Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

President Trump's Obama Obsession Drives His Foreign Policy; Articles Of Impeachment Still Stuck In Congress; World Awaits U.S.- Iran End Game; McConnell Visits White House To Discuss Impeachment Trial With President Trump; Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Aim To 'Step Back' As Senior Royals. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 08, 2020 - 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: The United States and Iran back from the brink at least for the moment, following Iran's retaliatory missile strikes on Iran bases housing U.S. forces.

President Trump saying it appears Iran is now standing down as he signals a de-escalation of tensions. So, now what? We're going to take a look at that.

The president addressing the nation today about potentially dangerous conflict with Iran. Making lots of statements and claims, but was he truthful? We're going to find out on the Trump fact check with Daniel Dale.

In the midst of all the problems the U.S. faces with Iran and the Middle East as a whole, the president, President Trump, just can't resist blaming President Obama. Well, we're going to take a look at how Trump's obsession with his predecessor drives his foreign policy.

Also, impeachment standoff. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell in a tug- of-war over the impending trial. She is holding on to the articles of impeachment and he is refusing to negotiate over the possibility of calling witnesses to testify. Who let go first?

And palace intrigue. Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, the duchess of Sussex throwing the royal family into a tizzy, announcing they are stepping back from their royal roles and basically going their own way, in typical British understatement. The Buckingham Palace calls the situation complicated.

But let's begin with Iran. CNN's Frederik Pleitgen is in Tehran tracking Iranian reaction to the day's developments. Fred?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Don. You know, I think from the perspective of President Trump not hitting back at the Iranians even after that Iranian ballistic missile strike, that from their perspective is exactly what they wanted to achieve.

Before these strikes took place, several Iranian officials telling me that they were going to lash out at military installations, but they wanted it to end there. They didn't want this to turn into some wider escalation. They didn't want this to turn into possibly a war in the Middle East.

Also, for the Iranians, it was very important that the Revolutionary Guard did these ballistic missile strikes because the Revolutionary Guard, of course, is the unit that Qasem Soleimani, that general, was a part of. And it was important for them to showcase their ballistic missile technology.

Essentially what the Iranians proved today, they believe, is that they have this homemade missile technology that's very accurate now and can hit American targets even very far away, even across the border. Because, of course, they did launch these strikes from Iranian territory.

I want to read you one headline that I found on an Iranian outlet. It says, quote, "Trump's big retreat from the threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran missile strike."

So clearly, the Iranians are trying to portray this in a fact that President Trump sort of held back because he was afraid of Iranian missiles. We heard, of course, from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying this was a slap in the face to the Americans.

The foreign minister taking that more moderate tone saying that there was an off ramp essentially for President Trump. The big issue for the Iranians, though, after President Trump's speech today, is still the fact that he's imposed more sanction on the Iranians.

The Iranians do believe or at least many in the Iranian power structure that this maximum pressure campaign is really at the heart of what's fueling these ongoing tensions between Iran and the U.S., Don.

LEMON: All right. Thank you, Frederik. I appreciate that.

Let's discuss now with CNN's Pamela Brown, senior White House correspondent. Also, Chris Fussel, a former navy SEAL and president of the McChrystal Group. Also, Juliette Kayyem, a former -- a former Department of Homeland Security official, and CNN National Security Analyst, Mark Mazzetti.

Good evening one and all.

Pamela, I'm going to start with you because you've got some great new reporting about what was going on behind the scenes as the crisis unfolded. How did President Trump reach his decision not to strike back?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, our team has learned that the president, as he met with his national security team inside the situation room, the big objective for him and others in the room was whether there were any American casualties.

And so, a senator had told CNN that the president had appeared ready -- he stood ready to strike Iranian facilities if there was even just one American casualty. We are told that there was a consideration early on to maybe strike Iran, that was one of the options.

But ultimately, the group left the situation room, deciding to wait, see how things pan out, see how the battle assessment damage looked. That battle damage assessment came around 1 a.m.

And there were several factors at play that led to the president's ultimate decision to announce this morning, Don, to just impose sanctions on Iran rather than take a more escalatory action. The fact that there were no American casualties, the fact that Iran struck areas that were not populated by U.S. personnel.

And as we know, the U.S. had several hours to prepare, had a warning to prepare so personnel were able to go into bunkers, to take cover. So, there were several factors at play that led to the president's decision.

But also, Don, it was a big relief for the president that there weren't U.S. casualties because he did not want to continue to escalate the situation with Iran.

[23:05:02]

LEMON: Mark, let's bring you in. Because you have been reporting on this as well. And you have a new article out in the Times about -- about it tonight. And here this part of what you write.

"The strikes capped a frenetic day filled with confusion and misinformation, where at times it appeared that a dangerous military escalation could lead to a broader war. Mr. Trump spent hours with his aides monitoring the latest threats. Military planners considered options to retaliate if Iran killed American troops."

So, that's a stark difference from the administration's posture today that everything is just fine, the operation is a success, they're saying.

MARK MAZZETTI, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, right. As Pam was saying, I mean, really a lot of it was contingent on what the Iranian strike would look like. Everyone was expecting it. And as we reported in our story tonight, there were all sorts of different threat extremes coming in, different types of attacks that they were anticipating. But they didn't know when and where.

And in the afternoon, there was a flash message that came from intelligence agencies signaling that in the next few hours there would probably be a strike against American troops. And that's what scrambled everyone to go to the situation room.

And really, there were all sorts of conflicting information. They thought there was a strike on a different American base, that turned out to be a false alarm. And it wasn't until the strikes on Al Asad and Erbil that they realized that was the extent of the Iranian response.

And because, as Pam said, there were no American casualties, no Iraqi casualties, that then led to the response by President Trump announced today, which is that effectively we're all now trying to de-escalate, or at least move this out of the public sphere into the shadows once again.

LEMON: Yes, but now there is a question as to whether Iran even intended to hit U.S. troops. What did we learn about the Iranians from this whole conflict? Did they blink?

MAZZETTI: I mean, I think we don't know. I mean, we don't know, and we may not know for some time. We may not know ever what they really intended. Whether they -- it was certainly a moderate response, you would say, then what was perhaps feared, that these 16 missiles on two bases versus what might have happened.

Now, were they so -- they were so strategic that they thought we were going to specifically hit places that will not -- there will not be any troops. It's hard to imagine that they would have gamed that or even could have done that. But certainly, the response to Soleimani's killing, one could argue was quite measured.

LEMON: Yes. Juliette, we just heard Pamela tell us that Trump appeared ready to strike back at Iranian facilities, if even one U.S. soldier was killed. I mean, this crisis could have ended very differently.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It could have, and that's why it's so odd to hear pundits and others talk about a win or a loss. Because I think it just depends on when you start the clock.

I mean, you could start it in 1953 when the United States was responsible for the overthrow of the Democratically elected government of Iran to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. You could do it -- you could put your clock at 2015 with the Iran deal, or 2018 when we exited the Iran deal, or you could put it to last week when we killed Soleimani.

And you can -- you can judge it based on whatever clock you pick whether this is a win or a loss. Are we better off today than how I felt last night? Certainly.

But I would argue that the clock probably starts today, which is the idea that this is over, that it's like, you know, a Netflix streaming series that we're done now. It's just absolutely ridiculous. You can't judge win or loss at this stage.

The Iranians have a long-term strategy. They also have a long memory. They also have the capacity to continue their aggression against the United States whether through proxies or cyberattacks.

So, there's no victory lap here. This isn't done. We just simply came back from a very -- from a crisis created by the killing of Soleimani. But whether we can get a better deal or whether our allies are going to go for a better deal, none of those were answered today.

LEMON: Chris, is it true -- you say from a strategic perspective the Iranian's response was brilliant?

CHRIS FUSSELL, FORMER TOP AIDE TO GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL: I thought it was.

LEMON: Why do you say that?

FUSSELL: To the earlier points made by Mark and Juliette both, you're in a position where, OK, we're clearly out matched when it comes to capability. The Iranians are masterful at sort of a mirrored response depending on how they are attacked.

You take one of our tankers with helicopters, we'll take one of your tankers with helicopters. They play that game with the Brits quite well. They couldn't really mirror this. They don't have capability; they do have a lot of unrest inside their own borders. They have to show some sort of immediate response.

They clearly took some risk here. You know, I think it's overstating it to say that they did not want to take any American lives. That's a big gamble if you're launching 15 ballistic missiles. You can't guarantee you're not going to take lives.

[23:09:59]

But they've demonstrated capability. They launched it from their own borders. They do it at a time and place where likelihood of casualties is relatively low, but they can appease some loud voices inside their own system that demand some immediate positioning.

The world says, OK, that was a nicely balanced tit-for-tat sort of response in a strategic framework. And now they buy themselves time and space to either to Juliette's point, let's play the long game here. Maybe there is not another immediate chapter. Or maybe they're building space for the next reaction that they want to put into the game.

So, yes, I thought it was well done and balances the situation and de- escalates it, which is ultimately anyone's goal in a game like this.

LEMON: that's good, very good explanation there. Very good points. Pamela, I want to bring you back in. Because I understand you've also uncovered some new information about the back-channel communications with Iran. Did that help de-escalate the situation?

BROWN: Perhaps. I'm told by a senior administration official that starting last night, Iran started sending messages to the White House through intermediaries. At least three different back channels, including the Swiss, conveying to the White House that it was essentially done with its counterattack as retaliation for the killing of Soleimani.

Basically saying, look, this is our response and this is it, and now basically we're waiting to see what you do. I'm told that the White House -- the administration responded back to the Iranians and said, you know, look, we're well aware that you have proxies that you can use to launch further attacks.

The Iranians apparently, as this one source told me, tried to squeak out of it saying that it can't be responsible for what proxies do such as Hezbollah, but the U.S. made clear it didn't buy it.

And to that point like Juliette said that, look, there is a big concern in the administration. While it could be that the Iran as a regime is done with its big counterattack, there is concern that weeks, months from now, Iranian -- Iran will use its proxies to launch further attacks as Iran has historically shown it is capable of doing.

LEMON: Mark, I have to play this. This is from the president's address this morning. The very first thing he said when the when he got to the podium. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: As long as I'm President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Good morning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, as I watched, I mean, it was obviously very gimmicky, very showy speaking, I would imagine, to his base or to laymen, not to the professional crowd that was there. Why do you think he started -- why do you think he started that way? It was directed -- because it didn't directly pertain to the strike at all.

MAZZETTI: No, it was kind of a giant non sequitur. Right.

LEMON: Yes.

MAZZETTI: I mean, there was nothing related to the nuclear program, of course. There was the killing of a Revolutionary Guard general in response to missile attacks on an America or two American bases.

You know, what the administration's goal -- what President Trump, his goal is on the nuclear program besides saying Iran will not have a nuclear weapon is completely unclear. Of course, he pulled out of the nuclear deal largely because he had said he would do it. And he had said it was a terrible deal because President Obama had negotiated it. But --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Aren't they closer now to a nuclear weapon because he pulled out of the nuclear deal? Then, so it was, to me, it was kind of odd that he said that because they're actually closer to it now because he pulled out.

MAZZETTI: I mean, they are certainly, you know, no longer bound by terms of the deal that had been negotiated, and so things that were in place two years ago are not in place, and, therefore, you're right, they are closer.

And how, you know, how -- but how he's going beyond the bumper sticker of they will not get a nuclear weapon towards preventing that from happening, you know, is completely unclear. Would there -- you know, in the aftermath of this past week, is there

any chance there would be any serious negotiations between Iran and the United States government on the nuclear program or if you're Tehran, do you simply say, we'll take a pause. We will -- we will wait until next November, see how the election goes, and then we will, you know, decide whether we want to talk or not. But it's completely unclear at this point how he'd get beyond that statement.

LEMON: Chris, do you have any insight into that?

FUSSELL: No, I agree. Nothing to add to what Mark just laid out.

LEMON: Yes. And what about being -- are they closer to a nuclear weapon than having pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal?

FUSSELL: Sure. I mean, time will tell, right, but not being in there in some sort of constrained system doesn't help the situation.

[23:15:00]

But what I've seen in open source reporting suggests, you know, a marginal level of increase in refinement. Still far away from the actual development of a nuclear weapon.

So, he's probably justified in saying, look, my concern is the end state of actually having a usable weapon system. We're not near that. I'm going to tightly monitor that and I don't need the controls that were in place under the previous deal to do that.

LEMON: Thank you all. I appreciate it.

The president just couldn't resist blaming Barack Obama in his speech this morning, but what he said just wasn't true. We're going to break it down in the fact check with Daniel Dale. He's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: President Trump addressing the nation today on tensions with Iran and making false claims about president Barack Obama.

Let's get the truth from the Trump fact checker here, and that is Daniel Dale. Daniel, thank you for joining us. Trump claimed that the Obama administration gave Iran $150 billion as part of the Iran nuclear deal. Listen.

[23:20:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Iran's hostility substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013. And they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Daniel comes up frequently. Set the facts straight for us. DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: First of all, the final version of the

deal was signed in 2015. The interim version was signed in 2013. The 150 billion figures, Don, is an exaggeration.

The Obama administration estimated that about $60 billion worth of Iranian assets, that's the key here, Iranian assets, would be unfrozen through its agreement on the nuclear deal.

So, this was not U.S. money and it was not 150 billion. Somewhere much less than that. Iran was allowed to access after it had been frozen for decades in international financial institutions.

LEMON: Trump took the opportunity to blame his predecessor for retaliation last night. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: The former President Barack Obama clearly on his mind all the time.

DALE: Yes, he's been -- he's been referencing Obama much more this year than he did in 2017 and 2018, actually measured this. On this particular claim I call it uncorroborated.

I spoke to two experts in Iran. One of whom said he thought it was false because Iran clearly had a missile program before the nuclear agreement.

The other expert though said, look, we have no idea which particular missiles were used in this attack or which particular streams of money went to those missiles. We just don't know. And I'd emphasize we don't know if Trump knows either so I demand much more evidence before accepting this claim from the president as true.

LEMON: So, he also claims that the Iran deal also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, expires shortly. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: A very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Walk us through this one, Daniel.

DALE: So Trump could accurately say that certain provisions of the JCPPOA, the nuclear agreement arguably expire shortly. There are some that sunset in 2025. You could say five years is shortly.

However, it's not true to say that the entire deal expires shortly. There are some important provisions, like a blanket prohibition on Iran seeking a nuclear weapon. A blanket indefinite guarantee of international monitoring that do not sunset at all, and there are other provisions that go all the way to 2040, like monitoring of Iran's uranium mills and mines. Ando so I don't think by any reasonable standard 20 years from now is very shortly.

LEMON: The president said this is about ISIS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: He destroyed ISIS?

DALE: Well, the caliphate was finally destroyed after progress under the Obama administration -- under Trump. So yes, 100 percent of the caliphate, but of course not 100 percent of ISIS itself. Talk to any U.S. military leader. They'll tell you ISIS continues to fight in Syria, continues to be a presence in Iraq, and continues to pose a threat to the U.S. homeland as well.

LEMON: There was also this claim about U.S. oil production.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We are now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Is that true?

DALE: So, the problem with the statement, Don, is the now. Yes, it is true that U.S. is number one, but this happened in 2012 under Obama. And I think that's especially important because of a line Trump usually uses. He didn't today, but usually does.

He usually says I ended the previous administration's war on American energy and now we are the number one producer. Well, it was under that previous administration that the U.S. took that number one spot and continued it every year, and then passed on that record to the Trump presidency.

LEMON: Interesting that he didn't credit Obama for that one, right?

DALE: Yes.

LEMON: Thank you, Daniel. I appreciate it. Daniel just broke it down. President Trump brings up President Obama a lot. Wajahat Ali, Rick Wilson are here to dig further into why that is next.

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So, listen to President Trump talk about the conflict with Iran. You can't escape noticing how much the current president's foreign policy is driven by his obsession with former President Barack Obama.

So, let's bring in CNN Contributor, Wajahat Ali, and Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist who is the author of the upcoming book "Running Against the Devil." OK. I wonder what that's about.

So, Wajahat, I could see like, as I was reading that, I could see out of the corner of my eye because I have you here, up on the screen, I'm like, you are raring to go. But I've got to get to Rick first.

So, Trump used today's address on the Iran situation to blame Obama. I want you take a listen to this then we'll talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Iran's hostility substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.

The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, we heard Daniel Dale give us a fact check on that. But former Obama advisor Susan Rice called that a despicable lie. He's been president for almost three years now. Why is he still bringing up Obama?

[23:30:08]

RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: He's bringing up Obama because there is an election coming up in 11 months, Don. He wants to keep the republican base still fighting the last war which in his head is either, you know, the demon Obama or the demon Hillary. He's going to bring them out, roll them out as much as he can, and try to wrap into every political -- every political element of their past into his campaign.

And as a defense for himself, because he knows he has a short attention span. I mean the whole sniffles the orangutan act (ph) today on TV was he knows that he will lose focus on Iran in a day or two and it will be off on some other tangent, and he wants to have something to blame when this whole thing collapses. He wants to have some backstop to pretend that it's not his fault. He did nothing wrong, et cetera.

That is why he brought Obama up today. It's why he'll continue to blame everyone in the past. It's frankly -- he even threw Reagan under the bus today if you listen to the remarks appropriately. So this is a guy who always lives in year zero. He knows he is mentally unable to focus. He will change the subject and then things will go off the rails again.

He also, I think, may have the understanding that this thing isn't over. This was day one or hour one of the -- it's the beginning of the beginning, not the end.

LEMON: Mm-hmm. Wajahat, former VP Joe Biden hitting back on Twitter, saying, "Instead of using his statement today to lay out a coherent strategy on Iran, Donald Trump used it to mislead the country on the Obama-Biden record. He's been president for three years. It's time he stops blaming President Obama for his failures."

So, what do you think?

WAJAHAT ALI, CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I think Donald Trump's entire reason of political being is his intense hatred and obsession with Barack Hussein Obama, a black man and son of a Kenyan Muslim who ascended to the White House.

It's all insecure projection with Donald Trump. He knows Obama is smarter, more well-read, more erudite, more cool, he can sing better. He is more beloved. In fact, the most beloved man in America is Barak Hussein Obama, a black man, son of a Kenyan Muslim. And Donald Trump will never be as beloved.

Let's not forget that Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, were the leaders of the birther conspiracy before he was elected, right? A very racist conspiracy theory that said Obama was a foreigner. His base is primarily motivated by what? Racial anxiety. The election of Barack Obama, the elevation of a black man is their greatest nightmare.

So here comes Donald Trump. He will undo all of it. And his entire domestic and foreign policy is I'll do everything opposite of Obama and failed bigly. I'll just give you a few examples. Iran deal. Donald Trump says it is the worst deal ever negotiated. It would lead to a nuclear holocaust. Well, we are on the brink of World War III because Donald Trump took the worst possible option given to him in a slide show.

Barak Hussein Obama, despite being the victim of his racism, two days after Trump was elected tried to warn Trump. He said, Donald, two things I'm warning you about. Do not hire Michael Flynn in a security position. What did Donald Trump do? He made him his national security advisor. That guy is probably going to go to jail for six months.

And he said focus on North Korea as a nuclear threat. What does Donald Trump do? He receives love letters from Kim Jong-un. When it comes to the TPP, he undid TPP because Obama did it. When it came to DACA, he undid DACA. When it comes to ACA, he tries to kill ACA.

So everything he tries to do is to undo Obama's legacy. But ironically, what this does is elevate Obama because everyone does a compare and contrast and say, oh, my god, we had a functional competent elegant man as president and now we have this incompetent vulgarian.

(LAUGHTER) ALI: Chef's kiss (ph). I love it. The karma is beautiful.

LEMON: My, gosh! I mean, you were at a loss for words there. I thought I was going to have to help you along.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Rick, Senator Lindsey Graham on Fox just moments ago were praising Trump's speech and making a bold comparison. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): This speech will be talked about long after his second term. This is on par with tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev. This is resetting the relationship between the world and Iran, not just the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

WILSON: You know, this was a few minutes ago, Don, but I had not seen that. I got to tell my friend Lindsey -- I got to tell my friend Lindsey, no matter how much you put out for Donald Trump, he's not taking you to the prom. Why buy the cow when the milk is free? This guy is absolutely -- I mean, he has gone so far down. His humiliation is so utterly abject at this point. I don't know what he thinks he's going to accomplish.

Donald Trump is never giving you secretary of state, Lindsey. He's not going to make you a Supreme Court justice. All you're going to be is another caddy for this guy. You're going to be another guy who carries the bag around on the golf course. You are -- the humiliation of this man -- Lindsey is not stupid.

[23:35:00]

WILSON: I cannot for the life of me understand what is broken in him mentally that he behaves this way. It is astounding.

LEMON: OK.

ALI: Don --

LEMON: Hold on. No, no, no, we got to take it down a notch because I have to do something that's really wonderful here because this is a nice celebration --

WILSON: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

ALI: I have to share a Lindsey Graham story.

LEMON: So, Wajahat, can you see the air? Can you see us on the screen? ALI: Yes.

LEMON: Can you explain to us what is happening in this right here?

ALI: Yes. Earlier today, my warrior princess, Nusayba, rang the bell and what that means is when you ring the bell that means you are officially cancer-free after 9-1/2 months of enduring Stage 4 liver cancer. Nusayba thanks to everyone's prayers and help and generosity. Thanks to you, Don, and the CNN team that really promoted her plight, her search for a liver donor.

She is now cancer-free. She has a liver inside her that belongs to Shawn Zahir. If you saw that video, that was her running towards her liver donor right after she rang the bell and giving him a high five. So, today, to quote ice cube is a good day. Nusayba and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are cancer-free. Today is a good day.

WILSON: God bless.

ALI: Thank you, everybody.

LEMON: I can't say anything.

ALI: Thank you, everybody.

LEMON: Thank you. Congratulations. That is awesome.

(APPLAUSE)

LEMON: That's really, really, really great.

WILSON: That's super.

LEMON: We'll be right back. Wow!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: CNN cameras caught Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leaving the (ph) White House earlier today and sources say he was there to discuss the upcoming impeachment trial with the president. That after McConnell made it clear in remarks on the Senate floor this morning that he is not interested in changing course.

Let's discuss now with John Dean, a former Nixon White House counsel. Good evening, sir. Happy New Year. I haven't seen not you since the

New Year. Good to have you on.

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: You were one of the first people to suggest that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hold the articles of impeachment. I remember you do it here on the show, hold it from the Senate. We have seen this play out and the standoff continues. You say the speaker still has the upper hand. Why do you say that?

DEAN: Well, I think she could hold them right up and take them to the election if she wanted to. She doesn't have -- there's nothing in the rules that says she has to send those over, particularly when you're seeing the kind of behavior that she's confronted with in the Senate, which is just asking the House to be subject to a steam roller and they represent the American people. So I think her moves are very smart right now.

LEMON: You think that's going to last, though, John? Because there are three Democratic senators, Angus king who is an independent, but caucus is with the Democrats. There is Chris Murphy and then there is Richard Blumenthal as well. They're saying it is time for the trial to begin. Has Pelosi's tactic run its course? No?

DEAN: Well, I think she still has all the options. She could, for example, announce publicly that she is not sending the articles to the Senate until after the election. And that way, she'd make them an election issue in many states where Republicans are running and wouldn't want those to be an issue.

Secondly, she can say, I'm sending them to the Senate, but I'm sending them with the heads up that if the Senate doesn't give a fair trial, the House of Representatives is going to go to the Supreme Court and take these under judicial review.

Now, there is a friend of mine who has got a piece coming out in the Washington Post tomorrow, Cleveland attorney Jim Robenalt, has dug out some of the case law. And Walter Nixon, when he was impeached, went to the court and took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against him 9-0 on whether or not they had been proper in having the hearing before a small committee instead of the full Senate and then taking his impeachment to the full Senate.

But they did, they offered some language that said, a Senate trial must be, in essence, fair. It can't be a coin flip. It can't be something that judges would find unreasonable. So there is some language in the case law that shows where the Supreme Court might go on this and that they might take such a case.

LEMON: Interesting. You heard Mitch McConnell saying that they think they have the votes, and so he doesn't really care. And so he's going to start the trial even if Nancy Pelosi doesn't bring the articles.

DEAN: He does have the votes. He's probably always had them or may have had some on the fence that didn't want to commit. And this is the sort of thing Mitch McConnell does. He does not play by the rules. Rather, he makes the rules. And that's what Nancy is up against. That's why as soon as she releases the articles to him, she has lost some degree of control over them.

Ultimately, as I say, I believe she would have standing to go to the high court if it was really an abysmal undertaking and no witnesses were permitted when they were clearly called for and things like that. But that's not the strongest case. The strongest case is taking it to the voters and saying, listen, the Senate is not going to do this properly. Therefore, we don't want to go there. We want the voters to decide this issue.

[23:45:00]

LEMON: John Dean, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

DEAN: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, well, they say they're stepping back from their royal duties and it seems to have come to a shock -- as a shock to everyone, including the queen. All the details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Palace intrigue in the British royal family. Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, announcing they are stepping back from their roles as senior royals and basically going their own way.

[23:50:05]

LEMON: Let's check in now with CNN Royal Correspondent, Max Foster. Max?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Don, the couple won't say they want to leave the royal family altogether, but they do say they want to step down from their senior positions and all the official duties that come with that. That means they want to carve out their own roles and they want to carve out progressive new roles within this institution, they say.

They also want to become financially independent. They want to start earning their own money. They want to split their time between North America and the United Kingdom, so a lot of change here. They are also saying they want to collaborate with other members of the royal family in future. The queen, Prince of Wales, and Duke of Cambridge, they name them that.

But the issue here is that those other members of the royal family haven't agreed to this because this wasn't discussed with them at all before it was announced by the Sussexes. I am told that senior members of the family are hurt. There is deep disappointment behind palace walls.

Shortly after the Sussexes made their announcement, Buckingham Palace issued a statement saying these are complicated issues that will take time to work through. But nothing has been agreed here, and the Sussexes need to hold on a bit before they make these sorts of announcements.

And the (INAUDIBLE) institution does have a hold over the Sussexes because Prince Charles provides 95 percent of their funding currently. The couple want to keep that. They also want to keep their home which is granted to them by the queen. Has she agreed to that? There is going to be some big discussions behind palace walls, Don.

LEMON: Max, thank you very much. Interesting. Let's bring in now CNN's royal commentator Victoria Arbiter. When you walked in, I said we were just -- it feels like just yesterday, we were covering their wedding. It is extraordinary to think that Harry and Meghan went through with this without consulting the family. Were the royals, the queen, were they just blindsided by all of this?

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Don, I think everyone is somewhat blindsided. There is no question there had to be a change of some description. The documentary of Tom Bradby towards the end of last year illustrated perfectly how deeply unhappy Harry and Meghan were with the status quo. There needs to be some kind of change.

We were expecting changes but certainly nothing quite this dramatic. As we understand it, the palace's queen, Charles, William, they were notified last week that Harry and Meghan had some plans, that they want to try and execute things that they want to do moving forward in this year, but they didn't know this announcement was coming out today.

LEMON: OK. Why so unhappy? Why are they -- because you think -- you're a royal, my, gosh! You know, this would be wonderful. Why are they so unhappy?

ARBITER: (INAUDIBLE) fantastic. They are leading this tremendously privileged life and big houses, getting to wear fancy jewels, meeting incredible people. But it's the other insidious side that comes with it. Now, people can deny it all they like. But Meghan, as an American, biracial, former actress who happens to be a divorcee, has been subject to every-ism under the sun.

Now, we live in a day and age particularly now where digital media lives by a totally different set of rules to your traditional media. Social media is its own beast in and of itself as well. And so I think Harry and Meghan are keen to a gain control of the narrative. Do the work that they are committed to but without the constraints of royal life. I just hope they're not trading one set of problems for a different set of unchartered problems.

LEMON: Yeah. Wow! And the British media can be really, really -- the Duke and Duchess of Sussex reveal today on their personal website a whole funding and media strategy for a couple and how it would work. They must have had some help getting this done.

ARBITER: You would think so. This website, Don, the details are extraordinary. The level of attention that has been put towards this website, this doesn't happen overnight. So that would lead us all to suggest that this has been in the works for the six weeks that they were taking their break.

They have been in Canada and perhaps that is when they got the team of experts around. These types of details have not come from the palace. They read somewhat like a wish list. Yes, again on paper, it's all a lovely idea to maintain the royal role, but also become financially independent to maintain their roles to UK patronages (ph) and military and ceremonial roles, but you can't earn money from private companies while working as a senior royal.

LEMON: What does that mean? You said that they want to stay in their house or whatever which has been right -- it is given to them, correct?

ARBITER: Yes, it's given to them by the crown.

LEMON: So then what is being financially independent? What does that mean to them?

ARBITER: Well, they say they want to be financially independent. In other words, they are giving up the five percent Sovereign Grant which is given to them to run the office of Buckingham Palace. But they like to keep the 95 percent of the allowance that Prince Charles gives them. I think the papers in particular are going to drive a hard bargain over this. How do you continue to get 95 percent if they are not conducting full royal roles?

[23:54:59]

ARBITER: I think this is why Buckingham Palace issued somewhat of a curt response, saying, yes, we appreciate Harry and Meghan want to make some changes, but this is incredibly complicated. Do they appear at ceremonial occasions? Where does their funding come from? What happens with royal protection? Yes, Harry and Meghan have their plan, but it's not been approved just yet.

LEMON: I mean, it's a very different path than Prince William, right, and Kate Middleton with their -- what they're taking. What's the relationship like with the brothers and Kate and Meghan?

ARBITER: I would imagine tonight somewhat frosty. They have always had a good relationship. The girls in particular have enjoyed a good relationship. I think moving forward there are few bridges that need to be --

LEMON: Is Meghan taking the blame for this?

ARBITER: It's inevitable, unfortunately.

LEMON: Thank you, Victoria.

ARBITER: Thank you.

LEMON: I appreciate it. And thank you for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)