Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
President Trump's Worries Are Palpable In His Tweets; Warren Says Sanders Told Her A Woman Could Not Win In 2020; U.S. Embassies Weren't Warned Of Imminent Threats Despite Trump's Claims That Four Embassies Were In Danger; Rudy Giuliani Lobbying To Join White House Impeachment Defense Team. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired January 13, 2020 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANIE GRISHAM, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: -- parroting Iranian talking points and almost taking side of terrorist and those who were out to kill the Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Really? You can't prove that there's eminency. You can't show the proof. But it's on them. Be on the lookout. This president will do whatever he can to play on any kind of prejudice, any weakness because he can't win without it.
This wasn't just anti-Muslim it was anti-American. Again.
"CNN TONIGHT" with D. Lemon now.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Can you there was so much here. I mean, we know the whole racist xenophobic, whatever. But can you actually call her a press secretary? Or she is just a spokeswoman, a spokesperson.
CUOMO: They give her the title. So yes, you can call her that. She may not be acting in the way that you would think one does in that position.
LEMON: So, she is a spoke -- I would say she is a spokesperson. But I'm going to talk more about the tweets and I just -- the president tweets something like that. Really is sad. Don't you think?
CUOMO: Yes. I think it's pathetic. But you know, as my argument went tonight, he has to be this way, Don. He will not win if he is not this way. He has nothing else to offer. He doesn't have anything that captures the imagination of a hopeful America. He's not a bridge builder.
LEMON: What do you mean, he is no couth, he is no dignify?
CUOMO: No. I don't -- I don't get -- I don't have to insult him. It's just --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: No, no, it's not insulting. That's the truth.
CUOMO: It's just what he is. He has to have people upset. He has to be an agent with --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: No, no, I'm not -- I'm not trying to insult him.
CUOMO: Right.
LEMON: To do something like that, you don't have class. That's not insulting, that's the truth.
CUOMO: Well, I would say look, either way, what I'm saying is, this is what works for him. Saying hey, you know what, Don Lemon, I appreciate what you're saying and I don't disagree but you have every right to say it and I wish you well.
Nope. It doesn't work. Why? It keeps people. I'm not sure, I'm not sure which way I want to go.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: If I say Don Lemon, you said that to me?
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: You're the worst. And people like you, Don Lemon, you are the enemy. Now what I am playing to? Am I playing to race, am I playing to identity, am I playing to media, am I playing to institutions, he doesn't know? he just knows it's good for him, Don.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: The more angry for, the most reasons best for him. That's why I made him a bet tonight. I bet he can't go a week without lying about a material fact, denying something that you are o responsible for.
LEMON: Yes.
CUOMO: Or defying a norm to keep people apart.
LEMON: Yes. Well, that's what --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: You want any action on that?
LEMON: No, I don't because it's all just so sad. I get sick of talking about how classless it is.
CUOMO: Well -- LEMON: I got to run.
CUOMO: Don't get too tired of it too fast, my brother.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: No, I'm not tired.
CUOMO: We got 21 days for the first votes. We're just getting warmed up.
LEMON: I just said sick. But when I get sick and tired, as I say not tired. Tide.
CUOMO: Tied.
MACCALLUM: Sick. I am sick and tide. Then you --
CUOMO: And tide.
LEMON: Sick and tide. T-i-d-e. I got to go.
CUOMO: All right, my friend.
LEMON: Hey, have fun. Have a good time in Iowa. Hold their feet to the fire. Do a good job there as you always do. I'll see you. Safe travels. You get after it.
This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.
Lots of news on impeachment tonight that we need to talk about with the president Senate trial looming. It's getting really, really, really close.
House Democrats telling CNN that they expect Nancy Pelosi to announce impeachment managers in a matter of hour. As soon as tomorrow morning. They think a vote on the resolution to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate could potentially take place on Wednesday.
That as key Republican senators -- all right, are you ready? It's Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney, they say that they are open to hearing from witnesses in the trial. I wonder if there could be more? Who knows? Romney saying this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): I'd like there to be witnesses and be able to hear from someone like John Bolton. At the same time, I'm comfortable with the Clinton model which is we hear the opening arguments first and then we'll have a vote on whether or not to have witnesses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: OK. Now I want to really listen to this, OK? Rudy Giuliani has been lobbying to join the president's legal team on the Senate floor. But it doesn't sound like it's going to happen. Sources are telling CNN that Trump has been advised against letting Giuliani join in because of his involvement in Ukraine.
But here's the thing. The president shows his insecurities about impeachment, about Iran, and about the Democratic race. His insecurities about all of it with these tweets. OK? The tweet is always a tell. I want you to go with me. The tweet is always a tell.
[22:04:58]
Exhibit a. This one. Quote, "why should I have the stigma of impeachment attached to my name when I did nothing wrong?" That tells you how bothered he is. He knows his name is tarnished and impeachment is on his permanent record. And as a Senate trial gets closer and closer, he tweets many believe without saying who they are, apart from one Donald J. Trump. That there shouldn't even be a trial, just a dismissal.
Like I said the tweet is always a tell. The president putting his anxiety about Iran on full display with this one. Telling a really outrageous lie. OK? Falsely claiming that Democrats and the news media are trying to make Soleimani into what he calls a wonderful guy.
Nobody is suggesting that. OK? Look at me, nobody is suggesting that. Nobody has any question that Soleimani had American blood on his hand. On his hands. The question is exactly what rational the administration had for the strike. That's the question. Was an attack imminent? The president said it was imminent, so show us the rational. Show the evidence.
Was it an attack on our embassy in Baghdad? Or four embassies? Trump administration can't seem to get its story straight. The State Department sources telling CNN's Kayley Atwood -- Kylie Atwood -- excuse me, Kylie, Kylie Atwood that officials involved in embassy security were not told about any imminent threat to four specific U.S. embassies.
The Department of State sent a global warning to all U.S. embassies but it wasn't directed at any specific embassies and didn't mention any imminent attack. Like I said, didn't mention any imminent attack.
But it's not just attacks like that. The president is jumping right into the deep end of Twitter's cesspool. Retweeting a fake photoshopped image of the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in what looks like traditional Islamic clothing standing in front of an Iranian flag and with the caption 'Democrats 2020.'
That is disgusting. I should not have to point that out. But I will. There's absolutely nothing wrong with turbans or with head scarves. Nothing. But retweeting this image is just another example of this president, President Trump, trafficking an anti-Muslim bigotry. Just like he's done from day one. Implying that Barack Obama was secretly Muslim and not born in this country.
There's nothing wrong with being Muslim as well. Just like there's nothing wrong with wearing a head scarf. But he implies that in a bigoted way to appeal to a certain lot. Listen to this. This is Laura Ingraham's radio show. This is back in 2011.
(BEGIN VOICE CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now somebody told me, and I have no idea whether this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be. That where it says religion, it might have Muslim.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And then there's a press secretary or a White House spokesperson who's never held a briefing, Stephanie Grisham. She's never held a formal White House briefing, but she's been on Fox News at least 25 times since she took the job in July. She was there again today. Attempting to defend the indefensible.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRISHAM: I think the president is making clear that the Democrats are have been parroting Iranian talking points and almost taking the side of terrorists and those who were out to kill the Americans.
I think the president was making the point that the Democrats seem to hate him so much that they're willing to be on the side of countries and leadership of countries who want to kill Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: That is not true. It doesn't matter how many times they say it. The president doubling down tonight insisting his administration has been totally consistent on the strike on Soleimani. Spoiler alert, they have not.
[22:10:06]
TRUMP: Well, first of all, I think it's been totally consistent. But here's what has been consistent. We killed Soleimani. The number one terrorist in the world by every account. Bad person. He killed a lot of Americans. He killed a lot of people. We killed him.
And when the Democrats try and defend him, it's a disgrace to our country. They can't do that. And let me tell you. It's not working politically very well for them. So, we killed the number one terrorist in the world. Soleimani. And it should have been done 20 years ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Soleimani. Soleimani. He gotten the man, anyway, whatever. I digress. he can't even get the name right. He can't get the name right.
But tonight, on Fox News, surprise, surprise. Mike Pompeo kept up the same old dance on whether an attack was imminent. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I don't know who used it first but it reflects what we saw. We can dance around the maple on the word imminent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Like I said though, tweets always a tell. It tells you what this president is worried about. And it is pretty clear. With the CNN Democratic debate just hours away and the Iowa caucuses in just three weeks, this president is worried about his Democratic opponents.
This time insulting and attacking the former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the biggest billionaire in the race. Actually, a real billionaire. Someone who is a lot more money than Donald Trump. The insults are par for the course but the president using the same tweet to flat out lie. Flat out lie to you. Otherwise known as gaslighting. One of the favorite weapons in his arsenal.
When the president claims that he saved protections for preexisting conditions he is bracingly lying he didn't. He's doing it again tonight. Tweeting the false claim that he is protecting coverage for preexisting conditions. Not true. He's not protecting coverage for preexisting conditions.
We all remember the late Senator John McCain's dramatic thumbs down vote on the GOP's skinny repeal of Obamacare. The president remembers it too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was very angry with John McCain because he killed healthcare. John McCain I wasn't a fan.
We have a chance of killing Obamacare. We almost did it. But somebody unfortunately surprised us with thumbs down.
I'm not a fan. He was horrible what he did with repeal and replace. I'm not a fan of John McCain, and that's fine.
I was never a fan of John McCain and I never will be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: This president had nothing to do with protections for preexisting conditions written into Obamacare. As the name implies, that was former President Barack Obama.
And as CNN's fact-checker extraordinaire Daniel Dale points out the Trump administration has not only asked the courts to throw out the Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare. They have specifically asked the courts to declare protection for preexisting conditions unconstitutional.
So, no protections there. Those are the facts. But like I said, the tweet is a tell. This president tweets show his insecurities about impeachment, Iran, and the Democratic race. All of it is beginning to come to a boil.
The president who said the deadly strike on Qasem Soleimani was to head off an imminent threat, now says it doesn't matter anyway. What does it tell us that this administration just can't seem to come up with a coherent explanation? We're going to discuss with Nia-Malika Henderson, Ryan Lizza, Max Boot, next.
[22:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: So, the impeachment trial just around the corner the administration is shifting its explanation minute by minute for the killing of Iran's top general. And yes, the Iowa caucuses are just three weeks away. And all of that has this president really, really rattled.
Let's discuss now with senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. I hope she is staying warm in Iowa. Our senior political analyst Ryan Lizza, and global affairs analyst Max Boot. I feel bad for you. You're -- we're in the confines of a warm studio. And you're standing bad in the cold.
NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: I don't think you feel bad. You're laughing, so you don't feel bad.
LEMON: Good evening, one and all. So, Max, I got to start with you, because we have seen zero consistency when it comes to the president about the ordering of the strike on Soleimani. Not from Trump, not from Pompeo, not from Esper. For something that is so big, why can't this administration get its story straight?
MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, that's a great question, Don. I think the issue here is that they could have used multiple legal theories to justify the strike. But the one they chose was to claim that there was an imminent threat and they are preempting that threat by killing Soleimani.
Of course, they have presented zero intelligence to suggest there was in fact an imminent threat. And when they don't actually have the facts, we know what happens, which is that Donald Trump, he starts making stuff up. He just starts embellishing like crazy.
And so last week he goes from claiming Soleimani was going to bomb one embassy to claiming he was going to bomb four embassies. Now this Sunday on the Sunday talk shows, Mark Esper, the Defense Secretary said he wasn't aware of the intelligence on four embassy bombings and he said, you know, we should take Donald Trump's word for it which nobody is prepared to do.
And then finally on Monday, Donald Trump himself seem to be kind of hauling up the white flag and saying it doesn't matter if there was an imminent threat. But that's the standard the administration itself put out. LEMON: Right.
[22:19:59]
BOOT: They didn't have to do that. It was just a huge --
LEMON: Well that was his own standard.
BOOT: Right.
LEMON: It came out of his mouth.
BOOT: Right. It was a huge own goal. There are no reason for that because there are other justifications. I mean, Soleimani was the head of a designated terrorist organization. And he was in a country Iraq where U.S. forces are operating pursuant to the 2002 authorization for the use of military force.
So you could have made a strong legal case on other grounds. But they chose the imminent threat ground and now it's kind of blown up on their faces. And so, this is kind of a typical combination of incompetence and mendacity on the part of this administration.
LEMON: Well put. Incompetence and mendacity.
Ryan, I have to ask you. You know, we have Iran, we got impeachment, and we got Iowa all happening at once and the president is clearly preoccupied with all of them.
RYAN LIZZA, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, yes. I mean, obviously, he's a major player in at least two of those story lines but he always feels the need of course to insert himself in whatever the major story is. So today he spent a lot of time suddenly talking about the Democratic primaries.
He kind of, you know, he kind of been silent for a while. And as this new front between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren opened up in the last few days, maybe to take everyone's attention off of the important questions about Iran and his impeachment trial. He suddenly very engaged in the Democratic candidates. He tweeted about Cory Booker today dropping out of the race.
But, you know, look, Trump does -- you know, the history of his comments and tweets as he always feels the need to be the center of attention, the center of every story.
And I think as the Democratic primaries now when the voting starts and candidates starting engaging a lot more, you'll see him start to feel a little, you know, perhaps left out as the coverage of the primaries intensify. And he will insert himself. Partly for strategic reasons because I think he wants to figure out a way to choose his own opponent. But partly because he can't help himself.
LEMON: And Nia, you're right. We don't feel bad for you because you're at the -- there's a big story that you're there to cover. You got the fun assignment. HENDERSON: Yes.
LEMON: So, I don't feel bad for you. So, let's talk about why you're there and all bundled up. Tomorrow is the last debate before the Iowa caucuses.
HENDERSON:
LEMON: Six people on that debate stage. They are going to be hammering each other. But also, they're going to hammer President Trump. What are you going to be looking for, Nia?
HENDERSON: You know, I think the hammering. This is going to be the smallest stage. It's also going to be the whitest stage. There's been some talk about how it ended up this way. The diversity ended up being a field at this point dominated by older white Democrats and obviously an ideological divide.
I think what's going to be most interesting is if we see fights that we haven't seen before, right? Off stage we've seen Sanders and Warren going after each other. Their aides at least going after each other. Do they bring that to the stage?
And people like Pete Buttigieg. He's in the same lane as Joe Biden. Does he ever want to attack him on the debate stage? This in Iowa. It's essentially a four-way tie. Right? Maybe Sanders is on top, maybe Biden is on top, maybe Warren is on top.
So, I think they are going to be looking to really gain some space. Gain an edge at this point. I think this is probably the most important debate we've seen so far because there are few days at this point before folks go to the polls.
And we know from Iowa, you know, they're sort of late deciders. We don't really know what's going to happen. The polls essentially say that it's a jump ball. So, I think tomorrow you're going to see these folks on stage really try to make a difference and scores some points against their opponents so they can stand out and maybe break away from this bunched-up pack that we see in this Democratic primary.
LEMON: All right. Thanks, everyone. Nia looking forward to tomorrow. I'm sure you're going to do a great job. Stay warm.
HENDERSON: Right.
LEMON: Thanks, everybody.
LIZZA: Thanks, Don.
LEMON: Elizabeth Warren is speaking out tonight about our CNN reporting that Bernie Sanders told her a woman can't win the presidency. He denies it. But what does she have to say about it tonight? That's next.
[22:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Elizabeth Warren says that Bernie Sanders told her during a private meeting in December of 2018 that he didn't believe a woman could win the presidency.
According to CNN's M.J. Lee the two longtime friends were talking about how best to take on President Trump when Warren made the argument that she could earn broad support from female voters. While sources close to Warren tells CNN that Sanders responded but saying he did not believe a woman could win. Sanders denies that. But here is what Warren told CNN in a statement tonight.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December of 2018 to discuss the 2020 election. Our past work together and our shared goals. Beating Donald Trump and taking back our government from the wealthy and well connected and building and economy that works for everyone. Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win. He disagreed."
Joining me now to discuss, Professor Cornel West who has endorsed Senator Sanders, also CNN Political Commentator, Angela Rye. So here we go. You don't look too happy, Dr. West. Hello, Dr. West. Hello, Angela Rye giving us --
(CROSSTALK)
ANGELA RYE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi, there.
CORNEL WEST, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: How are you doing there?
LEMON: -- hat realness tonight, chapeau realness tonight. Dr. West, Elizabeth Warren is confirming the reporting that we have from M.J. Lee in that conversation. You've endorsed Sanders. Disappointed to hear? What do you think, you know, he said a female candidate couldn't win?
WEST: Well, I just think they had -- I'm pretty sure that he had just a big misunderstanding and misinterpretation. They were talking about an analysis and what are the possibilities given a Trump world. And what you got the rise, the control of the big money and big military in ways in which the white and male supremacy and homophobia and transphobia operating.
But everybody knows that brother Bernie Sanders has the longest record in terms of support of women. But not just women. In general, progressive women. Of different colors. Be it a Nina Turner who is a towering figure in her own right and her critique of Biden is worth talking about tonight in terms of support of the segregationist tied to bussing and so forth.
[22:30:08]
So in that sense, if I had to pick the integrity of Brother Bernie versus the integrity of Sister Elizabeth. Elizabeth doesn't have a chance, not in terms of consistency.
LEMON: But that doesn't mean he didn't say --
WEST: No, no, no. (Inaudible) 1996. No way.
LEMON: But that doesn't mean he didn't say what he said.
WEST: Well, no. We don't know. We don't know. It's subject to what the context is. It's a subject of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Bit all I'm saying is at a moment in which Trump is dropped -- threatening to drop bombs in the Middle East at a moment in which it's very clear the impeachment is proceeding in a significant way. At a moment in which it gets critique of Biden being put forth by those on the left including Elizabeth and Bernie. That they have a discussion about this is another distraction. And I don't think its Sister Elizabeth, I think it's the people around her.
LEMON: OK. Angela, go on.
RYE: Yes, so first and foremost of course, things are subject to misinterpretation and of course, context is always key. None of us were in the room. However, I have a hard time believing that someone would just make something like this up, right? I think, the issue that we really have before us is that their policies are more in alignment than they are not. Right?
I did a podcast with Senator Warren just last year. Just give me one moment, Dr. West. Just last year, and you know, at the (inaudible) of last year and she talked about -- I asked her, Don, I prodded her, could she please give me some distinction between her and Bernie Sanders. And she declined several times over. We watched her do that on the debate stage.
So, I think, what is fascinating here is how folks are really grabbing a hold to this one point. My personal opinion on this is this is something that is going to go away, but it's coming up because Iowa caucuses are just three weeks out. Three points, I believe separate them on the latest CNN poll in Iowa.
And so folks have to find ways to differentiate. And that's why you're seeing what you're seeing and in even in some of the Sanders scripts (ph) that they are making their ways around Iowa. But I think that they can still do this without mudslinging. There's enough mudslinging happening from Donald Trump. They don't have to engage in that.
LEMON: Go ahead, Dr. West. You want to ask her a question?
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: Let me just ask -- what I want to ask Angela a question, why do you think that it would have come up at this moment and given what people are perceiving to be its gravity. And I think you're right -- it doesn't have the gravity. But the perceivably the gravity, why would Sister Elizabeth hold it in this long?
RYE: I don't think that she was the person -- WEST: See the timing of it makes me suspicious. That's all.
RYE: Sure.
WEST: Could you ask her?
RYE: I don't think -- no, I'm not going to ask her. But to answer your question, I think that we are clear that (inaudible) --
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: No, you ask her in the past. You ask her in the past.
RYE: Oh, you said, you asked, got it. Yes, she did not -- I didn't ask her about this particular moment.
WEST: Right.
RYE: What I asked her about was how was she differentiate herself from Bernie Sanders from a policy perspective. Which I think is by far the most important thing we should be discussing right now.
WEST: Oh yes, yeah. And that's an important question.
LEMON: Let me jump in here. I think, maybe -- I think, maybe timing is everything. We're at this moment in time now where apparently, reportedly he has been sending people out criticizing Elizabeth Warren and maybe she feels now she has to start criticizing him and letting people know how he really feels. Maybe they had some pact that they wouldn't criticize each other.
RYE: They did.
LEMON: I don't -- yes, and so, maybe now is the time for them to start. They have to start differentiating their policies and if you're running for president, hey, look, this is the real deal. This is -- you know, they got to do it.
WEST: Well, that's true.
RYE: And Don, here's the thing, you know, the reality of this is there's -- again, there's so much at stake. And it's interesting that if in 2018, Bernie Sanders would have said that a woman could not win. He must have forgotten that Hillary Clinton actually did win the popular vote. Whether you have anything nice to say about Hillary Clinton or not. She did win the popular vote. And I think the (inaudible) --
LEMON: But she is not president.
RYE: She's not. But obviously -- listen. That's a book for another day. But I will say is, the reality of this situation right is that we have someone on the ticket, there are two women. Well, three women left in the race. Two women who will be on the debate stage. A very white debate stage. And we have a lot of questions that we need to answer including the
nagging question in our minds of why can't a person of color win when there's been a black president. And why can't a woman win when a woman won the popular vote. Why are we still asking the question?
LEMON: Let me ask you this though, because maybe -- because, OK, no, no, no. I just want to say, and I'm not saying that this is how I believe. So, people at home, don't think it that way. Maybe he means there are certain -- there's a certain part of the country in the places where it needs to happen that the people who need to vote, they are not going to do it. Because maybe they're misogynist, maybe they don't think a woman can win. Maybe he has seen a research. I don't know.
[22:35:07]
Maybe he's saying those people in Pennsylvania and other states that where they need to get the electoral win. Those people don't believe that a woman can be president and they are not going to go out and vote for her. Maybe that's the context of the conversation? I don't know.
WEST: But think about Bernie, Don. The thing about Bernie though, you got to keep -- you got to keep this in mind. (Inaudible), of course, he's been urging women to run going all the way back to 1980. They've got videos of that. He urge Elizabeth Warren --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: At this moment in time. Not to say a woman can't be president. But at this -- at this moment in time, where if the goal is to beat Donald Trump, in those areas where Democrats lost last time, maybe he has seen a research and he believes in those area that they need to win back, that a woman can't win in those areas. I don't know. I'm just saying. And if so, is that not fair.
WEST: No, but see, Bernie -- Bernie is not that kind of brother. He's a visionary brother. People can say the same about Jessie Jackson. When he supported Jessie Jackson, 84 and 88. A black man has no chance. Well, he perceive going president, that's why Bernie supported him in both races. Same as true in 2016, he proceed. Barack Obama in 2008.
LEMON: OK. Let Angela go in because I got to run. Go ahead quickly, Angela.
RYE: Sorry and not to interrupt you Dr. West.
WEST: Sure.
RYE: Really quick, a question for you, you have earlier.
WEST: No, no, you go right ahead.
LEMON: He can't answer question because I got to run.
WEST: Yes.
RYE: Well, the question is just, how many black women or women of color has Bernie Sanders supported in New Hampshire for office? That's the question. What does his bench look like for political office in New Hampshire? And I think those are the kind of questions he's going to have to start answering.
LEMON: OK. Thank you.
WEST: There's so few black sisters in New Hampshire, but --
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: All right. I have to go. Thank you. Make sure you all watch the debate tomorrow. Please come back. Watch the debate tomorrow. Only on CNN the top Democrats head to Iowa. Hey, listen, its realness here. Iowa for our live CNN presidential debate in partnership with the Des Moines register. Tomorrow night at 9:00 only on CNN.
Top officials doing everything they can to back President Trump's claims about the killing of Qassem Soleimani. But what won't they do to back this president?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:00]
LEMON: New details tonight calling into question the president's claims that he ordered the strike that killed Iran's top general because of plots against four embassies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: CNN's Kylie Atwood breaking the story that two State Department sources say officials involved in embassy security weren't told of any imminent threats to four specific U.S. embassies. And didn't issue warnings about specific danger to any U.S. embassy.
One senior State Department official described being blindsided when the administration justified the strike on Soleimani by saying he was behind an imminent threat to blow up U.S. embassies.
Joining me now to discuss is retired General Wesley Clark. He is the former NATO supreme ally commander. General, I appreciate you joining us. Thank you so much.
RET. GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Thank you, Don. LEMON: Does the reporting that the people in charge of embassy
security weren't told of imminent threats undermine the president's justification for the Soleimani strike?
CLARK: I think it's surprising if there wasn't imminent threat that the embassies weren't told. And that apparently there's some confusion elsewhere about how imminent -- if you don't know where or when the attack was going to occur it's hardly an imminent threat. And in anyway, I mean, it was kind odd that if there were imminent threat that you would attack Soleimani. He wasn't carrying a weapon. He wasn't going to do the bomb himself.
So, if you knew there was an imminent threat, surely you would go after the cell or the location or that was going to execute the attack. But Don, the other side of this is that they did designate the Quds forces a terrorist organization. They did -- our administration did that. And he's the leader of the Quds Force. So, if so fact though, he's a terrorist. And so we have had a war on terrorism. So, it didn't have to be justified by imminent threat. But of course that made it much more palatable when it was first announced.
LEMON: Yes. I want to play what the president said and how administration officials responded. Listen to this general.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies. But I think it would had been four embassies. Could have been military bases. Could have been a lot of other things too. But it was imminent and then all of a sudden he was gone.
ROBERT O'BRIEN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Look, it's always difficult even with the exquisite intelligence that we have to know exactly what the targets are.
MARK ESPER, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, the president didn't say that there was a (inaudible), he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he says, he probably, he believed --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying there wasn't one?
ESPER: I didn't see one with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is I share the president's view, that probably my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, general, tell me what you hear in these responses?
CLARK: Well, they're not saying that there was an imminent threat. They're saying -- if the national security adviser doesn't know it, if the Secretary of Defense doesn't know it. It doesn't sound to me like there was imminent threat. But, you know, that's just one piece of this, Don. It's still begs the question of what's going to happen next? Are we better off that he's gone? Are we safer or are we not safer? And on that only time will tell. LEMON: Members of the president's cabinet seeming to shift the
justification away from imminent threat to deterrence today. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I do believe that this concept of imminent is something of a red herring. It reestablished deterrence. It responded to attacks that had been already committed.
[22:45:10]
MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: There's a bigger strategy to this. President Trump and those of us in his national security team are reestablishing deterrence. Real deterrence against the Islamic republic.
TRUMP: I think it's totally consistent. But here's what's been consistent. We killed Soleimani. The number one terrorist in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, listen, no one is disputing that Soleimani is bad guy and he's probably better off that he is not around. But now it seems to be shifting from imminent threat to deterrence. Is that saying that it was imminent threat wasn't so important after all?
CLARK: That's what it says. And the thing about deterrence is, you know, they didn't -- they struck back once. The foreign minister still saying that the United States is going to pay for its mistakes. They are still pushing the -- militias are saying, it's their turn to strike.
So, we're not certain that it did reestablished deterrence. That's the point. But it's more defensible to say that it's an attempt to reestablish deterrence than it is to say, to response to an imminent threat, because they haven't been able to establish in the minds of the public that there was an imminent threat.
LEMON: Here's what the Washington Post is reporting, general, tonight that the president is preparing to divert an extra $7.2 billion in Pentagon funding to build a wall along the Southern Border. Is this really the best use of a Pentagon's budget?
CLARK: You know, most of us who follow this have never thought that was a good use of the Pentagon's budget. I mean, we need that money for repair, training, investment in new technologies and a lot of other things. But I is the president's call. He did work it out. OMB, apparently can take that money from the Pentagon budget and use it that way. So, this is one of those policy choices and it's up to the voters ultimately to make the call on issues like this.
LEMON: General Clark, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
CLARK: Thank you, Don. LEMON: Sources say Rudy Giuliani's lobbying to join the president's
impeachment legal team. But there are a whole lot of reason that's not likely to happen.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
LEMON: Spruces telling CNN, Rudy Giuliani has been lobbying to join the president's legal team and defend him from the floor of the Senate. But Giuliani probably shouldn't get his hopes of. Sources telling CNN, that Trump has been advised against it with one source telling CNN the president is never going to have him in the Senate trial starting with the problem that he is a potential witness. Elie Honig is a federal and state prosecutor, and he's here to discuss. So, good evening. How are you?
HONIG: Wow. Good.
LEMON: Rudy, I mean, he wants to be on the president's impeachment team. Isn't he part of the reason the president's -- the main reason the president is in this problem? I mean, the president did it himself, but he influenced him a lot when it comes to this Ukraine.
HONIG: Rudy is reason 1 A, why the president's in this problem. The president himself being number one. I mean, this idea of having Rudy Giuliani represent the president on the floor of the Senate is many layers of crazy, but start with the fact that Rudy Giuliani is going to be one of the main coconspirators whose getting testified about, you can't also be the lawyer. They teach you that on day one of law school.
LEMON: A number of Republican Senators are making it clear that they are open to having witnesses when it comes to the impeachment hearing in the Senate. This is Senator Mitt Romney. He spoke to Manu Raju today. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UH): I'd like that there'll be witnesses and be able to hear from someone like John Bolton.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Senators Lamar Sanders, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski. Murkowski not naming a specific people or saying they're open to having the opportunity to hear from witnesses. I don't know, is there tension, showing that there's tension within the GOP to having a legitimate trial?
HONIG: It does, this is a huge deal. So far, Senator Mitch McConnell has been very secure in his power and he holds a lot of power, but all of the power comes from one number, which is 53. That's how many Republican votes he has. He is also four away from losing a lot of that power and there's more than four Republican Senators who reportedly are seriously considering voting in favor of having witnesses.
And once that door's open, once witnesses start coming in, we don't know who, but potentially John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, a lot of the documents that have been missing, then anything's in play. Any number of surprises can happen and McConnell really loses his strangle hold on that power.
LEMON: Back too Giuliani again, he associate Lev Parnas turn over thousands of pages of document. That includes photos, text messages, turning over to House impeachment investigators. He's attorney's name is Joseph Bondi, posting on Twitter that they gave other contents of his iPhone to them and to let Lev speak. And you say the fact that he turned over the iPhone should scare a lot of people. Explain that to me.
HONIG: Yes. I know Joe Bondi, first of all, he used to have mob cases against him when he was a defense lawyer. He's a good lawyer though, he knows what he's doing. But you can cross examine a Lev Parnas all day long. You can say, you shouldn't believe him, jury or Senate, but you can't cross examine text messages. I mean, that is golden evidence. And so if that is being turned over to the House, then that should really worry whoever was communicating with Lev Parnas.
LEMON: Why do he and his attorney want to speak to investigators so much?
HONIG: Well, he's trying to cooperate clearly.
LEMON: To curry favor?
HONIG: Yeah, I mean, this is -- it's fairly standard when someone gets indicted as Lev Parnas has done. They try to give information about other people in order to get a less -- a lower sentence. And so, the question really comes down to, is he corroborated? Is there other evidence that backs him up? And I'll tell you, Don, there's nothing better for that than a text.
[22:55:10]
LEMON: So, for Nancy Pelosi holding onto these articles of impeachment, it didn't change anything for McConnell, right? He doesn't want to allow witnesses, but it did -- it did gave time for to let it settle in with the public, right? And some Senators, right? And with a -- for a more evidence for, you know, for Lev Parnas to come out. Was this a smart move, do you think?
HONIG: I think it was the best Nancy Pelosi possibly could have done in the position that she was in. And you're right. What she really did here was buy some time. And in just the couple weeks that have passed, while that she's been holding those articles, we've seen all sorts of new evidence come through. Ironically not really through anything the House or the Senate has done, but through really journalists and public reporting.
We've seen new e-mails come out, showing that the president made a direct order to hold the aid. We heard John Bolton come out and say, he would be willing to testify in front of the Senate. So, and I think we're seeing the effects of that pressure on those Republican Senators that we talked about at the beginning. Because remember, four away. If four of them turn and vote for witnesses, we are going to have a whole different kind of trial here.
LEMON: Eliezer. That's he's full name.
HONIG: You can call me that any time. I love it.
LEMON: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
HONIG: Thanks, Don.
LEMON: The CNN Democratic debates, the first major event of the election year. Tomorrow night, but with all the chaos coming out of the Trump White House, what are the candidates have to do to breakthrough? We'll talk about that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
