites that are going to be used on cable media and especially in social media these days.

And we saw that, for instance, Matt Gaetz, had that shouting match which then, you know, President Trump who was tweeting clips of that. So that's really what they're going for and that is their intended audience more than anything else.

LEMON: Got it. Amanda, you know, you wrote the book on gaslighting. Is that essentially what the Republicans are doing here with all the outrage and the screaming in these hearings trying to make it appear that there's wrongdoing on the part of the people that they're yelling at instead of the president?

AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean it's a lot of performance art. What you saw today is that they want to send the message that they are fighting, you know, the elitist liberals in defense of the president. I was struck by something that Tim Naftali, who is a historian in CNN, on all the time, when he is talking about why things were different during the Watergate impeachment.

He said, you know, Republican senators have the expectation to act as statesmen. And I thought that's not at all what Republican voters are expecting these representatives to act like. They want those moments as been mentioned. That is what they are producing to feed the conservative media. That is the whole purpose of them screaming and turning up the volume, so you have to pay attention.

But there's probably a more important fact that they're going for and that really is discombobulate the witness. This is a part of gaslighting that I talk about a lot, because you can't help but be affected when someone is directly yelling at you. Put yourself in the position of those witnesses. They sit there for eight hours. They have to be ready to respond for all of that time.

Meanwhile, these congressmen just have to give five minute performances. Sometimes, you can get somebody riled up and could have a good moment like I think you saw early on in the hearings with Professor Karlan when she had that retort saying she felt insulted that Representative Collins suggested that she hadn't read the reports.

But then later on, she kind of got worn down. I think that's what led to the unwise joke about Barron Trump. These guys were going at her. I think she got comfortable and she wanted to give a little dig and it didn't land well. And now, that's all they're talking about on Fox News.

[23:35:00]

LEMON: Because the joke was intended to maybe be a zinger for the president but then she invoked the son which is never good. Leave the kids out of it. The screaming tactic was on full display during the Kavanaugh hearings. This is Justice Kavanaugh and Senator Lindsey Graham. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020. You said that. This is the most unethical sham since I have been in politics. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford. None. This is not a job interview.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Yeah.

GRAHAM: This is hell. This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Wow. I mean -- listen, it was clearly a performance. You can see that was acting. Graham cemented his relationship with the president in that moment. Is this about appeasing an audience of one? And again, my question, Ben, did that work for him?

ZIMMER: Well, if you are talking about that audience of one and you're just looking for confirmation from the president, then for sure you can see that Lindsey Graham and other Republicans are playing by these new rules of political rhetoric in the Trump era where there is, you know, one person above all who you're trying to appease in the way that you speak.

And so if come out guns blazing, you can play the role of the attacked dog that is again something we have seen several Republican members of Congress do that, and you get the positive feedback from the president in his Twitter feed as well.

And so it's an endless cycle. I think they just end up getting amped up more and more until, you know, they're screaming without any kind of modulation because they figure that's the way to get the president's attention.

LEMON: Yeah. Well, Amanda, I think you're right. I think the people at home probably like it. I wonder if they liked Jim Jordon not wearing a jacket in the halls of Congress for such a serious proceeding. But, you know, who am I? All right, thank you both. I appreciate it. The impeachment --

CARPENTER: I won't yell good-bye.

LEMON: Bye! Thank you!

CARPENTER: Bye!

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: The impeachment investigation has been filled with phone calls. And now, there are more, these calls between Rudy Giuliani and the mysterious unidentified member. We're going to dig into that mystery, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Rudy Giuliani is facing new scrutiny over, wait for it, phone calls. Maybe it is not surprising for someone who is accidentally dialled and texted reporters. But documents released by House Democrats show these calls were apparently no accident and were between the president's lawyer and a mysterious person identified only as "Dash One." Joining me now to discuss are Shimon Prokupecz and Evan McMullin. Hello, one and all. Shimon, you first. There is a precedent for a "Dash One" number being connected to President Trump. How will House investigators figure out who the "Dash One" phone number is in these call logs, who they belong to?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, there is and that precedent came actually during the Roger Stone trial which I covered. The FBI, this was during the campaign, it was during their investigation of the contacts between Roger Stone and then candidate Donald Trump, they discovered that there was a phone call that was made from the president's home, Donald Trump's home here in New York City, to Roger Stone, and it came up as "Dash One."

And so what they had to do is they had to go back and look and pull more records from Donald Trump and try to piece it all together. That is what they did. And ultimately, I think if Congress wants to know who inside the White House called him and where that number originated, they are going to have to pull records from the White House. It's a big step.

LEMON: Yeah.

PROKUPECZ: I don't know if they're ready to do that.

(LAUGHTER)

PROKUPECZ: You know, now, if the FBI starts looking into this, we already know the Southern District of New York has some of these phone records. The question is do they go ahead and take that next step and start pulling White House records?

LEMON: I think evidence is kind of ironic that in the Mueller investigation, he was known -- the president was known as "Individual One" and now in this. It's possible that he might be caller "Dash One," don't you think?

EVAN MCMULLIN, FORMER CHIEF POLICY DIRECTOR, HOUSE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE: Minus one, right.

(LAUGHTER)

MCMULLIN: Yeah, I saw that and was amused by that as well. You look at all of these telephone contacts that Rudy Giuliani had and we learned a lot more about them from this House Intelligence Committee report. I really think it's a sign that we're staring just at tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the interconnectedness of this effort to push Ukraine into validating Trump's conspiracy theories about 2016 and Joe Biden.

But I think it's very significant. We've got Pompeo wrapped up in this. We've got now Devin Nunes. John Bolton is, you know, a colleague or at least had a call with Giuliani as well. Ambassador Sondland said everyone was in the loop. Oh, boy, was he correct and we keep seeing more evidence of that. And I think, you know, obviously the president now likely is a part of that if he is really "Minus One." [23:45:02]

MCMULLIN: And so, we'll find out. But I think it presents an interesting question for House Democrats and ideally for all members of the House and that is what more are they going to invest effort and time in to discovering about how many people in the administration knew and knew what and when they knew.

LEMON: I'm glad that you mentioned House Democrats because Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi from House Intel told me last night that they're still working their way through new materials that have been turned over to them. And CNN is also reporting that Lev Parnas has turned over material to House Intel and his attorney has said that he is willing to turn over more. Could those be the types of materials the House is vetting?

MCMULLIN: I think so. And, you know, I still think that, you know, this isn't to say that the impeachment of the president should be held up because I do think there's some urgency for a variety of reasons. But, you know, look, we still haven't -- we haven't heard from -- we haven't heard from John Bolton. We haven't heard from Pompeo. We haven't heard from so many of the players, the White House counsel, the White House attorneys who are involved in this, Eisenberg and others.

There's just so much more to learn. The White House hasn't complied with subpoenas really to do the investigation. I still think that those fights are worth the House Democrats fighting. I think for the sake of the separations of powers that are so critical for defending our system of self-government, Congress and the House Democrats in this case need to continue to fight that fight.

I'm not sure that it means the impeachment of the president should be held up because I think there is some urgency here. We're trying to protect our 2020 elections. But I think we do -- the American people through their representatives in Congress do need over time at least to get all the facts here.

LEMON: Shimon, I know you want to weigh in on this, but stick around. We will do it on the other side of the break. Rudy Giuliani is facing questions not just over those phone calls but also over possible overseas trip this week. Is he in Ukraine?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Back with me, Shimon Prokupecz and Evan McMullin. So, Shimon, let's talk about the phone records. They also show that Giuliani made a number of calls to the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB as they call it. You remember that OMB head, Mick Mulvaney, was involved in the process of holding up the military aid to Rudy Giuliani and he told CNN -- by the way, he is the acting chief of staff as well. He says, "I don't remember calling OMB and not about military aid. Never knew anything about it." OK? He also told the Times that he is an expert on so many things it could have been some very esoteric subject. Those calls are going to be something else that House investigators are going to have to look into, right?

PROKUPECZ: Yeah, they are, and they're trying to. I think they need a lot more information in terms of trying to figure out exactly where these calls originated. Look, the thing is whoever was talking to Rudy Giuliani at the time is now potentially a witness. You know, not so much for Congress, but also for federal investigators who are looking into some of this activity.

It's very convenient for Rudy Giuliani to say he doesn't remember, but the phone records don't lie. It's there. I think the fact that Congress was able to get all these phone records so quickly and kept it so quiet, they didn't tell anyone they had this, they sat on this, they worked through this, they questioned witnesses, they had all this information, think about it, during these hearings, they had all of this information, never said anything about it, and then they put out their report.

LEMON: Yeah.

PROKUPECZ: How surprised I'm certain some people were that they had these records. But there is a lot more to do. They need to figure out exactly who he was talking to, and there are ways to do that. It's just a question of whether they want to go there.

LEMON: I want to talk to you about this Washington Post reporting, new details tonight about Attorney General William Barr's investigation into the origins of the surveillance of Trump's 2016 campaign. It may not be panning out exactly the way President Trump would like, Shimon.

PROKUPECZ: The conspiracy theorists who were betting everything on this basically to somehow say that the FBI was wrong in opening this Russia investigation, that there were people out to get the president, well, tonight's report from The Washington Post says that the inspector general went and spoke with Don Durham, who is doing this independent investigation of the Intelligence Community.

And they asked -- the inspector general asked him, you know, did you have any concern? Have you found anything to say that somehow the campaign was set up by someone in the Intelligence Community? And John Durham, according to The Washington Post, they have found no information to indicate that there was some kind of conspiracy, that there was some kind of motive here to set up the Trump campaign into some kind of a trap by using an informant, specifically someone who was a professor who had contact with George Papadopoulos.

And essentially what happens is the inspector general is going to say in their report that we reached out to John Durham. John Durham says they didn't find anything, and we didn't find anything. So what now?

LEMON: OK. Well, listen, I wanted to ask you about Rudy Giuliani, Evan, traveling to Ukraine this week to meet with several former Ukrainian prosecutors in an effort to defend President Trump against House Democrats' impeachment inquiry.

[23:55:00]

LEMON: I mean, what is he up to? I only have just a couple seconds left. I hate to give you short trip but what the heck is going on?

MCMULLIN: Mm-hmm. OK, well, very briefly. First of all, they're doubling down on the conspiracy theory about Biden because I think they need a counter-narrative to what's coming out of Congress, something for Trump's base to believe in as they head into the Senate part of this process and as they head into 2020.

The other thing I'll say is that it shows that Trump and his team still believe, I believe, that Biden is their primary opponent, the opponent that poses the most danger to Trump's ability to be re- elected.

The last thing I'll say is that we learned from Fiona Hill that this conspiracy theory about the Ukrainians being responsible for the 2016 hacking was really something that the Russian intelligence services have been pushing and now Trump's allies on the Hill have been pushing as well.

I think we have to start to ask ourselves what the origin of this Biden conspiracy theory is.

LEMON: Yeah.

MCMULLIN: Trump has packaged them together, continues to push them.

LEMON: Out of time.

MCMULLIN: Is this something that Russian Intel is pushing as well? I think --

LEMON: I got to go, Evan. I'm out of time. Listen, now the Intel, the I.G. report, and now the Durham report, origins, origins, origins turning into conspiracy theories. Thank you both. I appreciate it. Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)